 Okay, welcome to the reason stream. I'm Zach Weissmuller joined by my co-host Liz Wolf Lest you've been in hiding or under a rock for the past several days You probably know that Hamas launched a brutal terrorist attack on Israeli civilians last weekend Israel's government has responded with a military assault on Hamas and a total blockade of the Gaza Strip To help us better understand Why Hamas would do this knowing what the consequences were likely to be for the people of Gaza and Where things are likely headed in this war? We've invited on Max Abrams a political science professor at North at Northeastern University he studies terrorists insurgents and rebels and Understands better than most why they do what they do and what the outcome of their actions is likely to be his book Rules for rebels the science of victory and militant history Laces theories out in detail and there's a chapter devoted to his time in the West Bank During the so-called second intifada around 2001 where he studied Palestinian terrorism and its consequences an experience we'll talk about and Which he says led him to begin questioning some of the conventional wisdom about terrorism Max. Thank you for talking with us Thank you so much for having me The attack Was shocking both because of the atrocities Hamas perpetrated and filmed and shared on social media for the world to see and Because of the reaction I was sure to provoke Why do you think they did it in this way and at this moment? this really was shocking everybody knows that He's really in conflict has been full of political violence and it goes back decades But this was not business as usual. This was a Truly unprecedented attack The numbers that I've seen being reported. I mean they're fluid and they keep going up But I've seen numbers as high as 1200 is really citizens being killed And that is not only orders of magnitude higher than any previous attack against Israel But for any country This will go down as To the best of my knowledge the second biggest terrorist attack certainly against democracy after 9-11 in terms of the number of Citizens who were killed. It was also really not business as It was also a tremendous escalation in terms of the number of perpetrators There's a lot of talk in the West about the so-called lone wolf and that makes sense And one could be because in the United States We don't have militant groups running around like this But one could be left with the impression that you know, there's nothing more dangerous than than the lone wolf attacker But you've probably heard the expression there are power in numbers in general All else equal when organizations grow in size numerically they tend to gain capability and so There's a correlation between the size of militant groups and the number of perpetrators They deploy and the amount of violence. They're able to inflict We know based on Israeli sources that Israel, I mean, I'm not talking about inside of Gaza, but outside So in terms of the number of perps who came in from Gaza, we're talking about hundreds I mean, I've seen numbers like 1500 So that is Also really shocking You might see something like that in the context of a civil war like in Nigeria or something with Boko Haram or Boko Haram goes into, you know, some kind of a town with essentially like a small army But for it to happen inside of Israel when although there was this baseline conflict, which was ongoing and simmering there wasn't, you know, open, you know Hostilities and so for all of a sudden in the course of a few hours Israel to be flooded with let's just call it 1500 perpetrators is Extraordinarily unusual not just for Israel, but in the study of terrorism Period And so what we're looking at is a historical escalation and everybody of course wants to understand why why it's happening and I think that there's a lot of Confusion and frankly, I don't have 100% clarity in terms of what it is that Hamas is trying to achieve If you look at universities, you know with these student groups Or even, you know in the media, especially more like left-leaning media You might be under the impression that Hamas is in favor of a two-state solution that all it wants is a viable Palestinian state that it's responding to This right-wing Israeli government that it's protesting against the rise and Israeli settlement activity But that would be empirically Incorrect and there are two reasons why the first is if you actually look at what the terrorists claim to want They say they're not in favor of a two-state solution If you look at the Hamas Charter, they're in favor of the destruction of Israel And so not only in terms of what they actually say, but in terms of what they actually do There was a time of course when the peace process was going on and in the minds of many people around the world including the Israeli public it looked promising in terms of the creation of a viable contiguous Palestinian state the basic terms of it were it was a land for peace deal Where Israel would trade territory and in exchange there would be a cessation of Palestinian terrorism and every single peace process every single one If you Google this Google Gaza first It was always known that Gaza would be Independent first that they would gain autonomy. They would be the first part of the Palestinian territory to become a state and it goes back decades and although there's some disputes about Precisely how much land Israel would seed in the West Bank, you know, was it 95% was it? 98% was it 93% There's no and it really kind of depends on interpretation as well as the fact that there have actually been several peace offers put forward But there is no dispute whatsoever that the future Palestinian state would have been made up of the vast majority of the West Bank and Hamas was on the opposite side of this It Opposed the peace process and acted in a way to torpedo it by using violence it acted as a so-called Spoiler in order to spoil negotiations which it did in fact do and when you know shortly after The signing on the White House law in 1993 you saw a you know an uptick in Palestinian terrorist attacks and with each one there was declining is really support for Negotiations and for a two-state solution you fast forward to Around 2000 which is when supposedly the Oslo Accords were supposed to be finalized Resulting in a two-state solution and by that point there was very you know There was a lot less as really public enthusiasm for negotiating with the Palestinians and it's in that context In which they built up this so you know so-called security wall or fence in the bank Because it was seen as an alternative to a two-state solution it was seen as a Requirement for Israeli security in the absence of a credible trust worthy Negotiating partner and so it's not true that the Palestinians Want a two-state solution and it's also not true that Historically Palestinian terrorism has softened up the Israeli public and made them more politically conciliatory that it that the terrorism has Undercut the political right and empower the political left the exact opposite Benjamin Netanyahu has thrived politically off of Palestinian terrorism Terrorism tends to empower the hardliners the Israeli left You could see it just disappearing with each terrorist attack and so We're left with the same question. Okay. Well, then what is it that Hamas wants if it's not a two-state solution and one prominent theory It is that what terrorists want to do is not ho worse Governments and to becoming more politically conciliatory But rather have the exact opposite effect That is to provoke them and there's been a lot of research in this area That goes back, you know to the 1970s David Fromkin David Lake wrote about it More recently Tom Parker published a book on this and the basic idea is that what terrorists want to do is Commit an attack in order to get the government to respond forcefully and there's an understanding that government responses to terrorism are often Indiscriminate that they won't focus selectively on the perpetrators, but almost inevitably they will harm the broader Population and when that happens members of the population will become further radicalized They will become perhaps even more likely to join the ranks of the terrorist group It might stir up additional grievances. It might strengthen revenge impulses And now this might not seem strategic or beneficial in the immediate term But imagine this as a multiple iteration game where there are multiple Terrorist attacks there are multiple times where the government is overreacting and with each time The ranks of the terrorists grow to the point where now they're stronger And now they're not perhaps seen as quite as extreme because Local population are focusing on the government reaction So if i'm getting this correct your rough theory that you're sort of sketching out is that Hamas by attacking israel and then you know provoking the state and and israel then attacking in turn That this makes you know arguably ordinary gossians more likely to be sympathetic to the Hamas cause Is that sort of the rough am I understanding your argument correctly? Yes, I think so it is um, this is