Ezra Levant and Dr. Daniel Pipes analyze Israel’s precision strikes against Hezbollah—explosives in 3,000 beepers and airstrikes crippling leadership and missile launchers—mirroring the Six-Day War’s preemptive tactics. While Hamas killed 1,200 Israelis on October 7th, Israel targets Hezbollah for deterrence, not destruction, amid Iran’s proxy fears and Hezbollah’s internal escalation debates. Levant notes U.S. political shifts: Republicans now pro-Israel, Democrats waning support since the 1990s, while right-wing rallies globally show Israeli flags over Palestinian ones. Pipes warns a Trump presidency could accelerate conflicts, though Levant doubts his electoral viability post-debate struggles. The episode underscores how Israel’s survival hinges on asymmetric warfare and shifting geopolitical alliances. [Automatically generated summary]
I'm just fascinated by what's going on in Lebanon between the terrorist group Hezbollah and the Israelis.
Israel did something straight out of a Jason Bourne movie and managed to plant explosives into thousands of beepers, like old-fashioned beeper technology communication devices that Hezbollah was giving out to all its terrorists.
And in one moment, they detonated thousands of those beepers, killing or injuring countless terrorists.
We'll talk about that, what's happened since then.
Very interesting stuff.
But before we do that, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's just what we call the video version of this podcast.
And there's so much to see in this amazing story, this terrifying story, this heartbreaking and violent story, but hopefully a story that will end well and peacefully.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get my show every weekday.
My friend Sheila Gunread does a weekly show.
And the satisfaction of knowing that you're keeping Rebel News strong because we don't get any money from Trudeau and it shows.
All right.
Here's today's podcast.
Tonight, did you see the news about those beepers exploding for all the Hezbollah terrorists?
We'll talk with Dr. Daniel Pipes about what's going on in Lebanon.
It's September 27th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
shame on you you censorious bug for one year the world has been riveted by the war between israel and the hamas terrorist group based in gaza
It was from Gaza that the attack on Israel flooded into southern Israel, breaking through the barriers, slaughtering thousands, and taking over 200 hostages back into Gaza, prompting Israel to go through that very dense urban area, really house by house.
And much more terrifying, the tunnels dug underneath it.
But always in the background was the fact that this was just part of the circle of iron and rocket that had surrounded Israel.
Much of it masterminded and strategized and coordinated by Iran.
Yes, Hamas was in control of Gaza on the southwest side of the country.
But the north was under threat by another terrorist group called Hezbollah, also deeply connected to Iran.
And in many ways, more terrifying.
It was said that Hezbollah had 100,000 rockets, 100,000.
And even if 99% of those are shot down or even go awry, you send 100,000 of anything, you're going to punch through enough to cause terrifying carnage.
And so it was a startling thing just a week or so ago when news came of a spycraft tactic that is straight out of the Jason Bourne movies.
Hezbollah leadership, which were told to downgrade their tech.
They were told not to use smartphones because Israel could hack into them.
They were told, let's use old-fashioned beeper technology.
That way Israel can't hack and snoop around.
Thousands of these beepers were distributed to the Hezbollah leadership.
But then in one moment, all the beepers went off at the same time.
And every one of these Hezbollah terrorists picked up their beeper to look at it, either to read it in front of their face or to have it in their pocket.
And thousands of them exploded.
An explosive charge had been sneaked into the beepers by, one presumes, according to reports, Israeli intelligence.
And so in one fell swoop, the intimately precise targeting of thousands of Hezbollah leaders, some of whom were killed, many of whom were grievously injured.
And in a moment, Hezbollah was thrown into disarray.
That was followed quickly by precision airstrikes on other Hezbollah leadership leaders.
The organizational chart for so much of the terrorist group has been obliterated.
Well, that's the good news if you are on the pro-Israel, pro-democracy side.
It's an outrage if you're on the anti-Israel side, as too many seem to be.
I see that our own prime minister has put out a statement asking for both sides to de-escalate as if Israel, the democracy, and Hezbollah, the terrorist group, are on par with each other, are morally equivalent, as if Justin Trudeau himself would negotiate with terrorists.
