The Young Turks - Mother of Pearl

Episode Date: May 17, 2024

Business titans privately urged NYC mayor to use police on Columbia protesters, chats show. Netanyahu rejects U.S. calls for postwar plan in Gaza. CNN investigated the treatment of protesters at UCLA as police stood by and did nothing. Anti-feminist Hannah Pearl Davis - aka Pearly Things - says women won’t shut up as she relentlessly interrupts a man during debate." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. What's up, everyone, welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. And if you are feeling sick and tired of seeing me do a solo hour at the top of the show, have no fear. Jank Uyuger will be back tomorrow. So we can all rejoice when he returns. So you'll have a normal power panel set up on tomorrow's show. But today will be the final day where I'll be hosting the first hour solo and Wazni Lombre will be joining me for the second hour.

A lot to get to in the news, including a controversial pardon from Texas Governor Greg Abbott in regard to, well, a provocateur and someone who decided to shoot into a crowd of BLM protesters back during the 2020 BLM protest. And so I wanted to talk about that. That'll be in the second hour of the show. A lot to get to in regard to the college protests. So I want to talk a little bit about this huge story that was reported by the Washington Post. It's an exclusive in regard to a private WhatsApp texting group where individuals coordinated ways to basically influence university presidents, elected law,

especially on a local level. So we're going to get to that in the first hour, along with a CNN investigation into what transpired during the campus protests at UCLA just a few weeks ago. So without further ado, please like and share the stream and help to share the message of TYT. You can smash that share button. You can also like the stream if you want to help to get more eyeballs watching the show. And you can also become a member, t.yt.com slash join or smash that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. All right. So let's talk about that Washington Post piece, which I highly recommend everyone read. There are, you know, minor details in there that we're not going to have the time to go through.

But I'm going to give you the main point of the story, the main highlights, and we'll discuss it. So reporters over at the Washington Post have obtained WhatsApp chat. logs involving some of the most wealthy and influential people in the United States working together to influence media coverage, politicians, and even university presidents on Israel, the war on Gaza, and the university protests. Now, let's talk a little bit about what this group is, who consists of this group, and what their main goals are. So according to the Washington Post, which again, obtained these chat logs and reported on some of the details. The group was formed shortly after the October 7th Hamas attacks in Israel.

Members of this chat are even coordinating with various Israeli government officials and have even attended some private briefings with these officials. So the names that were specified in the reporting included the former Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennett, Benny Gantz, who, of course, is the member of the Israeli War Cabinet, and another individual that they had private briefings with is Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Herzog. Now, members of this chat group also coordinated for screenings of the footage that IDF soldiers had compiled from October 7th, they turned it into a 40-plus-minute film titled Bearing Witness to the October 7th Massacre, and they wanted to screen the film at universities,

and Ackman, who was actually part of Steve Ackman, who was one of the individuals, was part of this group, succeeded in getting Harvard to screen the film. Now, titled Israel Current Events, the chat eventually expanded to about 100 members. The chat log shows, more than a dozen members of the group appear on Forbes' annual list of billionaires. others work in real estate, finance, and communication. So I think that description is important to kind of understand just how influential these individuals are. These are people who have really succeeded in their career path. They've got resources to burn.

And they want to use those resources to influence the conversation and policy that has to do with the war in Gaza and some of these protests that have been popping up on university campuses. So I want to give you a few specific examples of what they, attempted to accomplish, and to some extent, certainly did accomplish. So business executives, including Kind Snack Company founder, Daniel Lubetsky, hedge fund manager Daniel Loeb, billionaire Len Levatnik, and real estate investor Joseph Sit, held a Zoom call on April 26th with mayor, of course, New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

And that was about a week after the mayor first sent New York police to Columbia's campus. a log of chat messages show. Now, based on the reporting from the Washington Post, they seem to be very focused on getting the police involved to dismantle the Columbia University Pro Peace encampment. And they did succeed in that. And they even had a Zoom meeting with New York Mayor Eric Adams, where there were some interesting things proposed, right?

So the message is describing the call with Adams. were in a WhatsApp chat among some of the nation's most prominent business leaders and financiers, according to the Wall Street. I'm sorry, according to Washington Post. That includes the former CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, the Dell founder and CEO Michael Dell. You have hedge fund manager, Bill Ackman. I'm sorry, I think I referred to him as Steve Ackman earlier. It's Bill Ackman and Joshua Kushner, who of course is, you know, Jared Kushner's brother and Jared Kushner is the former president's son-in-law. Now, during the call, some attendees discussed making political donations to Adams, as well as how the chat group's members could pressure

Columbia's president and trustees to permit the mayor to send police to the campus to handle protesters, according to chat messages summarizing the conversation. One member, of the WhatsApp group told the post, he donated $2,100 the maximum legal limit to Adams that month. So I just want to pause here and just take the time to really absorb the fact that money in politics, of course, is real. You all know this. Jane can't stop himself from finding a way to talk about it in every story we cover. So you guys know this. But the common counterpoint that you'll here from, I remember Marco Rubio, the senator from Florida making this point, that look, it's not that they're giving me legal bribes so I carry out some policy that they want. It's

that they know I already like that policy and they want to support me by giving me the campaign donations. In this case, very clearly we're talking about an influence campaign where campaign contributions to Eric Adams are meant to influence his response to the Columbia University protesters. So it's a clear example, clear as day. Let me give you some more detail. So during that meeting, some of the wealthy participants offered to bankroll private investigators to assist the NYPD with protesters at Columbia assist. Now Adams allegedly accepted the offer based on But one of the members of the group reported. Now, Eric Adams' camp denies this.

