C (3:05)

Robert Pape, thanks very much, Dan. Noam, it's great to be here. It's wonderful to see you again. And folks, we are living through history.

A (3:15)

Okay.

C (3:17)

And it's a stunning because because you're.

A (3:19)

The third time guest on the podcast. It's a month history.

C (3:22)

Well, for me that's a historic. I always feel levitated when I'm here because I'm literally above the comedy cellar. But we are living through history and I really appreciate you having me on because I can't think of anybody better really. I want to talk to about it. Noam, we've known each other now about a year and you've had me on before. We've debated things before. We've had serious discussions. And the reason I say we're living through history is I'm talking about Israel and I'm talking about Israel is passing historic thresholds of civilian punishment in Gaza. And this is now knocking on the historic door of undermining the moral case for Israel. And that's really what I want to talk to you about. Okay, well, go ahead, go ahead. That's if just in the last month what we're seeing is Israel pass these historic thresholds, which I'm going to go through in detail later. But what is that doing to Israel's support? You're seeing former prime ministers of Israel come out and publicly say this is Olmert Barak, that Israel is committing war crimes. This is stunning. We have hundreds, not just a few, but hundreds of former Israeli high level intelligence officials, including the heads of Shin Bet and Mossad, saying that the war in Gaza is no longer a just war.

A (5:05)

Just be clear because you know, I saw that Allmert said this. I saw that Uhud Barak said it. I didn't see the head of the Mossad said it.

C (5:18)

Oh, there's a list of if you just, if your listeners will simply google, there is a letter that has been signed. You can probably find it while we're on. Hundreds of former Israeli security officials, including former heads of Mossad and Shinbat. And what they are saying is, is this war has passed. The point of any productive security returns. And I'm glad to go through all that. But even more than that this is no longer a just war. You have internationally in Europe, the British and the British were crucial in the founding of Israel in 1948. This would not have happened without British support. The British, the French, other European, Germany, close ally of Israel. They are not just simply upset and making sort of moral statements. They literally were engaged in airdrops over Israel's objections to drop food into Gaza in August. If we now look at the United States, let's look at the support for Israel in the United States. The public opinion polls for years now, including those that we do at our center at the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats, have been showing a divergence of public support for Israel where the break point is the age of 45. If you're under the age of 45, I don't mean in your 20s, I don't mean you're in college, I mean if you're under the age of 45, about half the population is opposed to Israel. That is, they're anti Zionist. Over the age of 45, they're still.

A (7:05)

In favor the same thing, anti Zionists being opposed to Israel in the war.

C (7:09)

They're opposed to Israel, they're opposed to what Israel has been doing.

D (7:12)

They're opposed to Israel existing, they're opposed.

C (7:15)

To Israel's military treatment, the treatment of the Palestinians. Whether Israel is actually operating out of its own self defense or whether it's.

D (7:25)

Operating post October 7th or this is just in general opposed to Israel existing.

C (7:31)

Yeah, these public opinion polls, if you go back and again this is all googleable so everything can be fact checked. If you go back, you will see that for about five years now this has been reported in various New York Times, op EDS and so forth. You will see that there's been a steady finding that the younger generation, and by that don't think college kid, 18 years old, you know, sort of surrounded by liberal progressive faculty, just really the younger generation have been increasingly moving against the support of Israel and Israel's behavior as a state. I don't mean Jewish people, we're talking about the state of Israel.

D (8:15)

I'm just trying to clarify if you mean their right to exist or they're.

C (8:20)

Challenging their right to exist, they're challenging more specifically their behavior in terms of whether they are operating out of self defense or as an aggressor. That is expansionist power. That's where this idea of occupier comes from and so forth. And the opinion polls have been getting worse in recent years. So it's not. So it's true. It's worse after October 7th. That was almost two years ago now. But they were getting worse before October 7th. So October 7th is coming on the heels of a trend. There's another element of American support that specifically opened up just in the last few months, and that is you are now seeing among a powerful portion of Donald Trump's support base that is Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, you are seeing podcast after podcast that are essentially anti Zionist.

B (9:25)

Well, Kirk is he not? Charlie Kirk is very pro Israel, is he not?

C (9:30)

If you just listen to the podcast he just had last week where he brings on young, young. Because Charlie Kirk specializes in essentially 20 year olds because he basically is the one of the key people who built the base for Donald Trump among the 20 year olds. If you just go and listen to this most recent podcast, literally in the last five days, you are going to hear a detailed discussion about why, with Charlie Kirk and these undergraduates, why the funding of Israel should stop.

B (10:08)

So this is not Kirk himself came down on the side of stopping funding.

C (10:13)

I don't want to put words in his mouth. So let me get. First of all, I don't want to actually go so far as put words in his mouth. But if your listeners will go and simply pay attention to this, you will see extended conversation about whether Israel should be, quote, treated as a normal country not receiving the $4 billion a year in aid, whether this should stop now, whether this has been going on for way too long. And you're going to see that far from shutting it down, he's actually continuing the conversation. I don't want, I want to be careful because I don't want Charlie Kirk calling me up and say, oh, Professor Pape, you put one word in my mouth too far. That's not the way to think about it. But if you. Let's just go to beyond Charlie Kirk. You've had Tucker Carlson with Marjorie Taylor Greene just also in the last month long extended detailed podcast talking about how Israel's committing genocide. How Israel, and that's a word Noam, I don't use in that piece. So Israel's committing genocide. They're talking about how Israel that we can't. The United States is now basically going too far down the road of what Israel wants as opposed to what America first should actually be.

A (11:26)

Can I stop?

C (11:27)

And so my point is, yeah, my point is what you are seeing is you are seeing the erosion of the moral case for Israel, not just in the normal places. We're used to seeing things like that, but it's now happening in places that are really central to Israel's future support. And that's the wake up call that I think, really, that's the bell that needs to be rung.

A (11:54)

All right, so obviously I'm aware of this, although I wish you would let me know. But you want to address this letter because I, I can't find the letter. I've been looking as you. I can't find the actual text of the letter. I saw the article about it.

C (12:07)

Well, okay.

A (12:07)

No, but it's important to know.

C (12:09)

Okay, the letter says, I'll see if I can find it.

A (12:12)

Does the letter say that? You know, I don't know what it says because. Because what I have heard is not what I wanted to address right now, but I have heard is people saying what. What you said is that Israel's. The war has achieved its aims. Israel's security concerns have been addressed. This is what Gallant had said. So. And, and you know, people signing that letter is not the same thing as signing the letter that Israel is committing genocide or Israel is war crimes.

