The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Is Israel Undermining The Moral Case for its Existence? - Professor Robert Pape

Episode Date: September 6, 2025

University of Chicago Professor Robert Pape maintains that Israel is passing "historic thresholds of civilian punishment" and is risking its own future existence. Please Note: This PDF contains the post-show conversation between Noam and Pape. It contains many links to articles and videos that Pape draws from. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rk9NJ6BEYx6qa7JUEjuwzKG7R2MUOus4/view?usp=sharing Here is Pape's recent article on the matter in Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/gaza-unparalleled-devastation-robert-pape ("The Unparalleled Devastation of Gaza")

Hi, it's been in this afternoon editing my interview with Professor Robert Pape. I always try to clean up my podcast afterwards to make sure that I didn't make any glaring factual errors, that the guests didn't make any misrepresentations of fact. In this case, I ran into and have run into a lot of little errors that you, the viewer, might think, are picayune. And rather than burden the podcast, with them. I reached out to Professor Pape, and he was very nice, not indignant, not resentful, and he and I agreed that we would post in the show notes a link to an email thread that's a sum total of our communications on the matter. In that, in that thread are links to articles,

interviews, YouTube videos, and I strongly encourage you all to jump into that stuff and decide for yourselves whether or not you think. I'm being picky or whether you're not, you think there actually is a cumulative effect of these things, which somehow create a lens which refracts the truth in a way that is significant. Having said that, once again, Professor Pape has been a gentleman. I admire his approach to things greatly, and I'm very appreciative to him. So without further ado, here is the very fine Professor Robert Pape from the University to Chicago. Hit it. This is

live from the table, the official podcast to the world famous comedy seller, available wherever you get your podcasts, and available on YouTube, which is the preferred way to enjoy it. You get both audio and video. This is Dan Natterman, here with Noam Dorman. The owner of the

comedy seller is with us, Peria Lashin brand, as well, is here. And if you've missed me, I've been away on cruise ships for the past few weeks. How was that, Dan? It's not easy. It's not easy, you know. But I got through it, and I have some more coming up. But unless something, you know, something else happens.

Any maritime romance? No, there was no maritime romance. I do have to sign something saying I won't fraternize with the passengers. But, of course, I am free to have sex with any crew members. We are here also. Who's the famous CEO that just got fired this week for having sex with a subordinate? Nestle's, the head of Nestle's. Oh, the head of them down.

So if he's, go ahead. Anyway, I didn't know anything about that. I know about the guy the Coldplay concert, but that's another story. Anyway, on an unrelated note, we have Robert Pape with us. He's a professor at the University of Chicago, and he is one of the world experts, if not the expert, in suicide terrorism. He's compiled a list post-9-11 of all the suicide terror attacks. He also wrote a recent article in Foreign Affairs called the Unparalleled Devastation of Gaza.

He's here with us tonight all the way from Chicago, Illinois. Welcome, Bob Robert Pape. Thanks very much, Dan. Noam, it's great to be here. It's wonderful to see you again. And, folks, we are living through history. Okay. And it's a stunning...

Not just the third... Because you're the third time guests on the podcast. It's a month of history. Well, for me, that's a historic guy. What's the history? I always feel levitated when I'm here, because I'm literally above the comedy seller. But we are living through history,

and I really appreciate you having me on, because I can't think of anybody better, really, I want to talk to about it. Noam, we've known each other now about a year, and you've had me on before. We've debated things before. We've had serious discussions. And the reason I say we're living through history

is I'm talking about Israel, and I'm talking about Israel is passing historic thresholds of civilians, civilian punishment in Gaza, and this is now knocking on the historic door of undermining the moral case for Israel. And that's really what I want to talk to you about. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. That's if just in the last month, what we're seeing is Israel passed these detailed, these historic thresholds, which I'm going to go through in detail later. But what is that doing to Israel's support. You're seeing former prime ministers of Israel come out and publicly

say, this is Ulmer, Barack, that Israel is committing war crimes. This is stunning. We have hundreds, not just a few, but hundreds of former Israeli high-level intelligence officials, including the heads of Shinbet and Mossad saying that the war in Gaza is no longer a just war. Just be clear because, you know, I saw that Almert said this. I saw that Ahud Barak said it. I didn't see the head of the Mossad said it. Oh, there's a list of, if your listeners will simply Google, there is a letter. that has been signed, you can probably find it while we're on.

Hundreds of former Israeli security officials, including former heads of Mossad and Shimbab. And what they are saying is this war has passed the point of any productive security returns, and I'm glad to go through all that. But even more than that, this is no longer a just war. You have, internationally, in Europe, the British, and the British were crucial in the founding of Israel in 1948. This would not have happened without British support. The British, the French, other European Germany, close ally of Israel, they are not just simply upset and making sort of moral statements.

they literally were engaged in air drops over Israel's objections to drop food into Gaza in August. If we now look at the United States, let's look at the support for Israel in the United States. The public opinion polls for years now, including those that we do at our center at the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats, have been showing a divergence of public support for Israel where the breakpoint is the age of 45. If you're under the age of 40, I don't mean in your 20s, I don't mean you're in college. I mean if you're under the age of 45,

about half the population is opposed to Israel, that is they're anti-Zionists. Over the age of 45, they're still in favor. Is that the same thing, anti-Zionists being opposed to Israel in the war? They're opposed to Israel. They're opposed to what Israel's been doing. They're opposed to Israel existing? They're opposed to Israel's military treatment, the treatment of the Palestinians, whether Israel is actually operating out of its own self-defense or whether it's operating.

This is post-October 7th or this is just in general. It's opposed to Israel existing. Yeah, these public opinion polls, if you go back and again, this is all Googleable. So everything can be fact-checked. If you go back, you will see that for about five years now, this has been reported in various New York Times op-eds and so forth, you will see that there's been a steady finding that the younger generation, and by that don't think college kid 18 years old, you know, sort of surrounded by liberal progressive faculty, just it's really the younger generation have been increasingly moving against the support of Israel, and Israel's behavior as a state. I don't mean Jewish people.

