We'll folks. Last week, I went to university of cambridge over in the uk to talk about it's going on in the middle east and the decline of western values, and then I took a bunch of questions from students. It was really heated, really interesting. Here's what it sounded like without further ado. Can I announce mr bench I you for having me, I really appreciate being here, is very kind of you to offer last week,

this university's opera society announced that it would be cancelling a performance of george, frederick handel's saw that opera, of course tells the biblical story of king Saul, the first king of the Jews in his conflict, with the soon to be king David. So why precisely was this performance of this great work of art cancelled? Max mason, director of the show explained quote, given the parallels of this conflict, the production team made the difficult decision to cancel, so we came to the unanimous conclusion that our production was not in the place to fully confront the issues that have striking synchronicity with the ongoing middle east conflict. So what exactly were those in parallel in the opera, David kills goliath, a philistine, the jew wins, the philistine loses. This is apparently in some way offensive offensive. Perhaps you those who sympathise with those who slaughter babies in there, in rape and kidnap women on mass, who should Holocaust survivors in the head and bind together,

in children before burning them alive. It is no coincidence that the statement from the cambridge opera society avoided all mention of hamas in describing the court unfolding situation in Gaza. Now. This makes no sense, never mind the philistines literally have nothing to do with the palestinian arabs of today the philistines were likely guinean greeks, never mind the story of day and saw lies at the root of judeo christian culture? Raising serious and fascinating questions about power and morality, never mind spectacular, music of handle the opera had to be cancelled, less the supporters of barbarians be offended the same week the opera says He cancelled, handle the cambridge student union, considered emotion, blaming hamas slaughter of innocence on decades of violent oppression of the palestinian people by the israeli state and demanding that the student union quote condemned the british government's support for the israeli state. That's emotion called for a mass uprising on both sides of the green line and across the middle east, the bar

arians and their supporters unfortunately are inside the gates. That is why anti semitic hate crime is up one thousand three hundred and fifty per cent in london over the past few weeks. That is why he moms in nottingham or muslim. Here is a jew behind me kill him, and that is why one hundred thousand People marching london in support of commerce. So that's it moment to consider an obvious question. How is it that, at this prestigious institution of intellect achievement, and so many others like it. There is now a powerful coalition of interest making excuses for terrorist groups. The answer to that question is decades in the making and the story begins with western apologies and much of the west has spent the past few decades, apologizing not for it, since which you should apologise for, but for its very existence, the west's since so the logic goes are so deep and abiding that they can only have sprung from the inherent evils of western philosophy and culture and the only

active as western suicide, the west, the argument goes, must quantico de colonise itself. That argument originally springs from the pen of francophone radical france for known in his nineteen sixty one book, the wretched of the earth, one. A member of the algerian national liberation front, put forth a shockingly violent treatise, calling for revolution revolution of the colonised against their colonisers finance, didn't merely call for the end of colonialism, our gandhi. Instead, he explicitly for violence, which he saw as purifying in all of its varied forms, then theorize that revolutionary violence will usher in the new man free from the evils of the west. decolonization he wrote is always a violent event decolonization. He wrote, which sets out to change the order of the world is clearly an agenda for total disorder in its very if an oral decolonization reeks of red, hot cannonballs and bloody knives violence disorder, bloody knives. That's the essence of finance decolonization. The colonized Take everything from the colonise are in the name of restoring himself as a human being.

decolonization justifies any response. In fact it requires any response. The west must be destroyed, for the west has colonized quote: the colonized, your speech on western culture. They draw their machetes or at least check to see their close at hand. Since the known colonise your handles all. They pick up a machete such hatred of colonial power only somewhat understandable in algeria, but for now isn't merely making the case revolutionary violence in algeria. He was making the case for revolutionary violence pretty much everywhere. The man who made that clear was existentialist and marxist jean Paul Sartre. Searchers introductions of finance wretched of the earth makes the case not only that the colonised have an ultimate right to violence, but that the entire west must be collapsed from within violence, and sartre is and reconstructing himself killing a european is killing two birds with one stone, eliminating in one go, oppressor and oppress, leaving. mandate in the other man free, the only

thing for the west to do is joint in on its cultural suicide. What you who are so liberal, so humane who take the love of culture to the point of affectation, you pretend to forget that you have, All of these were massacres are committed in your name right sartre. We must recognise, explains that we are all complex. Forty thousand your oppression, our beloved values, are losing their features. If you take a closer look, there is not one that isn't tainted with blood. So how exactly does the west recover from its guilt by joining in on the violence against our own civilization? And how can we tell the enemy? Well, you attack the powerful. The colonizers are the powerful Nice are the powerless. Therefore, the powerful everywhere must be the colonizers and the powerless their victims. This is held example, Israel, the ultimate case of decolonization in human history. After a turn of the native population to its homeland and its battle to throw off the shackles of the british empire became today's hottest decolonization cause sartre radical call has been taken up, sporadically both at home and abroad, as critical theorists homey about points.

In his forward to finance book. The black counters found inspiration for no, and so did the iranian revolutionaries. The false binary, oppressor, verses, oppressed can be trend muted into literally any form and used by any evil cause, and it is now the coalition for those wretched of the earth. That's his phrase, of course, could not materialise immediately, despite the emptying of churches and the dickens, of western curricula, so long as the soviet union loomed as a counter example to the evils of the west, the west can still stands up for itself, in contradistinction to the vicious predictions of the soviets. But after the fall of the soviet union, the west lost its way. The west now completely dominant hydroponic believed it had reached france's fouquet, I'm his end of history. The western liberalism would now inherently dominate the globe, but the west was unprepared to defend its own principles on their own merits. The west actually achieving had germany opened itself. Why did the charge that it was now the great?

or in the words of dickens structures to readying critique of ok, I'm a quote. It must be cried out at a time when some have the audacity to neo andrew in the name of the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realised itself is the ideal of human history, never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. That, of course, was a radical lie, suggesting that ninety ninety one was the apex of human suffering is simply ridiculous, but the west was unprepared to defend against lie, having emptied itself the central pillars of its own culture decades before have over having handed over its major educational institutions to members of the un, western coalition in the name of tolerance and diversity. No wonder sorrows. Radicalism has now become a mass movement, a mass movement starting on campus, but not ending their cornel west to black marxist radical, whose now running for president in united states says the colonialism isn't take were far from home problem. The way

must be demolished. Phenomenon, says revolutionary internationalism, revolutionary internationalism, anti imperialist, anti capitalist, anti colonialist and patriarchal anti white supremacist yields in new humanism that puts a premium on the psychic social and political needs of poor and working peoples, a solidarity and universality from below This is how the coalition is built and the coalition is now active the lines of the supposedly marginalized. together arm in arm toward the destruction of the west. Nothing need bind them, but hatred for the west institutions and values, and that is why handle will not be played in deference to fans of commerce and one of the great institutions in western history, but handle should be played. He must be played because the west AL, you are better than the valleys of commerce, because. Powerlessness alone- does not confer moral decency, because no one should actually be ashamed or upset that David killed goliath. The capital p philistines of yesterday have become the philistines small b of today.

