Will Cain Country - The March To World War - A History Of The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Part Two

Episode Date: October 25, 2023

Story #1: The most dangerous man in America remains Ben Crump. Story #2: Part Two: A History Of The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Story #3: When is it OK to take off a day of work for sports? Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, the most dangerous man in America remains Ben Crump. Two, the march not just towards world war, but perpetual war. A history of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict, part two. 3. The Texas Rangers are in the world series. When is it okay to take off a day of work for sports? It's the Will Cain podcast on Fox News Podcast. What's up? And welcome to Wednesday. 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 Podcast. If you think it's so worthy, you can leave me a comment at Apple, or at Spotify, or at Fox News podcasts, or on YouTube, where you can watch the Wilcame

podcast. And if you think it's so worthy, not just to leave a comment, you can leave me a five-star review. You can also, if you would like, comment on my off-week hunting trip, Beard. I've gotten several messages from you folks this past week, some giving their opinions on the appropriateness of hunting squirrels. Others recounting some of their own redneck days and others who have something to say about my beard. Will Kane podcast at Fox.com.

And while you're there, let me know if you think it's ever okay to take a day off of work for sports. Because the Texas Rangers, I repeat, the Texas Rangers are in the World Series. sadly, however, the home games in Arlington, Texas will be on Friday and Saturday night when I am busy sleeping in anticipation for hosting Fox and Friends weekend. So I won't be able to be at Globe Live Stadium in Texas. The question is, can I stay up and watch the World Series when I have to be up just a few short hours later for work? So is it ever okay to just call in sick? I already believe that the Monday after the Super Bowl should be a national holiday.

But what about when your team, and we all know that baseball is simply a regional sport, you only care about your team, you don't talk about the league, you don't even talk about the stars, you only talk about your team. So what happens when your team is in the World Series? Make sure to send me your thoughts again at Wilcane Podcast at Fox.com, and I guess we'll just see if I'm. I'm on Fox and Friends weekend on Saturday. As for now, story number one. As we may have talked about in previous episodes of the Will Came podcast, story came down in the past week and a half. Man named Leonard Cure was pulled over by police after having served incidentally, and not apropos to this particular incident, 16 years in prison for being unjustly. accused and convicted of a crime.

Cure, out now, freed, found innocent and freed, on the streets encounters a police officer. They get into an argument. Cure then assaults the police officer. You can see still photos and you can see videos of what went down, chokehold on this officer, bending his head backwards. In a scuffle, in a fight, Cure is shot. by that officer. The screaming headlines, of course, as has become par for the course in our national media, our national propaganda, reads as headlines, man freed after 16 years unjustly imprisoned, killed by police. Now, is that the story? Is that what happened? Are those the pertinent

details? They are for our media. They are for those. that want to see nothing but this system full of racist cops. And they are for the most dangerous man in America. Ben Crump. Ben Crump, the self-styled civil rights attorney out of Florida, has been at the forefront of every quote-unquote racial injustice in America since Ferguson, Missouri. In this case, with the family of Leonard Cure,

was no different for Ben Crump, who took to a microphone and said this would not have happened had Cure Ben White. that he was, by implication, killed by police because he was black. Now, again, I encourage you to go look at the incident yourself. You can look at still photos or videos or read of the encounter. And ask yourself if race had anything to do with an officer being bent over backwards with hands around his neck and whether or not that would put that officer in an immediate position of self-defense. but of course because Crump manages to, I don't know, play so many like the Pied Piper,

it is believed that this once again has something to say about America and race. It has something once again to do with race. So as a reminder, let us call to the witness stand and impeach the truthfulness of Ben Crump. Ben Crump, as I mentioned a moment ago in Ferguson, Missouri, lied to the nation that Michael Brown held his hands up and said, don't shoot. It's a lie that is still repeated today. People believe and think it's a cry for justice to say, hands up, don't shoot.

Ben Crump lied that Jacob Blake was an unarmed man and came to a location where he was assaulting his former girlfriend against a restraining order in the telling of Ben Crump Jacob Blake came as a peacemaker. Ben Crump lied that Mackey Bryant was unarmed. Unfortunately, that video was there for all of us to see McKeea Bryant, the teenage black woman who was attacking another black woman with a knife, prepared to stab her before she was shot

and killed by a police officer. So we could see right there on video the lies of Ben Crump. Ben Crump lied that Dante Wright was shot, not by mistake by a police officer who thought she had grabbed her taser, but Crump said, quote, intentionally, something impossible for him to know. You'll remember that incident with Dante Wright,

where he attempted to speed away after being pulled over by an officer. She reached for her sidearm. She reached for her taser in her testimony and accidentally pulled her sidearm, killing Dante Wright. Impossible for me, to know that officer's intentions.

I can no more say she intentionally meant to tase him. Then Ben Crump can say she intentionally meant to shoot Dante Wright. That didn't stop Crump from lying that he could peer into the mind of that female officer and see exactly what she intended to murder Dante Wright. Ben Crump lied that the officers involved in the shooting of Brianna Taylor were at the wrong address. That's not true. They had a search warrant for the exact address they executed a no-knock warrant. We can talk about and should talk about the justice of no-knock warrants, but they weren't at the wrong address.

