首页  >>  来自播客: All-In Podcast 更新   反馈

E149: Hamas terror attacks in Israel: fallout, reaction, next steps

发布时间 2023-10-14 00:40:42    来源

摘要

(0:00) Opening statements on the Hamas terror attacks in Israel (3:49) Contextualizing the attacks and the fallout so far (19:52) ...

GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......

中英文字稿  

All right, everybody. Welcome to episode 149 of the All in Podcasts with me again, David Sachs and Chamoppalli Hopitiya. David Freeberg couldn't make it this week. We're going to carry on without him. And it's a difficult week.
好的，大家好。欢迎收听第149期的All in Podcasts，我是您的主持人David Sachs，还有Chamoppalli Hopitiya。本周David Freeberg无法加入。我们将继续进行节目，虽然这周可能会有些困难。

So just a quick opening statement from me about this episode. Like all of you, we're devastated by the terrorist attacks that occurred in Israel on Saturday. And I just want to start the discussion here with two important housekeeping notes.
我只想简单地开场陈述一下这一集的情况。和大家一样，我们对周六在以色列发生的恐怖袭击感到震惊和悲痛。在这里，我想先说明两个重要的注意事项。

This is obviously a very dynamic situation and we're dealing with the fog of war, quite literally. So we're going to do our best to make sense of what's happening, but things will change between when we tape this episode on Thursday and you choose to listen to it in our likelihood at some point over the weekend.
显然，这是一个非常动态的情况，我们正在应对实质上的战争迷雾。因此，我们将尽力理解目前发生的事情，但在我们于周四录制本节目与您在周末选择收听之间，情况可能会发生变化。

And a second, there are going to be some folks out there who claim quite correctly that we are not the experts on this topic. And thus, we shouldn't chime in with our opinions. On the other side, the All in Community has told me explicitly. They want to hear us discuss what happened and they want a sense of normalcy.
其次，肯定会有一些人声称，我们并不是这个主题的专家。因此，我们不应该给出自己的意见。另一方面，全体社区明确告诉我，他们希望听到我们讨论发生的事情，并希望恢复正常。

As one loyal listener explained to me last night at a dinner, the fact that the four of you can debate hard topics, listen to each other. And in the end, have a deeper understanding of the world gives me hope every week. That's why I listened. So we'll do what we do here every week. We'll have the hard discussion. We'll listen to each other deeply, hopefully, and we'll try to understand the world and each other just a little bit more. And that's worth it, at least to me and apparently many of you.
昨晚在晚餐时，一个忠实的听众向我解释说，你们四个人能够辩论艰难的话题，彼此倾听。最终，对世界有了更深层次的理解，这让我每周都充满希望。这就是我听的原因。因此，我们每周都会继续做我们的事情。我们会进行热烈的讨论。我们将深入倾听彼此，希望能更深刻地理解世界和彼此。至少对我来说，这是值得的，显然也是对你们很多人来说的。

So with those two quick disclaimers, gentlemen, anything you want to say up front before I recap where we are five days into this senseless brutality.
亲们，首先在概述五天的无谓暴行之前，有什么你们想提前说的吗？在这里要先声明两点，让大家明白。

I think that was a pretty good intro, Jason. I mean, you're right. We're taping on Thursday late morning Pacific time. By the time this drops, it'll be Friday. And so a lot could have happened. Also, it's true that the Middle East in general and this topic in particular is hugely complicated. We will be accused of not being experts, but at the same time, the audience seems to appreciate our opinions as consumers of information who are trying to make sense of the world. Yeah. So that's all we can really do. Right. And conversations, I think, are how we make progress, any thoughts before we get started here and I'll recap what's occurred to not any opening thoughts before we get into the details here.
我觉得这是一个很好的开场白，杰森。我的意思是，你说得对。我们现在是在太平洋时间的周四上午晚些时候录制。等这个节目播出的时候已经是周五了，到时候可能发生了很多事情。而且，中东总体而言以及这个话题本身都非常复杂。我们将被指责不是专家，但与此同时，听众似乎欣赏我们作为信息消费者的观点，试图理解这个世界。是的，这正是我们能做的了。对了，我认为对话是我们取得进步的方式，开始之前有什么想法吗？我会简要回顾一下发生的事情，然后我们再开始具体讨论。

But on behalf of somebody who worked in Israel, I have a lot of friends there, spent a lot of time there, it's really just a terrible devastating situation. I've really tried to stay off of social media just because it's allowed me to kind of think a little bit more logically.
但代表在以色列工作过的人来说，我在那里有很多朋友，也花了很多时间，这真的是一个可怕而破坏性的局势。我真的尽量避免使用社交媒体，因为这能让我更理性地思考。

It's fast and furious right now, I think, on X. And it's just a lot of people trying to make sure that their version of the truth is amplified over every other version of the truth, which I think is like a is a point in the cycle where you just have to almost unplug from the matrix a little bit and find a few places that seem to be just telling things in an even-handed way, which I also find on X. And then just kind of reconstruct what happened, why it happened, what do we do from here? I don't know.
现在，我认为在X上是快节奏且狂热的。许多人都在竭力确保他们的真相版本比其他任何真相版本更被强调，我认为这就像循环中一个点，你几乎要离开那个虚拟世界，寻找一些似乎公正地叙述事实的地方，这一点我在X上也找到了。然后，重新构建发生了什么，为什么会发生，我们从这里该怎么做？我不知道。

I've got a lot of thoughts on a lot of the peripheral issues, but the core issue is just stunned that this happened. I don't even know how this is possible to this happen. Like Jamath, I'm not trying to get too weighed in too deeply into the tweets. I did notice you, by the way, have stopped tweeting. You've done a couple of retweets, but you pause this week, a lot of your tweeting.
我对许多次要问题有很多想法，但核心问题就是我对这件事感到震惊。我甚至不知道这是如何可能发生的。就像Jamath一样，我不想过于深入地参与推文的讨论。顺便说一句，我注意到你已经停止了推文。你偶尔会转发几条推文，但这周你推文的频率明显减少了很多。

Yeah, I mean, I think that's a poor time to listen and learn and to process what's going on. Right. That's not a great time to be having hot takes. I have posted a few things.
是的，我的意思是，我认为那个时候不适合聆听、学习和处理事情的时机。没错，那个时候并不适合发表过激的看法。我之前发过几条评论。

First of all, Jason, you've made the analogy to 9-11 being in New York right now. I think that that is the comparison that's been made is that this is Israel's 9-11. I think that's a justifiable comparison in two respects.
首先，Jason，你提到了现在纽约发生的9-11类比。我认为这个类比被用来形容这是以色列的9-11事件，我认为这个比较在两个方面都是合理的。

One is this was a terrorist attack. It was an atrocity. This was a massacre of civilians, even if you're somebody who believes in the Palestinian cause, you should be able to recognize that these were war crimes. The videos are coming out. The stories are coming out, in particular, the rounding up and slaughter of 260 attendees at a music festival was really beyond the pale.
其中一件事是这是一次恐怖袭击。这是一种暴行。即使你是支持巴勒斯坦事业的人，你也应该能够认识到这些都是战争罪行。视频不断出现，故事也不断传出，特别是针对音乐节260名观众的围捕和屠杀真的太过分了。

They're clearing some of these farming villages and so forth and finding the bodies. The families basically killed. Anyway, we don't need to repeat all of the details here, but this was, I think, an attack on civilians that is reminiscent of 9-11 and has affected the Israeli people in a similar way.
他们正在清理一些农村村庄等地，并发现了尸体。这些家庭基本上被杀了。不管怎样，我们不需要在这里重复所有的细节，但我认为这是一次对平民的袭击，让人联想到9/11事件，并以类似的方式影响了以色列人。

I think the other analogy to 9-11 that's worth discussing is the reaction to this or what Israel's going to do and what the reaction is by US political figures. You heard people like Nikki Haley basically saying to Netanyahu finish them. It wasn't exactly clear whether she was just talking about Hamas or the whole Gaza strip or maybe Iran. If there was any ambiguity about that, you just had Lindsey Graham come out and say level the place, meaning referring to all of Gaza.
我认为还有一个值得讨论的与9/11类似的比喻是对此事的反应，以及以色列将采取的行动以及美国政界人士的反应。你听到像尼基·海利这样的人基本上说让内塔尼亚胡结束他们。不太清楚她是只在谈论哈马斯还是整个加沙地带或者可能是指伊朗。如果对此存在任何歧义，你就会听到林赛·格雷厄姆出来说要摧毁那个地方，指的是整个加沙地带。

Yeah, it's crazy. I'm very concerned that one of the purposes here of the terrorists was to provoke an over reaction like the US engaged in after 9-11. Remember, we were viciously attacked. We were wounded. We then lashed out and plunged into two decades of wars in the Middle East. What was the result of that? We lost thousands of lives or our own soldiers. We spent trillions of our treasure. Millions of people on the other side died. Yeah.
是的，这太疯狂了。我非常担心恐怖分子的一个目的就是引发像911事件之后美国所做出的过度反应。记住，我们曾遭到了恶意的袭击。我们受伤了。然后我们出手报复，陷入了中东两个十年的战争。那个结果是什么？我们失去了成千上万的自己的士兵。我们花费了数万亿的财富。在对方那一边，数百万的人丧生。是的。

At the end of the day, we only changed the geopolitical map of the Middle East in ways that were ultimately unfavorable for us. Iran became a more powerful country. The region became destabilized. We squandered the sympathy that the United States had and its moral position that we had after 9-11 in the eyes of much of the world. The US, I think, fell for the trap that I think had been long laid, which was to provoke us into an overreaction.
到最后，我们只是以一种对我们来说最终不利的方式改变了中东的地缘政治格局。伊朗变得更强大了，整个地区变得不稳定。我们浪费了美国在9-11事件后在很多国家眼中拥有的同情和道义立场。我认为，美国中招了，中招的陷阱是早就布下的，它的目的是引诱我们过度反应。

I think that is one of the goals of terrorists. It creates such an outrage, such a provocation that they will bait the other side into an overreaction. I'm quite concerned that could happen here. I think that our US leaders should be, as friends of Israel, should be counseling a cool-headed response. I think bringing for war with Iran or suggesting that the entire Gaza Strip should be leveled would be doing exactly the wrong thing. It would ignite the Arab Street throughout the Middle East. Perhaps that was the goal here.
我认为这是恐怖分子的目标之一。他们制造这样的公愤、挑衅，以诱使对方过度反应。我非常担忧这种情况可能在这里发生。我认为我们美国的领导者作为以色列的朋友，应该劝导出一个冷静的回应。我认为发动与伊朗的战争或建议夷平整个加沙地带，将是完全错误的做法。它会点燃整个中东的阿拉伯民众情绪。也许这就是这里的目的。

We're trying to figure out what is the goal of this attack that was planned for years. Perhaps that was the goal, is to try to take all the hard-fought peace and progress that has been made in that process over the last couple of years, Abraham Accords and stability, and then just really create a full-scale escalation. I think that's right.
我们正在努力弄清楚这次被计划多年的攻击的目标是什么。也许目标就是试图摧毁在过去几年里为和平与进步而努力取得的成果，例如亚伯拉罕协议和稳定，然后创造一个全面升级的局面。我想这样说是对的。

I think Israel is within its rights to dismantle and destroy Hamas. Hamas is an organization that, in its charter, has said they're committed to the destruction of Israel. They've now committed this atrocity. Again, it was if they had just limited their attack on uniformed Israeli officers and military, I think that would be one thing, but they went much further than that.
我认为以色列有权拆除和摧毁哈马斯。哈马斯在其章程中声称他们致力于毁灭以色列。他们现在犯下了这种暴行。如果他们只是针对穿着制服的以色列军官和军队发动袭击，我认为那是一回事，但他们做得比那更过分。

The vast majority of the casualties here are civilians who were murdered in atrocious ways. I think there are terrorist organizations in Israel as well within its rights to destroy them. The question is how you do that. Like a lot of terrorist organizations, Hamas can melt away into the population of Gaza. They apparently have these elaborate tunnel networks. They've got bunkers. It's not clear that you can destroy them from the sky through bombing. Those kinds of bombs would lead to a lot of civilian casualties, which will inflame the situation and turn a world opinion against Israel.
这里的绝大部分伤亡都是以令人发指的方式被谋杀的平民。我认为在以色列也有恐怖组织，他们有权摧毁这些组织。问题在于如何做到。像许多恐怖组织一样，哈马斯可以在加沙的人口中融入。显然他们有复杂的隧道网络。他们有掩体。目前还不清楚是否可以通过轰炸从空中摧毁他们。这种方式可能导致大量的平民伤亡，这将激化局势，并引起世界舆论对以色列不满。

