42:36 exactly, and here Israel is the one to blame because it has been in violation of humanitarian law and human rights for decades. That’s why, it’s not because the world doesn’t know the realism of war, it’s because Israel is the one to blame for this conflict.
John Mearsheimer - The three reports from Amnesty, HRW and b’tselem highlight in extensive detail that Israel is an apartheid state. These reports are written by some of the worlds foremost experts on the topic and make an extremely compelling case. Bret Stephens - Israel is not an apartheid state because to label Israel as so is Anti-Semitic. You really won me over there Bret!
So 2 million Muslim Arabs live in Israel with full rights, and the entire Arabian peninsula is jundenrein (free of Jews), and Israel is an apartheid state. There are even Muslim high court justices in Israel. You are a moron beyond words.
Bret essentially wasted his opportunity to try to push back on John Mearsheimer's compelling theory of the case, in summary: _Israel attempting to ethnically cleanse Gaza to head-off their apartheid problem (and growing awareness); which has culminated in genocide, and future problems from now until as far as the eye can see_ After attending the earlier Mearsheimer talk I was curious to hear how Bret Stephens might respond.. and I think I was disappointed more than anything (though it's hard to imagine how anyone could tackle John's argument) - he basically tried to say Hamas is fighting a holy war against Israel (and by extension 'the Jews'- †because we have to remember for Bret there is apparently *no* distinction between Zionism and Jews)🤦♂ Bret's central thesis revolves around this idea that Palestinians are fighting a religiously motivated war against Jews.. and that anyone criticizing Israel or protesting in the streets is doing so because they are antisemitic (whether or not they realize that in themselves, according to Bret).. his thesis effectively attempts to dismiss any and all grievances with the Israeli state, and occupation - he goes on to try and argue that Anti-zionism = anti-semitism in a pretty unconvincing and clumsy way, but this is an easy argument to dismantle which has been done a thousand times; Zionism is a political ideology (anyone can be a zionist, most zionists are in fact not jews but actually Christians, not all jews are zionists, and jews had to be persuaded by other zionists in the past to adopt Zionist ideology) - 📍At one point Bret tries to cite the current Sudanese genocide to make an argument that because no one in the room appeared to know about a specific Sudanese ethnic group that serves as some kind of evidence that we're all suspiciously over critical of Israel _(with the implication being because the world is antisemitic and wants to see Israel suffer)_, this is not a serious argument and that moment really encapsulates what Bret's whole argument boils down to: paper thin arguments that the world is just out to get Israel (starting with Hamas terrorists), all the way out to college kids on University campuses, to your average punter who thinks Israel maybe went a bit too far with the murder and mayhem (†let's be clear here, Bret's argument this whole time has actually been that the IDF needs to go *harder* against Gaza, in order to 'defeat Hamas'; an objective that now even IDF spox Admiral Hagari says is a complete fantasy, which he insists anyone saying otherwise is deceiving you). The fact that Bret really could not counter any of what John Mearsheimer put forward probably says it all about how screwed Israel and the Zionist mission is now going forward- Bret is one of their best guys and he had nothing to counter with except a waffling sob story about Jews getting picked on, this is not credible, and I think Israeli historian and activist Ilan Pappe has this figured out, like John describes this situation is going to resolve itself in the public imagination as an apartheid (sooner or later, this is an inescapable conclusion), and from there Israel faces the next probably few decades as a growing pariah state (all of this is going to be ugly in our domestic politics because the Zionist jews in the diaspora cannot see this for what it is), and eventually it will end up back as one unified state, the more we enable Israel and fight this process the uglier and more painful it's going to be for everyone
Actually, he didn't waste his opportunity at all. Stephens easily debunks this, saying (and there is nothing you or Mearsheimer can say to contradict this) that if Hamas surrenders, the conflict in Gaza (or the so called "ethnic cleansing") will end. Meaning, if the worry about ethnic cleansing was actually genuine, everyone would have pressured Hamas to surrender immediately to end the war. Since it doesn't happen, we can safely say no one truly believes there is a genocide in Gaza, least of all the Palestinians themselves.
@@RagingShrimp67 so you're saying the ethnic cleansing and genocide will continue if 'Hamas' (whoever they are exactly) *doesn't* surrender (which they won't and nor should they)... And the more genocide Israel carries out here the more they crater their intl support (both now and over the long-term) ultimately accelerating the apartheid awareness and spiral into pariah status.. and yet we are very serious, trying to pressure Israel to cease and desist with their genocide, and they've been hauled in front of the ICJ over this, AND now the ICC has sought war crimes warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant - you must have a very high IQ because I can't comprehend your genius logic (it just looks like retardation to me)
@@RagingShrimp67 so (according to you and Bret) the ethnic cleansing and genocide will continue so long as 'Hamas' (whoever they are exactly) refuses to surrender.. (which they won't and nor should they), and this is apparently Hamas' fault even though the ones perpetrating the mass murder and laying waste to Gaza, here is Israel, all the while they keep annexing more tracts of land in the West Bank too [incredible!]... and we in the Intl community apparently have to put the pressure on Hamas so that Israel stops this genocide.. because why exactly? because Israel are so apparently deranged and genocidal that they can't be stopped or held responsible for their own actions?? _absurd_ - and the more Israel persists with this campaign of mayhem and genocide the more they tank their intl reputation and accelerate towards greater apartheid awareness and inevitable pariah status... and yet we are very serious about this and Israel have been hauled before the ICJ over this on the charge of genocide, and now the ICC has sought warrants for war crimes against Netanyahu, Gallant, and 3 Hamas leaders (unprecedented stuff!), so I don't know where you get off here thinking people including the Palestinians don't believe what's going on here
@@RagingShrimp67 so (according to you and Bret) the ethnic cleansing and genocide will continue so long as 'Hamas' (whoever they are exactly) refuses to surrender.. (which they won't and nor should they), and this is apparently Hamas' fault even though the ones perpetrating the mass murder and laying waste to Gaza, here is Israel, all the while they keep annexing more tracts of land in the West Bank too [incredible!]... and we in the Intl community apparently have to put the pressure on Hamas so that Israel stops this genocide.. because why exactly? because Israel are so apparently deranged and genocidal that they can't be stopped or held responsible for their own actions?? absurd - and the more Israel persists with this campaign of mayhem and genocide the more they tank their intl reputation and accelerate towards greater apartheid awareness and inevitable pariah status... and yet we are very serious about this and Israel have been hauled before the ICJ over this on the charge of genocide, and now the ICC has sought warrants for war crimes against Netanyahu, Gallant, and 3 Hamas leaders (unprecedented stuff!), so I don't know where you get off here thinking people including the Palestinians don't believe what's going on here
Worthless Khazaria Ashkenazi Europeans have nothing to do with middle east. They're descendants of khazaria kingdom who's king ordered them to adapt jewish religion.
This guy is a lightweight journo hack--it's shocking to see him compared to Mearsheimer who, few would disagree, is the top man alive today in the discipline of International Relations.
Actually in terms of content and knowledge, this talk was way more enriching than that of Mearsheimer's, and in terms of position, they were mostly in agreement. The only thing they are divided on is whether or not Israel is an apartheid state, which it is not, as Mearsheimer and his sources refer to what he calls "greater Israel" as "Israel", which is no one other than fringe groups actually does, and no one called him out on that obvious bullshit. The second point they disagree on, is that he seems to think Israel is hell bent on ethnic cleansing. Stephens easily debunks this, saying (and there is nothing you or Mearsheimer can say to contradict this) that if Hamas surrenders, the conflict in Gaza will end. Meaning, if the worry about ethnic cleansing was actually genuine, everyone would have pressured Hamas to surrender immediately to end the war. Since it doesn't happen, we can safely say no one truly believes there is a genocide in Gaza, least of all the Palestinians themselves.
@@RagingShrimp67 you're confusing the Biblical 'Greater Israel' of messianic Zionists with the practical definition John Mearsheimer described (which refers to just Green line Israel, West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights)- Israel literally controls ALL those territories and that's not in dispute, Mearsheimer is correct and you either didn't pay attention or are deliberately trying to confuse people
@@Christmas12 I did not confuse anything. Nobody, in Israel, or outside Israel, treats the West Bank or Gaza as part of the Israeli state, and doing so exposes a laughable ignorance. There are literal checkpoints between Israel and those territories where Israeli citizens are literally forbidden to cross. If you, or Mearsheimer were actually knowledgeable and had actually visited Israel and the west bank, you would have easily known that, but if you want an even easier way to disprove it, it's enough to look at the Oslo Accords. The Palestinian Authority runs territories A and B. So the only one lying here is you.
@@RagingShrimp67 I literally crossed from Jordan into Israel via the Allenby border crossing which is in the occupied west bank, which as I recall was swarming with IDF and Israeli officials (it was very obviously not run by the PA) - the fact of the matter here is that Israel controls all of the West Bank (and Greater Israel), and so called Areas A and B are Palestinian 'Bantustans' administered by the PA which is effectively a toothless puppet regime for the Israeli authorities to put some distance between Israel and the Palestinians on paper and in the imagination
Comparing him to John Mearsheimer is like comparing a toddlers finger paintings to Rembrandt. This guy is just yet another neo liberal hack passing off his weak assumptions as facts
"Israel has shown a consistent willingness from territory". Oh really? Then please explain the illegal settlements in the West Bank and the continued land grab which has escalated since October 7th.
@RagingShrimp67 I'm at the 1:00:25 mark and he's barely mentioned the West Bank at all, let alone talked about the illegal settlements still there. He sure did talk about them pulling out of Gaza, though.
@@Jianju69 Bro they are intentionally killing civilians and lying about it, poorly. Are you aware of how Israel initially acquired its formerly Palestinian territory? It wasn't with consent of the people living there. Israel isn't the homeland of the people living there now. Israel is an invasion.
@@Jianju69 ANY of the following with INTENT towards a national/ethnical/racial/religious group. Killing, causing serious harm, infliction of conditions for physical destruction or prevention of births, forcible transfer of children to another group. Genocide does not necessitate the eradication or extermination of a people for it to be classified as such. Intended as a response to the WWII atrocities including the Holocaust, the Paris 1948 'Genocide Convention' defined the term. The UN General Assembly ratified this description in 1951 with Resolution 260A. 152 countries have now consented to be bound by this treaty with the responsibility to “undertake to prevent and to punish” this crime. Israel too ratified this on 9 March 1950.
I am a proud member of CIS and flew to Sydney to attended John Mearsheimer's talk on Israel. Mearsheimer is a world renowned political scientist and his communication skills, intellect and compelling analysis were highly persuasive. A month later I attended Bret Stephens talk in Melbourne to hear the other side. Stephens is a journalist and his rambling address was shallow and underwhelming. Interestingly both Mearsheimer and Stephens agree on one thing......a two state solution is the only way out of this mess! Thank you CIS for providing me with this valued opportunity!
This is man is not idiot, not uneducated nor blind to the truth. This man is a crusader in 21th century. If he were to be born in 1910's Germany, he would be the right hand of Go-bbels. So in this perspective, the arguments making sense.
9:03 8000 cases, who judges them? I am called antisemitic because I oppose the barbaric war crimes Israel is committing, who is judging? The ADL? I follow their work, it’s completely biased.
ADL are now branded as an unreliable source by Wikipedia, and that must've taken some doing because Israeli counter intelligence is all over Wiki rewriting history.