definitely a possibility. Um, we don't actually know exactly How popular Hamas is in Gaza? That's what I was going to ask. I was going to ask what evidence do we have? I'm I'm open to this theory. It's fascinating to me But what evidence do we have that sort of lends credence to it if you could walk us through some of that? that would be really helpful or so I don't want to be serious with the wrong idea. I'm not suggesting that Hamas is not currently popular in Gaza it is it was elected in 2006 And there really haven't been consistent You know to put it mildly Open elections, but by all indications Hamas already is popular And has been popular since 2006, but these attacks could even increase Hamas's popularity There are other groups in Gaza which vie organizationally against Hamas this attack because Hamas is credited for it and because israel is so reviled You know and detested among the palestinian population could Almost elevate Hamas's status and this could happen not only within Gaza But also in the west bank where historically Gaza I'm sorry. Hamas hasn't been quite as popular as it is in Gaza the palestinian authority is stronger in the west bank and there there are other groups But I've although most of the focus understandably has been on Gaza I've I have seen you know imagery coming out of the west bank showing You know celebrations and enthusiasm The level of enthusiasm and supporters Also extends beyond the so-called palestinian territories It could be that you know Nasrallah Joins in with Hezbollah could join forces with Hamas We've seen big celebrations in Amman Jordan we've even seen uh Complimentary statements that have come out of al-Qaeda's affiliates and so Hamas could essentially be positioning itself as a leader in the larger global um terrorist movement And that would not have happened Without this unprecedented attack against israel and the inevitable counter response, which is seen as very very unpopular Um in countries throughout the world frankly Let me ask you how this fits. Let's stipulate that this is Hamas's strategy or it's objective How do I want to ask how that fits into the framework that you lay out in rules for rebels? You lay out some of the rules here that I've highlighted that a smart militant leader Recognizes that not all violence is equal for achieving their stated political goals The first thing smart militants do is recognize that civilian attacks are a recipe for political failure So that you know the evidence that you marshal in the book for that is that when Terrorists attack have some sort of concrete political demand like we want an independent state or we want more land that Typically when they attack civilians the local population Oh, sorry my camera went off, but I'll keep talking the local population Turns against them, uh, and they actually get less of what they were asking for but in this case It seems that you're saying Hamas is not operating under the assumption that they are going to get an independent gaza out of this, but it's more about You know positioning themselves as the leaders of this, you know, Sunni jihadists on the movement Do you think that you know, would that will that be an effective tactic, uh, or will it backfire Do you think it's likely to backfire in the same ways that it has in these other situations? Yeah, so a lot of people wonder whether terrorism quote-unquote works Right is terrorism an effective tactic for aggrieved groups And there's no consensus on this question and for a lot of reasons, but one of the reasons why is that it's not entirely clear how one should measure success So if the goal of a terrorist group or an aggrieved group is to provoke a country into going absolutely ballistic Then terrorism is a very effective approach part of that is because there's at least some kind of an implied social contract where the government is tasked with Defending the population and so when it gets attacked, there's a lot of pressure To respond also in liberal democracies in particular There's an idea that the individual matters greatly and that civilians in particular are Sacrosanct that they shouldn't be deliberately targeted There's also just a lot of you know, vengeance That comes out of the domestic population for a strong attack. And so I would say as a provocation strategy terrorism is effective However, as an instrument coercion in terms of pressuring governments into willingly making concessions By appeasing the perpetrators You know giving up the demands that the perpetrators are are asking for terrorism has a much worse record The I'm actually credited with having published the first large-end study looking at the political effectiveness of terrorism and What I did was I took a sample from the state department of foreign terrorist organizations every two years The state department designates groups And I actually disaggregated the groups In terms of whether they mainly direct their violence against civilian targets Whether they mainly direct their violence against military targets and the reason why I did that Is because although there's no consensus over the definition of terrorism Most people seem to understand that terrorism Is an anti-civilian tactic And so when I disaggregated the groups by their target selection What it showed is that groups that primarily direct their violence against civilians That is by using terrorism Have absolutely terrible rate of political success in terms of the achievement of their stated political goals Whereas groups that mainly direct their violence against military targets Have a much better record at pressuring governments to comply politically I'll just give a really brief example if you don't mind Just to illustrate what I'm talking about Take the example of 9-11 Osama bin Laden was based out of Afghanistan and the 9-11 attacks happened and they Of course Primarily struck civilian targets in terms of the world trade center tower Um, and so pretty much everybody would agree any reasonable person would agree that that was a terrorist attack The united states um, you know rallied mobilized to respond militarily it it was in it was in no mood to begin negotiating with You know with al-qaeda every lawmaker I think except for barbara lee supported a military response, right? And the united in the united states americans were all jazzed up about going after the al-qaeda leadership in afghanistan And then when we got there The mission over time would sort of get confused and morphed from a strictly counterterrorism operation to a nation building one The taliban would be toppled from the government and they would actually assume the role of terrorists Or at least militants and surgeons And they directed their violence against military forces After a while as america, you know incurred the cost of that occupation americans support for it understandably and predictably declined before the united state and so You know the united states was essentially going to do what the taliban demanded by getting out of their country Before the united states withdrew its forces it said to the taliban We don't want to be here. We don't want you attacking our troops, but you have to understand that We could come back And we we will there's a good chance. We'll be back If there's another 9 11 like attack that comes out of afghanistan that targets You know the american population specifically, you know, specifically the civilians and so I have a lot of large end data, but i'm also providing this empirical example in order to um suggest That there are variable effects on target countries Depending on their target selection that governments tend to behave differently when their populations are attacked compared to when their military is attacked and that groups tend to have more success When they eschew civilian violence In that sense, they don't use terrorism and they tend to use their violence more selectively not as indiscriminately But more selectively against government And against the military, uh, and I think that that the palestinians are Consistent with that finding where we've seen as I suggested that When the palace when palestinian groups use terrorism by attacking civilians All it did essentially was move the electorate to the political right steal is really resolve and and often lead to Very painful reprisals against the perpetrators and often the broader palestinian population And if you look at uh, the effect that you're saying hamas wanted to achieve with this, which is to Further to to provoke a reaction that would build a movement I want to look at what is israel's reaction has been it's an it's an understandable reaction from the government when a brutal These these brutal crimes are advertised And this is done in such a you know just barbaric almost medieval way You know the the reaction from israel has been to bomb the crap out of gaza and to Face the engage in siege warfare. Uh, we have a clip from the defense minister Of israel a couple days talking about that strategy Let's run that and then i've got a question for you about israel's response max We are imposing a complete siege on gaza. There will be no electricity. No food. No