Dinesh D’Souza reframes anti-Semitism as a cosmic envy rooted in Jews’ divine role, not just success, critiquing secular narratives and Robert Kraft’s Super Bowl ad while linking modern hostility to radical Islam and states like Iran. Economist Peter Earle warns inflation erodes purchasing power, advocating gold as a hedge, while Ambassador Mike Huckabee defends Israel’s proportional Gaza response—comparing Hamas’ civilian exploitation to WWII tactics—and dismisses Netanyahu conspiracy theories, emphasizing shared U.S.-Israel interests against totalitarianism. The episode blends theology (3,800-year Jewish land claims), economics ($3.8B U.S. aid funding defense jobs and F-35s), and political strategy, concluding that anti-Semitism’s persistence demands deeper analysis than surface-level critiques. [Automatically generated summary]
They see themselves as champions of truth, reality, combatants against censorship and political correctness.
They rightly say the charge of anti-Semitism has been misused, overused, abused.
From their perspective, anti-Semitism is a meaningless term because it simply means you don't like Jews or you don't like Israel or you don't like what the Israeli government is doing currently.
In a long career spanning 30 years, I'm tackling this topic for the first time.
I made a film about Israel, The Dragon's Prophecy, which connects politics to the Bible.
It inspired me to think hard about these topics, not because I'm obsessed, but because our country has an important choice to make between Israel and radical Islam.
America first sometimes means you have to choose your friends.
You don't get to choose your enemies.
They choose you.
A couple of weeks ago, I spoke at the second annual international conference on combating anti-Semitism.
Incidentally, for those of you who care about such things, I spoke for free.
My usual speaking fee is pretty hefty, but I did this one for nothing.
And so if you're wondering, Eh Dinosh, where's your $7,000?
My answer is, I didn't get a penny.
This trip cost me money.
And this is not typically my issue, but the Minister of Culture, Amihai Chikli, made a video urging me to come.
He convinced me it was important to have a candid Christian perspective.
And so I went.
Now, for a whole day, I listened to people say, they hate us because we're Jews, or they hate us because we're Jewish.
So I began my talk.
It was really a conversation with a top Israeli podcaster, Gaddi Taub, by challenging this premise.
I thought we would open here since there's been discussion here of anti-Semitism in general by differentiating left anti-Semitism and right anti-Semitism.
One version was that these are two almost symmetric parallel phenomenon, and there are those who are saying it's an entirely different thing.
How would you define them?
I think for me, the phenomenon of anti-Semitism is very tricky because it is conventionally defined as a hatred of the Jews for being Jews.
I don't know how much that explains of a phenomenon.
Let me give a thought experiment.
If we were to take Israel, move it out of the region, and take another country, let's say India, and move it exactly into the spot where Israel is now.
It will be a little tight.
A little tight.
But let's say you took a small group of Indians and you moved them here.
And then there was all this, and the Indians were pro-American, and the Indians saw themselves as Western.
And you get this torrent of Islamic hostility, all targeting this little India sitting right now in the Middle East.
And the Indians said, we're being hated because we're Indian.
Well, no.
You're being hated because of your position.
You're being hated because of your allies.
You're being hated because of who you represent.
You're being hated because of the inferiority complex of the people around you.
So my point is, I think it is better to understand the phenomenon in this kind of larger context.
What are the factors?
By the way, some of them secular.
I think Ambassador Huckabee touched on something that has not been a big theme in this conference.
And that is the, I'll call it the transcendental motive of anti-Semitism.
After my talk, I spoke to a friend of mine, an Israeli guy named Doran Spielman.
I met him through my interest in biblical archaeology.
Doran hadn't heard my talk, so I summarized it for him.
And he said, you said that at the conference?
I said, yeah.
He said, wow.
Then he said, fighting anti-Semitism has become a huge industry.
It's the biggest thing in Judaism.
The secular Jews love it.
It gives them a cause.
It's a unifying banner for both the religious and the secular Jews.
But I don't like it because of what it replaces.
And so I said, what do you mean?
Replaces what?
He said, Judaism.
It replaces Judaism.
So now it's my turn to say, wow, Judaism itself gets displaced by this ideological project to protect Jews from those who are against them, supposedly, quote, because they are Jews.
Now, we're truly in la-la land here.
Fighting anti-Semitism has become an industry, but there's another industry that's forming in this country.
It's the anti-anti-Semitism industry.
It's CEO, Tucker Carlson, Director of Public Relations, Candace Owens, press secretary, Dave Smith.
Nick Fuentes is sort of the black sheep of this group with no official position.
Now, both industries are fraudulent.
The first group is fighting an imaginary phantom.
The second group is fighting its own imaginary phantom.
We need to return to base camp to come down to earth to avoid the errors of both groups.
This is not a debate about canceling anyone.
When I post on social media about Tucker, some people say, leave Tucker alone.
Don't try to cancel him.
I'm not trying to cancel him.
Now, some people are.
I'm not.
The cancelers will say, he's against us because we're Jewish.
But that is not Tucker's motivation.
It's not Nick Fuentes' motivation.
I don't even think Nick Fuentes is a real Nazi.
Some people will be surprised to hear me say this, but I debated Nick.
I got to see him up close.
Nick is a performance artist.
He wants to be the edgy man's edgy man.
He wants to occupy the farthest position on the spectrum.
He wants to grow his following.
So here's a thought experiment: line up some Jews, give Nick a pistol.
You think Nick will go ahead and shoot them?
No.
A real Nazi would do that.
As I said, Nick is not a real Nazi.
He's a guy who plays a Nazi on TV.
It's very hard for some Jews to understand that when they hear Nick say what he says, but it's the truth.
My problem with Tucker and the anti-anti-Semitism camp is that they give no reasons for their positions.
Where's the proof that Israel is running American politics?
Where's the proof that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but rather a political group like the Labor Party?
Where's the proof that Christians fare better in the Muslim Middle East than in Israel?
We've heard a lot of insinuation.
We've heard from the nun with the mustache, but where's the actual evidence for these positions?
Let's begin at the beginning.
What is anti-Semitism?
Now, I define it this way: anti-Semitism is hostility to Jews based on applying a moral standard to them that you don't apply to anyone else.
That's it.
Very simple definition.
It doesn't try to look inside people's heads.
It's an objective standard that examines what people actually say.
Is Tucker Carlson an anti-Semite?
Well, let's see.
I interviewed the Israeli prime minister, Netanyahu, for my film, The Dragon's Prophecy.
