The Duran Podcast - World In Chaos w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

Episode Date: October 11, 2023

World In Chaos w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

All right. We are live. We have with us, Alexander Merkirce and the one and only Professor Jeffrey Sachs. I have all of your information in the description box down below, and I will add it as a pin comment. So you can read all of Jeffrey Sachs' articles, his analysis, and everything that he's putting out there. It is fantastic. And thank you to everybody that is watching us. Thank you to our moderators, Alexander. Professor Sacks, we have got. quite a lot to talk about. So let's get into it. Indeed. Yes, I mean, let's go straight in, because we want to discuss rather two topics today. One is an very important article which you've written about the evolution of the financial system in the world. But I think we must start with the events in the Middle East, in Israel, in the Palestinian territories, in Gaza. And to most of us, This has come, it seems out of a clear blue sky in the sense that we've always known that there were problems there, many, many very deep-seated, serious problems. But I certainly wasn't expecting that just over the last couple of days, the events would take this dramatic turn that they have. And I was wondering, Professor Sachs, I mean, you know the region, you know every region, but you know this region.

What are your initial thoughts? I mean, where are we heading? It looks as if, thank heavens, there is now an effort to try and avoid an expansion of the war. We're seeing the Israeli government and the US government saying there's no evidence yet that Iran was involved. But the events that we've just seen, they do, to my mind, illustrate another point, which is that this underlying conflict in Israel between Israel and the Palestinians remains unresolved and continues to be incredibly dangerous. And there still seems to me to be a failure of diplomacy there to try to resolve it. You know, the Secretary General of the UN, Antonio Guterres, said it right,

that at the core of this further disaster in the world and this profound catastrophe and destabilization is 56 years of Israeli occupation after the six-day war of Palestine, the failure to get a two-state solution for decades, despite many UN Security Council, resolutions, and of course, a complete breakdown of that process in the most recent government of Netanyahu. I don't think anyone could have predicted exactly these events, though, as you pointed out, very rightly on your recent discussion of this, the UN Special envoy for the region said this is a boiling cauldron. There's growing violence. There is unrest. There is seething discontent. That was a year ago. And the past year has been a year of turmoil inside Israel because Israel is profoundly divided as a society and as a polity. So it's not as if Jake Sullivan was

even remotely reflecting reality when he said a couple of weeks ago that the Middle East is the quietest in two decades, that shows the unreality of American policy thinking. And it seems likely, though everything, as you very well know, is unconfirmed right now, that it wasn't, and you again pointed this out very rightly. Most likely a failure of intelligence as it was a failure of processing information by the political leaders. Egypt has said, Egyptian government spokesmen have said that they warned Israel 10 days ago. We don't know whether this is actually exactly right, but that they warned that something big is about to happen. And what I think we can see is pretty clearly.

a failure of the political class for sure. We don't know whether it was a failure of intelligence gathering, a failure of information, but it was a catastrophic failure of the political class, both in the short term, to understand current realities and in the longer term, because the whole approach of Israel is to believe that the Palestinian issue can be ignored forever, basically. That's the real tactic of Israel, which is this will go away. We will make peace

with the rest of the region for whatever pragmatic reasons. The Palestinian issue is gone. We control the territory of Israel and the West Bank and Gaza. And we don't

have to deal with this underlying a 56-year issue since the 1967 war. So I keep coming back to Von Klauswitz on all of the issues that you are dealing with and that we're discussing these wars are the continuation of politics with other means. We're talking about politics here, and we're seeing in Ukraine or in this disaster in Israel and the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe as Gaza is now bombed with vengeance and besieged, we're seeing a complete failure of politics to address underlying issues.

And war never solves the political issues by themselves. And von Klauswitz, by saying this, I think, is all. scholars know and should understand. He wasn't saying that war is a substitute for politics. He says war is a continuation with other means, but diplomacy is supposed to go along with this. And if you take the view that you don't really ever need to solve the politics because military power will do it for you, that's never true. And unfortunately, we're seeing yet another catastrophic. demonstration of this in Israel? I think that is absolutely correct.

And can I just say it is not just the Israeli government of Mr. Netanyahu that has basically turned its back on diplomacy, it seems to me, in attempting to find a solution to this issue of the Palestinian territories and the Palestinians and their position in the Middle East and in the world, but also that of Western governments. I mean, for as long as I can remember, for decade after decade, there were attempts by U.S. officials, U.S. diplomats, U.S. Secretaries of State, Henry Kisinger, whoever, all trying to find some kind of negotiated solution that would address this problem. And one of the things that has really changed and is very alarming is that at some point over the last eight, ten years, people seem to give up. nobody's been trying to do anything like this.

I don't know, for example, whether the current administration even has a Middle East envoy, just saying, I mean, there always used to be one, there always used to be someone that both sides would talk to and try and exchange ideas. And of course, one can argue that that diplomacy wasn't getting as very far, it wasn't solving the problems in any meaningful way. but at least it did provide an opportunity for people to talk and discuss and meet and speak and come to some kind of even minor agreements which sort of diffused the situation. And that's, as far as I can see, that's all been abandoned entirely.

The Biden administration didn't do it. The Trump administration didn't do it. Obama did, to some extent, but not very successfully. And since he left, well, I haven't seen anything. I think the fact of the Biden administration certainly very explicitly was the Palestinian issue is not an issue. What we are working on is and run around that. Their hope was for an Israel-Saudy agreement on pragmatic grounds by both sides that completely ignored. the Palestinian issue. It always seemed extraordinarily doubtful to me that that was real. It just

seemed like another figment in the imagination of this administration, which has many of them. But that was explicitly the idea, which is we don't have to take the issue of Palestine. The truth is, you know, we're in almost 100 years now, not just the 56 years since the Six-Day War, almost a hundred years discussing the issue of how Jews and Arabs are Muslim Arabs in particular are to live together in this place. And it remains not only unresolved, I would say for decades. The Israeli approach was we don't really need a solution to this. We need to make facts on the ground. And as far back as I know from direct observation, Israel was putting what has now become hundreds of thousands of settlers into what would be the Palestine independent state if there were a two-state solution. And the idea was to frustrate the two-state solution that there could not really be a two-state solution despite the words.

that were constantly used to that effect. So I don't think that the American presidents ever seriously took that on. And I don't think any Israeli government, except for one, except for Yitzhak Rabin, took that on. And he was assassinated in trying to make peace. And that's another major lesson in the world. It's much easier to derange peace than to make it because those who oppose peace kill those who want peace. This is actually, unfortunately, throughout history, a pretty widely observed phenomenon. So most of the Israeli governments didn't really try or they put on the table an offer that they knew would be refused because it basically was not really a two-state solution.

Gaza is a tragedy that is now, you know, reached both this horrific, horrific destruction of innocent people in Israel, and now it's going to suffer vengeance from the air with probably thousands and thousands of innocent Gaza. residents being killed in the next few days would be my guess because I'm not sure that this Netanyahu government has any restraint at all right now, any self-restraint. So we may see an absolute horrific humanitarian, any deliberate catastrophe in response as vengeance. That would not surprise me, and it would be just another round of destruction and another poisoning for years to come. And we watch in the U.S. politics, you know, the American politicians are also, almost none has really been able, even if they wanted to, to approach this issue. It's America's not an honest broker in this and never has been.

