Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The rebuttal was
beautiful.
I'm surprised that most peopledon't bring it up.
Ben-gurion himself, thePalestinians he does believe, do
descend from Jews that werefarmers 2,000 years ago.
You don't need to be Einsteinto know this, but if you need
him, here's what he says.
So 1973, this is where you seethe first arguments made that
(00:20):
anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
What causes anti-Semitism iswhen they justify what they do
by saying that sounds prettyanti-Semitic to me, and he never
said that they hate Jews.
He actually said I can seewhere they're coming from.
We're invaders, we'reforeigners.
If you are against Jewishself-determination, you're
anti-Semite.
Oh, but for Arabs, it's notabsolute right for them.
(00:42):
In the exact same article, thearrogance.
You couldn't make up this levelof arrogance, and you know what
.
The truth is even moreridiculous, and when.
You know why it will shock youand it's not for the reasons you
think You're going to beshocked.
We're going to get to that,though.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
As-salamu alaykum wa
rahmatull wabarakatuh, brothers
and sisters and friends, this isHamza Andres Sousis, and
welcome to the next episode ofIslam 21c's podcast on God.
Now I want to thank you, everysingle one of you, for making it
successful so far.
Please share and subscribe Now.
This episode is epic.
(01:24):
It's amazing.
It's with our dear brother,abdullah Al-Andalusi, and he
dismantled a whole host ofZionist claims, the false
Zionist narratives.
And before we get into thepodcast, let me quickly
introduce him and I'm tellingyou you're going to enjoy every
(01:46):
moment.
So Abdullah Al-Andalusi is aninternational speaker, thinker
and intellectual activist forIslam and Muslim affairs.
He is a researcher for the i3Institute, an instructor and
head of the Department ofOccidentology at the Quran
Institute and co-founder of thediscussion forum, the Muslim
(02:08):
Debate Initiative.
For 20 years, his work has beenin explaining and demonstrating
the intellectual proofs for theIslamic belief system,
promoting the Islamic way oflife and Islamic solutions for
contemporary problems, andadvocating for the rights of
Muslims across the world.
Abdullah has taught a number ofcourses and has given a variety
(02:30):
of lectures at universities andcolleges internationally, but
he is better known for hisnumerous TV appearances and
public debates.
Enjoy the podcast.
As-salāmu alaykum warahmatullāhi wa barakātuhu my
dear brother Abdullah, how areyou?
I'm good, alhamdulillah, how areyou?
May Allah bless you.
I'm good, I can't complain.
(02:50):
So it's without a doubt forpeople of conscience and people
who have any humanity left inthem that there is an ongoing
genocide and starvation, andyou're the best person to speak
about this topic.
We have a bunch of questions.
I'm going to go straight to thefirst one, because we want to
(03:11):
dismantle false Zionistnarratives.
And the first question is, bro,do Palestinians have a right to
the land of Palestine?
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Well, I wouldn't say
I was the best person to speak
to about it.
There are great literary andacademic giants that have
written tons of books on thistopic, so all I can say is I'm
the one present right now tospeak to you.
So, inshallah, bismillah.
So it might seem like a verysimple question, a question that
even does not need to be asked,like what right do people who
(03:45):
live in their land have a rightto be in their land?
But, as a friend of mine said,sometimes in certain situations
the hardest thing to explain topeople is, as he says, the
bloody obvious.
And in this case, the bloodyobvious, or the bleedingly
bloody obvious, is that these,the Palestinians, have been
dehumanized and they've beenviewed as not human and not
(04:08):
subject to the same rights thatwe would convey to others.
I think there was an infamoussituation where someone maybe
put on chat GPT they asked youknow, do Jews have a right to
live in Palestine or Israel?
And they'll say of course,every nation has a right to
self-determination and Jews havethe right to self-determination
too.
And then, when they ask thesame question do Palestinians
(04:29):
have the right to live inPalestine?
And they say this is acomplicated question and there's
many factors and many differentsides, so this is one of the
issues.
So, put simply, they do have aright to live in their own land,
the land that they've beenliving in.
But what is typical fromZionist interlocutors and what
was infamous from interviewswith, for example, benjamin
(04:50):
Netanyahu, the prime minister ofIsrael, and Jordan Peterson
which I saw and I responded towith, obviously, with a
colleague of yours, muhammadHijab was they argued that
Palestinians are newcomers tothe land and they'll say, well,
they don't have no right to bethere, but they imply that Jews
(05:13):
have a better right to be thereand therefore Palestinian
considerations and rights shouldtake a second place.
So what we really need to go inis to just look at the history,
and I have a little bit of ahistory lesson, but I'll make it
as brief and as painless aspossible.
So, in essence, there'smultiple genetic studies have
(05:33):
been done on Palestinians aswell as Jews from around the
world, and they compared it tobodies that were exhumed with
the DNA that was found inMegiddo up to 4,000 years ago.
So in the Canaanite era, thisis obviously the pre-biblical
era, and of course, theydiscovered that to no one's real
(05:54):
surprise.
There's a match betweenPalestine.
Palestinians generally haveroughly 70% correspondence to 70
to 90% correspondence toancient Canaanite DNA from the
region, with Jews, actuallyvarying depending on the region
they come from.
So if they're from the MiddleEast, a bit more correspondence.
(06:15):
Not more than Palestinians, butthey have more than European
Jews.
So roughly maybe 60, 50 percent, and then European Jews between
50 to 40 percent.
When looking at European JewishDNA they discovered, of course,
that they also have 50 percent,roughly on average, european
DNA because they've lived inEurope for 2000 years and
(06:38):
they've intermarried, althoughnot as much as other European
groups, but they certainly haveintermarried Europeans and have
European maternal lines.
Now I don't think we need to goto genetics on this, but let's
rewind the clock and explain andthen we'll discuss where the
Palestinians come from.
So you had the Canaanites upuntil about roughly around 1200
(07:02):
BC.
We know that there was noIsraelite rule there because
Egypt was ruling Palestine atthat point in time, or Canaan as
it was called.
Then there was the Bronze Agecollapse long story and they
withdrew from that land and thenyou had Canaanite city-states.
We see in the Manephtha steel,which is a kind of engraving
(07:27):
onto by the Egyptian monarch,engraving of his victories and
conquests.
So we see, dated around 1208 BC, that he talks about them going
back into Palestine, notconquering it but, you know,
reducing the land andsubjugating the city, the Kenyan
city-states.
And then he refers to defeatingand he uses a hieroglyph
(07:52):
denoting a tribe of people, nota land or a city, but a tribe of
people known, as possiblyhistorians believe it's
referring to Israel.
The word is Israel, israel, sothey think there's a, they
encounter, and the icon isactually for a group of people,
not an area of land or acity-state like the Canaanite
(08:13):
city-states that he was hementioned in this deal.
So historians have concludedthat it seems like around 1208.
By this point in time,israelites had migrated, usually
in where, roughly, is the WestBank today.
They had immigrated, migratedand they were maybe semi-nomadic
peoples.
They weren't actual sedentarycity dwellers of that land.
(08:37):
If you add to that, furtherlooking into the history was
that there was also a typicalname for people who were nomads,
mercenaries and sometimesbrigands, called Habiro or
ivrito, which is in Hebrew, oribri, or the Hebrews comes from
this term, meaning like thesemi-nomadic brigands or
(09:08):
fighters or mercenaries or whathave you.
So these were usually peoplefor hire, maybe it was a general
term for a group of people thatdid this and they were believed
to be such a group or one ofthese groups, and so they were
given that name.
These are the habiru, these arejust habirus, and it's that's
(09:30):
roughly where it believes comesfrom.
So what we see is that theisraelites were semi-nomadic.
Um, they didn't exist prior tothere's no mention of them, uh,
during the egyptian imperialperiod of palestine.
So they seem to have come onthe scene at a certain point in
time.
Now, the, the hebrew bible,mentions an invasion of the
israelites coming in from jordan.
They cross over the riverjordan and they invade into the
(09:52):
promised land of palestine.
Uh, for them now, this time itwas just called canaan, the land
of canaan.
Okay, so then?
What happened?
Well, long story short, going afew thousand years, they split
into two kingdoms.
They became one, so 12 tribesbecame one kingdom, under, it's
believed, maybe, king Solomon,king David, alayhi salam.
(10:14):
There is actuallyarchaeological evidence for the
house of David's mentioned, butnot necessarily the King David
or King of Solomon, but thatgives a supporting weight.
They say, okay, and then theysplit the two kingdoms.
One was called the kingdom ofIsrael in the north, and the
second underneath was called thekingdom of Judea.
So, or the kingdom of Judah,sorry, then it would become
(10:38):
Judea later.
So then Babylonians, assyriansinvade, take them captive.
So then Babylonians, assyriansinvade, take them captive.
Then you have Cyrus the Great,as he's called, persian emperor.
He allows the Israelites to goback to their land, but under
imperial control of the Persians.
(10:59):
But it was a benign, apparentlya benign control.
They were given autonomy and soon.
They only really.
And then it was you.
Knowander the great comes in, heinvades, he dies.
One of his generals, um uh,takes over the different parts
of the split into differentpieces, and one of his generals,
uh, takes over the area whichwe see of egypt and palestine.
(11:21):
And then they established aHellenistic rule over there.
Then there was an uprising, andnow we're getting towards,
roughly now, about 2,200 yearsago or so, the Maccabean
uprising.
They actually defeat theHellenists or Macedonians or
Greeks and get some independenceback, but this only lasts about
(11:44):
100 years.
And then the Romans come on andtake and first make a, turn him
into a client state and then,due to another uprising after
the time of Jesus, it becomes aRoman territorial province.
Now the Greek historian,herodotus, in 500 BC that's 2500
years ago for those of you whowant a rough understanding
(12:09):
obviously encounters thatthere's a coastal area around
Gaza where there was people thatsettled there, called the
Philistines, the Philistinecity-states, and so names the
territory based on the peoplethey encounter, which is they
call it, you know, in essencePalestinian, or Palestina as the
Romans would probably call it.
And this is typical in theancient world, like, for example
(12:32):
, the Muslims called Europeansfor Angie because we just
encountered the Franks there's,there's more than just the
Franks, but we just said, oh,they're all for Angie, english,
whatever for Angie.
So Palestine actually is thename that was given to land
after Canaan and most peopledon't realize.
Interestingly enough, and thisis a side point, but is
(12:54):
Palestine has only actually hadtwo names of the land in its
time.
That encompasses the wholeterritory.
Well, at least after theEgyptian withdrawal, one was
Canaan and after was actuallyPalestine.
It was never actually calledIsrael as the name of the
territory, as the name of theactual land.
(13:15):
It's like we're living on theIsles of Britannia, right, the
British Isles or Britannia asthe Romans called it.
England is the name of thepolitical jurisdiction.
The British Isles or Britanniaas the Romans called it, england
, is the name of the politicaljurisdiction, not the name of
the actual physical land.
The land is Britannia, so thephysical land is Canaan or
Palestine, but was neveractually called.
This land is Israel.
(13:35):
It was called the landbelonging to Israel, in that
sense land of Israel, meaning itbelongs to the tribes of Israel
.
But we know the tribes ofIsrael is a tribe, as the Bible
mentions.
They even called Israel beforethey even go to Palestine.
So they are a tribal people.
So England is the landbelonging to the Angles and all
(13:56):
the Saxons.
It's not the name of the actualgeographic territory.
So this is where people oftenget confused territory.
So, um, this is where peopleoften get confused, but anyway.
So romans uh turn into aprovince after a failed uprising
around the 70 um ce of thecommon era, as they call it, or
the christian era, and for agood 500 sorry, 600 years or so
(14:21):
it's's under Roman rule andpeople become Christian.
So the natives slowly becomeChristian.
Some leave.
Actually many Jews left beforethe uprising was crushed by the
Romans.
Because one of the typicalZionist narratives was they'll
say we were expelled from theland, we were made into exiles.
And I said that's pretty hardto uh make that your narrative
(14:46):
when the talmud gets in a sensecanonized in palestine 200 or
about 100 or 200 years afteryour supposed exile from
palestine.
So who was doing thecanonization right?
It was the, the clerics, the,the rabbis, and so on, so forth.
There was, there was a Jewishpopulation that remained.
There were Jews that left andwent into the Roman Empire for
(15:07):
economic reasons, by the tens ofthousands prior to the Roman
suppressing of the uprisingagainst Roman rule in around 70
CE.
So there was no evidence of amass exile and in fact,
historians have pointed out thatthere was the actual farmers
and, you know, tillers of theland and so on, but by and large
(15:29):
still, you might call jews orothers that were just living
there, that had that, would havebeen there for some time.
So what happened then?
Over, gradually, there was amass conversion to christ.
That occurred as the RomanEmpire was Christianizing, so
Palestine became more and moreChristian.
We know that synagogues wereconverted into churches by their
(15:51):
own congregation.
They had left Judaism andbecame Christian.
Okay, and this all lasted until, of course, around the 8th
century, 7th century, 8thcentury, around the 8th century,
7th century, 8th century, ofcourse when a new power rose up,
which is obviously islamiccivilization.
(16:11):
It spread prior to that time.
By the way, people often tellyou that arabs come from arabia.
Right, all arabs, they comefrom arabia.
So if you see arabs inpalestine, they are foreigners
to that, that land.
They come from Arabia.
Well, not so on two counts.
The first count is that theSinai, the Sinai desert, but
(16:32):
also the Naqab, or the Negev asthey call it, has actually
always had Bedouin Arab tribes,even during the biblical period.
So there's always been Arabsthere, and there were Christian
Arabs living around the wholeregion.
Arabic was actually the linguafranca of that region, so there
was no sudden influx by Muslimsin the 7th century, but there
(16:53):
was actually a lot of ChristianArabs.
There was the Nabataean empirewas an Arabic kingdom that
controlled the Naqab and Jordanand that whole area.
You can go see them, theremains of their stone cities,
petra, and so on.
So Arabs, in a sense, have beenthere for many, many centuries,
but the new influx of MuslimArabs coming from the Middle
(17:16):
East obviously was 7th century.
Okay, so what did they do whenthey reached Palestine?
They did the same thing theydid everywhere else, which is,
once they deposed the imperialoverlords, they actually kept
the administrators.
That's why most of the earlyadministration documents of the
early caliphate is actually inGreek, because that was how
administration was done.
Strangely enough, you actuallysee the first Greek sorry, the
(17:41):
first Arabic Bibles at thispoint in time, when the Romans
because I think prior tochristian arabs had kept their
sacred texts in greek or aramaic.
But they start, they start totranslate into arabic.
Um, but what you see generallyis that the population does not
move.
Muslims never, never, kick outanybody.
(18:02):
I mean the.
The overlords change.
Yes, those who inhabit themilitary barracks or the palaces
might change, but thepopulation doesn't move anywhere
.
So then, what happened?
Well, over many, many centuriesand actually it was very slow,
but the population begins toslowly convert to Islam.
(18:22):
So these were people who weremaybe a mix of Canaanites, and
we don't know if the Biblenarrative is 100% accurate that
they massacred all theCanaanites when they came.
Some evidence suggests thatthey intermarried, maybe they
kept slaves, but whatever, theDNA is still there, the
Canaanite DNA is still there.
They're Jews and then, fromJews, they become Christians and
(18:46):
then they slowly start toconvert to Islam.
It comes to the point that, bythe turn of the 20th century,
palestine has approximatelyabout 88% Muslims, 10%
Christians, 4% Jews, and theseare all Palestinians.
These are people, the natives.
(19:06):
Now, sure, there's beenintermarrying and intermixing
throughout the Middle East, butgenerally speaking, the genome
of that region is more or lessthe same Same with the Lebanese,
same with the Egyptians.
They all look different fromeach other, even though they
might be called Arabs.
And that brings me to thesecond definition of the word
Arab.
Arab is anyone who speaksArabic.
If you adopt Arabic as yourmother tongue, you become Arab.
(19:28):
It doesn't matter what yourethnicity is, you're just called
an Arab, even though Egyptians.
No one would say you're justall from Arabia because you're
called Arabs.
No, they say well, yeah, youdescend from the ancient
Egyptians.
No one has any confusion aboutEgyptians, even though they're
called Arabs.
But Zionists like to portraythe Palestinians as they are
(19:48):
Arabians, not Arabs.
So this is basically.
What happened is thatPalestinians are.
There's a genetic continuity toancient Canaanites 4,000 years
prior.
Interestingly enough, now, whenyou look at the DNA analysis of
(20:09):
not just Palestinians, but theyalso compared it to Jews,
european Jews, arab Jews, as Imentioned before, there was a
lot of surprising things.
They discovered that there wasa particular chromosome that
goes in the male line, whichabout 30% of Palestinians have,
but very rarely occurs in theKohen line of Jews.
(20:34):
Now, for those of you who don'tknow, the Kohen are like the
priestly caste and that onlycarries via the male lineage,
not by the female lineage.
So to be a Jew you must be fromthe female lineage, so your
mother must be Jew, but to be aKohen your father must be a
Kohen.
So they discovered that it'sactually very rare.
This chromosome occurs amongstKohenim, as they call it, the
(20:57):
Kohens, but it's actually quitepreponderant amongst
Palestinians and there werestudies to show that this where
they indicated that this seemsthat the Palestinians had
preserved more of the DNA fromthat region than European Jews
had preserved that ancient DNA.
