Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 10, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:33:13

Interview with Scott Horton - The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Beyond - Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Yes.
	One and a half minutes late.
	The show will start.
	The fight over the court has brought the country to a cold civil war.
	In July, the first step of Levine's judicial overhaul passed, severely limiting the court's power to strike down government decisions.
	Some 10,000 military reservists were so upset.
	They pledged to stop showing up for duty.
	When they made their decision, many brothers and sisters in arms came to tears.
	It was the hardest things to do.
	When you are in your DNA, a soldier, this is what I do.
	25 years.
	It's in my blood.
	It's like to cut a hand.
	The military has warned that losing so many pilots and high-ranking reservists could jeopardize readiness and hurt national security.
	This is Yariv Levine that's going to speak right now.
	But several former heads of the military and Mossad support the protest and blame the government for allowing the situation to come to this.
	If you did find out that Israel was at risk because of so many reservists leaving, would you step back and withdraw your proposals?
	What's the price of democracy?
	What are you suggesting me to do?
	We'll tell the Israeli citizens, okay, don't go to vote.
	There's no need to hold elections.
	We'll come to those ex-militarists.
	And we'll ask them what we are allowed to do or not.
	Let me close this up here.
	That's from a 60 Minutes episode from three weeks ago.
	I'll preface all of this by saying, once upon a time, I never liked talking about politics because more often than not, it doesn't go anywhere.
	Two people already entrenched in their respective philosophies.
	Arguing to convince each other when that's never supposed to be the purpose of any fruitful argument.
	The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one that I'm old enough now that I can say I've lived through this cycle once consciously and twice in my life.
	When I was really, you know, there was the first intifada, there was the second intifada, and, you know, it boils up.
	Things become, you know, atrocities.
	I'm not going to say atrocities are committed.
	There's an egregious terrorist act that shocks the entire world.
	Back in the second intifada, one of the terrorist attacks was the slaughter of the Fogel family.
	There was the Passover dinner slaughter of 20 some odd people.
	This cycle keeps boiling up and it happens every 10, 12, 20 years.
	And I'm old enough now where I can say I've lived through it consciously once.
	And it's the same thing over and over again in terms of The events, the responses, and the public discourse.
	And having a discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it's virtually impossible.
	Having a debate, it's virtually impossible.
	Because by and large, people are, you know, spiritually, morally already entrenched in their respective positions.
	And then there's the history of it, which is long, complex, and disputed.
	And so I don't like these discussions.
	I once went to a party and had this discussion.
	Nobody left happy.
	That's it.
	But sometimes when it's reached the political fore like it has now, you have no choice but to discuss it.
	The atrocity that occurred over the weekend, there's no both sides to this, yeah, but, but.
	It's an absolute egregious atrocity.
	The question is going to be, how do you respond to it effectively?
	Without perpetuating this cycle that we've seen over and over again.
	And now, you know, people are saying, well, this time they're going to do it.
	That's what they said the last time.
	Now, there's no both side in this period.
	And to say that we can't ask questions as to how this could have ever been allowed to have occurred in the first place because focus on the response, ask questions later.
	I'm sorry.
	This was egregious.
	Everybody knows that Hamas is an existential threat, a declared enemy to the state.
	Everyone in Israel knows this.
	How can this possibly have been allowed to occur to the extent that it occurred?
	I said before, this isn't a lone wolf with a backpack getting on a bus.
	This isn't a guy with an assault rifle getting into somebody's house for a Passover dinner.
	This was hours, hours, without any form of meaningful response.
	Maybe they were just overwhelmed.
	Maybe they were so focused on their internal corruption, their internal strife, That they left their borders open for an actual absolute invasion.
	There need to be some answers to this.
	And there need to be some answers that will allow the response to be effective and not one that will just perpetuate exactly the same cycle that's been going on for 50, 60, 70 years.
	So while all that goes on, Scott, he's in the back screen, and I hope he's not going to be offended by this.
	I don't know everybody on the internet.
	And people say, you got to have on Scott Horton.
	And I'm skeptical.
	I think everybody is a risky proposition when you don't know someone.
	I was like, oh, he's got some haters out there.
	Then I saw that he's libertarian.
	Then I'm like, oh, okay.
	Well, I've been on a libertarian sort of spree these days.
	I had Dave Smith.
	Oh, geez.
	Spike Cohen.
	I'm sorry.
	I had Troy Goldenberg.
	I was on his channel.
	Go check that one out.
	I don't know what it is with the libertarian streak.
	They are interesting people.
	Philosophically, and they seem to be more well-informed than the vast majority of people out there.
	I reached out, and Scott said yes.
	Now, Scott's been in the back very patient.
	I've been letting everyone trickle in because this was short and out of stream.
	You all know the rules.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, yada, yada, yada.
	We're going to end this on YouTube sooner than later and go exclusively on Rumble.
	Scott Horton, I'm going to let him introduce himself.
	He's going to come in.
	Scott, you ready?
	Booyah.
	Sir.
	How goes the battle?
	I'm doing great.
	Thank you so much for having me.
	Really appreciate it.
	Let me just say, first and foremost, that I'm just like you, nervous about interviewing people based on just who they are.
	I go only by the article.
	I only interview people, and I've done 6,000 interviews almost, but I only interview people based on the thing that they wrote that I want to ask them about, because what happens?
	I interview some guy you tell me to interview, and I don't know.
	Like you said, there's this risk.
	I don't know what I'm getting into.
	And I really am a subject matter guy rather than a personality guy.
	So I understand your trepidation there.
	I appreciate you giving me a chance.
	I'm willing to take risks.
	I don't care anymore.
	I'm not going to agree with everything any one person says because I don't agree with everything I've ever said.
	I also agree with what you just said about the atrocity that happened over the weekend and just how absolutely unforgivable and horrible it is.
	You're going to hear a lot of other side of the story from me during this interview, I guess.
	But you're not going to hear the other side of massacring a bunch of kids partying at a rave, taking people hostage in their homes and massacring civilians.
	The Washington Post has video of Hamas marching for civilians they kidnapped from this kibbutz.
	Marching them down the street.
	And then there's later a still photo of their dead bodies at the corner.
	You can tell it's the same four people wearing the same clothes and everything.
	There's hundreds dead, almost a thousand dead Israelis.
	I don't know what percentage of those are soldiers, but apparently the major percentage that are just absolutely innocent civilians that Hamas just went out and massacred.
	There's absolutely no question.
	And honestly, maybe you can find some dimwit on Twitter somewhere.
	But frankly, I think that is the universal take by all people, is that the only good guys in any of this stuff, or certainly the good guys in this, are the civilians who don't deserve to be killed at all.
	Armed security forces fighting with each other, militias and armies and these kinds of things should focus on killing each other and leave everybody else the hell alone.
	So now there's a strategic logic in what they're doing and why they did it and all that, and we can get into all that.
	But just as far as condemning evil, let's all start off on the same page there.
	Well, it doesn't require condemnation because it's so egregious on its face.
	Well, it does because it's a matter of social psychology, right?
	Everybody's on this side or that side and the other side, and it's a very postmodern deconstructionist kind of age where everybody says, oh, I see what you're really saying is this, and the reason you say that is because you really think this and that kind of thing.
	So I want to kind of disclaim and preempt and make sure people understand in the social psychology of this situation, I'm not a communist.
	I'm a communist, nor have I ever been, nor am I an Islamist, any more than I'm a Branch Davidian.
	But I still stick up for them because what's true is true and lies aren't.
	And so that's the way we have to proceed.
	Well, what frustrates me just, I guess, while we're in the prefaces here, is people do not need to be compelled to come out and say racism is bad.
	They don't need to be compelled to come out and say terrorism is bad.
	And if they don't say it, it somehow means that they tolerate it.
	I found...
	Oddly enough, it seems to be somewhat the opposite.
	The people say, obviously, terrorism is bad, etc.
	But, and then they go into the buts.
	And, you know, Scott, you say, like, the civilians are obviously unfair targets.
	And then the problem is that there is a swath of people who don't believe that they're, who either don't believe that they're civilians, anyone occupying, occupied territory settlers, they don't believe that they're civilians, or they believe that anybody who's part and parcel of what they consider to be...
	I know the words are going to come out of your mouth at some point, or maybe, but what some people consider to be the apartheid regime of Israel, anybody who supports it tacitly, directly or indirectly, has made themselves a legitimate target.
	I know that that's true, that you're right, that people believe that, but to me, that's Osama bin Laden principles.
	Anybody can read Osama bin Laden's letter to America from 2002 in The Guardian, where he says, hey, if you voted for it, then I get to kill you.
	But, you know, so who agrees with Osama bin Laden about that?
	You know what I mean?
	That's some, like, crazy barbarian Eastern culture that doesn't represent, never mind American or libertarian principles, but even just Western principles at all of collective guilt and collective punishment, which is something that the Israelis do engage in quite a bit themselves.
	To me, to think that any, you know, grown human being who cares or understands any of these issues, cares about or understands any of these issues, would take the position that it's tolerable to kill civilians based on some, you know, solipsism or however you pronounce that.
	B.S. kind of line, again, like Bin Laden says.
	That's what he says.
	He goes, oh, you're so free and you vote in these elections and you pick these leaders so your lives are forfeit.
	Well, that's just crazy.
	That logic applies inversely as well if anyone wants to adopt it.
	Okay, before we get into anything, because people are going to want to know credentials, they want to assess what you're going to say accordingly.
	I won't get into too much of your childhood as I typically do in a first interview, but who are you?
	I know you're a radio host, but tell people who you are, what you studied, how you came to be where you are right now, and a multi-book published author, but tell people who you are.
	Well, I basically started out as a pirate radio guy here in Austin, and I guess I finally got serious about...
	And I'm basically just an anti-government guy, sort of a Ron Paul libertarian, maybe still reacting against the Waco massacre of 1993.
	People look at my Twitter feed.
	My top post is a 13-hour podcast that I did this year with quite a few of the very best experts on that issue.
	But my speciality is foreign policy.
	I've been piling around with the guys from antiwar.com where I'm now the editorial director really this whole century long.
	And I had predicted 9-11 before it happened.
	I was a bit of a conspiracy kook then, which is why I was...
	So able to predict it, I guess.
	But then, you know, after it happened, I certainly became less of one.
	I started reading Jesse Raimondo at antiwar.com, who knew so much more about what was going on in D.C. and what was behind the march to war with Iraq and all of that compared to anyone else.
	And he was no kook.
	And so I dropped all the conspiracy stuff.
	The New World Order theory, if you're familiar with the whole one world government theory, it's basically the Rockefellers are building this world government and all this.
	But then the story of 20 years ago was that the Zionists came and lied us into war with Iraq.
	And it didn't have a damn thing to do with building up the United Nations Security Council to be some world federal government or any kind of thing.
	It just wasn't about that.
	So I got over the New World Order stuff then.
	You know, just became much more interested.
	And I started interviewing because I was already a radio show host.
	So in 2003, I started interviewing basically all the guys that we're running as viewpoints on antiwar.com.
	I got about 6,000 of those now.
	And I wrote...
	Two books.
	One of them is Fool's Aaron, Time to End the War in Afghanistan.
	And the other is Enough Already, Time to End the War on Terrorism.
	And they're both endorsed by Colonel McGregor and Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg and Ron Thal.
	Well, Noam Chomsky's endorsement might be a liability, not an asset at this point.
	No, you know what?
	I like it because at Antiwar.com, we've always run Daniel Ellsberg and Pat Buchanan on the same day.
	All we care about is getting to the heart of things.
	And Chomsky absolutely has his flaws, but he's also probably the most accomplished scholar on American foreign policy in the last century as well.
	And there's a lot of value in his work, regardless of the flaws.
	I mean, he's an anarcho-communist, so we have a lot that we don't agree on, believe me.
	But anyway, Doug McGregor liked it, too.
	And he's the great hero of Iraq War I, the colonel from the Tucker Carlson show.
	Right.
	So anyway, I'm a Ron Paul guy.
	So I'm just looking for Chomsky's most recent book.
	Someone had a funny meme where it was.
	Oh, maybe it might have been just a meme.
	I think he had a new I thought he had a new book, which sort of was about disinformation.
	And then someone was juxtaposing it to his manufactured consent.
	Oh, that's funny.
	What's the word opus from decades ago?
	Yeah, I had heard about that In fact, someone said that he did A masterclass on disinformation.
	And they were like, oh, cringe, because this is, you know, the establishment's line about anybody who disagrees with them.
	But then his whole talk was about how the establishment lies about everything and the New York Times lies about everything.
	And his basic manufacturing consent schticks.
	So it's still good stuff, you know.
	Now, how did you predict, what was the method through which you predicted 9-11?
	Was it some form of an attack?
	How specific?
	And where was it documented so people can actually go and test it?
	Well, I got a story there.
	This is kind of funny.
	Go on.
	You're not getting off without telling this story now, Scott.
	Okay, well, I mean, again, I was a New World Order kook.
	So I thought that at the time that bin Laden was CIA and that the whole al-Qaeda thing was a front and that even when they were attacking us, like blowing up the Khobar Towers in 1996 and attacking the embassies in Africa in 1998, that...
	You know, as Alex Jones put it at the time, every time Bill Clinton's in trouble, something blows up.
	Well, Bill Clinton was always in trouble, so that was actually not really that tight of a correlation, although that was the way I saw it then.
	I just thought that al-Qaeda was a hoax, and that the hoax was they're going to, they have to let one through so that then they can launch their giant war on terrorism.
	In fact, well, what the hell, as long as we're talking about this, I'll go all the way back for you, okay?
	When I was a sophomore in high school, They announced that George Bush Jr. was going to run for governor of Texas, just like his brother Jeb in Florida.
	And I told my math teacher, aha, you see what they're doing?
	They're making sure that they have a Governor Bush who will be in his second term to run in the year 2000, and then they're going back to Iraq.
	Because it's the ultimate humiliation that Bush Sr. lost after one term and Saddam Hussein's still in the chair.
	And so it's on.
	And that means they're going to throw the election in 1996 and make sure Bill Clinton wins it so that they can get a Bush in there in 2000.
	And I was right about that.
	I mean, they nominated Bob Dole deliberately so that they would lose that election, so that they would have Bush in there.
	And then here's my funny story that people...
	It's okay if you hate me and don't believe me.
	I don't mind.
	My first radio show was called Say It Ain't So on Free Radio Austin from starting 1998 through 2000 when the FCC came and raided us and stole our transmitter.
	You can read about that in the Austin Chronicle.
	It's still in the archives there.
	So on my show, I would often get calls from a guy named Till, who he had a show.
	My show was Wednesday at noon.
	His show was Thursday at noon.
	Sorry, I tell the long version of every story.
	Don't worry, this is good.
	So he would call in my show all the time.
	And I just absolutely remember distinctly, not just this conversation, but also that I did record it.
	And my syndrome was, I always forget to record the best episodes of the show.
	Hold on, now, did you record it, he knowing that you were recording it?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay.
	Well, yeah, it was a radio show.
	So I, you know, try to record everything I try to.
	And oftentimes I would forget to flip the tape in the middle of the show.
	So I'd only had a half a show or I would just forget to hit record at all on some of my best shows.
	I'd be like, oh, that was a great show.
	And I'd look at the tape and be like, oh, but this one, I had it.
	I know I had it because I remembered listening to it in my car, driving on the road in my tax cab or something, listening to the thing.
	So I know that I had this tape.
	Okay.
	And here's the conversation.
	I'm saying, well, Governor Bush is definitely going to run.
	This is the very end of '98, maybe beginning of '99.
	I'm saying Governor Bush is definitely going to win.
	And because he's a Skull and Bones, blue blood cousin of the Queen of England, that means they're going to rig the election for him.
	Guaranteed, Gore's going to lose and Bush is going to win.
	Which, of course, you remember how that election played out.
