Dave Smith and Robbie the Fire Bernstein dissect John Brennan's Fox News defense of the Hunter Biden laptop, Ben Shapiro's "neocon bread" war logic, and Alan Dershowitz's dismissal of Hamas using children as shields. They condemn Israel's "mowing the grass" strategy and collective punishment of Gaza's one million children as morally identical to direct targeting, rejecting Dershowitz's claims as propaganda. The hosts argue that celebrating resistance fighters who kill innocents reveals a loss of humanity, predicting Israel's actions will sabotage Saudi peace deals and expose a dangerous double standard in valuing Palestinian lives. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Epic Porch Tour00:02:07
Fill her up.
You're listening to the gas digital move.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to part of the problem on the gas digital network.
Here's your host.
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I am Dave Smith.
He is preemptively hiding out Anne Frank style in an attic somewhere.
Robbie the Fire Bernstein, this was a smart thing for you to do following the day of jihad.
You got right up to where that attic where you belong.
You got to practice your hiding out in the attic skills now while you can.
Where are you?
This is a freshly purchased attic.
So I've made my accommodations.
I got my food storage here.
I'm good to ride out jihad.
They can do all the jihading they want.
Rob sold his home and bought an attic.
He was just a fair swap.
He was like, I'm going to be just fine here.
All right.
You got to get through three floors of glaim before you get up to this attic.
All right.
There you go.
All right.
Anyway, before we get into the show tonight, me and Robbie the Fire Bernstein are coming to Europe, London, Belfast, Glasgow, Amsterdam.
We're coming all over the place.
ComicDaveSmith.com.
Go there to buy tickets.
The tickets are selling very fast, but there are still some available.
So go on over to comicdave Smith.com if you want to come see us next week when we're out in Europe.
Looking forward to it.
And live run your mouth from the Anne Frank porch.
So come on.
There you go.
If you come, you buy a ticket to the Amsterdam show, you had a free ticket to come see Rob at the porch of the Anne Frank porch.
God, if there's a way to make that happen, that would be the most epic porch tour.
If anyone from Amsterdam knows how to build a porch on the outside of that building in time, I'll be there.
It's a pretty busy street outside, but I don't think the Dutch are pretty passive people.
I don't think they'll mind.
Hezbollah Escalation Risks00:15:28
All right, we have a, there's a few things I wanted to talk about today.
I want to start the show with something unrelated to Israel-Palestine, but of course, we're going to get back into the war over there because it's kind of impossible to not talk about that right now.
But there was a moment that I missed.
I just caught it.
I just caught the clip of this on Twitter.
It was pretty amazing.
Rob has not seen this yet.
I'm excited for you to see this in real time here.
But so Panetta, the former CIA director, was on Fox News Sunday and a question was asked to him that me and Rob have been dying to see somebody in the corporate press ask this question.
And it was asked to him.
And so here we're just, that's all the setup I'll give you.
Here's the question.
Here's the response.
I'm the speaker, but they're investigating still the Hunter Biden situation.
I'd be remiss if I didn't ask you about that letter you signed on to from former intelligence officials saying that the laptop and the emails had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.
Obviously, the New York Post and others saying the Hunter Biden laptop letter was the first thing.
So let's pause it right there.
So now you know, now the secret's been lifted.
Finally, one of the people who signed on to this letter is asked point blank, how do you feel about that now?
I mean, you signed on to this letter that this laptop had all the earmarks of Russian disinformation.
You know, that didn't age too well.
Now, he was also one of the guys.
He was one of the four former heads of the CIA who they, you know, they would, Biden would make sure to mention that.
So anyway, he gets asked the question point blank.
Let's keep playing.
Long.
That letter was used in the debate.
I haven't asked you this, but do you have regrets about that now looking back, knowing what you know now?
Well, you know, Brett, look, I was extremely concerned about Russian interference and misinformation.
And we all know it.
Intelligence agencies discovered that Russia had continued to push disinformation across the board.
And my concern was to kind of alert the public to be aware that these disinformation efforts went on.
And frankly, I haven't seen any evidence from any intelligence agency that that was not the case.
You don't think that it was real?
I think that disinformation is involved here.
I think Russian disinformation is part of what we're seeing everywhere.
I don't trust the Russians.
And that's exactly why I was concerned that the public not trust the Russians either.
I don't want to dwell on this because we have bigger things to talk about and bigger urgency.
But obviously Hunter Body Services laptop and this investigation.
You can tell that even he's a little like surprised by that answer.
And he's like, I don't want to dwell on this because my job here isn't to make you look bad.
My job's to get you over.
But even Hunter Biden has admitted this was his laptop.
All right.
I guess we'll just go with that.
So there you have it.
I've wondered before, I'm sure you have too, like, what would they say if asked about this?
And that's the amazing thing is how much you're like, no matter what happens, these people will just never admit it.
They will, they'll dig their heels in.
They'll come up with some rationalization.
And then when they can't even do that, they'll just go, no, it's still Russian disinformation.
Well, he actually didn't say that.
He's very slippery and it's an interesting maneuver.
But he said he took the opportunity to educate the public about Russian misinformation because Russian information is a constant threat and it's always all around us.
And he's leaving it open to interpretation that there still could have been Russian involvement, but that's not what he's saying.
What he's saying is, yeah, the laptop, that wasn't Russian misinformation, but I took the opportunity of the laptop story to educate everyone about the Russian misinformation.
Well, he goes a little bit further than that where he goes, I still haven't seen any evidence that there wasn't Russian involved.
You can always assume that anything, no matter how factual it is, I think the fact that we breathe oxygen, that's Russian misinformation, because no one's told me that it's not Russian.
I've never seen any evidence that it's not.
Yeah, that's a good, what an interesting standard.
But I love just Brett Baer kind of mumbling at the end.
You go, I mean, Hunter Biden has admitted that it's his laptop, but okay.
Let's not dwell on it.
I mean, we're a news station and you're making shocking claims.
We have more important things.
And obviously, like he's got him there to talk about the war in Israel and Palestine.
But it's just like, he's like, look, we have more important things than to figure out if our intelligence agencies are interfering in our elections.
But we don't have to like waste time with that.
There's probably like a weather balloon we could spend six weeks on.
I was surprised the lie wasn't.
The general population and news agencies were confused about what the word earmark means.
An earmark means the possibility or that it's got the characteristic and features.
And so at no point in time are we actually saying that this was created by the Russians.
