YouTube Transcript:
John Mearsheimer: The Palestinian Genocide and How the West Has Been Deceived Into Supporting It

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

Video Transcript

Available languages:

View:

Professor, thank you for doing this. The

arc of and it's not the topic of today's

conversation, but the arc of your career

as someone who's just watched it pretty

carefully all of these years. You've

wound up where I think all of us want to

be, which is universally respected,

regarded as an oracle. It must be sort

of nice to look back and uh be

vindicated. Uh so anyway, so I'm honored

to have you. Where are we in Ukraine

right now?

Well, we're in deep trouble if you mean

[Music] [Applause]

[Applause] [Music]

[Music] [Applause]

[Applause] [Music]

You talk about we uh the fact is that

the Russians are winning the war. uh and

there's no way that Ukraine can rescue

the situation. If you look at the

balance of power uh in terms of weaponry

and in terms of manpower, the number of

soldiers that each side has uh the

Ukrainians are in a hopeless situation.

And furthermore, they're heavily

dependent on the West for support. And

President Trump has made it clear that

he's not going to refill the Biden

pipeline uh once all the weaponry in

that pipeline runs out. So the

Ukrainians are doomed. And if you look

at what's happening on the battlefield,

it's quite clear that the Ukrainians

understand that their defenses are

slowly but steadily collapsing. Now, one

might say, well, can't we get a

negotiated settlement? Can't we bring

this war to an end? And the fact is that

neither the Ukrainians nor the West, and

here we're talking mainly about the

Europeans, is willing to cut a deal

that's acceptable to the Russians. Uh so

there's no way you're going to have a

diplomatic settlement to this war. It's

going to be settled on the battlefield

and the Russians are going to win an

ugly victory and you're going to have a

frozen conflict.

Why can't you have a negotiated

settlement? Because Russia has a set of

demands. There are three main demands

and I'll spell them out in a second, but

they are unacceptable to the Ukrainians.

They're unacceptable to the West. Uh

Donald Trump may find them acceptable,

but he's surrounded by people in his administration

administration

and uh certainly true in the American

foreign policy establishment who

wouldn't accept those demands. And the

big three demands are number one uh that

Ukraine has to be a neutral state. It

cannot be a NATO and it cannot have a

security guarantee from the United

States or from the west more generally.

So it has to be neutral. Second is that Ukraine

Ukraine

cannot have a significant offensive

military capability. Ukraine has to be

demilitarized to the point where it

doesn't present a threat to Russia. And

then third and maybe most important of

all, uh the Ukrainians and the West have

to accept the fact that Russia has

annexed Crimea and those four oblass uh

in eastern 1/5if of Ukraine that they

now almost occupy. So in other words,

you're asking Ukraine to give up about

20% of its territory, and the Ukrainians

won't do that. And they won't agree not

to be in NATO. Uh and they will not

agree to disarm in some meaningful way.

So there's no way you get a settlement.

So there will be a settlement by your

description because there will be a

victory. So there will just be it's not

an official settlement, but there will

be a new status quo

in which Russia controls a fifth of what

was Ukraine and that's just going to

happen. So why wouldn't you want to get

out of that with

as little destruction as possible?

Well, you're going to get an armistice

in all likelihood. And this is why we

say you'll have a a frozen conflict that

will present all sorts of problems

moving down the road. I have long argued

that the Ukrainians should cut a deal

now. Uh because what's going to happen

is the Russians are going to end up

taking more territory and the Russians

have made it clear that any territory

they take they'll keep. Uh and

furthermore, more Ukrainians are going

to die the longer the war goes on. So if

you believe like I do and many people do

that Ukraine is losing, the smart thing

to do is cut a deal now uh and minimize

your losses both in terms of territory

and people killed on the battlefield.

But you just can't sell that argument. And

And

why why can't you sell that argument?

I think it's probably nationalism in the

case of the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians

view the Russians as existential threat

and they're willing to fight and die in

huge numbers. They're willing to make

incredible sacrifices to do everything

they can to win this war and they just

won't quit. And in terms of the West,

it's easy for the West.

So, I just want to say I understand that

and respect that person. I think they're

wrong, but I I think it's

self-defeating, but I certainly think

it's honorable those impulses, but I

don't understand the West's

stake in this. Exactly.

Well, I don't believe the West has a

strategic stake in this for one second,

but uh the Russophobia in the West is so

powerful at this point in time that

especially among the elites uh in Europe

and in the United States that getting them

them

to concede that the Russians have uh won

this war or going to win this war is

just unacceptable

and have legitimate cons security

concerns on their border. order. I mean that

that

they're not allowed. The Russians are

not allowed to have legitimate security

concerns in the minds of most Western elites.

elites. Why?

Why?

I don't know. It it befuddles me. Uh if

you look at the Russian reaction

to NATO expansion into Ukraine, which I

believe is the taproot of this war, it's

analogous to America's Monroe Doctrine.

The United States under no circumstances

would allow the Soviet Union to put

missiles in Cuba or to locate a naval

base at Cen Fueos in Cuba. That was just

unacceptable. This is what the Monroe

doctrine is all about. We'd never allow

China to station military forces uh in

Mexico or in Canada. Uh but yet we think

we have the right to move NATO far

enough eastward to include Ukraine and

then put uh NATO assets including

American military assets in Ukraine. And

this is not of concern to the Russians.

They shouldn't care. Uh they should

recognize that Ukraine has the right to

do whatever it wants. NATO has the right

to expand wherever it wants and Russia

has no say in the matter. The Russians

of course don't accept this uh because

they have a Monroe doctrine of their

own. But we can't get it through our

thick skulls that uh uh this is foolish

thinking on our part and is destined to

lead to trouble as it has.

It's it's interesting that the standard

that US foreign policy makers apply to

Russia is different from a standard that

apply to any other country including

China and even North Korea. They just

they don't have the same level of

emotion about any other place. It's

Russia, Ukraine. And I I find it

baffling because on on some level this

is, as you said at the outset, this is

not about America's strategic interest.

We don't really have many there. This is

about an almost overwhelming

emotional response from our leadership

class to this conflict, to this region.

I think it's weird.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think also at this

point in time, we have convinced

ourselves, both the Europeans and the

Americans, that Russia is a mortal

threat to dominate all of Europe. This

is a ridiculous argument. Of course,

do you think it is ridiculous?

It's a ridiculous argument. As you have

seen, the war started in 2022. We're

well over five years into this war and

the Russians have had a very difficult

time conquering the eastern 15th of

Ukraine. Just think about that. Over

three plus years, they have been unable

to conquer all the territory in those

four oblasts that they've enexed. Please

tell me how this army is going to

overrun all of Ukraine, then overrun

Eastern Europe, and then overrun Western

Europe. This is a laughable argument.

Furthermore, if the Russians are foolish

enough to try to occupy western Ukraine,

they're going to find themselves in uh a

quagmire. They're going to find

themselves dealing with a huge amount of

resistance from all of those ethnic

Ukrainians in the western part of

Ukraine who hate Russians. This is why I

don't think Putin is going to even try

to conquer the western half,

much less Poland and Romania and the rest.

rest.

Exactly. Their view on that, by the way,

in terms of occupying Eastern Europe, is

we've been there, done that, and it did

not work out very well. Remember, they

occupied Eastern Europe roughly from

1945 to the early 1990s when they pulled

out after the Cold War ended.

They had to invade Hungary in 56. They

had to invade Czechoslovakia in ' 68.

They had to put down a major

insurrection in in East Germany in 1953.

They almost went into Poland three

times. They had their hands full dealing

with the Romanians and the Albanians and

the Yugoslavs. I mean, the idea that a

country like Russia is going to, you

know, invade and occupy and run the

politics of countries in Eastern Europe

is a remarkably foolish idea. And again,

they don't even have the military

capability to do that. But that is the

idea. And when you talk to Europeans

about it, as I often do, they say

that Putin's aim is to restore the

Soviet Empire. And he said that and you

know, just listen to what he says. He

wants he pines for the Soviet era and he

wants to restore it.

He's never said that. In fact, he said

that, you know, he can understand why

someone in his or her heart pines for

the Soviet Union, but in his or her head

it makes absolutely no sense. He said

that uh the idea that you can recreate

the Soviet Union number one and then two

recreate the Soviet Empire is a pipe

dream and you might not like Vladimir

Putin but he is a very smart man. He is

a first class strategist and he surely

understands that you know the idea of

recreating the Soviet Union or the

Soviet Empire makes no sense at all. If

it ain't broke, don't fix it is a cliche

for a reason cuz it's pretty good

advice. But sometimes it's not true.

Cell phones are a glaring exception.

You've got your cell phone, you've had

it for years, you don't change.

Sometimes your cell phone battery life

fades or maybe your processor can't keep

up. But your phone is bound to run into

trouble eventually, no matter what the

problem is. And replacing it early is

much better and often far cheaper than

replacing it too late. Enter Pure Talk.

This month, if you switch to a

qualifying $35 plan, 35 bucks, Pure Talk

will give you a Samsung Galaxy A36

completely free. Literally free. Just 35

bucks a month for talk, text, and data.

And you get to restart your phone life

cycle without paying for a brand new

device. So, it's a scamfree deal. All on

America's most dependable 5G network.

It's like a cell phone that works as

well as any other. It's just way cheaper

and they're not scamming you. So

switching is a win for everybody. You

save money on your cell phone bill bill

bill bill bill. Pureet talk grows to

hire more Americans to support more

veterans, which it does. So go to puretalk.com/tucker

puretalk.com/tucker

to get your free phone today. That's puretalk.com/tucker

puretalk.com/tucker

to switch to our wireless company. It's

America's wireless company. It's Pure

Talk. You spent 10 years in the US

military, graduated West Point um during

the Cold War. Yes.

Yes.

So your life for 10 years was focused on

the Soviets, of course. No question.

No question. So that's 10 years. That's

a long time in your young life. How were

you able to

transition mentally from viewing Russia

as an enemy to viewing them as, you

know, another country?

It's an interesting question.

Why weren't others able to do that?

Well, a lot were, uh, but a lot weren't.

Uh I think uh that what happened was

that during the cold war when I started

to think about the US Soviet competition

the subject that I got interested in was

the conventional balance of forces in

Europe. It was the NATO Warsaw packed

balance and I wrote my dissertation on

the subject of conventional deterrence

and it focused on the NATO Warsaw packed

balance and my argument was which was

very controversial at the time was that

the Soviets were not 10 ft tall and

actually if a war did break out in

central Europe the West or NATO would do

very well that we would hold off the

Soviets that they would not win a quick

and decisive victory which is the

conventional was the conventional wisdom

at the time. So in a very important way

I was engaged in threat deflation. I

always thought when you looked at the

Soviet Union this is during the latter

part of the cold war when I was coming

of age that we greatly overestimated the

threat uh and that the Soviet Union was

not 10 feet tall. So once the cold war

ends and then we segue into the unipolar

moment, uh I'm already moving in that

direction. And then during the 1990s,

the Soviet Union, which has become

Russia, is a total basket case. I mean,

it's the only threat that it represents

is to itself. Yes. Doesn't represent a

threat to the West. And in fact, Tucker,

NATO expansion, which really gets going

in 1994, that's when Bill Clinton

decides to expand NATO, is not designed

to contain Russia because there is no

Russian threat. So then Putin comes to

power. And what happens from about 2000

up until the present is that the West uh

and here we're talking about the United

States as well of course uh becomes increasingly

increasingly

russophobic and hostile to Putin. And I

think it's in large part because Putin

stands up to us. Uh I think that we get

used to the idea certainly in the 1990s

that we call the shots. It's the

unipolar moment. And when we tell

countries to jump, their only question

is how high. And we get away with that

uh to some extent with Putin to begin

with. But then he begins to play hard

ball with us. And he gives a very famous

speech in Munich in 2007 where he throws

down the gauntlet. And from 2007

forward, uh relations really

deteriorate. And as they deteriorate,

the Russophobia comes racing to the four

uh and remains firmly in place today.

What what is the point of NATO now? Like

why do we still have NATO? What's its objective?

objective?

Well, I think if you asked most

Europeans and even many Americans in the

American foreign policy establishment,

the argument would be that NATO serves

as a pacifier.

Uh in other words, it keeps the peace in

Europe. Uh the United States is the most

powerful state in NATO and the United

States sits on top of all the European

countries. It provides security for

them. It provides a nuclear umbrella for

them and that prevents the European

countries from engaging in security

competition with each other. So we are a

pacifying force and this is the reason

that the Europeans today

to prevent intrauropean conflict.

Intra European conflict. Right. Interesting.

Interesting.

Well, if you think about it, uh up until

uh 1945 when World War II ends, you

would had two world wars in the first

half of the 20th century. And then if

you go back in time, European countries

had been fighting against each other uh

almost since the beginning of time.

Well, that's why there are so many

European countries and so many languages

and different distinct cultures. I mean,

you might also make the argument that's

why Europe was so successful because

they were

You can certainly make that argument and

you can make the argument that that's

why they were able to conquer uh huge

chunks of the planet and create these

empires because they were very good at

projecting military power.

These were Marshall societies before

they became tourist destinations.

Yes. But but anyway, what happens during

the Cold War is the Soviets dominate one

side of Europe and we dominate the other

side of Europe. And as long as those two

great powers are dominating those two

halves of Europe, the countries located

below them cannot fight among

themselves. Okay? So what happens when

the Cold War ends in 1989 and then into

the 1990s is that we decide that we're

going to expand NATO eastward. And as I

said to you, it's very important to

understand that when we expand NATO

eastward in the '9s and then the early

2000s, we're not aiming at containing

Russia. What we're interested in do is

doing is taking the pacifier, the

American pacifier that sits over Western

Europe and putting it over Eastern

Europe and making Europe one giant zone

of peace. And the Europeans liked that

idea. You want to remember after 1989

lots of Europeans were very worried

about Germany which reunified when the

cold war ended. And you can understand

why Europeans were very nervous. Yes.

Yes.

But as long as the Americans stay in

Europe, as long as NATO remains intact,

the pacifier is there. You know, most

people don't realize this, but the

Soviets and then the Russians were

perfectly content to see the United

States remain in Europe and for NATO to

remain intact after the Cold War because

the Soviets/Russians

understood that we served as a pacifier.

What they didn't want, and they made

this very clear, was NATO expansion.

And of course what we did starting in

1994 was to expand NATO eastward again

to move the pacifier from over just

Western Europe to over all of Europe.

And that is what that is what has

produced the catastrophe in Ukraine. By

the time NATO gets to the Baltics and

then we start talking openly, as the

Biden administration did, just openly,

like at press conferences, about moving

NATO into Ukraine,

it's very obvious that that's going to

trigger a conflict with Russia at some

point. You know, how could it not? Why

didn't anyone pause and say, "Okay,

NATO's great. Obviously, there's a

massive budget. We're all getting richer

from NATO also." But is it let's balance

that against like a war with Russia. We

don't want that. Did anyone raise that point?

point?

Couple points just to get the dates

right. Uh the second big trunch of NATO

expansion which brings the Baltic states

in is 2004. Yep.

Yep.

The first big trunch is 1999. That's

Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.

99. Then 2004 is when the Baltic states

come in. 2008 is when the critical

decision is made. April 2008 to bring

Ukraine into NATO. Okay. But to get to

the heart of your question, what's very

interesting is if you go back and look

at many of the planning documents from

the '9s about NATO expansion,

people recognize at the time that

Ukraine is a special case and it will be

a huge source of trouble if we move NATO

into Ukraine. So you can get away with

Poland. You can even get away with the

Baltic states, but Ukraine is a

different matter. And it's very

important to understand that we

understood that from the get-go. So the

question then becomes what you're asking

is why did we do it, right? What's going

on here? Why didn't we just back off?

And I think the answer is we thought we

could shove it down their throat. You

want to understand, they opposed the 99

expansion, the first trunch. We just

shoved it down their throat. Yeah.

What's Boris Yelson going to do about it?

it?

That's right. That's exactly right.

What's he going to do about it? And then

2004, Putin's in control now. We shove

it down their face down their throat

again. So in 2008, immediately after

NATO says at the Bucharest, April 2008

NATO Bucharest summit, immediately after

he says that NATO says that uh Ukraine

will be brought into NATO, Putin makes

it manifestly clear that this is

unacceptable, that this is an

existential threat and that Russia will

not let it happen. And by the way, at

that April 2008 NATO summit, they said

they were not only going to bring

Ukraine into NATO, they're going to

bring Georgia into NATO. That's April

2008. A war breaks out in Georgia in

August of 2008 over this very issue. So,

you would expect us to back off at that

point, but we don't back off. In fact,

we double down. And then when the crisis

first starts, this is in 2014, February

22nd, 2014. That's when the crisis

starts. That's when the Russians take

Crimea. This is when you understand or

should understand the Russians mean

business. Do we back off? Do we try to

accommodate the Russians in any way?

Absolutely not. We plow forward and then

of course we get the war in 2022. And

you ask yourself, why did we do this?

And by the way, if you look at the process,

process,

uh, the decision-making process after

Joe Biden moves into the White House in

January 2021, January 2021, and then 13

months later, the war breaks out, Biden

makes no effort whatsoever to

accommodate the Russians. So again, the

question is why? What's going on here? Yes,

Yes,

we're just going to shove it down their

throat. We think we're Godzilla. We

think it's still the unipolar moment.

We're sorry to say it, but this is not a

very safe country. Walk through Oakland

or Philadelphia. Yeah, good luck. So,

most people when they think about this

want to carry a firearm, and a lot of us

do. The problem is there can be massive

consequences for that. Ask Kyle

Writtenhouse. Kyle Writtenhouse got off

in the end, but he was innocent from the

first moment. It was obvious on video

and he was facing life in prison anyway.

That's what the anti-gun movement will

do. They'll throw you in prison for

defending yourself with a firearm. And

that's why a lot of Americans are

turning to Burna. It's a proudly

American company. Burna makes

self-defense launchers that hundreds of

law enforcement departments trust.

They've sold over 600,000 pistols mostly

to private citizens who refuse to be

empty-handed. These pistols, and I have

one, fire rockard kinetic rounds or tear

gas rounds and pepper projectiles, and

they stop a threat from up to 60 feet

away. There are no background checks.

