The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Anti-Free Speech Protesters Attack the Cellar, Young Turk Ben Gleib

Episode Date: February 29, 2024

Ben Gleib is a standup comedian and the lead anchor on The Young Turks. He has two standup specials “The Mad King” and “Neurotic Gangster” and is the host of Emmy nominated brain teaser game show “Idiotest." He also hosts the podcast “Last Week on Earth.” His online views are now over half a billion.

Live from the table, the official podcast of the world-famous comedy seller coming at you on Sirius XM 99. Raw comedy, formerly Raw Dog. A change for the better, I believe. A little less vulgar, a little classier. Also, wherever you get your podcasts, Dan Natterman here with Noam Dorman, the owner of the ever-expanding world-famous comedy seller, The New Room, the Manny Dorman Comedy Theater on West 3rd and 6th Avenue, coming in 2025.

It's sometime in 2025, we hope. Periel Action Brand is with us. She is our producer and an on-air personality in her own right. Anyhow, Noam, do you want to talk about the event you had here at the club? Noam, I guess that's a grudging yes. He said before the show that he's willing to talk about it. Noam had a show.

Well, there was a show at the Comedy Cellar. I don't know, Noam, if you had anything to do with it directly, called Ask an Israeli Soldier or something. There were four Israeli soldiers. What you just watched was a group of pro-Palestine activists causing a scene in New York City. We've seen a lot of these demonstrations since the Israel-Hamas war began on October 7, but this one is different. These protesters made their way to the Comedy Centre in Manhattan in an attempt to disrupt a ticketed event which featured Israeli soldiers sharing their stories. The event is called Ask an IDF Soldier, a conversation with Coleman Hughes and Israeli soldiers.

Coleman Hughes is a writer, podcaster and musician who specialises in issues related to race, public policy and philosophy. And the purpose of this event is for people to come together to have meaningful and respectful conversations with Israeli soldiers about the war in Gaza. Some were swearing and shouting shame and causing so much chaos that police were forced to push back with barricades and the riot squad had to be called in. Yes, so anyway, Coleman News, our dear friend Coleman News,

hosted four Israeli soldiers. First, Coleman talked to them a bit, and then they opened it up for questions. And there was there was some protests outside, people yelling free Palestine outside the comedy club. And there's been some online action as well. People demanding to see the video of the evening. There's really nothing to see, by the way, for them. You saw the show. I saw the show. I mean, I don't know what they

expect is going to be in that video they expect israeli soldiers to be laughing about killing palestinians that's that's not what it was they they said everything that you should say they said to summarize it they said every civilian death is a tragedy we're trying to minimize it as best we can it was a war that was brought to us um and and then they were shown videos of allegedly israeli snipers killing in cold blood palestinians surrendering that i i that was my i was responsible for that video okay okay yeah um they their their response to that is we we don't know who did the shooting but if it was israelis they deserve to be punished that is not excusable so they didn't say anything that, you know,

I mean, these people that want the video, they're not going to get anything out of it, but that's what went on. You want to hear the whole thing? At the event. Well, okay. So this is what happened. I don't want to interrupt Perrielle from her texting.

Oh, sorry. I'm just texting our next guest to make sure I have all of the information. I just said I didn't want to interrupt you. Uh-huh. So, yeah. Okay, go ahead. No, because she sent me the intro,

so now I got to... Okay, go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead. I'm getting the correct pronunciation of that guy's name. Okay. Cenk Uygur.

Okay. Cenk Uygur. Anyway, now the floor is yours. How did I find myself? How did I wake up to this? I came close to quitting the podcast today. So this is what happened. That's not the first time.

Stop saying that. I listened to the last week's or two weeks ago podcast with Jeffrey Aspin and Felicia Madison. It was unlistenable. Anyway, listen. So this is what happened. You know, we've always done debates and stuff like that.

And then we did an event a couple months ago already, I guess, with Norman Finkelstein and Cornel West. Now, this event, you know, I had wanted to sell the tickets for them so we wouldn't overbook and they overbooked they didn't they i guess they didn't trust me to sell the tickets so they i don't know they did some ticketing themselves and they ended up selling 400 seats instead of 200 seats so we had to actually cancel or move a show and give them two rooms and um you know it was it was a pep rally and they were talking about uh not that I knew it wasn't going to be that, they were talking about Israeli, you know, genocide atrocities, essentially likening them to both something, some amalgam of the Nazis and the Afrikaners combined into one evil entity, right?

A better world given all of this barbaric, vicious attack and genocidal assault. It reminds me of the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. It reminds me of Newark in 1967. And we can go on and on and on. Dominican Republic in 65. Mandela and Company in 1957 with the spirit of the nation. We tried all the nonviolent ways. Now we got a violent struggle. So I'm listening to all this. And now my father, like I, was always very committed to debate and free speech and all stuff like that.

And he enjoyed it and I enjoy it. And for the first time in the last 20 years since he died, the conversation in my head was, as I was listening to this in my place, you know, did I go too far here? What would my father have thought? anti-Semitic is the only word I can really put on it. This kind of anti-Semitic ecstasy going on in our place. I still don't know the answer to that, but I lived with it. And then afterwards, I invited them to the Olive Tree and I treated them like VIPs and I bought them a big spread of dinner or whatever, you know, as a gentleman. And actually, you know, after Cornel West was very warm to me and, you know, you try to compartmentalize these things. So I put up with it.

So then, fast forward, Coleman came to me and he wanted to do some sort of panel discussion with the IDF or some members of the IDF or whatever. I'm not even sure exactly how he put it, but I knew I heard the words or the letters IDF. And I knew, you know, normally I might have said no to something like this just to avoid the fallout, right? I mean, I do run a comedy club. First, I don't want to lose sight of my priorities. But it occurred to me that could I really live with myself if only the anti-Semites could use my room, but I would be too much of a pussy

to allow the Israelis to use the room, you know, to say whatever they want. So I couldn't get past that. And I was thinking, my imaginary conversation with my father was, you know, would I just add insult to injury with him now? So I decided to kind of like a dog, like looks away from things. I think the danger is going to go away.

I just kind of said, okay. The only caveat was that I wanted to make sure it wouldn't be a pep rally, like the Finkelstein thing was, that they would be asked tough questions. So Coleman assured me that he would ask the same skeptical questions they'd be asked in any skeptical interview that they would do. And then I made sure that I had somebody prepare. I didn't write the question. I asked somebody else to, somebody who was properly motivated to ask, you know, whatever very difficult question they wanted to ask.

And they asked me if they could use the video. And I said, yes. So they prepared this video, essentially showing a systematic, in their eyes, a pattern of shootings by the IDF. Disturbing viewing. An Israeli soldier is seen pursuing a young Palestinian boy and pinning him to the ground amid clashes in the West Bank. She holds the hand of her five-year-old grandson Tayim tightly and then suddenly

little Tayim quickly runs away. As Israel's military operation in janine came to an end so did the life of adam algool shot as he ran his eight-year-old body easily dragged from the road now the soldiers didn't want to be asked the question, but I insisted that it be shown anyway. Their argument was that they didn't have time to prepare for it or research it. And my argument was you don't need time to prepare for it or research it because. We know there's a certain number of shootings and you have to be able to answer that. And I remember I said to Coleman, do you think Douglas Murray would care about what question you were going to ask him because he had time to research it? He would know what to say. And by the way, I don't think it's a hard question to answer, to tell you the truth, but I didn't hear exactly how they answered it. Well, should I reiterate? i reiterate no no okay so so that's what happened so of course the protests showed up outside there was some some amount of violence i think because uh somebody was arrested this was um

this is what i read in the papers and i was out of town i was out of out of the country at the time um i saw parts of it online i mean the the through the security cameras. And then since then, I've gotten 200 or 300 emails from people just calling me every name in the book and demanding that we release the video. I answered some emails, but then I was overwhelmed by them. So I'm waiting for them to slow down. And then I'm just going to send out a mass response because I believe in responding. But the answer is, it's not my show. I can't release the video because it's not my, yes. Why do people think that you are somehow obligated to release this video, whether or not it's your show or not?

Like, why do they think that... Because I don't think... Like, they're demanding that you release it as though they're owed something. Well, that's a good question. I guess they feel like that we are not releasing it because we are hiding something. I don't know.

Who cares? I mean, first of all, again... Listen, it's beside the point to me. The point is that, like, earlier in the week, we had another writer did an event at the club. I can't release his video. It's his event. I do and have produced events.

We've produced, we've done debates in the past. We've never done an Israel-Palestine. There was an Israel-Palestine debate here with Finkelstein. We released that video. We released a video of the event with Glenn Lowry about comedy. But I can't release this video because it's not mine. And that's that. And as I said, they would be sorely disappointed if they thought the video was the IDF joyfully talking about.

I don't know what they expect is in the video. They don't care. I'm just saying I don't know what they expect is in the video. But the IDF gave all the appropriate answers. Now, you could say they weren't sincere. They seemed sincere to me. But you could argue they weren't. I'm not sure they were sincere. But they said everything right, essentially.

So one thing they keep writing me is, so you're saying you would put Nazis on? Would you put the Nazis on? And this question, you know, bothers me. I saw that also on Twitter, people. It's a constant question. So it bothers me a lot. First of all, if there...

The question of Nazis... In the context of a free society, is different than the question of Nazis in Nazi Germany. So if there were an issue where Nazis were running for office, where Nazis were, for whatever reason, backed by policies supported by the president united states and they were and they were getting i mean you can't even imagine because it's like it's like an absurd scenario but for whatever reason they were right in the middle of the most serious issue being debated in the country at the time and the nazis wanted to take questions from the general public,

in other words, to answer their skeptics about whatever it is, then, yeah, of course I'd put the Nazis on it. I mean, you know, if that were actually... I didn't see you respond to that on Twitter. I don't know if you responded. It's too complicated. One second.