We're talking about the state of Israel. I'm just trying to clarify if you mean their right to exist or... They're challenging their right to exist. They're challenging more specifically their behavior in terms of whether they are operating out of self-defense or as an aggressor. That is expansionist power. That's where this idea of occupier comes from and so forth. Um, and the, uh, uh, the opinion polls have been getting worse in recent years. So it's not, so it's true. It's

worse after October, uh, October 7th. That was almost two years ago now, but they were getting worse before October 7. So October 7 is coming on the heels of a trend. There's another element of American support that specifically opened up just in the last few months. And that is you were now seeing, among a powerful portion of Donald Trump's support base. That is Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk. You are seeing podcast after podcast that are essentially anti-Zionists. Well, Kirk, is he not?

Charlie Kirk is very pro-Israel, is he not? If you just listen to the podcast he just had last week, where he brings on young, young, because Charlie Kirk specializes in essentially 20-year-olds because he basically is the, one of the key people who built the base for Donald Trump among the 20-year-olds. If you just go and listen to this most recent podcast, literally in the last five days, you are going to hear a detailed discussion about why, with Charlie Kirk and these undergraduates, why the funding of Israel should stop. so this is not Kirk himself came down on the side of stopping finding

I don't want to put words in his mouth so let me get first of all I don't want to actually go so far as put words in his mouth but if your listeners will go and simply pay attention as you will see extended conversation about whether Israel should be quote treated as a normal country

not receiving the $4 billion a year in aid whether this should stop now whether this has been going on for way too long and you're going to see that far from shutting it down, he's actually continuing the conversation. I want to be careful because I don't want Charlie Kirk calling me up and say, oh, Professor Pape, you put one word in my mouth too far. That is not, that's not the way to think about it. But if you, let's just go to Beyond Charlie Kirk. You've had Tucker Carlson with Marjorie Taylor Green, just also in the last

month, long-extended, detailed podcast talking about how Israel's committing genocide, how Israel, and that's a word, Noam, I don't use in that piece. So Israel's committing genocide. They're talking about how Israel, we can't, the United States, is now basically going too far down the road of what Israel wants as opposed to what America first should actually be. Can I stop? And so my point is, yeah, my point is, so what you are seeing is you are seeing the erosion of the moral case for Israel, not just in the normal places we're used to seeing things like that, but it's now happening in places that are really central to Israel's future support.

And that's the wake-up call that I think really, that's the bell that needs to be wrong. All right. So, obviously, I'm aware of it. Although I wish you would, let me know, but you want to address this letter because I can't find the letter. I'm looking at you, I can't find the actual text of the letter. I saw the article about it. Well, okay. No, but it's important to know what the letter says.

I'll see if we can find it while we talk. Does the letter say that, you know, I don't know what it says. Because what I have heard is not what I want to address right now. What I have heard is people saying what you said is that Israel's, The war has achieved its aims. Israel's security concerns have been addressed. This is what Galant had said. So, and, you know, people signing that letter is not the same thing as signing the letter that Israel's committing genocide or Israel is war crimes.

It's not no longer a just war. So I didn't say it was committing. Or a just war is also not the same thing as war crimes. Not that I'm doubting that some war crimes have been committed, obviously. There's war crimes in most every war. But I think that because of what you're saying, it would be helpful to be extremely precise about what words we're going to put in the mouths of 500 Israeli officials.

So not having that at my disposal, I want to first just tease some of this out because some of this is disturbing to me for a different reason. So, Robert, maybe we'll find it afterwards. Yeah, I think we're just, yeah, yeah. You know, I could imagine a scenario where affirmative action loses its favor with the academics, and then people like David Duke and, you know, known racists pile on, and I'd be very uncomfortable to use them as a,

to illustrate a critical mass. So everybody's had it. Even David Duke has had it. Even Richard Spencer's had it. I would agree with it. So when you're talking about Tucker Carlson and people of that ilk, you're talking about a wing of a school of thought which has emerged, which is making room for Candice Owens,

for the notion that Christian baby disappear every year at Passover, for Dahl Cooper, who says that the Zionists were behind World War II, that Churchill was a didn't you know I'm sorry that um Churchill was installed by Zionist that Hitler was outraged by Crystal Knock you know it's I don't you know the first part of what you said I'm like oh this is you know a conversation worth having

but when you bring in people like Tucker Carlson I viscerally get upset about it he blames our support for Ukraine on Israel I suppose you agree with our support for Ukraine He believes he was mauled by demons. He says the U.S. is studying alien weapon systems. He goes on and on about the Jews and this and the Jews and that and Jews and that.

I think it pollutes your own presentation. Well, I bring it up not to, bring it up not to legitimate. When you say, Tucker Carlson, I said, who gives a shit what Tucker Carlson thinks? Well, if I told you, Tucker Carlson believes January 6th is an inside job, you would tell me, who gives us shit what Tucker Carlson says about January 6th? Well, first of all, I disagree with Carlson's view on January 6th. However, I think it would be a mistake to underrate the influence he has politically, especially in Republican circles.

And that's my point. My point is not that because Carlson says it, it must be objectively true. I'm not making that point at all. So I support Israel, I'm supporting, I also support Ukraine. So this is, I'm not saying it because I'm not saying, well, Carlson says it and therefore it is objectively true. That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that what is happening in Gaza is reaching historic thresholds, and those historic thresholds are now corresponding with a growing, vocal,

opposition to aid to Israel, military support for Israel, economic support for Israel, and actually intervention against Israel's behavior by the Europeans in Gaza. You said this, and you haven't been following the show, I've been critical of Israel. So it's not, I'm not freaking out at the idea of criticizing Israel. But I do think that if we're going to, you know, Israel has its work cut out for it in terms of a real threat that it's facing and a future that is unknown. You know, just to make what's become a tried example of if 10 years ago Israel had taken drastic action against Hamas or even in 2022, everybody would have said, what the hell are they doing? What are they? Hamas is no threat to Israel. Gaza is no threat to Israel.

