The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Former IDF Soldier and Peace Activist says Gaza War is Fueling Anti Semitism

Episode Date: January 22, 2026

Noam Dworman, Hatem Gabr and Periel Aschenbrand take calls and are joined by Adar Weinreb, former IDF soldier, committed to peace building.  Is Israel the most dangerous place for Jews to live?  Is the war in Gaza creating more anti semitism? Weinreb is an entrepreneur and social activist focused on peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. He’s the co-founder of HeadOn.ai a platform designed to help people engage productively across polarized conflicts.

No one. Oh. This is that music content. Oh. That's you? That's me. I got to cut off the first part of that intro. But let's put in this.

This is the music I wrote when it's supposed to be a comedy of like a funny podcast. What is it? It's a funny podcast. It's like a Dixieland thing. How many instruments is? I'm not sure. I'm going to change it to like a, I'm going to write something Middle Eastern. Can you do one for us?

Yeah. Harmony, hear the clarinet. See it's like funny noise, like spike. Like, like, uh, Jones. Don't be all these plays. I could like the ending. This part.

Okay, hit it, Periel. Welcome to Live from the Table, the official podcast for the world famous comedy seller. I am Periel, the producer of the show. I am here with Noam Dwarman, the owner of the seller and the host of the show. Do you have something to say already? What you say, it sounds, it's a... Go ahead, go ahead. No, no, no, you go.

Go ahead. You do it. Finish, finish, finish. Hatem Gabber is here. How do you pronounce it with the full? Perfect. No, no, say it's like, Gabber. Gabber, yeah.

Okay. You're really just fucking impossible. No, pretty out. Perfect. Go, go. Who is Noam's very dear friend and co-host for their other podcast, which is called Live from America.

And I'm also a big fan of Hatems. And we also have a dark- Except. on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I don't think that's true. Don't make nice with them yet. Introduce Adda. My goal is that by the end of this,

you guys are in further agreement about Israel-Palestine. That's why I came here. Well, if you can make him pro-Israel, that's it. Go ahead. Introduce. Adar Weinreb is an entrepreneur and social activist focused on peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.

He is the co-founder of head-on.a-i, a platform designed to help people engage productively across polarized conflicts. Welcome to the show. It is great to be here. Okay, Adar. So let's have it at it now. Coming out, swinging.

No, so the reason you're up, first of all, I've like been trying not to talk about the, the Arabis, Israel anymore. I mean, at least, much less than I used to. And I've been, like, just besieged on Twitter by your fans. You have a big fan base. were basically calling me a worthless pussy unless I, you know, face you, on my show.

Like, what are you ducking a dollar for? Are you scared? He's going to school you. And I say, yeah, of course, you know, we've never been, I mean, if I deal with Omar Bartov, I, you know, I'm not afraid. Not that you're not on his level, I'm just saying like. So I'm pleased to meet you in person.

Long overdue. And I'm not that familiar. with your work, except that I can already compliment you that you've obviously had a big influence on people and that ain't nothing in general. That speaks to talent, even if I don't agree with, you know,

what your influence was. So, you know, I take that seriously. So on the way into my commute, I put on one of your videos. And in this video, I heard you make a very, I tell you at this point, Oh, you have those videos ready, Steve, right?

Yeah. Yeah. You made a point which made me angry. But I'm going to let you express the point, and then, you know, I'll respond to it. That'll be the first part. And then the second part, it kind of works out that Dan's not here and you're here. But the second part is I want to get into Gaza and stuff like that. I know how Tim has strong...

You want to literally get into Gaza? I can't erase that. No, you can. But I want to get into it above Gaza. ground, not in the tunnel. Anyway, so what I heard you saying was, to be serious, now what I heard you saying, and I don't want to mischaracterize, it was essentially that you think that Israel has made Jews less safe and that it has fueled, and that may be understating it.

You didn't say it causes anti-Semitism, but I think what I got your drift was that it's basically the main accelerant of anti-Semitism in the world today, if not for, Israel and anti-Semitism would not actually be anything that serious in the world today. So, you know, to the extent that I've gotten that right or wrong, spin out those points. Sure, sure. So clearly anti-Semitism did not begin with Israel's actions. I think all we need to do is look at history to know how false of a notion that is. But I think there's clearly world events, things that happen, that either increase or decreased anti-Semitism.

I describe anti-Semitism as a fire that has burned for thousands of years, and there's actions that pour water on that fire or pour fuel on that fire. I think when you have a situation where the Jewish state, in the name of protecting Jews, is carrying out what many believe to be in indefensible atrocity, and this atrocity is being... When you say many believe, you mean what you believe? Yeah. Okay. This is my position as well, but it's shared by many around the world, right?

Israel's actions didn't make me anti-Semitic, but I see the impact it has on others. So when you have a situation where the Jewish state in the name of protecting Jews is committing such an atrocity, and this is being defended by the majority of the Jews around the world, I don't see any way in which that's not going to negatively impact sentiment towards Jews. The same way... I'm not going to keep interrupting you, but we'll never get back to this. I'm just curious if you thought about it. If you didn't agree that what Israel was doing was an atrocity, you think you'd still...

But many believed it, as you put it, and it was... You think you'd still be making this point about it fueling it. anti-Semitism despite the fact that you disagreed, despite the fact that you agreed with the policy, or is this just being, you know, brought to bear because it backs up your disagreement with the policy? Follow my point, right? Yeah, yeah. I think it's much easier for me to resonate with what people are going through because I

tend to agree with them on Israel's actions. If I didn't think Israel was doing anything wrong, I would think those criticizing Israel must be brainwashed or just blindly hateful. But it would still be increasing anti-examination. anti-Semitism as an empirical matter. Sure. Yeah, yeah. So do you think you would still be making that point? Would you find yourself saying, I think Israel's doing 100% the right thing,

but I really want to point out that it's increasing anti-Semitism? It's hard to know how I would view that, but I'm not sure the... All right, I mean to sidetrack you, but it's an interesting point. Yeah, it's an interesting point. I mean, I think it's much easier for me to accept the result of Israel's actions and Jewish support for Israel's actions because I stand in opposition to him. I think it's an interesting question how I would perceive that same thing if I didn't think Israel was doing anything wrong. But I also understand why this is such a tough and scary time for Jews,

because most, I think you could split up support for Israel in maybe a few camps, but one of it comes from simply just Israel's good, our enemies are bad, no matter how many people we need to kill to defend Israel, that's a worthwhile sacrifice. And I, most of my family are in that camp, by the way. This isn't a position that I'm not used to. It's, I coexist with these people. My close friends and family members hold this position. Others, they don't have the right set of information.

So they genuinely believe that Israel is doing everything in their power to reduce civilian harm. They believe things that are completely false, like civilian combatant ratio being the lowest in history. You're getting into the Gaza thing, but I want to stick to your points about. But that's what... Increasing anti-Semitism. Well, that's directly connected to our action. actions in Gaza. I mean, I would say... No, you said more than that. You said Israel, the state of Israel. You said it makes Jews less

safe. You didn't just mean since October 7th, you meant as a founding issue. I don't know the exactly what line you're referring to, but generally I look at it as Israel's actions. So I don't think the existence, if Israel existed and was at peace with all its neighbors and did not survive by violating the rights of others, I don't think Israel would contribute to anti-Semitism, not in any meaningful way. But currently the Jew state, for most of its existence, has violated the rights of others. Since what year? Well, you could look at it somewhat in 1948. There was mass. So since the beginning of the state, you think it's violated the rights of others? Well, there was a period until 1967 where, I mean, yeah, Israeli Arabs were under martial law

until the 60s, and then since 67, we've been occupying the West Bank. And we currently control as many citizens as there are in Israel, as many citizens as there are between the river and the sea, there's just as many non-citizens that are neither sovereign nor equal. I guess what I'm getting at is, is it your position that Jews would be better off if Israel had not been created? Well, very clearly we saw shortly after the creation of Israel how Israel did create a haven for many Jews

from Middle East and North Africa. So that was very clearly proof that the state of Israel did do good for Jews. When I look at today's world, I think it's probably a net negative for us. Now, it doesn't have to be. And part of my desire to do something and change the situation is because

I want to see Israel or whatever the institution's rolling the land. I want to see them thrive. I want to see them be able to protect the people living on the land, which is my family. So what do you mean by less safe? How are Jews less safe because of Israel? Well, where are they less safe? So I think if you look at the place where Jews are most likely to be killed for being Jewish, it's in Israel.

We've lost 20,000 Jews defending Israel, weren't terror attacks. We haven't lost nearly that amount in any other place since. So it is one of the single most dangerous places to be Jews. Well, it's the single most dangerous place to be a Jew where Jews live. America is the most dangerous place, by that definition, for Americans to live because we've lost so many. the Americans fighting wars, it's not really... No, no, no, but here... There's no, no, no, but the counterfactual here is, if Israel didn't exist, then Jews would be living in the diaspora, where I don't think we would have lost 20,000 Jews

since the Holocaust in the diaspora. Well, okay. We could speculate, but I don't think... So, okay, it's interesting to get into that because this is right. So you already mentioned the Arabic Jews, you know, the Jews from the Arab countries that came over. Now, I think you'll agree with what I'm going to say, there's more to life than living, right?

many people have risked their lives to not live as second-class citizens. And without Israel, we can imagine all the Arab Jews living as second-class citizens, all the Ethiopians living as second-class citizens, all the Soviet Jews living as second-class citizens, who knows what would have come of all the Jews, hundreds of thousands of Jews after the Holocaust. And I'm sure I'm forgetting smaller populations of Jews from all over the world. who may not have been killed.

I mean, I'm not sure the 20,000 number is that far off from how would have happened, but the fact that millions of Jews are living head held high and not living under the thumb or at the whim of anti-Semitic states that has to give you pause. Sure, I mean...

Would you want those Ethiopians to go back to Africa? But so, no, I think you're not fully understanding my position because my conclusion was never, currently Israel is making Jews less safe. Therefore, the right thing to do is to just dismantle the state and find where to go. It's to transform the state to be such a state that, A, we can live in peace, B, we don't need to control another population and deny them their rights and C, where it doesn't contribute to negative sentiment. In fact, I think the state of Israel, if it transforms sufficiently, then it could be clearly a net positive for Jews, A, are safety, and B, how we're perceived.

