Ezra Levant warns Canada’s Liberal Justice Committee, led by MP Anthony Housefather, is pushing a "national hate registry" to track online dissent—like Rebel Media and "mean tweets"—while ignoring ISIS recruitment ties. He links this to global censorship trends, including Google’s alleged 2020 election manipulation and Silicon Valley’s deplatforming of Trump-aligned voices, comparing it to China’s social credit system. Levant fears this could silence free speech, urging resistance as tech giants enforce undefined "hate" rules without accountability, while Conservatives like Raitt and Barrett remain silent despite past opposition. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I take you through the latest from Parliament's Justice Committee.
What are they working on over there, the Justice Committee?
I'll tell you what they're working on.
They're working on censorship.
They're working on bringing back the Section 13 censorship provision from the Human Rights Act.
They're working on establishing a national registry of hate.
Yeah, good luck trying to understand that.
I go through it a bit and I hope you enjoy it.
But before I get out of the way, can you do me a favor and go to the rebel.media slash shows and become a premium subscriber.
And you get the video version of this podcast and access to other podcasts in video form.
Actually, sorry, other videos.
David Menzies Shoot of Gun Read.
And of course, it helps us out.
We get the eight bucks a month.
That's not that much money, I think.
All right, without further ado, here's the podcast.
You're listening to a Rebel Media podcast.
Tonight, you've heard about a national gun registry.
Now the liberals are talking about a national hate registry.
It's June 28th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Look, I know there are a lot of important things going on in the world right now.
I think the presidential debates in the U.S. Democratic Party are very interesting and could obviously potentially have a large impact on us up here in Canada, too.
The G20 meeting is happening right now in Japan.
That's important.
What's going to happen with China?
Will the United States and China do a trade deal or will their trade war deepen?
Will Trump really help Justin Trudeau get our hostages back from China instead of using all of his political capital for the benefit of his own country?
I don't know.
I saw the other day that Justin Trudeau and Catherine McKenna had done a virtue signaling deal with the state of California, which is run by a hard left-wing Democrat.
So it's some global warming deal, lots of noise, no substance, obviously.
Other than rubbing Trump's nose in it again, there's no other reason to do that deal.
Sort of like Trudeau did, I don't know if you remember this, when he had his bet with Nancy Pelosi on the NBA championships.
Why would a prime minister of Canada, our head of government, have a bet with the Speaker of the House in the States as opposed to the President, their head of government?
It would be like if Donald Trump had a bet with Canada, but instead of betting Trudeau, he bet Andrew Scheer.
It's obvious what that's about.
Just like Trudeau's weird deal with the Democrats of California, it's all about snubbing Trump.
So yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if at the G20 Trump said, hey, Justin, why don't you talk to Nancy Pelosi?
Have her call China for you or talk to the governor of California.
He can call China for you, Justin, since they're your true close friends.
Lots of things to talk about these days.
Lots of things about the carbon tax, the court rulings on the legality of it.
Catherine McKenna scolded the Premier of New Brunswick over it for 10 full minutes.
Can you imagine thinking you can scold your way into re-elections, scolding people because they don't like paying taxes?
Anyways, my point here is to show you that the world is full of news these days and today in particular.
Now I do truly believe, despite that, that the most pressing news right now in Canada is the stampede towards censorship here and other parts of the world too.
The only democracy in which it's slipping away, freedom of speech, is slipping away faster than here is New Zealand, which is actually infecting the rest of the world with their extreme censorship.
I showed you the other day the speech by the UN Secretary General calling for global monitoring of social media with a crackdown on what he considers hateful, but the UN admits they have no objective definition of hate speech, but they said it includes anything contrary to UN programs.
And of course, the real power, as Guterres' speech at the UN made clear, was those tech companies themselves who will be forced to do the censoring.
I don't know if you've been following it, but our friend James O'Keefe at Project Veritas has released videos of Google executives saying they plan to use their massive control over information to fight against Trump's re-election in 2020.
So it looks like they don't particularly need a lot of pressure from the UN or New Zealand or whomever anyways.
But it must be said that our own Justin Trudeau is in the first rank of censors around the world.
Let me show you a couple of new items.
Look at this.
It's a new report by the Public Safety Department of Canada.
That's our version of the U.S. Homeland Security Agency.
So this, as you can see, is a report by the Canada Center for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence.
Now I read through this document and nowhere does it mention Islamic extremism or the 100-plus ISIS terrorists who were recruited in Canada, went to Syria, committed murder, rape, other war crimes, and many of whom have returned to Canada.