I note that when Russia invaded Ukraine, Justin Trudeau did not call for negotiation or de-escalation.
He flew to Kiev, donated billions of dollars of Canadian money, as well as military equipment and training.
He has never called for a negotiated settlement.
He has outrightly rejected it.
Why is Israel required to negotiate and de-escalate with a terrorist group?
And why has it taken a year for Justin Trudeau to speak about this?
For a year, Israel's north has been abandoned, 80,000 citizens forced to move from their homes because of a continuous low-level rocket assault on that part of the world.
Well, now Israel seems to be digging in even further and going in for the kill against Hezbollah.
There are reports that Israel may actually launch a ground invasion.
So much is happening at once, and we need someone who has been studying this subject for decades to help us make sense of it.
Who better to turn to than Dr. Daniel Pipes, the boss of the Middle East Forum, who joins us now via Skype.
Dr. Pipes, great to see you again.
Thanks for joining us on this very busy day.
You too, Hezra.
Now, I tried to summarize some of the things that are going on.
Before we go any further, did I get my facts more or less straight there?
Did I leave out an important factor?
I just thought it was an astonishing thing, this beeper attack.
Imagine putting a bomb in literally the hands of thousands of your enemy's commanders.
Just one of the most amazing acts of spycraft I've ever heard of in my life.
Yeah.
Took everyone by surprise.
The only correction I make is that Hamas did not kill thousands in Israel.
It killed an estimated 1,200.
Oh, thank you.
Spot on.
Let's talk about what's happening in Lebanon.
I was terrified of Hezbollah just from the raw numbers.
And even if they're low-tech missiles and don't aim that well, well, that's sort of the point.
It makes it even more terrifying, in fact, than if these were precision munitions that would be fired at the military.
It feels like, in a way, a preemptive attack.
Just like Israel had a preemptive attack on Arab nations during the Six-Day War, all these Arab nations were amassing their armies.
They had kicked out the United Nations.
Israel made the move first, wiping out their air forces before they could attack.
It feels like that's what Israel's done here.
The sneak attack was not through an air force, it was through the beepers, and the air forces come in.
Do you think, how badly do you think Hezbollah is degraded?
And how badly do you think their chain of command has been smashed?
It looks to me that the steps the Israelis have taken in recent days are quite effective.
On the one hand, the Pager and Wakitaki explosions.
On the second hand, the targeted assassination of senior Hamas, sorry, Hezbollah figures.
And on the third hand, the destruction of missile launchers.
Can't do much with missiles if you don't have the launchers.
So it looks like Hezbollah is not as strong as it was a couple of weeks ago.
Now, it also appears that the Iranians, the leadership in Tehran, is worried that it's losing its Hezbollah asset, the Hezbollah asset that is in fact protecting Iran to some extent.
So I would imagine there's a lot of disconcertion in the circles of Hezbollah and of the Iranian Islamic Republic as to what to do next.
Go full force against Israel or not.
I imagine there's very intensive discussions.
This is a very big decision for Hezbollah, possibly the biggest ever in its over slightly over 40-year history.
Wow.
Now, Israel has invaded Lebanon on the ground several times before for similar reasons.
And I think that after a while, those wars become, I mean, if the troops are entrenched there, the soldiers are at risk.
Political intensity in Israel declines.
And I'm not sure how sustainable a ground invasion of a foreign country would be for Israel.
Do you think it's likely that they will invade on the ground?
Or do you think it's more just to go in and to root out some of these subterranean launch facilities and then they'll move right back out?
Like, who will fill the vacuum if Israel goes in and then comes right out?
Actually, I think it's neither of those.
Let me contrast Israel's war against Hamas with Israel's war against Hezbollah.
Hamas is a Palestinian organization solely determined to destroy the state of Israel.
It has no other purpose.
It cannot do anything else.
And therefore, Israel has determined a year ago, repeated many times by the prime minister and others, that it intends to destroy Hamas.
