Lex Fridman Podcast - #463 – Douglas Murray: Putin, Zelenskyy, Trump, Israel, Netanyahu, Hamas & Gaza

Episode Date: March 30, 2025

Douglas Murray is the author of On Democracies and Death Cults, The War on The West, and The Madness of Crowds. Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep463-sc See below for timestamps, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc. CONTACT LEX: Feedback - give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey AMA - submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama Hiring - join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring Other - other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact EPISODE LINKS: Douglas's X: https://x.com/DouglasKMurray Douglas's YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@douglasmurray Douglas's Instagram: https://instagram.com/douglaskmurray Douglas's Website: https://douglasmurray.net On Democracies and Death Cults (book): https://amzn.to/4jahsxL The War on the West (book): https://amzn.to/38L7B36 SPONSORS: To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts: Call of Duty: First-person shooter video game. Go to https://callofduty.com/warzone Oracle: Cloud infrastructure. Go to https://oracle.com/lex LMNT: Zero-sugar electrolyte drink mix. Go to https://drinkLMNT.com/lex AG1: All-in-one daily nutrition drink. Go to https://drinkag1.com/lex OUTLINE: (00:00) - Introduction (02:04) - Sponsors, Comments, and Reflections (09:31) - War in Ukraine (13:17) - Trump and Zelenskyy (27:47) - Putin (48:40) - Peace (58:31) - Zelenskyy (1:13:11) - Israel-Palestine (1:23:57) - Hamas (1:38:30) - Corruption (1:41:40) - Gaza (2:02:18) - Benjamin Netanyahu (2:19:29) - Hate (2:43:59) - Iran (2:54:48) - Interview advice (3:09:12) - War PODCAST LINKS: - Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast - Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr - Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 - RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ - Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4 - Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips SOCIAL LINKS: - X: https://x.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://instagram.com/lexfridman - TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://facebook.com/lexfridman - Patreon: https://patreon.com/lexfridman - Telegram: https://t.me/lexfridman - Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman

The following is a conversation with Douglas Murray, author of The War in the West, The Madness of Crowds, and his new book on democracies and death cults. We talk about Russia and Ukraine and about Israel and Gaza. Douglas has very strong views on these topics and he defends them brilliantly and fearlessly. As I always try to do for all topics, I will also talk to people who have different views from Douglas, including on the next episode of this podcast. We live in an era of online discourse where grifters, drama farmers, liars, bots, sycophants, and sociopaths roam the vast beautiful dark land of the Internet.

It's hard to know who to trust. sociopaths roam the vast beautiful dark land of the internet. It's hard to know who to trust. I believe no one is in possession of the entire truth. But some are more correct than others. Some are insightful and some are delusional. The problem is it's hard to tell which is which, unless you use your mind with intellectual humility and with rigor. I recommend you listen to many sources who disagree with each other and try to pick up wisdom from each. Also, I recommend you visit the places in question as Douglas has, as I have, or at least talk face to face with people who have spent most of their lives

living there, whether it's Israel, Palestine, Ukraine, or Russia. Let's try together to not be cogs in the machine of outrage and instead to reach toward reason and compassion. There is no Hitler, Stalin, or Mao on the world stage today. Plus, there are thousands of nuclear weapons ready to fire. Human civilization hangs in the balance. The 21st century is a new geopolitical puzzle all of us are tasked with solving. Let's not mess it up. And now ladies and gentlemen, a quick few second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast. We've got Call of Duty for Video Game Fun,

Oracle for Cloud Computing, Element for Electrolytes, and AG1 for Multi-Bitamin Deliciousness. Choose wisely, my friends. Also, if you happen to be watching or listening to this on Spotify, I decided to start putting the same ad reads from me at the beginning as I do on Apple Podcasts and the RSS feed, since a lot of folks in the survey,

LexVidman.com slash survey, said they actually liked the random non-secular things I talk about, to my great surprise. And they've also said that they're happy to just skip when they felt like it. Some folks are some timers, meaning they listen to these ads sometimes. Some folks are every timers, they listen to all the ads.

I do try to make the ad reads interesting and personal, often related to stuff I'm reading or thinking about. But if you skip them, and I do make it easy to skip, by providing the timestamps on the screen and in the description. So if you skip them, please still check out the sponsors. Sign up and get their stuff. I enjoy it, Maybe you will too.

Also, if you want to get in touch with me for whatever reason, go to lexfreeman.com slash contact. And now onto the full ad reads. Let's go. This episode is brought to you by Call of Duty Warzone and the return of the iconic Vordansk map. I have a long history with Call of Duty. I've been a fan for a long time. I've been a fan of video games for a long, long time. And I'm actually looking forward to doing many, many podcasts with video game designers, with engineers. It just brings me so much joy. And there's technical, philosophical things to explore

with video games. How do you create immersive worlds that can be ultra realistic or ultra non-realistic and super fun or super dark or terrifying or exciting or hopeful or dreamlike? All of those worlds, the geniuses behind those worlds inspire me. I admire, I respect, I'm a big fan of the worlds

that Call of Duty franchise has created. And the Verdant's map looks incredible. You can download Call of Duty Warzone for free and drop into the Verdant's map on April 3rd, rated M for Mature. This episode is also brought to you by Oracle, a company providing a fully integrated stack of cloud applications and cloud platform services.

I think compute is going to be one of the resources that are most prized in the 21st century. Whatever physical form, whatever cyber software form that compute takes, we do not know yet. Of course, there's folks like Oracle that are pioneering that, but it's very possible in a century, in two centuries, we're going to be surrounded by some orb where the computation is done,

maybe in deep space that's orbiting Earth, something like this. Maybe because of the heat and the energy requirements, it's going to be impossible to host it on Earth without destroying Earth. Of course, Earth is such a priceless planet for us humans, but I actually believe maybe not in our galaxy, but certainly in our vicinity, it's going to be very, very difficult to colonize other planets Of course humans are incredible at doing the difficult thing, but we should protect this earth

Anyway props to Oracle for constantly innovating and building in the space cut your cloud bill in half when you switch to OCI Offer is for new US customers with a minimum financial commitment to see if you qualify at oracle.com slash Lex That's oracle.com slash Lex. That's oracle.com slash Lex. This episode is brought to you by element, my daily zero sugar and delicious electrolyte mix that I'm drinking now. Because after I say the words I'm saying to you right now, I'm going for a long, long run along the river. And I'm listening to an audio book by James Holland. It's volume one of his trilogy called The War in the West.

I believe it's focusing on 1939 to 1941. It's just an extremely well-written perspective on those years. So it's the Western front. I think those years are really important to understand. The years leading up to 1939 and 39, 40, 41 themselves because there's a lot of, let's say, geopolitical negotiations, meetings,

carrots and sticks that could have been done, a lot of insights, a lot of mistakes avoided. It's such an important moment to understand. Probably the most destructive, the most terrifying, the most earth-shattering war this world has ever seen. With the bigger-than-life personalities of Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, FDR. I think James Holland calls it the most dramatic set of events in human history. Anyway, element element before element after, it brings me joy. Watermelon salt is still and forever the flavor of choice for me. Get a sample pack for free with any purchase.

Try it at www.drinkelement.com. This episode is brought to you by AG1. An all in one daily drink to support better health and peak performance. My daily companion, again, after the run, I'm going to make an AGE 1 put in the freezer, then I'll go take a quick shower, come back, drink the AGE 1. It's going to be chill, refreshing. I'm going to reflect on the things I've read, let my thoughts go to wherever they may go, Let my thoughts go to wherever they may go and then get my lazy ass back to work, deeply focused. A productive life is built on a foundation of rituals, habits.

It's kind of incredible how fleeting life is. The days go by, the months go by, the years go by. But when you look at the individual day, there's just a lot of time. And if you have the patience to believe in the long-term effects of daily rituals and daily habits, you'd be surprised, I am constantly surprised, if I do a thing every day and I wake up two, three months after and just see how good I got at that thing, it's kind of incredible.

And then you of course have to protect that habit. It gets harder and harder every year with all the fascinating stuff going on online. You just have to shut it all off and do the thing, do the habit every day. Anyway, they'll give you one month supply of fish oil when you sign up at drinkag1.com slash Lex. This is a Lex Friedman Podcast.

To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Douglas Murray. What have you understood about the war in Ukraine from your visits there? Just looking at the big picture of your understanding of the invasion of February 24, 2022 and the war in the three years since. Well, I mean, several things. There's political angles which are forever changing, but on the human level, as you know, if you visit troops, frontline troops, you have that admiration for people defending their country, defending their homes, defending their families. I'm struck by the way in which

that is at a remove from the sort of political noise and the media noise and much more. It's very easy to get caught up in the twos and throes of today's news, but that to my mind is, that's the single thing that struck me most in my visits there is just the the people I've met Who are fighting for a cause which at that level is unavoidable? Undeniable so the thing that struck you is different from the the media turmoil is just the reality of war Yeah, of course. I mean you know people who you as different from the media turmoil as just the reality of war?

Yeah, of course. I mean, you know, people who have either lived under Russian occupation from invading armies and then come back out into the world having been liberated as in late 2022, all the people now organized most recently there in recent weeks, who were just getting on with their job as soldiers, whilst the world was talking about them. When were you there in early on in this escalated war of 22? Yes, first time was in, I was with the Ukrainian armed forces when they retook Kherson, and I was back in recent weeks and was there when the Trump-Solensky blowup happened.

In fact, I was in a Ukrainian dugout at the front lines when I was watching it. How was the morale? How was the content of the conversations you've heard different from the two visits separated by, I guess, two years? One level, nothing has changed much. It's not a total standoff because intermittently each side gains territory from the others. But it's, it's not, I mean, there'd be no very significant military gains by either side in the interim period. I think, uh, my experience of the, the soldiers, the people of Ukraine early

on in the war, there's a intense optimism about the outcomes of the war. There's a sense that they're going to win. And the definition of what win means was like, all the territory is going to be won back. Yeah, I certainly, on the front lines facing Crimea, was became quite familiar with people who thought that the Ukrainians in late 2022 would even be able to get Crimea back and that

struck me even at the time and I said I thought that that was an overreach and Now I think The people the soldiers at least in my experience when I visited second time are more exhausted the morale mmm, the dreams the certainty of victory has, has maybe faded from the forefront of their minds. Well three years of war will tire out anyone. What did you think of the blow up between Zelensky and Trump as you're sitting there

in the dugout? Well it is, it was a very disturbing place to watch it from perhaps anywhere would have been. Um, and, I mean, obviously it was a meeting that shouldn't have happened. It was far too early. Why do you think so? There's not enough actual pathways to peace on the table. Well, I think the mineral deal, I mean, I love the fact that everyone's now an expert

in Eastern Ukrainian mineral deposits, but. I think as I've learned, and we'll talk about Israel and Palestine, I'm learning that everybody's an expert on geopolitics and history of war on the internet. And now mineral deposits, obviously. Yes. The, I'm really speaking at the edge

of my mineral deposit knowledge here. No, what I could see the deal that the American administration was trying to get the Ukrainian government to sign was sort of too early, too forced. The Ukrainians weren't, were ready to sign a deal, but were obviously under intense pressure. And I think certainly Zelensky wasn't expecting to, actually wasn't expecting to go until pretty much the day before. Was obviously visibly tired and exhausted again as you are after that amount of pressure for that long a time.

And no, I mean, the thing that struck me, and I said this in my column in the New York Post from there, that the thing that struck me was I said to some of the soldiers I was with, you know, what do you make of this? And, you know, one of them just said to me, well, you know, we're advised not to get too close to Libyans and out of the politics of this, you know, and, um, but of course everyone has Instagram or scrolls and among dog pictures and the, you know, the hot women or whatever is, um, you know, what happened in the oval and, uh, but what struck me was the same guy and saying, I've got a job to do. Right.

And, uh, there's a clarity and a wisdom to that, but, uh, your job is, is, is bigger than that, right? This to understand the politics as well. And what do you think about the politics of that moment? Because that was a real opportunity to come together and make progress on peace, right? And it from by all accounts was not a successful step forward. I don't think by any account it was a successful step forward unless to some extent it was a play but from DC to say to Putin, look, we've daft off Zelensky and now give us something. That's the only

remedial idea I have about what might have been behind it. But I think it was just one of those political moments. Zelensky was obviously deeply irritated by the interpretation of the war that he was hearing from Washington. It was only a week after the Trump comments about Zelensky being a dictator and people in the administration implying that Ukraine has started the war. I think that must be, for Zelensky, a pretty Alice in Wonderland situation to be in. I had significant sympathy for him in finding it bewildering because it would be bewildering. I think the sad thing to me also on the mundane details of that meeting and just the unfortunate way that meetings happen I think it's true that he was also exhausted. Yes. There was a dickhead of a reporter that was asked a question about

outfit in a way that, listen, Zelensky, everybody has their strengths and weaknesses. He's an emotional being, for better or for worse. And there's a dumb dickhead of a reporter. Marjorie Taylor Greene's boyfriend. To his. The things you know. See, you're a real journalist.

He's from one of the new, I'm all for opening up the White House press pool and all that sort of thing, but it means that you get some people in who are sort of, yeah, from a blog land, there's nothing wrong with that, but it means that you get somebody who will do something like that. The problem with that interaction as I saw it was that guy asked that, well, disrespectful question.

And I think it was disrespectful. I'll very quickly say why. I think that when a man comes from the realm of war into the realm of peace, the people in the realm of peace should have some respect or at least concession that the other man has come from the realm of war. And that if you're sitting in a political environment where you talk about people being destroyed and decimated and defenestrated and much more to a man for whom none of that is metaphorical. I think that's extremely hard to accept. And I think that probably also at that moment, there was a sort of sense of Zelensky being disrespected by being asked about what he's wearing. When as everyone knows, you know, Churchill during World War II used to wear his fatigues on foreign visits.

And it's just that, it's to remind people that you're coming from the realm of war. And I think that probably in that moment, one of the things that would have been going through his head would be, but I mean, if, if, if this was Putin sitting here being assaulted by a journalist, you know, you'd hope your host stepped in and defended you. I mean, if, let me try this one out. I mean, if, say, if, if a journalist in the Oval Office, if Putin was sitting there or a putative journalist said to Putin, you know, everyone knows you've had a lot of facial work done. And word is you've used the same guy that Berlusconi

used to use. Can you comment on that? You'd say, well, that's a kind of disrespectful question for journalists to ask and it's a little bit off of what needs to be gone over. And there's the same thing with Zelensky with the outfit. I think it was just petty and threw things off in a bad way. Yeah, I know it was probably research because I think Zelensky was explaining this

like three years ago at the beginning of the war, why he wears what he wears and he's been consistent wearing the same thing. It's also, by the way, it's an example of the frivolity of a lot of the attempts to understand what's going on. My view is that since actually most people, in fact, everybody cannot be an expert on everything, one of the things that we always do is to seize on minor and really quite unimportant things. Every site does it.

