Destiny LOSES IT At Delusional History Take

[00:00:00]It is a crazy retelling of history because remember we have to understand the motivations of the Jews at this point were looking for international legitimacy and they had just suffered the Brits abandoning them and the Holocaust and everything else. If there would have been a United Nations agreed upon Jewish nation, however small, it would have been the single greatest victory of like the Jewish people since the [ __ ] kingdom of Israel like in 2000 years. It would have been the best thing in the universe. The idea that they would or 198 whatever the idea that they would have turned around and immediately started mass killing uh Palestinians or Arabs is beyond it would just be so unbelievably [ __ ] stupid.

[00:00:32]>> I'm going to say it's cherry picking again though because the leadership is what matters. The leadership is the leader of the PSLP. Why do you think Israel had a relationship with South Africa like that?

[00:00:39]>> Okay, we're getting way off topic. Like I said I think >> how is this off topic when I'm just curious how it's off topic. All of those things occurred because Hamas Hamas began sending rockets into Israel trying to kill civilians. And so we said, "Okay, we're not going to let anything through >> that can be used to that can be used for war >> like A4 paper, like notebooks, shoes.

[00:00:56]>> I don't know about I don't know about every single >> Why don't you know these colon podcast?

[00:00:59]I'm Japro. Um, please watch this introduction. I really need to set this one up if you >> um I want to start with a kind of moment of uh vulnerability myself. Um, this conversation may have been a mistake.

[00:01:08]>> Um, not only went terribly. I think there there's a lot here, but um >> okay, >> I have this habit of wanting to engage with people who I used to be in contact with much closer and aligned with >> out of frustration and I think I have this habit of wanting to really persuade them because I can't believe where they are, >> how stupid they are.

[00:01:23]>> Um [ __ ] >> I think this you probably think this is unfair to do an intro on my own show before the conversation, but I could have destroyed Coleman Hughes here.

[00:01:30]Maybe you think uh I should have, right?

[00:01:32]Um, obviously I saw his video about what's happening in Gaza and I could have torn it apart as people like Dave Smith have done and the Bad Hasbro guys had a nice laugh at his expense at the absurdity of it. Um, I could have done that, right? I could have picked on his selective application of international law, his his invoking of war crimes, leaning on international law, but then not invoking all of international law, which includes the the codified right of of armed resistance against an occupying force.

[00:01:56]>> That's a dog whistle, by the way. I I know every single dog whistle I did. I'm sorry. [ __ ] I should have called him out on earlier or whatever, but I want have nice. This international right of armed resistance is something um it's it's mentioned in one of it might be additional protocol too. I don't remember. It's one of the Geneva Convention things. It has to do with with you have the right to have armed resistance against a military that is like trying to attack you. That's it.

[00:02:13]But people like this and I know for a fact this guy's done it. He argues that that right of armed resistance means that if you really really really really need to, maybe you can rape a Jewish woman at a party. But like it's part of like resistance. 100%. this the people like this think that they can defend terrorist attacks with this right of armed resistance thing. It is absolutely not true. Nothing there is absolutely nothing in any of the Geneva conventions any of the articles any of addition protocols one or two there is nothing in international law or conflict that gives you the right to target civilians without a military objective in mind.

[00:02:44]You cannot do that. And they people always anytime you hear somebody there should always be a red flag that you're listening to a complete and total propagandist when they bring up that oh um the UN gives you the right of armed resistance. that has nothing to do with anything to do with terrorist attacks ever. But >> his his his invoking of war crimes, leaning on international law, but then not invoking all of international law, which includes the the codified right of of armed resistance against an occupying force. Um the the illegality of population transfers, the responsibilities of the occupying force for for aid and whatnot. um the ICJ rulings, the advisory opinions on the illegality of the wall, the all of the rulings about the illegality of the settlements in the West Bank, the fact that Israel has never declared its borders, which is a violation of international law. The fact that they haven't declared it their nuclear >> I I haven't even heard this one before.

[00:03:25]The this [ __ ] [ __ ] haven't declared their borders. The reason why Israel has never Well, I think some of them might be formally declared. I would have to check. I guess the reason why they weren't initially was because these were armmesist lines. It was a war, right? In 48, it was a war against all the surrounding states. There were no borders agreed upon because none of the Arab states recognized the existence of Israel. I thought that there were formally recognized borders between Israel and Egypt. No, that was why Egypt, I think, was expelled from the Arab League for 10 or 15 years. They were suspended afterwards because they were the first country to recognize Israel as a state, which I imagine they must have recognized some formal border after Israel gave the Sinai back. Um, and I imagine Jordan would have as well.

[00:03:57]Syria, I don't think they ever did. Um, I don't remember it was Rabbine.

[00:04:01]Somebody wanted to go to Syria and make peace, but I think HZ um Assad's dad was like on the verge of death at that point and it was too late. The moment had passed. And then Lebanon, who the [ __ ] knows what the [ __ ] is going on Lebanon because the whole southern half of that country is occupied by a um Iranian militia that has grown to become the basically the government of the country, at least the military country, Hezbollah. So the idea that like Israel hasn't formerly declared its borders, it's like it's such a ridiculously stupid nonsense statement.

[00:04:24]>> The fact that Israel has never declared its borders, which is a violation of international law, the fact that they haven't declared their nuclear status, which is a violation of international law when we know they have them and even offered them to apartheid regimes in South Africa. Um I could have hammered him.

[00:04:35]>> I don't even know what that means. I'm pretty sure Israel hopped on the back of South Africa to do their nuclear testing. South Africa eventually gave them up. I don't know why. I thought that South Africa had made more progress. I don't remember when South Africa formally got them and then renounced them or got rid of them. But I'm pretty sure Israel hopped on the South Africa back to do their nuclear testing or whatever [ __ ] as well. I don't know about offering them on all of that stuff, right? Owned him, destroyed him.

[00:04:58]>> This information in the piece of course is casually saying that Hamas has stolen the egg when there's no evidence of that. I could have destroyed him and I didn't want to, right? Um, probably many of you wanted me to do that to his face and I didn't. Um, I wanted to try to do something different.

[00:05:10]>> Wait, hold on. Somebody said, "This guy sat on this interview till after his destiny debate so he wouldn't have to defend all this." No, no, this is 10 months ago, my dude. Somebody just linked this to me.

[00:05:16]>> And I'll explain that in the open when I get to the clip. We talked for about an hour and a half and I split it up into two parts. So, I I let him say things at times which were were false and ugly in the hopes of finding my uh what I wanted to find in this conversation. Um, so please, at the end of part one, I have my afterthoughts where I want to talk to you about I think what transpired in this conversation and then in part two, which frankly goes off the rails a little bit more. I'm going to do the same thing. But I I really want you listen to what happened. It's basically uncut. There was a few technical problems you'll see, but basically uncut.

[00:05:45]>> Okay?

[00:05:45]>> And then I'm going to be back at the end of part one cuz I have some important thoughts that I really want you to hear.

