Joe Rogan Experience #2303 - Dave Smith & Douglas Murray

Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. The Joe. Rogan Experience. Train by day. Joe. Rogan podcast by night. All day. All right, we're up. Ladies and. gentlemen, good to see you guys. What's. happening? Are you going no headphones? Oh, keep the do. I'll do I'm not quite. sure what they add, but yeah. There we. go. All right. Uh the goal of this is. every time I see people that disagree.

with anything that's happening, any. gigantic world events, it's one of these. [ __ ] shows where there are. screaming. There's the word again. We. brought it. We were just talking about. that. The word [ __ ] is back and it's. one of the great culture victories. that I think is spurred on probably by. podcast. But. um these things are always like Pierce. Morgan, which is fine, you know, where. everyone's screaming over each other and. you know, there's five different people. talking over each other. There's never. just rational conversations where you.

discuss things and um I respect both of. you. I think both of you are brilliant. and I thought I bet you agree on a lot. of things and I bet you disagree on a. lot of things and it'd be fascinating to. see your perspectives on these things. So that's why you're here together. Okay. And tell us, can I ask you. something? Yes, sir. Since the war in. Israel began and since the war in. Ukraine began, you've had quite a lot of. people who are very against both in. different ways. Yes. Do you think you've.

had enough people on who are supportive. of either war? I don't know that word. enough, if that's a good word. Um, let's. say on let's say enough people who are. on the side of Israel instead of wild. critics of Israel. Well, I've had a few. I mean, I believe God Sad is is on the. side of Israel. Um, for sure. Jordan is. on the side of Israel. Um, you had uh. Mike Baker, Coleman Hughes. Yeah. Coleman did it for like 20 minutes. It. wasn't why he was here. No, I mean, none.

of them. And none of them is why they're. here, you know? It's a good question. Do. you think you've tilted one way? Um, me. personally? No, no, no. Just with the. guest. The guest? Yeah, probably more. tilted towards the idea that perhaps the. way they've done it is barbaric. Mhm. But why do you think that is? Just out. of I just interested in your selection. of guests because you're like the. world's number one podcast. Yeah. It's. not I. don't I don't think about it that way. I.

just think I'd like to talk to this. person. But can I just Sorry, it's your. show. Sure. If you're going to interview. historians of the conflict or historians. in general, Mhm. why would you get. somebody like Ian Carol or Yeah. But Ian. Carol, I didn't bring him on for that. purpose. I brought him on because I want. to find out like how's one get involved. in the whole conspiracy theory business. cuz his whole thing is just. conspiracies. Sure. you know, but do you.

have any uh I mean there's been a tilt. in the conversation in both. conversations in the last couple of. years and it's largely to do with people. who have appointed themselves experts. who are not experts. You mean like Ian? I don't think he appoints himself an. expert in anything. Who's that other. dude who thinks he's an expert on. Churchill? Daryl. Oh, Daryl Cooper does. not think he's an expert. In fact, I. think it's everybody else is always. calling him an expert and he's like, I'm. just a history. Have you ever absorbed.

any of his material? Have you ever. consumed any of his podcasts or anything. like that? I tried. Yeah. It's pretty. hard to listen to somebody who says, "I. don't know what I'm talking about, but. now I'm going to talk or I don't know. about this or I'm not capable of. debating this historian, but I'm going. to just tell you what I think." Yeah. But that's not exactly that's not. exactly what Daryl was saying. I mean. Daryl's point of view, however you feel. about this, Daryl, what Daryl is saying. is he doesn't really like doing debates. He likes to do long format stuff where.

he can really explain his position. If. you throw a lot of [ __ ] out there, there's some point at which I'm just. raising questions is not a valid thing. You're not raising questions. You're not. asking questions. You're telling people. something. Do you think Daryl's doing. that? I think there's a whole bunch of. guys doing that. I think Dave is doing. that very obviously. Dave's a comedian, but he's now. mainly talking about Israel. No, I don't.

know if I'm mainly talking about Israel. That's all I see. Yeah, but that's Well, that might be what you've seen. I don't. think that's But that is also your stick. now, isn't it? Well, what do you mean by. that's my shtick? Well, you're not a. geopolitics guy in general, are you? I. don't even know exactly what you're. asking. I'm saying you've decided being. a comedian, you've decided now to become. somebody who talks about Israel. I don't. I think you're incorrect. I don't think. it's a decision. I just think you have. long form conversations, multiple of.

them. It's a huge event that's in the. news, so it comes up. I don't think it's. a thing. I think if you're on the. outside, you'd say, "Oh, look, they're. trying to get attention by talking about. this very polarizing issue publicly.". That's they do. You do get attention. from that. If you'd spent the last year. speaking about Myanmar, you would not be. on my lips. Yeah, but he does talk about. Yemen constantly. He talks about a lot. of things that aren't in the news. Well, I tend I tend to talk about the. conflicts that my government is directly. involved in, which I think is reasonable.

to me, but I don't quite get like what's. all the appeal to authority stuff. I. mean, what you have to be an expert or I. think authority matters. I think. authority matters. And I think that if. you just throw a lot of [ __ ] out there. and then say I'm I'm not interested in. the alternative views on this and. particularly when it's a. counternarrative that is wildly off and. when you get people with this look I I. just feel we should get it out straight. away. I feel you've opened the door to. quite a lot of people who've now got a. big platform who have been throwing out.

counterhistorical stuff of a very. dangerous kind. You mean Daryl? Are you. talking about Daryl? Daryl. Who's the. other one? I don't think Daryl. has anything dangerous. What's the other. guy? Derek. Uh, what's his name? Cooper, is it? Which one is it? Darylary. Who's. the other one? Uh, there was one I just. checked before on the way here. Daryl. Cooper, and then Oh, yeah. Daryl Cooper, Ian Carol. Look, the these guys are not. historians. They're not knowledgeable. about anything. No one's calling Ian.

Carol. No, but then why listen to their. views on Churchill? Daryl is incredibly. knowledgeable. It's just not. He's not. He's wildly. several reasons. One is when he was. offered to debate the current greatest. living biographer of Churchill, he said, "I can't because he knows much more than. me and I admire his work and I've. learned from it, but I I can't possibly. debate him." That's Andrew Roberts. But. you don't have to be able to debate.

people to have opinions. No, no, you. don't have to debate people if it's not. your thing. But if you, for instance, Well, okay. But if you say, "I've. decided that Churchill is the bad guy in. the It's not what he said." It's not. what he said. Neither Carol nor Cooper. have said that. Well, listen, I don't. know what Carol said, but Daryl Cooper. has not said that. What he said was he. he jokes with his friend Jo, who's an. Anglo-Saxon. He jokes with him. You. know, I think that Churchill was the. secret villain of World War II. And what.

what he's saying is by Churchill's. actions, the war escalated. He's not. he's not he's not saying anything. He's. not just asking questions then, is he? No, but the claim isn't that he's just. asking questions. Yeah, he has a point. of view. You can explain this better. He. literally says he said in the comment he. goes, "Listen, I'm being hyperbolic.". And then he once again uh uh disclaimed. He goes, "And I'm not claiming Church. Hill committed the most atrocities or. was the worst part, but in many ways I. do view view him as the chief villain is. my hyperbolic provocative statement.".

But but the point of that well okay but. Pat Buchanan wrote an entire book on. this. Is he not allowed is he not an. expert? Is he not allowed to be He's. certainly not an expert. He can be. interviewed. I've watched Pat Buchanan. debate I watched Pat Buchanan debate. against Churchill historians and he was. absolutely leveled because he doesn't. know what he's talking about. When did. he when did Pat Buchanan debate and get. leveled? About 20 years ago. I'm just he. debated against Andrew Roberts and. several other historians at the. intelligence squ in London. I was there. He didn't know what he was talking. about. He had a contrary view and it was.

interesting and stimulating to hear. But. if you only get the contrary view, which. is, isn't it fun if we all pretend. Churchill was the bad guy of the 20th. century? At some point, you're going to. lead people down a path where they think. that's the view. And that's horseshit of. the most profound kind. I don't think that's what he's trying to. do. I think that's exactly what they're. doing. And the problem is is that. because you I mean your own platform has. come about because you're a very.

successful comedian and much more and. you do ask questions and you are. interested but there are a lot of people. who have come along partly I think. because they've come on this show who. have come along and they've decided I. can play this double game. On the one. hand, I'm going to push really edgy and. frankly sometimes horrific opinions, and. then if you. say that's wrong, they say I'm a. comedian. But wait a minute, what do I. what am I what how can you tell me I'm. just a comedian? I'm just throwing stuff.

out. What horrific opinions that's wrong. are you talking about specifically? Once. guys like this get into very obvious. stuff, which is guys like Daryl, the. ones I'm describing, you need to listen. to Daryl to really understand what he's. saying. If you take his Daryl's words. out of context, Daryl has some of the. most nuanced, balanced, and charitable. views on all the figures in in in. history. Well, particularly Hitler, it.

seems. No, no, you're wrong. You're. wrong. He doesn't. He has a What did he. call him? How did he describe him? I. think he compared him to a a methout. psychopath who was holding an entire. nation of people hostage, I believe, was. the word. He also said on here that that. uh he wasn't anti-Semitic until the. Holocaust. There were no speeches of of. Hitler's in the '9s. No, no, no. No, he. said he was not public about it. He said. he was downplaying it to win over He. said there was a period where he was.

downplaying it to win over popular. support in Germany. It was his argument. There is no historian of World War II. who thinks that Hitler was downplaying. anti-semitism in the 1930s. That was. what he was doing. He wrote a book about. it in the 1920s. He got to power on it. and he grew his power on the back of it. The idea that you can argue that in the. 1930s Adolf Hitler was downplaying the. anti-semitism. Like there's no historian. who would agree with that. So why would.

you throw out the idea that in the 1930s. Hitler was not being anti-Semitic in. public? That was what he was doing in. public. He announces to the German. Parliament what he wants to do. So when. you're throwing out claims like he was. keeping it down in the 1930s. First of. all, what are you doing? And secondly, why? Okay. I mean, I think that it's kind of. hard because I don't even know exactly. what Daryl's point on that was. And so,

I'm not really in a position to argue. what he was saying there. I don't think. you're giving him the most charitable. interpretation. I don't need to give him. the most charitable interpretation to be. able to see. I think you're stronging. him. I should say, look, anyone can look. up what he said on this show and others, what these two guys in particular have. said on repeated podcasts with both of. you. It's an attempt to downplay Hitler. and always to do down church. I don't. think you ever play. No, I said in.

conversations with you and others, this. is thetick of these guys. They've. decided it's edgy and funny. And I think. this is very very interesting and also. very dangerous because we live in an in. an era now that the right has got some. mojo back in America. We saw years of. crazy left overreach where they tried to. make us all say the craziest things and. completely predictably there are now. figures on the right playing with really.

dark and ugly stuff on their side. I. agree with they are mainstreaming this. I think it's partly being mainstreamed. by the two people I just described and. both of you have kept speaking to these. people and you don't get on the. historians who know about this and that. that that's just alarming to me. Well, can I just say so because I I kind of do. agree with part of what you said there. Like I do think it is true that almost. as a reaction to like the woke insanity. that we've seen on the left and I think.

literally I think nobody's been a more. effective critic of that than you. I do. think there has kind of been a. right-wing reaction that has embraced uh. racialism and is is dangerous and not a. good path to and now they're flirting. with Holocaust denial and Hitler and. absolving. Hitler. I think you're wrong to include. Daryl in that group. Now, the other. thing is I I'm sorry cuz maybe I'm. misunderstanding what you're saying. You're saying people that I've had. conversations with have downplayed the. Holocaust. Well, who are the two guys? Daryl Cooper Cooper and uh and the other.

Ian Carolan I've never uh podcasted with. Ian Carol. I have podcasted with Daryl. Cooper once and there he absolutely did. not downplay any of the Nazi atrocities. at all. And I would also I would I think. that if we're zooming out here a little. bit, maybe this is kind of part of the. disconnect broadly speaking in American. culture, the idea that it has not been. driven into people enough that the Nazis. were bad and that Adolf Hitler was a He.

is literally the modern devil. He is. much more so than the actual devil. Adolf Hitler is what's viewed as the. most evil thing to the point that I mean. just my entire life growing up if there. was a guy who sold soup on Seinfeld who. was like authoritarian. He's a soup. Nazi. Everyone was Hitler. The left. called George Bush Hitler and they. called Obama Hitler and they called. Trump Hitler. Every single enemy that. we've gone to war with in uh always. called Hitler. Saddam Hussein's the new. Hitler. Mahm Gaddafi is the new Hitler.

Putin's the new Hitler. It is. So, so. the idea that like we haven't driven. into people enough that Adolf Hitler was. a really bad I'm not saying that at all. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying. just as the left likes to play with very. dark, ugly stuff and they've done it for. decades. They have done they have played. down Chairman Mao's murder of the. Chinese throughout his era in power. They played down Stalin. They still. march on occasions with posters of.

Lenin. They they've spent decades trying. to do down evils that were done on their. side. And I would suggest that one of. the things that is going on at the. moment is despite or maybe because of. what you just described, there are. movements now on the right in America, subcultures including people who follow. both of you who are very interested in. playing with. this absolute uh beyond the pale thing.

Why somebody like Jake Shields wants to. play around with Holocaust. denial? Why? I I can't answer for Jake. Shields. I I don't know. I would have no. idea. I have no idea. I think a lot of. people get captured by this by audience. capture captured by their audience. Yeah. I think that's that's a thing. You. get a lot of positive reinforcement from. a bunch of twisted people. Well, it's. also I mean it's there's something about. um you know, Michael Malice had that. great line. He goes, uh when you take. the red pill, you're supposed to take. one and not swallow the whole bottle.

And I think there's like this dynamic. what happens is and and of course people. know the red pill is the analogy from. the Matrix. the idea that you wake up to. realizing that so much of the stuff you. believed was [ __ ] propaganda and is. all lies. And th this is a real danger. when the establishment and the. institutions are all caught with their. pants down having sold a bunch of very. consequential policies based on lies. And then once people realize that, they. go, "Well, what else have they been. lying to me about?" And then they almost.

want to look into every single thing and. go, "Yeah, I think the whole thing was. lies." Now, I agree with you. There's. danger in that. And I think that there. are some things that then people jump to. conclusions that are totally wrong. But. I guess I tend to look at that and go, "Well, then maybe the people with power, not random podcasters, but like the. people with real power should do a. better job of not lying through their. [ __ ] teeth about everything." Well, maybe you have. power. Maybe you have power. Both of. you. We live in an era where podcasters.

have a lot of power. If you go on a. podcast with Jake Shields and Jake. Shields goes onto another podcast and. says he doesn't think six million Jews. were killed in the. Holocaust, what do you think's happening. there? That's an exercise of power. Okay. Okay. A a um and I agree with you. about the breakdown of trust. Absolutely. We have lived through an era. where in real time we saw something. called a conspiracy, the lab leak, which. turns out to be true as you and others.

said it might be from the beginning. I. find that to be very racist. And Joe, both of you. It used to be. racist when we were saying that the it. was likely that the CO variant had come. out from the place making co. especially since the exact seemed like. it seemed like it was possible to us. But the point ask yourself this, who has. access to your medical history? In. theory, it's just you and your doctor. But in reality, hundreds of shady.

companies called data brokers are. keeping tabs on every symptom you. Google, every treatment you research, and every pre-existing condition they. think you might have. That's valuable. intel for advertisers and insurance. companies who will take any excuse to. raise your premiums. But there's a way. to get your privacy back, and that is. with ExpressVPN. With. ExpressVPN, 100% of your online activity. is rerouted through secure encrypted.

servers. This makes it impossible for. third parties to invade your privacy. ExpressVPN also hides your IP address, which is the number used to identify you. on the internet. Without your IP. address, data brokers can't use it to. track and sell your activity. Plus, ExpressVPN is easy to use. It just takes. one click and it works on all your. devices, phones, tablets, desktops, even. TVs and on up to eight devices at the.

same time. This is why ExpressVPN is the. number one rated VPN by the experts at. CNET and The Verge. And the best part, podcast listeners can get four extra. months of ExpressVPN for free at. expressvpn.com/rogan or by tapping the. banner. And if you're watching on. YouTube, you can get your four free. months by scanning the QR code on screen. or by clicking the link in the. description. I was I was referencing the. New York Times calling the lab racist,

which is just the funniest thing ever. that they go, "It's racist to think that. there was a sophisticated lab where they. were developing like gain of function. research." And they go, "No, what. happened is these freaks were eating. battheads." And you're like, "Wait, that's not racist. The other one was. racist. pengalins. [Laughter]. But that one fell apart in front of our. eyes. Well, it took four years. And I've. said repeatedly, it's kind of inevitable. to me that if you see something that is.

called a racist conspiracy theory fall. apart and become also what we used to. call true in a few years, it's likely to. blow a lot of people's minds. But the. question then is, do you help those. minds that have been blown blow. themselves out some more by doing a. whole load of other conspiracy stuff? Do. you decide to go, hey, what else have we. been lied to? Maybe Churchill wasn't a. great guy. Maybe Hitler wasn't such a. bad guy. Maybe the Holocaust,

etc. No one is saying maybe Hitler. wasn't such a bad guy. You are saying. that in the. 1930s Hitler kept the anti-semitism. down. No, no, no, no. That's not what. he's saying. What? What he was saying is. that he didn't do it as publicly. He was. doing it in meetings because he the. support for that kind of thinking wasn't. as ubiquitous as it was. Is I've seen. this. I've seen this before. I know. exactly what these guys are drinking. They're drinking a couple of very very.

discredited historians like David Irving. and they are just regurgitating it. And. it was always been the same thing. It is. always an attempt to minimize Hitler's. anti-semitism actions. Eventually down. the road you get to minimizing his. actual involvement in the Holocaust. And. then you can go to say that about Daryl. What you're what you're guilty of here. is kind of similar to I think something. that the woke left has done which is. this concept creep where you're talking. about some people online who are doing.

this thing and then you're lumping in. other people with them. Listen, I I'll. just say this right now. Daryl Cooper is. currently, I believe, almost finished or. he's working on a big World War II uh. series. And when this comes out, it. gonna be on. We can see we Yeah, he does. long form podcasts. When when this comes. out, I am quite confident to say. beforehand that if you're going into it. expecting him to be downplaying the. atrocities of the Nazis or downplaying. the evil things that Adolf Hitler did,

you're going to be disappointed. My. point is, why are we even talking about. this guy? Cuz you brought him up. He's. Yes. because he comes on podcasts like. this. My point is this is not a serious. historian. He's not a historian. No, he's been he never claims to be. He's. been doing these long form podcasts on. these subjects for over a decade. And if. you go back to 2015 and listen to Fear. and Loathing in the New Jerusalem, it's. an incredible piece. And it's how many. hours long? 30 something. M and he he it.

literally starts from the persecution of. the Jews where they're being driven out. of Europe. It's like this horrific. account of what happens to these people. It's what he's trying to do is paint a. picture of how the world goes mad and. how the world goes sideways. And he's. doing it from the perspective initially. of these Jewish people that are living. in Europe that all of a sudden their. neighbors are turning on them and. they're they're being attacked. like it. the it's incredibly charitable. But what.

he's trying to do is show what happens. to human beings when they're confronted. with unbelievable atrocities and how. things go so incredibly sideways. Lots. of people have written and spoken about. that. So why is he not allowed to? I I. don't understand. He is allowed to. He. is allowed to. I'm saying that there is. a there's a weird way in which figures. like him whose ideas are not being. countered when they are raised are given. platform after platform to spread their.

their views. They are welcome to those. platforms. I'm not saying they shouldn't. be platformed. I'm saying these are very. very fringe figures who are pushing. ideas that are either debunked now, have. been debunked before, or they will not. stand up against somebody who disagrees. with them. Okay. I I would just say. maybe this is the disconnect here when. you say there's like not push back. Daryl's one line on Tucker Carlson. This. one line where he himself said he was. being hyperbolic and kind of says this. to prod his buddy got more push back.

than any one line I've ever heard on a. podcast. There were numerous articles. written by historians, numerous shows. that covered it. People went through. there were Twitter threads about it. So. I don't exactly get your point like. there was lots of push back. If you're. saying he should go and debate somebody. who's giving him push back on that, okay, maybe. I also think it's. reasonable for him to say, "I don't. really do debates." Yeah. I think it's. weird to mainstream very fringe views. constantly and not give another side. I. think that's weird. Well, I mean, okay,

I think there's a little bit of a. contradiction here. You're saying now. that there these are fringe views, but. then you're also saying that these are. enormously powerful. No, no, there's no. contradiction. Let me clear it up. If. you think there is, I think there are. very fringe views that have become. mainstreamed on the right. But then. aren't they not fringe by definition? Sure, you can play an epistemological. game with No, I'm just No, I'm just. saying what's behind you do understand. the concept, don't you? That fringe. ideas become mainstreamed. Okay. Sure. So that's it. Okay. I still I'm not. exactly sure. So you're saying that what.