But, you know, they would have been right to have taken stronger action against Tamas, and they would have never been able to prove that they were right. When they start to lose people like Tucker Carlson and things like that, it's really not, it can't be relevant to the consideration of whether Israel is, this is what you're doing. When you say that 500 former, we say 500, 100, hundreds of former Israeli officials former shin bet. This is presenting a very powerful case, like concessions against interest,

admissions against interest. These are people, patriots of Israel, saying what we're doing is wrong. So anybody who's pro-Israel has to stop and think, oh, what's going on here if we're losing the people who care about the country most of all? I would just suggest to mix in the people who also hate the country and, you know,

embrace the worst anti-Semites out there undermines the case. You'll know the audience better than I will, and there is no doubt about it. But as an intellectual matter, I'm not fighting for Carlson's legitimacy. You're trying to say it's widespread. I'm saying it's reaching to big part of the Trump days. Israel has to concern us up with it. Absolutely, it does as a practical matter. But if Israel is doing the right.

right thing by the people who care, the moral people who care about it, survival. And Tucker Carlson was complaining, and the whole United States of America turns against it, then Israel may just have to do what it has to do. In the end, the heart of this conversation has to be about whether Israel is doing the right thing or not. And we agree on that. And if America turns against Israel, despite, is doing the right thing. And I'm going to make an analogy one second. They don't have to do that.

But I have a visceral reaction to it. There was something I heard yesterday. And then we'll get into the nuts and bolts. Malcolm Gladwell says, you know, I have to admit, it's ridiculous to let trans women compete in female sports. And he says, I have to admit, I was cowed. I was so intimidated by the world I was living in at the time that I went and I said that, even though it was in retrospect, it clearly wasn't right now.

He didn't actually say to my ear whether or not he believed it at the time, but he was acknowledging that the psychological gravity that came down on him caused that. It was a particular moment, which has passed. If we did a replay of that exact panel at the Sloan conference, this coming, March, it runs even exactly the opposite direction. And it would be, I suspect, near unanimity in the room that trans athletes have no place in the female category. I don't think this is any question. I just think it was a strange, I mean, I felt, I mean, I was, the reason I'm ashamed of my performance of that panel, because I share your position 100 percent, and I

was count the idea of saying anything on this issue I was you know I believe in retrospect in a dishonest way I was I was objective in a dishonest way I let a lot of really of howlers pass well I think there's a all of these arguments are embedded in larger social and cultural trends right this was never really an argument about sports this was a much, much larger argument about a political argument, a cultural argument. And I think that those cultural wins have clearly shifted that kind of. And this is part of my concern with Israel, because I'm feeling it too. There's such pressure here at this point to go in the direction that you're describing. And then maybe for all intents and purpose, for all practical matters,

needs to exceed to that because it has other fish to fry. It has, it has, it needs to support the United States. It might need the aid. It needs someone to turn to. And it may have to, you know, as I said, give in to that pressure and wait to live in, to fight another day. But no matter what, someone has to explain to me how Israel is going to survive 10 years from now next door. to a Hamas, which is going to beat its chest with victory. We're still standing. You didn't beat us. We're going to do October 7th again, the first chance we get.

And by the way, you saw what happened to Ukraine with a thousand drones, you know, how much is the word? $800 each or whatever it is. We're going to do that to Israel. And Israel's point of him, by the way, Omar Bartov, this last thing, Omar Bartov was on the show. You know, he's a genocide who said that Israel's committing genocide. I asked him, because I used his own words. I said, does Israel need to defeat Hamas? You know what he said to me?

Yes. You say, Hitler could not have said it better. These people must be taken at their word. If a self-proclaimed liberation organization calls for the extermination of the Jewish state, do not pretend that it is calling for anything else. The absence of clarity is the beginning of complicity. And you go on to conclude, most liberal-minded, optimistic, well-meaning people are loath to believe this.

I agree with you or not. They would rather think that fanaticism is merely an epiphenominal facade for politics, that opinions can be changed, that everyone can be corrected and improved. No, there are those who practice what they preach and are proud of it. This is Bartov talking.

They view those who act otherwise, who compromise and pull back from the ultimate conclusions as weaklings, as targets to be easily conquered and subdued by their own greater detourable, termination and ruthlessness. And then finally you say, when they say they will kill you, they will kill you if you do not kill them first. But I just want to know if you still stand by your words, and I'll add more than say, by all available means of political, judicial, and if necessary, by the use of legitimate force, for these are people who are Hamas who mean what they say,

if you do not destroy them, they will destroy you. This is your words. Correct. It's fine if you don't believe them anymore, but just let either, I'm looking for clarity. Like, do you longer think Hamas stands by what it says? Do you no longer think they're the threat that has to be destroyed? They are a threat that has to be destroyed. Okay, so we agree on that. So how do you destroy them? So how do you destroy them? That's the next question. The first, we've established something that we both agree that the war aim to destroy Hamas, legitimate. No, because that's not the war aim. That's the whole point. If it were the war aim, what would destroying Hamas look like now?

Right. That is the question. Okay. That's the question. Exactly. How do you destroy Hamas? Do you destroy Hamas by destroying Gaza? Tell me how you do destroy Hamas.

You destroy Hamas in two ways. A, you operate against them militarily. B, you provide an alternative. He says, if you don't kill Hamas, if you don't kill them, they will kill you first. This is what he says about Hamas. I said, well, how is Israel supposed to do that? He says, militarily. And by giving them an alternative.

intertive, meaning some other leadership. How militarily? That's up for Israel to figure out. So we have an impossible situation here. And with all the, everything that you say here, that I think has to be taken very seriously because I don't know what the right answer is. And I cannot stand seeing, knowing that so many people are dying. One still has to say, you know, say, and by the way, if you're not, you know, if you