[00:05:49]Um, and so somebody commented when I announced I was going to have this conversation with Coleman Hughes that we that we live in different worlds, that we really come from different worlds.

[00:05:55]And I think they're right, honestly. Let me just play part one where maybe you could track I think what the difference of these worlds are. Um so there you go.

[00:06:03]Here you go. Part one with Coleman Hughes. Please stick around for my afterthoughts. I think the really important my hopes for this conversation. U obviously would be to change your mind but that's >> probably not going to happen. Um, I think what you know, if if we're successful, the best that we can do in these kind of engagements is like honestly explore and discover the genuine differences that we have philosophically or psychologically when it comes to something like morally analyzing Palestine and what's happening and to display that because there's probably a lot of people who come in at the beginning of this video who agree with me or agree with you and I think if we can present why we like really deeply what our differences are um which potentially are sometimes differences of information like I do have so to be fair I have some research in front of me but I don't want it to be a research battle right like I think that's usually fruitless um >> really But if we can display kind of, you know, really get our finger on where we disagree and why we disagree, um that would be a success in my view. And then on the specific issue of Palestine, I think what I really hope to accomplish just just to you, so if I can't convince you, you know, whatever, change your mind >> is to um understand and see why someone like me, I'll just say me, I have to say someone like me, someone like me um hears certain arguments. You know, I watched a recent piece and I've been following someone arguments. It has a tremendous amount of of doubt. not doubt that you hold the arguments, but doubt in the sort of underlying um assumptions or or truths that you're leaning on to make those arguments, particularly when it comes to Palestine and Israel. And a lot of that does have to do with uh experience and historical sort of engagement with the issue where maybe someone like me, again, me, has learned to be skeptical of certain claims or whatever. And we can disagree about that or we can talk about them. So, there are certain times where I'm going to be like, you said this and I and I have this in my mind that I want to share with you whether you know that research or not. And that's why I'm like, you know, skeptical or side out of I I I don't I don't expect to change your mind either, but if if we can I feel if we can actually make real contact in in the arguments we're making and how we see the situation and why we see it differently and let me just say this is the dilemma podcast, right? So man, it's it's a reunion of the co-founders of the DM. I did what's funny.

[00:07:52]uh you know when it was audio only I've got I think a whole new viewership after I went to video but when it was audio amazingly cool shows and one of them in particular uh that I told people last time if they wanted to do some homework to check out was the lessons of Black Panther which I think has a lot of parallels to what we're going to talk about today because it's and now we'll start getting into the arguments but in in general let's say liberation >> we did that we did that together >> yeah with Valerie >> it's been it's been so it's been so long >> I think yeah >> and maybe we've changed or maybe we haven't but it's a really great episode but it involved kind of the I think eternal moral dilemma of um you know uh violence where I'm is going to be careful with the words violence mixed into liberation movements when we were talking about Martin Luther King versus Malcolm X versus the Black Panther Party versus you know we're going to I think like those are the kind of philosophical things that we're probably going to get ented with. So I really again I'll say this even somebody who like very very lightly knows anything about these movements to compare the ANC um which was the South African movement that Mandela was a part of to to try to fight for getting rid of apartheid who like very much stressed not to attack civilians who very much stressed if we're going to do attacks it's only going to be on like government infrastructure we're not going to be murdering people to compare that to Martin Luther King who stressed nonviolence who tried to incite attacks from you white people to garner sympathy for their movements and then to lump also somebody like not to be mean but Malcolm X who thought that violence was the way became like a radical Nation of Islam guy eventually realized that that wasn't effective I think came back to the United States and was like maybe this isn't good and then got murdered by Nation of Islam people like to to put put all these things together it's just it's the most bastardized version of taking a whole bunch of random things and throwing them in one basket cuz it's all like color people or something and then pretending it's all the same and using it to make the most ahistorical [ __ ] argument in the universe. So, it's just so [ __ ] annoying. It's so stupid. It's so stupid.

[00:09:34]>> Let me jump into again. So, a little bit of my plan is I have your transcript in front of me and I picked out some lines.

[00:09:38]I'm not going to go line by line. I think that's kind of silly. But on that, so you started with and it's good that >> it also um it also dramatically undermines and discredits like the resistance movements that have existed in human history. like PE um I I went over this a long time ago like the nonviolence or the commitment to nonviolent protests is not not being violent like it implies a whole set of highly deliberate strategies that are very well thought out. What do you do if somebody gets attacked? What do you do if somebody gets arrested? How do you support like like if people get arrested their family needs to be supported like how do you set up all these systems?

[00:10:13]Like it was highly strategic. All of it was very strategic. It wasn't just like uh we just we fight and kill because we're animals and sometime rape a woman but no resistance is perfect. That's [ __ ] This is unironically what white people thought black people were or what what South Africans thought I guess the people that they banished to the bast bat banitins bans whatever the [ __ ] they call their where they went to live if you're the racial loser right like this is what people think these people are they're not they're very smart they're very strategic believe it or not okay I'm not a science expert okay but my understanding is a lot of these people even for the black people whatever they're human just like us okay they got the same brains the same parts they can think of complex ideas and they can be strategic and they can do all the same things that we can do. Crazy, you know, >> brought in Black Panther because you started with kind of your um opening foray of the good guys as the Israelis and the bad guys as Hamas and you even admitted this might sound a little cartoonish and so uh but I but I like cartoons. I think all moral philosophers do like cartoons. I mean half the books behind us is the moral philosophy have cartoons all over them uh because we think about these things in sort of toy universes sometimes and try try to distill things. Um but I think in more uh instead of cartoonish more like comic book style because I I think you know I picked on this line to start with because um the good guy bad guy framework is um attractive. I think I know why you're getting to it from maybe a utilitarian sort of Charlie problem ethic. But we could set that aside. Um but even when we're talking about bad guys and I'll say villains here now, right? Like cartoons and comic books are full of villains. Um, but villains have origin stories and backstories. And I I think even if we decide that Hamas are a bunch of villains or even the individual biographies of them or villains that need to be eliminated by some metric that you're you're clinging to, well, villains do have origin stories. And I think it does us no favors to not look at them and not to justify them. I think we're all afraid to look at villain villain origin stories because we start to sympathize and see how they could get to these maybe places of violence. Um and Hamas has been and I think there's a lot of historical reasons for this that we could talk about has been um caricatured in such a way that people um are afraid to look at the origin story even if someone like Simoir I mean you start you start peeling back the biographies of of even the original founders of it and you find you find stories where where villains are made and seeds are planted. So in that analogy of the lessons of Black Panther, we spent that episode talking about Eric Kilmonger, the villain in Black Panther, who wanted to destroy the world, but his origin story in Oakland, California, and seeing racism and systemic racism racism or whatever um and horrible things was what implanted the seed of maybe a kind of vengeance that he grew into that needed to be eliminated. And that's for that episode. But I bring that up because my entire um impetus and I've talked about this in other essays uh for this subject and many more is when I got my education in the Holocaust and the ultimate villain of Adolf Hitler. I was dissatisfied with a premise that he was a monster. Certainly did monstrous things. But I remember raising my hand in Hebrew class and saying monsters aren't real. Monsters don't exist. He was a man with ideas potentially really bad ideas and in a psychology that was really bad. In a context was a tinder box, etc. But all of that was in um in the service of never againism that I I was deeply horrified of course by the Holocaust and what could unfold and what humans were capable of doing to each other. And of course it's not the only Holocaust that's ever happened and I want to prevent that. So my my first not the only Holocaust that's ever happened to say that I like your good but I think it actually doesn't go deep enough where we have bad guys who still are humans.