	My Skull and Bones theory wasn't right there.
	Semi-conscious.
	I remember the hanging chads.
	Florida was the disputed state.
	Al Gore fought like a pit bull for that thing.
	There was no Skull and Bones fake thing where you have to step aside Gore.
	Gore tried so bad to steal that thing.
	I mean, they both stole it.
	They were both trying to steal it.
	Bush succeeded in stealing it.
	But anyway, and actually Gore won Florida, but his lawsuit was, we only want you to count the most Jewish liberal counties.
	Those are the ones we want you to recount.
	And it was like the obvious fraud, you know, they were trying to find more votes for him, like Donald Trump in Georgia kind of thing.
	Anyway, my theory was...
	Governor Bush is going to win, and because he's skull and bones, he's definitely going to win the presidency.
	And then he's going to have to go back to Iraq, guaranteed.
	And I said they're going to let a terrorist attack happen.
	They'll blame it on Osama bin Laden, and then they'll blame bin Laden on Saddam Hussein, and then they'll go back to Iraq.
	And then my buddy Till, who was on the phone, said, oh, but they'll have to go to Afghanistan first because bin Laden's in Afghanistan now, of course.
	And that Christiane Amanpour on CNN and all of them have this full court public relations press demonizing the Taliban and delegitimizing the Taliban.
	So we're definitely going to have to go to war with Afghanistan before we do Iraq.
	And I go, oh, you're definitely right about that.
	And this has got to be the...
	Very early 1999.
	And then the joke is, I can't prove it to you because I had all my tapes in a shoebox that were in my buddy Darren's storage shed.
	And he went to England to live with his mom for a year on some Air Force base or something.
	And when he came home, two days before he came home, some scum robbed his storage shed.
	And took everything.
	And I'm here to tell you the only thing of any value in there at all was two or three guitars.
	Everything else in there, we're talking junk, broken old bicycles and a box full of tapes of like old metal albums with coke spilled on them and just nothing worth stealing.
	Nothing worth stealing.
	And including my box of blank tapes with their little writing.
	That all went in the garden.
	Nobody even taped over those, ever listened to them, right?
	Those just went in a ditch on the side of the road somewhere, never to be heard again, which still bothers the hell to me.
	And then here's the punchline.
	I went to a thing, and I saw a guy who I know knew Till.
	And I go, hey, is Till still alive?
	Because he was an old guy.
	Is Till still around?
	Yeah, Till still around.
	You still know him?
	Yeah, Till still.
	I still know him.
	Can I get his phone number from you?
	Yeah.
	So I called Till.
	I go, Till, it's Scott Horton from Say It Ain't So on Free Radio Austin.
	You remember me?
	Oh yeah, hell yeah.
	And I tell him this whole story.
	And I go, do you remember that?
	And he goes, nah.
	Well, luckily I have a pencil.
	These were the tapes where you'd stick a pencil into them and wind them through the thing.
	And by the way, also, just so people know, you take for granted, maybe I do, everyone knows what Skull and Bones is.
	Skull and Bones, also known as the Order.
	Order 332 or the Brotherhood of Death.
	It's an undergraduate senior secrets of student society at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, the oldest senior class society at the university.
	Skull and Bones has become a cultural institution known for its powerful alumni and various conspiracy theory.
	It is one of the big three societies at Yale, the other two being Scroll and Key.
	What the fuck?
	And Wolf's Head.
	The society is known informally as Bones and members are known as Bonesmen, members of the order, or initiated to the order.
	Okay, look, I didn't join a frat in university, and I really didn't party all that much.
	It's just people, a network, and then they get into high positions of power later on in life with ideologically aligned perspectives.
	It started in the 1830s with some of the most wealthy and powerful families in America, the Russells, the Pierces, the Whitneys.
	And the walkers and the bushes were sort of maybe the third ring out.
	But it's a very, very...
	It at least began as a very, very blue blood, waspy exclusive club for, you know, Mayflower types.
	And, you know, the bushes are part of that.
	And so it's also the center of a lot of conspiracies because, like, for example...
	Like a 70-year unbroken string of secretaries of state were all skull and bones, right?
	The men who drove the 20th century from the State Department were all a bunch of bonesmen and they're very connected with the Morgan Bank and all this kind of thing.
	But I think I certainly put...
	Too much stock in their power and influence then, which I think probably was greater in the past.
	I guess what I learned later was that the WASP establishment really blew their wad in Vietnam and that the different think tanks and the different power factions that were growing up after that period of time were really able to challenge their dominance.
	So, like, for example, the Israel lobby in the United States was...
	They, you know, mostly were not allowed to join the Council on Foreign Relations.
	It was like a very WASP-y, Morgan and Rockefeller...
	Brooks Brothers, sort of uptown Manhattan kind of a thing, and a bunch of Catholics and Jews weren't invited.
	Well, so the Israel Lobby made their alliance with the military-industrial complex and got all their money from them.
	The bankers and the oilmen have the CFR.
	Well, they went ahead and created the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Center for Security Policy and the Project for a New American Century and all of the think tanks in Bill Kristol's desk drawer, of which there are 20 of them or so, you know.
	And so what I caught on to way too late was that, you know, there were people in the American establishment who really were hell-bent on creating a world government and some kind of merger with the Soviet Union someday and that kind of thing.
	But we can just see how it's played out.
	That's not been the goal.
	If we have a world government, somebody tell Vladimir Putin and Chairman Xi that they're subject to it because I don't think they know.
	But anyway, so to wrap up about me real quick was W. Bush came and declared war on everybody.
	And so I just knew better all along going in.
	And I luckily had known about Antiwar.com since the Kosovo War.
	And so I remember checking Antiwar.com on September 12th or 13th and saying, oh, thank goodness, these great Ron Paul right-wing libertarians are still good on this stuff.
	And so that, you know, really became my home since then.
	And I've done all these interviews and I wrote all these books.
	My Afghanistan book started as chapter two of my terror war book, and then I just got stuck on it.
	It became just way too long, and it turned into a book of its own.
	And then I went back and picked up the whole thing again.
	So Enough Already is all the terror wars from Jimmy Carter through Donald Trump.
	Okay, very cool.
	Now, what we're going to do, we're going to end this now on YouTube.
	It doesn't change anything on our end, but I'm going to read three super chats before we go.
	Maria Patel says, My neighbor's rabbi told his congregants not to watch the kidnapping videos of Israelis on Twitter, as it would only anger.
	Haven't slept well since.
	Wish I had heard that advice earlier.
	Scott, the movement, please make up with Dave Smith.
	I don't know what's going on, and I'm not getting into any internal fighting.
	Scott Horton is the man, Will Gunson.
	Okay, so what we're going to do now...
	That number of people watching on YouTube should drop rapidly below 800, and everyone should mosey on over to Rumble.
	You have the link, and I'll share the link on Locals afterwards, where we are currently live as well.
	Okay.
	So, Scott, then we're going to get into the discussion here.
	Sure.
	Ending on YouTube.
	I'm neurotic, and I have OCD.
	I just like to see the number drop once.
	There we go, 802.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Done.
	All right, Scott.
	I'm going to ask you, I'm going to start off with one question.
	It'll set the framework for the rest of the discussion, and this is not a debate, period.
	There's no but to that.
	I want to pick your brain and see where, not we disagree, just get a new perspective.
	You sent me a bunch of links, and some of it I had some questions about, because it's information that even I, in my knowledge, which is cursory, in my view, was new knowledge.
	The first question is this.
	It's a two-angled question.
	Personal perspective in terms of addressing everything else that's going to be discussed.
	And then the other one is going to be from a ideological adversary perspective.
	Broad question or specific, are you starting from the premise that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state in or near its current form and geographic location?
	Well, if you want to say within 67 borders and they give independence to the Palestinians on the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, I think it's clear the Palestinians have said they're willing to settle for that.
	Hell, the Ayatollah said, I can't be more Catholic than the Pope.
	If the Palestinians want to settle for 22%, that's up to them.
	So, you know, I don't...
	And honestly, man, I think, you know...
	You may have to rephrase exactly what your question was in a moment, but I think my basic bottom line comes down to...
	That what happened in the creation of the Israeli state at the expense of the people of Palestine in 1947 and 1948 is a clear war crime.
	It's ethnic cleansing, 750,000 people forced from their homes, brutal rapes and murders and massacres, the Der Yassin massacre, and these things that people should look into.
	It's what the Palestinians call the Nakba, and it's ugly as hell.
	Okay?
	However, I'm being descriptive and not normative now, right?
	The fact of the matter is, it was sustainable in the outcome.
	It led to an 80-20, super-duper majority Jewish state, meaning it could be a Jewish democracy, and even though they're Palestinian citizens of Israel, Muslims and Christians, they represent only one-fifth of the population.
	And so...
	You know, their rights are more or less protected.
	They're second-class citizens within Israel.
	They have some representation in the Knesset.
	They only just barely for the very first time had any representation in the actual administration.
	It was always tradition that they were never allowed to be part of the ruling coalition for decades.
	But that essentially was sustainable.
	But there's a problem.
	Back in 1947 and 1948, they made a secret deal with the king of Jordan, that he would take the West Bank.
	And then, I guess, I forgot exactly how it ended up that Egypt controlled Gaza.
	I think the Israelis decided to let Egypt control Gaza at the end of the war.
	Certainly they made a secret deal with the king of Jordan that he would take the West Bank.
	So this meant that the Israelis would get their state, but the Palestinians would not get theirs.
	They would remain the subjects of this phony king, right?
	Who obviously is a king.
	We all mock that.
	He has no legitimate sovereignty over these people whatsoever, right?
	So then in 1967, regardless, Israel started the war, but regardless of that, at the end of the war, They defeated Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, of course, in the Six-Day War, and they ended up taking control of all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
	But they kept all the people, right?
	So in the Nakba, they moved everybody the hell out of the way to create their state.
	Here, they couldn't do that.
	In fact, they cleansed about 250,000 people from what we call Israel proper, or within the 67 borders, further into the West Bank or into Gaza.
	But still, they kept millions of people who are essentially prisoners now.
	So, in other words, Israel annexed.
	They did de facto and quite literally annex the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, all of Jerusalem in 1967.
	Right?
	50 years ago.
	Yeah, well, okay, the pushback, and like I said, I could have this argument with myself as well, because I know the arguments raised on the other side and the responses.
	And the response is going to be, although I want to go back to Zionism as a movement in general, but we'll do it after this one point.
	The argument is going to be, you say Israel started the Even still, it wasn't the Palestinians fault.
	They were the prisoners of the King of Jordan because they've been sold out by the Israelis in the first place, and they had nothing to do with starting that war.
	And it's a war crime to seize territory in war and move your population into it.
	America and its allies outlawed Lebensraum after World War II.
	You can't do that.
	And they do it anyway.
	And America protects them.
	And then we're going to have to back it up to the Palestinians being the victim of being screwed by Israel and the other Arab nations, according to what you're describing itself, which is one can blame Israel.
	I'm not sure if I remember the details of whatever that secret deal might have been, but was it not promising Israel to the Palestinians once the Jewish state of Israel were to be wiped off the map?
	I'm sorry, I misunderstood the question.
	Was there not a discussion where you say the Palestinians were screwed because of a secret deal with...
	The king of Jordan.
	But in the Six-Day War of 1967, although the Palestinians were, you know, say either the victims of or caught in the crossfires of, was there not discussion that if the Arab states had, you know, wiped Israel off the map in 1967, the Palestinians would have gotten their homeland back?
	And so then, in a sense, you're describing...
	What does that make them guilty of, though?
	Well, it only addresses the question of the war crime of annexing land through conquest, where if the war was started by the adversary and then lost, well, you don't get to start wars and lose land.
	But they had the right to return to their homes, man.
	Now we're back out.
	So let's go Zionism at large.
	So look, the ethnic cleansing was a war crime in the first place.
	It was screenable at least, but you're telling me that if in the Six-State War the Arabs had won and the Palestinians had been able to go back to their homes, that that would have been a war crime?
	No, I'm just saying that that was the war.
	That was the war.
	And so the argument that Israel annexed land as part of a war, of conquest, that is where it's going to be perspective.
	You say Israel started the war, therefore they have no right to annex land, and others are going to say...
	It was the Arab nations that started the war.
	And if they start a war and lose land, they can't complain about it afterwards.
	Well, yes, they can.
	No, that's not true.
	It's against the law to invade a nation and move your population in there.
	According to the UN Charter that every nation signed here.
	Well, but you said the word invade again, and that's the question as to how you view that war in the first place.
	If you view it as the Arab nations, the neighbors, starting the war and Israel defending...
	If Canada attacks the United States, that doesn't mean that we get to seize Manitoba and say that doesn't count as conquering it because you fired first.
	That actually might be...
	There might be an argument there that if Canada starts a war, it...
	Can't necessarily complain if it starts a war, can't win, and then loses land in the process.
	Like, well, no harm, no foul, give it back.
	No, you're just making that up, dude.
	No, no, I'm not.
	I'm saying that's...
	It's a war crime, according to the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter.
	And look, if you're saying that the threat was that the Palestinians under the control of or working with...
	The nation state of Jordan were a threat to Israel.
	Well, one, again, it was the Israelis who handed them over to the Jordanians in the first place in order to preclude them having their own independent state.
	And secondly, well, if you don't want that, well, let them have their independence.
	Well, that's going to be...
	You want to be sock puppets of the king of Jordan in the first place.
	That's going to be their own state.
	Well, that's the bigger, broader question as to what has been done with the territories, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, in the decades that it's been under the rule of Arafat, followed by Hamas.
	Back it up all the way.
	For those who don't know, the history of Zionism itself, a lot of people, and I don't think this is much disputed history, Zionism, it started in the late 1800s, slowly.
	It wasn't an issue, or was it?
	This is a question and not an argument.
	It wasn't an issue for the Palestinians or the people who occupied, when did it become called the land of Palestine?
	But it was a British colony at the time, or British territory.
	And so Jews moving back to the homeland, the historical homeland, was never a problem until the Brits decidedly gave the land to Jews for the state of Israel.
	Well, I'm not sure that's true.
	I mean, there was, I think there were some problems, but mostly the original Zionists were buying land.
	Although, you know, and by the way, I got to recommend this great book.
	I don't know if you can see it behind me there.
	Hold on.
	I can zoom you up, but then I can't see it anymore.
	Coming to Palestine by Sheldon Richman, and he's raised Jewish and Zionist.
	And, you know, delve, you know, deep into all of this stuff far better than I can.
	Sorry, are you able to see that there?
	I'm bad at looking myself in the mirror here.
	But...
	I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought recommending Sheldon there.
	Oh, it was the history of Zionism, so that there were, in fact, potentially...
	No, no, no, there were problems.
	Oh, the Sheldon point was going to be, he talks a lot about how there were these absentee landlords who were these sort of Palestinian, you know, wealthy landlords that lived, they were absentee living in Beirut, and they had, under the Ottomans, they had been...
	You know, gifted these land grants and whatever.
	So they really had no association with the Palestinians who had actually homesteaded the land and actually owned the land in any real way.
	And so a lot of the new Jewish settlers were coming and sort of buying the land out from under them from people that they'd never seen before who had some land grant that they didn't know, you know, sitting in Beirut that they had a piece of paper from the old Ottoman Empire.
	And that kind of thing.
	So there was a lot of unfairness there where people were being forced off to the land.
	And I believe there were anti-Jewish pogroms.
	I think, I don't know if before World War I, but I believe between the World Wars, there were some anti-Jewish pogroms there, pogroms, whatever.
	But in Sheldon's book, he shows where Ben-Gurion had sent, I'm sorry, I forgot the man's name, but he had sent one of his most trusted And they decide that, no, the people just have to be removed.
	They did not want to come and have...
	Some kind of, you know, minarchist state with freedom of religion and freedom of association and let everybody live together or some kind of binational state or something like you would have in Switzerland or, you know, with cantons or anything.