I'll give you their denial in just a moment. But apparently one of the members of the group was quoted as saying, and this is in the chat logs, he's open to any ideas we have. Chat member, Sid, founder of retail chain, Ashley Stewart, and the global real estate company, Thor Equities, wrote April 27th, the day after the group's Zoom call with Eric Adams. As you saw, he's okay if we have

private investigators to then have this police force intel team work with them, meaning work with the NYPD. I mean, it's, it is incredible, right? It's like they want the cops involved, they want to add even more personnel to the mix in the form of private investigators, and they claim that Eric Adams gave a nod to that suggestion. However, a representative for the NYPD claims that the department is not using private investigators in response to the protesters. The mayor's office did not address the Zoom meeting with the chat group members directly at all. But the deputy mayor, Fabian Levy, said that New York police entered Columbia's campus twice in response to specific written requests from university leadership, which we're going

to get to in just a moment, because they sought to use their influence on the U.S. university president as well. But the deputy mayor also weighed in on how he feels about this reporting in general. Now keep in mind, this is a straight news report based on, you know, leaked WhatsApp chat logs. And what the deputy mayor had to say to the Washington Post reporters reporting this when they were asking him questions about whether or not the mayor approved the use of private investigators is this. Any suggestion that other considerations were involved in the decision making process is completely false. The insiduation that Jewish donors secretly plotted to influence government operations is an all too familiar anti-Semitic trope

that the Washington Post should be ashamed to ask about, let alone normalize in print. So here's my question to Levy. Do the chat logs exist or do they not? Did the individuals, incredibly successful people, influential people, get together in a what's app chat to find ways to use their influence to get what they want policy-wise in response to the student protesters, in response to how Americans view Israel and the Palestinians. Yeah, it exists. I mean, do you think the Washington Post just made it up? And if it exists, are we just supposed to pretend like it doesn't exist because it, in his mind, plays into tropes. It's just, I think it's so ridiculous that time and time again, this is the smear that people

are met with, even when the straight news reporting speaks for itself. The idea that journalists should lay off these types of stories when we know full well that when it comes to legalize bribery, when it comes to influence peddling, when it comes Any other context is totally fine and gets reported time to time, right? But when it comes to one specific issue, you're not allowed to talk about how wealth can influence politicians, right? People using their campaign dollars could influence politicians and policies that they decide on. It's just, it's again, incredibly ridiculous. And I think that it cheapens the seriousness of real anti-Semitism by referring to journalists doing their jobs as anti-Semites.

So let's talk about the chat logs, including specific messages, and those specific messages are important for the deputy mayor in New York City to address, since he thinks just simply stating the facts of what these messages included is anti-Semitic. But nonetheless, in an October 12th message, one of the first sent in the group, the staffer posting on behalf of Sternlicht told the others the goal of the group was to change the narrative in favor of Israel, partly by. by conveying the atrocities committed by Hamas to all Americans. That's a direct quote. I didn't say it. This individual said it. And the Washington Post obtained those messages and printed them. There's nothing anti-Semitic about that.

Let me continue. Then they were willing to use campaign contributions to influence Eric Adams in how he responded to those Columbia protesters. I already told you a little bit about that with one of the chat members saying, that they had donated $2,100, which was the maximum amount. So they started discussing how to work with Adams the following day after the encampment was formed at Columbia on April 17th. So real estate investor, Joseph Sitt, responded that he had already been helping out, but can use more support. He asked if others were open to giving to Adams. Yakir Gabay, the Cypriot Israeli real estate billionaire, replied,

please send the info, thanks. Then Blavatnik posted an act blue link allowing donations to the Eric Adams 2025 committee. Daniel Lubetsky messaged, if there is a group to contribute through or a way to ensure our contributions are known to be related to his efforts to fight anti-Semitism and hate, please let us know and I will support meaningfully alongside you guys. Sint replied that he was arranging a code for such donations, asked about this message, Vito Pitta, counsel to Adams' 2025 campaign said, there is no special code for contributions. Now, the group realized that, look, it's not just about Eric Adams. If we want police to finally respond to the Columbia University protesters and effectively dismantle their encampment, the way that we're going to have to do it is get the president of Columbia. right, and that's Shafik, to give Adams the authorization to call the NYPD into the campus. One member asked if the group could do anything to pressure Columbia trustees to cooperate with the mayor. In reply, former Congressman Ted Deutsch, CEO of the American Jewish Committee,

shared a PDF of a letter his organization had sent that day to Colombia President Manus Shafik, calling on her to shut these protests down. Also in touch with the board, he wrote to the chat group. So NYPD can return. And of course, they wanted the NYPD to return because they had shown up to the campus more than once in order to do away with the Columbia University protesters. So I can't help but think of something that Bill Maher said earlier this week, It was a story that went viral when he had a comedian Bill Burr on the show.

