I don't understand this word "can't" that Trey keeps using. I see no point in fatalism—the bully is too big—let's just lie down and let him rape us. Yes, it will not be easy to remove them from their terroristic power, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. History shows us it is possible.
While I disagree with the "can't" belief, I appreciate Trey's focus on telling the true story and getting facts right. I love his goal of humanizing everyone and telling stories and sentiments from both sides that are compassionate to each other. If everyone could hear more of those, it might just help turn the tide towards peace.
Bari, I often think about how challenging it must be to hear certain ideas or statements that you strongly disagree with. Yet, no matter the differences, you always allow your guests to share their perspectives, treating them with respect. I have the utmost admiration for your ability to maintain that balance.
Very interesting interview, Bari. Thank you for it.
I respect Trey's opinion about the war in Gaza being unwinnable but I disagree with it. Surely if Israel withdraws from Gaza and leaves Hamas or PIJ to regroup, then Gaza will be returned to terrorist control.
What is needed is a de-Hamas-ification, of the sort that occurred in both Germany and Japan after the War. Gaza must be occupied for the next 10-20 years, with Israel responsible for security and a friendly Arab country like UAE responsible for education and re-education.
Trey sounds like a good and dedicated journalist, but it's a bit shocking that he is not a better student of history. Wars can be won and wars can be lost. Wars that are suspended before victory tend to simply simmer for a bit before returning. This is what Israel is not willing to do again.
Trey Yingst has recently been posting more and more anti Israel “ journalism” he received a promotion and the shift has been noticed by Israeliand Diasporic Jews.
Here he is posing for a picture with some Hamas terrorists from 2019.
Maybe the promotion allowed for his true anti Israel sentiments to go unchecked
Toward the end of the interview Trey mentioned two stories of Israeli soldiers helping Palestinians: one giving some his bread rations to a child waiting outside of the Shifa hospital and the other about the soldiers coordinated with the UAE helping Palestinians who needed medical attention get out of Gaza. Of those stories he said "maybe [they don't] represent the whole conflict." But don't they? He speaks to the handful of fanciful "people who are still open-minded, who are still free thinkers, who believe in not widespread utopia, widespread peace ... the concept that there can be coexistence and people can live among each other." Aren't those the Israelis who live (and were murdered) in southern Israel and who had to flee their homes in the northern border? With all of the information Trey has garnered (as barry mentioned) it's hard to understand why he wouldn't acknowledge that part of that "utopia" has already been realized, and that defeating Hamas is the only clear path to getting back to it.
Good to hear this perspective. But curious to me that Trey found it difficult to provide a direct answer to just about any direct question you asked. It seems he just wants to tell stories. And ones where he’s at the center of every narrative. It was also disappointing that, for someone who has this incredible breadth of on-the-ground experience, he seems unable to exercise any critical thinking about the conflict. I went from thinking, in the early part of the interview, that perhaps he’s just trying to maintain impartiality, to realizing he just doesn’t have much original thinking, and when he thinks he does, it’s simply conjecture, or spurious thoughts. Overall, disappointing.
Trey talks about an environment before the war where the Gazans had little and so could be easily radicalized. But the international community was sending hundreds of millions of dollars into Gaza. Hamas stole this money and used it for its perverse objectives.
So if Hamas is eliminated, the money being sent to Gaza should at last create a situation where the Gazans have more and won't be easily radicalized. Consequently, I'm confused about why he doesn't agree that eliminating Hamas as an entity that can assert itself violently within Gaza will lead to a peaceful coexistence.
It's always difficult whenever Bari Weiss talks about Israel.
She's never going to have a balanced take, although that is fine because she doesn't hide it and it can be good to hear the most pro-Israel warhawk side of the debate.
However she sounds like she's constantly on the verge of breaking into tears... I get it war is hell etc. etc. but it's very distracting and makes the podcast difficult to listen to.
I don't think Iran meant the ballistic missile strike as an escalation, it was a retaliation to the attacks on Hezbollah with the intent that US and Israeli air defense would shoot them down with minimal destruction and casualties.
It gives the politicians in Iran something for their base and their proxies, but doesn't force a response from Israel because it was successfully defended against.
