Bret Stephens vs John Mearsheimer | Gaza and the Middle East
Summary
TLDRThe Center for Independent Studies hosted a debate on the Israel-Gaza conflict, featuring Brett Stevens and John Mimer. The discussion covered the impact of Netanyahu's leadership, the influence of right-wing politics in Israel, and the challenges of achieving a two-state solution. It also delved into Iran's regional power, the complexities of defeating Hamas, and the ideological shifts necessary for peace. The conversation underscored the importance of understanding the historical and political nuances of the conflict.
Takeaways
- 😐 The Center for Independent Studies hosted debates on the Israel-Gaza conflict, emphasizing the importance of hearing diverse perspectives.
- 🗣️ There's a belief among some that replacing Netanyahu could change Israeli policy, but this is contested as Israeli security elites largely agree with Netanyahu's approach.
- 🌍 The rise of right-wing populism globally, including in Israel, is noted, with about 10% of the Israeli electorate voting for extreme right-wing parties.
- 🏛️ Israel has historically shown willingness to make territorial concessions for peace, as seen in withdrawals from the Sinai Peninsula, parts of the Palestinian territories, and Southern Lebanon.
- 🔄 The script discusses the complexity of defeating ideologies like Hamas, suggesting that a military defeat alone isn't sufficient; it must be accompanied by a change in the population's belief in the ideology.
- 🏳️🌈 The debate touches on the historical and ideological reasons behind Iran's stance towards Israel, including theological and militant aspects that drive its aggressive behavior.
- 🔍 The script points out the double standards in Western politics, where regimes with regressive policies like Iran's are sometimes overlooked or excused by the progressive left.
- 🤝 The concept of a two-state solution is discussed, with the argument that it's necessary for a peaceful resolution, but it faces challenges due to Hamas's rejection of such a solution.
- 🏞️ The importance of transforming the existential conflict between Israel and Palestine into a territorial one is highlighted, suggesting that this shift is crucial for a lasting peace.
- 🏢 The script suggests that the key to resolving the conflict may lie in changing the dominant ideologies and mindsets, rather than focusing solely on territorial adjustments.
Q & A
What is the significance of hearing both sides of the Israel-Gaza debate according to the Center for Independent Studies?
-The Center for Independent Studies believes it's crucial, especially for a classical liberal organization, to hear both sides of any debate to foster a comprehensive understanding and informed discussion.
What is the argument made by some Democratic lawmakers and Brett Stevens regarding Netanyahu's leadership in Israel?
-Some Democratic lawmakers and Brett Stevens argue that Netanyahu is an anomaly and that replacing him could lead to significant changes in Israel's approach to Gaza and its military operations.
How does the speaker in the transcript view the argument that replacing Netanyahu would change Israeli policy?
-The speaker considers the argument that replacing Netanyahu would change Israeli policy to be 'foolish', suggesting that Netanyahu's views align with the majority of Israel's National Security Elite.
What historical peace efforts does the speaker mention in the context of Israeli-Palestinian relations?
-The speaker mentions the Oslo Accords in 1993 under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the Camp David Summit in 2000 under Prime Minister Ehud Barak as historical peace efforts.
What does the speaker imply about the potential of a two-state solution with the current Palestinian leadership?
-The speaker implies that a two-state solution might be possible with the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank, but not with Hamas, which has made it clear they do not support such a solution.
What does the speaker suggest about the nature of the conflict between Israel and its neighbors?
-The speaker suggests that the conflict is existential, rooted in the rejection of a Jewish state by many Palestinians, and not merely territorial.
How does the speaker characterize the ideology of Hamas?
-The speaker characterizes the ideology of Hamas as militant, aggressive, and fundamentally opposed to the existence of Israel.
What does the speaker argue about the potential power of Iran compared to its neighbors?
-The speaker argues that despite its internal problems, Iran has the potential to be much more powerful than all of its neighbors due to its large population and human capital.
What does the speaker suggest about the role of ideology in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
-The speaker suggests that ideologies, such as those held by Hamas, cannot be defeated militarily but can be defeated politically by changing the belief among the population that the ideology represents a wise way forward.
What does the speaker propose as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
-The speaker proposes the establishment of a Palestinian state that is dedicated to improving the lives of its people and living peacefully with its neighbors, as part of a two-state solution.
Outlines
🌎 Middle East Debates and Israel's Political Landscape
The paragraph discusses two events hosted by the Center for Independent Studies on the Israel-Gaza debate. It emphasizes the importance of hearing both sides of any debate, especially for a classical liberal organization like CIS. The speaker addresses the notion that replacing Netanyahu could change the situation in Gaza, arguing that it would not make a significant difference as Israeli policy is widely supported. The paragraph also touches on the influence of right-wing populism globally and in Israel, the historical context of Israeli territorial withdrawals for peace, and the challenges of dealing with ideologies like Hamas.
