Israel VS Palestine DEBATE, Misfit Patriot VS Rathbone w/ Alex Stein
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Guests (For AI): Bryce McDonald @McD_Bryce (X) Nathan Halberstadt @NatHalberstadt (X) Guests (Against AI): Shane Cashman @ShaneCashman (everywhere) Joe Allen Producers: Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X) Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL
So I just encourage everybody to watch us on Rumble as well, because in case for some odd reason these two heathens, you know, get crazy and say something that is YouTube unfriendly, we might have to take the stream down.
So we encourage everybody to watch on Rumble.
And before we get started, guys, you know who I am.
unidentified
I'm Primetime 99 Alex Stein, Pimbona Blant.
I got our co-host Tate Brown today filling in for Tim.
So it was a temporary gig, but yeah, I'm here to help Alex wrangle these two cats today.
Yeah, I'm going to need it.
Okay, so I think what we're going to do is we're going to start and give you guys like three to five minutes, however much time you guys need, to kind of give an opening statement.
And since you are pro-Israel and right now, let's be honest, a propaganda war is not going in Israel's favor.
We're going to give the floor to Misfit Patriot to save Benjamin Netanyahu and this propaganda campaign that they are so desperately failing at.
As I said before, you know, they're outnumbered 151 as far as, let's say, Muslim nations and the people that support them versus Jews and the people that support Israel.
unidentified
So when people make the argument that because they're losing, let's say, support online or support, you know, in polling, it's really like, that's kind of like, yeah, no shit.
I think that you sort of ignore that and just do what you need to do.
And everyone says that I'm like a huge staunch supporter of Israel when I'm not.
I say this all the time.
I'm perfectly fine with them doing whatever they need to do to protect their nation.
I think that they have a right to exist.
Obviously, I think New Zealand has a right to exist.
I think that Ireland has a right to exist.
As far as nation states go, if my country was attacked, let's say Mexico came in and raped and murdered like 1,200 people and beheaded, beat a bunch of people and filmed it and put it on Telegram and we didn't go and freaking destroy that nation, I would think that we would be a huge failure.
So the argument that Israel should not be doing what they're doing, I would argue, is silly because we have so many historical examples.
I mean, World War II and a bunch of different things that we could point to as to why they should.
But as far as this debate goes, I don't know much about my opponent.
I don't know exactly where he aligns ideologically, but he is anti-Israel.
I'm Israel neutral.
I'm very pro-Jew.
unidentified
I'm very pro-Zionism.
I'm very pro-anti-Islamic radical terrorism.
So I would take my arguments to him from three points, right?
Are you making a political, moral, or theological argument?
If you're making a moral argument, my question would be, why don't you make the same argument about other conflicts, which I don't know if he does.
If you're making a political argument, I'd ask you to make your case without making an argument for morality because politics and morality kind of don't align.
And if you're making a theological argument, I'll ask you to make your argument without arguing politically because we're going to be talking about theological.
I think what people do is they conflate all of these issues and try to make this soup of theological, moral, political when there's conflicting narratives.
And that's my biggest gripe with the people that argue against Israel.
Are you arguing against the Jews?
Are you arguing against a nation state with a government that has 120 people in it?
Because if you're making those arguments, I can pick them apart pretty easily.
And I am simply transmitting those facts, sharing that information with you, because it's not about what I personally believe or feel.
It's about what international institutions believe.
And, you know, we can go into the details, you know, further.
But at this point, they've lost the public opinion.
They've lost, and I'm part of that overwhelming majority of the public opinion that believes that Israel is an apartheid ethno-state committing a mass atrocity.
Yes, it is a genocide.
And I think the evidence of that is very clear.
So, you know, I'm happy to go into it further, but I disagree with basically everything you just said.
And if you are just saying, well, I'm just going to stay neutral, you are preserving the status quo.
You're preserving the inherent violence of this settler colony that is ethnically cleansing a land that is an indigenous majority of Palestinians, Muslims, however you want to classify them.
unidentified
They're not Jewish, and Israel is trying to establish a Jewish demographic majority in a land that is not demographically majority Jewish.
So what do they have to do?
They have to ethnically cleanse and massacre every single non-Jew in order to establish first right, first-rate citizenship for Jewish people.
And that's abominable.
That's deplorable.
It shouldn't have no place in modern society, and we should reject it and rebuke it and detest it outright.
That was good opening statements.
Tate, what do you want to say on this before we go into our first kind of topic?
Yeah, I mean, well, I mean, fundamentally, my position is America First, not America only.
I mean, obviously, American foreign policy is to be realistic.
You're going to engage with other powers.
I mean, there is, yeah, there is a moral concern, obviously, with Israel's actions and the region, broadly speaking.
But then there also is, I mean, a case to be made for a Jewish state, right?
I mean, after the circumstances of the 20th century.
unidentified
So, yeah, I mean, I understand the case both ways, but I do agree that I don't think people's opinion is turning on Israel purely because of propaganda.