I posed to him Tucker's question: Are the Jews of today the descendants of the Jews of the Bible?
He answered it and did a bit of a dunk on Tucker.
So when I got ready to post that clip on social media, I thought, let me send it to Tucker so he doesn't feel blindsided.
So I sent it to Tucker.
I told him, hey, look, I asked the prime minister of Israel your question.
Tucker's reply was really weird.
He said, in effect, why are you calling me an anti-Semite?
He attached a study which purported to show that Jews today are only 60% or 65% genetically linked to the Jews of ancient times.
Now, here's the point: Tucker is doing something with Jews that he would not dare to do with other groups.
Imagine posting a genetic study showing that blacks in America are 60 or 65% related to blacks in Africa.
Imagine saying to blacks, you're not really black, you're not really from Africa because you have only 60% of 65% of African genes.
Tucker would never do that.
He'd be destroyed if he did that.
So, Tucker satisfies the definition I gave earlier.
He's applying to Jews a standard that he doesn't apply across the board.
Does that make Tucker an anti-Semite?
Well, you decide.
I'm more interested in understanding the phenomenon.
Antisemitism is often lumped in with racism, but the two are quite different.
Racism involves looking down on someone.
You're inferior.
Antisemitism involves looking down in a sense, but it also involves looking up.
Why up?
Because Jews are the most successful tribe in human history.
They are one of a group of successful tribes.
Many years ago, Joel Kotkin wrote a book about this.
It was called Tribes.
Thomas Soule has also covered this topic quite extensively.
And what Kotkin and Soule show is that there are many successful tribes.
The Mormons, the Jews, the overseas Chinese, the overseas Indians, the Episcopalians, these tribes do disproportionately well wherever they are, and their success draws hostility from the people around them.
This is envy, and it's the first important motive for anti-Semitism.
But it's not the only motive, and perhaps it's not even the most important motive.
In my talk in Israel, I raised a second motive, which I call the transcendental motive.
I raised it in connection with Milton's Paradise Lost.
There's a scene in Milton's Paradise Lost where Satan is observing for the first time Adam and Eve.
And he notices that they're extremely beautiful, and he feels this hatred of them because of how beautiful they are.
This is envy.
And this is, in fact, I think, an important motive of anti-Semitism.
It's maybe the most powerful secular motive that you can give.
And yet, there's a second thing going on, and that is that Satan is in a campaign against God, but he can't overthrow God.
And so he needs to go to plan B.
And plan B is to find the things that God cares about and ruin them.
So Adam and Eve have done nothing to Satan, but Satan's malice against them is a revenge scheme against the Creator himself.
Apply this logic now to the Jews.
There is the motive of envy, which I mentioned, but the Jews have also been God's chosen people, the mechanism by which you can say the moral law is transmitted to the world through the Jews.
And if you believe that there is a world behind the world, and if you believe that there is a cosmic battle between good and evil that rages in the world, then it is not out of the question that what we are seeing in anti-Semitism is truly a kind of scheme by none other than the devil himself to torment the Jews as a form of revenge against God.
This would also extend to some degree to the Christians for the same reason.
So now you see why many Jews, secular Jews, don't understand anti-Semitism.
They are blind to the religious or transcendental root of it.
They can only grasp the secular motive, the motive of envy, and quite clearly that motive is insufficient.
It cannot explain why anti-Semitism has been so universal, has shown itself in pretty much all periods of history.
Jews haven't always been the most successful group, so the envy motive doesn't apply in all places at all times.
But Satan, the devil, has been working against the Jews everywhere all the time.
The transcendental motive has a much greater explanatory power.
As a Christian, my real reason for being against anti-Semitism is that it's part of Satan's agenda.
And who's the main instrument for carrying out Satan's agenda today?
The radical Muslims.
They are the problem, not the Jews.
Iran, Turkey, Qatar, these are the countries we have to watch out for, not Israel.
We shouldn't be anti-Semites because that's not Christian.
It's not America first.
Instead, we should be Islamophobes because Islam is what's inspiring the radical Muslims, and Islamophobes are the ones most alert to the satanic project to destroy Christianity and America and the West.
And that's how I see it.
Gold's Role in Inflation00:03:44
Peter Earle is an economist and senior fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research.
Peter, let me ask you, inflation seems to be like a feature of our economy.
It's sometimes high, it's sometimes low, but we always have it.
Why is this?
And how does inflation rob our money of its value?
Sure.
Well, inflation persists because modern monetary systems are built around central banks like the Fed, and those banks are constantly expanding the supply of money.
That enables government spending and it creates more money.
And as governments run budget deficits and banks extend new loans, central banks try to keep that going by providing liquidity.
So even when inflation is considered low, it's rarely zero.
And over time, that matters.
As more dollars chase the same number of goods and services, it doesn't hit like a tax bill, but it slowly erodes our money's purchasing power.
And that's what happens.
Now, people are so used to this, but it wasn't always the case.
If we look back, for example, to the 19th century, which was the era of the gold standard, we see that, for example, a house in 1900 didn't cost a whole lot more than a century earlier in 1800.
What does this tell us about the gold standard?
Yeah, that's true.
The long run, price stability that we see throughout U.S. economic history reflects the discipline that's imposed by tying money to a physical commodity.
In this case, in the U.S., gold and silver.
Gold can't be created on demand like paper.
It has to be found, has to be mined, has to be processed and minted, then circulated, and that limits how much money can grow over a period of time.
And so with more stable prices, households and businesses were able to plan for years ahead, even decades in the future, because they would have confidence about what their money could buy.
Peter, if we look at gold today, some people would say, well, gold doesn't do anything.
It doesn't generate income of any sort.
You just kind of hold it.
So, and yet gold has gone up dramatically in price.
It was under $50 in 1971.
It's around, what, $4,000 today?
How do you explain this?
So the recent rise in gold is less about gold becoming more valuable than it is about dollars and money more generally becoming less scarce.
Since 1971, the U.S. dollar has been only backed by institutional credibility as exposed to being convertible to a physical asset.
And since 1971, the U.S. dollar has lost purchasing power as the Fed has expanded the supply of money more and more.
The recent surge in the price of gold reflects a lot of concerns about inflation, which hit levels not seen in four decades, just a few years ago, and about the U.S. having $38 trillion in public debt.
And so for that reason, gold's price history is a record not only of investor demand, but of currency dilution and worry as well.