There's no mention of them.
No mentions of radical mosques.
Those words appear nowhere in this report.
But look at what does appear in that report.
While focusing on educating leaders, service providers who work with youth, also ensure better controls on media.
This is their to-do list.
Ensure better controls on media, e.g. Rebel, and social media, Facebook and Twitter, and their hate-inciting communications.
The Liberal government believes in better controls on the media.
And the only example they give is us and our hate-inciting communications.
What does that even mean?
What's the definition of that?
What better controls are they even talking about?
Well, the UN itself doesn't define it.
And that's the point.
If they don't define it, then they can have it mean whatever they want it to mean at any given moment.
It's not a rule, then, is it?
It's an unlimited power based on any individual's whims.
And Trudeau deeply, deeply hates the rebels.
So that's one official document by Goodale's Public Security Department.
No mention of actual terrorists, but a call to control media of patriotic Canadians.
Look at this story in the Hill Times.
House Justice Committee echoes calls for a national database to track hate online.
Making the database a reality to get a more accurate picture of the scale of the issue might involve encouraging police forces to work with organizations that may already be collecting their own data, says chair and liberal MP Anthony Housefather.
You'll remember Anthony Housefather.
He's Trudeau's puppet on the Justice Committee, the one who shut down any further inquiries into Trudeau firing Jody Wilson-Raybold as Attorney General, punishing her for opposing his idea to let his corrupt Quebec cronies at SNC Levland off the hook.
So what's Anthony Housefather up to now?
What rule of law, what liberties is he undermining now?
Well, nothing less than a national database to track hate.
That's what he's proposing.
I'll read a little bit from the story.
Setting up a national database to track hate crime incidents to tackle the spread of hateful content across the country is a no-brainer, says one expert, while a liberal MP says it may not be an easy fix.
Okay, well, hang on, hang on, stuff for a second.
Which one is it?
Hate crimes, they mentioned.
I get that, I think.
That's beating someone up because they're black, or vandalizing a synagogue because it's Jewish.
So it's a crime.
That's the crime part of hate crime.
And it's motivated by some bigotry.
I get it.
But did you see the second part there?
Hateful content.
Hang on.
Content, they mean words.
That's the weird way of saying words are pictures.
So we're not talking about crimes anymore.
Hateful content, they mean opinions that they don't like.
Opinions they hate, or maybe opinions they think are spoken from hate.
But you see, hate is a natural human emotion.
It's not a crime, but they're blending it in with real crimes because they're trying to use the criminal law that we all agree should be used to stop violence.
Well, they're trying to use it to stop feelings now.
That's what they're doing.
Here's that idiot, House Father, he said.
One of the things that is clear from what we heard was that there's an incredible gap in data collection, said Liberal MP Anthony House Father, who chairs the House Justice Committee in a phone interview.
There needs to be a way to have a collection of data that uses consistent definitions and compiles statistics from across the country and makes people feel comfortable in actually reporting what they experience.
Well, hang on.
Police already do gather data on real crimes.
They've been doing that for decades, centuries, I guess.
What does he mean by making people comfortable reporting what they experience?
I mean, if he means real crimes, I'm all for that.
But I think he means ideas, feelings, words.
I'll read some more.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims is one organization that maps anti-Muslim incidents across Canada, according to Ms. Konanur.
Incidents are classified by types, including physical, vandalism, and online verbal assaults.
So far, 25 have been reported in 2019.
Now, I'm not sure if you remember, but the National Council of Canadian Muslims, it's the new name for CARECAN, CARE Canada.
That was the Canadian branch of the U.S. group called CARE, Council of American Islamic Relations, which was found by a U.S. court to be part of the Muslim Brotherhood.
So they're as extreme as it gets.
In some countries, the Muslim Brotherhood is regarded as a terrorist group.
So they're saying they've been counting vandalism and physical assaults, okay, I get that, but also verbal assaults, online verbal assaults.
What does that mean?
Mean tweets, mean Facebook?
There's no such thing as an online verbal assault.
Then that's not an assault, unless you're using that word poetically.
You see what I mean about eliding the language?
I know what a violent assault is, but an online verbal assault, that's not actually an assault.
Now, I don't want anyone to punch a Muslim or anyone else in the face.
That's a crime.
And if you do it because a person is a Muslim, you could call that a hate crime.
But it's not a crime to say mean things about someone online.