	They wanted an exclusivist, chauvinist Jewish state.
	And that meant that the people who already lived there had to go.
	When they launched the Nakba, it was to remove the people from that territory so they could have it instead.
	And they'd just tell these lies, like, well, it was a land without people for a people without land.
	And so they have, especially, it's amazing the cliches that the Israelis are able to make up in place of truth.
	They go, well, as soon as they love their children more than they love making us kill them.
	Oh, we'll never forgive them for making us kill their children.
	Well, for us, she says.
	They say, oh, the Palestinians, they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
	See how easy that is to memorize and repeat?
	You don't have to know any actual facts to back that up.
	You just go, well, yeah, every time we try to give them an independent state, they say no.
	Does that really sound right to you?
	If somebody tries to give me a country, I tell them no, too.
	Well, I mean, we've lived through some modern history where there were some demands that were tantamount to saying no to a two-party state because we want the right of return of more people than currently live in Israel.
	That's not true.
	Are you in 2000?
	Well, let's get there.
	I've got to do this chronologically.
	So Zionism is starting...
	We've got to get back to Camp David 2000, if that's what you're referring to.
	Oh, no, yeah, we're going to...
	This is what Arafat asked Clinton for the right of return for, I don't know, three to five million...
	Palestinians were as opposed to the original 600,000.
	But let's get there.
	So Zionism is a movement that's beginning.
	This is British land, British controlled land.
	This is the philosophical question.
	You say they're coming to displace the people who are already there.
	One of the big philosophical arguments is going to be, well, Jews were there back before the Romans displaced them.
	So how long?
	That's not true either.
	And look, how long?
	I mean, that's obvious, right?
	If you took...
	Any kind of universal law out of the Israeli experience here and said, well, the Italians of New York and New Jersey now get to invade Sicily and kill everybody and drive them off of their land and go, well, this is our ancestral homeland.
	Or the Germans now get to reconquer Poland.
	This is the land of the Teutons.
	Take a less absurd example, or a less contemporary, what's the word, a temporally absurd example.
	Natives say, white men, get off.
	This is our land.
	Well, yeah, exactly.
	How absurd is that?
	That they would say, after all this time, that all these people have to go.
	Well, on the one hand...
	A bunch of Russian and German and Polish Jews can come and say, well, my great-great-grandmother to the 150th power used to live here, according to our tradition.
	And so we get to now violently remove you from your property and live on it.
	Well, on the one hand...
	It is an argument that some activists and not fringed ones do raise.
	On the other hand...
	But it's absurd in every case except this one, right?
	Well, no, because it's either not absurd or it is absurd in every case.
	But, you know, there is a temporal historical rationale.
	Or, the argument goes, it was never theirs in the first place and Britain can do what it wants with its land.
	Okay, well, go back a second because...
	First of all, it's not even true that there was ever a Roman exile.
	A guy named, an Israeli historian named Shlomo Sand, who wrote the book The Invention of the State of Israel and The Invention of the Jewish People is the other one.
	And he went to, I'm sorry, I forget the name of the Big Shot University there in Tel Aviv, but it's the big one everybody likes so much.
	And he went to the librarians and he said, where's this section on the Roman exile?
	And they said, oh, well, you know, there's kind of not one because it's completely made up.
	What are they going to do?
	Put them on boxcars?
	How the hell did the Romans exile all of the people of ancient Palestine?
	They didn't.
	It never happened.
	The people of ancient Palestine ended up converting to Islam so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes.
	That's all.
	And he shows us.
	So in other words, if you believe that in the religious tradition here, that this land belongs to the sons of the people that God promised it to back in the Bible, it's the Palestinians.
	And if you say that, look, no, it's definitely true that some Jews traveled to Europe and proselytized and spread their religion and that their, you know, people who obviously are originally from the Holy Land did have descendants that lived in Europe for all those centuries and then moved to Palestine.
	That's fine.
	I'm not saying they're not Jewish, but I'm saying to claim that they have a property right.
	Over the people who have lived there all along and who have...
	Well, that's where you get to the old...
	No, wait, wait.
	This is actually really simple, okay?
	And this goes to something that you were saying at the intro of the show, where you said, I hate even talking about this stuff because it's also intractable.
	Well, I actually, as interested as I've been in foreign policy for so long, I put off learning about this for a very long time because I thought, speaking of BS cliches...
	I thought that the fight here was, well, God gave this land to us.
	No, God gave this land to us.
	No, God gave this land to us.
	Well, what a stupid argument.
	No one can ever win that.
	And so, like, who could even...
	Why bother trying to parse it?
	It's like, who shot Kennedy?
	I don't care enough to read 75 books to find out.
	You know what I mean?
	I'm over it.
	I don't even want to get into this.
	But then here's the thing.
	That's just not true, right?
	What it is, is that the people of Palestine, they have plain old property rights, like in John Locke, where you live on land and you till the soil and it belongs to you.
	And that's the same kind of property rights that all humans can understand, that Americans enjoy, homesteading property, right?
	It's the Israeli Jews who come from thousands of miles away, right, from Russia and Germany and Poland and Lithuania.
	And Lord knows, they were refugees from the Holocaust.
	I'm not saying that, but still.
	They come and they say, well, we have a supernatural property right.
	It's not that my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother lived there, so I get to move back in.
	It's that God gave this land to the Jews, and I am one.
	And so therefore, even if I'm from Lithuania, this land, I have the right of return.
	But a Palestinian who's actually from there does not, even though they're not returning to a damn thing, right?
	Hold on, there's a lot to unpack here.
	And what I'm going to also tell the chat, the purpose of this discussion is not for me to get you with the gotcha, Scott, and say, ha, you said something and I can...
	I agree.
	Well, the other thing is, I'm not even capable of doing that.
	Like, I know what I know.
	I know what I think I know.
	And then I know what I probably don't know.
	And to some extent, I don't even know what I don't know.
	And the greatest thing about some of these arguments is that...
	When you're arguing with a skilled interlocutor, they probably know what you don't know to retort to what they know could have a retort to it.
	And I'm thinking of someone in particular, not even you, that I interviewed.
	But going back, going back...
	I'm trying to be fair.
	I hope you don't think I'm like, I'm avoiding the corruption.
	No, first of all, first of all, I don't care.
	I'm not sensitive.
	And even if I found what you was saying to be the most virulently anti-Semitic, whatever...
	I'm not sensitive.
	I'll have this discussion and I don't care.
	Hold on.
	We're going back to...
	Oh, the ancestral lands.
	Yes.
	You're going to say it was their land and they were on it.
	And some people are going to say if you want to apply the law or appeal to the law, they were, unfortunately, not tenants, but...
	They were living off the land of the Brits, and the Brits can expel whomever they want from the land that the Brits own and give it to whomever they want.
	And so that would be, if you want to talk the law, as unfair as it is, when you lease a building, you don't own the building, and the landlord can kick you out when they want, for whatever reason.
	Not saying it's right or wrong, just or unjust.
	And I've abandoned the Holy Land arguments.
	That's history.
	But then at some point, there's the law and there's the present.
	Britain...
	Could do what they want with that land.
	They did what they desired with that land.
	The UN ratified it and created the state of Israel.
	I don't deny for one second that that would be empirically on its face, very unfair to the people who now say, who are told, you never owned this land, now make way for the people who we say now have it.
	But that's unfortunate reality about owning land and being, what's the word for the Brits when they went around colonizing?
	For being colonizers.
	Well, look, I mean, that's...
	The difference between what's right and what's might.
	And what you're telling me is Woodrow Wilson helped destroy, helped Britain colonize, spread their empire by a million square miles in the Middle East, and all kinds of people have had hell to pay for it ever since then.
	Well, you got that right.
	He also helped the communists create the Soviet Union and was responsible for the rise of Hitler in Germany and the entire Second World War II.
	And this is one of the horrible things that Woodrow Wilson did.
	But I just think it's...
	And maybe this is, what, a libertarian perspective?
	Regular mortals can't come up with the fact that it's complete bullshit that Britain can come in and say that these civilians no longer own their property.
	It now belongs to some other government.
	I don't believe that governments have rights at all.
	Like when people, when right-wingers in America say states' rights.
	No.
	States' reserved powers.
	Humans have rights.
	Governments don't have rights.
	And Britain had no legitimate authority as the colonizing empire over those people whatsoever.
	They had no right to make a promise to Lord Rothschild that they would give away somebody else's land for the creation of the state of Israel.
	That's completely crazy.
	He had no right to do that any more than I have the right to give away your house to somebody else.
	Me and my six friends have the right to vote to give away your house to somebody else.
	It might be nonsense from your political perspective, and I can certainly understand that it's unjust from the party's involved perspective, but you can't give away my house because you don't own my house.
	But if I don't own my house, whoever owns it, subject to whatever right of retaining occupancy laws you might have in your province, have the right to take the house back, kick me out, sell it, do what they want with it.
	Say it again.
	They have the power to, maybe, right?
	Me and my militia take over your neighborhood.
	I can make you do what I want.
	Well, true.
	Again, you're essentially, it sounds like you're sort of saying, my, in effect, does make right here.
	No, what I'm saying is...
	My overrode right.
	I don't like government any more than you do.
	I'm just saying that when the government, there are certain realities, short of anarchism, but it was British land.
	There were people dwelling on it who did not own it and did not have ownership rights, is the argument.
	Britain comes in and then we'll...
	So I think this is at least where the ideological argument comes to.
	We agree.
	We're looking at the same thing.
	We're just seeing it differently.
	But you're relying on technicalities, man.
	Well, but you want...
	If you want to rely on international law that you can't acquire land through war, then you have to rely on international law that grants the UN resolution that granted Israel to the There wasn't a U.N. resolution that granted Israel to the Jews.
	General Assembly resolution that recommended partition.
	They had no authority whatsoever, and there's no authority in the UN Charter for the Security Council or the General Assembly to create a state at all.
	And what did that recommendation say?
	It said the Palestinians get a state too, goddammit!
	Now, so hold on.
	Now, hold on.
	This is going to be the historical disputed fact.
	I know what we were taught in school.
	I know what I've learned growing up.
	That they offered the two-state solution in 1948, and the legend, the lore, the history says the Arab states said no, started a war which they then lost, and thus the two-state solution from the get-go was off the table.
	What part of that is historically inaccurate or would you elaborate on?
	I think, as we already agreed, and I know this is a common Zionist talking point, is that how bad the Arab states screwed the Palestinians.
	People say that, pro-Zionists say it all the time.
	Oh, well, the Saudis don't give a damn about the Palestinians.
	Or the Egyptians.
	The Saudis, the arbiters of morality here.
	No, but it's true.
	The governments of Egypt and Jordan and Syria never cared about these people, right?
	They're pawns in their game just as well.
	So what is the...
	So the historical excuse is that they said no.
	Palestinians, as far as I understand, at the time, and this is not anything to do with present-day culpability of anything, at the time, Palestinians said, well, we say no, too.
	We've got the Arab nations who are going to fight for it, and Israel will not get the land, and it will be ours, and we'll win this war, which is why we want to embark on it.
	And they didn't, and that's how Israel was born.
	Well, I mean, what happened was they were driven from their homes and they were not allowed to come back.
	And that's how Israel was born.
	Yeah, okay.
	And that is the Nakba, which became the issue of the right of return for those who were displaced in the original war, which was a war.
	And again, Lithuanian Jews have the right of return, but Palestinians who are literally from Israel.
	You know, we talk about an Israeli raid today in the Janine refugee camp.
	Well, who lives there?
	Iraqis?
	Syrians?
	Afghans?
	No.
	Palestinians from the other side of the...
	They're still living in refugee camps.
	There's no question.
	They were driven off of their land.
	They were driven off of their land in a war that was initiated because of the refusal to accept a two-party state.
	Whether or not it was the other Arab nations using Palestine as pawns or totally disregarding their interests, they thought they could win the war.
	The Israelis didn't try to create their state until they were done purging all the civilians that they didn't want off of it.
	And that's what started the war, right?
	You get this kind of crap all the time.
	Well, the Israelis tried to create their state and then the Arabs attacked them.
	They tried to create their state by driving an Austin, Texas worth of people out of their homes at rape and bayonet point and explosion point, okay?
	Three quarters of a million people and the Arab states didn't give a damn.
	Until it got that bad that they finally intervened.
	It had been going on for months and months and months.
	So this is just some talking point that, well, the Israelis were just trying to be a nice little Jewish boy and mind their own business.
	They launched this terrible war.
	I won't straw man it that way.
	I'll steel man and say both parties were fighting over disputed land.
	And in as horrific as was certain acts committed...
	In the furtherance of the State of Israel were acts that were just as bad.
	You say some pogroms, you know, going back to Zionism, some pogroms.
	This was a war being waged by two parties against each other.
	The fact that it ended up with displacement of one party doesn't mean it wasn't a mutual war at the time over land that both wanted.
	It was a war that was waged by, as you know, the, I don't know how to pronounce it, Haganah or Haganah.
	I think it's Haganah.
	And these various terrorist groups against the civilian population of the land who had no state protection, right?
	They bombed the King David Hotel and killed a bunch of civilians and the Brits and finally drove the Brits out.
	And then they waged a war of ethnic cleansing against the local population, and that was what started the war.
	I mean, look at the history.
	Have you ever read about what happened to the city of Jaffa?
	And that was a Palestinian town.
	They drove them into the sea, literally drove them into the sea.
	And by the way, that cliche that, oh, the Palestinians want to drive all the Jews into the sea, that was actually originally coined by a Mossad agent in Egypt.
	It was an Israeli who, you know, in a false flag threat, said we're going to drive all the Jews into the sea.
	That's where that myth comes from.
	It was made up anyway.
	Etymology aside, we know where it's being currently used now, and not by the people, but rather by the forces that are making peace difficult.
	Okay, so that's 48. What was the next war?
	The next war was the Six-Day War?
	Oh, sorry.
	Actually, even back up there.
	How would you address the question as to why?
	Let's just say we'll grant everything.
	There were mass expulsions of people from their homeland and we'll agree to either, as it goes in terms of assessing history, one can see that, you know, you could look at the same thing and see it your way versus the way that the other side of the history will tell it.
	Why didn't the Arab nations then absorb the displaced Palestinians?
	Well, they did.
	I mean, millions of them went to Syria and to Kuwait.
	They weren't driven out of Kuwait until Arafat stupidly took Saddam Hussein's side in Iraq War I. And not that he did anything, but rhetorically he did.
	And the Kuwaitis were pissed.
	And so when the war was over, they kicked all the Palestinians out.
	But they've been living in refugee camps in Syria this whole time.
	I mean, look at the atrocities committed by America and Israel's al-Qaeda proxies in the Syrian dirty war of the Obama years.
	There's absolute, you know, horrific war crimes against the Palestinian refugees there.
	Caught in the middle.
	What are they even doing there?
	What are they doing in Lebanon?
	You know, there's this lady and she stepped in Poop, saying stupid things a few times.
	But she's a decent lady.
	Her name is Allison Ware.
	And she's just some housewife.
	And she's the founder of If Americans Knew.
	And what happened was she was writing letters back and forth with Save the Children.
	You know, from on TV, they show the children living in garbage dumps and sewage and say you can sponsor a kid for 25 cents a day or whatever.
	And she found out these are Palestinian children living in filth in a refugee camp in Lebanon.
	And she said...
	Huh, what are they doing in Lebanon?
	And she looked, and what had happened was they'd been cleansed from their land by a bunch of Europeans.
	A bunch of colonists came and kicked them out of their land, so now they're living in refugee camps in Syria.
	Now, is the government of Syria a bunch of angels who made them Syrian citizens and took good, good care of them?
	No.
	They're a bunch of scum, too, of course.
	But that doesn't obviate the responsibility of the people who put them there.
