The Team House - The Dead Hand Plan & The Gaza Crisis | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Date: August 3, 2025

In this episode of Eyes on Geopolitics, the guys discusses the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the implications of nuclear brinksmanship between Russia and the U.S., and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. They analyze the effectiveness of sanctions against Russia, the technological advancements in warfare, and the rising anti-Semitism linked to Israel's actions. The conversation also touches on the future of Palestine and the complexities of international relations in the current geopolitical landscape.Sign up to our newsletter here!https://teamhousepodcast.kit.com/Support the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseNew merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.comFind Mick Mulroy here: Fogbow ⬇️https://fogbow.com/Lobo Institute ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/Twitter ⬇️https://x.com/mickmulroy?s=21&t=-Ze3F_Ix2vlJ18KFvORTCALinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/Bluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/mickmulroy.bsky.socialMick’s publications ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/publications/publications-of-michael-mick-patrick-mulroy/Find Andy Milburn here: Twitter ⬇️https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023Substack ⬇️https://amilburn.substack.com/Andy’s book ⬇️https://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-OperationsBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/andy-milburn.bsky.socialFind Jason Lyons here: LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-lyons-666873316?uBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.social00:00 Escalation in Ukraine: The Ongoing Conflict11:47 Technological Warfare: Drones and Defense Systems24:06 Sanctions and Global Energy Politics29:48 Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza: Aid and Access33:08 Challenges in Urban Warfare34:53 Population Control Tactics and Their Consequences38:58 The Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza42:52 Perceptions of Anti-Semitism and Israeli Actions46:54 The Future of Hamas and Israeli Strategy51:40 Lessons from History: Hope for ResolutionBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey everybody, welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics. We got a full crew here today. We got Andy Milburn, Mick Mulroy, Jason Lines, and myself. A lot going on, as usual. Nothing different. First or foremost, let's kick off with what went down in Russia, Ukraine. Obviously, it's been like almost like more than a month where like Russia is just fucking indiscriminately bombing the shit out of Ukraine.

A ton of civilians being killed. And you had a bit of like, I guess, online brinksmanship, a little bit of trolling going on online. Medvedev, the former president of Russia, the deputy chairman of the Security Council, whatever kind of bullshit fucking title he has now, is was kind of going off on Trump a little bit. Trump responded with saying he moves some nuclear submarines to specific positions, even though like they're always out there doing what they do. like, you know, so Mick, you wanted to get going on this. Mick, of course, is back in the motherland of Ireland right now, so shout out to Ireland.

I have to do that. I'm contractually obligated. Mick, what are you tracking with this? Yeah, every show. You're right. Every show. That's right. Yes, I just got off the Pro Patrick, which is the mountain where the Irish and Officer Catholics

at least St. Patrick spent 40 days and 40 nights for he, what, to know, Christianity. I'm highly recommended whether you're a religious or not. Currently, I'm driving on the wrong side or not going to turn my camera. But on this issue, so just there's a thing called the Dead Hands plan for Russia, former Soviet Union, now Russia. And just to explain why this was significant with Medvedev, who's now the deputy national security advisor, was talking about it. That's what he was talking about. And what it is is Russia's plan. that in the case of a nuclear war, they have an automated system to respond if their systems believe that their command authority, or what they call their command authority, has been

annihilated. So the way it works is if they lose contact with the command authority in the process, there's several systems, radiological, seismic, et cetera, that tries to determine whether there's been a nuclear exchange. If there is, it launches this command missile into the air, which then flies around Russia, launching all the other, or launching whatever's left of their ICBMs with nuclear missiles. So we don't have that system. We keep a human involved the entire time. They don't, which I think is obviously irresponsible. But that is what Medvedev was talking about that got people pretty worked up, Although, I think you already said it to Russia constantly talks about nuclear war. So it's kind of losing its oof.

But President Trump, in a not normal scenario, started talking about where our nuclear submarines are. And we have nuclear-powered submarines. We also have equal-powered submarines who can actually law nuclear weapons. It's like 14 of them. He didn't reference which, once he was talking about, nor did he really reference where they were other than they were going to be closer to Russia, which for everybody's knowledge, doesn't really matter. They could hit Russia from wherever they are.

Going closer to Russia doesn't really matter. I mean, it might even compromise it. But I guess the point from President Trump was, stop talking about this. We got nuclear weapons too, and we can launch them at any time. So I think that was the concern. That's what the discussion that went back and forth. We generally never talk about where our nuclear suburb.

brains are. But I would have to point out that he really did it. It was more of a kind of back-up, back-off kind of statement. Anything specific. Yeah. And just so like for context for everybody, this was a Madvedev started popping off because Trump took the 50-day, you know, limit down to 10 days for like figuring out a deal or ceasefire with Russia and Ukraine. So that's kind of where they stood up. He just should They're just ended it, right? They're not doing anything that indicates that they're looking toward a ceasefire. So this is just giving them more time to anachematically take, you know, in Ukraine at a cost, I think the last time I saw it was like over a thousand fatalities,

actually fatalities in one day, 24-hour period. But it's time to move on. It's time to actually put our words in motion and show that we have a backbone. we need to go straight to the sanctions. Probably won't change much, but it'll at least cause them to have a difficult time funding their war machine. And then we need to start getting more weapon systems, offensive and defensive, into Ukraine or Russia, President Putin,

doesn't care about any of the, and anything right away. Andy, you look like you were ready to say something. Go ahead. Yeah, no, actually, that's my resting, listening face. But, yeah, so to mixed point, the submarine command is probably deliberately vague. But, yeah, I mean, it could mean one or three things. You know, I'm reading a lot of almost semi-historical talk in the paper about, you know, we're playing brinksmanship with Russia.

