Speaker 1: Welcome to Crash Course, a podcast about business, political, and
Speaker 1: social disruption and what we can learn from it. I'm
Speaker 1: Tim O'Brien. Today's crash Course Israel versus Hamas. Gaza, a slender,
Speaker 1: twenty five mile long stretch of land bordered by the
Speaker 1: Mediterranean Sea to its west, Egypt to its south, and
Speaker 1: Israel to its north and east, is now a war zone.
Speaker 1: In the wake of Hamas's recent grizzly attack that left
Speaker 1: more than fourteen hundred Israelis dead and about another two
Speaker 1: hundred taken hostage. Israel's military forces appear poised to occupy
Speaker 1: Gaza to try obliterating the Islamist terrorist group. Ancient religious
Speaker 1: and cultural animosities and contemporary geopolitical jockeying are the backdrop
Speaker 1: for this conflict, but this newest iteration appears to have
Speaker 1: been sparked by Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the US seeking
Speaker 1: to normalize diplomatic relations. Hamas, apparently fearful of being isolated
Speaker 1: in the Middle East, may have opted for mass murder
Speaker 1: to derail those talks. Other factors are at play. Decades
Speaker 1: of simmering resentment about Israel's more aggressive regional stances and
Speaker 1: military incursions into Gaza in the West Bank, outrage about
Speaker 1: violence at Jerusalem's All Oxamasque, and perhaps most significantly, broader
Speaker 1: concerns about Israel's treatment of Palestinians and its most recent
Speaker 1: push to expand settlements in the West Bank. For its part,
Speaker 1: Hamas has routinely called for the destruction of the Israeli state. Iran,
Speaker 1: while pursuing nuclear weapons, has bankrolled Hamas and another militant
Speaker 1: group in the region, hes Belah, making it a dangerous
Speaker 1: and divisive regional wildcard, with Israel warning Gaza's two million
Speaker 1: Palestinian residents to relocate as more intense warfare draws near.
Speaker 1: US President Joe Biden has visited Israel to show support
Speaker 1: a deadly last you know, as a hospital disrupted some
Speaker 1: of the plans around his visit, symbolizing perhaps how unpredictable
Speaker 1: and dangerous this conflict will continue to be. Joining me
Speaker 1: today to discuss all of this are Mark Champion and
Speaker 1: Andreas Klute to Bloomberg Opinion columnists with deep experience covering
Speaker 1: international affairs. Welcome, gentlemen, Hi Jim.
Speaker 2: Nice to be here, so Mark.
Speaker 1: You arrived in Israel on Wednesday, October eighteenth, and we're
Speaker 1: recording on Thursday the nineteenth. Things are moving fast and
Speaker 1: could change. And I know you haven't had much time
Speaker 1: there yet, but what are your first impressions being on
Speaker 1: the ground there.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the first is what you always get
Speaker 2: in countries that are war zones are becoming war zones,
Speaker 2: which is that when you go to the place that
Speaker 2: isn't you know, directly in the line of fire, then
Speaker 2: things are completely normal and people, yeah, you know, at restaurants, cafes,
Speaker 2: their lives go on. They are disturbed, and you know,
Speaker 2: there is a sort of genuine unhappy piness. You know,
Speaker 2: I'm going to do the awful thing and quote my
Speaker 2: taxi driver from this morning, but he has on his
Speaker 2: knuckles tattooed, you know, the name of his son, which
Speaker 2: translates as happiness. And then on the other side, you
Speaker 2: only live once, and he said, we always have these
Speaker 2: bad times, and so I keep it there just to
Speaker 2: remind myself, and I never needed it more than now.
Speaker 2: And the general feeling is, with few exceptions, they don't
Speaker 2: really see a way out that ends happily peacefully. So
Speaker 2: a lot of intrepidation, but you know, in general, life
Speaker 2: goes on.
Speaker 1: And So how did we get here? Mark, How do
Speaker 1: we go from diplomatic baby steps meant to bring Saudi
Speaker 1: Arabia and Israel together to bloody, sprawling combat in the
Speaker 1: blink of an eye.
Speaker 2: That is a huge question and incredibly controversial. So I
Speaker 2: kind of stepped through the minefield. But essentially, you know,
Speaker 2: as I can best explain it, what has happened is
Speaker 2: the result of a series attempts that were made fifteen
Speaker 2: twenty years ago to get somewhere towards a settlement, never
Speaker 2: really worked, and increasingly since then the attempt hasn't been
Speaker 2: made to make something work. So what Israel did was
Speaker 2: to disengage, move out of Gaza and you know, pull
Speaker 2: that troops or administration out. That was back in two
Speaker 2: thousand and five. You then had elections, Hamas took charge.
Speaker 2: Hamas even then was committed to the destruction of the
Speaker 2: state of Israel. And this time later you moved to
Speaker 2: a period where Hamas has been preparing has always said
Speaker 2: it was preparing for a major attack. At the same time,
Speaker 2: they were increasingly marginalized because of the As you laid
Speaker 2: out these diplomatic efforts, you already had the Abrams Accords,
Speaker 2: where some of the Gulf states of Morocco had you know,
Speaker 2: normalized relations with Israel. Now you had the big one,
Speaker 2: Saudi Arabia, looking very close to doing so. And all
Speaker 2: of this was done without any consideration of the Palestinian settlement,
Speaker 2: which was kind of put on ice some time ago.