Israel stops this war, they will be safe and they will be secure. So let me give you a direct answer. Will they be safe and will they be secure if they take Professor Pape's advice, in your opinion? They could be. They could be. And here's the way... Ain't good enough. Well, is it Professor Pape's advice or he's just telling us with the situation? Well, no, let me explain what it would mean for Israel to be safe and what it would have meant on October 7th for 2023 for Israel to be safe. What it would mean is for the IDF to have followed its own preparation and

rules which were to respond within minutes of any outward incursion from Gaza. And that did not happen. And it didn't happen in minutes. It didn't happen in an hour. It didn't happen in two hours. It didn't happen for seven hours in some places, 12 hours and others. The reason October 7 killed over 1,100 Israelis is, is no doubt Hamas wanted to do that. Hamas has wanted to do that for years. The operational reason, Noam, why that happened, is because the IDF did not respond. that is the past i'm talking about going forward this is the same it's what's keeping uh israel safe from hamas is not killing hamas because hamas by all the numbers we have including the idf's most recent numbers which are a few months out of date umas has about the same number of fighters

today as it had on october seven so this is uh what american intelligence is reporting this is what the IDF intelligence is reporting. So we basically don't have identity, identical estimates, but pretty close to identical estimates. So what's happened in the last two years is, yes, Israel has killed some 10, 12,000 Hamas fighters, something like that. Most people, that is the Israeli intelligence and U.S. intelligence agree on that. But at the same time, somewhere between 10 to 15,000 new Hamas fighters have been recruited. So somewhere around Hamas today has somewhere around 23,000 fighters, something like that number. It had about 20. Well, but I'm trying to explain to you, what would it take to be secure? What it takes is the IDF to protect Israel from Hamas going into Israel,

greater Israel, into those settlements. That is what, the IDF's doing that right now, and they could do that, they're inside Gaza. They can do that from the perimeter of Gaza. They will have to do that. If they move the entire population of Gaza to the Sinai, they will have to form a line, a defensive barrier to defend Israel. So it's the defensive barrier that is the ultimate guarantor of Israel from Hamas. So let me get in there. And then I found the letter I can read. Except for missile attacks. Well, there's, yes, but those are the, yes, Israel can use the Iron Dome. They can do all, they can't completely stop that. But the point is that you say, what is the thing that's really threatening Israel's existence?

It was that October 7 and that attack on October 7. And Dan, what made that attack so deadly was not that Hamas suddenly woke up one day and say, oh, hey, we'd like to do an attack like this. What made that attack so deadly is the IDF did not show up for many hours, and that's what allowed the butchery to take place unimpeded. Okay. First of all, that gets a dance point. First of all, the idea of intelligence failures and not showing up, this is, this happens periodically in every country in the world, and Israel can't bet everything on the idea that they will never fail. They never drop the ball. They'll never miss it. some intelligence. Number two, Dan is right. The rockets go in and go in and go in and go in, and Israel is living their lives in and out of bomb shelters in a way that you would not allow your country to impose on you. If we in New York were constantly in and out of bomb shelters, we would not tolerate it, and we'd expect the American president do whatever it has.

has to do to stop it. We can't go on this way forever, especially as technology improves and improves and improves. And as I already said, Ukraine inflicted tremendous damage on Russia with these cheap dime store drones. They just swarmed Russia, one of the most powerful countries in the world, and Russia was helpless to stop it. So, having said all that, I've been asking people a question lately, which is over the last 10 years, we heard that, or 15 years, we've heard these horrible stories about this Israeli blockade of Gaza. It was an outdoor prison. Israel's not letting anything in, anything out, and it's terribly unjust. And my point has been, okay, well, if you want to stop the war now, now that we know that that blockade was not nearly strong

enough, that actually, here they are two years later, they still have, they can still muster a rocket from time to time. They have bullets. They have everything that apparently Israel was keeping out. Will people like Professor Pape support Israel in the draconian blockade that Israel is going to have to

impose on these people in order for it to achieve what it is that you're saying they will be able to achieve by locking up Gaza. You are telling me that what Israel has to do is really create an outdoor prison in Gaza. Really

make sure that not a friggin' thing goes in there, and that's how they'd be secure. And you know very well that the people that you're talking about now that are not supporting Israel, they're not going to support that. We're going to see pictures every day of this horrible siege of Gaza. That's, if you leave Hamas in charge, have no illusions about what that's going to look like if Israel, as you say, is going to keep itself secure as you claim they have a right to. So hold it. So first of all, I'm telling you...

In detail, explain it to me. So I'm saying, number one, is defense, okay? Absolutely, hold it, impenetrable defense. And the idea that was, describe impenetrable, no, no, impenetrable means. What is impenetrable means? The idea follows its rules. It responds within minutes to an incursion, which they are monitoring every second. Rockets are okay with you. No, no. Number two, they have a right to zero rights. No, hold it. Do they have a right to zero? I'm giving you the plan. Number one is, number one is the impenetrable defense.

Defense is job one. Number two is you do selective military attacks to attack Hamas leaders and cadre directly, but surgically. They killed all Hamas leaders. No, one pops up. Kill them surgically and selectively. Doesn't stop anything. And number three is you allow. allow there to be a growth of an alternative to Hamas inside of Gaza and inside of the Palestinians.

Those are the three principles of assuring Israel's security going forward. Now, let's put that against the alternative plan. There's an alternative plan, which is exterminate or kill large numbers of Palestinians. You'll change you to subject now. If that is the old two choices, the one I laid out is by far Israel's best bet. Okay, but let's stick to this one. So, you know the old Steve Martin routine? I'm going to get it wrong.

He says, you can be a millionaire and not pay taxes. You can be a millionaire and not pay taxes. He says, first, get a million dollars. Then don't pay taxes. You can be Israel and be public and secure. First, make your defense is impenetrable. Then don't let him out. Like, yeah.

that's great. Wouldn't it be great if Israel can make their defenses impenetrable? They've learned that they can't make their defenses impenetrable. And when the world sees what it looks like to try to make their defenses impenetrable, the world chokes on it. They're disgusted by it. And it is, it is, it is horrible to look at. So how are you and I, you and I can say this because our kids are not going in and out of bomb shelters. And Israel, Israel can say, you know what? This is about regard to war crimes. That's another matter. But assuming these are all

legal military targets and assuming Israel can say, you know what, even if we lose the support of the world, we have the right not to live this way anymore. And by the way, it could stop tomorrow because all that has to happen is they have to say, okay, Israel

no more. We want peace. Israel. Can I just ask one question? How are you... Can I read the letter? Yes. But I, I think that your plan sounds amazing. My question would be is how are you supposed to surgically remove Hamas operatives when they intentionally embed themselves among civilians? And number two, do you know what Hamas does to Palestinian people who try to form alternate governments? There is an alternative to Hamas in the West Bank. That alternative works with Israel. That

alternative helps Israel basically detain, kill Hamas, fighters, leaders in the West Bank. And what you are seeing is what's occurring in Gaza is now starting to be so bad that it's starting to break that relationship in the West Bank. So that there was a model here. That model, I'm not saying was perfect. I'm not saying it's wonderful. But the idea that there was no possible model, and that what is occurring now is going to be better for Israel's security, I think it's just not the case. And I'm coming at this, not because I'm saying Israel should go away. I'm saying that there's no perfect 100% security, okay?