water. No fuel Everything will be closed We are fighting against human animals and we are acting accordingly That this is total war and like I said on an emotional level. I understand why it's happening But if we can try to talk on a strategic level for a minute What do your studies of terrorism and counterterrorism tell you about this kind of overwhelming response? Which is guaranteed to kill many civilians yeah, so There of course is a is a field of study called terrorism studies Which tends to look at non-state actors Like uh, it could be a lone wolf or a small group or a larger organization that uses violence against civilians for a political goal um You most political scientists in the west don't include government violence um in the category of of uh, terrorism although It depends on one's politics, but it also depends on Whether one lives geographically that's more common to do for example out of the middle east, etc there is Also a lot of research separately on what's sometimes known as civilian victimization In civilian victimization is when governments Direct their violence Against civilians and kill them in huge numbers. So there is research on that The most well-known work is by alex downs at gw or benjamin valentino at at dartmouth In general The finding that the findings Which I find to be most credible Are that civilian targeting doesn't pay when it's conducted by governments either um, and so Essentially what I've found is that terrorism doesn't pay where we define terrorism as non-state Deliberately harming the population And separately other scholars have found that when governments Essentially direct their guns on the population that that too Tends to be ineffective, although there seem to be more of a Empirical dispute around that and one of the reasons why perhaps Nobody's tried to really squint, you know reconcile this But one of the reasons why is because governments have so much power National militaries have so much power so it could be that When the national militaries are able to ramp up the level of violence to a You know to a sufficient level it might be Well, it would be extraordinarily immoral, but it might be More, you know more effective Um, then say when non-state actors, um harm the population. So There is there is good literature on this and most of it would suggest that um Any sort of deliberately harm towards the population um would not work to the benefit of the government So would that be would that imply then that You know It's a obviously a tough situation for israel because hamas intentionally Hides among the civilian population in gaza, but then they are But but what what i was going to say is they are um cutting off the water and power to civilians and sort of Sealing the exits in terms of they they bombed the border crossing into israel Into i mean into egypt, um that seems like a pretty counter like Based on what you're saying that it would actually that would be a pretty counterproductive response Yeah, I just want to clarify the morality of it aside I'm not suggesting in any way that israel is deliberately Harming the population no I was really just trying to explain the civilian victimization literature in terms of what we know When the government harms uh large numbers of civilians in the population I honestly believe that if it were possible For israel to kill every hamas terrorist in gaza Without harming a here on the head of any um civilian in gaza that it would do so and It's just it is not logistically possible because of the tremendous population density within gaza As well as that what you were describing which is that Hamas intentionally by designed as part of its strategy In meshes itself in the population. Hamas literally puts its headquarters Beneath the the hospital the main hospital in gaza It shoots from mosques and schools Its main strategy Is to make it impossible logistically to separate from the surrounding population and so even if israel Tried its utmost Just to take out hamas without harming a single civilian Um, it would not be possible a debate can be had About whether israel airs too much In terms of destroying hamas at the inevitable mass suffering that this will cause to the population But it is a function of the difficulties of counterterrorism Rather than any kind of genocidal intent to harm civilians I think what you're saying is very well taken specifically the point which i think many people don't know about um about Hamas basically choosing to operate in al shifa hospital uh making it So that they are legitimately covered by the fact that if israel actually wanted to take out some of their Um, sort of like the the brains of their operations They would have to do so by attacking a hospital that is ministering to The the injured, uh, but I do think there is this question that we might be side stepping and I would love to hear your thoughts on this max There's a blockade, uh, and you know in like gaza is dark now They are using generators to power al shifa hospital right now as we speak they claim to have about two or three days of fuel left last I read Once those generators go dark. I mean there's a huge crisis where there's not Any fuel left available to people in gaza people will not be able to perform surgery on any of the wounded You know a lack of clean drinking water Food that was in refrigerators that will no longer be able to be consumed and and running out of food fuel and water This is a huge source of suffering for You know two million gossans and currently Egypt is in no way playing any sort of role In allowing people to cross via the rafa border crossing to the extent that that is possible given israel's actions Or any sort of humanitarian assistance to allow safe passage of supplies to you know the 43 percent of gaza's population that is children What is the way for israel to Do this? I mean surely this blockade are there any ways around this Walk us through that thought process as best you can and give us your sense of Is there any way to minimize this amount of civilian suffering because we're seeing staggering amounts of suffering in gaza right now Well, first of all Zach and lis i'm very impressed, you know with all the with all the research that you've done both on the conflict and In terms of my own work, um You really have this covered here. I mean i do not No, I don't know the answer to that. I don't know how to crush amos and Not harm the population. I mean there is the rub um It is you know, I myself am a father. I have a you know a file like There there's a huge youth population in gaza And no matter what your politics You know a child a baby They have nothing to do with this conflict And they don't deserve any suffering from it And the utmost should be done to To spare them and to have them prosper Perhaps there some progress could be made on the egyptian border as you're suggesting um Egypt has a long history with gaza egypt Used to occupy gaza a lot of people seem to forget that from 1949 to 1967 We've been told as well that it was egyptian intelligence, which pierced have actually been better than is really intelligence In terms of the october 7th attack um So egypt is no stranger to gaza And it remains to be seen what the cc government will do about this I would like to see A corridor opened up um to help the civilians i mean even if I mean i haven't really thought about this solution in detail there are you know human rights workers in the region who probably have more concrete ideas than i do but Maybe there could be a quarter that would open up We opened up below a certain age Everybody gets out without questions Um, I don't understand why food wouldn't be allowed to be brought in Um, sure on the you know, you could make it confusing if you want to suggest like Dual use technologies that could be civilian and military But even leaving those aside surely there could be humanitarian assistance, which would provide Really no military value offensively whatsoever other than sustaining the population Um, so I would love to see as much humanitarian progress as possible um I do know I mean i've seen reports that Some of the attackers were actually The workers were actually I was about to ask you what you make of that because I know israel has been generous with extending work permits To gaza's which is a component to this that I think many critics of israel Don't pay very much attention to uh and are a little reticent to talk about but the fact of the matter is that That border is somewhat permeable to gaza's who are interested in working I think specifically the construction industry Uh in israel is is pretty populated by gaza's What do you make of this theory that's been circulating that this is one of the means by which hamas was able to infiltrate israel and catch them off guard It's horrible. I mean In the even not looking at this case but in previous cases where the perpetrators Were not necessarily um workers Right, there might have just been an attack. It could have even been a rocket attack A common israeli response has been to seal off the borders even more to to reduce Maybe even you know suspend Uh worker permits And if it's true You