Most those scenes do indeed march alongside Hamas and its allies seeking the destruction of the west and its culture. They must be stopped and they can only be stopped if the west stops being shamed itself and begins to defend. Its own values? Thank you. Thank you Ben. I think not that members want to touch on later. So what we can? Aren't you now is just trying to have a quite a broad range of topics to give us some background. You talk there about western values there and what I think when we see and when we look to the? U s is perhaps an absence of western values taken when we think about democracy. We look to you

and here claims various claims about the election, and then we see in the republican race at the moment, that is on what plus forty eight or something and do we think it's an inevitability that is going to gain the nomination. Alj inevitability is a bit strong, but certainly he has the upper hand in the nomination process, be very surprising if he didn't win the nomination, given his polling lead at this point and you're a known critic of him. Obviously, but given the lawsuits to january the six rights and all that, and do you think there's nothing that he could do and whereby he wouldn't maintain his appeal in the light of his followers, I think it be very difficult to undermine his appeal.

Because there are such massive trust problems in the united states, there is no sort of common source of fax number. One number two there's been pushes both legitimate against trump and illegitimate against tramping those bitter those have now been conflated by his supporters into all. Opposition to tromp is fundamentally a legitimate, and that obviously is not true. They set about from that he's a russian stooge that he's working for vladimir or putin that kind of stuff that was false. The argument that the donald trump doesn't particular have a lot of care for the institutions and democracy is clearly true, but Supporters, because the binary nature of american politics, and because everything so. Polarized right now tend to resonate you every critique of tromp, as though it is equally falls to the russia, russia, russia, stuff, that they trump is constantly talking about, and so is very difficult to sort of break that stranglehold. I mean, let's be real about what trump is trump- is not a policy solution to a policy problem with trump. Is the giant orange pulsating middle finger to to a lot of the so called elites in in america? People who believe

They have clinical, better values and who live on the coast. What, while you're watching in america play out and trump is just the avatar of this, I is- is a breaking culture and you're, seeing that in in broader scale, via the sorting of population, is happening where people are more conservative. Like my friend we lived in California, which is a blue state? We moved from California to Florida, which is a red state and you're. Seeing a lot of that happen both ways, although the the net migration right now is very heavily towards towards the red states, and then I mean the other topic of conversation. The rest of the moment is obviously the speaker of the house, and would you say when Kevin Mccarthy was quite unceremoniously kicked out? Do you think he deserved it? No, I think those ridiculous we agreed that an answer virtually no purpose, Matt gates. It did this again, another incentive problem in american politics. Right now. You ve olive in his is point eighty four for in the united states and he's pointed out that used to be the people. Institutions, in order to be shaped by those institutions, you went to cambridge be shaped by cambridge. You enter congress and we'd, be shaped by congress and become a congress person now people use. Instead,

since platforms, and so you see more more often in congress- and this is a bipartisan problem- is congress people who are getting elected not to do the work being in congress, but instead you get on tv to heavy podcast it that they wanted to what I do for a living. right and and so what they decided to do is use electoral office is a platform to do what I do for a living and what that ends up with very often is complete practice, political inability. And a lot of grandstanding a lot of granting so mac aid, to whose one who overthrew mccarthy right, eight republicans voted along with every democratic, every mccarthy. Megaton no plan I mean his isn't. Airplane wishes to make a big fuss, and then too really lie. I think, to the american people by saying that something better would certainly come along when they Those are not a line that way. First of all, I think that the greatest lie in politics is that it just matter of taking the bums out and getting new bombs. I think that's the way that the politics is thomas all has suggested. If you really want to make a change in politics, we have to change the incentive structures, not just change the people,

change the people, but that's on changing the underlying incentive structures. The decision making process is very similar browser, so we do have a change of personnel we have might Johnson is very much an unknown in the uk certainly in you asked if and only if I must say I am so. What do you think we can expect from congress under his leadership? I think very much the same sort of way. I think that you will see him get more leeway from our gates because mac ages fault that he's there. So I think What you'll see is that the republicans are going to solidify more around johnson than they were around mccarthy, which means who actually Ironically, how more leeway to cut deals over budgets in and things with, Democrats rebecca, very little wedding, these bridges and get kicked out, will now gates can't pull the same for twice, and so the question is We kicked him out if he signs, if he signs a continuing resolution or something he'll have a little bit more leeway to work around here and then.

as I said, we're going to try and cover quite a wide range, so looking back over here to the uk, it being where we are? I want to touch briefly and populism, and so post brexit, paris, boris, post corbyn. We now have something some varieties bit of the battle of the boards and soon acts dumber, and so do you think that the much sort of vaunted rise of populism in the uk in the? U s? Do you think that sort of diminished now are we? more of a serious period and I I wish we were entering more of a serious period. I'm not a huge populism. I don't actually think that populism is a philosophy. I think it's an appeal. You see left wing wing Look like Bernie sanders in the united states and right wing populist. Look like donald trump in united, aids, and very often these sort of agree on this quasi conspiracy theory that what you do is not your fault there. There are forces at work at play: there really deciding your fate and so on, I can solve right that something that from separate, certainly something it Bernie could have said, and so I'm not a big fan I really don't think the government is perfectly good at solving a lot of people's problems when it comes to europe

are boring politics. I certainly think that there is going to be a revolt of the middle and a lot of these countries where people say I'm I heard of the spectacular all I want is just somebody's going to sit in the chair and do the basic job and leave me alone. as I said, the united states. I think that first party to sandy winds- and you know I've z, every one in the room, literally woman, is politics better than I do. I would assume that maybe some of the same forces are at work and talking to sanity them and the nhs say you've said many times. Do you believe that healthcare is not a right? That's obviously very different to what the vast majority of the uk police, but do you believe, there's any sort of benefit at the structure of our healthcare system in the uk to the nationalised social system? Is there anything there that you could see that might

if the system in the? U s I mean there are certainly many things that could improve the system in the? U s, whether the nhs is the solution that problem, I have serious doubts about. The nhs has serious structural problems in terms of it spending in terms of its cost in terms of its dad's in terms of the the future growth of the nhs and all of those are things that politicians are going to kick down. The can until disaster arrives, which is usually the story with literally every social system in the united states, that'd be medicare medicaid and social security, but as far as could the united states' system be improved. Sure I mean there are plenty of models that, I think are better than the united states system, ranging from singapore to switzerland, the inn and they have various different wrinkles to them, ranging from the privately sold healthcare. This mandated to cooperative healthcare in certain areas that there are lots of different models for it, but my generalised objections penalised healthcare is that inevitably you'll end up with somebody who is not you making a decision about your healthcare and that that person is

into inevitably going to have to take some cost into account, and you are not really part of that process, and that seems to me incredibly dangerous as far as mistreatment that that healthcare is not a right. I I mean Very specifically, I think that we really really over broadly use the word right, like all the time we use it is it's a massively overloaded term. So right can simultaneously mean a thing, that's good for you to have, which is not a right. That's that's! That's a thing! That's good for you to have this not the same thing, Oh I love having pizza. That doesn't mean that I have a right to veto. It does mean, however, that the government does not have the ability to stop me. Having kids or should not have that ability. So in that sense, I do have a right to help pizza so I dont have a right to have beaten by you, but I do have a right have pizza that the government cannot prohibit me from having rachel I think that we have to be very clear what we what we mean when we say that somebody has a right to a thing as a legal theorist in the early, not late, nineteenth early twentieth century named William whole fell and he broke down rights into into four separate categories.