C (12:44)

It's not no longer a just war. So I didn't say it was committing.

A (12:46)

Genocide or a just war is also not the same thing as war crimes. Not that I'm doubting that some war crimes have been committed. Obviously, there's war crimes in most every war. But I, I think that because of what you're saying, it would be helpful to be extremely precise about what words we're going to put in the mouths of 500 Israeli officials. So not having that at my disposal, I want to first just tease some of this out because some of this is disturbing to me for a different reason. So, Robert, maybe we'll find it afterwards.

C (13:27)

Yeah, I think we're just. Yeah, yeah.

A (13:31)

You know, I could imagine a scenario where affirmative action loses its favor with the academics, and then people like David Duke and, you know, known racists pile on, and I'd be very uncomfortable to use them as a. To illustrate a critical mass. So everybody's had it. Even David Duke has had it.

C (13:55)

Even.

A (13:56)

Even Richard Spencer's had it.

C (13:57)

I would agree with you.

A (13:58)

So when you talk about Tucker Carlson and people of that ilk, you're talking about a wing of a. Of a school of thought which has emerged, which is making room for Candace Owens for the notion that Christian baby disappear every year at Passover. For Daryl Cooper, who says that the Zionists were behind World War II, that Churchill was a. Didn't, you know, I'm sorry. That Churchill was installed by Zionists, that Hitler was outraged by Kristallnacht you know, it's, I don't, you know, the first part of what you said, I'm like, oh, this is, you know, a conversation worth having. But when you bring in people like Tucker Carlson, I viscerally get upset about it. He blames our support for Ukraine on Israel. I suppose you agree with our support for Ukraine. Yeah, he believes he was mauled by demons. He says the US Is studying alien weapon systems. He goes on and on about the Jews and this and the Jews and that and Jews and that. I think it pollutes your own presentation.

C (15:09)

Well, bring it up. Not to bring it up. Not to legitimate.

A (15:12)

When you say Tucker Carlson, who gives shit what Tucker Carlson thinks? Well, if I told you tucker Carlson believes January 6th is an inside job, you would tell me who gives a shit what Tucker Carlson says about January 6th.

C (15:23)

Well, no, well, first of all, I disagree with Carlson's view on January 6th. However, I think it would be a mistake to underrate the influence he has politically, especially in Republican circles. Right, but, and that's my point. My point is not, my point is not that because Carlson says it, it must be objectively true. I'm not making that point at all. So I support Israel. I am supporting, I also support Ukraine. So this is, I'm not saying it because I'm not saying, well, Carlson says it and therefore it is objectively true. That's not what I'm pointing, that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that what is happening in Gaza is reach historic thresholds. And those historic thresholds are now corresponding with a growing vocal opposition to aid to Israel, military support for Israel, economic support for Israel, and actually intervention against Israel's behavior by the Europeans in Gaza.

A (16:29)

You said this and you have been following the show. I've been critical of Israel. So it's not, I'm not freaking out at the idea of criticizing Israel, but I do think that if we're going to, you know, Israel has its work cut out for it in terms of a real threat that it's facing and a future that is unknown. Just to make a, what's become a trite example of if 10 years ago Israel had taken drastic action against Hamas or even in 2022, everybody would have said, what the hell are they doing? What are they, Hamas is no threat to Israel, Gaza is no threat to Israel. But you know, they would have been right to have taken stronger action against Hamas and they would have never been able to prove that they were right when they start to lose People like Tucker Carlson and things like that. It's really not. It can't be relevant to the consideration of whether Israel is. This is what you're doing when you say that 500 former. We say 500. That was 200 former Israeli officials, former Shin Bet. This is presenting a very powerful case, like concessions against interest, admissions against interest. These are people, patriots of Israel, saying what we're doing is wrong. So anybody who's pro Israel has to stop and think, oh, what's going on here? If we're losing the people who care about the country most of all, I would just suggest to mix in the people who also hate the country and, you know, embrace the worst anti Semites out there. Undermines the case.

C (18:14)

You'll know the audience better than I will, and there is no doubt about it. But as an intellectual matter, I'm not fighting for Carlson's legitimacy.

A (18:23)

You're trying to say it's. It's widespread.

C (18:25)

I'm saying reaching to. No, no big part of.

A (18:29)

Let me finish. Israel has to concern itself with it. Absolutely, it does, as a practical matter. But if Israel is doing the right thing by the people who care, the moral people who care about its survival, and Tucker Carlson was complaining, and the. And the whole United States of America turns against it, then Israel may just have to do what it has to do. In the end, the heart of this, the heart of this conversation has to be about whether Israel is doing the right thing or not.

C (19:04)

And we agree on that.

A (19:06)

If America turns against Israel despite it's doing the right thing, and I'm gonna make an analogy one second, then have to do that. But Tucker Carlson, I have a visceral reaction to it. There was something I heard yesterday, and then we'll get into the nuts and bolts. Malcolm Gladwell says, you know, I have to admit it's ridiculous to let trans women compete in female sports. And he says, I have to admit I was cowed. I was so intimidated by the. The world I was living in at the time that I went and I said that even though it was in retrospect, it clearly wasn't right. Now. He didn't actually say to my ear whether or not he believed it at the time, but he was acknowledging that the psychological gravity that came down on him caused that.

E (19:56)

It was a particular moment which has passed. If we did a replay of that exact panel at the Sloan conference this coming March, it runs in exactly the opposite direction. And it would be, I suspect, near unanimity in the room that trans athletes have no place in. In the female category, I don't think there's any question. I just think it was a strange, I mean, I felt, I mean, I was the reason. I'm ashamed of my performance of that panel because I share your position 100%. And I was counting the idea of saying anything on this issue. I was in a, I believe in retrospect in a dishonest way. I was objective in a dishonest way. I let a lot of really of howlers pass. Well, I think there's a, all of these arguments are embedded in larger social and cultural trends. Right. This was never really an argument about sports. This was a much, much larger argument about a political argument, a cultural argument. And I think that those cultural wins have, have, have clearly shifted.

