TRIGGERnometry - Konstantin Kisin Exposes Pro-Palestine YouTuber in Heated Debate

Episode Date: August 14, 2024

Konstantin Kisin and Saifedean Ammous debate the Israel Palestine conflict in what quickly descends into a chaotic mishmash of Saifedean blaming Konstantin's views on his 'identity' without wanting to let up what exactly he means by this... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ryan Reynolds here for MintMobil. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same premium wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities, so do like I did and have one of your assistants assistants assistants switch you to MintMobil today. I'm told it's super easy to do at mintmobile.com slash switch. Up front payment of $45 for three-month plan equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available.

Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at MintMobile.com. I recently agreed to go on a podcast hosted by a former trigonometry guest safety in Amos. We agreed to do it because we were having a discussion on Twitter about the Israel-Palestine situation and he said, given that we disagree and given that I've been on your show, why don't you come in mind so we can have a good discussion about this? What you're about to see is the conversation that we had and it was anything but a good faith conversation.

I went into it with that spirit, but what I quickly discovered is safety and had very little interest in talking to me. and like some other people who we've debated about this issue on the show in the past, what he was interested in was pretending that he's arguing with me when he was actually arguing with points that other people made. You will also see, I think, some of the things that are always interesting about these discussions, one of them being that there never seems to be an understanding from the people on the other side of this argument that there's a big difference between deliberately capturing civilians and killing civilians

and murdering civilians and collateral damage in the course of the argument. a war and you'll see that happen. I found it very shocking, particularly given that this was billed as a good faith conversation. Check this out. How many... How many people do you think were raped on October 7? Approximately zero. A lot of the dead civilians were dead because they were targeted by the Israeli army. Why don't you actually ask me my opinions about things instead of putting words in my mouth or arguing with people you imagine in your head? Are you even, saying that I believe that because I my grandfather was Jewish. Is that what you're trying to

say? And the reason for that is just identity bias. It's just this is what I'm in the West. Which identity? I don't know and I don't care. It's just I don't know. You can't say it's identity bias and then say I don't know. How is that anything to do with identity? Unless you're suggesting that my identity means that I have a particular view of this conflict. Yeah, your identity gives you a bias towards this conflict, then that makes you... What is the identity element that gives me a bias? I don't know what your identity is. I didn't even know you.

Really? Now, this, Sainteen is fascinating. Hello, welcome to the Bitcoin Standard podcast. Our guest today is Constantine Kissen. Constantine is a comedian podcaster, commentator, an all-around internet muckraker who hosts the Triggernometry podcast. A few years ago, he hosted me on his podcast to discuss my work on Bitcoin. A few weeks ago, him and I got into a cordial conversation on Twitter on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Believe it or not, such a thing is possible. And I've asked him to host him to discuss this in more detail on my podcast, and he graciously agreed. So, Constantine, thanks so much for joining. My pleasure. Good to be with you. All right. So in general, I wanted to discuss the tweet that you mentioned, but in general, I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about the discourse around the Palestinian Israeli conflict and I think you offer a good perspective of how a lot of people in the West look at this conflict and how they view it. And I thought it might be good to give you the perspective

of somebody who's actually from there. I grew up in Ramallah. I grew up under Israeli occupation. And so I have a slightly different perspective from the one that you're probably more familiar with. So I'd say, let me just begin with a general question. From looking at your tweets and your discussions of this topic, it's pretty clear that you are a Zionist. You would identify as a Zionist. So I guess my first question would be, why are you a Zionist? Well, I don't know how you reach that conclusion. I suppose it depends on what you mean by Zionist.

Yeah, well, for me, a Zionist is somebody who believes that there should be a state, a Jewish state, in Palestine. Okay. So I don't know if you maybe want to bring our audience up to speed in terms of the conversation we had on Twitter. I think one of the things I've always been very keen to emphasize is that anything I think or say about it, and I really haven't said very much about this issue in public at all, is coming from a place of not really being an expert and not really knowing about the history of it. That's not to say I don't know about the history of it. But when I speak about it in public, I'm really talking from a trying to think through from first principles what people are saying about it now. Right.

So in terms of me being or not being a Zionist, I actually don't know that that is my position. This gets me into hot water with a lot of people. I don't know that I believe there should be a Jewish state in Palestine. Should is an interesting word. I mean, I think that even people, I've yet to hear an argument about the creation of the state of Israel that makes me 100% convinced that it was all clean and white and pure in every way. And there was nothing wrong there, right? So again, there will be people who don't like me saying that, but that is the perspectives I've been exposed to. So it's messy.

however there is a state of Israel now it is home to about 10 million people and so unless we are prepared to see those people be deported or killed then currently I believe that that state should continue to exist because just like in any other situation anywhere else in the world we don't go back 70 80 years and go actually let's redraw this map when Vladimir Putin tries to do it, we're all against it, right? Even though he has, and but it was what Adolf Hitler was doing too. So the claim that we should go back 70 years and redo the borders of a country because the way it was created wasn't quite right.

I don't find particularly persuasive. But in terms of the conversation you and I were having, it was much more about, I think it was about October 7th and who should have done what and how people should have responded. And that's really where, for me, at least, the focus is. So, no, I have never described myself as a Zionist, and I don't know that I would fit your definition of what a scientist is either. Okay, well, let me just say that I think this is a good place to point out one important misunderstanding, which is that if you say that you're not a Zionist or that you oppose Zionists,

it doesn't mean that you want the Jews who are in Palestine to leave or to die. there are, yes, there are 10 million citizens of the state of Israel, but there are about 15 million people who live in historic Palestine between the river and the sea. And on that land, about 7.5 million are Jewish and 7 and a half are not. So they're all under Israeli sovereignty. They're all under Israeli control, whether it's in Gaza or the West Bank or Israeli citizens. And so within Israel's citizens, there's 2.5 million that are not Jewish. And so there's 7.5 million who are Jewish and 7 and 1 half who are not. So it's half the population that is that is Jewish. And so it's, I think, far more accurate to say that being a Zionist means you want to kill and deport the 7.5 million people who are not Jewish than it is to say that being an anti-Zionist means that you want to deport and kill the Jews. Well, by that definition, I'm sorry to interrupt. I would really quibble even much more than I already have with your description of me as a Zionist. I certainly don't want to deport or kill people who are not Jews in that area. Why would you say that about me?

No, I'm not saying that about you, but I would say this is what the Zionist project has been. And this has been the case from the 1920s. It was very clear to Zionist leaders that, you know, initially the understanding in Europe for people who had never been to Palestine was that this is a land for a land with no people, which we should take because we are a people with no land. And then once people started moving there, they realized, well, that's not accurate. and famously one member, I think it was, of the Zionist organization to travel to Palestine, and he wrote back saying, the bride is already married. There are people already here that our plan doesn't make sense. And then by the 1920s, it became very clear to a lot of these leaders that there needs to be

something done about these people. And either we're going to have to fight them or we're going to have to kick them out or we're going to have to convince their neighbors to take them. And that's been essentially the driver of the conflict from day one. The driver of the complex is the fact that when the Zionist project really got off the ground, and that's thanks to you, British people. 1917, Lord Balfour gave the Balfour Declaration to Lord Rothschild, because Britain was broke in World War I, and they needed money, and they wanted the Americans to come in.