They were an address written on the search warrant where that night there was a sleeping Brianna-Taylor. But still today, they believe that officers in Louisville, Kentucky, were the wrong home. And then Ben Crump lied that Ralph Yarl, tragic story of young, Ralph Yarl, was shot for ringing a doorbell while being black. Remember that story? He approached a door in a high-crime neighborhood of an 84-year-old man to something like 10 o'clock at night who came to the door with his sidearm. Again, tragic and not just, but that man opened fire at what he perceived, apparently,

to be a threat at his door. No evidence that this 84-year-old man was influenced one. way or another by whether or not Ralph Yarl was black. But again, did not stop the affirmative statement, and by implication a lie, because it's a truth he cannot prove of Ben Crump. Ben Crump is, with his lies, causing racial division in America. He will tear down this country, tear it apart along color lines. He will inspire riots across the country as he did with the BLM riots in each and every one of these incidences that resulted in billions of dollars of property damages, primarily in black neighborhoods with black owned businesses, that resulted in the deaths primarily of black rioters, but also the increased threat to officers of the law in America, attempting to do their job, keeping this country safe. Ben Crump will tear this entire country apart for a contingency fee.

This is the most dangerous man in America. We are a nation that will fall internally due to its divisions, whether not those divisions be political or racial. We will fall because of our divisions because we are a tribe that rallies around an idea, the acceptance, the buy-in of an idea. it is leeches like bin crump that look for those soft spots those weaknesses those cracks in the values and suck out any common blood that we share suck out any tie that binds this nation and that in my estimation makes the most dangerous man in america ben crumb we'll be right back with more of the will cane podcast it is time to take the quiz It's five questions in less than five minutes.

We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. 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.comfox forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts. Story number two. A march towards not just world war, but perpetual war. The history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, part two. As we speak, reports are out that American troops have been attacked repeatedly in the Middle East as war between Israel and Hamas continues. Fox News reports that U.S. officials on Tuesday said American troops in the Middle East have been attacked 14 times in the last week. American troops in Iraq attacked 10 times, according to U.S. Department of Defense spokesperson Air Force Brigadier General Pat Ryder. Two U.S. defense officials confirmed later on Tuesday that Iran proxy forces fired a rocket at Iraq's Ayn al-Assad Air Base, which houses American troops.

No injuries or damages reported from that rocket attack. However, shortly prior to that story, Fox News headline reads two dozen American. service members injured and attacks on Iraq and Syria bases, according to Cintcom. That report suggests American officials say 24 U.S. service members were injured by attacks in the Middle East last week. Cintcom said those attacks were conducted with drones and rockets. A drone attack at the Al-Tanf garrison in Syria injured 20 American personnel on October 18th. The same day, four other service members were wounded at the Al-Assad base in Iraq. Rock. According to the spokesperson, all affected service members have returned to duty. Some of the personnel may have follow-up appointments for additional treatment. Every step of the way, as this story unfolds, a tragic story that begins in current events. With the terrorist attacks in southern Israel by the terrorists of Hamas, I have sought to ask questions. I have sought to understand. It is my guardrail.

the handrail of sanity on a world that is spiraling towards the insanity of World War III. But in order for me to understand, to grab that handrail of sanity, I always find it not just important but necessary to look back in history, to see how we arrived at this moment. They say that those that don't learn from history are destined to repeat the mistakes in the future. The mistakes of the past repeated in the future. In part one of our history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I told you that this story for much of my life has been one of a cycle of confusion, white noise, and ultimately silence as I tuned it out or turned past the newspaper page or scrolled past the website article. Impossible to keep up, impossible to understand too deep of a dive of history.

Well, with this moment in history, I found it important to look back into history, something that if I were to grab a full understanding of it would require a Ph.D. and years of study. But I've done my best to read, to listen to what I think is an incredible podcast, Fear and Loathing in New Jerusalem, published by Daryl Cooper under his handle Martyr Made, which I find an invaluable and fair research. resource, tracking the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the establishment of the Zionistate of Israel. This understanding, I'm sure, is imperfect. I'm sure I'll get some wrong. I always welcome your feedback, Wilcane Podcast at Fox.com. But I am doing my best to try to understand.

And in our short time together, provide some Cliff's Notes version of how we arrived at this moment, how we arrived at Israel and Hamas. In part one, we brought you through 1880 to the end of World War I. We brought you through the beginnings of the Zionist movement. And I talked to you about the concept of identity and tribes, the importance for a secure homeland for Jews, far before World War II, far before Hitler, suffering at the hands of pogroms and persecutions across Europe at the hands then of pagans and Christians. the beginning of the Zionist movement to take them back to Jerusalem. But there, they encountered a people, while not fully formed in a cohesive identity across the region, Arab, Muslim people, who had lived in that land for 2,000 years.

What do you do? What do you do when someone knocks on your door and says, I used to live here, I would like refuge? What do you do when that person then, in turn, attempts to create a political state? What do you do when the rest of the world has persecuted you and driven you from your homeland, treated you as a second-class citizen, and threatened your wife with rape and your children with murder? Where do you go? What do you do? That's the question, constantly asked in Fear and Loading in New Jerusalem by Daryl Cooper. What would you do? Today, we move forward to the period from 1920 to 1948, British mandate Palestine, and we show you the beginnings of the sparks, not just of what now today could manifest into World War III, but what has already manifested in what seems to be a perpetual war.