No, no. That's what I hope for our country. So for America at the time of Jim Crowe, we can make the same arguments you're making without implicating the creation of America. It's the nexus I don't understand. If you want to tell me that Israel has injustices, I would say, yes, put it on the list of countries that have injustices. I mean, I don't know if the injustices warrant more UN resolutions about Israel than every other nation on Earth combined. But yes, I'm actually, I've sat on this show if I had children in Israel

and they dedicated their lives to fighting the injustice of Palestinians way their treat on the West Bank, I'd be very proud of them because there's no doubt in my mind the injustices are real. But the nexus between that and rethinking the creation of the state,

that's a uniquely Jewish thing to do. America never did that, right? We never doubted the creation of the state in light of Jim Crow. And Jim Crow was at least as bad, right? I mean, Jim Crow was pretty bad. So I can't really...

I don't think I really understand what your point is. I mean, I understand your point about the injustice of White Palestinian Street on the West Bank, but I don't understand the point of Israel making Jews less safe. It's made Jews obviously much more safe. I mean, and of course, you know, prior to October 7th,

Jews were like 20, 30, 40 times safer in Tel Aviv than they ever were in New York City, right? I mean, it's not like... No, I don't think that's true. Not with suicide bombings and stabbing attacks that we've had. Oh, no, I looked at... If you're looking at domestic crime, for sure, but if you... Talk about being able to live safely. Okay.

I mean, we could look at the day... Prior to 10-7... I also don't want to get stuck on this point because I don't think it's the most important, and I don't think we even disagree on that much. Okay, but it is, I'm going to stuck on it, but it is actually good for people to help the perspective. I just wanted to tell you, that to me is just an honest reflection. It's reflecting on my people, on my nation,

and seeing the impact it has. What you saw there when I said that is me just having an honest reflection of the result of our actions, and I think it's an honest reflection. You didn't feel this way before October 7th? No. Maybe I felt like that for some short moments with other operations in Gaza,

where we saw, you know, civilians being killed. But generally speaking, my sense that Israel is making Jews less safer, net negative for Jews increased significantly after October. So let me give the stat and then you can let Hathamian. So just as a, the stats are as good as chat GPT, pro research, deep research, you know, the pro-engine deep. Pretty good. Yeah, hopefully.

prior to October 7th, the baseline for deaths in Israel from terrorism was 0.43 per 100,000. In New York City, in the 90s, it was 30 for 100,000, so about like 60-70x, and it's come down since then, but it's still much, much higher than that. Chicago, now, post-107, if you want to just... Wait, no, I'm, can I ask you a question about that data? So you're comparing... Let me get it out. Okay, okay. So post 10-7, if you want to use a one-day outliers,

like, you know, including 9-11 and New York statute. But anyway, Israel brings Israel for that. You're up to 12 deaths per 100,000. Chicago, as we speak, is 18 deaths per 100,000. So, you know, even with October 7th, Israel is not less safe for Jews than a, you know, industrial city in America. The data you just read is that deaths per 100,000s amongst Jews in these cities or all people?

Jews. Okay, so you're saying in Chicago, Jews are killed. There's 18 murders per 100. Oh, no, I actually tried to hone in on that. No, no. So it makes a big distinction because overwhelmingly the death toll in large cities is gang violence. So I don't think we have sufficient data to reach that. Well, in New York City.

in it was not gang violence. In Chicago, it may be. The point is that however you want to look at it, and you can look at it from different angles, life in Tel Aviv is pretty damn safe compared to what many free people expect from their governments. But go ahead. I don't disagree at all. Okay, so go ahead. You know, interesting, I was listening to the same interview that you were listening to in a way here.

And I think you made a very good point. Of course you do. No, when you said, when you compare it to 9-11. He said Islamophobia did exist, but 9-11 made it more, you know, which is- It did not exist. Islamophobia didn't exist? Before 9-11? I never heard, I lived in New York my whole life, I never heard one person express an Islamophobic

remark. You used to give me Islamophobic remark all the times. What are you talking about? Whether it existed before or not besides the point, right? I'm not sure is this now. No, but yeah, but the thing is like when a major thing happened, like October 7th or the war in Gaza, you know, stuff, of course the state of Israel will be blamed for, so I see the point of, you know, that it caused more. It didn't cause because of it, but it fueled it. And that's what he was trying to say in the interview, that it fueled it. There's something that already exists. People that hate you, already going to hate you for any reason, but something like that's going to fuel you even more. Okay, but it's also very important to acknowledge that. And we can. get into, I'm trying to stay out of the weeds on what happened in 1948, you know, when

we heard in the news recently that something like 2,000 Iranians were massacred in one day or something like that, it occurred to me that this will be forgotten a few weeks from now, but the fact that 150 Palestinians were massacred at Darienin in 1948 in the midst of a war never, ever, ever gets forgotten. And there's something about the fact that basically there's dirt on the hands of all peoples who've ever fought a war. And it does remind me of this fact that the UN has had more resolutions against Israel than any other country, every other country combined. But just to sketch what the world was like in 1948, in America,

blacks were not even allowed to use the same water fountain. America had just dropped atom bombs. Movement of, you know, open war on civilians was considered the way civilized nations were fighting wars. Father Coughlin, who was this anti-Semitic preacher, I don't know if you know about this guy. He's a big part of American history. He was the largest radio show, anti-Semitic preacher, the largest radio show host in America. His broadcast routinely got twice as many listeners than Rose's. Roosevelt's fireside chats.

25% to 1-3rd of Americans would listen to these broadcasts. And in that context, we can certainly focus on Israel's behavior in 1948. But there's something quite unfair about it if we're going to pretend that Israel's behavior was not at the top end of the way nations believed, nations behavior. in 1948 in terms of the way they conducted themselves in war and such. And by the way, it's a very important point. I've made it already a year ago. We also have to remember that the people fighting the War of Independence,

many of them directly delivered from the Holocaust. This was the second genocidal war they had fought. They were closer to the Holocaust than we are to COVID. That is how fresh they were out of the camps. and the fact that Jews like you, forgive me, are not judicious about this and that you feed these callow and simplistic and shallow narratives

of a bunch of kids who don't even know any better. I mean, yeah, you know what, for before, you know what, damped down anti-Semitism? The Holocaust. That's the only thing I'm aware of in history that ever has reduced anti-Semitism. And now that the memory of the Holocaust is fading, we see regression to the mean. And are we supposed to think that Tucker Carlson and Candice Owens and all these fucking lunatics and Francesca Albanese, you know, who talks about Jewish money and Jewish control and that these people are our fault? I mean, fault is definitely not the right way to look at it.

Those who are hateful are... Where are the people hating Russians? I don't see any Russian on the street being hated, needing bodyguards, need protection. There's Russian school of math all over... I don't know if that's actually... But they don't have security guards because of what they're doing in Ukraine. Right. But somehow, we need that.

And it's our fault. It's our fault for the way we fought back on October. seventh. But if that, but if you were right, this would be normal to every population whose people are doing something bad around the world. But it's only us, right? Is there any other example? There is actually. There is actually. First of all, when Russia invaded Ukraine, we saw businesses, Russian businesses in New York getting attacked. Attacked? Yeah, yeah, they vandalized. Wait, hold on. Let me finish this point. I don't think that Russians are targeted to nearly the same degree as Jews are targeted. Has a single Russian been attacked? We could look into it. We know,

businesses. But I remember people, people stopped going to Russian restaurants for a while, and then they forgot about it a few weeks later. Let me, if only, yeah. I'll just go through some other data points. During COVID, we saw anti-Asian hate. No, we didn't. That's, that's, that's, that's, bunk. That's something you read in Israel. That's, if, Andrew Sullivan wrote a lot about this, many people wrote a lot about this. There wasn't an increase in anti-Asian. I don't believe. If it was, it was marginal, I think that was a whole hysterical thing. I mean,

there were long articles written looking at those past. I think it's... There was certainly a spike then. People for... Spike from like 20 incidents to 21 incidents. Oh, yes. But I think there's a more important point here. Because this isn't

about blame. You could say that Jews are treated unfairly. That when Israel does something that there's more backlash towards Jews, then if Russia does something, like there's something disproportionate there. I think that's probably true. I also see that Israel gets a disproportionate amount of attention.

We often see that and we're like, there's no way to make sense of this aside from anti-Semitism. I have a pretty good theory as to what creates this disproportionate hate and anti-Semitism plays into it, but I don't think that's the main factor. I think we often, say, like right now when people were being killed in Iran, they were saying, why aren't the pro-Palestine movement focusing on these people, right? Why don't they care about Iranians being

killed? Why don't they care about Sudanese being killed? Having my mic fixed. Okay. To all the listeners, I hope you could hear me better now. Um, no human has capacity to care about all people equally. We all have... I do, but go ahead, go ahead. Okay. So maybe you're unique. When there's a terror attack in Europe. But it's not much. Not much care. Well, no, I was actually going to say, I was going to say the only people who care about everyone equally are psychopaths who don't care about anybody, right? Okay. You made my point. Yeah. So, when there's a terror attack in Europe, it gets disproportionate tension in America, more so than a terror attack in Africa. I mean, thousands of times more attention. Is this a double standard? Is this hypocrisy, or do we just

have a different hierarchy of concern for life for various different reasons. So generally this hierarchy works, you care most about your loved ones and then your community, and then maybe people of your nationality, ethnicity, religion, the circle grows and grows, and that's kind of our hierarchy of care. Now, the Palestinian cause has taken decades to build. We're talking about multiple generations of building this movement in the United States. This has brought it as part of the collective consciousness of Westerners. Okay, what you're saying is not, I don't want to finish, but it's really not true. I mean, go ahead.

No, I mean, I mean, the history of the pro-Palestine movement started in the 60s, and it has been growing ever since. So the care about the Palestinians has been a many-generational process, which has made it part of the collective consciousness. Now, we can speculate on what has made this movement popular in the West, and there's many reasons. Anti-Semitism is one of them. I think another one is simply that Muslims are more likely to support Palestinians over Jews. I think the left support the weak over the powerful. I think that there's a disproportionate institutional focus on Israel as well in terms of funding and support from governments.