At the same time, if they go in with ground forces, that seems like a really tough situation as well because Hamas is waiting for them. They'll have to fight a guerrilla war in a very tightly packed, dense urban area where Hamas likely has anti-tank weapons that we've seen that have been so effective against armored vehicles in Ukraine. Again, if the fighting gets too hot, they can disappear into these tunnel networks. There's going to be IEDs everywhere. It's going to be a very, very tough fight for the Israelis. I think they're in an incredibly tough spot.
同时，如果他们派遣地面部队进入，这似乎也是一个非常艰难的局面，因为哈马斯在等待他们。他们将不得不在一个非常拥挤、密集的城市地区进行游击战，而哈马斯很可能拥有我们在乌克兰看到过对装甲车辆非常有效的反坦克武器。再次强调，如果战斗变得过于激烈，他们可以消失在这些隧道网络中。到处都会有爆炸装置。对以色列来说，这将是一场非常艰苦的战斗。我认为他们处境非常困难。

I'm not quite sure what the right reaction is for them, but I do think that if the reaction is this, let's call it the Lindsey Graham level, the place reaction, I think that could set off a much wider regional war or even a world war. That is not something that's ultimately going to help Israel. I hope that our leaders are wise enough to be counseling against that. I get the sense that they're not going to go that hard.
我不太确定对他们来说正确的反应是什么，但我认为如果反应达到了林赛·格雷厄姆水平，即国际范围内的反应，这可能会引发更广泛的地区战争甚至世界大战。这对以色列最终并不会有所帮助。我希望我们的领导者足够明智，能够对此进行劝导。我觉得他们不会采取那么激烈的行动。

If you look at the American response to 9-11, going into Afghanistan and dismantling al-Qaeda, a noble mission, and we didn't have any more terrorist attacks on America, we've thwarted most terrorist attacks. There were attempts actually. Our intelligence was very strong over the last couple of decades, and we haven't had another one of those, but you're right, going into Iraq. What was the last decade about being in Afghanistan? We went into Iraq, went into Syria, went into Libya. We stayed in Afghanistan for 20 years. It should have been a quick surgical strike to take out al-Qaeda and they're Taliban hosts, and then we should have gotten out.
如果你看一下美国对9/11事件的反应，进入阿富汗并解散基地组织，这是一项崇高的使命，我们没有再遭受更多的恐怖袭击，我们挫败了大部分恐怖袭击。实际上还发生过一些企图。过去几十年我们的情报非常强大，我们没有再遭受类似恐怖袭击，但是你是对的，我们进入了伊拉克。过去的十年是关于在阿富汗做什么的？我们进入了伊拉克，进入了叙利亚，进入了利比亚。我们在阿富汗停留了20年。本该是一次迅速的手术式打击，摧毁基地组织和塔利班，然后我们应该撤离出去。

And even that is incredibly difficult as a mission. As you're pointing out here, Hamas can just fade away into the Gaza Strip and into Palestine. Who knows?
就算是那样，这个任务仍然非常困难。正如你在这里指出的，哈马斯可以在加沙地带和巴勒斯坦消失得无影无踪。谁知道呢？

Shama, I guess where we're at right now is trying to make sense of why this happened and what the next couple of weeks might look like. And so your thoughts?
莎玛，我猜我们现在所处的状态是试图理清为什么会发生这种事以及接下来几周可能会发生什么情况。那么你有什么想法？

I think Israel has every right to defend itself, and they should eradicate Hamas. This is not like we woke up and found out that they were a terrorist organization yesterday or on Sunday. We've known this for years. They've been labeled as such. People have been monitoring their money flows for years. They were doing no where they were funded.
我认为以色列完全有权利捍卫自己，并且他们应该消灭哈马斯。这不是我们突然醒悟到他们是恐怖组织，不是昨天或者星期天的事情。我们多年来就知道这点。他们一直被贴上了这样的标签。多年来人们一直在监视他们的资金流向。他们无处不在，无论他们的资金来自哪里。

But the thing to keep in mind is that those 30,000 Hamas terrorists have also been keeping 2.2 Palestinians hostage for the last 20 years. And of the 2.2 million Palestinians in Gaza, half are kids. And so David's right, the thing to keep in mind is as barbaric as what happened to the Israelis were, Israel in its actions could cause tremendous civilian casualties, which will just further inflame the ability to find a long-term peace in the Middle East. That's really tragic. And that's probably part of Hamas's kind of sadistic calculus, which is they probably expected this kind of a reaction and they probably don't care at the end of the day. So it's important to separate Palestinians from Hamas. But I understand and I know where Israel's coming from because we face the same reaction after 9-11.
然而请记住的是，这3万名哈马斯恐怖分子在过去20年中也一直把220万巴勒斯坦人作为人质。而在加沙地带的220万巴勒斯坦人中有一半是儿童。所以大卫是正确的，我们应该记住的是，虽然以色列所遭受的暴行是野蛮的，但以色列的行动可能会导致巨大的平民伤亡，进一步加剧中东地区寻找长期和平的能力。这真是悲惨。这可能是哈马斯一种令人悲观的计谋，他们可能预料到会有这种反应，但他们也许并不在乎。所以将巴勒斯坦人与哈马斯分开是很重要的。但我理解以色列的立场，因为我们在9-11事件后也面临着同样的反应。

The question that I have is Israel is the most sophisticated military and intelligence organization in the world. And the reason is because when everybody talks about priorities, Israel only really has one priority, which is to safeguard the Israeli people. Yeah, it's a lot. And they've been essentially in a conflict zone with this sort of Damocles since the founding of Israel.
我有一个问题，就是以色列是世界上最复杂的军事和情报组织。而原因是因为当每个人谈论优先事项时，以色列实际上只有一个优先事项，那就是保护以色列人民。是的，这非常重要。自以色列成立以来，他们基本上一直处在这种达摩克利斯剑般的冲突区域之中。

So there are three organizations that really have to figure out what happened here. There's Mossad, which is the foreign intelligence service of Israel. Shindegh, which is the domestic security apparatus. And there's Amman, which is the military intelligence group. And it's like, how did this happen? Because this should have been priority one, two, three and four. And it has always been for them. Other countries, the safeguarding of their people is not necessarily always number one, right? And then things happen and then you re-prioritize it. In many ways, that's what happened in 9-11, I guess, at some level in America. Yeah. We had all the signal before that and when we did the 9-11 Commission and we found out they were going to flight school here, you know, and it was pretty clear that it was an intelligence failure for America.
所以有三个组织真的需要弄清楚这里发生了什么。其中有以色列的外国情报机构——摩萨德。还有国内安全机构——辛德格。最后是军事情报集团——安曼。这到底是怎么发生的呢？因为这本应该是他们的首要任务，无论是一、二、三还是四。而且对他们来说，这一直都是如此。其他国家可能并不总是把保护本国人民放在首位，对吧？然后发生了一些事情，然后你重新给它分配优先级。在某种程度上，这就是发生在美国的9/11事件，我想。是的，我们在那之前已经收到了所有的信号，当我们进行了9/11委员会调查后，我们发现他们是在这里上飞行学校的，你知道，对于美国来说这显然是情报上的失误。

Those are the two big thoughts that I have, which is there's just going to be so many civilian casualties. What will that do to actually, I think that that has a huge negative impact on the long term chance of peace because then radicals will use that information to further or to attempt to radicalize the next generation of Palestinians or other Arabs or whatever. And so I worry that the progress that was made in the Abraham Accords, all the normalization goes off the rails. And that's tragic because most of these people, the overwhelming majority of all people everywhere, they just want peace. They just want to live a decent life priority, take care of their family, raise their kids. So that's really tragic.
这些是我所思考的两个重要观点，即会有很多平民伤亡。这实际上会对长期和平的机会产生巨大的负面影响，因为极端分子将利用这些信息来进一步或尝试激化下一代巴勒斯坦人或其他阿拉伯人。因此，我担心以阿拉伯人或其他地区的进展（指亚伯拉罕协议）为基础的正常化过程会偏离轨道。这是悲剧的，因为大多数人，无论在哪里，都渴望和平。他们只想过上体面的生活，照顾家人，抚养孩子。这真是悲剧。

But then the other part of my mind is like, how could this have fallen through the cracks? And why were the most sophisticated intelligence organizations caught flat footed here? Yeah. It is going to be a lot of information that will come out over time and lessons.
然后我内心中的另一部分就会问，为什么这事被忽视了呢？为什么这些最先进的情报机构会被这次事件抓个措手不及？是的，会有很多信息随着时间的推移而被披露出来，并能从中吸取教训。

And by the way, the reason why that second piece is important is not to point the finger at anybody, but it's to deescalate because of what Saks said earlier, which is that when people who can articulately gird for war are given the bully pulpit and you see American politicians now braid and girding for war, I don't think they fully recognize the consequences of that. They're not doing a full accounting of what America has lived through in the last quarter century. And now to induce other countries to try to do the same. I think it's so dangerous. And so if we can understand where these cracks are, at least we can deescalate those specific individuals' attempts to escalate. And if we don't do that, we're going to find ourselves in a really complicated war. And I don't think anybody wants that. Nobody wins. Nobody wins. Yeah.
顺便提一下，第二段的重要性并不是为了责备任何人，而是为了缓和紧张局势。正如Saks先生之前所说，当那些能够清晰表达战争准备的人站在高位发言时，你会看到美国政客现在也在加大武备，我不认为他们完全意识到这样做可能带来的后果。他们没有全面考虑过美国过去25年所经历的一切。现在他们试图引导其他国家也这样做，我认为这很危险。所以，如果我们能够找出这些矛盾的根源，至少我们可以缓和那些个别人试图升级局势的企图。如果我们不这样做，我们将陷入一场非常复杂的战争。而我认为没有人想要那样。没有人会从中受益。没有人会获胜的。是的。

I mean, at this point, really, the returning of the hostages seems to be the most important, you know, high order mission that has to occur. After that, clearly dismantling Hamas and this terror apparatus. But, you know, having started to spend some time, you know, in the region and talking to people over there. And again, I'm no expert, but I have been talking to people who've been working on this. You know, people who've been working on trying to create peace in the region for their entire lives. And this is definitely a setback. But I'm an optimist. And I actually think that in some ways this is going to create a climate where people are going to really fight to try to resolve the situation, or at least contain the situation, two-state solution, the Abraham Accords. I think this is going to renew people's commitment to peace in the region. And I know many, many of the countries over there are really a gas that would happen. And they've been working really hard to try to normalize relations. They're going to create peace and prosperity and commerce between the different countries in the region. This is just heartbreaking for the loss of human life and how that occurred. And then it's also heartbreaking for the peace process and all this progress that's been made recently. And so I think it's, you know, there's no silver lining here, but I do think this will maybe the good people of the world will recommit to trying to resolve this issue and create peace in the region. That's my hope. I know it's simplistic. Again, no expert, but that's my hope. And I've been spending time over there and learning a lot more about the region. These are multi-generational issues that are going to take generations to figure out. And it's two steps forward, one step back, obviously. But man, for the politicians and the people negotiating this peace, and they work so tirelessly on this for their whole lives, you know, keep at it. That's all we can do, right?
我是说，此时此刻，确实，人质的返回似乎是最重要的，你知道，必须发生的高级别任务。之后，显然要解散哈马斯和这个恐怖组织。但是，你知道，我开始在该地区花了一些时间，与那里的人交谈。虽然我不是专家，但我一直在与致力于该问题的人交谈。你知道，一些一生致力于在该地区创造和平的人。这肯定是一个挫折。但我是一个乐观主义者。我实际上认为，从某些方面来说，这将创造一种氛围，在那里人们将真正努力争取解决这个问题，或者至少控制这个情况，实现两国解决方案和亚伯拉罕协议。我认为这将使人们对该地区的和平承诺重新燃起希望。我知道那里的许多国家对此表示震惊。他们一直在努力试图正常化关系，为该地区的不同国家之间创造和平、繁荣和商业。这仅仅是对人命丧失以及其发生方式而言令人心碎。对于和平进程和最近取得的所有进展而言，这也令人心碎。所以我认为，这里没有什么好的方面，但我确实认为，善良的人们将重新致力于解决这个问题并在该地区创造和平。那是我的希望。我知道这很简单化。再次说明，我不是专家，但这是我的希望。我在那里花了时间，并且了解了更多关于该地区的问题。这些是多代人的问题，将需要几代人的努力来解决。显然是两步上一步。但对于那些为此和平进行谈判的政治家和人民，以及那些为此一生努力的人，继续努力吧。这是我们能做的。