Let us pick up after World War I. let us pick up with the British mandate for Palestine. After World War I has laid out in our first part of this Israeli-Palestinian history, the League of Nations, the greater international community, led largely by the British and to some extent the French, divided up the Middle East into the modern concept of nation states. They drew lines in the sand, and from which they created Syria and Lebanon, trans-jordan, Iraq. But one of those parcels of land that was, was designated after World War I, was what was termed the British mandate for Palestine.

The British, having made promises to the Arabs and the French and the Zionists who had already begun their move back into the Middle East, set up a portion of what we know of is the Levant. And today, what we call Israel. And at one time they called Palestine as under the Protectorate of Great Britain. There, they would honor their promise to the Zionists to have a home in Palestine. That was established after World War I at the tail end of World War I with the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration established a home in Palestine for the Jews. That language very important to the history and the telling we have today about what ultimately sets the Arabs of Palestine and the Jews of what would one day be Israel towards what is.

is an existential fight. Again, this history and this understanding, I look at this, I don't know. I don't know what it tells us about what we're supposed to do today. I don't know what it tells us about the proper course of action for Israel. I don't know what it tells us

about the proper course of action for Arab Palestinians. I don't know. I know that it probably doesn't lead us to a pretty solution. And in fact, it may just lead us towards an absolutely horrifically ugly conclusion. because it really ends up being

and you can see it from its beginning an existential fight for survival we throw that term around what's an existential threat to America what's an existential threat an existential threat is one that is a risk to your entire existence

climate change is not an existential threat even the greatest climate change scientists do not think it could end humanity There is no foreign power, not even China, that is a true existential threat to the United States of America. We're protected by two great oceans. We have one of the world's best militaries. I happen to believe that China can play a role in the true existential threat to America, which is internal, that is separating ourselves from our identity, because our identity is tied to our values. But an existential threat means you no longer remain.

And when it comes to the Jews and Palestinians, in the British mandate for Palestine, you can see from the very beginning this was going to be, despite all the diplomacy and all the commissions, sadly, an existential fight. Let's pick up with the colonization of the Middle East. The Zionist after World War I continue populating the Middle East, Jews from across Europe, primarily Europe, Eastern Europe, primarily. and Russia, moving under the threat of persecution and pogroms and some as true believers in the concept of Zionism to the British mandate for Palestine. It's a safe space. It's a refuge for Jews. And they begin the true concept of colonization. Let's talk about who actually started moving to the Middle East and who championed the cause of Zionism. And essentially, those who, those people, those actual individuals can be broken up roughly into two camps.

First, one, hardcore revolutionaries, rough young men. These were young men tired of walking around persecuted by pogroms, tired of being made to eat crow and subject themselves to second-class citizen status. You know, Jews across the world had really had no military force, had no high office. They were living in villages all across Europe on the edge of civilization, literally, on the edge of town. always at threat with their existence, doing, you know, urban middle class jobs, never fully assimilated or accepted at that point into most of these societies, and then made to feel less than wherever they went. This created a group of revolutionaries, and revolutionaries were big in the early part of the 20th century, and Jews were a big part of the revolutionaries of the 20th century, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, revolutions in Italy, revolutions in Germany, everyone was starting to identify with ideology more than kingdoms and aristocracies or even religious territories. They're beginning to buy into the ideas of the nation state, and as part of that, buy into ideology. ideologies, revolutionaries looking to up in the status quo of the world. And the young men that moved to the Middle East that moved to Israel saw this as part of not

just their sort of recapturing of virility in manhood and purpose, but also exercising a revolution in Zionism. They were often lower class. They were often uneducated, but they were also often tough. Secondarily, Designus Project was driven by educated, intelligentsia, urban, wealthy, mostly socialist thinkers across Europe in London, in Poland. These were, like so many people at that time, men who sought, again, a better world. Some sought it in communism. Some sought it in socialism. Those two ideologists at that time, not simpatico with one another.

Others sought it in fascism. In fact, there were fascist embraces in Zionism as that movement broke up internally, or at least competed politically internally about what would be the future of a political state. Again, no real concept yet of quote unquote Israel, but leaders pushing forward a different vision of what it may be to be a Zionist. There were some that embraced Italian fascist. And we'll talk more about individuals like Zev Jabotinsky in a moment. There were others like Hayam Whitesam, who was, in essence, the intellectual force behind Zionism, who was more of the thinker, the intelligency of the urbane vision of Zionism.

And then there's another David Ben-Gurion, who I believe the airport is named after in Tel Aviv, who was more of the socialist vision of Zionism. He believed in labor Zionism. But these two types of camps, the rough and tumble revolutionary young men and the socialist urban intelligentsia, were the driving forces behind Zionism. And as such, there were two theories emerging in the 1920s about how to pursue the Zionist state in Israel. The first was organic, gentle. It was acre by acre. The idea here was the Jews would move back into the Middle East and start buying up land.

They would pursue this over time. It's clear from the memoirs of David Ben-Gurion that there was an ultimate objective of morphing into a self-determinative state, but came first in the literal language of the Balfour Declaration, a home for Jews in Palestine. This was cultural Zionism, as we talked about. This was buying up land, adopting Hebrew as the unifying language, sharing customs with one another. Because remember, these were Jews that came from all different places across the globe, from Poland, from Russia. They didn't speak the same language until they all began to relearn Hebrew, revive Hebrew. They certainly had different customs and ways of life.