There's always this fear, isn't there? There's always this segment of our population that builds Russia into being. a more, you know, friendlier than it, than it is. But at the same time is terrified, terrified that Putin will escalate. And it always has this segment of the population, which is sizable segment and represents both the left and the right wing, has them running scared. So, you know, I mean, the comment really is kind of honestly meaningless. I mean, as Mick points out, at any given time, the U.S. routinely keeps strategic submarines at sea that carry nuclear. tip ballistic missiles, right?

It's part of our nuclear deterrent. So, you know, we're moving those around all the time. And Russia has always been one of our potential adversaries, whatever, whatever the media may be saying. And so in that sense, this is a meaningless statement. Now, it could be that the president's referring to nuclear-powered U.S. attack missiles that could be moved closer to Russia for one or two things, either to be used. against Russian strategic submarines

or to launch non-nuclear cruise missiles, right? They intended to strike targets on land, right, which would be I suppose more of a meaningful statement. But in any case, I think it's it was a

statement, I don't know. But the point is here. I think the statement was intended to say it is positive for anyone who thinks that we shouldn't be trusting Russia. It's a statement that, hey, look, We do have a nuclear arsenal. And if Russia is going to start threatening us with anything,

then obviously we can, I'm trying to avoid using overly destructive terminology here. But we've got the upper hand is the bottom line. Yeah, and to a mix point about jumping right away to putting pressure on Russia, you know, while all of this has been going on, of course, Russia has stepped up, massively stepped up the air campaign against Ukrainian cities, you know, targeting civilian, civilians, not just civilian infrastructure, but civilian buildings, you know, and I'm getting feedback, of course, from friends in Kiev. And, but you just have a look at the statistics.

I mean, in the last, you know, during, during July, during July, I forget what day, but it's, early July. I mean, just one raid. Russia launched 700 drones, right? Now, these are mostly they're called Gerantus. It's a Russian version of

Shahed. And they're getting increasingly sophisticated. They, you know, they're capable of artificial intelligence. They're getting faster. They fly at higher elevation. They've advanced electronics. They have counter, you know, the Russians are getting better at counter-dramming. and it used to be that 3 to 5 percent, I mean, prior to July,

three to 5 percent of these things were getting through. The Ukrainians were doing a phenomenal job with their air defense. But in July, right, which has just ended, 15 percent of these drones are getting through. So you think 15 percent of 700, D.U, you're much better at math than me, so that's 15 times seven. You know, that's a significant number of these drones. They're carrying warheads each of 40 kilograms up to now. 105.

Well, there you go, you know, up to 90 kilograms. So that's a lot. And all of which targeting civilian infrastructure, the Ukrainians are struggling. And to keep pace with that. And while they're inflicting, as Mick pointed out, really high casualties on the Russians, You know, a thousand casualties in 24-hour period, as we discussed it before, is an average. I'm saying a thousand casualties, but in some days that's near a thousand deaths. I mean, it's just, it's phenomenal when you think about.

Those are those were World War II level casualties. The Allies in Normandy were routinely, you know, at the height of fighting in Normandy with a far larger army, were taking between 1,500 casualties a day. So that's commensurate with the Second World War but higher in terms of percentage of guys that they have on the ground.

Not clear how long they can continue to sustain that. So the Russians are trying to counter that by really going after civilians with these drone attacks. And just to kind of finish up here, very interesting.

When we talk about how we can help Ukraine, certainly with air defense systems. But the Ukrainians are doing a phenomenal job by themselves, working with companies in the Baltic state, in Estonia, on developing interceptor drones, right? Very highly sophisticated intercepted drones to intercept Russian drones. So you've got this cycle of threat. counter threat and the intercepted drones that the Ukrainians have been experimenting with so far there's I think there's four Ukrainian firms and then there's an Estonian one they so far they have a success rate of 70% against the Russian Gerands which isn't high enough and they just need so they need to to produce about way above right now

they're producing about 200 of these drones a day and they need to produce way more to be able to bring that number higher than 70%. And so, you know, you've seen this technological battle taking place, this competition that is so far beyond anything that we in the U.S., U.S. military, I think, can even adapt to at this stage. I mean, there's, that's, that's kind of a really, a, it's a frightening aspect of modern war, and we've talked about it here before, that I'm not sure U.S. military, we'd certainly taking notice of it, but I'm not sure how we adapt to that. Yeah, Mike, one of my questions was going to be, like, because I did see a report saying, like, you know, intercepting these geran twos is kind of expensive using like whatever air-to-air stuff

or Patriot or any other kind of Sam stuff. Is that the reason why they're developing and starting to ramp up production on the interceptor drones because it's like way more cost effective. Yeah, I mean, it's part of its cost effective. And locally built, I guess, you know, so that's good. But, you know, it's not, so do you, but I'm just trying, I'm wording this, I'm just thinking through this cost effect. I'm not sure.