If we look at 2026, what role should gold, precious metals, play in an individual's portfolio or their plans for the future?
Well, precious metals serve a useful role because they behave differently from conventional financial assets.
They aren't claims on earnings.
They don't have cash flows.
They don't make any government promises or deliver any.
But gold's independence is very important, especially during periods of inflation, financial stress, or policy uncertainty.
Precious metals help preserve purchasing power and they reduce portfolio vulnerability.
So, I mean, they don't work really as a substitute, and they should be a substitute, but rather they bring balance.
Vestious metals work as a complement to stocks and bonds.
Preventing Civilian Deaths00:15:18
That is a replacement for them.
Guys, I want to tell you that I buy my gold from Goldco.
They are the best company to do it, and they have a 2026 gold and silver guide they would like to send you.
It's very easy to get it.
Go to dineshgold.com.
That's dineshgold.com.
Peter, thank you very much for joining me.
Thank you for having me.
I'm here with Ambassador Huckabee, Mike Huckabee.
He is the U.S. Ambassador to Israel.
And we're going to talk about theology.
We're going to talk about politics.
Ambassador Huckabee, you are the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, but you are such a pro-Israel man that there are those who would say that you are Israel's ambassador to America more than you are America's ambassador to Israel.
True or false?
It's false because I am absolutely America's ambassador to Israel.
But in that role, because America and Israel has a very unique partnership, part of my job is not only explaining the American position to the Israelis, but it's explaining the value of our partnership to the Americans.
Because back in the U.S., there are a lot of people that are saying, why are we doing so much for Israel?
They don't do anything for us.
I feel part of the obligation I have is to say, wait a minute, you may not be aware of some of the things that we benefit from in this relationship and partnership, which is unlike any other.
Do you agree that U.S. interests and Israeli interests are not necessarily the same?
I think they generally are the same.
Every enemy that Israel has is an enemy of America, whether it's Iran for 47 years saying death to Israel and death to America, all in the same sentence.
It's also true that there are so many similarities in how we were formed as nations, both countries escaping the galloping terror of totalitarianism, both looking for religious freedom, both looking for security and safety for families who are threatened by where they were.
It's important to recognize the longer history.
I think that it's ridiculous when people say there's no connection.
Well, of course there is.
Without Judaism, there's no Christianity.
Without Judaism and Christianity, there's no Western civilization.
And without Western civilization, there is no America.
So one could say that America does owe its spiritual and its moral roots all the way back to Mount Moriah, when Abraham was told by God, this is your land, and I'm going to reveal myself through it, and you're going to be the light to a great world.
And then later, when he gives the law to Moses on Mount Sinai, that is really the essence, the foundation, and the formation of what will later be a law that becomes both common law and now the prescribed law in our Constitution.
So here's a scenario I would envision.
The United States wants to maintain good relations with a good part of the Muslim world.
Now, obviously, there are some bad guys.
I consider the mullahs in Iran to be bad guys, of course.
Hamas, Hezbollah.
But on the other hand, there are countries we want to maintain good relations with, Saudi Arabia, for example, Jordan, UAE, the Emiratis, the Bahrainis, the Gulf kingdoms, and so on.
Now, it could be that those guys, being Muslim, have some identification with the Palestinians.
And so their idea would be, listen, you got to make some room for a Palestinian state.
And maybe the United States decides, well, you know what?
We also want to keep, there are also people we want good relations with.
And so I can see the possibility where Israel goes, no Palestinian state, but these other Muslim countries are like, hey, Mr. Trump, you need to make some room for a Palestinian state.
But would that be a case where, let's say, American interests and Israeli interests are not the same?
I'm not sure we are even close to that point because the President just made it clear that any acknowledgement of or move toward first must have some serious reforms within the Palestinian Authority.
Reforms that have been demanded since 2017 but have not happened.
Whether it's the pay-for-slave, which is the enriching of people who have committed terrorist acts, people in prison in the Palestinian Authority who were there for murdering Jews get a nice stipend for having murdered Jews.
I think most people would find that offensive and unacceptable.
The U.S. certainly does.
It's a violation even of U.S. law under the Taylor Force Act.
So we cannot continue to push for something unless those reforms are in place.
The second big reform I would mention is school textbooks.
It's an atrocious thing that in schools throughout the Palestinian Authority, as well as in Gaza, children are taught from the time they're in the first grade not only to hate Jews, but to aspire one day to kill as many of them as possible for the great rewards that will happen both in the life beyond, but also the great rewards that will happen by the payments that will come to you.
And if you die, that'll go to your family.
What do you say of people, now these are mostly on the left, but we're now hearing similar voices on the right, and they will say that the bitterness of the Palestinians in Gaza, and to some degree also in Judea and Samaria and the West Bank, is because so many of the Palestinian children and civilians have been just bulldozed, have been mowed down.
We've heard phrases of genocide.
Do you think that Israel needed to kill as many people as it did, as many civilians as it did, to conduct this operation against Hamas?
In other words, was there a leaner, better way to do it?
Well, if there was, Israel would have loved to have found it.
People forget that one of the reasons they continued in an active war in Gaza was not because they wanted to kill civilians, but because they wanted to get their hostages out who had been taken illegally, who then were kept in captivity, who were being tortured, starved, raped, brutalized, kept from their families, often kept by people who were doctors and who were members of UN organizations like UNRWA.
What's Israel supposed to do?
Say, we're going to write you a strongly worded letter.
I've asked parents, if your child were abducted and were taken into dark tunnels where they were tortured and abused and starved, what would be your action toward your children?
Would it be, well, I'm just going to wait it out and hope that at some point out there in the future, my child gets allowed to leave?
Are you going to say, I will scratch and claw and do whatever I have to do to get my child out of harm's way?
I don't know of a single parent who wouldn't do whatever it took.
Well, these were the sons and the daughters and the mothers, the fathers, the brothers and the sisters of the Israelis, and they were being held hostage.
Would they have loved for this war to have ended on October the 8th of 2023?
Absolutely they would have.
It lasted as long as it did because Hamas wouldn't let the hostages go.
And Hamas, this is a very important point people don't understand.
The Israelis would announce in advance where they were going to strike, which is something the U.S. doesn't even do when we are dealing in warfare.
But they would say, we're going to hit this address, this building, because it is a front for rocket launchers.
It is a front for terror activity.
So get out of this.
Don't be there.
What did Hamas do?