There are no waiting periods. Burna can

ship it directly to your door. You can't

be arrested for defending yourself with

a burn pistol. Visit burnab yrna.com

or your local sportsman's warehouse to

get yours today. Burna.com.

But why would you want to? Even if you

have absolute power, which of course

doesn't exist, but let's say you

believed you had it. Why would you want

to do that? I believe that once the

decision is made in 2008 that you're

going to bring NATO to Ukraine, you're

going to bring Ukraine into the

alliance. That the idea of backing off

is unacceptable to the United States and

to the West. You just don't do that.

That would be a sign of weakness and we

cannot show weakness. And I think a lot

of this thinking has to do with why we

won't quit. Now, one should say to him

or herself at this point, it's time to

put an end to this war and accept the

fact that the Russians have won an ugly

victory. But we can't bring ourselves to

do that. That would be showing weakness.

So instead, we continue to plow on. But

in, you know, attempting to show

strength, we reveal weakness. I mean,

that's my concern is, you know, once you

project force and it doesn't work, then

you're revealed

to the world is weak. The limits of your

power are obvious to everybody. It's

better to to threaten and have, you

know, your true power concealed. People

can guess at what you can do. But now

there's no guessing. We couldn't be

Russia. And

that's correct.

Right. So,

we lost a war to Russia. It's a proxy

war, but it was a war. And so, what does

that mean?

Well, it is uh you know a devastating

defeat for NATO because we have invested

so much in this war. Right. Uh the other

problem that we face is that the United

States and this is true of both the

Biden and Trump administration consider

China to be the principal threat to the

United States. China is a pure

competitor. Russia is not a pure

competitor. Russia is not a threat to

dominate Europe. Russia is not the

Soviet Union. China is a peer

competitor. It's a threat to dominate

Asia. And what we've been trying to do

since 2011 when Hillary Clinton

announced it when she was Secretary of

State is we've been trying to pivot to

Asia. Uh but what's happened here is

we've got bogged down in Ukraine and now

we're bogged down in the Middle East.

And this makes it difficult to fully

pivot to Asia. And this is not in the

American national interest. But to make

matters even worse, what we have done is

we have driven the Russians into the

arms of the Chinese.

Yes. If you think about it, we live in a

world where there are three great

powers. The United States, China, and

Russia. If the United States views China

as its principal competitor and the

United States is interested in

containing China in East Asia, it would

make eminently good sense to have Russia

on its side of the equation.

Instead, what we've done with the

Ukraine war is we've driven the Russians

and the army, the Russians and the

Chinese closer together. So that's so

obvious even to me a non-speist just

like it's obvious just look at a map

that it had to have been obvious to the

previous administration but they did it

anyway. So you have to kind of wonder

I think you're underestimating

uh how much strategic sense the American

foreign policy establishment has.

So they're just so incompetent they

didn't see that coming.

Yes. I mean, I'll take it a step

further. I

mean, come on.

Let's talk about China. This is an even

bigger issue.

The Cold War ends and as you well

remember, at the end of the Cold War,

China and the United States were

basically allied together against the

Soviet Union.

Of course, that was the whole point. Yeah.

Yeah.

Right. So the Soviet Union uh cold war

ends, Soviet Union disappears and

there's no longer any need for us to

have a close relationship with China. We

don't need them to help contain the

Soviet Union. So the question is what do

we do with the Chinese moving forward?

And economically China is a backwards

country in the early 1990s.

What we do is we adopt a policy of

engagement with China. Engagement is

explicitly designed to turn China into a

very wealthy country. This is a country

that has over four times the population

of the United States and you're talking

about making it very rich. For a realist

like me, this is lunacy. you are in

effect creating a peer competitor. In

fact, you may be creating a country that

is more powerful than the United States.

But the foreign policy establishment in

the United States almost to a person

including hawks like big new Brjinski

and Henry Kissinger said that China can

grow economically.

we can integrate it into institutions

like the World Trade Organization and so

forth and so on and it will become a

democracy and we will all live happily

ever after. Right? So what we did is

that we helped fuel China's phenomenal

growth between 1990 and 2017 when it

became a great power. You want to

remember that when the Cold War ends and

then the Soviet Union collapses in

December of 1991, we enter the unipolar

moment, which by definition means

there's one great power on the planet.

Yeah, that's the United States of

America. By 2017, there are three great

powers on the planet. And one of those

three great powers is a peer competitor.

And we helped create that peer

competitor on the foolish belief that if

we turned China into a rich country, it

would become a liberal democracy and it

would become a friend of the United

States and it would allow us to run

international politics the way we did

during unipolarity.

This is a remarkably catastrophic

decision. It must be strange for you

having spent your life in this one field

um both in the military effectively and

then in academia and you've had tenure

at Chicago since ' 82. Is that right?

I went to Chicago in ' 82. I got tenure

in 1987.

So you've been there over 40 years

working on this suite of topics, this

group of topics. When you look around

and everybody, even the most famous

people in your field are buying into

something that stupid,

how does that make you feel?

Bjinsky and Kissinger are saying things

that are just like obviously dumb. That

must be weird. It's very weird. I

remember I debated uh in the early 2000s

at Carnegie in Washington DC uh on

whether China could rise peacefully. And

there's actually a big story in foreign

policy the magazine that has an

abbreviated transcript of our debate.

And uh I remember Zigg was arguing that

China can rise peacefully and I was

arguing that China could not rise

peacefully and that our policy of

engagement was foolish. And as he was

speaking and I was sitting on the dis I

was saying to myself, I don't get what's

going on here. Spignjinski, who's about

10 notches to the right of me on almost

all foreign policy issues, shouldn't be

making this argument, but he's making

this argument. Yes.

And I'm the one who looks like a super

hawk. Uh when at the end of the cold

war, I was more uh on the dovish side

arguing the Soviets were not 10 feet

tall. And of course, Big was always

arguing the Soviets were 10 feet tall.

So, it was really perplexing. And

throughout the '9s and throughout the

early 2000s when I argued China could

not rise peacefully. Uh I could not get

a hearing in the United States. People

just didn't take me seriously. They'd

say John's a very smart guy. He's very

entertaining. He's amusing, but he's

basically crazy when it comes to China.

That was the view. Now, of course, I

think everybody understands that I was

basically right and they were wrong. And

your identity is constantly under

attack. In just the last year, Americans

lost over $16 billion dollar to scammers

online. Anyone can fall victim to this.

Your social security number, your bank

account, your credit profile can be

exposed and you won't even know it. And

the second they are exposed, thieves can

take out loans in your name, open credit

cards, wreck your life financially.

Identity Guard can save you. Identity

Guard monitors everything from your

credit card to your bank accounts to

your social security number, looking for

early signs of fraud before damage is

done. If something weird happens, you

get an instant alert. If someone does

steal your identity, Identity Guard's

expert team works directly with banks,

credit card companies, and lenders to

shut it down quickly. End the scam.

Having your identity stolen is a

nightmare. Someone in this country

becomes a victim of identity theft every

6 seconds. Identity Guard protects you.

30-day free trial and exclusive discount

at identityguard.com/tucker.

Protect yourself before it's too late. identity.com/ducker.

identity.com/ducker.

It's just but there hasn't I mean if you

had a field just pick some other field

structural engineering and if you had

America's sort of corpus of structural

engineers you know they all sort of know

each other the eminent ones are friends

and all the bridges they built started

to fall down there would be an immediate

reorganization of the field you would

say this just what you know you don't

know what you're doing look look at the

results I don't understand how you could

have this many decades of backto-back

foreign policy disasters and not have a

wholesale reorganization of like the

brain trust.

I agree. Let me just tell let me I I let

me just tell you one other story. Let's

go back to the 1990s. Talk about NATO

expansion. As I said to you, the Clinton

administration made the decision in 94.

One might think that there was

overwhelming support for NATO expansion

in the foreign policy establishment.

There actually was not. Bill Perry, who

was Clinton's Secretary of Defense, was

adamantly opposed to any NATO expansion

and thought about resigning as Secretary

of Defense over the issue. The chairman

of the Joint Chiefs was opposed. Jean

Kirkpatre, Paul Nitsa, George Kennan,

there's a laundry list of prominent

people who were opposed to NATO

expansion. Anyway, the decision is made

in '94. The first tranch is in 1999.

And then the opposition disappears.

There's no more opposition. Disappears.

Disappears.

Disappears. And as this situation

regarding NATO expansion deteriorates

over time, especially once the decision

is made to bring Ukraine into NATO, you

would think that we would begin to do an

about face that more and more people

would begin to appear who make the

argument that NATO expansion into

Ukraine is a bad idea. Again, in the

1990s, people were making that argument.

But that doesn't happen at all. And I

become in many ways the principal person

who argues that we're responsible for

the 2014 crisis. I wrote a piece in

foreign affairs after the crisis broke

out in February of 2014. But there are

remarkably few people who are

questioning whether further uh pushing

down the road to bring Ukraine into NATO

makes sense. Right. No, they're doubling

down. They're doubling down.

And then you're getting people at the

Atlantic Council say, you know, well, I

guess we have to use nukes now.

I mean, you see people get

not just refuse to reflect or repent,

but become like actively crazy. Just

crazy. Like, no tactical nukes. I mean,

you know, we're not going to win without

them. People are saying that, as you

know. What is that?

Well, it will be a devastating blow for

us to lose the war in Ukraine. And when

foreign policy elites get desperate,

they do reckless things or they talk in

reckless ways. Right.

Right.

Right. This is why, by the way, the

Ukraine war uh even once it's settled

and becomes a frozen conflict will be so

dangerous. Right. Because it the fact

that it is a defeat for the West and

that we have been humiliated

uh and that we lost this major war that

we were so deeply committed to will give

people incentives to try to reverse the

tide to rescue the situation. And when

people are desperate, they sometimes

pursue very risky strategies. So once

this war becomes a frozen conflict,

we're going to have to worry about it reescalating.

reescalating.

It seems very easy for um

you know a reckless government in Kiev

to provoke Moscow basically. I mean

you've seen it you know sending drone

swarms onto air bases or in you know

setting the Kremlin on fire which they

did and got no publicity but they have

done that. It's just it's it's this

weird asymmetrical

arrangement where they Ukraine actually

has quite a bit of power to stoke a

global conflict and incentive to do it,

don't they?

Mhm. That's exactly right. What they

want to do is they want to see the war

escalate because they want to bring us in.

in.

If if the Ukrainians have any hope of

rescuing the situation, it's to bring

NATO into the fight. Exactly.

Exactly.

Actually doing the fighting. Uh and uh

we've seen this in other regions. It's

it's a bad idea to get allow other

countries an incentive to suck in the

United States because they will.

Yeah. Well, I mean, you see this with

the Israelis in Iran, right? In 2024,

the Israelis tried to bait us into the

war into a war against Iran on two

separate occasions. And the Biden

administration, much to its credit, did

not uh take the bait. But Donald Trump

did take the bait, right? The Israelis

have long had a deep-seated interest in

getting us uh involved against Iran

because they understand they can't

defeat Iran by themselves and they can

do it uh they think with us. Uh so this

is analogous to the situation with

regard to Ukraine. The Ukrainians, as

you said, have a deep-seated interest in

getting us into the fight. So, as long

as we're tied to Ukraine,

um, if there's an implicit security

guarantee, which there kind of is at

this point, I mean, there has been,

why don't we have an interest in like

controlling the government of Ukraine?

So, you can't, in other words, why do we

have Zilinski running Ukraine, this

unelected lunatic running Ukraine, when

we have skin in the game? Like, why why

do we allow that?

Well, we've been content with Zilinski

up to now. Uh and the Europeans love

Silinski. Why?

Because he's committed to continuing the

war and uh he is very good at public

relations in the West. Uh he has

excellent advisers. He's a former actor.

He knows how to play the game. Uh so

he's good at dealing with the West and

uh and he does what we want. I mean,

it's not like he's doing things that we

don't want him to do.

No, that's right. uh he he he is our man

and once he ceases to be our man, we'll

go to great lengths to put somebody else

in his place.

But both Europe and the United States

have become poorer and weaker during the

course of the Ukraine war, partly as a

result of the Ukraine war. So I don't

really see how we're winning. How is the

US benefiting from this? How is how is

Western Europe benefiting from this?

Well, I think that uh it's Europe,

Western Europe in particular, that's

been hurt economically by this war, not

so much us. And one could argue that

we've uh we've benefited on the margins

at the expense of the Europeans.

Well, the US dollar kind of

is I mean it's no it's obviously not a

safe haven anymore. So I mean it's just

a matter of time I would say.

Well the question is how much of that is

due to the Ukraine war versus other

American policies. I'm sure that there

are a million factors, but kicking

Russia out of Swift, just stealing the

personal property of the so-called

oligarchs, behavior, lawless, crazy

behavior like that sends a message to

the world that like don't keep your

wealth and dollars because it can become

an instrument of war. I mean, that's my

view on it anyway.

Yeah, there's no question about that. Yeah,

Yeah,

there's no question about that. that uh

but we the problem is that we're now so

deeply committed

that we we just can't turn the ship around.

around.

Do we have any

leverage at all left? I notice the

administration is threatening today that

in 12 days we're going to do something

with sanctions then secondary sanctions

against China and India if they buy Russian

Russian

oil. I mean is that any of that

meaningful? I don't think secondary the

threat of secondary sanctions is

meaningful. I mean, the economic

consequences for the world and for the

United States would be disastrous if

they actually were put into effect and

worked. Uh I think the Chinese and

Indians would just blow them off at this

point. So, I don't think that they'll

work. We have no cards to play. If we

had cards to play, Biden would have

played those cards. I mean, one

fundamental difference between Biden and

Trump is that Biden was fully committed

to the war and wanted to do everything

he could to make sure the United States

stayed in the game uh and continued to

support uh Ukraine no matter what. Trump

definitely wanted to end the war. He's

been unsuccessful. He really doesn't

know what he's doing. He doesn't know

how to end the war, but he does want to

end it. Uh, and the question you really

have to ask yourself is what is he going

to put into the pipeline, the Biden

pipeline, once the weaponry dries up?

Uh, and, uh, I don't think that Trump is

going to end up giving the Ukrainians a

lot more weaponry. Uh, so I think he's

going to basically allow the Ukrainians

to be defeated on the battlefield. This

is going to be a huge problem for Trump

because he's going to be blamed for

losing Ukraine. The problem that Trump

runs into is the same problem that Biden

ran into with Afghanistan. Remember,

Trump was the one who wisely decided

we're getting out of Afghanistan. Yes,

Yes,

he was smart to do that. But it was

Biden who actually took us out of

Afghanistan and that was a disaster. And

he got all sorts of mud spilled on him

uh for taking us out of Afghanistan.

Well, what's going to happen in Ukraine

at some point is the Russians are going

to win and Trump is going to get blamed

for that. Yeah.

Yeah.

And I think one of the reasons that

Trump is so hesitant uh on Ukraine is

not simply because he's surrounded by

advisers who are super hawks on Ukraine

and want to hang on to the bitter end.

It's also because Trump understands that

when Ukraine uh loses, it will be seen

as having happened on his watch.

No question.

Yeah. No question. He he doesn't want

that to happen. This is why Trump was

deeply committed to negotiating a settlement.

settlement.

Why couldn't Why didn't that work?

It didn't work because Trump would have

to accept Russia's three key demands

that I spelled out to you at the start

of the show. And those three key demands

are unacceptable to almost every person

in the American foreign policy

establishment and almost every uh

foreign policy elite in Europe. Trump is

an outlier on the whole issue of

Ukraine. He JD Vance and a handful of

other people and they're not in a

position to bite the bullet and say we

will accept the main Russian demands and

go from there. And by the way, even if

they do accept the main Russian demands,

uh the fact is that uh there will be

huge resistance from the foreign policy

establishments on both sides of the Atlantic.

Atlantic.

So sometimes when people sell products

on TV, I love this product, I use this

product, there's the question in the

mind of the viewer, does this guy really

use the product? Does he really love the

product? Would he keep the product at

home? Ask my dogs. Yes. Now, we are in a

garage. Uh, I'm not going to tell you

where it is because again, this is

prepping, but this is my garage. There's

a gun safe. And this is a part of my

stockpile of ready hour. Completely

real. The second I put it here, the

second Ready Hour sent it to me, I felt

peace of mind. Um, because no matter

what happens, we're not going hungry in

my house. I moved a lot of fishing gear

out of the way to keep it in my garage.

And ever since it's been here, I have

felt the peace of mind that comes from

knowing my family's not going hungry no

matter what. Lastount supply.com.

Lastountupupply.com. It can be in your

garage along with the peace of mind that

comes with having it. Well, I can't

think of a group I'm less interested in

listening to than the foreign policy

establishment. I mean, again, that just

seems so totally discredited. It's like

dating tips from Jeffrey Epstein. It's

like, who cares what they say? But I guess,

guess,

well, they still wield enormous power.

Yeah, apparently

this is the problem that Trump faces,

right? I mean, Trump had this problem in

spades the first time he was elected.

Trump comes into the White House and he

has to pick advisors, but it's not like

he has a large number or even a small

number of foreign policy experts who

share his foreign policy views, right?

Uh because he has to draw from the

establishment, right? So you want to

remember that Trump was very interested

in improving relations with

with

Russia and with Putin in particular the

first time round and he failed

completely. Where Trump succeeded was on

China. Trump abandoned engagement. We

talked about engagement being a

disastrous policy. Trump abandoned

engagement and moved to containment in

2017. He ran as a candidate in 2016

explicitly against engagement. Got rid

of it immediately. I believe that was a

smart thing to do and to pursue

containment. He also Trump wanted to

improve relations with Putin which I

think made eminently good sense. He

couldn't do that in part because of

Russia gate but also because the foreign

policy establishment was so committed to

NATO expansion. So he failed on that

count. But the problem is he was

surrounded by advisors

in that first administration who were

all very hawkish on Ukraine and very

hawkish about American foreign policy in

general, very hawkish about the forever

wars. Right. So,

so what's I don't understand since you

raised it, what is the connection? The

same people who are telling me we need

to fight a regime change war against

Iran are the same ones who are

hysterical about supporting Ukraine in

its and continuing our war against

Russia, the Mark Leven and and and then

the smarter people um but same

orientation. What I what do they have in

common? I don't really understand. Well,

you have a foreign policy establishment,

whether you're talking about the

Republican side or you're talking about

the Democratic side,

that is deeply committed to pursuing

hawkish foreign policy

just for its own sake.