Look at the way in which the American right for years talked about the Churchill bust leaving the White House Oval Office in the Obama years. I didn't want to hear another darn thing about the Churchill bust after eight years because it was in lieu of trying to understand and actually critique Obama's foreign policy. It was just an easy shorthand. I think it's the same. We're always tempted to that. But the thing is, I think you mentioned Putin, I think Putin would have been able to respond himself to that journalist effectively, and he would have done it in Russian. Oh, yeah the language thing. Yeah, so I wanted to sort of lay out several just unfortunate things that happen in these Situations I think it happens in all peace negotiations and it's funny how history can turn in moments like this

I do think there's a dickhead reporter combined with the fact that the you know with all due respect But Zalensky's English sometimes is not very good. Yes And about from the house if he had agreed to not done it in English He would have bought himself the extra seconds in some of his replies that he needed Yeah, yeah and have the wit the guy is funny witty intelligent You know, he could do that in the native language of whether it's Ukrainian or Russian to be able to respond and get the interpreter. So all of that is really unfortunate because I think on those little moments, it's a dance and there's an opportunity there.

You know, the Republicans, the right wing in the United States have a general kind of skepticism of Zelensky and, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way. It can turn, it can change, it can evolve. It's very interesting why it has happened. Why do you think it's happened? I think the politics in the United States is so dumb that at the very beginning it could just be reduced to, well, the left went Putin bad, Zelensky good, rah rah, Ukrainian flags.

Therefore the right must go the opposite. It's sometimes it's literally as dumb as that. Let's each pick a side and call the other dumb. I had a line I used recently, the necessity of people who live too long online to try to wade their way out of the memes. It is so like that, isn't it? Because yes, I mean, I can understand the people who find it very irritating that so many people who would put BLM flags or pride flags or, you know, trans flags in their bio, then put Ukrainian flags in their bio despite almost certainly not knowing

where Ukraine was. And if that happens, the inevitable instinct of a lot of people who aren't really thinking is to say, that's really annoying. These people are really annoying. I'll socket to them. But that's where you've got to try to rise above that and say, actually, funnily enough, the fate of a country doesn't depend on my tolerance

for memes online today. Yeah, so I think the memes can be broken through in meetings like the one that happened between Zelensky and Trump. There could have been real camaraderie. I've seen the skill of that just recently having a research deeply and interact with Narendra Modi. Here's somebody who has the skill of, you know, for his country, for his situation, being able to somehow be friends with Putin and friends with Zelensky and friends

with Trump and friends with Biden and friends with Obama. It was very skillful. And that while still being strong for his country and like fundamentally a nationalist figure who's like, you know, very not globalist, not anything but pro India, India first, nation first. In fact, nation first with a very specific idea what that nation represents.

And that Zelensky could do all of those things, but have the skill of navigating the Trump room, because every single leader has their own peculiar quirks that need to be navigated. Yes, the obvious one, I mean, I don't want to make it sound like it was all Zelensky's fault, but I mean, the obvious one was at the beginning of the meeting to say yet again, as he has done for three years, thank you to America and the American people and American politicians from across the aisle for your support for my country in its hour of need. But we're deeply grateful. And because he, for once, forgot to say that.

I think it's not that simple. I think there's a- It's not that simple. It's one reason. I think saying thank you, he didn't need to say thank you. There is just- Well, that was what Vance leapt in on. He's just picking a thing to leap on.

There's a whole energy. You have to acknowledge in your way of being that you have been very Biden buddy buddy with the left for the last four years. There's ways to fix that. Listen, these people are complicated narcissists, all of them, Biden, Trump. You have to navigate the complexity of that. And you basically have to say a kind word to Trump, which is like showing

there's many ways of doing that. But one of them is saying, feeding the ego by acknowledging that he is one of the world's greatest negotiators, right? I'm glad we're able to come to the table and negotiate together, because I believe you are the great negotiator, mediator, that can actually bring a successful resolution to,

as opposed to have an energy of like, it should be obvious to everybody that you're creating are the good guys and Russia is the bad guys. There's this whole energy of entitlement that he brought. He forgot that there's a new guy. You got to like convince the new guy that this global mission that this nation is on, this war that is in many ways the West versus the East, that there's ideals, there's whole histories here, that this is a war worth winning. You have to convince them, right? Yeah, no, sure. And they obviously failed on that occasion. But as I say, it must be bewildering

to have landed in a place where people were seriously talking about Ukraine starting the war and Zelensky not Putin being the dictator. I did the front page of the New York Post the day after the president's comments on that saying that, the big picture of Putin just saying, right, this is a dictator. And I think the people can be live enough to be able to recognize that you can make criticisms of Zelensky or the Ukrainians, but it doesn't mean you have to fall for Putin. And again, unfortunately, a lot of people in our time don't have that capability. Can we go right into it? What is your strongest criticism of Putin? He's a dictator who's very bloody, as repressive as you can be of political opposition, internal

opposition. He's kleptomaniac of his country's resources, has enriched himself as much as he could, as he has with the cronies around him. He's not just acted to destroy internal opposition in Russia, but has gone to other countries, including my own country of birth, and killed people on their, our soil using, as it happens, weapons of mass destruction. The use of polonium in the center of London, not good. The use of incredibly dangerous nerve agents that could kill tens of thousands of people in a charming cathedral city like Salisbury. Not good. If the sort of apologists of Putin would say, well, he's just a sort of tough man who's

looking after his house business. Well, I don't think even if you think he has the right to do that, he should be doing it in third countries deliberately using weapons that are meant to show that you could take out tens of thousands of British citizens. Yeah. I mean, that's just for starters. What do you make for, uh, do you think he's actually popularly elected?

No. Do you think the results of the elections are fraudulent? Yes. I mean, do you think it's possible that it's just that the opposition has been eliminated and he's legitimately popularly elected? It definitely helps a chap if he's killed all of his opponents. Something about using the term chap in that context is just a marvelous, but you know, I know.

I mean, a bit of a serious, you, you, uh, if, if, if people are worried about, uh, this is another of the sort of slightly Alice in Wonderland things recently about Zelensky is people are saying, why, why hasn't he's a dictator because he hasn't held elections during a total war of self-defense. And it's like, well, you know, if you're really, really passionate about free and fair elections in that neck of the woods, you'd at least notice that Russian elections are not free and fair in any meaningful sense. But this doesn't mean that you have to say that therefore they should have western-style elections

and freedom, that Russia is ready to go and become a western liberal democracy. It doesn't mean any of that at all. It's just at least note that this is what Putin is. What do you think is the motivation for his invasion of Ukraine in 22? It's what he's said for years, which is basically the reconstitution of the Soviet Union. Do you think there is empire-building components to that motivation? I would trust most my friends in Eastern, Central Europe who certainly do think that. There's a reason why the Baltic countries are the countries that are spending highest

in percentage of GDP on defense, and it's because they're very worried. I don't think they're faking it. I don't think they're faking it for me or for anyone else. I think the Lithuanians, Latvians, the Estonians and others are genuinely worried for the first time in some decades. Do you think there's a possibility that the war continues indefinitely. Even if there's a ceasefire and the peace reached, the war will resume. He will seek expansion even beyond Ukraine. Yes.

And the most obvious thing is that if Trump manages to negotiate a ceasefire, it'll be a temporary pause. And whoever comes in as president after Trump, Putin will use the opportunity to advance again. Yes. Again, one of the things that I have heard from parts of the American right and others is that all he wants is Ukraine, that that's all he wants and that he has no history or rhetoric or actions that suggest anything else. And again, it's one of the reasons why it's useful traveling to places and seeing things with your own eyes because I very much remember being in the country of Georgia after Putin

tried to invade in 2008. So I just, again, people don't have to be the greatest supporters of the Ukrainian cause just to recognize that it doesn't seem to be the case that Ukraine is the only thing in Putin's vision. Do you see value and maybe depth and power to the realist perspective of all this? Somebody like John Mearsheimer's formulation of all this, that in these invasions of Georgia, of Ukraine, it's using military power to expand the sphere of influence in the region in a cold calculation of geopolitics.

It's interesting. One of the fascinating things about the last few years is there's been an act of sort of necromancy of certain figures who are totally, totally debunked in the area of Ukraine, Meersheim and in the case of Israel, people like Finkelstein. And it's been interesting because these are people that one hadn't heard of for some years because they were not listened to, usually for good reason. But by the way, first of all, I'm very skeptical of the term realist in foreign policy because most people to some extent will say that they are a realist in foreign policy. Very few people are surrealists in foreign policy. Very few people are unrealists. I would like to meet them.

A surrealist foreign policy analyst. We did mention Alice in Wonderland. Yeah. Maybe we should introduce the term. But if you want to look gimlet out, eyed out across the world, you're a realist. I think the steel man of their argument would be Russia has or believes it has a sphere of influence and is regrettable, but there's very little we can do about that. That would be about the best version of that argument that you can make.

Well, to expand on that steel man, isn't this how superpowers operate in the dark, realist slash surrealist way? Meaning the United States uses military power to have a sphere of influence over the whole globe really. China appears to be willing to use military power to expand its sphere of influence. And political power, yeah, more importantly in the case of China.

Political power. Non-kinetic warfare to take over areas, Hong Kong being the obvious one. Behind that, isn't there always a kinetic threat? Oh yeah, of course, yeah. I mean, you disappear some booksellers and, uh, students who are protesting. Of course I just, but, but to go back to this, yeah, of course. Okay.

The countries believe they have, or would like to have spheres of influence. I do think at some point that the so-called realists on that have to try to decide how much leeway that allows you to give to a fairly rapacious regime. It's not the easiest calculation always to make. You have to work out whether or not, for instance, it is true that if Putin had managed to go all the way to Kiev in the first weeks of the war in 22, he would have gone straight on to other places. Maybe he would have done, maybe he would have taken his time, maybe he wouldn't have done. This is a very fine calculation that changes every week, let alone every year. You know, my friends in Georgia, I thought were, um, wildly off the

mark when they were believing that after 2008 they could get, for instance, either NATO membership or EU membership. And I thought, I thought that was completely unlikely. And I still think it's unlikely and almost suddenly undesirable for Europe and for NATO, because you've got to be very careful as, and obviously this is one of the issues with Ukraine and has been since the nineties is, you know, are you going to set up a trip wire to start world war three? And that's not a small thing to consider.

So what do you think the, uh, the peace deal might look like. And what does the path to peace look like in Ukraine in the coming weeks and months? I just thought it would be regrettably the Ukrainian seeding some territory in the East and then making sure they rearm during whatever peace period comes afterwards. And probably all four territories of Dnieper-Khan's separation are some. You couldn't lay any of that out because it has to be negotiated on. But I mean, I think that, and I think the ease with which non-Ukrainians are currently speaking about the Ukrainian ceding territory is concerning because these territories include hundreds of thousands

of Ukrainian citizens who do not want to live under Putin's rule and people who have families in the rest of Ukraine and much more. And I recently interviewed children who had managed to get out of the Russian occupied areas. And it's brutal for the Ukrainian to be growing up in that territory. So when people say, well, obviously, you know, Donetsk has to be given to Putin, I think that that is not as easy a thing if you're in Ukraine as it is if you're sitting in New York, say. And by the way, I think that on the issue of there is a school of thought that is that obviously, President Trump to some extent was floating

in recent weeks, which is that if a deal is done, a business deal, in relation to minerals or anything else, you get a kind of buffer zone of American businesses and investment and therefore American business people in the region, which would effectively warn Putin not to invade. I don't follow that idea because not least there were Americans in the regions that were invaded in 22 and they left fast. We know from Hong Kong and other places, just because there are international financial interests in the region does not mean that a dictatorship will not either militarily or covertly take over. I don't see American miners as being an effective buffer zone against Putin. By the way, what did you learn from talking to the children, Ukrainian children from those regions.

Well, I mean, it's, it's, it's heartbreaking because the only schooling is, uh, Russian schooling. Uh, obviously teaching the Russian language, Putin's view of history and effectively indoctrination and people can quibble with that term, but it's putinesque indoctrination schools and any children or families that do not want that effectively have to hide and not go out. And there were, I spoke to children and parents who'd had school friends, for instance, the Russians set up in 22 and 23 summer camps for the children of some of the areas that have been occupied and the children went off to the camps and then they didn't come back. They were just stolen. I mean, it's thought that around 20,000 Ukrainian children have been stolen in this fashion. That's not a

small thing. It's not got very much attention, but yes, I mean, children who would hide whenever the Russian troops came to the door. One teenage boy who described to me how when his mother was out, a woman came around the house knocked on the door and gave him his papers and said that he had to attend the next week to sign up for the Russian army. This is not good. And that's obviously what life is like for thousands of people behind the Russian lines in Ukraine.

I just have it in mind when people say things like, well, obviously, these regions have to be handed over. It's very, very hard if you're Ukrainian to concede to that. Yeah. And even if they are as part of the negotiation, they hand it over, I think it'll probably be generations or never that that could be accepted by Ukrainian people. Absolutely. And I would have thought never. What do we know about this kidnapping of children? The stories of the thousands of children that the Russian forces kidnap. Some of them were in orphanages in Eastern Ukraine,

not all by any means, but some were. It's a very complicated story, actually, because many children were taken from their families. Many the Russians said, well, look at these Ukrainians, they don't even look after their children, therefore, we will look after them. And I was I was recently when I was there looking into this story, because it's a very interesting question as to why it hasn't had more attention. You know of, for instance, the abduction of the Chibok schoolgirls some 12 years ago now in northern Nigeria and the appalling abduction of 300 girls by Boko Haram completely gained the world's attention.

I was very interested into why the Ukrainian children who'd been taken by the Russians had not gained similar attention. There's a slight similarity with the war in Israel, which I'm sure we'll come on to. But I do think that one reason is that they were effectively hostages and the Ukrainians knew, this is my estimation of the terrain on it, is that the Ukrainians knew that if they made a great deal about this, or as it were, more than they did, that the children would effectively be the most effective bargaining chip. And I do think there's considerable truth in that, because if you look at, for instance, the way in which pressure has been put on the Israeli government by the Israeli population about

the kidnapped Israelis. You'll see that it's a pretty effective tactic for any Tartar-Tarren regime or terrorist group to operate in a way that means that the population of the country you're attacking pressure their government to do something in terms of concession. It's a very effective tool. And I think that story was partly played down, not just outside of Ukraine, but also within Ukraine, partly for that reason. As a truth seeker, as a journalist, how do you operate in that world where, at least to me, it's obvious that there's just a flood of propaganda on both sides? Now, of course, when you go there and directly experience

it and talk to people, but those people are still also swimming in the propaganda. So unless you witness stuff directly, sometimes it's hard to know know like I speak to people on the Russian side and There's they're clearly first of all hilariously enough. They almost always say there's that there's no propaganda in Russia. Of course Which makes me realize I mean You you can be completely lied to Maybe I am in the United States as well, and just be unaware. Um, maybe earth is run by aliens. Maybe the earth is flat.