I mean, Jason, I think disrupting the process that was happening towards normalization of relations between Israel and Arab states, specifically the Gulf monarchies, I think was one of the objectives here. Yeah.
我的意思是，杰森，我认为破坏以色列和阿拉伯国家，特别是海湾君主国之间关系正常化进程是这里的一个目标。是的。

So I mean, Israel's contention for a long time is they wanted to negotiate peace. They wanted to negotiate, but they don't have a partner to negotiate with. Whether you believe that or not, that was their position. And with the Abraham Accords, we saw that they started to be able to negotiate, again, normalization with three Gulf Arab states without involving the Palestinians.
我是说，以色列长期以来的观点是他们希望通过谈判实现和平。他们想要谈判，但是他们没有可以谈判的伙伴。无论你是否相信这一点，这是他们的立场。而通过亚伯拉罕协议，我们看到他们开始重新能够与三个海湾阿拉伯国家进行谈判，实现正常化，而不涉及巴勒斯坦人。

And it looked like that issue was being put to one side and that they were kind of going around it. And the idea being, look, if you won't negotiate with us, then we'll figure out a way to move forward without you.
看起来问题已经被搁置了一边，他们似乎在绕过这个问题。其意思是，如果你们不愿与我们谈判，那我们就会找到一种不需要你们的方式向前进。

The big news that's been going on in the last few months is that supposedly Israel and Saudi Arabia were close to working out some sort of normalization. And I think that process has been put on hold until I think this has been dealt with.
在过去几个月中引起大轰动的重大消息是据说以色列和沙特阿拉伯快要达成某种形式的正常化。我认为这个进程已经暂停，直到解决了这个问题。

And so I think one of the takeaways here is the idea that you're going to be able to get to Middle East peace without resolving this Palestinian question. I think this is basically a return to the reality that that issue is simply going to have to be dealt with.
因此，我认为这里的一个要点是认识到没有解决巴勒斯坦问题就无法实现中东和平。我认为这基本上是回归到这个现实，即这个问题必须得到解决。

I don't think we're going to get to a larger deal in the Middle East. We're not going to resolve all these problems until this long festering problem of the treatment of the Palestinians is dealt with. I think you're right that the two state solution is the only possible solution that makes sense. I mean, what's the alternative?
我认为我们不会在中东达成更大的协议。在解决这些问题之前，我们无法解决这长期存在的巴勒斯坦人待遇问题。我认为你说得对，两国解决方案是唯一有意义的可能解决方案。我的意思是，其他选择又是什么呢？

A one state solution means that either it's run by the Israelis, but presiding over hostile Palestinian minority that may eventually one day be the majority and you're forced into some sort of apartheid state, or the Palestinians are running that one party state and it means that the Jews have been pushed into the sea.
一个单一国家解决方案意味着要么由以色列人来管理，但统治着敌对的巴勒斯坦少数族裔，他们可能最终成为多数派，你将被迫进入某种形式的种族隔离国家；要么巴勒斯坦人管理这个单一党派国家，这意味着犹太人被推入大海。

So neither one of those solutions looks very good. So that leaves you with a two state solution, however hard, however impossible it seems to negotiate that. It's the only option. Yeah, it's the only option and it's a real opportunity.
所以这两种解决方案都不太好。所以只剩下两国解决方案，无论它似乎多么困难甚至不可能谈判。这是唯一的选择。是的，这是唯一的选择，也是一个真正的机遇。

I think the my hope is that instead of pushing Saudi away, this actually pulls Saudi closer and says, okay, this is a chance to really normalize the global perception of the Middle East. Because if there can be a way for Israel and Saudi to build a bridge here, I have a lot of hope that there can be a lot of stability and a lot of the good work.
我认为，我所期望的是，与其把沙特推开，这实际上会让沙特更加亲近，并且表明这是一个真正归正中东全球形象的机会。因为如果以色列和沙特能够在这里搭建一座桥梁，我对于可能实现许多稳定和良好工作充满希望。

I mean, again, like man, as a Democrat who has been left homeless, who is now definitely in the center, but probably leaning increasingly right, I'm left yet again with an appreciation despite the messenger of the message of the Trump administration, because what those guys did was pretty incredible in hindsight.
我的意思是，再说一遍，就像一个失去归属感的民主党人，现在肯定是中立的，但可能越来越向右倾斜，回顾起来，我仍然对特朗普政府的信息表示感激，尽管他们是传递者。因为他们所做的事情在事后看来相当不可思议。

These Abraham Accords, the Accords with Israel and the GCC, the almost accord between Israel and Saudi to really be able to like find a long lasting peace is just a real example for the world. And those guys still a lot of really good work. And it's a miracle actually when you look at it, what they did, you know, despite the fact, listen, I'm no fan of Trump and I am too homeless. This is where I say this, if you want to objectively look at what they did, that we have to work. It was you have to.
这些与以色列和海湾合作委员会的亚伯拉罕协议，以及以色列和沙特之间的几乎协议，真正能够找到持久和平的例子，对于世界来说是一个真实的榜样。这些人仍然做了很多非常出色的工作。实际上，当你看到他们的成就时，你会觉得这是一个奇迹，尽管我不是特朗普的粉丝，我也是无家可归者。这就是我要说的，如果你想客观地看待他们的成就，那么我们必须共同努力。这是必须的。

And in fact, this is a moment where you have to start to re underwrite like, is your not your adjacent, but I'm just saying collectively, is one's Trump derangement syndrome causing more damage than anything that Trump could have actually done? And I think the answer is yes, because like it's now causing us to not see that good work and then embrace and extended so much of the work that happened in that administration. Turns out to have been right.
实际上，现在是一个你必须重新评估的时刻，是否你们（指反对特朗普的人）的特朗普崇拜综合症造成的破坏比特朗普实际上可能做的任何事情都更严重？我认为答案是肯定的，因为它现在让我们无法看到那些好的工作，并且推崇和延续了特朗普政府所做的许多工作。结果证明，那些工作是正确的。

And that's what so frustrating for me, the work on the border wall, we didn't like the messenger. So we killed the message turned out it was right issuing long term debt to refinance when rates were at zero, we didn't like the messenger. So we killed the message a structural piece in the Middle East, we didn't like the messenger. So we killed the message.
这对我来说非常令人沮丧，因为我们对边境墙的工作并不喜欢这位传递者。因此，我们抹杀了这个信息，结果证明它是正确的——在利率为零时发行长期债务进行再融资。我们不喜欢这位传递者。因此，我们抹杀了这个信息——在中东的结构性问题上，我们不喜欢这位传递者。因此，我们抹杀了这个信息。

When are we going to stop shooting ourselves in the foot? And when are we going to actually see and take the time to look past who was saying things and actually listen to them word for word?
我们什么时候才会停止自损？什么时候我们能够真正地看到、花时间去超越说话者的身份，而是真正地倾听他们的每个字？

I'll give you an example. I started to tweet three links a day over the past three days. And the only reason I did that was I thought things were so hyper contentious and hyper partisan that I just wanted to show a few sides. Right.
我来举个例子。过去三天，我开始每天发布三个链接的推文。我这样做的唯一原因是因为我觉得形势非常争议和党派之间的分歧非常激烈，所以我只是想展示一些不同的观点。是的。

And the other day I found a couple links, two of which one was from Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL who I thought had a very powerful message. And one was from Mike Flynn. And his message was also actually pretty powerful if you just read it.
前几天，我找到了几个链接，其中一个来自ADL的乔纳森·格林布拉特（Jonathan Greenblatt），他的讯息给我留下了深刻的印象。另一个链接来自迈克·弗林（Mike Flynn）。实际上，他的讯息只需简单阅读也很有力。

And if you took the names off, all the content was so valuable, both points of view, but the minute it goes into the world, people immediately judge and they kill the message because of the messenger. And that's exactly a moment where you have an opportunity to just stop doing that because the stakes are so high. It's infuriating actually, quite honestly. It's infuriating to see it.
如果你抛开名字不看，所有内容都是如此有价值，包括不同的观点，但是一旦它进入世界，人们立即进行评判，因为信使而扼杀了信息。而这正是一个你有机会停止这种行为的时刻，因为利害关系非常重大。实际上，这真是让人愤怒，非常真实地说。看到这一点真是气愤。

We had this last week on the show when we were talking about reducing spending. The Mac Gates is not the perfect messenger, but his message was the message we've been talking about, which is, hey, we have to control spending. So I can understand people not liking Mac. That's Gates. There's a lot of things to not like about. I don't understand people not liking Trump and get over it. And then it's bizarre that his son-in-law went to do all this work, but yet he did it and it had success. That's another example. It's weird if you listen to the son-in-law to do it, but listen to the last three-minute podcast. No, it's not weird because at the end, if you listen to this podcast, the most important thing that is resoundingly obvious about Jared Kushner is that he is incredibly thoughtful and incredibly competent. And why did we have to spend years being fed all of these stupid lies because one can judge for oneself, but Jared Kushner is thoughtful. He's smart. And I thought to myself, I was fed all these lies for years about how this guy was like woping around in the shadows of this and that. And it was all not true.
上周我们在节目中谈到削减开支的问题时也提到过这个。马克·盖茨并不是完美的传达者，但他的言论正是我们一直在谈论的，就是我们必须控制开支。所以我能理解人们不喜欢马克的原因。关于他，确实有很多不值得喜欢的地方。但我不明白为什么人们不喜欢特朗普，还纠结于此。而他的女婿去做了这么多工作，而且还取得了成功，这更是奇怪。这是另一个例子。如果你听过他的媳妇的访谈，你会觉得很奇怪，但是听一下最后三分钟的播客。不，这并不奇怪，因为如果你听了这个播客，最明显的一点就是贾里德·库什纳非常深思熟虑，非常有能力。为什么我们要花几年的时间被灌输所有这些愚蠢的谎言呢？每个人都可以自己判断，但贾里德·库什纳是一个有思考能力的人，也很聪明。我曾经被灌输了多年关于他如何在暗处胡来的谎言。而事实完全不是这样。

Well, no, when I say it's non-traditional, if you sent any presidents, son-in-law, you know, daughter-in-law, whatever child to go to the Middle East on its surface, this seems insane. But in fact, they did good work. And so it's not traditional. It's not what you would expect. He's thoughtful and competent. That's what I thought after. That's what I got out of it as well, is that he's thoughtful and competent. Yeah. Yeah, he brought some fresh ideas.
嗯，并不是，当我说这很非传统时，如果你派任何总统、女婿，你知道的，儿媳妇，不管是哪个孩子去中东，这似乎是疯狂的。但实际上，他们做得很好。所以这不是传统的。这不是你所期望的。他很体贴和有能力。这是我之后的想法。这也是我从中得到的，他很体贴和有能力。是的，他带来了一些新的想法。

Just so the honest, it's clear what we're talking about is he just did an interview with Lex Friedman and the first hour was on what's happening with Israel and Hamas. Must-watch, I think. I thought it was excellent too. Excellent. It was excellent. He did, just in terms of having fresh eyes, he did things like focus groups. He's like, okay, what does the Arab Street think about various topics? And he actually did focus groups in various countries to find out.
说实话，我们讨论的是他刚跟Lex Friedman做了一次采访，其中第一个小时讨论了以色列和哈马斯的局势。我认为这是必看的。我也觉得这次采访非常出色。真的很出色。他为了有新鲜的眼光，还做了一些事情，比如做了一些焦点小组讨论。他会问：“阿拉伯街头对于各种话题的看法是怎样的？”然后他实际上还真的在不同的国家进行了焦点小组调查。

So I mean, I think Kushner made a number of really interesting points showing how difficult it's going to be to get to a two-state solution. But first, you have to set up what does the Palestinian side say? And what they say is, look, Gaza is effectively an open-air prison. We've got over 2 million people packed into this very tight area. There's something like 50% unemployment. It's impoverished. The conditions are deplorable and they don't have their own state. They don't have rights. And it's been like this for a long time. So that's sort of the basic pro-Palestinian argument.
我是指，我认为库什纳提出了一些非常有意思的观点，说明达成两国解决方案将会有多么困难。但首先，你必须先了解巴勒斯坦方面的说法是什么。他们所说的是，加沙实际上是一个开放的监狱。我们有超过200万人挤在这个非常狭小的地区。失业率大约有50％，他们生活贫困，条件令人不堪入目，而且他们没有自己的国家，也没有权利。这种状况已经持续了很长一段时间。所以这是亲巴勒斯坦的基本论据。