But there is still some tracesamongst them of that, especially
in the priestly caste.
(21:17):
There was loads of studies toshow that European Jews they
have actually 80% of theirmitochondria maternally passed
mitochondria are basically fromEuropean maternal lines.
Now I don't know what thismeans in.
Obviously, in Jewish law, interms of what makes someone a
Jew or not, they woulddefinitely say you can convert.
So as long as if you profess tobe Jewish and you believe it,
(21:39):
then you're Jewish.
Generally that's not an issue,but it can be passed
raciallyially, even if youidentify as an atheist, for
example, they say well, you canstill be called um a jew,
although if you actually are amuslim or christian, uh, they
would not consider you to beobviously racially a jew anymore
and the laws, the raciallyracial laws of israel actually
(22:00):
reflect this.
So if you are an atheist, yousay I reject god, I reject
everything about the bible.
Reject God, I reject everythingabout the Bible, I reject the
Talmud, everything about thathistory.
I'm just, my mom is just a Jew,but that's it.
You have the right to return,quote unquote Israel gives you
the racial right to return backto Palestine.
But if you are like, if youboth, if you're a Kohen on both
(22:24):
sides of your family, even yourmother's a Kohen, let's just say
right, you are like cardcarrying ultra orthodox rabbis
on both sides of your family,you know like 100%, 110% Jewish.
You could say but you are aChristian or you're a Muslim,
then Israel does not consideryou have the right to return to
(22:47):
Palestine.
So their racial laws becausethat is literally a racial law
makes an exception for religion.
It's not about all religions,it's also about race.
But you apparently can loseyour race and lose your
inheritance, your birthright, ifyou follow the wrong religion.
So, anyway, it's a funny pointanyway.
So, in essence, long storyshort, palestinians are
(23:10):
descendants of canaanites, sothey've there for 4 000 years at
minimum right, if not beyond.
If that doesn't give someone aright to live on their land, I
don't know what does if.
If that is negated, then allrights to anyone to be native to
any place on this planet Earthis negated, and so, ultimately,
(23:31):
that would be establishing theancestral aspects of the
Palestinians and, as I said,there are too many genetic
studies that confirm this.
Now, you might think, did wehave to wait for today to know
these things about, you know,with genetic tests?
And so no, ben gurion himself,who was the first prime minister
of the state of israel, as wellas the leader of um, the jewish
(23:56):
agency well, it was a before itgot independence to become a
full state he discusses in hisletters that the palestinians he
does believe we call them thearabs the local arabs do uh, you
know, the farmers and most ofthe city dwellers do descend
from jews that were farmers, uh,two thousand years ago in
(24:17):
palestine.
So they acknowledge that thesearabs or palestinians, which
they obviously don't consider tobe part of their people, are
actually ancestry from thatregion.
They knew this.
It was not a big secret.
The Zionists never argued thatin the past, that they were a
foreign people.
Only more recently has beenargued this argument.
(24:40):
They didn't stop them.
It did not stop them frommistreating them.
It didn't stop them fromdispossessing their land.
It didn't stop them fromviewing them as a separate
people that you have to bepartitioned away from.
So, ultimately speaking, theZionists don't really care if
the Palestinians are natives tothat land.
Our Canaanites have been therefor as long as anyone else has I
(25:07):
mean technically longer thanEuropean Jews have, because
European Jews spent 2000 yearsin Europe.
That's a long, long time.
So they don't ultimately care.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
So this is a perfect
point for, I think, the next
question.
So you've kind of establishedthat the Palestinians have a
right to the land by virtue ofthe history and the biology and
the genetics and the DNA they'vejust mentioned.
Speaker 1 (25:34):
But I didn't go into
the you could say the current
international law or legalaspects of it, because that's
you could say the other side ofthe coin here, because people
tend to argue not from geneticrights for the most part.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Yeah.
So what would Jews say, or theJews that support Israel?
And what would the ideologuessay?
And the Zionists say and theIsraelis say with regards to
their claim that they have aright to all of the land of
Palestine?
How does that mix in now?
Speaker 1 (26:08):
Well, I mean
referring specifically to the
main pundits of Zionism, sothose who believe that Jews have
a sovereign and exclusive rightto the land of Palestine, or
those who believe that Jewsshould be the rulers of the land
of Palestine in some way, shapeor form, because they can have
(26:30):
minorities, but as long as theyare the ruling group.
So what they tend to argue isthat they have a stronger right
than Palestinians to the landand they have a right to return
to that land and they have aright to self-determination.
Now they cite the argument ofself-determination.
(26:53):
After the era of empires, it wasargued that the best way to
organize the world wasnationalism, was.
Each nation has a right toself-determination via its own
political unit as best aspossible, with some exceptions.
If they are a minority groupwithin a certain territory, then
(27:14):
they have what's called aninternal right to
self-determination, which isthat they have the right to be
represented in government andvote and so on.
But if they are the majoritygroup, then they have the right
to external self-determination,which is that they determine the
foreign policy and theydetermine the state's security
because they are the ones withthe majority group.
(27:34):
It was the best way they couldfit their post-imperial age was
nationalism.
Nation-states, that's the newparadigm.
So in this argument, which waswhat was specifically created by
um, the, the allies after worldwar one, was we want to change
the world from empires.
The british probably say not usbut everyone else yes, although
(27:57):
they view themselves as we'regoing to help everyone to become
independent with it, you know,with the training wheels for
them, and we will um supportthem in this endeavor at some
undetermined point in for them,and we will support them in this
endeavour at some undeterminedpoint in the future, but we will
give them independence.
But the argument was thateveryone has a right to
self-determination and that wasthe key basis behind all
political rights.
This was denied thePalestinians and it was denied
(28:24):
the Palestinians because theBritish government had promised
the land of Palestine toZionists to say, well, this is
for a Jewish national home.
And how do we reconcile thiswith the fact that the majority
of people that live therehaven't been consulted, would
probably object to it and thiskind of could possibly, or
(28:47):
indeed most likely will, impingetheir right to
self-determination, which theyhad.
They made an exception to this.
So, for example, lord Balfour,obviously infamous for the
Balfour Declaration thatindicated British government's
official backing of the idea ofa national home in Palestine for
Jews.
He argued and he admitted in.
(29:08):
This was in 1919, so about twoyears after the Balfour
Declaration.
He admitted that this was aweakness of their you could say,
international arguments fortheir policy in their region.
He said this the weak point ofour position, of course, is that
in the case of Palestine, wedeliberately and as he calls it,
rightly declined to accept theprinciple of self-determination.
(29:32):
If the present inhabitants wereconsulted, they would
unquestionably give ananti-Jewish verdict.
Our justification for ourpolicy is that we regard
Palestine as being absolutelyexceptional, that we consider
the question of the Jews outsideof Palestine as one of world
importance and that we conceivethe Jews to have an historic
(29:54):
claim to a home in their ancientland, provided that home can be
given them without eitherdispossessing or oppressing the
present inhabitants.
In fact, the Zionistorganization the branch based in
London that would later becalled the World Zionist
Organization but prior to thatwas called the Zionist
Organization they released amissive during this time,
(30:18):
arguing that they were worriedthat America might take control
of Palestine, and at that timeWoodrow Wilson was the president
of the United States and he wastalking about
self-determination and democracywanted to spread.
That that was, he thought, wasa good international policy for
America to begin doing.
At that point in time.
They argued that they actuallydon't want to see America take
(30:39):
over Palestine because they'reworried that the American public
declaration of democracy andself-determination would apply
in Palestine.
And they said that democracy ina sense has been called the
melting pot, in which thequantitatively lesser is
assimilated into thequantitatively greater.
(31:00):
This doubtless is natural inAmerica and works on the whole
very well.
But if the American idea wereapplied, as an American
administration, might apply itto Palestine, what would happen?
The numerical majority inPalestine today is Arab, not
Jewish.
Qualitatively, it is a simplefact that the Jews are now
(31:20):
predominant in Palestine,qualitatively, obviously, but
not in quantity, and, givenproper conditions, will be
predominant quantitatively alsoin a generation or two.
But if the crude arithmeticalconception of democracy were to
be applied now or at some earlystage in the future to Palestine
conditions, the majority thatwould rule would be the Arab
(31:41):
majority and the task ofestablishing and developing a
great Jewish Palestine would beinfinitely more difficult.
So they indeed argued, actuallyagainst democracy.
No, no, not democracy forPalestine, because we would be
the minority at this point intime.
We need time to colonize it, tocome in great numbers and so on
(32:05):
, and eventually develop it, andeven in a meeting with the
advisors.
So just, I don't want tointerject.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
But just like what's
happening now with regards to
the genocide and internationallaw has been broken, rules-based
order, world order has beenbroken.
The kind of ideologicalprinciples that they believe to
be, these kind of intellectualholy cows, have been dismantled
and burnt.
We think the genocide in Gazais a kind of proof of that.
(32:41):
But they dismantled all of theprinciples from the very
beginning, beginning the balfour, with the exception the
americans saying about you know,let's forget about democracy
from that perspective.
So it's like they create theirintellectual gods in the morning
and then they eat them in theevening.
Right, it's just so fascinating.
(33:03):
I've never, ever, heard thatbefore.
That's a brilliant quote,actually, and it just goes to
show they've been breakingprinciples and breaking their
so-called ideologicalfoundations for the very
beginning, for something that isoppressive and unjust well,
indeed, that's the issue, theyou could say the original sin.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
I think he's a
christian term of the whole
matter was that Palestinianswere denied self-determination
for the get-go and Zionists werein full support of that
referred the matter to theUnited Nations to talk about the
(33:44):
solution for Palestine, becausethey didn't want to upset the
Arab client regimes or theirpopulations, to be more precise,
by publicly supporting the fullkind of takeover of Palestine
by Zionists, but at the sametime they didn't want to back
(34:04):
down from their promise to theZionists, which had, by this
point in time, excessivelylobbied for their state.
And so they said OK, you knowwhat, let the UN deal with it,
because we can't reach it and wedon't want to be blamed by
anybody, even though everyoneblames them for starting this in
the first place.
But what Ben-Gurion argued infront of the UN Committee for
(34:28):
Resolving the Matter ofPalestine?
This was a UN committee thatwas going to look into it and
investigate it, and they weredoing this and they took
representations from all thedifferent parties and people and
Ben-Gurion gave hisrepresentation and he argued
that at 1947, even at that pointin time, even during or, the
solution is, if not partition,then at least delay democracy
(35:14):
Say, look, maybe in 10 more, weneed 10 years where we can maybe
constitute the majority.
We're hopeful, maybe we can getto that majority.
So, uh, give an administrationwhere democracy is delayed for
10 years, while we we try to geta majority there.
So he's calling for theabeyance of democracy, saying no
, no, don't apply democracybecause we're still a minority.
(35:37):
Wait till it favors us, andthen it's okay to do so.
And, depending on how youinterpret him, it seems to imply
that it would be under a Jewishadministration for those 10
years.
So it'd be under, in essence,an apartheid state with second
class citizenship until Arabscan be a minority, and then
(35:58):
they'd be given full democraticrights, but not before that.
So Ben-Gurion was public on this, but even, as I said, mark
Sykes, also from the Sykes-PicotTreaty, as well as Arthur
Balfour.
I mean Arthur Balfour.
There was a discussion he hadwith some members of the US
(36:20):
states Justice Brandeis, colonelHouse and Felix Frankfurter,
who would become a high justice,who was a Zionist.
They had a discussion of thisand Arthur Balfour, in a
particular discussion, mentionedthat he was concerned with the
public statements of WoodrowWilson, which was talking to a
(36:42):
universal self-determination ofWoodrow Wilson, which was
talking to a universalself-determination, and when he
was talking to members of theAmerican government about this.
They assured him and I'll tryto give this is actually the
minutes of the meeting here.
So Mr Balfour wrote amemorandum to the prime minister
and he believed it went to thepresident of the United States,
pointing out that Palestineshould be excluded from the
(37:05):
terms of reference referring toself-determination, the new
mandate system, league ofNations, because the powers had
committed themselves to designthis program, which inevitably
excluded numericalself-determination.
Palestine presented a uniquesituation.
We are not dealing with thewishes of an existing community,
(37:26):
but are consciously seeking toreconstitute a new community and
definitely building for anumerical majority in the future
.
So we said we're not dealingwith the wishes of the existing
community, we want to make a newcommunity that eventually will
become a majority, and that iswhat we want to establish.
So they've been very explicitwe need to ignore the
(37:48):
palestinians, ignore the theirrights of determination that
we've been preaching to theworld, because palestine is a
special exception, and when youknow why they considered
palestine an exception, it willshock you, and it's not for the
reasons you think.
All right, you're going to beshocked, we're gonna get to that
though.
So, anyway, ultimately it restson the right of Palestinians to
(38:14):
their own state in Palestine.
Self-determination is a bedrockof international law and it's a
bedrock of secular nationalpolitics, which is propounded
throughout the world.
And you don't need to beEinstein to know this, of course
, but if you need him, here'swhat he says.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
What did Einstein say
?
Speaker 1 (38:37):
He said it seems to
me a matter for simple common
sense that we cannot ask to begiven the political rule over
Palestine, where two-thirds ofthe population are not Jewish.
What we can and should ask is asecured bi-national status in
Palestine with free immigration.
If we ask more, we are damagingour own cause and it is
(39:00):
difficult for me to grasp thatour Zionists are taking such an
intransigent position, which canonly impair our cause.
So it's 1946, einstein.
Speaker 2 (39:11):
So, bro, it seems,
from the very beginning of this
kind of issue, if you like, theybroke their own rules, they
dismantled the democraticprinciples, international law,
right to self-determination fromthe very beginning.
Now, from that perspective,some audiences will be like you
(39:33):
know what I don't like Zionism.
I don't agree and I don'tsupport the Zionist project.
And many people will becomeanti-Zionist just by virtue of
what you just said.
Right, if they were unaware.
Now that opens the door to aspecific question.
(39:54):
Now, right, which is well, isbeing anti-Zionist, anti-semitic
, right?
I'm proudly anti-zionist, right?
I think every human beingshould be by virtue of what
you've just said and, hopefully,what we're going to unpack in
the rest of this podcast.
So let's make it personal hamzais anti-zionist, abdullah is
(40:21):
anti-zionist yes does that mean,we are anti-Semitic?
Speaker 1 (40:28):
Hell, no, no, no, no.
And that's the issue.
We should not conflateanti-Semitism and anti-Zionism,
but Zionists do want to conflatethis.
And the interesting thing isthat when Ben-Gurion was
actually addressing the UNcommittee for resolving the
matter of Palestine in 1947, heactually explained the Arab
(40:52):
position, as he calls it, and henever said that they hate Jews
at all, he said.
He actually said I can seewhere they're coming from.
We're invaders, we'reforeigners, we speak a different
language.
I mean, it actually was Germanor yiddish.
Uh, it wasn't a hebrew.
Hebrew was only came a littlebit later.
You could say um.
(41:12):
In terms of um, they had toreconstruct it, but anyway,
that's a long story.
So they saw invaders.
They are the majority.
They have see all theirneighbors being given
self-determination and their ownstate and they want the same.
And we are in the way of doingthis.
So of course we understandtheir position.
But then he argues that ourposition is that we have an
(41:35):
historical right and we're beingpersecuted and so on and so
forth.
So even Ben-Gurion, who wasactually in Palestine and he was
in the Ottoman Caliphate, so hewas there living in Ottoman
times, so he actually understoodMuslim mentality very well.
He didn't say that they hateJews.
It wasn't because they hateJews at all.
He understood.
It was simple.
It's as simple as it is.
(41:56):
It's obvious.
They are a bunch ofEuropean-looking guys speaking
European languages, europeanaccents, coming in usurping the
rights of the native, brought inby an imperial power, usurping
the rights of the natives toself-determination that they see
being given to everyone aroundthem.
It's a no-brainer, as they say.
(42:17):
Of course they would oppose it,it doesn't matter.
The Algerians opposed theFrench, not because they are
francophobic, but they opposedthe French occupation.
The Libyans opposed the Italianoccupation, right?
Not because they're was thatItalophobic, I don't know right.
It's because they opposed theoccupation of their country by
these foreigners coming andspeaking European language.
They're not one of them.
(42:37):
They're coming in and they aredictating terms and they want to
colonize their land and bringtheir settlers in.
It's not because they hateFrench people or Italian people,
it's again a no-brainer.
So in this situation it was thesame.
Ben-gurion said it.
All the early Zionistsunderstood this was the case.
It wasn't because of a personalhatred against Jews, but it
(42:59):
became the argument used by theZionists in about around 1970s,
so 1973, israeli foreignminister Abba Eban says he
actually writes an article in anAmerican Jewish newspaper or
(43:22):
magazine, rather, and it wascalled Our Position in the Human
Scheme, talking about where,arguing, you know where Jews
should see themselves, inWestern civilizations, in the
world, and so on and so forth,in the grand scheme of things,
so to speak.
And it's him that argues that.
(43:42):
He says one of the chief tasksof any dialogue with the Gentile
world, non-jewish world, is toprove that the distinction
between anti-Semitism andanti-Zionism is not a
distinction at all.
