Will Cain Country - The Arab-Israeli Wars - The History Of The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Part Three

Episode Date: November 17, 2023

As the war in Israel is now over a month old, Will takes the listeners deep into the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in hopes of providing a complete understanding of how the world got to where it is today. In this installment, Will covers the events following the end of World War Two and the creation of the State of Israel up until the breakout of the Yom Kippur War. Look out for the final edition of this four-part series in the coming weeks, where Will plans to take the history of the conflict up until the present day. Tell Will what you thought by emailing [e-mail] Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, part three. It's the Will Kame podcast on Fox News podcast, what's up, and welcome to the weekend. Welcome to Friday. As always, I hope you will download, rate, and review this podcast wherever you get your audio entertainment at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News. News Podcast. You can watch the Will Kane podcast on Rumble or on YouTube and follow me on X at Will Kane. And you can always email me at Willcane podcast at Fox.com. Patrick McGarry emails in, hey Will, big fan. I listen daily when you're at ESPN and continued once you published your podcast at Fox. I'm half Jewish and I was born and raised Catholic.

As such, I always blindly sided with the state of Israel. All of the main talking points made sense. And as you mentioned on your show, it was a complex situation that deserved a lot of research. It wasn't until COVID, the vaccines, Russia, Ukraine, that I started distrusting the mainstream talking points of every subject, including those that were given by those that I at some point trusted. You are someone that I trust. And your podcast helped me understand more about the conflict and why they fight today.

Why did you not finish the Israeli-Palestinian series and provide Part 3? You seem to be fearless when talking about controversial subjects, hence my trust in you. I don't understand why you wouldn't finish the series on the conflict. Thanks, Pat. Well, Pat, today I intend to not only finish the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, part 3, but to leave you hanging for a history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Constanian Conflict, part four. When I look at this subject, it is an impossible task. It's an impossible task that will be met with very little reward. My reward is my own personal edification.

It's my own personal understanding. And it is hearing from those of you out there that appreciate a perspective, an attempt to arrive at the truth, free from a foregone conclusion, free from propaganda, free even from a moral crusade. For far too many, this issue has been back engineered through history and draped in moral purity. One side completely right, the other side completely wrong. I don't attempt to get beyond that crusade because I believe in some moral equivocation or both sidesism. I actually do so because I don't think you can ever find a solution unless you can accurately assess reality.

I'm sure it's Sun Tzu or many other studies of war that would suggest you can't really defeat your enemy until you understand your enemy. So if I were a Palestinian Arab, I would want to understand the motivation. of the Zionist Israeli. If I were an Israeli fighting for my existence, I would want to understand the deep-lying motivations of what appears to be an intractable fight with the Palestinians. I'm not proposing to you, nor have I ever proposed to you some type of utopic worldview, where at the end of us understanding history, we arrive at some peaceful, neat, beautiful solution that has just evaded every politician, every philosopher throughout the 20th century.

Now, what I think that we can accomplish at the end of this is simply an understanding of reality. As I began to look at the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, part three, I noticed that I was going in roughly 40-year increments, no more than 40 years. If you haven't listened, go back and listen to part one of our series. where we covered 1880 through roughly the end of World War I, a period of time, which gets us to almost 40 years. The history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict part two takes us from the end of World War I up through the advent of World War II, which gives us another 20 years of scope. I thought I would bring us through the period from World War II to the present in this final installment of our survey of history. and it didn't take long for me to realize that's too much.

I can't bite off this much. I can't chew 75 years of history and make it understandable and entertaining. And so when I dove into this, what I quickly realized is I'm going to have to separate this into one more installment into this series. My intention today is to get you through another roughly 40 years of this conflict. My intention today is to take you from World War II

the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel, up through essentially the 1970s and the Yom Kippur War. It is to me a period of history, again, that I am certain I will not do justice, and I am certain that I only understand enough to irritate crusaders on both sides of this fight. But it is a period of time to me that on its surface is defined by war, four separate. Arab-Israeli wars through this roughly 30-year period. But underneath war, underneath state actors, what you will find is a thematic pulse driving us through the fourth installment in this series and up to the present day, and that is the rise of terrorism. That is the rise of both sides being.