American politics is so geared to backing Israel rhetorically, symbolically, unconditionally, that there is no, with the rarest of exceptions, an honest proposal put on the table. And so we're trapped in this spiral of tragedy. And I don't see anything in the outcome of this that's going to relieve that or make people wake up to reality or, you know, these events are not conducive to rational responses. They are conducive to disastrous responses, just like 9-11 led to 20 years of U.S. foreign policy disaster in everything misconceived in response. Israel is likely to create grave disastrous responses to these events. That is exactly my thought, and I have to say Prime Minister Netanyahu talking about 9-11, this being Israel's 9-11, I mean, I would have thought that given how unsuccessful ultimately the U.S. response was to that,

that would have been a parallel which an Israeli prime minister would want to avoid. It is so right, by the way, you know, the response was precisely, precisely to say there's no such thing as politics, there's only war. So the response to 9-11 was to launch the GWAT, the global war on terror, which logically made not an iota, of sense from the beginning. How do you launch a war on terror? That's to deny politics. That's precisely what it was. It's to deny any underlying conditions that give rise to terror, for example. And so it was a denial of politics. Of course, it led to Afghanistan. It led to Iraq. It led to Syria. It led to Libya. And in its way, it led to Ukraine, because everything was we don't need any diplomacy, we need power.

And for Netanyahu to repeat it in those terms and to then hear what we've heard, which is we're going to be siege Gaza with no food, no water, no power. if it's if it's meant and it may well be meant it is exactly the post-9-11 disaster that the US face continued now Professor Sachs we could discuss this for many hours but I think I would like to move on to this other topic which is the one that you've written a brilliant article about about the in the world financial system about the position of the dollar. It's a topic that has been much talked about. Many people would like to know more about this.

I would certainly like to know a bit more. And you've written a wonderful article about this issue. Perhaps you can tell us some of the salient points in that article, the kind of things that you want to, you know, people, if they feel that people should be aware of. Well, I think the main starting point, about any discussion about the dollar is it should be the pound and just to put it this way a hundred years ago anything we say about the dollar today we said about the pound at the time that the british pound

was the center of the world financial system the center of world currency the way you made payments and so forth. Now, of course, there still is a city of London, a financial center and a very talented one in fact, but the pound plays no role at all in international affairs to speak of other than as a historic relic. And the reason is, of course, the fundamental change of power. There's no British Empire anymore. And there's Britain and there's still the pound, but Britain's role in the world is fundamentally different from what it was a hundred years ago. And it reminds us of a basic point. One can, money is a way to make the real economy, the economy of goods and services operate. It's a way to make exchange, to make trade. But whether you,

trade in dollars or pounds or renminbi or euros or rupees or rubles is not the most significant thing in the world. Indeed, when you study monetary economics as I did. And as I taught for a couple of decades at Harvard, you actually use an expression, money is a veil, a veil to the real economy. The real economy is the action. Who produces the chips? Who produces the microchips, the potato chips, how do you trade and so forth? And how you settle that in monetary terms, that's not so complicated, not such a big deal. And I was involved a couple of times in helping countries adopt a new currency from one day to the next.

in Estonia and in Slovenia in the early 1990s, I helped them make a new currency instead of ruble to use the croon in Estonia, invented from one weekend to the next. And similarly, in Slovenia, the tolar basically invented from the Yugoslav currency. And the point is, yeah, it's not so hard to change the currency of denomination. and the mechanisms. Now, having said that, the dollar has been the currency of choice for denominating international transactions and for settling international transactions, basically since the end of World War II, with many evolutionary changes along the way. But it's been convenient to have a unit of account that is shared. as long as the dollar is managed as a money in a responsible way by the United States.

Now, that has been sometimes true, sometimes not true, but the dollar has held up as a predominant, but not the sole currency of choice for decades. The big changes that are going to, end that within 10 years, in my opinion, much faster than my colleagues think, by the way, because they say, oh, the dollar will remain predominant for decades to come, and I think this is not true, is two things. One of the reasons for the dollar predominance has been the convenience of the dollar-based banking system. So it's been a fairly efficient, low-cost way to make transactions in international life, whether it's offshore dollars or onshore dollars, the U.S. banking system has been a mechanism for settlements. And the big number one change in the world is we've got new

technologies for settlements, especially digital technologies, and we're going to have digital central bank currencies. So we won't even use banks for a lot of our payments in the future. And without the banks, the advantage of the dollar as a payments mechanism, purely mechanistically, will diminish considerably. Second factor, actually three, I should say. Second factor, of course, is the decline of the relative share of the U.S. in the world economy, which is ultimately what undermined the role of the pound sterling. It's been more gradual, but it's absolutely sure that the U.S. diminishes as a share of the world economy, depending on how you measure it. You get different metrics, but arguably China is a larger economy than the U.S. now. It measured at what we

call purchasing power adjusted prices. And in any event, the role of the dollar, no matter how you measure it, or the share of the U.S., I should say, in the world economy, no matter how you measure it in the various ways, is diminishing and will continue to diminish. Then the third factor is the big mistake of U.S. policy making, other than, in addition to various disastrous blunders of monetary policy, the worst of which was September 14, 2008, when the worst policy decision in modern times was made by one of our worst Treasury secretaries, Hank Paulson, when he deliberately bankrupted Lehman Brothers and put the whole world into a catastrophic financial panic. But I'll put aside that. The deliberate choice was to weaponize the dollar

repeatedly in the last 20 years. The U.S. said, oh, everybody uses the dollar. Well, we can then intervene to stop Iran or to stop Venezuela or to stop Russia or to stop other countries we don't like from doing whatever it is we don't want them to do. So the weapon is, of the dollar has meant the U.S. confiscating the foreign reserves of many countries now, Russia being the biggest of all, of course, with an estimated $300 billion of Russian money frozen, because the U.S. signed a pen, the president signed a pen saying that U.S. banks could not transact with Russia. and, well, why the heck would Russia continue to use dollars afterwards? The U.S. idea was completely wrong, which is, well, this is the, as was said, the nuclear

weapon of financial policy. It proved to be nothing because it's not so hard to transact in other ways. The idea that the payment currency is somehow the definitive power over the, the real economy is a deep conceptual mistake. So Russia started settling in Renminbi or in rubles or in rupees. And it's now going to accelerate that process because at the core of the BRICS 11 now is the original BRICS five countries, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. conveniently, they all have currencies that start with the letter R. This is very nice.

It's not fundamentally important, but it's not bad that you have the real, the ruble, the rupee, the renminbi, and the Rand, because now they call it the R5. And they're working this year in advance of next year's Bricks Summit in Kazan, Russia, which will include 11 countries. the original five plus Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Iran, they're going to come up with new payments systems and new units of account. Maybe an R5, like a special drawing rights, which is technically a way for central banks to borrow and lend from each other. It's nothing more than that. It's no magic. It's just a right to borrow from a counterpart central bank. And the BRICS can make their own SDR, if you will.

They can make their own unit of account by a basket of currencies. They can decide to settle and have credit card systems clear within the BRICS region. And they're going to succeed in this because it's not magic. and it's not some unimaginably complex maneuver. It's pretty standard financial engineering, and they will succeed in doing that. I think this is the point about it, that not being any magic behind it is the key thing,

because in the West, in London, I've spoken to many, many people who assume that we have knowledge and expertise and skills which simply cannot be found in other places. I mean, I've had some dealings in maritime insurance in the past. And I remember people telling me when the old cat idea came up, you know, they can't copy this. If they can't get insurance in London, the ships will have to stop.