The fact that every presidential debate, Israel is a topic, this gets people to focus on it. The fact that it's the Holy Land and we're living in majority Christian nations, there's a lot of reasons is why Israel-Palestine gets disproportionate tension. So because it's part of our collective consciousness, when Palestinians are killed, there's gonna be a greater degree of concern over that than other people. So let me answer you.

I'm not gonna score that a zero, because obviously, yes, we are kind of trained already to be concerned about certain places in the world based on just like growing up in America. That's what's on the news. You follow a narrative and you're aware of it and you've heard about it. So, of course, you're interested to see what the next chapter is, almost like a soap opera, right?

But with Iran, there was a lot of concern about it when Trump wanted to bomb and did bomb the nuclear facilities. Now, this has been an assumption in American foreign policy always, that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb. This is not new to Trump. Obama said it, Clinton said it, they all said it. But when the regime looked like it's faltering and, you know, I don't think it's going to fall, but let's say it's faltering and could fall,

I actually ask people, you might have seen it on Twitter, I asked Glenn Greenwald. I said, you know, all politics aside, you're rooting for the people in Iran, right? He would not say yes. I saw that. Yeah. So that belies what you're saying. And my armchair analysis is this. Well, it's twofold.

One is people like Greenwald and many people do not want Iran out of the picture because they understand And Iran is the main fuel for Hezbollah, for Hamas, for the Houthis, for all of Israel's most potent enemies. Number one, and he does not want that to stop. He does not want Hezbollah without money. He does not want Hezbollah without money. He wants Iran constantly putting the pressure on Israel. And number two, they can't bear it to turn out that actually Israel's actions on October 7th, since October 7th, and Trump's policies actually might turn the Middle East around.

That in the end, you know, we can get into the things that you think Israel has done that are unforgivable, atrocities, war crimes. But if they come out of this situation with Hezbollah defanged, Hamas defanged, and Iran defanged, and maybe even Iran toppled, then the result is going to be virtually. impossible for anybody to argue with. In other words, you can say, yes, we shouldn't have dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima. I'll never stop saying we should not have dropped that atom bomb, but nobody can argue with the fact that it was good we defeated Imperial Japan. And these people, and there's huge numbers of them now, they want to see Israel destroyed.

They have moved, they have shifted this dialogue from not that long ago when it was always, yes, of course Israel has a right to exist, but they need to get out of the occupied territory. all of the attention now is on 1948. All the attention on now is maybe Israel should be dismantled. Anti-Zionist. What does anti-Zionist mean? Anti-Zionist means no two-state solution. It's not anti-Israel. I don't like the fact that they haven't extricated itself as occupation. We don't want the existence of Israel. How can you mean anti-Zionist?

I mean, that's what it means. No more Israel. I don't quite agree with that definition because... Can you say that I'm anti-Zionist? but I believe in Israel's right to exist. Yeah, I would say... But most people don't... Yeah, well, I know, so we have a different reference point. When you talk to Western anti-Zionists,

that's probably their position. But even Israeli Arabs, very few of them, like close to none of them identify Zionist, and a lot of them support two states. In fact, now, when we look at recent polling in the West Bank in Gaza, you have around 50% supporting two states. They're all anti-Zionist.

So Palestinians have accepted... Many Palestinians have accepted Israel, and they do not. But you actually do agree with my basic point, that they've shifted the debate back to 1948. Well, I think the Western activists are doing Palestinians a disservice because they are promoting unrealistic solutions that very well may prolong the conflict. Yeah, most of my experience with anti-Zionists or Palestinians when I visit them in the West. I do protective presence sometimes in the West Bank. I go to Ramallah in Bethlehem.

It is against the law, but I go and I interact, and these are the anti-Zionists. The meeting, and they're quite different from these Western anti-Zionists. So I think we have a slightly different reference point. But typically the Palestinians do want the destruction of Israel. Sure, why wouldn't they? Well, there's a good reason they shouldn't want it, because they've been suffering since 1948. They have to get practical. Israel's not going anywhere.

Right. Sure. So one is them being pragmatic, right? What is a feasible solution? The other is a desire. So let's just look at Israelis. If Israelis could press a button and have Palestinians disappear, they would. Why wouldn't they? Who wants their enemy to stay on the same land as them? We would both sides would disappear the other if we could. But it's not the same. Wait, but we understand that we can't do that. Or many of us understand that we can't do that. So that's where pragmatism steps in.

So one is a desire, sure, people want to get rid of their enemy, but people also understand, and I hope more so over time, that you can't just get rid of your enemy and you need to learn to live with them. And that's actually one of the points I want to make here, because I still firmly believe peace is possible, right? I've deeply gotten to know both societies, and I believe that peace is very much possible.

What I'm about to say is less true now than it once was, but I still think it's basically true. when I say what it once was, meaning in the, during the early 2000s, when something like 80% of Israel favored two-state solution. And 100, 125,000 people showed up in the Tel Aviv Square there for peace now. You know, that doesn't exist anymore. The problem with what you say, or the way I find fault, is that Israel would push the button to eliminate, the threat. Some percentage of Israelis, the messianic ones, would push the button to just get rid

of the Palestinians off the land so they could all move into it. But this is not the priority of the Israelis that I know. Priorities of the Israelis that I know is I don't want to send my kids to fight and die in wars anymore. I don't want to worry about terrorism. I want to, I want this threat eliminated. If I'm happy to push a button or if just, you know, a Sadat or a Gandhi or somebody said, no more Israel. We're done with this. That's enough for me. the Palestinians push the button. They want the Israelis out. They don't want peace.

That's not true. They want them gone. Well, not 100%, but all you... And you have to differentiate between... The only reason I say, and the answer is because then point to me one leader of the Palestinians, one newspaper,

one newsletter, one website that preaches peace. Wait, no, but is it hard to understand why they want to sound? Like, to me, I think that it's... It shouldn't be too hard. hard to understand why they would want somebody who has caused them so much harm to leave. Exactly. That was my point. You have to differentiate between those who are like innocent people

that children died as well. They want, you know, they were mis-prey. First of all the time. It was all the Arab countries. In 1948, they all attacked. We hadn't done them all that harm that you're talking about when they tried to drive the Jews into the sea in 1948. So now we're going back to 1940s? No. And then in 1967, when Nassar put all his troops on the the border and was talking and Israel thought another the Holocaust was coming and Jordan attacked. We hadn't done them the harm then. And then when they said

no negotiation, no recognition, no peace when Israel wanted to give it back, they hadn't done them harm then. And then in 2000 and 2008 when Israel met and tried to give it back and there's a pretty damn good proposals, you know, in 98%

of the capital east Jerusalem, the Ulmer plan. And by the way, this also extends to the Obama administration. they said, no, we're not interested. They didn't say, well, you're close, but just make these changes and we have a deal. There's a story where Indic talked about in 2014,

where Obama tried to interest Abbas in his plan, and he said, Abbas showed no interest. No interest. So these are not mirror images of each other. And this is, you know, as I'm saying all this, I want you to know. I'm sure I agree with you. on 65% of the things that you're outraged with of Israeli behavior.

These fucking settlers and what's going on and the, you know, I'm going to mitigate only in some way to say that any time you give kids with a uniform and guns and power over other people, this is a human weakness, but there's no excuse for it. I know, we know the Palestinians, and I've heard stories of the humiliation, the sadism. Like, the rage, I get that's, that's, That's all real.

But that's not what's driving the conflict. That might drive the hatred. What's driving the conflict is leadership, in my opinion, that cannot bear to see this thing end. Because if they wanted it to end, it would have ended. It would have ended. It's also years of being treated unfairly. So many people died that innocent people

that were not involved that wanted peace. Hey, that's not just the Arabs. The Jews, how about all people blown up in the second Intifada? You cannot compare the numbers. And the way. Yes, you can. No, no, no. How many Palestinians died versus Jews that died?

For the innocent people. We're talking to just specific innocent people. You cannot compare the numbers because, yes, you're right about that. But the fact is that Israel didn't occupy the territories until it was attacked. And Israel didn't really ramp up these draconian measures. It doesn't justify it, though. Didn't ramp up the draconian measures until the second into Fada. And there is nobody, you know, Adar,

I'm sure would move the measures to the left. I think I would agree with him. I don't think he's under the impression that Israel doesn't need security measures on the West Bank. No, and I have some solid ideas for what we could do to make. You want to switch to that? Well, I want to stay on this for a little longer because the way Palestinians feel about us and us feeling about them is not exactly the same. I don't disagree with that. I think it's important to understand how they perceive us and how they've perceived it since the early 19 teens. We, and I understand. And in the Quran.

No. So I actually, we could get into that. Hadiths. Descendants of apes and pigs. No. Okay. There was no Israel and Hadith. We could get into that, but whatever role Islam contributes to the conflict,

I believe it is a relatively minor contribution. Not in Hamas. Well, I'll get into that as well. Okay, go ahead. I'll let you speak. Go ahead. So I understand the motivation of Zionists and why our people wanted to reestablish a homeland where we could be safe and control our destiny. I'm the grandson of a Holocaust survivor. This was an attempt for us to really be safe and ensure our destiny. to Palestinians, like what we view as an indigenous rights movement returning home, to them were indistinguishable from colonizers. We are a foreign population who started showing up en masse, claiming the land as our own. We didn't treat them with dignity and respect.

We came with a patronizing attitude, and we were very clear in our aspiration that this land is ours. We have a lot of examples throughout history with similar dynamics. with populations showing up en masse and claiming it for their own. Every single time that happened, that was met with violence. It was met with rejection. It was met with violence, and it takes general... What are you referring to? I'm not... Don't doubt you, but what are you referring to?

We could look at the colonization of the United States. To remember the Native Americans. Yeah, yeah, yeah, they reject. Let's even take an example that's related to us. We fought the Romans for 300 years when they conquered the land. We weren't willing to compromise. We weren't willing to partition. This is ours.

We're going to fight. they felt they Palestinians felt a similar way. Yeah we didn't call it Israel didn't conquer the land but okay. Well we didn't conquer it well after 48 we conquered it through military means but before that it was through political means because we were well we were better funded we had better connections we just we we defeated them politically in a way that is essentially politically conquering but is this fair because this is an interesting issue to me. I just I just it's not the fairness isn't no I was going to say something.

