There seems little interest in Israel as a 'settler colonial' state. How an area of land was deemed fine & available by the British for the Jewish people of Europe. That is not addressed at all...
No, both logically lay down their arguments for us to follow, which allows us to, compare poke holes in it and build upon it. You don't need to agree with everything they said. This is what we need instead of idiots screaming at one another (we all know who). You shouldn't scream making a point.
Mearsh is good but it's hard to believe he ascribes to "realist" foreign policy. He talks and reasons pretty much like a political science professor moralizing about a country he finds distasteful. The "realist" school of thought is that ALL states - in terms of external relations - are basically doing the same things, to the extent that they can, and for the same reason: A near paranoid fixation with survival and expansion of power and and influence (in part to further ensure survival). Fine, Israel ticks all those boxes. But realism PRESUPPOSES that all the OTHER actors involved, Iran, Lebanon, Palestinians, Egypt etc are doing the exact same thing with the same motives and goals. Yet Mearsh talks as if Israel (and US) alone are some oddball naughty boys. Realism assumes that in terms of FOREIGN policy vis-a-vis enemies or even allies, there are no "good states or bad states." Just power hungry states jockying for position - within an anarchic global system - and who may or may not be winning at any given moment. Realism assumes that if Norway had the size, power and resources of the US, it would act pretty much like the US ultimately. I'm not sure I believe that. But that IS what realist foreign policy predicts and Mearsh keeps insisting he's a realist but pays very little hommage to the theory when actually discussing this conflict.
I agree with Mearsheimer, removing Netanyahu wouldn't do anything. In fact it might make things worse, I've heard Netanyahu is a moderate in his own government.
@@RagingShrimp67 that's true, but I still don't think it takes away from my original point. I watched the original talk given by Mearsheimer and he did touch on most of these topics, and if he didn't he is on record plenty of places totally destroying any tired talking point and strawman argument Bret mindlessly repeated.
@@TeachingLiberty Actually it does take away your entire point. Mearsheimer isn't at all touching the topic of justice or morality. He is stating a very obvious fact: "Israel is in trouble." He then argues, based entirely on projection, some of it is very provably wrong, that the only Israel will get out of this trouble is by ethnic cleansing. Brett's entire talk discusses the justification of the war in Gaza and Israel's right to defend itself, both things that Mearsheimer isn't disputing at any point. The only thing they are disagreeing about is that Brett thinks a 2 state solution is possible, and Mearsheimer thinks it isn't. When challenged by an audience member in the end of his talk, stating (correctly) that over 50% of Israelis, and most of the Israeli elites, actually support a 2 state solution, his only response was "well I've been wrong before, and I hope that you are right".
@@TeachingLiberty No, it doesn't. I watched the full 1.5h talks with both, several times. Maybe you should do the same before commenting on their claims. Bret stands a chance, because they are not actually debating or disputing each other's arguments. They are making tangential claims that are not contradicting. If you don't get it, then you don't understand what Mearsheimer is saying, or what Bret is saying, or both.
Palestinians can't accept Jews living in their Ancient National Homeland; that's what it comes down to isn't it ?They'll never have ownership of that piece of land, then will they.
@@CISAus Anyone who espouses a myopic theory that explains/predicts everything almost always turns out to be wrong. Think Marx and Freud. Mearshimer has already been proven wrong; he just can’t admit it to himself. He’s forced to label Hamas a “non-state” actor - even though they have governed Gaza for 17 years - because deterrence has failed to deter them.
@@CISAus Uh huh. Mearsheimer is always about realpolotik, except for when it comes to the one state in the entire world that has a majority Jewish population. Curious, isn't it? Oh, and you're utterly pathetic, commenter.. But grateful to your organization for hosting the speakers and sharing the videos.
He is such a jerk . His articles in the New York Times are just pure nonsense, ignorance, and speculations. His political point of views are irrelevant most of the time.
