Speaker 1: Welcome here in the City Hall of Kudah. I began
Speaker 1: with a few opening statements and then I will present
Speaker 1: my formal introduction to you. For the second year in
Speaker 1: a row, I'm honored to introduce to you doctor Aaron Brook,
Speaker 1: president of the Ironran Institute, for one day again. Kuda
Speaker 1: is the objectivist capital of the world, for which I'm
Speaker 1: very proud. Thank you Eron for coming and also for
Speaker 1: your courage given to their circumstances. Also welcome Jonathan Dowan.
Speaker 1: He will say a few words at the end of
Speaker 1: a program regarding the upcoming European conference in Berlin in
Speaker 1: March next year on objectivism the philosophy of iron. Obviously,
Speaker 1: I like to thank the people of Mandeville Academy for
Speaker 1: their help in organizing this event, in particular highly in Yosvina,
Speaker 1: although they are not yet here. But then I had
Speaker 1: to say a few things nice to them. They are
Speaker 1: both amazing and very dear to me, and I'm happy
Speaker 1: for them that they will get married in June next year,
Speaker 1: and it pleases me that that shows my birthday as
Speaker 1: their wedding day. Of course, and you'll thank you for
Speaker 1: coming and showing interest in the application of objectivism to
Speaker 1: a very important issue, the conflict in the Middle East.
Speaker 1: So now my formal introduction. Last year's topic was how
Speaker 1: to be the protagonist of your own life, in other words,
Speaker 1: how to fight for happiness in your personal future. This
Speaker 1: concerns you as an individual. Thissier topic concerns you as
Speaker 1: a member of society. I have asked Sharon to talk
Speaker 1: about probably the most complex conflict in the world, the
Speaker 1: conflict in the Middle East, and my request was that
Speaker 1: you will give us his ideas about creating a lasting piece,
Speaker 1: in other words, how to fight for happiness and the
Speaker 1: future society. As a thinker and admirer of Finnrant and
Speaker 1: offer philosophy objectivism, I'm always looking for fundamental insights into
Speaker 1: complex issues and for fundamental solutions based on creative ideas.
Speaker 1: And when I have insufficient knowledge myself, I go to
Speaker 1: a specialist that I respect with the aim of being educated.
Speaker 1: For today's topic, I expect we will be educated by you.
Speaker 1: Last year, myself talked about the functioning of man's mind
Speaker 1: based on Iran's epistemology her theory of knowledge. I presented
Speaker 1: my model called the frame of reason that consists of
Speaker 1: four blocks. There is the perceptual problem, representing a block
Speaker 1: at the bottom left of the model, indicating something you
Speaker 1: perceive in reality which you evaluate as a problem. I
Speaker 1: gave the example of a man experience a headache. It
Speaker 1: is something real and perceived, and he considers it as
Speaker 1: a problem. What he wants is some approach to arrive
Speaker 1: at a perceptual solution represented by the bottom right black
Speaker 1: block in the model. He made use by imitation to
Speaker 1: take a painkiller. Usually then his headache will be done,
Speaker 1: but sometimes that approach does not work. Then he goes
Speaker 1: to a doctor who identifies who identifies the cause of
Speaker 1: the problem, which we call the conceptual problem, represented by
Speaker 1: the top left and block in a model. I suggested
Speaker 1: last year that the doctors diagnosed in this case is
Speaker 1: that he identifies a brain tumor in the man's head.
Speaker 1: From the identification of the conceptual problem, the doctor analyzes
Speaker 1: all kinds of treatments and based on the specific situation,
Speaker 1: you will decide on the best approach to cure the
Speaker 1: problem that is called the conceptual solution, represented by the
Speaker 1: top right hand block in the model. So objectivist thinking
Speaker 1: moves from the identification of a perceptual problem by abstraction
Speaker 1: to the conceptual problem, by logic to the conceptual solution,
Speaker 1: and by action based on the conceptual solution to the
Speaker 1: concretization of perceptual situation. Start with realityply reason with your
Speaker 1: own rational interest in minds as we go into the
Speaker 1: topic of today, how to fundamentally resolve the conflict in
Speaker 1: the Middle East. In my opinion, the approach should be similar.
Speaker 1: Start with a problem abstract to the fundamental nature thereof,
Speaker 1: apply logic to identify the potential solution on the conceptual level,
Speaker 1: and act to realize that solution. Again, I like to
Speaker 1: compare the approach needed for this issue with the approach
Speaker 1: of going to a doctor. First, one has to identify
Speaker 1: at the perceptual level why there is a problem. The
Speaker 1: doctor will ask you what are the symptoms and what
Speaker 1: are your complaints? So perception and evaluation. This is the
Speaker 1: identification of one's personal evaluation of the situation. My personal
Speaker 1: evaluation of the problem in the Middle East is what
Speaker 1: I will present to you first. But before that, what
Speaker 1: the doctor is doing next is comparing the specific situation
Speaker 1: of some particular patient with the general theory of the
Speaker 1: functioning of a man's body, both physical and mental Thus
Speaker 1: he applies his theoretical base that he got from university.
Speaker 1: That theory is fundamental and applied in general. Thus it
Speaker 1: is an objective foundation. He will also compare it with
Speaker 1: his personal experience as a doctor, thus with his practical knowledge.
Speaker 1: We all know that experience is key in translating general
Speaker 1: knowledge to practical circumstances to come up with the right diagnose.
Speaker 1: And when the diagnose is there, the doctor will come
Speaker 1: up with the right approach, which in general consists of
Speaker 1: a medical operation and after that a recovery treatment, so
Speaker 1: that the result will be lasting. The use of a
Speaker 1: fundamental objective base is the second part of my introduction.
Speaker 1: I will come here with the objective foundation as the
Speaker 1: base to identify the problem that we discussed today. The
Speaker 1: objective foundation I will find in Irn's philosophy, which confirms
Speaker 1: the value of philosophy in general and of objectivism in particular.
Speaker 1: Iron Rent wrote an important article called the Roots of War,
Speaker 1: from which I will give you some important quotes. The
Speaker 1: translation of the general theory combined with his professional experience
Speaker 1: to the issue of the conflict in the Middle East,
Speaker 1: I will leave to Yarin, and also he will do
Speaker 1: the reasoning to present us with the approach to the
Speaker 1: conceptual solution, thus to lasting peace. In this case, he is,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, the most appropriate specialist. Okay, First, I
Speaker 1: like to discuss my personal evaluation. My father is a
Speaker 1: peaceful man. But when I was a child, we were
Speaker 1: once near the German border, which was still closed at
Speaker 1: the time. I remember of that occasion the sudden feeling
Speaker 1: of hate is my father for Germans. It was based
Speaker 1: on what he had experienced as a child in the
Speaker 1: Second World War. That war lasted only five years, but
Speaker 1: the impact was enormous. The conflict in the Middle East
Speaker 1: exists not for five years, but for centuries. Next point,
Speaker 1: when one of my daughters was fifteen years old, she
Speaker 1: went for the first time to a hallow evening here
Speaker 1: in hardar storried for my emotion, at the Saint John Cathedral.
Speaker 1: She was beautiful, formally dressed for the first time in
Speaker 1: an evening gown. I dropped her off by car at
Speaker 1: about thirty meters from the entrance, which she had to walk.
Speaker 1: When I picked her up at the end of the evening,
Speaker 1: she told me that during that short walk a group
Speaker 1: of young Moroccan guys had hissed and ceased to her
Speaker 1: and called her a whar. She was really frightened and upset.
Speaker 1: It made me incredibly angry, and I identified the fact
Speaker 1: that I was capable of killing when someone you love
Speaker 1: is deeply hurt and you want to protect her. And
Speaker 1: then I saw on TV the horror of October seventh
Speaker 1: last year in Israel. Young people innocent and vulnerable were attacked, raped, killed,
Speaker 1: and kidnapped, and I thought, suppose these were my own children.
Speaker 1: I know what I would have liked to do, but
Speaker 1: probably wouldn't have done. Get into personal action. What would
Speaker 1: you expect from your government when your daughters and sons
Speaker 1: would be victimized like that? If some terrorists would be domestic,
Speaker 1: you would expect the police to capture the terrorists and
Speaker 1: the court to pronounce the appropriate sentence. When the terrorist
Speaker 1: comes from abroad, you would expect the government of that
Speaker 1: particular country to act for justice. But if the government
Speaker 1: of that other country participate in those acts of terror,
Speaker 1: you would expect your own government to go to war
Speaker 1: as a way of protecting you and your loved ones
Speaker 1: against that terrorist government. If a doctor decides that the
Speaker 1: medical operation is required to remove a threat to someone's health.
Speaker 1: Any surgeon would tell you that the operation must be
Speaker 1: focused on the threat, must be carried out swiftly, and
Speaker 1: must be carried out complete. No surgeon will suggest that
Speaker 1: the operation may take months in duration, or that the
Speaker 1: partial elimination of some threat as form of appeasement is sufficient.
Speaker 1: All the bed cells must be eliminated, and every surgeon
Speaker 1: knows that collateral damage cannot be avoided. Here in the
Speaker 1: Netherlands we also have had some intensive terrorist attacked many
Speaker 1: years ago, the kidnapping of a train. I know a
Speaker 1: woman who was in the train. She has learned to
Speaker 1: live with that experience, but it's carter for the rest
Speaker 1: of her life. On that occasion, our government did act.
Speaker 1: The military attacked their train and the kidnappers were killed.
Speaker 1: That was the appropriate response, in my opinion. In the
Speaker 1: public discussion of the Middle East conflict now I hear
Speaker 1: primarily emotional responses of the use of violence without the
Speaker 1: proper ant pallasis based on reason. The difference between the
Speaker 1: initiation of force by terrorists and the retaliation of force
Speaker 1: by the government is not recognized. The difference between a
Speaker 1: destructive purpose firing rockets to a neighboring country and a
Speaker 1: constructive approach building up a prosperous society is evaded, and
Speaker 1: the difference between an offensive violence strategy eliminating Israel and
Speaker 1: a defense strategy building a protection dome is also neglected.
Speaker 1: To me, this is all a demonstration of the neglect
Speaker 1: of the objective use of reason and of the evasion
Speaker 1: to identify the effects of reality. This explains why I
Speaker 1: am on the side of Israel, although I do see
Speaker 1: false like they're accepting a partial destruction of the enemy's
Speaker 1: potential rather than complete and now of appeasing to let
Speaker 1: their enemies recover their strength, as this event today originates.
Speaker 1: In my purpose to explain the value of objectivism, I
Speaker 1: will now turn to Iran's general theory in o RN
Speaker 1: to call the roots of war. Of course, she starts
Speaker 1: with the general context of the problem. In what kind
Speaker 1: of society and in what kind of political system does
Speaker 1: war originate? And when does it?
Speaker 2: Not?
Speaker 1: To quote her less a fair capitalism is the only
Speaker 1: social system based on the recognition of individual rights, and
Speaker 1: therefore the only system that bans force from social relationships.
Speaker 1: By the nature of its basic principles and interests. It
Speaker 1: is the only system fundamentally opposed to war. Men who
Speaker 1: are free to produce have no incentive to loot. They
Speaker 1: have nothing to gain from war and a great deal
Speaker 1: to lose. Ideologically, the principle of insual right individual rights
Speaker 1: does not permit a man to seek his own livelihood
Speaker 1: at the point of a gun inside or outside this country. Economically,
Speaker 1: war costs money. In the free economy, where wealth is
Speaker 1: privately owned, the cost of war come out of the
Speaker 1: income of private citizens. There is no overblown public treasury
Speaker 1: to hide that fact, and a citizen cannot hope to
Speaker 1: recoup his own financial losses such as taxes or business
Speaker 1: dislocations or property destruction, by winning the war. Thus his
Speaker 1: own economic interests are on the side of peace. She
Speaker 1: underlies this identification with the reason why, and here is
Speaker 1: my second quote. The trader and the warrior have been
Speaker 1: fundamentally antagonist throughout history. Trade does not florish on battle fields,
Speaker 1: factories do not produce under bombardments, and profits do not
Speaker 1: grow un Rubble capitalism is a society of trades for
Speaker 1: which it has been denounced by every would be gunman
Speaker 1: who regards trade as selfish and conquest conquest as noble
Speaker 1: let those who actually are concerned with peace observe that
Speaker 1: capitalism gave mankind the longest period of peace in history,
Speaker 1: a period during which there were no wars involving the
Speaker 1: entire civilized world, from the end of the Napoleonic Wars
Speaker 1: in eighteen fifteen to the outbreak of World War One
Speaker 1: in nineteen fourteen. Politicians now all call for a two
Speaker 1: state future as a means to solve the conflict and
Speaker 1: wars in the Middle East, but I don't think that
Speaker 1: this is by any means. A foundation of peace. Is
Speaker 1: the roots of the war in the Middle East that
Speaker 1: have to be fought, from which the future of peace
Speaker 1: and prosperity can be built. I expect that capitalism is
Speaker 1: the best social system according to objevism will have to
Speaker 1: be aimed for, although I do not know how and
Speaker 1: what and when this can be achieved and what steps
Speaker 1: will be necessary. With this in mind, and will now
Speaker 1: ask Aron to present his ideas on the conflict in
Speaker 1: the Middle East and how lasting peace can be created.
Speaker 3: So thank you for the invitation, Thank you all for
Speaker 3: being here this afternoon. The events of October seventh were
Speaker 3: real shock to I think so many people around the
Speaker 3: world It was truly horrific, and I'm not gonna give
Speaker 3: you details. I think you've all seen the videos, you've
Speaker 3: heard the stories. There's no reason to recount everything that
Speaker 3: happened that day. But it was truly true horror. And
Speaker 3: yet much of the response of the world, much of
Speaker 3: the response of commentators, was, you know, this is just
Speaker 3: another skirmish in a long battle, and who knows who
Speaker 3: started it. You know, you have to go back decades,
Speaker 3: and there's right on both sides, and they're bad people
Speaker 3: on both sides, and they're good people on both sides,
Speaker 3: and a real moral equivocation. Many as we saw on
Speaker 3: American campuses, and I think much of Europe actually celebrated
Speaker 3: and sided with the Palestinians on October seventh, I mean
Speaker 3: on October eighth, there were already letters at Harvard University
Speaker 3: in support of Ramas and articulating the case. And again
Speaker 3: the story went something like, yes, it was barbaric, it
Speaker 3: was horrible, but what do you expect from people that
Speaker 3: have been oppressed for so many years? This is all
Speaker 3: Israel's bolt. Others, of course, cited with Israel and said, yes, no,
Speaker 3: this is really bad. Israel needs to do something about it.