I was going to ask you with something. For me, we just need to understand how they reach the conclusions they reach and what their grievance is. So we always look at rejection as if it's this, why wouldn't they, like, half the land for us, half the land for them? That's such a fair solution, right? 50, 50. But to them, it's, why should we give 50% of our land to these Europeans who just showed up one day?

Rejection should be expected. And at the time, it was, I think, known that Arabs would reject. partition, no population before them accepted something similar. Now, it takes a long time to convince a population. No, that's not true. India and Pakistan were partitioned. No, but that... And millions were thrown out of their homes. Yeah, yeah. There's been... Yeah, yeah. No, wait, hold on. That's the way the world existed. Wait, wait, wait. I'm very familiar with that example. I'm not just talking about partition. I'm talking about partitioning to a population that showed up in mass. So let me ask you, That's what I want to. Let me ask you about that. This is a dynamic we've seen countless times in the form of colonialism and settler colonialism.

And even if we don't, if we want to object to us truly being colonizers, there's no reason Palestinians would view us any different. Just to add to that before you say. They respond to us as such. Yeah, Israel intention was not always peaceful. 1956 they tried to extend, which you always, you know, you mentioned 48, 67, you always missed 56 in purpose. and the greater Israel that Nia Shor on the map, there was intentioned. So how do you have the Arabs feel that this is a peaceful movement? Yeah, well, 56 is something. I still want to finish this point.

Go ahead, finish me. So there was rejection. And then in 67, I also understand our desire to secure the West Bank. We were under threat. But then we made a decision to incentivize our citizens to move in there, which requires security. the security apparatus in the West Bank is inherently oppressive towards Palestinians. Moving citizens in there, the way we did was not a necessity. It was a choice.

Now, it takes a long time to convince a population to accept your existence on land that they believe is theirs. And it requires a lot of work. Now, we have made immense progress, and I think we often discount the progress we made. the majority of our neighbors have accepted us on the land. We have security cooperation with Jordan and Egypt. We have security cooperation with the PA. We have normalization with Morocco and Bahrain. We have Syria and Saudi Arabia open to normalization. Who would have thought this is possible?

And again, the PLO transformed to the PA, and this is not some like big PA shill, but they are a relatively moderate faction who we have had security cooperation with for decades now. They have helped us prevent the third intifada. To not see this as immense progress that should be built on is a huge mistake. Okay. So I wish I knew my world history better.

I know that there's New Zealand, in Australia, and America, and many places where people with much less justification or context have moved into land. And eventually these things were settled. But just a few notes. And by the way, in Oslo, the Palestinians, purported to accept Israel. So much of this is superseded. I would also say that

when, at the point where they threw huge numbers of Jews out of the Arab countries to Israel, that was there accepting the existence of Israel. You can't throw them out of your country to Israel and say, by the way, Israel can't exist.

That's an interesting point. So, you know, they have it both ways. And, of course, you and nobody, I mean, see, it's absurd, but what about our land in these all over the world? What about our land in Arab countries? What about our land in Poland? We move on. More importantly, in my opinion, it's very important to be fair. And by the way, I agree with you much of what you said.

I'm adding more context, but I actually agree with your narrative there. Jews were the majority or close to the majority in Jerusalem on and off, according to these very statutes through the 1800. They're getting this shit kicked out of them all over the world. There is nothing intuitively upsetting

that anybody would say, or not plausible, they may say, listen, Adar, we've got to get the hell out of Poland. Let's move to Palestine and join our existing community in Israel, in Palestine, that's been there for thousands of years. It's quite different than saying let's pick like a Dr. Doolittle, let's put a pin somewhere in the map. So let's move there and take over that land. I say, no, we actually have a presence there in Palestine, in that particular city in Jerusalem. We're actually the majority.

This has been our entire history. It's sparsely populated from either population. Tel Aviv was just one big swamp. There were no Arabs of Palestinians living in Tel Aviv. Although, if you listen to Hamas, Tel Aviv is occupied Palestinian land. So if you really

get in demand good faith from both sides, there is something to their narrative, but there's also much lacking to that narrative in terms of good faith of it. At the point where they're worried about land that they never lived in,

at the point where they're not willing to acknowledge it all, And actually, yeah, at that time of the world, it was not out of the ordinary to move somewhere else. It's an Ottoman thing. You come in, you buy land. You didn't create, again, I'm just repeating it, but it's very important.

Didn't create our population there. We're joining our existing population there. We're going to grow it. So, you know, wait, wait, so you can view it this way, that way, this nuance, that nuance. But in the end, they have to move on. You're missing? They are killing, Jews killing them.

They are causing such suffering to their own people. I'll say, there's one other thing. Benny Morris, I asked him, was there ever a time in Israeli history when an Israeli leader came to a crossroads, a fork in the road? And if he'd only gotten that way, instead of this way, there'd be peace. And at first he said, no. He can't think of one. Then he stopped.

He says, no, one time. He said, after six. 67, Israel should have just unilaterally pulled out. So along the lines of what you're saying. And he acknowledged, he says, it's asking a lot for them to have understood that. It was reasonable for them at the time to have thought, we'll hold on to this and we'll return it. And the quid pro quo will be peace, right? They'll agree to peace and we'll get back to the land.

But in retrospect, he said that's the one thing, that was the one opportunity maybe for there to be peace. And by the way, just said one thing I have said on this show a few times, people always stern with me about it. To this day, and I'm always set straight, and then I find myself constantly veering that mentally again, I always wonder, like, maybe it would still be better off to just unilaterally withdraw from everywhere. I understand the risks because of this irritant.

So I'm not in stark disagreement with you on certain ways, but I'm just not so forgiving of the Palestinian psychologists. Let me just say that, yeah, when you said they all wanted to move to that place where the majority, also ignoring the part that it's the second holiest place in Islam, to Mecca. And the first holiest place? Sure, sure, sure. But there is a historic. That it matters.

Isn't it the third holiest for Muslims? There's Mecca Medina and then- They count Maca-Medina like one, yeah. But the other thing is like you also, you know. Your wily bunch. Mecca-Medina is like the same. But also, the fact. that do they trust Israel?

Again, the greater Israel. Nat Niajo showing that map, you know, the 1956 war that you were about to answer, never answered. That was the European, the Suez Canal. Sure, but it was intention. But you can't go over quickly. It shows the intention of Israel.

Put a gun to the head of most Arab people. I know they don't even know what happened in 56. It's not something that is on their minds because no one talks about it. It shows the intention. The thing is like... The intention was the Europeans wanted to, they want to get the Suez Canal about. But also Israel was part of it. Israel helped.

The thing is like, do you, when you say, like, you don't trust Palestinians when you say peace, because if the... No, I trust them. I want to hear them say it. But no, you said before maybe in another conversation that if the leader of Palestine or Arab made a deal, if he get assassinated or killed a son, somebody else who's going to take over, it's again. So you don't trust him that way. They also don't trust Israel because the intention is always to expand. You know, that's a fact. See, this is fantasy.

Allmert ran on a promise to withdraw from the West Bank unilaterally in whatever, 2007, there was no greater Israel map that Nihaw showed in the United Nations? No, no. There's no intention of getting... There's a little misconception there. Greater Israel has two definitions. It means all the land between the river and the sea, and then it means greater Israel, including Jordan and Lebanon and this.

there's no real political movement within Israel for that greater Israel. That's more so a conspiracy than anything else. There's some fringe extremists that want to expand beyond the Jordan River. But generally when Israelis are saying greater Israel, they're referring to all the land between the river and the sea. And the settlement moving on and on and on. You're talking about Israeli not trusting the Palestinian, but you don't want to talk about Palestinian not trust in Israel as well.

No, I acknowledged it. I acknowledged it. Since we don't have so much time, I still have a few important points. Please make your points. Go ahead. So you said something about you're not forgiving of Palestinian psychology. I said I'm more, I'm less forgiving than you are. I'm not, I actually, I'm not not forgiving of it.

Okay. Go ahead. I think that it's very intuitive and natural to see cultural problems we see and want that to change, but a culture has never changed because we wish it to change, cultures and people are products of their environment. To whatever degree Israel controls the environment of Palestinians is also the degree in which we can influence who they are and how they see the world.

So currently we impose on them an environment in the West Bank in Gaza that is a radicalizing environment. We have immense power to change the environment to be one that is de-radicalizing, one that creates where Palestinians are born in and they grew up into adults who want to live side by side with their Jewish neighbors. Are you including that, including in that description, Gaza immediately after Israel withdrew? And they've elected Hamas or Hamas, you know, elected and then took over.

No, I mean, did we radicalize Gaza? We shouldn't expect change to happen overnight. But we have very clear data on this. Israeli Arabs, they're Palestinian. Most still identify as Palestinian. They do not hate Israelis. They don't hate Jews because over. overwhelmingly, they have positive experience with Jews.

If you live in the West Bank, you've met only soldiers and settlers. You are going to grow up hating Jews. Regardless of what your education system says, your experience is going to lead you to the conclusion that we're bad people. So if we have issue with their culture and we control their environment to a large degree, well, then that is on us to create environmental change. That is more hospitable to peace and coexistence. And there's a lot we can do. And I just want to, I don't know if we'll have time for everything.

Go ahead. Go ahead. So as long as Jews live in the West Bank, there will need to be security, at least for now. I don't think it's politically feasible to remove them, nor do I think it's humane. I think generally we shouldn't uproot people from their homes, even if they're currently living there illegally according to international, and even if they're living there with... Oh, they should be uprooted. They knew the risk going in if they moved in illegally, but go ahead, go ahead. Well, no, they don't think it's illegal, though.

They don't, they don't, most Israelis don't care for international law, the law of the land, says it's fine. The Israeli government... You know what I'm saying? So they don't think it's illegal. I just don't think... I see ways we could have peace without uprooting anybody. So I would prefer to explore the most humane, peaceful ways possible. If we need to uproot people,

then I can get behind it, but I think that should be a last resort. So the security apparatus in the West Bank is a protector for Jews, but is seen as inherently oppressive for Palestinians. I think we should replace that security apparatus with a shared Israeli-Palestinian institution, a security force of Israelis and Palestinians, that all people

living in the West Bank of you as a protector. This is the, this starts to create an environment where Palestinians see Jews as protectors and somebody they can rely on. That is going to change how they perceive us. So that's just one example. So, so, okay, I, I don't, sounds very reasonable, right? I feel like you represent to me a certain kind of idealistic person. And by the way, from time to time, the idealistic dreamers turn out to be correct. Herzl? No, in America, too. So I don't discount idealism. I like it. I can be prone to it myself. It needs to be rooted in pragmatism, though. But quite often, as they said, no plan survives contact with the enemy, quite often the world intervenes.

