All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 22, 2025 - MyronGainesX
03:55:47
DEBATE: Who Is A Bigger Obstacle To Peace? Israelis Or Palestinians? Destiny vs Myron!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right.
I think we are should be live here on mine.
I know you're already live, right, Destiny?
All right, cool.
all right um i think i can see you um I think I'm live on all my stuff now.
All right.
Yo, chat, give me ones in the chat, guys.
We're live everywhere.
Give me ones if audio is good on my end.
I think I'm good on Destiny's side, which is good on Ellie's side.
Make sure I didn't have the mic too blown out, but give me ones.
All right, so we're good.
All right.
So for all you cry, babies, in the chat, whatever.
Dude, I had to do audio engineering on three different platforms.
All right.
So shut up.
Stop crying.
Anyway, what's up, guys?
Welcome, man.
Yes.
I, yeah.
Please.
Go ahead.
Hold on one sec, Ellie.
They're saying they can't hear you.
They can only hear me.
So I'm trying to figure out how we can.
Yeah, I can hear you guys, but they can't hear you.
The screen is not.
The tab is not muted.
Hmm.
What the fuck?
Let me try to figure out how to get this on my end.
Because you guys can hear me on your street.
Are you using OBS, Steven?
How do you have it where your audio is coming through?
Yeah, for some odd reason, it's not coming through on here.
I don't know why.
Let me.
Hmm.
Yeah, hold on one sec.
Let me.
I'm going to pre-intro screen on my end.
Let me just figure this out while I, God damn it.
Let me see if I could do it this way.
Let me see if I could do it this way.
Let me see if I could do it this way.
Well, that does everything automatically.
well now all right can you guys hear me now Yep.
Y'all should be able to hear me.
Okay, I think the audience should be able to hear me too.
Let's see if we got you guys.
I think we're good.
Chat, give me ones if you guys can hear Destiny now.
Testing, one, two.
Am I heard?
Hello, hello, hello.
I think they might be able to hear you, bro.
I think we're good.
Let me see here, though.
I'm seeing ones.
Someone said a double audio.
I don't know if it's coming from me, though.
They might hear from your end, Destiny.
I don't know.
Hello, hello.
Yeah, I got the OBS.
No, I'm screen sharing on OBS, Bills.
Yeah, that's what I'm doing.
Okay, they're saying you might have two tabs open, Destiny.
I don't know.
Nope.
Can't be on my own because Eli only has me once, right?
I only hear you once, yeah.
I can hear you a little bit, but I think I'm okay.
I mean, all right.
Audio is fine, chat.
Give me ones if everything's okay.
The fucking idiots that are crying in chat, fuck them.
Give me ones if you guys can hear Destiny Ellie good, and we could go ahead and have this goddamn debate.
Give me ones if we're good.
I see ones mostly in chat, so I think we're good.
Bills, can you tune in to the debate and let me know?
Alright, brother.
I appreciate that.
All right, cool.
All right, I think we're good.
I see mostly ones.
All right, I'll get off.
Thanks, Bills.
Appreciate it, bro.
Apologize for that, guys.
Sorry.
This software that we're using, I've never used it once before, so obviously I'm not settled for it.
But I think we're good now.
Cool.
No, is there a way to make yourself a tad quieter?
Like a little itty bitty bit?
Yeah, I can.
Is that better?
Yeah.
All right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I turned myself down a bit.
Okay, perfect.
You're ready to go.
Second time, lucky?
Yeah, I think we're good, man.
This riverside thing sucks.
No offense, Ellie.
We're all good.
Don't worry, I didn't make it.
Okay, get started.
Today, I'm hosting a debate with political commentators Stephen Bonnell, otherwise known as Destiny, and Mairon Gaines.
We're going to be discussing the Israel-Palestine conflict, specifically on the question of whose side is the bigger obstacle to peace.
I think there's two parts of this debate: there's the historical side, looking at who started the conflict and let it become the size it is currently.
And there's also looking at the situation today and asking whose fault is it that there currently is no peace process.
Maron, can we start with you?
Who would you blame for lack of peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict?
And in that question, and this is very important, can you define peace?
Yeah, I mean, look, both parties have had their issues with, you know, coming to an agreement with peace.
You know, I'd be lying if I sat here and just said it was only the Israelis, but I would argue that the Israelis have been far more counterproductive to the peace process than the Palestinians have been.
They've been negotiating in bad faith since the beginning.
It was never about actually having peace.
It's been about having, you know, basically colonization and taking over by any means necessary and feigning diplomacy in order to do that by themselves some more time.
This has been going on since they first came in in the 1800s, with, you know, starting with the Peel Commission, working all the way up until the Abraham Accords.
So what we have going on now with their latest bombing of Qatar, everything they've done has been in bad faith.
And I can kind of go through each one of those, but I don't know how you want to do it if you want to do it in rounds.
But that's my general overall synopsis of the situation.
Every single deal has been in bad faith.
The Israelis never wanted a two-state solution.
This has been sabotaged several times by Benjamin Nanyahu, which I'll go into more detail.
And any type of effort for peace has been sabotaged or done in bad faith to include all the way up until modern times.
This has been going on since the 30s.
And how would you define peace?
Is that two-state solution, one-state solution?
It could be either or.
You know, I understand the strengths and weaknesses of both, but giving the Palestinians some type of right to self-determination and real sovereignty versus the BS autonomy that they give them where they actually don't have any real freedom.
I think that's the way to peace, recognizing them as equals, which they don't.
Israel is an apartheid state.
I think it's pretty clear now at this point that it is.
Despite the fact that they claim that they have 2 million Palestinians that live under their rule, these Palestinians are not treated the same.
And they still face discrimination and racism, even within Israel, as full-fledged citizens.
And that doesn't even account for the other millions of Palestinians that live in the West Bank and Gaza that are being occupied.
Stephen, do you want to answer the question as well?
Whose fault do you think is?
And what would you define as peace?
And then I guess what we can do is go back to history because Maron said they've been in bad faith since the beginning.
Yeah, so we can, I mean, yeah, we can start, I guess, as early as we want in the late 1800s and then come all the way to modern day.
The way that I would kind of characterize the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, and I think the reason why it's so easy to read blame into either side if you want, is because I would say that on a genuine level, I don't believe there has ever been a time in history and since at least the 1800s onwards where there has been a deal on the table where the Palestinians are like, this is what we would accept.
I don't think that's ever existed.
It's never been clearly enunciated because the reality is, I don't think that they, at least the leadership or people that have been involved in negotiations, I don't think that they ever see any acceptable Jewish state being there ever.
So whether that's, you know, when they had the whole Arab revolt in 36 in response to that Peel Commission white paper that said it might be possible that this land just has to be divided because we don't think that these people can live together, whether we're talking about Resolution 181 in 47, when the Palestinians, you know, we say historically now, oh, well, it's because Jews had 46% of the land and the Arabs only had this despite population, whatever.
That didn't matter.
The reality was any percentage of the land would have been too much.
Whether we're talking a couple of years later, Lusan, where in 49, you know, Israel said, well, we'll take Gaza and all the Arabs and that'll be that wasn't enough.
Like there's nothing, there was nothing on the table that would have been acceptable for the Arab population.
And then going forward, now with just the Palestinians, it's hard to say over the past 20 years, but up at least through Arafet's death, I don't think that there was ever a proposition on the table that the Palestinians would have truly accepted because there are just a couple questions that are difficult to broach and the Palestinians will never give a solid answer on it.
The two, one has to do with like holy relics, like sites around especially Jerusalem.
And the second has to do with the right of return, which is a hugely, hotly contentious issue.
How many Palestinians that are considered refugees right now should be allowed to live back in Israel proper, despite regardless of the one state or two state or whatever.
I think that the reason why sometimes you can read different things into this historically is because while Israel at times in their history have tried to reach an agreement with the Palestinian people, Israel is also happy to see no agreement materialize because the longer the conflict goes on, the more Israel can kind of push to take more territory on their own.
Whether that includes the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank in 67, whether that includes when they were kind of extending their borders past what the Resolution 181 and 47 would have allowed for in 48 after the war, or whether that would include the, you know, today where they're continuing to move more and more settlements into the West Bank.
I think that Israel is happy to see a divided Palestinian people that aren't capable of negotiating for some coherent end state.
And that's why there's no more violence.
That's a part of what I mean when I say that they're not negotiating good peace and they're doing they're not negotiating good faith and they're doing everything they can to keep things fractured and create problems.
But I mean, keep going.
I don't want to interrupt you as you're going giving your synopsis.
Yeah, I mean, I agree.
I think that they will do what they can to kind of keep things fractured, but the Palestinians, I believe, will as well, because at the end of the day, I don't think either of these people really want to see a final settlement to their issues because both of them will both of them think they can get more than they could if they were to actually do some kind of peace agreement.
Okay.
Would you say that the Arabs, just a quick one?
Would you say that the Arabs have ever negotiated in good faith on that?
Yeah, I don't like to say the sorry.
No, no, go ahead.
I think he was asking you that.
Yeah, I just wanted to say that when you say the Arabs, particularly, do you mean Palestinian leadership?
Or you could talk about Palestinian Shabbats talking about that and also neighboring Arab states.
Neighboring Arab states, I think, have definitely, from what I'm aware of historically, I think have generally always negotiated in good faith.
If there's a negotiation to be had, there's a negotiation to be had.
But I mean, the reason why is because by the time you're at the negotiating level, like you're already paying big political consequences.
Sadat, being willing to go to the Knesset in Jerusalem or to negotiate with Israel already, you know, put Egypt on the chopping block.
They got what, 10-year removal, I think, from the Arab League.
So by the time you're ready to negotiate with Israel, like you're already making big political concessions.
Well, I think that's the negotiation with Rajah.
Rightfully so, because the 1978 Cam David Accords were scam.
Okay, let me go through.
So I'm going to go through every single one of these peace agreements and explain why they were BS.
Okay, I'm going to go from 1937 and work my way all the way through.
It might take me a little bit of time.
Destiny, how do you want me to do it?
Do you want me to do it each one of them?
Let's just go one at a time.
Okay, let's go one at a time.
So let's start with 1937, right?
With the Peel Commission.
So with the Peel Commission, basically, the Israelis were going to get 20% of Palestinian land, which was, you know, most of the coastline and most of the fertile agricultural land.
And we're going to see a trend here where when the Israelis negotiate with the Palestinians, well, before it became a state of Israel, but the Zionists, the colonists, it was never really in good faith.
And what it was was they were trying to get the best land and the best most fertile land where they would basically be able to control the farming.
Can we, real quick on that?
So my understanding is that most of the fertile land would be kind of like West Bankish area.
And then the rest of what would have been given to Israel, at least in Resolution 181, which I think mapped pretty closely onto the Protestants.
I'm talking about the Negro.
Yeah, but I think 181, I think, kind of mapped onto what the white paper in 36, 37 said.
But most of that was like Negev desert.
And there was some fertile land, but that land was only fertile because Jews had come in and had like hardcore put a ton of effort into working that land to make it fertile.
Like it wasn't originally.
No, the Palestinians had it first.
It was labor unions, right?
It was Israeli labor unions that took that from them.
They had cultivated and then the Israel.
And then what happened was the Israelis came in, they kicked them out, and then they created these labor unions where Palestinians couldn't sell their merchandise.
They couldn't do business with them.
And they brought in these unions.
And this is back in the 20s, this has been going on.
So the Peel Commission, so, okay.
So first they come in, right?
The Zionists come in.
They come in and they colonize, right?
The Palestinians bring them in and they allow them to come in.
As they come in, right?
And, you know, these are refugees, et cetera, they welcome them in.
And then they start to realize, like, okay, these people are starting to take more and more land.
They're starting to get more violent.
What's going on here?
And then these labor unions start popping up and they start taking the land.
And then they start basically kicking them off their land of this, you know, this fruitful land that they had already cultivated.
Well, yeah, well, so, well, okay, yeah, hold on.
And this has been going on for a while.
The name of the organization was called the Histradat, which was basically Jewish labor unions that pushed the Palestinians out.
And so I think in terms of pushing people out, there were two organizations that were created for the Zionists.
It was like the Jewish Agency and then the other one, I remember.
But the reason why they got kicked out, the Palestinians did, is because they bought this land from prior owners, originally, I think, part of the Ottoman Empire.
And then I think afterwards, but there were huge swaths of land owners who were, they were absent owners.
But then once the Jewish organization would buy the land, they were from Jewish people.
Well, they bought did they do it legally?
No, so a lot of the people were absentees, and then the people, and then when they did buy the land, and this is bad, like once we start getting into 1948 now, 1937, it was even less in 1948.
They only owned about six percent of the land that they purchased that they purchased.
That's why I'm trying to stick.
Let me stick with the appeal.
Let's stick with Peel real quick, right?
Let's stick with Peel.
Sure, wait, wait, wait.
There's like a ton of claims that just got made.
So, just to see those, and we can go through the Peel Commission report if you want, but like the land that was taken, there was no mass exportation of agricultural goods from the mandatory Palestine area, right?
All of the farmers that existed that were Palestinian did subsistence farming, they just farmed enough to feed their family.
When Jewish people came in, they're the ones that brought huge swaths of agricultural, I guess, like fertilization to a lot of this land.
That's why there's a lot of fighting over, is it the Galilee or whatever, the sea to the northeast or whatever to route water and stuff.
Um, that they had to fight with Syria.
I think in the 60s, they fought like a big water war basically over diverting water.
But this, the that land was nowhere near as fertile, or it wasn't really you know, used much at all until the Jews came in and started working that land and then started to like make it more agricultural.
Yeah, but they stole it.
The point is that they bought it, they bought it.
They did not buy it.
The majority of they, okay, when we get into the 1947 partition plan, they had already owned about 6% of land in 1947.
So, I'm talking about 1937, so they didn't own anything, they owned very little of the land.
That's why they didn't accept the 1947 deal in the first place.
But let me hit, let me hit the Peel Commission.
Wait, wait, we had it because it's important.
They didn't steal it, they bought it.
When you say they own 6% of the land for the first time, they owned 6%.
I know the number you're talking about, but that's just like where people lived, right?
No, no, no, that's what they bought, that's what they actually owned and bought fair and square.
The rest they stole.
No, so which pot do they steal?
Paul, you're referring to it.
Okay, let me let me start with the Peel Commission first.
So, here's the problem with the Peel Commission, right?
So, it was a 1937.
The thing that people need to understand, right?
If I'm going to be very nice and simple about this, the Peel Commission was basically a veneer, right, that your boy Ben-Gurion utilized to legitimize them beginning the colonization process.
So, it started with 20%.
Now, how do we know this?
Ben-Gurion himself wrote letters to his son admitting back in October of 1937 that they were going to start doing these exercises of diplomacy, but the goal from the beginning was always to take the entire land, and that's irrefutable.
This is his own letters to his son.
So, they feigned diplomacy in the beginning with the Peel Commission, and then they continued it on through the 1947 partition plan, the Camp David Accords, and it continued on throughout the entire time.
Oslo Accords, and we could go through all of it.
But the Peel Commission was the beginning of the lie where they would start to go ahead and start to take the land aggressively.
It was the plan from the beginning, so everything was feigning diplomacy.
And that's assuming what it is.
That's assuming there were even that.
And this is me saying, This is me coming into it, saying, Okay, they're having a fairground where they can even negotiate.
Keep in mind that they had been displacing Palestinians, they had been killing Palestinians, they had been doing a whole bunch of BS prior to the Peel Commission, and then the partition plan, they've been doing a bunch of BS with that too, as well, prior to that.
The two are kind of connected, but I'll let you respond.
What is your impression of like where the Peel Commission came from or why did the Peel Commission happen?
I guess it was to get international recognition and get their foot through the door to be taken seriously as another entity so that they can start creating right.
This is this was the birth of the Ergun, the Haganah, and the Stern gang.
This was the beginning of Israeli terrorism at this point because the Peel Commission legitimized these illegal colonizers.
Um, okay, so the um, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the British owned they like they moved to this mandatory system, the Brits and the um French people to kind of create to carve out a lot of these different territories in the Middle East so that after some period of time, uh, an emerging government could take over these lands, like they weren't doing all of these colonization projects anymore, right?
So, obviously, in the um, in the mandatory Palestine territory, there were a lot of issues with with violence that was escalating on both sides, right?
I think the one of the more notable ones, uh, like I know Jews were fighting against Arabs, but there were also Arab massacres against Jews.
Like, I think the Haran massacre and I think I want to say 29 was a big one that gets spoken about.
Yeah, so there's a lot of violence back and forth.
I think that initially the idea is that both of these people can live together, they'll figure their shit out, it'll be okay.
And the notable thing, so the appeal commission was a royal commission by the British government that was headed by Lord Peel.
And the goal was to do a survey of the land, a survey of the people, and figure out like how do we get these people to work together?
Like, let's like, let's account for everybody, who's here, what's going on, like you know, what can we do?
And I think the Peel Commission was notable because for the first time, uh, the recommendation was these two people probably can't coexist in the same state.
Um, and that was a big deal at the time because nobody considered up to that point that it was going to have to be two separate countries.
No, that wasn't how any of the mandatory period worked.
But this was at the behest of the British, this wasn't like a Jewish plan.
Yeah.
Now, now, I don't dispute.
I agree with you, Destiny, that I believe also that the Brits came in in good faith because they knew at some point that they were probably going to need to figure out some kind of plan to get rid of this land and do it in a peaceful manner.
What I'm saying is that the Zionists and what would later become Israel did not approach this in good faith.
They came with it precisely for what I said before: to, hey, look, international community, we're doing diplomacy.
We want to work with the Arabs.
But the plan from the beginning, and this is from Ben-Gurion himself.
The plan from the beginning was always, always to take the land in full.
Just do it to the people.
Well, sure.
Yeah, but I mean, like, that.
So you can't negotiate.
That's so that's sabotaging peace.
They never wanted peace.
Same thing with the Palestinians, though.
Well, okay.
Well, realistically speaking, it was their land from the beginning.
You got a bunch of connections.
Yeah, we can make the excuse for it, but I'm just saying that, like, that neither side, the difference is neither side really wants peace.
But the Jewish people, whether it was because of a European background or whatever, were a little bit better at politics.
But if the Arabs would have confronted the Jews and said, fine, we accept this partition plan, we accept these borders, the Jews would have had to accept.
Okay, now we're getting into 1947.
Okay, we can go.
Okay, so I think we're done with Peel.
You know, your position is your position.
But also, wait, wait, one more, one more other thing.
All of the Arabs that were kicked off of the land were kicked off by Jews that had purchased that land.
I think it might have been mostly under the Ottoman Empire.
No, prior.
back then, and now we're getting into the partition plan.
So my position on Peel is that...
No, no, no.
This is prior to 1920.
Like most Jews bought land from-By 1947, Stephen, by 1947, they only owned 6% of the land.
So they could not have owned more than that in 1937 or in the 20s.
Yeah, but the rest of the world wasn't owned by people cite that number, but then you pretend that the Palestinians own 94% of the other land.
That's not true.
Yeah, they're indigenous to the land.
It was theirs.
They were there all over the place.
No, they weren't there.
They weren't there all over the place, right?
They had like 12% or something like that.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but people just didn't live all over.
The vast majority of the Negev was basically except for some Bedwind.
There were some villages, but not like villages.
It was villages of subsistence for the US.
Who owned Missoula Palestine then?
Nobody did.
You have to consider that that region, that Levant, existed as kind of like a territory of the Ottoman Empire.
Once the Ottoman Empire collapsed, it was the Brits that came in and carved out and said, initially, it was a larger area that included Jordan as well.
And then they chopped off that.
And that became the British mandatory, the British mandatory state of Palestine, basically.
Yeah, but there's like 6% was, I think, occupied by Jews.
I want to say like 12 or 15% of something was occupied by Arabs, and the rest was basically just the Palestinians.
Look, so the Brits absolutely messed up here by, you know, basically they made promises to both sides.
They had the Battleford Declaration on one side for, you know, the Zionist, Theodore Herzl, and them.
And then you had on the other side, they were promising, hey, look, if you help us fight in this war, we will go ahead and we'll get you your own land.
And that's what the Arabs thought.
Okay, the Brits are going to stand by what they said.
But that's so the Peel.
So going back to 1937, the Peel Commission, my position is simply this, just to summarize.
Ben-Gurion, the chief negotiator, the head Zionist here, who would later become the prime minister of Israel, the first prime minister, he negotiated in bad faith.
This is proven by letters that he wrote to his son in October 5th, 1937, admitting that the goal was just to enter the negotiations that the Brits had set up with the Peel Commission to give them legitimacy as going from violent colonizers to a potential agreement where they could be taken seriously politically.
And he used that.
He used that.
Hold on, let me finish.
Let me finish my thing.
I'm just giving you my summary on Peel Commission.
Then you could give yours and we'll go to 1947.
So he entered the deal, right?
Or he entered the agreements with the Palestinians with the ideology of we are going to expand.
We don't care about what they really want to do.
We're just going to go ahead and accept this.
Whereas 20%, but we're going to get all the fertile land.
We're going to get all the coastline.
And we're going to get, we're going to continue doing what we're doing.
We're going to keep using our labor unions.
We're going to push them out.
We're going to keep kicking them out as much as we can.
And then, you know, revisit this later, which they always use that to their advantage.
So my argument with the Peel Commission is they used the Brits, the Peel Commission, to create the veneer of legitimacy.
But the whole time, and we know this from Ben-Gurion's letters, it was feigning diplomacy to take over and create the entire state of Israel and take all the land.
Yeah, okay, that's like negotiating in bad faith or feigning diplomacy.
It doesn't make sense.
Both sides wanted more.
Like both sides would have agreed to whatever they agreed to.
Like again, if the Jews would have agreed to some like hardcore ironed out borders or some state, then that would have been the state they would have had.
But I mean, like, it's weird to say they're negotiating in bad faith when they're hoping to get more in the future, unless we can say they were negotiating in bad faith and we know they would have like betrayed the terms in the future.
Number one, so negotiating in bad faith is a weird phrase to use there.
And then two, this Peel Commission, this was just a paid of the 2012 of the land, a survey done at the behest of the British government by, you know, headed by Lord Peel.
The idea, this wasn't like a formal agreement.
This wasn't like a formal treaty that either side necessarily like agreed or disagreed with.
It was just his evaluation of, or that commission's evaluation of, you know, what is the status of these two people.
So, like, at the time, like, Jews would have been happy to carve any state out, I think, because then they would have had at least something solid, you know, some kind of solid borders.
And Palestinians probably wouldn't have wanted any Jews there at all, or at the very least, they definitely wouldn't want a Jewish state there.
So, I mean, like, you can say that the Jews were negotiating bad faith, but if we're going to use that definition, then the Palestinians were quote unquote negotiating about faith.
Although these weren't negotiations, the People Communication was under negotiation, it was just a survey of the land.
But neither side, well, at the very least, the Jews would have been happy with some land there.
The Palestinians didn't want any Jews there at all, or at least in Jewish state.
Well, the problem is that the Jews wanted 20% of the most fertile land, the best land, and they were the minority.
And then, on top of that, it's not their land in the first place to dictate.
Like, if someone comes into your house and tells you, hey, I'm taking a master bedroom.
Hey, it's a small part of the house, though, but I'm taking a master bedroom after you let them in.
You're going to feel some type of way about that.
And the reality is they were the minority and they wanted the best, it was their land.
It was the British, it was British.
We got land.
No, but they were there.
They're the indigenous people.
They're not indigenous at all.
They were part of prior caliphates that had conquered through imperialism in that area.
But the land was owned by the Brits.
It was the British mandatory forces.
We have Eastern Europeans, literally from like Russia, Ukraine, etc.
That's what a lot of these Zionists were.
They were all majority Eastern European coming into land that they have no ties to from a bloodline, anything like that, coming in saying, We're going to settle and colonize.
Obviously, the people that were there for that were there originally are going to feel some type of way.
And then, on top of that, they wanted 20% and they wanted the best land.
So, I think the people felt some type of way.
And I agree with you.
They did feel some type of way.
And they felt like they had they, well, you could say that, but again, all of the land that was taken prior to 36 was purchased by Jewish purchasers of land.
It was no land that was conquered.
No, there was no stolen land.
It was all purchased from priorities.
Stephen Aram, didn't the Jewish land, didn't the Zionists go over and buy the Jewish buy land from landowners, absentee landowners?
No, even with the even with the absentee landowners.
That's what I'm trying to explain to you guys.
Now we can go to 1947 partition plan.
If we talked about the Peel Commission, fine.
Now we're going to get into the partition plan.
The partition plan that deal was insane.
How can we move on from this?
I don't know Jews conquered land.
They didn't even have like a military army or anything.
No Jews conquered land from Arabs prior to the Peel Commission.
No, it just didn't happen.
No, the Peel Commission gave them the legitimacy to start creating their own paramilitary forces.
That's what I'm saying.
The Peel Commission gave them the legitimacy, right?
So that they could go ahead and create these organizations.
Prior to 36, they bought land from prior landowners.
There was no Jews conquering.
Okay.
No, I don't know how because even the Peel Commission doesn't say that they're not, even if they did buy the land, I'm telling you, by 1947, they only owned about 6% of the land.
That is why that's why, and this is a big point.
This is precisely why the Palestinians rejected the 1947 partition plan.
Because on top of that, they had been killing people.
They had been stealing land.
The Peel Commission was a lie.
We knew that.
And then on top of that, they were the minority, but they wanted 56% of the land.
So notice how the Peel Commission worked for 10 years.
56%.
Yeah, there's a hard.
We can agree to this Greg if we want on this point, but that's hard.
That's fine.
Like, before we get to the split on for Resolution 181, the land, like in the Peel Commission itself, right?
Just reading from the text, chapter four, the disturbances of 1936.
So from 36 to 39, there were massive Arab revolts.
But like one of the reasons that they list is number five, under chapter four, they say Arab alarm at the continued Jewish purchase of land.
There was no conquering of land.
If you read more into chapter five, many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money.
The Felahin are better off on the whole than they were in 1920.
The Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the national home.
That's 400 Jewish people.
But like there was no conquering of land prior to this, or if there is, I've never seen a source on that ever, unless you just consider Jewish people buying land and then kicking off the Arabs once they bought it as conquering.
But there was no conquering of the land.
And I'm telling you, bro, they were conquering the land.
That's why they were able to go ahead.
That's why this is the basis as to why the Palestinians rejected all these peace deals is because, or these negotiations that the Israelis gave in, because number one, they didn't negotiate in bad faith.
A lot of the time, they were the minorities, and then they wanted all the best land.
So how does it like, and the way I simply explain it right to the people here that might not be as well versed in this conflict?
You know, let's imagine that you have a home.
You allow people to come into your home, right?
Because they're coming in and they're poor and they need money.
Whatever they allowed them to do.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Let me just finish.
Yeah, they absolutely did.
They welcomed them.
They weren't welcome.
They bought the land.
In the 1800s, they had let them come in and live alongside them and they work alongside.
Then as they started to colonize more and more, they realized, oh, these people are here to actually take the land and kick us out.
The original Zionists that moved there were part of a labor Zionist movement.
They would never work alongside Arabs.
The entire point was that they had to, there's a saying for this in Jewish people.
Yes.
You're fucking speak or whatever.
It's about like working the land that they own.
So they would never be working and living alongside Arabs.
Once they bought the land, they expelled the Arabs from the land.
No.
And that's the point.
A lot of the times they did not buy the land.
And then on top of that, they put these labor unions, which I literally said earlier, right, where they would push the Palestinians out and not let them sell their produce or only do Jewish labor where they would only do business with each other.
So they pushed these guys out.
That's what I'm trying to say.
This is why the Peel Commission was a bunch of BS.
And these and literally these these Jewish labor unions had been doing this for a very long time.
So, of course, the Palestinians are going to be like, we're not going to accept anything with you guys because you guys are coming in and stealing our land.
You guys are pushing us out of our...
We can move to the next point.
All right, let's go to 47.
Wait, wait, wait, just real quick.
I was going to ask for one thing.
I don't do this generally, but I'm just curious.
Sure.
OK, if you don't have it on hand, that's fine.
Like, what is our source here for like Jews stealing the land?
Like if we had to think of like one, because I mean, the Peel Commission itself doesn't refer to this.
I don't think any of the prior white papers, because I think there were five or six part of this.
Oh, you're like, oh, you're Googling.
You're using AI right now.
I'm debating you and AI.
OK, no hands up right now.
I'm not using AI.
The only thing I have on my screen right now is the text of the Peel Commission refer to to make sure that I'm not missing anything in there.
Sure.
OK, you keep referring to Jews buying stuff and stealing and kicking Arabs off.
That's not true.
If you wanted to make the argument that there was some illegitimate purchase of land, the only thing I could possibly think of was that in the Ottoman Empire.
But this also contradicts your other claim of the Arabs allowed the Jews to live next to them.
That's not true.
They brought them in as guests.
No, they didn't, because the Ottoman Empire actually explicitly forbade the purchase of land by Jews in the Ottoman Empire.
So if you wanted to make the argument of illegitimate land purchases, sometimes Jewish foreign companies would have to create shell companies to buy this land from absent Arab land owners and then do it that way because the Ottoman Empire wouldn't actually allow Jews to purchase the land before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1917.
That's why I know that claim can't possibly be true.
They absolutely didn't welcome them in.
Number one.
Number two, there was back and forth.
What's your source for that?
That the Ottoman Empire didn't allow the purchase of...
No, not for you.
I'm asking Maren.
Yeah, Maren, what's your source for that the Jews picked off?
Yeah, I'm just curious with this.
Yes, I'm talking about...
Because they had no military, they had no forces, they had no arms.
It's simple.
There's no way they could have fought and conquered land from the Arabs.
If you look at the partition plan, the big reason the Arabs, well, the Palestinians declined the partition plan is because the Israelis only legally owned 6% of the land.
So if they only legally owned 6% of the land that they purchased, how the hell are they going to have all this land prior in 1937 or 1920s?
Just work our way back chronologically.