We were just letting the public know that the Russians are clearly involved in the process and this had some of the qualities of what they, but we were never saying that this was Biden's laptop.
You guys misinterpreted us.
I would have thought that would have been the lie.
Yeah, I would have thought it would just be something better than still sticking with this isn't the guy's laptop who is admitting that it's his laptop.
Not only that, didn't he threaten to sue?
I think Hunter threatened to sue over releasing the laptop at one point.
Like he was like, hey, that's my laptop.
You can't just release that out to the public.
And then they were like, oh, no, the problem is that you signed this waiver at the repair store.
So it's actually not yours anymore.
You forfeited it over to the guy.
But when he threatened to sue, it was like, well, that's a pretty big admission that it's yours.
Right.
Anyway, I thought that was kind of just very revealing and a little kind of lighthearted and fun compared to some of the other stuff we've been talking about.
So I wanted to play that video for everybody.
I very much did enjoy that.
It's a remarkable thing to let him off the hook for, excuse me, sir, but that altered the course of the last election.
During the live debate, Donald Trump, I think they said that they censored him essentially and said, you're lying about this.
One of the largest news papers on record was removed from the internet off the basis of this report by these intelligence people.
So what happened here?
Yes.
How did you get it wrong?
You changed the trajectory of the history of this country in a pretty profound way by lying.
So what do you think about that?
Do you regret that?
And he's like, well, no, because I.
He might as well just say, because I did my job well.
We here in the deep state were opposed to Donald Trump because we need war abroads at all times.
Wouldn't that be a good thing?
And he didn't create enough new wars.
So I did my part in ensuring that we got a deep state kook back into office so we could have more wars.
And look at, and he goes, and look at the results.
I mean, we have a war.
There's a whole Ukraine fiasco going on.
We're about to fund another war in Israel.
We never would have had action like this under Trump, right?
Like it would be so refreshing if he just came out and said that.
He'd be like, do I regret it?
It worked.
The goal was to get Trump out and we did.
He's like, you know what?
If we actually get this Iran war to happen and the American people to support it, McCain will come back from the dead.
It'll be the second coming of Jesus.
You don't understand how hard we've been working on this.
Yeah, well, there you go.
That would be nice if we heard that.
Okay.
Let's move on.
The next video, moving back toward the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The next video, what did I say was next, Brian?
I think it was the Ben Shapiro one, right?
Let's check this out.
All right.
So the Ben Shapiro, this was from his show today.
And Ben Shapiro laid out, which is very strange, but he kind of laid out some dominoes that he could see falling as a result of this Israel-Israeli war.
So let's listen to what he has to say.
So the real risk for Israel in not finishing off Hamas right now is that this is taken as a sign of weakness, as it certainly would be by Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is a far more dangerous terrorist group than Hamas.
Hamas is a dangerous terrorist group.
They just proved it by killing 1,300 Jews.
Hezbollah currently has over 100,000 highly sophisticated rockets aimed directly at the north of Israel.
Estimates suggest that were Hezbollah to fire all of those rockets, we wouldn't be talking about 1,300 dead Jews.
You would be talking about somewhere between 20 and 30,000 dead Jews, day one.
If Hezbollah gets in, Israel will have no choice but to unleash the Air Force.
If they unleash the Air Force, they're not going to be worried at that point about civilian casualties at all.
They're simply going to have to eviscerate the entire south of Lebanon and topple the regime in Lebanon that supports Hezbollah.
If that happens, Iran undoubtedly gets in and so does Syria.
If that happens, and Israel is now faced with a full war in the north, combined with a war in the South, because they will not have defeated Hamas.
That's the predicate.
If Israel is forced to the wall, the possibility of nuclear exchange is extremely high.
That is why it is very important that the United States provide the material aid to Israel.
All right.
Ben Shapiro here laying out a list of dominoes that could fall.
And of course, there's this weird thing where I'll say this.
I don't disagree with the entire middle section of that argument as being a possibility, you know, at least something that we should be concerned about.
But it's sandwiched on this like bullshit neocon bread.
So like the meat, the meat was all right.
It's the neocon bread.
That's really the problem.
So it starts with him going, now, if Israel doesn't finish off Hamas and shows weakness, then he goes through this whole long list of, you know, Hamas getting involved, Israel's air force retaliating, Iran and Syria getting involved.
And then the bread at the end is, that's why America needs to fund this war right now.
So this is, it's very similar to what these guys would do with the war in Ukraine a lot, where they'd be like, oh, no, no, no, there is a real risk of nuclear war.
And the risk is that Russia wins in Ukraine.
And then if they win, they move on to Poland.
And then because Poland's a NATO country, now we have to go to nuclear war.
Therefore, we must fund a war against Russia just in case, you know, to prevent nuclear war.
It's just so backward.
And you're like, yeah, but wouldn't like having a direct conflict with Russia increase the risk of a nuclear conflict with Russia?
And where exactly are you assuming?
Why are you assuming that they take Poland next?
Why is it the idea that if Israel doesn't do enough killing here, then Hezbollah might start pounding them with rockets for not killing enough people?
That seems strange.
Doesn't it seem a lot more likely that if Israel is slaughtering Muslims by the hundreds of thousands, that then maybe that would be what triggers Hezbollah to want to fire rockets over there and then setting off this whole domino chain of events that Ben Shapiro is laying out here.
Like if anything, you just, it's so ass backward, it borders on insanity to listen to what Ben Shapiro just laid out right there, which by the way, I think is very real.
As I said on the last podcast, there is a very real concern right now that other Arab nations and other Arab forces like Hezbollah may not take this.
They may not just allow Israel to completely flatten Gaza as Lindsey Graham is out there calling for them to do.
But if you recognized all of these concerns, if you go, oh my God, like Hezbollah could get involved, then the Israeli Air Force would have to go like just bomb the shit out of Lebanon.
Then you could have Syria, Iran involved.
You could have other Arab states in the region get involved.
And that could lead to nuclear war.
Wouldn't if you realize that that's a possibility, wouldn't the only rational response to that be like, okay, hold on.
Let's think before we launch this war.
Let's really think about what the implications are here, right?
Like, okay, let's make sure that cooler heads prevail here and we really have a strategy going in of how to avoid this.
It's like, nope, war now, fund it till infinity.
Let's kill as many people as we can because there's such a danger of nuclear war.
This is how like geopolitics works with neocons in charge.
Like the stakes are so high, so let's start bombing.
Let's start bombing things.
We'll figure it out later.