Kushner's response to that was, well, yeah, but Israel left in 2006. It left Hamas in control, gave them the keys effectively. The reason why there's such high unemployment is because Hamas is corrupt and doesn't enforce property rights. And they scare away all the investment. Nobody wants to invest there. And Israel did give work permits so people could leave Gaza to go to work. And look what happened. I mean, when they try to open up the walls, you have a massacre. So these are the points that he made.
库什纳对此的回应是，嗯，以色列在2006年撤离了。它让哈马斯掌控了这里，实际上是把钥匙交给了他们。高失业率的原因是因为哈马斯腐败，他们不维护产权，也吓跑了所有的投资。没有人想在那里投资。另外以色列确实发放了工作许可，让人们可以离开加沙去工作。但是看看发生了什么。当他们试图开放城墙时，发生了一场屠杀。这些是他提出的要点。

Look, I think both sides of this have legitimate arguments and points to make. I think that the conditions of the Palestinians in Gaza is deplorable and you have to feel for the civilians who live there. Of course. But then the Israelis have a right to live without fear, the fear that their security is in jeopardy and that this territory can be the launching pad for terrorist attacks on their soil. So it's going to be an extremely difficult thing, I think, to reconcile this.
看，我认为双方都有合理的论点和观点。我认为加沙的巴勒斯坦人的处境令人遗憾，你必须为那里的平民感到同情。当然。但以色列人有权生活在没有恐惧的环境中，他们担心自己的安全受到威胁，而这个领土可能成为对他们国土发动恐怖袭击的跳板。所以我认为要解决这个问题会非常困难。

But Kushner made a couple of other interesting points. Listen, the Gaza part of this is not that hard because the boundaries, the territory lines are not in dispute. There's no religious areas that are in dispute. For example, you don't have the status of the Temple Mount or Easter Jerusalem. And there's an economic plan to revitalize Gaza's strip. So you really just need a negotiating partner for the Israelis to figure that out.
但是库什纳提出了另外一些有趣的观点。听着，关于加沙地区的问题并不那么难解决，因为边界和领土线并没有争议。没有宗教地区存在争议，比如说并不涉及圣殿山或者东耶路撒冷的地位问题。而且还有一个经济计划来振兴加沙地带。所以，以色列只需要找到一个谈判伙伴来解决这个问题。

And of course, now the problem is, who do you negotiate with? I mean, Hamas is a terrorist organization that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. So it's really a tragic situation. You look at it and you're like, this should be easy to work out, but it's not. It's a relatively small area. It's a relatively small number of people. It's two million people. We should be able to figure out the rest of the free world how to at least have a path towards this.
当然，问题现在是，你要与谁进行谈判呢？我是说，哈马斯是一个致力于摧毁以色列的恐怖组织。所以这真是个悲剧的局面。你看着这个问题，就觉得应该很容易解决，但实际上并不是这样。那个地区相对来说是很小的，人口也相对较少，只有两百万人。我们至少应该想办法，让自由世界能够为此找到一条路径。

And the first step is getting rid of Hamas, right? There's no choice, but they have to go. I don't really know if that's feasible, Jason. I mean, look, if we have to try. If there was a button that Israel could push to eliminate every member of Hamas, yeah, sure, they'd be within the rights to push that. The problem is that Hamas is now. It's integrated. Yeah. Embedded in a civilian population of over two million. That's densely packed. How do you root them out? It's going to take decades. It's going to take decades. And they're basically supported by that population as far as we can tell. Yeah. It's going to be. And again, if you take measures that are perceived as too drastic by the rest of the world, then you will inflame the opinion of other countries. You'll turn it against Israel. So again, it's a really tough situation, but I think that the US should not only affirm its support for Israel, it's not only it denounced the atrocity that happened on 10, 11, but I think it needs to reiterate that Biden administration does its support for a two state solution. I think that the US has to be on record that what's in everybody's long term interest, including Israel, is ultimately a two state solution. And the Palestinians are eventually going to have to have their own state. There's simply no way around that.
第一步就是摆脱哈马斯，对吗？别无选择，但他们必须离开。杰森，我真的不知道这可行吗。我的意思是，如果我们必须尝试。如果以色列有一个按钮可以消灭哈马斯的每个成员，是的，当然，他们有权按下那个按钮。问题是哈马斯如今已经存在了。它们已经融入其中。是的。它们嵌入了一个超过两百万人的平民人口中。那里非常拥挤。你怎么才能根除他们呢？这需要几十年的时间。需要几十年的时间。而且据我们所知，他们基本上是由那个人口支持的。是的。这将是一个艰巨的任务。而且，如果你采取措施被其他国家视为太过激烈，那么你将激起其他国家的意见，他们会将之指向以色列。所以，再次强调，这真的是一个非常困难的局面，但我认为美国不仅应该确认对以色列的支持，不仅要谴责发生在10月11日的暴行，而且我认为它需要再次重申拜登政府对两国解决方案的支持。我认为，美国必须明确表示，包括以色列在内的每个人的长期利益最终是一个两国解决方案。巴勒斯坦人最终必须拥有自己的国家，这是无法避免的。

Right. Yeah. And the free world, I think, is in the process of getting engaged and making this happen because it's in everybody's interests, this can't keep going on. And so hopefully this, again, I don't want to say silver lining, but I hope that this, the good that comes out of this is that the world focuses on resolving this conflict or containing it.
对，是的。我认为，自由世界正在积极参与并努力使这件事发生，因为这符合每个人的利益，这种情况不能继续下去。因此，我希望这次事件能有一个好的结果，即世界能够将重点放在解决这一冲突或者将其控制在一个范围内。

Were you surprised at all, Jason, by the amount of people that seem to be almost justifying? Fat was shocking to me. I mean, the fact that people could make any kind of equivalence between terrorist activity and the level of brutality, I can't even describe it because it'll trigger my PTSD, which I had after 9-11. And it still affects me. I'm sitting here enough far from ground zero. And you know, for people, you know, educated people on colleges campuses or just otherwise to blame the Israelis for the murder of children, for people being, and then justifying rape and torture and kidnapping. I mean, there is no justification and there is no equivalency. There's no equivalency here. And this is one of the big problems and, you know, these dopey kids on Harvard's campus or whatever, they have never experienced evil suffering. We can literally just dismiss these idiots because these are kids who have never faced an evil.
杰森，你对那些似乎几乎为之辩护的人的数量感到惊讶吗？对于我来说，人们能在恐怖活动和暴行程度之间建立任何等效性的事实真是令人震惊。我无法描述，因为这会引发我在911事件后患上的创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)，而且它至今仍然影响我。我坐在距离爆炸现场足够远的地方。你知道，在大学校园或其他地方受过教育的人竟然责怪以色列人谋杀儿童，为人们的被虏和强奸、折磨辩护。我是说，这没有任何理由，也没有任何可以相提并论的地方。这是一个很大的问题，你知道，哈佛大学校园上那些愚蠢的孩子，他们从未经历过邪恶和苦难。我们完全可以忽略这些白痴，因为他们是从未面对邪恶的孩子。

I don't think you can. I think one of the things that was shocking to me was the level of basically either subtle or latent anti-Semitism. Unconscious, yeah, subtle, whatever, that it unlocked. And I was also shocked that just Saxa's used this word before, but it's true. But our leading educational institutions have really become woke madrasas. They are inculcating kids with just some virulent poison. I think the reaction is always to go after to support the underdog. I think in this group of people, whatever they perceive it. That is exactly that is an idiotic simplification that the smartest schools in the world, educating the smartest kids in the world should be capable of seeing past. That's how they think it can't be done. It's in my feeling. I can't get out there. It's half anti-Semitism. It's half they just think, who's the underdog? I'm taking that side. Yeah. I did. It's that simple. It is in the woke mindset.
我不认为你能做到。对我来说，其中令我震惊的事情之一就是基本上存在着一种微妙或潜在的反犹太主义。无意识的，对的，微妙的，不管是什么，它都激发了这种情绪。另外，我也很震惊地发现，虽然萨克萨之前用过这个词，但它是真实存在的。但我们的顶尖教育机构确实已经变成了“觉醒的清真寺”（意指被“觉醒”思潮所影响的学校）。他们正在灌输孩子们一些极具毒性的观念。我认为人们的反应总是支持那些弱势群体。无论他们如何看待这个群体。确切地说，这是一种愚蠢的简化，这个世界上最聪明的学校，教育着最聪明的孩子们，应该能够超越这一点。他们认为这是不可能的。这是我个人的感觉。我不能接受这种观点。这一半是反犹太主义，一半是他们认为“谁是弱势群体？我支持那一边。”是的。我就是这么想的。这是一种“觉醒”的心态。

Yeah. Well, look, I think it was discussing and disturbing to see these organizations and these elite institutions being unable to denounce Hamas's terrorist attack in the atrocity that took place or turning out in the streets to celebrate what happened. And we saw a lot of that too. Look, even if you support the Palestinian cause, even if you believe that they've been mistreated, even if you think that their land has been occupied, they deserve their own state, even if you believe that war against the state of Israel is justified on that basis, these were still war crimes. These were beyond the pale of war. Again, Hamas did not just attack some military installations on the border and kill soldiers or capture soldiers. The vast majority of the people who were killed were civilians and there was no conceivable military purpose.
是的。嗯，看，我觉得看到这些组织和精英机构无法谴责哈马斯的恐怖袭击和发生的暴行，或者在街上庆祝这些事件，是令人讨论和不安的。我们也看到了很多这样的情况。看，即使你支持巴勒斯坦事业，即使你认为他们受到了不公正对待，即使你认为他们的土地被占领，他们应该拥有自己的国家，即使你相信以色列国家的战争是有正当理由的，这些仍然是战争罪行。这些行为超出了战争的底线。再次强调，哈马斯不仅仅是袭击了边境上的一些军事设施并杀害士兵或俘虏士兵。被杀的绝大多数是平民，没有任何可以理解的军事目的。

And for example, paragliding into a music festival, a festival for peace by the way, and then rounding up and slaughtering the concert goers, there was no conceivable military justification for going into these kibbutzas or farming communities. You know, vast families, no, it's deranged. It's deranged. So it's deranged. It's terrorism. And the fact that they can't frame it as terrorism is insane.
例如，跳伞进入一个和平音乐节，并在那里将观众围殴致死，这种行为绝对没有任何军事上的合理理由去攻击这些基布兹或农耕社区。你知道的，这完全是疯狂的，疯狂至极。这就是疯狂，就是恐怖主义。事实上，他们无法将其定义为恐怖主义是荒谬的。

But think about what happened. Okay. I just want to frame the order of events. Okay. And seven happens. And I think within 36 hours or less, let's take Harvard as an example. Okay. The pinnacle of the work, Madrasas, they had all these student organizations immediately come out trying to justify this thing without any information, right? Because in the first 36 hours, obviously not nearly as much information was available as to exactly what happened. Then it's been available now as an example.
但是想想发生了什么。好的。我只想概述事件的顺序。好的。然后出现了第七个事件。我认为在36小时之内，就拿哈佛大学来说吧。好的。那些顶尖学府的孔子学院，他们上来立刻组织了各种学生组织，试图在没有任何信息的情况下为这件事辩护。因为在最初的36小时里，很明显没有那么多确切发生情况的信息可用，就像现在这样举个例子。

I should read the statement just so people have clarity here. It's joint statement by Harvard, Palestine, solidarity groups on the situation in Palestine. We the undersigned student organizations hold Israeli, the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence. Today's events did not occur in a vacuum. The last two decades, millions of Palestinians in Gaza have been forced to live in an open air prison. Israeli officials promised to quote, open the gates of hell and the massacres in Gaza have already commenced. Palestinians in Gaza have no shelters or for refuge and nowhere to escape in the coming days, Palestinians will be forced to bear the full brunt of Israel's violence. This is deranged social path.
我应该阅读一下声明，以便人们在此处有清晰的表述。这是哈佛大学、巴勒斯坦和团结团体对巴勒斯坦局势的共同声明。我们签署的学生组织认为，以色列和以色列政权完全应对所有正在发生的暴力负责。今天发生的事件并非空穴来风。在过去的二十年中，加沙地带的数百万巴勒斯坦人被迫生活在一个类似开放空气监狱的地方。以色列官员承诺要"打开地狱之门"，而加沙地带的大屠杀已经开始。加沙地带的巴勒斯坦人没有庇护所或避难所，也没有地方可以在未来几天躲避，他们将被迫承受以色列暴力的全部冲击。这是一种病态的社会道路。

