The following is a conversation with Douglas Murray, author of The War in the West, The Madness of Crowds, and his new book on democracies and death cults.
We talk about Russia and Ukraine and about Israel and Gaza.
Douglas has very strong views on these topics, and he defends them brilliantly and fearlessly.
As I always try to do for all topics, I will also talk to people who have different views from Douglas, including on the next episode of this podcast. We live in an era of online discourse where grifters, drama farmers, liars, bots, sycophants, and sociopaths roam the vast beautiful dark land of the internet.
It's hard to know who to trust. I believe no one is in possession of the entire truth, But some are more correct than others, some are insightful, and some are delusional.
The problem is it's hard to tell which is which unless you use your mind with intellectual humility and with rigor.
I recommend you listen to many sources who disagree with each other and try to pick up wisdom from each. Also, I recommend you visit the places in question, as Douglas has, as I have. Or at least talk face to face with people who have spent most of their lives living there, whether it's Israel, Palestine, Ukraine or Russia.
Let's try together to not be cogs in the machine of outrage, and instead to reach toward reason and compassion.
There is no Hitler, Stalin or Mao on the world stage today.
Plus, there are thousands of nuclear weapons ready to fire.
Human civilization hangs in the balance.
The 21st century is a new geopolitical puzzle all of us are tasked with solving.
Let's not mess it up.
And now ladies and gentlemen, a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
check them out in the description.
It's the best way to support this podcast. We've got Call of Duty for video game fun, Oracle for cloud computing, Element for electrolytes, and AG1 for multivitamin deliciousness.
Choose wisely my friends.
Also, if you happen to be watching or listening to this on Spotify, I decided to start putting the same ad reads from me at the beginning as I do on Apple Podcast and the RSS feed.
Since a lot of folks in the survey, lexweeb .com slash survey said they actually liked the random non sequitur things I talk about to my great surprise.
And they've also said that they're happy to just skip when they felt like it.
Some folks are some timers, meaning they listen to these ads sometimes.
Some folks are every timers.
They listen to all the ads.
I do try to make the ad reads interesting and personal, often related to stuff I'm reading or thinking about, but if you skip them, and I do make it easy to skip by providing the timestamps on the screen and in the description.
So if you skip them, please still check out the sponsors.
Sign up and get their stuff, I enjoy it, maybe you will too.
Also, if you want to get in touch with me for whatever reason, go to LexFreeman .com slash contact.
And now onto the full ad reads.
Let's go. This episode is brought to you by Call of Duty Warzone and the return of the iconic Vorodonsk map.
I have a long history with Call of Duty.
I've been a fan for a long time.
I've been a fan of video games for a long, long time.
And I'm actually looking forward to doing many, many podcasts with video game designers, with engineers, it just brings me so much joy.
and there's technical, philosophical things to explore with video games.
How do you create immersive worlds that can be ultra realistic or ultra non -realistic and super fun or super dark or terrifying or exciting or hopeful or dreamlike?
All of those worlds, the geniuses behind those worlds inspire me.
I admire, I respect, I'm a big fan of the worlds the Call of Duty franchise has created and the Verdunsk map looks incredible.
You can download Call of Duty Warzone for free and drop into the Verdunsk map on April 3rd, rated M for Mature.
This episode is also brought to you by Oracle, a company providing a fully integrated stack of cloud applications and cloud platform services.
I think compute is going to be one of the resources that are most prized in the 21st century.
Whatever physical form, whatever cyber software form that compute takes, we do not know yet.
Of course, there's folks like Oracle that are pioneering that, but it's very possible in a century, in two centuries, we're going to be surrounded by some orb where the computation is done maybe in deep space that's orbiting earth, something like this.
Maybe because of the the heat and the energy requirements it's going to be impossible to host it on Earth without destroying Earth.
And of course Earth is such a priceless planet for us humans but I actually believe, maybe not in our galaxy, but certainly in our vicinity, it's going to be very very difficult to colonize other planets.
Of course humans are incredible at doing the difficult thing but we should protect this Earth.
Anyway, props to Oracle for constantly innovating and building in the space.
Cut your cloud bill in half when you switch to OCI, offer is for new US customers with a minimum financial commitment, see if you qualify at Oracle .com slash Lex, that's Oracle .com slash Lex. This episode is brought to you by Element, my daily zero sugar and delicious electrolyte mix that I'm drinking now, because after I say the words I'm saying to you right now, I'm going for a long, long run along the river, and I'm listening to an audio book by James Holland.
It's volume one of his trilogy called The War in the West. I believe it's focusing on 1939 to 1941.
It's just an extremely well -written perspective on those years, so it's the Western front.
I think those years are really important to understand, the years leading up to 1939 and 39, 40, 41 themselves.
Because there's a lot of let's say geopolitical negotiations, meetings, carrots and sticks that could have been done.
A lot of insights, a lot of mistakes avoided.
It's such an important moment to understand.
Probably the most destructive, the most terrifying, the most earth shattering war this world has ever seen.
With the bigger than life personalities of Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, FDR. I think James Holland calls it the most dramatic set of events in human history.
And anyway, element before, element after, it brings me joy.
Watermelon salt is still and forever the flavor of choice for me.
Get a sample pack for free with any purchase.
Try to drinkelement .com slash flex. This episode is brought to you by AEG one.
an all in one daily drink to support better health and peak performance.
My daily companion, again, after the run, I'm gonna make an AG1, put in the freezer, then I'll go take a quick shower, come back, drink the AG1, it's gonna be chill, refreshing, I'm gonna reflect on the things I've read, let my thoughts go to wherever they may go and then get my lazy ass back to work, deeply focused.
a productive life is built on a foundation of rituals, habits.
It's kind of incredible how fleeting life is, the days go by, the months go by, the years go by.
But when you look at the individual day, there's just a lot of time.
And if you have the patience to believe in the long term effects of daily rituals and daily habits, you'd be surprised.
I am constantly surprised.
if I do a thing every day, and I wake up two, three months after, and just see how good I got at that thing.
It's kind of incredible.
And then you, of course, have to protect that habit.
It gets harder and harder every year with all the fascinating stuff going on online.
You just have to shut it all off and do the thing, do the habit every day.
Anyway, they'll give you one month supply of fish oil when you sign up at drinkag1 .com slash lex. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast, to support it, please check out our sponsors in the description, and now, dear friends, here's Douglas Murray.
What have you understood about the war in Ukraine from your visits there, just looking at the big picture of your understanding of the invasion of February 24th, 2022 and the war in the three years since?
Well, I mean, several things, there's political angles which are forever changing.
But on the human level, as you know, if you visit troops, frontline troops.
You have that admiration for people defending their country, defending their homes, defending their families.
I'm struck by the way in which that is to remove from the sort of political noise and the media noise and much more.
It's very easy to get caught up in the twos and fro's of today's news, but that to my mind, that's a single thing that struck me most in my visits there is just the people I've met who are fighting for a cause which at that level is unavoidable, undeniable.
So the thing that struck you that's different from the media turmoil is just the reality of war.
Yeah, of course, I mean, you know, people who have either lived under Russian occupation from the invading armies and then come back out into the world, having been liberated as in late 2022.
All the people now organized most recently there in recent weeks who were just getting on with their job as soldiers whilst the world was talking about them.
When were you there in early on in this escalated War of 22?
Yes. First time I was with the Ukrainian armed forces when they retook Kursan.
I was back in recent weeks and was there when the Trump -Selensky blow -up happened.
In fact, I was in a Ukrainian dugout at the front lines when I was watching it.
How's the morale? How's the way the content of the conversations as you've heard different from the two visits separated by, I guess, two years.
At one level, nothing has changed much. It's not a total standoff because intermittently, each side gains territory from the others, but there'd be no very significant military gains by either side in the interim period.
I think my experience of the soldiers of the people of Ukraine early on in the war, there's an intense optimism about the outcomes of the war.
There's a sense that they're going to win, and the definition of what win means was like, all the territory is going to be won back.
Yeah, I certainly on the front lines facing Crimea, I became quite familiar with people who thought that the Ukrainians in late 2022 would even be able to get Crimea back.
And that struck me even at the time.
And I said, I thought that that was an overreach. And now I think the people, the soldiers, at least in my experience when I visited second time, are more exhausted.
The morale, the dreams, the certainty of victory has maybe faded from the forefront to their minds.
Well, three years of war will tire out anyone.
What did you think of the blow up between Zelensky and Trump as you're sitting there in the dugout?
Well, it was a very disturbing place to watch it from, and perhaps anywhere would have been.
Obviously, it was a meeting that shouldn't have happened, it was far too early.
Why do you think so?
There's not enough actual pathways to peace on the table?
Well, I think the mineral deal, I love the fact that everyone's now an expert in Eastern Ukrainian mineral deposits.
But - I think as I've learned and we'll talk about Israel and Palestine, I'm learning that everybody's an expert on geopolitics and the history of war on the Internet.
And now mineral deposits, obviously.
The, I'm really speaking at the edge of my mineral deposit knowledge here.
No, I mean, I... What I could see the deal that the American administration was trying to get the Ukrainian government to sign was sort of too early, too forced.
The Ukrainians weren't, were ready to sign a deal, but were obviously under intense pressure.
and I think certainly Zelenskiy wasn't expecting to actually go until pretty much the day before was obviously visibly tired and exhausted again as you are after that amount of pressure for that long a time and the thing that struck me and I said this in my column the new york post from there.
That thing that struck me was I said to some of the soldiers I was with uh you know what do you make of this and um you know one of them just said to me well you know we're advised not to get too close to the ins and outs of the politics of this you know and um but of course everyone has Instagram or scrolls and among dog pictures and the you know the hot women or whatever is um you know what happened in the oval But what struck me was this same guy and say, I've got a job to do.
Right. There's a clarity and a wisdom to that.
But your job is bigger than that, is to understand the politics as well.
What do you think about the politics of that moment?
Because that was a real opportunity to come together and make progress on peace, right?
By all accounts, was not a successful step forward. I don't think by any account, it was a successful step forward, unless to some extent it was a play, but from DC to say to Putin, look, we duffed off Zelensky and now give us something.
That's the only remedial idea I have about what might have been behind it, but I think it was just one of those extremely just awful political moments.
Zelensky was obviously deeply irritated by the interpretation of the war that he was hearing from Washington.
It was only a week after the Trump comments about Zelensky being a dictator, and people and administration implying that Ukraine has started the war and I think that must be for Zelensky a pretty Alice in Wonderland situation to be in.
And I had significant sympathy for him in finding it bewildering, because it would be bewildering.
I think the sad thing to me also on the mundane details of that meeting and just the unfortunate way their meetings happen.
I think it's true that he was also exhausted.
There was a dickhead of a reporter that was asked the question about outfit in a way that, listen to Zelensky, everybody has their strengths and weaknesses.
He's an emotional being for better or for worse, and there's a dumb dickhead of a reporter.
Marjorie Taylor Greene's boyfriend.
Oh, right. Two years.
Yeah. The things you know.
See, you're a real journalist. He's from one of the new.
I'm all for opening up the White House press pool and all that sort of thing, but it means that you get some people in who are sort of, yeah, from a blog landers, there's nothing wrong with that, but it means that you get somebody who will do something like that.
The problem with that interaction, as I saw it was that guy asked that well disrespectful question.
I think it was disrespectful.
I'll very quickly say why, I think that when a man comes from the realm of war into the realm of peace, the people in the realm of peace should have some respect or at least concession that the other man has come from the realm of war.
And that if you're sitting in a political environment where you talk about people being destroyed and decimated and defenestrated, and much more to a man for whom none of that is metaphorical.
I think that's extremely hard to accept.
Probably also at that moment, there was a sort of sense of you know Zelensky's being disrespected by being asked about what he's wearing when as everyone knows you know Churchill during World War II used to wear his fatigues on foreign visitors so just that is to remind people you're coming from the realm of war and I think that probably in that in that moment one of the things that would have been going his head would be.
But if this was Putin sitting here being assaulted by a journalist, you'd hope your host stepped in and defended you.
Let me try this one out.
If a journalist in the Oval Office, if Putin was sitting there or a putative journalist said to Putin, everyone knows you've had a lot of facial work done and word is you've used the same guy that Berlusconi used to use.
Can you comment on that?
You'd say, well, that's a disrespectful question for journalists to ask and it's a little bit off what needs to be gone over.
There's the same thing with Zelensky, his outfit, I think it was just petty and threw things off in a bad way.
Yeah. It was probably researched because I think Zlensky would explain this like three years ago at the beginning of the war why he wears what he wears, and he's been consistent wearing the same.
It's also, by the way, it's an example of the frivolity of a lot of the attempts to understand what's going on.
I mean, my view is that since actually most people, in fact, everybody, cannot be an expert on everything.
One of the things that we always do is to seize on minor and really quite unimportant things.
Every side does it.
Look at the way in which the American right for years talked about the Churchill bust leaving the White House Oval Office in the Obama years.
I didn't want to hear another darn thing about the Churchill bust after eight years because it was in lieu of trying to understand and actually critique Obama's foreign policy was just the easy shorthand.
I think it's the same, we're always tempted to that.
But the thing is, I think you mentioned Putin.
I think Putin would have been able to respond himself to that journalist effectively.
He would have done it in Russian.
The language thing was - Yeah, so I wanted to sort of lay out several just unfortunate things that happened in these situations.
I think it happens in all peace negotiations and it's funny how history can turn in moments like this.
I do think there's a dickhead reporter combined with the fact that, with all due respect, but Zelensky's English sometimes is not very good.
Yes and apart from anything else if he had agreed to not have done it in English, he would have bought himself the extra seconds in some of his replies that he needed.
Yeah, and have the wit, the guy is funny, witty, intelligent.
he could do that in the native language of whether it's Ukrainian or Russian, to be able to respond and get the interpreter.
All of that is really unfortunate because I think on those little moments it's a dance and there's an opportunity there, the Republicans, the right wing in the United States have a general skepticism of Zelensky, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way, It can turn, it can change, it can evolve.
It's very interesting why it has happened.
Why do you think it's happened?
Politics in the United States is so dumb that at the very beginning it could just be reduced to, well, the left went Putin bad, Zelensky good, rah, rah, Ukrainian flags therefore the right must go the opposite.
Yeah, that's right.
Sometimes it's literally as dumb as that.
Let's each pick a side and call the other dumb.
