Ezra Levant’s trip to Israel and the UAE under the Abraham Accords revealed surprising warmth toward Jewish culture, including a Holocaust museum in Dubai and a multi-faith complex in Abu Dhabi, yet Hamas’s October 7th massacre—brutalized via live-streamed violence and hostage-taking—ignited global anti-Semitism, echoing historical persecution. Joel Pollak exposes how Palestinian leaders weaponize delegitimization, like MIT and Harvard’s silence on genocide calls, while Western institutions frame Jews as oppressors despite expulsions from Arab nations (e.g., Abiy Yamini’s Sephardi exodus) and Gaza’s squandered prosperity under Hamas, which destroyed even aid-funded infrastructure. Israel’s TikTok-savvy soldiers fight back resolutely, but platforms like TikTok amplify extremist threats, while universities normalize violence as "resistance," proving ideology over morality endangers both Jews and Western values. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, we catch up with Joel Pollack, senior editor-at-large of Breitbart.com.
You're watching the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Well, just a few months ago, the Rebel News held what we called our Abraham Accords journalistic mission to Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
We went to Israel for about a week, and then we tacked on three or four days in the UAE, going to their cities of Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
The Abraham Accords, as you know, was what Donald Trump dubbed his peace plan for the Middle East.
Abraham, of course, being a patriarch in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
It was an amazing trip.
It was a fun trip, very educational.
And I left very hopeful.
In fact, I was sort of touched and moved by what appeared to be the genuine friendship in the United Arab Emirates towards not just Israel, but the Jewish people.
We saw a Holocaust museum in Dubai run by a local Emirati.
We went to a complex in Abu Dhabi where the government created three almost identical religious houses of worship, a Muslim mosque, a Catholic church, and a Jewish synagogue, all three of which are actually used.
And myself and the, I don't know, about 40 people we had with us came back, I know, so hopeful and feeling for the first time that maybe the age-old dispute between Jews and Arabs can be solved.
Well, last it was short weeks after that, on October 7th, that Hamas launched a medieval barbaric rape, torture, murder, and arson attack on Israel, specifically targeting civilians, taking women and children hostage back to Gaza, live streaming their barbarity.
And not just that, but around the world, that was like a starter pistol for anti-Semitic hate, the likes of which I've never seen.
In fact, it really felt to me, as I said in the time, like the Holocaust Museum had come to life, but this time in full color.
Replete with Holocaust denial, by the way.
People who, despite the live streaming of the torture and rape, deny it and, of course, blame the Jews themselves.
Well, someone who was on that Israel UHE trip with us, who is not a rebel and was not one of our guests, but rather one of our celebrity guests on that trip, is our friend Joel Pollock, the senior editor-at-large of Breitbart.com.
He was with us in that, I would call it almost a healing trip of hope, and he's been reporting on the war ever since it began.
Joining us now via Skype is Joel Pollock from Breitbart.
Joel, great to see you again.
How are you?
Great.
Good to be with you, Ezra.
Thank you, you two.
This war has not just been a military conflict between Israel and Hamas.
I think it has really called on the diaspora of Islamic extremists around the world, as well as their new allies and the progressive left, to launch really an anti-Semitic propaganda war against the Jewish state and against Jews.
Not just Israeli things, but Jews and Jewishness itself is under attack in a way that I don't think has been the case since the Second World War.
What do you make of that?
Well, terrorists and I should say even mainstream Palestinian leaders have often viewed anti-Semitism as a form of leverage over Jewish communities and over Western policymakers.
I was told about 20 years ago when I had breakfast with the Palestinian ambassador to South Africa.
We met in Cape Town and he warned me that if the United States didn't change its policy toward Israel, that there could one day be a Holocaust in the United States.
Now, he was exploiting fears among Jews that even in the United States, which has been the most welcoming country to Jews out of any country outside of Israel and perhaps Canada, he was reacting or exploiting those fears that Jews still have because Jews were very much at home in Germany, for example, before the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party.
And Jews often fear that something like that could happen again, no matter what other society they're living in.
That's why Jews feel safer and more secure when Israel is safe and secure.
But in his mind, that was something to be exploited, that the discomfort of Jewish communities in the West could be used to convince Israel not to be aggressive against Palestinian terrorism, because after all, Israel would not want to do things that would harm fellow Jews around the world.