I said they will sort out their insurance systems. Beyond the no doubt about it. Maybe in the 60s it was different. But today, it's not difficult. They can do this in India. They can do this in Shanghai. They can do this in Dubai. They can do it in Russia.

They can do it. And I think that the point you make about the ability to set up currencies, I think, if I'm not mistaken, I think Keynes actually did this during the Russian Civil War in northern Russia as well. And he was actually very successful. And he already showed as far back as then how it could be done. Am I, and again, just quickly, very quickly, because we're coming up to time. But am I right in thinking that what the bricks are talking about also resembles closely some of the ideas that Keynes had in advance of Bretton Woods? Yeah, Keynes, by the way, was a genius in monetary economics. And at least as interesting, if not more interesting than the general theory is his writings about monetary policy in the 19th.

20s. And I was a student of all of that myself. And Keynes has been a big inspiration for me in a number of ways of his political economy. But I can tell you, in my experience in Estonia in 1991, it was literally one evening conversation with the governor of what would be the new central bank of Estonia what to do. And they implemented it within basically a few weeks. And they went on to have a currency that was stable against the mark and then stable against the euro. And it took about a month to put together. And that was in the midst of the turmoil of the breakup of the Soviet Union. So this is not magic. And of course, it's nice to have financial expertise, but there's a lot of financial expertise all over the world right now. And the financial expertise in London can help

with settlements in other currencies or make insurance policies in other currencies. And they're going to have to do that, actually. So this is going to change, in my view, much faster. And it's because if you push hard on what de Gaulle called America as exorbitant privilege, that privilege is real to have other countries use your currency. But if you lean too hard on it, the privilege goes away because no one wants to pay an exorbitant price for America to be able to use its, use the dollar to determine geopolitics. No one's going to allow that to happen. Professor Sachs, I just wanted to quickly make one final point, which you may or may not agree with me about, which is that, of course, for us in Britain, you mentioned the Pround Sterling.

When our empire went, we found the fact that our currency had become a reserve currency. It ceased to be an asset. It became a burden in many ways. Others were trying to cash in on it. You had to freeze their accounts. Exactly. I mean, it was, anyway, Roberta Sachs, this is where I, we're up to 30 minutes, which is what we said. Again, an enormously stimulating program. We could discuss these things for hours. We probably will in the future. Great.

But I will stick. Let's do one question which is directed towards you, Professor Sachs specifically. And then Alexander will answer the rest of the questions. From Tommy Gunn, Professor Sachs, how will sustainable development goals fare in light of the Russian Black Sea blockade? Will the Russian concessional prices and exports make up for the disruption? Look, the basic point is sustainable development cannot work in the context of war period. So it's not specifically about the Black Sea or whether there's a grain deal or not. To achieve anything that we want to achieve on the planet, the United States and Russia and China need to cooperate with each other.

We are not going to succeed in any of our objectives in a deeply divided world, much less a world. in open war. So it's not technical issues that block us. It is the cooperation of major powers in the world to create a framework in which people can live their lives and have normal progress and their kids can be in school and not in the disasters of war. That's what good politics is about geopolitics needs to be not about who's number one, which is a crazy idea in this world. It needs to be about how are we going to get along peacefully. That's diplomacy. The generals need to sit down, get back, and we actually need diplomats.

Unfortunately, our diplomats became the greatest cheerleaders of war in the last couple of years. we don't even have diplomats that I see right now because all they talk about is weapons and war. We need real diplomats in the sense of making cooperation work. And because it goes much beyond a grain deal or the specifics of what's going to happen in the next six months, the sustainable development goals are about long-term investments in education, in skills, in physical infrastructure. in the way we live our lives. And that requires a vision of peace. And it requires actual financial cooperation, joint projects. Just to give another example, and in a few days, China will have the 10th anniversary of the Belt and Road Initiative. The Belt and Road Initiative was

China's offer of giving long-term lending to help countries build infrastructure. infrastructure. It's actually a terrific program. It should be praised widely and those of us outside should be saying, we want to partner with you. You want to build high speed rail up to Samarkand. We'll help build it from Samarkand to Paris. And in other words, this is an offer for cooperation. Instead, of course, the United States bad mouths at every single moment it possibly can, you know, horrible. We want to connect with you. We want to build our alternative, not that necessarily they ever will. So the issue is really a deeper and in a way, a more abstract one. If we are getting along, not literally at war with each other or threatening even more disastrous wars, we can achieve everything we want. And if we're at war, believe me, no one spends. a minute thinking about sustainable development in the middle of a war. And if your main goal is to boost the ammunition or to bomb someone or to create a new alliance, you're not thinking about sustainable

development. So it's not about the specific deal in the Black Sea. It is about peace in Ukraine. and that requires U.S., Russia negotiations directly because this is a war between the United States and Russia over NATO, over the security arrangements of Europe. And if we are civilized and smart, this war can end basically immediately by having a security arrangement that makes sense in Europe for everybody, including for Russia, for Ukraine, for others. That's what we have refused to talk about for three decades now. And that's our biggest. So it's just like when we started talking about Israel and Palestine, that's been almost 100 years without a serious discussion. And in terms of European security arrangements,

it's been 30 years without a serious discussion because the United States said, well, our answer is NATO. And that's not an answer that works for European security, because it doesn't work for Russia and for many other countries. And so this is the core of the issue of peace, and peace is the core of the issue for sustainable development. Fantastic. Professor Jeffrey Sachs, we have all of your information in the description box down below.

We will have it as a PIN comment. Thank you very, very much. Great. See you guys soon. Take care. Take care. All right, Alexander. Want to answer some questions? Mm-hmm.

Yeah? Yeah, absolutely. All right, let's finish off the questions. And we have another live that we're going to do with on Levan, on Levan's channel. So we'll have to get ready for that as well. That's going to take place at a couple of hours. So let's see here.

From Death Dealer, 1341, do you think that Poland and Belarus will go to war? No, I do think they will go to war. I think that fear of this has probably probably, diminished and there's one overwhelmingly straightforward and very simple reason and that is the failure of Ukraine's counter-offensive. I think that has changed completely the whole dynamic of this conflict from this point onwards and I think it's reduced the danger of war. Right. Jungle Jingle says will multipolarity finally end the white man's burden mindset prevalent in the west or will it double

down into hatred as the walls close in? That is the single most important question in the world today. Because multipolarity is going to happen one way or the other, we are moving in that direction. The only thing that can prevent it is if we in the West become absolutely, you know, determined to stick to, you know, to resist this process. And we resist it in a way. leads to some kind of appalling catastrophe. We have to accept, we have to, in our own interests,

in the West, recognise that this process is unstoppable. The people in China, people in India, people in Africa, people in Latin America, people in the Middle East, people in Russia, have an equal say and equal value to us in the West. Very difficult thing for some people in the West to accept, but put aside the idea of white man's burdens and all these terrible imperialist, colonial thinking of the past and all sorts of opportunities open. Okay. From OMG Marta, do you expect the Russians and maybe the Chinese to intervene in the U.S. and or Israel really would attack Iran?

