September 5, 2025 • 53 mins
In Episode 16 of Weekly UKC Banter, Mike and Jerm unpack the language of war and terrorism, probe the politics of Israel-Palestine, and question how global power plays shape the lives of ordinary people.
More Jerm Warfare: https://www.ukcolumn.org/series/jerm-warfare
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:38):
Mike, I am in my new studio. As you can see behind me, it's
not yet finished. Please forgive the nature of
this recording. Also, there's no Charles here.
No indeed, he is on holiday withhis family and a well deserved
one at that. I got a message this morning,
Mike, in, I don't know, Telegramor whatever it was, someone said
(01:00):
what's happening in Gaza's it the, the, the line was, well,
this is what happens in a war. And it was in response to the
absolutely devastating footage of what's of what we're seeing
there. It's not a war.
That is an excellent point, right?
A war is a conflict between two relatively equal parties, or
(01:25):
maybe multiple relatively equal parties, you know, that are
effectively armed, the same, have the same kinds of budgets
and they're determined to, you know, beat each other up
somewhat. This is not a war in the sense
that, you know, Hamas, no matterwhat you think about Hamas as an
organisation, is a militia. It's not a, it's not a national
(01:46):
army because there is no nation and they have no budget.
And so, you know, the relative, the, the relative disparity
between that that side, the Palestinian side and the Israeli
side is, is what makes this conflict so reprehensible and
what has made the entire situation so reprehensible from
(02:07):
the beginning. And I have to say, Jeremy, you
know, this was this was something a conversation that I
had with, with people that were pro Palestine or, sorry, pro
Israel right back to, you know, October 7.
And it's something that people that are pro Israel don't seem
to get. They think that Israel is
(02:28):
justified in doing anything thatit does because they're dealing
with terrorism. Just to remind everybody that,
you know, the, the, the, the principle of terrorism isn't
even defined. And in fact, one of the things
that this conflict seems to be doing is to, is to be raising
that point. And, and people are starting to
ask the question also, the fact that the, that the Terrorism Act
(02:48):
is being used with such impunityin the United Kingdom to shut
down freedom of speech. These issues are, are raising
the question of, of even what isterrorism.
But the other final point to make on this is the question of
international law in this situation and and the question
of occupation. And because Israel is an
(03:10):
occupying power under international law, Palestinians
have the right to do whatever they feel is necessary to resist
that occupation. And you know, if we think back
to the Second War, World War, for example, the French or the
Belgian resistance groups or theDutch resistance groups or even
(03:33):
the German resistance groups were not considered by Britain
or the United States to be terrorist organisations.
Undoubtedly they were consideredto be terrorist organisations by
the Nazis. So, you know, we've got to be,
we've got to be careful with their definitions.
We've got to be, try to be objective no matter what we
(03:53):
think about, about the thing, try to be objective with, with
our, you know, our observation of what's going on and, and our
use of the word war, because using war in this context is
just completely inappropriate. Well, I just looked up the
definition of terrorism and it says yeah, it's defined as the
(04:13):
unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce
A civilian, population or government with the goal of
furthering political, social or ideological objectives.
You could probably argue, therefore, that Israel is a
terrorist. Well, absolutely, absolutely.
And and Britain and any country that is supporting a conflict
(04:37):
anywhere but. But then the term is fuzzy.
Then the term is. Precisely.
That was exactly what I was about to say.
The problem with that definitionis that that certain terms are
undefined and where's the line drawn?
You know, at the moment Britain is drawing a line with respect
to terrorism that that effectively, if someone throws
some paint on an aeroplane, whether or not it's on an RAF
(05:00):
base is irrelevant. They throw some paint on an
aeroplane, that's a an act of terrorism.
It's, it's not an act of terrorism, that's an act of
protest. And so that's at least in my
mind, that's an act of protest, not an act of terrorism in
somebody else's mind. So because the definition is so
open to, to distortion and, and subjectivity that that in itself
(05:24):
is problematic. But that doesn't, you know, in,
in this case, that doesn't change the fact that the people
of Palestine are subject to, to an occupation and therefore they
have rights under international law.
And this is international law that we have all signed up to.
And so, you know, the fact, the fact that the fact that that our
(05:45):
countries are prepared to say onone hand, yeah, we we are fully
behind the rules based international order,
international law, all these kinds of terms are are bandied
about by our politicians with the full intention of pretty
much ignoring them. OK, but then the term war is
(06:07):
also fuzzy because it would it would imply that there is an
equal force on either side, and as you just pointed out, this is
an occupation. Yeah, I mean this, this does not
the, again, this is not a war. This, this is an occupation.
And and this is a resistance to an occupation.
And this is the absolutely brutal suppression of a
(06:29):
resistance using, you know, methods which are so
disproportionate and, you know, but, but the other point of this
is German that it's absolutely clear now, it's been clear for a
long time that the what the ultimate intention of this is,
and that is to remove Palestinians from Gaza.
(06:51):
And the, the other thing that that's going on, of course, is
while all the focus is on Gaza, similar activities are going on
in the West Bank. And, and in fact, Israel this
week has been attempting to holda meeting.