Bc you are repeating lies from miles away and pretending you care or know even the most basic facts that exist in this region. Why people feel so sure comfortable repeating these insane lies and propaganda against Israel
I was born and raised in Japan, so I do not have any particular affinity with either side. However, there are too many blind spots in Stephens' arguments for them to be compelling. He portrays Palestinians and Muslims as aggressors, and I see his point, but he somehow fails to recognize Israel as an aggressor as well. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black, which is part of the reason this conflict continues indefinitely. The reason Israel can deny its aggression is that it prefers covert methods, whereas Hamas favors overt aggression. Either way, both sides are aggressors. Another way to describe Israel's approach is passive-aggressive; it prefers to slowly expand its territory using the superior knowledge and organizational skills it acquired from Europe. It's no coincidence that Israel's ruling class has primarily been made up of Ashkenazi Jews from Europe, particularly in the early days. This is much like the difference between white-collar crime and street crime. The latter is viewed as more aggressive, violent, and barbaric, even though the negative impact of the former on society is often much greater. If a criminal has the choice between committing white-collar crime or street crime, he would naturally choose the former, but this does not make him any less of a criminal. Having that choice, in a way, is a luxury. Thus, both Palestinians and Israelis are aggressors. I wouldn't blame one side for being more violent or aggressive than the other. There's also another reason Israel leans toward passive aggression. Putin chose overt aggression in Ukraine because he not only wants the land but also the people. Typically, invasion or colonization involves controlling both the territory and its people. Israelis, however, face a conundrum; they want the land but not the people, because their ideology is to maintain the purity of their ethnicity. The last thing they want is a true democracy in which Palestinians become part of Israel and are given voting rights. Therefore, it is disingenuous to claim that Israel has no territorial ambitions or that they are highly amenable to relinquishing territory. Their territorial ambitions come with a self-imposed condition: the land must not come with non-Jews. Otherwise, they would rather not have the land, as their ethnic ideology takes precedence. Regarding Stephens' antisemitism argument, we could also ask whether the ongoing conflict fuels anti-Muslim sentiment, or whether anti-Muslim sentiment fuels the conflict. Just as Stephens describes video recordings of Hamas, there are numerous videos showing Israelis expressing overt anti-Muslim sentiment. The line between anti-Muslim and anti-Hamas is as blurry as the line between antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment. In other words, even if Stephens' arguments hold, Israelis are guilty of the same bigotry and prejudice. Stephens conveniently lumps all criticisms of Israel or Jewish influence in the U.S. as conspiracy theories, but much of it is not even covert. Israeli lobbying in the U.S. is no secret. It's not a conspiracy theory. When anti-Israel protests spread on college campuses, we saw Jewish donors threatening to withdraw their financial support. We did not see Palestinian or Arab donors doing the same. Clearly, wealthy Jewish donors have much greater influence over American universities. This is not a conspiracy theory. Stephens' worldview is distorted by his outgroup homogeneity bias, where he treats his opponents (the outgroup) as all the same while expecting others to recognize the nuances between different subgroups of Israelis. For example, he expects everyone to understand that he does not support the current Israeli government and uses it as an excuse, yet he does not recognize the distinction between Palestinians and Hamas, which is evident in his rationalization of civilian casualties in this war. He draws a moral equivalence between these civilian casualties and those of D-Day. It's true that civilian casualties are inevitable in war. In the U.S. war against Japan, countless Japanese civilians died, which is understandable if it prevented greater loss of life, as Stephens argued. But there is little resemblance to the current situation between Israel and Hamas. Hamas is not a nation; it is a terrorist group. If a Canadian terrorist group bombed New York City, bombing and killing thousands of Canadian citizens would not be morally justifiable. Hamas and the Palestinian people are not one and the same. On D-Day, the U.S. had the consent of the French government. Israel does not have the consent of the Palestinian people. There is no moral equivalence here. Additionally, when an audience member raised the issue of colonialism, Stephens dismissed it by citing Australia’s hypocrisy. Civilized Western societies have learned from their mistakes and moved on from colonialism, which is precisely why the question is even more relevant: to avoid repeating those errors. It is uncivilized and barbaric to claim that nations today can commit the same crimes simply because other nations did so in the past. By that moral standard, everything Hamas does could also be justified. Just as Iran pretends to be a democracy while actually being a theocracy, Israel too presents itself as a democracy while, in fact, it is an ethnocracy. While many of Stephens' criticisms are valid, they equally apply to Israel itself. He rejects Gandhi's advice for passive resistance, believing that "an eye for an eye" is more effective. Turning the other cheek is not his inclination. Perhaps he is right, and Gandhi is wrong. There is no way to resolve that argument, as it's highly subjective. However, he needs to see that from this perspective, Israel's hostile posture is much closer to that of the Palestinians than to the civilized, post-colonial Western nations.
I disagree. 1# it is obviously morally justifiable to kill civilians, if their deaths are either unintentional (they were nearby) or the target was significant enough (higher enemy to civilian ratio) to justify the attack then it is logical and understandable for them to commit that attack in the first place, it is not wrong to win. The issue is if the attacks are arbitrary/indiscriminate or actively targeting civilians. 2. As a terrorist organisation, Hamas is a illegitimate force and thus can be treated harshly without need to offer surender (the moment they became terrorists their life is forfit). As the active ruler of gaza, Hamas does count as a government making this a war. Anything other than this thought is cope. 3. You are constantly trying to put Israel and Hamas as equal participants, they are not. Stop the moral relativism, Israel has done nothing in comparison to Hamas to warrant comparison, bringing up expansions in borders in absurd to compare to mass rapes, burning children alive in cold blood and hostage taking. I find all you're arguments unconvincing
@@-tom-8720 I think you are the one trying to cope. Your an apologist for the slaughter of 20,000 kids. Would you have done the same when the nazis were liquidating the Warsaw ghetto?
@@-tom-8720 I agree that Hama is an illegitimate organization, which is exactly why it cannot be treated as a "government." You cannot have cake and eat it too. It is either legitimate or illegitimate. Since we both agree that Hamas is illegitimate, we cannot wage a legitimate war against it, like the war between Japan and the US during WWII. The civilians Israel is killing, intentionally or not, did not agree to the war. So, you cannot draw moral equivalence to civilian casualties of conventional war. It's like the US bombing Mexican drug cartels without the consent of the Mexican government and killing thousands of innocent Mexicans in the process just because the US is technologically superior. It is true that Palestine as a nation didn't exist when Zionists moved into the region. However, this is an irrelevant argument in terms of the current apartheid state. Because Israel has an explicit policy and ideology as an ethnic state, it must exclude those who do not meet the ethnic criteria. As Israel slowly expands, it must block unqualified people from its territories. The land the Palestinians were able to freely travel through is now off-limits to them. It's not like anyone is free to join Israel. This passive-aggressive expansion of Israel has had devasting effects on Palestinians, which is why I use the analogy of white-collar crimes versus street crimes. When we see people like Sam Bankman-Fried convicted, we do not have strong emotional reactions because their crimes do not involve blood or physical pain. The gravity of the crime is diffused. So, white-collar crimes feel less serious, but this is a form of prejudice that makes black people appear more criminal than white people. But in reality, white people have committed much greater crimes against humanity. What is happening between Israel and Palestine is the same. So, overall, I find your counter arguments unconvincing.
There is a right way to defend oneself and a wrong way. When you fight a monster by becoming a monster you have lost your humanity and any claim of being civilized.
We look forward to hearing your detailed plan....what should Israel do? Jews were exiled from their land over 2000 years ago. Over 100,000 Jews were slaughtered in the Russian progroms. 6 000 000 were slaughtered in the Holocaust. What exactly would you have them do?
By killing less civilians than in any other war in modern history. Why don’t you come to the region or get your facts right before spreading lies based entirely on the words of jihadist terrorists
35:44. "Hamas is not committed to a two state solution". There are many problematic aspects to Mr. Stephens' arguments, but even the moderator seems intent on perpetuating falsities. Read the current (2017) Hamas charter, it supports a Palestinian state per 1967 UN borders. (Paragraph 20) “Establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.”
Yes and while the modern Hamas charter still doesn't recognize the State of Israel per se it obviously does recognize that there is something on the other side of the 1967 'green line' - the reality is that Hamas is not the Muslim Brotherhood, or Al Qaeda, and definitely not Salafist (e.g. Daesh), Hamas IS Islamist (which is not ideal), it's not the sort of entity it is often maligned to be - *However* there still remains real practical problems with a theoretical two-state solution which ultimately make all this kind of a moot point; the political landscape inside Israel simply won't allow it at all (and to some extent the diaspora will get behind whatever Israel tells them so you can't really count on them to put pressure on either anytime soon). A real state ought to mean 'Full' Freedom for Palestinian self-determination but that theoretically does mean they should be able to have a full military if they so choose and Israel is unlikely to go for that either, so what exactly are we talking about.. some kind of rump-state Palestine with a coastal Gaza exclave and difficulties coordinating movement across the two territories, plus no right of return either.. and then we haven't dealt with the elephant in the room, the Zionists next door whose ideology (Zionism) continues unresolved to evolve in twisted and demented ways constantly ogling Palestinian lands which they increasingly feel entitled to on messianic grounds.. There is definitely a warped ideology in the Holy land and it's not islamism it's Zionism which is the root cause of the suffering; Islamism is a symptom of distress in muslim populations which you can observe all over the middle east in places and populations which used to be a lot more moderate in the 1950s
You might want to read that charter more carefully. The charter accepts a Palestinian state within the borders that existed before 1967, while maintaining Hamas’s refusal to recognize the State of Israel, which it terms the “Zionist entity”. You are simply wrong about this. What exactly do you think they mean by "transitional state"? Not hard to guess what "transition" they are referring to.
@@Christmas12 I agree with the vast majority of what you have said. I feel it is advantageous for a moderator not to perpetuate something which is not true, thus my comment. Real practical problems, yes, you're right. I find the term Islamist, or the concept and it's vilification somewhat problematic. When you have a population which has been on the receiving end of 'mowing the grass' (periodic murder sprees by Israel) for decades; a population which itself is the offspring of refugees from the 1948 forced resettlement. They have no recourse whatsoever. Relocation to Egypt? Annihilation compete of their culture and roots? Who are we in the west to say that their religion can not be central to their identity. The Gaza population has no hope or prospects pre or post October 7. Norman Finkelstein has drawn some illuminating parallels between the Gaza population and US Slave Revolts from the pre 1865 era. I think that there is much validity to be understood in such analogies. The US has had it's hands in 70 or so successful or not Coup d'état over the last century. The one in Iran in 53 is still strong in the regions memory. Yet so much of the west's memory is highly selective. I see this entire affair as amounting to the West bullying and then expecting the bullied to comply. If they don't they are vilified as terrorists via a highly effective system of indoctrination (AIPAC is just the tip of the iceberg) and that's that. As I said, I agree with the vast majority of your analysis. Our difference lies in our understanding of resistance movements.
A two-state solution would guarantee future generations raised in cultures of prejudice, grievance, and resentment. It would codify political polarization and intransigence. It would perpetuate the legacy of hatred. The solution is one state with equal protections under the law for all, and it is only impossible if people assume it to be.
@@danpatterson8009 I think a one state solution is closer to a two state solution. Israeli society will need to go through quite a reckoning to achieve either. I don't however agree that a two-state solution necessarily would guarantee prejudice, grievance, and resentment. It would certainly be difficult to counter such feelings. Certainly a two-state solution has the 3/4 million Jewish Settlers standing in it's way - amongst other obstacles.