London Jews, different than German Jews. This was acre by acre slowly developed communities. Signs were rewritten into Hebrew. Languages were adopted. Customs shared. But when they went around buying up land, they would find the landowners. And they encountered then a people in the Middle East, Arabs, who lived almost, according to Beryl Cooper in the Martyrmaid podcast, a feudal existence with no modern-day conception of land rights.

What happened was many of these Arabs were living on land owned by someone else. They were substance farmers, although they'd been there for generations, two, three generations, living in homes that they're built by their grandfather or their great-grandfather, doing largely the same thing that was done by their ancestors, scratching out a living from the dirt. Substance farming, truly, peasant. But when Jews moved to the Middle East and began to buy up land, under the banner of Zionism and repopulating this land for Jews, no one could live. It was not just the overriding sentiment among individuals. It was like a charter for many of the organizations that in funds that accumulated money to help Jews buy lands, like the Jewish National Foundation, I believe it's called, that you couldn't have anybody living on the land but Jews. So immediately these Arab peasants were dispossessed, disaffected. Cooper and his podcast talks about this in much greater detail that I'm capable of.

This is a Cliff's Notes version, but one of the things that he does well is we can speak in generalizations like Islamism or militant religion or disaffected or dispossessed. But when you put it in personal human stories, you start to really understand how people can be set in conflict to one another or what it means for someone to all of a sudden go, I've got a moment. move off my land. And in many cases, by the way, the land was bought for Jews to live there four Jews, but those Jews did not yet exist yet. They hadn't fully migrated to the British mandate for Palestine. So the land went unused, and it went back to seed. And the Arabs were looking at it like, why can't you just let me live there? I'll make something productive of it like I've done for generations. Well, this is only for Jews. Now, I mentioned there's several different forms of Zionism, cultural, political. There was also labor Zionism. That was

That was championed and pioneered by David Ben-Gurion. Now, labor Zionism was not just a socialist movement, but it was also a Zionist movement, where the idea was you would only, in your business or on your land, employ Jews. You wouldn't employ Arabs. Now, there was a reason for this beyond simply brute, grotesque discrimination. It was because they wanted to entice Jews to migrate to the British mandate for, Palestine. And if you constantly had Arabs who were taking a lower dollar, lower wage, it was hard to get Jews to move from Poland to the Middle East. This was still not like a project that every Jew wanted to take part in. Some were assimilating into their local cultures.

Some knew it was hard. I'm going to why would I want to move there? And so they essentially created a captured labor force with higher wages by enticing Jews to come and take these jobs and boxing out Arabs. And as you emerged through the 1920s and 1920s and 1930s, this is another thing that disaffects the local Arab population. I'm kicked off my land, can't live on the land, can't get a job, those are reserved for Jews. And if I do, I have to take a wage, again, prescribed 30% less than a Jew would be paid for the exact same job. This is all going on during the 1920s and 1930s. So let's talk about the Arabs for just a moment.

In the last episode, we talked about the unifying identity. of the Jewish Zionists, of the Jewish religion, of the Jewish culture, of the Jewish people. The Arabs living in the Levant, the Arabs living in the Middle East, in what would soon become the British Mandate for Palestine, and would one day become Israel, the Arabs living there were tribal, they were peasants, they were lowly educated, low literacy rights, and they were disorganized. They were poor. You know, they lived in small, few. villages and tribes.

They didn't know what the guy, you know, or care to great extent, didn't care what a guy 100 miles away was doing, much less two or 300 miles away in Syria or in Iraq. And so when Jews started showing up, it didn't seem like any big thing. It was like a little land here, a little land there, exactly as it was intended by David Ben-Gurion. But there was an Arab nationalist movement that was largely centered in Syria at that time. We talked about after World War I, the lines had been drawn. In Syria, the northern part of Arabia was given to France.

Now, that was a violation of the promise the British had made to the Arabs. The Arabs wanted a kingdom, an Arabian kingdom under King Faisal. But Faisal bowed down. gave in somewhat to the French after a short skirmish of a war called the Syrian-French War. But in the process of that war in the early 1920s, the Syrian-French War, again, right next door to the British Mandate for Palestine, you began to create some real radicals within the Islamic movement.

We take that for granted today. You think of the Islamic movement, Islamism, the Arabian politics, even the Persian politics of Iran, you think it's part and parcel. It's endemic all the way over to Afghanistan, the Taliban, you think it's part and parcel like this Sharia law, hardcore Islamism. But it wasn't always the case. There was a secular Arab movement under Faisal. And a secular unified Arab movement represented a threat to the promise that the Brits had made to the Zionists. They didn't want a unified Arab front. So there's many things that both the Brits and the Zionists, this did to undercut the idea of a secular Arab movement, a potential secular Arab state.

They created, the British, the British were in control at that time. It wasn't two parties. It wasn't from 1920s to the early 1940s, it wasn't just the Jews and the Palestinians. It was the Jews, the Palestinians, and the British. And in the beginning, the British were on the side in almost every occurrence. although they were good at diplomacy and understanding things on the side of the Zionist. And the British were good in their colonial empires of understanding how to subjugate or control a local population. And it was largely divide and conquer.