	And again, think of the absurdity of saying that American Jews from Brooklyn have the right to return to Israel.
	Palestinians living literally in refugee camps 20 miles north of Israel don't have the right to return to their own country, their own land.
	Well, I understand how that concept would be offensive to a great many people.
	Or just the logic, you know what I mean?
	No, but the logic is if it's sort of dissociated from the history of the creation of the State of Israel, which was following the Holocaust, and the idea being there would be no land safe for the Jews unless they were in one that they controlled themselves or had as a Jewish state.
	And so it's not just willy-nilly arbitrary.
	Let's pick a random group and a random island.
	There was the history as to how Israel was created in the first place, whether or not you agree with it, whether or not you expose any of the other beliefs as to why the Jews have faced persecution in various countries throughout history.
	And again, we're looking at this.
	Let me reiterate one more time here, too, that as I said before, that for all intents and purposes, I mean, what can you do?
	The ethnic cleansing of the Nakba worked.
	It created an 80-20 super-duper majority Jewish democratic state.
	And I think this was, when you asked me before, do I think that Israel has the right to exist?
	I don't believe any government, any state has the right to exist.
	But do Jewish people have the right to have their own state?
	I think the way it was formed at the expense of the Palestinians was terribly unfair.
	But I think all of humanity accepts that it's a...
	Complete fait accompli.
	The state of Israel certainly does exist.
	The controversy is not even really about that, or it kind of is, but what it's really about is the occupation since 1967.
	And even Hamas has said that they would sign on the dotted line and recognize Israel's right to exist within 1967 borders as part of a final settlement.
	They're not going to do it first, which Arafat already did in 1988.
	Fatah recognized Israel within 1967 borders.
	That's the real controversy here.
	It's not the Nakba.
	What's the controversy is the millions and millions of stateless people held captive on the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
	And of course, the steady encroachment on their religious sites in East Jerusalem, too.
	You're not sensitive, right?
	If I bring up a chat that is insulting to you.
	Oh, do whatever you want.
	It's a segue.
	First of all, it's a rumble rant on the other channel.
	It says, Jim's hatred of the Jews clouds his judgment.
	His entire belief system is flawed because he believes the lies of the terrorists.
	His ilk is what has perpetuated this garbage since Munich.
	Well, what's his example?
	He's got no argument at all.
	I think he's a big dummy, too.
	No, but hold on.
	The pushback would be...
	He had no argument at all.
	This guy hates Jews.
	God said in our Jew haters, and they're the reason that they don't understand things.
	But he doesn't say what I got wrong at all.
	Well, I'll push back.
	How do you figure out how to write a sentence in English?
	It's limited characters.
	Super Chat is limited characters.
	The argument is going to be, when I say we're looking at one screen, two films, We all say we don't trust MSM.
	You don't trust the way the history books were written.
	They're written by the victors.
	They're written by whoever you decide to believe.
	Undoubtedly, people were violently chased from their homes.
	There is the flipside explanation to the Nakba, which is the other side, that two, three hundred thousand Palestinians fled.
	And now you're going to say, well, they were fled because they chased or they fled the same way Jews in Iraq fled.
	And so the distinction between fleeing in a time of conflict versus being ethnically cleansed, as you call it, is to some extent there's an element of fact in it.
	Like no one's going to say that what happened in Rwanda was not ethnic cleansing.
	Your question is whether you let them come home or not.
	Well, the other question is, as the argument will go, if they fled conflict, which some will say they...
	And their neighboring countries started.
	That's a lot.
	They did not.
	That's just...
	Look at the Dari Yassin massacre.
	Look at the testimonies of Israeli soldiers who fought in the 48 war, who admit murdering men, women, and children.
	Nobody is in the houses, raping people, stealing, looting their homes.
	There will be nobody with an honest bone in their body who will deny certain historical atrocities confirmed, and others which...
	Everyone knows happened in war.
	Nobody's going to deny that.
	The question is not saying, is the Israeli army...
	Again, it's not good versus evil.
	It's not just fleeing fighting.
	It's not fleeing fighting when...
	It is fleeing fighting when two armed groups are fighting and nearby civilians get the hell out of Dodge.
	It's not the same thing when armed terrorist groups...
	Which they were called terrorist groups the day before yesterday, before Truman recognized them as a state, Irgun and Haganah and all that, are going around murdering men, women and children in order to drive them out of their homes.
	You're deliberately conflating them, but I know that you know that they're different.
	First of all, I know the Urgun were terrorist groups.
	They bombed the King David Hotel.
	The flip side argument to that is they gave warnings.
	But fleeing fighting and being driven from your homes by people who are attacking.
	I mean, look at what happened in Israel over the weekend here.
	Let's imagine that the...
	Hamas had had the ability to keep going and sustain this and sustain that territory.
	Would you say, oh no, those Israeli Jews are just fleeing the fighting?
	Well, they're being ethnically cleansed off of that land.
	Well, they're being chased by guys with AK-47s who just murdered a bunch of them over yonder.
	That would be ethnic and their intent on holding this land and not letting them come home?
	Shoe on the other foot.
	In fact, take this whole discussion and put the shoe on the other foot.
	Pretend that the Palestinians had won in 48, and the Israelis had been the ones left on a rumped state out in the desert.
	You know, under occupation or sold out to a foreign power.
	Or say that they had done fine until 67, but then they lost the 67 war, as you said in your hypothetical.
	Now the Palestinians take the whole country back and now it's the Israeli Jews who've been herded into the Gaza Strip concentration camp.
	What would happen?
	You know what would happen.
	America would send in the Marines.
	They would never let that happen to the Israeli Jews.
	Ever, ever, ever.
	But it's perfectly tolerable to happen to the Palestinians.
	Some people, I might say that your hypothetical, had that happened, would have resulted in the wholesale extermination of any Israelis.
	No, because America would have sent in the Marines and killed them all.
	And you know it.
	And they know it.
	I don't know that.
	I think one of the—call it a cliché— People will tweet it out.
	If Hamas puts down their weapons, or Palestinians put down their weapons, there'll be peace.
	If Israel puts down their weapons...
	It's all slogans and shit.
	Why don't you say that in an actual English paragraph that makes sense at all, instead of a cliché?
	Well, no, because the thing is, again, it reduces the argument to not good versus evil.
	It reduces it to oversimplified binaries.
	The Israeli government, I don't trust the Israeli government...
	Any more than I trust any government.
	You're seeing the power that's ten times, a hundred times, a thousand times more powerful.
	This Western-backed, armed, capitalist nation-state is at the mercy of this armed militia.
	Well, they're not at the mercy of precisely because they are strong enough to not be at the mercy of.
	Because if they were at the mercy of, as the argument goes, they would cease to exist.
	I mean, are you prepared to...
	Would you even concede that as an argument?
	If Israel were not armed to the teeth and able to defend itself, it would simply cease to exist given its neighbors and their desires for the state of Israel and the Jewish people there.
	Well, I mean, America brokered peace between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt four years ago.
	So that's not right.
	If you're asking, again, if the Palestinians had won the war in 67 and they had a nation state...
	You know, completely...
	Well, I don't know.
	We can make up any counterfactual.
	We want what they would have done to the Palestinians.
	My counterfactual was if they had done to the Israeli Jews what the Israeli Jews have done to them, it would be absolutely considered intolerable by the United States and by Europe and all of our allies would intervene and not let this happen.
	I mean, what the Palestinians are saying now, and I'm not saying Hamas, but I'm saying the vast majority of the Palestinians are saying, just give them independence or give them equal rights.
	It is, as Netanyahu himself said, and I'm sorry, I'm skipping ahead.
	There will always be one nation state, one security force between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
	Now, when the Palestinians say it, they say, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
	Netanyahu says Israel will always control all of the land from the river to the sea.
	Period.
	And that's it.
	And no, the Palestinians will not be free.
	And in fact, they just passed the Jewish nation-state law that said even for the Palestinian citizens of Israel, still screw you.
	This is the nation-state of the Jewish people.
	Yeah, Ben, that goes back to the first question, is does Israel have the right to do what is necessary to preserve it as a Jewish state?
	Whereas, you know very well...
	Yes, they have the right to get the hell out of the West Bank and set those six million prisoners that they're holding captive free.
	That'll restore their 80-20 balance immediately.
	Free where?
	I actually just practically want to understand what you mean.
	Free where?
	Well, let them have independence on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem.
	There's a million of them, and that'll restore the population balance inside Israel.
	And in fact, you may be familiar with this, that for center-left American liberal Zionists, not always Jewish.
	But for American center-left liberal Zionists, this is the argument for a two-state solution.
	It's a provenist argument.
	We want rid of these people.
	We don't want the burden of their stink in our country.
	We want them out.
	So the right-wing religious people in Israel, they want to seize the West Bank because they say it's Judea and Samaria, and the Bible says it must be conquered at all costs, and the Palestinians...
	We'll just figure out how to put them on boxcars later.
	But what matters now is owning that land.
	Well, the American Reform Center left liberal Jews.
	They don't believe that.
	They don't care about Judea and Sumeria.
	They want rid of the Palestinian people so that they can have what they call the liberal Jewish Zionist dream of a liberal Jewish democracy, 80-20, where now you can have, right, like the...
	What was originally more the Ashkenazi ideal for what Israel would be, which is not, you know, there's a lot of conflict there.
	Let me back it up.
	You say free the 6 million.
	Give them a state, or at least recognize a state.
	When you say free the 6 million so they can...
	You said re-establish or rebalance the population, I think.
	But what does free the six million mean in your mind as far as a two-party state solution goes?
	Yeah, well, as far as what I meant there about the population balance is I'm saying, as Netanyahu defines it with his de facto annexation, is Israel is not an 80-20 super-duper majority Jewish state at all.
	It's something like a 50-50 Jewish state, only...
	Something like 90% of the Palestinians have no rights at all.
	Only a small percentage of the Palestinians are citizens of Israel, right?
	So that's what he said.
	When you say free, does it mean make the Palestinians citizens of Israel?
	Well, that would be one choice, and there are great many Palestinians who I think have a great argument to say that, in fact, we're doing this out of order, but we can get back to this, that it's far too late to have a two-state solution, because now there are well over half a million, I think I read even 700,000, I think it was 500,000 Israeli Jewish settlers live in the West Bank.
	And that's far too many for the IDF to ever remove.
	It would cause a civil war within Israel if they ever went so far to try to remove them all.
	But there are so many now that it's impossible to have a contiguous state that would make any sense there when you have these foreign nations, cantons, you know, kind of interspersed throughout it all.
	So then there are other options, which are, one, you have something like a binational state.
	Like they have in Switzerland or like they try to do in Bosnia.
	Or you just drop the part about it's a Jewish democracy and you just make it a democracy.
	Separate church and state and protect everyone's rights as equal citizens of Israel.
	Just give them citizenship, man.
	Like the 14th Amendment.
	Look, they've been under occupation longer than the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe.
	Scott, that was predicated or that initially started off as a two-state solution.
	If you give Palestinians, and I'm not saying, give them citizenship in Israel, you understand that that's not a two-state solution anymore.
	That becomes a one-state solution.
	You asked me, what about a one-state solution?
	No, no, sorry.
	I was going back to what does it mean when you say liberate the 6 million Palestinians?
	In my view, it means give them control over the land that they are occupying.
	Also, not control water and electricity flowing in and out.
	Give them control autonomy, but that requires a government whose stated mission is not to wipe a people off the earth.
	Yeah, but look, this is all question-begging stuff, man.
	As I already told you, even Hamas has said that they're perfectly willing to sign a deal.
	You know, we need to get into this, man.
	Here.
	Yeah, go.
	So back up, part of the stuff that you sent me said that it was Israel that turned down a two-state solution.
	Yes, okay.
	Or sorry, that Hamas had agreed to a two-state solution, or Arafat did.
	That's what I want you to explain.
	Okay, so yeah, there's a lot here.
	So yes.
	Arafat agreed to a two-state solution and recognized Israel within 1967 borders in 1988.
	Okay, stop, stop, stop on that one premise.
	So he recognized the state of Israel within the 1967 borders in 1988.
	Was that the offer that was being made at the time, or was that him saying, I'll recognize my counteroffer that you haven't accepted?
	Okay, so that was part of Camp David, right?
	So people always forget this.
	Camp David in 79, where they made peace with Jordan and Egypt.
	They also promised a Palestinian state.
	That was part of the deal with Egypt, was we promised a Palestinian state, which at that point they had occupied for about 12 years.
	And they had only just barely begun moving settlers in there.
	I guess not barely begun, but it was still very small numbers of settlers that had been moved in.
	Again, a clear war crime.
	The United Nations Security Council had ruled that you have to stop that and you have to withdraw all your forces from the occupied territories.
	And they tried to quibble.
	The French version of the resolution doesn't have the word the in it.
	So that means we only have to leave the occupied territories that we feel like leaving instead of all of them, which is such a bunch of crap.
	And was absolutely not the intention of the Security Council when they voted at the time.
	But anyway...
	So at Camp David, they promised there would be a Palestinian state.
	Then basically nothing happened during the Reagan years, or at least I don't know much about the process during the Reagan years.
	Bush Sr., you might remember, after Iraq War I was riding high on his high poll numbers and all of this, and James Baker, his Secretary of State, said, now is our chance, and Colin Powell agreed, now is our chance to force the Israelis out of the West Bank and to give up the Palestinian state.
	And that was when they had the Madrid conference, and Bush had said something like, geez.
	I really hate this Yitzhak Shamir, and I wish the Israelis would hold new elections and get rid of them.
	Which is why Murray Rothbard, the libertarian, endorsed Bush in 92 for president.
	He said, at least he stood up to the horrible Yitzhak Shamir.
	Well, the Israel lobby in America went to DEFCON 2 over...
	George H.W. Bush, we found out later, you can read the quotes at Mondoweiss.net.
	H.W. Bush blamed the Israel lobby for his loss in 1992 because he had stood up to them and tried to force a two-state solution through.
	And they chose Bill Clinton instead and supported him at Mondoweiss.net.
	You can read all about that.
	George H.W. Bush blamed the Israel lobby for his loss in 92. And I got to tell you, I was just a kid, but I was paying very, very close attention to that election.
	I mean, I wasn't reading all of the Wall Street Journal every day or whatever, but I was watching a lot of TV and paying very close attention.
	I gotta tell you, that was not part of the narrative that they told us regular rubes out here in the country, was that Israel doesn't like your president anymore.
	And so now there's a giant problem about whether he's going to be able to stay in office or not, as the entire Israel lobby in America has turned tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in favor of his opponent.
	But anyway, and Baker had said, F the Jews.
	They don't vote for us anyway, which in fact was, he said it apparently in jest, but the quote in print didn't read like a joke and people got really pissed off.
	They said, no, we don't vote for you anyway, but we donate and we're going to double our donations to the Democrats now.
	How do you like that?
	And that was a big deal.
	You can't entirely, you know, blame Bush for doing the right thing.
	It was his stupid secretary of state really sabotaged him by saying that.
	But then Bill Clinton came in, and remember the famous handshake on the lawn in 1993?
	Yasser Arafat and Yassaf Rabin, the prime minister, shook hands, and this was...
	The beginning of the Oslo process, I forget if they had just come back from Oslo or they were going to Oslo, Norway, to work out this deal.
	Now, the deal was the promise of a two-state solution.
	I'm going to have what's called, and I know you know this because it's taken place over the course of most of your lifetime, the peace process.
	In other words, Israel has never given up the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians.
	Suckers!
	We're going to drag this out.
	We're going to pretend that we're negotiating in good faith over decades until finally we admit that we were lying all along.
	The closest they ever came to wanting to give up a Palestinian state was under Yitzhak Rabin, who his actual plan for a Palestinian state was far less than what anyone would consider a nation-state anywhere else in the world, although it's probably better than any other deal that they could have gotten since then.
