Noam, I’d imagine you’ve done some pretty cool things in your life, but I think you’ve really found your calling with these interviews and debates. Many thanks.
Great job getting these people together. Without exception, the best and most informative conversations that I have listened to on the subject of the Israeli/ Gaza war have been on your channel. Thanks for creating this great space for open exchange and challenge of perspectives and ideas.
The the USA has not won a war since the Korean conflict. Since then it has lost every war and forced to run to mama. Israel has not won a war since the Yom Kippur war 1973. Nor has Russia.
Just based on the reading of credentials, it is clear that Spencer's expertise is based on experience and Pape is simply an academic. I will prefer Spencer's opinion every time.
@@samrands5967 exactly. Spencer was a mere Major who followed orders to create one of the largest mistakes in United States military history. Yet his experience is being referenced. Truly amazing
@JohnSpencer328 for the win 🏆 mighty respect to both men for maintaining civil discourse throughout. 🙏 Pape seems to be basing his proposed strategies under the assumption that Israel isn’t operating under “triple standards” that simply don’t allow them to execute their strategies the same way as the USA…or any other nation on earth… Also, ceding land in exchange for terror…….really???????
I was surprised by Professor Pape’s defensiveness. I didn’t think Noam or Spencer were insulting him. The question was what Israel should have done on Oct 8, and he suggested giving back settlements.
@@TigerHoganI couldn’t disagree more. Unfortunately Noam can’t rid himself of his devotion and love for Israel in order to be a neutral moderator. So it was 2 vs 1. And if you’re the 1 in that situation, it’s hard not to feel like you’re being attacked.
@@TigerHoganneither of them were rude or unprofessional. It's really suprising that he got defensive. He is supposed to an adult, academic professional expert, not a high school student in a debate class. There were no insults whatsoever. Seems like he is not used to having his ideas challenged
@@TigerHoganhow did he loose the debate? Pape advocated a hard response.. and ? How did this help Isreal ? Shunned and isolated. Oh btw how long it took America to get the hostages in Iran?😉
@@courtneytwait3351Noam was very fair he gave Mr.Pape multiple times to clarify his silly answers that was very generous most people are not so patient with silly people wasting time with completely unrealistic ‘ideas’ & risking American lives in the process
This was extremely interesting. Spencer was typically serious and credible; Pape, by contrast, was sneeringly overconfident.That one is a military expert and the other a social scientist is perhaps the explanation. Pape is clearly used to patronising his interlocutors and audiences; and he manifestlt looks down on 'mid-level' solider Spencer who simply doesn't understand the high-level strategic stuff Pape is a self declared expert in. Pape is also clearly unused to having his words reflected back at him and was extremely petulent. It is a shame the Pape is so deaf to the realities of Gaza and mired in prejudiced towards, and ignorant of, Israel.
I watched the same interview and Spencer was the on who was more emotional and willing to attack Pape personally. To his credit Pape didn't engage and admirably argued his main thesis that Israel's strategy is woefully misguided and not in their best interests.
Yeah it's like you mixed up the names. The minute Spencer had his ideas challenged he started incoherently rambling and avoided all of papes points and arguments.
@@samrands5967 Spencer would say things like"if you disagree with me you are not a student of war". Spencer was a mere Major in one of the dumbest operations in United States military history. Him saying that has none of the intended effect he thinks it does.
@@jepper6140 there's definitely a theme in this of the tactical vs the strategic. The major is used to commanding operations, so he sees Israel doing that well and thinks they're winning. But he can't see the strategic level: that fighting the war as a conventional war was not only not working but completely counter productive.
What wars has america won in the past? Spencer was part of one of the most wasteful operations in american history namely the Iraq war. None of his experience is relevant. War needs to be studied. Pape is a scholar and Spencer is a charlatan.
Claiming that Israel is winning at this point is delusional. Spencer makes the mistake of seeing military force as the only instrument for shaping and influencing the environment. This is why we have lost every war since WWII. You cannot defeat a national aspirational resistance movement with military force. It will always come back.
It seems that Pape is missing a lot of context in this issue. Agreeing to stop expanding the settlements in order to get the hostages back would not achieve any war goals nor bring the hostages back. If he believes settlements is Hamas’s sticking point then he is very naive. He is also missing the cultural context in the Middle East region. Strength speaks and compromise only translates to weakness.
What an incredible service this is doing in the public course. I haven’t seen this quality of experts in a long-form debate on any platform. Spencer is a pay grade above and has seen battle firsthand, his arguments are more credible and stronger overall, and Pape's disturbing and irresponsible use of the word punishment, and pie-in-the-sky academic approach to what Israel's strategy should have been on the 8th including rewarding terrorists with concessions and using special forces make him sound a bit biased or naive, but it’s good to hear reasonable experts debating each other in good faith.
Spencer is so plainly incompetent! (That's why he has to pretend he's studied _every_ urban conflict that every happened.) He effectively strengthens Hamas - We can just look at the longterm outcomes before admiring such a "Dunning-Krueger kid". Think critically and realistically and you'll be far ahead of him.
Remember the debates we were able to listen to and watch pre-internet? There would be like mini-debates on cnn or fox but they were nothing like what we see today. These discussions are impressive although I don’t think much actually comes from debates
Both high level thinking, and honest positions. I tend to side with John as his critique conflates Palestinians as one monolithic outcome oriented blob when he sees fit and differentiates when he sees fit. If 67" is the period in which he says settlements are the primary issue driving the intentions of HAMAS then why would they have attacked Israel in such a fashion? Oslo accords have split west bank into 3 regions, A/B are governed completely by PA, B has Israeli military pressence which is the only thing stopping HAMAS from removing PAs heads. All the other functional states that have engaged in war/diplomacy with Israel have come to mutual agreements. HAMAS and even west bank Palestinians don't care about settlements, nor would they have any claim to where settlements are. Gaza/Sianai was occupied by Egypt after the mandate and handed back to Egypt / Palestinian rule. West bank was ruled by Jordan and when Israel offered to return it they refused. The occuptation they are describing isnt the one that came about at 67 war, its the desecration and invalidation of the caliphate/islamic superirity by the state of Israel existing in once conquered imperial caliphate lands, which specifically commands aherents to fight until its returned. Why does Robert think that a democratic state should capitulate to a barbaric brand of 7th century Islamic conquest being thrust into the 21st century and down everyones throats is beyond me. I think John is the most practical voice coming out of America nowadays. The Islamists ideaology is feeding off the flaccid stance US is taking towards, and all of the US allies have been left to suffer the consequences of its indifference. Imagine telling someone to concede a bargaining chip while the corpses of their citizens bodies arent cold post slaughter. Actually you know what would lead to peace in the region, if israel just got everyone into one location and nuked itself then the palestinian islamist agenda would be served and there wouldnt be another war in the middle east again right? Hezzbollah and Hamas wouldnt just aim all this military focus on one another? The seperate familial groups in the mandate region wouldnt be warring for power / control. All the water / food / power needs would be met for the people of the region, all the women would be emancipated from subjugation, gays free to express thenselves, elections would be held regularly, anti-semetic propaghanda would be removed from kids tv shows, educational material and stop being taught in mosques, muslim brotherhood would lose desire for global caliphate, political violence would cease, aid money wouldnt be funnelled out of the country into private bank accounts and the list goes on.
I think they didn't address an important question: 'Why was Hamas able to conduct such a wide attack on October 7th?' The answer to this question is also the answer to what Israel should do, and is partially doing, in this war.
Pape is being a typical academic dork using the strategy-tactics dynamic as a cudgel for his pie in the sky nonsense. Westpoint guy is talking about reality. So easy to flatly say “YoU cAnT dEsTrOy aN iDeOlOgY.” Derp.
of all the important points that John Spencer made in the first minutes of the colloquy, the most important were: 1. Pape's failure to understand that recruits* to a terrorist org deprived of weapons, etc, have been largely neutralized; and. 2. Pape's confusion about the phase of operations & his reliance upon false analogies. 2 other points: 1. Pape relies upon the dubious assumptions that, if Israel continues to destroy the terrorist leadership & combat strength, the terrorists will be able to recruit more fighters & those fighters could be effective, and, 2. Pape's doubt about the death of deif shows, his contrary assertions notwithstanding, Pape's bias. it's true that Pape settled into a more reasonable statement that the death hadn't been proven but, under the circumstances, does anyone think that it could be?
Yeah that shows his true bias, he said Israel missed dief. It shows that his bias is against Israel and yet repeatedly saying that he is pro Israel. Not very believable.
Also his whole argument comes from Israel should be making concessions always even if there is no partner to do it with. It's the typical university high preaching bs that we keep hearing. It completely ignores the history of cinstant violence in response to concessions.
General Petraeus and McMaster conducting campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan did not have the urgency of removing threat to their homefront. Rockets did not fall on US soil.
56:56 seemed like a bit of freudian slip. He knows he’s a naive idiot and by saying it himself he did the other two the courtesy of not having to say what they were both thinking 😂
John Spencer clearly won this debate. He came across as the authentic and credible “expert” on the Gaza conflict whereas Robert Pape is really just an irritating “eye specialist”. I found what he said was mostly nonsense.
I agree with Spencer and not Pape (see my other comment for my concerns with Pape), but I think Spencer came in way too hot. As I said, I think Spencer is right, but it's important that we listen to people who disagree with us in order to test our ideas. If Pape were correct that there is another strategy available that could lead to more peace and security for Israel than sure, I'd say try it! And it's not unreasonable for Pape to argue for it, even if we ultimately disagree with him.