Speaker 3: But almost always once Israel did something about it, they
Speaker 3: argued for a strain and not doing too much and
Speaker 3: not overreacting. And everybody, I think is overwhelmed. Those seems
Speaker 3: overwhelmed with the complexity of what is going on in
Speaker 3: the Middle East, right, I mean, there are many players.
Speaker 3: You've got Hamas and Gaza, You've got the Palestinians in
Speaker 3: the West Bank, You've got Grizabella and Lebanon, You've got
Speaker 3: the Iranians, and you've got all these other Arab countries
Speaker 3: in the Middle that's not clear exactly what stand they have,
Speaker 3: and it's just it's overwhelming. And then people tell you, well,
Speaker 3: it's one hundred years of history, and then you have
Speaker 3: to go back and understand exactly what happened over those
Speaker 3: hundred years and exactly the consequences and the sequence of events,
Speaker 3: and people just give up there, They throw up their
Speaker 3: hands and they give up. It's too complicated, it's too hot.
Speaker 3: And yet it's not and it shouldn't be, because even
Speaker 3: if you don't know anything about the last hundred years,
Speaker 3: even if you don't know about the whole configuration of
Speaker 3: the Middle East and exactly what happens and who are
Speaker 3: the players are and everything else. What you do know
Speaker 3: and what you can discover fairly quickly is the nature,
Speaker 3: the fundamental nature the character of the parties that are
Speaker 3: at war right now in the Middle East. One can
Speaker 3: look at Israel. If everybody's visited Israel, people can visit
Speaker 3: as well. They can see it, or they can read
Speaker 3: about it. And Israel today forget about the last hundred years.
Speaker 3: Happy to talk about that as well. But in a sense,
Speaker 3: it's irrelevant. What kind of society is Israeli society today,
Speaker 3: it's fundamentally Western, it's fundamentally free. People have equal rights
Speaker 3: in Israel. People have the freedom to speak, they have
Speaker 3: property rights. They live relatively speaking, very European lives in
Speaker 3: a positive sense, in the sense of we respect people's
Speaker 3: rights in Europe for the most parts. I wish we'd
Speaker 3: do more than that, but for the most part, there's
Speaker 3: a general sense of individual liberty in Israel. Even if
Speaker 3: you're not part of their majority group, if you're not Jewish,
Speaker 3: you still have property rights, your freedom of speech, you
Speaker 3: can still engage in movement and action, and there are
Speaker 3: very few limitations that are exclusive to you as an Arab.
Speaker 3: Let's say you actually have one privilege that Jews don't have.
Speaker 3: You don't have to serve in the military, so there's
Speaker 3: no conscription imposed on you. You can volunteer, but you're
Speaker 3: not forced. Jews and Israel are forced to go to
Speaker 3: the military eighteen. But there's true of Christians and Muslims
Speaker 3: and Jews and any other subsect of people within Israel.
Speaker 3: They're treated like people are treated in the Western worlds.
Speaker 3: They're treated with respect as individuals. Is just far from
Speaker 3: a perfect society. Certainly by the standards of objectivism, they're
Speaker 3: far from a perfect society. They could be more capitalists,
Speaker 3: they could respect individual rights even more. But given the
Speaker 3: standard that we have in the world, they're relatively free.
Speaker 3: Given the standard of history, this is one of the
Speaker 3: freest countries in history, and in particular if one looks
Speaker 3: and contrasts them with if you will, the other side Gaza,
Speaker 3: where the conflicts this time erupted. Gaza has been ruled
Speaker 3: by Hamas since basically since two thousand and six. Israel
Speaker 3: left Gaza completely. In two thousand and five, it literally
Speaker 3: evacuated its own citizens out of Gaza. There were Israeli
Speaker 3: villages in Gaza. The Israeli military went in and dragged
Speaker 3: people out of their homes and evacuated them from Gaza. Basically,
Speaker 3: the idea was, we can't defend you here, so we
Speaker 3: need you out. If you stay, we have to devote
Speaker 3: resources to defending you, it's obligation. We can't do that,
Speaker 3: so we're going to force you all out. And as
Speaker 3: All did that, and it handed over control to Gaza
Speaker 3: to the Palestinians. Whoever wants to control it, right, Palestinians
Speaker 3: had a choice on how to do it. There were
Speaker 3: elections Ramas won. We expected them to win, but they
Speaker 3: won and h then there was a civil war between
Speaker 3: the Haramas and the PLO, and they kicked the PLO
Speaker 3: out and Haramas dominated the Gaza stript. By the way,
Speaker 3: one indication of what was to come happened the day
Speaker 3: after all the you know, Jewish civilians were evacuated from
Speaker 3: Gaza because they had left behind in these villages. They
Speaker 3: had left behind their lives, but they'd left behind economic assets.
Speaker 3: They'd lift behind, you know, small factories, they'd lift behind, greenhouses,
Speaker 3: very advanced technologically greenhouses. You know, Gaza's the desert, yet
Speaker 3: they had grown stuff and they'd created a Becausin left
Speaker 3: the greenhouses and you would expect that the Palestinians say,
Speaker 3: whool isn't this great? We now get to use the greenhouses.
Speaker 3: These people, you know, built you out because we don't
Speaker 3: have any Next day they went to the greenhouses, they
Speaker 3: went to factories and they destroyed them all. They destroyed
Speaker 3: them all, which gives you an indication of kind of
Speaker 3: their inclination. It's not to build, construct, improve Hamastakova. And
Speaker 3: now we can judge, okay, what was life like in
Speaker 3: the Gaza strip under Hamas? Are individual rights respected? Is
Speaker 3: their free speech? How? How do people live in Gaza
Speaker 3: under this regime of Ramas? Because is what was out
Speaker 3: of it. And it turns out not surprisingly at all
Speaker 3: if you know much about Palestinian history or the Arab
Speaker 3: world generally, because this is true of the Arab world
Speaker 3: more broadly, that in Gaza there are no individual rights
Speaker 3: people are. You know, Ramasa is a dictatorial power. It's
Speaker 3: authoritarian to the core. It dictates everything. If you oppose them,
Speaker 3: you are killed. If they don't like you, you are often killed.
Speaker 3: You know, you see these signs in the United States,
Speaker 3: maybe seeing them in Europe as well. Gaze for Palestine right.
Speaker 3: Ramas was known for taking gaze to tall buildings and
Speaker 3: throwing them off the building. The Quran says this is
Speaker 3: the punishment, so does the Old and New Testament, but
Speaker 3: the Muslims take it seriously. So no freedom as a consequence,
Speaker 3: no economic progress. The people remain poor to the extent
Speaker 3: that there was anything. You'll you'll see pictures of Gaza
Speaker 3: before the war looking quite nice. But anything nice that
Speaker 3: existed in Gaza was because people in Katar and people
Speaker 3: in Iran and Saudi Arabia sent the money. It was
Speaker 3: nothing was actually produced in Gaza. There was no real
Speaker 3: economic activity. Again, contrast that to Israel, which is booming,
Speaker 3: has been booming for years now. Is the you know,
Speaker 3: I think second in the world only to Silicon Valley
Speaker 3: in terms of entrepreneurship and innovation and technology. It's not
Speaker 3: an accident. The country that basically respects the individual rights
Speaker 3: of its citizens, basically leaves them alone, allows them to
Speaker 3: pursue their happiness, is a country in which there will
Speaker 3: be economic activity and people will achieve real economic success.
Speaker 3: A country that oppresses its population, you will see no
Speaker 3: economic progress. A Israel as a secular country, yes, there
Speaker 3: is a lot of religion, and I think in the
Speaker 3: news we see more religion than there really is in Israel.
Speaker 3: But generally it's a secular country. There is not as
Speaker 3: much as I'd like it to be, but there is
Speaker 3: a separation between state and church, between state and religion.
Speaker 3: All religions again have equal standing before the law. Comas
Speaker 3: there's a theocracy, it's a theocracy of Islam is inspired
Speaker 3: by the radiant regime and the role of religion in
Speaker 3: their license. Religion dominates every aspect of what they do,
Speaker 3: in how they governance, again in the attitude to gays
Speaker 3: or their attitude to individuals. Israel, as a relatively individualistic society,
Speaker 3: people are treated as individuals. In Gaza, people are treated
Speaker 3: as members of groups, tribes. Tribal identity is what is important.
Speaker 3: So even without knowing any history, even without knowing all
Speaker 3: the details of how it is always founded and what
Speaker 3: happened and how it all played out, and every Palestinian
Speaker 3: leader in a row, and what the Palestinians did over
Speaker 3: many of those years, all one has to really do
Speaker 3: is look at the reality as it exists today, accessible
Speaker 3: to almost any human being on planet Earth today. The
Speaker 3: information is right there, it's not hard to discover. And
Speaker 3: what you find is good and evil. What you find
Speaker 3: as a country that is basically a good country with
Speaker 3: flaws and a country that's fundamentally as a police galant
Speaker 3: at the evil with nothing positive, nothing positive. And if
Speaker 3: you understand it in those terms, then what does evil
Speaker 3: have to what is hamas in order to sustain its
Speaker 3: authoritarian ways? What does it have to do? What do
Speaker 3: authoritarians really every way ultimately have to do because their
Speaker 3: failure is domestically the economy of Gaza didn't exist. Again,
Speaker 3: all the money they got, they got them overseas. What
Speaker 3: did they do, by the way, with all their money,
Speaker 3: they came a little bit, improved the streets and their
Speaker 3: buildings a little bit. But what mostly did they do?
Speaker 3: We know now. They dug tunnels, They bought weapons, They
Speaker 3: put weapons into tunnels. And the tunnel system is amazing.
Speaker 3: I mean, in America you cannot build a tunnel right
Speaker 3: because of all the environmental regulations and all the rest.
Speaker 3: It cost a gazillion dollars, and Gaza was no problem.
Speaker 3: They dug tunnels everywhere, much faster and much more effectively
Speaker 3: than they do in the American cities. So if that's
Speaker 3: what you're doing, if that's how you're spending the money,
Speaker 3: if that is what gives you legitimacy, the building of
Speaker 3: tunnels and the arming of the people, then war is
Speaker 3: necessary for you. It is a justification for your existence.
Speaker 3: There's no justification in creating an environment in which your
Speaker 3: people can thrive. The only justification is hatred of the other's,
Speaker 3: hatred of Israel. So while for me, October seventh was
Speaker 3: truly shocking in its barbarity, and we should remember this
Speaker 3: was pure barberism, it was not surprising at all. It
Speaker 3: was not surprising that it happened. It was just a
Speaker 3: matter of time before Hamas was going to do something
Speaker 3: like this, And it wasn't that surprising in terms of
Speaker 3: the kind of violence that it could because that is
Speaker 3: the kind of culture they've created and goes. It's a
Speaker 3: kind of culture that we haven't seen in the West
Speaker 3: in probably three four hundred years, probably the last war
Speaker 3: there was that barbaric in a sense of just you know,
Speaker 3: face to face combat and rape and pellage. It's probably
Speaker 3: you have to go back probably to the eighteenth century
Speaker 3: of the seventeenth century, so that is where we are
Speaker 3: there are two sides to this conflict, a good side
Speaker 3: and a bad side, a side of righteousness and a
Speaker 3: side of evil, a side that is trying to protect
Speaker 3: itself and defend itself, and a side that wants to
Speaker 3: kill and slaughter and destroy. Hamas does not offer some
Speaker 3: kind of long term vision for how to live side
Speaker 3: by side with Israel. Palestinian people do not believe in
Speaker 3: a long term vision to live side by site Israel.
Speaker 3: Their vision is to replace Israel. The River to the
Speaker 3: Sea means exactly what they say. They want a Palestinian
Speaker 3: state from the river to the sea, with no Jews
Speaker 3: between the river and the sea. And by the way,
Speaker 3: the river most of the kids who yelled the river
Speaker 3: to the sea have no idea what river and what sea.
Speaker 3: But you know, it's it's the Jordan River to the
Speaker 3: Mediterranean Sea. It's that it's what Israel today and what
Speaker 3: used to be called the West Bank, that whole area.
Speaker 3: They want the destruction of Israel. And it's not that
Speaker 3: they say, you know, once we get rid of the Jews,
Speaker 3: we're going to establish a prosperous, free, you know, a capitalist,
Speaker 3: wonderful society. No, that's just step one towards they go. Remember,
Speaker 3: these are people are theocratic. They have adopted the idea
Speaker 3: of ISLAMI and the goal ultimately is Sharia law over
Speaker 3: the entire world. Step one is destroy Israel. Step two
Speaker 3: make our way to Europe. It's closer ultimately the US.
Speaker 3: And they believe this not tasked. It seems ridiculous, but
Speaker 3: they really want world conquest. They want world conquest. We
Speaker 3: live in the twenty first century. They do, and they
Speaker 3: think Allah is on their side and they think that
Speaker 3: they can be successful, that they can achieve this. Step
Speaker 3: one is Israel not the final step. No Ramas, no
Speaker 3: Risbella ultimately are not nationalist movements. Both MS and Chris
Speaker 3: Bala ultimately international movements. These are movements dedicated to world domination. Again,
Speaker 3: as ridiculous as that might sound, just all you have
Speaker 3: to do is read their charter. They modify their charts.