pushed to their extreme. This debate, this issue has long left behind the moderates. This debate, this issue has long left behind, perhaps, the peacekeepers. I don't tell you that with moral superiority, and I do not tell you that with an agenda. I simply am trying to understand and analyze history. And if I am correct, that what we have arrived at as we march through history is maybe an inevitable, maybe the only realistic outcome march toward the extremes. Let's start with the rise of the Jewish right wing. When we left off in part two of our Israeli-Palestinian history, we left off in 1939 with the publishing, of the British 1939 white paper. In that white paper, which was not formally adopted by

Parliament, but was drafted by members of the British government, it laid out that the British mandate for Palestine, which oversaw both a native Arab population and Jewish Zionist settlers in the Middle East, in the Levant, revisited the 1919 Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration was one of the three agreements made by the British coming out of World War I. That Balfour Declaration gave the support of the Brits to the Zionists, to creating a Zionist Jewish state in Palestine. Now, that is exactly the words of the Balfour Declaration. And that's what was reiterated in 1939 in the white paper. The Brits said that the language of the Balfour Declaration says that there will be,

be a Jewish state in Palestine. What was important about that language is it purposefully, as of 1939, declared that Palestine would not be a Jewish state, but rather there would be a Jewish state in Palestine. Now, everyone talks about language in this conversation, no matter if you have it at the dinner table or you have it socially with friends, becomes a conversation about language. I find this completely unproductive. And it's a fight over language because it's a fight between conclusions, two sides that have already had their minds made up and are only interested in trafficking in propaganda. What I mean by that is whether or not they mean to traffic and propaganda or not, they're semantically fighting over words because words are how you control human minds. I don't have any interest in controlling your mind.

I just have an interest in doing my best to accurately describe reality. What do I mean by that? Well, people will say, well, there's no such thing as Palestine. And that may be true, but there was something called the British mandate of Palestine. And the Brits referred to the area as Palestine. It was their mandate for Palestine. Plenty of people point out, there's no such thing as Palestinians. They're just Arabs who live in a certain area of the Middle East.

I don't really know why that is instructive. it's like a definitional debate designed to draw us into a downward spiral of history into who got here first. Oh, we've been here for 2,000 years. Oh, yeah, well, we were here 3,000 years ago. Yeah, well, and before you, there were the Canaanites. It is a fool's errand of history, in my personal estimation, to drive yourself through history to find a peoples who have a natural claim to a land. And I use that word natural to say, like, was in the case of a famous Old West movie, as though we were born from the ether, or we sprouted from the ground like the hay of the great plains of America. No, I mean, the Sioux

conquered the land of the Indians that lived on that land prior to them. And the American settlers and colonists conquered that land from the Sioux. It's the only consistent story throughout history. And the truth is a rightful claimant to a land is usually the winner in a battle for a claim of that land. So whether or not we call the people that lived there when the Zionist colonial project began in 1880, Palestinians or Arabs, it doesn't do anything to inform us to the fact that there were people living in the Levant, in the area today that we call Israel. In the same way as we had in the last episode, the Will Came podcast, a little minor skirmish debate with my esteemed friend, Douglas Murray, over the word colonization

by the Zionists of what we today call Israel in the 1880s. It's a word that fits every definition of the situation that occurred from basically 1880 through the early 1940. but more importantly, it's a word that was used by the Zionists themselves. Hyam-Whitesim, basically, one of the fathers of Zionism, would have understood what was happening, very clearly so, as a colonial project, as would have David Ben-Gurion, as would have Zab-Jabitinsky. And Zab-Jabitinsky is a great place for us to pick up, to get beyond the fight over words, to move beyond conclusions and propaganda and arrive at a place of understanding

reality. Only then will we arrive at a place where we can see with clarity an end, maybe not a solution, but an end to this conflict. Zab Jebatinsky was sort of the father of the revisionist Zionist movement prior to the independent state of Israel. He was a warrior. He was, I believe Polish, if I remember correctly. And he was a realist. Again, in episode two, of our history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I read from you a direct quote from Zab Djibotinsky that said there has never been in the history of man, a colonial effort where land has been taken from the natives in a peaceful fashion, that it will ultimately and always arrive at a place of armed conflict, of war,