And you could just imagine the Hamas types, the truly hateful types, which are not a small number, exploiting this with insurgent type things and just making it an impossible thing. But if I could vote on what you suggest to give it a try, of course, I think. we should give it a try. Part of my, I always worried about, always worry about, you know, being bigoted in some way. And what is it?

And some people who worry about being bigoted, of course, overcompensate. And we saw that in America where, you know, I'm just bashing white people about everything and all the trouble that's caused now. But one of the things that I, that comes to my mind quite often,

and I've said it to the hot time before and he gets mad. is that I try to control for Israel, and I look at all the other tribal conflicts, Sunni Shiite, Ali, Al-Awaite, Wahhabi, you know, I just pulled up like there's 12 in the last 20 years with a million people dead. And I wonder to myself,

why would we think in a large group of people where not one tribe lives peacefully with the other, that the Jews are the one tribe they are ready to live peacefully with. I just, that gnaws at me. Yes, the Palestinian Arabs, I'm sorry, the Israeli Arabs, I was what, Musavuk corrected me on saying it the wrong way,

so I'm always, what's the proper way to refer to them? In Israel, they refer to as Israeli Arabs, but... They don't like that. Many of them would prefer to be considered Palestinian citizens of Israel. Okay. So I want to be respectful. The Palestinian citizens of Israel, they've grown up around Israelis.

They are 20% of the doctors there. Like they have probably the most fulfilling lives of any Arabs other than, you know, Sheik money Arabs in the Middle East. They can have children there and you can say, my child can be a doctor, a lawyer, or anything can leave. So they may be the one example of kind of marinated in the perfect opposite environment that they'll tolerate Israel. Like they're not thrilled about it either, but they look over the West Bank and they're like, no, you know, I don't think I want to go live over there. But other than that, I fear that the general psychology is just too tribal. And when you look at what Hamas and the polls show now, Hamas would get reelected.

in Gaza and in the West Bank. And that's stunning to me. I don't think so. Yeah, but the polls show. The Shikaki, is that his name? The Poles said his name? The Polishmane, the Palestinian pollster, the one that's considered reliable, he shows.

I always say the same thing. When you see, and I give that example over and over, when you see a hostage from coming out next to Hamas and kissing them and laughing and thanking them, they're scared. They're doing this because not because they love Hamas. It's the exact same thing with the people that live there. They're scared of Hamas. So get rid of Hamas.

don't finance them, and then you will have peace. All right, let's let callers in. By the way, this is very nice conversation. I like the idea. I think it would work. No, I always feel like all these ideas should be tried. Even if you're skeptical, unless there's some real risk, like, of course, like, the notion that nobody should consider the psychology of a person who's raised with the Israeli soldier

is always as fucking brute. I mean, anybody who understands how black people in America, came to see the police, this is worse. Like, this is real. I don't, like, does that make me some sort of liberal to acknowledge what's obvious and true? No. I'll bring it in the next meeting. And I just, before we take callers, we have three people on the line.

Okay, go on every ready. Go let him say last thing. I want us as a people to not be okay and comfortable with needing to control another population. Yes, of course. And I understand why we've lost motivation. with failed peace agreements, where negotiations, lit to violence,

I get it. But part of my, the mission of my advocacy is for Jews and Israelis to say, this is not a reality we could accept. We need to do everything

in our power to be able to live on the land, be safe on the land, but without needing to deny another people their rights. And I think, and so that's a message I want to.

And yes, and their obligation is to help us to make that feasible and sellable. And truly, honestly, the people there. One frigging cafe

blown up or one school bus blown up and it's all undone. And they will certainly do it. But the majority don't want it. They really want it. They really do. I agree. But it has to be a critical mass.

In other words, this is the problem. We're actually on the same side. My feeling is that, yes, they'll do this. And then Hamas will blow up a school bus and Israel will say, Israelis will say, I don't disagree with you.

But my child is not the front line for this. They have to, they have to meet us, you know, 25% on the way. All right, calls. Go ahead. Calls. Ari, you're here. Ari's been waiting for a while.

Okay, Ari, come on. Hey, how are you guys doing? I had a conversation with Adar a couple months back, so I hope he's doing well. But my question and where I kind of went around in circles with him is that I believe Adar kind of feels that I think he will openly say that it's a genocide. And with that carries, you know, a specific intent to try to, kill every person or kill a lot of people, even if they're innocent and with a clear deliberation of that. And at the same time, he also advocates for a one-state solution.

I didn't hear him say that today. I didn't hear him say that today. In our call, so maybe he's changed his mind and he could maybe elaborate on it. But to me, it seems completely unreasonable. If you're willing to commit genocide, you carry this real hatred of the other people, such to the point where you're willing to kill an innocent person or thousands of innocent people. All right. So there's that point. Let a dar answer. Okay, go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah, I mean, generally when I describe what's happening in Gaza, I use terms like morally indefensible, one of the worst atrocities of the 21st century. But I don't object to people

calling it a genocide. Though somebody once told me, they said, I don't think it's a genocide. I think it's just an abundance of war crimes and crimes against humanity. I said, I have zero objection to that. I care I care little for debates on terminology. I want us to be able to describe reality as it is. I think what's happening there is horrific and morally indefensible. So that's... Do you think that the Israeli government deliberately killed thousands of people and targeted them? Meaning, when they evaluated an airstrike, was it that when they saw an innocent person, they were less likely to hit them or they were more likely? Because that's really what we're talking about. I mean, that's where it really comes down to. I'm not talking about individual soldiers, I'm sure,

war crimes. All right, let him answer. Let him answer. I think that the way we got to such horrific levels of civilian death and destruction is not a command from above saying it killed those civilians, rather a reduction of protection for civilians when you use... I'm sorry, you're avoiding it. No, no, he's not. He's not.

And I would say so, but he's not. Hold on. When you have such, when you use... so much kinetic force on a densely populated city with reduction to civilians, you see the destruction we see. Now, I can see why the leadership would want to harm civilians, yes. I can give you three reasons why Israel would want to harm civilians, though I don't think that it was a policy from top down. I think it just happened in the form of reducing protection. So, I agree with that. Okay, Ari, we're going to move on. We've got other callers.

Do you want me to say them? Put Ari on hold if you have time again. Give us a bullet points really quick, but I don't want to debate it. Okay, so after October 7th, I think we didn't quite know what to do, how to best respond, what the outcome will be, but there's many, if you look at what the best outcome Israel could have achieved, at least in Netanyahu's perspective, one is the total defeat of Hamas, the other is the displacement of Gazans out of Gaza. That would have been seen as a win in the eyes of the public. One of the single best ways to get Gazans to leave is to destroy Gaza, make Gaza unlivable, and make life in Gaza unbearable. So you could see a motivation to want to harm civilians if your

goal is to clear... But where could they go? Well, I think we tried to send them into Sinai, right? There was a plan that was floated on October 8th to move them into Sina, and we try. But wait, hold on, hold on. I think it could have been... I don't think I got floated by Netanyahu. Well, Netanyahu openly talks about... Today, he still openly talks about

removing Gazans from Gaza. Wait, wait, that's still a plan. Yeah. So that's one. The second is simply to create a deterrent. Well, actually, let's focus on that last. No, no, because I want to get other calls. Okay, second would be defeating...

To defeat Hamas. If you inflict enough pain on the civilians, you can speculate that that will create... get the civilian population to turn on Hamas. It'll create internal rift amongst Hamas. So yeah, you could see a strategy to want to harm civilians in order to defeat Hamas. I dare say I think some of the people involved in holding up the aid were hoping to bring that about. I imagine. So in the third is a deterrent. If you can't defeat Hamas, if you can't ethnically cleanse Ghazans, at the very least, punish them so severely that they would never want something

like that to happen again. So, I mean, I see clear motivations to want to harm civilians. I see a severe reduction of protections, and I see the result. Yeah. What's interesting to me, and I don't want to debate it because, is that I read some interview with Gallant recently, who seemed to be speaking very bluntly and very critically of Netanyahu and Ben Gavir and all of that. And when questions of this sort were put to him, he's like, what are you talking about? Of course not.

You know, so I, yeah, no, I, I, well. Isn't Hamas compulsive in? But he was critical enough that I felt he would have said, yes, they were trying to, like he would have said, they were trying to get me to have policies to drive them out. But I refuse to do that, you know. I'm reading tea leaves. You realize having someone in Galant's position,

he has a massive incentive to not be honest about something like that. Well, no, because he would put the blame on them. He copped to enough. Yeah, but the backlash for Israel's society. Except that he did indicate that he feels that they could have gotten the hostages out sooner. We could have for sure. But I'm saying for him to admit that, there's no more radioactive thing he could admit than in his opinion the government didn't do right by the hostages. So for my interpretation was if he's ready to admit that, it would be pretty easy for him to admit lesser things.

That was Israelis of Korea. Okay, next call, next call, next call. Just to say quickly, the results, the end. You can say whatever you want. How many civilians die? How many people died? This is the result. This is the end.

How many, you know. Same thing in World War II. We got to take another call. Come on. One last thing. No. Well, because he said I support one state. So maybe I'll address that.

I am what I already said here you didn't. Well, I'm solution agnostic. I will support any solution that will protect the rights of all people living between the river and the sea. Could be a confederation or a federation. I can get behind them. But if it is one state, I want the name to be. Palestine. I just want to change the spelling that

the last, that Stein is S-T-E-I-N. Ah, comedy. To reflect Us-L-L-L-N-A-N. Listen, you can't possibly That's very good. Even my mother, who is his left-wing anti-Zionists

as they come, when pushed, had to admit that you cannot risk having Israel, Jews, live in a majority Muslim state. That would be the end of the Jews.