1947, they reject the partition plan.
The majority...
They owned it.
It's theirs.
It's not theirs.
It was British.
It was the British mandate for Palestine.
It wasn't theirs at all.
What do you mean?
Who would they have owned it from?
And who lived there?
Palestinians.
British mandate for Palestine.
Most of it was empty.
Most of it was empty.
Palestinians lived there.
But most of it was empty.
Oh my God.
Do you think that Negev Desert, even today you can go to the Negev, it's not full of people that live there.
You've got like Bedouin tribes.
You've got like...
Most people do not live there.
But it's theirs is my point.
It's their land.
Whether you...
Theirs?
No, it wasn't.
It was the Ottoman Empire's land.
What do you mean?
And then it was conquered by the Brits.
And the Ottoman Empires are what?
Arabs.
Yeah, and they lost the war.
Their whole empire collapsed.
And then the Brits had it, but it said mandatory British Palestine.
Also, the Ottoman Empire is technically headed by Turks, to be clear.
Whatever.
Arabs, whatever.
Middle Eastern people.
Turks.
A lot of Turks speak Arabic.
The point I'm trying to make here is this.
It's very simple.
They only owned it.
We know this for a fact.
This is why they rejected the partition plan.
They owned 6% of the land back in 1947.
So there is no way that they owned anything else.
The bottom line is this.
They were the minority.
So if they're the minority, the big minority, why are the Palestinians going to go ahead and concede to these individuals who are violent colonists, stealing their land, killing them?
Why would they agree to that?
And they had been destroyed.
The reason why they agreed is because when they did the mandate, we're skipping ahead now to the mandate.
Yeah, we'll go to the mandate.
But the reason why is because...
Maren, do you have that?
I still want to know if you have that source.
That's why they rejected the partition plan.
You can look it up.
This is precisely why they rejected the partition plan.
It's because they owned a minority.
Because they wouldn't have accepted any Jewish state.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Would they have accepted 1%, 2%?
No, they wouldn't have accepted any Jewish state at all.
There was nothing acceptable there.
Look, look, look.
What I'm trying to explain to you guys, okay, is that there's a multitude of different reasons because you guys have not been letting me go into why they rejected the partition plan.
The 7% is just one reason.
I can go through all the reasons that they rejected the partition plan.
And rightfully so, because it was a bullshit plan.
And on top of that, the Israelis were conducting acts of violence and destroying villages all over the place.
They were raping the women.
They were destroying the villages.
They were killing a whole bunch of people, stealing land, like the Ergun Haganah and the Stern gang.
We had Jewish terrorist organizations running a rampage all across.
Why the hell would they accept any type of deal with these guys?
They were destroying them and killing them.
So they have every right to fight back and defend themselves and defend their villages.
Like this is indefensible on the Israeli side.
And they were a minority of the population in the area.
The only reason they had the weapons is because they illegally smuggled them there from the United States thanks to organized crime.
This is the ugly side.
They didn't illegally smuggle them from the U.S. They smuggled them from Czechoslovakia.
they absolutely did not bring up from the U.S. It came from Czechoslovakia, number one.
Number two, I mean, like, we just have a total disagreement on the history of the violence was on both sides.
Initially, a lot of the violence came from the Arab side in response to the Peel Commission.
The huge Arab revolts and everything only intensified after the Peel Commission recommended a partition.
And that's why the Brits cracked down on Jewish immigration to the mandatory area.
I think at 39 or 40, they basically said they either severely limited it or they said no more.
And that's why the Jews started to fight back from 40 to 44, where they started to do things that I think this culminated in the King David Hotel bombing or whatever.
It's like one of the worst terror attacks from the Jews to the Brits.
And then the Brits just fucked off because they were like, fuck this.
This is fucked.
Yeah.
And they also assassinated another.
They assassinated a British diploma, British official as well when he tried to figure out a plan.
The Israelis conducted massive acts of terrorism before they created their ownership.
Everybody was conducting acts of terrorism.
In Jerusalem, the Palestinians, I think, murdered the Jordanian king when he was in Jerusalem.
I think at 48 or 49.
So, I mean, like, everybody was doing their terrorisms and fighting each other and blowing each other up back then.
It wasn't like there was one peaceful side accepting everybody.
Well, here's the difference.
Whenever Israelis conduct terrorism, no one cares.
No one says anything.
But when Arabs do it— What do you mean everybody cared back then?
Hold on.
That's absolutely not true.
The curb on Israeli immigration was one of the biggest reasons why, or not on Israeli, Jewish immigration, was one of the reasons why the Jews got so ass pain in 1940.
Okay.
It was because the Brits, they felt it as a betrayal of their promise.
Plus, there was the ongoing Holocaust, and there were ships being turned back full of Jews that weren't allowed to go to where they thought they previously had, as per the Balfora Declaration, the ability to send their Jewish people to.
So the Brits absolutely unaware of who the Ergun is, who the Stern gang is.
They're completely unaware of these terrorists.
These are paramedic exists.
That's 48.
Well, yeah, it rebranded its IDF, which is conducting terrorism right now as we speak.
They literally just didn't rebrand into the IDF.
They were disbanded and then they were and they rebranded Haganah, Stern.
They all combined and rebranded.
And the Haganah literally set fire to and laid siege to the Irgun when Menekan Begin came back into Israel from the Mediterranean.
That's fine, but Ben-Gurion stood on the shore and he watched as the Haganah literally blew this ship up that they were coming to shore in and started arresting people from the Irgun because they didn't want to be associated with them when the state of Israel was formally properly made.
And then the Haganah eventually reformed to the IDF.
But like, yeah, they disavowed and they fought with a lot of other radical elements.
Yeah, of course.
But they did join Haganah and then they kind of did, but the Haganah was by far the larger way of doing this.
You're taking one isolated incident.
It was like 20,000 plus strong, wasn't it?
And the Irgun and the Lehi combined had like, what?
Like, wasn't it like less than 2,000 or less than 1,000 people?
Regardless, the point I'm trying to make here, like, you're taking one isolated incident to try to dispute the fact that they all combined.
They did combine.
They did, but they're all terrorist organizations.
And they rebranded to become the IDF.
Yes, they're.
The Irgun and the Leahy formed in response to Arab terrorism and Arab violence as well.
That was the reason why these organizations formed was because they felt, especially post-29, after the Haran massacre, they felt like they were being attacked by Arab extremists constantly.
And that's why these paramilitary organizations formed initially.
They were stealing land.
They were killing people.
They were stealing anything.
They were colonizing.
Dude, it's the reality is that the state of Israel was created through the very terrorism that it tries to condemn every single day.
But let me go into the 47 partition plan real quick, right?
So European Jews started colonizing, obviously, for decades already.
They banned Palestinians from land and labor markets.
We talked about that earlier.
They promoted exclusive Hebrew labor, evicted Palestinians from land and farms that were fruitful.
This is why they had the right to reject this partition plan because they had been kicking them out from before since I talked about with the Peel Commission.
That's another reason why they rejected it.
Also, the partition plan was which I think is 210 is what you're saying.
56% for under 33% of the population.
So at the time, they wanted 56% of the land, but they were less than one-third of the population.
That doesn't make sense.
And they only owned, and they only owned.
They only legally owned 6% of the land.
Does that sound like a good deal to you if you're a Palestinian?
You're going to be like, hello.
Legally owned.
When you talk about legally owned, this weird assumption that the Arabs owned the other 93%.
That's just not true, right?
You can't source that.
There's no record of that because that's absolutely not true.
Number one, number two, when you say that they were going to be given 56% of the land or whatever, the division, look at the ethnic division of who was to live on that split.
It was going to be 55% Jews and 45% Arabs.
Whereas on the Arab split of the land, it was like 99% Arabs.
So yeah, there were a few percentage points more given to the quote-unquote Jewish government there, but almost half that population was going to be Arably, ethnically Arab people.
Number one, number two, a huge chunk of that land was the entire Negev, which was like empty, dead land that nothing was even going on through anyway.
And that's what they wanted to give to the Palestinians.
Thank you for saying that.
The Gev Desert was a part of what they're going to get.
Look at Resolution 101.
Look at the British plan.
What?
The whole Negev was going.
That was part of that 56%.
Oh, this guy's using AI and Google.
Here, I can do that.
I studied this whole issue for a year.
Go look at the back.
Go look at resolution when I went.
Go look at the partition.
All the whole they get was going to the Jews.
And look at the delineation between ethnicities that were living on both parts of the partition.
You can see my type shit.
Here's the other thing, too.
Also, that's important.
Because you mentioned earlier that you said that Arabs would live amongst the Jews.
Yeah, but they would have to be under their rule.
Correct?
Yeah.
So they're the minority of the people, but they would be ruling everything.
Why would they want to be ruling everything?
They'd rule their partition, that they had 55% Jewish majority on a 45% Arab.
Yes, yes.
But what I'm saying is I think it was like 16 districts or whatever, and nine of them were Arab dominated.
And I think only one was Israeli dominated or Zionist dominated, Jewish dominated.
Why would you want to go ahead and live amongst people and they rule you and they're the minority?
Why?
Why would you in the state that would have been carved out for them?
Yeah, but why would you want Jews to run you as an Arab Muslim when they're the minority?
Why?
I agree with you.
You wouldn't want that, which is why my original claim is that you're not going to be able to do it.
The original claim is that Palestinians would have rejected everything.
Correct.
There's no amount of partition that they would have accepted.
But that goes to my argument.
There was never a peace plan.
Every deal to them was a bad deal.
That's what I'm trying to say.
The Israelis.
No, that's my position.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Any deal with Jesus?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Every single deal that the Jews brought forward was bad because, number one, it was done in bad faith.
Number two, it was to extend the land.
It was never done.
Oh, yeah, let's actually have some kind of peace or anything like that.
And they always wanted the best land, the best fertilization area.
That's not the waterways.
The best land is the West Bank.
No, no.
Well, we're going to get it to the West Bank after this because the West Bank is that's later on.
That's going to come into 1967.
We did not want that.
We haven't even got it.
We haven't even gotten it to the West Bank.
The West Bank is actually even worse.
Because we haven't even got it to 1967 yet.
We're still on 1947.
Yeah, we're not going to do that.
But the partition that you're talking about, the eastern part of the partition, would have been the west bank of the River Jordan.
But this land is, I think, is way better.
It's way more fertile and it looks better and everything too compared to the shit land that is the entirety of the Negev, which is nothing.
I think it's still nothing.
And then compared to your, you have your coastal regions, right?
With Jaffa and Hafa and Kafa and all that bullshit.
I don't know if it's not.
Well, they wanted that's during the appeal commission, they were fighting to take that.
That's what I'm trying to explain to you, bro.
Like, they always would have had to.
They always fought to get the best land, right?
Most fertile land.
And that's what a lot of this problem came from.
And they were the minority.
Fertile was only the land.
It was only fertile because they had made it such.
No, no, that's not true.
No.
If they were there first, if the Palestinians were there first, and how would if the land was there, if they were there first and the land was fertile, right?
Obviously, they're going to want to take it and be like, oh, I want this land now.
It's not fertile.
That was the whole point of labor Zionism.
It's why the first two alias failed fucking miserably, the 1881 and the 1901, the first ones that came from the Eastern Russian Empire or whatever, is because the land sucked shit.
There was nothing there.
Most of the people that came just fucking up and left afterwards because it was so bullshit.
It wasn't until they had a ton of financial funds.
It wasn't until they started stealing land.
That's precisely.
It was the land.
The land sucked shit.
They were not exporting a lot of shit.
The appeal commission found this.
Every early white paper found this.
They were subsistent.
They're not farmers that lived throughout all of Palestine.
And they just made it out for their family.
That's it.
They weren't exporting crops to anybody else.
But the point I'm trying to make is it wasn't until they started stealing land.
That proves my point even more with the Aliyah.
With them coming in the 1800s.
They didn't have to do anything about them stealing land.
They haven't.
They bought it.
They purchased land.
So all these massacres, all these paramilitary organizations just existed for no reason.
They're erguns turned against them.
Paramilitary organizations.
They were just hanging out.
In response to Arab violence.
And understandably, the Arabs started to fight against the Jews that were buying land and moving there.
But that's where the Leahy and the Irgun formed was in response to a lot of these Arab attacks.
I told you already, by 1947, the Zionists had only owned- No, no, no, no.
But I'm saying by 1940, because you have to work it back.
If the Zionists only owned 6% of the land where they purchased it, they actually owned it.
It's theirs.
In 1947, how would they own any land prior to that legally?
They had even less.
That's what I'm trying to explain to you.
Yeah, but how much land do you think the Arabs owned?
It's theirs.
It's not theirs.
It's the Brits.
It's literally Brits.
They're not indigenous.
Why do you keep that?
The Brits.
Okay, because number one, Palestinians, the blood, their blood ties to land.
The Zionists don't.
They're from Eastern Europe.
They're from Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Romania.
I don't even know if that's where most by the 40s were.
Most Jews are Ashkenazi, bro.
Most Jews are Ashkenazi.
They're from the West.
Which nation is back then?
I think most, I'm not 100% sure if that's true.
Most Israelis are Ashkenazis.
And most of these colonists back then were Ashkenazi.
They have no ties to the land.
So they lose automatically.
If we're going to be honest, they lose automatically.
The only reason the people there are Arab Palestinians are because of the caliphates, because of the Muslim conquest prior to that, right?
If you want to go all the way back to fucking the kingdom of Israel and shit, right?
The Canaanites or whatever, like these are people with Jewish blood that can be traced through whatever bullshit through going to different parts of the world and eventually coming back.
But the historical arguments are a loose argument.
But if you want to do the historical arguments, the policy is not a problem.
Well, you're going to go off theology.
You're going to have to go off theology if you're going to use the historical, if you're going to use the historical stuff.
Whoa, whoa, how Arab are you, bro?
Are you one of those people that don't believe that there were any, that the kingdom of Israel was fake or that like the whole second temple was like a meme and didn't really exist?
No, I'm not.
I'm not saying that.
But what I am saying is like they, you know, or the chosen people, this is our land.
No, not chosen people.
Jewish people lived in Jerusalem before any Muslim conquesters showed up.
Before the Arab, before Islam even existed.
Sure.
But are those the same Jews that came back and colonized them?
No, they're not.
They're not.
How do you define a Jew?
Well, there's many of them.
There's Sephardic Jews.
There's Ashkenazi Jews.
There's Mizrahi Jews.
There's all different types.
But the colonizers that came in the early 1900s, those were definitely not the Jews of past that they're talking about, this is our land.
They're Jews.
They're all the descendants of the Jews from before.
No, because there are diaspora people from all over the place.
But then they go ahead and say, oh, yeah, no, this is our land.
No, there are diaspora people that really can't be tied to any specific region because they've been all over the place.
They've been expelled for so many places.
that's the reality.
Maybe the Mizrahi Jews would have the...
What does diaspora mean?
Diaspora from where?
They're from all over.
Where did they come from initially?
Do you think the Jewish religion randomly sprung up in different places all around the world?
See, that's the promise, not just a religion.
They're an ethnicity, too.
But if it's an ethnicity, then that's an even stronger.
Yeah, I agree with you.
But was it an ethnicity that randomly sprung up all around the world or where did it occur in it?
Let me make this nice and simple for you.
The colonial Zionists that came in are not the same Jews that you're talking about from thousands of years ago that had Tyson lands.
They're not the same.
They're not.
I think that's a highly contentious point.
I don't.
That's fine.
We can move on to the other stuff because now we're going to get into all the lore and everything else like that.
The purpose of the argument is simply who has been a bigger obstacle to peace?
I argue it's the Zionists, a.k.a.
the Israelis, because the Israelis have done far more to sabotage peace talks and or when they do do the peace talks to negotiate bad faith where they're like, okay, we're going to give you this Palestinians.
But the reality is there's no real right to self-determination.
There's no right of return.
They're taking the best land.
They're using force.
They're killing them.
What would the Palestinians have accepted in 47?
In 40, I mean, not 50%, not the Zionists.
What would they have accepted?
That's a good question.
The answer is nothing.
They wouldn't have accepted anything.
You don't know that.
You don't know that.
I do know that.
Of course they wouldn't.
You don't know that.
You don't know that.
Like, what we do know is that the deal that they presented was not good.
56% for less than one-third of the population?
That doesn't make sense.
No one in their mind is not.
I was saying 56%.
The majority of that was the Nagev.
It was an empty bullshit desert.
It's a good land.
We stuck on the point of who's the obstacle to peace.
Marin, you mentioned before that from the Palestinian perspective, these Jews came in.
They were the colonizers.
They took over the land.
And if they took even 10%, even if they took one bedroom of the house, they'll still say no.
So at what point, so would they have let any Jews take any sort of any land and created a state in Palestine?
Well, to be honest, by them coming in and colonizing the whole Zionist project in itself is a detriment to peace because you're violating another group of people's sovereignty.
You're killing them.
You're taking their land.
So the reality is, if we're going to be all the way honest here, the Zionists are wrong in every single way.
It's not their land.
So then I think that, yeah, so I mean, I feel like that's basically the argument that there's nothing acceptable for the Palestinians.
I mean, for them to even negotiate.
What I'm saying is for them to even negotiate with them, right?
They don't even, I would argue, they don't even need to negotiate with them because these guys are colonizers coming in, killing you, et cetera.
The Israelis have been the aggressors, and we can work our way backwards.
We can work it forwards.
The 1967 war.
But that's not even necessarily an agreeable point because the Arabs, the whole, the country collapsed.
It was one of the empires that was wiped off the map after World War I. The Ottoman Empire completely collapsed.
And then the land was owned at that point by the Brits.
If the Brits wanted to, they could have just had that as part of their country and called it Britain too and moved in whoever they wanted there.
Now, the Brits were there basically managing it, but they did not want to hold on to it.
Obviously, they were weakened after the wars.
Sure, but it was the Brits.
The British were the ones were allowed to do what they wanted with it, no?
Because they won it in war, right?
I think they were just there trying to facilitate some type of force to come in and take it.
That's what they were doing.
I'm saying they wanted in war the same way that the prior caliphates had won land in war, right?
They expanded and shrunk in size based on what they were able to conquer.
The Brits defeated the Brits on the winning side in World War I. The Ottoman Empire was one of the great empires that collapsed and the lands to do what they wanted with it, right?
Yeah, but they didn't want it.
They wanted to get rid of it.
They were saying they wanted it.
I'm saying it was theirs to do what they wanted.
Part of what they did with it was you brought up the Balfour Declaration is they had made a promise to the Jewish people who agreed to help in whatever way they could in World War I. They made a promise to them that they would allow there to be some homeland for their safe haven for the Jewish people.
I don't remember the fucking words or whatever, but that there would be some safe haven or some land for the Jewish people in the Middle East.
That was a promise that the Brits had made to the Jews.
So the Jews felt like they could rely on that promise.
The Arabs lost that war.
The Ottoman Empire collapsed.
They didn't have a country in the Middle East that was like their country.
It was the Brits to basically divide up as they saw fit.
All right.
Let's go to 1967.
It's fine.
And we'll just kind of work our way, right?
So, Miss Akhenues and Amaran, at what point would the Arabs ever have or the Palestinians ever have accepted peace or accepted a Jewish state?
Well, I mean, you'd have to ask them, but what I'm saying is that every single deal that was proposed by the Israelis was either A, done in bad faith, B, not fair whatsoever, despite them being a minority, them using force, et cetera.
Like nothing was ever actually worth signing or not worth agreeing to.
Like, I don't think anyone with half a brain would have agreed to it.
Even Israeli negotiators later on, when asked, hey, yeah, I wouldn't have agreed to that deal either.
Like, whether it's the Oslo Accords, the 1967, the 1967 UN Security Council 242, the Abraham Accords, the Camp David Accords, which didn't even involve the Palestinians whatsoever.
I would argue the Abraham Accords in 2020 with Trump actually led to October 7th.
And then we could fast forward all the way until last month or a couple of weeks ago, where they bombed Qatar during the middle of negotiations.
The reality is the Israelis sabotage every single peace deal, and then they lie and say, oh, no, the Palestinians don't want peace.
When in reality, you got people like Benjamin Netanyahu.
The closest we ever came was maybe the Oslo Accords, I would argue.
Maybe that came the closest.
But what did they do?
They assassinated Yitzhak Rabin.
Who did it?
Someone from the Likud party.
Who's they?
Who's they?
The Israelis, Miitzek Rabin, was assassinated by a member of the Likud party.
By a radical Zionist.
Yes.
By a radical, radical extremist.
And that's precisely my point.
And then who came into power after Yitzhak Rabin?
Benjamin Netanyahu.
Because even though Yitzhak Rabin didn't forfeit anything, he barely gave them anything.
He just basically gave them the PLO, which was a scam in itself.
Oh, yeah, the PLO, we're going to give you the Palestinian authority, right?
Which basically we're going way too far.
Okay.
I said a lot of things that I disagree with.
Yeah, but like, I'm just, I'm just trying to.
I just want to point out the fact that Rabin was murdered by an ultra-radical Zionist.
That's fine, sure.
But Sadat was also assassinated as well.
And Arafat felt like he would have been assassinated if he ever made any peace with Israel.
So Sadat doesn't matter.
The Camp David Accords in 1978 are a joke.
They didn't even involve Palestinian.
They didn't even involve the Palestinians in it whatsoever.
That was a peace deal.
It was a peace deal between Egypt and Israel.
No, but it's used all the time.
It's like, oh, yeah, us negotiating peace.
But the reality was it was just an agreement between the Egyptians and the Israelis to facilitate, you know, get the Sinai Peninsula back, et cetera, make a deal with Mademoiselle.
It was the first, it was a massive undertaking.
It was the first peace deal between Jews and Arabs ever, right?
Yeah, but they, but people market it as if it was a deal that benefited the Palestinians.
It only hurt the Palestinians.
It didn't help them whatsoever.
I don't know who markets it that way.
It doesn't benefit from the time.
The Zionists say it all the time.
Oh, yeah, you know, they've dropped every single peace deal that we've given them.
And they mentioned the Camp David Accords.
Wait, wait.
I'm sorry.
One second.
Yeah, go ahead.
No worries.
No, so if I could just continue, if it's not here, I mean, the title of the debate is Who is a big obstacle to peace.
And what you're saying is that you're not sure if the Palestinians, you know, anything that the Zionists presented, the Palestinians wouldn't have accepted because the Zionists were doing it in bad faith.
Yes.
But you can't name anything than the Palestinians would have accepted.
So are you saying both of them?
Well, here's the thing.
I am not, you know, Yasser Arafat.
I am not one of the main negotiations.
I don't know what they would have accepted, but what they wanted was simply, obviously, the right of return, let's be honest, they're probably not going to get that.
But they wanted some type of sovereignty, right?
They wanted a Palestinian state independent, and the Israelis never gave them that ever.
That's all they wanted was, hey, look, we're going to figure something out, even though these deals that you guys keep giving us are bullshit, whether we're not even invited to the table or we're not getting any type of sovereignty.
We're not getting any type of right to determination.
They might get autonomy, but it's always bullshit autonomy.
Like with, for example, with the 93 Oslo Accords, right?
What basically happened was, oh, we'll go ahead and give you guys the Palestinian Authority.
The Palestinian Authority was nothing more than a Shinbet frontman and IDF frontman.
They would go ahead and just basically give information to the Israelis.
And you know what's funny?
How we know that this is real?
The Israelis don't even hide from it and admit that, oh, yeah, a lot of these Palestinian groups, especially the Palestinian Authority, like work for us secretly.
Like even in their TV shows, they admit that the PA works with basically works for them, giving them information to subvert any type of situations that the Palestinians have.
Yeah, yeah, that's fine.
He was asking me to explain different things.
But yes, bro, basically recognize the Palestinian state, giving them their rights to self-determination, which the Israelis will never give them.
And they've never given them.
Isn't that what happened on 48?
That's what was on our option.
No, it wasn't.
No, that was not an option.
That was not an option.
That was not an option.
The Israelis still had the majority.
The majority of the land, despite being the minority, and they were ruling, and even the Palestinians that lived in their territory, they would have the authority over them.
So, the thing with the Israelis is this: they negotiate in bad faith, and then they always ensure that they have the monopoly of force.
They have the monopoly on airspace, they have a monopoly on resources, and that is how they always negotiate.
And then, when the Palestinians say, no, we don't want this, they get into a war.
But why would they accept anything where they don't have any type of right to determine a self-right to have had every right ever in 47 if they would have accepted the partition?
No, they wouldn't have had their own country.
Yeah, they would have had their own country.
What do you mean?
Their own country, but the Israelis rule everything?
No, dude, no, they wouldn't.
Wait, the Israelis wouldn't have ruled everything, they would have ruled the part that they had, and then the Arabs would have ruled their part.
No, because the Zionists had the majority of the land, but it doesn't, but that would, but that's their state.
The other land would be given to the Arabs for their state.
Like I told you before, who was running?
Wait, wait, wait.
They would have been two separate states.
That was the whole point of the partition.
That's what partition means to divide.
Let's be clear about this, okay?
I said this before, I'll say it again.
Back then, who was the head, who was the head of the Zionist party?
It was Ben-Gurion, right?
So, we know since 1937, he had been planning to steal all the land.
He had been saying this and writing his statement.
I'm just saying that he had to write partition 181.
It would have been a Jewish state and it would have been an Arab state.
That would have never happened.
That would have never happened because Ben-Gurion was that his intention was never to ever do that.
You have no proof of that.
There's no way that we can't prove the counter.
I can't rule the counterfactual.
He wrote that statement.
Yeah, they wrote that they hoped that the Jewish state would expand and everything.
That's fine, but that's like tons of people write letters and plans for hopes for a lot of different things.
We can't look at a letter written in 36, 37 and say, Oh, he would have betrayed this deal, unless you can show me a bunch of other deals that Israel like betrayed against Arabs.
But it's hard to find those because they never make the fucking deals.
The first prime minister of Israel, Ben-Gurion, admitted himself: We are going to feign diplomacy.
We're going to pretend like we wanted to make peace and we are going to take all the land.
It's in his letters.
You want me to pull it up?
I could pull it up.
It's in his letters, dude, where he's writing it to his son.
We are going to take all the land and we are going to, you know, let me, I think I wrote down the exact quote he wrote.
Let me let me find this for you.
I feel like the letter, the thing was like a stepping stone into a future Israeli home or something.
No, it was a stepping stone for them to take all the land.
They never were negotiating.
Okay, here we go.
Okay, we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole land of Israel.
He wrote that to his son.
And he admitted that the Peel Commission was simply to get their foot in the door to get legitimacy.
Once they got that legitimacy, they will slowly start to take land.
And then the numbers prove it, bro.
20% in the Peel Commission, 56% in the 1947 partition plan.
Then in 1967, they wrote, oh, yeah, we're going to leave these territories.
They haven't left them since because they ambiguously wrote the 242 charter, which they didn't write the when they said the territory.
So that allowed it for ambiguity.
And they used that fucking word salad to their advantage.
And they've held those territories since.
Stay right here.
I can't fight against the counterfactual.
The reality is, there might be some truth to this.
I think I'm quoting Shlomo Ben Ami here: the Arabs never missed an opportunity, didn't miss an opportunity, or maybe that was about the Jews.
Both sides seemed to do it.
The reality is it's impossible for me to prove that the Jews would have betrayed.
You know, Shlomo Ben Ami, you want to know?
It's funny you mentioned Shlomo Ben Benemi.
Wait, no, wait, wait, wait, let me just finish this thing.
There's no way that I could prove the counterfactual because Arabs never accepted a deal ever.
So there's nothing that you could even point to for the Jews backstabbing a deal because the Arabs never accepted it.
They accepted the Azul Accords.
That's way 50 years later.
That's a way, way, way, way, way different thing.
Okay, they accepted.
They're saying we're making this accusation that they're negotiating in bad faith and all this.
But the reality is, is this is not true.
They would have accepted any deal because Ben-Gurion was obsessed with winning some kind of favor with the West, especially with France and Britain at the time, because the U.S. wasn't quite seen as like the big boy quite yet.
But the idea that they would have accepted something from the U.N. and then they would have just instantly backstabbed the Arabs, they would have lost the support from anybody in the world.
They would have been completely isolated and they probably would have gotten crushed by everybody.
But there's no way for me to disprove it.
They had a nuclear bomb.
had no then they have 48 not in 47 no no no no no no no no no i'm talking about i'm moving forward to the 60s now because yeah Yeah, but we were still arguing at 48.
I'm just saying that this division, that Palestinian partition plan, if it would have been accepted, the Arabs would have had a state and Jews would have had a state.
The idea that Jews would have conquered it and taken it over, there's just no way that you can prove that.
There's no way that I can disprove your counterfactual directions.
I told you his personal letters that he wrote to his son, the plan was never to actually do a two-state solution.
It was never to have any type of situation with the they wanted the Arabs gone.
That was the plan from the beginning.
Why do you think they aggressively fought to get the nuclear bomb?
Why?
Because they felt like they didn't have any allies in the West and they were worried that they wouldn't be able to defend themselves from surrounding Arab countries.
No, because they never wanted to have peace with anybody ever.
But then why would they make peace with Israel and make peace with Jordan after they had the nuclear bomb?
They only made sense.
No, no, no, they only made peace with Jordan and Egypt because we basically facilitated that and we give Jordan and Egypt a bunch of aid to do so.
Wait, but why, but why they didn't want to have peace with anyone?
Why would they make peace with them if they got the nuclear bomb?
You just said they got the nuclear bomb so they wouldn't have to make peace with anybody, but they got a nuclear bomb and then afterwards they made peace.
Because here's the thing exactly the opposite.
And that's another argument I was going to make, actually.
Them procuring the nuclear bomb and doing it illegally, by the way, while being involved in killing a U.S. president, stealing their uranium, the whole Apollo affair.
This is true.
Again, this is just saying that I'm just saying that you just said that they got the nuclear bomb so they wouldn't have to make peace with anybody, but they got the nuclear bomb and they made peace with everybody after myself.
No, no, no.