So I would put the Nazis on in that situation. But the flip side is the notion of the Nazis taking questions. It's so absurd. But then finally, whatever you want to say about the IDF, they're not one second, Perrielle. I'm not trying to talk to you whatever you want to say about the idf they're not the nazis every army that you might think is killing people improperly

cruelly whether it's the American army in Iraq, American army in Afghanistan, the Russian army, they're not all comparable to Nazis. If Nazis, what characterizes the Nazis? First of all, an ideology of genocide and, but genocide, right? And the final solution. Genocide and, but genocide, right? And the final solution. This is not the ideology of the IDF.

Only the most dishonest person could say that it is. And the proof that it isn't comes from the next part, which is, if the Nazis ever had the upper hand in power that Israel currently has vis-a-vis Gaza, the war would have been over October 10th. If you had a Nazi ideology in charge of Israel now, if those were really the Nazis, there'd be not another living Gazan. It'd be over. I'm not sure if you meant October 8th, but in any case. What did I say? You said 10th.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I don't want to give them a few days. Which is not a defense of the IDF. It is an appeal for people to be reasonable. That as much as you might be offended, and maybe you're right, at the cruelty or the war crimes, whatever point you want to make about the IDF,

you lose credibility when you want to make about the IDF, you lose credibility when you want to compare them to Nazis. And then the other thing, it's credibility with me anyway, and the other thing that they say all the time, I have two more things to say and be done, is that don't you

care if children and babies are dying? Don't you care if babies are dying? Don't you care if babies are dying? So, you know, I had a conversation with the IDF guys care children babies are dying don't you care babies die don't you care babies today so you know i i had a conversation with the idf guys before the show because i was wanted to register my concern that it not be a pep rally and one of the points i made to them was that i i find quite often that the is the pro-Israel defenders can be a little tone deaf

to the way that they're perceived. So for instance, there was a thing about a month ago where 22 IDF soldiers were killed in some sort of ambush. Do you remember this? Yeah. And every pro-Israeli person was all over Twitter asking essentially you know, asking essentially for sympathy and tears. And you see, you see what we're up against. 22 of us die. Like, now do you understand? And my thinking was, you know, what's the matter with you, you guys? You, you, you're only, you're only reaching the people who already agree with you. People don't already agree with you. They say, oh, you lost 22 soldiers and now you're, that's unbearable to you when they've lost 10, 15,000 people and children. You know, you, you, you're not understanding how you're, you're perceived. So

there is something about that with this children thing, which gets to me too because i and i've been saying this since before the the dying started as you guys know i i i was complaining about israel comparing it to 9 11 and 9 11s our first podcast remember i said because wait till the gazans start uh uh um analyzing what they're going through in terms of 9 1111s. Wait till they start analyzing how many degrees of separation there are between knowing people who have died. So, and I also said we're about to see a worldwide, I said we're going to see, but I say this was the first week. I said we're about to see daily George Floyd videos

and a worldwide defund the police reaction. That's what I said about Israel. It's exactly what's come. So I've not been unaware or unsympathetic. However, I have two more things to say. It is totally unbearable for me

to process the... And by the way, it's not just children. You know, to me, what do they define children as? 16, up to 16, you know? But, you know, 19, 20, 21, 30-year-old people dying

is, I guess, not as bad, but it's still pretty bad, people dying. So, but if you're concerned about humanity, it's tone deaf to me to ignore the fact that it wasn't that long ago that Israeli children were being killed. It wasn't that long ago during the second intifada when Israeli children were being blown up. People had their blood on, of the children on their hands. They'd go through the

streets cheering, hand out candies. And this wasn't in a response to October 7th. This was in a response to the peace negotiations. So there's horrible children that have died on all sides. And it's unbearable on all sides. And it fuels both sides. But if you want to advocate for humanity and rather than pretend that it's not just a kind of

partisan affiliation that you're indignant about, but that you actually care about innocent life, innocent life, then absolutely we have to mourn for the children and dying in Gaza. But then you also might want to say a word or two that indicates that you actually understand that a lot of Israeli, equally innocent Israeli children have died. And by the way, some of them not in as collateral damage, some of them not as a consequence of a retaliation,

but this was it. But many of them, about an equal number to October 7th, in retaliation for peace negotiations. And there was a fund, a martyr's fund, that supports the family of any suicide bomber for the rest of their lives who killed these Israeli children. So that's where this is at. But I'm not faking it when I tell people that much of my mind is occupied by trying to make sense of what's happening in Gaza and questioning myself whether, because there's only one way it's okay. And that is if Israel can answer the following question with a yes. And the question is, do you have no choice the only the only way they can kill people like that regardless of the human shields issue which is a real issue which doesn't get enough attention but regardless of that knowing the consequences they have to have no choice and i spent a lot of time thinking about that no choice thing and i'll say that

there was a time when reasonable people could say, I just wrote this to somebody today, that yes, there's this worst case scenario, but you know what? They would never do that because they know what would happen to them. They'll never do, you know, October 7th, whatever it is, essentially arguing deterrence.

Yes, blah, blah, blah, but this is just tit for tat. But of course, they would never do the real horrible thing because they know that would be the end of them. And many people, reasonable people, are swayed by this argument. Okay, so you got that wrong. Now, we know that that argument can't be relied on. Well, they would do that, either because they're ready to suffer the consequences of what would happen to them,

or because they miscalculate the consequences of what would happen to them, kind of like Saddam Hussein did when he invaded Kuwait, or they don't actually believe what they set out to do was actually going to work. Just let me finish. But for whatever reason, we know that Israel can no longer trust that the worst case scenarios can be lived with because the other side would never dare. And Israel now has to take that new lesson

and apply it not only to Gaza, but I believe they're going to apply it to Lebanon and maybe even to Iran in the sense that they will never again live under the protection of a logical equation that counts on a certain rationality of the enemy to not cross a certain line. Their new reality will be,

if they can cross that line, we can't live with it. So then my question has to be to people, would you expect anything different from your leadership? And I'm afraid that the answer is no, nobody would expect anything different from their leadership. So then the final question becomes, is there a less bloody strategy? And I would believe that in retrospect,

if I was there 10, 15, 20%, 30% of the decisions that were made, I might say you didn't have to do that. I bet you many of the decisions that are made, you know, it's like a war cabinet. There's votes. There's probably three to two decisions, two to one. In other words, even in the room, there's probably quite often where people who sign off on it didn't think, you know, that was necessary. If you watch The Gatekeeper as a documentary about the Shin Bet, they would have these debates. Is this target justified by the number of civilian lives that we're likely to kill? And there'd be disagreement within the room, and then, you know, the eyes would have it. So I'm not saying that the entire strategy can be defended on a decision by decision basis.

But the overall strategy that this threat has to be destroyed in the least bloody method that it can be, whatever that is, and I'm no expert in that. I think that's probably right i think that the the threat has to be destroyed in the least bloody way that it can be and that reasonable people can no longer expect that another government uh in charge of keeping their citizens safe in a responsible manner could ever say, we're just going to let this one go and hope it doesn't...

We'll be more careful the next time. That's how we'll protect ourselves. We'll be more careful next time. Well, how are you going to be more careful against 150,000 precision-guided rockets in the North? There's no answer to that. Meaning that meaning yeah maybe they could be more careful against this comedy of errors forgive me in gaza but how to be more careful against hezbollah you can't so that's that that's where it's that's where it's

all at and um and I still believe in free speech and I don't believe in comparing Israel to the Nazis and I understand why people are pained by this and I've offered to do events both for humanitarian causes or I'd be happy to have

any Palestinian organization that wanted to take questions have an event at the club. I wonder, is there a Palestinian organization that wants to take questions from the general public to defend the Palestinian policies? I haven't seen that. I haven't seen that. The Nazis are the ones looking to get in front of an audience to try to have people hear where they're coming from. I haven't seen that from any policy. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I haven't seen it. They're pretty good at coming at me. Yeah. You're so thoughtful and pained and philosophical and careful and you consider all of these things when you had IDF soldiers here.

When Norman Finkelstein was sitting here and spewing the most fucking vicious... All right, all right. No, no, no, no, because it's true. Okay, go on, get to the question. The most vicious anti-Israel and anti-Semitic garbage. Yes. You didn't say anything.

I debated him. Well, you debated him fine, but you were not this conflicted about it you were not this concerned and all of the people on our million YouTube views or whatever it was

on that video let me ask you so there's two things first of all you hit on an observation I didn't make that I should have which is you're right there's no First of all, you hit on an observation I didn't make that I should have, which is you're right. And we'll get to you, Ben.

I'm sorry. Take your time. This is fascinating. There's no left wing, not right wing. There's no left wing anti-Semite I could give my room to that would get me in trouble. The way America is now, I could put on any vile left-wing anti-Semite saying anything he wanted about the Jews or the Israelis, and I might get an email from some writer at Commentary Magazine saying, what were you thinking? But no one's going to come and protest me. No one's going to try to, you know, no one's going to come after me. I don't know.

There's a handful of issues that I can get that. But you cannot put on a moderate pro-Israeli point of view. I mean, they would say anything that defends this policy is not moderate. But it is moderate vis-a-vis the less moderate. And so that's a statement on America. As far as, and where we're at, and, you know, there was a time, Voltaire said, what's Voltaire's quote? I vehemently disagree with what you have to say,

but I defend with my life your right to say it, or whatever it is. That's attributed to Voltaire. That was a trite wisdom that we all, you know, like a truism when we were kids, that you sucked it up if somebody just grew with you. Now, as far as Finkelstein is concerned, I liked him. You know, he played by the rules, essentially.

Oh, please. Well, in other words, he says something, he allows you to say something. If you give him a fact, he feels compelled to answer it. And you can have a debate with him. And, you know, that's... So I felt it was a constructive relationship. He was the one who ended it.