So I think there is actually an unspoken strategic element to some of the anti-Semitism.
Some of it is purely ideological and radically nationalist.
There have been many attacks, for example, in even New York City, which is a city where Jews are very much a part of the cultural landscape.
Attacks on Israeli restaurants, restaurants that serve falafel and chummus, because according to Palestinians, Israelis aren't allowed to enjoy those foods or to serve them in Israeli-style restaurants because those foods are from the Middle East and they view Israel as not being indigenous to the Middle East.
Everything Israeli is fake and borrowed.
Never mind that the very Palestinian narrative itself of a Nakba, a disaster as the founding of their nation is borrowed in its own turn from the way in which the Holocaust preceded the creation of the state of Israel, although the pieces were already in place for the creation of the state of Israel before the Second World War.
But the idea is to delegitimize Israel.
And what you can say at best is that the academic institutions and some of the leading political institutions and certainly the media institutions are indifferent to the death of Jews in Israel.
As the saying goes, Jewish lives don't matter.
And of course, the opposite is true for other minorities for whom the establishment bends over backwards to show how much they care and how much they empathize even with perceived suffering, if perhaps the objective reasons for suffering might be a matter of differences of opinion.
There's no regard for the suffering of Israeli Jews.
And you see that at the United Nations, where the UN's women organization ignored the attempted mass rape of Israeli women and the allegations, credible and some of them on video, of the sexual violence against Israeli women.
So there is an anti-Semitism.
Some of it is strategic and political, and some of it does go back to very old and very ugly prejudices against Jews that are simply religious prejudices or ethnic prejudices.
And in many cases, in many ways, the Arab and Muslim diaspora has borrowed some of these anti-Semitic ideas from European anti-Semitism.
And in some ways, they are indigenous to Islamic attitudes toward minority faiths in the Muslim world in general.
Jews and Christians were never full citizens in the Muslim empires.
They were second-class citizens.
They may have had it better, especially Jews at some points in Islamic history than they might have in Christian Europe, but they were never full citizens.
And there's a powerful anti-Semitism that comes from within Islam, as well as from within the totalitarian ideologies of Europe or the authoritarian regime of Tsarist Russia, which originally promulgated the fraudulent text, the protocols of the elders of Zion.
A lot of anti-Semitism comes into this mix, and the leading academic lights in the United States failed to speak out forcefully against it.
They failed to describe the nature of the problem.
They treated anti-Israel and anti-Semitic speech as if it were a First Amendment problem, merely a matter of free speech.
In fact, it's not even clear that calls for genocide, for example, are protected by the First Amendment.
Certainly, calling for the destruction of Israel is an infringement on religious liberty because Israel is at the center of the Jewish faith and has been for thousands of years.
And so if you're calling for the destruction of Israel, you're calling essentially to make it impossible or much more difficult at least for Jews to practice their faith.
Many Jews feel that Judaism itself would not survive without the modern state of Israel because of the Holocaust.
And so there's been a kind of failure, not just a moral failure by Arab and Muslim immigrants to the West who have brought with them some of the anti-Israel prejudices that they were steeped in, perhaps in their upbringing.
But there's been a failure of the North American and European institutions to stand up for their own values, to stand up for American history.
The very basis of religious liberty in the United States, going back to George Washington, is not just tolerance, but a complete assertion of the independent religious liberty of Jews.
George Washington wrote a letter to the Jewish community at Newport, Rhode Island, promising them that Jews would always be safe in the United States.
And that letter also says that people don't enjoy their religious liberty on the sufferance of others.
It's not just that Jews are tolerated, but Jews have an independent, God-given right to religious liberty.
And Washington wrote that just a few months after he became president.
And that reflects the spirit in which the First Amendment was adopted.
So we've really lost a sense of not just what it means to live in a tolerant society, but we've lost a sense of where our own liberties come from.
And we've allowed, in some cases, migrant communities to bring these illiberal ideas with them, but we haven't even stood up for our own ideas through our own institutions.
Yeah.
You know, it was incredible.
And I haven't done a show on the subject, but the presidents of MIT, Harvard, and Penn, three leading universities, just were incredible how they just would not bring themselves to condemn calls for genocide.
I think there was one point where they said, well, if it turned into action, we would say something, but just calling for death to the Jews is not enough to trigger our harassment.