They only made peace with the Egyptians and the Jordanians for tactical reasons because the United States didn't want to have to always constantly watch their back with the borders.
Because obviously, from a strategic standpoint, the United States says, look, Egypt and Jordan, we're going to give you guys a lot of money.
Play nice with Israel because it would cost us more to help Israel with their defense with two countries right on their border fighting them.
Obviously, Lebanon didn't bite into this and they said, screw you guys.
We're going to keep fighting you guys.
But the reality is, Egypt and Jordan only play nice because we give them a lot of money.
They're number two and three in the world.
But it was also in everybody's best interest to have peace between them so they wouldn't be fighting each other anymore, right?
Like it was in Israel's interest.
It was in Egypt's interest and it was in Jordan's interest.
Yeah, but again, here's the again, this comes back to what I was saying.
I could go all day with how Israel is not a peace broker whatsoever.
They start all the wars in the Middle East, whether it's them getting the nuclear bomb, which created the nuclear bomb race, arms race.
Wait, wait, wait.
Wait, no one even created the nuclear bomb arms race.
What do you mean?
Yeah, everybody around the world was getting nuclear bombs when Israel got.
Who do you think they did most of their research with?
It was fucking South Africa.
In the Middle East.
Everybody around the world.
I'm talking about they started a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
And then on top of that, right?
On top of that, they illegally.
Who started the who was the first one to start the war in 47?
What, with the with the Arabs?
Yeah.
Yeah, what about it?
The Arabs started that.
The Palestinians started the war in 47.
Yes.
When, okay.
And then in 48, when Israel declared the war of independence after they won the civil war against the Palestinians, who started a war at that point in 48?
I told you.
Yeah, it's the Arabs started the war.
The Arabs.
Because they rejected the partition plan, which was obviously that, which was not fair to them.
What's the point of that?
Okay, so the idea that Israel started all the wars doesn't seem to hold much.
Who started the war?
Who started Yom Kippur in 73?
Okay, so they started the 67 war, right?
They started the 67 war.
I don't think I know that that's how they won.
They snuck attacked the Egyptians.
That's how they won.
And then why did they start that war?
Why did they start that war?
Well, they claim, they claim that the Egyptians were going to invade them, is what they claimed.
Why did they say that, though?
Because Nasser had literally ejected all of the UN peacekeeping forces out of the Sinai and started to deploy troops across the Sinai to show the rest of the Middle East of how big it is.
Israeli intelligence, yes.
Israeli intelligence said that.
Not Israeli intelligence.
That's what happened.
UN peacekeeping forces were ejected from that region.
And this whole region and the occupation of this and the closure of the fucking Strait of Turin was the whole reason why they had just had a war 10 years ago.
When I said that they started the wars, I wasn't referring, I was referring to the Middle Eastern wars of modern-day society with the war on terrorism.
I'm talking about that.
I'm saying, yeah, I was referring.
Look, we could go back in time because we're jumping all over here.
We're talking about 47, then we moved on to 67.
I told you why in 67, they did not, they didn't want to accept it.
So wait a second.
That's just you're right.
We're jumping around.
Yeah, yeah.
We go to the war on terror next.
And then, and then obviously the nuclear bomb and all that other stuff.
Because the other thing that no one talks about with 67 is that obviously this after the Suez Canal crisis, Israel went at work to get the nuclear bomb, and that created a bunch of problems as well.
Because before we go on, what do you want to do?
Do you want to step in 48 or do you want to get to 67?
I think we're not going to agree on the because he thinks that the partition plan would have gotten them a state.
I'm like, we don't know that.
I just think that was what the partition plan was about, to be clear.
That's what it was about.
You say that there would have been a greater conspiracy to backstab the state afterwards.
100%.
Ben-Gurion admitted this.
I can't fight.
No, he didn't.
And I can't do a counterfactual here.
My thing is, even if they had agreed to the 47, even though the rules were at the even though the deal was not to the favor of the Palestinians whatsoever, again, we're talking about less than 33% of the population wanting 56% of the land.
Yes, they'd have Palestinians within their people, but they would be basically ruling them and they would have all the fertile land.
I wouldn't accept that either if I was a Palestinian.
And then on top of that, they were killing them and destroying them.
And they had a whole bunch of these paramilitary organizations running all around.
Why would they go ahead and agree to that partition plan?
And then obviously a war ensued.
Rightfully so.
They lost the war, though, which is an L for them.
But the reality is we don't know how it would have gone.
But what my argument is, Ben-Gurion, who was the leader of the Zionist movement, admitted since 1937 that it was never about actually having a two-state solution.
It was about taking everything over.
And then if you look at the Peel Commission, do you want a 20%?
Then you go to the partition plan, they want a 56%.
I mean, it only makes sense logically that they were asking for more land and the leader said he never wanted a two-state solution.
So I don't believe that the 47 partition plan would have led to a Tuesday solution.
That's my position there.
We can go to 67, though.
Sure.
I mean, that can be your position there.
The reality is, is the Jews, nobody was happy with the partition plan when it was first suggested.
The Arabs weren't happy with their civil war.
The Jews weren't happy because they felt like they barely had any land whatsoever.
And part of Ben-Gurion is a politician, part of his way to sell this, because that quote, I think, comes from like a Jewish council meeting, part of the way that he sold this to his people was basically like, hey, listen, right?
It sucks right now, but we'll expand it in the future.
It'll be better in the future.
This is a politician selling political words in order to get the Jewish people on board with accepting the partition plan.
Now, you can make the argument maybe in the future that they would have engaged in some kind of offensive war to take territory, but I would argue that future behavior in wars seems to betray that.
Even in 67, which we can go to, like they were like, they begged the Jordanian king not to invade.
They said, don't do this.
Don't attack us from the West Bank.
It's not going to be good.
And he did it anyway.
And then that's how Jordan ended up losing their occupation of the West Bank to Israel.
So I mean, like, we can say that Israel would have kept pushing for more land.
Maybe they would have, but it's, but unfortunately, it's part of my argument, it's impossible to ever know that because Arabs never agreed to any deal ever with regards to Israel, which also gave Jews basically infinite ability to continue to fight and take what they wanted, essentially.
Well, I think the Oslo Accords is where we'll get to that thing where there was something on the table there and we can address that next.
But I think the partition plan and the appeal commission were BS.
And we could kind of get it.
We get into 1967, now why they rejected.
I'll give you my position.
Can I ask you a question before we move on to 1967?
Yeah, sure.
I could just ask you a question in 1948.
You said the reason why you can't trust David Ben-Gurion is because he wrote those letters to his son.
Yes.
You also mentioned about Menachem Begin that he was a terrorist.
He's the one that managed to do a peace deal with Egypt later on, quite a few years later on.
So if someone had one mindset at one point, could they not have changed it and started doing peace like Menachem Begin did?
Yeah, the only reason Menachem Begin did the deal with the Egyptians is because, again, the United States was involved and the United States was like, look, you guys need to do some kind of peace with your neighbors because we don't want to foot the bill for all of your wars and all your conflicts.
It was a strategic move by the United States to get the Egyptians to work with the Israelis.
Okay, I mean, I guess we might as well.
It didn't involve Palestine whatsoever.
The Camp David Accords was a scam.
It had nothing to do with the Palestinians.
And it's funny because Zionists always use that.
It's not a scam.
It wasn't supposed to have anything to do with the Palestinians.
But it had to do with the Protestants.
But it's marketed.
I get Destiny.
Me and you get that, right?
Because we understand this stuff.
I'm telling you that other people all the time, when I listen to Zionists argue, they use the Camp David Accords as an example of Palestinians not accepting peace.
They use it all the time.
You don't because you guys get it.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Wait, are you sure you're not expecting the Camp David Summit?
The 78 Accords.
I'm talking about the 78 Accords.
Yeah, but I think that's the same thing.
But there was 2000 Camp David summit.
We'll talk about that.
Yes, we'll talk about that too.
Okay.
That was BS as well.
Okay.
Okay, so we move on to the sixth table.
Sure.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So with 67, right?
So just so I can make, I'm just going to kind of summarize my thing.
So with the Peel Commission, right, we had the issues where you had hostile colonizers in there with their labor unions, pushing out Palestinians, taking their land, et cetera.
Even though Destiny feels like it's not their land, that's fine.
But I'm giving their perspective, right?
So Ben-Gurion enters into the Peel Commission in 1937 saying, look, we're going to go ahead and enter this with the perspective of we are going to be legitimizing because we are negotiating with these individuals, even though we're colonizer invaders, and that's going to make us look legit.
And then we're going to ask for 20%, which is what the Peel Commission wanted, even though they wanted the fertile land.
And when he used private letters to his son, the plan all along was always to take the land fully.
Then with the 1947 partition plan, they wanted, even though they were less than one-third of the population, they only owned 6% of the land.
They wanted 56% of the land.
Obviously, the Palestinians didn't agree to that either.
And that ensued with a war later on because obviously they had the Ergun, Haganah, Stern Gang, et cetera.
These gangs had been killing and destroying multiple villages all across leading up to that partition plan.
And obviously they declared their, after in 1948, they declared their independence.
I'm putting it on speaker.
I can still hear you.
I've said it run correctly.
No problem.
No problem.
I'm recapping anyway, so you're good.
And then May 15, 1948, obviously they went ahead and they were able to create their state and that created a war, right?
Now we're going to get into, and again, even though people say the partition plan would have given them a state, I don't believe that because based off of the behavior by Ben-Gurion, right, where he started with 20, then he went to 56% despite being the minority.
And we had those letters, we know for a fact that the goal was never to actually have peace.
It was to take the land fully from the beginning.
So that is my reasoning.
Now, let's get into 1967.
Obviously, this was passed after the Six-Day War, where they lost and they started this whole concept of land for peace, right?
That's what leads into the 1978 situation.
So, here's the biggest problem with this resolution.
It was not specific about which territories the Israelis would withdraw from.
It was not specific.
It just said they'll withdraw from territories.
And then withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.
That's what it said.
That's not descriptive whatsoever and where they would withdraw.
What are you reasoning from?
What are you reasoning?
Well, in this way, that's actually from the English 1967 U.S. Security Council.
It says withdrawal of.
What he's reading from is this is Resolution 242 that commits people to creating some kind of place maybe for the Palestinian withdrawing from occupied territory.
The one which with the word the wasn't involved.
Yes, and that's very important.
Because the French version of this didn't include it in the English Linton or whatever, and so people aren't.
And the Israelis ran with the French or the English version that didn't specify which territories.
This is very important.
And then one of the people that wrote this, Lord Garradon from the UK, admitted that they didn't put the the there on purpose.
So, I mean, that shows that there was never really an intent.
And at this point, just so you know, when 1967, this is when they had the most land, was this when they were one of the most powerful.
This is why they pursued the nuclear bomb right after this.
So there was never an intention to actually come to any type of deal.
The goal was to prolong for a period of time, control the territories, get the nuclear bomb.
Once you get the nuclear bomb, people can't do shit to you.
And they were able to do this later on with the Yom Kippur War.
That's what saved them in the Yom Kippur War was the nuclear bomb.
So even if it meant to be bait, that didn't save them in Yom Kippur at all.
What saved them was the fact that America started to replace hardcore all of their losses, I think, on day three into the war.
But why did we come in and save them?
Destiny, why did we come in and save them in 73 then?
I mean, well, because they were our ally there during the Cold War, is we were interested in, because the Soviets were supporting the other side and we were interested in having a foothold there on the Israeli side.
And Israel was kind of like the U.S. entry point into the Middle East.
No, I'll tell you why.
Because the PM, Golden Meyer, called Nixon and said, if you don't go ahead and give us this airdrop and you don't support us, we're going to drop a nuclear bomb on these guys.
And obviously, after World War II, no one wanted to see a nuclear bomb dropped again.
The Israelis telegraphed this and Soviet satellites saw it.
That's how they knew that they were going to drop a nuclear bomb on them.
The only reason they survived the Yom Kippur war, because they were losing, because they got a sneak attack back on them and got a taste of their own medicine.
The only reason they didn't lose is because of American support and the fact that Golden Meyer literally blackmailed Nixon with the nuclear bomb.
They were going to drop the nuclear bomb, and that's why they're safe to this day.
I just, I don't historical thing that was supposed to be 100% true.
That's not even a part of my argument here.
But once again, I'm just saying this to explain that all of this was posturing so that they could get the nuclear bomb.
Now, we can go ahead and have a debate whether they're involved in killing JFK or whatever.
That's fine.
We don't have to even have that debate.
But what I will say is this: JFK actively fought against the Israelis getting a nuclear bomb.
Everyone in his administration was told about this.
I think it was Eisenhower that was before Kennedy, and they warned him that they were trying to get a nuclear bomb.
And if they get a nuclear bomb, it's going to set off a chain reaction in the Middle East.
And the Israelis, when it got the nuclear bomb, Ben-Gurion installed for months.
Wait, how many bombs do they even have made at that point?
Like one?
They had a few.
They had a few at that point.
What would the chain reaction even be?
Well, if you get a nuclear bomb, everyone else in the regions want to get a nuclear bomb.
That's going to create a problem for the United States.
That was Kennedy's biggest fear: creating a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
That's why he told Ben-Gurion we need nuclear inspections.
And Ben-Gurion lied to him for several years.
Wait, if they, if they, I don't understand if we were trying to avoid that, Israel got a nuke, though.
So it seems like that would have been, wouldn't it be the better thing would have just been to let them get destroyed by the Arab states?
No, they stole the nuclear stuff from us, is what I'm trying to explain.
They stole it.
The promoting was with South Africa.
Yeah, but they got the material from us.
They stole it from us.
This was all documented in the Apollo affair.
I don't remember if this was from Russia or from France, maybe, but regardless, I just don't.
Do you not think that the United States had an interest in seeing some kind of Western-friendly state existing in the Middle East, considering the Soviets were backing no, no, surprisingly, surprisingly, and a lot of people don't know this.
Wait, wait, no, you think we had no interest.
All the stuff in Afghanistan, the Soviet invasion there, we had no interest in anything in the Middle East.
I'll explain.
No, no, no, we did.
We did.
But Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy wanted to have peace with the Arabs.
He did not want to go ahead and just arm the Israelis and give them a bunch of money.
They wouldn't have peace with the Arabs.
They were backed by the Soviets completely, like bought and paid for.
There's no way they would have just agreed to peace with the United States.
Here's the thing.
He wanted to get influence with them to take them from the Soviets.
That was the goal the whole time.
And then, obviously, with the Israelis doing what they were doing, that put them in a very precarious situation because he was trying.
They've never gotten influence with the Middle East when they already had, they were already bought and paid for by the Soviet Union.
The Middle East always plays both sides, bro.
Me and you both know that Saudi Arabia does this, right?
You know, one end, they're like, oh, yeah, we love America.
Other end, they're buying weapons from Russia and China.
Like, this is what the Middle East does.
They've always done this.
But Kennedy wanted to vie for that air for that support in the Middle East.
And he did understand the Palestinian plight.
You know, he was never really a fan of Ben-Gurion and the state of Israel.
Obviously, a lot of people don't know this because they had private letters going back and forth fighting with each other.
But it's a known fact that Kennedy had been fighting with Ben-Gurion and the Israelis to stop their nuclear program for years.
Some people allege that's the reason that got him killed.
I won't go into conspiracy theories, but what the fact is, is that that was absolutely a big point with the Kenny administration and his brother, RFK, was trying to get the Zionist council to register under Pharaoh.
This all created a lot of issues with them.
And then Nixon knew this, but then they ended up getting.
Okay, one thing is, I don't think anything of this is true, and I don't even know how we could begin to source any of these things, but like let's okay, wait, just to like focus on everything I said is true to look at Wai on the six-day war.
Yeah, we're in the six-day war.
So going back to the six-day war, right?
So what I was saying was basically, so the resolution wasn't specific about the territories, right?
It was withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict versus the French version did say the territories, right?
The Lord Caradon from the UK admitted that there was a lack of the, and they did this on purpose.
Israel put loopholes like this and charters all the time for decades.
Joel Singer, an Israeli legal advisor, admitted to this as well that they purposely left out the.
Okay, why?
Why are you bringing up 242 here?
I'm just trying to, what is the.
No, no, no, we're talking about, we're talking about 67 now.
We're off 47.
But when you're bringing up the territories, this is the wording that was used for Resolution 242 that came at the end of the six-day war.
But this wording is only brought up when people are attacking the idea that Israel fulfilled their obligations to Resolution 242 in 79 when they made peace with Israel, because Israel said that its obligations had been fulfilled because they returned to Sinai, which was a conquered territory.
It was an occupied territory.
That's why people bring up this theoretically this difference in wording or the lack of the word the in the English version versus the French version for Resolution 242.
So I don't know why 242 is relevant here for 67.
Yeah, it's it's well, I'm referring to it with with the with the Palestinians, and I'm saying that it's it's relevant because they purposely wrote it this way so that they can go ahead and get a whole bunch of shit done in the meantime and not actually push towards some type of real resolution to buy themselves time.
And then also, what else here?
Oh, yeah.
And also they, they, another big thing with the 90s.
I don't understand how many in 67 Jordan pushed through the West Bank through Jerusalem to go into Israel after Israel bombed Egypt, right?
You're saying after the six-day war?
The Israelis won the six-day war.
I'm saying that during, I'm saying on was it June 6th?
I don't remember.
June 6th.
Yeah, it was June.
Yeah, it was like June 6th.
Yeah.
June 4th, June 2020.
Israel bombed the Egyptian airports.
Yep.
And then Nasser communicated to King Hussein that the airplanes that were flying back to Israel, they were actually his planes, his bombers.
And then the Jordanian king readied his army to invade Israel.
I want to say Moshe Dayan, I think, was the minister of war or whatever at this point, was communicating with the king and saying, hey, don't do this.
Don't invade us.
And he said, I think the quote is the die has been cast.
And then they invade, and then Jordan loses that invasion miserably.
And that's when Israel conquers the West Bank.
That was in response to Jordan attempting to invade.
Okay.
So then they get the West Bank there from Jordan.
They get the Gaza Strip, I guess, and the Sinai from Egypt during that.
And then I think they East Jerusalem from Jordan.
Well, sure.
I mean, the whole West Bank, right?
It includes East Jerusalem, right?
And then the Golan Heights, yeah.
Yep.
Yeah, from Syria, right?
But this is in response to fighting with all of these countries, right?
Yep.
Okay.
So what do we make?
What I'm saying is that they, well, number one, we know that they never really retreated from anything except for the Sinai Peninsula because they struck the deal with Egypt.
But the point I'm trying to make is that this document was written ambiguously on purpose, and then it didn't address the Palestinian issue.
I'm talking more specifically with the Palestinians because it didn't even refer to the Palestinians.
They just referred to them as basically like a refugee problem.
They didn't even refer to them as the Palestinians and they purposely left it that way.
Wait, why do you think that is, though?
Well, there was no intention of ever giving them any type of sovereignty.
There was no, well, the idea or the existence of like a Palestinian people.
That's a more recent phenomenon.
I don't even think it really emerged that much until like 47, 48.
And then from 48 to 67, the West Bank was occupied by Jordan.
Jordan annexed it formally and just made all those people Jordanian citizens.
Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip and for one year had like a little faux government that they ended up recalling to Cairo and the disbanding almost immediately, like after a year.
So there were no Palestinian people there.
It wasn't until Israel occupied both territories that all of a sudden some people started to talk about like a Palestinian people.
But I believe, yeah, 242 Justice just calls it the refugee problem.
But another reason why that resolution isn't because nobody knew what to do at that point.
Nobody knows like what do you do at that point?
Like the idea, like they're not going to say these territories should be independent.
They weren't independent before Israel conquered them.
They were owned by Jordan and Egypt, right?
Well, what I'm saying is that it didn't address the problem at all.
It didn't address the right of return whatsoever, completely ignored it.
And then also, on top of that, my argument is they had no intention of having peace because while this was going on, they also bombed the U.S. Liberty, right?
That was during the Six-Day War.
Yes, yes.
So while this is going on, they bombed the U.S.S. Liberty, right?
And then after that, they went ahead and tried to get the nuclear.
Well, they already had the nuclear bomb at this point and they were working.
They've already had it in the 67.
Yeah, they got, yeah, they got it pretty much that year.
And so what I'm arguing is that Israel is not a true broker of peace whatsoever, whether it's not acknowledging the Palestinian problem.
Yeah, but you said that they're not a problem.
Are giving them their sovereign war where all they're like fighting against Israel.
It's not like Israel is the one who's like starting these wars, right?
They erased.
Well, they started the 67 war.
Not really.
I mean, they started it, dude.
Yeah, because the entire Arab world poised themselves as being about to attack, right?
Well, here's the thing.
They started the war, right?
They started the war.
They didn't address the policy and problem, the right of return, et cetera.
When I'm talking about this, this piece, I'm saying that Nasser had already closed down the same straits that had led to a war 10 years earlier, kicked out all of the UN peacekeeping troops to ensure that there wouldn't be another war.
And then was telling people the Arab trade unionists, the next war will be a war of annihilation.
Yeah, I mean, it looked like they were poised for war.
You could argue that they were not.
But they didn't start, though, technically.
They didn't start.
No, they didn't start technically, but it was obviously a problem.
Because your argument you're saying is that you said that the Arabs started, they started, they didn't.
The Israelis started that one.
No, but they were poised for war.
You could argue that the closing of those straits was a cost of belly for war.
They had been fighting, bro.
They're always poised for war.
They're obviously right now.
They're poised for war.
Like, you can make the argument that they're not even close to poised for war right now.
Absolutely.
No, I'm saying other countries.
I'm saying Israel.
Before the Six-Day War, the Straits of Tehran were closed, weren't they?
You know, there are 100,000, there are a lot of troops near Israel's borders.
And if you look at historians, a lot of historians say that the Israelis, there are a lot of them reservists called up.
So they were in like a state of emergency.
So it was more of a state of war more than ever.
It wasn't, you know, the whole time.
But here's the thing.
You can make the argument that Israel's always in a state of war because they're always getting attacked, right?
People are always shooting missiles in there.
That's why they have the Iron Dome and everything else like that.
The point I'm trying to make.
That's not true.
People are always shooting.
No, the Palestinians from the Gaza Strip might have passed the year 2000.
But prior to that, there weren't always people just shooting random things.
Like, this is a huge escalation.
Expelling the UN peacekeeper troops and starting to deploy military across the Sinai was a big explanation, not explanation, escalation of stuff.
And this was literally what had just caused the prior war.
So the assumption was that, oh, well, I guess they're about to invade again.
Well, again, who started the war?
It wasn't the Arabs.
You can say that they postured all day, but did they start the war?
They didn't.
It was the Israelis that started the war in 1967.
So what I'm trying to say is that, again, the debate is who is a bigger obstacle to peace?
I would argue the Israelis.
Because, again, they start the war.
They win the war.
Fair.
Then they don't address the Palestinian issue.
They write the U.S. How would they have addressed the Palestinian issue?
What would they have said or done?
They had a right to return that had been agreed upon before that.
No, there was absolutely no agreement before that.
The right of return had existed before that, and they completely ignored it in this in 242.
No, they completely had existed before that.
Prior to this, we have what?
The Armenian genocide, the expulsion of some million, some Greeks from Turkey.
What do you mean right of return agreed upon?
No, this is absolutely nothing.
There was a Palestinian right of return after the Nakba.
There was the right of return.
The 242 didn't address it whatsoever.
Again, my.
There was no right of return after the Naq.
I don't know what you're talking about.
There's no right of return that was guaranteed by any international or domestic people.
Here, I'll get it for you real quick.
I had it written down real fast.
Yeah, UN General Assembly 194.
Does that call for a right of return or is that just a just resolution to the QGP?
That addresses the Palestinians' right to return.
UN General Assembly 194.
Again, what I'm arguing here is I'm arguing that the Israelis are a bigger obstacle to peace than the Palestinians.
And my argument when it comes to the 1967 war is they ambiguously wrote the document, not including the territories.
They didn't acknowledge the Palestinians whatsoever.
They just left it as like kind of a refugee problem versus the people that were originally there being displaced.
They didn't give a shit about them.
They didn't acknowledge the right to return whatsoever.
And then they were precaring.
And then they're preparing a nuclear bomb, which is not going to help at all.
So the language here is refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date and that the compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for a lot.
So this wasn't just about Palestinians.
There were also Jews that were expelled from the West Bank when that war happened as well.
They weren't allowed back.
Nobody was allowing anybody back.
All of these territories were in conflict with each other.
The majority of the people that were displaced were overwhelmingly Palestinians.
We're talking about almost a million people.
Yeah, sure.
Well, I think so.
Yeah.
But yeah, but that's because the Jews won the war.
Yeah, because the Israeli side won.
But there were some, I think it was less, it might have been less than 100,000.
Again, but there were Jews that were displayed.
It doesn't matter with the number.
Nobody was seeking to figure out this quote-unquote refugee problem.
All of these territories were so actively at war with each other.
We're referring to 1967, right?
I'm arguing that the Israelis, I think, are a bigger obstacle to peace than the Palestinians.
And that was my arguments for 1967.
Once again, ambiguous writing the document, not addressing the Palestinians, the right to return.
Procuring the nuclear bomb in the middle of all of this, right?
Illegally, by the way, doing it by stealing from the United States, which is a whole other huge provocation because procuring a nuclear bomb is obviously going to escalate things to a whole other level.
Everybody around the world was like doing research on like procure.
Like this is when a lot of people around the world were procuring nuclear weapons.
Britain and France did their research for it.
The Israel did it with conjunction of South Africa.
Procuring a nuclear bomb.
India and Pakistan were starting like their research projects.
Yeah, everybody was trying to get because it was a cold war.
But procuring a nuclear bomb by stealing from your greatest ally and then obviously subverting the president before and getting somebody else.
The United States wasn't a huge ally to Israel until like 73.
No, we were absolutely giving them quite a bit of money even during the Kenny administration and they were lying to us.
Ben-Gurion was lying to Kennedy all over the place.
So they were betraying one of their greatest allies.
Yeah, we're allies with Israel.
We definitely were giving them aid even back then in the 60s.
We weren't as great as Lyndon B. Johnson started the cucking for Israel.
But Kennedy was a supporter of the Israelis and he wanted to have some type of two-state and peaceful solution with the Arabs and with the Israelis.
Obviously, he got killed before he can do that.
Just to be clear, Mauron, I think the U.S. sold Israel's first offensive weapon in 1958.
Sure, but they should not have, but they were not allowed to have nuclear weapons.
And they were getting them illegally against Kennedy's will.
The United States did not provide significant aid to Israel until, I think it was like Lyndon B. Johnson came in.
That's when we started cucking for Israel.
Yes, you're right.
But what I'm trying to explain here is they went ahead and got a nuclear weapon illegally by stealing from us, who were their allies, and knowing that that would escalate tensions in the region by getting a nuclear bomb.
Couldn't they have also got that because they wanted some safety and security, knowing that they wouldn't be destroyed by all of the surrounding Arab states?
No, because them having a nuclear bomb was so that they can basically do what they wanted to do the whole time since the days of Ben-Gurion, which was take over the entire region and have a nuclear bomb.
Nothing is literally nothing that you're saying is making any sense.
You're saying that it's inconceivable that they would have wanted a nuclear bomb to keep their state safe.
You're saying instead they got one for offensive purposes.
After they got a nuclear bomb, they gave land back to the Arabs and made more peace with the Arabs.
So their entire plan worked backwards.
Nothing that you're saying is causally connected to anything.
If what you were saying was true, prospectively, after they got the nuclear bomb, they should have captured Cairo.
They should have gone north to Lebanon and taken Beirut.
Or they should have crossed the river and taken more of Jordan.
Or they should have gone and expanded their territory in the Golden Heights.
They didn't do any of this.
Their territory receded after they acquired a nuclear bomb.
So it seems like it's working exactly the opposite, but somehow you can still explain the same behavioral pattern.
I don't understand that at all.
Yes, because here's the thing.
The United States basically forced them to play nice with the Egyptians, which Jimmy Carter is getting the Cam David Accords in 1978.
Because again, we didn't want to foot the bill for their recklessness.
Obviously, why?
We didn't foot the bill for anything.
We could just let them fight.
And it wasn't at the, it wasn't, I don't think it was, I think it was Sadat that was pushing for peace more so than anybody in the United States.
I think the United States eventually became a mediator or facilitator under Carter more than anything else.
Well, yes, we facilitated it, but at the same time, we didn't want to foot the bill for all their wars because obviously it had been creating quite a bit of issues.
And then also the Yom Kippur war was a very important thing.
Why would we not want to foot the bill for their wars?
We were literally doing this all over the world.
It was the cold wartime.
We were doing this all over South America.
We were already, you know, helping like Mujahideen in the Middle East in Afghanistan.
Like we were putting a bill everywhere.
This is a whole cold war.
Even more so, not wanting to foot the bill.
Because again, when it comes to Egypt and Jordan, they're in strategically good positions where, hey, you know what?
You should be allies with them so that we don't have to necessarily foot the bill where these guys constantly have to defend themselves.
Also, the other thing you got to keep in mind was the Yom Kippur War in 1973 where they threatened to use a nuclear bomb.
So that was another reason why we needed to have— I don't think they ever—nobody threatened to use a nuclear bomb.
Israel threatened to use a nuclear bomb on the table.
Yes, yes.
They absolutely.
On who?
On whom?
Goldemeyer literally called Nixon and said, if you don't give us an airlift, we are going to drop a nuclear bomb on these guys as they're invading us because they were going to lose the Yom Kippur War.
Everybody knows this.
Nixon literally got nuclear blackmailed with the nuclear bombs, by the way, that they illegally stole from us.
I want to make that very clear.
These nuclear weapons that they got, they got them from us and they stole them from us, okay, against John F. Kennedy.
So Nixon said, yo, we got to do this.
And he basically gave them the biggest airlift ever so they can win the war.
Otherwise, it would have lost.
So what I'm saying is that the Israelis, the Israelis not only, what was that?