know that the actual perpetrators were the ones being allowed back and forth into israel Then that only sort of reinforces the strategic logic of of sealing off the border to the detriment to the further detriment of the gaza population But it is another example Um of how terrorism often backfires on the perpetrators Assuming the perpetrators care at all about the population they claim to represent I wanted to ask you about another aspect of your work or another finding that I That I came across in your book Um, I'm just trying to add it to this. There we go. Um, you mentioned at one point that Many scholars expect violence whenever mass-based movements of nonviolent reform are politically unprofitable And this is the exact line of argumentation that you hear from the palestinian side is that For many years We've tried to Have a mass movement to get some political rights. Uh, that has been denied And rather than have me lay out their argument. I've pulled, uh, a clip from Um, a gentleman, uh, that who's on feride zikariah's show From, uh, he's the head of one of the major, uh, his name is mustapha barguti He's the leader of the palestinian national initiative, which is a political party in palestine. That's not affiliated with hamas It's not part of the plo either And he I think lays out the palestinian point of use Sinkly I'd like to just play that and get you to respond to what he lays out there. Let's roll that clip It has evolved is a direct result Of the continuation of the longest occupation in modern history Israeli occupation of palestinian land since, uh, 1967. This is 56 years of occupation That has transformed into a system of apartheid A much worse apartheid than what prevailed in South Africa Yes, maybe hamas did not recognize israel, but the plo did and the palestinian authority did What did they get nothing? Since 2014 the israeli governments would not even meet with palestinians And what you see today is a reaction to several things first world settlers terrorist attacks on palestinians in the west bank That has effected already 20 communities in an act of ethnic cleansing 248 palestinians were killed by the israeli army and settlers in the west bank Including 40 children Attacks on the holy sites the muslim and christian holy sites by israeli extremists As well as declaration of natanya That he will liquidate the palestinian rights and the palestinian cause By normalization with arab countries And he dared even to go to the united nations and carried in the united nations A map of israel, which included the whole of the west bank all of gaza All of jerusalem as well as the golan heights He declared the annexation of the occupied territories So of course palestinians turn to resistance Because they see that this is the only way for them to get their rights The question here is not about dehumanizing palestinians as is happening and calling them terrorists It's about asking the question Why the united states supports ukrain in fighting what they call occupation While here they are supporting the occupier who continues to occupy us What do you think of his assertion that palestinians have been backed into a corner specifically by the net and yahoo administrations Kind of aggressive expansion plans the expansion of settlements and they're now in its corner with no good options occupied by That you know amidst an occupying force Yeah, I think it's important for me to say And for people to understand That although the conflict is often, you know called the israeli palestinian conflict That there are huge differences um within the palestinians and also within The israeli side in terms of their political views in terms of their tactical approaches I don't mean to suggest at all That the palestinians are categorically rejectionist of a two-state solution I believe that there are many many palestinians who If they could snap their fingers they would easily trade um Israeli territory withdrawals to UN resolution 242 borders and they would you know not support violence and in most cases Maybe never supported violence even in the first place um, so that that gentleman, you know, arghuti um Sounds like he's not rejectionist and that he his main demand Is for there to be a two-state solution Which does have some residents Among israelis on the left. Does it resonate with the current israeli government? No the the current israeli government is Not in favor of a two-state solution um, it seems that they would like to Take over completely The west bank and so this government underneath in yahoo And the way that he has formed it by moving to the right It's impossible to imagine them being the ones to be party to any um political resolution to this conflict so I'm not sure that I Disagree all that much with some of what that speaker on farid Zakaria said Well, you know, uh, you mentioned earlier that Hamas has been they were this kind of spoiler because there were constituencies on both sides for a two-state solution and Hamas obviously did not want that because they don't think israel should exist Uh, and but then, you know, I've read reports that have said that some of the Right Right-wing factions in israel Kind of boosted Hamas over the years. There's been intelligence officials now that have gone on the record and say like we made a mistake by boosting Hamas when we should have dealt with the plo Um, how much you know, how much truth is there to that dynamic? Does that exist that these two sides have kind of been feeding on each other over the years? I'm sure there is a symbiotic relationship between the israeli right and Um, you know the more radical groups within the palestinian political media It might even be strategic. Um, I mean in some sort of cynical way Um, because you know If you really don't because I never said Nietzsche and yahoo wants a two-state solution, you know Let's assume that he doesn't Then why not build up? Your adversary, uh, who's also not in favor of a two-state solution that would probably Um, lower the likelihood of a two-state solution being put on either of them Um, it's not uncommon for a government to support a group and for Things to kind of get out of control Um in terms of there being backlash. I mean we the most famous case is the mujahedin Which you know the u.s. Supported and over time that would morph into the early Al-Qaeda, um, I would argue although Some church would disagree with me that that bird of on also um facilitated deliberately The creation of the caliphate By having a very porous border with syria and allowing tens of thousands of foreign fighters to cross over and then Sometimes Isis has actually attacked inside of turkey And so when I've said, you know When I've accused the Erdogan government of being state sponsors of terrorism Turks will say, how could you possibly say that? Turkey has been a victim of isis terrorism and turkey has also Used its military on various occasions to fight against isis And the truth is all of it is true It is true that they helped isis and it is true that they suffered at the hands of isis Is wanted to you want to bring up some of the audience questions? And then after that I would like to talk a little bit about the role that the us Has played and will play in all of this Well, the comment that most uh stuck out to me was by jesse jb Uh, which said I guess in response to what I had said related to work permits for gauzans Generous what a messed up thing to say given the circumstance I I think this really uh, we actually go back to the sentence because the comment just means absolutely nothing generous, yeah, let's let's back up I had yeah, I had characterized, uh, you know the uh practice by the israeli state Of issuing work permits as a sort of lifeline to gauzans as a generous thing to do, especially in the context Yeah, exactly just something you said Yeah, exactly. Uh, and I just wanted to respond to that and really communicate I mean, this is all in the context of possibly It being through that system that hamas infiltrated israel and gathered more intelligence to be able to carry out this attack So it came at great risk to the israeli state and then I think it's also worth considering I mean by the numbers I think it's something like 15 000 to 20 000 work permits that are issued by israel To gauzans to work in agricultural and construction sectors primarily And then I believe we have about 100 000 work permits issued to those in the west bank to be able to work In israel from what I have read and I know the associated press does some pretty good reporting on this You know, you're you're expected to make about 10 times as much in israel Then if you attempt to find a similar job in the same sector in gauza, I'm sorry but we have a 50 unemployment rate in palestine and Just crippling poverty refugee camp like conditions I am not in any way characterizing israel's overall role toward gauza as generous since they are obviously leveling entire neighborhoods entire apartment buildings And you know killing I think the death toll is up to over You know 1200 now with 6 000 people injured And likely to be updated even more I'm not characterizing the actions of israel on