I was stunned by the lack of understanding of the situation in Gaza displayed by Robert Pape, who is undoubtedly an expert on military strategy. His proposals for what Israel should do - limited airstrikes, special ops operations, and settlement freeze (!) - display a profound ignorance of the tactical and strategic environment that Israel operates in. I think John Spencer’s diagnosis of Pape is correct: Pape is adamant to pain the Gaza war as a counterinsurgency operation where you must win hearts and minds by being kind to the local population. Pape’s evidence that the strategy and tactics of Israel are wrong, is that Hamas is still able to make new recruits, supposedly because of the devastation in Gaza is bringing the population and the militants closer together. However, the reality is that Israel’s discredited approach of letting millions of dollars into Hamas’ Gaza - and letting tens of thousands of Gazans work in Israel - and thousands of Gazans obtain medical treatment in Israel - was exactly based on the idea of winning hearts and minds. That didn’t work, because the Palestinians’ ideology, that they will remain refugees until they can reconquer the whole of Palestine from the Jews, is ingrained and heavily supported by international community (the UN and UNRWA). So in reality, the biggest recruitment push for Hamas was their huge success in overrunning Israel’s defences on October 7, giving them a glint of hope of achieving their end objective. The devastation of Gaza and the military losses of Hamas since are, if anything, mitigating this success - as evidenced by Shkaki’s polls indicating that support for Hamas is still high in the West Bank but dropping in Gaza. In the end, I believe both experts when they say that they have Israel’s future at heart, but Pape works under a completely wrong paradigm, while Spencer’s is much closer to reality.
I don't agree with Pape's views on this conflict but I agree with his end statement about having long, substantive, civil discussions between informed individuals who have substantive disagreements but agree to talk to each other. Amen.
John spencer won in his opening! And the other guys suggests Israel killing Hamas number 2 as 'low level' He lost all credibility this is an intellectual debate
Timestamp? I assume you mean Deif, along with 90 “collateral damage”? Israel just got him again last week 😂 did you believe them when they got him in 2014?
I’m a new listner to your channel, as well as a new FAN. Your approach to interviewing your guests is incredible. Bernard R Gifford Founding Member of BASIC (Black Americans in Support of Isreal).
@@comedycellarclips BASIC (Black Americans to Support Israel Committee) was founded in 1975 by such people as Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph, two major figures of the Civil Rights movement. Bernard Gifford's name is indeed in the list of original members of the organization; by looking up a NYT article about him, I've figured out he is now 80 years old. In 1975, much was known in the US about the PLO terror attacks; few knew that by 1980 about 1 in 5 Palestinians in the occupied territories had seen the inside of an Israeli jail (Mattityahu Peled) in which torture was used routinely (as reported by the London Sunday Times in 1977). By 1982 Yoram Peri was writing in Davar that the 3/4 of a million young Israelis who have served in the IDF "know that the task of the army is not only to defend the state in the battlefield against a foreign army, but to demolish the rights of innocent people just because they are Araboushim (a slur for Arabs) living in territories that God promised to us" using such humiliations as making them crawl on all four, bark like dogs, sing the Hatikvah, and write numbers on their arms in pen.
Great debate...2 remarks: 1: Noam's interventions had an intention to highlight Johns thesis. 2: John kept shaking his head and whispering to Noam while Robert was speaking which i found bizarre, also john kept speaking for more than 3 min as well but never got caught off like Robert. And Noam acting surprised when Robert said he was insulted is Insane, John was mocking him many many times and Noam kept intervening. this is just amazing. Nevertheless, Thanks Noam for putting this up, learned a lot.
I said I would intervene if, as a listener, I felt a question had been avoided. IMHO, Pape really never did answer what his tactics and strategic goals would have been on October 8th. A settlement freeze didn't strike me as a real answer. I wonder what you think. I did sneak in one comment about the settlements not being an issue that Hamas asked for, but really to illuminate why I think he was not answering the question. I also challenged Spencer on whether it was fair to say that there was not similarity to an insurgency.
@@comedycellarclips I tried being as objective as possible, though i agree that Pape answer was not the most clear, i did observe 'layups' to John, but hey, no one is completely objective. I guess my critics were more due to how john approached it. You can tell a lot with small things, things like insisting to call the west bank Judea and Samaria(not that he shouldn't), is he a Christian zionist ? At times, i sensed there was more than just objective military strategy, but also some emotional connection. Again, thanks for this ! we need more !
Israel has sadly lost. it has lost the PR game globally and no one respects or likes it today. Just because it managed to normalize relations with a few Arab states doesnt mean they are all allies. John really underestimates the power of the muslim brotherhood and OIC countries. That is a religious tie and goes deeper.
While John maybe defined small goals that are impossible to fail, Robert does the same sin in the opposite direction - defining goals so big that they're impossible to accomplish.
The very premise of Spencer’s argument was just refuted by the ICJ 2 days ago. According to the ICJ Gaza was not and is not an independent state. It *is* an occupied territory. So the basis on which Spencer builds his argument is, from the outset, incorrect. This is not a conventional war. The Article 51 provision of self-defense does not apply since Article 51 applies to inter-state conflicts only, and Gaza is, per the ICJ, not a state. Also, since this is now deemed a permanent illegal occupation, Israel is not simply defending itself. Based on the ICJ ruling Hamas is an insurgency and a resistance movement to an illegal occupation despite Spencer’s hemming and hawing that he “doesn’t know what to do with people who make this argument”. It turns out that it is Spencer who is wrong here. Since the way that Spencer defines success is, a priori, incorrect, it is not surprising that the points he makes that are built on his erroneous foundational assumptions are also wrong. Another point to make here is the definition of “strategy”. If, as Clausewitz said, war is just politics by other means, it is very hard to understand how this political strategy of this war is making Israel safer. There is very little evidence that it has actually eroded the military capabilities of Hamas. In fact, Hamas just 2 weeks ago used a new weapon not used before in this conflict. They do not appear to be running out of weapons or fighters. The US intelligence community has indicated that they believe that Hamas has gained nearly as many fighters as it has lost. Meanwhile the Israeli military is in shambles. Morale is at an all-time low, desertions are increasing, and they are now starting to draft the Orthodox into the military to replenish their ranks, as they don’t have enough fighters. A few other notes: -Israel itself now admits that it is fighting a 7-front war. It is being bombed every day. And this war seems to be escalating. A war with Hezbollah would devastate Israel proper in a way it has never seen in its history. This will exacerbate many of the following points. -It has evacuated northern Israel due to the fighting, thus shrinking the size of the Israeli state for the first time in its history. -Israel’s military deterrent has dried up. This, probably more than any other single factor, had been keeping Israel safe. Nations are witnessing the incredibly poor performance of the Israeli military against a hopelessly overmatched opponent and are, frankly, not as worried about the response that Israel will muster. -It is currently on trial at the ICJ for genocide; a case that most international lawyers I speak to say Israel will probably lose. -Its PM and DM each are about to have warrants issued against it for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the ICC. -Its economy is in shambles. One recent report indicates that over 46,000 businesses have failed in Israel since Oct 7 and the subsequent war. International investment has cratered, including the withdrawal of a $25 billion factory by Intel. -Over 500,000 Israelis have left Israel, opting to go back to their nations of origin. -Israel’s international standing has never been lower. It is diplomatically isolated, and the continued legal cases against it are going to increase its isolation and probably have material impacts on the Israeli economy and military. -The plight of the Palestinian people has now become a global movement. This *partial* list sure leads one to conclude that this war has been a strategic disaster for Israel. Spencer focuses on some of the tactical military wins that Israel may have achieved but in balance this seems like a catastrophe for Israel that is only going to get worse.
Your propaganda of the Muslim Brotherhood is simply full of lies, ICJ is a trail is corrupt from the first moment, qute- The president of the International Court of Justice, which is tomorrow releasing an opinion in another politically-motivated case targeting Israel, voted 210 times to condemn the Jewish state when he served as Lebanon’s UN ambassador, and delivered inflammatory speeches accusing “terrorist Jewish organizations” of committing “organized massacres,” according to a new report by the non-governmental organization "UN Watch". -Yes, Israel will lose the case because it's not about justice.. -Regarding to the immigration, new data from the Israel Data Authority states that there is less immigration on average in the last year compared to a to this year, there were exceptional data only in the month of October which balanced out in a natural way. -Regarding the economy, the situation today is that there are large budget deviations which probably reach 10% of GDP. But it is important to remember that most of the expenses have already taken place, the intensity of the fighting has greatly decreased and if there is no further war in the north it will take Israel a few years to pay off the debts. After the Corona, the State of Israel had a debt similar to today's situation and the debt was closed within one year. -The elections in the United States will greatly change the picture in the Middle East if Trump comes to power, Saudi Arabia is waiting for the Republican leadership to sign an agreement together with Israel that will turn Israel into a transit route for goods that will be bigger than the Suez Canal. When the line will bring huge revenues to the State of Israel. -Europe has moved to the right to governments that are much more pro-Israeli, in addition to the developing war with Russia and the high budget that the European Union intends to spend on arms procurement, Israel will be among the only countries outside of Europe that will benefit from this. Israeli defense exports are at an all-time high even before the 7/10 war. -The most important point is the axis that was forged following the Abraham agreements that expresses the defense ties between countries that proves itself every day. -The Palestinians have been fighting Israel for 80 years while Israel is only getting stronger and they stay behind because of the desire to destroy another people, therefore we are witnessing another chapter from which there will be great Israeli economic growth, first and foremost because of the Israeli human capital and the natural growth of the Israeli population that wants to fight for its freedom and grow Unlike the left-wing Western world that is destroying itself and bringing in immigrants from all over the world in order to create a false image of economic growth. this list leads one to conclude that israel near future will be a little bumpy untill Hamas and Hezbolla will be push back, but in the long tarm future look bright..
I appreciate you trying to make sense of our conflict, but you make the same mistake Pape does. You're clearly intelligent and well-read, but you fail to understand the realities past the information that is provided to you. As someone living in Israel I can tell you that the IDF is operationally stronger than ever since Oct. 7th. Sure there are internal issues, but that doesn't really have any impact on daily operations. Our ranks are swelling, so much so that we are filtering people out so that they can better support the economy. The IDF is definitely not "in shambles", but you are welcomed to believe that if it means that our enemies underestimate us and believe that as well. Maybe Palestinians are more prominent in the media, but I think they will also find that this is a double edged sword. You assume that Israel has not wanted to find a solution to this conflict, which is false. What you and most of the world will now see is that your faith in Palestinians will not be rewarded with any concrete steps by them towards peace, regardless of the generosity of the offer given to them. Anything short of the complete destruction of Israel will not suffice for their leadership.