There's really just, I don't know.
I thought there was something about that that was truly unbelievable.
Yeah, I'm hearing the same thing with the Hezbollah risk and the escalations.
That all makes sense, but I don't understand why you feel like there's more of a risk of Hezbollah getting involved if you don't go punish Hamas.
I don't, I don't quite understand that logic.
I think the logic is something like, because then we see weak, then we seem weak, and then they don't respect us because they only respect strength.
This is always kind of like the Warhawk logic that you can't be weak.
If you're weak, then everyone will pounce on you.
You got to be strong.
When you're strong, then nobody's going to do anything to you.
But you're like, yeah, this just doesn't.
There, look, you can say, and this is also part of the thing is that this is Ben Shapiro's worldview: is that no matter what any Muslim ever says is their grievance against Israel, their real grievance is just that they hate the Jews and they want to kill them, right?
So it doesn't matter what they say, but that's kind of just like a convenient way to never have to deal with what anybody's saying.
So like, if you, I'm just saying that if you listen to what any of these people's grievances is with Israel, it's never like that like we just want to kill them because they're Jews.
It's usually like we hate them because we hate the Jews because they oppress our the Palestinians.
You know what I mean?
It's like, that's usually what their line of logic is.
So I'm just saying, if you do choose to take them at their word, you can ignore that at your own peril if you want to.
But if you do listen to what they're saying, then actually slaughtering a whole bunch more Palestinians seems like the most likely way to provoke them into a further escalation.
Anyway, it does not seem that anybody is going to be listening to me on this.
Anyone in power is going to be listening to me on this anytime soon.
I do just find it like really funny, though, the idea of like, look, this can escalate so bad.
And that's why we must escalate right now.
Seeing the Horrific Claims00:06:20
All right.
All right.
By the way, I heard after I had said this on the last episode, I heard Colonel Douglas McGregor basically say the same thing that he was like, what Israel's talking about doing to Gaza right now, he goes, I don't think these other Arab nations are going to stand by and take it.
And I think you might see an invasion of Israel.
And that's that to like, that's just, I came to that conclusion just thinking it through, but then hearing this like kind of like very decorated colonel saying the same thing, I was like, ah, shit.
I was kind of hoping he would say like, no, no, no, that's not going to happen because of X, Y, and Z.
But he was just like, yeah, no, that's a real threat.
Well, might even be what they want, Davey Smith.
Get that old Iran war going.
Well, right.
Right.
Yeah, just might be.
We'll see.
We'll see.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is sheathunderwear.com, the underwear of legends.
The best pair of boxer briefs you will ever own.
They have been sponsoring this show for over three years now.
I still have the first pair that they sent me.
I still wear it.
It still feels just as good as it did three plus years ago when I got it.
This is the only underwear I wear.
I swear by this product.
I love it.
They're also great guys.
Love the guys who run the company.
Go support a longtime sponsor of this show.
And while you're there, get the best pair of boxer briefs you will ever own.
Do that by going to sheathunderwear.com.
Use the promo code problem20 to get 20% off your next order.
That's sheathunderwear.com.
Promo code problem20 for 20% off your next order.
All right, let's get back into the show.
I don't know if you've noticed this is something I'm not particularly a fan of, but I got to say, maybe it's just because social media is so much more prevalent now, but there's been a lot of wars in the last 20 years.
I have never seen so many pictures of dead children on both sides.
Constant pictures of dead kids.
It's really, God, it's disturbing.
I kind of, I'd really prefer to not see them.
Like, I know we talk about this a lot.
I can like understand that there are kids dying.
I don't actually need to see the image of it.
I suppose you can make an argument that it's powerful and that maybe some people do need to see that, but ton, there's so many images of them.
They've kind of changed the rules a little bit here and that it used to be like when the New York Post had those articles with the ISIS beheadings.
I would purposely not look because I was like, I don't need those images rattling around in my brain.
I don't think that's good for your brain.
I don't think you're like, yeah, I just don't think I think the horrors of having to be in war is living with the memories.
If you can choose not to have to go observe those things, I don't think it's helpful for your temperament or, you know, your general sense of well-being.
That's my just personal philosophy.
I agree.
That it affects me.
We got a problem now, though, that the Israelis seem to be wanting to make bold claims about like ultra animalistic behavior as an excuse for engaging in violence.
And then you've got ISIS seemingly trying to brag about some of its behavior.
I mean, not ISIS, I guess, Hamas, or the Palestinians also going, look, they've actually done this to us.
And I think we're in a better environment now with Twitter where you kind of have to take everything with a grain of salt and wait for it to be validated versus when it was kind of curated by Fox or CNN of here are the approved images for you to go see.
And then you kind of had to take that as facts.
I think it's almost better now that everything is false until proven true.
And that it's because people have lied so much, you almost go, shit.
I kind of have to look at this image and think it's almost like a Bigfoot image now.
It's like, oh, was that actually a sighting of Bigfoot?
Well, I can't read the article of you describing that there was a blurry thing out there for me to look at it and decide, oh, do I think that that was a hunter or not?
I kind of have to look at it.
I'm saying it's a positive to me that we're in this new day and age where other people don't get to curate the information for us and decide what's true.
It's a negative, though, that sides seem to want to lie about the extremity of the violence that's been perpetrated towards them that you then have to go look and validate it for yourself.
Yeah.
Well, there was the thing with the babies being decapitated that even Joe Biden said had happened.
And then the White House had to put out a statement saying like, we haven't seen any evidence of this.
And it is one of those things where, you know, you see like there's a lot of, there'll be, people will make these claims coming off like a horrific, you know, this horrific like Hamas terrorist attack.
And they'll say, you know, this one woman just says on a broadcast, I heard from soldiers that babies were decapitated.
And then everyone's running with this thing.
And then you're like, oh, okay, but like, what, have we seen any evidence to corroborate that babies were decapitated?
And they're like, what?
Oh, what?
So you, you're on the side of Hamas and you just want to, and you're like, yeah, listen, you're making a claim.
I want to know if this claim is true.
Obviously, the attack is horrific enough with or without this claim, but you're making it.
So if you're going to make it, if it makes it, if it comes out of the mouth of the president of the United States, I'd like to know if this is true or not.
So there, yeah, it's a, it's, it's a weird dynamic.
And then at the same time, I'm also like, I'd also not like to actually see a picture of it.
If there's a way that I could like, you know, like, I remember one time back in the day, it was like me and Scott Horton from a podcast we did.
