The Joe Rogan Experience - #2303 - Dave Smith & Douglas Murray

Episode Date: April 10, 2025

Dave Smith is a stand-up comedian, libertarian political commentator, and podcaster. He's the host of the "Part of the Problem" podcast, as well as a co-host of the "Legion of Skanks” podcast. www.comicdavesmith.com Douglas Murray is a political commentator, cultural critic, and author of numerous books, the most recent of which is "Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization." https://a.co/d/fUGXIZQ www.douglasmurray.net Go to ExpressVPN.com/ROGAN to get 4 months free! Don’t miss out on all the action - Download the DraftKings app today! Sign-up using dkng.co/rogan or with my promo code ROGAN.  GAMBLING PROBLEM? CALL 1-800-GAMBLER, [phone] or visit gamblinghelplinema.org (MA). Call 877-8-HOPENY/text HOPENY (467369) (NY). Please Gamble Responsibly. 888-789-7777/visit ccpg.org (CT), or visit www.mdgamblinghelp.org (MD). 21+ and present in most states. (18+ DC/KY/NH/WY). Void in ONT/OR/NH. Eligibility restrictions apply. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino & Resort (KS).1 per new customer. $5+ first-time bet req. Max. $150 issued as non-withdrawable Bonus Bets that expire in 7 days (168 hours). Stake removed from payout. Terms: sportsbook.draftkings.com/promos. Ends 4/13/25 at 11:59 PM ET. Sponsored by DK. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Joe Rogan Experience. Trained by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day. All right, we're up. Good to see you guys. What's happening? Are you going no headphones? Oh. Keep the do?

I'm not quite sure what they add. There we go. All right the goal of this is Every time I see people that disagree with anything that's happening any Gigantic world events. It's one of these retarded shows where their scream. It is the word again. We brought it We're just talking about you did it the word retarded is back and it's one of the great culture victories Spurred on probably by podcasts. But these things are always like Pierce Morgani, which is fine. You know, where everyone's screaming over each other and, you know, there's five different

people talking over each other. There's never just rational conversations where you discuss things and I respect both of you I think both of you are brilliant and I thought I bet you agree on a lot of things I bet you disagree on a lot of things and it'd be fascinating to see your perspectives on these things so that's why you're here together okay can I ask you something yes sir since the war in Israel began and since the war in Ukraine began you've had quite a lot of people who are very against both in different ways. Yes. Do you think you've had

enough people on who are supportive of either war? I don't know that word enough if that's a good word. Let's say enough people who are on the side of Israel instead of wild critics. Well, I've had a few. I mean, I believe God Sad is on the side of Israel. For sure. Jordan is on the side of Israel. You had Mike Baker, Coleman Hughes. Yeah.

Coleman did it for like 20 minutes. That wasn't why he was here. No. I mean, none of them is why they're here. You know, it's a good question. Do you think you've tilted one way? Me personally? No, no, no, just with the guests you've had.

Yeah, probably more tilted towards the idea that perhaps the way they've done it is barbaric. But why do you think that is, just out of interest? I'm just interested in your selection of guests because you're like the world's number one podcast. Yeah, it's not. I don't think about it that way. I just think I'd like to talk to this person.

But can I just... Yeah, sure. If you're going to interview historians of the conflict or historians in general, why would you get somebody like Ian Carroll? Yeah, but Ian Carroll, I didn't bring him on for that purpose. I brought him on because I want to find out how's one get involved in the whole conspiracy theory

business, because his whole thing is just conspiracies. Sure. But do you have any, I mean, there's been a tilt in the conversation, both conversations in the last couple of years, and it's largely to do with people who have appointed themselves experts, who are not experts. You mean like Ian? I don't think he appoints himself an expert in anything.

Who's that other dude who thinks he's an expert on Churchill? Oh, Darrell Cooper does not think he's an expert. No, in fact, I think it's everybody else is always calling him an expert and he's an expert on Churchill. Daryl? Oh, Daryl Cooper does not think he's an expert. No, in fact, I think it's everybody else is always calling him an expert, and he's like, I'm just a history college. Have you ever absorbed any of his material? Have you ever consumed any of his podcasts or anything like that?

I tried. Yeah? It's pretty hard to listen to somebody who says, I don't know what I'm talking about, but now I'm gonna talk. Or, I don't know about this. Or about, but now I'm gonna talk. Or, I don't know about this. Or, I'm not capable of debating this historian, but I'm gonna just tell you what I think.

Yeah, but that's not exactly what Darrell was saying. I mean, Darrell's point of view, however you feel about this, what Darrell's saying is he doesn't really like doing debates. He likes to do long format stuff where he can really explain his position. If you throw a lot of shit out there, there's some point at which I'm just raising questions

is not a valid thing. You're not raising questions. You're not asking questions. You're telling people something. Do you think Daryl's doing that? I think there's a whole bunch of guys doing that. I think Dave is doing that very obviously. Dave's a comedian, but he's now mainly talking about Israel.

No, I don't know if I'm mainly talking about Israel. That's all I see. Yeah, but that's you might be what you've seen. That is also your shtick now, isn't it? Well, what do you mean by that's my shtick? We are not a geopolitics guy in general, are you? I don't even know exactly what you're asking. I'm saying you've decided, being a comedian, you've decided now to become somebody who talks about Israel and the compact. I think you're incorrect. I don't think it's a decision.

I just think you have long-form conversations, multiple of them. It's a huge event that's in the news, so it comes up. I don't think it's a thing. I think if you're on the outside, you'd say, oh, look, they're trying to get attention by talking about this very polarizing issue publicly. That's not- But you do get attention from that. If you'd spent the last year speaking about Myanmar, you would not be on my lips for a long time.

Yeah, but he does talk about Yemen constantly. He talks about a lot of things that aren't in the news constantly. Well, I tend to talk about the conflicts that my government is directly involved in, which I think is reasonable to me. But I don't quite get, what's all the appeal to authority stuff? I mean, you have to be an expert or what exactly makes you an expert?

I think authority matters. And I think that if you just throw a lot of shit out there and then say, I'm not interested in the alternative views on this and particularly when it's a counter narrative that is wildly off and when you get people, look I just feel, we should get it out straight away, I feel you've opened the door to quite a lot of people who've now got a big platform who have been throwing out counter historical stuff of a very dangerous kind. You mean Daryl? Are you talking about Darryl? Darryl, who's the other one? I don't think Darryl has anything dangerous about what Darryl...

Derek... what's his name? Cooper, is it? Which one is it? No, that's Darryl Cooper. Darryl Cooper. Who's the other one? There was one I just checked before on the way here. Darryl Cooper and then... Yeah, Darryl Cooper, Ian Carroll. Look these guys are not historians, they're not knowledgeable about anything. No one's calling Ian Carroll a historian. No but then why listen to their views on Churchill? Darrell is incredibly knowledgeable.

He's not, he's not. Several reasons, one is when he was offered to debate the current greatest living biographer of Churchill, he said I can't because he knows much more than me and I admire his work and I've learned from it but I can't possibly debate him. That's Andrew Roberts. But you don't have to be able to debate people to have opinions on things. No, no, you don't have to debate people. If it's not your thing. But if you, for instance, well, okay, but if you say, I've decided that Churchill is the bad guy in World War II.

It's not what he said, it's not what he said, it's not what he said. Neither Carroll nor Cooper have said that? Well, listen, I don't know what Carroll said, but Daryl Cooper has not said that. What he said was he jokes with his friend, Jocko, who's an Anglo-Saxon, he jokes with him, you know, I think that Churchill was the secret villain of World War II. And what he's saying is by Churchill's

actions the war escalated. He's not saying anything. He's not just asking questions then, is he? No, but that's what the claim isn't that he's just asking questions. He has a point of view. You can explain this better. He literally says he's joking. Yes, he said in the comment, he goes, listen, I'm being hyperbolic. And then he once again, uh, uh, disclaimed. He goes, and I'm not claiming Churchill committed the most atrocities or was the worst part,

but in many ways I do view him as the chief villain, as my hyperbolic, provocative statement. But but Douglas- What's the point of that? Well, okay, but Papianan wrote an entire book on this. Is he not allowed? Is he not an expert? Is he not allowed to be interviewed? He's certainly not an expert.

He can be interviewed. I've watched Pat Buchanan debate. I watched Pat Buchanan debate against Churchill historians and he was absolutely leveled because he doesn't know what he's talking about. When did Pat Buchanan debate and get leveled? That was about 20 years ago. I'm just curious.

He debated against Andrew Roberts and several other historians at Intelligence Squared in London. I was there. He didn't know what he was talking about. He had a contrary view and it was interesting and stimulating to hear. But if you only get the contrary view, which is, isn't it fun if we all pretend Churchill was the bad guy of the 20th century, at some point you're going to lead people down a path

where they think that's the view. And that's horse shit of the most profound kind. I don't think that's what he's trying to do. I think that's exactly what they're doing. And the problem is is that because you, I mean your own platform has come about because you're a very successful comedian and much more, and you do ask questions and you are interested, but there are a lot of people who have come along partly I think because they've come on this show who have come along and they've decided I can play this double game on the one hand I'm gonna push really edgy and frankly sometimes horrific opinions and then if you say that's wrong, they say I'm a comedian.

But wait a minute, no, no, no. What do I, what am I, what, how can you tell me I'm just a comedian? I'm just throwing stuff out there. What horrific opinions that's wrong are you talking about specifically? Once guys like this get into very obvious stuff, which is- Guys like Darrell? The ones I'm describing. Very clear.

You need to listen to Darrell to really understand what he's saying. If you take his Daryl's words out of context, Daryl has some of the most nuanced, balanced, and charitable views on all the figures in history. Well, particularly Hitler, it seems. No, no, you're wrong. You're wrong. He doesn't. What did he call him?

How did he describe him? I think he compared him to a methed out psychopath who was holding an entire nation of people hostage, I believe was the way he put it. He also said on here that he wasn't anti-Semitic until the Holocaust. There were no speeches of Hitler's in the 1930s. No, no, no, no.

Is this on your list? No, he said he was not public about it. He said he was downplaying it to win over, he said there was a period where he was downplaying it to win over popular support in Germany, was his argument. There is no historian of World War II who thinks that Hitler was downplaying anti-Semitism in the 1930s.

That was what he was doing. He wrote a book about it in the 1920s. He got to power on it and he grew his power on the back of it. The idea that you can argue that in the 1930s Adolf Hitler was downplaying the anti-Semitism, like there's no historian who would agree with that. So why would you throw out the idea that in the 1930s Hitler was not being anti-Semitic in public? That was what he was doing in public. He announces to the German parliament what he wants to do. So when you're throwing out claims like he was keeping it down in the 1930s, first of all, what are you doing? And secondly, why?

Okay. I mean, I think that it's kind of hard because I don't even know exactly what Darrell's point on that was and so I'm Not really in a position to argue what he was saying there. I don't think you're giving him the most charitable interpretation I don't need to give him the most charitable interpretation to be able to see okay I think you're strong manning him I should say look anyone can look up what he said on this show and others, what these two guys in particular have said on repeated podcasts with both of you. It's an attempt to downplay Hitler and always to do down church. I don't think you downplayed him.

You're saying I've downplayed Hitler? No, I said in conversations with you and others, this is the shtick of these guys. They've decided it's edgy and funny and I think this is very, very interesting and also very dangerous because we live in an era now that the writers got some mojo back in America, we saw years of crazy left overreach where they tried to make us all say the craziest things. And completely predictably, there are now figures on the right playing with really dark and ugly stuff on their side. I agree with that.

And they are mainstreaming this. I don't think Daryl's doing that. And I think it's partly being mainstreamed by the two people I just described. And both of you have kept speaking to these people. And you don't get on the historians who know about this. And that's just alarming to me. Well, can I just say, because I kind of do agree with part of what you said there.

Like, I do think it is true that almost as a reaction to like the woke insanity that we've seen on the left, and I think literally, I think nobody's been a more effective critic of that than you, I do think there has kind of been a right wing reaction that has embraced racialism and is dangerous and not a good path to go down. Yeah, and now they're flirting with Holocaust denial

and Hitler, and absolving Hitler of blame and much more. I think you're wrong to include Daryl in that group. Now the other thing is, I'm sorry, because maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. You're saying people that I've had conversations with have downplayed the Holocaust? Are these two guys the examples of this? Well, who are the two guys?

Darrell Cooper. I just told you Cooper and the other friend of yours, and Carol. I've never podcasted with Ian Carroll. I have podcasted with Darrell Cooper once, and he absolutely did not downplay any of the Nazi atrocities at all. And I would also, I think that if we're zooming out here A little bit. Maybe this is kind of part of the disconnect broadly speaking in American culture

The idea that it has not been driven into people enough that the Nazis were bad and that Adolf Hitler was a he is Literally the modern devil he is much more so than the actual devil. Adolf Hitler is what's viewed as the most evil thing to the point that, I mean, just my entire life growing up, if there was a guy who sold soup on Seinfeld who was like authoritarian, he's a soup Nazi. Everyone was Hitler. The left called George Bush Hitler

and they called Obama Hitler and they called Trump Hitler. Every single enemy that we've gone to war with is always called Hitler. Saddam Hussein is the new Hitler. Muammar Qaddafi is the new Hitler. Putin is the new Hitler. So the idea that we haven't driven into people enough, that Adolf Hitler was a really bad guy. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying just as the left likes to play with very dark ugly stuff And they've done it for decades. They have done they have played down Chairman Mao's murder of the Chinese throughout his era in power. They played down Stalin. They still much on occasions with posters of Lenin

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

absolute, beyond the pale thing. Why somebody like Jake Shields wants to play around with Holocaust denial? Why? I can't answer for Jake Shields, I don't know. Why do you think? I have no idea. I think a lot of people get captured by this, by audience capture. Captured by their audience. Yeah, I think a lot of people get captured by this, by audience capture.

Captured by their audience. Yeah, I think that's the thing. You get a lot of positive reinforcement from a bunch of twisted people. Well, it's also, I mean, there's something about, you know, Michael Malice had that great line. He goes, when you take the red pill, you're supposed to take one and not swallow the whole bottle.

And I think there's like this dynamic. What happens is, and then of course people know the red pill is the Analogy from the matrix the idea that you wake up to realizing that so much of the stuff you believed was bullshit propaganda And it's all lies and this is a real danger when the establishment and the institutions are all caught with their pants down Having sold a bunch of very consequential policies based on lies. And then once people realize that, they go, well, what else have they been lying to me about? And then they almost want to look into every single thing and go, yeah, I think the whole thing was lies. Now, I agree with you, there's danger in that. And I think

that there are some things that then people jump to conclusions that are totally wrong. But I guess I tend to look at that and go, well, then maybe the people with power, not random podcasters, but like the people with real power should do a better job of not lying through their fucking teeth about everything. Well, maybe you have power. Maybe you have power, both of you. We live in an era where podcasters have a lot of power. If you go on a podcast with Jake Shields and Jake Shields goes onto another podcast and says he doesn't think six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust,

what do you think's happening there? That's an exercise of power, okay? And I agree with you about the breakdown of trust. Absolutely. We have lived through an era where in real time we saw something called a conspiracy the lab leak which turns out to be true as You and others said it might be from the beginning. I find that to be very racist

Racist when we were saying that the it was likely that the COVID variant had come out from the place making COVID variants. Especially since it's in the exact town. It seemed like it. It seemed like it was possible to us. Ask yourself this, who has access to your medical history? In theory, it's just you and your doctor. But in reality, hundreds of shady companies called data brokers are keeping tabs on every symptom

you Google, every treatment you research, and every pre-existing condition they think you might have. That's valuable intel for advertisers and insurance companies who'll take any excuse to raise your premiums. But there's a way to get your privacy back, and that is with ExpressVPN. With ExpressVPN, 100% of your online activity is rerouted through secure encrypted servers. This makes it impossible for third parties to invade your privacy. ExpressVPN also hides your IP address, which is the number used to identify you on the internet.

Without your IP address, data brokers can't use it to track and sell your activity. Plus, ExpressVPN is easy to use. It just takes one click, and it works on all your devices, phones, tablets, desktops, even TVs, and on up to eight devices at the same time. This is why ExpressVPN is the number one rated VPN by the experts at CNET and The Verge.