Amazing to get both of these together. One thing I’d recommend for future interviews/ debates like this is to remove some of the combativeness. John and Noam were a bit unfair to Pape and I am much more aligned with John. I love that they both are coming at this from the perspective of wanting the best for Israel. They just have different ideas on how to achieve those ends. A more open discussion with less attacks on each other would be much more valuable. Perhaps have general topics that are discussed openly for 15 mins. Then move on. Military strategy; humanitarian aid; impact of settlements; international perspective; impact of UN and NGOs; how to reeducate Palestinian population; Hamas vs PA; etc. Wonderful to put this together. Get these guys back on with a bit more framework. And start the show by acknowledging that both bring very important and valuable perspectives.
Just from an entertainment perspective (because let's be real this a podcast ran by alleged comedians) Robert Pape was the more interesting voice and had a more easily understood narrative, and it helps he was the most courteous and respectful.
The man said send in some special forces in an urban dense city without any map of the area This ridiculous, no government should listen to this man on white shirt .
You just exposed your ignorance by your comment despite the fact that Israel occupied and blockaded Gaza, can see every square foot with satellite and 24/7 drone coverage and assistance from US & British Intelligence you still think that Israel does not have a map of Gaza. How were the Israel special forces able to rescue the 4 hostages from an urban densely populated city without any map of the area...🤔🤔
From his opening John is already wrong. The International Court of Justice ruled on 19 July 2024 Gaza as "occupied" no different than the West Bank and East Juruselem. Therefore Gaza is not a state or foreign territory. He refers to UN Article 51 on self-defence however it is not relevant as Gaza is not a state. The ICJ has just blown up his argument.
Your analysis doesn’t follow. The ICJ’s determination of the legal status of Gaza has no bearing on whether the state of Israel is lawfully able to militarily destroy Hamas pursuant to Article 51, because Article 51 does not hinge upon whether or not the entity posing the threat (i.e., Hamas) is a sovereign state or if it exists in an occupied territory.
The point is not to provide an educational, productive, or nuanced insight, or discussion on the great geopolitical crime of our age. The point is to make Noam feel better about being a genocidal pos.
@@talsapps English isnt my first language, you will have to excuse me but i assume there are various ways to gain expertise on a topic, in this case having a conversation with the group would be a start, they do give interviews you know
@@alphapen_dragon8554 they are terrorists. They don't tell the truth, it's like making an interview with the taliban, all they do is 100% propaganda. You are a ridiculous person.
@@alphapen_dragon8554 they are terrorists. They don't tell the truth, it's like making an interview with the taliban, all they do is 100% propaganda. You are a ridiculous person.
Really interesting. But I cant help but find all these ww2 comparisons dumb. Like muslims just are fundamentally too different from germans/japenese particularly with how much they (don't) value life. Plus some of them see this as a holy war not a war with future prospectives we could discuss about.
And I gotta say Norm, your question and fury over the settlements things is just absolutely ridiculous. Like you do understand they're illegal right? You understand they're immoral and a direct road-block to a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine? Now you're making the argument that settlements should continue as a punitive measure and a way to not "reward" terrorism. You seriously cannot be a neutral moderator in these types of debates, you consistently interrupted Robert and as other commenters have pointed out it was almost like you were a little tag-team with John with the little whispers and the smiles. What is your intention doing these really? Do you even know? Because it's not to really have an honest conversation. I think the Rashid Khalidi interview was proof enough of that.
Noam, because I know you read these comments, and I'll make it brief - you have to read Maher Arar's investigative piece on the Al-Ahli Hospital bombing.
Both people brought interesting perspectives and I don’t think either should be dismissed. The most interesting perspective I found was Robert indicating that Israel leadership should have announced a freeze of settlements. At first, I found this absurd, but if they would’ve made that announcement and Hamas’s reaction was effectively that it doesn’t matter to them and they wouldn’t make any concessions to themselves, then it would at least play into Israel’s belief that the settlements never mattered. It would help to disillusion this idea in the West.
The terrorists couldn't care less about "settlements." They called the victims in Sderot "settlers" as they murdered them. They call all Israelis "settlers."
A reality Spencer doesn't mention: US generals are also diplomats, and once Israel went in on the ground, people like Petraeus felt a duty to give unconditional support to our ally. Comments they made after the attack on Gaza started must be taken with a huge grain of salt. If you listen to McMaster on his own podcast, he's always very careful not to say too much beyond the Republican party line, like he's trying to sell something. That goes for Petraeus's comments on Spencer's podcast as well.
Also, Israle had no settlements in '48 or '67 or '83. Islam is based on hatred, not settlements or land. How does Pape explain Arabs turning down 5 -- 5! -- offers of land far greater than what is left now?
@@ak203 Rubbish. 1948 was expelling 750K Palistinians and a settlement in itself. Post 1967 occupation of Palistinian territory has been deemed illegal and Israel must vacate. This is not a religious conflict, its real estate and occupation only that. Israel have never in 76 years agreed to a true Palistinian state only a enclave controlled by Israel. This Zionist propaganda is tiresome. Israel is now a pariah state.
@@lookbovine True. Its both violence, plus hatred. Why is there zero tolerance for others in Muslim countries? And I say violence because the religion spread rapidly through violence. They didn't go campfire to campfire through Africa, Asia and Europe persuading people.
It’s like watching box match, but somehow participants in very different weight categories. This professor has no clue of what is happening in this region.
Please try to blend your analyses so that we can arrive at a fuller plan that incorporates your different points of view into a more comprehensive strategy . Don’t be divided by your differences join into a synthesis that includes the concerns of both sides
Great exchange. Professor Pape misunderstands the conflict. He correctly identifies a broader strategic objective beyond Gaza and Hamas, but he's wrong to treat it as an insurgency. The main issue is Iran and its proxies, along with the funding mechanisms, which are “hindered” by the Biden Administration. Professor Pape's suggestion of freezing settlements is nonsensical. Palestinian society, supported by not only Hamas but also the PLO/PA and others, desires all of Israel. Similar to WWII's Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, a significant deprogramming is necessary-likely a point of agreement between Pape and Spencer.
I wish Perielle (sorry if my spelling is atrocious) had been there to more assertively cut off Pape when he went Overtime, which I feel like he did pretty much constantly. Noam was lovely as ever, and I thought John did a great job with what seems like a tremendously frustrating situation. I have enjoyed him on the podcast before, although I felt kind of bad for him in this case.
I have had over half a dozen posts removed and have no understanding as to why. Sometimes it feels like were living in times reminiscent Orwellian fiction.
The older professor was wrong claiming that Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" in Iraq. That was on a banner on the aircraft carrier he landed on. His speech on that carrier, and after, did not claim that. Rather, that was on a very large banner placed on the outside of part of the "island," which is part of the ship sticking up on the flight deck. The island is a sort of short steel skyscraper sticking up on the side of the flight deck. The banner was a morale booster for the crew. I was a crewmember of a carrier myself, and morale was not a problem. But praising accomplishments is thing many officers do when they can, and it does indeed usually help with morale. in this case, the Captain was praising his crew, on their way home, having accomplished all of their goals on their assignment. The same anti-Republican media was attacking Bush then, as it attacks Trump now. They made a propaganda campaign lying and saying that Bush had that banner placed there and was trying to convince America that we had accomplished our mission in Iraq. This guy bought the Fake News about that then, as many buy it today. Surprised that he brings it up today!
@@johnspencer328George Bush did say loud and clear that "in the battle of Iraq, the US & its allies have prevailed", with Mission Accomplished banner in the background. th-cam.com/video/5yCsmwoMecU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ue3URys4GWQESeiI
The only insult here is to put a 4 y/o against a scholar - and of course inevitably the 4 y/o cried (felt insulted). By now it should be abundantly clear that this has never been about land or settlements - and the idea that we make concessions after getting brutalized, is about cognitively deficient as me trying to make an NBA basketball team. What a cowardly low-life debate. Very disappointing you wasted Mr. Spencer's time like that!!!
Was our release of $3.5b military aid yesterday proof that they are winning or contrary to that? And how about sending fleets out to protect them last week? Further proof?
What spencer says is that the ability to wage effective war such that can achive Hamas charter obligations - that ability is degraded such that another october 7 is impossible. However Pape is right that all it takes is once successful rocket launch, or one bearded beswathed male to wave an RPG for the war to be deemed a failure.
You could argue that Israel should have waged the war a bit differently but the alternative Pape gave was a combination of Woodstock LSD trip and Call of duty PS5 tactics. Totally detached from reality and morality.
This played out exactly as I thought it would. Military Veteran / Military Academic’s knowledge is leaps and bounds ahead of theoretical academic who has never left his desk and gone to where the rubber meets the road. All theory and ego.
Tremendously interesting, informative and thought-provoking. I will be mulling over this discussion for a few days and be doing more reading and research to aid my development of understanding. Thanks
Right off the bat Spencer says the Gaza situation is not counter-terrrism, not counter-insurgency… Okay? Hamas are most definitely non-state actors in occupied territory. He’s an expert? Look up the terms yourself. He’s selling something, something called Israel.
I think the final words of both reveal the exact error of thinkers like them in foreign lands. First, this war is not a territorial war, Hamas does not care about territory only through its religious aspect, namely that a territory ever conquered by Islam remains forever an Islamic territory. Second, Germans are not Nazis and Nazism is not Germany, but Hamas is the Arab population and the Arab population is Hamas. So there is no way to separate the two.
Battles often DO end wars: Waterloo anyone? Two atom bombs on Japan were two battles and were decisive-ditto Stalin’s troops invading Berlin-ended WW2 Europe, etc.
Robert has no business debating someone of John's stature and experience. As to Robert's premise that hamas is winning the hearts and minds of the Gaza population I believe you debunked that citing his own survey which showed that Hamas support in Gaza barely grew post 10/7. His retort that he's talking about the West Bank sounds especially hollow now after he spent all this time arguing that the Gazan population will continue supporting hamas bc of Israel's "punishment". Finally I don't believe Robert (as I don't believe Mearsheimer) when he says he cares about Israel specifically bc Robert uses terms like punishment. I wish John would have had an opportunity to debunk his claims concerning the "punishment" which is just another hamas talking point.