Ranging from privileges to immunities, things that your morally apathetic about. So you have a right to choose moral level, whether they have hamburger or not. Today, as long as you're, not a vegan, I and I, and that's a matter of apathy, that matter of moral apathy, but you also have rights that are immune, from government where you don't want the government pragmatically to have enough power to stop you from doing a thing. Even if you think that that thing is immoral, but without power can too broadly applied. So I think that to be very clear when we say when I say, healthcare is not right I don't mean that it isn't a good thing to have health care is an amazing thing to have an unnecessary thing to have. I do mean that you do not have a right to demand that somebody else provide you that healthcare that right does not exist, and then one final question before we get some saucy ones from the floor.

And when we invited to your stay, when we announced that you were coming, there was a lot of criticism, a lot of controversy and we obviously a free speech society. But what do you think that says about free speech? I mean people work. There was a lot of different words used, but it It was in sight the unpleasant to some might say, or do you think I'm serious be galleron? What wasn t enough? It says it's be free speech is, is thriving. I've never objected to people who protest or ask difficult questions of me. I mean that's, that's legitimately the process, and so whenever there are people who are upset that I'm coming, you know as long as I'm still able to come, that's their prerogative and they're perfectly. I have no problem with it whatsoever. Super okay, let's get onto the questions from the floor then say if you want to say your place of dispatch books, we're going to move to our first question so please

I, then, how do you saw overlap over the last couple of weeks? You ve been making this point that there is no moral equivalency between what the Hamas did on october seven and what Israel's response has been. But do you think there is a point at which the severe, in death toll no longer justifies the actions of Israel. Or do you think that, alternatively, Israel can justifiably kill relax civilian as long as its goal is to destroy Hamas, so Israel should do its best to avoid killing civilians in destroying Hamas. However, there is no number where it goes. Every life, obviously being valuable. There's no number, however, where it goes from ten thousand to ten thousand and one at which point it has. in the realm of disproportion. That's not how war works. If we're work that way never win one? It also completely destroys a tiger incense structures and destroys the incentive structure for for military units to act in ways that do not put civil

and lives in danger to allow come immunity, by dint of the fact that they are deliberately hiding among civilian populations. If you actually want peoples, and among civilian populations, and there have to be serious penalty is to those groups for for doing that sort of thing. Providing a cease fire to the terrorist group as they hide under the ground, is precisely the reverse of that. But do you not real is that in using Hamas is disregard for civilian life to justify. Israel's action- you are within the same equivalency that you are rejecting. Please explain if you say that Hamas is hiding behind civilians. Therefore, we have a right to go after Hamas, despite the fact that we will get a lot of civilians in the way you're. You're you're, using the fact that your enemy as evil, to justify your evil acts? No, I'm lamenting the fact that the enemy is evil. That's a different thing. I'm lamenting the fact that Hamas is hiding beneath civilians and I'm suggesting that if Israel has to- done, what it has to get done, that that lies with Hamas,

that in itself is up. The death in civilians here is unjustifiable across the board, but is blameworthy on Hamas is part. There is a difference between death beings. viable in these circumstances, in the sense that is ever morally praiseworthy are good and where you place the blame for that death, I mean that's. That's it. That's a pretty obvious moral it intends to suggest that its somehow it somehow a celebration of the death of civilians to point out that Hamas is hiding beneath them, is to miss the point entirely. The entire point is that it horrified Hamas is doing its utmost wants to end this all today. All they have to do is surrender its literally all they have to do. They have to walk out of here. With their arms up in hand, the hostages back to the israelis and that's all we literally tomorrow. So all of its moral heartburn that people are having over Israel attempting to destroy a terrorist group did just murdered fifteen hundred civilians in their beds, including babies, burned alive in ovens that

burn over that, because Hamas has simultaneously mistreated its own citizens and set somehow Israel's responsibility to Israel go out on civilians to be put at risk, because Hamas is deliberately putting its civilians at risk of us? Is the governing body in the Gaza strip? They robbed live rather than citizens blind to the tune of billions of dollars a day I have one hundred million dollar investment portfolio in real estate around the globe, while eighty percents of their citizens are living in poverty? They took all the water pipes out of the ground and carve them into rockets, and somehow Israel is supposed to stop from deposing them, because they're so cruel to their own civilians. That that logic doesn't work in any way. Shape or form Thank you. Thank you, my Gaza alike, darcy question on the topic of universal basic income. So last year

Andy Burnham. The mayor of greater manchester, said that universal basic income was an idea whose time had come ass. He spoke on the cost of living crisis. Today the welsh government is running a a try, a pilot guaranteed income scheme and england just launched a similar trial. Do you believe that universal basic income is something that can reduce poverty and guard the workforce from potential all technological advances such as I ordered automation, I'm not a huge fan of the idea of universal basic income, except as a person. replacement for all the other welfare schemes. So if you were to take all the other welfare schemes which are badly administered and basically wrap them into one and call it ubi eyes the substitute or replacement, it still wouldn't be my ideal, but I think that it might be better as far as the effective so basic income. The question obviously is at what level how much resident disincentives work there been various attempts at this sum of industry

Indeed, because they've been failures, others are still continuing, obviously, and who are waiting to see the impact or effective that the other, Is that when you get a universal basic income to everyone, the natural effect of that is to increase prices, which requires more universal basic income, which requires increased prices, which requires more universal basic income helicopter money, tends to create inflation that something that over the past forty years seem to be not a concern, but obviously, now two major concern- and it turns out that when you just spend money through a fire hose is everyone government did in the twenty twenty twenty twenty one, twenty twenty two that that increases prices. What essentially twenty twenty was a great experiment. Universal basic income in the united states average got paid to stay home and other governments blew out the money in and we're still seeing the effects of that so I have a hard time believing that a solid, real universal, basically For millions of people wouldn't have a similar effect on on price waged by roles and this intensification of work and and on the fiscal health of a country