Israel would be smart to finish the fights they have on their border before picking some more.
Apparently a minor point, but it's very expensive to defend against hundreds of missiles. That money could have been spent in productive ways - many of which would result in people living longer. So it's a little simplistic to assert that there's no harm done because missiles have been successfully shot down.
I bought Trey's book, but one thing that bothered me about his perspective is what he asked himself after the 10/7 massacre about a possible confrontation with Hamas: "Would I have tried to reason with the gunmen before they killed me? Would I have tried to explain in Arabic that I was a journalist? Would they have murdered me anyway?"
These are extremely narcissistic questions to ask, and casts doubt on whether I can trust his perceptions of Hamas.
Why would terrorists who hunted down, gang raped, and shot a bunch of kids at a concert for peace take pity on Trey, just because he said he was a journalist? Why would "reason" stop terrorists who slaughtered whole families in their beds?
Why does Trey think he's so special that Hamas would spare him while mercilessly slaughtering so many innocent civilians?
His arrogance in even thinking that he - in his greatness - could reason with Hamas, and they would spare his life after having so gleefully and sadistically slaughtering so many innocents, makes me wonder if he is cozy with Hamas or Qatar. I no longer trust him.
Try not being a jerk and perhaps someone will take you seriously. It's a shame that TFP doesn't have a block function in the comment section. You'd be one of my first choices.
Absolutely incredible podcast. I didn't agree either Trey on a couple of points but enjoyed his point of view. He is correct . Ya'll journalist job is to report the facts. When he strayed into an "unwinnable" solution he went into opinion. Bari, in her point on Japan and Germany and total defeat then reconstruction ,was spot on. David Jisha, Beaumont Texas.
This was an incredibly well-done episode. So few people have been on the ground and truly see both sides of such a difficult situation. Like other commenters, it is depressing to imagine no solution to the fighting the way Yingst appears to believe.
I'm just attributing that to being too close to such a perceived intractable solution. Bari did push back with good examples (Japanese and Germans in WWII, the fact that Nazis as an impactful group are no more, etc).
As a center-right type, I also appreciated the opportunity for center-left folks to hear something positive come out of Fox News. While every news organization has its troublemakers, Fox has a solid news organization that is way too often ignored by the left.
There are some true journalists left out there, even ones that have some bias. There's no problem with bias, as long as it can be backed up with real facts.
As always, I commend The Free Press for bringing on different viewpoints and perspectives as we try to sort through the fog of information. I think there is a lot of nuance in how Trey Yingst reports the "human" side of things, but as I was listening to the episode, I couldn't help but think about a recent Honestly episode with Douglas Murray. In the "Time of War" episode, Murray makes a clear distinction between good and evil. He rightly states that those who seek the death and destruction of others is evil— there isn't nuance when you are in a death cult. Somehow, during the conversation with Yingst, it felt like the tone of the show turned to whataboutism. Yes, there are innocent people who are caught up in war who do not believe in the cause and are stuck as collateral damage within roaring factions. And for those individuals we can feel empathy. But for Palestinians within Gaza, the number of Hamas supporters exceeds the majority. Even the individuals who are not technically members of Hamas, what are they doing to change the reality? Are they cheering in the streets as captured Israeli's are paraded around after being kidnapped, or are they sitting by passively, knowing there is pure evil and barbarism outside their front door and not doing anything about it? It's easy to think about evil historically, and draw a clear distinction between the Nazi's who perpetrated the Holocaust, built the death camps, and murdered millions of people. It's more difficult to acknowledge that right outside of those death camps were communities and villages of people— who could see and smell exactly what was happening, and who sat passively by. I pray that no one should ever have to be tested of whether they would stand up for right and wrong, but if the time comes to be that voice, I hope that people find courage to do the right thing. I'd rather hear the voices from Trey of the Palestinians who are quietly defending good from evil, who stand for morality. I understand that within a totalitarian environment as Gaza there aren't many ways to protest without becoming a target for Hamas, but until those brave voices collectively say that enough is enough, the cycle of death cults will continue. For a good example of what it looks like to be brave in the face of evil, look at Iranians who are against the regime. There is tremendous risk in doing so, but what is the alternative? To live secluded in an environment where brutality and barbarism are happening outside your front door and being ok with that?