And so they wanted to, in order to entice the Americans to come in, they thought they could entice the Zionists in America by offering Palestine. And so at that point, about three to five percent of the population of Palestine was actually Jewish. And there had always been a Jewish population in Palestine since the Muslim conquest of Palestine in 637. So when the Romans took over, they expelled the Jews. When the Muslims kicked out the Roman leadership, they did not kick out the native population. This is a common misconception. It's not like Arabs came from Arabia and kicked out the people who were in Palestine.

the people who were in Palestine stayed there. They were mostly Christian at that time. The Muslims let the Jews come back, and they were able to live in Palestine from 637 up until 1947 and 1948. And during that time, they could own property and they could live there. So there was never an issue of we need to get rid of the Jews

or we need to get rid of other people. There was always understood that Muslims, Christians, and Jews had lived in that land, and they all had their property rights. And under the Turkish system, There was something called the millet system where every group had its own civil law determined by its own religion and their own religious authorities. So you can see why that would be a problem, why people like me might not be too excited about the idea that a 5% minority in your country, which is I guess probably around the same,

I'm not sure about the numbers, but I guess this is about the percentage of Muslims in Britain at this point, maybe 5% of Britain is Muslim. So imagine how it would feel like if somebody said, yeah, let's make Britain into a national homeland for Muslims. and now we're going to start encouraging Muslim migration into Britain and also we're going to take over land from people who are not Muslim and build institutions of the state that are geared toward making all this land owned by Muslims and then we're going to get rid of all the rest of the population.

So what I'm saying is that the problem with the support for Israel as the default position and this will get us into your tweet in our discussion is that it just ignores all of that stuff and ignores the role that the Western powers have had in enforcing this and in making this reality come about and then likes to pretend that history starts always at the point when any Palestinian fights back and then that's portrayed as just a completely crazy, insane,

violent, unjustified, monstrous barbaric act that justifies any kind of response. And I think this is really what it comes down to. So if you look at your tweet, which started this discussion, you're saying, the thing very few people will openly say is that once you become a parent, if someone kidnaps your child and homes for months on end in captivity, and you give exactly zero Fs about how exactly they're returned,

and the more of her captors are killed, the happier you'd be. That is a pretty brave defense of Hamas, I would say, on October 7. No, that's a funny point, except that's not what Hamas did. And this is, I think, the crucial distinction that never gets picked up in any of these conversations. So first of all, the history, I come back to my point originally, which is you are undoubtedly more knowledgeable about the history of that region. And I'm not really interested in going over that because, as I say, right up front, it's not something that I know about.

So I'm talking about conversations from first principles. Now, if we're talking from first principles, I still want to come back to the, this idea that you introduced me as someone from whose public discussions, it is clear that I'm a Zionist, and then you define Zionism as being willing to deport and murder people, which I'm not offended, but I don't think that's an accurate representation of my beliefs. So I think that's an important thing for me to maybe just point out. But in terms of your quip that it's a great defense of Hamas, I actually have said repeatedly that I thought that if October 7th was a Hamas attack on Israeli military installations and border

patrols and an attempt to attack the Israeli, the IDF, for example, I don't think the world would have responded the way that the world has, and I don't think the Israelis would have responded the way they have. And I certainly wouldn't see what happened on October 7th as what it was, which is a horrific terrorist attack. I would see it as you. described it perhaps as an act of resistance. But slaughtering a thousand civilians, at least, raping women. And if you compare, I mean, I don't know how many thousand people died on 9-11. I think it was about 2,000, right?

What happened to Israel, and we should probably look it up to get the exact per capita comparison right, but it was like having a 9-11 happen in. a large number of American cities all at once, right? Innocent people being targeted and murdered by terrorists. I think it's perfectly understandable that, and taking hostages, by the way, I think it's perfectly understandable that people who are the victims of that kind of atrocity targeted specifically at civilians, as we saw in the United States case, which reacted in ways that I didn't necessarily approve of on some occasions, like the war in Iraq.

nonetheless you would expect a country that was attacked in this way you would expect people who are civilians who were attacked in this way to respond in ways that are going to be very harsh and that I think is why what's happening is happening I didn't see the the tax on October 7th as an attempt to get back Palestinian hostages from Israeli jails that didn't seem to me to be what was happening and so I don't think the comparison works. Well, so a few problems. First of all, just in general, and this is something that many Palestinians and Israelis do, which is the suffering per capita ratio, which I think is, I find it abhorrent because I think you don't become less of a human being because you're American and

there's 300 million Americans, whereas if you're Palestinian and there's only 10 million Palestinians, then one dead Palestinian is worth 30 dead. Yeah, but it's a pretty reasonable point that I'm making. I mean, if you think about, let's say you have a, let's say, I don't know if you have kids. I have one son, right? If my son was to die in a tragic accident, at the level of my family, that is a disaster and a horrific thing to happen. At the level of Britain, no one gives a shit, right? So the comparative point is not that one person's life doesn't matter or matters more or whatever. The comparative point is, if you want to understand the psychological impact of a terrorist atrocity, you have to understand the scale of that atrocity relative to the

population of the country. If a 100 people were killed in a terrorist attack in London, as has happened, that is not the same as 100 people being killed in my town, right? At the level of my town, that analysis would be a huge overwhelming event, whereas if it happened in London, it would be awful, very sad, but it's not nearly the same thing. So I think that's a fair point, saved in. Yeah, well, I mean, I'm saying that because not because I'm trying to minimize any kind of targeting of civilians. I think, oh, they're all tragedies and any civilian death is something that I do not accept and I do not think is legitimate.

However, I'll say the, I think the, well, I don't think this is a fact. The first thing that Hamas did after October 7 is say that we are offering those hostages in exchange for releasing Palestinian prisoners. And in fact, one of their military squadrons had actually attempted to get into Ashkelon to free prisoners from a prison, but they couldn't get there. So this was exactly about freeing prisoners. No, no, no, no. Sorry. Again, I'm sorry to interrupt, but this is, again, a false equivalence, right? If you kidnap my wife and you hold her in your house and I come and rescue her from your house and I happen to kill you in the process, I've got no problem with that, right?

If you kidnap my wife in order to get something from me, that's a completely different situation, right? So the idea that they took completely innocent people hostage, having murdered a thousand people and raped people on the way, in order to free the Palestinian prisoners, is not an appropriate equivalence at all. October 7th was a terrorist attack whose purpose first and foremost was to massacre civilians and to terrorize the Israelis. It wasn't about rescuing people. And even if it was, it was done in a way that I considered to be completely illegitimate. Yeah. Well, this is, so first of all, let me just clarify. I obviously disagree with any targeting of civilians. But I think this is one of those things where the initial hysteria, and this is very similar to COVID. When COVID first happened, people just completely freaked out. And then,

And people have just been conditioned by that fear that media puts into you when, you know, you see people falling in China and then everybody got freaked out for years from COVID because they saw that video of that guy falling in China and they saw that World Health Organization Muppet saying that the R0 is seven or whatever at that point. And so then that fear gets in and then the rational brain shuts off and then the animal brain is just thinking about flight or flight. So in terms of what I've said, where would you identify my brain? rational brain shutting off.

First of all, there's all of the evidence that has been presented for the idea that there has been any kind of rape has all been shown to be presented by people who are complete liars. Like the UN? Yes. The UN are complete liars about the rape. No. The UN published a report in which they looked at a bunch of people and a bunch of sources. And these sources and the people who were behind it, they've gone behind them and they've seen

that it's all garbage. Every single person was behind this. So there's this organization called Zacat, which is a bunch of first responders. They're responsible for a lot of the horror stories. And all of these horror stories turned out to be false and the people behind them turned out to be complete liars. And it was all about exaggerating this. So first of all, just for clarity, how many, getting there. How many people do you think were raped on October 7?