No, no. They believed that that's what's

good for the United States. They believe

we should spend uh exceedingly large

amounts of money on defense, that we

should be willing to use military force

in a rather liberal fashion. Uh they

believe that military force can solve

all sorts of problems. U they believe

that the United States, and this was

certainly true during the unipolar

moment, can use that military force to

spread liberal democracy around the

world. We can spread democracy at the

end of a rifle barrel. This is what the

Bush doctrine was all about in the

Middle East. Iraq was just the first

stop on the train line, right? We were

going to do Iran, Syria, and eventually

everybody would just throw up their

hands. We were going to democratize the

entire Middle East and we were going to

use military force to do that. So, we

are uh in a very important way addicted

to war. Now, it's important to emphasize

that a lot of this has to do with

Israel, right? because Israel's

supporters have a deep-seated interest

in making sure that the United States

has a remarkably powerful military and

is willing to use that military in a

rather liberal fashion because they

believe that if Israel ever gets into

trouble and it needs help from the

United States, the ideal situation is to

have a US military that's like a cocked

gun. And if you think about the recent

war between Israel and Iran, it really

wasn't just between Israel and Iran. It

was Israel and the United States against

Iran, right?

Clear clearly.

Clearly, right? And the United States

had a huge number of military assets in

the Middle East, right, that were there

in large part to help the Israelis in

their war against Iran.

Well, if you think about it, it makes

perfectly sense if you're a supporter of

Israel to want to make sure that the

United States has a large military and

that it is willing to use that military

and that if need be, it can help Israel

if it gets into trouble.

I didn't hear any reference to American

interests in that description.

Well, when it comes to Israel, right,

and what Israel needs, right, that has

little to do with American interests,

right? The truth is

any two countries in the world are going

to have similar interests plus different interests.

interests. Yes.

Yes.

Right. So, there's no question that

Israel and the United States have

sometimes have similar interests and

sometimes have different interests. Let

me give you an example of this. The

United States has a vested interest in

making sure Iran does not have nuclear

weapons. Yes,

we're against proliferation. It's in the

American national interest. It's

obviously in Israel's national interest

for Iran not to have nuclear weapons,

right? So, two states can have similar

interests. In the case of Israel and the

United States, they also happen to have

different interests.

And what we have in the United States is

a situation where we have this thing

called the Israel lobby, which I of

course have written about with Steve

Wald, which goes to great lengths to

push the United States to support Israel

unconditionally. In other words, no

matter what Israel does, we are supposed

to support Israel. And the lobby is so

effective, it is so powerful, it is so

effective that we basically end up

supporting Israel unconditionally. What

that means, Tucker, is in those cases

where Israel's interests are not the

same as America's interests, we support

Israel. We support Israel's interests,

not America's interests because

over and against America's interests,

of course, because the interests clash

in those specific instances,

right? Which is, as you noted at the

outset, just the nature of like

sovereign countries doing business with

each other. You're going to agree on

some things and disagree on others.

Absolutely. But can you think of any uh

moment in the last say 40 years where

there was that clash between

non-converging interests where the

United States chose its own interests

No. No. I can't think of anything that

fits that description. I mean, one could

argue that Israel wanted us to fight

against Iran in 2024. that they tried to

to bait us into attacking Iran uh in

April uh and then in July and uh as I

said before the Biden administration did

not take the bait.

Can you think conversely of instances

where the US government chose the

interest of a foreign power over and

against its own interests and its

people's interests

besides the Israeli case?

No, no. In in the case of Israel, you

know, we're allied with Israel

informally and you know, they want us to

do something that is hurtful to us, does

not help our interests at all, but we do

it anyway. Can you think of examples of that?

that?

Two-state solution is the best example.

Every American president since uh at

least Jimmy Carter has pushed forcefully

for creating a Palestinian state. We

have long believed that the best

solution to the Palestinian problem,

which is the taproot of so many other

problems that we face in the Middle

East, is to create two states. Uh so

every president has pushed hard except

for maybe Donald Trump for a two-state

solution in the Middle East. uh the

Israelis have rebuffed us uh at every

turn and uh the end result is we now

have a greater Israel and there's no

possibility of a two-state solution.

How does it hurt the United States not

having a Palestinian state? Why is it in

our our interest? Why is every president

pushed for that?

Because the United States has a vested

interest in having peace in the Middle

East. Uh it's not in our interest to

have wars in that region. Uh first of

all, it forces us to commit military

forces. It forces us to fight wars. Uh

and that's not in our interest. And uh

we have long felt from a strategic point

of view that what you want to do is make

sure uh you have peace in that region.

You want to remember right before

October 7th, Jake Sullivan, who was then

the national security adviser, was

crowing about the fact that we had not

seen uh the Middle East so peaceful in a

long period of time. He understood full

well that this is in our interest. Well,

if you compare the world uh you know uh

on October 6th uh 2023 with the world uh

that exists in the Middle East today, we

are much worse off today. Uh this is not

in our interest. Uh and this is in large

part because of Israel.

And this is just the strategic

dimension. We're not even talking about

the moral dimension. I mean, the

Israelis are executing a genocide in

Gaza. And we are complicitists in that genocide.

genocide.

When you say it's a genocide, what what

do you mean?

Well, if you look at what the definition

of a genocide is, um, right? It's where

one country uh tries to destroy uh

either all or a substantial portion of

another group uh another ethnic or

religious or national group uh for the

purposes of basically destroying that

group identity. That's what you're

talking about here. Uh I think that uh

that's the definition of je of genocide.

uh it's laid out in the 1948 uh

convention. Uh I think that what the

Israelis are doing fits that

description. Uh and lots of people and

organizations uh agree with me on that

point. It's very important to understand

here that just killing large numbers of Palestinians

Palestinians

is not necessarily genocide. I mean, the

United States when it firebombed

Japan in World War II killed many more

Japanese than the Israelis have killed

Palestinians in Gaza. There's no

question about that. But no one would

ever accuse the United States of

executing a genocide against Japan. The

United States was killing large numbers

of Japanese civilians. And by the way,

we killed large numbers of German

civilians as well. Millions.

Millions.

Yeah. for purposes of ending the war. We

wanted to end the war. And if you look

at how we treated the Japanese and how

we treated the Germans once the war

ended, it was very clear that we were

not bent on genocide. This is not to

excuse what we did against Japan and

Germany. And I do believe we murdered, I

would use the word murdered, large

numbers or millions of Japanese and

Germans together. But in the case of

what's going on in Gaza, right, what's

happening here is that the Israelis are

systematically trying to destroy the

Palestinians as a national group, right?

They're they're targeting them as

Palestinians and they're trying to

destroy Palestinian national identity in

addition to murdering huge numbers of Palestinians.

Palestinians.

And I mean, it's not just a rage reflex.

This is a strategy. Of course, at 2 and

a half years later, almost 3 years

later, what is the strategy? What's

what's the the goal of this? My view on

this is that the Israelis have long been

interested in expelling the Palestinian

population from greater Israel. If you

look at greater Israel, this includes

the Israel that was created in 1948

and the occupied plus the occupied

territories. Uh this is the West Bank,

Post 67,

post 67, West Bank and Gaza. So West

Bank, West Bank, Gaza, and what we call

green line Israel. That's Greater

Israel. Inside greater Israel, there are

about 7.3 million Jews and about 7.3

million Palestinians.

And from the get-go, going back to the

early days of Zionism, uh, and the views

of people like David Bengurian,

they believed that you needed a Jewish

state that was about 80% Jewish and 20%

Palestinian. In an ideal world, you

would get rid of all the Palestinians, but the least bad alternative is 80/20.

but the least bad alternative is 80/20. But you actually have a situation in

But you actually have a situation in greater Israel where you have 50/50. So

greater Israel where you have 50/50. So October 7th happens and what the

October 7th happens and what the Israelis see is an excellent opportunity

Israelis see is an excellent opportunity for ethnic cleansing. And they make this

for ethnic cleansing. And they make this clear. In other words, it's an excellent

clear. In other words, it's an excellent opportunity to go to war in Gaza and

opportunity to go to war in Gaza and drive the Palestinians out of Gaza and

drive the Palestinians out of Gaza and solve that demographic problem that they

solve that demographic problem that they face.

face. That's such a uh a dark thing and

That's such a uh a dark thing and therefore that's a very strong

therefore that's a very strong allegation. On what basis are you making

allegation. On what basis are you making it? Oh, there's just a huge amount of uh

it? Oh, there's just a huge amount of uh data that supports this in the Israeli

data that supports this in the Israeli press that they have they have been

press that they have they have been perfectly willing to make this argument

perfectly willing to make this argument loudly and clearly. The issue of

loudly and clearly. The issue of genocide, which I'll get to in a second,

genocide, which I'll get to in a second, is a different issue. I'm separating

is a different issue. I'm separating ethnic cleansing from genocide. So, what

ethnic cleansing from genocide. So, what happens after October 7th is that the

happens after October 7th is that the Israelis see an opportunity to drive the

Israelis see an opportunity to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza. And you want

Palestinians out of Gaza. And you want to remember that you had massive ethnic

to remember that you had massive ethnic cleansing in 1948 when the state is

cleansing in 1948 when the state is created. Virtually all of those people

created. Virtually all of those people in Gaza are descendants of the ethnic

in Gaza are descendants of the ethnic cleansing of 1948.

cleansing of 1948. Kicked out of another place

Kicked out of another place and sent to Gaza.

and sent to Gaza. Yeah.

Yeah. And by the way, there was another

And by the way, there was another massive ethnic cleansing after the 67

massive ethnic cleansing after the 67 war in the West Bank. So this is the

war in the West Bank. So this is the third attempt at a massive ethnic

third attempt at a massive ethnic cleansing in Gaza. So this is hardly

cleansing in Gaza. So this is hardly surprising at all. And in fact, if you

surprising at all. And in fact, if you go back and read the literature uh on

go back and read the literature uh on the creation of Israel, uh this is all

the creation of Israel, uh this is all thoroughly de documented. Ethnic

thoroughly de documented. Ethnic cleansing was a subject that the

cleansing was a subject that the Zionists talked about from the get-go.

Zionists talked about from the get-go. And they talked about extensively

And they talked about extensively because there was no way they could

because there was no way they could create a greater Israel without doing

create a greater Israel without doing massive ethnic cleansing. You want to

massive ethnic cleansing. You want to remember that when the Zionists come to

remember that when the Zionists come to Israel starting in the late 1800s, early

Israel starting in the late 1800s, early 1900s, they're remarkably few Jews in

1900s, they're remarkably few Jews in Palestine. And those Jews are not

Palestine. And those Jews are not Zionists. The Zionists are the Jews who

Zionists. The Zionists are the Jews who come from Europe, right?

come from Europe, right? And they understand that they're moving

And they understand that they're moving into a territory that's filled with

into a territory that's filled with Palestinian villages and Palestinian

Palestinian villages and Palestinian people. And the question you have to ask

people. And the question you have to ask yourself is, how can you create a Jewish

yourself is, how can you create a Jewish state on a piece of territory that's

state on a piece of territory that's filled with Palestinians without doing

filled with Palestinians without doing ethnic cleansing, massive ethnic

ethnic cleansing, massive ethnic cleansing? And the answer is you can't.

cleansing? And the answer is you can't. So they're talking about and thinking

So they're talking about and thinking about ethnic cleansing from the get-go.

about ethnic cleansing from the get-go. So the idea that they wouldn't think of

So the idea that they wouldn't think of what the situation looks like after

what the situation looks like after October 7th as an opportunity to do

October 7th as an opportunity to do ethnic cleansing,

ethnic cleansing, you know, it belies.

you know, it belies. So it wasn't really a land without

So it wasn't really a land without people for a people without land.

people for a people without land. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. and and

Absolutely not. Absolutely not. and and and David Bengurian, Vladimir

and David Bengurian, Vladimir Jabbatinsky, all these key Zionist

Jabbatinsky, all these key Zionist leaders understood that full well and

leaders understood that full well and they understood that they were going to

they understood that they were going to have to do horrible things to the

have to do horrible things to the Palestinians. They understood that and

Palestinians. They understood that and they were explicit in saying that they

they were explicit in saying that they did not blame the Palestinians one

did not blame the Palestinians one second for resisting what the Jews from

second for resisting what the Jews from Europe were going to do to them. They

Europe were going to do to them. They fully understood that they were stealing

fully understood that they were stealing their land and they fully understood

their land and they fully understood that it made perfect sense for the

that it made perfect sense for the Palestinians to resist, which of course

Palestinians to resist, which of course they did. But anyway, just to fast

they did. But anyway, just to fast forward to October 7th, what happens

forward to October 7th, what happens after October 7th is that the Israelis

after October 7th is that the Israelis see an excellent opportunity to

see an excellent opportunity to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians in

ethnically cleanse the Palestinians in Gaza. You have about 2.3 million

Gaza. You have about 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza. Just to be clear,

Palestinians in Gaza. Just to be clear, you have about 2.3 million Palestinians

you have about 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza, about 3.2 million uh in um

in Gaza, about 3.2 million uh in um West Bank,

West Bank, West Bank, and about 1.8 in great in uh

West Bank, and about 1.8 in great in uh green line Israel. Okay. So, this is an

green line Israel. Okay. So, this is an opportunity to get rid of those

opportunity to get rid of those Palestinians. And the way to do it is to

Palestinians. And the way to do it is to turn the IDF, the Israeli military

turn the IDF, the Israeli military loose, and let them tear the place

loose, and let them tear the place apart. And the idea is that that will

apart. And the idea is that that will just drive the Palestinians out.

just drive the Palestinians out. But the problem that the Israelis face

But the problem that the Israelis face is the Palestinians don't leave. Both

is the Palestinians don't leave. Both the Egyptians and the Jordanians, which

the Egyptians and the Jordanians, which are the two countries that the Israelis

are the two countries that the Israelis would like to drive the Palestinians

would like to drive the Palestinians into, make it, you know, unequivocally

into, make it, you know, unequivocally clear that that's not going to happen.

clear that that's not going to happen. That's

That's Jordan is just a giant refugee camp

Jordan is just a giant refugee camp already.

already. It already is

It already is from all these other wars that have been

from all these other wars that have been inspired for the same reason. So, um I

inspired for the same reason. So, um I mean I think Jordan is what percentage

mean I think Jordan is what percentage Jordanian is Jordan? I mean tiny

Jordanian is Jordan? I mean tiny percentage Jordan.

percentage Jordan. Well, it's definitely less than 50%.

Well, it's definitely less than 50%. Way less.

Way less. Way less. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Way less. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean Egypt has 100 million people

I mean Egypt has 100 million people already. So,

already. So, but here's what happens, Tucker. And it

but here's what happens, Tucker. And it I think it makes sense if you listen to

I think it makes sense if you listen to the logic. They start with the goal of

the logic. They start with the goal of ethnic cleansing. They I don't believe

ethnic cleansing. They I don't believe they want to murder all of the

they want to murder all of the Palestinians in uh Gaza. They just

Palestinians in uh Gaza. They just simply want to drive them out. But the

simply want to drive them out. But the problem is they don't leave. And then

problem is they don't leave. And then the question is what do you do? And what

the question is what do you do? And what they do is they continue to up the

they do is they continue to up the attacks, increase the attacks, kill more

attacks, increase the attacks, kill more and more people in the hope that they

and more people in the hope that they will drive them out. And I'm sorry, I

will drive them out. And I'm sorry, I should have asked this. Why do they want

should have asked this. Why do they want Gaza in the first place? There seems a

Gaza in the first place? There seems a lot of trouble killing all these people

lot of trouble killing all these people committing, you know, atrocities on

committing, you know, atrocities on camera. I mean, the press are barred,

camera. I mean, the press are barred, but we're still getting a lot of video

but we're still getting a lot of video out of the area. That's a big hit. Why

out of the area. That's a big hit. Why do you Why would you be willing to go

do you Why would you be willing to go through all of that to get Gaza? Why do

through all of that to get Gaza? Why do they want it?

they want it? Well,

Well, the Zionists from the beginning have

the Zionists from the beginning have wanted a greater Israel.

wanted a greater Israel. And David Bengurian wrote a piece in

And David Bengurian wrote a piece in 1918.

1918. And David Bengorian, of course, is the

And David Bengorian, of course, is the founding father of Israel. Wrote a piece

founding father of Israel. Wrote a piece in 1918. I don't think it's ever been

in 1918. I don't think it's ever been published in English. It's just in

published in English. It's just in Yiddish where he describes what his

Yiddish where he describes what his goals are for a greater Israel,

goals are for a greater Israel, right? And it obviously includes green

right? And it obviously includes green line Israel, Gaza, the West Bank. It

line Israel, Gaza, the West Bank. It includes parts of the East Bank. It

includes parts of the East Bank. It includes parts of southern Syria. It

includes parts of southern Syria. It includes parts of southern Lebanon and

includes parts of southern Lebanon and it includes uh the Sinai Peninsula. Just

it includes uh the Sinai Peninsula. Just think about that. That was Bengurian's

think about that. That was Bengurian's vision. And this was a vision that was

vision. And this was a vision that was shared by almost all the early Zionist

shared by almost all the early Zionist leaders. And there are still many people

leaders. And there are still many people in Israel who are in favor of a greater

in Israel who are in favor of a greater Israel. They don't want a tiny Israel.

