Speaker 1: You're listening to Comedy Central.
Speaker 2: Let's continue our conversation about Israel and Palestine. Please welcome
Speaker 2: senior writer at The Intercept, Martaza Hussein and staff writer
Speaker 2: at The Atlantic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're Rosenberg.
Speaker 3: Please wort that.
Speaker 1: Their audience.
Speaker 2: Very rarely do you get a standing ovation for the guests,
Speaker 2: but clearly they think Muslim and Jew sitting next to
Speaker 2: each other?
Speaker 1: How can that be? But thank you both for being here.
Speaker 2: You are both obviously you're American writers that write a
Speaker 2: lot about the Middle East, the Peace Plan, the STU Plan,
Speaker 2: as I call it, the me Too Plan, and Tasa
Speaker 2: will start with you. How unrealistic is that? It's similar
Speaker 2: to a two thousand and two.
Speaker 1: Arab League resolution? Why why can't this happen?
Speaker 4: Well, you know it's not a bad idea, and on paper.
Speaker 1: We're gonna cut there. Thank you so much, So appreciate that.
Speaker 4: Well, you know, I think the problem is I write
Speaker 4: about US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, and
Speaker 4: I feel that the consistent theme here is that when
Speaker 4: we give blank checks to countries which are clients or partners,
Speaker 4: we enable their worst tendencies or their worst behaviors. In
Speaker 4: this case, you know, you mentioned the Arab Peace Plan.
Speaker 4: In two thousand and two, the Arab League offered Israel
Speaker 4: full political, economic, diplomatic normalization exchange for the main crux
Speaker 4: of it is creating a Palestinian state in the nineteen
Speaker 4: sixty seven borders, which is in line with international law
Speaker 4: and so forth.
Speaker 1: Bright they've read the repatriation plan, which.
Speaker 4: Which can negotiate the details of it, but that was
Speaker 4: the crux of it. And you know they've reiterated this
Speaker 4: plan many times, including recently. It's not just our world,
Speaker 4: the broader Muslim world as well too. I interviewed the
Speaker 4: Pakistani ambassador to the UN a few weeks ago. It
Speaker 4: told me that Pakistan, Indonesia, other are large population Muslim
Speaker 4: countries would be willing to normalize with Israel, but they
Speaker 4: do not want the Palistenians be thrown under the bus.
Speaker 4: There needs to be a two state solution in their view,
Speaker 4: creating a state in those lines. Without that they cannot
Speaker 4: be But Israeli government has never responded to the steal.
Speaker 4: It's not even rejected, it's refused to engage. And I
Speaker 4: think the main reason is because they have the US
Speaker 4: as a guaranteur. Whatever they do will have a superpower backing,
Speaker 4: and many people in Israel want the West Bank and
Speaker 4: the Israeli government Benjamin Netanyahu's brag that he's stopped the
Speaker 4: palest Indian State from coming into existence. And because they
Speaker 4: have this backing, they don't need to compromise with their
Speaker 4: neighbors or engage with the neighbors.
Speaker 1: Think the US backing of that enabled I think reticence.
Speaker 4: I think the US putting itself in this position, not
Speaker 4: just this position, many other situations where it's acts as
Speaker 4: a blank check writer for its clients. It enables these stutions.
Speaker 2: We got to make money some and without selling weapons,
Speaker 2: what are we going to fall back on?
Speaker 1: Wheat? Come on?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you probably have a slightly different interpretation of that
Speaker 2: piece plan and also what we laid out here.
Speaker 3: So yeah, well I think that the again, the idea
Speaker 3: is actually a pretty good one, which is they had
Speaker 3: to put some third party in between these two parties.
Speaker 1: That's what seems like hasle.