A (21:15)

That kind of, and this is part of my concern with Israel is because I'm feeling it too. There's such pressure here at this point to go in the direction that you're describing and that maybe, and maybe for, for all intents and purposes, for all practical matters, Israel needs to accede to that because it has other fish to fry. It has to, it has, it needs the support of the United States. It might need the aid. It needs someone to turn to and it may have to, you know, as I said, give in to that pressure and wait to live to fight another day. But no matter what, someone has to explain to me how Israel is going to survive 10 years from now next door to a Hamas, which is going to beat its chest with victory. We're still standing. You didn't beat us. We're going to do October 7th again the first chance we get. And by the way, you saw what happened to Ukraine with a thousand drones that you know how much they were? $800 each or whatever it is. We're going to do that to Israel and Israel's point of view. And by the way, Omer Bartolt, this last thing, Omer Bartov was on the show, you know, he's the genocide scholar who said that Israel's committing genocide. I asked him, because I used his own words, I said, does Israel need to defeat Hamas? You know what he said to me? Yes. You say Hitler could not have said it better. These people must be taken at their word. If a self proclaimed liberation organization calls for the extermination of the Jewish state, do not pretend that it is calling for anything else. The absence of clarity is the beginning of complicity. And you go on to conclude most liberal minded, optimistic, well meaning people are loathe to believe this. I agree with you on that. They would rather think that fanaticism is merely an epiphenomenal facade for politics, that opinions can be changed, that everyone can be corrected and improved. No. There are those who practice what they preach and are proud of it. This is Bartov talking. They view those who act otherwise, who compromise and pull back from the ultimate conclusions, as weaklings, as targets to be easily conquered and subdued by their own greater determination and ruthlessness. And then finally you say, when they say they will kill you, they will kill you if you do not kill them first. But I just want to know if you still stand by your words. And I'll add more. They said by all available means of political, judicial, and if necessary, by the use of legitimate force. For these are people talking about Hamas who mean what they say. If you do not destroy them, they will destroy you. This is your words, correct? It's fine if you don't believe them anymore, but just let either. I'm looking for clarity, like, do you no longer think Hamas stands by what it says? Do you no longer think they're the threat that has to be destroyed?

E (24:08)

They are a threat that has to be destroyed.

A (24:10)

Okay, so we agree on that.

E (24:12)

So how do you destroy them? So how do you destroy them?

A (24:16)

That's the next question. The first. We've established something that we both agree that the war aim to destroy Hamas legitimate.

E (24:23)

No, because that's not the war aim. If it were the. The war.

A (24:30)

If it were the war, and what would it. What would destroying Hamas look like now? Right.

E (24:35)

That is the question. Okay, that's the question exactly. How do you destroy Hamas? Do you destroy Hamas by destroying Gaza?

A (24:43)

Tell me how you do destroy Hamas.

E (24:44)

You destroy Hamas in two ways. A, you operate against them militarily. B, you provide an alternative.

A (24:53)

He says if you don't kill Hamas, if you don't kill them, they will kill you first. This is what he says about Hamas. I said, well, how is Israel supposed to do that? He says, militarily, and by giving them an alternative meaning in some other leadership. How militarily? That's. That's up for Israel to figure out. So we have an impossible situation here. And, and with all the, everything that you say here that I think has to be taken very seriously, because I don't know what the right answer is. Is. And I, I cannot stand seeing, knowing that so many people are dying, one still has to say, be able to say, and by the way, if Israel stops this war, they will be safe and they will be secure.

C (25:39)

So, so let me give you a direct.

A (25:41)

Will they Be safe and will they be secure if they take Professor Pape's advice, in your opinion?

C (25:46)

They could be. They could be. And here's the. Here's the way ain't good enough.

B (25:50)

Well, is this Professor Pape's advice or he's just telling us what the situation is?

C (25:54)

Well, no. Let me explain what it would mean for Israel to be safe and what it would have meant on October 7th for 2023 for Israel to be safe. What it would mean is for the IDF to have followed its own preparation and rules, which were to respond within minutes of any outward incursion from Gaza. And that did not happen. And it didn't happen in minutes. It didn't happen in an hour. It didn't happen in two hours. It didn't happen for seven hours in some places, 12 hours in others. The reason October 7th killed over 1100 Israelis is, is no doubt Hamas wanted to do that. Hamas has wanted to do that for years. The operational reason, Noam, why that happened is because the IDF did not respond. That is the going forward. This is the same. It's what's keeping Israel safe from Hamas, is not killing Hamas because Hamas, by all the numbers we have, including the IDF's most recent numbers, which are a few months out of date, Hamas has about the same number of fighters today as it had on October 7th. So this is what American intelligence is reporting. This is what the IDF intelligence is reporting. So we basically don't have identity. Identical estimates, but pretty close to identical estimates. So what's happened in the last two years is, yes, Israel, Israel has killed some 10, 12,000 Hamas fighters, something like that. Most people, that is the Israeli intelligence and US intelligence agree on that. But at the same time, somewhere between 10 to 15,000 new Hamas fighters have been recruited. So somewhere around Hamas today has somewhere around 23,000 fighters, something like that number. It had about 20. Well, but I'm trying to explain to you what would it take to be secure. What it takes is the IDF to protect Israel from Hamas going into Israel, greater Israel, into those settlements. That is what the IDF's doing that right now. And they could do that. Whether they're inside Gaza, they can do that. From the perimeter of Gaza, they will have to do that. If they move the entire population of Gaza to the Sinai, they will have to form a line, a defensive barrier to defend Israel. So it's the defensive barrier that is the ultimate guarantor of Israel from Hamas.

A (28:49)

So let me get in there and then I found the letter.

B (28:50)

I can read except for missile Attacks.

C (28:53)

Well, there's. Yes, but those are the. Yes, Israel can, can use the Iron Dome. They can do all. They can't completely stop that. But the point is that you say, what is the thing that's, that's really threatening Israel's existence? It was that October 7th and that attack on October Sevent. And Dan, what made that attack so deadly was not that Hamas suddenly woke up one day and say, oh, hey, we'd like to do an attack like this. What made that attack so deadly is the IDF did not show up for many hours, and that's what allowed the butchery to take place unimpeded.