Israel. They don't want a tiny Israel. The Israel that was created in 1948 is a

The Israel that was created in 1948 is a tiny state.

tiny state. Yes. E even with Gaza and the West Bank,

Yes. E even with Gaza and the West Bank, it's quite small. It's a postage

it's quite small. It's a postage stamp-like state, right? They want more

stamp-like state, right? They want more territory and they believe they have a

territory and they believe they have a historical right to that territory.

historical right to that territory. Israel has never said these are our

Israel has never said these are our final borders. What are Israel's final

final borders. What are Israel's final borders? They've never been articulated.

borders? They've never been articulated. And the reason is the Israelis don't

And the reason is the Israelis don't want to say out loud. The early Zionists

want to say out loud. The early Zionists did not say out loud what their

did not say out loud what their intentions were. David Bengurian didn't

intentions were. David Bengurian didn't get up on a soap box and say we are

get up on a soap box and say we are going to create a greater Israel and

going to create a greater Israel and it's going to include southern Lebanon,

it's going to include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, the occupied

southern Syria, the occupied territories, Green Line Israel, the

territories, Green Line Israel, the Sinai and so forth and so on.

Sinai and so forth and so on. It's just a little um I mean irony

It's just a little um I mean irony doesn't isn't powerful enough a word. I

doesn't isn't powerful enough a word. I can't think of one. It's odd that the

can't think of one. It's odd that the very same people who were saying we need

very same people who were saying we need to consider tactical nukes in order to

to consider tactical nukes in order to preserve the territorial integrity of

preserve the territorial integrity of the sovereign nation Ukraine because

the sovereign nation Ukraine because national borders are sacrianked.

national borders are sacrianked. You know that's our our sacred norms are

You know that's our our sacred norms are violated when those borders are violated

violated when those borders are violated are saying it's totally okay for this

are saying it's totally okay for this one country to like take over other

one country to like take over other countries.

countries. But this gets back to my point to you.

But this gets back to my point to you. We s yes we I agree completely. We

We s yes we I agree completely. We support Israel unconditionally. Right?

support Israel unconditionally. Right? In other words, whatever Israel does,

In other words, whatever Israel does, especially visav the Palestinians, the

especially visav the Palestinians, the United States backs them to the hilt.

United States backs them to the hilt. And the fact that they're changing

And the fact that they're changing borders. I mean, I look at what they're

borders. I mean, I look at what they're doing in Lebanon and Syria, and you

doing in Lebanon and Syria, and you would think that the United States would

would think that the United States would have a vested interest in trying to put

have a vested interest in trying to put pressure on the Israelis uh to stop

pressure on the Israelis uh to stop causing murder and mayhem in Lebanon and

causing murder and mayhem in Lebanon and in Syria. But we do hardly anything at

in Syria. But we do hardly anything at all.

all. And those are real countries. Those are

And those are real countries. Those are ancient countries and beautiful,

ancient countries and beautiful, beautiful countries with sophisticated,

beautiful countries with sophisticated, intelligent people. And like that the

intelligent people. And like that the roots of Christianity are there. And

roots of Christianity are there. And like it's not, in other words, I mean

like it's not, in other words, I mean there's a sense if you're fighting over

there's a sense if you're fighting over Sinai or something, it's one thing, but

Sinai or something, it's one thing, but like Lebanon, I mean, that's like one of

like Lebanon, I mean, that's like one of the great countries in the world. Syria,

the great countries in the world. Syria, same thing. And they're being destroyed.

same thing. And they're being destroyed. I don't understand why people allow that

I don't understand why people allow that to happen. Well, let me explain to you

to happen. Well, let me explain to you what Israel's goal is here. F. First of

what Israel's goal is here. F. First of all, Israel's goal is to create Laban's

all, Israel's goal is to create Laban's realm. That's what I was describing to

realm. That's what I was describing to you when I said uh what Bengurian's

you when I said uh what Bengurian's vision was regarding borders. So,

vision was regarding borders. So, can you define the word?

can you define the word? Laben's realm means living room. You you

Laben's realm means living room. You you want you want a big country. You want

want you want a big country. You want lots of space for your people.

lots of space for your people. Yes.

Yes. Strategic depth.

Strategic depth. Strategic depth. Yeah. And uh so that's

Strategic depth. Yeah. And uh so that's one goal. The second goal that the

one goal. The second goal that the Israelis have is they want to make sure

Israelis have is they want to make sure that their neighbors are weak. And that

that their neighbors are weak. And that means breaking them apart if you can,

means breaking them apart if you can, right? And keeping them broken. So the

right? And keeping them broken. So the Israelis were thrilled that mainly the

Israelis were thrilled that mainly the United States and the Turks broke apart

United States and the Turks broke apart Syria. One could argue that Syria was

Syria. One could argue that Syria was even broken before Assad fell. But the

even broken before Assad fell. But the Israelis want

Israelis want Syria to be a fractured state. They want

Syria to be a fractured state. They want Lebanon to be a fractured state. what

Lebanon to be a fractured state. what they want in Iran. You know, we talk

they want in Iran. You know, we talk about the nuclear program, the nuclear

about the nuclear program, the nuclear enrichment program, and the argument is

enrichment program, and the argument is sometimes made that the principal goal,

sometimes made that the principal goal, the only goal is to go in and uh and

the only goal is to go in and uh and eliminate their nuclear capability.

eliminate their nuclear capability. That's a lie.

That's a lie. Well, it's just part of the story. You

Well, it's just part of the story. You could call it a lie. What what the

could call it a lie. What what the Israelis want to do is they want to

Israelis want to do is they want to break Iran apart. They want to make it

break Iran apart. They want to make it look like Syria, right? You want

look like Syria, right? You want neighbors that are not powerful. you

neighbors that are not powerful. you want them to be fractured.

want them to be fractured. Jordan and Egypt, they have a different

Jordan and Egypt, they have a different solution there. And what's happened is

solution there. And what's happened is because those countries are economically

because those countries are economically backwards, the United States gives them

backwards, the United States gives them huge amounts of economic aid,

huge amounts of economic aid, I've noticed.

I've noticed. Yep. And and that's done for a purpose.

Yep. And and that's done for a purpose. And anytime the Egyptian

And anytime the Egyptian And what's the purpose? Because anytime

And what's the purpose? Because anytime the Egyptians or the Jordanians get

the Egyptians or the Jordanians get uppety about Israel, the United States

uppety about Israel, the United States reminds them, "You better behave

reminds them, "You better behave yourself because we have huge economic

yourself because we have huge economic leverage over you. You have to be

leverage over you. You have to be friendly to Israel." So Jordan and Egypt

friendly to Israel." So Jordan and Egypt never caused the Israelis any problem.

never caused the Israelis any problem. It sounds like our entire foreign

It sounds like our entire foreign policy, at least in the Western

policy, at least in the Western Hemisphere, is based on this one

Hemisphere, is based on this one country. Well, I would say in the Middle

country. Well, I would say in the Middle East,

East, well, yeah,

well, yeah, in the Middle East, uh, there is no

in the Middle East, uh, there is no question. People now call it West Asia,

question. People now call it West Asia, I believe, but I call it the Middle

I believe, but I call it the Middle East. In the Middle East, our policy is

East. In the Middle East, our policy is profoundly influenced by Israel.

profoundly influenced by Israel. We give, as I said to you before, we

We give, as I said to you before, we have a special relationship with Israel

have a special relationship with Israel that has no parallel in recorded

that has no parallel in recorded history. Just very important to

history. Just very important to understand it. There is no single case

understand it. There is no single case in recorded history that comes even

in recorded history that comes even close to looking like the relationship

close to looking like the relationship that we have with Israel. Because again,

that we have with Israel. Because again, as I said, states sometimes have similar

as I said, states sometimes have similar interests and this includes the United

interests and this includes the United States and Israel, but they also have

States and Israel, but they also have conflicting interests. And when a great

conflicting interests. And when a great power like the United States has

power like the United States has conflicting interests with another

conflicting interests with another country, it almost always, except in the

country, it almost always, except in the case of Israel, acts in terms of its own

case of Israel, acts in terms of its own interests. America first. But when it

interests. America first. But when it comes to Israel, it's Israel first. And

comes to Israel, it's Israel first. And if you go to the Middle East and look at

if you go to the Middle East and look at our policy there, there's just abundant

our policy there, there's just abundant evidence to support that. So then the

evidence to support that. So then the question I mean there's so many

question I mean there's so many questions but um the question is why

questions but um the question is why like what is that? And it's I think it's

like what is that? And it's I think it's really um causing serious problems in

really um causing serious problems in the current ruling coalition because

the current ruling coalition because it's the contradiction is too obvious.

it's the contradiction is too obvious. It's not America first and people can

It's not America first and people can see that because it's so so evident.

see that because it's so so evident. But what are the causes of it? Like why

But what are the causes of it? Like why would for the first time as you said in

would for the first time as you said in recorded history a nation spend you know

recorded history a nation spend you know whatever it is a trillion dollars a year

whatever it is a trillion dollars a year in effect to serve the interest of

in effect to serve the interest of another country like why well I believe

another country like why well I believe there's one simple answer the Israel

there's one simple answer the Israel lobby uh I I think the lobby is an

lobby uh I I think the lobby is an incredibly powerful interest group. Uh

incredibly powerful interest group. Uh and I'm choosing my words carefully. Uh

and I'm choosing my words carefully. Uh it has awesome power and uh it uh

it has awesome power and uh it uh basically is in a position where it can

basically is in a position where it can uh profoundly influence uh US foreign

uh profoundly influence uh US foreign policy in the Middle East and indeed it

policy in the Middle East and indeed it affects foreign policy outside of the

affects foreign policy outside of the Middle East. But when it comes to the

Middle East. But when it comes to the Middle East and again the Palestinian

Middle East and again the Palestinian issue in particular, it it has awesome

issue in particular, it it has awesome power and there's no president uh who is

power and there's no president uh who is willing to buck the lobby.

willing to buck the lobby. What sort of power is it? Because it's

What sort of power is it? Because it's not it's not rhetorical. It's not, you

not it's not rhetorical. It's not, you know, the most powerful movements in

know, the most powerful movements in history are fueled by

history are fueled by an idea. It's usually the most powerful

an idea. It's usually the most powerful fueled by an idea that it's like true,

fueled by an idea that it's like true, right?

right? But I never hear anybody make a detailed

But I never hear anybody make a detailed case for why the United States benefits

case for why the United States benefits from the current arrangement. Never. No

from the current arrangement. Never. No one ever. Nikki Haley came as close as

one ever. Nikki Haley came as close as anyone by saying the United States gets

anyone by saying the United States gets a lot more out of the relationship than

a lot more out of the relationship than Israel does, but then never explained

Israel does, but then never explained how exactly that works. So it's not a

how exactly that works. So it's not a matter of like convincing people

matter of like convincing people clearly. So what is it a matter of?

clearly. So what is it a matter of? Where does that power come from?

Where does that power come from? Well, let me put this in a broader

Well, let me put this in a broader context. Uh I think that uh in the past

context. Uh I think that uh in the past when I was younger uh the lobby operated

when I was younger uh the lobby operated on two levels. One was the policy level

on two levels. One was the policy level and two was the popular discourse.

and two was the popular discourse. Yes.

Yes. And I think in terms of the popular

And I think in terms of the popular discourse for a long long time, right?

discourse for a long long time, right? And and this would be well into the

And and this would be well into the 2000s.

2000s. The Israel lobby, the Israel lobby

The Israel lobby, the Israel lobby basically influenced the discourse in

basically influenced the discourse in ways that made the Israelis look like

ways that made the Israelis look like the good guys and it made it look like

the good guys and it made it look like every time the United States supported

every time the United States supported Israel, it was because it was in our

Israel, it was because it was in our national interest. Right? So the

national interest. Right? So the discourse was not at odds with what was

discourse was not at odds with what was happening at the policy level. right

happening at the policy level. right now. The situation you described, which

now. The situation you described, which I think is a perfect description of the

I think is a perfect description of the situation that we face today, is that

situation that we face today, is that the lobby has lost control of the

the lobby has lost control of the discourse. And people now understand

discourse. And people now understand that the United States is doing things

that the United States is doing things for Israel that are not in the American

for Israel that are not in the American national interest. Furthermore, they see

national interest. Furthermore, they see the lobby out in the open engaging in

the lobby out in the open engaging in smashmouth politics. People are now

smashmouth politics. People are now fully aware that there is a lobby out

fully aware that there is a lobby out there that it's trying to control the

there that it's trying to control the discourse and in fact it basically does

discourse and in fact it basically does control maybe that's a bit too strong a

control maybe that's a bit too strong a word but it's close. It basically does

word but it's close. It basically does control the policy makers. So now you

control the policy makers. So now you have this real dis controls the policy

have this real dis controls the policy makers. I mean we just that's

makers. I mean we just that's demonstrable you know I think it's

demonstrable you know I think it's measurable.

measurable. Yeah. So

Yeah. So yes but you so you have what you were

yes but you so you have what you were describing is the disconnect between the

describing is the disconnect between the discourse and the policy world that now

discourse and the policy world that now exists. But what I'm saying to you is

exists. But what I'm saying to you is you want to remember that the lobby was

you want to remember that the lobby was immensely successful for a long period

immensely successful for a long period of time because the disc the discourse

of time because the disc the discourse and the policy process looked like they

and the policy process looked like they were in sync. so successful that just

were in sync. so successful that just basic historical facts about the

basic historical facts about the creation of this nation state in 1948

creation of this nation state in 1948 are like unknown to people and it's

are like unknown to people and it's shocking to hear them uh and you think

shocking to hear them uh and you think well that can't be right that's like so

well that can't be right that's like so far from what I heard as a child that

far from what I heard as a child that that's obviously what all the Christians

that's obviously what all the Christians were kicked out all these Christians

were kicked out all these Christians were kicked out of their historic

were kicked out of their historic homelands there and of course many more

homelands there and of course many more Muslims

Muslims and did that really happen I mean people

and did that really happen I mean people just have no idea what the facts are

just have no idea what the facts are kind of interesting yes will the lobby

kind of interesting yes will the lobby went to great lengths to make sure that

went to great lengths to make sure that you didn't know the facts.

you didn't know the facts. And anyone who said the facts out loud

And anyone who said the facts out loud was like a like a lunatic or a jihadist

was like a like a lunatic or a jihadist or or a you know hater of some kind. An

or or a you know hater of some kind. An anti-semite. Yeah. Self-hating Jews. You

anti-semite. Yeah. Self-hating Jews. You know, it's very interesting. I often

know, it's very interesting. I often think about my own um evolution in this

think about my own um evolution in this regard. When I grew up as a kid, I was

regard. When I grew up as a kid, I was heavily influenced by Leon Urus's book

heavily influenced by Leon Urus's book Exodus and then the subsequent movie

Exodus and then the subsequent movie with I think Paul Newman and Eva Marie

with I think Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint uh and that of course that Exodus

Saint uh and that of course that Exodus story portrayed the Israelis in the most

story portrayed the Israelis in the most favorable light and the Arabs or

favorable light and the Arabs or Palestinians in the most negative light.

Palestinians in the most negative light. So for much of my life, uh, you know, up

So for much of my life, uh, you know, up until the late 80s, early 90s, I thought

until the late 80s, early 90s, I thought the Israelis were without a doubt the

the Israelis were without a doubt the good guys up against the bad guys. And

good guys up against the bad guys. And it was really David versus Goliath as

it was really David versus Goliath as well. And the Israelis were David up

well. And the Israelis were David up against an Arab Goliath. That was the

against an Arab Goliath. That was the picture I had in my head. But then in

picture I had in my head. But then in the late 80s, early 90s, a group of

the late 80s, early 90s, a group of historians in Israel called the new

historians in Israel called the new historians came on the scene.

historians came on the scene. Benny Morris,

Benny Morris, Benny Morris, Avi Schlime,

Benny Morris, Avi Schlime, Elon P. Uh,

Elon P. Uh, some of them were amazing.

some of them were amazing. Amazing. Yeah, I agree. And and what

Amazing. Yeah, I agree. And and what they did was they had access to the

they did was they had access to the archives. Yes.

archives. Yes. And they told the real story. And that

And they told the real story. And that was a moment where I think the country

was a moment where I think the country felt Israel felt confident enough to

felt Israel felt confident enough to allow that conversation internally and

allow that conversation internally and that honesty.

that honesty. I think that's exactly right. The lobby

I think that's exactly right. The lobby had been so successful. Israel had been

had been so successful. Israel had been so successful.

so successful. Yes. I went there. I was amazed. What a

Yes. I went there. I was amazed. What a beautiful place. Great people. It was

beautiful place. Great people. It was great.

great. Yeah. Yeah. They thought they

Yeah. Yeah. They thought they controlled.

controlled. They had things under control. They did.

They had things under control. They did. That's right. And that they could allow

That's right. And that they could allow these historians to tell the truth.

these historians to tell the truth. Now, I believe they could have gotten

Now, I believe they could have gotten away with it if they had stopped

away with it if they had stopped expanding or if they had agreed to a

expanding or if they had agreed to a two-state solution. The problem is that

two-state solution. The problem is that after the early 1990s, when this

after the early 1990s, when this literature came out, the Israelis

literature came out, the Israelis continued to act in barbaric ways

continued to act in barbaric ways towards the Palestinians.

towards the Palestinians. And

And well, they had a prime minister who

well, they had a prime minister who tried to reverse the trend and then

tried to reverse the trend and then guess he was shot to death.

guess he was shot to death. He was moving in that direction. I think

He was moving in that direction. I think there were a number of Israeli leaders

there were a number of Israeli leaders who understood that the course that

who understood that the course that Israel was on was unsustainable.

Israel was on was unsustainable. You often heard them say that.

You often heard them say that. Yeah.