Yeah, so the Duran's, the latest version of the Duran, which is the Duran free, which is, you know, know, it has phenomenal speed like 600 KPAH and can fly it higher. It's got a turbojet engine, right? And it hasn't been fielded in large numbers, but it's cost to $1.4 million, right? Which is a significant upgrade on the Durant 2. But as far as interceptors, I don't know. I couldn't tell you.

I would guess, yes, of course, the interceptor drones are far, far cheaper. but the goal is to produce about a thousand of these a day. So I don't know if it's a question of costs so much of just effectiveness at this stage. Zelensky has said that the program is going to cost $6 billion, which is a significant amount of money for the interceptorans. And that alone won't be enough. I mean, I think, you know, the guys who know far more about shore range air defense and I do, will tell you that you also need, you need to combine it with electronic warfare,

which Ukrainians are. And kind of the Ukrainians have these mobile firing groups that have EW systems, but they also have anti-aircraft artillery like the German Gepard, you know, with heavy machine guns that fire at very, you know, at very, very high rate. So you need a combination of all of these things in order to be effective. So you got both sides, you know, battling for primacy. And I read somewhere that there's kind of a 15 to 20 day innovation cycle, right, on both sides for upgrading software. It's an adaptation race between both sides.

I mean, it's like something out of science fiction, right? I know this sounds totally cliche, but it really is. And again, I hope that we're not just taking note of this, but that we are planning to adapt our systems, both our drone and our range air defense systems to kind of keep pace. Hey, guys, I want to tell all of you today about a new newsletter that we're launching that encompasses both the Team House podcast, the Eyes On podcast, and the high side news outlet, which I run with Sean Naylor. newsletter is going to be once a week. It's going to come into your inbox and you're going to get the most current podcasts on Aizon and the team house and whatever's topical or current on the high side. So it's another way for us to get the information out to you as social media algorithms are pretty iffy and you never really know what you're going to get. So this is a once a week email. It'll slide into

your inbox and it will have the greatest hits of that week. It's really good. Checking it out. The website for it is teamhousepodcast.kitt.com slash join. Teamhousepodcast. Dot kit.com slash join. Go there and you enter into your email list or you enter your email into the little thing on the website and you're good to go. And that'll be it. So we really appreciate your support and hope you'll consider signing up.

Where's the link? The link will also be down in the description if you're looking for it there. And that's Team House Podcast. dot kit k i tkilo india tango dot com backslash join andy you were in that military world for a very long time uh are you confident that we are doing that no not at all not at all you know i mean this and and it's not it's not a simple fix right we we and and um look mick knows more about this than I do. I mean, he was way higher in the, in the Pentagon's labyrinth than I was, but the ability to do a quick turn on adaptation with acquisition, even within special operations

community, is something we've always struggled with. I don't know. I mean, I know we're experimenting with all these things, but I don't know that our system, acquisition system, our industrial defense industrial complex is agile enough now to keep pace with this level of adaptation. Mick, what would you, if you're throwing the ball to you with, put your thoughts about that? Yeah. I think that's a very fair point. It's something that it's been identified, that it's not fast enough to even move at a pace that keeps track of just normal advancements. But stuff is happening so quickly in Ukraine that I think.

think we're going to have to figure out how to keep pace. One is going to be how do we get our hands on the new technology that's being developed and how to operationalize that technology. Hopefully that's part of what the U.S. gets out of its continuous support for Ukraine. I mean, I think we should obviously do that. I think we should increase our support. but one of the benefits we'd get other than supporting an ally that's in an existential fight and seriously degrading probably our most dangerous adversary, but certainly weren't at the top two. We'd also should try to really capitalize on this, you know, quantum leap of technology and how to use technology in modern warfare, both to get it ourselves.

and to be able to manufacture this when we need it. And right now, I don't think we're at that place. We're not even at that place for conventional weapons, like, you know, 1155 rounds. It's something I think that's concerned a lot of folks in the Pentagon when they realize it's hard to keep up with this supporting an ally fighting against an adversary. What if it was us? What if it was a two front war? So a lot of big questions. To your point about the insured agent offense, the imbalance, the asymmetry between costs, right, which does have a cumulative effect.

And you've got the Patriot system or you've got even, you know, the Ukrainians had the IRST. And the intercepted missiles cost a million dollars a million dollars apiece. I know that sounds like an absurdly round figure to throw around. but you're roughly in that order, right? And for the Girand 2, much less than the, you know, the Gerand 2, which is what the Russians using right now, they're about $200,000 apiece. So there is an imbalance there. The other problem is that while 700 Juran drones seems like a lot, and it is a lot,

the Russians haven't yet got to the point where they're swarming these things, you know, really having hundreds of thousands of them on a single target. That is really going to become a problem, and it's a problem that we in the U.S. should be preparing for, too. And intercepted drones aren't going to be able to counter that. The best defense so far has been, you know, gun systems. And the Ukrainians do have, they've got something called the Sky Sentinel, which is apparently effective against, has been used against, you know, smaller swarms. I think the Germans Rhein metals got something called Skynex.

You know, but these are systems that are getting tested now in Ukraine. And again, it's, I hope that we're not just paying attention, but doing our own R&D and acquisition. And even if, but even if we're doing that, it's a question of being able to acquire, procure and field these things in the quantity that they needed and then adapt them to the change. I mean, a 15 to 20 day innovation cycle. I mean, we just can't hope to keep pace with that.