Speaker 3: Chris Boala as original Charta talked about Sarilo over the
Speaker 3: whole world. And then they've they've waded it down because
Speaker 3: they tried to become a political force with it, and
Speaker 3: Lebanon Stay wanded it down to present themselves more as nationalists.
Speaker 3: But ultimately what they want is what Uan wants, what's
Speaker 3: in the constitution. If you want, which is the spreading
Speaker 3: of Islam on a global scale, Well, you know, we
Speaker 3: can talk about Saudi Arabia. Ask me in the q
Speaker 3: and A of Saudi Arabia, because we could go in
Speaker 3: a lot of directions of this talk. There's a lot
Speaker 3: of content we can cover. So the question fundamentally is
Speaker 3: what do you do because if somebody really wants to
Speaker 3: kill you, there's no nothing to negotiate, or you can
Speaker 3: take half my life, just don't take it all. I mean,
Speaker 3: there's no there's nothing to compromise over. It's not that
Speaker 3: the Palestinians today want a Palestinian state. Everybody talks about
Speaker 3: a two state solution, but the Palestinians don't want a
Speaker 3: two state solution, and they've never wanted a two state solution.
Speaker 3: They want a one state solution from the river to
Speaker 3: the same, a one state solution with no Jews in it,
Speaker 3: or if they are Jews in it, it's a small
Speaker 3: minority and they are treated a second class citizen. As
Speaker 3: the Qur'an dictates, what do you how do you negotiate,
Speaker 3: how do you come to terms? How do you establish
Speaker 3: peace with people who want to kill you, who want
Speaker 3: to kill you. This is their goal, this is their aim,
Speaker 3: and this is what their religion demands of them. And
Speaker 3: it's not just the Palestinians. We just we just heard
Speaker 3: about a ceasefire with Risbelan. Husbella is A is a
Speaker 3: Lebanese entity. It's different than Rahmas because they are Shiites
Speaker 3: Ramas Assunis. They are directly linked to Iran. Gisbellah was
Speaker 3: established by Iran in the early nineteen eighties, and again
Speaker 3: this is part of an Iranian goal of domination. Chrisbella
Speaker 3: allied with Hamas because they have a common enemy, not
Speaker 3: because they like each other or they share goals. Again,
Speaker 3: Studis and Chiites don't particularly like each other, but they
Speaker 3: know they both hate the enemy, which are the Jews
Speaker 3: in the Middle East. Prisbela is in the same position.
Speaker 3: They will not be satisfied as long as there is
Speaker 3: a state of Israel. They will not be satisfied as
Speaker 3: long as you know there is an Israeli state. It's
Speaker 3: not that they are they want a smaller Israeli state,
Speaker 3: or they want a few pieces of the Galilee, and
Speaker 3: then they'll be happy, and then they'll be peace for everybody.
Speaker 3: Chrisbela's goal is to dominate Lebanon and to establish the
Speaker 3: real law of Lebanon, which is hard for them because
Speaker 3: they are they have been historically a minority in Lebanon,
Speaker 3: they haven't been a majority, so they're fighting a battle
Speaker 3: within Lebanon. And then they would like to see Israel
Speaker 3: wiped out as part of this again global ambition. How
Speaker 3: do you sit down with and negotiate terms when this
Speaker 3: is their goal which they have not changed, and they
Speaker 3: have not modified and will not change and will not
Speaker 3: modify because this is part of the wild view, This
Speaker 3: is part of the philosophy. And then of course behind
Speaker 3: Hamas and Rizbla and behind almost all the terrorism in
Speaker 3: the world today, sits the state of Iran, the State
Speaker 3: of Iran, which is a state created with this mission
Speaker 3: in mind. It's in its constitution, it's in the very
Speaker 3: nature of the state. And remember Ion has, I mean,
Speaker 3: this is a I don't know many examples in history
Speaker 3: where you see this. Ion has a supreme leader, not
Speaker 3: just a leader, the supreme one. So it is a dictatorship,
Speaker 3: it's an authoritarian state. It is a theocracy again dedicated
Speaker 3: to a particular goal. The spread of these ideas on
Speaker 3: a global scale, as long as you want is there
Speaker 3: and has money, and has money because it has oil,
Speaker 3: it funds all these other elements in the Middle East
Speaker 3: to keep promoting this ideology going. And not just in
Speaker 3: the Middle East. They found a lot in Europe. They
Speaker 3: fund all over the world. They're funding ideological allies in
Speaker 3: order to spread these ideas. How do you establish peace
Speaker 3: with you on How do you establish peace with Isabella
Speaker 3: and Ramas? And the answer is you can't, not as
Speaker 3: long as they hold this ideology. That is, one cannot
Speaker 3: have peace with one's enemy. The enemy has to stop
Speaker 3: being the enemy for peace to exist. So the only
Speaker 3: way to have peace, what do we call it lasting
Speaker 3: peace in the Middle East, is to not have an
Speaker 3: enemy anymore. The Uranian people are not necessarily Israel's enemy.
Speaker 3: Some are, some are not. I would even argue that
Speaker 3: are the right circumstances. The Palestinian people as a whole
Speaker 3: are not necessarily Israel's enemy. They are right now, but
Speaker 3: that's not necessity. There's nothing in the genes or the
Speaker 3: blood or the ethnic group that necessitates hostility. They are
Speaker 3: individuals just like anybody else. But right now they're individuals
Speaker 3: guided by destructive, horrific, evil ideology, so that ideology has
Speaker 3: to be defeated. But then there's a question, how do
Speaker 3: you defeat an ideology? How do you change people's minds
Speaker 3: about ideas? How do you get them to reject they
Speaker 3: all ideology and embrace something new, because what they need
Speaker 3: is something new. If the Palestinians were more like the Israelis,
Speaker 3: if they recognized the value of the individual, if they
Speaker 3: upheld secular government and secular society, if they wanted prosperity
Speaker 3: and they were willing to recognize the value of markets,
Speaker 3: peace would be relatively easy. How do you get them
Speaker 3: to change when they are stuck on an evil ideology
Speaker 3: that is destructive and is the opposite of all these things.
Speaker 3: I mean, I know a lot of people who write
Speaker 3: and argue constantly they can't do It's impossible. You can't
Speaker 3: win an ideology, you can't beat an ideology out of people,
Speaker 3: and yet it turns out you can. It's happened before.
Speaker 3: I mean, you mentioned going to the German border. I
Speaker 3: don't know when this was. I assume in the nineteen
Speaker 3: you were six, so in the nineteen sixties, and there
Speaker 3: was still some hate and fear and anger towards Germany,
Speaker 3: but Germany already by then was a completely different place.
Speaker 3: I mean, for all intentsive purpose, there will no Nazis
Speaker 3: and many anymore. The Nazis had been defeated, not just militarily,
Speaker 3: but the Nazis have been defeated ideologically. The ideology of
Speaker 3: Nazism was gone. Now we can talk about whether it
Speaker 3: might come back, but it was gone. How did that happen?
Speaker 3: How did the German people just give up an ideology
Speaker 3: that they were willing to die for. I mean, many, many,
Speaker 3: many Germans died fighting for Nazism, and and you know,
Speaker 3: people could tell you stories about it's only a small
Speaker 3: minority of Germans were really Nazis. I called bullshit. It's
Speaker 3: just not true. I mean, it's a small number of
Speaker 3: the population that joined the Nazi Party. But the Nazi
Speaker 3: Party could not have done what it had done without
Speaker 3: massive support from an overwhelming majority of the German population,
Speaker 3: whether they were members of the Nazi Party or not.
Speaker 3: They you know, think of all the soldiers that pulled
Speaker 3: those triggers. What about Japan World War two? Again more
Speaker 3: common history. Right. World War two, Japan was dominated by
Speaker 3: a collectivistic, you know, an ethnic driven ideology that basically
Speaker 3: said the Japanese was superior to everybody else in the world.
Speaker 3: They were driven by the idea that Japan was the
Speaker 3: most important, valuable place on planet Earth, and they would
Speaker 3: dominate the rest of the world. They would dominate China,
Speaker 3: they would dominate Asia. Asia was theirs, Europe was the Germans,
Speaker 3: and they had divided up the war between the two
Speaker 3: master racers, if you will. And they really believed in this.
Speaker 3: I mean, remember the number of Kamikazi pilots who were
Speaker 3: willing to fly their airplanes and kill themselves in the
Speaker 3: name of the emperor, in the name of an ideology.
Speaker 3: Suicide bombing was not invented by Islam. Japanese were doing
Speaker 3: it and they were I mean, it seemed that they
Speaker 3: did it with a with a passion and a focus.
Speaker 3: It seemed brainwashed. How do you get that out of them?
Speaker 3: How do you change it? And yet Japan today is
Speaker 3: an amazing place. People there incredibly friendly, very much more
Speaker 3: individualistic than a lot of other places around the world.
Speaker 3: You know, nobody's flying it planes at the building in
Speaker 3: the name of Japan. The emperor is there, but it's
Speaker 3: symbolic and kind of cute. And everybody goes toe that
Speaker 3: sees the palace to see the beautiful gardens and the
Speaker 3: beautiful buildings. But nobody takes the amput too seriously. In Japan,
Speaker 3: nobody's dying for the emperor. The idea of Japanese imperialism
Speaker 3: was defeated. The idea of Japanese you know, superiority was defeated.
Speaker 3: How by being defeated, the two things happened. And you
Speaker 3: need to do two things to defeat an ideology. One
Speaker 3: you need to defeat it in the field of action.
Speaker 3: You need to defeat it. Militarily, you need to crush it,
Speaker 3: so there's no doubt about next time we'll do better.
Speaker 3: One of the reasons we had a World War two
Speaker 3: is because the Germans were not crushed in World War One.
Speaker 3: So Hitler and others who returned from the battlefields of
Speaker 3: World War One went back to Germany and said, we
Speaker 3: could have won this, We will win this. You know,
Speaker 3: we weren't defeated. Our political leaders betrayed us, our generals
Speaker 3: maybe betrayed us, but we could have won this, and
Speaker 3: we should have won this, and the ideology only got
Speaker 3: stronger of German nationalism not weaker because they were not defeated.
Speaker 3: They might have been humiliated, but not defeated. They weren't
Speaker 3: what to their knees. They didn't get the message that
Speaker 3: they had no chance of winning. After World War Two,
Speaker 3: the Germans got the message. And by the way, part
Speaker 3: of the reason, and I know this is controversial today
Speaker 3: in Europe and the US everywhere, one of the reasons
Speaker 3: Dresden was flattened was to make sure they got the message.
Speaker 3: It was explicitly Churchill's goal to break the German spirit completely.
Speaker 3: And if you've seen pictures of what Germany looked like
Speaker 3: at the end of World War Two, it was just destroyed,
Speaker 3: its flattened. Almost every German city was flattened. And as
Speaker 3: a consequence of that, the Germans got it, we can't win.
Speaker 3: Something we did was wrong, something about what we the
Speaker 3: ideology we had was bad. Maybe we don't get it exactly,
Speaker 3: but we know this is not workable. We just die
Speaker 3: if we follow this. And a second thing is that
Speaker 3: in those days, the Allied forces had a sudden pride
Speaker 3: and a sudden you know, confidence in the ideology they represented.
Speaker 3: So we're not just defeating you in the name of
Speaker 3: defeating We're defeating you in the name of you know,
Speaker 3: maybe they don't call it. They nobody called the capitalism
Speaker 3: or or or freedom. But they talked about freedom. They
Speaker 3: talked about democracy, They talked about the idea of individual sovereignty.
Speaker 3: They talked about the negatives of what the Nazi ideology held.
Speaker 3: They attacked the Nazi ideology as evil. There was no
Speaker 3: qualms about calling it evil. Nobody nobody said, well, there's
Speaker 3: some good things about Nazis. Yeah, we don't want to
Speaker 3: paint too big of a brush. No, Nazism was evil.
Speaker 3: It was done with, it was finished. That'stmen of history
Speaker 3: nobody was interested in. So the West defeated the militarily,
Speaker 3: crushed them, and challenged them intellectually, that is, philosophically, intellectually,
Speaker 3: basically called them what they were, which is an evil
Speaker 3: ideology that the West would have nothing to do with.
Speaker 3: And that combination works in Japan. The same combination worked
Speaker 3: every city in Japan. Every major city in Japan was firebombed.
Speaker 3: That is, it went up and spoke, we'll get to questions,
Speaker 3: and they were all firebombed. Hundreds of thousands of people
Speaker 3: died way before he was Shuminnigasaki. A million people were
Speaker 3: homeless in Tokyo by the end of the war, a
Speaker 3: million people. And then of course he was Shumenagasaki. Put
Speaker 3: an end to the war. But they put an end
Speaker 3: to the idea that the Japanese was special. It put
Speaker 3: an end to the idea that the Japanese could conquer
Speaker 3: the world. It definitively said, no, you failed. Whatever ideology
Speaker 3: you had, it was rotten. Then you failed. These guys stronger,
Speaker 3: more powerful, most success full than you are. But that
Speaker 3: wasn't all. Then the United States came in and said,
Speaker 3: and here are some ideas by which you can build
Speaker 3: a better society. That is all wrong. Here's something better.
Speaker 3: And you know, I don't know if you know this,
Speaker 3: but Japan's constitution that they have today was written over
Speaker 3: a weekend. But General MacArthur and his aid he sat
Speaker 3: down the road to constitution. They copied a lot of
Speaker 3: it from the American Constitution. The actually phrases that they
Speaker 3: just copied straight from the Declaration of Independence. The American
Speaker 3: Declaration of Dependence is in the Japanese constitution. The idea,
Speaker 3: for example, that we all have an aliable right to life,
Speaker 3: live within the pursuit of happiness is not in the
Speaker 3: American constitution as in declaration, but it is in a
Speaker 3: Japanese constitution. And then they basically went to the Emperor
Speaker 3: of Japan and said, this is your new constitution. Sign
Speaker 3: here and ask him, in a sense, this is how
Speaker 3: you are going to live. You've not you don't have
Speaker 3: the right to choose your own path moving forward. What
Speaker 3: you did is so horrific that you don't get to choose.