🏖️ Iran's Regional Power and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
This paragraph explores Iran's power dynamics in relation to its neighbors, despite internal unrest and a young, more liberal population. It contrasts Iran's potential strength with its actual weaknesses and discusses the country's ideological and theological foundations that drive its aggressive behavior. The speaker also addresses the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the challenges of defeating Hamas, and the potential for a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution. The paragraph concludes with a call for a transformation of the existential conflict into a more manageable territorial dispute.
🏰 The Intractability of Hamas and the Quest for Peace
The focus of this paragraph is on the resurgence of Hamas in Northern Gaza and the difficulty of defeating them militarily and ideologically. It discusses the Israeli leadership's belief in the necessity of a full-scale military operation against Hamas and the criticism that such an approach is unrealistic. The speaker argues that Hamas cannot be defeated without addressing the ideology that supports it, and that a decisive military defeat might deter Palestinians from supporting such movements in the future. The paragraph also touches on the need for a Palestinian state as part of a broader solution to the conflict.
🌆 The Two-State Solution and the Future of Palestinian Self-Determination
This paragraph delves into the concept of a Palestinian state within the framework of a two-state solution. It highlights the importance of self-determination for Palestinians and the desire for a state that does not threaten its neighbors. The speaker discusses the differences between various potential models for a Palestinian state, from the United Arab Emirates to Yemen, and the implications of these models for peace in the region. The paragraph also addresses the challenges of achieving a two-state solution given the stance of Hamas and the need for a shift in mindset and ideology before territorial borders can be agreed upon.
🔄 The Dominance of Hamas and the Transformation of Conflict
The final paragraph emphasizes the dominance of Hamas as a political player and the challenges it poses to the transformation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It discusses the necessity of changing the ideological and mindset underpinnings of the conflict before determining borders. The speaker suggests that the conflict is not just about territory but also about existence, with a historical rejection of a Jewish state by many Palestinians. The paragraph concludes with a call for a shift from an existential conflict to a territorial one, which is deemed more manageable and solvable.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Israel Gaza debate
💡Netanyahu
💡Classical liberal
💡Right-wing populism
💡Oslo Accords
💡Ethnic cleansing
💡Two-state solution
💡Hamas
💡Iran
💡Zionism
Highlights
The Center for Independent Studies hosted two events to discuss the Israel-Gaza conflict from different perspectives.
The importance of hearing both sides of any debate, especially for a classical liberal organization like CIS.
Democratic legislators and some liberal American Jews believe replacing Netanyahu could change Israeli policy.
The argument that Netanyahu's removal would not significantly change Israeli policy is presented.
Contextualizing the rise of right-wing populism globally and its impact on Israel's political landscape.
Criticism of certain Israeli cabinet ministers' offensive remarks, as documented by the South African submission to the International Court of Justice.
The expectation for Israel to behave like a Christian nation despite the presence of bigoted individuals in its government.
Historical attempts by Israel to withdraw from territories for peace, such as the Oslo Accords and offers at Camp David.
The argument that Israel's rightward shift is a response to the Palestinian rejection of peace offers.
Iran's regional power and its potential versus the challenges it faces, including internal unrest and external threats.
The comparison of Iran's power to that of Saudi Arabia, highlighting the potential imbalance.
The assertion that Iran's behavior is driven by ideology and theology, not just national interests.
Criticism of the progressive left for giving Iran a pass despite its aggressive actions and human rights abuses.
The challenge of defeating Hamas and the argument for a full-scale military invasion to eliminate the group.
The concept of 'ethnic cleansing' as a solution to the Hamas problem, and the historical precedent of defeating ideologies rather than just military forces.
The necessity of a Palestinian state for the fulfillment of Zionism and the importance of its governance.
The two-state solution as the preferred path by American leaders to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The role of Hamas in the rejection of a two-state solution and its impact on peace negotiations.
The existential nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the challenge of transforming it into a territorial dispute.