I had a line I used recently, the necessity for people who live too long online to try to wade their way out of the memes.
It is so lightweight, isn't it?
Because yes, I mean, I can understand the people who find it very irritating that so many people who would put BLM flags or Pride flags or trans flags in their bio then put Ukrainian flags in their bio despite almost certainly not knowing where Ukraine was.
And if that happens, the inevitable instinct of a lot of people who aren't really thinking is to say, that's really annoying, these people are really annoying, I'll sock it to them.
But that's where you've got to try to rise above that and say, actually, funnily enough, the fate of a country doesn't depend on my tolerance for memes online today.
Yeah. So I think the memes can be broken through in meetings like the one that happened between Zelensky and Trump.
there could have been real camaraderie.
I've seen the skill of that just recently having researched deeply and interact with Narendra Modi.
Here's somebody who has the skill for his country, for his situation, being able to somehow be friends with Putin, and friends with Zelensky, and friends with Trump, and friends with Biden, and friends with Obama.
That was very skillful.
That while still being strong for his country and fundamentally a nationalist figure who's very not globalist, not anything but pro -India, India first, nation first. In fact, nation first with a very specific idea what that nation represents.
Zolensky could do all of those things, but have the skill of navigating the Trump room.
Because every single leader has their own peculiar quirks that need to be navigated.
Yes, the obvious one, I don't want to make it sound like it was all Zolensky's fault.
But the obvious one was at the beginning of the meeting to say yet again as he has done for three years, thank you to America and American people and American politicians across the aisle for your support for my country in its hour of need.
We're deeply grateful because he for once forgot to say that.
I think it's not that simple.
It's not that simple.
It's one reason. I think saying thank you, he didn't need to say thank you.
Well, that was what Vance leapt in on.
He's just picking a thing to leap on.
There's a whole energy.
You have to acknowledge in your way of being that you have been very Biden buddy -buddy with the left for the last four years.
There's ways to fix that.
Listen, these people are complicated narcissists.
All of them, Biden, Trump.
You have to navigate the complexity of that.
As you basically have to say a kind word to Trump, which is showing there's many ways of doing that.
But one of them is saying, feeding the ego by acknowledging that he is one of the world's greatest negotiators.
I'm glad we're able to come to the table and negotiate together, because I believe you are the great negotiator mediator that can actually bring a successful resolution as opposed to have an energy of like, it should be obvious to everybody that you're creating the good guys and Russia is the bad guys.
There's this whole energy of entitlement that he brought.
He forgot that there's a new guy.
you got to convince the new guy that this global mission that this nation is on, this war that is in many ways, the West versus the East, that there's ideals, there's whole histories here, that this is a war worth winning.
You have to convince them, right?
Yeah, sure, and they obviously failed on that occasion.
But, as I say, it must be bewildering to have landed in a place where people were seriously talking about Ukraine starting the war and Zelensky not Putin being the dictator.
I did the front page of the New York Post the day after the President's comments on that, saying that, the big picture of Putin, just saying, right, this is a dictator.
I think that people can be live enough to be able to recognize that you can make criticisms of Zelensky or the Ukrainians, but it doesn't mean you have to fall full Putin.
Again, unfortunately, a lot of people in our time don't have that capability.
Can we go right into it?
What is your strongest criticism of Putin?
He's a dictator who's very bloody, as repressive as you can be of political opposition, internal opposition.
He's kleptomaniac, of his country's resources, has enriched himself as much as he could, as he has with the cronies around him.
He's not just acted to destroy internal opposition in Russia, but has gone to other countries, including my own country of birth, and killed people on their, our soil using, as it happens, weapons of mass destruction, the use of polonium in the center of London.
Not good. The use of incredibly dangerous nerve agents that could kill tens of thousands of people in a charming cathedral city like Salisbury.
Not good. If the apologists of Putin say, Well, he's just a tough man, he's looking after his house business, I don't think even if you think he has the right to do that, he should be doing it in third countries, deliberately using weapons that are meant to show that you could take out tens of thousands of British citizens.
Yeah, I mean that's just for starters.
Do you think he's actually popularly elected?
No. Do you think the results of the elections are fraudulent?
Yes. Do you think it's possible that it's just that the opposition has been eliminated, and he's legitimately popularly elected?
It definitely helps a chap if he's killed all of his opponents.
Something about using the term chap in that context is just marvelous.
But no, I mean seriously, This is another of the sort of slightly Alice in Wonderland things recently about Zelensky, as people are saying, he's a dictator because he hasn't held elections during a total war of self -defense.
And it's like, well, if you're really, really passionate about free and fair elections in that neck of the woods, You'd at least notice that Russian elections are not free and fair in any meaningful sense.
But this doesn't mean that you have to say that therefore, they should have Western style elections and freedom, that Russia is ready to go and become a Western liberal democracy.
It doesn't mean any of that at all.
It's just at least note that this is what Putin is.
What do you think is the motivation for his invasion of Ukraine in 2022?
It's what he's said for years, which is basically the reconstitution of the Soviet Union.
Do you think there's empire -building components to that motivation?
I would trust most my friends in Eastern Central Europe, who certainly do think that.
There's a reason why the Baltic countries are the countries that are spending highest in percentage of GDP on defense, and it's because they're very worried.
I don't think they're faking it.
I don't think they're faking it for me or for anyone else.
I think the Lithuanians, Latvians, the Estonians, and others are genuinely worried for the first time in some decades.
So you think there's a possibility that the war continues indefinitely, even if there's a ceasefire and the peace reached, the war will resume, He will seek expansion even beyond Ukraine?
Yes. The most obvious thing is that if Trump manages to negotiate a ceasefire, it'll be a temporary pause and whoever comes in as President after Trump, Putin will use the opportunity to advance again.
Again, one of the things I have heard from parts of the American right and others is that all he wants is Ukraine.
That that's all he wants and that he has no history or rhetoric or actions that suggest anything else.
Again, it's one of the reasons why it's useful traveling to places and seeing things with your own eyes because I very much remember being in the country of Georgia after Putin tried to invade in 2008.
Again, people don't have to be the greatest supporters of the Ukrainian cause just to recognize that it doesn't seem to be the case, that Ukraine is the only thing in Putin's vision.
Do you see value and maybe depth and power to the realist perspective of all this?
Somebody like John Mearsheimer's formulation of all this, that in these invasions of Georgia, of Ukraine, it's using military power to expand the sphere of influence in the region, in a cold calculation of geopolitics.
It's interesting, one of the fascinating things about the last few years is there's been an active sort of necromancy of certain figures who are totally, totally debunked in the area of Ukraine, Mersheimer, and in the case of Israel, people like Finkelstein.
It's been interesting, because these are people that one hadn't heard of for some years, because they were not listened to, usually for good reason.
By the way, first of all, I'm very skeptical of the term realist in foreign policy, because most people to some extent will say that they are a realist in foreign policy.
Very few people are surrealists in foreign policy.
Very few people are unrealists.
I would like to meet them.
A surrealist foreign policy analyst. We did mention Alice in Wonderland.
Yeah, I mean, maybe we should introduce the term.
If you want to look gimlet -eyed out across the world, You're a realist. I think the steel man of their argument would be Russia has or believes it has a sphere of influence and is regrettable but there's very little we can do about that.
That would be about the best version of that argument that you can make.
Well, to expand on that steel man, isn't this how superpowers operate in the dark, realist, slash surrealist way, meaning the United States uses military power to have a sphere influence over the whole globe really.
China appears to be willing to use military power to expand its sphere of influence.
Political power. More importantly in the case of China.
Political power. non -kinetic warfare to take over areas, Hong Kong being the obvious one.
But behind that, isn't there always a kinetic threat?
Oh yeah, of course.
Yeah, I mean, you disappear some booksellers and students who are protesting, of course.
But to go back to this, yeah, of course.
Okay, countries believe they have or would like to have spheres of influence.
I do think at some point that so -called realists on that have to try to decide how much leeway that allows you to give to a fairly rapacious regime and I mean it's not the easiest calculation always to make.
You have to work out whether or not, for instance, it is true that if if Putin had managed to go all the way to Kiev in the first weeks of the war in 22 he would have gone straight on to other places, and maybe he would have done, maybe he would have taken his time, maybe he wouldn't have done.
This is a very fine calculation that changes every week, let alone every year.
My friends in Georgia, I thought were wildly off the mark when they were believing that after 2008 they could get, for instance, either NATO membership or EU membership.
I thought that was completely unlikely, and I still think it's unlikely and almost certainly undesirable for Europe and for NATO.
Because you've got to be very careful and obviously this is one of the issues with Ukraine and has been since the 90s, is you're going to set up a trip wire to start World War III and that's not a small thing to consider.
So what do you think the peace deal might look like?
What does the path to peace look like in Ukraine in in the coming weeks and months.
I just thought it would be, regrettably, the Ukrainian ceding some territory in the East. And then, um, making sure they rearm, during whatever peace period comes afterwards.
And probably all four territories of a Dinesh lifes, separation, and first on.
You couldn't lay any of that out because it has to be negotiated on, but I think that the ease with which non -Ukrainians are currently speaking about Ukrainian ceding territory is concerning because these territories include hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian citizens who do not want to live under Putin's rule and people who have families in the rest of Ukraine and much more.
And I've recently interviewed children who had managed to get out of the russian occupied areas.
It's brutal for the ukrainian to be growing up in that territory so when people say well obviously you know Donetsk has to be given to Putin.
I think that that is not as easy a thing if you're in Ukraine as it is if you're sitting in New York, say.
By the way, I think that on the issue of there is a school of thought that obviously President Trump to some extent was floating in recent weeks, which is that if a deal is done, a business deal in relation to minerals or anything else, you get a kind of buffer zone of American businesses and investment, and therefore American business people in the region, which would effectively warn Putin not to invade.
I don't follow that idea because, not least, there were Americans in the regions that were invaded in 22 and they left fast. We know from Hong Kong and other places, just because there are international financial interests in the region does not mean that the dictatorship will not either militarily or covertly take over.
I don't see American miners as being an effective buffer zone against Putin.
By the way, what did you learn from talking to the Ukrainian children from those regions?
It's heartbreaking because the only schooling is Russian schooling.
Obviously, teaching a Russian language, Putin's view of history.
and effectively indoctrination and and people can quibble with that term but it's Putinesque indoctrination schools and any children or families that do not want that effectively have to hide and not go out and there were I spoke to children and parents who'd had school friends who for instance the Russians set up in 22 and 23 summer camps for the children of some of the areas that have been occupied and the children went off to the camps and then they didn't come back but they were just stolen.
I mean it's thought that around 20 000 Ukrainian children have been stolen in this fashion.
That's not a small thing.
It's not got very much attention but yes I mean children who would hide whenever the Russian troops came to the door.
One teenage boy who described to me how when his mother was out, a woman came around the house, knocked on the door and gave him his papers and said that he had to attend the next week to sign up for the Russian army.
This is not good, and that's obviously what life is like for thousands of people behind the Russian lines in Ukraine.
I just have it in mind when people say things like, well, obviously these regions have to be handed over.
It's very, very hard if you're Ukrainian to concede to that.
Yeah. Even if they are as part of the negotiation handed over, I think they'll probably be generations or never that that could be accepted by Ukrainian people.
Absolutely and I would have thought never.
What do we know about this kidnapping of children, the stories of the thousands of children that the Russian forces kidnapped?
Some of them were in orphanages in Eastern Ukraine, not all by any means, but some were.
It's a very complicated story actually because many children were taken from their families, many the Russians said, well, look at these Ukrainians, they don't even look after their children, therefore we will look after them.
Recently when I was there looking into this story because it's a very interesting question as to why it hasn't had more attention.
One thinks of, for instance, the abduction of the Chibok schoolgirls some 12 years ago now in Northern Nigeria, and the appalling abduction of 300 girls by Boko Haram completely gained the world's attention.
And I was very interested into why the Ukrainian children who'd been taken by the Russians had not gained similar attention.
There's a slight similarity with the war in Israel, which I'm sure we'll come on to.
But I do think that one reason is that they were effectively hostages, and the Ukrainians knew.
this is my estimation of the terrain is that the Ukrainians knew that if they made a great deal about this more than they did, that the children would effectively be the most effective bargaining chip, and I do think there's considerable truth in that because if you look at, for instance, the way in which pressure has been put on the Israeli government by the Israeli population about the kidnapped Israelis, you'll see that it's a pretty effective tactic for any totalitarian regime or terrorist group to operate in a way that means that the population of the country you're attacking pressure their
government to do something in terms of concession.
It's a very effective tool and I think that story was partly played down not just outside of Ukraine, but also within Ukraine, partly for that reason.
As a truth seeker, as a journalist, how do you operate in that world where, at least to me, it's obvious that there's just a flood of propaganda on both sides?
Now, of course, when you go there, and directly experience it, and talk to people, but those people are still also swimming in the propaganda.
So, unless you witness stuff directly, sometimes it's hard to know.
I speak to people on the Russian side, and first of all, hilariously enough, they almost always say that there's no propaganda in Russia, which makes me realize, you can be completely lied to.
Maybe I am in the United States as well and just be unaware.
Maybe earth is run by aliens.
Maybe the earth is flat, so I don't know.
Maybe you've taken mushrooms. I have before this.
I finally see the truth, and it's you that are deluded, Douglas.
But back to our rounder discussion, rounder shows that we are, how do you know what is true?
You can tell it when the bare facts become not true.
You can tell it when somebody is willing to claim that everything caused the invasion of 2022 except for Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine.
Yeah, there's a hilarious thing that happens.
I think you've actually speak about this, that people are generally just much more willing to criticize the democratically elected leader.
Always. The interesting thing that happens is these wise sages that do the narratives of like NATO started the war.
Which there is some interesting geopolitical depth and truth to that, like that NATO expansion created a complicated geopolitical context or whatever.
But they forget to say other parts of that story.
Well yes, of course.
And to some extent, the most irritating type of question asker at any event is the person who says, I was disappointed that in your 30 -minute talk, you didn't address x.
I tend to say, well, looking forward to coming to your next talk where in 30 minutes, you'll cover everything that could possibly be covered.
There's always stuff that's going to be left on the sides.
There's always going to be stuff that's left unaddressed.
There's always going to be other angles.
There's always going to be somebody else who has this interesting perspective and you can't cover it.