I do not believe that fassi during the pandemic, we saw this huge increase in welfare payments, with very little changes in taxes. If anything, those lexa less taxation and by providing a universal basic income, were giving individuals the opportunity to choose and decide what they what they decide to spend their money on. and whether they will allocate that on health or education and does not aligned with the liberal values which you so regularly preach? So I mean, if substitute for other forms of welfare. I generally agree. I also see a train running down the track, which is what happens when a lot of people use their universal basic income to buy lotto tickets, which is one of the problems right very often in the united states, for example, you have to use all our welfare programmes are means tested, and they are very often specifically allocated to particular goal So, for example, abd cards in the united states are for food. Stamps can only use them for particular product giving people cash if they spend those if they spend their cash on things that keep them in poverty and then come back to the

with her hand out saying, while I didnt pay for my health care, I didnt pay for my kid schooling. I didnt pay for the school books, but I definitely paid from lottery ticket. I have a feeling. Some people who are now advocating for universal basic income will be looking back to the government to fill the gap again right. Thank you. Thank you. I've been thinking for coming. I went to what is your view on the fact that bans on abortion do lead to a twenty one percent increase in pregnancy, related ass. When you hold your views on abortion Abortion bonds are based on the fact that you, the desire to protect life and save lives, because every human being is made in god's image, because I think we're gonna funding but this cannot share the entire abortion debate is centred on whether, indeed a

in unborn child or or a human life with potential is in fact that or if it is just a ball of cells. If you believe that there is inherent value to a feed us, then I am seeking to preserve that life, as well as of the mother, if you look at the raw numbers in terms of, for example, the united states a million abortions a year, let's assume that was banning abortion united states, reversal. Those million portions go away tomorrow. There is an effective law, the abortions go away, but there is also a common increasing the number of women who are seeking back alley abortions, for example, there's a concomitant increasingly, women who are dying in pregnancy, related childbirth. That would not be a million darby alot lower than a million because a million women out of a million women that suggest that in abortions would, if brought to term those women who die. That's obviously, not true, so for me at

in prevented- is a life saved and you have to weigh that against what you're talking about, which is the life of of the mother when it comes to a pregnancy now, even as a fan of of pro life position- and I am deeply pro life person- I still have an exception for the life of the mother. So if the life of the mother is endangered by a present, see, then abortion would be legal, that's true for every pro life or in the united states by the way, including the most pro life people, including me. So you know that that I think that, in order to make the when you're making you'd have to assume that there is no cost remaining legal in terms of lives? Lost ok, see you do on a utilitarian basis on I'm doing it lives saved bases, yes, we'll get social utilitarian racist right. So then, if you look at comprehensive sex education, which the? U S, does not of a lot of people in rural areas and have any form of sex education. You yourself have said- and I quote on a general level? I dont think that teachers should be talking about sex in the classroom with kids at all at any age. It shone

Comprehensive and correct sex education reduces rates of abortion untying pregnancy. So then, if your goal is to save lives, why do you not support comprehensive sex? Education because it seems like your golda something out. No because the these first of all, I would like you to these. They are citing in support of that certain that that identity is the university of washington, ok and their plan other studies in the united states to suggest essentially no difference in, for example, and when pregnancy in the united states has studies, what can you can you have them? You can look up. And he wrote in california in new york massachusetts. I just gave you my reference. I mean I'm happy to get I'm here we email you references. The this doesn't happen to me. Yet these guys happen to be a topic where there is social science on both sides. I'm not I'm not saying that you're. The study that you're citing is invalid. I'm just suggesting that there is a difference in in data methods and I'm suggesting that the the single motherhood rates in the west with comprehensive sex education

our miles higher than they were in the nineteen fifty when there was not comprehensive sex education, jobs, that's not militated against the amount of unwed pregnancy happening in society. So the the idea that the cure all here is comprehensive, says that if you could prove to me, what if you could prove to me, the comprehensive sex ed did result in lower levels. bullshit, lower levels of unwanted pregnancy and that that it was values neutral, comprehensive except in the sense that what was actually teaching is here is how to prevent it. can see without ending it in abortion, then I actually don't have a huge problem with that. It depends on the age of which are teaching There are other their other issues that I have a comprehensive sex out, including the fact that what is tat is not the simple biology attacks and how to prevent a pregnancy come. Sex Ed simply goes a lot further than that, and I have serious more problems with that seems like you're just trying to force women into motherhood,

in response. I am confused. I did the very language of forcing women into motherhood suggests that in vast mass vast majority, because which women get pregnant. They had no part in the actual pregnancy making act which is not true. Nothing when, when you get if you or any of your friends get pregnant that is generally not having anything. To do with with me say: I'm confuses Y y. You two quarters. Hello, lebanon, that's was already hold one fuller think, but I will try Thank you for a very interesting discussion. My question is about your beliefs on gay marriage,

I believe, are informed by your practice. As an orthodox. To start, I will say, Yes, I know the yes only in the sense that, yes, orthodox judaism is against gay marriage and yes, I also secular reasons for opposing gay marriage. I don't I don't make public policy based on on my judaic beliefs, and this is why none of you keep kosher or sea The stunts that to hold the is informed by an orthodox judaism beliefs. Why do is justifiable to extend these religious prohibitions on people who don't practice, most so I just said I didn't so I made a start with that, as is theirs that if you want to get a better inform your belief that when my room, something of a guy and a religious I've been not on a secular nanosecond, immoral sites, when a secular morals are the arguments against gay marriage is very, is is now in an argument against you living life there. Wanna leave or anybody else living life that they want to live without government subsidies. The question of what publicly subsidized marriage looks like if you want to go to,

ass a right now and do whatever you want to do that you're. That's your prerogative, our having a problem with that, but I do have a problem with is when the state which has to we have an interest in these sanctification of relationship in order for them to sanctify the relationship. The question is: what is the thing that is being so, divide by the state and why so, when I look at marriage, the purpose of marriage for literally Human history was the bearing in rearing of children the definition of marriage on a fundamental level, sort of shifted, culturally and the nineteen sixties into two people. Are we I agree that that rubric gay people count right, you mentioned, haven't. You am obviously but under the rubric of are all human relationships created equal in terms of their utility too state and utility of the state, is to parents make baby baby lives. married mom and dad, then yes, of course, the form of marriage there ought to be so it is the form, a marriage that produces children and this morning, we are in a way that is currently reproducing a lot lower than replacement rights. Yes,

I suppose I ought to that. Do you have children? I presume you do have voted for. when they grow up and when they leave the home, are you going to seek a divorce having fulfilled the sole purpose of marriage I am also need a genuinely most want to catch your honor, I mean, I hope, and I hope I live in our getting along tat boy but obsolete, but the obvious answer to that is that parents who does not end when your children leave the home and I'm still parenting might show their marine prisoners. Resources does well now nice, him years, don't actually parents, ireland. but then all raising me. I know that they are still there involved in your life, you know you you you how they, how they interact with, who makes a difference in your life out issue, and I think that's true premature. Everybody who has lie parents in the room, the parental relations, didn't and the minute you left the house eyes so, and that parental relationship will continue up until the point that they die

by this I mean this- is actually a pretty interesting example that you're using because it's obviously true that even after kids leave the house, if the parents gets worse, that has a tremendous of economic child so dear to pretend that that the relationship simply ends is not true that the rearing processes lifelong. It is not a moment in time, in other words, I disagree with other. Thank you very much appreciate. So My question is on gun control, so the gun violence archive reported six hundred and forty seven mass shootings in the? U s in twenty twenty three: twenty twenty two allowed. Sorry, meanwhile, those tragic they were only seven in the uk since ninety. Ninety six do you believe the marginal increase in freedom, worth the loss of life. So the answer as an american as a second amendment advocate, is yes, but not the same for country, meaning that in the uk, before the vast,

