The Megyn Kelly Show - What's Happening in Israel and Gaza, Today and Throughout History - With Alan Dershowitz and Shadi Hamid | Ep. 104

Episode Date: May 19, 2021

Megyn Kelly is joined by Alan Dershowitz, Professor Emeritus at Harvard University and host of The Dershow podcast, and Shadi Hamid, of the Brookings Institution and co-host of the Wisdom Of Crowds podcast, to talk about all the angles to what's happening in Israel and Gaza, today and throughout history, including the history of Israelis and Palestinians, what led to the violence in Israel and Gaza happening now, what happened with the Palestinians after 1967, how Hamas came into power, how life can be made easier for Palestinians in Gaza, the proportionality of Israel's response to Hamas, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShowFind out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Oh, we have a great show today. Have you been confused at all about what we've been seeing out of the Middle East? Or even when I say the Middle East, if you're like, it hurts my head. Welcome to this show. Have I got the show for you. What I wanted to do is explain this thing to people in a way that we could all understand. I wanted to sort of get into the history 101 and then take it up to

501 when we get into the politics of what's happening in the current battle. I think we nailed it. If I may be so bold, I think we nailed it. And we have two great guests who agreed to debate. So, you know, strong guys, intellectually strong, right? When you're willing to real-time debate the other person as opposed to do it sequentially, which sometimes we have to do. That's fine. I love it because today they went together

and they got to interject and it was really illuminating. And our guests are one man you know very well, Professor Alan Dershowitz. He's Professor Emeritus of Harvard Law School, where he was for like, I don't know, 50 years. I had something crazy. And one of the most respected lawyers in the country and just an honest broker when it comes to, I think, analysis of legal situations and certainly a big friend to Israel. And he's been on the ground as this whole conflict has been unfolding for his entire life. Wait until you hear he's like Waldo. He's been everywhere. I was there, too. And we also have a guy you're going to like named Shadi Hamid. Shadi is a senior fellow at the Brookings

Institute, also contributing writer at The Atlantic. He hosts a podcast called The Wisdom of Crowds and very respectful guy in terms of his debate and his approach. And I just thought the two of these guys were great. And just to set it up for you, what you're going to talk about, you know, in the Middle East right now, it's a hot mess between Israel and Palestine. Things have gone from bad to worse. Hamas is in power there. And that's we've labeled them a terrorist group for very good reason. And the Israelis are trying to defend themselves.

But there's more to it than that. There has not been peace in this region for 75 years, at least. And all attempts to create it have failed. They've fallen apart. They've been utterly feckless in solving just the deep-seated animosity in the region, right? The Palestinians feeling that they've gotten the short end over and over, that they've been displaced, they've been controlled, that they've been rendered unable to live freely versus the Israelis' desire to A, exist, B, live in peace and C, defend themselves, even if it's not always perfectly proportional when they are attacked, right? Hamas is a terrorist organization and they are in control in Gaza. And it's always the same, right? When it comes to Hamas, they always have a pernicious refusal to engage in reason or respect. They are like, let's kill, let's launch rockets.

But there is more to the story about how they came to power and why they've been allowed to remain there. So what is Israel to do? What would we do? That's what Israel always asks. What would we do if somebody kept launching rockets into the United States? Right? What did we do during the Cuban missile crisis when we were threatened? What did we do after 9-11? I mean, Israel's effectively got Gaza surrounded and under its thumb, but that does not stop the attacks. And Hamas is not likely to let up now, and neither is Israel, right? The whole two-state solution thing that gets pushed around, well, Hamas, they want borders. You know, they don't believe in Israel's right to exist,

but some now over there are calling for borders that ignore the many wars fought and long since settled divisions and reason does not seem ready to prevail. So now things have fired up again. Politics around it feel a little different this time to me.

Joe Biden is projecting team Israel. He just came out and said he supports a ceasefire, but he reiterates that Israel has a right to defend itself. And he stopped short of publicly calling on Israel to change its approach. Right. So so far, he's still, as the United States has always been, a pretty strong Team Israel. But his left flank are very loud right now.

You know, the squad, that's his left flank and they are loud and getting louder. And look, it's ongoing and it doesn't seem to be waning. So we got to talk about it. Now, how do we get to this place? What does it mean for the United States? And will this thing ever be solved? You're going to love this talk.

That's in one second. Shadi, it's a pleasure. Thanks so much for having me. Thank you for doing this. And Professor, great to have you as well. Thank you for having me. All right. So let me start this one with you, Shadi. Before 1948, before 1948, who controlled and lived in what was then known as Palestine? Before Israel's founding, it was a mix of Arab and Jewish citizens, although they weren't really citizens because they were under British colonial rule. This was the League of Nations mandate after World War I, which started around 1920. And there was various, there was increasing Jewish immigration during that period. So the population balance was shifting in various ways. And it also depended on

where in Palestine we're talking about. But in some sense, it became a kind of demographic contest of who could sort of assert their control and create facts on the ground. And obviously there were tensions between Arabs and Jews. I mean, we shouldn't overstate it, but at various points there were riots and there were clashes. Under British rule, there was also a sort of Jewish militant struggle against the British authorities. And that intensified over the course of the 1940s. Okay, so more and more Jewish people started to pour into the area in the 1940s for all the obvious reasons. And the Brits were still in control and nobody much liked that.

No one wants to be controlled by the British. We in America can relate liked that. No one wants to be controlled by the British. I think we in America can relate to that. But the Palestinians who were there didn't really like any land grabs, and the Jewish people who were there didn't much like land grabs going the other way. And so there were tensions even back then. And then a war was fought. I'll give this one to you, Alan. A war was fought. And on May 14th, 1948, the Jewish state came about. How did that happen exactly? Well, in 1947, the United Nations finally decided to do something about the conflict that was going on in the Middle East. And so they proposed a division into two states, a Jewish state and an Arab state.

And the Jewish state would have a Jewish majority. It was largely along the Mediterranean coast from Haifa down to the end of the Gaza Strip, with Jerusalem being internationalized. And therefore, there would be a Jewish majority in what became the state of Israel, and an Arab majority in what should have become a Palestinian state. The Jews who were living in the areas that ultimately would become part of a Palestinian state were exiled, were thrown out. Basically, Jews lived in various places in what is now the West Bank, the Tkar Zion, the Zion area, and they were thrown out. Israel accepted the division into two states, and had the Palestinians and the Arabs accepted it, there would be a small Israel along the coastal area with a majority of Jews and a large Palestinian state.

Israel also controlled the Negev, which was barren, and David Ben-Gurion insisted that he could make the desert bloom. Nobody really cared about the negative, except the Bedouins, obviously, who lived there, and some Jews who lived in Be'er Sheva and other places. But the Israelis accepted the two-state solution, as they had in 1938, and they did in 1947 and 1948, and then all the Arab countries combined attacked Israel, tried to destroy it. As a result of that, 700 or so thousand Arabs left Israel. Many of them were forced to leave. Many of them left on their own, hoping to come back triumphant. Israel didn't let them back. At about the same time, 700,000 Jews either left or were forced out of Arab countries from Morocco to Egypt.

There was essentially a population switch of about three quarters of a million people. And it could have been peaceful. There could be a Palestinian state, but then the Jordanians occupied the West Bank. The Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip. And between 67 and 48, there was an occupation that nobody complained about because the occupation wasn't being done by Jews over Arabs. It was being done by Arabs over Arabs. But it made the two-state solution impossible. And Israel has offered the Palestinians a two-state solution in 38, 48, 67, 2000, 2001, 2008. And every time the Palestinians have said no, the Grand Mafia of Jerusalem told the Peel

Commission, we don't want a Palestinian state. We just don't want there to be a Jewish state. So it's been a conflict now for many, many years. Look, it goes back well before 1948, but 1947, 1948 was a crucial time in which the Palestinians could have had a state and didn't accept it. So you can see, I'm going to get shoddy. I'm definitely going to get you to react to that shoddy, but I just want to say for the, you can, you can see how already this is fraught, right? It's like two different peoples, different cultures, different backgrounds. They're living together. Now they've got to find a way to create two States. You're going to live there. I'm going to live here. Oh, but wait, a lot of your, your folks are in my territory. My folks are in your

territory and they don't really get along and, and you got to get out, or you're going to be displaced, 700,000 Palestinians. It's like Pakistan and India. The same thing, very similar thing at about the same time happened in Pakistan and India. It was divided into two states, the Pakistanis except, the Indians except. Many, many Pakistanis lived in India, and they left. Many, many Indians lived in Pakistan and they left, but they managed to resolve it. But it wasn't resolved in the Middle East. Yeah, as we know, I mean, to this day. At the time, however, there were a clear majority of Arabs in the area that today is known as Palestine and Israel, late 19th century into the early 20th century. So it's understandable that Arabs were a majority and aren't used to a large Jewish presence. And we might wish it otherwise, but when new groups come in,

there is tension and it's not necessarily easy to welcome new people in when they're challengers for land and control and so on. So the fact that this was traditionally, this had been primarily Arab and Muslim, and before the British mandate, it was under technically Ottoman rule, even as the Ottoman Empire was declining. So to kind of blame Arabs and say, well, they should have taken what they were offered and they made all these mistakes is something that we can perhaps say now, knowing how bad things have gotten for them. But at the time, there were legitimate reasons to not want to accept a division of this area. But let's clarify just one point about demography. For example, in Jerusalem, since 1848, the first census, there was a very substantial majority

of Jews in Jerusalem. And remember, too, that the Arabs were divided between Christian Arabs, of which there were many, many Christian Arabs and Muslim Arabs. And, of course, the Christian Arabs, most of them have now been forced to leave the Middle East and do not live in harmony with in Lebanon. And in fact, the only place they live in harmony is Israel and up in Nazareth and Nazareth. Christian Arabs live in peace, both with Muslim Arabs and Jews. But in the rest of the Middle East... But wait, what's your point? What is the point of raising that? The point is that the conflict is between Muslims and Christians, Muslims and Jews. It was turned into a religious conflict by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. It needn't be a religious conflict.