I do think their actions in the region are a bit concerning, and specifically the United States, I think, to some degree is in violation of our America First policy of the Trump administration.
You know, like Jewish people are obviously very talented.
They're very smart.
They're very successful.
But when they tell me that they accidentally bombed a church or that they accidentally bombed a hospital on live TV, I just think that they're too smart and too talented to make those mistakes.
So for me, why I'm starting to, I guess, get not radicalized against Israel.
I support Israel's right, obviously.
But I'm just getting very frustrated because every single thing that we see on TV or on the internet makes it almost impossible to defend.
So I'm happy that we're having this conversation.
So the first thing that I want to talk about, and you brought it up, Rathbone, is that, and Misfit, I want to get your opinion.
Benjamin Netanyahu is considered by the UN to be a war criminal.
So why does the UN have a different opinion of him than Donald Trump?
And how guilty is he if they think he's a war criminal and obviously America doesn't?
The fact that Israel has socially engineered it to be a rump state, basically, without an administrating force or an administrating body is not a point in your favor.
Does America, the number one superpower in the world, recognize Palestine as a country?
unidentified
the united states does not okay so you can say that some person recognizes it and you can say that some person no no no no you don't Don't say some person.
We're talking about, remember, let's go back to the UN.
All right, hold on, no, no, no, no.
191 countries recognize that Palestine is a country.
Because if you throw leaflets down and tell people, get the fuck out of there, if you drop more bombs than you kill civilians, then that's not a genocide.
unidentified
If you're vaccinating the same people that you're trying to, genocide.
The IDF has internally reported that at least 83% of the people that are killed in Gaza are civilians and not combatants.
unidentified
Excuse me.
This has been admitted by Israeli officials who have made public statements that have acknowledged that, yes, they are committed to wholesale destruction of the Gaza Strip.
When the U.S. and the Royal Air Force bombed Hamburg, Germany, specifically targeting civilian areas in order to break the Nazi regime, 9,000 tons of bombs were dropped, right?
It demoralized the Germans because when you were in a war, when you are in a war, the way you solve a war is you make it untenable for the other side to continue.
That's the untenable.
unidentified
If the thing that those people care about is their infrastructure, their buildings, their civilian population, whatever, that's what happens.
Is there a genocide going on in Ukraine, in Russia, or is that two fucking people fighting because one of them started a fucking war?
And this is what you fucking people don't understand.
And for me, that is so dumb to think that people in caves or, you know, literally in tunnels are running some strategic marketing campaign that is making Israel look bad.
But to that point, though, why won't Jordan, and this is, I guess, to you, Rathbone, I am of the opinion these people should get a free house somewhere, maybe in Jordan or Egypt.
And when you start wars with seven other countries, when you are belligerent and aggressive against everyone else in the region, people tend not to want to do business with you.
It's the same thing that happened in Saudi Arabia with Yemen.
They were embroiled in a civil war.
Saudi Arabia was bombing Yemen.
Yemen was actually retaliating against Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia wants to be a global hub for capitalism, wants to be a good trading partner for Western European countries and the United States.
And they can't do that when they're getting bombed.
And nobody wants to do business with people that are, you know, their investments aren't safe, you know?
Well, that's why it's a really, really good plan for Donald Trump to take over the Gaza Strip and turn it into some type of Abrahamic Accord-related hub of trade and currency.
Egypt doesn't want them because a lot of Palestinians are supporters of Hamas, right?
unidentified
And they need to go somewhere.
If you are Hamas or a supporter of Hamas, sorry, you have lost your right to be there.
So you're talking about the right to live.
You don't lose your right to.
You I would argue that well you I would argue that if you are if you are partaking in and kill all the Muslims If you are partaking in your regular kids, if you are a supporter of Hamas.
These people, not the Palestinians, all of them, but any supporter of Hamas wants to fucking wipe off the map, every single Jew, every single Israeli, every single Zionist.
unidentified
And when they're done, they want to come to America and do the same thing.
It is a radicalized ideology that hates everything about the West, hates everything about Christianity, hates everything about Judaism.
unidentified
They want to impose Sharia law all over the world, and they're doing a damn good job of it.
Because if you look at the UK, you look at the rape statistics in Germany, you look at everything going on in Europe right now, it's becoming a fucking problem.
So what I would say Israel has not only the right, but the duty to do is to make sure there is not a single Hamas member or a single Hamas supporter left in Israel, left in Gaza, left in the West Bank, left in anywhere fucking near them.
Well, I'd like to hear why isn't Hamas because everybody does.
unidentified
Because Hamas is an armed resistance group fighting against an occupying army.
How can you occupy your own country?
If Israel wasn't occupying the land of Palestine, creating and fomenting and fermenting in the soil of repression a radical extremist group, like you want to call it, a radical extremist.