You just cannot. Nobody can contemplate that. Not in the car. Even if they get the votes? Even if what? If they get more votes to be in the government? And by the way, it didn't work. It doesn't work anywhere has been tried.

Didn't work in Yugoslavia. Didn't work in Lebanon. It didn't work in all sorts of places. Okay, call. Next call. David, go ahead. Hi, good evening. Does the subject have to be specifically related

to what you were discussing with the guest? It's okay to say yes. Yes or sex, which you prefer? Okay, I'll go with yes. Okay. No, you know what? You can float another topic, and I'll veto do it. Go ahead.

Okay. It's really more a suggestion. I wanted to call in to respectfully, I guess, express my disapproval of the caliber of the Orthodox Jewish guests that you've had on thus far as an Orthodox Jew. I sort of saw those episodes, and I felt like... Rabbi Ishae Fischer, is that his name? Yeah, that one was... Yeah, but I didn't roll over for the guy. I argued with him tooth and nail.

No, no, no. You had, I have no issue with anything that you said to these people at all, on the contrary yet. You know, for example, with this last one where Ami... What was this last? Kozak? Well, I'm sure is absolutely a wonderful guy in person. that he wasn't really able to see where you were getting in regards to you're asking him, like, what about this Dinesh D'Souza stuff?

Couldn't you have drawn a line earlier? And he just like, I felt he really could. Well, who would you suggest? What orthodox Jew would you suggest us having on? Okay. Yeah, can you send me a little? No, there's a, sure. There's a couple.

One thing in that I think would be a fellow podcaster, who you may have heard of, you may not have, would be Rabbi Dubbid Bachevkin. I think we would be very interested to talk to. Listen, I reject the premise. I'm not trying to have people on who I agree with. And I thought the thing with Ami was very informative. There is a right-wing group out there who will tolerate anything from within their ranks as long as they're directionally correct on Israel.

the fact that that these right wingers lay down in bed with with Dinesh D'Souza who denied, you know. I hope hardly agree. Yeah. So I thought we brought that out very well. And I thought that's way more interesting than, you know, me putting on someone that you agree with. But anyway, do you want to, you have a clue? No, it's not a matter of agree. Okay, I understand.

It's really not a matter of agree. Disagree. It's more a matter of the ability to, you know, I feel like you have a unique ability to. be able to see things from other people's perspectives, despite if you don't agree with them that you can put yourself in their shoes. My wife would differ, but... I would also disagree with that. Okay, Davin, I, you know, if you want to suggest guests to me,

which is how I found Adar, email me at podcast atcombe.com. And if you could include some links to something like that, that I could actually see them, because they also have to be compelling to listen to. They can't be dull. Certainly. And please he see me in the list of Jews.

Okay, okay. Thank you, David. Next, next. Uh-oh. Email me, a podcast atcombe.com. Okay, you got to turn off your thing there because it's a delay. I can actually, because they also have to be compelling to listen to it. You got to tell this guy to turn. Am I on? Yes, you're on, you're on.

Oh, sorry about that. That's okay. Yeah, so I wanted to talk about settler colonialism and endangered, indigenousity. Okay. Take you, talk about Adar with, talk about it with a dog.

Go ahead. Yeah. So, you know, I looked up the UN definition of both. And it seems like the main points to me

for indigenity that would apply to Jews and not Palestinian Arabs is before colonization. You know, it literally states that this group is here before colonization.

And if, you know, Arabs or Palestinians see themselves as Arabs, from the Arab Peninsula, you know, that would insinuate that they came after. Before you get into that, let me just ask you that, let's say you're right about everything that you're going to say here. What does that lead you to in terms of real world consequences, policies, whatever it is?

Let's say we're indigenous, they're not indigenous. I'm not going to enact the policy. I'm just, I think it's an interesting conversation. I mean, you know, he was talking about settler colonialism before. Yeah, okay, let him have. Talk closer to the mic. I think the more interesting point... Wait, let him get...

You'll get two rounds. Let him answer this point. So, first of all, I think, as I said earlier, I don't care much for debate on terminology. I'm more interested in describing reality as accurately as possible, and we often just use the terms available to us to try to describe this reality. Palestinian Arabs do not consider themselves from the Arabian Peninsula, nor do DNA tests tell us that they're from the Arabian Peninsula. They are primarily Bronze Age 11th DNA.

And by the way, we share some DNA with them, which I think is interesting and something worth noting. But when we— Are you calling my grandmother a whore? I mean, you brought it off, you know. Now, when the term indigenous began to be used to describe people, it was to describe people who have been living on a land prior to an outside. force coming to displace them. It was created to describe a situation. I got to call an executive decision here. I don't want to get into discussion by indigenous-80 because I think he and you and I are, yeah, yeah, it doesn't change anything. Listen, this is, this is a problem with this whole

frigging debate is there's a situation on the ground now and everybody has got to get practical and settle this now. My position is both Jews and Palestinians are indigenous to the land and we need to learn how to share the land. Here, here. Okay. Next. Fair enough. If you mind if I try another quick question? Quick, quick, quick one. I forgot to show my videos. Go ahead. Quick one. Your guest mentioned before about the civilian to combat and death ratio being false. So I wanted to know just his understanding of civilian deaths and Hamas deaths and how that'll

take a second. Yeah, I mean, look, this. So first of all, I've written somewhat about this and I've spoken about it exhaustively on live streams. If you want, DME and I will, and I'll gladly share stuff with you, the most high level possible, and it's a frustrating topic, because on one side, they're saying hundreds of thousands dead. On the other side, they're making also outrageous claims about super low civilian to combat ratios. It's hard to know what to trust, but we actually have a very unique data set coming out of Gaza, and it's actually a list of names and ID numbers. Now, normally you could say, okay, how do we know we could trust these names and ID numbers? We certainly shouldn't trust Hamas.

They have an incentive to lie. But few people know this, that Israel has full access to the Palestinian population registry, so they could cross-reference all these names, and they could see that these names are legitimate. And it's for this reason why claims against the Ministry of Health list is not coming from Israel. Israel is not denying what the Ministry of Health is saying. You have these online activists who are making... these very weak arguments, misleading arguments, and I think often intentionally misleading. But we have data. It's open for the public to scrutinize. No one has found fraud. Israel's not

claiming fraud. So this is a very good basis to understanding the death toll. It's not a perfect list. There's a margin of error. There's people missing from that list. But it's a good basis. Okay. Okay. Thank you, sir. And DME will talk more back. Okay. So let me tell you about this. Can you queue up that the Francesca the Albinese video? Where am I looking?

No, no, not that one. The other one. But I'll tell you something first. So, I've always been very cautious about this debate because you hit on it because I feel in my soul that we really don't have good information.

And I did not want to get out over my skis on some statistical thing. Like, we're still finding out, you know, like Darius, see and I was talking about, they went from 150, 250, 250 Dresden, like, we don't know. It's a war. We'll wait and see.

I feel like Hamas's tactics could certainly produce horrible civilian casualty numbers, even without Israeli malfeasants. And I think there could be Israeli malfeasas. I don't freaking know, but I will tell you this. I met and have spent time with Salo Eisenberg, who, you know, who he is, the guy. Of course. And I did not know what to expect. And I've had conversations with him where I pushed him, you know, pretty thoroughly on the arguments that the other side was making.

And although I was not in a position to judge his answers, I will tell you that I felt that he was answering in earnest. that he was thorough and on other matters related to this conflict, he is not some sort of fire-breathing hardliner, which also is important for context. So I would be cautious about dismissing his arguments also. Oh, wait, and I can actually maybe have a liaison between the two of you guys, and you guys could debate it or whatever. I don't want to get to this. I'm so I say, but there's a satellite issue. This is... Wait, but I do want to mention that

because I'm familiar with Eisenberg, and I didn't come here to attack anybody or trash anybody, but I've reviewed all of the work, and it's not honest work. Okay, okay, fair enough. But I would love to discuss and debate this on your show anywhere, but everybody who's put out analyses on this

have blocked me. They refused to debate. All right, I'll see, blocking people's a bad habit all around. You know, let's talk about them, happy to it. Any day of the week, anytime I'm there. But this is, by the way, this is the one topic. I have not found somebody willing to debate,

because when you do the research, you see that. Okay, I am not, I've never taken a position on this, but I will take this. So this, and this kind of brings a whole thing together. This woman, Francesca Albanese, like, we're about Israel creating anti-Semitism. Now, she is the UN, what do you call it, special rap? How do you pronounce it?

Rapporteur. It's a word I've only read and never heard pronounced. Now, she has a terrible record, you know, her social media prior taking the job, talking about Zionist lobby and Jews and money and all sorts of anti-Semitic tropes. I have the bullet points. I'm going to read them. But she, well, play this video? In fact, we shall start the thinking of $680,000, because this is the, the, you know, because this is the, number that some scholars and scientists claim being the real death toll in Gaza.

And it would be hard to be able to prove or disprove this number, especially if investigators and others remained banned from entering the occupied Palestinian territory, and particularly the Gaza Strip. But if this number is confirmed, 380,000 of these are infants under five. All right, so this is, I know you think this, but this is, but this is, this is not about the number. This is about a world where a woman like that saying, but even you are rolling your eyes and laughing because it's so patently absurd, she represents the United Nations. This is how, forgive me the word, how anti-Semitic they are. This woman should never be in that position. they reappointed her, despite the fact that she's absurd.

It's like appointing Candace Owens. This is the world that we're up against, and this is why I find it so upsetting to worry about the fact that we cause the anti-Semitism. You know, Marx, Karl Marx talked about the fact that we caused the anti-Semitism. Spinoza talked about the fact that we cause the anti-Semitism. German intellectuals talk about the fact that we were upsetting the drum without with our customs and our, you know, otherness and whatever it is. There's always a Jew around at any time when things get hot.

We're saying, you know, maybe if we had just been a little bit less this way or that way, they wouldn't hate us like they do. And so, you know, there is a, this reminded me, there is a book. This is the other video, Stephen, there is a book that Jews turned to for wisdom. it's called the Godfather. And in the Godfather, it always reminds me of this scene where Johnny Fontaine

is just unhappy with the way the world is treating him. And ironically, he's being persecuted by a Jew in this scene. And I, this is me. I'm Marlon Brando here. And unfortunately, you didn't turn out to be

the Johnny Fontaine that I thought you were going to be, but I imagined you as Johnny Fontaine complaining about, oh, the world doesn't treat us around. The world hates us. So go ahead, play this video. I don't know what to do.