Speaker 3: That would then be sort of like the you know,
Speaker 3: the referee. The problem is is that while you, as
Speaker 3: you showed in your monel, like the Air of States
Speaker 3: are willing to talk a big game, the United States
Speaker 3: and sometimes depending on administration. WI also talk a big game,
Speaker 3: but no one actually wants to put their own troops
Speaker 3: down there. Can you imagine America under democratic presidents who
Speaker 3: are retrenching from the Middle East, right, trying to get
Speaker 3: out of the forever words, or Donald Trump who wants
Speaker 3: to turn Americans to some sort of isolationist country, get
Speaker 3: us out of you know, stops helping Ukraine. Right, They're
Speaker 3: not going to stick Americans there, right. The Arab country
Speaker 3: is no different. They'll they'll you know, give a token
Speaker 3: amount of money and then try to like, you know,
Speaker 3: make it go away. And so that's I think the
Speaker 3: fundamental flaw here. I will say that if you took
Speaker 3: away US backing and said Israelis, we're going to put
Speaker 3: some other people on your border, particularly say Arab states,
Speaker 3: and they're going to be the guarant terms of your security,
Speaker 3: these Relis wouldn't say, well, gues, we don't have the Americans,
Speaker 3: We're just gonna pack it.
Speaker 1: Up, right, because this is a country. But he's going anywhere. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And also this is a country that's full of people,
Speaker 3: right who fled other countries, including those Arab countries, because
Speaker 3: they were persecuted, right, killed dispossessed. Right, there's like, you know,
Speaker 3: half of Israelis are now Middle Eastern Oraich but.
Speaker 1: Two diasporas don't make a right you know, but they
Speaker 1: won't they won't trust that. But let me, let me,
Speaker 1: let me push back on both of these for just
Speaker 1: onsid so, and this.
Speaker 2: Just pushes back on both, you know, we get into
Speaker 2: this litigation of well, the Palestinians and the Arab state.
Speaker 2: They proposed something very reasonable to these religess but these
Speaker 2: Raelis wouldn't do. And they just rarely say, well, we
Speaker 2: don't have a partner for peace, and we propose something
Speaker 2: very reasonable, but they didn't do. Doesn't it appear that
Speaker 2: no party is incentivized to fix this at the peril
Speaker 2: and detriment to the Palestinian people.
Speaker 1: And here's what I mean by that.
Speaker 2: Egypt has its border closed to the Palestinians. These are
Speaker 2: autocratic states in the Arab world. They all view the
Speaker 2: creation of Israel as a humiliation. If that's where they
Speaker 2: start from. It's a very easy kind of issue to
Speaker 2: deflect attention from your own dictatorships, to own the so
Speaker 2: called Arab street with anger towards Israel. But the Saudis
Speaker 2: they all do business together, aren't they DISINCENTI disincentivized to
Speaker 2: fix this net and Yahoo whenever he gets in political trouble,
Speaker 2: suddenly there's a war. So who is incentivized to actually
Speaker 2: fix this? And isn't the people who really suffer from
Speaker 2: all of it? Just the Palestinians who get no regard
Speaker 2: from any group, no real support, you know.
Speaker 4: I think that was the case for some time. But
Speaker 4: I think that things have changed in the sense that
Speaker 4: the Arab countries are very eager to get this off
Speaker 4: their plate. Actually, that's why they had this Arab peace
Speaker 4: initiative and keep reiterating it, because they no longer want
Speaker 4: to have a complict with Israel's not in their interests.
Speaker 4: They'd like to move past it, but they cannot do
Speaker 4: so in a way which ignores the Palestinians. And I
Speaker 4: think that the idea of the Airbrahamer courts, for instance,
Speaker 4: was let's a side step this issue and make deals
Speaker 4: with the Amortis in Saudis and so forth. I was
Speaker 4: in South Arabia recently and I was talking to a
Speaker 4: broad range of people. I think the idea that the
Speaker 4: Saudis will make a deal with Israel without a two
Speaker 4: state solution or meaningful pathway to one, or significant concitions
Speaker 4: on that subject. It's very unrealistic because.
Speaker 2: No, that's my point, is the two state solution. But
Speaker 2: if nobody is there to just guarant everybody has preconditions
Speaker 2: for everything, you know, net Nyahu, I need a partner.
Speaker 2: If you don't meet these certain conditions of no violence,
Speaker 2: I won't negotiate with you. Well, America occupied a rock
Speaker 2: and there was violence there the entire time. I mean,
Speaker 2: imagine if we had set a precondition that there'd be
Speaker 2: no Iraqi government unless you know, this violence would end nothing.
Speaker 1: Whatever.
Speaker 2: It seems like nobody's actually being honest or genuine in
Speaker 2: the region about their aims.
Speaker 3: I would put it a little differently, which is to
Speaker 3: say that the people who.