Anti-zionism is merely the newanti-Semitism.
This is where you see the firstarguments made that
(44:03):
anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
Now he argues that if the baseis this, if you are a
nationalist which, as Muslims,we're not, but anyway but if
you're a nationalist, youbelieve that everyone has a
right to self-determinationbased on their ethnicity and
nationhood.
So if you believe that everynation has the right for that
(44:25):
but not jews, then you're racistbecause you are singling them
out.
So now you don't have thatright.
There's two main issues of this.
One is that there's actually adebate, and has always been a
debate amongst jews, and itstill is debate to this day
whether jew Jews actually are anation or a religion.
(44:46):
Because even at the time ofArthur Balfour and the
government of his time, onemember of the cabinet the only
Jewish member of the cabinet,edwin Montagu, opposed Zionism.
He said that I'm a British Jewand to say that Jews belong in
(45:10):
Palestine is to say I don'tbelong in Britain.
I'm British, right, and I'm asBritish as any other British
person.
I just have a differentreligion from the majority.
But it doesn't mean I'm notBritish.
It doesn't mean I'm not part ofthe British people as a nation.
That is my nation.
So he made this very strongargument and many other Jews
(45:31):
have argued similarly thatJudaism is a religion, it's not
a nation.
People wouldn't say Christiansare one nation and many Zionists
would argue they say you knowwhy are you opposing the only
Jewish country in the world?
You know there are Christiancountries, there's Muslim
countries.
Why are you opposing the onlyJewish country?
And most people don't realizeis that Israel is an aberration
(45:55):
in the world in terms of itsnationality, how it defines
nationality.
No country in the world.
If you're let a ecuadorian,roman catholic and you, you go
to italy or spain and you say,well, this is a roman catholic
country, you're christian, soI'm, you know, giving my my
passport, that's it.
(46:16):
No, you're ecuadorian, you'renot italian or spanish or
portuguese or whatever.
You yeah, I don't care ifyou're roman catholic, you are
ecuadorian.
Go back to ecuador, you're not.
You know, you're not a nationalhere, but we follow the same
religion.
It's the national religion ofyour state.
Is is Christianity.
Or you know Roman Catholicismand say, yeah, so what?
You're not a national of ourcountry, but in Israel it's not.
(46:40):
Simply, the official religionis Judaism, it's no, it's a
nation state of the Jewishpeople, not of the Israeli
people.
In fact there's a recent courtcase about, maybe about 15 years
ago, where the Israeli SupremeCourt struck out the definition
(47:01):
of Israelis being a nation,definition of Israelis being a
nation, right?
No, israel's a nation-state forJews.
Not is nation-state of Israelis, right?
People try to say, well, look,you know, there's different
religions here, different ethnicgroups.
Why can't we all just beIsraeli?
You know, in France is a is thenation-state of the French
people, but French can be,anyone could be from, originally
(47:24):
West African, or from even, youknow, east Asia, wherever.
But you become French or French, that's it said.
No, it's a nation state of an F, a specific ethnic group,
although they define it as Jewsor a religion, jews.
That is an aberration, becauseyou don't find that anywhere in
(47:44):
the world.
You go to Saudi Arabia and say,hey, I'm Muslim, where's my
passport?
They will laugh you out ofthere.
If you're lucky, maybe a fewclips on the air or something
for being impertinent, itdoesn't matter.
If you're Muslim, they don'tcare.
They'll simply say, yeah, butyou're not a national.
You're not a national.
You're not a saudi national,you're not an egyptian national,
(48:05):
you're not, um, a algeriannational.
They don't care.
So israel is really anaberration because you never see
any other state in the worldsay no, we are a nation state to
one particular ethnic group andreligion, or either one
religion or a particular ethnicgroup.
No, the idea ofethno-nationalism is a dead idea
(48:26):
.
It died after World War II,thankfully Sure.
Speaker 2 (48:32):
On Guard is more than
media.
It's dawah, defence and duty.
In an age of confusion, wespeak truth for the sake of
Allah.
If you believe this is a causeworthy of reward in this life
and the next, then become aguardian, stand with us and be
written among those who strove.
Click below to find out moreand subscribe to On Guard
(48:53):
wherever you get your podcasts.
And now back to the episode.
What if, though, they saysomething like this?
They say well, well, the Jewishpeople, whether you consider
them a race or a religious group.
They have been a persecutedgroup for hundreds of years, and
(49:14):
they may argue.
The Zionists may argue.
Well, you know what Zionism, orthe Zionist project, is the
only project that can protectthe Jewish people.
Therefore, not supporting thatproject is anti-Semitic.
Speaker 1 (49:32):
Well, I'd like to
point out that you know, because
we all remember, how manypogroms against Jews happens in
the United States of America andHolocaust against them.
Oh, actually, right, zero.
The best country in the worldwhere Jews have enjoyed the
greatest protection of theirrights, property and have
(49:52):
enjoyed prosperity is actuallythe United States of America,
where, incidentally, the secondhighest concentration of Jews
live in the world after Israel.
So you don't see any Iranianmissiles fall down on the United
States of America.
You don't see any Hamasoperations against Jews in
(50:13):
America.
You don't see any PLO orHezbollah missiles or any of
that against Jews in America.
In fact, the safest and mostcomfortable place in the world
for Jews is the United States ofAmerica, and many Jews have
said it.
In fact, even during World WarII or after World War II, many
Jews who went to Palestine usedit as a stopping off point to
(50:36):
actually apply for citizenshipand go to America from there.
So even they understood that.
Why do you want this arid pieceof land in a hostile place
where we can just go to America,basically, or Canada as well,
canada as well, most Europeancountries they protect Jews
pretty good by law.
No, there's no pogroms, there'sno massacres, and you know
(51:00):
that's really good that theyhave these protections.
All people should be protectedfrom pogroms, massacres.
No one should be killed basedon their religion or their race,
obviously.
But if you're going to look atit, I mean historically speaking
if there's one place in theworld that has been very
dangerous for Jews, ancientIsraelites, Hebrews, whomever,
(51:23):
it's been the Middle East.
That the crossroads of nations,crossroads of invading armies.
That's the worst place everhistorically speaking, because
you've had Assyrians,babylonians, romans, macedonians
it's all kinds of invaders,crusaders, so you've had all
kinds of rampaging armies thathave killed Jews going through
(51:45):
there.
But the best place has actuallybeen elsewhere, at least now
anyway, after Christianity hasceased being the ruling power in
the West, and the other placewhere Jews have enjoyed
prosperity has been in Muslimlands under Muslim rule.
Now I remember readingMaimonides, the famous rabbi and
(52:07):
thinker, and also physician aswell.
Speaker 2 (52:10):
He was the physician
of Salahuddin.
Speaker 1 (52:12):
You're going to give
away the ending there.
Sorry, I do apologize so hebasically encountered some
heretical sect called thetypical, called the Almohads in
Spain, and he left Spain andsaid oh, you know these
Ismailites, you know theyIsmailites.
(52:32):
How they treat us, it's reallybad.
And so, because this hereticalsect believed that Christian
Jews should be forced convertedto Islam, so they did that.
It was an aberration.
They were a splinter group fromthe rest of Ahl al-Sunnah as
well as the Abbasid caliphate.
They were a rival caliphate.
So where does he go?
(52:55):
Where does he seek refuge in?
He goes right to the MiddleEast and becomes the personal
physician for Salahuddin Ayyubiso clearly the Muslim.
He knew where you're gonna getthe better treatment.
Speaker 2 (53:07):
Well, one would also
argue and I know we're gonna
address this later, but just toget the intellectual juices
flowing one would argue that thebasis of the argument if that
is the argument as well that youknow, this is the only entity
that's going to preserve this,this group of people.
Well, if you look at ithistorically, the only entity
that's going to preserve thisgroup of people, well, if you
look at it historically, theonly entity that really
(53:28):
preserved the Jewish people wasunder the Islamic model.
Like the popular historianKaren Armstrong talks about that
, the only time that Jews,muslims and Christians kind of
lived peacefully together forthe first time was under Islam.
But it was the kind of peacewhere these people weren't
really fighting right.
But what the Zionists are doing, but it was the kind of peace
where these people weren'treally fighting right.
But what the Zionists are doingit's kind of it's fake, it's a
(53:52):
faux peace, because they'vecreated a model and a system and
an apartheid system and so onand so forth to actually
facilitate more trouble.
Do you see my point?
So, by the underlying logic ofthe argument, they should be
saying well, actually we shouldbe calling for the Islamic model
, because that has been trulythe model that has preserved the
(54:17):
Jewish people, but not onlypreserved the Jewish people, but
created a model where they'renot fighting but the Zionists.
They claim they're protectingthe Jewish people, but they've
created a model that actuallyhas created this conflict
because of the injustice and theoppression and so on and so
forth, which leads to the nextquestion Israeli occupation of
(54:39):
the West Bank and of Gaza.
It's illegitimate.
Many people say this historians, thinkers, put thinkers,
politicians and so on and soforth.
The question I have is why?
Speaker 1 (54:54):
well, I kind of, in a
way, want to finish off that
the the last question with,again an interesting point,
which is when Theodor Herzl wasarguing for what we call
political Zionism.
So you know, find a place forJews to go where they are safe
(55:16):
and they are kept away frompersecution.
He didn't actually necessarilycare where it was, so he thought
maybe Argentina was a goodplace, or Palestine.
They both have merits anddemerits.
He said well, he's an atheist,by the way, he didn't care about
the Bible, he doesn't believein God.
He just thought well, there's acultural resonance with many
(55:37):
Jews, so Palestine might be agood reason for that, but it's
very arid.
He himself said that we're notadapted to hot climates anymore.
And when he heard someonemention maybe we should go back
and speak Hebrew and what haveyou?
He said what Jew can even ordera bus ticket in Hebrew Because
(55:57):
we speak German.
He actually wanted German to bethe new language of the state,
because most of the Jewishsupport he had was basically
German.
Speaker 2 (56:07):
He was a German
speaker himself.
Speaker 1 (56:09):
So there was two
actually Zionisms at the time.
One was called territorialZionism and one was called now,
I suppose, the mainstream orpolitical Zionism.
Territorialist Zionism didn'tcare where Jews could go to get
a state, as long as they had astate and it was independent.
It's fine, and I've often saidthat.
(56:32):
Let's say, you know, wediscover there's an island in
the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, let's call it Atlantis.
It rises up from the ocean andit is lush, great climate,
resources.
It is, uh, you know, the mostamazing place to be in on planet
earth, very comfortable, andit's completely empty.
(56:52):
There's no people there, right?
And then zionists arrive thereand then they say, well, let's,
let's migrate there and and forma society or state.
What have you?
We'd have no opposition to thatwhatsoever, no problem, why?
Because there's no one therethat's being kicked out their
land, being oppressed, beingturned into a second class group
(57:15):
or an apartheid system orethnic cleansing, if it's no one
there.
But it's a beautiful, lushterritory with, like the most
amazing climate, loads ofabundant resources, fertile land
.
We'd say, enjoy, hey, I mighteven come for some tourism and
check it out, whatever.
But fine, you've beenpersecuted by the West.
(57:36):
They never really accepted youas one of their own.
Fine, we don't have no issuewith that, but that's not what
happened.
We don't have no issue withthat, but that's not what
happened.
What happened was they say well, our needs are greater than the
needs of other people, and ifwe have to do very bad things,
make exceptions to the rules ofgeneral, the human rights we
(58:00):
propound or when we claim webelieve in, then we're going to
do it, and even if it meansdenying their rights and
continuing to deny their rights.
So this is the thing, and whatreally causes anti-Semitism is
not basically people just hatingon the fact that they are
(58:24):
oppressing and persecutingPalestinians.
And what causes anti-Semitismis when they justify what they
do by saying but this is theright of the Jewish people to do
this.
(58:48):
Say, wait a second.
Are you saying that to bejewish is to dominate a land,
irrespective of other ethnicgroups, even if they're the
majority?
Are you saying this?
Because that sounds prettyanti-semitic to me.
Right, you have a right.
You know, they often argue.
Well, our religion says thatgod gave it to us.
I say so.
Are you saying that you have aright to impose your religion
onto other people?
You're imposing your religion?
They don't.
They're not jewish in terms oftheir beliefs, right, maybe
(59:11):
their ancestry, whatever, butthey're not jewish in their
beliefs.
And you're saying, well, thatbecause of that, we now have to
disregard their rights.
We can keep them out, we canremove them, we can isolate them
and box them in, put them intofences around them and shoot
them if they come within 200meters of an invisible line that
we arbitrarily set.
Too bad right, well, that'santi-semitic, and you don't have
(59:35):
to be einstein to realize that.
But if you need him, here'swhat he says.
Oh, there's another quoteanother quote.
Speaker 2 (59:44):
Yes, I was not joking
about it right.
Speaker 1 (59:48):
So Einstein says that
when it was talking about the
argument that Jews, the best waythat Jews can survive is they
have a state for themselves.
And he says I, for, for my part, do not think so.
I believe that the uniquedurability of the Jewish
(01:00:09):
community is, to a large degree,based on our geographical
dispersion and the fact that weconsequently do not possess
instruments of power that willallow us to commit great
stupidities out of nationalfanaticism.
So the persecutions will nevercause us to perish.
(01:00:30):
Any friend, any persecutionthat happened, never cause jews
to perish.
So he actually argued that, withan implication there that, uh,
what can endanger jews is ifjewish nationalists, see, you
know, took power and, in thename of Jewishness, committed
what he called great stupiditiesout of national fanaticism, and
(01:00:54):
then say this is what Jewsshould be doing, should be
supporting.
And if you criticize us doingthese great atrocities or
stupidities, you're criticizingwhat it means to be jewish.
That connects atrocity to beingjewish and that is anti-semitic
, right.
So it actually, in a way, weare the leading um
(01:01:17):
anti-anti-semites.
We are against anti-semitism.
We are saying that it's notintrinsically Jewish to do these
things.
In fact, it's a slur againstJews to connect this national
extremism with Jewishness.
They're not the same thing.
Speaker 2 (01:01:37):
Absolutely so.
From that perspective, theZionists are the greatest
anti-Semites.
Speaker 1 (01:01:41):
Purveyors of
anti-Semitism.
Speaker 2 (01:01:45):
So you're talking
about the atrocities and all of
this injustice.
So let's move back to thequestion, which is we have Gaza
and the West Bank.
These are occupations,atrocities, oppression.
Why is this?
These occupations illegitimate.
Speaker 1 (01:02:04):
Is this, these
occupations, illegitimate?
Okay, so many people often sayit's illegal by international
law and Zionists will say, no,it's not.
And then some people don't havea counter argument.
I was hoping that you wouldjust accept the point that it's
illegal, because I heard it onthe news.
They say it's illegal accordingto international law.
(01:02:24):
So what is international lawand what does it say about this
situation?
So the British submitted thequestion of Palestine to the UN
for a recommended resolution,but it was actually up to
Britain to implement that.
Now, britain, the UN resolution, or UN recommendation, was a
(01:02:46):
partition of the state and thepartition of state was 55% for
Zionists, 45% for Palestinians,who were two thirds, the
majority.
That was never going to beaccepted by the people living
there, palestinians living there, especially because they didn't
get a say in that, they didn'tget to vote on that or what have
(01:03:07):
you.
And in that sense, whathappened is that Israel was
created and they expanded beyondthat partition to take over
basically 78% of the land ofhistoric Palestine.
Now the 1948 and 1949 armistice.
(01:03:27):
This is where it came to effectand the you know the green line
, as it's called, green lineboundaries were established,
because it was a pen was greenand in this, in these boundaries
, israel submitted itself to theUN for recognition and the West
Bank was the Palestinian.
There was a Palestiniangovernment, you could say well,
(01:03:52):
a bunch of representatives ofthe Palestinians who formally
declared they would annexthemselves to Jordan.
And then you had theall-Palestine government in Gaza
.
It was called the all-Palestinegovernment that argued that
they would basically be aprotector of Egypt and then at
some point they formally joinedEgypt.
So when you enter the UN, youcould say the UN takes a
(01:04:18):
snapshot of your country in asense.
Here's what the boundaries arelike.
This, the agreements, thearmistice agreements, which was
a type of ceasefire, but it wasthat the boundaries will not be
changed by military operationsor activity, but only by
negotiations.
So the boundaries weretemporary, but they could only
(01:04:40):
be solidified or resolved bynegotiations, not by armed force
.
This was the internationalagreement made by Israel, jordan
, syria, egypt and all thesurrounding countries.
Now I have to resist the urge tomention things that most people
(01:05:01):
didn't realize, for example,that uh, the 1948 war where the
arab countries intervened, uh,was only at the pressure of
their own populations.
Uh, they even told the british,like the?
Uh, the foreign minister ofiraq told the british that, look
, we actually don't want to, wedon't care about it, we don't
want to get involved, but if wedon't get involved, our people
(01:05:21):
will basically come after us,right, um, and they sent token
forces.
What most people don't realizeis that at the start of the war,
the arabs were outnumbered bythe zionist forces two to one,
so arab forces were the combinedarmed force of the arabs, were
actually outnumbered by zionists.