Speaker 2: And for Hamas, they felt, I think that this was
Speaker 2: a kind of you know, now or never moment, and
Speaker 2: they attacked as far as you know, one can gauge
Speaker 2: with the intent to cause a major conflict, the wider
Speaker 2: the better. As far as their concerned.
Speaker 1: Israeli intelligence had no inkling this was coming. They looked
Speaker 1: very flat footed, unaware. The Israeli military got taken by
Speaker 1: surprise in a massive way, one of the most formidable
Speaker 1: military forces in the Middle East. How did that happen?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean that's going to be the subject of
Speaker 2: a long investigation, you know, once things calmed down. I
Speaker 2: think already we know it's probably wrong to say that
Speaker 2: there was no inkling and that there were indications, and
Speaker 2: Israeli intelligent did have some indications, but the focus, the
Speaker 2: political focus, the security focus was elsewhere. It was in
Speaker 2: the West Bank because of years of fairly aggressive settlement policies,
Speaker 2: plus issues around Alaksa and the Dome of the Rock
Speaker 2: in Jerusalem, so you had the security forces diverted to
Speaker 2: protect settlements since on, and also you know, the intelligence services,
Speaker 2: their attention was diverted. They were worried about trouble in
Speaker 2: the West Bank. They thought that Hamas was happy enough
Speaker 2: in its running its enclave and that this kind of
Speaker 2: scale of event wasn't really likely.
Speaker 1: Andreas, let's talk a little bit more about Kaza's history,
Speaker 1: you know, the rise of Hamas and its relationship to
Speaker 1: the millions of Palestinians and claims to represent.
Speaker 3: How does Gaz of you this, how does Ghaz of
Speaker 3: view the rise of Hamas well? I mean Hamas is
Speaker 3: an interesting one because just before the attacks or as
Speaker 3: Mark said, you know, things in the agents seem to
Speaker 3: be going a lot of us thought in a better direction.
Speaker 3: And Hamas, who was not so much on our radar screens.
Speaker 3: They're offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, so they're Sunni, not Shia,
Speaker 3: like Hisbolla and like the Mullahs in Iran, and they
Speaker 3: have this kind of Nihalist approach to the region. As
Speaker 3: Mark mentioned, is that they basically want to annihilate the
Speaker 3: state of Israel, and they're domestic or the Palestinian rivals
Speaker 3: are running very badly at the West Bank, and they
Speaker 3: are at the same time deeply embedded with Gaza because
Speaker 3: some Palestinis in Gaza are intertwined with them, but mainly
Speaker 3: because they're using these men, women, children, babies as human shields.
Speaker 3: As everyone's been saying, intentionally, in order to hit Hamas,
Speaker 3: now you'd have to also be prepared to hit these civilians,
Speaker 3: genuine civilians every time as well. And in fact, as
Speaker 3: you know, the Israelis said to the Gas and Palestinians,
Speaker 3: clear out, we're coming, and as they have been trying
Speaker 3: to clear out, it's in part Hamas that's blocking them
Speaker 3: because they want to maximize Palestinian casualties. And that's something
Speaker 3: very often overlooked now in all these on the streets
Speaker 3: of Europe and the Middle East and around the world
Speaker 3: and on college campuses, is that it's Hamas that wants
Speaker 3: to maximize Palestinian casualties and deaths and suffering in Gaza,
Speaker 3: not Israel. So that's this bizarre and frankly, I, like
Speaker 3: so many things, I think irrational. I don't understand rationally
Speaker 3: how I mean, I would love local Palestinians in Gaza
Speaker 3: to now rise up against them. I would like there
Speaker 3: to be an effort to liberate themselves from Hamas.
Speaker 1: You know, this notion that the Palestinians and Gaza should
Speaker 1: clear out Andreas is something people can say in the
Speaker 1: military as they're about to consider occupy in Gaza. But
Speaker 1: the reality is it's two million people with very few
Speaker 1: places to go, and they don't have you know, there's
Speaker 1: not warm welcome for them awaiting in other countries in
Speaker 1: the region. So this again feels to me like one
Speaker 1: of these massive, massive issues here is two million people
Speaker 1: could instantly become refugees with nowhere to go, refugees within
Speaker 1: their own.
Speaker 3: Land, and that sort of sets the Palestinians apart from
Speaker 3: the millions of other refugees. I think the UN calculated
Speaker 3: there's more than one hundred million now in the world.
Speaker 3: But you know, the Syrians. Now, I covered other refugee crises,
Speaker 3: you know in Europe, I'm sure marked it as well.
