Why I’m Off the Fence About Israel’s War - Konstantin Kisin

Summary

In 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

00:00

🗣️ 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.

05:00

🔍 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.

10:01

⚖️ 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.

Keywords

💡First Principles Thinking

First principles thinking is a method of understanding complex issues by breaking them down to their fundamental truths. This approach allows one to analyze arguments more clearly, as it strips away emotional biases and focuses on core logic. In the video, the speaker employs this method to dissect the arguments regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict, aiming to clarify the motivations and consequences of actions taken by both sides.

💡Terrorism

Terrorism is defined in the video as the use of violence, often against civilians, to instill fear and achieve political aims. The speaker categorizes the October 7th attack by Hamas as a terrorist act, emphasizing its intention to harm civilians rather than military targets. This classification underlines the complexity of the conflict, as it raises questions about the morality and legitimacy of responses to such acts.

💡Legitimacy

Legitimacy refers to the acceptance and justification of a state's existence and actions. In the video, the speaker discusses arguments that question Israel's legitimacy as a state, suggesting that it was founded on lands taken from Palestinians without consent. This concept is crucial to the conflict as it shapes how both sides justify their actions and grievances.

💡Contextualization

Contextualization involves framing arguments within historical, social, and political backgrounds. The video addresses how many arguments against Israel are contextualized by pointing to historical injustices faced by Palestinians. The speaker critiques this method, asserting that while historical context is vital, it can sometimes be used to overshadow the immediate facts of the situation.

💡Civilian Casualties

Civilian casualties refer to non-combatant deaths or injuries that occur during military conflicts. The video discusses the reality of civilian deaths in the ongoing war, asserting that while these tragedies are undeniable, they must be examined in light of who is responsible for them. The speaker emphasizes that Hamas has a role in maximizing civilian casualties, highlighting the complexities of warfare and accountability.

💡Israeli Response

Israeli response refers to the actions taken by Israel in retaliation to attacks, particularly the October 7th assault. The video posits that Israel's reaction, characterized by military actions in Gaza, is a natural response to protect its citizens from further terrorist threats. This concept is central to the narrative as it questions the fairness and justification of Israel's military actions amid international scrutiny.

💡Historical Comparisons

Historical comparisons involve analyzing current events by relating them to past incidents. The speaker compares the October 7th attack to the September 11 attacks in the U.S., illustrating the disproportionate impact of such violence on smaller nations like Israel. This comparison is used to underscore the gravity of the attack and the subsequent rationale for Israel's defensive measures.

💡Hostage Situation

The hostage situation refers to the taking of civilians by Hamas during the October 7th attacks, which escalates the conflict. The speaker notes that many hostages have been killed since their capture, framing the hostage crisis as an additional layer of complexity in the conflict. This highlights the strategic use of hostages in warfare and its implications for military and diplomatic responses.

💡Emotive Arguments

Emotive arguments appeal to emotions rather than logical reasoning, often used to sway public opinion. The speaker discusses how discussions surrounding civilian deaths in Gaza often evoke strong emotional responses, which can overshadow rational debate about responsibility and accountability. This concept is significant as it critiques the tendency of narratives to exploit emotions rather than engage with factual analysis.

💡War Crimes

War crimes are serious violations of the laws of war, which can occur in conflicts by any party involved. The speaker acknowledges that while war crimes may be committed by both sides, the overall context and reasons behind military actions must be understood. This is important in assessing moral accountability in warfare and understanding the broader implications of military strategies employed in conflicts.

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