of violence. And he thought it patronizing to think that you could negotiate or deceive or take this land from the Arabs who had lived there for 2,000 years, without the honesty of the dignity that they would seek in a fight for their land. He knew this is the way it will go. And Zabuchinsky was, I think, an accurate realist. As I mentioned, he's the father of the revisionist Zionist movement. There were other movements within the British Mandate for Palestine,

like the labor Zionists who sought to achieve a job. Jewish state through a gradual effort of land buying, of business building, of immigration. That was the approach from Ben Gurion. But Zabachinsky thought the only inevitable way we will arrive at a Jewish state is through direct and violent confrontation. Not that he endorsed it and not that he lusted for blood, but that he saw it as simply reality. Well, the Disciples of Jabotinsky were some men like Monacham Began. Monacham Beggeon was a similar revisionist Zionist.

As we arrive at 1939 and the British white paper, the Zionist movement begins to realize it has lost an ally in Britain. Britain essentially with that paper has announced that it will not aid and abet any longer, an official state of Israel that will take over the entire land known essentially as the British mandate for Palestine. Instead, within that, there will be areas for Jewish colonization, for perhaps even Jewish organization, for perhaps even a Jewish state in Palestine. So the rise of the Jewish right wing is, in part, a response to ongoing attacks from Palestinian Arabs in the British mandate for Palestine. We've talked about that through the first two parts of our history. The rise of attacks on civilians, the rise on attacks on

Jewish settlers, as we correspondingly saw the rise in Islamism. Secular Arab states, both at the state level across the Middle East and within the Palestinian territories, was a failed experiment in no small part with the efforts of the Jewish settlers and the Brits as well. But what it left is a vacuum that was filled by the crazies, by the religious zealots, by Islamism. And so correspondingly, what we began to see is a rise in irrational violence, revenge killings, and retribution. But the right-wing Zionists meant to meet that violence with strength. Remember, we talked about the type of men that were immigrating to Israel. These were men from across Eastern Europe, Western Europe from all over, speaking different languages and having

recently adopted the revitalized Hebrew, fascinating and admirable enterprise to revitalize a language to unite a people. But it also attracted men of hard spirit, pioneer spirit, tough men. Men that didn't just want to take being bullied, wouldn't just take violence, and they sought to hit back. They created a defense force called the Haganah. The Haganah was strong. The Haganah was forceful. The Haganah was violent. The Haganah exacted retribution on anyone. This stood in the way, either with violent reprisals or in any way, to the march towards a Zionist state. But for some, the Haganah wasn't radical enough. Responding to the Haganah, what some within the revision of Zionist movement felt was weakness,

you saw the spawn of the Ergun. The Ergun was led by the essentially disciple of Zeb Jabotinsky, and that's Monacham Begham. Now, the Ergun... all types of attacks across the British mandate for Palestine. But even they didn't satisfy the requirement for strength among the rising Jewish right wing in response to what they felt like were unprovoked attacks from Arabs. And that gave rise to yet another group, the stern group. But these groups weren't just in response to the Arabs. After the 1939 white paper, these groups turned on the British.

It felt inevitable in that same way that if they were ever going to arrive at a Zionist state, they would also have to deal with the Brits. And so campaigns of violence and terror began to take place against the Brits. In the late 1930s, even into the early 1940s, an average of two British soldiers a day were being killed in the British mandate of Palestine. The most famous incident is the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. In that instance, 91 individuals were killed. They bombed the British wing of the King David Hotel because it was the headquarters of the British government and the mandate for Palestine. 48 Arabs were killed, 26 Brits were killed, and 17 Jews were killed.