It just isn't.
That's not a crime, sorry.
I'll read some more.
Whether it takes six months or it takes a year, we're recommending that there be a full and complete plan to deal with online hate, Mr. Houff's father says.
Oh, so they're not even pretending it's about crimes anymore or assaults anymore.
It's just a full-out assault on hate to misuse language like they do.
It's an assault on language, an assault on ideas.
To handle and control the internet, including us by name.
Here's the scariest part of the whole article, though.
Requests for interviews with Conservative MP Lisa Raitt, her party's justice critic and committee vice chair, and Michael Barrett, a committee member, were not returned.
You know, a few weeks ago I set up a petition called stopsection13.com.
It was about one of the proposals by House Fathers Committee to ban mean words online.
That's the part of the Canadian Human Rights Act that Stephen Harper had the good sense to repeal in 2013.
The Liberals want it back.
They recommended that it come back.
And in addition to all this other censorship, we're talking about the national database tracking mean comments.
Like, that's not creepy at all.
But where are the Conservatives on this?
You know, I had a few emails come in back to me when I launched that petition saying, Ezra, the Conservative Party wrote a minority report at the committee, and they were for free speech.
Okay, yes, that is true.
The Conservative MPs wrote a very short but quite good piece of paper about free speech and they came out against reviving Section 13 and that's it.
They found that piece of paper quietly, didn't put out a press release, didn't tweet about it, didn't give a speech about it.
I'd be surprised if 100 people have read it.
Not one public speech by any Conservative MP, certainly not the leader Andrew Scheer, not one public comment, not one statement in Parliament, not one email from the party about it, no campaign about it.
It's as if it never happened.
Just a signed piece of paper filed away with the government.
And the Hill Times positively called up the Conservative MPs, who were so chatty about anything else in the world.
Well, when they found out it was about free speech, they wouldn't even return the phone calls on this.
It's crystal clear, the Conservatives don't actually care about free speech either.
Or scratch that.
Of course they do care.
Of course they care.
They're just too afraid to stand up to Anthony Anthony Housefather or the Muslim Brotherhood because they're worried that they'll be called mean by the CBC or something.
We're in trouble, folks.
We'll talk more on the subject in a moment.
YouTube's Political Bias00:08:33
They've been working on it since 2016 to make sure we're ready for 2020.
This is a Goliath I'm button David trying to say that the emperor has no clothes.
He got pulled in front of Congress multiple times to make it precious, but not entertaining.
There you have it.
Google Insiders talking to Project Veritas about their plans to stop Donald Trump from winning in 2020.
Google Insider coming forward, keeping his anonymity, but other Google executives captured on a hidden camera, which is the forte of Project Veritas.
Well, stunning to some, but completely unsurprising to those of us who have been following the politicization of YouTube, Google, Facebook, and other social media companies.
In fact, our next guest broke the news with a scoop of the Google Town Hall meeting, the all-staff meeting in the days after Trump's win in 2016, when senior executives were literally crying at staff meetings about the loss, and they spoke about the Democrats in the first-person plural.
We, we lost, we must win.
They weren't even a separate entity.
To be at Google is to be a Democrat.
Well, joining us now with the latest on this is our friend Alan Bokari, senior tech correspondent for Breitbart.com.
Alan, it's been an unbelievable week.
Project Veritas doing outstanding journalism as always.
You've had some great columns about this.
Can you sum up the latest status of these revelations by Project Veritas?
And you've had some revelations too.
And also the attempts to censor these revelations by these same companies.
Well, this is like the latest piece of evidence in what's becoming like a mountain of material proving that Google has a massive political bias, a vested interest in the next election, and a determination, frankly, to influence the election.
So as you said, two days after the election, we got a clip of the Google executives reacting, promising to make, in the words of Google Vice President Kent Walker, make the populist movement a hiccup in history on the march towards progress.
Those are his words.
We've also seen YouTube manipulating its search results for so-called politically controversial search queries like abortion and abortions downranking pro-life content and pushing pro-abortion content from mainstream news outlets up the search rankings.
And that's important because most people often don't go beyond the first two or three results even, and certainly not beyond the first 10 or 15 results.
It's very rare for people to do that.
Project Veritas also shed further light on that YouTube blacklist, which we broke a few months ago.
They also added search terms like Repeal the 8th ahead of the Irish abortion referendum.
Now, Repeal the Eighth was a reference to amending the Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution, which criminalized abortion.