Joe shouldn't have Daryl Cooper on? I'm. saying that that there will have that if. you mainstream very very fringe views. which are easily able to be debunked if. you if you if you mainstream them at. some point that view that was so fringe. will be what eager very uh um. disconnected unhappy people are going to. start playing with too. And if if these. people are such experts in how you see a.

society go weird, they can look at what. is happening to a portion of the right. everywhere on this stuff. There is a. portion of the right across the West. that is playing this very dark game and. they're doing it deliberately and you. can't not be aware of that. I agree with. that. I don't think Daryl Cooper is. doing that. But I do agree with your. your characterization. I think it's a. pretty important distinction there. You're just taking this one statement. and then this where he's trying to joke.

around with his buddy. This this. Churchill statement and this is this is. the basis of this. He and these other. guys are all doing the anti-churchial. stuff now. But he's not doing an. anti-churchial stuff. He and the other. in the orbit was the author of this. whole operation unthinkable, right? Where they wanted to use the Nazis to. invade Russia. Wasn't that Churchill? Is that not true? We're going to have to. get into the weeds on Churchill. There. is always going to be a corner, which.

you can get me on, on a bit of. Churchill, but you have you'd have to. say which a comprehensive view of Yeah. Churchill was never working with the. Germans to invade Russia. No, no, no. This is a plan that was drawn up. Do you. do you know about operation think? Pull. it up, Jamie. Um, Operation Unthinkable. was at the end of the war, I believe. Churchill was concerned about the rise. of of Russia in in the rise of the.

Soviet Union. And the the idea was, and. we'll find out what the historical facts. are about this, Operation Unthinkable, a. name given to two related possible. future war plans developed by the. British Chiefs of Staff Committee. against the Soviet Union during 1945. The plans were never implemented. The. creation of the plans was ordered by the. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. on May 1945 and developed by the British. armed forces joint planning staff in May. 1945, the end of World War II in Europe. One plan assumed a surprise attack on.

the Soviet forces stationed in Germany. to oppose the will of the United States. impose rather the will of the United. States and the British Empire upon. Russia. The will was qualified as a. square deal for Poland, but added that. that does not necessarily limit the. military commitment. The assessment. signed by the chief of army staff on 9. June 1945 concluded it would be beyond. our power to win a quick but limited. success and we would be committed to a. protracted war against heavy odds. The.

code was Yeah, this is okay. First of. all, I never do Wikipedia. Okay, we. don't do Wikipedia. That's okay. That's. okay. This is just what Jamie pulled up. Okay. But first of all, yes, at the end. of the war, an a plan requested that. wasn't seen through that suggests that. after the defeat of Nazism, communism of. the Soviet form is also going to be a. threat to Europe was simply an evidence. that I mean, it's obvious. True. It's. what Churchel worried about throughout. the the 40s. He worried about it in.

Yaltta. He worried about it everywhere. I'm sorry, but I have to return to this. point. that this man manages to do one of the. most heroic things in human history in. standing alone against evil in its most. concentrate form. And he does about as. much as any human being can do to save. the civilized world. If you just park that and you go on to a.

plan in 1945 to try to counter Soviet. domination of Europe, you see what I'm. saying? This is this is not doing. something in the round. Yeah. It's also. look I mean the look I I'm not even like. the ex I'm not at all the expert on. World War II. Um, and I'm not like going. to debate with you about World War II, but I would say that like that is. there's a lot of room for nuance and. disagreement with what you just said. You know, in the 20th century, we had.

two world wars. They're the worst thing, objectively speaking, the worst thing. that's ever happened in the history of. the world. And the Second World War is. the biggest blood bath in human history. And it ended with handing the man who. you just mentioned, Joseph Stalin, half. of Europe. So listen, if you want to. argue, I'm I'm Jewish in my of German. descent, so like I'm not against the. argument that it was the Nazis had to be. defeated and that was the most important. thing, but there still is just the basic. facts that it was a it almost couldn't.

have gone worse. It was like just a. nightmare for civilization. And if. people want to look back at that and go, man, was there any other way this could. have been handled? Was there any other. way? Were there blunders that were made. here? Now, personally, what I feel much. more uh comfortable arguing would be. that I try to blame everything I can on. Woodro Wilson as much as I can because. also he created the income tax on the. Federal Reserve and did so much to. damage my country. But I think American. entry into World War I was really a. disaster and imposing the Treaty of.

Versailles on Germany was a disaster. I. also think that's kind of um fairly. mainstream history. Like that's not a. particularly controversial view that. like imposing the Treaty of Versailles. on Germany ended up in disaster. Well, no, except as Martin Amos said, the only. way to not get to the Treaty of. Versailles would be for Germany to win. World War I. But yeah. Yeah, but we're. not talking about the Nazis winning the. war. We're talking about, you know, listen, I think that but but secondly, sorry, I just have to address that. fundamental. You say uh the the outcome.

of World War II and everything that. happened and it was the worst thing. that's ever happened and worst thing. imaginable, worst possible outcome. You. said just you said worst possible. outcome. Let me give you a much worst. possible outcome. Hitler wins, right? Okay. Sure. Okay. So, it's not the worst. possible outcome. Listen, but okay. Hitler Yes. Okay. I'm not saying you. can't dream up a worse outcome. I'm. saying what you had dreaming up. That's. just what my country and others went. through. What did end up happening was. the what 60 million people died.

including the Holocaust and then Joseph. Stalin takes half of Europe. So, okay, fine. I'm I should I'll correct that. There is a worse outcome, right? But. that's not a great one. No, nobody said. it was. This is like there's a very. weird argument that you now hear about. this the this attempt to revision this. and I know why it's happening. I don't. think I don't think there's anything. revisionist. I think there is. this this. attempt to sort of say, look, you know, at the end of World War II, what have we. got? Stalin has half of Europe. What was. the point? And so on. That's that's. going on. That's going on. And uh there.

are people who are feeding it. Uh that. argument is very similar. This this this. particular school of as it were history. is doing something that I've seen happen. with American history as well, particularly with Lincoln. Lincoln's an. interesting comparison to make with. Churchill on this. Uh there are people. who will criticize Churchill for. mistakes made. Not hard to do. Quite. hard not to make mistakes while fighting. at a war of total annihilation against. your country.

Um people will say, "Oh, he didn't sort. this out in 1945. You know, it's rather. like Lincoln. He didn't solve every. problem in the world for all time, but. he solved a hell of a big problem for. his time. And that requires some kind of. generosity of spirit and understanding. in hindsight as opposed to I will find. something that he did that I wouldn't. have done because if I'd have been. running the uh the British Empire in 19. 1939 I'd have known exactly how to do it.

and I'd have known how to hold the whole. thing together and I'd have kept Stalin. back and he'd have been great at Yaltta. and like this is but I don't think. anybody's saying that. Yeah, I I I agree. with you. I think there is a tendency of. like woke left kids to do this, but I I. don't think that's what what certainly. not what I'm saying and I don't think. what Daryl's saying. I do also think. that one of the bigger um kind of the. bigger picture dynamics to all of this. is that we have um at least since 9/11. been in a state of perpetual war and all.

of these wars have been disasters. There. have been so many lies involved in. selling all of them. I mean, oh, the. whole Iraq war, the whole war in. Afghanistan, just lying the whole way. through. I mean, I remember literally. having conversations with Green Berets. in the middle of the war in Afghanistan, and they're like, "George W. Bush is. telling you that the army we're building. up there is really successful. This. thing's going to fall in a week without. us." And then all through the Obama. administration, it's just like lie after.

lie after lie with disastrous wars. And. so, this does create a fertile ground. for people to say, "I wonder if they. were lying about all these wars." Sure. Again, I'm not really trying to argue. with you about World War II. I'd rather. argue about these wars. I think the. interesting question is whether you're. busy watering it. Well, should you not. talk about mistakes that were made. overall? Absolutely. Okay. You should. Absolutely. I have all four going back. and looking at mistakes. So, what are. you what is your argument then? It's a. very weird thing to go back zone in on a. man say this one thing is a mistake and.

should characterize him and you ignore. everything else. You're taking him out. of context when he's when you're talking. about Daryl who's done what was it 30. plus hours. So what? 30 plus hours of. broadcasting. You do that in a week. UFC. 314 is headed to South Beach and it. won't be all glitz and glamour, but the. stars will be out. Don't miss any of the. action at DraftKings Sportsbook, the. official sports betting partner of the. UFC. It promises to be another banger of. events, especially in the featherweight.

main event between two evenly matched. fighters, Alexander Vulcganowski and. Diego Lopez. It should be wild. First. time, just pick something simple, like a. fighter to win and make your pick. It's. that simple. And if you're new to. DraftKings, listen up. New customers can. bet five bucks to get $150 in bonus bets. instantly. Step into the octagon with. DraftKings Sportsbook. Download the. DraftKings Sportsbook app now and use. the code Rogan. That's code Rogan for. new customers to get $150 in bonus bets.

when you bet just five bucks only on. DraftKings. The crown is yours. Gambling. problem? Call 1800 gambler. In New York, call 8778 hope or text hope and. Y467-369. In Connecticut, help is. available for problem gambling. Call. 888789-7777 or visit ccpg.org. Please. play responsibly. On behalf of Bootill. Casino and Resort in Kansas, 21 and. over. Agent eligibility varies by. jurisdiction. Void in Ontario. New. customers only. Bonus bets expire 168.

hours after issuance. For additional. terms and responsible gaming resources, see dkg.co/audio. I'm very different. He's not doing a. podcast like talking to people. Okay. Nor is he doing scholarly work, nor is. he working in the archives, clearly. Come on. I mean, this is he is not the. historian of our era. He's not. complaining to be. This is the thing, Joe. This is like punching jelly. No, but you don't you don't consume but you. don't consume his work. What I'm saying. because I don't need to consume endless.

versions of a revisionist history. I. understand revisionist history. If you. listen to his work, it's not revisionist. history. He's basing it on historical. Yeah, I know. But okay, so this is my. point about Jelly. It's a shape-shifting. thing. Comedian or historian? He's not a. comedian, historian or podcast. He would. be historian or actual historian. You. say he doesn't claim to be a historian, but he's pumping out tens of hours of. neither does Dan Carlin. He doesn't.

claim to be historian either. You see my. point about the move. It's like some. weird jiu-jitsu move where you say, "Hang on, you know all about this as. well. You say, "I'm not a historian, but. I'm going to spend my time talking about. history. I'm not a journalist, but I'm going to. spend my time talking about this thing. I'm not an expert on this, but I'm going. to spend my time talking about this. thing. It's a weird move. Yeah. No, you. don't think? No. I'm a free American. I. can talk about what I like.

to notice. You can But. the point is, what are you pushing? What. are you watering? What am I pushing? Yes. Uh, liberty, free markets, peace, prosperity, not getting in another. stupid catastrophic war, which we're on. the precipice of right now. That's what. I'm pushing. What are we on the. precipice of? Well, I think you, Weren't. you just talking about it the other day? Everyone I hear on the inside says we're. the about to attack Iran. I think you just said something about. that the other day. Am I wrong about. that? I thought I saw in one of your. interviews that you did. Possibly. No.

Um, that doesn't mean we are on the. verge of a war. I mean, you keep. referring to we being in wars. There's a. very big difference between a country. having a military that's. engaged and a country being at war. This. country has not been at war for 25. years. You have not been fighting for. the American homeland for 25 years. Yes, we haven't. That's true. We haven't had. a war on our shores. We've been picking. on third world countries halfway around. the world. Well, you haven't been. randomly picking on them. I mean, Afghanistan, you went I didn't say it. was random. Yeah. Right. Okay. It wasn't.

like you suddenly decided to bomb again. or something. you we went to Afghanistan. to find Bin Laden and take revenge for. 911 and stop an attack like that. happening again on the American. homeland. That is very different from a. country being at war. Yeah, but that's a. total mischaracterization of the war in. Afghanistan. It's one thing to say that. might be an accurate characterization of. the special operations mission in late. 2001. But then we fought then we fought. a 20-year regime change war against the. Taliban. Plus, you got dragged into the.

quick sand of war. Oh, okay. Fine. But I. thought it wasn't a war. Like what? I. don't get your argument. You said it was. a war. It's your It's your use of we as. if you're personally like suffering this. war. Yeah. When I say we taxi, so we pay. for it. Okay, fine. Would you go if I. went back and corrected you on every. time you've used the term we to refer to. your government or something like that? Like if I were to say, "Oh, we just. imposed tariffs on China." Would you. point out that I didn't and it was the. Trump administration? I'm saying you. take it obviously very personally and. that that's you're right to do so. Of.

course. I'm just trying to make sure. we're accurate here. What do you I'm. taking personally. That the American. wars. Sure. Yeah. I think they've. they've killed hundreds of thousands of. people and cost my country 8 trillion. dollars and and degraded my country very. much. And there's a very good argument. to make on that. I'm still slightly. beused about this move from I'm an. expert on this and I have views to I'm a. comedian. I've never claimed to be an. expert on anything. This is the problem,

Joe. I mean, if if if if somebody says. you have to claim to be an expert on. something to have an opinion on. something. You don't have to be. You. don't have to be. But this is like I'm. not a historian, but I'm pumping out. history. I'm not an expert, but I'm. talking all the time about this. But. you're not even talking about. specifically on what he just said. No, I'm saying this is my point about this. He You say I'm not an expert. So, what's. the solution? To not talk about it? No, it's to have more experts around. Well, the expert class hasn't done a.

great job. This is follow the science. Yeah, but you know what? Fine. So, during I just said to you, I agree with. you. Right. I know. So, during all of co. I I will put my track record against any. of the expert class on CO. I'm glad to. do that. So, should I have just shut up? Should I have shut up by opposing. lockdowns and opposing vaccine. mandates? You really That's the entire. argument that you're making. Let the. experts handle this. You're not an. expert. wildly you're wildly mis uh not.

listening to what I'm saying. I think. you have to take I think we should agree. perhaps on the following that one major. thing can break down in front of your. eyes or many major things and it does. not mean that every single one of the. sewer gates should be lifted. Okay. Yeah, I I I get that point. Who's who's. saying it should be? I'm saying this is. a chatter on what is part of our side at. the moment is that a lot of the sewer. gates are being lifted. Sometimes by.

people who know that they're doing it, sometimes by people who don't, sometimes. by people who say, "I don't know. I'm. just throwing it out there." But at the. very least, there's some damn hygiene. that should be required, isn't there? Yeah. I'm not sure exactly what you're. asking, but sure. Just that. Let's have. a bit of hygiene on our own side, not. lift every sewer gate. And when you say. our own side, you mean the right-wing. broadly speaking. Broadly speaking, and. I'm sort of funny about libertarians. I'm never quite sure. I always think I.

always say I think libertarians are. essentially the bisexuals of politics. They should just choose, Joe. They. should choose. It's kind of They just. want everything buffet. That's very. funny. Well, I think we want some. things. I don't know. Okay, that's a. that's a weird way to put it, but I I. get your point. Um All right. Well, I I. mean, I don't know. Look, I I mean, essentially, I just don't Maybe there's. something I'm missing here, but if your. argument is that like you're you're. saying I claim to be an expert, but then. I have like a parachute to get out of it. by being like, hey, I'm just a comedian. who's just saying this, but I don't.

think I've ever like really claimed to. be an expert. I. I know. Well, well, but I'm interested. in these topics. Yeah, I know. But isn't. it weird to go around for instance, I. mean, let's get to the the last year and. a half. It's It's a bit weird to be. simultaneously saying I'm not an expert. on a conflict and talking about it. everywhere. I don't think so. Not. really. I mean, I don't know. I don't. think like I I don't see how you have. these things. Which things? All these. things that we're talking about. Some of. them. Yeah. Are you an expert? I am on.