He's the one who blew a fuse because of... And that's a whole other story. Nothing to do with me. I was never anything but a gentleman to me. I mean, I don't think it's a whole other story. I think it's part of the same story. We're not gonna do it today. So that's where I am with the thing.

And I'm sad about it because I don't need this shit in my life. Okay, but I don't- But that's where it's at. But I think you're granting all of these people, these 200 emails that people who are saying these awful things, they don't care about the truth,

Noam. They're not thinking about these things in the way that you're thinking about them. I mean, I have said for, you know, my entire life that I am... I got emailed complaints about the interview I did with you

when I first met you. But anyway, they are thinking about the truth as they see it. No, they're not. They're fucking anti-Semites and they hate Jews and they hate Israel. Maybe some of them aren't and that's fine. And I think that you can have great empathy and you should have great empathy for what is going on in Gaza. Can I tell you a story? Wait, let me finish. But to say that there is a significant number of these people that don't give a shit

and they just hate Jews and they're anti-Semitic and they hate Israel is a fact. Okay, let me say one other thing. I don't know if you're right. You're right to some extent. I heard a story last night I'd never heard before and it brought me similar to what you're saying. So did. I heard a story last night I'd never heard before, and it brought me similar to what you're saying.

So did you know, Dan might know, that Benjamin Franklin, you know who Benjamin Franklin was, Peril? Ha ha! Had a son who was the... A loyalist. A loyalist to the British government. He was the governor of Pennsylvania. Well, I don't know that,

but he was a loyalist and Ben didn't talk to him. Yeah. So they found themselves on opposite sides of the Revolutionary War. And the relationship never recovered to the death. So what it brought, what made me think of is that two people, now this isn't a Palestinian and an Israeli that have the natural built-in tribal dislike of each other, whatever the history, whatever. This is father and son. This is the most profound bond there is between any two humans on average. They find themselves on the opposite end of horrific violence, as I'm sure the violence must have been, and ideology. And they can't reconcile it.

They can't put it aside. It outweighs the love between a father and a son, and the relationship never recovers until their dying day. Similarly to things that happen in the Civil War. Two brothers, these are true stories. I find themselves on opposite ends of the war, and that's it. So all of which is to say is that

these kind of visceral emotions are overpowering even to the best and most sophisticated people. To see the people that you identify with, murdered, killed, to see somebody espousing this point of view, which you just can't process. It's wrong. It's wrong. It's Nazi.

It's whatever it is. Even when it's your own son, you can't process it. And the relationship ends. And when you recognize that human reality, then you got to forgive the excesses of a Palestinian who can't tolerate a Jew. Like this is, this is the net. This is the normal human way.

And I would say this is why we need to re apply ourselves to the salutary brainwashing, which we all grew up with, which was to impose on us, literally to inculcate and to, like I say, to brainwash us with these ideas of respecting free speech and respecting disagreement, because they are so not natural. They're so not compatible with the normal human mind. It requires a sledgehammer of brainwashing to get people to accept it. And then many, many, not everybody, many, many people can do manage to live with it. And there was a golden age where we did manage to live with it in this country. And now we are turning our backs on that golden age.

As a matter of fact, we don't see it as a golden age. We see it as a kind of a dark age. And at the same time, we're becoming more and more diverse and more and more concerned with our differences and more and more respectful of the notion of my truth. And it's a ugly, volatile, combustible mix of influences. It's scary. It scares me for America.

Now, speaking of being scared for America, we have a presidential candidate here, right? Introduce him, Dan. Before I do that, I would just like to say that... Former, former, former. I'd just like to say that, look, as far as Ben Fagin's son is concerned, the loyalist position was not an unreasonable one.

No. But you talk about backing the wrong horse. Not only did you lose the war, but you lost the war to a country that became the global superpower that it became. You could have been a hero. Instead, you're considered a traitor. Ben Gleib is joining us. Ben Gleib is a comedian.

Ben, you tried to get in touch with me, but I was out of the country, and I saw the text. I'm sorry to answer. I didn't mean to be rude. Go ahead. No problem. I just sent a complaint email to you for how long I've been waiting to start talking on this podcast. I was upset that I was... I felt bad that I was six minutes late. That's why we got into it. Then you have to take your licks. Go ahead.

It was a very, I thought, well-thought... If there's a more well-thought-out analysis of the situation, I haven't found it, but it won't get the attention that it merits because if you build it, they don't necessarily come. We have with us

Ben Gleib, presidential candidate. No. Not president. Former presidential candidate. Four years ago. I've left this behind. Last time I was on the podcast, I was. Oh, has it been that long? I forgot. He is a comedian.

He just got back from Israel where he did a tour there talking to families of hostages and so forth. Yeah. And he's also a co-anchor of the Young Turk podcast with Cenk Uygur. How do you say his name properly? Well, it's the Young Turk. It's not a podcast. It's a TV show and web show. But how do you say it?

It's the biggest online news network in the world. Cenk Uygur. Cenk Uygur. Yep. Well, podcast in the large sense of the term. Fair enough. Fair enough. I mean, our podcast is also video.

It's on television, though. Oh, it's on television? Yeah. Cable systems and then's on television, though. Oh, it's on television? Yeah, cable systems and then YouTube. How are you guys getting along? Because you don't agree. It's been a shit show. I mean, we get along okay off air, fine off air,

but we've debated 10 times on air. Many of them devolved to shouting matches. What gets under his skin the most? He just doesn't. Let me say, I respect him. I think he's a good man. I think he sees this incredibly wrong. He just doesn't believe in any respect that Israel is in any sort of,

I don't think, like existential fear or crisis. He sees them only as the oppressors. He thinks that the human human shields argument is bullshit which i think is a bullshit thing to say and why is it why does he say that's bullshit i don't i don't understand the argument behind it he thinks that you can avoid the civilian casualties by using special forces as though taking out an entire army quote unquote army of militants that are literally hiding behind and under and with people is the same as taking out like one guy with special forces which doesn't well it also brings up the question of how many

of your own people do you need to sacrifice to to save the other people i mean if sending also true you know i mean you're entitled to value your people's lives higher than the lives of enemy civilians. And yeah, I mean, that's just the nature of war. I've said to many times on the air when he complains about the number of deaths, like as as you said, Noam, it's tragic. Of course, every single civilian death. But that is also just the nature of war. That is what war is. And so, so many of the complaints, I think, that... and the outrage that people, you know, are sending toward Israel is they just don't like war. And this is the first war we're seeing on social media unfold in real time, and so people don't know how to process it, and they're like, they're, you know,

very coddled brains, don't know how to process that. Sometimes life is very hard, and what do you do to get rid of literal terrorist enemies trying to murder you death is going to result from that let me be more fair to that other side although i basically agree with you it's the first war we're seeing on social media it is also a war where there's no doubt who's going to win, right? One side is much, much, much more powerful than the other, which is not usually what we see in a war. We see here we have one side, which is really holding back. They're fighting with one arm tied behind their back.

And another side, which is just fueled on fanaticism. And backed by Iran, to be fair. They're not stepping in and fighting it. But they're setting some rockets, but really... And money. But they're not... In other words, there's some fighting going on, but in any normal situation,

you would expect anybody in Hamas' situation to surrender. Like, who wouldn't surrender? Yes, and that ends the war instantly, but nobody pushes for that but well what it does what it does remind me of a lot of these things remind me of is the war with japan first of all the first question i say well was that was the attack on america pearl harbor an existential threat that's an interesting question. Maybe it wasn't. How many Americans were we supposed to lose? This was the argument about the atom bomb.

It saved many Americans. This was the argument that carried the day. We're sure we can invade Japan, but we're going to lose 20,000 soldiers. So these arguments are recurring throughout history. And finally, there was the understanding that as opposed to the more reasonable

enemies, the Japanese just weren't going to fucking surrender. They were going to fight to the... This fanaticism, it wasn't a strategic thing with them. They just were never going to surrender. Well, not never. So, but the...

Well, except for the item of... So I do understand the human reaction to not only seeing the war for the first time, but seeing this tremendous, you know, difference in the strength of the forces, the asymmetric. Yeah. The obvious terrorism asymmetric warfare. I understand. What is, how is that a counter-argument? That's a counter-argument for Hamas should instantly have surrendered on October 30th after two weeks of seeing the asymmetry. It's not a logical argument.

Not to then go to interviews and say, guess what? Here's how we're going to encourage you to do more of this. We promise to do it again and again and again. I agree with you. That is a great way to reinforce the strategy of Israel saying this is an existential threat. But it does explain the psychological action. When you see a huge guy kicking the shit out of a little guy,

no matter what, what are you doing? You're going to kill, you know? No, but not if that little guy, while he's getting the shit kicked out of him, is continuing to scream, I have a fucking gun. I'm going to fucking murder you

and slit your throat as soon as you stop kicking me. Then everybody would be like, I'll kick the shit out of that guy until you kill him. That's the entire difference. Yes. Also maybe free the hostages.

Of course. Like that probably would have ended things pretty quickly. No, that wouldn't have ended it. No, because they have two stated aims, which is free the hostages and dismantle or remove Hamas from power. And so it wouldn't have ended it. And it is the only leverage, sadly, that hostages are leveraged, but the only leverage Hamas has.

Yeah, I don't see how they can release the hostages. As soon as they do, the response is going to be so much worse from Israel. Yeah, they can release a few to get some comrades out, but in the end, Sinwar is not fighting now to get some Palestinian prisoners released. He's trying to figure out how to stay in power,

and if not stay in power, to stay alive. And he's no doubt surrounded himself with most of the remaining hostages, or lots of them. And I think Israel would be willing to let him stay alive. But, I mean, you know, exile. I'm so sad about that. But Israel is not willing to let him stay in power. Right. But how about not willing to let him stay in power. Right.

