Omer Bartov on Gaza, Genocide and American Complicity

You're listening to American Power from Findout Media.

“I'm your host, Nat Towson, stand-up comedian, political speech”

writer, many other forms of writer, and most likely to get me listed on the Canary Mission website, podcast host.

I'm joined, as always, by my panel of experts,

our expert on foreign policy and the military. Chad Scott, Chad, how's it going? That's going really well. Looking forward to the guest we have also in the new digs here. If you're on the YouTube channel, you

can see the office update I have done. If you aren't, and you're only listening to the audio version, Chad's background can be decided as so nice that it's almost deliberately criticizing how sparse my background is.

Great job. With a redesign their chat. And joining us, of course, as always, another member of our panel, our expert on renewable energy oil, the energy industry, as a whole, you know, a Mr. Global,

Matt Randolph, Matt, how's it going? How's your labor day weekend? Oh, it's going great.

“I'm totally in love with Chad's background.”

His skin looks so much better. I'm curious though. I see a lot of boys in state there. How do they do this weekend? You know, there's such things a good loss.

Like, it's the number two team in the country. So I don't want to say that. I'm hearing a lot of rationalization here. I'm not one of those guys, Chad. We lost it.

No, not at all. Not at all.

You can never try to deny someone.

Yeah. And for those listening at home, we are recording this, as I mentioned, on Labor Day, Monday, September 7th, around 6pm. And the evening, so the wound is still very fresh for Chad. But for the rest of you out there, I'm very excited

to bring on, we have a special guest for this specific episode who will be joining us, joining our panel, joining us at our special guest. He is the Dean Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Brown University.

He was born and raised in Israel. He has served in the Israeli Defense Forces for four years, including during the young couple of war, before becoming a historian whose work has focused extensively on the Holocaust, genocide,

war, and mass violence. His books include the award-winning anatomy of a genocide, the life and death of a town called Boochach, and his newest book, Israel, what went wrong. He's also a major voice in the debate over Gaza

in its current state, where he argues that Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinian in Gaza, a position that he laid out in a influential 2025 New York Times essay entitled, "I'm a Genocide Scholar, I know it when I see it."

I'm very happy to have him on the podcast. It is my great pleasure to welcome Professor Omer Bartov. Professor Bartov, thank you so much for joining us. Welcome to American Power. - Thanks for having me.

Of course, we have a lot to talk about. I want to jump right in to your area of expertise.

“I think your path towards your current position”

is really interesting and nuanced. And before we dive into the current state of Gaza and the genocide, I would love to hear a little bit more about your background and what led you to this work, initially. - Yeah, thanks.

I'll try to be brief. So my path was, I served as, you mentioned, and the idea of the F-mini years ago, ended up as a company commander. I became a military historian initially,

and I was especially interested in the case of the German Army World War II. And especially on the Eastern Front in the war against the Red Army, in which the German Army became deeply complicit

in mass crimes. And so I was trying to understand what happened there why the soldiers do what they do. And why was there such a cover-up of that for many years when I started researching that in the 1980s,

the general view was of the German Army, was a decen army, and that all the crimes were committed behind the back of the fighting soldiers. And so this was my introduction to look at modern armies and how they become involved in mass crimes

and then try to cover that up. I then moved to studying genocide more generally, and as you mentioned, spent many years studying the Holocaust, but there's someone born and raised in Israel,

and someone who spent the first half of my life in Israel,

I came to this country in my 1930s. I became increasingly concerned with what was happening in my own state and in the Army that I served it. And that concern grew following the Hamas attack

of October 7th. And so it was at that point that I started observing

I went to Israel for several visits,

and I tried to explain to myself and to others

“what I think Israel was actually trying to accomplish in Gaza.”

And that led me to writing several our paths that began by warning that what Israel was doing, that was in November of 2023 warning, that what the idea of this really defense forces were doing in Gaza might well lead

to a general side of operation, had they concluding several months later that indeed because the US government, which could have stopped Israel, did not do so under President Biden, that had become a general side of operation.

- And initially, you, like many scholars, resisted immediately applying the label of a genocide, and you said in an interview that the Roth operation in particular was sort of a turning point for your views on Israel's actions in Gaza.

I'm curious, what specifically about there became either across the threshold or became undeniable to a degree? I mean, I remember a few specifics,

“but I'm very curious as to what it was for you”

that went from the hesitance towards using that label to seeing something that you felt was definitively a genocide.

- So let me say first that I,

has he said that Jews, it's all, did not want to use as long as I was not sure that it applied. And the reason for that is that people have tended to use the term genocide not so much the way it should be, which is according to the definition

that is provided by the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crowd of genocide of 1948, but rather as a term of scandal, of outrage, of condemnation, when you see something terrible happen, you know the genocide is supposed to be the crime of crimes

and you say this must be genocide, but also because the term genocide has been applied to Israel in the past and incorrectly. And so there was a danger that this time too,

immediately people would cry out,

well, Israel is carrying out genocide without it being proof of it, just as a condemnation of Israeli policies. And there's plenty to condemn Israeli policies, but not all of them are genocide. And so that was the reason that I waited to make sure

that I thought it was. Now it should be said, the genocide as defined in the UN Convention of 1948 has a particular definition that is actions taken out or carried out with the intent to destroy a particular group

in a whole or in part as such. And that group can be a national group, a national group, a racial group or a religious group. So genocide is not simply killing many people, it is trying to destroy the group

that these people belong to people, kill these members of that group with the intent of destroying it, of wiping it out. And there are various types of actions, including killing members of the group,

creating conditions that would be conducive to death of members of the group, causing significant mental and physical harm to members of the group, as well as preventing births in the group. So this is the definition.

“So what you need to do is to identify an intent,”

because the intent is a very important element of the definition, and then you have to show that that intent is being carried out, is being implemented. Now, curiously and uncharacteristically,

after October 7th, Israeli political military leaders made statements indicating intent very quickly. And that's not normal, that's not the way things go, usually states

and organizations carrying out genocide say it isn't, say it's something else. In this case, there were, in fact, statements indicating an intent, which themselves are criminal, because they can be seen as incitement.

But the question was whether this was the policy or these were simply statements made in the heat of the moment after the massacre of hundreds of Israeli civilians by Hamas. And what happened by May of 2024 was that you could show,

and that, as you mentioned, was particularly clear during the idea of separation in Rafa, in May of 2024, that there had been a pattern of operations.

if you cannot refer only to statements by leaders

or if such statements don't exist,

“is that there's a pattern of operation that shows”

that that is the intent. And the pattern of operations by this Israeli military between October of 23 and May of 2024 showed deliberate intentional and systematic destruction of housing, of masks, of universities, of schools,

of agricultural land, of water plants, of power plants. We intended to make Gaza uninhabitable for its population. And an attempt to push the population from the north to the south to the Egyptian border,

which is a strip at the southern tip of Gaza strip, so it's to empty the area of Palestinians. That it was an attempted ethnic cleansing.