some. Yes. On some. But you talk about. some that you're not an expert on. You'll notice what I should do. What. should you do if those subjects get. breached? Well, I think that you educate. yourself as much as you can. Shouldn't. you say I'm not an expert and then give. your opinion if you're in the middle of. a conversation? I think it's, as I say, I think that it's a weird move to say. I'm not an expert on this, but I'm going. to talk about it non-stop. I think that. is true. Listen, I will certainly. concede that I am weird. So, I'm not. disagreeing with you. It's weird that. I'm as obsessed with all this stuff as I. am. I mean, like, okay, I'm a weird guy. I do I tell jokes at nightclubs and then.

get obsessed with politics and monetary. policy and like, okay, fine. But I just. like fundamentally disagree with this. idea that which I really do think is um. quite anti-democratic in spirit and. quite um um you know elitist that. there's an expert class. They can have. opinions on all of these things. It's. weird for any regular person who's just. read about it. Not my view. Not my view. Seems like it's what you're saying. I I. conceded already. I said a long time ago. that I believe much of the expert class.

let itself and us all down very badly. And I think that happened in foreign. policy in areas, not every area, but it. happened in some areas. I think it. happened with COVID in many areas. But. that does not mean that it's just a. free-for-all. Now, there are some things. we can still verify to be true and can. still agree on as baseline levels of. agreement in a free society. and that. and yes, everyone is free to air their. views, but it does not mean that.

everyone who sounds off on an issue, whether it's World War II, the war in. the Middle East, the war in Ukraine, has. an equally valid point of view. No, I. certainly wouldn't argue I mean I that. to me is just batting down a straw, man. I mean, I certainly wouldn't argue that. everyone has an equally valid point of. view, and I certainly wouldn't argue. that there shouldn't be some standards. of like who you would want to find. interesting and talk to and who you. wouldn't, but also it's like so let's. have the conversation that like I I.

don't know like if there's um if if. there is uh if there are experts out. there who can smack all of this stuff. down or just destroy every point that I. I make over the years or whatever, like, okay, so then do it and then let's see. Yeah. I remember. Well, that's a bit. weird cuz also then then it's like the. debate me bro thing. But but you just. you just criticize Daryl for not. debating. It's fine. It's fine. Yeah, I. know. Let me just make the main point. I. think what I'm trying to get at, Joe, is. that it's a bit like the Twitter. algorithm thing, which is yes, everyone.

is and should be free to say what they. like on Twitter, apart from whatever the. I mean the very fringe things of like. immediate incitement to violence and all. that kind of thing. But uh we all know. that one of the oddities of Twitter, including since Elon took over, is that. what you hope is a restored marketplace. of ideas, ends up pushing you really. crazy [ __ ] Yes. And that is what I'm. suggesting is happening on a podcast. level and maybe on a wider level beyond.

that. I get stuff on Twitter that I just. do not want. I do not want a guy with. one and a half thousand followers who's. got some zany new view on something who. isn't an expert but is an expert to be. pushed at me. And effectively what is. happening with the Twitter algorithm is. happening everywhere else as well. And. we're all for the open marketplace of. ideas. I want that. I thrive in it. But. it is it is different once you get into. the thing of is something manipulating.

the algorithm behind is the algorithm. being pushed on me? Why am I being given. this? Why am I not being given that? Why. am I being constantly pushed this view? And I think that the answer to a great. degree is the same thing in your world. as it is in the Twitter world, which is. if you go straight online and you say, you know, JFK file drops, uh, watch live. stream of Kennedy historians reading the. papers. live. You're not going to get any views.

No one's going to watch it. That's what. kind of what's needed is for the people. who know the documents to go through the. documents. But you and I know that if as. there was some guy who did immediately, you do something like uh live stream. Mossad involvement in. JFK. You're going to milk it. You're. going to cream it online. The money. comes in. I'm saying that there's a. similar algorithm in all of our lives. that we're not as aware of as we should. be, which is that we because we all know.

this at some level that there are. certain things that uh get your a bit of. your base going or get people going. interesting and crazy and then they. start debating it and all that sort of. thing. And that algorithm of online. seems to me to be spilling into the real. world. I I don't disagree that there's. certainly more sensationalist stuff will. get you more clicks. I I also don't. think that's a it's not really unique to. social media or podcasting. I mean, this. is right for the tabloids. Yeah. Right.

This has always been true, right? So, yeah. Okay. So, it's kind of one of the. problems arguing against that, you know. Um it's certainly never my intention. when I talk to someone to try to get. more views. It sounds crazy, but I'm. only talking to people that I'm. interested in talking to. And in Daryl's. case, it's because I've been a listener. of his podcast for years. That's it. This is like genuinely how I. pursue things. That's why you're here.

I'm genuinely interested in your views. as well. Even though you completely. disagree with him, that's I mean, this is the marketplace. of ideas in real time. I agree. Although, as I say, I think. you've massively underrepresented. the pro- Ukraine argument and the. pro-Israel argument in the last two. years. Um, I don't know. I mean, well, that's.

my observation. Okay, you're totally. allowed to have that. observation. What is the what's the pro-. Ukraine argument that you think is not. being represented enough? Well, my broad view is that again. something to do with the algorithm that. uh anything that is. uh conspiratorial about Zalinski or the. Ukrainians in the conflict does very. well. Anything that says actually the.

Ukrainian army is fighting to try to. retain as much of their country as they. can doesn't do as well. I think that. everything that. is pushing the idea that for instance. the Americans caused it or something. like that does well. I think everything. that says actually in February 2022. Vladimir Putin's tanks invaded Ukraine. and they shouldn't have done doesn't do. as well. I don't think I've ever heard. anyone say that what Vladimir Putin did.

wasn't horrific. That's not my point. The point is that after that you there's. a whole set of things. Let's look at for. instance the issue of corruption. Okay, Ukraine is a pretty corrupt country by. EU standards, by the uh by World Bank. standards. Um and it's been a problem as. it is in that neck of the woods. And. it's understandable that if the US is. one of the countries putting money and.

arms into Ukraine, then it's going to be. a subject of legitimate interest to the. American people and others, the European. taxpayers. Nevertheless, you end up in this, and I. know this because the same it's the same. thing in the old media. You end up on. like the new bit of the story, and. there's always a risk that you will lose. sight of the beginning of the story. for. instance, I mean, Putin's corruption is. legendary, gargantuan, and not as interesting. It.

seems to me the algorithm doesn't push. that. And I think that's to a greater. extent the case with the Israel Hamas. war as well. Well, isn't there a little. bit of a concern? Like I would say a. couple things here. Number one, I'm not. denying I don't know how the algorithm. works or what it's pushing and there and. it's an interesting thing that we. probably should all know more about, but. I think there's a danger when you're to. just c uh classify everything as well,

the algorithm pushes this and doesn't. push this. It's like it could also be. that some ideas are just resonating more. and some ideas are more popular than. other ideas. And there's probably. probably both of those things are at. work in that dynamic. But I also think. that something like the reason why say. talking about Ukrainian corruption is. more interesting in in a lot of ways. than talking about Russian corruption is. obviously because like well one of these. countries is an enemy and the other one. is one that we're sending tens of. billions of dollars to. So yes, well. debating on between Zalinsky and the.

weapons companies. I don't know. He says. he only got 70 billion dollars of it but. we've spent closer to 170. So whatever. But the the point is that obviously if. there is a country that we are propping. up, funding, arming, and they're. corrupt, I I would say my starting point. would always be to be more concerned. with that corruption than an enemy. country, which it's almost kind of a. given is a corrupt country. Like I I. don't know. I'm sure there are fringes. of the right uh uh who might say like.

Vladimir Putin's some great guy or. something like that, but that is I. really do not think that is the argument. that most people who are critical of. this of Biden's policy are are making. Sure. I I I mean I think that one of the. I think one of the interesting things. that happens in this is the old cliche. of losing the wood for the trees. Uh it. just happens an awful lot and it's the n. it's the nature of the the old news. cycle, let alone the current one, the. social media era. Um actually I remember that uh so I. would don't go back to World War II. Let.

me just very quickly I remember this. debate with Pat Buchanan when he was. debating much more learned historians on. the subject of the origins of World War. II and the whole thing got lost in all. of this sort of mad puzzle of views. about iron ore production in the. Bavarian forest and and this sort of. thing. And I remember everyone was all. over the place and the moderator turned. to the historian Andrew Robertson and. said, "Andrew Roberts, why did World War. II begin?" and he said World War II. began because Hitler invaded. Poland. And those moments come along.

quite often at the moment, which is yes, there's an awful lot of very interesting. things to look into. There's a lot of. very interesting things going on which. we should all be able to talk about and. do talk about, but sometimes you have to remember the. origin causes of things as well and you. have to stick to keeping that in mind. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and I think that a lot. of people are pretty bad at the moment. of keeping that in mind. Like you can. there you can concede Ukrainian.

corruption, you can concede uh all sorts. of things and still not lose sight of. the thing. of if Russia rolls tanks into. neighboring countries, yeah, it can't be. allowed. Oh, well, listen. Okay. So, on. that, I think we have an area of. agreement. And I do think like even um. while I much prefer uh the the path that. Donald Trump is pursuing to the path. that Joe Biden pursued when it comes to. the the war in Ukraine and of course. this is you know Donald Trump's thing is. once you piss him off he's going to call.

you every bad nickname that there is but. when he and sometimes when you don't. piss him off well sure but when he's. like come to mind what I I believe he. said uh that Zalinsky started the war or. something like that which is like okay. all right that's a little bit ridiculous. he said started the war and Zalinski was. the dictator. Yes. Okay. So Trump said. that. Yes. He's a but it was. after Zilinski started the war. Yeah. But it was this is how Donald Trump is. Love him or hate him for better or for. worse. Donald Trump it's like if if you.

he feels that you disrespected him or. come came at him, he's going to be 10. times more vicious. By the way, this. happened two weeks before the uh uh. disastrous Oval Office meeting. Yeah. And I wrote the next day the cover in. the New York Post which was a big. picture of Vladimir Putin with the. headline this is a dictator. just again as I say not to lose track in. all of the mele not to lose track of the. basic facts. Well, look, I I will say. this as somebody who is I'm I'm very.

anti-war, broadly speaking, and I do I. do agree with you that it should like we. should be able to have conversations. about all the things that led up to the. war and all the different, you know, like blunders that that were made and. also still recognize that Vladimir Putin. invaded a country and is responsible. for, you know, at least hundreds of. thousands of of people dying. And you. know, my uh um uh Scott Horton, who I. always try to promote on here, he just. wrote this book called Provoked. I think. it's the best book that's been written. on the uh history leading up to uh um.

the the war between is basically takes. you from the collapse of the Soviet. Union up to the war in Ukraine. And even. in that book, the book is called. Provoked. And the argument is that that. Western policy was very provocative. toward Vladimir Putin and there were a. lot of uh uh off-ramps that could have. been explored and should have been. explored. But he has an entire chapter. in the book where he is saying like look. these are Putin had a lot of other. options. He didn't have to do this. It's. not as if any of that justifies his. invasion. And so I do agree with you.

that whenever we're talking about a war. particularly a war of aggression. Um. that should always be in the front of. people's minds. I mean you can criticize. uh you know I I would say I think I'm. consistent on this across the board. You. can criticize uh lots of things about. the insurgency in Iraq. Um certainly, but you should remember that George W. Bush invaded the country when he. shouldn't have and based off lies. So I. I'll I say that when my government does. it. I'll say it when the Russian. government does it also. That being.

said, there's a very strong argument. that there were many policies that the. US, you know, NATO and Europe as well, but mostly the US pursued that were. just. almost like if you wanted to come to. this inevitable conflict, this would. have been the policy to pursue to give. you the best chance to end up there. One. of the, you know, um I was with a. British military friend recently and. somebody asked uh what does the fog of. war mean? And uh he gave a brilliant.

example of what it means on the. battlefield which a lot of people don't. understand. There's a version of the fog. of war in history as well. Uh the great. Czech writer Milan Candera had this. beautiful phrase in a book of his from. the '9s called testaments betrayed where. he said the odd thing about mankind is. he said we walk through life in a fog. and we stumble along a path and we. create the path as we stumble along it. So that's not the interesting thing. The. interesting thing is that when we look.

back, we see the man and we see the. path, but we don't see the fog. Everything looks inevitable when you're. standing in the present. Everything. looks like it was going to happen this. way. And you have these. endless, often fascinating, often futile. explorations of what might have been, but it doesn't take into account the. fog. It's a very good point. And the fog. of Russia after the fall of the Soviet.

Union was pretty considerable. The. efforts in the 1990s to bring them into. a more obvious part of the international. order failed. And my own view has always. been that in part we missed an. opportunity. uh to pay a kind of civilizational. respect to the Russians which they. deserved. Um but not but also throughout. the period that people now say there are. all of these. offramps and now so many people claim.

that NATO went around the region. desperately trying to provoke the. Russians into into some kind of war or. inevitably leading them that way because. of NATO expansionism. They never take. into account what was in my memory and. experience very clear which was NATO. didn't go to go around recruiting People. came to NATO. Countries came to NATO. wanting to join precisely because they. feared the aggression that Ukrainians. have suffered since February 2022. And.

indeed before I was in Georgia just. after the uh 2008 war began, the country. not the state. Um always has to be. confirmed otherwise people like when who. invaded Georgia. They're bastards. Uh but I was in the. country of Georgia and um uh Putin had. tried to invade them and had seized. south and abcasia and uh they were. desperate to join NATO. In fact, they're. desperate to join the European Union. I.

rather frivolously said to a Georgian. friend, uh if you want, we can swap, you. can take our British membership of the. EU. But um in the NATO thing, they were. desperate for it. and they were. desperate for it precisely for the. reason that so many of the Ukrainians. were desperate for it which was only way. to stop Putin expansionism. So, you. know, in the whole fog of the posts. Soviet era, that is one of the many. things that gets left out of the. conversation. And by the way, Putin's.

actions in February 2022 and since. uh all he's done is provoke two new. countries to join NATO and his borders. with NATO have grown. Finland and Sweden. wanted to join and the only reason. Finland and Sweden wanted to join was. because they too are scared. It's it's. it's a heck of a thing to get the. Swedish to join a military alliance. It. doesn't come easy to them. It doesn't. come natural. Uh and these uh these. countries joined because like Georgia, like Ukraine, they desperately feared.

Putinist expansionism. And they weren't. wrong. Okay. But I I get your point. Um, first off, the the war in in Georgia in. 2008 actually came what was it 2 or 3. months after the Bucharest summit where. NATO announced that Georgia and Ukraine. would be entering uh NATO. So just. making that point that that the NATO. aspirations came first. But listen, I. don't think you're wrong. I don't think. anybody is ever implying that like we've. expanded NATO through force and that the. countries who were joining or at least.

the governments of the countries who. were joining didn't want it. Although in. the case of Ukraine, there was a great. piece in the Washington Post about this. in 2006 where joining NATO was actually. very unpopular and there was a lot done. and largely because they just didn't. want to take on the headache of the. conflict that this might provoke. But. you know the question I think isn't. necessarily like do these countries wish. to join NATO. Of course I think most. countries in the world would like to. join NATO. I think mo most countries in. the world would like the most powerful.

government in the history of the world. to guarantee their defense and subsidize. their defense. The question is is that. in America's interest and in terms of. your point of seeing through the fog I. mean look there was as you know well in. the '9s in the late '90s during the. first round of NATO expansion there was. a lively debate amongst this and I don't. mean a debate amongst outsiders or. non-expert experts or or whatever. I. mean, within the real deal experts, the. wisest gray beers in the national. security apparatus, there was a real. debate with at least three secretaries.

of defense who warned against this. Uh, Robert Gates, Robert McNamar, William. Perry, the secretary of defense at the. time, almost resigned, said his biggest. regret in life is that he didn't resign. over it. George Kennan was able to see. right through that fog. He literally. said the cold warrior, founder of the. containment strategy, saw right through. that fog and goes, "This will inevitably. lead to a conflict with Russia." and his. exact words were and then when there's a. Russian response everybody will say look. this is why we needed to expand uh NATO. but the the point here is okay even. within that deep debate which there were.

lively debates about even the people who. were on the pro-expansionist side of. things uh like Henry Kissinger even he. said Ukraine would have to be a special. arrangement Ukraine will not come into. NATO because obviously that's leading to. a war with with Russia and so I don't. think It's unreasonable and I think this. is a fair thing that we should do in all. conflicts is like to have as as uh. Mirshimer puts it to have strategic.

empathy to say like hey listen let's. let's reasonably place ourselves in the. other person's shoes and say how would. we react if somebody was expanding their. military alliance that is explicitly. anti- US and is bringing it up to our. borders and now is openly for years and. years and years saying that we are going. to bring your largest neighbor where you. have very important strategic interests. from your point of view into our. military alliance and you are saying. over and over again this is our.

brightest red line do not do this and. then they keep flirting with doing this. over and over then they back a street. push that overthrows the government. there don't you think maybe that would. be a provocation. first of all two things the if you want. that strategic empathy that I'm I'm not. an admirer of. Um but if you want to do. that um you can do it the other way. round as well. Surely. Yeah. I mean do. the same thing with the Ukrainians. Do.

the Latvians and others. Yeah. But I. would never Douglas. But my response to. you was never I can't understand why the. Latians or or the Lithuanians would want. to be in NATO. I understand. Yes. Right. And I can understand why Russia thought. that Ukrainian membership in NATO was a. red line. I can understand that. But. that wasn't why Putin invaded in. 2022. He uh and I think that and I think. there's an oddity if I can say so. Maybe. this particular comes across on the. libertarian bisexual side, but the I. think there's an oddity of the uh Let. the record show him a happily married.

heterosexual man. Um they all say that. Um I think there's an oddity that. sometimes particularly happens on the. libertarian side which is which is a. presumption that things only really. happen in the world because we make them. so. And you know Russia invades Ukraine. because of American policy in Eastern. Europe post 1989 1990. uh something happens in the Middle East. because of American policy. And I think.

it's a very blinkered and parochial view. of things because my experience in. countries around the world is that. there's a heck of a lot going on that. America is frankly not really involved. in. Well, that that's certainly a straw. man of my position. I am not what I'm. saying. No, no, no. But what I'm saying. is it is very in fact it's partly since. you very kindly raised the issue, Joe, your book. It's one of the things. democracies and death cults. It's it's. one of the things I find very. interesting about this with democracies.

which is that it's one of the things in. the nature of a liberal democracy that. because we have the right to air our. opinion because we have the right to. criticize our government and much more. we end up doing all of that and there is. a misapprehension people can come to I. don't know if you do but they can come. to which is effectively we are the only. force that causes action in the world. and there's a reason for that which is. We have, thank God, a say in how liberal.

democracies are run and how we're. governed. And we can chew over all of. the disagreements that we have. But when a liberal democracy comes. against a kind of rock like a death. cult, a totalitarian regime, a. dictatorship like Russia or the Iranian. revolutionary government, there's always. this temptation to say to to to focus. our attention on our own side because we. can't do a darn thing about the other.

one. It's a version of you know the. great late senator Daniel Patrick Mohan. said when he was ambassador to the UN he. had this great rule uh sort of known. among those who want to know about it as. Mohan's rule which is he said if you sit. at the UN or the UN human rights council. or any of these bodies you would come. away with the belief that the most. abused people with the fewest rights in. the world live in America and other. western liberal societies.