They condemned calls for genocide, but what they wouldn't say is that calls for genocide would be punished by the universities.
What they tried to say was that it's a First Amendment issue.
It's a free speech issue.
People have the free speech to call for genocide.
Well, if you go to any of these campuses, you don't actually have freedom of speech.
You can't misgender someone.
You can lose your job for misgendering somebody.
You can be brought up on administrative sanctions or whatever it is for all kinds of speech offenses.
But somehow calling for the genocide of Jews is uniquely privileged as a form of freedom of speech.
And of course, under First Amendment doctrine, incitement to immediate physical violence is not protected by the First Amendment.
And in a lot of these contexts where you have crowds of anti-Israel demonstrators saying things like, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, which is a call to genocide, and Jewish students have to make their way through this.
That is an incitement to harm.
And I've told my wife many times that had those protesters existed on campus when I was there, I probably would have been expelled for fighting because those are fighting words.
How are you expected to go to class surrounded by people who hate you and go into class and be interrupted in class by people?
That's another problem at Harvard, that people are interrupting classes.
And this is being tolerated.
It's not being punished.
If at all, it's very minor punishment.
And the university isn't speaking out.
The university can also make its own views much clearer.
The university has freedom of speech and they are not speaking out on behalf of the right of Israel to exist.
The idea that Israel could be dismantled shouldn't even be a topic of debate.
It's really not a legitimate position.
If there are people who want to advocate for that position, that's fine.
But the university doesn't have to endorse that position.
I myself have my Harvard reunion coming up in a few months, and I am not going.
And I've actually put a notice in the alumni bulletin that goes out to all the classmates that I will not participate in any Harvard activities as long as the university continues to subsidize the groups that signed a joint statement on the weekend of October 7th, blaming Israel for the terrorist attacks.
They can say that in Harvard Yard.
They can say that.
on the streets of Cambridge, Massachusetts, but they do not have the right to access university funds for their activities if that's the point of view they want to express.
So I don't think we have to subsidize these views.
And the university hasn't been forceful enough.
And I think they've actually done their own students a disfavor.
Many Americans have now waded in.
There are efforts to expose the names of students who've taken anti-Israel views.
I've actually been against that.
I don't think that students who have stupid views when they're undergraduates should suffer for the rest of their lives.
I was on the left when I was a student at the undergraduate level anyway at Harvard.
But I think the university should have rebuked them and shown the rest of the country and the rest of the world that the university itself was managing this, that this was part of the educational process, that these students were speaking without a knowledge of history or without concern for the consequences of their words.
But the university just said, no, this is free speech.
And so it left these students to fend for themselves, which I think was an abdication of responsibility by the university.
18-year-olds don't show up on campus as fully formed adults, ready to understand what they're saying, to make coherent arguments, and to deal with the consequences of whatever they're doing.
I know we've gotten rid of the idea in loco parentis that the universities are sort of substitutes for the parents, but I do think the university in this case, by rebuking the students, would have actually protected them from what they're now experiencing.
Now the university is stepping in to protect the anti-Israel students who are being exposed and denied jobs and things like that.
And it's doing more to protect those students than it has done to protect the Jewish students who are under physical threat, who can't leave their dorms at the University of Pennsylvania and so forth.
Just one more thing, Ezra, before we go on.
You had a really nice introduction about our time in the United Arab Emirates.
And I should say that there is still a silver lining in all this, which is that the United Arab Emirates has remained part of the Abraham Accords, as have all the other Arab countries that made peace with Israel.
Nobody has dropped out.
And the United Arab Emirates continues to, as far as I can understand anecdotally, continues to be welcoming to Jews, to Israelis.
They lit Hanukkah menorahs in Dubai.
I have text messages from members of the Jewish congregation in Abu Dhabi, where the government built a synagogue, the first synagogue in the Emirates.
And they're still having weekly Sabbath services.
They're having Hanukkah menorah lightings.
So there is, behind all of the conflict, there is still a relationship that exists between Israel and some of these Arab states.
Part of the reason the Hamas terror attack happened is that Iran is trying to disrupt those relationships.
Iran is trying to break the peace that had begun to set in.
I think Iran has been partially successful in that it's turned public opinion in the Middle East and in the world against Israel.