Stubbed my toe running to the comments and felt a huge sense of relief that everyone else sees this talk as awful… I too want to be balanced and therefore listened to this one following the wonderful talk from Mearsheimer… can’t get that time back! They always use weird attempts at charm and word salad about antisemitism blah blah to distract from the evidence that Israel is committing a heinous genocide within an apartheid state. Good on CIS for giving this guy a chance to show what a tool he is.
Give me a @@ing break! "Genocide"? Do you have *any idea* how low their ratio of civilian to combatant deaths is? At some point, you really need to utilize some critical thought to the ideas your friends and teachers are feeding you.
I feel sad for CIS. They're forced to be seen as trying to balance Mearsheimer's words of wisdom & fact with the nonsense talks from this nonsense guy!
I don't believe so... Switzer and CIS is definitely in Team Israel from what I can tell. If anything Switzer was mortified by Mearsheimers monologue and made a couple not-so-subtle digs at him toward the end
Bret Stephens: "Israel is very special and deserves very special exemptions to the standards Israel will hold everyone else to, or you're an anti-semite."
On the contrary, his entire argument is that Israel should be treated EXACTLY like any other country. There are currently about 130 armed conflicts around the world, some of them with a higher number of civilian casualties by a factor of 10 , but you don't protest against them, you have no strong opinions on them, because in fact, you don't know any of them. The fact you practice your made up humanist standards exclusively when the Jewish state is concerned, that my friend, is what makes you an antisemite.
@@RagingShrimp67I mean that's fair, but I think the US taxpayer would have a problem if Trump got back in and then immediately recognised Russia's occupied territory and sent them billions of dollars of aid.
I know. I wish I could see a debate between the two and see Mearsheimer wipe the floor with him. what a hack this guy is. jeez every other word was antisemitism.
To make an Olympic analogy comparing this segment against John’s then John won gold with a new World Record set. And this guy didn’t even manage to qualify for the event due to literally manufacturing his own reality rather is outside the event gates screaming discrimination.
I don't agree with Bret by any means, but having him as a guest was the second part of a two-part series on the Middle East by the CIS where the first speaker was John Mearsheimer, who was vehemently anti-Israel and plainly called the war in Gaza a genocide.
He actually didn't call it a genocide, the closest he came to, is saying it might turn into a genocide and that he *assumes* Israel intends to perform ethnic cleansing, which is easily disprovable, and simply cannot happen.
This guy has more or less perfected the art of deflection. What the F is he talking about in most of this talk. Stephens gave zero substance throughout talking mostly in analogy and comparison. A very disappointing start, opening with the anti-Semitism reasoning, and a very disappointing end with a Q+A section being weak in unfolding the BS this guy is spouting. I would say Stephens is a small man who is batting well above his station. Not sure how he got where he is but perhaps he should stick to columns where the heaviest topic discussed is something along the lines of 'what makes a great tasting sandwich', cos I think he's full of baloney!!
To anyone who believes Gaza was not a open air prison, how do you explain their lack of control over the sea? There is no seaport and Gazan fishermen cannot go more than a couple miles from ahore.
@@RagingShrimp67 Could it have a seaport? Could Gaza have a seaport? Does Switzerland have control of its airspace? What about Gaza? I think you see where I'm going.
@@CanadianSpiceKing I see where you are going, and I see it's towards irrelevant, easily debunkable arguments, as demonstrated by my answer. The definition of open air prison has nothing to do with the presence of ports or with control of air space. Gaza has land borders with 2 sovereign countries, and the Gazan leadership, who are genocidal terrorists, decided to wage war on both, therefore this borders are mostly closed with aid regularly going in, and people with good enough reasons going out. Including thousands of workers who were crossing the border daily to work in Israel or receive special medical care unavailable in Gaza (pre Oct 7th massacre). Also, if you truly cared about the life in Gaza, you would have followed Gazan influencers, and look at their posts from before the massacre, and realize they probably lived a better life than you, in their "open air prison", so the use of this rhetoric is cynical and fictitious.
@RagingShrimp67 You are not addressing the fact Gaza is denied control over their coast by Israel. Their one airport was also destroyed by Israel. Blockades are acts of war. Egypt is also villainous.
About 300,000. And we already know the Arabian invaders, who are now identifying as Palestinians, are the colonizers. You are saying this like there is a mystery or dispute over this hard cold fact, documented throughout modern and ancient history, including the Qur'an itself...
@Notreallyhereanymore Why so few Jews? If you extrapolate the census from biblical times there should be millions of Jews now in Israel. What happened to them? Were they slaughtered? Exiled?
There have always been Jews in Israel. Not as many ss there would have been if there weren’t constant invasions, conquests, massacres and being exiled. If the census during the time of Jesus were extrapolated to present times there should be hundreds of millions of Jews today.
Really disappointed. I was really expecting a better counterargument to Mearsheimer. Is this nonsense on purpose or is there really nothing better out there?
U can from the start see the bias. From being given double the time to the over the top introduction to try and influence us to believe his distorted story. Mearsheimer made more sense although he couldn’t take a moral stance.
As a Jewish descendant I like to think of Jews in celebration. Not as victims . Jews survived 3000 years unlike many others who are not here today to tell their story because they’re exiled because they migrated because they adapted and because they stayed relevant and Important to societies. Unlike many many other second and third class citizens and slaves 1000 500 and 100years ago, Jews were special in the sense they managed to take on important positions of lobby with the powers to be , from kings to presidents. In a world where Catholicism in the name of a single God committed many atrocities around the entire world and committed genocide to many peoples, somehow Jews managed to survive and hold on to their believes, their values their culture. I absolutely despise the Jewish victim narrative. And in name of that narrative justify the current atrocities they’re making to another People. Israel was the last colonialism exercise. The biggest mistake made by the white European man in the Middle East. In the name of a belief that they had been there 3000 years ago they could not only return to it but clean out the land from Its local population who had pretty much been there since the Jews left…this level of arrogance is so non-Jew it repulses me… and no, the land was not empty! wonder how many lands we’d have to return to how many people to justify this concept and make justice to entire continents ? Americas, Africa, australia… Further, there is a myth that Israel was needed for a safe place where Jews could exist… ironically the exact opposite happened. Further the world has fundamentally changed since WWII. Let’s remember back then woman didn’t vote .slavery was still a reality in the Americas, Africa was still under colonialism power. Pretty much everyone but the white male was a second or third class citizen. Or worse. Jews suffered the most in the wwii but somehow we always forget about the Gypsies, the Armenians and others that also suffered genocide. Further, Israel is not a product and a consequence of the WWII. Jews were shaking hands with the Brits since the WWI and had began migrating in masses and causing havoc in the region before 1920 and all the way thru 1930’s. Ironically back then the news of terrorism attacks to factories and train stations were done by the Jews that were picking fights with the locals (the Palestinian) and the British government. Palestine was a beautiful land full of history , with vibrant ports, commerce and culture. The Brits promised the land to the local Palestinians after Byzantine empire collapsed and also to the Jews back in London. This all f’ing mess is British Colonialism fault. Moreover… there is this other story that Israelites like to talk about , the small mighty Israeli military that defeated the Arabs in 1948. Untrue. They were prepared. They knew exactly was coming and they had been learning and training with the British military back then, indeed learning from the best how to “colonize territory” … as a Jewish descendant I am appalled and ashamed of Israel formation and existance, and the cruelties done since the 30’s for sake of conquering back the sacred land that supposedly belonged to them in the first place. Most utterly ridiculous justification. And conflicting, coming from Zionist’s supposedly non religious group yet justifying their cause based in an otherwise religious belief. Non sense. The Jews didn’t need land to be safe. American Jews Australian Jews Canadian Jews you call it any country in this world Jew person will attest they don’t need Israel to feel self-identified . We can be Jews and call any nation in the world our own. And that is a sign of perseverance. That is to be celebrated. I don’t want to live in a country surrounded by other Jews. Where everyone other than white Jews is indeed treated like second class citizens . Yup even the Sephardic Arab Jews (non white) are not exactly the same. They too are second class citizens. That’s the true. Israel is the most racist country on earth. created by white Jews from Europe and further colonized by ignorante white Americans that have the arrogance to literally migrate to the west bank and proceeded to take homes from the Palestinians… makes my stomach turn in agony . Jews just needed to be respected and accepted . The world changed since 1945. The Middle East would be completely different today and so would western views of it and relationships with it, if Israel had not been formed. Cruel and deadly mistake. Israel should have never been formed . With that said , it’s there today and only time , lots of hit, Perhaps hundreds of years will eventually settle this grave mistake .
The first thing that came out of his mouth is a lie as usual with Israeli defenders. Israeli officials referred to the Gaza withdrawal as strategic step to freeze the peace negotiations. Not to mention it was all symbolic since they still controlled air, land and sea.
All wrong. Israel's withdrawal left Gaza Strip left under the control of the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli military fought with their own citizens to enact that withdrawl. Let's see a citation for your (laughable) claim that this was a scheme to avoid peace rather than a plan to bring about peace.
The willingness and commitment of not tolerating and talking both sides (the Isarelis and Palestinians) over the course of more than 75 years is unbelieavable ... Isarelis deserve to depend themselves but Palestinians also have the right to have a state of their own in their own homeland; where they have lived for hundred if not thousand of years. And if that right is being denied over and over again then you have armed upraising. That has been like that over the course of history multiple times worldwide. Say, if the Australia government decide to marginalize and treat the indigenous people of Australia the way the Isarelis treated Palestine over 75yrs, I garantee Australia will have an armed uprising as well. Everybody has their own opinions, but I don't think we are dealing with Jews or Palestinian but fanatic on both sides; who are willing to commit atrocities base on their fanticism believe. If you talk about anti-semitism then why don't you compare it to anti-islamic also running rampagne in the western work as well ?? It is FANATISM we need to combat, and that applicable on both sides, be it Isareli or Palestinian. Unless there is willing to push both sides to negotiate and talk by the global and Middle East regional powers, who actually holding the cards here, this will continue to extended period of time. Oh, and anyone believe the IDF can crush Hamas can look up Cu Chi tunnel in Vietnam, how the Viet Cong troops hold on and fought a guerilla war right in middle of enemy territory South Vietnam for years. Tunnel & guerilla wars can strain and defeat well-equippped army.
Thank you for the thoughtful response to the discussion. If you haven't seen it already you will likely enjoy this video. It is the first in our debate series on the conflict in the Middle East. ua-cam.com/video/kAfIYtpcBxo/v-deo.html
@@kent3W I do have to know more about the proposed conditions that Palestinians rejected the deals in the past, whether those met their expectations. About comparing HAMAS & Việt Cộng forces, I compare them in terms of of military tactics similararity (guerilla and tunnel war fare). Also to draw a similarity beetween Việt Cộng (short for Việt Nam Cộng Sản) force and Hamas, i would advise you to read about the 1968 Tết offensive, which was a failure military for the VC, but it a win in terms of changing the mind of the Western and USA public regarding the on going war, leading to the winding down of US involvement in the Vietnam war. Let’s say there is also atrocities between VC force and our own Vietnamese people. PS: I am a Vietnamese native, so i do have some intimate knowledge about the Vietnam war.
At minute 32:00 he says Gaza was not a prison because it has a border with Egypt. He says three sides of Gaza were guarded by Israel and one side by Egypt. What he is saying both Egypt and Israel were Concentration Camp Guards for Gaza.