[00:13:22]And just one more I'll let you respond but just more piece of evidence to this.

[00:13:24]It was like the um you know when I forget which advisor it was that Trump had when he he crossed the line by making that statement on Fox News or whatever of being like these Hamas guys wear suits and they don't have horns coming out of their heads like they're human and immediately was sort of yanked off of the screen. Um so I I think that's my my starting point. I do want to talk about the motivations of good guys and bad guys as you split them here. But I just wanted to start by saying bad guys and villains do exist but they're very rarely born as villains and it and it does us no favors to figure out where we are, how to get out of it to to stop with that analysis. If you want to respond to that feel free.

[00:13:52]>> Yeah, sure. So I first thing I would say is um you're right that many many villains in the world have an origin story. There's a reason that they are the way they are.

[00:14:00]More than that, there's a reason why people are sympathetic to them. You could say that about the Nazis, obviously. I mean Daryl Cooper likes to frame this as like hidden in undiscovered history, but it's in every high school history textbook that the harsh terms imposed at the end of World War I were part of the reason for German resentment of the rest of Europe and part of the reason why why for Hitler's popularity. Right? So you could turn around and say, "Well, we created the Nazis." uh you know what what I think what's more accurate to say is that there were aspects of Nazi ideology that we had nothing to do with creating the anti-semitism. There were beliefs that were uh really had nothing to do with us. But there were also strategic errors that played into their hands and explains part of why the average decent German might have been seduced by them.

[00:14:37]You could say the same with North Koreans, right? The Korean War, the North Koreans were the one that actually fought the Japanese occupations and the Southern Korean leaders were the ones that collaborated with it. And so you can see during that war why a Korean might say, "Well, really the the ones I trust are the North Koreans." Well, look how that turned out obviously.

[00:14:50]There's a there's there's often you can say the same of the the you know the Southern Confederates.

[00:14:54]>> Oh, wait.

[00:14:56]>> Are you still alive?

[00:14:58]>> Yep.

[00:14:58]>> Why are you awake? It's [ __ ] late, bro.

[00:15:01]>> I'm off tomorrow.

[00:15:02]>> Oh, what? Nathan >> traveling. Chill. Jesus.

[00:15:04]>> Hey, Nathan.

[00:15:06]>> Um, if you want to do it, uh, wait, hold on.

[00:15:11]Waiting.

[00:15:15]I just beat vampire crawlers. No big deal.

[00:15:40]get snark.

[00:15:49]>> No, I haven't beat the reaper yet. I think I will.

[00:15:53]>> No, you won't. I just need more.

[00:15:54]>> You won't. No, you won't. You won't.

[00:15:57]You should do your first research arc mode on a particular project on debunking that [ __ ] retardedly horrible Shawn and Jen video about nuking Japan. One of the weirdest [ __ ] >> video, >> one of the weirdest simps that like people like the weirdy progressive people do is um sing for [ __ ] World War II Japan. They are like this is like one of the most wild fascist empires in all of history. And for some reason >> those [ __ ] were crazy.

[00:16:30]>> Yeah. But people simp like crazy for them. And talk about how evil the US was. And it was just I'm just trying to think if there could ever be the equivalent like criticism like if we would have nuked Nazi Germany people I can't believe we nuked the Nazis. I can't believe we n But for some reason it is like they get such a free pass by lefties. It is crazy.

[00:16:49]Just a thought.

[00:16:50]>> Okay. felt that they were the ones that actually like the slavery issue was life or death for them because god forbid there was an insurrection or something.

[00:16:57]So how dare the northerners that are not actually implicated in the issue because they're are barely uh they have a tiny black population. How they how dare they tell us what to do with our you know and so but on top of that it's also true that villains often have beliefs that no one is responsible for than other than themselves. Like it it's not true that all people are born good. I think what is true is that people are born into cultures with specific sets of beliefs.

[00:17:17]Um, you know, in the case of Islamist beliefs, the West is not responsible for the fact that uh the the Quran and Hadith says what it says about Jews and Christians, nor are we responsible for the fact that the ascended kind of literal reading of Islam that Hamas abides by, which tells them to kill infidels, kill the non-believers, to be very hard on Jews and Christians. We're not responsible. We didn't create that literature. We didn't uh we didn't fund the distribution of that literature throughout the world. And uh and so I think I I think it's too simple to say that everyone is like what I'm hearing you say is like everyone is basically born decent. That may be true psychologically, but some people are born decent, but with ideas that are just incompatible with creating the kind of cultures and places that you and I want to live in, which is why when given the choice, people flee those cultures and move to the the kind of places that you and I were lucky enough to be born in. Mhm. So, >> by the way, and the last thing I want, you said something about Simar. I want to hear what your villain origin villain origin story of him is because I mean, obviously, it's important to understand whatever hatred he had towards Israel.

[00:18:14]It was an Israeli doctor that saved his life when he had a brain tumor. And so, I'm not exactly sure how that would hatred, hatred of the enemy, when the enemy saved your life, he didn't have to.

[00:18:22]>> Yeah. So, I think I think what's underlying a lot of this, I'm going to I'm going to um go back to this a lot, but what's similar of course in many of them is it's the occupation. I mean I mean it sounds so simple but it's the occupation stupid. It sounds like the economy of like it is it is the the denial of dignity and the way they they have lived. Of course he was jailed a million times and beat up in prison. The guy also studied Hebrew and learned things in prison to be dedicated to what he would call literation you would call something else. Um but just to back it up for a second I think it's difficult for us in the west to I think make a lot of abstractions when we talk about Palestine. People say like oh you know it's a stolen country or right of return. And even your first line, this is actually the first line that I was going to go to of Israel's goal to live in peace with its neighbors. And I obviously think there's a lot of reasons to doubt that, but even the framing of the word neighbors implies quite a quite a leap over, I think, a failure, and this is difficult, a failure to deeply honestly engage with something like the NUKBA >> as not a symbolic event. This is not just like, you know, they're not carrying keys around because it's just some sort of like political thing. You know, writing Israel just wants to live in peace with its neighbors implies like they showed up in a neighborhood and just wanted this little piece of land and then everybody attacked them and that's just because they all hate Jews and just didn't want them there. And it and it it's it's just a massive failure to even look at history, right? It started in 1948. Uh, but even if you start in 1948, like I think it's difficult to to think of, you know, we're talking about houses here. Like there there's there's quotes and eyewitness reports or whatever, and many historians have collected these from Holocaust victims, right? The most sympathetic people in the world showing up and getting put in an apartment, and there's food still in the on the stove or or shoes in the hallway that don't fit them, and toys in the backyard that don't belong to them. Like, it's that level of displacement and humiliation that is the Nukba that was, if you're going to take it this far, the start of the villain story for the whole Palestinian cause. But obviously the Palestinian cause has not always been villains. And I want to ask you about what what you wish the Palestinian cause would do. Clearly you don't like Hamas.

