Why I’m Off the Fence About Israel’s War - Konstantin Kisin
Summary
TLDRIn this video, the host reflects on their evolving perspective regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict following the October 7th Hamas attacks. By employing first principles thinking, they analyze common arguments from the anti-Israel camp, addressing historical claims, responses to Israeli actions, civilian casualties, and the nature of Israel's military operations. The host asserts that despite the tragic civilian deaths in Gaza, the responsibility lies with Hamas, which deliberately maximizes casualties. Ultimately, they argue that Israel's response is a logical reaction to unprecedented aggression, highlighting the complexity of the conflict while urging a deeper understanding of the issues at stake.
Takeaways
- 📅 A year ago, the speaker had little knowledge of the Israel-Palestine conflict but became interested after the October 7 attacks by Hamas.
- 🧠 The speaker employs 'first principles thinking' to analyze the arguments surrounding the conflict, focusing on core issues rather than emotional context.
- 📊 Comparing October 7 to other historical terrorist attacks, the speaker emphasizes its unprecedented scale relative to Israel's population.
- 🗣️ Key arguments from the anti-Israel perspective include the illegitimacy of the Israeli state, historical grievances, and claims of civilian casualties.
- 🔍 The speaker asserts that the legitimacy of Israel does not change the current reality of its existence and the need for self-defense.
- ⚔️ The October 7 attacks are characterized as acts of terrorism aimed at civilians, not as justified resistance against occupation.
- 💔 While civilian casualties in conflict are tragic, the speaker argues that responsibility lies with Hamas for their tactics and refusal to protect civilians.
- 📈 Analyzing casualty ratios, the speaker claims that Israel has made efforts to minimize civilian deaths compared to historical urban warfare.
- 🛡️ The speaker believes any country would respond with military force to an attack of such magnitude, highlighting a double standard in international reactions.
- 🤝 Ultimately, the speaker finds anti-Israel arguments to be disingenuous and emotionally manipulative, asserting that Israel's actions are justified under the circumstances.
Q & A
What initial stance did the speaker have regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict?
-The speaker initially had no strong opinion about the conflict and lacked extensive knowledge about Israel, Gaza, or the West Bank.
What event prompted the speaker to start examining the Israel-Hamas conflict more closely?
-The October 7th attacks by Hamas, where thousands of militants crossed into Israel, prompted the speaker to delve deeper into the conflict.
What methodology did the speaker use to analyze the arguments surrounding the conflict?
-The speaker employed first principles thinking, which involves breaking down arguments to their core elements and assessing them logically.
How does the speaker compare the October 7th attacks to other historical terrorist attacks?
-The speaker compares October 7th to 9/11, arguing that the scale of violence was significantly greater in Israel on a per capita basis.
What are the four principal arguments made by the anti-Israel camp, according to the speaker?
-1. The state of Israel is illegitimate. 2. October 7th was a response to Israeli brutality. 3. Israel is killing civilians. 4. Israel is engaged in indiscriminate attacks.
What counterargument does the speaker provide regarding the legitimacy of Israel?
-The speaker argues that many countries, including the United States, were formed through colonization and that Israel exists as a nation today, thus making its legitimacy complex.
What distinction does the speaker make regarding the nature of the October 7th attacks?
-The speaker distinguishes the October 7th attacks as acts of terrorism aimed at civilians, rather than legitimate acts of resistance or military action.
How does the speaker address the issue of civilian casualties in the conflict?
-The speaker acknowledges that civilian casualties are tragic but emphasizes that responsibility for these deaths lies with Hamas, who could mitigate casualties by taking different actions.
What evidence does the speaker provide to refute claims of Israel's indiscriminate attacks?
-The speaker points out that the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Gaza is significantly lower than historical averages in urban warfare, suggesting a more targeted approach by Israel.
What conclusion does the speaker reach after engaging with anti-Israel arguments?
-The speaker concludes that many anti-Israel arguments are disingenuous and designed to evoke emotional responses rather than reflect the harsh realities of the conflict.
Outlines
🗣️ Understanding the Israel-Hamas Conflict
The speaker reflects on their initial ignorance about the Israel-Hamas conflict following the October 7th attacks, where thousands of Hamas militants invaded Israel, resulting in significant violence. They emphasize the importance of first principles thinking—stripping arguments down to their core to better analyze them. The speaker acknowledges the emotional context surrounding the conflict and highlights that many people, like themselves, are unfamiliar with the long history involved. They discuss the comparisons between October 7th and other significant terrorist attacks, notably 9/11, suggesting that the scale of the October 7th attacks on a per capita basis was much more severe. The speaker intends to explore four primary arguments made by the anti-Israel camp, which they will subsequently address.