They moved civilians, often children, into those areas knowing that civilian casualties was a wonderful kind of tool of propaganda for them.
If Israel were serious about genocide, and I've often said if Israel is a genocidal nation, they're terrible at it.
They're really bad at genocide.
They could have wiped Gaza out in two and a half hours.
I mean, they had a military attack.
Had they done it on October 8th, I'm not even sure that the world would have had much to criticize them for, because in the aftermath of the attack, it's almost as if by stretching it out, Israel increased the level of moral scrutiny.
Do you think Israel in a way bungled it by not moving quicker?
And just because in an age of social media, if you're going to drag it out, people forget the original offense.
And then they look and they see the kid rummaging through a bunch of rubble in Gaza and they go, that poor kid.
I think it's a fair assessment to say that it may have been easier for Israel to have taken a very harsh stance early on and ended it.
However, what people are not doing is giving Israel credit for not doing that because they did try to prevent collateral damage and prevent civilian deaths.
They went to lengths and places that most countries wouldn't even think of going trying to prevent civilian deaths.
By the way, the number of the civilian deaths, we really don't know how many there were because the numbers, guess who they were reported by?
The Gaza Health Ministry, which was Hamas.
So Hamas says, here's how many people were killed.
Nobody can verify it.
But then the UN takes those numbers, they run with them, and of course CNN and the BBC and all the news organizations just give those numbers as if they're the gospel.
We really don't know.
Certainly there were serious civilian casualties, many of them at the hands of the IDF, but many of them at the hands of Hamas itself.
And part of what you were saying earlier is you seem to be saying, hey, listen, it is human nature to care more about your own citizens and your own kids.
And so if you or I were a victim of a home invasion, we would prioritize our own kids.
Now, we're not trying to kill the kids of the home invaders, but quite honestly, if we're going after them and we end up shooting some members of their family, that's on them, that's not on us.
Exactly.
And I don't know anybody who thinks rationally who would disagree with that.
But we're not dealing with people who think rationally.
I'll give you another example.
If one looks at the history of warfare in the modern world, there were fewer casualties in Gaza among civilians than in most any, if not all, wars over the past 150 years.
That's a fact.
Here's what I feel like that people are missing.
They're missing the fact that Israel tried to prevent civilian deaths.
There were periods of history where nobody tried to prevent a civilian death.
Let me give an example.
All summer long last year, the Brits in particular and the French, they were talking about how horrible Israel was, how many people were dying.
And it was a little bit difficult for me to sit back and be silent when I'm thinking, I can remember in World War II when the Brits, they weren't dropping food on Dresden.
They were dropping some pretty heavy-duty bombs, and in the space of just a few days, they killed 30,000 civilians indiscriminately in order to bring about the end of World War II.
The very Brits who were so brutally critical of Israel never said, and we made a huge mistake.
Boy, did we ever blow it by what we did in Dresden.
Well, they pat themselves on the back for helping accelerate the end of the war in 1945.
I remember a conversation with one of the, in fact, U.S. bombing commanders.
This was in some of the footage released fairly recently from World War II.
And he said, I was given my instructions and I was told I need to bomb this building.
I forget if it was Hamburg or Dresden.
And he goes, well, who's in that building?
And they told him something like, 20,000 women and children.
And he's like, I won't do it.
And they go, it's an order.
And he goes, I had to do it.
He goes, I didn't have a choice.
And he said, are we the good guys here?
We're bombing civilians deliberately.
But you are right.
This was in fact a conscious decision because the German people continued to hang with Hitler to the very end.
And so it was not even enough to break the German army.
You had to break the will of the German people, right?
That's exactly what did happen.
The difference also is that there was never a time when the Allies warned the people of Germany, we're about to bomb you.
That's one of the fundamental differences.
Israel never gets credit for some of the extraordinary measures that it used to try and prevent civilian deaths.
It doesn't mean that the civilian deaths are any less heartbreaking or that they're any less horrible and atrocious.
But we always need to remember, how did this war get started?
Why were they at war in the first place?
Because on October the 7th, Hamas operatives came across the border.
They didn't just murder 1,200 people.
They massacred them.
They mutilated them.
They raped women in front of their families.
They beheaded babies, put babies in ovens.
They lit people afire who were in wheelchairs.
This was the equivalent, if it were happening to America, 1,200 in the population of Israel would be the equivalent, Dinesh, of 40,000 Americans killed in the matter of a few hours.
What would America do if 40,000 of our citizens weren't just murdered, but were massacred, mutilated, raped in front of their families?
Do you think Americans would say, now let's be real careful how we prosecute this war?
My gosh, we had 3,000 on 9-11, and the reaction throughout the whole country, from the left to the right, there was no division here.
This was one of those rare times when America was unified.
And it was, whoever did this to us, let's go get them, let's destroy them, let's never let them forget it.
And we changed everything in our culture, from how we get on airplanes to going into a public building.
We changed everything in our country because of 3,000 people.
Imagine what we would have done had it been 40,000.
That was the equivalent that Israel was dealing with.
What can you say about that?
There's a claim out there.
And I realize that this is the kind of thing that we've heard before, because there are people who said, you know, FDR knew that the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor, and he kind of looked the other way because he wanted, he was looking for a way for the U.S. to get into the war.
A similar type of argument is made about Netanyahu.
He knew about the attacks.
In fact, he let them happen.
He gave a stand-down order.
He wanted it to happen so that Israel could go into full military mode.
Is there any truth whatever to this claim that somehow Netanyahu himself either knew about or even orchestrated these attacks?
If he did, it's one of the most carefully kept secrets in world history.
Let me tell you why I don't think it's true.
APAC's Influence on Congress00:09:59
There's almost not a week that goes by that I don't have a meeting at the Prime Minister's office.
I'm sitting there across the table from me as the Prime Minister and eight or ten of his very top cabinet people.
When I hear people say he wanted there to be a war, he wanted to continue it.
He didn't want it to stop.
I'm looking over there and of those eight or ten people, half of them have sons and daughters in combat in Gaza.
Not people sitting in an office in their version of the Pentagon, the Kariak, not people who are behind doing desk work.
I'm talking about people, guns in their hands, going house to house in Gaza, some of them not coming home, including the son of the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ambassador Leiter.
So to even suggest that the Prime Minister purposely kept a war going when the sons and daughters of his key people were in that war, I think it's unthinkable.
And if that were the case, those people would have stepped up and said, Mr. Prime Minister, I can no longer serve in your administration because my son and my daughter is unnecessarily in harm's way.