So they divided the Arab population. Like they not only undercut the secular movements, the mayors, the political entities in the Palestinian areas of the British mandate for Palestine. but they actually helped kind of encourage and empower some of the more radical Islamic elements like the Mufty, the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who is Amin al-Husani. He's one of the most famous individuals, most important individuals this entire story

for the first half of the 20th century. But for now, understand, the Brits and even the Zionists played some role in empowering the Islamic elements of the Arab population at the expense of the secular political factions of the Arab population. Now, this is something that's done throughout history, just so you know. We did. The United States of America has done that.

We backed the Mullahs in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden, in our fight against the nation state of the Soviet Union. We know how that domino continued to fall. We've done it several times as we've empowered weak, dictators in places like Egypt or Iraq, and then at the same time have had money flowing and support behind the scenes to the powers that be that undercut that dictator. Benjamin Netanyahu, it's famously said. It was right here on this podcast with Dave Smith, where he brought up the fact that Benjamin

Netanyahu, modern Israel's leader, is on record saying that he believes or he knows that helping along to some extent, I'm sure. sure, not to the extent that he ever thought he could imagine. Hamas was a useful tool in undercutting a unified Palestinian political entity, whether or not that's the PLO or Fatah, whatever it may be, in bringing together a rival to Israel. But like every point in history, every time that anyone has flirted with Islamism, that is a fire they have had trouble putting out. Amin al-Husani is a formative figure in the early 20th century and what went down in the British mandate for Palestine. Islamism was really the only available unifying identity for the Arabs. They had no working secular political movement.

They were tribal to begin with. They had, as I mentioned, no ties to bind. And the only real outlet for grievances and the fulfillment of a commonality of identity against an other. And everyone, everyone understands that's the nature of identity. It is foundational to identity that you are different from someone else, that there is another. The Zionists knew that. It's core in Hayim Whiteson's definition of what it means to be a Jew. And the other is anti-Semitism.

Well, now you have another living in your land, and what would unify the Arabs in what was increasingly an environment of grievance for them, losing land, losing jobs. Well, it was the only viable institution that had been empowered by the powers that be, and it was the mosque. It was the Mufti. It was an increasingly radical coming out of that French-Syrian war merging of Islamism. an Arab national identity and violence that would become Islamism. One of the figures that would come out of that was a man whose name was Qasim. He was a militant coming out of that French-Syrian war. He ended up taking up the cause of the Palestinians.

And he became, apart from Husani and other Palestinian urban thinkers and leaders, he became a real populist in the voice of the people. He ended up violent revolts against the British, against the Zionists. He ended up dying as a martyr in battle. And he's remained an inspirational figure for Palestinians to this day. I mean, he's a terrorist. Let's be clear. He was a terrorist.

He's an inspirational figure for the Palestinians today. The rockets, the Palestinians fire in modern day are called Kossam rockets. And I believe some of the terrorist outfits that conducted these horrible acts. and southern Israel were under the banner of the Kossum brigades. So he served through his martyrdom as an inspiration for Palestinians. Now, as Palestinians and Arabs begin to take on this identity, not just of Arab nationalism, not just of tribes and tribal people living in the British mandate for Palestine, but begin to take on the identity of radical Islam,

this runs head on into the second school of thought for Zionism. I told you the first school of thought was acre by acre. But there was a second school of thought. And these were by the more radical, one could say realist, but certainly more militant visions of Zionism. These were rough men as well that came out of Russia, who had fought in wars. or in Eastern Europe, who understood the nature, in essence, of man in so many ways.

I brought up the figure Zev Jabotinsky. He's a fascinating guy. He's the founder of the revisionist party of Israel. And I found this quote read by Cooper in his podcast, again, Fear and Loathing and New Jerusalem. Absolutely fascinating. He gave a 1923 essay called The Iron Wall a speech. And he said this when it comes to colonization. There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestinian Arabs.

Chabotinsky wrote, It is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestinian Arabs for converting Palestine from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority. Everyone should be aware how colonization had taken place everywhere else across the globe. The Spanish meeting the Aztecs. the American colonists meeting the Native Americans. There was not one solitary instance of any colonization being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.

The native populations, civilized or uncivilized, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilized or savage. That is Jabotinsky saying. There is an inevitability to this. There's no peace agreement. There's no partition agreement. There's no meeting of the minds. There's no slow colonization.

This is all leading us down the same path to the inevitable conclusion of an existential fight. And it's hard to argue with Zabotinsky when you look at history. Show me the singular solitary instance where it hasn't resulted in that existential fight. He's right to bring up the Spanish and the Aztecs. He's right to bring up the American colonists and the Native Americans. It's true. I say he's right because it's true. I'd love to be proven wrong by history. It could provide us a path forward. We should take a moment as well. Talk about the concept of colonization. It's become a word that is so charged. and quite honestly, stupid in modern America.

We talked about this in the last episode, part one of our history of the Israelis and the Palestinians. But in modern America, from sort of the university angle of colonization, colonization is just simply a slur. It's a dirty word, but it's also a proxy. When you see college kids today, like flying Palestinian flags, free Palestine,

I don't think they've gone into the history that you and I are going into today. I mean, some of them have, so I don't want to undercut everybody. but I don't think most people have. What you and I are talking about here together, I'm pretty confident puts us at least in the top 5% of people who know enough or care enough to know

about the history of this conflict. And again, that doesn't insulate me from being wrong. Again, I'm not sitting here telling you I'm the voice of God on this issue. I'm just someone who's simply trying to understand. And so were you, my proxy of listening to me. And that puts us in rare company. And I don't think most of those college kids know, you know, when they fly the Palestinian flag.