(01:05:42):
They were the minority, and bythe end of that war they were
outnumbered three times to oneactually.
So they had less manpower andless training because they were
new armies and the Zionists,many of them, had served in
World War II, so they served indifferent armies and they came
to volunteer as part of theHaganah forces, the new IDF, as
(01:06:06):
it is called, um and so anyway.
So they they didn't really,they weren't really interested
in in um, in taking anyterritory, uh, apart from jordan
, uh.
But jordan made an agreementand this is mentioned in ben
gurin's diary beforehand uh,that he said look, I won't go
into the areas that the unpartition has designateders
designated to be the Jewishstate, I just want a lot of the
(01:06:27):
West Bank for myself, basically,and that was it.
So you saw, the JordanianLegion was the most effective
fighting force.
Actually, only take a few areas, basically the West Bank, which
would become part of theremaining 22% of Palestine that
was not taken by Zionists,anyway, just to mention that on
the side.
So the armistice was agreed byall the countries and they,
(01:06:49):
generally, they actually allabided by it.
The first person to break thisarmistice was Israel.
In 1957.
They invaded Sinai with, alongwith the British and French,
because of the Swiss Canal beingnationalized by Gamal Abdel
Nasser.
Long story short, actuallyAmerica intervened to say no,
don't do that, everyone leave,basically.
(01:07:12):
And then it got reversed.
But in 1967, israel and mostpeople don't realize Israel shot
the first bullet, it launchedan invasion of Sinai and when
Jordan and Syria had enteredinto a defense pact with Egypt
they actually had entered intodefense because they were
(01:07:33):
worried about Israeli aggression.
So Israel cited that theEgyptian blocking of the Tehran
states, which was done inresponse to a protest, because
Israel had actually invaded intoJordan about a year prior and
(01:07:53):
destroyed a Jordanian village ina punitive raid, claiming that
terrorists were coming fromthere, which was disavowed by
all UN observers and what haveyou.
So they saber-rattled becauseeveryone was looking to go after
Nasr.
Look, look, they are launchingraids into your allies, your
fellow Arabs, like do something.
But he was actually was tooscared of Israel to do anything.
(01:08:14):
So he said, okay, I'll justblockade the tyrant straits to
make a show, and I'll make I'll.
You know, I'll send someEgyptian armies near the border,
a small army, not a big one,all right, not one that actually
is an invasion force.
Everyone agreed at the time.
All the CIA, everyone, all theestimates, even Israeli planners
realized this is not aninvasion army, it's a SABLA
(01:08:35):
rattling army.
But they saw, you know what wecan use this as a pretext.
So the Israeli army took overSinai within six days.
And, of course, jordan andSyria did a token token.
They shot some artillery to ina token gesture, to show you
know, you can't just invade ourally here.
We've entered the defense pactand all the Arabs looking to us,
(01:08:56):
they want you to helping Egypt.
And then Israel said, who knewthat they were going to come to
their defense?
But again, no Arab invasionarmies.
They said, okay, well, great,now we're gonna take the West
Bank.
And even when Syria said, okay,look, you know, let's have a
ceasefire, agree to ceasefire.
They said no, actually justgrab the goal on quickly, right.
(01:09:18):
So they used it to expand theirterritory and expand their land
into areas which wasinternationally recognized as
Syrian territory,internationally recognized as
Jordanian territory andinternationally recognized as
Egyptian territory.
This is where it becomesillegitimate Now.
Yes, egypt then makes anormalization peace treaty with
(01:09:41):
Israel in exchange for gettingthe Sinai back.
But this art.
But they had to launch a war in1973 and then being ensconced on
the in Sinai and not being ableto be budged and really bloody
the Israelis, for the Israelisto then agree okay, with
American pressure, okay, we'llwithdraw from Sun.
They had been buildingsettlements in Sinai and had to
(01:10:04):
withdraw those settlements.
They they planned to stay.
It wasn't planned to, I'll giveyou back for peace.
Nope.
So they gave that back.
But Egypt gave up protectingGaza and said we give this to
the Palestinians, it's for thePalestinians to have.
And Jordan did the same thingwith West Bank.
(01:10:26):
They did their peace treatywith Israel and said like we
basically remove all claims overthe West Bank and we give it
back to the Palestinians.
This establishes the legalinternational basis for why West
Bank and Gaza are not Israel.
Israel and the un charter isspecific.
(01:10:48):
If there's one law in it that'sabsolutely sacred.
The whole point of the un isyou can't get territory by
conquest right.
That's the point of the un,otherwise there's no point to it
.
That's why people started inthe first place.
So israel has broken thiscardinal rule and that's why
their occupation of land isillegitimate.
(01:11:11):
But Israeli lawyers have arguedthat there is a lesser-known
principle called utiesidentisIuris right Latin term.
It's a customary internationallaw.
They used to claim thatactually the whole of Palestine
(01:11:35):
is ours, it belongs to Israel.
I say, why is that?
Because they say that it is acustomary international law that
when a territory, a formercolonial territory, gets given
back to the people, the colonialpower withdraws, then the state
(01:11:56):
that is established there, theterritory belongs to that state
and you can't have peopleseceding from it or splitting
from it, because then you haveminority ethnic groups saying,
well, I don't want to be part ofthis state, so we're going to
declare independenceunilaterally, and so on.
So there was understanding thatyou have to maintain the
territorial integrity of a state, trump's minority right to
(01:12:21):
external self-determination, ifyou remember what that term
means.
So you can't say I must becompletely separate as long as
they are represented within thestate.
So this was advanced by a lot ofZionist lawyers, one more
recent one, natasha Hausdorff,who has come on debates
alongside Douglas Murray andothers saying this argument and
(01:12:44):
she repeats it again, again,again, again.
So they argue that the firststate that was declared when the
British left quote unquote wasthe state of Israel.
Therefore, the whole statebelongs to the state of Israel.
This was their argument andthey even used it in the ICJ
when there was a considerationof whether the the Gaza Strip
(01:13:12):
embargo and sanctioning andbasically cutting off and siege
of it, this is from 2006,whether that was legal or not.
So they said well, it's notactually an occupation because
it belongs to us anyway.
And they made this as one ofthe many arguments right and the
, the rebuttal was beautiful.
(01:13:32):
The rebuttal to this wasabsolutely beautiful.
It was actually not done by thecourt.
It was actually done by thosemaking a making a counter to
that, submitting it to the court, a counter representation, and
they're saying that.
Well, actually now it was citedthat yes, for example, in the
case of canada, quebec wants tosecede, but just because the
(01:13:54):
quebecois, the people of quebec,might want to have a referendum
and say we become independentwould cannot take any effect
unless the canadian governmentallows them to, because of
Utiposidentes Ioris their oneterritorial continual state only
if the state allows areferendum to happen and them to
secede.
Same with Scotland yes, they'llgive them a referendum, but
(01:14:19):
only if Parliament ratifies thatreferendum.
Then they have the right tosecede.
But the rebuttal was beautiful.
It actually argued this thepurpose of Oti Procedentes Iuris
was that it's actually based onthe right of majority
self-determination.
The majority group have theright of self-determination
(01:14:41):
within a contiguous land.
No one can separate out fromthat.
If that actually is appliedcorrectly and properly, then
Palestine actually must bemaintained as a whole and the
ruling group are gonna be thePalestinians, because they all
should have a right to vote andthey are the majority.
So that was actually deniedthem and so the whole point of
(01:15:05):
Utip Resendiz Yudist wasactually refuted.
But also and this is an, to usean old phrase, bestie extra,
bestie right, have you noticed,was they cite that even the
Israeli High Court accepts orrejects the idea of Utip
Resendiz Yudist.
Because there was this is funny, there was a company that was
(01:15:28):
from before the Israeli statewas established, that maybe was
owed money by the colonialauthorities beforehand, and then
, when Israel basically tookover, they said OK, well, israel
owes us money.
And the Israeli high court,argued by the Israeli
government's lawyers themselves,said no, we don't owe you money
because we are not thesuccessors.
(01:15:51):
We're not the successors to thecolonial administration of the
British.
We are a separate, independentstate that was created within
the partition, the UN partition,ie we are not the successors of
the entire territory, but onlypart of that territory ruled
over in the israeli high courtby the israeli government's own
argument.
(01:16:11):
So they refute themselves.
So no, they themselves.
When it comes to money, oh no,no, no, we're not the.
We don't uh own the wholeterritories.
We don't have a right to thecontrol of the whole territory.
We're not the successors ofbrit, british mandate afterwards
, we're just part, we wereessentially part of that
territory.
So that really debunks theirmain argument.
(01:16:31):
And I'm surprised that mostpeople don't bring it up,
because the ICJ didn't evenconsider the ulti-procedentis
juris argument by the Zionists,because that was clearly the
counter-argument.
It's like, yeah, that'sridiculous.
So that's basically it.
In essence, west Bank and Gazahave been given back to the
Palestinians by Jordan and Egyptand they are for the
(01:16:53):
Palestinians, according tointernational law, to decide
their own destiny and no oneelse.
So any occupation there and allthe atrocities and injustices,
not to mention those commitagainst them which are breaches
of the Geneva Conventions, like,for example, controlling their
war supply, limiting theirfreedom of movement and so on
and so forth, as well as in Gaza, which is now even beyond, I
(01:17:19):
think they've broken.
I think, when it comes toGeneva Convention, the Israelis
on Gaza viewed it as a checklistas opposed to a list of
prohibitions.
So, anyway, but that's why thevery claim that Israel has to
even control those territoriesis completely illegal, which
includes, of course, eastJerusalem, which is part of the
(01:17:41):
West Bank and would, underinternational law, belong to the
Palestinians.
Speaker 2 (01:17:45):
Absolutely so.
Someone new to this would belike OK, there's conflict,
there's occupation, there'sclaims, there's counterclaims.
We want peace now.
Forget history, and then theymay come up with a Zionist
argument and say well, zionistshave offered the Palestinians
(01:18:08):
peace.
They've offered thePalestinians their own state.
Why?
Speaker 1 (01:18:17):
have the Palestinians
rejected this.
The Zionists have never offeredthe Palestinians their own
state, and this is what iscommon and common misconception.
So they they might cite, youknow, ehud barak, and they might
(01:18:38):
cite um, uh, the, uh, the wirecords and taba agree, taba
agreements and things like this,uh, which is really just
agreement on principles, butthey never really got beyond any
any negotiations and israel hasnever offered ever the
Palestinians to have EastJerusalem back, especially as
their capital.
Speaker 2 (01:18:50):
Never.
Speaker 1 (01:18:51):
So what's going on
here?
What's happening here?
So what in 1973, or even before, actually, with Eid al-Alan and
the Eid al-Alan plan, but alsoas their stated policy, which
they've said it very publicly isthat they will never give up
any part of the land of Israel,as they call it, the whole land
(01:19:14):
of Palestine.
But what to do with thePalestinians?
Because you can't make thePalestinians full citizens,
because they're the majority andyou can't give them the right
to return, because then theywill become overwhelming
majority, and at the same time,you can't, you know, let's say,
(01:19:34):
physically, kick them out,because the eyes of the world
are watching and no one, noteven Donald Trump, would justify
the physical pushing out ofPalestinians, Although he might
allow making conditions reallybad for Palestinians that they
want to leave and that's beenIsrael's general policy in slow
motion for all these decades isjust making it gradually worse
(01:19:58):
and worse and worse in the areasthey want to cleanse, to get
the Palestinians to leave thoseareas.
So what has been their policy?
And I will quote you again,abba Eban, who said, in the same
document he talked aboutanti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
So in the same document he saysif you're against Zionism, then
(01:20:23):
you are an anti-Semite.
What did he say?
Almost, it seemed like, in thesame breath.
So he says to be Jewish alsomeans to be Hebrew.
And here I want to express theconcern for Israelis' cultural
future.
There is a danger of inundation, like being swamped.
(01:20:44):
It is a danger that we shall beArabicized.
I refer to the effects of thepresent political and
territorial situation.
We must reach a firm decisionon how Jewish we want the Jewish
state to be.
Looking at demographicprojections for Jews and Arabs
in Israel and the West Bank thiswas that he was looking at it
(01:21:06):
going ahead by 1990.
It says there will be 40 to 43%Arabs.
The destiny of such a societywill not be the subject of
Jewish decisions, because a 40%Jewish minority will in effect
constitute a majority.
Because our 60% Jewishpopulation is a pluralist
population, it reaches itsdecisions by controversy, not by
(01:21:29):
consensus.
Therefore, on any issue whichJews are divided, the Arabs will
decide.
Our political life will bedominated by a constant pursuit
of the Arab vote.
I take it that if we decide ona unitary state that there will
have to be free and equal rights, whatever you say of that
society, it will not be jewish.
(01:21:52):
And he goes on and on and hetalks about uh in the beginning
of his article when he talksthat.
He says that being anti-zionistis anti-seemitic because you're
denying Jewishself-determination.
He says at the beginning ofthis but what he then says in
the same article isSelf-determination is not an
(01:22:18):
absolute right.
The absurdity of Arabnationalism in its official
policy Is that it demands 100%self-determination, saying that
all Arabs, wherever they mightbe, nationalism in its official
policy is that it demands ahundred percent
self-determination, saying thatall where Arabs, wherever they
might be, they must.
Wherever they are they are,they must live under their
sovereign flags.
So it's like if you are againstJewish self-determination,
(01:22:38):
you're anti-semite.
Oh, but for Arabs it's notabsolute right for them.
He said it in the same article.
He first declares thatanti-semitism is anti-zionism
because of denying jewish rightsand then he denies the arab
right to self-determination inthe exact same article.
The arrogance, you couldn't makeup.
This level of arrogance, youreally couldn't.
(01:22:59):
So, um, then he argues that thefuture he envisions for the
Arabs in the West Bank and Gazais a separate political destiny,
but not sovereignty.
He says I believe it's notincompatible with a high measure
of social economic integrationand maintenance of process of
(01:23:19):
mutual human accessibility.
I believe it is possible toreconcile separate sovereignty
with the creation of largeunions of economic, energy and
organization and, above all,keep the frontiers open.
And then he says but I believethat this decision does not
determine maximal satisfactionto self-determination, ie they
have autonomy within an Israelistate, but not
(01:23:42):
self-determination.
Speaker 2 (01:23:43):
So in essence,
apartheid basically.
So you're saying any of theso-called peace proposals were
basically not that they hadself-determination.
It was, they're going to be, akind of autonomous but
politically subjugated communitywithin the Israeli hegemony.
Speaker 1 (01:24:05):
Oh yes, definitely
Including control of airspace,
control of border.
They're not allowed to have anofficial army, so it's like
saying be at peace with us butbe subjugated.
Basically, here's your Indianreservation, subhanallah,
because the Indian reservationsin the United States of America
(01:24:26):
in theory have sovereignty, sothey have their own sovereignty,
and that would be unjust, butthey are American on the full
American control, and that wouldbe unjust and oppressive.
Speaker 2 (01:24:35):
And therefore what
these so-called peace proposals
were saying is have peacewithout justice.
But can peace without justiceeven exist?
Speaker 1 (01:24:44):
Yeah, pretty much.
You don't determine youreconomic destiny, you don't
determine your security, they'redetermined for you by overlords
, subhanallah.
So in none of thesenegotiations was a full
independent state offered, andnot even Jerusalem.
And Yasser Arafat?
(01:25:04):
He commented on even EhudBarak's generous offer.
And Ehud Barak, by the way,people say, oh, he made a vision
of office for 93 percent or 96percent or what have you?
People often forget two things.
One, the the Palestinians neversaid we don't want any more
negotiations.
We, they say well, here's acounter proposal and israel
rejects it.
Here's a reasonable one, butbut yes, arafat said it's very,
(01:25:29):
I think, poignant, but very onthe on the mark comment.
He said how are we arguing andnegotiating for 22 of our
homeland?
Yes, they still want to arguewith us for the remaining 22% of
our homeland, or you can't getit back fully, even, not even
(01:25:52):
Jerusalem.
He said no one has the right tosurrender Jerusalem, least if
not me.
So this is not even a.
You know he sits on the board.
He said I sit on the board ofthe Organization of Islamic
Conference, which wasestablished to protect Jerusalem
, to protect Al-Qqud and toprotect al-aqsa masjid.
I can't surrender that.
(01:26:13):
And the person and the israeliswere saying well, you know, you
don't you know, jerusalem is notnecessarily on the table for
you, or maybe we'll give you a,a suburb of jerusalem, perhaps.
Or they said to him that, okay,we can, we might um you in name
official sovereignty on theTemple Mount or the Al-Aqsa, but
Israelis have residual controlover it.
(01:26:36):
It was a legal fiction.
Basically, which is in name,it's yours, but Israelis control
it.
Yes, all right.
So he said this is absolutelyridiculous, that they have to
negotiate for 22 percent.
Uh, it should.
Simply, they don't even getthat 22 percent and it's not
even independent.
What it should be is.
Israel says we're going towithdraw from that 22 percent,
(01:26:57):
and what?
And let's come to terms andlet's agree before we withdraw
what the peace terms will beafterwards, that we live side by
side, we cooperate side by side, and so we're going to withdraw
, but can we be assured of peaceafterwards?