Speaker 1: Are running your and I'm a comedian, we'll see, we'll
Speaker 1: see when it's done.
Speaker 3: The people who are running the show for some time,
Speaker 3: which is how we arrive at this disastrous destination, are
Speaker 3: these absolutist actors who they might say that we'll negotiate
Speaker 3: and here's the condition, and here's you know whatever. They
Speaker 3: might say that to some people, but in practice we
Speaker 3: see from you know, many years of Nathanal governance, every
Speaker 3: single document and statement, as you showed to you people
Speaker 3: from Hamas right. These are people who want everything right.
Speaker 3: They see half of the people in the land as
Speaker 3: the problem. Right, and then the question is how you
Speaker 3: need Yeah, the absolutist ok. And then there are lots
Speaker 3: of people who are also pragmatists, and that's how we
Speaker 3: had a peace process that failed. But there were genuine
Speaker 3: majorities in the polls at the time among his Raelies
Speaker 3: and Palestenians behind negotiations for two states. And so there
Speaker 3: always are those people. They might be a minority, they
Speaker 3: might be rijority at a given point in time during
Speaker 3: a war. Right now they're a minority, right. But there's
Speaker 3: always those people who say this is not going to
Speaker 3: be solved with weapons. We need to find a way
Speaker 3: to live together. But we're not supporting those ever be solved.
Speaker 2: If the United States and Israel, the two let's face it,
Speaker 2: most hated entities in that part of the world, are
Speaker 2: the ones responsible for the peacekeeping effort.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make any.
Speaker 2: Sense that the Arabs don't step in if the Arab
Speaker 2: nation's there, And couldn't you say that this was a
Speaker 2: great bulwark against the strength of Iran. Couldn't you convince
Speaker 2: UAE in Saudis that the only way to temper Tehran
Speaker 2: is by forming this alliance and recognizing them.
Speaker 4: Well, it's interesting you mentioned that the US stance in
Speaker 4: the region that's very unpopular. I think it's related to
Speaker 4: this issue. This is the core issue of why the
Speaker 4: US has not had normal relations in the Arab world
Speaker 4: and Muslim world generally. It's a very bitter and a
Speaker 4: symbolic issue for a lot of people.
Speaker 2: We do have normal relationship. We have more weapons of
Speaker 2: the Saudis than we do to these on a.
Speaker 4: Public level or like you know, only with dictators for instance.
Speaker 4: The reason this democracy is very skeptical in our world.
Speaker 4: We're afraid that regimes which are matter us will come
Speaker 4: to power. But I think the main issue, I think
Speaker 4: from a US perspective, primarily is that we're involved in
Speaker 4: this very bitter conflict. We're not taking it seriously and
Speaker 4: solving it. We take a very one side approach, I think,
Speaker 4: and we do that supposedly in Israel's interest, but I
Speaker 4: think what it does in reality is prolonged the conflict
Speaker 4: and definitely to everyone's detriment. I had come to the
Speaker 4: position that we should either be fair in this conflict
Speaker 4: and adjudicate it in a way which is fair and
Speaker 4: results in a just solution both sides except or we
Speaker 4: should leave. We should leave because impacting us in very
Speaker 4: very negative ways militarily, economically, strategically. We have other problems
Speaker 4: in the world to deal with as well too. And
Speaker 4: I believe that if the US were to pull what
Speaker 4: I'd say is blank check from Israel, it would incentivize
Speaker 4: Israel to compromise more because ultimately Israel has to live
Speaker 4: in the Middle East. That's where the country is, That's
Speaker 4: where the people are going to be. Their neighbors who
Speaker 4: are willing to compromise with us.
Speaker 2: We could move them to Maine. Maine is wide open.
Speaker 2: They could play tennis, right right, your point. But to that,
Speaker 2: I do think that the idea that this is all
Speaker 2: about the United States, that we are the actor that
Speaker 2: drives all that, I think plays into a myth of
Speaker 2: United States control. And I think if we've learned anything
Speaker 2: in these last twenty to thirty years of the United
Speaker 2: States is We've got big influence, but we sure as
Speaker 2: hell don't have control. And I'm not so sure that
Speaker 2: by the US changing its policy in certain ways that
Speaker 2: that solves this.
Speaker 1: What's your thought.