I mean, I think another factor that people don't think about is that Israeli society is very divided, like America.
And there is a vicious opposition to Netanyahu in this country, in Israel.
And if anybody would be looking for red meat to put Netanyahu on the chopping block or move him out of there, I mean, if they could expose Netanyahu for something like this, they would have done it, wouldn't they?
I think so.
You've made a very good point.
Israel is as polarized as America is.
People in the United States, when it comes to our president, they love him or they hate him.
There's very little middle ground.
Same thing is true in Israel.
I often say about Israeli politics, if you think American politics can be contentious, you ain't seen nothing until you come and watch these folks.
They know how to get into political warfare.
But it's also, I quickly want to say, it's also really the symbol and the very essence of a strong democracy, where people not only elect their government, but the moment they elect them, they tear them to pieces and they criticize them.
It seems almost an antithetical statement, but the truth is that reveals that you have a healthy free speech, a healthy democracy, that you can be as critical as you want to be about the government you elected, and nobody's going to come to your home tonight and shoot you or take you away in the middle of the night and put you in a prison never to be heard from again.
There's a debate, as you know, about APAC, the American Israel Political Action Committee, and some of it focuses on the fact that AIPAC is a foreign entity, and I've heard it said, no, this is American Jews contributing to APAC.
But I think what isn't in doubt is that APAC does have a pretty sort of active surveillance of America and particularly of American representatives.
I've heard that APAC assigns like one guy to each congressman.
So in other words, it's like each congressman's got his APAC guy.
And this, of course, has led to the idea that somehow APAC is pulling the puppet strings on the U.S. Congress.
What do you think about, I mean, if it's true, it's bad, right?
Sure.
It would be horrible.
But are you saying it's not true?
I wouldn't say it's true.
I would again say it's kind of like saying Israel is genocidal, to say that APAC runs Congress.
They're not really good at it, because if they were really good at it, you'd have votes that would be closer to 500 to 35 than what you have, which is a bare majority in the House and sometimes not even enough in the Senate to carry a pro-Israel bill.
So there's some bipartisanship when it comes to support for Israel.
But some of the harshest voices in our entire Congress are voices against Israel and against any partnership with Israel.
I would also say that if we're going to criticize AIPAC, that's fair, we can do that.
It is an American organization.
It's not a foreign organization.
It's registered.
It complies with the laws of disclosure.
But what about CARE?
CARE is the council for American-Islamic relations.
And they're pretty pointed in what they're hoping for and pushing for.
And then you do have the foreign money, billions of dollars that has come from Qatar and from other Middle Eastern nations for the sole purpose of influencing American public policy.
What we know is frightening enough, but what we don't know, how much of that money is poured into algorithms and bots so that social media can be completely poisoned with sometimes not just anti-Israel postings, but anti-American postings as well.
I was looking at an article that talked about the contributions of Qatar just to Georgetown, a single university.
And we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.
So in other words, it's ironic because if you're pro-Israel on social media, you keep getting people who say, well, did you collect your $7,000?
And I think what you're saying is that here's an Islamic regime that is buying political science departments and buying huge media organizations and perhaps leveraging these algorithms.
So it's perhaps the case that the Qatari money is much bigger than the Israeli money by a factor of, I don't know how much.
Sometimes I would suggest to the Israelis they would do well to spend more money trying to get their version of the story out.
They're great at fighting a kinetic war.
They're not as good at fighting an information war.
If they were better at it, they wouldn't be getting hammered every day and having most of the media completely against them.
It's a very one-sided, people talk about, particularly in Israel, that they fight a seven-front war.
I always say, no, they fight an eight-front war.
It's not just these direct enemies who shoot rockets, missiles, and UAVs at them.
It's also the eighth front, which is the media, which is almost, not all together, but almost universally anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and anti-Jew.
What would you say to those who say, all right, Israel perhaps does us a lot of good, but why do we give so much money to Israel?
$3.8 billion on a general basis.
That amount was amped up in the response to October 7th.
Why doesn't the United States, which has a lot of financial problems and a mountain of debt to deal with, just give not a single dollar to any other country, let them manage on their own?
That's a fair policy thought and question.
And by the way, it's interesting in that the person who is now leading the effort to end even the $3.8 billion is the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Etanyahu, who says, we don't really need this money.
To Americans, I would say, it's not a huge amount in the great scheme of things.
Ask yourself, do we get anything for that?
Here's the answer.
Actually, we do.
Every bit of that is turned around and spent on American hardware that is used by the Israeli military, whether it's tanks, F-35s, F-16s, F-15s.
What people don't understand is the technology that we share, the intelligence we share, the military hardware that we share, would cost us multiples of the $3.8 billion if we had to purchase it from Israel.
But because of the partnership, we get it as a result of having decided that we are going to work with them.
Let me give you a quick example of how just in one platform, we get more back than we give.
The F-35 is the most sophisticated fighter jet in the history of mankind.
There's never been anything quite like it.
It's pretty much a flying computer.
It's the first aircraft in history where the pilot is the least common denominator of success.
It is the technology that's built into the plane.
Israel buys the F-35.
They don't just take it off the showroom floor and say, just like we want it.
They refigure, they reconstitute that F-35 for their unique needs.
And then they do something that we don't really have the ability to do.
They use that plane in combat.
Now, because of AI, every time that plane takes off and does a mission and lands, it's collecting data.
And that data is being stored.
It is now making that airplane a smarter airplane when it lands than when it took off.
If we had to have a war just to get the information that the F-35 is collecting because they're out fighting a real war, we couldn't afford it.
It would take tens of billions of dollars for the research, development, and for the application of it.
I never hear Americans say, thank you, Israel.
You guys are at war, so we don't have to be.
You're the tip of the spear.
But thanks for sharing all the things that that airplane collected while it was flying over in harm's way, getting shot at by Iranian missiles.
Israel's Biblical Homeland00:15:49
Maybe we should say, okay, we're not going to give you any money.
I'll tell you there's other things.
Every round of ammunition that the IDF shoots is manufactured just outside of Little Rock, Arkansas at a SIG Sauer Plant.
There are hundreds of people with good-paying jobs because Israel buys that ammo.
There are hundreds of people in Camden, Arkansas.
This is just in my home state, where they manufacture parts of the Iron Dome David Sling and the Aero Missile Defense System.