@herbertvanlynden6629 Israel wanted Egypt to annexe Gaza. Egypt wanted Israel to recognise Palestine under the pre 1967 borders. So Egypt closed its border with Gaza.
@@herbertvanlynden6629 Before October 7, 2023, Israel did not directly control the Rafah crossing. The Rafah crossing is the only border crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt and has been primarily controlled by Egypt. However, Israel had significant influence over the movement of goods and people in and out of Gaza, including through indirect measures like coordinating with Egypt on security concerns and maintaining control over other crossings into Gaza. The crossing's operations were often influenced by agreements and security conditions involving Israel, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority.
This is hilarious. CIS make two 'own goals' in a row. Meirsheimer wouldn't say what they wanted and gets praised. This guy promotes the propaganda CIS is wedded to and he gets pilloried. Well done CIS, you've shown your true colours...in black and white.
Did he think the comparison with Sudan was a mic drop moment? Not ONCE does he mention the atrocities committed by IDF or even attempt at nuancing his point of view. I came in expecting to be intellectually challenged and stimulated but his points are complete bogus. This is embarrassing for this channel.
It’s the « israel has supplied gaza with water and electricity ». as if you deserve a pat on the back for that?? Why do you control their supply in the first place? It doesn’t help your case buddy
Thanks for sharing these views. However, I have expected the host to challenge the speaker with similar or close questions as he did with Prof Mearsheimer. Also, how could he tolerate when he said “if you don’t agree with colonialism, go back to your country”. That doesn’t sound liberal to me at all. One last question, why did you show only the audience who agree or support his view, but the last two, who really challenged his arguments, they are hidden or cut from the edits of this video?!
Though i am happy to hear the other sides opinion, the other side may either be completely and TOTALLY unhinged to the point where they are unable to see their own failings, or this guy is a disappointment of an academic. Furthermore, this interviewer just lets him go off on his rhetoric for over an hour.
The civilian casualties on D Day need context. 2 million Allied soldiers were invading and fighting across a much larger battle space and there were more French citizens who were in the battle space. If anything, citing this example diminishes the argument of Human Shields.
Hamas charter has since been revised: "The new charter holds that armed resistance against an occupying power is justified under international law. While the 1988 Hamas Charter had been widely criticized for its antisemitism, the 2017 document stated that Hamas' fight was not with Jews as such because of their religion but with the Zionist project." Likud charter, from 1977 "The original 1977 party platform stated that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." The 1999 Likud Party platform emphasized the right of settlement: The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values." One group seems to be toning down it's rhetoric, the other seems to be doubling down.
Even the normies are starting to get an idea about what Israel really is. There is nothing you can do about this now unless you completely switch off all comment sections on social media and ramp up the lies by another 100 percent. But can you do that? Lets find out.
"You keep using this word... I don't think it means what you think it means". Free speech doesn't mean anyone can say anything. Try reading about it more.
CIS consistently challenged Mearsheimer's arguments (as it should), yet failed to provide any real attempt to refute what can categorically be described as absolute garbage coming out of Bret's mouth. The reasoning was so fundamentally flawed, it was quite frankly an insult to watch. This was really disappointing.
Thank you for this feedback. I don't think it's every a mistake to hear the opposing views, particularly when they are some of the most commonly held views. We will be doing a side by side video of Mearsheimer and Stephens with their responses to similar questions.
@@CISAusA debate between Mearsheimer and Stephens is a great idea. I can already hear Mearsheimer's response to Stephens thoughts...."This is not a serious argument !".
“We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture. “ Moshe Sharett, second prime minister of Israel and the country’s first foreign minister.
@@Jetchisel Ok, so in 5 years when Mearsheimer goes out and say that he was wrong, are you still going to agree with his opinion, or will you call him a hack, and a propagandist? I think I already know the answer. That's the nice thing about antisemites, they are so predictable.
This interview was one of the most accurate on so many fronts regarding the Middle East I ever watched in the past decade. Im from Iran, I lost friends and dears in the opposition and well aware of US and EU politics down to reading the legislations as they matter to learn for my nation when is free. All I say is that there are many things about Hamas and the dynamics in Middle East that west does not know or not share.
Great respect for Bret. I've never heard anyone define Zionist self-determination as not being ruled by others AND not ruling others. Is that the prevailing definition? I don't dispute this definition, but was it expressed in Zionist writing? Would be convenient if yes.
If we were to translate the phrase “I’m not anti Islam, I’m anti Islamist” from the youngest to the eldest Abrahamic sect, wouldn’t it be “I’m not antisemitic, I’m anti-Zionist”?
Nope, because it ignore the fact Jews have 1 state, and Muslism have over 50 states. Almost all failing btw. Yet Islamists still immigrate to the west and actively working to apply Sharia law in the west, which is another thing Jews do not do.
Not even going to watch/listen to this click bait. Just consider the logic in the title. If what Israel does is "self defence" then everything Hamas and Palestinians have done to Israelis are "self defence". Israel's soldiers live among civilians. They go to shops. They attend concerts. Use the Chomsky test on the arguments. Use some logic to your thought process.
1. "Anti-semitism is the reason of the war. If we eliminate Hamas, we will free the Palestinian people from Theocracy" 2. " What starts with the Jews doesn't always ends with the Jews. When a democracy sets itself up against the Jews it ends up destroying itself" 2 arguments I found interesting...
@6:30 Bret premises his argument as "Mearsheimer says Israel is an apartheid state, an evil state, waging a genocidal war" and Bret's responding point @9:28 is "Antisemitism is causing the war". Before I finish the video, let me say that is not a counterargument but an attempt to discredit Mearsheimer. To convince me of antisemitism, Bret needs counterexamples of countries in Israel's position don't get the same response. However, I hope Bret later makes arguments to actually contradict Mearsheimer.
I'm a big fan of this channel but won't be if this altered reality BS becomes common place. Love to watch a debate between this deluded soul and John meirshimer.
42:36 exactly, and here Israel is the one to blame because it has been in violation of humanitarian law and human rights for decades. That’s why, it’s not because the world doesn’t know the realism of war, it’s because Israel is the one to blame for this conflict.
You may enjoy this video. It is the first in our debate series on the conflict in the Middle East. ua-cam.com/video/kAfIYtpcBxo/v-deo.html
@@CISAus An antisemite choice, a bad story teller.
What do you think about the concept of "personal responsibility"?
John Mearsheimer - The three reports from Amnesty, HRW and b’tselem highlight in extensive detail that Israel is an apartheid state. These reports are written by some of the worlds foremost experts on the topic and make an extremely compelling case.
Bret Stephens - Israel is not an apartheid state because to label Israel as so is Anti-Semitic.
You really won me over there Bret!
What an utter bellend.
An objective paraphrase. I agree!
So 2 million Muslim Arabs live in Israel with full rights, and the entire Arabian peninsula is jundenrein (free of Jews), and Israel is an apartheid state. There are even Muslim high court justices in Israel. You are a moron beyond words.
He IS A ZIONIST SYMPATHISER
NOW TRUMP HAS GAVE HIM THE JOB OF DEFENSE SECRETARY
Bret essentially wasted his opportunity to try to push back on John Mearsheimer's compelling theory of the case, in summary: _Israel attempting to ethnically cleanse Gaza to head-off their apartheid problem (and growing awareness); which has culminated in genocide, and future problems from now until as far as the eye can see_
After attending the earlier Mearsheimer talk I was curious to hear how Bret Stephens might respond.. and I think I was disappointed more than anything (though it's hard to imagine how anyone could tackle John's argument) - he basically tried to say Hamas is fighting a holy war against Israel (and by extension 'the Jews'- †because we have to remember for Bret there is apparently *no* distinction between Zionism and Jews)🤦♂
Bret's central thesis revolves around this idea that Palestinians are fighting a religiously motivated war against Jews.. and that anyone criticizing Israel or protesting in the streets is doing so because they are antisemitic (whether or not they realize that in themselves, according to Bret).. his thesis effectively attempts to dismiss any and all grievances with the Israeli state, and occupation - he goes on to try and argue that Anti-zionism = anti-semitism in a pretty unconvincing and clumsy way, but this is an easy argument to dismantle which has been done a thousand times; Zionism is a political ideology (anyone can be a zionist, most zionists are in fact not jews but actually Christians, not all jews are zionists, and jews had to be persuaded by other zionists in the past to adopt Zionist ideology) - 📍At one point Bret tries to cite the current Sudanese genocide to make an argument that because no one in the room appeared to know about a specific Sudanese ethnic group that serves as some kind of evidence that we're all suspiciously over critical of Israel _(with the implication being because the world is antisemitic and wants to see Israel suffer)_, this is not a serious argument and that moment really encapsulates what Bret's whole argument boils down to: paper thin arguments that the world is just out to get Israel (starting with Hamas terrorists), all the way out to college kids on University campuses, to your average punter who thinks Israel maybe went a bit too far with the murder and mayhem (†let's be clear here, Bret's argument this whole time has actually been that the IDF needs to go *harder* against Gaza, in order to 'defeat Hamas'; an objective that now even IDF spox Admiral Hagari says is a complete fantasy, which he insists anyone saying otherwise is deceiving you).
The fact that Bret really could not counter any of what John Mearsheimer put forward probably says it all about how screwed Israel and the Zionist mission is now going forward- Bret is one of their best guys and he had nothing to counter with except a waffling sob story about Jews getting picked on, this is not credible, and I think Israeli historian and activist Ilan Pappe has this figured out, like John describes this situation is going to resolve itself in the public imagination as an apartheid (sooner or later, this is an inescapable conclusion), and from there Israel faces the next probably few decades as a growing pariah state (all of this is going to be ugly in our domestic politics because the Zionist jews in the diaspora cannot see this for what it is), and eventually it will end up back as one unified state, the more we enable Israel and fight this process the uglier and more painful it's going to be for everyone
Actually, he didn't waste his opportunity at all. Stephens easily debunks this, saying (and there is nothing you or Mearsheimer can say to contradict this) that if Hamas surrenders, the conflict in Gaza (or the so called "ethnic cleansing") will end. Meaning, if the worry about ethnic cleansing was actually genuine, everyone would have pressured Hamas to surrender immediately to end the war. Since it doesn't happen, we can safely say no one truly believes there is a genocide in Gaza, least of all the Palestinians themselves.