the whole toward gauza as generous But I'm saying that specifically with the issuance of work permits to me This looks like something the israeli government does at pretty substantial risk to them In an effort to ensure that civilians don't have to live in total poverty and squalor under the thumb of hamas You know, they obviously still do have to deal with hamas because that is what they elected And there are all kinds of ways that that continues to affect their daily life But to me at least the issuance of work permits to attempt to give Regular ordinary people as best they can tell a little bit of a lifeline to a better life is not in any way a bad thing And that is a very generous thing that more government should probably do though I think it's important to be very clear-eyed about the the risk that that pose is So I wanted to clarify and sort of communicate to the comments along those lines that I fully 100 percent stand by what I said Let me pull up one more comment here I think max might be able to address because it goes to a question that we have faced here often in the u.s If you go to war against a country with no military How do you know when it's over so in other words if you're fighting against a sort of You know a militant group like hamas that and if this start, you know spreads into a more widespread jihadist movement along the lines of isis When is it over? Honestly, I don't think it will be over I think that um, there's no foreseeable endpoint to any of this um I mean hamas is popular and it terrorism doesn't require That much to do You know, you could have a gun. You could set something on fire. You could fly a kite It it you know With relatively just minimal tools you can Terrorize people um, and even if Israel were to completely a trip from us militarily Which seems unlikely there will be successors And there will be angry people who want revenge And of course they will pick up arms as well um, so I think I actually Do agree with the israeli goal of trying to destroy hamas As a terrorist group in terms of its ability to mount operations Against israeli civilians. I understand that goal. I think that that would be the goal of any government that had faced a similar You know a commensurate terrorist situation um No matter how successful They are They will fall short I suspect And as we've mentioned The cost to the palestinian population is going to be horrific Let's turn to us politics because obviously we've had a more than two decades war on terror And I there's a special relationship between the us and israel And america sent giant aircraft carriers to the mediterranean Many of the usual suspects have been rattling sabers against iran There's been a lot of speculation about iran's involvement that is still Not nailed down But suffice it to say the level that you know, even though that's undetermined at this moment It has not stopped the beat of the the war drums within the g.o.p So i want to roll a montage of nicky hailey mike pence and lindsay graham Talking about the current situation in iran President joe biden's cowtowing for the last two and a half years to the mullahs in iran Lifting sanctions begging them to get back in the iran nuclear deal And then paying six billion dollars in iran some For hostages. I I think set the conditions For this unprecedented terrorist attack by hamas against israel But I also believe this is what happens when we have leading voices like donald trump the vekram swami And ron desantis signaling retreat from america's role as leader of the free world When they took these hostages when they murdered these families They were celebrating and what were they celebrating they were saying death to israel death to america This is not just an attack on israel. This is an attack on america because they hate us just as much For every israeli or american hostage executed by hamas We should take down an iranian oil refinery The all the way you're going to keep this war from escalating is to hold around accountable So look Israel has a self-interest to respond to this with great force For nicky hailey though to say that an attack on israel is an attack on america That is you know It's an attack on israel and that that should be bad enough and to immediately start conflating those interests and then for lindsay graham to You know, we have an interest in getting us hostages back But to start saying we should be bombing iran's Oil refineries and just ratchet it up to level 10 immediately. Uh, am I wrong to view this as really alarming? rhetoric I think that you're right to be worried especially given The war on terrorism and how voices just like these let us so far astray and it was I don't need to repeat to your audience, but going into iraq was Not just a humanitarian disaster for the iraqis, but strategically idiotic for the united states in terms of its counterterrorism goals by taking out saddam and enabling You know al qaeda and iraq to to really flare up and over the years to to morph into ices We need to be really careful about American missteps at a time when You know in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist tragedy Um, I also think that the media has an important role to play in this And even before we start talking about Policy prescription, you know, what should the u.s. Response be? We need to understand What exactly happened? Right, I mean with 9 11 there was a lot of false talk or lies about the role of iraq, um even before We start thinking about what the you know response should be if any to iran we do require more clarity And to precisely what iran's role Was and I think that the media can do a really good job of explaining to citizens What it is that we actually Do know And what our confidence level is In the things that we say So for example, what we do know and this is again this proceeds any discussion About what the american policy response if any should be it's just as a basic factual matter here You know, what we do know for sure Is that iran is a state sponsor of terrorism? If you of course to Include hezbollah and hamas as terrorist groups not everybody does but the state department does and Most academics do certainly political scientists in north america We know that there's a there's a level of iranian support of these groups. They're not the same For hezbollah, they have an even stronger connection to iran than hamas does hezbollah Was there at the very origin of hezbollah whereas hamas is more of a autonomous group that Um, I believe essentially could have formed even without That even without iranian backing It's not hard to imagine so you don't need iran to explain Hamas in the same way that you need iran to explain Hezbollah, which was part of exporting the iranian revolution, etc So we know that there's a certain level of baseline iranian support of these groups to various extent There was a report which we're kind of talking around which came out of the wall street journal Which suggests a much higher level of direct iranian involvement That they not only were aware of the Operation, but they green lighted it and it goes to the very top of iran and these terrorist groups Some people if I could just for just a second Let me just read a couple excerpts from that article you referenced Iran you know the The headline which our viewers can see but I'll read for our listeners iran helped plot attack on israel over several weeks This was all this came out on october 8th Iranian security officials helped plan Hamas's saturday surprise attack according to senior members of hamas and hezbollah US officials say they haven't seen evidence of tehran's involvement Secretary of state anthony blinkin said we have not seen yet seen evidence that iran directed or was behind this particular attack But there was certainly a long relationship There was some consequence reporting from newsweek which talked directly to some hamas Fighters or leadership. Uh, they said the iranian or sorry was the iranian mission to the united nations who they talked to Told newsweek that iran did not have a direct hand. They say we've supported palestinian fighters in acquiring fishing skills They independently determine when where and how to engage in fishing according to their very own needs and interests So, I mean to to your points We just need to tread carefully here and understand that all parties involved are going to have incentives to Spin this one way or another and until things are I think we we've learned from very recent history that we need Real confirmation before kind of jump taking the next step forward This is an extraordinarily weighty allegation And the more consequential the allegation um, the more important it is to to get the basic facts right, um, I've heard people say things like well, look at the sophistication of the attack like That's like if so fact, you know evidence that it must have been There must be um, iranian involvement. I mean, I think that's some of the strongest evidence is that a hamas leader Um said I believe that there was iranian involvement, but honestly, I I was doing this same sort of work um in 2003 and I was duped um about all sorts of allegations