Dave Smith responds to Coleman Hughes, dismantling the binary "good vs. bad" narrative by exposing Israeli war crimes, including cabinet-ordered starvation and live ammunition use against civilians. Smith critiques the 2005 Gaza disengagement as a strategic freeze rather than a voluntary peace move, citing Dov Weisglass, while challenging media bias regarding infant mortality statistics. A subsequent debate questions whether Israel's actions constitute genocide, contrasting the 3% casualty rate with historical precedents like the Holocaust and Rwanda, ultimately arguing that the intent to destroy Gaza and potential ethnic cleansing transcends mere military necessity. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Responding to a Critical Video00:07:26
What's up?
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I am Dave Smith.
I'm rolling solo for this episode.
A quick couple of quick notes.
Number one, next week, I will be out headlining a weekend at the comedy Mothership.
Those shows are all sold out.
But for those of you who are coming, Tim Butterly just added to the show.
So he'll be featuring all weekend.
So for those of you guys who are coming, looking forward to that.
It's going to be some great shows.
And then I got a bunch of stuff coming up for the rest of the year.
I know off the top of my head, I know we'll be in Tacoma, Spokane, Vegas, Detroit, Dallas, Fort Worth, Poughkeepsie.
I got a bunch of other dates up there, comicdave Smith.com.
So go, Robbie Bernstein will be with me on all of those shows.
Okay.
So for today's episode, I thought I would respond to a video.
I'm a little bit late on this, but this was put out last week, the week that I was on vacation.
It's a video by Coleman Hughes defending Israel.
The video is titled, excuse me one second, so my thoughts on what's happening in Gaza.
Coleman is a, he's a podcast host, but he was also, he's an author.
He was a Columbia student, I believe, and kind of made a name for himself by being, you know, in opposition to like woke insanity on college campuses, probably an area that we would have largely, we would largely agree about.
And I think he made for kind of an interesting spokesman for that anti-woke cause.
He was like a bright black student at Columbia.
So it was a little bit more like kind of powerful of him being like, yeah, we really don't need all this bullshit.
Anyway, I did a response video to him once.
I think it was over a year ago when he was on Rogan and I, in my estimation, getting it all wrong about the war in Israel and Gaza.
But I particularly, the reason why I wanted to respond to this was just simply, it was interesting to me that in this moment now, where just about everyone seems to be trying to get off of this sinking ship, which is defending the indefensible, defending what Israel's doing to Gaza.
And it just seems to me like a lot of people are jumping off of that.
And even the people, you know, like we've talked about a bit on the show here, but whether it was the tone, even in.
like the Charlie Kirk, Megan Kelly interview, we have these two champions of of Israel.
You know, even being like Jesus Christ, you guys can't smear everyone who's criticizing you and we can say if the war is going too far and all this, and you've got obviously a lot of high profile people like Piers Morgan who have like completely flipped uh story.
You know, I mean listen, it's just it gets tough.
I'm sure we'll get into this in the in the show, but anyway, I found that kind of Of interesting that this guy's digging his heels in while so many people are fleeing the ship.
And then also, I just got flooded with people on social media who were asking me to respond to this.
And so I figured, you know, really, I am just an instrument of the people.
So if you're asking me to do this, why not?
Now, I have, I saw a few clips of this, and they were like, at least one of them was like a pretty long clip.
So I think I have seen most of this, or at least part of this, but I've not watched the whole video all the way through.
So I figured we'll jump into this and I will give my thoughts.
Let's start it up.
Welcome to another episode of Conversations with Coleman.
Today, I'd like to share a few thoughts about what's happening in Gaza.
This is a difficult topic, and there's no way to say anything meaningful about it without offending people, but I think it's important to discuss nonetheless.
As I've said on this show and on a few of my Joe Rogan appearances over the past few years, I believe that in the war between Israel and Hamas, the Israelis are the good guys and Hamas are the bad guys.
That may seem like a cartoonish way to describe the situation, or it might seem like an obscene opinion given the images of emaciated children that you've probably seen over the past few weeks, but it's still the truth.
And it's a truth that's incredibly easy to lose sight of amid the day-to-day coverage of this war.
All right, let's pause it right there already.
I do think that, as I've said many times before, you know, I think describing wars as good guys and bad guys is like, I'm not saying 100% of the time, probably 99.9% of the time is a ridiculous starting point.
Like, I'm not saying there can't ever be a situation where it is pretty cut and dry of like who the good guys and who the bad guys, at least in this conflict, are, but it's almost never that simple.
Um, it's, it's, you know, think about it.
This is like, this is the way a seven-year-old boy talks when he's playing with action figures who are the good guys and the bad guys.
And even, you know, in say the example, say the example of World War II.
And I am taking absolutely no controversial opinions on this just for the sake of this argument.
Okay.
So forget any of the stuff that, you know, Darryl Cooper or Pat Buchanan or anyone like that is making their arguments about World War II.
I'm saying take the official, completely, you know, state-backed, you know, what they teach you in government schools about World War II.
You know, our partner was Joseph Stalin.
Does he just magically become the good guy because he was fighting Adolf Hitler?
Like, I don't know.
I mean, it seems to me like maybe we could have a slightly more sophisticated way to construct how we view these things.
But I don't think to Coleman's specific point in this example, like, you know, from the perspective of like the Ukrainians who were starved by Joseph Stalin or their family members, like, yeah, you're not, he's not the good guy to them.
And so also, I don't think it's, I don't think calling Israel the good guy in this situation is just, I don't think the issue with it is like, that's crazy because of these images that we've seen.
It's, it's crazy because of what Israel's been doing.
It's, it's hard for, you know, when a group of people are inflicting such a level of human suffering on innocent people, it's seems in in it seems overly simplified and insulting to just refer to them as the good guys.
Now, of course, the calculation that most people Who are critical of Israel are making isn't just, okay, there's Israel and Hamas, and now you have to divide them into bad guy, good guy.
I'm certainly not working on that framework with my criticism of Israel.
It's more that you recognize that there are also innocent Palestinians who are just being, you know, destroyed by Israel.
The Problem with Mental Gymnastics00:08:04
So anyway, I just think this is very shallow analysis to start with.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is the Wellness Company.
If you've ever felt like your mind is racing, your mood is dipping, or stress is stealing your clarity, you're not alone and your only options are not prescriptions with side effects.
Introducing Mind Lift from the Wellness Company, a doctor-formulated nutraceutical designed to restore calm, clarity, and emotional balance.
This unique blend features low-dose lithium oritate to gently uplift your mood and support healthy cognition.
Powerful adaptogens like Ashwaganda help your body manage stress by supporting adrenal function and regulating cortisol levels.
It also includes calming GABA and key amino acids to ease anxious feelings and support neurotransmitter production.
DHA from algae rounds out the formula, protecting brain cells and promoting smooth communication between neurons.