Ultimately, the British embassy in Rome was also bombed, this done by. the Ergun. The Ergun and the Stern Group were declared international terrorist organizations. They were largely banished from Israel to the extent that they could be caught. And this wasn't simply a view of the outside world towards the Jewish right wing within the British mandate for Palestine. This was the view as well of the official government of the Jewish Zionists within the British mandate of Palestine. David Ben-Gurion, who oversaw the IDF. the Israeli defense forces, declared the Ergon and the Stern Group terrorists and had several armed conflicts directly with those groups. It's interesting as I talk to you about this

pulse towards, this drive towards extremism that we'll find out about later in this series, but Monachembegan, leader of the Ergun, and the leader of the Stern Group from this time, would one day become the prime ministers of Israel? We'll be right back with more of the Will Kane podcast. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring Common Ground, in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites like his All-Star panel and much more. Available now at Fox News Podcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy host of the Trey Gowdy podcast. I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com. Now, by 1947, the Brits had largely had it with attempting to govern the mandate for Palestine. Now, as you saw there, I jumped the head. I jumped the head roughly five years in time. And it's a big five to seven years in time.

It's really the one we learn about in the West. It's our signpost in history, and it is one that is absolutely correlated to Judaism. It's World War II. What's interesting about the role of World War II in the movement towards statehood in Israel is while it served as a major inflection point, it isn't the inflection point, I think, that most believe it to be in the creation of the state of Israel. What happened with the Jews of Europe throughout the reign of Hitler in Nazi Germany is of such great historical tragedy that it stains humanity pretty much regardless of your nationality. What I mean by that is as Jewish refugees were being driven out of Poland and Germany and the Czech Republic, Czechoslovakia at the time, as Jews were being driven.

and out of the Netherlands in Belgium, they really had no place to go. Almost all of those Western European countries, when asked to take in Jewish refugees, said no. The UK, England, basically said no. The United States basically closed its door. Basically, I say basically because outside of very small numbers and illegal immigration, The United States said no. And Israel, the burgeoning would be inevitable Jewish state emerging from the British mandate for Palestine largely, or at least in part, said no. And I know that's going to be a shock to some. What are you talking about? Well, as we've talked about one of my sources for history on this, and I've seen and read so much. I've watched a documentary entitled The Gatekeepers. I've um listen to fear and loathing um darrell cooper's podcast from martyr made fear and loathing in new jerusalem the project the zionist project for a jewish state of israel was something that took a

historic feat and you know this is where it bothers me when everybody loads words with political propaganda because you can't be denied in understanding history, the ability to use language. Look, you're talking about a 20th century colonist movement that takes over a region, first slowly by commerce, later directly and quickly by force. It's one that united a diaspora of Jews from across the world, but primary Europe and Russia, who did not speak common language but only had common traditions that they'd held on to as a people for thousands of years and enticed all of these people living in Madrid, in London, in, again, this is prior to both World War II and World War I, Berlin in Warsaw, to leave behind relatively comfortable

lives. I'm talking about now in terms of material wealth. They were always the victims of instability, always under threat of apagram, always insecure as to the potential for an eruption of violence. But relative material comfort and sophisticated economic circumstances, and ask them, hey, become modern-day settlers of the Old West. Come down to the Middle East. Scratch out a living from the desert. Create a society from scratch. Revive a language in Hebrew. and fight and fight or put yourself on the front lines as a settler, a people who do not want you to be here. Think about the, not just the strategy that it takes to put together this type of enterprise, but think about the willpower that it takes to put together a state

from nothing you know the modern day american founders we we we we laud and praise and they did that in the 1770s against the the British empire we're talking about men doing it some 150 years later now I'm sorry some 200 and 50 years later and doing it by a reverse immigration back to a homeland which they hadn't lived in for over 3,000 years, but has been honored through tradition of song and prayer. And in order to do so, you had to have incredible strategy, incredible will, and an incredible grasp on reality. The cold, hard truth is the men that ledged this project, men like David Ben-Gurion,

knew what it would take to succeed in the Middle East. The Brits had imposed quotas on the number of immigrants, Jewish immigrants that could come to the British mandate for Palestine throughout the years. And because there were quotas, but also because the leaders of the Zionist movement wanted hard men, survivalists, fighters, to come help create the state of Israel, the doors were not thrown open to refugees of Nazi Germany from Europe. Yes, Israel took in many, but Israel did not take in all. And that's when I say to you, what happened during that five to seven year period, I'm saying seven to get us to 1947, but what happened during that period is enough of a moral