Speaker 3: On that, Well, I mean, John, that's a very controversial
Speaker 3: thing to say that the United States is not the
Speaker 3: main character of the entire plan.
Speaker 1: And you said it, and I didn't say it. That
Speaker 1: was him.
Speaker 3: Okay, you know, because you know this is not live
Speaker 3: so maybe we'll cut that, yes, exactly, but you know
Speaker 3: that is clearly the case. There is this sort of
Speaker 3: sense that a lot of people have that the United States,
Speaker 3: and the President of the United States in particular, have
Speaker 3: the ability to sort of wave a magic wand and
Speaker 3: solve these things if they could. There are multiple American
Speaker 3: presidents who would have done so, and they would have
Speaker 3: changed the policies, and they would have tried and there
Speaker 3: were always people in different factions of the State Department,
Speaker 3: and they tried different things. You go out to Eisenhower
Speaker 3: and Nixon, they all had plans, right and you know,
Speaker 3: they pressure at Israel in ways that you know presidents
Speaker 3: today don't. But there's a reason why we moved in
Speaker 3: different directions because they thought maybe we if we are.
Speaker 1: You know, more you know, involved.
Speaker 3: And one thing I want to say to this though,
Speaker 3: is that a lot of people want to see a
Speaker 3: solution in the Middle East, but they also want to
Speaker 3: see the US get out of the Mid East, and
Speaker 3: those two things are in contradiction, and people are ultimately
Speaker 3: going to have to make choices about what the US
Speaker 3: does and doesn't do. But I don't necessarily have the
Speaker 3: answer and.
Speaker 1: Not be so involved in the region.
Speaker 2: I do think if there is to your point, if
Speaker 2: the Arab States form a more broader alliance with Israel
Speaker 2: in a genuine way, and that the United States wouldn't
Speaker 2: feel maybe that it had to be on the line there.
Speaker 1: Listen. I'm no fan of any of it.
Speaker 2: I think this cycle of violence over the seventy five
Speaker 2: years is destroying the dreams of two peoples, not just
Speaker 2: a Poutinius. I think it's destroying the dream of the
Speaker 2: Israeli people as well. And so I think that what
Speaker 2: we're doing now, clearly and what we've been doing, is
Speaker 2: a cycle that we have to pull out of. And
Speaker 2: I imagine, you know, that's the thing that ultimately has
Speaker 2: to happen. We're talking to Martaza Hussein and yeah, you're Rosenberg,
Speaker 2: and we talked a little bit about some of the
Speaker 2: things that could help break the cycle of violence in
Speaker 2: the Middle East. You know, the act of the two
Speaker 2: of you sitting here having this conversation is almost rebellious
Speaker 2: or revolutionary in the current moment. How do you counsel
Speaker 2: Americans in this moment to be able to you know,
Speaker 2: not lose so many Facebook friends.
Speaker 1: When it comes to all this. Is there any advice
Speaker 1: that you guys have.
Speaker 3: Well, the backstory of the two of us is that
Speaker 3: we've been having these conversations for something like ten years.
Speaker 3: And the further backstory is that we reached out to
Speaker 3: each other on Twitter because we both realized that we
Speaker 3: shared a lot in common about how we approached the world,
Speaker 3: but we had very different opinions on issues like these.
Speaker 3: And that's what we became friends some ten years ago.
Speaker 3: Is like, and so we've we've been doing this over
Speaker 3: you know, at kosher and kosher restaurants because for Sunni Muslims,
Speaker 3: many of them kosher mediashalal and so I will take
Speaker 3: murders of to Akasha restaurant, introduced them to it, and
Speaker 3: then we'll have conversations like these and John is just
Speaker 3: you know, interloping, you know, just sort of you know,
Speaker 3: we decided to let it come to check, we've got there,
Speaker 3: we go and so and what it is is we
Speaker 3: refuse to allow ourselves or our communities to be held
Speaker 3: hostage to a runeous conflict thousands of miles away that
Speaker 3: we may never be able to fully resolve or fix,
Speaker 3: but we can have an impact about how we treat
Speaker 3: each other here. And the other thing, you know, I
Speaker 3: would say, is that we both are both journalists, and
Speaker 3: one of the things that motivates us is our pursuit
Speaker 3: of truth and what is true, and we share that
Speaker 3: even when we disagree, it's because we came to different
Speaker 3: conceptions and we really believe the other is honest.