Yeah. There was a robust debate within the

There was a robust debate within the country about this.

country about this. Well, whether they would have agreed to

Well, whether they would have agreed to a Palestinian state ultimately is an

a Palestinian state ultimately is an open question. But the fact is Rabin was

open question. But the fact is Rabin was killed. Ahood Barack who made moves

killed. Ahood Barack who made moves towards a two-state solution ultimately

towards a two-state solution ultimately couldn't pull it off

couldn't pull it off and we are where we are today and the

and we are where we are today and the problem is that something else occurred

problem is that something else occurred in the late 90s early 2000s which

in the late 90s early 2000s which fundamentally affected Israel's position

fundamentally affected Israel's position and that's the internet because once you

and that's the internet because once you get the internet and once you get social

get the internet and once you get social media and the mainstream media is not

media and the mainstream media is not the sole source of information on these

the sole source of information on these issues. The story about the real

issues. The story about the real creation of Israel and what Israel is

creation of Israel and what Israel is doing today is available to the vast

doing today is available to the vast majority

majority and it's shock it's shocking to people.

and it's shock it's shocking to people. Um so you have to shut down the

Um so you have to shut down the internet. You can't allow that.

internet. You can't allow that. Yeah,

Yeah, you can try to shut down the internet

you can try to shut down the internet but you know there are limits to what

but you know there are limits to what you can do. Uh but it does seem like um

you can do. Uh but it does seem like um you so you you you were describing the

you so you you you were describing the two separate tiers, the policy and the

two separate tiers, the policy and the discourse about the policy and that one

discourse about the policy and that one remains basically the same, but the

remains basically the same, but the other has changed just so radically, so

other has changed just so radically, so radically and so fast that it's gone off

radically and so fast that it's gone off in some dark directions that I just want

in some dark directions that I just want to say on the record I totally

to say on the record I totally disapprove of. I don't think you should

disapprove of. I don't think you should hate anybody period, especially groups

hate anybody period, especially groups of people. It's immoral and I mean it.

of people. It's immoral and I mean it. But that's happened because there's been

But that's happened because there's been like a ma an avalanche of new

like a ma an avalanche of new information, a lot of which is totally

information, a lot of which is totally real. People haven't seen it before and

real. People haven't seen it before and their minds are exploding. And so public

their minds are exploding. And so public opinion is moving so radically in the

opinion is moving so radically in the other direction. I feel it all around

other direction. I feel it all around me. Do you feel this?

me. Do you feel this? Of course.

Of course. Yeah. And your life I mean I should say

Yeah. And your life I mean I should say for people who aren't familiar with your

for people who aren't familiar with your background, you wrote a book with Steven

background, you wrote a book with Steven Walt of Harvard. You're at the

Walt of Harvard. You're at the University of Chicago. So both of you

University of Chicago. So both of you are, you know, have tenure or famous in

are, you know, have tenure or famous in your world, you're not crazy, and uh you

your world, you're not crazy, and uh you write this book in 2007 and both of you

write this book in 2007 and both of you are immediately attacked in like pretty

are immediately attacked in like pretty shocking ways. Also defended

shocking ways. Also defended u by some of your colleagues, but but

u by some of your colleagues, but but really maligned for it. And now 18 years

really maligned for it. And now 18 years later, people are saying that Marshmer

later, people are saying that Marshmer guy actually he was kind of right about

guy actually he was kind of right about everything. So that's a reflection, I

everything. So that's a reflection, I think, of the change in public opinion,

think, of the change in public opinion, but that that's not sustainable. You

but that that's not sustainable. You can't have in a democracy

can't have in a democracy policy that's 180 degrees from public

policy that's 180 degrees from public opinion over time. That just doesn't

opinion over time. That just doesn't work. So you have to either change the

work. So you have to either change the policy

policy or change public opinion. And no one's

or change public opinion. And no one's even making any attempt at all to change

even making any attempt at all to change public opinion through good faith

public opinion through good faith argument, through like, hey, I know you

argument, through like, hey, I know you think this, but you're wrong and here's

think this, but you're wrong and here's why. There's zero, none. It's shut up

why. There's zero, none. It's shut up Nazi. Okay. And that's not working. So I

Nazi. Okay. And that's not working. So I really think the only option is to stop

really think the only option is to stop the conversation. Or maybe I'm missing

the conversation. Or maybe I'm missing something. Like censorship is the only

something. Like censorship is the only the only option if you want to maintain

the only option if you want to maintain status quo.

status quo. Well, there's no question that they're

Well, there's no question that they're trying to stop the conversation.

trying to stop the conversation. Yes, there's no question. I mean, they

Yes, there's no question. I mean, they went to great lengths to shut down Tik

went to great lengths to shut down Tik Tok and the evidence is that uh the

Tok and the evidence is that uh the lobby played a key role

lobby played a key role just banning one of the world's biggest

just banning one of the world's biggest social media apps cuz it says things you

social media apps cuz it says things you don't like.

don't like. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, this is the way they've

Yeah. Well, this is the way they've always behaved. The lobby's always

always behaved. The lobby's always behaved this way. And uh I mean, this is

behaved this way. And uh I mean, this is what happened to me and Steve. You know,

what happened to me and Steve. You know, we originally wrote an article and uh we

we originally wrote an article and uh we at one point thought the article would

at one point thought the article would never be published. Uh after we wrote

never be published. Uh after we wrote the article uh and we went through all

the article uh and we went through all sorts of interactions with the Atlantic

sorts of interactions with the Atlantic Monthly that had commissioned the

Monthly that had commissioned the article, we put the article in the back

article, we put the article in the back closet and just

closet and just so you were asked to write a piece about

so you were asked to write a piece about the influence of a foreign lobby, the

the influence of a foreign lobby, the Israeli lobby in Washington,

Israeli lobby in Washington, uh which is one of many foreign lobbies

uh which is one of many foreign lobbies in Washington, but it's by far the most

in Washington, but it's by far the most effective and the biggest. And you write

effective and the biggest. And you write the piece and they didn't run it.

the piece and they didn't run it. Yeah.

Yeah. Why? because they got cold feet. I mean,

Why? because they got cold feet. I mean, what invariably happens in these cases

what invariably happens in these cases is that uh down at the lower levels of a

is that uh down at the lower levels of a journal or or a newspaper, people will

journal or or a newspaper, people will be interested in somebody writing

be interested in somebody writing something on uh the Israel lobby or

something on uh the Israel lobby or writing a piece that's critical of

writing a piece that's critical of Israel, but then as it filters up the

Israel, but then as it filters up the chain of command and people at the top

chain of command and people at the top see it, they kill it. Right. And

see it, they kill it. Right. And and that happened to you.

and that happened to you. Oh, that's definitely what happened at

Oh, that's definitely what happened at the lobby at the Atlantic Monthly. They

the lobby at the Atlantic Monthly. They killed it. And then Steve and I went to

killed it. And then Steve and I went to uh Princeton University Press and a

uh Princeton University Press and a handful of other journals and asked if

handful of other journals and asked if they would be interested in either the

they would be interested in either the article or turning the article into a

article or turning the article into a book. Uh and in all of those cases,

book. Uh and in all of those cases, everybody at first uh exudes enthusiasm.

everybody at first uh exudes enthusiasm. They think it's a it's a great topic.

They think it's a it's a great topic. Something needs to be written on it,

Something needs to be written on it, which of course is true. But then they

which of course is true. But then they think about it for a month and you get a

think about it for a month and you get a call back and uh they've lost interest.

call back and uh they've lost interest. So Steve and I actually put the uh the

So Steve and I actually put the uh the article as I said in that closet and

article as I said in that closet and just said

just said what's wild is you're both at this point

what's wild is you're both at this point very well known in your Can you explain

very well known in your Can you explain who Steve is to your co-authors? Yeah,

who Steve is to your co-authors? Yeah, Steve uh is a chaired professor at

Steve uh is a chaired professor at Harvard University and at the time that

Harvard University and at the time that we wrote the lobby uh article. Uh he was

we wrote the lobby uh article. Uh he was the academic dean at the Kennedy School.

the academic dean at the Kennedy School. Okay. So, I just I I sure a lot of

Okay. So, I just I I sure a lot of people already know that, but I just

people already know that, but I just want to make it totally clear.

want to make it totally clear. You're not two random guys in the

You're not two random guys in the internet who are like anti-semmites or

internet who are like anti-semmites or something at all. You're like the some

something at all. You're like the some of the most famous people in your field

of the most famous people in your field and you're totally moderate. I don't

and you're totally moderate. I don't even know what your politics are, but

even know what your politics are, but you're not a political activist at all.

you're not a political activist at all. No, as and I as I used to like to say,

No, as and I as I used to like to say, if Adolf Hitler were alive, he would

if Adolf Hitler were alive, he would have thrown Steve's wife and his two

have thrown Steve's wife and his two children in a gas chamber, right? I

children in a gas chamber, right? I mean, the idea that we're anti-semites,

mean, the idea that we're anti-semites, I mean, this is a laughable argument.

I mean, this is a laughable argument. We're both first order phosmites. I

We're both first order phosmites. I mean, I can't prove that, but it's true

mean, I can't prove that, but it's true in my humble opinion. But anyway, we we

in my humble opinion. But anyway, we we were certainly, you know, at the top of

were certainly, you know, at the top of our academic disciplines and highly

our academic disciplines and highly respected, which is not to say people

respected, which is not to say people didn't disagree with what we wrote. Uh,

didn't disagree with what we wrote. Uh, but you weren't crackpots at all.

but you weren't crackpots at all. And and the other thing is I want to

And and the other thing is I want to make it clear that we worked very

make it clear that we worked very carefully with the Atlantic to get our

carefully with the Atlantic to get our final draft draft up to their standards,

final draft draft up to their standards, right? We did what they wanted. And uh

right? We did what they wanted. And uh and you also want to remember that Steve

and you also want to remember that Steve and I are both excellent writers. Many

and I are both excellent writers. Many academics cannot write clearly. Whatever

academics cannot write clearly. Whatever you think of the substance of our views,

you think of the substance of our views, there's no doubt there were two of the

there's no doubt there were two of the best writers in the business. And it's

best writers in the business. And it's the two of us working with the editors

the two of us working with the editors uh at the lower rungs of the Atlantic

uh at the lower rungs of the Atlantic Monthly that produced what I thought was

Monthly that produced what I thought was an excellent article. But anyway, it was

an excellent article. But anyway, it was killed there

killed there and we couldn't get it published.

and we couldn't get it published. Kind of proven your point.

Kind of proven your point. Yes. Ex. Exactly. Exactly. And uh uh

Yes. Ex. Exactly. Exactly. And uh uh by the way, I probably shouldn't tell

by the way, I probably shouldn't tell this story, but I'll tell you I I we

this story, but I'll tell you I I we told the editor uh at The Atlantic as we

told the editor uh at The Atlantic as we were going through the process that uh

were going through the process that uh we thought he was getting cold feet and

we thought he was getting cold feet and he was quite offended by that. And he

he was quite offended by that. And he said to us just to prove that that

said to us just to prove that that wasn't true, he would give us a $10,000

wasn't true, he would give us a $10,000 kill fee. That means if they didn't take

kill fee. That means if they didn't take the article, they'd give us $10,000.

the article, they'd give us $10,000. So I said to Steve, I remember it very

So I said to Steve, I remember it very well, that's the fastest $10,000 we ever

well, that's the fastest $10,000 we ever made. He said, "Oh, John, you're being

made. He said, "Oh, John, you're being too cynical." Anyway, we collected the

too cynical." Anyway, we collected the $10,000.

$10,000. Did you think he paid you?

Did you think he paid you? Yes. Yes. I mean, but what what he did,

Yes. Yes. I mean, but what what he did, how ashamed was he when he because I'm

how ashamed was he when he because I'm not going to name him. I know the

not going to name him. I know the editor. This is a pretty well-known

editor. This is a pretty well-known editor who's just been in magazine

editor who's just been in magazine journalism for decades and, you know,

journalism for decades and, you know, has a high regard for himself and good

has a high regard for himself and good reputation, all this stuff. And he's

reputation, all this stuff. And he's told from somebody else who's more

told from somebody else who's more powerful than he is, you can't do this.

powerful than he is, you can't do this. How embarrassed was he in that

How embarrassed was he in that conversation? I

conversation? I I had no evidence that he was

I had no evidence that he was embarrassed.

embarrassed. Oh, so he has no soul. Okay.

Oh, so he has no soul. Okay. I No, I I I mean, who knows, you know,

I No, I I I mean, who knows, you know, what kind of face he had to put on

what kind of face he had to put on things. I I don't know what happened

things. I I don't know what happened inside the Atlantic. I've never been

inside the Atlantic. I've never been told. But uh uh uh but again, he said

told. But uh uh uh but again, he said he'd give us a $10,000 kill fee because

he'd give us a $10,000 kill fee because he thought the peace was going to go

he thought the peace was going to go forward. And somebody uh sat on him and

forward. And somebody uh sat on him and told him that that was not going to

told him that that was not going to happen. I I don't know what happened,

happen. I I don't know what happened, but he I don't want to be too harsh on

but he I don't want to be too harsh on him because this is the norm. Yeah.

him because this is the norm. Yeah. That this was the norm.

That this was the norm. He didn't own the magazine. And so what

He didn't own the magazine. And so what we did was we put it in the back closet.

we did was we put it in the back closet. And and I remember Steve and I had a

And and I remember Steve and I had a conversation and I think Steve said to

conversation and I think Steve said to me, "This is why we have tenure so that

me, "This is why we have tenure so that you can spend two years of your life

you can spend two years of your life writing something that never gets

writing something that never gets published and you're not punished in

published and you're not punished in terms of promotion to tenure." Right?

terms of promotion to tenure." Right? But anyway, what then happened is that

But anyway, what then happened is that somebody inside the Atlantic

somebody inside the Atlantic um who was actually involved in the

um who was actually involved in the original commissioning of the article

original commissioning of the article gave a copy to a very prominent academic

gave a copy to a very prominent academic who uh had com uh who had um contacts

who uh had com uh who had um contacts close contacts at the London Review of

close contacts at the London Review of Books and uh that academic who I knew

Books and uh that academic who I knew very well uh sent me a note and said

very well uh sent me a note and said that Mary Kay Wilmer's he said I got a

that Mary Kay Wilmer's he said I got a hold of your manuscript and uh I sent it

hold of your manuscript and uh I sent it to Mary Kay Wilmer's at the London

to Mary Kay Wilmer's at the London Review of Books and she'd be very

Review of Books and she'd be very interested in publishing it and uh so I

interested in publishing it and uh so I then I remember I was in H Highidleberg,

then I remember I was in H Highidleberg, Germany. I called up Mary Kay uh and she

Germany. I called up Mary Kay uh and she published it. Uh thankfully

published it. Uh thankfully it was like a bomb it was like a bomb

it was like a bomb it was like a bomb went off. I'll I'll remember that. I

went off. I'll I'll remember that. I remember that so

remember that so vividly. So the piece The Atlantic Kill

vividly. So the piece The Atlantic Kill comes out in the London Review of Books.

comes out in the London Review of Books. What's the thesis of the piece if you

What's the thesis of the piece if you could just sum it up for people who

could just sum it up for people who didn't read it?

didn't read it? Well, the argument basically has four

Well, the argument basically has four parts to it. The first says that the

parts to it. The first says that the United States has this special

United States has this special relationship with Israel. It's

relationship with Israel. It's unparalleled in history. We give Israel

unparalleled in history. We give Israel unconditional support uh huge amounts of

unconditional support uh huge amounts of military and economic aid. That's the

military and economic aid. That's the first part. Then the second part says

first part. Then the second part says it's not for strategic reasons that we

it's not for strategic reasons that we do this. Then the third part is not

do this. Then the third part is not it's can you explain what that means not

it's can you explain what that means not for

for it's not in the American national

it's not in the American national interest in in other words uh from a

interest in in other words uh from a geopolitical point of view right because

geopolitical point of view right because Israel and the United States sometime

Israel and the United States sometime have different interests it makes no

have different interests it makes no sense for us to support Israel

sense for us to support Israel unconditionally we should support Israel

unconditionally we should support Israel when its interests reflect our interests

when its interests reflect our interests but otherwise not

but otherwise not but that's not the case so that's

but that's not the case so that's another way of saying what we're doing

another way of saying what we're doing is not in our strategic interest. Okay.

is not in our strategic interest. Okay. Third part is it's not in our moral

Third part is it's not in our moral interest because when you look at what

interest because when you look at what the Israelis are doing to the

the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians, this violates basic

Palestinians, this violates basic American precepts, liberal precepts,

American precepts, liberal precepts, right? So from a moral point of view, uh

right? So from a moral point of view, uh what's happening in Israel doesn't make

what's happening in Israel doesn't make sense. So then the fourth part deals

sense. So then the fourth part deals with the question of why we do this,

with the question of why we do this, right? Fair. If we don't question,

right? Fair. If we don't question, right? If we don't do it for strategic

right? If we don't do it for strategic reasons, we don't do it for moral

reasons, we don't do it for moral reasons, why do we do it? And the answer

reasons, why do we do it? And the answer is the lobby.

is the lobby. So that's the story, the lobby.

So that's the story, the lobby. It does. And the the lobby is a is a

It does. And the the lobby is a is a very large complex

very large complex informal organization of which Apac is a

informal organization of which Apac is a part but not the total.

part but not the total. Absolutely.

Absolutely. Um and then you describe how that works.

Um and then you describe how that works. Yeah, it's a very important to emphasize

Yeah, it's a very important to emphasize it's a loose coalition of individuals

it's a loose coalition of individuals and organizations like Apac, the

and organizations like Apac, the Anti-Defamation League and so forth and

Anti-Defamation League and so forth and so on that uh work overtime to support

so on that uh work overtime to support Israel loosely coordinated. I think your

Israel loosely coordinated. I think your description was right on the money. very

description was right on the money. very important to understand it is not a

important to understand it is not a Jewish lobby and it is not a Jewish

Jewish lobby and it is not a Jewish lobby because many Jews don't care much

lobby because many Jews don't care much about Israel and many Jews are opposed

about Israel and many Jews are opposed to what Israel or the Israel lobby is

to what Israel or the Israel lobby is doing

doing including many religious Jews Torah Jews

including many religious Jews Torah Jews sincere

sincere sincerely Jewish Jews disagree I know

sincerely Jewish Jews disagree I know some so I know

some so I know absolutely there are a large number of

absolutely there are a large number of Jews who are anti-Zionists

Jews who are anti-Zionists I'm aware

I'm aware right so so You're exactly right. So,

right so so You're exactly right. So, it's not a Jewish lobby uh for that

it's not a Jewish lobby uh for that reason, but also there are the Christian

reason, but also there are the Christian Zionists.

Zionists. Yes.

Yes. Who are a core element of that lobby?

