America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - The Based Israel Debate feat. Will Chamberlain | America First Ep. 29

00:00:05.000 Yeah.

00:01:54.000 Buh-bye! 0.86

00:02:49.000 Give me your love.

00:03:00.000 Give me your love.

00:03:05.000 Give me your love.

00:03:08.000 Give me your love.

00:04:57.000 Can I help you?

00:05:54.000 We're good to go.

00:09:00.000 Give me your love.

00:09:14.000 Give me your love.

00:09:19.000 Give me your love.

00:10:15.000 I don't know.

00:12:03.000 Give me your love.

00:12:07.000 Give me your love.

00:12:18.000 Give me your love.

00:12:23.000 Give me your love.

00:13:22.000 We're good.

00:15:11.000 Give me your love Give me your love Give me your love Give me your love

00:16:26.000 I don't care!

00:17:21.000 Uh-oh.

00:18:16.000 Give me your love.

00:18:29.000 Give me your love.

00:19:51.000 Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.

00:19:58.000 It's going to be only America first. 0.99

00:20:03.000 America first.

00:20:07.000 The American people will come first once again.

00:20:33.000 America First!

00:20:34.000 America First!

00:20:48.000 Good evening everybody who are watching America First.

00:20:51.000 My name is Nicholas J. Fuentes, and we have a very special episode for you tonight.

00:20:56.000 The long-awaited hashtag-based Israel debate is live tonight, and we have with us here Will Chamberlain.

00:21:04.000 And just a moment here, I've got to turn up your volume, actually.

00:21:08.000 Okay, you're ready.

00:21:08.000 Will, how are you doing?

00:21:12.000 Excellent, excellent.

00:21:13.000 Now, folks, it's been a pretty contentious build-up to this debate.

00:21:18.000 There's been a lot of hype, there's been a lot of animosity, but me and Will have been talking for the past half hour and we have agreed, we have come to a mutual understanding.

00:21:28.000 A mutual respect that this will be a substantive debate about the issue.

00:21:32.000 So we will try our best to refrain from personal attacks, from ad hominem, all the Floyd Mayweather, Conor McGregor stuff is over, and we finally commence our debate over the question, should the United States end all United States foreign aid to the state of Israel?

00:21:50.000 Military aid, right.

00:21:51.000 Now, I will be arguing in the affirmative that we should end all military aid to Israel, and we'll be arguing in the negative.

00:22:00.000 So, Will, do you want to remind us what the time limits are for tonight?

00:22:07.000 Oh, wait, wait, hold up, hold up, Will.

00:22:09.000 Your audio's not coming through here.

00:22:12.000 Oh boy, it's always something.

00:22:14.000 Right?

00:22:15.000 Hang on just a moment.

00:22:18.000 All right, give us one sec.

00:22:21.000 All right.

00:22:23.000 Says my speaker's on.

00:22:24.000 Okay, there it is.

00:22:25.000 Okay, so your audio is live now, so say something.

00:22:29.000 Okay, so time limits.

00:22:31.000 Okay, you're gonna speak first for four minutes in your constructive speech.

00:22:35.000 Then I'll speak for five minutes in my constructive speech.

00:22:39.000 Then you'll get a five minute rebuttal.

00:22:41.000 And then I'll finish it off with a three minute rebuttal and then we'll go into a back and forth.

00:22:45.000 Okay.

00:22:46.000 Sounds good to me.

00:22:47.000 And you'll be the timekeeper.

00:22:48.000 I understand.

00:22:49.000 Are you ready with the time?

00:22:51.000 Yeah.

00:22:51.000 Whenever you, whenever you start.

00:22:53.000 All right.

00:22:53.000 Let me just check real quick in the live chat to make sure our sound is good.

00:22:57.000 Finally, make sure our streaming is good.

00:23:02.000 Everybody on the Periscope too?

00:23:04.000 Good.

00:23:05.000 Okay, so it looks like we're okay.

00:23:06.000 Only 14 dropped frames and I'm seeing both audio.

00:23:09.000 So with that, we'll jump into it.

00:23:11.000 Are you ready with the timer?

00:23:13.000 I'm ready with the timer.

00:23:14.000 Alright, let me know when you've started the timer.

00:23:17.000 Alright, time starts.

00:23:18.000 Alright.

00:23:20.000 Now my central thesis, what I'm arguing tonight, the thesis that I am arguing is that the United States should end all military aid to the State of Israel, and the central reason why is that we must return to putting America first.

00:23:33.000 Now when we ask ourselves why the United States should end all military assistance to Israel,

00:23:38.000 It's important that we establish a standard for how we're supposed to judge whether or not military aid is a good thing or a bad thing, whether or not we should keep it going or we should refuse it.

00:23:47.000 And so I will begin with the late, great Constitution of the United States of America that we will consult for.

00:23:55.000 All enumerated powers by the federal government, which includes dispersing tax dollars to foreign nations.

00:24:01.000 Now, the only clause which permits in the U.S.

00:24:04.000 Constitution the disbursement of foreign aid, U.S.

00:24:07.000 tax money, to foreign nations is Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which deals with the powers of the Congress.

00:24:14.000 Article 1, Section 8 reads, the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.

00:24:21.000 To pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

00:24:25.000 Now that is the only reason why that is the only constitutional power that is enumerated that is reserved for the federal government for how they are able to collect federal tax money through the 17th amendment through the income tax and disperse it to foreign nations which among these are Israel.

00:24:40.000 Now, when we evaluate whether or not we should continue United States military aid to Israel, we have to evaluate, does Israel sufficiently provide for the common defense to warrant U.S.

00:24:50.000 tax money being appropriated by the House of Representatives to be spent on Israel?

00:24:55.000 The answer is a resounding no.

00:24:56.000 And I say this for two primary reasons.

00:24:58.000 The first is that Israel does not serve America's geopolitical interests.

00:25:02.000 Now, we'll get more into that

00:25:05.000 During the back and forth, but the primary reasons is that Israel is almost solely and exclusively responsible for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. 0.74

00:25:14.000 We talk about Iran, we talk about Syria, we talk about Libya, and most famously Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons.

00:25:20.000 We forget that Israel was the first nation to acquire nuclear weapons almost 50 years ago.

00:25:26.000 The second reason is that Israel's behavior as an ally of the United States, the vaunted closest ally, is not consistent with the claim that there is any friendship, there is any trust, there is any advantage gained by dealing with such a rogue state that is Israel. 0.70

00:25:40.000 We can look at events such as the Levon Affair.

00:25:43.000 We can look at the Apollo Affair.

00:25:44.000 We can look at the gross and disgusting record of Israeli espionage against the United States. 0.72

00:25:50.000 They are, depending on who you ask,

00:25:52.000 The second, third, or fourth most aggressive espionage operation on American soil behind only America's worst enemies.

00:25:59.000 Now, in conclusion, I don't know where I'm at for my time, but that is my introduction.

00:26:04.000 In conclusion, I will say this.

00:26:06.000 You will not agree with my position if you are content with things as they are.

00:26:11.000 Will will argue for the status quo.

00:26:13.000 Will will argue along the same vein as those that sold us Iraq, along the same vein as those that sold us Afghanistan, the same vein that sold us the TPP and the disastrous NAFTA trade deals of putting America second or last to foreign interests.

00:26:28.000 It's time to put America first again.

00:26:30.000 It's time to end all military assistance to the State of Israel.

00:26:36.000 Are you good?

00:26:36.000 I'm good.

00:26:37.000 You had 40 seconds left, so nicely done.

00:26:41.000 Very efficient in your use of time.

00:26:42.000 Thank you.

00:26:45.000 I'm gonna reset my own timer.

00:26:46.000 Excellent.

00:26:49.000 And... Are you ready, Nick?

00:26:55.000 I'm ready to go.

00:26:55.000 All right.

00:27:00.000 Is everybody else ready?

00:27:01.000 I'm sure everybody else is ready.

00:27:03.000 Somebody told me to be nice.