🔍 Analyzing Key Arguments Against Israel
The speaker delves into the first argument claiming Israel's illegitimacy, suggesting that many nations, including the United States and Australia, were founded through similar processes of displacement and colonization. They argue that, despite the contentious history, Israel exists and cannot simply be erased. The second argument posits that the October 7th attacks were a response to Israeli oppression. The speaker counters that the nature of the attacks was terrorism aimed at civilians rather than a military engagement. They recognize the truth in the third argument regarding civilian casualties but contend that such outcomes are common in warfare and emphasize Hamas's role in exacerbating these casualties. Lastly, the speaker addresses claims of indiscriminate Israeli attacks, arguing that Israel has been relatively successful in minimizing civilian casualties compared to historical warfare standards.
⚖️ Concluding Thoughts on the Conflict
The speaker summarizes their engagement with anti-Israel arguments, asserting that these perspectives are often disingenuous and emotionally charged, designed to distract from the harsh realities of the conflict. They emphasize that the response from Israel is a reflection of any nation's right to defend itself against significant threats. The speaker also critiques the lack of international support for Israel, noting that many countries would likely respond similarly to such attacks. They conclude by inviting viewers to engage further with their content available on Substack, highlighting their commitment to presenting nuanced discussions on complex issues.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡First Principles Thinking
💡Terrorism
💡Legitimacy
💡Contextualization
💡Civilian Casualties
💡Israeli Response
💡Historical Comparisons
💡Hostage Situation
💡Emotive Arguments
💡War Crimes
Highlights
The speaker initially had no opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict but began exploring various perspectives after the October 7th attacks.
The importance of first principles thinking is emphasized as a method to analyze complex arguments.
The speaker compares the October 7th attacks to other terrorist events, notably 9/11, highlighting the scale and impact of the violence.
The argument that the state of Israel is illegitimate is explored, linking it to historical land disputes and Western colonialism.
The speaker acknowledges the suffering of Palestinians but challenges the narrative that October 7th was solely a response to oppression.
The civilian casualties caused by Israel's actions are acknowledged, but responsibility is shifted towards Hamas for the conflict's continuation.
The notion of indiscriminate Israeli attacks is examined, with a focus on the historical context of civilian casualties in urban warfare.
A comparative analysis shows that Israel has a better ratio of combatant to civilian deaths than historically observed in similar conflicts.
The speaker argues that peace cannot be achieved by attempting to reverse historical injustices and displacing current Israeli citizens.
The speaker addresses the argument that Israel's military actions are indiscriminate, citing specific operations to refute this claim.
Civilians are always affected in wartime, but the question remains about accountability and the capacity to prevent further casualties.
The speaker challenges the perception of Hamas's role in the conflict, labeling their actions on October 7th as terrorism rather than resistance.
The implications of historical colonization are compared to Israel's situation, noting that most nations have origins tied to displacement.
There is a recognition that all nations would respond similarly to a significant attack on their civilians, akin to what Israel experienced.
The speaker expresses a belief that the anti-Israel arguments presented lack depth and are designed to evoke emotional reactions.