Speaker 3: The Syrians went to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and then onwards
Speaker 3: to Europe. The Palestinians in Gaza, as you just said,
Speaker 3: have nowhere to go and we should point fingers at
Speaker 3: Egypt as well, because it's not letting them in. Biden
Speaker 3: was there and apparently there's some humanitarian eight trucks going
Speaker 3: into Gaza to bring stuff in, but it is so
Speaker 3: far Egypt is not letting in these fellow Arabs either,
Speaker 3: and the Israelis can't let them in because they'd be
Speaker 3: letting in Hamas as well. So yeah, that's part of
Speaker 3: the tragedy is these two million are trapped there in
Speaker 3: the small strip of land with nowhere to go, and
Speaker 3: they can press their faces against barbed wire, but they
Speaker 3: have nowhere to go. And that's the tragedy of the situation.
Speaker 3: And it's not the Israelis that wanted it this way.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think the cargo that Egypt's gonna let through
Speaker 1: is twenty trucks or so. That's also not a very
Speaker 1: massive concession. I can't imagine twenty trucks making a huge
Speaker 1: difference to two million people, but perhaps it's a start. Well,
Speaker 1: let's talk a little bit about Benjamin and Yahoo before
Speaker 1: we go to the break. He's had nine political lives
Speaker 1: in Israel. He was attempting to stack the local judiciary
Speaker 1: while miired in a corruption investigation before the war broke out,
Speaker 1: and he has spent years rattling Israel's sabers at home Mark,
Speaker 1: how do you think about him within this whole collision?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I think there are a few things to
Speaker 2: pick apart there.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: The first thing is that I think Nathan, you know,
Speaker 2: at this point, is the political version of a dead
Speaker 2: man walking. So it's a question of time before he's
Speaker 2: gone because the anger at what is above all an
Speaker 2: extraordinary security failure will fall on him and correctly so,
Speaker 2: so you know, that's one part of it. The other is,
Speaker 2: you know, how do you assign blame for something like this. Well,
Speaker 2: the first thing is, in a terrorist attack, you can
Speaker 2: only assign blame to the terrorists because you know the
Speaker 2: definition of a terrorist attack is that you are attacking
Speaker 2: civilians by choice. Nobody forces you to attack civilians. That
Speaker 2: is a choice. So he does not bear responsibility for that,
Speaker 2: But he bears responsibility for the policy failure that has
Speaker 2: led us here. And I think that is I was
Speaker 2: speaking today with a former negotiator on the Israeli side
Speaker 2: with the Palestinians, and he dealt with Clinton, and he
Speaker 2: dealt with some of the negotiations after and what he
Speaker 2: was saying is that you know, this is ultimately a
Speaker 2: policy failure of huge proportions, and it isn't just about
Speaker 2: security and these sort of things that happened just now
Speaker 2: that allowed this to happen. It is about the treatment
Speaker 2: of Gaza, which initially was a fairly well intentioned project
Speaker 2: to disengage. It was kind of a recognition that if
Speaker 2: we aren't going to have a two state solution anytime soon,
Speaker 2: we need to give some sort of autonomy, self rule
Speaker 2: and so on. There's no future to occupying the territory.
Speaker 2: So it was relatively well meant at the beginning, but
Speaker 2: increasingly what happened essentially was that Netnunyahu empowered Hamas, and
Speaker 2: he did so in order to weaken the Palestinian authority
Speaker 2: because in the World Bank what was happening was that
Speaker 2: his coalition partners parties of the settlers of expansion, some
Speaker 2: call it annexation within the West Bank. So that what
Speaker 2: he wanted was not a negotiating partner for a two
Speaker 2: state solution in the Palestinian authority or a strong authority.
Speaker 2: What he wanted was the ability to give his coalition
Speaker 2: partners what they wanted without too much interference, and he
Speaker 2: just parked how much to the side and essentially empowered
Speaker 2: them by weakening the Palestinian authority. Because when you provide
Speaker 2: essentially no hope for a solution, where do people turn?
Speaker 2: He left them nowhere to turn. That was non violent.
Speaker 1: On that note, We're going to take a break, Mark,
Speaker 1: and we'll come right back and pick up our conversation.
Speaker 1: We're back with Mark Champion and Andreas Klouth Bloomberg opinion columnists,
Speaker 1: and we're talking about the already bloody and tragic Gaza conflict. Andreas,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden just traveled to Israel. Was that a good
Speaker 1: move or a rash move?
Speaker 3: I think it was a good move, and he did
Speaker 3: it very well. He's due to speak from the White
Speaker 3: House to the American audience tonight, but so far he's
Speaker 3: managed to hit the right notes, which is very difficult
Speaker 3: every time he's spoken out since the attacks, and again
Speaker 3: he did so in Israel. I mean so it almost
Speaker 3: went south on him. There were political risks and physical risks.
Speaker 3: The political risks included something like this horrendous shelling of
Speaker 3: the hospital in Gaza, which Israeli intelligence now think was
Speaker 3: a stray rocket from the Islami Jahada, in other words,
Speaker 3: from as Biden said, the other team, not the Israeli team.