Maybe it's time to reset your mind naturally.
Head to TWC.health/slash problem and use the promo code problem to get 10% off plus free shipping.
Again, that's TWC.health slash problem, promo code problem for 10% off.
All right, let's get back into the show.
The war right now is that both sides have committed war crimes.
And in both cases, those war crimes are falling on Palestinian civilians.
The truth, of course, is that every war features war crimes, but usually each army commits those crimes against the enemy's population.
In this case, the Palestinians of Gaza have received a double dose of the excesses of each side.
But here's the crucial point: that doesn't make both sides morally equal.
Let me begin by making something clear.
When I say that the Israelis are the good guys in this war, I'm not saying that everything the IDF does is justifiable.
Far from it.
And I'm not saying that Israeli soldiers haven't committed war crimes.
Certainly they have.
What I mean is that Israel's goals as a country are far more benign and ethical than Hamas's goals.
Israel's goal is to live in peace with its neighbors.
Now, you can focus on the far-right faction within Israel that wants more than that, but it's just that.
It's one faction within a democracy.
I'm sorry, let him finish this sentence.
No more representative than representative of the will of Israelis than AOC or Marjorie Taylor Greene represents the will of Americans.
Okay.
All right.
So let's pause it right there.
Okay.
So this is, look, I mean, the whole like, well, listen, war crimes are always committed.
And, you know, it's like, oh, all right.
Yeah.
Seems like a bit of mental gymnastics to get yourself to support the side that's committing war crimes that you can't even deny are being committed.
And as far as the whole argument about Hamas commits war crimes to their own people, so like the Palestinians are the only ones to get a double dose of these war crimes.
Well, I don't know.
I don't exactly know.
I'd have to like, I'd be interested almost to prod with questions here of Coleman of what exactly he is saying, because obviously Hamas committed war crimes on October 7th.
And Hamas, does Hamas commit war crimes against the Palestinians?
Like, okay, fine.
But if you're going to say that a government, you know, like, again, Hamas is not a government, but let's just say historically, like any regime, including the United States of America, is the idea that they would, while they're at war externally, also crack down and have authoritarian policies against their own people is not unique.
There's nothing unique about that.
And that is the norm.
That is almost, I struggle to find an example where that wasn't the case.
I mean, like, what do you think the commies were doing to their own people while they were fighting wars?
Or what do you, I mean, the Americans, you know, rounded up Japanese, cracked down on civil liberties, instituted the draft, punished draft Dodgers.
I mean, there was all types of like, you know, whether you wouldn't call them war crimes, but I'm just saying like the idea that the people of a country, when there's a war, get it from their own regime as well as the regime attacking them is not particularly unique.
And of course, like the argument that, oh, the Palestinians are getting it so bad from Hamas doesn't therefore absolve the Israelis of giving it bad to the Palestinians.
If anything, that just makes you feel that much worse for them.
So I don't agree with that at all.
But then, of course, he pivots to really what is the kind of only defense that like that it seems like the people who are still supporting what Israel is doing are left with, which is just essentially the assertion that the Israeli motives are pure.
Like Israel's the good guys because they don't want this.
They don't want to be, they want to live in peace with their neighbors, whereas Hamas is the bad guys because all they want to do is kill people.
And he could say, you know, almost like preemptively, he goes, oh, yeah, yeah, sure.
There are some right-wing factions, you know.
There are some, but that's like Marjorie Taylor Greene is a Congressman.
AOC is a Congresswoman, but that doesn't really speak toward government policy.
The problem is that the right-wingers that you're talking about in Israel, like say like the right-wingers who don't want to live in peace with their neighbors are like Benjamin Netanyahu, Smotrich, you know, like, I mean, Katz, like the guys who are in the upper echelons of power, those are the guys.
This Likud Party founded by Menachem Begin, like this, these are the guys.
Yes, they are those right-wingers who don't want to.
So this isn't like saying, this isn't like talking about AOC or Marjorie Taylor Greene in 2025.
This is more like talking about the neoconservatives in 2004, you know, like the people who occupied like all of the positions of power within our federal government and so, or a huge number of them, and who are getting their policy enacted.
So, no, this isn't like some fringe element.
We're talking about the leaders and the policy that they're enacting.
So, like, you know, this is what they try to say when they're like, you know, oh, it's like on Piers Morgan, almost every episode now, he'll bring up something Smotrich said, and people will go, oh, that's just one guy.
But he's their finance minister.
Like, he is the guy who announced that not one grain of wheat would get into Gaza for those three months that they had no food coming in.
So he keeps us like saying, oh, that's just, that's Marjorie Taylor Greene.
No, it's not.
It's one of the three most powerful people in government talking about the policy that he is enacting right now.
And in fact, when he threatened to quit the government a few months back, Netanyahu was like made sure to keep him on board.
So this is, that's just not true.
And so if you're going to say, I don't like, you know, I get into these arguments all the time.
Like one, the one that I had the other day where, and this is kind of how defenders of Western aggression typically operate.
But so when I was arguing with this guy, I can't remember his name, when I was arguing with this guy in Piers Morgan the other day, you know, he said at one point, you know, he said the dumb line about Neville Chamberlain or whatever, and I was making fun of him for that.
And then he goes, he goes, well, you don't understand, you know, that you can't appease dictators.
Ascribing Intentions in Peace Talks00:13:07
And I was like, we appease dictators all over the globe all the time.
What are you talking about?
Like, what is it?
You can't appease dictators?
The U.S. props up the House of Saud and the Jordanian king and, you know, the like all around the region.
We prop up dictators.
We've overthrown democratically elected governments and installed dictators many times in the past.
It's like, what are you talking about?
But that's, it's like a bumper sticker line.
No, we don't appease dictator.
We believe in democracy.
And what it really is doing, if you think about it, is it's ascribing intentions.
It's ascribing the purest of intentions as if what's going on, you know, what's driving U.S. foreign policy is that we are just, we oppose dictatorship.
We believe in democracy.
But that's obviously not the case.
And so you can't, it doesn't make sense to judge governments based off like the rosiest interpretation of what you believe their motives are, even when everything they do completely contradicts the idea that that's their motives, right?
Like it's the idea that you're still supposed to sit there after we're in bed with all of these dictators and just say, oh, we're just against dictatorship.
It's the same thing as saying Israel wants to live in peace with their neighbors.
Israel does not, Israel has never been at peace with their neighbors.
That's just a fact.
No matter whose side, if you want to blame it all on the other side, okay, but Israel has never been at peace with their neighbors.
They've been at war with the Palestinians since the creation of the state of Israel.
There has never been peace.
There may have been some periods of ceasefire, but this is a long war that's been going on since at least 1947.
And, you know, the people who are in power, you know, Benjamin Netanyahu, like I always talk about the clean break strategy and all of that, but the clean break memo was written to Benjamin Netanyahu.