But how about all the other Hamas leaders that are in Qatar and other places and have escaped from Qatar? And I think it's sick and insane that there's not an active campaign to get rid of all of those people. Oh, and once they do, Steven Spielberg will make a movie finding moral ambiguity to the fact that Israel went and killed all the Hamas. You saw the movie Munich, right? Yeah. When Israel killed all the terrorists that killed the Olympic team, Spielberg made a movie, you know. Well, they did kill one guy. Moral ambiguity of it all.

They did kill one guy by accident that wasn't involved, I believe. Alright, whatever. I'm saying, like, the fact that this was seen as somehow not a clear right and wrong. Anyway. But, like, here's how I see the debate come down to its core. And this, when I've debated Cenk or when I've debated anybody else on the network or, you know, just people in social media since this war started and it's taken over my life and I'm sure so many of our lives for the last four months, is anybody – and I don't – I've never heard one argument that anybody can come back with to counter-argue this. And this is how it boils down the most simple.

And it's based off the old phrase, right? That if Israel lays down its arms, there's no more Israel. And if Hamas lays down its arms, everybody's safe and everybody's fine. But that's really what it comes down to is that nobody can counter argue that if you say, if you're arguing for a ceasefire right now without Hamas being removed from power and without a promise from any leadership that takes over that they will finally live in peace with Israel, what you are literally what they're arguing for, they are the ones arguing for Palestinians to be killed forever into the future. They're literally arguing for

what they're accusing us of arguing for. They just don't want to see it continue right now because they don't want to handle it emotionally. They don't want to see it on social media anymore. But they're literally the ones dooming both sides to die forever because they know for a fact that Hamas will just regroup and they will do it again. And then Israel will respond in a much bigger way

because they're much stronger and more militarily capable and more Palestinian civilians will die. And then the world will be outraged and it'll repeat, rinse and repeat forever. And that's what they're arguing for. And that's the argument I just always make. And there's no answer. When I make that point,

it always comes down to whoever I'm debating saying, okay, but when is enough enough? And it's like, when Hamas surrenders. When the people that want to live in peace actually promise they're going to live in peace and promise to continue annihilating the people that are their neighbors who are also stronger than them. They don't even have the leverage to do that,

which is the most insane part of it. The fanaticism outranks their common sense. Listen, I don't disagree with you. There's another part of my thinking which just is uh comes with age which is that in my lifetime so many people who made arguments which seemed to be irrefutable in terms of their logic when it came to wars and military all that in the end they had nothing to show for it but you know things which didn't work out and a lot of dead people yeah

so there is this part of me which just uh i just leave a part of me open which says you know this all makes sense to me but what is it that we're missing here god God forbid, a year from now, Israel is in no better situation than they have been, and there's 20,000 dead Palestinians. And I don't mean that in terms of the fact that this will make the Palestinians more angry or create fewer hostages. I really mean it purely in the humanitarian sense,

that if Israel is going to kill this number of people, they have to make sure that somehow, at least in historical terms, the world can look at it and say, this was a turning point which somebody could argue was worth this horrible sacrifice of lives, rather than just another chapter in a never-ending conflict. And then five years later, there's another 20,000 people died. If I, you know, like- 100%. That would be terrible. That's exactly why in the past I've criticized Israel for its over-the-top, to use Biden's language, responses to attacks from Hamas and other militant groups

is because it seemed like it was more about retribution or vengeance or just making a point, we can kill more of you, and it seemed like it just engendered so much anger and hatred around the world, and then what's the purpose of your killing innocent people? You're achieving no goal. And I criticized that. When October 7th happened, and then the Israeli government stated that their

goal this time is to once and for all remove this threat enough is enough that's when I got behind it because there actually was a goal that will say this cannot exist anymore we're not going to just let it trickle on forever and let terrorist groups promise to keep killing us forever and we'll just like overreact a little bit and like show them that we're stronger, but let it continue. They finally said we're removing this threat. This doesn't get to exist anymore. Radical Islamic fundamentalism

does not get to be a legitimate philosophy that exists in the modern world where their philosophy is that only Muslims get to take over the globe and anybody standing in their way gets murdered. That's absurd that that exists and that needs to end. There's another thought that I've had. I've had this thought many years

and people listening to the podcast might have heard me say it, Dan certainly has. One of my criticisms of our own kind of soft psychology in America is that we see everything in the past as a black and white movie. And I'd said that, you know, my father lived through World War II and all that stuff. So his generation were very savvy. They understood the threats in the world. They were ready to get behind the Marshall Plan and the Korean War and even mistakes like the Vietnam. They were ready to bring the world to the brink of annihilation rather than let Cuba have a nuclear missile, a single or whatever, how many missiles?

A few missiles in Cuba, right? This was so dangerous, we were going to risk it all to stop it because that generation had been through it all. They were not naive. My generation, we didn't live through quite that, but we were close enough to that parent's generation that it rubbed off on us. The kids of today, they have never seen anything bad happen. They don't believe anything bad can happen,

and they can't conceive of anything bad happening. They don't even, they didn't even see 9-11, really. Right, and they can't conceive of other people thinking bad things can happen. So while we're living in 2024, Israel is still living in 1945. Israel is still living in 1945. And the full psychology of a person in 1945 is still active and appropriate to Israel. Yeah. But that disconnect between our American 2024 psychology of,

come on, this is just, it's just like, Oh, history books. These things don't happen anymore. And there, this is 1944,

1945, where, you know, this is enough. This could be this. Everything could be riding on a line here. We have trouble interfacing because we can't see it their way and they can't see it our way. And not just

1945, they also have it as legitimate in their mind from October 7th 2023. Well, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, I'm saying that. But I mean, it still is fresh, the most fresh evidence possible. That mentality that was appropriate to 1945 is still appropriate to Israel because of October 7th. Right. or just because of their situation.

We can't we we Americans have lost that muscle. Yeah. And and and here's what I and of course, you know, it would be tragic if this ends and the threat is not removed. And this was all for not. And Gaza was largely destroyed and trying to root this out and they weren't rooted out and they come back in a few years and they're still living under terror keeping the Palestinian people hostage which they have been doing for so long but presupposing that Palestinians aren't in accord with much of what Hamas is saying and doing I mean I think we've afforded a lot of grace to the Palestinian people by not overly pointing out the fact that they still overwhelmingly support October 7th.

Well, I don't know. I don't know. Majority of the polls seem to support Hamas still. I don't know enough about Islamic history and all that stuff, and I don't ever want to be disrespectful, but if we're living in 2024 and they're living in 1945, the Jews, what country are the Islamic fundamentalists living in? I mean, what year are the Islamic fundamentalists living in? I don't know that history, but it's some 1300s, right? Yeah. And the Israelis can't understand them for the same reason. The psychology is so different.

Right. But you can't live like that in the past, except under existential threat. And there is twice, except right now during this war, there's a seemingly existential threat from a Palestinian perspective to their lives. But pre-October 7th, there was not that. It's legitimate for Israel to fear that legitimate threat and be in that mindset because they are under the constant attack. And it's not legitimate for people to live in the 1300s mindset of we're the only one true God and we get to kill the infidels that don't agree with us. And that was the biggest takeaway that I had from my recent trip to Israel,

was not even just visiting the sites that were horrendous to experience and see live, the burned down to the ground kibbutzim and seeing the stories directly from the person who lost his daughter and son-in-law, hugging each other who were killed and then burned alive and standing on the exact spot where it happened and seeing the nova exhibit of the cars that were burned and destroyed and riddled with bullet holes and having a tour guide taking us through and crying

tears of all of her friends but of course every palestinian has a similar story of course yes but there's cause and effect and i understand that the palestinian people have been living under terrible conditions those conditions also could have ended a very long time ago if they'd accepted any of the peace agreements. When you don't have the ability to move forward and live in the modern day, you are going to be stuck in the past forever, and you can't get the perfect deal. It would have been much better to get 96% of what they asked for,

or even 40% of what they asked for, and have peace in their own land. I don't know what they're asking for, and I don't think anybody does, because what are they really asking for? They're asking for a full right of return, which means no more Israel. That's why they didn't take the deals. But let me just quickly make the point I made before. So it would be horrible if this was all for naught, and it does not lead to anything.

And I think the way to make sure that that doesn't happen is for hamas to be removed from power and or before that happens for the like john stewart said last night on the daily show for the world to come together and make a coalition that creates some sort of international peacekeeping force and buffer zones and make sure that whatever happens to end this guarantees Israel's security, which then will guarantee also the security of Gaza and of the Palestinian people. But that will for sure not happen once a permanent ceasefire is in place. Once there's a permanent ceasefire in place, the world's attention will move on instantly. We have ADD. This is one of the longest focus the world's ever had on something. Maybe Ukraine for four months and this for four months and everybody moves on. So the

only once there's an end to the war, the world's not going to give a shit again and everybody's going to move on again and it's going to repeat this cycle forever. So if you really want this war to end so badly, the world community should not be pushing for ceasefire now, end this. They call it a genocide when it is not that. They should be saying right now, world, right now, U.S., make a deal, make an agreement, find a way to solve this that keeps both sides safe, actually live in reality and try to come up with something that actually solves it, that actually keeps both sides safe. Because to just ask Israel to allow terrorists to keep killing them and know for a fact that's going to lead to palestinian death to continue is the only solution that israel will never do

no country would do you said in your intro no nobody would ever accept that no leadership would ever accept that and it's a non-starter so they're arguing completely futile thing and they're actually extending the war they're being completely unproductive so um and i and i i agree i don't know the feasibility of these highfalutin notions of world coming together to make this these you know there's not a lot of success with these things um in history but you know the arabs do have the arab countries have a lot of money and, and if they could bring that to bear. But here's the thing. I've always had a lot of respect for certain aspects of the anti-Israel arguments. And I always felt that a lot of things were mixed together.