My voice is weak. It's weak. Anyway, if I had this part in the picture, you know, it puts me right back up on top again. But this man out there, he won't give it to me, the head of the studio. Wasn't it, Waltz, Waltz, he won't give it to me. And he says, there's no chance, no chance. Month ago, he bought the movie rights to this point. book, the bestseller. And the main character is a guy just like me. I wouldn't even have to act.

Just be myself. Oh, Godfather, I don't know what to do. I don't know what to do. That's the truth. You can act like a man. What's the matter with you? Is this how you turned out in Hollywood, Pinocchio, that cries like a woman? What can I do? What can I do? What is that? Nuzzi. Thank you. All right. What could I do? They hate us. I feel like the answer here is to be tough to muscularly fight with logic and reason and facts

and not give an inch to these people who are anti-Semites trying to make us feel like we have anything to do with their defect, their bigotry. Well, we live in a world where this bitch, Albinazi, can be hired by the United Nations and pontificate about 35% of all the palace, more dead five-year-olds and even exist on the West Bank. And she doesn't even feel worry about humiliating herself. Maybe I should check this with some statistician before I go out in front of the world. No, because she knows it doesn't matter what I say. I can say it was a million people, nobody will care because I'm bashing the Jews. And in that context, when you talk, and you may be right in some small way. When you talk this way, I feel like you are harming the cause because you're giving people, people don't know that much about this stuff.

You're giving them reason to think that there's something there, as if this actually is significant to this narrative. It's not. She hated the Jews before October 7th, and we, we, you start by being a, we, the Jews, start by being a man. We have to stop belly aching this way. That's my feeling about it. But notice how you said that my actions impact other people.

Why can't actions of other Jews impact other people? What do you mean? Well, you're saying when this rhetoric of mine is hurting the Jewish people. Well, when Jews support Israel's actions, I think that's hurting the Jewish people. Why can't we look at a quick way? Let me distinguish. I think when Israel does something wrong as an Israeli, same thing as an American, you should absolutely criticize it as policy.

Great, yeah. We're on the same page. When I say when you start speculating about the fact that the reason somebody like Francesca Albanese is so hateful towards us is because somehow we acted this way, that way. Well, I'm not... This is a very... Because, as I said,

you're echoing, there has never been a time in Jewish history. There's someone, there wasn't someone making your arguments. Yeah, fair. So maybe let's look

at a different people. I think it'll be easier to look at it this way. If somebody says, you know, Islamophobia is just the result of the actions of Muslims. That would be far more

controversial than a Muslim saying, guys, I think we need to reflect on some of our actions because I think it'll help us, you know, just thrive more in this world. I wasn't doing it in a way to blame or demonize. It was simply a reflection of me, my people, and how we're perceived. Yeah. As I said, you didn't turn out to be

the Johnny Fontaine, I hope, because in your other video, you were, you were, you were, you were, I was a little more, you were weaker, yeah. And just to say, just to say something about her, you're okay today. You know, when she, when she does, I couldn't pass up the video. When she does stuff like that, it's horrible, because she also taken away from the large amount of children that actually died by exaggerating the number. She's taken away the, you know, at the spotlight from what actually happened. She's her to impose by, like, in order of like 20x. Yeah.

I just, but I'm making, yes, but I'm making a different, more important point is that we live in the world. She's not some idiot on Twitter. She is hired as the UN Rappantor, whatever that even means. So, I, maybe Robin Tum here doesn't know. Like, let's say, let's say, let's say, you. you put somebody in charge of like racial issues in America with a KKK member? This is what we're

up against. So on any subject if you know that's how deep the rot is, it is not just, you're not in denial. It's reasonable to say, I don't want to hear a single thing that comes from these people, not UNRWA, not the United Nations, not their investigation, none

of them. But also, there's, this is proof positive that they can say anything it will be okay. But there's women like her and men like her that do the opposite. it and say there's nobody. You know, there's small numbers. Well, right, we see it happen on the extremes in both ways. Yeah, but she's not supposed to be extreme. It's United Nations. That's fair, but we do see it happen on an institutional level on both sides, because on the other side of Francesca, you have people like John Spencer who are not also not honest.

I'll talk about my friend, John Spencer. Again, I don't want to dedicate this airtime, but I do offline want to convince you that he's not honest if we ever have the opportunity. And I would love to debate him, but he blocked me as well. I'm already convinced. Anyways, I would encourage him. my friends not to block. But I don't know what... And look, I'll acknowledge that I'm probably like 80% less nice on Twitter than I am in real life. So maybe people might have a different perception of me.

But hopefully some of my ideological opponents will see our conversation and be more inclined to debate these topics. But my... Because the death toll claims on both sides are so blatantly wrong, I don't think it's likely somebody's going to be willing to debate me on this. That's just the experience I've had. And I do want to speak to your point, because I agree with you that the thing that makes it hardest for me to support Palestinians is other people who support Palestinians. It's not a natural collection of people. It's like the woke, the Islamists, the anti-Semites, and the humanists. I'm the humanists.

camp. But I'm in an alliance with many unsavory types who we do not see the world similarly. And I, that's, yeah, that's a tough pill to swallow. I realize that I am in a sense in alliance with people, some people who hate it. Well, maybe they're trying to make you like feel like that, but the majority of people actually are the same. Like the act from, like when you see the college kids, they're just not, just not anti-Semitic, they're just reacting to what the horrible things that you see. You forget that this, the social media and the videos is not story that you hear anymore, it's the stories that you see, you know, so I have a different reaction to it. So it's not everything anti-Semitic, you know, but we'll talk more. No, I actually, I want to believe that the

majority of the movement are coming from a place of humanism where they just don't want to see people be killed. But I think the extremes in these movements often get disproportionate attention, so it gives us a perception of the movement. But I agree, there's a lot of crazy people that, you know, that not helping the cause. They people that come to me as like, oh, you know, like I told you, people think, they send me stuff that's so anti-Semitic thinking that I'm like, green with. You know, I'll be like, no, this is horrible. I see how horrible it's getting. But why do they think you agree with it? I don't know. Well, what I'm saying. Because people are confused that if you're pro-Israel, that you mean you're anti-Semitic,

which if you credit to Israel, you're anti-Semitic, which is a public thing. I mean, I shudder to think what goes around in like the ultra-Orthodox community in terms of racist jokes and things like that. Yeah. But it would be, it would be shocking that anybody would send me something vile and hateful about Arabs, assuming that because I'm so pro-Israel, that I'm okay with that kind of stuff. I wonder if there's a, you know, if it's not. No, because people are confusing, you know, anti-Semitic with hating of Israel or be pro-Palestinian. That's what I'm saying, like, and again, I'm a new campaign, like, I'm very hopeful, you know, because I grow up in the Middle East and I know so many people that do,

talks not in front of you, you know, and they are, they want, they want. Let me ask you a question. And then we have, if we have any other calls, Liz? We have one more. Okay, well, let me ask you a question. You may not want to speak to this. To what extent is the saying one thing in public and a different thing privately, a true description of what goes on in the Arab world? back in the day, when I was growing up, I told you the stories. Like sometimes the prime ministers and stuff like that, they will answer the media one thing in Arabic, one thing in English.

If you don't understand the language, obviously they would say, oh, make a piece of Israel, stuff like that, and then they would say something else. But in general, people are up, you know, they say what they can, you know, except if they want to lose their jobs or something like that. But usually people just say what they feel, you know, especially something like that, you know. So if I went into the average home on the West Bank, not a Hamas home,

you're thinking in their conversations, they're like him trying to figure out how they could maneuver to make peace with Israel or are they more like they have the conversation like, oh, it looks like Hamas. We almost did it this time. They will be worried more about Hamas listening to them saying that than any other thing.

They will say like, just get rid of Hamas, get rid of Israel killing us, we just want to live, we're going to get water, we're going to let, you know, Palestinians are very successful people, you know, and very, you know, when they come here, very successful. Yeah, and, you know,

and how many in the idea of that Muslims and Palestinians, you know, it's just like, you cannot, we got to stop supporting the bad people, you know, like I said before, Salma bin Laden, heard Egypt before, Hamas heard Egypt and Arabic before the attack Israel. We have to be in the same campaign.

We cannot be different. We cannot give chance to people that, once a terrorist, always a terrorist, you know, you're going to watch what's going to, the president is going to do. Amid Fuad al-Katib told us this when he came on the show, which is that people and platforms are not raising his voice up because it's too moderate. It's too peaceful. And it's better to have like these warring factions. It makes for better social media clips. Yeah. It makes for better press. So I think that that's a huge problem too. Like I think

elevating those voices is really important. But you also have to make a difference between if I have... That the overwhelming majority position of the Palestinian people goes unrepresented by a single prominent leader, a single prominent newspaper, a single... In other words, we have to just assume that it exists despite any evidence of it. Now, I don't doubt that you and your humanist circles,

because my mother are with the kind of, forgive me, like the flower power, you know, types. And I know they exist. I know some of them. And I've heard some podcasts with them. But I'm talking about where you represent to me. Like, actually, you know, it's a small number of militants. But actually, the old one majority of the Palestinians, they want this.

They just will never say it out loud. No, no, it's not what I'm saying. They need to say it out loud. They say it out loud, but it doesn't sell. It's not media. I send you so much, you blocked me. Oh, yeah. Let's leave the last call.

What you want? I was just going to say, I think the Palestinian rejection to Israel is not an intellectual rejection. It's an emotional one. This entity has caused me immense harm. I will resist it by any means necessary. I can't imagine living... But it existed since the turn of the century.

And there's also different type of... Yeah, but this experience is reinforced every day, so they're having an emotional response. It's not... We often try to understand the Palestinian rejection in intellectual means, but I think that's a mistake. We should understand it more emotional. You are right, that if you look at those polls... There was a higher degree of support for the two-state solution among Palestinians in the early 2000s. Right.

There is now. So it was a high watermark for both. I mean, Oslo in many ways, it was a failure, but it was great progress in many ways to get to a point where you have half of Palestinians supporting a two-state solution, where you have the main Palestinian faction recognizing Israel, where you have security cooperations. That is immense progress. All right. Last call. Come on.