stain to rest upon people of every nationality. there i've been there are though through world war two an increasing number of immigrants to israel from europe and by the time you arrive at nineteen forty seven in the rise of the jewish right wing and the role of the irgun and the stern group and the haganah the british have just about had it they've had their embassy in rome bomb they've had the king david hotel bomb they're losing two soldiers a day, and they say they want to wash their hands of this project. And so they turn it over to the UN. They say, you solve this, newly formed post-World War II United Nations. The United Nations voted in 1947 to partition the British Mandate for Palestine into essentially

today what we would call a two-state solution, Israel and Palestine. Now, the Palestinians, the Arabs of that time, and their loose and disorganized leadership, rejected the UN resolution. The reasoning for their UN resolution rejection, they said, was that while they maintained a vast majority of the population, they would have to accept less than 50% of the land. Perhaps that is true. Perhaps it is true. They would never accept the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. These seem to be the debates over motivation that are an endless, loop of unpredictivity. But maybe they're not wholly unproductive, because I do think that time will show us the reality and point us towards a solution, if not, an ugly conclusion. 1984, the state of Israel is declared. Celebration within the Jewish Zionist population, they now have their independent state that they had sought and fought for, not just for over 60 years.

but for thousands of years, a place to be safe, a place to call home, a place to escape from the pogroms of Europe, a place to escape persecution, a place to set aside anti-Semitism, a home, an outpost of Western civilization, a place that would reflect the values that we know today, not just to be celebrated that we know are superior. It was now to be celebrated the state of Israel. On the other side of that equation, catastrophe. It's called Al-Nakba by the Palestinian Arabs. Some 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were driven out of territories in the new state of Israel. Almost immediately, after the declaration of the independent state of Israel, we have our first installment in the surface-level theme of this episode, war. There are, through the 30 years we're about to describe, four Arab-Israeli wars, and they start immediately with the advent of Israel. When Israel is declared an independent state, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan immediately attack. It is, although never there has been ability to accomplish. It has always seemed to have been the theme among Arab states that there

should be one day one Arab nation, whether or not that was the evolution of the Ottoman Empire, or whether or not that would be an Islamic Republic to span all of Muslim territory. Arab nations have spoke in grand terms about a unification effort, but much like the American Indians, that grand vision never really got off the starting blocks, because the fight, immediately went to, well, but under whose leadership, under whose directorate? Would it be the Hashemites of the Arabian Peninsula? Would it be the Arabs of the north of Syria or Iraq? Would it be the kings, tribal kings that ruled this land underneath the Ottoman Empire?

Would it be those who cuddled up to the Brits and the French and the empires of Europe through the early 20th century, it was always a grand vision to create one Arab empire under each one of their leadership, meaning, yes, I think we should all unite under me. Oh, I disagree. I think we should all unite under me. They could never truly unite like the American Indians. And as such, every effort for real nation state war was met with the same level of disorganization and failure as was their nation-state building projects. Jordan, Syria, and Egypt attack Israel and quickly lose the first Arab-Israeli War. The second Arab-Israeli war is some eight years later in 1956.

The Egyptians nationalized the Suez Canal. It's vital necessary for Israel to have trade, imports and exports. flowing through the Suez Canal. The Israelis attack, and they take over much at that point of the Sinai Peninsula. Whenever there was a war between Israel and Egypt, there always ended up being a war on its northern border as well with Syria. Syria and Egypt almost seemed to work in concert with one another. Israel once again won that standoff that war in 1956, taking over the Sinai Peninsula. They gave it back some one year later to the Egyptian, Egyptians all but for Gaza. They held on to Gaza. Starting in 1948, we began to see the parameters

of even the terms we used today. You can see Gaza, which was directly connected to Egypt under the administration of Egypt. You have the West Bank, which is directly connected to Jordan and under the administration of Jordan. You have the Golan Heights connected to Syria. And I'll profess to you, I don't know that I can even keep up with the sort of, you know, picture a cell under a microscope sort of pulsing with the outlines of it beating back and forth. That's the borders of all of these territories over the last 70 years of Israel. And it's usually because Israel wins some war, takes over some territory, then grants it back to its defeated. The greatest example of that is the third installment of the Arab-Israeli conflict war, and that is the six-day war.