@@RagingShrimp67 so you're saying the ethnic cleansing and genocide will continue if 'Hamas' (whoever they are exactly) *doesn't* surrender (which they won't and nor should they)... And the more genocide Israel carries out here the more they crater their intl support (both now and over the long-term) ultimately accelerating the apartheid awareness and spiral into pariah status.. and yet we are very serious, trying to pressure Israel to cease and desist with their genocide, and they've been hauled in front of the ICJ over this, AND now the ICC has sought war crimes warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant - you must have a very high IQ because I can't comprehend your genius logic (it just looks like retardation to me)
@@RagingShrimp67 so (according to you and Bret) the ethnic cleansing and genocide will continue so long as 'Hamas' (whoever they are exactly) refuses to surrender.. (which they won't and nor should they), and this is apparently Hamas' fault even though the ones perpetrating the mass murder and laying waste to Gaza, here is Israel, all the while they keep annexing more tracts of land in the West Bank too [incredible!]... and we in the Intl community apparently have to put the pressure on Hamas so that Israel stops this genocide.. because why exactly? because Israel are so apparently deranged and genocidal that they can't be stopped or held responsible for their own actions?? _absurd_ - and the more Israel persists with this campaign of mayhem and genocide the more they tank their intl reputation and accelerate towards greater apartheid awareness and inevitable pariah status... and yet we are very serious about this and Israel have been hauled before the ICJ over this on the charge of genocide, and now the ICC has sought warrants for war crimes against Netanyahu, Gallant, and 3 Hamas leaders (unprecedented stuff!), so I don't know where you get off here thinking people including the Palestinians don't believe what's going on here
@@RagingShrimp67 so (according to you and Bret) the ethnic cleansing and genocide will continue so long as 'Hamas' (whoever they are exactly) refuses to surrender.. (which they won't and nor should they), and this is apparently Hamas' fault even though the ones perpetrating the mass murder and laying waste to Gaza, here is Israel, all the while they keep annexing more tracts of land in the West Bank too [incredible!]... and we in the Intl community apparently have to put the pressure on Hamas so that Israel stops this genocide.. because why exactly? because Israel are so apparently deranged and genocidal that they can't be stopped or held responsible for their own actions?? absurd - and the more Israel persists with this campaign of mayhem and genocide the more they tank their intl reputation and accelerate towards greater apartheid awareness and inevitable pariah status... and yet we are very serious about this and Israel have been hauled before the ICJ over this on the charge of genocide, and now the ICC has sought warrants for war crimes against Netanyahu, Gallant, and 3 Hamas leaders (unprecedented stuff!), so I don't know where you get off here thinking people including the Palestinians don't believe what's going on here
We appreciate the very thoughtful response and discussion. Thanks.
"anti-semitism is the cause of the war" This is going to be a tough listen.
Absolute truth. The Arabs are *always* the ones to attack first. And why? Because they hate the Jews.
Worthless Khazaria Ashkenazi Europeans have nothing to do with middle east. They're descendants of khazaria kingdom who's king ordered them to adapt jewish religion.
and a predictable one at that.
This is a woke, identity politics argument. As an ethnic Jew, I find this unconvincing.
@@hitmanal Another "woke identity politics" argument is: [the Jews are white oppressors and the Palestinians are the brown victims.]
This guy is a lightweight journo hack--it's shocking to see him compared to Mearsheimer who, few would disagree, is the top man alive today in the discipline of International Relations.
Actually in terms of content and knowledge, this talk was way more enriching than that of Mearsheimer's, and in terms of position, they were mostly in agreement. The only thing they are divided on is whether or not Israel is an apartheid state, which it is not, as Mearsheimer and his sources refer to what he calls "greater Israel" as "Israel", which is no one other than fringe groups actually does, and no one called him out on that obvious bullshit. The second point they disagree on, is that he seems to think Israel is hell bent on ethnic cleansing. Stephens easily debunks this, saying (and there is nothing you or Mearsheimer can say to contradict this) that if Hamas surrenders, the conflict in Gaza will end. Meaning, if the worry about ethnic cleansing was actually genuine, everyone would have pressured Hamas to surrender immediately to end the war. Since it doesn't happen, we can safely say no one truly believes there is a genocide in Gaza, least of all the Palestinians themselves.
@@RagingShrimp67 you're confusing the Biblical 'Greater Israel' of messianic Zionists with the practical definition John Mearsheimer described (which refers to just Green line Israel, West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights)- Israel literally controls ALL those territories and that's not in dispute, Mearsheimer is correct and you either didn't pay attention or are deliberately trying to confuse people
@@Christmas12 I did not confuse anything. Nobody, in Israel, or outside Israel, treats the West Bank or Gaza as part of the Israeli state, and doing so exposes a laughable ignorance. There are literal checkpoints between Israel and those territories where Israeli citizens are literally forbidden to cross. If you, or Mearsheimer were actually knowledgeable and had actually visited Israel and the west bank, you would have easily known that, but if you want an even easier way to disprove it, it's enough to look at the Oslo Accords. The Palestinian Authority runs territories A and B. So the only one lying here is you.
@@RagingShrimp67 I literally crossed from Jordan into Israel via the Allenby border crossing which is in the occupied west bank, which as I recall was swarming with IDF and Israeli officials (it was very obviously not run by the PA) - the fact of the matter here is that Israel controls all of the West Bank (and Greater Israel), and so called Areas A and B are Palestinian 'Bantustans' administered by the PA which is effectively a toothless puppet regime for the Israeli authorities to put some distance between Israel and the Palestinians on paper and in the imagination
Comparing him to John Mearsheimer is like comparing a toddlers finger paintings to Rembrandt. This guy is just yet another neo liberal hack passing off his weak assumptions as facts
"Israel has shown a consistent willingness from territory". Oh really? Then please explain the illegal settlements in the West Bank and the continued land grab which has escalated since October 7th.
Actually, that's exactly what he did. If you had actually listened to the talk, and/or had normal IQ, you would know that :)
I concur with your analysis (polycarp)! Don't let ad hominem attacks deter your principles.
@@peterland2824 Funny considering your ad hominem attacks on Brett :D
@@RagingShrimp67 I disagree with his arguments and have presented my rebuttals but have not disparaged him as a person at all.
@RagingShrimp67 I'm at the 1:00:25 mark and he's barely mentioned the West Bank at all, let alone talked about the illegal settlements still there. He sure did talk about them pulling out of Gaza, though.
This man is comparing committing genocide to being the victims of genocide. What an actual monster. This is disgusting.
How is this genocide? What are your expectations for civilian casualty ratio?
@@Jianju69 Bro they are intentionally killing civilians and lying about it, poorly. Are you aware of how Israel initially acquired its formerly Palestinian territory? It wasn't with consent of the people living there. Israel isn't the homeland of the people living there now. Israel is an invasion.
They cry out in pain as they strike you.
Bret Stephens is a bed bug
@@Jianju69 ANY of the following with INTENT towards a national/ethnical/racial/religious group.
Killing, causing serious harm, infliction of conditions for physical destruction or prevention of births, forcible transfer of children to another group.
Genocide does not necessitate the eradication or extermination of a people for it to be classified as such. Intended as a response to the WWII atrocities including the Holocaust, the Paris 1948 'Genocide Convention' defined the term. The UN General Assembly ratified this description in 1951 with Resolution 260A. 152 countries have now consented to be bound by this treaty with the responsibility to “undertake to prevent and to punish” this crime.
Israel too ratified this on 9 March 1950.
I am a proud member of CIS and flew to Sydney to attended John Mearsheimer's talk on Israel. Mearsheimer is a world renowned political scientist and his communication skills, intellect and compelling analysis were highly persuasive. A month later I attended Bret Stephens talk in Melbourne to hear the other side. Stephens is a journalist and his rambling address was shallow and underwhelming. Interestingly both Mearsheimer and Stephens agree on one thing......a two state solution is the only way out of this mess! Thank you CIS for providing me with this valued opportunity!
Segregation is about as successful as occupation in practice. Historically both are proven guaranteed failures...
Politics is all about persuasion- which gives the advantage to measheimer who is much more eloquent as you say, the advantage
This is man is not idiot, not uneducated nor blind to the truth. This man is a crusader in 21th century. If he were to be born in 1910's Germany, he would be the right hand of Go-bbels. So in this perspective, the arguments making sense.
Thank you for engaging with our content.
9:03 8000 cases, who judges them? I am called antisemitic because I oppose the barbaric war crimes Israel is committing, who is judging? The ADL? I follow their work, it’s completely biased.
ADL are now branded as an unreliable source by Wikipedia, and that must've taken some doing because Israeli counter intelligence is all over Wiki rewriting history.
Bc you are repeating lies from miles away and pretending you care or know even the most basic facts that exist in this region. Why people feel so sure comfortable repeating these insane lies and propaganda against Israel
What war crimes?
Using dogs 🐕
@@-tom-8720 using civilians
I was born and raised in Japan, so I do not have any particular affinity with either side. However, there are too many blind spots in Stephens' arguments for them to be compelling.
He portrays Palestinians and Muslims as aggressors, and I see his point, but he somehow fails to recognize Israel as an aggressor as well. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black, which is part of the reason this conflict continues indefinitely.
The reason Israel can deny its aggression is that it prefers covert methods, whereas Hamas favors overt aggression. Either way, both sides are aggressors. Another way to describe Israel's approach is passive-aggressive; it prefers to slowly expand its territory using the superior knowledge and organizational skills it acquired from Europe. It's no coincidence that Israel's ruling class has primarily been made up of Ashkenazi Jews from Europe, particularly in the early days.
This is much like the difference between white-collar crime and street crime. The latter is viewed as more aggressive, violent, and barbaric, even though the negative impact of the former on society is often much greater. If a criminal has the choice between committing white-collar crime or street crime, he would naturally choose the former, but this does not make him any less of a criminal. Having that choice, in a way, is a luxury.
Thus, both Palestinians and Israelis are aggressors. I wouldn't blame one side for being more violent or aggressive than the other. There's also another reason Israel leans toward passive aggression.
Putin chose overt aggression in Ukraine because he not only wants the land but also the people. Typically, invasion or colonization involves controlling both the territory and its people. Israelis, however, face a conundrum; they want the land but not the people, because their ideology is to maintain the purity of their ethnicity. The last thing they want is a true democracy in which Palestinians become part of Israel and are given voting rights. Therefore, it is disingenuous to claim that Israel has no territorial ambitions or that they are highly amenable to relinquishing territory. Their territorial ambitions come with a self-imposed condition: the land must not come with non-Jews. Otherwise, they would rather not have the land, as their ethnic ideology takes precedence.
Regarding Stephens' antisemitism argument, we could also ask whether the ongoing conflict fuels anti-Muslim sentiment, or whether anti-Muslim sentiment fuels the conflict.
Just as Stephens describes video recordings of Hamas, there are numerous videos showing Israelis expressing overt anti-Muslim sentiment. The line between anti-Muslim and anti-Hamas is as blurry as the line between antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment. In other words, even if Stephens' arguments hold, Israelis are guilty of the same bigotry and prejudice.
Stephens conveniently lumps all criticisms of Israel or Jewish influence in the U.S. as conspiracy theories, but much of it is not even covert. Israeli lobbying in the U.S. is no secret. It's not a conspiracy theory. When anti-Israel protests spread on college campuses, we saw Jewish donors threatening to withdraw their financial support. We did not see Palestinian or Arab donors doing the same. Clearly, wealthy Jewish donors have much greater influence over American universities. This is not a conspiracy theory.
Stephens' worldview is distorted by his outgroup homogeneity bias, where he treats his opponents (the outgroup) as all the same while expecting others to recognize the nuances between different subgroups of Israelis. For example, he expects everyone to understand that he does not support the current Israeli government and uses it as an excuse, yet he does not recognize the distinction between Palestinians and Hamas, which is evident in his rationalization of civilian casualties in this war.
He draws a moral equivalence between these civilian casualties and those of D-Day. It's true that civilian casualties are inevitable in war. In the U.S. war against Japan, countless Japanese civilians died, which is understandable if it prevented greater loss of life, as Stephens argued. But there is little resemblance to the current situation between Israel and Hamas. Hamas is not a nation; it is a terrorist group. If a Canadian terrorist group bombed New York City, bombing and killing thousands of Canadian citizens would not be morally justifiable. Hamas and the Palestinian people are not one and the same. On D-Day, the U.S. had the consent of the French government. Israel does not have the consent of the Palestinian people. There is no moral equivalence here.