But I don't think it has been successful in that it hasn't actually broken the Abraham Accords.
Those countries, especially the United Arab Emirates, they're still very much working with Israel.
And in fact, the Dubai Port Company is now allowing Israeli trucks to take goods from Dubai across Saudi Arabia and across Jordan and into Israel as a way of bypassing the Houthis in the Red Sea, who have caused problems not just for Israeli shipping, but global shipping.
Context Matters00:04:34
So there is a productive relationship that's still going on.
Wow.
Well, you've said so many things that I want to weigh in on, but I don't want to go back in time.
But I do want to show that exchange in the U.S. Congress between Representative Stefanik and these university presidents.
And for those folks who are having trouble saying, well, what's wrong with it?
Imagine if you had, and by the way, in Toronto, so many of the Hamas activists are masked.
So imagine you have people wearing a Klan hood shouting kill the blacks, lynch the blacks, insane things like that, and the university is saying, yep, that's free speech.
Until they actually start to kill or lynch anyone, that's free speech.
Let me show you the exchange between Stefanik and these presidents just because I know that was about five minutes ago in our conversation, but I think it was important for our viewers to see it.
Dr. Kornbloth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT's code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment?
Yes or no?
If targeted at individuals not making public statements?
Yes or no?
Calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?
I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.
But you've heard chants for Intifada.
I've heard chants, which can be anti-Semitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.
So those would not be according to the MIT's code of conduct or rules?
That would be investigated as harassment, if pervasive and severe.
Ms. McGill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct?
Yes or no?
If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.
Yes.
I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?
If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment.
So the answer is yes.
It is a context-dependent decision, Congresswoman.
It's a context-dependent decision.
That's your testimony today.
Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context.
That is not bullying or harassment.
This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. McGill.
So is your testimony that you will not answer yes?
If it is, if the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment.
Yes.
Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide?
The speech is not harassment.
This is unacceptable, Ms. McGill.
I'm going to give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer.
Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's code of conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment?
Yes or no?
It can be harassment.
The answer is yes.
And Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment?
Yes or no?
It can be depending on the context.
What's the context?
Targeted as an individual, targeted at an individual?
It's targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals.
Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them?
Do you understand that dehumanization is part of anti-Semitism?
I will ask you one more time, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment?
Yes or no?
Anti-Semitic rhetoric.
And is it anti-Semitic rhetoric?
Anti-Semitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation, that is actionable conduct, and we do take action.
So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct, correct?
Again, it depends on the context.
It does not depend on the context.
The answer is yes, and this is why you should resign.
These are unacceptable answers across the board.
And the reason I think that's important is because it's not just, it's everyone in authority.
Most mainstream media in Canada will not call Hamas a terrorist group.
They won't.
They claim they don't want to take sides, but of course that is taking a side.
That's saying we're not going to call them terrorist groups.
Coalition of the Unwilling00:04:31
Most police forces in Canada have, like, for example, just a couple of days ago in Toronto, a masked man in a mall said, I'll put you six feet under.
I'll put you six feet under, shouting at, I presume, what were Jewish shoppers.
A cop was standing right there and did nothing.
Here's a quick clip of that.
What I think we're seeing is that the pro-Hamas forces, whether they're organic or stimulated by Iran, which there's evidence that that's happening certainly in Canada, or whatever it is, they're fighting.
they're trying to test the limits.
How far can they go?
And so far, they have not found the limit.
And I find it deeply depressing because there is no authority in Canada from what Daniel Pipes calls the five P's, the professors, politicians, the press, the police, or the prosecutors.
None of these institutions have stepped up and said, whoa, we are on the wrong track.
At least in Canada, at most, you have sort of a silence.
And in too many cases, I mean, Canada, for example, voted for the pro-Hamas ceasefire motion in the United Nations the other day.
There's just no countervailing force.
I find it deeply depressing.
Well, what's encouraging is that Israel is continuing to fight regardless.
And the reports every day from the battlefield are that Israel continues to make gains.
They continue to find tunnels.
They continue to destroy Hamas terrorists and the weapons that they've stockpiled.
So I think Israel is winning anyway.
But the West really has a stake in this fight.
And the analogy to Nazi Germany, I mean, we mock people who use Hitler analogies, but the analogy in this case is perfectly appropriate.