Who are a core element of that lobby? I've noticed

I've noticed uh you know, Christians United for

uh you know, Christians United for Israel, for example. So, that's why we

Israel, for example. So, that's why we call it the Israel lobby.

call it the Israel lobby. And what explains the enthusiasm of

And what explains the enthusiasm of Christian groups for policies that kill

Christian groups for policies that kill Christians in the Middle East?

Christians in the Middle East? Well, they have this belief that until

Well, they have this belief that until Israel controls

Israel controls uh all of greater Israel, right? Uh it

uh all of greater Israel, right? Uh it gets back all the territory

gets back all the territory uh that is rightfully

uh that is rightfully theirs. Uh you won't have the second

theirs. Uh you won't have the second coming. Uh so they are deeply committed,

coming. Uh so they are deeply committed, these Christians, ionists, to supporting

these Christians, ionists, to supporting Israel's conquest. uh and supporting

Israel's conquest. uh and supporting Israeli expansion for religious reasons.

Israeli expansion for religious reasons. And are there defined borders that when

And are there defined borders that when reached will trigger the second coming?

reached will trigger the second coming? No. No.

No. No. Do when we say greater Israel, do we

Do when we say greater Israel, do we have a clear map in mind of what that

have a clear map in mind of what that will mean? Could mean? No.

will mean? Could mean? No. No. Whenever you talk about greater

No. Whenever you talk about greater Israel, there's hardly ever a real map

Israel, there's hardly ever a real map in mind. I talk about it in terms of the

in mind. I talk about it in terms of the occupied territories plus green line

occupied territories plus green line Israel. But obviously the Israelis

Israel. But obviously the Israelis themselves, most Israelis I think have

themselves, most Israelis I think have uh a bigger uh map in in mind.

uh a bigger uh map in in mind. Do we know where that ends? I mean it

Do we know where that ends? I mean it doesn't go to Cairo I assume.

doesn't go to Cairo I assume. No. No. I think the Sinai what they take

No. No. I think the Sinai what they take of Egypt I think will if they can will

of Egypt I think will if they can will be the Sinai. Uh and I don't think they

be the Sinai. Uh and I don't think they would take all of Syria or all of

would take all of Syria or all of Lebanon but they would take big chunks

Lebanon but they would take big chunks of the south of those two countries.

of the south of those two countries. uh but uh but but the idea behind the

uh but uh but but the idea behind the Christian Zionists is that to facilitate

Christian Zionists is that to facilitate the second coming uh you know for

the second coming uh you know for religious reasons we should support

religious reasons we should support Israel but this does as you say uh cut

Israel but this does as you say uh cut against the fact that the Israelis often

against the fact that the Israelis often time uh treat Christians as badly as

time uh treat Christians as badly as they do Muslims. Uh there was recently a

they do Muslims. Uh there was recently a case where they bombed a Catholic church

case where they bombed a Catholic church in northern Gaza. Uh and Trump was

in northern Gaza. Uh and Trump was infuriated when he heard this and he

infuriated when he heard this and he called up Netanyahu and told him this is

called up Netanyahu and told him this is recently like within the past two weeks

recently like within the past two weeks told Netanyahu that he had to apologize.

told Netanyahu that he had to apologize. Uh and uh the Pope even spoke out on

Uh and uh the Pope even spoke out on this but even there the criticism is

this but even there the criticism is quite muted. Uh because again, hardly

quite muted. Uh because again, hardly anybody in the West really criticizes

anybody in the West really criticizes Israel in a meaningful way.

Israel in a meaningful way. It is just a little bit odd that you

It is just a little bit odd that you could on Christian grounds support the

could on Christian grounds support the bombing of a Christian church.

bombing of a Christian church. I mean, there are lots of theological

I mean, there are lots of theological differences between sex and

differences between sex and Christianity. But if you're getting to

Christianity. But if you're getting to the point like where Mike Johnson, the

the point like where Mike Johnson, the speaker of the house, is where you think

speaker of the house, is where you think Jesus is commanding you to support the

Jesus is commanding you to support the murder of Christians,

murder of Christians, you don't need to be like a theologian

you don't need to be like a theologian to think maybe I've gone off course. No.

to think maybe I've gone off course. No. Yeah, you're not going to get any

Yeah, you're not going to get any argument from me on that.

argument from me on that. Yeah. So, um where does it go from here

Yeah. So, um where does it go from here now that things that you know everyone

now that things that you know everyone was afraid to talk about any of this to

was afraid to talk about any of this to the extent that people understood it

the extent that people understood it because they don't want to be called

because they don't want to be called names and because those names are it's

names and because those names are it's horrible to be called that and it's

horrible to be called that and it's almost sometimes it's true but for most

almost sometimes it's true but for most people it's not true at all. They're not

people it's not true at all. They're not hateful. That's not why they have these

hateful. That's not why they have these views. So once those slurs lose their

views. So once those slurs lose their power, as I think they quickly are, in

power, as I think they quickly are, in the same way the word racist lost its

the same way the word racist lost its power from overuse, like where are we?

power from overuse, like where are we? What where do we what happens next? It's

What where do we what happens next? It's hard to tell a happy story, but here's

hard to tell a happy story, but here's how I think about it. U the first

how I think about it. U the first question you might ask yourself is what

question you might ask yourself is what are the Israelis likely to do moving

are the Israelis likely to do moving forward? In other words, if the Israelis

forward? In other words, if the Israelis all of a sudden got reasonable, uh a lot

all of a sudden got reasonable, uh a lot of these problems would go away. But

of these problems would go away. But there is no sign the Israelis are going

there is no sign the Israelis are going to get more reasonable. If anything, the

to get more reasonable. If anything, the political center of gravity is moving

political center of gravity is moving further and further to the right in

further and further to the right in Israel as the years go by. So Israeli

Israel as the years go by. So Israeli behavior in the Middle East, if

behavior in the Middle East, if anything, is likely to be even more

anything, is likely to be even more aggressive and more offensive to people

aggressive and more offensive to people around the world. So what does that mean

around the world. So what does that mean here in the United States? It means that

here in the United States? It means that the lobby is going to have to work even

the lobby is going to have to work even harder than it's now working. And again,

harder than it's now working. And again, you want to remember the lobby's now out

you want to remember the lobby's now out in the open and it's engaging in

in the open and it's engaging in smashmouth politics, but it's going to

smashmouth politics, but it's going to have to work harder. Now, you say to

have to work harder. Now, you say to yourself,

yourself, most vicious people I've ever dealt with

most vicious people I've ever dealt with ever.

ever. Yeah. Yeah. Anybody who's dealt with

Yeah. Yeah. Anybody who's dealt with them, and I've dealt with them for

them, and I've dealt with them for longer than you have, understands full

longer than you have, understands full well what you're talking about. But see,

well what you're talking about. But see, here's the problem, Tucker. The problem

here's the problem, Tucker. The problem is that support among younger people for

is that support among younger people for Israel is much weaker than it is among

Israel is much weaker than it is among older people.

older people. People including Jews.

People including Jews. Including Jews. Yes. Yes. Very important

Including Jews. Yes. Yes. Very important to emphasize that. Very important. Uh so

to emphasize that. Very important. Uh so the problem is that inside of American

the problem is that inside of American society, you're moving towards a

society, you're moving towards a situation where increasing numbers of

situation where increasing numbers of people in the body politic are critical

people in the body politic are critical of Israel, extremely critical of Israel

of Israel, extremely critical of Israel because older people are dying off and

because older people are dying off and those younger people are turning into

those younger people are turning into older people. So the body populace in

older people. So the body populace in the United States is going to be more

the United States is going to be more critical of Israel over time, not less

critical of Israel over time, not less critical. At the same time, Israel

critical. At the same time, Israel continues to behave that way. And the

continues to behave that way. And the question is, how long can we go on with

question is, how long can we go on with the lobby operating out in the open and

the lobby operating out in the open and engaging in smashmouth politics?

engaging in smashmouth politics? And I attacking Americans in the most

And I attacking Americans in the most vicious way,

vicious way, who have no animist toward anyone, but

who have no animist toward anyone, but just want to help their own country,

just want to help their own country, they're somehow criminals. Like that

they're somehow criminals. Like that that that can't go on long. That's too

that that can't go on long. That's too stupid to work over time. No,

stupid to work over time. No, I agree. Look at what's happening on

I agree. Look at what's happening on campuses, right? Uh here you have these

campuses, right? Uh here you have these students out there protesting,

students out there protesting, protesting a genocide, right? Many of

protesting a genocide, right? Many of the students who are out there

the students who are out there protesting are Jewish. This cannot be

protesting are Jewish. This cannot be emphasized enough. Many of them are

emphasized enough. Many of them are Jewish. And all of a sudden, they're

Jewish. And all of a sudden, they're turned into raving anti-semites. This is

turned into raving anti-semites. This is all about anti-semitism. It has nothing

all about anti-semitism. It has nothing to do with the genocide that's taking

to do with the genocide that's taking place in Palestine.

place in Palestine. This is crazy, right? And and I talk to

This is crazy, right? And and I talk to people on campuses. Everybody

people on campuses. Everybody understands this. Everybody understands

understands this. Everybody understands that th this has nothing to do with

that th this has nothing to do with anti-semitism. I've been in academia

anti-semitism. I've been in academia for decades. I've been at the University

for decades. I've been at the University of Chicago for 44 years. Before October

of Chicago for 44 years. Before October 7th, nobody at Chicago or Harvard talked

7th, nobody at Chicago or Harvard talked about an anti-semitism problem. It was

about an anti-semitism problem. It was just unheard of. Huge numbers of

just unheard of. Huge numbers of administrators, including provos and

administrators, including provos and presidents, were Jewish. Huge numbers of

presidents, were Jewish. Huge numbers of deans and faculty members were Jewish.

deans and faculty members were Jewish. Huge numbers of students, graduate and

Huge numbers of students, graduate and undergraduate, were Jewish. This is a

undergraduate, were Jewish. This is a wonderful thing. Nobody was ever

wonderful thing. Nobody was ever critical of it. Was there an

critical of it. Was there an anti-semitism problem? I never heard

anti-semitism problem? I never heard about it and I don't know anybody who

about it and I don't know anybody who was talking about it. But all of a

was talking about it. But all of a sudden after October 7th, what we

sudden after October 7th, what we discover is that these college campuses

discover is that these college campuses are hotbeds of anti-semitism.

are hotbeds of anti-semitism. This makes no sense at all because of

This makes no sense at all because of course they were not hotbeds of

course they were not hotbeds of anti-semitism. What they were were hot

anti-semitism. What they were were hot beds of criticism of Israel and what it

beds of criticism of Israel and what it was doing to the Palestinians.

was doing to the Palestinians. But you can't say that.

But you can't say that. Why?

Why? because you are in effect bringing

because you are in effect bringing attention to the genocide that's taking

attention to the genocide that's taking place in Gaza and that is unacceptable.

place in Gaza and that is unacceptable. I mean newspapers like the New York

I mean newspapers like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, they

Times, the Wall Street Journal, they never even use the word genocide or

never even use the word genocide or anything approximating that. It's just

anything approximating that. It's just verboten. Uh and the idea is to make

verboten. Uh and the idea is to make Israel look like if anything it's the

Israel look like if anything it's the victim. That's the Wall Street Journal's

victim. That's the Wall Street Journal's principal mission, right? to make Israel

principal mission, right? to make Israel look like it's the victim.

look like it's the victim. Wall Street Journal is so discredited as

Wall Street Journal is so discredited as a newspaper. It's like I wouldn't I' I'

a newspaper. It's like I wouldn't I' I' I'd rather read the Guardian. I mean,

I'd rather read the Guardian. I mean, I'd rather read anything other than the

I'd rather read anything other than the Wall Street Journal.

Wall Street Journal. Well, I like to argue that the Wall

Well, I like to argue that the Wall Street Journal is two newspapers in one.

Street Journal is two newspapers in one. Uh the news and then uh the opinion.

Uh the news and then uh the opinion. It's all been corrupted. It changed

It's all been corrupted. It changed leadership and it's just the whole thing

leadership and it's just the whole thing is total. I I know some great people who

is total. I I know some great people who work there still and they're honest

work there still and they're honest people. Um, but the paper is the most

people. Um, but the paper is the most dishonest I would say of all papers.

dishonest I would say of all papers. That's just my view and I used to write

That's just my view and I used to write for them. So,

for them. So, well, you'll get no argument from me.

well, you'll get no argument from me. Uh,

Uh, as bad as the New York Times and

as bad as the New York Times and Washington Post are, they pale in

Washington Post are, they pale in comparison to the Wall Street J.

comparison to the Wall Street J. I totally agree. And at least the New

I totally agree. And at least the New York Times and the and especially the

York Times and the and especially the New York the Washington Post are just

New York the Washington Post are just like liberal papers. Okay, there's

like liberal papers. Okay, there's Democratic Party papers. I know exactly

Democratic Party papers. I know exactly what you are. I'm not like the Guardian,

what you are. I'm not like the Guardian, just a leftwing paper, socialist paper.

just a leftwing paper, socialist paper. I'm not shocked by anything. They're

I'm not shocked by anything. They're pretty upfront about it. The Wall Street

pretty upfront about it. The Wall Street Journal is uniquely offensive to me

Journal is uniquely offensive to me because of the deception involved. They

because of the deception involved. They pretend to be one thing, but they're

pretend to be one thing, but they're very much not that thing. They're

very much not that thing. They're something entirely different. And uh

something entirely different. And uh they're stealthy and incredibly

they're stealthy and incredibly dishonest. And uh I look forward to

dishonest. And uh I look forward to their demise with with uncchristian

their demise with with uncchristian enthusiasm. Um excuse me. Uh but anyway,

enthusiasm. Um excuse me. Uh but anyway, can I just ask you like a question I

can I just ask you like a question I should have asked before? You have this

should have asked before? You have this population of over 2 million people. How

population of over 2 million people. How many remain in Gaza now? Do we know

many remain in Gaza now? Do we know there no there's no news coverage

there no there's no news coverage allowed so we don't I guess maybe we

allowed so we don't I guess maybe we don't know but

don't know but well there are 2.3 million to start.

well there are 2.3 million to start. Yes.

Yes. That's that's the approximate number who

That's that's the approximate number who are there. Uh it appears that some have

are there. Uh it appears that some have gotten out. Uh it's hard to gauge how

gotten out. Uh it's hard to gauge how many. Uh there was one person who told

many. Uh there was one person who told me he thought that about 100,000

me he thought that about 100,000 uh had gotten out. Another person told

uh had gotten out. Another person told me 50,000. I'm not sure.

me 50,000. I'm not sure. But not a million.

But not a million. Oh, no, no, no, no. The question is how

Oh, no, no, no, no. The question is how many have been killed?

many have been killed? Right.

Right. Do we have any idea?

Do we have any idea? Not really. Uh, they're, you know, the

Not really. Uh, they're, you know, the estimates are around 60 million. I mean,

estimates are around 60 million. I mean, 60 million, excuse me, 60,000. Um,

60 million, excuse me, 60,000. Um, do you think it's weird that in 2025 we

do you think it's weird that in 2025 we can measure everything from your heart

can measure everything from your heart rate to sunspots that we don't know how

rate to sunspots that we don't know how many people were killed in Russia,

many people were killed in Russia, Ukraine, or Palestine? We can't even get

Ukraine, or Palestine? We can't even get I've never met anybody who can give me a

I've never met anybody who can give me a hard number on Russian casualties,

hard number on Russian casualties, Ukrainian casualties, or dead

Ukrainian casualties, or dead Palestinians in Gaza.

Palestinians in Gaza. That's weird.

That's weird. It's weird. They're they're two

It's weird. They're they're two different cases. Uh, I mean, the uh uh

different cases. Uh, I mean, the uh uh the Ukrainians have a deep-seated

the Ukrainians have a deep-seated interest, for example, in not revealing

interest, for example, in not revealing how many people have been killed.

how many people have been killed. Of course, and so do the Russians, by

Of course, and so do the Russians, by the way.

the way. Yeah. Uh,

Yeah. Uh, and uh with regard to the uh case of

and uh with regard to the uh case of Israel Palestine, uh the the real

Israel Palestine, uh the the real problem here is that so many people are

problem here is that so many people are buried. Uh they're missing. Uh there was

buried. Uh they're missing. Uh there was a study that uh somebody did recently.

a study that uh somebody did recently. It was a legitimate study that said that

It was a legitimate study that said that they believe or the study concludes that

they believe or the study concludes that there are about 400,000 missing people

there are about 400,000 missing people in

in 400,000.

400,000. 400,000. Yeah. Now, I'm not saying

400,000. Yeah. Now, I'm not saying that's true. I'm just saying that there

that's true. I'm just saying that there obviously lots of missing people, right?

obviously lots of missing people, right? Well, if you look at what the Israelis

Well, if you look at what the Israelis have done in Israel, excuse me, what the

have done in Israel, excuse me, what the Israelis have done in Gaza, I wouldn't

Israelis have done in Gaza, I wouldn't be surprised if the number is uh, you

be surprised if the number is uh, you know, 400,000 dead. Uh, but who knows?

know, 400,000 dead. Uh, but who knows? Uh, but I I think, you know, 60,000

Uh, but I I think, you know, 60,000 roughly 60,000 is the number uh that a

roughly 60,000 is the number uh that a lots of people use on debt. So, of the

lots of people use on debt. So, of the remaining,

remaining, you know, probably less than two

you know, probably less than two million, but close to two million

million, but close to two million people, it's a lot of people. Where do

people, it's a lot of people. Where do they go?

they go? I mean, this is a great question.