They tried on Tuesday and it wasput off until Thursday and then
(07:12):
they tried again on Thursday andthey've put it off again.
They were holding a meeting about whether to annex part of
the West Bank following the demands by Britain and France
that they would recognise the Palestinian state.
Now, my personal view of this recognition of Palestinian state
(07:33):
is the these claims from Britainand France is that they're
basically telling Israel to get on with it because if they don't
achieve their goals by a certaindate, you know this.
So this is about putting pressure on Israel to get on
with things. Nonetheless, Israel has as, As
for whatever reason, I suspect because they don't feel that
(07:55):
they can get on with things as quickly as, as they're being
encouraged to, that they were considering annexing part of the
West Bank to sort of minimise the the implications of a
recognition of a Palestinian state.
But UAE has stepped in and said,well, no, if you do that, we're
going to withdraw from the Abraham Accord.
(08:16):
So, so Israel's now dropped thatidea again for the meantime, but
this is an idea that has come come up periodically.
So, so undoubtedly it's going tocome up again in the future.
But you know this, this is a country which is, which is
behaving absolutely beyond any sense of reasonableness.
But of course any criticism of that is subject to accusations
(08:39):
of anti Semitism. And this whole conflation of
anti Zionism and anti semitism Ithink is really problematic.
You said international. Law.
I swore yes. It doesn't mean anything.
That's that's not true. I think that I think that
(09:02):
Western governments are trying to make it not mean anything.
They certainly are ignoring it when it, when they, when it
suits them. I think that Russia and China
have been pretty reasonable in their in their observance of
international law in the last lot of years.
(09:23):
That is much to the disgust of the United States, the United
Kingdom and other countries on the UN Security Council, because
Russia and China have used theirveto to really limit the the
scope of some of the bad behaviour that that Britain and
the United States have wanted topursue.
On the other hand, Britain and the United, well, Britain
(09:46):
doesn't veto anything. Britain only abstains.
It doesn't ever vote against anything in the Security
Council. That's a policy decision, but
the, the United States is quite happy to use this veto And the,
the, the, the contrast that I would make here is that Russia
and China use their veto to prevent conflict and to prevent
war. Britain and the United, well,
(10:07):
the United States on Britain's behalf, uses the veto to
maintain conflict and maintain war.
And, and that is for the last 20years, that's absolutely the
model that has been used. So, you know, there's lots to
criticise Russia and China about, but in this respect and
and with respect to international law, they have
absolutely been on the right side of events.
(10:29):
OK, All right. That's interesting.
I suppose so there are there aresome countries that are playing
by the rules, Israel not being I'm.
Not going to say they're, they're always playing by the
rules, but they're certainly doing a lot better job at it
than than than our countries are, yes.
But I mean, so if Israel is not playing by the rules, what does
(10:52):
it mean ultimately if South Africa supposedly took them to
court? What came of that?
Yeah, look, South Africa is, is doing what South Africa can do.
The, the, the so called global Sis doing what they can do at the
end of the day, you know, without the majority support
(11:14):
within the UN Security Council, Israel is clearly getting the go
ahead to do whatever it likes that that's with the open
support of of Britain in the United States and, and, you
know, outside of the Security Council of other European
countries. That's our problem.
We've got to deal with that. And, and of course, this is this
(11:34):
is where the system falls down in a sense, because it relies on
everybody's recognition of theirrole in upholding international
law. And, and we are not fulfilling
our obligations because partly because our, our societies are
completely split on this issue. And but you know, the fact, the
fact of the matter is that that increasing numbers of people are
(11:56):
recognising what's going on here.
Increasing numbers of people aremaking their, their feelings
felt about it. And you know, I was, I was
fascinated that if you, if you went to any of the pro Palestine
demonstrations in the UK since 7th of October, you generally
(12:17):
saw, you know, immigrant left wing Asian or Middle Eastern
faces in the, in the, in the, inthe, in the demonstration until
the UK banned or prescribed Palestine action.
And whenever the following demonstration happened, which
(12:39):
was there to to basically support in support of Palestine
action and demand that the UK drop this defining Palestine
action as a terrorist organisation.
The faces in the in the crowd were quite different.
They were white, they were middle class, they were doctors,
they were lawyers. This was something that this was
a demographic in the UK that wasnot out on the on the pro
(13:02):
Palestine demonstration, at least not significantly out on
those demonstrations over the last couple of years.
And, and suddenly this what whatas soon as the British
government was perceived to havetaking a step too far in the
shutting down of, of freedom of speech and the right to gather
and the right to demonstrate andthe right to demand that
something changed. Then those people came out in
(13:24):
support and that. So I think I think there's
there's although none of this isactually stopping Israel doing
what it's doing. There is massive pressure on
Israel at the moment and and that needs to build even
further. But you know, as I say, the
problem here is the the society is divided on the issue.
(13:45):
Yeah. I mean, when you talk about
occupation, the immediate response is no, it's the country
and multiple countries around the world recognise Israel as a
country. So therefore it's not an
occupation. It is now a legitimate country,
no? No, no, with the hip Gaza is not
part of Israel and and in fact, Israel has built a big, huge,
big wall around it to make sure that it's not part of Israel.