A (29:32)

Okay, first of all, that gets to Dan's point. First of all, the idea of intelligence failures and not showing up, this is, this happens periodically in every country in the world. And Israel can't bet everything on, on the idea that they will never fail. They never drop the ball, they'll never miss some intelligence, number one. Number two, Dan is right. The rockets go in and go in and go in and go in, and Israel is living their lives in and out of bomb shelters in a way that, that you would not allow your country to impose on you. If we in New York were constantly in and out of bomb shelters, we would not tolerate it. And we'd expect the American president to do whatever it has to do to stop it. We can't go on this way forever, especially as technology improves and improves and improves. And as I already said, Ukraine inflicted tremendous damage on Russia with these cheap dime store drones. They just swarmed Russia, one of the most powerful countries in the world, and Russia was helpless to stop it. So having said all that, I've been asking people a question lately, which is over the last 10 years we heard that, or 15 years, we've heard these horrible stories about this Israeli blockade of Gaza. It was an outdoor prison. Israel's not letting anything in, anything out. And it's a, it's terribly unjust. And my point has been, okay, well, if you want to stop the war now, now that we know that that blockade was not nearly strong enough, that actually here they are two years later, they still have, they can still muster a rocket from time to time. They have bullets. They have everything that apparently Israel was keeping out, will people like Professor Pape support Israel in the draconian blockade that Israel is going to have to impose on these people in order for it to achieve what it is that you're saying they will be able to achieve by locking up Gaza? You are telling me that what Israel has to do is really create an outdoor prison in Gaza. Really make sure that not a friggin thing goes in there and that's how they'll be secure. And you know very well that the people that you're talking about now that are, are not supporting Israel, they're not going to support that. We're going to see pictures every day of this horrible siege of Gaza. That's if you will leave Hamas in charge. Have no illusions about what that's going to look like if Israel, as you say, is going to keep itself secure. And you claim they have a right to.

C (32:11)

So hold it. So first of all, I'm telling you in detail.

A (32:14)

Explain it to me.

C (32:15)

So I'm saying number one is defense. Okay, Absolutely. Hold it. Impenetrable defense. And the idea.

A (32:26)

No, no, impenetrable. What is impenetrable mean?

C (32:28)

Impenetrable means the IDF follows its rules, it responds within minutes to an incursion which they are monitoring.

A (32:39)

Rockets are okay with you?

C (32:40)

No, no.

A (32:42)

Number two, they have a right to zero rockets.

C (32:43)

No, hold it.

A (32:44)

Do they have a right to zero?

C (32:45)

I'm giving you the plan. Number one is. Number one is the impenetrable defense. Defense is job one. Number two is you do selective military attacks to attack Hamas leaders and cadre directly, but surgically.

A (33:06)

They killed all Hamas leaders. No one pops up.

C (33:08)

Kill them surgically and selectively stop anything. And number three is you allow there to be a growth of an alternative to Hamas inside of Gaza and inside of the Palestinians. Those are the three principles of assuring Israel's security going forward. Now let's put that against the alternative plan. There's an alternative plan which is exterminate or kill large numbers of Palestinians.

A (33:43)

Changing the subject.

C (33:44)

Now, if that is the old two choices, this, the one I laid out is by far Israel's best bet.

A (33:50)

Okay, but let's stick to this one. So you know the old Steve Martin routine. I'm going to get it wrong, like, because you can be a millionaire and not pay taxes. You can be a millionaire, you know, and not pay taxes. He says. He says, first get a million dollars, then don't pay taxes. You can be Israel and be publicly secure. First make your defenses impenetrable. Then don't let Hamas, like, yeah, that's great. Wouldn't that be great if Israel could make the defenses impenetrable? They've learned that they can't make their defenses impenetrable. And when the world sees what it looks like to try to make their defenses impenetrable, the World chokes on it. They're disgusted by it, and it is horrible to look at. So how are you? You. And I can say this because our kids are not going in and out of bomb shelters. And Israel, Israel can say, you know what this is without regard to war crimes, that's another matter. But assuming these are all legal military targets, and assuming Israel could say, you know what, even if we lose the support of the world, we have the right not to live this way anymore. And by the way, it could stop tomorrow. Because all that has to happen is the. They have to say, okay, Israel, no more. We want peace.

C (35:08)

Israel.

D (35:09)

Can I just ask one question?

C (35:11)

How are you?

A (35:11)

Read the letter.

D (35:12)

Yes, but I think that your plan sounds amazing. My question would be is how are you supposed to surgically remove Hamas operatives when they intentionally embed themselves among civilians? And number two, do you know what Hamas does to Palestinian people who try to form alternate governments?

C (35:36)

There is an alternative to Hamas in the West Bank. That alternative works with Israel. That alternative helps Israel basically detain, kill Hamas fighters, leaders in the West Bank. And what you are seeing is what's occurring in Gaza is now starting to be so bad that it's starting to break that relationship in the West Bank. So that there was a model here. That model, I'm not saying was perfect. I'm not saying it's wonderful. But the idea that there was no possible model here and that what is occurring now is going to be better for Israel's security, I think, is just not the case. And I'm coming at this not because I'm saying Israel should go away. I'm saying that there's no perfect 100% security, okay? And the reason for that is because Israel is fundamentally 7 million Jews surrounded by hundreds of Muslims who hate it.

B (36:39)

Millions of Muslims.

C (36:40)

I'm sorry, hundreds of millions. Hundreds of millions of Muslims who hate it. So this is 7 million, okay? Surrounded by this. There is no doubt about that. So Israel, more than the United States, has to be super smart about how it moves forward, because Israel is a tiny country of 7 million. It depends critically on the trade with the EU. If the EU were to cut off all trade, I don't mean military support, I mean all trade. That's virtually 10% of Israel's economy gone forever.

A (37:16)

Okay?

C (37:17)

So this is these. These are the risks that Israel is running. I'm not saying that Israel doesn't have the right to make its own decisions. And I'm here because I'm trying to advocate to the people who care the most about Israel in the country. I believe, and I'm doing it from a place of wanting Israel to be there 10 years from now, that this is not going in the right direction. This is going, in fact, in a negative direction pretty quickly. And the big operation that's about to come could push it over the edge, make it basically irreversible. What's happening to the moral case for Israel. That's why this is so critical right now.

A (37:56)

If it's irreversible, it's already reversible.

C (37:58)

No, no, no, I don't believe. I don't think that's right. No, it is. It's really horrible right now. But, but you go forward beyond killing 5% of the Palestinian population, it's 5% right now. That becomes 10%, 15%.

A (38:14)

No, I hear you.

C (38:15)

Now, this is going down, not just in history, as the worst sort of civilian democracy. This will be in the. In the realms of the. Be the worst of the worst.

