Nikki Haley Exposed as Neocon Fraud & Corporatist Shill, Ivy League Presidents Fold on Free Speech. Plus: Israel-Gaza Debate, w/ Batya Ungar-Sargon & Omar Baddar
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/
- - -
Follow Glenn:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glenn.11.greenwald/
Follow System Update:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/systemupdate__/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@systemupdate__
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/systemupdate.tv/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/systemupdate/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight...
Nikki Haley has had some bad debates in her life before, but none that compare to the utter devastation and exposure she suffered at last night's Republican presidential debate in Alabama.
Led by her rival, Vivek Ramaswamy, and subject to quite aggressive questions from moderator Megyn Kelly, Haley got exposed as an utter fraud.
Not only someone who cheers every American war and every American proxy war, as long as it's other people dying in them.
And not only someone who is the ultimate tool of Wall Street oligarchs and corporate billionaires, and not only someone who served the Wall Street or the military industrial complex that made her so personally wealthy, as she cheers on every one of the wars that make them wealthy, but also she's just someone who really has no idea what she's talking about when it comes to the policy she's paid to spout and to the wars she cheers.
We'll show you some of the key moments from last night.
Then, three university presidents were hauled before Congress on Tuesday to be interrogated about whether they would censor or otherwise punish various forms of political speech about Israel and about Jews.
When one of Congress's most vocal and steadfast supporters of Israel, Congresswoman Elise Stefanek of New York, asked them whether they would punish those who defended the, quote, genocide of Jews, all three said that they would punish only actions against other students, but not mere political speech.
For all sorts of reasons, this led to an explosion of rage, including from many who have long claimed they oppose campus speech restrictions.
Very wealthy donors immediately announced they would stop or withdraw or never donate again.
All sorts of students and professors expressed disgust and outrage for the testimony of these school presidents saying we would never punish political speech, only actions, and yet As a result, each of those school presidents had to issue a groveling apology today for not immediately vowing to censor and punish that speech.
And a new report just emerged moments ago that the president of the University of Pennsylvania, Liz Magel, has been summoned to a meeting with the board chair where she's likely to be fired as university president.
It's not easy to get a university president fired, but you see here the issue that will cause that.
We'll examine all of this and the call for many more campus speech restrictions, including those who have long claimed to hate campus censorship, now supporting that, all in order to limit what can be said in the United States in the way of criticizing Israel and its war.
Finally, we are pleased to present a debate tonight on the Israel-Gaza war between a longtime defender of Palestinian rights, who is also a political analyst and a journalist, Omar Banar and the Newsweek opinion editor, Bata Baccia Unger-Sargon, who has been on the show before, where she and I had somewhat of a debate or an interview.
She is, of course, a supporter of Israel, which is what makes this a debate.
And we're very happy to host two very smart people with two very different views on this, obviously, critical conflict.
A few programming notes before we begin.
First of all, we are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app, which works on both your smart TV and on your phone.
And if you do so, it'll enable you to follow the shows that you most like to watch here on Rumble, starting with System Update and then maybe some other shows as well.
And if you activate notifications, which we hope you will, it means that as soon as any show that you follow begins broadcasting live on air, you'll be immediately notified by phone or by email, however you want, so that you don't have to wait around in the event that other shows are late.
Fortunately, we're always on time, but you don't have to try and remember when we go on.
You'll just be automatically notified.
You click on the link, and then you can start watching live.
It really helps our live audience and then the Rumble platform as well.
As another reminder, our show system update is available in podcast version as well, where you can listen to each episode in podcast form 12 hours after they first broadcast live here on Rumble.
You can listen on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms, and if you rate and review and follow the program, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to our live interactive after show on Locals, which is part of the Rumble community, where we take your questions and comment on your feedback and critiques and hear your suggestions for future shows.
That live after show is available only for subscribers to our Locals community.
So if you want to become a subscriber, which in addition to those twice a week after shows, those live after shows, you have access to the daily transcripts of every program that we produce here, as well as original journalism that we'll publish there.
And it really just helps support the independent journalism that we're doing here on the show.
That community is very important to us.
If you want to join, just click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you there.
Just as a note, tonight is Thursday, but we won't be doing our live after show tomorrow.
Tonight, just because of this debate that we're hosting that will probably go quite long.
But we will be back next Tuesday and next Thursday with two full live aftershows for you.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
Many of these Republican presidential debates have not exactly been models of clarity or brought a lot of important insight into this race.
The obvious strangeness hovering over all of these debates last night was the fourth one, is that the candidate who Republican voters seem to overwhelmingly prefer to be their candidate is not present at any of these debates, Donald Trump.
And the more he continues to refuse to participate, he certainly doesn't lose any support.
You could even argue that his lead has increased against the rest of the field.
Perhaps it diminishes them.
Perhaps the more they see of his alternatives, the more convinced they are that there's nobody who can compete with him.
I think a big part of it is that these indictments against him have really consolidated Republican support.
Tucker Carlson recently said that he has not supported a politician in decades as a journalist, and yet he became a Trump supporter, he said, on the day the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago, just on the grounds that this was such an outrageous infringement and weaponization of the justice system and abuse of the justice system that he simply couldn't, in good conscience, not support Trump as a way of expressing His opposition to the use of the government in this way.
But one thing has been for sure, which is that the establishment wing of the Republican Party, the big donors of the Republican Party, the people who have the billions of dollars or the hundreds of millions of dollars to invest in the election, the people who have been funding the Republican Party for decades going back to the 1980s under the first Bush president and then funding the campaign of Bob Dole and the campaigns of George Bush and Dick Cheney,
And John McCain and Mitt Romney.
And then in 2016, those people, the establishment of the Republican Party, were completely behind Jeb Bush.
They poured tens of millions of dollars into Jeb Bush's candidacy and kept pouring it in until they realized that his candidacy was a failure, that he was a terrible candidate, that the Republican base hated him.
And then they moved to Marco Rubio and they kept moving one after the next to anyone they thought could defeat Donald Trump until they even were willing to finance Ted Cruz's campaign, even though they hate Ted Cruz, as the last opportunity to stop Donald Trump and yet they failed.
They lost control of the Republican Party.
And there's a desperate attempt on the part of the Republican establishment and even now Democratic billionaire donors Who are so desperate to ensure that Trump doesn't get the nomination, especially in light of polls that Trump is leading Joe Biden in key swing states, that Biden is losing support all the time, that they are now pouring all of that money, that Jeb Bush money, that Republican established money, into Nikki Haley.
And one of the things that distinguished last night's debate from the first three was that the moderator was Megyn Kelly, and there's a lot of disagreements I have with Megyn, but the one thing you cannot take away from her is that she's an outstanding interviewer.
She treats everybody the same with equally adversarial questions, and she really confronted Nikki Haley about the fact that she's become the candidate of the billionaires and the corporatists, and that the Republican voting base hates nothing other than that.
I just want to begin with a little note of levity, but it also is quite illuminating.
After every one of these debates, including last night, the New York Times gathers their columnists and op-ed writers to judge each candidate and to assign them numerical ratings so that they can decide who won the Republican debate.
Of course, this is very important because nobody is more in touch with Republican Party voters, their working class base.
of the Republican Party than columnists and op-ed writers for the New York Times.
I mean they could not have their finger on the pulse more if they physically went to these rallies and put it on there and so it's very important to know who they think won.
So here is who they think won these debates.
For the first three debates they decided that the winner of the first three debates Was Nikki Haley, here you see her in first place for the August 23rd debate, the September 27th debate, and the November 8th debate.
She was the winner of all three debates.
Congratulations to Nikki Haley.
Last night was the first time the New York Times op-ed writers decided that Nikki Haley did not win the debate.
But don't worry, she came in second.
She had a great showing, according to the New York Times op-ed writers.
The winner of last night's debate, they said, was Chris Christie, who, as Megyn Kelly pointed out, is completely hated by the Republican Party, by the Republican Party voting base.
This just is a dynamic that cannot be escaped.
They pack these debates with the big money donors of the Republican Party.
I went to the first debate in Milwaukee.
I covered it on my show.
I got there early.
We had very good seats because Rumble was a sponsor of the debate.
They were the only platform authorized to stream the debate live on the internet, as they were for last night, and so I saw very up close how this works.
The Republican Party, the RNC, has most of the chairs right behind the microphone, and they fill it with big donors, with Republican Party operatives who hate Trump, who hate Vivek And who cheer for the candidates the Republican Party voting base shows they hate most.
And that was so much of the reaction last night.
One of Trump's most important moments, one of his best moments in 2016 was when he was getting viciously booed when he was mocking Jeb Bush in a very personal way.
And he said, oh, these are all Jeb Bush's lobbyists and big donors.
That's exactly what it was.
So you have these candidates, Chris Christie and Nikki Haley, who are right out of the 2008 version of The GOP, they could have easily run in John McCain's place.
They would have had all the same foreign policy views, all the same economic policy views that Republican voters now despise.
And of course the media loves that because they want the establishment back in control of the Republican Party.
And that's why they always think that Nikki Haley comes in first and they thought Chris Christie won last night.
They had him in third place for the other three debates.
And here they have the Vague in last place.
Last place in the debate before that.
Almost in last place, only ahead of Doug Burgum and Asa Hutchinson.
And then same thing, second to last place in the first debate as well.
So you see who the New York Times op-ed writers and columnists like and it's a pretty good prism to look at it through because that's pretty much the inverse of how the Republican Party base sees the world.
Now, one amazing thing is that there was a focus group that was convened, I believe it was by NBC, of Republican Party voters After the debate, and they asked them, who won this debate?
And here's what, not the New York Times op-ed writers, but the actual Republican Party voter base that they convened said won the debate.
NBC News 2024 campaign embed.
Nnamdi Egwanwu is with Republican voters at a watch party in Atlanta, Georgia.
Nnamdi, it's so good to see you.
You do fantastic work and I know you've been there with the voters in Georgia.
What are they telling you?
What did they think of tonight's debate?
I love when they go to, like, the little people, the ordinary people, and they're like, these little cute people, the voters, what do these little cute people think?
What do they have to say, like, in the most condescending way possible, and yet trying so hard not to be?
So let's hear what the voters, those people we don't usually talk to, the actual people in the United States who are gonna pick their nominee, let's hear what they think.
Kristen, getting reaction from voters here in Atlanta was quite easy.
They actually organized a straw poll on their own, during the debate, and were keeping track of their opinions.
And by the end of the night, you had Vivek Ramaswamy, the swatch party of about 30 people, getting five votes.
You had Ron DeSantis getting two, both Nikki Haley and Chris Christie having a sole one vote.
And get this, former President Donald Trump, despite not being on the stage, got 18.
So that's really reflective of the vibe of the night here in Atlanta.
Okay, so it was the exact inverse Of the New York Times op-ed writers, which is of course what you would expect.
So the New York Times op-ed writers had Chris Christie as the winner, Nikki Haley in second.
They each got one vote, a grand total of one vote from this group of Republican voters.
Then they had after that Ron DeSantis with two votes and Vivek with five.
So Vivek got the most votes of anyone who was on the stage, but the winner of the debate last night, according to these voters that they convened, was the candidate who wasn't there, Donald Trump.
He got 18 votes.
More than three times the second place finisher.
But you don't have to take my word for it.
A couple attendees agreed to stay after and give us their opinions.
And Will, I want to start with you.
There was a moment tonight that got a lot of people riled up.
What was the moment that caught your eye, that left a mark on you?
What left a mark for me was Nikki Haley being called out for being the war monger that she is.
At the same time, Ram Swami holding up a notepad saying Nikki is corrupt.
And that's something that stands out really strongly in my mind and in the voters' minds.
But they talk too much about Trump, the man that wasn't on the stage, but it rules the stage tonight.
I mean, it's such an important and refreshing thing to hear that Republican voters now go around calling people like Nikki Haley warmongers and meaning that as an obvious criticism.
Um...
The Republican Party voting base has rejected the kind of foreign policy orthodoxy that the neocons and Dick Cheney and John McCain and Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment and Nikki Haley stand for.
They don't want to keep paying for all these wars that the United States fights or fuels other foreign countries to fight either.
Donald Trump ran on that platform and won on it.
And these candidates are from a different party.
And also, they don't care if Nikki Haley is disrespected.
When Vic was speaking about her in too harsh of a terms, the Republican lobbyists and donors were booing, and even Chris Christie white knighted her and intervened, like the gallant gentleman that he is, so chivalrous, and said, Vivek, I'm tired of you attacking Nikki Haley.
She's a good, decent public servant.
And they all applauded, but this is not how Republican voters think.
They hate the Republican establishment.
They hate the entire ruling class elite.
That's why they loved it when Trump spewed the most personal vitriol for all of those candidates, for Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and the rest, because that's who they hate as well.
So in that setting, in the Republican establishment setting, in the corporate media, oh, it's so unpleasant and so inappropriate to question someone like the integrity of someone like Nikki Haley, and yet they are so out of touch with how most voters obviously think.
Now, here is one of the more important exchanges.
Because Vivek was very focused on two things about Nikki Haley, both of which we reported on.
One is her obsession with advocating wars, and the other is how tied she is to corporate money now.
Let's listen to this.
Megan, I think there's a time and place for everything.
We need somebody in the White House who absolutely is going to be a fighter when it counts, and I did say that there were some good people on that stage in that third debate.
Doug Burgum was on that stage at that time, and I'll say that jokingly, Ron DeSantis is a good person too.
I want to go back though to Nikki Haley's comment from earlier, that she is somehow not responding to the will of these donors.
Nikki, you were bankrupt when you left the UN.
After you left the UN, you became a military contractor, you actually started joining service on the board of Boeing, whose back you scratched for a very long time, and then gave foreign multinational speeches like Hillary Clinton is, and now you're a multi-millionaire.
That math does not add up.
It adds up to the fact that you are corrupt.
And when I said they were bought and paid for, I meant the Republican establishment, not the Democratic establishment.
Now you have Reid Hoffman, the person who's effectively George Soros Jr., funding lawsuits across this country against Donald Trump to keep him off the ballot, funding left-wing causes.
We discovered this week that he is one of Nikki Haley's largest supporters.
Larry Fink, the king of the woke industrial complex, the ESG movement, the CEO of BlackRock, the most powerful company in the world, now supporting Nikki Haley.
And to say that doesn't affect her is false, because it's after that meeting later that day that she says that every American needs to be doxxed by having their ID, their government-issued ID, tied to what they say on the Internet.
So I think that this is far more corrupt than I even imagined when I entered politics, but I will say this.
It is going to take a leader from the outside.
All right, so that really does summarize Nikki Haley.
And this is the kind of politics that Republican voters showed that they hated by rejecting all of those candidates who were getting money from these kinds of special interests, from the special interests that have owned and ruled the Democratic Party for many years now.
And that's why the media loves Nikki Haley.
Precisely because she advocates those establishment views.
Now, here was an exchange on foreign policy that was also incredibly revealing and embarrassing and humiliating for Nikki Haley.
I want to say one thing about the tie to Ukraine, if I may.
Foreign policy experience is not the same as foreign policy wisdom.
I want everybody at home to know that I was the first person to say we need a reasonable peace deal in Ukraine.
Now a lot of the neocons are quietly coming along to that position, with the exceptions of Nikki Haley and Joe Biden, who still support this, what I believe is, pointless war in Ukraine.
And I think those with foreign policy experience, one thing that Joe Biden and Nikki Haley have in common is that neither of them could even state for you three provinces in eastern Ukraine that they want to send our troops to actually fight for.
Look at that.
This is what I want people to understand.
These people have, I mean, she has no idea.
What the hell the names of those provinces are but she wants to send our sons and daughters and our troops and our military equipment to go fight it.
So reject this myth that they've been selling you that somebody had a cup of coffee stint at the UN and then makes 8 million bucks after, has real foreign policy experience.
It takes an outsider to see this through.
Look at the blank expression.
She doesn't know the names of the provinces that she wants to actually fight for.
And there's a puppet master right there.
The donors right there that are playing her like the puppet master.
I mean, that is so true.
It has been driving me crazy, this idea that Nikki Haley is some kind of great foreign policy mind, that she's a serious foreign policy scholar, she has foreign policy chops, when he actually challenged Chris Christie on that as well.
Both of them are fanatical supporters of this idea that we have to fund the Ukraine war.
Even Zelensky's closest allies are abandoning him.
Even they're abandoning this war.
They're going to the Western press and dumping on him constantly, calling him an authoritarian and delusional.
There was just a vote in the Congress that Refuse to enact the $60 billion more that Biden wants for Ukraine.
We're going to do our show tomorrow night on the complete collapse of this narrative in Ukraine.
And yet again, all these people that were constantly told are foreign policy experts, the ones who supported the war in Iraq, the ones who supported regime change in Libya and Syria, the ones who supported this.
War in Ukraine, all of which have failed because they can't go to other countries and change them.
They know nothing about these countries, including the names of the provinces that Russia currently controls.
All they know is that when there's a war presented, their big donors want them to fund it because it goes into the pocket of Boeing and General Dynamics and Raytheon.
That have their hands in every part of Washington, in every part of our politics, and especially around inside the back of Nikki Haley, who is their puppet.
And they made her a very wealthy woman.
If you go and look at the sources of her personal income, it's all military contractors, war think tanks, and pro-Israel groups.
That really is who just paid her.
It's just a fact.
And every one of her views that she advocates aligns perfectly with those donors.
Now you can ask that eternal question, are they, does she have these views because they're funding her or are they funding her because she has these views?
And at some point it really makes no difference.
She just morphed into the establishment.
She has every view that the establishment has.
And one of the VEX lines that was actually quite good is she will Send your sons and daughters to any war that comes up as long as it enables her to buy a bigger home.
That is how Washington really works.
These people who are called foreign policy experts who are paid so much money by think tanks and arms industry and who go on the media to talk about these wars, the only thing they have in common, the only requirement to be a foreign policy expert is that you cheerlead every American war, every American war, every proposed American war.
And the minute you stand up and object to one that has bipartisan support, you are eliminated from the realm of foreign policy expert or serious foreign policy thinker.
What did she do to justify the notion that she was a foreign policy expert?
She went and raised her hand at the UN to vote for the things that she was told by the State Department to vote for or against.
She wasn't negotiating anything.
She wasn't analyzing foreign policy.
She was at the UN, raising her hand to vote.
That's it.
And the fact that she can't name any of the provinces in Ukraine, nor can Chris Christie, even though they insist.
That our welfare as a country depends on sending billions and billions and billions more with no safeguards to Kiev shows what a fraud this all is.
And nobody is a more representative or illustrative face of this fraud, of the establishment fraud, than Nikki Haley.
Nobody.
Chris Christie is only there to sell books.
He unveiled his new book tonight.
He gets to go on TV all the time because he hates Trump.
That's the requirement to go on TV.
He'll be put on CNN.
Have your book reviewed in the Washington Post as long as you talk constantly about how much you hate Trump.
That's what he's doing there.
The Republican Party hates him.
Megyn Kelly told him that citing polling data.
But Nikki Haley is the last hope of the Republican establishment.
They did abandon Ron DeSantis for the most part.
They're putting all their money in her.
Because they want to ensure that establishment ideology will prevail no matter whether the Republicans win or the Democrats win.
That's really, ultimately, the supreme goal of the establishment is to make sure that it doesn't matter what the outcome of our elections are.
They win in either case.
And this is who is there to ensure that that's the case.
I'm going to show you this last clip.
Take a look at this for a minute.
We do need to ban TikTok once and for all.
This is Nikki Haley on why we need to ban TikTok.
Now, before I show you this clip, we did a show last week on how this whole idea of banning TikTok is based on this utter fraud that the Chinese Communist Party is censoring Any content that promotes the interests of the U.S.
government and only is fostering and promoting anti-American content.
We learned just this week that our show, our program, System Update, was banned permanently on TikTok.
We barely have had an explanation.
We had two videos taken down in the past, one of which was very critical of President Zelensky and the war in Ukraine, the other which was about the CIA interference in the Brazilian election in 2022.
Both the one which went viral, they took both down.
And obviously our shows are not here to promote the interests of the Chinese Communist Party.
We are very critical of US foreign policy.
The only people angry about our content is the US security state.
And they've been able through these threats of banning TikTok to commandeer the power to determine content moderation on TikTok.
TikTok is desperate to stay in the United States.
It's a very lucrative market for them.
And what they've done is they said, we are willing to give you more and more control over content moderation.
We're going to talk about the banning of our show on TikTok tomorrow.
We barely have any information about it.
They just keep telling us you're permanently banned.
There's no more appeals.
They won't tell us why.
But here's Nikki Haley.
Listen very carefully to what she says, what crisis she embraces, what narrative she exploits, to justify more control over social media.
We really do need to ban TikTok once and for all.
And let me tell you why.
For every 30 minutes that someone watches TikTok, Every day, they become 17% more anti-Semitic, more pro-Hamas based on doing that.
We now know that 50% of adults, 18 to 25, think that Hamas was warranted in what they did with Israel.
That's a problem.
When campuses also don't...
So, young people in the United States have a view of the war in Israel and Gaza that is a deviation from the U.S. government.
government's view and from the establishment wings of both parties' view.
And that, she says, is a problem in the context of wanting to ban the social media app that they most like to use.
A third of Americans choose to use TikTok.
Nobody forces them to.
Nobody requires them to.
It's where they go to speak.
It's where they go to find community.
And her argument for why it needs to be banned is that so many young people disagree With the establishment wings of both parties, with Nikki Haley and Joe Biden on the war in Israel.
Even if you agree with Nikki Haley on the war in Israel and Joe Biden, do you want these people with the power to ban social media apps on the grounds that too many people are thinking differently or thinking for themselves or dissenting?
But this statistic that she cited, that every 30 minutes you become 17% more anti-Semitic, Or anti-Israel as you watch TikTok is the most laughable thing I've ever heard in my life.
Go watch TikTok for 30 minutes and come back and tell me if you got more anti-Semitic afterwards.
You're 17% more likely to be anti-Semitic after 30 minutes on TikTok, she says.
I can't imagine a more fabricated statistic than that.
But that is what these people want, more and more control over the internet.
They exploit every crisis from COVID and the war in Ukraine to January 6th and Russiagate to argue that it's simply too dangerous to allow free speech.
And this is the narrative they're now exploiting for even further controls.
Everything about Nikki Haley is the worst of the old Republican Party, the establishment Republican Party, her warmongering, her corporatism, and her blatant authoritarianism.
Speaking of exploiting narratives for further gain over our free speech and free discourse and to justify increased censorship.
Congress hauled three university presidents before the Congress, one from Harvard, one from University of Pennsylvania, and the other from MIT.
And Elise Stefanik, the Republican from New York, a very, very ardent supporter of Israel, someone who's been claiming that there's a grave anti-Semitism crisis in the United States that requires more restrictions on speech on college campuses.
Question them about whether a student would be punished or should be punished for expressing genocidal arguments about Jews.
This is the exchange.
At MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT's Code of Conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment, yes or no?
If targeted at individuals not making public statements.
Yes or no?
Calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?
I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.
But you've heard chance for intifada?
I've heard chants, which can be anti-Semitic depending on the context, when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.
So those would not be according to the MIT's code of conduct or rules?
That would be investigated as harassment, if pervasive and severe.
Ms.
McGill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct?
Yes or no?
If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.
Yes.
I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews.
Alright, do you see the distinction they're drawing?
First of all, this is not in a vacuum that this is happening.
And when the president of NMIT said, I haven't heard anybody calling for the genocide of Jews, she immediately said, well, I mean things like calls for the Intifada.
The Intifada is an Arabic word that simply means uprising.
Uprising against.
When they call for an Intifada, they mean an uprising against the Israeli government for its denial of statehood to the Palestinians, for its occupation of the West Bank, for its blockade of Gaza.
And the first Intifada was overwhelmingly peaceful, especially for the first couple of weeks, or the first several months.
And there's nothing inherently violent about the term Intifada, but even if it is, it is not a term against Jews, it is a term against the Israeli government.
And just like you're allowed to say, I think we should bomb Iran, or go to war in Iraq, or flatten Gaza, People are allowed to say, to allow to opine, to allow to have the view in the United States of America that the repression by the Israeli government has become sufficiently severe that an uprising or even violence against the State of Israel is warranted as a reaction to that repression.
You may not like that view, you may think it's a terrible view, you may get offended by that view, there is no question whatsoever That calling for intifada or even saying the Palestinians should be free from the river to the sea, just like the Likud Charter says all the land from the river to the sea belongs to Israel, either one of those views, you are allowed to opine that way in the United States.
So when she's asking, will people be held in violation of the Code of Conduct for genocide of the Jews, the context of this is the attempt to conflate
Pro-Palestinian statements like an intifada, like resistance, like Palestinians should be free from the river to the sea, to imply that these are genocidal against Jews, even though they're not, and that's the reason they're so reluctant to say yes, because they don't want to limit free speech on this issue to punish people who say what they're actually saying.
Now, there's an attempt to convince people That there are these hordes of Muslims and Arabs rolling around campuses, calling for the killing of all Jews, chanting, gas the Jews, kill all Jews, murder all... This is not happening.
I repeatedly asked on social media, please, anyone, give me an example of college students chanting, gas all Jews, or kill the Jews.
It doesn't happen.
It's not happening.
And if it is, it's in the most isolated cases.
What really is going on here Is that there's an attempt by a lot of people on the right who have spent years pretending to defend free speech on college campuses to hate censorship, but also people who are just establishment liberals, Israel supporters basically.
There's an attempt to limit the free speech rights of Americans and people on American campuses in order to protect this foreign country of Israel.
And the way they're doing that is by conflating Criticism of Israel, or defense of the Palestinian people's right to respond with genocide, even though those two are not the same.
And for those of you who think it is the same, let me just say this.
If you listen to left liberal censorship advocates, people who have been calling for conservative students to be punished on college campuses, or to have their events banned, or their college groups banned, They don't say, oh, we want this to happen because someone misgendered someone.
This is like a caricature I keep hearing.
Oh, well, when they do it, they want people censored and punished just for misgendering.
This is different.
This is calling for genocide.
That is not what they think.
They think that conservative right-wing speech on things like policing and race and immigration and trans issues are genocidal.
They believe the speech is intended to provoke violence against minority groups.
They believe that what conservatives really are saying and really want is the murder of black people and immigrants and trans people.
They say it's genocidal.
It's the same theory of censorship that is being used here.
This is not a hypothetical question she's asking.
She's asking it in the context where there's a claim that there's genocidal speech taking place on college campuses against American Jews, even though what they mean by that is not, I want all Jews dead or gas all Jews, but I believe violence against the Israeli government is necessary, or I believe that a resistance against Israel is justified.
And you don't have to like The View to understand how dangerous it is to feed this theory that college administrators should be censoring and punishing students because they're commenting with dissent on the Israeli-Gaza war.
Here's the rest of this.
Does that constitute bullying or harassment?
If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment.
So the answer is yes.
It is a context-dependent decision, Congresswoman.
It's a context-dependent decision.
That's your testimony today.
Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context.
That is not bullying or harassment.
This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms.
McGill.
So is your testimony that you will not answer yes?
Uh, is if the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment.
Yes.
Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide?
The speech is not harassment?
This is unacceptable, Ms.
McGill.
Okay, I mean, this, the reason why this irritates me and agitates me so much is because you want college administrators to draw these distinctions that they were trying to draw.
If A college student goes up to a Jewish student and screams in their face into fava and harasses them that way, that becomes conduct.
But I thought words aren't violence.
I thought that was the entire right-wing case against campus censorship.
And these administrators are trying to say, we're not going to punish only words.
We're not going to punish only speech.
We would punish it if it turns into conduct.
Here's the rest.
Opportunity for the world to see your answer.
Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's code of conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment?
Yes or no?
It can be harassment.
The answer is yes.
And Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?
It can be, depending on the context.
What's the context?
Targeted as an individual?
Targeted at an individual?
It's targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals.
Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them?
Okay, so if you accept that, I know a lot of you do.
I've seen a lot of people cheering this congresswoman expressing hatred for these presidents.
As I said, the University of Pennsylvania professor is about to be fired.
Then, what you're essentially saying is that you think that speech alone can constitute harassment, that it can dehumanize.
So, if a Delaware writer goes onto a college campus and says, I believe the society should eradicate transgenderism, obviously a trans person can stand up and say, this is dehumanizing, this is genocidal.
And they say, well I'm not saying I want to kill all trans people, I'm just saying transgenderism should be eradicated.
But no one here is saying kill all Jews or gas the Jews.
They're saying I believe in an uprising of the Palestinian people or whatever opinions they're expressing that's being conflated into genocide in order to censor criticism of Israel and the United States.
Here is Bill Ackman A billionaire hedge fund manager who has led the way in cancel culture and censorship for critics of Israel.
He was the one who first circulated or called for the circulation of the list of the names of the students who signed the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel statement early on to put them on blacklists so they'll never be hired.
He's been throwing his billionaire status around and now he basically is calling for Well, he's saying this reflects the grave moral bankruptcy of these presidents.
And he's accusing them of endorsing the speech designed to kill Jews.
But I ask again, who's saying this?
Who's saying that They should kill all Jews.
Here is the University of Penn president, Liz McGill, who today issued what really looked like a hostage video apologizing for her defense of free speech, for saying Once it turns into conduct, we can punish it, but not just pure speech.
Listen to what they forced her to read, meaning they, the team of lawyers and donor managers and PR consultants and crisis management consultants.
Listen to what they had her say.
There was a moment during yesterday's congressional hearing on anti-Semitism when I was asked if a call for the genocide of Jewish people on our campus would violate our policies.
In that moment, I was focused on our university's longstanding policies aligned with the U.S.
Constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable.
I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate.
Okay, so she basically got successfully coerced into withdrawing what was definitely her controversial but also important defense of free speech, but it's not going to save her job.
There are too many powerful people demanding that she be fired and that the university not allow the speech to take place.
That's what they've been doing from the start.
It's not easy to get a university professor fired.
You see which issue is the one that will get them fired.
Now, Fire.org, which is the only principled free speech defense organization in the United States now that the ACLU has turned almost entirely partisan, you may recall that they condemned Governor DeSantis for banning a pro-Palestinian student group in the University of Florida system as a grave attack on the First Amendment.
They became so popular among conservatives because they spent years defending conservative students' free speech rights on campuses when nobody else would.
The problem with Fire.org, in the eyes of some people, is they actually believe in free speech.
They apply it to everybody, not just to the people they like and agree with.
So here is what fire.org said about all this.
"Tonight, Penn's president, Liz McGill, signaled that one of our nation's most prestigious institutions is willing to abandon its commitment to freedom of expression.
Were Penn to retreat from the robust protection of expressive rights, university administrators would make inevitably political decisions about who may speak and what may be said on campus.
Such a result would undoubtedly compromise the knowledge-generating process free expression enables and for which universities exist.
To be clear, universities will not enforce a rule against, quote, calls for genocide in the way elected officials calling for President McGill's resignation think they will.
Dissenting an unpopular speech, whether pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, conservative, or liberal, will be silenced.
The power to censor always invites abuse and never stays cabined.
That is the argument I've been making to left liberal censors for as long as I can remember.
That if you think you found a certain speech that you hate so much that you're ready to declare it over the line of what free speech allows, and demand that people be punished or prevented from saying it, don't be surprised when your advocacy for censorship gets turned against you and you start to be, even more than you were before, the victim of censorship.
Now, when I was interviewing Max Abrams, when I was talking to Max Abrams, I mentioned this Heratz op-ed by two Israeli professors.
One at the University of Michigan, the other at George Washington University, who wrote this article heaping scorn on the notion that there's genocidal speech going on in college campuses.
They talked about how almost always the debates over Israel and Palestine are driven by curiosity and civility.
These are Jewish-Israeli scholars saying the media is completely exaggerating what's taking place on college campuses for their own ends.
And there has been a long time a campaign to target college campuses specifically because there's so much Israel criticism there.
Here from Ynet News in November as an article shaming and pressuring donors Israel's strategy against anti-semitism on US campuses.
And it describes a systematic campaign to turn Israel criticism into anti-Semitism and pressure college administrators to limit it, to punish it, and censor it.
And just to give you an idea for the unbelievable hypocrisy of some people on the right, before we get to this debate, let me just show you this.
Earlier today, Palantir Which is a firm that specializes in intelligence and surveillance technology, works with the U.S.
security state, was founded by Peter Thiel.
They decided to announce that they were going to create 180 jobs and hold them only for Jewish students in the United States.
These jobs are not available for non-Jews.
These jobs are available only for American Jews who currently are on college campuses and claim that they are unsafe because of these views they're hearing.
Exactly the kind of set-asides or affirmative action or race- and ethnic-based hiring that every conservative I know has long denounced.
Ben Shapiro, obviously one such opponent of affirmative action, sometimes, usually, went onto Twitter and said above that tweet, love this, Let's put that on the screen, talking about the program at Palantir to set aside jobs exclusively for American Jews.
Here's what Palantir said, the second part of their tweet.
Students on campuses are terrified and have been instructed by administrators to hide their Judaism.
We are launching an initiative for students who, because of anti-Semitism, fear for their safety on campus.
They are welcome to join Palantir.
We are setting aside 180 positions for them immediately.
Barry White said, wow, wow.
Could barely contain her excitement.
There's 180 jobs only for Jews in the United States.
Nobody else.
Now, seven hours after he posted his tweet pronouncing his love for this program and getting mauled by his own followers, Ben Shapiro went back and said, you know what, actually, probably these jobs should be open to everybody.
Oh, do you think?
Do American Jews at Harvard and Penn and MIT need jobs set aside only for them?
Isn't that kind of a violation of every last conceivable value conservatives, by definition, have claimed to believe in?
But this is what's going on.
This is a coordinated effort to create a principle that says that criticism of Israel will be deemed advocacy of genocide of the Jews and that has to be banned from American college campuses.
It's a systematic campaign and it is a very dangerous one.
We are happy to have as one of our sponsors of the show, The Wellness Company.
I think this is the second or third time that we are talking to you about them and we are happy to do so.
As we told you the last time, and I think it's a very important statistic, 90% of pharmaceuticals that are sold in the United States are produced outside of the United States.
And I remember very clearly at the start of the COVID pandemic, people telling me there's going to be a complete breakdown of the supply chain.
And since so many of our products come from China, which they do, they're made in China, they're created in China, they go through China.
And that was the country that, of course, has ground zero for the COVID pandemic, that we were going to be in danger in the United States and not be able to get a whole array of products that we need, including medications.
That's very possible.
So it's very easy to envision another global crisis.
Some country clamps down on exports or they decide to stockpile products and medications or the price of drugs rise and the shelves in American pharmacies go bare.
And the wellness company has a medical emergency kit that just gives you the peace of mind that in the event that there is a situation like that where you can't get medication in the United States, you have eight different life-saving medications that you have in your home that you can buy in advance with them.
It is something that requires a prescription.
So you go and you take an online exam, they can give you a prescription and you can get several different kinds of antibiotics, antivirals, antiparasitics.
It includes, this kit does things like amoxicillin and ivermectin and the Z-Pak, along with a 22-page guidebook with complete instructions on safe use.
I mean, things just even like tick bites, let alone like COVID or bioterror events, all this would help you significantly in the event there was a supply chain breakdown, like we are very vulnerable to having.
So if you go to TWCHealth.Health.Glenn, it's TWCHealth.Health.Glenn.
And use the promo code Glenn, you can get 10% off the kit on checkout.
10% off the kit.
And it is available only in the United States because of various laws and the prescriptions.
But if you're in the United States and you want to give your family and yourself that peace of mind, it's twc.health.glenn.
We are very excited to present two of the smartest and most independent-minded people that we know who have very different views on the word that is currently taking place in Gaza regarding Israel and the like.
We are very excited to present two of the smartest and most independent-minded people that we know who have very different views on the war that is currently taking place in Gaza regarding Israel and the like, but we knew that they would make for a great debate.
They actually approached me and asked if I would host it, and I immediately said, of course I will.
I think it's going to be fantastic.
One of them is a longtime political consultant and activist, Omar Badar.
The other is Bacha Junger-Sargan, who has been on our show previously.
She's the opinion editor at Newsweek.
Omar is a supporter of the Palestinian side, Bacha more so the Israeli side, and we are certain that this debate is going to shed a lot of light on every issue pertaining to this It's so great to be here.
Good evening, Omar.
Good evening, Baccia.
It's great to have you guys.
Thanks so much for coming on.
BACCHA BACCHA: Thank you, Glock.
BACCHA BACCHA: Thank you so much for hosting this.
It's so great to be here.
Yeah, Omar and I were friends, and we were thinking, how could we elevate the discourse Could we find a platform where we could, you know, have a debate in a civil way about this really important issue?
And of course, we thought of you, Glenn.
So very excited to be here.
So glad you guys thought of me.
And I'm going to do my best to facilitate this as much as possible.
I'm going to leave it mostly in your hands to kind of go back and forth and explore the issues you think should be most covered.
So let me begin with you, Batya, just because you were on my show, I think maybe three weeks ago now, almost maybe a month.
And one of the things we talked about was the number of Palestinians being killed in pursuit of the Israeli goal.
So I think at the time, the count of people that had been killed were something like 6,000 Palestinians.
The number is most definitely in excess of 15,000, closer to 16,000, at least several thousand of them children.
Do you still feel comfortable, I know you don't want to see anybody dead or anything like that, but given that the war is entailing that, given what Gaza is, given how the Israelis are bombing, do you still feel comfortable with the progress Israel is making toward its goal?
And what do you think that goal is?
It's a very, very important question.
Of course, the death of any innocent, of any civilian, certainly of any child, but of anybody who's a noncombatant is nothing short of a horror and a tragedy.
I do think it is at this point unknowable to what extent We should be seeing in the numbers that tragedy, because I'm curious if you agree with me, Omar, but I don't feel that it is a tragedy when a Hamas militant is killed.
And because the numbers that we have, the number of 15,000 certainly, is from Hamas's Gaza Ministry of Health, and they systematically do not distinguish between combatants and civilians, we don't know what proportion of these deaths are tragic and what proportion of them are part of Israel's military goal.
So that would be the first point that I would make is certainly there have been some civilian casualties and certainly every single one of those is infinitely tragic.
But to justify, to judge to what extent Israel has veered away from its military target, we have to know what the proportion of those deaths are civilian.
And that, so far, we don't know.
We know that Israel estimates that it has killed 5,000 Hamas militants.
We know that it has said around 10,000 civilians, but we don't yet know the answer to that.
So I can't quite answer yet.
if I think that they have veered too far away.
And I would say the other point that I would make about civilian casualties is that we know also that in terms of international law, there is this concept of proportionality, right?
And when you're thinking about the proportion here, people often mistake the concept of proportionality to think about it in terms of proportion between the two sides.
But it really is a way of addressing the proportion of the tragedy of the civilian cost To the military aim.
And again, that is something that is simply unknowable until you know what that relation is.
And we just don't have that information yet.
But Omar, I'm really curious what you think about this.
And I'm also curious if you agree with me that, you know, we cannot treat the death of Hamas militants as tragic.
If you accept that that is sort of a moral statement, a moral way of looking at this situation.
Thank you, Basia.
So, Amar, I obviously want you to address that, but I just want to throw one point in that I'd also like you to address when addressing that.
So, Baci referred to proportionality.
I'm wondering, in your answer, if you could explain as well, after the Hamas attack on October 7th, do you think Israel had any legal or moral right to use military force in Gaza, say against the perpetrators or against the Hamas leaders? say against the perpetrators or against the Hamas leaders?
So, I mean, in addressing that proportionality point, was there any justification, even if it wasn't wise for Israel to use military force in response to October 7th?
There's a lot of points there, so I'll just, I'll try to take a few of them.
Take your time, go ahead.
On the question of the numbers, I think we've seen many previous Israeli assaults on Gaza, and the numbers coming out of the Gaza Health Ministry have been much, much closer to what independent organizations, including the UN and human rights organizations, have found.
So there's every reason to believe that these numbers are reliable, just given the history that we've seen, and that Israeli numbers have actually been farther away from what independent organizations have found in previous rounds of the conflict.
Now, I want to note the fact that the estimates right now are, is that 70% of those who are killed are women and children.
And we are looking at a rate of killing children that is unprecedented in almost any conflict in recent memory.
There's a reason why the head of the UN is describing Gaza as a graveyard for children.
The estimate of about 7,000, just for reference, 7,000 children in Gaza in the course of two weeks, two months rather.
Compared to the entirety of Russia's campaign in Ukraine over the period of an entire year, killed fewer than 500 children, obviously incredibly tragic.
I want to minimize that.
But just when you look at the rate of killing taking place in Gaza, it's more than 100 times worse than the rate of killing of children that took place in Ukraine.
Unprecedented levels of killing journalists, unprecedented levels of killing medics.
Looking at this and Quite frankly, it fits into what we're finding independently in terms of an investigation by 972, an Israeli publication, that said that Israel's goal is partly to engage in a campaign of Devastating the civilian population to create a shock that would put pressure on Hamas.
We know that they wanted to cut off water and electricity and food for all of the Gaza Strip, including its civilian population.
We know that the Israeli president, Herzog, said that the civilian population in Gaza cannot be viewed as innocent.
We know that Netanyahu invoked the Amalek from the Bible, referencing a quote about the killing of women and children and animals and completely obliterating your enemy.
You add all of these things together and frankly it is difficult not to reach the conclusion that Israel is engaged in a campaign deliberately of devastating the civilian population of Gaza.
You can't kill that many people by accident.
You can't cause that level of destruction By accident.
It's quite clear that looking at Israel's history, that what they engage in is campaigns in order to restore their so-called deterrence, to ensure that the civilian toll on the other side is absolutely astronomical, so that people are basically punished for having dared to engage in any violence on the Palestinian side.
And what's important here, before we talk about October 7th, is to talk about October 6th, because the reality is this attack did not come out of nowhere.
The reality for Palestinians is living in a besieged Gaza Strip in which there was unemployment was through the roof, in which there was no access to the outside world, no airport, no seaport, no economy to speak of, and no prospect for a better future for Palestinians living in Gaza, in addition to successive Israeli bombings of Gaza that killed literally thousands of people, including hundreds of children.
So when you look at the situation, Basically, what Israel is saying to the Palestinians, either you'll agree to live permanently as a population without rights, besieged, and without the prospect of freedom, or if you dare to fight back, we're going to inflict massive civilian casualties against you and make you regret ever fighting back.
That, to me, is the fundamental problem and the question, in that if you look at October 7th in isolation, of course, anybody would respond to a crime of that magnitude with violence.
But when you consider the fact that the starting point is Israeli occupation and an illegal siege over Gaza, you can't look at that event in isolation.
And the goal should be, rather than vengeance or punishment, is to get to the root cause of why this violence exists, and the root cause is Israeli occupation and siege and apartheid.
And until you dismantle that, you're not going to reach a point in which you can truly undermine support for violence, because Hamas grew by Israeli policies and actions.
The reason why Hamas existed in the first place and why there is support for Palestinian militant activity is because of that desperation and despair created by Israel refusing to allow Palestinians to live in freedom as human beings with equal rights.
Go ahead, Batyev.
Um, I want to ask a question.
I hope this doesn't sound like a callous question, but I think the question that I would have for you, Omar, is, is there what ratio of civilians to militants would you accept as evidence that Israel was trying to avoid civilian casualties?
Is there a number that you would feel Represented evidence because according to the Israeli numbers, it's two to one.
And again, like every civilian casualty is a total tragedy, a life lost.
But in judging whether this is just war or whether this is a war crime, right?
We have to know this question of how How much is the tragedy relative to the military targets, which are legitimate?
And so I wonder, is there a ratio that you would accept as proof that Israel was trying to avoid civilian casualties?
Can I just say, Omar, before you answer, let me just ask you about you, because right before the ceasefire, the numbers that were circulating, including from Israel, was that there were 30,000 militants in Gaza.
They had killed 2,000 of them.
And it does seem like right after the ceasefire, as there was a lot of controversy, the number from some sources kind of skyrocketed to 5,000.
I'm just wondering what the source of those numbers are.
I read those numbers in the Times of Israel yesterday, but I want to make clear.
I don't take what the IDF says at face value, right?
I mean, they're a military.
I don't consider Israel to be the same or comparable to Hamas, but they're obviously putting out their own version of propaganda, and that's something that I take into consideration.
So their number right now, the latest numbers from Times of Israel that I saw, which is usually pretty accurate, certainly in their quoting of the IDF, was 5,000 militants and 10,000 civilians, and I know that the number is more like 15,000 total from the Gaza Health Ministry, which includes both combatants and non-combatants.
Omar, go ahead.
If I can jump in on that.
I don't have a specific ratio in mind for what would convince me as a number, but I do take the word of human rights organizations that I think are much more experienced in that kind of thing.
And so when human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and even Israeli human rights organizations like B'Tselem, describe Israel's bombing as indiscriminate, they say it's causing too many civilian casualties, not enough effort is being put to avoid civilian casualties, And then you compare that with the fact that people like Netanyahu are saying that we want to thin out the population in Gaza.
It all points in the direction of the numbers that are coming out of the IDF not being reliable, and again, of the fact that the civilian population in Gaza is effectively a target here.
They're not coy when you're looking at the displacement of more than a million and a half people inside of Gaza.
It seems quite clear that there is an effort to commit ethnic cleansing.
There are Israeli politicians who are floating the idea that we should push Palestinians out of Gaza and into the Sinai Desert.
Just all of that put together, it's quite difficult for me to imagine that anybody can take the Israeli government's words seriously when they throw out numbers about trying to minimize the damage of policies that they have openly advocated for.
They're just clearly speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
And at the end of the day, to me, if human rights organizations are saying these bombings are indiscriminate and often target civilians, and you have investigations like the one by 972 Magazine saying that internal sources within the Israeli military are describing a policy in which civilians are targeted to create a shock and to destroy civil society, we can take that at face value and take that as being a lot more credible than the Israeli government's word trying to do PR damage control.
But if the Israeli government was trying to thin out the population, why would they have displaced them?
I mean, wouldn't it have been better to leave them in Gaza City and just, like, why would they have opened up those humanitarian corridors?
I mean, doesn't the act of displacing them mean that they are, that an effort was put into keeping them from being targets?
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with that.
Look, I think ultimately there is a limit to the number to which Israel is going to kill Palestinians while the world remains silent.
Sadly, I think it's going to be a much higher number than all of us had hoped it would be.
But I think the preference is to push them outside of the Gaza Strip.
They're talking about a buffer zone.
They're talking about many, many different ideas.
Frankly, I don't think that the Israeli government has a very coherent plan for Gaza.
It's a lot of different ideas.
And one of them, clearly what they want to do is to push the population south.
There was a plan published early on by some agency within the Israeli government talking about what pushing Palestinians into the Sinai Desert would look like, and phase one of that was pushing all Palestinians south from the north of Gaza.
And that was effectively what they did while bombing in the south as well, while designating Syrian areas as safe havens, but bombing those areas anyway.
And, you know, leafleting and telling people to take certain paths out and those paths end up getting targeted.
Altogether, I think what Israel is doing is creating a situation in which life in Gaza feels unsafe, where people are desperate to leave, where there might not be a place for Palestinians to go back to because the extent of the destruction is so extensive that Gaza just stops being able to support life.
And you end up applying very significant pressure on Egypt to open that border in order to allow Palestinians to survive.
That's my speculation, what Israel has in mind now, with a caveat that I don't think that they have a super thought out plan, apart from just exacting vengeance in the meantime, while they try to figure out the specifics and what the world will tolerate. - Bob, let me just add, can I just ask you, 'cause that was part of my first question too is, like this idea of the proportionality, which you defined as whatever the amount of death is necessary to accomplish the valid goal, what do you really believe the goal is?
The stated goal of Israel at the beginning and I guess currently still is to destroy Hamas.
They were very clear we don't mean erode it, we don't mean weaken it, we mean destroy it.
So what would that look like and then do you give any credence to this alternative motive or plan which has leaked in military documents and been expressed by members of the Israeli government that they believe that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank belong to them and their real ultimate goal is to make it uninhabitable for Gaza, so they have to leave?
Obviously, there's far-right people who say those things and believe those things.
And so I don't deny that.
But I don't think that that represents the kind of the goal, the aim or the mainstream as far as I can tell.
I don't want to gaslight like those things were said, obviously.
But I think that overall, it's pretty clear that they're That the aim here is to completely eradicate Hamas.
And in fact, my first thought was they need to get the innocent civilians of Gaza out of the way while they do this.
And then bring them back.
I mean, my first thought was, how do we protect these civilians from what is going to now be an extremely, extremely aggressive, punishing, and I think just aim, which is to eliminate this terrorist force.
And I think what I wanted to ask you, Omar, was, is there a way that Israel could have gone about eliminating Hamas that you would have thought was Both just and justified and something that you would have supported.
Yeah, but I think before getting to the tactical aspect of this, it is really a question of Underlying cause and motivation.
If there is a world, because we have to understand where Hamas came from and what destroying Hamas actually means.
And frankly, I think the trajectory that we're on now, even if Israel miraculously was able to eliminate every last Hamas member by the end of this, I think you're setting yourself up to a situation where the extent of the killing and the damage and the despair and the anger that is created by this campaign is simply going to produce the next generation of militants.
This is how we got here in the first place.
And so, again, I just go back to this idea of if one attack by Hamas that is unquestionably horrendous, I mean, look, had it been constrained to Israeli military targets, there would have been an argument to say that this is a legitimate act of resistance, but obviously because it ended up killing so many Israeli civilians as well, that makes it an indefensible attack at the end of the day that nobody should defend.
But if we're saying that's enough to say that Israel gets to do whatever it wants to destroy Hamas, why isn't the opposite argument also standard?
That if you're looking at the actions of the Israeli government, if you look at the death toll that the Israeli government has imposed on the civilian population in Gaza and in the West Bank, and the extremely lengthy history of land theft and massacres and destruction of homes, does that justify Palestinians having the aim of destroying the Israeli government?
And does that also entail a campaign of how many Israeli civilian casualties would be tolerable?
We never ask that question in reverse.
And I think part of the problem here is that we are conditioned to think of the Israeli government as a legitimate government, as somehow being the protagonist in the story, and to think of Hamas as the evil terrorist organization.
And it's that dichotomy that I fundamentally reject.
I think the underlying problem that we have, and there have been people who have used many examples to me, another obvious one is an apartheid in South Africa.
When, you know, obviously black people in South Africa were oppressed, were confined to small areas, were experiencing unspeakable oppression and violence on a daily basis, and there were groups like the ANC that were setting off bombs and killing innocent white civilians in South Africa.
And the question is, how do you solve this?
And to me, the obvious answer is you solve it by ending apartheid in South Africa, which was the only way that we reached a point in which we dealt with the underlying cause.
And this is a very similar situation in that the reason why we are here is because Israel keeps insisting on trying to pummel Palestinians into submission to accept being a people that is without rights, that does not have the ability to move around on its land.
In the case of Gaza, even more constrained in terms of having no economy, no clean water, and not being able to go in and out.
All of this is a structural relationship of dominance, which is the reason why people get so desperate and so angry that they join Hamas in the first place.
So I just don't think that we're on a trajectory by saying that Israel is justified in pursuing this end.
Israel has every right to want a better future for Israelis and a safer future for Israelis.
And the way we get there is not by insisting on pummeling Palestinians into submission.
The way we get there is by fundamentally changing their relationship between Israelis and Palestinians, where Palestinians are seen as equals, who can actually enjoy the same rights that Israelis enjoy.
And that's really going to be ultimately the only path forward in which we do get the safety for all Israelis and all Palestinians that I'm pretty certain that both you and I would like to see.
Bajay, let me just throw in a little question there based on what Omar just said.
And it actually goes back a little bit to the goal, because this is the thing I'm struggling with so much, is this idea that we're going to destroy Hamas, that Israel is going to destroy Hamas.
Because it does remind me a lot of the war on terror, where the idea was we're going to go and destroy terrorism.
And what we found was that the more we bombed, in many ways, the more terrorism that got created.
There were so many attempted terrorist attacks or terrorist attacks on U.S.
soil.
Where the people who did it said, my motive is I've been watching innocent people being killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen and all these wedding parties you're bombing and these children you're killing.
And it just created this enormous amount of anti-American rage that was even larger than what preceded 9-11.
When you think about this war that you say is just, what are you envisioning about how Israel is going to put the Palestinian people through what they're putting them through?
Not just in Gaza, by the way, but also in the West Bank.
And at the end of it, there's going to somehow be peace.
Why would there ever be peace when you've subjected a population to this level of killing and destruction?
Well, I think there's a lot of examples in history of, you know, extremely violent conflicts that ended in peace when both sides were sick of losing their loved ones.
I want to briefly respond to something that Omar said, which is, if Hamas had decided to take Be'er Sheva and had attacked military outposts And in the midst of this act of war had killed civilians, I would probably, I hope that I would be responding to that in a very similar way as I am to Israel's military operation in Gaza right now.
I think that's a very legitimate point and I'm glad that you said that.
If Hamas had only attacked Military targets, right?
And had even in the midst of attacking those military targets had killed civilians, it would still be a tragedy for the people of Israel.
I would probably have people that I would be mourning personally, but it would be Of a different order of magnitude than what Hamas actually did, and I think it is really important to point that out.
I think probably a lot of people on my side would be angry at me for saying that, but I do think that's a really important point.
Glenn, to your point, first of all, I think Omar and I are probably very much in agreement about the West Bank, but also when you talk to people there, as you both have, it is amazing that That coexist within them both extreme anger at what they've been put through and what they are continuing to be put through and extreme hope and desire for a peaceful solution to this conflict.
I don't accept that people are fundamentally different and they have to share the land.
I don't know why I'm saying we are American.
You know, they have to share the land and there has to be a peaceful resolution.
And there have been conflicts that have been brutal, much more brutal than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that turned on a dime.
And it is always amazing to me how little, you know, Palestinians that I meet, want revenge, how little they want to hold on to this rage and how much they just want a just resolution.
And I think that, you know, so to me, I really don't see this argument of that there's no coming back from this.
Every mother wants the same thing for her children.
Like every person wants the same thing for their babies.
And so I think that, you know, I don't see why this couldn't turn on a dime.
This might sound totally naive, but I have a feeling that, you know, the Israelis are going to wake up from this.
Like, if the second Intifada, somebody said this the other day, and I thought this was really true, if the second Intifada murdered the Israeli left, I think October 7th murdered the Israeli right for all the reasons you guys are bringing up.
I mean, nobody strengthened Hamas and built up Hamas like Benjamin Netanyahu, who has made a career of humiliating Abu Mazen and strengthening Hamas because he thought that this status quo was sustainable.
It's not.
We know it's not.
And I just feel so much more hopeful about that, which is possibly, possibly totally naive.
Omar, let me ask you just because I know, I mean, Batya referred to these historical examples where this did happen, where some sort of peace or coexistence emerged in the wake of horrific force.
And the examples that are typically used are, you know, the United States and Great Britain and other powers.
I mean, firebomb German cities, deliberately killing enormous amount of German civilians.
And at the end of the war, the Germans didn't say, I'm going to dedicate my life to killing Americans.
The Germans became, you know, kind of a peaceful country.
They demilitarized.
Same with Japan, on which we dropped two nuclear weapons.
So why don't those models hold promise here that at the end of the war, the Palestinians will realize that their only path to peace is to sort of be de-radicalized or something?
Yeah.
I think the fundamental difference between those examples is that we have, as the underlying policy of the Israeli government, is to continue confining Palestinians in Gaza and to continue essentially what can only be described as a campaign of land theft and slow-motion ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, where every day there are more Palestinian homes being demolished, there are more illegal Israeli settlements being built in the West Bank.
and where people in East Jerusalem are pushed out of their homes and Israeli settlers come and take over those homes.
Because that's an underlying reality, it is very difficult to imagine a situation in which what emerges at the end of this is a better future.
We have a tilted dynamic of a relationship of dominance between Israel and the Palestinians, in which the goal is not right now from the Israeli government and frankly from the entire Israeli political climate, one in which we're looking for a future in which we're all living either in an equitable two-state solution, one in which we're looking for a future in which we're all living either in an equitable two-state solution, where Palestinians have a real viable state Or a situation in which we all live in one state with everybody having equal rights.
Neither of these possibilities is anywhere remotely close to what the Israeli political climate currently supports.
And therefore, the underlying reality here is that this is a situation of dominance where Palestinians are going to be denied freedom for the foreseeable future, and where world powers like the United States policy is simply to enable and support whatever Israel wants to do.
You know, there's rhetorical objections.
You'll hear Biden saying Israel should do more to protect civilians, or we support a Palestinian state.
But those are simply slogans that are accompanied with unrelenting U.S. military funding for Israel that is completely unconditional, and diplomatic support that is also unconditional, where the U.S. keeps intervening at the United Nations to veto resolutions that are trying to hold Israel accountable for violations of international law.
The number of vetoes is over 50, which is greater than the number of all vetoes cast by all the other permanent members of the Security Council, combined on all issues from the 1970s until today, and where every method of Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation is demonized and the number of vetoes cast by all the U.S. and the U.S. is a very important thing to do. and where every method of Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation And I think that's a very important thing to do.
Palestinians marching to the fence unarmed in Gaza back in 2018.
The Israeli military responded by opening fire on them, sniper fire, killing journalists and medics.
All of this stuff is documented by human rights organizations, and all of it led to complete world disregard for Palestinians' calls for freedom.
And the only time the world pays attention is when Palestinians act with violence, which I think is very much feeding the wrong lesson, that if we want To pull Palestinians away from supporting organizations like Hamas or from seeing that as a path forward, we have to create hope in which Palestinians can, through peaceful means, have a prospect for freedom.
And that has to entail meaningful and real pressure on Israel to behave the way it interacts with Palestinians.
And that's what we have not seen from Washington.
And in a way, I think the United States government is absolutely complicit in getting us stuck in a dynamic in which Israel gets away with whatever it wants.
Palestinians have no prospect for a better future, and that creates a situation that is ripe for violence, and that's why we are where we are.
Baja, you want to address that?
Maybe I could just throw one quick point in, which is, just in terms of a question to add on to what Omar said, which is, I think one of the reasons I love hearing from you and I love having you on the show, and I presume one of the reasons Omar likes speaking to you as well, is because you're very humanistic on this question, I think you're very reasonable, and a lot of what you say, though, is not reflected in the current Israeli government.
In fact, They go way, way further and say a lot of things that you yourself even say that you disagree with.
So on some level, aren't you supporting a war and supporting a country that's more a kind of fantasy version of what you wish it were rather than the reality of what Israel is, especially given that it has the United States behind it, giving it everything it could possibly want and being actually politically constrained to do otherwise?
I think where I probably disagree with both of you is I kind of reject the idea that the weaker party has no agency and thus no responsibility.
And, um, so I, I, I don't accept that logic to me.
That's a very kind of, I'm not gonna say the W word, but, um, I, I don't accept that logic.
Um, and so I don't see Israel.
Woke.
Woke.
I said it for you in case you didn't want to.
I just, I reject that way of thinking.
I think that Israel obviously is much stronger than either Palestinian faction right now, but I think that the Palestinians have exerted a lot of agency and made a lot of choices, a lot of bad choices.
And I think Israelis have made their own bad choices, but also made a lot of understandable choices, especially after the second intifada with the death of the Israeli peace camp.
And so I just don't I don't have like some fantastical version of Israel where it's sort of better than I, you know, I'm not sitting here worried, terrified that the IDF is going to commit a war crime in Gaza and I'm going to be stuck defending it.
You know what I mean?
Like there will probably at some point be war crimes committed during this war because there are war crimes committed in every war.
And I don't feel the need to defend that or defend Ben Gavir or defend Bibi.
I don't think that, you know, the enterprise of Israel hangs or falls with any particular government.
And just like I don't feel that way about the United States.
And so I think fundamentally, you know, sort of over the long arch of history, you know, it's important to me that the state of Israel exists.
And I think that it's a just project and by and large does its best to live up to that.
Although, of course, right now, like, you know, I'm not going to have any really kind words to say about the current government.
I think that, you know, it's I actually as as time goes on, I get less and less angry at Hamas and more and more angry at the Israeli government that allowed this to happen, because after all, it's.
It is a terrorist organization's job to terrorize people and commit atrocities, and it is a government that's fighting its job to protect its innocent from those atrocities.
And I find that my rage is sort of increasingly turned on the people who let those Israeli civilians and innocents down.
So I don't need Israel to be perfect.
And in fact, you know, It's probably not even worth talking about.
There's not going to be much of a debate if we start talking about the West Bank, where I think Omar and I probably agree on 95 percent of what happens there being pretty indefensible.
But again, I don't lie.
I don't lay the sole responsibility at Israel's feet just because due to an accident of history, it is more powerful right now than than the Palestinians turned out to be due to the way 1967 happened and so forth.
In terms of the American support for Israel, honestly, I really feel that the Abraham Accords have have sort of turned America into a second fiddle in terms of who.
who Israel is looking at, like for their reaction.
You know, Israel made a deal with the United States in terms of military support.
It kind of went both ways.
You know, Israel gave up a lot to get that support in terms of developing its own weaponry that it could have then sold.
And so, you know, I don't, I'm not necessarily committed to USA aid to Israel, by the way.
I think that the right-wing argument for why it actually weakens Israel is pretty solid, as Glenn, you and Jacob talked about at great length.
So I really don't see the U.S.
as having such a strong role, certainly not more of a strong role in its relationship with Israel than it does with many other players in the region.
And I think that Israel is increasingly looking to diversify, if you will.
It's support.
And I think, honestly, it's a really interesting development.
I think for a long time it looked like that was going to be extremely bad for the Palestinians.
But Israel normalizing relations with the Saudis, I can't help but feel in my Pollyannish way that that could end up, you know, that they could, you know, have as a condition of that happening some sort of just resolution to the conflict.
Omar, we're kind of running out of time, so whatever you want to address there, feel free to, but I just wanted to kind of ask you to wrap things up in terms of these two questions.
Can you address the argument from Batya that, yeah, maybe the IDF is committing war crimes, but like in every war people commit war crimes, or is there something exceptional or even unprecedented about what Israel is doing in Gaza in terms of the use of force?
Do you have any optimism at all, like, where this is going or how this is going to end?
Or do you think Israel is going to be able to continue more or less doing what it wants without anyone being willing or able to impede what it's doing?
Sure.
On the first question, it's funny, Batia drawing that contrast between the Israeli government and Hamas.
In my view, because the definition of terrorism is inflicting deliberate harm on civilians in order to produce a desirable political end, In my perspective, the Israeli government is a bigger terrorist organization than Hamas.
I'm sure that will be surprising and maybe shocking to Batia to describe, but I don't say that to be inflammatory.
I say it because I genuinely believe it to be true.
When you look at just simply the scale of the violence that Israel has inflicted on Palestinian civilians over a very, very long time, the purpose of which is to solidify an apartheid system in which Palestinians are denied rights and don't fight back.
They just have to accept that that is effectively the Israeli project.
Look, and I just want to push back also real quick on this kind of question, the woke argument about which side is more powerful and whether that's what defines who we're sympathetic to.
I, in theory, agree that we should not automatically, just in any kind of dispute, side with a party that has less power.
But we also cannot pretend as if power is not a factor at all.
Power over a longstanding conflict produces injustice when there is a power differential.
And to me, this is no difference than saying, you know, have black organizations during apartheid in South Africa or during the civil rights movement in the U.S.
or slavery or colonialism.
We can pick a billion examples in which we can understand that oppressed groups have, on occasion, made decisions that are bad, committed atrocities that are indefensible, and the list goes on.
But there is no denying that in those structural situations, when there is a dynamic between an oppressor and an oppressed, a dominating force and a dominated people and so on, that you can't eliminate the power factor and that the pressure ought to be applied on the party that is more powerful to look for a just solution, because obviously the weaker party is desperate, for the most part, to achieve some kind of resolution in order for their lives to improve compared to
The current dynamic in which they are completely powerless and have to endure whatever the more powerful party endures on them.
I don't see in the short term signs of hope.
I disagree with Batya on the significance of the Abraham Accords.
I think these are a lot of governments that have secretly close ties with the Israeli government.
They're more concerned about Iranian influence in the region.
They have shared enemies elsewhere.
But I don't see that as being adequate in terms of addressing the underlying cause, which is injustice in Palestine and the fact that Palestinians are denied rights and that that is the primary factor.
To the extent that those agreements might push the Israeli government in a direction where they would reconsider what they're doing?
That would be amazing, just the history has proved otherwise.
Because the entire Arab world offered something called the Arab Peace Initiative to Israel, in which Israel ends the occupation, withdraws to the pre-67 borders, and gets full normalization of relations with the entire Arab world, and Israel responded by building more and more settlements and effectively entrenching the occupation.
So the history does not look promising there.
If I'm going to look for hope, to me it is only in the fact that young people in the United States see this very differently.
The fact that overwhelmingly people between 18 and 34.
Actually, I mean, the broader American population supports a ceasefire in the immediate, but younger people are even more supportive of the idea of placing pressure on Israel to get it to change its policy and be more sympathetic to Palestinians, this feeling that Palestinians are being denied their rights and are suffering an injustice that has to be corrected.
So it's hope that is quite far down the road.
But unfortunately, all I see in the immediate future is an incredibly ugly situation continuing to get uglier and uglier, with the prospect of this violence even spilling to different areas of the Middle East.
And it is simply hanging by a thread and hoping against logic that we can get a better future, which is what keeps me fighting and insisting on doing whatever I can in terms of public education.
That's kind of like my niche on this issue.
And whatever activism is being done out there in order to produce the prospect of a better future, I think it's going to take a very, very long time.
But.
You know, I don't imagine that an injustice of this magnitude will last forever, and I can very easily imagine a future in which 50, 100 years down the road Israelis and Palestinians are living together as equals.
The question is, how many museums are we building For how many massacred populations before we get to that point, or how fast can we actually get to it, where there is still a Palestine, frankly, to be saved because of the rate at which it is being destroyed, I fear, for what will be left in terms of looking at a brighter future that is going to be many decades down the road.
Okay, Bachir, the last word is yours, so go ahead and use it however you want.
I'll just say something briefly because I thought a lot about what I would say when Omar calls Israel a terrorist state.
Actually, since you are going to talk about that, let me just quickly interject so that I can just put my own two cents on that about as well, which was, you know, I keep obsessing on this.
idea of what is the israel israeli goal because i i really don't know a goal that can be achieved and at the beginning of the war of naftali bennett wrote an essay in the economist he's the former israel prime minister in which he said the goal is very clear it's not to destroy hamas it's not to expel the gazans those weren't what he mentioned
he said the goal is to put so much fear in the hearts of all of israelis enemies for generations that even though they hate us they will be so put into fear and submission that they will know they can never pick up arms against us again I mean, isn't that kind of a pretty close definition of what terrorism is intended to do?
Put so much fear in the heart of other people through violence that they change their behavior?
It's funny because when Israel opened up the humanitarian corridors and there were images of Palestinians walking as families and holding up white flags, I got very emotional looking at the photo.
And I was trying to figure out why, and I reached out to a very right-wing friend and I was like, how come this is so moving?
And his explanation for why it was so moving was kind of the opposite of mine when I sort of analyzed my feelings.
He thought it was very moving because it showed Palestinians giving in and giving up, which is kind of the Naftali Bennett op-ed.
I thought it was moving because I looked at them and thought, these are neighbors.
Like, these are potential neighbors.
These are no longer enemies.
Like, that's what I kind of saw in that picture and felt like I was looking at the future rather than at some horrible scene of, you know, civilians being terrorized.
You know, is it terrorism if people are, you know, terrified by actions that don't physically touch them or harm them.
I mean, I think it's kind of like an academic question, but I would say, I mean, I would say that, like, no.
I mean, it's not terrorism if there's no physical threat to their being.
And so if Naftali Bennett was saying, like, we need to move them all to Sinai, then do this thing, and they'll be terrified, and then they can come home, it wouldn't be terrorist.
If he meant they should be bombed themselves as civilians, it would be terrorism, right?
It's the intentional targeting of civilians with an aim of changing their ideology.
And I think the thing I came down to that I thought I would say, Omar, in response to you saying Israel is a terrorist state, is we need a word that references specifically the kind of brutality that is involved is we need a word that references specifically the kind of brutality that is involved in intentionally harming as many civilians as possible, the way that Hamas did on October 7, the way that ISIS the
As a society, we need a word to distinguish between the intentional brutality of these of these non-governmental actors and then an organization that has made efforts to avoid civilian casualties.
So you called the Israeli effort to avoid civilian casualties ethnic cleansing.
But that is in a way an acknowledgement that some effort was made.
I don't need the word to be terrorist.
I mean, we could come up with a different word to refer specifically to the kind of brutality involved in wanting To harm the bodies of noncombatants, as opposed to even, let's say, let's say in a month, the three of us reconvene and I say, you know what, they didn't do enough to avoid civilian casualties.
That could certainly happen.
I mean, it has not happened yet.
I'm following it very closely.
But let's say that happens, right?
That could happen.
I would still think that I needed a different word To distinguish between what Hamas did and, let's say, a potential failure on Israel's part to do enough to prevent harm.
I want to respect that you have the last word.
Do you mind if I interject for exactly 10 seconds and then just let you continue to have your final word?
I'm going to give you the last word.
You have the last word, Omar.
Alright, Omar, you wait until she's done and then you have your last word.
I just wanted to say, like, I don't need the word to be terrorist, but that is kind of how that word operates right now.
And it seems like a good word for it, but I'm happy to come up with a different word.
But for now, I think that that is the stakes of distinguishing between those two things.
Final word, Omar.
All right, I'll keep it very, very brief.
I'll just say I'm not hung up on the word terrorist either for that matter.
I just want to point out that Israel has a history of deliberately targeting civilians.
We see it documented on video in terms of unarmed protesters being shot.
We saw it in Jenin just a couple of days ago with these two young boys who clearly pose no threat being shot on video.
And with Israel's use of Palestinian civilians as human shields, which is also very heavily documented, just this idea that Israel does kills Palestinian civilians accidentally while Hamas kills civilians deliberately, I don't think that distinction is real.
I think if you just look a little bit deeper into human rights reports, you might reach a different conclusion about what Israeli policies are.
And I'd be happy to make those links and resources available as well.
All right.
Well, let me encourage everybody, because this conversation was as spirited but also as constructive as I expected it to be, to follow each of them.
I really hope that whatever side of the conflict you're on, you will purposely seek out the smarter and more reasonable people who advocate the opposite view.
It can only fortify what you think if you really subject yourself to those views and grapple with them.
And if you just only listen to the people who agree with you, all you're going to do is put yourself in an echo chamber.
So, Batya and Omar are excellent resources in that regard.
I really appreciate you guys thinking of my show as a place to host this conversation.
This is exactly the sort of dialogue we're hoping to have.
Thank you so much, both of you, for your time.
Thank you both so much.
Thank you very much.
Have a great evening.
Seriously, this has been an incredible conversation that is incredibly rare.
Absolutely, I totally agree.
Thank you guys.
So that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast version, where you can listen to each episode 12 hours after they first are broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow the program, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
As a final reminder, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals for our live interactive aftershow where we take your comments and critiques and hear your feedback and suggestions for future shows.
Ordinarily, we would do that tonight.
Tonight is Thursday, but given that we went kind of long with that debate in the first segment, We're going to go ahead and postpone the aftershow on Locals to next Tuesday.
But those aftershows are available only for subscribers to our Locals platform.
And if you want to become a subscriber, which gives you access not only to those live aftershows, but also actually there's a weekly thread that we now have where we take people's comments and I try and respond to as many of them as I can.
That's the place where we're going to publish our original journalism, and it's really just a way to help support the independent journalism that we do here.
If you want to join the Locals community, simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you to that platform.
For now, for those who have been watching, we are, as always, extremely appreciative, and we hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m.