It's an irony, isn't it? We're the most powerful nation on Earth. And yet we're seeing how things are evolving here and facing the fact that the systems that we have now are obsolete and we're always going to be condemned to using systems that are obsolete. In this type of wall, you know, obviously we've got the F-35, blah, blah, blah, but I'm sure when it's going to be condemned to using systems that are obsolete. I'm sure, when it comes to defense against drones, their defense, so worrying asymmetry.

Yeah, very worrying. Going back to, I want to touch on the 10 days now, the 10-day deadline. What happens after 10 days? I know that India and China are getting a lot of their gas from Russia. There was talk about sanctioning Russia's, you know, who they sell gas to and oil to. India indicated that they were still willing, still going to be getting gas and oil from Russia. So after 10 days, what happens?

Do we push the goalposts a little bit more again? Like, what's the story? You know, because 10 days is coming up. Well, it depends on whether the Senate passes the sanctioning Russia Act. Because what President Trump's talking about was basically 100% tariff on Russia. I mean, we tariff Canada. So, I mean, it's not, I don't think, and we don't buy anything from Russia. because they'll sell anything worth buying separate energy.

So that's not going to mean anything unless they actually do secondary research. Because that affects the actual countries that purchase things from Russia. And you just nailed it there. It's India and China buying Russian oil. If it doesn't deter them from actually buying it, and it just essentially, and I think it was 500% is what they were talking about with that act. it could be disruptive. I'm not an economist.

I'm sure it will be disrupted to the international markets. I don't know how much more it'll be than what's already happening and just went into place. But hopefully it does keep India and China from buying Russia and all. If it doesn't, it won't happen to effect. It just won't happen to effect at all except for maybe prices for us in the United States. So it has to be a collective effort. should say comprehensive. It needs to also include significant weapon systems without the restrictions placed on it. They need to be a little strike anywhere in Russia. Obviously, military

targets, to Andy's point, Russia doesn't target military targets. Russia targets civilians, period. They just killed but 30 civilians, five of them children, one of them was two-year-old, like within the last 48 hours. But of course, we don't do that and we don't allow people to use are weapons to do that, and Ukraine's not going to do it. But they need to be able to hit military targets anywhere. There's a talk about a European defense shield-like system, which would include, I think, Western Ukraine. So there's a lot of things that need to happen if people are thinking that these tariffs,

the sanctioning bill is going to just change everything. Unfortunately, I wish it would too. I don't think it is. I think we should do it. And hope that these countries like India and China think twice and just don't buy Russian energy. But it's something to consider. It's also probably going to drive up, you know, the cost of oil everywhere. There's consequences to it.

But if we say we're going to do it, and then we don't, then who the hell is going to listen to us from now on? You can't bluff. You got to mean what you say and say what you mean. because if you don't, then this is going to be the last time. We'll start becoming irrelevant, at least when it comes to the diplomatic side of this if we don't actually do what we said we're going to do. Because they have a chance.

You know what? Dee, I know this is a little bit slightly off topic, but it's not because we're still talking about Russia. And another interesting, we talk about what Russia is doing. I mean, I agree with Dee. I mean, sorry, of course I agree with you, D. Thank you. But again, you know, makes it 100% right. When we look at Russian actions, it's not just what Russia is doing within Ukraine.

Russian sabotage operations in Europe almost quadrupled between 23 and 24, according to it's Russey, right? The Royal United Service Institute, it's a big think tank in London. So it's a, this is coming from a legitimate source. And it's everything from, you know, damage to undersea cables, interference with water supply systems in Finland and Germany. There's been attacks on military equipment in north and eastern Europe. There's been warehouses set on fire in the UK. I mean, all kinds of stuff.

And it's interesting. It's kind of a gig economy. the Russians rather than, and Mick knows more about this than I do, but so many Russian intelligence agents have been expelled from their host countries in the last two years, that a lot of this is being carried out by proxies by criminal groups, right? You know, there was, for instance, I talked about a fire in a warehouse, a Ukrainian-linked warehouse in London that was set on fire by a crewman. There's basically guys who'd work for the Wagner Group.

And so, and we may think in the US, hey, this doesn't affect us. It does because a lot of this is NATO infrastructure. And, you know, there's a problem here because a lot of NATO infrastructure, for instance, the transportation systems that, that, um, NATO will rely on in the event of the crisis, 90% of that is civilian, right? And so, and they, and it's very vulnerable. So, um, satellite communications. NATO's uses, I think it's something like half of its satellite communications, it comes from commercial providers. And so the, you know, it's a question of, of, of not just cantering what

Russians are doing, but building up, just enabling NATO to build up this resilience to this kind of sabotage, because it's just going to increase. You know, so my point is, yeah, we, Russia is doing the same sort of thing that Iran is doing in the, in, in the, in the Middle East. I mean, there's all this malign stuff in the background that is, is becoming really, it is undermining NATO's ability to mobilize and deploy. I know that's been an exaggeration right now, but potentially going ahead, as I've said, these sort of attacks are going to increase and there needs to be something done to at least signal that not only were you aware of this, but we're not going to put up this shit anymore.