A (38:25)

All right. There is also. I want to read the letter. Yeah. Say two things on the. First of all, part of the story is that the world really failed to. I mean, and it's just. It's just, you know, post facto observation. It's not going to change anything. It's not going to undo what you're saying because. And what you're describing may be real, although irreversible is always. Things are never as irreversible as we think. But the world failed to unite against Hamas, as it ought to have, in terms of expressing how unacceptable it was for Hamas to keep its civilians in harm's way, not wear uniforms, commit all the war crimes that it committed, which were designed to have their civilians killed, as we know from Sinwar's communication and international law, you know, is actually on Israel's side for most of this, meaning that it is. It is on AMAs. If they create legitimate targets around their civilians, as we've said before on this podcast, when Britain knew that the blitz was coming, they evacuated a million and a half people in a matter of a week or something. Hamas told all his people to stay in place. And if they had not told their people to stay in place, you'd be not here criticizing Israel. And somewhere that has been lost in the shuffle.

C (40:04)

That was a very important point of the conversation a year and a half ago.

A (40:09)

Yes, I said, I said that happening is. I actually preface by saying that it's. It's a post facto observation.

C (40:19)

Okay, then I'm just agreeing with you.

A (40:20)

Yeah. But it is still a mark of shame on the People who, who did that. And it was sanctimonious. Now, really. Okay, now here's the letter. Now. Now I've had. Listen, you and I become friends and. But we on the podcast was no halls bar. We say what's on my mind. I've had a problem with you from time to time in the sense of exaggerations. And I, I don't like exaggerations.

C (40:45)

I will. If you, if I exaggerated, I'll admit it right on the air that I did that. And I'm not gonna mince any words. So you tell me what it says, I will trust that that is the actual accurate. So I'm not gonna try to wiggle.

A (40:57)

Out of it, but I'm gonna give you an example because I, it's funny, I remember this and I, and I never expressed it, but it always kind of irked me. One time in an interview, you said that Trump told people to inject bleach. I'm like, Trump never told anybody to inject bleach. That never happened. This was kind of an anti Trump thing that went around. And this kind of.

C (41:17)

Well, this one, we might have to just disagree because I watched him do it live on the air. Maybe he didn't.

A (41:22)

$10,000.

C (41:23)

You know, maybe he didn't use the word inject.

A (41:25)

I mean, I will close it to the mic.

C (41:26)

Oh, okay. Sorry. So maybe he didn't use.

A (41:29)

I, he did not tell anybody to take bleach. What he told, what he said was, I can remember the whole thing. That was yesterday. He says, well, I heard that they're applying some therapy now with light.

F (41:39)

So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light. And I think you said that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right? And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection, inside, or almost a cleaning? Because, you see, it gets on the lungs and it does a tremendous number of the lungs. So it'd be interesting to check that so that you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds, it sounds interesting to.

A (42:28)

Me, which can kill the virus. And you know, I was wondering, I was asking, he was asking, was it Burks or whoever I think was burks off Fauci. You know, I wonder is there would be, would there be a way to apply disinfectant directly to the, to the lungs? But, you know, the doctors would have to tell us about that.

C (42:51)

That's what I believe. That's what I heard. And if I summarized it in a way that you don't like that, I'll take that back and I'll agree with you. That's what he said and that's enough for me.

A (43:01)

Now let me tell you that he's telling us he didn't tell anybody to do anything. He said the doctors will have to decide. But let me tell you how not crazy what he said was. I remember looking up at the time, there have been numerous medical studies about whether or not direct application of disinfectant to the lungs could kill viruses. And I think one of them, if I remember correctly, actually showed some problem. It wasn't about COVID You know, if you're, if you're bullshitting around your friends, I wonder if they injected something in lungs, if that could kill some of the virus because the lungs are being, you know, where this cytokine storm, whatever, I don't remember. And so, yeah, now, of course the president United States should not be out there from the seat of his pants saying such nonsense. And he should understand how people can misinterpret him and how his enemies will weaponize it.

C (43:44)

So then how are we disagreeing if you don't think he should have be saying this? Because I still don't quite get it.

A (43:49)

Thinking he shouldn't have said it because he should have known that people quite often will in bad faith twist his.

C (43:56)

Words and he can come right back on the next day because he was on every single, almost every single day at this point in time, so he could just take it back the next day.

A (44:05)

Ethic of that. I think someone like me, someone like you, people who have an audience have to have about never ever, ever exaggerating facts. Never ever, ever. Somebody takes some like Tyler Cowan. He would anything he says, you don't even need to look it up. So anyway, so here's.

C (44:23)

And I'm agree. And no, let me just say on principle, I am agreeing with you and I'm saying that, okay, you don't like that I said that about Trump, but we're agreeing on the facts here. I'm holding my own. But here on the letter, I'm just telling you, if I've exaggerated that letter, I'm just going to admit that I know that's not qu. Right, but that's.

A (44:41)

Admit it. But if I didn't take the time to look it up, it. It, it goes into the bloodstream to inflame the very people you're lamenting.

C (44:51)

Well, let's see what it. Okay, let's see what it says.

A (44:53)

Let's see what it's war crimes.

C (44:54)

Let's see what it says.

A (44:55)

Dear Mr. President is a letter to Trump, right? Okay, the Mr. President, I write you on behalf of the over 550 members of Commanders for Israel Security CIS, all former senior the officers of the IDF, Massage Shin Bet Police, NSC and Foreign Service. We wish to urge you to leverage your upcoming meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu to realize your vision. End the Gaza war, bring all the hostages home, and end this death and suffering of innocence. Launch a Hamas free morning after death.

C (45:22)

And suffering of innocence. So let's just slow down a little bit Death and end the death and suffering of innocence. He doesn't mean death and suffering of innocence they're talking about.

A (45:31)

Should we pause here and list a war that didn't have death and suffering of innocence?

C (45:35)

I'm just pointing out that they are calling attention to death and suffering of innocence. So if we're going to park, they're.

D (45:41)

Also pointing out bringing the hostages.

C (45:43)

Well, that's another point too. I'm not disagreeing. But the death and suffering of the innocents are the Palestinians.

A (45:50)

Well, let's finish. I'm going to say death and suffering innocence is not accusation of a war crime. Launch a Hamas free morning after for this trip and pave the way for new regional security coalition that includes Israel. Mr. President, you created this historic opportunity. Please don't let it slip away. Your approach is supported by over 70% of the Israeli public. Likewise, the IDF chief of staff has concluded that the IDF has attained all that can be accomplished by military force and that it's time to leverage its achievements through diplomacy. Indeed, is our professional judgment as well that the IDF has long accomplished its dual mission of dismantling Hamas governance and essentially destroying its military capabilities. Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel, and as demonstrated this year on multiple fronts, not least in Lebanon and Iran, Israel possesses overwhelming power and ability to neutralize any threat that might arise from Gaza in the future. While further fighting is likely to kill a few more terrorists, it risks the lives of hostages will continue to cost yet more IDF casualties and prolong the suffering of innocent Palestinians more.