Because the Palestinians had no place to go

to because the borders were closed, that ethnic cleansing, as this happened in many other parts, general size became general side. And so it was in May, June of 2024,

“that I concluded that there was no other way”

to describe this, but as a general side of operation, and they wrote it by the originally in August of 2024, the Guardian. - One of my memories also of the Rafa operation. A number of hospitals were targeted in Rafa, so I mean, every hospitals targeted.

And regardless of Israeli messaging or PR, we're glad whether Hamas is hiding in these hospitals, or whatever the intention was behind these. These strikes, we saw doctors executed, we saw incubators left unpowered.

And I'm curious, that was one of the things

that I tried to respond sensationally to the most emotionally striking images, because these are things we have to look at, even handed, and we run the risk of being manipulated by the most sensational horrific though they may be details.

But I will say that speaking from my own emotions, from my own personal experience, the targeted strikes on hospitals and on medical professionals who had stuck it out in hopes of helping people who had already been struck by these strikes,

of helping people recover, was a pretty unforgivable turning point to me. And I'm curious whether that factor into your decision as well. Does that, do you see that striking as hospitals as part of that campaign of elimination of a people

“if they can't be born, if they can't receive medical treatment?”

- It is, of course. And as I said, of the floor, the five types of actions of which four apply, five types of actions that can come under the definition of genocide, of which four apply, the only one that doesn't seem

to apply is kidnapping of children. And that has been applied actually to Vladimir Putin, who is doing that, has been doing that in Ukraine. Kidnapping Ukrainian children trying to convert them to be Russian children.

It's worth not doing that, because it's all interested in Palestinian children. But what it is doing is creating conditions that would lead to the death of large numbers of people, even if it is not directly killing them.

If you destroy hospitals, if you destroy the entire medical system, what you're doing is you're preventing birth because children cannot be born safely. You're also harming people chronically ill who need help in hospitals.

It means that people wounded will not get medical care. And it means that the elderly are much more likely to die, because they too will not get any sufficient help. So that applies at least to two of the four actions under the genocide convention,

both of creating conditions that would create indirectly the death of people and preventing birth in the group. And we know that there's been a huge rise in miscarriages in Gaza. And that is because of both lack of medical help.

There's children who are prematurely born cannot receive the help they need. And of course, because of lack of food. And it's really a minister of defense. A couple of days after the Hamas of attack already said,

they will have no food, they will have no water, they will have no power. If you have no food, no water, no power, that means, of course, many people will die. And the line in Israel was, and many ways remains

to the state that there are no uninvolved people in Gaza. That is, you are not only attacking Hamas. And arguably, it's really safe. And it's really Army had reason to go after Hamas after the attack of October 7th.

You are targeting the entire population of Gaza. And that is what has happened, and it's continuing to happen.

and how difficult it is to watch it.

But it has to be said, the American media, the European media, have been very reluctant to show these images. If you really want to see what is happening in Gaza, the only place where you can see these images

is on Gaza's era. And Israel has closed off the Gaza strip. From October 7th until today, international media cannot get in, cannot report them there for the public, which ought to be scandalized by what is happening,

is largely not watching it. And the media corporations that ought to put pressure on their governments to allow them to report them not doing so. And so there is, in some ways, a conspiracy of American

and European mainstream media not to report on the horse that are happening in Gaza,

“which would, I think, greatly impact public opinion,”

if they were shown. Well, not to compliment us too much, but I really appreciate you joining us for this conversation, especially because of that. I agree with you completely on this position.

I've read your work and things like that. But let me play Devil's Advocate real quick. Let me, I mean, for both members of the military, we understand red teaming. The strongest position that is taken against your argument

is that Israel was attacked on October 7th and Hamas deliberately operates among civilians. They hold, they've held hostages. And that's kind of a tactic that they continue to use. Israel repeatedly argues that civilian deaths

are just a consequence of fighting an enemy that's embedded in dense urban terrain. We're hearing that it's considered a genocide. You and that had a great conversation

“about this being a genocide, but is this not just war crimes?”

We can say that there are legitimate war crimes here being committed on both sides. What exactly is it that is specifically taking this to the genocide instead of just being a focus on investigations for war crimes?

Yeah, I mean, when you say legitimate war crimes, you don't actually mean war crimes that are legitimate, but they clearly work on it. No, clearly, exactly, thank you very much. Categorically war crimes, I think you could say.

Yeah, yeah, because war crimes are severe breaches of international law and even if people say, well, it's not genocide, it's only war crimes. People should be punished for war crimes and for crimes against humanity.

So when we, one problem we're talking about genocide is that the argument is whether it's genocide or not, is if war crimes are fine and crimes against humanity are okay, which is exterminating civilian populations,

“which are not identified necessarily as members of the group,”

that's the difference between genocide and crimes against humanity. So you ask really two questions. One is whether it's legitimate to say that, yes, there's collateral damage.

There always is when you fight against his surges

who are fighting from a built-up area and maybe the collateral damage is greater than usual, but that's no genocide that's really part of the situation that Hamas has created. So let's think about it this way.

First of all, Hamas, whether you support them or not and I'm certainly not a supporter of Hamas, Hamas is an exergent group that is working from the area in which it lives. That area is one of the most or was,

because most of it is destroyed now, but was once of one of the most densely populated areas in the world. That's where they were operating from. It was a heavily built-up area

and they were operating from within it. Yes, if you go against that group, which numbered between 20 and 40,000 militants, mostly lightly armed the scores with RPGs and AK-47s, if you operate against a group like that,

you are likely to cause a great deal of collateral damage. That's absolutely true.

The question is, first of all, how much damage

stops being collateral damage and become deliberate damage, right? So you can say, if it's a war crime, you would say, you were using disproportionate force. You use the one-time bomb, right?

A 900-pound bomb to destroy a school in which there were two or 300 people. They you told to go there as a safe place because under that school, you identified or you assumed there might be three or four or five militants.

And in the process of doing that, you might have killed 70 or 80 people and wounded another 130 people, mutilated them.

because it's disproportionate,

the amount of force used is disproportionate to the target itself. It's just, it's specific on that, right? And of that, there were plenty of war crimes. There's no question.

“But then you have to look at the pattern of operations.”

What is the pattern? What was this really Army trying to accomplish? Was it trying to destroy Hamas? Which, as you say, Hamas carried out war crimes against humanity on October 7th.

There's no question about it, right? It killed many civilians and it took us to just, these are very severe crimes. And I wish one could actually get those leaders and put them on trial.