[00:20:01]And I'm no fan of religious orientations of Hamas either. Although it's I don't think fair at all to cast them into a bucket with al-Qaeda and ISIS. They all are quite different with different origin stories. Um, so like my first question for that is do you think or do you agree that the Palestinian people have suffered a legitimately massive injustice at the hands of the Zionist but not purely the Zionist right of Zionists working in collaboration with the UK and abandoned by Arab countries etc. But have they suffered uh a pretty massive sort of whack of injustice through the last centuries? Like have they I mean and and can you connect with it? I can send you some writing that helps you connect with it, but it's it's enough. I I I can easily connect with the idea that they have suffered an enormous amount. Um what I can't connect with is laying the blame for that at the feet of Israel, Britain, uh America, the West solely as opposed to the choices of of their own leadership. Um to to uh to start a war in 1948 and then for five Arab countries to join in that war was a choice. To reject the partition that the UN voted for in in in 1947 was a choice. Those choice had those choices had devastating consequences on the Palestinian community because Israel won that war which wasn't an obvious outcome obviously at the start given that at that time it was not the military superpower it is today. Um it it was it was a terrible choice and one I think they didn't even understand how terrible a choice it would be at the time obviously.

[00:21:22]>> Um but why why would I lay that blame entirely at at the feet of of Israel and Britain as opposed to um the the decision makers who decided to to launch that war? So are you saying you're saying the Palestinians um if they had accepted the partition which of course no Arab state did, right? And for I think obvious reasons they all >> they weren't an Arab an Arab state as a community.

[00:21:42]>> Sure. But but why would the Arab states don't matter? They weren't part of the partition.

[00:21:46]>> They would have a vote.

[00:21:46]>> I'm saying they voted against it at the UN.

[00:21:48]>> Oh, I see what you mean. Yes. Yes. Sure.

[00:21:49]Sure. But >> um so so you're saying that the all of the the Hagana that you're doing, etc. um were waiting with all of their weapons and all of their guns. And if the Palestinians had said, you know what, we we're going to vote for for this pal for this partition. um and willingly, you know, move out of these places. Um they they weren't going to attack. This is your >> Yes, that is absolutely true. It is a crazy retelling of history because remember, we have to understand the motivations of the Jews at this point were looking for international legitimacy and they had just suffered the Brits abandoning them and the Holocaust and everything else. If there would have been a United Nations agreed upon Jewish nation, however small, it would have been the single greatest victory of like the Jewish people since the [ __ ] kingdom of Israel. like in 2000 years it would have been the best thing in the universe. The idea that they would or 1900 or whatever the idea that they would have turned around and immediately started mass killing uh Palestinians or Arabs is beyond they would just be so unbelievably [ __ ] stupid.

[00:22:42]>> Proposition that the Zionists would have stopped right then and there.

[00:22:46]>> Well, they wouldn't have necessarily had to move if they voted for the partition.

[00:22:48]The partition I don't think required um an exchange of population necessarily.

[00:22:53]>> Oh, actually that's a good point too.

[00:22:55]The partition was along where the villages and the people generally already live. That is true.

[00:22:59]>> That's so I mean there was already fighting there was already skirmishes there. Yeah. So all right. So So you're saying if they had if they had accepted in 48 >> 47 >> if they had accepted in 47 um there is no indication to my knowledge and I I would challenge you to find a word of many Morris's book that disagrees with this but you can maybe he would and it's outside the scope of his book of his writing.

[00:23:18]>> Mhm. There's no indication that if the Palestinian community of British mandate Palestine had reacted to the partition the same way the Jews did with jubilation and that there would have uh the Jews nevertheless would have attacked the Palestinian community the way the Palestinian community attacked.

[00:23:32]>> Here is a good counter example. At some point in the next two minutes him on the left if they get to it or maybe they not cuz both these guys seem to know a bit more. Whatever you want to say about Coleman here is he's at least decently well read. Um, at some point he's going to get into the, well, of course they couldn't accept the partition plan because they were going to give 43% of the land to Jews who were only like 16% of the population, whatever [ __ ] They always have this number out. The counter request to that is like, let's assume that they would have given like 2% of the land to the Jews. Do you think the Arabs or the Palestinians would have accept it? The answer is no. They like to play that weird number game, but the Arabs weren't opposed to it because they feel like it was unfair or the Jews got too much land. They were opposed to the existence of any Jewish state in that region whatsoever. So the number thing is is a red herring, but we'll see if they get to that.

[00:24:13]>> The issue of >> why why >> I don't think there's anything in Bennett Morris's book that that that disagrees with that. Obviously, we don't know. It's very possible a civil war would still have happened to be clear.

[00:24:20]It's definitely possible a civil war would have broke out some way or another. None of us know, but the actual facts of our history is that the first attacks after the partition was agreed to was Palestinians on Jews. That's how the war started. Then five Arab armies invade Israel. Israel doesn't invade them. Those are the facts in our timeline. Um and and so to lay the to lay the consequences of that on the side that was attacked rather than the side that did the attacking seems to me like something I would never do in any other war.

[00:24:42]>> Yeah.

[00:24:43]>> And you you would never do in any other war.

[00:24:44]>> So you discount all the statements of that you're doing in the Haganab Manakan and all these people talking about greater Israel and the Arab needs to be eliminated and they should fight and Jabatinsky of course his father working with Netanyahu uh which were explicitly that they were going to wipe out or or they remove.

[00:24:57]>> You're talking about the most radical people. Bean was literally almost killed by Israel by the by the Hagana when he came back to Israel. Like they almost sunk the they sunk the ship that he came in on. Like these guys were the more you're you're quoting the most radical elements of the pre-Israel Jews.

[00:25:14]>> At least >> they weren't in charge. Benorian was in charge.

[00:25:16]>> They were the They were the extremist that Benorian represented the mainstream and they were the extremist that he won out over in terms of decision-making power and correct and legitimacy. Every side is going to have extremists that you can cherry pick and say represent the whole. difference is that Bengorian was in was represented the mainstream Israeli decision makers at the time and that's why he was the first president prime minister of Israel and whereas on on the other side um al Husini I mean al- Husseini was the mainstream and Palestinian leader at the time >> you know I wouldn't have to cherrypick things he said >> for the understand that his main goal was to drive the Jews into the sea.

[00:25:46]>> Yeah.