And the reason for that is because Israel is fundamentally seven million Jews surrounded by hundreds of Muslims who hate it. Millions of Muslims. I'm sorry, hundreds of millions. I'm sorry, hundreds of millions of Muslims who hate it. So this is 7 million, okay, surrounded by this. There's no doubt about that. So Israel, more than the United States, has to be super smart about how it moves forward.

Because Israel is a tiny country of 7 million. It depends critically on the trade with the EU. If the EU were to cut off all trade, I don't mean military support, I mean all trade, That's virtually 10% of Israel's economy gone forever. Okay. So these are the risks that Israel is running. I'm not saying that Israel doesn't have the right to make its own decisions. I'm here because I'm trying to advocate to the people who care the most about Israel in the country, I believe.

And I'm doing it from a place of wanting Israel to be there 10 years from now, that this is not going in the right direction. This is going, in fact, in a negative direction pretty quickly, and the big operation that's about to come could push it over the edge. Make it basically irreversible what's happening to the moral case for Israel. That's why this is so critical right now. If it's irreversible, it's already reversible. No, no, no. I don't think that's right, no. It's really horrible right now, but you go forward beyond killing 5% of the Palestinian population.

It's 5% right now. That becomes 10%, 15%. Now this is going down, not just in history as the worst sort of civilian punishment via democracy. This will be in the realms of the worst of the worst. There is also, I want to read the letter. I say two things. First of all, part of the story is that the world really failed to, I mean, and it's just, it's just, you know, post facto um observation it's not going to change anything it's not going to undo what you're saying

and what you're describing may be real although irreversible is always things are never as irreversible as we think but the world failed to unite against Hamas as it ought to have in terms of expressing how unacceptable it was for Hamas to keep its civilians in harm's way, not wear uniforms, do commit all the war crimes that had committed, which were designed to have their civilians killed, as we know from Sinwas communication. And international law, you know, is actually on Israel's side for most of this, meaning that it is, it is on Hamas. if they create legitimate targets around their civilians. As we've said before on this podcast,

when Britain knew that the blitz was coming, they evacuated a million and a half people in a matter of a week or something. Amaz told all his people to stay in place. And if they had not told their people to stay in place, you'd be not here criticizing Israel. And somewhere that has been lost in the shuffle. That was a very important point of the conversation a year and a half ago. Yes, I said, I said it.

I just said that. What's happening is we're moving. I actually preface by saying that. It's a post-factor observation. Okay, then I'm just agreeing with you. But it is still a mark of shame on the people who did that and who were sanctimonious now. Really? Okay.

Here's the letter. Now I've had, listen, you and I become friends. But we, on the podcast, it was Noel Hall's bar. We say, what's on my mind. I've had a problem with you from time to time in a sense of exaggerations. And I don't like exaggerations. I will, if you, if I exaggerated, I'll admit it right on the air that I did that. And I'm not going to mince any word.

So you tell me what it says. I will trust that that is the actual accurate. I'm not going to give it a letter. So I'm not going to try to wiggle out of that. But I'm going to give me an example of because it's funny. I remember this and I never expressed it, but it always kind of irk me. One time in an interview you said that Trump told people to inject bleach. I'm like, Trump never told anybody to inject bleach.

That never happened. This was kind of an anti-Trump thing that went around. And this kind of... Well, this one, we might have to just disagree because I watched him do it live on the air. I'll bet you... I bet you didn't use the word... Maybe he didn't use the word inject. I mean, I will...

Closer to the mic. Oh, okay, sorry. So maybe he didn't use... He did not tell anybody to take bleach. What he told, what he said was... I remember the whole thing that was yesterday. He says, well, I heard that they're applying, there's some therapy now with light. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light.

And I think you said that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting. Right, and then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute, and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets on the lungs and it does a tremendous number of the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that, so that you're going to have to use medical doctors with.

But it sounds interesting to me. Which can kill the virus. and, you know, I was wondering, I was asking, he was asking, was it Burks or whoever, I think it was Burksla, Fouchy, you know, I wonder, is there, would there be a way to apply disinfectant directly to the lungs, but, you know, the doctors would have to tell us about that. That's what I believe. That's what I heard. And if I summarized it in a way that you don't like that, I'll take that back and I'll agree with you, that's what he said. And that's enough for me that he's telling us to inject. They didn't tell anybody's doing anything.

He said the doctors will have to decide. But let me tell you how not crazy what he said was. I remember looking up at the time. There had been numerous medical studies about whether or not direct application of disinfectant to the lungs could kill viruses. And I think one of them, if I remember incorrectly, actually showed some problem. It wasn't about COVID. You know, if you're bullshitting around your friends, I wonder if they injected something in lungs, if that could kill some of the virus because the lung.

of being, you know, with this site of keen storm, whatever is, I don't remember. And so is it, yeah, now, of course, the President of the United States should not be out there from the seat of his pants saying such nonsense, and he should understand how people can misinterpret him and how his enemies will weaponize it again. So then how are we disagreeing if you don't think he should have been saying this? I still don't quite get it. Because he should have known that people quite often will, in bad faith, twist his words. And he can come right back on the next day, because he's,

He was on almost every single day at this point in time, so he could just take it back the next day. There's a certain ethic of that I think someone like me, someone like you, people who have an audience have to have about never, ever, ever, ever exaggerating facts. Never, ever, ever. Take something like Tyler Cowan, he wouldn't, anything he says, you don't even need to look it up. So anyway, so here's the letter.

And I'm agree, no, let me just say on principle. I am agreeing with you. And I'm saying that, okay, you don't like that. I said that about Trump, but we're agreeing on the facts. Here I'm holding my own, but here on the letter, I'm just telling you, if I've exaggerated that letter, I'm just going to admit that that's not quite

right, but that's not... I don't admit it, but if I didn't take the time to look it up, it goes into the bloodstream to inflame the very people you're lamenting. Well, let's see what it's... Let's see what it says. Let's see what it says. Dear Mr. President, there's a letter to Trump, right?