And the best part, podcast listeners can get four extra months of ExpressVPN for free at expressvpn.com slash rogan or by tapping the banner. And if you're watching on YouTube, you can get your four free months by scanning the QR code on screen or by clicking the link in the description. I was referencing the New York Times calling the lab leak racist, which is just the funniest thing ever that they go, it's racist to think that there was a sophisticated lab where they

were developing like gain of function research. And they go, no, what happened is these freaks were eating bat heads. That's not racist Well that one fella that one fella part in front of our eyes well, of course four years four years and I've said repeatedly It's kind of inevitable to me that if you see something that is called a racist conspiracy theory fall apart and become also what we used to call true in a few years, it's likely to blow a lot of people's minds. But the question then is, do you help those minds that have been blown, blow themselves

out some more by doing a whole load of other conspiracy stuff? Do you decide to go, hey, what else have we been lied to? Maybe Churchill wasn't a great guy, maybe Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, maybe the Holocaust, etc. etc. And that is exactly what they're saying. No one is saying maybe Hitler wasn't such a bad guy. You are saying that. No one is saying that. If you're saying that in the 1930s, Hitler kept the anti-Semitism down.

No, no, no, no, no, that's not what he's saying. What he was saying is that he didn't do it as publicly. He was doing it in meetings because the support for that kind of thinking wasn't as ubiquitous as it was. I've seen this. I've seen this before. I know exactly what these guys are drinking. They're drinking a couple of very, very discredited

historians like David Irving, and they are just regurgitating it. And it was always been the same thing. It is always an attempt to minimize Hitler's anti-Semitism actions. Eventually down the road, you get to minimizing his actual involvement in the Holocaust. And then you can go on to the next stage.

Yeah, but you can't say that about Darrell. It's not true. OK, I think what you're guilty of here is kind of similar to, I think, something that the woke left. Okay, I think what you're what you're guilty of here is kind of similar to I think something That the woke left has done which is this concept creep where you're talking about some people online who are doing this thing And then you're lumping in other people with them listen I'll just say this right now Darrell Cooper is currently I believe almost finished or he's working on a big World War two Series and when this comes out gonna out, we can see we can cast

Yeah, he does long-form podcasts when when this comes out I am quite confident to say beforehand that if you're going into it Expecting him to be downplaying the atrocities of the Nazis or downplaying the evil things that ate off head of it You're gonna be disappointed. Why are we even talking about this guy? You're gonna be disappointed. My point is, why are we even talking about this guy? Because you brought him up. Yes, because he comes on podcasts like this. My point is, this is not a serious historian.

He's not a historian. He's been, he never claims to be. He's been doing these long-form podcasts on these subjects for over a decade. And if you go back to 2015 and listen to Fear and Loathing in the New Jerusalem, it's an incredible piece. And it's how many hours long? 30-something? And it literally starts from the persecution of the Jews,

where they're being driven out of Europe. It's like this horrific account of what happens to these people. It's what he's trying to do is paint a picture of how the world goes mad and how the world goes sideways. And he's doing it from the perspective initially of these Jewish people that are living in Europe

that all of a sudden their neighbors are turning on them and they're being attacked. Like it's incredibly charitable. But what he's trying to do is show what happens to human beings when they're confronted with Unbelievable atrocities and how things go so incredible side with lots of people have written and spoken about that So why is he not allowed to I? To so he is allowed to I'm saying that there is a there's a weird way in which figures like him He is allowed to. I'm saying that there is a weird way in which figures like him, whose ideas are not being countered when they are raised, are given platform after platform

to spread their views. They are welcome to those platforms. I'm not saying they shouldn't be platformed. I'm saying these are very, very fringe figures who are pushing ideas that are either debunked now, have been debunked before, or they will not stand up against somebody who disagrees with them. Okay, I would just say maybe this is the disconnect here when you say there's like not pushback Daryl's one line on Tucker Carlson this one line where he himself said he was being hyperbolic and kind of says this to prod at His buddy got more pushback than any one line I've ever heard on a podcast there There were numerous articles written by historians,

numerous shows that covered it, people went through, there were Twitter threads about it. So I don't exactly get your point. There was lots of pushback. If you're saying he should go and debate somebody who's giving him pushback on that, okay, maybe. I also think it's reasonable for him to say, I don't really do debates.

Yeah, I think it's weird to mainstream very fringe views constantly and not give another side. I think that's weird. Well, I mean, okay, I think there's a little bit of a contradiction here. You're saying now that these are fringe views, but then you're also saying that these are enormously powerful views. No, no, no. There's no contradiction.

Let me clear it out if you think there is. I think there are very fringe views that have become mainstreamed on the right But then aren't they not fringe by definition sure you can play an epistemological game. No, I'm just no I'm just saying what's be a do understand the concept don't you that fringe ideas become mainstreamed? Okay, right sure So that's it Okay, I still I'm not exactly sure so you're saying that what Joe shouldn't have Darrell Cooper on I'm saying that So you're saying that what Joe shouldn't have Daryl Cooper on or that he should debate? No, I'm saying that if you mainstream very, very fringe views,

which are easily able to be debunked, if you mainstream them, at some point, that view that was so fringe will be what eager, very disconnected, unhappy people are gonna start playing with too. And if these people are such experts in how you see a society go weird, they can look at what is happening to a portion of the right everywhere on this stuff. There is a portion of the right across the West that is playing this very dark game and they're doing it deliberately

and you can't not be aware of that. I am aware of that. Well, I agree with that. I don't think Darrell Cooper is doing that, but I do agree with your characterization. I think it's a pretty important distinction there. You're just taking this one statement and then this where he's trying to joke around

with his buddy, this Churchill statement. And this is the basis of this. No, because he and these other guys are all doing the anti-Churchill stuff now. But he's not doing an anti-Churchill stuff. He and the other people in the orbit are describing. Churchill was the author of this whole Operation Unthinkable, right, where they wanted to use the Nazis to invade Russia. Wasn't that Churchill?

Is that not true? We're going gonna have to get into the weeds on Churchill there is always going to be a corner which you can get me on on a bit of Churchill but that's you have to you'd have to say what you're talking comprehensive view yeah I was never working with the Germans to invade no no no this is a plan that was drawn up. Do you know about Operation Unthinkable? Pull it up, Jimmy. Operation Unthinkable was at the end of the war, I believe Churchill was concerned about the rise of Russia, in the rise of the Soviet Union. And the idea was, and we'll find out what the historical facts

are about this, Operation Unthinkable, a name given to two related possible future war plans developed by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee against the Soviet Union during 1945. The plans were never implemented. The creation of the plans was ordered by the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill on May 1945 and developed by the British Armed Forces Joint Planning Staff in May 1945, the end of World War II in Europe. One plan assumed a surprise attack on the Soviet forces stationed in Germany to impose the will of the United States and the British Empire upon Russia. The will was qualified as a square deal for Poland, but added that that does not necessarily limit the military commitment, the assessment signed by the chief of army staff on 9 June 1945

concluded it would be beyond our power to win a quick but limited success and we would be committed to a protracted war against heavy odds. The code was... Yeah. This is... Okay. First of all, I never do Wikipedia. Okay, we'd have to do Wikipedia.

No, no, no, it's okay, it's okay. This is just what Jamie pulled up. Okay, but first of all, yes, at the end of the war, and a plan requested that wasn't seen through, that suggests that after the defeat of Nazism, communism of the Soviet form is also gonna be a threat to Europe, was simply

an evidence that, I mean, it was obvious. True. It's what Churchill had worried about throughout the 40s. Worried about it in Yalta. He worried about it everywhere. I'm sorry, but I have to return to this point that this man manages to do one of the most heroic things in human history in standing alone against evil in its most concentrate form. And he does about as much as any human being can do to save the civilized

world. If you just park that and you go on to a plan in 1945 to try to counter Soviet domination of Europe. You see what I'm saying? This is not doing something in the round. Yeah, it's also, look, I mean, look, I'm not even like, I'm not at all the expert on World War II, and I'm not like, gonna debate with you about World War II, but I would say that like, that is,

there's a lot of room for nuance and disagreement with what you just said. You know, in the 20th century, we had two world wars. They're the worst thing, objectively speaking, the worst thing that's ever happened in the history of the world. And the Second World War is the biggest bloodbath in human history, and it ended with handing

the man who you just mentioned, Joseph Stalin, half so listen if you want to argue I'm Jewish and my German descent so like I'm not against the argument that it was the Nazis had to be defeated and that was the most important thing but there still is just the basic facts that it was a it almost couldn't have gone worse it was like just a nightmare for civilization and if people want to look back at that and go, man, was there any other way this could have been handled? Was there any other way? Were there blunders that were made here?

Now, personally, what I feel much more comfortable arguing would be that I try to blame everything I can on Woodrow Wilson as much as I can, because also he created the income tax on the Federal Reserve and did so much to damage my country. But I think American entry into World War I was really a disaster, and imposing the Treaty of Versailles on Germany

was a disaster. I also think that's kind of fairly mainstream history. That's not a particularly controversial view, that imposing the Treaty of Versailles on Germany ended up in disaster. Well, no, except that, as Martin Amis said, the only way to not get to the Treaty of Versailles would Germany ended up in disaster. Well no, except that as Martin Amis said, the only way to not get to the Treaty of Versailles would be for Germany to win World War I, but yeah.

Yeah, but we're not talking about the Nazis winning the war, we're talking about, you know. Listen, I think that- But secondly, sorry, I just have to address that fundamental, you say the outcome of World War II and everything that happened in it was the worst thing that's ever happened, and the worst thing imaginable,

worst possible outcome, you said. No. Just about. You said worst possible outcome. Let me give you a much worse possible outcome. Hitler wins. Right, okay, sure. Okay, so it's not the worst possible outcome. I mean, it's true.

Listen, but okay, Hitler, yes, okay. I'm not saying you can't dream up a worst outcome. I'm saying what you have. That's not dreaming up. That's just what my country, Earth and others went through. But what did end up happening was the, 60 million people died, including the Holocaust,

and then Joseph Stalin takes half of Europe. So okay, fine. I'll correct that. There is a worse outcome. But that's not a great one. No, nobody said it was. There's a very weird argument that you now hear about. This attempt to revision this, and I know why it's happening. I don't think there's anything No, nobody said it was. There's a very weird argument that you now hear about this. This

attempt to revision this, and I know why it's happening. I don't think there's anything that's saying it's revisionist. I think there is. But this attempt to sort of say, look, you know, the end of World War II, what have we got? Stalin has half of Europe. What was the point? And so on. That's going on. That's going on. And there are people who are feeding it. That argument is very similar. This particular school of, as it were, history is doing something that I've seen happen with American history as well, particularly with Lincoln. Lincoln's an interesting comparison to make with Churchill on this. There are people who will criticize Churchill for mistakes made, not hard to do,

quite hard not to make mistakes while fighting at a war of total annihilation against your country. People will say, oh, he didn't sort this out in 1945. It's rather like Lincoln. He didn't solve every problem in the world for all time, but he solved a hell of a big problem for his time. And that requires some kind of generosity of spirit and understanding in hindsight.

As opposed to, I will find something that he did that I wouldn't have done, because if I'd have been running the British Empire in 1939, I'd have known exactly how to do it, and I'd have known how to hold the whole thing together, and I'd have kept Stalin back, and he'd have been great at Yalta. And this is... But I don't think anybody's saying that it, and I don't know how to hold the whole thing together, and I'd have kept styling back, and he'd have been great at Yalta, and this is. But I don't think anybody's saying that.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think there is a tendency of like woke left kids to do this, but I don't think that's what, certainly not what I'm saying, and I don't think what Daryl's saying. I do also think that one of the bigger, kind of the bigger picture dynamics to all of this is that we have, at least since 9-11,

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

And then all through the Obama administration, it's just like lie after lie after lie with disastrous wars. And so this does create a fertile ground for people to say, I wonder if they were lying about all these wars. Again, I'm not really trying to argue with you about World War II. I'd rather argue about these wars today. It's fertile ground, I think the interesting question is whether you're busy watering it.

Well, should you not talk about mistakes that were made overall? Absolutely. Absolutely. I have all four going back and looking at mistakes. So what is your argument then? It's a very weird thing to go back, zone in on a man, say this one thing is a mistake and should characterize him and you ignore everything else. You're taking him out of context when you're talking

about Darrow who's done, what was it, 30 plus hours? So what? 30 plus hours of podcasting? You'd do that in a week. UFC 314 is headed to South Beach and it won't be all glitz and glamour, but the stars will be out. Don't miss any of the action at Draft King Sportsbook, the official sports betting partner of the UFC. It promises to be another banger of events, especially in the featherweight main event between two evenly matched fighters, Alexander Volkonovsky and Diego Lopez. It should be wild. First time, just pick something simple like a fighter to win and make your pick. It's that simple. And if you're new to DraftKings, listen up. New customers can bet five bucks to get $150 in bonus bets instantly. Step into the octagon with DraftKings Sportsbook. Download the DraftKings Sportsbook app now and use the code ROGIN. That's code

ROGIN for new customers to get $150 in bonus bets when you bet just five bucks. Only on DraftKings, the crown is yours. Call 877-8HOPENY or text HOPENY467369. In Connecticut, help is available for problem gambling. Call 888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org. Please play responsibly. On behalf of Boothill Casino in Resorting Kansas, 21 and over, age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction. Voighton, Ontario, new customers only. Bonus bets expire 168 hours after issuance.

For additional terms and responsible gaming resources see DKNG.co slash audio. I'm yeah, it's a very Different very different. He's not doing a podcast like talking to people. Okay, nor is he doing scholarly work? Nor is he working in the archives clearly? Come on. I mean, this is he is not the historian of our era He's not complaining to me. This is a thing Joe. This is like punching jelly No, but you you't consume his work. I'm saying because I don't need to consume endless versions of a revisionist history. I understand.

I know where this comes from. But it's not revisionist history. If you listen to his work, it's not revisionist history. He's basing it on historical work. Yeah, I know, but okay. So this is my point about Jelly. It's a shape-shifting thing. Comedian or historian?

He's not a comedian. Historian or podcast? Would be historian or actual historian? You say he doesn't claim to be a historian, but he's pumping out tens of hours of history. Neither does Dan Carlin. He doesn't claim to be a historian either. You see my point about the move. It's like some weird jujitsu move.

No, I don't. Where you say, hang on, you know all about this as well. You say, I'm not a historian, but I'm gonna spend my time talking about history. I'm not a journalist, but I'm gonna spend my time talking about this thing. I'm not an expert on this, but I'm gonna spend my time talking about this thing.

It's a weird move, yeah? No. You don't think? No, I'm a free American. I can talk about what I like to. You can talk about what you want. So what is the point here? I've noticed you can, but we all can.

So what's the point? The point is what are you pushing? What are you watering? What am I pushing? Yes. Liberty, free markets, peace, prosperity, not getting in another stupid catastrophic war which we're on the precipice of right now.

That's what I'm pushing. What are we on the precipice of? Well, I think, weren't you just talking about it the other day? Everyone I hear on the inside says, we're about to attack around. I think you just said something about that the other day. Am I wrong about that?

I thought I saw in one of your interviews that you did. Possibly. No. Okay. That doesn't mean we are on the verge of a war. I mean, you keep referring to we being in wars. There's a very big difference between a country having a military that's engaged and a country being at war. This country has not been at war for 25 years. You have not been fighting for the American homeland for 25 years. Yes, we haven't. That's true. We haven't had a war on our shores. We've been picking on third world countries halfway around the world. Well, you haven't been randomly picking on them in Afghanistan

You went I didn't say it was random. Yeah, right. Okay It wasn't like you suddenly decided to bomb again Myanmar or something you went for Afghanistan to find bin Laden and Take revenge for 9-eleven and stop an attack like that happening again on the American homeland That is very different from a country being at war. That's a total mischaracterization of the war in Afghanistan. It's one thing to say that might be an accurate characterization of the special operations mission in late 2001, but then we thought a 20-year regime change war against the Taliban.

Because you got dragged into the quick sound of war. Okay, fine. But I thought it wasn't a war. No, I said it was a war. It's your use of we as if you're personally suffering this war. When I say we, it implies, so we pay for it. Okay, fine. Douglas, if I went back and corrected you on every time

you've used the term we to refer to your government or something like that, like if I were to say we just imposed tariffs on China, would you point out that I didn't and it was the Trump administration? You take it obviously very personally and that's your right to do so, of course. I'm just trying to make sure we're accurate here. What do you think I'm taking personally? That's that, the American wars.

Sure, yeah. I think they've killed hundreds of thousands of people and cost my country $8 trillion and degraded my country very much. And there's a very good argument to make on that. I'm still slightly bemused about this move from I'm an expert on this and I have views to I'm a comedian. I've never claimed to be an expert on anything. This is the problem, Joe. I mean, if somebody says- You have to claim to be an expert

on something to have an opinion on something? No, you don't have to be. You don't have to be. So what's the issue? This is like, I'm not a historian, but I'm pumping out history. But wait a minute, what about- I'm not an expert, but I'm talking all the time

about this thing. But you're not even talking about specifically on what he just said. No, I'm saying, this is my point about this. You say, I'm not an expert. So what's the solution? To not talk about it? No, it's to have more experts around.