Transcripts
[Music]
earlier this year the center for
independent studies hosted two events
from both sides of the Israel Gaza
debate here we've put Brett Stevens and
John mimer side by side in one video we
at CIS believe that it's very important
especially for a classical liberal
organization like CIS to hear both sides
of any
[Music]
debate many democratic legislators who
have traditionally been very supportive
of Israel have called on Netanyahu to be
replaced uh to what extent would things
change in Gaza and the Israeli military
operation in Gaza if Netanyahu is
replaced as many Democratic lawmakers
and indeed Brett Stevens at the New York
Times has called for Netanyahu to be
removed how would things change not at
all this is an argument that I here in
the United States and it's made by
liberal American Jews people like Tom
fredman at the New York Times yeah at
the New York Times who believe that uh
uh Netanyahu is an anomaly and if we
could only get rid of him and replace
him with Thomas Jefferson or somebody
like that you know Israel will leave
live happily ever
after this is a foolish argument right
it's quite clear that
Netanyahu and his War cabinet and most
of the National Security Elite in Israel
today agree with uh Israeli policy under
Netanyahu uh so it it change anything it
wouldn't change any anything it would
change hardly anything uh look uh there
there are a few points to make I think
in 500 years if Jews uh God willing are
around well the Jewish people look back
and say uh netan was was a bad prime
minister a bad leader of the Jewish
people who stayed around much too long
and whose uh political
selfishness uh led to the debilitation
of uh the Jewish State on the eve of its
uh uh grave disaster of of October 7th
but again let's contextualize a little
bit um uh the government of Sweden who
most of us don't think of as a militant
right-wing government rules thanks to
the votes of a very far right-wing party
uh in uh France it's entirely possible
that the French will be uh run by a
prime minister from the Leen party uh in
in in a few months time when they hold
uh hold elections right-wing populism is
a phenomenon across the globe and Israel
is not immune from that in the case of
Israel about 10% of the Israeli
electorate voted for these uh uh extreme
right Wingers I think it's a great shame
I think they're noxious people who
shouldn't be in power then again uh
about 48% of the American electorate
voted for Donald Trump so okay but some
of these right-wing members in the
cabinet this has been documented not
just by that South African submission to
the international court of justice they
do highlight some remarks made by some
of these cabinet ministers that are
quite offensive about whopping out yeah
there look you know a great American
philosopher named Eric Hoffer once said
that Israel is the only country in the
world expected to behave like a
Christian
Nation so there's there there there
there are bigoted uh Scoundrels in the
Israeli government uh you know what
they're probably bigoted Scoundrels in
your government uh and in any number of
of of governments and this this is this
is important okay in
1993 uh under prime minister Yak rid
Israel went to sign the Oslo courts MH
effort to get Israel out of the business
of ruling the lives of the Palestinians
in 2000 under prime minister ahud Barack
Israel went to Camp David and made an
offer of a Palestinian State now the
Palestinians rejected it out of hand you
might have said it wasn't exactly right
but the offer was the offer was made in
2008 prime minister AUD made another
offer to prime minister uh or president
Mahmud Abbas again rejected out out of
hand Israel has withdrawn
proportionately from more territory than
any other state that I can think of
Israel withdrew entirely from the Sinai
Peninsula which it had conquered in
1967 right for the sake of peace with uh
peace with uh uh the Egyptians Israel
withdrew from most populated areas of
the Palestinian Authority of the
territories again for the sake of a
perspective peace Israel withdrew from
Southern Lebanon now I think to its
regret so Israel has shown a consistent
willingness to withdraw from territory
in exchange for Meaningful guarantees of
peace and that history has to be
understood at least if you're going to
understand where the Israeli public is
coming from when you wonder why is this
why is Israel Moving to the right rather
than to the
left you say that tyron's hand has been
stren thed during this dispute but let
me put this to you Iran is surrounded by
hostile Sunni States across the Persian
Gulf sit Saudi Arabia it's fanatically
anti-shia and well-armed Arch Enemy uh
in Iraq and Syria at least until
recently you had Iran facing large Sunni
insurgencies dedicated to slaughtering
the
Shia uh then there's the internal unrest
within Iran a lot of younger people a
lot of young Iranians take a more
liberal view about the world than their
parents and certainly the Shia clerical
regime so are you overlooking Iran's
real weaknesses and
limitations well he only gave me 50
minutes to
talk I if he had uh been willing to
fulfill my request to be able to talk
for two
hours I would have qualified my argument
somewhat though there's absolutely no
question that Iran has significant
problems but the thing you want to
remember about
Iran is that Iran is much more powerful
than all of its neighbors it has a very
large
population and the human capital inside
of Iran is very impressive right and if
you were to look at the potential
balance of power between Iran and Saudi
Arabia if they were both able to
mobilize all their
resources it's a Bambi versus Godzilla
situation that's why the Saudis are so