It wants nothing left of Hamas.
Now, whether it can achieve that or not, I can't tell you.
It's done a pretty good job, but it's not fully finished.
But destruction, the ending of Hamas's existence is the goal.
And therefore, a ceasefire is very inimical to Israel because it means it can't do that.
In contrast, Israel's war on Hezbollah is not to destroy Hezbollah.
It is to deter Hezbollah.
Hezbollah exists to control Lebanon.
And fighting Israel is a side venture, very important venture, but side.
Controlling Lebanon is the key.
And therefore, the Israelis are not trying to destroy it, not trying to uproot it, but simply get it to stop sending over the missiles and rockets so that the 60,000 or so Israelis in the north of Israel can return.
Therefore, ceasefire, vis-a-vis Hezbollah, from the Israeli point of view, is a positive thing.
It means the ending of the fighting.
And therefore, I don't think the Israelis are inclined to go in on us with troops on the ground, but it's trying to send a signal to the Hezbollah leadership that it will do what is necessary, including a ground invasion.
It doesn't want to, clearly, but it's showing its muscle, its determination, and hoping that Hezbollah and the Hezbollah leader, sorry, the Hezbollah bosses. in Tehran will conclude, better quit now.
This is too expensive.
This is too draining.
Better stop.
It was not, in the end, a good idea for Hezbollah to attach its fate to Hamas in Gaza.
Last night, Canada, the United States, the UK, European Union, and a number of other allies put out a statement that I thought was quite hostile to Israel.
It was similar to the statement Justin Trudeau made, although his was obviously harsher.
There have been demands that Israel unilaterally stop fighting Hezbollah.
Let me show you a particularly shrill statement in our Canadian parliament just yesterday, where Elizabeth May, the leader of the tiny Green Party, was shrieking that only one man has caused this violence.
She didn't name Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah.
She talked about Benjamin Netanyahu, the democratically elected prime minister of Israel.
Here's that crazy clip here.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And on the same point, it's clear that world leaders have been calling out for the last year since the horrific attacks of October 7th for restraint and to control the conflict so it doesn't spread.
Is it just as spreading into Lebanon?
And we know who the enemy of peace is.
Unfortunately, he has a name.
He's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
And he has put his political career and an end.
So my theory is Netanyahu is doing what he has to do because he assumes Kamala Harris and Joe Biden or whoever is running America is distracted by the presidential election short weeks from now.
And Netanyahu is probably banking or rolling the dice, hoping that Donald Trump wins and would be more supportive.
And in any event, Netanyahu just doing what he has to do.
Yes, he is vulnerable to U.S. pressure, but these are, you know, these are existential threats out there, and he's going to do what he has to do.
What do you think?
I would again draw a contrast between Hamas and Hezbollah from the Israeli point of view.
Hamas gains extraordinary support around the world, in particular from Islamists, radical Muslims, and from the left, especially the hard left.
Hezbollah does not have that kind of support.
Yeah, there'll be the occasional speech in parliament, but you don't see encampments on universities.
Contrasting Hamas and Hezbollah00:02:15
You don't see parades in cities.
You don't see endless vitriol against Israel when it's fighting Hezbollah.
So I think Israel has a lot more room for maneuver, pays a lesser price in public opinion when it fights Hezbollah.
I don't think it's as expensive for Israel in the United States, Canada, or around the world for Israel to be fighting Hezbollah.
It has more latitude.
You know what?
I don't dare disagree with you on pretty much anything.
This is your subject of expertise.
But my reaction to what you've just said would be, I don't think most people who are protesting for Hamas against Israel, about Gaza, I don't think they're basing it on a deep understanding of the subject matter.
I think they're just picking up the placard and going out to a march.
I don't think anyone could find Gaza on a map.
I'm talking about the woke leftists who were protesting earlier this year at places like Colombia.
And I think for the professional protesters in Canada, it's been reported that there are 700 Iranian agents operating in our small country.
You know, for them, Hamas, Hezbollah, they love them both.