Speaker 3: We're going to choose for you. And here's an alternative.
Speaker 3: It's an alternative that has led your pant to thrive,
Speaker 3: to do very well. It's very much change, it's ideas.
Speaker 3: So that's a combination defeat on the battlefield, bet a
Speaker 3: crushing defeats on the battlefield, and then an alternative, fighting
Speaker 3: the people with an alternative. Now, the first part of this,
Speaker 3: a question defeated on the battlefield is not pretty, it's
Speaker 3: not nice. It's not something we want to watch on
Speaker 3: television being done. You know, maybe we should be thankful
Speaker 3: there was no television or not significant television during World
Speaker 3: War Two, because maybe we wouldn't have tolerated what actually
Speaker 3: happened during the war, even towards the Nazis. But the
Speaker 3: fact is today anything you do is on television. But
Speaker 3: the reality is that in order to have lasting peas,
Speaker 3: the Palestinians have to change their ideology. Iran is going
Speaker 3: to have to change its ideology. And the only way
Speaker 3: that can happen is first if they're crushed on the battlefield.
Speaker 3: Israel's done a little bit of crushing, but it's far
Speaker 3: from what could have done and should have done. It's
Speaker 3: taken way too long. It's appease that every turn. And
Speaker 3: can you imagine bombing Dressden into oblivion and supplying it
Speaker 3: at the same time with water, electricity, internet connection and food.
Speaker 3: But that's what Israel's doing. Is Oh, by the way,
Speaker 3: supplies them with water and supplies them with electricity, and
Speaker 3: they have internet connection, and they have cell phone connection
Speaker 3: because of Israel, and yet they're bombing them at the
Speaker 3: same time. It's sanity in my view. People you bomb,
Speaker 3: you should not be feeding. If you want to feed them,
Speaker 3: don't bomb them. But if you're bombing them, don't feed them.
Speaker 3: Otherwise you're sending a complete mixed message and a message
Speaker 3: and weakness. Since the win, Israel needed to truly crush
Speaker 3: the Palestinian people in the war here and here again
Speaker 3: more controversial than most the war. He is not against Hamas.
Speaker 3: Hamas is the particular. It's a political leadership of the
Speaker 3: Palestinian people. This is who the Palestinian people want. Every
Speaker 3: pole shows they support Hamas. They voted for them in
Speaker 3: the last Palestinian election happened in two thousand and five,
Speaker 3: a long time ago. Green they want a majority. This
Speaker 3: is the government of the Palaestinian people. It's not just
Speaker 3: some external group that came in and took over. This
Speaker 3: is who they are. Palestinian need to be brought to
Speaker 3: their knees in otherwise they need to understand that they
Speaker 3: can never Israel militarily, that through whatever ideology they have
Speaker 3: today is not an ideology for victory. The Slam the
Speaker 3: slum ist ideology is one of defeat. And then they
Speaker 3: need to be offered an alternative. And here you come
Speaker 3: up against multiculturalism. The West has to be able to
Speaker 3: say your way is bad, it's evil, it's wrong. Islamism,
Speaker 3: this interpretation of Islam, we're not expecting his Slim I'm
Speaker 3: gonna tell you what Islam means. It doesn't mean this
Speaker 3: version of Islam. World dominations show real law. Treating women
Speaker 3: the way you treat women, treating gaze, the way you
Speaker 3: treat gays. This is unacceptable in the civilized world. This
Speaker 3: ideology is evil. It's like the Nazis. It's psych Japanese imperialism.
Speaker 3: It needs to disappear from the planet. Need to say that.
Speaker 3: I can't say that anymore. Too politically correct. Is no
Speaker 3: good and evil talking those terms good ideology, bad ideology
Speaker 3: by what standard. But it's a combination of those two
Speaker 3: things that have to happen. That is what leads to
Speaker 3: long term peace. And there's no reason they cannot be
Speaker 3: long term peace in the Middle East. There's no reason
Speaker 3: why the religion of Islam cannot be called it moderated, reformed, enlightened,
Speaker 3: just like Christianity was. This was a Christianity, pretty barbaric religion.
Speaker 3: Three four, five, six hundred years ago. In the Thirty
Speaker 3: Year War, thirty Year War which was not far from
Speaker 3: here and participated, you know, Netherlands was part of it.
Speaker 3: A third of the German population was killed by Germans.
Speaker 3: Why because one side was Catholic, because one side was Protestant,
Speaker 3: and they hated each other. They killed their own people,
Speaker 3: their own families, a third of the entire population maybe
Speaker 3: per capita. The bloodiest war in human history all over religion.
Speaker 3: So it's not like there's a religion of peace someway.
Speaker 3: There is no such thing as a religion of peace.
Speaker 3: Just read the Old Testament if you're not convinced of that.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: So I'm not gonna tell the Muslims they can't. They
Speaker 3: can't happen to them. What's happened to Christianity, which is
Speaker 3: passive pacification, but the militant form it takes today is unacceptable,
Speaker 3: will not be accepted, and the West has to defeat it,
Speaker 3: to crush it, to eliminate it. If we're gonna have peace,
Speaker 3: once that's done, and once we offer an alternative, not
Speaker 3: offering alternative interms of negotiation, but often an alternative, because
Speaker 3: this is the alternative you're gonna have. That is the
Speaker 3: way you achieve peace. Peace comes as as the quote
Speaker 3: from mine rand Uh emphasize, Peace comes when we start
Speaker 3: treating each other as individuals, not as members of tribes.
Speaker 3: Peace comes when we start treating each other as traders.
Speaker 3: Well we can gain from one another through trade. Peace
Speaker 3: comes when all parties acknowledge the value of individual human
Speaker 3: life and acknowledge the fact that individuals have rights, that
Speaker 3: an individuals should be free. As long as we don't
Speaker 3: have that, it's almost impossible. It is impossible to achieve peace.
Speaker 3: We can negotiate temporary cease fires. We got one right
Speaker 3: now in Lebanon, you know, by Israel maybe ten years.
Speaker 3: It's not insignificant because Israel's devastated Grisbella as much as
Speaker 3: it has. But it won't go away. The problem hasn't
Speaker 3: been solved. It's just kicking the can further down the road.
Speaker 3: As we're very good in the West the doing in
Speaker 3: almost every realm of our lives. God forbid, we deal
Speaker 3: with reality and actually deal with the problems that we face.
Speaker 3: We just pretend it doesn't exist and kick them down
Speaker 3: the road. Same thing will happen in Gaza. I expect
Speaker 3: some deal will happen where the Pastinians are not defeated,
Speaker 3: and therefore it's just a matter of how do they reform,
Speaker 3: how do they reorm how do they initiate war again
Speaker 3: in the future. So I'm not very optimistic about achieving
Speaker 3: lasting peace in the midd least because I think we
Speaker 3: in the West are way too weak we don't have
Speaker 3: the backbone that we had seventy years ago. We don't
Speaker 3: have the confidence that our system is actually of value
Speaker 3: and will actually lead to lasting peace. Because that's what
Speaker 3: it's gonna take. It's gonna take the West is what
Speaker 3: representing the West in the Middle East, But it's going
Speaker 3: to take the West to recommit to its own ideas,
Speaker 3: recommit to the value its own ideas, and recommit to
Speaker 3: fighting evil ideologies to threaten and defeating them and then
Speaker 3: advocating for the good in the same time. You know,
Speaker 3: I think immand is an important tool, if you will,
Speaker 3: maybe the most important think of the twentieth century that
Speaker 3: can reignite that sense of value that we see in
Speaker 3: our own culture and our own civilizations, in our own
Speaker 3: value and give us the kind of backbone, give us
Speaker 3: them all certainty to go out and fight the fight,
Speaker 3: and it needs to be fought because it's not over
Speaker 3: and it's only going to expand as if Israel doesn't
Speaker 3: win it all.
Speaker 4: Thank you, all right, We'll take questions, Yeah, what.
Speaker 5: Do you actually see happening in the coming years maybe decades?
Speaker 3: So what I see happening in the coming years and decades? Look,
Speaker 3: I think what Israel has done to both Hamas and
Speaker 3: Chris Bala is a lot. They've degraded their ability to
Speaker 3: wage war against Israel's significant Risbelin and Ramas are really
Speaker 3: no longer, at least for the next few years, a
Speaker 3: threat to Israel. Yes, they might still commit terrorist attack
Speaker 3: you in there, but they can do anything on the
Speaker 3: scale of October seventh. They can't do anything on the
Speaker 3: scale of what they did before October seventh. People forget
Speaker 3: before walked over seventh. Every few days missiles would be
Speaker 3: launched on Israel, and luckily Israel knew how to play defense.
Speaker 3: They could knock the missiles out of the air. So
Speaker 3: now a lot of people died, But the intention was
Speaker 3: to kill a lot of people almost on a daily basis.
Speaker 3: That won't happen. The missiles are gone, the ability to
Speaker 3: protect those missiles are gone, so it's always likely to
Speaker 3: face the situation where the threat level has decreased significantly.
Speaker 3: I would also say Iran has been shown to be
Speaker 3: a paper tiger. For most of us, that was not surprising.
Speaker 3: Iran has always been weak. But for a lot of
Speaker 3: people who are surprising, and maybe for the Uranian itself.
Speaker 3: The Uranians themselves. They discovered how weak they are they
Speaker 3: really are. They thought they had these amazing Russian weapons systems,
Speaker 3: and it turns out that those amazing Russian weapon systems
Speaker 3: can be destroyed very, very easily by a modern, technologically
Speaker 3: advanced army. Maybe we could learn something about other conflicts
Speaker 3: from that. So I think Iran is weakened significantly. So
Speaker 3: I think you're buying. You probably brought a decade of
Speaker 3: relatively quiet and then the real question is what happens
Speaker 3: to Iran. I think Iran is the key player in
Speaker 3: the Middle East. You could I can imagine an optimistic scenario, right.
Speaker 3: The optimistic scenario is over the next few years, local
Speaker 3: hostility to the regime in Iran increases, and ultimately there's
Speaker 3: a revolution in Iran and they kick out the Mulas
Speaker 3: and they establish a pro Western, Western friendly regime in Tehran,
Speaker 3: and then the whole Midlease changes and Israel has a
Speaker 3: shot because then you know, the financial resources don't go
Speaker 3: to Hamas and Krisbala and those organizations finished. And maybe
Speaker 3: then the Palestinians wake up and say, we're on our own.
Speaker 3: We better cut a deal, right, we ret to do something,
Speaker 3: We better change in some fundamental way, so defeat could
Speaker 3: come from the Iranian people. And in a sense, that's
Speaker 3: the most bloodless way in which the whole some of
Speaker 3: the issues get resolved. Is the Iranian people rebel against
Speaker 3: the Islamist regime and establish a decent country, then I
Speaker 3: think you get you could get real change in the
Speaker 3: Middle East. So that's you know, that's what I think
Speaker 3: is going to happen. You know, Lebanon is a powder keg.
Speaker 3: It's it's hard to exactly say what's going to happen
Speaker 3: there with his ballah, partially because of the eternal politics
Speaker 3: within Lebanon, but the Lebanese were very happy to see
Speaker 3: Israel completely degrade his balla and destroy his ballah because
Speaker 3: that was their only hope of reasserting control over the country.
Speaker 3: The Schietes again not a majority, and there used to
Speaker 3: be a small minority, the bigger minority today, but nobody
Speaker 3: else had the will or the military resources to take
Speaker 3: them on. Now that they've been degraded, you might see
Speaker 3: a renewed civil war in Lebanon where they attempt to
Speaker 3: try to cross as well. I finished the job so
Speaker 3: that they can go back to normal. I mean, remember
Speaker 3: Lebanon has not been a normal country since the early
Speaker 3: nineteen seventies, right, it's been in a civil war or
Speaker 3: in some kind of mayhem since the early nineteen seventies
Speaker 3: before that, But you know what, what what Lebanon was
Speaker 3: called Switzerland of the Middle East, and yeah big Woot
Speaker 3: was called the Monaco. It was a it's a beautiful,
Speaker 3: beautiful city. Lebanon is a beautiful, beautiful country. And it
Speaker 3: used to be you know, almost fifty percent Christian, and
Speaker 3: the Christians have all left. Now today it's it's it's
Speaker 3: somewhere between twenty to thirty percent Christian, if that, because
Speaker 3: they've all they've all left, the Christian Arabs, and and
Speaker 3: because because of the civil war, because how horrible Lebanon became,
Speaker 3: and they they had options. So who knows exactly how
Speaker 3: Lebanon plays out, But again I think physimal eyes, a
Speaker 3: military force threatening Israel for the most part is gone.
Speaker 3: It doesn't mean they can't rebuild, but but for a
Speaker 3: decade it's gone.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well you run this, Dee, the other conflicts, the
Speaker 2: sixth Day Seven Day War.
Speaker 3: The only was before that.
Speaker 1: I told this too power before.