Exactly! Everything he said here was an example of psychological projection and moral reversal. It's really incredible when you think about it. Something he'll never do. No surprise there though, since psychotic arrogance and self-awareness don't go together.
@@CISAus He doesn't make any argument at all, he makes fantasies, lies, things that only ignorant people believe. I mean what is your counter argument to a person who says that the Earth is flat? There's no argument, he's a dummy. Well, you can try to counter with the image of the Earth taken from space but he'll pull some illuminati argument out next.
It seems that everyone apart from the Palestinians have a say in their self determination.. Israel, the US, Europe...why should those nations who are providing weapons & killing the Palestinians decide on this. If there is an autonomous Palestinian territory then THEY & only they should decide how it is governed. Very apparent in the media how so few Palestinian voices are ever heard. Most of the rhetoric is pro Israeli or Israeli propaganda. Much of it infested with lies!;
@@CISAus That shows very well that you are an antisemite too, because the comment was at the lowest level in this forum. And the fact that you cannot explain any of my arguments against the biased professor just confirms that.
@@CISAus Not at all, he arguments lies without any explanation that I show you how wrong he is. He does it in purpose, only shows how racists he is. Maybe you take the side of accusing Israel without verifying anything that is wrong. You have the right to do so. but that makes you a racist too. I am not sure who you are, probably you are another employee that got the job of answering and no one in the CIS verify your answers. Study deep Israel, how it is compose, what is happening, go there. Ampharetid is just an extremely stupid claim. Israel itself is fare to the law, and if you agree with the occupied territories, then the law is not being ruled by Israel, it is ruled by the Palestinians, no Jews. Then it is obvious that Apartheid is a false claim, then who use is a racists, no mater if it is this "professor" or anybody else. You can invite racists to CIS, then accept the consequences to analyze their thoughts and expose them. Bret Stephens, who you do not like as I could see, I do not agree with all what he can say, but he never uses racism as a way to explain. I do not believe New Your Time would take the professor to write a column. It will not happen.
Bert Stephens is more of a CNN type trasncript reader than a political analyst. Who invited this guy? I think Mearsheimer would be offended to have this talk.
For Bret Stephens to say the question of borders is not entirely material and then in the same breath compare Israel and the occupied territories some of the most densely populated areas in the world to Queensland in Australia is misleading to say the least. Zionism and the idea of Eretz Israel is all about expanding borders whether through ethnic cleansing, apartheid pressure or genocide.
@@CISAus by this you must mean protecting the psychological security of Bret Stephens -who operates in opinions- from being forced to confront the fact based analysis of John Mearsheimer. Stephens alluded in his talk that he didn’t really have an idea of what Mearsheimer even said. That makes for a poor debate when one side is ignorant of the other side’s articulated position.
Mearsheimer will blow this Bret dude out of the water.....no comparison. Ive never heard a more fact and logic based critical thinker in geopolitics than Prof Mearsheimer.
Its not a few bigoted scoundrels in Israeli govt, its basically an Apartheid state with a few sane people like Gideon Levy and the only way to respect human rights is through BDS or some "actual" pressure from USA, UK, Germany, France etc.
How long have you lived in Israel, studied Hebrew and Judaism, and were involved in Israeli politics? Because from your nonsense it's easy for anyone who has done so for several years or more, that the answer is zero minutes.
@@RagingShrimp67 Sorry but the game is up. The whole world can clearly see what is happening. The Israel experiment will not recover from this outrage!!
@@RagingShrimp67 its enough to reach a good judgement on humanity of certain group of people simply by observing mass murder of civilians, destruction of civilian infrastructure, killing 100 innocent to get to one potential Hamas military. One does not need to know Hebrew or Judaism. And you get enough drift hearing Gideon Levy, Ilan Pappe, Chris Hedges, Norman Finkelstein, Jeffry Sacks, John Mearshiemer. All the Zionist talking points (lies) being parroted by Stephens have been amply countered by hundreds of scholars.