00:27:07.000 Cutting military aid to Israel risks a major Middle Eastern war with no commensurate gain.

00:27:11.000 First, in the status quo, military aid to Israel is key to preserving the regional balance of power for three reasons.

00:27:15.000 First, military aid to Israel provides Israel a qualitative military edge over its neighboring countries.

00:27:20.000 Because of U.S. 0.51

00:27:21.000 statutes, U.S.

00:27:22.000 aid is required to be of the highest technology available and higher technology than its neighboring countries.

00:27:26.000 This means

00:27:26.000 We're good to go!

00:27:47.000 We're good to go.

00:28:10.000 As a result, ending all military aid to Israel will lead to a major risk of a huge Middle Eastern war.

00:28:14.000 There's a number of possible flashpoints.

00:28:16.000 First, in Gaza.

00:28:16.000 Hamas still can't stop people from shooting rockets into southern Israel.

00:28:19.000 That's a problem.

00:28:20.000 And Austin has led to wars in the past.

00:28:22.000 Secondly, in the West Bank, there's been continued suicide attacks coming from the West Bank with trucks and knives.

00:28:26.000 Additionally, if Israel could become more provocative and start spreading things there, that would lead to another flashpoint. 0.81

00:28:32.000 Third, in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah has been rearming for years and could potentially launch strikes across the border.

00:28:37.000 And fourth, Iran has been waiting, still runs death to Israel days, so it could easily lead to an attack. 0.91

00:28:41.000 Also, if a Middle Eastern war starts, historically,

00:28:44.000 It's pulled in a number of its Arab neighbors.

00:28:45.000 In 48, 67, and 73, there have been multiple Arab countries that invaded.

00:28:49.000 Additionally, there's a risk of nuclear Pakistan joining now as well as another Muslim country that has nuclear weapons. 0.87

00:28:55.000 Thus...

00:28:56.000 We're good to go!

00:29:21.000 Third, it would create massive economic disruption.

00:29:24.000 Oil prices would skyrocket, shipping in the Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf would be compromised.

00:29:28.000 And that would be extraordinarily expensive to the United States, far more expensive than the $4 billion a year that would cost to maintain military aid.

00:29:34.000 Four, if there was a major Middle Eastern war, there's a high chance that the United States would intervene in that war, in which case that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars and potentially thousands of lives of U.S.

00:29:42.000 service people.

00:29:43.000 That is avoidable if you do not spend the money on that, if you just maintain the current level of $4 billion of military aid.

00:29:48.000 Other disadvantages.

00:30:04.000 Israel serves as a forward operating base for U.S.

00:30:06.000 operations in the Middle East.

00:30:08.000 Without Israel, we would either have to send carriers in order to maintain operations, or simply not conduct operations at all, in which case jihadists would be able to conduct planned attacks without harassment. 0.54

00:30:16.000 That would mean to dead American lives. 0.85

00:30:18.000 That's against American interests.

00:30:19.000 Additionally, there are lost American jobs.

00:30:21.000 Under the American aid package, Israel is required to spend all of the $4 billion it accrues

00:30:26.000 On, uh, you know, on in America, because it has to buy American military equipment.

00:30:30.000 That means if you end military in Israel, you're losing United States jobs and losing United States manufacturing, but no commensurate gain.

00:30:36.000 Third, you lose intelligence cooperation.

00:30:38.000 Not many U.S.

00:30:38.000 citizens can actually operate in the human intelligence level within the Middle East.

00:30:41.000 On the other hand, Israel has the Druze minority and a variety of other people who can go into the various difficult Middle East places and provide incredibly crucial human intelligence.

00:30:49.000 For example, there's been a lot of rumors that Israel was able to place a source within

00:30:53.000 Um, ISIS, and that's one of the reasons we- only reasons we had human intelligence. 0.97

00:30:56.000 Human intelligence saves American lives.

00:30:58.000 On your arguments.

00:31:01.000 Your first argument is not an argument.

00:31:02.000 It's merely a decision rule.

00:31:03.000 You say that it should come America first. 0.81

00:31:04.000 Every argument I've made so far operates under a thesis that says even if you prioritize America over other reasons, it's still a reason to maintain that $4 billion in aid.

00:31:12.000 Additionally, you list the Constitution's spending power.

00:31:14.000 General welfare has been construed extraordinarily broadly by the Supreme Court, which means that the general welfare clause is met by everything.

00:31:20.000 Indeed, again, if a major war occurs that the United States participates in,

00:31:23.000 It's easy to see that spending four billion dollars serves the general welfare in this instance.

00:31:27.000 You next say that Israel is not a particularly good ally.

00:31:29.000 We'll get into more detail on this later because you didn't provide it.

00:31:31.000 You say first that Israel is solely responsible for proliferation in the region.

00:31:35.000 Maybe they wouldn't have to proliferate if all the neighboring countries didn't try and invade them and wipe them off the face of the earth every so often. 0.96

00:31:40.000 Second, you say their behavior is inconsistent with being friends.

00:31:42.000 You cite Le Bon Affair and various histories of espionage.

00:31:45.000 You could cite incidents

00:31:46.000 All right, that's all?

00:31:47.000 That was a lot.

00:31:47.000 Interesting.

00:31:48.000 Welcome to debate.

00:31:48.000 What's that?

00:31:49.000 Welcome to debate.

00:32:14.000 No, it was good.

00:32:15.000 I liked that.

00:32:15.000 That kept me busy.

00:32:17.000 Normally when I have on a guest or a debate opponent, I'm left bored.

00:32:23.000 You know, like if you have a Will Nardi, blah, blah, blah, it gets a little old.

00:32:27.000 But if you are ready to go with the timer, I'm ready to go with my response.

00:32:32.000 Alright, you've got five minutes.

00:32:33.000 All right, so now the majority of this counter-argument is built upon the assumption that withdrawing four billion dollars a year, and probably a lot more depending on how you look at what constitutes military aid, would result in an all-out war in the Middle East.

00:32:48.000 Now that is obviously

00:32:50.000 Not the case.

00:32:50.000 He lists three reasons for why this might precipitate a Middle Eastern war of all against all in a very Hobbesian fashion.

00:32:57.000 His first argument is that this would affect the regional balance of power.

00:33:01.000 Now it's true that we give four billion dollars a year to Israel, but that number...

00:33:05.000 That number is, of course, very small.

00:33:07.000 Israel has appropriated more than five times that for their military budget, and their military budget is only 15% of their entire budget.

00:33:14.000 So if they're spending 15% of their entire budget, and our assistance for their military is only a fifth of that 15%, of course, they could supplant that.

00:33:25.000 Additionally, there's $2 billion given every year in private contributions from the United States, which could, of course, be increased.

00:33:32.000 If we were to revoke foreign direct assistance from the United States government.

00:33:36.000 There's $2 billion in private aid given that could easily be bumped up to $4 billion if we reduced our $3.8 billion commitment or all foreign military assistance altogether.

00:33:46.000 The second reason he gives for the war of all against all is that we restrain Israel.

00:33:50.000 We restrain Israel's provocative actions. 0.91

00:33:52.000 If you recall in the first press conference, the first joint press conference between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump, President Trump explicitly told Netanyahu

00:34:00.000 Stop building settlements in the West Bank.

00:34:02.000 Will said the West Bank could be a possible flashpoint to initiate a war.

00:34:06.000 President Trump explicitly told Netanyahu not to build settlements, and in March, the Knesset in Israel approved, for the first time in two decades, an expansion of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank.

00:34:16.000 There is nothing about American military aid that is restraining Israel in any capacity.

00:34:20.000 Furthermore, Israel could not launch any kind of war against Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, or Egypt, because they do not have the manpower, they do not have the money.

00:34:29.000 I don't know who he thinks would be invading Israel in this circumstance.

00:34:32.000 We know that Syria... 0.99

00:34:49.000 Is on the ropes.

00:34:49.000 Bashar al-Assad fighting several different coalitions, including some backed by the State of Israel.

00:34:54.000 Iraq is on the ropes fighting ISIS.