Speaker 3: And throughout the students as well, it's finally as well
Speaker 3: on the campus is that if we run, there will
Speaker 3: be another power in all these so and he it
Speaker 3: goes back to the comment before about Saudi Arabia. It
Speaker 3: really is a question about what is going to happen
Speaker 3: with Saudi Arabia. There is no other power in the
Speaker 3: Biterrainian It is Egypt. Egypt is armed to the teeth
Speaker 3: right now. It's got a massive military, it's got very
Speaker 3: advanced weapons systems. The only good thing you could say
Speaker 3: about Egypt right now is it's all to military is
Speaker 3: basically American weapons systems. So they couldn't launch a war
Speaker 3: against Israel without American support because they would have no
Speaker 3: spare parts, they would have no ammunition, they couldn't fight
Speaker 3: the war. They're completely armed by the United States. The
Speaker 3: same as true, by the way, as the Saudis. The
Speaker 3: Saudis have weapons systems, all American weapon systems. But really
Speaker 3: here the question is what is the goal of the
Speaker 3: Saudi regime? What does the Saudis actually want? And I,
Speaker 3: you know, the reality is I don't know, right MBS,
Speaker 3: who is a crown prince of Saudi Arabia, who will
Speaker 3: be the king of Saudi Arabia. When the current king
Speaker 3: dies is a young man who claims to be Western,
Speaker 3: claims to wants to being Western values to Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 3: He's still gonna stay king. It's not exactly consistent with
Speaker 3: Western values, I would argue, and he's still pretty brutal
Speaker 3: in some respects. But there is definitely a loosening up
Speaker 3: and and a kind of westernization of certain aspects of
Speaker 3: Saudi life. Uh. Although you know, we met a I
Speaker 3: met a Saudi girl yes, yesterday, two days ago, two
Speaker 3: days ago in dis Soldo from Germany, and she was like,
Speaker 3: she just got out of Saudi Arabia and she's like,
Speaker 3: I'm never going back. It's a horrible place now again,
Speaker 3: particularly for a woman, It's just a horrible place to
Speaker 3: live and to be. So how serious he is? And
Speaker 3: then the question also is, let's say he is serious,
Speaker 3: will he live? Right? So that was serious and so
Speaker 3: that was killed very quickly after signing a peace deal
Speaker 3: with Israel. So will MBS survive? What are the other
Speaker 3: forces were in the Middle East? Now Here again is
Speaker 3: this point. If Israel defeats the Islamists locally, others will
Speaker 3: pay attention and they say we don't want that, and
Speaker 3: they'll have to change their minds. People don't like supporting
Speaker 3: a losing ideology. Remember when they were terrorist attacks regularly
Speaker 3: in Europe ten years ago, nine, ten years ago, it
Speaker 3: was just regular, you know, cause being driven through crowds,
Speaker 3: you know, subways attacked and it was regular. And where
Speaker 3: was this happening? Was happening when ISIS was successful. ISAs
Speaker 3: had conquered ground, they had taken over parts of Syria,
Speaker 3: taken over parts of Iraq, and they were establishing the
Speaker 3: Collie Funds. And when you're successful like that, a lot
Speaker 3: of people are willing to die for your cause. But
Speaker 3: when ISIS basically was for the most part destroyed, hasn't
Speaker 3: been completely destroyed, but for the most part destroyed, had
Speaker 3: to give back the land disappeared as an is firing
Speaker 3: force of victory. Terrorism declined dramatically. Now it's not gone away,
Speaker 3: and you can see the crowds all over Europe of
Speaker 3: Islamists who have not gone away, but they willing us
Speaker 3: to die for the cause has gone down dramatically because
Speaker 3: the cause doesn't look like exciting anymore, you know, Brits
Speaker 3: and I don't know if you guys had this phenomena here,
Speaker 3: but people all over Europe were volunteering to go and
Speaker 3: fight with Isis. They were converting to Islam and moving
Speaker 3: over there because it was an exciting ideology. Well, if
Speaker 3: you defeat it, it's not exciting anymore. So a lot
Speaker 3: of it depends on how the Saudist and the common
Speaker 3: people interpret what Israel does. And again to the extent
Speaker 3: that Israel doesn't crush its enemy, and it hasn't completely
Speaker 3: to that extent, they always think, oh, this hope, next
Speaker 3: time we'll do it better. Next time, we'll beat them,
Speaker 3: next time, we'll get them. So if Uran goes away,
Speaker 3: there's the possibility that Saudi Arabia takes its place or
Speaker 3: another country takes its place. But again, it buys time.
Speaker 3: Right right now, Iran is at the forefront of all
Speaker 3: the terrorism really globally in terms of Islamic terrorism, and
Speaker 3: if that's out of the picture, it'll take them a
Speaker 3: long time to reorganize around another state sponsor again. And
Speaker 3: as you defeat them off an alternative, you're just buying time.
Speaker 3: You're not doing more than that. Yeah, what do you mean.
Speaker 5: When you mentioned the term Islamism, Because you distinguer step
Speaker 5: from Islam as a religion, and it's say now it's
Speaker 5: more like things like this Shintoism and the Nabskin.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean Islamism is a I mean we called
Speaker 3: after nine eleven when kind of these ideas I think
Speaker 3: really bubbled to the surface and became evidence in the West.
Speaker 3: You know, I I think somebody at Dynamitis should coined
Speaker 3: the term Islamic totalitarianism. So it's not just any Muslims.
Speaker 3: There's a Muslim who you want to use their religion
Speaker 3: to justify tautalitarian control over society. They want every aspect
Speaker 3: of society driven by Islamic law, by Sharia law. Everything
Speaker 3: has to be dictated through them. And again, all religions
Speaker 3: have gone through phases where they believed in that we
Speaker 3: will establish a theocracy where everybody has to do you
Speaker 3: know what the specific Holy tech says you should do.
Speaker 3: But you know, you can imagine other forms of Islam
Speaker 3: where just like Christianity, the idea is there's a separation
Speaker 3: between state and religion, and Islam is something you practice
Speaker 3: in your home, practice in the mosque, but it doesn't
Speaker 3: affect public life, it doesn't affect the way the state
Speaker 3: is run, it doesn't affect governance. People are treated as individuals,
Speaker 3: and you treat people of other religions as equal in
Speaker 3: terms of the human the fact that the human beings.
Speaker 3: Sharia law does not allow for that. There the Quran
Speaker 3: does not allow for that. But but really neither does
Speaker 3: neither does Catholic Catholic doctrine. If you go back long
Speaker 3: you know, fallow enough, right, I mean, when when when
Speaker 3: the Catholics dominated start to dominate the Roman Empire, when
Speaker 3: they became the official religion of the Roman Empire, there
Speaker 3: were significant voices within the Catholic Church saying, we need
Speaker 3: to kill all the Jews. The Jews are in the front.
Speaker 3: They did you know, they sow Christ He was right
Speaker 3: there and they turned the back on them. Therefore they
Speaker 3: are evil and we was wiped them up. And Augustine,
Speaker 3: since Augustine comes forward and says, no, no, no, we
Speaker 3: shouldn't kill all the Jews. We need to keep them alive.
Speaker 3: We need to keep them alive so that we see
Speaker 3: their suffering, we see their pathetic lives, and it reminds
Speaker 3: us of what happens when we turn our backs to Christ.
Speaker 3: And you know, the origins of anti Semitism are all over,
Speaker 3: you know, the early Catholic Church. Now Catholicism has evolved
Speaker 3: since then, right rejected a lot of those doctrines, particularly
Speaker 3: in the last fifty sixty years, less so before World
Speaker 3: War Two. But they've rejected all those doctrines. Islam needs
Speaker 3: to reject the doctrines that lead to the same conclusion.
Speaker 3: So you can have any Islam that is not involved
Speaker 3: in governance. You can have any Islam that is not
Speaker 3: involved in running the states. You can have any Islam
Speaker 3: there way. People just believe now, to the extent that
Speaker 3: people hold their religion consistently, to the extent that people,
Speaker 3: you know, put faith above reason, to that extent, they're
Speaker 3: going to be problems. What in the West we have
Speaker 3: done is we've relegated that space the relatively minor part
Speaker 3: of life. So the damage is limited, somewhat limited, and
Speaker 3: when it expands, the damage gets worse. So in America,
Speaker 3: when they talk about doing away with the separation of
Speaker 3: church's state, as some people in America are talking about today,
Speaker 3: that damage is expanded. So religion to the extent that
Speaker 3: the gates reason is always damaging. But if we can
Speaker 3: limit that damage to the individual itself rather than to
Speaker 3: millions and the whole political system. Then we've moved a
Speaker 3: long way towards a more peaceful coexist. And Islamism is
Speaker 3: the idea that no Islam has to dominate all aspects
Speaker 3: of life and for everybody. And if you're not a Muslim, okay,
Speaker 3: you can still live. You have to be a special
Speaker 3: tax You definitely your second class citizen. There was definitely
Speaker 3: first and second class citizens in Islam, just like again
Speaker 3: they were under Christianity.
Speaker 6: Yeah, you said, you have you started with the nature
Speaker 6: of people.
Speaker 7: Huh.
Speaker 6: And you said, then you have the secular and the capitalism,
Speaker 6: and you have the theocracy, and that that is roughly speaking,
Speaker 6: the two. And then within that there's a lot of variation.
Speaker 6: And then you said, it is very difficult to change
Speaker 6: the nature of people. You cannot crush out if you're
Speaker 6: either in the one or in the other. And then
Speaker 6: I think from a secular point of view, of course,
Speaker 6: the values that we defend in the West, that we're
Speaker 6: very proud of, and we have a foothold in my opinion,
Speaker 6: in Israel with that. So in the middle of the
Speaker 6: whole Islamitic we have a Western thinking or Western philosophy
Speaker 6: as a foothold, which I think is great. But now
Speaker 6: to your last points, this is very disturbing to me,
Speaker 6: and I realized it myself. Jan was talking about American
Speaker 6: or Mexican or whatever, the Islamitic influence on the street.
Speaker 6: I also experienced that. And what you said is in
Speaker 6: the past, we used to have a backbone, and we
Speaker 6: used to come out and help Israel and defend our
Speaker 6: values and go for it. And now it is like
Speaker 6: things are turning upside down. It is and I'm afraid
Speaker 6: in all fairness, and this is my own conclusion, but
Speaker 6: I'd like to hear your reflection on it. That people
Speaker 6: are not aware of what is going on, what kind
Speaker 6: of an indoctrination or not indoctrination with infiltration, what is
Speaker 6: going on, and if we don't realize, if we don't understand,
Speaker 6: if young people, if the current people in the West
Speaker 6: do not understand what's going on, basically underlaying to me,
Speaker 6: that's a real, real threat.
Speaker 3: And yeah, but it's much worse than what you're saying,
Speaker 3: much worse because the reality is today young people in
Speaker 3: the West and Europe, in the United States are not
Speaker 3: only taught, they're not really taught much about what goes
Speaker 3: on in the world and what they represent and so on.
Speaker 3: But they're taught. They're taught that the West is bad,
Speaker 3: the taut that the West is sinseful. We're colonialists, we're
Speaker 3: you know, we're an empire. There's nothing special about the West.
Speaker 3: There's nothing unique about us. There's nothing good about Capitalism
Speaker 3: is evil, exploited, if nasty. I mean, find me young
Speaker 3: people out there at universities who are pro capitalists or
Speaker 3: even know what it is. They just don't exist. I
Speaker 3: was at Cambridge yesterday, Cambridge University in England, and I
Speaker 3: said a few things pro capitalism, and the place just
Speaker 3: blew up. They thought I was crazy. Really, you know,
Speaker 3: they don't know anything. But what they do know is
Speaker 3: we are bad. We are bad.
Speaker 6: So that is infiltration.
Speaker 3: Well, it's not in frustration from the outside, it's an
Speaker 3: infistration for within. We've done it to ourselves, right. It's
Speaker 3: not that the Islamis have come here and told us, no, no,
Speaker 3: you guys are bad. No, we based on our philosophies,
Speaker 3: based on our philosophers, based on ideas that have come
Speaker 3: out of the West, you know, anti ourselves. So so
Speaker 3: if Western civilization is built in my view, Western stories
Speaker 3: is built up three ideas, three you know pillars, they're
Speaker 3: all related. It's all comes with really one idea, but
Speaker 3: the three related ideas. The first one is the ficacy
Speaker 3: of reason. We learn about the world through reason. It
Speaker 3: is our mind, our sensors in our mind. That's how
Speaker 3: we know what we know. Science, right, it's it's it's
Speaker 3: about reasoning and it's about understanding the world. And we
Speaker 3: have the capacity to do that well not not. If
Speaker 3: you read kant Hegel, Chopin, I am Mars and the
Speaker 3: post modernists, all Westerns didn't mention a single non Western philosopher,
Speaker 3: reason is out. Reason doesn't tell you about real reality.
Speaker 3: And you know who cares about reason. It's the the emotion,
Speaker 3: the sense of being one or whatever he goes nonsense
Speaker 3: actually means right. And the postmonus tell you there is
Speaker 3: no truth, So hell with reason. You can't discover truth
Speaker 3: because there is no truth. There's no such, no concept
Speaker 3: is out. So if the West less rests on reason,
Speaker 3: I think it does, and the West comes to maturity
Speaker 3: and the Enlightenment, which is the age of reason, which
Speaker 3: is the rediscovery of reason after centuries of religion and
Speaker 3: going by a book. And I mean they even treated
Speaker 3: Aristotle and the Greeks as religious texts, right, They read
Speaker 3: them as if they were religious text because that's the
Speaker 3: only mentality they had. You read a book, it's all true,
Speaker 3: you follow. And yet in the Enlightenment it was suddenly, whoa,
Speaker 3: you know, let's look around, let's discover, let's figure out
Speaker 3: what the truth is that's been undercut. Second pillar is individualism.
Speaker 3: Only an individual can reason. There's no group consciousness, there's
Speaker 3: no group consciousness voting around here. We don't think in groups.
Speaker 3: We think in individuals. And it's the individuals life that
Speaker 3: has sanct It's the individual that must be protected. Go
Speaker 3: back to John Locke and the concept of individual rights,
Speaker 3: which is celebrated in Enlightenment and brought about the creation
Speaker 3: of the United States of America. But really all the
Speaker 3: modern Europe is a testament to John Locke and these
Speaker 3: kind of ideas. Right, and yet does anybody believe individual
Speaker 3: rights anymore? Anybody ever talk about individual rights, the right
Speaker 3: to life, liberty, and pursuit. Nobody talks about it, even
Speaker 3: in America. Nobody talks about Send the decoration to adventents.
Speaker 3: But you learn that in history, and then you forget
Speaker 3: it and then you go on in life. But if
Speaker 3: you follow the presidential campaign debates, nobody ever mentions the
Speaker 3: word rights, partially because to have power, you have to
Speaker 3: violate people's rights, and everybody wants power. That's what's important.