I mean, this is a great question. Can there actually be in 2025 a transfer

Can there actually be in 2025 a transfer of

of people like that? I mean, the Second

people like that? I mean, the Second World War wasn't that long ago. Like,

World War wasn't that long ago. Like, people have memories or impressions of

people have memories or impressions of what it looks like to move that many

what it looks like to move that many people. Well, it's just not that's not

people. Well, it's just not that's not good.

good. Well, the news reports say that the

Well, the news reports say that the Israelis and the Americans are talking

Israelis and the Americans are talking to the Libyans

to the Libyans uh and the Ethiopians and the

uh and the Ethiopians and the Indonesians about ex accepting the

Indonesians about ex accepting the Palestinians or at least a substantial

Palestinians or at least a substantial portion of that, let's say 2 million

portion of that, let's say 2 million that are left. Uh, but if they actually

that are left. Uh, but if they actually tried that, um,

tried that, um, I mean that's so grotesque that you'd

I mean that's so grotesque that you'd think I mean, wouldn't the world just

think I mean, wouldn't the world just blow up if they tried to do that? Move

blow up if they tried to do that? Move hundreds of thousands of people against

hundreds of thousands of people against their will from one from their land,

their will from one from their land, which they've been on for thousands of

which they've been on for thousands of years into some foreign country and just

years into some foreign country and just like, "That's cool. We're doing this.

like, "That's cool. We're doing this. It's for their safety." Could you

It's for their safety." Could you actually do that?

actually do that? Well, I didn't actually think that the

Well, I didn't actually think that the Israelis could execute a genocide in

Israelis could execute a genocide in Gaza. I didn't think they'd be able to

Gaza. I didn't think they'd be able to do what they have done since October

do what they have done since October 7th.

7th. There are no rules. You just do what you

There are no rules. You just do what you can do. And

can do. And yeah, we're we're at a point where

yeah, we're we're at a point where you want to say that

you want to say that that is a possibility. I'm like you. I

that is a possibility. I'm like you. I find it hard to imagine. I'm sickened by

find it hard to imagine. I'm sickened by this the whole process of the whole

this the whole process of the whole thing. I just I

thing. I just I don't they all get on boats or something

don't they all get on boats or something and like people have iPhones they can I

and like people have iPhones they can I mean

mean well also I think there'll be resistance

well also I think there'll be resistance right I mean Hamas is still there the

right I mean Hamas is still there the Israelis have not defeated Hamas right?

Israelis have not defeated Hamas right? Yeah I mean

Yeah I mean so but your question is a great one. The

so but your question is a great one. The question is where do we end up here?

question is where do we end up here? What the hell? Where do we end up? You

What the hell? Where do we end up? You know, just to go back a bit, uh, when

know, just to go back a bit, uh, when the war starts on October 7th and then

the war starts on October 7th and then the fighting goes on into 2024, the

the fighting goes on into 2024, the Israeli military is asking Netanyahu to

Israeli military is asking Netanyahu to tell them what the uh final political

tell them what the uh final political plan is. In other words, once the war

plan is. In other words, once the war ends, what's the plan for dealing with

ends, what's the plan for dealing with the Palestinians?

the Palestinians? And Netanyahu refuses to give the

And Netanyahu refuses to give the military a plan. And the military says,

military a plan. And the military says, "We can't

"We can't his own military,

his own military, his own military, the IDF. He The

his own military, the IDF. He The military says that we can't wage the

military says that we can't wage the campaign without knowing what the

campaign without knowing what the endgame is, right?" Okay. But Netanyahu

endgame is, right?" Okay. But Netanyahu won't tell them what the endgame is

won't tell them what the endgame is because the end game is to drive all the

because the end game is to drive all the Palestinians out. The reason that

Palestinians out. The reason that Netanyahu has no plan, right, for

Netanyahu has no plan, right, for dealing with the Palestinians at the end

dealing with the Palestinians at the end of the fighting is because he expect

of the fighting is because he expect them to he expects them to all be gone.

them to he expects them to all be gone. Okay? Now, what we're saying here is

Okay? Now, what we're saying here is that hasn't happened. It's hard to

that hasn't happened. It's hard to imagine that happening, right? And

imagine that happening, right? And although the Israelis have been

although the Israelis have been murdering huge numbers of Palestinian,

murdering huge numbers of Palestinian, at some point a substantial number are

at some point a substantial number are going to be left. So, the question is,

going to be left. So, the question is, what does that look like? And they

what does that look like? And they probably won't be more moderate by that

probably won't be more moderate by that point.

point. No, but what they're going to end up in

No, but what they're going to end up in is a giant ghetto, right? Or

is a giant ghetto, right? Or concentration camp. That's what they're

concentration camp. That's what they're building now. And again, this gets back

building now. And again, this gets back to our earlier discussion of what this

to our earlier discussion of what this means for Israel's reputation in the

means for Israel's reputation in the United States and in the West more

United States and in the West more generally. You're going to build a

generally. You're going to build a ghetto. You're going to put, you know, 2

ghetto. You're going to put, you know, 2 million people in a ghetto and continue

million people in a ghetto and continue to starve them. Is this sustainable?

to starve them. Is this sustainable? uh what it does tend to affect your

uh what it does tend to affect your moral authority when you do that.

moral authority when you do that. I also think it has a terribly

I also think it has a terribly corrupting influence on your society at

corrupting influence on your society at large.

large. Yeah.

Yeah. I I think once this war comes to a

I I think once this war comes to a conclusion, hopefully that will be

conclusion, hopefully that will be sooner rather than later and the

sooner rather than later and the Israelis take stock of what they have

Israelis take stock of what they have done uh this is going to have a deeply

done uh this is going to have a deeply corrosive effect. Well, yeah, because I

corrosive effect. Well, yeah, because I mean I mean the things that are going on

mean I mean the things that are going on to Jewish Israelis at the hands of their

to Jewish Israelis at the hands of their own government right now are I'm not an

own government right now are I'm not an expert on Israel, but I've been uh

expert on Israel, but I've been uh multiple times and I've always really

multiple times and I've always really loved it. I mean, it's such a amazing

loved it. I mean, it's such a amazing place,

place, but it was liberal in a fundamental way.

but it was liberal in a fundamental way. That's why I always liked it. I mean,

That's why I always liked it. I mean, not liberal like Democratic Party

not liberal like Democratic Party liberal, but just like civil liberties

liberal, but just like civil liberties liberal. if you were Jewish.

liberal. if you were Jewish. Of course, that's a totally fair point

Of course, that's a totally fair point that kind of went over my head on my

that kind of went over my head on my trips there, but I You're absolutely

trips there, but I You're absolutely right.

right. And it was designed to go over your

And it was designed to go over your head.

head. Yeah. And it did. You're absolutely

Yeah. And it did. You're absolutely right. Um

right. Um but my point is the things that are

but my point is the things that are happening now to Israeli citizens are so

happening now to Israeli citizens are so shocking to me that total elimination of

shocking to me that total elimination of free speech. You say certain things, you

free speech. You say certain things, you go right to jail. Question like what the

go right to jail. Question like what the hell happened on October 7th, which is a

hell happened on October 7th, which is a completely fair question. any in any

completely fair question. any in any free society that should be allowed, not

free society that should be allowed, not allowed.

allowed. Banning people from leaving the country,

Banning people from leaving the country, your right to travel, especially to

your right to travel, especially to leave is a foundational right. They're

leave is a foundational right. They're telling Israeli citizens you're not

telling Israeli citizens you're not allowed to leave. I don't know why is

allowed to leave. I don't know why is that not a big story. I don't really get

that not a big story. I don't really get it. And then the treatment of

it. And then the treatment of Christians, which is is disgusting. Um

Christians, which is is disgusting. Um those are all signs that the society is

those are all signs that the society is becoming illiberal. Really is becoming

becoming illiberal. Really is becoming authoritarian. Very I mean that's

authoritarian. Very I mean that's authoritarian. you're not allowed to

authoritarian. you're not allowed to leave the country. You can't say what

leave the country. You can't say what you think. That's not a free country.

you think. That's not a free country. And those are all downstream of the

And those are all downstream of the military response post October 7th. So I

military response post October 7th. So I think it makes your point. This is

think it makes your point. This is corrupting to their society as the stuff

corrupting to their society as the stuff always is. 9/11 is totally corrupting to

always is. 9/11 is totally corrupting to our society.

our society. I agree. Just add a couple points to

I agree. Just add a couple points to that. The uh Israeli military has a huge

that. The uh Israeli military has a huge PTSD problem.

PTSD problem. Oh, I bet.

Oh, I bet. Uh and really Yeah. Yeah. And the

Uh and really Yeah. Yeah. And the Jerusalem Post had a piece, I think it

Jerusalem Post had a piece, I think it was the Jerusalem Post had a piece the

was the Jerusalem Post had a piece the other day, uh, that said there have been

other day, uh, that said there have been five suicides after the P during the

five suicides after the P during the past two weeks. Uh, so they're having a

past two weeks. Uh, so they're having a significant problem with suicide,

significant problem with suicide, significant problem with PTSD, and

significant problem with PTSD, and they're having huge problems uh, getting

they're having huge problems uh, getting reser to report for duty. I bet.

reser to report for duty. I bet. Uh because the Israeli military is

Uh because the Israeli military is heavily dependent on reservists and the

heavily dependent on reservists and the reserveists have basically had it.

reserveists have basically had it. Uh and uh so this war is having a

Uh and uh so this war is having a corrosive effect. And the thing you want

corrosive effect. And the thing you want to understand is there's no end in

to understand is there's no end in sight,

sight, right?

right? There really isn't.

There really isn't. Yeah. And now they're in southern

Yeah. And now they're in southern Lebanon. Now they're in southern Syria.

Lebanon. Now they're in southern Syria. Wouldn't the United States shut this

Wouldn't the United States shut this down tomorrow? Like not one more dollar

down tomorrow? Like not one more dollar for this stuff? You blew up a church?

for this stuff? You blew up a church? No more money for you. The fact that the

No more money for you. The fact that the Israelis are so dependent on us, as we

Israelis are so dependent on us, as we were talking about before, and we were

were talking about before, and we were just, you know, hitting on the tip of

just, you know, hitting on the tip of the iceberg, they are so dependent on us

the iceberg, they are so dependent on us means we have tremendous coercive

means we have tremendous coercive leverage over them.

leverage over them. This is why the this is why the lobby

This is why the this is why the lobby has to work so hard, right? We have

has to work so hard, right? We have tremendous coercive leverage on them.

tremendous coercive leverage on them. So, we could shut this down. We could

So, we could shut this down. We could fundamentally

fundamentally this afternoon.

this afternoon. I don't want to go that far, but we'd

I don't want to go that far, but we'd need a couple days, but yeah. No more

need a couple days, but yeah. No more money for you if you do one more.

money for you if you do one more. Well, we could also punish them in in

Well, we could also punish them in in significant ways. We could easily bring

significant ways. We could easily bring Israel to its knees. And by the way, I

Israel to its knees. And by the way, I have long argued that that would be in

have long argued that that would be in Israel's interest. It is not in Israel's

Israel's interest. It is not in Israel's interest. It is not interesting Jew in

interest. It is not interesting Jew in the interest of Jews around the world

the interest of Jews around the world for this craziness to continue. This

for this craziness to continue. This craziness should end right away for the

craziness should end right away for the good of Israel, for the good of Jews,

good of Israel, for the good of Jews, for the good of the United States. It

for the good of the United States. It makes no sense at all.

makes no sense at all. To what extent is this uh Netanyahu?

Like you often see him singled out as you know the guy who's pushing this

you know the guy who's pushing this whose vision this is. If Netanyahu

whose vision this is. If Netanyahu retired tomorrow, would this continue?

retired tomorrow, would this continue? Yes. The fact is that he is not

Yes. The fact is that he is not unrepresentative of the larger society.

unrepresentative of the larger society. There are surely people on let's use the

There are surely people on let's use the word left for lack of a better term.

word left for lack of a better term. There are certainly people on the left

There are certainly people on the left who oppose what he's doing and would be

who oppose what he's doing and would be more amunable to a political solution,

more amunable to a political solution, but their numbers are small and

but their numbers are small and dwindling. And I think the overwhelming

dwindling. And I think the overwhelming majority of uh Israelis support

majority of uh Israelis support Netanyahu. That's why he's still in

Netanyahu. That's why he's still in office despite the fact he was

office despite the fact he was responsible for what happened on October

responsible for what happened on October 7th. Of course, he was in charge. the

7th. Of course, he was in charge. the buck is supposed to stop at his desk,

buck is supposed to stop at his desk, but he's not been held accountable

but he's not been held accountable because the Israelis want him uh in

because the Israelis want him uh in charge. So, it's not like uh you know,

charge. So, it's not like uh you know, he's the odd man out here. Furthermore,

he's the odd man out here. Furthermore, if you look at the political spectrum in

if you look at the political spectrum in Israel, there are many people who are to

Israel, there are many people who are to the right of him. Yes.

the right of him. Yes. Who are growing in political importance.

Who are growing in political importance. when you and I were young, people like

when you and I were young, people like Smootrich, right, and Ben Gir, right,

Smootrich, right, and Ben Gir, right, who were far to the right of Netanyahu,

who were far to the right of Netanyahu, you know, well, there weren't that many

you know, well, there weren't that many of or at least that I was. I mean,

of or at least that I was. I mean, again, I'm not an expert. I don't speak

again, I'm not an expert. I don't speak Hebrew, but I mean, I, you know, been

Hebrew, but I mean, I, you know, been around it a lot and I felt like, again,

around it a lot and I felt like, again, it was a pretty liberal European type

it was a pretty liberal European type society. That was my impression of it.

society. That was my impression of it. Well, those days are gone.

Well, those days are gone. Yes. No, I know

Yes. No, I know those days are gone. And my point to you

those days are gone. And my point to you is it's only going to get worse. So the

is it's only going to get worse. So the argument that Netanyahu is the problem,

argument that Netanyahu is the problem, it's an argument that many liberal Jews

it's an argument that many liberal Jews here in the United States like to make

here in the United States like to make the web like to make. If we only we can

the web like to make. If we only we can get rid of Netanyahu, our troubles will

get rid of Netanyahu, our troubles will go away and we'll get some sort of

go away and we'll get some sort of moderate leadership and work out a motus

moderate leadership and work out a motus uh uh vendai with the United States. But

uh uh vendai with the United States. But uh I don't think that's going to happen.

uh I don't think that's going to happen. What happens on the Temple Mount, do you

What happens on the Temple Mount, do you think? So there's a um the second temple

think? So there's a um the second temple was obviously built in on the mountain

was obviously built in on the mountain in Jerusalem. It was knocked down by the

in Jerusalem. It was knocked down by the Romans in AD.70 and

Romans in AD.70 and a few hundred years later the Muslims

a few hundred years later the Muslims built the third holiest site in Islam,

built the third holiest site in Islam, the Alexa mosque there and beneath it is

the Alexa mosque there and beneath it is the foundation of the temple. That's the

the foundation of the temple. That's the western wall. So that's the geography.

western wall. So that's the geography. But there is this push to rebuild the

But there is this push to rebuild the third temple but there's a mosque on the

third temple but there's a mosque on the site. My sense is that's coming to a

site. My sense is that's coming to a head. Do you have any feeling about

head. Do you have any feeling about that?

that? I think you're right. I think the

I think you're right. I think the further right Israel moves or the more

further right Israel moves or the more hawkish it becomes

hawkish it becomes uh the more likely it is that will come

uh the more likely it is that will come to a head. There's no question that uh

to a head. There's no question that uh uh certainly the religious right in

uh certainly the religious right in Israel uh is deeply committed to

Israel uh is deeply committed to building a third temple. But you'd have

building a third temple. But you'd have to blow up the mosque to do it.

to blow up the mosque to do it. Yes. And what would happen if someone

Yes. And what would happen if someone blew up the third holiest site in Islam

blew up the third holiest site in Islam in the middle of Jerusalem? Well, the

in the middle of Jerusalem? Well, the Israelis

Israelis are very powerful visav

are very powerful visav uh the Palestinian population and they

uh the Palestinian population and they would I guess

would I guess uh go to great lengths to suppress any

uh go to great lengths to suppress any insurrection. Uh, and if they had to

insurrection. Uh, and if they had to kill lots of people, they'd kill lots of

kill lots of people, they'd kill lots of people. Look at what they're doing in

people. Look at what they're doing in Gaza.

Gaza. The Israelis are incredibly ruthless.

The Israelis are incredibly ruthless. There's just no question about that.

There's just no question about that. And, uh, they believe that Palestinians

And, uh, they believe that Palestinians are subhumans,

are subhumans, uh, two-legged animals, grasshoppers.

uh, two-legged animals, grasshoppers. They use those kind of words. And uh you

They use those kind of words. And uh you take what they've been doing in Gaza,

take what they've been doing in Gaza, it's easy to imagine them doing horrible

it's easy to imagine them doing horrible things to the Palestinians if they were

things to the Palestinians if they were to rise up over what's happening uh with

to rise up over what's happening uh with regard to the Temple Mount. And uh in

regard to the Temple Mount. And uh in terms of the Jordanians or the Egyptians

terms of the Jordanians or the Egyptians or the Saudis, are they going to do

or the Saudis, are they going to do anything? I doubt it. I mean, they'll

anything? I doubt it. I mean, they'll make a lot of noise verbally, but in

make a lot of noise verbally, but in terms of actually doing anything to

terms of actually doing anything to Israel, the Israelis basically calculate

Israel, the Israelis basically calculate in all these instances that what they

in all these instances that what they can do is horrible things and then with

can do is horrible things and then with the passage of time, people will forget

the passage of time, people will forget and not only will they forget, but we'll

and not only will they forget, but we'll go to great lengths to help them forget.

go to great lengths to help them forget. You know, we'll rewrite the history.