It could have been a land conflict, and you can solve land conflicts. Remember, too, and this is the important point that wasn't responded to, that the original Israel that was established by the United Nations, a majority of the inhabitants in the original Israel were Jewish. They purposely did it that way so that, yes, the majority of people in what was called Palestine were Arabs, but the majority of people in the area, the sliver of land along the coast and the Negev was Jewish. So you'd have a Jewish majority controlling Jews. It was a national liberation movement. I got it. Go ahead. And just to fast forward, because obviously that's a very fraught period and, you know, history is important, but let's, if we kind of move a couple of decades later on,

then we get into, um, so Alan mentioned the so-called, um, wonder, you know, wonderful peace deals or peace offerings. Um, there is a lot of debate about that and, um, maybe we'll get into this in some more detail, but there's, so-called famous quote-unquote generous offer of 2000 with Bill Clinton and Ahud Barak in the Camp David efforts at that point. And from a Palestinian perspective, that was not considered generous. And there have been accounts in a lot of detail. Alan, I'm sure that you're familiar with Rob Malley's documentation of why this wasn't generous to the Palestinians. It wasn't going to be viable, contiguous, and sovereign.

There wouldn't be full control over their own borders. There wouldn't have been even symbolic right of return, so on and so forth. East Jerusalem, there's still issues that had to be worked out there. So there is this kind of, I think, this trope of the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, which I think is problematic on its face, because it suggests that Palestinians should be blamed for their own terrible situation, that if only they were smarter, more rational, and better people, they would have made better decisions. No, better leaders, better leaders, not better people. They're wonderful people. The Palestinians I know are incredible people,

and if they could make peace with Israel, it would help the world so much. The Palestinian technology is amazing. I'm invested in companies now that only have joint Israeli-Palestinian leadership and investments. So it's the leadership that has abandoned the Palestinian people. Sure, the 2001 awful was not perfect for the Palestinians, but it gave them the entire Gaza Strip, more than 90% of the West Bank. Some people say 95, some people say 93. Everybody acknowledges 95. And yes, it would have been a demilitarized state.

They couldn't have an air force. That's what happens when you lose a war. That happened in Germany. That happened in Germany. That happened in Japan. Over time, you earn your right to have a military, but you don't when you have a peace treaty after you've lost a war, you don't get a military right away. The Palestinians, if you've been to Ramallah, it is a Palestinian state. You don't see a single Israeli soldier. You don't see a single Israeli policeman. It is a beautiful city. I've had dinner there, lunch there. I've met with the prime minister. I've met with the president, Abbas. It's what the Palestinian state could look like. No, it wouldn't be perfect,

but compromise is the essence. And the Palestinians have thus far refused to compromise. I think it's clear they could have had a state. Would it have been their state of choice? No. A point of clarification, though. I mean, it is not a Palestinian state in the West Bank. And this goes, this brings us back to 1967. The West Bank is still under Israeli occupation. So when we're talking about the historical roots of the crisis, the occupation, in my view, is one of the original sins that we've never been able to recover from. And again, if you talk to Palestinians, the vast majority across the ideological and political spectrum will emphasize this particular point. It's fundamentally about an occupation. Wait, let me stop you there. So let's talk about, because that word gets thrown around,

the occupation. I mean, where we last left off, there was the creation of Israel in 1948. Some Palestinians were upset, some Israelis were upset, and hundreds of thousands on both sides were displaced because they were a Palestinian stuck in Israel or vice versa. So tense, not perfect, and certain cities like Jerusalem were under the control of Jordan for reasons we don't need to get into. And another one is under control of Egypt. Right. So you got a couple of cities there which don't belong to either side. And that will become relevant to the property dispute that sort of helped kick off today's fighting. This East Jerusalem was controlled by Jordan then. And Jordan made a bunch of promises that it didn't live up to and continues to cause havoc. What are we talking about when we're talking about occupied land

back then, right when it was created? Okay, 1967, I was actually involved in helping to draft 267, the Security Council Resolution, which was essentially the peace treaty. Israel accepted it. The Palestinians went to Khartoum and they issued their famous three no's, no negotiation, no peace, no recognition. They could have had no occupation. There would have been some minimal changes under 267. Of what areas? Occupation of where? There would have been no West Bank occupation. There would have been no Gaza occupation. The resolution of the United Nations Security Council said Israel has to give back territories, not all the territories. There was an agreement there'd be some territorial adjustments. There would have been no occupation at all, no occupation of Ramallah, no occupation of the large cities of the West Bank,

no occupation of Gaza, if the Palestinians hadn't gone to Khartoum and said no, no, no, when Israel accepted 242. And so the fault of the occupation lies squarely with the Palestinian Arab leadership, which refused to accept the UN Security Council resolution, which would have mandated Israel giving back territories, not all, but the vast majority of territories, all of the Gaza and the vast majority of the West Bank, in exchange simply for peace. And the Palestinians said, no peace, no negotiation, no recognition. There's no way around that. So, okay. That's a particular interpretation of what happened. I mean, the, the, the bottom line is that it's Israel that hasn't respected the UN resolution 242. I mean, so basically the background. No one knows what that is. Okay. Okay. Fair enough. So 1967, there was something called the Six-Day War. We don't have to go into the belligerence and how exactly that turned out. Suffice it to say that the Arab armies were routed. And that's why it's called the Six-Day War, because it was an utterly

humiliating defeat for the Arab armies. Gamal Abdel Nasser, the big Arab nationalist leader, a leader of Egypt, that was the largest army at the time that was fighting against Israel, obviously not very effectively. So in that war, Israel was able to gain control of the West Bank and Gaza. Now, you're not supposed to acquire, according to UN norms and according to this specific UN Security Council resolution, you're not supposed to take land through the acquisition of force. Except every country has done so. After the Second World War, Konigsberg adjustments in the German boundaries always are territorial adjustments

after the end of a war. It's just routine and common. When you start a war against a country and you lose, you're going to lose some land. And that's what happened. Nazis, the Germans lost a lot of land. Look at Konigsberg. It was a city completely, completely of Germans. The Russians came in, ethnically cleansed the city, got rid of every single German, moved in over a million Russians, and not a peep in the world. Not a UN resolution, not a college demonstration, nothing. So the world has always recognized territorial changes, and Israel offered minimal territorial changes after winning an

overwhelming war in which their own existence was threatened. So here's the thing, though. So 1967, to have the broader sweep instead of getting into the details of what happened right after the war. So from 1967 until today, 2021, there has been an ongoing uninterrupted occupation. And by occupation, what is meant is that in the West Bank, Palestinians don't have control over their, there's different sections of the West Bank. And so in some places, Palestinians do have autonomy and don't have much intervention from Israelis or other parts of the West Bank, where Israel basically retains the right to control various aspects of daily life. It controls movement. And one of the biggest issues is that if you're in the West Bank, it's quite hard to

get around because Israel has checkpoints throughout the territory. So it's not as if Palestinians, even to this very day, have the ability to move in their own territory. So we can say that the Arabs have been, the Arab armies and the Arab governments have been at fault at various times. I'm not going to pretend here that Arab regimes care about Palestinians. I would actually argue the precise opposite, that they've used the Palestinian cause for their own advantage. But at the end of the day, they don't actually care about Palestinians. And they've treated this as a kind of political football that they can benefit from. But I don't know why Palestinians who are in those territories

now have to pay the price for the mistakes of countries they're not even part of. I mean, Palestinians are not Egyptian. Palestinians are, I mean, and this is another thing where sometimes you'll hear Israeli officials again, to this day saying, why don't we basically expel Palestinians? And why don't they just go live in Jordan? Arabs have 20, 21 states. Jews only have one state. Why can't they go over there? And obviously that's quite offensive because all Arabs are interchangeable, but Palestinians have a distinctive national identity and they've had to live without self-determination, without being able to have control over their own affairs from 1967 until 2021. I agree. I would argue that if you're trying to understand the source of

the Gaza crisis today, the violence that we're seeing, the violence that we saw in 2014 and 2009, this keeps on going on. We have to address the fact that Palestinians don't have control over their own lives, their own destiny, their own borders. They don't have freedom of movement, so on and so forth. Coming up in one minute, we're going to talk about how did Hamas come to power? How did the Palestinians put this terrorist organization in charge, which has led to a lot of the problems over the past decade plus. We'll talk about it in one minute. First this. As of 1967, after Israel won that war and Jordan kind of sculped away and Israel took control of

places, as I understand it, like East Jerusalem. Where are the Palestinians at that point after Israel wins in 1967? Because I hear the term Arab Israelis, so they're in Israel proper, but then where are the Palestinians? Are they just in Gaza, just in the West Bank? Where else are they? Israel is a country of 8 million, 2 million of them are Israeli citizens. They are full citizens under the Declaration of Independence. Are they never discriminated against? No, of course they're discriminated against. Every country has discrimination, but they have two political parties, one of which may

actually help form this new government. Under the law, they have complete equality, except in two respects. They can't be drafted in the army, and there's no law of return that will allow Palestinians to come to Israel. There's a law of return for Jews, because it's a nation state of the Jewish people. So they don't have national rights, but they have individual rights. But take Gaza, where the conflict is occurring now. In 2005, the Israelis, over the tremendous objection of many Israelis, completely ended the occupation. They took every soldier out.

They took every citizen out. They unburied their dead. They had lived there for 20 years. They knocked down their synagogues. They left behind hothouses and they left behind farm implements. They arranged to have a massive Marshall Plan. And between 2005 and 2007, essentially, there was no occupation at all of the Gaza Strip. Then Hamas militarily took over the Gaza Strip from the Palestinian Authority, killed a lot of the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, and started sending rockets into Israel. At that point, and only at that point, did Israel begin to maintain control over the borders, build fences, and not allow rockets of the kind that have been sent, or rocket or terror tunnels, to be built. So again, the Palestinians could have built Singapore on the Mediterranean

in 2005 when the Palestinian Authority controlled Gaza, and there wasn't a single Israeli there, and instead of building Singapore on the Mediterranean, a beautiful country in which they could have helped the Palestinian people, they turned it into a terror base. And let's get to one more fact, because I know this will be disputed. You hear on CNN and ABC and NBC that Gaza is the most densely populated place in the world. Totally false. Tel Aviv is more densely populated than Gaza. Gaza has miles and miles and miles and miles and miles of empty land. Almost every major city in the world is more densely populated than Gaza for one obvious reason. New York has high-rise buildings. Gaza has very few high-rise buildings. So the myth that Gaza is the most densely occupied, and that's why the rockets have to be sent from populated areas, nonsense.