Why do you find that?
What is the source for that Israel threatened to do it?
Look it up.
Look it up.
Goldenmeyer, Yom Kippur war, she was absolutely going to use a nuclear bomb against the Arabs because they were losing.
It's 100% that's a problem.
Wait, because they were losing is a lot different than because they were threatening to nuke somebody.
Yeah, they were losing the war and they were going to use the nuclear bomb.
Yeah, I think they were internally considering that, but I don't think that that's what made the U.S. cave.
That's all.
That's 100% why the U.S. caved.
They did not want them to drop a nuclear bomb.
You're saying that if Israel didn't have a nuclear bomb at that point, that the United States would have just watched the entire Middle East be ran by the Soviet.
We would not have given them the aid as quickly because Kissinger at the time.
No, no, no, wait, wait, wait, wait, no, no, no, no, no, hold on.
You're saying the question would have watched Israel collapse.
Yeah, I think you're saying something else.
You're saying the U.S. would have watched Israel be completely destroyed in the Middle East and just ceded that whole region to the Soviets.
There's a good chance, yeah, because Henry Kissinger did not want to get involved in the USA.
When we were so involved in the Afghan civil war, then why were we supplying so much and doing so much training and everything for the Mujahideen or other places in the Middle East?
Well, again, Osama bin Laden had a very capable rebel force where he was fighting.
We were giving him weapons and money and shit like that.
But keep in mind, Osama bin Laden was a multi-multi-millionaire.
His family were billionaires in Saudi Arabia.
They built up the entire infrastructure.
So he was very well equipped to handle things on his own.
Yes, we gave some aid and support and everything else like that, but we didn't need to give him the same amount of help as the Israelis.
And again, it's very important for you guys to understand.
The Israelis got the nuclear weapon by stealing the technology from us against the will of a former U.S. president.
That's a problem.
That's a big problem.
So just to recap, you're saying that the reason why the U.S. in the 1973 war, I presume we're going to that one now, the reason why they gave $2.2 billion worth of aid to Israel on that they called DEF CON 3 against the USSR was just because Israel threatened them with a nuclear bomb.
They were going to drop a nuclear bomb on their enemies, and that was a big problem because obviously that would be a big escalation that Nixon could not afford that.
So he gave Goldemeyer the aid that she wanted.
And that's what ended up happening.
That's how they won the Yom Kippur War.
They were going to lose.
But I wasn't even going to, but again, I'm using the only reason I'm even bringing up the Yom Kippur War is because I'm making the argument that the Israelis don't do any, they're the bigger brokers of chaos and they don't negotiate for peace whatsoever.
And I'm using the nuclear bomb.
Them getting a nuclear bomb right in 1967 created instability throughout the region is what I'm trying to say.
Because my argument is that.
Do they know what is?
Do you not think they want peace as a country?
No, no, not right now.
I think what they want is a hegemony and they're going to do whatever they need to do to get that hegemony to include stealing the nuclear weapons and running their cowboy foreign policy.
We could fast forward to now if you want, but this one, I was going to go into the Oslo Accords next because I can't divide a course.
Post-73, what's like a more stable if Israel's causing chaos or Israel is like a chaotic country, who is a more stable country to look towards?
Like after 73, besides Israel?
Like, isn't Israel one of the more stable countries in the Middle East?
Well, again, they're stable because they've stolen nuclear technology from us and they've, you know, they get aid from us.
Like, that's why Israel would not exist without the United States at all.
They'd be overtaking a million.
It's pretty much the same.
I mean, the Soviet-backed Arab states would have probably all been even more annihilated by Israel prior to any U.S. involvement if the Soviets weren't backing them, no?
I mean, you know, that's, we don't know because that's like, you know, who knows, right?
But the point, my argument is simply that I don't, I think, again, I'm not saying Arab worlds is perfect, guys.
I'm not saying the Arab world don't create problems and that they're not broke, that they're bad brokers of peace, too.
My argument, the argument I'm making is that the Israelis are a far bigger obstacle to peace than anywhere in the Arab world, even though we go and blame the Arab world for all the problems, but we never actually look at the documents.
We don't look at what Israel does behind the scenes.
I mean, you guys didn't even know that they illegally got a nuclear weapon, and this is on purpose.
They don't want you guys to know this.
I've heard that claim, but like most of their testing and everything was with South Africa.
What are you claiming exactly that they stole from the U.S.?
Okay.
They stole the weapon, the technology, or the uranium or whatever.
Yeah, they stole uranium.
They were building a nuclear program against the wishes of John F. Kennedy.
John F. Kennedy told them multiple people.
In terms of what they stole, you said, so they stole all the enriched uranium they stole from the United States?
They stole enriched uranium from the United States.
And then on top of that, Kennedy knew that they're running a nuclear program and he told them, you guys got to stop.
We need inspections.
And Ben-Gurion lied to him.
He even made a fake nuclear panel for inspection.
Kenny found out and he got pissed off.
And his brother was trying to get the Zionist organization, which is now APAC, to register on a freedom.
A lot of people around the world were also pursuing nuclear programs.
It wasn't just Israel, right?
A lot of people in the Cold War were pursuing nuclear programs.
We didn't really want anybody to, but people were.
And we didn't stop them.
Fucking Pakistan has nuclear weapons, right?
And more people are surrounding nukes than Pakistan.
But fair, here's the difference, though.
Here's the difference.
We were giving them aid.
So Kennedy told them, if you guys keep building your nuclear program, we are going to stop giving you aid.
And guess what happened?
Ben-Gurion resigned.
The first prime minister of Israel resigned to buy himself more time.
Wait, resigned in what year?
This is 1960.
Shit.
I think in 67, I think Ben-Gurion was still the prime minister.
Yeah, I think he might have resigned.
And then I think afterwards, did he resign or did he just not run for PM again?
He was completely left.
He completely left because the yeah, he left because Kennedy was putting pressure on him and he needed more time.
They needed more time to get the nuclear bomb.
Well, Kennedy was dead by 63, but this might have been.
We weren't giving them much aid under Kennedy.
How much aid were we giving Israel?
1963.
We were giving them quite a bit.
And then we upped it even more once Linda B. Johnson came in.
Linda B. Johnson was the beginning.
I would have to see, I don't think we were giving that much aid.
I don't think it was until 1970 that we started to, and then really 73 is a little bit more.
Lyndon B. Johnson, Linda B. Johnson was the beginning of the ushering of the super pro-Israel foreign policy that we have.
He basically made the guys on the USS Liberty sign gag orders, even though they had attacked us.
And that was an act of war.
He doubled or tripled the foreign aid to Israel.
His family, one of his aunts was a founding member of the ADL.
My claim is, I don't think we were giving significant aid prior to 1970.
We don't know who's a place I can look this up.
You see this?
Can I look?
Because if I Google anything about aid to Israel, we were giving them aid in 1970.
We were 100%.
We were giving them aid because that is precisely why Ben-Gurion stepped down.
Because Kennedy said, if you do not comply with these nuclear inspections, we are going to us giving you aid is going to be significantly impacted.
Basically, he said, what he basically told him is we're going to stop giving you aid.
He worded it much nicer than that.
We've gone around the nuclear, but it's probably best to just go.
Yeah, my argument, though, the whole nuclear angle, the only reason I'm even bringing up the nuclear bomb is that what I'm saying is that the Israelis are willing to backstab allies to illegally get a nuclear bomb to conduct and/or what they say, oh, to protect ourselves.
But no, it's so that they could be more aggressive.
Look at how more aggressive Israel's been since getting the nuclear bomb.
But let's go into, we go into the Camp David Accords.
I'm going to, you know, that was for Egypt and Egypt and Israel to have peace.
Basically, when I came again and said, I don't count that.
We confessed that.
I feel like there's so many little things here, like that we were just completely indifferent at this point.
We're saying the allies.
You want to go to like the follow-up affair didn't happen when we were strong allies with Israel.
It was in 65.
So this, we wouldn't have been considered strong allies at that point.
We weren't giving them a ton of money at that point.
We're still giving them quite a bit, though.
We're still giving them a lot.
That's true.
No, no, we weren't.
We weren't.
Yeah, we were.
Enough for Ben-Gurion to resign.
It was that much aid that he resigned.
That's significant.
We're talking about the first prime minister.
What is the claim you're making?
That he resigned so that they would investigate, but they couldn't find the nukes anyway.
It's simple.
Kennedy told Ben-Gurion, we know that you have a nuclear program.
He wrote a bunch of flurry of angry letters at him saying, we know that you have a nuclear weapon and we need to do nuclear testing.
Ben-Gurion stalled.
First, he denied.
Then he said, okay, you can come inspect.
They send the inspectors over there.
It's a fake nuclear panel.
Not real whatsoever.
They make a whole fake thing.
So Kennedy is like, okay, we are not going to give you aid anymore if you guys don't comply with these nuclear inspections.
What did Ben-Gurion do?
He resigns.
Why would that matter for him resigning?
How would that prevent nuclear inspection?
Because what ended up happening was in the interim, where they're trying to find a new PM, that bought him time to get a replacement so they can continue the nuclear.
Doesn't make any sense.
It's not like they didn't have a prime minister for years after he resigned.
He would choose a successor, Eschkol after whatever.
The idea, like, why wouldn't they just do the inspection right after?
This doesn't make any sense.
Because he thinks that they're going to nuclear inspect, so he just pushes the resign button and then they went like 100 free turns.
He literally left so that his replacement would be like, oh, I'm not familiar with what's going on.
John, please aware of me.
Of course, Kennedy got killed later on, right?
So they didn't really get to finish this.
But the reason why he did that, remember, bro, this is the 60s.
They're writing telegrams to each other, right?
So this bought him a significant amount of time if he resigned.
Isn't that electronic?
It's not like telegrams are taking years or whatever to get.
No, it took time to get over there.
They didn't have a way to pick up a there were no phones in 1960.
They didn't have phones in the 60s and 50s?
Classified.
There's classified documents.
They have to write in a different way.
You can look it up, bro.
I'm like, yo, this Kennedy thing is like instantaneously communicate with each other.
I don't think that there'd be weeks.
The point is, is that Ben-Gurion resigned when he got pressure to have nuclear inspections.
That's the bottom line.
Okay.
I mean, I disagree.
We can try to move on from this factor.
We're just going to go around.
Yeah, that's fine.
Stephen, should we go into the come David Colts?
Okay, yeah, we can go.
No, Camp David, I was going to skip because that's just a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.
The title of the debate is who's a big obstacle to peace.
Wouldn't them doing a peace deal with Egypt show that they do one?
Well, I'm referring to the Palestinians in this case.
Yeah, because they completely, yes, they made peace with Egypt, but they made peace with Egypt from a strategic position, which you can make the argument.
Oh, well, Myron, everything is done strategically fair.
But they completely ignored the Palestinians.
And the Camp David Accords are often utilized as a peace plan where they say, look, the Palestinians rejected this too.
They rejected every single peace plan.
They rejected the PO Commission.
They rejected the 47th Partition.
They rejected the 67.
And they use the Camp David Accords, even though it's not, the Palestinians aren't even mentioning it.
Yeah, no one here is claiming that.
Yeah, yeah, not you guys, but I'm saying in general.
Like, other Zionists I've debated have tried to say that on me, that like, oh, yeah, they rejected the 78 Camp David Accords.
I'm like, dude, the Palestinians weren't even involved in that discussion whatsoever.
And then on top of that, I would argue that the Israelis did that because they knew that the Egyptians were a powerful ally of the Palestinians, right, in the Arab world.
And that would create even more problems because, like, there's no way that they didn't foresee, okay, if we go ahead and we do this with the Egyptians, that this isn't going to create issues as well.
Because what we saw later on, if you fast forward to 2020, was the Israelis doing this where they're, you know, circumventing the Palestinians with the Abraham Accords.
That led directly to October 7th.
So on one side, they say, oh, look, we're doing peace.
We're negotiating with these Arab countries.
But they never answer the Palestinian question.
And that's what I'm trying to say.
They never had an intention on a two-state solution, making peace with the Palestinians, giving them the right to self-determination, any type of sovereignty.
They circumvented it every single way, whether it's doing side deals with other Arab countries, whatever.
Do you think that they offered to Egypt, the Camp David Accords, to keep Gaza?
They offered it to Egypt and Egypt said no.
Does that make any difference to you or not really?
No, because my argument is that they don't really care about doing anything for the Palestinians.
They want to get them out of there.
And I think we have proof of that now.
I think I'm being vindicated because they're getting the Gazas out of there now.
They're trying to do an ethnic cleansing right now as we speak.
They bombed Qatar, who was the negotiators, because they don't care about necessarily doing peace.
They're like, oh, you know what?
Let's go ahead and invade the sovereignty of Qatar, who is one of the middlemen, and bomb these Hamas guys, right?
And not even get them and look like idiots in the world stage and make ourselves look bad in front of UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar.
Make the Gulf states question our alliance or potentially joining the Abraham Accords later on because Saudi Arabia is going to actually join the Abraham Accords.
So there's just so many things that the Israelis have done to sabotage, but we can go into the Oslo Accords.
I can give my position on that one.
Yeah, Stephen, are you happy to move on to the Oslo Accords?
I mean, I guess, but we're like totally different.
We don't have to agree, Stephen.
I mean, it's for the people.
Like you gave your arguments.
I gave mine.
People can agree or disagree.
I'm sure your audience might say, what the hell?
My audience might say, what the hell?
It's fine.
We don't have to agree.
And that's totally cool.
I guess like broadly speaking.
Go ahead.
Is there a single like peace agreement that has been presented to Israel that's on the table to solve like the Palestinian problem that like Israel has rejected during negotiations?
You mean the one that like the Palestinians rejected that could have done something?
You mean?
Like where Palestinians are like, this is what we want.
And then we will accept peace during any negotiation ever.
I think the Oslo Accords and the 2002 Arab Summit, Arab Peace Initiative.
Well, so the Oslo Accords were never going to be, that was never a peace agreement.
That was just like a framework to kind of move in the direction of hopefully figuring stuff out.
So the Oslo Accords happened and Oslo too happened.
The Arab Peace Initiative is just, that's not like a formal agreement.
That's just the Arab states are like, oh, like all of us are coming together and hoping that something works out.
And the Israelis didn't want to do that either because they never wanted peace with, they never wanted.
We don't even know the Arab Peace Initiative doesn't mean anything.
It's just like a general statement of things.
But nobody knows because nobody wants to touch the refugee question on the Palestinian side.
Nobody will negotiate that.
And they avoided it intentionally over and over again.
And I'm really glad that you mentioned that.
And that is, because here's the thing.
If you notice, when I make the argument that Israelis are a bigger obstacle to peace, notice how I'm saying a bigger obstacle to peace, especially when it comes to the Palestinians.
Because here's the problem: until the Palestinians either A, get their own state or get absorbed into Israel and get some type of freedom and get the right to self-determination, there is never going to be peace in the Middle East.
So, if this Palestine question is not answered, there's going to continuously be warfare and Israel will never have peace.
That's the cold, hard reality.
Their world is never going to rest.
The Muslim world is never going to rest until the Palestinians have some level of sovereignty.
So, notice how I bring everything back always to they circumvent the Palestinians.
They don't deal with the Palestinians.
Let's deal with the Egyptians here.
Let's deal with the Bahrain over here.
Let's deal with UAE.
That doesn't fucking matter.
Until they deal with the Palestinian question, which Netanyahu has done everything in his power to avoid since the Oslo Accords, which I was going to get into here, I do think the Oslo Accords was the closest we ever came to something, even though it's still bullshit.
But at least, like you said, Destiny, it created the framework for us to potentially get somewhere.
But what did the Israelis do?
Well, let's go over the Oslo Accords real quick.
Then I'll talk about what the Israelis did, and then you can give me your rebuttal to it.
But basically, the 93 Oslo Accords, right, between Yitzhak Rabin and our boy, Yasser Arafat.
Let's see here.
So, basically, Arafat agreed.
He gave them a bunch of things.
He recognized Israel has the right to exist with peace and security, which was huge.
They had never gotten that before.
He accepted Resolution 242, which is the partition plan.
And then he renounced violence.
Furthest they've ever gotten.
All Yitzhak Rabin gave them in exchange was recognize the PLO as the representative of Palestinian people with no state or right to self-determination.
They give them autonomy, which we know is bullshit because the Palestinian Authority, who basically ran things, was nothing more than a Shinbet shell.
Basically, Shinbet, IDF, et cetera, would use the PA to collect information, and then they would act as almost like a security force on behalf of the Israeli government.
And obviously, this created a lot of issues because this is precisely why Hamas was able to rise because they're like, yo, these guys don't really care about the Palestinians.
These guys are literally working for the Israelis.
And how do I know this?
Even in Israeli TV, I watch Israeli television.
Much of you guys might not know this.
I've seen the show Fauda.
In Fauda, the Israelis even admit and show in their own television that the Palestinian Authority collaborates with them.
So why the hell are the Palestinians going to respect them or take them seriously?
It created a huge rift, which was great for Benjamin Netanyahu later on because he was able to use that division to his advantage because people didn't trust the Palestinian Authority.
So the problem with the Oslo Accords was it was always to be revisited later, right?
And while this was happening, it being revisited later, the West Bank is still expanding.
They're still taking territory.
The illegal settlements are expanding.
So the other problem also with the Oslo Accords was it fragmented the Palestinian territory where it was never contiguous.
So what they would have to do is they'd have to use these rows, have all these checkpoints or whatever.
So they were never able to actually establish any type of commerce with Jordan.
They didn't control their borders.
They didn't control their airspace.
They didn't control their resources.
The Israelis controlled everything.
And the illegal settlements continued to expand.
And then on top of that, the only thing the Oslo Accords let them have was a limited police force.
Meanwhile, the Israelis and the settlers all had M4s.
They all had rifles.
And then they could reserve the right to go ahead and go into any of these territories, the ABNC territories, which the Israelis, I think, controlled C, which is like 60% of the West Bank.
So it was bullshit, man.
So Yasser Arafat obviously accepted it, and a lot of people got mad.
And then even though they got this lopsided deal, guess what happens?
Yitzhak Rabin, who had signed this lopsided deal, which gave all them the advantage, they couldn't even agree to that.
They killed them.
The Israelis killed them.
So the only chance they- What you mean is Raiders killed him.
Elsa's sole murderer.
Yes, a member of the Likud party, which is a big representation, which is running Israel right now, literally, assassinated Yitzhak Rabin.
So the only person.
The Kid Party didn't do it.
It was a low and extremist vendor, wasn't it?
No, he was a member of the Likud party.
He was 100% a member of the Likud party.
And then the year after, your boy Benjamin Netanyahu goes ahead and becomes prime minister.
And to this day, Yitzhak Rabin's wife thinks Benjamin Netanyahu was behind the murder.
And honestly, I'm not too surprised because what happened after Yitzhak Rabin got killed?
Now the Clean Break memo comes out.
Now the Institute for Foreign Affairs comes out.
You got all these neocons that come out and write up this paper about securing the realm.
Then you got the rise of the PENAC, et cetera.
So with Yitzhak Rabin being killed, the Oslo Accords died alongside him.
And then Netanyahu comes in.
And what did he do?
He's caught in the fucking village in the West Bank talking about how he sabotaged the Oslo Accords, how there's never going to be a peace, a two-state solution, how the Palestinians are never going to have any type of sovereignty.
He said it today.
After the Brits and the Australians recognized Palestinian state, he said they'll never get to be a Palestinian state.
Obviously, he did it in Hebrew.
He did it in the Israeli media.
But the point is this: Yitzhak Rabin came the closest to having any type of deal, even though the Palestinians didn't get shit for it.
All they got was basically a snitch force with the Palestinian Authority.
And then on top of that, for him doing that, he got assassinated by the Likud party and then Benjamin Nyahu took over.
The Oslo Accords were the closest, and they killed him even for that.
So, the Israelis have no intention whatsoever of having peace.
The one guy that came an inch closer to peace, they fucking killed him.
Stephen, you've got a lot to respond to.
Yeah, I mean, we're just in totally different reality.
So, the Oslo Accords were never supposed to be the final settlement.
I think that people were inspired after the piecemeal deal that had been made with Egypt in terms of giving back the Sinai.
And then, piece by piece, eventually, Israel had achieved like a formal peace with Egypt.
Sadat was also assassinated after that peace deal had been reached, by the way.
Oslo had nothing to do with Egypt.
I didn't say that, but Sadat was assassinated after he had agreed formally to peace with Israel.
Some people theorize that the guy that killed him was because, again, like a lot of people that are, you know, dug in on wanting to fight forever between Arabs and Jews don't like it when people make peace deals.
Here's the difference.
The Camp David Accords didn't die.
Here's the difference.
The Camp David Accords did not die with Sadat.
The Oslo courts died with Yitzhak Rabin.
The Oslo Accords didn't necessarily die.
The Oslo II came after.
The issue is that they never reached a final state.
But also, you have an issue too, where the fact is, Arafat never really wanted to stop fighting.
The guy was a general.
The foundation of the PLO and Arafat's popularity in the Palestinian and larger Arab world was that of a resistance fighter, the whole name and party that he'd carved out for himself.
As long as all of the, as well as all of the kind of like terrorist mini parties that were part of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Palestinian Liberation Fraud, the Palestinian Defense Force, the PFLP, the VDOFO, all these other people or the DFLP, like these things, like they were, they were fighters.
They were, you know, they were involved in plane hijackings around the world.
They killed a couple of Jewish athletes in Munich.
You know, this is what they did.
The Mossad had their stuff against the Arabs.
The Palestinians had their stuff against Israel.
Like, yeah, these guys were at each other's throats constantly during the 60s and 70s.
As you move forward, you get to Aslo 1, which was 93.
Oslo 2 was 95, I think.
You have some agreements, but these are just like larger frameworks that is hopefully going towards Palestinians having an independent state.
Now, the most noteworthy thing was the creation of the Palestinian Authority, which was an actual official Palestinian government.
Now, yes, there is the propaganda line that you're giving that they're just security subcontractors for Israel.
That's the line that everybody who is incentivized into having infinite conflict between both sides will take, though.
Arabs will look at the Palestinian Authority and go, oh, they're a security subcontractor.
Jews will look at the Palestinian Authority and go, oh, the PA, well, they're part of the, you know, basically ran by the PLO.
They have the martyr fund.
They pay Shaheeds and everybody else to go and kill themselves.
But they have no sovereignty.
They have to have Jewish people anyways.
There was no sovereignty yet.
They're on their way.
They have technically, they have some kind of sovereignty over area A. Area B is your connective areas that I think still have Israeli security involved.
And then Area C are mainly your green line settlements on the west.
But it was supposed to be steps towards a peace process.
But the issue is Arafat would never, ever, ever, ever agree to any peace ever because he would never list final terms or final settlements or final agreements for what peace would look like.
Now, you can argue with Israel, it was not very simple what they're saying.
They want a two-state solution and the right to self-determination.
That's simple.
But the Israelis would never let that happen.
Even what you just say, a two-state solution, what do you do with Israel?
There was never an agreement on what would happen with.
No, Israel would exist.
I'm sorry.
I missed my.
I'm sorry.
What would you do with Jerusalem and East Jerusalem?
East Jerusalem would be the capital for the Palestinians, but the Israelis would never agree to that.
That's what they wanted.
I'm telling you what they want.
They might not have agreed to that because generally when East Jerusalem is brought up in talks, Arabs are not okay with Jews visiting the Western Wall ever because Arabs don't believe that there was ever an old temple there.
So they would restrict access at every point in history.
Wait, the Western Wall or the Mount?
The Western Wall is the Temple Mount, the Western Wall is a very important point.
I think you're talking about the Mount where the Elohim Samoskas.
The Wailing Wall, they can go there, of course.
That's where they go.
That's where the Western Wall is.
They're both there.
But no, Arabs would not allow Jews to go there because they don't believe the Temple.
They don't believe that's a Western wall, a last-standing wall of some Jewish temple.
They refuse that any Jewish temple there ever exists.
Because even though people in the West are keen to argue that, well, you know, we're only going to run the clock on history since the Ottomans were there.
That's not true.
The Arabs want to run the clock back indefinitely, and they believe that it was always Arabs there.
There was no Jewish temple there.
So they would never allow Jews.
Every time it's been owned in history by Arabs, Jews were not allowed to pray at the Wailing Wall.
It's only when Israel has been in control of it.
That right now, I think it's a Jordanian WACF or whatever that runs it that allows Jews to go to the Wailing Wall and allows to go to Al-Aska, Moscow, or whatever.
Muslims could pray.
But people could visit the Mount.
They could visit the Mount.
They just can't pray.
Not if the Arabs, not if the Arabs controlled it.
So what would happen with East Jerusalem has never been settled.
That's never been put on paper.
Number one.
Number two, the right of return question has never been tackled by any Arab leader, not by Arafat, not by Mahmoud Abbas.
Nobody has ever put a number on paper for how many people are allowed to be able to do it.
Because the Israelis will never let it.
Here's the thing.
They want that.
Because there are 5 million refugees that Palestinians argue should be allowed to return to Israel properly.
And they're never going to let that.
And I understand that.
Most of these refugees have never even set foot in Israel.
But a lot of the people that are considered refugees are people that had full Jordanian citizenship, but they're still considered refugees, even though they were made full citizens of Jordan and live in Jordan and have lived in Jordan.
Here's the thing for two generations.
Here's the thing.
I said before at the top that the right of return.
You'll acknowledge that Palestinians have never put a number on paper that it seems like in their world, 5 million Arabs have to be allowed to emigrate into Israel proper and have full citizenship there.
That would make Jews a minority in Israel.
That's always part of the thing, the unspoken thing in the background that no Palestinian leader has ever given up.
Well, yeah, that's literally why I say Israel is an apartheid ethno-state as supremacy.
That's fine.
But realistically, that's a non-starter.
That's never happening that Jews are losing their state to Arabs.
Yes, because they have to maintain the 80% majority.
Yes, I understand that.
Not necessarily 80%, but they have to maintain some kind of Jewish ethnic majority.
Otherwise, they feel like they'll probably be in every other Arab state.
Yeah, they'll feel like they'll get overrun or whatever.
But look, the point I'm trying to make is here with the Ozlo Accords in general, is that, yes, I understand what you're saying.
You're saying the Ozlo Accords were a framework to work towards something.
My argument is, even when they had that framework, what did the Israelis do?
I'm talking about the Israelis.
I'm not just talking about Yitzhak Rabin or whatever.
Both sides fucked around.
Both sides fucked around.
There was still violence on the Arab side, and there were still expansions of settlements on the Israeli side.
Both sides accused each other of sabotaging the deal.
And both sides kind of sort of, you know, but here's the difference, though.
See, at least you mentioned Sadat got killed.
The Camp David Accords didn't get killed alongside him.
They still maintain peace to this day.
Hell, they even warned, the Egyptians even warned the Israelis about October 7th.
Here's the difference.
When Yitzhak Rabin got killed, because Yitzhak Rabin got killed for giving the Palestinians the Palestinian Authority, he got killed for that.
And then Netanyahu came in and then sabotaged everything.
That's my point.
That's true.
The Oslo Accords are still active.
The Palestinians are not still exist.
Yes, they are.
Area A, B, and C are still there.
The Palestinian Authority still exists.
They did the division of Hebron and they moved most of the Jews out of there.
They live in the H1 section.
But here's the problem.
So there's the redeployment there.
The Oslo Accords are still in effect, but the Oslo Accords were just temporary.
They were never supposed to be a final arrangement.
But that's my point.
So it was a framework towards something better to eventually get to a two-state solution.
And they killed him.
But the problem is, no.
That is the definition of being an Ozler.
It doesn't matter.
Arafat never agreed to any final deal anyways.
Arafat could have agreed with Netanyahu to something.
Arafat could have agreed with Ahu Barak or something, but they didn't.
They never did.
Arafat never made any final agreement ever because he always wanted to see the fighting continue.
No, no, no.
The Arabs took it more.
That's not true because he wanted, again, all they wanted, self-determination, two-state solution, East Jerusalem as the capital.
That's what the Palestinians have always wanted, pretty much.
Okay.
Now, an infinite right of return of 5 million refugees.
I didn't even mention.
I didn't even say right of return.
But that's what they want.
That's the problem.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Even the right of return, bro, a lot of them have given that up.
It's pre-67 borders.
Pre-67 borders.
Pre-67 borders is the same.
The words don't matter.
They don't care about the land.
That's not the important thing.
The important thing is what to do with the holy landmarks, especially in East Jerusalem, and what to do with the Palestinian right of return.
And then what sovereignty they have.
My point, my point here is, remember, the debate is who is the bigger obstacle to peace?
I'm saying when Yitzhak Rabin tried to create a peace deal with the Oslo Accords, which would work towards a two-state solution, that's what it was there for.
That's why Yitzhak Rabin, that's why Arafat even came to the table, right?
Was eventually to get some right of self-determination for the Palestinians.
What did they do?
They killed Yitzhak Rabin.
They killed him.
The Israelis killed him.
And then they put Nanyahu.
Then Netanyahu comes in power.
That's a contentious region.
Yeah.
A lot of people wanted to fight there.
But that is precisely my point.
The Israelis are the bigger obstacle to peace because even when the Palestinians came in good faith with the Ozlo Accords, what did they do?
They killed the guy that negotiated it.
And then Nanyahu comes in and he admits on video, I am here to sabotage the Oslo Accords.
They're never going to get a state.
The Ozlo Accords, but despite that, they still continued.
And they had another shot at peace five years later with the Hud Barak.
But here's the problem.
And they didn't take that either.
The Yehud Barak, we could talk about that.
The 2000 camps, that was bullshit too.
That was complete.
That was even worse.
That's good one to the Clinton promises in 2000.
Sure, we can go into that.
But again, I just want to be clear about this.
The debate here for me is about who is a bigger obstacle to peace.
I agree that Yitzhak Rabin came in some degree with good faith, even though he made almost no concessions.
And then Yasser Arafat came in and made a lot of concessions.