They're all dead because it's really skilled. So what was the pattern of operations? The pattern of operations by, as I said, by May appear to be something completely different. It wasn't to destroy Hamas.

It was to destroy Gaza. The pattern of operations was to make Gaza uninhabitable. Why? Because the Israeli government had a particular policy before October 7th.

And that policy, or as it was called, the conception, was that the occupation can be managed. How can it be managed? It can be managed by surrounding the Gaza strip

with a multi-billion smart fence.

And every once in a while going in and mowing the lawn, as they said, right? So destroying several high-rise buildings, blowing up some buildings, diminishing a little bit the power of Hamas, but keeping Hamas in place,

“because Hamas was very important for Israeli policy”

to be able to say that there's nobody and all the Palestinians that we can talk with. That concept blew up on October 7th because on October 7th, Hamas broke out of these fences and actually took over some territory within Israel itself,

something that hadn't happened since the war of 1973, which was a war against actual armies that I was in. So the conclusion was that we have to abandon that concept. And what was the alternative concept? Then here there were two alternatives.

One was what Israel did. Israel said, if we cannot have this concept of managing the conflict, now we have a good opportunity to get rid of those people, to simply kick them out, and to kick them out violently,

because people don't like leaving their homes. And unlike what happened in 1948 in the Nakhbar, when Israel also tried to, and this really stayed as it was forming, kicked out most of the Palestinians

who were living in what became the state of Israel, they could leave, they ran off. This time they had no place to go to. And so it killed large numbers of them and it's keeping now.

In two million people, within about a third

of the territory of the Gaza Strip, which, as I said, even before October 7th, was one of the most densely populated areas in the world, mostly unhoused, mostly intense without any sanitation, without any proper food supplies,

without any medical supplies, with the goal that they would finally either leave, but somebody will take them in, as Nakhanyaow said, our only problem is to find some state that will take them, or we'll just die.

So that was the alternative that the idea of chose. And that is clearly a general side or policy, because the goal is to destroy the Palestinian people as a group as such, it's not to kill all of them, it's to be read of them as a group

that identifies as a group. So if you destroy universities, museums, archives, you're destroying not only the ability to live, you're also destroying the ability to recreate that group, to re-select it,

afterwards you're destroying its memory, its education, of course, its health system. Now there was an alternative. Israel could have said, after October 7th, two Palestinians in Gaza, you've been ruled

by terrorist violent organization, which they were. For 20 years, you help us destroy them, and we will help you build a much better place for yourselves that you will be able to run autonomously from us. But of course, that's not what these really are me,

or these really government said, because it didn't want that. It's one sit-land, and it doesn't want the people in it. - I just wanna clarify, thank you so much for such a thorough explanation,

“so I think that you elucidated a number of really important things”

that listeners may have heard about, but been less clear, I haven't seen laid out that way, and I think that's probably the best and most compelling argument I've heard. And I just, I understand this,

that you just said for our listeners,

one of which is, this is a broad fact, but I'm not sure 100% of Americans know, that specifically it's different than the NABCA, because Gaza presently, as it is, as closed borders with military checkpoints,

that civilians are not capable of passing through at will.

“And I think a lot of times when people say,”

well, why don't they leave, why don't they go to the home, why don't they share the land? What they're not understanding is that they are essentially in a gated outdoor prison. They are effectively the Palestinian people have been caged,

and are being pushed to a corner of that cage. And as you mentioned, I think early on very specifically, have even been told to evacuate to the southern region, have been told to receive aid from external aid workers

in the southern region, and then found those areas bombed immediately afterwards, where we're deliberately led in a concentrated areas that were then the campaign continued in bombed those areas. And the other thing I wanted to point out that you said,

which is I haven't heard so many people say this as definitively, but are you saying that for many years

“until October 7th, the policy of the Israeli government”

was to not destroy Hamas, to keep Hamas in existence as a form of controlled opposition to justify violence and military action against the Palestinian people. Am I correct in interpreting that? - Yes, let me say two things.

First of all, one other issue, just one line.

What Hamas carried out was as I said, war crime and crime against humanity. And Israel had to write to defend itself against that. Israel also was an occupying power over Gaza. It was besieging Gaza for 16 years before that,

and controlling every ayautal food that came in, every bit of energy that came in and so forth. But what has to understand, genocide cannot be justified. You can't say because people attacked me because they slaughtered my citizens

because they rape women, I now have a right for genocide. genocide cannot be justified. There are many other things that you can do, but genocide is not one of them.

“So that's one thing that's really important to understand.”

The second is your question, yes.

I mean, this is well-known in Israel, but it's hardly reported outside of Israel. That's sort of a curious aspect of this because there's so much ignorance about. Is there any policies that are reported so badly,

including, I must say, the advisors to the White House and other ministries around the world. It is known in Israel that Netanyahu's policy was to maintain Hamas in power and to maintain the Palestinian authority in the West Bank

as weak as possible. The Palestinian authorities swore to collaborating with Israel. In fact, Palestinian policemen are controlling the Palestinian population in the West Bank, from Petri Kri, you know,

taking care of order, law, and order in their own, very diminishing, quickly diminishing territory. But as both Netanyahu and his minister Smottlich who was now also in charge of the West Bank, he said already in 2015, for us, Hamas is an asset.

Why is Hamas an asset for Israel? Because unlike the Palestinian authority, which is recognized internationally, Hamas is seen as a terrorist organization. And if we have Hamas ruling over Gaza,

we can say, well, we have no choice. We just have to move the law and we just have to keep them behind this fence and in order to make that possible, Netanyahu had an agreement with Qatar, that was providing millions of millions of dollars to Hamas.

How did that money come into Gaza? It came in cash in huge money bags that were delivered by these radio authorities across the line to Sathah. So that Sathah could actually maintain itself in power

because without money, you can maintain power. They use a ceremony of that money to build that very same tunnel system that Israel then said after October 7th, we have no choice but to destroy all of Gaza because all of the, what's beneath the built area

is all these tunnels where Hamas is hiding. That was done with money that Israel transferred from Qatar to Hamas, so it's to maintain Hamas in power. And I have to say that it is not unlikely. The one scenario that the current Israeli government has

is to still keep Hamas in power

“because what is the alternative to Hamas?”

It would have to be an alternative Palestinian leadership

and Netanyahu is never agreed to that

to have the Palestinian authority be the ruling authority in Gaza because then he will no longer have the argument that you cannot negotiate with him. - Well, thank you for laying that out so clearly for us. I wanna give Matt an opportunity to ask a question

because we've had such a good conversation so far but I wanna make sure he gets his own chance to jump in. It's been a minute. - Sure. - Yeah, thanks again, professor. Large scale combat pretty much been over quite a while

and there's still some fighting going on. Occasionally I see some disturbing images. Do you believe the genocide is still occurring

to this day and you know, there's so how?