I've been in Gaza. I'm sure many have been in Gaza. You know there are miles and miles of empty land. They purposely send their rockets from densely populated areas precisely in order to create a situation where Israel has a choice. Either don't fire back or fire back and you will inevitably kill some innocent civilians. That's the choice to which Israel has been put by Hamas. It's a terrible, tragic choice. And Israel, like every other democracy, has opted to defend its own civilians. Go ahead, Shadi. Okay, there's a lot there. So, well, one thing is that, yes, so there are Palestinians who are Israeli citizens.

Those are the people who are able to stay in what is today Israel proper from 1948 onwards. They do have significant rights and significant freedoms. They do participate in politics, but we should judge Israel by its own standards and by all of our standards that it is a democracy and it's certainly supposed to be a vibrant democracy. And I would argue that in many ways it is to its credit. However, Arab, Arab citizens, uh, Arab Israelis or Arab citizens of Israel, depending on how you describe it, do not have equal rights. They're supposed to have equal rights in many of the respects that Alan mentioned, but there's been systematic discrimination. There's been dozens of studies

that go into a lot of detail about whether it's in terms of water access, land access, the Arab population in Israel is living in a much lower standard of living. There is prioritization for Jews in a number of different ways. Alan did mention one of them with the right of return. But also when it comes to, let's say, Jerusalem, and there are Palestinians in Jerusalem who have a sort of complicated status. They aren't necessarily citizens, but they are residents of East Jerusalem. And what there has been over many years now is an effort to basically make Jerusalem more Jewish and less Arab. And there have been far-right settlers who are allied with Benjamin Netanyahu who have been pushing this. And this will become relevant to the story when we talk

about why the current crisis is happening. But I think we have to be very careful about this idea that Arabs have a wonderful situation in Israel and that they have equal rights. They are second-class citizens. But the other point on Gaza, Alan, it sounds that you agree with me that there is a brutal blockade. You know, it is a bit of a cliche to say that Gaza is an open air prison, but I think it's a cliche for a reason because it's somewhat appropriate. For most, for the vast majority of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, they can't get out. And that even includes for life-saving emergency medical care. And there's been a number of high-profile cases in this regard where they're basically trapped in this relatively small strip of land.

Since when, Shadi? Since when did that start? The blockade, 2006 onwards, give or take. Okay. It's after Hamas took over. Hamas is a terrorist state. That's important. We're going to get to Hamas for sure. It's after Hamas took over. Hamas is a terrorist state. That's important. We're going to get to Hamas for sure. It was only after they took over.

They're up next, but go ahead, Shadi, and then I'll give you the floor, Alan. Yeah, I mean, 2006 is relevant as sort of the starting point because that's when Hamas won elections. So these were sort of hyped up as free and fair elections that the Bush administration supported during its so-called freedom authority in the West

Bank. So they're more secular. Hamas is Islamist. Hamas won the election. And just so the audience knows, we don't consider Abbas's group to be a terrorist organization, but we do consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization. Yeah. And so just so people understand, there's a distinction between Hamas and Abbas's group. Yes, exactly. So you have Hamas and Abbas's group. They put a lot of effort into forming a national unity government, a technocratic government where Hamas wouldn't have ministers. Most of the ministers would be independent figures. And that was actually proceeding. Now, there's a lot of complication in between, but generally there were concerted efforts to undermine this government and to undermine national unity on the part of the U.S. and

also on the part of Israel, understandably from their standpoint, because obviously the, you know, the U S considers Hamas to be a designated terrorist organization. Israel sees Hamas as an existential enemy. So from their, from Israel's standpoint, it would make sense to try to undermine this sort of national reconciliation government. But basically there was an election that the Bush administration supported. And the problem was that when the results didn't turn out to our liking, and there's this famous story about when Condoleezza Rice found out about the results, she was on her treadmill at like 6am. And she almost fell off because she couldn't believe that Hamas won. But this is the problem. If you're going to vigorously support elections and talk about democracy, you have to contend with the results, even if you don't like them. And that didn't happen. There wasn't any attempt to try to see if there could be some accommodation where Hamas could continue staying out of the government and keeping them separate, but continuing the democratic process by having independent figures who represent this national unity government. Anyway, the government fell apart because of increasing tensions between

the two factions and because there wasn't international recognition. And that's where there started to be a kind of chokehold on this new government. And the Bush administration refused to do business and was starting to withdraw support from this government. And then it sort of collapses. And then you basically have a civil war between the two Palestinian factions. Hamas ends up having control over Gaza and Abbas's faction ends up having control over the West Bank. Hamas is in control of Gaza, and that's where the brutal, quite repressive blockade started and continues to this day. Now, we might say, well, that's Hamas's fault. But again, we have to account for the fact that it's collective punishment to say that just because a certain party is in control of a

territory that everyone under them has to suffer for the mistakes of their leaders. But in a democracy, when you get an election that's won and Hamas wins the election, and there was no repercussions when they won the election, the repercussions and the blockade began when Hamas then started to send rockets into Israel, declared war in Israel. Remember, the Hamas charter says Israel has no right to exist. It's also very anti-Semitic. It says Jews caused the French Revolution, Jews caused the World War I, Jews of this, Jews of that. It's a terrible, terrible document, and it's Hamas's charter. And so, of course, Israel had to take self-defense actions. It had to blockade the

country to make sure that rockets don't come in from Iran, because remember, Hamas is a surrogate of Iran, and Iran is sworn to the destruction not only of the little Satan Israel, of the big Satan. But I want to talk a little bit about second-class citizens in Israel. So it's very important to distinguish between Christian Arabs and Muslim Arabs. Christian Arabs have exactly the same life as Jews in Israel. They are as wealthy, they are as accomplished, they are as prevalent in the medical professions. They have, Christian Arabs live better life in Israel than anywhere in the Middle East. They are completely free religiously. They have their churches. Muslim Arabs are not equivalent. Muslim Arabs are equivalent economically to Haredi Jews, very, very Orthodox Jews. Neither serve in the army. Both have very, very high birth rates. Both have an

enormous amount of poverty. And there's discrimination against both of them. Of course, the difference is the Haredim are Jews, and the Arab Muslims are Muslims. And there is discrimination. It's much like discrimination all through Europe against Arabs, against blacks, against others. It's a problem, but every time a case comes to the Israel Supreme Court, every time the Israel Supreme Court rules in favor of the Arabs and says you have equal rights, that's what the Declaration of Independence says. That's what the laws say. So Israel is struggling with its Haredi population, which is very, very poor and doesn't want to serve in the army, and it's struggling with its Muslim Arab population. It is not struggling with its Muslim Arab population. It is not struggling with its

Christian Arab population. Go to Nazareth, and you will see the only place in the Middle East where Christians are absolutely equal is in Israel. But Alan, is that supposed to make us feel better that, well, the vast majority of Israeli Arabs are Muslim. So, I mean, it shouldn't make us feel a lot better if the minority of Christian Arabs are doing okay. But, I mean— First of all, it's a very substantial minority, number one, because Israel is the only country that hasn't expelled. Lebanon has expelled its Christian Arabs. Jordan has treated them as fifth-class citizens.

They can't live in many countries in the Middle East, but they thrive in Israel. And in fact, many times Jordanian Christians want to come to Israel. And so, no, it shouldn't make you feel better. It should explain, though, that second-class status is not a function of the law. It's a function of poverty, and it afflicts the Haredi community as seriously as it afflicts the Arab Muslim community. Israel ought to do better, and it should be better, and it should be criticized for not doing better. That doesn't justify rockets targeting Jewish hospitals. And the difference, again, is that Israel tries its best. And Hamas, I mean, you both correctly point out Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist. So they really are an existential threat to Israel. And so it was not a good thing for Israel,

for Palestine, for the world, certainly not for the United States, when Hamas won that election. And it's one of the main reasons why the Bush policy has been so, so criticized as, you know, what were you thinking? Like this bringing democracy to the Middle East thing is a disaster. Well, it wasn't only Bush. Wait a minute. I was in Israel with Jimmy Carter. We were together at the Herzliya conference.

When this happened, Jimmy Carter invited me to come and watch the election, predicting, of course, the Palestinian Authority would win. And I couldn't go watch the election because I was watching it somewhere else with friends in Jerusalem. It was a relatively, looked to me like a fair election, and Hamas did win. Now, what does that say? It says that the vast majority, or the majority of Palestinians, vote for a party that doesn't recognize israel's right to exist that is significant but alan you you know i think you're aware of some of the reasons that palestinians voted for hamas is because yeah they saw hypocrisy they saw abbas they saw abbas and

the palestinian elites as completely corrupt funneling money into their own pockets, including under Yasser Arafat. I agree. He was known as incredibly corrupt. His wife would take trips to Paris and spend millions of dollars or whatever. But I mean, Hamas was seen as a protest vote. They were seen as more competent. They provided more social services. This doesn't justify the terribleness of Hamas and the fact that

they have these dark aspects, as you mentioned in their charter and all of that. But I think there's also the other issue that the Bush administration and also successive Israeli governments have not really encouraged Palestinian moderates. This has always been a criticism. Look, if you and I were to sit down, we could make peace in 10 hours. We have so much agreement in this conversation. You and I could agree on what a West Bank Palestine would look like, what a Gaza would look like. Reasonable people can agree to a two-state solution. The two-state solution is good for Israel. It's good for the Palestinian people. It's just not good for the Palestinian leadership. And that's why we don't have it. It may not be good for some of the Israeli leadership, but rational people like you

and me, we could sit down and make peace. We could carve a map so easily that would give the Palestinians what they need. And it's not a hard job. All we have to do is have a will to have a two-state solution. And it's just not fair. What would that look like? The vast majority of the West Bank, contiguous, would be under Palestinian control. It would be a demilitarized Palestinian government. There would be a united Jerusalem, with East Jerusalem being a borough like Brooklyn or a borough like Manhattan, with self-determination, with a borough president, with complete autonomy. There would be no checkpoints. Gaza would be built up by a Marshall Plan. The Europeans are prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in building up the Palestinian Authority, but Hamas has to give up its rockets.