[00:25:46]>> So Bengurian um you're saying represented the mainstream and then incorporated all of those groups into the first IDF these terrorist groups as Yeah. So is that so so can you square that circle that >> No, no, it is always going to be the case. No, maybe not always. That's not fair. But my bet is is that throughout all of history, your more radical elements are always going to be involved in your military to some extent. This idea of like we're going to virtue signal and audit who's allowed to join our military based on how radical they are when you're literally struggling for survival is so cringe. They did this with like AOV battalion. um ASOV battalion um for for Ukraine like oh you guys Nazi destro your army THAT MEAN YOUR WHOLE ARMY IT'S so so so [ __ ] cringe to do this holy [ __ ] it's so [ __ ] cringe to do this >> first IDF these terrorist groups says yeah so is that so so can you square that circle that all of these I guess you would agree groups that were loudly professing and their actions were uh in line with removing the Arab expelling the Arab killing the Arab removing the Arab um who had these militant groups Bengurian incorporating them into the IDF the next today. Uh somehow means Bengarian does not is not in agreement with them or had some different vision for for Israel.

[00:26:54]>> Well, it's it's he wasn't in agreement with them. That's that's a mainstream historical fact. They were at loggerheads and they submitted to him and he incorporated them under the banner of of the command of the Hagana which became the idea. But yeah, they were not they were not in agreement.

[00:27:06]They were political opponents. That's that's and Benorian had more legitimacy and more popularity. That's correct. I don't think I'm saying anything controversial.

[00:27:12]>> No. So, so I guess what we're on now is your um your underlying moral analysis and how you >> deliberate these questions is about intention, overall intention, right?

[00:27:21]>> Yes.

[00:27:22]>> And so you're already I I think discerning intention of an individual is difficult, of a group is difficult, of a nation over time is even more difficult.

[00:27:27]So I I keep wanting I keep wanting to pick your brain about >> it's not I don't it's only discerning intention is only difficult if you don't actually study any of the history. this guy knows enough cuz this guy did know he had a I the reason why I didn't think his position was going to be as crazy is because he did seem to have a much much better command of the history than any other person I've talked to on the propell side or most of them at least on the propell side. Um but you can how can you say you can never discern intention or motivation?

[00:27:51]How like how do nation states operate?

[00:27:53]We have to operate with some level of understanding of the intent. Like do we think Canada's going to invade us?

[00:27:57]Probably not. Do we think that Mexico is going to intentionally send cartel over here to kill it? Probably not. Right?

[00:28:02]you how can you pretend that people or groups of people even terrorists can operate with no concept whatsoever of their intentionality or how they'll act in the future like the like they have people they write a lot we have archives that we can go through we've got the actions of the people or the states themselves it's it's such an empty hollow statement >> how you are deciphering >> these intentions right so so what's difficult about that let's start with the the intention of the Zionist and I I could read I don't know what you think Zionist Zionism is or if you call yourself a Zionist um I have a really fun book from 1920 here from Balffor himself I think it's fun to read in their own words um because it's hard to get our minds in the heads of of colonizers when they were writing about Zionism and what it is um but the intentions of the early Zionists I don't know if you think this has changed um if you're saying in 1947 it was be thrilled that they got a UN partition which was far less than they were saying they wanted and they were armed um but they would have stopped there if that was it they would have been happy with that Hebrew word for would have been enough um if you're saying that that's the intention and it's some stated intention and you can find these things in history how do you factor in I guess I'm going to be asking a lot of how do you factor in historical action and how it might clash with somehow stated intention because the Palestinians in the Nakba fleeing and expelled and massacred and various numbers of all three including these you know stories of homes literal homes being taken and then allocated in a very interesting hecking order that had the Ashkanazi at the top and I think you know some of those stories about who got the best houses and the best furniture that was that yesterday was Palestinian and today's yours um and then you know enacted these laws these these uh absentee laws within a year to just confiscate the house and take over the I think any historian looking at that, you know, within two years of intention action might put some pressure on is this an expansionist policy? Is this a policy that's interested in peaceful coexistence uh at all? Or is this or was maybe an underlying intention or we can say a competing intention which maybe somehow won out. I think you'll make this argument a lot kind of won the day of like well we just have to take this land and this land and this land and this land more and more um while actively trying to import Jews especially in Morocco who had no interest in coming and trying to make it uncomfortable uncomfortable for them to increase their numbers and achieve this 80% majority has been very dreamed. So I'm just curious how like 1950 absentee law 1947 you're saying some sort of benign co coexist with your neighbors intention. How do do you think they put pressure on each other at all? No, I think if you look at the big picture, um the the Yeshu accepts the partition in 1947. Certainly some of them hope that they can get the the whole of the land, but they accept what they're given. The Palestinian community rejects it because they want the whole land.

[00:30:25]>> Everything correct >> right there. That's that's a big picture difference in the uh average intention of of the community. One side starts a war. Um every other surrounding country uh and and by the way, several Arab countries increased the size of their countries as a result of the 1948 war, right? They took land from what would have been the Palestinian state for 20 years. They expanded.

[00:30:45]>> Yep.

[00:30:45]>> Um and they expanded in a war that they launched offensively. Israel expanded in a war that it didn't launch. Right. So it's not it's not uncommon for a country to hold territory in a defensive war, but if it wanted that territory, >> uh at least colorably, like you would expect them to launch offensive wars, right?

[00:30:59]>> Um if that's really the core intention of the pro of the project, >> the reason Israel holds the West Bank is because Jordan invaded Israel, not because Israel invaded Jordan. Jordan, they told they told uh the king of Jordan, "Do not join this war between us and Israel. We have no designs on the West Bank. Stay out of it." And the the king of Jordan made the decision, which was a difficult decision for him. And you read his memoir, he really weighed it. And and he was under enormous pressure to be an ally to the Arabs and but ultimately he made the decision to invade. Absent that, Israel doesn't hold the West.

[00:31:25]>> 1967, you know, Israel struck first, right?

[00:31:27]>> Egypt. I'm talking about Jordan.

[00:31:28]>> That's the most primitive. It is literally the most primitive analysis of the world say that they struck first.

[00:31:34]Like technically they did, but like Egypt had already done everything that it needed to to assume like what to the Israelis looked like a military posture, right? The whole thing that had started the war prior that they' fought was them uh taking over the Suez Canal and making it so that Israeli ships or whatever the [ __ ] are they would restrict who could go through and whatnot and closing off the there's another straight the straight of Tran or whatever to the south of I think is the name of the city of the south of NGV or whatever. And Egypt did there were UN peacekeeping forces there. Egypt kicked them all out.

[00:32:04]They deployed a military deployment all across the Sinai. Um when um Coleman Hughes talks about how the um Jordanian king was under a lot of pressure. He was but it's because the Arabs were constantly playing this game of chicken with themselves um with the Israelis where they were like [ __ ] on each other. Um you know like oh like why you know you're letting Israel uh exist here like you're fed are getting killed and you're not doing [ __ ] And then the Jordanians, the king would go on Nasser and Nasser would go on the king of Jordan and they would just go back and forth, back and forth until Nasser talked so much [ __ ] that his [ __ ] got hit and then Israel [ __ ] them up. But they were like they the posture they had assumed from the Israeli perspective looked like incredibly aggressive. They were deploying the military across the Sinai and they had kicked out all the UN peacekeeping forces. So I mean like what to say that like Israel struck first is like strictly true, but it's also kind of dumb and I don't know >> that Israel doesn't hold the >> 1967. You know, Israel struck first, right?