57:04 This is a classic narcissist move. He knows he’s losing the argument, so he makes it personal and reveals he is unable to separate criticism of ideas from criticism of self.
@@joge2468 whenever I feel like patronizing someone and they get offended, I like to call them a narcissist for getting offended in the first place. Foolproof tactic and is definitely also great for keeping the argument focused on ideas instead of personal attacks.
@@samrands5967 The name-dropping, constant references to “my center,” insistence on superiority, and unrelenting condescension were evidence enough. The invocation of victimhood was just the icing on the cake.
@@joge2468 I think you, and most of the other people in these comments as well, can't actually deal with what he said so you resort to budget psychoanalyzing him or saying he doesn't know anything because he wasn't in the military. You can't explain away how John Spencer was effectively incoherent, so you cry about imagined superiority and condescension, when the guy was being condescended to the whole time, and he was the one at the end saying he appreciated the conversation and thanked John. Have you considered that you may be the narcissist here?
Pape is right, they had clout and leverage and just wanted to use it all up and some and ruined everything. Here we are no wins, disaster, and they look like utter monsters.
I take no issue with an academic making assessments, but there are too many logical fallacies, and omission of facts from Pape's commentary. I would also prefer for him to not be so defensive, and simply state his opinion as opinion, instead of name dropping, and riddling off facts, as though they support his argument. It is hard to follow.
Pape is chasing "pie in the sky" idealistic notions of "limited military action, combined with a stronger political strategy," blah, blah blah, and he refers to himself as "a realist." Contradiction in terms. 👎🏼
44:40 John doesn't like the idea of letting rockets rain down on Israel while doing nothing, because ordering massive airstrikes against Gaza feels like something - even though it's understood, and you can read this in Ha'aretz analyses by Yaniv Kubovich, that it was the ground invasion that stopped rocket fire and not the strikes of the air force. He discounts the idea that Hamas could be negotiated with, or even an ultimatum issued to them perhaps, to stop the rocket fire. He also summarily dismisses the idea of getting the hostages back using only special forces and limited airstrikes and (not mentioned) negotiating. But, again as you know if you read Yaniv Kubovich's articles, it is "not the mission of Israeli forces in Gaza" to recover the hostages - that's a direct quote - and it's simply unquestionable that more hostages have been killed by the war than freed by it. How John Spencer is allowed to fly postulates like this without being pressed on them is beyond me. Next, he assumes that withdrawing the West Bank settlers and establishing two states would do nothing for Hamas because 1) he doesn't realize that there really is a push-and-pull between the goals of Hamas and the Palestinians in general, with each responding to the other and 2) he has internalized the idea that the West Bank and Gaza are separate entities with no shared future, otherwise it would be obvious that you can't withdraw settlers from only one of them and call it a day. He also balks at references to the 20-day opening air campaign as "mass punishment." Yet Adam Raz in Ha'aretz has testified repeatedly to its military uselessness, quoting Tamir Pardo, the ex-Mossad chief's description of it as "purely vengeful" and emphasizing that "it's a well-known conclusion from past wars that airstrikes don't work." In +972 Magazine's "Lavender" anonymous soldier testimonies from the early days say things like: "At first, the atmosphere was painful and vindictive...There was a dissonance: on the one hand, people here were frustrated that we were not attacking enough. On the other hand, you see at the end of the day that another thousand Gazans have died, most of them civilians.” And that 'in a day without targets [whose feature rating was sufficient to authorize a strike], we attacked at a lower threshold. We were constantly being pressured: "Bring us more targets." They really shouted at us. We finished [killing] our targets very quickly.' Again, I'd enjoy coming on with you, you can check out my content on TikTok by the same username.
Hello- brother, i'll try to answer and debate some of your claims. 1. You simply cannot make ground invasion in Gaza if you don't bomb Hamas facilities beforehand, because their main tactic (not strategy) is using traps on the ground and rockets from tunnels, both of them makes it suicidal to just rush your ground forces in, and aircraft bombimg is a solution that works on both of them. Right after you clear the territory by air bombs you can send your ground forces to hold ground and disable Hamas ability to fire rockets. 2. Fortunately, bringing the hostages back is still one of the main goals for the IDF forces in Gaza, Yaniv in simple wrong. But you might be right that more hostages are being killed by the war, the "Kabinet" of Israel gave the benefit of the doubt to Hamas, they speculate that Hamas would not use the hostages as human shield like their own citizens because a live hostage is valued more than dead ones on the negotiating tables. 3. Withdrawing from the West Bank right after the october 7 would have streghten Hamas support in the West Bank, because they would be seen as the ones who managed to wage war on the Jews and to win back a territory. 4. It is simply wrong to claim that Israeli air strikes/Air Forces "don't work", the IDF Air forces contributions to Israel winning most of her wars is unprecedented by any historians, even the most anti-zionist historians. 5. There is free society in Israel, so its very easy to find quotes of Israelis that brings a genocide sentiment over the Gaza population, it is a well-known phenomenon of wars that people get more extreme. But its still hold nothing and cannot indicate if the IDF manage the war immorally. 6. Witness testimonies are important, but sadly for you there is more witnesses who testified for the risk they are taking on the ground by obeying the systematic approach of the IDF to obey international law and even do beyond it. It is a matter of cherry picking you witness testimony that confirms your narrative.
Yeah of course it ground forces ultimately stopped the rockets. But as the other commenter pointed out, combined arms maneuver into the teeth of prepared urban defenses would be suicide without air power preparing the way. Kuwait in 91 was ultimately liberated by the 96 hour ground campaign, but the ground campaign went as smoothly as it did because of the Coalition’s air campaign.
The growth of Hizzballah has nothing to do with Israeli fighting the PLO in Lebanon but in the Iranian revolution taking command of untold oil riches and usingn them to sponsor proxies. If the US had locked down Iranina ability to export oil from day one none of those proxies would have grown past fledgling.
Spencer has also been saying Ukraine is winning and can still win, for the last two years. Not the best use of realism. Billions of dollars later, his recommendation/ advice is questionable. Because he was so correct about what would work in Ukraine and what Russia's strategic goals were. Sure, yeah okay
We did NOT lose the Viet Nam War-hello? Paris Peace Accords -the peace settlement was done for years until North Vietnam restarted the war and invaded the South long, long after the Paris Peace Accords.
…. will be interesting tu see who waz more on point at the end of thiz mass soul sending…. i would of prefered less of the personal attackz tho…. ie…. 44 minz…. ….
Always weird how folks like Spencer that claim a "body fallacy" but somehow insist on ratios. It's like loving fractions but being unwilling to accept the denominator.
![[UNCUT] "เสรีพิศุทธ์" แฉยับ! งัดหลักฐานใหม่ชั้น 14 ได้นอนคุกสมใจแน่!! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 2 ก.ย.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/O1SSg4p9Izs/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Re:all TREASURE] EP.6 in 방콕ㅣ🚩 쩡캠의 방콕 투어 빵 마이 와이 👍](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uyFw-nItA_s/mqdefault.jpg)
Noam, I’d imagine you’ve done some pretty cool things in your life, but I think you’ve really found your calling with these interviews and debates. Many thanks.
Thank you
Great job getting these people together. Without exception, the best and most informative conversations that I have listened to on the subject of the Israeli/ Gaza war have been on your channel. Thanks for creating this great space for open exchange and challenge of perspectives and ideas.
Oh wow I heard you mention this idea in the Pape podcast, but didn’t realize you’d make it happen so quickly! This is awesome
Great Job! 2 smart people offering their perspectives on the war. Haven't seen something like that in a long time. Thank you.
Pape sounds nuts
This Robert Pape is teaching and advising US military? Scary thought
The the USA has not won a war since the Korean conflict. Since then it has lost every war and forced to run to mama. Israel has not won a war since the Yom Kippur war 1973. Nor has Russia.
Great conversation much respect to papa and Spencer they were both very informative, wish we had more of these kinds of debate here in israel
Israel is lucky that Robert Pape is not its adviser!!
Cope
100%!!!
Israel is pretty unlucky to elect incompetent criminals as its leaders.
Just based on the reading of credentials, it is clear that Spencer's expertise is based on experience and Pape is simply an academic. I will prefer Spencer's opinion every time.
Seems to me like he has a lot of experience losing counter insurgency
@@samrands5967 exactly. Spencer was a mere Major who followed orders to create one of the largest mistakes in United States military history. Yet his experience is being referenced. Truly amazing
The guy who went to a country thousands of miles way to fight and kill innocent civilians for no reason at all.
@JohnSpencer328 for the win 🏆 mighty respect to both men for maintaining civil discourse throughout. 🙏 Pape seems to be basing his proposed strategies under the assumption that Israel isn’t operating under “triple standards” that simply don’t allow them to execute their strategies the same way as the USA…or any other nation on earth…
Also, ceding land in exchange for terror…….really???????
I was surprised by Professor Pape’s defensiveness. I didn’t think Noam or Spencer were insulting him. The question was what Israel should have done on Oct 8, and he suggested giving back settlements.
He was defensive because he got emotional about getting dumped on. Dude lost the debate and looked silly.
@@TigerHoganI couldn’t disagree more. Unfortunately Noam can’t rid himself of his devotion and love for Israel in order to be a neutral moderator. So it was 2 vs 1. And if you’re the 1 in that situation, it’s hard not to feel like you’re being attacked.
@@TigerHoganneither of them were rude or unprofessional. It's really suprising that he got defensive. He is supposed to an adult, academic professional expert, not a high school student in a debate class. There were no insults whatsoever. Seems like he is not used to having his ideas challenged
@@TigerHoganhow did he loose the debate? Pape advocated a hard response.. and ? How did this help Isreal ? Shunned and isolated. Oh btw how long it took America to get the hostages in Iran?😉
@@courtneytwait3351Noam was very fair he gave Mr.Pape multiple times to clarify his silly answers that was very generous most people are not so patient with silly people wasting time with completely unrealistic ‘ideas’ & risking American lives in the process
This was extremely interesting. Spencer was typically serious and credible; Pape, by contrast, was sneeringly overconfident.That one is a military expert and the other a social scientist is perhaps the explanation.
