Intro. [Recording date: January 15, 2026.]
Russ Roberts: Today is January 15th, 2026, and I have the pleasure of welcoming back Andrew Fox.
Typically, I summarize our guests with a single title—be it author, journalist, or historian. However, Andrew’s life story is a tapestry of experiences that resist easy classification. Instead, allow me to share a glimpse of his biography: from 2005 to 2021, he served in the British Army, completing three tours in Afghanistan, including an attachment to the U.S. Army Special Forces. His military career also includes stints with the Parachute Regiment and Special Forces Support Group, along with additional service in Bosnia, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. Following his military career, Andrew transitioned into academia as a senior lecturer in War Studies and Behavioral Science at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. His expertise lies in defense, the Middle East, and disinformation, and he currently serves as a Research Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society.
In recent months, Andrew has dedicated significant time to studying the Israel Defense Force (IDF) in Gaza. This marks his second appearance on EconTalk; he previously joined us in September 2024 to discuss the evolving war. I thought it pertinent to revisit his insights a year later, especially in light of his recent report for the Henry Jackson Society, titled “Tactical Lessons from Gaza,” which we will link to.
Andrew, welcome back to EconTalk.
Andrew Fox: Thank you! It’s a pleasure to be here.
Russ Roberts: I want to draw attention to the recording date: January 15th, 2026. Just last night, Iran’s airspace was closed for several hours, sparking speculation about potential military actions against Israel or Qatar. We are indeed in a period of uncertainty, and by the time this episode airs in a few weeks, the situation may have evolved significantly, leaving us to wonder about issues we can’t yet foresee.
Russ Roberts: To kick things off, could you elaborate on your recent activities in Israel and Gaza? I imagine you’ve had numerous conversations and perhaps enjoyed some local delicacies. Yet, your undertaking is quite challenging, and you seem to be among the few exploring this terrain. Please share your experiences with us.
Andrew Fox: I must admit, I’ve tasted some truly dreadful Israeli wine as well.
Russ Roberts: I apologize for that.
Andrew Fox: It’s about a 75-25 hit rate, but I persist nonetheless!
Andrew Fox: The past few years have taken me on an intriguing journey. While lecturing at Sandhurst, I held a Master’s in Psychology, focusing on leadership psychologies and disinformation. I also completed a Master’s in War Studies, with a concentration on the Middle East. The onset of war in the region presented a plethora of strategic questions and a deluge of disinformation, fueling my writing. The Henry Jackson Society brought me on board to contribute as a Conflict Researcher.
My vocal stance on antisemitism and the rampant disinformation surrounding the Gaza War led to an invitation to Israel. From that point, I cultivated a network of contacts, identifying who within academic and military circles could provide insights often overlooked. This niche development allowed me to visit Gaza three times during the conflict with the IDF. My first trip involved a high-level military group comprising retired senior officers from NATO and other European nations, where we prepared an amicus curiae brief for the International Criminal Court in response to allegations against Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant.
My second visit arose from my request to the IDF Spokesman’s Department to meet with troops. While strategic and policy discussions are valuable, the firsthand experiences of soldiers often reveal the reality of warfare. In this conflict, I found that direct conversations with the troops yielded richer insights than discussions with generals, who operate from a distance. This experience enhanced my network further.
On my third visit, I became the first neutral international observer to film a Gaza humanitarian foundation’s distribution efforts from beginning to end. The footage I captured unexpectedly gained global attention, which was gratifying.
Access through the IDF’s Spokesman Department provided a lens into their official narrative, but one must approach this information with a critical eye. My task was to discern what was omitted from their accounts. I do not fault them for their omissions, as they are fulfilling their role, but it is my responsibility to uncover the underlying truths.
In preparing my report, I strategically bypassed the higher echelons of the IDF command and turned to my network of soldiers for insights. I cross-referenced their accounts with open-source intelligence (OSINT) and analyses from various maps. The open-source intelligence community has made impressive strides in tracking the war, providing methods for verification. Additionally, I compared soldiers’ accounts with one another to identify contradictions and corroborations.