[00:32:51]>> Egypt. I'm talking about Jordan. Israel struck Egypt first. Jordan struck Israel. Jordan struck Israel. But this has been >> Well, not not of course. Not of course.

[00:32:58]Why is that of course?

[00:32:59]>> Because it was a coalition of this issue, right? And that was about Jordan.

[00:33:02]Yeah.

[00:33:02]>> But but it it was not a foregone conclusion either in Egypt's mind or anyone's mind that Jordan would for sure join join in the war.

[00:33:07]>> Sure. Right. Which they Egypt and Syria quite often didn't didn't come to each other's defense in in those times. So, but this is this is the thing. Israel there's an alternative history where you just I have no argument at all because Israel just said, "Oh, we want the West Bank. We know we pretty sure we can beat Jordan. We take it." That's not what happened. What happened was Jordan invaded Israel and in the course of the war Israel found itself in control of the West Bank and then the war ends and now they have to decide what to do with it. Do we give it back for peace as Bengorian wanted the same Bengorian who uh you know you I think believe >> many people wanted yeah >> wanted to give it back. Some people wanted to keep it for religious reasons and so forth. But I mean you you to me the asymmetry here is just huge because Israel offers to give land back so many times in its history. It says we have this >> because they care about peace more than they care about expansionism. And I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why. After the all the wars with Egypt, they get control of the Sinai Peninsula. Sinai, not a biblically unimportant place for Jews, right? And they say, "No, we'll give it all back if we >> No one gives a [ __ ] about the Sinai."

[00:33:58]That's a meme. Okay. I don't think people care about the holy sites that much. I actually am not fully convinced that anybody. I think there's some Orthodox loonies that care about it. But in terms of like at least on the uh Arab side like that Alaska mosque [ __ ] the Temple Mount, Western Wall, I think there's for the most part I this is all.

[00:34:12]But also, hey, maybe it's because I'm an atheist and I look at it this way or whatever. I don't think anybody actually gives a [ __ ] about any of the holy [ __ ] down here. I think it's all geopolitical these people. In my mind, the Arabs never cared enough to fight that hard for Jerusalem. I think if they cared about it, you hear this third holiest site, third holiest site. Where the [ __ ] are all the other Arabs at? Where are all the other Muslims at fighting over this place? They don't I don't think they give a [ __ ] Nah, I don't feel it.

[00:34:31]I'm not feeling it.

[00:34:32]>> Have a peace treaty with Egypt. And bam, the second Egyptian leader comes and says, "I really want peace. I mean it for real."

[00:34:37]>> Years later, they have they have a peace that's lasted. Coleman, he said what what they wanted of course is that if those ports remained in the sphere of western influence basically if if the if the Suez Canal I mean Israel is happy to make peace with their neighbors all the time as long as they're sort of in the western sphere of influence. This is what the Abraham Accords has been all about. So do you think they would have made peace with an Egyptian leader who you know was was fired up about the the Palestinian cause and was still interested in closing the ports? I mean it was it was a massive >> When you say hold on I'm I'm confused what you're saying. So you're saying Israel should make peace with someone that is fired up with the Palestinian cause which is to eliminate to eliminate Israel.

[00:35:07]>> No. So you're the one who said the Palestinians have suffered a massive injustice. I wonder what you think the Palestinian cause is to if it's possible to achieve uh justice in that in that regard. I mean say they've suffered a massive injustice, can that justice be achieved? And then I'm going to ask you in what manner do you wish they were seeking to achieve it over time?

[00:35:23]>> That's a great question. Um so I >> so I can tell you what I wish the Palestinian cause were.

[00:35:29]>> Okay.

[00:35:29]>> I wish I wish the Palestinian cause were a two-state solution. Um roughly along the the 2000 plan where you have land swaps. So the places just outside Jerusalem, those settlements go to Israel and Palestinians get an equal amount of land and then the rest of the settlements in the West Bank get evacuated as Israel did in Gaza um in 2005. And then they live peacefully as neighbors and um make probably Israel and America give a ton of financial aid and infrastructure so that the West Bank and Gaza can be built up and become like if not Dubai then really just become wealthy and prosperous. And I wish that that were the Palestinian cause. Mhm.

[00:36:01]>> Um but just because I wish that were the Palestinian cause, that doesn't mean that that's what uh Palest most Palestinians believe the Palestinian cause is. Because the slogan is from the river to the sea. From the river to the sea represents a totally different goal, which is that all of you know what was British mandate, Palestine be be one states under the control of uh um Palestinian leadership, in which case the Jews would would be slaughtered or expelled and or made refugees or or maybe you know whatever Hamas intends for them. Um, so that's a goal that I think uh I I don't think that's that's that's an ethical solution to the problem and I can't support it and I don't think Israel can as a democracy at the at minimum an Israeli leader with a fiduciary responsibility to his voters cannot make a deal a party who has that goal.

[00:36:44]>> So what about all the people who had very similar goals or let's say even a better goal, a one state with equality for everyone. Um what do what do you think happened to those Palestinian leaders, those voices through history?

[00:36:55]What do you think happened to them? Um, >> who are these people?

[00:36:58]>> They never they never even had enough legitimacy to be contenders.

[00:37:01]>> Correct.

[00:37:01]>> Compared to Arafat, compared to Alusini, Arafat like so.

[00:37:05]>> Do you know who Gossam Kafani is?

[00:37:07]>> Tell me.

[00:37:08]>> Famous Palestinian writer and poet. So, I mean, this is where it's going to go into some of the reasons again why I hear what you're saying. It sounds very rational, but there's so many reasons.

[00:37:14]Let me let me start with this one.

[00:37:16]>> Um, >> like I don't I don't think you're malicious. I don't think I think you're trying to find ethical truth in here.

[00:37:22]Jesus. Um, but I think there is this call the tribal essentialism and it's it's this inability to >> he did this a few times to me and it was very weird. He just said tribal essentialism. I haven't heard anything uh from Coleman yet. He might have said something in the beginning about Islamist thing or something. There was one thing he said maybe maybe 20 minutes ago. Um, but sometimes this guy over here brings up this like why do you think that Arabs are inferior and can't make peace or something? I don't know if he's about to do that, but it's very weird. Like I don't know who he's boxing with here.

[00:37:56]>> I don't think I think you're trying to find ethical truth in here. Um >> but we'll see what he says. I don't know.