	But then a Netanyahu fan murdered the guy.
	And he was replaced by Shimon Peres and then Netanyahu and then Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon Olmert and then Netanyahu again in the time since then.
	And so whatever effort Rabin was ever going to make there went to naught.
	And then that brings us to the year 2000 at Camp David again.
	Hold on.
	We got to back it up back to Arafat agreeing to a two-state solution in 88. So this was, I guess, part of America was asking him to do this as part of moving the negotiations forward.
	Okay, so it's not to be legal or technical or pedantic.
	He's not accepting the offer that's on the table.
	He says, we'll agree to a two-state solution.
	There was no offer.
	Right.
	There was no offer.
	So he says, we'll agree to the two-state solution.
	Yes, I recognize it as it is without them doing a thing.
	Okay.
	What were the territorial recognitions of Arafat back in 88?
	67 borders.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	And what was his position on the right of return back in 88?
	I'm not sure, but that was always negotiable.
	And I've read, you know, I'm sorry I don't have like good footnotes off the top of my head for this, but I know that I've read numerous times where the, oh, you know what?
	I bet you this is in the Palestinian papers that were leaked to Al Jazeera.
	And, you know, I need to go back and study all that because there's so much in there.
	Again, it's not a question of...
	They never meant all that right of return stuff.
	They know that there is no deal.
	They might be mean, but none of them are so stupid that they think the Israelis...
	They're going to let millions and millions of Palestinians come home from North Africa and Syria and Jordan and whatever.
	So they sometimes talk that game, but they know that that's not going to be part of the solution of the final deal.
	And I don't think that that has truly been the sticking point on any of those.
	And I know Abu Abbas has said explicitly that that's, you know, you could forget that.
	If you're Googling the Al Jazeera Palestine papers, I'm almost certain that it's in there that Abu Mazen or Abu Abbas says that, oh, yeah, no, right of return, we throw them under the bus, man, that don't matter.
	So, some might say that it's...
	Not sophistry, but they might say, well, you say that they agreed to a two-state deal when, A, there was no offer from the other side on the table.
	Arafat is agreeing to a two-state deal that makes concessions that were not being offered to them.
	I said he recognized them.
	Not that he agreed to a deal.
	There wasn't a deal.
	So the big Arafat concession is the mere recognition of the state of Israel to exist.
	Come on, man.
	If he refused to recognize the state of Israel, that would be a hell of a stick.
	But did he say that before or after?
	He also said, you know, supported death to Jews and death to Israelis.
	And I don't know when the...
	I don't know the timeline of all the stupid crap that...
	One of the biggest issues or one of the biggest accusations against Arafat is that this is not to say that any other politician is trustworthy, is that he spoke out of both sides of his mouth, giving it one interpretation, or he knew that he could not agree to certain things.
	And so he said certain things publicly, knowing that if he ever did agree to them, he would be killed by the very group that I believe and many believe is actually holding the Palestinian people hostage.
	So Arafat can say whatever the hell he wants.
	It was the Israelis that murdered him.
	Right?
	I mean, come on.
	How did Arafat die?
	He died of natural causes.
	Come on, man.
	They poisoned him with polonium.
	Hold on.
	Arafat death.
	This is this.
	Arafat death.
	Well, now we're going to...
	Arafat death is an Israeli cliche.
	Massive hemorrhagic cerebral...
	Well, this is what Wikipedia says.
	And I will not judge you for being a conspiracy theorist.
	Add polonium to your search.
	You'll get a few results, I promise.
	Yeah, no, no, it's on the website.
	Poisoning with polonium here.
	So Arafat, he died unexpectedly.
	I'm just reading from Wikipedia.
	It was his fellow members of Fatah that got that stuff out of their nuclear reactor.
	I can see that.
	Poisoning with polonium.
	According to Israeli radio, a former...
	This is where you don't even know what to believe anymore.
	All right, he died ostensibly from hemorrhagic whatever.
	Then they say he was poisoned.
	Then you're going to say Israel did it.
	Others are going to say his rivals did it.
	And no one knows what the hell to believe in life.
	Well, I'll tell you what.
	I'll tell you what.
	I agree with you on that.
	Let's put that point aside because it's a moot point.
	No, I just want to go back to the idea that Arafat says that his big concession is recognizing the state of Israel with one side of his mouth, but then some people are going to say with the other hand, assisting in the killing of Jews or Israelis and being basically the puppet or the tool of groups that will never acknowledge in reality what he uttered with his mouth.
	So what good is it?
	Well, I mean...
	You've turned the exact same thing around.
	The Israelis constantly say, oh, we tried to give them a mistake.
	They'll never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, but they're lying when they say that.
	And we know this because Robert Malley, who was part of the negotiations at Camp David, wrote all about it in the New York Review of Books.
	And you can also read all about it at The Guardian, where Malley says, there never was an offer.
	The Israelis never even made an offer.
	All they did was come up with a bunch of public relations that said that, oh yeah, we promised Arafat a state and he turned it down.
	What year are we in though?
	Are we in 88 or are we in 2000 now?
	In 2000.
	All right, so this is where like...
	Ehud Barak was trying to give him a state and he just wouldn't accept it.
	But it's just not true.
	The American negotiator involved in the thing spilled the beans on the whole thing.
	All that was was a great public relations stunt.
	They weren't willing to give anything like...
	In fact, I think he says, Arafat smelled the trap that we had laid for him.
	That was what was going on there.
	They were setting him up.
	And look, and this goes to the point of whether they murdered him or not, because it's the same difference.
	The point being that the Israelis want to say that they have no partner for peace.
	That's their claim.
	And if somebody wants to negotiate with them in good faith, then they get rid of them.
	Or they figure out...
	Sorry, but Scott...
	Or the rivals of the person negotiating with Israel in good faith take them out?
	I mean, this is where, like, it's a crazy thing.
	How do you explain Mossad's decision to aid and abet and finance the rise of Hamas?
	Well, I know you've been, that I've read.
	I know what Netanyahu said in 2019.
	There's undoubtedly dirty politics involved because everybody thinks that...
	Well, let's go back.
	Hold on, hold on.
	The idea that the Palestinians, as goes the Golda Meir quote, never miss an opportunity to never miss an opportunity, it's an old political trope that applies to everybody.
	Never let a good crisis go to waste, even if it means manufacturing the crisis.
	So that's no truer or less true of the Palestinians than it is of any other government on Earth.
	So don't want you to pretend...
	But the fraud is that...
	Once the Palestinians have won and gotten what they want, that then they refuse to accept victory and go home with their thoughts.
	That's a lie.
	That's the obvious lie.
	No, but it's the obvious truth if they are in fact...
	Hold on, hold on, Scott.
	Scott, Scott, Scott, Scott, Scott, hold on.
	There was no offer.
	It ain't true.
	But forget that.
	Let me just say this.
	It's necessarily true that if they accept the offer, then the governing forces that govern them cease to exist.
	There's a strong argument.
	There are arguments that...
	Palestinian would go away once they became a state.
	No, they'd be more permanently introduced than before.
	Many would argue that the raison d'être of certain governments or terrorist organizations, they would cease to exist as a government if they ever actually negotiated a peace.
	I mean, look at the IRA and look at the Haganah!
	Look at Hezbollah.
	Hezbollah is now their own mini-state in southern Lebanon.
	You're telling me that if once they had won all that territory, someone had said, okay, good, now you get to have your own mini-state.
	But that's when Nasrallah would say, no, I'm much better off to keep dying and keep getting my guys killed and lose territory that I've already won?
	No, that's not what he did, is it?
	Well, the analogies, I hate the analogies because there is always a material difference that makes them not analogous, certainly with certain comparisons.
	Okay.
	But in this case, I pretend that they offered the Palestinians a state and that the Palestinians rejected that offer when it's not true that they offered the Palestinians a state and they rejected that offer.
	Not that I will rely on Newsweek, but this is my memory of the 2000 peace talks is that the ultimate sinking of the discussions was the right of return that Yasser Arafat tacked on at the last minute, knowing it would sabotage the deal.
	So it's my memory of Yes.
	Okay.
	That's not what happened at all.
	This is from Newsweek, so take it with a great assault.
	Clinton also revealed that contrary to most conventional wisdom, after Camp David ended, the key issue that torpedoed the talks in their final stages was not the division of Israel-East Jerusalem, but the Palestinians'demand for a right of return of refugees to Israel.
	My memory is that there was an agreement on basically all terms, and then Arafat came in with this...
	I'm not going to qualify it in a judgmental state, just counterintuitive, illogical demand for a right of return of 6 million or 5 million Palestinians to which Clinton said, what do you need a two-state solution for if what you want to do is basically turn Israel into a Palestinian state or at least an Arab state?
	And that's my recollection.
	And the rationale that I remember at the time, but I'm prepared to revisit my own memory and understanding, was that Arafat knew that he could never agree to a peace deal because he'd get killed.
	And now you've refreshed my memory.
	Again, he got killed in the end.
	Whether or not it was Israel or his rivals that didn't want him making peace, who knows?
	But that's my memory of it.
	Malley says here, it's hard to stay with confidence how far Barack was actually prepared to go.
	Strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer.
	This is with Barack, though.
	Is this with Barack or Clinton?
	Barack in 2000.
	There never was an offer for Arafat to reject.
	It never existed.
	Strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer.
	Determined to preserve Israel's position in the event of failure, the Israelis always stopped one, if not several, steps short of a proposal.
	The ideas put forward at Camp David were never stated in writing but orally conveyed.
	In the Palestinians' eyes, they were the ones who made the principal concessions.
	Arafat was persuaded that the Israelis were setting a trap.
	His primary objective thus became to cut his losses rather than maximize his gains.
	I mean, it's very interesting.
	We're just like, you can't agree on history.
	And I'm not saying this in like, we would agree to disagree.
	This is two screens, one film, where someone will say exactly what you just said and say there was a verbal offer.
	I don't know if there was a written offer at the time.
	I'm going to go back and double check.
	A question of fact, was there an offer?
	It seems that Arafat had nothing to counter with or refuse if there was no offer, yet apparently he did torpedo the talks.
	Apparently nothing.
	That was the propaganda from the time.
	Well, that's interesting.
	He went home because, and then what did they do?
	They launched a giant propaganda thing and go, oh yeah, we just offered him the whole thing and the kitchen sink.
	And he said, no, he's so ungrateful.
	He didn't say no.
	His own men were going to kill him.
	Yeah.
	Blah, blah, blah, blah.
	But Scott, he was.
	He was.
	They were, and they probably did kill them based on some of this, at least Wikipedia.
	Yeah, no, the Palestinian Authority got a bunch of plutonium out of their nuclear reactor and poisoned their alien.
	I'll tell you one thing.
	Stranger things have happened, and they have been known to have things that they certainly didn't manufacture.
	You ever heard of Demona?
	No, what is Demona?
	That's where Israel makes their hydrogen bombs.
	But, Scott, there's a lot of things that they have in Gaza that are not manufactured in Gaza quite clearly, as we've seen time and time again.
	So the idea that they don't make it in Gaza doesn't mean they don't get it from Iran or else.
	Say that again?
	So maybe they bought it from Boris Berezovsky.
	Well, I know what you're doing.
	If the goal is to say that there are bad Israelis, bad Israeli government...
	That's what I'm saying.
	What I'm saying is, when Arafat is a willing partner for peace...
	They marginalize him first by building up Hamas, and then they kill him.
	And even if it's not 100%, as I said before, even if it's not 100% conclusive fact that it was the Israelis that killed him, I mean, give me a break.
	You really think that it's more likely the Palestinians murdered their own boss with polonium than the Israelis did it?
	Give me a break, dude.
	But anyway, it doesn't matter because here's what matters.
	Why did Israel abet...
	The rise of Hamas.
	And the reason why is because they wanted a right-wing religious Islamist alternative to the secular commie PLO to divide and conquer the Palestinian people.
	And they gave money to Yasin.
	They arrested all of his opponents and for years and years abetted the rise of Hamas.
	And I think I sent you on Twitter there in the DMs.
	You have Andrew Higgins in the Wall Street Journal, a right-leaning publication, of course, and Richard Sale from UPI.
	Again, no hippie, a right-leaning journalist.
	From UPI, very closely connected to American intelligence.
	And in Richard Sayle's piece, he even says, after Hamas really revealed their true colors as a terrorist group, and even committed suicide attacks, what did Israel do?
	They kept backing them anyway.
	They said, good, it's good to have such a horrible enemy.
	So that we have no partner for peace because we don't want peace.
	We want that land.
	We'd rather have a crisis.
	And now here's where these quotes come in.
	Well, no, I've read the article.
	You want to read it?
	You can go ahead and read Netanyahu in 2019.
	Talk to his cabinet.
	Flip me the link in the chat and I'll bring up the article.
	I'm trying to find it, but you sent me in.
	Okay, well, I got it right here.
	It's in Haaretz today.
	It's in Haaretz today.
	The article is called Another Concept Implodes.
	Israel Can't Be Managed by a Criminal Defendant.
	And this is in Haaretz.
	For people not familiar, this is the most important liberal daily newspaper in Israel.
	Some call it the CNN of Israel or the MSNBC for what it's worth, people.
	Yeah, but you know what?
	I really like Amira Haas.
	Gideon Levy.
	There's some good stuff in there.
	Everybody should know, you read it anyhow, even if you disregard it as propaganda.
	I read Al Jazeera.
	This is the exact quote.
	If the Prime Minister's office wants to dispute this quote, they can, but this is a matter of record.
	I'm sure anyone can find this.
	It's from, I believe, a public cabinet meeting when he said, quote, anyone who wants to thwart The establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas.
	This is part of our strategy to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.
	He says, importantly in context for this week, it's impossible to reach an agreement with them.
	Everyone knows this.
	But we control the height of the flame.
	Except, yeah, no, not so much.
	No, no, but it's like, first of all, not to analogize either, do I think that corrupt politicians whose reign of power relies on a certain division would exacerbate that upon which their rule is predicated?
	Of course not.
	Now, at some point, you know, in the same way that the US funded Osama to fight the Russians before he turned on them, at some point, you know, an enemy of your enemy is your enemy until they no longer have that enemy, or sorry, the enemy of your enemy is your friend until they no longer have that enemy, then you become their enemy.
	And on the other hand, Scott, a lot of people are going to say, okay, so Netanyahu is scum of the earth.
	But meanwhile, it shows that you can't negotiate anything with Hamas, because on the one hand, you are kind of sucking and blowing and saying Hamas will recognize the two-state of Israel, and yet Netanyahu's using them because he knows that they're an enemy of Israel and will always be a source of conflict.
	So you can't hold both of those views at the same time.
	That's not true.
	All I'm saying is Netanyahu disagrees with me.
	I actually agree with him that Hamas makes a horrible boogeyman as long as they don't get that final status agreement.
	As long as they have not recognized the state of Israel and still vow in their charter to wipe Israel off the map, just as Likud promises in their charter to wipe all the Palestinians off the map and create a greater Israel, by the way.
	Hamas, of course, is an armed militia, and as we discussed at the top of the show, an outright murderous one when given the opportunity.
	They make a perfect foil.
	For Benjamin Netanyahu to claim, oh Hamas is ISIS.
	Hamas essentially is the Palestinians.
	That doesn't contradict.
	I'm not sucking and blowing by saying that he's actually full of crap and that if he was willing to deal with Hamas in good faith, that they could actually come to an arrangement, unlike ISIS or al-Qaeda.
	Hamas did stand for election.
	We have to go back and talk about 05 and 06 and 07 in a minute.
	So that's a very important part of how Hamas ended up in control of the Gaza Strip in the first place there.
	You know, it's essentially...
	Well, here, let's go ahead and talk.
	Well, no, no.
	On that point, for the public relations point, it doesn't have to be true that Hamas is ISIS for it to be true that Netanyahu can make plenty of mileage.