No, I don't think that, you know, I think my own sense is today that we've actually seen a move back from an attack on Iran. Israel is saying that they found no evidence that the Iranians were behind this thing. The United States are saying the same. I think people have looked down the abyss and seen what the effect of an attack on Iran might involve. And I think they're pulling back. And, of course, if there were to be an attack on Iran, well, I mean, you know, the whole thing. would just spiral out of control and what the Russians and the Chinese would do

in that situation. I'm not sure. But I think initially they would try to bring that fighting to an end to a stop before it did get even further out of control than it is. But at the moment, I think, as I said, we pulled back on that. Thank God. Thank God for that.

Let's hope that there's a de-escalation there because a lot of the neocons are calling for conflict with Iran. Peter Jackson says, how legitimate is the use of judicial systems and intel agencies to target populist political parties and candidates? Is this the end of the rule of law? Yeah, well, I mean, that's a rhetorical question because, of course, it is the end of the rule of law.

The whole point about the rule of law is that it is supposed to be administered impartially. if it is being used to target people for political reasons, then it is no longer impartial and it is not law anymore. It is something completely different. It's, well, I mean, it's the sort of conception of law that, you know, Stalin's prosecutor, Andrei Wushinsky came up with, you know, that you don't worry about whether somebody's guilty or innocent, you know,

the actual crime that they're accused of. You only look at the person in their class. position and that is enough in itself to determine questions of guilt or innocence. I mean, that is not a system I recognize as a legal system in any meaningful sense. And I think it's very alarming, incredibly concerned that people in the West are losing sight of that reality. No placeholder says, why negotiate the Anglos are invincible? Paul Walker says, the captor. are on video, all speaking Persian, not Arabic, Obama and Biden's cash well spent, and

Elensky with his what aboutism was sickening. Well, yeah, well, I agree with that, actually. I mean, I haven't seen this video. I don't know that they were speaking Persian, whatever. I mean, clearly, Hamas has received a huge amount of training. They've become very experienced. They know how to do these things. They have a connection with Iran.

They have a connection with Hezbollah. I'm not saying that, you know, this has come out, this is just Hamas doing this all by itself, you know, without any kind of assistance at all, you know, even if that assistance might have been historic. But can I, can I say, again, don't deny Hamas itself, its own agency. I mean, what I know about Hamas suggests to me that it is an incredibly tough. and, you know, ruthless, but calculating organization. And, of course, it has friends and it uses them, and it's used them in that way. Now, about the international arms trade, about weapons to Ukraine ending up with Hamas, about Hamas getting weapons in that kind of way, well, what a surprise is all I can say.

Of course that has happened. Yeah. I mean, I don't know the extent of it. But of course it has. Given the fact that the Intel warning came from Egypt, what do you make of some sort of, and given it's Hamas, what do you make of the Muslim Brotherhood and what role that could play in all of this? They're deeply interconnected with each other. I mean, that's my understanding. I'm not an expert on Hamas.

No, I'm not. That's why I'm asking you as well. Yeah. I just find it interesting that the intel came from Egypt. then obviously we know the history of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas have apparently great ideological similarities. And remember Gaza for a long time was actually governed by Egypt until the 1967 Six-Day War. So there was probably a greatly of cross-fertilization.

And I suspect a lot of the ideas that Hamas has formed come from that. And I am sure that Hamas has had contacts, still has contacts and connections, with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is, of course, an Egyptian organization. The Egyptian government is very hostile to the Muslim Brotherhood. They overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood president, President, President Morsi, and they will be keeping tabs on what was going on between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas and what the Muslim Brotherhood is doing. And of course they picked up the intelligence and they passed it on to Israel. That is what I think happened. And the Israelis didn't listen. Exactly.

That's exactly right. That was what I was thinking as well. I Am Valentina says, The people who decry the Holocaust now make a Holocaust of their own. Yes. Riz says, is Israel just another distraction from Ukraine failure are the US playing their hand to disrupt bricks from strengthening economics and geopolitical advantages?

I have to say this. I think if either of those things happen, if it was manipulated and set up in that kind of way, that would be an act of unspeakable cynicism. And, you know, it may be, you know, there are things happening behind the scenes that I don't know about. But as I said, don't deny Hamas its agency. Hamas is a complex, ruthless, powerful organization. I mean, we've just seen this.

I mean, I've had people who are military people, and they've been writing to me, and they've been saying that the Hamas fighters, they like special forces. You know, they had the level of skill that you would expect with special forces soldiers. So they, I suspect, have made their own decisions. What's been going on in the background,

I don't know, but I personally skeptical that there's some great wire pullers behind the scenes in Washington, or even, dare I say it in Tehran, that have controlled this thing in the way that some people think. And about it being a distraction from Ukraine. I do think, for example, that Biden himself was looking for a crisis in the Middle East to distract from Ukraine in that kind of way. I mean, for him, he's got really enough problems. He's now got another one on top of all of those. So, you know, I just say, let's wait and see. Let's get more information. Let's find out what's going on.

And at the meantime, let's focus on the most important thing, which is preventing this thing from internationalizing and spreading, metastasizing, if you like, across the entire Middle East, which would be a global catastrophe. Jeffrey Belford, thank you for that super sticker. Will Phillips says, did you all know that Rahm Emanuel's dad was a terrorist in the Urgun? The truth is that Hamas did not start a war

because the status quo is a war against the dignity and health of cousins. Lesham. I didn't know about Emmanuel's father being in Yidgun. And can I say, I mean, that's... something I wasn't aware of. Never let a good crisis go to waste. You were just talking about Biden, but, you know, he doesn't need another problem,

but they will try to figure out how to manipulate this crisis to the benefits. That goes without saying. But, you know, don't at the center overestimate the intelligence of these people. I mean, they're pretty blundering as well. So, I mean, they will try and exploit it. they're already trying we've already tried as we've seen to enlarge it into an attack on Iran some people are now pushing back hard on that we will see we will we will see how this goes but going back to that question I mean at so many levels at a deep profound level you are

absolutely right this is a conflict that goes all the way back to the 1920s in fact I can't say goes back even further if I have to say who are sorry to say saying this as a person from Britain, who are the people who bear the foundational blame for this whole business? It was the British who came into the Middle East during the period of the First World War and even before promised the same territory to two people. They said to the Arabs at the time of the Arab revolt against the Ottomans, you know, you're going to have your independence, you can have your state, support us against the Ottomans, and we will give you what we wanted. That was what Lawrence of Arabia, British Asian, by the way.

That was what he was all about. And at the same time, they had with the Balfour Declaration, they were promising a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine because they also wanted the support of the Jewish people at that time in the conflict against the Germans. So the British have created this disastrous problem in the Middle East. and the Palestinians have been its great principal victims. I mean, I think that has to be said. They have been dispossessed. They've been driven.

Many of them have been driven out of their lands. Others are living in conditions of occupation. Conditions in Gaza have been terrible. But actually, what has to be done, The thing that has to be done is there has to be a genuine diplomatic solution, a negotiation to find a solution to this problem. It can be done, provided people decide to do it. And there's been, as Professor Sachs was saying earlier in this program, a fundamental lack

of goodwill, a lack of real genuine interest in finding that solution. because whatever has happened, whatever proposal has been made up to this time from the United States, from Britain before, from Israeli governments, has not sought a solution that really addresses Palestinian grievances and Palestinian aspirations. And that's why we've ended up with a catastrophe that we have. NM2 says in 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza. It was a trial run for a larger agreement. Gaza was taken over by Hamas and started firing rockets. How can there be a peace with entities that refused to recognize Israel's right to exist?