We're going to step aside here for a moment. Stay tuned. Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms and have helped raise $7 million. Visit go.combe, forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts. In 1967, the Egyptians once again start building up troops along their border, looking like they're going to strike, same with the Syrians on the northern border. looking like they're going to strike. Israel. Israel sees the handwriting on the wall and never

want to sit back and let someone else have the element of surprise strikes first. And they absolutely rout Egypt and Syria. They take out of the Egyptian Air Force within a matter of hours. As such, there's no air cover for Egyptian ground forces nor for Syrian ground forces. And within six days, it's called the Six Day War. The Israelis just roll through. those countries. And once again, they basically own everything and anything they want. If you watch from that point forward some documentaries about the rise of the shin bet, the shin bet is a domestic internal security force in Israel that works within the Palestinian territories to fight against terrorism. Or you look at stories about the Mossad. After the 1967 war, Israel essentially

took control of the West Bank in Gaza. Instead of letting the Egyptians, the Jordanians, these areas. They now control these areas. They would let the PLO or Fata, although that was a terrorist organization, control the areas, but the Israelis would set up checkpoints. They would allow the shin bet to conduct clandestine operations. They would go in, if you've ever seen the television series Fowda on Netflix. I've just watched all four seasons of Fowda. It's fascinating. It's about the Shinbet special operative forces, fighting terrorist cells in Gaza and the West Bank in Lebanon, even in Europe. And, you know, real life is as it has always been there. I mean, they're administering justice preemptively in many cases in and out of those territories.

By 1973, you arrive at the final installment of the state actors of war in this conflict, and that's the Yom Kippur War. After being thoroughly humiliated in 1967 in the Six Day War, Anwar Sadat has become the president of Egypt. He has succeeded Al Nasser. He flirted with the idea of peace with the Israelis, but it hasn't panned out, not popular with his people, so he needs something bold, and he goes for it. He goes for a surprise attack on Israel. This one actually works. For some reason, it wasn't taken quite as seriously by the Israelis. And the Syrians and the Egyptians made ground. There was serious, thousands and thousands of casualties within a population of about two and a half million Israelis, thousands of thousands of casualties in the Yom Kippur war. Ultimately, though, that war was another win for Israel, but it was enough of a win for Sadat and the Egyptians that he had weirdly a position of strength to then to begin the process of negotiating peace. From that point forward, later in the decade, the Egyptians and the Israelis arrive at a peace agreement.

The Jordanians, to some extent, had become not an ally, but ceased to become an overt adversary to the Israelis. And that's because the Jordanians are run by a Hashemite kingdom. That's a tribe, an Arabian tribe from the Arabian Peninsula. In short, they're not native to the land that is Jordan. They're a minority. They, much of their internal military has met up of Bedouins. But more than half their population, you heard me reference this in their, in my podcast with Douglas Murray, more than half their population is our Palestinians. Part of that as refugees who have those left the West Bank. But Jordan doesn't want to take any more Palestinians because they represent a threat to the kingdom.

they they represent a threat to the existing government and it has been a threat you know with the rise of political organizations to the 1960s and 70s like the Palestinian liberation movement the PLO or Fatah which it was run by Yasser Arafat these were states you know proto states run from outside the state often they're run from inside of Jordan they were run from later on inside of Lebanon. Today, the leadership of Hamas is suggested to be in Qatar.

But these movements within Jordan began to be the case where they would develop their own police force, wanted to levy their own taxes, and that was untenable for the Jordanians. I mean, this history and understanding reality tells you in part today why other countries don't take the Palestinians,

Why the Jordanians won't take into Palestinians, should they be cleared out of the West Bank or Gaza? Why the Egyptians don't want to bring in not just an instability, an unstabilizing factor, but radicals. Egypt doesn't want Hamas or even more radical Islamic jihad running around Cairo. Why these other countries, Douglas Murray brought it up in our last podcast, Kuwait, kick the Palestinians out of Kuwait after Iraq invaded Kuwait because the Palestinians supported Saddam Hussein. So that gives you some reason why other countries aren't interested in accepting and destabilizing their own countries there throughout the Middle East. So in the 1970s, the Jordanians had had enough of the Palestinians with their own country