one ban of the nineteen nineties? There are not a lot of guns in circulation. The uk, before that and the number of mass shootings in the uk was similarly low before the mass ban. So the idea that the legislature and in the united nations in the uk are in the united kingdom is what created the low level of guns, is not true. There were low levels of gun crime well before that, where you try to apply that same thing in texas, say a vast gun ban in texas and you are going to try and grab all the guns in texas. I promise you you'd have an immediate increase in the amount. Gun crime, particularly against federal officers coming to get the guns, the entire purpose in the united states, the states, obviously being a revolutionary country against are motherland. either the united states experiment, is built on the idea of the the gun being important and resist. the government's germany as well as in terms of self defence, now, once a huge percentage, depopulator once guns are readily available. The idea that you are going to, able to either full scale confiscate or remove those guns in any practicable way, is not true that certainly the case in the united,

and so any time there has been a serious gun control regime in that important in the united states in their many of them are california, has pretty serious gun control chicago his gun, control DC has gun control the rates of going Islands have not gone down because the availability of guns remains widespread. Typically, the rule is that people who fall the water into followed war. Criminals tend not to the widespread avail, What you have guns in the united states is not something that can simply be be done away with now. As far as one of the principal argument, the principled argument is that I'm a law abiding citizens should be able to protect myself. That's it that that is the. That is the principal argument. In small scale, communities for egypt come on associations, there are in many cases in the united states done bans, and I don't have a huge problem with that in this that you have a lot of social cohesion. You know what neighbors, you have a security force that is quickly responsive to you, with that said, in a three hundred and forty million people that is incredibly diverse and where a huge percentage of the population has access to a gun. The idea of a widespread removal of second amendment rights would result in some pretty terrible things.

So do you think there's a value to a cultural shift away from guns them? Not necessarily tens where you are so is the the idea that the ec I want don't think about it. It's an interesting it is. It is really interesting question and again, I think it's sort, it's kind of based on circumstance. I'm not the entire united states is similar in this way, so I like, the idea of being able to protect myself and my friend we, I think, owning a gun nor to do that is a good thing in the united states. I don't know what I would think if I hadn't grown up in a culture that that actually values that. So what would I see value in in moving away from that. I don't think it's that easy to move the culture away from that, the so in terms of waiving magic wands. I m running up it's reality, but on a on an ideological level. It's an interesting question. I'm not sure I have a good answer to it frankly, and one quick, smaller question Uk slowly, phasing out certain types of knives. By facing, I mean making illegal to hold. Would you think about that, because knives, there's no real, for a person to carry them. As a british citizen,

ma. I don't know enough about knife policy in the uk in the united states- We have you no tanks Things for a time. My question is a sort of going back to the topic of israel and palestine and specifically focused on resolution not to forty two and just to give a context of audience like what's resolution to vote. Who is so in nineteen. Sixty seven, that united nation passed resolution to forty two and this legislation requested that israelite forces retreated from the territories occupied during the region, conflict from territories occupied territories, because it's actually rose nation in the law, making, regular and territories sorting and also stress the importance of resolving the refugee issue. firstly, and also includes the end of the belligerent, see claims and states,

However, the resolution did not explicitly state which territories Israel had to withdraw from because the ambiguities in a language that the english version, which is the french version and this ambiguity kind of is being used as a resolute like at by the israelites, to justify its continued occupation of some territory and for the more. Although the resolution mentions adjust resolution for the refugee issue, it fell to clearly addressed the right of the palestinian people to settle and from my understanding. That is the reason why a lot of the arab nations sort of reject the resolution. So my question for users, if you were in their shoes, if you're a palestinian and a weird that is in precise and preciseness within the resolution, and that will potentially put your people in disadvantage, how would you respond to that and whether you will accept the partisan deal?

or were you rejected and before you answer, I'm ready to be destroyed by a pinch salt, I mean you. The answer our policy and citizen which, fortunately I'm not because it's horrible the palestinian authority or islamic, you learn from us, but if I were I hope that I would, I would I would be doing- is pressing for a full scale attempt at a at a peace deal that would involve a two state solution, the biggest problem with the two states. right now is that one side wishes to exist in the other side, which is not here and that's it, then those areas problem so if that were to alleviate their is, there's been heavy movement for decades. Israel for seeding territory, which is why yes or our if I was in charge of areas of the west bank, which is why the Gaza strip, which was completely ceded to them

in two thousand and five israel removed eight thousand jews from the Gaza strip in two thousand and five. They did not have internal military presence in the Gaza strip, which is why they didn't actually have any intelligence as to what was going on on october, seventh, and so the the the the obvious answer would be that if a palestinian government were to arise that were trustworthy incredible in it's pledges not to actually attack and use their their new state, as tat and I would require time and trust- and now it has to be built up over time, given the amount of distrust in the region which would allow for presumably gradual, gradual. increasing control of borders with say, Jordan, retorted, and it was maggie would also require land swaps. I mean all these things have been discussed by Israel before they were proposed in two thousand and eight by a whole, all merit mahmoud Abbas literally got up and walked away from the table without a counter offer. So when it comes to know that the the practical, the the practicality of solution that res on whether the palestinians are willing to have a government at any point. That would actually make that peace deal It is interesting. I was at oxford last night, the other universe,

as I was there last night and who student after You ve got up and asked about this, and then I asked in a simple question they get talking about occupy. Palestine is what you mean by occupy palestine and invariably to a man or woman. Each one of them said everything like from the river all the way to the sea. That's occupied, where you can make peace on the basis of glass. wait. So you know, as far as whether Israel's willing to the guesses roby willing to do that. But again that's going to take time and is going to take credibility. That's what oslo was supposed to do and it never even came remotely close to achieving their credibility. Largely as Yasser Arafat is one the worse people who ever lived in an arch terrorist. So will be like sort of your solution to that, what would you propose if you're, the one that's mitigating the deal between Israel and palestine in right now, there's no jail to be actually mediating between bridges enables imaginable hypothetical deal. We would end up looking like a palestinian areas that are currently governed by the that there are currently largely paulsen. You we're gonna butter, palestinian control, that look like land swaps, probably where the israeli

areas outside the green line like a fry, which is thirty thousand citizens living out there. That was not going to end up in palestinian control, are going to have to have a land swap somewhere else. I mean that that's everybody sort of acknowledges that that is the the way that it would would go, even even we started off anti oslo ones. That was the reality on the ground, started to embrace a lot of the language of the two state solution. So again, I think that the the everyone in the west is trying to jump to the solution without recognising the failure of the promise. If you have two parties who are willing to make a deal, a deal is available, If you only have one parties will make a deal, a deal is not available right now, Only one party is willing to make a deal. The other party has shown itself repeatedly literally for all of israeli history, unwilling to make a deal. There has not been a single deal accepted by the palestinian or by their predecessors, Wednesday. The predecessors I mean the arabs who in palestine didn't consider themselves nationally palestinian. At the time people were syrian people. Work turkish, the pure commission in thirty seven recommended a signal. yet we smaller state of Israel, the Jews accepted it rejected. It does happen,

over and over and over thirty seven, forty eight happened again in two thousand and happen again in two thousand and eight and over and over and over and over. So again it all comes back to the same point. Once there is a peace partner, you can talk until there is peace. There's no dogs. Thank you so much I feel being destroyed, but I think you thanks I'll start by quoting one of your ready, those you say, I know it's by the way. My questions on climate change is Thank you for allowing me to prepare myself and so you're saying I know it's hot outside you know what I can do about it, zero things. Then god we have this thing called air conditioning. It's awesome, you know it's a great cure when it's super duper hard being in first,