Pape is clearly used to patronising his interlocutors and audiences; and he manifestlt looks down on 'mid-level' solider Spencer who simply doesn't understand the high-level strategic stuff Pape is a self declared expert in. Pape is also clearly unused to having his words reflected back at him and was extremely petulent.
It is a shame the Pape is so deaf to the realities of Gaza and mired in prejudiced towards, and ignorant of, Israel.
I watched the same interview and Spencer was the on who was more emotional and willing to attack Pape personally. To his credit Pape didn't engage and admirably argued his main thesis that Israel's strategy is woefully misguided and not in their best interests.
Yeah it's like you mixed up the names. The minute Spencer had his ideas challenged he started incoherently rambling and avoided all of papes points and arguments.
@@samrands5967 Spencer would say things like"if you disagree with me you are not a student of war". Spencer was a mere Major in one of the dumbest operations in United States military history. Him saying that has none of the intended effect he thinks it does.
@@jepper6140 there's definitely a theme in this of the tactical vs the strategic. The major is used to commanding operations, so he sees Israel doing that well and thinks they're winning. But he can't see the strategic level: that fighting the war as a conventional war was not only not working but completely counter productive.
How many wars has Spencer won? What has he accomplished with the United States military?
Thanks John.
Guy who has never fought in a war condescendingly tells guy who has actually fought in war how to fight a war. 🤦♀️
Said every Nazi ever.
What wars has america won in the past? Spencer was part of one of the most wasteful operations in american history namely the Iraq war. None of his experience is relevant. War needs to be studied. Pape is a scholar and Spencer is a charlatan.
But he read books. Lots of them
As if a baby killer wouldn't find it in their best interest to defend fellow baby killers? Use your head you ideologue
@@shabbaranks7968 is that why you defend Hamas?
Claiming that Israel is winning at this point is delusional. Spencer makes the mistake of seeing military force as the only instrument for shaping and influencing the environment. This is why we have lost every war since WWII. You cannot defeat a national aspirational resistance movement with military force. It will always come back.
It seems that Pape is missing a lot of context in this issue. Agreeing to stop expanding the settlements in order to get the hostages back would not achieve any war goals nor bring the hostages back. If he believes settlements is Hamas’s sticking point then he is very naive. He is also missing the cultural context in the Middle East region. Strength speaks and compromise only translates to weakness.
Yeah he's putting his name on this, yet he is clearly speaking out of complete ignorance of the history of this conflict.
Yes killing children in mass says everything. Jfc
What an incredible service this is doing in the public course. I haven’t seen this quality of experts in a long-form debate on any platform. Spencer is a pay grade above and has seen battle firsthand, his arguments are more credible and stronger overall, and Pape's disturbing and irresponsible use of the word punishment, and pie-in-the-sky academic approach to what Israel's strategy should have been on the 8th including rewarding terrorists with concessions and using special forces make him sound a bit biased or naive, but it’s good to hear reasonable experts debating each other in good faith.
Spencer is so plainly incompetent! (That's why he has to pretend he's studied _every_ urban conflict that every happened.) He effectively strengthens Hamas - We can just look at the longterm outcomes before admiring such a "Dunning-Krueger kid". Think critically and realistically and you'll be far ahead of him.
Lol I looked up a few of this guys tweets. There aren't that many but he tends to be wrong.
Spencer was not reasonable. He was frequently passive agressive and attacked Pape personally until he was finally called out on it.
Remember the debates we were able to listen to and watch pre-internet? There would be like mini-debates on cnn or fox but they were nothing like what we see today. These discussions are impressive although I don’t think much actually comes from debates
@@zetristan4525 your clearly competent to judge America, if not, the world leading expert on urban warfare.
Both high level thinking, and honest positions.
I tend to side with John as his critique conflates Palestinians as one monolithic outcome oriented blob when he sees fit and differentiates when he sees fit.
If 67" is the period in which he says settlements are the primary issue driving the intentions of HAMAS then why would they have attacked Israel in such a fashion?
Oslo accords have split west bank into 3 regions, A/B are governed completely by PA, B has Israeli military pressence which is the only thing stopping HAMAS from removing PAs heads.
All the other functional states that have engaged in war/diplomacy with Israel have come to mutual agreements.
HAMAS and even west bank Palestinians don't care about settlements, nor would they have any claim to where settlements are. Gaza/Sianai was occupied by Egypt after the mandate and handed back to Egypt / Palestinian rule. West bank was ruled by Jordan and when Israel offered to return it they refused.
The occuptation they are describing isnt the one that came about at 67 war, its the desecration and invalidation of the caliphate/islamic superirity by the state of Israel existing in once conquered imperial caliphate lands, which specifically commands aherents to fight until its returned.
Why does Robert think that a democratic state should capitulate to a barbaric brand of 7th century Islamic conquest being thrust into the 21st century and down everyones throats is beyond me.
I think John is the most practical voice coming out of America nowadays.
The Islamists ideaology is feeding off the flaccid stance US is taking towards, and all of the US allies have been left to suffer the consequences of its indifference.
Imagine telling someone to concede a bargaining chip while the corpses of their citizens bodies arent cold post slaughter.
Actually you know what would lead to peace in the region, if israel just got everyone into one location and nuked itself then the palestinian islamist agenda would be served and there wouldnt be another war in the middle east again right?
Hezzbollah and Hamas wouldnt just aim all this military focus on one another? The seperate familial groups in the mandate region wouldnt be warring for power / control. All the water / food / power needs would be met for the people of the region, all the women would be emancipated from subjugation, gays free to express thenselves, elections would be held regularly, anti-semetic propaghanda would be removed from kids tv shows, educational material and stop being taught in mosques, muslim brotherhood would lose desire for global caliphate, political violence would cease, aid money wouldnt be funnelled out of the country into private bank accounts and the list goes on.
Fantastic reply!
What a stupid comment. Wasted my time skimming it.
I think they didn't address an important question: 'Why was Hamas able to conduct such a wide attack on October 7th?'
The answer to this question is also the answer to what Israel should do, and is partially doing, in this war.
Pape is being a typical academic dork using the strategy-tactics dynamic as a cudgel for his pie in the sky nonsense. Westpoint guy is talking about reality. So easy to flatly say “YoU cAnT dEsTrOy aN iDeOlOgY.” Derp.
Debate between a genuine expert and a professional bloviator.
The expert being Pape and the bloviator being Spencer
of all the important points that John Spencer made in the first minutes of the colloquy, the most important were:
1. Pape's failure to understand that recruits* to a terrorist org deprived of weapons, etc, have been largely neutralized; and.
2. Pape's confusion about the phase of operations & his reliance upon false analogies.
2 other points:
1. Pape relies upon the dubious assumptions that, if Israel continues to destroy the terrorist leadership & combat strength, the terrorists will be able to recruit more fighters & those fighters could be effective, and,
2. Pape's doubt about the death of deif shows, his contrary assertions notwithstanding, Pape's bias. it's true that Pape settled into a more reasonable statement that the death hadn't been proven but, under the circumstances, does anyone think that it could be?
Yeah that shows his true bias, he said Israel missed dief.
It shows that his bias is against Israel and yet repeatedly saying that he is pro Israel.
Not very believable.
Also his whole argument comes from Israel should be making concessions always even if there is no partner to do it with.
It's the typical university high preaching bs that we keep hearing.
It completely ignores the history of cinstant violence in response to concessions.
You summed up Spencer’s arguments by just saying what he said against Pape…
You know Israel’s not even sure what Deif LOOKS like, right?
General Petraeus and McMaster conducting campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan did not have the urgency of removing threat to their homefront. Rockets did not fall on US soil.
56:56 seemed like a bit of freudian slip. He knows he’s a naive idiot and by saying it himself he did the other two the courtesy of not having to say what they were both thinking 😂
Exactly, all they did was repeat his words back at him.
They didn't even make a conclusion he made that conclusion by himself.
John Spencer clearly won this debate. He came across as the authentic and credible “expert” on the Gaza conflict whereas Robert Pape is really just an irritating “eye specialist”. I found what he said was mostly nonsense.
Pape comes across so much better than Spencer who seems unable to grasp basic concepts under discussion.
I agree with Spencer and not Pape (see my other comment for my concerns with Pape), but I think Spencer came in way too hot. As I said, I think Spencer is right, but it's important that we listen to people who disagree with us in order to test our ideas.
If Pape were correct that there is another strategy available that could lead to more peace and security for Israel than sure, I'd say try it! And it's not unreasonable for Pape to argue for it, even if we ultimately disagree with him.
I was stunned by the lack of understanding of the situation in Gaza displayed by Robert Pape, who is undoubtedly an expert on military strategy. His proposals for what Israel should do - limited airstrikes, special ops operations, and settlement freeze (!) - display a profound ignorance of the tactical and strategic environment that Israel operates in.
I think John Spencer’s diagnosis of Pape is correct: Pape is adamant to pain the Gaza war as a counterinsurgency operation where you must win hearts and minds by being kind to the local population. Pape’s evidence that the strategy and tactics of Israel are wrong, is that Hamas is still able to make new recruits, supposedly because of the devastation in Gaza is bringing the population and the militants closer together.
However, the reality is that Israel’s discredited approach of letting millions of dollars into Hamas’ Gaza - and letting tens of thousands of Gazans work in Israel - and thousands of Gazans obtain medical treatment in Israel - was exactly based on the idea of winning hearts and minds. That didn’t work, because the Palestinians’ ideology, that they will remain refugees until they can reconquer the whole of Palestine from the Jews, is ingrained and heavily supported by international community (the UN and UNRWA). So in reality, the biggest recruitment push for Hamas was their huge success in overrunning Israel’s defences on October 7, giving them a glint of hope of achieving their end objective. The devastation of Gaza and the military losses of Hamas since are, if anything, mitigating this success - as evidenced by Shkaki’s polls indicating that support for Hamas is still high in the West Bank but dropping in Gaza.
In the end, I believe both experts when they say that they have Israel’s future at heart, but Pape works under a completely wrong paradigm, while Spencer’s is much closer to reality.
Exactly!