So they actively interfered in that referendum, which took place last year.
We also found that these search terms were added seven days before the vote took place.
So this was very consciously done before the election.
I mean, it's incredible.
For two years, the legacy media has totally bought into the conspiracy theory, finally debunked by Robert Mueller, that Donald Trump was working in collusion with the Russians.
It was a two-year fever that was finally disproven.
Here we have YouTube, Google internal documents, not disputed by the company, from what I can tell, saying, yeah, we're going to manipulate this election and that election, and we are going to do our best to stop Trump.
And there's a collective yawn, I think is pretty obvious why, Alam.
I think it's because 90 plus percent of journalists agree Trump must be stopped, and if that's through censorship, so be it.
And by the way, it also helps mainstream journalists boost their content.
You know, mainstream journalists past three years have been getting absolutely crushed by the independent media, by YouTubers with webcams in their basements.
Some multi-million dollar broadcast networks have been getting, frankly, owned by those people.
So the fact that YouTube is now adjusting its algorithms on key political terms to promote so-called authoritative sources, by which they mean the mainstream media, that's going to be a massive boost for mainstream journalists over their competitors.
So yes, why wouldn't they support it?
You know, this expose into Google, the interviews were done by Project Veritas.
Of course, Google owns YouTube.
So Google, which was exposed, well, their subsidiary, YouTube, shut down the Project Veritas expose.
Brazen, basically, and I was shocked that other tech companies got in on it too.
Vimeo, which is actually a direct competitor to YouTube, deleted the same videos too.
I mean, it was like they were all colluding together.
How can you make sense of that?
Why would rivals to YouTube shut down an expose that's embarrassing to YouTube?
Wouldn't they want to profit off the bad news of Google?
Right.
Well, here's a kind of market failure we have because although Vimeo and YouTube are commercial competitors, they're not ideological competitors.
They're part of the same Silicon Valley monoculture that hates Trump, that hates Republicans, that wants to see him lose the next election.
So this is so strong in Silicon Valley that even commercial competitors will work together to censor ideological opponents.
And we saw this with Alex Jones.
had one Silicon Valley after another just banning him, banning him, banning him.
Yeah, all within the same day.
I mean, it was, I mean, they were all flying with him for years, and then in the course of 24 hours, they all made their move.
I suppose it's like Hollywood.
I mean, the studios do duke it out, and they compete for box office openings.
But when it comes to politics, they are unanimously, I mean, you could find the exception on one hand's fingers, Clint Eastwood, and I think I pretty much just went through the list of non-Democrats in Hollywood.
So yeah, they're commercial rivals, but when it comes to politics, they close ranks.
Yeah, and even when they stand to make a profit from it, you know, you said Hollywood, I mean the American Sniper, which wasn't really a conservative film, but conservatives really liked it.
That was a huge success at the box office, but it was denounced by most liberals in Hollywood.
So even though the Mel Gibson films as well made loads of money, but Mel Gibson was ostracized.
So even though these things could make money, they don't do them anyway.
And it's the same deal in Silicon Valley.
I mean, when Facebook banned Alex Jones, Twitter would have stood to gain by having him on their platform and getting unique access to his fans, but they didn't do that because ideological competition is more important in much of elite society in America than commercial competition.
Yeah, and I find that personally terrifying because, of course, Alex Jones was very big on YouTube, double or triple our size, and they didn't hesitate to delete him with the flick of a button.
If they can do that to him in America, a man who personally interviewed Donald Trump, so he has a first-degree connection to Trump.
He is so much bigger and stronger than us.
I mean, whatever qualms people have with him editorially, he was powerful.
And YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, even Apple, even Pinterest, even LinkedIn, why would LinkedIn delete him?
I don't know, but they just did.
If they can do that to him, they can do that to anyone.
Yeah, and now they're doing it to journalism.
So as you said, YouTube kicked off Project Veritas because Project Veritas did journalism about Google, which owns YouTube.
Discrimination Against Platforms00:09:04
So Google is censoring journalism about Google.
That's terrifying as well, that they're behaving like a totalitarian government, which in many ways they are.
Yeah, they have less scrutiny and less accountability than even many authoritarian regimes, as hard as that.
And they have more power over our lives directly.
I tell you, there's not a lot of things that Vladimir Putin can actually do on any given day that would affect my life.
In fact, other than war or some cyber war, I can't even think of one.
But on any given day, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter can very much change my life.