This is his podcast. And they were talking about the campus protesters. Bill Maher clearly against the campus protesters. But he thinks that having that opinion means something special, right? Like it means that you have a characteristic that I pushed back on. So let's remember what he had to say. Yeah, that's easy to say. You know, no one wants to see kids dead.

this is a war That was very brave of you to say this this is a word No I'm the one who's actually brave on this It's easy to say I'm for the kids Who's not for the kids It comes down to real hard-nosed

Decisions Like a country Stop talking like you're a general A country got attacked Israel got attacked I'm not saying that they didn't have a right to go back I'm just sitting there going like How do I look at the one

The only country in the world They get attacked And then as soon as they counter attack It's like well we got to stop this now Don't attack them. It's a very simple solution to all this problem in the Middle East. Stop attacking Israel. Hey, you just solved it.

You just solved it. I actually did. There you go. That's fantastic. Anyway. So Bill Maher referred to his opinions on this whole matter as brave. But how brave are you when literally the most powerful people in the country, the most well-resourced people in the country are on your side, or you're on their side.

And you're totally fine with them using their influence. to crush the peaceful protesters. Now, look, I also want to state that there have been examples, especially of late, like there have been a few examples that have made me really uncomfortable of protesters engaging in violent acts. But those are not indicative of all of the protesters and certainly were not indicative of the Columbia University encampment, right? That encampment was peaceful and things unfortunately became less peaceful once the police were called, once the building was occupied and then the police were called again. Hundreds of arrests had been made as a result. But again, just going back to Bill Maher, is it really brave when again, like the most powerful people in the country agree with you and are using their influence to ensure that the policies obviously side with them and what they.

want. And then one final thing I'll say in response to Bill Maher, because I can't help myself. Look, I agree if Hamas attacks innocent people, if they commit the kinds of atrocities that they committed on October 7th, of course they should expect a response. But the idea that that gives the Israeli government and the Israeli defense forces a green light to just kill whoever they want, however they want, and basically, you know, prosecute this war in a way that maximizes civilian casualties, no, they don't have the right to do that. They have the right to go after Hamas and to be sure they claim that that's what they're doing. But I think what people miss is that most individuals in this country who are critical of the war in Gaza

aren't simply critical because they're against Israel. They're critical over how Israel is carrying out the war. Okay, I mean, you go back to when they first started going after Hamas in the Gaza Strip, most people are on their side because they did feel that Israelis deserve justice considering the atrocities that were committed against them. But when you see the 2,000 pound bombs dropped on refugee camps, on hospitals, on residential blocks, on apartment buildings, it goes on and on. People start to change their minds. And so when people present you with a binary of you're either for or against Israel, or you're either for or against the Palestinians.

Those binaries don't make any sense. What makes sense is to take a look at this war, understand the historical context that drive this war, and also understand that you could totally be in favor of Israel going after Hamas, but have a problem with how the current Israeli government is carrying out the war. And that's honestly where I stand today. All right, well, we got to take a break that went a little longer than I expected. But when we come back, we'll talk about CNN's investigation into what transpired on the UCLA campus when counter protesters showed up.

back to the show. Just want to give a shout out to initial Les J.B., whose husband is celebrating his birthday today. Would you give my husband, Marvin, a birthday shoutout? We've been members for 12 plus years and are so grateful for TYT. We know it's not easy, but we appreciate your hard work, empathy, and dedication to the truth. Marvin, I love you, Julia. Marvin, happy birthday. And what a sweet message, Julia. Thank you for writing in. We appreciate it. And we hope you guys are celebrating the day and having an awesome time. Okay, let's talk a little bit about the ongoing investigations that the media has been doing on the violence that transpired over at the UCLA campus, you know, as a result of

counter protesters showing up to respond to pro-peace, pro-Palestinian protesters. This man, he strikes a pro-Palestine protester with a long white pole. And as part of a mob that pummles the man as he falls to the ground. Edon's mother and father proudly support Israel and defended their son's actions at UCLA, saying he is heading to Israel to join the IDF. Regardless of whatever side you're on in this conflict, you should never, under any circumstance, be supportive of violent acts being committed against the other. side. But unfortunately, one of the counter protesters who showed up to the UCLA campus to respond to the

pro-peace pro-Palestinian protesters who had formed an encampment was supported by his parents, even though he was caught on camera committing acts of violence. And this is part of an investigation that CNN recently conducted. They poured through the videos that were posted online to try to identify some of the individuals who showed up on that campus. They wanted to see if these individuals were actually students or if they were provocateurs. And what they found was fascinating. So here's more on that 18-year-old high school student who showed up and started committing acts of violence against the protesters. He's seen in multiple videos wearing this white mask, striking the barriers, throwing objects into the encampment. Without his mask, we see who he is.