But you see, you've identified the underlying problem, which is that, yes, it was supposed to be a trial run leading up to a wider peace. But that wider peace has never happened. And there were attempts from various people to try to do it. You know, Arafat, deeply flawed, corrupt, incompetent man that he was, he made some kind of attempts there. There have been attempts by other people. But ultimately, there's never been a sustained, real effort to achieve peace in this region.

And the result is that, yes, the Israelis withdrew from Gaza. But Gaza was left to decay and decline, and the economic conditions there have been terrible, and they've been steadily getting worse. And without a solution or a prospective solution or a negotiation, inevitably, forces like Hamas have emerged and have taken control. Larka Perka says Qatar supported Hamas for years. yet the media blames Iran. What are the odds of the U.S. transferring nukes to Saudis on pretense of democracy?

Well, indeed. I mean, I think this is, well, first of all about Qatar supporting the Hamas. That is absolutely correct. I should say that there has been a historic rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the fact that many people are not aware of at times they have been quite hostile to each other. The Saudi government has historically been hostile. to the Muslim Brotherhood and its various branches, of which, in a kind of a way, Hamas is one. And Qatar, by contrast, has tended to support them.

Despite Qatar being itself also a, well, you know, having an idea, the royal family there has ideologies, a perspective on religious matters, not that very different from that of the Saudis. what I understand they don't like being called Wahhabis but anyway we know that's what essentially they are now so I mean

you're absolutely you're absolutely correct about that point from Benzo Beans see you all on Levan Goodaj's channel at 2pm London time thanks to you for agreeing to be on Levant's first interview guests

I understand 2 p.m. London? I was going to say. I think it's 3 p.m. I hope so. Anyway, we'll be there. Let's hope we got the time right. Let's see.

Jungle Jingle says Israel's security minister's statement about Gaza sounded exactly what Goebbels would have said about the Warsaw ghetto despicable rhetoric. It was absolutely appalling. And can I just say, I mean, you know, decisions made in anger are, as I said, regretted leisure. that's the first thing to say. Going into Gaza in that kind of way, trying to sort of fight in Gaza, I would not personally be surprised if that is exactly the scenario that Hamas is trying to provoke. That is the first thing. But the alternative, which is turning the entire city into ruins, would be a terrible war crime. And it would be worse than a war crime. It would be a monstrous thing.

to do, terrible thing to do, and people should be pushing back against it. They should be telling the Israeli government, for heaven's sake, don't do this thing. It's not in your interests. Carrying out this kind of monstrous act is not just ethically wrong. It is also politically wrong as well. And that is a point that really needs to be said. Going back to what Professor Sachs was saying, when he was saying that violence begets violence and you're involved in some kind of a cycle, he's absolutely right. If you start turning a whole city of three and a half million people into a ruin and create a humanitarian catastrophe there, as night follows day, people will not remember in the Middle East what Hamas did. Terrible though some of these

awful pictures of what Hamas has done. They won't remember that. They will remember instead what was done to Gaza. And that will simply reinforce the cycle that we have seen. From Lillianna, thank you to Jeffrey Sachs and both of you, Alex's. Bless you. Thank you for that. And from BFTEI's wide, assuming that Hamas Israel conflict is an inside job,

would you think it's face-saving false flag, for Biden and co. If Israel will claim the win in the next few days or weeks, then to me it is. Also, if Iran continues to be sidelined, then it is another proof to me that it's a false flag. Unfortunately, again, people are dying. Yeah, well, of course, I mean, that's absolutely right. But can I just make a few quick observations? If this is that kind of operation, then more likely than not, it is going to fail catastrophically. If it is an attempt to try and create a crisis,

you know, letting Hamas fighters burst into Israel in that kind of way, create this kind of situation, have the Israeli army go into Gaza. The likelihood is this, he's not going to achieve that kind of

victory. As I said, it will be an act of unspeakable cynicism to do such a thing. And it would be also an act of unspeakable stupidity. Because you won't, you might find that you're involved in something you cannot control. So if these people really are thinking like that and they've organized it in that kind of way, then as I said, they are not just wicked people, which goes without saying, they're also fools.

Yeah. Van Zobin says, see you all on the Van Gogh's channel at 3 p.m. Yeah, London time. All right. Thank you for that, Benzopians. Paul Walker says the jaws are closing on Avdifka. Yeah, they are. That is an important thing.

And this goes, takes us back to the battle in Ukraine. The war there hasn't finished. Russians are now advancing in every place. But the big news is Avda'aafka, not Kupyansk at all, it seems. Yeah. Bitcoin Crypto and Gaming News says, is Sax gone just joined? Also, yes, he has. You can follow what he said.

He also says Sachs is one of my favorite geopolitical commentators. I guess I can catch the post stream. Yes. And Bitcoin, Crypto and Game says, is crazy that Hamas invading Israel ended the Ukraine war. So kind of way. And is Taiwan and is Taiwan? and is Taiwan back on the table?

Yes. I do think the Taiwan issue has gone away at all, actually. You really want to, if you're really looking for the distraction from Ukraine, focus on Taiwan. I think that is where the real big American strike will come. I mean, the Americans have been talking, American officials, American military people, have been talking about a conflict, a war over China. sometimes since they've been talking about war with Iran. Yes, Black Tie, thank you for that.

Super sticker. Marcelo says, who controls the money controls the world, but money isn't paper. That's true enough. H.J. Wang says, I have traveled to Xinjiang. I learned that everything the West said about Xinjiang, the slaves, the abuse, concentration camps are actually all in Gaza, Palestine. Peter Van der Yag, thank you for becoming. a Duran member, Jim McGillan says, thank you for what you three do every day. Thank you for that. R.I. says some pro-Russian people are very opposed to Hamas, and a lot of woke activists and

celebrities are anti-Israel, but also anti-Russia. It shows you how difficult and complex this conflict is. Oh, absolutely. Can I just say, I mean, these are different conflicts. I mean, the thread that unites them is, and I get to say this, the policies of the United States. the United States is involved in the conflict in Ukraine, and it is involved in the conflict in the Middle East. But of course, there are also different conflicts. And it's important to stress that Russia, the Putin government, has sought good relations with Israel. It supports Palestinian aspirations. It supports a two-state solution.

But it has never looked to quarrel with Israel. Yeah, Cobfant says the creation of a Zionist state by the West has resulted in a horror story. Israel being Frankenstein and Hamas being Frankenstein's monster. Well, that's a very insightful comment. Jose Silva says, what do you guys think was the biggest mistake in the Ukraine crisis? The biggest mistake in the Ukraine crisis. What to begin? The biggest mistake in the Ukraine crisis was made by the West,

which sought to pull Ukraine away from Russia. And that destroyed Ukraine. That didn't destroy Ukraine because Russia resisted it. It destroyed Ukraine because it upset the demographic and political balance in Ukraine itself. If Ukraine had been left alone, if it understood that Ukraine and Russia were deeply interconnected with each other, then Ukraine would have had a chance. But when it was made into the subject of a tug of war,

that was guaranteed that the Ukraine we know would be destroyed. Yeah. Stana, thank you for that super chat. Elsa says, gentlemen, will Ukraine return as the main topic in politics? It looks like it was turned off overnight. And who will pay Elensky? Well, I think it will return. I think it will return. It is the main topic in politics, because at some point, over the next two years, that the war is going to end, and it's going to end with a Russian victory. And that will be very, very difficult for the West. So unless there's a crisis in China or an even bigger crisis in the Middle East, and can I say again, nobody should want a crisis in the Middle East. I mean, the implications.

the dangers of that are terrible. If there are people in Washington who are deliberately pouring fuel on the flames in the Middle East to distract from Ukraine, then those people are crazy. That's all I would say about this. Ted says, can we assume that the discontent in Israel regarding legal reforms

to control the judicial system by Netanyahu, the near mutinyy of the Air Force is now suspended in the golden youth and liberal class will rattle, to Netanyahu, the Great War Leader. Well, that might very well be the case. I mean, I should say, we've done a very interesting program, Glenn Deeson and I, with Alistair Crook, who knows this region very well.