That's what he was expecting.
That's what the Palestinianshave always been expecting,
despite the fact it's 22% oftheir remaining land.
Speaker 2 (01:27:20):
Now.
Speaker 1 (01:27:22):
I'm going to mention
an argument you haven't brought
in, a counter argument thatZionists will bring up.
They say Palestinians are notinterested in peace.
If they were, why is it thatthe PLO organization was set up
as a resistance fightingorganization in 1964, before the
Palestinians lost the West Bankand Gaza in 1967?
They'll often say this, oftensay this, and what people forget
(01:27:52):
is un resolution 194, I mean unresolution 242, states that
israel should leave the westbank and gaza.
That happened in 1967.
But your resolution um, uh 194,um, stipulates that all those
palestinians, the 750 or sothousand Palestinians that were
ethnically cleansed and kickedout of their lands in Palestine,
in the territory which is nowinternationally recognized as
(01:28:16):
Israel, that they have the rightto return.
And Yasser Arafat, in 1964,argued that the PLO would keep
fighting Israel until thatresolution is honored.
They have a right to return totheir old villages, their old
towns.
Of course, ben-gurion and manyothers said no, no, we will not
(01:28:37):
accept their return.
They lost and got kicked out.
Or he didn't say like that.
He said they lost and left,yeah, so they don't have a right
to come back.
So that's interesting, becausethe whole premise of Zionism,
you claim, or historicallyanyway is that you were kicked
out by the Romans Not true?
(01:28:58):
And that you have a right tocome back after 2000 years, but
the Palestinians don't have aright to come back after within
living memory.
Basically, that's the doublestandard and hypocrisy.
And of course, the zionistswill say but if we allow them
back in, uh, they willconstitute a sizable majority,
(01:29:19):
um, and we can't have that andwhat you refer to, the around
750 000000 Palestinians thatwere basically what's the best
word to use?
Speaker 2 (01:29:33):
They were forced and
displaced, then hundreds of
villages were burnt to theground.
This is known as the Nakba, thegreat catastrophe, catastrophe.
So look, let's, let's move on alittle bit.
Let's talk about now anotherkind of false Zionist argument,
(01:29:53):
and it was placed in the mouthof Benjamin Netanyahu, right?
He basically said that thePalestinians were actually
responsible for the Holocaust,and this was mentioned, I
believe, in the Jordan Petersonpodcast.
Speaker 1 (01:30:12):
Actually before 2015,
.
Benyamin Tanar said so manythings in that Jordan Peterson
podcast.
There was too many inaccuracies, but he actually said it first.
Yeah, yeah, 10 years ago hefirst came out of it and that's
when it caused a massive storm.
But he's but, despite the factthat he's been corrected by so
many scholars, he still says itagain and again and he repeated
(01:30:35):
it in the podcast um, I can'tremember if it was that podcast
he repeated, but he has repeatedit in other podcasts.
Speaker 2 (01:30:41):
Yes, okay, maybe not
that one.
Speaker 1 (01:30:42):
Maybe it was a ben
shapiro one.
Speaker 2 (01:30:43):
He said a lot of
stupid and false things in that
podcast and Jordan Peterson wasextremely intellectually.
He was an intellectual coward.
He didn't even push back or,frankly, I don't think he even
cared.
But yeah, so fair enough, he ison the record to have said that
the Palestinians wereresponsible for the Holocaust.
(01:31:06):
What's that about?
Is that even an argument?
Speaker 1 (01:31:08):
bro.
So so um, he implies, um, so hesays it by implication.
Okay, so he talks about thegrand mufti of jerusalem, the,
uh, the infamous one of thePalestinians, haj Amin
al-Husseini.
In 1941, november, goes to seeHitler in Nazi Germany and asks
(01:31:33):
for Germany's help against theBritish occupation, the British
control of the Middle East.
And Hitler assures him that ofcourse Germany has no imperial
designs over the Muslim world orthe Arabs.
So to Haj Amin al-Husseini he'sbasically the lesser of two
evils the British are the oneswhich are occupying his land.
(01:31:54):
So he goes to Hitler.
That's how, presumably,historians have explained his
mindset, why he went and hismotivations.
But what Zionists argue, whatsome have argued revisionists
you could say, and BenjaminTenayev being one of them is
that Hitler only wanted to expelJews from Europe.
(01:32:16):
He didn't want to massacre allof them systematically.
But in November 1941, haj Aminal-Husseini meets Hitler, has a
meeting, documented meeting withhim and gives him the idea he
said actually, why don't youjust have a final solution for
them?
Kill them, kill them all inEurope.
(01:32:37):
And because Haj Amin al-Husseiniis considered to be the grand
mufti of Jerusalem, so clearlyhe's in a leadership position of
the Palestinians.
So in a sense the Palestiniansbear an implied collective
responsibility.
It's almost like Christian NewTestament anti-Semitic trope
(01:32:59):
where in the New Testament theRomans, you know, capture or
they're holding Jesus, allegedly, you know, and they say to the
Jews, what do you want us to dowith him?
They say kill him.
And they say, well, we bear theguilt for this.
And allegedly the Jews saycollectively that no, let the
(01:33:20):
guilt be upon us and ourdescendants.
And then that was used as ananti-Semitic trope by Christians
to say you killed Jesus andit's on the blames, on you.
It was almost like it followsthat kind of argument that this
collective blame is upon you.
You killed the Jews, eventhough it was the Palestinians
didn't collectively have areferendum on this and vote on
(01:33:42):
this or anything on that.
So the simple issue of that isit's a complete lie and fiction.
The meeting that decided uponthe quote-unquote final solution
.
Well, firstly, hitler has beentalking about massacring the
Jews for at least over a decadeprior to that point or more.
(01:34:02):
He actually threatened that ifthe Because he believed in a
Jewish world conspiracy.
So he believed that the Jewishworld conspiracy urges both the
Bolsheviks, the Communists andthe capitalists to fight, and
Germany that he will take it outon the Jews and kill them
massive.
You know they will.
They will have suffered a greatcatastrophe for doing for this.
(01:34:24):
Inspiring this, this is was inhis, in his delusional head.
But he threatened this.
He threatened he would killthem, massacre all of them.
He's been saying it.
They really had death camps, notnecessarily formal, I mean how
you define formalized.
They didn't say I'll sign anofficial document, but it was in
essence, it was known, orderedby Hitler, by the Nazi
(01:34:46):
leadership.
Yes, camps, let the Jews die inthose camps as work camps, and
what have you?
Or just letting their soldierskill?
Are we encouraging the soldiersjust to kill, with summary
executions due?
So this was already happeningbefore Haj Amin Husseini comes
onto the scene, to the scene.
(01:35:10):
But the Wannsee meeting, as it'scalled, where you had the
technocratic heads of Germanarmy and government meet to
discuss how to systematicallywhat they call liquidate the
Jewish populations of Europe.
And they come to the idea ofgas chambers and using gas.
It was really sick and you knowwhat's really sick.
This shows you thequote-unquote European
Enlightenment ideals in theirmindset.
(01:35:32):
The reason they chose gas was,they said, it was humane.
It was sick.
It's really sick, anyway,because they're following the
Enlightenment ideals of Europe.
They thought themselves ashumanitarians.
That's why they outlawed animalvivisection.
They thought themselves ashumanitarians.
That's why they outlawed animalvivisection.
They thought they werehumanitarians.
They were just doing this todefend the German people against
a threat.
(01:35:52):
It was really sick and in someways their fellow European
cousins have mindsets thathaven't fallen too far from the
tree.
They follow the same mindsetsof in certain circumstances you
can justify doing all kinds ofatrocities and things, um, which
we've seen in colonialism doneto many peoples around the world
(01:36:13):
.
But anyway, I digress.
Yes, so uh, there's no link.
Basically, that the one I seeconference.
It does occur after the meetingwith hajj al-Husseini.
Yes, but it was ordered in thesummer of 1941, before November
1941, where Haj Amin al-Husseiniarises.
It was ordered to convene forthat purpose to decide the
(01:36:37):
mechanism by which Jews would beliquidated, but not that should
Jews be liquidated or not.
That was already decided beforeHaj Amin al-Husseini appears on
the scene.
Also, we have the transcriptfully documented in minutes of
the meeting and what was saidbetween Hajj Amin al-Husseini
and Hitler, and there was norecommendation by Hajj Amin
(01:37:00):
al-Husseini.
Oh, by the way, hitler, in caseyou haven't realized or
forgotten, here's an idea thatyou could use.
So this is absolutelyridiculous.
It's a nonsense argument.
It's an absolute nonsenseargument.
But why does Benjamin Netanyahuuse this?
Well, he's desperate, he's anideologue, and not the only one
right, but he used it to say theHolocaust, one of the most
(01:37:25):
monstrous events that's happenedin humanity.
The palestinians are to blamein some way, shape or form.
And and you know what the truthis even more ridiculous hajj
amin al-husseini, the grandmufti of jerusalem.
Who made him grand mufti ofjerusalem?
He's quite young.
To be a grand mui, usually youhave to have a lot of white
(01:37:46):
hairs and be pretty old.
He was a Zionist, right?
Yes, yes, yeah, yeah, you'restill right.
The colonial administrator ofthe British mandate of Palestine
, herbert Samuel, is Jewish andZionist, a member of the British
government.
So he was given the task todecide.
(01:38:08):
The previous Mufti was out ofthe picture and they wanted to
get a new one.
So there were a number ofoptions.
There was people that werehighly qualified, old, elderly
gentlemen, but highly qualified,very knowledgeable.
But there was a young guy whohe didn't put himself up for, I
think, but he was part of thehosseini family and the hosseini
(01:38:31):
family were viewed asinfluential and hosseini family
they had disagreements amongsteach other, but they were viewed
as an influential, so family.
So he thought maybe I canplacate the palestinians um,
this is in in 1920s, now, right,I mean, I can placate them by
getting the Hosseini family onboard with the British colonial
(01:38:53):
power, by giving one of theirmembers a honorary position, a
very honored position.
So he appointed Haj Aminal-Hosseini as the Grand Mufti
of Jerusalem.
Haj Amin Al-Husseini as theGrand Mufti of Jerusalem A
Jewish, zionist guy was theperson who appointed him, made
Haj Amin Al-Husseini the GrandMufti of Jerusalem.
Most people don't realize that.
(01:39:14):
It's not hard to find.
You can find it online verysimply.
And yet the Palestinians arenot only to blame for a false
allegation that they allege thathe did, but he didn't even
select him in the first place.
The Zionists literally selectedhim, so it wasn't the
Palestinians that selected him.
Speaker 2 (01:39:33):
it was actually the
Zionists, yes, subhanallah.
So look, you mentioned theHolocaust.
So another kind of Zionistargument is well, the Jews were
killed, murdered, but alsoexpelled.
There was nowhere else to goapart from Palestine.
Is that an argument?
Speaker 1 (01:39:54):
Well, actually no,
it's not an argument, and the
reason why is because so peopleoften think that they somehow
misinterpret or they don't knowthe history.
They think Zionism began or wasan answer to the Holocaust.
No, Zionism was 50 years ormore before the Holocaust.
Speaker 2 (01:40:17):
Fyodor.
Speaker 1 (01:40:18):
Herzl, the one who
led, or you could say was the
main driver of the movement ofpolitical Zionism.
The one who made it successful,say, was the main driver of the
movement of political Zionism.
One who made it successful.
He lived in, he died beforeIsrael was ever created.
He died before World War II,died before World War.
I never saw any of those thingsand yet he argued that the
(01:40:40):
solution for Jewish persecution,which was mostly in East Europe
at that time and Russia, wasthey should have a state for
themselves.
But where were the Russian Jewsgoing?
They were streaming into theUnited States of America.
They were going to the UK.
Funnily enough, arthur Balfourwas opposing that.
Arguably he tightenedimmigration laws to restrict
(01:41:04):
Jewish immigration into England,supposed savior of Jews and
pro-Zionist guy.
I do want to cover this, whichis there's a surprising reason
why he supported Zionism andyou'd be quite surprised.
You will be shocked when youdiscover why Arthur Balfour, of
the Arthur Balfour Declaration,and Prime Minister Lloyd George
(01:41:30):
and Mark Sykes, why they allsupported Zionism so strongly.
But we'll get to that Anyway.
So Jews were going to America.
Speaker 2 (01:41:43):
So why didn't they
give them?
They should have gave themparts of Texas.
Maybe it's a big land.
Speaker 1 (01:41:49):
Initially there was
an idea of Jews immigrating to a
part of the United States ofAmerica not to take it over, but
to just get become majority ina particular area and then, in
essence, because you have localdemocracy, they could have some
kind of autonomy in some way.
Much like you could say theMormons view Salt Lake City, I
suppose.
But anyway.
(01:42:10):
So what happened was that, youknow, jews mostly went to other
parts of the world.
But when Palestine opened up,britain actually initially
allowed immigration to come inat full stint, although
immigration, from being a formof Jews going into the Middle
East actually started underSultan Abdul Hamid II.
(01:42:32):
Under the Ottoman Caliphate.
Jews were seeking refuge frompersecution and the Ottomans
welcomed them in Said you cancome in.
So they were actually cominginto the Middle East under the
Islamic caliphate with theexpress reason that they were to
be given refuge from theirpersecution.
(01:42:53):
So they didn't need toestablish a state or get the
British to invade.
They didn't get the British toinvade, but there was no need
for European Zionists to do so.
Speaker 2 (01:43:02):
Yeah, but the
Holocaust is post-caliphate.
So one would argue is well,fine, that's fair enough.
There's no need for EuropeanZionists to do so.
Yeah, but the Holocaust ispost-Caliphate.
So one would argue, is well,fine, that's fair enough.
We don't have a Caliphateanymore to welcome the Jews.
So they might just say, well,where else can they go?
And they may argue this was theonly place that they can go
after the Holocaust.
Speaker 1 (01:43:22):
Well, here's the
thing is thatain america could
have simply let them in, likethey let in about tens of
thousands others prior to, butwhat happened was that america,
the, the, uh, the government, uhwas quite uh was under, you
could say, anti-semitic uminfluences more like they wanted
(01:43:43):
to appease anti-semites intheir own country who were
opposing Jewish immigration.
So they said you know what?
There's a place open for them.
Send them all there.
Send them to Palestine.
Speaker 2 (01:43:52):
Maybe that's why,
initially, when Churchill,
churchill didn't use theargument, the Jewish argument,
right Like we have to save theJews in the beginning, when in
the beginning of his kind of youknow campaign against Hitler um
, in the beginning of his kindof you know uh campaign against
hitler, I I'm, I'm sure, yeah,no, actually I actually learned
this from you in, yeah, yeah inone of the media.
Speaker 1 (01:44:11):
Uh, shows you did
with I mentioned in pierce
morgan.
It's a great argument.
Speaker 2 (01:44:14):
He said they didn't
really I mean expand that bit
because I don't know much, butI'm just echoing what you
previously said.
Speaker 1 (01:44:19):
So just tell me what
that's an interesting point
actually, uh, I mean, ultimatelyit was Neville Chamberlain's
ultimatum, and then WinstonChurchill.
Obviously, neville Chamberlainobviously withdrew from
government when his idea ofappeasement and peace fell
through, and then WinstonChurchill continued.
But never were there demands atany point in time that if
(01:44:40):
Germany continues to persecuteJews At that time they didn't
know that they weresystematically killing them or
were going to more precisely,but they never said stop
persecuting Jews or we'll fightyou.
No mention they didn't careAgain.
In America they actually eventhe media was told to downplay
reports of massacres againstJews by the Nazi government.
(01:45:01):
In America, they're told todownplay it.
Finally, isn't it a strangeirony of history that
Palestinian massacres, somassacres of Palestinians, today
are being downplayed inmainstream American media, but
back then it was the massacresagainst Jews are being
downplayed because it wouldbring up the argument of well,
(01:45:21):
we need to give them space inAmerica for as refugees.
So, in a sense, and Americadidn't feel the need for any
pressure because they, insteadthey pressured Britain to say
Britain, you need to open upimmigration to Palestine,
because they have a place to go,right, send them there.
So in a sense, it's becausePalestine was open that they,
(01:45:43):
that they were sitting there andin fact it was argued that, uh,
despite the fact that theperson was open, um, because
britain still had limitedmigration and the germans never
let them go early on, uh, theylet jews go early on, but that
america, america could havesaved at least 300 000 jews by
(01:46:04):
um opening up uh immigrationearly on, because there were
many Jews actually who wanted togo to America, wanted to leave,
to go there first.
It actually was harder to getto Palestine, so it didn't
really.
I mean, sure, there wereHolocaust survivors going there,
but by and large, most of theHolocaust survivors that went to
Palestine happened after WorldWar II, so after Germany was
(01:46:29):
already defeated.
It was viewed that, well,despite the fact that they had
discovered the death camps andthey had realized where
anti-Semitism led to, they stillargued that, yeah, but we can't
keep the Jews in Europe.
It's like, oh, you're basicallygoing to finish what Hitler
started, in a sense, notnecessarily killing, but by
(01:46:51):
moving them out, saying no, theyshould go to Palestine, they
shouldn't migrate to Palestine,they can't be left in Europe.