Speaker 3: But because of that, half of his itinerary was in
Speaker 3: effect cancel, because he was going to go to Israel
Speaker 3: and Jordan to meet with the Palestinian Instrudanians in a there,
Speaker 3: which is sort of part of the iconography of the trip,
Speaker 3: the US President coming in and talking to people on
Speaker 3: all sides. So half of that fell away, which made
Speaker 3: it harder. But I still think he found very good
Speaker 3: words in again, as he had already not saying these
Speaker 3: sentences that you hear in talks to like yes, calm up,
Speaker 3: but you know, yes we support Israel. But no, he
Speaker 3: was genuinely supporting them and calling this Hamastach pure unadult
Speaker 3: rated evil, and he showed genuine empathy, and he reached
Speaker 3: into history and there were inklings of his own personal
Speaker 3: biography of loss that allowed him to empathize with the
Speaker 3: families of the victims he met. There were sort of
Speaker 3: echoes of the awareness of the Holocaust in the background,
Speaker 3: and that was genuine. So one audience, the israelis I
Speaker 3: think mark making confirmed this or not, but was genuinely reassured.
Speaker 3: At the same time, the Palestinians, Arabs and all their
Speaker 3: friends also genuinely saw how concerned he is to protect
Speaker 3: them as much as possible, specifically Natanyahu's sitting next to
Speaker 3: him as he was speaking. I liked one passage where
Speaker 3: Biden essentially said, you know, we Americans, after what we
Speaker 3: went through after nine to eleven, we understand the all
Speaker 3: consuming rage that has now gripped you because we had
Speaker 3: that rage. But don't let that be your counselor your guide.
Speaker 3: It leads to bad decisions. And he said, well, we
Speaker 3: are democracies, and we're fighting terrorists, and we're going to
Speaker 3: set an example by the way we fight. And I
Speaker 3: think these messages arrived they were intended at Natanyahu, and
Speaker 3: I think he intended them, but the rest of the
Speaker 3: world was paying attention to. His primary objective is, of course,
Speaker 3: to keep this war from widening, and so not just
Speaker 3: his bollah in Lebanon and Iran, but I think even
Speaker 3: the people Iran is supplying with weapons, which is Russia
Speaker 3: and even China and even possibly North Korea. He's assuming
Speaker 3: they're all listening, and he often repeats that phrase, don't
Speaker 3: don't don't. And he's got two aircraft carrier groups parked
Speaker 3: next to it off the event in the Eastern Mediterranean
Speaker 3: to make that clear. But he's saying, don't let anybody
Speaker 3: get ideas. Let the israel Alias do this properly, and
Speaker 3: let us try to help the Palestinians as best we can.
Speaker 3: And I think that's such a task for subtlety. And
Speaker 3: he found the right tones and notes even though half
Speaker 3: the trip got canceled. So I would say he's been
Speaker 3: doing as well as one can possibly do. Whether the
Speaker 3: intended audiences are all listening, I mean the people demonstrating
Speaker 3: on campuses and streets and the Mullahs for instance, I
Speaker 3: don't know.
Speaker 1: So it's enough in your mind. The rich symbolism of
Speaker 1: him being there justifies the visit, even if he's not
Speaker 1: bringing home many trophies or breakthroughs.
Speaker 3: Yes, And to me it reminded there were other visits
Speaker 3: like that. He was there for seven and a half
Speaker 3: hours already, as by pure coinstance, seven and a half
Speaker 3: hours is how long Sehn F. Kennedy was in Berlin
Speaker 3: in nineteen sixty three. That was a big moment in
Speaker 3: the Cold War. Two years after the Wall was put up.
Speaker 3: A lot of people were about to lose heart. He
Speaker 3: came and after that everyone found their heart their lion's
Speaker 3: hard after that visit.
Speaker 1: But they still had to wait nearly three decades for
Speaker 1: the wall to come down to well.
Speaker 3: Actually, and in this case, I mean, when we get
Speaker 3: back to this conflict, this may be longer than three decades.
Speaker 3: I mean, but although at the time, by the way,
Speaker 3: just before the wall open in nineteen eighty nine, we
Speaker 3: thought that might be forever. We didn't think it would
Speaker 3: end in our lifetime. But that was a different kind
Speaker 3: of conflict, and I think this one is more intractable.
Speaker 1: While we're on the US, just one last piece on that, Andreas,
Speaker 1: which is that the US is wrapping up military hardware
Speaker 1: support for Israel as well. That has been curious to me,
Speaker 1: simply because Israel has already been very well funded, it
Speaker 1: already has a robust military. There's been an argument out
Speaker 1: there that it actually didn't want outside funding or support
Speaker 1: because it wanted to show it could fight its own wars.
Speaker 1: And in a very short period of time, now we
Speaker 1: have the US wrapping up military aid to Israel. Explain
Speaker 1: that to.
Speaker 3: Me, I can't explain it. Very well, I mean there's
Speaker 3: a practical consideration, is that iron Dome, this system which
Speaker 3: we now see in these early haunting and beautiful images
Speaker 3: right when it's in action shooting down rockets. But my
Speaker 3: understanding is that it's been in use so much that
Speaker 3: they'd need to replenish that AMMO. So America can help great,
Speaker 3: and of course America should help if there's other ways
Speaker 3: to do it. I think there is a lot of
Speaker 3: symbolism with this. As you said, the israel Raelis are
Speaker 3: well off compared to the Ukrainians, for instance, had the
Speaker 3: money have the AMMO. I don't think it's going to
Speaker 3: come down to that, but I think there's just a
Speaker 3: domestic American political imperative on both sides to just show
Speaker 3: where they're with you and we support and therefore in
Speaker 3: every way it is now in every way possible. So
Speaker 3: it is not to me politically pause. I don't regard
Speaker 3: anyone you know that you see the pundits or the politicians.