Well, the expert class hasn't done a great job. I know. This is follow the science. Yeah, but you know what? I agree with that. I just said to you, I agree with that. But one of the problems is, far away. So Douglas, during all of COVID, I

will put my track record against any of the expert class on COVID. I'm glad to do that. So should I have just shut up? Should I have shut up by opposing lockdowns and opposing vaccine mandates and talking about the argument at the time? That's the entire argument that you're making. Let the experts handle this. You're not an expert. You're wildly not listening to what I'm saying. I think you have to take, I think we should agree perhaps on the following, that one major thing can break down in front of your eyes or many major things.

And it does not mean that every single one of the sewer gates should be lifted. Okay? Yeah, I get that point. Who's saying it should be? I'm saying this is a chatter on what is part of our side at the moment, is that a lot of the sewer gates

are being lifted, sometimes by people who know that they're doing it, sometimes by people who don't, sometimes by people who say, I don't know, I'm just throwing it out there. But at the very least, there's some damn hygiene that should be required, isn't there? Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but sure. Just that.

Let's have a bit of hygiene on our own side, not lift every sewer gate. And when you say our own side, you mean the right wing, broadly speaking. Broadly speaking, and I'm sort of funny about libertarians, I'm never quite sure, I always think of you. I always say, I think libertarians are essentially the bisexuals of politics.

They should just choose Joe. They should choose It's kind of they just want everything for the fair. It's very funny. Well, I think we want some things. I don't know Okay, that's a weird way to put it. But yeah, I see your point All right. Well, I mean, I don't know look I mean essentially I just don't maybe there's something I'm missing here But if your argument is that like you're saying I claim to be an expert, but then I have like a parachute to get out of it by being like, hey, I'm just a comedian. It was just saying this.

But I don't think I've ever like really claimed to be an expert. I have opinions on things. Because I'm interested in these topics. I know, but isn't it weird to go around for instances, I mean, let's get to the last year and a half. It's a bit weird to be simultaneously saying, I'm not an expert on a conflict and talking about it everywhere.

I don't think so. Not really. I mean, I don't know. I don't think like, I don't see how you do. Do you talk about these things? Which things? All these things that we're talking about. Some of them, yeah. Are you an expert? I am on some, yes. On some, but not. But you talk about some that you're not an expert on. You'll notice that I didn't do. What notice you do if those subjects get reached well I think that you educate yourself as much as you should you say I'm not an expert and then give your opinion if you're in The middle of a conversation as I say I think that it's a weird move to say I'm not an expert on this, but I'm gonna talk about it non-stop. I think that is listen I will certainly concede that I am weird so I'm not disagreeing with it's weird that I'm as obsessed with all this stuff as I am. I mean like okay, I'm a weird guy

I do I tell jokes at nightclubs and then get obsessed with politics and monetary policy and like okay fine, but I just like fundamentally disagree with this idea that which I really do think is quite anti-democratic in spirit and quite do think is quite anti-democratic in spirit and quite elitist, that there's an expert class, they can have opinions on all of these things. It's weird for any regular person who's just read about it. Not my view. It seems like what you're saying.

I conceded already, I said a long time ago that I believe much of the expert class led itself and us all down very badly. And I think that happened in foreign policy in areas, not every area, but it happened in some areas. I think it happened with COVID in many areas. But that does not mean that it's just a free for all. No, there are some things we can still verify to be true and can still agree on as baseline levels of agreement in a free society. And yes, everyone is free to air their views, but it does not mean that everyone who sounds off on an issue, whether it's World War II,

the war in the Middle East, the war in Ukraine, has an equally valid point of view, no. I certainly wouldn't argue, I mean, to me is just batting down a straw man. I mean, I certainly wouldn't argue that everyone has an equally valid point of view, no. I certainly wouldn't argue, I mean, that to me is just batting down a straw man. I mean, I certainly wouldn't argue that everyone has an equally valid point of view, and I certainly wouldn't argue that there shouldn't be some standards of like who you would want to find interesting and talk to and who you wouldn't. But also it's like, so let's have the conversation that like, I don't know, like if there's,

if there is, if there are experts out there who can smack all of this stuff down or just destroy every point that I make over the years or whatever, like okay, so then do it, and then let's see. I don't know. Well, that's a bit weird, because also then it's like the debate me bro thing. But I think what you're-

But you just could have said, Darrell, they're not debating. No, it's fine, it's fine, yeah, I know. Let me just make the main point. I think what I'm trying to get at, Joe, is that it's a bit like the Twitter algorithm thing, which is, yes, everyone is and should be free to say what they like on Twitter apart from whatever,

I mean, the very fringe things of like immediate incitement to violence and all that kind of thing. But we all know that one of the oddities of Twitter, including since Elon took over, is that what you hope is a restored marketplace of ideas ends up pushing you really crazy shit. And that is what I'm suggesting is happening on a podcast level and maybe on a wider level beyond that. I get stuff on Twitter I just do not want. I do not want a guy with 1,500 followers who's got some zany new view on something who isn't an expert but is an expert to be pushed at me. And effectively what is happening with the Twitter algorithm is happening everywhere else as well. And we're all for the open marketplace of ideas.

I want that. I thrive in it. But it is different once you get into the thing of, is something manipulating the algorithm behind? Is the algorithm being pushed on me? Why am I being given this? Why am I not being given that? Why am I being constantly pushed this view? And I think that the answer to a great degree

is the same thing in your world as it is in the Twitter world, which is if you go straight online and you say, you know, JFK file drops, watch livestream of Kennedy historians reading the papers live, you're not going to get any views. No one's going to watch it. That's what kind of what's needed is for the people who know the documents to go through the documents. But you and I know that if, as there was some guy who did immediately, you do something like live stream, Mossad involvement in JFK, you're going to milk it.

You're going to cream it online. The money comes in. I'm saying that there's a similar algorithm in all of our lives that we're not as aware of as we should be, which is that we, because we all know this at some level, that there are certain things that get your, a bit of your base going, or get people going interesting

and crazy, and then they start debating it and all that sort of thing. And that algorithm of online seems to me to be spilling into the real world. I don't disagree that there's certainly more sensationalist stuff will get you more clicks I also don't think that's a it's not really unique to social media or podcasting I mean this is true. No believe me I write for the tabloids. Yeah like right this has always been true. So yeah, okay, so it's kind of one of the problems of humanity. Yeah, I don't think anybody's arguing against that.

You know, it's certainly never my intention when I talk to someone to try to get more views. It sounds crazy, but I'm only talking to people that I'm interested in talking to. And in Darrell's case, it's because I've been a listener of his podcast for years. That's it. This is like genuinely how I pursue things.

I agree with you. That's why you're here. I'm genuinely interested in your views as well. Even though you completely disagree with him. That's the, I mean this is the marketplace of ideas in real time. I agree, although as I say, I think you've massively underrepresented the pro-Ukraine argument and the pro-Israel argument in the last two years.

I don't know. I mean, well... That's my observation. Okay. You're totally allowed to have that observation. What's the pro-Ukraine argument that you think is not being represented enough? Well, my broad view is that, again, something to do with the algorithm,

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

That's not my point. The point is after that, there's a whole set of things. Let's look at, for instance, the issue of corruption. Ukraine is a pretty corrupt country by EU standards, by World Bank standards. And it's been a problem, as it is in that neck of the woods. And it's understandable a problem, as it is in that neck of the woods. And it's understandable that if the US is one of the countries putting money and arms into Ukraine, then it's going to be a subject of legitimate interest to American people

and others, the European taxpayers. Nevertheless, you end up in this and I know this because it's the same thing in the old media, you end up on like the I know this because the same thing it's the same thing in the old media you end up on like the new bit of the story and There's always a risk that you will lose sight of the beginning of the story for instance. I mean Putin's corruption is legendary gargantuan and

not as interesting it seems to me the algorithm doesn't push that. And I think that's, to a greater extent, the case with the Israel-Hamas war as well. Well, isn't there a little bit of a concern? Like, I would say a couple things here. Number one, I'm not denying, I don't know how the algorithm works

or what it's pushing, and it's an interesting thing that we probably should all know more about But I think there's a danger when you're to just Classify everything as well the algorithm pushes this and doesn't push this It's like it could also be that some ideas are just resonating more and some ideas are more popular than other ideas And there's probably probably both of those things are at work in that dynamic But I also think that something like the reason why say talking about Ukrainian corruption is more interesting In a lot of ways than talking about Russian corruption is obviously because like well one of these countries is an enemy and the other one

Is one that we're sending tens of billions of dollars to him. So yes I well a debating on between Zelensky and the weapons companies I don't know. He says he only got $70 billion of it, but we've spent closer to $170, so whatever. But the point is that obviously, if there is a country that we are propping up funding, arming, and they're corrupt, I would say my starting point would always be

to be more concerned with that corruption than an enemy country, which it's almost kind of a given is a corrupt country. I'm sure there are fringes of the right who might say like Vladimir Putin's some great guy or something like that. But that is, I really do not think that is the argument that most people who are critical of this, of Biden's policy are making. Sure. I mean, I think the one of the interesting things that happens in this is the old cliche

of losing The wood for the trees. Mm-hmm. It just happens an awful lot And it's the nature of the old news cycle, let alone the current one the social media era Actually, I remember that So I would don't go back to World War two. Let me just very quickly I remember this debate with Pat Buchanan when he was debating Let me just very quickly, I remember this debate with Pat Buchanan when he was debating much more learned historians on the subject of the origins of World War II. And the whole thing got lost in all of this sort of mad puzzle of views about iron ore production in the Bavarian forest and this sort of thing.

And I remember everyone was all over the place and the moderator turned to the historian Andrew Robertson and said, Andrew Robertson, why did World War II begin? And he said, World War II began because Hitler invaded Poland. And those moments come along quite often at the moment, which is, yes, there's an awful lot of very interesting things to look into. There's a lot of very interesting things going on which we should all be able to talk about

and do talk about. But sometimes you have to remember the origin causes of things as well and you have to stick to keeping that in mind. Yeah, well, I certainly agree with- And I think that a lot of people are pretty bad at the moment of keeping that in mind. You can concede Ukrainian corruption, you can concede all sorts of things and still not lose sight of the thing of if Russia rolls tanks into neighboring countries, it can't be allowed. Oh, well, listen, OK, so on that, I think we have an area of agreement. And I do think like even while I much prefer the path that Donald Trump is pursuing to the path that

Joe Biden pursued when it comes to the the war in Ukraine and Of course, this is you know Donald Trump's thing is once you piss him off He's gonna call you every bad nickname that there is but when he and when you don't piss him you well you sure But when he's like the Danes come to mind what I believe he said that Zelensky started the war Yeah, which is like okay? All right? That's a little bit Started the war and Zelensky was the dictator like, okay, all right, that's a little bit ridiculous. Did he really say that? He said Zelensky started the war and that Zelensky was the dictator. Yes, okay, all right, so.

Trump said that? Yes, but it was after Zelensky pissed him off. He said Zelensky started the war? Yeah, but this is how Donald Trump is, love him or hate him, for better or for worse. Donald Trump, it's like if he feels that you disrespected him or came at him, he's gonna be 10 times more vicious to you.

By the way, this happened two weeks before the disastrous Oval Office meeting. And I wrote the next day the cover in the New York Post, which was a big picture of Vladimir Putin with the headline, This is a dictator. Just again, as I say, not to lose track in all of the melee, not to lose track of the basic facts. Well, look, I will say this.

As somebody who is, I'm very anti-war, broadly speaking, and I do agree with you that it should, like, we should be able to have conversations about all the things that led up to the war and all the different, you know, like, blunders that were made, and also still recognize that Vladimir Putin invaded a country and is responsible for, you know, at least hundreds of thousands of people dying.

And, you know, my, Scott Horton, who I always try to promote on here, he just wrote this book called Provoked. I think it's the best book that's been written on the history leading up to the war between, is basically, takes you from the collapse of the Soviet Union up to the war in Ukraine And even in that book the book is called provoked and the argument is that that Western policy was very provocative toward Vladimir Putin and there were a lot of

Off-ramps that could have been explored and should have been explored But he has an entire chapter in the book where he is saying, look, Putin had a lot of other options. He didn't have to do this. It's not as if any of that justifies his invasion. And so I do agree with you that whenever we're talking about a war, particularly a war of aggression, that should always be in the front of people's minds. I mean, you can criticize, I would say,

I think I'm consistent on this across the board, you can criticize Lots of things about the insurgency in Iraq Certainly, but you should remember that George W. Bush invaded the country when he shouldn't have and based off lies So I I'll I say that when my government does it I'll say it when the Russian government does it also that being said There's a very strong argument that there were many policies that the US, you know, NATO and Europe as well, but mostly the US, pursued that were just almost, like if you wanted to come to this inevitable conflict,

this would have been the policy to pursue to give you the best chance to end up there. You know, I was with a British military friend recently and somebody asked, what does the fog of war mean? And he gave a brilliant example of what it means on the battlefield, which a lot of people don't understand. There's a version of the fog of war in history as well. The great Czech writer Milan Kundera had this beautiful phrase in a book of his from the 90s called Testaments Betrayed where he said the odd thing about mankind is he said we walk through life in

a fog and we stumble along a path and we create the path as we stumble along it. So that's not the interesting thing. The interesting thing is that when we look back we see the man and we see the path but we don't see the fog. Everything looks inevitable when you're standing in the present. Everything looks like it was going to happen this way. And you have these endless, often fascinating, often futile explorations of what might have been, but it doesn't take into account the fog. That's a very good point. And the fog of Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union was pretty considerable. The efforts in the 1990s to bring them into a more obvious part of the

international order failed. My own view has always been that in part we missed an opportunity to pay a kind of civilizational respect to the Russians, which they deserved. But also throughout the period that people now say there are all of these off-ramps, and now so many people claim that NATO went around the region desperately trying to provoke the Russians into some kind of war or inevitably leading them that way because of NATO expansionism. They never take into account what was in my memory and experience very clear, which was NATO didn't go around recruiting. People came to NATO.

Countries came to NATO wanting to join precisely because they feared the aggression that Ukrainians have suffered since February 2022 and indeed before I was in Georgia just after the 2008 war began the country not the state always has to be confirmed otherwise people are what? Who invaded Georgia? We attacked Georgia. They're the bastards. But I was in the country of Georgia and Putin had tried to invade them and had seized South Setia and Abkhazia and they were desperate to join NATO. In fact they're desperate to join the European Union. I rather frivolously said to a Georgian friend, if you want we can swap, you can take our British membership of the EU. But the NATO thing, they were desperate for it.

And they were desperate for it precisely for the reason that many of the Ukrainians were desperate for it, which was only way to stop Putin expansionism. So in the whole fog of the post-Soviet era, that is one of the many things that gets left out of the conversation. And by the way, Putin's actions in February 2022 and since, all he's done is provoke two new countries to join NATO and his borders with NATO have grown. That's true. Because Finland and Sweden wanted to join.

And the only reason Finland and Sweden wanted to join was because they too are scared. It's a heck of a thing to get the Swedish to join a military alliance. It doesn't come easy to them. It doesn't come natural. And these countries joined because like Georgia, like Ukraine, they desperately feared Putinist expansionism and they weren't wrong. OK, but I get your point. First off, the war in Georgia in 2008 actually came, was it two or three months after the Bucharest Summit, where NATO announced that Georgia and Ukraine would

be entering NATO? So just making that point, that the NATO aspirations came first. But listen, I don't think you're wrong. I don't think anybody is ever implying that we've expanded NATO through force and that the countries who were joining, or at least the governments of the countries who were joining, didn't want it.

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

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

there was a real debate with at least three secretaries of defense who warned against this. Robert Gates, Robert McNamara, William Perry, the secretary of defense at the time, almost resigned, said his biggest regret in life is that he didn't resign over it. George Kennan was able to see right through that fog. He literally said, the Cold Warrior,

founder of the containment strategy, saw right through that fog. He literally said, the Cold Warrior, founder of the containment strategy, saw right through that fog and goes, this will inevitably lead to a conflict with Russia. And his exact words were, and then when there's a Russian response, everybody will say, look, this is why we needed to expand NATO. But the point here is, okay, even within that deep debate, which there were lively debates about, even the people who were on the pro-expansionist side of things, like Henry Kissinger, even he said, Ukraine would have to be a special arrangement.

Ukraine will not come into NATO, because obviously, that's leading to a war with Russia. And so, I don't think it's unreasonable, and I think this is a fair thing that we should do in all conflicts is like to have as a as a Mearsheimer puts it to have strategic empathy to say like hey listen Let's let's reasonably place ourselves in the other person's shoes and say how would we react if somebody was expanding their military?