[00:38:00]>> But I think there is this, you know, I call it a tribal essentialism. And it it's it's this inability to assign kind of nefarious or irrational or immoral intentions, objectives, intentions to members of your own tribe. And in your case, this tribe is maybe just west. You call it a democracy. I would argue obviously Israel is not a democracy, but I don't think America became a democracy until maybe Jim Crow ended. that's not but it's this inability to even entertain the idea that Zionists or Israelis or even America or whatever you know is not genuinely interested in the liberation of the Palestinians or the Iranians or Saudi Arabians or many for many other reasons that that might be nefarious or might just be an economic system which they exploit and that's sort of a capitalist question but it's it's um >> it's difficult because I could tell you 20 names right now of Palestinian including maybe Marinw this week who advocated for very similar two states olution time of course when the Israeli leadership maybe there was more we spoke to or is that the guy mode up around since he was born was to deny this so I'm not sure how you think there was a partner for that one um but 20 names throughout history who spoke in great lengths to speak about how their enemy was not even the Jew not at all like these aren't Islamists the weren't jadists they weren't quoting the Quran um leftists Marxists etc went to great lengths in these interviews to talk about um justice and of course they were they were wounded very much emotionally by the Nakbah um >> and then killed by Israel for for many different reasons. Gossin kind of funny was killed in the wrath of God. I don't know who the religious party is here, but that was named by Goldman, the wrath of God campaign after Munich, which his group had no connection to directly or approved and a few other things. It was in this period in the 70s, the revolutionary action period. And I could talk about all the mistakes I think the Palestinians made here to try to achieve justice. Um, but I think you have to really understand the context that they were in. Gas kind of funny. George Habash, there's many many names. Habash was just tried to be arrested and then he was exiled. Um, kind of funny also you should listen to wrote one of the most beautiful pieces ever called Letter from Gaza. Uh, I'll link to it in the description. You should watch it after this. amazing writer, 20 minutes, wrote it in 1955. I think that gets to the heart of what the when you say the Palestinian cause and what you wish it was and I know you didn't include kind of right of return and maybe a more >> correct >> spiritual or esoteric longing for dignity of like the great harm was done to us and it needs to be repaired somehow and that's the complicated part.

[00:40:04]What do we do now? He was an amazing writer at this and he wrote this letter from Gaza about this that I think hits home and would help people who struggle with it connect with what this means deep level. But when I'm and I haven't even been like told like the direct argument is basically that >> Israel's actions no matter what they kind of say and obviously I could cherry pick as you're saying but I pretty soon when you have a you know a wheelbarrow full of cherries it's not just cherry picking anymore you have to contend with this you know massive amount of cherries on your on your lap >> the quotes that also support this but >> the the hypothesis that Israel >> um eliminates or silences or jails Palestinian voices of moderation and peace and coexistence um all of the time in history because what is more useful for them is exactly the kind of pattern that you've outlined. They're not stupid. They know if they are um attacked, especially with the legal frameworks you laid out of the UN and borders or whatever, uh their their response can include expansion and expulsion and whatever. And we could argue if October 7th was one of these, and I'm not saying false flag, the attacks are real, right? Um but that there is to to even digest my argument there that they killed because he was a really good writer and could explain and had great English and was a good-looking guy and could explain the Palestinian cause to the world in a way that was truthful and sympathetic and certainly put puts pressure on your good guy, bad guy opening. um is a is a is a problem for Israel. And what is what is more useful, as they've said, Hamas is an asset, whatever, is more useful, is to have the spectacles of irrational vengeance terrorism coming their way where they can say, "Well, we don't have a partner in peace. What can we do? We just need to keep this project going."

[00:41:26]Um, but to digest that, you have to be able to entertain the fact >> and get over the essentialism, but they that they very well may hold that belief, that they very well may hold that intention. And if you're going to jump over it, saying like Israel's actions or the West's actions or whatever are tame and rational and it's in their best interest to live peacefully with their neighbors, I'm not going to be able to get much on the table because you're just going to keep jumping over it. And then there's one more thing for that to bring it outside of just Israel because I've been using this one a lot lately too of I brought up Iran. Like just as an example, if you say the West or America, it's in their interest to liberate Iran. That's what Netanyahu is talking to liberate Iran from this terrible regime. Believe me, I'm no fan of the regime there. But you go back in history and you're like, well, who who was the one who got rid of the democratically elected leader who was certainly not an Islamist, not putting women in bags or anything like that. Uh speaking about coexistence, even recognized Israel, Mosedc I'm talking about. Who gets rid of that guy and who's him from the outside? And what was the reason? Of course, it was because he nationalized oil and there's economic interest in there. And just like those stories need to put pressure on this good guy, bad guy dichotomy. You know, we're talking a lot about the bad guy earlier on, but I also need to put some pressure also losing a lot of popularity. It wasn't quite as clean as that, but kind of sort of >> nefarious intentions >> embedded within Zionism. We could argue about that. Again, I have quotes and you could accuse me of cherry picking. Um or American Capitalist Project or whatever it is, but just contend with that. Look up kind of funny and wonder why he was blown up in 1972 when a car bomb along with a 17-year-old niece in him >> for writing books, right? For writing.

[00:42:41]>> Okay. So, um I don't know that guy or particular example. I I'll take your word for it. Um to me and any you can find any number of individuals and writers and artists and who say uh all the right things and are incredibly inspiring and who you and I would look to as thinking that guy really should be that guy should rise up as the leader and become the Palestinian Martin Luther King >> shame when that person is killed in in whatever circumstance or >> because he's saying Israel killed them all. I think never mind.

[00:43:07]>> You're implying that >> it wasn't like a war or anything.

[00:43:10]>> Yeah.

[00:43:10]>> Okay. You're implying that the counterfactual is that the Palestinians are looking for a leader to say, "We want peace. They're looking for their Sat." And I just don't think that that's true. I think that Saddat was a once in a-lifetime leader for Egypt, he made peace with Israel and he was killed for it.

[00:43:26]>> Um I think that after the negotiations in 2000, >> we don't actually know that 100% that he was killed by a radical I think it was was it a Muslim Brotherhood guy? I don't know if it was necessary because of But um the difference here though is that Egypt had a country of which they could make peace from. The Palestinians are still kind of like up in the air, so it's it's a little bit more difficult.

[00:43:43]Not to excuse the Palestinian side has had bad leadership. Arafat [ __ ] them over hardcore.

[00:43:46]>> I'm I'm forgetting his name. I think it was Abu Abu Nam.

[00:43:49]>> Abu Nad the >> uh >> there's a lot of Abs.

[00:43:53]>> It was uh one of one of Arafat's top aids >> came out and criticized Arafat for rejecting the 2000 deal with Clinton.

[00:43:58]And he said, we can I'll give you the exact quote after the podcast. Didn't we spit in the face of Bill Clinton when he offered us >> what we wanted with some adjustments?

[00:44:05]Um, are aren't we respon responsible for missing perhaps a once in a-lifetime opportunity to have secured a Palestinian state? Perhaps an opportunity that may never come back >> probably.

[00:44:13]>> And he was shot.

[00:44:15]>> Yeah.