About iraq and and I said that I would never do that again That that that for me the evidence would have to be higher for other people. They may have seen enough um, so um, but I do think that there's an important role in the media of Clarifying what it is that we do know and and don't at this point I I do think that If a second front is opened up in terms of his blood um We could assume that that second front does have the blessing of iran I don't believe that hezbollah would open up the second front. Um without um iran greenlighting it because they've been so involved in all aspects of hezbollah But again historically the same has not been true about hamas I also want to just make it very clear that that i'm not ruling out the possibility that iran Was involved in this attack that that it did help hamas More than its traditional baseline levels. Um, i'm just saying that I would like to even to see even more evidence along those lines for drawing the conclusion One thing that i'm curious about is you are saying if hezbollah opens up a northern front Um, you know, then then we have a little bit more evidence to substantiate this idea of iran being involved With the fighting that's currently going on on the northern front. Do you sort of characterize that as like not quite You know, it's more sort of routine something that happens fairly frequently where the iran dome intercepts some amount of hezbollah activity But that that just sort of hasn't Um gotten to the point where we really consider that to be a northern front opened up or how do you look at that? Because there have been some reports of activity there. No, I would say a northern front has not been opened up In in close to israel's border to the north of it There are other militant groups and they sometimes You know commit attacks and there might even be some hezbollah members Who commit some small attacks? Um, it's basically a communication strategy Among these aggrieved groups and israel israel will respond Sometimes in a proportional way It's basically a way for them to talk to each other Through violence, but when i'm talking about when i'm talking about opening up a second front There will be no doubt. I'm talking about taking advantage of tens of thousands of these rockets. Um, really negatively impacting You know large numbers of israeli civilians If nasrallah really opens up and basically doesn't hold his military power in in reserve a In authorization like that by nasrallah. I believe would require um iranian consent That makes sense the parallel that I would draw because I know a little bit less about the part of the world that we Are talking about right now, but I do know a fair bit about china and taiwan is You know we see a lot of news reports when chinese jets fly into the taiwan's air defense identification zone And so frequently there are these very sensationalist sort of breathless reports of like, oh my god Is china invading taiwan is this finally it and in fact some number of um, you know airspace encroachment is actually pretty routine It's not to say that taiwan welcomes that or enjoys it But it is just to say that for people un for the uninitiated who don't follow Chinese taiwanese relations very closely that can look very alarming But in fact is actually a somewhat routine thing So it seems like you're drawing that careful distinction on the northern front too I just wanted to make that clarification. The other thing is that when we're dealing with militant groups um a common You know thing to happen is that there could be some sort of a principal agent problem where uh, you know lower level members like, you know, low level operatives Could act in ways that don't necessarily have the blessing um of the principal of the leader, you know So What we're looking at what we've seen so far is basically relatively Small amounts of violence, but i'm talking about the amounts of violence which would require um nasrallah to Essentially declare war um on israel that would involve iran more so But then the next question everybody wants to know of course is just moving us along is what should the u.s. You know response be How we all couldn't get directly, right? Yeah, and you know to that question, you know, as you know, you're talking to a largely libertarian audience and on libertarian Social media this week There's been various clips of ron paul circulating around and i wanted to play one of those to open up That conversation about what the u.s. Roll in israel and palestine has been and should be moving forward So let's roll that clip of ron paul from 2001 voting against a um a sort of Voting against a resolution that would have condemned A palestinian bombing of israel at the time And he was the sole republican to vote against that and this was the speech he gave in support of his vote So let's roll that We hear today talk about being having solidarity with israel and others get up and try in their best way to defend the palestinians And and the arab's so it's sort of a contest should we be pro israel or pro arab or anti israel or anti arab And how do we how are we seeing and doing this and it's pretty important But i think there's a third option to this that we so often forget about why can't we be pro american? What is in the best interest of the united states? We haven't even heard that yet I believe that it's in the best interest of the united states Not to get into a fight a fight that we don't have the wisdom to figure out Now i would like to have neutrality that's been the tradition Uh for america at least a century ago to be friends with everybody trade with everybody and to be neutral Unless somebody declares war against us but not not to Demand that we pick sides Now i have a proposal and a suggestion which i think fits the american tradition That we should treat both sides equally But in a different way today we treat both sides equally by giving both sides money and telling them what to do Not a million dollars here or there Not a hundred million here or there But tens of billions of dollars over decades Always trying to buy peace And my argument is that it generally doesn't work that there are unintended consequences These things backfire they come back to haunt us So i think we should start off by defunding defunding both sides I i'm just not for giving all this money Because every time there are civilians killed On the israeli side or civilian killed on the palestinian side You can be assured that either our money was used directly or indirectly to do that killing So we are in a way an accomplice on all this because we fund both sides the policy of foreign non-intervention Where the united states is not the bully It doesn't come in and tell everybody exactly what to do and put these demands on If we didn't do that, yes We could we could have some moral authority to come condemn violence But should we not condemn violence equally? Could it be true that only innocent civilians have died on one side and not the other? I don't believe that to be true I believe that it happens on both sides and on both sides. They use our money to do this I urge a no vote on this resolution What do you think of ron paul's idea that America would be better off and actually so would israel and palestine if the us just cut off aid all together to both sides what I would say is probably not directly answer that but I would say that so far I think that the biden response has been good I think that the attack was just appalling and I think that the administration unlike honestly a lot of people around the world have recognized How horrible the violence was The united states to the best of my understanding I was told israel that it will support it with the iron dome That it that basically you need to replenish the stocks And it's very expensive Because its adversaries have so many of these these rockets And that the united states will provide assistance Which is defensive assistance in that area And that I also support I was surprised to see this But such a swift a swift dispatch To the eastern Mediterranean as a deterrent again I think that that's strategic and although The paul's might disagree and think that that's too much american involvement It comes at very low cost For the united states and could actually Save money and prevent future incentives, which could Increase the risk of embroiling the united states more In a wider middle east conflict so In my mind those are the three main responses of the biden administration. It's been rhetorical It's been for defensive weaponry, especially with the iron dome And then also moving the ship closer to Hezbollah To warn Hezbollah and Iran and I believe that u.s. Diplomats have been in touch With both of those international actors Telling them that I'm warning them that the united states could get involved. So thus far from what I've seen I have approval And i'm not sure that the biden administration's response has necessarily rankled um Those who are sympathetic to a more libertarian approach to foreign policy Yeah, but what about this point that um that sort of pouring money into the region over the years Under this pretense that you know, it's