Nevertheless, if you cover everything other than the central things, then it's suspicious.
years ago, I was at a debate in London.
There was a debate about the origins of World War II and Pat Buchanan, talking of necromancy, was one of the speakers.
Andrew Roberts, historian, was one of the people on the other side, and at one point, they got so completely stuck into issues of iron ore mining in Poland, something like this, and the moderator, I remember, it was just a melée, and the moderator turns to Andrew Roberts and says, Andrew Roberts, why did World War II begin?
And he says, World War II began because Hitler invaded Poland.
And it was a magnificent moment because everything had been a mush.
They were so lost in all the intricate and clever and interesting things you can talk about about the origins of a war that you forget to mention the thing that's most important.
And certainly my experience as a journalist and writer is that one of the reasons why you need to go and see things with your own eyes is because people are certain to tell you that what you've seen with your own eyes didn't happen or hasn't happened.
It helps to steal you for that moment.
It's a gradual thing that happens where the obvious things that's being taken for granted and people stop saying it because it's like the boring thing to say at a party.
Then all of a sudden, over time, you just almost start questioning whether the obvious thing is even true.
I don't know how that happens in psychology, but it does.
I think it does. I've observed it in lot of different places, which is the important thing is the only thing you do forget.
Everything else is what you remember.
Some of us have, for some reason, wired in a way where we try not to forget the important thing.
Remember the obvious thing, yeah.
Yes. As you say, no, I'm not wanting to be the boring guy at the party who reiterates what is true.
Because what a douchebag you'd be if you were that guy.
Nobody likes Captain Obvious at a party.
Okay, is it possible that Donald Trump is a mediator, a successful negotiator that brings a stable peace to Ukraine?
It's possible. We'll have to see.
I think it's just too early and complicated to tell.
That he wants to bring a peace seems to me to be obvious.
He's stated it a lot of times.
Whether he can, we're just going to have to see.
It's extremely hard to see some of the parameters of the peace deal.
I would suggest that the most, one not the most difficult, but one of the most difficult is there is no peace guarantee on paper that the Ukrainians can possibly believe.
It doesn't matter because we in the West, we, some other countries in the West have said it before that we'd secure their peace, and we haven't.
And so, what other than NATO membership, which is not possible in my view, what other than NATO membership would reassure the Ukrainians that they are going to have their borders secured and the peace of Ukraine secured, I can't see.
I think there's not going to be ever a guarantee that you can trust. I think the way you have implicit guarantees is by having military and economic partnerships with as many partners as possible.
So you have partnerships with the Middle East, you have partnerships with India, perhaps even with China, with the United States, with many nations in Europe.
All of which still suggests that if there's enough financial interests in Ukraine, they would prevent another Russian invasion.
There will be financial pressure, yeah.
There will be - Russia needs to be friends with somebody, either China or the West. I think a world that's flourishing would have Russia trading and being friends with the West and the East?
It all would be ideal.
It would be ideal if the regime in Moscow wanted it, but that's not, I mean again, you get into the thing of people accused of Russophobia.
I do believe that after the fall of the Wall Russia was ill -treated by the West, not treated with some of the courtesy that it required.
I do think that. And at the same time, that doesn't justify the actions of Russia in the last 20 years.
But let's descend from the surrealist to the realist. It's very possible for Russia to be on the verge of military invasion of these nations.
And that being wrong.
while also not doing it because they're afraid to hurt the partnerships with the West and with China?
It's possible. But the alliance they've formed with the rogue alliance with China to a considerable extent, North Korea, not useful, and Iran is something they seem to find bearable.
It's not a very good alliance in most people's analysis, but it's an alliance.
It's bearable, but I don't think maybe you disagree with this.
I don't think the Russian people or even Putin wants to be isolated from the West. I think it wants to be friends with the West and with the East and with everybody, who just also wants Ukraine, right?
And there's How Does A Rolling Stone Song Go.
Which one? Not the satisfaction one.
Sympathy with the Devil?
That's the one. You got me on that one.
No, like there's interests, whether it's expanding the sphere and influence, that's one thing on the table, but that can be put aside if you want to maintain the partnerships with these nations.
And if Ukraine has strong economic partnerships with those nations, then that prevents Russia from invading.
I think the premise is one that I've seen before.
There was a famous – what was his name – Norman Engel.
He wrote this book, which was a fantastic bestseller in his day, where he believed that Europe would be in a period of endless Kantian peace because the prospect of European powers going to war was so economically unviable.
The book was reissued after World War I, and I never got the second edition, but I assume it was significantly rewritten.
That's a very kind of cynical take that just because the book is wrong - I'm not saying just the book is wrong.
I'm saying that the idea that cooperation vibration on an economic and other levels is any significant preventative device to madness breaking out is not something I see.
Could deter some people.
It could deter some very, very rational economically driven actors, but it fails to take into account all of the other things that motivate people to go to war and to invade and to go mad.
Well, I would argue that in the 21st century, one of the reasons we have much fewer wars is there's few tools here on the geopolitical stage.
One of them is that you were just much more interconnected economically, globally interconnected, and that is always a present pressure on the world to keep peace.
There's a lot of money to be made from peace.
there's also a lot of money to be made from war.
There's a lot of interest attention, and I'm just presenting one of the tools that a leader should be using.
The alternative is what?
Military force. That is an interesting one.
Sometimes a useful one, but unfortunately it has its downsides also.
And after three years of war and the hundreds of thousands dead, You have to start wondering what are the options on the table.
I agree. I'm obviously for economic cooperation.
But my only caveat is not to think that is something which is of ultimate interest or even at the top of the list of interests of despots, tyrants, extremists who want something else.
Yeah. But can you read The Mind of Vladimir Putin?
A lot of the ideas I hear about peace is Putin bad, victory must be achieved, NATO membership required.
There's this kind of like, but you have to come to the table to end the killing, that's one.
And to have different ideas of how to have a non -zero chance of peace.
So the options are, it seems to me, the only option, not the only option, but the likeliest option is a lot of strong economic partnerships.
There's, of course, other radical options.
There's Russia joining NATO or something like this, or there's flirting with World War III essentially, giving nukes to Ukraine or something like this.
There's like crazy stuff or a totally new military alliance with France, and Britain, and Germany, and European nations, and Ukraine, or some weird network of military power that threatens Russia in some way, or maybe some big breakthrough partnership between India, China, and Ukraine, something like this, some really out -there ideas.
And I think that's how the world finds a balance and realigns itself in interesting ways.
No, it could be. I hope your idea is right.
I think it's about what is certainly the most peaceful way for this to be resolved.
My only caveat, as I say, is and also never forget to factor in that people want different things in this world, and some people don't dream as you dream.
I think we'll talk about this in your new book, Deathcalls.
That one is an easier one for me to understand to the story that you're describing.
I am more hesitant to assign psychopathy to leaders of major nations.
Sure. I'm not by any means urging you to regard Vladimir Putin as a millenarian madman who cannot be in any way understood.
I think he could be negotiated and reasoned with.
From your lips to God's ears.
Can you steer me on case four and then against Zelensky, as the right leader for Ukraine at this moment?
Is he the right person to take it to the point of peace?
We'll see. If he can, then of course he is.
He deserves enormous respect for galvanizing his people, For being elected in the first place, for galvanizing his nation at a time of incredible peril, for playing the international game of getting support his country well, and sometimes the person who does that, not that there are many people like that, can be the person who also brings about a peace deal and sometimes not.
I think there's a degree to which he may have seen too much suffering of the people, the land he loves to be able to sit down at a table with a world leader who did the destruction and to be able to compromise on anything.
That's possible. Again, it puts the onus on him though.
It sort of slightly presupposes that Putin doesn't have the same human instinct on that.
and it is extremely hard. I've noticed this in a lot of conflicts.
It's extremely hard. The way in which outsiders come in and others who haven't seen what you've seen or gone through what you've gone through and say, you know, it's time to get round the negotiating table and just, you know, you think you didn't see what I saw.
You didn't go through what I went through.
Who are you to tell me?
Goes back to that thing with the visitor from the land of war and the visitor from the land of peace.
The visitor from the land of peace can easily talk about getting around negotiating tables, but the visitor from the land of war has seen other things.
It's very hard for somebody who hasn't seen it to tell the person who has that they should act differently.
The sad thing about humanity is both the person from the land of peace and the person from the land of war are right.
Yes, that's a struggle, that's definitely a struggle.
It's like asking somebody to forgive, I've seen that a lot of ends of conflicts.
People say, you know, the important thing is we forgive and move on.
And then the other person says, you know, your child didn't die of shrapnel wounds.
Yeah, I got a lot of heat for an interview I did with Zelensky.
By the way, people privately, the people that message me is all love and support.
And the people that disagree, and Ukraine soldiers, people online are ruthless.
They're misrepresenting me, they're lying about - People online are ruthless, they're misrepresenting and lying?
Yeah. Good God, Lex. you discovered a new phenomenon.
I'm a real radical intellectual.
Nothing misses your eye.
I see the truth and am unafraid to point it out.
No, there's a degree.
This idea that you need to compromise with the leader of a nation you're at war with, and in so doing, to some degree, are forgiving their actions, because the actual feeling you have is you want it to be fair.
And the definition of fair, when you've seen that much suffering, is for him and everybody around him, and maybe even all of the people on the other side, to just die, because you've seen too much suffering.
But the other side of that is, yes, there's children that have died, But you coming to the negotiation table.
We're stopping other children from dying, yes, of course.
So you had this way of speaking about it, embodying that perspective, that it's naive to say to come to the negotiation table.
It is for a person from the land of war, but a very smart, intelligent, and not naive person from the land of peace that is often right in some deep sense about the long arc of history, For them, it is the right thing to come to the negotiation table to end the more killing.
The one thing I would add to that, though, is don't forget that it also depends on whether or not there's a clear shot of winning.
Sure. If there's a clear shot of winning, and that's the most important.
The most important thing in wars is not final negotiations or anything, it's simply winning and losing.
And if you have a clear shot of winning, and you can take it, and you're near it, then having somebody else come in and saying, Why not, stop just before victory is is is very hard. That's one of the complex one of the many many complexities of the conflict we're talking about.
You know, what's the other big complexity of that?
Because the clear shot of winning is like a man walking through the desert, seeing water.
It could be during war it really is an illusion.
So here's what happens, the really complicated aspect of negotiation is in order to negotiate peace from a place of strength, you have to have victory in sight.
And so the temptation from that position is to not negotiate, is to keep pushing forward to achieve victory.
And this, I would say hindsight is 20 -20, but this is the failure in 22 and 2 occasions to achieve, to negotiate a ceasefire and peace.
One, in the spring because Ukraine was in a real big, I would say, position of strength having fended off the Russian forces around Kiev.
That's one. Then as you mentioned, in the fall of 22, with Harsan and Har -giv, they had a lot of military success.
They were in a place of strength.
From that place, they've decided to keep going because victory was in sight.
But that was also an opportunity to make peace.
It's perfectly possible, yes.
That's the hard thing.
It's very hard. It's all hard. But again, victory can be won in wars, and is often won in wars.
You're right, they can also grind on because nobody has the capability to make a breakthrough.
The wisdom about civil wars tends to be that they burn out after about 10 years or so for similar reasons.
When you're in the war, can you actually know that a victory can be won?
It's a very good question.
and you mean troops on the battlefield, or military leaders, or political leaders?
Military and political leaders.
It just feels like I said, man in the desert seeing water.
I think there's a sense that victory is so close.
The times, there's times in a war when you feel like victory is close.
Yes. No, you're right.
Then it just slips away.
Yes, it's an interesting insight.
It's like the way in which there's a force in nature, which is that if you amass an army, amassing it will pull you in to using it.
Extremely hard to amass an army somewhere and then say, let's go back.
Yes, you're right, it's one of many interesting aspects to warfare.
I think the sad thing about successful wars, at least in the modern day, is it takes a great military leader, which I would argue that Zelensky really unified Ukraine in this fight, in the beginning of the war.
You have to be that, and like you said, after you've amassed the Army and have military success, to be able to step back and make peace.
Those two just don't often go hand in hand.
Because, again, as a wartime leader, especially one who's seen the suffering firsthand, walking away is tough, especially also combined with that, just the realities of war where there is probably corruption.
That there is things, you know, once the war ends, there has to be investigations.
Because the war wasn't won, you might not turn out to be, when history looks at it, the good guy.
And a leader always wants to be the good guy.
So there's just all psychological complexities.
And you look at this whole picture in a basic sense.
If you want Ukraine to flourish, if you want humanity to flourish, you just ask the question, okay.
So what is the thing I would like to see?
There's so many historical analogies you can give, but just surely not rewarding Putin's actions in any way would be a good way to deter him and other dictators from trying to grab land in the future.
But this is nuanced because it's very probably good to be the boring person at the party that says dictatorship is bad, democracy is good, many of the ideals of the West are good.
Democracy is better.
Better? Yes. This sounds like Animal Farm, but yes, Twolegs better.
But yes, democracy is better and invading countries is bad.
But World War III is bad too.
So after you say something is bad, what's the next step?
Because military intervention in a lot of these conflicts.
It will be about deterrence.
Yeah, but what's effective deterrence?
That we're going to have to keep going over for a long time to come.
My question is, how can we achieve peace in April?
In May. Not like the adults at the table all seem to tell me, well, it's a process, it's complicated, it just feels like this is a thing that might go into the next winter.
There's still maybe initial cease -fire and then cease -fire is broken and there's more people dying.
And it's that mess.
It seems like civility and politeness ignores the fact that people are dying every single day.
I mean, of course, almost everybody, not everybody, but almost everyone would like to claim to stop immediately.
Of course. No, I think that is the boring thing at the party.
Yes, but they don't say it often enough.
There has to be a frustration.
I don't understand why Putin, Zelensky, and Trump can't just meet in a room together without signing anything.
Leaders meeting and discussing and, like, the human connection.
There's so many layers of diplomats.
It's the problem I have with the managerial class.
They schedule meetings really well, they don't get shit done.
And I would love it if people got shit done.
So the soldiers get shit done, they're fighting the reality of the war.
Then the leaders have the capacity to get shit done on the scale of nations in geopolitics.
But like this diplomatic meetings.