Other people working in Arizona, Michigan, Missouri, other states, because of the defense partnerships that we have with Israel, there are hundreds, no, there are thousands of American jobs, good-paying jobs, because of this relationship.
We could end that if we wanted to, but a lot of Americans would be quite unhappy if they lost those jobs.
Let's pivot a little bit to the question of theology.
And I bring it up because theology and politics on this subject intersect quite closely.
We started out, you were talking about God and Abraham and Mount Moriah and God's promises to Abraham.
Now, what if I were to say, sort of, that's all very interesting, but like who cares?
In other words, what if I were to say to you, as an evangelical Christian, as a Bible-believing Christian, you believe that through Revelation that God gave this land to Abraham, but that's not the way we should talk about foreign policy.
In fact, it's kind of dangerous to do it that way because talking to God is not the way we settle foreign policy issues in a democratic society.
And so you're kind of entitled to believe it as a Christian, but it's something that you should set to the side in the way you think about American interests or America first.
What would your answer be to that?
Well, if it was pure mythology and these were fairy tales and these had no historical context, I'd say you're 100% right.
I would say, yeah, we could just never talk about that.
Quite frankly, I think you could take it off the table completely.
And you would still be able to make a strong geopolitical case for a relationship with Israel and for Israel being here.
I mean, the decision made in 1917 for the Balfour Agreement, made in 1927 by the League of Nations, then made in 1947, implemented in 1948 by the creation reconstitution of Israel, all were not done with any theological perspective.
They were done strictly for geopolitical reasons and justification because everyone believed that the Jews had a right to what was an indigenous homeland.
That's fair, totally fair.
But you cannot separate that there is a historical context.
Where does that historical context come from?
A lot of it does come from the Bible.
Now people can say, well, that's a religious book.
It is a religious book, but the archaeology that is continually being uncovered here validates that biblical history.
So whether it is the city of David, this remarkable place here in Jerusalem, that is a living testament, I mean the stones cry out that there is Jewish connection to the land that goes back at least 3,800 years.
One can say, I don't believe it.
You don't have to believe it, but I would say to the liberals or even to the far-right woke conservatives, follow the science.
Follow the science.
Archaeology is a science.
And if you follow it, and if you look at the secession of history itself, whether or not you believe the Bible, whether or not you think God spoke to Abraham, whether you think he spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, strip all of that away, but you still have a historical context connected not just to Scripture, but also to archaeology and to recorded human history that is outside of the Bible itself.
The Zionists, the Zionist movement which developed in Europe, the movement to go back to find a homeland for the Jews and then settling on this place, Israel, let's go back to our original homeland, was largely a secular movement.
Some of the leading Zionists were socialists, they were left-wingers.
A couple of them, Herizel included, were very clear.
They were like, we're not making any biblical claim.
In fact, they were sort of distancing themselves from that.
Their argument was that Jews need to be like normal people and have a homeland for the same reason that the Indians are in India and so on.
And so my question is, given that that is Zionism, why would you call yourself a Christian Zionist?
Pretty simple.
I'm a Christian.
I follow Jesus.
I'm a Zionist because it simply means, it's not some deep thing.
It just simply means that you believe that Jews have a right to live in what is their ancient indigenous, I could add biblical homeland, but if you take that away, they still have connection to this land.
And why shouldn't they have a little bitty sliver of real estate?
Islamic countries have 644 times the amount of real estate that Israel has.
Israel has a landmass the size of New Jersey.
Only 35% of it is inhabitable.
The rest of it, 65%, is in the desert, in the Negev, not even usable.
So it's not really that big of a stretch to say, okay, the Jews can have a little bitty piece of land here.
And I don't think that that's a crazy idea.
So Zionism simply means, okay, let the Jews have a homeland where they can have security, safety, and when they have another experience like being chased out of their homes, as what happened during World War II and the reign of the Third Reich, they have a place to go.
The way you're putting it, it sounds like I'm a Christian, I'm a Zionist, and that makes me a Christian Zionist.
Does a Christian need to be a Zionist or can a Christian be an anti-Zionist?
I guess one could.
But typically, if a person said, I'm a Christian, but I don't want to be a Zionist, you'd have to kind of separate yourself from the scripture.
Now, there are some Christians, in fact, there are quite a few Christians around the planet, who say, yeah, you know, I'm all into Jesus, but there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that I think sort of phased out, no longer is valid.
I'm an evangelical Christian, so I'm part of what amounts to about 80 million people in America.
The fundamental thing that ties us together is that I would say we're people of the book.
So we believe the scripture is the infallible and errant word of God and that it is not just a culturally dated book, that it is truth that is eternal and that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that's who we follow.
We follow an eternal God, not one that once had an idea, but now he's changed his mind.
He once had a covenant with the Jews, but now he says, no, not anymore.
I'm done with those people.
I'm going to pick a new people.
I'm going to pick the Christians over here.
If I believe in what I consider to be the heresy of replacement theology, which says God once had a covenant with the Jews, but he doesn't anymore.
He broke that covenant because he didn't like the way they were doing it.
What on earth makes me think that a God who would break his covenant with his first chosen people would somehow keep his covenant with me?
I find that an irrational view.
So it's possible that a person may not come to the same conclusions about the role of Israel in the modern world.
I would say this.
There are a lot of Americans who are so secular, they don't have any belief whatsoever that God had a role in the founding of America.
I'm a fairly, I think, conversant person when it comes to American history.
I don't think you can explain America without understanding that the hand of God was on that nation's creation, the founding fathers, the founding documents.
I see evidence of his hand everywhere.
Other people may not.
I see the hand of God in Israel.
Other people may not.
It doesn't make me hate them.
It doesn't make me think they have a brain virus or that somehow they're the most dangerous people in the world.
No.
I just think they need to do a little better study, a little bit more digging into not just history, but archaeology and perhaps even the genealogy of the way things have shaped out.
Maybe they would come to a different conclusion.
What would your critique be of, I'm going to try to frame or state replacement theology as I understand it.
The idea here would be this, that you have the Old Testament, but the Old Testament was fulfilled once Jesus came, died and was crucified and resurrected.
So that Jesus, in a sense, made everything that came before him obsolete.
There's now a new covenant, a new pathway to heaven.
Jesus is the only way.
And so the old way no longer applies.
It's not that it is historically invalid.
It's still there.
It's still in the Bible.
But now it's all seen through the light of Jesus.
And so Jesus has replaced the old covenant, to which you say what?
I would say, well, Jesus should have told us that because he was still a Jew.