(14:07):
The West Bank is not part of Israel either.
So it's an occupation in the sense that there are, you know,
that that Gaza is a has a for a long time effectively been an
open air prison in the sense that there's a wall around it
that people cannot come and go freely.
There are watchtowers and regular places with people with
guns and, and people with, with at all those guns have been
(14:30):
using those guns with impunity. So, you know, you, you began
this conversation by talking about a video that you'd seen of
children being killed. Well, the point is that this has
been going on for a very, very long time.
Well, well beyond, further back than the 7th of October.
And, you know, no matter what wethink about the 7th of October,
(14:52):
you know, many, many people, people within Gaza saw that as
being a, a reaction to the typesof terrorism.
I'm going to use that word in this case that Israel has been
perpetrating on Gaza for a long time.
It's not the first time that Gaza has been bombed.
You know, Israel has used reallyvery unpleasant like white
(15:14):
phosphorus bombs, for example, weapon weaponry.
This is actually illegal under international law, but they did
it anyway. And, and so, you know, Israel
has been behaving this way towards Gaza for a very long
time. That's where the occupation is
not, not within Israel itself. I got a, a, another comment from
(15:34):
somebody part of the same discussion who said, yes, I'm
being ignorant because Israel, Mike pulled out.
It withdrew from Gaza in 2005 or2006, you know, and it was the
Gazans, Mike, who voted in Hamas.
And they must now deal with the consequences of having Hamas as
their government. I think that's a pretty loaded
(16:00):
statement. Look, Hamas is 2 things.
It's, it's like Sinn Fein IRA, it's, it's two things.
It's got a political wing, whichis the part of it which runs the
the country in a or the, the territory in a sense.
And and it has the militia. But Israel never really
withdrew, did they? Because they're constantly
(16:22):
attacking. And no.
And they they controlled the seaspace and and the air space too.
Precisely. You know, anybody that tries to,
I mean, it's, it's often the case that that Gazans who go
fishing for food are being attacked by Israel.
Israel is constantly attacked orwas constantly attacking into
Gaza. And, you know, I want to just
(16:44):
make it absolutely clear here. I'm not an expert on this.
So, so, you know, I'm, I'm giving my thoughts on, on my
awareness of it. There are many other people
that, that understand the, the, the sort of detail of what has
happened over the years much better than I do.
So, so, you know, don't take my word for this.
Go to those voices. Yes, but you are allowed to have
(17:07):
an opinion and I think this is where where people fall apart.
They'll go well, have you been there?
Well, you're just following the propaganda line.
So I'll quote Al Jazeera. Yes, but that's that's anti
Israel propaganda. OK, well what about the point
is, is that how do you philtre through?
Someone might say yes, but the videos you saw of babies or
children being killed, that's propaganda to make you hate
(17:29):
Israel. Ultimately, you're sitting now
with the situation, Mike, of thefog of war propaganda.
Yeah, but it's not a war. So, so, so right.
I have look this this conflict, this conflict, this occupation,
this is something very differentto anything else that's going on
(17:51):
in the world. And the reason for that and the
reason that I really have trouble with people that support
Israel's actions here, is it notin all cases, but more often
than not, the reason they support it is because of some
kind of religious or ideologicalbelief in Israel as being
(18:13):
something that existed in biblical times.
And that this is the modern iteration of that.
And therefore the chosen people,but the chosen country and so
on. And, and therefore it has the
right to do whatever it likes because God said so.
And that, that that is often theview of, of people.
(18:33):
And I'm have a real problem with, with people that call
themselves Christians or call themselves Jews, who are, you
know, who are religious and, andbelieve in a God and believe in
the 10 commandments and so on. And are prepared to settle that
aside because of some notion that they have in their own
minds that that this nation state, which is nothing whatever
(18:57):
to do with anything that happened historically, is it
somehow represents what happenedhistorically and therefore has
the right to treat human beings like animals.
And this is really something which is beyond the pale as far
as I'm concerned. We've got to look at this
conflict objectively. We've got to consider that the
(19:18):
people that are on the receivingend of the of the bullets, the
bombs are, you know, human beings and they should be.
They have rights and Israel doesnot have rights in this case.
So, you know, we know also that there's that aside from all of
that thing that that behind what's going on here is this
this big geopolitical game for control of West, Southwest Asia.
(19:43):
And and also now with Trump, we've got this third element of
the so called Trumps Riviera where he's basically looking at
this as some fantastic property deal, some fast, fantastic, you
know, financial opportunity thathe can take a turn turn Gaza
into some kind of. Dubai equivalent and and just
(20:05):
basically kick, kick the the people that have lived there out
of that area and throw them intothe desert and say off you go
look after yourselves. You know they're they're this is
this thing is wrong in so many levels.
It's unbelievable. And and the people that are pro
Israel I think need to take a step back and and consider this.
Yeah. Did you see that Breitbart
(20:26):
article where it's said that Trump has made a suggestion of
removing everybody from Gaza forabout 10 years, like just about
10 years, so they can rebuild itand make it into some sort of
Singapore, Hong Kong type super advanced country?