So I don't know. Maybe you've taken mushrooms. I have before this and I finally see the truth and it's you that are deluded. Douglas. Okay. But, uh, back to the, our rounder discussion, rounder shields that we are, uh, how do you know what is true? You can tell it when the bare facts become not true.

Like you can tell it when somebody is willing to claim that everything caused the invasion of 2022, except for Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine. Yeah, there's a hilarious thing that happens. And I think you've actually speak about this, that people are generally just much more willing to criticize the democratically elected leader. Always, always. So the interesting thing that happens

is these wise sages that do the narratives of like NATO started the war, right? Which there is some interesting geopolitical depth and truth to that, like that NATO expansion created a complicated geopolitical context, whatever. But they forget to say like other parts of that story. Well, yes, of course. I mean, and I mean, of course, to some extent, it's rather, you know, there's a very,

the most irritating type of question asker at any event is the person who says, I was disappointed that in your 30 minute talk, you didn't address X. And I tend to say, well, looking forward to coming to your next talk where in 30 minutes you'll cover everything that could possibly be covered.

There's always stuff that's going to be left on the sides. There's always going to be stuff that's left unaddressed. There's always going to be other angles. There's always going to be somebody else who, who, who, who has this interesting perspective and you can't cover it. Nevertheless, if you cover everything other than the central things, then it's suspicious. Many years ago, as a debate in London, there was a debate about the origins of World War

II, and Pat Buchanan, talking of necromancy, was one of the speakers. And Andrew Roberts, the historian, was one of the people on the other side. At one point, they got so completely stuck into issues of iron ore mining in Poland, something like this. The moderator, I remember, it was just a melee. The moderator turns to Andrew Roberts and says, Andrew Roberts, why did World War II begin? He says, World War II began because Hitler invaded Poland. And it was a magnificent moment because everything had been a mosh. They were just so lost in all the intricate and clever and interesting things that you can talk about, about the origins of a war that you, you, you

forget to mention the thing that's most important. And certainly my experience as a journalist and writer is that one of the reasons why you need to go and see things with your own eyes is because people are certain to tell you that what you've seen with your own eyes didn't happen or hasn't happened and it helps to steal you for that moment. It's a gradual thing that happens where the obvious thing starts being taken for granted and people stop saying it because it's like the boring thing to say at a party and then all of a sudden over time, you just almost start questioning whether, whether, you know, like the obvious thing is even true.

I don't know what that, how that happens in psychology. Yeah, I think it does. I think it does. I've observed it in a lot of different places, which is the important thing is the only thing you do forget. Everything else is what you remember. And some of us are for some reason wired in a way where we don't, we try not to forget the important thing.

Remember the obvious thing. Yeah. Yes. And as you say, no, I'm not wanting to be the boring guy at the party who reiterates what is true because what a douche bag you'd be if you were that guy. Nobody likes captain obvious at a party. Okay. Is it possible that Donald Trump is a mediator, a successful negotiator that brings a stable

peace to Ukraine? It's possible. We'll have to see. I think it's just too early and complicated to tell. That he wants to bring a peace seems to me to be obvious. He stated it a lot of times. Whether he can, we're just going to have to see. It's extremely hard to see some of the parameters of the peace deal. And I would suggest that the most, one, not the most difficult, but one of the most difficult

is that there is no peace guarantee on paper that the Ukrainians can possibly believe. It doesn't matter because we in the West, some of the countries in the West have said it before that we'd secure their peace and we haven't. And so what other than NATO membership, which is not possible in my view, what other than NATO membership would reassure the Ukrainians that they are going to have their borders secured and the peace of Ukraine secured? I can't see. I think there's not going to be ever a guarantee that you can trust.

I think the way you have a guarantee implicit guarantees by having military and economic partnerships with as many partners as possible. So you have partnerships with the The Middle East your partnerships with India Perhaps even with China with the United States with many nations in Europe all of which are still suggests that if there's enough financial interests in Ukraine, they would prevent another Russian invasion. There will be financial pressure. Yeah, that would be, uh, you know, Russia needs to be friends with somebody, either

China or the West. I think a world that's flourishing, it would have Russia trading and being friends with the West and the East. Talk would be ideal. It would be ideal if the regime in Moscow wanted it, but that's that, not, I mean, again, you get into the thing of people accused of

Russophobia, but I mean, I do believe that after the fall of the wall, Russia was ill-treated by the West, not treated with some of the courtesy that it required. I do think that. And at the same time, that doesn't justify the actions of Russia in the last 20 years. Right. But let's descend from the surrealist to the realist. It's very possible for Russia to be on the verge of military invasion of these nations and that being wrong, while also not doing it because they're afraid to hurt the partnerships with the West and with China. It's possible, but the alliance they seem to find bearable. It's not a very, it's not a very good Alliance in most people's

analysis, but it's an Alliance. It's bearable, but I don't think maybe disagree with this. I don't think the Russian people or even Putin Wants to be isolated from the West I think it wants to be friends with the West and with the East and with everybody. He just also wants Ukraine right, and there's How does the Rolling Stones song go? Which one? Not the satisfaction one.

Simply with the devil? That's the one. You got me on that one. No, like there's interests, whether it's expanding the sphere of influence, that's one thing on the table. But that can be put aside if you want to maintain the partnerships with these nations. And if Ukraine has strong economic partnerships with those nations, then that prevents Russia from invading.

I think the premise is one that I've seen before. There was a famous, what was his name? Norman Angel. He wrote this book, which was a fantastic bestseller in his day, where he believed that Europe would be in a period of endless Kantian peace because the prospect of European powers going to war was so economically unviable. The book was reissued after World War I, and I never got the second edition, but I assume it was significantly rewritten.

That's a very kind of cynical take that just because the book is wrong. I'm not saying just the book is wrong, I'm saying that the idea that cooperation on an economic and other levels is any significant preventative device to madness breaking out is not something I see. Could deter some people, it could deter some very, very rational, economically driven actors, but it fails to take into account all of the other things that motivate people to go to war and to invade and to go mad. Okay. Well, I would argue that in the 21st century, one of the reasons we have much fewer wars is because of the much more, well, so there's a few tools here on the geopolitical stage.

One of them is that you were just much more interconnected economically, globally interconnected. And that is always a present pressure on the world to keep peace. There's a lot of money to be made from peace. There's also a lot of money to be made from war. There's a lot of interest attention. And I'm just presenting one of the tools that a leader should be using. The alternative is what? Military force.

That is an interesting one. Sometimes a useful one. But unfortunately, it has its downsides also. And after three years of war, and the hundreds of thousands dead, you have to start wondering what are the options on the table? I agree. I'm obviously for economic cooperation, but my only caveat is not to think that that is something which is of ultimate interest or even at the top of the list of interests of despots, tyrants, extremists who want something else. Yeah. But, uh, can you read the mind of Vladimir Putin? No.

A lot of the ideas I hear about peace is Putin bad, victory must be achieved, NATO membership required. Putin bad victory must be achieved. NATO membership required. Yeah. There's this kind of like, but what's the, what's the, you have to come to the table to end the killing is one and, uh, to have different ideas of how to, uh, have a non-zero chance of peace. So that, you know, the options are, it seems to me the only option, not the only option,

but the likeliest option is a lot of strong economic partnerships. There's of course other radical options. There's Russia joining NATO or something like this, or there's flirting with World War III essentially giving nukes to Ukraine or something like this. There's like crazy stuff or a totally new military alliance with France and Britain and Germany and European nations and Ukraine or some weird network of military power that threatens Russia in some way, or maybe some big breakthrough partnership between India, China and Ukraine, something like this, some really out there ideas.

And I think that's how the world. That that's how the world finds a balance and realigns itself in interesting ways and no it could be I hope you're I hope your idea is right I think it's about the we're setting the most peaceful way for this to be resolved my only caveat as I say is and also never forget to factor in, that people want different things in this world. And some people don't dream as you dream. I think we'll talk about that in your new book, Death Cults.

That one is an easier one for me to understand to the story that you're describing. I am more hesitant to assign psychopathy to leaders of major nations. Sure. Yeah. I'm not by any means urging you to regard Vladimir Putin as a millenarian madman who cannot be in any way understood. I think he could be negotiated and reasoned with. From your lips to God's ears. Can you steer me on the case four and then against Zelensky

as the right leader for Ukraine at this moment? Is he the right person to take it to the point of peace? We'll see. If he can, then of course he is. He deserves enormous respect for galvanizing his people, for being elected in the first place, for galvanizing his nation at a time of incredible peril, for playing the international game of getting support for his country well. And sometimes the person who does that, not there are many people like that, can be the person who also brings about a peace deal

and sometimes not. I think there's a degree to which he may have seen too much suffering of the people, the land he loves to be able to sit down at a table with a world leader who did the destruction and to be able to compromise on anything. That's possible. Again, it puts the onus on him though. It sort of slightly presupposes that Putin doesn't have the same human instinct on that. It is extremely hard. I've noticed this in a lot of conflicts. It's extremely hard the way in which

outsiders come in and others who haven't seen what you've seen or gone through what you've gone through and say, you know, it's time to get around the negotiating table and just, you know, you think you didn't see what I saw, you didn't go through what I went through, who are you to tell me? It goes back to that thing of the visitor from the land of war and the visitor from the land of peace. The visitor from the land of peace can easily talk about getting around negotiating tables, but the visitor from the land of war has seen other things and it's very hard for somebody who hasn't seen it to tell the person who

has that they should act differently. And the sad thing about humanity is both the person from the land of peace and the person from the land of war are right. Yes, that's a struggle. That's definitely a struggle. It's like asking somebody to forgive. I've seen that at a lot of ends of conflicts. People say, you know, the important thing is that we forgive and move on. And then the other person says, you know, your child didn't die of shrapnel wounds. Yeah, this is, you know, I got a lot of heat for an interview I did with Zelensky. By the way, people privately, the people that message me is all love and support.

Even the people that disagree, Ukraine soldiers. People online are ruthless. They're misrepresenting me, they're lying about. People online are ruthless and misrepresenting and lying? Yeah. Good God, Lex, you discovered a new phenomenon. I'm a real radical intellectual. Nothing misses your eye. I see the truth and I'm unafraid to point it out

No, there's a degree This this idea that you Need to compromise with the person with the leader of a nation you're at war with and In so doing to some, are forgiving their actions. Because the actual feeling you have is you want it to be fair. And the definition of fair, when you've seen that much suffering,

is for him and everybody around him, and maybe even all of the people on the other side to just die because you've seen towards suffering. But the other side of that is, yes, there's children that have died, but you go coming to the negotiation table, other children from dying. Yes, of course. And so like there is just, you had this kind of way of speaking about it, embodying that perspective that it's naive to say to come to the negotiation

table and it is for a person from the land of war, but the very smart, intelligent, and not naive person from the land of peace that is often right in some deep sense about the long arc of history. For them, it does, it is the right thing to come to the negotiation table to end the more killing. The one thing I would add to that though is, you know, don't forget that it also depends on whether or not there's a clear shot of winning. If there's a clear shot of winning and that's the most important, the most important thing

in wars is not final negotiations or anything, that. It's simply winning and losing. And if you have a clear shot of winning and you can take it and you're near it, then having somebody else come in and saying, why not stop just before victory is very hard. That's one of the many, many complexities of the conflict we're talking about. You know what's the other big complexity of that? Because the clear shot of winning is like a man walking through the desert, seeing water. It could be during war, it really is an illusion. So here's what happens.

The really complicated aspect of negotiation is in order to negotiate is in order to negotiate peace from a place of strength, you have to have victory in sight. Yes. And so the temptation from that position is to not But this is the failure in 22 and two occasions to achieve to negotiate a ceasefire and peace. One in the spring, because there was a Ukraine was in a real big, I would say position of strength, having fended off the Russian forces around Kiev. That's one. And then as you mentioned, in the fall of 22, with Khursan and Kharkiv had a lot of military success.

They were in a place of strength. And from that place, they've decided to keep going because victory was in sight. But that was also an opportunity to make peace. That's perfectly possible, yes. That's the hard thing. It's very hard, it's all hard. But I'm just, again, it's, victory can be won in wars and is often won in wars.

And you're right, they can also grind on because nobody has the capability to make a breakthrough. It's a case, I mean, the wisdom about civil wars because nobody has the capability to make a breakthrough. It's a case, I mean, the wisdom about civil wars tends to be that they sort of burn out after about 10 years or so for similar reasons. When you're in the war, can you actually know that a victory can be won? It's a very good question.

You mean troops on the battlefield or military leaders or political leaders? Military and political leaders. It just feels like, like I said, man in the desert, seeing water. I think there's a sense that victory is so close. The times, there's times in a war when you feel like victory is close. No, you're right. And then it just slips away. Yes, it's an interesting insight. It's like the way in which there's a force in nature, which is that if you amass an army, amassing it will pull you in to using it. Yeah. Extremely hard to amass an army somewhere

and then say, let's go back. Yes, you're right. No, it's one of many, many interesting aspects to warfare. I think the sad thing about successful wars, at least in the modern day, is it takes a great military leader, which I would argue that Zelensky really unified Ukraine in this fight in the beginning of the war. You have to be that and like you said, after you've amassed the army and have military

success to be able to step back and make peace. Those two just don't often go hand in hand because again, as a wartime leader, especially one who has seen the suffering firsthand, walking away is tough, especially also combined with that, just the realities of war where there is probably corruption, that there is things, you know, once the war ends, there has to be investigations. Because the war wasn't won, you might not turn out to be, when the history looks at it, the good guy.

And a leader doesn't want to, a leader always wants to be the good guy. So there's just all psychological complexities that are, and you look at this whole picture, uh, in, in the basic sense, if you want Ukraine to flourish, if you want humanity to flourish, you just ask the question, okay, so what is the thing I would like to see? There's so many historical analogy that you can give, but just surely not rewarding Putin's actions in any way would be a good way to deter him and other dictators from trying to grab land in the future.

So yeah, but this is nuanced because like you, it's very probably good to be the boring person at the party that says, dictatorship is bad, democracies are good. Many of the ideals of the West are good. Democracies are better. Better? Yes. Yeah. That sounds like Animal Farm, Western. Democracy is a better. Better? Yes. Yeah. That sounds like Animal Farm,

but yes, two legs better. But yes, democracy is better. Invading countries is bad. But World War III is bad too. So after you say something is bad, what's the next step? Because military intervention in a lot of these conflicts. It'll be about deterrence.