@@user-fo4gw9op7e Nice bit of Zionist propaganda you concocted there.
I don't agree with Pape's views on this conflict but I agree with his end statement about having long, substantive, civil discussions between informed individuals who have substantive disagreements but agree to talk to each other. Amen.
John spencer won in his opening! And the other guys suggests Israel killing Hamas number 2 as 'low level' He lost all credibility this is an intellectual debate
Timestamp? I assume you mean Deif, along with 90 “collateral damage”? Israel just got him again last week 😂 did you believe them when they got him in 2014?
Everyone they take they call number 2. Who are you referring to?
I’m a new listner to your channel, as well as a new FAN.
Your approach to interviewing your guests is incredible.
Bernard R Gifford
Founding Member of BASIC (Black Americans in Support of Isreal).
Thank you!!!
@@comedycellarclips BASIC (Black Americans to Support Israel Committee) was founded in 1975 by such people as Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph, two major figures of the Civil Rights movement. Bernard Gifford's name is indeed in the list of original members of the organization; by looking up a NYT article about him, I've figured out he is now 80 years old. In 1975, much was known in the US about the PLO terror attacks; few knew that by 1980 about 1 in 5 Palestinians in the occupied territories had seen the inside of an Israeli jail (Mattityahu Peled) in which torture was used routinely (as reported by the London Sunday Times in 1977). By 1982 Yoram Peri was writing in Davar that the 3/4 of a million young Israelis who have served in the IDF "know that the task of the army is not only to defend the state in the battlefield against a foreign army, but to demolish the rights of innocent people just because they are Araboushim (a slur for Arabs) living in territories that God promised to us" using such humiliations as making them crawl on all four, bark like dogs, sing the Hatikvah, and write numbers on their arms in pen.
Pape IS so arrogant. He is representing the misconception that led to the October 7
Exactly!
Spencer is amazingly smart and knowledgeable. The other guy is clueless.
Great debate...2 remarks:
1: Noam's interventions had an intention to highlight Johns thesis.
2: John kept shaking his head and whispering to Noam while Robert was speaking which i found bizarre, also john kept speaking for more than 3 min as well but never got caught off like Robert.
And Noam acting surprised when Robert said he was insulted is Insane, John was mocking him many many times and Noam kept intervening. this is just amazing.
Nevertheless, Thanks Noam for putting this up, learned a lot.
I said I would intervene if, as a listener, I felt a question had been avoided. IMHO, Pape really never did answer what his tactics and strategic goals would have been on October 8th. A settlement freeze didn't strike me as a real answer. I wonder what you think.
I did sneak in one comment about the settlements not being an issue that Hamas asked for, but really to illuminate why I think he was not answering the question.
I also challenged Spencer on whether it was fair to say that there was not similarity to an insurgency.
@@comedycellarclips I tried being as objective as possible, though i agree that Pape answer was not the most clear, i did observe 'layups' to John, but hey, no one is completely objective.
I guess my critics were more due to how john approached it. You can tell a lot with small things, things like insisting to call the west bank Judea and Samaria(not that he shouldn't), is he a Christian zionist ? At times, i sensed there was more than just objective military strategy, but also some emotional connection.
Again, thanks for this ! we need more !
@@GandalfMrPotter Judaea and Samaria is certainly more geographically correct than West Bank!
@@joankahnNo, it is not more “geographically correct” its usage goes all the way back to 1967.
Great debate; am a little biased but Robert made a few factual mistakes as well as tactical naivety
Israel has sadly lost. it has lost the PR game globally and no one respects or likes it today. Just because it managed to normalize relations with a few Arab states doesnt mean they are all allies. John really underestimates the power of the muslim brotherhood and OIC countries. That is a religious tie and goes deeper.
While John maybe defined small goals that are impossible to fail,
Robert does the same sin in the opposite direction - defining goals so big that they're impossible to accomplish.
Thank you, Noam. ♡
This was excellent, a shame Pape was so defensive and condescending, there was a lot of value lost by bringing in that attitude.
The very premise of Spencer’s argument was just refuted by the ICJ 2 days ago. According to the ICJ Gaza was not and is not an independent state. It *is* an occupied territory. So the basis on which Spencer builds his argument is, from the outset, incorrect. This is not a conventional war. The Article 51 provision of self-defense does not apply since Article 51 applies to inter-state conflicts only, and Gaza is, per the ICJ, not a state. Also, since this is now deemed a permanent illegal occupation, Israel is not simply defending itself. Based on the ICJ ruling Hamas is an insurgency and a resistance movement to an illegal occupation despite Spencer’s hemming and hawing that he “doesn’t know what to do with people who make this argument”. It turns out that it is Spencer who is wrong here.
Since the way that Spencer defines success is, a priori, incorrect, it is not surprising that the points he makes that are built on his erroneous foundational assumptions are also wrong.
Another point to make here is the definition of “strategy”. If, as Clausewitz said, war is just politics by other means, it is very hard to understand how this political strategy of this war is making Israel safer. There is very little evidence that it has actually eroded the military capabilities of Hamas. In fact, Hamas just 2 weeks ago used a new weapon not used before in this conflict. They do not appear to be running out of weapons or fighters. The US intelligence community has indicated that they believe that Hamas has gained nearly as many fighters as it has lost. Meanwhile the Israeli military is in shambles. Morale is at an all-time low, desertions are increasing, and they are now starting to draft the Orthodox into the military to replenish their ranks, as they don’t have enough fighters. A few other notes:
-Israel itself now admits that it is fighting a 7-front war. It is being bombed every day. And this war seems to be escalating. A war with Hezbollah would devastate Israel proper in a way it has never seen in its history. This will exacerbate many of the following points.
-It has evacuated northern Israel due to the fighting, thus shrinking the size of the Israeli state for the first time in its history.
-Israel’s military deterrent has dried up. This, probably more than any other single factor, had been keeping Israel safe. Nations are witnessing the incredibly poor performance of the Israeli military against a hopelessly overmatched opponent and are, frankly, not as worried about the response that Israel will muster.
-It is currently on trial at the ICJ for genocide; a case that most international lawyers I speak to say Israel will probably lose.
-Its PM and DM each are about to have warrants issued against it for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the ICC.
-Its economy is in shambles. One recent report indicates that over 46,000 businesses have failed in Israel since Oct 7 and the subsequent war. International investment has cratered, including the withdrawal of a $25 billion factory by Intel.
-Over 500,000 Israelis have left Israel, opting to go back to their nations of origin.
-Israel’s international standing has never been lower. It is diplomatically isolated, and the continued legal cases against it are going to increase its isolation and probably have material impacts on the Israeli economy and military.
-The plight of the Palestinian people has now become a global movement.
This *partial* list sure leads one to conclude that this war has been a strategic disaster for Israel. Spencer focuses on some of the tactical military wins that Israel may have achieved but in balance this seems like a catastrophe for Israel that is only going to get worse.
Excellent post! Rare to read such cogent writing here. Thank you.
Your propaganda of the Muslim Brotherhood is simply full of lies, ICJ is a trail is corrupt from the first moment, qute- The president of the International Court of Justice, which is tomorrow releasing an opinion in another politically-motivated case targeting Israel, voted 210 times to condemn the Jewish state when he served as Lebanon’s UN ambassador, and delivered inflammatory speeches accusing “terrorist Jewish organizations” of committing “organized massacres,” according to a new report by the non-governmental organization "UN Watch".
-Yes, Israel will lose the case because it's not about justice..
-Regarding to the immigration, new data from the Israel Data Authority states that there is less immigration on average in the last year compared to a to this year, there were exceptional data only in the month of October which balanced out in a natural way.
-Regarding the economy, the situation today is that there are large budget deviations which probably reach 10% of GDP. But it is important to remember that most of the expenses have already taken place, the intensity of the fighting has greatly decreased and if there is no further war in the north it will take Israel a few years to pay off the debts.
After the Corona, the State of Israel had a debt similar to today's situation and the debt was closed within one year.
-The elections in the United States will greatly change the picture in the Middle East if Trump comes to power, Saudi Arabia is waiting for the Republican leadership to sign an agreement together with Israel that will turn Israel into a transit route for goods that will be bigger than the Suez Canal. When the line will bring huge revenues to the State of Israel.
-Europe has moved to the right to governments that are much more pro-Israeli, in addition to the developing war with Russia and the high budget that the European Union intends to spend on arms procurement, Israel will be among the only countries outside of Europe that will benefit from this.
Israeli defense exports are at an all-time high even before the 7/10 war.
-The most important point is the axis that was forged following the Abraham agreements that expresses the defense ties between countries that proves itself every day.
-The Palestinians have been fighting Israel for 80 years while Israel is only getting stronger and they stay behind because of the desire to destroy another people, therefore we are witnessing another chapter from which there will be great Israeli economic growth, first and foremost because of the Israeli human capital and the natural growth of the Israeli population that wants to fight for its freedom and grow Unlike the left-wing Western world that is destroying itself and bringing in immigrants from all over the world in order to create a false image of economic growth.
this list leads one to conclude that israel near future will be a little bumpy untill Hamas and Hezbolla will be push back, but in the long tarm future look bright..
I appreciate you trying to make sense of our conflict, but you make the same mistake Pape does.
You're clearly intelligent and well-read, but you fail to understand the realities past the information that is provided to you.
As someone living in Israel I can tell you that the IDF is operationally stronger than ever since Oct. 7th.
Sure there are internal issues, but that doesn't really have any impact on daily operations. Our ranks are swelling, so much so that we are filtering people out so that they can better support the economy.
The IDF is definitely not "in shambles", but you are welcomed to believe that if it means that our enemies underestimate us and believe that as well.
Maybe Palestinians are more prominent in the media, but I think they will also find that this is a double edged sword. You assume that Israel has not wanted to find a solution to this conflict, which is false. What you and most of the world will now see is that your faith in Palestinians will not be rewarded with any concrete steps by them towards peace, regardless of the generosity of the offer given to them.
Anything short of the complete destruction of Israel will not suffice for their leadership.
Gaza is a de facto mini state run by Hamas. Quite frankly an advisory opinion by a Lebanese Hezbollah and Iranian sympathizer has zero value.