Oliver. Can you hear me? Oliver. Same Oliver was last time? Yeah. Did you watch the movie like I asked you? No. No.

Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. So before when you were talking about how bad this were is, you know, there mentioned, you know, comparisons to other words. And I do think that's quite unfair, given that there's a cluster of variables here that make it just completely. completely unfair to compare to you have an urban you have an urban war in a environment

where the commands at best are embedded within a civilian population and at worst use human shields the people were not able to escape to other countries which is you know most noteworthiness here you also have that israel's on the border of gaza most a lot of other words, they're not on the border. And as Noam always talks about, you have modern warfare drones and munitions that could easily kill people. So I think everyone agrees that Israel did have to do something. So given all those variables, you should see a much higher number and much higher ratios of people than all other words in the past. And it's time and close. You also mentioned that BB did try, you know, in another context, you did acknowledge that BB,

and the government to try to get everyone to Egypt. So that's my first point. Yeah, so a few things. My main, the main motivation I have to describe the numbers in Gaza, or just to talk about Gaza being worse than other conflicts, is in response to a grotesque lie or grotesque misinformation that Israel is operating above a global standard and that the civilian to combat ratio is lower than other conflicts.

So I'm directly responding to something apparently false. I would have little motivation to describe it this way if we could just acknowledge reality for what it is. I would be much more fair. It would be much easier if we would just say, if people would say, acknowledge that Gaza is much worse, and then let's have a debate over if that's acceptable. But right now we can't even agree on basic data,

so that's what I'm pushing back on. Now, my belief when it comes to armed conflict, I think the global standard is not good enough. I think one of our greatest, and I know we won't have enough time to go deep into this, but maybe we'll do a round two because I do want to talk to you about this. I'm just not qualified to argue, but go ahead, go ahead.

Well, but better have someone else, but go ahead. I mean, I think the way we currently view armed conflict is one of the single greatest moral inconsistencies we have We have understood that humans deserve an inalienable right to life, that human life is worth protecting. We even have immense debate within society of if it's okay to kill a murder, capital punishment. That's a debate. So we recognize that killing civilians is wrong.

And then when it comes to war, we kind of become cold and callous. And we have this category called collateral damage, which is a group of people who lost their inalienable right to life. Now, I understand that there's going to be conflict where civilians will be killed. But I believe we need to do everything in our power to reduce civilian harm. If you don't do everything in your power to reduce civilian harm, then you're complicit in murder, in my opinion. And I think this is necessary moral progress. And I am quite confident that in a few decades, we will look back to how we wage war and we'll view it as utterly barbaric.

Okay. The idea, the idea that it is... Can I just... No, no. The idea that it's legitimate to drop a bomb on a family home and incinerate children is not something we should normalize or see as acceptable in any way, shape, or form unless you have no other option, and we do. There's something about your presentation which irks me, and it's nothing on the face of what you said that bothers me except what you're leaving out, which is that Hamas has reverse engineered. all the international laws such that they can serve up civilian deaths in the face of any sensible Israeli strategy to get at them. They built 300 miles of tunnels and did not let a single civilian in.

So this is the conundrum here is that, yes, of course, they should be, protecting innocent lives to the full extent that's possible. But what happens is that we are going beyond international law and what we're going to say here is that and if it's not possible and if the other side

will not play by the rules and actually in an unprecedented way actually is happy to have their civilians die and actually will devise ingenious strategies such that their civilians will necessarily die, then Israel needs to stand down. I'm presenting the problem.

We can get into specifics. But I do believe that Hamas is capable of confounding any moral Israeli strategy to get at them and will do so. And at that point, you have to decide, well, I guess then we need to rewrite international law. because the way international law is written now, those,

Hamas is a legit target. And every person that they connive to create collateral damage, if that's their strategy, that is on them. Now, that's a terrible thing to say out loud because what do you mean on them? Tell that to the person dying, right? Well, I would say it's on both parties.

Yeah, but no, no. But, well, it's on Israel's side to mitigate as much as they can. But I'm saying is that I think, it's likely there is no way to mitigate. Well, okay, we'll find this way to go around it, and then they'll think, oh, Israel figured out how to get around it, so they're going to put civilians in the case.

Can I say something we're clicking? I can tell you how we could severely mitigate. So the only way, the only reason it irks me in the way you presented it, without his specifics, is that you never mentioned that Hamas is engineering its strategies to make sure that civilians are dying. That has to be part of the presentation. Before you say, can they just, in one thing?

It's just, what you're saying is true, except that the civilians are Palestinians. If the civilians were American or any other thing, they would not. We saw when Saddam Hussein used these human shields who were foreigners and Americans, nobody attacked, they found another strategy. But the strategy worked. You know how many civilians we killed going after ISIS?

No, no, no. I'm talking about when Saddam Hussein used the American and European as a human shield, we did not attack. We waited until they're out. But if the human shields are Palestinians, that's okay. No, no. Not Palestinians. If it's the enemy's population,

Yes, if we had 100,000 people in Hiroshima, we were not going to drop the atom bomb on them. It's not pretty, but that's the way the world works. But if there were like few American in it, it's not anti-Palestinian sentiment. It's anti-enemy sentiment. You're not seeing them as equal human to the others. No, they are the enemy population represented by their leaders.

They're not their leaders. So, wait, wait. Yes, they are their leaders. So I didn't mention Hamas because the caller clearly described that Hamas, the way they're fighting, makes it very hard for us to respond without killing civilians. I didn't argue with that point. I don't disagree. I know. I think Israel engaged in the mass murder of Gaza's civilians and Hamas is complicit in murder. I have zero love for them, but I think, you know, there's many issues in life where you could view culpability as more than one person being

responsible, and that's what we have here. But in the end, there has to be a legitimate way for Israel to get at Hamas. So, yeah, I actually have an idea. I think that The idea of using so much kinetic force on a densely populated city where when Hamas has where to hide and civilians don't is a horrific strategy. If we wanted to engage in that way, we should have properly evacuated Gaza, meaning removing Gazans from Gaza. That could look like working more with international community and finding a country to take them in, or it could mean moving them into the Negev and Area A. You know what the world would have said about that. Wait, wait. Whatever the world would have said would have been minor compared to what they're saying now. There wouldn't have been daily videos of dead children, but I'm...

They were right where Israelis is to agree with you on this. I'm proposing this. I think Javreta Gros said this. Yeah, he did mention that, and I appreciate... With all the disagreements I have of him, he's one of the Jewish intellectuals who I disagree with, but still respect. And I think that's a good solution. He has a moral compasses, man. Yeah, now, I'm not talking about what's the best for Israeli PR.

I'm talking about how do you save 20,000 children lives. Fair enough. Now, I do think it would have been better for a PR, but it also would have been much more humane. Imagine a situation where after October 7th, you say, nothing goes in. No food, no water, no electricity. Civilians, come on out. Hamas, if you want to surrender, also you can surrender. We don't need to, on day one, start destroying high-rise buildings. And, like, I'm going to be, I want to arouse emotion here. Like, the idea of shredding the flesh of so many children is not something we should accept as normal. are okay. So we can, so imagine you don't let anything in, they start to, you're actually starving

Hamas. This is the only way to starve them. And you let all civilians out. You give them a good quality of life. It doesn't even need to be fully run by Israel because they don't trust Israel. It could be done by the international community. And take, it's a process, a six months process, start the negotiating to get the hostages out. You don't need to destroy the city. You don't need to start destroying buildings on the same day. it's an approach to war that is normalized unfortunately, but we need to evolve past this because it's utter barbarism. I'm not going to debate it with your hands up.

I have a dinner plan, so I've got to go. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah, so just a follow up on that. First of all, they did work. They tried everything with the international community to get the Ghazan refugees to other countries. And your only standard for saying it's mass murder

is that is to give a complete unrealistic the idea of putting, you know, a million or two million causes in Israel South, which understandably, I'm not even just talking about from an empathy point of view, but from like realistic, pragmatic point of view, no Israeli would want that further security after October 7. So then I just have to go back to where's your moral basis for using words like mass murder? So, all right. We're going to. Wait, can I just make my second point?

I have to go to dinner. hurry up. What's more important? Go ahead. I'm just kidding. Just don't say anything that's going to make a daughter I have to feel like he has to answer you. Go ahead.

Okay, the second point is that you want to call out Spencer and Eisenberg, but you have been saying for two years that after the war, we're going to find tens of thousands of people under the rubble. We're months past that. And I think they said at most 10,000.

So you're a self as just... They found 10,000 under the rubble. No, no. You're misrepresenting my position. No, no, we do have a tweet for us, and I could send them after the show. Okay, okay, that's it. Okay, that's it. He's going to answer you, and because he's the guest, he gets the last word.

You will see in all the analyses I've put out that I always put a range at what the plausible death toll is, because I acknowledge that we don't know how many are missing. It would be unfair if I wouldn't put an upper limit to the death toll of tens of thousands buried under rubble because we simply cannot know. But I put a lower limit, which accounts for maybe. just a few thousand under rubble. This is consistent with all my analyses. Now, I consider mass, I use the term mass murder, and I'm using harsh language to describe what I consider to be harsh and indefensible actions. I think that we could have done mass evacuations out of Gaza.

And if the claim you're making that it's not politically feasible to do that, you're essentially saying it's not politically feasible to save tens of thousands of civilian lives. Well, if that's the case, then the right thing to do is for the international community to intervene. Because I get it. If a population is sufficiently radicalized or traumatized that they are not going to have any regard for the civilians of their enemy, well, then the international community should. And that's why I think the global protests were therefore legitimate. Okay. Adar Wine Reb, it's very, I thought this is good, right? You had some trepidation when you came on here, but this one Why? Did I? I think you did, but a lot of people who watch the show would. But, but, but

But I think this was a good conversation, right? You would come on again, right? For sure. And no, I didn't have trepidation. I wanted to align on some things to make the conversation flow, and I think we successfully did it. And I'd gladly come on again. Oh, that's terrific.

Hattem, you have any final? No, I just made the best points, I think. Yeah, you killed it, man. Okay, good night, everybody. Good night. I have to peeve so pretty bad. That was good.