Transcripts
I'm off the fence about Israel's war
here's
[Music]
why exactly a year ago when thousands of
Hamas militants crossed Israel's border
to engage in an ory of medieval violence
I knew little about Israel and had no
opinion about the long running conflict
there I've never been to Israel I've
never been to Gaza I've never been to
the West Bank it's not a conflict I
studied a university or read about
extensively people on both sides who
care passionately about this issue find
it to believe but in truth most people
are like this that's why for many months
after the October 7th attacks I avoided
commenting on the war or even discussing
it on our show instead I read watched
and listened to the endless commentary
debates and discussions to understand
what people on various sides were saying
having gathered those perspectives I
then did my best to apply first
principles thinking to the arguments I
heard thinking from first principles
means stripping whatever you're trying
to analyze down to its core and working
back from there context is extremely
important to understanding but when it
comes to highly emotive situations like
this one people often flood you with
emotional context which does not support
the argument they're actually making
there are some obvious examples in this
debate which we will address shortly
first principles thinking helps you see
the structure of arguments the logic of
an argument is like the skeleton of a
body you cannot see it from the outside
but it is usually the cause of why the
body moves the way that it does getting
to the skele of an argument is essential
to understanding it this was my Approach
when we had prominent Pro Palestine
guests like Bassam YF and Norman
felstein on trigonometry as well as
pro-israel guests like Ben Shapiro and
Natasha Hol it was also my Approach when
I hosted a fiery debate on the subject
at dissident dialogues and when safety
namus invited me to discuss this issue
on this podcast so what does first
principle thinking tell us about the
conflict first the easiest way to
understand a complicated problem is to
find a compar situation about which you
already know what to think for example
if we accept that October 7th was a
terrorist attack as I believe most
people do the obvious approach would be
to compare it to other terrorist attacks
in recent history that as it happens is
impossible because on a proportionate
basis the Western world has never
experienced an attack on this scale if
we take 9/11 the most impactful
terrorist attack in living memory would
shook the world's dominant superpower to
its very core we see that
2,977 people were killed in a country of
285 million people on October 7th
approximately 1,200 people were killed
in a country of just 9 million people
some keep calling October 7th Israel's
9/11 that isn't remotely true if October
7th was Israel 9/11 on a per capita
basis only 100 people would have been
killed in other words October 7th was at
least 12 times as bad as 9/11 and that's
before accounting for the fact that
Hamas took hundreds of hostages many of
whom have been killed since so the
obvious question is if thousands of
armed Mexicans had penetrated the
southern border of the United States
killed 36,000 Americans and dragged off
thousands of hostages how would America
have reacted would there still be a
Mexico to speak of whatever you view of
the history of this conflict I believe
the logic of this is impenetrable
however there are some persuasive
arguments from the anti-israel camp
which are aimed at contextualizing
October 7th let's look at them number
one history did not start on October 7th
the Crux of this argument when broken
down to its Central premise is that the
state of Israel is illegitimate in this
conception Israel was created because
land belonging to Palestinians was taken
by Western powers and given to European
Jews fleeing the Holocaust Palestinians
were not consulted did not give consent
and found themselves kicked out of their
homes Israel is a settler colonial state
two October 7th was a response to
Israeli brutality and oppression those
of you who watched my debate with safety
in amamos will recall the he made this
argument repeatedly the people of Gaza
and the West Bank are treated so badly
he argued the response we saw on October
7th was totally understandable an act of
resistance aimed at redressing the
wrongs they have suffered three Israel
is killing civilians the scenes of
parents pulling their children out of
rubble speak for themselves four Israel
is engaged in indiscriminate attacks
which is why so many innocent people are
dying this argument aims to prove that
Israel is the bad guy in this war
because it is killing lots of people
either deliberate ly or due to a callous
disregard for the lives of Palestinians
these are to the best of my knowledge
the four principal arguments made by the
anti-israel side if there are others
please let me know in the comments and I
will address them in a follow-up video
let's go through the arguments one by
one and for the sake of argument let us
accept that every point in each argument
is valid and historically accurate I
know many viewers will find this
objectionable but I believe the best way
to unpack this entire discussion is to
take people's arguments as valid and see
if they make sense
the first argument whose Central premise
is that Israel is illegitimate seems to
be at the core of every debate it feels
reasonable and logical to many people to
contextualize Israel's response to
October 7th in this way after all if
Israel was created through illegitimate
means it puts a discussion on an
entirely different footing doesn't it
well actually no it doesn't again let's
think from first principles if we
believe every Pro Palestinian claim and
accept that Israel was created through
the force placement of Europe Jews in a
foreign Land by Western Powers we must
look for a comparable situation in which
a country was created through some form
of displacement of the native population
most of you live in such a country the
United States Australia New Zealand and
Canada are all the products of invasion
colonization and brutal Conquest if you
go back far enough so is almost every
other country in the world like it or
not Israel exists it's home to over 9
million people the idea that they would
could or should accept the destruction
of what is now their country is absurd
the United States government would not
tolerate missile strikes and terrorist