[00:44:16]>> So, the only the the actual leaders that the Palestinians have had and of course Palestinian society has never been a democracy. So, it it is hard to say what percentage of the Palestinian population agrees with the the points of view of its leaders obviously. Um, but nevertheless, the only leaders Palestinian society has ever had have never actually made serious gestures of peace towards Israel the way that Saddat finally did >> after is after Egypt Egyptians were sick of losing people on the battlefield for 30 years in pointless wars. So, >> I get that there's a writer >> that is not that names, you know, >> that that >> I'm going to say it's cherry picking again though because the leadership is what matters.

[00:44:52]>> The leadership >> the leaders of the PFLP, right? And they were also in contest with lots of other >> These are small minor part. First of all, these are the terrorist. These are the literal people that were hijacking planes.

[00:45:02]>> [ __ ] What the [ __ ] was it called? Was it Black September? Am I making this up?

[00:45:10]No.

[00:45:11]Um I thought there was a name for this time period of it was either PFLP or DFLP uh for these like um fronts uh for liber the liberation of Palestine uh when they were all backed by the Soviets or whatever. These people were like hijacking airplanes.

[00:45:30]It was the PFLP. They pioneered armed airplane hijackings in the late 60s and early '7s. These uh Wiki articles are probably still somewhat reliable because nobody talks about this history. So, all the prop palies haven't gotten here to molest the articles yet, but um yeah, it was crazy. These people were these people are hijacking airplanes for the Palestinian cause, but the these are also like these are the radical parties of the PLO as well. Like these are not like huge parties within the within the PLO. I I don't know why he he constantly cites to these people, these leaders of like the PFLP when it was a very very small party.

[00:46:02]Yeah. I don't know.

[00:46:08]Wait.

[00:46:11]Well, this has consistently been the second largest of the groups forming the Palestine uh Liberation Organization.

[00:46:15]The largest being Fata.

[00:46:18]Fata is the one that everybody talks about. FATA is the largest party in the PLO, which is the largest entity that comprises the Palestinian Authority. The step ladder show this is wild.

[00:46:33]Maybe they were a little bit larger back in the day.

[00:46:36]um has um consistently been the second largest of the groups oh forming the PLO maybe maybe way back when it formed but like these groups have fallen off these like nobody talks about the PFLP or the DFLP today not that I've ever heard of I don't think like the past like several decades it's not really that relevant um except when they were hijacking airplanes back in the day but to put it just just to give you the context because you keep going back to Oslo I think I want you to go back further again and this is all just to put pressure on um do because you jumped over it again can you contend with the fact that uh Zionism Zionism benefits not from having moderate leaders. You ask the Palestinian MLK tomorrow I'm interviewing Marwa uh Mubarak Kawad. I don't know if you've heard of him either. They called him the Palestinian Gandhi. Um Christian believed in coexistence went around in nonviolent resistance was going around preaching it. What what do you think happened to him?

[00:47:24]>> Israeli sniper. What kind of threat is this man?

[00:47:26]>> Sniper knee cyber knee.

[00:47:28]>> Sorry, what? You're jumping between arguments here.

[00:47:30]>> Same argument. I'm just giving you another name. Mubarak Kawad Palestinian because you asked because you brought up the Palestinian MLK. I'm giving you His name is Mubarak Kawad. He was more like the Palestinian Gandhi because I'm ML MLK near the end. Also started to maybe whisper about violence and then he was gone. But this is the Palestinian Gandhi. Super captivated by nonviolent resistance. I'm interviewing him tomorrow. He's he was working in the West Bank in the ' 80s. I could send you a whole documentary about him. What who do you think got rid of him?

[00:47:49]>> Look, I don't know. But what I'm telling you is there's been Tell me why there's been it's not a democracy. So we don't the the the situation is Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

[00:47:59]>> Hold on. Hold on. So >> the Palestinians have had one real election.

[00:48:03]>> Yes. Okay. Uh, it was overseen by Jimmy Carter. It was it was validated internationally as having been free and fair.

[00:48:09]>> Who did they elect? Hamas.

[00:48:10]>> Hamas. Absolutely. Yeah.

[00:48:12]>> And this is not it's not like they didn't know what Hamas was about. This is after the second inifat when Hamas was blowing up Jewish families on buses and and and all over Israel for 5 years and they voted for this. And you're sitting here throwing names at me. Hold on. And you're sitting here telling me that the only reason there isn't a Palestinian MLK is cuz Israel's killed them all.

[00:48:29]>> Killed and deported. I don't believe it.

[00:48:31]Killed or deported.

[00:48:32]>> Killed or deported. So even if you think furthermore furthermore Jay furthermore Israel as you know unlike America where all of our politicians pretend to have bone spurs when they need to fight in wars um Israel by and large with few exceptions >> the members of Knesset the all of them their sons are going to fight these wars and there and several of them have died in this war >> so they the decision makers in Israel including the war cabinet including they all have legitimate skin in the game.

[00:48:55]The idea that they would prefer to fight forever wars is is so to me it's it's beyond uh it's just it's beyond reality because they they I don't think they want to keep fighting wars forever. See, I mean, just notice how you're you're I don't look at this also here. Also here why can I ask why aud ran on a platform in 2006 of giving back the West Bank convergence plan of extending Ariel. If >> if Israel really at their core is a it's a it's territorial ambitions, it's expansion which they could do easily because they're powerful. They're far more powerful.

[00:49:23]>> Why does Israeli society elect on that platform? It doesn't make any sense.

[00:49:26]>> Well, no. Yes. No, it's it's a it's a divided society. This is true. But maybe I don't know if you think the fringe has more or what you would call the fringe has more power than than you're you're giving them. Uh, I'm not trying to sort of >> Well, won the election, so clearly he had more power. The people who supported that plan had more power than those.

[00:49:38]There's always going to be people in a democratic society who disagree, including in America. I mean, we have all kinds of >> all kinds of stuff. And and and obviously the religious element in Israel for demographic reasons has been growing. But nevertheless, if you're going to argue that Israel's um >> can your max help anything? Can I just go up as high as you can build?

[00:49:52]>> Motives are always mixed. Okay? Motives are always mixed. But there's still a difference between the there's there's still a big difference between a package of mixed motives here and a package of mixed motives here. Just cuz they're both mixed doesn't mean they're equally mixed. doesn't mean that one doesn't take priority. So what I'm arguing is that in Israel the main motive has been to live live in peace with his neighbors for 75 years. And further on down the list you will find these religious and territorial expansion motives. That's why you can cherrypick. But when you're talking about when the major decisions that are made when when all the cards are on the table, what Israelis want is to stop sending their themselves and their children to die in these wars.

[00:50:21]They want to live. They want to just, you know, work at the restaurant and do whatever. Do Shabbat dinners for the most part. And the problem is that the mainstream element in Palestinian society has held on to the the desire at the top of the list to have from the river to the sea. And that's incompatible with what with with what Israel wants. And that's why, like I say, what I would wish were were the desire among the mainstream desire among Palestinian desire uh society would be a two-state solution. I think your video second, by the way, that's it.

[00:50:45]>> Oh, sorry. So, that's the end of part one.