Okay. Mr. President, I write you on behalf of the over 550 members of Commanders for Israel Security, CIS, all former senior officers of the IDF, Mossad, Shinbet, Police, NSC, and Foreign Service. We wish to urge you to leverage your upcoming meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu to realize your vision, end the Gaza war, bring all the hostages home, and end the death and suffering of innocence, launch a Hamas Free morning after. Death and suffering of innocence. So let's just slow down a little bit.

End the death and suffering of innocence. He doesn't mean death and suffering of innocence. He doesn't mean death and suffering of innocence. They're talking about... Should we pause here and list a war that didn't have death and suffering of innocence? I'm just pointing out that they are calling attention to death and suffering of innocence. So if we're going to part of... They're also pointing out bringing the hostages.

Well, that's another point, too. I'm not disagreeing they're adding in. But the death and suffering of the innocence are the Palestinian. What they're going to say here. Well, let's finish them with saying. The death and suffering innocence is not accusation of a war crime. Launch a Hamas free morning after for this trip and pay. the way for new regional security coalition that includes Israel. Mr. President, you create

its historic opportunity, please don't let it slip away. Your approach is supported by over 70% of the Israeli public. Likewise, the IDF chief of staff has concluded that the IDF has attained all that can be accomplished by military force and that it's time to leverage its achievements through diplomacy. Indeed, is our professional judgment as well that the IDF has long accomplished its dual mission of dismantling Hamas governance and essentially destroying its military capabilities. Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel. And as demonstrated, this year on multiple fronts, not least in Lebanon and Iran, Israel possesses overwhelming power and the ability to neutralize any threat that might arise from Gaza in the future.

While further fighting is likely to kill a few more terrorists, it risks the lives of hostages will continue to cost yet more IDF casualties and prolong the suffering of innocent Palestinians. There you go. More broadly, it is likely to cause a loss of momentum in leveraging military achievements in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran. There you go. Furthermore, okay, I'm reading here. to find accusation of war crime or unjust?

Well, okay, I'm going to, look, if the words, these are close enough, and there's other former military security officials who are using the word, including prime minister's war crime. So if, in fact, the word war crime doesn't exist there, no. I will admit that right off the bat. But if you look at, if you listen to the substance of what you're saying, it is 99% what we are talking about. Let me read one more paragraph, then I'll tell you what I think this is saying.

Furthermore, it is also the professional judgment of 100 of CIA's retired generals that are partial and staggered hostage deal and a limited ceasefire entailed the same risks to the lives of remaining hostages, the idea of soldiers and to innocent Palestinians, and will most likely lead to renewed fighting, all while reducing prospects for expanding the Abraham Accords and forging a regional alliance that includes Israel. I just want to scan us to make sure there's a few more paragraphs, but they're basically, I'll read the final paragraph. With your support and firm demand to change course now to end the war, bring all hostages home,

and make room for stabilizing diplomacy that secures Hamas-free Gaza governance, the Prime Minister will be able to stand up to the extreme minority that is continuously pushing for evermore destabilizing violence. Mr. President, we're probably not wrong in suggesting that nowhere on earth are you more popular than in Israel. That was the case even prior to your courageous, forceful, and effective action in Iran, the vast which you opposed. The vast Israeli majority now awaits your similar. similarly decisive decision and assertive leadership to bring this war to an end, the hostage is home, and start creating a new bright and stable future.

So how I read this letter is these people are saying, we're probably not going to be able to achieve our objective. Maybe they're saying, maybe, you know, Soto Volcher is I saying, they're saying we're losing the world's support here. That's what they're saying because of the suffering of the Palestinians. Israel is very important to always say. Israel is psychologically overwrought and distraught by the plight of these hostages. And these military people think that that should be the priority right now.

And yes, if you can't accomplish your goals. And I said this on fucking day one about the, it said, if it turns out that Israel kills all these people and they have nothing to show for it, remember saying that, that will be too awful to contemplate. So what they're saying reverberates with me that if they're right, because there are people similarly credentialed who disagree after all. But if they are right that all the more deaths that happen from this day on will be in vain and Israel will find themselves in no better position after they kill another, God forbid, tens of thousands of Palestinians, innocent people than before, Israel should stop the war. Yes. That is a mature position for a patriot, military person to have about their country's strategy. It doesn't mean they're signing on the dotted line about war crimes, genocide, immorality, unjustness. I'm right away going to say, I won't take back that Ehud Omer, former Prime Minister of Israel,

said Israel's committing war crimes in Gaza, okay? And I'm also not going to take back, although I'm not going to go find them, that there are other high-ranking former Israeli officials, security officials who will say something close to that. I will take back that in that letter, the word war crime is not there. And so I'll even go further and say, Noam, I apologize for, if I said that too quickly in my sort of listing of what I said, I'll even go further and apologize. What I won't do, however, is say that excuses everything that takes away the substance of what I'm saying. Because in fact, that is the substance of the Foreign Affairs article that I published in detail,

not opinion, laying out chapter and verse, fact after fact, of Hamas recruiting, the number of the percentages of Palestinians dying, the details of how the assessments are being done. that we can lift the fog of all this confusion, putting it in historic context. That's what that does. Can I illustrate the problem? And by the way, if, and just, I'm just going to say, please, the words, work rhymes are not there. I will readily admit that. And I'm going further and I'm saying, I'm sorry. I should not have said that word about that one. Well, well, you go one step further and offer dinner at Il Molinos after the show.

Well, actually, I think that's fair. I think that's a fair. Let's say something. I don't know the answer to this, obviously. You have more expertise than I do in military matters, but as we've seen the last 50 years, the experts of military matters famously get it wrong. I will say this is not to be like narkey,

but it's an important illustration. You predicted terrible consequences if we were to take action in Iran. Many people did. Many of Trump's enemies did. Many of Netanyahu's enemies did. And it didn't happen. Well, hold it. Could we do the same thing here? Could you find me the quote where I predicted the negative, the horrible consequence? Because my analysis in detail, and on all my tweets, was not predicting the negative consequences. My contribution, because what I did with Iran, so I used to teach for the U.S. Air Force. I taught conventional targeting strategy for years for the U.S. Air Force.