And what was the break from?
The break was from Oslo.
And don't use any of the later excuses about the second intifada or Camp David or any of that stuff.
This was in 1996.
This was only a couple years after Yitzhak Rabin had signed onto the Oslo Accords.
Netanyahu has always represented the faction that was against a two-state solution.
So don't tell me you're trying to live in peace with your neighbors when your plan is to dominate them in perpetuity.
Benjamin Netanyahu, was it two weeks before October 7th, went to the UN with a map that had all of Gaza and all of the West Bank as part of Israel?
So if what you mean by live in peace with them is annex them, okay.
But, you know, I don't think that's not exactly what most of us describe as peace.
All right, let's keep playing.
By and large, Israelis don't want to conquer Gaza.
In fact, they left Gaza voluntarily in 2005 and they don't want to wipe Gaza off the map.
If they wanted that, they could have done it anytime in the last several decades.
With their advantage and firepower, they could do it now in a matter of time.
Let's pause.
And you should ask yourself.
It's just too ridiculous to say.
Like, Israel doesn't want Gaza because they left Gaza voluntarily in 2005.
And this is the thing that they all try to spin.
That like, oh, Israel, they gave Gaza back.
The occupation ended in 2005 or something like that.
But like anybody who knows anything about the situation knows that that's all just, it's all nonsense.
And they admitted this the whole time.
And so here, I'll see if I can find the exact quote because it really is the.
the best one that you need to know.
Okay.
So here is Dove Weisglass.
He was Sharon, Ariel Sharon's senior advisor.
Okay.
So this is Sharon was the prime minister in 2005 when they had the disengagement.
Okay.
And now here is here is Sharon's senior advisor in his own words talking, by the way, this just to be clear here, because sometimes you'll, you know, people accuse me of quote mining, which I always find to be a hilarious like accusation.
They go, oh, you just find quotes here or there that suit your needs.
And it's like, okay, but like, yeah, it's a pretty, it's a pretty big deal if the senior advisor to the prime minister is admitting what the policy was really about.
And that's, you know, it'd be like if you were like in a murder trial and you were like, I'd like to enter into evidence exhibit A, you know, a written confession by the defendant.
And you were like, objection, Your Honor.
That's quote mining.
Quote mining.
Just a random quote that happens to make his side look better.
Like, yeah, but it's a pretty relevant one.
And so I think you can't run away from your own words here.
And especially, especially, let me say, when the assertion that Coleman Hughes is making is centered around intent.
It's saying, right, Israel doesn't want to do this.
Don't judge them based off what they're doing.
They don't want to do this.
Their motivation is pure, which again, as we've discussed on the show before, you know, it's ascribing any motivation to human beings is always a tricky business.
Even saying your own motivations is difficult.
Like I could sit here and say, my motivation for doing this show is like, I want to tell the truth and I want to get the message out to you because I think this is such an important message.
But like, how much of that, how much of my motivation is also to make money for myself or for my own ego or for my own whatever?
It's like, I don't know.
I could try to assess it.
And I myself don't even know exactly what.
So you're talking about motivations now of an entire government apparatus.
I think it's reasonable to say, let's look at what they were saying.
Here is Dove Weisglass in his own words.
By the way, I should also mention, because sometimes people will say, you know, when you bring up things that Netanyahu says to the Likud party, they'll go, yeah, but he's just trying to get the right, like he's not really that hard of a right-winger.
He's just trying to get the right wingers in line.
Okay.
Dove Weisglass is talking to Horetz as he says this.
He's speaking to the left-wing newspaper in Israel.
So he is not trying to like earn street cred with the right-wingers or something like that.
And this is his exact quote.
This is referring to the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza.
He says, and I quote, the significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process.
And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders, and Jerusalem.
Effectively, the whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda.
And all of this with a U.S. presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.
The disengagement is actually formaldehyde.
It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.
The disengagement plan makes it possible for Israel to park conveniently in an interim situation that distances us as far as possible from political pressure.
It legitimizes our contention that there is no negotiating with the Palestinians.
So in other words, he's telling you that the entire plan was part of the clean break, essentially.
That is that this is a break or a version of the clean break.
That this is a break from the peace process.
This is a, in his words, this is a break from peace.
This isn't to have peace, you know, when like some of these guys will try to argue, as Douglas Murray did, that, no, we gave the Palestinians their own state.
But here's the senior advisor explicitly telling you that, no, no, no, he's doing the opposite of that.
He's ensuring that they never get one.
That was the whole game of disengagement.
They pulled the Israeli settlements out of Gaza.
They pulled the IDF troops out of Gaza.
They built more settlements in the West Bank than they pulled out of Gaza, by the way.
So it's not like they stopped moving on Palestinian land, but then they put a full blockade around the country.
And they totally dominate the airspace, the sea space, how far you can fish off the coast, what goods can come in, what goods can go out, who can come in, who can go out.
This is how in the very beginning of the war, right?
Right after October 7th, Israel's response was to turn off the water and the electricity.
Well, how do you do that?
How do you do that to a country you're not controlling?
And this is why all of the international human rights organizations all said, yeah, the occupation never ended in 2005.
Yeah, you took a prison and you pulled all the guards out and put them around the wall in a perimeter, but that's not the same thing as freeing the prisoners.
So anyway, this just using 2005 as anything to like prove what the Israelis wanted.
But in their own words, as they admitted, as the players who were enacting this policy admitted, the game was about, what do you just say?
The status quo, keeping the status quo going.
They can park comfortably here with the approval of the Americans.
And where is here?
Where is that status quo?
With complete domination of Gaza and the West Bank.
That's the status quo.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Calchi.
I've been telling you about them for a little while.
I've been seeing more and more of them on social media.
And I have downloaded the app.
I've been tracking things on there.
Calci is America's first fully regulated prediction market.
It's CFTC approved in all 50 states.
You can bet on just about anything, cash in or see what the world's thinking without the mainstream filter.
What I really like about this is you can see like where the money is.
And that's always a better predictor of anything else.
So like how much are people really willing to bet that the Democrats are going to take the Congress back or things like that?
Very interesting site.
Go check them out.
Calci.com slash Dave to sign up and trade in the truth.
Calci, where your gut meets real money.
All right, let's get back into the show.
All right, let's keep playing.
Wanted that they could have done it anytime in the last several decades.
With their advantage and firepower, they could do it now in a matter of weeks.
And you should ask yourself why they don't.
Hamas, on the other hand, does want to conquer Israel and wipe it off the map.
And they would be happy to do what they did on October 7th to the entire country.
That's what I mean when I say that the two sides in this war are not the same.
There is a huge moral asymmetry between them, and that matters.
All right, let's pause it here.
Point I'm making here.
You know, it's funny that Coleman says this: like, if Israel wanted to take Gaza, they could.
If it, you know, I mean, they have all this more firepower than they do.