I share your frustration about it at the same time, I think, I share your frustration because I've seen it, or a lot of it in my eyes.
there was a tan and as with the other week and they were hit just after I left their base and you wouldn't believe what a thermobaric bomb can do to the human body and I share your frustration with that at the same time one of the things that happens if you are rushing is that you do, and I've seen this elsewhere, you will put pressure on the people you can pressurize.
And you will not put enough pressure on the people you can't pressurize.
And that is one of the worrying things that could happen with this.
Simply you can put, America can put extraordinary diplomatic, financial, intelligence, military pressure on Ukraine.
and it can put significant pressure on Putin, but it's much easier to pressure Zelensky, and that's one of the many things that makes it harder, is that the temptation to rush for peace.
Accepting that peace is the most desirable thing and accepting the horrors of war, which, you know, we can linger on, but you - accepting all that.
If somebody says we've got to get peace today, and the three of them around a table, the most likely thing is that it'll be the person who you can pressure most easily, who will be the person that you pressure, and as a result have an outcome, which yes, might stop the killing as soon as possible, but might also set up a situation which rewards the aggressor and effectively punishes the victim.
And that's an extremely ugly and common thing to happen.
That's the other boring thing to say.
The boring truth that the easy shortcut here is to punish Ukraine.
You just have to not do it.
Let's keep being the boring people at the party.
Yeah. Well, nobody's going to invite us.
All right. Let's go from one complicated conflict to perhaps an even more complicated one.
Israel and Palestine.
Can you take me through what happened on October 7, as you understand it, and as you outline at the beginning of the book?
Well, the book on democracies and death cults is a mixture of firsthand reporting and observation interviews, and a wider reflection not just on the war that's been going on since the 7th October, but the war's been going on a lot longer.
And also I suppose on what for me is one of the overwhelming questions which I'm sure we'll get to, which is the reaction in the rest of the world.
Obviously, on the 7th itself, it was a brigade size attack on Israel from Gaza.
Hamas broke through the security fence and attacked all the softest targets they could.
They swiftly overwhelmed things like the observation base in Nahal Oz.
They ran through the community in the south, very peaceful, peacenik effect free communities of the Kibbutzim communities and murdered and raped and burned and kidnapped.
And of course, they from their point of view, had the great good fortune of also coming across hundreds of young people dancing in the early hours of the morning at a dance party and rampaged through that with RPGs and Kalashnikovs and grenades and hammers and more and got within 20 kilometers into Israel, on places like Ofakim and Scott, important towns and carried out their massacres there as well.
We now know that the plan was that Hezbollah did the same thing from the north.
Hezbollah joined in the war within 24 hours by starting firing rockets again in very large numbers into northern Israel from southern Lebanon.
But the plan was that they would do the same thing from the north and carry out similar massacres there and effectively be able to meet in the middle and garrot Israel from the center.
The interesting reason why I think it will be found out in the future, but why they didn't coordinate better was Hamas didn't trust any line of communication to Hezbollah to let them know exactly when they were gonna do it, that wouldn't be intercepted.
The Iranian revolutionary government in Tehran, which obviously funds Hamas and Hezbollah and trains and arms knew of the plan.
It was a very successful attempt to annihilate the state, but they didn't get close to that, but they got worryingly closer than people might have thought they were capable of.
I think from the Israeli side, it was obviously one of the most, if not the most catastrophic intelligence and military failures since the foundation of the state.
I think there are several reasons why.
One is a perception problem.
What a lot of military commanders and others describe to me is the conception.
The conception that had prevailed in Israel for some years and security military establishment was that Hamas were content with being corrupt and governing Gaza and lining their pockets and living in Qatar and becoming billionaires.
But that like many other terrorist groups and cults, they would end up becoming just corrupt and not losing their ideology.
But the ideology becomes secondary.
That's the first thing was there was just a massive error of the conception in Israel.
And then the multiple manifold security and military failures of the day and leading up to the day.
And there already have been, quite a lot of people held to account for that.
And their doubtless will be in the future as well.
The single thing I heard, which I heard most and which was most distressing in a way, was the number of people who described to me, who survived the massacres in the south, who said to their children, don't worry, the army will be here in minutes.
And they weren't. You know, in many places, it was many hours until the army got there.
There are reasons for that.
There are some reasons that will be military failings, leadership failings.
Other things I discovered were very human failings.
I don't over stress the failure of the army because actually certain units and things got down very fast. There was a unit of Davan who got down to the junction by within about an hour and 90 minutes of the massacres starting and joined in the fight.
And then there were self -starters who I write about in the book, extraordinary people who just broke orders and just realized the magnitude of what was happening and said we need it in the south, go, and fought very hard for hours, days in some cases.
But the complexities on the ground were unbelievable.
I mean, as usually happens in warfare, but what they call the fog of war is a very real thing.
You know what it's...
You can see it in hindsight, but you can't see when you're in it.
And one of the things that made it very complicated was, for instance, Hamas coming in, taking uniforms off dead Israelis, wearing them, coming in with Israeli -style apparatus on them.
There's a Muslim doctor I quote in the book I interviewed who describes how he was going to his Israeli -Muslim Arab and he was going to, he's a doctor, he was going to his shift at the hospital at 6 .30 in the morning.
The rockets start coming in because the rocket started first and then the full invasion.
and he described to me how he's one of the members of this group, the United Hat Salah, which is a first responders group, and they get an alert that tells them that a car has crashed nearby, and they put on their first aid kit and so on and go.
He got one of those alerts, one of the junctions, and realized there was a car that something had happened, and there were some dead bodies, and he stops, and he sees these men dressed as soldiers and he's wearing his hadzalagya and they start firing at him and he just thinks what the hell?
What the hell is going on?
And they turned out to be Hamas, dressed as Israeli soldiers.
They used him as a human shield to try to protect from any air assault and in the end they shot him and left him and he survived, he's a very very brave man.
So there was a lot of confusion like that.
There's a girl whose father I interviewed she was at the Nova party and I met him at one of the reunions of the party and the weeks after and the reunions of the survivors and the family and so on.
He described how in the last moments of his daughter's life she phoned him on her phone like a lot of people, reassured her the army would get there and so on.
Her boyfriend was shot in the head and was lying on her lap and she was obviously panicked.
They'd managed to get into a car and escape the party, but they went to a community where they thought they'd be safe in the south of Israel.
They were told to stay where they were by somebody who she said was a policeman.
And he wasn't the policeman, he was her mayor dressed as a police.
and she died, she was shot and killed as well.
And so there was a lot of confusion like that.
Hopefully the world will find out exactly what went wrong, Israel will find out exactly what went wrong that led to this catastrophe, but I mean it was a complete catastrophe.
Do you have a sense of how such an intelligence failure could have happened?
So there's a bit of a temptation to go in a conspiracy land because it's such a giant intelligence failure.
It seems that there is some manipulation on the inside for political reasons or for - You don't need to go into conspiracy land.
I think there are people who say that there were parts of the intelligence network and so on that were trying - that were withholding the information.
I don't know. Again, people find out there's an awful lot of politics inside Israel.
It's hard to know that at this stage.
I think most people are sort of still Israeli and not Israeli, including people who are anti -Israel, who just believe that Israeli military and particularly intelligence dominance is so strong that there must have been some kind of conspiracy.
Otherwise, how could this have happened?
I don't think you need to go into that.
I mean, for instance, some of the young women at the observation base are on the record. They've said, I spoke to them myself, who said that they had been warning in the weeks running up to the seventh that they were seeing maneuvers and training by the border, which suggested that Hamas was going to do something like this and they say that they were ignored, though you speak to some of the more senior commanders about that, and they say the thing is that this stuff is happening all the time.
So it's very hard to know at the moment.
Can you talk through your understanding of who and what Hamas is, its history and the governing ideology of this group?
Well, Hamas, in a way, quite easy to understand because they say what their ambitions are, they say what their beliefs are.
They've said it from their governing charter onwards.
And you also have the advantage with Hamas that they, as it were, in trying to understand them, is that they tend to do what they say and act on what they believe.
The primary aim of Hamaz is to destroy the state of Israel and then see.
They're not an unusual group, sadly.
The bit of it that is hard for some people to understand, I think, is that they really do mean what they say and that they really do mean what they say they want to do.
And I give a number of examples in the book of this, but I mean the most obvious is the case of Yahya Sinua, the Hamas leader who is generally regarded as having orchestrated and arranged the 7th of October.
We know a fair amount about him because he was imprisoned in Israel in the 2000's for murdering Palestinians in Gaza, and he was released in the prison swap for he was one of the more than 1 ,000 Palestinian prisoners inside Israel who was released in a swap for Gilad Shalit, the abducted Israeli soldier.
And Yair Yersinhwa in prison in Israel talked to, among others, a dentist who ended up saving his life because Yair Yersinhwa had a brain tumor and this dentist identified this and actually sent him to the hospital.
The Israelis famously removed the tumor and saved Sinua's life.
But this dentist used to speak to him in prison, not fairly regularly, and has related, not least to the New York Times, his conversations with Sinua.
Sinua said in one of those conversations he said at the moment, you, Israel, are strong, but one day you'll be weak and then I'll come.
That's what he did.
Is it a hatred of Israel or is it a hatred of Jews?
Is that on the level of nations or the level of religion?
Both. It's both. I mean, it originates from a religious mindset, but it's, of course, political as well.
I mean, the Hamas Charter, of course, some people think the Hamas Charter is of no significance.
And I often notice this sleight of hand that people do, again, it goes back to what we were saying earlier, forget everything other than the most important basic things.
But the Hamas Charter, among other things, quotes the hadith that the end times will not come until all of the rocks and the trees shout out, oh, Muslim, there's a Jew behind me.
Come and kill him. So Hamas is both obviously anti -Israeli obviously and anti -Jewish obviously.
And by the way, I mean, one of the many painful stories I tell in the book but is of the fact that so many of the people in the communities that they attacked, it's not as if there'd be a right community attack and a wrong community to attack, but that many of the communities they attacked were communities which deeply, deeply dreamed of the idea of living in peace with their Palestinian neighbors.
There's a woman whose name has become relatively famous since suddenly famous inside Israel within Silver, who is a peace activist who spent every weekend driving Gazan children from the border to, if they had very rare medical needs, that could not be seen or attentioned to within, Gaza would drive them to Israeli hospitals.
And she spent every weekend doing that.
Worked for all of the sort of left -wing piece neck organizations in Israel.
And for a while, after the seventh, her neighbors and others thought that she had been taken captive into Gaza.
and actually there was a hostage poster for her and there were appeals by the various peacenick organizations for Hamas to hand her over, but it turned out she'd been burned alive in her home.
This wasn't discovered for quite a long time because there was so little DNA left of her that it was very hard to identify the remains as being hers.
So, there were just a lot of people in the Gaza envelope, as it's called in Israel.
in the area around Gaza, who would've been the people who, you know, wanted to live peacefully with the Gazans someday.
And those, there's a certain among many, it's not an irony, just among the sort of pains of the day is that, so overwhelmingly, these are the people that Hamas brought Hell to.
The response, October 7th by Israel.
Can you steal me on the case that Israel went too far?
Well, the case that started from very early on that critics of Israel had was the claim that I think I first heard it on about the 8th of October before Israel had done anything in response was the claim that Israel must act proportionately in response.
and I have a critique of this that I've often expressed, which is that there is such a thing as proportionality in warfare.
At the same time, Israel is always accused of acting disproportionately.
The proportionality much of the rest of the world seems to think Israel should express in warfare is to have an equal level of suffering or killing on both sides.
I don't think there's any law of war that says that, you know, if you kill 1200 people and you kidnap another 250, that as it were the other side's allowed to do the same back.
But that's what a lot of people think.
And then when they see the death toll escalating on the Gazan side, they say Israel has acted disproportionately and has over -reacted.
That one is tricky because it's my belief.
Again, this is a basic thing, but it has to be stated that 9 million citizens of Israel, if you extrapolate that out to what the 7th of October would have meant in American terms, you'd be talking about a day on which if the attack had happened in America where 44 ,000 Americans were killed in one day and 10 ,000 American citizens taken hostage.
Nobody can tell me that if such an atrocity occurred, that America would not do whatever it needed to destroy the groups that had done that and to retrieve the hostages who'd been taken.
So just on that point, I agree with you 100 % America would do, would hit hard back.
And I think a lot of Americans would feel justified in that.
But it's also possible that the military industrial complex and the politicians would do something like the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which means extend far beyond hitting back and actually do a thing that's destructive to everybody including America, financially, and the flourishing of America and the flourishing of humanity broadly and the region and the stability and the war on terrorism, if that's a real thing, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan did not maybe succeed in defeating terrorism or even making progress.
It probably made more terrorists than not.
So there's a justified feeling of heading back and going after somebody like bin Laden in the case of 9 -11.
And there's just the actual implementation.
It seems like the implementation can sometimes, intended or unintended, have consequences that are bordering on war crimes if not downright war crimes.
Now, this is a general statement, and now we'll look at Israel, where things are small land.
Everything is very compact.
There's a lot of complexities that are well -studied that we've talked about extensively.
Well, the two stated aims of the Israelis after the seventh were to get the hostages back and to destroy Hamas.
Many people said that you could do one, but not both.
I actually think they've gone a long way to doing both.
By no means everything, there are still hostages as were speaking held in Gaza, including a young American, and Hamas is not completely destroyed.
It's very, very significantly degraded, but it's not completely destroyed.
But those are the two aims. I've seen as much of the war as any outside observer.
I don't know the mind and there are some exceptions maybe, but I think I can say with considerable certainty what the Israelis have and haven't done.
There were various operations at the beginning, various plans which didn't happen, like storming straight in and getting for instance as many hostages as possible out of the Schieffer complex, which is called the hospital but also at the very least the Hamas command headquarters, And there was a plan to maybe go and do that fast, but it was avoided because of the number of deaths on all sides that would be likely to happen.
The Israelis did actually hold back at the beginning.
There was a period of making sure that when they went into Gaza, they didn't do so in any way blind.
And the Gaza is a very built up area in population wise, is densely populated.
Something by the way which the people who claim frivolously that Israel has been committing genocide never take account of which is the fact that the garden population has boomed since the Israeli withdrawal in 2005.
It's almost doubled.
But yes, it's a densely populated area and it's an incredibly difficult place for the train of war because of one thing in particular, which is that Hamas, goes back a bit to our conversation earlier, this is a much more extreme example.
I mean, Hamas really don't play by the rules.