Speaker 3: So the second pillar individualism. Now, in America at least,
Speaker 3: and I think this is true in Europe as well,
Speaker 3: we become tribal. You know, you either belong to the
Speaker 3: left or you belong to the right, and you hate
Speaker 3: each other because the left and the truth is irrelevant.
Speaker 3: It's which tribe you belong to. It's all tribalism and
Speaker 3: collectivism and individualism is out the window. And then on
Speaker 3: top of that you have the whole multicultural movement right,
Speaker 3: which is a collectivistic movement basically categorizes people as groups.
Speaker 3: Every culture is equal, right, So we tell ourselves and
Speaker 3: we invented this. Nobody imported this. Like immigrants who come
Speaker 3: to Europe come here because they want mostly because they
Speaker 3: want a better life. And then they come here and
Speaker 3: we tell them, yeah, but your culture is just as
Speaker 3: good as ours. About very culture that you escape from Africa,
Speaker 3: from the Middle East just as good as ours. You
Speaker 3: can't say one culture is better than the other, and
Speaker 3: they go, oh, okay, we didn't realize that, so maybe
Speaker 3: we should bring our culture here. I mean, imagine a
Speaker 3: West that said you want to come here, great, we
Speaker 3: love immigrants. You have to assimilarly, you have to become us.
Speaker 3: You have to become European. Here's what it means to
Speaker 3: be europe You have to expect reason, you have to
Speaker 3: expect individuals. And finally, the third pillar of the Enlightenment
Speaker 3: or of Western civilization is political liberty.
Speaker 8: Political freedom, which of course rests on the concept of
Speaker 8: individual rights, rests on the fact that as individuals, we
Speaker 8: are free to pursue our values, free of cursion, free
Speaker 8: of force.
Speaker 3: But nobody even knows that. Yeah, we have this vague
Speaker 3: notion of democracy is a good thing. So we give
Speaker 3: everybody the right to vote, and then they can vote
Speaker 3: to take rights away from a minority. And what's the
Speaker 3: smallest minority. Iran pointed out, what's the smallest minority group?
Speaker 3: The individual? Individuals, the smallest minority. We're very good at
Speaker 3: taking rights away from the individual. So we become collectivists,
Speaker 3: you know, we become irrationalists, and we've become you know,
Speaker 3: democracy is not exactly what political liberty. Political freedom really
Speaker 3: is about, because it needs to be democrat. He needs
Speaker 3: to be limited by some things that it prevents the
Speaker 3: majority from overwhelming the minority. We don't have that anymore.
Speaker 3: We become much more democratic than we we should be
Speaker 3: or have been. And now democracy is like God. Right.
Speaker 3: If you go on a debate or you go in
Speaker 3: a state somewhere and you say democracy not so good God,
Speaker 3: they'll stone you to So it's so. The problem in
Speaker 3: the world today is us, it's not them. If we
Speaker 3: understood our value, understood what we're about, understood how good
Speaker 3: our ideas were all can be, then it's easy to
Speaker 3: deal with them. It's easy. Putin is nothing. He's a nothing.
Speaker 3: The only thing that gives Putin power is the fact
Speaker 3: that he has confidence or jex confidence, and that we
Speaker 3: don't know what the hell we do. I mean, in America,
Speaker 3: a lot of the people on their rights in America
Speaker 3: think Putin is their friend because he's religious, he's strong.
Speaker 3: You ever seen it without a shirt. He's masculine, you know,
Speaker 3: and they love him because he's one of them, and
Speaker 3: they can't say no, no, no. Putin represents evil because
Speaker 3: there's all such things evil all the same and or
Speaker 3: you know, Putin doesn't represent the West because they can't
Speaker 3: define the West. They have no concept for what the
Speaker 3: West is. So none of these bad actors in the world.
Speaker 3: North Korea, the fact that anybody cares about anything happening
Speaker 3: in North Korea as a joke. They should have been
Speaker 3: I mean, that regime should have been destroyed a long
Speaker 3: time ago. As soon as they started making threats and
Speaker 3: building nuclear bombs, they should have been destroyed. Why are
Speaker 3: they've been around? And Iran could go like this, and
Speaker 3: so what Israel did to it that barely barely challenged itself,
Speaker 3: you know. So China is the only one that you
Speaker 3: could even imagine being a threat. And if you took
Speaker 3: care of Russia, North Korea and Iran, China would behave itself.
Speaker 3: You know, China would would tow the line and they
Speaker 3: would change completely because they would be afraid.
Speaker 9: Uh God. So well, if you support to.
Speaker 3: Support God or something, yeah, I support I said about
Speaker 3: the people who are advocate for freedom, which is is
Speaker 3: Rael in Ukraine. Ukraine is not perfect, it's not as
Speaker 3: good as his rule, but it's pretty damn close. If
Speaker 3: you if you win Ukraine, and if you've been a
Speaker 3: kid before the Putin's invasion, it was striving to be Western.
Speaker 3: It was really making an effort to try to become
Speaker 3: like a Western country. And the young people there, they
Speaker 3: wanted to become part of Europe. They they that was
Speaker 3: their dream, that's what they wanted, what they still want.
Speaker 3: So no, I mean you support you don't see, they
Speaker 3: have this perspective of supporting the underdog. Right, it's not
Speaker 3: about it's not about freedom, it's not about values. It's
Speaker 3: about who's on top and who's on bottom. So if
Speaker 3: you support Israel, they're the strong ones. You used to
Speaker 3: support Russia because they're the strong ones. If you support Ukraine,
Speaker 3: they're the weak ones. That you support the weak ones
Speaker 3: over there, which is Gaza. So no, I support those
Speaker 3: fighting for freedom, fighting for a semblance of Western values,
Speaker 3: and Ukraine does, and Israel does, and Russia is the
Speaker 3: opposite of that. Russia is the enemy of everything Western.
Speaker 10: Russia.
Speaker 9: But Gasa, what is their view?
Speaker 3: Russia and Gaza They just hate the West, right, No,
Speaker 3: they're just haters, right, So they hate the West. So
Speaker 3: that makes see that's the most logical, that's the most
Speaker 3: consistent position. Have because Russia and Gaza are similar. They're
Speaker 3: both anti Western, anti individual, anti progress and capitalism. They're
Speaker 3: both just the might of the muscle. They're just about
Speaker 3: material might. So I see that much more than I
Speaker 3: see the other combination about the Middle East. You yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: I mean Took. He's such a complicated place because on
Speaker 3: the one hand, it Took. He's a member of NATO.
Speaker 3: Pretty pretty amazing, Took. He's a member of NATO. It
Speaker 3: has American nuclear weapons in Turkey. They have basically the
Speaker 3: best American weapon systems in the world. If you know,
Speaker 3: if thirty fives and uh, you know, they have a
Speaker 3: lot of American weapon systems. On the other hand, the
Speaker 3: one is as a community Slamist. Now he's an Islamist
Speaker 3: of a different type. He's less militant than others. He
Speaker 3: does not he does not believe yet that he has
Speaker 3: the power militarily and otherwise to actually use physical force
Speaker 3: to get his way. He's trying to use soft power.
Speaker 3: It's called diplomacy software. He also would love to join
Speaker 3: the EU right, so he doesn't want to alienate the
Speaker 3: Eupeans too much, but he's realized now that he's never
Speaker 3: going to join the EU, so he's willing to be
Speaker 3: a little bit more aggressive on the other side. But
Speaker 3: he also needs America because he's discovered what the Russian
Speaker 3: weapons systems are worth nothing, and so he still wants
Speaker 3: to buy weapon systems on the Americans. So he's on
Speaker 3: this balancing act. I mean, this is the funny thing
Speaker 3: is it's funny, it's tragic. The reality is that the
Speaker 3: enemies of the West are unbelievably weak. Russia is incredibly weak,
Speaker 3: Tooki's incredibly weak. It depends on America. Right, you know,
Speaker 3: both Korea and you are a barely significant Right, they're
Speaker 3: all weak comas this week, he's well, last week, they're
Speaker 3: all right. And the West is incredibly strong in comparison,
Speaker 3: And the only thing that prevents us from winning is us.
Speaker 3: And in that sense, the number one enemy of the
Speaker 3: West is the West. The number one enemies of the
Speaker 3: West are the universities, or what is being taught in
Speaker 3: the universities, which undermines who we are, underminds the values
Speaker 3: that we represent, underminds capitalism and liberty and all of
Speaker 3: these things, and reason, most importantly science even and indeed,
Speaker 3: the most significant enemies of the West over the last
Speaker 3: two hundred years of being the West came out of
Speaker 3: the West. Right, communism, and fascism, those came out of
Speaker 3: Western thinkers. So nothing has come from anywhere else that's
Speaker 3: a threat to the West, nothing except what we produce.
Speaker 3: So what's happening today in the universities is we're producing,
Speaker 3: you know, on the left, if you will, the woke culture,
Speaker 3: and on the right the you know, this kind of
Speaker 3: nationalist national conservatism call it, or Christian conservatism as some
Speaker 3: call it. Again, these are forces that scare me a
Speaker 3: lot more than Muslims, Russians or you know, North Koreans.
Speaker 3: I'm afraid of the university professor from across the street.
Speaker 3: He scares me much more than those because he's weakening,
Speaker 3: weakening ability to do anything. It could overtake us, right,
Speaker 3: he could. These people could take over the country. They
Speaker 3: have right in many respects. Right yeh.
Speaker 11: Can we go back to yes, you said you have
Speaker 11: to crush the enemy, to crush gh When I look
Speaker 11: at this for the distance, I think is almost destroyed totally.
Speaker 2: So my question is what could I do more than
Speaker 2: what I've already done. The second question is do you
Speaker 2: believe in precise in operations which you take out the
Speaker 2: leaders instead of home maybe the whole people.
Speaker 3: So what could the visual have done? It should have
Speaker 3: done everything it's done much faster and in much deadlier,
Speaker 3: much more destructive way. It should never have allowed food
Speaker 3: into the gaza. It should have cut off electricity on
Speaker 3: October eighth, then water on October eight. I mean, should
Speaker 3: have never given it to them. But but you know
Speaker 3: that the enemy why why you know, why are you're
Speaker 3: providing water and antisity to them. They should have cut
Speaker 3: them off completely, isolated them completely and then just devastated them.
Speaker 3: And I don't believe in just picking off the leaders.
Speaker 3: I don't think that helps. Every leader was picked off,
Speaker 3: there's immediately replacement. And this has been going on for
Speaker 3: forty years, you know, thirty years they killed the kid
Speaker 3: they had, the guy who founded Hamas was killed in
Speaker 3: the in the nineteen nineties. Immediately somebody replaced them. You can't.
Speaker 3: It's this is an ideology that is well established within
Speaker 3: the culture and and you can just pick up leaders
Speaker 3: because they have replacement. How many you know? This is
Speaker 3: the question. It's a it's a horrible question to asked,
Speaker 3: but it's a question. How many people do you have
Speaker 3: to kill for them to actually get the idea that
Speaker 3: they they've they're defeated, they finished, And I don't know
Speaker 3: what the answer to that is, but a lot more
Speaker 3: than we're being killed. I mean, this will this still
Speaker 3: go down as the war in which fewer civilian casualties
Speaker 3: have died than any other war. In urban war is
Speaker 3: certainly in urban warfare, but in any warfare, certainly per
Speaker 3: kilogram of explosives detonated, I mean, those killed almost nobody,
Speaker 3: and the consequences are the Hamas. You know, the past
Speaker 3: Sunian populations still think they can win. If you ask
Speaker 3: people in the West Bank, do they support Hamas, Yes,
Speaker 3: they still support com They still think they can win,
Speaker 3: They still think they can survive because you know the population.
Speaker 3: You know, Israel's accused of genocide. You know, the population
Speaker 3: of Gaza has actually increased over the last year. That is,
Speaker 3: more children were born that Israel has killed adults, right,
Speaker 3: old children or whatever whoever they've killed, right, so the
Speaker 3: population has growing. This is the kind of the worst
Speaker 3: genocide that anybody's ever tried to do. When the population
Speaker 3: actually grows, doesn't shrink. I mean, it's horrible that we
Speaker 3: even have to talk about these things. But that's the
Speaker 3: reality that and everything's so pervert. So no, it needed
Speaker 3: to be flatted much. I mean Israel, like, Israel's done
Speaker 3: an amazing job and taking very few casualties, and the
Speaker 3: military is amazing. But the reality is they go into
Speaker 3: a place they supposed to clean it out, they leave
Speaker 3: hamas reappears, they have to go back in clean it up. Leave.
Speaker 3: You can't win that way. And some places they've gone
Speaker 3: in five times and they're still popping up out of
Speaker 3: nowhere because they recruit new people. They trained sixteen year olds,
Speaker 3: they train them again. You have to crush the spirit
Speaker 3: of these people.
Speaker 2: Solists, rush, old, God.
Speaker 3: You got them. I think in the end, I think
Speaker 3: in the end, fewer people.
Speaker 12: Die, so you are prepared to accept as everybody everybody's what,
Speaker 12: everybody dies.
Speaker 3: No, I don't think you have to kill two million people.
Speaker 3: I don't know how many people you have to kill,
Speaker 3: but but it's nowhere near two million people. You have
Speaker 3: to give them a sense that their lives they could
Speaker 3: die at any moment. You have to give them a
Speaker 3: sense that Israel is willing to kill them, and you
Speaker 3: know at some point they will say enough given up.
Speaker 13: But you're think that they don't have this sense now
Speaker 13: that they doesn't see that they are being killed.
Speaker 3: Look, Israel just offered five million dollars to anybody who's
Speaker 3: willing to give information about where the hostages are. They
Speaker 3: have to be thousands of Palestinians who know where the
Speaker 3: hostages are, right because they're embedded in them. They're right there.
Speaker 3: Not a single person has come forward to give in
Speaker 3: for me million dollars, and Israel says, we'll give you
Speaker 3: a new identity, We'll put you somewhere else in the world.