And he came because we're the ones that. talk about it. You know, if there's one. incident of racism in America, the whole. world knows about it. Everyone reads it. is there'll be protests everywhere. If. there's one incident of racism in North. Korea, it's not going to make any news. And then you have on top of that the. fact that uh the the the way in which. desperatisms and death cults and. dictatorships work, the information just. doesn't come out. And Moy has rule ended. up being that the uh it's an interesting.

point. He said he said uh that his rule. by the end of his time at the UN was. that the number of human rights. violations that occur in a country. happen in exactly inverse proportion to. the numbers of claims of human right. violations because only only the. countries which care about it and which. such things can be aired in are ever. going to get it out. But the the the. point of Moyahan's law and the warning. of it is be careful not to come away. with the mistaken idea that the freest.

and most liberal societies are the. worst. And I think there's a version of. Moyahan's law that applies whether it's. to the Middle East, to Ukraine and. Russia, which is we come away with this, people may come away with the impression. that the bad things in the world. effectively all come from here. And. there is quite a lot to be said for some. of that, but there's not everything to. be said. And much of the world runs on a. dynamic and a dynamo which you can't do.

a darn thing about other than to try to. understand it. Yeah. Okay. So I I mean. again I. certainly there there there is truth to. a lot of that and I think that is a. fascinating kind of uh dynamic where. there is something about kind of like. you know I noticed this even um just. with my own kids like it's like and. people when you have kids and you raise. them really you know like you're really. sweet to them and you don't hit them and. you give them a good life small things. end up becoming huge in like things in.

their mind like someone pushed me at the. playground and it's like whoa this is. whereas like the way I grew up that. would have just been kind of like a a. non-event. But anyway, I think it would. be certainly incorrect to assume that um. everything that happens bad in the world. is somehow a consequence of US meddling. I also think that there's people on the. other side here, maybe the people who. are more uh neoconleaning, more war uh. hockey leaning, um they have a tendency. to only focus on the bad things that.

everybody else does and act like our uh. policies have no impact on this. ridiculous, right? So very specifically, you know, with the uh Russian invasion. of Ukraine, and I'll just get two like. bullet points on this, and there's we. could talk about a lot of this, but. look, number one, in in 2008, as as you. well know, right, the Joe Biden CIA. director, who was the CIA director for. the entire war up until Donald Trump. just came back in, he wrote the net. means net memo to Condisa Rice, a. private cable to the then secretary of.

state when he was ambassador to Russia. to let her know that this flirting with. bringing Ukraine Ukraine into NATO is. going to end up in a war. And by the. way, the Russians don't want to do it. His words exactly. If you keep pushing. with this, the Russians are going to. have they are going to have to make a. decision that they don't want to make, which is whether they intervene or not. And number two, uh, Straw Strottenberg, uh, if I might be butchering that again, but the the head of NATO, he he himself. said that Vladimir Putin sent him a. draft treaty in late 2021 and said,

"Look, if you just put into writing that. you will not bring Ukraine into NATO, I. won't invade." Now, if you want to argue. that um, this this pre you I admire your appeal. to authority to the head of the CIA. I. just. Well, how is that an appeal to. authority? You you you regard the the. the view of the CIA director on that. occasion as being useful for your. argument. But secondly, secondly, there's an.

oddity to believing what Vladimir Putin. says. No, wait, hold on. You didn't let. me finish my point. So, so don't believe. what he says. I I'm not going to pretend. to read his heart and mind or something. like that, but at the very least, you. handed him the giant excuse in order to. do it. I mean, maybe he doesn't really. believe it, but this is his argument to. his own people and to the world that. it's like, look, and and we put him in a. position if you know, if you hate. Vladimir Putin, he's such a terrible. guy. Well, we put him in this position. where he gets to now very plausibly say.

to the international community in the. same way that if the Soviet Union had. survived and a and the United States had. he doesn't very plausibly have the. opportunity to do that. He invaded. Ukraine because he wanted to annex the. whole country because he was trying to. pretend that the whole place had been. run by Nazis. Well, I mean, okay, the. whole place wasn't run by Nazis. There. certain certainly were Nazis. This is. what he told the Russian people. Um, oh, he also brought up, listen, when he you. can lie an awful lot when you're a. dictator and you have the ability not.

just to run all of the media, but to. kill your political opponents. I mean, you can do an awful lot. Sure. Um, none of none of this, you know, I. just got back from Ukraine again the. other week and it's so weird. I I saw. the the Oval Office meeting as it. happened from a trench in the front line. between the Russian and Ukrainian. positions in the east of the country and. it was so weird seeing the way in which. this country's territory was being. talked about by outsiders and.

particularly by America. because there's there's so many oddities. about it but the people who are fighting. there the soldiers on the front lines. like the ones I was. with, they're not fighting against Putin. forces because of NATO expansion or. anything. They're they're fighting. because. he lied to his own army. He lied to his. own people. He lies to the world and he.

decided he wanted to gobble up Ukraine. because he wants to reconstitute the. Soviet Union. And as a result, these. young men are in dugouts in the middle. of winter um fighting Russian soldiers. because the Ukrainians homes are 30. kilometers behind them. And I just I. think among much else that's stuff that. cannot be forgotten about. None of this. is simply about NATO expansion or this. or that. It's about a country whose. people are suffering in their third year.

of war. And it's almost total war. It's. total war as we've got in the modern. age. And um but that's not but that's. not I'm not disagreeing with any of. that. I'm not saying the Ukrainian. people were fighting because they wanted. to keep their country. People don't very. much like being invaded by foreign. countries. I I understand that. completely. And I've also always said. throughout this whole thing that is. their right. They have a right to do. that. We as Americans have a right to,

you know, have an opinion on whether our. government ought to be funding and. arming the thing. But all I'm saying is. that it's I'm not making an appeal to. authority here. I'm just saying that you. have the the top people at the in the. Russian government all unanimously. saying like this is our red line. You. keep flirting with NATO expansion into. Ukraine and then you have all the people. at the top of NATO and at the top of the. US government admitting it too and going. like yeah this is the whole beef. So why. is it like these two things aren't. mutually exclusive? No, they aren't. They aren't. But I mean they weren't.

going to expand NATO to Ukraine. Well, they kept flirting with it and you know. this no that the Ukrainians wanted. membership and it was very unwise. whenever anyone from the rest of the. West even flirted with it. Didn't Kla. Harris openly say that NATO was going to. join you? Yeah. Shortly before Ukraine. was going to join NATO? Yeah, I I never. saw her as the Kissinger of our era, which I agreed. Now, there's an there's. some area of agreement. Douglas can come. he's the guy for that. Well, obviously. that guy's the future. Uh but but okay.

but it is the still the vice president. of the United States of America and it's. listen it's not just again that's not. why Putin invaded but you can he invaded. because he because of the thing he's. dreamt of since he falling down of the. Soviet Union is you know how he dreams. we know a lot from what he said and what. he's done since the fall of the Soviet. Union and his statements certainly very. early on in his presence right but if he. does have a red line and you violate. that red line is that because he's. following his dreams or it's because. He's his dream is, as is said many.

times, is the reconstitution of the. Soviet Union's territory. I don't think. that's exactly what he's said. He's he's. alluded many times to like how great the. Soviet Union was and what a tragedy it. is that it it collapsed and things like. that. But regardless, something we can. agree is a fiction on his part. I mean, oh, I think the Soviet Union collapsing. is one of the greatest things that's. ever happened in the history of the. world. One of the most evil regimes, if. not the most evil, the result of. American action. Uh, sure. There's there.

were a lot of factors in there, but. throw in some pro-American views. I want. I will certainly concede that um uh US. uh luring them into Afghanistan uh was. played a huge role in weakening the. Soviet Union. It came with the minor. little price tag of 911. But okay, that's uh but you know that's the Soviet. Union did not fall just because of. Afghanistan. No, I didn't say I said it. played a role. I didn't say it was just. because of. Afghanistan of European troops. Also. because communism as an economic model. just doesn't work and it was a disaster.

and it was destined to collapse like all. centrally planned totally socialist. economies are are destined to for bad. results. I don't like the word destined. in that because I mean in my experience. things that don't work can go on an. awfully long time. Well, look, the. Soviet Union went on an awfully long. time. I mean, it was I thought when I. went to North Korea some years ago that. couldn't go on for much longer and on it. goes. Yeah. No. Okay. So fair point. there, but certainly it's going to be, you know, it's it's a much different uh. dynamic for a communist uh country like. North Korea who is a relatively small.

and um not expansionist, whereas the. Soviet Union was trying to maintain an. empire, which is a much tougher thing to. do. Look, the United States of America. is going broke trying to do it. So it. was pretty tough for them to do. All I'm. saying here is that like if you I if the. dynamic again it's not just that like. first off in 2008 at the Bucharest. summit we announced we were doing it and. we didn't give them a map plan but we. announced they are coming into NATO over. and over not just uh um the Camala.

Harris comment over and over and over. again through the years people at the. highest level of the US government. asserted that this is going to happen. that it's a matter of time and then the. 2014 this was a major major uh um. provocation toward the Russians that we. backed this street protest against the. democratically elected government there. and and that's that's again it's tricky. because the Maidan uh protests were. genuine students in the center of the. city who were uprising against a corrupt.

government. I'm not even arguing that. Ukraine's a correct, you know, and that. again, it's like it's the people of. Ukraine, like other countries, I mean, they do have agency beyond what. Washington Yeah. I'm not claiming any of. those people don't have agency. I'm just. claiming that Washington poured hundred. million dollars into the thing and sent. our politicians over there. Our. politicians openly saying, "We're on. your side. You have the backing of. America." Look, but historically. historically, you know, America does. like to be has liked to be on the side. of people who desire freedom over.

autocracy. Yeah. When it's convenient, not so much when it's not. Well, not in. Saudi Arabia, not in Egypt. I'm glad you. joined me in my dislike of the House of. S. Okay, fine. But no, but I'm but look, it does attack worried from him in that. Yeah, but it does attack your central. point there that it's like, no, I'm. sorry. Like see this is my be my beef. isn't ever with talking about the. corruption or the evil things that other. other governments do. What I don't like. is this whitewashing over our own. corruption and the evil things that are. the idea that America we we have a.

history of just standing with the people. because we love democracy so much. No, we use that as an excuse when we think. it's in our strategic advantage. We will. overthrow democratically elected. governments with no problem. Which by. the way, uh Yanukovich was. democratically elected with elections. verified by the EU. But I'm not denying. any of those kids had agency. And I'm. sure a lot of them were protesting. against their own corrupt government. But the point is that like look, imagine. on uh I think it Jeffrey Sachs came up. with this, isn't mine, but imagine on. January 6th if like uh Chinese.

politicians were coming over and handing. out sandwiches to the the rioters and. saying, "We have your back. We have I. mean, listen, we would lose our. collective minds if another country came. in and did something like that." Okay? And but I mean we lost our collective. minds about Vladimir Putin installing. Donald Trump and it was all just. completely made up. It wasn't even a. real thing. But so to think okay we did. lose our minds on that. A certain subset. of the main lost their minds wasn't even.

a subset for me being mainet. Yeah. For. for me being the bisexual libertarian. here you have uh you have corrected me. on my collectivism several times here. and you are right. Yes we didn't lose. our mind. I am speak but others many. other people here did. But you look I. mean you're pouring $100 million into a. street protest against a democratically. elected uh president of Ukraine and the. whole issue is over essentially whether. he's going to tilt toward an economic. deal with Europe or tilt toward an.

economic deal with Vladimir Putin. I. mean, Douglas, like if anyone did that. in our region of the world, we would DC. would overthrow that government, invade. in a moment. If China poured $100. million into Mexican protests and was. able to overthrow the democratically. elected government, what do you think DC. would change the uh subject maybe, but. um Qatar pours hundreds of millions of. dollars into this country, billions. indeed, and tries to change policy in.

this country. And uh nobody's trying to. overthrow Qatar. Nobody's trying to. throw the overthrow the Amir or his. family. And they are they've been. poisoning American universities, American institutions, buying up. American politicians. They pour billions. into this country. I think I just sent. you something about that this morning. Yes. I mean, well, okay, but that is a. little bit different than overthrowing. our neighbor government and trying. to you're saying that like we'd lose our. mind if anyone tried to interfere here. There are lots of people saying and the.

most obvious one is kata uh which which. has poured money into DC and into elite. institutions and universities in this. country and I don't find from one week. to the next anyone who's particularly. riled up about it. Well, so they've been. I mean so they're pouring money into DC. uh and so do you think that they are. influencing US policy through doing. that? I think they're trying to. Yeah, maybe maybe they are trying to. They're definitely succeeding with the. universities and others. Maybe for sure.

they should try with the the political. class more if they're trying to turn us. anti-Israel or something like that cuz. both major parties in this country will. fund and and unconditionally support. Israel no matter what. So I mean I don't. know no matter what but I mean uh Kata. is is definitely trying to influence. things their way as other countries are. Uh I mean I just I cite it as an example. of something that's very interesting. which is an attempt to interfere in. American public life which gets almost. no attention and uh um indeed the uh the.

governments whether Democrat or. Republican still seem to adore the. Qataris. uh even as they uh they act as one of. the backers of terrorist groups across. the Middle East and elsewhere. And I I I. cannot understand why it doesn't get. more attention. Well, according to the. former uh defense minister of Israel, they uh they were begging uh cutter to. pour that money into Hamas. No, that's not what happened. Well, that's what he said. Yeah. His words, begging. Um the uh you you're referring.

to the funding of Hamas in the 2010s. Yes. Yeah. No, the the Qataris poured. the money in and the question on the. Israeli side was what you allowed to do. with funds that were going into Gaza and. they the Israelis allowed the funds to. go from Katar to I think a little bit. more than that. I think when the funds. dried up uh Netanyahu sent the head of. the MSAD in there to beg him to keep the. funds going. Again, I'm not sure. It's. like quoting the head of the CIA, quoting the head of the Mossad. So. maybe, but that's not the that's not the.

evidence of the last 18 years. I mean, it's you can Okay, so I I mean, I guess. I think I'm allowed to quote powerful. people when they admit what they're. doing. I mean, it's kind of No, I know, but again, I mean, it's just it's just. an interesting thing because again, it's. a discipline about this, which is do I. only quote powerful people when they say. the odd thing that I agree with, or do I. simultaneously distrust all powerful. people? It's just an interesting. rhetorical Well, no. I mean, I think.

that obviously like I I don't blindly. trust any uh anyone in the political. class or the media class uh for that. matter either. But when they admit. things that are like very against their. interest to admit uh and kind of give. away the whole game that now they're. pretending doesn't matter. Are you sure. CIA or must add that it isn't just if. they say something that you happen to. want to be the case? Well, this is kind. of like saying if I were to end on trial. and I were to like I'm the prosecution. and I'd enter into evidence a written.

confession by the defendant and you go, "Well, are you only entering this in. because this kind of goes along with. your case?" Like I I suppose we're all. guilty of having these these incentives. to some degree, but I do think it's a. relevant detail that the former defense. secretary admitted this. And by the way, Netanyahu's admitted this. Ahoud Barack. has admitted this. They admitted that. they allowed funds to go from Katar to. Hamas because Hamas was in the Gaza for. the reason of preventing the. establishment of a Palestinian state. No, that was not the case. That is what. Netanyahu said. That is what Ahoud.

Barack said. It's all up and down. One. uh uh claim there's one recording of. Netanyahu saying something along those. lines. But look, I mean, we should get. on we should get on to it. I could read. you the quotes from Ahood Barack as. well. All of them have talked about it. the the situation. Let's let's get on to. it. Uh the situation there and the war of. the last 18 months now, more than 18. months in the Middle East, uh is a. result not of that, but of Hamas.

deciding to start another war with. Israel and trying to annihilate their. neighbor. And but you don't think if. they if they were being propped up by. Israel, that has nothing to do with. being propped up by Israel. The reason. why Hamas were in power as you know much. much against the interests of the. Israelis was that they were voted into. power after the Israelis withdrew from. Gaza in '05. Condisa Rice and other. American and other American states folk.

uh insisted that the Palestinians should. have elections straight after the. Israeli withdrawal. They had elections. uh perhaps unwisely and Hamas won and. then didn't have another election again. and ruled the Gaza for 18 years until. they finally got the great fruit of. their labors on the 7th of October 2023. and um. uh went around southern Israel. massacring everyone and they could. including young people at a dance party.

and then caused in turn uh the. destruction of the place that they were. meant to be governing. It's uh the whole. thing is a great tragedy and all of it. is at the feet of Hamz. Um I certainly. agree with you that it's a it's a great. tragedy. Um and I do you know I think. it's. it's you know when you accuse me of. using the quotes that kind of you know. back up what I believe I think it's very.

convenient here to remove all. responsibility from the Israelis. Like. even if I'm telling you that you have. these quotes, I mean I'm again I'm not. talking about fringe fig figures uh. figures. We we could read through the. list of people who have admitted what. the strategy was with uh them funding. Hamas and propping him up. But hold on, let me just say so if you're going to. tell me Israel props up this this. terrorist organization in order to kill. the peace process, in order to make sure. that the international community gives. them a no one, By the way, uh Smootrich, right, the the finance minister, okay,

he's on record. He's on record saying, "Look, Hamas is an asset. The. Palestinian Authority, they're the. liability. Hamas is an asset because we. then we can tell the international. community, well, look, what do you want. us to do? There's a terrorist. organization here. We can't do business. with them." And and then even audac. admitted like this was also so that. liberal uh um Israelis, you know, if it. was the Palestinian Authority, they'd be. like, "Hey, we should make a deal with. them, but since it's Hamas, they can't.". Okay. So if Israel props up this. terrorist organization and then as a. response to them committing a horrific.

act of terrorism decides to level the. entire place and just slaughter women. and children in large numbers decided to. do that and it didn't do that but yeah. it didn't level the place. Gaz is not. hasn't been destroyed pretty leveled by. now. Yeah. But it did not go in to level. the place like that. No. Okay. They went. in and leveled the place. But that. wasn't their intention. Let's just let's. just go back to the beginning if we can. Sure. Because it's important. Um, since you're interested in the. question of the Palestinian state, the. Palestinians were given another state in.