I always used to say the settlements are horrible. I agree with that. But they have nothing to do with the conflict. This was always my, like people, the conflict has to do with, has always been in my mind, the fact that one side just didn't want to agree to the other side being there. Right. The settlement. I don't think it has nothing to do with it though,

because it does lead to the argument that they're trying to take even what little land they have. And that's why they're so kind of. Well, the reason I say, the reason I say it has nothing to do with it, although it could have something to do with it, is that they had the land before 67. Right.

In 48, they attacked. In 67, they attacked. In 73, they attacked. The settlements were, I mean, maybe there were some settlements there, but it was just nascent. Settlements weren't an issue then, that's for sure. Settlements became an issue now, and now people are backfilling the whole conflict in terms of the settlements, where the settlements are just a recent punctuation mark on this whole conflict, the bloody wars.

And Hamas has not mentioned the settlements, right? Hamas hasn't said anything about the settlements. Hamas has referred to all of Israel as a settlement. Iran doesn't care about the settlements. Hezbollah doesn't care about the settlements. But what's happening to the people on the west bank is an outrage agreed and i've always horrible and it's gross and i think the settlers that are creating violence and encroaching even for their territory should be arrested and prosecuted and all of it right we see 100 eye to eye so i've always been more than willing to cede what should be easy arguments which is that if you can present

me the case of somebody being mistreated i'm against it yeah and is it hard for me to believe that an israeli government in power fueled by resentment over with racism would would mean mistreating somebody no it's not hard for me to believe at all because it happens in our country so i got that but one thing i've never been able to understand and has really made me lose respect for the other side of the argument it wasn't that they harped on the settlements it came down to something you sort of alluded to before the notion that they can rationalize and believe that Gaza couldn't be, have been, couldn't have been a peaceful, successful, quiet place after the Israeli withdrawal with casinos or hotels and whatever it is, and that somehow this isn't 100% the responsibility of the Palestinian, you know, and their representative people, that Israel ever had any interest other than wanting to be done with that dangerous and unpeaceful border.

I just don't understand. I understand why they have to maintain that argument, because if they ever have to admit otherwise, it undermines, the whole edifice of what they believe comes down if they have to confess, well, it is true, we had Gaza, we don't have to have rockets. Well, I think part of the value.

But they can't bring themselves to admit it. I'm just trying to say that I don't think casinos were in the cards, but maybe hotels. Why, are there casinos in some of the Arab world, I think part of the value- But they can't bring themselves to admit it. I'm just trying to say that I don't think casinos were in the cards, but maybe hotels. Why? Are there casinos in some of the Arab world, I think? Sure, I think so. Dubai, I think, has got casinos. I may be making that up. But I think a somewhat legitimate part of the argument there is that it's very hard to build a very prosperous place with a blockade that's so intense. But there wouldn't have been any blockade. And with electricity being rationed out only a few hours. Build your own electric plants.

I mean, I agree. I agree with that. Do you think there'd be... Why is Israel responsible for providing it if they gave the land back? I agree with that. There's only one reason there's not billions of dollars of investment pouring into that part of the world. And that's because of the instability of it all. Well, there is billions pouring in.

It's being stolen by the leaders of Hamas. But do you think they'd have any trouble building a power? As a matter of fact, they probably are not built. I had to be cynical. They're probably not building a power plant on purpose because they like the fact that Israel, this is a good PR weapon, but let's assume, let's not be so cynical.

There's no reason some foreign investment wouldn't build a power plant in Gaza if they just only didn't believe that it was going to be wiped out in some violence. But you're also missing the point that Hamas doesn't care about the well-being of the Palestinian people, right? Nobody's missing the point. I think that was the point. Well, it sounds like they could have done this. They could have done that.

I mean, the leaders of Hamas are living extremely well. Billions. Yeah, I mean. That's the point that Norm was making. I mean, it really, when you start thinking about some of the stuff that people have to be apologists for. I mean, these leaders are living, they have billions. Where'd the money come from?

Yeah, I mean, it's all that international aid. And they do it because it benefits not just them, but even other leaders around the Arab world. But it benefits definitely the leaders of Hamas to steal that money and keep the world thinking that they're this oppressed people that need more aid and need more help and are being so completely oppressed. I mean, it drives me nuts. That's one point

that I argued early on after the war started with Cenk, where he was like, it's an occupation of Gaza, it's an occupation of Gaza. I'm like, literally, it's not an occupation. You can say there's a blockade, but you can't say there's an occupation when they were occupied and they removed forcibly Jewish people from Gaza by the thousands

to make it not an occupation. Call it a de facto occupation, but the thing is... I mean, it's not an occupation. It's a blockade. Okay, but I'm saying de facto, I mean, the consequences, the actual experience is... But you just made the point that it's not because they could have built their own

power infrastructure and they could have built anything they wanted within that territory. But, where he's not being fair is, okay, there's a blockade. Why is there a blockade? Because they smuggle weapons in constantly to kill Israelis. Does he believe that if a Palestinian or Hamas, Anwar Sadat said, we want to end the blockade and in return, we promise nothing but peace from Gaza. Right. Does he

actually think the Israeli Republic will be like, no, blockade! Right, of course. We want to send our kids to the army. We want our, on the, what does it like? Gaza needs desperately another Anwar Sadat that Egypt had, and they don't have it. They don't have a leader. Like, the only leader they can point to that could

possibly even, in the West Bank, take over for Mahmoud Abbas, who's 107 years years old is this guy that's currently in jail for terrorism but they seem to think that he is like hopeful and yeah maybe do we want to talk by the way about aaron bush now the guy that uh self-immolated oh maybe that's what i've been talking about what a fun topic that is well i'm just saying it's related uh if you really know where we time so if you want to talk about that i mean i don't know what's related uh if you really know where we're we're on time so if you want to talk about that i mean i don't know what you're what you want me to say about it i think it's very sad that a man well he's being he's being praised by many as as this including um

a comic here that um that tweeted or or was maybe was on uh threads on Instagram that he was a courageous, I'm not going to mention the convict's name, but that he was a heroic, courageous person. He's definitely courageous. I mean, what way to take a stand for a cause, you believe? I just think it's very sad that he did so for what I believe is deep disinformation. Well, was he courageous or was he a guy

that was going to kill himself anyway and decided, well, I might as well make this. I might as well go out. It's a pretty painful way to do it. It is. It is. It's pretty courageous to let yourself on fire and keep shouting free Palestine while you're burning. I would say that. Yeah, I guess it's hard to argue that point.

But the question still stands is, is this somebody who planned on. No, it's a white guy. Grew up in a Christian household. It was an Air Force. I mean, the normal assumption in my mind is not related to this cause by any means. Whenever I see this concept of any cause, whether it's a Jew or a Jew is some sort of mental illness. Of course. This guy is severely mentally ill.

It's a tragedy. I don't think that about suicide bombers. I don't think that about suicide bombers or other people who are... The kamikazes. Or kamikazes who are actually raised practically from birth in a certain ideology. But if a grown person, and also does something like this, it's not within his culture and it's not a cause,

which is actually even... Personal to him. Personal to him. You might imagine that he's killing himself in a mentally ill way, but you know. I find it very unlikely that he had a fulfilling, wonderful life, but was so committed to the Palestinian cause that he decided to end it. I suppose that's possible.

Now, I will say this, but this does disturb me. People should be a little more rigorous. If he put himself on fire to protest abortion, these people would not be saying the same thing about, you know, it's a reflection of how they feel about the conflict, not their analysis of him and his psychology and his courageousness, right? Of course. But I just, that's why i think it's just so strange and it's really been the scariest thing seeing this like rapid rise not just in anti-zionism but anti-semitism and it really

feels like very very scary i think people really underestimate how intense that has been to be jewish and have people like literally putting up signs like no Zionists allowed in the multicultural center at UC Santa Barbara or, you know, and literally a Zionist just means Israel should have one. Jews should have one safe place to live. I don't necessarily believe that I've known too many Jews that are anti-Zionist and too many non-Jews that are anti-Zionist but are perfectly willing to associate with Jews to believe that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism. 22 Arab nations and 45 Muslim nations, and you are against there being one Jewish nation, and especially in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack that Jews have experienced since the Holocaust, to say, no, that doesn't seem to me like any reason why you'd need one safe place to be in the world. I don't agree that that should exist. And you don't simultaneously call for the ending of the 22 Arab nations. That is anti-Semitic.