My book, Bombing to Win, covers every air campaign in history in the 20th century, still required reading by the military. I just gave a big talk to the U.S. Army War College about this just literally 10 days ago here. So this is an area that I'm not just kind of cavalierly talking about. What I said in the foreign affairs piece was I laid out in detail how the bombing of especially a Fordeaux, and this is before it happened, was highly unlikely, virtually unlikely, to demonstrably destroy the 408 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. So the key number in all of my work in the last three months, and also every analysis we've done in my class where we hypothetically bomb Iran

the end of every quarter for the last 20 years, has shown that we would never be able to confidently show we destroyed the 408 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. And despite President Trump's claims, we now know from Israeli intelligence, we know from DIA, we know that we have no evidence, literally zero evidence, as my article

said we would not, that we destroyed even one kilogram. I actually gave credit that we would destroy get some evidence of more than that, but we have literally nothing. Sorry, no. But what do I have? First of all, we hear reports back and forth. And again, it's totally possible they didn't destroy a single ounce of this stuff. The latest report I heard

from Israeli intelligence was that it was more successful than they had it first. thought but the more successful has to do with destroying the centerfuges in terms of the the 408 there's just no there's not a say all you can find me the evidence but obviously obviously yeah i love this by the way because this is actually real um data fights obviously i love the data fights obviously the concern was not simply that we wouldn't destroy the enriched uranium, the concern was that this would lead, I think you said this, I'm trying to a cycle of retaliations that would cause America to have to strike against.

Well, I said there's a risk of it. I didn't say it would certainly lead to it. I said that there's a risk that we wouldn't, we'd start down a road. And by the way, that risk is not over. I mean, we're actually only at the beginning of the conflict with Iran now with the United States. So, so this is not a case where, well, Iran hasn't done anything to America in the last, you know, month and a half, and therefore we're good, not a chance. This is a much different world that we're in now. And so this is not a case where the conflict with Iran is somehow over because Donald Trump's decided to focus on invading Chicago. I mean, this is just a different world. This is from GROC. I don't know if it's accurate or not. I usually like to use chat GPT, but

We don't have time for that. Okay. What is it saying? It quotes you, but it may be hallucinating. Yeah. It says, this would create an ongoing, quote, cycle of strikes and counter strikes, potentially drawing in regional allies like Israel and expanding the conflict beyond nuclear sites. Pape warned that such a scenario could evolve into a broader war with no clear final solilo.

Could. Yeah. Yeah. All that is true, but it could and it still could. Okay. So the con, first of all, it did involve exactly the, the, the, strikes and counter strikes, because what happened is Iran used its ballistic missiles directly again. Nobody says will, because no one is stupid enough to know. Everybody knows it's...

Yeah, but no, those words are... But if you write an article saying it could, you are on the side of thinking it's more likely than not. You don't write an article about something that you think is less likely to have. The striking counterstrike happened as that wording is insinuating almost immediately. Going down a road means that there is a medium and longer term, and we are still in that medium or longer term. My only point is that the Hawks turned out. My only point is that when, that people with military expertise, such as your side. I'm not pulling back on this. This is not the same. This is not the same. I was, I was, Bob, let me finish my sentence. I apologize on the other one. Let me finish. You don't need to apologize

That's because my only, I'm not asking you. I was making a point. The point was that people with expertise, the hawks sometimes get it right. The hawks sometimes get it wrong. And the fact that these hawks have told Netanyahu they think this is going to fail, it might fail, or they might be wrong about its failure like so many people. And I'm saying, I don't know. I pray that Netanyahu is not doing this for the political reasons,

to keep himself out of jail, prosecution, all these stories, which are all possible. I don't know what happened. I'm not going, I have no idea what the Netanyahu's intentions are. I'm talking about, what are the, no, we're not going to be mind-readers. But you have created, but you've got, I'm almost fished, I swear. But you're creating a picture here, which I think is, if I'm being fair here, which where Israel will pull out, rockets will still.

come in. Right. Which is what happened. Israel will, from time to time, Israelis will die. They'll have to live this way. They'll have to have a doubly or triply oppressive

blockade than it had prior to October 7th. This will make them a pariah in the world just simply on that. And that everything is about Israel. And yet the world can't muster any united disgust with Hamas

or the policy and leadership that cannot bring itself to ever even say yes, we'll recognize Israel's right to exist if they'll agree to certain border changes. The world was with Israel for almost the full two years, no. So the world was with Israel. It's not true that the world stood in Israel's way. This was Sinwar's insight.

I'm just saying it's not true that the Europeans tried to physically intercede in what Israel was doing. These things have changed and the reason it's changed is because the thresholds of death that are occurring

in Gaza are reaching historic level. That's not the reason it's changing. That's not the reason it's changing. I wish that were the reason it was changing. So what's your reason? Because these thresholds have been met by many countries, many times. A million people have died in Russia and it hasn't reached that threshold. So here, I was sloppy and repeated something I had heard a number of times but had failed to look up.

The numbers coming out of the Russian-Ukraine war usually report casualties, which include dead and wounded. So while we hear reports of close to $1 million on each side, the number of confirmed dead on each side is somewhere in the $300,000 range, although people suspect it's higher. It is not the threshold of death. It is that Western progressives and right-wing anti-Semites have basically from, on October 8th, been protesting against Israel, this has inflamed them. Please let me be clear here. The death is awful, and if only it would inflame them everywhere in the world that it happens, it would speak very well for them.

But Western governments are not backing out because of the threshold of death. Western governments are backing out because they read the polls of their population. If the population was gung-ho behind Israel, they would not be backing out. They are following the lead of their, as I said, their progressives and their right-wingers, and the threshold of death is not. I think you're a very smart man.

Am I wrong what I just said? I think that you are missing. Let's talk about the historic threshold. Let's end up there. Let's talk about the threshold. And define musician. I say the historic threshold. Yeah.

So up until, the last six, eight months, the civilian punishment that was the worst by a democracy against a country was when the United States and Britain, two democracies,

also with the help of the Soviet Union, I might add, not a democracy, killed somewhere between 2 and 4% of German civilians in World War II. That's the percentage that we killed in World War II. World War II. We don't know exact numbers. It could be as low as 2%, could be as high as 4%.