Alliance that is explicitly anti us and is bringing it up to our borders and now is openly for years and years and years saying that we are going to bring your largest neighbor where you have very important strategic interest from your point of view into our military alliance and you are saying over and over again, this is our brightest red line. Do not do this. And then they keep flirting with doing this over and over. Then they back a street putch that overthrows the government there. Don't you think maybe that would be a provocation? First of all, two things. If you want that strategic empathy that I'm not an admirer

of, but if you want to do that, you can do it the other way around as well, surely. Yeah. I mean, do the same thing with the Ukrainians. Absolutely. Yes. Do the same thing with the Latvians and others. Yeah, but I would never, Douglas, but my response to you was never, I can't understand why the Latvians or the Lithuanians would want to be in NATO. I understand. Right. Right. And I can understand why Russia thought that Ukrainian membership of NATO

was a red line. I can understand that. But that wasn't why Putin invaded in 2022. And I think there's an oddity, if I can say so, maybe this particularly comes across on the libertarian bisexual side. But I think there's an oddity of the- Let the record show him a happily married heterosexual man. They all say that. I think there's an oddity that sometimes particularly happens on the libertarian side, which is a presumption that things

only really happen in the world because we make them so. And Russia invades Ukraine because of American policy in Eastern Europe post--1990. Something happened in the Middle East because of American policy. And I think it's a very blinkered and parochial view of things because my experience in countries around the world is that there's a heck of a lot going on that America is frankly not really involved in. Well, that's certainly a straw man of my position. I'm not saying that America is... No, no, no. But what I'm saying is, it is very, in fact it's partly since you very kindly

raised the issue, Joe, mind your book. It's one of the things I... Democracies and death cults. It's one of the things I find very interesting about this with democracies, which is it is one of the things in the nature of a liberal democracy that because we have the right to air our opinion, because we have the right to criticize our government and much more, we end up doing all of that. And there is a misapprehension people can come to, I don't know if you do, but they can come to, which is effectively we are the only force that causes action in the world.

And there's a reason for that which is that we have, thank God, a say in how liberal democracies are run and how we're governed and we can chew over all of the disagreements that we have. But when a liberal democracy comes against the kind of rock like a death cult, a totalitarian regime, a dictatorship like Russia or the Iranian Revolutionary Government, there's always this temptation to say, to focus our attention on our own side because we can't do a darn thing about the other one. It's a version of the you know, the great late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said when he was ambassador to the UN, he had this great rule, sort of known among those who know about it as Moynihan's rule, which is he said, if you sit at the

UN, UN Human Rights Council or any of these bodies, you would come away with the belief that the most abused people with the fewest rights in the world live in America and other Western liberal societies. And he came because we're the ones that talk about it. You know, if there's one incident of racism in America, the whole world knows about it. Everyone reads it is there'll be protests everywhere. If there's one incident of racism in North Korea, it's not going to make any news. And then you have on top of that the fact that the way in which despotisms and death cults and dictatorships work, the information just doesn't come out. And Moynihan's rule

ended up being that the, in an interesting point, he said That his rule by the end of his time the UN was that the number of human rights violations that occur in a country Happen in exactly inverse proportion to the numbers of claims of human rights violations Because only only the countries which care about it and which such things can be aired in are ever going to get it out But the the point of Moynihan's Law and the warning of it is be careful not to come away with the mistaken idea that the freest and most liberal societies are the worst. And I think there's a version of Moynihan's Law that applies whether it's from the Middle East to Ukraine and Russia, which is we come away with this, people may come away with the impression that the bad things in the world effectively all come from here. And there is quite a lot

to be said for some of that, but there's not everything to be said. Much of the world runs on a dynamic and a dynamo, which you can't do a darn thing about, other than to try to understand it. Yeah, OK, so I mean, again, I certainly, there is truth to a lot of that. And I think that is a fascinating kind of dynamic where there is something about kind of like, you know, I noticed this even just with my own kids. Like, it's like, and people, when you have kids

and you raise them really, you know, like you're really sweet to them and you don't hate them and you give them a good life Small things end up becoming huge it's like things in their mind like someone pushed me at the playground and it's like whoa This is whereas like the way I grew up that would have just been kind of like a non-event but anyway, I think it would be certainly incorrect to assume that Everything that happens bad in the world is somehow a consequence of US meddling. I also think that there's people on the other side here, maybe the people who are more neocon leaning, more war hockey leaning. They have a tendency to only focus on the bad things that everybody else does and act like our policies have no impact on this.

It should be ridiculous. Right. So very specifically, you know, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and I'll just get two bullet points on this and we could talk about a lot of this. But look, number one, in 2008, as you well know, right, the Joe Biden CIA director, who was the CIA director for the entire war up until Donald Trump just came back in, he wrote the Net Means Net memo to Condoleezza Rice, a private cable to the then Secretary of State when he was ambassador to Russia, to let her know that this flirting with bringing Ukraine into NATO is going to end up in a war. And by the way, the Russians don't want to do it.

His words exactly. If you keep pushing with this, the Russians are going to have, they are going to have to make a decision that they don't want to make, which is whether they intervene or not. And number two, Straltenberg, I might be butchering that again, but the head of NATO, he himself said that Vladimir Putin sent him a draft treaty in late 2021 and said, look, if you just put into writing that you will not bring Ukraine into NATO I won't invade now if you want to argue that this this pretty you admire your appeal to authority to the head of the CIA I just know you're a little bit well how is that an appeal to authority you regard

the the view of the CIA director on that occasion as being useful for your argument. But secondly, there's an oddity to believing what Vladimir Putin says. No wait, hold on, you didn't let me finish my point. So don't believe what he says. I'm not going to pretend to read his heart and mind or something like that, but at the very least, you handed him the giant excuse in order to do it. I mean, maybe he doesn't really believe it, but this is his argument to his own people

and to the world that it's like, look, and we put him in a position, you know, you hate Vladimir Putin, he's such a terrible guy. Well, we put him in this position where he gets to now very plausibly say to the international community in the same way that if the Soviet Union had survived and the United States hadn't...

He doesn't very plausibly have the opportunity to do that. He invaded Ukraine because he wanted to annex the whole country because he was trying to pretend that the whole place had been run by Nazis. Well, I mean, okay, the whole place wasn't run by Nazis. There certainly were some Nazis there. This is what he told the Russian people. Oh, he also brought up, listen, when he announced... You can lie an awful lot when you're a dictator and you have the ability not just to run all

of the media but to kill your political opponents. I mean, you can do an awful lot. Sure. None of this... You know, I just got back from Ukraine again the other week and it's so weird. I saw the Oval Office meeting, as it happened, from a trench in the front line between the Russian and Ukrainian positions in the east of the country.

And it was so weird seeing the way in which this country's territory was being talked about by outsiders, and particularly by America, because there's so many oddities about it, but the people who are fighting there, the soldiers on the front lines, the ones I was with, they're not fighting against Putin forces because of NATO expansion or anything. They're fighting because he lied to his own army, he lied to his own people, he lies to the world, and he decided he wanted to gobble up Ukraine because he wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union. And as a result, these young

men are in dugouts in the middle of winter fighting Russian soldiers because the Ukrainians homes are 30 kilometers behind them. And I just I think among much else that stuff that cannot be forgotten about none of this is simply about NATO expansion or this or that. It's about a country whose people are suffering in their third year of war. And it's almost total war. As much total war as we've got in the modern age. But that's not, I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I'm not saying, the Ukrainian people were fighting because they wanted to keep their country. People don't very much like being invaded by foreign countries. I understand that completely. And I've also always said

throughout this whole thing, that is their right. They have a right to do that. We as Americans have a right to, you know, have an opinion on whether our government ought to be funding and arming the thing. But all I'm saying is that I'm not making an appeal to authority here. I'm just saying that you have the top people in the Russian government all unanimously saying like, this is our red line. You keep flirting with NATO expansion into Ukraine. And then you have all the people at the top of NATO and at the top of the US government admitting it too. And going like, yeah, this is the whole beef.

So why is it like these two things aren't mutually exclusive? They aren't, they aren't. But I mean, they weren't going to expand NATO to Ukraine. Well, they kept flirting with it and you know this. The Ukrainians wanted membership and it was very unwise whenever anyone They weren't going to expand NATO to Ukraine. Well they kept flirting with it and you know this. The Ukrainians wanted membership and it was very unwise whenever anyone from the rest of the West even flirted with it.

Didn't Kamala Harris openly say that NATO was going to join you? Yeah shortly before the war. Ukraine was going to join NATO? Yeah I never saw her as the Kissinger of our era. Which I agree. There's some area of agreement Doug, that we can come. He's the guy for that. Well obviously, that guy's the future.

But, okay, but it is still the vice president of the United States of America, and it's not just- Again, that's not why Putin invaded. You can assert that- He invaded because the thing he's dreamt of since he had fallen down in the Soviet Union is- Do you know how he dreams? We know a lot from what he's said and what he's done

since the fall of the Soviet Union and his statements, certainly very early on in his presidency. But if he does have a red line and you violate that red line, is that because he's following his dreams or it's because- His dream is, as he's said many times, is the reconstitution of the Soviet Union's territory. I don't think that's exactly as he's said many times, is the reconstitution of the Soviet Union's territory. I don't think that's exactly what he's said. He's alluded many times to how great the Soviet Union was and what a tragedy it is that it

collapsed and things like that. But regardless- Something we can agree is a fiction on his part. I mean, the disaster. Oh, I think the Soviet Union collapsing is one of the greatest things that's ever happened in the history of the world. One of the most evil regimes, if not the most things that's ever happened in the history of the world Sure there's there was a lot of factors in there but yes, I'm pro-american views I what I will certainly concede that

us luring them into Afghanistan Was played a huge role in weakening the Soviet Union. It came with the minor little price tag of 9-11. That was the... But okay, that's... But you know, that's... The Soviet Union did not fall just because of Afghanistan. No, I didn't say...

I said it played a role. I didn't say it was just because of Afghanistan. The main thing was the stationing of European troops. Also because communism as an economic model just doesn't work. Right. And it was a disaster and it was destined to collapse. We can agree on that. Like all centrally planned planned totally socialist economies are destined

Except for bad results. I don't like the word destined in that because I mean my experience things that don't work can go on an Awfully long well look the Soviet Union went on an awfully long time I mean it was I thought when I went to North Korea some years ago that couldn't go on for much longer and on it goes Yeah, no, okay, so fair point there, but certainly it's gonna be the you know, it's it's a much different dynamic for a communist country like North Korea who is a relatively small and Not expansionist whereas the Soviet Union was trying to maintain an empire Which is a much tougher thing to do look the United States of America is going broke trying to do it So it was pretty tough for them to do

All I'm saying here is that, if the dynamic, again, it's not just that, first off, in 2008 at the Bucharest Summit, we announced we were doing it. Now, we didn't give them a map plan, but we announced they are coming into NATO over and over, not just the Kamala Harris comment, over and over and over again through the years. People at the highest level of the US government asserted that this this is going to happen that it's a matter of time and then the 2014. This was a major major Provocation toward the Russians that we backed this street protest against the democratically elected government there and and Again, it's tricky because the made-down protests were genuine students in the

center of the city who were uprising against a corrupt government. I'm not even arguing that Ukraine's a corrupt. And that again, it's the people of Ukraine like other countries, when they do have agency beyond what Washington. Yeah, I'm not claiming any of those people don't have agency. I'm just claiming that Washington poured $100 million into the thing and sent our politicians over there, our politicians openly saying,

we're on your side. You have the backing of America. Look, Douglas... Historically, you know, America does like to be, has liked to be on the side of people who desire freedom over autocracy. When it's convenient. Not so much when it's not.

Not in Saudi Arabia, not in Egypt. I'm glad you joined me in my dislike of the House of Saud. Okay, fine. But no, but look, it does attack- I was worried for a moment there. Yeah, but it does attack your central point there that it's like, no, I'm sorry. Like, see, this is my beef.

My beef isn't ever with talking about the corruption or the evil things that other governments do. What I don't like is this whitewashing over our own corruption or the evil things that other governments do. What I don't like is this whitewashing over our own corruption and the evil things that are. The idea that America, we have a history of just standing with the people because we love democracy so much. No, we use that as an excuse when we think it's in our strategic advantage.

We will overthrow democratically elected governments with no problem, which by the way, Yanukovych was democratically elected with elections verified by the EU, but I'm not denying any of those kids had agency, and I'm sure a lot of them were protesting against their own corrupt government. But the point is that, look, imagine on, I think it was Jeffrey Sachs came up with this, isn't mine, but imagine on January 6th,

if Chinese politicians were coming over and handing out sandwiches to the rioters and saying we have your back. We have, I mean listen, we would lose our collective minds if another country came in and did something like that, okay? And, I mean we lost our collective minds about Vladimir Putin installing Donald Trump and it was all just completely made up.

It wasn't even a real thing. But so to think, okay, those people. Well, those people lose our minds on that a certain subset For me being yeah, yeah for me being the bisexual libertarian here you have you have corrected me on my collectivism several times here And you are right. Yes, we didn't lose our mind I am speak but others many other people here did but you look I mean you're pouring a hundred million dollars into a street protest against a democratically elected president of Ukraine and the whole issue is over essentially whether he's gonna tilt toward an economic deal with Europe or tilt toward an economic deal with Vladimir Putin

I mean Douglas like if anyone did that in our region of the world, we would, DC would overthrow that government invade in a moment. If China poured a hundred million dollars into Mexican protests and was able to overthrow the democratically elected government. What do you think DC would do? Well, I have to say, to change the subject maybe, but Qatar pours hundreds of millions of dollars into this country, billions indeed, and tries to change policy in this country. And nobody's trying to overthrow Qatar. Nobody's trying to overthrow the Amir or his family.

And they've been poisoning American universities, American institutions, buying up American politicians. They pour billions into this country. I think I just sent you something about that this morning. Yes, I mean, well, they pull billions into this country. I think I just sent you something about that this morning. Yes, I mean, well, okay, but that is a little bit different than overthrowing our neighbor government and trying to install a hostile government toward us. You're saying that we'd lose our mind if anyone tried to interfere here.

There are lots of people who try to interfere here. And the most obvious one is Qatar, which has pours money into DC and into elite institutions and universities in this country. And I don't find from one week to the next anyone who's particularly riled up about it. Well, so they've been, I mean, so they're pouring money into DC. And so do you think that they are influencing US policy through doing that? I think they're trying to, yeah. Maybe they are trying to.

I mean, I don't know. They're definitely succeeding with universities and others. Maybe. For sure. They should try with the political class more if they're trying to turn us anti-Israel or something like that, because both major parties in this country will fund and unconditionally support Israel no matter what. So I mean, I don't know.

Well, I don't know no matter what. But I mean, Qatar is definitely trying to influence things their way as other countries are. I mean, I just, I cite it as an example of something that's very interesting, which is an attempt to interfere in the American public life, which gets almost no attention. And indeed, the governments, whether Democrat or Republican, still seem to adore the Qataris, even as they act as one of the backers of terrorist groups across the Middle East and elsewhere. And I cannot understand why it doesn't get more attention.

Well, according to the former defense minister of Israel, they were begging Qatar to pour that money into Hamas. No, that's not what happened. Well, that money into Hamas. No, that's not what happened. Well, that's what he said. His words, begging. You're referring to the funding of Hamas in the 2010s. Yes. Yeah, no.

The Qataris poured the money in, and the question on the Israeli side was what you allowed to do with funds that were going into Gaza, and the Israelis allowed the funds to go from Qatar to Gaza. I think a little bit more than that. I think when the funds dried up,

Netanyahu sent the head of the Mossad in there to beg him to keep the funds going. Again, I'm not sure. It's like quoting the head of the CIA, quoting the head of the Mossad. Maybe. Maybe. But that's not the evidence of the last 18 years.

I mean, it's, you can, okay, so I mean, I guess, I think I'm allowed to quote powerful people when they admit what they're doing. I mean, it's kind of like, you know. No, I know, but again, I mean, it's just an interesting thing, because again, it's a discipline about this, which is, do I only quote powerful people

when they say the odd thing that I agree with, or do I simultaneously distrust all powerful people? It's just an interesting rhetorical. Well, no, I mean, I think that obviously, like, I don't blindly trust anyone in the political class or the media class for that matter either, but when they admit things that are, like, very against their interest to admit

and kind of give away the whole game that now they're pretending doesn't Are you sure whether it's the CIA or Mossad that it isn't just if they say something that you happen to want to be the case? Well, this is kind of like saying if I were to end on trial and I were to like I'm the prosecution and I'd enter into evidence a written confession by the defendant and you go Well, are you only entering this in because this kind of goes along with your case like I? Suppose we're all guilty of having these these incentives to some degree But I do think it's a relevant detail that the former defense secretary admitted this and by the way Netanyahu's admitted this a hood Barack is admitted this all

allowed funds to go from Qatar to Hamas because For the reason of preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state. No, that was not the case. That is what Netanyahu said. That is what Ehud Barak said. It's all up and down. There's one claim.