When you sideline, fracture, marginalize every possible peaceful chance to reform and have ownership and control over your resources, your land and labor, which is your given right according to international law, then you are left with the only option, which is to violently resist.
unidentified
You think that's a good question.
And let me ask you this.
Let me ask you this.
If you think that Hamas is a terrorist organization, was the Jewish resistance in the Warsaw ghetto, were they terrorists when they tried to upset their Nazi oppressors.
Because that's the same exact material power defense.
That's the biggest false equivalency that I've ever seen.
You made it sound like the Hannibal Directive says, kill anybody you want for any reason, including civilians.
That's not what the Hannibal Directive is.
The Hannibal Directive is a directive that pretty much every military has, where if you have a soldier that's being taken captive, you can take out the soldier because let's say they have sensitive information.
Let's say they have military intelligence that you don't want to get.
And you don't want to give them leverage and negotiation.
That is not.
So the Hannibal Directive talking point is being parroted by people who don't know what it is.
Well, on October 7th, they instituted the Hannibal Directive and then they used Apache gunship helicopters.
unidentified
That's where that's slowed down.
You do have to admit that.
Real quick, guys, we're talking about this modern warfare where they're at a music festival.
So, Zach, I think that you would be very naive to think that if they're using a Black Hawk helicopter, that it would be very possible that a civilian could get hit.
But real quick, this is how we do know vaccines are safe and effective because one of the most successful ceasefires in Gaza was so that they could do a vaccine campaign for the Gaza.
So that's how you know Israel loves those vaccines are very safe and effective if they're giving them out free like that.
Go ahead.
unidentified
The Apache helicopter footage that you are referring to was from October 9th when they were shooting at Hamas terrorists.
They were not shooting at civilians.
They've been debunked.
They're not terrorists.
It's so wild that you are saying these people went into these kibbutzes in Israel and somehow still figured out a way to blame Israel, right?
It's like, oh my God, they killed civilians when they were attacked.
unidentified
It's like, okay, if Washington, D.C. had like, I don't know, thousands of terrorists that just came in and soldiers were freaking trying to shoot them and accidentally shot a civilian.
And then a year and a half later, you're like, can you believe our military shot an American?
Two hostages addressing Hamas captivity that said I was raped over and over again are lying.
We'll get to the rape, but let him respond.
You said that everybody that died that day is the fault of Hamas because they instituted Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.
They burst through the apartheid wall.
They attacked Israel.
That is not what international laws say.
That is not what universal humanitarian laws say.
Every, you know, you read the articles expressed in the UN Charter, it makes clear that reprisals born against an occupying army or an occupying force are the fault of the occupier ultimately because they created the conditions for a reprisal, for an act of resistance.
And that is indeed what you have between the Gaza Strip, between the Palestinians and between the Israelis.
So what you're saying is that if Nazis came into your home and took your home and hogtied you and put your family in the basement and said, okay, this is our home now.
I understand that there's the argument that if you, you know, if you go after terrorists, you create more terrorists, right?
And it's an argument that's predicated upon the fact that every conflict that we've, America and other nations have gotten into where you try to enact regime changes, they fail miserably because there's this, you know, resistance.
unidentified
They don't want to change.
They don't want to go under your new laws and your new rules.
And we don't, God forbid we try to fucking civilize you people.
Like, we've occupied, you know, that is our, we are the empire state here.
We are, we have been living in the past 50 to 80 years, we've been living in a, in a glow, in a unipolar moment, okay?
That's just in world history, that's just where we find ourselves.
unidentified
We've awakened in this time.
We have political consciousness in this moment where there has been a one world superpower for the past ever since post-World War II, ever since the end of World War II, we have demonstrated unparalleled world supremacy.
Like, look at a map, you know, pull up the map of the military bases that are that are in the Middle East right now.
They're ringing and dotting the entire region, okay?
You can't find an analog in the Western Hemisphere of Middle Easterners or any other, you know, culture or country that is posturing the same way in American, in the American sphere of influence, okay?
unidentified
Well, maybe like Minneapolis has a lot of, but it is different.
Like, we are the bullies that kind of start all this drama.
unidentified
But to your point, though, the Islamophobia, this thing, not all Muslims are bad, right?
I mean, of course not.
I mean, so when you label like every Muslim is a terrorist, I mean, I didn't label every Muslim.
I know, and I'm not even trying to get on you.
I just feel like that narrative, we've created that narrative, and that is kind of a propaganda war that every Muslim guy is trying to blow us up, which is obviously not true.
I think every Islamist is.
Every Islamist is trying to.
And, you know, the funny thing is, by the way, the answer to the question I asked you is it's over 60,000.
You think every single one of these instances, over 60,000 over the past 50 years that have been documented, whether you agree with the numbers or not, you think all of those are resistance.
But what Israel is doing right now, after we watched on Telegram what happened on October 7th, is not resistance.