It's like, it's kind of funny that this comes, he might have made this video from last week.
He might have made this video like a couple days before Benjamin Netanyahu announced that they're taking Gaza.
So, you know, I mean, I don't know.
It's like, am I, am I to judge them based off their actions, or am I to judge them based off what Coleman Hughes, you know, pinky promises and tells me their real motivations are?
They're, you know, and you know, to his point about like they're not morally the same.
It's like, I don't think anyone's claiming they're the same.
There are lots of differences.
That's not really the point.
The point is whether what Israel's doing ought to be supported or not.
Or I think that's a much more relevant question.
And, you know, as far as like this stuff about intentions and saying, well, Israel doesn't want to kill everybody and take the whole thing over, but Hamas really does want to kill everybody in Israel and, you know, destroy the whole country or something like that.
It's like, this is, you know, it's like, as always, with these things, it's such a framing tactic.
It's like, first of all, like you're getting in, you're getting into the game of ascribing intentions while ignoring their own stated intentions, which we could get more into, but then ascribing the worst of intentions to Hamas and the best of intentions to Israel, and then saying, look, these two are morally not the same.
I mean, they want to destroy all of Israel, but Israel doesn't want to destroy all of Gaza.
And you're ignoring the fact that Israel has destroyed all of Gaza.
Like, literally, Gaza is destroyed.
I think 80% of the structures have been destroyed.
Like, so what is it?
What is that?
You know, it's like as if you were having a question about, you know, the war in Iraq, and you started saying, like, well, you know, George, if George W. Bush wanted to kill every last man, woman, and child, Iraqi, he could.
War Crimes vs. Stated Goals00:05:48
And if Iraqi could, they would.
If Iraq could, they would kill every last man, woman, and child in America.
Like, oh, this is totally irrelevant.
Like, the question is, like, the question is like, George W. Bush launched a war.
Did he have a right to do that?
And the answer is no, he didn't.
That's what matters, not whatever intentions you ascribe to Saddam Hussein versus George W. Bush.
All right, let's keep playing.
Is right on the surface of how we look at most wars in history.
It's possible to agree with the goals of an army, but condemn its methods.
In fact, it's not just possible.
It's actually most people's default view of most wars, including just wars.
Many people take that attitude towards dropping atomic bombs on Japan, for instance.
Or when you learn about the Union Army burning down 40% of Atlanta, including civilian homes during the Civil War, most of us respond by thinking, wow, that was terrible.
And some of it must have been unnecessary.
But the North was still the good guy in that war.
Why were they the good guys?
Not because they were the underdogs.
In fact, they weren't.
Not because they suffered more war crimes.
In fact, the South almost certainly suffered more war crimes, but because their goals were more benign.
The South was fighting to preserve slavery, and the North was fighting to end it.
If not at the beginning of the war, then certainly by the end.
In other words, I didn't know that was in here.
Okay.
All right.
Without trying to get off on a whole thing about the civil war, but it is interesting that Coleman had to throw that in there that their goal was to end slavery at least by the end of the war.
Maybe not by the beginning.
Well, because you know, the like your goals at the beginning of the war really matter because that's when you launched the war, right?
So, like, that you know, if you launched a the thing is that they need that because otherwise the whole thing kind of falls apart.
Like, if you, if you, if you realize that actually, and even Coleman must to some degree, because he even himself there goes, Okay, well, maybe not at the beginning, maybe not at the beginning of the war.
Okay, but that gets into like what the actual reason for the war was, because that's when wars are launched at their beginning.
And at the beginning, it was quite clear from the north.
There's quotes of Abraham Lincoln you could find on this stuff, or he was very clear that it's like the war was about keeping the union together.
And he was like, if we got to keep slavery to do that, then fine.
If we got to abolish slavery to do that, then fine.
But the whole point of the war for the North from the very beginning was that we cannot let the South secede.
You know, all that together we stand, divided we fall.
That's what it was about.
And certainly it was about slavery to the South the whole time.
But I'm just saying, like, I think most people they want a yada yada over that part of it because that part is just so indefensible.
Like, let's just say, hypothetically speaking, let's say the issue of slavery was off the table and some states just wanted to leave America.
They're like, we don't want to be a part of America anymore.
We want to form our own country.
And then you said, okay, well, we're going to invade you and burn your states to the ground.
Most people would be like, that's a pretty tough one to justify.
But that is why the North did what the North did.
Anyway, I say all of this to basically just say that I think Coleman's, I mean, he's not really making an argument.
He's saying that this is people's default settings.
I mean, hey, we dropped nukes in World War II.
And hey, look at what the North did to the South in the Civil War.
But all that really amounts to to me is that, oh, there's been horrible atrocities committed in war, but we all tend to agree to that they're justified.
It's like, okay, but can you make the argument that they actually are?
And again, this like, you know, saying like that, what happens is quite often, I think, the winners of wars write the history books.
And even if they don't, they don't, it's not that simple.
It's just they control kind of the way that history is interpreted because no, no one, no historian is really arguing that from the very beginning of the war, slavery was the motivating factor for the North to get into the war.
Or if they are, it's certainly not the consensus.
And I don't think any serious historian is really arguing that like Joseph Stalin and FDR fought the Second World War to end the Holocaust or something like that.
But that sure is the way it's spun in a lot of people's like popular imagination, you know, that like the Civil War was fought to end slavery and the Second World War was fought to, you know, save the Jews or something like that.
It's just not true, but that does make it a lot easier to paint these pictures of like, oh, okay, well, so sure, they may have done some bad things, but their goal was like this noble goal.
I don't think that any of this is an appropriate or rational way to gauge a war.
And I think that the much more obvious one that I've been pushing for as long as I can is like an angle when you're when you're inflicting the level of human suffering that we're talking about in Gaza, I think the obvious standard, like the obvious question should be, do you absolutely have to do this?
Is there absolutely no other option?
Is it the case that if you don't do this, an even worse amount of human suffering will be inflicted on your people or another group of people?
Justifying Inhumane Activities00:16:00
And none of them even ever try to make that argument.
None of them even ever try to say, look, this is terrible that Israel's doing this, but it will be an October 7th every single day if we don't.
Because they know that's not true.
You know, like they know.
And so instead, you're basing your justification on, like, but isn't Hamas a worse group than the IDF?
Or what they would do if they could.
But who cares?
They can't.
So that doesn't fucking matter.
What matters is they can't, like, it doesn't, it doesn't matter if like some dude in a, let's say a convicted serial killer who's in a maximum security prison.
And you were like, if he had nuclear weapons and the ability to launch them, he would nuke the United States of America.
It's like, okay, maybe, but he's in prison.
He doesn't have nuclear weapons.
Like there's just, this is a non-issue.
And the issue is, what are you doing to these people?
And do you have a right to do that?
And if you don't, then like, do you absolutely have to?