Approximately zero. Approximately. Nobody was raped. Pretty much. Yeah. That would be pretty much the first time ever in. the history of war that thousands of men invaded a different territory, slaughtering civilians, taking female hostages, and none of them.

That's literally never happened in human history. These Hamasites were so moral and pure, they didn't touch any women. Well, two things to keep in mind. First of all, you'd have any kind of evidence of it. Did you have some kind of substantive evidence for it other than all of these proven liars who are just repeating stories that are clearly lying? The story about somebody cutting off a tit and throwing it and playing with the tit. But that isn't what I said.

I didn't say anything about tipping. Hang on, hang on, you've been interrupting me and let me finish. Then there was the story of the- We're getting stuck on points where I think it's important to zoom- We're getting stuck because you won't let me finish and get to the point that you're making. So you're moving on to another one. So first of all, the key thing to keep in mind is that the point for Hamas and the win there was not to go and rape and murder.

The point was to get as many hostages as they could possibly get. And yes, I agree with it. you that it's not okay to take civilians as hostages. However, I don't see you objecting to the 9,000 Palestinian civilians that are in Israeli janes. And I don't see you. I object to anyone who is innocent of crimes, which many of those people you're talking about are not. Many of them stabbed people, killed people. And yet, a thousand of them haven't been put on trial. There are no attention. Hold on. Sorry, this time I wasn't finished. However, I am in favor of the rule of law and due process. And those people should be.

given due process. And to the extent that they're innocent of any crimes, they, of course, should be immediately released. So you don't hear me object to it because you haven't asked me if I object to it. I object to people being deprived of the civilities. Yes, but I've seen your Twitter and you obviously never get outraged about anything Israel does. You only get outraged about the things that you're told the Palestinians are doing. Now, I get back to the point. Hang on, let me finish. So there was the whole 40 burned babies, which is another one of these. Is that something I've tweeted about? I don't know.

You've treated about a lot of things. No, it isn't. The point is, the point is, the point is, there was a whole bunch of atrocity propaganda that was being given out to media that formed this crazy reaction

where people's minds, Hamas is just this incredible, indescribable evil and Israel's government and its military are just these individuals. No, no, hold on. Well, let's talk about the thing. No, no, let's talk about the point that I'm trying to get to.

Hold on a second. Hold on a second. If you let me on your podcast to debunk the things that you believe the mainstream media have got wrong about this conflict, you don't need me here for that, right? You can just do that yourself. But if you want to talk to me, let's talk only about the things that you and I have said. I've never said anything about burnt babies. I disagree with you about the idea that there was zero rapes on October 7th. And I also disagree with the insinuation that you appear to be making that Hamas are not evil and barbaric. They clearly are. They're murdering terrorists who slaughtered 1,000 people plus who wounded up to about 7,000 people who deliberately targeted civilians, who deliberately took civilians hostage. So let's talk about, if you want to talk with me, I'm delighted that we're having this conversation, but let's talk about the things that I'm saying and the things that you're saying instead of the things that other people have said, okay?

Yes, and I'm letting you finish every single time you're interrupting me, but I'd like to be able to finish once. Well, the reason is I keep addressing your point and you can. keep bringing things in from the outside that I haven't said. That's the difference. No, and the point is, again, going back to your slaughter and rape, the other thing, other than the rape, is the idea that they went around murdering civilians. But the vast majority of these civilians that were murdered, they were burned. Now, a bunch of fighters who are carrying a bunch of guns and are trying to get as many hostages as they can and get back, don't have the time

to sit and tie people up and burn them down. It's not easy to burn people in a house. If you've got a gun on you. You tie people up, you start burning them. They'd find them as soon as the fire comes near them, they can break free and they can get out. Why were all those people burned at the festival? A lot of the dead civilians were dead because they were targeted by the Israeli army. Because the Israeli army has the Hannibal directive, which is that we'd rather kill our own people than let our enemies take them as hostages, just because we don't want to be put in a position where we need to negotiate with terrorists. And that's what drove this. So then you could say that you could see very clearly all the people that were dead, well, maybe not all,

but a lot of the civilians that were dead were dead because they were burned because they were attacked by weapons that clearly Hamas doesn't have. So you have that picture from the NOVA festival where you had all these cars that were burned. There was no way that Hamas can go around burning cars in there. And again, the point that I'm trying to get to is I'm not defending Hamas. I think it was completely inexcusable what they did. And I don't believe in the targeting of civilians. But I think the key point that I'm trying to get to is that whatever atrocity propaganda you've swallowed about what Hamas did on that day is still not 1% of what the IDF does regularly to Palestinians, what settlers do to Palestinians in the West Bank. And that's the thing that you ignore. That's the thing that's been going on for 80 years.

And of course, when I bring up the past, when we talk about what the Israelis did in 1947 and 1948, you'll say, well, this is too old and it's too far away. But it's something that goes on until today. It's something that it continues to go on. And yet we see this over and over and over again with the kind of modal Zionist NPC, which is that these things don't register. Or if they do register, if confronted with it, you'll just say, well, I condemn that. And then that's as if, you know, that makes them completely irrelevant. to the real world. So you just condemn it and then you move on and then you just completely miss the idea of how this thing actually affects the real world.

Okay. What would you like me to address in terms of that? Well, why is it that then you think, well, go back to your original tweet, you said that you think that it is justifiable for people to do whatever it takes in order to free their hostages. No, that isn't what I said. No, no, that's not what I said. What is it that you said? Let's bring up the team again. I didn't say it's justifiable for people to do whatever it takes. That's not what I said.

I give zero fucks about how exactly they're returned. Yes. And that only applies if it's the Israeli hostages. It doesn't apply if it's Hamas. No, that's not what I said. I just said to you in the course of this conversation, safety. And this is a problem. We had exactly the same conversation with Basim Yusuf, who actually, like with you,

I actually really like, right? We had a great conversation when you were in trigonometry. I'm happy to have this discussion with you. But like you, he was arguing with things that I'd never said because he spent his entire time reacting to things on the internet that other people were saying. I said to you several things in the course of this conversation, which I think preclude me from being described as a Zionist NPC

or whatever it is that you just suggested. Number one, I said to you that my reading of the history of this conflict is that the creation of the state of Israel wasn't exactly purer than pure, right? So at no point have I suggested that there isn't a problem there and that this conflict is entirely spurious because the evil barbaric Palestinians are just by virtue of their evilness and barbarism are doing this, right?

I also said to you that had the October 7th attack been an attack by Hamas troops on Israeli troops or on Israeli military installations or on Israeli prisons in order to free their people from there. While some people, of course, many people in Israel would nonetheless treat this as an attack on their country quite understandably, I think both the world and Israel and I would have reacted very differently, right? So the issue is that you say, of course, targeting civilians is wrong, and that's

something we of course agree on. And the problem is that October 7th was not in any way an attempt to address to redress the wrongs committed by the IDF. It doesn't compensate for them. It doesn't fix them and doesn't solve them. It's simply an act of terror designed to brutalize and murder and enslave the civilian population of those areas. So if you're asking me about that, you have to start by acknowledging that that is a terrorist attack. Now, how would any country, this is what I'm asking you, respond to a terrorist attack in exactly the way that Israel. Israel has done. So you can tell me about the plight of the Palestinian people, and I can agree

with you. I can say to you, look, for the sake of argument, the Palestinians are under occupation, and Israel and the IDF are terrible, and they go in there and mow the lawn and all of these other things that I've heard from many, many people. And I can agree with it on all of that. That does not justify a terrorist attack on Israeli civilians, and it never will. And that's the difficulty that we're having, because people who are arguing from your position, including you in this conversation, are trying to present October 7th as some attempt to offset the evils done by the IDF as you perceive them. And I'm saying to you, there is no connection between the two. No amount of Israeli brutality justifies the massacre of civilians. If Jews during

World War II had risen up in the Warsaw Gettom just went around raping German women and slaughtering German civilians, that would have been wrong too. When the Soviets, the people who were my ancestors, raped their way through Eastern Germany on the way to Berlin, that was wrong. I am one of the people who's actually been quite prominent in raising Soviet war atrocities, even though I think that war needed to be worn, right? So, and that isn't, by the way, the same

as, you know, the aerial bombardment of Germany or dropping the bombs on Japan, which was absolutely right and necessary for military reasons. Right? So there's difference between targeting civilians gratuitously for violence, gratuitously for violence and military necessity. And this is where I think we're getting stuck. Yeah, we're getting stuck because you're unable to see the very transparent hypocrisy in your position.