- So I'd say two things.

“First of all, the first part of your question is important”

because we talk about a war in Gaza. There isn't a war in Gaza. And in fact, if there ever was a war in Gaza, it might have been some people would say that they're already by January of 2024

but at the most it was over by June of 2024. After that, there was no organized resistance by Hamas. It was Hamas as a fighting organization. What's destroyed?

What's left of it?

Of course, there are some guerrilla groups

and they are still in control of the population wherever they are, although these ready government is trying and the idea is recruiting other groups in Gaza to fight for them against whatever is left of Hamas. So there hasn't been a war.

What there has been, and what the idea of being very busy doing under the radar is destroying still, destroying the place. If you look at there's a recent investigation by Haritz by the Australian newspaper, the shows using air of photography and other evidence,

we know that the idea is on the other side of the yellow line, so called yellow line, which is about halfway through the Gaza strip. But in fact, the idea is moving west of the yellow line into the other territory and it is flattening everything. It has destroyed all the agricultural land

or most of the agricultural land of Gaza was where the idea is now and that has been completely destroyed. Most of the work there is being done with bulldozers destroying every building that is standing. Now, you ask is the genocide continuing.

The, I'd say, the extent of the deaths after October last year when there was officially a ceasefire has diminished the fewer people are dying daily. But people are actually dying daily.

“Well, I think by now, by 1400 people have died,”

at least 250 or 300 of them are children. And people are living in absolutely horrific conditions in Gaza and they're clearly many deaths which are not attributable to direct military action, but just people dying from lack of food, from lack of sanitation, from disease,

we know that the lifespan of people in Gaza has been reduced to medieval levels to people in their 40s because of the conditions there. So it is a different kind of attempt as I said before to destroy that group as such.

And in that sense, I would say that the genocide is continuing. And I just add that a few weeks ago, I published another iPad in the New York Times to try and to sort of think through, what is the future of this? And the future of this seems to be that this would be a genocide

that succeeded. It's a genocide from which everyone will have prostituted. The US will prostitimate. Israel will prostitimate. Israel's European allies will prostitimate.

Other Arab states will prostitimate. And the only people who will continue to suffer from it will be the Palestinians who are there. Because the plan, as it is, what President Trump laid out in this 20 points last year, is that there would be

sort of ideal Gaza built along the Gaza strip, along this beautiful coast, on the ruins of what has been the previous Gaza, this would be a kind of revered

And who will build that?

“And who will serve it to watch the dishes and clean the toilet?”

It will be the Palestinians who will remain there in so-called

humanitarian cities, which will really be in German camps from which they would be able to leave only to do the selfie work for those rich encamers and come back into those places. And their only way to leave would be if they leave the territory entirely. That's the kind of scenario, terrifying scenario, where genocide becomes

actually, in other means, of extending politics by the means. This time, not by war, but by genocide. And doing away with a very concept of genocide being an international crime that was enshrined by the UN in 1948.

I think we've seen, even though, thank you for explaining that if we're

elucidating, I think we've been seen as early as a year ago, realistic listings go up in Gaza for occupied territories, for territories that were yet to be bold of. I mean, there were massive protests in New York due to Israeli land sales in Gaza that were taking place in New York.

But I mean, there have been advertisements for yet to exist settlements there.

“And I think, I don't think it says clear for, you know,”

like you say, in the American reporting has really, really downplayed these really governments and tensionality in all of this. And the fact that how much of this is openly stated policy or at least public rhetoric. Yeah, as you said, you know, in the wake of October 7th, some things were set on social media that one could theoretically say,

or spoken in passion, however we've seen, I think, American media has done a very bad job, or no, sorry. American media has done an intentionally, potentially successful job of off-use skating, the degree to which this is repeated and advertised policy in Israel.

One thing I want to talk about that I think is under-reported, and I'm curious whether, whether this is in New York's sphere, but it's certainly one of the topics of our podcast we want to talk about, is the sort of eco-side angle of this, which is the massive climate impact of this genocide. Not only the, specifically the genocide in Gaza, but the Israeli occupation of Gaza,

the US-backed military occupation of Gaza, we, we well know that by many metrics, the United States military, and it's, and it's proxy surrogates, such as the Israeli army, are the largest contributor to, you know, by many, by many metrics, the largest contributor to the acceleration of climate change in the world. We also, there's had this recent story of all of these decalinization plants in the

Mediterranean going down, which is thought to be largely a result of the idea of destruction of Gaza's sewer system and sewer treatment abilities.

“So I'm hoping you could speak a little bit more to, I think we often talk about these,”

horrible events as if they are, as if the tape measure gets pulled back in when it's over. As if, well, that was horrible, but now it's over. We had to do that. There's no ugly way of getting through war, which by the way, I don't believe in any means, but I think that's often the narrative. And often overlooked in that, as we okay, it's time for society to rebuild, is the major, not only climate damage, but the

dent that we do in our ability to stem the acceleration of climate change at a crucial moment.

So I was hoping that you could talk a little bit to, what does that look like in Gaza? What does that mean for Gaza and what does it mean for the world at large? So you know, you mentioned something that is highly being reported in the United States. It was of course reported in Israel, but in Israel, it was reported without anyone being able to see the irony of it. Israel over, you know, when I was growing up in Israel,

there was always a question of, is there enough water? You know, you were supposed to be very careful with water, because the water was coming from the Sea of Galilee, which was being sold by these rivers, which are not very plentiful or coming from Syria and Lebanon. And over the last 20 30 years, Israel built vast numbers, I think this, this seven or eight desalination plants, which have very sophisticated technology, and 80% of the water supply in Israel is coming from

these plants. It's not coming from the Sea of Galilee. And a few days ago, they all closed down. And now, apparently, only one of them is operating. And the reason is, as you said, that the Sea had to be monitored, obviously there were not monitoring the Sea very carefully. And what happened was that because Israel destroyed all the waste treatment plants in Gaza, the waste went directly into the Mediterranean and created this growth of whatever these are

without being destroyed by these growths in the ocean. So what it means is that Israel,

“because it was trying to destroy everything that makes life possible in Gaza, has now put itself”

because it's a very small territory. Gaza is 50 miles south of Tel Aviv. That's it. It has destroyed its own desalination plants and will have to face various issues that have to do with that. That's just one example, of course. We know from reports that I've read, I'm sure that you guys have also read the pollution of the land now in Gaza as such. It's not only that this huge amount of debris that that will take years and years to renews, but also because of all the explosives that

were used there, it may well be polluted land for a long time to come. And Gaza despite the fact

that it was a pretty miserable place before October 7th did actually have pretty impressive farming grew as variety of vegetables and fruits. All of this is now destroyed. So you could of course build a kind of artificial repair a city there over all this polluted area, but it would have to be supply to elsewhere. That's part of this kind of modern warfare. I suspect that some of you know more than I do about the kind of pollution that American soldiers were exposed to in the in the