They say free Palestine. I don't think they know. I don't think they know anything about, I mean Al-Hassani. I don't think they know anything about, you know, labor Zionism. I don't think they know anything about land purchases. I certainly don't think they've ever heard of Zev Jabotinsky. Again, some may. What they're doing is buying into this modern Robin DiAngelo, Ibermex-Kendi,

you know, that's the popular tip of the iceberg on a thought process that is critical race theory. vision of the world where colonization essentially means anti-colonial means anti-white it's true it means anti-white and it means anti-western that's what it means so to be a colonialist makes you a white racist shoving down western values on the globe there's a much deeper conversation by the way about that about whether or not the sharing of western values is in and of itself as we talked about with Douglas Murray, the ultimate anti-racist movement, these better values that produce better medicine, longer lifespans, greater freedom, are available to everyone, regardless of race, with adjustments to culture.

It means you're not encumbered by your biology. But that's an interesting conversation about colonization as a concept. But, you know, modern-day universities, it's like colonization is just anti-white, anti-Western. On the other side, I think a lot of conservatives have now taken on the idea that colonization in itself is a, I don't know, what do you tell? Colonization. Well, look, it's a real thing, colonization. I mean, we know that, so let's not get overly stupid in response to their stupidity. Like, English pilgrims colonized Virginia, Massachusetts. It's a colonialization effort. And then Scott's Irish pioneers pushed west and colonized the plains. And the West. The Spanish colonized. It's true. They set up colonies, shared their culture, sometimes in violent ways, with the native population.

In Mexico, in Central America, in South America. The French set up colonies in Canada, in Louisiana, and in Africa, and in the Far East, in places like Vietnam. I mean, colonization is a real thing, and we can't pretend. not because some dummies on the other side think it just means anti-West and anti-white. But, again, looking at all of those experiments, it's really hard to find, to Jabotinsky's point, one example where it did not ultimately mean an existential fight. In fact, Jabotinsky considered it insulting to the native population that you're just going to, what, you're going to deceive the Arabs.

They're not going to see you buying their land. They're not going to see you kicking them out or boxing them out of jobs. Like, whether or not they're savage or civilized, whether not they're smart or dumb, whether they're 500 years behind us on the progress scale or even, they're going to see that they are losing their land. So Jabotinsky said to his fellow Zionists, they're going to see it. And it's going to be a big deal to them. They're going to have a problem.

Everyone knew that, by the way. Every single Zionist. So me laying out to you what happened in the 1920s and 1930s is just historical fact. And not only historical fact, it is a fact recognized by the main characters of the time period. It was recognized by Ben Gurian. It was recognized by Weitzman. It was recognized by Jabotinsky. That's fact.

That's not picking sides. It's not skewing facts. I don't know how it can be painted. I'm sure in some way it can. I'm open to that criticism to revisit it. But I certainly have read the words of Ben Gurian. I've read the words of Weitzman. I've read the words of Jabotinsky.

And Jabotinsky, as the hardcore founder of the revisionist party, which I think ultimately led to the Lukid party, which is Netanyahu, was just honest about it in his estimation. I'm just telling you what's going to happen, guys. This is going to lead to this. We are colonizing their land. They are going to push back. Interestingly, Zabatinsky also believed that Arabs should have full rights within Israel, that they should be equal citizens. It's a more complicated figure than simply the brute realist. Also free market, by the way, not socialist, brute realist, more complicated than just simply the guy who saw this was an existential fight.

But this is all coming down the highway of history. All of that's set against the backdrop where Arabs begin to chafe under Zionism. In 1920, there's a riot, the Nebimusa riots. I mean, I was saying he's behind a lot of. these things as it turns out. After that, Nebigh Moussa riots, where I, it's hard to keep up with how many got killed, but it turns out to be historical terms, not as many as what we'd soon see, dozens on both sides killed. After that, the British, remember now, the British are in charge. They boot out, Amino Sani. You're gone. You help, you help do this. But you know what?

You're out, too, Zev Jabotinsky. You're gone. He's, he's. He's, he's. He's. He's. He's was seen as a provocateur, an aggressor, what's going on. Because while the Arabs revolt in 1920 at Nebuchad, they revolt again in 1929 riots. Now we're ramping up, now we're ramping up some serious violence. Hundreds now killed and Hebron and Jaffa and Arabs doing horrific things that actually really rival what we just saw in southern Israel. Like, this was a true pogrom, like what we saw in October 7th. Horrible mutilations and rapes and killings.

Now, understanding history is not the same as forgiving history. A lot of people consider 1929 in those rights the year zero of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like, that's when the fire started. Sparks before. That's when the fire started. And it moved forward. The big one. Qasem was killed in 35, becomes a martyr, the Arabs still continue to rally, they get more concerned, more mad.