Explain it to me. I'll try to understand. Explain it to me. That tweet said, I give exactly zero Fs about how they return. Now, that was in the context of the fact when they freed, I think, three or four hostages. This was June 9th. They freed four hostages. and in order to free those four hostages, about 300 Palestinian civilians were killed. 200 to 300 Palestinian civilians were killed. Aerial bombardment and special military forces came in, and they knew that they were going to have to massacre a lot of civilians

in order to get out, and they did it. How is that in any way different from what Hamas did on October 7? Just because you refused to accept... May I ask a question? Let me finish. Hang on. Just because you refused to accept the distinction that, no, no, no, Hamas can't possibly be justified,

I'm trying to tell you, this is just the atrocity propaganda kicking in, because in your mind, it's just, or it's rape, it's murder, it's unjustifiable, nothing that Israel does could possibly justify this. Well, no, Hamas also wanted to free thousands of Palestinian prisoners. Israel wanted to free hundreds of Israeli prisoners, and Israel killed hundreds of civilians. Hamas killed hundreds of civilians, probably most of them were killed by Israel, but even assuming, accepting the idea that they killed civilians, why is it that in your mind this murder of civilians is justified because you're freeing But that murder of civilians does not justify. For the reason that I've already explained to you repeatedly, which is if you take my wife

hostage and I come to your house and you try to prevent me from rescuing her, I'm going to shoot you in the head and I'm going to feel great about it. If you come to my house and kill my family because of something I've done, that's a completely different thing. Do you understand the difference? No, that's exactly the same thing. So you feel there's no difference between Constantine said something rude to me or did something bad to me. I'm going to come to his house and I'm going to murder his family.

No, no, no, no. You are listening to the point that it's the same thing. They've taken hostages. Both of them. Yes, they both taken hostages. It's absolutely not the same thing. Why are the Palestinian people who are not involved worthy of being rescued? Hold on. The civilians who were murdered by Hamas on October 7th had nothing to do with the atrocities that you say are being committed against Palestinians, right? And the civilians murdered by Israel had nothing to do with except they were killed in an attempt to rescue hostages, right? How is that difference? The same thing that Hamas says.

Because Hamas killed civilians in order to kill civilians. The Israeli troops killed civilians in order to rescue hostages. That's the difference. No, the difference is Hamas took civilians hostages and most likely the Israelis killed their own civilians. But even accepting the fact that Hamas killed civilians. Okay. So let's look for that one point.

50,000 civilians over the last nine months. Let's clarify that one point. How many civilians do you think Hamas killed on October 7th? Because you keep saying you're against targeting civilians, but it also sounds like you don't think they killed any civilians. I haven't seen convincing evidence that they have. I think the majority of the civilian deaths were from friendly fire. How many would you say that they did kill Hamas?

I would love to see an official investigation into this, but it's very telling that Israel won't have an investigation into this. How many would you say that? they've killed. I mean, it's a simple question. I don't know. I don't know. I haven't done an investigation. You are, you're putting one. And I think it's very telling you, they won't do one. No, no, no. But that's not answering my question, right? That girl whose dead body we saw being driven off in the back of a truck, was she killed by Israeli forces?

No. No, no. So that's one. That's one that we can say was definitely killed by Hamas, okay? Yeah. Right. How many more do you think were probably killed by Hamas? I'm telling you. I don't know. I could make up a number. 10? Is it 100? Is it a thousand? How many? I don't know. I'd like to see an investigation into this. But you know what I do know. But you're absolutely certain about Hamas figures about how many Palestinians have been killed, right? Yeah, I'm not certain about their figures. I know what is going on in Gaza. And I know that there's no way that you could destroy an entire city of 2 million people and not kill at least tens of thousands of people. Okay. And tens of thousands of death. And I know, you know, I know because I know people in Gaza, I know people who know people in Gaza. And I know just,

how many of the people they know have been dead. I think what's been reported is... I'm not disputing that lots of people have been killed in guard. I'm also... But I am disputing that Hamas didn't kill civilians. Hamas killed a lot of civilians on October 7th. Yes, but Israel has killed a lot more civilians. And this is what you...

No, but the comparative game there is irrelevant to me. We killed a lot more German civilians than German killed our civilians in World War II. I think that's perfectly justified. This is what I mean when I say Zionist NPC. We can kill as many of them. as we can as we want because that's justified because we are reacting because we are just because we are trying to get our hostages back, nothing they do is justified. It's not. It only works in your brain. Does you have a...

Safe did. Are you even listening to what I'm saying? You keep saying the phrase, nothing they do is justified. I just said to you three times now, three times, if Hamas had attacked Israeli military installations and IDF troops and killed IDF troops and Israeli military military installations were destroyed, that to me would be a completely different thing. So it's not that nothing they do is justified. Any crime by Hamas justifies any kind of reaction by Israel. No, no, no, no. Which is why you never any kind of criticism coming from people like you towards anything

Israel does. You have to actually listen to what I'm saying, otherwise it's impossible to have a comment. I am listening. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that it's okay for Israel to kill 50,000 people to rescue their host. It's not okay for Hamas to kill anybody. I'm trying to tell you it's wrong for both.

I'm trying to tell you it's wrong for both. No, but you see, you keep missing deliberately, I think, at this point, because you're a smart guy. You keep missing the point that I'm making, which is that there's a big difference between attempting to rescue hostages or attempting to kill terrorists and simply targeting civilians for the purpose of targeting civilians, right? Right? There's a big difference between those two principles. One of those things is called war. The other of those things is called terrorism. And there's a big difference between the two. Strapping a bomb to your chest and getting on a bus is very different to going to war and attempting to rescue hostages in the process of which civilians get killed. There are different activities entirely. There's a different moral calculus and it works entirely differently. That's the difference. I see. So you're not a fan of terrorism. And you think, terrorism is not justifiable. You don't think targeting civilians is justifiable. Correct. And does that include Palestinian civilians? It includes any civilians anywhere. Including, by the way, I, for example, right, I'm Russian, my wife is Ukrainian and I have lots of family in both countries. I have been very outspokenly pro-Ukrainian throughout the entire conflict. I do not support killing Russian

civilians in retaliation to what Russia is doing in Ukraine. nor do I support, obviously, Russia killing Ukrainian civilians, right? So it's not difficult to support people being able to wage war in situations where they have to wage war without also then condemning the massacring of civilians that is deliberate and purposeful targeting for the sake of killing civilians. That is not the same as collateral damage and conflict. They're different things. No, but here's the thing.