	And by the way, he's been in power longer than any Israeli prime minister ever.
	So this is not just a matter of his personal opinion or his personal foibles.
	His choices are Israeli policy for a generation straight now, right?
	It makes perfect sense for him to demagogue and scapegoat them and say that, boy, we thought the commie PLO was bad.
	Look at these horrible right-wing Islamists.
	But again, read Andrew Higgins in the Wall Street Journal and read Richard Sale in the UPI and you will see that is why Hamas, I mean, pardon me, why Mossad created them or helped, I don't, that's too oversimplified, helped extensively with the rise of their group, persecuting their rivals and helping bolster them.
	They wanted to be able to say, just as in this recent Netanyahu quote, That we can't deal with these people.
	Look at how horrible and terrible they are.
	That makes perfect sense to do.
	If you're the Israelis and you don't want the peace process to succeed, we're going to have to give up the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem to be an independent state.
	And it makes perfect sense.
	We're going to have some horrible armed militia that everybody despises in charge so that you can scapegoat them.
	Well, I say to the extent you mean the Netanyahu government.
	And not Israelis at large.
	I think Israelis at large would accept very quickly a two-state solution if they could ensure the safety.
	I agree with that.
	Polls have shown that.
	And I don't believe that I said anything about, if I said the Israelis, I always mean the government when I say that.
	I'm talking specifically about the population of the country.
	Who is the current, that guy, Levine, what's his first name?
	I'm sorry, the current president?
	He's not the opposition.
	He's the coalition with Netanyahu, Levine.
	What's his position?
	Hold on.
	I just looked him up before.
	He was the guy speaking Israeli government.
	No, look, Yariv Levine.
	Yariv Levine.
	He was the one that we saw talking in the opening clip with the 60 Minutes interview from three weeks ago where they're talking about...
	If our decisions lead to some crisis, because the military won't show up.
	And by the way, what's going on, you may know a bit more about this than me.
	I know I'm sketchy on this, but I believe that the big fight over the Supreme Court there, where they're trying to ram through this law to, or I guess they did ram through this law, to limit the power of the Israeli Supreme Court is to make it easier for them to colonize and annex the West Bank.
	Well, I don't know.
	Yahoo had to make a coalition, the most right-wing coalition in his history, with the Jews.
	I'm sorry, I forgot the name of it.
	I would not purport to have an understanding sufficient to do anything more than ask questions to someone who I knew knew more than me.
	So that's how I came across the clip because I'm trying to understand.
	I was just trying to make sense of...
	What was the crisis with the courts in Israel?
	The scandal with Netanyahu saw him on the brink of losing control.
	And then I came across that interview from 60 Minutes.
	Not that I trust 60 Minutes in their editing.
	I've seen how unfair they can be.
	But then I saw that.
	That was clear enough, though.
	That was clear enough.
	Damn clear enough.
	Yeah, you have this huge proportion of the professionals in the officer class of the military.
	And you had Mossad also openly opposing this policy.
	And you had especially reservists refusing to show up.
	Well, I would stop you there and just say the core was it that they wanted to, you know, lessen the power, the oversight power of the courts, which I think is also a problem.
	Which stops them from doing things like expanding new settlements and that kind of thing.
	Well, I can understand that argument given the interest that they had in the West Bank, which might I've explained why they were ignoring or neglecting Gaza.
	But all that to say that it's on 60 Minutes saying this is a problem.
	It's a concern.
	It exposes Israel to risk.
	To the world, well, it's not just that Israel knew about it, but then it's that Israel's enemies knew that.
	And all that I was trying to do is just understand for my own...
	You know, before anything else, how the hell could this have happened in the first place?
	Because like I started off by saying, I said, you know, this is not a lone wolf with a backpack getting on a bus.
	This was coordinated.
	And it wasn't just that it was coordinated.
	It was sustained.
	And it wasn't just that it was sustained.
	It was sustained for hours, apparently four hours at the concert before any opposite to 12 hours, which makes no sense.
	And then I stumble across this video and whoa, it starts making a little more sense.
	We're all wondering that.
	Where the hell are all the security forces?
	Again, this is no diminishing the atrocity.
	It's that you know that you have an existential enemy not in Everyday Palestinian people, but in their government that wants to kill you at every step of the door.
	Like Golda Meir said, you can't negotiate with someone who comes to kill you.
	You don't leave your front door open.
	And that's what it looked like.
	And that's what I was, that's all that I was trying to understand.
	All right, now you have to go back.
	Of course, you have to negotiate with the people that you're fighting with.
	That's the whole point of negotiation.
	Golda Meir and all of her damn stupid cliches.
	That makes no sense.
	That's like Dick Cheney saying, no, you don't talk to evil.
	Well, no, no, hold on.
	The evil, that's how you end the conflict unless you think that more killing.
	Well, no, hold on.
	I would agree with Golda Meir.
	I would agree with you don't negotiate with Charles Manson.
	My problem now, having seen the way things work in history, is it's a very easy excuse to say, like, well, they're doing it in Russia.
	Can't negotiate with Putin because he's come to kill the world.
	So we can't negotiate.
	Well, that's great.
	That's just a very easy way to justify your...
	Aspirations.
	I can't talk with him.
	He's crazy.
	Now we just have to keep...
	And look, let's go back to...
	The elections.
	...05 here and George W. Bush era, okay?
	Remember, George W. Bush says it's the global democratic revolution.
	By the way, his head is being filled with all this crap from the neoconservatives, who are who?
	They're the vanguard of the Israel lobby in the United States of America.
	When people talk about the neocons, that doesn't mean right-wingers nowadays.
	That is a specific sect of...
	Not all Jews.
	A lot of them are Catholics, too.
	And Zalmay Khalilzad was Muslim.
	But they're essentially ex-leftists, turned Reaganites, and always very close to Israel.
	Now, John Bolton, you're familiar with, he's a fellow traveler.
	He was always a right-wing Barry Goldwater guy.
	The neoconservatives, the reason they're called neoconservatives is because they used to be leftists and Democrats, and then they moved to the right.
	And the reason they moved to the right was because of, one, the civil rights era.
	And two, the peace movement of the Vietnam era.
	And they were repelled by that.
	They were like Cold War Truman Democrats.
	So they centered around Scoop Jackson, who is a right-wing Democrat from Washington State.
	They called him the senator from Boeing.
	And then they became Reaganites.
	And then these were the men who lied us into war in Iraq 20 years ago in the George W. Bush administration, particularly Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Stephen Hadley.
	Robert Joseph, Abram Shulsky, and Douglas Fythe, and all of these guys.
	They called themselves the Cabal.
	And they were the ones who lied us into war with all the fake intelligence from the Iraqi exiles and all of that stuff.
	And they filled Bush's head with, oh, this isn't about parochial interest for Likud.
	They want an oil pipeline.
	No, this is all about the global democratic revolution and all these high ideals.
	And they convinced Bush that we have to bring the global democratic revolution to Palestine.
	And they said, you know what would be horrible and sinful?
	Would be if we would try to force the, was it Sharon then?
	No, Sharon was gone by then in his coma.
	I believe it was the Olmert administration by then.
	It would be terrible and sinful if we would try to force the Israelis to negotiate with an unelected government in the Fatah, in the PLA.
	So what we're going to do, and I'm sorry, I forget this before or after Arafat was killed, that this was Abu Mazen, or Abbas, as he's known, either way.
	Or if this was Arafat, I'm sorry.
	I think it was Arafat.
	I'll Google it as fast as I can.
	Okay.
	But keep going.
	But in any case, what happened was...
	Israel held an election at George Bush and Condoleezza Rice's insistence.
	And if I remember it right, I think the Israelis, at least publicly, were reluctant to do this.
	But then here's what happened.
	I believe accidentally, I could never prove it was deliberate.
	I don't know that it was deliberate.
	Although it served their interests, you know, I don't know.
	But what in effect happened was Israel rigged the election for Hamas.
	And here's how they did it.
	They control the Palestinian.
	They control all of the tariffs, all of the tax revenue from all goods coming in and out of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
	And then they collect all those taxes and then they turn that tax money over to the Palestinian Authority, which is not a government, by the way.
	It was created by the United States.
	It's essentially trustees in an Israeli prison, right?
	This is not a sovereign state here.
	This is occupied territory.
	And so the Israelis control all the money and they refuse to give the money to Fatah for Fatah to disperse among the different factions to buy up their votes or even to provide their basic services for people living...
	And I guess in Gaza as well.
	So this tilted the advantage toward Hamas.
	So in the election of 2006, Hamas won, but just barely.
	And they had to create a coalition government with Fatah.
	But then the United States, Israel, and Egypt launched a coup d 'etat.
	And you can read all about this in a great article by David Rose called The Gaza Bombshell.
	It's in Vanity Fair, which I know is embarrassing, but it's a good article.
	And it's called The Gaza Bombshell.
	And it's about how America, Egypt, and Israel worked together to funnel a bunch of arms into the Gaza Strip to give to Fatah, which Fatah then used and attacked Hamas, I guess their headquarters, and tried to take them out.
	And Hamas kicked their ass and drove them back and drove them out of the Gaza Strip.
	And it was only then that Hamas was able to take full control of the Gaza Strip, quote-unquote, again, under occupation, full control as a monopoly.
	Of trustees in an Israeli concentration camp or Indian reservation, if you prefer that.
	They are not a sovereign state.
	But that was how they came to power there.
	And now, as I'm sure you're familiar and all your audience is familiar, if anybody's listening to me anymore on this thing, that people say all the time about how guilty the people of Gaza are for electing Hamas.
	But that was in 2006.
	And the majority of the population of the Gaza Strip, at least last I checked, were minors.
	They're not even really minors.
	They're the majority or people under 18 years old.
	So they could not possibly.
	And again, this is Osama bin Laden logic anyway.
	And again, this is his own words, literally, in his letter to America.
	If you vote wrong, I can kill you.
	That's a paraphrase, but that's what he says.
	If you vote wrong, I can kill you.
	Well, this is what they say about the Palestinians.
	They voted wrong.
	They put Hamas in there, even though, no, they did not do that.
	The sum of the adults of 2006 did that.
	And again, a lot of them voted for Fatah.
	And it was when America, George Bush's heavy hand, came in and tried to do an illegal coup d 'etat to cancel the results of the election that he forced them to hold.
	Was what resulted in Hamas taking power.
	And then what did they, again, quote-unquote, ironic quotes, power in a tiny little concentration camp stripped by the sea under total siege.
	So when Ariel Sharon in 2005, when he pulled the, and I'm sorry, I'm going back one step on you now.
	When Ariel Sharon unilaterally pulled the Israeli settlers out of the Gaza Strip in 2005.
	You'll hear this in the Hasbara Public Relations now.
	They go, oh, see what a wonderful man Ariel Sharon was?
	He gave them the Gaza Strip and they gave it to a bunch of terrorists.
	Right?
	That's the cliche, or not the cliche, but I guess the cliche, the narrative that they claim.
	Okay?
	But what actually happened was when he pulled out, pulled those settlers, and it was much fewer, I don't know if you're familiar, but the Israelis are much less intent, I think, on...
	Owning Gaza compared to the West Bank, Judea and Samaria, which they're so obsessed with.
	The Gaza Strip, they could give or take, let the Egyptians have it or get it someday later, that kind of thing.
	So they pulled the settlers out of there.
	And my friend Eric Garris from Antiwar.com told me then, he said, I predict right now that this is going to be a disaster because those Israeli Jews...
	We're essentially squatting on the West Bank.
	They were voluntarily, essentially, human shields for the people of Gaza.
	And now that they're gone, that means that the Israeli government can do whatever they want to those people, and they've got nobody to stop it.
	And he was completely right about that.
	And then, so check this out.
	I got this quote.
	Oh, no, I don't have the exact quote, but I have a piece of it, and you can find it.
	I guarantee you can find it.
	Okay, here's your search terms.
	Dove, that's just D-O-V with no E. Dove Weissglass, and he worked for Ariel Sharon.
	You can type in Ariel Sharon.
	Dove Weissglass, Ariel Sharon, and then formaldehyde.
	That's your keyword, formaldehyde, because Ariel Sharon was being criticized from the Israeli right for pulling...
	The settlers out of Gaza.
	And Dove Weisglass was his advisor and worked for him and explained, was spinning for Sharon.
	And he said, no, you don't understand.
	It looks like we're making a concession by pulling our guys out.
	But what we're really doing is we're putting the peace process in formaldehyde.
	We're freezing it.
	In other words, dividing and conquering and separating the Palestinians of the West Bank from the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, putting them in a separate political situation so that they don't have to deal with them in good faith.
	So that they don't have to give them a Palestinian state.
	Again, in the words of Benjamin Netanyahu himself, this is part of our strategy to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.
	Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas.
	Let me ask you this.
	Netanyahu.
	That's the logic.
	I mean, some might not disagree with that.
	When did you first discover that quote from Netanyahu?
	I got that quote this morning from Haaretz, but apparently it's from 2019.
	Second question.
	Wait, hold that thought because I'm going to space out before you do because I got what Biden's got.
	One more quote here.
	This is from Bezalel Smotrich.
	Now, he is not some kook in the Knesset.
	He is the leader of the Religious Zionist Party.
	And he is currently the finance minister in Netanyahu's government.
	Okay?
	An extremely powerful position.
	Right?
	Not the education minister, not the garbage and sanitation minister.
	He's the finance minister in Netanyahu's coalition government right now.
	Okay?
	Here's what he said two years ago.
	And I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself.
	Stop me because I said this last night, but I don't think we've gotten to this yet today.
	He says, the P.A. That's the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, the PLO, the commies, Arafat's guys left over there, Abu Mazen, Abu Abbas.
	The PA is a liability, and Hamas is an asset.
	I love this quote so much.
	Listen to this.
	On the international playing field, in this game of delegitimization, think about it for a second.
	The PA's a liability.
	Hamas is the asset.
	It's a terrorist organization.
	Nobody will recognize it.
	Nobody will give it status at the ICC, and nobody will let them push resolutions at the UN.
	And then, sorry, it's a little confused here.
	And then we won't need an American veto.
	In other words...
	We would not be in the position of needing an American veto because they won't even be able to push a resolution.
	No one will let them because they're Hamas.
	And he says, I'm not sure at all that given the current situation, given the current facts that the central playing field that we're playing in is international there, that Abu Abbas is costing us serious casualties.
	He means in public relations.
	Abu Abbas is costing us because he wears a suit and he talks nice.
	Sometimes he does say crazy stuff sometimes, by the way, but he is more reasonable seeming.
	So he is costing us and Hamas in such a situation would be an asset.
	And then here's how he finishes up because the question was, geez, do we need to worry about Hamas being a danger to us?
	So here's how he wraps up the question.
	He says, I don't think we need to be afraid of that.
	Hamas taking over.
	Hamas posing a danger.
	Netanyahu and his finance minister are telling you right to your face.
	They like it this way.
	They like having pseudo Bin Laden's running their open air concentration camp, Indian reservation there in the Gaza Strip, so that they can look at you and go, look at what the bad man.
	Look at how bad they are.
	We don't have a partner for peace.
	Now you're supposed to respond.
	Well, fuck you.
	I see what you're doing.
	They're lying to you and manipulating you, dude.
	Some will listen to that.
	There's things that I know that I cannot.
	I'm going to go look into the theory of electing Hamas.
	When was Fatah no longer recognized as a terrorist group?
	At the time, Fatah was still recognized as a terrorist group, right?
	I don't know if they ever officially declassified it.
	I think I remember reading that Fatah was no longer recognized or designated as a terrorist group.
	Some are going to say, look, Hamas or Fatah, you're saying like, oh, this is why they want Hamas and it's a big, big plan.
	They seem to be stuck with a terrorist group one way or the other.
	And others are going to listen to everything that you just said and say, it's an interesting explanation for how and why Hamas is currently in charge of Gaza.