In fact, they use the rules of war, the laws of war completely to their own advantage.
You know, it has to be reiterated.
You are not meant to disguise your army as civilians.
You're not meant to use places of care like hospitals as bases for your military operations.
You're not meant to use schools and places of worship as operating centres of war.
And Hamas does all of these things and has always done so.
and it does so with the very obvious reason that for them the whole thing is a two for one offer.
You get to operate everywhere, and if the Israelis operate anywhere, you claim that this is a war crime because how could they attack this group of civilians, these people who are dressed as civilians, these people merely fighting from a mosque and so on.
on. That's why everybody who's been to Gaza, who's seen the fighting knows the same thing, which is this is just incredibly difficult, difficult warfare of a kind that American troops have seen in the last 20 years, in Fallujah and elsewhere.
Kurdish militia, the Peshmerga I saw when they were fighting as our front line troops in the war against ISIS.
Similar house to house, but by no means with the same entrenched bases.
Again, I can't be stressed enough that Hamas has used the years since his ready withdrawal from 2005 to build this vast underground tunnel network.
Again, it's obvious, but it has to be remembered.
And I quote one of Hamas leaders in the book saying this in an interview.
When they build their tunnels, they do so in order that their tunnels are used by them, Hamas, to store their weaponry, to secure their fighters, and to hold hostages.
They do not build their underground tunnel networks for the safety of guards and civilians avoiding aerial bombardment.
The every difference in the world, it seems to me to exist between a country which does build bomb shelters for citizens and a government which builds bomb shelters for its bombs.
Can you discuss the flow of money here.
How does Hamas, the leadership, use the money?
You started to talk about the tunnels, but how much corruption is there?
Can you just lay it all out?
Because I think that's an important part of the picture here.
It's totally corrupt.
Every Hamas leader who's now dead, died a billionaire.
With a B. With a B.
To say that they used Gaza's resources or the resources that came into Gaza for their own ends is to just vastly understate matters.
Hamas used everything that came in to build the infrastructure of terror that allowed them to do the seventh and everything since.
They militarized the whole of Gaza.
By the estimations of troops I'd been with there, every second or third house had weaponry stashed there, bombs, RPGs, Karashnikovs, rockets, tunnel entrances.
The network that they just embedded all these years was total.
One of the many, many tragedies of this is that whatever you're reading of the rights and wrongs of the Israeli withdrawal in 2005, it was an opportunity for the Gaza to become something else.
It could have become a thriving state -led.
It could have been a thriving Palestinian state.
It's just that Hamas, like the PLO before them, decided that they wanted to destroy Israel more than they wanted to create a Palestinian state.
And that is to the great, great detriment of the Palestinians of Gaza.
To put it at its mildest. Just to outline here.
Leadership of Hamas are stealing the money that gets sent by Qatar, by everybody.
They're putting in their pocket.
By the American taxpayer, by the European taxpayer as well, yes.
Well, yeah. But I mean, it's not just about stealing the money, it's about using the money and the infrastructure to annihilate your neighbor.
I mean that's the real - Yeah.
Those two things. But the corruption is a signal from an economic perspective.
but also a signal of deep moral corruption because they're screwing over the Palestinian people.
Yes. A cynicism, certainly.
Okay, and then the money they do spend on the Palestinian cause, they're not doing that to build up Gaza.
They're doing it to strengthen the militaristic capabilities of the terrorist organization of Hamas.
You have, maybe you can correct me on this, has said that the people of Gaza have some significant responsibility for the actions of Hamas, because they've elected them.
They elected them. The what ifs are endless, but very unwise of the George W.
Bush administration to push for elections in Gaza after 05, but Hamas were elected.
And they then in 2007 killed the other Palestinian faction that was their main challenger.
Fatah killed them, threw them off rooftops, dragged their bodies behind motorbikes through the Gaza, and from that point they had total control.
This is difficult because you can get into the realm of being accused of advocating or in any way justifying collective punishment if you talk about this.
But it should be borne in mind that Hamas had effectively 18 years to run the Gaza.
And that's the time that it takes from the birth of a child to the end of their formal education.
And in 18 years, they could have presided over and produced a generation of young Gazans who were productive, productive for their people, for their society, for their neighbors, for the rest of the world, and they didn't.
They spent 18 years indoctrinating the children of Gaza into a death cult, and into a genocidal hatred, which obviously is, was most dangerous to the Israelis.
But it was obviously disastrous for the people of Gaza.
If you speak to soldiers who were there in 2014 when Hamas started a war again, one of a set of rounds of war since 2005, if you speak to the soldiers who were there in 2014 going house to house and who were also involved in the war since 2003, they all say the same thing, which is the marked radicalization of the Gazan population.
the marked increase in just, I mean, the most, I mean, it's so banal in a way to even decide the, like the numbers of copies of Mein Kampf in Arabic in an average Gz 'in household, the protocols of the learned elders of Zion.
There are so many what ifs, and other paths that Hamas could have taken, but that was the one they took, they decided to take the path of using their time and power to build up their infrastructure, radicalize the population, and encourage them to believe that they could destroy the State of Israel.
And then on October 7th, they gave it their best shot.
And by the way, there is no organized collective punishment of the citizens of Gaza.
Collective punishment would just be dropping bombs with no purpose across civilian areas.
Carpet bombing, this sort of thing.
This is simply not what the IAF and the IDF have done since the 7th.
They have been fighting a house -to -house war against this terrorist group.
They do do aerial strikes.
Gaza is very, very badly beaten up as the buildings.
I mean, the infrastructure that existed, there aren't many buildings standing.
But this is not the result of just wild and imprecise bombing by the Israelis.
It's been extremely concerted.
It's extremely difficult.
But when people say, well, this must be collective punishment, I think that the people who say that simultaneously, that's not true.
Also, there is not a hostage who's come out, and Donald Trump made this, President Trump made this point recently.
There is not a hostage who's come out who I've spoken with, who found any Gazan Palestinian who expressed even the slightest human kindness to them.
If you look at the footage from the 7th, the Hamas recorded themselves of them taking young Jewish women into Gaza and so on, you will notice that the trucks and the motorbikes and so on are not stopped by horrified Gaza civilians saying, Why have you got this Israeli girl whose tendons you've cut, and why are you bringing her here?" It's all celebration.
It's all celebration.
And it's the same with those couple of cases of hostages who managed to escape from the civilian houses they were being held in, who were immediately returned by the citizens they met.
Yeah, the celebration, I do wonder what percent of the population they represent, but there's something really dark.
There's several ways to explain the celebration.
it could be that there's a deep indoctrination where you do legitimately hate Jews, and there also could be a place of just deep desperation.
And it's a kind of relief that you have to convince yourself that you're on the side of fighting for freedom them in order to justify to yourself that this is the right way to fight out of desperation out of extremely harsh conditions.
Because the way we're kind of speaking about this with the celebration, it's very easy to project a kind of evil on the populace that I just am very hesitant to project, especially on the general populace.
You don't have to project it onto them, you can just listen to their own words.
I'm sure you've heard that one of many audio recordings you hear from the morning, but I'm sure you've heard the audio recording of the young man who ends up in one of the communities in the south of Israel and calls home.
Calls back home. Have you heard that?
Yes, I've heard it.
I quote it in the first chapter of the book.
He calls back home and he says to his father who picks up, he's on the phone, he's saying, turn onto WhatsApp because I can show you.
He says, I've killed 10 Jews with my own hands.
Father, your son has killed 10 Jews.
His father is saying, where are you?
Where are you? He goes, I want to show you dad, I want to show you I've killed Jews with my own hands, your son.
put Mother on the phone, Mother comes on the phone, the brother comes on the phone.
This is one of many, many stories from the day that suggests something which I would say is not just indoctrination, but yes, evil.
First of all, those phone calls are somehow uniquely horrific.
But I've also heard recordings of phone calls made by Ukrainian soldiers to their parents and Russian soldiers to their parents.
And they have not as intense and not as horrific, but they have a similar nature to them.
Which there is an aspect of war where you dehumanize the other side in order to fight that war.
So we have to remember that that element is going to be there in a time of war, in a time of desperation.
It would be a strange type of simple pride in war to go into an 80 -year -old woman's house and kill her on her floor, and then film her body in its final moment and send it around to all of that woman's friends on her phone on her Instagram account.
It's you may have heard different things from me, I mean, I would be surprised if there were even the most vociferous of Russian soldiers phoning back home to Moscow and saying, MUM, you won't believe my luck, I managed to rape and kill this 80 -year old woman.
That's quite unusual even in warfare.
That's one of the things about Hamas and what I described as the death cult types, which makes them different from other people.
But that's the channeling of evil and hatred and anger in the human spirit, but that doesn't make that person evil.
No, I disagree. You commit that once.
I think there is such a force as evil in the world, and I think it can descend and it can be used.
It's very hard to find a non -theological way to talk about this.
But, of everything I've seen, there are actions that people like Hamas committed on the 7th that cannot be described as anything other than evil.
The things that happened at the Nova party were especially appalling.
I mean, it was all appalling, but it was especially appalling because first of all, it's a sort of party which people like you and I, or at least you and I when we were younger might have been at.
Everyone knows the world of a dance party and all night brave in the desert to commune with nature and the universe and to take some psychedelics and to expand your consciousness and your love and all that sort of thing.
The fact that people doing that at 6 .30 in the morning, they encountered people coming in to the party on trucks and military vehicles and just massacring them and raping them.
And I mean, I give examples of the firsthand accounts of people who survived, but I mean, it's beyond belief of almost anything else I've covered in war.
And it's because it seems so...
I mean, an army facing another army is one thing.
A terrorist group in civilian clothing facing an army is another thing.
A terrorist group facing a group of young people at a dance, unarmed, and doing what they did is pretty hard to comprehend unless you use the lexicon of evil somewhere.
So that stated, can you empathize with the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza with the destruction that resulted as a response?
Yes. What has happened in response is terrible, terrible for the citizens of Gaza.
I was there in on the first time a couple of days early and into the ground invasion when the citizens of Gaza were coming south.
I was in the middle of the strip and the humanitarian corridor had been set up to try to stop the hostages being taken south, deeper into Gaza, and to try to stop Hamas leadership from making it south.
It actually didn't really work, because they'd already got a lot of the hostages south.
It was an attempt to keep Hamas there and fight them in the north, so as not to be dragged all the way in.
In the end, they were dragged all the way in, anyway.
But yes, watching the citizens of Gaza moving through the humanitarian corridor and you know, was being checked for bombs, suicide vests, checked for, you know, particularly young men of military age.
And, you know, I mean, you look at this tide of human misery and you think this is terrible, but this is a terrible thing that had been brought upon them by the people who had been misgoverning the place that they lived in.
And of course, on a human level, you feel terrible that these people are going through this.
At the same time, human empathy for them can coexist beside an unspeakable anger that they had come to this point because of the fact that they'd elected a terror group to run their territory.
One of the things obviously is that a lot of people like to say, and it's true, of course, that this didn't all start on October the 7th.
Absolutely true. This particular round, this particularly intense round of war started on October the 7th, without doubt.
Hamas did not have to attack on October the 7th.
It wasn't like they were forced to liberate themselves or something as some of the defenders of Hamas claim.
The conflict of course goes back a lot earlier, but you will have to always keep on contending with this fact that there is one central issue to the paradigm of that conflict, what used to be called the Arab -Israeli conflict and now has become interestingly rebranded the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
But there is one absolutely essential issue to this which cannot be forgotten, which is do the Palestinians want a state or do they want to destroy the Jewish state?
And if they want to destroy the Jewish state as they've tried many times, it's a disaster for them.
It's a total disaster for them.
If they want to create their own state they've already had several very good shots of it, one of which is Gaza post -2005.
But they've never shown in their leadership the desire to live with a Jewish state and that's the catastrophe for the Palestinians.
Can you still mad the case of the lived experience of Palestinians and pro -Palestinian voices that describe the Gaza situation as a occupation?
West Bank too, in the case of the Gaza open -air prison?
To take them in order, there's nothing about Gaza that was an open -air prison.
They had an ability to trade, they had the ability to move in and out in increasing numbers.
Egypt wasn't so keen on allowing Palestinians from Gaza into Egypt, still isn't.
But at the time of the seventh, one of the things the international community was pushing for was for more Palestinians to be coming into Israel every day through the Eretz Crossing and others to work in Israel, because they can make a better living in Israel than they can in Gaza.
And the, as it were, normalization route was slowly being attempted, it was being pushed on Israel by the international community a little bit too fast for Israel's comfort.
But it happened. That completely came to an end, and that dream has done, gone, since the 7th of October.
Can you clarify the dream, the normalization between Gaza and Israel?
Gone. There will be - Really?
Yeah, no normalization.
No, not after that.
One of the reasons is the number of people, again, who I've spoken with who employed Palestinians, worked with Palestinians, worked alongside Palestinians, encouraged more Palestinians to be coming from Gaza in order to work in Israel.
These were their brothers and sisters and so on and so forth.
One of the reasons why the massacres of the 7th were so successful in the kibbutzim, the in with detailed house to house maps of those communities.
I spoke with one man who, his community, they had a security officer chief and Hamas came in, they knew to go and kill him and his family first and then which families.
I've seen the maps myself.
They came in with incredibly accurate information about these communities.
How did they have them?
Because it was given to them by the brothers, by the workers, by the people of Gaza who were coming in and out.
So there was nobody that will trust that ever again.
There's a lot of Palestinians that have lived and flourished inside Israel.
What are they saying?
What are they feeling, and what are the Israelis feeling about them?
Is there still camaraderie to some degree, or is it completely destroyed?
My observation at the beginning was that everyone was extremely wary.
I mean, if you've worked beside someone and then found out they sold out your family, you will never trust again.
And that, particularly in a small country like Israel, the word of that happening goes out very fast. The very beginning, there was intense, intense fear about that, including of the 20 % or so of the population who are Arab Israelis.
I actually think one of the few positive news stories of the period is that that population within Israel has by and large held.
It's not, there hasn't been an intifada.
One of the reasons why there hasn't been more activity the terrorist activity in the West Bank and Judea and Samaria is because the Israelis have been very careful along with the Palestinian Authority to some extent cooperating to keep that down.
But you know there wasn't a war on a full war on three fronts for which was at risk of happening.
So, I think that the sort of coexistence within Israel has pretty much held.