Additionally, when an audience member raised the issue of colonialism, Stephens dismissed it by citing Australia’s hypocrisy. Civilized Western societies have learned from their mistakes and moved on from colonialism, which is precisely why the question is even more relevant: to avoid repeating those errors. It is uncivilized and barbaric to claim that nations today can commit the same crimes simply because other nations did so in the past. By that moral standard, everything Hamas does could also be justified.
Just as Iran pretends to be a democracy while actually being a theocracy, Israel too presents itself as a democracy while, in fact, it is an ethnocracy. While many of Stephens' criticisms are valid, they equally apply to Israel itself.
He rejects Gandhi's advice for passive resistance, believing that "an eye for an eye" is more effective. Turning the other cheek is not his inclination. Perhaps he is right, and Gandhi is wrong. There is no way to resolve that argument, as it's highly subjective. However, he needs to see that from this perspective, Israel's hostile posture is much closer to that of the Palestinians than to the civilized, post-colonial Western nations.
very well-written critic of his arguments. and I agree fully with what you have written. thank you
I disagree. 1# it is obviously morally justifiable to kill civilians, if their deaths are either unintentional (they were nearby) or the target was significant enough (higher enemy to civilian ratio) to justify the attack then it is logical and understandable for them to commit that attack in the first place, it is not wrong to win. The issue is if the attacks are arbitrary/indiscriminate or actively targeting civilians.
2. As a terrorist organisation, Hamas is a illegitimate force and thus can be treated harshly without need to offer surender (the moment they became terrorists their life is forfit). As the active ruler of gaza, Hamas does count as a government making this a war. Anything other than this thought is cope.
3. You are constantly trying to put Israel and Hamas as equal participants, they are not. Stop the moral relativism, Israel has done nothing in comparison to Hamas to warrant comparison, bringing up expansions in borders in absurd to compare to mass rapes, burning children alive in cold blood and hostage taking.
I find all you're arguments unconvincing
@@-tom-8720 I think you are the one trying to cope. Your an apologist for the slaughter of 20,000 kids. Would you have done the same when the nazis were liquidating the Warsaw ghetto?
@@-tom-8720 I agree that Hama is an illegitimate organization, which is exactly why it cannot be treated as a "government." You cannot have cake and eat it too. It is either legitimate or illegitimate. Since we both agree that Hamas is illegitimate, we cannot wage a legitimate war against it, like the war between Japan and the US during WWII. The civilians Israel is killing, intentionally or not, did not agree to the war. So, you cannot draw moral equivalence to civilian casualties of conventional war. It's like the US bombing Mexican drug cartels without the consent of the Mexican government and killing thousands of innocent Mexicans in the process just because the US is technologically superior.
It is true that Palestine as a nation didn't exist when Zionists moved into the region. However, this is an irrelevant argument in terms of the current apartheid state. Because Israel has an explicit policy and ideology as an ethnic state, it must exclude those who do not meet the ethnic criteria. As Israel slowly expands, it must block unqualified people from its territories. The land the Palestinians were able to freely travel through is now off-limits to them. It's not like anyone is free to join Israel. This passive-aggressive expansion of Israel has had devasting effects on Palestinians, which is why I use the analogy of white-collar crimes versus street crimes.
When we see people like Sam Bankman-Fried convicted, we do not have strong emotional reactions because their crimes do not involve blood or physical pain. The gravity of the crime is diffused. So, white-collar crimes feel less serious, but this is a form of prejudice that makes black people appear more criminal than white people. But in reality, white people have committed much greater crimes against humanity. What is happening between Israel and Palestine is the same.
So, overall, I find your counter arguments unconvincing.
Bret Stephens can't hold a candle to Mearsheimer. No wonder New York Times has gone so downhill
Mearsheimer is a dishonest hack
Zero pushback, total softball interview. Wow.
Thank you for your feedback. We genuinely want to test our speakers.
@@CISAus Did AI answer or a human who doesn’t understand sarcasm ?
@@CISAusare you trolling us?
🧌
There is a right way to defend oneself and a wrong way. When you fight a monster by becoming a monster you have lost your humanity and any claim of being civilized.
We look forward to hearing your detailed plan....what should Israel do? Jews were exiled from their land over 2000 years ago. Over 100,000 Jews were slaughtered in the Russian progroms. 6 000 000 were slaughtered in the Holocaust. What exactly would you have them do?
By killing less civilians than in any other war in modern history. Why don’t you come to the region or get your facts right before spreading lies based entirely on the words of jihadist terrorists
You may enjoy this video. It is the first in our debate series on the conflict in the Middle East. ua-cam.com/video/kAfIYtpcBxo/v-deo.html
I genuinely don't see how Israel has acting in anyway monsteriously
@@-tom-8720 so, if you abuse your dog, then wonder why it rips your head off, who is the monster?
35:44. "Hamas is not committed to a two state solution". There are many problematic aspects to Mr. Stephens' arguments, but even the moderator seems intent on perpetuating falsities. Read the current (2017) Hamas charter, it supports a Palestinian state per 1967 UN borders. (Paragraph 20) “Establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.”
Yes and while the modern Hamas charter still doesn't recognize the State of Israel per se it obviously does recognize that there is something on the other side of the 1967 'green line' - the reality is that Hamas is not the Muslim Brotherhood, or Al Qaeda, and definitely not Salafist (e.g. Daesh), Hamas IS Islamist (which is not ideal), it's not the sort of entity it is often maligned to be - *However* there still remains real practical problems with a theoretical two-state solution which ultimately make all this kind of a moot point; the political landscape inside Israel simply won't allow it at all (and to some extent the diaspora will get behind whatever Israel tells them so you can't really count on them to put pressure on either anytime soon). A real state ought to mean 'Full' Freedom for Palestinian self-determination but that theoretically does mean they should be able to have a full military if they so choose and Israel is unlikely to go for that either, so what exactly are we talking about.. some kind of rump-state Palestine with a coastal Gaza exclave and difficulties coordinating movement across the two territories, plus no right of return either.. and then we haven't dealt with the elephant in the room, the Zionists next door whose ideology (Zionism) continues unresolved to evolve in twisted and demented ways constantly ogling Palestinian lands which they increasingly feel entitled to on messianic grounds.. There is definitely a warped ideology in the Holy land and it's not islamism it's Zionism which is the root cause of the suffering; Islamism is a symptom of distress in muslim populations which you can observe all over the middle east in places and populations which used to be a lot more moderate in the 1950s
You might want to read that charter more carefully. The charter accepts a Palestinian state within the borders that existed before 1967, while maintaining Hamas’s refusal to recognize the State of Israel, which it terms the “Zionist entity”. You are simply wrong about this. What exactly do you think they mean by "transitional state"? Not hard to guess what "transition" they are referring to.
@@Christmas12 I agree with the vast majority of what you have said. I feel it is advantageous for a moderator not to perpetuate something which is not true, thus my comment. Real practical problems, yes, you're right. I find the term Islamist, or the concept and it's vilification somewhat problematic. When you have a population which has been on the receiving end of 'mowing the grass' (periodic murder sprees by Israel) for decades; a population which itself is the offspring of refugees from the 1948 forced resettlement. They have no recourse whatsoever. Relocation to Egypt? Annihilation compete of their culture and roots? Who are we in the west to say that their religion can not be central to their identity. The Gaza population has no hope or prospects pre or post October 7. Norman Finkelstein has drawn some illuminating parallels between the Gaza population and US Slave Revolts from the pre 1865 era. I think that there is much validity to be understood in such analogies.
The US has had it's hands in 70 or so successful or not Coup d'état over the last century. The one in Iran in 53 is still strong in the regions memory. Yet so much of the west's memory is highly selective. I see this entire affair as amounting to the West bullying and then expecting the bullied to comply. If they don't they are vilified as terrorists via a highly effective system of indoctrination (AIPAC is just the tip of the iceberg) and that's that. As I said, I agree with the vast majority of your analysis. Our difference lies in our understanding of resistance movements.
A two-state solution would guarantee future generations raised in cultures of prejudice, grievance, and resentment. It would codify political polarization and intransigence. It would perpetuate the legacy of hatred. The solution is one state with equal protections under the law for all, and it is only impossible if people assume it to be.
@@danpatterson8009 I think a one state solution is closer to a two state solution. Israeli society will need to go through quite a reckoning to achieve either. I don't however agree that a two-state solution necessarily would guarantee prejudice, grievance, and resentment. It would certainly be difficult to counter such feelings. Certainly a two-state solution has the 3/4 million Jewish Settlers standing in it's way - amongst other obstacles.
Stubbed my toe running to the comments and felt a huge sense of relief that everyone else sees this talk as awful… I too want to be balanced and therefore listened to this one following the wonderful talk from Mearsheimer… can’t get that time back! They always use weird attempts at charm and word salad about antisemitism blah blah to distract from the evidence that Israel is committing a heinous genocide within an apartheid state. Good on CIS for giving this guy a chance to show what a tool he is.
…by committing genocide?
Give me a @@ing break! "Genocide"? Do you have *any idea* how low their ratio of civilian to combatant deaths is? At some point, you really need to utilize some critical thought to the ideas your friends and teachers are feeding you.
How is it a genocide? Israel is obviously not intending on committing one
I feel sad for CIS. They're forced to be seen as trying to balance Mearsheimer's words of wisdom & fact with the nonsense talks from this nonsense guy!
Exactly. They were hamstrung into doing this for equality
I don't believe so... Switzer and CIS is definitely in Team Israel from what I can tell. If anything Switzer was mortified by Mearsheimers monologue and made a couple not-so-subtle digs at him toward the end
At least it exposes the Israeli's argument is nonsense.
Trying to reach genocide half-way.
Imagine having a "balanced" and "objective" debate on Adolf's policies.
Which part of "independent" do you not understand? Or are you looking for the Center for Idiotic Studies?
19:29 CIS were you forced to give a platform to this? I am all in for listening to both sides but this is a bunch of lies and completely biased.
Oh god this is embarrassing. John did great, this is is embarrassing himself.
Bret Stephens: "Israel is very special and deserves very special exemptions to the standards Israel will hold everyone else to, or you're an anti-semite."
On the contrary, his entire argument is that Israel should be treated EXACTLY like any other country.
There are currently about 130 armed conflicts around the world, some of them with a higher number of civilian casualties by a factor of 10 , but you don't protest against them, you have no strong opinions on them, because in fact, you don't know any of them.
The fact you practice your made up humanist standards exclusively when the Jewish state is concerned, that my friend, is what makes you an antisemite.
@@RagingShrimp67I mean that's fair, but I think the US taxpayer would have a problem if Trump got back in and then immediately recognised Russia's occupied territory and sent them billions of dollars of aid.
Has Bret Stephens ever considered that his own ethnic background might be clouding his judgement?
1:02:17 "Israel are the chosen people and belong in Israel no matter the cost. I definitely don't have an ideology. Hurr durr"
😂😂😂😂😂
This guy is supposed to be the rebuttal to Dr. Mearsheimer? Some nobody hack journalist? 😅
I know. I wish I could see a debate between the two and see Mearsheimer wipe the floor with him. what a hack this guy is. jeez every other word was antisemitism.
John Mesrsheimer’s talk garnered 4 million views, this one 10k (9k too many). Says something.
To make an Olympic analogy comparing this segment against John’s then John won gold with a new World Record set.
And this guy didn’t even manage to qualify for the event due to literally manufacturing his own reality rather is outside the event gates screaming discrimination.
Unsubbed. This is pure propaganda without any pushback or properly challenging any of these false claims.