	But it changes nothing.
	And they're still left with Hamas.
	Listen, look, Ben Shapiro, who's one of the most influential political commentators in this country for some reason, I'll go ahead and bring him up due to that fact.
	In fact, it's because the algorithm pushes his videos on YouTube like crazy.
	If I had known that, I'll mention Ben Shapiro every episode.
	I'm going to mention my wife is a doctor, and that's Ben Shapiro's joke.
	You're right.
	Listen, he always says, because Zionists have to lie about this stuff, they have to misrepresent it all.
	He says, listen, What would we do if Mexico or sometimes the Mexicans were firing rockets over the Rio Grande into Texas?
	Expect us to sit there and take it?
	But you see that that's a damned lie, right?
	Because when you say Mexico or the Mexicans, you're not talking about some Mexicans.
	You're talking about the national government in Mexico City and its army.
	But that's not what we're talking about.
	Is it?
	A sovereign nation next door attacking across an international border.
	No.
	That analogy sucks.
	Well, it might, but hold up.
	A more apt analogy would be Indians locked up on a reservation out in Arizona are being run by some militants and they're firing some rockets over the wall.
	And you're telling me that, oh, well, too bad.
	They're terrorists.
	We don't have to negotiate with them.
	No, you would recognize that America's Anglos essentially in the past completely defeated and destroyed the Indian tribes and their military.
	And if they're taking over by militants and they're launching rockets over the walls and they're demanding justice, I know.
	You agree with me that this is a job for the Interior Department to send some men in suits to sit down at a table and negotiate because we have all the power and they have none of it.
	This is not a sovereign nation attacking across an international border.
	This is essentially like the Aryan nations have taken over a prison.
	And you're going, oh, where?
	We can't negotiate with them?
	You're one million times more powerful than them.
	It's a lie to say you can't negotiate with them, to say that the only option is war, rather than letting these people have independence.
	How about letting them travel, letting them have an airport and a seaport and a waterworks and international trade?
	Well, Scott, first of all...
	Two things.
	First, I think your analogies are terrible because if it were a reservation, it would be taken over by the federal government and with extreme prejudice.
	Gaza has been taken over by the federal government of Israel, dude!
	In 1967, they took it over.
	It's been under total siege for 16 years.
	So what the fuck are you talking about?
	Seriously?
	What are you talking about?
	You can't control it already!
	First of all, I'm going by your analogy.
	If a prison was taken over by the Aryan Nation, they would go into the prison, and if innocent prisoners got killed, it would be...
	I mean, you talked about Waco, and we saw the...
	That's just not true.
	They negotiate the end of prison life.
	All the time.
	And in fact, during the Waco massacre, when the hostage rescue team was not available to murder people, the FBI negotiators ended a massive prison riot and takeover at a prison without casualties.
	Oh, well, I agree.
	He was too busy preparing to slaughter the Branch Davidians.
	They weren't there to ruin it.
	Well, I mean, now you've sort of highlighted the point that the government wouldn't negotiate if it were a reservation with Indians, natives, lobbing grenades.
	They wouldn't.
	Second thing.
	Yes, they would.
	The FBI, civilian police, negotiated the end of a successful prison riot takeover in 1993.
	Yeah, and then they went in and slaughtered everyone in Waco.
	Well, they went and slaughtered a bunch of British civilians that had nothing to do with the person.
	I understand that, but you're saying in one case they negotiated, and I'm saying in the other one, they just went in and killed everybody.
	But...
	Back it up from there, because the argument is also going to be they refuse...
	Are you saying that the Israelis are right because they're acting like Bill Clinton and the FBI at Wake?
	No, I'm saying it's...
	First of all, I'm saying it's an impossible situation, and I do believe that the Palestinians are the pawns on...
	I think that everyone in America agrees that they should not have murdered all the Branch Davidians and that they should have waited them out and continued negotiations until Koresh was done riding his stupid seven seals instead of murdering all of those people.
	That was absolutely...
	Absolutely the wrong thing to do.
	And it's completely insane to think that Bill Clinton would use the Army Delta Force Combat Applications Group, top-tier special operations forces, to slaughter a bunch of civilians.
	But your analogy was that what would, if they would negotiate, what I'm taking Waco to say that they negotiated up until time they killed them.
	That's what you would want.
	That's what you would expect.
	I think the consensus is, and I'm pretty sure the consensus is, nobody trusts or likes Benjamin Netanyahu, I think.
	But back it up to one more thing.
	You say, why not give him a port?
	Why not give him an airport?
	I mean, some people with a memory are going to remember that, you know, again, I think this is an issue of being hijacked by terrorist organizations.
	When they get cement, it's not used to build buildings.
	You're begging the whole question here.
	You're talking about while they're under military siege, while they're essentially in a state of ceasefire in the middle of a war of occupation.
	Not talking about if we have a two-state solution.
	Obviously, if there was a one-state solution, Hamas would have to be disarmed, right?
	And by the way, do you think that would really be a problem if they were integrating Gaza into the state of Israel?
	Guaranteeing equal rights for everyone?
	That they would be able to go in there and just end the military power of Hamas as a separate armed militia?
	I think, unfortunately, that idea itself is a borderline impossibility because of stated objectives of groups that once would get into power, it would be a done deal.
	But now, hold on.
	And then this is going, this is spiraling back to the chicken and the egg.
	You know, the occupying since 67. And then the question is, you don't think that a country should be allowed to take land in a war that they didn't, even if they didn't start it?
	Some people are going to say...
	You're not killing some of my soldiers and then saying I can't take the land in a war that you started?
	That's against the Geneva Convention.
	So you and everybody who says that are in favor of war crimes.
	I don't know what to tell you.
	Hitler said, we want this Lebensraum for us.
	And he ruined it for everyone.
	Hitler invaded Poland.
	And I think the difference would be if Poland started a war with Hitler and then the Germans ended up taking over Poland.
	That's what he said.
	Well, Israel said that Egypt started it.
	But then this is what, well, you say you know, but this is where we get back to the one screen, two films.
	Nothing in the international law says that if the other side starts it, then you get to steal their territory and transfer your population into it.
	That's not what the Geneva Conventions say.
	That's not what the UN charges.
	All that is illegal under the law, foisted on the planet Earth by the United States of America and its allies.
	Well, let's try to end this with what you would propose by way of a solution out of this.
	Well, look, I think if there's going to be a two-state solution, I think that's probably too late.
	It would take a massive transfer of Israeli settlers out of the West Bank, where the facts on the ground have already been established, through might.
	In violation of the law.
	Which leaves us with what?
	You could put them all on boxcars and ship them off to the Sinai Desert to burn in the sun.
	Or you could push them all in the Jordan River to drown.
	Or ship them all off to, you know, add everybody in the West Bank to the Gaza Strip to the two million prisoners in the Gaza Strip concentration camp and hope they all, what, just kill themselves or something like that.
	Or you give them equal rights.
	Or give them, there's also a question of like a binational state where you have, you know, and they do this in various places that have, you know, conflicts with strong ethnic minorities and so forth, where you have...
	Essentially, one foreign policy, one army, one overall national state, but then you have republics inside it that are made of smaller groups, like at least the way they've tried to do in Bosnia, for example.
	That's the way it is in Switzerland and has been for a very long time in Switzerland, that there's an Italian section and a German section and a French section, and I forgot what the other one was, the Spanish.
	I never can remember what the fourth one was.
	But they respect each other's rights, and they still have one Switzerland together, but they also stay out of each other's hair and make it so that, you know, one of the plans here was Jerusalem was always supposed to be an international city under the control of, you know, some ad hoc type group that would be set up by the UN or something like that, so that there would be less fighting over who controls it, because there are some, you know...
	Far right-wing Israeli religious settlers who would like to blow up the Al-Aqsa Mosque and build the Third Temple there and start sacrificing animals and start World War III.
	And the Israeli government has stopped them from doing so.
	At one time in the 1980s, they had the whole place ringed with explosives.
	They were ready to do it, and the Shin Bet caught them at the last minute.
	So, you know, that's also a major danger here.
	This is what's the site of...
	The old ancient Jewish temple is also the site where Muslims believe that Muhammad went to heaven when he died.
	They call it the prophet's night travel land.
	Jerusalem is where he went up to heaven after he died at, you know, one night or whatever.
	So this is obviously an extremely important site to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and right now it's got a Muslim mosque on top of it, the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
	I'm not going to ask the...
	Well, no, never mind.
	The question is when that mosque was built.
	I don't know exactly.
	Again, the Roman exile never happened.
	So the Muslims of Palestine, they are the great-great-great-great-grandsons and granddaughters of the ancient Israeli Hebrews.
	All that happened was they converted to Islam so they wouldn't have to pay their taxes, which was a smart strategy.
	They were not...
	Ethnically replaced in a gigantic war and pogrom by the Arabs and Muslims when they came.
	That's not how it happened.
	I'm just looking at the destruction of the Second Temple, who did it, when it happened.
	On the one hand, you'll say the Nakba was being chased out by Israelis, but the Jews that fled Romans were not chased out.
	They just went into Exodus.
	I don't think they were chased out.
	I think that's a bunch of crap.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Well, that will be a matter-of-fact history that we can agree with.
	Listen, and look, I'm not the best historian.
	It doesn't matter.
	It's Shlomo Sand from, you can tell how anti-Semitic he is.
	Well, no, I have no doubt that in the vast scheme of intellectual thoughts, there are people who are going to say A and other people are going to say not A. You know what it is?
	Shlomo Sand's story is that he went to do the research and the ancient...
	Rabbis at the library told him there is no shelf of books about the Roman exile because there was no Roman exile.
	That's why it hasn't been studied to death.
	It never happened.
	I mean, just ask yourself, how could it have happened?
	They didn't have railways.
	They didn't have the ability to force march hundreds of thousands of people out of that territory at that time.
	There's no record, no historical record that says that they did.
	Just never happened.
	The Palestinians are the ancient Hebrews, man.
	Ain't that ironical for you, huh?
	Do you know who Nick Ricada is?
	No.
	Dude, it just clicked.
	Your voice, everyone in the chat is going to know who Nick is.
	He's another YouTube...
	He's one of the other Rumble YouTube lawyers.
	I feel like I know you because your voice is Nick Ricada.
	Everybody in the chat is going to say you.
	I feel like I know you because we've had such a good time talking.
	Look, I don't even...
	If people...
	I'm not sensitive.
	And I could have a discussion with one of those.
	I don't want to equate you to a neo-Nazi at all, period.
	I was going to say, when I saw the protesters up on the bridge in Florida, I was like, if I felt safe enough, I'd go and have a discussion.
	I just wouldn't feel safe enough to do it.
	But I could have a discussion with someone who might very well look at me and see the evil incarnate.
	But there were some chats.
	Look, I could add here, too, that I'm just some Texan.
	I'm just some skateboarder kid.
	I got no dog in this fight.
	Right?
	Like, you know, I'm...
	Everyone in the chat saying, I'm not wrong about it.
	It's amazing.
	You even almost look like Nick a little bit.
	Might not want to look into your roots.
	I was just going to read a couple of the Rumble rants here.
	There's one that says, Nick Extreme says, much love to Scott.
	Let me bring it up so you can actually see it.
	It's not all hate, Scott.
	Hold on.
	I don't mind the hate either.
	When you're talking, how many people do we have watching now?
	Oh, four and a half thousand.
	I got a little bit out of shape when that guy was so mad at me, but he didn't even make a point.
	No, no, because it's limited characters.
	When you have 4,500 people watching, some people are going to disagree.
	Much love to Scott from the Pork Fest.
	I don't know what that is, but it sounds delicious.
	Invite Viva and Barnes for next year.
	I just had bacon for breakfast.
	That's delicious stuff.
	I got crossed up with Barnes because...
	On Twitter?
	Yeah, you know, I don't know the guy that well.
	I don't watch his show or whatever.
	I don't know him that well.
	You know, I think he used to like me because he had a copy of my book, Fool's Errand, about Afghanistan would sit behind him on his desk.
	And someone had told me, hey, look, this guy's a fan of yours.
	He's got your book on his desk or whatever.
	But then the next time that I saw him, he was calling me the biggest stupid idiot in the world because I'm so afraid of Hamas and hate Israel so much or whatever it was.
	Yeah, but don't take it.
	It's internet discourse.
	It's not going to be.
	It's not always.
	It's got to be.
	You know, catchy.
	We've got to get together, I guess.
	Lord Pepsi says, is it fair?
	Is it a fair comparison to say if Kosovo in Serbian, then Gaza in Israeli?
	I'm sorry, to do what?
	Is it a fair comparison Kosovo to Serbia versus Gaza to Israel?
	I don't know enough about Kosovo to say anything.
	Yeah, it's a hard comparison to make there.
	I won't exactly stretch to make it.
	And then we got Barbisa Ariane says, Viva, thank you for having Scott on.
	Actually, you know what?
	I can go back to that Kosovo thing for a minute.
	I'm not even going to be able to ask you a question on this.
	So if he takes advantage of me, Internet, let him know.
	You know what?
	It's so messy.
	I mean, basically, the question is, like, the Serbs had been cleansed from Kosovo by the Albanians during the Second World War with the help of the Italians.
	And then after the Second World War, the commie dictator Tito would not let them come back.
	So then after Tito died, and then especially he died in 80, but then at the end of the Cold War and everything starts coming apart, you have some of the Serbs want to go back.
	You also have a much smaller Serbian minority in Kosovo now that are subject to the cruelties of the Dirty War by the Albanian Muslims, which was really part of what started the whole breakup, even though the Kosovo War really breaks out in 99. A big part of how everything really started coming apart at the end of the 80s, 10 years before, was Albanian war crimes against Serb civilians, cleansing them, driving them out of their homes and into Serbia.
	And Slobodan Milosevic then began his rise to power demagoguing against that and saying, we're going to protect you from these horrible Muslims, etc.
	In terms of like, if the guy was asking me to make a claim for like...
	Who has the right of return in Kosovo and all of those things?
	I mean, it's true.
	After the war, almost all the rest of the Serbs were cleansed from their homes in Kosovo and cannot come home.
	And the gypsies, too.
	The Roma, as well.
	By the hundreds of thousands.
	It's really brutal.
	You know, Bill Clinton said he launched that war to stop ethnic cleansing, and then he accomplished it in a terrible way.
	Anyway, I'm sorry if I did not...
	No, don't worry.
	He was going with that.
	But it's...
	You know what part of it is?
	And this goes to what happened over the weekend, too.
	That, you know, when you have armed groups, you know, professional soldiers or militias like this fighting, that innocent people get killed.
	And it's just...
	You know, they get caught up in the middle of it.
	We should always be doing everything we can to prevent these kind of wars from breaking out.
	And, like, this is a little bit of a side subject here.
	I guess it does parallel a bit what we were saying there before with the quotes of the Likud talking about how much they prefer to have Hamas there.
	You know, Bill Clinton, well, and George Bush before him, Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, they prevented peace from breaking out in Bosnia for years.
	They really helped to...
	Precipitate that war and then help to keep it going.
	And by the time they finally ended it, they had their allies sign on the dotted line on a deal that was less advantageous than the one they could have had years ago and tens of thousands of bodies ago.
	And you can see the cynicism in it.
	I'm working on this chapter right now for my next book that I'm working on.
	And I'm just reading all of these books about Bosnia.
	And they all say the same thing.
	The Germans were out ahead in breaking off Slovenia and Croatia.
	So America was racing to catch up, to exert their power in the new post-Cold War Europe and not cede too much to Germany, make sure that America and NATO stay dominant.
	So they went in there and they recognized the independence of Bosnia, even though everybody knew it was going to lead to the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Croatians going to war to prevent it.
	And they did it anyway.
	And, you know, the thing is, like, this is...
	It's just one of them.
	I mean, you think about the scheme of things, all the wars we've fought over the last 30 years.