Only after completing the report did I share it with the IDF’s Lessons Learned Branch to avoid any operational security breaches or jeopardizing soldiers’ safety. I wanted to ensure that my findings were accurate and respectful of their confidentiality. The result is a paper I believe is unique in its comprehensive examination of the IDF’s actions in Gaza, which have been inadequately represented in global press coverage. Many pro-Israel academic sources often stick closely to the IDF’s official line without rigorous interrogation. I am quite proud of this paper.
Russ Roberts: I wish to discuss your views on the conflict and the IDF’s actions, which have faced significant scrutiny. Your work appears to stand alone in its depth. One major criticism leveled at Israel has been the limited access granted to journalists in Gaza. While you are not a traditional journalist, you’ve effectively assumed that role. What are your thoughts on the absence of neutral observers to verify Israel’s conduct?
Israel claims to have taken measures to minimize civilian casualties, including advance warnings and leaflet drops. However, the world witnesses extensive infrastructural devastation in Gaza—an image often conveyed through a narrow lens, either through Israeli publications or shaky handheld videos from Gaza. What is your reaction to this?
Andrew Fox: The situation is complex due to the highly contested information environment. I’ve authored a paper titled “Information Maneuver,” which discusses the information warfare being fought. My “Lessons from Gaza” paper does touch upon the journalist issue.
Andrew Fox: In my role, I strive to report fairly on the IDF, just as I would on British, American, or any other military. The skewed reporting on the IDF often creates an unrealistic expectation of perfection; any deviation is met with harsh criticism. This perspective is not only unhelpful but also ignores the chaotic and messy nature of warfare, as articulated by Clausewitz. Having experienced war firsthand in Afghanistan, I can attest to its brutal reality—it is far from the romanticized portrayals seen in video games or Hollywood films.
When it comes to the journalist issue, I find myself torn. On one hand, credible reports from journalists have indicated intimidation by Hamas during previous conflicts, a sentiment echoed by reports from independent foreign journalists. On the other, I recall my own experiences in Afghanistan, where a BBC journalist accompanied my unit during a firefight, providing a fair representation of our actions.
Perhaps the IDF could benefit from more embeds with trusted journalists who can provide balanced coverage. However, the challenge lies in identifying journalists capable of such reporting, which reflects a broader failing in media representation, complicating the IDF’s willingness to allow access.
Furthermore, the operational environment in Gaza presents unique challenges. A commander I spoke with recently described it as facing a “720-degree threat,” making it difficult to ensure journalist safety while engaged in combat. I genuinely appreciate both sides of this debate, and my perspective on the best course of action shifts daily.
Russ Roberts: Let’s delve into the physical destruction in Gaza. Initially, the IDF’s entry into areas like Gaza City revealed a landscape that, to some, appeared relatively normal. Yet, conversations with students who have served in the IDF suggest a different reality: every house they entered was associated with tunnels, weapons, or concerning materials. How credible is that claim? Is the tunnel infrastructure as pervasive as suggested, and must it be dismantled for future security?
Andrew Fox: What your students report aligns with everything I’ve gathered from IDF soldiers. Israelis are not prone to blindly repeating the party line; they tend to voice their opinions candidly.
Andrew Fox: During an academic conference with 13 Israeli scholars, we had a multitude of opinions. This is not a culture that easily conforms to a singular narrative. The sheer number of IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) in Gaza is staggering; estimates suggest tens of thousands, potentially even 100,000. When calculated against Gaza’s surface area, this translates to an IED approximately every half football field, though their concentration is much higher in urban combat zones.
This reality explains the destruction observed in Gaza. The IDF engaged in combined arms maneuver operations rather than traditional counter-insurgency tactics. They encountered IEDs operated remotely by Hamas, making it impossible to safely dispose of them without causing collateral damage. Consequently, the IDF had no choice but to detonate these devices, resulting in widespread destruction. As IDF forces advanced through this minefield, the resulting devastation was inevitable.
Russ Roberts: Do you believe Israel had viable alternatives to its approach? In the days following the initial attacks on October 7th, some suggested that Israel’s intense retaliation could bolster Hamas support. By inflicting extensive physical damage and civilian casualties, have they inadvertently created greater animosity? What is your perspective?
Andrew Fox: This assumption rests on a flawed premise: that prior to the conflict, Gazans were neutral regarding Israel, with only Hamas holding animosity. Polling data consistently shows a deep-seated animosity towards Israel among the Gazan population, influenced by educational systems and UNRWA narratives.