18-year-old Idan-on of Beverly Hills, a senior at a local high school. Come inside to the kitchen. How do I get inside? I spoke with his mother. Hi there. Are you Sharon? Hi. Hi. Let me introduce us. She did not want to be on camera, but quickly identified her son from this picture at UCLA that night. She described in detail how her son found the mask and pole on the ground and said he was defending himself in this fight.

On her Facebook page, Idan Owens' mother posted and circled a screen grab of her son from a local TV station. She wrote in Hebrew, Edon went to bully the Palestinian students in the tents at UCLA. Edon's mother and father proudly support Israel and defended their son's actions at UCLA, saying he is heading to Israel to join the IDF. He should live in Israel along with his family. I mean, if they think that it's totally okay to try. to crack the skulls of peace protesters on the campus of UCLA here in America because they

love Israel so much and want to defend it no matter. Then go live in Israel. Okay, his actions, which again we have evidence of are unacceptable. By the way, same goes for the students who showed up to an administrator for the University of Michigan's home last night to essentially terrorize them, banging on the door, filming the house, please don't do that dumb stuff. It is counter, like, it's just, it's, it runs counter to, I think, with the vast majority of the protesters are trying to accomplish here. And it's like, it's all over the press today. That is all they're talking about in regard to student protesters, because that is the kind of story they want to latch onto and play over and over and over again. So why do a favor

by committing these types of acts, which are going to be, again, spread all over the internet, all over the press, do not engage in violence, period. I don't care what side you're on. I just had to get that off my chest because it's so infuriating, how counterproductive that is, and it keeps happening. There are these one-off stories, but those one-off stories end up causing a lot of damage. Anyway, so the New York Times had conducted its own investigation of the campus of the UCLA campus and basically what they focused on in their investigation was the lack of police response as the counter protesters were violently attacking the encampment. And so they wrote that students and bystanders repeatedly called 911 and non-emergency lines,

finding little help and calls that were disconnected. A dispatcher told one caller pleading for help that they were ending the call because, quote, I have actual emergencies to handle. Now remember, the counter protesters were literally throwing fireworks into the encampment. Someone could have honestly been seriously injured. Someone could have died. The idea that this wasn't an actual emergency is pretty infuriating. I mean, an investigation should be done to figure out who that dispatcher was.

Because obviously this individual does not take their job seriously at all. Contract security officers who did not have sufficient authority or numbers to halt the escalating melee had been caught by surprise and left to wait for reinforcements that did not arrive for hours. Anthony Cabassa, a self-described conservative, conservative independent journalist, I think that label is important considering what you're about to hear from Anthony. He said the counter-protesters descended on the protest, pulling metal gates away from the group and attacking protesters. Quote, we were all waiting for the LAPD to show up and they never did, Mr. Kabaasa said in the interview. As the night went on, more and more pro-Israel folks started showing up to the point where it was starting to get worrisome.

Now look, there were people who were injured. No severe injuries reported luckily, no deaths reported luckily. But you look at the videos of that violence, and it is scary. I'm actually shocked that no one was seriously hurt. The governor's office, meaning Gavin Newsom's office, ended up sending in California Highway Patrol because local police apparently were not responding to calls for help. And some of the counter protesters were, believe it or not, known anti-Semites who wanted to attack the Jewish students in the pro-peace encampment. Also among the counter protesters that night was Narek Pollyon, an activist known for making frequent anti-Semitic statements, as well as comments critical of gay and transgender people.

He said he went alone and was motivated to show up in part because he had seen a video of a Jewish woman on the pro-Palestinian side criticizing white people. Quote, I wanted to go find her specifically, he said, adding that he was not able to. Interesting. What was he planning on doing to the pro-Palestinian Jewish student who was part of the encampment? It's interesting because CNN caught up with him, asked him some questions, and his story was a little different when he spoke to them. The man who was live streaming, Narak Palion, appears to be a persistent agitator who posts anti-Jewish tropes on his social media accounts. But at UCLA, he stood with the pro-Israel crowd. Hi, I'm Keong Laugh from CNN. Palayan claimed to us that he has a child at UCLA,

though a student didn't accompany him that night and that he had good intentions. I was definitely keeping the peace, okay, at least trying to. You weren't there to make it worse? No, of course I wasn't there to make it worse. Now, to be clear, there hasn't been any specific evidence or examples of him committing acts of violence when he was there. So unless we see something, we have to be clear about that. But why did he tell the New York Times, he was specifically there looking to confront a Jewish student. But then when he talks to CNN, he's like, no, I was there to keep the peace.