2005 when every single Jew was removed. from the Gaza by the IDF and when even. the graves of Israelis in Gaza were dug. up and taken into the rest of. Israel. the the of all of the whatifs of. Palestinian Arab history, the era since. 2005 should be one of the great whatifs, which is what if the American taxpayers. money that was poured into Gaza, the.

European Union taxpayer money that was. poured into Gaza had been used by a. government in Gaza to build a state that. lived side by side with their Israeli. neighbors and flourished. And it's not like the money wasn't. there. It's not like there wasn't the. international will. Uh Ishmael Haneir. and the other leaders of Hamas used that. money as you know to make themselves. billionaires and to buy themselves and. their kids condos in Qatar and to live.

extremely well whilst withholding the. money from the Palestinian people whilst. building their network of tunnels. throughout Gaza and building an. infrastructure of terror. And that's. what they did with 18 years in. Gaza. And of all of the whatifs, just. consider that that one was in their. hands. The Israelis did not make them. vote in Hamas. The Israelis would not. want a terrorist entity that wants to.

annihilate the state of Israel that is. there on their doorstep constantly. firing rockets, starting wars every few. years. that why would the Israelis want a group. there that means that if you're living. in towns like Stat or Ashkon or Ashdod, your children grow up all the time. knowing that they might have to go to. the bomb shelters and that's during. peace time. Well, according to them, the. reason they want it there is because.

then it kills the peace process and then. you have a a no uh no one to negotiate. with certificate and that then you can. keep your eyes on building up. settlements in the West Bank. There are. as now many people to negotiate with. Mahmud Abbaz may be, I don't know, as. the joke goes, currently in something. like his 20th year of his first. four-year term as head of the. Palestinian Authority. But Mahmud Abbas. is there in Ramla. The compounds of the. Palestinian Authority, which I've been. to many times in Ramallah, are there.

They run their portions of the West. Bank. They could be there to negotiate. with at any moment. The Israelis have. said they want to negotiate with them at. any moment and come to the deal. In. fact, Netanyahu, you're so fond of. quoting, said again before this war. began that he would come to the table. with no um uh red lines to begin with to. start another negotiation with the. Palestinian Authority. But let's just. get back to this thing because this is. so crucial. I am so.

startled by the post October the 7th. world. not just in Israel and Gaza and. everywhere where I've spent most of the. last 18 months, but in what's happening. here in the United States of America, it. blows my mind much of the response here. and the desire to leap over the first. victims of this and go on to all of the. proximate causes, theoretical causes,

whatifs, and so on. I was, as I described in the opening of. this book, I was in New York on the 7th. of October and I I woke up and started. seeing what was. happening and discovered that later that. day already there were attempts there. were um plans to organize a protest in. Times Square. And what was the protest. in Times Square? Massive protest in. support of Hamas as the massacre was. still going on. And one of the things I. just cannot get out of my head is why in.

the last 18 months when Hamas did what. they did have so many people made. excuses for them or decided to side with. them or deny their actions or excuse. their actions. Why do you think that is? Several very very big things. Um, one. is, um, I think people wanted to ignore the. nature of the atrocity because it was so. appalling that it went against much of. their.

narrative. Um, I was at a reunion of one. of the survivors of the Nova Party on. one occasion and he said to me, "What. would you uh do if this had happened in. your country?" And I thought, "Well, it. hasn't happened at this scale, but. something like it has happened." the. Ariana Grande arena bombing in. Manchester in. 2017, the Batclan massacre in Paris in. 2015, the Pulse nightclub shooting in. 2015. But all of these occasions when.

young people were murdered for being at. a pop concert or a. nightclub, the world's attention, the. world's empathy, the world's sympathy. went to the victims. Only in the case of the young Israelis. dancing in the early hours of the. morning on October the 7th, 2023 do the victims become victimized. again and not believed. The. era we lived through in the late 2010s. was the era of believe all women. And of.

all the Israeli women who were raped. that morning, much of the international. community does not want to listen to. them at all and certainly doesn't want. to believe them. And there are many. reasons. one at the most fundamental. level is that I think a part of a. generation that's coming up has been. told there is something especially. wicked about Israel. That there is. something especially wicked about. Israel's existence and its actions and. its people. And it means that when their.

people are burned alive in their homes. or raped at a music festival and shot in. the head, they are uniquely undeserving. of sympathy. And I think that people. have been indoctrinated by very bad. actors into this and as a result have. excused atrocities or make excuses for. them, make excuses for the people who do. them. I think in addition it plays to. the some of the darkest things of uh the.

regional mind as well as the. international mind. The aims of. Hamas, the stated aims include the. annihilation of the Jewish. people. And October the 7th, they had. their best go at doing that. And the fact that in a in a decision. between whether or not you're on the. side of the people who want to dance and. live in peace with their neighbors or. whether you're on the side of the people.

who want to rampage through a dance. party bar in the early morning. macheteing at people. I find it amazing. that there are so many people who don't. know which side they're on. But there. are a lot of them. There are a lot of. reasons for that. But one of the. foremost reasons is the fact that the. state of Israel has been uniquely lie, has been uniquely lied about. Its. history has been uniquely lied about. It. has been uniquely put under an. international spotlight and then.

misrepresented in a way which I cannot. think of many other countries in the. world that have been treated that way. And there are um deep reasons for it and. shallow reasons for it. The deep reasons. include some of the most ancient. bigotries of the human heart. And the. shallow reasons are people who don't. know what the hell they're talking. about. Um okay. I think. that there's Look, I I'm not going to.

speak for what every person out there. believes. I I don't exactly agree with. like the characterization that there was. no outpouring of like feeling after. October 7th and certainly like everybody. I know was just like oh my god this is. like a horrific atrocity and like what. the an unprecedented terrorist attack. from Hamas the worst terrorist attack in. Israeli history um against Israelis and. it it was horrible. I think what a lot. of there I'm not I'm not arguing that.

there are no people who are actually. pro- Hamas or there are no people who. are actually like hate Jews or something. like that. I do think that what happens. is that a lot of people get put in that. category who do not belong there much. like we've seen this over the last year. and a half where a lot of people you. know you have um uh John Pud Horitz. calling Thomas Massie anti-semitic scum. because he said we're dead broke. we. can't afford to fund everybody else's. war here. Um, people have been calling.

Tucker Carlson uh anti-semitic all over. the place, but these are two guys, Thomas Massie and Tucker Carlson, who. have never uttered the words the Jews in. their life. Like they they're just not. anti-semites at all. So, there's a lot. of people I think who are when they're. critical of the Israeli government's. response to this get lumped in as pro-. Hamas. I I will certainly say that's. certainly not my position. I think your. description of them, death cult, by the. way, the same term that Daryl Cooper uh. Daryl Cooper used to describe Hamas, I. think is an accurate one. Um, and it was.

horrible. But I I think that the, you. know, I think that your. characterization, first of all, of of. that they gave the Palestinians a state. in 2005 is just wrong. And I just think. that is not at all an accurate way to. describe the disengagement, which we. could get into more if you want to. But. first of all, I would just point out. that if the if the two-state solution. was achieved, um I assume you're arguing. it was taken away after that. You're not. still arguing that the Palestinians have. a state or are you saying they have had.

a state since 2005? They had they were. given a state and the Gaza. And when did. it when was it taken away? Well, they. kind of screwed it up for themselves on. the 7th October. So you're saying from. 2005 all the way till October 7th there. there was a two-state solution. It had. been achieved. Well, it was another. state. Yeah. Okay. But that would be two. states then. No, it was another state. It was different from the PA. Okay. Right. But I'm saying a Palestinian. state. Yeah. Okay. So what's interesting. about that is that this is not how like. this is not how any of the leaders.

really describe it. I mean when. Netanyahu himself is not claiming that. there they had already achieved a. two-state solution. Why are you talking. about this? What happened in 2005 in the. disengagement was that essentially. Israel went from occupying the place to. surrounding the place and they've had it. under a brutal blockade um since 2007. And yes, you were right. Why do you. think why why do you I don't agree the. blockade was brutal by any means? You. really you don't think the blockade of. Gaza was brutal? I mean I how brutal do. you think the Egyptians are? Pretty.

brutal. Yeah, they laid allowed stuff. in. Okay. I mean, since some stuff has. gotten in. Yes, that's true. Since No, more than some stuff. More than some. stuff. Okay. Some from I'll say this, right? Because there's been different. levels of blockade even before 2007. Going back, I know in 1996 they had like. a a pretty strong blockade that year. According to the World Bank, it. contracted 40% of the GDP of Gaza. So. just for uh for for reference the Great.

Depression we was a 30% contraction. This was in 1996. For one year they gave. them something worse than our Great. Depression. That was just one year. They. from 2007 on there's been a blockade of. that country. You don't think that's. kept the country poor? Why do you think. there's a blockade of any kind? Why is. there a blockade? Well, I mean the the. argument from Israel would be No. What. do you think? I would say okay I think that the. disengagement I think Smootrich was.

correct when he said that I'm sorry I my. my mistake there I think the um which. another quote that I'm sure you're. familiar with but uh uh Dove Weissclav. uh who was the senior adviser to Chiron. who was the prime minister at the time. he essentially said the reason we're. doing the disengagement the reason we're. doing this is so that we can put the. peace process in for Maldahhide that ex. this is the reason we're not answering. my. question right-wing Israeli politicians. but what do I'm getting there. I'm. getting there. I'm saying so I think. they disengaged in order to kill the.

peace process. I think they put the full. blockade around the country for the. reason that they've always kind of done. it there. That yeah, they don't want too. much stuff getting in. They want to keep. them, as they put it, on a diet and they. don't want uh rockets to fly into. Israel. The second one is a kind of. important one, isn't it? The final one. you said it is. Um, if if uh the. Palestinian leadership in Gaza after. 2005 had not from the get-go decided to. use Gaza as a stockpiling place for.

rockets to fire into Israel, all of it. would be different if they had just. resisted the temptation that so many of. us do in our lives to stop keeping RPGs. in our cellars and then Kusha rockets in. our children's bedrooms. All of it could. have been different if that desire to. live in peace beside your neighbors had. superseded the desire to stockpile. rockets. It would all be different. Yeah. Or if Israel just had occupied.

them for 60 years, it would all be. different, too. I mean, why is it always. on them? Well, you believe in. self-determination, I'm sure. Yes. I. believe in individual rights. Yeah. Sure. Okay. Individual rights. And that. includes the right to make bad. decisions. Yes. The Palestinians in Gaza when they. voted in Hamas made a very bad decision. Yeah, of course. Hang on. Hang on. And. in the years after that, they made bad. decision after bad decision. It was a.

very bad decision to continually fire. thousands of rockets into Israel. It was. a very bad decision to use what boats. came in early on and the and and to use. the smuggling networks from Egypt, not. to bring in supplies that you could. actually build a thriving society with, but to bring in rockets. It was a very. bad idea. No, there was not starvation. in Gaza after 2005. No, there was no. deficit of goods coming in. I've been. plenty of time. No deficit. No, there.

are plenty. There are plenty. How many. Have you been to the crossing points? No. When were you last there at all? I've. never been. You've never been? Well, I'm not Am I. not allowed to talk about it now? I've. never been to Have you ever been to Nazi. Germany? Are you allowed to have. feelings about them? You can't time. travel, but you can but you can travel. Okay, but so what? So what's the point? Like I find that lots of people have. been there and agree with me and lots of. people have been there and agree with. you. If you're going to spend a year and. a half talking about about a place, you.

should at least do the courtesy of. visiting it. All right. I just think. this is a non-argument. Okay. No, I think it's a non-argument. But if. you're an ex Well, you have to go and. touch the ground. No, I think you have. to see I think it's a good idea to see. stuff, particularly if you spend a. career talking about something. Yes. I I. have a journalistic rule of trying never. to talk about a country even in passing. unless I've at least been there. Okay. It's sort of normal in it's a normal. thing to do. You're talking about Hang.

on. talking about crossing points and. not only have you never been to a. crossing point in either Egypt or in. Israel, but you've never even been to. the region. Okay. Again, I think this is. a non-argument. I don't understand. No, it's not a non-argument. Yeah, it is. It's not a non-argument if you're. insisting that you're an expert of some. kind or not claiming you're an expert, but still talking about it about the. provisions going into Gaza or not. if. you've never seen any of this going on. So, you're not allowed to speak about. things that you've read about. You ha.

you can only speak about things that. you've seen with your own eyes. You can. talk about what you want. Uhhuh. As. you're. proving, but that is a different matter. from spending an awfully long amount of. time talking about an issue in a region. you haven't even had the courtesy to. visit. whilst developing all of these. views about it. I mean, now I slightly. get an idea of where you're coming from.

You've read about this. blockade and so you imagine that that's. what it is. I imagine you've read all. the people who say that Gaza was a. concentration camp and you probably. think that too. Am I right? I mean, again, literally a. concentration camp. It shares a lot of. similarities, I would think. Wow. Well, as I say, you can't time travel back to. the era. Let's go back to the book to.

the Middle East and actually visit. Okay. The world the World Bank said in. 1996 for the one year is quoting the. World Bank. I love it. It doesn't mean. anything. This is a non-argument. Yes, I'm saying the World Bank did their own. analysis of this and they said that it. was a 40% your own analysis. Hold on. You got to stop interrupting and let him. finish the sentences. The World Bank. said that 40% drop in the GDP of one. year due to the blockade and there's. been a blockade from 2007 on. So are you. saying that there this hasn't had an.

economic effect? Is that the argument? No, I'm of course it'll have an economic. effect. So you're saying you have to be. on the ground and do an audit of the. blockade in order to be able to combat? I think you should at least know what it. is, what the territory is, what the what. the situation is in the region. Yes, absolutely. And the only way to do that. is to be there in person. I think that's. the best way. It's not the only way, but. it's the best way for sure. For sure. If. you have never seen the countries in. question, you've never spoken to the. people in question, you've never. interviewed anyone, you've never gone. around, you've never seen the terrain.

and so on, and you've used Wikipedia. I'm sorry. No, that's not the same. thing. Okay. Well, I've not just used. Wikipedia, but didn't you write a big. piece when the war in Ukraine first came. out titled something like, "I've been to. Ukraine and they can win. They can repel. the Russians." So, you could go there. and still get it wrong, right? No, I was. with the Ukrainian armed forces in 2022. when they were retaking territory from. the Russians. Right. The last time they. had any advances. Yeah. Yeah. I said I. can see how they can win, which would be. advances like that. Yeah. You said if we.

just fund them or if we just arm them. that they can then said that the. Ukrainian army was making great. successes which it was when I was with. them in the fall of Listen, there were. lots of people who went to Iraq and said. we'll be greeted as liberators and it'll. be paid for in oil and democracy will. spread through the region. So I I don't. know either take on the arguments or. don't. But I don't think I say but your. argument is incorrect. Okay, fine. Well. then then present a counterargument to. it. But to just tell me I'm not allowed. to talk about something because I'm not. an expert. Okay, fine. But you're not an. expert, so you shouldn't talk about it. You haven't been there. Yeah, I know.

But you keep playing this game where. it's like the whole opening to this. podcast was like the non-experts talking. about this is such a problem. Now you're. saying cuz I haven't been there, I can't. talk about it. Is there a blockade there. that's causing economic uh devastation. or not? According to the World Bank, there is. First of all, I don't think. it's a game. I don't think it's a game. at all. Me neither. I'm not playing a. game. Okay. But this is semantics. No, but this is important. Mhm. I've seen. plenty of this up close. I've seen.

plenty of this with my own eyes because. I do believe that one of the things you. should do if you're talking about. something is to see it. Yeah. You've. established that. Is there a blockade? The blockade that existed to the extent. it existed was a blockade to try to make. sure that the Israelis and the Egyptians. knew what materials were going in and. out of Gaza after the first rocket fires. when Hamas in fact before Hamas was. elected. The Israelis and the Egyptians. the Egyptians didn't do a very good job. of it were meant to be trying to make.

sure that the materials that went into. Gaza were not materials that could be. used to build up the Gazen Hamaz war. machine. The reason why uh trucks get. searched is not because the. Israelis want to search through grain or. flour. It's because they wanted to stop. the trucks containing the arms and the. munitions that the guards and Hamas and. Islamic Jihad fighters were going to use. to fire against Israel. And I'm sorry,

it it just makes the most obvious. strategic sense. As the great late great. Joan Rivers once said, if if uh if uh as. an appeal to authority, um that one. along the uh that one I like. She also. said if Michelle Obama is a man. Yeah, I. know you should do that. I'm saying she. got everything right. So continue. Go. ahead. But uh as Jen River said, if if. New York was being rocketed from New. Jersey, we would level New Jersey. Uh, I. don't think you need to level it, by the. way, but you would at least try to make.

sure that rockets weren't being imported. in larger quantities into New Jersey. Of. course. Okay, that's all the Israelis. were doing. And they haven't turned away. any food or aid. They haven't turn They. haven't said you can't bring potato. chips in or you can't have cookies cuz. they have dual use. Isn't this their. whole argument that there's anything. that could be used to build a rocket has. to be excluded? Anything that could be. used to build a rocket. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. But that's a good reason. again not to build rockets and fire them. at your neighbors. It's almost like. there's a cost to play. It's almost like.

there's a cost to pay for instead of. living in peace with your neighbor, constantly trying to wipe them out. And. that is what Hamas did for 18 years. 18. years. This is what this is why I think. it's. so unbelievable taking agency away from. the Palestinians of Gaza is that the. Hamas had 18 years and 18 years is is. obviously the time from the birth of a. child to the end of their formal. education. They literally had the. opportunity to create a generation in.