And someone made like a video of it, like a compilation type deal with music in the background.
And we were talking about Yemen and they just put pictures of like the starving kids over it.
And I like couldn't even watch it.
and it's a weird thing because it's like i'm having the conversation i'm like i i'm i don't know i'm up there with the people who have like raised the most awareness about the what was going on in the war in yemen um and it's like i can talk about i know what's happening i don't need to see it it's kind of like what you said too it's like i don't actually need to like give myself war ptsd over this like i get it i get how horrible it is i don't you know anyway There's another,
Collective Punishment Context00:15:08
another really interesting clip that you sent me, Rob, that I wanted to play, which was this Mark Lamont Hill clip where he's grilling an Israeli military spokesman about their response.
This was very interesting.
I haven't seen anybody else like this in media actually get this type of this type of aggressive questioning off to an Israeli official.
So let's play this video.
Quote, will only deteriorate exponentially and that crucial life-saving supplies, including fuel, food, and water, must be allowed into Gaza.
So the UN is saying you must do this.
You are saying you're not going to do this.
How do you...
No, we're not saying that.
He's saying do it.
He's saying doing it immediately.
What I'm saying is what you're doing.
No, no, no.
He's saying doing it immediately.
Yeah.
I got you.
I'll tell you exactly what we're saying.
I'm saying we will do everything for the Gazan people.
Once and now, we demand immediate surrender, unconditional surrender of Hamas.
If Hamas people come out with their hands up and clear their weapons, believe me, everything will be restored to Gaza.
It is Hamas in Hamas' head.
Okay, now I understand.
Thank you for clarifying that, sir.
I think we're actually on the same page here.
You're saying that once Hamas leaves, you'll grant the Gazan people food, shelter, fuel, electricity, hospital, schooling.
And if they don't, and if Hamas doesn't leave, then they'll continue to starve and die in hospitals.
You are defining for the international community right now collective punishment.
You're saying until Hamas acts differently, the 2 million people in Gaza are going to be treated this way.
And once Hamas acts differently, these 2 million people in Gaza will be treated better.
That is exactly what collective punishment is.
You're holding them accountable for the actions of others.
That is the definition, the textbook definition of collective punishment, sir.
Now, you may accept that that's what you want to do, but this is absolutely a contravention of international law.
Well, I'll tell you exactly.
No, had we pushed them to the wall, we're not pushing them to the wall.
We want to open a humanitarian corridor so they can leave.
But if Hamas so that who can leave?
Citizens?
You're saying civilians can leave, but only through the Rafah border, correct?
At this point, where is your country?
They can come into Israel.
I'm telling you one more thing I want to say.
No, no, no, no.
I want you to address that point.
Don't just smile, sir, respectfully.
You're saying you're making a corridor.
They can go to Egypt.
You're bombing them.
You say you want to save them, but they can't come in.
First of all, I'm not smiling.
I'm crying in my heart.
He's crying in his heart, Rob.
It did seem like a smile to the naked eye, but we probably just don't understand that it really represented tears.
Look, there's kind of just no getting around that.
And I think Mark Lamont Hill did a very fair job there of saying, like, look, you're turning off water, electricity, and medical supplies to over 2 million Palestinians.
And the UN is saying this is like absolutely in violation of international law and you can't do this.
You have to turn that back on.
And they're like, yeah, we will.
As soon as Hamas surrenders, which look, frankly, we all know they're not going to do, right?
So, you know, and then to get to this point of, you know, well, we're telling the people to leave and Mark Lamont Hill makes a very good point.
Like, why not just let them in to Israel?
And then, you know what I mean?
Like, I don't know.
Now, they can argue that there's security reasons why they can't do that and stuff.
But I think the bottom line is that what it comes down to is that both the United States of America and Israel.
And you could argue, look, you could argue that Russia came to this conclusion over the last couple of years, but they're just kind of like, oh, no, we don't have to follow international law.
Like, we don't play by those rules.
We'll bomb the shit out of another country for not following international law, but we don't have to.
And there is this kind of incredible lack of caring about Palestinian life to just say like, oh, yeah, well, we'll give them what we'll turn their water back on and electricity back on under these circumstances.
But if these circumstances aren't met, then we'll just, we're just not going to give it to them.
Sorry.
I don't know.
What are your thoughts on that?
I think the Israelis are playing some real weasel tricks here where they like to say it's collateral damage.
The civilian's life, the civilian life loss is collateral damage at the hands of Hamas.
And it's a ridiculous game to me that they're dropping these leaflets telling people, a million people that they got to head south.
And now having the leaflet fall on your house telling you that you have to head south is like you've been tagged.
You're it, that you're now a human shield.
You're no longer a person.
If you stay, you are now a human shield.
And so Hamas is at fault for your death, not the Israelis for having told you we're going to, because they tagged you.
They give you a leaflet.
So now you're collateral damage.
It's very similar to, and maybe we can even play the clip from last week of, what's his name?
The lawyer guy on Fox.
Alan Dershowitz.
Alan Dershowitz on Fox, where he's saying that Israel has never killed a civilian.
Yeah, why don't you bring that video up, Brian?
It's in our text, our text thread there that we had.
But yeah, it's like the idea that, and now also, by the way, that corridor that they're telling them they have to leave through was also being bombed.
There is some there's a lack of clarity, I guess, about who exactly was bombing them.
It was first reported that it was Israel was bombing the exit.
Now some people are claiming that it was actually Hamas bombing them and trying to make it look like it was the IDF doing it.
Regardless of who was doing that, which I, you know, certainly in the fog of war, especially in the first week of a war, it's hard to be sure about a lot of these details.
But regardless of that, for innocent civilians who would like to leave, that now is not a viable option.
So what is dropping these pamphlets saying or these leaflets saying, hey, we'd like you to leave?
Okay, now we totally have the right to bomb the shit out of these people.
That doesn't pass the smell test.
I do have to ask, though, because I mean, obviously the magnitude of what's happening here is a lot larger.
But collective punish, isn't that kind of, it seems to me like that's actually used universally.
Like we don't, we don't really trade with North Korea.
It would be better for the North Koreans if we interacted with them.
And you got people who are starving in North Korea.
I don't think South Korea lets them out or, you know, how are we trying to do that?
Well, I don't think that's right about South Korea letting them out.
Yeah, that's right.
I don't think that's right about South Korea.
I think South Korea will take.
You mean if North, if you flee from North Korea, South Korea will let you, if you can just get past, you're good.