The German people were broadly supportive of the Nazi regime, and the Allies bombed German cities.
They caused a lot of suffering to German civilians, but they had to dislodge the Nazi Party from power permanently.
The goal was unconditional surrender.
That's the goal in the war against Hamas.
And Hamas has a similar ideology to Nazi Germany.
They want to kill all the Jews, not just in Israel, but all around the world.
Well, if you're comfortable with a group like that maintaining its weapons and maintaining its power, then you ought to have been comfortable with a partial peace in the Second World War that left Hitler and the Nazis in power, as long as they promised not to do anything bad to the Jews again, which was against their ideology.
Of course, they were going to do things like that again, just like Hamas says, of course, it's going to repeat October 7th.
So I think there's a failure in the West to stand up for our own values and for our own interests.
And, you know, there's this new coalition.
Canada has joined the United States in this coalition to counter the Houthi threat to shipping in the Red Sea.
I call it the coalition of the unwilling, because they're unwilling to attack the Houthis in Yemen to take out the military installations, the ballistic missiles, the pirates in the harbor, that would actually be relatively easy to hit.
And they're unwilling to do it for fear of widening the conflict.
But Iran doesn't seem to fear widening the conflict.
Iran's widening the conflict all the time.
And there's this fear somehow of confronting Iran.
And Iran senses that fear, and so it pushes for more.
What really would be the threat of confronting Iran in Yemen?
The supply lines between Iran and Yemen are not short.
They're long.
The United States, Canada, and other nations would easily win any military confrontation with the Houthis, who come from one of the poorest countries in the world, a country that has no business firing ballistic missiles or drones at anybody.
It doesn't invent those drones itself.
It gets them from Iran.
But all of that money is being poured into weaponry instead of into the welfare of the people of Yemen who need economic development.
And they're threatening global shipping.
We've completely inverted the world order.
We are unwilling to do what's necessary to stop evil from taking over.
So we are a coalition of the unwilling.
And only Israel is willing to stand up, as Lee Smith put it in a recent article in Tablet magazine.
Only Israel is standing for life for the idea that you have to protect what's valuable.
And sometimes, yes, that means going to war, but you don't go to war to cause death.
You go to war to protect life.
And Hamas is a death cult that is exacting a price that evidently too many countries in the West are willing to pay.
You know, I know you don't have a lot more time to spend with us, so I just want to ask you a question about one of the things that has surprised me is that there is a difference in the United States between liberals and leftists.
Alec On TikTok And Anti-Semitism00:10:10
Liberals are just, you know, people who aren't maybe conservative.
They're more, you know, they're softer, let me say.
Whereas progressives are hard-edged, woke communist activists, if you want to be imprecise.
And so I've been pleasantly surprised to see people like Senator Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who was this goofy progressive, I thought, but he's actually quite principled standing up for Israel.
I see Anthony Blinken, who's probably the most articulate defender of Israel's war to deconstruct Hamas in the world.
I see Bill Maher, the famous liberal from his HBO TV show.
I see even Alec Baldwin, who I've despised for 100 reasons.
I see him on the street in New York pushing back at anti-Semites.
And I'm heartened by the fact that in America, you can have liberals who I'm against on everything from gun control to global warming to transgenderism, whatever.
But on this, they're able to see, no, this is just Jew hate.
It's the same as someone who wanted to kill blacks.
You just want to kill Jews.
I'm impressed with them.
I mean, here's just a quick clip of Alex Baldwin.
It's not about standing up for Jews.
What has happened is that the pro-Palestinian movement has attacked institutions and ideas that have nothing to do with Jews, but that are very important to Americans.
The pro-Palestinian activists, for example, have made a point of disrupting Christmas tree lightings across America.
They disrupted the lightings in Rockefeller Center in New York.
They threatened to disrupt the California Christmas tree lighting.
So Governor Gavin Newsom here made it a virtual lighting as if it were back in the days of COVID.
He didn't do an outdoor lighting because the Palestinian activists were going to disrupt it.
And they were very upset that he had deprived them of an opportunity to disrupt the Christmas tree lighting that they never wanted him to have anyway.
These are attacks on symbols of American culture.
And Palestinians are attacking them, or the pro-Palestinian activists, anti-Israel activists are attacking them because they're not just attacking Israel.