@@RagingShrimp67 You don't need to study hebrew. The english versions of hours of interviews are online, and they paint a clear picture of fascism, dehumanization, lunacy, racism, supremacy, theocracy, aprtheid, violence, genocidal intend and in many cases utter depravity.
It’s ridiculous he’s comparing Israel with Iran. Iran has a terrible regime but Israel took lands from Palestinians and threw the them out of their homes. Israel is not a country as Iran is. Foolish comparison.
Sorry to burst your bubbles. Israel is a country recognized by 164 nations. It has its own currency, military, etc. It's a country all right. Our opinions won't change this reality, sorry.
@@Birdylockso What exactly do you want to express with that? There is no right to genocide, just as there is no right to apartheid. This country exists solely through the economic and military support of the USA and Germany. The opinion of the “world” and by that I mean the world will set new standards in the future.
@@Birdylockso Pretty sure that's not what they meant. And I'm pretty sure you know that. And I'm pretty sure you know that we all know that both countries exist for only one reason: they have they military power to. So get to a real point if you want to.
Stevens is disingenuous. The offers of a Palestinian state never included sovereignty. What's more, Israel never drew up complete borders and basically said, "Trust us, we'll send you a copy after you sign off on the agreement." Would you sign such an agreement? Israel also wanted to keep their military presence within and around the illegal settlements in the West Bank and territories.
These facts have been deliberately suppressed by a cabal of an unending propaganda , disinformation and fake news and by launched so called “credible”observers and analysts like Bret Stephen’s .
The pro Israeli guy has such a cartoonish understanding of Iran and China and in general geopolitics. It shows the lack of wit among many of the Zionists
Replacing Netanyahoo would not change a thing as long as the crazy far right thugs remain in power with the population's blessings, it is absolutely nauseating
Bret Stephen's opening remark stating that Netanyahu is the leader of the Jewish people (if you missed it, go back and listen) completely disqualified him from this discussion. Nothing he said following that had any credibility. After stating that, he goes on to say that he believes in a two state solution. Well, his leader, Netanyahu along with the Israeli Knesset has declared that there will NOT be a two state solution ever. Brett is either massively stupid or knows he is lying.
@@CISAus His argument was challenged. He stated falsehoods. 1, that Netanyahu is the leader of the Jewish people. and 2. the hogwash of a two state solution while the leader of the Jewish people (Netanyahu) and the Israeli Knesset made clear to the world that is not going to happen. So, yes, what is he smoking???
Bret Stephens's arguments are just so much AIPAC talking points. He should thank his lucky stars that the UN doesn't decide to give his Upper East Side house to some refugees from, oh I don't know, say Nigeria.
Search Google Images for "israel palestine map over time". One is sarcastically called, "Barak's Generous Offer." Spoiler alert: When you look at each of the peace offers, most of the Palestinians and many of the Israelis, such as the Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy, can explain why the Palestinians would never be reasonably expected to agree to such a deal. After Oslo, they were supposed to negotiate a final solution over (I think) several months, but the Israelis just kept expanding the settlements.
Does Bret really know what he is talking about saying Israel offered peace to Egypt in return of Sinia, left Lebanon? Oslo 1993, Camp David 2000, Ehud Elmurt’s unilateral peace plan of 2008. Go educate yourself on each before saying Palestinians rejected these “peace” offers. Disgusting
Bret Stephens just keeps the Israel’s propaganda going. The Palestinians rejected Israel’s offers because the offers were not anywhere near what the Palestinians deserve and have the right to. According to the UN resolutions, the Palestinians have the right to self determination on the occupied territories, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem, none of the Israel’s offers Bret mentions came close to it. If Israel wants peace, all it has to do is to leave the occupied territories, which it is illegally occupying. (Period).