I mean, he knows the Israelis extremely well. He knows the Palestinians extremely well. And there's some very interesting and insightful comments to make about that. He, by the way, thinks that this event that we've just seen, is to a great extent a product of the internal conflict within Israel, that it both served as the trigger for it and also the opportunity for it that Hamas saw. Anshuman, Mishra says,

can the conflict in Israel damage Brick's expansion? Potentially, yes, if the war expands. If the war is not contained, then it could affect Briggs expansion. and the Russians and the Chinese are aware of that. The Russians certainly are. And we know that the Russians, their various embassies, their diplomacy is now working very, very hard to try to contain this crisis.

So by the way, those, that there is now already a subculture of people in London, especially we're saying that this is Putin who started this whole thing. I discussed this in my program yesterday. I mean, that could not be more wrong. The Russians are very concerned. very alarmed by these developments, and they want to try and cool things down and to diffuse the situation because they see it as dangerous to themselves. Ilsex6, welcome to the Duran community.

Sparky says, sorry, got here late. Isn't it known that Hamas is at least loosely controlled opposition for the West? Can you just say, repeat that question? Isn't it known that Hamas is at least loosely controlled opposition? for the West. I think that there is a grain of truth in that in terms of Hamas's origins in the sense that and this isn't, by the way, controversial what I'm going to say, which is in the 60s and 70s and early 80s, there was a certain policy that was pursued by the Western powers and indeed by Israel as well, which was to support religious movements in the Middle East and in places like Afghanistan

in order to defeat the secular nationalist rather left-wing movements like the PLO, for example, that were aligning with the Soviet Union. And the idea was that these religious movements like Hamas were conservative, they were strongly anti-communist. That would enable Soviet influence to be countered across the Middle East and that these groups would be easier to control. And of course, that policy has failed catastrophically. But it did exist and it was, by the way, pursued by Israel itself.

There was a time, I think this is generally accepted, when Israel actually quietly supported Hamas because it wanted to see the PLO lose support within the Palestinian territories. Now, I don't think that those connections on the part of Hamas really exist anymore. I think that Hamas's allegiances, its friendships now, are more with countries like Iran

and with organizations. organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt than they are with the West any longer. I mean, that's my own clear view about this. Sorry, I can't hear you, Alex. Sorry, I had it. No, I can. Yeah. Elena Diaz says, why nobody talks about Marx's idea that socialism can only happen after capitalism became global.

Lenin had other ideas that thought socialism could come gradually, but we are living Marx's idea. You may be right. I mean, I used to read lots of Marx, by the way. I must say, it's a very interesting read. It's a very interesting read. But I'm not going to get into that particular discussion. I mean, of course, Lenin always saw himself

as a completely conventional orthodox Marxist. his view very much was that revolution was a process that happened and that it should not be restrained. On the contrary, it should be expedited wherever possible because that would create a deeper crisis in capitalism. And of course, his view was that by the late 19th century, capitalism had already become global. and he even wrote a famous, perhaps in some ways, his best piece, which is about the spread of capitalism in Russia, which he actually wrote, I believe, sometime in the 1980s. Adam G. says, good point, Alexander, regarding no diplomacy, people like Gray Zone, who generally I trust seem to have blinders on against Israel, negotiated settlement is what the pundant narrative needs to be instead of just saying free Palestine. Well, indeed, yes. I mean, how is Palestine going to be freed without a negotiation, without some kind of a settlement? I mean, it's impossible for me to see that. I mean, quite apart, again, from the absolutely critically important humanitarian considerations. I mean, seeking victory, conclusive victory by one side or the other, is going to take you both to a very, dark place, it seems to me. The other thing is, in terms of Israel, we're talking about a nuclear power,

which is one of the most powerful military states in the Middle East and which is anchored in the Western system. You can't just push it aside. I mean, it'd be wrong to try to do that, I think, given as to the humanitarian consequences of that. But I don't think it's doable, given which there has to be a negotiated solution. That is in the Palestinians' interests. It's in the Israelis' interests, too. Even if

some people in Israel don't want to see that. Jose Silva says, I understand we live in dangerous times, but I get a little excitement from whispering, from witnessing history in the making.

Love both York. Yeah, indeed, absolutely. Why do we do our program? I mean, of course it's exciting. It's also exhausting, by the way. And, you know, sometimes it can be deeply troubling and harrowing and all of those things. But, I mean, I first studied. My first degree was in history.

I've never lost a love of history. And as you rightly say, we are seeing history in the making. R.L. says, in this world, the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. Look what happened after America's support. Afghan fighters against the Soviet Union. It can backfire very brutally like a puppy playing with a cobra. Absolutely. Can I just say I think one of the most pernicious conceptions is this one about, you know, the enemy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I think that has led to more mistakes, more disasters and more tragedies than almost anything else, any other sort of conception

that you will find in international relations. Frank O'Reilly, thank you for that super chat. Ashurbanapal says the British also promised a homeland to the Assyrians, which they later reneged on. Absolutely. Ashurbanipal, by the way, just for people who don't know, name of several kings of ancient Assyria, including one of the greatest. And a founder of a great library, which was found in Ineva by the British and bits and bulbs of it, are in the British music. where the British took it. I'm not going to say more about that history. But you're absolutely right.

Assyrians, of course, today are Christians. They're a Christian community within Iraq. They still exist. Their language, by the way, is Aramaic. Their native language is Aramaic, which is the language of Jesus. I've met Assyrians. They've spoken to me in Aramaic.

It is very, very, very, moving to meet people of that nature. And what you say is absolutely true. Nicholas Walker says conflict in Europe with Russia, Ukraine, then Middle East with Israel, Palestine. Any chance China is looking at this thinking if there's a chance? Well, I think one day, I think one day there is a real possibility because the United States has repeatedly shown that he cannot be an honest mediator in this matter. I think one day the China might step in and fulfill that role. I mean, I really do. I think the Chinese are gradually edging their way into the Middle East.