00:34:55.000 They have no military.

00:34:57.000 They were destroyed by an army 20,000 strong just three years ago.

00:35:01.000 Iran would have to cross over Iraq into Israel to invade. 0.89

00:35:04.000 And Egypt just had a very traumatic two different transitions of power in four years since the Arab Spring.

00:35:09.000 So I don't see where they would come from.

00:35:11.000 He says that there is no evidence that Israel is not a good ally.

00:35:14.000 I would point him to the Levant Affair.

00:35:16.000 I would point him to a 1993 when it was found out that Israel had been selling American military tech to China for decades.

00:35:22.000 And more recent disclosures found that Israel had been selling China U.S.

00:35:25.000 military tech as recently as 2013.

00:35:28.000 Additionally, we see with the Netanyahu example, he builds settlements, even when expressly told not to. 0.53

00:35:32.000 That is not a good ally.

00:35:33.000 You have an espionage operation that is the worst out of all allies.

00:35:37.000 More than all of our enemies put together, save Russia and China.

00:35:40.000 That is not a good alliance.

00:35:41.000 Now, I don't know how much more time I have here, but I guess we could jump... A minute fifty.

00:35:46.000 Oh, we have a minute?

00:35:47.000 A minute fifty.

00:35:48.000 Oh, okay.

00:35:49.000 So I could slow down, actually.

00:35:50.000 So he says that there are lost jobs if we stop providing Israel with aid to buy things from our defense contractors.

00:35:57.000 Here's a solution.

00:35:58.000 Invest all the money in our defense contractors.

00:36:00.000 We know that 25% of the military aid that we give to Israel can be spent on their defense department.

00:36:05.000 Imagine if 100% were spent on our Defense Department.

00:36:08.000 So the lost jobs argument is just silly.

00:36:10.000 They say that, or Will says, that we could be a forward operating base.

00:36:14.000 The Middle Eastern Affairs.

00:36:16.000 That is actually not true.

00:36:17.000 In 1991, during the Gulf War, we were not able to use Israeli troops because the presence of Israeli troops would force the 400,000-troop-strong coalition of Arab partners to disband.

00:36:27.000 They do not like to work alongside Israeli troops.

00:36:30.000 There are reports by the CIA, or, let me, I'll find the exact source once we're into free-flowing debate,

00:36:36.000 But there was a report from the intelligence community which said that in 95% of contingencies in the Persian Gulf, which is where a conflict would inevitably happen, Israel would be useless militarily.

00:36:47.000 Now we can look at... He said that, well, most of these things are just stemming from the war.

00:36:53.000 Most of these are just stemming from the cataclysmic world.

00:36:55.000 Refugee crisis, oil crisis, U.S.

00:36:57.000 intervention would all be a contingency if there was a war, but I just took out all three reasons why there wouldn't be a war.

00:37:05.000 I suppose I could talk about the Strait of Hormuz.

00:37:07.000 He says that in some event, if we stop supplying Israel with foreign assistance, that there would be oil prices spiking because of a war.

00:37:14.000 When Iran actually blocked the Strait of Hormuz in 1982, Israel could not assist in any way, shape, or form and didn't.

00:37:20.000 And if you look in the 1973 war, the oil weapon leveled against the United States by the Arab countries was actually states that Israel is a liability to our strategic interests, not an asset.

00:37:30.000 And I guess I'll resign my time.

00:37:32.000 I want to hear if you have a response to any of that.

00:37:35.000 Sure.

00:37:36.000 Not bad, Nick.

00:37:38.000 If you were in my college debate, you know, if I was coaching you, there's a good amount of raw material here to work with.

00:37:47.000 Got some talent if you haven't done it before.

00:37:49.000 Anyway, so what I'm going to do, it's going to be an overview and then we're going to talk about, uh, the disadvantage and then, then your argument.

00:37:57.000 Sure.

00:37:58.000 Okay.

00:38:01.000 I'm setting my three minute timer.

00:38:04.000 All right.

00:38:10.000 In debate world, we would call that an all defense speech.

00:38:13.000 Nick has failed to articulate a single positive change to the world that would occur as a result of ending aid to Israel. 0.84

00:38:17.000 Meanwhile, you're basically hoping that a war doesn't happen.

00:38:20.000 So essentially, if you're weighing this out, sitting at home thinking like, what do I want to decide?

00:38:24.000 On the one hand, you have a $4 billion savings in the deficit.

00:38:27.000 There's no explanation of how that meaningfully changes any American lives for the better.

00:38:31.000 And on the other hand, you have a risk of a major Middle Eastern war, you have a loss of the intelligence cooperation in the Middle East, you have a loss of Israel's support operating base, and you do have lost American jobs, right?

00:38:41.000 If there's nothing to outweigh any of these possibilities, there's no rational policymaker that would ever agree to the policy that Nick has proposed.

00:38:49.000 Let's look at again, what has he provided?

00:38:51.000 He said, America first.

00:38:52.000 Okay, that's a decision rule, not an argument for why a positive change would happen as a result of cutting aid.

00:38:57.000 He makes arguments that Israel is a bad ally.

00:38:59.000 That's just like vague value proposition.

00:39:01.000 That's not an actual argument for how America's lives would change as a result of the plan.

00:39:05.000 He talks about the Levon Affair and 60-year-old emergency stuff.

00:39:08.000 That's just pettiness when it comes to actually making sure that Americans' lives are better, which you haven't done at all.

00:39:12.000 And then, on the disadvantage.

00:39:14.000 Here, you just have all defense.

00:39:15.000 You're like, oh, it won't really happen, right?

00:39:17.000 Because Israel will still have a lot of money.

00:39:18.000 Well, here's the problem.

00:39:19.000 You're conceding, one, that it's the qualitative military edge that United States actually is making with the technology that means that the money is particularly valuable coming from the United States.

00:39:28.000 Additionally, you're conceding the fact that it no longer looks like the United States will be backing Israel.

00:39:33.000 That means that neighbors won't think that there's a risk

00:39:35.000 We're good to go!

00:39:49.000 You're making argument that Israel sometimes behaves expansively, even though there is this U.S.

00:39:53.000 attempt at restraint.

00:39:54.000 That's not actually a good argument for you.

00:39:56.000 It means that in the absence of any U.S.

00:39:58.000 aid, Israel would be far more aggressive, because if they're willing to do that to contradict Trump now, what would they be willing to do in a world where they didn't even have to worry about military aid?

00:40:06.000 That means Israel would be even more provocative and more bad, right? 1.00

00:40:09.000 What else did you say?

00:40:11.000 You said, oh, there's no possibility that any of these neighboring countries were because they're in provocative situations, but you're conceding Hezbollah, you're conceding Hamas, and Hezbollah is funded by Iran.

00:40:19.000 A major invasion by Hezbollah, and one that continued, and one that Iran was supporting, could easily draw in all these other countries, even if they're in somewhat weakened positions. 0.73

00:40:26.000 Additionally, it's not just right now you're doing this, you're cutting off aid over a 10-year period, so you can't just be like, oh, there won't be a war tomorrow.

00:40:33.000 You need to win that there won't be a war over the next 10 years, and your policy certainly risks that.

00:40:38.000 What else?

00:40:40.000 You make arguments about how, like, the lost American jobs.

00:40:43.000 Indeed, that is my weakest argument, but it still actually is a major mitigating factor as to why, like, it's not that bad to have this policy.

00:40:49.000 We're spending jobs, spending money ultimately on American goods.

00:40:52.000 It's like, it's just like any, particularly not, you know, it's just like an infrastructure project except that it preserves the regional order of the Middle East.

00:40:59.000 Additionally, you would say that we couldn't, in 1991, you couldn't use it as a forward operating base.

00:41:03.000 I'm talking about drones that are currently flying out of Israel right now.

00:41:06.000 And you completely concede the human intelligence point.

00:41:08.000 You don't touch that at all.

00:41:09.000 You lose.

00:41:11.000 Okay.

00:41:13.000 So now we can engage in the back and forth.