Do you see the problem in your logic?
unidentified
I see the problem in your logic in not understanding that Israel, according to the world consensus, is the belligerent occupier ever since 1967, formally.
So 20 years, two decades before the creation of Hamas, there was the acquisition of territory that Israel occupied, subsequently settled.
Global terrorism data.
And that's two decades before the creation of Hamas.
So you have to ask yourself, and I know this is hard for you to have self-reflection, but in the 20 years since the war of acquisition in 1967, 1987, what was going on?
What was Israel doing that would have led to Palestinians feeling as though we need to engage in armed resistance against this occupying army, against this occupying force?
I just want to point out that the U.S. tried to establish a pier in Gaza to deliver aid, and they were constantly attacked and had to be dismantled under Biden.
unidentified
So Hamas or whatever groups in Palestine were not looking for help because the U.S. tried to deliver it.
And we had a civil war over the issue of slavery, right?
And some people thought they were right, and the other people thought they were right.
And they fucking killed each other.
And I think that it was necessary to end slavery.
I wouldn't say that the North and the South both didn't believe what they were doing is correct.
But I think that we can all agree that one side was right, one side was wrong, and the good guys won.
And this is no different.
This is no different.
This is you have the Palestinians, not the Palestinian people, not the Palestinian people, the Hamas supporting Palestinians, and you have the de facto government that they elected.
And this is why they don't have a right to any of these arguments of we're a territory, you're occupying.
Because the Palestinians got together like 20 years ago and they said, you know who we want to be our government?
They installed subcontractors to take on the duties of occupation and so that the Israelis could wash their hands clean and say, look, we're not really involved, even though they were very intimately involved.
unidentified
And that's been spelled out throughout the entire 90s.
And that led to the second intifada, which began peacefully.
It was a peaceful protest against the occupation forces.
And guess what happens?
According to the Israeli minister at the time who was involved in the Oslo Accords, Shlomo ben Ami, says that the IDF escalated the situation.
It was an authentic Palestinian struggle for self-determination.
The second intifada I'm talking about, you listening?
Okay.
2000, 2001, the second intifada began peacefully.
It was a peaceful protest against the occupying force.
And the finance minister, Shlomo ben Ami, or maybe he was the foreign minister, I forget.
He concluded that it began peacefully and it was an authentic Palestinian struggle for self-determination.
And it only escalated into an all-out war when the IDF started shooting them down after, you know, maybe a kid was throwing a rock or something, you know?
Okay.
You know, those rocks are really deadly.
The kid that threw the rock.
What about sandwich?
How many rockets fired into Israel on average?
You do not claim a moral right if that moral right traces back to an illegal wrong.
Even those institutions that gave Israel the international birth certificate in 1948, even those institutions condemn Israel ever since 1967.
That's why my argument goes back to 1967 formally.
But not 1948.
Well, it does for me, yes.
It does go back to 1948.
In fact, it goes back to 1917.
It goes back to the 1890s ever since Jewish immigration to Palestine by the Zionists started.
Okay, so let's go.
This argument is right.
Theodore Hersel's vision for a modern state of Israel where Jews have a right to live in peace and exist in that particular location, which was not his formula.
It wasn't even really part of the original plan to be.
If you read Theodore Herzl's diary, he makes clear that he knew that they would have to dispossess and spirit, quote, spirit the penniless population of the territory to come over to our sides.
After we've dispossessed and taken their lands and resettled it, we're going to give them breadcrumbs to make sure that they're going to be copacetic to the whole situation.
But let's look, they knew they did dispossession and depriving of these land, resources, and labor of these indigenous peoples was always part of the plan.
That's the formulation of Zionism at the beginning.
Okay, but let's just at least agree on the point that Israel was created.
And whether you agree with it or not, it was created.
It's a nation, right?
And then there was a dispute over a nation that is there was this dispute over who gets what.
A lot of deals were turned down by the Palestinians and they were offered this territory and that territory and they said no, no, no.
And they started war after war after war after war.
The fact that there is an illegal blockade, Bronze Age siege warfare instituted against the Gaza Strip on part by the Israelis.
Yes, they've had to construct tunnels underneath the ground because, you know, apparently Israelis expect Palestinians to just stand on the surface while we bomb you.
unidentified
Do they put the Gaza people in the tunnel?
They've destroyed every single fucking building.
Are the Gazan people in 2014?
Are the Gazan civilians allowed to go in those tunnels and protect themselves from Israeli bombs?
Are Gazan civilians allowed to go under into tunnels?
Do you think people just want to build tunnels to be underground?
unidentified
You think people want to go hide underneath?
That's my question to you.
Because they're being bombed here.
Hold on.
You said why the tunnels are being built.
What were the tunnels built for?
And it's not food.
Yes, they were.
Actually, Sarah Roy, a Harvard economist, has studied this extensively going back to the 90s.
