, but it would start with Gaza would give back the hostages, every one of them, and in return Israel would stop all war. So the war would be done, the hostages come back and then there would be some post-war governance plan without Hamas. So they would be disarmed and some kind of international security force would be formed to keep things together. Now the reporting says Israel has expressed reservations about some elements. All right. So apparently it's a plan that neither Hamas nor Israel wants. Do you think that the US can force this on them? I don't think so. And by the way, as soon as Hamas releases the hostages, aren't they going to be killed? I mean, it's the only thing keeping them alive, right? The fact that there might be some hostages in the tunnels. Otherwise, Israel is just going to say, well, I think there might be a tunnel under here somewhere. If all of our hostages are home, they're just going to flatten everything that needs to be flattened. Because they're not going to take a chance that Hamas can reform. They're not going to take that chance. So they're going to kill or imprison every single one of the Hamas fighters and leaders. Why would you surrender if you knew you were going to go to jail or be killed? If you knew it, you know it like even if they came up with a plan and says, all right, Israel has agreed that they will not hurt us if we go public and let the hostages out. Do you think Israel would keep that deal or would there be a sudden the brakes don't work on the Hamas leader's car? Well, not our fault. No, they're all going to be dead. Why would they agree to this? Why would they? I mean, there's no reason. So I'm going to go with I don't think there will be a peace deal right away, if ever. And I don't believe that Netanyahu wants a peace deal. I think he wants the fourth one, Reframe Your Brain. Yeah, Reframe Your Brain.

All right. Tucker Carlson says that Trump needs to get some distance between himself and Bibi Netanyahu and do it right away. He thinks Tucker thinks that Netanyahu is hurting Trump's presidency. And he's careful to say he's not blaming Israel. He's not blaming Jews. He's just blaming Netanyahu. And he thinks Netanyahu is bad for Trump. And that allegedly he's condescending to Netanyahu and talks behind Trump's back and says bad things. I don't know about that. Then Tucker says Netanyahu quote only cares about himself. Well, isn't that what everybody says about any leader they don't like, that they only care about themselves? I find that the least useful criticism because everybody cares about themselves the most. But if you're a public leader, don't you have to do a terrific job for your country in order to maximize your own benefit? Pretty sure you do. So this whole only cares about himself, how does that actually play out in the real world? Wait, is he going to do things that are obviously bad for Israel but only good for him? He can't get away with that. Everything he does is public. So seems to me that everything he does would have to be for the benefit of his own country. Or he just couldn't get away with doing it, you know. Anyway, so I don't know about that, but that's what Tucker thinks.

I think I've told you that whenever I talk about Israel, I have to give you this little speech to go with it. I am not supporting Israel and I am not opposing Israel. It's not my country. And whether I opposed it or supported it, that should have exactly zero impact on what Israel does. Israel's job is to maximize the benefit of Israel in my opinion, which has nothing to do with what I think Israel should do. This is just me sitting in my chair in America. No impact on Israel. Israel will do what they do. I'll observe it and I'll predict it, but I'm not going to judge it.

It seems to me that if Israel did manage to consolidate Gaza plus the whole West Bank and that in 100 years from now we're looking at history and say, wow, it used to be tiny tiny and then it got a multiple bigger. But you know, maybe it was kind of shady and evil the way they got there. Don't you think that it would still look like a good deal after about 200 years? Like eventually, don't you think that Netanyahu would be probably more likely to have a statue built in his honor if he got away with it? Only if he got away with it. But if he actually made Israel what would it be, 25 times bigger if he absorbed the West Bank and Gaza? If they I feel like that would look like some parts of American history where we just sort of don't talk so much about the Native Americans being wiped out or relocated or any of that. And we just sort of glorify the growth of the country. It's like, whoa, used to be this big and then we added some states and look at us. Look how awesome we are at adding states. And when we talk about the history of the United States, we don't want to say, oh, we sure are losers and jerks and evil bastards because then we might have to give it back. It's bad enough that we do land acknowledgements, but I'll just make this prediction. I won't be around to see how it turns out probably. But in 200 years, if Israel expands, either just Gaza or the West Bank plus Gaza, if that happened, it would be treated as an amazing great thing in Israeli history. And that would be totally normal. And I wouldn't judge him for it because it's probably the way every country treats their own pasts. Probably they all do that. There's a point where somebody did something that other people thought was pretty sketchy to increase the size of their nation, but you wait along. You just keep waiting years and years and years and eventually it just looks like it was a good idea because you know your country got stronger. So I think that's where it's going to go.