interested in the Abraham Accord the
Saudis want to jump into bed with the
Israelis and the Americans because the
Saudis understand that the Iranians have
a lot of potential power right whenever
you want to measure the power of a
country the two things that you go to
number one our population size and
number two our wealth number two to Is
wealth right wealth and population size
and it you look at the Iranian situation
they are potentially a very powerful
country which is not to take away from
your points about the problems that they
face no Iran is in fact in many ways a
weak State uh I mean it is uh like North
Korea is a weak state but weak states
can do a great deal of damage I mean
I've I've contended in in other areas
that the problem that we have now with
China isn't that it's a rising power in
fact that it's a DI in power and
diminishing Powers often tend to be more
aggressive because they feel that time
is against them and so they try to play
their hand through uh uh like Russia in
Crimea and the dbas they declining well
to some extent that's that that analysis
is is exactly right that Russia has
always responded to a sense of internal
weakness with an effort at uh at
expansionary uh expansionary aggressive
uh foreign policy but you know look
again with Iran it is impossible to
understand Iranian Behavior merely as
the function of a nation state pursuing
rational national interests the r the
rational Iranian position should not be
against Israel right and in fact until
1979 Israel had few better friends in
the Muslim world than the Sha right than
than that traditional Persian uh uh uh
monarchy for a whole variety of reasons
some of them go back to the fact that
you know Cyrus freed the Jews
2500 years ago or or or or whatever it
is often because they had at the time a
more uh clear common enemy in regimes
like Saddam early the early years of of
saddam's Iraq or or other other Sunni
States uh in the region the reason Iran
behaves the way it does is because it
has an ideology and a Theology and those
are fundamentally militant and
aggressive I mean for example Iran
without a nuclear nuclear weapons if
you'll remember just a few months ago
lobbed missiles at Pakistan which has
nuclear weapons that's not a rational
act like it's the act of a regime that
is uniquely aggressive and too much of
our discussion not our discussion here
but too much of our kind of collective
discussion is about well why is BB doing
this why is BB doing that isn't he a bad
guy isn't he obnoxious etc etc but Iran
the actual malactor in the region
typically gets a pass and what's most
astonishing to me is it often gets a
pass from the progressive left in
America and elsewhere how is it that the
most misogynistic regime in the region
should get this past how is it that a
regime that hangs gay people from cranes
should get this get this pass it it's
one of the sort of mysteries of Western
Politics the alliance of people who call
themselves progressives with regimes
like Iran or movements like Hamas that
oppose violently everything they claim
to
Champion now the Israeli leadership
seems to believe that a fullscale ground
military invasion of Rafa will finish
the job of eliminating Hamas you've said
that that's not realistic now your
critics would say that with its gleeful
mutilations its Rampages its rapes and
beheadings its baby killing on October 7
Hamas needs crushing and if Hamas keeps
control of Rafa and the people it
wins the Israelis May believe that Hamas
needs to be crushed
and you can understand given what
happened on October 7th why they feel
that way they're not going to crush
Hamas and if you read the newspapers
carefully every day you will see that
Hamas has come back to life in Northern
Gaza and the Israelis have now sent
military forces into Northern Gaza to
deal with Hamas the New York Times And
The Wall Street Journal today have
articles dealing with the fact that
Hamas is almost impossible to defeat
they're just not going to defeat them
this is why I said to you ethnic
cleansing is so attractive to the
Israelis ethnic cleansing solves the
apartheid problem what Tom was
challenging me on a minute ago and it
solves the Hamas problem which he's
challenging me on now you can't defeat
ideologies right you
can't uh
in 1946 there were plenty of national
socialists in
Germany
uh plenty of militarists in Japan uh but
what you can do is you can defeat the
idea or the belief among a critical mass
of the population that what that
ideology represents is a wise Way
Forward which is to say a defeat a
conclusive military defeat of Hamas by
Israel which is a doable thing okay
difficult but a doable thing should
persuade Palestinians that they might
love Hamas but another October 7th is
something they will never want to do and
their children will never want to do
because the consequences are so bad in
1973 during the Yum kipur
War Israel did not defeat Egypt's desire
to destroy Israel Israel de defeated
Egypt's belief that it could destroy
Israel and therefore it went for peace
Sadat decided that the strategy that his
predecessor had pursued let's Mass our
army cross into the Sinai defeat the
Israelis wasn't going to work what could
work a peaceful solution and so here's
the question can you significantly
defeat Hamas militarily as well as
politically so that it cannot return to
power cannot Mass force it cannot
recapitalize its armed forces and more
importantly Palestinians will not allow
themselves to be governed Again by a
movement that has led them to misery
that's the issue so you don't defeat the
idea we still haven't defeated white
supremacy in the United States 160 years
after the Civil War right but we've
tried at least to defeat the idea that