Now, in response to a weapon shipment they discovered coming in by the Zionists under the nose of the British, in 1936, they start the Arab revolt. It first starts as a general strike, but then, inspired by Qasem, there are terrorists, there are whatever, revolutionaries, freedom fighters in the Arab hills who are conducting terror on citizens. and now the whole world's looking at it going, whoa, whoa, what's happening in British Mandate for Palestine? This is bad news. And then the Zionists in response, they radicalize as well. After the 1920 riots, when Jabotinsky had sort of been banished from the British Mandate for Palestine, they started the Haganah. I believe I'm saying that's right, but it's like an Israeli response force to any Arab terrorism. Then there was the Ergen, which was another.

another, which eventually was classified, I believe, as a terrorist organization. I think Albert Einstein called it a right-wing fascist terror organization, chauvinistic terror organization. Then the British sort of empowered the special night forces. In response to all this Arab terrorism, the British, again, backing the Zionists at that time, but trying to mediate some peace, but when push comes to shove, it's the British Empire, just destroyed the Palestinian Arab Revolt from 36 to 39. By most stats, I read this on Wikipedia, something like 10% of the Arab population of young men age 20 to 60, fighting age, capable of fighting, was wiped out, killed.

Either killed, injured, or exiled, done with out of the equation. So you arrive in 1939, and you now have an untenable situation for the Brits, an untenable situation for the Arabs, an increasingly untenable situation under the yoke of terror, for the Zionists. And you now sitting there in the late 1930s have three events that set you up for the rest of the 20th century.

They are as follows. One, the Peel Commission. This is in 1939. The Peel Commission is one of several commissions and attempts to finally say, okay, we're going to partition this. We're going to give part of the land to the Arabs and part of the land to

the Jews. We're going to break this land up. And it required mass migration largely by the Arabs, but some by the Jews as well, out of lands where they lived into other areas. This was a, as it always was, a fight for political representation and land. But political representation was a dicey proposition, because what did you mean by that? Did you mean democracy? Because remember now, while Jews were moving to Israel, they were still a minority. Moving to the British Mandate for Palestine, they were still a minority.

Arabs were outnumbered them So were you going to have a democracy But it was the first time to start looking at land And start partitioning up And it wasn't accepted by the Arabs And it wasn't accepted by the Jews The Peel Commission Number two, this is formidable

The 1939 White Paper It was a It was a commission and diplomatic Paper put together in Britain Remember now this is run by the Brits where they said the following, and this was huge. They said there would be political representation for the Arabs.

They said that the Balfour Declaration promised a home in the British Mandate for Palestine for Jews. They made clear in the 1939 White Paper, it did not mean that the British Mandate for Palestine would become a Jewish state. In no uncertain terms, they said they did not consider that you, would drive everyone out who is not Jewish and turn this in to a Jewish political entity, a Jewish state. But rather, you have a protected home in Palestine. And from that, everything falls apart. The Zionists are now mad at the Brits.

The Arabs are unhappy with the Peel Commission. Everybody is unhappy. It's 1939, and you know what is beginning in Europe. The third big event. Hitler begins his program to first ethnically cleanse and then commit genocide on Jews

in Europe in that podcast Martyr Made he talks about the rest of the world at this point there has to be a safe haven there has to be a refuge for Jews but for all of there we're going to control the world the Brits

the French the Americans did not take in Jewish refugees from Europe in great numbers. They limited the numbers, by the way, the Brits did to appease the Arabs, the number of Jewish refugees

to Palestine. 15,000 a year. The 1933-9 white paper presented 75,000 total. Limited immigration, land partition, political representation,

and now a flood of Jews fleeing a genocidal maniac in Europe. But the rest of the world does not open their doors. And everyone's looking at Palestine, the British mandate for Palestine, as the place where Jews can and should go find their safe haven. And that brings you to the doorstep of war. Oh, I know, I know. World War, yes, we understand Hitler, France,

Great Britain, America, no, not just that war. That's world war. But the doorstep of perpetual war. I'm talking about Zionists against Brits, Zionists against Palestinians, Arabs against Zionists, against Zionists, Israel against the greater Middle East, and of course all set against the backdrop of world war in Europe. In part three, we will now move forward from World War II, the establishment of the state of Israel to modern day, a period of time defined by perpetual war. I hope that provides you some understanding. I'm not sure it provides you a solution. I'm not sure where it leads you in terms of a conclusion. I know not a pretty one. But what I hope this illustrates is whether or not it was,

by design, by implication, or by inevitability. What you were looking at there was an existential fight between Jews and Arabs for a home. We're going to step aside here for a moment. Stay tuned. Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with James Patterson. Every crime tells a story, but some stories are left unfinished. Somebody knows. Real cases, real people. Listen and follow now at Fox True Crime.com.

Story number three The Texas Rangers are in the World Series. How sweet it is. Mark it down is one of the best sports experiences already of my life. I started thinking about this. Like, how many championships have I got to root for? In my lifetime, I have the three times the Dallas Cowboys won the Super Bowl in the 1990s. I was alive for their run in the 1970s, but I don't remember.

I had the three Cowboys runs in the 1990s. I have the Dallas Mavericks in 2006, a championship in which they lost or were robbed by NBA referees. And I have the Dallas Mavericks in 2011, one of the sweetest experiences of my sporting fandom life. I have the 2005 Texas Longhorns under Vince Young, also one of my favorite experiences. I also have the 2009 Longhorns who lost to the Alabama Crimson Tide. And then I have the 2010 and 2011 Texas Rangers. I don't like talking about 2011 because it's one of the most crushing sports losses of my life. That in the 2006 Mavericks.