Yeah. Poland just detained. I think it's, hold on here, 32 people, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians and a Colombian guy on suspicion, some not just suspicion, but of working with Russia. Oh, fuck was that Colombian guy also. Yeah, he was, he was accused in two arson attacks last year in Poland, Molotov cocktail. So, I mean, you're absolutely right, Andy. This is their way of indirectly pricking at NATO and the United States, you know, without a head-on conflict.

And that's, like you said, it's going to, if it continues and it's left unchecked, it'll play out in the future. Because if it does come to head to head, they're going to now know what works, what doesn't work, who can we use, those sorts of things. So it's a, it's a battlefield laboratory for them, this kind of stuff. Yeah, oh, man, we'll see what goes down. Hopefully something fucking happens in the next 10 days, which you won't. Yeah, it's not going to happen. Anyway, moving on to what's going on in the Middle East. Gaza, Israel, same old tune, it feels like.

Thankfully, AIDS getting in there. Hopefully, it stays there consistently. And, you know, we figure this out. Wyckoff was in Gaza, was in Israel, I believe, for negotiations or something. I mean, I don't know what he does, really. Chanel, right? Yeah. He spent, like, five hours, five hours in Gaza.

And there's, and then, and he's right. then he's on his way to Moscow. But, I mean, the simple fact of the matter is it requires about 400 food aid stations that were run by the UN to distribute to 2.2 million people in Gaza. There's four of them now. And quite frankly, you can't really cross the Netsirian corridor, which cuts off the northern part of Gaza. So they can't even get down there to get the food. So there's a lot of discussion. There's six countries now involved in the airdrops.

Air drops aren't the ideal solution. They're expensive. The ideal solution or just the solution would be to open the brown corridors and the truck's coming. Why aren't they opening them? I don't know. I don't think there's a good excuse. I think there, I think you, again, air drops are good because they can get to parts of the population that can't get, you can't get food to by truck.

But the quick answer here is to open the ground corridors. They need at least 500 to 600 trucks a day. Probably even more than that to catch up. But right now, we've hit, you know, it's the worst case scenario when it comes to famine. We're starting to see starvation of children. That's they're usually first and they're almost vulnerable. Then you'll see the elderly in the infirm. Then you'll see it could skyrocket.

That's how famine usually happen. Once people start dying, and they start dying and in growth. So there's really no excuse. There's literally thousands of tons of food within miles of where these people are. It's not easy to distribute at all. I'm not saying that. But the quickest way to feed people in Gaza is to open up the ground corners

and let the UN and NGOs back in there to distribute. They need a lot of distribution points, and they need a lot of food. It's not in the zone. Brown primarily, but air, good for the countries that rodged up to it. We need to start running a lot more flights per day into Gaza. It's going to go worse. And I'll see your question to why the Israelis aren't doing this, and this is not a defense of what is happening at all.

It's a massive failure. back in May Israel, the IDF launched an offensive as a campaign called Gideon's Chariots, right? And those of you who know biblical history, I think Gideon smoke the Midianites. Is that right? Anyway, so the Gideon's Chariots was intended, it was intended to be a purposeful. It was kind of the brainchild of Zemir, who's their, you know, the chief of staff and it was intended to be finally a purposeful and to Hamas because in the eyes of the IDF leadership they need to get Gaza done and finished so that they can focus on Iran

because they are convinced that Iran will want revenge for what is what has happened in the last few months so so the part of it basically Gideon's chariots focused on offenses re-clearing. We talked about this before, how the Israelis do not clear and hold. They clear and they clear again and they clear again. And every night down at the tactical level, they withdraw back into their fobs. And there's a McNun.

McNun is the term for it. These expedituary Forbes that they set up. And a lot of this comes down to the fact that they are, they're not good at urban fighting. They've got the Commando Brigade that is very good that's made up of Israeli soft, but their mainstream infantry have shown themselves to be very poor, to be honest, from the beginning of the campaign. And that is one, just one reason why the Israelis are so heavy on supporting arms

is because whenever they run into contact, they come to a halt, and they go firm and they bring it supporting arms. because they don't trust their infantry to go in and clear buildings. It's not like Fallujah where we were going at, gicking doors and fighting the mooch, you know, head on. They don't do that because their infantry aren't that well trained, and I can go into it to more. I'm not just shooting from the hair pair.

I gain in again, and I've got many friends in the IDF who will tell me this. They don't, you know, they've got dudes and routine individual and collective tasks that we practice to again and again are not. done in the Israeli military. They have inexperienced NGOs. They have officers who don't go through the same kind of selection as training as we do. So it all cascades down. And that is one reason why they're relying heavily on supporting arms.

But anyway, so there's all these offensives to retake areas that they've already taken. But in conjunction with that is, and this is where we're saying what's breaking down, is an attempt at population control. you know population control and every has been has been it's been um practiced in every counterinsurgency but the Israelis are doing it in a very hamfisted way you know in i mean we we had our own issues with population control with the pacification program in in thietnam the british did a better job in malaya you know what they put uh they put chinese civilians into into hamlets i'm sorry i made strategic habits and they're not.