The problem is that you think any kind of death meted out by Israel is, collateral damage, because in your mind, I don't think that. Yes, which is why you don't see when Israel goes and murders Palestinians, when an Israeli terrorist goes into a Palestinian village and shoots people, as happens every day these days in the West Bank, every single day, pogroms of settlers surrounded by soldiers protecting them, going into Palestinian villages, burning people's homes, burning their cars, shooting people. This happens every day. You don't say anything about it. You don't condemn it. You don't think it's a problem. You don't think to talk about it. I will happen. Look, I, as I said,

I don't know, I don't want you to condemn it. You got to let me respond, Dave, Dean. You've got to let me respond. You made the point. You've got to let me respond. So, as I said to you, I don't talk about this issue publicly because it's not an error of expertise of mine. If anyone asks me about the West Bank, I can tell you what my understanding of the West Bank is. I don't like a lot of the things that are being done in the West Bank. I don't like a lot of the things that the settlers are doing. do not support burning people's homes and massacring people and killing people and pushing them out of wherever they live. So when you say you don't condemn it, if you ask my opinion, I will give it to you. I don't support some of the things that are being done there.

Yes, this is a great answer for me because it's exactly my problem with this entire idiotic fetish that pro-Israel people have about condemn, condemn, condemn, which I find idiotic because it's meaningless. Because I'm not asking you to condemn things. And I'm not asking, and I hate it when people ask me to condemn things because I don't condemn anybody. I don't condemn Israel. I don't condemn any authority because who am I?

I'm in no position. I'm not their mom to condemn them. I'm not their benefit actor. And so it's meaningless to say who's condemning things. What I'm talking about... You just said to me, you don't condemn it. And that's what I responded to. Yes, because I do condemn it if I'm asked to.

Yes, exactly. But what I'm trying to illustrate is that if you look at your tweets, if you look at your position on this and whenever it's brought up, you bring up the death of Israeli civilians and then use it as justification for anything Israel does. So you look at all of your discussion. I don't use it just a case for anything. I give you no effort on how they return. So Israel can do whatever it wants.

And then you don't care of all the targeting of Palestinian civilians that takes place and you never bring up the fact that anything that the Palestinians do in return is justifiable. Notice I'm not saying that it is. Let me clear here. I'm perfectly consistent. Let me be clear. I'm perfectly consistent. I think everybody's wrong to target civilians,

and I think targeting civilians does not justify any kind of reaction. So I'm not okay to go and target Israeli civilians because they targeted Palestinian civilians. You are the one who's swallowed the Zionist NPC propaganda hook, line, and sinker, and don't even see the distinction here, wherein no matter what Israel does, it doesn't matter. You're not going out there posting videos of the horrific things that are taking place. in the West Bank, of the horrific things that Israel's been doing to Palestinians for eight years, of the land theft, of the mass murder,

of the terrorist attacks, the enormous number of terrorist attacks. Menahembegand, the Israeli Prime Minister, boasted about the fact that he invented modern terrorism, because the first civilian bomb, the first bomb to sergeant civilians, the first people to think about the idea of let's put bombs in civilians was by the Zionists in Palestine

against Palestinian civilians. So in your mind, don't see anything wrong with that ever. And that's why for me, it's not about asking you to condemn it. It's about looking at where your energy goes. And your energy is constantly going Hamas or evil. They're targeting civilians. And therefore, everything that Israel does is justified. And therefore, anybody who's critical of Israel is an awful person and we're going to go after them or we're going to criticize them. On the other hand, whereas if Israel is going to do a lot of stuff, I wasn't even aware I was doing safety. You've really quite painted quite a picture there.

Going after people, posting videos. I've never posted any videos from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ever. So why are you criticizing me for not posting videos from the West Bank? What are you really due to target civilians, you only talk about what the Palestinians do to target civilians. I don't. I really don't comment on this issue very much at all. I'm sorry?

I don't comment on this issue very much at all. I've never gone after people, as you suggest, for their opinions. I've always said that. What's that lady's name? you call her DEI Barbie? Yeah, I called her DEI Barbie for accusing me of things that I took very personally, which is accusing me of being unfair and non-impartial when I was fair and impartial as anyone who watches that debate can see.

I don't give a shit about her opinion about Israel and Palestine. There was another guy on that panel with whom I had absolutely no issue who was arguing for the same thing. I know lots and lots of people who have your particular view on this issue. I respect them and get on with them just as I do with people who are pro-Israel. I have never targeted anybody for having a different opinion to me on this issue, and I never would, because I see it as very complicated, and I think people are right to think whatever they think about it, if that's what they think. So, again, I think you're arguing with

these sort of miraculous ghosts in your head and not with me. Can we talk about what I believe, or what you believe, or what you'd like to discuss with me? Because I think that would be a lot more productive. Yeah, well, I mean, just to wrap this up, I think the point that I'm making, again, we can't. Fair enough. No, no, we can. We're going to move into that. It's just, again, the point is, it's very clear, your energy is always going there. And I think the point that I'm trying to get. How is that clear? Because I've looked at your tweets for months and I've seen your discussion. Other than that particular one, what have I said about the conflict that you feel justifies your position? Denouncing the criminality of

Hamas and justifying the actions of Israel and denouncing people who are critical of Israel for not understanding the fact that Israel needs to defend... Whom specifically have I denounced for their position on Israel? And never pointing out that Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. You make quite a lot of points there. So let's just pause. Whom specifically have I denounced for their position on Israel? I don't remember at this point, but you...

Okay, so no evidence for that claim. What about your other claims? What is your evidence for the other claims? Well, there I just shared with you one tweet, the one that we were discussing. You were saying that it's okay for Israel to do whatever you want. That tweet applies to Israel. It applies to Palestine. It applies to everyone.

I am sure the people of Gaza, if their sons are in an Israeli prison, agree with what I said, right? The problem that I explained to you is what happened on October 7th was not an attempt to get their children back. It was an attempt to kill civilians, as we discussed. Now, we seem to disagree. You seem to think Hamas didn't kill any civilians. except that one woman we saw, obviously, and they treated everyone with kindness and respect, I'm sure. I'm not saying that. But you keep throwing out lots of claims about me that aren't factually based.

And so it seems to me that you've brought me on to argue with people in your head instead of with me, right? No. I've brought you on because you specifically said that anything that Israel does to try and get their wastages is something that you don't care about. I said that a parent, the parent and the reason and the other most apparent of issue that we, that we need to move on to, is the idea that if you think about targeting civilians, it's very clear, I think for anybody who's been paying attention over the last nine months, Israel's goal is not to get Hamas or even to get the hostages. Israel's goal is to make Gaza uninhabitable. And this is something that is completely unable to register in the mind of the Zionist NPC,

because you have the Israeli finance minister, not some nobody, the Israeli finance minister who's saying, if we're talking about the plans for post-war Gaza, we need to talk about a Gaza, we need to plan for a Gaza that has 100 to 200,000 people. This is a place that has 2.3 million people. What does it mean to say we need to bring the population down to 0.1 or 0.2 million? That's 10% or 5%. So he's saying we need to get rid of 90 to 95% of the people.

This is the finance minister. He's the most influential politician in Israel at this point. Him and Smotrich and Ben Gvier might be the most important because they hold the Netanyahu coalition together. They're out there saying, It doesn't matter what happens with the hostages, and it doesn't matter what happens with Hamas. What matters is we need to get rid of the Palestinian people from Gaza, okay? So you have to understand this is what they're saying, and it doesn't register because Western media doesn't like to emphasize this.