No. No, they're not going to make it
into a Singapore, Hong Kong typesuper advanced country.
(20:46):
They're going to make it into. They're going to make it into a
playground for the rich and the powerful.
And there's no, there is not onesingle person that's currently
residing there that's still alive, that is going to get back
there after this job is done right, That this, this is a lie.
Now we've got to remember who created this, this plan.
(21:07):
And you know, it was a number oforganisations, but the Tony
Blair Institute was absolutely involved in this.
And so you know that but, and this is something that Trump is
clearly very, very keen to, to get involved with because he's a
property dealer at the end of the day.
And this is, this is kept well. Well, there's some debate about
(21:30):
that and how much money is actually made successfully on
these property deals. But nonetheless, you know, he,
he clearly sees this as a massive opportunity.
And if it wasn't for these, you know, silly poor people that
need to get up, get the hell outof the way, you know, it's, it's
despicable. Yeah, I was thinking more
(21:51):
philosophically, Mike, how, how do you actually engage in this
kind of conversation? Because it's, it's a forever
debate, right? It's always going to be
polarised. It's black and white, it's
binary. That's it, right.
You, I'm, I'm not a Jew, I'm notan Arab, right.
So I don't actually have a dog in that fight pretty much the
same as you, but I do I do feel that innocent people.
(22:15):
No, I look, I'm going to interrupt you there 'cause I
think you do have a dog in this fight.
I think that anybody that considers themselves a human
being has a dog in this fight because, because, because at the
end of the day is basic morality.
And do we believe that some the state has the right to or people
have the right to kill each other?
(22:36):
We do in certain circumstances. This is defined as we've already
talked about in this conversation, if you are
suffering oppression as a resultof an occupation they have you
have the right to armed resistance.
Everybody agrees that that's correct.
We also agree in all the variousinternational lodge and even
conventions all the rest. We also agree that Israel has no
(22:58):
right to do what it's doing. And that's written down in black
and white in principle right now, the fact that, that, that
our governments are prepared. Well, I'm not, I shouldn't say
our governments because because your government hasn't done
this. Your government has attempted
to, to take this situation to the International Criminal
Court. But my government, the United
(23:19):
States government, EU governments have decided that
that international law and, and basic human rights should be set
aside in this case. And you know that, that there's
nothing else to say here, that that this is there, there, there
are basic principles in place that we are choosing to ignore.
(23:40):
And that, that aside from from what you think about is, you
know, Israel's right to exist asa, as a state, as an entity, no
matter what you think about that, that should be where this
conversation comes back to. What I was going to ask you is
(24:00):
how do you actually engage because this is so heated, it's
so polarised. I just yesterday I chatted to
somebody and they are vigilant, militant in their response.
Israel is defending itself. It doesn't want to be wiped off
the face of Earth, Mike. Yes.
How do you, how do you engage with it?
(24:22):
You can't engage with that because that there's something
ideological about that position.There's something fundamentally
there's something else going on because yes, it is absolutely
wrong. It's it's, it's wrong because
what threat at the end of the day to the existence?
Now, we're not talking about individual killings or
individual acts here. What that person was talking
(24:46):
about is the existence of Israel.
Now, what possible thing can Hamas do to affect the existence
of Israel? Absolutely nothing.
They don't have the weaponry forit.
Now, if if you're saying that Hamas is supported by Iran and
that Iran has the capability of dealing with Israel, that is
(25:09):
true. But I would like to somebody to
point. Out to be.
Well, I'd like somebody to pointout to me an example of when
Iran proactively attacked Israelwithout having been attacked
first. Now the issue of Iran, Israel
(25:29):
relations relations is, is something which is for the
international community. It's not, it's not an open
conflict at the moment, but Iranis and other places are.
I mean, obviously Hamas is getting it's, it's limited
weaponry from somewhere. And so I presume, I don't know
(25:49):
for a fact, but I presume that Iran has something to do with
that. I don't see that that is somehow
an existential threat to Israel because Iran is not providing
Hamas with nuclear bombs, you know, So Israel is a nuclear
armed state. It has every piece of Western
(26:11):
built technological killing hardware the the available to it
that it could possibly ask for. It seems to have unlimited
supplies of it. Whatever Hamas has has to be
smuggled into the country under the nose of of Israel.
And therefore, you know what, what possible existential threat
(26:31):
can Hamas be? It is completely irrational.
It's ridiculous position for anybody to take and and it's
just justification for brutalityand murder.
While you were talking, I got a message from Vanessa Bailey
regarding her disappointment in the BRICS countries around Gaza.
And in a previous discussion I had with Vanessa, she also
(26:53):
expressed a disappointment in the Arab countries that does.
They just don't seem to care. What do you think is going on?
I think that that I mean, that'ssuch a big that's about such a
big question. If it take the the Arab look, I
think that any country who is, who thinks that they can in any
(27:17):
way negotiate with the West or or behave in a certain way
because actually they're scared of the West.
You know, if so, Arab countries want to stay in bed with
Britain, the United States for their, you know, for their own
ends because for no other reason, perhaps.