And she, as well as a plethora of other economists, have determined that the 90% of all of the tunnels that go into Gaza and come out of Gaza were created post-2005, which means that after Israel imposed the harsh blockade, yes, predictably, and after they committed these operations, these terrorist operations in the Gaza Strip where they demolished the entire strip.
Yes, they created more tunnels to circumvent the Israeli occupation.
Because you go underground and then that way you can smuggle in shit that you need to have a society because it's being deprived.
unidentified
You mean like bombs?
No, I don't mean like bombs, actually, because most of the shit, like I just said, that went into Rafah from Egypt was food, clothing, construction materials, you need to have an actual fucking society because if you don't have buildings, you can't organize.
You have infrastructure.
Since 2005, when they started building the tunnels, there has been a grand total of 32,330 rockets and mortars fired towards Israel.
Well, I understand that, but it's like a lot of those bombs, I mean, I don't know how big of a...
unidentified
Yeah, but just because they're bad at it doesn't mean that it's fucking...
No, it's the foreign countries that they're actually afraid of.
It's not really God.
Alex is right.
There's studies done on this.
There's documented evidence that shows that an overwhelming majority of the rockets that are fired into the green zone, the green line in Israel, are glorified bottle rockets.
And they're counted as if they are, oh, it's another rocket.
Oh, we're under attack.
And it's a way of showing how good the Iron Dome is.
Yeah, but it's really not exactly.
So your argument is they build shitty rockets and fire them at Israel.
Yeah, because they don't have a military.
But they're deprived of the people who are called Hamas.
They are deprived of having any, show me a military base.
Where's their military base?
Where's their navy?
Where's their army?
Exactly.
Where is their military?
They're embedded into the civilian circle, which is why Gaza looks like Hiroshima.
It's because of what now?
Their military base is any fucking house they want.
It's hospitals.
So the heads of the city.
It's Moss.
It's on the Mossad, which the Kirlig compound or whatever it's called in downtown Tel Aviv.
We can just bomb downtown Tel Aviv since there's a Mossad building there.
So let's say there was a resist, according to you, a resistance force, right?
A resistance force that was in Detroit that was firing rockets at their neighbors, you know, like outer Detroit, whatever.
And we were saying, okay, these people are literally embedding themselves in downtown Detroit, and they're constantly firing rockets out, and they're hiding among civilians, and we can't do anything about it.
Well, I mean, it's just, we're talking about like dispensationalism, right?
unidentified
And I think it's fair to say that dispensationalism, which is a sort of modern, modern view, a modern way to view the Bible, has completely guided our foreign policy over the last 70, 80 years.
And now you are seeing pushback from Christians, specifically Catholics and Reformed Protestants against sort of this dispensational view of the Bible.
And I think you are seeing, that's why you're seeing sort of a shift of Christians not supporting Israel on theological grounds anymore.
You can support the people of Israel, which I believe are the ones that fall under the Abrahamic covenant, which is the Jews, the people of the Jewish faith, right?
Not secular Jews, not this nation-state of Israel.
unidentified
That's more where I come from from my arguments on it.
But, you know, you talk about dispensationalism and how the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church don't really align with the modern Zionism.
And I think that you would be right.
It's not as big of a percentage as I think a lot of people are inflating it to be.
But the Second Vatican Council Declaration, Anosra Teit, affirms God's covenant with the Jewish people has never been revoked.
And official Catholic teaching holds the old covenant retains its value and that the Jewish people remain most dear to God.
So modern Catholic documents reaffirm that the abrogationist supersessionism, the view that Christianity has replaced Judaism entirely lacks foundational Catholic doctrine.
Well, it's not a replacement, but I believe, I mean, I'm a reformed Protestant, but the catechism of the Catholic Church does hold the view that, like in the Pauline letters, like in Galatians, where the promises made to Abraham were fulfilled in Christ.
unidentified
That's the new covenant.
And the argument that I would make, which is the, I guess you could call it the dispensationalist argument, it's not really, but you know what I'm saying, is under the Abrahamic covenant, it's an everlasting covenant, right?
And if God is omnipotent, doesn't make mistakes, then he can't create an everlasting covenant that would have an end date, right?
Right.
So, and it wouldn't transfer because if it would transfer, then they wouldn't have to create the new covenant.
It would just be the same covenant.
It is the same covenant.
It's the overarching covenant of grace.
But why would it be called the new covenant?
Because it's still the same covenant between God and his people.
And I know this isn't necessarily Israel-Palestine, but doesn't it frustrate you when you see this guy, Tom Alexander, who's a cybersecurity executive for Benjamin Netanyahu, gets caught in a pedophile staying?
And, you know, I'm not even really mad that they extradited him.
I know you and I see it a lot on Twitter, but you're not seeing it to a level that if this was a Russian cybersecurity, if this was a Palestinian cybersecurity directive, if this was a cybersecurity directive for basically any other country, it would have been you couldn't have not heard about it.
unidentified
But instead, you have people like me, you know, that don't have that many followers and smaller accounts sharing this.