Well, I think they're misguided. I think they're ignorant. I think they're hateful. don't simultaneously call for the ending of the 22 arab nations that is anti-semitic well um i think they're misguided i think they're ignorant i think they're hateful i don't think they need to be anti-semitic to be worthy of condemnation i think anti-zionism in and of itself is a toxic awful ideology look there's sorry whether without anti-seemitism attached to it. There's a temptation that I can't resist to point out hypocrisy. And there was a time I was more sympathetic to the anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitic argument. But now, I've said before that

now that things are so close to the surface and so much clear anti-Semitism is going on, I think people should be choosing their words very carefully. I think the burden of proof is on people to choose their words carefully. So if you want to say you're anti-Zionist right now, maybe 20 years ago is different, and you know everything that's going on, you know many people think it's anti-Semitism, you know what, Why don't you say exactly what you mean? I believe Israel has a right to exist, but I'm against Israel's policies. Why using this clever, ambiguous terminology? But the hypocrisy is, by and large, this excuse is coming from the same people who, for the last 10 years or so, have been telling us that everywhere they can hear dog whistles

every criticism of George Soros was anti-Semitic don't tell me that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism criticizing George Soros now that's anti-Semitism who the fuck are you kidding here you can see anti-Semitism

like I say why can't you criticize well tell me how to criticize George Soros without being called an anti-Semite because he can't be above criticism. And nobody would answer that. But you can criticize Israel without saying, you know. A hundred percent. But that's the point is that to bastardize the core meaning of a term, which just means Israel has a right to exist safely with one safe Jewish homeland and say, no, no, I'm against the way it's being implemented and against Israel's policies. Like you said, say that. But to say

you're blanketly against it is ignorant at best and is a complete lack of empathy and understanding for people that have been under threat and attack for so long. When I was in Israel, again, the biggest thing that like sunk in, because I'm Israeli, my mom was in the IDF,

she worked in Moshe Dayan's office, my dad was born in Israel too, I visit often, but I haven't visited in a few years. And being there now during this war, it was just so deeply, painfully clear that the entire country, not only is shell-shocked from October 7th, but it pushed them over the edge where they don't,

they live in constant attack. Even pre-October 7th, they live in constant rocket attack, having to run the middle of a normal day or a normal night into shelters in the bottom of their house from people that live next by that want to murder them and still refuse to acknowledge their right to even exist when they've won war after war. Maybe after one war, you move on and say, we lost this territory. Let's now make peace with our neighbors. And to not acknowledge that that is completely inappropriate, completely unacceptable, and very much by its nature

an existential threat is completely ridiculous. And to say that that shouldn't even exist, you are literally adopting Hamas ideology. To be anti-Zionist today after October 7th, you're the same ideology as Hamas. You're literally saying, I refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. Be damned the 7 million Jews that live there

and the 50 million people that live there. Now, does Cenk recognize Israel's right to exist? He thinks Israel should exist, yes, but in his arguments, he doesn't seem to give them a way to do that safely. Well, like I was saying, I'm sorry. Ben, I don't bother with the argument

as to whether anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism because anti-Zionism is bad enough. I don't think you need, as I was saying, you need to attach anti-Semitism to it

to combat it, to consider it an ignorant ideology. What's the whole argument I just made? That when Jewish people are under attack here and around the world

and in the one place that has been an already well-established and recognized nation in this world, it's not like it's a, you're not anti-Zionist in 1947, you're anti-Zionist right now in 2024, when for 75 years it has been a country, to say you are against it now, what other nation are you suggesting should no longer exist? What other country is any anti-Zionist saying we should also take away norway we should also take away dubai like what other country ever does anybody still accept the one jewish nation

well it's just that it's a fair point but but but i you know there's so many jews that are anti-zionist that it's just because because there's no people as uncomfortable in their own skin yeah as the jews and self-hating and wanting to fit in. Wanting to fit in. I was that way. I never even liked the term Zionism, never called myself a Zionist, I don't think before this war.

I just, I love Israel. I'm like, but the term seems so like, I don't like to identify with labels and I'm a Zionist, it sounded so extreme, but no. It's been made blatantly clear to me. It simply just means you have a right to exist safely. And when my people are under attack, I reflexively go the other way. I'm not even religious.

I don't like religion. I think religion divides people. Quite clearly it does throughout all of history and current times. And that said, when somebody says Jews don't get to exist and we're going to wipe the one safe homeland out of the face of the earth, let all the people be damned, and we get to return to a land we lost over and over and over again 75 years ago and then much more recently. That's just an anti-Jewish stance, and I have to reflexively go the other way

and say, well, fuck you on both. I do think some of them are sincere when they say we want one state where everybody lives and holds hands in peace, and no, we don't want the Jews to have to leave, and no, we don't want to kill the Jews. We want one state where everybody holds hands and say kumbaya. I do believe people

sincerely believe that. It's ridiculous, misguided, impractical, unworkable, and everything else, but I do think... And no one says that for the Arab countries. No one says Jordan needs to allow millions of Jews in to go live in harmony there. They don't see Jews as indigenous.

They're wrong about that, too. That's insane. They heard of the Bible? Well, they were indigenous because they were thrown out of the Arab countries, too. A, B, and then C is, you know, I started doing this on stage a little bit, but the premise of, like, people saying that Jews are not indigenous to this land, aside from it being in the Bible, aside from Jesus the Jew being born in Bethlehem, which was part of these territories before Palestinians ever existed, before Arabs ever existed, before Muhammad was born, right? I'm not sure about before Arabs existed, but...

Yeah, yeah. It was. That's what Khalidi told us. Yeah. Not just that, but then also they called October 7th the Al-Aqsa Flood because they claimed it was partially because they were trying to protect the Al-Aqsa mosque but literally the Al-Aqsa mosque was built on top of the compound of the Jewish temple on the mount and I'm no archaeologist

but I'm pretty sure the thing that was there first is the thing that's under I mean it's the most basic obvious I'll ask you a question because I don't know about this I'm probably going to sound stupid but you know you hear the argument very often there's blah blah blah and one state for the Jewish people

and it occurred to me that most peoples have only one state. There's one state for the Japanese one state for the Chinese that's not the unique part the unique part is that there's how many states for the are there any other people

that have 20 states? Well, it depends on how you define people. Do you define Arabs? Okay, but Arabs might say, well, but we're not all the same. But they're official Arab states. But they are all the same because the boundaries were drawn by the Europeans. If you read Lawrence of Arabia or whatever it is, except for Egypt has this kind of unique history,

this was one people. There were no palace. I'm not denying the Palestinian nationality. Nationalities can be forged by events. Be very careful. I'm not denying the Palestinian nationality. However, there was no Palestinian nationality at the turn of the century,

or the turn of the 20th century. Nobody spoke about it. They didn't speak about it. Nasser, when he was president of Egypt, his whole ideology was to reunite all the Arab people in one country. And talk about colonialism. I mean, 22 nations is colonialism. One tiny strip is certainly not colonialism.

It just doesn't make sense. All the accusations don't make sense. And so it just keeps, it makes everybody that I align with on this real think that it's anti-Semitism. The Koreans have two countries. Yes, but they want to be one, right?

Well, some do and some don't. And I don't know if you, Canada and America basically are similar people. However, we don't really define ourselves. Canada and America, Canada and America are basically similar people. However, we don't really define ourselves. Okay, so for the most part, what's unique- But it's not officially. No.

This is officially. For the most part, what's more unique about it is that they have a huge amount of land. T.E. Lawrence was actually, because I was reading about him, was disposed to Zionism, and his argument was they have all, was reading about him, was disposed to Zionism. And his argument was, they have all that, they have it from, he talked about the trapezoid

from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to, I guess, from Iraq to wherever, well, I forget what the four points were. He said, what would they care about Israel having this little piece of land here, which, by the way, was for the most part uninhabited. Some of it was Palestinian, but much of what's Israel, like Tel Aviv. Was sand dunes. Was way, was for the most part uninhabited. Some of it was Palestinian, but much of what's Israel, like Tel Aviv, was sand dunes.

Was like, you know, malaria-infested land. You know, this is not... So... That's the point I tried to make to Aaron Mate, but I was too flustered to articulate it. But, of course, you can't... There's another part of me which says history, in a certain sense, doesn't matter,

or it matters no more than the Native American history in America. Certain things are done. And there's other ways to respond to losing land. You could go the way Native Americans did, and like you said, Dan, open casinos, and do what God intended, just make money off of your neighbors. Like, just create commerce. I don't know if the average Native American,

to the extent there's many left, how much they're benefiting from these casinos, but some are. No, the Arabs, I talk about the Nakba, you know. They live in peace, and that truly was colonizers, what America was, and truly was stolen land,

and they were not in peace. Well, I wonder if they were sufficiently numerous and powerful whether they'd be so so i don't know but but but the palestinians aren't aren't powerful compared to israel either at some point do you want to live in peace you want to relitigate a you know you could ask for you the way many things are handled and jews understand this is with money you know we have this much land was taken from us we want here's our bill the reparations this is with money you know we have this much land was taken from us we want here's our bill the reparations this is you know and i mean it's a lot of arguments which again people like check

i don't understand why they avoid them they're not really refugees they're living in the the land which is supposed to become their land in other words if you believe in the two-state solution who's going to live there? The refugees who are already living there. And they're still considered refugees. No, but just think about that. UNRWA has never allowed them to be resettled, their whole purpose.

They're still living in Palestine, is what you're... But I'm saying refugees are usually people living in another country. Displaced, right. Displaced, but they have to be integrated into another people's country. Right, the only argument they... They had to move a into another people's country. Right. The only argument they have. They had to move a few miles down the road.

Well, the only argument they have for still being refugees is if they, like you said, Dan, if they truly still believe they're going to one day get a full right of return to all of Israel, which is absurd. It will never, ever, ever happen. But I mean, either they naively believe it will happen or they think that the struggle is is is is sufficiently there's honor and struggle even in a lost car. Well, they do think that because they also value martyrdom and they also think that that death is a death for a cause like this is a very high, noble thing to. I want to make one final point. I made this point before, but it's an interesting point to me. It doesn't get said enough, and you might find it worth repeating at some point. The Nakba now refers to what

would you say the Nakba is? It was this very difficult time after the establishment of Israel where a lot of Palestinians were forcibly displaced and sometimes violently from their home. That's what, that's what's said. I don't believe that's the Nakba.

I believe that if you really examine it, that's just the PR Nakba. The Nakba is the creation of the state of Israel. The Nakba was the partition. And if, if there had never been a single Palestinian displaced in the 48 war, it would still be every bit the Nakba that it's considered today. And that needs to be called out there. There, in my opinion,

and, and, and respectfully, honestly, you know, it was always worth saying, but it's not, it's not just words.

I, you know, I, because sometimes I hear people talking about the Jews, and I feel like they don't care. But I do care. But I'm trying to get it right. The truth of the matter is that the beef is not with the displacement.

