> what about the first tweet (thread) do you think is wrong?
Addressing all the issues i have with that thread would require a post longer than that.
For now, i will focus on one :
> The reaction by Israel now will be exactly what ANY NATION ON EARTH would do in like circumstances (and Hamas knows this). When you look at what this leads to in reaction go tell your people then "well at least we killed some of them too". It's sick. And counterproductive
Like Israel has no choice but to massacre 100,000 civillians (the 50k official figure is in all likelihood a steep undercount), rape palestinian prisoners (as a matter of prison policy), massacre more children than in any other conflict this century , demolish every hospital, college and university in the gaza-strip, starve the entire population in to submission, drop 2000-pound warheads on residential buildings, densely packed neighbourhoods and refugee camps (For comparison the FAB-3000s the Russians have been using lately to devastate Ukrainian front-lines contain 1500-pound warheads). This according to Dan is something that 'ANY NATION ON EARTH' would do under similar circumstances. I know he didn't have the benefit of hindsight but it is not the kind of assertion that is to be expected from a student and teacher of history or anyone who knows anything about Israeli conduct.. Indeed Dan is pre-emptively justifying and rationalizing Israel's brutal calculus - "We must kill 100x Palestinians in retaliation to Hamas's atrocities as a deterrence"
>what Hamas did will make things worse for Palestinians.
For the 2 million Palestinians today in Gaza? Undoubtedly. For the 3 million or so Palestinians in the West Bank? They were already living under progressively worsening conditions before October 7, what with ever-increasing persecution and brutalization by the IDF, forced evictions and demolitions, settlement expansion, suffocation by IDF security cordons, checkpoints, outposts and increasing attacks by emboldened settlers. Things were already coming to a head with Israeli provocations and aggressions not limited to incursions into the Al-Aqsa Mosque and increasing calls for its destruction by Israeli extemists including members of Netanyahu's cabinet. (That is one of the key events leading up to October 7 and it is the kind of context you would expect a historian to give). What about the 5 million or so Palestinian refugees living in camps in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and registered under UNRWA (which Israel and its allies are working so hard to dismantle ) plus the Palestinians in Israel and the wider diaspora? That remains to be seen. As low as their expectations are of realizing their dream of a Palestinian state, it is still higher than what it was on October 6. Even Dan admits putting millions of people to live in perpetual state of oppression and humiliation was not a sustainable strategy. And Israel and its backers did not leave any other levers for the Palestinians to use to make themselves heard.
>I'll also note that I think this is an especially terrible way to pick people to listen to. "Forget what other people say, let's see if they agree with my political ideas about a complicated situation. Oh, they don't? I'll ignore them" is a recipe for never learning or growing in your beliefs.
You are right about this in general and as it pertains to politcal commentary, but this is supposed to be a history podcast where the listener is often uninformed and impressionable. Good historians should treat the subject with an unbiased perspective and give a fair and balanced accounting of events. Otherwise its not history but a form of propaganda.