00:41:16.000 The back and forth.

00:41:17.000 Let's talk.

00:41:18.000 And we could take this issue by issue.

00:41:20.000 I have a lot of material to work through here.

00:41:23.000 We'll start with the intelligence.

00:41:25.000 Is that good?

00:41:26.000 Yeah, let's start with intelligence, sure.

00:41:42.000 My question, well, my contention is two-part.

00:41:45.000 The first part, and then I'll be brief.

00:41:48.000 I'll let you respond to this.

00:41:50.000 Number one with the intelligence is I would challenge you to point to me a single example in the past ten years in which Israeli intelligence has benefited America. 0.60

00:42:00.000 Like a single major example.

00:42:02.000 That's my number one challenge because I've done a lot of research.

00:42:04.000 The only two things I could find was 1956 Khrushchev's secret speech

00:42:10.000 And in the 1960s they allowed America to inspect Soviet military equipment that they recovered in the 67 war.

00:42:17.000 So that's number one is I challenge you to come up with a single instance in the past 10 years where Israeli intelligence has actually assisted us.

00:42:25.000 Number two, my number two contention here is Israeli aid has actually been false.

00:42:31.000 And I think the best example of this is the Iraq war. 0.93

00:42:34.000 And I'll pull up some sources here so I'm not just 0.99

00:42:38.000 Talking out of my butt. 0.99

00:42:39.000 The proverbial talking out of the butt. 0.99

00:42:45.000 Yeah.

00:42:45.000 One of the hard things about doing a debate with evidence, unless you're, like, actually spending a whole year doing a debate with evidence, is that it's hard to bring it in, so... Yeah.

00:42:58.000 Um... I don't know if this is going direct, but... Anything?

00:43:04.000 Mmm...

00:43:18.000 Okay, I'm hearing that we're getting... Oh, here it is.

00:43:20.000 Okay.

00:43:21.000 So, we have Philip Zelikow, a member of the President's... Oh, no, I'm sorry.

00:43:26.000 That's not important.

00:43:28.000 This is the important part.

00:43:29.000 Okay.

00:43:29.000 So, Bibi Netanyahu came to Washington to meet with U.S.

00:43:32.000 Senators in mid-April, 2002, and he warned them that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons that could be delivered in a suitcase.

00:43:38.000 Ariel Sharon's spokesperson said, the Cleveland Reporter,

00:43:41.000 And if Iraq wasn't stopped, we would have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iraq. 0.97

00:43:45.000 Haaretz said that Hussein gave an order to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission to speed up its work.

00:43:51.000 Israel sent alarming reports to Iraq about Iraq's WMD program at a time when Sharon said that strategic coordination between U.S.

00:43:58.000 and Israeli intelligence had reached unprecedented dimensions.

00:44:02.000 Okay, so I'll respond to those in turn.

00:44:21.000 First, I find your challenge under most circumstances to be a little bit absurd because these things are test classifying, right?

00:44:29.000 Like the idea that I would be able to point to an Israeli intelligence piece that would actually prove a benefit to the United States is a pretty remarkable challenge. 0.96

00:44:37.000 Hold up, Will.

00:44:37.000 We're having a... I would access that information.

00:44:39.000 Hold up.

00:44:40.000 We're having trouble with our audio, Will.

00:44:41.000 Yeah.

00:44:41.000 I don't know what the hell is going on.

00:44:43.000 It's telling me that the audio is coming through, but I don't know, it might be a lag issue.

00:44:51.000 Can you say something real quick?

00:44:52.000 I'm saying something.

00:44:54.000 Hello, hello, hello.

00:44:55.000 Because it's telling me it's coming through, but... Okay.

00:45:00.000 Okay.

00:45:01.000 How about now?

00:45:01.000 Are we good now, folks?

00:45:03.000 Hey.

00:45:04.000 Hello, hello.

00:45:05.000 Can you see on your periscope?

00:45:08.000 Yeah, I can see on my periscope.

00:45:09.000 Everybody on my periscope's hearing.

00:45:11.000 Okay.

00:45:11.000 Everything went static on hearing.

00:45:13.000 That's what they're saying.

00:45:15.000 Oh, really?

00:45:15.000 That's what it sounds like.

00:45:16.000 Am I right, guys?

00:45:17.000 Is that right?

00:45:18.000 Yeah, we have no problem hearing, but the periscope is good.

00:45:22.000 Test, test, one, two.

00:45:27.000 Well, fortunately we got the time clock out of the way here.

00:45:32.000 I'm going up on my phone because my computer is lagging very badly.

00:45:36.000 We're lagging a little bit.

00:45:45.000 Okay, is it working now?

00:45:48.000 Okay, it sounds like I'm getting a lot of static.

00:45:56.000 Let me check.

00:45:56.000 That shouldn't be happening.

00:46:14.000 How about now?

00:46:21.000 Hang on, James is calling me.

00:46:22.000 Maybe he can give me a touch here.

00:46:24.000 Hold up.

00:46:29.000 So that didn't touch it.

00:46:37.000 People are telling me to unplug the mic.

00:46:41.000 That's what I did!

00:46:45.000 Now we're trying to get mics working.

00:46:49.000 There we go.

00:46:50.000 There's something off the output.

00:46:54.000 Oh well.

00:46:57.000 I did that.

00:46:59.000 Yeah, I'm the side hit your phone, dude.

00:47:01.000 I'm the side hit your live stream.

00:47:02.000 That's what happened.

00:47:14.000 Okay.

00:47:15.000 Yeah, they're saying they're using Stuxnet on you.

00:47:17.000 Yeah.

00:47:18.000 We're using Stuxnet.

00:47:19.000 Yeah, right.

00:47:19.000 Oh, it's Will.

00:47:20.000 Huh.

00:47:20.000 Okay, so... Okay.

00:47:25.000 Alright, let me turn this off.

00:47:32.000 Alright, thanks.

00:47:39.000 Okay, apparently the static's coming from you, Will.

00:47:42.000 Oh.

00:47:43.000 So, I don't know what's going on with your mic setup.

00:47:46.000 You have, uh... Okay.

00:47:46.000 I mean, uh... Weird.

00:47:48.000 Alright.

00:47:50.000 Um... I'm sorry, it's just my phone.

00:47:54.000 Uh, I can't get this out.

00:47:56.000 Let me, let me check the screen here.

00:48:01.000 So I can get some updates.

00:48:06.000 We're in sort of a weird spot where I have to...

00:48:09.000 I don't know what changed.

00:48:12.000 You were doing fine up until now.

00:48:14.000 Unless something changed on your end, but I've literally been pretty still.

00:48:38.000 Okay, looks like it's good now, so... Okay, alright.

00:48:45.000 Sorry for the interruption, but we were talking about intelligence.

00:48:48.000 And you said it was classified, so you couldn't really give me an example.

00:48:52.000 But, and then the corollary is we actually are lucky in this game.

00:48:56.000 It's because, if you remember that big... What was it?

00:49:00.000 There's a big tip over the fact that Trump... Wait, actually it's not working, actually.

00:49:04.000 Hang on.

00:49:04.000 What's going on?

00:49:12.000 You know what?

00:49:14.000 Here, I know a trick.

00:49:25.000 Oh, Nicky is going to save the day here.

00:49:29.000 Here's how we're going to do this.

00:49:58.000 And let me boost my speaker.

00:50:01.000 You'll have to just come through on the mic here.

00:50:03.000 I think that's gonna be the only way.

00:50:04.000 I'll turn up the gain.

00:50:10.000 Okay, say something now.

00:50:14.000 Can you hear him a little bit?

00:50:15.000 Is it a little bit quiet, but can you hear him?

00:50:22.000 Yeah, I can hear the static on your thing.

00:50:26.000 That's just my speaker now.

00:50:28.000 Oh, okay.

00:50:29.000 Because now I'm just having it go from the speaker to the mic.

00:50:32.000 We were doing good with Skype, but I don't know what happened.

00:50:34.000 I think it's this... It's fixed!