I will also say that if I had criticisms of Israel, I might not share them because it's not safe. Would you agree that it's not really safe to criticize Israel? I mean, I couldn't I'd probably well, I would worry what would happen to me personally. So in case you're wondering, Scott, do you ever hold back on your criticisms of Israel? I can't think of anything specific that I'm holding back on, but no, it's not safe to honestly criticize Israel. Totally not safe. So if I had something, you could not trust me that I would risk my entire life to make some criticism of something that wouldn't make any difference anyway. So just know that I would be afraid of criticizing Israel.

But I will say this. On October 7th when you know tragically 1,200 Israelis were slaughtered in the worst possible way and numerous people injured and raped and captured and everything else. On October 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and so on, Israel had all the moral cover to be brutal if they thought they needed it. Most of the world said, yeah, okay. All right. I see why you're doing it. I understand. We would do the same thing. Right? So that's when 1,200 of their people are slaughtered and there's been no response yet. So it's pretty easy to take a side, right? But now 65,000 Gazans reportedly, you know, you could debate the number, but somewhere in that range, you know, above 50,000 probably. So now it's like 65,000 to 1,200. How long can you do that? Especially as the 65 will continue to climb. How long can you do that and still have the moral high ground? I would argue that they've already given up the moral high ground. They had 100% moral high ground. And again, let me clarify again. My sense of morality is not in this conversation. What I think is moral or ethical has nothing to do with this. I'm not giving you my personal opinion. I'm just saying that an observer would say, hm, 1,200 to zero is definitely a free pass for Israel to get violent. But once it turns to 65,000 to 1,200 plus you'd add to that how many IDF soldiers got killed. So let's round it up to I don't know 13,400. I don't know what the numbers are, but once you compare that to 65,000, what does the public say about the moral or ethical balance there?

Now, again, I think Israel is doing a tremendous job of pursuing their own self-interest, and everybody gets to do that. You know, other countries pursue their self-interest, too. So that part I never criticize. As long as they're wisely and effectively pursuing their own best interests, they definitely are. But I think that they're giving up almost all of their moral and ethical armor that served them so well up till now. So it's one of the biggest risk benefit decisions anybody ever made. And Netanyahu's in the center of that. If he wins, gets control of Gaza, depopulates it, somehow gets control of the West Bank, you know, maybe officially, not just de facto the way it is, he will be seen as a national hero eventually because that will look like a bigger gain than eventually you forget about all the death and destruction, especially if it didn't happen to you. So that's what I see happening. So if Netanyahu intentionally traded off the Holocaust, traded off the October 7th goodwill armor, but what he got in return was a much bigger Israel that's stronger for the next hundreds and hundreds of years. It's going to look like a win. It will look like a win. And again, not my opinion. My preferences are not part of the story. I have nothing to do with Israel.

All right. Meanwhile, over in Ukraine, apparently one of their big nuclear power plants is on the fifth day of having no power by power lines. So it's got destroyed by Russia. Newsmax World is reporting on this. So they're keeping the plant from melting down by running diesel backup generators. Now, they do have enough fuel, and they do have enough backup generators to prevent it from melting down, unless something happened to the fuel or something happened to the backup generators. And who knows how dependable those backup generators are. So apparently they're very close to the edge of a major nuclear meltdown. So we'll keep an eye on that. And I guess there's a $90 billion arms agreement with the US, which I hope means that the money will come from Europe to the US and then the US will sell those weapons to Ukraine. I believe so. If that's what's happening, Trump gets the win for making $90 billion for America and paying nothing. If that's what it is.

According to Defense Blog, Ukraine has a new generation of robots that look like little tanks, you know, so they're ground-based robots, and apparently they can do all kinds of stuff. They can attack and they can move logistics. They can move stuff back and forth. But what I'd like to know is do we have a sense of the ratio of robots to human fighters on the front line? Because that ratio is going to change every day to more robots, fewer humans, if only because the humans are dying. So what do you think's the ratio? If you have to guess, how many robots to humans are there? I imagine we're getting close to the point where the robots outnumber the humans and then the humans will continue to decrease and the robots will continue to get more AI self-guided and then it will be an all robot war. So we're getting closer and closer to the all robot war I've been telling you is coming.

Well, Pavel Durov, you may have heard of him. He's the founder and CEO of the Telegram app. So which in theory would be an encrypted app. In reality, of course, has ways to get in, but he tells this story. I'm just going to read it. So this is in his own words. He said, about a year ago, I was stuck in Paris. Remember when the French picked him up and they were holding him and we didn't know why, but obviously they were twisting his arm over something. He said, while I was stuck in Paris, which is an interesting way to word it, stuck in Paris, picked up by the authorities, not allowed to leave. Yeah, stuck in Paris. He said, the French intelligence services reached out to me through an intermediary asking me to help the Moldovan government censor certain Telegram channels. And he goes on to say that they looked at him and they were in fact violating the standards of Telegram. So