You may enjoy this video. It is the first in our debate series on the conflict in the Middle East. ua-cam.com/video/kAfIYtpcBxo/v-deo.html
First place I blame UK for have made a mess in the Middle East.
Second I blame Israel for ilegal occupation
Stop blaming Palestinians for defending themselves
What nonsense. Islamism is the aggressor here.
Unsubscribing. That's completely propaganda.
Lol, you just realised it now?
I'm not sure what demographic they are going for, but yes, this whole thing is one massive shill.
I don't agree with Bret by any means, but having him as a guest was the second part of a two-part series on the Middle East by the CIS where the first speaker was John Mearsheimer, who was vehemently anti-Israel and plainly called the war in Gaza a genocide.
To be fair, they first hosted this (almost opposite thesis) presentation: ua-cam.com/video/kAfIYtpcBxo/v-deo.html
He actually didn't call it a genocide, the closest he came to, is saying it might turn into a genocide and that he *assumes* Israel intends to perform ethnic cleansing, which is easily disprovable, and simply cannot happen.
done
This guy has more or less perfected the art of deflection. What the F is he talking about in most of this talk. Stephens gave zero substance throughout talking mostly in analogy and comparison. A very disappointing start, opening with the anti-Semitism reasoning, and a very disappointing end with a Q+A section being weak in unfolding the BS this guy is spouting.
I would say Stephens is a small man who is batting well above his station. Not sure how he got where he is but perhaps he should stick to columns where the heaviest topic discussed is something along the lines of 'what makes a great tasting sandwich', cos I think he's full of baloney!!
hilarious and spot on
To anyone who believes Gaza was not a open air prison, how do you explain their lack of control over the sea? There is no seaport and Gazan fishermen cannot go more than a couple miles from ahore.
Switzerland has no seaport. Is Switzerland an open air prison?
@@RagingShrimp67 Could it have a seaport? Could Gaza have a seaport? Does Switzerland have control of its airspace? What about Gaza?
I think you see where I'm going.
@@CanadianSpiceKing I see where you are going, and I see it's towards irrelevant, easily debunkable arguments, as demonstrated by my answer. The definition of open air prison has nothing to do with the presence of ports or with control of air space. Gaza has land borders with 2 sovereign countries, and the Gazan leadership, who are genocidal terrorists, decided to wage war on both, therefore this borders are mostly closed with aid regularly going in, and people with good enough reasons going out. Including thousands of workers who were crossing the border daily to work in Israel or receive special medical care unavailable in Gaza (pre Oct 7th massacre).
Also, if you truly cared about the life in Gaza, you would have followed Gazan influencers, and look at their posts from before the massacre, and realize they probably lived a better life than you, in their "open air prison", so the use of this rhetoric is cynical and fictitious.
@RagingShrimp67 You are not addressing the fact Gaza is denied control over their coast by Israel. Their one airport was also destroyed by Israel. Blockades are acts of war.
Egypt is also villainous.
@@CanadianSpiceKing You are not addressing the fact Gaza is in an active state of war with its neighbors since Hamas took over.
83k Likes and 3.4Mil views for John Mearsheimer after 8 Weeks. Let’s see how well this does… Struggling to persist with this.
How many jews were in palastine in 1917 ?? And then you will know who are the colonisers
About 300,000. And we already know the Arabian invaders, who are now identifying as Palestinians, are the colonizers. You are saying this like there is a mystery or dispute over this hard cold fact, documented throughout modern and ancient history, including the Qur'an itself...
@Notreallyhereanymore Why so few Jews? If you extrapolate the census from biblical times there should be millions of Jews now in Israel. What happened to them? Were they slaughtered? Exiled?
There have always been Jews in Israel. Not as many ss there would have been if there weren’t constant invasions, conquests, massacres and being exiled. If the census during the time of Jesus were extrapolated to present times there should be hundreds of millions of Jews today.
That's like saying native pre- native reserves don't have a claim to the land
Don't know how many Jews but zero Palestinians. The term Palestinian only came about in the 60,s.
Really disappointed. I was really expecting a better counterargument to Mearsheimer. Is this nonsense on purpose or is there really nothing better out there?
It’s really hard to make the argument that Israel has a right to defend itself.
U can from the start see the bias. From being given double the time to the over the top introduction to try and influence us to believe his distorted story. Mearsheimer made more sense although he couldn’t take a moral stance.
Thank you for commenting and providing your feedback.
As a Jewish descendant I like to think of Jews in celebration. Not as victims . Jews survived 3000 years unlike many others who are not here today to tell their story because they’re exiled because they migrated because they adapted and because they stayed relevant and Important to societies. Unlike many many other second and third class citizens and slaves 1000 500 and 100years ago, Jews were special in the sense they managed to take on important positions of lobby with the powers to be , from kings to presidents. In a world where Catholicism in the name of a single God committed many atrocities around the entire world and committed genocide to many peoples, somehow Jews managed to survive and hold on to their believes, their values their culture.
I absolutely despise the Jewish victim narrative. And in name of that narrative justify the current atrocities they’re making to another People. Israel was the last colonialism exercise. The biggest mistake made by the white European man in the Middle East. In the name of a belief that they had been there 3000 years ago they could not only return to it but clean out the land from Its local population who had pretty much been there since the Jews left…this level of arrogance is so non-Jew it repulses me… and no, the land was not empty! wonder how many lands we’d have to return to how many people to justify this concept and make justice to entire continents ? Americas, Africa, australia…
Further, there is a myth that Israel was needed for a safe place where Jews could exist… ironically the exact opposite happened. Further the world has fundamentally changed since WWII. Let’s remember back then woman didn’t vote .slavery was still a reality in the Americas, Africa was still under colonialism power. Pretty much everyone but the white male was a second or third class citizen. Or worse.
Jews suffered the most in the wwii but somehow we always forget about the Gypsies, the Armenians and others that also suffered genocide.
Further, Israel is not a product and a consequence of the WWII. Jews were shaking hands with the Brits since the WWI and had began migrating in masses and causing havoc in the region before 1920 and all the way thru 1930’s. Ironically back then the news of terrorism attacks to factories and train stations were done by the Jews that were picking fights with the locals (the Palestinian) and the British government. Palestine was a beautiful land full of history , with vibrant ports, commerce and culture. The Brits promised the land to the local Palestinians after Byzantine empire collapsed and also to the Jews back in London.
This all f’ing mess is British Colonialism fault.
Moreover… there is this other story that Israelites like to talk about , the small mighty Israeli military that defeated the Arabs in 1948. Untrue. They were prepared. They knew exactly was coming and they had been learning and training with the British military back then, indeed learning from the best how to “colonize territory” … as a Jewish descendant I am appalled and ashamed of Israel formation and existance, and the cruelties done since the 30’s for sake of conquering back the sacred land that supposedly belonged to them in the first place. Most utterly ridiculous justification. And conflicting, coming from Zionist’s supposedly non religious group yet justifying their cause based in an otherwise religious belief. Non sense. The Jews didn’t need land to be safe. American Jews Australian Jews Canadian Jews you call it any country in this world Jew person will attest they don’t need Israel to feel self-identified . We can be Jews and call any nation in the world our own. And that is a sign of perseverance. That is to be celebrated. I don’t want to live in a country surrounded by other Jews. Where everyone other than white Jews is indeed treated like second class citizens . Yup even the Sephardic Arab Jews (non white) are not exactly the same. They too are second class citizens. That’s the true. Israel is the most racist country on earth. created by white Jews from Europe and further colonized by ignorante white Americans that have the arrogance to literally migrate to the west bank and proceeded to take homes from the Palestinians… makes my stomach turn in agony .
Jews just needed to be respected and accepted . The world changed since 1945. The Middle East would be completely different today and so would western views of it and relationships with it, if Israel had not been formed. Cruel and deadly mistake. Israel should have never been formed . With that said , it’s there today and only time , lots of hit, Perhaps hundreds of years will eventually settle this grave mistake .
Thank you for sharing. This is very well and passionately articulated. I hope others in this comment section find your response to the video.
The first thing that came out of his mouth is a lie as usual with Israeli defenders.
Israeli officials referred to the Gaza withdrawal as strategic step to freeze the peace negotiations.
Not to mention it was all symbolic since they still controlled air, land and sea.
All wrong. Israel's withdrawal left Gaza Strip left under the control of the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli military fought with their own citizens to enact that withdrawl. Let's see a citation for your (laughable) claim that this was a scheme to avoid peace rather than a plan to bring about peace.
imagine if Yassar had said yes
Exactly
@@kent3W yes to what?
@abdidesign3255 yes to the peace agreement in 2000
All waffle no substance
Save yourself a headache and watch the John Mershiemer interview instead.
bias
Well said
It’s a surprise this here discussion hasn’t been moved yet to the absurdist channel or at least a comedy station.
The willingness and commitment of not tolerating and talking both sides (the Isarelis and Palestinians) over the course of more than 75 years is unbelieavable ... Isarelis deserve to depend themselves but Palestinians also have the right to have a state of their own in their own homeland; where they have lived for hundred if not thousand of years. And if that right is being denied over and over again then you have armed upraising. That has been like that over the course of history multiple times worldwide.
Say, if the Australia government decide to marginalize and treat the indigenous people of Australia the way the Isarelis treated Palestine over 75yrs, I garantee Australia will have an armed uprising as well.
Everybody has their own opinions, but I don't think we are dealing with Jews or Palestinian but fanatic on both sides; who are willing to commit atrocities base on their fanticism believe.
If you talk about anti-semitism then why don't you compare it to anti-islamic also running rampagne in the western work as well ?? It is FANATISM we need to combat, and that applicable on both sides, be it Isareli or Palestinian.
Unless there is willing to push both sides to negotiate and talk by the global and Middle East regional powers, who actually holding the cards here, this will continue to extended period of time.
Oh, and anyone believe the IDF can crush Hamas can look up Cu Chi tunnel in Vietnam, how the Viet Cong troops hold on and fought a guerilla war right in middle of enemy territory South Vietnam for years. Tunnel & guerilla wars can strain and defeat well-equippped army.
Thank you for the thoughtful response to the discussion. If you haven't seen it already you will likely enjoy this video. It is the first in our debate series on the conflict in the Middle East. ua-cam.com/video/kAfIYtpcBxo/v-deo.html
As mentioned the Palestinians have said no many times, also comparing Hamas to the viet cong is like comparing a jelly fish to a dolphin.
@@kent3W I do have to know more about the proposed conditions that Palestinians rejected the deals in the past, whether those met their expectations.
About comparing HAMAS & Việt Cộng forces, I compare them in terms of of military tactics similararity (guerilla and tunnel war fare).
Also to draw a similarity beetween Việt Cộng (short for Việt Nam Cộng Sản) force and Hamas, i would advise you to read about the 1968 Tết offensive, which was a failure military for the VC, but it a win in terms of changing the mind of the Western and USA public regarding the on going war, leading to the winding down of US involvement in the Vietnam war. Let’s say there is also atrocities between VC force and our own Vietnamese people.
PS: I am a Vietnamese native, so i do have some intimate knowledge about the Vietnam war.
1:12:10 "USA has never caused terrorist organizations to manifest. Hurr durr"
In summary: he'd rather 100,000 Palestinians die than 1,000 Jews.
Thank you for engaging with our content.
@@CISAus Any time! x
28:30 "Critical Thinking is bad. Critical thinking is a slippery slope. Critical thinking has no checks and balances. Just have faith. Hurr durr."