They're both ways to get Israel.
Like, I don't think that, I mean, we saw a protest just the other day with Lebanese flags instead of the Palestinian flag.
So I think anti-Israel tub-thumping and Israel stop fighting back rhetoric, I don't think it's deeply rooted in logic.
I think they can swap in Hamas, Hezbollah, even ISIS, and keep on going with their pre-fab protests.
That's what I observe.
Well, we're not disagreeing.
I didn't say there is a logic.
I didn't say they could find Gaza on a map.
What I did say is that the Palestinians, West Bankers and Gazans, have an appeal, whether it be an international flaw in leftist circles, in universities, other places, that Hezbollah, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, none of those have a comparable reach.
I don't disagree with anything you just said.
Empires and Favored Liberation Groups00:08:39
I would only insist that there is a global support network for the Palestinians, whether the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, that does not exist for Hezbollah or any other group or state in the Middle East.
The Palestinians have, over the course of a century, established themselves, thanks to the support of the Ottoman Empire, of the British Empire, of the Soviet Empire, of the Nazi Empire, of the Iranian Empire, of the Iraqi Empire, and others, as a uniquely favored liberation group.
Nobody else has that.
Fair enough.
It's interesting you talk about empires.
You know, sometimes I think about the Roman Empire and the British Empire, and both of which have receded to their home country.
But the, I suppose you could call it the Islamic Empire.
I mean, it once had Spain.
It was once on the gates of Vienna.
But when you look at all the countries you've been talking about today, Islam started in Saudi Arabia and it's just grown throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and around the world.
I guess you could say that in terms of empire and colonizers, Islam has been, I hate to say it, the most durable.
I mean, it's been for centuries growing.
It has had some setbacks in Europe.
But the Islamic Empire has, Lebanon used to be a Christian country.
Egypt used to be a Christian country.
Istanbul was once called Constantinople, the largest city in the world and the most Christian city in the world at one point in time.
But they are never tarred with the label colonizer or imperialist, are they?
In fact, they use that language against others, including Israel, which, you know, the Jewish people predate Islam by millennia.
It's a big complex topic.
You've switched the subject from the Ottomans, the British, the Germans, the Russians to the Muslims.
And you're now not talking about a nationality, but about a religion, of course.
And there are other comparable religions.
There's a Christian religion, which is not smaller than the Islamic one.
There's Buddhist and Hindu.
I think we should look at the expansion of Islam in a somewhat different way.
It's the expansion of an idea, of a theology, of an ideology, not of a government, of an army.
It's quite different.
I accept that.
You know what?
I was just in my mind, I had the map of tiny Israel in the middle and all these Arab and Muslim countries.
But I suppose you're right.
There is not a pan-Arab, pan-Muslim unity.
I mean, that's what the Islamic State called for, one Ummah, break down these artificial borders of man.
So I take your reaction.
I think that's actually a good rebuttal.
But let's talk about some of those other parts of the Muslim world.
I mean, Saudi Arabia seemed to have been on track to enter the Abraham Accords with Israel, as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain and Sudan had done until this atrocious attack last October 7th.
I note that there have been no pro-Hamas rallies in the streets of Dubai or Riyadh or any of these other places.
I think that's a Western phenomenon.
What's the state of affairs with Saudi Arabia, which is probably arguably the most important sunny Arab country?
What's its state of relations with Israel?
Are they still there, but just more hidden?
Has the Abraham Accords started to unravel?
How are Israelis and Saudis getting along these days?
Tahmad, I'd like to answer that in two parts.
The first is directly to reply and to say that, yeah, it's a bit on ice, but it's not really retreated.
The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, MPS, Mohammed bin Salman, has had to support the Palestinians verbally, but not really much more.
I think he is waiting for this to pass and for closer relations to continue.
Second part would be to look at it in a much larger context.
What we've seen over the past 15 years is the decline of American power.
Now, overall, I agree with this, but there is a silver lining, and that is the following, that until, say, 2008, from 1945 till 2008, in the period of American strength, the American strength meant that other countries, and here I include Canada and NATO more broadly, have not had to be very responsible for their own security.