Speaker 3: It is not possible now not to offer that because
Speaker 3: that's just a task. And the bizarre thing is that
Speaker 3: this comes at the very time as not half but
Speaker 3: part of one of the two big parties wants to
Speaker 3: stop supporting Ukraine for different reasons, but exactly as strategically
Speaker 3: important for the United States to keep supporting Ukraine against
Speaker 3: Russia as to support Israel, and Ukraine does need to
Speaker 3: help more urgently, by which I mean it stops getting it.
Speaker 3: And according to the Ukrainians, they might lose against Russia.
Speaker 3: Israel will could militarily win. It's not about that, it's
Speaker 3: how they wage the war. Then, as you know, they're
Speaker 3: now thinking of bundling the Ukraine issue with the Israeli issue,
Speaker 3: with the southern border with Mexico issue, which is insane,
Speaker 3: and even with Taiwan, as if like every problem in
Speaker 3: the world into one package, just to get it past
Speaker 3: the troglodytes in the House of Representatives on the Republican side,
Speaker 3: you know, just to get it.
Speaker 1: Through the dysfunctional troglodites. Mark. This could obviously all change
Speaker 1: in a few days between this interview and when this
Speaker 1: podcast goes live. But what is Israel weighing right now
Speaker 1: as we watch this unfold.
Speaker 2: Well, that's a really good question. I mean, so what
Speaker 2: clearly President Biden, Joan Chancellor Schultz, British Prime Minister Sanak,
Speaker 2: maybe Macran's coming to what they all want Israel to
Speaker 2: be weighing is be very careful how you do this.
Speaker 2: Think about the day after, because what we know about
Speaker 2: these kinds of conflicts is that the more people you kill,
Speaker 2: the more that stirs resentment and creates a fertile recruitment
Speaker 2: ground for organizations like come US and these organizations, you know,
Speaker 2: when you kill them off, they also castasize. The US
Speaker 2: was pretty successful in neutralizing al Qaeda after nine to
Speaker 2: eleven over a number of years, and then you know,
Speaker 2: you go into Iraq, you kill a lot of people,
Speaker 2: and you have Isis, different organizations, Samem.
Speaker 1: Afghanistan, and then you go occupy Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: So I think this is you know what President Biden
Speaker 2: was trying to get at when he was going back
Speaker 2: to nine to eleven. You know, we made mistakes, and
Speaker 2: clearly he didn't want to say it, but going into
Speaker 2: Iraq was a mistake, and you know, you have to
Speaker 2: think about the day after, which is a great failure
Speaker 2: of the US going into Iraq not thinking about what
Speaker 2: will we do with this place when we effectively break
Speaker 2: it and own it. So the Israelis, you know, I think,
Speaker 2: will be less naive than the Americans were, you know,
Speaker 2: in Iraq. They know all about Gaza, they've been there before.
Speaker 2: But I think one thing we don't know is how
Speaker 2: much they're thinking this particular issue through. Are they concerned
Speaker 2: simply with we just need to go in and deal
Speaker 2: with Hermas. Everything else will deal with later, or are
Speaker 2: they trying to think through what will happen the day after?
Speaker 2: How do we do this so that we don't end
Speaker 2: up with unintended consequences that actually make it all worse.
Speaker 2: And unfortunately, what we see doesn't suggest just from the
Speaker 2: comments that Israeli leaders have made and from physically what's
Speaker 2: going on, with the intensity of the aerial bombing in
Speaker 2: a very small place, it doesn't lead us to think
Speaker 2: that it's a very reflective moment. It's really an operational one.
Speaker 2: We just have to get in there and deal with Hermas.
Speaker 1: And Mark, what about Egypt? What role does it have
Speaker 1: to play here?
Speaker 2: I think Egypt is just desperately trying to stay out
Speaker 2: of it.
Speaker 1: They want Egypt wants no role.
Speaker 2: They want no role whatsoever. And to go back to
Speaker 2: the idea of you know, Parsonian's leaving God, we sort
Speaker 2: of have to remember that these are refugees mostly, you know.
Speaker 2: So we're going back to the you know, nineteen forty
Speaker 2: eight and the Nakba and so on, and you know,
Speaker 2: these people who were displaced to where they are, and
Speaker 2: some parts of the West Bank are refugee camps. They
Speaker 2: don't look like it anymore because they're forty years old
Speaker 2: and they've kind of developed, but they are. And unfortunately,
Speaker 2: ethnic cleansing is a lot more common than we think.