Many of these it's like, well,that's not what you would do.
You would liberate them fromthe death camps and let them go
back to their homes in Europe,where them from the death camps
and let them go back to theirhomes in Europe where they were
as you rebuild Europe and whathave you?
So that's a bogus argument, theidea that there was nowhere
(01:47:14):
else to go, because there wasplenty of places to go.
But in a way, palestine wasused as an excuse for other
countries to deny Jews to go totheir countries, and it was the
anti-Semitic policies ofactually America, trying to
appease this anti-Semitic base,that caused it to limit Jewish
(01:47:35):
migration.
Speaker 2 (01:47:36):
Okay so the Zionists
enter Palestine and they
ethnically cleanse Palestine andcontinue to do so.
But there's a Zionist argumentthat says well, aren't 20% of
Israelis actually Palestinian?
So how is it the case that theZionist regime is actually
(01:47:57):
ethnically cleansing thePalestinians when 20% of the
Palestinians live in Israel andthey're not being ethnically
cleansed?
Speaker 1 (01:48:07):
There actually isn't.
According to Israel, 20% oftheir population are
Palestinians.
That's not the case in Israel.
Speaker 2 (01:48:16):
In.
Speaker 1 (01:48:16):
Israel, they'd say
20% of population are Israeli
Arabs, not Palestinians.
Now, that's not the mainrebuttal to it, but it's to show
you that, in a sense, what is agenocide or what is ethnic
cleansing?
The definitions of ethniccleansing include taking
(01:48:38):
children from an ethnic group,forcing them, raising them in a
different society with differentvalues, so that their cultural
identity is destroyed, like whathappened to Native American
Indians.
That's included in thedefinition of ethnic cleansing
and genocide actually.
So what we see is thatPalestinians who survived the
(01:49:05):
ethnic cleansing of the Nakbawere re-designated.
You're not Palestinians, you'reIsraeli Arabs.
The Palestinians are in theWest Bank, are in Gaza.
That's where the Palestiniansare.
So that's one aspect.
Speaker 2 (01:49:23):
So they removed the
ethnicity, so it's like another
form of ethnic cleansing.
Basically, yes, but also that'snot the.
Speaker 1 (01:49:27):
So they removed the
ethnicity.
So it's like another form ofethnic cleansing.
Basically, yes, but also that'snot the only thing they did,
right?
So what many Zionists will tellyou is they say that they have
equal rights.
Right, they'll only refer tothem as Palestinians in debates
outside the country wherethey're saying no, we don't
ethnic, we didn't ethnic cleansethe Palestinians there are, 20%
(01:49:48):
of our population isPalestinians.
That's the only time they everget referred to as Palestinians
Within Israel.
They're called Israeli Arabs.
So what they'll say is theyhave equal rights.
And I will respond by saying JimCrow.
And I will respond by sayingJim Crow, did you know that
(01:50:10):
African-Americans or blackAmericans have equal rights?
Since their emancipation fromslavery in the mid 19th century?
They were, under the USConstitution, equal.
So why the American civilrights movement?
Why is that necessary?
Ah, because just because you'reequal under law doesn't mean
(01:50:31):
you're not treated differentlyand in such a way,
institutionally differently thatproduces a separate but equal
outcome.
Yeah, of course.
So we see in quote, unquote thestate state of Israel and
referring to the area which isinternationally recognized as
quote-unquote, the state ofIsrael, that we see that Arab
(01:50:53):
areas or Arab towns and citiesare overcrowded because there is
virtually no funding given tourban development, while there
is massive funding given todevelopment of Jewish towns,
jewish villages, cities.
They allow things such as, bythe way, you're not allowed to
own property or land in thestate of Israel.
(01:51:16):
You can't actually own land.
All land is actually owned bythe state of Israel.
They learned from theirpractices of how they took over
the land with buying land duringthe British Mandate period, so
they make sure that no one elsecan repeat that against them.
So you can only have aleasehold of that land and
(01:51:37):
although 7% of the land isallocated to the Jewish National
Fund so they actually do theyare separate, a private company
which own land.
Ok, so what the Israeli statedoes is OK, you can't own land,
you can only lease it.
But if you're, let's say, anArab family, you want to move
into a new town or place whichis majority Jewish, you have to
(01:52:00):
go by the local neighborhoodcommittee.
The local neighborhoodcommittee which is allowed under
law to consider you whetheryou're a good fit, culturally
and value in your values, tothat local neighborhood, which,
coincidentally, you know meansthat many Arab families get
turned away from being able tobuy property in Jewish majority
(01:52:23):
neighborhoods what a coincidence.
We see schools in Arab majorityneighborhoods underfunded, we
see infrastructure underfunded,and so on.
So exactly like almost what washappening in the USA in the 50s
and 60s, prior to the civilrights movement being more
(01:52:45):
successful.
Now they'll say well, we don'thave Jewish-only buses and
Arab-only buses and so on.
Well, that's true, they don't,but they have arranged things in
such a way as it produces a defacto separation.
So, apart from maybe, haifa,which is a little bit more mixed
, most cities are verysegregated.
(01:53:06):
The Jewish community and Arabcommunities are very segregated
from each other.
Speaker 2 (01:53:09):
Yeah, and I think
there was a legal study done I
think it's called the Adalahdatabase.
If you go to adalahorg and theyinvestigated the laws in Israel
and they said around over 60laws actually are like apartheid
laws.
They they favor the Jewishpeople over any other type of
(01:53:32):
Israeli citizen, like an ArabIsraeli citizen.
So these many of these laws areindicative of what you've just
said.
So look, well it.
Speaker 1 (01:53:45):
Here's the thing.
It's Israel very careful forhow they draft the laws.
So they will draft the laws insuch a way as to not avoid,
avoid reference to ethnicity,with the exception of the law of
return, which says specificallyJewish, only Jews can return
back to Israel.
Only and as long as they have aJewish ancestry and follow the
(01:54:09):
Jewish religion, or evenconverts.
Right, a law of return based onjust converting.
So what can like Buddhist Thaipeople go to India and get
Indian citizenship becausethey're Buddhist?
That's where Buddha comes from.
What, anyway, anyway.
But what they will do is theythey'll make the law, uh, in
such a way as to ensure that itgenerally, it only targets yeah,
(01:54:34):
so it's the law and applied law.
Speaker 2 (01:54:36):
So you could write
law in a particular way that
maybe on the surface doesn'tlook like it's, you know?
You know pro apartheid if it'slike a manifestation of
apartheid, but in itsapplication it happens to be so
yes, like the absentee, propertylaw is an infamous one, yeah
absolutely, because law doesn'twork in abstracto.
Yeah, because there's law andapplied law and that's how
(01:54:58):
they're trying to be smart withit.
Speaker 1 (01:55:00):
But if you I think
that another database actually
explains that further and sayslook these, when you apply these
laws, it's just apartheid well,I mean that the law is is very
cleverly designed to say that,um, uh, anyone, any israeli
citizen that visits uh or has auh that leaves the state of
israel, travels to a countrythat is deemed to be an enemy
(01:55:22):
country, which happens, happensto be even countries that are
normalized of Israel, jordan,egypt, whatever, or has leaves
their property, their propertycan be seized, for example.
Of course, who would ever go tothose other countries would be
Israeli Arabs.
Quote unquote.
So in the application, thenabsolutely yeah, or if you're,
(01:55:45):
if you are living in an areathat was at the point at the
time of um, 1947, 1948 war, was,in it, considered to be enemy
territory, ie arab areas wereeven within the state of israel.
they very carefully how they all, how they word it, yeah of
course it basically applies tothe arab areas, ie the, the
Arabs of the state of Israel.
(01:56:05):
They could lose their propertyand it means, for example, let's
say you co-own a house withyour uncles and things.
One uncle goes to live inLebanon or goes to live in Egypt
or what have you.
The whole house can be takenand they'll say, oh, we'll
compensate you.
We can compensate you for your,for your, your share, but the
(01:56:28):
state takes a share of that.
That goes to the state and thestate and then eventually the
state will compensate you andthen we'll reallocate that to a
um, a housing authority, uh,like the jewish national fund.
Which the jewish national fundis is then, within its corporate
constitution, is designed, isthere to house Jews who are
(01:56:50):
returning.
So, while it's a great legalacrobatics, the Israeli state
recognizes the Jewish NationalFund as an official housing
authority that it can designateproperty to, and within the
Jewish National Fund's corporatearticles, it explicitly has a
racial policy of own for housingjews.
So the state can say, well, wedon't have any racial laws we
(01:57:14):
just recognize this particularcorporation to house people, and
this corporation just sohappens to have a within its
corporate rules but notofficially law of the state, a
racial-based law.
But as long as we're not havingracial-based laws, well, we're
not racist.
Speaker 2 (01:57:30):
Well, it's obvious by
virtue of what you've just said
that the intent of the law andits application, notwithstanding
how it's worded, is designed tobasically create an apartheid
or some form of ethnicdisplacement of people, or maybe
not by location, but at leastby resources and ownership,
(01:57:51):
gradually losing property.
Yes and being second-classcitizens, so look.
Speaker 1 (01:57:58):
I also want to add
one more extra thing and last
point, which is, of course, whenBen-Gurion looked at the
potential segregation of theland into the UN partition plan,
two things occurred to him.
One, I'll answer anotherquestion, but one thing was he
said that the demographicbreakdown would mean that Arabs
(01:58:19):
would be 40% of the UN partitionJewish state.
He said you can't have a viablestate with 40% Arabs.
They were never arguing.
They want to eliminate allArabs from their state.
They even argued that Arabswould be a good source of cheap
labor, but that 40% is too much.
(01:58:42):
Like Abba Eban would say, atleast 20 years later, he'd say
that 40% is too much.
Like Abba Eban would say, atleast 20 years later, he'd say
that 40% is too much.
So they want to reduce Arabsdown to a manageable amount.
Now some estimates say thatafter the Nakba it was even down
to 10%, not 20% down.
(01:59:03):
But the Palestinians, being avery loving people, managed to
multiply, to double that and fora significant portion of time.
Even to this day, the discoursein Israel is the concern over
Arab multiplication, of IsraeliArabs within the state of Israel
(01:59:24):
, and there was an argument andthere was a Pew poll.
I believe that was conducted,but there's a more recent one,
but there's a Pew poll that wasconducted in 2016.
So this is before recent events, where they asked the Jewish
Israeli population, what do youthink should happen to Israeli
(01:59:45):
Arabs?
And 49% said and they were themajority group said they should
be evicted from Israel, removedfrom Israel, whereas then I
(02:00:07):
think 46% said, well, theyshould remain in Israel.
So it's not all of them, butbut it's clearly a the majority.
The rest was on, I don't know,undecided, sure, on this.
So this is the issue is it'sdemographics is an obsession
with many Zionists because theywant to have a demo, they want
to have a democratic state,because they're from that
European tradition, becausethey're Europeans, but at the
same time, is there has to be aJewish state?
Yes, and so that's why they'refrom that European tradition,
because they're Europeans, butat the same time, it has to be a
(02:00:28):
Jewish state, and so that's whythey're always obsessed with
demographics, with getting thePalestinians to be relocated,
with not honoring their UNcommitments, like the Resolution
194, where they allegedly saidwe affirm this.
They were actually asked do youaffirm this before you?
(02:00:48):
We recognize you as, uh, as theun.
We recognize you as a state, asa member state within the un I
said yes, of course you knowthere are many, but there are
many different ways this can beachieved, because the um, the,
the resolution 194, says that itshould be resolved either by
letting them back in orcompensating them if they want
to be compensated and don't wantto come back, and, you know,
(02:01:10):
sorting out their relocation ifthey want to be relocated, okay.
So they agreed to that.
The Israelis agreed to thatresolution saying, of course, of
course, let us be a member ofthe UN.
We'll agree to that inprinciple.
There's many ways it can beresolved and we're going to
encourage maybe the other waysmore, but that was meant to be
for each Palestinian refugee todecide what they want to do.
(02:01:32):
So Israel has actually not beenabiding by UN resolutions from
its very Even before itliterally joined the UN.
The only resolution that Israelenjoyed was the partition
resolution, and even then it wasonly as a temporary measure,
which we will come to withevidences as to why I say that.
Speaker 2 (02:01:54):
Zakir Hibro.
It's been long, we've just gota few more questions, but I
think the last few questions arevery important.
So let's zoom in on October the7th or what's been happening
after that date.
So there's two questionsconnected to October the 7th.
The first is general.
It's like look, it's noteverything that Israel has done
(02:02:16):
justified.
It's not everything what Israelhas done justified in
protecting the safety andsecurity of its people.
That's an argument that somepeople will make.
You know, october the 7thhappened and look Israel.
Now they believe they arejustified, or the Zionist regime
is justified in doing what ithas done thus far.
(02:02:38):
I mean, I find it shocking thatpeople would actually even
assert such a question andbelieve that Israel is justified
in any shape or form.
But it's because of theintention of this podcast to
educate those who are blind tothese realities.
So what would you?
Speaker 1 (02:02:56):
say.
The common argument thatZionists always argue is that
security, security, security, sosecurity and safety and
security of mind.
So they'll say that all thesepolicies we implement, whether
it's making big fences confiningPalestinians into these small
(02:03:17):
zones because we've made illegalsettlements around them and we
have to protect the Jewishsettlers, of course, from the
Palestinians They'll say it'sfor the safety and security of
Jews.
That's why we do these things,and that if you don't have these
repressive or restrictivemeasures, you don't have
measures such as, you know, ainvisible 200-meter zone around
(02:03:42):
a newly established militarycheckpoint and then if someone
walks into that they get shot.
Oh, but it's too bad.
They should have known therewas a military checkpoint there
and that was because these arestandard safety protocols and
I'm not just making this up.
There was a court case where anIsraeli soldier shot dead a
(02:04:03):
seven-year-old Palestinian girlbecause she had entered into a,
a this invisible exclusion zone,and she hadn't.
She wasn't just like walkingstraight to them, she had.
She had like been startled bythem, by them shouting or
whatever.
And then she turned around andwas as she was walking off, she
was shot and then the soldierwent up to her body on the
(02:04:27):
ground as she was basicallypretty much either dead by that
point in time or fatally injuredand shot, emptied his magazine
into her to confirm the killofficially.
To confirm the kill he got offin court, in Israeli court.
He's saying it's a standardpolicy.
It was simply standard policies.
Anyone who enters an exclusionzone can be shot, and she
(02:04:51):
entered it, so that was it.
And confirming the kill afterthe justification to engage a
target has been met is standardpolicy, irrespective of who it
is and who does it.
And he was let off because hewas following agreed military
protocols and policy and thiswas all justified as necessary
(02:05:13):
policies to contain the threatof the Palestinians or what have
you, palestinian militancy.
I can't think why they'd be soangry, these Palestinians, and
this is the mindset and theyalways say it's for the safety
and security of Jews.
The main issue with this isthat, for example, you could say
(02:05:38):
that in society we need to putcameras in everyone's houses,
big Brother style in theirbathrooms, even because crimes
occur inside people's housesrape, murder, domestic violence
and one act of domestic violenceis one act too many, right?
(02:06:00):
So we need to put cameras ineveryone's rooms and have state
monetary think.
Of course, people say, oh hell,no, I I'm not going to let that
happen.
Why?
But it's for security.
It's for safety Because theysay, well, our human dignity is
under threat.
The danger to us will becomesubservient to the state.
The state will be able tocontrol us.
We would be restricted, limited.
(02:06:21):
This would be in misery,basically being surveilled by
the state.
Even this would be in misery,basically being surveilled by
the state, even if it ostensiblyis meant to be for good
intentions of preventing crime.
You can't justify an infinitelimitation of human rights for
(02:06:43):
the sake of security.
That's not security orprotection, that's subjugation.
Now, that's a state protectingits own people from its own
people.
What about another people?
Uh, from uh, so it's peoplefrom other people.
Well, if that same kind of logicwas argued against the
abolition of slavery in theunited america, if you liberate
all the slaves African slaves,black slaves, whatever term they
(02:07:08):
used they would be a threat tosociety, they'd be a threat to
the white race, they wouldcommit crime, they would run
amok.
They are not civilized Just forthe sake of the safety and
security.
They're in the best place theycan be, utilizing the best
manner for a society better thanwhat they could be if they were
(02:07:30):
free.
That was the argument used tojustify slavery, the subjection
of one race by another, becauseit's for that that master race
is safety and security and peaceof mind.
Right, that argument is bogusand sick.
You can't justify infiniterestrictions based on security.
(02:07:52):
There has to be an equalconsideration for both sides.
The Palestinian farmer in theWest Bank must be as safe and
secure as any Israeli citizen is, without fear of being attacked
or violence.
What have you?
But instead, what you get isyou get Israeli military
accompanying settlers attackingthe Palestinian farmer, and
(02:08:16):
they've been given strict ordersto protect Israeli settlers.
That's it.
They don't arrest the settlerswho are literally there,
literally accompanying, who arevandalizing the palestinian
property or even attacking theoccupiers.
Speaker 2 (02:08:30):
I mean another
argument would would be and I
think this is an internationallegal argument that do they even
have a right to raise thequestion?
Because they're occupying force?