C (46:47)

There you go.

A (46:48)

More broadly, it is likely to cause a loss of momentum in leveraging Military achievements in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran.

C (46:55)

There you go.

A (46:55)

Furthermore. Okay, I'm reading here to find accusation of war crime or unjust.

C (47:00)

Well, okay, I'm going to look if, if the words these are close enough and there's other former military security officials who are using the word including Prime Minister's war crime. So if in fact the word war crime doesn't exist there. No, I will admit that furthermore, right off the bat. But if you look at, if you listen to the substance of what you're saying, of what you're saying, it is 99 what we are talking about.

A (47:28)

Let me read one more paragraph, then I'll tell you what I think this is saying. Furthermore, it is also the professional judgment of the hundreds of CIS retired generals that a partial and staggered hostage deal and a limited ceasefire entail the same risk to the lives of remaining hostages, the IDF soldiers and to innocent Palestinians, and will most likely lead to renewed fighting, all while reducing prospects for expanding the Abraham Accords and forging and forging a regional alliance that includes Israel. I just want to just scan this to make sure there's a few more paragraphs, but they're basically, I'll read the final paragraph. With your support and firm demand to change course now to end the war, bring all hostages home and make room for stabilizing diplomacy that secures Hamas free Gaza governance, the Prime Minister will be able to stand up to the extreme minority that is continuously pushing for ever more destabilizing violence. Mr. President, we're probably not wrong in suggesting that nowhere on earth are you more popular than in Israel. That was the case even prior to your courageous, forceful and effective action in Iran, which you opposed. The vast Israeli majority now awaits your similar similarly decisive decision and assertive leadership to bring this war to an end the hostages home and start creating a new, bright and stable future. So how I read this letter is these people are saying we're probably not going to be able to achieve our objective. Maybe they're saying, maybe, you know, Soto, Soto Voce is I saying they're saying we're losing the world support here.

C (48:50)

That's what they're saying. Because of the suffering of the Palestinians.

A (48:54)

Israel is very important to always say Israel is psychologically overwrought and just and just and distraught by the plight of these hostages. And these military people think that that should be the priority right now. And yes, if you can't accomplish your goals and I said this on day one about the said it said, if it turns out that Israel kills all these people and they have nothing to show for it. Remember saying that that will be too awful to contemplate. So, so what they're saying reverberates with me. That if, if they are right, if, because there are people similarly credentialed who disagree after all, but if they are right, that, that all the more deaths that happen from this day on will be in vain and Israel will be find themselves in no better position after they kill another, God forbid, you know, tens of thousands of Palestinians, innocent people, than before Israel should stop the war. Yes, that is, that is a mature position for a patriot military person to have about their country's strategy. It doesn't mean they're signing on the dotted line about war crimes, genocide, immorality, unjustness.

C (50:13)

I'm right away going to say I won't take back that Ehud Omer, former Prime Minister of Israel, said Israel's committing war crimes in Gaza. Okay. And I'm also not going to take back, although I'm not going to go find them, that there are other high ranking former Israeli officials, security officials, who will say something close to that. I will take back that in that letter the word war crime is not there. And so I'll even go further and say, noam, I apologize for if I said that too quickly in my sort of listing of what I said, I'll even go further and apologize. What I won't do, however, is say that excuses everything. That takes away the substance of what I'm saying because in fact, that is the substance of the Foreign affairs article that I published in detail, not opinion, laying out chapter and verse, fact after fact of Hamas recruiting, the number of the percentages of Palestinians dying, the details of how the assessments are being done so that we can lift the fog of all this confusion, putting it in historic context. That's what that does. And by the way, if, and just, just, I'm just going to say, please, the words war crimes are not there. I will readily admit that. And I'm going further, Noam, and I'm saying I'm sorry, I should not have said that word about that one.

B (51:41)

Now let me, will you go one step further and offer dinner at Il Molinos after the show?

C (51:48)

Well, actually, I think that's fair. I think that's fair.

A (51:51)

Let me say something, I don't know the answer to this. Obviously you have more questions expertise than I do in military matters, but as we've seen the last 50 years, the experts in military matters famously get it wrong. I will, I will say this is not to be like Snarky, but it's an important illustration. You predicted terrible consequences if we were to take action in Iran. Many people did, Many of them of Trump's enemies did, many of Netanyahu's enemies did, and it didn't happen.

C (52:30)

Well, hold it. Could we. Could we do the same thing here? Could you find me the quote where I predicted the negative, the horrible consequence? Because my. My analysis in detail and on all my tweets was not predicting the negative consequences. My contribution, because what I did with Iran. So I used to teach for the U.S. air Force. I taught conventional targeting strategy for years for the US Air Force. My book, Bombing to Win, covers every air campaign in history in the 20th century. Still required reading by the military. I just gave a big talk to the U.S. army, the U.S. army War College about this, just literally 10 days ago here. So this is an area that I'm not just kind of cavalierly talking about. What I said in the Foreign affairs piece was I laid out in detail how the bombing, especially of Fordeau, and this is before it happened, was highly unlikely, virtually unlikely, to demonstrably destroy the 408kg of highly enriched uranium. So the key number in all of my work in the last three months and also every analysis we've done in my class, where we hypothetically bomb Iran the end of every quarter for the last 20 years, has shown that we would never be able to confidently show we destroyed the 408kg of highly enriched uranium. And despite President Trump's claims, we now know from Israeli intelligence, we know from dia, we know that we have no evidence, literally zero evidence, as my article said, we would not that we destroyed even 1kg. I actually gave credit that we would destroy, get some evidence of more than that, but we have literally nothing.

A (54:27)

Sorry, no.

C (54:28)

What do I have?

A (54:29)

First of all? Yeah, we hear reports back and forth, and again, it's totally possible they didn't. They didn't destroy a single ounce of this stuff. The latest report I heard from Israeli intelligence was that it was more successful than they had first thought.

C (54:45)

But the more successful has to do with destroying centrifuges.

A (54:51)

In terms of the.

C (54:51)

The 408. There's just. No, there's not a look. You can find the evidence, but really, intelligence, obviously.

A (54:59)

Obviously, yeah.

C (55:01)

I love this, by the way, because this is actually real data fights. I love the data fights.

A (55:07)

Obviously, the concern was not simply that, that we wouldn't destroy the enriched uranium. The concern was that this would lead. I think you said this. I'm trying to. A Cycle of retaliations that would cause America to have to strike again.