And that it just seems obvious to me that that should be like the onus should be on anyone defending what Israel is doing at this point to make that argument.
And the onus is on them to have an overwhelmingly compelling argument.
Like you can't just go in like, we're going to slaughter a bunch of people because maybe something worse would happen.
You'd have to have like definitive like evidence that this is going to be worse than this if we didn't do that.
But no one even attempts to make that argument when defending Israel because it's impossible.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Lucy.
Let Lucy Breakers change everything you think you know about nicotine pouches.
Lucy Breakers are nicotine pouches with a capsule inside.
You break the capsule for a wave of flavor and hydration.
They have choices like berry citrus, apple cider, mango.
There's a flavor for every mood.
You got to check these out.
It's a whole different way to nicotine pouch, which is all the rage these days.
Level up your nicotine routine with Lucy.
Go to lucy.co/p-otp and use the promo code p-otp to get 20% off your first order.
Lucy even has a 30-day refund policy if you change your mind.
Again, that's luci.co slash p-otp and use promo code p-otp for 20% off.
Lucy products are only for adults of legal age and every order is age verified.
This product contains nicotine and nicotine is an addictive chemical.
All right, let's get back into the show.
All right, let's keep playing.
Fighting for matter a great deal.
That's not to say that goals are the only things that matter.
How armies conduct themselves matters too.
And it's very easy to find examples of IDF soldiers conducting themselves terribly.
Each example of this should be reported on and exposed and those responsible held to account.
However, it's also true that this is to be expected in any war.
If 1% of all human beings are sociopaths, and just humor me with that assumption for a moment, if 1% of all people are sociopaths, then out of 500,000 or so Israeli soldiers that have served in Gaza, you'd expect 5,000 of them to be maniacs.
And that would be true in any war.
How much damage could 5,000 heartless soldiers do over the course of a year and a half?
How many war crimes could they commit against innocent Palestinians?
And how much bad PR could they generate for Israel?
Yet that's what we'd expect to see, even if the IDF were doing everything right.
But is the IDF doing everything right?
Absolutely not.
For one thing, the choice to cut off all humanitarian aid to Gaza for over two months earlier this year in order to pressure Hamas to release the hostages was, in my view, a mistake and arguably a war crime.
So, here, let's let's let's stolen because this is like this is just like the it's trickery, dude.
It's like, and and I don't see how people can't see through this or how anyone doesn't see through this, but again, even when he's describing, so he's going, Hey, look, man, one percent of people are psychopaths.
You got it, you got an armed force of 500,000.
There's gonna be 5,000 psychopaths running around.
Now, again, even if that's just the case, then okay, you're supporting a policy of unleashing 5,000 psychopaths on innocent people, and you got to back up why that is absolutely necessary.
What the hell, man?
Like, we're civilized human beings having this discussion.
You are telling me I back a policy of 5,000 psychopaths being unleashed on grandmas and children.
Okay, dude, but you better have a hell of an argument for why you absolutely have to do this, and that doesn't ever seem to come up.
Um, anyway, um, the obviously the real problem here is that the psychopaths are Benjamin Netanyahu himself, and like who's and and you know, you see when I was saying it's trickery.
I mean, you see even where he said, first of all, it was three months, not two months, but whatever.
Um, but he goes, Yeah, now listen, I think the decision to use starvation as a tactic, you know, I think the decision to deny all food to women and children was a was a poor decision, you know.
I think it was a mistake and even possibly a war crime.
It's like, dude, I mean, when your entire argument is relying on motivation, but then you could look at someone doing something like that and go, now this was a miscalculation.
Don't you see what it what, like how you're cheating in this game?
It's like, yeah, no matter what they do, you will always fret.
This wasn't a mistake.
This wasn't a lone psychopath, you know, soldier who did something like this.
These were, this was the war cabinet and Benjamin Netanyahu and Smotrich making a policy decision that no food will be allowed into Gaza for three months after like 20 plus months of slaughter.
It's like the most horrific, like, how can anybody like anybody try to justify that policy?
It's just insane.
Like, it's insane that we live in a first world country where there's like school buses picking up kids and high-speed internet and plenty of food at the supermarket.
And anyone's even going to attempt to justify that policy without attaching it to some like, I know, I know this seems crazy, but we absolutely have to do it because of this.
Like, where, where is the like necessity for this?
It's just anyway.
So, again, this is all just cheap from yes.
The Israeli government at the highest level decided to deny food to babies and old people for three straight months.
All right, let's keep playing to survive in its tunnels for a prolonged period.
We know that.
And they're completely unaffected by the suffering of their own people.
We know that too.
You can add to this the failed experiment in aid distribution that's been going on since May.
Idea of soldiers using live rounds for crowd control, which is to say shooting above people's heads to disperse crowds.
But there are also credible reports of soldiers shooting civilians who are trying to get food and accidentally go into a prohibited zone.
Now, some of these are tragic accidents and some are doubtless war crimes.
Okay, let's get there for a second.
Jesus Christ, dude.
I mean, it is like, you know, I don't know.
I swear to God, I'm not trying to be like inflammatory, but it is.
Do you get my point?
Like, even when I was saying in the Alex Berenson debate the other day, it's so weird that people like, will they talk about Holocaust denial and then accuse people who aren't denying the Holocaust of denying the Holocaust?
But like, just tell me, what exactly am I listening to right now?
Like, what is this?
It's just twisting yourself into pretzels to make excuses for the most horrifically inhumane activities.
So he goes, like, even now, the IDF has been known for firing live rounds as crowd control.
Shooting above, there's a long line, including like elderly people and babies, as well as just innocent men and women who are desperately hungry, trying to get their hands on some of the crumbs from one of these, you know, aid deliveries.
And the IDF shoots live rounds at them, you know, to move them around a little bit, to keep them out of that zone and in this zone.
And oh, by the way, you know, these live rounds, they don't always go over their head.
Sometimes they go right into their head.
You know, hundreds of them have been killed in these situations.
And what you're just like, even under the best case scenario that you're saying, like, no, it was just crowd control.
We were shooting above their head.
Like, what are we talking about?
Fucking cattle here?
They're goddamn human beings desperate for food.
You're talking about how there's, and, and of course, the, as he alludes to there, some IDF soldiers have even said, yeah, they said they were given orders.
They were given orders to shoot at the crowd of people.
And the piece was a little bit vague about what exactly they were ordered to do.
But a bunch of IDF soldiers reported this.
I believe at least one went on the record and the Israeli government has confirmed this.
So like, yes, the IDF, right, they're shooting live rounds at people who are like suffering through the worst like war-torn crisis imaginable.
And that's, that's okay.
Or what?
That's like, you know, they'll say this thing where it's like, well, if people are committing war crimes, then they should be prosecuted.
Like, okay, but they're not being, they're not being prosecuted.
You know, the, the, um, there's two former, I think, I say at least two former Israeli prime ministers have come out and said Israel's committing war crimes.