(27:37):
I mean, I don't know what's in their minds, but I'm just
speculating here. They're, they're looking at the,
the behaviour of Britain and theUnited States over the last
40-50 years and they're saying, well, we don't want to be on the
receiving end of that. So we've got to be their
friends. I, I can see why that would be
as a thought process that would go through anybody's head.
I, I think that, I think it's more than economic.
(28:00):
I, I think that, that, you know,Britain and Britain, the United
States, the West has demonstrated A willingness to
bomb the crap out of a country for the sake of regime change
because they didn't like the, the cut of, of a particular
leader's jib. You know, if we look at Iraq, we
look at Syria, we look at Libya,you know, this, the, the, the
(28:23):
demonstration has been made timeafter time after time.
And each time these things happened, it was under very
questionable international law situation.
So, so we have the West has demonstrated time and again that
it's willing to set aside international law for its own
geopolitical ends. And so any country in the, in
(28:45):
Southwest Asia, Arab countries are looking at this and, and you
know, I would say they're, they're looking at the world
with some nervousness and, and they're attempting to stay in
certain people's good books. I, I think that's not the right
approach personally. Now, As for the bricks, again,
(29:06):
we're looking at a situation where people are still playing
geopolitical games. They're still wanting to have
influence in certain areas. And there there's massive
competition between, in Southwest Asia, between Belton
Road and other so called economic corridors, which are
(29:28):
more aligned with, with, you know, ideas for economic
corridors which are more alignedwith, with Western countries.
And so, you know, I'd, I completely understand Vanessa's
position on this and agree with it, but there isn't really a but
here. The, the reason for it, I think
(29:49):
is, is, is because of the, the, for the reasons we've just
discussed for, for geopolitical reasons.
And, and, you know, at the end of the day, that's, that's
something that, that needs to change.
You know, in the last few days we've had the, the, uh,
Shanghai, uh, corporation organisation, uh, meeting, we've
had Modi shaking hands with Xi Jinping for the first time and
(30:13):
basically saying, well, we appreciate that there's been a
border conflict between India and China, but, but we're going
to set that aside and, and, and build something together.
We had for the commemoration of the, the defeat of Japan in the
Second World War, Putin and and Kim Jong Un.
(30:34):
So, you know, China has has clearly is clearly hoping that
North Korea is going to come back into the fold as it were
and not be such a pariah state. You know the the point.
Here is Yeah, sorry. Go on.
Yeah, no, no, you why? Tell us why you're laughing.
(30:55):
Because North Korea is like, it's this, it's this weird.
It's just this weird scenario. It's like a situation.
It's not even a country. I don't know what, I don't know
what's going on. I know nothing about North.
Korea, I'm going to, I'm going to say something different
there. I have massive respect for North
Korea right now. I'm not particularly, I don't
have massive respect for its political system.
(31:15):
But the fact of the matter is that North Korea took a decision
that it was not going to put capitulate to Western demands
that it behaved in a certain way.
And North Korea has absolutely suffered.
It has absolutely suffered as a result.
They are extremely poor. And like I say, I'm not going
(31:35):
to, I'm not going to say that I'm any kind of a fan of of Kim
Jong Un or his father or the waythat that country is governed
internally. But the fact that they basically
stuck 2 fingers up at the West and said you do you, you run
your sanctions regime, you do whatever you like.
(31:56):
We are not, we are not going to become your your sort of puppets
in the world. I think that's got to be
respected. It'd be great if many more
countries did that. But but you know, coming back to
the, to the Russia, China thing and Israel, yeah, they, I think
they, if they are going to at least use the language of, of
(32:20):
saying we stand for international law and we want a
level playing field and we want win, win and all these kinds of
things. They, they need to be much
stronger on taking a position over Israel's behaviour.
There's no question about that in my, in my mind.
But in in the meantime, as I say, there's lots of positives
going on in that part of the world as well.
(32:41):
Mike, you were talking earlier about the problems arising from
being ideologically driven around this sort of thing named
pro Israel or or anti Palestine or whatever it might be.
But if if any of the neighbouring Arab countries like
the Gulf States or whatever, that all the countries from the
Levant or whatever, if they got involved, would that not also be
(33:06):
an ideological imposition of sorts?
No, no, I was talking about people in in the West who
support Israel are doing so often from an ideological
standpoint and therefore willingto ignore or even in some cases
support brutality. Not because they think it's not
(33:30):
because they think that in and of itself it's the right thing
to do, but because because they think that for biblical reasons,
Israel has the right to do this.And, and I think, I think when
you set aside your principles onthat basis, then you're on a
slippery slope to a bad place. No, no, no.
Yeah, sorry. You're correct.
What I was asking is, do you think that I being ideological
(33:54):
is not always a bad thing? It's basically what I'm asking
because if you if you're ideological for principled
reasons, then it's then it's fine.
Like let's say, let's say. As long as it's not
hypocritical. I mean right if you know the.
Basis Egypt. Egypt.
Let's say no. Egypt.
No, but no. Hold on a second.
No, hold on a second, Jerm. The basis of Christian and
(34:17):
Jewish ideology is the 10 commandments.
The 10 commandments, depending how you interpret it.