Speaker 2: So you know what we just saw in Armenia Azerbaijan,
Speaker 2: you know, end of thirty years of conflict, what happens
Speaker 2: one side wins and the other side just leaves, the
Speaker 2: civilians leave. What do we see in a Pazia? You know,
Speaker 2: a part of Georgia that the Russians now more or
Speaker 2: less control. In nineteen ninety two, the small minority up
Speaker 2: has kicked out the Georgians population. Ethnic Georgian populations made
Speaker 2: up half of the population, and they kicked them out
Speaker 2: and they won't let them back in. Why because demography
Speaker 2: is everything, you know. So if you are a minority,
Speaker 2: if Israelis are a minority within it Israel that includes
Speaker 2: all the Palestinians, then you don't have you can't have
Speaker 2: a democratic Jewish state. And this is at the heart
Speaker 2: of the whole conflict. So when Egypt says don't leave,
Speaker 2: say stand your ground, what they're saying is that just
Speaker 2: being there is political. It is a political statement because
Speaker 2: this is in the end about demography and land. And
Speaker 2: this is why you ultimately, you know, most people who
Speaker 2: really think this stuff through, they'll say, I don't know
Speaker 2: how we get there, but we all know we have
Speaker 2: to have a two state solution because there isn't another solution.
Speaker 2: You can't have a one state solution, because if you
Speaker 2: have a one state solution, there can't be a Jewish
Speaker 2: democracy in Israel. And if you have a one state solution,
Speaker 2: you know it's either going to be that. You know,
Speaker 2: it's either going to be a Jewish dictatorship, which is
Speaker 2: no fun for the Palestinians, or it's not going to
Speaker 2: be a Jewish state and there's not enough trust there
Speaker 2: understandably for Jewish Israelis to say, okay, well we'll go
Speaker 2: for that, will have an open election and take the
Speaker 2: risk that Hummas runs the place. So this is the
Speaker 2: great difficulty. You know, how do you get to a
Speaker 2: two state solution? I think at this point nobody has
Speaker 2: any ideas, and that's partly why that question about the
Speaker 2: next day is being pushed aside, because you know, how
Speaker 2: would you do it if your one narrative about Gaza
Speaker 2: is to say that, look, we separate, if we disengaged,
Speaker 2: we did a kind of test run for a two
Speaker 2: state solution. If we said to the passes, run yourselves,
Speaker 2: elect whoever you want. They elected Humas. How do we
Speaker 2: have a two state solution If Harmas is going to
Speaker 2: run it dedicated to the destruction of Israel and is
Speaker 2: a state with the right to arm itself and to
Speaker 2: buy tanks, how do we do that?
Speaker 1: Well, intractable problems And then of course Andreas there's a
Speaker 1: run lurking and looming out there, aspiring to be a
Speaker 1: nuclear power, funding terrorism in the region, spending the last
Speaker 1: several months sort of I don't know how to think
Speaker 1: about it, at least going through the kobukie of putting
Speaker 1: olive branches out on the global stage. But if it
Speaker 1: then turns out that they are more disruptive than they
Speaker 1: claim to be, that all becomes problematic. There's been i
Speaker 1: think some overly aggressive reporting suggesting they were more involved
Speaker 1: with planning them as attacked than they were. I think
Speaker 1: that that's been sort of roundly dispensed with, but I
Speaker 1: still think we have to find out more about Iran's
Speaker 1: intentions and actions nonetheless in the region. How does this
Speaker 1: all play out for Iran?
Speaker 3: Well, first, one thing I find encouraging, and just from
Speaker 3: social media, is seeing that the way the Iranian Mullahs
Speaker 3: are trying to play this great Satan all of that,
Speaker 3: having everyone on this is not the way the population
Speaker 3: is playing it. Actually, So there's memes I've seen, I
Speaker 3: don't know how you know, representative they are of Iranian
Speaker 3: not mobs, but aggregations of people not chanting what they're
Speaker 3: being told to chant, because you know, they've just in
Speaker 3: on the streets fighting for their own freedom, for women
Speaker 3: to show their hair and the rest of it. And
Speaker 3: so the Ranian people again sort of like Hamas and
Speaker 3: the Palestinians, is like the Mullahs and the Iranians. The
Speaker 3: Iranian people shouldn't get drawn into this in any way.
Speaker 3: The Iranian Mullas, I think, as you just said, I
Speaker 3: also don't think it's plausible, although I have no idea
Speaker 3: that they were actually giving orders for Hamas to attack.
Speaker 3: Now even though they've of course been sending money in weapons,
Speaker 3: but it didn't rhyme with everything else they were doing.
Speaker 3: As you said, they've been putting out all of branches.
Speaker 3: We just had a prisoner for dollar bank account on
Speaker 3: freezing exchange, a swap with the US that we thought
Speaker 3: was going to lead further and maybe to talks to
Speaker 3: get them to stop moving closer to having nuclear weapons again.