My point is you thought you have like 15 or 20 of these student organizations of all ilts. Okay. So it's not just pro-Palestinian groups. It was like the Harvard Sikhs Association. Okay. Like Sikhs in South Asia are the most peace loving people in the world. They're not pro-war of any kind whatsoever or pro-terrorism. So all these people write this thing, which blames Israel. Okay. Then the school is totally silent. The school doesn't say they neither, they neither completely disavow that statement nor do they come out with a more reasonable statement. All these ex-faculty and ex-individuals, Larry Summers, sort of leading say, this is outrageous, have an opinion. They come out with something that's milk toast in middle of the road. Then they get soundly rejected by everybody yet again.
我的观点是，你以为你有大约15或20个这样的学生组织，各种各样的。好的，所以不仅仅是亲巴勒斯坦的团体，还有哈佛锡克教协会。好的，在南亚，锡克教徒是世界上最爱好和平的人们。他们对任何战争都不支持，也不支持恐怖主义。所以所有这些人都写了这个指责以色列的东西。好的，那么学校完全保持沉默。学校既不完全否认那个声明，也不发表一个更合理的声明。所有这些前教职员和个人，像拉里·萨默斯这样的领导人，都说这是无耻之举，他们有个人观点。他们发表了一个非常温和、中庸的声明。然后他们再次遭到所有人的强烈拒绝。

Then the administration comes out and gives a cleaned up version that tries to allay everybody's anger because that the first statement, I think basically essentially pissed off everybody on both sides. Then a bunch of alums who've already graduated or who've given money say, these student organizations are outrageous. We will not hire anybody who's part of this because their views are so immoral that we would never want these people part of our organization. And so here it is. They're Ackman. Just so people have this. Bill Ackman said, I have been asked by a number of CEOs. If Harvard would release a list of the members of each of the Harvard organizations that have issued the letter of signing sole responsibly for a mass of this heinous acts to Israel. So as to ensure that none of us inadvertently hire any of their members. In other words, you must own your words, which is so important lesson for young people.
然后管理层出面，发布了一个改头换面的版本，试图缓解每个人的愤怒，因为第一份声明基本上激怒了双方的所有人。接着一些已经毕业或者捐过钱的校友说，这些学生组织太过分了。我们不会雇佣任何支持这些观点的人，因为他们的价值观如此不道德，我们绝对不希望这些人成为我们组织的一部分。这就是情况。他们是阿克曼（某人的名字）。这样人们就有了清楚的了解。比尔·阿克曼说，很多首席执行官问我是否哈佛可以公布发表声明的哈佛组织的成员名单，他们对以色列的这种令人发指的行为负有独立责任。这样我们就可以确保不无意中聘请到他们中的任何人。换句话说，你必须为自己的言论负责，这对年轻人来说是非常重要的教训。

So then what happens is individual students actually have to come out who are part of these associations that were signatories to the first release, had to disavow the statement and said, actually, I'm just an Indian student at Harvard Law School. There's a Nick, maybe you can find this tweet of this like Indian woman from Colorado or of Indian heritage and she's like, you just get auto recruited into these organizations when you join Harvard. So I'm like, well, wait a minute. This is a place that's supposed to be for like modern free speech, progressive thinking. And instead, what happens is based on your skin color, you get auto drafted into some association, then you auto sign any press release written by some person that you don't even see or approve. What is going on at these places? And these are the places that parents and kids are tripping over themselves trying to get into kids will kill themselves if they don't get into. And these are the worst institutions in America because back to Jason, what we talked about earlier, which is we need people who can think from first principles. Those kids are not it and those institutions are not making them. And so if we want to have a point in time where when things like this happen, we can really figure out what happened in the past that was right and what can we do in the future, it's not this and it's not this kind of thinking. And if you're going to a school, Harvard, Cornell, you pen Stanford that are spitting out these kids, I think it's a real shame.
所以接下来的情况是，实际上必须有个体学生站出来，他们是第一次发表声明的签署者之一，他们必须否定该声明，并且表示，“实际上，我只是哈佛法学院的一名印度学生。”有个人叫尼克，也许你可以找到这个推特，其中有一位来自科罗拉多州或有印度血统的女士说，当你加入哈佛后，你就会自动被这些组织招募。所以我想，等一下，这个地方应该是为了现代的言论自由、进步思维而存在的。然而，结果是，基于你的肤色，你就会被自动分配到某个协会，然后你会自动签署一份来自某个你甚至没有见过或审查过的新闻稿。这些地方到底怎么了？这些是父母和孩子们拼命想要上的学校，如果他们没能进去，他们会为此而伤心至极。而这些学院是美国最糟糕的机构，因为回到之前我们谈到的杰森所说的，我们需要具备从第一原则思考的能力的人才。那些孩子们不具备这种能力，而这些机构也没有培养出来。如果我们希望在像这样的事件发生时，真正弄清楚过去发生了什么是对的，未来我们可以做些什么，那么这种思维方式绝对不行。如果你去上哈佛、康奈尔、宾夕法尼亚大学、斯坦福这样的学校，他们培养出来的学生却是这样的，我认为那真是太可惜了。

Your spot on. I mean, how sacks could there be any question about the difference between military terrorists, you know, with machine guns, gunning down people dancing peacefully at a music festival at sunrise and then make some equivalency there and you cannot actually ascertain for yourself that is a terrorist act. If you can't from very basically opening your eyes and seeing what occurred and, you know, thank God in some ways for for X not being censored because you can actually see these things. And I know it's very difficult for people to watch. I don't have any judgment on people who don't want to watch it. But I think when the world sees these videos and you're going to write this letter, you should very quickly be able to discern military terrorist fighters from hippie kids dancing at a music festival. It's plain as day. There's nothing. There's nothing to confuse you here. This is the most easy test. You have to be brainwashed to see something other than that.
你说得对。我的意思是，怎么可能有人对军队恐怖分子和那些带着机枪在音乐节上和平欢呼跳舞的人群射击，抱有任何疑问呢？然后还有人把它们相提并论，却无法确定这是否是一种恐怖行为。如果你无法张开眼睛看到所发生的事情，感谢上帝X没有被审查，因为你可以亲眼看到这些事情。我知道对于人们来说观看这些视频非常困难，我不会对不愿意观看的人有任何评判。但是，当世界看到这些视频，而你又要写这封信的时候，你应该能够迅速区分军队恐怖分子和在音乐节上跳舞的嬉皮士孩子们。这是昭然若揭的。这里没有任何混淆的地方。这是最容易的测试。你必须被洗脑才能看到不同于此的东西。

These schools are woke madrasas. Yeah. So a couple of points on that. If you look at their statement, I think it's appropriate and fine to express concern about the people, the civilians living in Gaza and what the Israeli response might entail. I think it is fine and good to do that both for humanitarian reasons and for self-interested reasons if you're a supporter of Israel because this could all spiral out of control. However, these people completely lit their credibility on fire from the first paragraph by saying that Israel was entirely responsible for what happened and not having one word of condemnation for the atrocities that had just been committed. They cannot even see the war crimes that have occurred. Yeah. So I think that's in Hamas. They don't even mention the actual people that perpetrated the crime. Right. So the question is why, what is it about their ideology that blinds them to this atrocious massacre? And I think it is this, I do think it has to do with this woke mindset. The woke ideology is a form of cultural Marxism in which people are divided up into oppressor and oppress groups.
这些学校是被唤醒的伊斯兰学校。是的。就这个问题，我想简要谈几点。如果你看一下他们的声明，我认为对加沙居民以及以色列的回应表示关切是恰当的，也是正确的。无论出于人道主义原因还是支持以色列的个人利益，表达这种关切都是可以的，因为这一切可能会失控。然而，这些人在第一段就全盘否定了以色列应对所发生的事情负全责，并且对刚刚发生的暴行没有任何谴责之词，这完全毁了他们的信誉。他们甚至看不到所发生的战争罪行。是的，我认为这是哈马斯的原因。他们甚至没有提到实际犯下罪行的那些人。对此，问题是为什么，是他们的意识形态使他们对这种可恶的屠杀视而不见?我认为这与他们的唤醒思维方式有关。唤醒意识形态是一种文化马克思主义形式，将人们划分为压迫者和被压迫群体。

So in Marx's original teaching, you had the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, basically the oppressor and the oppressor. This kind of went through this cultural identity filter with woke where, again, people are divided up into identity groups. And so you've got men versus women, white versus black and brown. You've got straight versus gay and so on down the line.
在马克思最初的教义中，有无产阶级和资产阶级，基本上是压迫者和被压迫者。这种观念在“觉醒”（woke）概念的文化身份过滤器中发生了变化，人们被分成了不同的身份群体。所以你会看到男性对女性、白人对黑人和棕色人种，还有异性恋对同性恋等等之间的对立存在。

And the idea is that there's a power structure. And if you are in one of these groups and you are by definition oppressed, and if you are in one of the oppressor groups, then by definition, you are guilty in a collective way. You're suffering from collective guilt. You're default, the people who are oppressed are the righteous ones. Right.
这个想法是存在一种权力结构。如果你属于其中一个群体，根据定义你就是被压迫者，而如果你属于压迫者群体，那么根据定义，你就会以集体的方式承担有罪的责任。你会感受到集体罪恶的痛苦。被压迫的人则被默认为正义之一。

But I think that what you see is that when you divide up the world this way, first of all, it's not a very accurate way of looking at the world. I mean, there are lots of minority groups in the United States that have done great. So for example, there's a book written recently about Asian Americans in the United States called the inconvenient minority. Why is it inconvenient? Because Asian Americans have done spectacularly well. They get into elite colleges and institutions at higher rates than whites do, which is why they're the primary group that's discriminated against by affirmative action before it was overturned by the Supreme Court.
我认为你观察的方式并不是很准确的世界观。我的意思是，美国有很多少数群体取得了巨大的成功。比如说，最近有一本关于美国亚裔的书叫做《不顺从的少数群体》。为什么说是不顺从呢？因为亚裔在美国表现得非常出色。他们进入名校和知名机构的比率比白人高，这也是为什么他们是被平权行动废除之前最主要受到歧视的群体，这一结果是由最高法院推翻的。

But the reason why the author called them the inconvenient minority is because their success in America refutes a lot of this sort of simplistic, woke delineation between if you're a minority group, you're oppressed. And if you're in this white group, you're the oppressor. I think Jews have fallen into a similar type of categorization, which is they're an inconvenient minority. They've been historically very successful in America, despite there being existence of anti-Semitism.
但作者之所以称他们为“不方便的少数群体”，是因为他们在美国的成功反驳了这种简单化、觉醒的区分——如果你是少数群体，那就是受压迫的；如果你是属于白人群体，那就是压迫者。我认为犹太人也遭遇了类似的分类情况，即他们是一种“不方便的少数群体”。尽管存在反犹太主义，但他们在美国历史上取得了巨大的成功。

And I think that the woke ideology has reacted to this by saying, no, Jews are not really an ethnic group. They're just whites. And so that's been the response, right? Well, let's just put them in the oppressor group. So we don't need to explain away their success. One of the problems with that is that you have to ignore the existence of anti-Semitism. And so they do. They just pretend like it doesn't exist.
我认为觉醒意识形态对此做出了回应，说犹太人并不是真正的民族群体，他们只是白人。所以这就是回应的方式，对吧？好吧，让我们将他们归入压迫者的群体里，这样我们就不需要解释他们的成功了。然而，这种做法的问题之一就是你必须忽视反犹太主义的存在。所以他们就这样做了，他们假装它不存在。

So here you have a situation where all of these things are in play. They've already predefined the Palestinians as being an oppressed people. And look, and I think in many ways they are, but they are not incorrect. But they've defined it in racial terms, really. And they've defined the Israelis and Jews really more generally as being part of an oppressed group. And so everything fits into that larger narrative. And so when members of one of these woke oppressed groups commits an injustice, they just can't see it. I mean, their version of social justice is always defined in terms of collective guilt. And if you're a member of an oppressed group, by definition, you're not capable of committing an injustice because you don't have the power.
在这种情况下，所有这些因素都在起作用。他们已经将巴勒斯坦人定义为被压迫的人民。在很多方面，我认为他们确实是被压迫的，但他们的定义确实是以种族的衡量标准来定义的。他们还将以色列人和犹太人更广泛地定义为被压迫群体的一部分。所以一切都符合这个更大的叙述。当一个受压迫的醒觉群体的成员犯下不公时，他们就看不见了。我的意思是，他们对社会正义的理解总是以集体罪行为基准。如果你是一个受压迫群体的成员，根据定义，你是没有能力犯下不公的，因为你没有权力。

Do you guys think that Bill Ackman was out of line by saying, I don't want to hire kids from these organizations and these schools, because it's just like these kids and these schools will bring basically, I think what he's implicitly saying is distraction and it will lower the probability that I achieved by corporate goals. So these are not good workers.
你们认为Bill Ackman所说的“我不想雇佣那些来自这些组织和学校的年轻人”，这样说是否有些过分呢？因为他实际上是在暗示这些年轻人和学校会带来分心和降低我达成公司目标的可能性。所以这些年轻人并不是好的员工。