Not only the company we have called The Rebel, but imagine if you were deplatformed.
I mean, and now Facebook's talking about getting into the cryptocurrency business.
Imagine the same political decision that shuts down your Facebook account.
Well, what if it, and they claim they wouldn't do it, but I don't trust a word they say.
What if they refuse to let you have access to your Facebook currency because you said something wrong, you liked something wrong, or you did something even in real life off the platform they didn't like.
These people have more power over our lives than Vladimir Putin does by far.
Absolutely.
And I think the next stage of conservative politics is going to be this battle with woke corporations, not just in Silicon Valley.
You mentioned the cryptocurrency thing, you know, being locked out of your crypto wallet because you said the wrong thing on Facebook.
Activists are already pressuring MasterCard to do the same thing.
They want them to establish a so-called human rights council to monitor the far right with a view to cutting off payments.
They actually protested MasterCard's annual general meeting last week.
And that was the Sleeping Giants and a group called, I believe, doing the same thing.
They're trying to change the terms of contracts.
Well, let me ask you this.
I mean, and by the way, it's coming to Canada too.
Our Justin Trudeau is going full speed ahead with the Christchurch Call to Action, which is a censorship program led by the traumatized Prime Minister of New Zealand named Jacinda Ardern.
I don't know if you saw it, Alan, just a few days ago, the Secretary General of the United Nations announced a war on what he called hate speech, and he emphasized leaning on social media companies many times.
I feel like...
Yeah, it was interesting.
I got into a sort of spat with a BBC journalist a couple of weeks ago because the BBC journalist was complaining that he's a China correspondent.
He was in China.
And on WeChat, China's biggest social media platform, you can't talk about the Tiananmen Square project.
And he was complaining about this.
And I made the point, well, this is interesting because WeChat is purportedly a private company, but we all know that the Chinese government leans on them to censor dissidents.
So it seems like we have a similar thing happening in the West now.
We have governments and politicians who can't really censor people themselves because there are all sorts of laws against that.
Slight difference with China there, but they know that they can make private companies do it on their behalf.
Now in Europe, they do pass laws making the companies do that.
In America, where you have the First Amendment, you just have politicians telling these companies what to do and who to censor.
So look, the parallels are getting more apparent all the time with totalitarian regimes like China.
You're so right.
I mean, of course, we find censorship of Tiananmen Square odious, but how is that any different than what you just described Google doing to Project Veritas, and why is it...
And indeed, the social credit system.
So in China, if you engage in behavior that the Chinese communists don't like, they'll adjust your social credit score, which will effectively ban you from using transportation, ban you from using from sending your kids to good schools, ban you from all sorts of essential services.
And we have a very similar system now developing in the private sector in the West, where if you fall below a certain, your scores are hidden, but if you fall below a certain score on Facebook, you attract too many hate agents' points.
I released a story a few weeks ago exposing Facebook's list of so-called hate agents, people who they're monitoring for hate speech.
You accumulate too many points and they'll kick you off the platform.
And we have like Uber and Lyft and Airbnb kicking people off.
We have PayPal kicking people off, credit cards.
So all of these essential services can be just completely cut off if you exhibit the wrong behavior.
And you do have a secret score that's assigned to you by many of these platforms that is very similar to China's system.
Yeah, you're so right.
I think these companies are practicing in China and importing the bad practices here.
Instead of taking the history and the culture and the practices of liberty from here and exporting liberty there, the pipes are reversed.
I find that terrifying.
And I come back to the question I've asked you surely a dozen times over the years.
When's the president going to do anything?
Because, I mean, up here in Canada, we're dealing with all these Silicon Valley-based companies.
I mean, I suppose they have some exposure to Canadian law, but of course, Justin Trudeau likes the censorship.
At the end of the day, Canada is not the home base for them.
Donald Trump's America is.
He controls the Communications Decency Act.
He controls antitrust investigations, civil rights investigations.
There are a number of tools he could use, even if they're not failure-proof or fool-proof.
Even just launching them would have a salutary effect.
And yet, besides the odd tweet from the president, I have seen nothing, and the day is getting long.
You know, we're halfway through 2019.
The Democratic primaries are underway.
How much more time will there be for him to save himself?
Forget about saving you and me.
When will the man save himself?
Yeah, I mean, he's personally under attack.
Twitter is now going to censor his tweets.
They're going to put them behind barriers that you have to click through to access them.
So they're openly censoring the president now, and he seems to not be doing much about it other than speaking out.