But the British had a similar program in Malaya. Population control can be problematic, all right? Because for a number of reasons, we did a better job as a former population control in Iraq and Afghanistan using bats, you know, using biometric systems. But also some of your listeners will, our listeners will remember in Baghdad in 0607. And we had to use walled off sectors to keep the Shia and the Sunni apart from each other. Anyway, long way of saying, so the Israelis think that they can, by controlling food, all right,

by denying food to certain areas, they can force the population into other areas. And as they force them into those areas, they can screen them, right? using all kinds of technical means facial recognition, AI and everything to ensure that they are separating the population from Hamas. There's all kinds of issues with this because their systems, the way they do things are not good enough. They don't understand. They're not really, they're not, they're not embedded in the population the way that we were in Iraq and Afghanistan. And so, and the other thing is the Israelis are poorly disciplined. And so they start moving populations from one place to another

or trying to control distribution of food. And coordination between units is poor. And so you get, you know, you've had like 8, 900 civilians at a conservative vestiment killed as they queue for food or kill as they moved into areas where other portions of the Israeli military are moving them in. So the whole thing, just because it's been, I would say honestly because of the training and competence at the tactical level is so poor and the discipline is so poor.

The whole process has broken down. It wasn't well conceived to begin with and it is proving to be a disaster. It's proving a disaster of the Palestinians, of course, who are suffering starvation. You know, I'm getting, you know, I've got contacts who come out of Gaza working for eight, agencies and, you know, to include, in one case, a guy who's, who's former military guy, special operations guy, and a very formidable Western military knows what he's talking about. Yes, starvation is definitely a thing there. It's, I mean, it's horrific. And it's a, it's a public relations disaster. It's a military disaster. It's military failure for the Israelis.

And they, they realize this. And in a meeting about, As early, it's like the 21st, 22nd of July, as the mayor announced to the generals, hey, we need to get the hell out of, basically he didn't say get the hell out of, but we need to just move on from Gaza. But now they're stuck with this problem. And you've still got this plan to kind of still go ahead

with population control, and that's why they're keeping the borders closed. And you've got a segment of the Western population who really believe that, you know, there's a purpose to this. and don't understand how badly things are breaking out and think that all this word about starvation is made up by anti-seemites. And, you know, I would argue if this was happening in Europe, there would be a very, very different response. Anybody?

Agreed. That's all I can say. Well, I think history is going to judge people who restrict food to children that are in the last stages of starvation. and probably more important. They're conscious. They're going for it because it's not made up. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. They need to let more food in.

I mean, all you do is count the trucks. Right? Before the war, there was five to 600 trucks a day of food aid going into Gaza. And there was, you know, like a thousand commercial trucks of food and such. Not if it's going in. So, I mean, it's... you don't have to be a scientist or expert in IPC levels to realize. Sorry, there's a wedding right over here, and they just started playing a harp.

Because that's what you do in a wedding and art. But that's something that you're not going to be able to talk yourself out of. History is going to record it. They need to change it. They need to get food in there immediately. The other aspect that came out, I think it was this. week with several Arab countries, including the Arab League, calling for Hamas to disarm and leave. Not sure why that took so long to call for them to do that. Seems like they would call for them to do that

on September, I mean, on October 8th. But I think it's an important to point out because ultimately everybody realizes there's no way out of this. Unless Hamas is not in charge. because Israel is not going to leave Hamas in charge in any form or fashion I think we should expect them to so they're going to have to start looking for the exit and hopefully they take the exit yes there's going to be a new version of Hamas

yes there's going to be major radicalization from all of this heavy-handed approach but ultimately the leaders that carried out October 7 or they're you know second tier leaders, they need to go. They need to die, but they need to go and need to leave. They obviously don't care at all about the people of Gaza. They wouldn't have started this conflict and they wouldn't have had a ceasefire 10 times over by now. They're more concerned

about their own livelihood than the people that they claim to care about. Yeah, I mean, Mick knows better than anyone here. And kudos to you and your organization, Mick, for trying to relieve what is happening there. I mean, you know, so the word coming out from the, yes, the UN, but other agencies, 20,000 children in Gaza hospitalized, hospitalized with acute malnutrition. I mean, and this is a man-made crisis. And it just, again, I mean, I think if it was happening in Europe, there would be a very different response.

And I think part of it just pertains. It's not just by the right wing in Israel. The frightening thing is that there seems to be implicit condoning of this by a large segment of the population. And I think it comes down to, I'm trying to word this correctly, but the view towards the Palestinians, it's like nothing that I have experienced in. You know, we talk about racism and everything, but the view towards the Palestinians is really,

it seems almost as though there's just any lack of compassion as though they just don't care as though they're talking about. You know, it's almost as though if this was happening in the animal kingdom, there would be more compassion. It's quite shocking. So we're also going to see several countries

recognize Palestine as a state. The U.S. is not one of them. the reason for the U.S. One of the reasons, I think, is because who's in charge? I mean, in order to be a state, you'd actually have to have a governing body. They don't really have it. You could talk about the Palestinian authority.