They want to overthrow what they perceive as the dominant culture in the United States.
This is part of the Black Lives Matter Antifa attack on the core of American culture and cultural institutions.
Just this week, I learned today, the anti-Israel activists defaced the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. with red paint.
Now, where have we seen that before?
We saw it happen during the 2020 riots after George Floyd when Antifa went around defacing American monuments, including monuments to abolitionists like Abraham Lincoln.
They defaced the Lincoln Memorial then as well.
These are attacks on what they perceive as the complacency and bourgeois and pro-Western attitudes of their fellow Americans.
They want to disrupt American life.
In San Francisco, anti-Israel protesters blocked the Bay Bridge.
They sat across the highway.
They blocked the bridge.
And there were several ambulances that were carrying organs for transplantation to desperate patients that couldn't get across the bridge.
So when you start doing that, I mean, Alec Baldwin, you take Alec Baldwin, he was out for a walk.
He was trying to walk to an acting class that he was teaching, and he happened to encounter the protesters.
He didn't go there to be a counter demonstrator, but they accosted him as he was trying to walk by.
Now, I'm sure he probably crossed to their side of the street to see what the commotion was because he likes confrontations.
But the point is, people are trying to go about their business.
They're trying to have a Christmas.
They're trying to get to work or get to the hospital.
And the pro-Palestinian people are interfering with them.
That's why you're seeing a reaction from Americans.
And the Palestinian cause is not about convincing hearts and minds.
It's about terror.
It's about terrifying people and disrupting ordinary life.
And it has hitched itself to the broader revolutionary project.
And that's why you're seeing some liberals push back.
Anthony Blinken, I wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt because he's dictating terms to the Israeli war cabinet behind the scenes, and that has to be watched very closely.
But yes, the reaction you're seeing from some mainstream Americans is to the fact that the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian activists aren't just attacking Jews.
They're not just attacking Israel.
They're attacking Western society itself.
And more and more people are saying we've had enough.
Yeah.
Here's a quick clip of Alec Baldwin on the streets of Manhattan.
Take a look.
Oh, ask your question.
Is that your answer?
Is that your answer?
You ask stupid questions.
And by the way, here's a quick clip of John Fetterman surprisingly standing up for Israel's right to fight back.
I understand that there's kind of a division between the younger voters between Israel and Gaza.
And I really believe the president is very much on the right side of that.
And sometimes you may alienate some voters, but it's really most important to be on the right side on that.
I mean, that's where I'm at.
I do know that a lot of people are getting their perspective from TikTok.
And I think if you're kind of getting your perspective on the world on TikTok, it's going to tend to be kind of warped or not reflective of the history and actually the way things absolutely are.
And what is very clear is that Hamas started this and they actually broke the ceasefire and they attacked and murdered babies, children, women, attacked a music concert and everything.
It's outrageous.
And from now on, it's been very clear that Israel would very much want there to be peace.
But they've made it very clear that after October 7th, that's just not possible so long as Hamas is allowed to exist.
Well, Joel, I know you've got to go, but I think you said something very important in your last comment.
That there is an attempt to persuade sort of low-information kids on TikTok, which I think is a problem, by the way.
I'm on TikTok and I'm on Twitter, and I can see the difference in the algorithm.
And TikTok is a super highway of anti-Semitic content, whereas Twitter is much less so.
It's ironic that Elon Musk is getting pegged as the anti-Semite when TikTok is this Chinese government app that's feeding me anti-Israel propaganda.
And I'm the same person.
The algorithms are just different.
But I think it's other than maybe low-information voters who are being given a few slogans to chant, I don't think the purpose of the pro-Hamas marches is to persuade.
It's not to make the case.
It's not to reason.
It's exactly what you say.
It's to become so harassing, so punitive, so stressful, so chaotic, to shut down roads and bridges and subway stations.
And who knows, maybe they'll shut down airports that people are fatigued by it and just give in to it, either give in to sharp terrorism, like there have been some terrorist threats in Canada, or just the slow wearing down, the fatigue and the demoralization, as Yuri Bezmanov would call it.
I think that we're allowing the demoralization of the West.
And some people are alert to it, but many people are not.
Last word to you, Joel.
Israelis are also on TikTok, and the Israeli defense minister, I think it was, or one of the military commanders, told the soldiers in the field: you are the TikTok generation and you're fighting in Gaza.