Some say that the that the relevant commandment is thou
shalt not kill. Others say it's thou shalt not
murder again, we're back to definitions and and whether
whether Israel's activity is murder or not.
(34:40):
And but the fact of the matter is, and I think if you're being
objective about it, that particular commandment is
without question being very severely challenged by what's
going on here. And the fact that people, Jews
and Christians are prepared to set aside that commandment,
(35:01):
which is supposed to be the absolute foundation of their
entire ideology for the sake of political expediency.
Is, is that's, that's that's theissue here.
Now I would suggest that that that religious wars, wars based
on ideology are never good. And that is something that that
(35:23):
is a you know, since the fall ofthe Roman Empire until pretty
much the modern day religious wars have been a feature big and
small. Even where I grew up with it was
a feature for 30 years. So, you know, I think it is, I
think religious wars are really the stupidest type of war that
(35:44):
you can possibly have because it's, it's for no other reason
than than what you believe. I mean, for goodness sake, it's
not even a war over water or resources.
It's a war over ideology. And this is the most ridiculous
excuse for killing people that Ican possibly imagine.
So I know I had to. So to answer your question, I
don't believe there's ever a a Ause for an ideological
(36:09):
justification or I don't think there's ever a justification
ideologically for war. An interesting converse
consequence of this whole thing is that it's created also
extreme antagonism and animositytowards Jews.
(36:32):
I think that that is, I'm not going to say the fault, but
it's, it's, it's the, the Jews are their own worst enemy in
this case. Because, because although there
are significant numbers of Jews who, who are openly anti Zionist
(36:53):
and some real really thoughtful people like Gilad Atzman, for
example, who, who are making have been making this argument
for a very long time, you know, an anti Zionist argument for a
very long time. Yes.
Well, indeed, there are a numberof of really excellent voices on
(37:14):
this. The the fact of the matter is
that that the, the use of Jewishmoney and the Zionist lobby as
it's described to shut down any criticism on the basis that anti
Zionism or anti Israel sentimentis somehow anti Jewish sentiment
(37:37):
is really problematic. It's it's, it's beyond
problematic. It's just, it's, it's
reprehensible. And, and of course the, the
Jewish community themselves kindof fall for this narrative and,
and automatically feel that thatan attack on, on the behaviour
of, of one particular political ideology is an attack on them,
(38:00):
when in fact it's not. Now, I'm, I absolutely think
that anybody that throws stones at a synagogue on the basis of
what's going on in Israel, I think that that's ridiculous.
There are other ways to to to give opposition to what's going
on. Stop buying products that are
(38:22):
that are, you know, produced in Israel or or connected to Israel
in some way. Certainly absolutely support the
idea of protest against anybody that's manufacturing arms for
Israel or shipping arms for Israel.
I'm totally in support of anybody that verbally criticises
(38:47):
Zionism or Israel's and certainly their right to make
those criticisms. But yeah, I mean, I don't see
that, that, you know, violence against the person, any person
is anything other than utterly hypocritical.
You know, if we're going to criticise Israel for what it's
doing, it's, it seems to be ridiculous to go around and beat
(39:08):
up, you know, the nearest Jewishperson that you can find.
This is this is beyond hypocritical.
I wonder if this is just a neverending a never ending debate,
no? I don't think it's AI, don't
think it's a never ending debate.
I think it appears never ending because at this point in time
(39:31):
the Zionist lobby is so powerful.
But I think that is absolutely changing and I think that that
that October the 7th has has done a lot to change that.
Now, the, the cost for the Palestinians has been
horrendous, but I think that thetide is without question, the
tide is turning. And the fact that we are having
(39:52):
this conversation, I, I'm absolutely optimistic on the
long term basis. I'm utterly pessimistic on a
short term basis because I thinkthat that, that a lot, a lot
more people are going to have topay the ultimate cost before,
before that situation changes. I mean, I think, I think that,
(40:13):
you know, the brutality that's on.
That's on show here is, is beyond anything that that can be
possibly justified. But you know, but so many are
are dying on on a daily basis that that, you know, by the time
that that this opposition buildsto a point where where it can't
happen anymore, there's going tobe significant further loss.
(40:35):
And I think that is that's whereI'm pessimistic.
I'm optimistic in the end because I think that that you
know, that, that, that what is being done is just is, is so
reprehensible. It can't be ignored on a long
term basis. And, and ultimately it's going
to, it's going to, I think see the end of Israel as a state.
I think Israel is, is very closeto, to, I think their own
(41:00):
behaviour is the existential threat here.
Not, not, not anything that's coming from outside.
That's a good point. Do you reckon they'll make 100
years? No, not.
Not if they continue this policyand and and you know, as I
honestly think not if they continue this policy.
So, you know, we we all we always have to remember that
(41:22):
that Israel as a state, as an entity is a creation of Britain
and it it was imposed on the region and it was imposed on the
region. We understand why it was imposed
on the region for geopolitical reasons.
And it would be really nice if, if the Jewish community as a
(41:44):
whole recognised that they were pawns in this game as much as
the Arabs are pawns in this game.
And, and I think part of the problem here is that that we are
ordinary people of whatever colour, creed and and so on, are
not recognising what's going on here.