Gulf War in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is what Israel did now in Gaza. It will pollute Israel itself of course. Many Israeli soldiers were also exposed to that. It is raising the fear also of various epidemics that are very difficult to block along the border. So yes, these are wars that pay no attention at all to the environment and they will have any facts on everyone that is in that area and around it. Thank you for explaining. And I would even add to that just

one of personal note, one of the things I've read about this is that some of Gaza's main crop

was some of the oldest olive trees in the world and crucial to a large part of the world's olive

oil supply was all of oil coming from Palestine and we have completely destroyed not only a major export for them, but a major source of extremely popular export. I mean, extremely popular food

“supply worldwide. Not to make it petty about a single ingredient, but I think that was a huge”

part of their crop land that is now, you know, these trees can't just be grown again next year. I want to give Chad a chance to ask his question, Chad. Go ahead, head. Listening to you and not discuss the real estate and understanding the weapons being provided. I guess I just have a very upfront question. Is the United States enabling this genocide? And if so, what do we in the United States, what do Americans need to do to reverse course here?

So it is, and I would, I hate to say that, but I think that the Biden administration is deeply complicit that we're carry the stain of having allowed this genocide to unfold. In front of its eyes, we know now that people in the administration were well aware of what was happening. They had all the reports, they had all the intelligence and they allowed it to happen and they could have easily put their foot down. Had Biden said to Netanyahu in November of December 2023,

“you have to stop now or your own, Netanyahu would have stopped and we might have said that there”

will war crimes, it crimes against humanity, and genocide almost happened, but it didn't because it was stopped. And he wasn't. Now, what we are seeing is a continuation of that, very much supported by the US, not only in Gaza, but as you know right now, there's massive violence on a daily basis on the West Bank. There's creeping ethnic cleansing on the West Bank. You talk about olive trees, olive trees are being destroyed on a daily basis in the West Bank where it is a really a major

industry, and the goal is the same. The goal is actually to bring the population in the West Bank to such a degree of frustration and rage that they will rise up, because if there is an itifada

another Gaza in the West Bank, that is to push the population across the border into Jordan.

“So yes, the US is deeply complicit in all of this, and I would say also many European countries,”

but of course, and especially Germany, which is the second largest supply of arms and technology

to Israel 30%. What can Americans do? Americans, whether they support Israel or not, whether they are pro-Israel or anti-Israel, whether they are pro-Palestinian or anti-Palestinian, they have to understand that this support for Israel is also destroying the state of Israel itself. When countries are engaged in genocide, in this extent of destruction, it destroys them internally, because everyone becomes complicit. You see, Israel now is losing the rule of law,

is losing anything that remains of democracy, even for its Jewish citizens. It doesn't really exist for Palestinians, of course at all, and the next election will really decide whether Israel

“remains of democracy or not. If you want to save it from its own demons,”

American citizens have to put pressure on their own representatives, on their own government, to reign this country in, to return the limits of Israeli power to where they belong, not in Washington, DC, but in Jerusalem, and to say to Israel, you have to stop, and that has to be done through a regime of sanctions. There have to be political, economic, and military sanctions on Israel with the goal of returning it to politics and diplomacy, and to stop doing what it has

been doing, said he since October 23, which is to use only force. And as I say in Israel, if force does the work, use more of it, that is bringing Israel itself to the abyss as well as destabilizing the whole region, and of course bringing death and destruction to the Palestinians.

“So, professor, just one quick follow-up, and then I think Matt has the final question,”

because we want to be respectful every time. But when it comes to Americans wanting to do something, there's this drum beat of anti-Semitism that comes with that. We feel like

anytime we say, "Hey, Israel, stop doing this," the counter is always anti-Semitism. How do we

how do we counter that? How do we reconcile that feeling, obviously, with the Holocaust still being an atrocious era during our history, making sure that we're not recreating those scenarios in Gaza, but also understanding that being against what Israel's doing isn't necessarily anti-Semitic. Being against Israel is not only not necessarily anti-Semitic, it's the exact opposite. First of all, as I said, I mean, Israel is being taken over by Jewish supremacy,

by authoritarianism, by messianism, by extremely violent anti-democratic group of people, and it has to be helped from being entirely overwhelmed by the forces by its own allies. To say that you against that is to speak in favor of creating or helping to create a better

society, better politics and Israel itself for the Jewish state. The second thing that has to be

understood is that these allegations of anti-Semitism, which were heard, of course, all over in an American campuses, against students who were protesting what was happening in Gaza, the result of these four allegations of anti-Semitism, saying that if you're against Zionism, or if you criticize Israel, you're anti-Semitic, the result of that is actually being given licenses to real anti-Semitism. When you say that it's anti-Semitic to

criticize Israel for dropping hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of tons of bonds on civilians, and you shut people down and you fire university presidents and you control speech on university campuses, the responses, who are the people who are stopping us from exercising our freedom of speech. These are the donors to universities, these are the donors to American political parties, who are these donors, and then you start weaving this anti-Semitic tale that is Jewish power

things. So by using this allegation of anti-Semitism, what has happened and we can see evidence of

that is the rise of a new real anti-Semitism in the United States that always existed,

but that is now being legitimized by saying we are actually speaking in favor of criticizing

“policies that are clearly genocide. So if you want to fight that anti-Semitism, the best thing to do”

is to criticize Israel and to force Israel into conducting more humane, more rational, more acceptable, more democratic politics than it is doing now, rather than just shutting down all criticism of that country. Thanks so much Matt, you want to close out with your final question you got. Sure. I'll just wrap these into one question. Do you think Israel can recover from, excuse me, from what we're talking about here, and also 50 years from now, what do you think

historians will say that Israelis and Palestinians failed to understand about October 7th and the destruction of Gaza while it was happening? Yeah, look, Israel will be able to recover,

“so what he did, only if it is able to face up to what he did, and that will not be only facing”

up to what happened on October 7th in subsequently because October 7th had a context. It didn't happen out of the blue, and the context goes all the way back to 1948 through the creation of the state and the ethicalizing of the Palestinians from the Nakwa. So for Israel to recover from this,

it would have to first of all face up to the wrongs of the past and would have to go through a

process of truth and reconciliation because right now it's a country that is completely in a state of denial. It simply will not speak about what he did, and we know that countries that were engaged in mass crimes need a long time to recover from that. But how do you get from the moment of denial to the moment of facing up to it? You do it only if you change your politics, if you change the political paradigm. This is what happened in Germany after 1945. Germany was first

destroyed in 1945, before it even began a very slow process of coming to terms with its past. France took a long time to face up to the crimes that it committed in Nigeria. So he takes a very long time, and it necessitates a change in politics. That change in politics will mean that Israel will have to become a different state. I've said elsewhere that I think, and I write that in my book, I think Zionism which started off as an ideology of liberation and emancipation. So Jews became

a Jewish supremacist ideology, became an ideology that justifies genocide. That kind of ideology

“cannot remain. You can't repair that. You have to dump it. It belongs to the garbage heap of history.”