Speaker 3: And of course they were also on the other hand,
Speaker 3: observing that Saudi Arabia and Israel and the United States
Speaker 3: were getting closer, and they were calculating, and I think
Speaker 3: for them it's like, oh, now Hamas did this, what
Speaker 3: do we do? And they're expected to try to burn
Speaker 3: American flags, Israeli flags, all of that. It's almost like
Speaker 3: a reflex. Having said that Iran is now the vector,
Speaker 3: it would be the vector for contagion if this local
Speaker 3: fire spreads into a global conflagration and inferno. Because of
Speaker 3: if you remember back to George W. Bush and the
Speaker 3: axis of evil, Iran was part of that. Nowadays, I
Speaker 3: keep hearing the axes of resistance, and Iran is part
Speaker 3: of that again, where it's Russia, Iran, China in China
Speaker 3: and Russia, they were just with many other countries in
Speaker 3: the global South also meeting. They want to have an
Speaker 3: access of resistance against the US led West, of which
Speaker 3: Israel and Europe are part as well. And so if Iran,
Speaker 3: via hisball or something gets drawn in, then Russia and
Speaker 3: China and North Korea may get drawn in as well,
Speaker 3: if only because they will at align against what they
Speaker 3: see as this Western rigged system and will bylining may
Speaker 3: be tempted to kindle in their own regional conflicts, from
Speaker 3: Taiwan to Ukraine or Moldova. And that's I think another
Speaker 3: subtext of Biden's don't don't.
Speaker 1: All right, We're going to take one more break and
Speaker 1: then I'll come back to continue this very interesting conversation
Speaker 1: with both of you. We're back with Mark Champion and
Speaker 1: Andreas Kluth and we're discussing the Gaza conflict. Mark for Israel,
Speaker 1: is this a turning point or is it retrenchment?
Speaker 2: Yes, I mean I don't know, I genuinely don't know.
Speaker 2: It is a watershed moment. Whatever policies were being followed before,
Speaker 2: it's clear that they collapsed. So Israel cannot just continue
Speaker 2: in the same way that it was with the same
Speaker 2: policies that it had, and the first instance of needing
Speaker 2: to change that and the recognition that they need to
Speaker 2: change that is precisely the decision a parent decision leads
Speaker 2: to prepare to go into Gaza and clear it out.
Speaker 2: There was this kind of slightly disturbing terminology that Israel
Speaker 2: had before for how to deal with Hamas, where they
Speaker 2: would go in every once in a while with a
Speaker 2: limited campaign, and they called it mowing the lawn, just
Speaker 2: trying to keep Humas from growing into the kind of
Speaker 2: force that could do what it just did. Well, clearly
Speaker 2: that didn't work. So this is why there really isn't
Speaker 2: a debate here of any real significance about whether to
Speaker 2: go in. There's a very strong consensus across the parties.
Speaker 2: They brought another party from the opposition into a war cabinet.
Speaker 2: Benny Gantz, the representative, is if anything more rhetorically hawkish
Speaker 2: about this then Nettan Yahoo. So the first instance of
Speaker 2: having to change the policy that is going into Gaza,
Speaker 2: removing Hamas and making that change. The next will come
Speaker 2: with the reckoning for Netanyahu, and I hope a reassessment
Speaker 2: of this policy of weakening the Palasinian authority. Israel does
Speaker 2: not want to reoccupy Gaza. It does not want to
Speaker 2: go back to that. That's just a recipe for a
Speaker 2: drip feed of coffins of soldiers coming back of you know,
Speaker 2: engagement and killing of Gaza civilians, which is you know,
Speaker 2: there's no upside to it. So I don't think Israel
Speaker 2: has any intention of occupying, but they feel they need
Speaker 2: to go in. They need to change the game. They
Speaker 2: need to change regime essentially in Gaza. And when they
Speaker 2: do that, they have to replace it with something. You know,
Speaker 2: what's it going to be. How they're going to do it,
Speaker 2: They're going to need the engagement of countries like Saudi Egypt, etc.
Speaker 2: In order to provide some sort of trustible support from
Speaker 2: the Palatinian side of this new regime that going to
Speaker 2: come in. You know, it'll be very difficult for the
Speaker 2: Palestinian authority because they'll be seen is in cohoots with Israel.
Speaker 2: But I think that's not worked out yet. But they're
Speaker 2: going to have to find a new regime of some
Speaker 2: sort and they're going to have to think about, okay,
Speaker 2: so we need a partner. We're going to need a
Speaker 2: Palestinian partner. That we can talk to that is not
Speaker 2: dedicated to the destruction of Israel, And we need to
Speaker 2: provide some kind of political path, some hope for the
Speaker 2: Palestine inside, so that we don't descend into this again.
Speaker 2: That's what I hope happens. But to be frank, I
Speaker 2: don't know. I just don't think that the discourse is
Speaker 2: that far ahead. You still have a Prime Minister Netanyahu
Speaker 2: who in order to have that policy you would need him.
Speaker 1: To go Ah Andrea Son. If we do come out
Speaker 1: of this, if we come out of this with a
Speaker 1: new role for the Palestinian authority, is that a possibility
Speaker 1: or are we just likely to see years of prolonged
Speaker 1: cast and conflict. I'm a Palestinian side too.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 3: No, we touched it when we were talking about that
Speaker 3: Berlin Wall. But I feel this conflict is more intractable
Speaker 3: in a way than the Cold War was. And that's
Speaker 3: the sad thing, is this eternal return to the not
Speaker 3: the better angels, but the worse angels of our nature,
Speaker 3: of their nature. But as Mark said, after this, whenever
Speaker 3: and however this ends, Israel must understand that it must
Speaker 3: help this Palestinis succeed in their Statelet in their proto state.
