Is Sam Harris becoming a pariah for the anti-religious cause?

[Mudhammam]

I'm starting to wonder if you actually read Harris' transcript and clarifying notes. Harris isn't engaged in Zionist/Israeli apologetics. He goes out of his way to acknowledge Israel's responsibility in the ongoing conflict. What Harris does do, and what I agree with, is to remove this veneer of moral equivalency when discussing events in Gaza.

You mentioned negotiations. Who precisely is Israel supposed to negotiate with? The PNA or Hamas? Who is going to enforce Palestinian compliance with whatever is agreed to? Why is everyone so quick to forget the violent reaction of the Palestinians every time their supposed leaders came back with something even resembling a framework for a peaceful settlement?

The above is the Palestinian reason why a two state solution is untenable. The Israeli problem is that there's no way to back up the West Bank settlements. This leaves two options. The status quo or a one state solution. A one state solution has Egypt taking Gaza and Israel and Jordan negotiating a new border in the West Bank.

I did read the transcript, Cato, and I outlined two arguments he specifically made, at least as I perceived them, that I find particularly egregious and stupid. The fact that he says he doesn't support a Jewish state is irrelevant to his aim to "remove the veneer of moral equivalency," which he does do, just in the completely wrong direction. There is no equivalency between the actions Hamas has taken (which I do not condone or support) to the genocide Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians, on top of their already atrocious policies that have sucked the lifeblood out of Gaza. You seem to be unaware of the specific obligations Israel has to the Palestinians under international law as occupiers, so I'll lay them bare as borrowed from this insightful Nation article: "As the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories more broadly, Israel has an obligation and a duty to protect the civilians under its occupation. It governs by military and law enforcement authority to maintain order, protect itself and protect the civilian population under its occupation. It cannot simultaneously occupy the territory, thus usurping the self-governing powers that would otherwise belong to Palestinians, and declare war upon them. These contradictory policies (occupying a land and then declaring war on it) make the Palestinian population doubly vulnerable...Israel denies Palestinians the right to govern and protect themselves, while simultaneously invoking the right to self-defense. This is a conundrum and a violation of international law, one that Israel deliberately created to evade accountability." As Amnesty International writes:

Clearly Israel has no regard for Palestinian life as evidenced by their indiscriminate attacks on civilians; 1000+ dead, 6000+ injured, and counting. What makes them any better than the "terrorists?"

And demilitarization of Gaza? What makes you think the Palestinians have an obligation to any agreement under which Israel (a nuclear power, mind you) would retain complete control to violate their sovereignty?