And, of course, you are conditioned to just turn the blind eye to it and just say, well, I can't. It's a safety. What do you think of that? We literally just released on trigonometry a week ago, an interview with Pierce Morgan, in which he made these. exact point that you just made. So when you say you don't cover this or you don't know about this or whatever, that's garbage, right? So again, you're talking to people in your head.

No, I'm talking to you. I know who I'm talking to. And I'm saying to you that on my show, which has a million subscribers on YouTube, we just broadcast an interview in which the point that you just made was made by a prominent guest on our show. Not you. we brought him on to make the fucking point. Yeah, so the point is you're out there.

It doesn't register in your analysis. All right. All right. He looks at the same thing. Listen. In your mind, there's nothing that Israel does that is unjustified as many civilians they kill, as many terrorists. What is your evidence for that statement? No.

What's your evidence for the statement? What's your evidence for the idea that I think anything Israel does is justified? I just pointed out. I just told you. I don't support many of the things that are happening in the West Bank. That would be one example. You're constantly, you're able to see that the actions of Hamas justify any reactions of Israel. And you're not able to say, I haven't said that they justify any reactions of Israel.

That's what you said in that. No, no. You can't. Okay, let me explain to you. Look, I know it's difficult for you to just break out of this kind of conditioning where you don't see the asymmetry here. The asymmetry here is that we have a government that has trillions, billions of dollars being handed to it by the U.S., by all over the world, by weapons from all over the world,

and it is actively out there saying we want to get rid of these millions of Palestinians we have. Smaltrich's plan says, he's been very clear about this. He released this plan in 2017. He says, we need to have one state from the river to the sea, a Jewish state, and everybody who's not Jewish needs to understand they have three options. They can either fight, and they can either die, or they can leave, or they can accept that they will need to live under Israeli, subjugated to Israelis. This is what he says.

This is very clearly what he says. Now, you are completely incapable of internalizing what this means for the human beings who live there. And that's why you... What's your evidence for the idea that I am incapable of internalizing that? Because you keep talking about the travesties of October 7, as if they are just in incomparable evil that has never existed before. or when Palestinians have been experienced it. I didn't say incomparable evil that's never existed before. Okay, fine.

You didn't say that. But you only talk about that because you don't talk about anything else going on in the West Bank. You don't go on and saying, well, you know what? I explain to you that I barely ever talk about this conflict. Yes. Yeah. So you only talk about it when the Zionist NPCs are activated to go out and spread the talking points of, hey, it's okay for us to kill half a million Gazans in the next few months.

because they targeted a bunch of our civilians. So there is nothing that we can do that is not okay. And I think that's the point. You did say it. You said that anything that can be done to justify, to get the hostages back is justified. But you don't apply the same. That's not what I said either.

I think the key point is that Justin, can I just repeat to you, you seem to have some trouble with both listening and reading comprehension. Let me repeat to you what my tweet said. My tweet said, when you become a parent, do you think like this, right? My point was that it's very difficult to expect people whose children have been kidnapped

to think about this issue in anything other than the way that I described. I did not say that killing as many people in Gaza as possible should be Israeli state policy, nor do I think that. Why don't you actually ask me my opinions about things instead of putting words in my mouth or arguing with people you imagine in your head. Because this is what Israel is doing, which you are defending under the pretext of they are doing this to rescue the whole. I'm not defending it.

Yes, you are. You're not out. We're saying, Oh, wow, Israel is committing a genocide. They want to get rid of two million. I don't believe Israel is committing a genocide. That's for sure. No, I don't.

That's because I have a brain and I know what words mean. No, it's because you don't have a brain. It's because you're an NPC. You have the actual finance minister saying, Okay, Sainte. What's the definition? What is the definition of genocide? What's the definition of genocide?

You don't know. I know. I'm asking you, what is the definition of genocide? The extermination of a people or a group of it and or their elimination from a piece of land. This is exactly what is living people from a piece of land is genocide. Murdering them and kicking them out of their land and clearing them. And killing them out of separate things. because once you've murdered them, there's not much point kicking them out.

Well, you have no many of genocide. You murder some and you kick out the rest and then you've left with a piece of land that doesn't have the original population. Right. That's how it works. The definition of genocide is the deliberate targeting of an ethnic group on its ethnic basis and murdering them in order to destroy that ethnic group and nationhood. I don't believe that's what's happening in Gaza. That's my opinion. If that was what was happening in Gaza, in my opinion, I wouldn't defend it and I wouldn't support it.

Why is it not? You have the actual finance minister saying we want to get rid of the, if we want to get rid of two million people out of this, if we end the war, if we can kill and expel two million people, then we will have the Gaza that we want after this. I'm not looking at what's full. I'm aware that some of the people in the cabinet are saying things of that nature. Some of their language has been genocidal. It's not the same as Israel committing genocide because.

How is it not? These are the people that are in power. They have more money in the weapons. The way you would assess whether something was happening would be by looking on the ground of what's happening, not what people are saying. And when we look at what's happening on the ground, Israel has available to, as you well know, weaponry of a much greater scale that could commit genocide in Gaza. And it's not using it precisely because they're attempting to limit civilian casualties as much as they can. Not least because safety, not because necessarily they love Palestinians and care about their life so much, but because, of course, every Palestinian casualties being used in the international media against Israel.

And the one thing we've yet to talk about, and I think this behooves you to bring up to your audience that perhaps they are not aware of, thanks to your analysis, is why so many people are being killed in Gaza. Why is that? Because in Ukraine, where my family are hiding from Russian bombs, you know where they do it? They hide in tunnels and metro stations and undergrounds and tubes. It's not happening in Gaza for some reason, despite the fact that they have the most... sophisticated tunnel infrastructure in the world. Interesting. And what's also interesting is, unlike in Ukraine, where President Zelensky was offered an opportunity to escape the moment the war started and decided to stay and lead his people, the people who caused this conflict

or this flare-up of the conflict on October 7th, the people who are in charge of Hamas, seem to be living in five-star hotels in Qatar. Fascinating. Is it possible? Because if you, Google is Hamas using human shields, you can immediately find it to channel 4 fact check. It will be one of the first search results you'll find, in which one of the leaders of Hamas says in 2014 that this is a brave tactic that we use to stop Israeli missiles with our chests. The reason so many people are dying in Gaza is that it benefits Hamas to see them be killed. And that's why they're putting them in harm's way deliberately. And that is something perhaps we should add to this conversation. Yeah, but you bring that up, of course.

Let me say, of course, I think that's completely indefensible what Hamas does, and I'm no way going to defend it. Okay. But then stop using Hamas, stop using Palestinian casualty numbers as if it's the fault of Israel. It's the fault of the people who put them in harm's way. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's the fault of the people who have been ethnically cleansing them for 80 years, which is, again, something that your brain cannot process because your condition not to think about this. Look, this is something that Israelis have been doing since the 1940s, and they've done it in the 60s, and they've done it recently. And this is something that has become mainstream.

And you said, well, Israel could have more bombs. No, actually, they can't. You know, the reality of the matter is... Israel has nuclear weapons. Yeah, they can't use nuclear weapons on Gaza. Why not? It would kill Israelis. It would kill a lot of Israelis.

They just cannot do that. It would be small tactical nuclear weapons if they wanted to. They could carpet bomb the entire place, which they haven't done. No, they have. That's exactly what they've been doing. They have carpet bombed the entire place. They've dropped more bombs on it than anything else. But I think the key thing to keep in mind here is this.

Within a couple of weeks of the beginning of the war, Israeli generals were very clear about the fact that, look, if the U.S. stops giving us weapons, we are done. We can't shoot anymore. The amount of artillery and the amount of air power that has been deployed by Israel over this conflict is just beyond what a country, of 10 million people can sustain.