At minute 32:00 he says Gaza was not a prison because it has a border with Egypt. He says three sides of Gaza were guarded by Israel and one side by Egypt. What he is saying both Egypt and Israel were Concentration Camp Guards for Gaza.
But Israel has always been in control of the border with Egypt, just as they are now.
@herbertvanlynden6629 Israel wanted Egypt to annexe Gaza. Egypt wanted Israel to recognise Palestine under the pre 1967 borders. So Egypt closed its border with Gaza.
@@herbertvanlynden6629
Before October 7, 2023, Israel did not directly control the Rafah crossing. The Rafah crossing is the only border crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt and has been primarily controlled by Egypt.
However, Israel had significant influence over the movement of goods and people in and out of Gaza, including through indirect measures like coordinating with Egypt on security concerns and maintaining control over other crossings into Gaza. The crossing's operations were often influenced by agreements and security conditions involving Israel, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority.
This is hilarious. CIS make two 'own goals' in a row. Meirsheimer wouldn't say what they wanted and gets praised. This guy promotes the propaganda CIS is wedded to and he gets pilloried. Well done CIS, you've shown your true colours...in black and white.
Did he think the comparison with Sudan was a mic drop moment? Not ONCE does he mention the atrocities committed by IDF or even attempt at nuancing his point of view.
I came in expecting to be intellectually challenged and stimulated but his points are complete bogus. This is embarrassing for this channel.
It’s the « israel has supplied gaza with water and electricity ». as if you deserve a pat on the back for that?? Why do you control their supply in the first place? It doesn’t help your case buddy
You may enjoy this video. It is the first in our debate series on the conflict in the Middle East. ua-cam.com/video/kAfIYtpcBxo/v-deo.html
21:15 and he has "defended" his position arguing that to queetion Israel's actions or motives is antisemitic and therefore conspiranoic
He continues to equate Hammas to the Palestinian people and bringing the holocaust into the conversation (?)
Thank you for commenting.
Telling BS in a fancy interview won't help
Thank you for commenting.
This is a mediocre argument at best compared to the points laid out by JJM
Thanks for sharing these views. However, I have expected the host to challenge the speaker with similar or close questions as he did with Prof Mearsheimer. Also, how could he tolerate when he said “if you don’t agree with colonialism, go back to your country”. That doesn’t sound liberal to me at all. One last question, why did you show only the audience who agree or support his view, but the last two, who really challenged his arguments, they are hidden or cut from the edits of this video?!
Thank you for your feedback. We very much want to test our speakers.
i didn't see the liberal sticker on his head
@@kent3W Exactly!
Though i am happy to hear the other sides opinion, the other side may either be completely and TOTALLY unhinged to the point where they are unable to see their own failings, or this guy is a disappointment of an academic.
Furthermore, this interviewer just lets him go off on his rhetoric for over an hour.
"Journalist" used to mean something else before.
Unsubscribing as well..
Ahmadiyyas are not Muslims.
38:50 "There is no such thing as a bad offer. Hurr durr."
52:30 "Did you hear that recently, Pakistan launched nuclear weapons at Iran? Pakistan nuked Iran. Why did Iran act so irrationally? Hurr durr"
The civilian casualties on D Day need context. 2 million Allied soldiers were invading and fighting across a much larger battle space and there were more French citizens who were in the battle space. If anything, citing this example diminishes the argument of Human Shields.
Hamas charter has since been revised:
"The new charter holds that armed resistance against an occupying power is justified under international law. While the 1988 Hamas Charter had been widely criticized for its antisemitism, the 2017 document stated that Hamas' fight was not with Jews as such because of their religion but with the Zionist project."
Likud charter, from 1977
"The original 1977 party platform stated that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." The 1999 Likud Party platform emphasized the right of settlement: The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values."
One group seems to be toning down it's rhetoric, the other seems to be doubling down.
Even the normies are starting to get an idea about what Israel really is. There is nothing you can do about this now unless you completely switch off all comment sections on social media and ramp up the lies by another 100 percent. But can you do that? Lets find out.
Israeli youtube deleted my American free speech
That's their M.O. They cannot let truth be heard, then freedom would follow & their reign of terrorism would end.
"You keep using this word... I don't think it means what you think it means".
Free speech doesn't mean anyone can say anything. Try reading about it more.
@@RagingShrimp67 Who decides what I can say Comrade?
@@4ucmikey The government, congress, and supreme court. I thought this was taught in schools.
@@RagingShrimp67 What branch of government is the Israeli lobby and ADL?
1:04:22 "If you interfere with genocide, you hate those committing genocide. Hurr durr"
Oh my gosh!!! I am so glad I am only reading the comments.
"Criticism of Zionism is never the result of reasoned thought. Hurr durr"
54:55 "Being colonized? All you have to do is agree to whatever terrible deal is offered to you. It's so easy. Hurr durr"
See what a hypocrite looks like in reality😀
This guy said he considers himself as a Zionist……. Say no more
Okay then lets stop blaming Germany for defending itself! Thats fair no?
Every serious viewer will find this interview embarrassingly disingenuous and propagandistic
All nonsense BS. Just let international journalists into Gaza!
1:13:30 "Zionists are justified in colonialism because other countries also did it. Hurr durr"
39:12 Because it’s not even their territory. They rightfully HAVE TO withdraw.
CIS consistently challenged Mearsheimer's arguments (as it should), yet failed to provide any real attempt to refute what can categorically be described as absolute garbage coming out of Bret's mouth. The reasoning was so fundamentally flawed, it was quite frankly an insult to watch. This was really disappointing.
Thank you for this feedback. I don't think it's every a mistake to hear the opposing views, particularly when they are some of the most commonly held views.
We will be doing a side by side video of Mearsheimer and Stephens with their responses to similar questions.
@@CISAusA debate between Mearsheimer and Stephens is a great idea. I can already hear Mearsheimer's response to Stephens thoughts...."This is not a serious argument !".
"Anti-Zionists are theocratic. Also, God says this land we stole was made for us by God. Hurr durr"
Look a satellite picture of Gaza. Then try to explain how you dare calling it defense.
Shame on you.
You may enjoy this video. It is the first in our debate series on the conflict in the Middle East. ua-cam.com/video/kAfIYtpcBxo/v-deo.html
1:14:25 "Religious beliefs are definitely Not idealogical. Hurr durr"
42:37 "History began on Oct7. Hurr Durr"
55:50 "Zionists like me know they are in the wrong and we wish our adversary was blindly agreeable to whatever terrible deal we offer. Hurr durr"
At minute 57:00 he equates nazi taking over Europe to Hamas taking over Gaza. Weird.
“We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture. “ Moshe Sharett, second prime minister of Israel and the country’s first foreign minister.
Disgusting
Not surprising that over 1000x people more interested in what John Mearsheimer had to say.
Not surprising that there are way more antisemites than there are Jews :D
I think it would be very difficult to compete with John Mearsheimer. He is the world's most famous political scientist for a reason.
@@CISAus Yet his only arguments were severely flawed, and when called out on it, by an audience member, his response was "I've been wrong before".
@@RagingShrimp67 And that is Mearsheimer's outstanding strength ......CREDIBILITY!!!
@@Jetchisel Ok, so in 5 years when Mearsheimer goes out and say that he was wrong, are you still going to agree with his opinion, or will you call him a hack, and a propagandist? I think I already know the answer. That's the nice thing about antisemites, they are so predictable.
“The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you”: Polish proverb.
The difference of behaviour of the interviewer in this interview and mearsheimer interview tells you everything you need to know.
52:15 "I definitely do Not have an ideology. I am rational. Hurr durr"
This interview was one of the most accurate on so many fronts regarding the Middle East I ever watched in the past decade.
Im from Iran, I lost friends and dears in the opposition and well aware of US and EU politics down to reading the legislations as they matter to learn for my nation when is free.
All I say is that there are many things about Hamas and the dynamics in Middle East that west does not know or not share.
Wow, pretty selfless of them to withdraw from a place that is not theirs to begin with. Their sense of justice is truly hilarious and tragic.
Great respect for Bret. I've never heard anyone define Zionist self-determination as not being ruled by others AND not ruling others. Is that the prevailing definition? I don't dispute this definition, but was it expressed in Zionist writing? Would be convenient if yes.
If we were to translate the phrase “I’m not anti Islam, I’m anti Islamist” from the youngest to the eldest Abrahamic sect, wouldn’t it be “I’m not antisemitic, I’m anti-Zionist”?
Nope, because it ignore the fact Jews have 1 state, and Muslism have over 50 states. Almost all failing btw. Yet Islamists still immigrate to the west and actively working to apply Sharia law in the west, which is another thing Jews do not do.
no
😂 don't try logic
42:45 "Isreal has Zero military facilities placed amongst Israeli civilian populations. Hurr Durr"
huh, weird propaganda. these points should definitely involve a lot more nuance than they were given. lost a subscriber.
You may enjoy this video. It is the first in our debate series on the conflict in the Middle East. ua-cam.com/video/kAfIYtpcBxo/v-deo.html
Not even going to watch/listen to this click bait. Just consider the logic in the title. If what Israel does is "self defence" then everything Hamas and Palestinians have done to Israelis are "self defence". Israel's soldiers live among civilians. They go to shops. They attend concerts. Use the Chomsky test on the arguments. Use some logic to your thought process.
Best if you stick your fingers in your ears and hum something, perhaps the theme song from one of the cartoons you watch.
I still gave it a chance but it’s more victimization and lies perpetuated
@@Jianju69 Care to elaborate on that comment? How did you come to that conclusion based on the first post?
@@noldushumlesnurr6169 What conclusion? That you watch cartoons? An obvious jest, stemming from the average maturity level of Hamas supporters.
@@Jianju69 Ahh so that's the level where at. What does that say about Zionist suporters?
1. "Anti-semitism is the reason of the war. If we eliminate Hamas, we will free the Palestinian people from Theocracy"
2. " What starts with the Jews doesn't always ends with the Jews. When a democracy sets itself up against the Jews it ends up destroying itself"
2 arguments I found interesting...
1:10:39 "Zionists definitely don't have an ideology. Hurr durr"
Stop calling a genocide A GENOCIDE
@6:30 Bret premises his argument as "Mearsheimer says Israel is an apartheid state, an evil state, waging a genocidal war" and Bret's responding point @9:28 is "Antisemitism is causing the war". Before I finish the video, let me say that is not a counterargument but an attempt to discredit Mearsheimer. To convince me of antisemitism, Bret needs counterexamples of countries in Israel's position don't get the same response. However, I hope Bret later makes arguments to actually contradict Mearsheimer.
We all have the right to protect ourselfs, how we do that defines who we are .
I hope these people reading the comments lol 😂
The mainstream media has failed and now they wanna spew on UA-cam which is an even bigger failure
😂😂😂😂
I'm a big fan of this channel but won't be if this altered reality BS becomes common place. Love to watch a debate between this deluded soul and John meirshimer.
John would lose, his ideas about statecraft are like him, a relic.
@@kent3W 😂😂😂 Yeah right. You are so deluded it's funny
CIS, you have interesting stuff to listen to, but this was pure shameles propaganda.
Bret presented some of the most common and strongest arguments in favour of zionism. We think that has value.
@@CISAus The Problem is that when it comes to Israel, many on the right(conservatives) just seem to lose all objectivity.
I agree with Bret Stephens.
did you eat lead paint chips as a child?