Yeah, they've taken a few defectors in.
I think it's very hard for people to get out in general.
But your point is well taken about like sanctions and things like that.
That is certainly collective punishment for what the government has done.
Right.
And just military actions in general.
No, but sanctions, I think, are probably the most egregious, like, I mean, short of like carpet bombing and like full-out war.
I think they're an egregious example of that, where we actually go like, you know, if you think about it, sanctions on what, I don't know, take any of the countries we've had strict sanctions on, whether it's Iran or Cuba or whatever, North Korea, wherever.
It's not as if their rulers aren't still living lavishly.
Right.
It's not as if they're not still in palaces, right?
Like all we're doing is saying we are going to punish the people who are under this repressive.
To try and get them to overthrow their government, which never happens.
Right, exactly.
So, and one of the things that's really crazy about it is that oftentimes democracy will be used as the excuse, you know, like this country isn't democratic.
Although that doesn't matter, of course, in areas where it does, you know, like the doctrine is like that we must bring democracy to Iraq and Iran and, you know, whatever, Cuba or whoever, but not so much in, you know, Palestine or in Egypt or in Saudi Arabia or places like that.
So, but, but we'll use that as an excuse, you know, that like, well, this guy's a tyrant and that's why we have to sanction them.
But if you really think about it, wouldn't that be that much more of a reason why it's, it's so evil to punish the people?
Because you don't even have the argument that like the people are voting for this.
You're like, oh, they don't even have a say in this.
They're just ruled by this person.
So yeah, you're, you're absolutely right that collective punishment is not something that Israel has invented here, but they certainly are exercising it in a pretty brutal, pretty brutal way.
All right, let's go to that clip that you wanted to show.
This is on Hannity.
So you know it's going to be a very thoughtful, intelligent conversation.
He had Alan Dershowitz there to argue the pro-Israeli side.
And he had Cornell West, who's presidential candidate.
Is he on, I think, for the Green Party or something, some lefty party.
So yeah, let's play a little bit of that.
Okay.
They are largely right, but lacking nuance.
No, I didn't say lack nuance.
That's the title of the piece.
Okay.
Actual words.
Well, I just be very honest.
I got it here in front of words, too.
The words were that Israel's policies of war crimes and collective punishment against Palestinians are reaching Israel and the United States are primarily responsible for killing innocent people.
Anybody who kills innocent people are engaging in barbaric acts.
You said Israel, what nation and so forth.
Israel and the United States are primarily supported and enabled.
You explain to this audience.
I want you to explain.
How is Israel and the United States responsible for beheading 40 children?
How?
I'm talking about the context.
545 Palestinian children died in August 2004.
Not one American said a word.
I believe a Palestinian baby has the same value as an Israeli baby.
So when you have that kind of vicious hatred and revenge, you get responsive hatred and revenge.
They are all wrong.
They're all war crimes.
They're all to be condemned, but you cannot simply look at this particular moment without the larger backdrop of an ugly occupation and the ugly attacks chronically against Palestinians.
Those are not your words, largely right.
Israel and the United States are primarily responsible for this attack.
Professor Dershowitz.
Well, I complained when Palestinian children were killed, but I explained why they were killed.
Here is one of the leaders of Hamas.
For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry.
The elderly excel at this, and so do the children.
This is why we have formed human shields of the women and the children.
Hamas is the ones responsible for the killing of Palestinian children.
Also, Hamas has a term.
It's called the CN.
Let's pause it right here.
But by the way, because there's just, there's a lot of tricks that get used in the framing of all of this stuff.
And so, you know, look, even if the human shield thing, which some of their claims of being a human shield are a little bit dubious, sometimes you're like, well, what do you really mean?
Like that they use people as human shields.
You know, there's that, like, that the Israeli propaganda, like meme, which is like an Israeli soldier fighting in front of a carriage with a baby.
And then it's Hamas fighting in back of a carriage with a baby.
And it's like, that's, you know what I mean?
Like basically being like, oh, there's an asymmetry here.
Like these guys are fighting so their kids don't get killed.
These guys are fighting to put their kids in front of them.
It's not exactly as if that's what Hamas does.
It's more the claim is that they'll store munitions in hospitals and things like that.
I think there have been examples of them doing this.
But look, even if it was the most cartoonish version of this, right?
Like, you know, you're watching a movie and the bad guy has like a little girl with a gun to his head and the good guy's got the gun pointed at the guy.
And he's like, oh, damn it, I can't shoot now because he's got this little girl in front of him.
Like if that guy in the movie just shot the little girl in the head, like you still wouldn't just be like, well, I mean, it's the bad guy's fault.
He held up a little girl.
So I'm going to shoot him in the head.
You know, you still be like, whoa, like if you watch that in a movie, you'd be like, whoa, you're not the good guy anymore.
Like, I can't, that's not like acceptable.
Like, even if that, that does make, if this were all completely true in the most cartoonish version, that would make Hamas evil.
It still would not exactly be an excuse for you to just kill the kids.
So that's point number one.
Number two, this thing that they do where they kind of like read off like, this is the most fucked up thing that a guy from Hamas has said and he said this.
Therefore, doesn't that sum up the whole situation?
Just saying you could go through some quotes of what Israeli leaders have said over the years.
These people are animals and we'll treat them as such.
That was like a week ago.
Yes.
I mean, I don't even know if that was a direct line, but it's a quote.
But no, I mean, from almost every prime minister of Israel from 1948 through today, you can find quotes of them talking about how Palestinians are dogs and deserve to die.
They're animals.
There's no innocent Palestinians, all types of like really horrific shit like this.
So it's just, you pick out a quote and then you frame the issue as like, look, we have these civilized people who want peace versus these people who are saying that they're all about death.
And it's just, it's, um, it's like a framing tactic to just pick out one of these quotes and then kind of go from there.
And they'll say these things like, you know, they'll be like, well, you know, in the founding charter of Hamas, it says that all the Israelis should be pushed into the sea or like something like that.
And it's not like it's untrue.
It's like, yeah, there's, there's things like that in there and it's, it's pretty bad.
But like the founding charter of the Likud party says that Israel ought to take over all of the land, all of Gaza and all of the West Bank.
That is all Israeli territory.
It's like, okay, you know, that's not great either, right?
Like that's, so you can look at a lot of these things that are like, yes, there is, there is rhetoric on all sides that is pretty horrible.
And I'm fine with calling it out.
It's just like, you should call it all out.