Don't you think it's kind of weird that stuff like that happens and it's not a bigger story?
I like it when things are covered evenly and equally, right?
They're covering, if they were to cover only him and leave out the fact that a pastor was also arrested in that sting, right?
So, the argument that the pastor didn't work for Billy Grant, he wasn't a Joel Olstein's pastor.
I mean, but the argument that I'm seeing online, and I know that this is kind of separate from the media coverage, which I think should they should cover it.
He is technically allowed to leave if the judge didn't give him a restriction, which that was the case.
But I'm just saying.
Here's when you'll hear me go and like full send on agreement with all these other people.
If he does not come back for his trial and Israel does not extradite him, then you'll hear me make an argument that that's absolutely fucking bullshit.
Get him back here now or we'll have a problem with Israel.
The DA Sigal Chada, you know, she said it was not her.
It was a judge.
No, it wasn't her.
It's a federal case and she kicked it down and then blamed them for their mishandling of it.
But it seems pretty.
Yeah, but if she had to do it.
There was something weird with that.
But at the same time, though, because that was, I know it's a felony, but it's not actually that uncommon for them to make it a state case and not a federal case, you know, unless they had a ton of evidence.
I mean, I'm not, you know, in fact, if she would, if she were to take it, it would have been.
I think that if the DA actually did put her finger on it, then that actually would have looked worse because then it would have been like maybe a conflict.
unidentified
That's why I think that she was like, listen, I don't want anything to do with it.
You know, kick it out of the state.
It could have been a conflict of interest.
So a liberal judge let him go, but he also let everyone else go.
Everybody else got it.
I'm just more mad that the media coverage doesn't talk about it because I think, you know, Israel should make a statement too.
Well, no, I was just actually the thing I was, I just thought the whole story about the Tom Alexandrovich and his extradition, wasn't he in Las Vegas for a cybersecurity conference?
For a cybersecurity conference, he's like the head of cybersecurity.
And that's why on social media, the propaganda war, Israel's losing so bad, because people are like, shit, like, I want to talk about this and I don't have any outlets.
unidentified
So I think that's why the woke right, and that's why I want to kind of get to the woke right.
Again, I don't side with them, but I think that they're right in that particular.
Like we're really more in the middle.
And there's obviously some, like I'm more conservative, but I do think we should have socialized health care or caps or something to make healthcare more affordable.
I think they're imperial neocons and they like imperialism and they like to do all these things, but I think they see with Israel, and it's true, Israel is an albatross around our neck.
They're a liability.
They're a $3 billion money pit every year.
That's a small amount.
If we talk about the $3 billion, isn't that kind of small potatoes in relation to what we give other countries and stuff?
I mean, are they the number one?
I think Jordan Egypt's number two, but we give them like $2 billion.
Well, it's funny that you bring up World War II because America actually didn't get into that conflict until after Pearl Harbor and they tried whatever they could to not get involved in the world.
unidentified
That is a very good point because I'm seeing a lot of isolationists and a lot of nationalists who are saying like are anti-interventionists who are saying like, oh, we should go back to that, that mentality.
I think that there's a happy medium between isolationism and interventionism where you just take only the necessary steps to stop evil that's happening.
unidentified
Because if it's going to affect us, if you're America first, you should be looking at who are our enemies, who are our threats, and how do we stop that threat.
And I think I would make the argument that Hitler was a threat to the Jews, but he was also a threat to America.
I think economic systems drive military and political events.
It all stems back to the economy that we have.
unidentified
And you know, for example, the reason that Israel is allowed to do what it's allowed to do is because the people in power are benefiting from it economically.
Yeah, because again, Israel under international law and according to international institutions which are administering international law, Israel is an occupying force where you can cope and brood and seethe about it all you want, but that's the truth.
unidentified
But there is something to be said, too, is like, I do think, I disagree with the characterization that American foreign policy is strictly, I mean, not strictly, but largely driven by economic, because you can look at like our embargo of South Africa, for example.
It would be extremely beneficial for the American elite to have the arrangement that they had in South Africa because of mineral extraction, direct access, and that sort of thing.
And then they place an embargo because of ideology, right?
I think of it like there's the economic base and then there's the superstructure of culture, social, political life, and ideas.
And the economic base gives life to all society, politics, culture, and influences it greatly.
However, there are times when you can see that culture also influences the economic base.
I think I'm just making a broad thesis here by saying that economic systems, generally speaking, drive foreign policy, drive military and political events.
I think you'd have to say that every government has a little religious influence and every religion has a little political influence.
So, you know, there is a lot of people.
Because you look at the global war on terror, for example.