I was just there to keep the peace. I mean, someone who posts vile anti-Semitic stuff online shows up and is part of the counter-protesters. Clearly, a very different story from what he told the times. Anyway, he wasn't the only old dude or older dude who shouldn't have been on that campus as CNN found. Let's watch. Look at the counter protesters. How many of them were UCLA students? I would say basically none of them. Who are the most aggressive offenders? A CNN investigation of hundreds of videos from multiple sources shows many of them are outsiders, not UCLA students. And recorded pulling bike racks, plywood, kicking protesters, growing cones at the students in the encampment, water bottles at protesters, and yelling expletives. He's a Los Angeles resident age 42.

I just want to know why students got arrested, and that guy is still free. CNN tried to catch up with him and ask him some questions, and he got super salty with them and said they don't have permission to record him, even though he was in a public space. When you guys are in a public space, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, period. So CNN could have continued filming him, but they didn't. But my question is, if there's footage of him committing acts of violence, why is he freed, has not been arrested, but the students who are part of that encampment were arrested. Just some questions, some follow-up questions that I hope reporters consider in some of the follow-up reporting, if there is any. But I do give CNN and the New York Times credit for investigating what happened on the UCLA campus because it gives us more clarity about who was involved in the protest, who was involved in the counter-protests, and which group was actually carrying out the violence on that specific campus. All right. Let's move on to the war in Gaza and some of the updates, because that war is apparently tearing the Israeli government apart to some extent.

There are questions about what happens after and what Israel wants to see, whether Israel wants to occupy. Gaza and who you really want to see operate in that power vacuum. What should it look like? It'll be a power vacuum. What I'd like to see is a non-Hamas, civilian administration there, with an Israeli military responsibility, overall military responsibility. That's the only thing that would work. In other words, military occupation of the Gaza Strip,

that is exactly what Benjamin Netanyahu very clearly laid out in the clip that you just watched. And by doing so, he once again made an embarrassment out of the American president, Joe Biden, who has on multiple occasions said that he is against Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip. That is what he claims. That is what the media claims, he says. But this whole good cop, bad cop thing is not really flying with me anymore because Biden has leverage. He knows he has leverage. And he just approved another billion dollar weapons transfer to Israel after pretending like he was going to halt weapons to Israel pending their invasion into Rafa, which they are still bombing as we speak. Now the administration has

been pushing Israel to think past their military offensive and just maybe consider the question of how Gaza should be governed after the war. Here are some more details. The Biden administration has been pushing Netanyahu to accept the Palestinian authority to run Gaza after the war. And that would unlock some of the larger proposals that the Biden team has been pursuing, especially unlocking Arab participation in the day after plan. And this week, Jake Sullivan made another criticism public. He said that Netanyahu needed to embrace some kind of political strategy, those goals that he wanted to achieve in order to win this war. And U.S. officials tell me that that call has not been heated.

That call has not been heated. So let's talk a little more about what Blinken warned on Sunday. Again, I'm at a point now where I'm not willing to take what our government officials are saying at face value because they say one thing and then they turn around and either provide cover for Israel or they continue asking for more weapons or sending more weapons to Israel. But nonetheless, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said this on Sunday, quote, Israel's on the trajectory potentially to inherit an insurgency with many armed Hamas left, or if Israel leaves a vacuum filled by chaos, filled by anarchy, and probably filled by Hamas. I feel like that statement seems to be pretty supportive of an Israeli occupation. But, you know, some are interpreting this as, you know, the U.S. not feeling confident that Israel is going to leave the Gaza Strip.

I think that the U.S. is totally fine. The current government of the United States, I would venture to say, is actually totally fine with Israel occupying the Gaza Strip. I say that because they keep rewarding Israel regardless of what they do. And you don't reward a government, a foreign government, after they tell you that they're going to do exactly what you claim you don't want them to do. Now, the push to oppose Israeli rule over Gaza after the war isn't just coming from the outside. Actually, I think you hear even stronger protests within the Israeli government in regard to occupying Gaza, if you can believe it or not, including from Netanyahu's own defense minister, Joav Galant, who publicly challenged Benjamin Netanyahu to commit to

opposing Israeli military rule in Gaza, which, of course, Netanyahu has shown absolutely no interest in doing. I'm calling to Roshamempshala, Benjamin Netanyahu, to get a al-holtah, because Israel not to shaltzhouat azrachite, because not had came a special, Israeli, in Rizhouat Aza, and a decodeem-mediate, alternat the government of Hamas in Ratsuat Aza. So, our power our

and our in his press conference that Israeli military rule over Gaza is a terrible idea. There is a decision as a indecision is in essence a decision. a decision. This leads to a dangerous course, which promotes the idea of Israeli military and