00:50:39.000 All right!

00:50:40.000 Excellent! 1.00

00:50:41.000 God damn! 0.99

00:50:42.000 I'll keep this close, actually, in case something happens, but... 0.99

00:50:47.000 All right.

00:50:49.000 At long last, at long last, we can get your response on intelligence.

00:50:54.000 Okay.

00:50:55.000 I have to remember, I left math to remember the second part because it's been a while.

00:51:00.000 But the point I was going to make was there was this discussion about the intelligence that Trump had leaked to foreign leaders.

00:51:07.000 I don't know if you remember this.

00:51:08.000 This was like a few months ago.

00:51:09.000 Yeah.

00:51:10.000 And basically the report seemed to suggest that it was the intelligence about ISIS being able to put a bomb in a laptop

00:51:16.000 We're good to go.

00:51:35.000 We're good to go.

00:52:04.000 I would assume it is, and then you make this argument about nuclear weapons.

00:52:08.000 I mean, obviously that intelligence was wrong, but I don't understand how it makes sense for Israel to want to, like, intentionally mess with the United States, right?

00:52:16.000 Israel's primary fear is when other countries acquire nuclear weapons, and the intelligence that they had on Iraq was they thought they had nuclear weapons.

00:52:23.000 If they actually, if they knew the opposite, then they wouldn't provide, then they would feel no fear of Iraq, so they wouldn't, they wouldn't see any need to dupe us into attacking them. 0.72

00:52:34.000 Right, like, so that's why that argument doesn't really make sense.

00:52:36.000 And, again, one has to suspect that, like, the British and American intelligence services came to the exact same conclusion.

00:52:43.000 Like, I don't think you can pin all the blame on Israel.

00:52:46.000 So that's the argument I have there.

00:52:53.000 If this is like intelligence sharing, we could still do intelligence sharing with Israel.

00:52:58.000 Like, we do intelligence sharing with European Union countries, and we don't give them the most foreign aid out of any other country in the world.

00:53:05.000 And so, I mean, number one, intelligence sharing would probably resume.

00:53:09.000 We would probably remain a strategic ally of Israel's, even without the foreign aid.

00:53:13.000 In 97, Bibi Netanyahu promised that they would start phasing out foreign aid to Israel.

00:53:19.000 And then number two, with the intelligence, with the Iraq war, it's fair. 0.96

00:53:24.000 It's fair to say that they would tell us if it was wrong, and I'm going to turn the game, I'm probably really loud because you were quiet, and now I'm going, so I'm probably bursting.

00:53:33.000 Or no, actually I'm okay.

00:53:36.000 You say that Israeli aid is like especially useful.

00:53:38.000 They have people on the ground.

00:53:39.000 They have people that can infiltrate because they have Druze and everything else.

00:53:45.000 But we saw that with the Iraq war, that was not the case.

00:53:47.000 It was actually still just as false as everybody else.

00:53:50.000 And if I could bring in some actual evidence here.

00:53:53.000 Let me pull up my little section. 0.84

00:53:55.000 This is from the Israel Lobby by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

00:54:01.000 So this is on Israeli military intelligence.

00:54:04.000 One former CIA official reported, quote, I saw this political intelligence, this is Israeli military intelligence, and it was lousy, laughably bad, gossip stuff mostly.

00:54:14.000 This is from Stephen Waltz.

00:54:16.000 Quote, Israel also provided the United States with faulty or misleading intelligence on several occasions in order to encourage the U.S.

00:54:23.000 to take actions that Israel wanted.

00:54:25.000 So, with the intelligence, it's kind of a wash.

00:54:27.000 Number one, we could remain sharing without foreign aid.

00:54:30.000 Number two, the Iraq War demonstrates it obviously wasn't particularly helpful. 0.72

00:54:34.000 And then number three, when it concerns any of their interests, which by the way is the whole Middle East, they tend to lie about it.

00:54:39.000 This is according to the CIA and according to several other sources close to President Nixon, President Johnson, and others.

00:54:47.000 All right, well, so first on your point that Israel would remain a strategic ally even after we cut off aid, I disagree.

00:54:56.000 I think this is a really dramatic change of policy from the United States, especially after signing a deal about a year ago for a 10-year deal to go from the most aid of anybody to zero.

00:55:08.000 We're good to go.

00:55:27.000 Intelligence agencies make mistakes.

00:55:29.000 The idea that because intelligence agencies made a mistake 15 years ago is a good argument for why cooperation isn't really worth anything.

00:55:35.000 I just don't think it's particularly persuasive.

00:55:38.000 I, you know, we are not in a position to really have a good handle on what sort of intelligence Israel's providing because it's classified.

00:55:45.000 But the fact that we keep using it and the fact that we keep hearing stories like, oh, yes, they had a site, a source inside ISIS.

00:55:51.000 And I mean, if you do some reading on that, on not just, there's really interesting books that, I haven't actually read the whole thing, but there's a really interesting book on sort of what Israel did to infiltrate Hamas, Hezbollah, and various other groups.

00:56:03.000 And it's fascinating the sort of work that they were doing.

00:56:06.000 Somebody asked if I have an Israeli passport.

00:56:07.000 I do not.

00:56:08.000 I actually have a German passport, oddly enough.

00:56:09.000 I'm a, you know, you've got my dual loyalty wrong.

00:56:12.000 I'm a U.S.

00:56:13.000 German citizen.

00:56:15.000 The reason being that my grandmother had to leave in 36. 0.99

00:56:19.000 So, but finally, I want to say one last thing on your Stephen Weld point. 0.97

00:56:23.000 So, you're like, Weld's, and you have this evidence about, kind of like, they thought some of the Israel was garbage and chicken feet.

00:56:29.000 Look, there's clearly competing opinions on this, because we hear all the time about how the military is good. 0.82

00:56:33.000 I don't know how we're going to resolve that here.

00:56:35.000 But, anyway.

00:56:39.000 Yeah, I just, you know, it's just kind of hard for me to, I mean, out of the few, like, positive things that Israel offers us, it is the forward base and the intelligence. 0.79

00:56:49.000 The intelligence, I guess people can make up their minds whether or not they think the U.S.

00:56:53.000 and Israel would remain allies if there was only a security guarantee and only, like, uncontested diplomatic support in the United Nations and economic aid.

00:57:04.000 As we do with all of the nations.

00:57:06.000 And then, you know, to the second point there is the idea that if there was this dramatic cut in aid, if we shut down the Memorandum of Understanding, which is the 10-year, $3.8 billion-a-year agreement that was struck in 2016, I think there would be precedent for that because you got President Trump, America first.

00:57:22.000 We're good to go!

00:57:35.000 All right.

00:57:54.000 We're good to go.

00:58:08.000 We saw with the coalition in 91.

00:58:10.000 How do you answer for that?

00:58:11.000 That in a country that borders Iraq, we couldn't use their troops, we couldn't use them as a base because the Arab partners wouldn't want that. 1.00

00:58:19.000 I mean, maybe drones, but couldn't our base in Qatar or in an Arab Gulf country or in Egypt or Turkey suffice?

00:58:26.000 Why is it worth $4 billion a year to Israel?

00:58:31.000 So, like, first, you're sort of challenging me on, like, oh, there's only a couple of these benefits.

00:58:36.000 There's the forward operating base, and there's the intelligence cooperation.

00:58:40.000 It's like, well, one, I still think that you haven't beaten the Iraq war the war has had. 0.58

00:58:44.000 But second, I guess my fundamental point, and why I think it's really clear that, you know, in this world I've been in this debate, is you haven't articulated, throughout your entire time, a single actual positive change in American lives that results from the plan, that results from cutting military aid to Israel.

00:58:58.000 Like, and I challenge you to say, like, I mean, I'll let you back into it, I guess, in the sense that I would say, what is the positive change in American lives that results from cutting military aid to Israel?

00:59:08.000 Well, it's funny the way you frame it, because it's actually, while the position of our debate is, or rather the resolution of the debate, is the U.S.

