Bill Maher Corrects Gaza Narrative Using Actual History
Bill Maher and Sen. John Fetterman revisited the long-running debate over a two-state solution during an episode of Maher’s “Club Random” podcast, arguing that the history of Gaza and failed peace negotiations deserves more attention than it often receives in current political discussions. A clip from the conversation, originally recorded in the spring, resurfaced over […]
Bill Maher and Sen. John Fetterman revisited the long-running debate over a two-state solution during an episode of Maher’s “Club Random” podcast, arguing that the history of Gaza and failed peace negotiations deserves more attention than it often receives in current political discussions.
A clip from the conversation, originally recorded in the spring, resurfaced over the weekend and began circulating widely online. Maher focused much of his criticism on celebrities and activists who have embraced the “Free Palestine” slogan without, in his view, considering the political history behind it or what Palestinian governance has looked like under Hamas.
Maher pointed to Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, when Israeli forces and thousands of Israeli settlers left the territory. He argued that Gaza was handed an opportunity to develop independently but instead became increasingly dominated by Hamas and its military infrastructure.
He also suggested that Gaza’s location on the Mediterranean could have supported far greater economic development. In Maher’s telling, resources that might have gone toward building infrastructure and improving daily life were instead directed toward armed conflict with Israel.
Fetterman agreed and brought up earlier peace negotiations involving President Bill Clinton and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. During negotiations in 2000, Clinton helped push a framework that would have given Palestinians control over most of the West Bank and provided for a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. A final agreement was never reached, and the failure of those talks remains heavily debated, with Israelis and Palestinians offering competing accounts of why the process collapsed.
For Maher and Fetterman, however, the episode illustrates a broader argument: Palestinian political leaders have at several points rejected or failed to complete proposals that could have moved the region closer to two separate states.
The history of Gaza also plays a central role in their case. Israel withdrew from the territory in 2005, including the removal of more than 9,000 Israeli settlers. Hamas then won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006. After a violent struggle with Fatah, Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007, while the Palestinian Authority remained dominant in portions of the West Bank.
Since then, Hamas has used Gaza as a base for repeated rocket attacks and other operations against Israel. The conflict reached an unprecedented level on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas-led attackers entered southern Israel, killing roughly 1,200 people and taking about 250 hostages. Israel responded with a major military campaign in Gaza.
Maher also criticized the phrase “from the river to the sea,” which is used by some pro-Palestinian activists. Supporters sometimes describe it as a call for Palestinian freedom throughout the territory between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, while critics view it as a rejection of Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state.
That disagreement reflects how much of the current debate depends on competing interpretations of history, national identity and political intent.
Maher’s larger complaint was aimed at people who adopt slogans without examining those complications. He argued that support for Palestinians should not require ignoring Hamas, the failures of previous negotiations or the consequences of decisions made by Palestinian leaders.
Still, saying that Palestinians as a whole have never wanted a two-state solution goes further than the historical record can comfortably support. Palestinian public opinion has shifted over time, and Palestinian leaders, political factions and ordinary civilians have not always shared the same goals. What is clear is that decades of failed negotiations, violence, mistrust and competing territorial claims have repeatedly prevented a lasting agreement.
Maher and Fetterman’s exchange resonated because it challenged a simplified version of the conflict. Their argument is that anyone demanding a political solution should also be willing to confront the history of rejected agreements, Hamas rule in Gaza and the repeated collapse of peace efforts rather than reducing one of the world’s most complicated conflicts to a slogan.