Yeah, but what's effective deterrence? That we're going to have to keep going over for a long time to come. My question is, how can we achieve peace in April? In May? Right? Not like the adults at the table all seem to tell me, well, it's a process, it's complicated, you know, it just feels like this is a thing

that might go into the next winter. And there's still maybe initial ceasefire and then ceasefire is broken and there's more people dying. And it's that mess. It seems like civility and politeness ignores the fact that people are dying every single day. I mean, of course, like we were all, almost everybody, not everybody,

but almost everyone would like the killing to stop immediately. Of course. No, like I think that is the boring thing at the party. Yes, but they don't say it often enough. Not often. There has to be a frustration. More there has to be a frustration.

I don't understand why Putin, Zelensky and Trump can't just meet in a room together without signing anything. Leaders meeting and discussing and like the human connection. There's so many layers of diplomats. It's the problem I have with a managerial class. I don'tial class. They schedule meetings really well. They don't get shit done. And I would love it if people got shit done. So the soldiers get shit done. They're fighting the reality of the war. And then the leaders have the capacity to get shit done on the scale of nations and geopolitics.

But like these diplomatic meetings and- No, I share your frustration about it at the same time, I think. I share your frustration because I've seen a lot of it in my own eyes. There was a Tananaz with the other week and they were hit just after I left their base and you wouldn't believe what a thermobaric bomb can do to the human body. And I share your frustration with that. At the same time, one of the things that happens if you are rushing is that you do, and I've seen this elsewhere, you will put pressure on the people you can pressurize and you will not put enough pressure on the people you can't pressurize.

And that is one of the worrying things that could happen with this simply you can put America can put extraordinary, uh, diplomatic financial intelligence, military risk, pressure on Ukraine. And it can put significant pressure on Putin, but it's much easier to pressure Zelensky and that's one of the many things that makes it harder is that the temptation to rush for peace, accepting that peace is the most desirable thing and accepting the horrors of war, which, you know, we can linger on, but accepting all that. If somebody says we've got to get peace today and the three of them around a table,

the most likely thing is that it'll be, that it'll be the person who you can pressure most easily, who will be the person that you pressure and as a result have an outcome, which yes, might stop the killing as soon as possible, but might also set up a situation which rewards the aggressor and effectively punishes the victim. And that's an extremely ugly and common thing to have. Yeah. And that's the other boring thing to say. The boring truth that, uh, the easy shortcut here is, uh, is to punish Ukraine. And you just have to not do it.

Let's keep being the boring people at the party. Yeah. Well, nobody's going to invite us. All right. Let's go from one complicated conflict to perhaps an even more complicated one. Israel and Palestine. Can you take me through what happened on October 7th as you understand it and as you outline at the beginning of the book?

Well, the book on democracies and death cults is a mixture of firsthand reporting and observation, interviews, and a wider reflection, not just on the war that's been going on since the 7th of October, but the war has been going on a lot longer. And also, I suppose, on what for me is one of the overwhelming questions, which I'm sure we'll get to, which is the reaction in the rest of the world. Obviously, on the 7th itself, it was a brigade-sized attack on Israel from Gaza. Hamas broke through the security fence and attacked all the softest targets they could. They swiftly overwhelmed things like the observation base in Nahal-ahs. They ran through the communities in the south, very peaceful, peace-natured communities of

the kibbutzim, as they're called, the communities, and murdered and raped and burned and kidnapped. and murdered and raped and burned and kidnapped. Of course, they, from their point of view, had the great good fortune of also coming across hundreds of young people dancing in the early hours of the morning at a dance party and rampaged through that with RPGs, and Kalashnikovs, and grenades, and hammers, and more, and got within 20 kilometers into Israel, places like

Offakim and Sterat, important towns and carried out their massacres there as well. We now know that the plan was that Hezbollah did the same thing from the north. Hezbollah joined in the war within 24 hours by starting firing rockets again in very large numbers into northern Israel from southern Lebanon. But the plan was that they would do the same thing from the north and carry out similar massacres there and effectively be able to meet in the middle and garrote Israel from the center. The interesting reason why I think it'll be found out in the future, but why they didn't coordinate better was Hamas didn't trust any line of communication to Hezbollah to let them know

exactly when they were going to do it that wouldn't be intercepted. The Iranian Revolutionary Government in Tehran, which obviously funds Hamas and Hezbollah and trains and arms, knew of the plan. It was a very successful attempt to annihilate the state, but they didn't get close to that, but they got worryingly closer than people might have thought they were capable of. I think from the Israeli side, it was obviously one of the most, if not the most catastrophic intelligence and military failure since the foundation of the state. And I think there are several reasons why.

One is a perception problem. What a lot of military commanders and others described to me is the conception. The conception that had prevailed in Israel for some years in security and military establishment was that Hamas were content with being corrupt and governing Gaza and lining their pockets and living in Qatar and becoming billionaires, but that like many other terrorist groups and cults that they would end up becoming just corrupt and not losing their ideology, but the ideology becomes secondary. That's the first thing was there was just a massive error of the conception in Israel. Then there were the multiple manifold security and military failures of the day and leading up to the

day. There already have been quite a lot of people held to account for that and their doubtless will be in the future as well. The single thing I heard, which I heard most and which was most distressing in a way, was the number of people who described to me, who survived the massacres in the South, who said that they'd said to their children, don't worry, the army will be here in minutes and they weren't, you know, in many places, it was many hours till the army got there. And there are reasons for that. There are some reasons that will be military failings, leadership failings. Other things I discovered were very human failings. I don't over-stress the failure of the army because actually certain units and things got down very fast. There was a unit of Davan who got down to the junction by within about an hour

and 90 minutes of the massacres starting and joined in the fight. Then there were self-starters who I write about in the book, extraordinary people who just broke orders and just realized the magnitude of what was happening and said, we're needed in the South, go. And fought very hard for hours, days, in some cases. But the complexities on the ground were unbelievable. I mean, as usually happens in warfare, but what they call the fog of war is a very real thing. You know what it's, you can see it in hindsight, but you can't see when you're in it. And one of

the things that made it very complicated was, for instance, Hamas coming in, taking uniforms off dead Israelis, wearing them, coming in with Israeli-style apparatus on them. There's a Muslim doctor, I quote in the book I interviewed who describes how he was going to his, he's an Israeli Muslim Arab and he was going to, he's a doctor, he was going to his shift at the hospital at 6.30 in the morning. The rockets start coming in because the rockets started first and then the full invasion. And he described to me how, you know, he's one of the members of this group, the United Hatsala, which is a first responders group.

And they sort of, you know, they get an alert that tells them that, you know, a car has crashed nearby and they put on their, you know, first aid kit and so on and go. And he got one of those alerts, one of the junctions, and realized there was a car, that something had happened and there were some dead bodies. He stops and he sees these men dressed as soldiers. He's wearing his hafz-al-Aghir and they start firing at him. He just thinks, what the hell? What the hell is going on? They turned out to be Hamas dressed as Israeli soldiers. They used him as a human shield to try to protect from any air assault and in the end they shot him and left him and he

survived. He was a very, very brave man. So there was a lot of confusion like that. There's a girl whose father I interviewed, she was at the Nova party and I met him at one of the reunions of the party in the weeks after and the reunions of the survivors and the family and so on. And he described how in the last moments of his daughter's life, she phoned him on her phone, like a lot of people, and he reassured her that the army would get there and so on. Her boyfriend was shot in the head and was lying on her lap and she was obviously panicked. They'd managed to get into a car and escape the party, but they went to a community where they thought they'd be safe in the south of Israel.

They were told to stay where they were by somebody who she said was a policeman and he wasn't a policeman, he was Hamas dressed as a police and she died, she was shot and killed as well. So there was a lot of confusion like that. Hopefully, the world will find out exactly what went wrong. Israel will find out exactly what went wrong that led to this catastrophe. But I mean, it was a complete catastrophe. Do you have a sense of how such an intelligence failure could have happened? So there's a bit of a temptation to go into conspiracy land because it's such a giant intelligence failure. It seems that there is some manipulation on the inside for

political reasons or for. You don't need to go into conspiracy land. I think there are people who say that there were parts of the intelligence network and so on that were withholding the information. I don't know. Again, people find out there's an awful lot of politics inside Israel and it's hard to know that at this stage. I think that most people are still Israeli and not Israeli, including people who are anti-Israel, and not Israeli, including people who are anti-Israel, who just believe that Israeli military and particularly intelligence dominance is so strong that there must have been some kind of conspiracy,

otherwise how could this have happened? I don't think you need to go into that. I think that, I mean, for instance, some of the young women at the observation base are on the record. They've said, I spoke to myself and they said that they had been warning in the weeks running up to the seventh that they were seeing maneuvers and training by the border, which suggested that Hamas was going to do something like this. And they say that they were ignored.

That you speak to some of the more senior commanders about that and they say the thing is that this stuff was happening all the time. So it's very hard to know at the moment. Can you talk through your understanding of who and what Hamas is, its history and the governing ideology of this group. Well, Hamas in a way quite easy to understand because they say what their ambitions are,

they say what their beliefs are, they've said it from their governing charter onwards. And you also have the advantage with Hamas that they, as it were, in trying to understand them is that they tend to do what they say and act on what they believe. The primary aim of Hamas is to destroy the state of Israel and then see. They're not an unusual group sadly. The bit of it that is hard for some people to understand, I think, is that they really do mean what they say and that they really do mean what they say they want to do. And I give a number of examples in the book of this, but I mean the most obvious is the case of Yachiyah Sinwar, the Hamas leader who is generally regarded as having orchestrated and arranged the 7th of October. We know a fair amount about him because he was imprisoned in Israel in the 2000s for murdering Palestinians in Gaza. He was released in the prisoner swap for the more than 1,000 Palestinian

prisoners inside Israel who was released in a swap for Gilad Shalit, the abducted Israeli soldier. Yaya Sinwar in prison in Israel talked to, among others, a dentist who ended up saving his life because Yaya Sinwar had a brain tumor. This dentist identified this and actually sent him to the hospital. The Israelis famously removed the tumor and saved Sinwar's life. This dentist used to speak to him in prison, not very regularly, and has related, not least to the New York Times, his conversations with Sinwar. And Sinwar said in one of those conversations, he said, you know, he said, at the moment you, Israel, are strong.

Um, but one day you'll be weak and then I'll come." And that's what he did. Is it a hatred of Israel or is it a hatred of Jews? Is it on the level of nations or the level of religion? Both. It's both. I mean, it originates from a religious mindset, but it's of course political as well. I mean, the Hamas Charter, of course, some people sort of think the Hamas Charter is of no significance. And I often notice this sleight of hand that people do. Again, it goes back to what we were saying earlier, forget everything

other than the most important basic things. But the Hamas charter, among other things, quotes the hadith that the end times will not come until all of the rocks and the trees shout out, oh, Muslim, there's a Jew behind me, come and kill him. And that is so Hamas is both obviously anti-Israeli obviously and anti-Jewish obviously. It's, it's, and by the way, I mean, one of the many painful stories I tell in the book is of the fact that so many of the people in the communities that they attacked, it's not as if there'd be a right community attack and a wrong community to attack, but that many of the communities they attacked were communities which deeply, deeply dreamed of the idea of living in peace with their Palestinian neighbors.

There's a woman whose name has become relatively famous since certainly is famous inside Israel Vivian Silva, who was a peace activist who spent every weekend driving Gazan children from the border to if they had very rare medical needs that could not be seen tension to within the side Gaza would drive them to Israeli hospitals. And she spent every weekend doing that, Worked for all of the left-wing peace-nick organizations in Israel. For a while after the seventh, her neighbors and others thought that she had been taken captive into Gaza and that there was a hostage poster for her and there were appeals by the various peace-nick organizations for

Hamas to hand her over, but it turned out she'd been burned alive in her home. This wasn't discovered for quite a long time because there was so little DNA left of her that it was very hard to identify the remains as being hers. There were just a lot of people in the Gaza envelope, as it's, it's called in Israel, in the area around Gaza, who, who would have been the people who, you know, wanted to live peacefully with, uh, the Gazans someday. And those, there's a certain among the many, it's not an irony, but just among the sort of pains of the day is that so overwhelmingly these are the people that Hamas brought hell to.

The response, Dr. Obris-Seventh, by Israel. Can you steelman the case that Israel went too far? Well, the case that started from very early on that critics of Israel had was the claim that – I think I first heard it on about the 8th of October before Israel had done anything in response – was the claim that Israel must act proportionately in response. I have a critique of this that I've often expressed, which is that there is such a thing as proportionality in warfare. At the same time, Israel is always accused of acting disproportionately. The proportionality that much of the rest of the

world seems to think Israel should express in warfare is to have an equal level of suffering or killing on both sides. I don't think there's any law of war that says that if you kill 1,200 people and you kidnap another 250, that as it were, the other side sides allowed to do the same back. But that's what a lot of people think. And then when they see the death toll escalating on the Gazan side, they say Israel has acted disproportionately and has overreacted. That one is tricky because, you know, it's my belief that, I that, again, this is a basic thing, but it has to be stated that nine million citizens of Israel, if you extrapolate that out to what the 7th of October would have meant in American terms, you'd be talking about a day

on which, if the attack had happened in America, where 44,000 Americans were killed in one day and 10,000 American citizens taken hostage, nobody can tell me that if such an atrocity occurred, that America would not do whatever it needed to destroy the groups that had done that and to retrieve the hostages who've been taken. So just on that point, I agree with you 100% America would hit hard back. And I think a lot of Americans would feel justified in that.

But it's also possible that the military industrial complex and the politicians would do something like the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which means extend far beyond Hitting back and actually do a thing that's destructive to everybody including America Financially and the flourishing of America and the flourishing of humanity broadly and the region and the stability and the war on terrorism If that's a real thing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan did not. Maybe succeed in defeating terrorism or even making progress. It probably made more terrorists than that. So there's a justified feeling of hitting back and, uh, going out to

somebody like bin Laden in the case of nine 11. And then there's just the actual implementation. Mm-hmm. And it seems like the implementation can sometimes, unintended or unintended, have consequences that are bordering on war crimes, if not downright war crimes. Now, this is a general statement, and now we'll look at Israel,

where things are small land, everything is very compact. There's a lot of complexities that are well studied that we've talked about extensively. Well, the two stated aims of the Israelis after the seventh were to get the hostages back and to destroy Hamas. Many people said that you could do one, but not both. I actually think they've gone a long way to doing both. By no means everything, there were still hostages as we're speaking held in Gaza during the Young American. Um, and Hamas is not completely destroyed.