The beef is with the fact that there is an Israel. That's why every army attacked Israel. they didn't attack in retaliation for the displacement for sure they were attacked in retaliation for israel and on day one it's not like they waited on day one implemented and in that attack and by the way it was a genocidal attack yeah from all sides by multiple nations within months it was a genocidal attack within months of the holocaust at a time when the entire world were killing civilians as a matter of course in warfare nagasaki hiroshima dresden you name it. There was no, the world was not playing games about war crimes in those days. If there was a war going on, civilians were getting it.

So in that world, right after the Holocaust, 700,000 Arabs were displaced in a defensive war of genesis with genocidal intent pushed over the line to the part of this territory which had been decided was going to be for them not 700 000 killed moved out because they were a fifth column let's assume for the worst let's assume they were all pushed out which they weren't all pushed out let's's just say they pushed 700,000. You push 700,000 people out when you were fighting five of their armies, right? And you're facing annihilation.

Yeah, we pushed them out. It's not, that's not the Nakba. The Nakba is Israel. And that's what people should admit to. And you can feel that way. You can make that case, but don't hide from it. I think that's a very good point. And also the fact that I think people just somehow gloss over, over and over again,

with every accusation against Israel of genocide, of ethnic cleansing, of apartheid. It's ridiculous use of terms. You can say they're in bad conditions you can say they're mistreated you can say they are oppressed in modern day to a large way but all those other terms are just factually inaccurate because the two million palestinian arabs that live in israel have full rights they're doctors they're nurses they're 20 of the doctors and nurses they're a huge percentage of the government they have they have a palestinian arab on the supreme court of israel and they live freely and beautifully and many of them if i understand the majority of them understand israel's

position so and they don't want to leave and they don't want to leave and they say they would not move into a palestinian state if it were granted so that proves that proves beyond argument as i see it and tell me the counter argument that proves beyond argument as I see it and tell me the counter argument that it is nothing to do with the ethnicity or the religion or the or of these people which gets rid of the terms genocide apartheid and ethnic cleansing. It's just

the group of them that live in these territories that refuse to live in peace and promise to kill them. That's just self-defense. I will give you, I agree most of what you're saying, but I will give you just a related tangential sort of counterish argument, which is to say that an answer to black Americans who are being mistreated in America is not to say,

well, you don't want to go live in Africa, do you? So to some extent, I just want to be sensitive to the fact that certainly there is bad treatment of Israeli Arabs. And I know you would probably even know better than I do what the details are, but I'm just assuming when you have two ethnic groups like that, that-

I'm sure there's some degree of discrimination that you have in any nation, but it's not systemic in the laws of the country. Right. No, not systemic in the laws of the country. Nor has racism been systemic in the laws of the country. Right. No, not systemic in the laws of the country. No, nor has racism been systemic in the laws of this country. But that's why nobody says America is an apartheid country or pursuing ethnic cleansing.

They can say it's a racist country. That's fine. You can make that argument, and it is in many ways. But they have a right for Israel to be better in its treatment of the Arabs. 100%. Without being thrown in their face. Well, you're not going to go live in the new Palestinian state.

No, I'm not going to live in the same Palestinian because I'm a fucking Israeli Arab. A hundred percent. And they have the right to that. But also I just want to go ahead. Well, what do you,

I mean, Noam has a friend who, who used to work here, who is an Israeli Abbey's from the North. I guess I found out he doesn't like to be, he prefers to be called Palestinian, but go ahead. Okay.

Well, but yes, he's, but that probably answers my next question. I mean, does, how. Okay, well. But he's Palestinian, but yes, he's Israeli-Palestinian. That probably answers my next question. I mean, how does he feel about it? I can't talk about that. Okay, all right.

Well, so let me just say, I want to make clear, because I get so frustrated when I speak on this, that I don't want anybody, despite people might be listening, thinking this, I don't want anybody to think that I'm not sympathetic very deeply to the Palestinian cause. I want more than anything, complete peace and freedom for both sides. I follow tons of Palestinian accounts. I watch them multiple times a week to see the sad things that are happening so I can make sure I morally can still hold a position I do while

keeping my humanity for these people. I love the Palestinian people. I have so many Muslim friends. My two closest ex-girlfriends are Muslim Iranians. I've dated two Palestinian Muslim girls in the past who one of the two broke up with me for very anti-Semitic reasons. But I love these people. I see them as 100% equals. Anti-Semitic reasons. You mean because you were cheap with her?

Yeah, I didn't pay for the bill ever. I was always like, let's go have these. I feel even maybe I'll pay a little bit more because I got more of the land. You pay 22%. Exactly. No, but the reason I argue so passionately for this is because what I'm arguing for is the only way I see humanly possible to bring that peace and safety to the Palestinian people. The only way they will ever get a state, the only way they will ever get, which I want them to have, the only way they will ever be able to live in peace is by abandoning

this old fight, by moving forward. If you want to move forward, you have to move forward. You have to stop litigating the past. You have to stop trying to fight religious wars. You have to stop litigating the past you have to stop trying to fight religious wars you have to stop supporting leaders who are trying to fight an intifada and and and encourage martyrdom and teaching the schools that the highest thing to do is to kill people people that support that status quo i think truly don't care about the palestinian people and they want them to suffer forever so that they can keep this paradigm of they're darker skinned generally speaking and they're oppressed. And therefore, we get to have these paradigms that make us feel good supporting the underdog in yet another place. That to me is deeply Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian and anti any sort of prosperous future for them.

But we got to go. Do you think the Young Turks should ever want to do an event in the underground? What kind of event? Sure. I don't know. Ask a Young Turk a question. You know, something that you guys have more credibility than we do. Something that, you know, puts forth ideas on all sides.

Yeah. Or Cenk could speak. He's running for president, right? He's running for president. So maybe he wants to combine it with a campaign thing. I'm happy to ask him. Ask him, yeah. I'm happy to ask him whatever you'd want to do. i mean i i think it's i think your point you made earlier

is really beautiful one is like you're open to having both sides talk the other side does not seem to open to even hear any they protest every even tangentially related jewish event everywhere and and are pretty aggressive about it you know if you don't want to hear ideas it's a good way to prove that is to spit and yell and shut down freeways like i don't even understand the tactic personally like if somebody's not on board with free palestine and ceasefire now are they going to be more on board when you also when they also make you miss your flight i don't understand like i didn't catch my flight now so now i'm for sure on your side i don't i don't get the the tactic personally other than getting news coverage making noise but it just i don't know let's if you want peace be

peaceful and let's find a way to move forward together you know you can't continue to espouse a violent position and then be upset when people respond defensively if that response is not to the degree you wish it were i read you we gotta wrap it up i have it here um uh i i had a thing here a customer who complained to me this is one of the one of the complaints i got about the um event at the the club and there you know there's a whole online campaign to get me to release the video we talked event at the club. There's a whole online campaign to get me to release the video. We talked about it at the top, and I can't release the video. So I wrote an answer along the long lines

of what I said earlier in the show. I won't belabor it, but she was relatively nice, and she writes back, I appreciate your response. There was literal active genocide and international starvation of an entire population in Gaza. I think giving anyone a platform that is proud of what Israel is doing is on the wrong side of things. Fundraisers and platforms for

people causing devastation is unreal. Living in the twilight zone for sure. Free Palestine. She writes, free Palestine. So I wrote back, always happy to talk. By the way, when you say Free Palestine, do you mean a two-state solution? I'm curious. They never do, by the way. But she wrote back, I mean one state, everyone living freely together on one land,

no walls, no occupation, just people living as they should. That's all Palestinians want. What Palestinian voices are currently listening to? Just curious. And I wrote, whatever I wrote back about what I'm listening to, blah, blah. And then I wrote about the Free Palestine part. I said, you do know that one state solution will never happen, right? No more than India will ever agree to unite with Pakistan. But even if it did, as a majority Muslim state, would it be a democracy, regular elections, free speech, gay marriage, and gay men kissing on the streets? No Palestinian

leader has ever stood for more than one election. why would the new state be different? Why would it not descend into civil war like so many other similar states? She didn't answer. Shocking that she didn't answer. And she didn't answer. And I wrote back, you know, just checking in. No answer. So this is how quickly they...

Right. By the way, and these are fair questions. What do you mean by free Palestine? Right. Because it's about the luxury of being theoretical, and it's about selective outrage, and there aren't answers to those questions because those people don't actually care.

They're not invested in it. They're going to send you that email and get their rush of dopamine. And it's just about keeping the one Jewish state seen as the demon, as the devil, because they don't have thought-out reasons for it, let alone the arguments of, like, why do they never say it should be one state with Jordan,

which is hugely Palestinian? Why don't they open that border? Why does Egypt refuse? They have a hugely empty Sinai Peninsula right there that could be an amazing place. Why don't they put any of that pressure? It's only the pressure that removes the one Jewish majority country on this earth. And nobody talks about the fact that all of the kibbutzim that are on the border of Gaza,

those people for years used to shop in each other's markets and go back and forth. And those were the biggest proponents of a Palestinian state that existed in the kibbutzim that were destroyed. I mean, my uncle in Israel used to be one of the environment ministers for the Israeli government during the Oslo Accords and negotiated this amazing, still lasting to this day, agreement with the Palestinians for water and for environment agreement. And one of his best friend's brother and sister-in-law, this elderly couple, were taken hostage on October 7th. The man, Mr. Lipschitz, spent all of his retirement years fighting for not only peace, but taking sick Palestinians from Gaza to Israeli hospitals. And he's still kept right now hostage.

He's no doubt told them hundreds of times, I've been fighting for you my whole life. They don't even release him. They released his wife in the first exchange. And he's still there and the man's like 85 years old. When people have fought for your peace and you repay that with bloody murder and worse i don't see where a partner for peace is that just doesn't make any sense you need two

brave leaders i mean i think that that's really no you need one no you need two because yahoo has to go to for sure and sure. Netanyahu will... He makes me think all the time, Perry Allen. Israel's a democracy. Israel will, whoever the leader is, they need... Who was the leader when

Sadat took over? The most right-wing person ever, Menachem Begin, who was against any territorial compromise. And he was no match for Sadat. There's one brave leader. Because the Israeli public is what controls Israel, not the leader. And the Israeli public will make peace with a peaceful Arab leader, period.