gonna get in the right hands and it's gonna be used in a way that advances us interests in the region that it just hasn't worked out that way, um, you know, there's been since its Inception about a quarter of a trillion dollars gone into israel several tens of billions to palestine about half a billion to palestine since the biden administration took power and You know, we don't know how that money has been used presumably at least some of it has been used to obtain rockets or weapon other weapons to go into israel. Um, I mean I know we're in the midst of a fight right now that it's it's hard to it might be hard to think about these questions, but Going forward. Is that something that needs to be rethought the amount of aid that's the us aid and weapons going into the region I mean, I want to provide a little bit of context here and that is when it came to the origins of You know in israeli state and us levels of support for israel The us ended up supporting um israel not for strategic reasons for humanitarian reasons and the aftermath of the holocaust as well as domestic political reasons because Of course, you know some prominent american jews were very much in favor of truman recognizing israel us support for israel stayed relatively low Until after the sixth day war It wasn't immediate, but after that there was the so-called war of attrition around 1970 and at that point Really shown in the sixth day war, but it took a little couple years You can see a major major uptick and us military support for israel and all of a sudden israel was seen as um, not just worthy of support for domestic reasons or humanitarian reasons But as a strategic ally in the context of the cold war And israel did israel was useful strategically to the united states in the cold war As the main us proxy in the middle east You know the soviets had them on their side and and the us had israel on its side when the cold war ended The case for israel um became harder to make for For for groups like apac Because they had been used to selling israel as a strategic asset in the context of the cold war and then What made it even tougher was You know a decade a little more than a decade after the cold war ended You had the the 9 11 attacks where osama bin laden You know listed a whole lot of reasons for why he attacked us, but one of them um was essentially us relations with israel and so increasingly It seemed that american citizens were wondering. Well, you know, what should we get out of this deal? Not only is israel no longer a strategic asset, but it might even be a liability One of the reasons why i think that the us has had Such a strong relationship with israel beyond the typical causal explanations You know domestic american support um sympathy shared values etc all that Is something really simple and that is that in general israel has shared very similar enemies as the united states and so when the when when when when dc thinks of who its enemies are they're often really similar to The enemies which are shared um in in Jerusalem and we see that working with respect to us relations with saudi arabia you the you know terrible relations um with iran um, and i think that there's a lot of sort of emotional value which Transits into support at least at the policy level um by having a lot of the same Mutual enemies and and a lot of the enemies actually make it easy Because they'll actually say death to israel death to america And it creates a very sort of easy opening for people like lindsay graham to say Not only do we have shared enemies, but we therefore have You know shared interests in that Essentially like nicky hayley might suggest an attack on israel is is it you know is an attack on america But i just wanted to provide a little bit of context to listeners in terms of how we got to this point in terms of the trajectory of us support for israel Yeah, that's that's super useful context I did want to turn uh everybody's attention to a few comments that we've gotten There are actually some really interesting questions that i think you can speak to some of these max one of them is from liminal and um, it says reason tv Why is gaza entirely dependent on israel for its day-to-day existence i.e. water fuel electricity Could you explain and give a little bit more context to the 16-year blockade? I think this is something that is frequently sort of misunderstood about relations between gaza and israel Well, I do think that gaza gets more support Then that that question would suggest um, it gets um international support from You know allies in different countries I think turkey is actually currently sending over some support cut art the un supply support the us even to an extent as zak was suggesting Provides a certain measure of support And as you suggested this israel also provides a certain measure of support Egypt but I would like to see um Again, I I I I I want to hold out this belief it might be naive But I do want to hold out this belief that it is possible To have a punishing response to hamas which it earned at the lowest possible cost to the population and anything that could be done to um safeguard the population during this counterterrorism response should be done And I'm quite sure more could be done along those lines Well, the thing I'm curious about though, and I wonder whether this listener is getting at that is Isn't this crazy that hamas was elected? Um, I guess, you know at this point quite a while ago And yet conditions haven't improved really for civilians in gaza and they are still so reliant on israel For so much You know, could you do you have any can you speak to the conditions sort of on the ground there? Uh, the fact that they're not in any way sort of like self sustaining or self reliant and the fact that hamas sort of neglects its own people Is pretty disturbing Yeah, I mean these are really good questions, but I honestly don't have any you know a whole lot of color to provide um that the that This population is really suffering and it is dependent on uh, essentially foreign assistance and Contributions and yet the quality of life is absolutely terrible. I mean what research shows is that in general Terrorism tends to backfire um, and That's one of one of the really sad aspects of this is that and why One really can't be optimistic Is because the leading party in gaza although It has popularity is actually being the gaza's A disservice now when I say that I don't mean to suggest that is real is not a huge part of the problem Um, but what I am suggesting is that gaza's have two problems and they might not they're you know They're not on the same level, but gaza's have an israel problem and gaza's also have a hamas problem They were much safer and better off two weeks ago Yeah, that's a really good way of putting it. Um, I wanted to also entertain the comments from carl wilson and fanny anzai That both sort of gesture at the same thing Which is that a former hamas leader has you know, publicized a sort of call Around the globe for for jihad tomorrow on friday the 13th. Uh, and basically Put countries all around the world on higher alert for this um Do you what do you make of this max is this credible? Is this something that people ought to be on guard for? Um, what do you what do you make of this and how do these groups typically? Operate is how do we assess as lay people as as non experts? Whether these types of things are credible or just things that we see circulating on social media One of the most upsetting aspects of the october 7th attack Has been the response around the world You know It is great. I mean, it's just objectively true that hamas is tactics In in many ways looked absolutely as evil and barbaric as isis tactics, um I've looked I've looked at the pictures of I can verify them like the pictures of the burned babies and going house to house and shooting um families and this would you would think That this might Be a bridge too far for a lot of people that even if they support the palestinian cause They would be repulsed by this level of violence You never saw big celebrations around the world after isis You know burnings and shootings and Beheadings you didn't see that it out of australia or across cities and in america or or in europe But you do see a celebration of the violence of hamas And so hamas Is more popular even around the world than isis Ever was and it somehow seemed as more acceptable to stop hamas violence around world than it ever was to celebrate isis violence You know, you do not have to go far from where I live or probably from where either of you might be to find gatherings of highly activated, you know, uh upset activists who hold signs which in many cases Are lauding not only the cause of the palestinian resistance but even The very disgusting tactics against israeli citizens on top of that We know that according to the latest number i saw Hamas killed international Hamas killed 22 americans and has an old and told number of american hostages In america is not alone. These aren't just just, you know, american israeli citizens. These are foreigners from from asia, for example Where they were killed in in in numbers um, and