It's an enormous amount of weapons. I mean, they're dropping millions of dollars worth of bombs on houses that are just shanties, basically. This is, and they're out there to try and get and destroy every single shanty, every single building. Not only that, but, and so the reason they do this, the reason they can just use more power is because if they do use more power, if they do use any kind of chemical weapons or something like that that just results in mass casualties at once, it's not going to play well with foreign

people who are wont to believe the idea that no, Israel is out there trying to minimize casualties. So the real limitation here is how can, it's not a question of how do we get Hamas without killing as many civilians. The question is how do we kill as many civilians as possible while making it look like we're not out there to kill civilians? This is the mentality that drives the Israeli leadership, which of course you choose to ignore. This is what they're saying. This is their secret- Hang on, no, no, no, no. They're clearly saying No, no, I don't choose to ignore it. I disagree.

But the other than the Vigil said there are no innocence in Gaza, nothing, not even a baby, is innocent. I disagree with that. Yeah, of course, you disagree, but you still support everything that he does. That's the point. You're an NPC. I don't support everything. I don't have given you any evidence to suggest that I support everything Israel is doing. All I said is, I don't believe that what is happening in Gaza meets the definition of genocide. That's all I've said.

Of course. Because, again, that's the propaganda line that everybody told. No, it's because it's not in my view based on what I believe to be happening in Gaza. Imagine if it was a number of times. Because in my view, what's happening in Gaza doesn't match that definition. If I said there are no innocence in Israel, do you think that that would be genocide the language? It would be. I haven't, I just said to you a few seconds ago that some Israeli ministers have used language

that I would consider genocidal. So I agree. These are not people on the street. They are the people in charge of the weapon. I appreciate that. They're people who are in the coalition government. I know. Yeah.

And they are the ones that are out there who are in power to act on this. They're not random. What I'm saying to you is I judge whether a genocide is happening, not on what some people have said, but on what's actually happening. And my view, based on the things I read and the things that I know, is that what's happening in Gaza is not genocide. That's not the same as ignoring. things that you keep claiming I'm ignoring.

I just happen to disagree with you. Do you understand the difference between those two things? No, I think you don't understand the difference between the fact that when a person is in a position of authority and is actually acting out a genocide in front of our eyes. The finance minister is not in charge of the military. You know that, right? The finance minister is part of the wartime cabinet.

Yes, but he's not in charge of the military. You know that, right? Yes, but the people in charge of the military have the finance minister said something doesn't mean that that's what is happening. Yeah, but the defense minister and all the, military people have also said equally horrible things. They've all said similar things. No, they haven't.

Animals. Unless you have a specific quote that I'm not aware of please produce it. Well, go read the ICJ report, which collects all of these reports. What is the quote? The President of Israel said there are no innocent civilians. The Minister of Defense said, we are fighting human animals. We're not going to give them water. Well, I think Hamas are human animals, yeah.

No, but he was referring to the civilians that are not going to get water. They're not going to get food. They're not going to get medicine. They're not going to get anything. That was what he did. He didn't cut off the electricity from everybody. The point is this. Well, how could he cut it off from Hamas?

It doesn't make sense. This is what every army does. What do you think the Americans did in Fallujah? You think they just let the terrorists have light and food and water as they attack them? How do you think war is wage safety? Can you name what every military in the world does when they go into a city to try and take out the friend? that we need to reduce the population of Fallujah by 90%. No.

That only happens in Israel. It's the only openly genocidal regime in the world. There are other genocides, but there are no other genocides in which people can brazenly say that we're being genocidal and then have Zionist NPCs like you all over the world. Do PR for them to help continue. And I think the point you're missing is that it is Americans

who keep this thing going because it is their funding that keeps this going. And in order for that funding to continue, People like you are essential for continuing to whitewash all of this stuff and say, I don't live in America. I'm not an American citizen, so I'm incredibly not essential. The British are also providing weapons, and they're also providing all kinds of intelligence services. And they're also, we've had a good hour.

I'm glad we had this conversation. I'm getting a little bit tired of you calling me a Zionist NPC with no evidence whatsoever. So why don't we wrap up here? I provided a lot of evidence. Okay. Well, yeah. I mean, I think the point that I'm trying to make, the point I was trying to get to, the conclusion of this is that if you really try to look at this objectively, which I know you're incapable of, but ultimately you've made your name. I'm curious. Why did you bring me on your show if you think I'm incapable of looking at your name? Because you've made your name talking about the absurdity of identity politics and the absurdity of people that are just going on about racism and accusing people of all of those things.

And what I'm trying to tell you is that if you look at when it comes to Israel, you're just. just another social justice warrior, identity politics. How so? Because here we are. When Israel does anything, it's, well, they're trying to rescue the hostages, even if the government is saying. How is there anything to do? Are you saying that I believe that because my grandfather was Jewish? Is that what you're trying to say?

I'm saying that it's a matter of identity. How is this identity policy? Assessing a conflict in the Middle East based on the evidence. Because one group can get away with murder in your book and the other group cannot. Because in your book. So if I support Ukrainians, if I support Ukrainians into their fight against the Russians, that's identity politics? No. Okay.

So why is this conflict different? What is your evidence that this has anything to do with identity for me and not to do with the facts as I perceive them? I may be wrong about the facts. That's very possible. But what is your evidence that it's based on identity and not my incorrect opinions based on the things that I'm reading? Because A, what we're seeing in Palestine is not a war like in Russia and in Ukraine. It's a genocide where a military is trying to get rid of the population. No, it was a terrorist group that attacked Israel and Israel was retaliating and attempting to destroy the military.

The government has been trying to get rid of a population for 80 years and now they finally have to... No, but what does this have to do with identity politics and me? It has to do with it because you look at you the way that you discussed this and it's very clear. It's just one group. One group can get away with what they want. they can kill to rescue their hostages. They can kill hundreds of civilians to rescue their hostages, and they can kill tens of thousands of civilians on their attempt to...

But how is that identity policy? Because one identity can do it and one identity cannot. That's why. So if I support Ukrainians in a way that I don't support Russians, that's also identity politics? No, because that's a war. That's not a genocide. It's not a bunch of people that are healthy...

I see this as a war too. Exactly. Because you want to keep seeing it as a war, because it's all about continuing with your bias, which is that everything Israel does is defense. Everything Israel does is understandable. Everything Palestinians do. Even if that was so, that doesn't explain the identity point of view.

I'm very curious about this safety, and this is very interesting. Tell me more about how this is identity policy. Well, I'm glad you're curious about it, because think about it, it is going to make a lot more sense when you start thinking about it. Okay, so how is this identity politics? It's identity politics. I was just to explain to you why. Explain it.

One group is carrying out a genocide where they're killing out tens of thousands of civilians, and you think everything that they do is justified. I don't. And nothing that the other group does is... I don't think that either. I just told you repeatedly four times now. If Hamasad attacked Israeli military installations, I would have a lot less of a problem with it. I just said that.

So it's not that I think one side is always right and the other side is always wrong. It's that my assessment of what I see based on first principles thinking is that one side is doing one thing and the other side is doing something completely different. I'm not happy about the fact that there's a conflict, but I don't think this is anything to do in my thinking, for me, anything to do with identity. And yet you bring that up, and that's what makes me very curious. And I'm really still not entirely sure what you meant by that. I'd like you to clarify it.