Andrew Fox: The notion that civilian responses to bombardment would shift their attitudes is miscalibrated. Conflict analysis often fails when attempting to apply lessons from one context to another; military thinking cannot be universally mapped across different conflicts. Western commentators frequently misinterpret this dynamic, applying counterinsurgency doctrines from Iraq or Afghanistan to a situation that requires a unique approach.
Reflecting on the chaos following the initial attacks, Israel found itself under siege from multiple fronts—rockets from Hezbollah, unrest in the West Bank, and a fraught regional landscape. Given the immediate threat, Israel’s decision to respond decisively seems justifiable. Targeted strikes alone would not eliminate the persistent threats posed by Hamas. History demonstrates that such limited responses have failed to provide lasting security, leading to further attacks.
Thus, Israel opted for a comprehensive approach to dismantle Hamas’ operational capabilities. This was no small task, given the extensive network of tunnels and weapon caches embedded within civilian infrastructure. The result has been significant destruction, a tragic but seemingly necessary consequence of ensuring Israel’s security. While the IDF’s actions may appear merciless towards Hamas, they have made efforts to evacuate civilians, often exceeding what international law requires. The tactical approach to dismantle Hamas systematically has left Gaza in ruins, but the overarching goal of ensuring Israel’s safety has been achieved.
Russ Roberts: Let’s explore the implications of these actions. In my recent essay, I lamented the loss of Sinwar, acknowledging the profound impact of the October 7th attacks on Israeli society. The psychological scars may linger for generations. Yet, one could argue that the regional dynamics have shifted favorably for Israel; Hezbollah has been weakened, Syria’s threat has diminished, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been curtailed.
Despite these developments, Hamas remains intact, its operational capacity not entirely dismantled. Are we facing a failure in the broader context? While Israel may feel more secure, are we simply awaiting the next potential October 7th? What are the prospects for sustained security?
Andrew Fox: Viewing the conflict through a binary lens of victory and defeat is counterproductive. Instead, we should assess whether strategic goals have been met. Israel’s objectives were clear: secure borders, return hostages, and dismantle Hamas.
Andrew Fox: The first goal has been achieved; the immediate threat to Israel is substantially reduced. While Hamas is not entirely neutralized, their capacity to launch significant strikes has been severely hampered, relegating them to a state of governance over a devastated Gaza. This outcome, while tragic, suggests that Israel has made progress towards its strategic objectives.
However, the long-term security of Israel hinges on future governance in Gaza. Much will depend on the evolving political landscape and who ultimately assumes control. While Israel may enjoy a period of relative security, the question of sustainable peace remains open-ended. The U.S. is now playing a pivotal role in determining Gaza’s future, underscoring the complexity of the situation.
Russ Roberts: Shifting gears, I want to discuss allegations surrounding Israel’s actions during the recent conflict, particularly claims of targeting children or withholding food supplies. Reports emerged suggesting that Israel was using food as a weapon, contributing to immense suffering in Gaza. Having met with various individuals, I find the notion that snipers would deliberately target children implausible, although I acknowledge the potential for chaos during war. What insights can you share from your firsthand experiences, especially regarding the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation?
Andrew Fox: Indeed, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation provided a crucial lens on this issue.
Andrew Fox: While I did encounter hungry individuals in Gaza, I did not witness starvation akin to images from historical famines. People were seeking food, but malnutrition was not prevalent in the areas I visited. I possess photographic evidence to support this observation.
Andrew Fox: We must also recognize the inversion of the typical allegation-response dynamic. Currently, accusations are made without substantial evidence, placing the burden of proof on Israel. This creates a challenging narrative environment, as failing to respond may lend credibility to unfounded claims.
Andrew Fox: It is crucial to note that approximately 3,000 calories per person were entering Gaza daily during the conflict, sufficient to meet the nutritional needs of the population. Thus, the issue lies more with distribution rather than supply. Challenges in delivering aid arose from the war environment, with some areas being exceptionally difficult to reach.
Andrew Fox: Additionally, Hamas has been documented hoarding aid supplies. Videos have surfaced showing stockpiles of baby food, raising questions about the distribution challenges faced. The attempt to restrict supply may have been an economic tactic for Hamas, further complicating food access for civilians.