C (55:26)

Well, I said there's a risk of it. I didn't say it would certainly lead to it. I said that there's a risk that we wouldn't. We'd start down a road. And by the way, that risk is not over. I mean, we're actually only at the beginning of the conflict with Iran, now with the United States. So. So this not a case where, well, Iran hasn't done anything to America in the last month and a half and therefore we're good. Not a chance. This is a much different world that we're in now. And so this is not a case where. Where the, the conflict with Iran is somehow over because Donald Trump's decided to focus on invading Chicago. I mean, this is just a different. This is different.

A (56:08)

This is from Grok. I don't know if it's accurate or not. Not. I usually like to use chat GPT, but we don't have time for that. Okay, what does that say? It quotes you, but it may be hallucinating.

C (56:18)

Yeah.

A (56:18)

Says this would create an ongoing, quote, cycle of strikes and counter strikes, potentially drawing in regional allies like Israel and expanding the conflict beyond nuclear sites. Pape warned that such a scenario could evolve into a broader war with no clear final cycle bombing. Yeah.

C (56:36)

Yeah. And that's all. That is true. But it could and it still could. Okay, so the con. First of all, it didn't involve exact. Exactly this, the strikes and counter strikes because what happened is Iran used its.

A (56:49)

Nobody says will because no one is stupid enough to know. Everybody knows that.

C (56:53)

Yeah, but no, that those.

A (56:54)

But if you write an article saying it could.

C (56:56)

Yeah.

A (56:57)

You are on the side of thinking it's more likely than not over. You don't write an article about something that you think is less right.

C (57:04)

Encounter, strike happened, as that wording is insinuating, almost immediately.

A (57:10)

Yeah.

C (57:10)

Going down a road means that there is a medium and longer term and we are still in that medium or long term.

A (57:19)

My only point is that the hawks.

C (57:20)

Well, the hawks turn up the other one.

A (57:22)

My only point is that first this one. That when that, that people with military expertise such as yourself.

C (57:28)

I'm not pulling back on this. This is.

A (57:29)

You don't have to pull back.

C (57:31)

Not the same.

A (57:31)

I was. I was. Bob, let me finish my sentence.

C (57:33)

Apologize on the other one.

A (57:34)

Let me finish. You don't need to apologize because. Because my only. I'm not asking. I was making a point. And the point was that people with expertise, the hawks, sometimes get it right. The hawks sometimes get it wrong. And the fact that these hawks have told Netanyahu they think this is going to fail, it might fail, or they might be wrong about its failure, like so many. And I'm saying, I don't know, I, I, I pray that Netanyahu is not doing this for the political reasons, to keep himself out of jail, prosecution, all these stories, which are all possible, I.

C (58:17)

Don'T know, I'm not going, I have no idea what Netanyahu's intentions are. I'm talking.

A (58:22)

Well, it's important.

C (58:23)

What are the. No, we don't, we're not going to be mindful.

A (58:26)

But you have created, but you've got. I'm almost fish, I swear. But you're creating a picture here, which I think is if I'm, I'm being fair here, which way where Israel will pull out. Rockets will still come in, right? Israel will, from time to time, Israelis will die. They'll have to live this way. They'll have to have a doubly or triply oppressive blockade than it had prior to October 7th. This will make them a pariah in the world. Just simply on that and that everything is about Israel. And yet the world can't muster any united disgust with Hamas or the Palestinian leadership that cannot bring itself to ever even say, yes, we'll recognize Israel's right to exist if they'll agree to certain border changes.

C (59:17)

The world was with Israel for almost the full two years. No. So the world was with Israel. It's not true that the world stood in Israel's way.

A (59:27)

This was Sinwar's incident.

C (59:28)

I'm not just saying it's not true that the Europeans tried to physically intercede in what Israel was doing. These things have changed. And the reason it's changed is because the thresholds of death that are occurring in Gaza are reaching historic level.

A (59:51)

That's not the reason it's changing. This is what's not the reason it's changing. I wish, I wish that were the reason it was changing. Because these thresholds have met, been met by many countries. Many times a million people have died in Russia and it, and it hasn't reached that threshold. So here I was sloppy and repeated something I had heard a number of times, but had failed to look up. The numbers coming out of the Russian Ukraine war usually report casualties which include dead and wounded. So while we hear reports of close to 1 million on each side, the number of confirmed dead on each side is somewhere in the 300,000 range, although people suspect it's higher. It is not the threshold of death. It is that Western progressives and right wing anti Semites have basically from October 8th been protesting against Israel. This has inflamed them. Please let me be clear here. The death is. The death is awful. And, and if only it would inflame them everywhere in the world that it happens, it would speak very well for them. But Western governments are not backing out because of the threshold of death. Western governments are backing out because they read the polls of their population. If the population was gung ho behind Israel, they would not be backing out. They are following the lead of their. As I said, they're progressives and they're right wingers. And the threshold of death is not.

C (61:17)

A very smart man. Man.

A (61:19)

And am I wrong, what I just said?

C (61:21)

I think that you are missing that. Let's talk about.

A (61:26)

I like the fact you said a smart man. Let's end up there.

C (61:28)

Let's talk the threshold and a fine musician. I say the historic threshold.

A (61:32)

Yeah.

C (61:33)

So up until the last six, eight months, the civilian punishment that was the worst by a democracy against a country was when the United States and Britain, two democracies also with the help of the Soviet Union, I might add, not a democracy. Killed somewhere between 2 and 4% of German civilians in World War II. That's the percentage that we killed in World War II. We don't know exact numbers. It could be as low as 2%, could be as high as 4%, but that's the exact number percentage. And before that point, before Gaza, this was the highest percentage of. By a Western democracy.

A (62:21)

I'm taking your word for these percentages. I'm not going to do the research. I'm taking your words.

C (62:25)

Well, well, they can go to bombing to win. It's all in the book and it's all in detail. This is not something again. This, this is not. Again, you're. I'm willing to go, but we know.

A (62:34)

That 4 million people died.

C (62:37)

When you show me something where there is an actual error, I'll admit 4 million. I'm just gonna roll over and say, yeah, yeah, yeah.

A (62:44)

Four million people have been killed in the Congo and it didn't reach the world's threshold.

C (62:47)

The point here is this is now at 5%.

A (62:51)

Yeah.

B (62:52)

So you're saying because it's democracy though, you'll. It's getting a different level of scrutiny than what would happen say in other parts of the world.