It's very, very significantly degraded, but it's not completely destroyed. But those are the two aims. Um, I believe that I've seen as much of the war as any outside observer. I don't know, there might be some exceptions maybe, but, and so I think I can say with considerable certainty what the Israelis have and haven't done. The, the operative, there were various operations at the beginning, various plans which didn't happen, like storming straight in and getting, for instance, as many hostages as possible out of the Shifa complex, which is called a hospital,

but also at the very least the Hamas Command headquarters. And there was a plan to maybe go and do that fast, but it was avoided because of the number of deaths on all sides that would be likely to happen. The Israelis did actually hold back at the beginning. There was a period of making sure that when they went into Gaza, they didn't do so in any way blind. Ligaza is a very built up area and population wise is densely populated. Something by the way, which the people who claim frivolously that Israel has been creating

genocide never take account of, which is the fact that the Ligazan population has boomed since the Israeli withdrawal in 2005, it's almost doubled. But yes, it's a densely populated area and it's an incredibly difficult place for the train of war because of one thing in particular, which is that Hamas, goes back a bit to our conversation earlier, but this is a much more extreme example. I mean, Hamas really don't play by the rules. In fact, they use the rules of war, the laws of war completely to their own advantage. It has to be reiterated. You are not meant to disguise

your army as civilians. You're not meant to use places of care like hospitals as bases for your military operations. You're not meant to use schools and places of worship as operating centers of war. And Hamas does all of these things and has always done so. And it does so with the very obvious reason that for them, the whole thing is a two for one offer. You get to operate everywhere. And if the Israelis operate anywhere, you claim that this is a war crime because how could they attack this group of civilians, these people who are dressed as civilians, these people merely fighting from a mosque and so on. And that's why, that's why everybody who's been to Gaza who's seen the fighting knows the same thing, which is this is just incredibly difficult, difficult

warfare of a kind that American troops have seen in the last 20 years in Fallujah and elsewhere. Kurdish militia, the Peshmerga saw when they were fighting as our frontline troops in the war against ISIS, similar house to house, but by no means with the same entrenched bases. You know, again, it can't be stressed enough that Hamas has used the years since he was ready withdrawal from 2005 to build this vast underground tunnel network.

And again, it's obvious, but it has to be remembered. When is, and I quote one of the Hamas leaders in the book saying this in an interview, when they build their tunnels, they do so in order that their tunnels are used by them, Hamas, to store their weaponry, to secure their fighters and to hold hostages, they do not build their underground tunnel networks for the safety of guards and civilians avoiding aerial bombardment. Every difference in the world seems to me to exist between a country which does build bomb shelters for its citizens and a government which builds bomb shelters for its bombs. Can you discuss the flow of money here? So how does Hamas, the leadership, use the money? So you started to talk about the tunnels, but how much corruption

is there? Can you just lay it all out? Uh, because I think that's an, that's an important part of the picture here. It's totally corrupt. Every Hamas leader who's, uh, now dead, died a billionaire. With a B. With a B. With a B. With a B. To say that they used Gaza's resources or the resources that came into Gaza for their own ends is to just vastly understate matters. Hamas used everything that came in to build the infrastructure of terror that allowed them

to do the seventh and everything since. They militarized the whole of the Gaza. By the estimations of troops I've been with there, every second to third house had weaponry Every second to third house had weaponry stashed there. Bombs, RPGs, Kalashnikovs, rockets, tunnel entrances. The network that they just embedded all these years was total. One of the many, many tragedies of this is that whatever you're reading of the rights and wrongs of the Israeli withdrawal in 2005, it was an opportunity for the Gaza to become something else. It could have become a thriving statelet. It could have been a thriving Palestinian state.

It's just that Hamas, like the PLO before them, decided that they wanted to destroy Israel more than they wanted to create a Palestinian state. And that is to the great, great detriment of the Palestinians of Gaza, to put it at its mildest. So just to outline here, leadership of Hamas are stealing the money that gets sent by Qatar, by everybody. So they're putting in their pocket and then-

By the American taxpayer, by the European taxpayer as well, yes. Yeah. Well, yeah, but I mean, it's not just about the stealing the money, it's about using the money and the infrastructure to annihilate your neighbor. I mean, that's the real- Yeah, those two things.

But the corruption is a signal from an economic perspective, but it's also a signal of deep moral corruption because they're screwing over the Palestinian people. Yes, a cynicism, certainly. Okay. And then with the money they do spend on the Palestinian cause, they're not doing that to build up Gaza. They're doing it to strengthen the militaristic capabilities of the terrorist organization of Hamas. You have, maybe you can correct me on this, have said that the people of Gaza have some

significant responsibility for the actions of Hamas. Yes. Because they've elected them. They elected them. The what ifs are endless, but very unwise of the George W. Bush administration to push for elections in Gaza after row five. But Hamas were elected and they then in 2007 killed the other Palestinian faction that was their main challenger, Fatah, killed them, threw them off rooftops, dragged their bodies

behind motorbikes through the Gaza and from that point they had total control. And you know, this is difficult because you can get into the realm of being accused of advocating or in any way justifying collective punishment if you talk about this, but it should be borne in mind that Hamas had effectively 18 years to run the Gaza. That's the time that it takes from the birth of a child to the end of their formal education. And in 18 years, they could have presided over and produced a generation of young Gazans who were productive, productive for their people, for their society, for their neighbors, for the rest of the world, and they didn't.

They spent 18 years indoctrinating the children of Gaza into a death cult and into a genocidal hatred, which obviously was most dangerous to the Israelis, but it was obviously disastrous for the people of Gaza. If you speak to soldiers who were there in 2014 when Hamas started a war again, one of a set of rounds of war since 2005, if you speak to the soldiers who were there in 2014, going house to house and who were also involved in the war since 2003, they all say the same thing, which is the marked radicalization of the Ghazan population. The marked increase in just, I mean, the most, I mean, it's so banal in a way to even the side of it, you know, like the numbers of copies of Mein Kampf in Arabic in an average Gazan household, the

protocols of the learned elders of Zion. There are so many what ifs and other paths that Hamas could have taken, but that was the one they took. They decided to take the path of using their time and power to build up their infrastructure, radicalize the population and encourage them to believe that they could destroy the state of Israel. And then on October 7th, they gave it their best shot. And by the way, there is no organized collective punishment of the citizens of Gaza. Collective punishment would just be dropping bombs with no purpose across civilian areas, carpet

bombing, this sort of thing. This is simply not what the IAF and the IDF have done since the 7th. They have been fighting a house to house war against this terrorist group. They do do aerial strikes. Gaza is very, very badly beaten up as the buildings. I mean, the infrastructure that existed. Um, it's, uh, there aren't many buildings standing, but this is not the result of just wild and imprecise bombing by the Israelis. It's been extremely concerted. It's extremely difficult. But when people say,

well, this must be collective punishment, I think that the people who say that, I think that the people who say that simultaneously, that's not true. And also, you know, there is not a hostage who's come out who Donald Trump made this president Trump made his point recently. There is not a hostage who's come out who I've spoken with, who found any Gazan Palestinian who expressed even the slightest human kindness to them. If you look at the footage from the seventh that Hamas recorded themselves of them taking young Jewish women into Gaza and so on. You will notice that the trucks and the motorbikes and so on are not stopped by horrified Gaza civilians saying, why have you got this Israeli girl whose tendons you've cut and why are you bringing her here? It's all celebration. It's all celebration. And it's the same with a couple of cases of

hostages who managed to escape from the civilian houses they were being held in, who were immediately returned by the citizens they met. Yeah, the celebration, I do wonder what percent of the population they represent, but there's something really dark. There's several ways to explain the celebration. It could be that there's a deep indoctrination where you do legitimately hate Jews. And there also could be a place of just deep desperation. And it's a kind of relief that you have to convince yourself that you're on the side of fighting for freedom in order to justify to yourself that this is the right way to fight out of

desperation out of extremely harsh conditions because the way we're kind of speaking about this with the celebration, it's very easy to project a kind of evil on the populace that I just am very hesitant to project, especially on the general populace. You don't have to project it onto them. You can just listen to their own words. Well, I'm sure you've heard the one of many audio recordings you hear from the morning, but I'm sure you've heard the audio recording of the young man who ends up in one of the

communities in the south of Israel and calls back home. Have you heard that? Yes, I've heard it. I quoted it in the first chapter of the book. he calls back home and he says to his father who picks up, it's on WhatsApp, I think he's on the phone, he's saying, turn onto WhatsApp because I can show you. He says, I've killed 10 Jews with my own hands, oh father, your son has killed 10 Jews. And his father is saying, where are you? Where are you?

I want to show you dad, I want to show show you I've killed Jews in my own hands. Your son put mother on the phone. Mother comes on the phone. The brother comes on the phone. Um, this is, um, one of many, many stories from the day that suggest something which I would say is not just indoctrination, but yes, evil. First of all, those phone calls are somehow uniquely horrific. But I've also heard recordings of phone calls made by Ukrainian soldiers to their parents and Russian soldiers to their parents. And they have not as intense and not as horrific, but they have a similar

nature to them, which there is an aspect of war where you dehumanize the other side, right? Sure. In order to fight that war. So we have to remember that that element is going to be there in a time of war, in a time of desperation. It would be a strange type of simple sort of, I don't know, pride in war to go into an 80 year old woman's house and kill her on her floor and then film her dead body and her body in its final moments and send it round to all of that woman's friends on her phone, on her Instagram account. Um, it's, it's, you may have heard different things from me, but I mean, I would be surprised if there were even the most vociferous of Russian soldiers

phoning back home to Moscow and saying, mom, you won't believe my luck. I managed to rape and kill this 80 year old woman. It's that's, that's quite unusual even in warfare. Um, and, and that's one of the things about Hamas and the, what I described as the death cult types, which makes them different from other people. But that's the channeling of evil and hatred and anger in the human spirit. But that doesn't make that person evil. No, I disagree. I think that there is such a force as evil in the world and I think it, uh, it can descend and it can be used and it's very hard to find a non-theological way to talk

about this, but of everything I've seen, there are actions that people like Hamas committed on the seventh that cannot be described as anything other than evil. The things that happened at the Nova party were especially appalling. I mean, it was all appalling, but it was especially appalling because first of all, it's the sort of party which people like you and I, or at least you and I when we were younger, might have been at. And so everyone knows, you know, the world of a dance party and all night, you know, raving the desert to commune with nature and the universe and to take some psychedelics and to, you know, expand your consciousness

and your love and all of that sort of thing. The fact that people doing that at 6.30 in the morning, then encountered people coming in to the party on trucks and military vehicles and just massacring them and raping them. And I mean, I give examples of the firsthand accounts of people who survived, but I mean, it's beyond belief of almost anything else I've covered in war. And it's because it seems so, I mean, an army facing another army is one thing. A terrorist group in civilian clothing facing an army is another thing. A terrorist group facing a group of young people at a dance unarmed and doing what they did is pretty hard to comprehend unless you use the lexicon of evil somewhere. So that stated, can you empathize with the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza with the destruction that resulted as a response?

Yes. What has happened in response is terrible, terrible for the citizens of Gaza. I was there on the first time a couple of days early into the ground invasion when the citizens of Gaza were coming south. I was in the middle of the strip and the humanitarian corridor had been set up to try to stop the hostages being taken south deeper into Gaza and to try to stop Hamas leadership from making it south. It actually didn't really work because they'd already got a lot of the hostages south. It was an attempt to keep Hamas there and fight them in the north so as not to be dragged all the way in, in the end, dragged all the way in anyway. But yes, I mean, watching the citizens of Gaza moving through the humanitarian corridor and, you know, everyone was being checked for bombs, suicide vests, checked for, you know, particularly young men of military age.

Um, and, uh, you know, I mean, you look at this tide of human misery and you think this is terrible, but this is a terrible thing that had been brought upon them by the people had been mis-governing the place that they lived in. And of course, on a human level, you feel terrible that these people are going through this at the same time, human empathy for them can coexist beside an unspeakable anger that they had come to this point because of the fact that they'd elected a terror group to run their territory. And one of the things obviously is that a lot of people like to say, and it's true of course, that this didn't all start on October the 7th.

Absolutely true. This particular round, this particularly intense round of war started on October the 7th without doubt. Hamas did not have to attack on October the 7th. It wasn't like they were forced to liberate themselves or something, as some of the defenders of Hamas claim. But the conflict of course goes back a lot earlier, but you will have to always keep on contending with this fact that there is one central issue to the paradigm of that conflict, what used to be called the Arab-Israeli conflict and now has become interestingly rebranded the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But there is one absolutely essential issue to this, which cannot be forgotten, which is do the Palestinians want a state or do they want to destroy the Jewish state? And if they want to destroy the Jewish state, as they've tried many times, it's a disaster for them. It's a total disaster for them. If they want to create their own state, they've already had several very good shots of it, one of which is Gaza post 2005. But they've never shown in their leadership, the desire to live with a Jewish state. And that's a catastrophe for the Palestinians. Can you still map the case of the lived experience of Palestinians and pro-Palestinian voices that describe the Gaza situation as an occupation?

The West Bank too, and in the case of Gaza, open air prison. To take them in order, there's nothing about Gaza that was an open air prison. They had ability to trade, they had the ability to move in and out in increasing numbers. Egypt wasn't so keen on allowing Palestinians from Gaza into Egypt, still isn't. But at the time of the seventh, there was actually an interesting, one of the things the international community was pushing for was for more Palestinians to be coming into Israel every day through the Eretz Crossing and others to work in Israel, because they can make a better living in Israel than they can in Gaza.

And this, the, as it were, normalization route was slowly being attempted, is being pushed on Israel by the international community a little bit too fast for Israel's comfort, but it happened. That completely came to an end and that dream is done, gone since the 7th of October. Can you clarify the dream, the normalization of the normalization dreams between Gaza and Israel? Gone. There will be no normalization.

No, not after that. One of the reasons is the number of people, again, who I've spoken with, who employed Palestinians, worked with Palestinians, worked alongside Palestinians, encouraged more Palestinians to be coming from Gaza in order to work in Israel. And these were their brothers and sisters and so on and so forth. One of the reasons why the massacres of the seventh was so successful in the kibbutzim, the communities in the South, was because of the number of the terrorists who came in with

detailed house to house maps of those communities. I spoke with one man who, his community, they had a security officer, chief, and Hamas came in, they knew to go and kill him and his family first. And then which families. It was just, I've seen the maps myself. They came in with incredibly accurate information about these communities. How did they have them? Because it was given to them by the brothers, by the workers, by the people of Gaza who were coming in and out. So there is nobody that will trust that ever again. There's a lot of Palestinians that have lived

and flourished inside Israel. What are they saying? What are they feeling? And what are the Israelis feeling about them? Is there still camaraderie to some degree or is it completely destroyed? My observation at the beginning was that everyone was extremely wary. Uh, I mean, you know, if, if you've worked beside somebody and then found out

they sold out your family, you will never trust again. And that, particularly in a small country like Israel, the word of that happening goes out very fast. The very beginning there was intense, intense fear about that, including of the 20% or so of the population who are Arab Israelis. I actually think one of the few sort of positive news stories of the period is that that population within Israel has by and large held.