There's one recording of Netanyahu saying something along those lines. But look, I mean, we should get onto it. I could read you the quotes from Ehud Barak as well. No, I know. I know. All of them get on to it. I could read you the quotes from Ehud Barak as well. No, I know. All of them have talked about it. The situation, let's get on to it. The situation there on the war of the last 18 months now, more than 18 months in the

Middle East, is a result not of that, but of Hamas deciding to start another war with Israel and trying to annihilate their neighbor. But you don't think if they were being propped up by Israel, that has nothing to do with the group? They were not being propped up by Israel. The reason why Hamas were in power, as you know, much, much against the interests of the Israelis, was that they were voted into power

after the Israelis was drew from Gaza in 05. Condoleezza Rice and other American states folk insisted that the Palestinians should have elections straight after the Israeli withdrawal. They had elections, perhaps unwisely, and Hamas won and then didn't have another election again and ruled the Gaza for 18 years until they finally got the great fruit of their labors on the 7th of October 2023 and went around southern Israel massacring everyone and they could including young people at a dance party and then caused in turn the destruction of the place that they were meant to be governing. The whole thing is a great tragedy,

and all of it is at the feet of Hamas. I certainly agree with you that it's a great tragedy, and I do, I think it's, when you accuse me of using the quotes that kind of, you know, back up what I believe, I think it's very convenient here to remove all responsibility from the Israelis. Like, even if I'm telling you that you have these quotes,

I mean, again, I'm not talking about fringe figures. We could read through the list of people who have admitted what the strategy was with them funding Hamas and property But hold on let me just say so if you're gonna tell me Israel Props up this this terrorist organization in order to kill the peace process in order to make sure that the international community Gives them a no one by the way Smotrich right the the finance minister. Okay, he's on record. He's on record saying look

Hamas is an asset. The Palestinian Authority, they're the liability. Hamas is an asset because then we can tell the international community, well, look, what do you want us to do? There's a terrorist organization here. We can't do business with them. And then even Ehud Barak admitted like this was also so that liberal Israelis, you know, if it was the Palestinian Authority, they'd be like, hey, we should make a deal with them But since it's a mosque they can't okay So if Israel props up this terrorist organization and then as a response to them committing a horrific act of terrorism Decides to level the entire place and just slaughter women and children in large numbers do that and it didn't do that

It didn't level the place Gaza's not hasn't got a leveled by now Yeah, they did not go into level the place like that. Okay, they went in and leveled the place. Gaza's not hasn't been destroyed. It's pretty leveled by now. Yeah. They did not go into level the place like that. No. Okay, they went in and leveled the place, but that wasn't their intention. Let's just go back to the beginning if we can. Sure.

Because it's important. Since you're interested in the question of the Palestinian state, the Palestinians were given another state in 2005 when every single Jew was removed from the Gaza by the IDF, and when even the graves of Israelis in Gaza were dug up and taken into the rest of Israel. Of all of the what-ifs of Palestinian Arab history, the era since 2005 should be one of the great what-ifs, which is what if the American taxpayers money that was poured into Gaza,

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

building their network of tunnels throughout Gaza and building an infrastructure of terror. And that's what they did with 18 years in Gaza. And of all of the what-ifs, just consider that that one was in their hands. The Israelis did not make them vote in Hamas. The Israelis would not want a terrorist entity that wants to annihilate the state of Israel, that is there on their doorstep, constantly firing rockets, starting wars every few years. Why would the Israelis want a group there that means that if you're living in towns like Strat or Ashcon or Ashdod your children grow up all the time knowing that they might have to go to the bomb shelters

and that's during peace time. Well according to them the reason they want it there is because then it kills the peace process and then you have a no no one to negotiate with certificate. And then you can keep your eyes on building up settlements in the West Bank. There are as now many people to negotiate with. Mahmoud Abbas maybe, I don't know as a joke goes, currently in something like his 20th year

of his first four year term as head of the Palestinian Authority. But Mahmoud Abbas is there in Ramallah. The compounds of the Palestinian Authority. But Mahmoud Abbas is there in Ramallah. The compounds of the Palestinian Authority, which I've been to many times in Ramallah, are there. They run their portions of the West Bank. They could be there to negotiate with at any moment. The Israelis have said they want to negotiate with them at any moment and come to the deal. In fact Netanyahu, your fund of quoting, said again before this war began that he would come to the table with no red lines to begin with to start another negotiation

with the Palestinian Authority. But let's just get back to this thing because this is so crucial. I am so startled by the post October the 7th world, not just in Israel and Gaza and everywhere where I spent most of the last 18 months, but in what's happening here in the United States of America. It blows my mind much of the response here and the desire to leap over the first victims of this and go on to all of the proximate causes, theoretical causes, what ifs and so on. I was, as I described in the opening of this book,

I was in New York on the 7th of October and I woke up and started seeing what was happening and discovered that later that day already, there were plans to organize a protest in Times Square. And what was the protest in Times Square? Massive protests in support of Hamas as the massacre was still going on. And one of the things I just cannot get out of my head is why in the last 18 months when Hamas did what they did have so many people made excuses for them or decided to side with them or deny their actions or excuse their actions.

Why do you think that is? Several very, very big things. One is I think people wanted to ignore the nature of the atrocity because it was so appalling that it went against much of their narrative. I was at a reunion of one of the survivors of the Nova Party on one occasion and he said to me, what would you do if this had happened in your country? And I thought, well, it hasn't happened at this scale, but something like it has happened. The Ariana Grande arena bombing in Manchester in 2017, the Bataclan massacre in Paris in 2015, the Pulse nightclub shooting in 2015. But all of these occasions when young people were murdered for being at a pop concert or a nightclub,

the world's attention, the world's empathy, the world's sympathy went to the victims. Only in the case of the young Israelis dancing in the early hours of the morning on October 7th, 2023, do the victims become victimized again and not believed. The era we lived through in the late 2010s was the era of believable women. And of all the Israeli women who were raped that morning, much of the international community does not want to listen to them at all and certainly doesn't want to believe them. And there are many reasons. One, at the most fundamental level, is that I think a part of a generation that's coming up has been told there is something especially wicked about Israel, that there is something especially wicked

about Israel's existence and its actions and its people. And it means that when their people are burned alive in their homes or raped at a music festival and shot in the head, they are uniquely undeserving of sympathy. And I think that people have been indoctrinated by very bad actors into this and as a result have excused atrocities or make excuses for them, make excuses for the people who do them. I think in addition it plays to some of the darkest things of the regional mind as well as the international mind. The aims of Hamas, their stated aims include the

annihilation of the Jewish people and October the 7th they had their best go at doing that. And the fact that in a decision between whether or not you're on the side of the people who want to dance and live in peace with their neighbors, or whether you're on the side of the people who want to rampage through a dance party bar in the early morning macheteing at people. I find it amazing that there are so many people who don't know which side they're on but there are a lot of them there are a lot of reasons for that but one of the foremost reasons is the fact that the state of Israel has been uniquely libeled has been uniquely lied about its

history has been uniquely lied about. Its history has been uniquely lied about. It has been uniquely put under an international spotlight and then misrepresented in a way which I cannot think of many other countries in the world that have been treated that way. And there are deep reasons for it and shallow reasons for it. The deep reasons include some of the most ancient bigotries of the human heart and the shallow reasons are people

who don't know what the hell they're talking about. Okay, I think that there's, look, I'm not gonna speak for what every person out there believes. I don't exactly agree with the characterization that there was no outpouring of feeling after October 7th, and certainly everybody I know was just like, oh my God, this is like a horrific atrocity. An unprecedented terrorist attack from Hamas,

the worst terrorist attack in Israeli history against Israelis. And it was horrible. I think what a lot of—I'm not arguing that there are no people who are actually pro-Hamas or there are no people who are actually like hate Jews or something like that. I do think that what happens is that a lot of people get put in that category who do not belong there, much like we've seen this over the last year and a half where a lot of people get put in that category who do not belong there much like we've seen this over the last year and a half where a lot of people you know you have John Podhoretz calling Thomas Massey anti-Semitic scum because

he said we're dead broke we can't afford to fund everybody else's war here people have been calling Tucker Carlson anti-Semitic all over the place but these are two guys Thomas Massey and Tucker Carlson who haveSemitic all over the place. These are two guys, Thomas Massey and Tucker Carlson, who have never uttered the words the Jews in their life. They're just not anti-Semites at all. So there's a lot of people I think who are, when they're critical of the Israeli government's response to this, get lumped in as pro Hamas.

I will certainly say, that's certainly not my position. I think your description of them, death cult, by the way, the same term that Darrell Cooper Darrell Cooper used to describe Hamas I think is an accurate one And it was horrible, but I think that the you know I think that your characterization for as well of that they gave the Palestinians a state in 2005 is just wrong I just think that is not at all an accurate way to describe the disengagement which we could get into more if you want to but

First of all, I would just point out that if the if the two-state solution was achieved I assume you're arguing it was taken away after that You're not still arguing that the Palestinians have a state or you saying they have had a state since 2005 They had they were given a stage in the Gaza the Gaza. And when was it taken away? Well, they kind of screwed it up for themselves on the 7th of October. So you're saying from 2005 all the way till October 7th, there was a two-state solution.

It had been achieved. Well, it was another state, yeah. OK, but that would be two states then. No, it was another state. It was different from the PA. OK, right, but I'm saying a Palestinian state. Yeah. OK, so what's interesting about that is that this is not how, like this is not how

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

How brutal do you think the Egyptians are? pretty brutal my yeah They laid a lot of stuff in. Okay, I mean some stuff has gotten in, yes that's true. More than some stuff, more than some stuff. Okay, I'll say this, right, because there's been different levels of blockade, even before 2007, going back.

I know in 1996, they had a pretty strong blockade that year. According to the World Bank it contracted 40% of the GDP of Gaza so just for reference the Great Depression was a 30% contraction this was in 1996 for one year they gave them something worse than our Great Depression that was just one year they from 2007 on there's been a blockade of that country. You don't think that's what the country or Why do you think is a blockade of any kind? Why is there a blockade? Well, I mean the The argument from Israel would know why do you think I?

Would say okay, I think that the disengagement I think Smotrich was correct when he said that I'm sorry I my mistake there I think the which another said that I'm sorry I my mistake there I think the which another quote that I'm sure you're familiar with but dove Weissklapp Who was the senior advisor to Sharon was the prime minister at the time? He essentially said the reason we're doing the disengagement the reason we're doing this is so that we can put the peace process in formaldehyde That was this is the reason we're not asking my question. Yes, I'm getting right wing Israeli politicians, but what do you I'm getting there? I'm getting there. I'm saying so I think they disengaged in order to kill the peace process

I think they put the full blockade around the country for the reason that they've always kind of done it there that yeah They don't want too much stuff getting in they want to keep them as they put it on a diet and they don't want rockets to fly into Israel The second one is a kind of important one. isn't it, the final one you said? Yeah, it is. If the Palestinian leadership in Gaza after 2005 had not from the get-go decided to use Gaza as a stockpiling place for rockets to fire into Israel, all of it would be different. If they had just resisted the temptation that so many of us do in our lives to stop keeping

RPGs in our cellars and then Katyusha rockets in our children's bedrooms, all of it could have been different. If that desire to live in peace beside your neighbors had superseded the desire to stockpile rockets It would all be different Yeah, or if Israel just had to try them for 60 years. It would all be different to Always on them Well, you believe in self-determination, I'm sure Yes, believe in individual rights. Yeah, okay rights. And that includes the right to make bad decisions.

Yes. The Palestinians in Gaza, when they voted in Hamas, made a very bad decision. Yeah, of course, Douglas. Hang on. Hang on. And in the years after that, they made bad decision after bad decision.

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

There was no deficit? No, there are plenty of. No goods were kept out. There are plenty, how many, have you been to the crossing points? No. When were you last there at all? I've never been.

You've never been? Well, am I not allowed to talk about it now? I've never been to, have you ever been to Nazi Germany? Are you allowed to have feelings about them? You can't time travel, but you can travel. Okay, but so what? So what's the point? No, I just, I find that very- Lots of people have been there and agree with me, and lots of people have been there and agree with you. Yeah, but if you're going to spend a year and a half talking about a place, you should at least do the courtesy of visiting it.

All right. I just think this is a non-argument. You don't think? No, I think it's a non-argument. But if you're an ex- But you have to go and touch the ground to talk about it? No, I think it's a good idea to see stuff, particularly if you spend a career talking about something. Yes, I have a journalistic rule of trying never to talk about a country even in Parsi, unless I've at least been there.

Okay. It's sort of normal, and it's a normal even in Parsi unless I've at least been there. Okay. It's sort of normal, it's a normal thing to do. You're talking about, hang on, you're talking about crossing points. And not only have you never been to a crossing point in either Egypt or in Israel, but you've never even been to the region. Okay. Again, I think this is a non-argument. I don't understand.

No, no, no, it's not a non-argument. Yeah, it is. It's not a non-argument if you're insisting that you're an expert of some kind, or not claiming you're an expert, but still talking about it, about the provisions going into Gaza or not, if you've never seen any of this going on.

So you're not allowed to speak about things that you've read about. You can only speak about things that you've seen with your own eyes. You can talk about what you want, as you're proving. But that is a different matter from spending an awfully long amount of time talking about an issue in a region you haven't even had the courtesy to visit whilst developing all of these views about it.

I mean, now I slightly get an idea of where you're coming from. You've read about this blockade. And so you imagine that that's what it is. I imagine you've read all the people who say that Gaza was a concentration camp. And you probably think that too. Am I right? I mean again, literally a concentration camp, it shares a lot of similarities I would think.

Wow. Well, as I say, you can't time travel back to the Nazi era. Let's go back to the blockade. But you could go to the Middle East and actually visit it. It's not hard to do. The World Bank said in 1996 for the one of the blockades are quoting the World Bank I look it doesn't mean anything. This is a non-argument. Yes

I'm saying the World Bank did their own analysis of this and they said that it was a 40% your own analysis Hold on you got to stop interrupting. Okay, let him finish I will the world Bank said that 40% drop in the GDP of one year due to the blockade and there's been a blockade from 2007 on so are you saying that there this hasn't had an economic effect? Is that the argument? No, I'm saying of course it'll have an economic effect So you're saying you have to be on the ground and do an audit of the blockade in order to be able to comment on it You should at least know what it is what the territory is what the situation is in the region. Yes, absolutely And the only way to do that is to be there in person.

I think that's the best way. It's not the only way, but it's the best way, for sure. For sure. If you have never seen the countries in question, you've never spoken to the people in question, you've never interviewed anyone, you've never gone around, you've never seen the terrain, and so on, and you've used Wikipedia, I'm sorry,

no, that's not the same thing. Okay, well, I've not just used Wikipedia, but didn't you write a big piece when the war in Ukraine first came out titled something like I've been to Ukraine and they can win, they can repel the Russians? So you could go there and still get it wrong, right? No, I was with the Ukrainian Armed Forces in 2022

when they were retaking territory from the Russians. Right, the last time they had any advances, yeah. Yeah, I said I can see how they can win, was with the Ukrainian armed forces in 2022 when they were retaking territory from the Russians. Right, the last time they had any advances. Yeah, yeah. I said I can see how they can win, which would be advances like that. Yeah. You said if we just fund them or if we just arm them that they can then, they can rebel. No, I didn't say that.

I said that the Ukrainian army was making great successes, which it was when I was with them in the fall of 2022. Okay, listen, there were lots of people who went to Iraq and said, we'll be greeted as liberators and it'll be paid foreign oil and democracy will spread through the region So I don't know either take on the arguments or don't but I don't but I'm saying but your arguments incorrect Okay, fine. Well then then present a counter argument to it, but to just tell me I'm not allowed to talk about something I'm not saying you're not allowed to be fun. Well, you're not an expert. So you shouldn't talk about it You haven't been there. Yeah, I know but you keep playing this game where it's like the whole opening to this podcast was like the Non-experts talking about this is such a problem now. You're saying I haven't been there. Yeah, I know, but you keep playing this game where it's like the whole opening to this podcast

was like the non-experts talking about this as such a problem. Now you're saying, because I haven't been there, I can't talk about it. Is there a blockade there that's causing economic devastation or not? According to the World Bank, there is. First of all, I don't think it's a game.