Yeah, like, look at thishypothetical scenario Imagine
France invades London, bro yeah,and they invade London and they
occupy London and subjugate allof the Londoners for about 10
(02:08:53):
years.
And then the surrounding areasKent, surrey, you know, milton
Keynes, luton, all of theseplaces they gather together to
create a little kind of, youknow, rebel force to try and
liberate Londoners and get backwhat is theirs, which is, you
know, britain, london.
Right now, imagine the Frenchsaying we're going to kill every
(02:09:19):
single one of you now orsubjugate you even further
because we have a right todefend ourselves or we have a
right to protect ourselves.
I mean, is that even anargument?
You're an occupying force.
Do you see my point?
Speaker 1 (02:09:32):
No, I mean, of course
, but the Zionists would argue
and this is what they do arguewith, which is that West Bank
and Gaza must be controlledbecause they themselves are
existential threats.
Speaker 2 (02:09:44):
If they were left
free, they would be an
existential threat.
Speaker 1 (02:09:48):
Well, exactly, that's
exactly the point.
Is that, um, and?
Speaker 2 (02:09:50):
it's.
And just like what the frenchwould say if they occupied
london.
They will say the same thing.
Look, we've, we've dealt withthese people so badly, we've
occupied them.
We've, we've subjugated them.
We've got an apartheid here.
We now have to maintain themnow, because they're going to be
an existential threat.
Obviously, why wouldn't they be?
Because you're occupying themand you're subjugating them Well
(02:10:10):
indeed.
Speaker 1 (02:10:11):
I mean.
Speaker 2 (02:10:12):
I mean, that's the
argument that could be made.
Speaker 1 (02:10:14):
One parallel is well,
you just brought up the French,
the French resistance againstthe Germans.
So the French resistance wouldambush German army convoys,
paramilitary units or policeunits and at times also kill
collaborators and other suchthings.
So this was done in the contextof the resistance against Nazi
(02:10:35):
occupation.
What the Nazis would do, ofcourse, is they can't find it's
hard to find or know who's theFrench resistance, but they
would suspect that this town issupporting the French resistance
or whatever.
So they would go in and theywould basically raise part of
the town to the ground.
They'd kill or decimate thepopulation.
They'd round up suspectedsupporters they don't have any
(02:10:56):
evidence of, but they would justkill them with summary
executions or send them to deathcamps.
The Germans would say we'rejust defending our German
soldiers.
You know, in this territory,which is surely as Germans, we
have to protect our soldierssurely not?
Yeah, exactly, but not at theexpense of the security of the
(02:11:17):
civilians.
And if you can't find theinsurgents, then you don't start
killing people who you suspectto be insurgents or resistance
fighters who you suspect to beinsurgents or resistance
fighters.
And this is, in essence, theissue of the Israeli occupation
(02:11:37):
is that they believe that theremotest insecurity they have or
slightest fear justifies anykind of force they need.
So, for example, syria is arecent example.
Syria, bashar Assad falls, anew government takes over.
They say look, we've had civilwar, we're war-torn, we just
want peace.
We're not a threat to anyone,really.
We're just not a threat tocertainly a very powerful,
(02:12:00):
modern military right next to usat all.
So we just want to rebuild.
And Israel says oh, the uh isthe next jihadi.
So this justifies us movinginto syrian territory and
bombing the place, and andbombing, even bombing some navy
ships of the syrian navy in theport of tartus, I think it was
(02:12:21):
which is like how's that athreat to your border?
How does that relate to, ofcourse, bombing all the
anti-aircraft missiles, whichare defensive weapons used to
defend themselves against, ofcourse, having the airspace
invaded and incurred upon, whichwe would then see why they did
that, because to get to Iran,obviously.
(02:12:42):
So Israel cites the slightestinsecurity and says this
justifies us preemptivelyself-defending ourselves.
Yeah, self-defending, right.
So they will oppress them and,taken to its extent and people
saying this is exactly wherethey're going is they can argue
that they need to militarily and, in fact, are dominating the
(02:13:05):
entire Middle east and muslimworld because they have to
pre-emptively defend themselveswell, the argument swings both
ways.
Speaker 2 (02:13:13):
So imagine the rest
of the world takes the same
logic of their argument and theynow attack israel and take over
israel, because they'll bearguing well, you guys have
already occupied a particularplace on earth, you've
subjugated the people in thatlocation and you've created an
(02:13:34):
apartheid state.
Therefore, this is a threat tothe whole world, because maybe
you're going to do it to therest of us.
Do you see my point?
It's the door swings both ways.
Speaker 1 (02:13:43):
That's why the
argument is so ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (02:13:45):
If you just reverse,
you know, swing the door the
other way, it just collapses.
Speaker 1 (02:13:51):
And that's why some
Iranian members of the Iranian
government have said that theyneed to have a nuclear weapon.
Because how come Israel getsnuclear weapons?
So that if Israel feels like it, it could press a red button
and tehran disappears in themushroom cloud.
Every iranian lives every dayknowing that that could happen
at any moment if benjaminnetanyahu feels like it.
(02:14:14):
And if he did it, what wouldreally happen to him?
Trump would just have an angryphone call and then slap on the
wrist.
Speaker 2 (02:14:20):
Yes, don't do that
again.
If they were to use strategicnuclear weapons, yeah, yeah so
okay so that okay.
So that's well answered.
So let's zoom in a little bitmore.
October the 7th and Hamas.
Now right, so it's been claimedthat Hamas ordered the mass
killing of Jews on October the7th.
So, zionists would argue, isn'tIsrael justified in trying to
(02:14:45):
exterminate all of the membersof Hamas?
Speaker 1 (02:14:48):
Okay.
So one of the things which youknow, when October 7th happened
and there was a lot of confusioninitially what's going on?
What's happening?
And Then things started toemerge as to what was happening.
People start to talk about it,but, more importantly, they you
know they were members of Hamasthat were captured by the
Israeli forces and subject tointerrogation, and the
(02:15:09):
interrogations were published.
There were pamphlets orleaflets or documents found on
dead bodies of Hamas fighterswhich were dropped onto telegram
groups.
Very quickly.
They were taken a picture of,dropped the very early ones,
which are very unlikely to havebeen Israeli state propaganda or
them alleging something.
(02:15:29):
So it's so we start to see thisand, of course, then Hamas made
their own official statement ofthis.
Now I want to state very clearlythat, as people who are in
looking into what's happening inthe Middle East, who have a
concern for the rights of humanbeings anywhere in the world, we
need to look at what truthfullyhappened for the sake of
(02:15:52):
getting the facts right, becausewe can't make any judgments if
we don't have all the factscorrect.
It doesn't matter who it is orwhat it is, whether it's going
to be pro-Israel, anti-israel,pro-palestinian,
anti-palestinian orpro-whichever group or
anti-Israeli group.
We just want to know what thefacts are.
That's simply that.
So what the facts seemed tohave been covered was what was
(02:16:17):
Hamas's intent?
That we can discern from theirpublications and other evidences
, circumstantial evidences, andwhat the Zionists say.
So we know the Zionists saythat the Zionists deny every
genocide claim against them,except they say, oh, but Hamas
tried genocide because they weregiven orders to kill Jews, and
(02:16:39):
you don't have to kill all Jewsfor that to happen.
You can kill just part of anethnic group to happen.
As long as you are basicallykilling a particular ethnic
group because of that ethnicgroup, then that's what makes it
a genocide.
So the question is did Hamasintend to kill Jews for being
Jews?
I suppose is the question thatwe need to look into, because
that's the argument made by theIsraeli state, by Zionists, and
(02:17:02):
then they will then use that tothen say, well, if, if Hamas
intended to kill Jews becausethey're Jews, and then they will
then use that to then say, well, if, if Hamas intended to kill
Jews because they're Jews, andthen they will cite some polls
to say and there's there isarguments that there are some
polls to show that they havesome support amongst
Palestinians, therefore allPalestinian.
You can't.
You can't.
The dots, or these Palestinians, or a majority of Palestinians,
or a significant proportion ofPalestinians, want to kill Jews
(02:17:25):
because they are all Jews, sowhy should we have any sympathy
for them?
That's the kind of impliedargument that's being given by
the zionist.
So let's then check that firstpremise before we check the rest
of the uh, the syllogismsyou're greek, you like checking,
uh, syllogisms and arguments,so we can go into that.
So the first premise uh, whatwas Hamas's intent?
Is the question.
(02:17:46):
And well, what can we discern?
So people often cite the 19, the1988 charter of Hamas, which
they have actually changed in2017, but they said the trial of
saying that.
Doesn't it say kill all Jews,or this is we have.
The aim is to kill all Jews.
Um, when I checked it and Ididn't refer to that at all it
(02:18:10):
said it talked about that.
It viewed its fight against thestate of Israel in the context
of a hadith from the ProphetMuhammad that talked about a
future where there'll be Muslimswho are fighting a group of
Jews.
It didn't say all Jews or everyJew.
It just said Muslims will befighting a group of Jews.
It didn't say all Jews or everyJew.
It just said Muslims will befighting a group of Jews, so a
(02:18:30):
group of Muslims fighting agroup of Jews, and there will be
this fight.
This fighting will occur, andso on, and they will be killed,
or what have you.
It didn't specify any othercontent.
It didn't say civilians.
It didn't say women, children.
It didn't say anything.
It just said this future thingwill happen.
It's in a narration by theprophet muhammad.
So the uh hamas used thisnarration, or they said this
(02:18:51):
narration is that they, they seetheir fight against israel in a
is possibly a fulfillment, orit will fulfill this, or this
might be referring to aneventual victory they will have
over the israeli state, but inthe same constitution that they
have.
I think it is uh, article 31,if I remember correctly.
(02:19:12):
But uh, but uh, check it foryourself, but it is definitely
in there.
What does hamas say theyenvision as the solution?
What they want?
What do they want to create?
What they say they want tocreate an islamic state of all
palestine.
Palestine is one unitary state,um under the wing of islam, is
what they say, where they sayjews, christians and muslims um
(02:19:35):
will live under or live together.
That doesn't sound like what Iwould expect from people who
want to wipe out all jews.
Because why, would you say, I'mgoing to create?
We want to create a state, anIslamic state, with Jews,
muslims and Christians all onliving under the wing of Islam.
If you do, you want it to be nomore Jews.
(02:19:55):
That doesn't, then, make sense.
We also see the, the founder ofHamas, who said that he didn't
fight the Jews because they'reJews, but because they've come
to his land.
They kicked him out of the landand they've taken his houses.
(02:20:17):
He said he'd fight his ownbrother if his brother occupied
his house and kicked him out ofthe house.
His house and kicked him out ofthe house.
So, sheikh Yassin, this is whatyou was.
There's a clip of it you cansee online.
That's probably been done therounds.
It doesn't sound like what Iwould expect from an
(02:20:39):
organization which is accused by, obviously, the Zionists, of
demanding the massacre of allJews and wiping out all Jews
globally, or something like this.
I don't get that.
Then Then, in 2017, theyreissued a new constitutional
document where they made quiteexplicit they said that we're
(02:21:02):
not fighting Jews for Jews,we're fighting Zionistsists.
Um, as these european occupiershave come to our land, yes, and
I've taken it over so, uh, andthey published that, and
presumably I did not hear of anybacklash from their own people
say no, no, this is not what wewere set up for.
We were set up for, as azionist say, to kill all jews.
No, didn't.
(02:21:23):
There was no backlash.
That was it viewed as they weresimply suppose, clarifying or
arguing that this is making itmore clear that we're fighting
Zionists who are colonialistoccupiers, not because they're
Jews per se.
That doesn't sound like whatthe Zionists accused them of of
basically just wanting to killevery single Jew on planet Earth
(02:21:45):
.
Speaker 2 (02:21:45):
Yes, right.
So I just want to be clearabout something.
You are just mentioning factshere.
You are just responding to aparticular question in a factual
way, because the question kindof implies that Israel justified
in its response or inexterminating all of Hamas
(02:22:06):
because the Zionists argue thatHamas is hell-bent in massacring
Jews and doing a mass slaughterof Jews.
And what you're saying is well,let's look at the facts.
And when you look at what's onthe public record, then it
doesn't really align.
And the reason I'm mentioningthis is because you know, from a
(02:22:29):
UK law perspective, you knowHamas is a prescribed terrorist
organization and you're notadvocating for any organization,
of course that is prescribed.
You're just merely saying inresponse to a particular
question these are facts on theground and there is a claim by
the Zionists.
And when we look at the factsthere's not an alignment.
Speaker 1 (02:22:50):
Yeah, we're not
talking about moral judgments or
moral positions.
Speaker 2 (02:22:53):
Yes, we're simply
talking about I just want to
make that clear, yeah here's aclaim made by the Zionists.
Speaker 1 (02:22:59):
It's a claim of fact,
saying that Hamas are their aim
is to kill every Jew on planetEarth and it's saying well, if
that's the case, it doesn't seemto fit with other, with
evidences that we can see thatshow that their motivations.
While they do call for thedestruction of the state of
Israel as a political unit,clearly, but they don't appear
(02:23:22):
to call for the killing of allJews.
In fact, their argument is theywant to create an Islamic state
, for that will be where Jews.
In fact, their argument is theywant to create an Islamic state
where Jews, christians andMuslims will be under quote
unquote the wing of Islam, sure.
Speaker 2 (02:23:34):
So going back to the
original question, so you're
responding to the argument thatHamas ordered the mass killing
of Jews.
So you've looked at the factson the ground and your argument
is well, no, that's not the case.
But then the other part of thequestion was well, isn't now
Israel justified inexterminating all of Hamas?
Speaker 1 (02:23:55):
Well, I want to kind
of first substantiate some more
based, or at least bring toattention more evidences, just
to further for us to reflectupon, to see does it fit the
Zionist narrative?
So I mean, in a sense, all I'vebeen doing today is really
fact-checking the Zionistnarrative and only fact-checking
.
So in this case, so like Hamaspublished I think they've made a
(02:24:25):
publication explaining theirmotivations and their aims and
so on, and they argue, they makea number of arguments, such as,
you know, they want to releasePalestinian hostages, so they
wanted to capture Israelihostages to negotiate for
Palestinian hostages.
Some political analysts havesaid that they also seem maybe
(02:24:46):
they were aiming at scupperingthe Saudi normalization deal
between Israel and Saudi Arabiaand that might be one reason
what motivated them to do so.
Another political analyst,michael Clark I believe, who's
quite famous for talking about,I think, political and military
analysis of the Ukraine war, ofthe ukraine war.
(02:25:11):
So he gave a statement, if Iremember correctly, arguing that
um hamas had, when theyinitiate operation, they didn't
expect to be so successful andthey had lost control of their
own operation, and there wasalso mention of that.
There were also opportunistsfrom gaza.
Some people left the becausethe hole in the wall was made in
the gaza war and some peoplewent to loot and some people,
you know, had vendettas, tookout revenge for people that died
(02:25:32):
in their family or and theythey hate, they hate Israelis
and so on.
So I mean they would all they,and some captured.
His Hamas fighters were askedand this was published by the
state of Israel.
They said why did you do whatyou did?
Why did you, uh, you know, killcivilians?
Uh, did uh, what are you toldto do?
(02:25:54):
What does this psalm say is uh,you should do about civilians?
And they, they would say, um,isn't it not wrong?
And they said, yes, it is wrong, it's haram to kill
non-combatants.
And, uh, you know, didn't youlearn this?
Uh, you know, in your madrasasand schools?
And so, yes, we did.
We were told that we learnedthis in our schools, that it was
wrong for us to killnon-combatants.
And I asked the question tomyself in what?
(02:26:17):
Ghazan Islamic schools andmadrasas, who runs those?
Because that would presumablybe supervised in some way, shape
or form, by Hamas, wouldpresumably be supervised in some
way, shape or form, by Hamas.
And if Hamas were arguing thatyou can kill non-combatants, why
would they teach their fightersthat it's haram to kill
non-combatants.
It didn't make sense with whatI was expecting, considering the
(02:26:41):
Zionist narrative.
I mean ISIS fighters wouldargue that, yes, you can kill
non-combatants.
They say openly, they don't shyabout it.
Isis itself makes publicjustifications of killing
non-combatants.
But suddenly now you have Hamasdisavowing that, saying we
never intended, um, we neverordered the killing of
non-combatants, and um, and andbasically yeah, disavowing that.
(02:27:05):
I was like, well, that doesn'tmake sense if you take the
Zionist narrative to be true.
Also, a pamphlet that wasdiscovered that was released on
a telegram group very early onin the operation, in the
counter-operation by the Israeliforce, when they killed and
they captured or they found deadbodies of Hamas fighters.
(02:27:27):
So in the counter-operationthey found these pamphlets and
some people took a picture of itand got telegram groups and
that went to the media.
It mentions the orders of thefighters saying that capture
hostages for negotiation.
It's like, oh, but not kill asmany people as you can find, or
(02:27:49):
kill as many as the zionisttaught us was the was.
What was the order?
That doesn't seem to becongruent, right, and of course,
some of the captured hamasoperators have said that while
the operation was going on.
They uh, there's a lot of chaos.
Uh, communications were,there's some obviously chaos in
it, and their leading commanderthe commander that was actually
(02:28:11):
part of their squad, or whathave you said?