Gaza that wanted to live beside their. Israeli neighbors. And from everything. I've seen since the 7th of October in. the region and from all of the dead and. the survivors and the family members. I've seen, so many of them, particularly. the people in the south who were. attacked on the morning of the 7th, were. literally people who dreamed of living. in peace with their Palestinian. neighbors. They were people like Vivian. Silva, whose body wasn't identified for. months because there wasn't enough of. her charred remains left to even extract. DNA from. She spent every weekend, like.

so many people in the communities in the. south of Israel, every weekend driving. children with the most rare uh um. medical conditions that couldn't be. treated in one of the Hamas run. hospitals in Gaza into very specialist. units inside Israel. And she spent every. weekend doing that and working with Bet. Salem and all of these radical left uh. uh Israeli groups. And it didn't matter. a bit when Hamas came in because they. burnt her in her own home. Anyway, my. point is in all of the counterfactuals.

of this conflict, the most important one. is what could have happened if instead. of educating a generation into wanting. to annihilate their neighbors. Hermes in. power had spent 18 years building up a. state, teaching peace, creating coexistence with their. neighbors. You think any of the people. on the kibbutsim in the south or the. young people dancing at the Nova party. weren't dreaming of the day that the.

Palestinian uh government in Gaza would. have created those conditions for them. to live beside as well. Of course. Mhm. Anybody's argument. Yeah. No, right. Everybody's against Nobody's argument, Douglas. It's just I mean, it's not what. I'm saying. Look, I I'll say this again. because you bring up the point about uh. agency again. And I I hear this a lot as. a counter. Much like I said in Ukraine, it's not denying anybody agency. I'm not. saying that. Believe me, if I was in.

control of how people acted, I would. certainly there. are this there Palestinians could have. handled things much better. And there. are different points where we probably. all would agree that we wish they had. done it this way and not this way. And I. think that um embracing for those. Palestinians who embrace terrorism, which from you know, which pretty early. on, I mean, Israel and Palestine have. been at war since the existence of. Israel really. And I know it's. convenient to like kind of pretend. October 7th was like the first thing,

but actually there's a long history. here. I'm not denying any of them. agency. The problem is that I see it as. like you only seem to focus on the. agency of one side. And then, you know, if you want to talk about. counterfactuals, I think the most. interesting counterfactual, well, maybe. I'll give you two. Number one, uh, would. be Heim Whitesman, who was essentially. supposed to be the David Bengorian, like. he was in line as like the number one. ranking Zionist. uh this is pre the. creation of the state of Israel who. urged all of the the Zionist militias to. not embrace terrorism and he ended up.

losing that battle ultimately in many. ways this is how terrorism was. introduced he was the first president of. the state David Bengorian was I think he. yes um and he he basically ended up. losing his position to David Bengorian. because they were just wanted to be more. hardcore and embra by the way the uh you. know the the Urggon and the Lehi and the. Hogana they openly embraced terrorism to. drive out an occupying force. This is. literally the story of the creation of. the state of Israel. The Palestinians.

fell into a terrible tragic uh uh. mistake early on. And I'm saying, listen, I reject terrorism as we all. should just cuz killing innocent people. is wrong. I'd like to get to that a. little bit more in a second because it's. interesting that we haven't really. gotten into the what I think is a great. humanitarian crisis here. Um but they. were following I think in some ways they. were very influenced by the uh Algerian. model that they were like hey look we. could em listen there's a lot of groups. whether it's um which Algerian model. well the driving the French out um the.

first Algerian war yes and right and but. look I mean there's a lot of these uh. scenarios where we we look back at. Nelson Mandela for example you know. Nelson Mandela was not imprisoned. because he was you know uh making picket. signs I mean there there have been. people who have embraced violence as a. means to achieve a policy end, including. the early Zionist settlers, including. the Israeli government, including the US. government and lots of governments. around the world. The tragic tragic. mistake in terms of political outcome.

from the Palestinians is that they. really just underestimated the fact that. these Jews had no home to go to. This. was their home. And you could drive out. the French from Algeria because they go, "Screw it. We're going back home to. France." the Jews had been so persecuted. in Eastern Europe that there was no home. to go. And of course then after World. War II, they were here to stay. And so. it's of course it's been a tragedy. And. of course a lot of Palestinian actions I. wish would be different. I wish Hamas. didn't exist. It should be pointed out. by the way that in 2005, you did mention.

that it was really part of the Bush. administration's exporting democracy. around the world that put pressure on. them to have these elections. It should. also be mentioned that Hamas did not win. a majority in one single precinct. They. won pluralities all around. So, just. saying when we're bringing up this. election, uh, half the population of. Gaza today is under the age of 18. They. were toddlers if they were alive in. 2005. Of the other half, that maybe. maybe half of them voted in these. elections, there it was never a majority. that supported Hamas. They they eaked.

out a victory. And then, of course, there was an attempted coup uh after. that. And that's when Hamas seized. complete uh control. The coup failed. Regardless of any of. that, I agree with you that like, yeah, the Palestinians have agency and I wish. some of them had made better decisions. Now, many of them have made better. decisions and it's still resulted in. nothing better happening for them and. their people. And so, I do find it kind. of hard to like lecture a group of. people who are going through so much.

like the level of human suffering that's. being inflicted on the in people of Gaza. right now cannot be overstated. And so, you know, to lecture them about how. you're supposed to handle that. Exactly. But I will say, man, I think there's kind of this. selective empathy that you have here. Like, I agree with you. You know, talk. about these these teenagers being. slaughtered at a music festival on. October 7th. It's like, my god, like I. have little kids. I can't like imagine. the nightmare of this happening to. somebody's children. But at the same.

time, we're not having this conversation. on October 9th or in November or. December of 2023. We're having it in. 2025 where the the tragedy that's been. inflicted on Gaza is orders of. magnitudes greater than October 7th. There are just every day people are. inundated with images of just dead women. and children. This is like one of the. most brutal wars. and by several metrics. that really, you know, like personally. matter to me, like the number of dead. kids. I think that's a pretty good one.

It's more children have died than in any. recent war. I mean, this is like it does. I do think there's almost um like a. fundamental framing bias that you get. into when people have these these. debates and I've had several of them as. you have also, but it seems to me that. there's almost an implicit. um difference in the value that you. place on Israeli life versus the value. that we place on Palestinians life. And. to even like we've gone this far into. the conversation and haven't even talked.

about the fact that like dude Israel has. feel however you feel. If you want to. argue I haven't been there. Stuff does. get through the blockade. Okay fine. This is a captive people. You know that. Israel has dominated since at least. 1967. Many of them are there because of. the creation of the state of Israel who. used to live in what is now called. Israel. and they are just g I mean the. amount of human suffering that's being. inflicted on them when even as you kind. of acknowledged with the George W Bush. expo exporting democracy Hamas in many.

ways was forced on these people um in. fact we saw protest against Hamas just. recently so I don't know I mean that to. me seems to be the greatest human. tragedy and I think much more so than. you can characterize it as people being. pro- Hamas or people being anti-semitic. but I actually think that the mass. movement around the world of people who. oppose this war has been that people. feel really awful about all these babies. and and who who are being slaughtered. Okay. Quite a few things. First of all,

just let's just get one term correct. because you said uh you do think it's a. concentration camp. Said it shares many, you know, right? And you also say that. there's a disproportionately heavy youth. population in Gaza. Yes. Do you think that's not accurate? I. think the second one is accurate. Right. But it's a very strange thing to say. that there's a population boom in a. concentration camp in Avitz in the. 1940s. There was not a doubling of the.

population. Yeah, I didn't say he didn't. say it was a concentration camp. He said. it shares many of the characters Avitz. was a concentration camp. Yes, it started as a concentration. You. didn't you'll notice that people were. not doubling in size their number. because of the the children they could. have in Avit. Yeah. But nobody's make. nobody's calling it a concentration camp. because it's the same as Ashit. I don't. know. But let's just just just at least. tidy up the language a bit. Either you.

think the place is a concentration camp. or you think it's not a concentration. camp and I don't think it can be a. concentration camp or any such term is. suitable when you're talking about a. place which you yourself have admitted. has a disproportionately young. population. So that's the first thing. I. don't think breeding in any way argues. again. But okay, I didn't call it a. concentration camp either. You said it. has many of the same. But you asked him. if it did. You asked him if it had any of the. characteristics of a concentration camp. Yes, because he said earlier that it. did. Okay. Well, okay. So, let me let me. be much more precise. Let me be much.

more precise. Okay. So, I'm not claiming. that it is a concentration camp or that. it is akin to Awitz. I'm saying that. it's been under full blockade since. 2007. Israel rules the seas, the heirs. They control electricity that goes in. They're not allowed to have an airport. They're not allowed to have a seapport. They don't have the freedom to leave. without permission from the Israeli. government. They don't have the freedom. to trade with the world. They don't have. a freedom to vote over the government. that rules them. I don't know. Call it. whatever you want to. That's the. situation. All of which all of which is. the result of the election of Hamz. None.

of it's Israel's fault. Israel is not. responsible for one of the babies that. have died of the bombs that they are. dropping. Let's get on to that then. because you say it's one of the most. brutal wars. It's a very brutal war. It's a very brutal war. It's certainly. not even sadly about among the standards. of our time by any means the most. brutal. We don't need to get into the. rather statistician ugly debate about. whether or not you follow the Hamas. uh government in Gaza's figures for the.

death counts, which is what they which. most of the world's media rely on and. which I don't think are reliable to the. least extent. But you don't need to rely. on that to say that even by the. standards of a conflict in neighboring. Syria, the highest Hamas death count. inside Gaza for the appalling last year. and a half is less than an average year. has been for the last decade in Syria. during the civil war. So the whole de I.

mean total far more people died in. Syria. I'm not arguing that. But you're. saying it's it's less than any year. I. think there were years that were 6 to. 800,000 people have been killed in Syria. during the civil war there. And uh I. give it as an example far too many. examples of wars in the region and in. the wider world to go to. But I think we. get once again back to the issue of of. language on this. It says one of the. most brutal wars is simply obvious that. it's an appalling war. But it is not by.

any numerical or other standards the. most appalling war of our time. It's a. war that Hamz started because they. shouldn't have invaded their neighbor. and they shouldn't have tried to. genocide their neighbor. Now, if the war. uh can be prosecuted, could be. prosecuted, it was always for two. reasons. Always for two reasons. The. first one, as stated by the unonymity of. Israeli politicians and others, was to. retrieve the hostages, who we also. haven't spoken about, but there are.

still hostages in Gaza held for the last. 18 months by Hamas, including young Eden. Alexander from New Jersey. Um, if Hamas. had not stolen the hostages and hidden. them in their tunnels and hid them in. civilian homes, this war would have all. been different. if they had have given. them back and they could give them back. tomorrow, it would all be different. But. they didn't. They decided to do what. they did on the 7th and to hold on to. the 250 odd hostages as it was at the.

beginning from the be. The second reason. that why the war is still being. prosecuted is because of the stated aim. to destroy Hamas, which is the stated. aim of the. Israelis. Neither of these things is. remotely easy. Okay? And just from a. point of humility, I think on everyone's. side, we should concede none of that is. easy. It is not easy to get 250 hostages. back when they have been distributed. across the Gaza to civilian homes, hidden in tunnels, surrounded by.

munitions, and much more. Hamaz is not. an actor. like Denmark. Its backers don't behave the way that. our governments do in the west. They. have a totally different time scale that. they think along. They have a totally. different scale of values as. well. The taunts of Hezbollah's. leadership, of Hamas's leadership, of. their backers in.

Tehran are annihilationist to their. core. But at any point in the last 18 months, the Qataris for. instance or the Iranians, the Iranian. revolutionary government or the Turkish. government or others could have put. their pressure on Hamas to return the. hostages who are still being held in. captivity and everything would be. different. Secondly, as you know, I'm sure you. don't have to have seen this with your.

own eyes to know it. As I'm sure you. know, the way in which Hamz built up the. structure of the Gaza throughout the 18. years that they had was precisely to. flout and use every law of war against. the Israelis. Every army in a. conflict has certain rules of war that. you're meant to abide by. One of the. most obvious is that you are identified. as being a combatant, not as a civilian.

Okay. Another is you don't put weapons. in civilian houses and civilian. buildings. You do not fire from houses. of worship rockets. You do not launch. attacks from hospitals. You do not keep. detention facilities where you can. torture and disappear people inside. hospitals and other medical facilities. All of these laws of war are the laws. that Hamas breaks every minute of every. day by their actions. So if you want to.

get the hostages back and if you want to. destroy Hamas when you're fighting. against a force which does not only not. follow the rules of war but uses your. following of the rules of the laws of. war against. you at least concede this is a highly. specific and complex military operation. And if you have or anyone else has, and.

I say this. genuinely, a better way to get back the. hostages and to destroy Hamas, I at any. rate, am all. ears. Okay. Um Okay. Well, there's. there's a lot there. So number one, like. I I do agree generally with your point. about having some humility in these. complex situations, but I would also say. like do you not then at any point as. you're like a very well-known public. figure who's supporting this war think.

about the level of human suffering that. is being inflicted on these innocent. people and go like, man, is there. another way? Maybe I'm getting this. wrong. Maybe this is the Iraq war all. over again, you know, which you also. supported that like maybe that was a big. mistake. In fact, I don't need to think. about it. I've seen it. I know it. I. describe it in my book. I describe what. I see in Gaza with the Palestinians in. when they're when they're moving down. the humanitarian corridor. Okay. Let me. just respond to some of the stuff you. say. Okay. So then I guess it's not. really that much of humility involved in.

this. But there's two very different. goals that are being stated here, right? Like there's the retrieving the hostages. and then there's taking out Hamas. now. that retrieving the hostages and. actually many of the uh the families of. hostages who are taken have been some of. the only people really protesting this. war in Israel because of course you know. if you imagine if you have your family. over there and your government is. leveling this place that is not the best. path to pursue to make sure you get all. the hostages out alive. I would say that. D uh it fell apart um but Donald Trump.

having his envoy Witito go over there. and work out this ceasefire deal that. they had for a few weeks. They did get. uh I believe 30 hostages back during the. phase one of this uh this ceasefire. Seems to me like that would be the. method to pursue to try to get the. hostages back. But if you're trying if. you're talking about eliminating Hamas. and I think there's something kind of. interesting that you touched on there. I. don't complete, you know, I disagree. with much of your characterization of it. that like Israel are the good guys who.

always follow the rules. We could kind. of get into some of that. There's lots. of rules like in that Israel does not. follow. That being said, yes, of course. I mean, you're describing guerrilla. warfare, terrorist organizations. That's. right. They stated differently. Gaza. doesn't have an air force or an army or. a navy. They're they're just a basically. militias running around, terrorists who. are trying to do everything they can to. fight an asymmetrical war. And just like. we helped teach Osama bin Laden how to. do the Soviets and then Osama bin Laden.

successfully did to us. The whole game. in these asymmetrical wars is to get. exactly what Hamas got out of this, right? Like Osama bin Laden knew that he. couldn't bankrupt the United States of. America by taking down the Twin Towers. But he thought he could lure us into a. war in Afghanistan that would bankrupt. us. Now, it didn't completely, but it, you know, came pretty close. Um, that. being said, uh, well, I just mean in. terms of how much it drained the. Treasury, it was way more than could. have any terrorist attack could have.

possibly done. That being. said, the idea that. it like I don't think morally speaking. when you're inflicting this level of. suffering on a group of people that the. calculation should be like, well, we. want to remove Hamas from power. That's. the goal. Justice for October 7th. remove. You know, there's lots of. governments around the world that we. would and Hamas isn't exactly a. government, but there's there's lots of. regimes around the world that we would. all like to see removed, but that. doesn't mean that we would approve of.

any means by which to get there. You. know, if you were like, "Hey, I I think. Kim Jong-un's government should be. dissolved." I'm sure we would all agree. with that. But if you were like, I'm. going to level the place and just like. slaughter people in order to do it, you. might be like, "Okay, hold on." But. aside from that, this has been. acknowledged at the highest levels of. Israeli intelligence and US intelligence. that there's just no way to get rid of. Hamas without it being replaced by more. Hamas or Hamas-like group because it's. the basic understanding of this whole.

situation, right? It's it's General. Mcrist's insurgent math. There there's. still Hamas people Hamas are popping. back up in the areas that Israel's. already leveled. And the more innocent. people you kill, the more radicalized. you're going to get this population, the. more these people are going to hate you. and join up with the resistance. movement. And so I just think that to. use the justification that we're trying. to get rid of Hamas. And therefore, it's. not like it doesn't matter how many. innocent women and children die in the.

process. Of course, or there's no. responsibility on you. You you now are. not responsible for the bombs that you. drop, how many people they kill. No, of. course you're responsible. So, Israel is. responsible then? They're responsible. for the means of their of their. retaliation and their war aims. Yes, of. course. First of all, let me first of. all, let me just say um I totally. disagree with your characterization of. of Asama Bin Laden and what he wanted to. do and and I don't think that Osama bin. Laden's stated public utterances along. those lines. Anyway, the the reason why.

the hostages have been released, the. numbers that have is because of constant. kinetic force by the IDF. The only Hamz. does not come to the table and ever hand. over hostages out of goodwill. It. doesn't do it goodness of their own. heart. It does it because of the. constant kinetic force of the IDF in. Gaza. And if it weren't for that, all. 250 hostages would still be there.