I don't think it's a game at all. Me neither. I'm not playing a game, okay? But this is semantics. No, but this is important Mm-hmm. I've seen plenty of this up close I've seen plenty of this with my own eyes because I do believe That one of the things you should do if you're talking about something is to see it. Yeah, you've established Okay

Is there a blockade? the blockade that existed to the extent it, was a blockade to try to make sure that the Israelis and the Egyptians knew what materials were going in and out of Gaza after the first rocket fires when Hamas, in fact, before Hamas was elected. The Israelis and the Egyptians, the Egyptians didn't do a very good job of it, were meant to be trying to make sure that the materials that went into Gaza were not materials that could be used to build up the Gaza and Hamas war machine. The reason why trucks get searched is not because the Israelis want to search through grain or flour. Because they wanted to stop the trucks containing the arms and the munitions that the Ghazan, Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters were going to use to fire against Israel.

And I'm sorry, it just makes the most obvious strategic sense as the late great Joan Rivers once said, as an appeal to authority. That one all the while. That one I like. She also said that Michelle Obama is a man. Yeah I know she did. I'm saying she got everything right. So can you say new? Go ahead. But as Joan Rivers said, if New York was being rocketed from New Jersey, we would level New Jersey. I don't think you need to level it by the way, but you would at least try to make sure that rockets

weren't being imported in larger quantities into New Jersey, of course Okay, that's all the Israelis were doing and they haven't turned away They would do aid they haven't turned they haven't said you can't bring potato chips in I can't have cookies because they have dual use No, isn't this their whole argument that there's anything that could be used to build a rocket has to be excluded Anything that could be used to build a rocket. Yeah, Right. Yeah. Yeah, but that's a good reason, again, not to build rockets and fire them at your neighbors. It's almost like there's a cost to pay.

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

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

children with the most rare medical conditions that couldn't be treated in one of the Hamas run hospitals in Gaza into very specialist units inside Israel. And she spent every weekend doing that and working with Bet-Solem and all of these radical left Israeli groups. And it didn't matter a bit when Hamas came in because they burnt her in her own home anyway. My point is, in all of the counterfactuals of this conflict, the most important one is what could have happened if instead of educating a generation into wanting to annihilate their neighbors, Hamas in power had spent 18 years building up a state, teaching peace,

creating coexistence with their neighbors. You think any of the people on the kibbutzim in the south or the young people dancing at the Nova Party weren't dreaming of the day that the Palestinian government in Gaza would have created those conditions for them to live beside as well? Of course. That's what anybody's arguing. Everybody argues against. Nobody's arguing. Douglas, it's just, again, No, I mean here. I mean, it's not what I'm saying.

Look, I'll say this again, because you bring up the point about agency again. And I hear this a lot as a counter. Much like I said in Ukraine, it's not denying anybody agency. I'm not saying that, believe me, if I was in control of how people acted, I would certainly, there are, Palestinians could

have handled things much better and there are different points where we probably all would agree that we wish they had done it this way and not this way. And I think that embracing, for those Palestinians who embrace terrorism, which from, you know, which pretty early on, I mean, Israel and Palestine have been at war since the existence of Israel really And I know it's convenient to like kind of pretend October 7th was like the first thing but actually there's a long history here I'm not denying any of them agency The problem is that I see it as like you only seem to focus on the agency of one side and then you know If you want to talk about counterfactuals, I think the most interesting counterfactual, well maybe I'll give you two.

Number one would be Heim Weizmann, who was essentially supposed to be the David Ben-Gurion, like he was in line as like the number one ranking Zionist, this is pre the creation of the state of Israel, who urged all of the Zionist militias to not embrace terrorism. And he ended up losing that battle ultimately. In many ways, this is how terrorism was introduced. He was the first president of the state. David Ben-Gurion was. I think Heim Weizmann. And he basically ended up losing his position to David Ben-Gurion because they just wanted

to be more hardcore. By the way, the Ergon and the Lehi and the Haganah, they openly embraced terrorism to drive out an occupying force. This is literally the story of the creation of the state of Israel. The Palestinians fell into a terrible tragic mistake early on. And I'm saying, listen, I reject terrorism as we all should just because killing innocent people is wrong. I'd like to get to that a little bit more in a second because it's interesting that we haven't really gotten into the

What I think is a great humanitarian crisis here But they were following I think in some ways they were very influenced by the Algerian model that they were like hey look we could embrace listen There's a lot of groups whether it's um which are you know well the driving the French out It's a nice Algerian war yes And right and but look I mean there's a lot of these Scenarios where we we look back at Nelson Mandela for example, you know, Nelson Mandela was not imprisoned because he was you know Making picket signs. I mean there have been people who have embraced violence as a means to achieve a policy end

Including the early Zionist settlers including the government, including the US government and lots of governments around the world. The tragic, tragic mistake in terms of political outcome from the Palestinians is that they really just underestimated the fact that these Jews had no home to go to. This was their home. And you could drive out the French from Algeria, because they go, screw it, we're going back home to France.

The Jews had been so persecuted in Eastern Europe that there was no home to go back and of course then after World War II, they were here to stay. And so it's of course it's been a tragedy. And of course a lot of Palestinian actions I wish would be different. I wish Hamas didn't exist. It should be pointed out by the way that in 2005 you did mention that it was really part of the Bush administration's exporting democracy around the world that put pressure on them to have these elections. It should also be mentioned that Hamas did not win a majority in one single precinct.

They won pluralities all around. So just saying, when we're bringing up this election, half the population of Gaza today is under the age of 18. They were toddlers if they were alive in 2005. Of the other half, that maybe half of them voted in these elections, it was never a majority that supported Hamas. They eeked out a victory. And then, of course, there was an attempted coup after that,

and that's when Hamas seized complete control. The coup failed. Regardless of any of that, I agree with you that, like, yeah, the Palestinians have have agency and I wish some of them had made better decisions now Many of them have made better decisions and it still resulted in Nothing better happening for them and their people and so I do find it kind of hard to like lecture a group of people Who are going through so much like the level of human suffering that's being inflicted on the people of Gaza right now cannot be overstated. And so, you know, to lecture them about how you're supposed

to handle that exactly, but I will say, man, I think there's kind of this selective empathy that you have here. Like I agree with you, you know, talking about these teenagers being slaughtered at a music festival on October 7th, it's like, my God, I have little kids? I can't imagine the nightmare of this happening

to somebody's children. But at the same time, we're not having this conversation on October 9th, or in November or December of 2023. We're having it in 2025, where the tragedy that's been inflicted on Gaza is orders of magnitudes greater than October 7th. There are just every day people are inundated with images of just dead women and children.

This is like one of the most brutal wars. And by several metrics that really, you know, like personally matter to me, like the number of dead kids, I think that's a pretty good one. It's more children have died than in any recent war I mean, this is like it does I do think there's almost Like a fundamental framing bias that you get into when people have these these debates and I've had several of them as you have Also, but it seems to me that there's almost an implicit Difference in the value that you place on Israeli life difference in the value that you place on Israeli life versus the value that we place on Palestinians life.

And to even like, we've gone this far into the conversation and haven't even talked about the fact that like, Israel has, feel however you feel, if you wanna argue I haven't been there, stuff does get through the blockade, okay fine. This is a captive people, you know, that Israel has dominated since at least 1967. Many of them are there

because of the creation of the state of Israel who used to live in what is now called Israel and They are just I mean the amount of human suffering that's being inflicted on them when even as you kind of acknowledged with the George W Bush expert exporting democracy Hamas in many ways was forced on these people In fact, we saw protests against Hamas just recently. So I don't know I mean that to me seems to be the greatest human tragedy and I think much more so than you can characterize it as people being Pro Hamas or people being anti-semitic But I actually think that the mass movement around the world of people who oppose this war has been that people feel really awful About all these babies and who are being slaughtered. Okay quite a few things. First of all just let's just

get one term correct because you said you do think it's a concentration camp. I said it shares many you know. And you also say that there's a disproportionately heavy youth population in Gaza. Yes. Do you think that's not accurate? I think the second one is accurate. Right. But it's a very strange thing to say that there's a population boom in a concentration camp. In Auschwitz in the 1940s there was not a doubling of the population. Yeah. He didn't say it was a death camp. He said it shares many of the characteristics. Auschwitz was a concentration camp. It was ultimately a death camp, no?

Yes. It started as a concentration camp. You'll notice that people were not doubling in size and number because of the children they could have in Auschwitz. Yeah, but nobody's calling it a concentration camp because it's the same as Auschwitz. Okay, but let's just at least tidy up the language a bit.

Either you think the place is a concentration camp or you think it's not a concentration camp and I don't think it can be a concentration camp or any such term is suitable when you're talking about a place which you yourself have admitted has a disproportionately young population. So that's the first thing.

I don't think breeding in any way argues again, but okay, I didn't call it a concentration camp. You said it has many of the same factors. But you asked him if it did. You asked him if it had any of the characteristics of a concentration camp. Yes, because he said earlier that it did. Okay, well, so let me be much more precise.

Let me be much more precise, okay? So I'm not claiming that it is a concentration camp or that it is akin to Auschwitz I'm saying that it's been under full blockade since 2007 Israel rules the seas the airs. They control electricity that goes in They're not allowed to have an airport. They're not allowed to have a seaport They don't have the freedom to leave without permission from the Israeli government. They don't have the freedom to trade with the world They don't have a freedom to vote over the government that rules them. I don't know call it whatever you want to that's the situation Which all of which is a result of the election of Hamas none of its Israel's fault

Israel's not responsible for one of the babies that have died Let's get onto that then because you say it's one of the most brutal wars. It's a very brutal war. It's a very brutal war It's certainly not even sadly among the standards of our time by any means the most brutal. We don't need to get into the rather statistician ugly debate about whether or not you follow the Hamas government in Gaza's figures for the death counts, which is what they, which most of the world's media rely on and which I don't think are reliable to the least extent. But you don't need to rely on that to say that even by the standards of the conflict in neighboring Syria, the highest Hamas death

count inside Gaza for the appalling last year and a half is less than an average year has been for the last decade in Syria during the civil war. So the whole deck, I mean, total far more people died in Syria. I'm not arguing that. But you're saying it's less than any year. I think there were years that were pretty six to 800,000 people have been killed in Syria during the civil war there. And I give it as an example, far too many examples of wars

in the region and in the wider world to go to. But I think we get once again back to the issue of language on this. It says, one of the most brutal wars is simply obvious that it's an appalling war, but it is not by any numerical or other standards the most appalling war of our time. It's the war that Hamas started

because they shouldn't have invaded their neighbor and they shouldn't have tried to genocide their neighbor. Now, if the war can be prosecuted, could be prosecuted, it was always for two reasons, always for two reasons. The first one, as stated by the unanimity of Israeli politicians and others, was to retrieve the hostages, who we also haven't spoken about, but there are still hostages in Gaza held for the last 18 months by Hamas, including young Eden Alexander from New Jersey.

If Hamas had not stolen the hostages and hidden them in their tunnels and hidden them in civilian homes, this war would have all been different. If they had have given them back and they could give them back tomorrow, it would all be different. But they didn't. They decided to do what they did on the 7th and to hold on to the 250-year hostages as it was at the beginning from the beginning. The second reason why the war is still being prosecuted is because of the stated aim to destroy Hamas, which is the stated aim of the Israelis. Neither of these things is remotely easy. Okay? And just from a point of humility, I think on every one side, we should concede none of that is easy. It is not easy to get

250 hostages back when they have been distributed across the Gaza to civilian homes, hidden in tunnels, surrounded by munitions and much more. Hamas is not an actor like Denmark. Its backers don't behave the way that our governments do in the West. They have a totally different time scale that they think along. They have a totally different scale of values as well. The taunts of Hezbollah's leadership, of Hamas's leadership, of their backers in Tehran are annihilationist to their core. But at any point in the last 18 months

the Qataris for instance or the Iranians the Iranian Revolutionary Government or the Turkish government or others could have put their pressure on Hamas to return the hostages who are still being held in captivity and everything would be different. Secondly, as you know, I'm sure you don't have to have seen this with your own eyes to know it. As I'm sure you know, the way in which Hamas built up the structure of the Gaza throughout

the 18 years that they had was precisely to flout and use every law of war against the Israelis. Every army in a conflict has certain rules of war that you're meant to abide by. One of the most obvious is that you are identified as being a combatant, not as a civilian. Another is you don't put weapons in civilian houses and civilian buildings. You do not fire from houses of worship, rockets. You do not launch attacks from hospitals. You do not keep detention facilities where you can torture and disappear people inside hospitals and other medical facilities. All of these laws of war are the laws that Hamas breaks every minute of every day by their actions.

So if you want to get the hostages back and if you want to destroy Hamas, when you're fighting against a force which does not only not follow the rules of war, but uses your following of the rules of the laws of war against you. At least concede this is a highly specific and complex military operation. And if you have, or anyone else has, and I say this genuinely, a better way to get back the hostages and to destroy Hamas, I at any rate am all he is. Okay.

Okay, well, there's a lot there. So number one, like I do agree generally with your point about having some humility in these complex situations, but I would also say like, do you not then at any point, as you're a very well-known public figure who's supporting this war, think about the level of human suffering that is being inflicted on these innocent people and go, man, is there another way?

Maybe I'm getting this wrong. Maybe this is the Iraq War all over again, which you also supported, that maybe that was a big mistake. If I say it, I don't need to think about it. I've seen it. Oh, okay, fine. I say it, I don't need to think about it. I've seen it. I know it. I describe it in my book.

I describe what I see in Gaza with the Palestinians when they're moving down the humanitarian corridor. OK, let me just respond to some of the stuff you said. OK, so then I guess it's not really that much of humility involved in this. But there's two very different goals that are being stated here, right? Like there's the retrieving the hostages and then there's taking out Hamas. Now,

retrieving the hostages and actually many of the families of hostages who are taken have been some of the only people really protesting this war in Israel because of course, you know, if you imagine if you have your family over there and your government is leveling this place, that is not the best path to pursue to make sure you get all the hostages out alive I would say that don't it fell apart But Donald Trump having his envoy witkoff go over there and work out this ceasefire deal that they had for a few weeks They did get a I believe 30 hostages back during the phase one of this This ceasefire seems to me like that would be the method to pursue to try to get the hostages back during the phase one of this this ceasefire seems to me like that would be the method to pursue

To try to get the hostages back But if you're trying if you're talking about eliminating Hamas, and I think there's something kind of interesting that you touched on there I don't complete you know I disagree with much of your characterization of it that like Israel are the good guys who always follow the rules we could kind of get into some of that There's lots of rules like in that Israel does not follow. That being said, yes, of course. I mean, you're describing guerrilla warfare, terrorist organizations. That's right. They stated differently. Gaza doesn't have an air force or an army or a Navy. They're they're just a basically militias running around terrorists who are trying to do everything they can to

fight an asymmetrical war. And just like we helped teach Osama bin Laden how to do the Soviets, and then Osama bin Laden successfully did to us, the whole game in these asymmetrical wars is to get exactly what Hamas got out of this, right? Like Osama bin Laden knew that he couldn't bankrupt the United States of America by taking down the Twin Towers, but he thought he could lure us into a war in Afghanistan that would bankrupt us. Now it didn't completely, but it came pretty close.

That being said, well, I just mean, in terms of how much it drained the treasury, it was way more than any terrorist attack could have possibly done. That being said, the idea that it's not like, I don't think morally speaking, when you're inflicting this level of suffering on a group of people, that the calculation should be like,

well, we wanna remove Hamas from power. That's the goal, justice for October 7th. You know, there's lots of governments around the world that we would, and Hamas isn't exactly a government, but there's lots of regimes around the world that we would, and I'm not saying exactly a government, but there's lots of regimes around the world that we would all like to see removed, but that doesn't mean that we would approve of any means by which to get there. You know, if you were like, hey, I think Kim Jong-un's government should be dissolved,

I'm sure we would all agree with that. But if you were like, I'm going to level the place and just like slaughter people in order to do it, you might be like, okay, hold on. But aside from that, this has been acknowledged at the highest levels of Israeli intelligence and US intelligence, that there's just no way to get rid of Hamas without it being replaced by more Hamas or Hamas light group, because it's the basic understanding of this whole situation, right? It's, it's general McChrystal's insurgent math.

There's still Hamas people, Hamas are popping back up in the areas that Israel's already leveled. And the more innocent people you kill, the more radicalized you're going to get this population, the more these people are going to hate you and join up with the resistance movement. And so I just think that to use the justification that we're trying to get rid of Hamas and therefore It's not like it doesn't matter how many innocent women and children die in the process Of course, but there's no responsibility on you You you now are not responsible for the bombs that you drop how many people they kill

No, of course you're responsible. So Israel is responsible then they're responsible for the means of their retaliation and their war aims Yes, of course. First of all, let me just say, I totally disagree with your characterization of Zama bin Laden and what he wanted to do, and I don't think that Zama bin Laden's stated public utterances along those lines. But anyway, the reason why the hostages have been released,

the numbers they have, is because of constant kinetic force by the IDF. Hamas does not come to the table and ever hand over hostages out of goodwill. It doesn't do it out of the goodness of their own heart. It does it because of the constant kinetic force of the IDF in Gaza. And if it weren't for that, all 250 hostages would still be there. Second thing is, when it comes to Hamas itself, I totally disagree with the presumption that if you tackle a terrorist entity, you will create more terrorists.

Ergo, you should create more terrorists' ego. You should not attack the terrorist entity. That's not the argument that I'm making, but okay. It's a commonly held argument that if you respond to terrorism, you create terrorism. And of course, the only thing in that case is you just have to sit back and take it. The argument that I'm making is that

when you slaughter innocent people, those people around them tend to hate your guts. That's the argument that I'm making. First of all, your characterization of the slaughter. It's horrible, the war in Gaza. It's horrible that young Israelis have to go in, yet again, to Gaza and try to find Israeli hostages and try to get the leadership of Hamas.

That's what's horrible about it? It is not the case. Yes, because I think there's a consequence to starting wars. But so it's not horrible for the people who didn't start a war? Why do we become like these collectivists as soon as a war starts?

It is horrible for everybody involved. No, it's the most horrible for the Palestinian people in Gaza right now. That is the group of people who are being fucked over the most right now. No? Yes, at the moment, yes. But they who are being fucked over the most right now. No? Yes, at the moment, yes. Right.

But they're not being fucked over. The IDF has been moving through Gaza for 18 months. No Israeli soldier I have spoken to ever wanted to go and see the Gaza again. Okay? Nobody wanted to go back. They were dragged back because of Hamas's actions. And if Hamas had acted differently or the Palestinians had voted in different people and to govern them, it would all be different.

But again, that's a hypothetical. The reality of the war on the ground is that in this incredibly heavily built up area with weaponry hidden everywhere, with soldiers, I've spoken to too many of them. They go in. You have a group of people coming out of a civilian building with their hands up. And from their midst come a bunch of Hamas terrorists firing at you in the hope that the IDF will

fire back at the civilians. Gadi Eisenkot, one of the members of the War Cabinet in the early stages of the war, lost his own son and then his nephew. His nephew was killed in a firefighting Gaza because the Hamas terrorists were firing from a mosque and that was why Gadi Eisenkot from the Israeli cabinet's nephew died. The whole operating theater is hideous because of what Hamas has done to the Gaza. The reason why Sinwar cropped up in Ra'far, finally the mastermind of October the 7th,

one of the most brutal sadistic psychopaths, to use an overrated term you can ever imagine, in an Israeli prison by the way, for having strangled Palestinians to death in the 2000s, but anyway. The reason why Sinwar crops up in Ra'afah late last year is because there was nowhere else for him to run because of the actions of the IDF to pursue the leadership of Hamas that was responsible for the seventh. Now, can all of Hamas be

destroyed? Probably not. Can you make it effectively impossible to function or incapable of functioning, unable to fire rockets and govern the Gaza? Yes. Right, but it comes at the price tag of slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people. No, no. And you're accepting that price? No. Every single war of this kind will include civilian casualties, And you and I will almost certainly disagree on the numbers. I'm not claiming that the health ministry's numbers are perfect. But there will be.

Almost certainly. The best case analysis is that one innocent Garzahan has been killed for every one terrorist. That's the best case scenario you can hear. But that would be almost unparalleled in the laws of war. And it's not how the American or British militaries operate in terms of casualties to terrorist ratios. But when we had the campaign against ISIS a decade ago, after ISIS's fighters had gone and massacred people

at the Bataclan Theater in Paris and so on. We used Turkish fighters, brilliant brave fighters from the Peshmerga militias, to work on the ground. And the French and American and British air forces bombed like hell from the air. And we made ISIS, effectively touch touch wood, 10 years later, operationally incapable in capital cities in Europe. Has ISIS as a whole gone away? No. They still have pockets in Syria and in Iraq. But we stopped them from being able to do what they most desired to do.

And the same is possible with Hamas. Will they be replaced by some other group? Again, then we get to one of the crucial decision points for the Palestinian people. Is it inevitable that they constantly have to elect people who want to annihilate their neighbors or will there ever be a generation that can find a way to live in peace with their neighbors? I agree. Most people don't like being bombed, in fact nobody does, but if the people of the Palestinians in Gaza can find it within themselves to realize the thing they asked for in the elections is the thing

that has destroyed the area they live in. And like that brave young man two weeks ago in Gaza who rose up against Hamas and was identified by the people who remain in Hamas and was tortured and then his body thrown onto his parents' doorstep in the Gaza. The parents started a, well the family, the clan started a bit of a war against Hamas, but that's how Hamas treats Palestinian dissidents. But if there were more people like that young man, and of course as we all know the history of totalitarian and terrorist groups running societies is, they're very successful and they stay in power because they're willing to torture and use violence and much more.

It's a horrible thing you have to contend with. But if more people like that young man had come about in Gaza in the last 18 months or before, yes. Yes, it would all be different. And if they could avoid electing a terrorist group that invades their neighbors and fires rockets at their neighbors, yes, it could all be different. It could all be different tomorrow. And I'll tell you, sorry, again, there is not a person living by the Gaza in the south of Israel who does not dream of the day that such a generation of Palestinians emerges.

Yeah. I think that, okay, a few things here. On Syria there, because it is true, I mean, I think, so, okay, so John Brennan and Barack Obama, the head of the CIA and of course the former president of the United States of America, had a policy of committing literal treason, before they ended up accusing Donald Trump of treason, which was all bullshit, but they had a policy of committing literal treason by funding al-qaeda and isis in the Syrian civil war poured billions of dollars and tons of weapons into that conflict when Donald Trump now it is true

By the way, you are correct that like there certainly were military actions taken against isis after they invaded Iraq Which was not supposed to be part of the plan There was also a lot of military actions taken by Vladimir Putin Against isis after he came in on Assad's request, as you know. In 2017, when Donald Trump came in, one of the best things Donald Trump ever did, he cut off the CIA program to fund the anti-Assad rebels. And this was also a big part of what ended up taking the energy out of ISIS. Also, I think there was a lot of good reporting that just, they turned enough people

on the ground against them. They were even just too radical and just people ended up hating them. It is true that they receded for quite a while, although the former Amir of Al-Qaeda, Al-Jilani, is now ruling Syria, which does not seem like a great deal or something that people in America should support,

the true enemy of the American people, al-Qaeda now being in charge of Syria. I think that, you know, it's easy to talk about how like if the Palestinians had done this different, then maybe things would have worked out different. But I just think again, when you look at things, when you say, which essentially I think is your point here,

right, which I mean I tried to push you on this, but you're saying, look, we can degrade Hamas, but the cost of that is gonna be slaughtering a whole bunch of people. It's not slaughtering, it's war. Okay, I think you're, okay, they're not being slaughtered, they're being killed, okay, whatever word you wanna use. They're being killed in a brutal war started by her mass? Yes. It's it's babies

And little kids screaming out for help under rubble and no help is coming They sit there under the rubble until they die That is the level of human suffering that's being inflicted and if you want to say well listen That's a price that I'm willing to pay to try to degrade Hamas Even though you yourself recognize that we can't totally eliminate them, but we could maybe degrade them or maybe take them down a peg. And the price for that is these babies

being tortured to death, essentially, whatever you want to call it. Okay, but from the other side of that story, like if there's, like, I got little kids, I don't know if you have kids, I know you have kids, Joe, if anybody ever was saying to me that, like like my kids were the acceptable price for this policy that We want to put into place I'm saying I don't think there's any scenario any scenario Douglas where there would be any time where you would accept

Israeli kids dying like that as an acceptable price for a policy that you're going to be Advocating for first of all again, go back to what is actually happening. There is no desire or aim by the IAF or the IDF to go into Gaza and kill women and children. What they're doing at that. Hang on, hang on. There is no desire for that? Does it happen collaterally? Certainly,

certainly. And that is one of the very ugly rules of war and things that happens in war. And it's another of the reasons why it's almost like you shouldn't start a war and hide your rockets and your terrorists inside civilian buildings. Yeah, but hang on, you've made this point a lot of times, but okay. Well, it clearly can't be made enough because there is no intention on the Israeli side to cause the death of non-combatants. Oh, come on. Listen. What, you think, why do you think the Israelis

would want to go and kill children in Gaza? Listen, let me just, how about I say it like this, okay? And by the way, when I say it like this, I'm not claiming that disputes between nations are the same as handling dispute domestically. I'm just saying on the idea of intentionality or who wants to do this or whatever. Look, if you, even if you had the right,

let's say somebody broke onto your property and killed some of your family members and you wanna go kill this guy, if he goes back to his apartment building and you know that there's women and children in that apartment building and so your move is to blow up the building, what you would be charged with is murder in the first degree. Cold-blooded, premeditated, intentional murder. You could sit there and tell the judge, I didn't want to kill all those people.

Why would I want to kill all of those people? I just had to kill that one guy. But that's bullshit. That's not what counts. You did it intentionally. You dropped a bomb knowing that there were women and children in that building. You're taking an action knowing that these innocent people are going to die. Then that is by definition intentional.

And you know, you could sit here and talk about, and it is true, there have been documented cases of Hamas placing missiles in mosques and in schools and things like that But when you look at the aerial footage of Gaza that does not describe every single strike that Israel is committed that Israel is launched There have been tons of bombs dropped where it's simply and we have very good reporting on this where they've literally just have information that they believe with some degree of certainty that a couple of Hamas militants are in this building and so they blow up the building. That is intentionally murdering innocent people. And you, if you're gonna advocate for this war, I don't see how you can do it without saying that, like, at least spite the bullet that Madeleine

Albright did when she was asked, that we've played this clip on the show before when she's point-blank asked about the sanctions on Iraq and our 500,000 children is that price acceptable? And she said, yes, we believe that price is acceptable. You're saying if you're going to support this war, you know this is the price of it. So why can't you just say, yes, that price is acceptable? Because then we could have a real conversation about why the other side is going to look at you like a monster. Because first of all, I don't agree with any of the characterization you make, any of it. You say that the Israelis get some information as if this is like, what, they're making it

up or you think the Israelis want to drop a bomb or you know they they act they act on information about where the terrorists are just like they act on information of where the hostages are secondly when you talk about the destruction the Gaza something you probably haven't haven't realized but is one of the reasons why the destruction looks so bad and is so bad is because when the IDF were clearing the areas that they'd asked the civilian population to leave and were going house to house, and it isn't just stories here or stories there, it's every second or third house in Gaza that has either munitions or tunnel entrances. Every second or third house. This is not the odd case.

One of the things that everybody who has been there knows is that you go into a mosque and you know there will be either rockets and or tunnel entrances. You go into a hospital and you know that there will be grenades or tunnel entrances or dungeons or whatever. Just on a lighter note, early in the conflict when the Shifa complex, which is used as a Hamas headquarters and has also been used as a hospital, but even in 2014 the BBC said this is where Hamas are operating from. When that was shown by the Israelis to have massive weapons stores in the tunnels and cellars underneath it, they had grenades, RPGs, Kalashnikovs, and the BBC's chief Middle East correspondent was asked live on air, why would these things be in a hospital?

And Jeremy Bowen said, well, it's perfectly possible because there's a lot of guns in the Middle East, it's perfectly possible the security department of the hospital had the clash In the cops. I said yeah, and did the grenades belong to the cardiologists? I mean why why is this so normal that these Every civilian mill building like this and every second or third house in Gaza is a weapons dump or a place that you enter the tunnels from But the reason why the devastation which it is in the north in particular, but also in Rafa and elsewhere, is what it is, is because every time the IDF went into an area where they had told the civilians to leave, the Hamas terrorists that remained were in civilian buildings and booby-trapped a very large number of the buildings.

So what they did as they proceeded through those areas of the Gaza to clear them was to set off munitions, which the American military and others use, which sets off secondary explosions in places that are booby-trapped. And much of what you see in the photographs that you see and many other people have seen from Gaza is the result of that. It is the result of the IDF trying to clear an area which has been very carefully and well booby-trapped for years. Let me make one other very quick point about the bigger picture that you said because I

think it's important. We were talking about the Syrian, you mentioned the Syrian conflict and ISIS. I think again it's really important to keep this in mind what I said earlier about, let's not think we are the primary actors everywhere, or even that important. I remember the debate over the Syrian intervention issue and at the time, despite being in many cases an interventionist, I said on that occasion, I said we didn't know what we were doing, clearly didn't know who we were going to back. If you remember, John McCain went to Syria to speak to some rebels and one of them immediately turned out to be a kind of head hacking G-Headist. That wasn't great. I said I don't have any confidence that we know who to back and despite many Syrian friends of mine imploring me otherwise

I said I don't think it's something we can get involved in. However, if you look at the last 10 years or more, what is it now, 13 years of conflict in Syria, the US and the Western powers are not remotely significant actors in that conflict. The significant actors in that conflict were, always have been, the Russians, the Iranians. I mean, one of the things that blows my mind in the analysis of the region is the fact that the prime mover in the region, the revolutionary Islamic government in Iran that has been oppressing the Iranian people since 1979 and has been holding a great civilization in captivity,

that the Iranian revolutionary government in Tehran has literally been colonizing the region. I have this rule about, I took it from Vasily Groszman, the great Soviet Jewish writer, who had this great line about, tell me what you accuse the Jews of, and I'll tell you what you're guilty of. This absolutely runs as well with the accusations against the Jewish state in the region.

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

the disaster is not of our making primarily. We are bit players. America is a bit player. In Iraq? In Syria. We are a bit player. Yeah, you mentioned Iraq in there too. I know. Well, the great idiocy of that was that Iraq notices our failings, our lack of staying power, our desire to get out as soon as possible and much more, which is all understandable. No, I don't. And they moved in. And they moved in, of course. But I was talking about Syria.

In the Syrian theater, the main actors are not us. And one of the things I'm still interested in about this mindset that you have is why does it always have to be us? about this mindset that you have is why does it always have to be us? It's other people who have actions in the world. The Russians, the revolutionary government in Iran, they are so busy in the region. This is all about framing here because I don't think I've ever once made this claim. You've made this point several times so far, but I've never once made the claim that everything is always us. I think you're the one who's downplaying the influence and impact that we have.

We are, after all, when I'm saying we, I'm saying the United States of America's federal government is the largest, most powerful organization in the history of the world. It is the world empire. And to sit there and say Iran colonized Iraq, no, George W. Bush invaded the country on a bunch of lies, a war that you supported He went in there and overthrew Saddam Hussein and installed democracy in the Shiite majority country Of course, he handed the thing over to Iran But that but to say that that had no impact on Syria or that the US military funding and arming the anti-Assad rebels had

No impact. I'm not claiming the entire thing is America. Bashar al-Assad was an actor. There were other forces there aside from the US meddling there. But at the same time, you got the most powerful government in the history of the world, who as we all know, put Syria on its seven countries in five years list of who we're gonna go overthrow.

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

American weakness in the Middle East has been, I mean, I say this as somebody obviously from Britain, but when Britain was a dominant world power, she produced the type of person who was keen to go and be a governor of, you know, a stand somewhere and learn the local dialects and, you know, run the civil service. You guys were better at Empire than we are. The point is they produced that sort of person because they wanted to stay.

America has never produced that sort of person and it certainly hasn't in the Middle East in particular. It acts militarily on occasions and in my view, sometimes well, sometimes poorly. But the reason why America was so badly outplayed by the mullahs in Iraq was simply that, as you say, after the war, America had nothing like the staying power of the mullahs in Tehran, had nothing like the ability to affect post-war change like the Iranian revolutionary government did. And so yes, if we create a vacuum like that or somebody else creates a vacuum and after all we did not cause the beginning of this, we, the West I'm saying on this occasion,

did not cause the beginning of the Arab Spring as it was optimistically called at the beginning or the beginning of the revolution uprising in Syria in 2011. These things were ground up, and the actors in the region moved in much more deftly and effectively than we did. It's the same with Lebanon. It's the same with Lebanon.

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

and the multiple regime changes all around the Middle East that were done by America. These weren't just going to happen on their own. Are you saying that didn't have an impact? Well, Iraq was certainly done by America, of course. Okay, so Iraq was certainly done by America. Libya? NATO. Right, but okay, but done by America. Libya? NATO.

Right, but okay, but NATO is the European wing of the American Empire. I mean, let's get real. That's an American decision. Sure. Right, I'm saying it's not because some random European country decided. By the way, let's just also go back,

just because I mean, the Libyan intervention, I was pretty iffy about at the time, but that was done not to create an empire or anything like that. It was done for one very clear reason. And I remember the debates in the European capitals and in Washington DC at the time. There was a belief that after the uprising against Gaddafi began, that there would be a mass slaughter genocide carried out by Gaddafi against the people. So is it in 2011?