I listened to it and I loved the conversation. I didn’t agree with him when he said that there is no way to defeat Hamas, because as an armed force they are no longer the same. But their ideology is something that will stay (no matter under which name it will be). The only way to solve this is by de-radicalisation of the Palestinians from their side, and from the other side of the Israeli leadership there needs to be a change that will shed the radical right because for the moment, they have very little public support and they are going rampant and causing damage that will take years to fix. This and the culture of corruption by BB’s partners.
These are two different things— radicalization of Palestinians needs a course correction to challenge their ideology. But regardless of who is in power in the Israeli government, a de-radicalized entity must be in place before Israel can begin the conversation of negotiating peace. We are at an impasse until we have a willing partner within the Palestinians. And I understand your frustration at factions within the Israeli government, but what difference does the presence of a radical right (or radical left) make in the larger conversation of finding a same minded entity with which to negotiate terms for coexistence? Until there is a partner to work with, it doesn't really matter who is in the Israeli government.
BB isn’t Begin, nor Churchill, although he likes to think of himself as one. His tactic with the Palestinians from day one was to make sure that there won’t be a peaceful solution, only “management of the status quo” in Gaza/Judea and Samaria. The leaders on the other side aren’t better as well. If Begin was alive, the hostages would have been home. I’m afraid this won’t soon.
I don't understand this word "can't" that Trey keeps using. I see no point in fatalism—the bully is too big—let's just lie down and let him rape us. Yes, it will not be easy to remove them from their terroristic power, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. History shows us it is possible.
While I disagree with the "can't" belief, I appreciate Trey's focus on telling the true story and getting facts right. I love his goal of humanizing everyone and telling stories and sentiments from both sides that are compassionate to each other. If everyone could hear more of those, it might just help turn the tide towards peace.
Bari, I often think about how challenging it must be to hear certain ideas or statements that you strongly disagree with. Yet, no matter the differences, you always allow your guests to share their perspectives, treating them with respect. I have the utmost admiration for your ability to maintain that balance.
Very interesting interview, Bari. Thank you for it.
I respect Trey's opinion about the war in Gaza being unwinnable but I disagree with it. Surely if Israel withdraws from Gaza and leaves Hamas or PIJ to regroup, then Gaza will be returned to terrorist control.
What is needed is a de-Hamas-ification, of the sort that occurred in both Germany and Japan after the War. Gaza must be occupied for the next 10-20 years, with Israel responsible for security and a friendly Arab country like UAE responsible for education and re-education.
Trey sounds like a good and dedicated journalist, but it's a bit shocking that he is not a better student of history. Wars can be won and wars can be lost. Wars that are suspended before victory tend to simply simmer for a bit before returning. This is what Israel is not willing to do again.
Good journalist. Bad political scientist. (Not you Bari.)
I’m a subscriber…why can’t I open the debate on foreign policy?
I appreciate the nuance that Trey brought to this complex issue. I would like to see more of this.
Trey Yingst has recently been posting more and more anti Israel “ journalism” he received a promotion and the shift has been noticed by Israeliand Diasporic Jews.
Here he is posing for a picture with some Hamas terrorists from 2019.
Maybe the promotion allowed for his true anti Israel sentiments to go unchecked
https://x.com/jewsarethegoat/status/1844556226689950195?s=42
Toward the end of the interview Trey mentioned two stories of Israeli soldiers helping Palestinians: one giving some his bread rations to a child waiting outside of the Shifa hospital and the other about the soldiers coordinated with the UAE helping Palestinians who needed medical attention get out of Gaza. Of those stories he said "maybe [they don't] represent the whole conflict." But don't they? He speaks to the handful of fanciful "people who are still open-minded, who are still free thinkers, who believe in not widespread utopia, widespread peace ... the concept that there can be coexistence and people can live among each other." Aren't those the Israelis who live (and were murdered) in southern Israel and who had to flee their homes in the northern border? With all of the information Trey has garnered (as barry mentioned) it's hard to understand why he wouldn't acknowledge that part of that "utopia" has already been realized, and that defeating Hamas is the only clear path to getting back to it.