Paul was a Jew.
The early church were all Jewish.
They continued to believe in and practice their Jewishness, but they also believed that Jesus was the Messiah.
They didn't reject their history.
They didn't reject their ethnicity.
What they rejected was that it all ended at some point in history.
And what they did, they embraced everything in the Old Testament, everything in the Torah, everything in the prophets, everything in the Psalms as God's word to us, but they saw the fulfillment of all of that in Jesus.
If it is in fact a fulfillment, then how would you suddenly say, let's slice that off and float it out into the sea, never to be seen again?
Instead, wouldn't we want to keep it because that is what validates the Christian faith?
And if we read the New Testament, as a lot of Christians apparently do not, if you would read Romans 11, very clearly, this is the Apostle Paul, the Jew, who says, is God finished with the Jewish people?
And he uses a rather strong word in saying, absolutely not.
He said, it's not that the Jews are grafted into us, it's that we are grafted into the Jews.
I think it's more clear than a lot of people want it to be.
Now, Jesus was in fact pretty hostile to the Jewish establishment of his day, right?
It wasn't just that he was against the Pharisees, he was against the Sadducees.
It seemed like he rejected Judaism as it was practiced in his time, at least by the priests.
Does that count for something?
It does.
It counts for the fact that what Jesus preached was the scripture.
He opened the scripture and he would teach.
And remember, the disciples and those who were listening to him said, he is so different.
He speaks as one who has authority, not as the scribes.
The scribes built their theology on arguing with each other and making all the human applications.
When Jesus went into the temple and turned over the tables, he did so because people were being exploited in the name of a faith that he thought should be represented by a house of prayer, by connection to God.
They were trying to connect people to sacrifices and to specific rituals rather than to a relationship.
So Jesus said, it's not about the rituals, it's about the relationship.
When he and his disciples were hungry and they found corn on the Sabbath and they ate it and they were horribly condemned for that, he made the point that it is not that Sabbath was made for man or that man was made for the Sabbath, but Sabbath was made for the man.
Those are the ways that he taught.
So there's really not a conflict between what Jesus said, what he taught, and who he was.
Yes, he certainly spoke against the spiritual or the religious leaders of his day.
He called them snakes, vipers brewed.
Sometimes when people say, we need to be so kind and so gentle, I'm thinking, Jesus wasn't always that gentle.
He said some pretty rough things about the religious leaders.
But what was it he was going after them for?
Because they were religious?
No.
But because they had put their rituals of religion above their relationship to God and they were excusing themselves for the sin that was in their heart.
That's why he said things like, you have heard it said that if a man commits adultery, but I say unto you that if you think in your heart, then you have committed the act.
I mean, that was pretty revolutionary to say that it is the sin of our heart, not the sin of our hands, that we also have to worry about.
If the Jews didn't kill Jesus, who did?
We all did.
It's a ridiculous thing to say the Jews killed Jesus.
You could argue the Romans killed Jesus.
I mean, technically, the Romans carried out the sentence.
It wasn't the Jews who did it.
They didn't have the legal authority.
That's why they didn't do it.
But Pilate wouldn't have, Pilate didn't want to do it.
He kind of reluctantly went along.
It seems like Caiaphas, I mean, the high priest pushed for it, and Pilate acceded.
So even though the Romans had to give it the go-ahead, if it were up to them, they wouldn't have done it.
That may be true.
But in the simple answer to the question, who killed Jesus?
I would say, I did.
My sins killed him.
If I'd never sinned, he wouldn't have to have died and shed his blood.
If you had not sinned, he wouldn't have had to die.
But the Bible says we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, all of us.
There's no exception.
So if that's the case and that his death was the only means by which there would be a pure enough sacrifice to bring redemption, then how do I blame just one group of people, be it the Jews, the Romans, or for that matter the Greeks or anybody else?
No, it is every person who has ever committed a sin.
We, both individually and corporately, it is our fault.
But I would also say Jesus made the decision.
It wasn't that we took his life from him.
The Bible speaks in terms very clearly that his life was not taken from him.
He gave his life.
This was the ultimate revelation of God's love for us.
Not that we stripped from him his life and we took it against his will.
Because right here in this city in the Garden of Gethsemane, the night before he was crucified, he prayed, God, let this cup pass from me, but not my will, but thine be done.
Assyrians and Babylonians00:04:26
So whose will was it that there had to be a pure, perfect sacrifice to atone for sin?
That was God's plan.
And yet in the Old Testament, there are multiple times where God has a plan, and he's had plans, for example, to punish the Jews.
And it says that God used the Assyrians, He used the Babylonians.
I think at one point he says that the Assyrians are my rod and my staff in punishing Israel.
But at the same time, God judges the Assyrians and the Babylonians really harshly.
And those empires are themselves obliterated over time and have left very little except archaeological remnants.
So there are those who would apply this kind of reasoning and say, all right, true, there was a spiritual purpose for Jesus to come.
That purpose was fulfilled.
And perhaps God was using the Jews to carry out his plan.
But still they did it and they deserve to be punished for it.
And the hostility to the Jews is warranted because of what they did.
And God is judging them harshly because they were the earthly instruments for carrying out this death sentence on Jesus.
Is that wrong?
To be blunt, yes.
And I'll tell you why.
Because God did, in fact, allow things to happen to Jewish people as judgment.
You hear over and over.
I think back when he would use the prophets to speak to them, Jeremiah, for example, and he told Jeremiah, I want you to go and this is my message to them.
But don't get excited about it because they're going to completely reject you.
He said it'd be better if you never got married.
It'd be better if you never said these things.
But you're going to go out and say these things.
And you're going to tell the Jews what is about to happen to them.
Now, was that because God hated the Jews?
No, no more than it would be that the reason I disciplined my children when they were small is because I hated them.
I didn't hate my children.
I never disciplined them because I said, I hate you kids.
You've ruined my life.
I wish I never had you.
No, I wanted to steer them in a direction in which they would live a life that not only would reflect the values that I wanted to instill in them and the values that God has laid down for us, but I did not want them to go off into a behavior that would ultimately be destructive.
So if I ran out and grab my child from running into the street and being hit by a car, was that an act of hate?
I would suggest to you that even though I may have done it rather abruptly, not necessarily in the kindest of words, and when I jerked that child back onto the curb from the street, but I didn't do it out of hate.
I did it out of love, out of correction, and in order to save and to redeem.
Why did God allow the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans?
Was it judgment?