We're, we're absolutely determined to fight with each
(42:07):
other. We're due against Muslim, Muslim
against Christian, Christian against whatever we, we are
determined to fight. We're just, we are continually
played by global elites. And this is just another one of
those games. And, and I, I, I use the word
game there because for them it is a game for us.
(42:29):
It's of course, it's much more serious when we're on the
receiving end of these games. You know, they, they used to
call it the great game, the whole geopolitical thing and for
them it is just a game. We've got to start recognising
who the real enemy is and, and start recognising that we are
many and they are few. And as Shelly said, we need to
(42:53):
rise like lions. I've often said that our enemies
are not those to our left and right, but those who are above
us. I.
Mean this that that is such a great point because because
those to our left and right are on are on our left and right
because they've because they andwe have fallen for this paradigm
that we're somehow you know thatthat although we've got
(43:16):
different views that suddenly makes us somehow enemies and
therefore we've got to fight each other this this whole
people on my left and my right thing is something which has
been done to us it's it's. That's a good point, Mike.
Sorry, Yeah, I'm just jumping inthere.
The the the the whole left rightdichotomy has caused so many
(43:36):
issues. Yeah, because we fall for it
every time, you know? It's all about left wing or
right wing this. Yeah.
Well, well, look, the first stepin my opinion, the first step to
to to objectivity here is to recognise that that left and
right is not a a straight line where you've got an extreme left
(44:00):
on one side, an extreme right onthe on.
When you actually look at if you, if you look at what are
considered extreme left and extreme right regimes in the
last in history and we look at the behaviour of the those
regimes, you show me, you know, a fund a significant difference
in, in those regimes, whether they're extreme left or extreme
(44:23):
right. So we should be looking at this
so called left right spectrum asa circle with, with the extremes
joining because because there's very little to, to very little
difference to be seen in, in extreme left wing and extreme
right wing regimes that their behaviour is the same.
(44:44):
So, so we're not on a straight line and and we should, we
should recognise that being at the extremes is not necessarily
where we want to be. Yeah.
But Mike, the human condition, unfortunately, is such that you
have somebody like Donald Trump comes in and he's a bit of a pot
piper. He's very likeable in many ways,
(45:04):
which is what a populist does. He's he's good at being
likeable. And suddenly he brings millions
and millions and millions of people back into the system,
back into that, that binary way of thinking.
Which is why we're doomed to repeat this kind of situation
until we grow up. It's really that simple in my
mind. Well, on that note, but I mean
(45:29):
like I'm trying to, I'm still trying to establish, I know I
asked you this earlier, but I'm still stuck on this because I've
recently had this conversation with somebody close to me and I
don't know how to engage. I just don't know.
Do what do you do? Do you just be quiet and smile
and not or like I'm I'm trying to figure out because it always
(45:50):
becomes a heated argument and that goes no way.
Right. So, so well, this, this all this
is a a good point. This all depends on your view of
conversations like that. So I'm good to say to you that
there are times where I, in a gathering, for example, I hear
(46:11):
somebody saying something which is just so absolutely wrong.
And I know that it's wrong. And there are times actually,
I'm thinking, well, how do I, how do I communicate with this
person? And I actually don't know.
And so I stay silent and I don'tknow how to communicate with
that person. That's, that's an opportunity
for me to go away and consider, well, the next time that
(46:32):
situation arises, how am I goingto deal with it?
How am I going to? And, and so that helps me learn
the same with the heated conversations because inevitably
there's going to be positions taken on either side of the
conversation that the other person doesn't know how to
respond to or doesn't have a response to other than to shout
(46:54):
a bit louder. And of course, once you start
shouting a bit louder, then you've you've effectively lost
the argument at that point. These are opportunities because
you know, what that says is thatI have not considered that that
point before. And so I haven't got an answer
for it. And if I haven't got an answer
(47:14):
for something, then I've got to find an answer for it.
So, so that's a time to start thinking about, about that
particular point. And, and you know, in that's in
the process of doing that, if you do that, you're, you're
potentially adjusting your own position as well.
Because as I've said this many, many times, my view is, and I
try to do this as much as I can,my, my position on anything is
(47:39):
not fixed because I may not haveall the evidence.
So I've drawn A conclusion, I'vemade an analysis, but, but it's
not actually a conclusion in thesense that it can't be changed.
So, you know, I, I think we should be always challenging our
own positions and our own precepts and, and, and the first
(47:59):
person that we should be arguingwith is ourselves.
But these these conversations wehave with other people where
we're left in exactly the situation you described, Jerm,
are conversations that we shouldbe absolutely enthusiastic about
taking part in because they helpus hone our our own skills and
(48:19):
our own arguments. Sharpening the sword?
Absolutely, Mike. OK, let's come in for a landing.
I guess the moral of the story is A to to try not take sides
(48:41):
other than that of what what it means to be human.
That's what that's your initial point.
And then also to try and not getinto a heated debate with
somebody unless you're able to objectively as much as possible,
or rationally think about your own position and hold up the
(49:03):
mirror and challenge yourself atthe same time so that you're
able to engage in a meaningful way, right?