what country. So I agree that as individual you actually have no power to mitigate global capitalism induced a collage will bring down. Therefore, I'm curious about your views on structural gorman policies such as nigeria strategy is especially having mind that this year we saw a devastating while fires and north american australia, which is the first war, and that also sadly boring. The houses were the sad air conditioning so when it comes to wildfires, first of all, a lot of controversy as to whether the extent of wildfires which, actually not become more common overtime, whether the extent of the damage wildfires is driven by climate change or whether it driven also by bad forestry policy, has been a major issue in the state of california major issue. In Montana. They had major wire for welfare in the united states as well. When it comes to zero policies. My big problem, net zero policies is that they are impracticable. This is my big problem

china is not signing on. India is not signing on their that you greatest polluters on planet earth. For all the talk about the evils of global capitalism, it turns out that the giant communist state is the biggest polluter on earth. China, by a large margin, is not close, hey when it comes to other countries that are not first world countries, they have very little. Interest in whether or not their remaining carbon. Given the fact that many people are so poor, they're burning dung for fuel, and it turns out that when you are attempting to survive ass, the age of forty, it's much higher priority for you to be to survive using the resources at our disposal, including the single, most effective and efficient source, Georgiana planner carbon based fossil fuels. That is more important to you. Then. Whether it's going to warm incrementally over the course of the next one hundred years. What human beings what happened. What human beings are bad at are separate categories. Human beings are very varied. innovation, and we are very, very good. It adaptation so we stink at the what when, when it comes to, if you guys If we say the penny today will save a pound tomorrow, human being suck it s a really bad at, which is why in europe, everybody america, where just ten

now we're all than we do not see any because we're be forced into a everybody's that at this logic, but what human beings are very good at is adaptation, which is like human beings migrate, which you like human beings, build new inventions and innovate, so one of them so If I'm going to invest, resources and things that I'm going to invest, resources in are going to be not telling everybody they have to drive their car less, which is likely to be wildly unsuccessful. What I'm going to instead invest my money is in building is building better levies in new orleans, so the hurricane does, it Entire town doesn't get flooded by building better. infrastructure, mitigating the damage, is where the money actually should be going and is going to be a lot more practical in both the near and the long term than attempting to what tell everybody that they are to turn the air conditioner to seventy five or tell everybody that they can't drive their car as much. Meanwhile you're, not half the globe is not on board with any of that right. Half the globe doesn't care. That and they're not going to care about that until ironically, they reach first world standards, the the power of capitalism, so that my bit my big problem with

the climate change jargon is not whether it's happening. I'm fully willing to accept the anthropogenic climate changes reality. My big problems that the solutions there being it was for that are not, anyway serious or practical. The only way the human beings have ever gotten out of problems of this sort is through innovation, and the real litmus test is who is willing to humor nuclear power? I that's the real. It missed ass, many of the same we are trying to push against mitigating factors, climate change are also pushing against nuclear power, which seems to be totally grazing tanks. A couple of fact taking things out, I graduated this year now work as a climate economist. I do my dissertation on climate. Asked her so actually, there are multiple studies saying that wildfires and other climate disasters are caused by climate change and their increase.

Are definitely caused by climate change. Also, china him, as emits much less c, o two per capita than us or chairman per capita. Oh yeah, but that's still kind of matters while know what actually matters the amount of carbon that is going in the air. That's what actually matters yeah but then like who to blame when we are answering the question who to blame for it. America's carbon emissions have been like this in china's carbon emissions are going like this, so if I'm for focusing on who is to blame and probably going brought try to focus on the people who are this is not. The people were going. This shirt Go ahead. Just do the last question and if, if I'm fine to answer so your solution to climate change is agitation somewhere technologies, which is great. My question is when it comes to actual developing countries that are bearing most of the cost of climate disasters and climate change, and they denial obviously have the money to implement all of those high costs and technologies that

while a world can what would be solution for them. I mean the solution for them, presumably, would be in terms of mitigating against climate change, the buildings he walls for them. Do I mean, if the and if we can give our foreign aid to corrupt foreign governments, embezzle, and we can certainly attempt to build some see, walls in low lying coastal areas of the world countries and some significant give foreign aid is it not a terrible placed it to give the foreign aid, but, as far I I do reject the generalized argument that the first world owes it to the third world because of climate change, because the first world is the first world and third worlds of the third world. I just fundamentally reject the idea that capitalism has been a process of exploitation of the third world and enrichment of the first world when literally half the world's global poor disappeared, because they are not global, poor, more bite by un standards over the course of the last fifty years, thanks entirely to the magic of capitalism. So you can't take the benefits and then reject the downside to that, I don't think it works. That way. I think

We palestine wit, which part is it is it is. It is it's a serious question. What what is it I mean I saw you say from the river to the seas. He can just say it out loud, the other without ok, I appreciate I appreciated. Yet the jewish nature be wise completely often out, but they can come at last, life, but we're we're about climate change and the humanitarian aspects and climate change over the course of the next hundred years. Sure, ok, ok, thank you. Oscar we're. Moving back to the floor now is there anyone on the floor. I would like to ask that question and we'll get to I only lotta hands. I think we'll head over here. First,

can we get a mike over the quiet. Please can we have a question from over here thank you for coming Ben. I was hoping to ask you about fiscal policy and how you spoke before about the idea of government intervention and incentives. I was wondering if you could speak to the idea of austerity, which I know you referenced briefly for here in the uk we've had austerity since two thousand and ten were seen. Thank you. Sorry, here in the uk, we seen significant austerity, since two thousand and ten was seen stagnating growth increasing child poverty, increasing it all poverty for the first time since I think world war two is that an increase in the child mortality

I we've also seen quite similar phenomena as during the great depression years here in the uk, between nineteen, twenty, nine and nineteen thirty nine. I was wondering if you could speak to the idea that you think that's not a risk as a result, posterity and why you disagree. Sorry up why you think that austerity policies will produce more lying in spending, so you in and so in the short term austerity policies do her? Obviously I mean when people get dependent on the government. When spain, oodles and oodles of money, then we got and then the money disappears incentive structures change in that, and that creates an enormous amount offering in the short term, which is, why should try to take care of these problems before we reach austerity? In the first place they had. The idea of debt led growth cannot be sustainable. Forever is sort of the argument that eventually you have to pay the bill and when the builder I have to get paid. You only have a few choices. One is to radically increase taxes, which leads to business stagnation, much of the stagnation that you're talking about now, you have just a series of really really bad options, which I'm not recommend. austerity in terms of you, no pre emptive us

but I am recommending restructuring these things in ways that actually are sustainable. Now, us a believer that the government is doing, the right thing in acting itself into every area of the economy and creating replacement level economies rooted in government is again that can only based on somebody else's money, so my my earl objections and national economic policy is that you're substituting giant swaths of the market and putting it in the hands of bureaucrats who tend to know much less about what want on an individual level, from your healthcare from anything else the then you do and who are, very and who have an incentive structure that is loaded toward inertia and not towards changing competitiveness and innovation. So I I will I'm not going to deny that austerity results in suffering. Of course, austerity results in suffering. The question is how you avoid the austerity in the first place, and the answer to that is you don't get in bed with the government? If you don't expect to get screwed?