They have been able to take it easy because Uncle Sam would worry about it.
Now, as a result of American weakness in the last 15 years, you see in Europe, for example, vis-a-vis Putin's Russia, in East Asia, vis-a-vis China, you see a rearming, a repurpose, a responsibility that you didn't see before.
And likewise, in the Middle East with Iran, you see that the states near Iran are no longer just relying on America, but are taking seriously their own protection, their own defense.
And thus, you have the Abraham Accords and more broadly, an accord among all the status quo countries of the region that are fearful of Iranian revolutionary sentiments.
So it's the silver lining and an otherwise rather depressing evolution.
I saw a poll just this morning of American sentiment towards Israel and the Palestinians.
And the Democrats, people who self-identify as Democrats, really are turning against Israel.
Whereas Republicans, 63% of Republicans identify with Israel, just 5% with the Palestinians.
Now, I got to tell you, that used to be how America as a whole was, I think.
Now, Democrats are on the other side.
Republicans are still friends of Israel.
What's the long-term trend here?
I mean, being pro-Israel always used to be a bipartisan thing, sort of like being pro-Taiwan, I think.
I suppose that's been gone for about a decade.
Let's put it a bit differently.
I would say overall the long-term trend is that conservatives have become more friendly and liberals less friendly to Israel.
There are three periods.
The first period was from the origins of Israel, 1948, till 1970, when the Democrats were far more friendly to Israel.
They saw Israel as a victim, and the Republicans saw Israel as an impediment to anti-Soviet alliances.
That changed in 1970 when a small war took place and the Israelis came to the aid of Jordan.
And Richard Nixon, Republican, said, oh, Israel is not a problem.
It's actually useful.
And so there was a period that followed, from roughly 1970 to 1990, when the two parties, the two wings of American thought, looked rather similarly at Israel and its enemies.
Starting around 1990, you see the current trend, which is Republicans becoming ever more friendly to Israel and Democrats ever less friendly to Israel.
A series of events in the 1990s led to this switch having to do with the European Union, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Oslo Accords, the coming together of the EU, the ending of apartheid, and so forth.
And ever since then, now 30 years, 35 years even, you see an increasing disparity between left and right in the United States and more broadly around the world.
One sees a similar phenomenon where the right, look at Javier Millé in Argentina, and the left, look at Gabriel Borich in Chile right next door.
Two extremes of left.
One could not be more friendly.
The other could not be more hostile without going to war or anything like that.
So this is growing and growing and going.
And I don't see an end to it.
I think it will continue for some time yet to come.
Anecdote from Sao Paulo00:06:15
Let me give you a little anecdote.
I was in Sao Paulo, Brazil a couple of weeks ago for a rally led by Yair Bolsonaro, the former president, against Lula, the current authoritarian leftist president.
There must have been 200,000 people there.
I've never been in such a big rally in my life.
By far, the most flags were the Brazilian flags and the Brazilian colors, which Bolsonaro has adopted as his own colors.
But in second place were Stars of David.
Far behind were American flags.
I couldn't believe how many Israeli flags were there in Sao Paulo.
I did not see a single Palestinian flag, either at that rally, of course, or frankly, throughout the city.
I mean, not that I spent a lot of time down there, but I didn't spot even one.
It's just a very interesting phenomenon.
In fact, I asked these clearly Christian Brazilians, why did you bring, like, they weren't Jews, why did you bring the Israeli flag?
And the answers were fascinating.
So I think it is a global thing.
I mean, Javi Emilier, he literally embraces the Jewish flag.
It's very strange, the new allies and enemies.
Hey, let me ask you about this new strain of right-wing commentators who have an anti-Israel bias that I think borders on anti-Semitism.
I think it's very rare.
I think it's often fake, as in it's some sort of an operation.
Like we learned that Lauren Chen, who was with a group called Tenant Media, who took $10 million allegedly from the Russians, she, and I've known her a little bit, she started pumping out anti-Israel stuff.