civilian governance in Gaza. This is a negative and dangerous option for the state of Israel, strategically militarily, and from a security standpoint. We must make tough decisions for the future of our country, favoring national priorities above all other possible considerations, even with the possibility of personal or political costs. Those personal or political cost that he's speaking about is a direct reference to Netanyahu. There are senior U.S. officials who I speak to, Jeff, who are increasingly concerned that Netanyahu is prolonging the war in order to remain prime minister. Netanyahu know like that. He no like that. Look, if I had seen, you know, Galaun's statements

on their own without any further context, I would say this is all theater. I don't believe him for a Second, because I don't, look, I'm not a fan of Galant either. However, when you take a look at how incensed Netanyahu is and how hard he's fighting to now basically do away with Galant, I think Galant is actually being genuine here. You know, that's not to say that I'm in favor of everything Galant has ever done, but it seems like he does genuinely see it problematic for the Israeli military to occupy the Gaza Strip from here on out. Now, in response, Bibi put out his own video. shooting back at Galant and basically said that there was no point in discussing what will happen after the war because Hamas is not yet defeated, which by the way, the U.S. has put out its own report recently saying that it is unlikely that Israel is going to defeat Hamas. We'll get to that later. Let's watch. Therefore, all the talk about the day after, while Hamas remains intact, will remain mere words devoid of content. Contrary to what is being claimed, For months, we have been engaged in various efforts to resolve this complex problem.

In any case, there's no alternative to military victory. The attempt to bypass it with this or that claim is simply detached from reality. There's one alternative to victory, defeat, military, diplomatic, and national defeat. Now, Galant claims that there has been absolutely no planning for the day after the war ends. In fact, he says that his ideas were never even debated by the cabinet and no alternative had been proposed. And according to the Wall Street Journal, Galant's internal criticism was echoed Wednesday by yet another government official, Benny Gans, who was a member of the war cabinet, who said Galant was speaking the truth. And to be clear, Galant is also a member of the ruling Lakud Party, and he is not a dove. Again, like, I don't want anyone to think like, oh, there's like this peace loving left wing within the Israeli coalition or Israeli government that's fighting back against Nanyahu.

No, you have like the extreme rights. And then you have, you know, the still pretty right wing, hawkish members of the government as well. And that consists of Benny Gantz and Yoav Galant. Now, he's been overwhelmingly supportive of Israel's war. You've seen some of the statements coming from him. And to be clear, Galant is, again, a member of the Lakud party, and that is a right-wing party within Israel. So the extremist members of Netanyahu's coalition are now slamming Galant

and publicly calling for him to be replaced. National Security Minister, you've heard of this guy before, It's Amar Ben-Gavir, demanded his immediate termination, tweeting that from Galan's point of view, there's no difference between whether Gaza is controlled by IDF soldiers or whether Hamas murderers control it. He's not the only far right member of the government who's speaking out against Galant. You also have Basel Smotrich, who said in a video posted 2x,

defense minister Galant today announced his support for the establishment of a Palestinian terrorist state. He did not say Palestinian terrorist state. He said he does not want the IDF to occupy the Gaza Strip, but let me continue. A reward for terrorism and Hamas, Galant's plan would pave the way for the establishment. of an Arab terrorist state and for Hamas to take over Judea and Samaria as well. It is rich considering the past that people like Smotrich and Ben-Gavir have to call other people terrorists. But nonetheless, let me continue. Referring to the West Bank by its biblical names when he mentions Judea and Sumeria, of course, a government in which we are members will not

establish a Palestinian state and will not endanger the existence of the state of Israel. Israel. So there you have it. There are some growing divisions within the Israeli government. You also have growing divisions among Israeli civilians. I mean, we've seen the protests who demand that Netanyahu be ousted for power. Netanyahu wants to continue this war because it's the safest way for him to remain in power. And that is infuriating the protesters, especially the family members of the hostages, who feel that the government of Israel has not done much or hasn't done enough to bring the hostages home. So that does it today for our Israel coverage. We got to wrap it up because there's other news to get to. So when we come back from the break, I want to kind of dive into a debate that an anti-feminist woman, you might have heard of her by the name of Pearl, got into in regard to marriage and whether or not it's a good deal for men. It's a fascinating debate. She got crushed. It was amusing. Let's have some fun when we come back.

There has been a segment that I keep out of time. There has been a segment that I produced days ago, and I keep running out of time to talk about this story with you all. really a story. It's more a debate that I really found fascinating. And I wanted to kind of dive into and talk about with you all. So let's do it. Marriage is objectively a bad deal for men in 2024. What I would consider a bad deal is where the risk outweighs the reward. What I would consider a successful marriage is an obedient wife and staying together for a lifetime. To put it simply, men want sex, silence, and sandwiches from a woman they are attracted to. Unfortunately, women are not offering that in 2024.