There are some terrible examples, far too regular, but not as regular as it could happen of Muslim Arab Israelis carrying out acts of terror in, as it was, sympathy with Hamas.
I was in the middle of one such attack myself for late last year in a town called Hedera.
Those things have happened, but that particular catastrophe has not occurred.
Can we talk about Benjamin Netanyahu?
For a lot of people who spoke of evil, they refer to him as evil, on the spectrum between good and evil.
As a leader, where does Netanyahu fall?
Well, he's certainly not evil.
Interesting if people looking at this conflict were to be reluctant to use the word evil of Hamas and eager to use it of the Israeli prime minister.
It would be sort of telling, I would say.
Can we just actually linger on that point?
There's a point you've made multiple times, which is we're more eager to criticize and maybe even over -exaggerate the criticism of democratically elected leaders.
It's a dark, weird, other quality of discourse at parties, aforementioned parties.
– Isn't it also, I mean, not to be flippant for a moment, it's a little bit like, who do you show your worst sides to?
The people you love.
my intense irritability is something that tends to be felt most by people who are closest to me, because if I express it to absolutely everybody I met at the party or a social setting, it would be hard. I mean, there's a tendency to lean heavily on the people who are closest to you, the people who will put up with it.
And something similar happens in international politics.
You pressure the people who will listen.
I mean, it's one of the things you hear a lot in the last year, you know, people sort of ignoramuses in the government in places like Britain, you know, will say we need to put more pressure on the Israelis to do X.
and you go, well, in part that's because they will listen.
If you go we need to put more pressure on the Ayatollahs in Iran to persuade them that Hamas are really bad, and they shouldn't be doing this.
What the hell do you think they're gonna do?
They're gonna listen to you, you think you're a damn?
You're talking totally different worlds.
Not just a different language, it's a different world.
And by the way, that happens in Israel.
I mentioned it earlier, it happens in Israel.
When the hostage families forum came about, I spent a lot of time there, I got to know a lot of the families and they're remarkable.
But one of the things you did notice from them as well was that a lot of them, they protest outside Netanyahu's house, they use the cracks in homes and make sure he doesn't get never sleep, they will put up greatly posters by his house of him with bloody hands and so on.
And I have, I think as much sympathy as you can for these families, the plight of knowing that your child is sitting in a tunnel in Gaza for a year, a day, an hour is intolerable.
But there's a reason why the families protested Netanyahu and that's because Sinua didn't care.
That wouldn't work if you said, you know, understand my plight.
I'm a Jewish mother and my daughter is...
Think. You think Sinwar, the heads of Hamas care?
You think the leaders in Qatar who host them care?
The Qatari emir's mother, when Sinwar was killed, praised Sinwar.
You couldn't talk that language to these people, but you can talk that language to the elected Prime Minister of Israel because that...
First of all, he's somebody who might listen to your pressure, could be pressured, and secondly, he's simply the only person you can pressure.
There's no one else.
Hamas doesn't care.
Hezbollah doesn't care.
The Iranian revolutionary government doesn't care.
So let's just sort of say once again the obvious thing that while it is possible to discuss Hamas soldiers as freedom fighters, I'm not one of the folks that can take that perspective.
It's a tough one to take.
I don't see how you can call them freedom fighters.
So this goes to the man from the land of peace and the man from the land of war.
There is a lived experience of what it means to grow up in Gaza.
And if you fully load that into your brain in a real way, not using the words of good and evil, but in a very deep human sense, from that place, from that place of desperation, from your home and your families destroyed, doesn't matter why, doesn't matter if there's evil all around you that cause it, doesn't matter.
The facts are the facts.
And from that place, somebody who's fighting for you can feel like a freedom fighter.
I think it should be called out that yes, it can feel that way from the lived experience.
But Hamas is very clearly, since we're talking about Netanyahu, Hamas is evil.
Okay, now, you can still, in that context, discuss the degree to which Netanyahu is the right leader for this moment, and whether he goes too far, whether he's too politically selfish in the decisions he makes, whether he's too much a warmonger, whether he's utilizing the war for his own political gains and is not caring about the death of civilians in Gaza, for example, but more caring about his own political maintaining power.
That's a perspective that I could steal man.
That's a perspective worth discussing and that's a perspective many in Israel hold when they criticize Netanyahu.
He's increasingly less and less popular.
That's wrong. Clinton's poll last month was in Washington, and it showed him at an all time high.
You were saying? I make my own poll and according to my poll, I'm the greatest, I'm the nicest, and the coolest person in the world.
A hundred percent of people agree.
I didn't mean to laugh that much. You laughed a little too much. Too long.
More than the joke, yeah.
But you were saying, okay, let's steelman the criticism of Netanyahu.
Can you, and then, steelman the case for him that he's the right leader actually at this moment?
Well, the most devastating thing that anyone can come up against Netanyahu is that the seventh happened on his watch after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Golda Meir who is a very distinguished prime minister of Israel and remarkable woman, but she effectively took the political hit for the Yom Kippur invasion by Israel's Arab neighbors happening on her watch. I just thought that most critics, fair -minded critics of Netanyahu inside Israel and without would always hold that against him.
I suppose one of the criticisms you hear a lot as well is this thing of Israel being divided in the year before the seventh because of the judicial reforms. I think there's a strong case for judicial reforms in Israel, but it's a sort of niche Israeli governance issue, which we don't have to get into.
The point is that Netanyahu and his government They were pushing these reforms through judicial reforms. And it was very divisive.
And on the streets of Tel Aviv and other cities every weekend, there were protests.
And the police were tired because they'd spent week after week on overtime policing these protests, which often turned raucous, not to say violent, was sometimes violent.
And you could say, well, if you see that something is dividing your country this much, might you stop.
There is a claim by some people that one of the things that prompted the seventh was that Hamas and its backers in Qatar and Iran saw the division in Israeli society, saw the Israeli population, in a significant chunk of it every week on the streets, shutting down highways, shutting down services and so on, and thought, good, now is the time.
In other words, what I quoted Sinwara saying earlier when he was in prison in Israel, was this thing, one day you'll be weak and then I'll strike.
Maybe that is one of the things that Sinwah thought.
Israel was very weak, it had been divided and therefore was time to strike.
There's an argument against that, which is that the seventh was in preparation and being planned before the judicial reform process in Israel began.
So you can look at it several ways but you could use that, you could say look this is you know if your nation was divided don't push through any more on that, there's lots of things like that.
You could say that Netanyahu was one of the people responsible for the conception, you could there were critics of his including critics who were in the war cabinet who thought that he was too focused on Hamas and not focused enough on Hezbollah, other people think he was too focused on Hezbollah and not enough on Hamas.
There's them and many other criticisms that people make of him.
I would say I've interviewed, I think, every political leader in Israel from right to left pretty much. I have to say I don't think there's any of them that wouldn't have responded similarly to the 7th of October, to the way he has.
That's inside Israel, outside of Israel.
Despite what he said, he is one of the most hated people in the world.
Just the raw quantity.
Relative, he's loved by a lot of people, but there's a lot of psychological effects that might explain that.
I mean, it's strange if there is the widespread global loathing of the prime minister of a country of eight to nine million people.
Yeah. That might mean something more than the hatred of the military actions and the policies of the one person.
There's an awful lot of people to hate in the world.
There's a lot of wars in the world.
It's always of interest to me, and obviously some of the one things I go into on democracies and Jeff Galtz is this question of why is this so galvanizing for so many people?
I think that is a very interesting question, why?
By the way, let me do it quick addendum to that.
You can notice something else at that when people talk about the Republican failures in foreign policy in the last 30 years or so.
It's very interesting.
There's a certain type of person who will immediately mention Paul Wolfowitz.
They'll say, well, Wolfowitz, you mean Deputy Under Secretary of Defense under George W.
Bush. You think he guided everything?
Why would that be other than the fact that his name, as Mark Stein once said, starts with a nasty animal and ends Jewish".
I do think that there are very deep things at play.
It's a good line. There are very deep things at play, Netanyahu, irrespective of anything he does, for a lot of people is a devil, and you have to say, well, why is that?
Now, of course, some people will say that's because his terrible hawkishness and his actions and so on and so forth.
The case of Netanyahu is that he sees it as his historic purpose to defend the only homeland of the Jewish people, and that that's his life's mission.
And on that basis, I think he's been, by any measure, a historic leader.
He has warned the world about the threat from the mullahs in Tehran.
He warned about Iranian revolutionary expansionism across the region, across Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen.
And after the 7th, he has held together a very, very difficult set of challenges to keep international pressure at a tolerable level, to do all sorts of things.
But, most importantly, to oversee the two war aims that he set out at the beginning.
I thought, let me just express this, I thought, like a lot of people, when I heard about the hostages, my immediate instinct was they're all dead.
They're all going to be dead.
He'll never see them again." That was the attitude of a lot of Israelis.
But although there are still hostages being held, and as I've always said, the war could end tomorrow if they were handed back, or at least the beginning of the end of the war could begin tomorrow if they were handed back.
Nevertheless, because of the actions of not just Netanyahu but the Israeli government, most of the hostages who've been returned did not expect this to happen.
And Hamas has not been completely destroyed, but it has been very, very significantly degraded, and you end up in the definition of what a total destruction of Hamas would look like.
but they are not anywhere near the capability they were in November of 2023.
Their leadership has almost all been killed.
The second tier of leadership – almost all gone.
This is a just response to what Hamas did.
Nesenyahu's reputation in Israel was low early on because of what had happened.
There's no doubt, as I say in the final chapter of the book, I mean, General Slim had this phrase, from defeat into victory.
Israel isn't at victory yet in this conflict, but when in September last year, there were a set of operational successes so extraordinary that it was just every day's news.
There was one day, I remember after the sad regime fell, when the Israeli Air Force took out the entirety of the Syrian Air Force in a day.
because they didn't want it falling into the hands of the new jihadist administration in Syria.
It was story number four on the BBC News website.
The leadership of Hezbollah gone, gone.
The second and third tiers of Hezbollah gone or wounded, Iran's Rolls -Royce destroyed.
These are very, very significant military achievements and are, in my mind, a just response to the attempts by Hezbollah, Hamas and other Iranian proxies to destroy the Jewish state.
Would another Israeli leader have been able to hold firm as Netanyahu has?
I don't know, but I do know that any of them would have done something similar, or would have tried to do something similar, because there's no country on earth, no democracy on earth, which could possibly not respond to such an atrocity.
To the point, the underlying point you made of why do so many people want to call him evil?
And so the implication is, it's not just a hatred of Israel.
There's an ocean of hatred for the Jews.
Why is there so much hatred for Jews in the world?
I would say there's one reason in particular.
It's a stupid and gullible person's easy answer.
Why does certain things happen in the world?
What is our explanation of chance?
or unfairness, or any number of things.
Easiest, stupidest person's explanation is, there's a small group of people doing it.
Let's not say stupidest because there's something in the human mind that craves a nice clean theory of everything that explains all the problem.
It's not just stupidest. Let me re -write lowest grade.
Right. Lowest grade.
I have that desire to just simplify everything.
Be a bit antisemitic, what?
We've all been antisemitic here and there and just get a few vodkas and no. To find, maybe as a mathematician, they say to find a simple explanation for everything.
Actually, that's nice for historians do this.
Absolutely. I agree.
Analyzing why the Roman Empire collapsed.
it's so nice to have one, especially if it's a counterintuitive explanation.
It's one of the favorite go twos, right?
It's an explanation for all the problems in the world.
It's the lowest resolution analysis imaginable.
Why is there traffic?
Why did my wife leave me?
Why did my wife cheating on me?
Why did I lose my job?
Why did I not get the job?
Even on the personal level - Especially on the personal level.
Why did I not get everything?
Somebody must have held me back.
Yeah. It's just that The Hatred of Jews has been such a popular go -to throughout history that you just always return back to the hits, I guess.
What is it special about the Jews as a group that people love to hate?
Is it just because it's small number of people?
I think several things.
Successful. One is small, and without by any means saying this is a general rule, but disproportionately highly accomplished in certain fields at certain times.
Prominent is the word I would use, prominent slightly beyond their numbers in certain places.
It's not a full explanation.
I mean, also there are historical reasons why Jews are involved in banking.
But then there are also historic reasons why the Scottish people were involved in banking.
and to this day you don't find many people who blame all international finance problems on the Scots.
So there were just like easy grooves for people to fall into it seems to me.
We should also mention banking for some reason.
Money is a thing that people go to, but Jews have been disproportionately successful in the sciences and engineering, mathematics, and the arts and so on.
A sensible person would try to work out why that is and see what is replicable.
I don't want to use the word stupid again now.
A different type of person.
I'm triggered already.
A different type of person would look at that and say, that must mean they took something from me.
That's the most zero -sum game there is.
It's an endlessly fascinating subject because it seems to that antisemitism is almost certainly a sort of ineradicable temptation of the human spirit at its ugliest and cheapest. But because it's back in our day, it bears some analysis again, and I would say two things about it.
One is, as I and others have said many times in the past. One of the fascinating things about anti -Semitism is that it can cover everything at once so the Jews get hated for being rich and for being poor, both for being the Rothschilds and for being Eastern European Jews escaping the pogroms. They can be hated for being religious and for being anti -religious and producing Marxism, for instance.
Hated for religiosity and secularism.
They can be hated for most recently not having a state and therefore being ruthless cosmopolitan and also hated for having a state.
That makes it something very unusual, actually, in the history of human bigotry and bias and ugliness.
But the real thing is one of my great heroes, Vasily Grossman, says at the center of life and fate… Almost everything that is worth saying about anti -Semitism is Grossman's genius that he could say in three to four pages what most people couldn't say in an entire life even after a life of study.
But there's this passage in Life and Faith that I quote in my book, which is, it just bowled me over when I read it some years ago.
When he says, the interesting thing about antisemitism, he says, you can meet it everywhere in the Academy of Sciences and in the games that children play in the yard. But Grossman's great insight is he says, everywhere it tells you, not about the Jews, but about the person making the claim.
And the most important gift he gives in his analysis is when he describes it as a mirror to the person who is making the claims, culminating in this phrase I've been trying to make popular, which is he said, he says, tell me what you accuse the Jews of, I'll tell you what you're guilty of, it's a searingly brilliant insight.
The Iranian Revolutionary government accuses Israel of being a colonial power.
The Iranian Revolutionary government has been colonizing the Middle East throughout our lifetimes.