But the 2011 Rangers are the top of the mountain of worst sports fandom moments of my life. But we're back and it's the 2023 Texas Rangers. That means in my lifetime, I've had three Rangers championship opportunities, two Mavericks Championship Opportunities and three Cowboys Championship Opportunities along with two Texas Longhorn, Texas Football Championship Opportunities. These things don't come along that often. I mean, what's that?

Three, six, eight, ten. That's ten between four programs. Right? Now, if you're from Boston, I don't even want to hear from you. I don't. I want to hear from you, Boston. I mean, 10 between four programs, I'm 48 years old. I mean, it's about one every five years.

But it doesn't feel that way. This is exercising demons. This is exercising the demons of the Houston Astros. Can we take a minute to talk about the Houston Astros? Houston Astros. What a wonderful rivalry. Astros fans, I'm glad you're there. I can't say I love you, but I'm glad that we have you.

Just like these tribal things we're talking about, you need another. You're our other in baseball. We need you. You hate us. We hate you. You hate Adolas Garcia. I just wouldn't boo him any longer because he's going to – Albambi is going to hit bombs.

But I'm glad you're there. And I think it's interesting how many people hate the Astros. I mean, look at it in any comment section, talk about it around a bonfire. Everybody brings up cheating and everybody hates the Astros. And it made me think about that when you see the story right now about the University of Michigan football program. Have you seen that? Michigan is accused of cheating. stealing signs. The story is that they had some graduate assistant student go around, buy tickets at 11 different stadiums where Michigan would soon play, sit there with a cell phone at the 50-yard line, bought the tickets in his own credit card, and video the other team's signs, signs, so that he could steal their signs. And then they show him on the sidelines later in the Ohio State game. There's a video of this where all the Ohio State players are looking to the side lines.

lines looking for a sign, and you can see all the Michigan players on the opposite side lines looking as well, and the minute they get it, the Ohio State guys turned back to the line of scrimmage, and the Michigan guys all start pointing pass, pass, pass, it's a pass. So they've stolen the signs. And everybody's comparing this to spy gate and deflategate and the Houston Astros. But I think Dionne Sand, I'm not outraged by this story out of Michigan. And I think Dion Sanders, head coach at Colorado, put it well. He said, look, it's not like baseball.

It's like in football, you can steal all the signs, and quite honestly, everybody does. Matt Ruhle, head coach at Nebraska said the same thing. Steve Sarkeesian, Texas, everybody steals signs. But in football, ultimately, Dion Sanders said, I could give you the playbook, but you still got to stop it. It only has so much of an impact in football. I mean, I know if you can read a defense or if a defense can read an offense. But Larry Allen, Hall of Fame, offensive line for the Dallas Cowboys, they tell this story. He used to have a huge dip in.

I think he had a dip in during games. And Larry Allen, like, who could bench press a million pounds. He used to walk up to the line of scrimmage. I think it's the Green Bay Packers who have talked about this. And he would go, choo-choo! Coming right behind me, right at you. Meaning, Emmett is running right behind me.

Bank it. Good luck stopping it. Those 90s cowboys, Third and seven, everyone knew what they were going to do. They were going to throw it to Michael Irvin on a slant. Stop it. Football's about that. It's brute, man on man.

You got the battle plans, win the battle. You have to win. I'm just, it's not, and Dion said it, it's not like baseball. If I know a curveball's coming, I got your number. And everybody hates the Astros as compared to how I feel about Michigan. I guess probably because of the level of technology the Astros used. I don't know. Something gross about.

banging a trash can but using outfilling signals and and the astros won that's another thing they won but it does put it in a different bucket i mean there's cheaters in baseball throughout its history scuffin balls steroids sticky stuff i can't pretend like cheating's not part of baseball but it's more it seems more impactful than sign stealing in football and everybody hates the astros so in beating you which i'm glad you're there we exercise the Rangers, that demon. We exercise 2010, lost to the San Francisco Giants. That's gone because now we have Bruce Bochy, who's got to be the best manager in baseball. In 2011, I told you I don't want to talk about that. St. Louis Cardinals, one strike away, twice, but I don't want to talk

about it. We're exercising demons of a franchise nobody cares about. And that's how baseball is. Nobody cares about any franchise but their own. A franchise, nobody cares about the Texas Rangers. I don't want to get ahead of myself. Set for this to become a long-term run. DeGrom comes back, Scherzer comes back, Wyatt Langford's a stud rookie who hasn't even gotten there yet. Evan Carter will be a full rookie next year. I'm just getting excited, and I need to stop

because live in the moment, live in the present, live in the now. We're going to win a World Series. Does I record this? I don't know if that's going to be the Phillies or the Diamondbacks. But forget all that I said in the past episodes. I'm not, I can't just be, happy we got there anymore. Now we're too close. I'm at the finish line. I can't just say, well, we ran a good race. No, you got to win. Break through the tape. You took down the

Astros. You got Adolas Garcia. You got Corey Seeger. Go win the World Series. And maybe, maybe, I'll stay up and watch every pitch. And maybe, maybe, I'll be on Fox and Friends Weekend. if you think it appropriate. Wilcane Podcast at Fox.com. All right, I will see you again next time. Listen to ad-free 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 app. This is Jimmy Phala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas. Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at Fox Across America.com.