No, that is not what he believes. He just believes the US should be active in foreign policy around the world and (I think) takes the traditional US side of Israel over its neighbors. Like most US foreign policy writers, consultants, and think tank type of people, he probably views the US as a good overall force or at least better than the alternative for the world but can point to many bad things the US has done over the decades in other countries. International affairs are messy and full of competing interests. These guys all know that and acknowledge that.
"We are colossally ignorant today about other countries, other languages, other cultures and religions. This is especially true in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. " JFK, nothing changed
Europe making a hard right turn is of little consequence. They might be a bit of a nuisance for a while, but America is in control, and is vassal to the US. We'd never have had difficulty with Iran, if the 1953 coup (staged by MI6 with US cooperation) hadn't been staged. PM Mossadech was democratically elected in 1952. He was a Social Democrat, and wanted to nationalize their oil, instead of ceding control of their vast resource, to British Petroleum and US interests. Plans to create mayhem in Tehran worked, by bribes and propaganda. It worked, Mossadech along with many others were murdered or imprisoned. He was replaced by a brutal dictator Shah Reza Pavli, who agreed to the plot. By the 70s, student protest became violent in response to US refusal to return the Shah to face charges. President Carter had a hostage crisis to manage. The Ayatollah returned to Iraq after 16 years in exile in Paris. It's been about 70 years, and it has destabilized the region and it's getting worse. A product of Western greed and Imperialism.
@CISAus It's critical to have dialogue. So incendiary is the topic, that it is practically forbidden. A political "third rail", where you MUST choose a side, and never waver. I've not seen such emotion and vitriol in my lifetime. But conversation and debate should not make us cowards. If we truly believe in Democracy, not just play lip service to it, in order to save one's political skin.
"Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, now to their regret..." To their RELIEF. Israel couldn't HOLD southern Lebanon, they tried twice and were BEATEN.
Withdrawing from southern Lebanon, was forced by Reagan because Israel was massacring people, of course they should have withdrawn from a foreign and sovereign territory, this wasn’t a gift to Lebanon the way Bret framed it, this such disingenuous framing.
"Israel has shown a consistent willingness to withdraw from territory." What Stephens didn't say: the Sinai, Lebanon etc were territories Israel had illegally invaded. So withdrawal was hardly a selfless, peacemaking act, rather a return to the status quo ante and, broadly, an imperative under international law. The fascinating thing is that people like Stephens are accorded exalted platforms and extensive profile and credibility even though his whole schtick is to peddle narratives that are, at best, tenuous, but for most part have been thoroughly discredited. He is a propagandist, pure and simple. So what role should CIS be playing here? The video begins with a statement "it's very important to hear from both sides of any debate." But is it? When one side is so patently misleading, and so deliberately partisan, does it not reflect badly on CIS to pretend that these arguments are somehow equally valid?
We leave it to the viewer to decide which arguments they think are strongest. I think enough people are convinced by the arguments you have called "patently misleading, and deliberately partisan" that it is worth airing them and testing them. You can never win people over by silencing their side.
What he is saying is factual.. Israel took control of Sinai in a defensive war and could have held onto as long as it wanted.. but it demonstrated the fact that the control of the territory wasn’t a permanent endeavor but was only in place as a buffer and bargaining chip in return for credible peace with its former enemies
Mr. STEPHENS suggests that you cannot defeat an ideology but cam diminish it's appeal, using the example of social nationalists on Germany or the case of Egypt. What is missing in this argument is that in both examples you are confronting people who have their country and a homeland. In the case of Palestinians this is an existential problem. If settlements kept getting built as Israel claimed to be negotiating peace and if the intention was to expand Jewish settlements it is no surprise to see how armed resistance moves back on the agenda. The Palestinian camp sees an existential problem that negotiations have not addressed. The idea of resistance I'd a. Existential problem for them the way it was mot for Egypt or German nationalists.
I like how Mearsheimer calls a yam a yam and a potato a potato. Ethnic cleansing is what it is, some degree of it can be necessary. Too far or too fast and it's an atrocity.