Either Netanyahu would do it, or Netanyahu would be gone and someone else would do it. You only need one, in my opinion. Yeah. It's a democracy. He'll have to go. And I just don't understand how nobody ever can come back. I don't have anybody ever come back to those points.

Nobody ever comes back to like, you realize the solution, you're, like I said earlier, you're suggesting dooms both sides to death forever. They change the topic. When they say, where's the leader that's going to promise peace? They change the topic. When they say, where's the leader that's going to promise peace? They change the topic. When they say, okay, you want to discuss a future, do we at least start with the very basic?

If we're going to give you a nation when you don't have one yet, do you at least acknowledge the right for our current one to continue existing? No. So you don't have any ability to make any sort of compromise. Netanyahu. How negotiations work. Netanyahu is the villain of the day for various deserved reasons. And I'm not going to go into them right now, but just I want to stipulate most of the things that come to mind I agree with.

But there is a bit of a Netanyahu derangement syndrome, like there always is. And two matters he deserves to be, I think, recognized. One matter is that he was the only one who had the vision that there could be a separate Arab peace, the Abraham Accords. And he was this close to closing the deal with Saudi Arabia, which the Israeli opposition leader said was impossible,

which John Kerry said was possible, which Barack Obama said was impossible. which John Kerry said was possible, which Barack Obama said wasn't possible. Netanyahu was one fucking historical accident of his own doing away from vindicating himself and making clear that everyone else was wrong, but Benjamin Netanyahu, number one. Number two, unfortunately, his ideology,

this Jabotinsky-ite iron wall, that the other side is never going to make peace until they realize they have no choice. They're not going to ever make peace if they think we lack resolve. They're not going to make peace if we beg and plead and show nice. This is his ideology.

Has not been upended by october 7th much of what netanyahu has been saying has been vindicated unfortunately by october 7th the shimon perez's and all the and the left-wing leaders they're not looking like you see we told you so the right wing is saying we told you so it's it's i mean netanyahu fucked up with this nonsense you know all the stuff to keep himself in office and keeping himself from being prosecuted and this judicial coup and taking his eye off the ball and ben gevir and funding hamas and well i don't know the other other uh no because lapid funded hamas and uh the other guy whose name's case we now funded hamas and what would it what difference would have made if they hadn't funded

Hamas? You think Hamas, they can't get Hamas out with the entire Israeli army. You think they could have gotten Hamas out by giving a little less money? Years when his focus was instead of building up a group that may have been a partner for peace he specifically helped build up Hamas to be an antidote. Now you're falling

for it. He didn't want to build up a group because he had no faith. He said, keep them divided because united, they're a threat to us. This was his feeling. Now maybe he's wrong, maybe he's right. It's not crazy talk. He lived through Camp David.

He lived through Taba. He lived through the Second Intifada. He has all the intelligence. He knows what they're saying in the radios. I mean, Hamas is clearly the all the intelligence. He knows what they're saying in the radios. Funding the wrong side. I mean, Hamas is clearly the dangerous side compared to... He was trying... He knows Qatar's sneaking money in there.

He also... I mean, you could just imagine if he had really put the pressure on Hamas, like people are saying now he should have. The people now complaining about the fact

that he funded Hamas. We say, look what you're doing to Hamas. You're starving them. You're not getting them any money. There's no... There was no policy that his critics would have said, oh, yes, look at Netanyahu. He's doing the right thing. Any course was the wrong thing to his critics. Any course. If he had not funded

Hamas, we'd be hearing about how he wouldn't let Hamas have money. There's really no answer to him. Like I said, all the other stuff, I get it. His cynicism, his lying, there's many things about Benjamin Netanyahu. But his basic worldview, has he been way off in his basic worldview? I don't want to say, I can't in good conscience say that he has been. He was right. He knew that the Sunnis were more concerned about Iran than they were about the Palestinians. And he was, you know what? The Saudis still want the deal. That's what we hear. Even through all this, they still want the deal.

But they now say they will only take it once there is a Palestinian state. Yeah, because they need some sort of, not a Palestinian state. I think that's what they're saying. No, they say they want to see some movement towards an eventual Palestinian. A guarantee without possible backing out of a path to a state.

They want to hang their hat on something to the Arab street. No, we didn't sell out the Palestinians. That's obviously what they want. But all the reasons that they were afraid of Iran and all the reasons they wanted a peace treaty with Israel are doubly true now after October 7th. They're seeing the threat that they're actually worried about. Now they're seeing how dangerous it actually is.

So they're dying for a deal with Israel. But it's complicated now because they can't look like they're collaborators. So they want to see some, let's face it, some facade of a progress towards the Palestinian state. I hope it's not. Which is what Sadat said also. I hope it's real. I hope it's not. Which is what Sadat said also. I hope it's real. I hope it's real, too.

We all hope it's real. But we're not the people that matter. I think Israel might need to take the maybe dangerous leap of faith on that and make a deal and just keep the world community as promising to enforce that peace. They don't want a deal. Hamas has rejected every deal.

That's why Hamas needs to be removed from power. In any agreement, Hamas cannot be part of the power structure. And how do you make sure that the day after the deal is forged that there is not an immediate civil war and coup and now the highlands and the West bank are where the rockets are coming from some sort of international peacekeeping force that comes in there and doesn't allow that now you know the the un will not keep okay i will run for president the un will not keep uh soldier forces in a foreign country against that foreign country's will this is this is a primary rule of

the un so once it's a separate Palestinian state, this is what happened in the Six-Day War. Nasser ordered all the peacekeepers out of Sinai. That's what started the whole thing. They were helpless to stay. So peacekeepers are not the end of the story. The new Palestinian state will have the right to say out. I mean, hopefully... It's just no good answer, you know?

Some problems have no solution. But I'm with you in my heart and soul., you know? Some problems have no solution. But I'm with you in my heart and soul. Of course we want a two-state solution. What kind of lunatic doesn't? I mean, hopefully the Palestinians can get Hamas out of power themselves and keep them out, right? They don't seem to want that.

Let's just be clear, Perry. They can't do it. Guys, steel yourself. It was not Hamas which masterminded the second intifada. Okay? They're not the only ones

who support murder there. They're the most prominent ones today. The Palestinian Authority funds the terrorists. Where is the group that stands against this stuff? Those are the people we want in charge.

And that, for the record, again, like, again, shows how much Israel is already willing to compromise. Literally, most are talking about this possible peace agreement, are saying maybe with the more moderate PA, and we have to live with that group that literally funds the terrorists, but maybe aren't the murderers themselves. And that we're like, okay, we can live with the people that pay the terrorists, but maybe aren't the murderers themselves. And that we're like, okay, we can live with the people that pay the terrorists.

I believe, sort of believe, that the Palestinian Authority would be deterred from, and keep at peace with Israel for a long period of time. But I don't have any confidence that they can stay in power. Right.

Well, isn't the poll show that Hamas is favored is is his favorite even even right now there's a tremendous swell of uh of sentimentality so like you know i i imagine that will subside in some way but i'm just but these countries a a a cohesive group of 15 of the population can take over you know it's not that majority rule they have no respect for democracy every one of them has stood for election and i've said and then there's never another election again and the world doesn't care like the world the worst of the palestinians want peace then push for an election yeah i mean it'd be so if the palestinians want peace here's an easy

solution for you great let's have an election so they can elect the leader that represents them and then we can settle this whole thing, right? Yeah. Because they don't really believe the Palestinians. And I just did an episode of my podcast last week on Earth with Samuel Bade, who's a comedian who's Palestinian, and we talked at length about this exact issue, and I think it was a very conservative conversation.

There was no yelling, there was no shouting, but I don't believe he had any answers to the larger questions here. It's like, nobody likes the mistreatment, and if that's the focus, is we're being mistreated and we don't believe he had any answers to the larger questions here. It's like nobody likes the mistreatment. And if that's the focus is we're being mistreated and we don't have freedom, I agree with that. But what's the way forward from that? And I didn't find any answers. Well, Sam, I can only mistreat you if you had your own country.

At least it would be your own country. I think most are of the opinion of that person who emailed you. The one-state solution. That's what they want. Which will inevitably be majority Muslim. There's never going to be a one-state solution. I'm saying, but I think that's what... Even the peaceniks, when they say they're in favor of peace,

that's what they're talking about. Yes. Peaceful one-state... Okay, enough. Yes. Yeah. A peaceful one state. Okay, enough. Listen, Ben, it was a pleasure. Thank you, Sam. And I'm really, I'm really awesome

that you are involved with the Young Turks. It's quite, that's quite a success story, the Young Turks. Yeah, they are. They built a 12 million subscriber, biggest online news network

in the world, supposedly. And it's a great place it's cool it's cool but it's really crazy because when the war broke out I found that I was the only pro-israel leading well you're left one of only a few that are on that network I would love to meet Cenk someday if you ever want to bring him down here he's a very interesting great person he to his credit he's had me on the air this whole time he lets me lead stories when when I'm leading and he then responds and we debate but he lets me

frame it as i like i mean i think that's cool but whenever i'm not on air the coverage is full of the terms that i think are just slanderous against israel but he would defend me for allowing an event where soldiers get to answer questions right would he be against that if the point of the event i don't know what the event was but if the point of the event, I don't know what the event was, but if the point of the event was that they answered questions, I assume he'd be fine with that. I don't know. I assume so. Periel, by the way, did you hear back from the woman

who books a club in Seattle? I have an appointment at 7. Okay. Thank you, everybody. See you next time. Bye-bye.