00:59:18.000 should cut foreign aid to Israel, giving foreign aid to Israel is a positive action. 1.00

00:59:24.000 Right?

00:59:24.000 And I suppose in a way it's a positive action to get rid of the aid, but I mean really we're talking about the absence of something.

00:59:31.000 So I think really the burden of does this benefit Americans is more on you because you're telling us you want to direct money in a certain place.

00:59:39.000 If you want to direct the money in a certain place, don't you have to justify how that benefits Americans as opposed to me saying, well we can spend as much money as we want.

00:59:48.000 I have to demonstrate, you know, if

00:59:51.000 Cutting money to places is a benefit?

00:59:53.000 Do you see what I'm saying here?

00:59:54.000 Yeah, two reasons you're wrong.

00:59:57.000 First is, you're proposing a change to the status quo.

01:00:00.000 You know, the status quo is we give it.

01:00:02.000 And in debate world, if there are, if you think about things in terms of legalistic burdens, the burden is always on the affirmative to prove why we should change the way that things are.

01:00:12.000 And the negative gets presumption.

01:00:13.000 But second, even if you were right about that, as long as you concede I've articulated some benefits, the burden's now on you to explain why I've articulated some disadvantages.

01:00:24.000 The burden's on you to articulate why the advantages of cutting aid outweigh.

01:00:30.000 Even if you mitigated the impact, you need to have something on the other side that says, here's this really good outcome that happened as a result of cutting military aid to Israel.

01:00:40.000 You know, when I told about you, like, you have some talent, in the sense that, like, I were, like, pushing you, I'd be like, we can work with this, right?

01:00:46.000 You're efficient in the way you speak and a lot of things, but you made it very, like, if a debater were listening, like, if you were in a real formal debate round, the judge would look at you and be like, where's the impact, dude?

01:00:54.000 Like, you didn't read and impact a positive change in the world that would happen as a result of cutting aid, which is sort of, like, the first thing you probably want to read.

01:01:02.000 All right, well, I mean, I suppose maybe it wouldn't pass in a collegiate academic setting, but I think when the American people are told that we have to give money and cutting frivolous, wasteful spending is not helping them in their interest, I think, you know, it kind of belies the central point in favor of some academic standard.

01:01:18.000 But if you want me to demonstrate what actual benefit would accrue to stopping all foreign aid, I mean, I have it right here.

01:01:23.000 I just don't think

01:01:25.000 I just think that it's more of a negative.

01:01:27.000 But if you insist on making me demonstrate why it's not good to waste $4 billion a year because it's not actually a lot of money, number one, I would say it's actually not $3.8 billion, it's $38 billion over the next 10 years.

01:01:38.000 And actually, we're looking at $150 billion since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948.

01:01:43.000 And that's not including the

01:01:46.000 The aid to Egypt and the aid to Jordan, which was given to them to support peace agreements with Israel.

01:01:52.000 That's not including, arguably, the outsized influence Israel has had on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

01:01:58.000 Don't want to go that rabbit hole, but some might contend that.

01:02:04.000 One of the purest, most tangible benefits we would accrue is that we would have less terrorism.

01:02:12.000 And this is provable.

01:02:13.000 This is from the Israel lobby.

01:02:16.000 Ramzi Youssef, who you may remember, he was the one who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.

01:02:21.000 He mailed many letters to the New York Times before his bombing saying, I have a problem with the U.S.'

01:02:27.000 's support of Israel, their foreign aid to Israel.

01:02:30.000 In Osama Bin Laden's fatwa in 1996, when he declared war on the United States of America,

01:02:36.000 According to Benjamin and Simon, these are two prominent scholars on terrorism, said that, in fact, the most prominent grievance in Osama Bin Laden's fatwa when he declared war on the United States was our support for Israel.

01:02:48.000 In fact, the 9-11 Commission reported

01:02:54.000 That Bin Laden and other key Al Qaeda figures wanted to accelerate the timeline for 9-11 to coincide with a visit by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount.

01:03:05.000 So I don't want to say that Israel's support is exclusively responsible for terrorism, but it is a major factor. 0.92

01:03:12.000 It is a major factor that many scholars have said that contributes to anti-Americanism in the Arab world and terrorism on U.S.

01:03:20.000 soil.

01:03:20.000 So I mean there's

01:03:22.000 So, I never thought I'd call you soft on Islam, Nick, but I think you're being pretty soft on Islam right now.

01:03:34.000 The nature of Baha'i Islam is not dependent on the United States or Israel or anybody else.

01:03:38.000 If you know radical Salafist Baha'i Islam, which is where terrorism comes from, they want global caliphate. 0.99

01:03:43.000 We know that.

01:03:45.000 If you saw, I mean, if you've been following ISIS and you've been following their literature and the stuff they put out in their inspired magazine, they're talking about how, like, there are all these reasons we don't like you, but you know what? 0.57

01:03:56.000 We would still hate you no matter what because you're not Muslim and you're not paying the jizm, right? 1.00

01:04:00.000 And that's sufficient. 0.83

01:04:02.000 So given that outcome, I think, you know, it's sort of, to me, this feels like appeasement, right?

01:04:07.000 This sort of logic of like, well, if we just stop backing Israel and we just stop trying to anger people in the Middle East, they'll leave us alone.

01:04:13.000 No, they won't.

01:04:14.000 Right?

01:04:15.000 And not that people like Osama bin Laden, people who are actually conducting terrorism, they weren't.

01:04:19.000 They're not going anywhere.

01:04:20.000 And so the question is, how do we best stop that?

01:04:23.000 And I think Israel is an asset in stopping that and not a liability.

01:04:26.000 Like I said, it's not a question of whether or not terrorists wake up every day and the primary reason, but if even a little bit, our unquestionable $4 billion to Israel and our support of their occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip contributes to terrorism, and it's $4 billion and there's not a major justification for it otherwise, again, I don't see that as appeasement.

01:04:49.000 You would still have terrorism.

01:04:50.000 You would still have Wahhabism that wants to destroy us. 1.00

01:04:53.000 You would still have ISIS.

01:04:55.000 But if we could prevent

01:04:57.000 A single terror attack, because we stopped our foreign aid of Israel, I would say that $4 billion is worth it. 1.00

01:05:02.000 I would say that, again, if we look at the Constitution of the United States, which is provide for the common defense, if you have Ramzi Youssef, if you have Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda,

01:05:12.000 And additionally, you say that, and I guess I'll confront you on the central point, which is Israel helps us fight terrorism more than they contribute to terrorists not liking us.

01:05:23.000 That's actually demonstrably not true.

01:05:25.000 The Israeli defense minister said that they would prefer ISIS to Iran any day.

01:05:29.000 The chief intelligence officer of Israel said that they have no interest, they have no interest in defeating ISIS in Syria.

01:05:38.000 They said, in fact, they would prefer

01:05:40.000 I'm good.

01:05:57.000 Well, so, I mean, there's another point here, which is that you say, like, why do these countries want us to stop giving military aid to Israel?

01:06:02.000 Right?

01:06:02.000 Like, why is Israel such a thorn in their sides?

01:06:04.000 Because they want to invade.

01:06:27.000 Okay.

01:06:58.000 and I think the the and I guess in here's the other thing like I so you know I could concede this and then be like the small risk of increased terrorism is actually outweighed by potential of a major power war in the Middle East in terms of the consequences so I don't think I don't think this argument gets you nearly as far as you

01:07:15.000 Well, let me resolve the tension for you.

01:07:18.000 If we can address the Great War, the reason I skimmed over it is because if you've read Kenneth Pollack, if you've read Mearsheimer, I mean, this is an absolutely ridiculous proposition.

01:07:28.000 Again, I don't say that to, like, assault you.

01:07:30.000 I don't say that to be rude.

01:07:31.000 But, I mean, the idea that Syria would be able to defeat the most powerful conventional military in the Middle East.

01:07:38.000 And Israel, by the way, is the most powerful conventional military in the Middle East by a long shot.

