On May Day, a walking intersectionality poster child (complete with crisp new “Free Palestine” t-shirt) sends the boys spinning off into an hour-long exploration of hot button issues that includes Dr. Goldbrener’s comprehensive history of the Middle East and Rosen’s supposing that DJT might be “crazy like a fox,” plus a focus on why San Francisco’s Yom Ha’atzmaut celebration has shrunken so precipitously since 2000.
All warm-up bouts for the week’s main event:
Is Hamas’ new “document of principles” for the Jews?
After a good run as Israel’s worst neighbor, an increasingly isolated Hamas has turned over a new leaf — sort of. While still officially dedicated to the destruction of Israel, the terrorists/governors’ new document includes language that suggests they might tolerate Jewish neighbors… for now. Is this a turning point? Is it a desperate ploy? Is it meaningless? Listen up as we break it down.
Rosen’s in a bad mood, but don’t let that stop you from joining the boys as they tackle the important issues of the day. This week, after they wade through psychosomatic illnesses and the root causes of local transit failure, they discuss the results of a Pew Research Report measuring “warmth” toward (or from?) Jews, then dive into one of the more controversial topics in the (Is it) Good for the Jews? universe, namely:
Is the one-state solution good for the Jews?
A spirited debate has followed the revelation that the present U.S. president “is fine either way.” Is a one-state solution preferable to the two-state solution? Is it even feasible? Is two-state a “sacred cow?” Follow the boys as they travel the familiar roller coaster of Middle Eastern politics from the relative safety of the Twilight Lounge.
Goldbrener brings a surprising (to some) take on United Nations resolution 2334 whose depth is such that Rosen completely forgets to frame the discussion in a “(Is it) good for the Jews?” manner. 40 minutes later, Rosen is ready to vote for his podcast partner as P.M. of Israel, a state he always filters through what he feels is a constant state of threat.
Meanwhile, Rosen continues to grapple with his mother’s passing. This time it manifests itself in an all-out social media war (known only to him) with a Facebook acquaintance whose “brand is all-caps rage.” Bringing some rage of his own, your mourning podcast host (and apparent member of the “grief police”) asks some pertinent questions: how can someone draw an equivalency between grieving for a celebrity and a family member? What happens when rage becomes more important than decency? Is social media worth it?
We promise a return to discussions of raccoons, chewing gum and Clamato tomorrow, but for now, we stay serious.