it would be a good idea for southern
states to secede and and and and have a
War we're going to see more October 7
style attacks if the Palestinians don't
have their own state or some degree of
national self-determination look I'm in
favor of a Palestinian
State Zionism exists and I consider
myself a Zionist the purpose of Zionism
is for Jews to have a state of their own
meaning they aren't ruled by others and
they don't rule others all all right so
the ultimate purposes of Zionism cannot
be fulfilled until there is a
Palestinian state in under
some whatever the arrangements are a
Palestinian state where people who don't
want to be ruled by Israelis aren't
ruled by Israelis but it matters greatly
whether the Palestinian state that comes
into being is similar to the United Arab
Emirates let's say or similar to Yemen
is it a state that's going to be
dedicated to improving the lives of
Palestinian people and living peacefully
with its neighbors or is it going to be
dedicated to trying to destroy its
neighbors and and in the case of Hamas
not just the Jewish state but maybe the
Egyptian State or the Jordanian State uh
uh as well so by all means let's have a
Palestinian state but the question is
who will rule it under what uh under
what conditions and whether it will
threaten uh whether it willat is not
committed to a two-state solution but
the Palestinian Authority in the West
Bank are correct nominally so yeah okay
but it's very important to understand
that every American president since
Jimmy Carter has pushed hard on the
two-state solution because we think the
two-state solution we meaning American
Elites think the two-state solution is
the only uh
reasonable U way to get out of this
conundrum to we what what has to be done
here is that the Palestinians have to be
given uh self-determination that they
need a sovereign state of their own and
this is what the two-state solution was
designed to do and American leaders
understood that if the Israelis did not
agree to a two-state solution and you
did not get a two-state solution you
were going to have trouble for as far as
the eye can see you all understand maybe
the younger people in the audience don't
but what happened on October 7th is
really not an anomaly there was the
first inap then there was the second
inap light Ides in early 2000s pardon
light Ides in the early 2000s yes 1987
was the first inata and 2000 was the
second inapa and these were you know
Palestinian insurrections but but John
you could get a two-state solution with
the Palestinian leadership in the West
Bank but Hamas has made it very clear as
as you've acknowledged that they don't
support a two-state solution absolutely
there's no question about
that just want to be very clear here
this gets back to my point that
Netanyahu was playing divide and conquer
right Netanyahu had quite good relations
with Hamas before October 7th because
Hamas doesn't want a two-state solution
and Netanyahu doesn't want a two-state
solution and from netanyahu's point of
view the real threat was mmud abas and
the Palestinian Authority and you notice
by the way that the Americans have been
saying that what we need to do in Gaza
is put the Palestinian Authority in
control get Hamas out of the way and put
the Palestinian Authority and control
Netanyahu has made it unequivocally
clear this is not happening and that's
because the Palestinian Authority has
reconciled itself to a two-state
solution and that's nightmare news for
Netanyahu the the question of borders in
my mind is not entirely um material I
mean if you dropped uh Israel into I
don't know Queensland it would disappear
in the bush you know and and and the
West Bank even we're talking about very
small uh territories here and the
possibility of adjustments is is real
the if Israel's or if the conflict were
fundamentally a territorial conflict it
would have been solved by now and you
can I don't know how spefic specific you
want to be in terms of what would happen
say in the old city of Jerusalem or
where the Palestinian Capital would be
but a territorial conflict gets solved
easily you just draw a line and if you
don't get this border maybe you get
money or some kind of
compensatory uh uh uh
reward the problem is the conflict is
about
existence which is that too many
Palestinians for too long have rejected
any idea of a Jewish state in any
territory and Hamas represents the most
Vivid front of that rejectionism but
it's also present or far too present in
too many parts of uh other more secular
Palestinian uh uh politics so how is it
that we can trans how can we I mean the
great question is how can we transform
this existential conflict which is
really about 1948 and the creation of
the state of Israel into a territorial
conflict which is more about
1967 and and and the question of borders
and my answer to that is well it I I
don't know but it can't happen while
Hamas is the dominant political uh
player just like you couldn't have a
normal German State while national
socialism was its dominant ideology it's
the ideology and the mindset that has to
change before the borders are
determined to watch each event video
click the link in the description
[Music]
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
Face à face Iran - Israël : et après ? | Une leçon de géopolitique | ARTE
“Israel Does NOT Want To End This War” Deadly Gaza Hostage Raid
Israel vs Palestine War: What is Hamas?
How Far Away Is a Ceasefire? An Update on Gaza and the Rafah Invasion | Ian Bremmer
Dave Smith on Idea that Israeli Leader Netanyahu Propped Up Hamas
Why RFK Jr.’s Israel Stance Might Not Be A Complete Dealbreaker
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)