9:16 Bret Stephens said Sadam was a common enemy for Isreal and the Shah! Bret don't know the history: Sadam came to power in the same year that Shah was overthrown by the Iranian Revolution, in 1979!
Ikhrael perceive any nation that has powerful army as a threat to its existence irrespective of who they are, where they are, and when they are. They are like that because they are an illegal occupation made of thugs from all over the world under the false flags of a pagan god. Ikhrael will never stop being at war at any point in time so long it exists, this is part of their formation ideology. This “Brit the ignorant” is talking about peace while they are committing genocide, I mean how can one be more shameless and morally corrupt than that.
“Transfer does not serve only one aim - to reduce the Arab population - it also serves a second purpose by no means less important, which is : to evict land now cultivated by Arabs to free it for Jewish settlement.” Therefore , he concluded: “The only solution is to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries. Not a single village or a single tribe must be let off.” - Yosef Weitz, a member of the Consultancy, December 31, 1947
Bret Stephens was disappointingly weak: he didn't address the topics presented, only resorting to some takes that are frankly reheated. I don't have the baggage to evaluate Mearsheimer's position, but he was not only excited to discuss the questions presented, he seemed to bring a wider view, considering other nations and their presumed interests.
@@CISAus Yes, you acknowledge that you take one side, the antisemitic side. The fact that you did not answer my arguments can be for several reasons: 1) You took side and you do not care what is the truth, just the antisemitic side. 2) You have very poor knowledge and not willing to study to confront my arguments, and you do not care because (1) 3) Maybe CIS, I do not believe is biased and antisemitism is the way to go. I do not believe this is what is happening but that your task there is to answer and no one checks in the meantime your answers. Why? I do not believe Bret Stephens would have agreed to be there if CIS is your thoughts. 4) You do not want to study the mater nor understand it because you are not capable of doing analysis and confront the reality. Just take one side because is easy and cool, and trendy, especially in Australia.
@@CISAus BTW, your acknowledges are based on the lowest level "one sided" comments. That shows that you are doing something by yourself without the acknowledge of the CIS. You must be careful amigo!
There is nothing to debate here. ANY sober person can see right through Bret S. The world has woken up to truth. It is all a matter of time before JUSTICE comes to the Holy Land.
Stephens' comparison of Israel and other nations for electing right-wing populist leader is flawed: true the US elected Trump but the popular vote went for Clinton. Israel is a small country that election-wise functions as a one electoral unit.
what does this bret guy mean when he says Israel gave the most land that it didn't own in the first place for peace ? . its like a thief returning what some of what he stole in order not to get jailed for the rest !
Ironically except for this comment. Perhaps it's an attempt to placate the enormity of disappointment and disapproval at the weakness of argument offered up by one of their guests. Perhaps they could invite a more worthy 'opponent' to debate and challenge the seriousness of the charges/argument laid here.
Note: It is the ISRAELIS that have created so much misery among the Palestinians, not Hamas. Israel for decades as an occupying force has undermined, dehumanised & violently oppressed them. Hamas is considered a 'force of resistance' & it is entirely permissable for a collective of people to RESIST their oppressors. This man's perspective saddens me. It is nowhere near thorough enough.
As an arab i can tell that Stephens is so far from beeing able to give a right analysis his arguments are far from the reality and i doubt his sources but Mr.Mearsheimer is great he has good analysis good sources and he is very realistic
I'm sick of these people saying "I'm in favour of a Palestinian state" when they don't speak out about Israel's ILLEGAL settlements that continue to grow and block any chance of a 2 state solution. None of these people want a 2 state solution, they want Palestinians to suffer so much that they eventually decide to leave.
I don’t have to watch the rest of the video this dude Bret is 100% has no info and doesn’t know what he is talking about , he is losing and will lose to John
Bret gets so much backwards it’s almost entertaining. Egypt went to war to convince Israel it couldn’t keep the Sinai without consequences. That worked for Egypt.