You know, we'll rewrite the history. That's the idea. Uh so, I think that uh

That's the idea. Uh so, I think that uh your assessment of what we should expect

your assessment of what we should expect with the Temple Mount is probably

with the Temple Mount is probably correct. feels like that's a I mean

correct. feels like that's a I mean that's a you know they're a billion

that's a you know they're a billion Muslims

Muslims so

so but they have a huge collective action

but they have a huge collective action problem

problem what are those billion Muslims going to

what are those billion Muslims going to do I mean they can't organize themselves

do I mean they can't organize themselves into armored divisions and strike into

into armored divisions and strike into Israel

Israel no but they could I mean I think we

no but they could I mean I think we learned from 911 a small group of

learned from 911 a small group of determined people can have a big effect

determined people can have a big effect on events

on events oh yeah well that's all coming too right

oh yeah well that's all coming too right I mean this is one of the problems s

I mean this is one of the problems s that uh many western Jews worry about

that uh many western Jews worry about that you know payback is going to come

that you know payback is going to come not in the form of attacks on Israel but

not in the form of attacks on Israel but on in the form of attacks on western

on in the form of attacks on western Jews in places like the United States or

Jews in places like the United States or Europe

Europe uh and uh I think that is a real

uh and uh I think that is a real possibility let's hope it doesn't happen

possibility let's hope it doesn't happen but

but uh the number of people who are in the

uh the number of people who are in the in in the Arab and Islamic world who are

in in the Arab and Islamic world who are absolutely enraged by what is going on

absolutely enraged by what is going on in Gaza is not to be underestimated

in Gaza is not to be underestimated and they have a second strike capability

and they have a second strike capability as you point out. You know, I was

as you point out. You know, I was talking about building armor divisions.

talking about building armor divisions. That's foolish. They're not going to

That's foolish. They're not going to build armor divisions. But there are

build armor divisions. But there are other ways to deal with this. Again, you

other ways to deal with this. Again, you want to go back to 911. This gets back

want to go back to 911. This gets back to the whole question whether Israel is

to the whole question whether Israel is a uh strategic liability or a strategic

a uh strategic liability or a strategic asset.

asset. uh Khaled Shik Muhammad who is the

uh Khaled Shik Muhammad who is the principal planner of 911 now in

principal planner of 911 now in Guantanamo and Osama bin Laden both

Guantanamo and Osama bin Laden both explicitly said that their principal

explicitly said that their principal reason for attacking the United States

reason for attacking the United States on 9/11 was the United States's support

on 9/11 was the United States's support of Israel's policies against the

of Israel's policies against the Palestinians. You just want to think

Palestinians. You just want to think about that. The conventional wisdom in

about that. The conventional wisdom in the United States is that Israel had

the United States is that Israel had nothing to do with 911 and these Muslims

nothing to do with 911 and these Muslims attacked us because they hate who we

attacked us because they hate who we are. Nothing could be further from the

are. Nothing could be further from the truth. Uh Obama Obama uh Osama bin Laden

truth. Uh Obama Obama uh Osama bin Laden and KSM again have both explicitly said

and KSM again have both explicitly said that it was US policy toward Israel that

that it was US policy toward Israel that caused 9/11. Why do you suppose that so

caused 9/11. Why do you suppose that so many 9/11 documents are still classified

many 9/11 documents are still classified almost 25 years after the fact?

almost 25 years after the fact? I don't know. I mean, why are so many

I don't know. I mean, why are so many Jeffrey Epstein documents uh effectively

Jeffrey Epstein documents uh effectively classified? Why are so many Kennedy

classified? Why are so many Kennedy assassination documents still not

assassination documents still not released?

released? Still not released. That's correct.

Still not released. That's correct. You know, you really do wonder. They

You know, you really do wonder. They obviously have something to hide. uh in

obviously have something to hide. uh in most cases it's very hard to define what

most cases it's very hard to define what it is that they're trying to hide and

it is that they're trying to hide and that's certainly true with regard to

that's certainly true with regard to 9/11

9/11 but uh but we just don't know. We don't

but uh but we just don't know. We don't know and it and it does make everybody

know and it and it does make everybody into a into a wacko thinking about it. I

into a into a wacko thinking about it. I mean if you want to end con so-called

mean if you want to end con so-called conspiracy theories tell the truth and

conspiracy theories tell the truth and then you know no one has to theorize

then you know no one has to theorize would be my view. Uh so you just you

would be my view. Uh so you just you have a piece out is my last question to

have a piece out is my last question to you. Thank you for spending all this

you. Thank you for spending all this time. Um, uh, you have a piece out that

time. Um, uh, you have a piece out that describes what you believe the world

describes what you believe the world will look like in 50 years. And I should

will look like in 50 years. And I should say, just to toot your horn since you're

say, just to toot your horn since you're not going to do it, that you've been

not going to do it, that you've been right on some of the big big big

right on some of the big big big questions and you've stood essentially

questions and you've stood essentially alone in your field um, in your

alone in your field um, in your predictions and have been vindicated on

predictions and have been vindicated on them, not just about the power of

them, not just about the power of foreign lobbies, but about China, about

foreign lobbies, but about China, about NATO, and um, so I do think your opinion

NATO, and um, so I do think your opinion on this matters. Can you just give us a

on this matters. Can you just give us a sense of like 10 years hence what's

sense of like 10 years hence what's America's place in the world?

America's place in the world? Well, I think if you look out 10 years,

Well, I think if you look out 10 years, even if you were to look out 20 or 30

even if you were to look out 20 or 30 years, I think in all likelihood the

years, I think in all likelihood the system, the international system will

system, the international system will continue to be dominated by three

continue to be dominated by three countries, the United States, China, and

countries, the United States, China, and Russia. And I think the United States

Russia. And I think the United States and China will remain the two most

and China will remain the two most powerful countries on the planet. and

powerful countries on the planet. and the US China competition over the next

the US China competition over the next 10 years and even beyond that will

10 years and even beyond that will influence international politics more

influence international politics more than any other relationship.

than any other relationship. Uh I think that once you begin to

Uh I think that once you begin to project out past 10 20 years uh the

project out past 10 20 years uh the United States's position visav China I

United States's position visav China I think will improve for demographic

think will improve for demographic reasons. uh I think the Chinese

reasons. uh I think the Chinese population is going to drop off at a

population is going to drop off at a much more rapid rate than the American

much more rapid rate than the American population.

population. Uh and moreover the Americans can rely

Uh and moreover the Americans can rely on immigration to rectify the problem.

on immigration to rectify the problem. Uh so if you look at population which is

Uh so if you look at population which is one of the two building blocks

one of the two building blocks population size one of the two building

population size one of the two building blocks of military power the other is

blocks of military power the other is wealth. uh the United States looking out

wealth. uh the United States looking out 20, 30, 40 years looks like it's in

20, 30, 40 years looks like it's in quite good shape right now. What's

quite good shape right now. What's happened since 2017

happened since 2017 and really even before that is that with

and really even before that is that with the rise of China,

the rise of China, the United States lost its position as

the United States lost its position as the unipole, as the clearly dominant

the unipole, as the clearly dominant power in the international system. and

power in the international system. and we now have a peer competitor. So when

we now have a peer competitor. So when people talk about American decline,

people talk about American decline, they're correct that we have had

they're correct that we have had decline, let's say since 2017 when China

decline, let's say since 2017 when China became a great power, although it

became a great power, although it started before that.

started before that. That's the second time you made

That's the second time you made reference to 2017 as the threshold for

reference to 2017 as the threshold for China. What is the definition?

China. What is the definition? How does a country go from being a big

How does a country go from being a big power to a great power? It develops

power to a great power? It develops enough military capability to put up a

enough military capability to put up a serious fight against the most powerful

serious fight against the most powerful state in the system.

state in the system. Thank you.

Thank you. Right. So, you want to remember the two

Right. So, you want to remember the two main building blocks of military power

main building blocks of military power are wealth and population size. You take

are wealth and population size. You take that wealth, you take that population

that wealth, you take that population size, and that's what allows you to

size, and that's what allows you to build a powerful military. That affects

build a powerful military. That affects your position in the balance of power.

your position in the balance of power. And remember when I talked about

And remember when I talked about engagement, we made China rich. We made

engagement, we made China rich. We made China wealthy. So, China always had that

China wealthy. So, China always had that huge population and as a result of

huge population and as a result of engagement during the unipolar moment

engagement during the unipolar moment from roughly let's say 1992

from roughly let's say 1992 to 2017 we helped China get rich and

to 2017 we helped China get rich and that rich that wealth coupled with that

that rich that wealth coupled with that population side China becomes a great

population side China becomes a great power okay so we are losing relative

power okay so we are losing relative power over that entire time period and

power over that entire time period and that's when China then becomes a power

that's when China then becomes a power and we now have a competition where the

and we now have a competition where the United States is still more powerful

United States is still more powerful than China overall, but the Chinese are

than China overall, but the Chinese are closing the gap. So, we're still losing

closing the gap. So, we're still losing relative power to the Chinese. And I

relative power to the Chinese. And I would bet over the next 10 years, we

would bet over the next 10 years, we will lose relative power. Not a

will lose relative power. Not a substantial amount, but some. But still,

substantial amount, but some. But still, the United States will probably remain

the United States will probably remain 10 years from now the most powerful

10 years from now the most powerful state in the system. and the Chinese

state in the system. and the Chinese will be right behind us. The Russians

will be right behind us. The Russians will remain the weakest of those three

will remain the weakest of those three great powers. But if you project out,

great powers. But if you project out, you know, 30, 40 years, that's when I

you know, 30, 40 years, that's when I think the United States will widen the

think the United States will widen the gap with China because populationwise,

gap with China because populationwise, the Chinese population as a result of

the Chinese population as a result of the one child policy will decline

the one child policy will decline significantly. And our population size

significantly. And our population size without immigration will not decline as

without immigration will not decline as significantly as the Chinese population

significantly as the Chinese population will. But we also have immigration as

will. But we also have immigration as our ace in the hole. So we can bring in

our ace in the hole. So we can bring in immigrants as we have done in the past

immigrants as we have done in the past and we will remain in quite good shape.

and we will remain in quite good shape. So I think the long-term future for the

So I think the long-term future for the United States in terms of raw power

United States in terms of raw power looks quite good. That's not to say our

looks quite good. That's not to say our policies will be wise because as you and

policies will be wise because as you and I know the United States has used that

I know the United States has used that massive power that it's had in the past

massive power that it's had in the past in oftentimes foolish ways.

in oftentimes foolish ways. Yeah. And is is that power worth having?

Yeah. And is is that power worth having? I mean I don't know. Oh, it's more

I mean I don't know. Oh, it's more complicated than it sounds. I mean, do

complicated than it sounds. I mean, do people's lives improve? Which seems like

people's lives improve? Which seems like an important measure. Not the only

an important measure. Not the only measure, but certainly one.

measure, but certainly one. Well, this is the realist in me, Tucker.

Well, this is the realist in me, Tucker. In the international system, in

In the international system, in international politics, because there's

international politics, because there's no higher authority that can protect you

no higher authority that can protect you if you get into trouble. It's very

if you get into trouble. It's very important to be powerful, right? You

important to be powerful, right? You can't dial 911 in the international

can't dial 911 in the international system and have someone come and rescue

system and have someone come and rescue you. And in a world where another state

you. And in a world where another state might be powerful and might attack you,

might be powerful and might attack you, it's very important to be the most

it's very important to be the most powerful state in the system. And the

powerful state in the system. And the last thing you want to do is be weak.

last thing you want to do is be weak. But remember, the Chinese refer to the

But remember, the Chinese refer to the period from the late 1840s to the late

period from the late 1840s to the late 1940s as the century of national

1940s as the century of national humiliation.

humiliation. Yes, it was too.

Yes, it was too. Yes. And why did they suffer a century

Yes. And why did they suffer a century of national humiliation? Because they

of national humiliation? Because they were weak.

were weak. Because they were divided.

Because they were divided. Right? And remember, we talked earlier

Right? And remember, we talked earlier in the show about NATO expansion. We

in the show about NATO expansion. We talked about why we continued to push

talked about why we continued to push and push and push even though the

and push and push even though the Russians said it was unacceptable. And I

Russians said it was unacceptable. And I said to you, we were going to shove it

said to you, we were going to shove it down their throat. And why we were going

down their throat. And why we were going to shove it down their throat? Because

to shove it down their throat? Because we thought they were weak. You'd never

we thought they were weak. You'd never want to be weak. You want to be

want to be weak. You want to be powerful. The problem with making that

powerful. The problem with making that argument today, for me to make that

argument today, for me to make that argument to you and to many people I

argument to you and to many people I know is that we all understand that the

know is that we all understand that the United States has been incredibly

United States has been incredibly powerful and it's used that power in

powerful and it's used that power in foolish ways in ways that don't make us

foolish ways in ways that don't make us happy. And therefore, the idea of having

happy. And therefore, the idea of having all this power leads us to think or

all this power leads us to think or leads many people to think that we'll

leads many people to think that we'll use that power foolishly. And I fully

use that power foolishly. And I fully understand that. But my argument is you

understand that. But my argument is you still want to be powerful just because

still want to be powerful just because it's the best way to survive in the

it's the best way to survive in the international system. It's the way to

international system. It's the way to maximize your security. But hopefully

maximize your security. But hopefully you'll use that power smartly. Although

you'll use that power smartly. Although given America's performance in recent

given America's performance in recent decades, there's not a lot of cause for

decades, there's not a lot of cause for hope.

hope. Do we wind up in a war with China over

Do we wind up in a war with China over Taiwan?

Taiwan? Uh I think it's possible. Uh I don't

Uh I think it's possible. Uh I don't think it's likely in the foreseeable

think it's likely in the foreseeable future. Uh the problem is it's an

future. Uh the problem is it's an incredibly difficult military operation

incredibly difficult military operation for the Chinese because it involves an

for the Chinese because it involves an amphibious assault. They have to go

amphibious assault. They have to go across the Taiwan straight which is a

across the Taiwan straight which is a large body of water and amphibious

large body of water and amphibious assaults are very difficult and in all

assaults are very difficult and in all likelihood the Americans will come to

likelihood the Americans will come to the aid of the Taiwanese.

the aid of the Taiwanese. Uh the other thing is the Taiwan I mean

Uh the other thing is the Taiwan I mean the Chinese unlike the Americans don't

the Chinese unlike the Americans don't fight wars all the time. The last time

fight wars all the time. The last time China fought a war was in 1979. Just

China fought a war was in 1979. Just think about that. 1979 in Vietnam. Yeah.

think about that. 1979 in Vietnam. Yeah. Where they they were foolish enough to

Where they they were foolish enough to follow in our footsteps. Y and we were

follow in our footsteps. Y and we were foolish enough to follow in the French

foolish enough to follow in the French footsteps and go in there. So they went

footsteps and go in there. So they went in in 79 and got whacked. But they've

in in 79 and got whacked. But they've not fought a war since then. So, they

not fought a war since then. So, they don't have a highly trained

don't have a highly trained uh military that has lots of combat

uh military that has lots of combat experience that would be capable of

experience that would be capable of launching one of the most difficult

launching one of the most difficult military operations imaginable, which is

military operations imaginable, which is an amphibious assault across the Taiwan

an amphibious assault across the Taiwan Strait into the face of resistance from

Strait into the face of resistance from not only the Taiwanese but the

not only the Taiwanese but the Americans. So, I think that uh will keep

Americans. So, I think that uh will keep a lid on things for the foreseeable

a lid on things for the foreseeable future. I don't think the Chinese uh

future. I don't think the Chinese uh will attack. I think uh that what

will attack. I think uh that what they'll wait for is uh the right moment.

they'll wait for is uh the right moment. Uh hope that the world changes in ways

Uh hope that the world changes in ways that makes it feasible for them to do

that makes it feasible for them to do it. They're good at waiting. They're

it. They're good at waiting. They're good at waiting. That is I I think

good at waiting. That is I I think that's true. So I I don't think and I

that's true. So I I don't think and I want to underline I'm using the word

want to underline I'm using the word think. Uh the other point just very

think. Uh the other point just very quickly, we do live in a nuclear world

quickly, we do live in a nuclear world and we have nuclear weapons and they

and we have nuclear weapons and they have nuclear weapons and the incentive

have nuclear weapons and the incentive for them to avoid a war with the United

for them to avoid a war with the United States and for us to avoid a war with

States and for us to avoid a war with them because of nuclear weapons is very

them because of nuclear weapons is very great. So that may really put a damper

great. So that may really put a damper on things if we ever get into a serious

on things if we ever get into a serious crisis.

crisis. Professor, thank you for spending all

Professor, thank you for spending all this time. That was wonderful.

this time. That was wonderful. It's my pleasure, Tucker. Thanks very

It's my pleasure, Tucker. Thanks very much for having me on the show.

much for having me on the show. Thank you uh for doing this and

Thank you uh for doing this and congratulations on

congratulations on being vindicated after all these years.

being vindicated after all these years. That must be nice. Whether you admit it

That must be nice. Whether you admit it or not, you have been. So, thank you.

or not, you have been. So, thank you. I'm going to plead the fifth amendment.

I'm going to plead the fifth amendment. Thank you again.

Thank you again. [Music]

[Music] So, it turns out that YouTube is

So, it turns out that YouTube is suppressing this show. On one level,

suppressing this show. On one level, that's not surprising. That's what they

that's not surprising. That's what they do. But on another level, it's shocking.

do. But on another level, it's shocking. With everything that's going on in the

With everything that's going on in the world right now, all the change taking

world right now, all the change taking place in our economy and our politics,

place in our economy and our politics, with the wars we're on the cusp of

with the wars we're on the cusp of fighting right now, Google has decided

fighting right now, Google has decided you should have less information rather

you should have less information rather than more. And that is totally wrong.

than more. And that is totally wrong. It's immoral. What can you do about it?

It's immoral. What can you do about it? Well, we could whine about it. That's a

Well, we could whine about it. That's a waste of time. We're not in charge of

waste of time. We're not in charge of Google. Or we could find a way around

Google. Or we could find a way around it. A way that you could actually get

it. A way that you could actually get information that is true, not

information that is true, not intentionally deceptive. The way to do

intentionally deceptive. The way to do that on YouTube, we think, is to

that on YouTube, we think, is to subscribe to our channel. Subscribe, hit

subscribe to our channel. Subscribe, hit the little bell icon to be notified when

the little bell icon to be notified when we upload and share this video. That

we upload and share this video. That way, you'll have a much higher chance of

way, you'll have a much higher chance of hearing actual news and information. So,

hearing actual news and information. So, we hope that you'll do

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube Transcript:John Mearsheimer: The Palestinian Genocide and How the West Has Been Deceived Into Supporting It

Video Transcript

Paste YouTube URL

Transcript Extraction Form

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:
John Mearsheimer: The Palestinian Genocide and How the West Has Been Deceived Into Supporting It