Speaker 4: Yes, well said, well, you know, ultimately, as Yeh I mentioned,
Speaker 4: we're journalists, and you know, we seek out people's perspectives
Speaker 4: are different from you, who see a different world, to
Speaker 4: see the world from a different vie and then that's
Speaker 4: how you learn about the world a little bit. I
Speaker 4: think I have to say that it's easier for us too,
Speaker 4: because not Israeli and not Pastenian. Ultimately we're American, and
Speaker 4: American review it that way. You know, both of us
Speaker 4: know people who've families members have been killed recently, many
Speaker 4: dozens in some cases in Gaza recently, and you know
Speaker 4: that emotional component, you can compartmentalize it when you're not
Speaker 4: so directly involved. So we look at an American perspective
Speaker 4: two different sides. It's issue in some sense, but we're
Speaker 4: able to have that conversation, which is constructive. What I
Speaker 4: would say, you know, I could accept any Palestinians view
Speaker 4: or any Israelis view when they're so intimately involved in it,
Speaker 4: But I can never respect the blood thirsty the American.
Speaker 4: That's the only person that cannot respect.
Speaker 2: So you know, and you know I have said this
Speaker 2: for many years, one of the biggest issues I have
Speaker 2: with American foreign policy is how cavalier it is about
Speaker 2: the destruction that so money of our policies have had internationally,
Speaker 2: even something as simple as you know, we had a
Speaker 2: big issue here with burn pits, with Iraqi war veterans
Speaker 2: and Afghan war veterans, and we talked a lot about
Speaker 2: getting them the help they need here, but the thing
Speaker 2: nobody ever talked about was what those did to the
Speaker 2: environment in Iraq and Afghanistan we left, and I think
Speaker 2: our policies oftentimes are cavalier to the destruction that occurs.
Speaker 4: Of report from Iraq, and I met so many people
Speaker 4: whose found members were killed by the US military or
Speaker 4: by the violence of the place in that time, also
Speaker 4: a value elevated rates of cancer and the other indirect
Speaker 4: causes of the war, and it's kind of just kind
Speaker 4: of forgotten. Actually those people are their lives go on,
Speaker 4: but you know the impact that we had in a
Speaker 4: very cavalier moment to us because of the new cycle
Speaker 4: mos on. So but you know, those memories stay and
Speaker 4: the impacts our ability to operate there or how we're
Speaker 4: viewed there in the future. So it's something which you know,
Speaker 4: it's maybe very pessistic about US foreign policy and since that,
Speaker 4: I know many at the end of the Cold War
Speaker 4: there's an optimistic view we can make the world a
Speaker 4: better place. I think that's the case true in some cases,
Speaker 4: but I'm a lot more hesitant to get the US
Speaker 4: deeply involved because there's a very negative track record.
Speaker 2: I think there's a mythology around sort of the Marshall Plan,
Speaker 2: and it's the you know, after World War Two, so
Speaker 2: we were in war with Germany and Japan, and we
Speaker 2: threw a bunch of money at it, and now we're
Speaker 2: the best of friends, and they buy our cars and
Speaker 2: we buy their cars, and it's all lovely and all
Speaker 2: it takes is a little bit of money and some
Speaker 2: American know how, and we can turn the world into allies.
Speaker 2: I think we might have learned the wrong message from
Speaker 2: all that.
Speaker 3: I'd also say from reporting around the world myself. When
Speaker 3: you talk to people, this can have the wrong impact.
Speaker 3: If you have a great mythology about yourself and how
Speaker 3: you fix all the world's problems, then some people will say,
Speaker 3: how can the Americans not fix this problem?
Speaker 1: And they're like, no, it is they believe us.
Speaker 3: People believe us, right, And I will say to them, actually,
Speaker 3: they're a tremendous number of incredibly well meeting people, serving
Speaker 3: our country trying to do this stuff. It's just really hard, right,
Speaker 3: But there's a certain story that we've told, and sometimes
Speaker 3: people really expect us to make good on it. There
Speaker 3: are impossible promises that we can't keep.
Speaker 2: How do you, guys, negotiate this pragmatic view you within
Speaker 2: your own families? Because I know within you know there
Speaker 2: is no I can't get five Jews to agree on
Speaker 2: anything at dinner. R How do you negotiate that within
Speaker 2: your own families?