That's all.
Targeting Innocent People00:13:12
Okay, let's keep playing.
The CNN strategy is induce Israel into killing Palestinian children by using them as human shields.
Then parade the bodies out on CNN and you'll see what happens.
People like Cornell West will engage in crocodile tears, blame it on Israel when the entire blame is on the Palestinians Hamas for using their children, their children as human shields and then using their children as shields.
What is Hamas's charter?
I have the same outrage when Palestinian babies are killed.
I want you to have the same indignation when Palestinians are killed.
Not when they're killed by Palestinians.
You can't make a moral comparison.
When Nazi kids were killed in the bombings of Dresden, I didn't have the same comparison when Jewish kids were put in gas chambers and crematoriums.
You're a professor of theology.
Don't you understand the moral difference between deliberately murdering a kid and having collateral damage because there are human shields?
You're running for president of the United States.
What would you do?
Wait, wait, wait, let me tell you.
Let me ask the question.
What would you do if they were firing?
If terrorists were firing at American children in America and the terrorists were hiding behind Palestinian children, would you allow the killing of Americans to continue or would you go and get the terrorists, even if it meant possibly collateral damage on Palestinians?
What would you do?
I'll tell you exactly what I would do.
First, truth and morality tend to be two casualties in any context of war.
I would want to tell the American people the truth.
I would tell them what the context is, how we found ourselves in this situation.
And I would not jump for a military invasion and a genocidal attack on a genocidal attack on Gaza.
No, no.
Because you're talking about genocide.
Where are they supposed to go?
When you're terrorists, this is like Warsaw, 1943.
Where do they go?
Where do they go?
Let me tell you where they go to the government.
They go to the UN.
UN is killed.
They go.
No, no, no.
The UN has places in Gaza.
They go to the Razor.
People have been killed in the last few days.
They go to Egypt.
They go to- Wait a minute.
Let me make another thing clear.
Gaza City is very dense.
Gaza itself, the Gaza Strip, there's lots of room.
The Israelis have said, get out of Gaza City, go to Rafah, go to Khan Yunus, go to other places.
And you know what?
I'm not saying that.
No water, no fire.
Wait, no electricity.
All right, let's just pause it for a second.
Again, it's not.
Look, even the example that Alan Dershowitz makes there, where he says, well, look, you know, like there were children who died in Dresden or whatever.
There were children who died, you know, in the bombing campaigns against the Nazis.
But no, I don't feel as bad for them as I do for the Jews who died in the Nazis.
And I don't know.
I do.
Like, I don't blame the children for the rise of the Nazis.
And like, to me, I go, yeah, that was an innocent kid who died in that too.
Like, why, why are we not supposed to have any feeling for them?
Or why is it like, like, that doesn't make sense to me?
As a Jewish person, I don't see how that makes sense.
I don't see how that kid, like, I feel bad for any kid who got killed who's like had no responsibility in any of this.
And I guess, yeah, the question almost would come down to like, how much did they suffer before they died?
I'd rather they suffered the least amount if they were to ultimately die.
But yeah, I just don't see that as being like a very compelling point.
And then the other thing that he's pointing out, I mean, look, this is all just, it's like your thing about the point you were making about dropping the leaflets.
Like this just doesn't, it's like, oh, no, just go out, just get out of the city and go out into like the wilderness.
It's like with no electricity or water or medical supplies, you're just telling 2.3 million people just get out there, get out of this city.
Like that is just not, that's not practical.
That's not feasible as an actual way of avoiding this.
I'm going to say Jew weasel tricks.
Hey, we're here and we've got a mission.
It's an important mission.
We have no intention of hurting any innocent people whatsoever.
And there might be collateral damage, but it's their fault if there's collateral damage because we're ignoring all of the facts on the ground of where these people are going.
It's just, oh, well, they can just go to like, go to the U.S. single UN building.
What are you talking about?
Yeah, like, I, I don't, I don't know exactly what the facilities that the UN has in Gaza are, but I'd be pretty safe in betting it can't accommodate 2.3 million people and keep them out of harm's way.
Like, what this is just, it's, it's an utter nonsense.
You just want to make it out to be like, no, like the Jews aren't just indiscriminately killing innocent people.
But they are.
All right, let's keep playing a little more.
I'm not even defending.
Awesome.
You are?
I'm not defending.
I'm a lot of people.
I'm defending the suffering of Palestinian.
I want to hear war.
I want to hear you.
Somebody who commits war crimes are barbaric.
I'm saying that explicitly, but I want you to say if the Israeli defense forces are killing children.
No, no, are they barbaric too?
No, no, are they at all bulbaric?
No, no, no.
If they target children.
Yes.
Have they ever targeted?
No.
Never in the head of the NATO.
Have they ever targeted a child?
Let me pause again.
We can stop there because that's what we wanted to get to.
It's just the height of Jewelry of they firstly to make the distinction.
Well, as long as they're not targeting, it doesn't matter.
If you're killing a kid, you're killing a kid.
You know, if I, if I go out in my backyard and I line up a kid and I shoot him, that's really terrible.
If I decide to go out in my backyard and just shoot machine guns and I'm not targeting kids and I kill a whole bunch of kids, yeah, I guess it's not as barbaric as walking out of my backyard and shooting a kid in the face, but I still just walked outside and I shot a machine gun indiscriminately into what could have been a park with kids and kids died.
I'm still that.
Yeah, also, you see what I'm saying?
The distinction here of, well, if you didn't target it, it doesn't matter.
And that's not even, it's not even, it's even worse than that.
Like I completely get the point you're making and I agree with it, but it's even worse than that.
It's like if you go, all right, like let's say one example is you walk into your backyard and you shoot a kid in the face.
And the other example is there's a guy in this building you want to kill.
You know that there's a bunch of kids in there.
You know that firing this machine gun into the building is going to kill some of those kids.
And you still do it.
And you go, yeah, but I was, I was doing it to kill the guy.
I wasn't doing it to kill the kids.
It's like, yeah, dude, but you knew there were kids in there.
Look, also, by the way, there have been lots of incidents of the IDF actually targeting innocent civilians.
So go, if you want to go Google mowing the grass, this is what they consider their military strategy.
It explicitly involves targeting civilians.
It means like you have to keep kind of like, they got to keep shelling Gaza and the West Bank in order to like every net, not let them grow too powerful.
And it's, it's, look, I, when I was having that debate with Ben Dominic that Will Kane was hosting at one point, he said that line.