The Turkish government accuses the Jewish state of being guilty of occupation.
Do you know Northern Cyprus?
The Turks have been occupying half of Cyprus since the 1970s.
Cyprus is an EU member state and Turkey is in NATO.
So, you can do this on and on.
The people who accuse the Jewish state like the people who accused Jews of something almost without fail is the thing they're guilty of.
Look at the supporters of Hamas and Hamas.
One of the things they say is that Israel is guilty of indiscriminate killing.
Hamas? Hello? What were you doing on the 7th?
You see they're these crazy guys online who repeatedly claim, that for some reason Israeli soldiers will rape Palestinians when they meet them, whether in a prison or on the battlefield, or in a hospital.
It just erupts occasionally.
These people go around and say, Oh my God, the IDF a rapist, excuse me.
You're the ones who spent the years after 2016 saying, believe all women.
Then from the 7th of October said, believe all women except for Jewish women who say they've been raped or seen their friends raped.
And then you say, aha, the Jews are rapists.
You've been carrying water for rapists and then go and accuse the Jews of rape.
I mean, it just works, every way you do it, it works.
I do think the thing of psychological projection in the case of Israel is wild.
I mean, it is wild.
By the way, there's an interesting thing on this that I tried to get into in the book, which is this thing of why did so much of the world respond the way it did?
I mean, we're sitting in New York, There was not one protest against Hamas in New York after the 7th of October.
The Believe All Women crowd didn't come out against Hamas's rapes.
The Black Lives Matter movement did not turn their attention to the killing of Israeli children or anything.
Nobody did it. The one thing that did happen very prominently was that people came out to attack the people who've been attacked.
As I say in the opening of the book, I saw that myself down the road from here in Times Square on October the 8th.
October the frigging 8th, the protests are in Times Square against Israel, justifying the attacks that were still going on.
This is something that deserves deep self -examination on behalf of people in the West who've seen this movement overwhelm parts of our society, I mean degraded parts, but parts, bits of the universities and so on.
And I think there's an explanation for it, by the way, which again, goes back to that issue of projection.
When you and I last talked on camera, we were talking about my last book, The War on the West, and I remember saying to you there that one of the things I was talking about in that book was the deeply, deeply, wildly biased, unfair and inaccurate estimation of the West and past, whereby America's original sin had to be identified and the original sin is slavery, so America has an original sin.
Does Ghana have an original sin?
No one knows. No one really would think it polite to point one out.
You go on and on with these things that I identified in the war in the West, these sins of the West and they have in recent years been reduced to the claim that countries like the one we're sitting in are guilty of what?
Colonialism. Settler colonialism.
White supremacy. Slavery.
Genocide. And a couple of others you can throw in probably.
One of the things I remember saying to you when we spoke about that was that one of the deep problems of setting up that system of thought, pseudo -thought, non -thought, would -be thought, is that there's nothing you can do about it.
Even if it was true, there's nothing you can do about it.
If it turned out that your ancestors in the 18th century wanted to end a slave, what are you going to do?
There's no mechanism to forgive or be forgiven because you didn't do it and there's no one in life who could accept the apology.
And I remember setting it up there in the war in the West, I set up this very, very risky, dangerous, unforgivable, unforgiving thing that had been set up about our societies.
But I would say that since October the 7th, there is been an answer for a certain type of person, which is I am from a society where I have been told I am guilty of settler colonialism, white supremacy, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and more.
I've been told all of these things.
I have been put in an ungetoutable of situation situation of moral burden that can never be relieved because I can't ask anyone's forgiveness and nobody can forgive me.
But, ah, here's a country which I can accuse of all of these things in the here and now.
Load my energies, my guilts, my burdens onto, and what's more I might be able to end it, and by doing so would relieve myself.
And in other words to I quote, I tweak Grossman with the people in America and elsewhere who've fallen into this trap, I tweak him by saying, on this occasion, tell me what you accuse the Jews of, and I'll tell you what you've been told you're guilty of.
Yes, it's an interesting projection.
Just to observe some of the sociological phenomena here on top of all this.
It does seem that hatred of Jews gets a lot of engagement online.
So I watch it like a curiosity, like I'm an alien observing Earth.
Is this dangerous to you or is it just a bunch of trolls and grifters, let's say cosplaying as Nazis, is just fun to trigger the libs?
It could be all of this, I think it is and a lot more.
I mean, taboos can be fun to break, I suppose, and I suppose there are some people online who have grown up knowing that since the Holocaust, anti -Semitism was taboo, and they've run out of, goes back to what we were saying earlier a bit, they've got bored of that.
Holocaust, schmollicause they'd say, I've heard enough about that.
Maybe those people have gone off in a funny direction as a result, but I don't think that's the main.
I think that's like a detail compared to the real thing.
The real thing is that anti -Semitism is back and there's a certain type of person who's loving it.
Is it really back? I watched - It never goes away.
It's just that it's since the 7th, I think, that it's had a great resurgence, and this isn't to say, and that doesn't mean that any criticism of Israel is anti -Semitic, no it doesn't, but as I have often said, if you don't ever express any interest in the murder of Muslims in Syria, not any interest in genocide in Sudan, killing of hundreds of thousands of people in Yemen, but on the 8th of October, you're on the street with a placard attacking Israel.
I'm sorry, you're an anti -Semite for sure.
You may not know you are, but that's what's motivating you.
It gets a lot of engagement.
It does. I watch it.
It's one of several things you can always see get huge engagement.
If you say that there's a massive pedophile ring run by prominent politicians, it might be total horseshit.
is likely to be terrible horseshit, but it'll also get a hell of a lot of engagement.
Yeah, but that's still the pedophile ring like Epstein Island, that stuff?
Which is very interesting.
Just like, great, all right, cool.
Let's get behind that conspiracy.
But the Jews thing, the hatred of Jews is still, that's the greatest hits still.
It is. You see it with some of the people who have made minor celebrities of themselves.
with a sort of made -up version of history, with a smattering of this and a little bit of that, and then just asking questions.
And, you know, I'm not saying, but.
There's certain rhetorical sites of hand that have helped this along.
But as I said earlier, it's just the lowest grade explanation of a certain type of mind looking for a pattern and looking for meaning.
And I mean, I can give you just one quick example of why that in the case of Israel is so extraordinary, is the number of otherwise semi -intelligent people who will tell you that the problem is simply that the Israelis need to give the Palestinians another state and that if they do, It will solve the problems of the region and the wider world.
And irrespective of the fact that the person is being given to several States.
The claim that this particular land dispute would unlock every other injustice in the world, should be seen on its face to be preposterous.
There is no reason why if the Palestinians got another state, either in Gaza or in parts of Judea and Samaria in the West Bank, there is no reason why we should expect the economy of Yemen to boom.
It would not inevitably lead to the mullahs in Tehran giving equal rights to women or anything else.
The most likely thing is you simply have another failed Arab state run by a sort of proxy of Tehran.
That's the best case scenario, and by the way, even lifelong defenders of the Palestinian cause, like Salman Rushdi, he said recently, he said, I've always been a support of the Palestinian people and their cause, but it is an unavoidable fact that if another state was given to the Palestinians, it would simply be at best another front for the Iranian regime in Iran at best!
So why the passion about them?
Why the unbelievable wild passion about this?
And I say some of it can be, should be, argued out, and so on, some of it can be explained, but there's definitely a realm of it, a layer of it, which is simply at that level of This excites something within me.
This excites something within me." There's something compelling to people about hating Jews.
Look at the semi prominent people who are willing to play around with the idea that 9 -11 was an inside job and somehow it's done by the Israelis or the Jews.
Look at the, this shit is going around.
I have to admit, There's a part of my brain that's pulled towards conspiracies.
There's something compelling and fun about a simple explanation for things, what's really going on behind the scenes.
Because the real world, when you don't look into conspiracies, first of all, it's complicated and second of all, it's boring.
It's a bunch of incompetent people.
Usually opening up Pandora's boxes they don't understand.
Yeah. It's pushing up buffoons.
I've walked around and hung around with a lot of powerful, rich people.
The thing I learned is they're just human beings.
I'm yet to be in a room where exceptionally brilliant psychopaths are plotting.
You never got that invite?
No. In fact, a lot of people in the positions of power.
There's just not good.
I mean, just continuously disappointed that they're not ultra, I love competence.
The places where I've seen competence, the inklings of it is in low -level, like soldiers.
Like low -level, what do you call that?
People that do stuff with their hands.
So builders of different kinds like engineering, like craftsmen.
Like I've seen - Yes, because you've got a very specific task that could be highly complicated, but you get to apply yourself to and to solve.
Yeah. Over years, you've mastered as passed across generations and so on, but like states craft and that kind of stuff." Well, because there's so many variables.
I mean, this is one of the ways when you were trying to learn me onto the prognostications on Ukraine and I was saying, I've seen enough to know that I just don't know because I know the amount of things that can change all the time.
Some years ago, I was talking to a former public servant in the UK when Boris Johnson was prime minister and COVID started.
I mentioned to this friend, I said, well, it's pretty bad luck for Boris that he came in to do one thing, which was Brexit, and then there's a global pandemic from Wuhan.
He's got to like mug up on that and then gets it really wrong.
But anyway, I was really struck by the fact that this man, a man with great insight who happened to disagree politically, was said to me, but Douglass is always like this.
He said, when Tony Blair came into power in 1997, wanting to reform education in the UK, he ends up trying to remake the Middle East. I mean, as I say, one of the reasons why I am scornful of conspiracy theorists, and most conspiracy theories, not to say that there aren't some that do actually turn out to have something in them, and that happens.
A lot of things are called conspiracy theories that turn out to be true, lab leak.
But in general, the suspicion and the scorn I have for people who fall into this is, as I say, it's a very low grade, low resolution look at the world, by people who clearly have never seen the wildness of actions in the world, and the way that they reverberate and the number of events.
I mean, I once spoke some years ago to a politician who literally said to me, I won't name the country, but said to me, can you help us out with just how to cope with and understand the day -to -day struggle we're having with the cycle?
And I said, well, what are you talking about?
They said, our experience in government is that every day, something comes up which we have to firefight, and that's what we do that day, and then the next day, something else comes up which we have to firefight, and we're not getting our policies done.
I just thought, for me, that rings an awful lot truer than that that country gets the odd phone call from a member of a Jewish family.
It's like, come on.
I do it before I forget when I ask about Iran, what role do they play in this conflict?
It's fascinating how it seems like Iran is fingerprints are everywhere in the Middle East. And it's also fascinating that – I have a lot of friends, my best friends in Iranian – it's fascinating that the Islamic Revolution in Iran took the country from the leadership perspective backwards in such a drastic way and that they're still in power.
That confuses me because I know – now it's possible I don't know the people of Iran – sorry to make the obvious statement – but I just have a lot of friends in Iran.
And a lot of them, everybody, I know they're opposes the regime.
And they're brilliant, educated, thoughtful, worldly people.
And it confuses me that this is one of the, I would say, one of the greatest nations on Earth.
It's certainly one of the great cultures of Earth.
Cultures. The peoples of Iran.
And you look at that and then you look at the leadership when they're behind most of the terror groups in the region.
Can you just speak to that and how is it still the same regime since 1979?
As you know I start on the democracies and the death cults with the flight taking the Ayatollah Khomeini from Paris to Tehran.
The flight that you say you wish never happened?
I think it's one of the two worst journeys of the 20th century.
What's the other one?
Lenin's train getting to Petrograd.
Yeah, it's always about the transportation.
Yes, I know, I'm really a transport guy.
No, I wait till my book of 10 best journeys.
Across the world. No, just as the train to the Finland station brought the bacillus of Bolshevism into Russia.
The flight coming from Paris bringing the Ayatul Khomeini to Tehran brought the bacillus of Khomeinism, the most radical form of Shiite Islam to Tehran, and it's one of the great tragedies of the modern era what happened there.
like you actually, I have a lot of Persian friends and I had the great good fortune early in my life to have a very close, that late friend who had grown up in pre -revolutionary Iran, was very fond of the Shah and so on.
Her father had been in Ayatollah before the overthrow of the Shah, but, and you know, everyone had criticisms of him, but when you saw what came after him, it just, it was among other things, What I learned from her and other friends from that region was that I had two things.
One is, of course, is that it's a central conservative insight.
Things can always be worse.
They can always be worse.
Never say this is rock bottom.
Because you might have a Shah with hundreds or even thousands of political prisoners in cells, but you could always have Ayatollah Khomeini butchering them all.
And including the people who helped him get to power, like the communists and the trade unionists who simply were fighting against the Shah and then were very useful for the Ayatollah until he didn't need them anymore.
But the other thing I learned from that particular friend and others was that, was this thing that, and again, it's very hard for the Western mindset, very hard for the American mindset in particular, that there is such a thing as fanaticism, real fanaticism and real ideological and real religious fanaticism, and the thing that I describe leads to the death cult mindset.
That fanaticism is something which is very easy for the West to forget because we haven't seen it in a while.
We get very distant echoes of it in our own societies, really.
And we're highly attuned to hear them, which is good in some ways but homanism not only vastly set back the Persian people, the Iranian nation, but has managed to keep it in subjugation since 1979 and your question of why gets to one of the really, the biggest questions, really, the answer to which has to be understood, which is what Solzhenitsyn says at one point in Gulag Archipelago in that passage where he describes, "'when we heard the footsteps on the staircase "'and the knock was on our neighbor's door, "'and we knew our neighbor was being taken away, Why did we not stop them?
In the case of the revolutionary government in Iran, it's the same answer as whether it's Hamas governing Gaza, whoever the people in Gaza are who would have liked to have seen them overthrown.
Whatever it is. People don't realize that despite the rhetoric and everything else, everything changes if the other guy might kill you.
And that when the Green Revolution in 2009 started in Iran, why was it put down?
Why didn't it work?
Why, like you, the Iranians who I really hope one day get their country back– –why did all these smart young students and others, why after they came out, why was it put down?
It was put down because the Bessiège militia will shoot you in the head and they'll take you to a prison as they did with the Iranian students, and they'll rape you with bottles and kill you.
And even a little bit of that goes an awfully long way to tell the rest of society not to do it again.
You know, we know it happens like that from films, but too few people understand that regimes like that in Tehran operate like that on a grand scale.
on the biggest of scales and with the ultimate of brutality.