01:07:44.000 They are one of the wealthiest countries in the Middle East per capita.

01:07:47.000 $39,000 per capita.

01:07:48.000 That's more than any other Middle Eastern country.

01:07:50.000 They have the most advanced, qualitative, and quantitative conventional military.

01:07:56.000 And on top of all that, they're the only country with a nuclear deterrent.

01:07:59.000 They call this the Samson Option.

01:08:01.000 They're the only country that says, we will nuke the entire region if we're going to lose a war.

01:08:07.000 And, you know, they would have invoked that in 73 if they didn't repel the very war you're talking about.

01:08:12.000 But Bashar al-Assad was not able to defeat ISIS.

01:08:16.000 Iraq was not able to defeat ISIS.

01:08:18.000 The Egyptian government was not able to stave off mass protests.

01:08:22.000 The only country that poses a significant threat to the state of Israel is Iran.

01:08:27.000 And if Iran wanted to invade Israel, it would have to go through Iraq. 0.90

01:08:30.000 And number two, Iran would never be able to ally with the only other countries that could matter, which would be Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, which all hate Iran,

01:08:38.000 We're good to go.

01:08:52.000 So a few responses.

01:08:53.000 First, you say there's no way that they would defeat Israel.

01:08:57.000 That's not my argument.

01:08:58.000 My argument is merely that there would be a war.

01:08:59.000 I think Israel would ultimately prevail in a war against a variety of the countries in the region. 0.81

01:09:05.000 But that doesn't mean that there still wouldn't be a war.

01:09:08.000 And you might say, well, if they're rational actors, they'll realize they're going to lose, and they wouldn't start a war.

01:09:12.000 That's not how it works in the Middle East, because these leaders are very much in the thrall of their streets.

01:09:18.000 And that's historically, right?

01:09:20.000 It made no sense, really, for Egypt to want to start a war in 73. 0.53

01:09:23.000 They had to thread a needle so thin it was ridiculous.

01:09:26.000 They had just gotten rolled in 67 by Israel and lost the entirety of the Sinai Peninsula, along with everybody else, along with Syria losing Golan and Jordan losing the West Bank, right? 0.60

01:09:37.000 Like, Israel was already seen as superior, and yet they all went to war again six years later because it turns out people really, really, really hate Israel in the Middle East, right?

01:09:45.000 And so, you know, you have to think about the fact that I think you're really, really underselling the probability of war in a region that's seen a ton of wars like this historically, right?

01:09:56.000 A ton of them.

01:09:57.000 48, 67, 73.

01:10:01.000 What's the difference in 73?

01:10:03.000 Unconditionally United States backing of Israel combined with no other meaningful, like, I mean, I guess Russia was still around, but like it was clear after 73 Egypt realigned with the United States, and so, and then it was, okay, well the United States backs Israel, we can't meaningfully attack it, and now Russia's gone, so there's no other superpower. 0.51

01:10:20.000 So you basically, the whole point of

01:10:22.000 Why is the status quo at work?

01:10:23.000 Why is military aid a good idea?

01:10:25.000 Because the big reason is both the qualitative military aids, but the symbolism, the fact that we are the ones, we are the big world superpower.

01:10:35.000 We have the ability to say, look, Israel is going to be the most powerful country, and if y'all invade it, we're going to screw with you.

01:10:40.000 But we're going to restrain Israel through diplomatic measures. 0.84

01:10:43.000 And that creates, at least in terms of Westphalian nation-state warfare, creates a stable balance of power in the region.

01:10:50.000 That's worth $4 billion a year.

01:10:52.000 Right?

01:10:52.000 That just is.

01:10:54.000 Like, it's not in the United States' interest to have a major Middle Eastern war.

01:10:57.000 And I think that you're, I mean, you're just underselling, you know, I'm not saying like, if we do this, it will happen.

01:11:03.000 It's not 100% probability.

01:11:04.000 But say you increase the probability of a major Middle Eastern war by 5%, 10%.

01:11:10.000 That's a catastrophic event, right?

01:11:13.000 This is like,

01:11:14.000 I do have it.

01:11:14.000 I mean, it's very simple.

01:11:15.000 I mean, if anybody... you bring up sort of these analogies, you bring up like...

01:11:31.000 We're talking about military aid.

01:11:32.000 We're talking about foreign direct assistance.

01:11:35.000 We're not talking about weapons sales.

01:11:38.000 Sales does not count as aid.

01:11:39.000 We're not talking about intelligence sharing.

01:11:41.000 We're not talking about the security guarantee.

01:11:44.000 Security guarantee means if Israel is attacked, we go to war. 0.55

01:11:47.000 That is not a part of military aid.

01:11:50.000 Uncontested diplomatic support in the United Nations.

01:11:52.000 More than half of all combined vetoes in the United Nations during the Cold War were the United States vetoing anti-Israel resolutions.

01:12:00.000 And you look at, you know, if you take for example another country like Ukraine.

01:12:04.000 Ukraine does not even come close to the military aid we give to Israel, and yet it's the security guarantee.

01:12:10.000 It's basically the understated assumption that if Russia were to attack or invade in a significant way, and people can argue that there are the

01:12:17.000 Little green men in Crimea in eastern Ukraine the reason that Russia has not invaded the Baltics the reason that Russia is not invaded

01:12:25.000 I don't know.

01:12:47.000 It's a hard sell, and I think it'd be a hard sell to any reasonable, rational person, that a security guarantee alone, plus a nuclear deterrent, plus the strongest conventional military in the world, is not enough of a deterrence, but we need the most generous foreign aid in all the land on top of that.

01:13:05.000 It's not a sell.

01:13:07.000 It's not a strategically correct argument.

01:13:09.000 I mean, again, look no further.

01:13:12.000 You say, well, we've got to look five or ten years out.

01:13:14.000 Assad does not have control of his country.

01:13:17.000 The Prime Minister of Iraq does not have control of their country.

01:13:20.000 Egypt just recently gained control of their country, and they have peace agreements.

01:13:24.000 You are talking about a contingency in which Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan go back on 50 years of, or rather 40.

01:13:32.000 No, yeah, it'd be about 40 years of precedent and peace agreements.

01:13:36.000 So three separate sovereign nations go against their peace agreements.

01:13:39.000 Syria somehow becomes a hegemonic power or some kind of a regional threat. 0.66

01:13:44.000 Lebanon is like destroyed.

01:13:46.000 I mean, they were crushed in 2006 and in the 1980s.

01:13:50.000 And you would also have to argue on top of all of that, the only way they could stand a chance is if Iran intervened.

01:13:54.000 And you'd have to

01:13:56.000 Contest that not only do three countries go against their word and also Syria and and all these other countries Develop some kind of conventional advantage and overcome the nuclear deterrent, but then on top of that Iran Overcomes their status as a pariah state overcome the Persian Arab differences the Shia Sunni differences their current antagonisms with the Gulf States and with Saudi Arabia and like oh and then Pakistan I mean this is just 0.61

01:14:22.000 Like, sure, the United States and China are likely to go to war in the next 50 years.

01:14:27.000 So, three points.

01:14:57.000 Just to respond to that quickly, because we're getting close to an hour.

01:15:01.000 Sure.

01:15:02.000 I think so.

01:15:03.000 So, first, on the security guarantee, security guarantees are in the eye of the beholder regardless of whether or not the United States officially has a continued security guarantee.

01:15:12.000 The radical change of perception that results from launching the biggest military aid program last year and then cutting it in the eyes of the Arab countries is very different. 0.97

01:15:21.000 Second, where the fuck was my second article? 0.96

01:15:24.000 I learned my language. 0.98

01:15:28.000 I stopped floating.

01:15:32.000 You were making the point, oh, China, the Great Power War, and the War of All Against All in the sense that a variety of countries would have to participate.

01:15:39.000 My scenario does not rely on every single country in the Middle East joining in, right?

01:15:42.000 So you probably have a deep-sea scenario about one or two of those countries.

01:15:46.000 But that doesn't mean there's not going to be a serious war.