The Palestinians have to give up this claim of 14 million Palestinians have a right to return, which would turn Israel into a tiny Jewish minority, which would be living under Sharia law. All of those things, compromises are the essence. And the two of us, the three of us, you could be our moderator. We could come up with a peaceful resolution in a matter of hours. Bill Clinton told me that. He said the substantive disagreements are easy to solve. They're not difficult. It's the will that isn't there. Shadi? Well, I'm heartened to hear that Alan thinks that we could solve this really policy conflict in 10 minutes or 10 hours. And who knows, maybe it would be possible. And maybe that's what brings us to, I think, what maybe are the larger disagreements.

And Alan mentioned this a moment ago. And I don't know if you want to save this for later, Megan. But when we're talking about Hamas having to stop its rockets, I agree with you, Alan, on that. We have seen Israelis terrorized. And precisely because the rockets are imprecise, they don't know where one is going to fall. The issue here, though, is Israel's bombardment of Gaza

is not minimizing civilian casualties. And at some level, we have to understand who has the power in this equation. So we have this long history that we've talked about. There's a lot of blame to go around. So we have this long history that we've talked about. There's a lot of blame to go around. Here we find ourselves in a situation where Israel as the dominant actor does have a lot of the cards. Up next, we're going to get into what's currently happening. What led us to this moment? Is this moment likely to end anytime soon? And what would it take to get it past us? And let's talk long

term. What about your kids and my kids? Are they going to be dealing with this 40 years from now? Is there any way of avoiding that? But before we get to all that, and by the way, there's also work we're going to get into whether Israel has been proportional in its response. There's been a lot of criticisms of them, but wait until you hear all the stuff that Israel does to try to prevent the civilian casualties. You know, Shadi wants them to do much, much more. Alan's got a different view of what they've done thus far, what they try to do, which is pretty extraordinary. Anyway, that's all in one second. But first, we're going to bring you a feature we have here on the MK show called Asked and Answered, where we try to answer some of our listener mail. Steve Krakauer is here. He's our executive producer, and he's got the question for us today.

Hey, Steve. Hey, Megan. Yeah, interesting one today. I'm actually very curious to hear the answer myself. This came to us from questions at devilmaycaremedia.com where anyone of our listeners can email us and you might get your question answered on the show. This one came to us from Jane Elaine Martin who says that she's heard you say in a few mediums that you're not a feminist. She says, no judgment from me, just curiosity.

She's your age. She says she's born and raised in the US, but also spent some time in Canada, like Canadian Debbie. She thinks of a feminist as simply someone who believes women should be considered full humans under the law. In practice, she says, you strike me as the consummate feminist, successful, pioneering, bold, impatient with limitations put on your freedom. Are you willing to share your perspective on this? I like all that. Thank you. Thank you for the description. Yeah, for me, it's a no brainer. I'm definitely not a feminist because I think that feminists are right now like that term has become known. It's become associated

with a few different things that I don't want anything to do with. I think it's the feminists of today are 100 percent anti-Republican, anti-conservative. They can't stand conservative women. I think they're anti-men. Their rhetoric about trying to empower women too often for me does so by denigrating men. And that's not the way forward. That's not the way to win power, hearts, minds. And I don't agree with it. I'm married to a good man and I produce two more. And I don't want to join any organization that wants to dump on them just because, you know, they happen to be born male with the XY chromosome, right? It's just, no, I'm not in.

And let's face it, to be a feminist today, and all the most prominent feminists have said this, you have to be pro-choice. Now, I have never said whether I'm pro-choice or pro-life. I think some things are private and you just, as a journalist, don't have to get into it. But I don't support an organization or a term, and I am thinking in places like the National Organization for Women, which call themselves feminist, that will openly denigrate people who are on the life side of this, right? Like, why? They don't want freedom for women, you know, to have a different viewpoint than they do. They really don't. And they, they will condemn people like Sarah Palin by saying she's a, she's a woman, only a man could love. Gloria Steinem said that exact thing, right? So I just don't think on

something like life and choice. I want to weigh in by if you, if you call yourself feminist, you are saying you're a pro-choice. You may not think you're saying that, but you are, and I'm not signing on for that. I don't think it's appropriate for a journalist and I'm not anti-men and I'm not anti-Republican. So all those things. And I'll give you another example of this. So take now, I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. When I got my dust up with Trump and he was calling me a bimbo and saying all those things, whatever, I handled it. It was fine. But you know who was totally silent on the matter? Now, they will jump into any dispute. I mean, I'm telling you, like Trump, if he said two words

about Hillary, about some Democrat, about a civilian, they'd be all over him. But the one time he attacked somebody who was at Fox News, silence, nothing. Right. Why? You know they hate Trump. Why would they give up that opportunity? Because the victim, quote unquote, wasn't sympathetic enough for them. Now, I don't care. I certainly didn't need now jumping in to, quote, help me. But it just shows you what they really stand for. They don't like women who they don't think aren't totally on their side of the political aisle. Okay, fine. But I don't embrace that term. And I think you can be for female empowerment, which I am for. And unlike a lot of these people just throw these labels out there and then they don't live by them because of politics. I've lived my life standing up for other women from the time I was a young woman in my 20s, my young 20s, in my early days when I was practicing law to the present day. But it doesn't mean I give a presumption to women that they're always truth tellers and so on. Right. I don't believe in that. Believe all women. Right. Like that there's that part of being a feminist, because I reject that, too.

Anyway, so I've had this debate with Sheryl Sandberg, who she said she didn't call herself a feminist either until Gloria Steinem got a hold of her and explained to her that she was. And I see her point. I understand if you define it as you did in your question, you could go there. But I don't. If you were to look at the Urban Dictionary, it's been sort of co-opted by all these other factions. And on that or to that, I will not sign my name. I don't need it. I don't like labels anyway. As you know,

I don't like calling myself. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative, not a damn, not a liberal, just a human. And I don't I don't need it. Anybody's like I don't I don't need these other people to be in my camp or for me to be in theirs. You're in my camp. My listeners and I were in a camp. The camp of reason. It's the only label I need. Thank you for the question. And if anybody else wants to weigh in, Steve? Questions at devilmaycaremedia.com.

Yeah, because the devil may care, but I do not. Back to our guests in one second. First this. I really wanted the discussion to help us understand what came first, because it's, you know, the news too often just gets in and out and these pinprick stories like this is what happened. They had an argument over these homes and now they're they're killing each other. And that's it's just so much more complex than that. But OK, so just to jump back, I'm not sure Shadi accepts your borders, Alan, but there's hope that, you know, maybe in the next 10 hours we can all get there. But just jump back. So we had said that Jordan was in control of East Jerusalem. They had agreed to register certain homes in the names of these Palestinians, but apparently they never did. Then Jordan lost control in 1967 of East Jerusalem and Israel took control of it. And suddenly these Palestinians were like, wait, the Jordanians were going to take care of us. They're going to register everything. And it was like, no, they didn't. And too bad on you. And now Israel's trying to oust them from those homes because

technically they're now owned by an Israeli real estate group. And it's going up to the Israel Supreme Court who's going to decide who's right. And that's that's how it should be decided. Right. But that decision was about to come down. So tensions were rising because this has a history as we've just been discussing. They were awaiting the Supreme court ruling. It was during Ramadan that all this was going on. It was Israel independence day. There was something called Jerusalem day where some people celebrate the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967. Um, Palestinians don't much like the celebration of that. It can be, it can be in your face and palestinians don't particularly love it um there was a dust up and a do at um something called the damascus gate which is a historic entrance to um it's called the old city which is a historic

neighborhood in jerusalem and um every year the palestinians break their fast after ramadan and celebrate the end of it there but this year the, the Israeli police said no. A battlefield emerged. And so, OK, more and more tensions. Abbas, who was supposed to be train. Hundreds of Israelis wound up chanting, marching death to Arabs at Damascus gate. The police stopped them. But then there was this big confrontation at the end of Ramadan at the Al-Aqsa mosque. As I understand it, very hotly contested site. Jews all call it Temple Mount. This is the third holiest site in Islam. And that that Monday where this all broke out two weeks ago, Israeli groups went up there. The cops stopped them from going in, but the cops also raided the compound. They say it was to disperse the crowds, to stop the violence. It was provocative. Stones were thrown at them. The cops responded, rubber bullets. Hundreds were injured. You can

feel the tensions, like all these certain points going up. And by that afternoon, Hamas, here's Hamas again, says, you get the cops out of that mosque by 6 p.m. tonight and away from those Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem or something bad's going to happen. And Israel never responds well to threats like that. The deadline passed. Hamas was the first to fire rockets into East Jerusalem and elsewhere. No one was killed, but there was property damage, and Israel basically said, now it's on. Do you guys accept my description, my thumbnail description of the latest events? Except for one thing. Every

five years, Hamas does this. They find an excuse. First, it was Sharon going to the Temple Mount. There's an excuse, but Hamas has a policy, and they win. It's a smart policy. They figure out an excuse, because Israel is not perfect. It will always do something wrong. It will do something. They will overreact to something. There will be Israelis who will yell death to the Arabs, which is a horrible, horrible thing.

But Hamas has a policy. It, every five years, will fire rockets at Israel or build terror tunnels or engage in terrorism, knowing that Israel will respond. Israel tries its darndest not to kill civilians. There's no incentive. There's no reason why Israel should ever want to kill a civilian. It's against the policy. It's against their need for public relations. It's against everything. But they know civilians will be killed because the rockets are fired from deep within civilian territories. And they know that the world will react the way it reacts. They know the U.N. General Assembly, the Security Council, the International Criminal Court five years they lose 200 civilians, 100 civilians. That happens. And every year they win the property in the war. And it's going to continue to happen. If there's a ceasefire today, that'd be great. Five years from now, there'll be another excuse

and Hamas will fire rockets again. Israel will retaliate again. And the international community will come out and do that. Fortunately, I think both President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken have said Israel has the right of self-defense. It has to act proportionately, of course. And if you want to criticize Israel for targeting a particular building like that building with the media, that's fair criticism. That's a fair point.

And I think we should hear the facts. We should see the media. That's fair criticism. That's a fair point. And I think we should hear the facts. We should see the facts. But when Israel is put to the choice, either let the rockets rain down. And my cousin, who's the chief rabbi of State Road, had to bury a six-year-old boy the other day when the rocket penetrated his shelter and killed him and wounded his mother. Israel has two choices, either accept the rockets or respond knowing you're going to necessarily kill some civilians because the rockets are being fired from mosques, from hospitals, from schools, from UN places. There are videotapes that you can see of Hamas rockets being taken and fired from beyond civilian areas so that if Israel is going

to retaliate, it must retaliate and kill civilians. Hamas could easily fire the rockets from its empty areas, but that wouldn't achieve its goal because then Israel could stop the rockets without killing civilians. So it's a Hobson's choice that's put on Israel. I have been in Israel. I have been in the command center when it has a terrorist in its sight and it says, and the commander says, do not fire. There may be a civilian in the area. Withdraw. Fail to protect yourself. Israel resolves doubts generally in favor of not attacking targets when they know there's civilian casualties. But inevitably, there will be civilian casualties because Hamas has made a decision to fire from behind civilian casualties using human

shields. I wrote a book a few years ago called The Case for Moral Clarity, and it has a cartoon on the cover. And it has an Israeli soldier standing in front of a baby carriage, protecting the baby carriage. And then it has the Hamas terrorist standing behind the baby carriage, using the baby carriage to protect him. That is the moral clarity that has to be understood the Hamas terrorist standing behind the baby carriage, using the baby carriage to protect him. That is the moral clarity that has to be understood about Hamas's decision every five years to find an excuse to fire rockets and get Israel into a problem with world public opinion. That's the reality. That would certainly explain a lot of what we've seen. And that is how it feels that every five years we have this a flare up and that it definitely benefits Hamas, who the one thing you can you can say about Hamas is they're very good at the propaganda work. They're really very smart. Very smart. They will make sure that the

cameras are rolling by their allies in the press. And this has been you know what they call it. They call it the dead baby strategy or the CNN strategy. That's what they call it. They know that if it leads, it leads. And if you show the picture of the dead baby, if you show the picture of the dead woman, you will get sympathy. Israel doesn't show pictures of its dead victims. It deliberately doesn't do that to protect their privacy. And so the dead baby strategy works. Hamas wants to make sure that when Israel retaliates, there will be some civilian terrorism. Some of them result from rockets misfiring, but many of them do result from Israel efforts that fail to try to prevent civilian casualty. on Shadi the way and Shadi and you can address all of that. But can you just start with this? Because as I look at the situation and I've seen films out of Gaza and I've seen a lot of news footage and it just looks awful. And it's interesting because Alan and others have said it could have been the Singapore of the Middle East. And instead, it's more like Somalia, I read in one article. And because it is beautiful. It's right on the water. It's a

lovely community. But you look at it and it's just rubble. I mean, the shots of Gaza, just it's just rubble from all the bombings that have happened over the years and they can't get supplies in to rebuild because Israel makes determinations about the supplies going in, the supplies coming out and could it be turned into a weapon. And if you listen to testimonials, firsthand testimonials from people, Palestinians living in Gaza, they say it's horrible that there's 60 percent unemployment and there's 90% of people living below the poverty line. And you've got these enormous families with just enough food to get by and they can't find work and they can't find supplies and they can't rebuild after the bombings. And instead of being

this Singapore and the Mediterranean, it's a nightmare controlled by somebody else. They can't even go out to fish as far as they want into the water because Israel controls the waters and they feel imprisoned. And so I get it. They're unhappy. They have a terrible leadership. But what would you say if all that's true, to start with this, what would you say they need to do differently in order to get the Israelis to bargain with them and to the point where they do not feel they have to have this embargo on certain goods and they have to guard Gaza so much because it doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist. And they do fire off rockets into Israel all the time. And it's run by a terrorist, right? So like, what would you say Gazans need to do

to help themselves remove themselves from being this kind of a target from Israel by Israel, who itself feels targeted by them? Well, first of all, Gazans themselves don't have a lot of control here. I mean, if the blockade is to be eased, it's Israel that has the power to ease the blockade, to let more goods to come in, to allow more medical services to go in. That doesn't mean they have to recognize Hamas or like Hamas, but purely from a humanitarian standpoint, Israel does have the ability to make life easier for people in Gaza. Unfortunately,

part of Israel's deterrence strategy is to basically, I would argue, and I know Alan will disagree with this, is to inflict collective punishment on Palestinians in Gaza with the hope that they will turn against their own leaders, with the hope that they will send a message to Hamas and tell them that if you try this again, we will utterly destroy you and we will make you pay the price. That is actually the language used by Israeli officials. Pay the price, pay the price. That is actually the language used by Israeli officials. Pay the price, pay the price. The only way the price is high enough is if you inflict a considerable toll on Gaza itself. So that's what we've been seeing throughout not just the current period, but 2007 onwards during this very repressive blockade. Now, a couple other things I just want to address on

the timeline, Megan, that you laid out, which I think addressed most of the major issues. Sometimes you'll hear Israeli officials say what's happening in East Jerusalem is just a property dispute. But the bigger context here is a broader effort to dispossess Arabs of their homes in East Jerusalem. And again, to change the demographic balance so it becomes more Jewish and less Arab. There's been a nonviolent campaign that's been going on for months protesting peacefully about these threatened evictions of Palestinians. It got no international attention. No one seems to care. So tensions had been building up. And finally, they, and then also you have far right Israeli settlers egging all of this on. And we have to also be clear, Netanyahu himself has allies, has had allies in previous governments who are on the far right. These are people who say explicitly that they want to expel Arabs, including citizens from Israel. So we're not talking about just normal people on the right or whatever. We're talking about some very extreme

figures. So I agree they should be condemned. They should be condemned. And I condemn them. So when we want to understand the current crisis, as you mentioned, Megan, the key turning point is the very heavy-handed police raid that we saw in Al-Aqsa Mosque. As you mentioned, rubber bullets, stun grenades, so on, more than 300. That was the excuse to juror. That was the excuse to juror. That was not the provoke. This would have happened if there had been peace in Jerusalem. Hamas does it every few years. They just wait for an excuse. And they're smart, and they're pushed by Iran to do it.

So they're going to keep doing it. There's always going to be an excuse. Let him finish. Go ahead, Shadi. Okay, but fair enough, Alan. But I think I would, at the very least, we should be able to condemn what Israel did. These are extremely aggressive acts that we know are going to be extremely provocative to Arabs and Palestinians, especially, you know, third holiest site, end of Ramadan, tense time. It's a tinderbox. So if we want to prevent a conflict like this from happening in the future, we can't just say we have to return to a ceasefire and return to the status quo ante. The root cause or the origins of the broader problem here

is the tensions that keep on building because people don't, because Palestinians in Jerusalem and in the West Bank don't see a way out. There is no peace process. There is no, I would argue, I know, Alan, you've said that there's no partner for peace on the Palestinian side. I think it's also fair to say there's no partner for peace on the Israeli side. Benjamin Netanyahu no longer publicly supports an actual two-state solution. He has stopped supporting that, and he should be condemned for that. But let's remember that the first major intifada occurred after Israel offered peace. A lot of these reactions occur when peace is close, not when there's tension. In 2000, 2001, it may have been an imperfect offer, but it was an offer.

And it was an offer to sit down. And Arafat started an intifada. And the same thing happened with the first rocket attacks. It was just when Omar was offering a two-state solution, a very good one, and Hamas didn't want it. So the closer you come to peace, the more Hamas and Iran are going to try to disrupt peace. So it's a no-win for Israel. If there's tension, that's an excuse. If there's peace, that's an excuse.

If there's quiet, that's an excuse. If there's noise, that's an excuse. You have peace that's an excuse if there's quiet that's an excuse if there's noise that's an excuse you have to understand these are all excuses israel should do better it shouldn't provide the excuses i agree with you and i want to be clear i condemn the extremists who want to expel israeli arabs i condemn efforts to try to undercut the two-state solution i want a two-state solution, but that is not the root cause. The root cause is Hamas's failure to recognize that Israel has the right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people. And until that is recognized, you're not going to have peace with Hamas. I was going to say just one more thing, just so I just don't lose the thread,

because Alan, you had said earlier, I think this is actually really important. So you said a lot about the civilian casualties issue, which I touched on earlier. And just to continue that, just so we're all clear on what the numbers are, as I said, more than 200 killed. Now, what's interesting and sad is who was killed out of those 200. Almost half of them are women and children. Over 60 have been children. And we see, you know, medical clinics. Children are defined to include 17 and 18-year-olds who are terrorists, who are lobbying and firing rockets. So let's be clear. If you count the seven and eight and 10-year-olds, it would be less. 4,000 Palestinians were killed in Syria. 75,000 Palestinians were killed in Jordan. The world didn't care. There

were fewer civilian casualties inflicted by Israel than were inflicted by the United States and Afghanistan and in Iraq. Every war has civilian casualties. The reason for the civilian casualties, by the way, is that Hamas will not allow civilians into its bunkers. Israel builds bunkers for everybody and they avoid civilian casualties. Not always. That six-year-old was killed. But Hamas deliberately requires its civilians to remain above ground, whereas Israel builds shelters. If you let me, let Shadi weigh in. Sure. Okay. The basic point here is that the majority of people who have been killed are civilians.

In the previous war in 2014, which lasted seven weeks, 2,200 were killed. About 1,500 were civilians. We keep on hearing about the most about this humanitarian army that's doing everything to protect civilian life. So I understand that's the propaganda. And I understand that's what Israeli officials tell you. They tell others. I get it. Fine. We have to look at the facts on the ground and say, if the goal is precision, does that really comport with the fact that so many civilians have been killed? The fact that the building housing the Associated Press, a major mainstream news outlet, that got bombed. And then people will say-

Nobody was killed. Nobody was injured. Well, wait, let's talk about why it was bombed. Let's not skip over why. It's not like they just tried to bomb the AP. They bombed it because they the Israeli intelligence said that Hamas military intel operations were based in their Israeli officials claim that there was a Hamas presence in that building. But Tony Blinken, our secretary of state, asked for additional evidence for that claim. And so far, the U.S. position is that they have not seen credible evidence that that is the case. Now, just before we leave that point, and I will give you back the floor shot, because I was just reading up on this and it was making the rounds that there was a now

former AP reporter, Matt Friedman, who wrote an article in 2014 in The Atlantic saying the AP staff in Gaza City would witness a rocket launch right beside their office, the AP office, endangering reporters and other civilians nearby because they knew a rocket launch could go wrong and which it often does. And B, that's now a target for Israel to respond. And the AP wouldn't report it, not even in AP articles being written about Israeli claims that Hamas was launching rockets from residential areas. And Matt says this did happen. Hamas did launch rockets from residential areas. Hamas fighters would burst into the AP's Gaza bureau and threaten the staff and the AP would not report it. And Matt Friedman goes on to write at the time that there were cameramen

waiting outside of the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, and they would film the civilian casualties. These are AP cameramen. Film the arrival of civilian casualties. So it's part of, you know, this is what Hamas wants on camera. And then at a signal from a Hamas official, turn off their cameras when wounded and dead fighters on the Palestinian side came in, helping Hamas official turn off their cameras when wounded and dead fighters on the Palestinian side came in, helping Hamas maintain the illusion that only civilians were dying. Now, this is an AP reporter at the time writing prior to all this in 2014. And so he says, look, I'm not saying that this AP building absolutely had Hamas military intel operations in it. But I refer

you back to my earlier article where it had all the facts I just spelled out. That's a good point. So let's take that on. So this is always a justification. I would also just urge us all to maintain some skepticism when we're talking about official Israeli government sources, just as if my own government here in the U S and Afghanistan or Yemen would drone strikes, they would say, well, I agree. This was justified to leave us as, as analysts, as, as people who are following this, we have to be careful and it does help to have some independent verification. Now let's say, let's say that there was, here's the bigger problem. If there's one, let's say there's one Hamas member and near him, there are nine innocent civilians.

Now- It shouldn't be attacked. Under those circumstances, you shouldn't be attacked. But what's happening in practice seems to be that, and Israel uses this language of collateral damage, that we were targeting the Hamas guy. These people were caught in the crossfire. Does Hamas's badness justify having this cavalier approach where you say, hey, we're going to launch airstrikes? Hey, too bad. We're not trying to kill civilians,

but if they happen to be in the area that we're targeting, well, we can't always help that. And as you know, Alan, there have been- No, they call off their airstrikes when they know that there's chivalry in the area. Sure. Let me just kind of finish the thought and then just so I just finished this thread. So, I mean, and as you know, there are, you know, international human rights organizations. Some people might say they're biased, but we're talking about, but, but generally speaking, most inner, most international NGOs do document how Israel isn't particularly proportionate. There are what appear to be on unlawful strikes that do put civilians in harm's way. But I would just, I would just say that, um, based on the numbers that we're seeing on the ground, there is a high civilian toll. And not even if we talk about not just the people who have been killed, but also the fact that the UN just reported that more than 50,000 Gazans are internally displaced because of the destruction in Gaza.

So it's also about livelihoods. It's about people's homes. I agree. in Gaza. So it's also about livelihoods. It's about people's homes. It's about, and there are entire families. What should Israel do? What should Israel do? If you were this, the head of the Israeli defense forces or the prime minister, and you were getting calls from State Road in Jerusalem and Ashkelon and Ashdod saying, our people are being terrorized. Rockets are coming. Please stop the rockets from coming. What would you do differently from what Israel is doing today?

And don't say, I would be more careful. I'll tell you a story. I know this for a fact. One of the leading terrorists who was planning to blow up a gas refinery that would have killed thousands of people was targeted by Israel. He was in their sights

and they saw that there may have been some civilians. They canceled it. They canceled the strike and waited months. And there was more terrorist attacks until he was alone with his wife. And yes, his wife was, who knows, maybe she was complicit, maybe she wasn't. But that's one. Israel does everything it can. What incentive does it have? You talk about terrorism. That's what the United States did in Dresden. The United States, when it bombed Dresden, clearly had a policy with Churchill of terrorizing civilians to make them turn against their government. We did that. We did that in Japan, the firebombing of Tokyo. Israel doesn't do that. It doesn't have as a policy to terrorize civilians. Yes, it will destroy infrastructure that is used to help the Palestinians. Yes, it will cut off electricity. You always do that during wartime if the electricity is being used to send rockets. Israel has done far, far less in a state of war with Hamas than the United States did in relation to Germany and Japan and also Iraq and Afghanistan. So you have to make comparisons.

The numbers of civilians killed in Afghanistan has been much, much greater in proportion to the threat. So Israel should do better. Yes, I agree with you if it can, but it has to prioritize its own civilian safety over the safety of Hamas members. And remember, too, there are a lot of Hamas people who operate by day. They sell bread and at night they're terrorists. Are they civilians or are they terrorists? You know, we have to look. Well, so once the war is over, we'll know better. Any six year old, obviously.

But tell me that they kill a woman? That's relevant? Yeah, so Alan, I worry there that you're coming awfully close to this idea that a lot of people in Gaza are fair game because they may or may not have ties to Hamas. When we're saying that someone who seems to be a civilian, you're suggesting that they may actually be secretly Hamas. Again, we're speculating. It's not Hamas. It's terrorists. It's sending rockets. Being a member of Hamas is not for me a justification for being killed. But being part of the process of sending rockets makes you a combatant. And so, yeah. No, but we don't know the bread sellers and non-combatants, and some of them are matters of degree. The point is that you're saying that some of these people who are counted as civilians because they're bread sellers or women or whatever, you're suggesting that maybe they're

not actually civilians. I just that line of thinking, I think, takes us in maybe a little bit of a problematic place. But more broadly, let me just let me just finish with the thought here. It is actually Israel's deterrent strategy to inflict overwhelming pain on Palestinians. My colleague, Dan Byman, who's a leading counterterrorism expert, he wrote a piece in the last Gaza war in 2014. It's called An Eye for a Tooth. And that's how he describes Israel's bombardment strategy in Gaza. that if they break one of your teeth, you take out one of their eyes because, again, you're trying to teach them a lesson so they learn to never again...

As long as the eye is a combatant, that's fair. It's okay under international law if you lose one person to terrorism to take out 10 terrorists or 100 terrorists. Proportionality has nothing to do with the matter of international law. It has nothing to do with international law. It's only to do with civilians. And remember, the civilian numbers are all given by the Palestinian Health Authority. We know that they are not reliable. We're going to wait. There will be a study at

the end of this, and we'll see the percentages. And there will be many more Palestinians killed than Israelis because Israel has a policy of protecting its civilians by bunkers, by sirens. The Hamas has a policy of exposing its civilians and wanting them to die by putting the rockets right near there in front of schools, in front of hospitals, in front of mosques. We know that mosques are used to keep rockets and that other, when you do that, it's you Hamas that is endangering your civilians, not Israel. Are you honestly trying to tell me that when an Israeli airstrike kills a family of four, and there was just a video that was going around that you may have seen. Anyway, are you trying to tell me that that father who lost four children, he should not blame Israel?

That's right. He should blame Hamas for firing the rocket, but he should blame Hamas for firing the rocket from near his children. That's where the blame lies. And perhaps he should also blame the Israeli strike that actually killed his children. I mean, we're coming awfully close here to blaming Palestinians themselves for being killed. Not the Palestinians, Hamas. I don't blame the Palestinians for being killed. I blame Hamas for putting Palestinians in harm's way. I blame Hamas for having its soldier stand behind the baby carriage.

That's what they're doing. That family that was killed was killed because Hamas fired rockets from near that family. If they had gone to an area and done it, well, we know that they fired their rockets from crowded areas. We know that from reporting. Shadi, let me ask you, because the other thing that the Israelis say is they actually go as best they can and give a warning before they bomb a site. And that, that actually did happen with that AP building in Gaza city. They'll actually, I mean, it's kind of crazy to think about it. Like if just from a layperson

standpoint, they'll go tell you, we're about to bomb you. You should leave this building right away. And they'll call you on the phone and they'll have a knock bomb on top. Yeah. Yeah. So, and, and so one of the AP reporters who was in that building said, oh, we were lucky to get out. And Netanyahu responded, it wasn't luck. We took special pains to call people in the buildings before we dropped the bombs. I mean, it's extraordinary in terms of how one conducts warfare. But Shadi, I mean, what what more can they do? Right. If Gaza is such a mess, Hamas does, you know,lets a little while before they blow a 14 story building, um, you know, phone calls, phone calls, text messages, they drop leaflets.

I don't think that's reassuring. And I've heard this a lot in the debates on social media, the past few days, people will tell me, but Shadi there's, they're dropping those leaflets. Um, that's pretty terrifying when you get a text message or a call and it's like your home that you've built, it's been your home for God knows how long, decades even. And you only have one hour. And you gave it to Hamas and you let Hamas destroy rockets. No, no.

Those are the houses that are destroyed. It's not true. If it's a 14-story building and Hamas is in one part of it, you're just in a residential building by yourself, your family. And then Israel claims there's a Hamas asset in another part of the building. You take their word for it. But the point is, and that's why we know that the number of people who are homeless is a large number. What would you do if you were the Israelis and you, so I'll tell you. A large building was being used to send rockets into Sderot. And unless you destroy that building, unless you destroy that

building, the rockets will continue. And you know that people live in that building. They're warned, so there'll only be economic damage. Would you refrain from knocking that building down and allow the rockets to continue to attack your civilians and stay wrote? I would not. All right, let him go ahead. So we know that Israel is some of the most advanced precision targeting in the world. The idea that there aren't more precise ways to target Hamas assets than destroying an entire apartment block. Again, we've seen those images. I think we have to call that into question. I get that they think it's necessary, but there are ways to be more precise in your targeting outside of

destroying whole apartment blocks. If we try to do that in any war where it's justified that if there's one Hamas operative, you can destroy a 14-story building, that would be completely, that would be an utterly- I agree with you. I agree with you. But if rockets are being fired from the mosque, if rockets are being fired from the building, you notify the people in the building, get out. Your building has been taken over by Hamas. It is now a terrorist asset. And what's the alternative? Send ground troops in? No, we don't want ground troops. The alternatives are just to let the rockets go or destroy the building. Here are the alternatives. I'll let Shadi answer and then I want to get to something else. Go ahead. You asked what can Israel do? Well, Israel does have the ability.

Now they have sent a very strong message to Hamas. They've degraded Hamas's capabilities. Israel could come now and say, listen, we are ready to move to a ceasefire. We are ready to do a 24 humanitarian pause for our bombardment of Gaza to allow Gazans to actually get access to fundamental healthcare, water water and so on. They could do that. They're the ones that they could. And this is why. Let me just finish my thought. Let me finish. As an American, as as the U.S., we have leverage over Israel, one of our closest allies. We can actually impress upon them the need to move towards an immediate ceasefire. The reason I focus more on what Israel can do to stop this is because we have no direct relations with Hamas.

We can't actually persuade Hamas. Others perhaps can, but we don't really have any direct contacts with them for legal reasons, obviously. So I think as Americans, it behooves us to focus on what we actually have the power to change and where we actually have leverage if we want to stop. And the fact that up until now, Biden has not called for an explicit immediate ceasefire, which I think is interpreted as a green light to Israel to continue its bombing campaign. There's no other way to interpret that. I agree with that. And let me explain why. So let me just finish the thought as an American. Wait, you're so busy agreeing. We still need his, you hear Shadi's point.

I just want to say like, okay, as, as an American, I feel I, I don't want my government to be complicit in, in an ongoing bombing campaign that has such a high civilian toll. So it does concern me when I see my president, Joe Biden, he's taking a very minimalistic approach. He's not saying much. He doesn't seem very engaged. And he doesn't seem to be putting enough pressure on Netanyahu, because Netanyahu has said just the other day that this could take quite a bit of time and it may continue. That is not very encouraging. I'm going to give you the floor, Alan, but can it also, like, is there also politics at play here? I know, I mean, Shadi mentions the sort of more right-wing base in Israel for Netanyahu. He's

had political troubles. Does this shore him up? Certainly, Hamas is gaining in popularity as a result of this. There have been reports of a lot of those Arab Israelis a lot more active and anti-Israeli right now than they have been before. So Hamas seems to be emerging as sort of a winner, which is, you know, from the American perspective, bad. This is bad. And that's right. And that's why if you have the conversation, Biden calls Netanyahu and says, do a ceasefire. Netanyahu says, I'm happy to do a ceasefire if they don't use the 48 hours to renew their rocket firing, to put themselves in better position to fire. There's no such thing as a ceasefire to help the enemy launch new rockets. If we could have a mutual ceasefire, if there is some way of assuring that the ceasefire is purely humanitarian and is not used by Hamas to increase their

ability once the ceasefire is over to send more rockets, then agree. But the idea that Hamas gets a ceasefire, gets a timeout in order to regroup and make their rocket launches more effective makes no sense from an American point of view. And that's why I think President Biden is doing the right thing. He's urging a movement toward a mutual ceasefire. But he doesn't want, and Netanyahu doesn't want, and I think the world shouldn't want, a unilateral ceasefire by Israel during the time when Hamas can regroup and make its rocket launchings more effective. The ceasefire has to be a real, real ceasefire, and it has to be permanent, not temporary. It can't be, let's stop now. We've inflicted damage. Five years from now, you'll find another excuse.

Three years, a year from now. That just doesn't make any sense. I want to talk about America and our perspective on this, and also sort of where we are with the Abraham Accords, because I know, Alan, you you helped with those during the Trump administration. And yet one of the things we're seeing in the press is the notation that there's been relative silence from the UAE, from Bahrain, from Morocco, from Sudan, all of which normalized ties with Israel recently. So where are they?

Should we be happy they're not saying anything? Should they be saying something more? What do you make of it? Well, first of all, they are saying more things behind the scenes. They are putting pressure on Israel behind the scenes. But remember, the Abraham Accords were signed because it was in the interest of the Arab countries to sign with Israel. Israel had become an indispensable ally for peace in relation to Iran, for technology, for economic advantage. These countries weren't doing Israel a favor. They weren't doing Donald Trump a favor. It was a good thing for these Arab countries to sign on. And it will be a good thing when

Saudi Arabia signs on as well, because they have a common enemy, Iran, and they have common needs for economic development. And Palestinians shouldn't have a veto over that. I do think it will be good if more Arab countries sign on, and I think that Joe Biden, who I've known for more than 30 years, I worked with him on Ted Kennedy's campaign back in 1980, is a decent, decent man, and I think a very good president, and I think he's doing exactly the right thing. I've known Tony Blinken for some time, and I think he's good president. And I think he's doing exactly the right thing. I've known Tony Blinken for some time and I think he's doing the right thing.

I think so far the United States policy has been right, calling for greater constraint, calling for a ceasefire if one is feasible, but without putting pressure on Israel not to defend itself. So I'm happy with American policy. A lot of my people on the right who like me because they think I defended Trump. I didn't. I only defended his rights.

Hate, you know, think I'm selling out Israel. But I do think that President Biden and Secretary Blinken are doing a good job in striking a balance. Look, there's no moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. And anybody who tries to create a moral equivalence between a terrorist organization that deliberately targets civilians from behind their civilians and a democracy which may be imperfect, which is trying to avoid civilian casualties. There is no moral equivalent. A couple of things, first of all. I mean, it's a bit of a straw man. I don't really see anyone prominent drawing a moral equivalency between Hamas and Israel. It's not in mainstream American politics. The Democrats are critical.

Bernie Sanders, AOC. Yes, that's not fair. I have not. AOC? No, you're right. She hasn't drawn a moral equivalent. She's blamed Israel for everything. Ilan Omer?

That doesn't mean you think they're morally equivalent. Again, the reason. I want to hear. Can I just let me jump in. Let me jump in for one second because we do have a butted soundbite of Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, and AOC's in there as well.

Let's just hear a little bit about what they are saying. Listen. This is not a conflict between two states. This is not a civil war. It is a conflict where one country, funded and supported by the United States government, continues an illegal military occupation over another group of people.

As a black woman in America, I am no stranger to police brutality and state-sanctioned violence. We have been criminalized for the very way we show up in the world. Palestinians are being told the same thing as black folks in America. There is no acceptable form of resistance. This is not about both sides. This is about an imbalance of power.

So what we just heard, that's actually, there was none of them said anything about equivalency between Israel and Hamas. That is not actually what they said. They criticized the occupation and they talked about a power imbalance. That is true. As I've said, I mean, there is a wildly unequal power imbalance between Israel and the Palestinians more broadly. But she also said this is not about both sides. So it's as if Israel has no side to its story, you know, that there's that there it's all about them being the bigger, the bigger enemy, the bigger, more powerful guy. Not a word about the rockets, not a word about the rockets targeting Israeli civilians because they don't have the courage said in other situations, but just a point on that that was made earlier about the Abraham Accords, which I thought was interesting from from Alan, is that it's good that Arab countries are being relatively quiet. countries that have signed these accords and they're quiet about an injustice, injustices

being committed against Palestinians, not just not talking here even about Gaza, but just more broadly, that isn't necessarily a great thing. If you're an Arab who wants Palestinians to have more rights and more freedoms, the fact that Arabs are pretty much leaving the Palestinians alone and not supporting them contributes to this unequal power imbalance. And the broader question I think for us is, how is peace possible if you have one party in a peace negotiation, hypothetically in the future, that is so extremely powerful, has all the leverage, all the cards, the Palestinians are extremely weak and don't really have much to offer.

Israel doesn't have a lot of incentives to make compromises and concessions. How do you explain that in 67, when Israel won an overwhelming war, they immediately accepted resolution 242? Look, I'm not going to go back. But wait, to go back, but let me put the question a different way. I mean, I guess the question that comes to mind on that, Shadi, is, is that what you call losing? They don't have power because their ideas haven't resonated. They haven't been able to amass enough allies to back their cause. They're losing this long 75-year-old war bit by bit. They're being, you know, sort of their power is fading by the minute. And at some point, they'll do what people who are on the

losing side of a long conflict do, which is surrender. It's not getting better for them, it's getting worse. Expect people to surrender and accept an unjust peace negotiation. So currently what's on the table is not even close to 90 or even 80% of the West Bank. What we're talking about here is basically 50, 60% autonomy or whatever it might be that some of the right-wingers in Israel are proposing, or maybe even not having a two-state solution at all. I think there's something really, I mean, is it right to say that Palestinians should just accept defeat and accept something that doesn't even count as the most minimal state possible. That's because that'll just create more grievances over time.

But aren't they calling for, Shadi, you tell me, what are they, because the last I saw, the Palestinians were calling for a two-state solution. I think it was the one that Israel offered back in 19, what was the year? You guys tell me. But their two-state solution seemed a little outdated. You tell me. They wanted the 67 solution. They wanted to go back to the 67 borders. Israel has made tremendous offers. When you reject an offer, don't expect more the next time. Expect less the next time. They could have had 98 percent in 2008 with Olmert. They didn't accept it. Why should Israel now come up with more? They should come up with less. And if the Palestinians to come and sit down and compromise. Netanyahu said, we will both sides will have to make painful compromises. And he said, I invite Abbas to come to Jerusalem any day.

I'll go to Ramallah. We'll negotiate. You say he has rejected the two-state solution. No, he hasn't talked about it. But the last speech he made accepted explicitly the two-state solution. I know. I was there. I was there. My uncle, who was very, very extremist, walked out because he was so upset at offering a two-state solution. The two-state solution is still on the table if the Palestinians were to come to negotiate. You can't get a state without negotiating. You're not going to get it

through the BDSB. What about that point, Shadi? The point about when you reject an offer, it doesn't get better next time around, unless you've really emerged as the winner of the long conflict, which they're not. They haven't. That is the Israeli perspective on this. I just don't think it's conducive to peace because Palestinians are not going to accept the crumbs that are being offered to them. I don't think they should, quite frankly, because I also believe that every people has a right to self-determination. Every people has a right to some basic level of dignity. We Americans, we have values. And I think that we should try to reflect those values in how we conduct our foreign policy. So let me just say the Jews have a right of self-determination? Of course they do. Of course they do.

Israel has a right. I mean, yes. So you reject the BDS movement that says. Oh, I'm on the record. Oh, yeah. OK, OK, OK, OK. Look, I think we agree more than we disagree. And I go back to the point, I think if the two of us sat down, we could create peace instantaneously.

There are radicals on both sides that should be rejected and marginalized. And I think if people like the two of us could sit down and maybe write a joint article together where we come lay out the seven points we agree to and the seven points we disagree to and possible resolutions of those seven points we disagree with, I think that would be very helpful. I think you and I share a lot. We've made real progress. But can I add a human element to this? Because I'll tell you, to me, the press coverage around what we're seeing right now, it's a little different than it normally is. Normally, I would say it's, I don't know, maybe slightly more pro-Israel than it's been. To me, it's felt like a little bit less pro-Israel. People who would normally be speaking up for Israel seem to be saying nothing. And I

don't know if that's just because of the numbers or, you know, if we're having a political shift thanks to the so-called squad being so vocal. I'm not sure. But I know, I mean, I see it when it comes to tactics. I don't think there's any question that Israel tries harder to protect the innocents than we've seen, certainly Hamas do. And yet, and yet I see, I see children in, in Gaza and I think, no, you know, I think, and not only do I feel bad as a, as a human being, as a mom, but I worry about the next generation, right? I've got three kids. I, I feel ongoing hate being created by the day by both sides. And I understand we've explored why and how and all that, but like, nonetheless, the fact remains we're creating future enemies by the day by both sides. And I understand we've explored why and how and all that. But like,

nonetheless, the fact remains, we're creating future enemies by the minute. And the soundbite that I want to play was from there was a 10 year old Palestinian girl in Gaza, Richard Engel, found her and put her on NBC. And I just want to ask you about this. So here she is 10 years old, I want to cry. I want to let out of my anger out of my body because they're killing people that they don't deserve to die. They're just living their own self. They come and kill them. We don't deserve this.

We can't do anything. We're just dying. The American people, stop giving weapons to the occupiers. That's the way that you can help us. She's right. She's pointing the finger at the wrong person. She's in Gaza. She and her parents and her family should be pointing the finger at Hamas, who could have given her a good life, who could have given her peace, and instead gave her rockets and warfare.

And inevitably, they're going to be civilian casualties. So she has to know who to point the finger of blame at. The finger of blame squarely falls on Hamas. Okay. So, Alan, first of all, I'm glad that you think that we could coauthor an article together. That would probably be extremely controversial for various reasons, but it's, I appreciate the sentiment, but I guess, you know, um, I do, but if you're talking, this is where I think we actually do have a big divergence and we

wouldn't be able to agree on this necessarily, is you just heard, you know, a very, you know, you might not agree with her assessment, but a powerful emotional moment. I agree. It hit me hard. You're pretty much telling her that she shouldn't be angry at Israel. No, no, she should be angry at the, she should be angry both at Israel, but also at Hamas. Okay, both. So, okay, we do acknowledge that there can be anger to both sides. Great. But the thing that Megan mentioned, which I think is really important, if Israel's goal is to weaken Hamas's popularity and all of that, the fact that we're also what we saw

today, which doesn't have much to do with Hamas, this is actually an independent Palestinian movement that's happening, the general strike where hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Palestinians are staying home and not going to work in the West Bank, in Jerusalem, as a way to sort of have a unified protest against Israel's Gaza campaign. What we're seeing now is actually a resurgence of Palestinian nationalism, which is much broader than Hamas. I would say Hamas is probably gaining some popularity in Gaza because the natural thing is that if you're being attacked by your enemy, your perceived enemy, you're going to blame them instead of whoever's ruling you.

Even if you don't like Hamas, even if you don't agree with their Islamic interpretation, it's natural. You want to get the meanest MF-er possible representing your side. I mean, that's human instinct, right? Get the dirtiest fighter you can get. And it helps Netanyahu for the same reason, obviously.

So then how does this help in the long term when we have a new... It doesn't, and Hamas should stop sending the rockets. That's why, because it doesn't help. It may help them in the short term, but it does not help in the long term. The single most important thing that could happen would be Hamas stop sending the rockets. If that were to happen, that we would see no civilian casualties. We would see restoration of quiet and peace.

Israel would immediately stop. Until the next time. Until the next time. To your earlier point. Let's say Hamas stops the rockets today. We're going to be back to square one with the same problems in Jerusalem, the same problems in the West Bank, the same occupation. And we're going to be repeating this endlessly. But we're not going to see dead children.

That's the big difference. And that's what the focus is. We're not going to see that 10-year-old. We can stop that. You know, we can do one piece at a time. We're not going to achieve perfect peace. We could have in 2000, 2001. We could have in 2008. But we're beyond that now. Let's at least stop the killing of children. Let's stop the rockets penetrating a bunker and killing a six-year-old Israeli boy. And let's stop Israel from retaliating to stop the rockets. Yes, but the rockets have to stop for that to happen.

Part of the problem, though, is on the day after, Alan, you're not willing to push for any Israeli compromises. You're saying that all the responsibility is on Palestinians. You basically said that- I want to have the responsibility for the dead children is on,

completely on Hamas' side. The responsibility for there not being peace is shared. And I want to put all of my effort on trying to persuade both the United States and Israel to move forward, to have a two state solution, to have negotiations. I would like to see that happen as soon as possible. This is where I'd like to leave it. Unlike you, I have never been even to the Middle East. It's on my bucket list. And I've certainly never seen Gaza. I've never seen Israel. Can you explain, Alan, because as somebody I remember my one of my closest friends, older sister, they were Jewish. I grew up next to them growing up and she moved to Israel. And back then, you know, in the 70s and 80s, things were

bad, too. And there was all the suicide bombings. And I remember thinking, why would you why would you want to move to Israel? You know, it's? It's an unsafe place. Why would you leave the United States, upstate New York, where I grew up and go move to Israel? And I've heard you talk about the region in such glowing terms. And I just, can you give people a perspective? Because it is a special magical area from what people tell me. And I just don't want to leave people with the impression that it's just this war-torn, terrible, awful, dangerous war. It's much more than that. Look, Israel is 73 years old this month. It has done something that no country in history has ever done. It has restored a language that was dead for many years. It has restored a culture. It has restored nationhood. Jews have prayed for 3,000 years to return to Jerusalem, to return to Israel. It's been a dream. Jews say it

in prayer every single day. And it is a magical place for a Jew. I'm sure it's a magical place for a Palestinian. That's why there's room for two states. You know, you could take the cynical view there already are two states. Remember, the Palestinian mandate that was established after the First World War included what is now Jordan, Transjordan, in which a majority of the people are Palestinians. And they live there as Palestinians in Jordan. Nothing happens in Jordan without the approval of the Palestinians. They are a very, very powerful force. And then there was what was left over, and that was divided. And I want to go back to 1947, 1948, 1967. I would like to see a viable Palestinian

state. First of all, a Palestinian state would be a great thing for the world, because the Palestinian people, in general general are incredible people. They are innovative. They're intelligent. They're thoughtful. They're resourceful. If they could work together with Israel and form a kind of almost informal federation maybe over time, that would be a wonderful, wonderful thing. And I think both sides have to make efforts to marginalize their extremists, move to the center, and move toward a compromise peace that nobody will find 100% satisfying,

but everybody will find better than the current situation. I'll give you the last word, Shadi. Thank you. That was a somewhat positive note to end on. I would agree with Alan. I've lived in the Middle East for a total of seven, eight years in different countries. I've also spent some time in Israel. I've been to Israel proper twice and had a wonderful time and a deep respect for what Israel has been able to do, despite my criticisms of Israel's policies. And I think it's possible to do both. I think it's possible to have respect for a people and respect for a national project, but also to say, hey, states are imperfect. States can be deeply flawed. And I think that's the kind of middle ground that we have to manage, that Israel is not beyond criticism. And just as we would hold our own government in the U S to accountability, we would extend that, that same accountability to Israel and any other government, any other

democracy that we're close to. Um, but, um, I'm skeptical about a two state solution that, that is the ideal. I think a one state by national state, uh, which we didn't really talk about a lot of problems there, But I worry that if we lose sight of a two state solution and people start to lose faith that it's even possible, then we're in a very difficult situation. But yes, my hope is that we can return to some kind of a deep compromise between the two peoples. I agree. You guys are amazing. Well, you're amazing.

You kept us peaceful. Yeah, this is great. Thank you. How many times can you have conversations like this except with a moderator like you, Megan? Oh, thank you. Maybe I am key to Middle East peace. I never even considered that.

But yeah, maybe we all have a greater role to play. You'd be a good mediator, I think. Yeah. Listen, I'm so intellectually engaged and excited by this whole conversation. I learned a lot. And I just think you're helping me make this a place for people to go and learn without heavy bias, one side or the other. And I'm so grateful to you both.

God bless. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'm grateful to you. And I'm grateful to Shadi for such rational conversation. Likewise. And thank you, Megan. All right.

Don't miss our next show this Friday by popular demand, including my own. We've got Laura Logan. I can't wait. I can't wait. I've never spoken with her. And there's a lot to discuss. Gosh, I can't even tick off all the subjects as a tease. You know it's going to be great,

don't you? You know it is. I know it too. Don't miss Friday. Go ahead and subscribe now so you don't miss it. Download. Rate five stars. Give me a review. Let me know what you thought of today's debate. I would love to hear what you thought about it. Did you learn anything new? Were you persuaded one side or the other? Did you appreciate, you know, just the back and forth? Let me know. Go ahead. You can do it in the Apple reviews or on any of our social media and do subscribe while you're there so you can get the tap on the shoulder for Laura Friday. See you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show.

No BS, no agenda, and no fear. The Megyn Kelly Show is a Devil May Care media production in collaboration with Red Seat Ventures.