Based on your comment about thinking from first principles and, you know, being able to assess the situation, I think that's probably what happens at a hedge fund. You have to place bets and you have to be able to think from first principles and be intellectually rigorous. This is the most intellectually lazy approach. I'm just going to sign a piece of paper without even thinking. So no, I don't think is that a line. I think it's an important lesson for people. This is not freedom of speech. I was just earning your words. You must own your words in position. And it's important that young people learn this now. You have to own your words, whether it's on social media or signing some stupid petition that you didn't read.
根据你关于从首要原则思考以及能够评估情况的评论，我认为这可能就是对冲基金的做法。你必须进行投注，并且能够从首要原则出发进行思考并进行深入思考。这是一种最懒散的智力态度。我只是随便签了一份文件而没有思考。所以不，我认为这并不可以被接受。我认为这对人们来说是一个重要的教训。这不是言论自由。我只是奉行你的话。你必须对自己的话负责。年轻人现在就应该学会这一点。无论是在社交媒体上还是签署一些你没有阅读的愚蠢请愿书，你都要对自己的言论负责。

And there's a lot of backtracking going on right now, by the way, I can't believe that if I got into Harvard, I would get auto drafted into the Brown Men's Association, just because of the color of my skin. That is going to be in the factory. I've ever heard. Factory group. I mean, let's point out the double standard here that these elite Harvard students want to be exempt from their words, their statements. They don't want to be canceled for that. However, you know that when some hapless schmuck basically posts some tweet or posted a tweet 10 years ago that gets resurfaced, they're the first ones clamoring for their cancellation. Right. Yeah, they would like for their firing. They would like amnesty for their idiotic opinions. Yeah.
顺便说一句，现在有很多倒退的事情正在发生，令我难以置信的是，如果我进了哈佛，仅仅因为我的肤色就会被自动招入布朗大学男子协会。这是我听过的最荒谬的事情了。布朗大学男子协会，简直就像一个工厂组织。我的意思是，让我们来指出这里的双重标准，这些精英哈佛学生希望他们的言论、陈述能够免受批评。然而，当一些倒霉家伙发表了一些言论或在10年前发表的推文重新浮出水面时，他们是第一个大声要求取消他们的人。是的，他们希望取消这些愚蠢观点的责任。

Well, it's good for the goose here is good for the gander. If they're going to create a cancel culture where people get canceled for their decade old tweets and so forth, then they should be prepared to live by that standard.
嗯，对于雌性鹅来说好的事情对公鹅也是好的。如果他们要创造一个“取消文化”，对过去十年的推文等进行取消，那么他们应该做好按照同样标准生活的准备。

Now look, personally, I would have some degree of forgiveness for a college student being part of an organization that puts out a statement. They're claiming they didn't know. Okay, but then why didn't you resign? Look, I don't think there's a good excuse for this other than youthful stupidity. So I wouldn't cancel them forever. But look, I do think that it's fine for inappropriate for someone like the black and say, I don't want to hire you people. Yeah. Absolutely. I want you to add the word youthful because I think it's just get out of jail free card. It's definitely stupidity.
现在看，就个人而言，对于一个大学生参与发布一份声明的组织，我会有些原谅的余地。他们声称他们不知道。好吧，但那你为什么没辞职呢？听着，除了年轻时的愚蠢以外，我认为没有其他好的借口。所以我不会永远抵制他们。但是，听着，我确实认为，像那个黑人说的那样，我不愿意雇佣你们这些人是不恰当的。是的。绝对的。我希望你在前面加上“年轻”，因为我觉得这只是一个"免除责任"的筹码。这绝对是愚蠢。

The question is, is the cake baked? And if the cake is baked, then there's a big argument to never hiring these people. I mean, look, I would just say your frontal lobes are still developing until you're 25 years old. So I would give college kids a bit of a pass if they do stupid stuff. You're there to learn. You're there to make mistakes.
问题是，蛋糕烤好了吗？如果蛋糕已经烤好了，那么永远不要雇佣这些人的理由就非常明显了。我的意思是，我觉得直到25岁大脑的额叶才会完全发育。所以如果大学生做一些愚蠢的事情，我会多给他们一些宽容。他们在校园里是为了学习，为了犯错误。

No, that's not what I'm saying. This is a huge mistake. You're saying the bakes fully baked. You mean like their, their opinions and who they are. What I'm saying is you learn a lot from actions. Drink too much. Don't drink. Don't exercise enough. You get a little sluggish, maybe a little overweight. I get all of that. I'm not convinced that when you have this fundamentally specific way of thinking that you can unwind that so easily, Jason. So I'm not convinced that. Oh, yeah. Okay. Sure. That this mind virus gets fixed because you all of a sudden need a job.
不，我并不是这个意思。这是一个巨大的错误。你说的是人们彻底成熟了。你是指他们的观点和他们的个性。我要说的是，你可以通过行动学到很多东西。喝太多了。不要喝。不运动足够。你会变得有点迟钝，也许有点超重。我明白这些。但是我不相信当你有这种根深蒂固的特定思维方式时，你能轻易地改变，Jason。所以我并不相信。嗯，好吧。当你突然需要一份工作时，这种思维病毒就会被修复。

I actually think like maybe it's the struggle of realizing that there are deep consequences to this vein of thinking that this oppressed versus oppressor or the other way that it was framed in our group chat is that wokism and the embracement of socialism is basically running away from excellence. It's this idea that everybody has to be the same. What communism says, we all are the same. Nobody is special. We're all going to work together, do the same things. We're all going to dress in the same ways. It's the collective we there aren't going to be exceptional outliers.
我认为，可能算是一种思维上的挣扎，意识到这种思维方式存在深远的后果，即受压迫者与压迫者之间的对立，或者我们群聊中另一种表达方式，即“觉醒主义”和社会主义的接纳，基本上是在逃避追求卓越。这种理念认为每个人都必须一样。共产主义的观点是，我们都一样，没有人特别。我们将共同努力，做同样的事情。我们将穿着相同的服装。集体为主，不会有例外的优秀个体。

But the problem is that's not how the world works. And so the other part of why these woke madrasas are so terrible is that it teaches, I think, to work away from excellence and instead of striving for excellence to strive to be part of a collective. And I think that that is fundamentally corrosive to America. It's corrosive to what God is you. It's corrosive to all the great countries in the world. And so then again, it's like, why would you hire kids who fundamentally don't want to be excellent, who are afraid that if they were excellent, they would be guilty of something. That's ultimately the question. Why would any of these kids go to such an elite school to basically be taught that it's wrong to excel?
但问题是世界并不是这样运作的。所以，这些觉醒的清真学校之所以可怕的另一个原因是，它教导的是远离卓越，而是追求成为集体的一部分。我认为，这对美国来说从根本上是破坏性的。它对上帝呈现了一种破坏性。它对世界上所有伟大国家都具有破坏性。因此，再次问一下，为什么要雇用那些从根本上不想追求卓越的孩子，他们害怕如果卓越了，就会对某些事情感到有罪呢？这就是最终的问题。为什么任何一个这样的孩子会选择去这样的精英学校，只是为了被教导追求卓越是错误的呢？

All right. Well, let's say I think perhaps a good. And then as a result, not think for yourself. And then as a result, sign something like this, which is just stupid. We'll continue to discuss this topic, I guess, in the weeks ahead. Again, hopefully this conversation was productive for the community, the all-in community.
好吧，嗯，我想或许可以说一下我的想法。然后结果是，不再思考自己的想法。接着结果是，签署类似这样的文件，这实在是太愚蠢了。我猜我们将在接下来的几周继续讨论这个话题。再次希望这次对于我们的社区、整个社群都是有成效的对话。

I understand that people might have very strong feelings about us discussing it, but we're here to discuss difficult topics. One other aspect to this I think we should talk about, which is the United States' larger geopolitical situation right now. I mean, things seem very 10 US. I didn't event with Palmer Lucky actually. No, friend of the pot, friend of the pot. Tell me, I said, am I in Vicot lost? Yeah. We actually had a nice debate slash discussion on Ukraine.
我知道人们可能对我们讨论这个话题有很强的情绪，但我们在这里是为了讨论一些困难的话题。我认为我们还应该谈谈这一点，即现在美国的更大的地缘政治局势。我的意思是，事情似乎非常不乐观。我并没有和帕尔默·拉基事实上见过面。不，只是一位朋友，支持这个观点。告诉我，我是否迷失了方向？是的，我们实际上就乌克兰问题进行了一次很好的辩论/讨论。

But the thing that I think we agree with is that the US better bring more innovation in the military industry. 100% and figure out procurement, because our whole cost plus system right now is so broken. There's an article recently in the New York Times where it said that the cost of the United States is producing an artillery shell is $6,000. For Russia, it's $600. So in other words, it costs the US 10 times what it costs Russia to produce an artillery shell, even though Russia is considered to be this super corrupt, clubtocracy, where everyone steals everything. And yet our procurement system is 10 times more efficient than theirs. Because we don't have competition and all the politicians are captured, correct?
不过，我认为我们一致认为美国应该在军事工业方面带来更多创新，并且彻底解决采购问题，因为我们目前的成本加制度非常糟糕。最近《纽约时报》有一篇文章指出，美国生产一发炮弹的成本是6000美元，而俄罗斯只需600美元。换句话说，美国生产一发炮弹的成本是俄罗斯的10倍，尽管俄罗斯被认为是一个非常腐败的国家，几乎人人都在偷盗。然而我们的采购系统比他们的效率高出10倍。这是因为我们没有竞争，所有政界人士都受控制了，对吗？

We have this cost plus accounting system where every year the price goes up. You have a good opportunity to explain that, yeah. So in every other part of technology, price goes down over time, right? You can produce more of something for less. We've seen this with Tesla, we've seen it with PCs, we've seen it with television sets, whatever it is, the price goes down over time. Servers. Yeah. Or if the price goes up, it's because you've developed some fundamentally new capabilities, some new version, you know, the more powerful chips. Yeah, exactly. Faster speed.
我们有这样一种成本加成会计制度，每年价格都会上涨。你有一个很好的机会来解释，对吧。所以在科技的其他领域，价格随着时间的推移而下降，对吗？你可以用更少的成本生产更多的东西。我们已经看到了这一点，比如特斯拉、个人电脑、电视机，无论是什么，价格随着时间的推移而下降。服务器也是如此。是的。或者如果价格上涨，那是因为你开发了一些根本上的新功能，一些新版本，比如更强大的芯片。是的，完全正确。速度更快。

But you know, we're still making the same artillery shells, the same stinger missiles, the same javelins and so forth. I don't think the capabilities have changed that much, but the price goes up every year because it's cost plus. And so- Explain cost plus that people may be hearing that for the first time. Well, you know, most companies sell something and then they have a profit margin. But the way that government procurement works is the profit margin is controlled. They're only allowed to market up a certain amount above their cost. But the thing that's happened in the defense industry is there's been huge consolidation over the past couple of decades where now you've got a handful of defense companies. And it's an oligopoly. And many of these key armaments are single source. So there's only one producer and they just keep raising the price every year.
但是，你知道的，我们还在制造同样的火炮弹药，同样的毒蛇导弹，同样的长矛等等。我觉得能力并没有改变太多，但是价格每年都上涨，因为这是成本加价。所以- 解释一下成本加价，因为有些人可能第一次听到这个词。嗯，你知道，大多数公司销售产品后会有一个利润率。但政府采购的方式是控制利润率的。他们只被允许在成本的一定数量之上提价。但是在国防工业中发生了巨大的整合，过去几十年里形成了只有少数几家国防公司的寡头垄断行业。其中许多关键武器只有一个生产商，他们每年都不断提高价格。

Now one of the kind of crazy things about this is, and a Palmer made this point, is it's not like anyone's getting rich because of cost plus. It's not like the money is basically making these companies- There's no incentive to lower the price. If you lower the price and you're at 10% and you got your $6,000 down to $4,000, 10% of $4,000 is a lot less than 10% of $6,000. What's happening is not- Perverse incentive. Google like margins. What's happening is that these companies keep building their bureaucracies bigger and bigger. So they hire lots of staff. They make a lot of campaign contributions. They fund think tanks. And so their cost structure just keeps getting more and more bloated. Right. And their incentive is to do that. The more they charge, the more they make. Right.
现在关于这一点有一种疯狂的事情，帕尔默也提到了这一点，就是不像有人因为成本加成而变得富有。这些公司的钱并不是让他们变富的基础--没有降低价格的动力。如果你降低价格，并且你的价格已经从6000美元降到4000美元，那么4000美元的10%远远小于6000美元的10%。发生的不是一种颠倒的激励。就像谷歌一样的利润率。发生的是这些公司不断扩大它们的官僚机构。所以他们雇佣了很多员工，进行了许多竞选捐款，资助了智库。因此他们的成本结构不断变得更加臃肿。是的，他们的激励就是这样。他们收费越多，赚得越多。