Andrew Fox: While it is essential to acknowledge that Israel made some questionable decisions, such as the cessation of aid, which ultimately damaged its reputation, the overarching narrative of starvation does not align with the reality observed.
Russ Roberts: Recently, we had David Deutsch on the program discussing the historical tendency to legitimize violence against Jews. This sentiment resonates deeply, particularly in light of the recent surge in antisemitism and demonization of Israel globally. It is both shocking and heartening to see supporters of the Jewish community, particularly from the UK, standing alongside them during these challenging times. Your efforts are commendable. How have your experiences and perspectives on Israel evolved following the events of October 7th and your visits to Gaza?
Andrew Fox: My grandfather served in the U.S. Army during World War II, fighting against tyranny, which instilled in me a profound respect for the struggle against modern antisemitism. Additionally, I lost a close Jewish friend, Lieutenant Paul Mervis, in Afghanistan, reinforcing my commitment to supporting the Jewish community.
Andrew Fox: My experiences leading up to and following October 7th have solidified my belief in the necessity of Israel’s existence. I recognize that the IDF operates under complex moral and legal frameworks, and while I understand their rigorous response to terrorist acts, I also approach the situation with a clear-eyed perspective, focusing on the nuances of each conflict.
Russ Roberts: Let’s pivot back to Gaza for a moment. You’ve expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause, recognizing the historical narrative surrounding 1948. It’s crucial to acknowledge that the Palestinians had their own aspirations alongside the Jewish community during the British Mandate. How do you envision a resolution to this complex issue in the future?
Andrew Fox: This is a conundrum that has plagued diplomats since 1948. The historical backdrop is anything but straightforward; it was a tumultuous period marked by conflict. The narratives surrounding the Declaration of Independence, the Arab attack, and the subsequent Nakba all intersect in a messy, complicated tapestry.
Andrew Fox: The prevalent colonialism narrative often fails to encapsulate the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship. Both peoples assert claims to indigeneity and historical ties to the land, complicating efforts to frame the issue within a colonial context. It is essential to address the current situation rather than constantly rehash historical grievances.
Andrew Fox: The State of Israel is firmly established and will not be going anywhere. The framing of colonialism does not facilitate resolution; instead, it often exacerbates tensions. We need to seek new ways to address the complexities of this issue rather than relying on outdated frameworks that do not accurately reflect the situation.
Russ Roberts: I want to return to your insights on warfare tactics, particularly the role of drones and battlefield medical care in Gaza. You recently noted that had the IDF operated under British standards of medical treatment, 600 Israeli soldiers would have perished. Could you elaborate on these two aspects and any lessons learned that could benefit Western military strategies moving forward?
Andrew Fox: The use of drones in Gaza has been significant, though perhaps not as widespread as in Ukraine. The IDF has leveraged drones as force multipliers, but the rapid mobilization of personnel created logistical challenges. Mobilizing 360,000 soldiers strained resources and highlighted the importance of preparation and training.
Andrew Fox: Medical advancements within the IDF are noteworthy. The statistic regarding the 600 soldiers highlights a critical evolution in battlefield care. Current Israeli practices emphasize blood transfusions on the frontline, a significant shift that could save countless lives. By placing medical personnel directly in combat zones, they address casualties where they occur, enhancing survival rates.
Andrew Fox: These innovations are data-driven, reflecting a thorough analysis of battlefield injuries and mortality. The IDF is also looking into synthetic blood options, which could revolutionize medical care in combat. Moreover, lessons from basic hygiene and logistical operations remain crucial, underscoring the need for a balance between technological advancements and foundational soldiering principles.
Russ Roberts: Given the unique nature of this conflict, particularly the tunnel warfare aspect, do you foresee similar urban warfare scenarios in future conflicts involving the U.S. or the U.K.? How relevant are the lessons learned in Gaza for Western military engagements moving forward?
Andrew Fox: This is an important question. It is crucial to avoid oversimplifying lessons from one conflict and applying them directly to another. Instead, analysts should extract underlying themes and data points that may be applicable across different contexts.
Andrew Fox: I’ve categorized the lessons learned from Gaza into three tiers: those worth learning from, those to consider cautiously, and those that may not apply at all. The adaptability of lessons across conflicts will depend on the specific context and the nature of the adversary.