And I didn't understand, it didn't fit in with the rest of her worldview.
And now I learn from the Department of Justice indictment that she was taking dough from the Russians.
And maybe that was part of their plan.
And I see others, other people who are right-wing down, like issue, issue, issue.
I'm talking about North American old stock, not newcomers, not like just regular conservatives.
And I see a sharpness, almost a pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah talking point.
And I think, is that real?
Or is that influencers being financed behind the scenes?
I'm trying to wrap my head around it because, I mean, I'm Jewish and that colors some of my thinking.
But I would like to think that even if I wasn't Jewish, I would be pro-Israel in the same way I'm pro-Taiwanese and I have no Chinese blood in me.
And I'm for the little guys surrounded by big guys.
I'm for the Democrats surrounded by bullies.
What do you make of the fringe right-wing anti-Israel set, people like Jason, sorry, Hinkle is the last name of one of them.
I just forgot his first name.
What's going on there?
Do you know anything about that?
Dr. Carlson?
Yeah, I think Ukraine is very important here.
I think there is among certain conservatives an attraction to Putin.
Putin talks about two genders.
He talks about religion.
He talks like a conservative.
And there is, in certain precincts, a willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, he went into Ukraine.
Yeah, maybe not a great idea, but we should not be helping the Ukrainians.
We should be working with Putin.
And if you're pro-Putin, then that leads to various other policies, including a hostility towards Israel.
So I think Ukraine has been poisoning the well among certain conservatives.
I mentioned Tucker Carlson.
That's very clearly the case for him.
I was, I can't help but quote him a few days after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin never called me a racist.
I have no particular problem with Vladimir Putin.
So I think that's key.
That's a throwback to, I think it was Mohamed Ali who was asked about Vietnam.
And he said, no Vietnamese ever called me the N-word.
Isn't that interesting?
Just for the record, I don't think Tucker Carlson would be foolish enough to take cash from the Kremlin.
I don't think he needs it.
I think that he's a consummate contrarian.
I didn't mean to.
No, I know you didn't mean it.
No, I know.
I know you didn't mean that.
Some of these other folks, Jackson Hinkle, are absolutely, you know, the Tate brothers.
I think they're absolutely in it for the dough.
I like Tucker Carlson, and I hope he moves away from some of those positions that he's taken lately.
Well, listen, this is very interesting.
And I think the most interesting thing to me is the element of surprise.
It was the element of surprise that made the October 7th terrorist attack on Israel so effective.
And has called so many to question how could that possibly have happened.
It was the element of surprise in the Yom Kippur War in October 1973 that overwhelmed Israel.
The element of surprise in the aforementioned six-day war.
And I think Israel using the element of surprise to take on Hezbollah is just another use of that old strategic tactic that has absolutely changed the math.
And thank God the surprise was on Hezbollah this time instead of on Israel.
I'm marveling at what's happening on that northern border because it was the one I actually feared the most.
Last word to you.
Surprise is a powerful tool, a powerful tactic, no question, and has been used throughout the history of warfare and will continue to be used in the future of warfare.
I guess it's jobs of people like you and maybe people like me to try and not be surprised and try and think about what comes next.
How do you think it's going to end?
If Trump becomes president, I think these wars will end by one way or another a lot quicker than in the current regime.
Biden's Surprise: Harris Slotting00:00:52
Do you agree with that?
I do.
Yes.
I can't help but ask you, do you think Trump is going to win?
He's not doing very well.
He's not articulating his positions or combating the ideas of his rival with much distinction.
I think he was thrown for a loop when Harris was slotted in for Biden.
He's not really recovered from that.
Well, I guess he's got just a month and a bit, so we'll see how that goes.
Thanks very much for joining us and answering so many questions so candidly.
And it's always stretching my mind to talk to you.
I learn things every single time, and I know our viewers do too.
Thanks for that.
Thank you for the invitation.
Right on.
There you have it, Dr. Daniel Pipes from the Middle East Forum.