It's not, there hasn't been an intifada. One of the reasons why there hasn't been more activity, terrorist activity in the West Bank and Judea and Samaria is because the Israelis have been very careful along with the Palestinian Authority, to some extent, cooperating to keep that down. But there wasn't a full war on three fronts, for instance, which was at risk of happening. So I think that the coexistence within Israel has pretty much held. So, I think that the coexistence within Israel has pretty much held. There are some terrible examples, far too regular, but not as regular as it could happen of Muslim Arab Israelis carrying out acts of terror in, as it were, sympathy with Hamas, I was in the middle of one such attack myself late last year, and in a town called

Hadera. And those things have happened, but that particular catastrophe has not occurred. Can we talk about Benjamin Netanyahu? For a lot of people who spoke of evil, they refer to him as evil. On the spectrum between good and evil, as a leader, where does Netanyahu fall? Well, he's certainly not evil. Interesting if people looking at this conflict were to be reluctant to use the word evil of Hamas and eager to use it of the Israeli prime minister would be sort of telling, I would say.

Can we just actually linger on that point? There is a point you've made multiple times, which is we're more eager to, to criticize and maybe even, uh, over-exaggerate the criticism of democratically elected leaders. Yes. of democratically elected leaders. Yes. It's a dark, weird, other quality of discourse at parties, aforementioned parties. Isn't it also, I mean, not to be flippant for a moment.

It's a little bit like, who do you show your worst sides to? The people you love. to the people you love. My intense irritability is something that tends to be felt most by people who are closest to me because if I express it to absolutely everybody I met at a party or a social setting, it would be hard. I mean, there's a tendency to lean heavily on the people who are closest to you, the people who will put up with it. And something similar happens in international politics. You pressure the people who will listen. I mean, it's one of the things you hear a lot in the last year, you know, people sort of ignoramuses in the governments in places like Britain will say, we need to put more pressure on the Israelis to do X.

And you go, well, in part that's because they will listen. If you go, we need to put more pressure on the Ayatollahs in Iran to persuade them that Hamas are really bad and they shouldn't be doing this. What the hell do you think they're going to do? They're going to listen to you? You think you're going to give a damn? You're talking totally different worlds. Not just a different language, it's a different world. And by the way, that happens in Israel. I mentioned it earlier, but it happens in Israel. When the hostage families forum came about, uh, I spent a lot of time there. A lot of, we've got to know a lot of the families and, um, the remarkable, but one of the things you did notice from them as well was that a lot of them.

Oh, they protest outside Netanyahu's house. They use klaxon horns and make sure he doesn't can never sleep. They, uh They will, you know, put up great big posters by his house of him with bloodied hands and so on. And I have, I think as much sympathy as you can for these families, the plight of knowing that your child is sitting in a tunnel in Gaza for a year, a day, an hour, is intolerable. But there's a reason why the families protested Netanyahu, and that's because Sinwar didn't care. That wouldn't work if you said, care. That wouldn't work. If you said, you know, understand my plight. I'm a Jewish mother and my daughter is thing. You think

Sinwa, the heads of Hamas care? You think the leaders in Qatar who host them care? The Qatari Amir's mother when Sinwa was killed praised Sinwa. You couldn't talk that language to these people, but you can talk that language to the elected prime minister of Israel because that, first of all, he's somebody who might listen to your pressure, could be pressured. And secondly, he's simply the only person you can pressure. There's no one else. Hamas doesn't care. Hezbollah doesn't care.

The Iranian Revolutionary government doesn't care. Yeah. So let's just sort of say once again, the obvious thing that while it is possible to discuss Hamas soldiers as freedom fighters, I'm not one of the folks that can take that perspective. It's a tough one to take. I don't see how you can call them freedom fighters. So this goes to the man from the land of peace and the man from the land of war. There is a lived experience of what it means to grow up in Gaza.

And if you fully load that into your brain in a real way, not using the words of good and evil, but in a very deep human sense, from that place, from that place of desperation, from your home and your family is destroyed, doesn't matter why, doesn't matter if there's evil all around you that caused it, doesn't matter. The facts are the facts. And from that place, somebody who's fighting for you can feel like a freedom fighter. I think it should be called out that yes, it can feel that way from the lived experience. But Hamas is very clearly, since we're talking about Netanyahu, Hamas is evil. Okay, now you can still, in that context,

discuss the degree to which Netanyahu is the right leader for this moment, and whether he goes too far, whether he's too politically selfish in the decisions he makes, whether he's too much a warmonger, whether he's utilizing the war for his own political gains and is not caring about the death of civilians

in Gaza, for example, but more caring about his own political, uh, maintaining power. That's a perspective that I could steal, man. And it's a perspective worth discussing. And that's a perspective of many in Israel hold when they criticize nothing, Yahoo, he's increasingly less and less popular. That's wrong. Printing polls last month, he was in Washington and showed him an all time

high, but you were saying I make my own poll and according to my to my poll, I'm the greatest, I'm the nicest and the coolest person in the world. A hundred percent of people agree. So I didn't mean to laugh that much. You laughed a little too much. Too long. It's more than a joke. Yeah.

But you were saying, I mean, the- Yeah. Okay. Let's steel man the criticism of Netanyahu. And then steal man the case for him that he's the right leader actually, at this moment, the most devastating thing that anyone can come up against Netanyahu is, is, uh, the seventh happened on his watch. Um, after the Yom Kippur war in 1933, Golda Meir, who was a very distinguished prime minister of Israel and a remarkable woman, but she effectively took the political hit for the Yom Kippur

invasion by Israel's Arab neighbors happening on her watch. And I thought that most critics, fair-minded critics of Netanyahu inside Israel and without would always hold that against him. I suppose that one of the criticisms you hear a lot as well is this thing of Israel being divided in the year before the seventh because of the judicial reforms. Um, I think there's a strong case with judicial reforms in Israel, but, um, it's a sort of niche Israeli governance issue, which we don't have to get into. The point is, is that Netanyahu and his government were pushing these reforms through judicial reforms.

And, uh, it was very divisive and on the streets of Tel Aviv and other cities, every weekend, there were protests and the police were tired because they'd spent week after week on overtime policing these protests, which often turned raucous, not to say violent, sometimes violent. And you could say, well, if you see that something is dividing your country this much, mightn't you stop? There is a claim by some people that one, one of the things that prompted the seventh was that Hamas and its backers in Qatar and Iran saw the division in Israeli society, saw the Israeli population in a significant chunk of it every week on the streets, shutting

down highways, shutting down services and so on, and thought, good, now's the time. In other words, what I quoted Sinwar as saying earlier when he was in prison in Israel was, this thing, one day you'll be weak and then I'll strike. Maybe that is one of the things that Sinwar thought. Israel was very weak, it had been divided and therefore the time to strike. There's an argument against that, which is that the seventh was in preparation and being planned before the judicial reform process in Israel began. So you can look at it several ways, in Israel began. So you can look at it several ways, but you could use that. You could say, look, this is, you know, if your nation was divided, don't push through anymore on that.

There's lots of things like that. You could say that Netanyahu was one of the people responsible for the conception. There were critics of his, including critics who were in the war cabinet, who thought that he was too focused on Hamas and not focused enough on Hezbollah. Other people think he was too focused on Hezbollah and not enough on Hamas. So there's them and many other criticisms that people make of him. I would say I've interviewed, I think, every political leader in Israel from right to left, pretty much. And I have to say, I don't think there's any of them that wouldn't have responded similarly to the 7th of October, to the way he has.

Can we, okay, so that's inside Israel, outside of Israel. You know, despite what he said, Outside of Israel, you know, despite what he said, he is one of the most hated people in the world, just the raw quantity. And the relative, he's loved by a lot of people, but there's a lot of people that, you know, there's a lot of psychological effects that might explain that. I mean, it's sort of strange to if there is a widespread global loathing of the prime minister of a country of eight to nine million people. Yeah, that might mean something more than a hatred of the military actions and the policies of the one person.

Yeah. I mean, there's an awful lot of people to hate in the world. There's a lot of wars in the world. It's always of interest to me. Obviously, some of the things I go into on, on democracies and death cults is this question of why is this so galvanizing for so many people? And I think that is a very, very interesting question. Like why, by the way, let me do a quick addendum to that.

You can notice something else at that when people talk about the Republican failures in foreign policy in the last 30 years or so. It's very interesting. There's a certain type of person who will immediately mention Paul Wolfowitz. And they will say, well, you know, Wolf was, you mean deputy under secretary of defense under George W. Bush. He guided everything. Why would that be?

Other than the fact that his name, as Mark Stein once said, starts with a nasty animal and ends Jewish. I mean, I do. And I do. So I do think that the, there are very deep things at play. It's a good line. You know, the, the, the, there are very deep things at play. Netanyahu, irrespective of anything he does for a lot of people is a kind of devil. And you have to say, well, why is that? Now, of course, some people will say, well, that's because he, his

terrible hawkishness and his actions and so on and so forth. The case for Netanyahu is that he sees it as his historic purpose to defend the only homeland of the Jewish people, and that's his life's mission. And on that basis, I think he's been, by any measure, a historic leader. He has warned the world about the threat from the mullahs in Tehran. He warned about Iranian revolutionary expansionism across the region, across Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen. And after the seventh, he has held together a very, very difficult set of challenges to keep international pressure at a tolerable level, to do all sorts of things, but most importantly, to oversee the two war aims that he set out at the beginning. I thought, let me just express this, I thought like a lot of people when I heard

about the hostages, my immediate instinct was they're all dead. They're all going to be dead. We'll never see them again. And that was the attitude of a lot of Israelis. But although there are still hostages being held, and as I've always said, the war could end tomorrow if they were handed back, or at least the beginning of the end of the war could begin tomorrow if they were handed back. Nevertheless, because of the actions of not just Net, did not expect this to happen.

And Hamas has not been completely destroyed, but it has been very, very significantly degraded. And you end up in the definition of what a total destruction of Hamas would look like. But they are not anywhere near the capability they were in November of 2023. Their leadership has almost all been killed. The second tier of leadership, almost all gone. This is a just response to what Hamas did. The moment – Nezion Yahu's reputation in Israel was at a low early on because of what had happened. There's no doubt, and as I say in the final chapter of the book, I mean, General Slim had this phrase, from defeat into victory. Israel isn't a victory yet in this conflict,

but when in September last year, there were a set of operational successes, so extraordinary that, I mean, it was just like every day's news was, there was one day I remember when after the, after the Assad regime fell, when the Israeli air force took out an entirety of the Syrian air force in a day because they didn't want it falling into the hands of the new jihadist administration in Syria. It was story number four on the BBC news website.

Um, the leadership of Hezbollah gone, gone. The, the, the second and third tiers of Hezbollah gone or wounded Iran's Rolls Royce destroyed. These are very, very significant military achievements and are in my mind, a just response to the attempts by Hezbollah, Hamas and other Iranian proxies to destroy the Jewish state. to the attempts by Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Iranian proxies to destroy the Jewish state. Would another Israeli leader have been able to hold firm as Netanyahu has? I don't know, but I do know that any of them would have done something similar or would

have tried to do something similar because there's no country on earth, no democracy on earth, which could possibly not respond to such an atrocity. To the point, the underlying point you made of why do so many people want to call him evil? And so the implication is, it's not just a hatred of Israel. There's an ocean of hatred for the Jews. Yes. Why is there so much hatred for Jews in the world? I would say there's one reason in particular. It's a stupid and gullible person's easy answer. Why is, why do certain things happen in the world?

What is, what is our explanation of chance or unfairness or any number of things? Easiest, easiest, stupidest person's explanation is there's a small group of people doing it. Let's not say stupidest, because there's something in the human mind that craves a nice clean theory of everything right that explains all the problems. It's not just stupid. Let me re-write.

Lowest grade. Right. Lowest grade. Because I have that desire too to simplify everything. Be a bit anti-semitic? What? We've all been a bit anti-semitic what we've all been in somatic here and there just get a few vodkas in me no to find I mean maybe it's

the mathematician in me they say to find a simple explanation for everything right that actually it's that's nice forever yeah yeah no historians do this absolutely like analyzing why the Roman Empire collapsed. It's so nice to have one, especially if it's a counterintuitive explanation. It's one of the favorite go-tos, right? It's an explanation for all the problems in the world. It's the lowest resolution analysis imaginable. Why is there traffic? Why did my wife leave me?

Why did my wife cheating on me? Why did I lose my job? Why did I not get the job? Because even on the personal level, Oh, especially on the personal level Why did I not get everything? Somebody must have held me back Yeah, and it's just that hatred of Jews has been such a popular go-to throughout history You just always return back to the hits I guess and I what is it special about the Jews as a group that people love to hate?

Is it just cause it's a small number of people? I think several things. Successful. One is small and, um, um, without by any means saying this is a general rule, but, um, uh, disproportionately highly accomplished in certain fields at certain times. Prominent is what I would use. Prominent slightly beyond their numbers in certain places. It's not a full explanation. I mean, you know, all sorts of historical reasons why Jews were involved in banking. But then there are lots of historical reasons why the Scottish people, my own, were involved

in banking. And to this day, you don't find many people who blame all international finance problems on the Scots. So there were just like easy grooves for people to fall into, it seems to me. We should also mention, you know, banking for some reason. Money is a thing that people go to, but Jews have been disproportionately successful in the sciences and engineering, mathematics, and the arts and so on.

A sensible person would try to work out why that is and see what is replicable. I don't want to use the word stupid again now, a different type of person. I'm triggered already. A different type of person would look at that and say, that must mean they took something from me. That's the most zero sum game there is. It's an endlessly fascinating subject because it seems to me that anti-Semitism is almost certainly a sort of ineradicable temptation of the human spirit at its ugliest and cheapest.

But because it's back in our day, it bears some analysis again. And I would say two things about it. One is, as I and others have said many times in the past, one of the fascinating things about anti-Semitism is that it can cover everything at once. So the Jews get hated for being rich and for being poor, both for being the Rothschilds and for being Eastern European Jews escaping the pogroms. They can be hated for being religious and for being anti-religious and producing Marxism, for instance, hated for religiosity and secularism. They can be hated for most recently not having a state and therefore being rootless cosmopolitan and also hated for having a state. That makes it something very unusual actually in the history of human bigotry and, you know, bias and ugliness. But the real thing is one of our great heroes, Vasily Grossman says at the center of life and fate, almost everything that is worth saying about anti-Semitism and is Grossman's genius,

that he could say in three to four pages what most people couldn't say in an entire life, even after life of study. But there's this passage in Life and Fate that I quote in my book, which just bowled me over when I read it some years ago, when he says, you know, the interesting thing about anti-Semitism, he says, you can meet it everywhere in the Academy of Sciences and in the games that children play in the yard. But Grossman's great insight is he says everywhere it tells you not about the Jews, but about the person making the claim. And the most important gift he gives in his analysis is when he describes it as a mirror

to the person who is making the claims, culminating in this phrase I've been trying to make popular, which is he says, tell me what you accuse the Jews of, I'll tell you what you're guilty of. It's a searingly brilliant insight. The Iranian Revolutionary Government accuses Israel of being a colonial power. The Iranian Revolutionary Government has been colonizing the Middle East throughout our lifetimes. The Turkish government accuses the Jewish state of being guilty of occupation. Do you know Northern Cyprus? The Turks have been occupying half of Cyprus since the 1970s.

Cyprus is an EU member state and Turkey is in NATO. So, you can do this on and on. The people who accuse the Jewish state, like the people who accuse Jews of something, almost without fail, is the thing they're guilty of. Look at the supporters of Hamas and Hamas. One of the things they say is that Israel is guilty of indiscriminate killing. Hamas? Hello? What were you doing on the 7th? You see, there are these crazy guys online who claim, repeatedly claim that for some

reason, Israeli soldiers will rape Palestinians when they meet them, whether in a prison or on the battlefield or in a hospital, it just erupts occasionally. These, these people go around and say, Oh my God, the IDF are rapists. Excuse me? You're the ones who spent the years after 2016 saying believe all women. Then from the 7th of October said, believe all women except for Jewish women who say they've been raped or seen their friends raped. And then you say, aha, the Jews are rapists.

You've been carrying water for rapists and then go and accuse the Jews of rape. I mean, it just works. Every way you do it, it works. I do think the thing of psychological projection in the case of Israel is wild. I mean, it is wild. By the way, there's an interesting thing on this that I tried to get into in the book, which is this thing of why did so much of the world respond the way it did? I mean, we're sitting in New York.

There was not one protest against Hamas in New York after the 7th of October. The believe all women crowd didn't come out against Hamas' rapes. The Black Lives Matter movement did not turn their attention to the killing of Israeli children or anything. Nobody did it. Nobody did it. The one thing that did happen very prominently was that people came out to attack the people who'd been attacked. And as I say in the opening of the book, I saw that myself down the road from here in Times Square on October the 8th. October the frigging 8th. The protests are in Times Square against Israel justifying the attacks that were still going on. And

this is something that deserves deep self-examination on behalf of people in the West who've seen this movement overwhelm parts of our society, I mean, degraded parts, but parts, bits of the universities and so on. And I think there's an explanation for it, by the way, which again, goes back to that issue of projection. When you and I last talked on camera, we were talking about my last book, The War on the West, and I remember saying to you there that one of the things I was talking about in that book was the deeply, deeply, wildly biased, unfair and inaccurate estimation of the Western past whereby, you know, America's

original sin had to be identified and the original sin is slavery. So America has an original sin. Does Ghana have an original sin? No one knows. No one really would think it polite to point one out. And, you know, you go on and on with these, these things that I identified in the war in the West, these, these, these sins of the West and they have in recent years been reduced to the claim that countries like the one we're sitting in are guilty of what? colonialism, settler colonialism, white supremacy, slavery, genocide, and a couple of others you can throw in probably. One of the things I remember saying to you when we spoke about that was that one of the deep problems of setting up that system of thought, pseudo thought, non thought, would be thought,

is that there's nothing you can do about it. Even if it was true, there's nothing you can do about it. If it turned out that your ancestors in the 18th century once owned a slave, what are you going to do? There's no mechanism to forgive or be forgiven because you didn't do it and there's no one in life who could accept the apology. And I remember setting it up there in the war on the west. I set up this very, very risky, dangerous, unforgivable, unforgiving thing that had been set up about our societies. But I would say that since October the 7th, there has been an answer for a certain type of person, which is, I am from a society where I have been told I am guilty of settler colonialism, white supremacy, genocide,

ethnic cleansing and more. I've been told all of these things. I have been put in an ungetoutable situation of moral burden that can never be relieved because I can't ask anyone's forgiveness and nobody can forgive me. But ah, here's a country which I can accuse of all of these things in the here and now. Load my energies, my guilt, my burdens onto, and what's more, I might be able to end it. And by doing so would relieve myself. And in other words, to slight just to, I quote, I tweak Grossman with the people in America and elsewhere who have fallen into this trap. I tweak him by saying, on this occasion, tell me what you accuse the Jews of, and I'll tell you what you've been told you're guilty of.

Yeah, it's an interesting kind of projection. Just to observe some of the sociological phenomena here on top of all this. It does seem that hatred of Jews gets a lot of engagement online. Is this, so I watch it like a curiosity, like I'm an alien observing earth. Uh, is this dangerous to you or is it just a bunch of trolls and grifters? You know, let's say cosplaying as a Nazis. It's just fun to trigger the libs. It could be all of those things.

I think it is and a lot more. Um, I mean, taboos, you know, taboos can be fun to break, I suppose. And I suppose there are some people online who have grown up knowing that, you know, since the Holocaust, anti-Semitism was taboo and they've run out of, it goes back to what we were saying earlier, but you know, they sort of run out of, they've got bored of that. Holocaust, small of course they'd say, you know, I've heard enough about that. And maybe those people have gone off in a funny direction as a result, but I don't think that's the main, I think that's like a detail compared to the real thing. The real thing is that antisemitism is back and there is a certain type of person who's loving it.

Is it really back? So I watch a lot. Well, it never goes away. It's just that it's since the seventh, I think that it's had a great resurgence. And this isn't to say, and I'm just sort of a steel man, that doesn't mean that any criticism of Israel

is antisemitic. No, it doesn't. But as I have often said, if you don't ever express any interest in the murder of Muslims in Syria, not any interest in genocide in Sudan, killing of hundreds of thousands of people in Yemen, but on the 8th of October, you're on the street with a placard attacking you as well. I'm sorry, you're an anti-Semite, for sure. You may not know you are, but that's what's motivating you.

It gets a lot of engagement. I watch it. It does. It does. I watch it. But it's one of several things you can always see, get huge engagement. I mean, if you say that there's like a massive pedophile ring run by prominent politicians, it might be total horse shit, likely to be total horse shit, but it'll also get a hell of a lot of engagement.

Yeah. But that's still the sort of the pedophile ring, like Epstein Island, that kind of stuff, which is very interesting. Yeah. And it's like, great. All right, cool. This, let's get behind that conspiracy. But the Jews thing, the hatred of Jews is still,

that's the greatest hits still. It is, and I mean, you see it with, I mean, some of the people who've made minor celebrities of themselves, with a sort of made up version of history, with a smattering of this and a little bit of that. And then the just asking questions and you know, I'm not saying but, and all there's

certain, you know, rhetorical slights of hand that have, have helped this along. But as I said earlier, it's just the lowest grade explanation of a certain type of mind looking for a pattern and looking for meaning. And I mean, I can give you just one quick example of why that in the case of Israel is so extraordinary, is the number of otherwise semi-intelligent people who will tell you that the problem is simply that the Israelis need to give the Palestinians another state and that if they do, it will solve the problems of the region and the wider world. And irrespective of the fact that the Palestinians are being given to several states, the claim

that this particular land dispute would unlock every other injustice in the world should be seen on its face to be preposterous. There is no reason why if the Palestinians got another state, either in Gaza or in parts of Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, there is no reason why we should expect the economy of Yemen to boom. It would not inevitably lead to the mullahs in Tehran giving equal rights to women or anything else. It would solve, the most likely thing is you simply have another failed Arab state run by a sort of proxy of Tehran. That's the best case scenario.

And by the way, even lifelong defenders of the Palestinian cause, like Salman Rushdie, he said recently, he said, he said, I've always been a supporter of the Palestinian people and their cause, but it is an unavoidable fact that if another state was given to the Palestinians, it would simply be at best another front for the Iranian regime in Iran. The best. So why the passion about, why the unbelievable wild passion about this? Why the, and I say some of it can be, should be argued out and so on.

And some of it can be explained, but there's definitely a realm of it, a layer of it, which is simply at that level of this excites something within me This excites something within me. Yeah, there's some there's something there's something compelling to people about hating Jews look at the look at the prominence of Or you know semi prominent people who are willing to play around with the idea that 9-eleven was an inside job and somehow done by the Israelis I mean all the Israelis. I mean, or the Jews. I mean, I mean, look at the, like this, this shit is going around.

I have to admit, you know, I'm, I, there's a part of my brain that's pulled towards conspiracies. There's something compelling and fun about a simple explanation for things. What's really going on behind the scenes. Because the real world, when you don't look at the disparities, first of all it's complicated, second of all it's kind of boring, it's a bunch of incompetent people. Usually opening up Pandora's boxes they don't understand.

Yeah, it's pushing buffoons. And I've been, I've walked around and hung around with a lot of powerful and rich people. And like, the thing I learned is they're just human beings. There's not, I'm yet to be in a room where exceptionally brilliant psychopaths are plotting. You never got that invite? No.

In fact, like a lot of people in the positions of power, they're just not good. I mean, I'm just continuously disappointed that they're not ultra. I love competence. The places where I've seen competence inklings of it is in low level, like soldiers, like low level. What do you call that people that do stuff with their hands? So builders of different kinds, like engineering, like craftsmen, like I've seen. Yes, because you've got a very specific task that could be highly complicated. Yes.

But you get to apply yourself to and to solve. Yeah, over years you've mastered it, it's passed across generations and so on. But like, states, craft, and like that kind of stuff. Well, it's, because there's so many variables. I mean, this is, this is one of the ways when you were trying to lure me onto the prognostications on Ukraine. And I was saying, I just, I've seen enough to know that I just don't know

because I know the amount of things that can change all the time. I was some years ago, I was talking to a, a former public servant in the UK when, um, uh, uh, Boris Johnson was Prime Minister and COVID started and I mentioned to this friend, I said, well, you know, it's pretty bad luck for Boris that, you know, he came in to do one thing, which was Brexit. And then there's a global pandemic from Wuhan, you know, and he's got to like mug up on that and then gets it really wrong. But anyway, and I was really struck by the fact that this man, a man of great insight,

who happened to disagree politically, but said to me, but Douglas is always like this. And he said, you know, look at Tony Blair came into power in 1997, wanting to reform education in the UK, ends up trying to remake the Middle East. And I do, I mean, as I say, one of the reasons why I am scornful of conspiracy theorists and most conspiracy theories, not to say that there aren't some that do actually turn out to be, you know, to have something in them. And that happens. A lot of things are called conspiracy theories that turn out to be true.

Lab league. But in general, the suspicion and the scorn I have for people who fall into this is, as I say, it's a very low grade,, low-resolution look at the world by people who clearly have never seen the wildness of actions in the world and the way that they reverberate, and the number of events. I once spoke some years ago to a politician who literally said to me, I won't name the country, but said to me, can you help us out with just how to cope with the day to day struggle we're having with the cycle? And I said, what are you talking about? And they said, our experience in government is that every day something comes up which we have to firefight.

That's what we do that day. Then the next day something else comes up, which we have to firefight. We're not getting our policies done. I just thought, for me, that rings an awful lot truer than that country gets the odd phone call from a member of a Jewish family. Telling them, I just, you know, it's like, come on.

So, you know, that's, I do before I forget when I ask you about Iran, what role do they play in this conflict? Such a... It's fascinating how it seems like Iran is fingerprints everywhere in the Middle East. And it's also fascinating that, I have a lot of friends, my best friend is Iranian. It's fascinating that the Islamic revolution in Iran took the country from the leadership perspective backwards in such a drastic way and that they're

still in power. That confuses me because I know that now it's possible. I don't know the people of Iran. Sorry to make the obvious statement, but I just have a lot of friends in Iran and a lot of them, everybody I know there opposes the regime and they're brilliant, educated, thoughtful, worldly people. And it confuses me that there's this, this is one of the, I would say,

one of the greatest nations on earth. It's certainly one of the, I would say, one of the greatest nations on earth. It's certainly one of the great cultures of earth. Cultures, the peoples of Iran. Yeah, I agree. And then you look at that, and then you look at the leadership, when they're behind most of the terror groups. In the region, certainly, yeah.

Can you just speak to that, and how is it still the same regime since 1979? I know, as you know, I start on Democris and Death Cult with the flight taking the Ayatollah Khomeini from Paris to Tehran. The flight that you say you wish never happened. I think it's one of the two worst journeys of the 20th century.

What's the other one? Lenin's train getting to Petrograd? Yeah. So it's all about the transportation. Yes, I know. I'm really a transport guy. No, I wait till my book of 10 best journeys. Yeah.

Across the world. No, just as the train to the Finland station brought the basilisk of Bolshevism into Russia, so the flight coming from Paris, bringing the Ayatollah Khomeini to Tehran, brought the basilisk of Khomeiniism, the most radical form of Shiite Islam, to Tehran and to Iran. And it's one of the great tragedies of the modern era, what happened there. Like you actually, I have a lot of Persian friends and had the great good fortune early in my life to have a very close late friend who had grown up in pre-revolutionary Iran, was very fond of the Shah and so on. Her father had been an Ayatollah before the overthrow of the Shah. Everyone had criticisms

of him, but when you saw what came after him, it was among other things, what I learned from her and other friends from that region was that, I suppose two things, one is, of course, is that it's a sort of central conservative insight, you know, things can always be worse. They can always be worse. Never say this is rock bottom because, you know, like, you might have a shah with hundreds or even thousands of political prisoners in cells, but you could always have Ayatollah Khomeini butchering them all, including the people who helped him get to power, like the communists and the trade unionists who simply were fighting against the Shah and then were very useful for the Ayatollah until he didn't need them

anymore. But the other thing I learned from that particular friend and others was that was this thing that, and again, it's very hard for the Western mindset, very hard for the American mindset in particular, that there is such a thing as fanaticism, real fanaticism and real ideological and real religious fanaticism. real fanaticism and real ideological and real religious fanaticism and the thing that I described leads to the death cult mindset. That fanaticism is something which is very easy for the West to forget because we haven't seen it in a while. We get very distant echoes of it in our own societies really. And we're highly attuned to hear them, which is good in some ways.

Um, but. Hormaneism not only vastly set back the Persian people, the Iranian nation, but has managed to keep it in subjugation since 1979. people, the Iranian nation, but has managed to keep it in subjugation since 1979. And your question of why gets to one of the biggest questions really that has to be understood, which is, it's what Solzhenitsyn says at one point in Gulag Archipelago, in that passage where he describes, one point in Gulag Archipelago, in that passage where he describes, when we heard the footsteps on the staircase and the knock was on our neighbor's door, and we knew our neighbor was being taken away, why did we not stop them? And in the case of the revolutionary government in Iran, you know, it's the same answer as whether it's Hamas governing Gaza with the people, whoever the people in Gaza are who

would have liked to have seen them overthrown. You know, people don't realize that despite the rhetoric and everything else, everything changes if the other guy might kill you. And that, you know, when the green revolution in 2009 started in Iran, why was it put down? Why didn't it work? Why, like you, the sort of Iranians who I really hope one day get their country back, why did all these smart young students and others, why after they came out, why was it put down? It was put down because the Basij militia will shoot you in the head and they'll take you to a

prison as they did with the Iranian students and they'll rape you with bottles and kill you. And even a little bit of that goes an awfully long way to tell the rest of society not to do it again. You know, we know it happens like that from films, but too few people understand that regimes like that in Tehran operate like that on a grand scale, on the biggest of scales and with the ultimate of brutality. And that's how they say empower. And one other thing on that, by the way, which is, I was reminded of this the

other day, but you know, thinking about this sort of, you know, what I've just described as a sort of a problem in democracies is that we just, you know, we like to think everyone thinks like us, and you know, we'd like everyone to sort of be like us. And we, we believe fictions that we're taught in films like, you know, everyone basically wants the same things as us and you go, you haven't stepped outside the walls of the city, if you think that. But the second thing is this thing of the

death cults of why we sort of singly fail to understand that this is possible. And. Hormaneism is both very specific and also very strongly linked to totalitarian and radical and extremist death cult movements that are not that far in our past. I mean, you know, there's a moment in, when Oriana Filacci interviewed Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, one of the very few Western journalists to do so, she says to him, these people in the street, this movement, this revolution you've begun, it's guided by hate. It's hate. It's all hate. And Hormeni says, no, no, it's love.