Speaker 3: It must want them to succeed, because the alternatives that
Speaker 3: they keep failing, and then we revert to this permanent conflict,
Speaker 3: and then you have permanent conflict.
Speaker 1: How do you make them succeed?
Speaker 3: That will require, in part, the next Israeli government to
Speaker 3: take on the Israeli far right and other settlers, and
Speaker 3: they must understand we must now make our former enemies
Speaker 3: succeed in order to turn them into future neighbors. And
Speaker 3: that is incredibly hard, and I'm not sure that will
Speaker 3: happen ever or in our lifetime, but that is the
Speaker 3: only way out.
Speaker 1: A last question for each of you. For Mark first,
Speaker 1: what have you learned since the Guyza conflict began that
Speaker 1: you didn't know before?
Speaker 2: I think I did not understand like the Israelis. I think.
Speaker 2: I mean I was familiar with Hamas, but I did
Speaker 2: not understand how carefully they had been preparing and how
Speaker 2: frankly efficiently they had been preparing for this. And they
Speaker 2: are a more dangerous fighting force than I perhaps had expected.
Speaker 2: One of the things that really intrigues me about this
Speaker 2: is whether what went on in Ukraine would have been
Speaker 2: carefully watched by them. This sort of asymmetric warfare. What
Speaker 2: Hammas did is at a different level to what you know.
Speaker 2: Terrissare always gaged an asymmetric warfare, but this was at
Speaker 2: a different level with you know, sort of combined force operations,
Speaker 2: you know, AirLand and sea, drones, hang gliders, et cetera.
Speaker 2: And just the fact that you know, a much smaller
Speaker 2: force in Ukraine was able to force back the second
Speaker 2: largest military in the world. Who nobody thought that was possible.
Speaker 2: That's one of the questions in my mind as to
Speaker 2: whether you know we are in an era when there
Speaker 2: is an optimism for smaller forces that they can do
Speaker 2: this type of thing because they've seen the Ukrainians do it.
Speaker 1: And Andrea, the same question for you, what have you
Speaker 1: learned since the Gaza conflict began that you didn't know
Speaker 1: before I learned, or.
Speaker 3: Maybe I was just reminded of something that I had
Speaker 3: been starting to deny, that it takes such hard, long,
Speaker 3: slow work to find the better, to move toward the
Speaker 3: better angels of our nature. And I think in the
Speaker 3: Middle East, not in Ukraine and other places, but they
Speaker 3: were doing it somehow, And then it is so easy
Speaker 3: and quick and abrupt to go all the way back,
Speaker 3: and there's always a new nadi or new bottom in
Speaker 3: human nature below the brutality. The details of it were
Speaker 3: just more shocking than I thought we were capable of nowadays,
Speaker 3: and so it is a very dark and negative note
Speaker 3: to end on. But I just learned it's easier to
Speaker 3: go all the way down than to climb that little
Speaker 3: step up. And of course it's disheartening because at some
Speaker 3: point we'll have to take the first small step up again,
Speaker 3: knowing that we can all go all the way to
Speaker 3: the bottom any moment.
Speaker 1: We are out of time. Mark and Andreas, thanks for
Speaker 1: joining us today and stay safe in Israel. Mark, thank you, Andreas,
Speaker 1: and I will be watching from Afar here in New
Speaker 1: York and Washington. Mark Champion can also be found on
Speaker 1: Twitter at Mark Champion one. Andrea's Kloth's handle is at
Speaker 1: Andrea's Klouth. Their writing and their videos can be found
Speaker 1: in the Bloomberg Opinion web site. Here at crash Course,
Speaker 1: we believe that collisions can be messy, impressive, challenging, surprising,
Speaker 1: and always instructive. In today's crash Course, I learned that
Speaker 1: Hamas is even more murderous and ruthless than anyone might
Speaker 1: have imagined in recent years, but I've also learned that
Speaker 1: it's important to separate Hamas from the Palestinian people.
Speaker 2: What did you learn?
Speaker 1: We'd love to hear from you. You can tweet at
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Opinion, handle at Opinion or me at Tim
Speaker 1: O'Brien using the hashtag Bloomberg Crash Course. You can also
Speaker 1: subscribe to our show wherever you're listening right now, and
Speaker 1: please leave us a review. It helps more people find
Speaker 1: the show. This episode was produced by the indispensable Ana
Speaker 1: Maserakas and me. Our supervising producer is Magnus Hendrickson, and
Speaker 1: we had editing help from Sage Bauman, Jeff Grocott, Mike
Speaker 1: Nize and Christine Vanden Bilert. Blake Maple says. Our sound
Speaker 1: engineering and our original theme song was posed by Luis Gara.
Speaker 1: I'm Tim O'Brien. We'll be back next week with another
Speaker 1: Crash Course