Second thing is when it comes to Hamz. itself, I totally disagree with the uh. uh presumption. that if you tackle a terrorist. entity, you will create more terrorists. Ego, you should not attack the terrorist. entity. That's not the argument that I'm. making, but okay. It's it's it's a. commonly held argument that if you. respond to terrorism, you create. terrorism. And of course, the only thing. that in that case is you just have to. sit back and take. The argument that I'm. making is that when you slaughter.

innocent people, those people around. them tend to hate your guts. That's the. argument that I'm making. First of all, your characterization of the slaughter, it's it's horrible the war in Gaza. It's. horrible that young Israelis have to go. in yet again to Gaza and try to find. Israeli hostages and try to get the. leadership of Hamas. That's what's. horrible about it. It is not the case. Yes. Because I think there's a. consequence to starting wars and but so. it's not horrible for the people who. didn't start a war. It's why do we.

become like these collectivists as soon. as a war starts? Horrible for everybody. involved. No, it's the most horrible for. the Palestinian people in Gaza right. now. Those that is the group of people. who are being [ __ ] over the most right. now. No. Yes. At the moment. Yes. Right. But they're not being [ __ ] over. The. IDF has been moving through Gaza for 18. months. No Israeli soldier I have spoken. to ever wanted to go and see the Gaza. again. Okay. Nobody wanted to go back.

They were dragged back because of. Hamaz's actions. And if Hamas had acted. differently or the Palestinians have. voted in different people in to govern. them, it would all be different. But. again, that's a. hypothetical. The reality of the war on. the ground is that in this incredibly. heavily built up area with weaponry. hidden everywhere with soldiers, I've. spoken to too many of them. They go in, you have a group of people coming out of. a civilian building with their hands up.

and from their midsts come a bunch of. Hamas terrorists firing at you in the. hope that the IDF will fire back at the. civilians. Gaddy Eisenot, one of the. members of the war cabinet in the early. stages of the war, lost his own son and. then his nephew. His nephew was killed. in a firefight in Gaza because the Hamas. terrorists were firing from a mosque. And that was why Gaddy Eisenot from the. Israeli cabinet's nephew died. The whole. operating theater is hideous because of.

what Hamaz has done to the Gaza. The. reason why Sinoir cropped up in Rafa. finally the mastermind of October the. 7th, one of the most brutal, sadistic. psychopaths to use an overrated term you. can ever imagine in an Israeli prison by. the way for having strangled. Palestinians to death in the 2000s. Anyway, the reason why Sinoir crops up. in Rafa late last year is because there. was nowhere else for him to run because. of the actions of the IDF to pursue the.

leadership of Hamas that was responsible. for the seventh. Now, can all of Hamas. be destroyed? Probably not. Can you make it a fun Can you make it. effectively impossible to function or. incapable of functioning, unable to fire. rockets and govern the Gaza? Yes. Right. But it comes at the price tag of. slaughtering tens of thousands of. innocent people. No. No. And you're. you're accepting that price? No. Every.

single war of this kind will include. civilian casualties. And you and I will. almost certainly disagree on the. numbers. I'm not claiming that the the. health ministry numbers are but there. will be almost certain the best an the. best case analysis. uh is that one uh innocent Gazahan has. been killed for every one terrorist. That's the best case scenario you can. hear. But that would be almost. unparalleled in the laws of war and it's. not how the American or British. militaries operate in terms of.

casualties to terrorist ratios. But when. we had the campaign against ISIS a. decade ago, after ISIS's fighters had. gone and massacred people at the. battleclathet in Paris and so. on, we used Turkish fighters, brilliant, brave fighters from the Peshmega. militias to work on the ground and the. French and American and British air. forces bombed like hell from the. air. and we made ISIS effectively.

touchwood 10 years later operationally. incapable in capital cities in. Europe. Has ISIS as a whole gone away? No. They still have pockets in Syria and. in Iraq, but we stopped them from being. able to do what they most desired to do. And the same is possible with. Hamas. Will they be replaced by some. other group again? Then we get to one of.

the crucial decision points for the. Palestinian people. Is it inevitable. that they constantly have to elect. people who want to annihilate their. neighbors? Or will there ever be a. generation that can find a way to live. in peace with their neighbors? I agree. Most people don't like being bombed. In. fact, nobody does. But that if the people of the. Palestinians in. Gaza can find it within themselves to. realize the thing they asked for in the.

elections is the thing that has. destroyed the area they live in. And. like that brave young man two weeks ago. in Gaza who rose up against Hamas and. was identified by the people who remain. in Hamz and was tortured then his body. thrown onto his parents' doorstep in the. Gaza and the parents started a family. the clan started a bit of a war against. Hamas. But that's how Gaz that's how. Hamas treats Palestinian dissident. But.

if there were more people like that. young man, and of course, as we all. know, the history of totalitarian and. terrorist groups running societies. is they're very successful and they stay. in power because they're willing to. torture and use violence and much more. That it's a horrible thing you have to. contend with. But if more people like. that young man had come about in Gaza in. the last 18 months or before, yes. Yes, it would all be different. And if they. could avoid electing a terrorist group. that invades their neighbors and fires.

rockets at their neighbors, yes, it. could all be different. It could all be. different tomorrow. And I'll tell you, sorry again, there is not a person. living by the Gaza in the south of. Israel who does not dream of the day. that such a generation of Palestinians. emerges. Yeah. Um, I think that I Okay, a few things here on on uh Syria there. because it is true. I mean, I think so. Okay, so John Brennan and Barack Obama, the head of the CIA and and of course.

the the former president of the United. States of America, um, had a policy of. committing literal treason before they. ended up accusing Donald Trump of. treason, which was all [ __ ] But. they had a policy of committing literal. treason by funding al-Qaeda and ISIS in. the uh Syrian civil war. Poured billions. of dollars uh and and tons of weapons. into that conflict. When Donald Trump. Now, it is true, by the way, that you. are correct that like there certainly. were military actions taken against ISIS. after they invaded Iraq, which was not.

supposed to be part of the plan. There. was also a lot of military actions taken. by Vladimir Putin uh against ISIS after. he came in uh on Assad's request. As you. know, in 2017, uh, when Donald Trump. came in, one of the best things Donald. Trump ever did, he cut off the CIA, uh, program to fund the anti-Assad rebels. And this was also a big part of what. ended up like taking the um, you know, the energy out of ISIS. Also, I think. there was a lot of good reporting that. just uh, they turned enough people on. the ground against them. They were even. just too radical and just people ended.

up hating them. It is true that they. receded for quite a while. Although the. former Amir of al-Qaeda, uh, Al Galani, is now ruling Syria, uh, which does not. seem like a great deal or something that. people in America should support. Uh, the the true enemy of the American. people, al-Qaeda, now being in in charge. of Syria. I think. that, you know, it's it's easy to talk. about how like if the Palestinians had. done this different, then maybe things. would have worked out different, but I.

just think again when you look at things. when you say which essentially I think. is your point here, right? Which I mean. I tried to push you on this, but you're. saying look, we can degrade Hamas, but. the cost of that is going to be. slaughtering a whole bunch of people. Slaughtering, it's war. Okay. I think you're okay. They're not. being slaughtered. They're being killed. Okay. How whatever word you want. Killed. in a brutal war started by Hamas. Yes. Yes. It's it's babies uh and little kids. screaming out for help under rubble and.

no help is coming. They sit there under. the rubble until they die. That is the. level of human suffering that's being. inflicted. And if you want to say, well, listen, that's a price that I'm willing. to pay to try to degrade Hamas, even. though you yourself recognize that we. can't totally eliminate them, but we. could maybe degrade them or maybe take. them down a peg. And the price for that. is these babies being tortured to death. essentially, whatever you want to call. it that. Okay. But from the other side. of that story, like if there's like I.

got little kids. I I don't know if you. have kids. I know you have kids, Joe. If. anybody ever was saying to me that like. my kids were the acceptable price for. this policy that we want to put into. place, I'm saying I don't think there's. any scenario, any scenario, Douglas, where there would be any time where you. would accept Israeli kids dying like. that as an acceptable price for a policy. that you're going to be uh um advocating. for. First of all, again, you go back to. the what is actually happening.

There is no desire or aim by the IIAF or. the IDF to go into Gaza and kill women. and children. Well, they're doing it. though. Hang on. Hang on. There is no. desire for that. Does it happen. collaterally? Certainly. Certainly. And. that is one of the very ugly rules of. war and law things that happens in war. And it's another of the reasons why it's. almost like you shouldn't start a war. and hide your rockets and your. terrorists inside civilian buildings. Yeah. But you've made this point a lot.

of times, but okay. Well, it clearly. can't be made enough because there is no. intention on the Israeli side to cause. the death of non-combatants. Oh, come. on. I mean, what you think? You think. why do you think the Israelis would want. to go and kill children in Gaza? I. listen, let me just How about I say it. like this, okay? And by the way, when I. say it like this, I'm I'm not claiming. that um disputes between nations are the. same as handling uh dispute. domestically. I'm just saying on on the.

idea of intentionality or who wants to. do this or whatever. Look, if you even. if you had the right, let's say somebody. uh broke onto your property and killed. some of your family members and you want. to go kill this guy, if he goes back to. his uh apartment building and you know. that there's women and children in that. apartment building and so your move is. to blow up the building, what you would. be charged with is murder in the first. degree. Cold-blooded, premeditated, intentional murder. And you could sit. there and tell the judge, "I didn't want.

to kill all those people. Why would I. want to kill all of those people? I just. had to kill that one guy. But that's. [ __ ] That's not what counts. You. did it intentionally. You dropped a bomb. knowing that there were women and. children in that building. You're taking. an action knowing that these innocent. people are going to die. Then that is by. definition intentional. And you know, you could sit here and talk about and. and it is true. There have been. documented cases of Hamas placing. missiles in mosques and in schools and. things like that. But when you look at. the aerial footage of Gaza, that does.

not describe every single strike that. Israel is comm that Israel has launched, there have been tons of bombs dropped. where it's simply and we have very good. reporting on this where they've. literally just have information that. they believe with some degree of. certainty that a couple of Hamas. militants are in this building and so. they blow up the building. That is. intentionally murdering innocent people. And you if you're gonna advocate for. this war, I don't see how you can do it. without saying that like at least bite.

the bullet that Maline Albbright did. when she was asked uh back we've played. the this clip on the show before when. she's point blank asked about the uh. sanctions on Iraq and our 500,000. children, is that price acceptable? And. she said yes, we believe that price is. acceptable. You're saying if you're. going to support this war, you know this. is the price of it. So why can't you. just say yes, that price is acceptable? because then we could have a real. conversation about why the other side is. going to look at you like a monster. Because first of all, I don't agree with.

any of the characterization you make, any of it. Okay. Um, you say that the. Israelis get some information as if this. is like like what they're making it up. or you think the Israelis want to drop a. bomb or like No, they they they act they. act on information about where the. terrorists are just like they act on. information of where the hostages are. Secondly, when you talk about the. destruction in the Gaza, something you. probably haven't haven't realized, but.

is one of the reasons why the. destruction looks so bad and is so bad. is because when the IDF were clearing. the areas that they'd asked the civilian. population to leave and were going house. to house, and it isn't just stories here. or stories there, it's every second or. third house in Gaza. that has either munitions or tunnel. entrances every second or third house. This is not the odd case. One of the.

things that everybody who has been there. knows is that you go into a mosque and. you know there will be either rockets. and or tunnel entrances. You go into a. hospital and you know that there will be. grenades or or or tunnel entrances or. dungeons or whatever. Just on a on a a. lighter note, early in the conflict when. the Shifa complex, which is used as a. Hamas headquarters and has also been. used as a hospital, but even in 2014, the BBC said this is where Hamas are. operating from. When that was shown by.

the Israelis to be have massive weapons. stores in the in the tunnels and sellers. underneath it, the um they had grenades, RPGs, Kalashnikovs, and the BBC's chief. middle east correspondent was asked live. on air, why would these things be in a. hospital? And Jeremy Bowen said, "Well, it's perfectly possible because there's. a lot of, you know, guns in the Middle. East. It's perfectly possible the. security department of the hospital had. the clash in the coff." I said, "Yeah, and did the grenades belong to the.

cardiologists?" I mean, why why is this. so normal that these every civilian mil. building like this and every second or. third house in Gaza is a weapons dump or. a place that you enter the tunnels from? But the reason why the devastation, which it is in the north in particular, but also in Rafa and elsewhere, is what. it is, is because every time the IDF. went into an area where they had they. had told the civilians to. leave, the Hamas terrorists that.

remained were in civilian buildings and. booby. trapped a very large number of the. buildings. So what they did as they. proceeded through those areas of the. Gaza to clear them was to set off. munitions which the American military. and others use which sets off secondary. explosions in places that are booby. trapped. And much of what you see in the. photographs that you see and many other. people have seen from Gaza is the result. of.

that. It is the result of the IDF trying. to clear an area which has been very. carefully and well booby trapped for. years. Let me make one other very quick. point about the bigger picture that you. said because I think it's important. We. were talking about the Syrian you you. mentioned the Syrian conflict and ISIS. I think again it's really important to. keep this in mind what I said earlier. about let's not think we are the primary. actors everywhere or even that.

important. I remember the debate over. the Syrian intervention issue and at the. time despite being in many cases an. interventionist I said on that occasion. I said we didn't know what we were doing. clearly didn't know who are going to. back uh if you remember John McCain went. to Syria to speak to some rebels and one. of them immediately turned out to be a. kind of headhacking jihadist and that. wasn't great and I said I don't have any. confidence that we know who to back and. uh despite many Syrian friends of mine. imploring me otherwise I said I don't. think it's something we can get involved.

However, if you look at the last 10. years or more, what is it now 13 years. of conflict in Syria, the US and the. Western powers are not remotely. significant actors in that conflict. The. significant actors in that conflict were. always have been the. Russians, the. Iranians. I mean, one of the things that. blows my mind in the analysis of the. region is the fact that the prime mover.

in the region, the revolutionary Islamic. government in Iran that has been. oppressing the Iranian people since 1979. and has been holding a great. civilization in in in. captivity, that the Iranian. revolutionary government in Thran has. literally been colonizing the region. I. have this rule about I took it from. Vaseli Gman the great Soviet Jewish. writer who had this great line about. tell me what you accuse the Jews of and. I'll tell you what you're guilty of. This absolutely runs as well with the.

accusations against the Jewish state in. the region. The Iranian revolutionary. government is constantly accusing the. Israelis of colonialism of expansionism. It is the Iranian revolutionary. government that has been colonizing. Iraq, colonizing Yemen, colonizing and. destroying Lebanon and colonizing Syria. And the amazing thing when you look at. the disaster that has happened in Syria. in the last 13 years, and I don't see it. getting especially better under the the. current jihadist, um the disaster is not.

of our making primarily. We are bit. players. America is a bit in Syria. We. are a bit You mentioned Iraq in there, too. I know. Well, what with the the. great idiocy of of of that was that that. that Iraq notices our um failings, our. lack of staying power, our desire to to. get out as soon as possible and much. more, which is all understandable. whether you agree with it or not. Hang. on, hang on, hang on. And they moved in. And they moved in, of course. But I was.

talking about Syria. In this Syrian. theater, the the main actors are not us. And one of the things I'm still. interested in about this mindset that. you have is why does it always have to. be us? It's other people who have act. actions in the world. The Russians, the. revolutionary government in Iran, they. are so busy. I see I think this is all. about uh framing here because I don't. think I've ever once made this claim.

You've made this point several times so. far, but I've never once made the claim. that everything is always us. I think. you're the one who's downplaying the. influence and impact that we have. We. are, after all, when I'm saying we, I'm. saying the United States of America's. federal government is the largest, most. powerful organization in the history of. the world. It is the world empire. And. to sit there and say Iran colonized. Iraq. No. George W. Bush invaded the. country on a bunch of lies, a war that. you supported. He went in there and. overthrew Saddam Hussein and installed. democracy in the Shiite majority.

country. Of course, he handed the thing. over to Iran, but that but to say that. that had no impact on Syria or that the. the US military funding and arming the. anti-Assad rebels had no impact. I'm not. claiming the entire thing is is America. Bashar al-Assad was an actor. There were. other forces there aside from the US uh. meddling there. But at the same time, you got the most powerful government in. the history of the world who, as we all. know, put Syria on its seven countries. in 5 years list of who we're going to go.

overthrow. And this had a profound. impact on the region. Of course, it did. It was a huge contributing factor to. that civil war to begin with. I I I. think America is obviously a major. factor. It certainly could be is meant. to be the major actor on the world. stage. I think that the history of the. region and many other regions around the. world is that America does not have. either the staying power, the. capability, the intelligence, the kind. of people that you would produce in. order to have the kind of impact that. you actually think it has. American uh. weakness in the Middle East has been I.

mean I say this as somebody obviously. from Britain but when Britain was a was. a dominant world power. She produced the. type of person who was keen to go and be. a governor of uh you know a stan. somewhere and learn the local dialects. and uh you know run the civil service. You guys were better at empire than we. are. The point is they they produced. that sort of person because they wanted. to stay. America has never produced that. sort of person and it certainly hasn't.

in the Middle East in particular. It it. it acts militarily on occasions and in. my view sometimes well, sometimes. poorly, but in but the reason why. America was so badly outplayed by the. Mullers in Iraq was simply that, as you. say, after the war, America had nothing. like the staying power of the Mullers in. Thran. Had nothing like the ability to. affect post-war change like the Iranian. revolutionary government did. And so. yes, if we create a vacuum like that or.

somebody else creates a vacuum and after. all we did not cause the beginning of. this the we the west I'm saying on this. occasion did not cause the beginning of. the uh Arab Spring as it was it was. optimistically called at the beginning. or the over or the beginning of the re. the revolutionary uprising in Syria in. 2011. These things were ground up and. the actors in the region moved in much. more deafly and effectively than we did. It's the same with Lebanon. It's the. same with Lebanon. America doesn't even.

have eyes over Lebanon. It Iran has an. army that has a checkpoint at Beirut. airport that will check you on behalf of. Hezbollah when you come in there. You. can't tell me that America is just. because America's uh it on paper and. much more has the power that America is. the deaf operator in the Middle East. There are so many people who outwit. America in the Middle East all the time. Yeah, but you can't tell me that there. hasn't been an an impact from the $8. trillion that we've spent there and the.

multiple regime changes all around the. Middle East that were done by America. These weren't just going to happen on. their own. Are you saying that didn't. have an impact? Iraq was certainly done. by America. Of course. Okay. So, Iraq. was certainly done by America. Libya, NATO, right? But Okay. But NATO is the. European wing of the American Empire. I. mean, let's get real. That that's the an. American decision. Sure. Right. I'm. saying it's not it's not because some. random European country decided to go. back just because I mean the the Libyan. intervention I was very I was pretty.

iffy about at the time. Um but uh that. was done not to create an empire or. anything like that. It was done for for. one very clear reason and I remember the. debates in the European capitals and in. Washington DC at the time. There was a. belief that uh after the uprising. against Gaddafi began that there would. be a mass slaughter genocide carried out. by Gaddafi against the people in we're. talking 2011 and it was 2011. Yeah. Uh.

there was a belief everybody believed it. he had started his son if you remember. Sif Gaddafi formerly of the London. School of Economics showing that we can. produce the best. uh Sif Gaddafi uh uh. stood up and said we will fight to the. last bullet and so on and uh and. everybody believed them and uh the. desire to intervene was caused in an. attempt to not to people do not want the. resources of Libya. Nobody wanted Libya. to fall apart or anything like that.