and absolutely obliterated much of the Palestinian population, certainly its official headquarters. That incident became known as Black September. And that takes us to the undercurrent, while the overriding theme of these 30 years from the 1940s to the 1970s up to the 1980s is official state war, four Arab-Israeli conflicts between the Israelis and or the Egyptians, the Syrians, and the Jordanians, come to an end in the 1970s, the nation-state nature of the this battle, in part ends through a peace process, for example, with Egypt, in part through humiliation and defeat in the superiority of the Israeli army. But it at the same time gives rise to, I think, the theme that is running under this period. That is the push towards the extremes. I told you about the extremes of the Jewish right wing and the terror organizations, and that's not my opinion estimation, that's just historical fact declared by history of the Urgun and the Stern

group, in the creation of the state of Israel, terror became the tactic for Palestinian resistance to Israel. I told you that when Palestinians were run out of Jordan, it was called Black September. I want to give you just a couple of examples now of the rising theme. that has carried us through not just this 30-year period, but now has become the constant to define and describe where we are today in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Starting in the 1960s, but really throughout this entire project, you always had skirmishes, you always had civilians being killed, you always had reprisal attacks. What you saw beginning in the 1960s was essentially indiscriminate civilian killing and hijacking.

In the 1970s, you had an incredible number of... plane hijacking, not just by Islamists, by the way, not just by the crazies of Islam. Everybody, it was just like the thing to do. This is something, again, laid out very well by Daryl Cooper in his latest installment. He has a fourth installment, now of Fear and Loathing in New

Jerusalem. But plane hijackings seem to be taking place almost all the time. Cooper lays out in his history series that in the 1960s, the Algerians ran the French

out of Algeria, not by direct military victory, but by employing terrorism. The idea was by attacking civilian populations, you could provoke the French into then retaliating and killing your own civilian population and, in turn, provoke the revulsion of the French civilian population to the actions of their own military. And then, with that weariness and attrition, they'll pull out. And they did in Algeria. And that was a realization for Yasser Arafid, for Fata, for terrorists among the Palestinians. This became the tactic.

Kill to be killed. And indict your enemy with their cruelty in killing you. Bus hijackings. There's too many for me to name. Again, through documentaries and podcasts and me, I'm telling you, and they're awful. and by me doing this, it's a disservice because I'm brushing it. But I'm talking about just like what we saw on October 7th, which is just in smaller degrees, children being killed, women being killed, hand grenades tossed onto buses, schools taken over, over and over, planes being hijacked. And why that is important to understand today, why I picked that as one of my three terrorist incidents to help illustrate this for you is, A, it's just fascinating how we used to always have these hijacking support.

planes, but be because they worked. In the beginning, they took Israeli hostages, did these Palestinian terrorists, and traded them successfully to the Israelis in prisoner exchanges for other Palestinian terrorists held in jail in Israel. Five Israelis exchanged for 24 Palestinians. And it still is the way today that in many cases it's done and the level of expectation of the terrorist. People have talked about it in the past month. I mean, I think there was one recently where, you know, a couple of Israeli soldiers were traded for a thousand Palestinian prisoners in jail in Israel. So when you hear today about 240 hostages within Gaza, those terrorists of Hamas believe that's a currency to trade because history has proven to

them that it's true to trade for their own prisoners in jail and Israel. Now, don't get me wrong. There's, I mean, every time you want to impose logic or rationality on one of these instances or one of these tactics or one of these situations, there's some bloodthirsty or stupid individual or just crazy who defies it, meaning, you know, civilians are killed. The Israelis start to ramp up instead of paying the ransoms using the Mossad and the shinbet to, you know, there's famous examples of taking over airplanes, taking over buses and killing the terrorist. And as such, now that now the push towards extremes is continued. And you have the ramping up of violence and now hostages are killed. So what I'm telling you is, I don't know

the condition of the 240 hostages today within Gaza. Are they the subject of crazies who will kill or those who are operating based upon historical precedent? We can trade and they're still alive, these hostages. But it's buses, it's markets, it's airplanes throughout the 1960s and 1970s. And then one of the more famous examples, people wonder where suicide bombing came about today. Today we think of it as like martyrdom and part and parcel with Islam, but are those who point out like suicide is strictly against Islam throughout the Quran. Where did this become a tactic? And I believe it was in the early 1970s as the Palestinian liberation movement, it got wrapped up in left-wing movements throughout the world. I mean, you know