Speaker 3: You know, I think there's the personality type that tries
Speaker 3: to really hear where people are coming from and speak.
Speaker 1: So you can get one of those in your family.
Speaker 3: Sheer, dumb luck or your dad is a rabbi in
Speaker 3: my case, right, you know, And so that's what you
Speaker 3: do as the rabbi, right, and you're trying to understand
Speaker 3: where everyone in the audience is coming from. Your synagogue
Speaker 3: can be diverse, and there are people with different political
Speaker 3: and ideological perspectives, and how do you tell them the
Speaker 3: truth and stay true to that while also saying, you know,
Speaker 3: speaking to each of them, right, And so, yeah, it's
Speaker 3: a type of personality. You see it in different There
Speaker 3: are different kinds of political leaders and spiritual leaders who
Speaker 3: managed to do this, and there are others who feel like,
Speaker 3: what's the hardest, sharpest, best viral slogan I can use
Speaker 3: on Twitter right to own the other side?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: And by the way, when we were younger, I mean, I'll
Speaker 3: speak for you, we were like that.
Speaker 4: I was much more hot headed when.
Speaker 2: I really yeah, when we first met, you guys seem
Speaker 2: the opposite of hot headed, Like it's we aged a lot.
Speaker 2: I honestly, this as my screensaver like.
Speaker 1: This just so calming to me that.
Speaker 2: I what about saying so let me ask you this
Speaker 2: is this because that brings up any interesting points?
Speaker 1: What mitigated the rashness? Was it just youth? What what
Speaker 1: got you guys less visceral?
Speaker 4: I think getting older is one aspect of it. But
Speaker 4: then also, you know, reading a lot of books, trying
Speaker 4: to see other people's ready to travel, that has a
Speaker 4: big impact on things. Keeping open mind, trying to treat
Speaker 4: others consistently as you want to be treated, keeping that
Speaker 4: Golden rule in mind as well too. I'll tell you
Speaker 4: know you mentioned family. It's interesting. I've had confidences family.
Speaker 4: Family very spread out over the world, and you know,
Speaker 4: certain experiences can be very resonant with people. I had
Speaker 4: an uncle who lives in a Pakistan, and you know,
Speaker 4: he was very critical of the US warn of Ghanistan.
Speaker 4: He thought that it was very, very bad, he said.
Speaker 4: I think he visited Coabble and that's kind of what
Speaker 4: put this in his mind. He said, look, there's nothing
Speaker 4: being built here, it's all falling apart. There, didn't make
Speaker 4: anything good from their presence here. It's just very exploitative.
Speaker 4: And then he actually visited New York one day and
Speaker 4: he visited the subway system and he's like, oh, no,
Speaker 4: I get it. Actually it's not they just it's not
Speaker 4: there on purpose. They just can't do it.
Speaker 2: Actually, So that's hilarious.
Speaker 3: I mean you look at I mean, this is where
Speaker 3: we're getting to the jokes portion, which is hard in
Speaker 3: this topic.
Speaker 4: Very hard.
Speaker 3: And like people ask me, like, how do I conceptualize
Speaker 3: the comas has what is the New York Times as
Speaker 3: three hundred and fifty to four hundred and fifty miles
Speaker 3: of tunnels underneath Gaza, And I was like, to think,
Speaker 3: think of it this way. It would cost New York
Speaker 3: City six hundred and forty eight quadrillion dollars over two
Speaker 3: hundred and sixty eight years to build that much tunnel, right,
Speaker 3: you know, it's just a really.
Speaker 2: If you're just raised the price to a dollar fifty
Speaker 2: ride and then it's problem solved two dollars a ride.
Speaker 2: I appreciate you both so much for coming on and
Speaker 2: having the conversation and really just admire both of you
Speaker 2: not just having this conversation but your journalism as well.
Speaker 2: It's it's really fantastic stuff.
Speaker 1: So thank you both.
Speaker 3: Explore more shows from the Daily Show podcast universe by
Speaker 3: searching The Daily Show wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Watch The Daily Show weeknights at eleven.
Speaker 3: Ten Central on Comedy Central, and stream full episodes anytime
Speaker 3: on Paramount Plus.
Speaker 1: This has been a Comedy Central podcast now