I don't think it's a fair characterization people reduce it just down to oil.
there was obviously sort of a bullshit the oil I mean we had some but that Trump said where's the oil And it's all very salient.
unidentified
Where's the weapons of the world?
We have more petroleum, oil, and gas in Pennsylvania than they have.
Let's take Henry Kissinger at his word when he said that to control people, you got to control their food.
And if you want to control countries, you've got to control their oil.
And that's empires do empire shit.
Empires plan accordingly.
The United States is an empire.
It has sought, ever since the 1950s, the State Department, Dwight D. Eisenhower, were salivating over the Arabian Peninsula, which had the largest oil reserves in the entire earth, in the entire world, and it was classified as the greatest material prize in world history.
That's from the State Department memo in the 1950s.
So, you know, and then policy planners came along after that, and they instituted policies to where they could break up Arab indigenous nationalism in that region.
Because if we have their hand on the spigot, then we can control these countries.
And we can, it's another lever of geopolitical strategic power.
But would you also agree that if there is a perceived threat, then a nation has a duty to, I guess you could say, engage in conflict to prevent that threat from happening?
Sure.
I mean, so the argument that I would make against you is some, not all, some of the interventionism that we do is just like your argument that you think like, oh, well, Israel is occupying Hamas, so Hamas is resistant.
You can say America is just a resistance force that's fighting another evil force that's going to be a threat to our sovereignty.
unidentified
Where is America being threatened by its contiguous, at its contiguous border?
Well, let's go with Operation Midnight Hammer.
You have Iran, you have the Ayatollah, who's, I would say that it's pretty widely agreed upon that they don't view us very favorably, and they are enriching uranium way past the point of civilian use.
And they have these, you know, like these facilities that are that are, you know, I would say brother producers.
They're living in the nuclear age and nuclear energy is just, it can be for civilian use.
It doesn't necessarily be available.
But it's at 20% 20% or something like that.
This is funny that I love that you want to bring up Iran because there's only one country that is in violation of the non-proliferation treaty and that's Israel.
I would say Iran is a part of the subordinate aspect between the principal contradiction of imperial capitalism versus indigenous nationalism in the region of the Middle East.
unidentified
There is no analog that you can say Iranians are posturing in the Western Hemisphere the way that the United States is posturing that you think is a terrorist group?
I want to say all my Persian friends and Iranian friends are actually pretty laid back.
Actually, the quality of life has gotten much worse in Libya.
And now they have slaves.
And there was a short time ago with Gaddafi.
They didn't have slavery.
So, I mean, that regime change was worse for the people of Libya, probably better for us.
I think there's one theme playing out across the world, and that is when indigenous people living in wherever, when they try to appropriate their land, their resources, and labor for themselves, and it is antithetical to American capital accumulation, then they deserve to be either bombed, starved.
Like there was like it's it's to say supremacy and then have a country that has a very diverse group of people throughout their government, throughout their population.
It doesn't job.
Well, actually, you bring up a good point because we talk about World War II a lot and you hear now this, you know, constantly talk about the Holocaust.
And then you have people like even me for being a little critical of Israel.
They might, you know, consider me a Nazi, even though I'm not.
But a friend of mine, Jake Shields, he has CTE, but they call him a Nazi.
But this is where I get this is where it gets really frustrating for me because if you actually look at World War II and you look at the thing called Operation Paperclip, that is where we actually took the top Nazi spies and some of the top Nazi soldiers.
unidentified
And Warner von Braun was a rocket scientist that used rockets to decimate Poland, was an actual Nazi, card carrying, worked for Hitler.
I think that people are, I think that there's a lot of jealousy and resentment over the success of the Jewish people, despite the fact that there has been several extermination events against them historically.
unidentified
And I think that that's where a lot of this leads.
It comes.
Could it be because they tried to exterminate you and now you feel it's okay to try to exterminate somebody else?
I'm saying because the Jews were systematically exterminated by Nazis, maybe they feel like it's okay to do it to somebody else because they were a victim of it.
unidentified
It's kind of like, and I'm not trying to compare into pedophiles, but a lot of people that are pedophiles were actually sexually abused as a child.
So they don't feel like it's okay because they were victims of it.
He is going to be back, so you don't have to look at me and Tate's ugly faces.
unidentified
Well, Tate's handsome.
But guys, this has been a spirited debate.
I've learned a little, not a lot, but I've had a fun time.
And before we wrap things up, I kind of just wanted to play this clip to kind of get your opinion of this.
So this is a TikTok.
We don't have to watch the whole thing, but I thought this is very interesting.
So he's great.
Why won't your organization engage in peace talks with the Israelis?
You don't mean exactly peace talks, you mean capitulation, surrendering.
Why not just talk?
Talk to whom?
Talk to the Israeli leaders.
That's kind of conversation between the sword and the neck, you mean?
Well, if there were no swords and no guns in the room, you could still talk.
No, I haven't been, I had never seen any talk between a colonialist case and a national liberation movement.