this. You've seen the movies. I mean, European leftists, German leftists, communists, the role of the Soviet Union in supporting Egypt and Syria, you know, Israel being seen as an outpost of capitalism in the West and affiliation to the United States. And then therefore, you know, Maoist separatists from Japan, communists, Marxist, take up the cause of the Palestinians. Well, the Japanese who had some history in suicide attacks, Kamakazis, going back to the 1940s, going back to World War II, the Japanese Red Army, again, a communist, Marxist, separatist, terrorist organization, Maoist, inside of Japan, got affiliated with the Palestinians and helped them See the value, I guess, in martyrdom, in suicide attacks. The Japanese Red Army took over the airport in Tel Aviv, chunking grenades, firing off their automatic weapons, leaving, I think, it's something like 26 dead bodies in the baggage claim area of the Tel Aviv airport in the fight for, I guess, the liberation of Palestinians. It's so weird. And Daryl Cooper points this out. It's like, you know, the most of the victims of that terrorist attack were Christians from Puerto Rico missionaries. So it was somehow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had turned into Japanese communists killing Christian Puerto Ricans at an airport in Tel Aviv. You've probably heard of the Japanese Red Army. You might have heard of that attack. But this is like, this is that 1970s era of terror. You know, like Carlos the Jackal. You were watching any of those movies.

read about him. This is a crazy period of history that just predates my memory. I was born in the 70s, but I don't remember any of it, really. So part of me, it's like, wow, the 70s retained some like romanticized Wild Wild West from America throughout the world. It's almost like hard to recognize even today. It's just like the number of plane hijackings. Like even, even, um, uh, what's his name up in the Pacific Northwest, write songs about? Its name's escaping me. I love his story. D.B. Cooper. D.B. Cooper. You know, hijacking a plane in the Pacific Northwest, jumping out with money and never to be heard from or seen again. It's just so 1970s, like Waylon Jennings. But I mentioned to you when the Jordanians ran the Palestinians out of Jordan. That moment is

called Black September, and that takes us to the most famous, perhaps, terrorist event of the 1970s, and that is the Palestinian terrorist training in Lebanon being sent on a mission to Germany to take hostage the Israeli Olympic athletes of the 1972 Olympics in Munich. It's an event conducted by a group that called themselves Black September. All of the hostages were killed. Ultimately, the Germans were pretty impotent in their response. The Israelis couldn't respond there that day. The Germans wouldn't allow them. it's a stain on the Olympics, and as far as the Israelis were concerned, not just a stain on the West in Germany, but a stain on themselves. And from that day forward, the Israelis were like, no, we'll go wherever we need to go to take care of the guys that threaten Jews, that threaten Israelis.

They made movies about this again. You've seen Munich, probably, stars Eric Bona. I can't remember what was that done by Steven Spielberg. But that's the movie of, you know, the Mossad chasing all of. of the planners of that attack throughout the world to execute them. And as you would see going forward, starting in about 1980 through present day, what you have is a conflict now that has been pushed past the normal conceptions of war, of nation states, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Israel, into the realm of terrorism.

death designed to create more death to wear down your opponent through attrition and fatigue which in turn spirals itself on both sides into further extremes that you arrive at where we'll go next in part four the last 40 years of extremism

that I am afraid when we're done talking after this next installment which will need to give me some time to give you that final fourth installment of our history of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. What I'm afraid that will not wish for, will not hope for, but by trying to historically understand getting beyond the fight over words, what I'm afraid that we're going to arrive at is a cruel reality. It will be hard to be an optimist once you see this debate has long been taken over by the extremes. And anyone that sought to seek peace, well, was killed by his own people. That

will be the fourth installment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All right, I hope you enjoyed that. I hope you found it useful. I know that I give you this history with humility, and I did not pretend to be an expert. I just try to learn along with you. Just try to understand. All right, that's going to do it for me day. I will see you again next time. with a Fox News Podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts and Amazon Prime members you can listen to this show

ad free on the Amazon Music Act. This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason in the House podcast. Join me every Monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines and chat with remarkable guests. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com or wherever you download podcasts.