That's how I know he came in good faith because he literally— Wait, who came in and made a lot of concessions?
Yasser Arafat made way more concessions.
He didn't make any consent.
What are you talking about?
They had no state.
They had nothing to concede.
Okay, no.
He conceded, bro.
He literally conceded that Israel has a right to exist, okay, in peace and security.
That's huge.
But these are words on paper.
And then he goes to universities.
He's making speeches about strategically lying or whatever when it comes to making deals with the infidel or whatever.
Yeah, he said things, but the problem is like in the second half, he never denounced violence and violence continued.
And that was a huge thing that moved.
Okay, but that was after the Ozlo Accords were sabotaged by Netanyahu.
So the Oslo Accords were still in place.
The Palestinian Authority still exists today.
Area ABC still exists today.
No, no, they're not sabotaged.
They're not gone.
They're still in place.
No, he did sabotage them because what did he tell?
What did he say?
Oh, I'm going to destroy the Oslo Accords.
I'm not going to make it work.
Then Palestinian Authority has no power because, again, it was a framework.
When did he say that?
Of course, he said that.
He came in right after the last guy who supported the Oslo Accords got assassinated.
Of course, he came in saying he hated the fucking Oslo Accords, but there's still political realities you have to contend with in Israel.
He got him killed.
At that point, on both sides, he got him killed.
You have no proof of that.
There's no evidence of that.
Yitzhak Rabin's wife to this day wrote a book and what his wife said.
Who cares?
What is that?
Does she have some intelligence or some reason?
Yeah.
Like she said, she wrote a book and she literally said Netanyahu killed my husband.
And the guy that killed him was a Likud party guy.
Who's head of the Likud party right now?
Netanyahu.
Sounds pretty fucking clear to me.
Who killed him?
Being in a political party means that you were ordered by the party to go kill somebody?
The head of the party.
Yes, for sure.
Yeah, for sure.
Now, again, with that said, again, Yasser Arafat conceded Israelis have a right to peace and security, to live in peace and security.
He recognized the Israeli state, which was huge.
No Arab country had really done that.
That was huge because besides the other ones, it didn't matter.
It did matter.
It did matter.
It didn't matter.
By that point, Jordan and Egypt had already formally signed peace treaties.
Because they're getting the Arab states at that point, they're getting paid.
And also, because they're done fighting and they don't want to anymore.
They recognize they're going to be there.
There's nothing else they can do about it.
They were getting paid.
They're literally bought off by the Americans.
That's why they did that.
Now, but for Yasser Arafat, he comes in: hey, we're going to recognize you guys.
We're going to give you guys peace and we're going to denounce violence.
That was huge for a Palestinian violence.
No, he did.
But here's the thing.
He literally did it.
He actually did it.
Second Antifada.
Everybody's looking into Arafat to call down the violence, and he didn't.
He refused to do so.
The Second Antifada started because the Israelis didn't fucking honor the Oslo Accords at all.
Because here's the thing: you're going to the end here saying, Enzifada, Nzifada.
But how did we get there?
Okay, 1993.
They signed the Oslo Accords.
They're right there in the White House and everything else like that.
Yasser Arafat makes big concessions.
Hey, Israel, we're going to recognize the state.
I denounce violence, and you guys have the right to exist with peace and security.
Huge.
All Yitzhak Rabin did was say, okay, well, we'll recognize the Palestinian authority over the Palestinian people, but no sovereignty, no two-state solution, no nothing.
Okay, some limited autonomy.
So I would argue that the Palestinians came in way better faith because they conceded at all.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
But they had zero autonomy up to that point.
That was the big concession.
That was a huge deal.
Let me finish my point.
So they go ahead and they make this agreement, right?
Then Yitzhak Rabin gets killed like a year later.
So his successor comes in, takes everything away, sabotage the Oslo Accords.
Palestinian authority is a shell of itself.
It's basically being used as a collaborator force for the Shin Vet, etc.
So look, he came in wanting to work with Yitzhak Rabin, and then that same government kills him.
What are you going to do if you're Yasser Arafat?
The guy that you did a deal with literally gets killed by the other party.
Are you going to do diplomacy?
No, of course there's going to be an antifada because they didn't negotiate in good faith.
They killed him.
They killed him, dude.
What?
It's not like we just ended up at an antifada for no reason.
There was a reason why there was an antifada.
They killed the negotiator, which Israel always does.
They always kill the negotiators.
They kill Ishmael.
They tried to bomb the, they bombed the Qatar, right?
They've killed so many negotiators.
They always do this.
Hanea is our negotiator, the head of Hamas.
He was the head negotiator in the political wing when they killed the head of the Politburo, which is the head of Hamas.
Yeah, no, he was killed because he was negotiator.
He had to negotiate anything.
Bro, are you serious?
You're going to say Ishmael Hanea was not the head negotiator.
Yes, he was the head of the political party.
He was the head of Hamas.
He was the head of the political party and he was the head negotiator when they killed him.
Yeah, because he was the head of the government that they were fighting with.
Yes.
He was the head of the political wing and the head negotiator.
And they assassinated him.
He was the leader of the group that they were fighting with.
Yes.
So Israel does this all the time.
They kill, they assassinate people that they're negotiating with, or they start wars when they're negotiating, like they did with Israel.
What do you mean?
Ismail Hanea was not going to negotiate with a peace with Israel.
What do you mean?
Bro, they had already done hostage exchanges at this point with Ishmael Hanea.
He had suicidal.
Should we get back to that?
Should we go to that soon?
Should we just go back to the also closed fence?
Oslo Accords, I think we're done.
We're going to move on to the camp David, right?
The 2000 because he's not going to go and meet the Oslo Accords.
My argument is.
And that's fine.
Just not be a quick question before we move.
Sure, I mean, Oslo II happened under Netanyahu, right?
So for sabotaging and the redeployment of Hebron also happened under Netanyahu as well, I'm pretty sure.
So it's kind of weird that he quote-unquote wanted to sabotage and destroy the people.
You believe it when they say that, and you say that that's the whole thing, but you will ignore Arab leaders when Nasser, before the six-day war, literally said that it would be a war of utter destruction for every single Jew in Israel.
I don't know why you believe some people like, yeah, politicians talk and they talk shit.
Like, it happens.
Yeah.
Netanyahu absolutely wants to see every single, if Netanyahu could push a button and expel every single Palestinian from the West Bank of the Gaza Strike, he would do it.
100%.
That brings my point, obviously.
No, no, that's not your point.
Your point is that you think that in anything that's magical.
Yeah, there are obstacles.
You've got foreign obstacles.
There are no foreign obstacles because Donald Trump is a massive Israeli dick suck.
And then you've got domestic obstacles.
It doesn't seem like there's many domestic obstacles because Netanyahu has gotten lucky a lot with military shit recently.
But the idea that just because an Israeli leader says they would do something means it's inevitable is not true.
Netyahu did not want to see an expansion of the Oslo Accords, but political forces, Israel still kind of thought that peace was a chance for the Palestinians, still kind of certified that peace was a chance.
And that's why Ozler did came about.
That's why the redeployment in Haman happened, where most of the city was turned over to Arabs, which it is to this day.
It's still like 80-20 split, Arabs and Jews.
So, no, I mean, this idea that just because Netyahu wanted something, he could speak it into existence is not true.
He lost his elections afterwards when Ehud Barak came in and he tried to do peace as well.
And it was the failure of Ehud Barak doing peace.
And then it was the subsequent failure of Arafat to agree to any actual terms after the failures of Camp David, after the unwillingness to accept the Clinton parameters, after the Taba summit's disastrous thing, because Arafat always wanted to wait till the next day and wait till the next prime minister and wait for the next assassination, wait for whatever.
And then when the second that Defada happens and he's chilling in fucking, what is he, in his mansion in fucking Ramallah, just watching the violence erupt, they do nothing to push for peace ever.
And then eventually he fucking dies of AIDS or whatever the fuck happened to him.
And then here we are today.
And then after the second Difada, Israel's like, well, this.
We're never doing peace, I guess, because you've got fucking videos of Arabs in Ramallah tearing a fucking Israeli dude's head off and holding it out of a fucking window.
Like, yeah, no shit.
That shit is fucked at that point.
Yeah.
I'm just saying that if you want, you can find an infinite number of excuses on both sides for who sabotage peace.
But the reality is, when push came to some, when push came to shove, there was good faith Israeli negotiation and delegation at Camp David and at the Taba summit.
And it was Arafat who literally drew the ire of the rest of the Arab world.
Bandar, the ambassador from fucking Saudi Arabia, does a whole fucking two-hour talk of this.
Everybody in the Arab world looked at Arafat like it was fucking crazy that this guy wouldn't accept what would have basically been a normalization of the 67 borders and some final negotiation on the Palestinian refugee issue and on what would happen with East Jerusalem.
And Arafat flew around in a fucking plane for two weeks, ignoring everything, until Ahud Barak was basically lost his next election.
And he was like, oh, well, let's see what the next guy wants.
And that's been the story of the Palestinians ever since.
We'll talk about, we'll talk about, no, that's fine.
That's what happened.
We'll talk about Ahud Barak right now because a lot of that was not true.
And then going back to what you said about, here's the difference with Netanyahu, right?
When you said that Nasser said that we're going to destroy them or blah, blah, blah, here's the big difference.
When these Arabs said the things that they said, they said it in public in front of everybody.
What I'm talking about with Ben-Gurion saying that he's never going to agree, he's going to always expand and create a state of Israel and go ahead and take all the Arab land, he did that in private.
And when Benjamin Netanyahu, when he said what he said, and the West Bank saying that I sabotaged the Azul Accords and they'll never have a two-state solution, he said that in private too.
Ben-Gurion was saying that wasn't just private, that was to shore up his political.
Let me finish what I'm saying.
The difference is this.
He said this to his son, not expecting those letters to become public.
And then Netanyahu said that stuff to those people in the West Bank, not expecting that to be public.
So what they say in private is what they really want.
The politicians, you're talking about Nasser saying, oh, they're going to destroy them, they're going to destroy them.
That's fine.
That's political posturing.
He's saying in front of everybody that it is what it is.
But what these guys said in private was their real intention.
So I believe them because that's what they said in private, not expecting to be recorded.
So that's different.
And then also with the Six-Day War, remember, the Israelis started that war.
Why would they do Oslo one at all then?
Why did they do Oslo one at all then?
Because he didn't think that Yitzhak Rabin would be assassinated by a Likud party member?
He couldn't foresee that?
No.
Why did Israel do – why did Israel – if Israel always wanted to expand and always wanted to take all the territory, why would they even do Oslo one?
Well, I'm referring to Benjamin Netanyahu and Ben-Gurion in particular.
So then the other half of Israel doesn't want to do it?
So it's just some Israeli leadership that wants to expand and not the other part of Israeli leadership?
Well, I know for a fact Ben-Gurion and Netanyahu, we know what they said to their private counterparts, Wait, so you believe that Rabin and Barack, they legitimately did want peace with Palestinians?
Then why didn't the peace happen?
If Arafat was there negotiating that around the whole time?
Here's the thing.
I don't have access to their private stuff, so I don't know.
But what I will say with Yitzhak Rabin is he came the closest to actually doing something, even though he didn't concede barely anything, and they killed him for even conceding a little bit.
But there was no deal to concede to.
Arafat didn't lay out anything ever in particular that he wanted for any final agreement.
He was always happy to kick the can down the road.
The plan was always a two-state solution and rights of self-determination.
That was always the plan they were working towards it.
No, that's not always the plan.
That's not true.
Even the majority of people, I don't know today, but historically, don't even agree on wanting a two-state solution.
That's like a Western concept of a plan.
Whether, well, that's why do you, that's why Clinton was facilitating it.
Yes, you're right.
It is a Western plan.
That's why Clinton was in the middle of brokering the Oslo Accords.
It was Clinton's idea to bring them together and do this.
Now, with that said, whether it's a Tuesday solution or a Wednesday solution, the point is this.
What Arafat wanted was a Palestinian sovereignty and right to self-determination.
That's the bottom line.
And I would argue that Israel proper.
Infinite right of return for all millions of refugees.
That never got put on paper, so we don't know.
We don't know.
But I know.
It's my argument.
Nothing got put on paper with Arafat.
Nothing was put on paper.
Because they wouldn't.
Because the Israelis would not agree to that, dude.
So he didn't put it on paper to show them rejecting it.
Why would you not do that?
Because again, the Israelis had all the levers.
They had all the power.
Clint brought them together so they can go ahead and make some kind of a paper.
No, you put something on paper so that you can go to the international community and go, hey, this is what we would accept.
And Israel turned it down.
The Israelis never accept anything in the international community.
They break international law every single day, bro.
They literally break international law.
They literally did.
They accepted Resolution 181.
They accepted the partition.
You're going to say it's unfair.
That's fine.
But Israel accepted, Israel will accept things.
You're just saying that they do it in bad faith, but we can't ever prove that because Arabs are always constantly ready to make war with them regardless.
So I mean, like, I mean, I proved the bad faith with Ben-Gurion's letters and Netanyahu getting this guy.
That's trying to establish a counterfactual that there's no possible way.
Show me the Arab letters.
By the way, you can't because none of their archives are even available for us to go through.
I can't go through Cairo's archives to see what that leadership was talking about.
I can't go through Syrian Damascus fucking archives or fucking archives in Beirut or archives in Abbott.
What the fuck is the name of the Jordanian capital?
That's fine.
We're in the Ampit.
I can't even visit.
Well, no, no, no, no, no, no.
But I'm just saying that like you're going through and you're cherry-picking single lines, single statements or whatever out of Ben-Gurion to try to prove that the whole Jewish project was going to be a massive backstep, even though Ben-Gurion didn't even know he would have been the first prime minister.
Even though Ben-Gurion would have no idea how politically successful he'd be in the future, and even though by your own words, somebody like Rabin could exist who would genuinely want peace with the Arabs.
So that disproves it right there that Israel would have always been on some expansionist pathway.
Meanwhile, on the Arab side, there is no deal on the table that Israel has walked away from.
There are deals that Arafat walked away from.
Okay, so again, we're talking about a huge time span.
You're going from Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister.
Because you brought up the Urien quote.
No, no, no, because, again, because I'm saying that there were prime ministers that were in power that obviously had no intention of ever giving the Palestinians anything.
And we have proof of this with Netanyahu and with Ben-Gurion.
I don't have proof for Yitzhak Rabin not wanting to do any type of peace.
So I got to go off of what he did.
That's what they did.
They accepted 181, right?
They did accept it, right?
You're saying they would have backstep in the future, but they did accept it, right?
You're talking about the Oslo Accords?
No, no.
In 47 to 48, they accepted Resolution 181.
They would have accepted that partition plan.
That partition plan I told you before.
Well, again, Ben-Gurion was in power during that time.
And he would have accepted, they accepted, the Jews accepted that partition plan.
It was the Arabs that refused it.
You can say it was unfair, whatever.
It was unfair.
It was unfair.
That's why they accepted it.
But the Jews accepted it.
And the Arabs didn't.
And the Arabs didn't put a counterproposal.
The Arabs didn't counter with anything because despite what you guys want to say in the West now, there was zero place for any kind of Jewish state in that land.
It's not like they said, hold on.
Well, 55%.
I know they're going to say it's 100 years ago.
55% is unfair.
We wanted it to be 22%.
No, there was 0% would have been acceptable.
That's why there was no counterproposal ever.
And that's why on the heels of 181, when that proposal was issued and the Jews accepted it, the Palestinians went to war immediately.
They were like, fuck this.
Civil war.
We're kicking them all out.
If they would have won that war, they wouldn't have left them with Jaffa or they wouldn't have left them with 10% or 1% or whatever.
They would have expelled all of them.
Well, the thing is, again, is that at the end of the day, they came in, they were killing them.
They were stealing their land.
They were doing a whole bunch of bullshit.
And then they said, oh, yeah, let's go ahead and negotiate.
What if somebody came to your house and took 50% and said, yeah, let's negotiate.
You'd be like, no, get the fuck out.
And you'd want them to get it.
But if they took that one, they wanted 50% after the bank repost my house because I failed to pay my mortgage.
Well, that point's not really my house anymore.
The Arabs that lived in the Levant didn't own that.
It was the Ottoman Empire territory.
The Ottoman Empire had collapsed after World War I. It wasn't all their territory.
They didn't buy it.
They never paid for it.
They didn't have any deeds showing it.
It didn't belong to the Israelis either.
And that's where they moved to the United States.
No, they only own 6%.
They only own 6%.
Yeah, and the Arabs only had deeds to show for like 10 or 11%.
Well, they still own more, even if we're going to go off that number.
But they didn't own the 100% or whatever that you seem to think that they did.
They were there first, Destiny.
These colonial guys came from Eastern Europe.
It's that simple.
Like, it was their house.
They were there for them.
They lost the war.
They lost.
Like, if they would have invaded and like the whole, the territories of the prior caliphates expanded and receded depending upon how their Congress was going.
That's how it worked.
And they lost the war.
They lost that country.
Their rights to the land belonged to the British.
It was the British mandate for Palestine.
And it was up to the British to decide what they wanted to do with it.
They made promises to the Jews.
Again, the Arabs lived there too.
Remember, the debate is, it's not about who won the war, who lost the war.
I'm not disputing the fact that they lost the war.
I'm saying that the Israelis are a bigger obstacle to peace because they gave a bullshit plan, right?
Expecting that the Palestinians would take it when they were just a minority.
They only owned 6% of the land.
Why the hell would you agree to something like that?
You don't have to agree, but that means you're still the obstacle to peace then.
Put a counterproposal.
This is the thing that hurts the Arabs the most, the Palestinians the most.
There's not a single time in all of history.
I can at least point to bullshit Jewish plans and say, oh, well, look, the Jews would have at least accepted that even though it's bullshit.
The Palestinians cannot point to a single plan where they go, look, we were going to accept that.
I told you Oslo was the closest.
Oslo was the closest even though it was bullshit.
Oslo was not a peace plan.
It was a framework to move them in that direction.
But there are no peace plans that the Jews walked away from that were left on the table by the Palestinians because the Palestinians were always under the delusion that they could expel every single Jew and they could never do it.
And by the time they lost like their 12th war, they were like, OK, well, can we go back to like the agreement we had on our fifth war and then go back to that?
But by then you're fucked.
Dude, the Israelis are such an obstacle to peace that the Oslo Accords, which was the closest thing, a framework.
Again, I agree with you.
It was a framework towards some type of peace.
The Israelis are such an obstacle.
They killed one of their own to stop the fucking peace deal.
They killed one of their own.
Hafez in Syria was worried about being assassinated by one of his own.
That's why they didn't even make peace with Israel forever because they were worried about killing by their own.
Sadat had already been killed by their own.
The king of Jordan had been killed by a Palestinian in Jerusalem.
We're not talking about these countries.
We're talking about Israel.
Hold on.
We're talking about Israel.
Arafat was worried about being killed by one of his own as well.
All of these people were worried about being killed by one of their own.
It's a fucking hectic region.
If you start making peace with your enemies, everybody's worried about getting killed.
Sure.
But here's the difference.
Israel claims to be a democracy, to be the only democracy in the Middle East.
Yes.
That's why you had leaders like Rabin who died because they made that sacrifice for peace.
Barak knew that he was taking the same risk and he was worried about getting assassinated too.
Rabin made that risk.
He made that sacrifice.
He made that sacrifice.
He died.
And that's why he gave a bullshit deal.
And we'll talk about Rock and X. But then when I ask you, well, what was the good deal that Arafat left on the table?
You have nothing.
There's nothing you can point to.
There's nothing at all.
I just told you.
I told you.
What?
Okay.
Again, let's go through this.
Oslo courts.
What was the deal that Arafat left on the table?
He recognized the Israelis?
He recognized them?
It denounced violence?
This is a part of the Oslo 1.
He didn't even denounce violence.
Yes, he did.
In Oslo 1, he denounced violence.
100%.
They said it.
They said that.
But Oslo 1 was not a...
If you want to point to Oslo 1 as an example, then the Jews accepted that as well.
Then they know you're equal.
But that's my point.
Oslo 1 got sabotaged because the Jews killed their own guy.
That's my point.
That if Oslo 2 came after.
It wasn't...
All right.
Let's go ahead and go for it.
Let's go to camp then.
Let's go to Camp David 2000.
Oslo 1 carried on after Rabin's death.
Yeah.
It carried on, but it didn't carry on the way it was supposed to carry on where they were going to come and they were revisiting.
It was not supposed to because they wanted to revisit it because that's how Arafat works.
He got killed a year later.
Yeah.
And Oslo 2 and the Iran redeployment happened after Rabin died.
It still carried on.
There's still a Palestinian authority to this day.
There's still area A, B, and C to this day.
It still exists.
Yeah.
But it was never supposed to last that long is the point.
The terms of the deal got destroyed.
That's why it's about to start.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Rightfully so because the terms didn't go as agreed.
No.
There was no final deal.
There was no final deal arranged.
So Camp David.
There was no...
Yeah.
Okay.
So you mentioned a guy named Shlomo Ben-Amin, which I find interesting because he even admitted that that deal was bullshit.
And he said, I wouldn't have accepted if I was a Palestinian either.
And he was one of the negotiators alongside your boy, Ehud Brock.
So he admitted that.
Yeah.
I'm aware.
I know this quote.
I literally asked this guy about this quote.
I'm aware.
All he's saying is that they were able to push for a stronger deal at the Taba Summit.
But the thing that undermines that quote is that at Camp David, he said that the Palestinians were right to walk away from it.
But then at Taba Summit, where they got even more offered, they walked away from that too.
So apparently there was never any strategic mind there.
Okay.
But because, yeah, because they never accepted anything.
That summit that you're talking about.
Well, Clinton, the deals were already cooked at that point.
He was trying to save face and get his legacy.
But we'll go into that.
The deals weren't...
Yeah.
It was cooked at that point.
The deals weren't cooked.
The deals weren't cooked because Arafat was never going to agree to anything.
And they started to realize that.
That's where the frustrations were mounting on.
Because after Camp David, the Palestinians accepted nothing.
There was nothing on the table.
He would always give the vaguest, bullshitest answers.
Okay.
Let's...
They didn't accept the Clinton parameters, even though the Jews did.
And then they go to top of the summit for the last-ditch negotiation.
And Arafat's looking at Barack like, ha-ha, you got an election coming up, motherfucker.
And then just, you know, kicked his feet back and chilled.
Flew around the world in a jet for a while to the embarrassment of the rest of the Arab world.
And then sat back and watched the second intifada erupted all over the country of Israel.
All right.
Let's go through why it was a bullshit deal.
Instead of, like, complaining about it, let me go through why they didn't accept it.
And even one of the Israelis that you're mentioning here admitted that the Palestinians were right to walk away from it.
So, number one.
From Camp David.
Camp David.
Not the top of summit.
Camp David.
Yeah.
I'm talking about...
Yes.
I'm talking about Camp David.
This was the original deal.
I hood Brock says, oh, yeah, we're going to give you, we're going to concede what 91% of the West Bank.
But the problem is that they didn't use the international communities definition of the West Bank.
They gave their own bullshit definition of the West Bank, which didn't cover a bunch of the areas that were important.
No man's land, East Jerusalem, Red Sea territories, etc.
Also, so the deal was cut from the beginning.
It wasn't the full 91 like they claimed because then it cover a lot of the settlement areas.
Also, they left.
Point by point, just to correct that.
It has nothing to do with 91%.
You're talking about land swaps, okay?
What you're actually talking about is it's funny.
You're using the Jewish mind here, is that they were like, okay, well, they want 91%, 97%, 100%.
When they came in, Arafat had no clue what he wanted.
The Jews thought it's just some percentage thing.
But the reality is what they really needed to negotiate on was what you hit on on the second point there, where the holy sites.
That was way more important than any type of 91, 95, 97% land swap.
But the holy site thing, the ArafS side never even touched that.
They never made any strong claims about what they wanted there.
And that was an unanswered question.
And a lot of people do point to the lack of specificity around holy sites for why that nothing came from Camp David.
Yeah, well, here's the thing.
If they can't even negotiate for continuity, right?
Continuity in their region where everything is fragmented and they barely have any type of authority.
They're not in a position to negotiate for the religion.
They would have had continuity.
That's an easy thing to do.
No, continuity was never the big deal.
No, that's huge because if they don't have continuity, then how are they going to go ahead and be able to establish trade?
How are they going to be able to travel properly?
They would have continuity.
Everything is fragmented.
There's travel.
That's only fragmented right now because of the relic of Oslo 1 and 2.
But the continuity would be given if they actually had a state.
The idea behind Oslo 1 was that area A and B would be fully handed over to them eventually, and then lots of area C would be handed over to them as well.
And that never happened because the settlements kept expanding, which are illegal, by the way.
The whole international community, it literally says never happened.
Because Oslo 2 died with the second intifada.
The settlements are illegal, bro.
Like, there's no way around that.
Everybody knows that.
Settlements are 1,000% illegal.
Destiny, Stephen, do you think the settlements are legal?
I don't think it matters.
It's not relevant.
That's not even the community's opinion here.
It's not.
Well, now the international community doesn't matter.
We were talking about the UN and the GA all this time, and now international law doesn't matter.
And that's the problem with the Israelis.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
When have I ever cited international law as being determinative for any of these deals?
You were talking about, we were talking about the Peel Commission.
Then we were talking about the 242.
Then we talked about the 1920s.
And it was the existence of the UN and the appeal commission wasn't determinative of anything.
It was just a finding of what was happening.
You're talking about 67, you're talking about peace or whatever.
You yourself just said that Resolution 242 is bullshit.
And we agree on that, right?
And the phrasing was kind of vague.
When you talk about peace between Egypt and Jordan and Israel, you agreed.
It wasn't the UN that caused that.
It was the U.S. paying both sides a lot of fucking money.
So yes, the international community is not very relevant when it comes to dealing with peace in this region.
It's always because there are leaders in the region that are trying to take big steps to make it, or it's because international pressure from some countries or assistance otherwise.
I'm not saying the deal was bad.
I'm not saying international law is bullshit.
I'm saying that the deal, the partition plan was bullshit.
That particular plan was not fair.
That's fine.
I'm Palestinians whatsoever.
International law doesn't mean anything to any of the players in this region until they want to wield it as a weapon against somebody else.
Well, fucking Assad and the Houthis in Yemen and the Muslim Brotherhood.
These people don't give a fuck about UN international fucking law.
None of these people care about international law.
Well, I'll tell you this.
They break the international law less than the Israelis do, which is kind of crazy because the Israelis are supposed to be democracy.
And we're the most moral army.
I don't know how you would, I seriously.
And they're the occupying force.
As the occupying force, they're held to a way higher standard, right?
You think Israel breaks international law more than Assad did in Syria?
More than Hezbollah does in Lebanon?
More than the Houthis do?
Untarullah in Yemen?
You can make the argument that the Israelis break international law more than these rogue terrorist organizations.
Yeah, you can make that argument.
Well, given that the death toll is like 10X or more from all these other regions.
Dude, Israel's doing a genocide right now as we speak.
They're doing a genocide right now.
Yeah, because Arabs genocide other Arabs.
Because Arabs don't genocide other Arabs.
It's never considered that way.
There's not enough votes in the UN to ever say that there's a genocide going on amongst any of these other Arabs, Arab and Arab violence.
It's just not considered.
But I mean, yeah, if you want to call it a genocide, that's fine.
It is a genocide.
If children died in Yemen, then like total Palestinians have died.
More children died of starvation in Yemen and more children have fucking died in the entire Israeli Gaza war.
It's like over 500,000 people dead.
In fucking Syria was like 500,000 people dead.
The Iraq Iran war saw a million people dead.
Yeah, there's a ton of death that happens.
That's great if we want to throw around international law here, but it's not solving anything.
42 came in in 67 and we're not any closer to a fucking scale.
Here's the thing.
I've a million times shit on the Gulf states.
I talked about Sudan, all this other stuff, where we have all these conflicts in the Middle East, and obviously the Gulf state's not helping and or contributing to it.
But the reality is, is that there is a genocide being done right now by the Israelis on the people in Gaza.
We can sit here and deflect it and be like, well, yo, look at the rest of the Arab world.
That's fine.
You know, I totally acknowledge that.
But the reality is that we have a full-fledged genocide going on right now.
But the Israelis are supposed to be the most moral army.
They're supposed to be, and they're the occupiers.
So obviously they're held to a higher standard.
So a whole bunch of people.
But the Quran's just released the hostages then.
Okay, sure.
We can go ahead and discuss that because that's a whole other.
Let's just move to the next one.
No, no, I just want to hear that.
Because that would immediately take the wind out of the sails of any kind of moral authority Israel has to continue the war.
Why wouldn't Hamas just release a hostage?
They say, oh, fuck us.
Obviously, we're not winning.
This is like, we're just releasing hostages.
Okay.
So are we going to do this or Camp David?
Because this is going to go into a whole other thing if I go into this.
I'm just curious to hear your answer to this, and then we can go back to Camp David.
Well, if I answered this, I know you're going to want to keep going.
I promise we'll come to this.
We'll come to this.
All right, let me just go through Camp David, right?
So also the Camp David Accords, of course, and allowed them to keep the best land that was fertile.
They had the strategic high ground, key waterways.
Israel would control the border with Jordan, which obviously would undermine their ability to have some sovereignty or do any type of economic trade.
Also, they were demilitarized, as we know, no military whatsoever, still occupied.
They would have a lightly armed police force, but we know that's not nothing.
And then obviously the Israelis would control everything else.
And also, another important thing is, according to international law, I know you say you don't care about international law, but transferring civilians to occupied territory is illegal under 49 of the Geneva Convention.
So even with Ahud Barak's deal here, he was still violating international law.
So this deal was complete bullshit.
And then I know you're going to want to mention the whole Clinton thing.
The Clinton situation, the Clinton summit was basically like, hey, I'm trying to come in and save it to save my own legacy, but he didn't really consult with the Israelis or the Palestinian whatsoever.
Because at that point, it was already shit head to bed with the Intifada and everything.