super? Thank you get over that site. Can we get a migrant that hand that one to sort of I can really see the person yeah that would get perfect. Then you becoming Ben. I have a question on going going through. You raise two main points: firstly, that it's impractical and ineffective to take guns away from a society like the: u s which already has guns and secondly, that you have an ideological belief in the right to bear arms. Does the second point fully justify a lack of gun control and to give an example, would you recommend that the uk adopt a second amendment in order to satisfy the right to bear arms do you think that once the a society of guns that it's good to keep it that way? So I think it depends on the threat level to the society in this and the level of society societal fragmentation. So I think that it. The answer is that

I do believe, ideologically and the right to bear arms to protect yourself. However, I think that the right to bear this does not include owning nuclear weapons, for example, rightly so in my situation. I also believe that the three levels are different in different populations and so depends. What you aren't society depends how well the cycle. You and depends on the possibility of a government going truly too article in violating your core rights, and so that's not gonna, be the same between every society. So I'm and hesitant, always just wigan on foreign countries that I know way less about them. You know, and oh well as evaporating as I've said, then virtually anybody in the room, but when it comes to the idea, if you have a functional system, I'm very hesitant to tamper with functional systems as it as a general rule and d really do you believe the uk is a functioning system in terms of gun control, I mean, I think, that the uk

as I would have to look at the murder rates, and I would have to look at where the crime is located in the euro five and am I again, I'm eminem beg off for lack of data. I mean it before. I start making policy recommendations in the uk. Running for parliament. I feel like. I should know a little bit more about your country. I can't even spell correctly here. Thank you so much I guess you ever on this side the hand in the corner of a that. Please thank spent. I just like to ask a question about the internet and how we debate. I'm wondering what you think about this of internet bubbling thing where people get views. That's a regards takes the agreed with them and one that feeds into the way we debate. Where we debate with slogans, yo breaks, it means breaks it. We ve had enough of experts, choose the right way excel books. I think that's more meaningful to the audience

as opposed to actually engaging with the substance of what people believe and whether that feeds into the council culture that we're seeing in our society that it's almost. If I could emotional response and not being able to support what you believe, because its being we force by you just seeing the same thing was there I mean. Certainly the internet has made us more atomized. The promise of the internet, which is that we would all be more interconnected, was only true in the sense that we're more pissed off at each other, but that the that the internet has been a great unifying body and the thing is someone who's a lot of money off the internet did that the internet has been just in unemployed good in terms of the political discourse is obviously on the echo chambers that have emerged are really a problem and so make a habit. I mean I I have people on my show on a fairly regular basis who disagree with me. I try to have conversations with people who disagree with me actually alex, and I I had a conversation today in which we completely disagreed on everything religion related, and it was a lot of fun. It was really enjoyable, so you know I I agree with you that the the current online I will say there is a sub section of the internet. That is quite good. Rather subjection

internet, where people actually are having these long form of conversations in their becoming increasingly popular. I think that you know a lot of them matters are not conducive to this tiktok. Obviously not conducive to to it snapchat not conducive, like anything, that's like a minute or less is that can be conducive to that sort of thing. long form. Audio is actually having a moment right now, and I think that is quite a good thing. So I I want to you know, talk about the benefits as well as the drawbacks, but yes, these sort of algorithmic cycling is incredibly danger. And these people to believe that their arguments are convincing when they are not and leads them to believe that have to examine the other side of the argument, because everybody else is just a dumb ass, because that's what people on the internet say thanks. Can we do the lady with a hand up just to please thanks her speaking? This is a political question, mostly about america, but also the west in general. Do you think, because of the rise of extremes and political views? Almost? What do you

and will happen to a lot of western political systems like will they collapse or will they have to drastically alter themselves to kind of maintain order? So I think that what we are actually seeing is a fragmentation of the body politic over over viewpoint and that's it? building in a lot of polarization, especially because the top level governments do have so much powers and the states which again I wish to speak about the. U s, because this would involve us in the united states, the federal government simply how much power, which means everybody's incredibly invested in federal politics in a way they're not invested in the stuff they should be invested in, which is actually local politics like how their actual local communities government govern. So if you believe that the federal government is going to step in and is going to simply squash you, then it becomes a matter of life in death. The presidents of the united states is when for much of american history, no one actually cared all that much to the presidents of the united states was in didn't seem to make a huge level of difference, in fact huge swaths of the of the nineteenth century.

Recycling that leave the maximum rate of the power to top level is a real problem, and this is something that Montague is talking about hundreds of years ago, I'm in the idea of devolution by forty two of the lowest available level. So we can have more communist communities deciding for themselves how they wish to live and let their neighbors live as they wish to live, and then the authority delegated reducing as you move up the chain? I think that's that's the good out of this, the bad way out of this is violence. Fracturing mass riots in the streets reacting very strongly to that by electing evermore polarize. governments in order that hit the enemy, and I think that It's incredibly dangerous, remember I'm a big fan of federalism in the united states and I think there needs to be more of it pretty much everywhere. Localism and federalism are an answer to a lot of these questions, and do you think that riots and stuff are inevitable? And I again, I think that when people are feel as though they have lost control of the situation they they tend to riot and that I think, that's also again fomented by the inter

the culture that that does favor the most extreme expressions viewpoints one even to the most extreme viewpoints, because I'm not sure that's even true- is the most extreme. Expressions of the viewpoints in the most extreme expression of any viewpoint is going to be violence. Thank you Can we go front and middle hippies higher? I wanted to ask about gay marriage, which I didn't think we probably probably out earlier earlier. You may disagree, but I thought your argument for the secular side of posting gay marriage was that you feel the states that have advantages it's because it's a useful thing for society. I find that very odd, because I don't feel that that's why we have rights and freedoms in society and, if we're being utilitarian in the? U s, you know a lot of our rights, make governance harder. So thinking of the first amendment that makes societal harmony, a lot harder. The second amendment makes saving lives a lot harder. Shouldn't secular debate on gay marriage be focused mostly on the person

happiness over what useful. So again, I'm going to home in on the definition of rights. In what you're saying up when you, when I say right today, urge, as I expressed earlier. I think that you have a right to go under the church. Have anybody sign any document they want. What you're actually talk. Medicine government benefit when the government says that it takes time There's that comes along with certain legal procedures are right and I think the governments of the business at all and make it clear that is just about getting a government piece of paper. This has magically your marriage is now sanctified by a bunch of politicians and give a shit about that at all. It makes no difference to me. I have to put up Marriage documents in my possession- one is my religious marriage documents actually care about, and then I have the secular, marriage, doc I don't even remember the date. Oven is buried somewhere in the garage, and I don't care about at all, because I don't rely on the state to sanctify my personal relationships and, frankly, I think if you do rely on the state to sanctify your personal relationships, you need better relationships and you need better institutions again politician and bureaucrats giving you a piece of paper should not make you feel better about you, you're relationship, that the whole purpose of the debate over gay marriage should have been over. Whether