There's a ICC arrest warrant out for Netanyahu.
None of them are being held accountable.
You know what I'm saying?
So like at one point, at what point, if you're still defending the thing where no one's held accountable, are you just defending the war crimes?
Anyway, let's keep playing.
Worth lingering over the asymmetry of war crimes even here.
When an IDF soldier goes berserk, he commits a war crime.
But every time a Hamas fighter shoots a bullet without wearing a uniform, it's a war crime.
Hamas's entire MO is one big war crime.
And unlike most wars where each side is committing crimes against enemy civilians, in this case, almost all of the excesses, both of the IDF and of Hamas, fall on Palestinian civilians.
But whose fault is that?
Is it Israel's fault that its own civilians are incredibly well protected by defensive infrastructure like the Iron Dome and bomb shelters?
Is it Israel's fault that Hamas has built one of the most extensive networks of underground bomb shelters in the history of warfare, but doesn't allow its own civilians to enter them?
Is it Israel's fault that Hamas uses children as lookouts, thereby turning them into combatants under the international laws of war?
Because when we hold Israel for a second, I mean, I don't know what just asking, you know, asking yourself the easiest questions that no one's asking and then answering them.
It's like, even in that, it's like, is it Israel's fault that Hamas uses children as lookouts, thus, under international law, turning them into combatants?
Like, no, I don't think anyone ever said it was.
Hey, how about all the children who aren't used as lookouts?
They would not be combatants, right?
How many of them have been killed?
Oh, yeah, thousands.
No, we don't know the exact number, but thousands and thousands of them, tens of thousands, probably.
Like, it's like, no, how about instead of asking, is it Israel's fault that their civilians are protected by iron dome?
Has anyone ever said that in the history of the world?
No.
How about this?
Is it Israel's fault when their soldiers are shooting rounds of live ammunition at crowds of hungry people and killing a bunch of them?
I'd say yes.
No, it's yes.
When Israel drops bombs on innocent civilians and slaughters them by the tens or hundreds of thousands, that's their fault.
Hamas is responsible for the war crimes they commit, and Israel's responsible for the war crimes they commit.
And the Palestinian people are responsible for none of them.
Let's keep playing with a civilian death toll in Gaza, a death toll that results directly from Hamas's barbaric style of warfare.
We are implicitly holding Israel responsible for Hamas's war crimes against the Palestinians.
Now, it's incredibly easy to lose sight of this, given the mainstream media bias on the topic.
For instance, the New York Times released a story on July 24th entitled, Gazans are Dying of Starvation.
The article relied on testimony from several doctors working in Gaza, as well as the Gaza Health Ministry.
And it used that to build a case that deaths from starvation are on the rise.
In the article, there was one photo that stood out.
It was a photo of a mother holding an emaciated skeletal infant named Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawak.
This photo was displayed prominently on the front page of the physical edition of the New York Times and made the rounds on social media.
You almost certainly saw it.
And importantly, it was the only photo in the article that clearly suggested starvation as opposed to chaotic, hungry refugees.
It wasn't long before sleuths on X discovered that there was another photo, which the Times chose to omit, of the boy and his mother next to his three-year-old brother, who clearly isn't starving.
So, if there's no food, why is the three-year-old not also thin?
It turns out this young boy didn't look emaciated because of starvation conditions.
In fact, he was born with serious disease, perhaps cerebral palsy or hypoxia.
It's not yet clear.
But six days after the article came out, the New York Times had to issue a correction noting that the boy was born with unrelated health issues that account for his skeletal appearance.
Now, if such crucial information could be left out of the original article, what other information was left out?
Now, let me be clear here.
I'm not saying there isn't hunger or okay.
Yeah, he's not saying there isn't hunger, of course, because there's been widespread reports of hunger.
And I, you know, yeah, the New York Times did make a correction about that baby.
Um, by the way, I mean, I guess it's like, so you're only the sick babies are starving or something like that is the defense here.
Um, actually, the mother of the baby said that they the doctors told her that the reason that the baby was so sick was because she was malnourished during the pregnancy, but I guess we can ignore that.
I do find it like, it's so funny because they'll like, they'll cling to like the one image where like, oh, look, the New York Times had to admit this baby also had another disease that certainly it's not getting the proper treatment for because Israel's destroyed the entire strip.
Massa Chips Sponsor Segment00:02:21
Like, but okay, how like how many images do you need?
How many images do you need?
You're right.
We just haven't gotten enough images out of Gaza of the kids suffering there.
I guess it's not so bad.
Yeah, look, like the New York Times fucked up and then they made a correction.
I guess that this information should have been added.
But again, this is just like totally dodging the bigger point here in the bigger picture.
There's been mass reports of starvation and food insecurity all throughout Gaza.
What do you think is going to happen when you deny all food for a prolonged period of time into an active war zone where the place is just being completely destroyed and people are living in makeshift shanty tents at refugee camps because goddamn every structure has been brought to the ground?
I mean, what are we even arguing here?
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Massa Chips.
These chips, everyone's talking about them.
If you don't know, today's seed oils make up to 20% of the average American's daily calories.
And recent studies have linked seed oils to metabolic health issues, inflammation in the body, and more.
MASA decided to do something about it.
They created a tasty and delicious tortilla chip with just three ingredients and no seed oils.
These chips don't only avoid all the bad stuff, they taste incredible too.
MASA is crunchier, tastier, and sturdier than other chips.
Doesn't break in your salsa or guacamole.
Snacking on Massa chips is nothing like eating regular chips.
With MASA, you feel satisfied, light, and energetic with no crash, bloat, or gross, sluggish feelings afterward.
And as an added bonus, that beef tallow makes the chips even more satiating.
So you won't find yourself uncontrollably binging and still feeling hungry afterward.
Massa chips are beloved by tens of thousands of customers and have been endorsed by industry-leading health and nutrition experts like Ben Greenfield and Gary Brecca.
If you're ready to give MASA a try, go to massachips.com slash Dave and use the promo code Dave for 25% off your first order.
That's masachips.com slash Dave, promo code Dave for 25% off.
All right, let's get back into the show.
And, you know, to the bigger point, let me see.
Leaked NYT Memo on Genocide Words00:15:31
I was trying to just look up, what was the leaked New York Times Gaza memo where the New York Times told their journalists to avoid the word genocide, ethnic cleansing, and occupied territories?
I just find it kind of interesting that the people who are the people who are defending Israel kind of have to, they almost create this alternate universe where they'll go, well, the mainstream media's coverage is totally pro-Hamas or something like that.
As if, yes, there's been no Israeli influence over the corporate media in the United States of America.
You remember what was it last year that one point, I think, Ben Shapiro said that Hamas was running the Joe Biden administration?
It's just like, how are you going to argue that like the establishment, like the establishment is all pro-Palestinian, but you're the ones speaking up against the establishment.