Now why am I bringing this up? Well, we're in a situation now where Israel might be on the precipice of- Well, they've declared war against Gaza and this thing could spiral out of control and become a regional war. They may be asking for weapons soon. They may be asking for weapons. We've already donated some. However, earlier this year, we used to have an ammunition stockpile in Israel. The United States did. It belonged to us, but it was there potentially in case of a problem in the region. And that artillery stockpile was basically taken into Ukraine. And remember, we ran out of the key type of ammunition in the Ukraine war, which is 155 millimeter artillery shells. That's why we gave them cluster bombs. So the US is already dangerously low on ammunition. And that's before we get potentially another war or another front in this larger global configuration that's happening. And it has to support another country's war.
现在为什么我提到这个？嗯，我们现在的情况是以色列可能处于临界点-嗯，他们已经对加沙宣战了，这件事可能失控并演变成一场地区战争。他们可能很快会要求武器。他们可能会要求武器。我们已经捐赠了一些。然而，今年年初，我们曾在以色列拥有一个弹药储备。它属于我们，但它潜在地是为了应对该地区出现问题。然后，那个火炮弹药储备基本上被带到了乌克兰。请记住，我们在乌克兰战争中用光了关键类型的弹药，即155毫米火炮弹药。这就是我们为什么给他们提供集束炸弹的原因。所以，美国的弹药储备已经严重不足。而且在我们有可能发生另一场战争或在这个更大的全球格局中出现另一个战线之前。它必须支持另一个国家的战争。

To be clear, we're not at war, but we have been asked to donate weapons to Ukraine and we've been asked to donate weapons. I think Israel has asked for weapons. I don't know if they've formally asked, but we are obviously going to provide them. I think there's a bill making its way through right now that's going to give some aid to military assistance to Israel. By the way, we had Israel was a major builder of weapons too. I mean, their drone technology is incredibly refined and they sell weapons to Russia. Oh, yes. Israel is nowhere near the Ukraine situation. Ukraine is 100% dependent on the United States for its military and for its economy. Israel has a vibrant military and economy without the United States. But the United States does make long-term security guarantees to Israel, not to fight its wars. There's no mutual defense treaty. However, we do agree to provide them with weapons in the event of a war. So we do have obligations like longstanding obligations to them. This is an ally we've had for 75 years.
需要明确的是，我们并不处于战争状态，但我们被要求向乌克兰捐赠武器，也被要求向以色列捐赠武器。我觉得以色列已经要求获得武器，虽然我不知道他们是否正式提出申请，但我们显然会提供给他们。我认为目前有一项法案正在通过，将向以色列提供一些军事援助。顺便提一句，以色列也是一个主要的武器制造商。他们的无人机技术非常精湛，他们还向俄罗斯出售武器。噢，是的。以色列与乌克兰的情况完全不同。乌克兰在军事和经济上完全依赖于美国。而以色列在没有美国的情况下拥有强大的军事和经济实力。但美国确实向以色列提供长期的安全保障承诺，不是为了参与他们的战争。虽然我们没有相互防御条约，但在战争发生时，我们同意提供他们武器支持。因此，我们对他们有如此长久的承诺。这是我们已经拥有75年的盟友关系。

However, our stockpiles are dangerously depleted now because of the Ukraine war. And on top of that, our procurement system is hopelessly broken. So in a world of rising multipolarity where there are other great powers now in the system where there are going to be more and more global threats, I don't think we have a chance of maintaining our global position and supporting our allies unless we fix this. I mean, making artillery shells at 10 times more than what it costs Russia, that's ridiculous.
然而，由于乌克兰战争，我们的储备库已经危险地耗尽。更糟糕的是，我们的采购系统出现了严重问题。因此，在一个日益多极化的世界中，现在有其他强大国家存在，也有越来越多的全球威胁，我认为除非我们解决这个问题，否则我们无法保持我们的全球地位和支持我们的盟友。我的意思是，生产火炮弹药的成本比俄罗斯高出10倍，这太荒谬了。

In Silicon Valley, we have now the funding of military startups and there's a whole new class of warfare, supersonics, drones. And the only advantage we have, it's the only advantage we have. And it's one of the great things. I understand Palmer. He's not a huge fan of mine, but I'm a huge fan of the work he's doing and other entrepreneurs are doing to make new weapons to keep us competitive because you could be sure China's making them. And so I think it's absolutely fantastic.
在硅谷，我们现在有军事初创公司的资金支持，并涌现出一整个新型战争体系，如超音速武器、无人机等。这是我们唯一的优势，也是我们仅有的优势。这是一件非常了不起的事情。我理解帕尔默，他对我并不是一个大的粉丝，但我非常欣赏他和其他创业者为我们打造新型武器以保持竞争力所做的工作，因为毫无疑问，中国也在制造这些武器。因此，我认为这非常棒。

I thought it was always very weird that Google, speaking of work, Madrasas, Google employees were refusing to provide services, like even basic cloud hosting services to the military. To benefit from democracy and living in America while then not supporting the military just seemed like the ultimate luxury belief to use Rob Stern from the all-in-somit-chamofia thoughts.
我曾认为这是非常奇怪的一件事，谷歌在谈到工作和军校时，员工们拒绝为军队提供服务，甚至连基本的云托管服务都不提供。享受民主和生活在美国，却不支持军队，这看起来就像是利用罗布·斯特恩在《全面-索米特-恰蒙菲亚思考》中所说的终极奢侈信仰。

What does it take guys to, for this fever to break, for all of these people to realize that that level of corruption is not sustainable, that these ways of thinking are not sustainable, that it's not an aff to peace and prosperity, that we actually want excellence in society. We want people to be outliers. We want the whole of humanity to move forward. And that's not going to happen when we move necessarily as one blob, but a few people need to sort of clear the brush and lead the way and the rest of us will come in and fill it in behind them.
伙计们，要多少才能让这种狂热结束，让所有人意识到这种腐败程度是不可持续的，这种思维方式是不可持续的，这不是和平与繁荣的替代方案，我们实际上想要在社会中追求卓越。我们希望人们成为例外。我们希望整个人类向前发展。但要实现这一点，我们不能集体行动，少数人需要先行开路，其他人会跟随并提供支持。

I think Vivek is the manifestation of it. I'll be totally honest. I think the reason he is going up in the polls and the reason people are drawn to him is because he's smart and he's exceptional. And he represents one of the great things about America is that there's people who want to win and they're smart and excellent. He represents excellence, right? He represents excellence. I think that's why people are drawn to him.
我认为维韦克就是这一切的体现。我完全诚实地说，他在民意调查中的支持率上升，吸引人们的原因在于他聪明而卓越。他代表了美国的伟大之处之一，也就是有些人想要胜出，他们聪明且优秀。他代表着卓越，对吗？他代表着卓越。我认为这就是人们被吸引到他的原因。

And I think people are tired of, and by the way, they're very complex, they're tired of corruption, they're tired of geriatric, you know, 80-year-old politicians. We need young, successful people to take leadership positions. And by the way, I really agree with what you're saying. I think that there's like excellence can show itself in different forms. I think why Obama was so profound and Joe Rogan said this was he was such a statesman. He was the best of us, but he demonstrated excellence in being composed and measured and thoughtful and strategic. He was just so excellent. Vivek Clinton as well. Clinton was incredibly steeped in policy. He was excellent. He was intellectually a massive outlier. Obama is an intellectual outlier. Vivek is an intellectual outlier. Let's get these people to change and run our system of government. Please.
我认为人们厌倦了，顺便一提，他们非常复杂，他们厌倦了腐败，他们厌倦了年迈的、80岁的政客。我们需要年轻、成功的人来担任领导职位。顺便说一下，我非常同意你的观点。我认为卓越可以以不同的方式展现出来。我认为奥巴马之所以如此卓越，乔·罗根说过的是因为他是一位真正的政治家。他是我们中最好的一位，但他展示出的卓越之处在于他的冷静、深思熟虑和战略性。他就是如此出色。还有克林顿。克林顿在政策方面非常深入。他是出色的，他在智力上是一个巨大的离群值。奥巴马是一个智力离群值。维韦克也是一个智力离群值。让我们让这些人来改变和管理我们的政府体制。拜托了。

I think we're soaking in it. Yeah, we need smarter and more capable people. I mean, you look at Biden and when he gave that speech in support of Israel, I mean, a lot of the words were right, but he was like slurring his way through it. It certainly did not inspire me of confidence. It was his best speech and it was concerning the fact that he's clearly incognative decline. You can see it in his ability to or it and, you know, it was his best speech and it was also troubling for me as somebody who voted for him to watch him slur his words or just not. It was clear he wasn't all there and you're like, geez, what are we showing to the world if this is the guy who's running the country? And if we re-elect him, now we're saying, hey, we want to have an 84 year old running the country who's not all there and is incognative decline. Let the guy retire. Let him spend time with his grandkids. I think it's more people who are willing to vote for not for what they want, but to prevent something else. And I think that that's what's tragic about how we're thinking as a country right now.
我认为我们陷入了困境。是的，我们需要更聪明、更有能力的人。我的意思是，你看看拜登在支持以色列的演讲中，他说的很多话是对的，但他说话的时候口齿不清。这完全没有给我带来信心。尽管那是他最好的演讲，但他明显已经认知能力下降。你可以看出他在思考和表达方面的困难，你知道，那是他最好的演讲，但对于我这样投票给他的人来说，看着他说话不清楚或者整个过程并不顺畅真的让人担忧。天哪，如果这个人正在领导国家，我们向全世界展示什么呢？如果我们重新选他，我们是在说，嘿，我们想让一个84岁、头脑不清、认知能力下降的人领导国家。让这个人退休吧，让他和孙子们共度时光。我认为我们需要更多愿意投票来防止某些事情发生而不是只为了自己利益的人。我认为这是我们国家目前思考方式的悲剧之处。

Yeah, and just to just shout out equally, I mean, I saw Trump give a recent speech where look, he's nowhere near the cognitive decline of Biden. I think he's still compass mentus, but he's not as sharp as he used to be either.
是的，我只是要平等地喊出来，我的意思是，我看到特朗普最近发表了一篇演讲，他绝对没有像拜登那样认知能力的下降。我认为他仍然头脑清晰，但也不如以前那样敏锐。

I mean, listen, I think America is basic situation and this has really been reaffirmed over the past week is that we're no longer in unipolarity anymore. We're no longer the sole superpower. Yeah, not for some time. China is now a superpower. They're probably the low cost manufacturer of the world. So when we talk about being able to make things like armaments and artillery shells and weapons, they have the ability to out produce us. That is very scary.
我的意思是，听着，我认为美国的基本情况是，过去一周真的再次证实了我们不再是单极世界了。我们不再是唯一的超级大国了。是的，不是很久以前就不再是了。中国现在是一个超级大国。他们可能是世界上成本最低的制造国。所以当我们谈到制造像军火、炮弹和武器之类的东西时，他们有能力比我们生产更多。这是非常可怕的。

There are other great powers in the system now. Russia has proven over the last five months through his victory and this counter offensive that it is a power to be reckoned with. We cannot disregard their concerns anymore.
现在系统中还有其他伟大的力量。通过最近五个月的胜利和这次反攻，俄罗斯已经证明自己是一个不可忽视的强权。我们无法再忽视他们的关切了。

And not only does America need, I think, top flight leaders like intellectually who are at the top of their game, but we also need new thinking. We need to be able to sidestep challenges and conflicts as opposed to walking into every single trap the way that Lindsey Graham wants us to. Again, I'll go back on the Ukraine war. I think it's really clear that we could have avoided that war if we had taken NATO expansion off the table. And whether you believe that or not, it was criminal not to try. If it was a 5% chance it was worth trying. So you're not in our situation. We're already mired in the Ukraine proxy war. Now Israel is on the brink. We need smarter people. It's smarter thinking in Washington. We are no longer the only superpower. We're going to have a really tough time in a multipolar world. If we do not look for ways to deescalate conflict when we can.
美国不仅需要顶尖的领导者，我认为需要在智力上处于巅峰状态的领导者，而且我们还需要新的思维方式。我们需要能够规避挑战和冲突，而不是像林赛·格雷厄姆希望的那样步入陷阱。再说乌克兰战争，我认为很明显，如果我们没有提出扩大北约的问题，我们本可以避免那场战争。无论你是否相信这一点，不试一试都是一种犯罪。即使只有5%的机会，也值得尝试。你们不处在我们的处境之中，我们已经深陷乌克兰的代理战争中。现在以色列处于危机边缘。我们需要更聪明的人，在华盛顿思维更加聪明。我们不再是唯一的超级大国，在多极世界中我们将面临非常艰难的局面。如果我们不在可能的情况下寻求缓和冲突的方法，那么我们将面临很大困难。