So whatever.
But we confessed that.
The Clint parameters were, but the Clint parameters were before the Intifada, the second Intifada.
The Clinton parameters were an attempt to save Camp David because the final agreement was reached with Camp David.
And then the Clinton parameters rolled into the Taba Summit back and forth.
But I think Arafat saw the time ticking on Ehud Barak's prime ministership and then flew around a general way to run the clock out on his.
It didn't.
The deal sucked.
I mean, I read it out for you.
Like they had like, it was fragmented territory, limited police.
It was fragmented because I know the maps you've seen, but that's just not true.
It wouldn't have been fragmented.
It would have been contiguous land.
In your mind, you're thinking of like some area A versus BC land.
The final deal that they would have made would have had, not only would it have been contiguous territory in the West Bank, they would have had a highway that was supposed to have been built between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
It would have literally been contiguous at all.
And then on top of that, settlers get certain roads that Palestinians don't.
Palestinians got to go through checkpoints.
Settlers don't.
No, they are talking about the Oslo Accords right now.
That's not what it would have been like afterwards.
But the Oslo Accords were still in effect when this deal, when they brought this Camp David bullshit in, which was the Camp David was supposed to supersede the Oslo Accords.
And it didn't.
And it didn't.
But they never agreed to anything.
Yeah, but the Oslo was in the case of the city.
Hold on, we can't.
We can't.
This is a quick thing, I guess, for the audience, whatever.
Like, this is what the map would have looked like.
The idea that there was no contiguous offer is just not true.
There would have been contiguous land.
It would have basically solidified area A, B and most of, I think, area C for the Palestinians.
And the settlements were expanding the whole time.
They had 60% of the West Bank pretty much with these illegal settlements, and they kept expanding.
And on top of that, these settlers are starting fights all the time, beating up on Palestinians, stealing their land.
The vast majority of the settlements are near the green line.
The vast majority of settlers live near Israel, basically.
Like Palestinians themselves wouldn't care to trade away like most of this land on the fringes because you wouldn't even have to trade that big of a percentage.
The big disagreements would have been over what to do with the business.
The settlements are on the best land, bro.
The big settlements are the best.
The best land doesn't matter anymore.
People aren't here farming corn.
That's not irrelevant.
Right now that the relevant disagreements are Holy Lands.
You can laugh.
Okay, but here you go.
Sorry, you can laugh.
And then here's the ultimate destroyer to your point.
What did Arafat offer?
What did he say he was going to accept?
You have nothing.
You have nothing.
You lose on this point every single time.
You would never be able to give me a counter offer by Arafat because he never wanted to accept anything.
And you can say, well, this deal wasn't going to go to the bathroom.
They're like, show me that Arafat's words.
I wouldn't have taken it.
I wouldn't take it either.
So what would he have taken?
Not that.
Exactly.
Nothing.
You have no idea because he wouldn't.
He wanted to fight for everyone.
Bro, bro, even the Israeli Shlomo himself said, I wouldn't take this deal either.
That was in reference to Camp David.
That was in reference to Camp David.
Yeah, Camp David was bullshit.
The Oslo was a bad person.
Yeah, but then Taba Summit came after.
And he went away from the Taba Summit as well.
It was bullshit.
It was an expansion.
No, that was even more concessions made by Israel.
No, I think that was concessions.
Hold on.
Those concessions you're talking about were from Clinton, not from the Israelis.
No, they were from Clinton.
Israelis.
No, they weren't.
Clinton parameters were a set of six parameters that both sides were basically supposed to sign on to in agreements to do negotiations.
And now the Israeli delegation accepted basically all of them.
Clinton did that on his way out to look cool and say that he was a peacemaker for his legacy.
The Israelis and both parties are off on this one.
The Israelis and the Palestinians weren't involved in that whatsoever.
That was for Clinton's issue.
That's not true.
Israel accepted.
The Israeli delegation accepted the Clinton parameters and Arafat basically walked away from them.
And then they went to Taba Summit and Arafat again walked away with that.
The Israelis did not accept that Clint parameters.
They did not.
They definitely did not.
They definitely did.
They did not.
And honestly, even if they did, it doesn't matter because it was a bullshit deal anyway.
And every deal is a bullshit deal.
It was a bullshit deal.
I'm seeing a trend here.
All of the deals are bullshit.
I put no deal on the table.
I told you, Oslo Accords came close.
Oslo courts of Almurdy.
2008, Omurd offered more than had ever been offered, even at Taba Summit.
And Abu Mazin or Makur Abbas walked away from that as well.
And he didn't respond until 2010, claiming that he didn't know what the deal would look like.
And again, because he saw the writing of the Walter Omer getting kicked out, too.
No, no, no.
There's never a deal that the Palestinians will accept.
I told you, Oslo came the closest, and they killed the guy that was the head negotiator on that.
And Oslo died.
Oslo dialogue.
It was not a final agreement.
It was a framework.
It was a final framework.
Yes.
Yeah, they are still.
It was the best framework.
They're locked in on flow today.
It was the best framework.
It wasn't a...
It was the best...
It was the best framework.
Number one, it was the best framework.
And if Yitzhak Rabin had lived, who knows how far we could have gone?
We don't know because Yitzhak Rabin got assassinated and then Netanyahu came in and sabotaged the Oslo's.
That's the point.
What final issues would on the final issues, not just the framework, the actual financial issues on refugees, the capital, the borders?
What of those would Yas Arafa have agreed to?
With the whole situation, with the borders and what else?
What deal would he have agreed to?
He agreed to the Oslo.
The Oslo.
Okay, but here's the problem, right?
Here's the thing that the Israelis do.
They start up, they enter an agreement and they say, oh, yeah, we can revisit it.
But what they do in the meantime is they expand the settlements.
They take more land.
They kill more people.
They've been doing this forever.
It's always in the Israelis' interest to extend it and have things going on because they have this stupid term where reality on the ground.
So what they do is they purposely push things back so that the reality on the ground can be more in their favor.
So that when they come back and do negotiate, oh, yeah, by the way, we expand little settlements, et cetera.
They've been doing this for decades.
The Oslo framework was the best framework, even though it wasn't even that great because the Palestinians had conceded quite a bit in the Oslo Accords.
But the Israelis don't want peace that bad where they killed their own fucking prime minister.
Do you guys understand how insane that is?
They kill their own prime minister because he gave an inch to recognize the Palestinian authority.
There's radicals in every country related to the people who are in the world.
Oh, now there's radicals in every, but that's my point.
They are the why are you being ironic there?
Hold on.
What do you just said?
That country is anything I said.
You don't think I think there aren't radical Israelis?
No, I'm not saying you're not that there's not radical Israelis.
I didn't say that.
Are you saying they're not radical Palestinians?
Of course they're not Egyptians.
Of course they are.
What do you mean?
Like, oh, they're radicals.
The person that killed, yes, they're radicals in all systems.
Yes.
Because remember what the debate was, Destiny.
The debate was who is the bigger obstacle to peace?
I argue it's the Israelis.
And I gave my case on that.
Let's start with, and I'm going to debate.
In my case, it's just that Israel, there have been Israeli leaders, you yourself said it, that were willing to be assassinated or make huge political sacrifices to look for peace.
Rabin was assassinated for his peace deal.
Ehud Barak lost his election, you know, off of his failed peace, basically.
And there is no peace deal on the table that we can look to from Arafat.
And he was messing around with Evstein.
He was messing around with Evstein.
I don't know.
But Ehud Barak.
But look, the point is: okay, let me give my.
Do you want to go?
Do you want to can I give my summary and then we'll go into the conflict with October 7th?
Because that's a whole other thing.
All right.
So here's my summary.
Okay.
Let's start with the Peel Commission.
Peel Commission was basically Ben-Gurion's way of getting into the international scene and say, look, even though we're colonists that are coming in here and it's not our land, et cetera, look, we want to go ahead and make some peace, even though we got these labor communities taking up all the land and fighting with the Palestinians and kicking them out, not letting them do what they got to do.
But you know what?
Let's go ahead and do some kind of peace.
20% of the land, let us get it, even though it's the best land.
Obviously, the Palestinians didn't want to agree to that, right?
And that led to some conflicts.
Then we find out that your boy, Ben-Gurion, never had an intention of actually having peace.
His intention the whole time was to always take the land.
This guy personified once again with the 1947 partition plan, where he went ahead and said, okay, well, we're going to agree to 56% of the land.
And then even though we're less than one-third of the population, 56% of the land, we only own about 6% to 70% legally.
But yeah, let's go ahead and do this.
And then we're going to overrule the Palestinians that are in our territory.
No, they didn't agree to that.
Obviously, a war breaks out.
After that war breaks out in 1948, which, by the way, Ergun, Haganah, and Sterngang, all these militia groups, these terrorist groups were created in the meantime after 1937 to create the state of Israel.
State of Israel is created.
War ensues, etc.
Then we get it fast forward into 1967.
Israel starts the war because they think they're going to be invaded.
They win the war.
But obviously, they go ahead and write the 242 deal with that one, where they don't go.
They're not descriptive with the territories.
They write territories.
They don't acknowledge the Palestinians whatsoever or the refugees or the right of return.
And obviously, this was written in a way deceptively to basically allow them to have more time.
During the meantime, they're procuring a nuclear weapon, which again adds to my argument that they never had peace in the first place.
They held on to the territories to some of it, which they still hold on to today.
Then you fast forward to 1978 with the Camp David Accords that had nothing to do with the Palestinians.
The Palestinians were not talked about whatsoever in the Camp David Accords.
It was just a peace deal between Sadat and Menachem, who's also a terrorist himself, leader of like the Ergun or the Haganah.
And then he ended up, They negotiate this agreement.
They get the Sinai Peninsula back.
The Egyptians do become an ally and didn't deal with the Palestinian question whatsoever.
And the reason why I keep mentioning that the Palestinians aren't mentioned is because until the Palestinians have some type of sovereignty or there's a two-state or a one-state where they get the right to determination.
There's never going to be peace.
So that is my basis as to why I'm making the arguments that Israelis, they're the biggest obstacles to peace because they never want to answer the Palestinian question.
Yes, they'll negotiate with the Egyptians here.
They'll negotiate with the Jordanians here, but they don't answer the Palestinian question, which is the root cause of all these problems.
Then you fast forward to the Oslo Accords.
Yasser Arafat agrees to recognize Israel as a state, denounce violence, and then say that they deserve to exist in security of peace and Israel has a right to exist, which was a huge concession from a Palestinian perspective because they had said, oh, we're never going to do peace with these guys.
Yasser Arafat Yitzhak Rabin, all he does is, hey, we're going to recognize the Palestinian authorities that represented the Palestinians.
Though that was a minor concession, in my opinion, based on what Yasser Arafat gave, Yedesti might disagree with me, that's fine.
Yitzhak Rabin tragically gets assassinated a year later, and that kills Oslo courts.
And the person that killed Yassak Rabin, and this is very important, was a member of the Likud party.
Who runs the Likur party?
Benjamin Nanyahu.
Yitzhak Rabin's wife writes a book, says that she thinks that Nanyahu was the one that killed her husband.
Netanyahu takes power over after that, and he sabotaged the Oslo Accords, as admitted multiple times in the West Bank recorded footage where he said this secretly.
And then on top of that, he said it many times.
Oh, I'm not going to, we're not going to have a Palestinian state.
He did everything in his power to sabotage it to include using Jewish American neocons like Douglas Pearl and Douglas, like Richard Pearl and Douglas Fife, all these other guys to write the clean break memo, how they can go ahead and strategize on how they're going to take over the Middle East.
So once again, not negotiating good peace, not wanting peace, procuring a nuclear weapon, writing up papers to start the war on terror, which we're going to get into here next.
Then you get into the Camp David Accords, which were bullshit as well, because the West Bank territories that they were talking about giving over were all fragmented.
There was no contiguity whatsoever.
The Palestinians had no ability to trade with the Jordanians.
They had no sovereignty.
They had a little shitty police force, but they were still being occupied by the Israelis according to international law.
They're still being occupied.
And on top of that, the Hud Barak, the deal that he made, literally was illegal and a war crime because he was saying, oh, yeah, we can move civilians into an occupied territory.
What the fuck?
Like, how's that going to work?
So, yes, of course, of course, Yasser Arafat declined it.
And then when that deal didn't work, and Tifada happens, but Klan is trying to save his legacy.
He tries to go ahead and write the Klan parameters, which would, you know, in theory, give the Palestinians a little bit more land.
But the reality is it never worked out because the sovereignty was what they wanted, the right of self-determination, which the Israelis took from them because they were occupying them in the West Bank.
So that's up until the year 2000.
And we can go from there.
That's you give your sum.
Are we doing like a summary on the entirety of the Protestant?
Yeah, I gave a quick summary on my thing, and then we'll go on to October 7th because I know that's going to be its own thing.
Okay, yeah.
The way that this conflict works is you talk to the radical Zionists, which I've debated before.
You talk to the radical pro-Palis, which I've debated before, and all they do is they give like a total one-sided telling of their history.
And if you give a one-sided telling the history, you can also, you can basically incentivize an infinite amount of justification to do whatever you want.
When it comes to the late 1800s, when it comes to, you know, who belongs in Israel, Palestinians are quick to point out that people that are diaspora Jews that might have come from Eastern Europe or that might have come from Eastern Russia didn't count.
They can't trace their original bloodlines back to the Middle East, which I'm pretty sure most people don't even agree with that today.
That most of the people that call themselves Ashkenazi Jews, most of the people that were the Jews that were diaspora Jews around Europe, around Russia, or whatever else, like all of these bloodlines can, a lot of them can be traced back to the same Canaanite people that a lot of the Arabs living there for a long time have.
All the caliphates before that ultimately occupied a lot of this land in MENA, the Middle East, North Africa, displaced people there, subsumed people there, assimilated people there, forced them to change religions, kill people, or whatever the fuck.
Doing the historical argument, in my opinion, is a loser because if you go back far enough, you want to talk indigenous people.
A kingdom of Israel existed there way before any of the Islamic caliphates invaded, even before Islam is even a religion in existence.
All of the Jews that initially existed in the Levant in the Ottoman Empire territory preceding the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1917 were purchased land.
We can say this like they invaded and they stole it, but that doesn't pass the smell test if you even think about it for two seconds.
Like there was what, a Jewish paramilitary group fighting inside the Ottoman Empire territory, displacing Arab farmers.
Like, doesn't even make sense.
Like the territory was bought by Jews.
Early Jews tried to make aliyah to the Levant.
They failed.
They sucked.
They didn't have the money and the funding for it.
After the Balfour Declaration was secured by Jews in the United Kingdom, which was basically a promise to have some kind of Jewish homeland in the Ottoman Empire should the Ottoman Empire fall.
The Ottoman Empire fell post-1917.
The mandate for Palestine exists.
Jews are still buying up land.
They're moving in more farmers.
They start to do a whole bunch of fucking agriculture.
They start to bring water in from the northeast or whatever.
And then eventually there's conflict that arises there for understandable reasons between the Arabs that live there and between the Jews that are starting to immigrate there.
this violence escalates to such points that paramilitary groups are started to being created by Jews because the British police force is no longer able to keep check with some of the Arab on Jew violence there.
Some of these people, the Lahi and the Irgun especially, engage in what the Haganah and other people would say was violence, unjustified violence or terrorism against Arab communities.
You have some noticeable events.
I think the Haran massacre in 29 was a notable one with a lot of Jewish people being killed by Arabs.
I think by 36, there have been multiple white papers written, but by 36 or 37, the Peel Commission comes out, which is the first one that says, okay, like the violence and the disagreements between these two people have escalated so much that we have to separate these motherfuckers because they can't get along anymore.
You can go back and you can cherry pick, you know, whatever lines you want, saying that, oh, well, Ben-Gurion said that he was happy to see the Jewish land expand or happy to see that, you know, they could expel Arabs or whatever.
You know, prior to 1920, a lot of Jews spoke more favorably about living together with Arabs.
It really just depended on what time period you pick.
As the violence increases, though, both sides obviously see each other as increasingly hostile.
And the British government finally agreed with that.
In the late 30s, after the Peel Commission comes out, basically from 36 to 1940, there's a whole bunch of Arab on Jew violence.
The Brits basically destroy a lot of what would become the later Palestinian state.
A lot of the Arab elite, a lot of the Arab wealthy people basically flee Jerusalem and flee the Levant because the Brits kind of fuck them over.
And then the Brits clamp down on Jewish immigration.
And the Brits say, no more Jews.
You guys are fucking around too much.
The Jews get mad.
They start doing terrorisms from up to around 44.
They're especially Aspane because of the Hitler shit happening.
And they feel like their people are now getting basically genocided and they have no place to go to because the Brits curbed all the immigration.
So they blame the Brits for it.
And then Britain leaves.
They say, fuck this completely.
In 47, you get your first big UN resolution.
Okay, the wars are done.
Israel is willing to agree.
The Palestinians say, fuck no.
They start a huge war against the Israelis.
It's kind of harsh at first, but eventually Israel makes a comeback.
They win by 48 when they do their formal declaration of independence because the Palestinians won't accept any Jewish people there.
Then after they make their independence declaration, all of the Arab states go to war with Israel with the goal of expelling every Jew off the land.
They fail that war, although Egypt manages to take the Gaza Strip.
Jordan manages to occupy and then annex the West Bank.
From 67, well, you get the Suez Crisis.
I think, what, in like 56, you know, where Israel tries to make good with France and Britain.
We didn't talk about this, but they kind of sort of, you know, push a little bit further to the Sinai.
That's what made them get the nuclear bomb.
Sure.
But I mean, Nasser, you know, at the time, there's this whole pan-Arab sentiment where Arabs kind of see themselves as trying to create like a unified state again.
They long for a caliphate that's not ruled by disgusting Turks.
And Nasser has like fancied himself as like the leader of the Arab world.
And he feels like he's going to come out and be this like big dude that's going to fuck around with Israel.
And he shuts down the Straits of Tehran.
And he says, you know, fuck you.
We're not going to let you ship shit.
And, you know, suck my dick.
And eventually Israel goes to war with them with kind of the backing of the French or the British.
I think it's Eisenhower.
The U.S. basically tells him to fuck off eventually.
And then they go home.
Nasser, you know, feels like he's king shit.
He rules the world.
And the whole Arab world thinks he's so cool because he, you know, won against the Israelis.
And then he goes and he fucks his whole life up in Yemen and sacrifices fucking 80% of his troops.
And then at the same time, keeps talking shit to Israel.
Israel basically calls his bluff.
Despite the fact that you had like this unified, you know, Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian front against Israel, Nasser is talking a lot of shit.
He expels everybody from the Sinai, all the UN peacekeeping troops that were there from the Suez crisis, and then does the exact same thing that caused the Suez Crisis to happen, which is close the Straits of Tehran and say, fuck you, try me.
And then Israel does that.
They bomb the shit out of everything.
Jordan tries to counterinvade Israel.
They lose fucking miserably.
Syria, you know, walks in a circle and dies because who the fuck knows what goes on up there?
And then Israel expands their territory in a bunch of different places.
Israel does make peace at this point.
Myron is correct to point out that Israel doesn't have an interest in making peace with the Palestinians directly because Israel doesn't see itself as being able to make peace with the entire Arab world.
Remember, the Palestinian crisis is like a newish phenomenon.
Nobody thought about like a Palestinian state or crisis at the time.
Even Resolution 242 doesn't say like the Palestinian crisis or whatever.
It doesn't call these things out in specific terms.
But it's the root cause for everything is my point.
It's not the root cause for everything.
That's absolutely not correct.
No, it's a rewriting of history to make the Palestinians seem more legitimate than they actually are because nobody was calling for an independent Palestinian state when Jordan occupied the West Bank.
This is your summary, so I shouldn't have interrupted.
I'm sorry.
Sure, yes, but nobody was calling for it.
Nobody called it an occupation.
When Jordan took the West Bank, they just annexed it, made all of them citizens.
And then when Egypt took the Gaza Strip, they kind of annexed that.
And they did make them citizens.
They left those people there because they didn't want to deal with it.
After Israel wins their war in 67, they win in 73.
They formally make peace with Egypt.
Merchant Begin decides that it's impossible to negotiate peace with everybody.
Benemi calls this capsule theory that he engages basically that if he can just isolate the Arab states and engage one-on-one, especially with the U.S., who took like a huge interest in backing this, that they can make peace.
And so they do initially with Egypt, which is a huge deal because Egypt was like the big player in the Middle East kind of at the time.
And so, you know, with Sadat's effort, with Jimmy Carter's effort, they make formal peace with them.
They give back the Sinai.
And then after the fall of the Soviet Union, it becomes easier to put Jordan on a peace track with Israel.
They do that.
And then, for the most part, Israel as a region has kind of chilled out with everybody, except for the Palestinian problem.
That problem continues to get worse because the Palestinians, who were initially, you know, earlier referred to as the Fedayin, the fighters that would come from these different Arab states, they saw themselves as having the backing of the entire Arab world.
And that basically completely vanished within a few decades to just being backed by extremist Iranian proxies who don't even give a fuck about Palestinians.
They just see it as a way to fight against Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States.
So now the Palestinians, in the peace agreements that Israel tried to reach with the Palestinians, they were in an awkward force or an awkward place because the only representation the Palestinians had were essentially terrorist freedom fighters.
Arafat emerged victorious in some conflict with Israel, I think in 64.
I think 67 might have been when the PLO was formally formed.
But these were freedom fighters.
These were terrorist fedayin, whatever you want to fucking call them, that fought against Israel.
Arafat made a name for himself as being a fucking military general, not as a diplomatic leader.
If you look at photos of him standing next to it's Clinton and Rabin signing Asla one, he's literally in his military fatigues.
He's in his garb because that's what he fancies himself.
Arafat was never the man to make peace with Israel.
The Palestinians were never able to choose a leader that would have been able to make peace.
There were some Israeli leaders that tried to make big strides towards peace or big concessions, and they often did so at great political cost or at the cost of their life or being died.
Ehud Barak lost his election.
We can point to the fact that Netanyahu was elected to, and he said that he wanted to fuck over the Oslo Accords, whatever.
Netanyahu wasn't a fan of them.
Netanyahu was also elected like a couple weeks after two, I think it was in Jaffa, two fucking buses full of people were fucking suicide bombed by Palestinians.
I think 40 some people died from this terrorist attack.
So yeah, Israel was not too keen on working with the Palestinians.
The Palestinians weren't too keen on working with Israelis.
Like nobody trusted each other in this region.
Despite that, Ehud Barak did come back in 2000.
He tried to make a deal at Camp David.
Arafat accepted nothing.
They walked away.
Clinton, in a last-ditch effort, put out these six parameters.
Can you guys agree to it?
The Israeli, the Israeli administration largely agreed.
There were some things that they had questions on because some of the percentages just mathematically didn't work out.
Arafat didn't really agree to anything.
He said, oh, maybe, I don't know.
I'd have to consider like these huge points and then didn't agree to it.
They had a final meeting at Taba Summit.
Arafat didn't agree to anything there and he walked away again, despite the fact that what was on the table was like an amazing deal that would have looked like basically 67 borders and some negotiation, some final negotiation on holy relics, but they never reached an agreement there because Arafat fucked off, hoping that maybe the next prime minister and the next U.S. president would give him a better deal.
And it didn't, spoiler alert, Bush fucking hated everything in the Middle East and reset that completely.
And then after the second Intifada, there was basically no hope of any kind of Israeli Palestinian negotiation.
Everything basically was fucked after that.
I think the last large overture that I'm familiar with is Olmert in 2008, had a big negotiation with Mahmoud Abbas, who would be the later leader of the Palestinian liberation organization.
And then I think the head of the PA, but Mahmoud Abbas, you know, also walked away from that deal with Olmert.
Olmert went to jail.
And then two years later, Abbas comes out with this story about, well, it was just a napkin that I didn't know what would happen.
That was bullshit.
There was just no desire on the Palestinian side for peace because they always feel like if they keep fighting, they can keep getting more.
And that's my take.
Okay.
Just before we move on to October 7th, I just want to ask both of you, like we've been doing for around two hours and 40 minutes.
Is there any specific times you want to finish by?
We can do this October 7th, modern stuff.
Yeah, I'm cool with that.
I was going to take a quick piss.
I just want to hear, you know, Destiny's summary.
Yeah, no, look, I think, you know, the audience can decide what they want, whether, you know, they think you made a strong argument for the Arabs being the obstacle to peace or the Palestinians.
I think the Israelis are the big obstacle to peace.
I guess do you want to go first and give your take on what your position is on October 7th or do you want me to do it?
I mean, my position is pretty simple.
I think October 7th is a little bit more.
Let me piss real quick.
Hold on, hold on.
So I can hear what you guys say.
I'm going to take a quick whiz.
And then I'll get a thing.
And then if anybody got to take a piss break real quick.
yeah you having fun I popped onto Twitter just now and I saw one of Maron's fan Twitter account saying, what was it called?
Myron takes on Destiny and Jew or something.
I don't know.
It's your host.
Is that how it goes?
That's how it goes.
Oh, wow.
That's very good.
Is there any specific time?
I thought you were recording something else after this.
Did I say that?
I hope not.
I don't think so.
No, I thought you, oh, because I thought you put on your YouTube title.
What was that now?
Oh, it's just other shit.
Oh, okay.
Oh, okay.
I thought it was a separate recording.
All right.
All right.
Okay.
So before we do October 7th, I want to do a quick, just to make my argument real fast.
Because my argument, again, is I think the Israelis are the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East.
I want to cover real quick the war on terror.
So obviously, as you guys know, 9-11.
We're not going to grant any of this.
I don't think there's any.
Because you're going to clean break memo that Israel instigated everything and got us to fight, but I'm not going to agree with any of that.
That's fine.
And you can totally disagree.
I don't expect you to agree.
I'm just want to give it out to the audience real quick because, again, my argument is that simply that the Israelis are the bigger obstacle to peace.
And I have to deal with, you know, the neocon angle and everything else like that.
So what I'll say is simply this.
Before 9-11 happened, we know that there was a clean break memo.
And we also know that there was the paper that came out September by PENAC as well.
The authors of these documents overwhelmingly were Jewish neocons, right?
Some of them even have dual citizenship with Israel.
And these individuals, like, for example, with the Clean Break memo, they wrote it for Benjamin Nanyahu right after he came into office in 1996.
In this document, it basically identifies several countries in the Middle East, namely, most importantly, Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein.
Obviously, the PENAC document also talks about this as well.
A year later, 9-11 happens, and it literally says in there, oh, we need a Pearl Harbor-like event.
So after 9-11 happens, right, we go ahead and identify Osama bin Laden, blah, blah, blah.
It is what it is.
We don't have to go into conspiracy theories of who was involved, but what I'll do is just talk more about the aftermath.
And the aftermath, what ended up happening was they were able to falsely link Muhammad Atta, the lead hijacker, to anthrax when he met with an Iraqi intelligence official, I think in Malaysia or somewhere in Malaysia.
And they said that there was an anthrax exchange.
This was one of the chief things that the Intel community and the neocons and the Bush administration in general utilized to justify a war in Iraq.
And then they went ahead and said that there was weapons of mass destruction.
Why am I mentioning Israel and all this?
The reason why is because the cabinet and the people that wrote a lot of these policy papers were overwhelmingly Jewish neocons from Paul Wolfowitz over to Bill Kristol to Robert Kagan to, you know, or they were hardcore Zionists like John Bolton, et cetera, Richard Pearl, Douglas Fyth.
It was just complete Judith Miller who lied about the about the about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Overwhelmingly Jewish neocons.
It is what it is.
And a lot of them had an affinity to Israel.
Now, with the whole Muhammad Atta and Anthrax angle, the reason why this is important is because Israeli intelligence gave us this information.
And then Nanyahu famously came in 2002 and said that taking out Saddam will have positive reverberations all across the region.
Well, we know what happened after that.
We went over there.
There were no weapons of mass destruction.
A million people died.
Kids starving.
The Middle East completely stabilized.
This led to a whole bunch of problems in the region.
And this set up the war on terror.
Now we can, and I would argue that in itself, because it was Israel that precipitated a lot of this, because we have dual allegiance neocons in America that are running foreign policy for us.
And we have a bunch of donors involved.
That led to the war on terror, which also is another reason why the Israelis are an obstacle to peace.
It created a lot of problems in the Middle East.
And then if you want to fast forward, Destiny, I know me and you are not going to agree on any of that, but I just want to give the audience my perspective on that with the war on terror.
But if you want to fast forward to October 7, we can do that too.
Sure.
I mean, I would just say in regards to this, I mean, like, Israel had a reason to hate Saddam Hussein.
Like, Saddam Hussein was the, Iraq was the first country to actually shoot missiles into Israel, scout missiles during the first Gulf War in an attempt to bring Israel into the war because they knew that that would break the Arab coalition that the United States had formed for the first Gulf War.
Also, to say that they were trying to argue that taking out Saddam Hussein would lead to a more stable Middle East.
That's not a hard argument to make after the first failed invasion into Kuwait after chemical warfare against Kurdish people in Kurdistan and North Iraq.
Like, yeah, I think most people probably would have agreed with that.
If Israel was always just going to fabricate some reason to bring the U.S. into war, like some anthrax bullshit, I don't know why they would write a paper on it first.
I feel like you just probably wouldn't write the paper and you would just fabricate the reason later on.
But yeah, well, that was the intention the whole time is my point.
And they needed a reason to do it.
So it was a plan for years, almost a decade.
And then they were written a paper on it, though.
Why not just do the plan?
They don't need a paper.
That just makes them look guilty as hell.
You're right.
It was very stupid.
And now we have the evidence.
You're correct.
They should have wrote a paper.
They should have just done it secretly.
But yes, my argument is that the Iraq war had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks.
Saddam Hussein and Osama Biladin hate each other.
You know, a lot of people don't know this, that they actually were going to fight each other.
The whole reason why Osama hates us is because the Saudi Arabian government didn't allow him to fight Saddam Hussein during the first desert storm situation when he invaded Kuwait.