Good to hear this perspective. But curious to me that Trey found it difficult to provide a direct answer to just about any direct question you asked. It seems he just wants to tell stories. And ones where he’s at the center of every narrative. It was also disappointing that, for someone who has this incredible breadth of on-the-ground experience, he seems unable to exercise any critical thinking about the conflict. I went from thinking, in the early part of the interview, that perhaps he’s just trying to maintain impartiality, to realizing he just doesn’t have much original thinking, and when he thinks he does, it’s simply conjecture, or spurious thoughts. Overall, disappointing.
That's a bit unfair. He's a reporter and he reports.
If you want solutions, ask FP to interview a diplomat or something.
Trey talks about an environment before the war where the Gazans had little and so could be easily radicalized. But the international community was sending hundreds of millions of dollars into Gaza. Hamas stole this money and used it for its perverse objectives.
So if Hamas is eliminated, the money being sent to Gaza should at last create a situation where the Gazans have more and won't be easily radicalized. Consequently, I'm confused about why he doesn't agree that eliminating Hamas as an entity that can assert itself violently within Gaza will lead to a peaceful coexistence.
It's always difficult whenever Bari Weiss talks about Israel.
She's never going to have a balanced take, although that is fine because she doesn't hide it and it can be good to hear the most pro-Israel warhawk side of the debate.
However she sounds like she's constantly on the verge of breaking into tears... I get it war is hell etc. etc. but it's very distracting and makes the podcast difficult to listen to.
Might as well post a take while I'm here.
I don't think Iran meant the ballistic missile strike as an escalation, it was a retaliation to the attacks on Hezbollah with the intent that US and Israeli air defense would shoot them down with minimal destruction and casualties.
It gives the politicians in Iran something for their base and their proxies, but doesn't force a response from Israel because it was successfully defended against.
Israel would be smart to finish the fights they have on their border before picking some more.
Apparently a minor point, but it's very expensive to defend against hundreds of missiles. That money could have been spent in productive ways - many of which would result in people living longer. So it's a little simplistic to assert that there's no harm done because missiles have been successfully shot down.
I bought Trey's book, but one thing that bothered me about his perspective is what he asked himself after the 10/7 massacre about a possible confrontation with Hamas: "Would I have tried to reason with the gunmen before they killed me? Would I have tried to explain in Arabic that I was a journalist? Would they have murdered me anyway?"
These are extremely narcissistic questions to ask, and casts doubt on whether I can trust his perceptions of Hamas.
Why would terrorists who hunted down, gang raped, and shot a bunch of kids at a concert for peace take pity on Trey, just because he said he was a journalist? Why would "reason" stop terrorists who slaughtered whole families in their beds?
Why does Trey think he's so special that Hamas would spare him while mercilessly slaughtering so many innocent civilians?
His arrogance in even thinking that he - in his greatness - could reason with Hamas, and they would spare his life after having so gleefully and sadistically slaughtering so many innocents, makes me wonder if he is cozy with Hamas or Qatar. I no longer trust him.
He is a total narcissist - you nailed it!
Hey, Bari Weiss!
I have subscribed to your loathsome publication and have been banned multiple times for my commentary!
What part of "Free" do you people not understand?
Just wondering...
The moral cowardice runs deep in your office pool.
Try not being a jerk and perhaps someone will take you seriously. It's a shame that TFP doesn't have a block function in the comment section. You'd be one of my first choices.
Go fuck yourself.
Yawn.
My commentary is something worthy of ire...
Yours?
Banality. Alas!
Enjoy your ghosthood!
Absolutely incredible podcast. I didn't agree either Trey on a couple of points but enjoyed his point of view. He is correct . Ya'll journalist job is to report the facts. When he strayed into an "unwinnable" solution he went into opinion. Bari, in her point on Japan and Germany and total defeat then reconstruction ,was spot on. David Jisha, Beaumont Texas.
This was an incredibly well-done episode. So few people have been on the ground and truly see both sides of such a difficult situation. Like other commenters, it is depressing to imagine no solution to the fighting the way Yingst appears to believe.
I'm just attributing that to being too close to such a perceived intractable solution. Bari did push back with good examples (Japanese and Germans in WWII, the fact that Nazis as an impactful group are no more, etc).