But so what happens with the state? The state has to reinvent itself. It has to become a state of all its citizens. It has to become a state that is not, as it is now, from the river to the sea,

7 million Jews and 7 million Palestinians, but only the Jews have rights. And the Palestinians are

either second-class citizens, or they're not citizens at all, most of them. They have no rights. They're under military rule. That will have to change if that changes. Through a process of truth and reconciliation, then it's 60 years from now, I think people may look back at this moment and say this was a horrific moment, as Europeans look back at the end of World War II. This was a catastrophe, but from that catastrophe, eventually we realized that we have to move in a different direction.

Thank you. Dr. Barkov, thank you so much for joining us. I could ask you 500 more questions. We'd love to have you back on if you ever want to talk to us again, but this has been such an elucidating conversation, and I really appreciate you being so thorough, but also putting things into such clear terms that I think it's hard not to understand what you're saying. To our listeners, you've been listening

a mirror, I just want to recommend, once again, his July 2025 SA, which was, I'm a genocide scholar.

I know it when I see it. As well, this is most recent one from last July, which has a similar title, but is different. I'm a scholar of genocide. We're entering a terrifying new era. I would encourage

“you to read both, because I think even the differences between the two are really important,”

and not only to prove that he was right a long time ago, but I think the perspective of the 2025 piece is also important in context of history. I highly encourage you if you have enjoyed this conversation to read both of those essays and continue to read good sources on this issue. And Professor Bartov, I want to thank you one more time for giving us your time and for speaking to us so openly and clearly about what's obviously a very difficult issue. Professor Bartov,

you have done American Power. Thank you. Thank you very much. And that's our discussion with Professor Omer Bartov. I once again recommend reading his writing as well. I want to just talk to my co-hosts here or the panel. What do you guys think? I thought those are really thorough and elucidating interview. How did you feel about it? Yeah, I'll go first. First of all, I also want to harp on his book is real what went wrong.

That's another one. That's very good source. But two things first, it was interesting when you had the discussion on the like the whole climate change aspect, and he brought up something that

I never thought about, which is the burn pit aspect. This is something that personally affects

me. I have a V.A. rating for burn pits. And so for the wealth of conditions that come from burn pits. So I never really thought about that. They're doing that there. And burn pits are nutritious.

“If you ever-- Can you explain what that means to our civilian audience?”

Yeah, so burn pits are basically when you're in a war zone, there's no trash pickout. There's no dumpsters and stuff. So you just throw them into literal pits and burn it. And so you have everything from agricultural waste, carcasses, to plastic, to water here. Just things that you just got to get rid of it, so they burn it. And it's really disgusting for the air. And I had never put two and two together that this is a war zone in Gaza. So they're obviously using burn pits to

get rid of their trash. And it's really a disgusting thing that we need to get rid of find a way

out of it. But now the Palestinian people are dealing with this on top of the genocide. But one other point I want to make, and I would be kind of remiss in discussing that when this launches on Wednesday, it's two days before 9/11. And the 25th anniversary. So one thing I keep thinking about, and I don't-- I'm hoping I'm not stealing your thunder net because this is your neck of the woods in New York there. But when we-- we Americans of all people should understand what

Professor Bartoff is talking about here because after 9/11 we were angry, we were scared. We had nearly 3,000 Americans just been killed. And we wanted somebody to pay for it. Our response emotionally was justified. But what we did after was not. We had every right to go after Al Qaeda and the people were responsible for those attacks. But eventually it turned into things like torture and definite

“detention, obu grave, and the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. And I think there's”

this uncomfortable parallel with what they experienced on October 7th, Hamas attacking Israel. And when we look at that, nothing about criticizing what Israel did after the October 7th atrocities diminishes the horror of what they did. When we criticized them, it's because it's necessary. Just like criticizing the Iraq war does not diminish September 11th. So it was super thankful that he came on and talked about things like the anti-semitism. It's not-- criticizing

Israel is not anti-semitism. We need to hold a higher standard for who we are supporting. And I agree with Professor Bartoff that the United States is absolutely an enabler of this genocide. And when you look at what we have the parallels between September 11th and October 7th, you can't lean on the atrocities to become atrocious yourself. And that's something that I just wanted to highlight. Given that we're very close to the anniversary,

but also, we can keep two thoughts 9/11 was off. If I could respond to that one prior for a moment. Well, I wasn't going to leave with that, but since you did bring it up, I don't know that I've ever mentioned this on the podcast. I'm a 9/11 survivor. I was in high school down the street from the World Trade Center when it happened, obviously one of the worst in the most terrifying days of my life, but also one of the days that most shaped my understanding

of the world. I wasn't a huge patriot before then, but watching American foreign policy, turned blood thirsty in response to a thing that felt like it happened to my community. And wasn't in a lot of a horrible injustices committed in our name. Really did shape the way I look at the world. And I don't want any credentials

which is I would never, I would never downplay the importance of the victims of a terrorist attack.

Nor do I. I also understand that proportionality is a hard thing to discuss because as a 9/11 survivor, 9/11 has effectively been reduced to a unit of measurement. At this point, even I see people on the left, I see liberals saying this all the time. The pandemic was like 100 9/11 and I find that deeply insensitive as a way of talking about just an abstract number of deaths versus the emotional impact versus the terror versus the symbolism of the moment and what it did to us.

“And I think, so I would never downplay that and I would never downplay the fear that Jewish”

Americans felt after October 7th. I will also say, I'm going to take a small point of content with one thing which you said, which is that our emotional reaction was justified after 9/11. I think our fear was justified. I also, as a 16 year old, watched the world become bloodthirsty around me in a way that I don't think was justified. And it felt like a lot of people were waiting for an excuse for their racism, excuse for their Islamophobia or just their general fear of

another to find a target. And I think our government gave the American people who were somewhat willing and complicit in wanting an enemy who hadn't had a clear enemy in a long time. And I think that to that extent, I saw a lot of that happen and people who support the state of Israel find justification in a bias and in a prejudice that they'd held for their whole lives.