So, you know, it is what it is.
That's my position on it.
I think Israel dragged us into that war.
We did not benefit whatsoever from the Iraq war.
Only Israel did.
And yeah.
Okay, now with October 7th, another reason why I think that the Israelis are an obstacle to peace is with the October 7th conflict.
Well, how did we get there?
Let's get there first with the Abraham Accords.
The Israelis went ahead and recognized, or well, they got the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and I think one other country to recognize them with the Abraham Accords.
And this is something that Trump actually brokered.
So I got to give, you know, you know, I'm very critical of Trump wouldn't need me.
I know you hate Trump, but here you go.
I know you'll enjoy this.
The Abraham Accords were absolutely an L when it comes to peace in the Middle East because all this did was stimulate agitation for the Palestinians, especially Hamas, because with the with the Abraham Accords, what that basically did was it created the process for which now the Saudi Arabians can join.
And Hamas understood that if the Saudi Arabians joined the Abraham Accords, it's over because Saudi Arabia obviously has a significant amount of power and influence in the Arab world.
Obviously, from a religious perspective, Medina Mecca are very religious cities.
So if Saudi Arabia had joined, that would have been a big problem.
And then also, on top of the Abraham Accords, we also had the issues with recognizing Jerusalem as the capital, moving the embassy.
That was obviously symbolic and problematic for the Palestinians.
And then lastly, which a lot of people don't talk about, but it is very important as well, is bringing over the heifers and, you know, trying to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque to create the temple, which there's a whole temple organization that's doing this.
Ben-Gavir and these other crazy people have been antagonizing them, going up to the Temple Mount with their security.
So this is what precipitated and what led to the October 7th attacks.
And as a matter of fact, the operation on October 7th was called the Al-Aqsa flood.
And the reason for that was because they were planning on destroying the Al-Assamas to go ahead and create this temple mount on top of the Abraham Accords and everything else without solving the Palestinian question.
And this is what precisely what I mean when I say, if there is not an answer to the Palestinian question, there's never going to be peace in the Middle East.
And Israel keeps trying to kick the can down the road and not deal with the Palestinian problem.
Now, October 7th happens.
Here's something a lot of people don't know.
On October 10th, the Israelis had a chance to get all the hostages back.
Is this a report in the Israeli Times?
Wait, before we go to the October 7th, the conspiracy theory.
So prior to this, I would actually agree with most of this.
I think that at this point, past 2005, I think Israel's appetite for any kind of peaceful arrangement, everything of the terrorist attacks and everything else from the Second Intifada, I think Israel is basically done at this point, thinking that Palestinians want to live alongside Israelis in any sort of good faith manner.
So I think that the Israeli side gets pretty radicalized.
The Palestinian side remains pretty fucked and hateful of the Israelis.
The Israelis were hateful with the Palestinians.
However, the Palestinians have now been basically divorced from every legitimate major backer or country on the planet.
The only people that are legitimately backing them are really, you've got Hamas that comes up big post-2005 as the governing body in the Gaza Strip.
And then you've got Hezbollah that's starting to exist in greater force in Lebanon in 2006.
I think they kind of trashed Israel in an attempted little war there under the leadership of Nasrallah.
And then you've got Iran that's kind of like funneling money over to them.
The Houthis kind of sort of take an interest.
I think around 2017, 2018, I think Iran starts pumping a little bit more money to them.
Houthis don't really give a fuck about what's going on in Gaza, though.
They'll just do a little bit for Iranian money, basically.
But yeah, this is at this point, nobody wants to deal with the Palestinian problem.
I think Palestinians don't have a genuine solution in mind for peace and Netanyahu is totally fine to keep kicking the can down the road and solidify basically peace with the rest of the Arab world.
I largely agree with that at this point.
But I mean, like, this is where we're at, where neither side is well.
I mean, I would argue for the Palestinian side, they have never accepted any peace agreement.
Israel feels like there's not going to be any peace, especially after all the terrorism in the second tifad.
And now, yeah, we're both sides just trying to infinitely fuck the other over.
And then we come to October 7th, sure.
Yeah, well, I mean, like I said, you know, there is a potential for peace, but you know, Netanyahu is doing everything in his power to not answer the Palestinian question and sidestepping it, which obviously agitates the problem.
And he doesn't want to exercise any type of diplomacy at all.
You know, Netanyahu, he's the Palestinians aren't even united as a people post-2003, Jay.
And he did that on purpose.
He didn't do that on his own.
No, part of that was Hamas.
He funded Hamas.
No, that's Netanyahu has never personally funded Hamas.
Qatar money was making its way in there.
And October 207th, but after, yeah, of course, because either that or allow the Gaza Strip to collapse because the PA didn't want money going over to the Gaza Strip because Hamas was the governing body there after they killed all the Fatah people and throw them up buildings and kick them out.
But yeah, Hamas is the government basically in the Gaza Strip post-2005 because the people there felt like they were fighting against Israel better than Mahmoud Abbas's cocktail Fatah or whatever was existing.
I think it was Fatah versus Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
And so after Hamas becomes the governing body there, and then the PA and the PLO remain like the governing people in the West Bank.
Well, now you've got a divided Palestinians and now it's just infinite conflict with the Gaza Strip, which Netanyahu and a conservative Israel is happy to see because now they've got a reason to fight against them forever and they've got a divided Palestinian people, but it's not helping the Palestinian people at all.
Like Hamas is a huge thorn on the side there, but they're okay with being a thorn in the side there because they don't want any final agreement anyway.
They want the destruction of all the Jewish people in Israel.
That's why they call for global intifada.
That's why they shoot rockets randomly at people all the fucking time.
Well, they have the right to resist.
Yes, they absolutely don't have to throw it.
They don't have the right to launch random rockets into Israel.
They absolutely have the right to resist.
I know that sounds fucked up or whatever, but the reality is fucked up.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of international law.
You're making abuse.
You said Balam versus Yusen Bello.
Like, yes, you are allowed to fight against your occupiers.
Yes.
But to say, it's 100% occupied.
That's a tenuous.
It's probably not.
Number one.
But number two, that doesn't give you the right to take hostages.
That's a war crime.
It doesn't give you the right to attack civilian populations.
That's a war crime.
It doesn't give you the right to launch indiscriminate arms against an opposing force that could kill civilians.
That's also a war crime.
Like none of the conduct in war is reasonable.
So by international law.
Here's the thing.
But nobody cares about international law.
Yeah.
Well, yeah, but like the reality is that they are occupied by every means of the measure.
They are absolutely occupied.
They're not.
The main means of the measure would be a police force that displaces the local police force.
That wasn't the case.
The second one is like administrative power over the area.
Hamas was the administrator.
And then the there's a third one, but by every measure, they're just the government.
By every measure, Destiny, they're occupied.
They don't control their airspace.
They don't control their water.
They don't control what goes in and what goes out.
They have no sovereignty.
That's called a blockade.
Yeah.
They'd argue there's a blockade if they're not occupied.
No, they're absolutely occupied.
Bro, every the West Bank and Gaza have been deemed by the international community as being occupied.
They are 100% occupied, which allows them to have the right to resist through it says here by almost any by any means.
No, nothing says that in international law.
It does.
To include armed resistance and arms charge.
Armed resistance, but that's still, you have to follow all of the other rules of war.
It's not armed resistance because killing random civilians.
And here's the other thing, too.
If we're like, the reality is who commits more war crimes?
I mean, if we're going to go ahead and have this war crime thing, like, oh, well, you can't do this.
You can't do that.
The Israelis are committing war crimes all the time.
They have, you want to talk about hostages.
The Israelis have 10,000, 11,000 hostages, a lot of them without any type of charge whatsoever.
That's why October 7th happened in the first place.
So we have all this agitation going on, right, with Israel.
Now, oh, and then also the other thing, too, and I want to talk about the JCPOA too.
That was another thing that the Israelis killed.
That was another obstacle, once again, being an obstacle to peace with the nuclear deal.
That's another example.
But with the whole October 7th thing, so we have all these things that happen with October 7th.
fine.
And the other thing also that's important is that there was a stand-down order and they could have got the hostages back on October 10th, but they chose not to do that because...
I don't think there was a stand-down order that's never been proven.
And getting the hostages back, saying that Hamas is willing to give the hostages back if you go away is the most joke thing in the world.
You can't do a huge terrorism, capture 200 people, and then 200 people back and end the war.
Nobody would ever agree to that ever.
That's an insane debate.
That's fair.
That's fair.
And I knew you were going to say that.
But here's the difference, right?
So here's the thing.
The debate is who is the bigger obstacle to peace?
Israel could have gotten all their hostages back on the 10th.
Now, am I saying that they and what would have happened was for them not invading the Gaza Strip?
Now, here's the thing.
Normally, I see what you're saying.
Hey, well, they conducted a terrorist attack.
How dare, you know, how dare they do this and then Israel not respond?
That would make them look weak.
Well, here's the difference.
Israel has a fantastic fucking intelligence service, okay?
The Mossad, Shinbet, Unit 8200, Amman, these guys ran a pager fucking operation for 10 years.
They did Operation Rising Line, where they had Mossad assets in the back line in Iran.
They have the ability to conduct sophisticated operations where they can easily dismantle Hamas.
And here's the other thing, too.
They did this against Hezbollah and they did this against the RRJC.
Two militaries that are superior to Hamas.
You're telling me that you couldn't run special operations or do some type of intel operation where you have a bunch of collaborators in the Gaza Strip and taking them out?
I mean, they killed Ishmael Hanaya to Iran, Iran.
So I don't want to hear anything about like, oh, well, you know, they conducted a terrorist attack.
Well, here's the thing.
Who's the bigger obstacle to peace?
I would argue it's the Israelis because how many people have died because they wanted to go into the Gaza Strip and they could get the hostages back at any time because this is what I was going to answer your question before.
You asked me, hey, why don't they release the hostages?
Here's your answer.
They will release the hostages.
Here's the problem.
Netanyahu does not want to do a final ceasefire because Hamas will give them the hostages back, but they want a permanent ceasefire and withdrawal of all troops.
Israel does not want to do that because they want to occupy the strip.
It's about getting them out of there from the first place.
So again.
Sure, but I mean, like, you acknowledge that them keeping hostages, that is a war crime, right?
Sure.
But Israel's committing war crimes all the time.
How many hostages are you?
Yeah, but I'm saying that's fine.
11,000.
Prisoners of war are not necessarily the same as hostages, unless you're counting every single person who's been there without charge.
They're being raped at Destiny.
Like they're literally whole other thing.
But the reality is that if you're raping prisoners, that is a war crime.
Sure.
But the and they protest for it, so they can continue to do it.
Sure.
If Hamas were to release the hostages, though, the support for Israel doing any kind of war, I think, in the Gaza Strip, at least a while ago, probably would have collapsed internationally, what little support they had.
And then domestically, I think there probably would have been major upheaval as well.
All the hostages were released.
I think Israel would have a much harder time justifying that war to its citizens.
They would keep fighting, dude.
Like, because the reality is, is that they'll only fight as long as they have the domestic support for it.
But I think the domestic support for that fighting would collapse pretty fast if like all the hostages were released and now you're just on an infinite war in Gaza.
The United States would continue to support them.
Even the UK would continue to support them.
Yeah, Steven, I don't really think the domestic support will falter if the hostages come back.
You've got to remember that the people who are supporting him, Netanyahu's supporters, are on the far are not on the far right, but are the people that want Hamas to be destroyed.
They want a new age.
Sure, I agree.
But you guys have like a crazy coalition government with like fucking 20 different parties that are holding together Net Yahoo's majority, right?
I think that if all of the, if all of the hostages are released, there's absolutely a decent chunk of the Israeli population that would want to see the war in Goslam until they've been said.
I think it would be a lot harder.
Like Israel, because even today, they still keep saying that, what is it, 20 or 40 hostages left?
They still keep citing these hostages as like a reason.
And they have to give that as like their moral front, I think, internationally and to their own people.
Sure.
I don't know.
But maybe today, maybe they could, but I know like six months ago, if Hamas would have just released all the hostages, I think Israel would have been different.
Yeah, I think they would have a really hard time going.
I don't know today.
I feel like the, because they couldn't bring up the hostage thing ever anymore.
And now they're just on a war against Hamas and however many people die and they can't even put the hostages on the other side as well.
Well, here's the thing.
Like they never cared about the Hashas.
That's my point is that, again, once again, an obstacle to peace.
They could have got the Hashis back on a 10th, had them all back safe, run a specialist.
I don't disagree with this, but both sides wanted the war to happen.
Hamas could have just released the hostages in the beginning, and then it would have been really hard for Israel to continue.
And Israel could have done more to get the hostages, but Israel's happy for the hostages to be there because they could fucking disassemble.
And I'll tell you why they want.
No, no, no, because if they gave the Hashas up, that would have taken the only leverage they have.
Here's the thing.
The Israelis.
No, they have no leverage.
No, you're wrong.
That's the most absurd belief.
You think they have leverage?
You think that Hamas has leverage over the Israeli government?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
They don't.
I said it's the only leverage they have.
It's not leverage.
If anything, it's a counter leverage.
That's what's giving Israel the cause for war as much as they have.
You just said it yourself that they don't give a fuck about the Hashis.
I think that they're very distant second place.
They don't.
And they're proving that right now with what's going on.
But Hamas is proving that they wanted the fighting the whole time as well.
When they should have known very early on within the first few months, we're fucked.
There's no possible way we win this.
But they kept those hostages the whole time because they want the conflict to continue.
Well, no, no, no.
I told you, October 10th, they were willing to give it back.
The Israelis said no.
That's a big deal.
Yeah, but the Israelis were never going to, I mean, you can't have somebody do a big terrorisms on you and then agree that they could be a permanent government and then you just go back to normal.
There was no way that was ever going to be obviously.
Well, yeah, but here's the thing.
Like they have the capability of destroying them from the inside out.
We've seen them do it with Hezbollah.
They see them do it with IRGC.
We've seen them do it with the Houthis.
What?
Dude, did you not see the Pager attack?
You know they had bombs in those pages for 10 years?
Yeah, but that's a lot different than disassembling.
First of all, no, I don't know.
I don't think they had a bomb for the pages.
It was in for 10 years.
New York Times reporter.
You can look it up.
10 years.
10 years.
Sure.
Okay.
Number two, I think taking apart the entirety of Hamas, which is also the government of Gaza, leads to a lot more problems than attacking the military part or segment or thing of Hezbollah, right?
Like I think that if Israel would have done a pager attack on Hamas to kill the government figures, the policing, the military, everything else, like the whole Gaza Strip would fucking collapse.
And then what do they do after that?
Well, they could do what they're trying to do now, which is basically what the point is.
Here's the bottom.
No, no, no.
What do they do?
What do they do after Gaza collapses?
If they were to do the same type of huge attack and destroy all of Hamas, the legitimate government of the Gaza Strip, what is Israel supposed to do after that?
They can get another government in there or do what they always want to do, which is ethnically.
They want to ethnically cleanse anyway.
Here's the thing.
Again, my argument is simply that they are the obstacle to peace and they could have had peace, but they don't want that peace.
They want to destroy the Gaza Strip, get them out of there, and on top of that, start wars with everybody else.
They literally started a war with Hezbollah.
They went down, they bombed.
Well, they've been at war with Israel.
It's not like they just randomly started that.
What do you mean?
These guys have been fighting forever.
Yeah, no, no, no.
But yeah, but they invaded.
They invaded.
They did the Patriot attack.
They invaded southern Lebanon.
They said they were going to make it all the way into Beirut.
They didn't do that.
Then they went ahead and obviously conducted that attack.
And then that set up the stage for Syria to be dethroned and destabilized.
And then obviously they did Operation Rising Lion in the middle of peace negotiations.
Like this is a rogue state, dude.
Like they're doing whatever they want.
And then they just bombed Qatar last week or two weeks ago.
Like they are absolutely the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East.
Israel is the main antagonizer of almost every modern conflict.
Why do you think that most of the people in the Middle East, say for say like Syria and Iran and maybe Iraq, generally support Israel?
Like Egypt, all the Gulf states.
Because they're cucked by the United States.
That's why.
Do you think that if Saudi Arabia, the rest of the Gulf states in Egypt could choose who do we want to lead the Middle East going forward?
The Ayatollah or the Knesset or, you know, or Jerusalem or Israel, who would they choose?
Would they choose Iran or would they choose Israel?
Well, preferably, they'd want Saudi Arabia to do it.
Saudi Arabia is like, yeah.
Let's look at Saudi Arabia.
Who would Saudi Arabia rather be partners with?
Iran or Israel?
Israel.
Everybody would choose Israel.
No, hold on.
No, because here's the thing you got to remember.
Yes, maybe the politicians might say, you know what?
Yeah, politically, it'd be easier for us to deal with Israel.
But the reality is the people of the land would have a serious problem with that.
This is why Saudi Arabia is so scared to recognize Israel.
And a lot of these Arab countries are scared because they look at it like, yo, that's like we have our Palestinian brothers over there being killed or whatever.
The Muslim world would have a problem with that.
So what I think is, and here's the other thing too, a lot of people don't know this.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are exercising diplomacy now.
They started recognizing each other in 2023.
So they've done.
Yeah, they might be on the path to that, but they have a highly contentious history with each other where Iran has been directly attacking now, or not now, but I think Trump's first presidency.
They attacked.
Yeah, they were attacking Saudi Arabia and refineries with fucking drone attacks for the first time ever, I think, in 2019.
Yeah, yeah, but yes, you're 100% right.
So they might be working their way towards like peace now.
No, they're already got peace going.
Since 2022 or 2023, they've been formalizing negotiations and they recognize each other.
Literally, their militaries do flight simulations together.
There's peace between the two now.
I'm telling you, Israel is the biggest problem in the Middle East and it is the main antagonizer for all the wars in the Middle East.
Because before Israel's creation, we didn't really have a beef in the Middle East like that, dude.
Not only that, here's another way.
The United States wasn't even enough of a foreign power to do anything in the Middle East.
What do you mean?
I would argue we were at the pinnacle of power after World War II.
And we didn't have beef with the Middle East.
We didn't exist until Israel didn't exist until World War II.
Precisely.
And they're the ones that started the problems.
No, no, but the United States had no, I don't think the United States cared or had anything to do with conflict really with the rest of the world.
Even World War I, we were kind of involved with prior to that.
We were doing our own thing.
I mean, we're involved in World War II, but like, you know, Israel has extended the extended war because if you look at all the modern, a lot of the modern wars we have now, it's been for the benefit of Israel, especially this war on terror.
It's a whole bunch of bullshit.
And here's the other thing, too, I want to say with Iran, right?
They always say Iran's the boogeyman and all these other problems, right?
The only reason Iran is fighting so hard to get a nuclear bomb now, especially is because we pushed them to do that because of Israel's reckless foreign policy where they're bombing Iran.
They're attacking Iran all the time.
We pulled out the JCPOA.
Why do we pull out the JCPOA?
Because Mike Pompeyo.
So I'm implying that there is no conflict in the Middle East, like all the conflict that happened in Yemen with Egypt in the 60s had nothing to do with Israel.
The Iraq-Iran war didn't have anything to do with Israel.
The Afghanistan Civil War only had anything to do with Israel.
Turkey and all of their revolution to create themselves their own state in the 19th late 1910s or whatever had nothing to do with Israel.
All of the stuff that happens across Northern Africa doesn't have anything to do with Israel.
All these places are like, we're violent in conflict places, especially after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
We have an interventionist foreign policy because of Israel, and we have destabilized, assisted, or done coups in so many different places all across the Middle East because of Israel.
Did Israel make us go to South America and who all the countries have been involved in South America?
I'm talking about the Middle East.
For example, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
You can't just say they made us do it in the Middle East, and that's the only reason we did it.
But we also did it in Taiwan, or not Taiwan, I'm sorry, we did it in Korea, we did it in Vietnam, we did it in how many countries in South America and Cuba.
It seems like we kind of did that everywhere in the Cold War.
Everybody was doing that everywhere in the Cold War.
The Turks versus the U.S. Sure, but remember, the debate is who is the bigger obstacle to peace?
I'm saying that Israel is a bigger obstacle to peace than Palestine or any of these Arab countries because Israel's foreign policy is to basically literally their motto is rise up and kill them first.
And then don't forget what Iran.
So that's not Israel's policy.
I don't even know what that means.
That is one of their motto.
Rise up and kill them first.
Okay.
Okay.
I'm not sure where I'm sure what that means.
But for Iran, like Iran is also like, has been fighting with and killing troops of the Middle East as well.
Like most.
No, no.
Okay.
Operation Ajax.
What did we do?
We got rid of Mogadessu, right?
Their electedly, democratically elected leader.
What does that have to do with Israel?
Israel was involved with us, the Brits.
No, no, you're dead wrong.
We say that on behalf of the British because the Brits wanted their oil refineries and because he was going to be going Iran, yes.
That was because Iran was going to nationalize all of their oil refineries and Britain didn't want to lose their investment there.
Of course.
And the Israelis were involved in helping us with that.
I don't know how they might have been involved in helping Israel wanted to help everybody in the West.
Yeah, but we did it because of Britain.
If Israel didn't exist, we would have still done that same thing.
Well, here's the thing.
Yes, we did it to help Britain, but at the same time, we also, what was one of the first things that Iran did when the shot came in after him getting thrown out?
Once the Shah came into power, he recognized Israel.
He was like, I think it was the first country in the Middle East to recognize Israel.
What does that prove any point?
What I'm trying to say here is that Israel has either been directly involved in or one of the main precipitators of us creating this interventionist foreign policy across the Middle East.
Wait, are you saying that Israel had like some interest, that that was a great boon to Israel, that Iran recognized them as a country?
100%.
Absolutely.
They were the first country in the Middle East to recognize them.
A big one, too.
That was a bunch of energy.
Iran was barely even considered the Middle East at that point.
This was they were like a non-player in World War II.
What do you mean?
What was Iran doing in the 40s and 50s?
Literally nothing.
People are trekking through here.
Iran, like they had a lot of oil, enough where we had to run a coup.
They were a player.
Yeah, but that was not, that had nothing to do with Israel.
That wasn't helping Israel.
Israel's main conflict at that point.
If you do history of Israel, you know, you don't hear anything about Iran.
Iran is not involved in like fucking any of these conflicts are helping much at all until you get to like 2000s.
Okay.
Israel's primary arch nemesis the entire time has always been Iran.
Once they got rid of Saddam, they've been fighting like hell to get rid of Iran.
That's why they've been trying to get us to bomb them.
They're going to have to do those 2000s 2000s.
You said that Iran recognizing Israel was some great help to Israel.
Israel's main enemies were Egypt and Syria.
Well, that's after we destabilized Iran with Operation Ajax, because that was a benefit to the Brits and to the Israelis.
Obviously, it benefited multiple people.
But again, like, you know, for us to sit here and Israel wasn't hurt by Iran.
It didn't help them at all or hurt them.
It didn't help.
No, it definitely helped them.
It was one of the first countries in the region to recognize them.
It was the first one to actually recognize.
It wasn't Israel.
And what did that help with?
It didn't help them in the Suez crisis.
It didn't help them in 67 with the Six-Day War.
It didn't help them in 73 with Yom Kippur.
No, it definitely did help them to have a country in the region recognizing them.
How did it help them?
Well, for one, since the Brits control their oil, the Israelis were able to benefit from that because that was a big reason why they even conducted Operation Ajax because Mogades wanted to go ahead and actually nationalize the oil and the Brits were like, hell no, we want to make a bunch of money.
The Israelis benefited from that significantly, right?
For how?
From a cash transfer?
No, no, because what ended up happening was Iran became a vessel state for the West.
And then Israel benefits from anything that we do that's a vessel of the West.
Israel benefits because they're one of our main allies over there.
I don't agree with those.
You could look at Operation Ajax was conducted by who?
The U.S., Brits, and the Israelis.
Why?
Because there was enormous benefit to the Israelis for being in that country.
You're dead wrong.
It was for the Brits.
It was to prevent all of their oil companies from being taken over and nationalized by the country.
The Brits begged the United States to help and that intervention was.
Of course.
And then the Israelis assisted as well.
But the Israelis.
So did France.
So did every single country in the West.
And then also, again, the argument is that the Israelis are one of the biggest obstacles to peace.
Another thing, they were heavily involved in us getting pulling out of the JCPOA, aka the Iran nuclear deal.
I think that that was a good deal that was going to have Iran be in a position where we can monitor what they're doing.
We had inspectors in there.
We will stop them from getting a nuclear weapon.
Actually, it was to Israel's benefit because Israel would be the only nuclear power in the region.
But what did Israel do?
Mike Pompeo is a cuck.
He went ahead and pressured.
He's owned by the Jews.
He tells Trump, hey, we got to pull out of this thing.
Trump pulls out by advice of him.
He's the Secretary of State at the time.
He puts the IRGC on a terrorist watch list in 2019.
And then, bam, now the diplomacy that we had worked for for multiple years under the Obama administration, gone.
And then, and why was that?
Because of enormous pressure from the Israel lobby.
Yeah, I think pulling out of the JCPOA was horrible.
The Iranian nuclear deal was bad.
I don't think we should have done it.
But if Israel has so much control that they were able to make us pull out of that deal, why didn't they have enough control to make us not enter the deal in the first place with Obama?
Because Obama had a spine against the Israelis.
But Benjamin Netanyahu.
If they have a spine, if a spine is all it takes, then you have no conspiracy.
Then there's no way they can control them.
All you need is a little bit of a spine, and now you can't do anything.
Like you said before, they were assassinating people like JFK or whatever in order to keep them on board with their nuclear program and shit.
And now you're saying that all you need is a spine and now you can create one of the worst.
Well, I think it was a great deal, but Saudi Arabia and Israel both fucking hated it.
They felt like they got stabbed in the back by the United States, but fuck them both.
I thought that was a great deal.
But to say that Obama can resist Israel with just having a spine means that Israel has no power to do anything for this foreign policy.
Here's the thing.
Like, Netanyahu came to the United States and literally challenged the sitting president of the United States and addressed our house talking about how the JCPOA was a bad deal, blah, blah, blah.
He ran all came from it.
Yeah, but here's the thing, though.
Once Trump came in, what happened?
Boom.
Yeah, because Trump is a cuck, not because he got control by Israel.
Trump is just a fucking retard.
Well, here's the thing.
That proves my point.
That the Trump administration is my biggest criticism of Trump.
He is owned by the idols.
He's owned by the Jews.
Well, we can say that.
I don't think he's owned.
I think he's just retarded.
I think he just sees an easy conflict and he takes it because he knows that R is going to win and old people like Israel.
I don't think you need any conspiracy there to explain shit.
I mean, again, Obama stood up to the Jewish lobby more than Trump did.
So when Trump came in, one of the first things he did was disband the plan, got Mike Pompeo in.
Pompeo was a hardcore Zionist owned by the Jewish lobby.
He was the main guy in his ear telling him, hey, we need to get out of this thing.
And then he designated the IRGC as a on the terrorist on the FTO list.
So, and then they put crazy problems.
It's just like a mega cuck for Israel, right?
Nobody's forcing Trump to put fucking, who was it, fucking Huckabee as our ambassador to Israel now?
Like, Trump is still fucking up to Israel now.
He doesn't need the money anymore.
He's got a billion other scams he's running in the U.S. Oh, yeah, but that's my point.
Once again, Israel, the debate is-how is it that every time they support them and every time they don't support him, it's like always somehow fits your own theory.
Either Obama has a spine and then Trump was forced in Trump 1, but then it does the exact same thing in Trump 2, even though he's not forced in Trump 2.
Like, every single thing can be explained by the same conspiracy.
No, like, oh, they did a secret paper or they wrote that clean break memo in order to get the US to go to war, but it didn't work or do anything.
So, then they had to fabricate the anthrax thing.
Well, why would they even write the memo?
They should just fabricate the anthrax thing.
Like, every single thing can always be explained by whatever conspiracy.
Like, there's no way I can't even falsify any of it.
Okay.
So, here's the thing, okay?
Number one, the argument is who is the bigger barrier to peace?
My argument is that it's the Israelis, and I'm using the angle of them pulling out the JCPOA.
Now, with that said, Obama's argument is who's a bigger detriment to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Yes, right?
The Palestinians can't be a detriment to peace with the Iranians.
That's not the idea of the US.
Yeah, yeah, it is.
Yes, it is, because the Iranians back Hamas and back the Palestinians.
So, yes, it is a detriment to peace.
So what I'm saying is— Yeah, but they only back the Palestinians because they don't like Israel.
I don't give a fuck about the Palestinians.
They just do it because they're trying to fight with Israel and Saudi Arabia and the United States.
Because Israel is a rogue state that has a nuclear weapon.
So obviously, the act of resistance was created to insulate themselves and protect themselves.
How is Israel more of a rogue state than is it more of a rogue state than Yemen?
It's more of a rogue.
You could make the argument.
I think Israel is more of a rogue state than Iran.
It's more of a rogue state than Iran.
Iran was a part of the JCPOA.
It was a part of the international non-proliferation treaty.
They actually had inspectors come in.
Israel has a nuclear bomb that's illegal that they stole from us.
So having a nuclear bomb makes you a rogue state?
100%.
An unacknowledged nuclear program they stole?
100%.
I feel like that every other person on the planet would say that was the exact opposite.
A rogue state having a nuclear bomb seems like the worst possible thing ever.
I think that if they were a rogue state, they would have used it or something, right?
Dude, definitely like a rogue statement that can't be controlled.
Destiny.
They bombed Qatar like two weeks ago.
Okay.
That is one of our main allies with the biggest military base.
You know how crazy that is that they bombed one of our allies?
It's it's people everybody bombs people.
Iran has bombed Saudi Arabia.
Like, what do you mean?
Yeah, they bomb each other over there.
What do you mean?
Destiny.
We give them a lot of their aid.
We give them billions upon billions of dollars.
I think this year alone, we've given them like $16 billion.
And they bombed Qatar.
Qatar has the biggest military base, U.S. military base there.