But that's the exact percentage. And before that point, before Gaza, this was the highest percentage of, by a Western democracy. I'm taking your word for these percentages. I'm not going to do the research. I'm taking your word for it. Well, they can go to bombing to win. It's all in the book and it's all in detail. This is not something, again, this is not a, again, You're, I'm willing to go. But we know that four million people died. And I'm just trying to show you that when you show me something where there is an actual error, I'll admit that. I'm not just going to roll over and say, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Four million people have been killed in the Congo and it didn't reach the world's threshold. The point here is this is now at 5%. So you're saying because it's democracy, though, you'll, it's getting a different level of scrutiny than what would happen, say, in other parts of the world. Well, authoritarian governments, we're used to think. that authoritarian governments are so evil. This is what we say about, say, China and Tenement Square. They're so evil that they'll bring out tanks and they'll shoot civilians. You know, Robert, let's just end with this.

So we don't, we don't think that democracies would do this. Now, maybe we're wrong. Maybe we should update our beliefs and say democracies can be just as vicious of authoritarianism. I think the numbers of death are too awful to contemplate. plate. And again, it's, it is quite important, at least between you and me, for us to always focus on the fact that much of these deaths are part of Hamas's strategy, not Israel's strategy. However, so why are we helping them out? However, and I also want to say, this Hamas is one way to weaken Israel, please let me. And we're helping them out.

Please, so, and that just as a matter, like a philosophical matter, percentages, they are informative in some way, but, you know, my right to not be killed immorally unjustly somehow shouldn't depend on how many people live in my city. You know what I mean? Like, like, if I'm one of, if I'm one citizen in a city of millions, I was just one 10 to 1% is one sitting in a small town. So at some point, the consideration can't simply be simplified in percentage.

It has to be analyzed in terms of the justness or unjustness of the action and who is responsible. And I do believe Israel is the way we didn't get to it. I'm going to say one of the things before we go just on this genocide thing, which is astounding to me. We have to go. I have a rehearsal now. Oh, do we have time to do the ad? You guys can do the ad, yeah. Listen.

Just as, because you didn't use the word genocide, but just how to share this with you. There was an article that came out a couple days ago that a secret internal Israeli military report came out along the lines of what the letter saying that actually our whole plan in Rafa failed. Hamas still has all these fighters, nothing worked. Yeah, as I've been saying. Every one of our objectives was a failure. Yeah. This has been always going to be the case for the last year. And I thought to myself, how fascinating that the people like Bartov and many people that you're quoting make so much of the fact that among the ten times Gallant referred to Hamas, one time he says we're fighting human animals, as that's an intention for genocide.

And yet, when a secret document of the IDF emerges, It has nothing about wanting to kill Palestinians, nothing about genocide. It actually shows, with 100% clarity, that their objective was to defeat Hamas. And they consider themselves a failure, not because they haven't been able to defeat Hamas, as opposed to a success because they've killed so many Palestinians. I have never imbuneed Israel. If somebody believes, but it's a very important argument, if somebody believes that Israel's intentions commit genocide, then why behind closed doors

do they think they're failing? They're succeeding wildly, right? According to what I'm... Follow my point? Yes. Notice that in two years I've been writing on this. CNN op-eds,

multiple pieces. I've never impugned the intentions of the Israeli... But you won't dare write an article saying it's not genocide. No, hold it. Would you dare write an article saying it wasn't genocide?

Well, I can... If you bring me back on, there's a whole bunch to say about that. What we're disagreeing about... Would you write an article saying it's not genocide? I would tell you why we could never know. I wrote three academic articles in 2012 in saying that the problem with the word genocide is there's no operational criteria for what counts. And that's what you're having with Omar Bartoff.

And this debate, you know how many genocides the West has stopped since we've had the genocide treaty known? How many have we stopped? Zero genocides. And do you know why we never stop a genocide? Because the treaty and all the law written around the treaty has no operational detail. I went toe to toe with the responsibility to protect people and crowd. I did in these articles detailed sort of intellectual discussion. And I'm telling you, the big, so the big thing I want to end on is we agree Israel should be here 10 years from now.

What we're disagreeing on is not Israel. motives, what we're disagreeing on, and what I want to keep us on, is what's the best strategy? And it's not true that just saying, I am Israeli leader, and I get to decide,

means they get the best strategy. They can have bad strategy and good intention. Apropole of that Malcolm Gladwell analogy. What was that analogy again? He said that he went along with the either. Oh, yeah, right. Sure, sure. Would you dare

write an article today saying these people who are accusing Israel of genocide don't have the evidence, they don't have the proof. They are not on firm ground. The article I'm glad to write is they could not just these people, but we've never been able to prove genocide before the fact. And the problem is not the intentionality of the different people on the different sides. Literally the problem, gnome, is in the treaty itself. Right.

But you're saying they are, if the treaty is so vague, it's all in the eye of a beholder. The logical, the undeniable, unavoidable, logical implication of what you're saying is that the people who are accusing Israel of genocide are not on firm ground. They don't have what they would need to have to make that accusation. Yeah, I agree with that. And I said this in this articles years ago. Yeah, but now is the time to write it. Well, no, not if you care about, not if you want to save Israel. So, this isn't going to save Israel.

If Israel's pursuing a strategy that will be counterproductive to its existence, which is what I'm arguing, then that's got to be the conversation. Okay. Because you switch it over to somebody else. This is not, nobody cares about, what really matters here, and what I'm talking about is we're agreeing Israel should exist 10 years from now. I'm saying the current plan. is going to go in the counterproductive.

We have to end. Okay. I hope in your heart you care about Israel, and that's not just a rhetorical thing. I don't know if you care about it. I would be here otherwise. Why am I debating with... We need to get dinner again.

I don't know how long you're in town for, but... Oh, no, I got to go back tomorrow. Okay. We have to end... Normally we go later. We have to end us because I have a rehearsal. Congratulations on your rehearsal, no. Thank you, man.

Good night. What is it? You were saying at Lincoln Center. But I was just going to say you're playing at Lincoln Center. Yes, I'm playing. That's why you're rehearsing. Okay. Bye, everybody. Big honor, no.

All right.