so and again The hamas attack is being applauded by al qaeda Yeah, the amount of so so when a hamas leader In this raw situation um is calling for transnational attacks outside of israel I do take that threat very seriously Yeah, the amount of international Minimizing of the atrocities committed by hamas and almost celebration using the paragliders that descended on that music festival Where 260 people were killed many of whom were teenagers and young adults many of whom were torus international um, you know foreign nationals The celebration of these murderous hamas paragliders and co-opting this image for poster art Done by black lives matter organizations in the united states distributed on college campuses all over america has been so disturbing to watch i mean i live in new york city And watching people congregate in time square and making horribly anti-semitic comments these cheers and cheers Some of these tweets that we're seeing and i sort of trust people to be their worst selves on the internet But you see many people many ultra Ultra online leftist academics saying things along the lines trying to map all of this onto this very simplistic colonizer Um oppressed narrative, uh, you know this one tweet. I think is so emblematic of this mindset What did y'all think decolonization meant vibes papers essays losers? um, and it's like well, wait a second like you could reasonably oppose the actions of the state of israel and you could oppose the way that they're leveling So much of gaza While still saying that the instigating attack what hamas did of putting bullet holes into children into babies And executing grandmothers in front of their families Abducting people, you know, there there's a little bit of misinformation sort of floating around and it's hard to suss out The extent to which rape was used, especially on some of the women who were abducted from that music festival The degree to which, you know peaceful kaboots is Had, you know all kinds of slaughter and i mean these are highly trusting communities We're generally speaking you're prepared for air raids, but not on the ground attacks You had, you know neighbors watching your their neighbors and family members being murdered. I just the amount of Totally ignorant if not outright evil vitriol We are seeing spewed from so many corners of the american Progressive left has been highly disturbing to watch and I do i'm curious about whether we're seeing a little bit of this Watershed moment a little bit of a reckoning where there's a sense of like Well, wait a second weren't you the same people on college campuses complaining about microaggressions and asking to be Taken into a safe space and like how do you think this makes jewish students on these university campuses feel When you are acting like these paragliders should be using a little can the graphic design template I mean, it's pretty despicable to me. Yeah, but also the left has been so quick to you, you know to call everybody nazis Yeah Right and now and now we see the largest mass killing of jews literally since the holocaust And they're coming out and marching Um for them for on the side Um of the perpetrators What what typically happens when a group uses You know carnage against civilians in such an overwhelming way is it not only reduces the likelihood of government concessions But it does tend international support, but in the case of the palestinians Um, we're not seeing the standard Um international effect It's very hard to imagine a bloodletting like this happening somewhere else in the world And you know, so many people all over the place in america and europe and australia, etc um You know holding up signs and saying that this is justified and that this this is actually good And maybe we should see uh even more of it. Um, so uh that this has been You know a secondary very disturbing aspect of the october 7th terrorist rampage Yeah, and I think liz is right to say that there's the sort of simplistic oppressor oppressed lens that so many of these activists have been acclimated to seeing everything through And there's just this sort of reflexive Oh palestine, uh, no matter what the facts on the ground are that's that's the side that we need to You know align with uh before we wrap this up, you know, you know, can I say one more thing? You know, yeah, just just as how government sometimes support You know terrorist groups and they think that it will serve them well somehow and then it ends up sort of backfiring against the government these problems that we're seeing You know who's implicated in them is actually the administrations and a lot of these universities where they hired faculty um, which contributed to the radicalization um of the students and they also built up these big DEI offices, which in frankly in many cases and this is objectively true based on data, um that More often than not, they're actually anti-semitic They don't even really view jews as a minority group worth protecting um And what's happened is we've seen a radicalization of the youth in this country Particularly at the universities and this could get out of control in a way that the administrations will regret But make no mistake. It's not a coincidence that the radicalization um is happening at a lot of these universities and I think that the Um administrations are largely responsible for it. Even if they come to regret that stance of theirs over the last few years Yeah, they they created the frankenstein's monster and now they're gonna have to deal with it We've kept you for a long time max before we wrap up I want to ask you one last thing which was about the role of social media in all of this because So many of these horrific images came out I mean, they're the the terrorists were Taking videos posting them on people's facebook pages. This stuff has been all over twitter or x.com And you know the light touch on x.com has allowed a lot of this to proliferate quite far and wide um, I have seen some of your posts about this and you seem to lean on the side that This should be out there as horrific as the imagery is it it needs to be out there Could you just explain that viewpoint for us? Yeah, the israeli government has come out with a statement saying that they do not want shared um any kind of real time or you know very recent um videos or photos of the hostages um if they you know if they're cases of killings murders or cases of torture and I and I do Understand that and I do intend on respecting that um as a strategic matter and and I mean there's the issue of Identification, you know, you wouldn't want to spread images which would allow um the public to identify someone who's Suffering the worst seconds imaginable and the worst ones of their life, but as a purely strategic matter In cases where identification is not possible in terms of who the hostage is um, I would recommend a different strategy Which is to actually broadcast the horrific behavior of hamas I think that it If any, you know It won't convince everybody But it will convince a lot of people um that what hamas is doing um, it's completely unjustifiable And it provides information, which in and of itself is is hugely Valuable, but as a strategic tool Um, I also think that it could be useful to broadcast such imagery, but um I don't intend Um, I'm going there my final thing that I'll say is You know, there's so much talk about social media in terms of Whether it's valuable or not And the vast majority of it is negative Um all the stories about you know, how there's too much extremist content. There's so much disinformation I and and there is a lot of bad stuff, but overall there's a huge net benefit Um, I don't mind saying that I'm addicted to twitter Um, I'm addicted to the news in terms of world events Um, I follow it constantly and if I didn't I'd be a lot less informed And my voice would be much smaller Yeah, I I totally I totally agree. I think there's been a lot of backlash To twitter in recent uh months given the the events the change of its ownership, but I'm there with you I I think that uh, it still remains a incredibly useful and Vibrant source of information Absolutely max aprams. Thank you so much for talking to us. Where can our viewers find your book? Uh, they can do it through google. Um, it's on uh um, and uh, yeah, it's really rebels rules for rebels um right here the science of victory in militant history and basically It's a very ambitious book And it looks at hundreds of militant groups throughout world history all over the world and basically comes up with Ways that are scientifically backed for militant groups to maximize the chances that they will succeed um So there's a lot of uh history in there and a lot of social science and a lot of real world policy implications Wonderful, uh, and what's what is your twitter handle in case our viewers want to follow up with you there? Thank you so much. It's just my name. That's at max aprams m a x a b r a h m s And uh, I look forward to seeing all of your tweets Thank you guys. Thank you so much for speaking with reason and thank you all for coming to watch our live stream We'll be back again same exact time next week. Uh