Well, actually it's okay ifsome non-combatants die.
They're probably they're allreservists anyway in the Israeli
military, and that's what I so,that's so.
It doesn't sound like.
I mean, why would they have tosay that in the first place?
Oh, they're always reservistsanyway.
(02:28:32):
Oh, but I thought you didn'tcare about non-combatants, you
just kill.
The Zionists have told us thatthe narrative is kill every Jew
you can find.
That's what motivates the Hamasfight.
It didn't fit the facts.
So all I'm raising is that,whatever reasons that hamas did
to initiate the operation andmany political analysts have
(02:28:54):
discussed that at length uh,releasing palestinian hostages,
scuppering normalization deal,um, you know.
Uh, maintaining hamas'srelevancy.
Whatever is the reason thatpeople have speculated or
discussed what their motivationswere, the facts don't seem to
comfortably fit the Zionistnarrative and that's simply the
(02:29:17):
question which I'd like everyoneelse to raise and discuss.
Speaker 2 (02:29:20):
Yes, so the argument
here is based on the facts.
That the Zionist claim thatHamas want to annihilate all the
Jews is actually not asubstantiated claim by virtue of
the facts that you've justraised.
Speaker 1 (02:29:32):
And seems to
contradict a reasonable
interpretation of the facts.
Yeah, okay, good.
Speaker 2 (02:29:38):
All right.
So let's just end with a veryimportant final question, bro
what's the solution, what's theIslamic solution to this?
What does Islam say?
What must we be doingcollectively?
Or at least what must weenvision?
What's going on?
Talk to us.
Speaker 1 (02:29:59):
Well, I'd say that
look, the solution isn't.
One of the things I felt is thesolution is not a military
solution.
The state of Israel massacringPalestinians is so far away from
the solution that you couldn'tget further.
It's the antithesis.
It is the problem.
(02:30:20):
That's always been the problemthe occupation, the free fire,
trigger happy policy of Israelimilitary, the disregard of
Palestinians as being humanbeings.
Now I would argue that theyhave no compunction about
killing Palestinians and theytreat them differently, but some
people say that the HannibalDirective has showed that they
(02:30:42):
also.
The Israeli military has nocompunction about killing their
own civilians if it serves theirpolitical purposes, as admitted
by the government or formergovernment members.
So the issue is that thePalestinians cannot live like
this.
This is not life, this is notliving.
The persecution, themistreatment, the theft of their
(02:31:04):
land, the harassment and justthe brutalization of them, the
cutting off of their resources,the starvation I mean I don't
even know why I need to mentionthis.
It's just so obviously so wrong, something wrong with this, and
why the Israelis are doing thisis really the root cause of the
(02:31:26):
problem.
The symptoms are thebrutalization, but what's the
root cause of the problem?
The symptoms are thebrutalization.
But what's the root cause?
And the root cause is theiridea that the only I mean
ultimately within Zionism.
The root motivation is the rootnarrative that they tell other
(02:31:46):
Zionists is that Jews cannottrust non-Jews.
That is it, because if youcould, or you could, trust a
system let's say, america's anice place to go, canada's a
nice place to go I was going tosay England's a nice place to go
, but since Brexit, I don't know.
(02:32:06):
The root cause is we can'ttrust non-Jews.
And then what do you do if themajority of people in your land,
whoever will have claimed toyou that are non-Jews, you're
going to treat them with notrust.
And what does that justify?
It justifies, then, separatingthem out from your people and
(02:32:30):
securing the resources for yourpeople and making things nice,
safe and comfortable for yourpeople at their expense.
Because you can't trust them.
Because you can't trustnon-Jews, even though it wasn't
the Palestinians that did theHolocaust, contrary to Benjamin
Netanyahu's claims.
Yes, it wasn't the Muslims thatled pogroms, that did the
(02:32:51):
Spanish Inquisition, thattortured Jews for their faith,
it wasn't Muslim civilization.
We actually protected them.
You know, when Muslims actuallywere taking over Spain from the
Christians, the Visigoths, theJews actually helped the Muslims
, because there was actually alot of anti-Jewish laws that had
(02:33:11):
been passed by the RomanCatholic.
Visigoths and Muslims said well, we won't interfere in your
religion, we will remove theselaws.
But the Muslims actually didn'thave enough soldiers to
garrison the cities that theywere conquering because only a
few 10,000 of them, and so manyof the Jewish local population
said well, give us some weaponsand we'll garrison these for you
(02:33:34):
, because they saw that Muslimswould actually protect them.
Speaker 2 (02:33:37):
Well, they saw them
as liberators from Christian
persecution.
Speaker 1 (02:33:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:33:41):
Zion Zohar is a
Jewish historian.
He mentions that.
So when the Muslims crossed theStrait of Gibraltar, the Jews
saw them as liberators fromChristian persecution.
So, but what's the Islamicsolution bro?
Well, what's going?
Speaker 1 (02:33:53):
on.
What should we do?
The you know, the Islamicsolution is why is?
Uh, there's a well, maybe youcould say it's a connection,
though by, but there is aconnection between Islamic
solution and that had beenapplied in history and why Jews
(02:34:13):
win Nobel, peace Prizes, nobelPrizes not Peace Prize, but
Nobel Prizes generallydisproportionately proportionate
to their population.
Well, to be more precise,european Jews and not Middle
Eastern ones.
So it was often argued that,and people have often mentioned
that in Nobel Prize winners,jews are disproportionately
(02:34:36):
represented, right, so there's alarger proportion of Jews who
win Nobel Prizes.
And why is that?
Like, you know what's going onNow, I mean, some people might
say, oh, it's because they'rechosen people.
If you're religious and you wantto take that interpretation,
but it was also pointed out that, well, jews from like Spain or
(02:35:01):
Middle East or East Africa oranywhere else actually don't.
They are, on average, accordingto a study, 14.
They are, on average, accordingto a study, 14 IQ points less
on average than European Jewsare.
So why is it?
They have a low IQ and EuropeanJews have a higher and they're
(02:35:22):
usually a higher IQ.
I think they said, yeah, theyhigher IQ, or even that the the
average IQ in America is aboutnine points higher than the
average IQ in America is aboutnine points higher than the
average IQ in the state ofIsrael because it has a mix of
different Jews from differentbackgrounds.
So we don't understand that.
But what's going on here?
why, is that right?
And the reason for that mightsurprise you, right?
(02:35:42):
I'm going to get the study outhere, so, if I can find it.
So there was a study that wasconducted and I will come to it.
Oh yes, here we go.
It was conducted in 2007, whichwas called Intelligence
Differences Between European andOriental Jews in Israel, and
(02:36:15):
they noted that there wasAshkenazi Jews.
European Jews had a higher IQ,about 14 points greater than
Oriental Jews, and theydiscussed why that is.
Why is that?
Is that in Europe, jews werepersecuted to survive.
(02:36:36):
In a sense, those who had morechance of surviving were those
who were more intelligent, couldget more money, and so they
usually were good with.
They said it was selected forskills like language and
arithmetic right, so they tendto overperform in those areas
because the Jews that were notso intelligent would probably be
killed or they wouldn't see theprogram coming, or they
(02:36:59):
couldn't buy their way intoprotection from a Gentile
Christian patron or somethinglike this.
So they argued that it was, andbecause they were also.
They argued that also becauseJews were forced into certain
professions, that they wererestricted from a number of
professions, that things likefinances was things that they
could do, money lending andthings like this, because they
(02:37:22):
were restricted from a wholenumber of professions.
So this study, as it says thatthey actually believe the best
explanation is that theyselected for certain traits in
European Jews, but in OrientalJews, in the Muslim world what
have you?
There was no restrictions on nopersecutions, so it didn't
(02:37:43):
create this natural selectionfor intelligence.
So they just have normalintelligence like the average
population does, but notanything exceptional per se.
So, funnily enough, in a twistof irony, european persecution,
they believe, led to thesetraits being selected for in
(02:38:04):
Ashkenazi Jews, whereas becauseMuslims didn't persecute Jews,
that they have the sameintelligence as everyone else in
their society does, becausethey didn't have to be clever to
survive and only the survivalof the fittest or the cleverest
didn't need to occur in Muslimsocieties.
So I found that quiteinteresting.
Go check out the study.
It's by Hannah David so it's aninverse link.
(02:38:25):
It's an inverse link.
Speaker 2 (02:38:26):
It's an inverse link.
Speaker 1 (02:38:28):
Yes, so it's not
anything about chosen people or
anything like this.
It's rather much more mundane.
Speaker 2 (02:38:33):
No, I mean it's an
inverse link that the Islamic
model, when they preserved theJews because you know they were
forced to flee Spain and otherplaces the very fact that they
(02:38:53):
preserved them maintained theaverage IQ.
But the very fact that the oneswho were persecuted and
survived the European Jews, ifyou like, the ones that are
considered European now theydeveloped certain traits because
of that selective pressure, andthat selective pressure was the
persecution.
Yeah, yeah yeah, so.
Speaker 1 (02:39:12):
So if I can quote um,
it says uh, uh.
So they said it's proposed thatthe difference between the iqs
of the two groups of jews are asfollows the the sites of theory
.
The theory states thatashkenazi jew Jews were forced
into the niche of money lenders,and this selected for high
verbal and mathematicalintelligence.
(02:39:33):
In the later middle ages, mostEuropean Jews migrated east to
Russia and Poland, where theywere permitted to work not only
as money lenders but also as taxfarmers, estate managers and
tavern keepers.
Then, it says, a number ofauthorities have noted that
these occupational constraintswere not imposed on the oriental
Jews who lived for manycenturies under the rule of the
(02:39:54):
Turkish Ottoman Empire.
Thus the Ottomans' success ingovernment largely consisted in
the wise policy of tolerationwhich they practiced towards
Jews practice towards Jews, andalso Theodor Herzl, the leading
member of political Zionism.
That made it successful.
In his letters to SultanAbdulhamid he said to him when
(02:40:18):
he was trying to woo him and gethim on board, to maybe allow
Jews to buy Palestine, whichAbdulhamid actually famously
refused yes, he said that theJews owe you around the world
gratitude and thanks for yourtreatment of us, and we all
recognize this, we all know ofthe treatment.
(02:40:38):
So the Ottomans actually werethe ones, the Muslims were the
ones who had historically alwaystreated them nicely.
They was acknowledged, I mean,that's, treated them with not
just toleration, but with anacceptance.
Yes, because we?
I don't like the word toleration.
Toleration is basically that,oh, I want to do something
(02:40:59):
against you, but I have to likenot, it's like no.
Acceptance is which is Idisagree with you and I'd like
to invite you to the truth.
But if you don't accept thetruth of islam, I accept that
you're going to be jewish,you're going to be christian,
you're going to be yeah, sure,what have you?
And you're going to live yourto you, your dean, like from
dean to you your dean yes, to me, my dean, my way of life, to
(02:41:21):
you, your way of life.
So this is one of the things,and I'd also like to end with.
Speaker 2 (02:41:28):
Before you end so
you're already telling us what
the solution is, which is Islam.
Speaker 1 (02:41:33):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (02:41:33):
In terms of bringing
these people together and they
live in harmony.
Yeah, but I just want to pushback on that very quickly.
And I know we don't have timenow, but you said the solution
is not a military solution.
No, yeah, now do you mean bythat the long-term solution is
(02:41:55):
not a military solution?
Because many would argue, evensecular academics, that the
solution to solve the genocideand stop the genocide is
actually military interventionokay so through through legal
international means I'm glad you, you, um, that's an important
distinction to make.
Yeah, yeah, because uh, you know, a genocide is happening, bro.
(02:42:16):
We can't say, oh, you know,just wait for the next 20 years
until we something getsestablished.
I'm very glad, yeah, I'm veryglad, you no problem.
Speaker 1 (02:42:23):
You give me the
chance to um because out of
context, yeah, you could be seenas I was arguing I was arguing
to the zionists, okay, that your, that a military solution will
not bring peace and security andjustice to that region, that
your military, yes, okay, good,excellent, right, um, but the
solution, uh, is two-pronged andI've always said this quite
(02:42:47):
consistently.
Speaker 2 (02:42:48):
The first prong is
I'll give you the last 60
seconds to grab this up.
Alright.
Speaker 1 (02:42:53):
Well, the last prong
is that the two prongs is.
One of them is the West has tocut its umbilical cord
supporting a genocidal, racist,ethno-nationalist state, like it
did to South Africa.
As soon as they cut the fundsto it and they boycotted it, it
capitulated and agreed to giveeverybody universal suffrage, so
(02:43:16):
everyone has the right to vote.
So if it's a unitary state,then everyone's equal.
The second prong, of course andmore would probably be
something that would beabsolutely needed is I call it
the Salahuddin peace process orthe Sultan Baybars peace process
, which is it's not the firsttime that we've had invaders in
(02:43:39):
the region massacre the peoplethere, and we've.
We have a historical, tried andtested method, but that requires
unity of the muslims under anislamic system, um, and once we
are united, our resources, um,under the system that the
prophet muhammad bequeathed tous, to unite ourselves, which is
(02:44:01):
the, the successorship to hisposition as the imam of the
jama'at, not as a prophet, butas the imam of the jama'ah not
as a prophet, but as the imam ofthe jama'ah, the leader of the
jama'ah of the Muslims, thekhalifa, successor to his
position as imam, where we uniteunder that system and we unite
our resources and we deal withthe salute, we deal with the
(02:44:24):
ethno-nationalist Zionists whoare killing people and we
prevent them from doing so andwe put entered it and we can.
The region can go back toMuslims, christians and Jews and
Zoroastrians and whoever, allliving together, not under the
need to have thisethno-nationalist.
I must self-determine myself byoppressing you and no, no, I
(02:44:48):
have to tell myself to suppressyou, my ethnic group, my ethnic
group.
No, it's.
Let's remove the equation ofethnic groups and we all have
our different ways of life andreligion and so on.
We all live according to ourreligious beliefs on our ways of
life and our deen, our adiyan,without needing to impose on
each other.
We can give down, we can, butwe can.
It's not about ethnic groupsupremacy anymore.
(02:45:11):
That's the islamic solution.
But I will end with one finalshocker, and that's it, and I
promise it's the final one.
Okay, I thought I had promisedto the audience that the reason
why mark sykes and alpha balfour, why they support, supported
Zionism, would shock you, aswell as Lloyd George and
potentially Winston Churchill.
And they mentioned there was areason that they thought they
(02:45:35):
should support Palestine to be anational homeland for Jews.
World War I was happening andMark Sykes believed they needed
all the help they could get.
So did Lloyd George, so didRafa Balfour.
They believed in theanti-Semitic trope of a Jewish
(02:45:56):
world conspiracy that Jews hadcontrol over.
They can make things difficultfor people, their enemies, and
they all were somehow united.
And I have some quotes thatwill make your toes curl as to
what they mentioned.
Sykes talks about.
He says that we need to to get,promise them palestine to get
(02:46:17):
them on board so that they candisrupt germany and cause
dissension.
Otherwise, if germany promisesthem palestine first, they'll
cause trouble for us and disruptthe allies at war efforts.
And arthur balfour said, and I,I think the only way I can do
justice is to quote him becauseit's so unbelievable.
(02:46:38):
You're saying abdullah, I, Ineed to hear it.
Yes, you know, like, uh, Ibelieve you, but I have to see
it for myself and I will get thequote for you and I'm just
going to quote it to you here.
All right, so he meets with theadvisor to Woodrow Wilson,
(02:46:58):
lieutenant Edward Mandel House,and they have a meeting and this
is recorded in the diary Entrydated December the 31st 1918.
So he talks about Balfour.
Balfour has arrived from Londonthis afternoon.
I spent nearly two hours withhim.
Okay, very good.
And they talk about the currentsituations in the world.
And then he said this hepresented a very curious theory
(02:47:25):
regarding the Jews, referring toArthur Balfour.
Some told him and he's inclinedto believe it that nearly all
of Bolshevism and disturbance ofa like nature are directly
traceable to the Jews of theworld.
They seem determined either tohave what they want or to absent
(02:47:47):
present civilization, Isuggested that we put them in
Palestine at least the best ofthem and hold them responsible
for the orderly behavior of therest of the Jews throughout the
world.
Balfour thought the plan hadmany possibilities.
Oh my gosh that wasn't thefirst quote.
I have others, but time islimited.
We'll save that inshallah forupcoming course, so that we'll
(02:48:16):
be doing yes, where I will packit full of these uh quotations
and and to make sure.
Speaker 2 (02:48:18):
thank you for that
plug, by the way.
Yes, yes, abdullah isdelivering a in-depth palestine
advocacy course and finishingoff a book for sapiens institute
.
Watch this space, yep, last fewseconds, what you want to say,
bro?
Then we'll end?
Barakallah for having me andfinishing off a book for Sapiens
Institute.
Watch this space, yep, last fewseconds, what you want to?
Speaker 1 (02:48:31):
say, bro, barakallahu
feekh for having me and yeah,
get ready for the course.
It's going to have tons of moreshokas and more gems.
May Allah bless you, bro.
It was very informative.
Speaker 2 (02:48:40):
Jazakallah for coming
and it's always a pleasure to
listen to you, bro.
May Allah bless you.
You too, Asala.