And this is a line.
This is one of the things where the Israeli propaganda, they're very good at kind of repeating these slogans and they repeat them so much that everyone else starts repeating them, even though they're just not true.
They're just not true.
You know, what's how does it go, Rob?
It's like, you probably know this one.
What is it?
It's a land without people for a people without land.
That was like the original Israeli like slogan.
Like that's what Israel was.
Look, it's a land without people.
And here's the Jews, a people without land.
Except there were people there.
Like it's just not true.
It's like, you know what I mean?
And like, so one of these things that gets mentioned over and over again is that Israel doesn't target civilians.
Israel doesn't target civilians.
And Alan Dershowitz can actually, with a straight face, say they've never targeted children.
They've, excuse me, as we speak, they have cut off the water, electricity, and medical supplies to a million children.
I'm sorry.
That is targeting children.
Again, this is like, it's like Obama's drone campaign and them claiming that like this isn't really targeting, this is targeting the bad guys.
It's like, well, at what point when you know that 98% of the people killed with these strikes are innocent civilians, and then you keep having these strikes and you know damn well before you launch them that innocent people are going to be killed at a certain point.
Like the reason I'm adding this to your point is that even in the example you used, you go, okay, it's a little bit more brutal to just kill the kid, but if I'm just waving a gun around, like in effect, I've still killed kids.
Like the effect of it is still the same.
But I'm saying I agree with you.
But then on top of that, when you know for sure, when you've gone out every day and shot guns around and it always kills innocent people and you continue to do it, knowing that the result of this is going to be killing innocent people, at this point, there is no distinction left.
You're doing the same thing.
Whether you're, yes, they're not doing it in as viciously barbaric a way as Hamas did it.
But it's still the same thing.
That's still targeting innocent people.
If you commit an act that you know will result in innocent people dying, that is indistinguishable from targeting innocent people.
That's what I'd say.
I will say, go ahead.
No, now that we've beaten up the Israeli response, which I think this is all fair criticism, I guess in Mits, like not being able to readily define, you know, civilian from enemy, particularly, you know, what happened pre-wall with like the civilian bombers, I mean, with the suicide bombers and that kind of stuff.
And I still, like I've said, I'm a dumb hippie.
I think people get along.
I think most of these people just want to live their lives.
But how do you get, how do you get around the punishing of the collective?
You know, it's almost like, not to endorse it, but it's a little bit of like the Viet Cong problem.
It's a little bit, you know, you're kind of in a sticky situation when you can't define specifically who the enemy even is.
Yeah, no, it's definitely tough.
I mean, look, I think the only, like the only hope for actually making this situation better and moving forward, and this is, I'm not saying this is an easy thing to get to, but you need kind of a new generation of leadership on both sides.
Like Netanyahu and Hamas are not going to come to any type of like peace.
What I, what I would like to see ideally would be that the Israeli response to this should be to impeach Netanyahu.
And I don't know enough about Israel, Israeli law, like what he could be charged with, but I do know that the guy explicitly used a strategy of building up Hamas as a as a tool to undermine Palestinian unity.
He built up Hamas and then failed in the most spectacular way to protect his people from the threat that he built up.
And if that doesn't mean like you should go, he should like be forced to go live in fucking Palestine for the rest of his life.
You know what I mean?
Like he should just be nowhere near power ever again.
And what I'd like to see is them fortify their defenses in whatever way they can, figure out what the hell went on here.
This is the most monumental intelligence failure, perhaps in world history.
It's so much worse than even like 9-11.
It's just so much like the thing you knew that you were supposed to be protecting against the whole time you failed to protect.
But what you'd like to see is in a moment like this, some type of like transcendence where it's just like you can come to some type of thing where it's like, look, we cannot take this anymore.
And we will agree to like some of like the demands of the Palestinian people.
But if anything like this ever happens again, then it's like full war.
You know, you'd like to see like something of that nature.
But yeah, I agree with you.
It's a tough situation where there are these people in Hamas who absolutely deserve to be brought to justice, just like there are people on the Israeli side who deserve to be brought to justice.
And it's pretty goddamn impossible to when they're all hiding out in this incredibly densely populated area.
I'm just saying the solution to that isn't just, well, we'll kill the kids then.
And then one thing I like, I'm just curious, you might not know this, but how are these people in a situation where they're reliant on Israel for electricity and water?
Well, because Israel's had a full blockade on the country for years now.
And so they won't, Israel dictates what's allowed in and what's allowed out.
So they were, and now they say it under the guise of like, they have to monitor everything that's allowed in and out because otherwise like terrorist supplies would get in as their like justification for it.
But Israel controls completely what supplies come in and out of Palestine in every sense.
They're not allowed to have an airport or a seaport.
They're not allowed to have their like, you know, power plants and things like this.
Israel's in complete control of all of it.
Dictating Permissible Discourse00:10:51
Could they be self-reliant for water?
Like, is that that?
I don't know.
I don't know exactly what their capabilities are or what their natural resources are.
I don't know.
But I know that they are completely dependent on Israel and Israel does not allow the world to help.
And like the world would be trying to help a lot more for years.
You know, it's been like the U.S. has used its veto power at the U.N. to basically stop, you know, like Israel from being forced to stop what they're doing.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Z-Biotics.
Let's face it, after a night of drinks, you don't bounce back the way you used to.
I know I've been there too.
That's why you got to try Z-Biotics.
Z-Biotics Pre-Alcohol Probiotic is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic.
It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings the day after drinking.
Here's how it works.
When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut.
It's this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for your rough next day.
Z Biotics pre-alcohol produces Z-Biotics pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break down this byproduct.
It's designed to work like your liver, but in your gut where you need it.
Just remember to drink Z-Biotic before drinking alcohol.
Drink responsibly and get a good night's sleep to feel your best tomorrow.
Give Z-Biotics a try for yourself.
Go to zbiotics.com/slash P-O-T-P right now, and you'll get 15% off your first order when you use the promo code P-O-T-P at checkout.
Z-Biotics is backed with a 100% money-back guarantee.
So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money.
No questions asked.
Remember, head to zbiotics.com slash p-otp and use the promo code p-otp at checkout for 15% off.
Thanks to Z-Biotics for sponsoring this episode.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Okay, but before we wrap up the show today, I did want to mention, because I guess I do want to be fair.
I mean, I know people accuse me of both sidearisms or whatever.
But if I'm going to get accused of that, I should, you know, at least mention that I do try my best to attack both sides when I think they're wrong.