Like the establishment is the ones funding Israel.
They're the ones arming this goddamn genocide.
They're the one.
I saw one military guy who was saying he didn't think that the Israelis could keep the war going for two months without America.
Like they are our intelligence support, our weapons, our money.
It's totally necessary to this whole thing.
the idea that, you know, you're, you're arguing here somehow, I don't know, whatever, that you're arguing you're taking on the establishment.
The New York Times is trying to make it out like Israel's committing all these war crimes when it's not really that bad or something.
It's like, dude, the entire system is perpetuating this thing.
And the New York Times has been as guilty as anyone in covering that up.
But yes, they finally, they have done a couple pieces on just how bad it is in Gaza.
And yeah, you're right.
They do, they rely on the medical professionals who are over there and the Gaza Health Ministry in the UN because Israel won't let international journalists in.
So that's what you got to rely on.
So as Israel is doing this, they won't let the world see it and report on it.
And so now you're criticizing the little bit of reporting that's going out for not being like, for having something omitted in it or whatever.
Maybe Israel should let journalists in.
We could get more information about what's really going on.
I wonder why they don't want that.
Let's take a guess.
I'm sure we can always just describe the best of motivations to them.
That's what they always do, right?
They don't want the journalists in because they're worried about the journalists.
Yeah, I don't think so.
All right, let's keep playing.
Or food insecurity or humanitarian disaster in Gaza.
Of course, there is.
What I'm saying is that the pipeline that's feeding you information about the humanitarian disaster in Gaza is fundamentally broken, biased, untrustworthy, and weaponized against Israel.
Now, think about what had to happen for the New York Times to publish that photo on its front page without the information that this particular child was born with serious disease.
Journalists had to talk to the child's mother and doctor, who presumably withheld this crucial detail.
And the claims had to survive fact-checking without anyone at the times pointing out how strange it was to see one child emaciated and his brother right next to him looking fine.
And then after the Twitter sleuths got to the story, they had to call this doctor again and ask him, hey, did you by chance leave out the fact that this particular baby looks the way he does because he has a disease unrelated to this war?
And then you have to wonder, because the entire story is based on the testimony of similarly placed doctors, how many of the doctors in Gaza, who are generally not neutral about the two sides in this war, how many of those doctors who talk to Western journalists are making similar omissions?
Okay, they are.
Hold on, let's pause it there for a second.
Why, man, the doctors in Gaza tend to not be neutral on this war.
Well, gee, Coleman, I wonder why that might be.
Like, you say it as if that proves anything, or that means therefore that, like, we can't trust the doctors.
Like, the idea that like the doctors in this war zone are so, they're the bad guys.
You know, the people going in and risking their lives to treat these babies.
We can't trust them.
And you know why we can't trust them?
Because they tend to oppose these babies being killed.
So maybe because they're the ones who have to deal with it and have to actually see it up close.
Yes, the doctors, for all those doctors in Gaza, the numerous ones who have reported treating babies with sniper bullet shots in their chest and their head and their legs, they are against those snipers shooting those babies.
Well, doesn't that just solve the whole thing right there?
And again, you could muddy the waters all you want here, but it's Israel who's not letting international journalists in.
I'm sorry, if you feel like there's some problem with the trustworthy nature of the reporting coming out of Gaza, you got one group only to look at to blame for that.
Anyway, let's keep going.
As for the Gaza Health Ministry, which is a part of Hamas's political infrastructure, it's very difficult to trust their reports as well.
I mean, on one level, they're the only real source of information about what's happening in Gaza, so you can't just discount them blindly.
But nor can you trust them blindly.
Recall that when there was an explosion at a hospital early on in the war, the same Gaza Health Ministry reported within minutes that exactly 471 people had been killed by an Israeli bomb that hit the hospital.
And the New York Times reported this uncritically.
Well, it turns out the true death count was less than half that number.
The hospital itself wasn't even hit.
It was the parking lot next to the hospital.
And oh yeah, it wasn't an Israeli bomb.
It was actually a Palestinian jihad rocket.
So one has to be skeptical about how the Gaza Health Ministry arrives at its confident conclusions.
And one has to understand that their incentive is to exaggerate as much as they can get away with.
The less skeptical we are as Western people.
Because honestly, like, it's just, it's kind of pathetic to be, I think this was what, 2023?
He's going back to, yeah, there was this report that was like, yes, they said they hit the hospital and 400 people died and then they revised it down.
They've also revised their numbers down a couple times.
And that doesn't really seem to jive with what you're talking about.
But I'm sorry, dude, to be sitting here in what is halfway through August in 2025 and to be like, hey, remember in 2023, there was one hospital that they said got hit that didn't actually get hit.
By the way, that hospital did get hit later.
Like, what are we even, dude?
There's reports every single day, every single day in the news.
There's another report about the 172 Palestinians who just got killed.
Another 65 Palestinians got killed.
Every single day, there's another time.
And you're cherry-picking the one that was initially reported wrong.
All right.
I mean, what's really the argument there?
Okay, yes, we're not getting perfect information about every single strike.
We have a pretty clear general picture when 70 to 80% of the buildings have been leveled in Gaza.
Let's keep playing.
Journalists, the more they can exaggerate without penalty.
Again, the information pipeline here is just fundamentally broken.
Finally, I want to discuss the charge of genocide, because this is one of the most serious charges made against Israel.
It's also, in my view, one of the most absurd.
Genocide is the physical destruction, not the metaphorical destruction, not the destruction of property, but the physical destruction of a people in whole or in part.
Israel's aim in Gaza is not to destroy the Palestinian people as a whole, nor to destroy Gazan Palestinians in particular.
How do we know this?
Because even if we accept the Gaza Health Ministry's numbers at face value, that is 60,000 people killed in Gaza in about 22 months of war.
That is 3% of Gaza's population.
You could argue that it's more than 60,000 dead because there are uncounted bodies tragically trapped under the rubble.
But on the other hand, you'd have to subtract the combatants from that number as well.
And the IDF says that about 20,000 combatants have been killed.
To be clear, my default assumption is that both sides in any war are exaggerating their numbers.
But for the sake of argument and fairness, let's just take both sides at their word for a moment.
So 60,000 dead, 20,000 of whom are combatants.
That's about 3% of Gaza's pre-war population killed in 22 months of war.
Now, critics of Israel are fond of pointing out just how big the power disparity between Israel and the Palestinians is.
And they are completely correct.
Israel can do just about anything it wants.
If the IDF chose to destroy Gazans as a people, they could kill almost everyone in Gaza in a matter of weeks.
So ask yourself, why haven't they?
And if your answer is international pressure, meaning, they really would like to commit a genocide except they don't want to become a pariah state like North Korea.
Well, then you've already conceded that they're not, in fact, committing a genocide.
What you're accusing them of in that case is harboring secret wishes that they're not acting on.