I think they're sufficiently far away and removed from this problem to come to it with a certain degree of objectivity. And I think at the same time, they want a peaceful and stable Middle East. I think, by the way, if there were a sustained attempt to find a resolution, to this problem. My own view is contrary to what most people think. I think it can be found. I do not think this problem is insoluble. There is a fundamental misconception. And I think it can be found and I think it can be found in a sustainable way. And maybe one day it will be the Chinese who will find it. Jose Silva says Hamas and other countries should be careful by the appearance of a weakening US power because it might not be that they're weakening. It's just that others are growing

more powerful in comparison. This is also very true. And can I say again, one of the reasons for this explosion, in my opinion, is because there's been a general perception within the Middle East that American power is getting weaker. Now, that's certainly true, I think, on the part of many Arabs and including I suspect people in Hamas, but it is also apparently true in Israel, amongst some people in Israel as well. And again, see, watch that program with Alistair Crook and see what he has to say about that, because I found that one of the most interesting points that he made over the course of that program. And let me repeat again, this is an area that He knows extremely well.

Elena says if Israel destroys Gaza, they will forfeit a lot of political capital and goodwill. They got after World War II. They are taking the full step to perpetrators. Well, I have to say, I agree with that. I mean, I think it would be a colossal and disastrous step. And as I said, as I said before, it would be ethically wrong. and profoundly ethically, morally,

catastrophically wrong. And it would be a huge political mistake as well. By the way, can I just say this? What you tend to find, I speak now as somebody who's familiar with, I've studied history, I've followed international relations

very, very closely. Morally, wrong steps far more often than not. turn out to be politically disastrous as well. From Atmos, Gaza is without electricity, water, gas. How can Hamas fight while living under such conditions?

Also, does Israel even know where the hostages are, since they seem to be randomly bombing? Are they killing their own? Well, I'm going to make a simple observation. I think the people who are probably most well supplied and provided for in Gaza are Hamas, its organization and its fighters. I mean, they've clearly prepared for this. They will have stores, supplies.

I'm supposing they've probably borrowed tunnels. They got bunkers. They've got all of those things. The people who will suffer most of this will be the civilian population. And that's a thing to be extremely concerned about indeed. From Raphael. Good job, guys.

Thank you for that, Raphael. Carl Medano says the paraglider, Fataklan was organized by leaders and dutifully carried out by soldiers celebrated by civilians. This is a unique moral category. Well, I do think it's unique, but again, it does show extraordinary proficiency, extremely careful planning,

and people who have been writing to me, who know about these things, have said that this is up to the quality standard of what special forces do. So, you know, just take note of that fact. ZE special says a war with China will shake the world to its core. Many people can't seem to understand what the will of the Chinese looks like

until the entire nation goes to war. This is modern-day China, not the China of 1960s. Absolutely. I completely agree with that. I think even the China of the 1960s should be underestimated. I mean, Douglas MacArthur said, you know, that it would be an active incredible folly to get into land war in Asia. And, you know, he was talking about China specifically. And he was talking in the 1950s. And of course, today, I mean, anybody who seriously plans for and wills a war with China is a dangerous fool. But unfortunately,

there are such people. Sam, Asam, thank you for joining the direct community. Raphael says bricks should get rid of India. They are too weak. I think India is not too weak. And I think India is an indispensable part of the bricks. I think even the Chinese understand that. Raunak Singh says,

do you guys think multipolarity will bring an end to NATO's foreign military bases? Yes, in time. I think multipolarity will bring an end. to NATO period. It will take time for that to happen. But not very much, very long. I think the Ukraine crisis is already hastening that day.

Brulul O'K says the Ukrainians should look at Palestine and think how they could have been in their place if Russia hated them, but they still have a chance. Well, can I just actually, now that you brought that up, make a simple point. I mean, you know, we've had the Ukrainians shelling Don. We've seen one attempt by Ukraine after another to provoke the Russians into extreme steps. And one thing I have to say is that the Russians have responded to this, Putin has responded to this, with exceptional self-discipline. And we're starting to see how that is working to their advantage. and both sides, both sides in this conflict in the Middle East,

need to heed that lesson. I mean, anyway, let's move on. Go ahead, you were saying? No, what I was going to say, I mean, if you're talking about Hamas, as I said, given the proficiency of this operation, how much more effective might it have been if they just focused on attacking military targets? And on Israel's side, how disastrous it will be

if they let themselves be provoked into a long-scale insurgency war in Gaza or do some other appalling horrors there. Discipline in war is one of the most important things. Acting with restraint, self-restraint, is often the key to victory. The Republic Europeans says, why would Hamas attack now? Do they think they have time on their side, like China and Russia? Do they even stand? the chance today to gain anything from this? I think that Hamas has timed this very, very carefully at a time when, firstly, they feel that they're ready.

I mean, they've obviously, as I said, been preparing this for a very, very long time. They've seen the political conflict that is taking place in Israel. They've noted the attacks on the Alaksa mosque in the Haram al-Sharif, the temple mount, in Jerusalem and they've timed and of course they acted they struck during a Jewish holiday so I think they've timed this extremely carefully. Lillianna Corridor says Lavrov just said the solution is a two state with security agreements why does Israel block it ethnic cleansing question mark well why does Israel block it that's a very good question I'll say I will tell you why I will tell you why I think it is And, you know, I'm sorry if I'm putting the blame here on the United States, but I am.

What has happened is that instead of the United States working purposefully towards achieving a two-state solution, they have invariably ended up siding with Israel on every single important issue and supported maximalist positions, which some Israeli leaders have taken. I can remember not so long ago that there was a very strong peace movement in Israel. You don't see that anymore because that peace movement was undercut by the fact that the United States, the US government always seemed to end up, ended up supporting, as I said, Israeli leaders who took maximalist positions. So the result is that Israel has felt under no real pressure, no real incentive to seek

a two-state solution, or if not a two-state solution, at least a solution that responds to the grievances, the aspirations of the Palestinian people. You can come up with other scenarios. I'm not going to discuss them in this program, but there are possible ways that you could find a way to do this, where these two communities could share the land and live alongside each other in peace, each respecting the other. But there has never been any incentive, political incentive, for Israeli leaders to do that,

because behind them, they've always felt the power of the United States. And as a result, Israel itself has been lured into pursuing policies, which, in my opinion, are contrary to its long-term interests. Orion Watcher says,

what are the odds that they want to keep Russia and Iran busy on long conflicts to be able to attack China, knowing it's not going to receive help with many weapons and other things? Well, I think there are probably people in Washington, and not just in Washington, of course, in London too, who probably do think of that kind of way. But if that is correct, they are crazy. And let me repeat this again. What you're doing is you're starting wars in Ukraine, in the Middle East, you think you're bogging down Iran and Russia, and then you can come after China. China, which is, of course, militarily one of the most powerful countries in the world all by itself. What you're actually doing is you're giving all of these countries a commonality of interest to stick with each other. That is one.

And the other thing is you are spreading instability across the entire global system. And given that it is the United States more than any other country that is at the core of the global system, you are ultimately destabilizing the position of the United States more than you are China's. So as I said, I think there are people who think like that. I mean, there was that bizarre Rand Corporation report about Russia, which thought about that. But that kind of thinking is bad and foolish and dangerous, and it is not in the interests of the United States. Larka Perka says revolutions happen on economic rise and never on decline.