That's how they say in power.
One other thing on that by the way, which is I was reminded of this the other day, but thinking about what I've just described as a problem in democracies is that we like to think everyone thinks like us and we'd like everyone to be like us and we believe fictions that were taught in films like everyone basically wants the same things as us and you go, you haven't stepped outside the walls of the city, if you think that.
But the second thing is this thing of the death cults of why we sort of singly fail to understand that this is possible.
Hominism is both very specific and also very strongly linked to totalitarian and radical and extremist death cult movements that are not that far in our past. I mean, you know, there's a moment when Arianna Fel Turksi interviewed the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, one of the very few Western journalists to do so, she says to him, these people in the street, this movement, this revolution you've begun It's guided by hate.
It's hate. It's all hate." Hormany says, no, no, it's love.
It's love. It's actually a scene that appears in the Satanic verses of Rushdie where that exactly same thing happens.
I was thinking about this recently because I was thinking, but how can you explain to a Western mindset that that's something that's going on?
There are people directed by this hate that calls itself love, this, and I was reminded of a book I haven't read since I was probably a teenager or something.
Made a great impression on me then.
Did you ever read the tragic sense of life?
Miguel de Unimuno, a great Spanish existentialist philosopher who died in the 30's.
Unimuno had a encounter with students at the university in the 30's when he realized, I mean, this is the early period of the Francoists, de Rivera and all those people.
You know, Munoz at this meeting, and the chant goes up from the eager students who have fallen into this sort of Falangist, Francoist ideology already.
They end up chanting in front of him as he's trying to defend the principles by which he has lived his life.
They end up chanting in front of him, viva la moette." Long live death.
Long live death. And he tries to explain to them this is...
this is a necrophilic chant.
But those young men in Free Francoist Spain shouting long live death, they have their counterparts today.
They are the people who taunt Americans, Westerners, Israelis, and others with lines like, we love death more than you love life.
Yeah, that's the line you return to.
That's a really difficult line to load in.
Because if you base your whole existence on that notion, then well, you're a danger to the world.
That's a good foundation for committing evil.
I have to ask, because you mentioned that interview, you had a good interview with Benjamin Netanyahu after October 7th.
And I've been very fortunate to get the opportunity to interview a few world leaders.
It looks like I'll interview Vladimir Putin and others.
I want to have a general question about how do you interview people like this?
Maybe to put your historian hat on, of how do you approach the interview of world leaders such that you can gain a deeper understanding in the hope that that adds to the compassion in the world?
So I have a deep sense that understanding people you might hate, helps in the long arc of history add compassion to the world.
But even just to add understanding is difficult in those kinds of contexts.
Maybe it's more useful to think about from a historian perspective of how you need to interview somebody like Hitler or Stalin or Churchill, FDR during World War II.
It's not, I think about this a lot, especially if it's a two, three, four, five hour conversation.
Well, there's a lot of weight on you when you do those conversations.
From where? So like where, who's watching?
Is it historians 20 years from then?
Who knows? I mean, the whole data might be wiped.
I suspect there's a weight on you because every major world leader you interview, and you've done some amazing ones, but I mean, presumably, you have a set of people saying, you've got to ask him about this.
You can't not address this.
And that's a very challenging one because of course, although an interview with a politician should not be supine, nor can it be endlessly interrogative because you're not the prosecutor and they don't have to be the guilty party answering to you.
I've noticed the number of people who interview people, world leaders and others, who go in with a set of those things.
and at some point, the other party can just, just I don't need this.
People criticizing you, you don't realize that, you just can't do that.
Yeah. I suppose what journalists behave the way they do.
Although I have increasingly less and less respect for the journalist, the average journalists, have more and more respect for the great journalists, as my respect for the average journalist decreases.
Because a lot of the journalists seem to be signaling to their own in group.
But there is a lot of pressure on people in that situation to ask.
What I would say is the dumb question.
Why is it the dumb question?
The adversarial question that the world leader, the person is ready for.
They've answered that question.
What you're trying to do is I guess, one, to signal that you've asked the question and to push them.
Yes. Two, you're trying to just create drama, because really what people that ask you to ask that question, they want you to embarrass that person.
They hate them and they want you to make them piss their pants or something, or just start crying and run out.
Walk out. Yeah, walk out in a way that it's embarrassing for them.
They could be like, look at that pathetic person.
And that reveals to me nothing, except maybe the weakness of the interviewee, that they can't stand up to a tough question.
But mostly, like I'm sorry, I have to do a lot of thinking because you get attacked a lot.
If you ask questions from a place of curiosity, that actually have a chance to reveal who the person is.
There's a very interesting line that Robin Day, who was quite a distinguished interviewer back in the day, said about Jeremy Paxman, who was a very interrogative interviewer in the UK, Robin Day, who was quite good at being rude to politicians, but carefully, said, the problem with the new approach, as he saw it from the 90s of political interviewing was, he said, if you think the person you're speaking to is a liar, you should get them to reveal they're a liar.
Don't just call them a liar.
Yeah, yeah. And I think that is, again, it's something that a lot of people sitting on the other side of the screen don't realize is that it may satisfy them that you call a person a liar to their face, but it doesn't do anything.
And it actually reveals nothing.
If somebody is a liar and they reveal themselves to be a liar, then that's something else.
But yes, I mean, I hear you.
Obviously, you have a lot of different voices telling you what to do.
It's also difficult because one of the things that I don't think anyone really understands is that, in the end, it's just you.
I'm sure that you have this about Putin.
People say, I know exactly how you can do it.
They can give endless advice.
At the end is you sitting down talking to him.
It's like everybody knows how to behave on the Presidential debate stage, but only a few people have done it.
In person is actually pretty difficult, as a mean.
It's very difficult because you've got all this weird behind the scenes stuff as well.
You've got all of the games that people play.
I mean, yeah, with, I interviewed Zelensky.
Yeah, I'm pretty fearless in general, and he was a very human, and fascinating human.
But there are soldiers with guns standing all around.
You don't have anyone?
No one was packing on your side?
One friend, a security person, who was also crazy.
You never know. You can turn around.
You've been infiltrated.
Yeah, exactly. No, that doesn't have any effect.
By the way, I should mention that because it's hilarious to me, but process -wise, with Narendra Modi and with anyone, They don't...
They said it was scripted and all this kind of stuff.
I would never do anything scripted.
They don't get to have a say in anything I ask, have complete freedom.
Sometimes you'll have people on the team very politely nudge like, hey can you?
And I'll very politely say, thank you, you know, like smile.
But that doesn't mean I have to fucking do it.
I can do whatever the hell I want.
By the way, with world leaders it doesn't happen.
It happens more with CEOs because they have usually PR and comms people, they'll just be like very politely, hey, you know that thing about when the sexual assault, harassment charges that they had?
Could we just, there's no reason to really linger all that.
I don't have to do that.
One of my favorite things anyone has ever said, it has only ever happened I know a couple of cases of this happening in private.
A friend of mine, a friend of mine once years ago was debating against the this is before the the war the civil war in Syria was debating something to do with the middle east and one of the people on the other side was the then Syrian ambassador in London.
The then Syrian ambassador in London says something about the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and my friend starts talking about Assad senior's massacre over the Palestinians in Hamar, whether he killed like 10 ,000 Palestinians in a day.
My friend starts talking about the Hamar Massacre by Assad senior, and the big fat Syrian ambassador stands up to respond, and he says, that is none of your business.
My friend was like, oh, I thought we were going to get in denial.
Let me just ask you one more thing about Netanyahu because I also have the opportunity to do a three hour interview with him at this stage, and I've been, if I'm just being honest, very hesitant to do it, and I just don't know how a conversation there could help add compassion to the world, And that particular topic, no matter how well you do it, you do take on a very large number of people that will just make it their daily activity to hate you and to write about it and to post about it and to accuse you of things.
In some sense, I don't wanna lose the part of me that's vulnerable to the world.
People have very little understanding of things if they're willing to say That because you're sitting down and talking with somebody, you are ergo platforming them, advancing their cause being used, being a shoulder, whatever like that.
You might be actually just finding some things out, which I think was something you do expertly.
Another thing your critics wouldn't realize is that life is long and hopefully, God willing, both around for a long time, and therefore you don't blow everything up at the request of some twat online.
But I do think that a superpower of a kind is to identify the people whose opinion you care for and worry about their opinion and no one else's really.
You just keep your own guiding light.
That's what's always done for me is that I've always said I wouldn't care if I was the only person with my opinion and billions of people disagreed.
I mean, I might be curious if the whole planet disagreed.
It doesn't, fundamentally, that's not right.
I'll send you Churchill's great speech on the death of Chamberlain.
I mean it. He says one of the most wise and brilliant things.
I was thinking about it slightly earlier when you were talking about Zelensky, because one of Churchill's greatnesses was his magnanimity.
When his great political opponent, Chamberlain died in 1940, and Churchill had just taken over as prime minister, he could have used the opportunity, and we might even say that some politicians in our day won't be able to resist the opportunity.
He could have used the opportunity to say you see I was right.
Chamberlain didn't know what the hell he was doing and he led us into this mess, and you should have all listened to me.
Because that would have been a good time It would have been a good time to say that would have been one for the win, as they say.
But Churchill doesn't do that in his great eulogy for Chamberlain.
He talks about how hard it is for mankind to operate in the world and how you can do it successfully.
He very movingly says he doesn't even mention the name of Hitler.
He says, what would ever change his flaws?
He says desiring of human peace to be seeking peace.
And he said the curse that he had was that he was led astray by a very wicked man.
But then he has this great passage where Churchill says a beautiful resonant passage about how he says, it's not given to men happily for them, for otherwise life would prove intolerable to foresee or to predict to any great extent the unfolding course of events.
And he says in one phase men seem to have been right and in another they're proved wrong.
And then there's a different scale of values emerges.
And he says, what is the worth of all this, the only guide to a man is his conscience.
The only shield to his memory is the rectitude and the sincerity of his actions.
In fact he says it doesn't matter what happens if you have this.
he finishes it, he says, however the fates may play, that if you have this shield to guard you, he says you march always in the ranks of honor.
All that can guide a man is that if you lose sight of it and some people do, and maybe everyone does at some point, then it's a challenge.
Then you get buffeted by the to's and fro's of the waves of popular opinion, and that's dangerous.
But if you keep sight and hold on to what you believe, a million, a billion, foes don't matter.
Yeah, that is the path.
We were talking offline about the great biography of Churchill.
Churchill himself made mistakes that were made the mistakes and was, we can even say, was proud of the mistakes, I mean, He learned from them.
Learned from them, that's all the best you could do.
The worst you could probably do is being afraid of making mistakes.
That's what TR, Femme said about the man in the arena speech. TR!
The old TR. Those two have made quite a few mistakes, but in the end some of the greatest humans ever created, Norm McDonald Churchill.
Did we do Norm? I think we did before coming on air.
Before coming on air, yeah.
He's always and everywhere in the air around us.
One of the great comedians.
What gives you hope about this whole thing we have going on?
Human civilization.
and you've been covering some of the darker aspects, the madness of crowds, the madness of geopolitics, the madness of wars.
Sometimes when the sun shines through the clouds, and there's a smile on Douglas Murray's face, what's the source of the smile, the warmth?
Endless numbers of things, endless numbers of things.
I get enormous encouragement from smart, young people actually.
That's just the best thing ever.
I was in Kiev the other week.
I was asked to speak to students at the university.
In respect to the rather tricky situation that they are in, it's just great to, as you know, to speak to room full of students about things and then hang around after us and just answer all the questions you can, and hear from them about their lives and what they want to do, and remembering what you were like at their age and how goofy you were and how much you were going to get wrong and how much, you know, had to learn and how much you're going to enjoy it.
And, and seeing the opportunities they have in front of them if things go right, and just smart young people give me an enormous encouragement all the time.
That's the best thing, I mean, it's just. Yeah, you can see endless possibility in their eyes.
And they're not burdened by, let's say, the cynicism that builds up.
Even the cynicism though, I mean, you can resist that, I mean, I've got quite a deep well spring of it.
But I mean, you can't only fall into that because there's so much else it doesn't cover.
It'll be like spending your life being ironic.
So that said, you have seen a lot of war, especially recently and directly.
Ukraine, Israel, has that changed you?
Has that dimmed some of that warmth and light?
That's a very difficult question to answer.
I don't know. It differs day to day.
So sometimes there's a heaviness there because of what you've seen?
At times, at times.
Do you regret some going as much as you have to the front lines?
No. One of the reasons why war is for a writer the ultimate subject is because you see life weirdly at its ultimate.
And it's a very, very strange, strange thing, but, you know, it is the truth.
Death when it's in front of you is something which gives a terrible clarity to everything.
You see how people will love and even sometimes laugh more.
There's an essay by Montaigne that's always on my mind, why we weep and laugh at the same time.
Everything's just more.
The real thing is that you see the very, very best of people and the very worst and beside each other.
I've gotten a bunch of chances to interact with soldiers on the front line in Ukraine.
There is some level of all the bullshit niceties or whatever it is of civilian life is all stripped away.
It seems more honest somehow.
Yes. Absolutely. Well, I couldn't agree more.
Then there's the wild clarity about things, not because of enemies or anything like that.
I think I mentioned, I joked about this with some Ukrainian soldiers in 22 because they wanted a cigarette, and we stepped outside, I accompanied them outside because they weren't allowed to smoke indoors in this hotel, which there are rockets forming.
Isn't it strange that fear of second -hand smoke has superseded this?
I don't know. Seeing the humor in that when you're on the front line, when you are fighting in a war, the humor of that is somehow just perfectly delicious.
You could just laugh all day about that and the absurdity of life is just right there, and it's so honest and it's so beautiful, and that's why a lot of soldiers are traumatized, they are destroyed by war, but they also miss it.
That's right. Absolutely.
Oh my God. Yes. There's an intimacy to the whole thing.
Absolutely. Everyone says never felt more alive.
I wouldn't do anything different.
Well, I hope just like Churchill, you keep fighting the good fight and not listening to anybody, and I'll try to learn to do the same.
Douglas, I'm a huge fan.
Thank you for doing this.
Been a great pleasure and right back at you.
Thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Douglas Murray.
To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
And now, let me leave you with some words from Bertrand Russell.
The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts.
Thank you for listening, and I hope to see you next time.
all the peace out in the world.
finished ended