That would be great. Yeah, I'd tell you, think about what we talked about today. Think about the fact that Israel has destroyed every single piece of critical infrastructure in Gaza, every single water pump, every single electricity plant, every single university, every school, every hospital. And most of these buildings, they didn't destroy them, well, not most, but a lot of these buildings, they didn't destroy them with aerial bombardment. They had already occupied the territory. They'd go in, they'd put in bombs, and they'd destroy them because of the lives.

Because of most buildings are booby-trab by Hamas, yeah. No, after they'd go into the building and they'd conquer it and there's no Hamas there, then they'd booby trap. You know what booby traps are? This is what Russia does in Ukraine. They go into hospitals and blow them up because Ukrainians leave booby traps sometimes. This is what happens in war. No. How is this anything to do with identity?

I'm trying to get to it. The point is this. To go back to the point of genocide, we have a systematic attempt to destroy every single thing that makes Gaza livable. They've destroyed the sewage. They've destroyed all of the infrastructure. They've destroyed all the hospitals, all the water treatment plants, all the power plants. And they didn't destroy them. Okay, well, some of them, they claimed, well, we destroyed this because they were Hamas there.

But for the majority of them, it was destruction for the sake of destruction. Why? Because they want to make Gaza unlivable. They salted the earth. They destroyed the farming capability. Gaza is not going to be inhabitable for another. God knows how many years. And that is a plan.

That is something that has been actively done. Let's accept that everything you said is true. Exactly. How is me assessing what's happening in this particular conflict based on the facts and information and my beliefs and my understanding of history, etc. How is that anything to do with identity? Unless you're suggesting that my identity means that I have a particular view of this conflict. Yeah. Your identity gives you a bias towards this conflict, and that makes you...

What is the identity element that gives me a bias? I don't know what your identity is. I didn't even know you. Really? Now, this saying is fascinating. Which aspect of my identity gives me a bias about this conflict? Please tell me. It doesn't matter.

The point is your bias. It does matter. You are suggesting, you said yourself that because I have made a name for challenging the stupidity of identity politics, that's where I'm a hypocrite on this issue. And I'm saying to you, can you please explain to me, as you've said, my identity makes me biased, which aspect of my identity makes me biased on this issue? The aspect that makes you look at the destruction of homes on lives of human health. Which part of my identity makes me biased? I don't care. I look at the output. I can. No, no, no. You said it. You said it and I'm going to make sure I get out of you

what you meant. So which aspect of my identity makes me biased about this issue? The aspect that makes you look at Palestinians suffering. Which aspect does that say? And not care about them. Which aspect does that? Come on. I'm not see that it's not matter. I just, I hope you just say it because it'll be a lot easier because I'm going to keep asking you. Yeah, what is it? Which aspect of my is it, is it, is it the fact that I'm Russian? I don't know. I don't even know. Is it the fact that I was raised in Britain? Probably. Is this the fact that my dad was half Greek? Is that what it...

Which aspect of my identity, safety? The fact that looks at Israel as being the good guy. Where's that related to my identity? How do you draw a line from my wrong opinions about this conflict and my identity? I'll tell you why. Here's why. I'm Palestinian, so I definitely have

an identity issue with this politics. However, with this conflict. But I am able to, having seen the absurdity of identity politics for many years. And having seen this incredibly destructive idea that my team is always right because we are good and other team is always bad because they are bad. I'm able to step back and say it's wrong for anybody to target a civilian and it's wrong when these guys do it and it's wrong when the other team. Well, you don't think I'm as targeted

civilians. So that's a separation. But carry on. No, I did say they did target civilians when they took them hostages and I don't think that is acceptable. I said that at the beginning. You did say that. Yeah. Yeah. You, on the other hand, are unable to see this equivalency, and the reason for that is just identity bias. It's just this is what the identity. Which identity?

I don't know and I don't care. It's just, I don't know. No, no, no. You can't say it's identity bias and then say, I don't know. You tell me, what is it about you that makes you think that killing two and a half million people kidding them out of their homes and the finance minister saying we need to kick those people out and we need to destroy them. In your mind is not an issue, but Hamas's attack on I never said it's not an issue. I never said it's not a issue. Why is it that Hamat's attack on

October 7 justifies the Israeli response and which you think is not genocidal? Whereas any country in the world would want to kill the people who did October 7, whereas Israel's attacks on Palestinians are never justification for Palestinians targeting civilians. So what I can tell you since you are. So I can tell you since you are. So I can tell you since you that clearly, I think it's fair to say you and I disagree about this conflict, and we see it differently. And I've attempted over the course of the last hour and eight minutes to explain to you why I view it as I view it, why I believe what I believe. None of that has anything to do with my identity, in my opinion. I am not predisposed towards Israel or Palestine because of my identity. I am looking at this issue as much as any human being can, from a perspective of first principles.

understanding of history, the reading I've done about the subject, the people I've spoken to about this, et cetera, both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel. We have had Norman Finkelstein on our show. We've had Basim Youssef on our show. I'm very happy to have had this conversation with you, although it started to get a little bit boring towards the end. However, none of this has anything to do with identity politics. And yet you seem adamant that this somehow is something to do with my identity.

And that's the bit that makes me very curious. The thing is necessarily about your identity. You did say that. You did say that. Yeah, you did. You can go back and watch it. You sent that. But the point is it's something about the identities of the people that are in the conflict.

I don't give a shit about the identities of the people in the conflict. I think you do. I think it's very obvious that you do. Some people are justified in killing civilians to free their hostages. And other people are not justified in killing civilians to free their hostages. Some people can say, hey, we want to kill 2 million people to kick them out of their homes. And you'll say, well, that's not genocide. not genocidal, but Hamas is genocidal. They want to get rid of this because 30 years ago

in this part of the other. Listen, I'm glad you raised that point at the end because now everybody can see why this conversation has gone the way it's gone from the beginning, because you seem to think that some aspect of my identity means that I think the way I think. And that's a very prejudicial way of looking at it. It's sad that you think this, but it is what it is. From my perspective, I'm someone who's against identity politics. I try to judge all the issues on the merits as much as I can. Now, I'm, of course, not perfect, and I sometimes am not able to see things objectively. None of us are. But I really do my very best not to allow my identity to influence things. You clearly don't agree with me and don't believe me.

That's absolutely fine. But I think that's a very ignorant and prejudicial way of looking at it. And it's a pity that that's how you think about it. Well, I'd just leave you to think more about it, then think about the things that I said about what Israel is doing to the population of Palestine and think about what... That has nothing to do with my identity. No, no, no, it does.

It does. It maybe not necessarily your identity, but the identity of the people are involved in the conflict. So I'd urge you to think about what would you be saying if the shoe was on the other foot. If it was Hamas out there saying, we need to get rid of the population of Israel and kill as many of them as possible.

I'm sure Hamas are dead against killing the population of Israel. the big peace lovers, Hamas. So then, why don't you treat the Israelis when they say those things seriously? Whereas with Hamas, because their charter that they had 30 years ago, which they've gotten rid of, that used to say those things, and you're still holding on to it. But if you actually listen to what they're saying. Have I raised, have I said anything about their charter safety? You just said they want to be murdering.

They want to be. I know. I said that they're very peaceful people who won nothing. Yeah, obviously. It's sarcastic. peacefully peacefully in hand-in-hand with the Israelis, as we all know. All right. Well, listen, it's been interesting.

Let's wrap up here because I've got stuff to do when we budgeted an hour. All right. Cheers. Take care. Thanks, man. Bye-bye. Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money.

Whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion-dollar swings. There's a money side to every story. Get the money side of the story. Subscribe now at Bloomberg.com.