@@koyou22 True and I am also Israeli.
Amazing to get both of these together. One thing I’d recommend for future interviews/ debates like this is to remove some of the combativeness. John and Noam were a bit unfair to Pape and I am much more aligned with John.
I love that they both are coming at this from the perspective of wanting the best for Israel. They just have different ideas on how to achieve those ends. A more open discussion with less attacks on each other would be much more valuable. Perhaps have general topics that are discussed openly for 15 mins. Then move on.
Military strategy; humanitarian aid; impact of settlements; international perspective; impact of UN and NGOs; how to reeducate Palestinian population; Hamas vs PA; etc.
Wonderful to put this together. Get these guys back on with a bit more framework. And start the show by acknowledging that both bring very important and valuable perspectives.
That Robert guy seems like an armchair critic. Not a serious guy.
Better than a shill.
Just from an entertainment perspective (because let's be real this a podcast ran by alleged comedians) Robert Pape was the more interesting voice and had a more easily understood narrative, and it helps he was the most courteous and respectful.
I can't find the John Spencer talk with General Patreus. Does anyone know where I can find it? TH-cam doesn't let u place links.
The man said send in some special forces in an urban dense city without any map of the area
This ridiculous, no government should listen to this man on white shirt .
What do you mean no map? Israel can see every square foot with satellite and drone footage?
You just exposed your ignorance by your comment despite the fact that Israel occupied and blockaded Gaza, can see every square foot with satellite and 24/7 drone coverage and assistance from US & British Intelligence you still think that Israel does not have a map of Gaza. How were the Israel special forces able to rescue the 4 hostages from an urban densely populated city without any map of the area...🤔🤔
It would've been interesting to hear them debate about the casualty ratios, as I understand they have opposing opinions on that point.
From his opening John is already wrong. The International Court of Justice ruled on 19 July 2024 Gaza as "occupied" no different than the West Bank and East Juruselem. Therefore Gaza is not a state or foreign territory. He refers to UN Article 51 on self-defence however it is not relevant as Gaza is not a state. The ICJ has just blown up his argument.
Your analysis doesn’t follow. The ICJ’s determination of the legal status of Gaza has no bearing on whether the state of Israel is lawfully able to militarily destroy Hamas pursuant to Article 51, because Article 51 does not hinge upon whether or not the entity posing the threat (i.e., Hamas) is a sovereign state or if it exists in an occupied territory.
@@Bubble998Grunge Go read 51 carefully and compare to how John treats the status of Gaza.
Been waiting for this one!
You want to debate about hamas but you have never spoken to a hamas expert?
The point is not to provide an educational, productive, or nuanced insight, or discussion on the great geopolitical crime of our age. The point is to make Noam feel better about being a genocidal pos.
What does "hamas expert" mean though?
@@talsapps English isnt my first language, you will have to excuse me but i assume there are various ways to gain expertise on a topic, in this case having a conversation with the group would be a start, they do give interviews you know
@@alphapen_dragon8554 they are terrorists.
They don't tell the truth, it's like making an interview with the taliban, all they do is 100% propaganda.
You are a ridiculous person.
@@alphapen_dragon8554 they are terrorists.
They don't tell the truth, it's like making an interview with the taliban, all they do is 100% propaganda.
You are a ridiculous person.
Really interesting. But I cant help but find all these ww2 comparisons dumb. Like muslims just are fundamentally too different from germans/japenese particularly with how much they (don't) value life. Plus some of them see this as a holy war not a war with future prospectives we could discuss about.
You're saying that Muslims care about life less than the Germans and the Japanese? Sounds like you don't know like anything about ww2
And I gotta say Norm, your question and fury over the settlements things is just absolutely ridiculous. Like you do understand they're illegal right? You understand they're immoral and a direct road-block to a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine? Now you're making the argument that settlements should continue as a punitive measure and a way to not "reward" terrorism. You seriously cannot be a neutral moderator in these types of debates, you consistently interrupted Robert and as other commenters have pointed out it was almost like you were a little tag-team with John with the little whispers and the smiles.
What is your intention doing these really? Do you even know? Because it's not to really have an honest conversation. I think the Rashid Khalidi interview was proof enough of that.
John thanks for the trust ❤
Great conversation. You would have done better to avoid the personal slights though, John.
Noam, because I know you read these comments, and I'll make it brief - you have to read Maher Arar's investigative piece on the Al-Ahli Hospital bombing.
Super embarrassing for Robert. Sounds like the guys from The American Conservative magazine which I read from time to time.
Both people brought interesting perspectives and I don’t think either should be dismissed.
The most interesting perspective I found was Robert indicating that Israel leadership should have announced a freeze of settlements. At first, I found this absurd, but if they would’ve made that announcement and Hamas’s reaction was effectively that it doesn’t matter to them and they wouldn’t make any concessions to themselves, then it would at least play into Israel’s belief that the settlements never mattered. It would help to disillusion this idea in the West.
The terrorists couldn't care less about "settlements." They called the victims in Sderot "settlers" as they murdered them. They call all Israelis "settlers."
A reality Spencer doesn't mention: US generals are also diplomats, and once Israel went in on the ground, people like Petraeus felt a duty to give unconditional support to our ally. Comments they made after the attack on Gaza started must be taken with a huge grain of salt. If you listen to McMaster on his own podcast, he's always very careful not to say too much beyond the Republican party line, like he's trying to sell something. That goes for Petraeus's comments on Spencer's podcast as well.
Also, Israle had no settlements in '48 or '67 or '83. Islam is based on hatred, not settlements or land. How does Pape explain Arabs turning down 5 -- 5! -- offers of land far greater than what is left now?
@@ak203 Rubbish. 1948 was expelling 750K Palistinians and a settlement in itself. Post 1967 occupation of Palistinian territory has been deemed illegal and Israel must vacate. This is not a religious conflict, its real estate and occupation only that. Israel have never in 76 years agreed to a true Palistinian state only a enclave controlled by Israel. This Zionist propaganda is tiresome. Israel is now a pariah state.
Islam is not based on hatred.
@@lookbovine True. Its both violence, plus hatred. Why is there zero tolerance for others in Muslim countries? And I say violence because the religion spread rapidly through violence. They didn't go campfire to campfire through Africa, Asia and Europe persuading people.
It’s like watching box match, but somehow participants in very different weight categories. This professor has no clue of what is happening in this region.
Yeah it's incredible that he proclaims to be an expert and he doesn't know anything about the history of the conflict
Spencer destroyed pape. And pape destroyed himself
My God, I feel for John having to sit through this.
Settlement freeze in exchange for hostages is not a bad idea. considering leveling Gaza didn't do the trick...
Please try to blend your analyses so that we can arrive at a fuller plan that incorporates your different points of view into a more comprehensive strategy .
Don’t be divided by your differences join into a synthesis that includes the concerns of both sides
How do you separate Hamas from the population? Any ideas?
This is not about settlements it’s about jihadism on a broad scale-headed in this particular region by Iran. Thus, this isn’t even about Hamas per se.
Great exchange. Professor Pape misunderstands the conflict. He correctly identifies a broader strategic objective beyond Gaza and Hamas, but he's wrong to treat it as an insurgency. The main issue is Iran and its proxies, along with the funding mechanisms, which are “hindered” by the Biden Administration.
Professor Pape's suggestion of freezing settlements is nonsensical. Palestinian society, supported by not only Hamas but also the PLO/PA and others, desires all of Israel. Similar to WWII's Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, a significant deprogramming is necessary-likely a point of agreement between Pape and Spencer.
Spot on!
Likud’s charter says from the river to the sea… Who needs reprogramming?
I wish Perielle (sorry if my spelling is atrocious) had been there to more assertively cut off Pape when he went Overtime, which I feel like he did pretty much constantly. Noam was lovely as ever, and I thought John did a great job with what seems like a tremendously frustrating situation. I have enjoyed him on the podcast before, although I felt kind of bad for him in this case.
I have had over half a dozen posts removed and have no understanding as to why. Sometimes it feels like were living in times reminiscent Orwellian fiction.
Excellent, excellent debate!! Thank you so much, Noam. This was very valuable. Yashar koach!!
The older professor was wrong claiming that Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" in Iraq. That was on a banner on the aircraft carrier he landed on. His speech on that carrier, and after, did not claim that. Rather, that was on a very large banner placed on the outside of part of the "island," which is part of the ship sticking up on the flight deck. The island is a sort of short steel skyscraper sticking up on the side of the flight deck. The banner was a morale booster for the crew. I was a crewmember of a carrier myself, and morale was not a problem. But praising accomplishments is thing many officers do when they can, and it does indeed usually help with morale. in this case, the Captain was praising his crew, on their way home, having accomplished all of their goals on their assignment. The same anti-Republican media was attacking Bush then, as it attacks Trump now. They made a propaganda campaign lying and saying that Bush had that banner placed there and was trying to convince America that we had accomplished our mission in Iraq. This guy bought the Fake News about that then, as many buy it today. Surprised that he brings it up today!
He was definitely wrong. Thank you for pointing it out.
@@johnspencer328George Bush did say loud and clear that "in the battle of Iraq, the US & its allies have prevailed", with Mission Accomplished banner in the background.
th-cam.com/video/5yCsmwoMecU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ue3URys4GWQESeiI
Notice how no one can refute the points of the professor? Just cry. Delicious tears
They are both professors.
Thanks
The only insult here is to put a 4 y/o against a scholar - and of course inevitably the 4 y/o cried (felt insulted). By now it should be abundantly clear that this has never been about land or settlements - and the idea that we make concessions after getting brutalized, is about cognitively deficient as me trying to make an NBA basketball team. What a cowardly low-life debate. Very disappointing you wasted Mr. Spencer's time like that!!!
John Spencer is correct re the Gaza War being almost won.
Was our release of $3.5b military aid yesterday proof that they are winning or contrary to that? And how about sending fleets out to protect them last week? Further proof?
🚫 Thanks for the censorship TH-cam 🚫
What spencer says is that the ability to wage effective war such that can achive Hamas charter obligations - that ability is degraded such that another october 7 is impossible. However Pape is right that all it takes is once successful rocket launch, or one bearded beswathed male to wave an RPG for the war to be deemed a failure.