Of course it was.
But what is the one thing that always continues to surface through history?
The Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Greeks, they're all in the dustbin of history.
You know who's still here?
The Jews.
Here's the interesting thing.
If God hated the Jews as much as some people wish they did, we wouldn't have any Jews here.
They'd all be gone.
And by the way, there have been a lot of human attempts to get rid of them all.
So what do we surmise from this, just again, take the Bible out of it, this historical record, is that somehow the Jews continue to survive, no matter how many people try to annihilate them, and they continue to do, even to the day, from the river to the sea, that is a call for the annihilation of the Jews.
If God were finished with them, he could have certainly used the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, or he could have used the Nazis.
But even the Nazis, with their very targeted intent to kill every last Jew and to do it systematically, they still failed.
You had a lively exchange with these patriarchs, the so-called patriarchs of some of the churches here in Israel, where somewhat to my surprise, they made the claim that Christian Zionism is a heresy.
Could you say why they would say such a thing?
Autonomy and Christian Zionism00:06:00
And what was your take on all that?
You know, I want to be very clear that these are my brothers.
I love them.
I know most all of them personally.
I'm not at odds with them.
I walk in fellowship with them to the degree that I can.
I have a different point of view when it comes to Christian Zionism.
And it's not, to me, a heresy.
I would say it's more of a heresy to say that there's no really place for the modern Jew in the world today.
Are they saying that?
Do you think that they're going that far?
No, I don't necessarily think so.
I mean, their statement was a little ambiguous, quite frankly, and it was confusing.
And by the way, none of them put their name on it, which was also surprising.
The part of it that maybe got my attention more than a theological perspective was when the statement started by saying, we and we alone are the voice of Christians in the Holy Land.
And I'm thinking, well, the claim of exclusivity might be a little troubling to those of us who don't necessarily follow the same church tradition.
Evangelicals, for example, are a part of a free church tradition which believes in what we would call the priesthood of the believer, that I don't have to go through a human medium in order to pray or to be forgiven.
It's a theological difference, and I may get to heaven and find out I was all wrong.
You know, I reserve the right to be wrong.
But that is a position theologically that free church people have in the autonomy of not only the individual believer, but the autonomy of the church.
So in the evangelical world, we don't take our orders from an ecclesiastical headquarters.
So that makes us different.
Does it make us right?
Not necessarily.
It just makes us different.
Tucker Carlson began with what seemed to be a pivot on Israel.
Israel is a problem.
Netanyahu is a problem.
At one point, I think he said Netanyahu's evil.
But he's migrated from that to something quite different, which is a defense of Maduro's socialism in Venezuela.
He says Maduro is actually pretty conservative.
A defense of Sharia law as being one way to get law and order and a kind of safe society, a defense of Hamas to a degree.
It's not a, Tucker says it's not a terrorist group, it's a political organization maybe akin to the Labor Party.
You and I have both known Tucker over many years.
What is your diagnosis of what is going on here?
Because I think it's taken many people by surprise.
I know with rank and file Republicans who are used to Tucker from his days at Fox News, they just say things like, we're confused, because I think it's hard for them to believe that Tucker has somehow metamorphosed into something new.
What do you think is going on?
It's hard to know.
And I'm glad you brought up the fact that both of us have known him for many years.
I go back to 1991 when he first worked for the Arkansas Democrat Gazette newspaper in Little Rock.
That was before he went on to see an NMSNBC and all the television iterations that led to Fox News.
I worked with him every week in New York for six and a half years when I was a Fox News host.
I never knew Tucker this way.
He was a very smart guy.
He could be a little arrogant, but intellectually, honest, and asked hard questions and was thoughtful.
What I see now is somebody I don't recognize.
I don't know what happened to him.
I mean, what to me is odd about it, there are people who change their mind, right?
I mean, Whitaker Chambers used to be a communist, and then he became a capitalist.
But of course, he wrote a 600-page book called Witness, in which he gives a full account of how he went from here to there.
There are atheists who become Christians.
There are Christians who lose their faith.
And so what I'm getting at is people are quite entitled to make a U-turn, but usually it comes with some explanation for how you got from here to there.
What made you change your mind?
As far as I know, we have gotten no such thing from not just Tucker, but Candace as well.
And so are we just at this point, would you say that we should just give up the quest to figure out their motives and merely look at the effects of what they're doing?
And are the effects of what they're doing bad for Trump, bad for MAGA?
How would you read the consequences of this whole turn?
You made one of the most astute statements just then that I have heard in this whole milieu of talking about Tucker Carlson.
I want to commend you for it, because you said that if a person makes a significant philosophical ideological change, radical, I mean the Apostle Paul did, but then he spent the rest of his life writing about it.
Whitaker Chambers, another great example.
C.S. Lewis, phenomenal Christian mind, but came from a point of atheism.
For Tucker to have made this dramatic, and I mean 180-degree shift of opinion, I think he owes some explanation.
It's not the what that is so troubling, it's the why.
We know the what, but what we don't know is the why.
Ambassador Huckabee, thank you very much.
Dinesh, always a pleasure to get to visit with you.
Thank you.
Step into the world of the Dragon's Prophecy on a tour of the ancient land of Israel.
I'm Dinesh D'Souza, and I'm inviting you to join me and Jonathan Kahn for the Dragon's Prophecy Tour.
We'll walk the ancient streets of Jerusalem and visit iconic landmarks like the Western Wall, the Sea of Galilee, and the Mount of Olives, exploring the real world settings behind the mysteries and what they reveal about the days we're living in.
The Ant and the Termite00:01:29
Book now at inspirationtravel.com slash dragon or call 844-715-2425.
To understand the central divide in American politics, it helps to think about the distinction between the ant and the termite.
Now, the ant is very industrious.
I've been reading the Harvard scholar E.O. Wilson, an authority on ants, and he points out that the ant can be an individualist.
But at the same time, ants like to work together.
They will cooperate voluntarily to haul food.
Wilson notes that you want to be careful in dealing with the ants.
The ant is a leave-me-alone type of guy.
Ants don't like you to mess with them.
Now, the termite, by contrast, is not so much of a builder.
The termite is really a destroyer.
I've been reading an authority on termites, Saul Alinsky, in his book Rules for Radicals, and he points out that termites need to be no less industrious than ants in accomplishing termite objectives.
Now, it's easy to be dismissive of the termite and consider the termite in a purely negative light, but try to look at the world from the point of view of the termite.