That was Hannah Pearl Davis, or just pearly things on YouTube. She's created a name for herself in the in-cell community by essentially trashing women and uplifting men. But in my opinion, she isn't helpful to either sex, whether she's talking about women or men. She gives terrible advice. She seems to have a terrible view of men, essentially chalking them up to nothing more than sex-obsessed individuals who don't care about any of the substance that any woman has

and just want them to make a sandwich. She leans into every single stereotype, and she goes around giving people advice, even though she herself is not married, has never been married, and does not have kids. She recently got destroyed in a recent debate with a gentleman named Trent Horn. I'm not very familiar with him, but he does put out content on YouTube to educate people about the Catholic religion. So he is a religious individual, but I think he absolutely crushed it in this debate. So Pearl's hypocrisy was so brazen that a viewer of the debate brutally called her out for it. To put it simply, men want silence. Unfortunately, women are not offering that in 2024. That marriage is a bad deal for men and steals their happiness. That's just not true.

If marriage is the best, you can't interrupt when I'm talking. Have you heard a girl lament that her boyfriend, she'd love to get married, but her boyfriend doesn't want to get married or he's dragging his feet. How would he not? You can't interrupt until the time is over. Why would it? Because what you're saying is that the harm. Like for example, let me finish. Did men marry women that have participated in porn? I would say that that's definitely a red flag, but it is not a necessarily, it's not a deal breaker. Can I ask the questions? Because you can keep asking questions and I'll never answer them. Before social media, another one by Taylor, Taylor done in 2011, I would like to finish. These happy, healthy men who get married, the majority of them, they lose their happiness. Do you have a study that shows that? Because I, let me finish, should we look to to determine the standard of whether marriage is a good?

Let me finish whether marriage is a good deal. Okay. Okay, that amazing video was put together by Milk Bar TV. So I want to give them credit for putting it together. I also want to just state that in the, you know, interests of saving time, I actually had to cut that video of her interrupting her debate partner down by a lot. I mean, she goes from saying that, you know, women should just shut up and make a sandwich to just incessantly interrupting her debate partner during this debate. And I thought it was just so funny. And so I wanted to give you that context to help you understand why some of the audience members watching the debate clown on her. Let's watch. Pearl, as a woman who campaigns for the general disregarding of female prominence, what is to stop you from taking your own advice and being quiet, finally? Where is your husband? Why are you so disagreeable, abrasive, and unpleasant while lamenting the very same traits

in other women? I'm actually quite polite. Are you? Are you though? We're about to see how polite she is in just a minute. But look, I also want to just state that everyone. involved in this conversation is conservative. And I think one of the mistakes that I personally made was just kind of lumping all conservatives together as individuals who want women to be quiet, right? To be submissive to their husbands, to have this unequal dynamic in the household. That was a mistake that I made because clearly, as you're about to see from the debate, there are certainly conservatives who view marriage as the type of partnership that I think helps marriages arrive, right? And they push back against people like Pearl, which I'm really happy to see.

And look, for anyone who is taking Pearl's advice to heart, please don't, because she's hurting you, right? If you're actually taking what she's saying seriously, you might end up denying yourself the kind of wonderful partnership that I really wish for everyone, because it enriches your life. If you find the right partner, it really does make everything else in life better. I promise you that. So let's get into the nitty gritty here. Let's talk about what Pearl thinks of women today and why she doesn't think that men really get a great deal out of marriage. What benefits are given to men in marriage?

A hundred years ago, men would have gotten a debt-free virgin who gave him four-plus children and was expected to obey him. Unfortunately, now modern marriage is simply whore management. The majority of women are not known to be obedient wives. How do we know this? from one we have phrases like it's cheaper to keep her and happy wife happy life if women were so obedient and good wives why are all of the phrases focused on bending to the will of the woman on top of that we can look at women's choices during marriage some common problems that i have found is that women gain a significant amount of weight in marriage on average women gained 24 pounds within the first five years of marriage it would be one thing if women were giving men four plus children like they were a hundred years ago but on average women give men one to two children the other issue we have is sexless marriages when we look at the The boomer generation, a third of them are in sexless marriages. How many men have reported that women stop sleeping with them after they have children? Listen, Pearl, like, you haven't been married, so it's okay.

I understand why you don't get it. But like, this is why people enter marriages, so they don't have to have sex anymore. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Obviously, if you watch this show regularly, you know that's not the case. Okay, but she's got a lot of strong thoughts on. what men fail to get out of a marriage because the modern woman is no longer a virgin when she gets married. Well, people do get married later in life. I got married when I was 30. I think it'd be a little bit weird if I were a virgin at 30, but okay. She talks about how much

weight they gain, but then demands that they have as many as four children and what their body doesn't change from doing so. Does she have any idea what having children is like? And more importantly, what happens to men and their bodies when they get married? I mean, are they all spelt and working out? No, you get into a relationship and a lot of people do get comfortable. And you could also help each other, motivate each other to get healthy. But I do want to go to Trent Horn's response because he had some observations of his own. Pearl can't use these stats to dunk on women because men are also worse than previous generations. Modern men are just as promiscuous and are even more overweight than modern women. A 2019 experience study found that men carry more credit, auto, and mortgage