They did it because there was a genuine. belief in what was called at the time. which has gone out of fashion but right. to protect duty to protect and that was. why they went in. So, okay. If that's. why it's important to No, it's. interesting. It's interesting. I Well, I. don't but I don't think it's correct. I. mean, you always kind of like ascribe. the best of motives to Israel and the. West and nothing but the worst of. motives to all of their enemies. So, just riddle me this then. If we just. went in because there was this uprising. in 2011 and because we were worried that. Gaddafi was about to go genocidal,

something that your own the UK. parliament did an investigation into and. found out said was just complete. completely wrong. But why is it then. that I got fourstar general Wesley. Clark, Supreme Commander of Supreme. Commander of the NATO forces? Why is it. that he told me that he saw the plans in. 2001 to overthrow Gaddafi and that this. was part of a strategy to overthrow. seven governments in 5 years and all of. them except one have been done at this.

point? So you're telling me it's a. complete coincidence that he saw that. the neoonservatives had this plan to. overthrow Gaddafi and then 10 years. later we happened to do it when we have. the opportunity. The two aren't related. at all. First nice to hear the n word. again. Um the n word. Did I say that? Conservatives. Oh, that one. I was. thinking of a different one. Okay. The. um first of all, I would assume I would. hope that there's American military. planning for absolutely everything. I. would hope that there is a scenario for.

absolutely everything somewhere in the. American in Pentagon or whatever. Yeah. But but he didn't say we're drawing up. war games. You said this is the plan. that we're going to I would assume that. I would hope that any major power like. America would have plans in place for. almost everything that is likely. including I mean this America could have. should have started planning for some. kind of kinetic force in in uh Libya.

from the 1980s. Of course. Of course. there'd be plans. Yeah. Again, this is. not what he this is not what uh uh. Wesley Clark let he he wasn't saying. like we've drawn up war games. We've. drawn up war games with everybody. We. have war games with China, war games. with Russia. We've we've mapped out how. a kinetic war would work even with. countries that have nuclear arsenals. like just in case we have to fight a a. traditional war and nukes aren't being. used. That's not what he's talking. about. He said that not only are he he. was told we're in Afghanistan now. This. is late 2001. He goes next we're going.

to Iraq. After that we're going to. Libya. After that, we're going to Syria, Somalia, um was it Sudan, uh and and. finishing off with Iran. He laid out the. the the path of what we're about to do. and then we did it in the next. administration. You don't think there. was any connection between those two? Well, we did Somalia and Sudan. No, I'm. sorry. He's listen his I'm sorry. If you. go look at the list of seven countries, it was Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya,

um I believe Somalia, Sudan, and Iran, I. believe. Why Why would America want to. do any of those things? Who who wants to. do it? Well, what he said is that. essentially these plans he said later in. a interview with Pierce Morgan that he. that he had seen the plans at first in. 1991 that they came from Paul Wolfwitz. that basically then they got uh what. what's funny about what the four-star. general said? Okay, can continue. No, I'm just curious what's laughable about. this.

Uh Paul Wolfwitz is a um a great uh. figure for almost any uh deep conspiracy. in this country because he was an deputy. secretary of defense at the highest in. his life. He is forever being ascribed. almost uh uh almost supernatural power. Uh the largest the largest the highest. position he ever got to was as Donald. Rumsfeld's deputy and um it's it's a.

very strange thing always when Walritz's. name comes up. because he was a relatively low-level. person to whom almost everything can be. ascribed and I I didn't describe again. if this is I didn't ascribe everything. to him. I'm literally telling you what. anyway go. I'm telling you what the. fourstar general said about him and I. wouldn't say deputy secretary of defense. is like a nothing position. Uh it's. pretty consequential position. Not as. important as Rumsfeld or Cheney, but. yeah. Yeah, agreed. But what but who.

said it was? No. Fire on. I just feel. like you're batting down straw man. I. never said that he is the creator of all. conspiracies or anything. I'm literally. saying that the fourstar general said. that he first saw the plans from him. that he had brought this to the national. security adviser and it had basically. been like ah we'll look at this after. the election and that then it was. resurrected later by uh Richard Pearl. and that the these guys were producing. again not me saying this this is. fourstar general Wesley Clark he said in. a study uh paid for by the Israelis and. yeah you can laugh at this all you want.

to Douglas but you can go read the clean. break memo for yourself this was the. neoconservative strategy along along. with their counterpart the Lakuds in. Israel that they wanted to remake the. region in a way and that and I'm sure by. their own justification they believed. that democracy would sweep the region. and it would be better off for them. Nonetheless, they pursued this path that. has ended in nothing but disaster and I. don't think that to say that in in 2011. it was like a purely humanitarian. mission to go overthrow Gaddafi I do not. think is right. Well, first of all,

before I get to the substance of it, why. why why would they want the current. situation in Libya? Huh? Why would they want the current. situation in Libya? Well, because they. wanted Gaddafi out. Why? Well, okay, if you read the clean. break memo, what their argument. essentially is is that you wanted to. have regime change against the hostile. surrounding Muslim countries. But was. Gaddafi not hostile to Israel? To Israel, yeah, sure. But he was I mean. the the Europeans and everybody else in.

NATO found that Gaddafi was a really. relatively easy person to get on with. latly, right? Yeah. No, I think it was. an insane policy. No, no, but you you'll. notice that uh after he hands over the. nuclear program and thus makes himself. very uh vulnerable unfortunately uh for. the future of world peace. Uh he uh. Libya has been unarably disastrous. Hang. on. No, just a clarifying question. disrous for Europe and and Somalia and. Sudan. Why why why why does America or.

Israel want to like do regime change in. Somalia? Can I just ask you can I just. ask you a clarifying question on this? Uh what when you say that was a disaster. for the prospects of world peace, you. mean overthrowing Gaddafi was a. disaster? I say that that that him being. sorry I should have clarified. My thing. is him being overthrown after he's given. over the nuclear weapons is a disaster. because it leaves on the table this. thing that you have to hold on to. nuclear weapons and if you don't hold on. to nuclear weapons you could be dead. Do. you think maybe uh the Israelis should.

stop using the term the Libyan model to. push for uh negotiations with Iran? No, I don't think anyone should uh should. use what happened to Gaddafias as being. a good uh precursor for Well, I we. certainly have a lot of agreement there. It was an absolute disaster. Particularly to do it to let a guy get. sodomized to death after he. denuclearized is not a good uh president. to set. I agree. And it's one of the. reasons why um uh one of the reasons why. Iran wants a nuke on I'm not sure it's. just.

tot they want a nuke because they. I mean if you like what the Iranian. revolutionary government's done since. 1979, you'd love what they'll do with. the world when they've got a nuke. But. anyway, put that aside for a second. I. mean, the um I just I'm sorry we. slightly come back to where we started, but I I when you start talking about. Paul Wolitz and Richard Pearl, I I just. it's it's all awfully. um noxious smelling.

Richard Pal was a member of the Defense. Policy. Board which had an advisory capacity. toward the Pentagon in the early 2000s, but it was in no by no. means a policy board that dictated. Pentagon policy. Okay. In the last 30 years of American foreign. policy, there have been many major. actors. Paul Wolfitz is a relatively major.

one, but we come slightly back full. circle. In my view, I'm not saying. you're guilty of this, certainly not. knowingly. In my view, when people start. talking about Paul Walford, I always. remember that line of Mark Stein many. years ago, and he said, "You can't help. thinking that one of the reasons why. people find Wolitz so appealing to talk. about is that his name starts with a. nasty animal and ends Jewish.". That is a funny thing to say. love. saying forfeit. It's such a great name.

It is for an evil movie. You say he's. perfect for it. Perfect for it. And he. looks perfect for it. You'll say, "Oh, the crafty Paul Wolf of his crazy. eyebrows." So, you're a bigot. You're a. Jew hater if you mention the neocons. No, no, no. Just, just let me continue. with the thought. So I I remember those. days and uh his boss uh Donald. Rumsfeld was like the ruler of the world. at that time. He he had uh uh such.

charisma, such genius was attributed to. him for the initial invasion of Iraq. like. people you can't imagine the admiration. that would existed in the defense. establishments around the world for uh. for uh Rumsfeld Dick Cheney was so. powerful that people of right left. particularly on the left spent all those. years in the W Bush administration.

saying W wasn't the real president he. was being run by Dick Cheney because he. was the brilliant etc etc you're. certainly listening to him at the. beginning Okay, but I'm just saying it. goes back to this thing of when certain. ideas catch hold and what's really going. on in. them. To attribute American foreign. policy in the last 40 years to Paul. Wolfwitz and Dick Pearl is knowingly or. otherwise to encourage a conspiracy that.

has very obvious legs. And I just urge. you not to do it. Okay. Uh let let me. respond to this a little bit. First of. all, um I did not it is not at all. saying that these guys therefore just. control everything. I'm just pointing. out what a fourstar general uh claimed. where plans originated and that they. ended up being implemented. That doesn't. mean that they were the absolute uh. ruler or arbiter of what was going to.

happen. But again, I got to say for you. to say that I can't bring up the. neoconservative. Okay, let me let me just Right. But the. implication is that I'm unwittingly. giving fertile ground to some like. Jewhating conspiracy if I bring up a guy. who's got a Jewish last name who was a. consequential person in our government. This is like identical to the arguments. of the woke left that would just be. like, "Oh, if you even say something, you know, if you bring up uh the crime. rate in Chicago, you're basically a.

bigot because other people could take. this and run with it." Come on. No, you. come on. What's the argument? If you. said to me, I said a four-star general. said something and there's no what's the. response? If if if if you said to me or. somebody said to me, uh, don't you think. there's a that some people are running. the global financial system? And I said, uh, possibly. And you, and I said, who. do you think it is? And they said, the.

Rothschilds. I think I'd be right in. saying there was something a bit off. about the character of the person doing. that because it seemed like they were. playing to some kind of lazy old trope. And I think similarly that if you if you. give the. implication that a cabal of people. particularly and you should be really. careful about this because of the people. who will come up underneath you. If you. give the implication that these cabals.

exist and you decide to to elevate the. Jews or people with Jewish names in it. and then play down the non-Jews, I can. tell you you will be opening up a world. of madness. But am I really playing down. the non-Jews? I mean, go look at the. stuff that I've said about Obama, about. George W. Bush. I You said Middle East. policy is Dick Pearl and Paul Wolfworth. And I said, No, no, no, no. I mean, this.

is this is why I'm saying this is a woke. leftist tactic. I literally just. mentioned that a fourstar general said. this. I'm quoting him. And now you're. telling me that this is the same thing. That when you quote somebody, it's a. totally arbitrary thing which you just. pluck out of the air. You decided I'm. not arguing I'm not arguing that it's. arbitrary. I'm saying I'm using the. quote for a reason. I was connecting it. to an argument and I'm saying to you I'm. giving fertile ground to Jew haters to. to mention it. I think that when you.

decide to elevate what is a conspiracy. of people who are overthrowing the. governments of various countries, some. of which haven't been overthrown and. others of which have, by the way, were. not overthrown by American dominance, certainly not in Syria. Um, and then you. say that the people who are doing it are. kind are these uh people with Jewish. names. I think just be you should you. should be. uh more judicious than that because you. you probably know what bubbles up.

underneath you online by now. Um yeah, look, I mean there's no question that. there are, you know, no matter what and. by the way, you know, it's funny just. hearing you say this to me. I mean look, and by the way, I completely agree with. you. I think you've been one of the best. champions on uh opposing Europe's insane. immigration policy. Um I also think the. United States of America's had an insane. immigration policy. I'm happy to see. that that seems that seems to be being. reversed. But imagine you made a point. about immigration and I were to say to. you be careful what's bubbling up online.

because now you're get look the fact is. if you are if you are taking a position. that opposes say Muslim immigration into. uh the UK then yes it is quite possible. that a lot of people who really just. hate Muslims are going to end up liking. what you had to say or following you but. that doesn't mean you're responsible to. it and if I were to say that to you. would be the first to very eloquently. point out that that is a complete non. argument. The question is, is this. policy good or is it bad? And and. whether there's not and if you want to.

say to me, hey, I should like disclaim. when I make this point that like, hey, I'm Jewish. I love Jewish people. The. fact that there were some Jewish people. involved in our foreign policy. establishment does not mean that it's. the Jews. Then fine, I'm happy to say. that. But I just think it's a. non-argument to say that like, oh, you. know, you're you're kind of like giving. you're creating fertile ground for this. hatred. If I'm being completely honest, I think we've seen a what you're talking. about bubbling up on Twitter. Do you. think that's gotten worse over the last.

18 months? Uh, yeah, sure. Right. I I think kind of. what Israel is doing in this war and the. US funding and arming it have been. something that is really a great. facilitator for that stuff to bubble up. As I say, we we could go back to that, but I disagree. I think that Israel has. every right to go in and destroy the. terrorist group that carried out the. mass. Yes. But again, but no one but no. one's arguing if they have the right to. destroy the terrorists. The question is. they have the right to kill innocent. people again, which I think we we're. just not answering what I'm saying. Well, I think I've already answered.

that. But just just to go back to the. meat of that, I think you don't realize. that actually uh people like me who have. a voice and write and much more do think. about that all the time. It's a profound. uh concern and responsibility. I agree. with that. Right. Right. And don't think. I don't worry all the time and make sure. I intervene into the debate very.

carefully at times when I think some. people have picked up something that. I've been saying and are going to go. wrong with it. I that scares the hell. out of me and I do it regularly and I do. it because I have to. Yeah. Listen. So, okay. So, that's a point of agreement. too. But you don't stop believing in. that policy for it and you won't stop. bringing that up. do say but you do say. on occ I mean most obvious one on that. if there is something where something. really.

uh feted happen something really. terrible and there's a bunch of people. that decide to uh riot or commit. violence or something like that I know. that I have to as a. duty say absolutely this is to be. condemned. If it is people trying to pretend that. all Muslims this or all that, absolutely. I intervene to stop that. I think that.

is but I think that this is one of the. responsibilities that comes with putting. out ideas in the public square. Yeah. And I think that none of us are um blame. free, but all of us have some kind of. responsibility to know that what we put. out there is very carefully watched, very carefully. followed, and. that we have to tread well. Well, okay.

So, I agree with that. But when you say. you intervene, what exactly do you mean. by that? You mean you voice opposition. to it? You say, "Hey, that's not what. I'm saying. I'm saying that like we have. to have a say in immigration policy. that's good for our country." Make sure. I, you know, say which politician I. think can deal with it decently and. which ones will not. I mean, I' I've. made plenty of enemies on the European. right by saying who I think is bad and. who will not do this. Well, but yeah, I. just put it out there. I think I I. literally I say it as a point of.

uh caution. Yeah. Well, I I mean, I. don't disagree with that and I've. certainly done the same thing and said. that like I don't know like I don't like. the I don't like Jew hatred on Twitter. and I don't like people uh jumping to. wild conspiracies that they don't have. enough nearly enough evidence to uh you. know actually back up which I've seen. quite a bit of. That being said, I also. think there's a whole lot of real. conspiracies and I'm not going to stop. talking about those just because some. people on Twitter might take it in a bad.

direction. Well, as the great Michael. Malice said, and as you quoted, one red. pill, not the whole bottle. I've been. trying to limit people to one red pill. One red pill a year is all you need. A. lot of people, they take one of those. things and they just get hungry. Sort of. like boosters. Like boosters. Well, it. ends up it ends up Yeah, exactly. You. take take none of those. No, you're. supposed to take one red pill. What's. the one? What's the one in front of you? Which one? That one there. Black one. Yeah, it's nicotine. Oh, I see. Oh, that's the chewing ones. It's a like a.

pouch. Chris Williamson showed me. yesterday this uh one that you uh he. said weightlifters are using in Austin. Uh it's like a a powder or something. Weightlifterss. Yeah. Creatine powder. No, it's it's not licking. It's. something like it. Creatine. No, it's. it's like the it's it's to sniff. Oh, no, no, no. That's smelling salt. We do. smelling salt. That's right. Smell goof. for silly. We do that to be silly. I. hadn't heard of that since 19th century. women who thought they had the vapors.

and he said, "These are smelling. sauces." Well, they used to use it for. boxers when they got knocked out to wake. them up. That was it. That was it. Does. it work? It's Well, it works for. weightlifters. You You sniff it before. you lift incredible amounts of weight. Allegedly, powerlifters use them. That's. literally why they sell it. It It just. jolts your entire central nervous system. because it's so horrific. Want to smell? No. This is, by the way, if a little insight. into the comedy community. Uh, the deal. is that Joe will help advance the.

careers of comedians unlike anybody. since Johnny Carson. But then the cost. is you do have to sniff smelling salts. We all have to do that. It's a It's. a bargain of sorts, but it is what it. is. Do you have a heart out, Douglas? Uh, kind of. I got to get to DC. Okay. my one of my least favorite cities in. the country. But another area of. agreement. There we go. Um, thank you. Thank you for doing this. Appreciate it. It was very, very good. I enjoyed it.

very much. And thank you, Dave. I do. Uh, yeah. Of course. Thank you to you, John. Thank you, Douglas, very much. I. do appreciate that. While we do. fundamentally disagree on a lot of this. stuff, I do admire that you will come. have these conversations. Show everyone. the book here. It's so Jesus Christ. Avoided on myself, luckily. um on. democracies and death cults, Israel and. the future of civilization. Douglas. Murray, did you do the audio book? I did. do the audio book. You can you can hear. these maleifuous tones. Yes. Love it. It. would be a tragedy if anybody else did. it. Um thank you very much. Yes. All.

right. Beautiful. All right. Goodbye. everybody. Thank you. [Applause]. [Music].