Rampages from Native American
reservations neither would any
government of any country under any
circumstances peace in the Middle East
will not be achieved by attempting to
undo many decades of History the second
argument centers on the idea that
October 7th was a response to Israeli
occupation and brutality this again
seems reasonable to many people after
all what would it take for you to be the
way Hamas did on October 7th the problem
with this argument is that what happened
on October 7th was not an attempt to
weaken Israel militarily it was not an
attempt to break Hamas militants out of
Israeli jails it was not an attack on
the Israeli Defense Force it was not a
prison breakout as some people like to
describe it because when people break
out of a prison they don't normally head
to the nearest town and startop
massacring women and children October
7th was by Design and implementation a
terrorist attack whose purpose was to
slaughter civilians terrify Israeli
society and nothing else this was not an
act of resistance it was an act of
terrorism which is why Israel had to
react to it in the manner that it has
and why any other country would have
done the same the third argument is that
Israel is killing civilians this is the
one claim made by the anti-israel side
that is undeniably true however this is
an example of the emotive but irrelevant
context I mentioned earlier civilians
are always killed in war the question is
not whether they're being killed but who
Bears responsibility for their deaths
and who can Stop The Killing again
applying first principles thinking we
must reach for a comparable example
there is no exact equivalent that comes
to mind but there is some useful context
we can consider Hamas has repeatedly
stated that given the opportunity they
will repeat the October 7th attacks
again and again and again while this may
seem shocking to us in the west it makes
perfect sense given that Hamas believes
Israel is illegitimate and would like to
see it gone this means that unless
Israel destroys or degrades their
ability to carry out their threats it is
likely to experience more terrorist
attacks again and again does anyone
seriously believe that any government of
any country anywhere in the world would
or could react to something like 12 911s
in one day and the threat of more to
follow as many times as possible with
anything other than allout War and who
can end the killing well theoretically
Israel could of course but for the
reason we just discussed they can't W
and shouldn't that leaves Hamas who
could have returned the hostages and Sur
Ed the people who took them what is more
they could hide their civilians in the
vast network of tunnels they've built to
reduce casualties instead they refuse to
build bomb shelters and do everything
they can to maximize civilian casualties
that's not my opinion it's something
Hass are themselves proud of a senior
spokesman for the group Samy abuukar
gave an interview on Palestinian station
alaxa TV the last time this conflict
flared up the policy of people
confronting Israeli war planes with
their bad chest in order to protect
their homes has proven effective against
the occupation he said we in Hamas call
upon our people to adopt this policy in
order to protect Palestinian homes so
yes the deaths of civilians are tragic
and in a modern world where you can fill
your social media feed with gruesome
footage that tragedy can be broadcast
straight into your home 24/7 but the
responsibility for their deaths is
entirely with Hamas and the failure to
put a stop to the killing is theirs and
theirs alone which brings us to the
final argument Israel's attacks are
indiscriminate and designed to inflict
civilian casualties this is actually the
simplest argument of the four to address
because it is an empirical matter the
war in Gaza is not the first conflict in
human history we can compare the ratio
of combatant to civilian deaths and this
war to others what happens when we do
historically Urban Warfare operations
result in a casualty ratio of nine
civilians for every one enemy fighter
killed in Gaza it is 2 to one in other
words despite the deliberate attempts by
Hamas to increase the number of Civilian
casualties Israel has been
extraordinarily successful in reducing
them this doesn't mean that there won't
be incidents in which innocent
Palestinians are killed and as in any
War there will likely be war crimes
committed by both sides but overall the
numbers don't lie if you need further
evidence that claims of Israel's
indiscriminate attacks and nonsense just
look at the way various commentators
reacted to what has been dubbed
operation grim in beepo thousands of
Hezbollah Pages were rigged with
explosives and then detonated
simultaneously killing and injuring
thousands of terrorists and a small
number of bystanders the pages in
question were not picked at random
Israel specifically selected a batch of
senior Hezbollah operatives and still
people like Hamza yusf Scotland's former
first Minister complain about Israel's
indiscriminate attacks this was
definitionally the most precise targeted
and surgical large- scale anti-terrorist
operation in human history in summary
I've engaged with an open mind and in
good faith with all the anti-israel
arguments presented to me over the last
year on balance I regard them as
disingenuous irrelevant and designed to
pull at my heartstrings in order to
obscure the harsh reality of this
conflict we would respond exactly the
way that Israel has the only difference
is we would do so with the support of
every member of the International
Community while Israel has to fight not
only the terrorists who want to wipe
them off the m app for Western apologist
for those terrorists as well if you
enjoy these videos you should know that
they're available on my substack weeks
sometimes months ahead of time head on
over there now using the link in the
description and subscribe
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
Fmr. Israeli Prime Minister on response in Gaza: 'We have no choice'
इज़राइल की हवा टाइट• हर जगह मिल रही हार•अमरीकी-इज़राइली रिपोर्ट में इज़राइल की हार•सबसे ख़ास रिपोर्ट
Debunking Israel's Defense Speedrun
IDF Mass Warning: IT’S IMMINENT | Hizbullah’s “Sunni” Ally: “EXECUTE Them All & ATTACK Israel Now!”
“Israel Does NOT Want To End This War” Deadly Gaza Hostage Raid
Israel Palestine War | What is Happening? | Explained by Dhruv Rathee
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)