Or putting aside conflict, why are we not building deep ties with as many countries as possible, deep cultural ties, deep economic ties, deep diplomatic ties. Every time we are in dialogue with a country and we're building a relationship with that country, that means free people of the world are winning. And every time we isolate a country, that does not go long for us. You're saying, she's half the world. That's another big part of this problem. Yeah.
为什么我们不抛开冲突，尽可能与更多国家建立深厚的联系呢？这些联系包括深入的文化联系、深入的经济联系和深入的外交联系。每当我们与一个国家进行对话并建立起良好关系时，这意味着世界上自由的人们取得了胜利。而每当我们孤立一个国家时，这对我们来说并不有利。你在说，她占据了世界的一半。这也是问题的另一个重要部分。是的。

And so the normalization of relationships and the deepening of relationships, that is the high order bet. And you need somebody in office who can do that. And if you look at how the hawks in the GOP or the hawks in the Democratic Party think, they think that we have to be at war with everybody. They think we have to isolate everybody.
因此，关系的正常化和深化是一项非常重要的赌注。而你需要有人能够在职位上做到这一点。如果你看看共和党中的鹰派或民主党中的鹰派是如何思考的，他们认为我们必须与每个人开战。他们认为我们必须孤立每个人。

The fact that Trump went and that famous moment where he walked over the in the DMZ in North Korea and was talking to Kim Jong Un, that moment you see on Kim Jong Un's face, we can put it in here, he is so happy to be recognized. Now listen, I understand. Yeah, he has like, he has a shock. He has a shock look on his face. Like I can't believe this is happening. Right. The same way he did when Dennis Rodman came over. No, it's like a fan meeting Taylor Swift. If you look at those videos and you compare it to this, it's the same. And culture is our export. And I know this is- What are you talking about Jason is soft power. Simplistic. Yes. And it can all be hard power because other countries have it too now.
特朗普参访北韩并在朝韩非军事区与金正恩会面的那一刻，金正恩脸上的表情可以表达他对被认可感到非常开心的心情。听着，我明白。对，他的表情充满了惊讶。他露出了震惊的表情，仿佛不敢相信这一切真的发生了。就像邓尼斯·罗德曼造访时的表情一样。不，就像粉丝见到泰勒·斯威夫特一样。如果你观看那些视频并将其与这个时刻相比较，会发现相似之处。文化是我们的出口。我知道这有点简化了。是的，这并不完全是硬实力，因为其他国家也有这一点了。

Yes. So we have to work on our soft power, but you're not going to enhance American soft power with all this belligerent rhetoric, really this omni-directional belligerence that's coming out of Washington. And this is why I think the smart thing for Blinken to do or the Biden administration is yes, you reaffirm that you stand with Israel in the face of this and speak of atrocity at the same time. And you don't have to do this right now because it is a little bit tough to do it right now. But that's a hundred hostages. Yeah.
是的，所以我们必须致力于发展我们的软实力，但你不可能通过所有这些好战言辞来提升美国的软实力，实际上这种遍及各个方面的好战态势正在华盛顿流传。这就是为什么我认为布林肯或拜登政府明智的做法是，在此刻重申我们与以色列站在一起，同时谈及这种暴行。你不必立即这样做，因为眼下做这样的事有些困难。但这是百年来的人质问题。是的。

You have to reaffirm your support for the two-state solution. Absolutely. I think the United States is always supported. And by the way, I think Tony's done a really good job. But again, at the end of the day, Tony works for President Biden. And it's like, Biden hasn't been nearly as definitive as he could have been. And Tony's had to clean it up.
你必须重申你对两国解决方案的支持。绝对没错。我认为美国一直在提供支持。顺便说一句，我认为托尼做得很好。但是，归根结底，托尼是为拜登总统工作的。问题是，拜登总统在这个问题上没有给出足够明确的立场，而托尼不得不处理这些问题。

So one example of this is like in the Wall Street Journal, they immediately on Sunday that was from went to blaming Iran, right? And then both the Israeli military intelligence and American intelligence, they had to do an entire press circuit to try to disarm this in a way that was not seen in a long time. And you have to ask yourself, why is that even happening? And it's like, well, whatever special interests wanted to get that on the front page of the Wall Street Journal was able to do it, but it has dangerous implications.
这种情况的一个例子就像在《华尔街日报》上，他们立刻在周日就开始将一切归咎于伊朗，对吧？然后以色列军事情报部门和美国情报机构不得不进行一系列的新闻发布活动，试图解除人们很久以来没有看到的误导。你不禁要问，为什么会发生这种事情呢？就好像某些特殊利益集团想要把这个事件放在《华尔街日报》的头版一样，他们就做到了，但这是具有危险性的。

And then what you need is a really strong leader that can step up and say, this is false. This is not happening. This is what we need. You needed an Obama in that situation. And I think that this is sort of- Or Clinton. Yeah. Or Clinton. Reagan.
然后你需要一个非常强大的领导者能够站出来说，这是错误的。这并没有发生。这是我们需要的。在那种情况下，你需要一个奥巴马。我认为这种情况下需要奥巴马、克林顿或里根这样的人物。

And I think that this is an opportunity for us to ask ourselves, okay, who is the most dynamic, excellent candidate that can give us this? And be open-minded and not make this line about Republican versus Democrat right now, because the world is getting super complicated. We need someone hyper, hyper-excellent and intellectually competent. Well, I will say this for Trump is that he's the only president in recent memory who didn't give us any new wars. Best quality.
我认为这是一个机会，让我们反思一下，谁是能给我们带来这种最具活力和杰出候选人呢？并且要开放思维，暂时不要把重点放在共和党与民主党之间，因为世界正在变得极为复杂。我们需要一个超级出色和知识能力出众的人。嗯，关于特朗普，我要说的是，他是近期内唯一一个没有给我们带来任何新战争的总统。这是他最好的品质。

Yeah. I think he has a lot of- Despite all of his issues, I think he has a unique ability to project strength to the American public while not being one of these super hawks. He's actually, I'd say relatively dovish. Well, he actually walked through his secret plan. He said, I can't remember where this quit, but he said whenever he met with these folks, he basically left a 10% chance that he would nuke him. That's what he said. And it turned out that that 10% was just enough for everybody to be crazy for everybody to stay in life. Well, I think the US already has enough deterrence. I think we've maxed out on deterrence.
是的。尽管他有很多问题，但我认为他有一种独特的能力，在不成为超级鹰派之一的同时向美国公众展现力量。实际上，我认为他相对温和。实际上，他确实实现了他的秘密计划。他说，我记不清他在哪里说的，但他说每次与这些人见面时，他基本上给了他们10%的机会被他核平。这就是他说的。结果证明，这10%恰好足够让每个人都保持理智。嗯，我认为美国已经拥有足够的威慑力。我认为我们已经达到了威慑的极限。

I think the thing that was smart about Trump was that he was willing to do business. Yes. He was willing to negotiate and he didn't feel the need to make these moral condemnations all the time. He was willing to meet with Kim Jong-un. He was willing to meet with Putin and Xi Jinping. He avoided criticizing them personally. He didn't call them dictators. He talked about how smart they are. It's the art of the deal, right? I mean, at the end of the day, he's looking to do business and we need a little bit more of that. And I think this is why Jared Kushner was successful is he went in there with the mindset of a businessman. Yeah. How do we find something that's beneficial to both sides? Totally right.
我认为特朗普的聪明之处在于他愿意做生意。是的，他愿意进行谈判，而且他并不觉得有必要一直进行道德上的指责。他愿意会见金正恩、普京和习近平。他避免了对他们的个人批评，没有称他们为独裁者。相反，他谈论他们的聪明才智。这就是交易的艺术，对吧？我的意思是，归根结底，他希望做生意，我们需要更多这样的思维方式。我认为这也是为什么贾里德·库什纳成功的原因，他以商人的心态进入其中。是的，我们如何找到对双方都有益处的事情，完全正确。

I think that when Trump was elected, I was told that it was the end of the world. And that's what I thought. And I'd already underwritten him as an F. Okay. And then four years into the presidency, he was probably like a C in my mind. And then as I get a little bit of distance away, I realized, no, hold on a second. This guy was like a BB plus. He was pretty good. And unfortunately, the few things that if he could have just pushed through would have really saved America, the biggest one being these hundred year bonds. It would have kept America from getting to the press Pacifica ruin. And we'd be in a highly different situation. And I'm not sure we could have ever given him credit for it. But the further and further I get away from him and the less emotional I am, he did a pretty good job. He was a pretty good president.
我认为当特朗普被选为总统时，有人告诉我这是世界末日。那时候我也是这样想的。起初我给他打了个失败的评分。好吧，然后总统任期过了四年，我认为他可能是个中等的总统。然而，当我离得越远，我意识到，等一下，这个人应该是个不错的总统。不幸的是，他如果能推动一些事情，真的会拯救美国，其中最重要的就是发行百年国债。这将阻止美国陷入太平洋式的毁灭，我们处境将会大不相同。我不确定我们是否能够真正给予他应有的赞赏。但是我离他越远，情感越少，他的表现还是相当不错的。他是个相当不错的总统。

Don't forget that he tried to overturn the election and steal the election. I voted for Hillary Clinton. I voted for Joe Biden, but this is the honest assessment. The guy who did for the things that he was supposed to do, a good job. And for where every other president found a way to frankly make our situation a little bit worse, specifically around wars, he did not do that. And that is a huge accomplishment that I think needs to be acknowledged. And he would have ripped up the Constitution and taken the presidency and stolen it. So just give that in mind as well. Last week, that's why he's not, that's why he's not an A. He's a B, B plus.
不要忘记他试图推翻选举并窃取选举结果。我投票支持希拉里·克林顿，我也投票支持乔·拜登，但这是一个诚实的评估。这个人做了他应该做的事情，做得不错。而且相比其他每位总统都找到方法让我们的状况更糟，特别是在战争方面，他没有那么做。我认为这是一个巨大的成就，值得被承认。而且他本来会撕毁宪法，夺取总统职位并窃取选举结果。所以请记住这一点。就是基于上周的情况，这也是他没有得到A评级的原因。他是B，B+。

Okay. Jason, you have to admit, if it weren't for the black swan of COVID, he would have been reelected in a landslide. A landslide. It's quite possible he would have been reelected. Yeah. I mean, I, and also, yeah, it's, it's great. The way things are going in this country right now, both economically and internationally, he's going to waltz into the White House. He's going to spend all of his time in the next year in, in the court houses battling all of these lawsuits, the law fair against him. He's not going to be able to campaign and it won't even matter because people are going to be so done with this. And nobody wants him as president again. So I think that's, that nobody wants that everybody wants new choices.
好的。杰森，你必须承认，如果没有COVID这个黑天鹅事件，他本来会以压倒性优势被重新选举上台的。压倒性优势。他有可能会再次当选。是的。我的意思是，而且，是的，情况发展得非常好，无论是经济还是国际事务，他将轻松晋级入主白宫。他将花费所有时间在接下来的一年里，与法院对抗所有这些针对他的诉讼，进行法律战争。他将无法进行竞选，但这甚至无关紧要，因为人们对此已感到厌倦。没有人希望他再当总统。所以我认为，没有人希望这样，每个人都希望新的选择。

All right, everybody, if you do not want to hear us talk about complex issues in the world, you can unsubscribe from the pod. We're going to be here every week, having hard discussions, listening to each other and learning together. You don't have to agree with any one of us, but we are, we're happy to have the difficult conversations and learn every week here. And yeah, our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and the friends of those impacted by this heinous terrorist attack. And I don't know if anybody has any other closing remarks here, but obviously we're heartbroken and we hope that peace prevails and that the hostages are released as quickly as possible. Well said.
大家好，如果你们不想听我们讨论世界上的复杂问题，可以取消订阅这个节目。我们每周都会在这里，进行艰难的讨论，彼此倾听和共同学习。你们不必同意我们每个人的观点，但我们很乐意进行困难的对话，并在这里每周学习。是的，我们向受到这起令人发指的恐怖袭击影响的家庭和朋友们致以思念和祈祷。我不知道是否有其他人有什么结尾的话，但显然我们都感到心碎，希望和平能够占上风，希望人质能够尽快获释。说得好。

All right, everybody, this is episode 149 of the All in Podcast. We'll talk about all the different topics, but for this week, we're going to let it sit where it is right now. See you next time.
大家好，这是《All in Podcast》的第149集。我们将谈论各种不同的话题，但是本周我们将把它放在现在的状态上。下次见。