And I don't support that. But at the same time, I would never downplay the horror and fear that

people felt after seeing a civilian population attacked. I'm also aware of the fact that the civilians of Gaza were under constant abuse for decades leading up to October 7th. And when we talk about these things, we talk about proportionality. It is immediate and sensational to talk about only those moments. And I will even say, as a 9/11 survivor, I recognize that United States foreign policy was largely responsible for our relationship with the world at large. And when we

talk about, is it anti-Semitic to criticize Israel? And I really appreciated his perspective, which is not only not anti-Semitic, it is actually devaluing your ability to fight hate speech when you label other things as anti-Semitic. I would go even perhaps a step farther. I just didn't ask him about this. I would say that it is anti-Semitic or at least harmful and decreasing the safety of Jewish people worldwide that there is an army flying the star of David that murders

children regularly. You are not creating safety for average Jewish Americans when bigots have an easy way of associating child murder with the Jewish people. And there's just no way that that makes Jewish people on average safer. And we can see that our online spaces are now full of anti-Semitic

“rhetoric. And like we've talked about before, liberals have gotten, I think the word I've used”

in the past is scooped. They've gotten undercut by conservatives. You have people like Marjorie Taylor Green leading anti, like leading bills against funding the the IDF because Democrats are

so afraid of being critical of Israel and being seen as anti-Semitic that they've let the actual

anti-Semitic. And the anti-Semites in government take control of that narrative because there is something to criticize about Israel. I think that's a massive, massive, their election of responsibility on the part of our establishment. And so I thought the fact that he was really of the lie all that out. And I know I got very serious into my very deep into my personal experience here, but I think you're totally right that it is completely, we as Americans should be able to see

that the military atrocities, the war crimes that we committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the genocide in Israel, that these, these are parallels. These are a occupying colonial force that is attacking a civilian population under the justification based on a single event. That was sensational and literally was horrible and terrifying. Another thing that I thought that he pointed out really well, I want to highlight was this degree to which it's bad for Israeli people too.

I don't know that he expanded this, but this, you know, fascism as an ideology, it's like we all know this intellectually, but we can't apply it when we see it. Fascism comes for everyone, right? It doesn't, they, the fascists won't spare you because you side with them, right? And we've seen, you know, this is what happened in Germany. We all know the famous poem, and to use like a very small class example of this, a lot of America has inherent anti,

working class and an anti homeless policy that we don't see in many cases, but one of the

“main things you see in urban areas is removing anything that homeless people might use, right?”

So we used to have ventures in the subway system in New York and then they removed a bunch of them because homeless people would sleep on them. And now no one can sit in those stations where

the lowest rungs of society is how they will eventually treat you. But we look out from a position

“of privilege and just assume it will never happen to us. And like, we've pointed out that pollution”

hurts people in Israel. Israel borders Gaza. There's, that stuff is coming across the border. These really citizens are going to be an R affected by this, not as much as Palestinian citizens,

but they are in a much worse situation that they would be and had this never happened in the first place.

So I really enjoyed it. I really appreciated that he was able to show the way that the backlash of that overwhelming force. You can't just stamp out your problems that way. There is always a backswing to something like that. And I thought it was really brilliant the way he elucidated that. Matt, what did you think of our conversation? I know I went long there. I thought it was great. And I think the antisemitism piece was pretty refreshing. I never understood why anyone

regardless of their faith, religion, heritage, whatever, is shielded from their actions by their faith. Like that makes no sense to me. And it's, it's a dangerous path to go down. You know, what next is going to be the questions, you know? And to me, that's even more frightening. So that was, you know, just calling that out for what it is, especially in today's, well, yeah, in present time, where it's so sort of, it can be so controversial to do so.

“You know, when someone says something is antisemitic, you pretty much feel like you have to”

agree with it or you're like an outcast. So, drawing those lines clearly where they belong, which I felt the professor did was pretty refreshing. So once again, that was our discussion with Professor Omer Bartov. I highly recommend you read his tutorials as well as his book is real what went wrong. And I want to take us to our final segment of the show where we highlight, if not the best, the least worst thing that's happened to us this week, least worst thing that we've

read this week, the least worst part of the week. And that's a segment that we like to call, the least worst part of my week. Chad, do you have a least worst part of your week? Yeah, so for the first time in human history, more than 10% of the world's oceans are officially

protective. And that's roughly 5 million square kilometers. Now, 10% sounds low, but you have

to understand. The oceans are generally, it's the commons. So it's trying to get people essentially to come together and clean up a park, like a kind of as a community, a community of nations. So the fact that we're getting to this place where we're moving forward and we're actually ahead of schedule. The schedule is protecting 30% by 2030. The current status is weak anticipate that we should surpass that just early enough by about 2029 because we are ahead of schedule. And when you

combine that with the new high sea street that took effect this year, we're finally building an international system that is really focused on protecting the ocean because regardless of what happens here on land, the ocean is basically the driver of our ecosystem here. That in the sun, obviously. But we spend a lot of time talking about these international agreements that don't accomplish anything. Are the UN is kind of this, this a feet body of

nothing burgers that they can never get anything across the finish line. But this actually is working.

And we're actually seeing countries do something about the environment. And that's one of our focuses here. And so anytime there is this environmental aspect, it's really something that I want to highlight. Understand that the US role here is kind of awkward. The US was really a major supporter of this. It's called the 30 by 30 push. But and we actually helped negotiate the high sea

“treaty. But we signed these, they had this treaty in September 20th of 2023. I think it's one of”

those things where Donald Trump just hasn't realized that this isn't effect yet. So I'm hoping that this can continue because a lot of these these environmental policies that these international bodies that we used to be a part of, he's pulled us out of, but we're still participating. So I do think that even we're still participating here. The US has built the architecture. Washington is kind of sitting on the sidelines, but we're not actively inhibiting the progress here yet. And I think that

there's just too much on the global stage right now from the focus on that. We haven't had to. So in the meantime, we're continuing on and that means more of the world's oceans are protected. And that's a good thing. That's great news. Yeah. And if anyone knows Trump, don't mention it. If you don't mind kind of got to get us one under the water. If he listens to this podcast, you know that. Now, absolutely, first part of your week. And this let me start by saying,

you know, penguins have a very special place in my heart. You know, there was a time in my life

and watch penguin documentaries. And I gotta tell you something, if you've never done that,

