Bret Stephens vs John Mearsheimer | Gaza and the Middle East

Summary

The 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

00:00

🌎 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.

05:00

🏖️ 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.

10:03

🏰 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.

15:03

🌆 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.

20:05

🔄 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.

Keywords

💡Israel Gaza debate

The Israel Gaza debate refers to the ongoing political and military conflict between Israel and the Palestinian territories, specifically the Gaza Strip. The video script discusses this debate from different perspectives, highlighting the complexities and the challenges in finding a resolution. The debate is a central theme of the video, as it brings together speakers with contrasting views to discuss the situation.

💡Netanyahu

Benjamin Netanyahu is a key figure in the video, being the former Prime Minister of Israel. His leadership and policies are discussed in the context of their impact on the Israel-Gaza conflict and the broader Middle East politics. The script mentions calls from some Democratic lawmakers for Netanyahu's replacement, suggesting that his removal could potentially change the dynamics of the conflict.

💡Classical liberal

Classical liberal is a term used to describe a political philosophy that emphasizes individual liberty, free markets, and limited government intervention. The video script mentions the importance for a classical liberal organization like CIS to hear both sides of any debate, indicating a commitment to open dialogue and the exchange of diverse viewpoints.

💡Right-wing populism

Right-wing populism is a political approach that seeks to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by the established elite groups. The script discusses the rise of right-wing populism globally, including in Israel, and how it influences the country's stance on issues like the Gaza conflict.

💡Oslo Accords

The Oslo Accords were a significant set of agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The script references the Oslo Accords as an example of Israel's willingness to make peace, highlighting the historical context of peace efforts and their implications for the current debate.

💡Ethnic cleansing

Ethnic cleansing refers to the forced removal of an ethnic or religious group from a given territory. In the script, the concept is discussed as a potential solution to the conflict, suggesting that it could solve the problems of apartheid and Hamas' influence. However, the term is controversial and raises ethical concerns.

💡Two-state solution

The two-state solution is a proposal for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by establishing two separate states, one Jewish and one Palestinian. The script discusses the two-state solution as a preferred outcome by many, including American leaders, and the challenges in achieving it, particularly with groups like Hamas opposing it.

💡Hamas

Hamas is a Palestinian Islamist political organization and militant group that has been a significant player in the Gaza Strip. The script discusses Hamas' role in the conflict, its opposition to a two-state solution, and the challenges it poses to achieving peace in the region.

💡Iran

Iran is mentioned in the script as a regional power with influence over the Israel-Gaza conflict, particularly through its support for groups like Hamas. The discussion of Iran's power and its potential weaknesses provides a broader geopolitical context to the debate.

💡Zionism

Zionism is a national movement that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the historic territory of Israel. The script includes a discussion of Zionism from a perspective that advocates for a Jewish state while also recognizing the need for a Palestinian state, reflecting on the complexities of the movement's goals in the context of the conflict.

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]