Speaker 3: Tamas will never get to you, will protect your life,
Speaker 3: will give you five million dollars a lot of money, right,
Speaker 3: and nobody's come forward. So that tells you something about
Speaker 3: they don't want to they want the dog, they want
Speaker 3: to keep them. And it's two million people. So have
Speaker 3: they figured it out now? They haven't figured out yet.
Speaker 3: They'll start again, they'll start again. They're not defeated yet.
Speaker 3: And if again, if you look at surveys, if you
Speaker 3: look at questionnaires, you know, do you support Ramas anonymous?
Speaker 3: Nobody will find who they are. They support Ramas, they
Speaker 3: continue to support the US. Israel has not defeated them,
Speaker 3: not psychologically. Maybe they defeated the militariity, not psychologically. It's amazing, Yeah,
Speaker 3: I see it. There rezillions of people, the willingness of
Speaker 3: people to commit suicide, to destroy their own lives in
Speaker 3: the name of an ideology, but it's there. It's like
Speaker 3: those Japanese who believed that they still had to hold
Speaker 3: onto that island no matter what, and they were going
Speaker 3: to fight this war even if they you know, even
Speaker 3: if they died, and all the other troops who died,
Speaker 3: they were going to hold the island no matter even
Speaker 3: though it was obviously they were going to lose.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, that's a big difference.
Speaker 14: I think the Nazism and the Japanese were mentioned. If
Speaker 14: you look at this particular ideology, it's based on religion,
Speaker 14: which is way different. So I think if you crush them,
Speaker 14: you make them believe they can't be anymore, they still
Speaker 14: have the sense that this is the way they need
Speaker 14: to behave to go to heaven over that kind of thing. So,
Speaker 14: how do you think this will work? Because I don't
Speaker 14: think it can cross our ideology.
Speaker 3: So I think he can. I don't think there's a
Speaker 3: big difference. I think Nazism was a religion. It even
Speaker 3: had mythology in a sense, had a kind of an afterlife. Suddenly,
Speaker 3: Japanese and puerialism, it was a religion. I mean, the
Speaker 3: Kamikazi pilots didn't believe they got seventy two virgins, but
Speaker 3: they went to an afterlife where all the warriors lived,
Speaker 3: very much like old Nordic kind of mythology. Uh. Japanese mythology.
Speaker 3: Japanese imperialism was all based on Shintuism and a deep
Speaker 3: commitment to a religious view of the world. And yet
Speaker 3: once they realized that this was not going to achieve
Speaker 3: what they were promised it was going to achieve, that
Speaker 3: this was a dead end, that they could not go anywhere,
Speaker 3: that they could not achieve anything, they switched their ideology.
Speaker 3: People change their minds. People have free will. People could
Speaker 3: change their minds, but they need particularly if they're if
Speaker 3: they're deeply religious, they need strong motivation. Death and destruction
Speaker 3: are strong motivation. It's again, it's it's it's you know,
Speaker 3: the only way to change somebody's mind when they when
Speaker 3: they're that committed, is to show them it doesn't work.
Speaker 3: And again I'll go back to my Isis example, when
Speaker 3: ISIS was winning. There was a lot of terrorism, a
Speaker 3: lot of people volunteering to go die when I ISIS
Speaker 3: is losing. Nobody volunteers or very few people volunteers. And
Speaker 3: ISIS was never really crushed. It just wasn't gaining it,
Speaker 3: you know, it just lost the ground that it made.
Speaker 3: So the same thing happens here.
Speaker 14: Well that these people the ideology is crushed from the
Speaker 14: like the ISIS itself because maybe they just go through
Speaker 14: different but.
Speaker 3: There was no coordinating. The terrorist attacks in Europe were
Speaker 3: loan actors who were not being coordinated from overseas, who
Speaker 3: just decided that they were supportive of ISIS and they
Speaker 3: would kill a bunch of Western people.
Speaker 14: With this ideology, they can just reunipe.
Speaker 10: And create something else.
Speaker 14: Yes, that's why they can't have any any sufficient substances.
Speaker 3: So you if you crush them, then they can't reunite
Speaker 3: and can't start up again. This is what happened to
Speaker 3: Japanese or what happens to Germans. Look, it's harder because
Speaker 3: Islam is bigger, and Islamism is bigger, I mean by
Speaker 3: some measures, when you do surveys of the Islamic world,
Speaker 3: something like twenty to thirty percent of the Islamic world
Speaker 3: but leaves and in Islamic ideology, in Islamist ideology, that's
Speaker 3: three hundred million people. That's a lot of people. But again,
Speaker 3: this a lot of that dramatically increased after the Iranian
Speaker 3: Revolution because what did the Iranian Revolution show them? The
Speaker 3: Iranian Revolution was the first example in modern times of
Speaker 3: Sharia law being established over people, of its being successful
Speaker 3: defeating the West, because the shah Viuwan was associated with
Speaker 3: the West. So when I turn Romani came to power
Speaker 3: in nineteen seventy nine, it was considered whoa Islamism can
Speaker 3: work And suddenly there was a massive boon in the
Speaker 3: creation of Islamic organizations, in terrorist organizations and other forms
Speaker 3: of organizations, and they got emboldened and they sped all
Speaker 3: over the Middle East. Right, if Iran goes, that'll take
Speaker 3: a lot of that momentum awayfund Yep.
Speaker 15: I think that not every Palestinian is behind tom Us,
Speaker 15: just like not every German was the Nazi.
Speaker 16: That's why should then Sphilians in areas like Pnstina surfer
Speaker 16: by a solution like bombing everything to the crowd just
Speaker 16: to try and kill an ideology Because most of them
Speaker 16: have no say in the ways how must adds or
Speaker 16: it's just not Yeah, it's not just incorrect, it's unethical.
Speaker 15: And women and children especially should not surfers. They do
Speaker 15: not have events or must they're innocent, but they already
Speaker 15: do because ASILs just public schools.
Speaker 3: Hospitals and other is So I don't know how innocent
Speaker 3: women are. I don't know if you've seen these videos
Speaker 3: of I mean, there's a famous video of a woman
Speaker 3: whose baby has cancer and she takes and she takes
Speaker 3: the baby to Israel and they help cure the cancer.
Speaker 3: They save the baby's life, and they kill the cancer.
Speaker 3: And she turns the camera and she says, my goal
Speaker 3: for this baby is to be a Shaheit, that is
Speaker 3: suicide Bama who kills Jews. So I wouldn't say that
Speaker 3: this woman is innocent. I don't think she is. That
Speaker 3: Jews just saved the baby's lives, but what she wants
Speaker 3: is the baby to kill when he grows up, to
Speaker 3: kill Jews. This is the ideology. This is ideology A
Speaker 3: significant percentage of Palestinians believe in now is it? Everybody?
Speaker 3: Of course, not just like not everybody who was an Natzi,
Speaker 3: but The reality is that when you live in a
Speaker 3: place that is ruled by evil people, you're going to
Speaker 3: suffer the consequence of their ideology. If the only way
Speaker 3: for me to defeat Ramas is for some innocence to die,
Speaker 3: then you have to kill some innocence because there's no
Speaker 3: other way to defeat Ramas, and there is no other way.
Speaker 3: There was no way in Germany to only kill the
Speaker 3: Natist and indeed, if you had done that, then more
Speaker 3: Nazis would have been created. And that's what's happening in
Speaker 3: Kamas right now. Every time you kill a leader and
Speaker 3: new leader pops up. Every time you killer somebody with
Speaker 3: a gun and you one caps up. Now, it's horrible.
Speaker 3: The children have to die. Children are truly innocent. Women
Speaker 3: might not be. The children are truly innocent. It's horrible
Speaker 3: that you have to kill children. But the fault of
Speaker 3: that is on Hamas. Haramas started a war and the
Speaker 3: only way to defeat defeat them, The only way to
Speaker 3: destroy them is fuel where some children are going to die.
Speaker 3: I'm start yes, I mean, if you want to ask
Speaker 3: me if Ramas, if you want to ask me the history,
Speaker 3: I'm happy to go through the history. But absolutely Hamas
Speaker 3: started in two thousand and five. Is A left Gaza.
Speaker 3: Haramas could have done anything they wanted with Gauza. Is
Speaker 3: Old didn't tell them what kind of state to build.
Speaker 3: They could have turned Gaza into the Hong Kong of
Speaker 3: the Mediterranean. They chose to build tunnels to buy weapons
Speaker 3: to launch missiles into Israel. Israel didn't attack Hamas, didn't
Speaker 3: attack the Palestinians and Gaza. Gaza as a geographic political entity,
Speaker 3: was completely israe completely separated itself from Gaza. So who
Speaker 3: started but Israel.
Speaker 15: Did virtuous these beavers, which were a few balls.
Speaker 10: That was years ago.
Speaker 3: So the beepers in Chrisbella, not Ramas. Beepers who are
Speaker 3: in Lebanon not Ramas. Chrisbella is an enemy of Israel,
Speaker 3: trying to bomb Israel, trying to kill Israelis. They produced
Speaker 3: beepers in order to attack their enemy, not in that particular,
Speaker 3: not because they knew this war would happen, but because
Speaker 3: they knew a war would happen because krisbel has committed
Speaker 3: to war with Israel. So they built beepers in order
Speaker 3: for one day when the war comes, they'll have a
Speaker 3: strategic advantage over them. Butchzabella has been attacking Israel regularly.
Speaker 3: I mean Isabella Isbela attacked who started to attack Israel
Speaker 3: in nineteen eighty three. We're talking about forty years of
Speaker 3: a war initiated by Chrisbela. We're not talking about yesterday
Speaker 3: it started. This is forty years of Chris chrisbel Is
Speaker 3: in Lebanon. What do they have against Israel? Anyway?
Speaker 5: Yeah, So, if I understand, you're arguing to start killing
Speaker 5: hundreds of thousands of people. If I understand, but I
Speaker 5: I might be wrong name, But I don't think that's
Speaker 5: how we won the Second World War.
Speaker 1: How did you do in the Second World War?
Speaker 17: Well, both by killing?
Speaker 3: Really, really, you should study the Second World War then, So, so,
Speaker 3: for example, when the when the Allies invaded northern France.
Speaker 3: When they invaded France, what do you think they did
Speaker 3: Before the invasion actually occurred, Every town along the northern
Speaker 3: coast of France was bombed basically into oblivion. Who died there?
Speaker 3: Some Nazis, mostly French people died there. Hundreds of thousands
Speaker 3: of French died in the invasion of the invasion of
Speaker 3: France by not by the Nazis, by the Americans and
Speaker 3: the British and the French themselves.
Speaker 10: That's true.
Speaker 5: But still I don't think have I killed more innocent
Speaker 5: people in the Second World War than the nuns.
Speaker 3: I haven't run the numbers, but it could very well be.
Speaker 3: But it's not a numbers gate. My point is not
Speaker 3: how many people you kill. The point is you have
Speaker 3: to make it clear to the enemy that they cannot
Speaker 3: be successful under any circumstances. If that means killing one person, great,
Speaker 3: only kill one person. If it means killing more than that,
Speaker 3: then you kill as many as necessary to end the war.
Speaker 3: As long as they believe they can be successful in
Speaker 3: the future. The war never ends, and the war's not ended.
Speaker 3: We've been going at it for seventy years, eighty years,
Speaker 3: one hundred years, right, and it's not ended. Just what
Speaker 3: everybody calls a cycle of violence. But the way to
Speaker 3: end that cycle of violence is for one party to
Speaker 3: defeat the other part more violence to end the violence.
Speaker 3: You cannot end a cycle of violence without more violence.
Speaker 5: Yes, but then doesn't understot another cycle of violence because systematically.
Speaker 3: Killing so he was Shumannagasaki. Did that end the violence
Speaker 3: or did it start new violence? Did Japanese now regularly
Speaker 3: kill Americans because they're upset about he was human a
Speaker 3: Gasaki No ended the violence, and it ended it for good, right,
Speaker 3: Overwhelming force ends violence. Yes, okay, so did flattening of
Speaker 3: dressden in American occupation of building and Russian occupation of Billiding,
Speaker 3: which you see from more brutal. Then that ended. German
Speaker 3: aggression ended German aggression. Violence ended aggression violence. You know,
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, you don't get peace
Speaker 3: until one side beats the other.
Speaker 1: Let's following.
Speaker 3: We are too sol as a result Russia.
Speaker 2: So we at Europe a waste of live Russians and
Speaker 2: Ukrainians are being very soft and and said, oh we
Speaker 2: can't be to Harvard Russia.
Speaker 3: No, we should have been brutal back being without its gone.
Speaker 3: And I mean the challenge you have with Russia is
Speaker 3: they have nukes. That's they That doesn't exist elsewhere in
Speaker 3: the world. So it's a challenge, but it's but it's
Speaker 3: absolutely true. You can't. There's never been lasting peace generated
Speaker 3: by a compromise between the good guys and the bad guys.
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm open to being proved wrong.
Speaker 10: Yeah, okay, so he said, God, I could have become
Speaker 10: the homecom cossibility. He also said that Christisue has been
Speaker 10: cut off Monster Murger and God that has been okayd
Speaker 10: by Israel for what as you become wealthy and plospersonation,
Speaker 10: which does really not very fortunate.
Speaker 3: Gause it didn't have to be blockaded. Gauza bought the
Speaker 3: blockade on itself. If you if you sit there and
Speaker 3: you launch rockets into your neighbor, the neighbor is not
Speaker 3: going to allow weapons systems to come into your country.
Speaker 3: So the blockade was an interesting blockade before before the war,
Speaker 3: Uh God, dozens would come into Israel to work. Over
Speaker 3: one hundred thousand garzens came into Israel to work. That's
Speaker 3: how big the billk was. Food would go into Gaza,
Speaker 3: water would go into Gaza, Electricity would go into Gaza
Speaker 3: from Israel. It's not a brocade exactly. They got billions
Speaker 3: and billions and billions of dollars from Kuwait and from
Speaker 3: Katar and from all these countries. They could have built anything.
Speaker 3: They could have built beaches and hotels. Israel would have said, cool,
Speaker 3: we don't want to blockade you for the sake of lockading.