“it's the greatest experience in your life. Just take 20 minutes and do it. And that's why I'm so”

happy about this story. I'm telling you. It's great. Yeah. It's unbelievable. I like to have done that. I have with you on March of the Penguins, et cetera. Mr. Global turns into. So researchers in Chile have, that's right. Researchers in Chile have designed a new garment for the humble penguin. A microfiber vest, copper and zinc coated to help them heal. They're having a lot of problems. They're in the bullseye of El Nino, basically, right. Now, this idea came from, apparently they make

these for cats and dogs. I've never seen them. And they help animals heal. It also keeps them from like pecking at injuries and wounds and stuff. So they've done this for the humble penguins and Chile, which their population has decreased by over like 60%. So their numbers are dwindling. And so they decided to do this in Chile. And so I'm just going to read from this, you know, treating the injuries because they twist their necks really bad when they're trying to pick at wounds and

open up gashes and they pull out stitches. So they put these pretty red vests on the penguins,

“which are already wearing a tuxedo, which probably clashes. Personally, I think a white or black vest”

with the white and black because, you know, to see that you're kind of describing of this all right, marking outfit or bell hops in area now if you throw a little red vests on top of some of the walks behind. Yeah, and I'm just tossing your keys or something. Leave your luggage. Yeah. But yeah, the copper and the zinc are woven into the fabric and it stimulates the formation of new blood cells and it helps damage tissue heal much faster. And they're already seeing their numbers

improve of the humble penguins. So that was my least worst best news. Did I get that? I think you nailed it, least honestly. I think that's the name of the one day we'll figure it out.

Yeah, I heard you said and I agreed with it. That's first of all, I love when the solutions are

also adorable. I usually say it in the introduction 80% consistency. I'm really good at that. I love them now. I love the ecological solutions also giving animals a cute outfit. I love one of those things overlap in the vent tiger. Squirrels aren't reproducing. We've got to give them

“burays. That's the only way. We've got to give them burays and scarves so that they look”

cool enough to start reproducing again. These penguins are going to be really good in a job interview. Populations don't explode because they've got so much more financial stability. They're good people. All right. I'll tell you the least worst part of my week. Interesting. Mine's a little more serious, but I think it's good news. This is appropriate to my world and the topic of today's episode without getting too deep into how horrific the topic of today's episode is. A lot of

a lot of why it's been hard to get good information out in America is due to the enormous not only social but cultural pressure. Like I said, we repeat a lot of the bad faith arguments, a lot of the bad information where Dr. Bartov was saying, I don't understand why these things aren't reported on more in the U.S. and I think they are reported on, but I think a lot of the answer is that our cultural apparatus doesn't fixate on some of them. Some of that what that requires

is people to openly speak out against this in positions of people with platforms, people with media. We saw a lot of people early on punish. Very quickly, Susan Surandon said recently that she's still not receiving roles. I know I remember the comedian, a comedian I really admired, and Jamie Loftus was immediately early on spoke out about the genocide and was dropped by her her management company and even her lawyer separately distanced himself from her. And these are

these are just a handful of examples of people I have really admired for speaking out, Hannah Eynebinder recently has really been using her platform to talk about these things, but what we've seen is that a lot of these people whether literally or tacitly are punished for these

things. So it's always reassuring when I see people put their ethics over their career

advancements. I honestly don't blame you for some people. It is, you can have your platform removed and then what good are you as a public speaker, as an idealist, someone who wants their words to affect other people's minds and ethics, you do need to be careful about sacrificing your platform. So anyway, I want to say it's really important that people take those risks and I really really respect it when they do. And one of the, of course, the biggest Zionist voices in comedy is

Jerry Seinfeld. Don't get me wrong. I love the sitcom. However, the man is deeply evil. And he

a pun that Europeans might understand on the art form of the historical clown adjacent art form, Comedia Delarte, I know a great pun, right? Well, the committee of Del Alec Hartet festival,

who you know, it's going to be funny. Jerry Seinfeld set to headline his first Lisbon appearance

November 1st and Comedians lower on the bill have been dropping out in protest of Jerry Seinfeld.

“And I say that's important because there's a lot of people who've come up and said,”

"Here's Reel's Committee on Genocide and Gaza. Very few people will turn down an opportunity to perform with the most famous comedians in the world." So the reason why Dave Shappelle doesn't lose his platform in spite of a lot of his virulent transphobia. Jerry Seinfeld again. Like I said, "I still love the sitcom. I'm a stand-up comedian. I grew up watching his comedy. It would be hard

for me not to be excited to see him." And I am really proud of these people. So far, five different

acts have canceled their performances at the, again, hilariously named Comedia, Alec Hartet Festival in Lisbon, including a duo from, pardon me, including a Portuguese duo,

“Comedia duo who have decided that they simply cannot appear on the same bill as Jerry Seinfeld.”

Now that no one has named him specifically, but it's very clear when they all say we cannot, this is one of the quotes. We cannot relativize or normalize a genocide which act, who doesn't believe it's a genocide they're referring to. So I applaud all these artists and I will say, don't do this often on this show. However, I can tell you from a personal authority, maybe by the time this episode even comes out on Wednesday or maybe later this week,

it's not only going to be five acts. There's more coming. So I support those artists and those of you who are still in the fence. I'm sure you're listening to this podcast. I support you as well.

“And I think that's really brave. So I think that little crack in the firmament. It's one of many”

stories like this, but it always makes me smile and it really fills me with pride for those

people who are willing to really threaten their platform and their livelihood to stand on businesses to tell everyone what they believe and understand up for it. So that's the least worst part of my week. I'd like to add, I think the only person left from Seinfeld that hasn't disappointed all of this is that soup Nazi guy. Yeah, Larry. Oh, what's his name? I'm just, I'm just saying like first it was Kramer. Yeah. I'm sure she did something. Last season of Veep was underperforming. How dare

how could she? She's not the showrunner to play Larry Thomas part of it. Larry Thomas is the soup Nazi. Yeah, he wasn't real Nazi. That's the thing. He was just mean about soup. We didn't used to, we could throw that word a lot more around in the 90s. I'm going to say this. No soup for you. The soup Nazi, Larry Thomas. I once, I hired him on a app where you can get videos from celebrities and I had him read a birthday birthday message to two of my friends in which he claimed they were

both his sons. They're not related. And I also had him do his famous catchphrase wrong several times. Like you will not get any soup from me. I won't be giving you soup. And I have to say this guy was such a good sport about it. So Mr. Global, you are correct. Larry Thomas is the best signfeld cast member. Larry Thomas, if you're listening, thank you so much for being a good sport. I'm sorry. I'm so weird. The video is so good. That takes us to the end of our podcast.

This has been American Power from Findout Media for Chad Scott, Matt Randolph and Larry Thomas. I'm Nat Towson. Our guest today was Professor O. Mayor Bartov. Thank you for listening and we'll be back next week. And later this week with an American Power Extra until then, make sure you Remember, power corrupts, but American power corrupts, americantly.