That is one of our close allies.
They are the intermediary to try to stop this war, and they still bomb them.
That's crazy.
Yeah.
Well, yeah, but it's not like they're not like bombing.
You make it sound like they're like fucking carpet bombing their cities or some shit, right?
It's not like they're out there like, yeah, they're doing yeah, let me refresh the page.
Can you guys still hear me?
Yeah.
Okay, okay.
My video is frozen.
Sorry.
Sure.
I think the big issue is that like Trump has absolutely no desire or control of Israel or any idea what the fuck is going on in the Middle East.
So now Israel is doing, as I've said from the beginning of this debate, I feel like there's a really hard point understand for most people.
Israel will try to do as much as it can get away with, but Israel has constraints internationally and constraints domestically.
When those constraints disappear, you can see some crazy shit.
Although arguably that might be true for literally any state, right?
Who knows what North Korea would act like absent a China?
Who knows what I don't say?
Can you hear us?
Oh, maybe not.
Yeah.
No, I'm here.
I just can't see.
You guys just can't see me.
I'm restarting my.
I think it says here that your device is device struggling to record.
I think it's recording on your end, Ellie.
Maybe that's what the problem is.
It's probably a recording mine, but I'm not sure why it's not recording in your end.
Yeah.
It says, it says here.
Let me refresh it.
Oh.
Shit.
Hold on.
Sorry, guys.
I'm joining back in.
I'm joining back in, niggas.
He's got to accept me, though.
I should get my video back on.
Wow.
All right.
It's turning back on.
Can you guys hear me?
Turning a blue screen.
Yeah, yeah.
I restarted my switcher.
Hopefully it'll come back on here in a second.
Okay.
Just before you continue, I think we're going to try to finish in the next few minutes as well.
So just keep that in mind.
Yeah, yeah, sure.
But yeah, so going back to what I was saying with the whole the JCPOA and everything else like that, I think that Israel is a bigger rogue state because they bomb their end.
They assassinate negotiators.
They do clandestine operations.
They do false flags.
They undermine us all the time as their main person.
Did you know that back in the Bush era that they had tried to get a false flag?
Mossad operatives literally pretended to be CIA operatives and they tried to arm the below the Jondola to conduct a terrorist attack into Iran at the end of the Bush administration.
This is back like 2008, 2008, 2007, 2008.
And obviously the Iranians foiled the plan, but then they found out that Jundala was actually being supported by Mossad and they figured it out, but they were planning to be CIA guys.
Like the Israelis constantly do bullshit in the Middle East and try to get us involved in it.
And Bush is a very important thing.
Yeah, I know that everybody does bullshit in the Middle East.
And to say Bush knew about this, Bush was literally the one that put Iran on the axis of evil.
The IRGC, like no, but we were already at war with them largely, right?
Like Iran and the Qats force have been doing tons of intervention in Iraq.
Like arguably a lot of the deaths that happened there were a result literally of foreign Iranian operatives.
A lot of what was going on in Syria was a result of assistance from Iranian foreign operatives or the money or the resources or the training that they would send to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
Like, yeah, Iran does shit all across the Middle East.
They're like the fucking America or Russia.
But the difference is that we don't pay, we don't give billions of dollars in aid to Iran.
We give it to Israel.
They need to be beholden to us, but they're a rogue state that does reckless stuff.
I mean, the fact that they bombed generally.
I'm not going to say prior to Trump too.
I don't know how wild it necessarily is.
It's kind of wild.
But the issue we have right now is that we have no, the president is a fucking retard and doesn't know anything about the Middle East.
So he doesn't give a fuck about anything that happens there.
That's our big deal now.
So now you're seeing people act crazy.
Yeah, he's still controlled by the Jews.
This is the problem.
He's not controlled by the Jews.
He's 100%.
He's retarded.
That's the issue.
Retarded on some things.
On all things.
On the Middle East, yes.
100% cucked and owned by them boys.
Okay.
I think that.
Just admit that the Israelis are the main problem, bro.
Just admit it, and I'm happy.
All right.
They're not, though.
They're the biggest retarded.
If you think, like, oh, who would I rather have run the Middle East?
Like, there's a reason why most of the Middle Eastern leadership is totally fine with Israel.
Even if the Arab street, you know, is not the, you know, it doesn't have the nicest thing to say about the fucking Mediterranean Jew, right?
Most of the Arab leadership is like, you know what?
I think I'm going to fucking be in charge of this shit than fucking than Iran.
Are you serious?
They fucking Assad.
Like, you're like, these are like the worst in the world.
Assad.
He is now, yeah.
Or fucking Saddam Hussein.
Like, these are the worst people in the world.
These guys are.
The Muslim Brotherhood in fucking Cairo.
These are the worst motherfuckers over there.
Like, God, Israel is a fucking rogue state.
They're fucking terrible and horrible.
You would do living in any one of these motherfucking places.
Like, everybody, that's fine.
Every person would rather live in Egypt or not in Egypt.
In fucking Israel.
Like, fucking Arabs would rather live in fucking Israel.
Arabs live in Israel do better than Arabs living in any of these fucking surrounding people.
Hold on, that's the destiny.
That's not the argument.
The argument is simply, remember, the debate is who is the bigger obstacle to peace?
I'm saying the Israelis.
I understand that's the debate is, but you're making it about the entire Middle East.
We were talking about the biggest obstacles to peace between Palestinians and the Israelis.
We're talking about the Prime Minister of the Middle Eastern region.
But I'm saying that the broader Middle Eastern region, Palestinians aren't even going to have any influence on this, of course.
No, it doesn't.
Between the Palestinians and the Israelis, the Palestinians will never settle for peace with the Israelis because they always feel like they can get more.
So they have no incentive to do it.
At this point, Israelis are radicalized so much that they figure Palestinians don't ever want peace.
So they're going to keep fighting for the people.
They're going to go indefinitely until some international leader takes an interest in it and pushes for it.
But the Israelis illegally occupy them.
Okay.
They're an apartheid.
They don't have any representation.
They're being occupied by a foreign government.
They have no rights, nothing.
So yeah, of course they're going to resist.
And according to international law, they have the right to resist because what Israel is doing is illegal.
Everything about Israel is illegal.
The settlements, the way the country came as a formation, everything about it according to international law is illegal.
And this is why the Palestinians think, and that's why they'll never settle for peace because I think it's all illegal and it doesn't count on the international system.
And here's what they do.
And the Israelis don't even want to make it right and come to some type of two-state solution or bring them in.
Nobody wants a two-state solution.
Nobody knows what a two-state solution would look like.
And a one-state solution, nobody would agree that either.
Once again, it includes any right of return.
But my point is, who is the obstacle to peace?
It is the Israelis because since they don't want to solve the Palestinia question, that creates all the other countries.
What do the Palestinians want?
Really?
What do the Palestinians want?
Right to self-determination and sovereignty.
What does it mean?
You can't speak in riddles.
Sovereignty and right to self-determination.
What does that mean?
Having a citizenship, being able to not be an apartheid state where they're second-class.
What do you do with the five to seven million Palestinian refugees?
Okay, look.
Nobody wants to talk about that.
That's one of the huge issues that the Palestinians are.
I didn't say the right of return.
I didn't say the right of return.
No, you didn't get it, but that's what comes up all the time.
That's one of the huge things.
No, no, no.
Even that you brought up the Arab peace resolutions or whatever before, that's a huge fucking thing.
No, no, no.
That's not, here's the thing.
Most of the Palestinians now understand that that's probably not going to happen.
A two-state solution with sovereignty and their own ability to have self-determination, which means their own government, their own military.
Their own police has ever given up any right of return ever.
No Palestinian leadership has ever put on paper the number of right of return refugees that would come back.
That's what never happened.
It's great for you to say that, but they've never acknowledged that.
Well, here's the thing.
They won't even give them the right to self-determination.
So how the hell are they going to even get them?
These are flower words.
They mean nothing.
What the fuck is right of self-determination?
Okay.
This doesn't mean anything.
It's simple, Destiny.
Being able to govern themselves and being able to have their own government.
They must govern themselves.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
The Palestinian Authority governs itself.
With their own military, where they're not occupied, where they have their own airspace, they have their own water, their food and power isn't controlled by the Israelis, where they can turn it off at any single time.
That's why we got to fuck a genocide going on with famine, because the Israelis control everything.
That proves my point that they're absolutely occupied, the fact that they're starving them.
So having their own sovereignty, destiny, you're smart, you know what that means.
Being able to have their own real country, that's what it comes down to.
Sure, where is the leader that's negotiating for that?
This doesn't exist.
They've been trying, and they don't give it to them.
Who, when?
No, they haven't.
The Oswald Courts was the closest to that, and they killed the fucking guy that set it up, bro.
And the Oswald Courts was simply the framework.
We didn't even get to that point yet, but they fucking killed them.
That's how much the Israelis don't want to have peace.
They're the biggest sabotagers to peace.
And everybody in the international community would agree with me.
This is why nobody likes Israel.
This is why, you know, literally, today, why do you think the Brits and the Australians and the Canadians recognize the Palestinian state?
Because they understand that this is some bullshit that Israel's been doing for 70, 80 years.
They know it's bullshit.
Talk is cheap.
Yeah, that's fine.
They can say what they want, but at the end of the day, nobody is, like, intervening to do anything.
All of this is just to make people feel good about themselves.
That's why Canada invented a new definition of genocide to say that they were genociding their natives so they could feel good about themselves.
It gives us a pat on the back.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
At the end of the day, none of these people are fucking doing anything to advance any of the causes.
Every genocide expert, every scholar is coming out saying that this is a genocide because it doesn't, even if you eliminate the people in part.
Yeah, this doesn't mean anything.
That's fine.
It's a genocide.
It's a definition of a genocide.
Look, look, look.
Okay, let's say that.
How much closer are we to figuring out the solution?
None.
If anything, now you're further away.
Why the fuck would you make a peaceful solution with a person who's genociding you?
I would argue...
What they're doing is infinitely incentivizing both sides to fight forever, and they will continue to fight.
Why would you make peace in a sudden apartheid-ing you, genociding you, ethnic cleansing you, starvation-ing you?
Like, what the fuck?
Well, here's the thing.
Israel is losing the support of the international community.
America is starting...
But that doesn't matter to you.
Wait, how can they lose that?
Wait, wait.
How can they lose the support?
I thought you said they control everything with all the Israeli money and all the Israeli propaganda.
You're right.
You're right.
They do.
They do control everything, but that support is starting to wane.
People on their left already, your entire party...
Wait, how can it wane if they're controlling it all with money and propaganda?
Okay, can I explain?
Can I explain?
So for a very long time, talking about Jewish power or Zionism was banned on social media platforms.
We all know this.
However, the October 7th attacks and the current genocide going on has brought it to the forefront of conversation.
Now that it's the forefront of conversation, we got people on the left condemning what Israel is doing.
This is a topic that the left typically didn't really know about or care too much about unless they were really invested in Middle Eastern foreign policy.
I understand what you're saying.
You're just explaining reality now.
But before this, apparently Israel controlled all of reality.
So what the fuck is the point of all the propaganda and the money and the Adelson's and everybody else if they can't actually control any of the media?
Sure.
No.
No.
Well, here's the thing.
They can't control the media anymore because we don't have to deal with Fox News and CNN anymore.
Now we got independent media.
People are coming out saying like, yo, this is bullshit.
You literally just said that we couldn't talk about this on independent media.
I thought, don't you guys complain about the ADL controlling YouTube policy and Facebook policy and Twitter policy and everything else?
Yes.
So how do they lose that if they control it all?
Sure.
I'll explain that.
Because before, if you talked about any of these topics before, the ADL SPLC would target you immediately.
But now everyone, people on both the right and on the left, it used to be the right that they would target when they would talk about this shit.
They would ban me, demonetize me, ban Nick Fuenzes, et cetera.
But guess what?
Now Hassan's talking about it every single day.
Now Kyle Kalisky's talking about it all the time.
Now guys on the left are talking about it.
And then other people are talking about it on TikTok.
TikTok was another thing that they didn't see coming.
So everybody from different political angles are seeing what Israel's doing.
Say this is fucking bullshit.
Well, guess what?
The ADL can't ban everybody.
So now that it's coming out, what Israel's doing, and the world is waking up, now this has been brought to the forefront.
And this is why Israel's getting absolutely decimated in the press.
That's why Netanyahu's running around doing all these stupid-ass softball interviews, but won't do an interview with someone that's going to ask him real questions because he knows he's conducting a genocide.
He obviously, everybody feels like there was a stand-down order.
How the hell did the IDF take six hours to respond?
We know the Hannibal Directive was activated on that day.
We know that they went ahead and sabotaged a bunch of shit that could have included peace and included getting their houses back on October 10th.
So he doesn't want to do any real interviews.
Israel's getting cooked and they're losing support.
And the United States is, the United States is waning support on them right now as well.
Even Trump had made a dam, it's really tough to defend Israel nowadays.
Okay.
Um, where are we at Eli?
Yeah, we should probably just wrap up.
Do you want to give a one minute recap each or?
Sure.
Ness, do you want to go first?
Since I've went first every time, um, yeah, I feel like, um, I mean, I feel like I've stated my position a million times.
Like on the final part, like, um, it's difficult arguing against all the Jewish conspiracies because, like, they're simultaneously like the most competent propagandized people ever who can control every single part of the media.
But then, when too many people notice, all of a sudden they have no control over any of the media.
Um, it's impossible to argue against these Mossad organizations that are at some points in U.S. history so powerful that they're literally assassinating presidents and stealing enriched uranium for nuclear programs.
And then at other points, so we're not going to be able to say that Alex Jones and Myron Gaines and other people and Hassan Piker are able to fight against them on the powerful alternative media platforms on YouTube.
Uh, the reality is, is like the ADL and all these platforms were banning these motherfuckers like crazy in 2021, uh, 2020, and then they reversed course on their policy for I'm um, probably because they felt like the censorship was too much, but I just don't understand how like the Jewish conspiracy shit is like so powerful at other points and then so we concoct at other points.
Um, it doesn't make any sense to me, but like it's always infinitely explanatory of literally everything except for when we don't want it to be, and then it's not.
So, I like, yeah, I don't know.
Hopefully, the forces of good uh prevail.
Okay, um, okay, so my summary, I'll try to make it uh quick here, but I'll summarize almost everything here.
So, nice and simple, my argument is simply that the Israelis have been the biggest obstacle to peace in the region, uh, chiefly because they keep ignoring the Palestine question.
We figured this out since 1937 up until now to 2025.
Peel Commission, we know uh, your boy Ben-Gurion had no interest in actually uh doing any type of deal with the Palestinians because he wrote to his son in letters in 1937 that the goal was to always take Palestine in whole.
So, first it was 20%, then they moved it up in the 1947 partition plan to 56%.
Um, and then at some and then obviously that led to the war.
Uh, the Israelis won that war and declared their independence.
That war was done through paramilitary groups like the Ergun Hagano-Stern gang.
The very terrorism that they condemn today is exactly how the country was formulated in the beginning.
Um, then that leads us to fast forward to the 1967 war where we had the 242 agreement, which was literally written ambiguously.
It was written purposely in that way so that the Israelis can stall for time.
Um, it wasn't until they made a deal with the um Egyptians and the Camp David Accords in 1978, where they left the Palestinians out completely, and they also left them out in the 1967 242 plan as well.
Um, and then uh, winded up happening after 1967, they procured a nuclear bomb during this period of time against the advice of our president, uh, former president John F. Kennedy, which is another escalation.
Uh, obviously, the Yom Kippur war happened, they threatened to use a nuclear bomb in there, once again, subverting uh the peace process, putting Nixon in a very difficult spot where we had to give them the biggest airlift so they can win the Yom Kippur war because they would have lost.
Then you fast forward to 1993 with the Oslo Accords, Yarsa Arafak conceded and gave them the ability to be recognized as a state, their sovereignty and uh the denouncing violence and uh the fact that Israel has the right to exist.
Uh, Yitzhak Rabin, all he gave them in exchange was the PA, uh, which was nothing more than a security force that worked on behalf of the Israeli government and the Shinbet.
Um, it went up happening after that a year later, Yitzhak Rabin gets assassinated by a far-right member of the Likud party.
Benjamin Nanyahu takes power after that.
Uh, the Clean Break memo is written where they write up in our strategy of how they're going to take over the Middle East, seven different countries.
Fast forward over to the uh Camp David Accords in 2000.
That was a bullshit deal.
The West Bank was fractured for the Palestinians.
Uh, the Israelis maintain all the main uh resources, all the fertile ground, all the waterways.
They control 60% of the West Bank.
They continued to expand it in the time that Yitzhak Rabin was done.
It was kicking the can, which would give them more time to expand because the Israelis practice this very devious tactic of facts on the ground, which basically is, hey, let's go ahead and have a peace deal now.
And then a year passes by, two years pass by, they expand and settlement.
Oh, yeah, well, we can't negotiate like that anymore, blah, blah, blah.
And they've done this purposely.
They always kick the can down the road.
And we know this based off what's going on in 2023.
Then you fast forward in 2001, the war on terror.
We know that was a lie because PNAC and the Clean Break memo and the Jewish neocons that ran our American foreign policy in the early 2000s basically got us into war with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, which didn't benefit us at all.
Once again, subverting the peace process.
Then we fast Forward into October 2023.
We, you know, many people think that Benjamin Nanyahu allowed the conflict to happen because he benefited from it.
He was able to invade every country he wanted to invade.
He was able to operate his Mossad operations that he wanted to do with Operation Rising Lines, Operation Pedro attack.
And he was able to keep himself out of prison.
I forgot to mention that as well.
He had quite a bit to gain from waging a war on seven different fronts and keeping himself out of prison, which he definitely would have been convicted of on the corruption trial.
So, and then they also got the United States to pull out of the JCPOA, once again, subverting peace by giving an enormous amount of pressure on Mike Pompeo on Donald Trump to pull him out while simultaneously maintaining an illegal nuclear program that they procured against the wishes of our former president John F. Kennedy.
So, that for all those different reasons, which obviously I'm summarizing from a bird's eye view here, for all these reasons, this is why Israel has been the biggest obstacle to peace in the region by not giving the Palestinians a state and creating wars all across the Middle East up until this day and refusing peace up until the point where they literally bombed one of our best allies in the region with our biggest military base, once again subverting American influence in the region, embarrassing us, putting us in a bad political space because the Israelis don't give a fuck about peace.
They just want war and they want to have the hegemony in the region.
Well, thank you so much for coming on.
Thanks for having me on, bro.
It was a good discussion.
Destiny, it's always good to talk to you, bro.
Yeah, I appreciate the conversation.
All right.
I'll stay on stream, guys.
But shout out to you guys.
You guys want to shout out your stuff where people can find you?
You can search up Ali Eli Hassel on YouTube.
I'm sure everyone knows Destiny.
Yeah, YouTube right comes just Destiny.
Cool.
And what's also your payment thing that people can subscribe to?
Yeah, where's your destiny?g.
Okay, cool.
All right.
All right.
Have fun.
Thanks a lot.
Later, guys.
Peace.
Thank you so much.
See ya.
Good time.
All right.
Cool.
Let me close this out, guys.
Give me one sec, ninjas.
I'll turn my camera on.
What did you guys think?
Do you guys enjoy that?
Good debate.
All right.
All right.
What'd you guys think?
Was that a good discussion or what?
Was that a good discussion?
You guys enjoy that one?
Let me make sure my mic is good and shit.
All right.
Hold on.
Is the audio good and stuff, guys?
I got this shit on a whole other thing.
I don't know if y'all heard that those sound effects or whatever.
Let me make sure.
Let me see if you guys can hear.
Yeah, it looks like you guys can hear that shit.
Okay, I got to turn my goddamn headphones down, though.
All right.
Awesome.
Destiny's speeches by dead.
Yeah.
Hey, man, I told you guys, bro.
Like, this is why Zionists don't want to debate me.
Because here's the thing.
Destiny's very smart, bro.
He knew a lot more than other people did.
You know, he had a good grasp of the partition plan.
The only thing that he was wrong about was the whole 6% thing, like saying that the Israelis own land.
That's a verifiable lie.
And I can go ahead and find that for you if you guys want.
Here, let me go ahead and find it for y'all.
Because they kept asking me, like, what was my source, whatever.
So I'll go ahead and pull it for you guys here in a second.
Give me one sec.
But yeah, that was like the one thing that they kept trying to harp on.
And I was like, dude, like, the Israelis didn't own any of that fucking land.
Like, what?
Oh, yeah.
He was checking Wikipedia too, right?
Yeah, dude.
I didn't, I didn't, I literally didn't search anything, dude.
I that was all guys like me just off the top and like taking some notes.
Like, I'm telling you, bro, like, this is what I do, man.
I might have to be the new Palestine defender, bro.
So, I'm going to read some chats as well.
Sorry, guys.
I didn't mean to forget about the chats.
Obviously, when you're in the mode and debating, you're like, oh, shit, you know?
So, but yeah, dude, like, look, man.
Like, here's the other thing, too.
I got to let you guys know.
Like, anyone that's Arab, right?
You guys know my family's from Sudan and shit like that.
Bro, we are all J-Pilled.
Like, everybody, like, everybody from that part of the world is J-Pill, bro.
You know what I mean?
Like, it is what it is, right?
It's just the reality.
Hold on, Chris is calling me.
Or maybe he's not calling me.
I don't know why this nigga was calling me.
All right.
But yeah, we can go ahead and go through some of the fact-checking and shit.
But it was a good discussion.
It was a good discussion.
All right.
Let me look here.
All right.
Okay, but I'm going to read some chats here.
Okay.
BP Rocket subscribe.
Shout out to you, bro.
Hold on.
Welcome to the OSS.
Mike Ox says, the further you go down the rabbit hole, the T, the rabbit slowly goes silent.
Facts.
God says, W for winning, but Destiny definitely just argues for the sake of argo.
He got cooked.
Okay.
You guys think I won?
Destiny got cooked.
Well done.
Emotional motherfucker with W. Chef Myron, L moderator.
All good.
Israel killed four Americans today.
I'm tired of the fucking parasites, bro.
I'm telling you, man.
These niggas are the worst.
WED, Good work, Myron.
You're going to cook these college kids when you go to college campuses.
Bro, I'm telling you, man.
I am the Zionist destroyer, bro.
And here's the thing.
Like, I'm not even really like, I just know the truth.
Rambo says, I just got here.
What did you do?
Destiny looks defeated.
Hey, man.
I don't think he was prepared for that.
I ain't going to lie.
Ken Rose with five bucks.
Appreciate that, bro.
Thank you so much.
Let me close some of these tabs here real quick.
Let me make sure I didn't miss any of you guys' chats.
Okay.
Shout out to the OSS guys.
I read all OSS chats, so make sure you get in the OSS, man.
I read all of them.
So I'm going through right now and reading them for you guys.
Okay.
Here, Myron, there's a shooting in my town crazy.
I was just there and heard pops kind of freaking out.
That's from Lopez Mayo.
Okay, Lopez Mayo, send me your town name.
WSOS, the funny thing, this is a funny video.
Basom, you said roasting Jonathan Conner kiss on the boys on Piers Morgan Show.
I think it'll be fun.
I'll be willing to get roasted by the chat.
Okay, Druski, audio is good.
Slight echo on your voice.
TPC Films, I think this summons up your whole argument with Destiny, who probably is going to call you or say you're an anti-Semite.
No, he didn't do that.
Destiny did a good job.
Council Club says, not trying to derail the show.
Got you, my air.
Appreciate you, bro.
Oscar says, I don't know if y'all notice, but every time Myron starts cooking, Destiny interrupts.
Yeah.
Patent Mon Slayer, you can end Destiny by reading Jewish Encyclopedia 1925.
Well, yeah.
SS Dom, Jays are the only set of people on planet that operate as religion and ethnicity.
Gives them massive advantages and loopholes.
Absolutely.
TNS Graper, Destiny uses AI.
Therefore, his position is always going to side with the Jays.
Yeah, that's true.
TNS Graper says the framing should be, can Israel give the Palestinians a fair peace offer that's in good faith?
Well, I went over that.
Jail says Destiny is one of those people that doesn't know what's going on.
Then when you explain it to him, he acts like he knows it all.
Yeah.
TJ says, tell them about how months before Rabin's death, Nanyao was doing mock funerals of Rabbin.
Like it was fucking funny.
Oh, I didn't know that.
Mike Oxlong says, the further you go down to Rabbo.
Yep.
Okay.
Caught up on there.
Okay, Myron, will you verify this?
Breaking news.
Florida rolls out new license.
Yeah, that is true, bro.
Penn, that is true.
That is true.
Ken Rose, thank you.
Rabbo says, I just got here.
What did you do to Destiny?
Looks if you.
Okay.
Okay.
We're caught up on chats.
Awesome.
All right.
Let me make sure.
Guys, are we good?
Am I lagging on any of these platforms?
are we good?
Are we good, guys?
Are we good?
We're not lagging.
Okay.
Cool.
I think I might switch off YouTube and go and just go rumble and kick.
Give me one sec, guys.
We'll see here.
Let me double check, though.
Hold on.
But in the meantime, let me show you guys this video to show you guys what I'm talking about here.
Because a lot of people don't believe me with this shit.
So let me show y'all this real quick.
Shout out to this channel.
Very good channel here.
It's called Overzealots.
very good channel that covers this stuff.
Hold on.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Here, let me find this for y'all real quick.
Let's go to the partition plan.
Why it was bullshit.
Time to the 1947 UN partition plan.
Generally.
All right.
So this good and comes with sources as well.
Assembly Resolution 181, which proposed splitting the land into a Jewish and a Palestinian state.
This is viewed by many as one of the first main peace attempts between the indigenous Palestinians and the European Zionist settlers.
To really understand the politics surrounding this partition plan, we need to look at the events that led up to it.
Zionists had been settling and colonizing Palestine for decades by that point.
They pushed Palestinians into economic subjugation, banned their labor and goods from the market, promoted exclusive Hebrew labor, bought up land, and evicted Palestinians from places they'd lived and worked for generations.
So right from the jump, Palestinians had every right to reject any partition of their land, especially one as blatantly unfair as the 1947 UN partition plan.
And we'll break down why exactly it was so unjust in a minute.
Palestinians at the time rightfully viewed the Zionist settlers as hostile and invaders, to be sure, at first.
Yeah, I mean, they straight up just took their fucking land, bro.
I mean, and this is the thing too that no one ever thinks about.
Like, yo, you got these fucking settlers coming in and like taking your land and like killing you as well.
It's like, why would you like negotiate with these people?
Or why would you even give them any of your land?
That's the analogy I always give.
It's like, if you let someone into your house as a guest, right?
And then they come in and they say, all right, bro, I'm taking out the master bedroom and shit like that.
You'd be like, what the fuck?
Like, hell nah.
And you will fight to get your shit back, right?
But for some odd reason, it's like, oh yeah, no, they're supposed to concede and just like let these Israelis take their shit.
Nah, bro.
Hell no.
Of course they're going to fight.
What the hell?
So anyway, yeah, let's go ahead, guys.
Let's go ahead and switch over to Rumble and Kick.
So I don't have to like fucking censor myself.
So we can really get into fact-checking some of this shit.
Because you guys know how fucking YouTube is.
So let me go ahead and give you guys the Rumble and Kick link.
Can you guys jump in?
Rumble and Kick Link, man.
Come on over, guys.
Mods, can you spam it in there for them?
Yeah, of course, YouTube is going to unsubscribe you guys because fucking YouTube is bullshit, bro.
It's the worst app ever.
You don't even get me started on YouTube how they fucking robbed me and shit.
So, yeah, let me go ahead and give you guys the rumble link and the kick link.
Kink is kick.com slash Myron GainesX.
There's the Rumble link.
Mods, can you drop both links?
Okay, Cha-Chink Panther, shout out to you.
Thank you for that.
All right, guys, I'm pinning Chachink Panther's link here.
Or the, yeah, his thing.
This literally has both links here.
Or no, it has the Rumble.
Well, it has the Rumble link in the kick link, but there you go, guys.
Come on over, guys.
Kick or Rumble.
One of the two.
Come on over, Ninjas.
I am getting off of fucking YouTube.
Hate this godforsaken app.
So come on over, Ninjas.
Come on over.
Ending this shit now.
Ending YouTube stream.
For obvious reasons.
Because we're about to get into some of the fact-checking and shit like that.
And once I get into the JFK stuff, I don't like talking about the JFK shit on YouTube for obvious reasons.
So smash the like button for me, guys.
Smash that like button for me.
And then come on over to Kick and Rumble in the meantime.
Smash that like button for me before you come over.
I'd really appreciate that.
Helps with the helps with growing the channel so that more people can fucking find this shit.
We can keep cooking these motherfuckers.
And before I go over, you guys already know what time it is, man.
We gotta, we gotta play a.
We gotta play a victory laugh song, baby.
Come on.
She wanna happen to Rari.
I need those old slashes in the chat for the victory.
Also, we're going over to Rumble and Kick.
Let's go, baby.
All right, you niggas know what time it is.
We got the anthem on.
Oh, slash in the chat.
Let's go.
Hopin' Orari.
All right, niggas, let's go.
She wanna happen.
I see that look in your eyes.
She wanna happen a Ri, I see that you waiting to die.
Truth's about to get real.
You know what time it is, niggas?
Let's go.
Fuck YouTube.
These motherfuckers, man.
We're getting off YouTube.
Come on over.
Kick and rumble, guys.
kick.com slash myron gains x rumble.com slash myron gains x come on over links are pinned in the chat mod spam the links spam the links in there so these leave youtube you guys know what time it is let's go i said are you ready to die they telling me that i'm a billionaire we're gonna cover some uh we're gonna fact check some of the debate points and then we're also gonna cover about some you know conspiracies that we can't talk about youtube like jfk for
example all right niggas into youtube come on over come on over guys YouTube's going down right now.
Kick.com slash Myron GainesX, Rumble.com slash Myron GainesX.
Time to cook, niggas.
▲
Export Selection