And it was 2011, yeah. There was a belief, everybody believed it. He had started his son, if you remember, Saif Gaddafi, formerly of the London School of Economics, showing that we can produce the best. Saif Gaddafi stood up and said, we will fight to the last bullet and so on. And everybody believed them. And the desire to intervene was caused in an attempt to not to, people do not want the resources of Libya.

Nobody wanted Libya to fall apart or anything like that. They did it because there was a genuine belief in what was called time, which has gone out of fashion, but right to protect, duty to protect. And that was why they went in. So it's just important to keep that sort of nuance around. Well, I don't think it's correct. You always kind of ascribe the best of motives to Israel and the West and nothing but the worst of motives to all of their enemies. So just riddle me this then.

If we just went in because there was this uprising in 2011 and because we were worried that Gaddafi was about to go genocidal, something that your own, the UK Parliament did an investigation into and found out was just completely wrong, but why is it then that I got four-star general Wesley Clark, Supreme Commander of the NATO forces.

Why is it that he told me that he saw the plans in 2001 to overthrow Gaddafi, and that this was part of a strategy to overthrow seven governments in five years, and all of them except one have been done at this point? So you're telling me it's a complete coincidence that he saw that the neoconservatives had this plan to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi,

and then 10 years later we happen to do it when we have the opportunity? The two aren't related at all? First, it's nice to hear the N-word again. The N-word? Did I say that? Neoconservatives. Oh, that one. I was thinking of a different one, okay.

First of all, I would assume, I would hope that there's American military planning for absolutely everything. I would hope that there is a scenario for absolutely everything somewhere in the American, in Pentagon or whatever. But he didn't say we're drawing up war games. He said this is the plan that we're going to impose.

I would assume that, I would hope that any major power like America would have plans in place for almost everything that is likely, including, America could have, well, should have started planning for some kind of kinetic force in Libya from the 1980s. Of course, of course there'd be plans. Yeah, but again, this is not what Wesley Clark's led. He wasn't saying like we've drawn up war games.

We've drawn up war games with everybody. We have war games with China, war games with Russia. We've mapped out how a kinetic war would work, even with countries that have nuclear arsenals, like just in case we have to fight a traditional war and nukes aren't being used. That's not what he's talking about. He said that not only, he was told,

we're in Afghanistan now, this is late 2001. He goes, next we're going to Iraq. After that we're going to Libya. After that we're going to Syria, Somalia, what was it, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran. He laid out the path of what we're about to do, and then we did it in the next administration. You don't think there was any connection between those two?

What, we did Somalia and Sudan? No, I'm sorry. His, I'm sorry, if you go look at the list of seven countries, it was Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, I believe Somalia, Sudan, and Iran, I believe. Why would America want to do any of those things? Who wants to do it? Well, what he said is that essentially these plans, he said later in an interview with Piers Morgan that he had seen the plans at first in 1991

that they came from Paul Wolfowitz, that basically then they got, what's funny about what the four star general said? No, I'm just curious, what's laughable about this? Paul Wolfowitz is a great figure for almost any deep conspiracy in this country because he was a deputy secretary of defense at the highest in his life. He is forever being ascribed almost supernatural power. The highest position he ever got to was as Donald Rumsfeld's deputy.

And it's a very strange thing always when Wolfritz's name comes up because he was a relatively low level person to whom almost everything can be ascribed. I didn't describe, again this is such a strong man, I didn't ascribe everything to him. I'm literally telling you what the four star general said about him and I wouldn't say deputy secretary of defense is like a nothing position It's pretty consequential position not as important as Rumsfeld or Cheney, but yeah, yeah agreed But what but who said it was no fire? I just feel like you're batting down strawman I never said that he is the creator of all conspiracies or anything I'm literally saying that the four-star general said that he first saw the plans from him that he had brought this to the national

Security adviser and it had basically been like, yeah, we'll look at this after the election and that then it was resurrected later by Richard Pearl and that they these guys were producing again not me saying this this is four-star General Wesley Clark He said in a study paid for by the Israelis and yeah, you can laugh at this all you want to Douglas But you can go read the clean break memo for yourself This was the neoconservative strategy along with their counterpart, the Likud's in Israel, that they wanted to remake the region in a way and that I'm sure by their own justification, they believe that democracy would sweep the region and it would be better off for them.

Nonetheless, they pursued this path that has ended in nothing but disaster. And I don't think that to say that in 2011, it was like a purely humanitarian mission to go overthrow. Momar. Gaddafi. I do not think is right Well, first of all before I get to the substance of it, why why why would they want the current situation in Libya? Huh? Why would they want the current situation in Libya? Well because they wanted Gaddafi out Why well, okay if you read the Clean Break memo, what their argument essentially is is that you wanted to have regime change against the hostile surrounding Muslim countries. But was Gaddafi not hostile to Israel? To Israel? Yeah, sure. But he was I mean, the Europeans and everybody else in NATO found that Gaddafi was a really relatively easy

person to get on with latterly, right? Yeah, no, I think it was an insane policy. No, no, but you'll notice that After he hands over the nuclear program and thus makes himself very vulnerable unfortunately For the future of world peace. He the Libya has been unutterably disastrous Hang on. hang on. No, just a clarifying question.

Unutterably disastrous for Europe. I agree with you. And Somalia and Sudan, why does America or Israel want to, like, do regime change in Somalia or Sudan? Can I just ask you a clarifying question on this? When you say that was a disaster for the prospects of world peace, you mean overthrowing Qadhafi was a disaster? I say that him being, sorry I should have clarified,

my thing is him being overthrown after he's given over the nuclear weapons is a disaster because it leaves on the table this thing that you have to hold onto nuclear weapons and if you don't hold onto nuclear weapons, you could be dead. Do you think maybe the Israelis should stop using the term the Libyan model to push

for negotiations with Iran? No, I don't think anyone should use lib what happened to Gaddafi as being a good precursor. We certainly have a lot of agreement there. It was an absolute disaster, particularly to do it, to let a guy get sodomized to death after he denuclearized is not a good precedent to set. I agree, and that's one of the reasons why Assad had hung on. One of the reasons why Iran wants a nu precedent to set. I agree, and that's one of the reasons why Assad hanged a hung on. One of the reasons why Iran wants a nuke so bad.

I'm not sure, it's just being a solomized to death, as you put it, but yeah. They want a nuke because they, I mean, if you like what the Iranian revolutionary government's done since 1979, you'd love what they'll do with the world when they've got a nuke, but anyway. Put that aside for a second.

I mean, the, I just, I'm sorry, we slightly come back to where we started, but when you start talking about Paul Wolfritz and Richard Pearl, I just, it's all awfully noxious smelling. Richard Powell was a member of the Defense Policy Board, which had an advisory capacity toward the Pentagon in the early 2000s, but it was by no means a policy board that dictated Pentagon policy. Okay. In the last 30 years of American foreign policy, there have been many major actors. Paul Wolfowitz is a relatively major one. But we come slightly back full circle. In my view, I'm not saying you're guilty of this, certainly not knowingly. In my view, when people start talking about Paul Wolfowitz, I always remember that line of Mark Stein's many years ago. And he said, you can't help thinking that one of the reasons why people find Wolffoots so appealing to talk about is that his name starts with a

nasty animal and ends Jewish. That is a funny thing to say. People love saying Wolffoots. It's such a great name. It is for any movie. You can say, aha, he's perfect for it. Perfect for it. And he looks perfect for it. Perfect for it.

And he looks perfect for it. Right, you'll say, oh, the crafty Paul Wolfowitz. His crazy eyebrows. Famous hawk. So you're a bigot, you're a Jew hater if you mention the neocons. No, no, no, no, no, just let me continue with the thought. So I remember those days and his boss,

Donald Rumsfeld, was like the ruler of the world at that time. He had such charisma, such genius was attributed to him for the initial invasion of Iraq. People, you can't imagine the admiration that existed in the defense establishments around the world for Rumsfeld. Dick Cheney was so powerful that people of right and left, particularly on the left, spent all those years in the W. Bush administration saying W wasn't the real president, he was being run by Dick Cheney because he was the brilliant etc etc. You're certainly listening to

him at the beginning. Okay but I'm just saying it goes back to this thing of when certain ideas catch hold and what's really going on in them. Now to attribute American foreign policy in the last 40 years to Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Pearl is knowingly or otherwise to encourage a Conspiracy that has very obvious legs and I just urge you not to do it Okay, let me respond to this a little bit. First of all I did not it is not at all saying that these guys therefore just control everything I'm just pointing out what a four-star general claimed where plans

Originated and that they ended up being implemented. That doesn't mean that they were the absolute Ruler or arbiter of what was going to happen? But again, I gotta say for you to say that I can't bring up the neoconservative or I never said you couldn't. I just laughed. Okay, let me just write. But the implication is that I'm unwittingly giving fertile ground to some like Jew hating conspiracy. If I bring up a guy who's got a Jewish last name who was a consequential person in our government, this is like identical to the arguments of the woke left that would just be like, oh, if you even say something, you know if you bring

up the crime rate in Chicago, you're basically a bigot because other people could take this and run with it. Come on. No you come on, what's the argument? If you said to me... I said a four-star general said something and there's no, what's the response? If you said to me or somebody said to me, don't you think there's a that some people are running the global financial system? And I said, possibly, and you and I said, who do you think it is? And they said, the Rothschilds. I think I'd be right in saying there was something a bit off about the character of the person doing that because it seemed like they were playing to some kind of lazy old trope. And I think similarly that if you give the implication that a cabal of people,

particularly, and you should be really careful about this because of the people who will come up underneath you, if you give the implication that these cabals exist and you decide to elevate the Jews or people with Jewish names in it and then play down the non-Jews, I can tell you, you will be opening up a world of madness. Beyond the one even that we're in. But am I really playing down the non-Jews? I mean, go look at the stuff that I've said about Obama, about George W. Bush.

I've, uh, um. You said Middle East policy is Dick Perl and Paul Wolfowitz, and I said how about it's not? No, no, no, no, no, no. I mean, this is why I'm saying this is a woke leftist tactic. I literally just mentioned that a four star general said this. I'm quoting him. And now you're telling me that this is the same thing

as promoting- Don't pretend to me that when you quote somebody it's a totally arbitrary thing which uses pluck out of the air. You decided to pluck that out. I'm not arguing that it's arbitrary. I'm saying I'm using the quote for a reason. I was connecting it to an argument.

And I'm saying to you... I'm giving fertile ground to Jew haters to mention it. I think that when you decide to elevate what is a conspiracy of people who are overthrowing the governments of various countries, some of which haven't been overthrown and others of which have, but by the way were not overthrown by American dominance, certainly not in Syria. And then you say that the people who are doing it are these people with Jewish names. I think you should be more judicious than that because you probably know what bubbles up underneath you online by now. Yeah, look, I mean, there's no question that there are, you know, no matter what, and by

the way, you know, it's funny just hearing you say this to me. I mean, look, and by the way, I completely agree with you. I think you've been one of the best champions on opposing Europe's insane immigration policy. I also think the United States of America's had an insane immigration policy. I'm happy to see that. Point of agreement. That seems to be being reversed. But imagine you made a point about immigration, and I were to say to you, I'm happy to see that. Point of agreement. That seems to be being reversed. But imagine you made a point about immigration.

And I were to say to you, be careful what's bubbling up online, because now you're getting, look, the fact is, if you are taking a position that opposes, say, Muslim immigration into the UK, then yes, it is quite possible that a lot of people who really just hate Muslims are going to end up liking what you had to Say or following you but that doesn't mean you're responsible to it And if I were to say that to you you would be the first to very eloquently point out that that is a complete

Non-argument the question is is this policy good or is it bad and and whether there's not and if you want to say to me Hey, I should like disclaim when I make this point that like, hey, I'm Jewish, I love Jewish people. The fact that there were some Jewish people involved in our foreign policy establishment does not mean that it's the Jews, then fine, I'm happy to say that. But I just think it's a non-argument to say that like,

oh, you know, you're kind of like, giving, you're creating fertile ground for this hatred. If I'm being completely honest I think we've seen what you're talking about bubbling up on Twitter. Do you think that's gotten worse over the last 18 months? Yeah, right I think kind of what Israel's doing in this war and the US funding and arming it have been something that is really a great Facilitator for that stuff to bubble up as Well, as I say, we could go back to that, but I disagree. I think that Israel has every right to go in and destroy the terrorist group that carried

out the massacre. Yes, again, but no one's arguing that they have the right to destroy the terrorists. The question is they have the right to kill innocent people. Let's not go around again, which I think we've done. We're just not answering what I'm saying. I think I've already answered that, but just to go back to the meat of that, I think you don't realize that actually people like me who have a voice and right and much more do think about that all the time. It's a profound concern and responsibility.

I agree with that. Right, right. And don't think I don't worry all the time and make sure I intervene into the debate very carefully at times when I think some people have picked up something that I've been saying and are going to go wrong with it. That scares the hell out of me and I do it regularly. Me too, by the way. And I do it because I have to. Yeah, listen, so that's a point of agreement too.

But you don't stop believing in that policy for it and you won't stop bringing that up. No, but you do say, but you do say on occasion, I mean, most obvious one on that, if there is something where something really fetid happens, something really terrible, and there's a bunch of people that decide to riot or commit violence or something like that. I know that I have to, as a duty, say, absolutely

this is to be condemned. If it is people trying to pretend that all Muslims this or all that, absolutely I intervene to stop that. I think that is, but I think that this is one of the responsibilities that comes with putting out ideas in the public square. And I think that none of us are blame free, but all of us have some kind of responsibility to know that what we put out there is very carefully watched, very carefully followed, and that we have to tread well. Well, okay, so I agree with that, but when you say you intervene, what exactly do you mean by that?

You mean you voice opposition to it. You say, hey, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we have to have the same immigration policy that's good for our country. Or make sure I say which politician I think can deal with it decently and which ones will not. I mean, I've made plenty of enemies on the European right by saying who I think is bad and who will not do this well.

I just put it out there, I think, I literally, I say it as a point of caution. Yeah, well, I mean, I don't disagree with that, and I've certainly done the same thing, said that, like, I don't know, like, I don't like the, I don't like Jew hatred on Twitter, and I don't like people jumping to wild conspiracies that they don't have enough nearly enough evidence to You know actually back up which I've seen quite a bit of that being said

I also think there's a whole lot of real conspiracies And I'm not going to stop talking about those just because some people on Twitter might take it in a bad direction As the great Michael Mallis said as and as you quoted, one red pill, not the whole bottle. I've been trying to limit people to one red pill. One red pill a year. Probably, so there's a lot of people. They take one of those things and they just get hungry. Sort of like boosters.

Like boosters. Well, it ends up, yeah, exactly. Take none of those. No, you're supposed to take one red pill. By the way, what's the one in front of you? Which one? That one there. This? That one, yeah. It's nicotine red pill. What's the one in front of you? Which one that one there? Yeah, it's nicotine. Oh, that's the chewing one. It's a like a pouch Chris Williamson showed me yesterday this one that you he said weightlifters are using in Austin

It's like a powder or something weightlifters. Yeah, I'motine powder? No, it's not nicotine. It's something like it. Creatine? No, it's like the... It's to sniff. Oh, no, no, no. That's smelling salts. Smelling salts.

That's right. Smelling salts. For goof. For silly. We do that to be silly. I hadn't heard of that. They're horrible. It's like 19th century women who thought they had the vapors, and he said these are smelling

salts. Well, they used to use it for boxers when they got out is that to wake them up that was it yeah does it work well it works for weight lifters you sniff it before you lift incredible amounts of weight allegedly power lifters use them that's literally why they sell it it just jolts your entire central nervous system because it's so horrific no no this is by the, a little insight into the comedy community. The deal is that Joe will help advance the careers of comedians unlike anybody since Johnny Carson, but then the cost is you do have to sniff smelling salts.

We all have to do that. Bring the smelling salts. It's a balancing bargain of sorts, but it is what it is. Do you have a hard out, Douglas? Kind of. I've got to get to DC, one of my least favorite cities in the country. Another area of agreement.

There we go. Thank you. Thank you for doing this. Appreciate it. It was very, very good. I enjoyed it very much. And thank you, Dave. I do.

Yeah, of course, thank you to you, John. Thank you, Douglas, very much. I do appreciate that. While we do fundamentally disagree on a lot thank you Dave. I do, yeah, of course thank you to you John. Thank you Douglas very much, I do appreciate that. While we do fundamentally disagree on a lot of this stuff, I do admire that you will have these conversations. I'll show everyone the book here. It's, oh Jesus Christ. Avoided on myself, luckily.

On democracies and death cults, Israel and the future of civilization, Douglas Murray. Did you do the audio book? I did do the audio book. Thank you. You can hear these mellifluous tones. Yes, love it. It would be a tragedy if anybody else did it. I trust you.

Yes. All right. Beautiful. Goodbye everybody. Thank you.