But despite this, why not talk?
Talk about what?
Talk about the possibility of not fighting.
Not fighting for what?
Not fighting at all, no matter what for.
Yeah, people usually fight for something and they stop fighting for something.
So you can't tell me even why should we speak about what?
Well, stop fighting.
Or talk about stop fighting.
Why?
Talk to stop fighting to stop the death and the misery, the destruction, the pain.
The misery and the destruction and the pain and the death of whom?
Of Palestinians, of Israelis, of Arabs.
Of the Palestinian people who are uprooted, thrown in the camps, living in starvation, killed for 20 years, and forbidden to use even the name Palestinians.
They're better that way than dead, though.
Maybe to you, but to us, it's not.
To us, to liberate our country, to have dignity, to have respect, to have our mere human rights is something as essential as life itself.
So that's a pretty strong statement saying that, you know, they're willing to die for this.
And, you know, that's in the 1950s.
And it's still going on.
And I would say that it's even worse now than then.
So, I mean, are you, can you be empathetic at all, though, when you see that guy, you know, being occupied by a foreign country?
Well, either way, when you're saying, okay, they can make a mistake.
We don't view it as genocide.
We don't hyperfixate it on it.
We don't call it the worst atrocity that's ever happened in this war.
And the reason you don't do that is because Russia's the one who invaded Ukraine, right?
And they are fighting however they feel necessary, and the mistakes are going to be made.
So if you're arguing that there's never a mistake in a war and that wasn't a mistake on the USS Liberty, it was.
They agreed to it.
They acknowledged it.
They apologized for it.
I don't understand what the fucking hype.
They said they were sorry, guys.
Yeah, this guy is extremely based, and he's saying there is no point in talking at this point because I want to remind you all that the Balfour Declaration was made in 1917.
And when Palestinians got wind of what was, they were going to be ethnically cleansed by the British Empire at the behest of the Zionist movement, they did everything that they possibly could to plead to the British Empire to safeguard their rights as humans, as indigenous people in living on that land.
it absolutely is but you were speaking earlier about the i'm sorry to go theology again but like the old covenant in genesis where he promises the land from the great river of egypt to what the Yeah, the Euphrates.
unidentified
So there is an expansion that's built into the...
The ideology.
Yeah, and I mean, look, I would make the argument that if they wanted to, they would kind of have a claim to it.
And every argument that's been made by Andrew can be pushed, can be turned back on him by saying that if you actually go the theological argument, then they are the original inhabitants.
unidentified
They are the indigenous people and they are being occupied.
Therefore, everything they are doing is resistance against the Palestinians.
And you can literally tie their lineage all the way back way before 1948, way before 1967, way before 1920, way before 1900s, way before any of this conflict even started in the modern nation state.
I think they are incrementally trying to get bigger.
unidentified
I would say the Muslim countries that have expanded over the past 80 years has been exponentially greater than Israel's even if the biggest one was the Ottoman Empire and they got chopped down to size.
I believe that the two-state solution is a euphemism for Israeli incremental expansionism.
The same thing goes for the peace process and the path to peace, which has been the predominant narrative according to the United States and Israelis.
And I believe in one state named Palestine that has equal rights for all, regardless of religion, creed, ethnicity.
Just like, you know, supposedly how we believe the United States should be.
I don't believe that there should be this weird inbred death cult of people that claim that they are better than other ethnic or social groups based on their religious ideology.
So based on your own logic, okay, Palestine shouldn't exist because you just said that any state that commits crimes against humanity should not exist.
And October 7th was a crime against humanity.
My opponent here wasn't even able to acknowledge the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization.
Anyone that can't do that shouldn't be taken seriously, right?
But again, if you just go back to one day where a group of people filmed themselves committing the worst atrocities we have seen since the fucking Holocaust, then you lose this debate on its face just from that one point.
But you've also lost a debate on many other points, right?
You said that if genocide is bad, or you say genocide is bad, then you ignore the fact that the people that are living in the region that you think should be a full state have fired thousands and thousands of rockets into another state trying to kill people based off of their ethnicity, based off of their religion, based off of the fact that they are Israeli.
That is attempted genocide.
And just because they're bad at it doesn't mean that they are not doing it.
Okay.
There is a charge against people called attempted murder and murder.
Okay.
So they are attempting a genocide over and over and over again.
And again, if you say people that do that shouldn't exist, then by your own logic, they shouldn't exist.
And finally, you say that you want a place called Palestine that has equal rights.
They will throw you off of a fucking rooftop if one is left.
And that's if you're gay, if you're a woman that has a fifth grade reading level or higher, if you are a Christian, if you are a Jew, if you are anything other than a Sharia practicing Muslim.
So, you know, every argument that you've made in this entire debate can be labeled, can be leveled right against the people that you're defending.
So, yeah, on that note, I guess thanks for coming, but here's your L. Wow.