C (62:59)

Well, authoritarian governments. We're used to thinking that authoritarian governments are so evil. This is what we say about say China and Tenement Square they're so evil that they'll bring out tanks and they'll shoot civilians.

A (63:13)

Let's just end with this.

C (63:14)

So we, we don't, we don't think that democracies would do this. Maybe we're wrong. Maybe we should update our beliefs and say democracies can be just as vicious, authoritarian.

A (63:26)

I think the, the numbers of, of death are, are too awful to contemplate. And again, it's, it is quite important, at least between you and me, for us to always focus on the fact that much of these deaths are part of Hamas's strategy, not Israel's strategy.

C (63:52)

So why are we helping them out?

A (63:53)

However. So why are we, however. And I also want to say Hamas is weakened. Robert, Please, let me.

C (63:59)

And we're helping them.

A (64:01)

Please. So, and that just as a matter, like a philosophical matter, percentages, they are informative in some way. But, you know, my right to not be killed immorally, unjustly, somehow shouldn't depend on how many people live in my city. You know what I mean? Like, if I'm one of, if I'm one citizen in a city of millions, I was just 1/10 of 1% is one sitting in a small town. So at some point, the consideration can't simply be simplified in percentage. It has to, it has to be analyzed in terms of the justness or unjustness of the action and who is responsible. And I do believe Israel is the way we didn't get to it. I want to say one other thing before we go just on this genocide thing, which is astounding to me. We have to go. I have a rehearsal now. Now.

C (64:57)

Are we.

B (64:58)

Do we have time to do the ad?

A (65:00)

You guys can do the ad. Yeah, listen, justice. Because you didn't use the word genocide, but just. No, I did just share this with you. There was an article that came out a couple days ago that a secret internal Israeli military report came out along the lines of what the letter saying that actually our whole plan in Rafah failed. Hamas still has all these fighters, nothing worked. But yeah, as I've been saying, every one of our objectives. Yeah, was, was a failure.

C (65:29)

Yeah. This has been always going to be the case.

A (65:31)

And I thought to myself, how fascinating that the people like Bartolov and many people that you're. That you're quoting make so much of the fact that among the 10 times Gallant referred to Hamas, one time he says we're fighting human animals, as that's an intention for genocide. And yet when a secret document of the IDF emerges, it has nothing about Wanting to kill Palestinians. Nothing about genocide. It actually shows with 100% clarity that their objective was to defeat Hamas and they consider themselves a failure, not because they haven't been able to defeat Hamas as opposed to a success because they've killed so many Palestinians. If you believe. If somebody believe. It's a very important argument. If somebody believes that Israel's intentions commit genocide, then why behind closed doors do they think they're failing? They're succeeding wildly. Right. According to what I'm. What I follow my point.

C (66:31)

Yes. And notice that in two years I've been writing on this CNN op eds, multiple pieces. I've never impugned the intention of the Israeli.

A (66:43)

But you won't dare write an article saying it's not genocide.

C (66:46)

No, hold it.

A (66:46)

Would you dare write an article saying it wasn't genocide?

C (66:48)

Well, I can if you bring me back on. There's a whole bunch to say about that. What we're.

A (66:53)

Would you write an article saying it's not genocide?

C (66:56)

I would tell you why we could never know. I wrote three academic articles in 2012 in saying that the problem with the word genocide is there's no operational criteria for what counts. And that's what you're having with Omar Bartov and this debate. You know how many genocides the west has stopped since we've had the genocide treaty Nome. How many have we stopped? Zero genocides. And do you know why we never stop a genocide? Because the treaty and all the law written around the treaty has no operational details. I went toe to toe with the responsibility to protect people and crowd. I did in these articles. Detailed sort of intellectual exit question. And I'm telling you the big. So the big thing I want to end on is we agree Israel should be here 10 years from now. What we're disagreeing on is not Israel's motives. What we're disagreeing on and what I want to keep us on is what's the. The best strategy? And it's not true that just saying I am Israeli leader and I get to decide means they get the best strategy. You can have bad strategy and good intention.

A (68:13)

Apropos of that Malcolm Gladwell analogy, I gave.

B (68:16)

What was that analogy again?

A (68:17)

That he, he said that he went along with the.

B (68:19)

Oh yeah, sure, sure.

A (68:21)

Would you dare write an article today saying these people who are accusing Israel of genocide don't have the evidence, they don't have the proof. They are. They are not.

C (68:33)

The article I'm glad to write is they could not just these people, but we've never been able to prove genocide before the fact. And the problem is not the intentionality of the different people on the different sides. Literally the problem, Noam, is in the treaty itself.

A (68:52)

Right, but you're saying they are.

C (68:54)

The treaty is so vague. Plague, it's all okay.

A (68:57)

But the logical. The logical, the undeniable, unavoidable, logical implication of what you're saying is that the people who are accusing Israel of genocide are not on firm ground. They don't have what they would need to have to make that accusation.

C (69:15)

Yeah, I agree with that. And I said this in this articles years ago.

A (69:18)

Yeah, but now I'm going to write it.

C (69:20)

Well, no, not if you care about. About say. Not if you want to save Israel. So why. This isn't going to save Israel. If Israel's pursuing a strategy that will be counterproductive to its existence, which is what I'm arguing, then that's got to be the conversation because you switch it over to somebody else. This is not. Nobody cares about what really matters here. And what I'm talking about is we're agreeing Israel should exist 10 years from now. Now I'm saying the current plan is going to go in the counterpreneurial.

A (69:54)

Well, we have to.

B (69:55)

Okay, then I hope.

A (69:56)

I hope in your heart you care about Israel and that's not just a rhetorical thing. I don't know if you care about it the way we hear otherwise.

C (70:05)

Why am I.

A (70:05)

Well, we need to get dinner again. I don't know how long you're in town for, but.

C (70:09)

Oh, no, I got to go back tomorrow.

A (70:10)

Okay. We have to.

C (70:11)

Things happen.

A (70:12)

Normally we go later. We have to announce it because I have rehearsals.

C (70:15)

Rehearsal? Congratulations on your rehearsal.

A (70:18)

Thank you. Good night.

B (70:19)

All right.

A (70:20)

Good night. What is that? You want to say something?

B (70:21)

You were saying Lincoln center, but I was just going to say you're playing at Lingon Center.

A (70:24)

Yes, I'm playing.

B (70:24)

That's why you're rehearsing.

A (70:25)

Okay, bye, everybody.

C (70:27)

Big honor. No big honor.

B (70:28)

All right.