The Justice Department did launch an antitrust investigation, which is a big deal.
But an antitrust investigation is sort of like not the right tool to deal with this specific problem, I don't think.
It's possible that he could solve the censorship question in a settlement.
So maybe that's what he's going for.
But, you know, antitrust is sort of like a square peg in a round hole.
What I think needs to happen is, as you mentioned, civil rights investigations.
That could be a very useful tool because many of these companies are based in California, which has strong laws against political discrimination, against viewpoint discrimination.
And what I'd like to see, because, again, this isn't just Silicon Valley we're talking about now.
It's credit cards.
It's even restaurants kicking you out because of a political viewpoint.
There was a knitting website earlier.
Like the biggest knitting website on the internet said they're not going to allow Trump supporters on their platform anymore.
So even knitting is political.
It's amazing.
What I think really needs to happen, not just to stop this injustice, but also to sort of decrease partisan tensions, which are getting out of control, is we need an extension of California's laws on political discrimination across the entire country, I think.
You know, you mentioned Attorney General's, and you mentioned civil rights laws in California.
Of course, California, New York, Illinois, a lot of those big states are run by Democrats who are either in the pocket of Silicon Valley or like their censorship for their own reasons.
But there are some states, Texas being an obvious one, Florida being another, where you have bold state governments that are Republican-leaning.
Is there anything a state-level attorney general can do on a civil rights basis, on a trust-busting basis, or is that not their jurisdiction?
Can the great governor of Texas, who's doing a lot of good work in his statehouse, could he take a run at these companies?
He could certainly give it a go.
I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure there are plenty tools a state attorney general can use to make a tech company's life difficult.
And even if they're not directly related to the question of discrimination or censorship, you could at least make those questions part of the settlement.
And hopefully that's what will happen with the antitrust example.
What also needs to happen, I think, state legislatures, which, as you say, in many cases are controlled by Republicans in certain states, they need to immediately pass laws on viewpoint discrimination and political discrimination.
I think that's the way forward.
Paul On Trump's Peace Offer00:03:03
Well, I have to say, Alan, I talk about these things, but I believe that we will soon be a subject of these things.
We are facing baby steps of discrimination against our own platform.
I see them even in recent days.
And I am worried that we ourselves will be a news story.
And if that happens as darkly as I fear it might, I hope that you will light a candle for us and write a story about us because we'll need all the help we can get.
All right, my friend.
Well, thank you for joining us today from Washington Vioskype.
Good to see you again.
Thanks, Ezra.
All right.
That's our friend Alan Bokhari, senior tech correspondent for Breitbart.com.
Hey, welcome back on my show yesterday about Jared Kushner's proposed deal to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Liza writes, when pigs fly, nothing will change as long as terrorists run their government.
Give me a break.
Yeah, I don't understand the idea.
I mean, I was relieved to hear that the 50 billion was coming from Arab countries and not from America.
But, you know, you could offer a trillion, you could offer a gazillion dollars.
These people don't actually want peace.
In fact, it was offered everything and gave it up.
Paul writes, if anyone could bring peace, Trump could.
That said it's not possible to build peace with people who would rather die than make it happen.
I think it was Goldemeir, the American-born Prime Minister of Israel, who said, we'll have peace when Palestinians love their kids as much as they hate our kids.
And that's a pretty tough thing to say, but I think there's some truth to it.
Betty writes, if the people in the Middle East would stop fighting and work together, there would be no end to what they could accomplish.
I think there's some truth to that.
I mean, look at Dubai.
And of course Dubai has oil money, but now it's much more than that.
You can see what countries even without resources, like Hong Kong, there are really no natural resources there.
It's a port, but there's no oil, there's no gas, there's no mines.
It's a city based on freedom and commerce and cooperation.
And they love freedom, don't they?
Singapore, you could say the same thing.
So yeah, I mean, in the Middle East, you've got access, I mean, look at a map.
You've got Asia, Africa, and Europe all like a three-leaf clover right around you.
You could do anything.
Dubai certainly is.
West Bank and Gaza have the advantage of being right next to Israel, which is a very large Western-oriented economy.
Of course they could, but that has not been the focus of the Palestinian leadership for two generations.
I find it very sad.
But Joel Pollock's point was this is calling the bluff of the Palestinian side.
Well, it's a shame that I think that bluff will in fact be called.
But maybe we have to wait another century for peace to come.
All right, folks, that's the show for today.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters and you at home, good night.