It's love. And it's actually a scene that appears in the satanic verses of Rushdie where that exact same thing happens. But I was thinking about this recently because I was thinking, but how can you explain to a Western mindset that that's something that's going on? There are people directed by this hate that calls itself love, this, this. And I was reminded of a book I haven't read since I was probably a teenager or something made a great impression on me then. Did you ever read the tragic sense of life? Miguel de Unamuno, a great Spanish existentialist philosopher who died in the thirties. Unamuno had an encounter with students at the university in the thirties when he realized, I mean, this is the early period of the Francoists, de Rivera and all those people. Unamuno knows that this meeting and the chant goes up from the eager

students who have fallen into this sort of phalangist, Francoist ideology already. They end up chanting in front of us. He's trying to defend the principles by which he has lived his life. They end up chanting in front of him as he's trying to defend the principles by which he has lived his life. They end up chanting in front of him, viva la muerte, long live death, long live death. And he tries to explain to them this is, this is a necrophilic chance. Yeah. But those young men in free Franco Spain, shouting long live death. They have their counterparts today. They are the people who taunt Americans, Westerners, Israelis, and others with lines like we love death more than you love life. Yeah. That's the line you return to that's a really difficult line to load in because if you base your whole

existence on that notion then well you're a danger to the world. That's a good foundation for committing evil. I have to ask because you mentioned that interview, you had a good interview with Benjamin Netanyahu after October 7th. And I've been very fortunate to get the opportunity to interview a few world leaders. It looks like I'll interview Vladimir Putin and others. Wanna have a general question about how do you interview people like this? Maybe to put your historian hat on of like, how do you approach the interview of world leaders

such that you can gain a deeper understanding in the hope that that adds to the compassion in the world. So I have a deep sense that understanding people you might hate helps in the long arc of history add compassion to the world. But even just to add understanding is difficult in those kinds of contexts. And, you know, maybe it's more useful to think about from a

historian perspective of how you need to interview somebody like Hitler or Stalin or Churchill FDR during World War II. It's not, you know, I think about this a lot, especially if it's, uh, you know, two, three, four, five hour conversation. Well, there's a lot of, uh, weight on you when you do those conversations. Isn't it? From where? So like where, who's watching?

Is it historians 20 years from then? Who knows? I mean, the whole data might be wiped. I suspect there's a weight on you because every major world leader you interview, and you've done some amazing ones. But I mean, you presumably, you have a set of people saying you've got to ask him about this. You can't not address this. And that's a very challenging one because of course, although in an interview with a politician, it should not be supine.

Nor can it be endlessly interrogative because you're not the prosecutor and they don't have to be the guilty party answering to you. And I've noticed the number of people who interview people, world leaders and others who go in with a set of sort of those things. And at some point the other party can just, I don't need this and people criticizing you We don't realize that you just can't do that. Yeah, I suppose what journalists behave the way they do Although I have increasingly less and less respect for the journalists The average journalists have more and more respect for the gray journalists as my respect for the average journalist decreases Because a lot of the journalists seem to be signaling to their own in, in

group, but there is a lot of pressure on, uh, people in that situation to ask the, what I would say is the dumb question. Why is it the dumb question? Uh, the adversarial question that the, the world leader, the person is ready for. They've answered that question. And what you're trying to do is I guess, one, to signal the vast the question and to push them. Yes.

Uh, two, you're trying to like, just create drama because really what people that ask you to ask that question, they want you to embarrass that person. They hate them and they want you to like make them piss their pants or something or just start crying and run out. Yeah. Walk out in a way that it's embarrassing for them. They could be like, look at that pathetic person.

Uh, and that reveals to me, nothing except maybe the weakness of the interviewee that they can't stand up to a tough question. Yes. But mostly like I'm, I'm sorry, I have to do a lot of thinking because you get attacked a lot. If you ask questions from a place of curiosity that actually have a chance to reveal who the person is. There's a very interesting line that Robin Day, who was quite a distinguished interviewer back, who was very distinguished interviewer back in the day, said about Jeremy Paxman, who was a very interrogative interviewer in the UK.

Robin Day, who was quite good at being rude to politicians, but carefully, said the problem with the new approach as he saw it from the nineties of political interviewing was, he said, if you think the person you're speaking to is a liar, you should get them to reveal that they're a liar. Don't just call them a liar. I think that is, again, it's something that a lot of people sitting on the other side of the screen don't realize is that it may satisfy them that you call a person a liar to their face, but it doesn't do anything.

And it actually reveals nothing. If somebody is a liar and they reveal themselves to be a liar, then that's, that's something else. But yes, I mean, I can, I obviously you have a lot of different voices telling you what to do. It's also difficult because one of the things that I don't think anyone really understands is that in the end it's just you. I'm sure you have this about Putin. People say, I know exactly how you can. They could give endless advice. The end is you sitting down talking to him.

It's like everybody knows how to behave on the presidential debate stage, but only a few people have done it. In person is actually pretty difficult. It's very difficult because you've got all this weird behind the scenes stuff as well. You've got all of the games that people play. I mean, yeah, I interviewed Zelensky.

I'm pretty fearless in general, and he was a very human and fascinating human. But there is soldiers with guns standing all around. And you didn't have anyone? No one was packing on your side? I had one friend, a security person, who was also too crazy, you never know. He could turn up.

You were infiltrated. Yeah, exactly. No, I mean, that doesn't have any effect. And by the way, I should mention that, because it's hilarious to me, but process-wise, with Narendra Modi and with anyone, it's hilarious to me but Process wise No with the random odian with anyone. They don't They said it was scripted and all this kind of stuff. I would never do anything scripted

They don't get to have a say in anything. I asked have complete freedom Sometimes you'll have people on the team very politely nudge like hey, can you? And I'll very politely say thank you, you know like smile, but that doesn't mean I have to fucking do it I could do whatever the hell I want you the calm this actually by the way with world leaders It doesn't happen. It happens more with CEOs Because they have like usually PR and comms people. They'll just be like very politely, hey, you know that thing about when they that sexual assault harassment charges they've had. There's no reason to really linger on that. We didn't have to do that.

Yeah. One of my favorite things anyone has ever said, is only ever happening, I know a couple of cases of this happening private. Some friends, some, uh, a friend of mine once years ago was debating against the, this is before the war, the civil war in Syria was debating something to do with the middle East and one of the people on the other side was the then Syrian ambassador in London. The then Syrian ambassador in London says something about the Israeli

treatment of the Palestinians. And my friend stands up and starts talking about Assad seniors massacre of the Palestinians in Hamer, where they killed like 10,000 Palestinians in a day. Um, and my friend starts talking about the Hamer massacre by, uh, Assad senior and the big fat Syrian ambassador like stands up to respond and he says, that is, that is none of your business. And my friend was like, Oh, I thought we were going to get it in denial. Uh, let me just ask you one more thing about Netanyahu.

Um, cause I also have the opportunity to do a three hour interview with him at this stage and I've been, if I'm just being honest, very hesitant to do it. And I just don't know how a conversation there could help add compassion to the world. And that particular topic, no matter how well you do it, you do take on a very large number of people that will just make it their daily activity

to hate you and to write about it and to post about it and to accuse you of things. In some sense, I don't wanna lose the part of me that's vulnerable to the world People have very little understanding of things if they're willing to say that because you're sitting down and talking with somebody you are ego platforming them Advancing their cause being used being a shill or whatever like that you might be actually just finding some things out, which I think is something you do expertly.

And another thing your critics wouldn't realize is that life is long and, you know, hopefully God willing, we were both around for a long time and therefore you don't blow everything up at the request of some twat online. But I do think that a superpower of a kind is to identify the people whose opinion you care for and worry about their opinion and no one else's really. And, and key and just, you just keep your own guiding light. That's what's always done it for me is that I, I've always said, I just don't really, I wouldn't care if I was the only person with my opinion and

billions of people disagreed. I mean, I might be curious if I was the only person with my opinion and billions of people disagreed. I mean, I might be curious if the whole planet disagreed with me, but it doesn't fundamentally, that's not why. I'll send you Churchill's great speech on the death of Chamberlain. I mean it. He says a bit, he says one of the most wise and brilliant things. I was thinking about it slightly earlier when you were talking about Zelensky, because one of Churchill's greatnesses was his magnanimity. When his great political opponent, Chamberlain, died in 1940 and Churchill had just taken over as prime minister. He could have used the opportunity,

and we might even say that some politicians in our day won't be able to resist the opportunity. He could have used the opportunity to say, you see, I was right, and Chamberlain didn't know what the hell he was doing and he's led us into this mess and you should have all listened to me. Because that would have been a good time. It would have been a good listened to me because that would have been a good time. It would have been a good time to say that that would have been one for the win, as they say. But Churchill doesn't do that in his great eulogy for Chamberlain. He talks about how hard it is for mankind to operate in the wild and how you can do it successfully. He very movingly says, he doesn't even mention

the name of Hitler. He says, what would never change is flaws. He says, desiring of human peace, to be seeking peace. And he says, and he, the curse that he had was he was led astray by a very wicked man. But then he has this great passage where he, Churchill says, beautiful resonant passage about how he says, it's not given to men happily for them for otherwise life would prove intolerable to foresee or to predict to any great extent the unfolding course of events. He says in for one phase men seem to have been right and in another they're proved wrong and then there's a different scale of values emerges. And he says, what is the worth of all this? He says the only guide to a man is his conscience.

The only shield to his memory is the rectitude and the sincerity of his actions. And in fact, he says it doesn't matter what happens. If you have this, he finishes it, he says, however the fates may play, that if you have this shield to guard you, he says, you march always in the ranks of honor. All that can guide a man is that. If you lose sight of it, and some people do, and maybe everyone does at some point, then it's a challenge. And then you get buffeted by the to's and fro's of the waves of popular opinion. And that's dangerous. But if you keep sight and hold on to what you believe, a million, billion foes don't

matter. Yeah, that is the path. We were talking offline about the great biography of Churchill. Churchill himself made mistakes, admitted the mistakes, and was proud of the mistakes. I mean. Learned from them. Learned from them. That's all the best you could do. The worst you could probably do is being afraid of making mistakes. That's what TR famous said about them in the Man in the Arena speech.

TR. Yeah. The old TR. Those two have made quite a few mistakes. But in the end, some of the greatest humans ever created. Norm MacDonald, Churchill. Did we do Norm? I think we did before coming on air. Before coming on air, yeah. Well, he's always and everywhere in the in the air around us

One of the one of the great comedians All right, what gives you hope about this whole thing we have going on human civilization You've been covering some of the darker aspects the madness of crowds the madness of crowds, the madness of geopolitics, the madness of wars. Sometimes when the sun shines through the clouds and there's a smile on Douglas Murray's face, what's the source of the smile? The warmth. Endless numbers of things. Endless numbers of things. I mean, I get enormous encouragement from smart young people actually. That's just the best thing ever.

I was in Kiev the other week and I was asked to speak to students at the university and irrespective of the rather tricky situation that they are in, it's just great to, as you know, to speak to a room full of students about things and then hang around afterwards and just answer all the questions you can and hear from them about their lives and what they want to do and remembering what you were like at their age and how goofy you were and how much you were going to get wrong and how much you had to learn and how

much you were going to enjoy it and seeing the opportunities they have in front of them if things go right. And just smart young people give me enormous encouragement all the time. That's the best thing. I mean, it's just... Yeah, you can see endless possibility in their eyes. And they're not like burdened by, let's say, the cynicism that builds up. Even the cynicism, though, I mean, you can resist that.

I mean, I've got quite a deep well spring of it. But I mean you can't only fall into that because there's so much else it doesn't cover. It'd be like spending your life being ironic, you know. So that said, you have seen a lot of war, especially recently and directly, Ukraine, Israel. Has that changed you? Has that dimmed some of that warmth and light? That's a very difficult question to answer.

I don't know. Differ day to day. So sometimes there's a heaviness there because of the things you've seen. Sure, yeah, at times, at times. You regret going as much as you have to the front lines? No, no. You wonder is why a war is for writer kind of the ultimate subject is because

you see life weirdly and it's ultimate face, very strange, strange thing. But, you know, it just, it is the truth. Death, when it's in front of you, is something which gives a terrible clarity to everything. clarity to everything. And you see how people will love and even sometimes laugh more. There's an essay by Montaigne that's always on my mind, why we weep and laugh at the same time. Uh, everything's just more and, um, and people, the real thing is that people, you see the very, very best of people and the very worst and they're beside each other. There's some, uh, so I've gotten a bunch of chances to interact with soldiers on the frontline in Ukraine. And there is some level of like all the bullshit nice cities or whatever it is of, of, uh, civilian life is all stripped away.

It just seems more honest somehow. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. Well, I mean, I couldn't agree more. And then there's the wild clarity about things, not because of enemies or anything like that, but because of the, I joked, I think I mentioned, I joked about this to some Ukrainian soldiers in 22 because they wanted a cigarette and we stepped outside, I accompanied them outside

because they weren't allowed to smoke indoors in this hotel, which there were rockets falling. Yeah. Yeah. And I said to him, isn't it strange that fear of secondhand smoke has superseded this? but I don't know. It's seeing the humor in that. When you're on the front line, when you're fighting in a war, the humor of that is somehow just perfectly delicious.

You could just laugh all day about that. And the absurdity of life is just right there. And it's so honest and it's so beautiful. And that's why a lot of soldiers are Traumatized they're destroyed by war, but they also miss it. That's right. That's right. Absolutely. Oh my god. Yes Yes, yes. Yes. There's an intimacy to the whole thing. Absolutely Everyone says you know, I never felt more alive, you know Yeah, and I wouldn't I wouldn't do anything different

Well, I hope just like Churchill, you keep fighting the good fight and, uh, not listening to anybody and I'll try to, uh, learn to do the same. Douglas, I'm a huge fan. Thank you for doing this. Been a great pleasure. Right back at you. Thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Douglas Murray. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Bertrand Russell.

The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.