01:15:48.000 That doesn't mean there aren't countries where thousands are going to die.

01:15:51.000 And that's still something that's not in American interest, regardless of whether specific countries stay out of it because of their particular situations.

01:15:58.000 It doesn't change anything.

01:15:59.000 And again, it's not just tomorrow.

01:16:01.000 It's over the next 10 years, right?

01:16:02.000 This is changing.

01:16:04.000 You say it's less likely that a great power war between the United States and China.

01:16:07.000 I think that's preposterous.

01:16:08.000 I think that mutually assured destruction and, like, the lack of actual conflict between the United States and China historically, and sophisticated diplomats without the intense ethnic hatred that exists within the Middle East.

01:16:20.000 I think a Middle Eastern conflict is far more likely, especially given the history of these conflicts.

01:16:26.000 So I think, on all three of them, I just, again, I think you're underselling it.

01:16:30.000 And, again, to the point, like,

01:16:33.000 You don't have a positive articulated benefit to people that results from cutting aid.

01:16:37.000 You just don't.

01:16:37.000 And if you're looking at a risk like this of starting some sort of Middle Eastern war, even if you're like, well, this country wouldn't participate, it's just not worth it.

01:16:45.000 Like it's five, $4 billion is 0.1% of the federal budget.

01:16:50.000 It's trivial.

01:16:50.000 Our deficits, what, $700 billion a year, $800 billion a year?

01:16:53.000 It's trivial.

01:16:54.000 It's well worth it to maintain

01:16:57.000 Or the regional border.

01:16:58.000 And especially when there are these other things.

01:17:00.000 The forward operating base, the intelligence cooperation, and the fact that money has to be spent here in America.

01:17:05.000 It's worth it.

01:17:05.000 It's just worth it to spend that money.

01:17:08.000 Okay, well, we are coming up on the hour mark, so we can move towards closing statements.

01:17:14.000 Pretty informal, doesn't have to be rigorous here, but if you want to go last, that probably makes sense, because I started, right?

01:17:21.000 I think you should go last.

01:17:22.000 I think you are affirmative, so normally affirmative gets to go last.

01:17:26.000 I'll let you have the last word.

01:17:27.000 Alright.

01:17:27.000 Although, kind of, I'm going to stick to pay pass.

01:17:30.000 I haven't really been saying that.

01:17:32.000 Right.

01:17:33.000 Well, then by all means, go ahead.

01:17:34.000 You can do your closing, and we'll call it a night after me, right?

01:17:47.000 We're good.

01:18:05.000 Like, there's a serious risk of war if you change the regional power structure or the balance of power.

01:18:10.000 There's a risk of losing, and then there's other risks that are involved in losing intelligence cooperation and losing the ability to easily conduct operations with drones in Israel.

01:18:20.000 So even in a world where you had no love for Israel, even in a world where

01:18:25.000 Thank you.

01:18:37.000 All right, well, that was a good closing statement.

01:18:39.000 I will follow up with mine.

01:18:41.000 You know, Will has tried to demonstrate, I think because of the weakness of his argument throughout, that I've been losing, that there's no justifiable case.

01:18:49.000 And he can say that, but for everybody that's been listening and paying attention, I've made clear the case for revoking Israeli aid.

01:18:55.000 Israel has proved to be a rogue state, whether it was the Levant Affair in 1954,

01:19:01.000 When Israeli operatives in Cairo conspired to blow up American civilian hotspots to trigger a war between the United States and Egypt, whether it was them stealing our nuclear secrets throughout the 1960s, evading our nuclear inspectors under both Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, not signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty,

01:19:19.000 Whether it was their sale of American military technology to China throughout the 80s in 1993 and in this decade.

01:19:26.000 Whether it's the fact that they conduct the most aggressive spying operation on American soil behind only Russia and China, the most aggressive. 0.52

01:19:33.000 You can look into the Pollard case where they steal thousands and thousands and thousands of documents of our secrets.

01:19:38.000 Where they convinced us to go to war in Iraq. 0.60

01:19:40.000 And in Afghanistan, and where they're currently trying to convince us to go to war in Syria and Iran and other places for their interests and not ours.

01:19:47.000 I would say that we have been rewarding a bad state.

01:19:50.000 We have been rewarding a country that thwarts our interests at every turn.

01:19:54.000 And I would encourage everybody to look into, of course, the late, great USS Liberty to see truly what is going on here.

01:20:01.000 Thank you, Will.

01:20:01.000 Thank you for coming on.

01:20:02.000 You were a good sport.

01:20:04.000 It stayed to the issues.

01:20:05.000 It stayed substantive.

01:20:08.000 So I appreciate you coming on.

01:20:09.000 Thanks for taking the time.

01:20:11.000 You're welcome.

01:20:12.000 Thanks for having me on.

01:20:13.000 All right, man.

01:20:14.000 Well, I'm going to hang up on you and then I'll do my usual spiel for the show.

01:20:19.000 But we'll talk later, I guess.

01:20:22.000 Or maybe not.

01:20:22.000 But thanks for coming on.

01:20:24.000 Yeah, see ya.

01:20:28.000 All right.

01:20:28.000 Well, there you have it.

01:20:29.000 It was fun.

01:20:30.000 It was a fun debate.

01:20:31.000 Let me get rid of that so he doesn't look.

01:20:34.000 Let me get rid of that there.

01:20:37.000 Okay.

01:20:37.000 It was fun.

01:20:38.000 I thought it was a fun debate.

01:20:40.000 Fun, informative, substantive.

01:20:42.000 And hopefully we can do more things like this in the future.

01:20:45.000 Thanks to everybody for promoting it.

01:20:47.000 Thanks to Lauren Southern. 0.66

01:20:49.000 She was the only one who I saw retweeted it.

01:20:50.000 There were probably much more, but Will just told me she RT'd it, so thanks to her.

01:20:54.000 Thanks to everyone else that RT'd.

01:20:56.000 Thanks to Cernovich for broadcasting it on his Facebook.

01:20:58.000 Thanks to Will for coming on, being a good sport.

01:21:01.000 It was fun, right?

01:21:02.000 It was fun, informative, and most importantly, thank you, the audience, for tuning in, for giving us patronage,

01:21:08.000 With your eyeballs and for those in the super chat who donated, thank you guys for supporting the good fight.

01:21:14.000 You know, at the end of the day, I think it's important on the right wing that so long as we have been fighting, it might as well be productive.

01:21:20.000 It might as well be constructive.

01:21:21.000 So I'm glad we were able to come together and hash it out, citing facts and data and everything else.

01:21:26.000 So it was a fun night.

01:21:27.000 But that's our show.

01:21:28.000 If you have any questions, comments, concerns, remember for tomorrow, I think we'll take these, um, hmm, maybe we'll do a special hashtag.

01:21:36.000 I don't know, but remember if you hashtag AmericaFQ on Twitter, you can ask questions about this debate that will be answered tomorrow on the program, on the show.

01:21:44.000 Remember you can follow me on Twitter at NickJFuentes, you can follow me on Facebook.com slash NickJFuentes, follow me on Periscope at NickJFuentes, and you'll find all my content at NicholasJFuentes.com.

01:21:55.000 We're on the air Monday through Friday at 8 p.m.

01:21:57.000 Eastern, 7 p.m.

01:21:57.000 Central Time, and of course, as always, you can catch James Alsup's America First Overdrive Tuesdays and Thursdays at 9 p.m.

01:22:05.000 Eastern, 8 p.m.

01:22:06.000 Central Standard Time on this channel.

01:22:08.000 My name is Nicholas J. Fuentes.

01:22:09.000 This was America First.

01:22:10.000 Thank you everybody for watching, and we will see you tomorrow.

01:22:14.000 Have a great rest of your evening.

01:22:16.000 Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo!

01:22:23.000 It's going to be only America first. 0.99

01:22:28.000 America first.

01:22:32.000 The American people will come first once again.

America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - November 02, 2018

The Based Israel Debate feat. Will Chamberlain | America First Ep. 29

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript