All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 8, 2025 - System Update - Glenn Greenwald
37:50
Glenn Takes Your Questions On Gaza, USAID, and More

Glenn takes audience questions on Trump's plans to take over Gaza, the gutting of USAID, and more. ----- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update:  Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook LinkedIn Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening, everybody.
It's Friday, February 7th.
Welcome to a special episode of System Update.
I don't know how special it is, but at least it's different and we think it'll be worthwhile.
That's our live nightly show that airs everybody through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
I'm going to tell you a little bit about how this show is somewhat different.
As many of you know, from the very beginning of the launch of our program, we decided it was extremely important.
To have a part of our show entail interaction with our viewers, especially our longtime members, people who have been reading my articles or have been watching the show, because I've always believed that the most important innovation of digital era journalism is that, unlike in the past where journalists spoke on a monologue, they spoke on a kind of mountaintop, they issued their copy, people read it, and nobody really had any outlet against it.
The digital age has completely reversed that, where now, all the time, if you write something, you are absolutely certain to hear in many different directions criticisms and questions and critiques and challenges to everything that you've written.
And that's been part of what I've loved, and maybe it's because my journalism career was born into the Internet age, where that was already the case.
But to me, it's an obligation of journalism if you're trying to have an impact on the public discourse.
You have to not just opine and disseminate, but...
Answer and be accountable.
And the after show that we created every Tuesday and Thursday among our members was designed to do that.
It's an interactive after show.
We would take questions, respond to feedback and critiques, hear suggestions for future shows.
It was incredibly constructive.
The problem that we had found, and we've been announcing that we're trying to retool this after show.
Is that every Tuesday and Thursday night we would end the show on Rumble and it would typically take 20-25 minutes for us to set up the local show.
It's in a different part of the studio.
It has a different format.
We have to wind down the Rumble stream.
We then have to boot up the local stream.
And so a lot of time is elapsed and a lot of people understandably don't want to wait around for dead air waiting for that local show.
And that's why we've been trying to figure out ways to retool the after show so that it has a more seamless transition.
From the live Rumble show into the after show, we're thinking about, as I said, doing third segments instead of just two, where the third segment, a little bit will be on the main show, and then the rest of it will be on the locals' after show.
As many of you know, the after show is available only for members of our local community.
It's a really important part of the independent journalism that we do here.
It's actually what enables us to do the independent journalism here.
So if you want to support...
Our journalism, if you want to be part of the Locals community, you can just click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you directly to that community.
What we've decided to do instead is, in lieu of these aftershows that have this big time interval, is every Friday we're going to have what we are calling a mailbag.
I know that's an incredibly creative term.
Nobody else has ever described this type of show that way before.
But essentially what we want to do is elevate the questions, the comments, the critiques, the challenges from the after show, where only members hear it, to the live rumble show and use Friday night, assuming that there's no major breaking news event that prevents it, from being able to hear the questions.
We have now the ability for people to ask questions by video or audio, which makes it more lively and vibrant rather than just text.
And that way we can have it kind of back and forth.
There's other Rumble features coming that will enable it to be even more interactive, including a call-in feature where you can call in live and we can have a conversation.
We don't have that yet.
But for now, that's what we're going to do.
We're going to have a mailbag.
Typically, we're going to have a segment before it that's about the news, assuming we have one.
Tonight, we've been doing so much coverage of so many different intense events that we feel like we've covered those, and so we wanted to do our debut mailbag standing alone.
On Friday, we've always gotten some amazingly provocative and interesting and entertaining questions from our viewers.
Just as I note, the only people who will be able to submit these kind of questions or comments are members of our local community, so that's another reason to join if you're so inclined.
This is the interactive feature of our show.
It's where I'm going to get to hear from our audience instead of them just hearing from me and not just hear from them, but interact with the thoughts they're having.
And like I said, right now, people can ask questions by video.
They don't have to appear on the screen if they don't want.
They can keep their anonymity.
Some people choose to.
Or by text.
So here is video question number one in our debut mailbag on Friday's evening of our system update on Rumble, and it is from Kevin Kotwas.
So I know that you speak a lot about the dangers of tech censorship and the importance of, you know, a free open internet.
But my question is whether or not we could truly have a free and open internet when all of these platforms are owned and centrally controlled by tech billionaires and exist within the top-down model of capitalism.
I think, you know, the fact that, yeah, this kind of decentralized blockchain, whatever platform doesn't exist yet, but isn't that sort of a cop-out?
And shouldn't we start building these alternative systems so we don't have to rely on the whims of billionaires for our free speech?
You know, that's a really great question.
It's actually at the center of so many of the things that we cover.
Just for those of you who aren't familiar with the terminology, what he's essentially saying is that one of the reasons why censorship on the Internet has been such a problem is that you have these very identifiable figureheads who make all the decisions, who kind of sit there with the permit and delete button right in front of, on their desk.
Mark Zuckerberg gets to decide what is and isn't permissible on Instagram and Facebook and WhatsApp and Google and YouTube and all of their platforms and pre-Elon.
That Twitter regime and now Elon himself on Twitter.
And what the argument is saying is that even if you get somebody who's vehemently dedicated to the concept of free speech and opposed to online censorship, somebody like Elon Musk said he was, somebody like Rumble and its CEO and founder, Kripps Pavlowski, definitely are.
But I have to say, even Jack Dorsey, I know he gets a lot of criticism, rightfully so, for the censorship Twitter did, but he was never somebody who believed in.
Internet censorship.
And if you listen to the reasons he says Twitter ended up censoring so much, you'll find that it's not because he was a believer in that.
Quite the contrary.
And the problem is that as long as you have an identifiable central decision-maker, you're always going to be able to bring pressure to bear on these people.
The government can threaten them.
The government can put pressure on them.
Media outlets can try and shame them.
Oh, if you don't censor this, there's going to be blood on your hands.
But what you also often have is a workforce that these companies rely on and have recruited from Stanford and other colleges who have become pretty left-wing in terms of culture wars and believe in censorship.
And so you get these internal pressures as well from your own workforce saying, "We can't allow this kind of content." And so even the most stalwart free speech defenders like Elon ended up picking a war in Brazil that I think did a lot of good and was really important.
He refused to censor a bunch of unjust censorship demands coming from this tyrannical judge.
But then Brazil booted X, banned X from Brazil, which is a huge market.
And Elon Musk had to retreat, and now he is censoring in accordance with those demands.
Obviously, in China and India, all these platforms do the same.
Rumble has been an exception in that it has decided it would rather lose access to big markets, including Brazil and France, than censor.
But at the end of the day, that isn't ideal either, because you want these media outlets in every part of the world.
Advocated most the solution that's embedded in the question, which is the idea that we can't have any more centralized social media where there's a company or one person who sits at the helm and has the ability to censor or not censor, because as long as that's the case, there will always be major vulnerability points to induce censorship, internet censorship.
People like Jack Dorsey have very vocally argued, That the only way out of that, no matter how well-intentioned the executives are, is through what Kevin in that question asked, which is a kind of blockchain technology that decentralizes these social media outlets.
So in a sense, and I'm not the expert on this technologically, but everybody has their own protocol of the social media outlet, and they can interact with one another.
There was a site, Mastodon, you might remember, that liberals tried to flee when Elon bought Twitter.
And they ended up realizing that didn't work.
And there are other social media companies that don't rely on this centralized censorship that do rely on these protocols.
The problem right now is that these kinds of protocols, these kinds of blockchain sites are far too difficult to use.
They're far too confusing if you don't know a lot of computer code, if you don't have an in-depth understanding of how protocols and blockchain works.
It's just not user-friendly.
And as long as it's not user-friendly, it's a huge entry into using them.
And what we've seen is that social media outlets, to be meaningful and influential, rely on scale.
You need huge numbers of people on there.
Otherwise, what's being said on there makes no impact.
But that can easily happen.
I remember very well when the Snowden reporting happened, when Edward Snowden first started contacting me.
And was demanding that we use very highly sophisticated forms of encryption because he obviously felt unsafe for good reason talking to us about the stuff that he had taken unless we had the most military-grade encryption.
But at the time, almost nobody used, certainly in media, that kind of encryption because it was extremely technologically complex to use.
If you weren't well-versed in code, it would be very hard to do it.
Snowden took hours and hours walking me through it.
And now just six, seven, eight years later, that encryption is everywhere.
It's very user-friendly.
You don't even have to do anything in order to have your communication encrypted.
So I do think there's validity to the view that as long as we have centralized social media where there's an executive or a set of executives and officials at top, it's always going to be a vulnerability point to force Internet censorship.
Rumble is trying to prove that you can have a company that doesn't succumb to that.
But again, they've thus far been inaccessible to multiple key outlets and you don't want that.
You want Rumble and its free speech values to be in those countries.
It's possible that blockchain is the only solution.
The problem is right now, and I think in the foreseeable future, it's unlikely to be sufficiently user-friendly to permit people on a very large scale to be able to actually use it.
But it's a great question.
It's an important Development to watch out for.
I hope those technologies get more user-friendly for precisely the reason that the questioner said.
Alright, let's go to question two.
It is from one of our longtime Locals members, Alan Smith.
Greetings to the show's host.
I'm sure it's been a long day for you, so I'll confine my questions to human subordinates.
Glenn, I was wondering if there have been any developments in your ongoing feud with that Brazilian judge, and have you gamed out a strategy in the event that you're tortured?
Having Michael Tracy on is good practice, and it suggests that you have a high pain threshold, but I recommend adopting the chunk method.
Just start talking, confess to everything, and try to filibuster.
Now, on a more serious note, more serious than your imminent torture, last week you seemed to suggest that you're younger than me.
What you couldn't have understood at the time is that I am among the most accredited disinformation experts in the world.
And I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking that's just a made-up title that I've arbitrarily bestowed on myself.
But we're not talking about that.
The important thing to remember is aside from the obvious prestige this tile affords me, it also enables me to issue disinformation warnings.
So if I should say I was a baby on January 6th, for example, that means you can claim toddler status or above, but under no circumstances.
Not really sure why the video cut out in the middle. people.
There's a one-minute limit for now, but we're going to work to expand that capacity.
So let me address a couple things.
He asked about the serious question about what my current condition is, my current status is here in Brazil, given the fact that I have been extremely critical of the most tyrannical official, I'd argue, in the democratic world, which is the Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes, who was the one who had that war with Elon Musk, is the one who ordered X ban from all of Brazil, has put...
Critics of his in prison, ordered searches and seizures of them, put political opponents in a form of lawfare and abuse of the justice system that makes what the Democratic Party did look tame by comparison.
And there are a lot of people in prison.
There are a lot of people exiled for having done that because he threatened to imprison them or has imprisoned them.
And it's a really repressive environment.
And it isn't that I've just been a vocal critic of his.
It's also that six months or so ago, I got my hands on a massive archive that came right from his chambers.
We've talked about this before.
And we were able to report.
I partnered on purpose with the largest newspaper in Brazil, Folio of Sao Paulo, where we published on the front page more than a dozen articles showing all kinds of improprieties and irregularities and how his chambers was conducted.
And in response, as you can imagine, he did not appreciate that.
He opened a criminal inquiry.
There were all kinds of threats emanating from Brasilia.
But I've had this before.
I obviously have this with the Snowden file and with WikiLeaks and with the first reporting that we did in Brazil about Lula da Silva and the corruption force.
And as I always say, if you want to go into journalism and you want to actually do a good job with it, you're going to get threatened.
You're going to get attacked.
If you're not, it's a sign you're not bothering anybody in power.
That said, I do think the questioner raised an important point, which is that I've known Michael Tracy for many years now.
I've had many different kinds of interactions with him.
I've had endless debates with him where he insists upon a certain myopic view or a more ample and substantive view.
And we'll pursue it endlessly until the end of time.
You have to hang up on him.
And even if you do, he'll call you 20 minutes later and continue or write you a long email about it.
We've had Michael here in the studio.
And so it is true that all those dealings with Michael Tracy have made me, I think, extremely well prepared to endure whatever forms of torture or other horrific suffering governments might actually try and impose as a result of their anger toward.
I've talked a lot about this with Julian Assange over the years and with Edward Snowden over the years.
I've talked about it with Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky.
If you're going to try and do something that you know is dangerous, if you're going to take on a power center, there's nothing that undermines the courageousness of it or the nobility of it.
If you start planning how to protect yourself against the worst consequences.
You don't want to sacrifice the work.
You don't want to run away and retreat.
There's nothing noble about that.
But if you devise strategies to try and minimize your vulnerability and minimize their ability to attack you, I think that's very wise.
And one of the tactics we've used in the Snowden story with WikiLeaks, with the first reporting we did in Brazil, with the second is we just partner with large newspapers and commandeer them.
And get them on our side.
It's obviously a lot more difficult for the government to try and prosecute you if you're publishing their leaked or classified documents that incriminate them and you're just doing it on your own website and they can say, oh, you're just a blogger, you're an information broker, you're a theft, the things Obama administration officials tried to do with us with the Snowden story to justify our surveillance and imprisonment.
But if you're partnering with The Guardian and The Washington Post and The New York Times and Global and Folia, And with Snowden, we partnered with media outlets around the world.
Then it becomes much more difficult.
Then it basically would mean that they have to put not only you, but the editors of Folia, the journalists in Folia, in that same criminal process as well.
No, it doesn't always work out that way.
Julian Assange partnered with the New York Times and The Guardian and El País to publish those 2010 classified information, and yet still...
The Trump administration found a way to only prosecute Julian Assange and not those other newspapers, even though the Obama administration said there's no way to prosecute Julian Assange without also prosecuting the newspapers with whom he worked and who published the same information.
And when I was indicted in Brazil in 2020, I was the only one indicted, even though I was working with the largest newspapers in the country.
So it's not a guarantee, but it's a strategy that you can take.
And look, at the end of the day, you have a lot of different options in life.
And I don't think some are better than others.
I think there are times in your life when you don't want to pursue a risky career project because you're just not at the point in your life when that's your priority or you're ready for it.
But in general, especially in journalism, I think if you're somebody who believes in journalism, if you want to go into journalism for the right reasons to take on power centers, if you're not prepared for and expecting these kinds of retaliations, and it goes back to what we were talking about with That is simply not the right profession for you.
Thanks for that question.
We have some other questions.
A few more questions we'll get to right after this quick word from our sponsor.
In times like these, uncertainty is the only certainty.
From geopolitical risks like the ones we've seen in Israel and Ukraine, both of which risks destabilizing global markets to the Fed's nonstop money printing, it's hard to feel secure about your financial future.
Since 2020, the U.S. dollar has lost 24% of its buying power.
And with inflation rising and government debt ballooning, your hard-earned savings are at risk.
That's why I trust Lear Capital to help me understand the benefits of gold and silver, physical assets that hold their value in turbulent times.
Lear has educated me.
On how one can go about the best way, diversifying into gold, that would give one who does that control over their financial security.
With their helpful guides, you can understand how to take possession of various high-value metals, store them safely, or roll over your IRA or 401k tax and penalty-free.
It's easy to get started.
Call Lear Capital today at 800-920-8388 or visit leargreenwald.com for your free wealth protection guide.
They've got loads of reports to help you understand the current political and economic landscape, and I really recommend it.
Here's a special offer for my viewers.
Get a $500 credit for delivery, storage, or IRA fees with your qualifying purchase.
Learn how you can protect your future.
Call Lear today at 800-920-8388.
That's 800-920-8388.
or go to leergreedwald.com.
We are now continuing with the Friday mailbag that we announced we were having at the start of the show and the reasons for it.
And we are at the part of our show where we're going to...
No longer have video questions.
We hope to have a lot more of those.
It's a feature that we just now...
But here are some text questions.
These are what we've been doing on the after show for a long time.
This is from Stephen P.W. With all the Washington, D.C. grifters resist an outrage directed at the reworking inefficiencies this administration is attempting to bring to a bloated bureaucratic federal agency be dragged out enough to stifle any true and substantive reform at all.
It's, I think, something that It's hard to say.
You know, I was thinking today about the fact that I remember in the 80s when Ronald Reagan ran, he ran on a platform of abolishing three major cabinet positions, including the Department of Education, I believe, the Department of Health and Human Services, and maybe the Department of Interior.
I'll check on those last two.
It doesn't really matter from this point.
I want to make clear, I don't remember for sure, but definitely the Department of Education.
Reagan won, was an incredibly unpopular president.
He won in 1984 with a massive landslide.
He campaigned on it, people voted for it, and he just never did it.
Because the institutional inertia in Washington was too great to effectuate changes that radical.
And I think one of the things that Democrats are looking at and feeling almost jealous about and resentful toward is that their own leaders have often run on platforms And when they get into office, they make all kinds of excuses why those things are impossible to do.
The reality is that we're not supposed to have parts of our government that operate unto themselves free of democratic accountability.
Like USAID saying, how dare you, White House that got elected, come in, interfere in our operations and try and find out what we're doing.
We have the right to exist separately.
Why?
The government funds you.
And so I think one of the things that Elon Musk is doing, I think one of the things that a lot of people who helped prepare Donald Trump for what would happen if he won, and you've got to give those people credit, independent of the merits, they were not playing around.
They were extremely serious about doing the things they said they were going to do.
They had plans for it.
They had executive orders written.
They had all kinds of powers that...
Their lawyers told them they could exercise.
They're not playing around, which is what you would want in a president who campaigns on dismantling a massive institution of the deep state of the administrative state.
You don't want them making a few symbolic gestures toward it and then just letting it stand as is.
This is, I think, something that...
It is commendable, independent of your views of these agencies, because Donald Trump ran on a platform of doing this, the people of the United States democratically ratify it, and now he's going about doing it.
Now, these agencies are not going away lightly.
This is now the third question where we're talking about the kind of instinct and incentive of establishment institutions.
They don't just give up lightly because somebody's at their gate.
Knocking on the door or even going in.
This is a staple of American imperialistic foreign policy since the end of World War II. You think these people, these military industrial complex people are just going to give all this up lately?
But right now, Donald Trump and Elon Musk and his team are steamrolling over opposition.
The Democrats are still completely befuddled by what happened in the 2024 election, even more so by what they stand for.
Nobody cares about the corporate media anymore, so they're not a bulwark to anything, and every day they just keep rolling over these agencies.
Now, I don't want to be too rosy-eyed about it.
We'll see what ends up replacing them.
We'll see what people who are doing this actually intend with these agencies.
But these agencies, USAID and others like them, have been these behemoths.
That have run our country and run our foreign policy and run much of the world.
And they are completely impervious to democratic elections.
Nobody has any idea what they're doing.
They purposely keep it that way.
They're sinister.
They interfere in other countries.
Other countries hate them.
They've kicked them out.
They've expelled them.
They have a massive budget and they do what they want with it.
And so to watch...
Them being targeted to watch all of this transparency, selective though it may be, emerging.
I've always believed that this was the value of Donald Trump, no matter all my disagreements with various policy positions of his.
We played you this video before where Seymour Hersh, the legendary journalist, said that, who's always been associated with the left, has said that You can vote Democrat, you can vote Republican for decades, and the foreign policy establishment continues as is.
Nothing can ever change.
And it's disastrous and corrupted.
Donald Trump, he said, is the only one with the capacity to be what he called a circuit breaker.
And my former Intercept colleague Jeremy Scahill, who's clearly on the left, went on Breaking News and said that.
He doubted that.
And I think that's exactly right.
I think Donald Trump is a circuit breaker.
And circuit breakers are a blunt instrument.
They just turn off all the lights off.
But sometimes when the system is flowing and nobody can stop it because it's too big and has been going on for too long and it's creating too many destructive results and results that we don't even know, you need a circuit breaker.
You need to break it and then say, okay, what is this?
What has it been?
And how do we rebuild it?
And I'm not saying there are no dangers from it.
I'm not saying there are no valid questions about Elon Musk's role or the role of people he's hiring to do these things, but I don't think you can deny that having people rampage through these unaccountable industrial administrative state and deep state agencies in Washington is so long overdue, and I'm thrilled to see it.
All right.
We have one more question, I think maybe two.
This is from Charlede747.
Glenn, regarding U.S. aid, we simply can't overthrow existing foreign governments, fund the creation of COVID or some other MSM political with U.S. Treasury dollars without it.
Will it really go away or simply be morphed into some other sinister agency?
Well, let me just say that U.S. aid was created in 1961.
And when I had Mike Bence on the show, he explained in, I think, a very cohesive and accurate way.
The reason they needed a U.S. aid, they already had a CIA, they already had a State Department.
Why do you need a U.S. aid to carry out the same foreign policies?
It's because the CIA and the State Department can't go into places and say, hi, I'm from the U.S. government, I'm from the State Department, I'm an arm of the CIA, and I'm here to involve myself in your internal activities.
USAID was a way of pretending, oh no, we're not the CIA. We're not the State Department.
We're just here to help.
We want to fund your nice programs.
We want to get involved in your civic society.
We want to help people.
And the reality is that that was the goal.
The U.S. government did not fund USAID in these massive numbers to go around helping people because we're really nice and we're concerned for people.
Sometimes they did end up helping people.
Because one way to get soft power in a country is by going in and saying, oh look, we're saving your babies.
Don't you love us instead of China?
Massive amounts of this budget though were about subverting elections, overthrowing elections, manipulating the outcome of elections to get the leaders that we wanted, sowing discord, division, trying to transform other societies into ours and our vision of left-wing culture war ideology because we've Thought that that would make these countries more amenable to ours.
Just a completely unnecessary part of the federal government.
Very, very sinister.
Creates a lot of anti-American rage, even though it's called USAID. And who could be against an aid agency that just wants to help?
And finally, that narrative is being destroyed because transparency is what brings the truth to everything.
All right, last question from RT Did.
Dear Glenn, thank you for your relentless truth-telling.
Thank you.
I don't always agree with you.
Why not?
ethnic cleansing.
Because they don't honestly see how Gazans can continue to live there amidst such inconceivable devastation.
In other words, the real ethnic cleansing was perpetrated by Israel rather than by Trump.
The photos disgust me and it seems an immoral expectation of any innocent civilians to attempt to live in such conditions.
My question to you is, what do you believe is the best solution now?
Lots of good points there.
I absolutely agree with...
Point that the real ethnic cleansing came before Trump.
But this is perfect bipartisan foreign policy.
Joe Biden oversees the destruction of Gaza for 15 months by giving Israel the arms and money to destroy it all with no limitations.
And then Trump comes in and says, oh look, Netanyahu and Biden destroyed all of Gaza.
I have to do something about it.
Now, it is absolutely true.
And we've been saying this for many years now, not just in the last couple weeks, that Gaza, civilian life in Gaza has been completely destroyed and made uninhabitable.
The civilian infrastructure of Gaza was obliterated on purpose.
Water, sewage, buildings, etc., healthcare system, educational system, there's nothing there.
And I wouldn't even say it's such a malicious idea that, hey, look, these people can't stay there while they're renovating.
I mean, I don't know if you've ever renovated the homes you live in.
It's horrific, and the structure's not collapsed.
It's just that there's so much going on that on some level, for your safety sometimes even, you have to leave the house.
And here, I don't even like that comparison, I just wanted to make the point, but it's a much vaster scale.
The problem is that, twofold, one is that you can rebuild Gaza without moving out all 1.8 billion Gazans.
You rebuild this area, you move the people temporarily out, you move them back in, all within Gaza.
Trump is giving the Israelis what they've always wanted, which is the cleansing ethnically of Gaza of all Arabs.
But the other problem is, you have to leave it to the Palestinians to decide what they want.
You can't decide for them what's best.
Oh, it's clearly better for them to just leave and not sit in the rubble.
Let them decide that.
Right now, they're all saying, We just survived 15 months because we don't want to leave this land.
This is sacred land to us.
This is our land.
We will fight to the death to preserve it.
So if I were making the decision and somebody were saying to me, hey, you can live in this rubble that Israel just obliterated for 15 months or you can move somewhere where there's at least some semblance of civilian life, my choice might be different than the people of Gaza.
Who have very strong religious and cultural and political reasons that probably has gotten reinforced over the last 15 months about why they will never, ever leave.
And the other problem is it's not just these neutral countries suggesting it to them.
It's the United States and Israel.
He sat next to Netanyahu.
Everyone in Palestine and everyone in the world knows that the people who destroyed Gaza are the two people, the two countries sitting there.
The United States and Israel.
And they're the last two.
That people in Gaza are going to trust to move out.
The solution to the Middle East is have the United States stop paying for Israel's military, all of its wars, and protecting them diplomatically in everything they do because then they will have an incentive to place limits on their behavior and to try and find a way to get along with their neighbors.
And then at the same time, give the Palestinians some degree of sovereignty and dignity the way everyone else in this world would demand.
I don't think there's another group of people on the planet who would tolerate and withstand a foreign military, especially the ones that kicked them out of their original homeland, putting them through humiliating checkpoints, killing them whenever they feel like it, flattening their society, cutting off food, going on for decades, who wouldn't fight back.
There's a famous film that Hollywood made in 1984 called Red Dawn.
About how the Russians invaded and occupied the United States and all the heroic Americans, not in the military, civilians, took up arms and engaged in terrorist attacks against the Russians to drive them out.
Everyone's right.
Every population would use violence if foreign militaries were occupying the land.
So the solution is to solve the root of the problem.
I do agree with people, and I think, you know, I heard this critique, and I'm willing to even give it a little bit of validity, that especially in the first day when I heard this, I overreacted to it rather than caveating the fact that it could be a negotiating ploy, which I think in part it might have been.
Nonetheless, I think the whole, the very idea of even musing about ethnic cleansing, and that is what it is.
If you're talking about the forcible transfer of a population of a certain ethnicity out of a land, That, by definition, is ethic cleansing.
If that's not, nothing is.
While he was sitting next to the smirking leader of the country that actually destroyed it, think about the imagery that sends around that region of the world, the unrest that can create in that region, the anti-American rage that it can create, the impossibility of normalizing relations in the Middle East,
while Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu are sitting there talking about Turning Gaza into some sort of American-owned or American-Israeli partnership real estate project when the whole point of the conflict is that the people there feel thousands of years of very deep religious, cultural, and now identity-based connection to the land.
All right.
This is a great exercise.
I really love this.
And I hope that as you guys on Rumble understand more of what we do on the Locals Apple Show.
That we're now going to do here on the mailbag.
The questions, which were great tonight, will continue to even grow, get better, get more diverse and everything.
That's what we're hoping.
We really encourage you to put those questions by video or by text.
And as we said, we're going to have the capacity for people to call in and have a live video conversation while we do the show.
All you have to do is join locals in order to be able to participate in this.
Obviously, you can hear...
The mailbag by watching this show, but the people who'll be able to give the questions are members of our local community.
If you'd like to join that, gives you access to a whole variety of other interactive features.
We put a lot of original video, exclusive video content on locals.
It's where we put the professionalized written transcripts of every program that we publish the day after we broadcast the show here.
And most of all, it's the community on which we really do rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you directly to that community.
For those of you watching this show, we are, of course, very appreciative.
We hope to see you back on Monday night and every night at 7 p.m.
Eastern Live exclusively here on Rubble.
▲
Export Selection