So we can have that conversation.
Okay.
That's separate from that.
Whoa, this just really spun off the rails here.
Hold on.
So this is just totally incoherent.
So he starts by saying genocide is trying to destroy a people in whole or in part.
Then he goes, well, they're only doing a part.
They're not doing the whole.
Like, what?
I don't know.
What does that mean?
Like, again, the problem here is that genocide is such a vague definition, but by the definition Coleman just gave, it meets it.
Are they not destroying them in part?
You just gave the exact number.
I mean, obviously you're making this up.
I mean, I'm making it up.
I shouldn't say you correctly prefaced that.
We don't even know if these numbers are real just for the sake of argument.
I'm just saying for the sake of argument numbers here, you gave a percentage.
That's it in part.
Are they doing it intentionally?
Absolutely.
So what are you even saying here?
The argument is that they could do worse, but they don't.
Why is that?
If you say it's for international pressure, then you're admitting that they secretly want to do something that they're not doing.
Like, what?
None of this, this is, none of this proves anything.
And it's not just, you know, like, I guess I could add a few things on this, but no, you know, like I've said before, but like if a guy, if a guy runs in, you know, to a room with an Uzi and kills, you know, 10 people and you're like, yeah, but there were 50 people in that room.
He could have killed all of them.
And then he gets away.
You know, at court, he's not going to get any extra points for like, you could have killed more people and didn't.
We're still pretty mad about the 10 people you killed.
And that's what this trial here is about.
It's not, it doesn't prove anything.
And then, you know, for him to say, oh, well, why doesn't Israel do it?
Essentially, you're saying they want to do something that they're not really doing because of international pressure or something like that.
Okay.
What they seem to be doing, what they have basically done right now and seem to be doing, again, I'm not taking any Arab or Palestinian sources here, okay?
This is just what the Israelis are telling me.
They are destroying the Gaza Strip.
They've basically leveled the entire goddamn place.
They're now openly talking about ethnically cleansing the people out and taking it.
Benjamin Netanyahu, who just announced they are taking back Gaza, an occupation, maybe an annexation, depending on what you want to call it.
Okay, so that seems like that was their goal.
To kill a whole bunch of them, destroy their people in part, and then take their land.
That seems to be what they're doing.
Now, if you're going to say they would do more, but for international pressure, well, it's a little bit more than just international pressure.
I mean, yeah, you know, I don't know exactly how much more Israel could do.
People say that a lot, but it's not actually so clear.
You know, people like, again, this is a little bit above my pay grade.
I really do not know the answer to this.
So if there's anyone listening who's like, you really know your science on this, then you might know the answer better than me.
But I'm not sure.
Could Israel nuke Gaza?
I've never even heard of like A nation, you know, I mean, I guess I've heard North Korea threatening to nuke Seoul or something like that, but you're talking Israel and Gaza.
I would imagine, depending on which way the winds are blowing, that could go really bad for Israel.
Could they be killing people at a faster rate?
Perhaps.
But again, like, it's not just that, oh, look, they've already turned themselves into a pariah state.
It's not just like, oh, there might be concerns that that would, you know, turn the world against you more, but it's also that Israel is, as we all know, a fat welfare mom of nations.
They are completely reliant on the West.
They live off of our welfare.
Like I was saying before, they could not continue this war without American support.
They couldn't look at what just happened in Iran.
They couldn't do that without American support.
They can't do any of this shit without us.
Even when the, what was it, when they killed that Iranian last year and there were like missiles thrown back and forth, not the 12-day war, but before that, when they, when they were throwing missiles back and forth, it was even back then, it was America who had to come in and shoot those missiles down, as well as the Saudis and the Jordanians.
And I think the Turks helped a little bit.
But in other words, all the other countries who we give money to.
So, so like, no, yes, alienating the people who you depend on obviously is a consideration.
This doesn't prove anything.
All right, let's play a little bit more because I want to see if Coleman's actually getting to a point here.
But if not, we could wrap.
Of genocide.
The Nazis killed 60% of European Jews.
The Turks killed over 50% of Armenians.
In Rwanda, something like 80% of Tutsis were killed in 100 days.
Those were genocides.
And in legitimate cases of genocide, in which a smaller percentage of people were killed, it was because the genocide didn't have the ability to kill more.
Now, we know that Israel could easily kill 50% or 60% or 80% of Gazans in less than 100 days if they wanted to, but they don't.
And that's really all you need to know to be sure that Israel isn't committing genocide.
The focus on what an Israeli defense minister said in his angriest moments after October 7th.
Twisting Logic to Avoid Truth00:02:54
If you pause it right now, but isn't like, couldn't anyway, this again, this didn't, the argument never came together.
It just didn't mean anything.
It's like, yeah, like you said in whole, just saying other genocides killed a higher percentage.
You didn't argue like, what is the threshold?
What makes it not?
So it makes it not genocide because they could do more, but they're not doing more.
So like, okay.
I mean, I'm just thinking, like, is this ever really like, I don't know, the argument makes no sense and is totally incoherent, but I'm just thinking out loud as I'm hearing this for the first time.
But like, is it really the case that we can demonstrate with every genocide that that was the absolute maximum number of people that that guy could have gotten away with killing?
Like, I've never even in my life thought when you judge Joseph Stalin based off the Haldemore or something like that, are you ever going to yourself, but did he max out?
Could he have killed more people?
Like in all cases, probably they could have killed more people.
And I'm sure there are some cases where they couldn't kill more people, but I should say in all cases, I'm saying in major genocides that you're thinking of, you could probably make the argument that they could have killed more people.
I don't think that makes them not genocidal.
And I just don't think like, I don't know, but I certainly don't think like if you're going to argue that Israel could have killed way more people, like I'd actually need you to make that argument, like take me through that a little bit.
How could they have killed so many more people?
But it's also, it's not so self-evident.
Like Israel seems to be pushing what they can get away with right now.
It's not so obvious that they could get away with a lot more.
But by Coleman's own definition, he admitted it.
He said it's trying to destroy a group in whole or in part and then gave you the exact part that they've destroyed.
And they've done that intentionally.
Not really seeing what your argument here is.
Anyway, I do.
I got to say, man, I think this is for people, for people who are still at this point in the game, like finding these ways to twist themselves into pretzels and do the mental gymnastics to somehow try to justify this happening when it's so obviously just doesn't need to happen.
I got to say, man, I don't know.
I mean, I don't know.
I'm trying not to be like too hyperbolic or something here, but like, are you, are you at all worried about God, man?
This is like what I think with all these people.
None of you guys are afraid of God.
You don't think about like the fact that like you're in a position where like you got a little bit of influence, you have a voice, you have followers who are listening to you, and this is the issue you choose to stand on is to excuse away this shit, try to find a justification for it.
I don't know.
I would not want to stand on that with that in my legacy.