Thank you both Alex and Alexander for in-depth analysis and word of reason, love Duran. a lot of truth in what you say but i think one shouldn't be too dogmatic about this certainly you're correct if you're talking about say france in the um late 18th century contrary to what many people think the french economy in the run up to the french revolution was growing and there was a spread of prosperity if you go to paris today for example most of the buildings that you see many of the houses that you see there, built in the 18th century under the, you know, the ancient regime. And the same is true to some extent in Russia. I mean, there was a long period of economic growth leading up to the period that gave rise

to the revolution. Things to say is, firstly, it is how that economic growth is managed. That is the important thing. If inequalities, inequalities grow, if people feel left behind, if the governments are not able to match the aspirations of the people, then, of course, dangerous situations can start to grow and fester. And of course, economic growth and development is not linear. So even in periods of rapid economic growth or sustained economic growth, you can have deep economic crises. That's what happened in France in the 1780s. And that, of course, does act as a challenge. As a

trigger for revolution. And of course, it happened in Russia too. So it's more complex, more nuanced thing than I think you've just said. Paul Walker says when Gaza morphs into a humanitarian crisis due to blockade and destroyed infrastructure, will Arab nations show their support? Will they pivot early? Well, we don't know. I think that Arab governments do not want to be drawn into a war. I mean, that's the first thing to say. I know the Egypt, for example. or Saudi Arabia want to be plunged into a war. But, of course, there is an Arab public opinion. People always say they always laugh at the fact that the Arab, what's called the Arab street.

They say that will never really have any effect. It never succeeds in mobilizing people across the Middle East. My own personal view is that if the last 30 years, have told us anything. It is that that kind of perspective about the Middle East is complacent. Frank says Iran now knows the Iron Dome is done.

Tom, somebody says, until the West drops its unipolar, Neo-Con, geopolitics, the Middle East crisis created by them over 100 years ago, and longer Russophobia, there'll be no peace. The revised historical narrative

needs drastic changing. Yes, I agree. completely agree. Sparky says Israelis lined up at the airport to flee makes things seem different this time. Yes. Yes. Jetset.1 says, is this another planned war by the West? Well, again, I know a lot of people think this. I've seen nothing that persuades me that that is so. I mean, and again, I repeat what I've made, I've said this many times now over the course of this program, don't assume that Hamas itself doesn't have agency. I believe it does. I think this idea that Hamas is simply a cat's paw for someone else. I think it's wrong. I mean, I've been following

Hamas for some time. I think this is a, you know, it's an underestimated organization. Let me put it that way. So that's the first thing to say. But if people in the United States, in Washington and London and Brussels and wherever are really doing this if they're creating these conflicts on purpose then as I said these people have taken lead at their senses. They don't understand

what they are doing and yes they may try to manipulate them to their advantage in fact they unquestionably will but all they will do is they will get burnt and they will cause

many other people to get burnt. as well. Red pill scholar says when the world looks at America, what it sees is an Israeli colony, Paul Craig Roberts. I know. I know that is his view. I have to say, I actually don't fully accept that analysis. I mean, look at Israel and look at the United States. I mean, the United States is so much larger, so much more powerful, so much more complex as society than Israel is, that I think it's much more likely in some respects that it's the United States that has been running things in Israel rather than vice versa. I know that's a view that a lot of people don't share, but it's mine. Devin says multipolarity will also end the EU guys. Yes. At least in

yes. Yes. Nina Algo's that it's evolved into, absolutely. Nina Algo says, this news channel is superior to any neocan show. Thank you. No placeholder says it's all fake and 3.5 million people are the victims. Yes. Raphael says Russia still suffers inferiority conflicts vis-a-vis the USA. Iran is not having this problem.

They will fight in a New York minute. Iran is not scared like are. Do you know something? I think that was already beginning to change in the last 10 years in Russia. But I think this conflict in Ukraine, has massively accelerated that change. I think the Russians have suddenly discovered that they can not only live without the United States,

but that they can defy it successfully. And, of course, at the conclusion of this conflict in Ukraine, that perception will have gone entirely. Lada Moreau says Israel took Palestine's land and replaced her citizens. Israel has to at least pay contributions and reparations to Palestinians, not killing them. I think you have again put your finger on a fundamental issue, which is that Israel, the West, needs to understand that the Palestinians have a legitimate and very powerful grievance caused by the way in which their nationhood, their statehood,

and their land was taken from them after the First World War. And, you know, and this is something that until it is addressed and addressed properly, I don't mean, you know, coming up with, you know, silly solutions like, you know, saying, you know, these people can, this village can have water rights and this doesn't, which is some of the things which previous negotiations have gone bogged down into. proper understanding that this thing has to be resolved in that kind of way, then there cannot be peace in that region. I repeat my view. I think that this problem can be solved.

I think there is a desire on both sides to solve it. The problem is that there is no will to do so from those political forces, those political class, which really has a duty to solve it, to work towards solving it. And that's the problem. Elena says, have you seen all the attacks on Christians and lethal threats from Israelis? Many such videos on YouTube. Absolutely. And they are appalling. And I come back to this simply because, you know, there are genuine Palestinian grievances. Some of these pictures that we have seen should not be relativized or excused. They're appalling. And I've come back to my earlier point in my experience

and from my historical knowledge, carrying out actions like this is not only deeply, morally, ethically, humanly wrong, it is also politically wrong also. It does not advance the course of redressing what has been done to the Palestinian. On the contrary, it pushes it back. Theran says Palestinians have tried all peaceful options without any success when peaceful options are ignored. For decades, violence will ensue free Palestine. I agree with that.

But again, understand where that failure comes from. It comes from the political class in Israel, certainly, in the West generally, in the United States, in my opinion, most of all. The United States had multiple opportunities to forge peace. It could have acted as a genuine honest broker, and it chose not to. And contrary to what many people think, I think in most cases, that was a deliberate choice. Jerry, thank you for that super sticker. Red Z says, hard to be a humanist.

I want Fortress America. And Sparky says, despite being warned by Egypt, Bibi likely let the Hamas attack happen to distract from his troubles, not realizing the ultimate scope and depth of it. Well, if that is correct, and you may be right, I mean, again, I wonder, but if you're right about that, then all I can say is that it's very, very important that he go. Because a prime minister of a country who,

invites an attack on his country in order to resolve his own political problems is certainly a leader that well he's not he's not a proper leader of his country anymore he's i mean he's to say straightforwardly a criminal and and that's how bb be should be looked at if this is what he did i haven't seen the compelling evidence that that was the case. I appreciate that the Egyptians were giving these warnings. My own view is that the Israelis were so completely caught up in their own internal problems, and I think they'd become so complacent for so long

because they were probably receiving warnings like this in the past, and nothing happened that this time they didn't pay attention. And, well, that led to this. But, you know, if you're right, if BB did this on purpose, then, I mean, frankly, he deserves prison. Russell Hall says certain evangelical factions may support conflict in the Middle East and in Israel specifically as a way of helping along. Eschatological prophecy. I came across people like that when I was at university. And I remember being absolutely stunned that they even exist.

You're absolutely right. I mean, people who think that this is the way to bring on the, and they want to bring it on, the end of all days, fundamentally flawed, theologically, I might add, in terms of both Christian and Jewish belief, those people do exist. How influential they are, I really am not able to say. Okay, Alexander, that is everything.

All right, guys. Let's end this live stream because we have another live stream. Absolutely. Thank you to everybody that was watching us on this program. Thank you to the great professor, Jeffrey Sachs. Thank you to Alvarez. Thank you to our moderators, Valies, Alan Watson, and who else was moderating? I think that's it.

Robin Watson and Valias, thank you so very much. To everyone that watched us on Locals, our amazing locals community, the durand.locals.com, and Rockfin, Odyssey, Rumble, YouTube. Take care, everybody.