Speaker 3: The only reason they were blockaded is because weapons were
Speaker 3: being smuggled in in order to attack Israel. If your
Speaker 3: neighbor is smuggling weapons to try to kill you, yeah,
Speaker 3: blockading is the least thing you should do against.
Speaker 17: Yeah. With a solution of first destroying and then giving
Speaker 17: an alternative, what alternative future will give? Perfly the example
Speaker 17: of Japan, they got their.
Speaker 3: Own states, yep, yep.
Speaker 17: So that's a two state solution.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I think the two options that Israel would embrace
Speaker 3: in a circumstance like that. One's a two state solution,
Speaker 3: one's a one state solution. But the two state solution,
Speaker 3: I have nothing in answer to state solution. Most Israelis
Speaker 3: would give a thumbs up to two state solution tomorrow
Speaker 3: if they believe the Palestinians are willing to establish a
Speaker 3: relatively free a state that is focused on progress and
Speaker 3: advancements and prosperity and things like that instead of war.
Speaker 3: If the Palestinians are committed to war, which they are
Speaker 3: and have been, and they haven't shown any indication otherwise,
Speaker 3: then Israel cannot allow for two state solution because that
Speaker 3: would put the Gaza Strip five miles from Tel Aviv.
Speaker 3: So it would make it it would make October seventh
Speaker 3: a cakewalkers compared to war was coming in the future.
Speaker 3: So once the Palestinians are committed an actual peaceful, productive country,
Speaker 3: problem with the two state solutions. On the other hand,
Speaker 3: once they committed to that, there's also no problem with
Speaker 3: one state solution. Have them integrated into Israel, give them
Speaker 3: full equal rights together with Israelis. They can vote, they
Speaker 3: can do everything else, and there's a one state solution.
Speaker 3: Either one is fine. Nobody's you know, people are not
Speaker 3: objecting to these solutions. As long as the palestine Is
Speaker 3: are willing to be peaceful. As long as they committed
Speaker 3: to violence, there is no solution.
Speaker 13: Yes, So you said Arder that lost of peace requires
Speaker 13: two steps. First military physical defeat, yes, and the second
Speaker 13: step is ichnological concernative to what they have now.
Speaker 12: Talking about that second fourth often you crushed alas it's
Speaker 12: not make extremism in the region.
Speaker 7: A big difference that I see that or something in
Speaker 7: Japan and Germany is that the Germans and the Japanese
Speaker 7: work included in that alternative ideology.
Speaker 18: They were taken up in the West.
Speaker 10: They were part of the story.
Speaker 17: Of that gloom.
Speaker 3: No, they won't. They want the Japanese. The only piece
Speaker 3: in the Japanese constitution is Japanese is the is the Emperor,
Speaker 3: but there's no other piece of japan and the Japanese constitution. Yes, yes,
Speaker 3: agreed absolutely in that sense. Absolutely yes.
Speaker 18: My question to you is well able to post an
Speaker 18: alternative ideology or do they need the West winning Arab
Speaker 18: countries in order.
Speaker 13: To tell the Kindestinians that they are part of ideology.
Speaker 3: So this partially depends on whether you won is still
Speaker 3: around and Iran spending money in order to undermine the Western,
Speaker 3: this Western liberalism that Israel might offer to the Palestinians.
Speaker 3: As long as they're around trying to undermine it, it's
Speaker 3: going to be very difficult or other Arab countries that
Speaker 3: might be undermining it. And this also depends on whether
Speaker 3: the Palestians feel defeated and open to this new ideology.
Speaker 3: But yes, I think Israel can offer a Western vision.
Speaker 3: I think Israel is such a Western liberal country. I
Speaker 3: mean it's a it's it's it's exactly what Israel is.
Speaker 3: So all the Palestenians have to do is copyism.
Speaker 12: And what would be your role of winning countries in
Speaker 12: the Native for example, to golf States, which a couple
Speaker 12: of years ago signed Abraham of Courts.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think I think their role would be
Speaker 3: to financially to do a Marshall's plan, right, so they
Speaker 3: basically provide the financing for the rebuilding of Gaza and
Speaker 3: rebuilding of the West Bank and creating the economic opportunity
Speaker 3: to go that that begin. You know, there will thrive
Speaker 3: under Western liberalism. But without the Western liberalism, the money
Speaker 3: won't do anything. The money is only a value if
Speaker 3: you also have a Western liberal you know, a political
Speaker 3: system to go with the money. So the Gulf States
Speaker 3: can you know, they're not gonna prove this is the problem.
Speaker 3: They're not gonna be happy about the Western liberalism, right
Speaker 3: because they're our Western liberal countries. Dubai is not a
Speaker 3: Western liberal place. You might go there and be fooled
Speaker 3: by it, but it's not. It's it's a it's an
Speaker 3: authoritary state, which it prevents presents a Disneyland for Western visitors.
Speaker 3: But it lives in a in a a in an
Speaker 3: alternative universe. But they could totally buy the funding to
Speaker 3: make it all possible. They did, right, They provided the
Speaker 3: funding for Hamas all these years. Kamas used it, not
Speaker 3: to establish a Western liberal society. They used it to
Speaker 3: buy weapons in the build tunnels and to and to
Speaker 3: and to build up uh their ability to aggress against
Speaker 3: his will. And that's what cannot be allowed.
Speaker 15: Yeah, let's turn around.
Speaker 10: What if.
Speaker 15: Uses this solution, What if he just bumps ukraying all
Speaker 15: the way to the grad, it'll well be the end
Speaker 15: of the Lord start off the worl War three.
Speaker 3: Right, Well, I don't know. I mean, it's all like
Speaker 3: the contact of World War three. I think is bizult.
Speaker 3: I don't think we're going to We're heading towards World
Speaker 3: War three. Putin is trying to do exactly that. He
Speaker 3: just said that he's targeting all of Kiev and he's
Speaker 3: going to try to flatten it. He tries, he's tried
Speaker 3: to do that from the beginning of the war. The
Speaker 3: bad guys never have a problem trying to flatten and
Speaker 3: destroy their enemy. He is consciously continuously targeted civilians in
Speaker 3: Ukraine and civilian infrastructure in Ukraine constantly. But look, there
Speaker 3: is a difference between good guys and bad guys. And
Speaker 3: you know, bad guys will always try to kill as
Speaker 3: many people as they can, and they do it for
Speaker 3: the same reason they're trying to subjugate the population. If
Speaker 3: Putin flattens Ukraine, you think the West will intervene, there'll
Speaker 3: be no Third World War. They'll just give up Ukraine
Speaker 3: and hand it over to Pudtin. He'll win, which is
Speaker 3: exactly my point. That's how you win, whether we like
Speaker 3: it or not, that leads to victory.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and doing that one would you still be the
Speaker 5: good guys because you are killing millions?
Speaker 3: Because the good guys bad guys is not determined by
Speaker 3: how many people or what people you kill. Good guys
Speaker 3: and bad guys is determined by what you're fighting for
Speaker 3: and who started the war.
Speaker 5: Well, yes, in a war, are there even good guys?
Speaker 5: Because either side is killing hundreds of thousands of people.
Speaker 3: That's why I said the standard of good guys and
Speaker 3: bad guys is not how many people you kill, not
Speaker 3: who you kill, but what you're fighting for and who
Speaker 3: started the war. If you start a war, you're the
Speaker 3: bad guy by definition. Putin's a bad guy by definition,
Speaker 3: he started the war. The Hamasa's bad guy by definition,
Speaker 3: they started the war. The second aspect is what are
Speaker 3: you fighting for? If you're fighting like Putin, you know
Speaker 3: to establish authority, dictatorial authority over people, you're the bad
Speaker 3: guy by definition. If you're fighting a warrier to establish freedom,
Speaker 3: you know, to deliberate a peace people, you're the good
Speaker 3: guy by definition. So it's not an issue. We don't
Speaker 3: count bodies in World War Two and say the Allies
Speaker 3: were the good guys and the Nazis were the bad
Speaker 3: guys because the Allies kid fewer people. That's not the
Speaker 3: stand about what you evaluate. Nazis started the war, and
Speaker 3: the Nazis wanted to build to bring oppression and toutalitarianism
Speaker 3: to the world, and the Allies were fighting for freedom
Speaker 3: and they were fighting in their own self defense. That's
Speaker 3: what makes them good guys, not how many people they
Speaker 3: killed or didn't kill. It's also, i would say, it's
Speaker 3: the gratuitousness of it, right, The Allies killed a lot
Speaker 3: of Germans, a lot of Germans. They didn't set up
Speaker 3: industrial camps by which to kill them. They didn't rape
Speaker 3: and pellage for the sake of Rapian pillage and filmed
Speaker 3: it all and put it up on TikTok. It's a
Speaker 3: big difference between just a mentality of an army that
Speaker 3: does that versus the mentality of an army that is
Speaker 3: trying to defend itself.
Speaker 10: Okay, further understand it. And then the government come up
Speaker 10: much less centralized.
Speaker 3: And much more much more what much more? What then.
Speaker 10: More like a gorilla gorilla style compared to your Nazi Germany.
Speaker 10: Ends doesn't not also make it a lot harder to
Speaker 10: destroy you?
Speaker 3: None of that is true, But it's just not true.
Speaker 3: It gozs To had two million people, two million people
Speaker 3: in It had clearly a political leadership. It clearly had
Speaker 3: its Hitler, It clearly had its gobbles, It clearly had
Speaker 3: a whole infrastructure that ran the Gauza Strip. There was nothing, uh,
Speaker 3: what do you call gorilla about it? They were they
Speaker 3: were weak. So if you want to, if you want
Speaker 3: to say Hamasa the good guys, because they're weak. But no,
Speaker 3: they were weak, But that didn't make them gorilla. They
Speaker 3: were getting huge amounts of money. They were organizing massive
Speaker 3: infrastructure projects to build tunnels to be able to get
Speaker 3: into inside Israel. They were they were building owns and
Speaker 3: missiles and these capabilities, not guerrillas style. They were doing
Speaker 3: it as a government of a territory.
Speaker 10: My point was more in Jermy that I like destroying
Speaker 10: school the institutions eventually going to replaced it. Question is,
Speaker 10: and those institutions were basically where embedded. Yes, it is
Speaker 10: possible to do that as much than gone.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, so so the fundamental institutions in Gaza, the
Speaker 3: schools where this ideology is being taught and young kids
Speaker 3: are being trained to be suicide bombers. You know, this
Speaker 3: is this is the big opposition to UNA, the UN
Speaker 3: organization that is doing much of the training of these
Speaker 3: young children. The institutions and government institutions where they have
Speaker 3: been authoritarian top down and the dictatorial that can be replaced,
Speaker 3: and then ultimately religion and that is a challenge. The
Speaker 3: biggest challenge is how do you replace the reliefous institutions
Speaker 3: that encouraged this authoritarianism. How do you replace it with
Speaker 3: call it moderate Islam, call it some kind of reformed
Speaker 3: Islam that is more modored. And that's where you know,
Speaker 3: the Palaestinis could get some help maybe from other Arab
Speaker 3: countries that have more moderate Islamic forces, but it's the
Speaker 3: same institutions have to be replaced.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we have to stop for now. Thank you
Speaker 1: very much, Thank you very much for this long interview.
Speaker 1: I think it's fantastic that we have been able to
Speaker 1: discuss in what you say. It's always controversial what I say,
Speaker 1: and we didn't have any fight in here, so that's
Speaker 1: already a win. So that's great. I'd like to invite
Speaker 1: you all to Mendeville now, because I think we rented
Speaker 1: this place till six o'clock, so we nearly were nearly there,
Speaker 1: and then we can have a drink and we also
Speaker 1: so I have a little bit a program later on,
Speaker 1: so everybody is invited to Mandeville. But before that, I
Speaker 1: have two remarks. This whole idea that why I invited
Speaker 1: everybody is that I like to say something positive about Ironn.
Speaker 1: But you begin loving iron by reading her novels. And
Speaker 1: for those of you who don't have read her books
Speaker 1: or don't have the possession, I have put two major
Speaker 1: ones on the table in the back, so you can
Speaker 1: take one of the Fountainet one of Edwards Rut and
Speaker 1: I think this is fantastic reading for those who haven't started.
Speaker 1: And the second point I promised to give Jonatan a
Speaker 1: few minutes to express how you can even learn more
Speaker 1: about iron Rent and objectivism.
Speaker 3: Thank you, yam.
Speaker 19: It's it's been so great to come here second year
Speaker 19: in a row. Its really fantastic, and thank you all
Speaker 19: for joining us. Also thank you for Robert for sponsoring
Speaker 19: the books, and you also did last year's so very
Speaker 19: generous of you. Just two things, my friends are handing
Speaker 19: you now fliers for free digital books that you can
Speaker 19: also get all of the literature besides of what we
Speaker 19: have over there, So it's meant for students. It's one
Speaker 19: of our programs at the Ana Institute, So if you
Speaker 19: have somebody who wish to give a book for free,
Speaker 19: you can use the link there. And the second thing,
Speaker 19: they're handing out flyers for the Iron Rand conference we're
Speaker 19: having in Berlin in Mertz next year. It's going to
Speaker 19: be a weekend where we discuss these ideas in a
Speaker 19: very profound way.
Speaker 3: It's going to be mostly oriented about.
Speaker 19: Rand's approach to politics, so a lot of what we
Speaker 19: talked about individual rights here, capitalism and those things that
Speaker 19: we offer scholarships, So at the flyer you can apply
Speaker 19: for a scholarship, especially if you have read any of
Speaker 19: Rand's books previously.
Speaker 3: It's very good for you.
Speaker 19: If you're an adult and can pay for your own
Speaker 19: you can also very much encourage to do that on
Speaker 19: our website. So hopefully we'll see you in Berlin and
Speaker 19: too many more times here in Halda.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Well, thanks again for coming, and let's have a drink
Speaker 1: to celebrate this fantastic new material to work out with
Speaker 1: each other.