certain forms of marriage are beneficial to the state or not because it's about the benefits that accrue that it actually morphed into something else, because there wasn't it. I think by some people to suggest that, because the state hits a stamp on a piece of paper, this grants, quoting what moral credibility to the thing, I'm not in favour of the state grin being the arbiter of moral credibility on personal relationships in general. I just don't, I don't think that's the states business. I do think that it's the states- Stu incentivize, your distance particular types However, in this case, I don't think the states business to to disincentive eyes particular types of sexual, sure, but I do think that is very much in the states interest to incentivize, particularly texan, familial relationships, I I think we have time for one more question, I will go back corner. That is my question is going to be about the israel

stein issue, and, and let it be known that I'm not a big from the river to the sea could have person. My question is about your claim about Israel, having always having its doors open to peace, for state solution, and I just don't think this narrative is true. I dont think that any. Israeli prime minister, since yitzhak Rabin has really had their doors open for peace and yitzhak Rabin bein them. Open for peace. Israeli prime minister, full time was short by an israeli extremists who was motive. Ted by jewish juice. Fundamentalism. which, as a jew, I find really appalling that that was the closest we never got to peace and it very own religious fundamentalists that stop that from happening. I don't think that Israel does currently have its doors the piece a benjamin Netanyahu has made His voice opposed to the two state solution very often is rail is under the control

a minority settler population who are not willing to give up on land of judea and Somalia, which land which, and needs to be given up in order to achieve peace. So I just dotings true and yes, I dont think Hamas has its doors open for peace either. But this is not change. The fact that Israel is culpable for also this current situation, in which eighty not willing to negotiate because it views the end, Ireland is its own look at the nation state law Today s maria go learn. Everything is meant to be excluded. If jewish sovereignty- ok. So, let's talk about the history for a second to suggest that the last israeli prime minister, was in favour of peace was yet suck are being an sorry, but it's just historically and accurate shimon peres was he's got corbians partner in the peace plan was prime minister who'd barrack, who is so far to the left that he makes use how caribbean look like a piker? Was the prime minister and offered a peace deal in two thousand? A who'd omair offered in an incredibly generous peace deal much Jim much greater even than the two thousand piecemeal reject,

our vote tomorrow to Boston. It's just distort the inaccurate. The idea that you'd scrubbing was simply willing, even at the time, is not what the oslo accord say. The oslo accords really kind of embody. Some of the things that I was about a gradual, listed process of surrender of some parts of land, which is why we still have areas avian see when it comes to the idea that Israel as a whole, is somehow culpable for a terrorist group that calls for its extermination running into its centre and murmuring fifteen hundred uses juice is deeply immoral. That's deeply immoral. You're, not talking about people who are arguing in favour of some sort of and for peace settlement. The people who ran in are arguing for the extirpation of every jus from the region, every issue and as far as the idea that Israel is somehow ethnically intolerant as opposed to its neighbours, That's untrue as well. Israel is twenty percent arab gaza has zero jews. Zero the palestinian authority has euro jews living under its authority. Nor could they be trusted to have just living under their authority, given the fact that, when juice accidentally

interim all of their danger of being launched, which is certainly not true, of the tens of thousands of palestinians who every single they are given work permits into it, including by the way people from the Gaza strip work permits into Israel. Some of whom then went back and gave information to Hamas on the specific occasions. A number of people in each house in these various motion. Being those are the villages in the Gaza envelope. So to suggest that that this that's being its now, whose fault that come on more than fifteen hundred people by again ignoring the fact that Hamas have been firing. Rockets on israel continuously for about us signor period at this. Banning governments are both the left and the right. Even if I wasn't even prime minister a year and a half ago, it was yet you're lucky whose very much to the left so as to make the argument that somehow Israel has a responsibility to make a critical two state solution with the current partners is totally crazy. What who who's. The partner you'll, be wanting to argue if there was a liberal minded partner that actually sought peace, but what you're talking about is a palestinian off the most liberal partner,

that is. There is the palestinian authority which right now today is paying Hamas terrorists a stipend for having killed jews. Those are not people, you can make a peace deal with. I mean I and I understand that Hamas is not a group. You can make peace with, but I do think that Israel has made a concerted effort. Destroy every group? It could possibly make peace deal with in twenty nine. I routine Netanyahu said the best way to stop palestinian state which is his aim, was to fund and empower hamas in order to further the I'd between Gaza and the west bank, this is what he believed. What should be done in order to prevent palestinian statehood? And second, when you talk about a whole barrack, ehud Barak as being a who was very willing to open a peace deal. The reason why the two thousand peace deal failed was because, ultimately is:

was not willing to give up control over the temple mount, which is for muslims, the alaska compound, which is something as a secular jew. I think should have been given up in order for peace, but I can understand that religious people my struck without, but at the same time I think that arafat was under a condition where he could not have given ups permanently sovereignty over, sk a compound because he would have had a factor in the against him, because your argument is actually my argument, which is there, are five, could not have accepted a piecemeal offered to him, because own people would have murdered him for having made sort of peace deal with my way agree with a feeling of peace, data peace, deal that gave up the template and I would now are you there? That's that's, that's ok, so they need the the idea that first of all, we should point out that. been on the temple multiple times,

I am pride- I dressed up as a muslim to try and get onto the temple mount is a picture of that happening by the way you know, you're the. If, if you if you'd like to hook up, I can make it happen, is difficult. You all you have to do is walk up a particular tunnel and england go in the temple mount anyone can, but only muslim can rather only muslims compared the tunnel that is not a long day was an open to foreign this day, I tried I knew well. It is a fact of the matter. I've seen people arrested for attempting to pray to open a prayer book is in hebrew on that. Mt only muslims, can prey on the temple mount One walks is in technical control of the temple mount so put aside, the politics of the temple mount for a second once again, the argument that I make is that there is no party on the other side. Please name them on the other side with which the israelis should currently negotiating no current needs As I said so then we had wrought has tried in Israel has assassinated leader

arab academics leading palestinian academics went when it were during the knock, bring nineteen forty eight is well kept largely rural areas in the galilee intact, but they went off to an urban. areas where they were palestinian academics? There has been a concerted effort to make sure that I fear thing you're, saying that you're a strategy of these really nineteen forty years to go after palestinian academics, nor I know that it is they that already ass, they went off to open up and palestinian life. It turns out that wars typically take place in heavily urbanized areas and not an open fields. I mean it was alive rural area the times I think us right either. So I mean that happens right, the biggest battles around of nineteen forty eight- you can have my war of independence. Thank you battle, the true and which is a battle between tel Aviv and jerusalem. To open the road to Jerusalem. There were, there were hotly flop battles in the streets of sad spot so mean that their their battles,

every populated area of of the region, clearly because it was a war for the establishment of the state of Israel, so with eighty percent of the population was depot, which is unusual that would first, while not particularly unusual considering the allies, including this country, promptly, do after world war, two depopulated, poland to turn to the to the The sound of two million germans depopulator from Poland back into germany, repatriated back into germany, that nobody ever talked about nobody's talking today about the fact that right now, I think we need to thank you very much. Brenda bay hits night, and can we have one last round proposed by contributing

like the question. While folks that was me at university of cambridge. I hope that you, that will be doing a lot more of that sort of stuff. In the very near future,