	Bosnia is almost hardly a footnote to most people here.
	But the point is, the level of cynicism with which the American empire operates and with which our allied states operate.
	Remember in, maybe not, in April 2022.
	The Washington Post said, yeah, America and its allies don't want the war in Ukraine to end too quickly.
	That was the Washington Post.
	We're worried the war will end too quickly because we have these goals, we have these objectives and interests, even though people are being blown to bits.
	They don't care.
	They are the American government.
	They are the evil empire.
	And I'm from here.
	I don't like saying that.
	But the thing is, you can't be the global hedgeman without being a murderer.
	You can't be the world's superpower without being a damned liar.
	And you can't have anything like a limited and constitutional republic based on law and liberty while you have this $6 trillion imperial court that rules this land and the rest of the world.
	We can't do it.
	Empire is murder-suicide.
	We end up promoting people like Bill Clinton, the face-biting rapist, the mass murderer, the butcher of Waco.
	Because somebody's got to run this thing.
	Somebody ruthless has got to run this thing for us.
	So we end up run by Clintons and Bushes, Bidens and McCains, who are lower than any scum.
	Aryan nations out of a prison.
	They're the worst people on the planet Earth.
	And they rise to the top of our system because it is this corrupt and murderous imperial system.
	Joe Biden is the perfect president of the United States in America in 2023 for that reason.
	He is the epitome of the ignorance and the hubris and the murderousness and the callousness.
	Callousness.
	I think that's a word.
	Of these men and how they operate.
	None of them are any better than John McCain.
	Do you remember this?
	In the middle of Iraq War II, John McCain went to Iraq to say, we've got to stay the course.
	We've got to stay in the war.
	And then he said, you know why?
	Because right now Iran is training al-Qaeda forces to come across the border and kill our guys.
	And when he said that, Joe Lieberman whispered in his ear, on mic, And said, just say militants, John.
	Just say militants.
	Because, of course, Iran and al-Qaeda were on opposite sides of Iraq War II.
	America was fighting on Iran's side against al-Qaeda before they switched sides under Obama, you know, well, really under Bush, back to the Sunnis again.
	But John McCain, who was, after Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz and Pearl, in fifth place for the most responsible man for launching that war, Didn't know the first goddamn thing about it at all.
	Didn't know at all that he was on the side of Iran fighting against the al-Qaeda forces there who were trying to stop them from taking over the country.
	And that is the American empire.
	A big, dumb, stupid, blood-soaked idiot.
	And then any of us would ask them to pursue the best outcome in Ukraine?
	In Palestine, in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or in East Asia?
	Couldn't be.
	Well, I don't think, I think there's a lot in there that most people would not disagree with.
	And I was going to say one other thing.
	That doesn't matter.
	Scott, hold on.
	There's questions in our viva barnes law dot locals dot com community.
	Karen top says appreciate Scott first heard him on Tom Woods.
	Everyone should read fools.
	Oh, thank you for reminding me.
	It'll be the last question, I promise.
	This guy's a flat earther, too.
	That's a joke from Bill Brown.
	Bill, we're going to do the locals thing.
	If you're watching after, not today.
	We don't have enough time today.
	Bill Brown says, why can't he be honest and admit Palestinians declare they want Jews dead?
	That's right.
	I don't think that's a direct quote, right?
	As I did stipulate, Hamas in their charter says that they would like to destroy the Jewish state.
	They don't say they want to kill every Jew.
	And the Palestinian population certainly does not say they want to kill every Jew.
	That's just not true.
	I mean, I understand the argument is that you see the videos of people dancing in the streets after the event.
	You see people protesting in Canada saying, you know, like, long live the resistance when the resistance amounts to a thousand slaughtered Israelis who people say, well, you know, that's...
	Sorry, that's...
	A fair game of war because they're an occupying force.
	I certainly don't say that.
	Look, I think here's how you should look at those people out celebrating what Hamas did.
	They're suckers in Hamas' PSYOP.
	This is how terrorists work.
	It's the same thing that the Muslims did in Bosnia.
	It's the same thing they did in Chechnya.
	And frankly, it's the same thing they did with al-Qaeda's attacks against the United States.
	They're trying to provoke a reaction.
	By Israel, and then a counter-reaction to Israel's reaction.
	And so that, as the communists used to say in their terrorist campaigns, to heighten the contradictions, to draw the line in the sand, and to make everybody pick a side, and to reveal themselves.
	As how committed they are to this premise or the other.
	So, for example, I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself from earlier in this conversation.
	I know I said this to someone before.
	What is Nasrallah, the ruler of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, going to do?
	And what does the Ayatollah Khamenei say?
	And what about all the sock puppet kings of the Gulf Cooperation Council?
	Right?
	The king of Kuwait, the king of Bahrain, the king of Qatar, the king of Saudi, the crown prince of Saudi and of UAE, bin Salman and bin Zayed.
	Did they come out and agree with the 100% unanimous opinion of their populations?
	Or did they remain loyal sock puppets of the American empire and, you know, what they're trying to keep their new relations that they've been building with Israel?
	Hamas, by doing this, by slaughtering civilians in this horrific fashion that they've...
	It has forced all of these different factions to grapple with the contradictions and grapple with their role in the argument and their role in the fight.
	And so people who are out in the street, I mean, if you want to be charitable to them at all, they're celebrating that Hamas fought back at all.
	But at the same time...
	You know, it has been in the news from virtually the very beginning that it was a bunch of innocent civilians who got caught up in this from the very beginning.
	I mean, if this story was they broke out of the Gaza Strip and immediately attacked a bunch of military garrisons, and then the IDF returned fire, and everybody had a big firefight all day, well, that would be bad.
	But that's not anything like the immorality of killing.
	Outright slaughtering, massacring noncombatants the way that they had.
	And so, you know, again, it goes without saying, but it needs to be said how absolutely horrible it was.
	But people got to understand, that's deliberate, right?
	And so that means that, in other words, Hamas is essentially deliberately taking responsibility for bringing on those airstrikes against the people of Gaza, because they figure, like, the Izbek...
	It would be better to provoke the Serbs into slaughtering a bunch of innocent Muslims so that he can say, please help me, to Bill Clinton or to somebody else.
	And this is the same kind of thing that goes on.
	This is Saul Alinsky from Rules for Radicals, page 75. He's talking about all asymmetric political action, the weak versus the powerful, but this goes for terrorism in spades.
	The action is in the reaction of the opposition.
	And that's why on September 11th and 12th, what we were supposed to do is not get upset.
	Even though we knew, we thought at the time, right, that the casualties might be 10 or 20,000 people.
	We didn't know how many people had died in New York.
	But while everyone was absolutely flipping out, responsible gentlemen, like myself, were saying, look, man.
	Forget the CIA did it.
	Just take the argument on its face.
	And I don't believe that, by the way.
	I was a truther then and I'm not one now, which is pretty funny.
	I'm probably the only reverse truther, you know.
	But just take it at face value.
	Osama bin Laden is trying to make you upset.
	Okay?
	So you need to take a big gulp and maybe have a stiff drink and get control of your emotions and get smart.
	Why is he trying to make you upset?
	What is it that he's trying to manipulate you into doing?
	Did bin Laden think that by knocking down our towers we were going to turn around and run away crying?
	Or did he think that no, this would be the ultimate macho challenge to a fistfight and that we would come running and fight him on his territory, right?
	And of course the answer is the latter.
	It was a massive provocation.
	So that's what Hamas is doing here.
	And I don't know.
	And look, it's going to be so ugly and I don't know how it's going to end.
	You know, no outside power is going to insist that Israel wrap this thing up soon.
	Joe Biden sure as hell isn't.
	Nobody is.
	And for the first time in many years, the Israelis have pronounced that this is officially...
	The goal is the complete and utter destruction of Hamas.
	Now, when they attacked in 08 and 09 and in 2014, and I forget, I can't keep count of them all, but all their different little canned hunts in the Gaza Strip since Netanyahu came back, they've never declared that they were, as their end goal, going to completely obliterate Hamas.
	And I don't know how they're going to do that without committing just...
	There's absolute atrocities throughout the Gaza Strip.
	I mean, it's 140 square miles, 2 million people in this little concentration camp.
	They were warned by the Israelis, you better run now, you better get out of the way.
	They're under siege.
	They have nowhere to go.
	They can't get out.
	In fact, I saw a clip this morning, I guess I can't vouch for this.
	I saw it in a few different places.
	Palestinians gathered near the Rafah crossing into Egypt.
	They've been warned, you better get the hell out.
	Here we come.
	And then the Israelis bombed the border crossing.
	Or somebody did.
	Huge explosion went off there at the border crossing.
	So these people, they can't flee.
	They're stuck there.
	And, you know, again, I'm perfectly happy to say I'm not a partisan in this, man.
	I'm only a partisan for myself and my family and maybe Northwest Austin skateboarders, right?
	That's my tribe.
	I don't give a damn about, like, who's who on any of this stuff, right?
	It's just a matter of who has...
	Who has power and who's doing what and what the facts are.
	So I don't mind saying at all how absolutely horrible it is what Hamas has done here and how horrible it is what they have now provoked the Israelis into doing.
	And I don't think that obviates the responsibility from the Israelis when they, you know, they have this thing.
	I don't know if you've ever heard of this.
	It's called the Daiya Doctrine.
	It's like...
	D-I-H-A-Y-A-H, something like that.
	Daiya.
	And that's named after a neighborhood in Beirut, where the Israelis just leveled the whole damn neighborhood, and then they named a doctrine after it.
	And the doctrine is, hey, if any bad guys are in this neighborhood, you level the whole damn neighborhood.
	The Daiya doctrine.
	And this is how they fought the war in 2014, where they killed something like 5,000 people.
	It's just absolutely horrifying.
	So, look, anyway, I think, isn't it fair?
	Look, that book behind me on the shelf, Enough Already, and the lady mentioned Fool's Errand, both of those, I, to extensive degrees, explain al-Qaeda's motivation and strategy for attacking the United States.
	And I guess some kook on Twitter maybe, but no one who ever read that book.
	No one.
	Ever attacked me and said, oh, Scott Horton loves terrorists.
	Scott Horton is on the side of Osama Bin Laden.
	Scott Horton is, you know, soft on murders of civilians by people Bill Clinton provoked.
	That's just not true, right?
	All those things can be right.
	That Bin Laden is responsible for everything he does.
	The men he recruits for their mission are responsible for everything they do.
	And that Bill Clinton is responsible for provoking them too.
	It's all true.
	At the same time, and what's great about responsibility is it's a quality, not a quantity.
	So you can divvy it up however you want.
	And so if if if Bill Clinton keeps our troops in Saudi Arabia and bombs Iraq every other day for eight years and that turns his terrorist mercenaries in Al Qaeda fighting force to that right up to the end of his presidency in Chechnya and in Kosovo.
	And that turns the terrorists against the United States, then he's responsible for that.
	And so are they.
	And, you know, this was the famous Ron Paul Giuliani moment.
	So what happened in that moment, right, was Giuliani goes, I don't know what you're talking about.
	And Ron Paul said, listen.
	We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years from bases in Saudi Arabia before they hit our towers.
	And the crowd was like, oh, boo, screw you.
	But at home, people watching on TV were like, dude, that's true.
	I remember that.
	Operation Desert Fox.
	Remember that when Bill Clinton named his air campaign of December 1998 after Erwin Rommel?
	And he launched it the morning that the House was to begin debating his articles of impeachment.
	Remember?
	The New York Times and the Washington Post said that Bill Clinton bombed Iraq every other day for eight years from bases on the Holy Arabian Peninsula, land of Mecca and Medina, the birthplace of Islam.
	And so the terrorists, he backed his whole presidency long in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya.
	One faction of those same terrorists turned against the United States and attacked the United States.
	Can you imagine any American, Egyptian or otherwise, telling you that because Mohammed Atta had his reasons, that that made him anything less than the most horrible war criminal, mass murderer, SOB, for carrying out that attack on our country on September 11th?
	No one would confuse your description of his motive with your attempt to make an excuse for his behavior, right?
	Those are totally different and separate things.
	And like, frankly, it's the last refuge of a scoundrel.
	When people do this Kathy Newman crap and they go, oh, what you're really saying is you think it's fine when Hamas does this or that.
	What you're really saying is you think Hamas is great.
	What you're really saying is, oh, you just hate Jews so much and all this.
	You know, people do that all the time because they can't grapple with the actual reality.
	I mean, I just read you quotes where Benjamin Netanyahu and his finance minister liked the status quo because it means that the Palestinians are too illegitimate to negotiate with.
	How could anyone turn that and say, oh, blame the messenger?
	This guy from Austin, he just must hate Jews so much that he collects quotes of Benjamin Netanyahu admitting what a monster he is.
	I mean, come on, just stick to the facts.
	Stick to the quote.
	Benjamin Netanyahu is a self-confessed monster.
	He helped to, even in his own words, he says, we control how high the flame is.
	It's okay if they control Gaza.
	They can't break out of there.
	He drives his country to ruin.
	People want to get mad at me for pointing that out?
	I was going to say one thing about people confusing cause and justification.
	That's right.
	And that's an important thing that people might not like to distinguish, but they should.
	But Scott, we're going to end this up because I got something in it shortly.
	But there were two other questions there, three.
	One says no comment, but the handle is called CIA Torture Camp.
	I think that might be the joke.
	And then we've got Loki139.
	Scott, your opinion on Trump's decision regarding global affairs?
	That might be a broad question, but before you get there, Karen Tov in our Locals community says the Romans exiled 95,000 people.
	Jerusalem had a million people at the time.
	Scott, Got to see some footnotes, man.
	I don't buy it.
	No, and then at some point...
	And I would encourage her, I guess, and look, and I confess, too, that I'm not an expert on ancient anything, okay?
	But I would encourage her, if she wants to be honest about it, read Shlomo Sand.
	And for that matter, contact me and tell me he's completely wrong if you think he's completely wrong after reading him.
	But I think that you'll say, wow, I didn't really realize that kind of thing there.
	Now, I put your link to your website.
	All of the links to your books, to your social media is at in the description.
	ScottHorton.org.
	Scott with two T's.
	So it looks like Scott Thornton, but it's Scott Horton.
	Scott, this has been interesting.
	I don't feel abused.
	I don't feel insulted.
	I feel I understand.
	I mean, I understood the position of where you and others come from entirely.
	Deep cynicism for all things government.
	And understood.
	Thank you for coming.
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes afterwards.
	I've got a couple more.
	Thank you very much.
	Do you have any audiobooks?
	Because I can't read anymore.
	Oh, I do.
	I have audiobooks of Enough Already and Full Zarin.
	Say this to me.
	I promise you I'll listen to it.
	How many hours at regular speed?
	I believe Fool's Aaron was nine and not already was like 11 or 12. That's good.
	I'll get through it at five to six.
	Great.
	And let me tell you one more thing.
	I'm writing a book right now that is already more than 1100 pages, although I'm going to somehow take a hatchet and try my very best to cut it down to something reasonable.
	But it's called Provoked, How America Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine.
	And so I'll be your guy for that, too.
	I think we will probably disagree on much less on that issue than on this one, but I don't think we disagreed on much.
	Anyhow, it's just good to know how you think.
	Scott, everybody out there, there will be no locals after party.
	I got something at 2 o 'clock, but I'm going to go on with Human Affairs with Jack Posobiec at 2.05.
	Scott, short notice.
	And thank you for coming on.
	This was great.
	So stick around here.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	ScottHorton.org for everybody who wants to find you on Twitter.
	Your handle is?
	At Scott Horton Show.
	Okay.
	And you can find a lot of my quotations that I've been putting up here.
	The more controversial ones here are all in my feed at Scott Horton slash Scott Horton Show right now.
	Okay.
	Excellent.
	Thank you very much, everybody.
	I'll see you all tomorrow.

▲