As a center-right type, I also appreciated the opportunity for center-left folks to hear something positive come out of Fox News. While every news organization has its troublemakers, Fox has a solid news organization that is way too often ignored by the left.
There are some true journalists left out there, even ones that have some bias. There's no problem with bias, as long as it can be backed up with real facts.
As always, I commend The Free Press for bringing on different viewpoints and perspectives as we try to sort through the fog of information. I think there is a lot of nuance in how Trey Yingst reports the "human" side of things, but as I was listening to the episode, I couldn't help but think about a recent Honestly episode with Douglas Murray. In the "Time of War" episode, Murray makes a clear distinction between good and evil. He rightly states that those who seek the death and destruction of others is evil— there isn't nuance when you are in a death cult. Somehow, during the conversation with Yingst, it felt like the tone of the show turned to whataboutism. Yes, there are innocent people who are caught up in war who do not believe in the cause and are stuck as collateral damage within roaring factions. And for those individuals we can feel empathy. But for Palestinians within Gaza, the number of Hamas supporters exceeds the majority. Even the individuals who are not technically members of Hamas, what are they doing to change the reality? Are they cheering in the streets as captured Israeli's are paraded around after being kidnapped, or are they sitting by passively, knowing there is pure evil and barbarism outside their front door and not doing anything about it? It's easy to think about evil historically, and draw a clear distinction between the Nazi's who perpetrated the Holocaust, built the death camps, and murdered millions of people. It's more difficult to acknowledge that right outside of those death camps were communities and villages of people— who could see and smell exactly what was happening, and who sat passively by. I pray that no one should ever have to be tested of whether they would stand up for right and wrong, but if the time comes to be that voice, I hope that people find courage to do the right thing. I'd rather hear the voices from Trey of the Palestinians who are quietly defending good from evil, who stand for morality. I understand that within a totalitarian environment as Gaza there aren't many ways to protest without becoming a target for Hamas, but until those brave voices collectively say that enough is enough, the cycle of death cults will continue. For a good example of what it looks like to be brave in the face of evil, look at Iranians who are against the regime. There is tremendous risk in doing so, but what is the alternative? To live secluded in an environment where brutality and barbarism are happening outside your front door and being ok with that?
I listened to it and I loved the conversation. I didn’t agree with him when he said that there is no way to defeat Hamas, because as an armed force they are no longer the same. But their ideology is something that will stay (no matter under which name it will be). The only way to solve this is by de-radicalisation of the Palestinians from their side, and from the other side of the Israeli leadership there needs to be a change that will shed the radical right because for the moment, they have very little public support and they are going rampant and causing damage that will take years to fix. This and the culture of corruption by BB’s partners.
If the Hamas ideology can never be defeated ,then the Palestinians can never be free. They will be trapped by their own hatred forever.
The Japanese were beaten into submission. Unconditional surrender is the only starting point for a long term solution.
When a civilian population can no longer endure the suffering of war it will end. This is historically and sadly a fact of life.
What will prompt the Gazans to surrender?
Remove the lifeline of support they get from around the world.
Courageous leaders must speak with a voice that says your barbarism will not pay dividends.
How foolish to flood them with money so that they can put it all back together again.
These are two different things— radicalization of Palestinians needs a course correction to challenge their ideology. But regardless of who is in power in the Israeli government, a de-radicalized entity must be in place before Israel can begin the conversation of negotiating peace. We are at an impasse until we have a willing partner within the Palestinians. And I understand your frustration at factions within the Israeli government, but what difference does the presence of a radical right (or radical left) make in the larger conversation of finding a same minded entity with which to negotiate terms for coexistence? Until there is a partner to work with, it doesn't really matter who is in the Israeli government.
Begin was as fierce a defender of his country as any, yet when the opportunity presented itself to have peace with Egypt he got it done.
BB isn’t Begin, nor Churchill, although he likes to think of himself as one. His tactic with the Palestinians from day one was to make sure that there won’t be a peaceful solution, only “management of the status quo” in Gaza/Judea and Samaria. The leaders on the other side aren’t better as well. If Begin was alive, the hostages would have been home. I’m afraid this won’t soon.