But one of the factors that goes into that, for people's knowledge, is that if you recognize Palestine as a state, then Israel becomes an occupying power, and then there's requirements for occupying powers

that deal specifically, with ensuring that no population that goes without food because you're now responsible for them because you're occupying. So there's actually legal consequences. We'll see, and I think it's what the UK, if there's no ceasefire, there's France, and then I think Canada, right? So we'll see if they intend the declaration that it's a state to then mean that they're going to find Israel in violation of several international laws. if they believe they're not providing adequate to the population that they occupy. So that's one of the legal questions

that will come from those declarations if they happen. Why do you think the U.S. isn't doing it? Why do I think the U.S. is doing what? Isn't trying to declare Palestine as its own state? Okay, yeah. So they don't, there's certain things

that you'd have to have as a state. One is a governing body. They're also not going to recognize. recognized Hamas, you know, a designated terrorist organization as a governing body of a state that they would then recognize. The Palestinian Authority has its very little actual authority. They're largely considered corrupt and inept. And in many cases, with the Palestinian people, less popular than Hamas, you can believe it. So I think, one, the U.S., of course, supports Israel and doesn't want to, you know, cut.

cut them off the knees by by recognizing a Palestine who is nowhere near close to statehood. That being said, unless it's changed, maybe it has, the policy has always been a, the U.S. has always been a two-state solution, so that we should eventually end

with, you know, an Israeli state, a Palestinian state that live in harmony next to one another and focus more on their own people. Israel does, but the Palestine that focuses more on its own people than attack in its neighbor. So I don't know that that's actually the same policy that's existed for many administrations.

But if it is, then ultimately we need to do things that persons live in the right direction to get there. It's hard to even talk about it right now with the current state, to be frank. I don't think anybody in Israel as well as right enough to say, I don't want to talk about it right now. But I do think ultimately the U.S. to play a significant role when it's time to start heading back in the local. direction. So we want the Gulf states to do things like join the Abraham Accords or more of them, Saudi Arabia specifically. They're not going to do it unless there's, you know, obviously a ceasefire and there's some kind of significant step toward a diplomatic path to a two-state, end state in this whole Palestine, Israeli issue.

I got one last question question for, you know, Mick, J.N. and Andy. You guys, you know, have Israeli friends. I mean, I do too. And I ask them, and I'll ask you guys, I don't know if you can get kind of like a sense of what they're coming, what they're thinking, but do they not, at least in my understanding, what I'm thinking is happening is

Israel's actions over the last two years are going on two years. I think has generated a completely new generation of anti-Semites because people, Unfortunately, they're dumb and they can't discern between, you know, a right-wing Israeli Zionist guy who wants to wipe the Palestinians off the face of the earth and like a regular, you know, Joe Israeli person that lives in Israel that deserves to have a secure state like everybody else like the Palestinians do. Do they realize that like anti-Semitism, especially in the West, I would say, is on the rise in a big way?

way and I think it's predominantly because of Israel's actions in Gaza. Do you guys have a sense of that in terms of like the people that you know and you talk to that are from Israel or, you know? Yeah, like you said, I have a lot of Israeli friends, a lot of the IDF as you would, yeah. I think it's important to point out. I mean, it's not a monolithic way of viewing the world in Israel. It's a democracy. It's like it isn't in the United States.

And it might surprise some people, but a lot of the IDF is pretty moderate. and they're ready to get this thing over because they're the ones, it's a lot of reservists, quite frankly, whose entire life has been put on a whole. Like, I know young folks that I've talked to that wanted to be a doctor,

they've given it up now because they've, you know, two years now, they haven't even gone to school. So, like, you get the point. I think people who think, you know, they're anti-Semitic because they disagree with the policies of Benjamin Men, yeah, or,

man, they're missing a lot, right? So, I mean, are you going to be, it's not a perfect analogy, but are you going to be anti-American just because you disagree with Trump or Biden? Right. I mean, it's, you should be able to, one, you should be able to disagree, if you do, with prime minister to Netanyahu and not be labeled an anti-Semi, right? Sure. I mean, you should be able to disagree because there's just plenty of Israeli Jews that disagree with Daniav's policies. And I don't think anybody's going to call them an anti-Semite. So I think you should have the right to do it, but the people that are all of a sudden becoming, you know, anti-Jewish because they disagree with the policy who's the current administration in Israel are just ignorant.

I mean, I guess that's the root of all prejudice, whether it's anti-Semitism or racism or anything else like that. But, I mean, just, I mean, we live in a democracy. You can disagree with your own government. You certainly can agree with another disagree with. another government, just don't turn it into something toxic like anti-Semitism or anything like that. And I think people that are using it as, hey, you can't disagree with me because, you know, I'll call you a name. I mean, that's just immature. You've got to be able to debate and uphold your own ideas.

And there's plenty of people that disagree with the current policy of food restrictions. you will, in Gaza. And they're from all sides of the aisle. And it's growing. And I think you can even see it in the White House. I think there's a big concern with how this is going because the U.S. now is the part owner of it. Yeah. Andy or Jay, whoever, tell me. Yeah, it's been, my experience has

pretty much been the same as Mick. It's my friends at Israeli, you know, Jewish, and even those that aren't, they see most of them see it for what it is. You can't fight the empirical evidence of the starvation that's going on and say that it's justified. Now, I do have some, and we talked about it off air before we started. I have some that are, who they actually surprise me, who are buying into this. There is no starvation. It's not happening that Israel has fed more, has provided more aid than anyone. combined, any country combined in history, and we just know that's not true. So the majority of them see it for what it is. And like Mick as well, a lot of my friends that are IDFR reservists. And most of them have said, we just wanted to get our licks in for October 7th. And now we want to go home. You know, of course, Hamas is not over and done with. And they realize that. But they know

that this is an ongoing thing. So, but the way it's happening, we're. working right now. It's just not, it's not the what they want. But again, not a monolith. I can't speak for them and they can't speak for all Jews. So, you know, that's just the opinions they're giving me. Andy, Andy? Yeah, I mean, I can't, I can't add to and I can't add in a way that, that does add to what Bill and Jason said. So, I mean, I'm sorry, to Mick and Jason said, What I can say is just comment that, you know, Israel has performed operationally, very successfully against the threat in Lebanon and against the threat from Iran. Israel has failed tactically and strategically because of Gaza. And the war is a failure.