Academia has very little to offer
You could argue that Israel should have waged the war a bit differently but the alternative Pape gave was a combination of Woodstock LSD trip and Call of duty PS5 tactics. Totally detached from reality and morality.
This played out exactly as I thought it would. Military Veteran / Military Academic’s knowledge is leaps and bounds ahead of theoretical academic who has never left his desk and gone to where the rubber meets the road. All theory and ego.
Tremendously interesting, informative and thought-provoking. I will be mulling over this discussion for a few days and be doing more reading and research to aid my development of understanding. Thanks
Right off the bat Spencer says the Gaza situation is not counter-terrrism, not counter-insurgency… Okay? Hamas are most definitely non-state actors in occupied territory. He’s an expert? Look up the terms yourself.
He’s selling something, something called Israel.
I think the final words of both reveal the exact error of thinkers like them in foreign lands. First, this war is not a territorial war, Hamas does not care about territory only through its religious aspect, namely that a territory ever conquered by Islam remains forever an Islamic territory.
Second, Germans are not Nazis and Nazism is not Germany, but Hamas is the Arab population and the Arab population is Hamas. So there is no way to separate the two.
Battles often DO end wars: Waterloo anyone? Two atom bombs on Japan were two battles and were decisive-ditto Stalin’s troops invading Berlin-ended WW2 Europe, etc.
Robert has no business debating someone of John's stature and experience. As to Robert's premise that hamas is winning the hearts and minds of the Gaza population I believe you debunked that citing his own survey which showed that Hamas support in Gaza barely grew post 10/7. His retort that he's talking about the West Bank sounds especially hollow now after he spent all this time arguing that the Gazan population will continue supporting hamas bc of Israel's "punishment". Finally I don't believe Robert (as I don't believe Mearsheimer) when he says he cares about Israel specifically bc Robert uses terms like punishment. I wish John would have had an opportunity to debunk his claims concerning the "punishment" which is just another hamas talking point.
John Spencer's expertise is now a matter of congressional record
Didn’t America First testify before Congress?
@@lookbovine
Not sure but I do know that Netanyahu gave a glowing review of Col. Spencer's expertise in his speech to Congress.
@@mowgli2071More reason to dislike him. You know America First are Nazis, right?
I was a lot more impressed with John Spencer when I was just reading his tweets.
57:04 This is a classic narcissist move. He knows he’s losing the argument, so he makes it personal and reveals he is unable to separate criticism of ideas from criticism of self.
@@joge2468 whenever I feel like patronizing someone and they get offended, I like to call them a narcissist for getting offended in the first place. Foolproof tactic and is definitely also great for keeping the argument focused on ideas instead of personal attacks.
You just made it personal.......
@@samrands5967 The name-dropping, constant references to “my center,” insistence on superiority, and unrelenting condescension were evidence enough. The invocation of victimhood was just the icing on the cake.
@@ai_com I’m not debating him.
@@joge2468 I think you, and most of the other people in these comments as well, can't actually deal with what he said so you resort to budget psychoanalyzing him or saying he doesn't know anything because he wasn't in the military. You can't explain away how John Spencer was effectively incoherent, so you cry about imagined superiority and condescension, when the guy was being condescended to the whole time, and he was the one at the end saying he appreciated the conversation and thanked John. Have you considered that you may be the narcissist here?
Pape is right, they had clout and leverage and just wanted to use it all up and some and ruined everything. Here we are no wins, disaster, and they look like utter monsters.
Nowhere was there any discussion/comment about the role that Iran plays in this
Did Iran pack Palestinians into Gaza beginning in 1948?
Did Iran pen Palestinians into Gaza starting in 1948?
Did Iran pen Pals into Gaza starting in 1948?
Did Iran pen Pals into Gaza starting in 1948?
Did Iran pen Pals into Gaza starting in 1948?
I take no issue with an academic making assessments, but there are too many logical fallacies, and omission of facts from Pape's commentary. I would also prefer for him to not be so defensive, and simply state his opinion as opinion, instead of name dropping, and riddling off facts, as though they support his argument. It is hard to follow.
Pape is chasing "pie in the sky" idealistic notions of "limited military action, combined with a stronger political strategy," blah, blah blah, and he refers to himself as "a realist." Contradiction in terms. 👎🏼
Even if you are a pro pali you'd realize that pape is delusional
@@lookbovine I've seen your other comments, you are delusional too so..
44:40 John doesn't like the idea of letting rockets rain down on Israel while doing nothing, because ordering massive airstrikes against Gaza feels like something - even though it's understood, and you can read this in Ha'aretz analyses by Yaniv Kubovich, that it was the ground invasion that stopped rocket fire and not the strikes of the air force. He discounts the idea that Hamas could be negotiated with, or even an ultimatum issued to them perhaps, to stop the rocket fire. He also summarily dismisses the idea of getting the hostages back using only special forces and limited airstrikes and (not mentioned) negotiating. But, again as you know if you read Yaniv Kubovich's articles, it is "not the mission of Israeli forces in Gaza" to recover the hostages - that's a direct quote - and it's simply unquestionable that more hostages have been killed by the war than freed by it. How John Spencer is allowed to fly postulates like this without being pressed on them is beyond me.
Next, he assumes that withdrawing the West Bank settlers and establishing two states would do nothing for Hamas because 1) he doesn't realize that there really is a push-and-pull between the goals of Hamas and the Palestinians in general, with each responding to the other and 2) he has internalized the idea that the West Bank and Gaza are separate entities with no shared future, otherwise it would be obvious that you can't withdraw settlers from only one of them and call it a day.
He also balks at references to the 20-day opening air campaign as "mass punishment." Yet Adam Raz in Ha'aretz has testified repeatedly to its military uselessness, quoting Tamir Pardo, the ex-Mossad chief's description of it as "purely vengeful" and emphasizing that "it's a well-known conclusion from past wars that airstrikes don't work." In +972 Magazine's "Lavender" anonymous soldier testimonies from the early days say things like: "At first, the atmosphere was painful and vindictive...There was a dissonance: on the one hand, people here were frustrated that we were not attacking enough. On the other hand, you see at the end of the day that another thousand Gazans have died, most of them civilians.” And that 'in a day without targets [whose feature rating was sufficient to authorize a strike], we attacked at a lower threshold. We were constantly being pressured: "Bring us more targets." They really shouted at us. We finished [killing] our targets very quickly.'
Again, I'd enjoy coming on with you, you can check out my content on TikTok by the same username.
Hello- brother, i'll try to answer and debate some of your claims.
1. You simply cannot make ground invasion in Gaza if you don't bomb Hamas facilities beforehand, because their main tactic (not strategy) is using traps on the ground and rockets from tunnels, both of them makes it suicidal to just rush your ground forces in, and aircraft bombimg is a solution that works on both of them. Right after you clear the territory by air bombs you can send your ground forces to hold ground and disable Hamas ability to fire rockets.
2. Fortunately, bringing the hostages back is still one of the main goals for the IDF forces in Gaza, Yaniv in simple wrong. But you might be right that more hostages are being killed by the war, the "Kabinet" of Israel gave the benefit of the doubt to Hamas, they speculate that Hamas would not use the hostages as human shield like their own citizens because a live hostage is valued more than dead ones on the negotiating tables.
3. Withdrawing from the West Bank right after the october 7 would have streghten Hamas support in the West Bank, because they would be seen as the ones who managed to wage war on the Jews and to win back a territory.
4. It is simply wrong to claim that Israeli air strikes/Air Forces "don't work", the IDF Air forces contributions to Israel winning most of her wars is unprecedented by any historians, even the most anti-zionist historians.
5. There is free society in Israel, so its very easy to find quotes of Israelis that brings a genocide sentiment over the Gaza population, it is a well-known phenomenon of wars that people get more extreme. But its still hold nothing and cannot indicate if the IDF manage the war immorally.
6. Witness testimonies are important, but sadly for you there is more witnesses who testified for the risk they are taking on the ground by obeying the systematic approach of the IDF to obey international law and even do beyond it. It is a matter of cherry picking you witness testimony that confirms your narrative.
Yeah of course it ground forces ultimately stopped the rockets. But as the other commenter pointed out, combined arms maneuver into the teeth of prepared urban defenses would be suicide without air power preparing the way. Kuwait in 91 was ultimately liberated by the 96 hour ground campaign, but the ground campaign went as smoothly as it did because of the Coalition’s air campaign.
The growth of Hizzballah has nothing to do with Israeli fighting the PLO in Lebanon but in the Iranian revolution taking command of untold oil riches and usingn them to sponsor proxies. If the US had locked down Iranina ability to export oil from day one none of those proxies would have grown past fledgling.
Spencer has also been saying Ukraine is winning and can still win, for the last two years. Not the best use of realism. Billions of dollars later, his recommendation/ advice is questionable. Because he was so correct about what would work in Ukraine and what Russia's strategic goals were.
Sure, yeah okay
This debate isn’t about Ukraine. Do you have something relevant to say about this topic and Spencer’s points in this specific debate?
@@jayl271322 “Just like when Russia was defeated in Ukraine in April 2022” (31:19) …
@@jayl271322 "just like when Russia was defeated in Ukraine on April 2022" (31:20) a great example of how strategic goals can change?
@@jayl271322 "Just like when Russia was defeated in Ukraine on April of 2022" (31:20) A great example of how strategic goals can change?
We did NOT lose the Viet Nam War-hello? Paris Peace Accords -the peace settlement was done for years until North Vietnam restarted the war and invaded the South long, long after the Paris Peace Accords.
He’s a scholar on this topic. You’re not. Everyone knows the U.S. did not win Vietnam.
….
will be interesting tu see who waz more on point at the end of thiz mass soul sending….
i would of prefered less of the personal attackz tho….
ie….
44 minz….
….
Spencer wins, clearly. But I applaud the civilized debate.
Always weird how folks like Spencer that claim a "body fallacy" but somehow insist on ratios. It's like loving fractions but being unwilling to accept the denominator.
LOL- Russia was never "defeated".
Well said robert