You know, after kind of a week of basically, and, you know, I don't know if you guys have been watching the shows recently.
You kind of know what my position on all of this has been.
But I did mention, you know, you, I think I talked about on the last podcast that, yeah, there are at some of these pro-Palestinian marches, some pretty outrageous things being said and a lot of like, whatever.
I guess it was reported that like gas the Jews was being yelled at one of these.
And so I did post something about that on Twitter recently.
This was a protest at George Mason University and they were chanting some pretty crazy things.
This was my tweet and it was very revealing and interesting what some of the responses to this were, especially for somebody like me, who's pretty well known for where I stand on this issue.
But I said, it's totally reasonable to criticize the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinians and to care about the innocent Palestinian lives lost.
But this is just disgusting.
If you've gotten to the point where you celebrate innocent children's murderers, then you've lost your soul.
You have no leg to stand on when criticizing others for taking innocent lives.
So that was my post.
This got a lot of interesting pushback.
I had like commies who were like, you know, telling me, you go, oh, so you're telling me that you can't, you know, fight back against occupation and all of this stuff.
I also, I had one, Connor Friedman, who evidently works over at the Libertarian Institute, an institute that I think I've done quite a bit to promote over the years.
But he called me out for this on Twitter.
He said, there's nothing in that quote celebrating the killing of civilians.
They're pointing to the asymmetry in military capabilities.
You're attempting to dictate the terms of permissible discourse and jumping on the bandwagon of a campaign to paint pro-Palestinian protests as dangerous.
So it sucks.
So by the way, let me just say, here's the quote.
This is what they were saying.
Okay.
I just want to say, they said, they've got tanks.
We've got hang gliders.
We've got hang gliders.
Glory to the resistance fighters.
That's what they were chanting.
They were saying, we've got hang gliders.
Glory to the resistance fighters.
How else would you interpret that other than they're on the side of Hamas who just came in with hang gliders and started murdering civilians?
We've got hang gliders.
Glory to the resistance fighters.
Yes, Connor, they were just talking about the asymmetry and military capability.
Really?
Is that the point that they were making?
And then to say, I'm attempting to dictate the terms of permissible discourse.
Well, I guess, kind of.
Yes, I'm attempting to say that the discord of praising child murderers is pretty evil.
Yes, I'm sure if there were Israel.
You're also, you're not saying it's illegal.
You're not saying that these people should be kept from, you know, from going to do that.
I'm just saying that you've lost their souls.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm not like, I'm not dictating in any type of legal sense.
And you're also not making the claim that anyone who has a pro-Palestinian attitude or thinks that the Palestinians are mistreated shouldn't be allowed to protest or say so.
That's not your statement.
Your statement is if you're celebrating murder of innocent civilians on either side, you've lost humanity.
Yes, that's clearly my point.
And then like, you know, so to say that's, that's dictating the terms of permissible discourse.
It's like, yeah, I'm sure if there were a bunch of Israelis cheering on dead Palestinian kids, you, you would not, you would say, I can't criticize them because then I would be dictating the terms of permissible discourse.
Like, come on, this is like so stupid.
And then, yeah, the idea that I'm trying to paint all pro-Palestinian protesters is dangerous.
It's like, I don't know, like every one of my shows since this has happened and pretty much every one of my tweets since this has happened has been about how horrible the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.
We've been over here trying to minimize what happened to the Israelis and you're trying to pretend.
But anyway, so it's, it was just a pretty what, I mean, that I, I only brought that one up because it's like, I think for someone from the Libertarian Institute to come at me like that, one of their probably their, I would say definitely one of their biggest promoters is like, like I wore a Libertarian Institute shirt on Rogan.
I've talked them up like a bunch of times.
Pretty outrageous to come at me like that, especially knowing where I stand on this issue.
But it is kind of, it was, I mean, I got called a Zionist by like a bunch of these fucking lefties.
But so it's pretty interesting that like after, you know, if you think about like our, if you just think about all the shows we've done since this has happened, I've also done a debate on Fox News since this has happened, like since all of this has happened.
And then one time there's a group of people cheering for the murderers of children.
And I go, hey, yeah, don't do that.
And then they're like, oh, okay.
So I see.
So you're on the other side.
You're really just here to limit the acceptable discourse or something.
Like, Jesus, it is, it's, look, man, war makes people really stupid.
I just don't know what else to say about it.
On all sides, it just makes people really stupid and evil.
It's a shame.
I also, just, I think that this is going to turn out to be Israel's strategic blunder in that it seems like the Iranians have already, you know, probably gotten the Saudi Arabia-Israel deal at least put on pause.
And I also think that with social media, Israel is going to have a hard time convincing people of this was moral because those were terrorists and the terrorists did it to their own people.
I mean, that's clearly what they're trying to do is to go, these terrorists are, well, what they're trying, I mean, they go, this group of people voted for these terrorists because this group of people supports this group of terrorists.
These terrorists are so barbaric.
We can't deal with them on human terms.
And so we have no choice but to take the following actions and it's their own fault.
The problem is when we're seeing images of buildings just being taken down or otherwise, I think you're going to have a hard time selling people on that because it just doesn't seem to line with reality or normal logic.
I just don't.
Just basic morality.
Yeah.
And so, and they're almost trying to go, all right, guys, what just happened to us is so terrible.
We need everyone to look the other way and we need everyone to be outraged.
We need everyone to be so upset about what happened to us that you're all okay with this.
Like we need, we need you to have the same bloodlust we do.
We need you to pretend as if your mom was just raped.
And so what would you do?
We're going to do that.
And we need everybody on board.
I don't think that strategy is going to work.
And I don't think it's going to serve them well.
Yeah.
No, listen, I agree with you on that as well.
And look, if there's think about it like this, if in America there was, let's say there was somebody who killed a bunch of innocent people and the cops were pursuing him and they were looking for him and he went into like a high-rise apartment building and they were like, okay, we know he's in there.
Blow up the high-rise apartment building.
I don't think anybody, like it wouldn't take us one fraction of a second to know exactly what just happened there and go, no, what?
You can't do, that's just unacceptable.
You know, like it just, you can't do that.
But doing that overseas or in this case, Israel doing that over this border over in Gaza, that's totally acceptable now.
And the only reason why you could come to that conclusion is quite simply, you go, we just don't value their life the same way we value our own life.
And the reason why it's going to be tough to sell this is because it's just so obvious that that's the case.