22 months in, I think, you know, by Israel's by Netanyahu's own stated outcomes to war is a failure. Hamas is not only not, it hasn't been destroyed. It's still a long way from being destroyed. And the intangible part of this is even if it was, even if you could say every single member of Hamas's leadership has been destroyed, the organization cannot conduct any operations even at the tactical level, even if you could say that, which you cannot,

what lies ahead? What lies ahead in the next five, ten years? Do you think that Hamas, two, you know, two dot zero is not, is not going to emerge from the ashes of this after everything that has happened? You know, it's that, it's that kind of, that's, that's the, and, and Israel has gained aprobobium, aprobium, which is, as in, in, in the eyes of the world, right? I know that's a very general discussion, a general point, but you think about, you think about for much of Israel's history. Israel has been able to, has seemed to the world as kind of a David against Goliath up until, say, early 1980s, right?

Surrounded by enemies, et cetera, et cetera. Well, now the shoes on the other foot and Israel is seen. I'm just saying this is a right of common perception throughout the world in a way that I would imagine most Israelis don't want to be seen. And that might be Netanyahu might be able to justify a probium. Sorry, it just came to me. Netanyahu might be able to justify that if Gaza had been a success. If Hamas had been absolutely destroyed, there would be no other threat from Hamas. but that hasn't happened.

And so at great cost to its own reputation, and in terms of, you know, cost two in terms of lives, phenomenally high cost in terms of Palestinians, the vast majority of whom I think there can be no argument have been blameless civilians, Israel has achieved nothing in 22 months. And in fact, not only achieved nothing, but it's in a worse position than the country.

was in on October the 8th, 2023. In October the 8th, Israel had the sympathy of the world. And they squanded that in this badly run, highly destructive campaign. Yeah. God, man, we should fucking finish on a happy note. Mick, give us some Irish fucking propaganda, please, before we leave. Some Irish propaganda.

But a lot of Irish propaganda doesn't actually end on a happy note. Just so you know. I guess you can look at this way, right? So there was two-state solution, right? At one time, when you're sitting where I am in Mayo County, you know, during the troubles, you know, when Ireland was trying to get its independence, they went through famine, they went through nonstop war. And now, please do come visit Ireland. And you'll see that it's, there couldn't be a good ending, is my point. There can be a good ending.

Ireland is now, I think, the actual most educated country. in the world. It is one of the most charitable countries in the world, probably because of its history. And present company excluded, potentially all Irish Americans excluded. They're some of the nicest people in the world somehow. After all that, they are, in fact, I think, an example of how one could persevere and succeed. And there would have been a time when you be sitting here and you wouldn't have seen the light at the tunnel, just like there's little kids in Gaza that certainly aren't seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. And maybe this could be an example for them.

How about that? I like it. This episode is sponsored by Aer Lingus. Go to airlingus.com slash eyes on. Dennis and Jamison. Yeah. Visit, Ireland.org.

Anything else, guys? Great. I mean, as usual, this is awesome. I want you guys all, if you're looking for. Andy, Mick, or Jason, their links are in the description. Best way to support the show is patreon.com slash the team house. All those links are in the description. And we also have a new newsletter for the team house and eyes on and the high side with Jack

Murphy and Sean Naylor. It aggregates everything. I know we put out a lot of stuff every week. So this helps kind of aggregate it. And you can see what you want to look at, what we're tracking, who's going to be on the shows and all that. That link is also in the description. As usual, guys, very much appreciated.

Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, guys. Hey, guys, it's Jack. I just want to talk to you for a moment about how you can support the show if you've been watching it, enjoying it, but you'd like to get a little bit more involved and help us continue to do this. You can check out our Patreon.

It is patreon.com slash the teamhouse. And for $5 a month, you can get access to all of these episodes of the Team House ad free. The same goes with our affiliated podcast Eyes On with Andy Milburn, Jason Lyons, Mick Mulroy. That one, you will also get all of those episodes ad free. And you support the channel and the show, and we really appreciate it. The Patreon members are literally what has helped this company, this small business, survive, especially during our early years. And you are what continues to help this thing going, even as we navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising. So we really appreciate all of you guys.

There's going to be a link down in the description to that Patreon page. And there is also going to be a link to our new merch shop. So if you guys want to go and get some Team House merchandise, we got stickers. And we also have patches. And I should mention, if you sign up for Patreon at $10 a month, we will mail you this patch as well. So we really appreciate that. But they're also for sale on the merch shop. And additionally, they got T-shirts up there, water bottles, tote bag, coffee mugs, all that good stuff.

So please go and check them out and support the show. We really appreciate it, guys. Thank you.