debt than women. Millennial and Gen Z men have weaker grip strength and make less money than older men did at their age. Pearl has not shown that women are not good enough for men. Instead, the data shows men and women are both in bad shape compared to previous generations. But there's hope. Marriage is the best way for men and women to mature together and bring out the best in one another. Look, I don't really want this to be a segment where we're like, oh, which sex is worse? Men or women. Let's bash one side or the other. No, that's not the point. The point that I want to make and what he said at the very end of that clip is the most important point, that if you have a healthy perspective on what a marriage is, you see it as a way of growing to

and improving together. It's about building a life together and sharing that life with a partner. And that's one of the most wonderful things that I've had the privilege of experiencing in my life, which by the way, I used to have a super negative perspective on marriage. I thought it was useless. I didn't think I'd ever get married. I didn't think it was going to enrich me. I thought, no, no, it's all about career.

It's all about being an independent woman. And that's also something that gives you some sense of purpose and it can be fulfilling. filling, but I don't want anyone to deny themselves, you know, a marriage or a meaningful relationship because they believe or have bought into all these ridiculous stereotypes that are being uttered by individuals who have never been married like Pearl. Okay. Now, what Trent Horn said there about couples growing together is what I loved. And unlike Pearl, he himself is married with children. And, you know, Pearl doesn't have the experience of a marriage, which doesn't necessarily mean that you should never be able to weigh in on marriage,

but it's just weird that she has such strong declarative statements about who benefits the most for marriage when she herself doesn't really seem to know much about it. And about that divorce rate, I think it's important to weigh in on that as well because Pearl argues that there's a 50% chance that the marriage isn't going to make it, kind of tapping into this myth that 50% of marriages end in divorce. And as Trent Horn is about to explain, that narrative is misleading to say the least. Pearl exaggerates the harms of marriage and ignores the harms of not marrying. For example, according to the National Center for Family and Marriage Research,

the median length of all marriages is not seven to eight years, as Pearl often claims. That's the length of marriages that end in divorce, not all marriages. The median length for all marriages is 21 years. And the divorce rate is closer to 35%, not 50%. 50% was a future projection from the 80s that has since been falsified. In fact, we are now seeing the lowest divorce rates since 1970, about 14 divorces per 1,000 married women. That's right. I mean, a lot of people don't know that, but the divorce rate has dropped significantly.

And I think part of the reason why is because people are waiting a little longer to get married. You know, when you're super young, if you're like 20 years old and you get married, just know that you are not going to be the same person when you're 25. You're not going to be the same person when you're 30. So you might, the likelihood of growing apart increases the younger you get married. Doesn't mean that the marriage isn't going to work. There are people who get married, you know, they meet as high school sweethearts or they start dating as high school sweethearts. Then they end up getting married and they're totally actually no couples like that. So it's definitely possible.

But it is also true that the divorce rate has dropped significantly. And look, for the type of culture that Pearl is advocating for here, basically the whole trad wife type mentality, there are some vulnerabilities there. If you have bought into that and you think that's the best way to go, I would maybe proceed with caution and learn about what someone like Lauren Southern went through. I mean, she was a huge, huge supporter and advocate of that trad life, right? And then she entered a marriage like that and it ended up not working out for her. And we did talk about this a little bit on the show fairly recently, but I just feel like we didn't get into it enough because it takes a lot of courage to kind of build this persona as someone who advocates for something.

Then you experience what you advocated for and you realize, oh my God, I was totally. wrong and then you start speaking out against it, that is not an easy thing to do. And so whatever you think about Lauren Southern, you have to, in this specific case, give her credit for being willing to deal with the kind of backlash she's dealing with for speaking out against, you know, that trad life that some on the right have been advocating for. You know, she got married when she was 22 years old. She thought that as long as I put on the high heels and the lipstick when my husband comes home, as long as I cook the best meal, as long as I'm always submissive and I say yes, sir, whatever you want, things will go fantastic. But that wasn't the case. He actually ended up

being, according to her, we've heard her side of the story, not his, but according to what she's saying, you know, he was emotionally abusive, would lock her out of the house. Eventually, she wanted to go back to Canada and see her family. And he left, he left her after she had done that. And she's been, you know, speaking out about her experience ever since. And so find the right freaking person for you. Okay, don't listen to anyone who wants to have these like weird expectations and standards for one sex or the other. Everyone, there's, I believe that there's someone out there for everyone. And the real like battle is finding the person who complements you as an individual.

Go out there and find that person if you haven't already. Because again, I really do think sharing your life. with someone and having mutual respect for one another is one of the most incredible things you experience in life. So watch that debate. I thought it was amazing. It was a two hour long debate. Obviously we couldn't get into all of it. But I think it was a good example of a conservative pushing back against another conservative who's trying to appeal to the in-cell community. I don't know how sincere Pearl is in the things that she's saying. I think she sounds ridiculous and I don't think she has the expertise or the experience to espouse the kinds of

views that she's espousing, but that's not going to stop her. All right, we got to take a break when we come back some good news coming out of the Supreme Court if you can believe it.