The kids on TikTok in Israel are in the army, and they're risking their lives to protect their country, to protect the children of Israel from ever having to endure another October 7th.
There's nothing really fundamentally different about Israelis and about Canadians or Americans.
The difference is that Israel suffered a direct terror attack, and so people had to put down their phones and go to war.
And the thing that we have to realize is that this assault on the West is going to become more direct if Hamas succeeds.
Other radical organizations will become emboldened to carry out terror attacks.
Look, they've already succeeded in some ways.
I mean, Harvard has become a place where it's uncomfortable, to say the least, to be Jewish and very difficult to be pro-Israel.
The libraries, the sacred spaces have been disrupted.
So I think that we're going to need to see people in the United States and Canada stand up.
And yes, we have TikTok to worry about.
It's a Chinese-controlled app and who knows what sort of propaganda they're feeding into our culture and so forth.
But individuals are going to have to stand up and take heart from the young Israelis who have the same apps that we do, but who put the phones down and did what they had to do, whether volunteering or picking up a gun or whatever it was they had to do as part of the war effort.
And they're out there fighting.
It didn't kill their will to fight, and nor should we allow it to kill ours.
There you have it.
Joel, great to catch up with you.
Joel Pollock, Sr., editor-at-large at Breitbart.com.
And hopefully, one day again, we'll do another journalistic mission to Israel to celebrate peace between Israel and its neighbors once, God willing, Hamas is defeated and Hezbollah too.
All right.
Sit with us.
It's good to see you.
Stay with us.
My final thoughts are next.
I like Joel.
He's a smart guy and he has a lot of things to say.
I have about five things to say in response every time he answers, but the conversation has to move forward.
It can't just be me reacting to Joel.
But I did not do a monologue on those three college presidents, one of whom has since been sacked, the president of UPenn, University of Pennsylvania.
But I think because they've been places of woke, critical race theory and cultural Marxism for a generation, the reason they responded to this anti-Semitism the way they did is because they put Jews in the class of the oppressor and Palestinians in the class of the oppressed.
Jews as Refugees and Builders00:02:56
And so literally anything done by Palestinians against Jews, including rape and murder and torture and the most barbaric things, is called resistance and it's approved.
And Jews, even though they have been historically victims, such as the Holocaust, and even more recently, all the Jews were kicked out of Arab lands.
There's a kind of Jew called a Sephardi Jew, basically an Arab Jew, for example, like Abiy Yamini, who were all kicked out of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Iraq.
There were Jews all across these places.
And they were all kicked out when the state of Israel was born.
And they've been refugees too.
But instead of wallowing in it, they built a new country.
And that's the sad part here: Gaza was handed over to the Palestinians in 2005 with hope, with tremendous hope.
And actually, Israel handed over an enormous greenhouse industry.
I mean, the Jews who lived in Gaza were pulled out.
Many of them did not want to leave.
And the Israeli military literally went in and physically pulled the Jews out and actually disinterred the graves and reburied that, like there is not a single Jew living or dead in Gaza other than, of course, the hostages today.
Israel pulled out everything but left the Palestinians, this greenhouse industry.
And Hamas destroyed it all.
The Palestinians destroyed it all lest that they take a gift from the Zionists.
What could have been a Singapore or a Dubai was turned into a terror state.
The amount of money per person given to Gaza is 10 times as much as the West paid to rebuild Europe in the Marshall Plan after the Second World War.
I don't know if you remember, but after the Second World War, the United States poured hundreds of billions in today's worth of dollars into Europe to rebuild it and to, you know, to get, to rebuild the industry, but also to win the hearts and minds of Europe that was pummeled to turn the West into a liberal, democratic, harmonious place again.
Gaza has received 10 times as much money proportionately.
They have more funds than any other refugee group around.
And they're not really refugees, of course, because it's their own place now.
And Israel was born 75 years ago, so there are really no surviving people who may have been disrupted back then.
Just as you could say that the Jews in Israel now are native to Israel, the Arabic Jews.
My point is they could have had a wonderful, beautiful seaside country in the Mediterranean that could have been a success.
But instead of choosing life, they chose death.
And, you know, there was a lot of bad news out there, but the one thing that Joel said is that Israel is actually winning the war on the ground is accurate.