Well, I mean, I'm not going to say don't, I'm not ever going to
say don't get involved in that. I mean, I, I actually would say
do get involved in those arguments because that's that's,
that helps, as I say, that helpshone your, your own position.
(49:23):
But yeah, I mean, I appreciate that that it's very, very
difficult to take an objective view on what's going on with
with some issues. But but look, the bottom line is
this germ the the countries in Southwest Asia, in North Africa,
(49:45):
in the Horn of Africa in state. Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang
on. Sorry, sorry, sorry.
Before you go any further, Southwest Asia is an interesting
term. A lot of people will say Gulf
States. That's what you're referring to,
right? No, I'm referring to the whole
Middle East region, which may include the Gulf states.
But but the what I was going to say there, what was I going to
(50:08):
say there? I'm so sorry.
I shouldn't have broken your train of thought, but it's that.
But that's an interesting idea, The Southwest Asia aspect, being
part of the Gulf states, that's something I didn't think about
until only a few months ago. Yeah, yes, sorry.
You, you, You said North Africa.Oh yeah, yeah, right, right.
My point was going to be if if we look objectively and
(50:33):
carefully at what's happened in those countries, at what's going
on in Sudan, I mean the the Sudan is another conflict which
is, which is basically flying under the radar at the moment.
We find tactics being used thereby foreign influence, Britain,
the United States, EU, France, Germany, whatever it happens to
(50:56):
be, tactics being used to dividesocieties there which are
resulting in real physical combat, conflict and real death,
destruction, suffering, hunger. We need to, with respect to
Israel, Palestine and and Iran, and in fact the region as a
(51:21):
whole, we need, one of the things we absolutely need to do
is to take a step back, start looking at it objectively, look
at the tactics that are being used there.
And then make a comparison to what's going on in our own
countries with respect to immigration and the way that we
are being manipulated over around that narrative and how
(51:45):
close we already are to open civil conflict.
Not going to go as far as sayingcivil war at this point, but I
don't think it's too far away. This country, European
countries, even the United States in some way, some ways
are at boiling point on this issue.
And that has been, that is a created situation using very
(52:06):
similar tactics to have been used in the Middle East slash
Southwest Asia. We got to start recognising the
symptoms and trying to decide who what the cause of those
symptoms actually is. Otherwise we're going to find
ourselves in exactly the same position that those people are
(52:26):
in. And that this is, you know, the,
the old, it's a cliche. I know that the old saying, you
know, if you're unfamiliar with history, you're dimmed to repeat
it. This is really important.
I think one of the things that people need to do is to look
carefully at at how empires manage themselves and see the
(52:51):
parallels to what's going on today.
OK Mike from my half assed studio, I'll catch you.
I'll catch up with you next week.
Mike, I am in my new studio. As you can see behind me, it's
not yet finished. Please forgive the nature of
this recording. Also, there's no Charles here.
No indeed, he is on holiday withhis family and a well deserved
one at that. I got a message this morning,
Mike, in, I don't know, Telegramor whatever it was, someone said
(01:00):
what's happening in Gaza's it the, the, the line was, well,
this is what happens in a war. And it was in response to the
absolutely devastating footage of what's of what we're seeing
there. It's not a war.
That is an excellent point, right?
A war is a conflict between two relatively equal parties, or
(01:25):
maybe multiple relatively equal parties, you know, that are
effectively armed, the same, have the same kinds of budgets
and they're determined to, you know, beat each other up
somewhat. This is not a war in the sense
that, you know, Hamas, no matterwhat you think about Hamas as an
organisation, is a militia. It's not a, it's not a national
(01:46):
army because there is no nation and they have no budget.
And so, you know, the relative, the, the relative disparity
between that that side, the Palestinian side and the Israeli
side is, is what makes this conflict so reprehensible and
what has made the entire situation so reprehensible from
(02:07):
the beginning. And I have to say, Jeremy, you
know, this was this was something a conversation that I
had with, with people that were pro Palestine or, sorry, pro
Israel right back to, you know, October 7.
And it's something that people that are pro Israel don't seem
to get. They think that Israel is
(02:28):
justified in doing anything thatit does because they're dealing
with terrorism. Just to remind everybody that,
you know, the, the, the, the principle of terrorism isn't
even defined. And in fact, one of the things
that this conflict seems to be doing is to, is to be raising
that point. And, and people are starting to
ask the question also, the fact that the, that the Terrorism Act
(02:48):
is being used with such impunityin the United Kingdom to shut
down freedom of speech. These issues are, are raising
the question of, of even what isterrorism.
But the other final point to make on this is the question of
international law in this situation and and the question
of occupation. And because Israel is an
(03:10):
occupying power under international law, Palestinians
have the right to do whatever they feel is necessary to resist
that occupation. And you know, if we think back
to the Second War, World War, for example, the French or the
Belgian resistance groups or theDutch resistance groups or even
(03:33):
the German resistance groups were not considered by Britain
or the United States to be terrorist organisations.
Undoubtedly they were consideredto be terrorist organisations by
the Nazis. So, you know, we've got to be,
we've got to be careful with their definitions.
We've got to be, try to be objective no matter what we
(03:53):
think about, about the thing, try to be objective with, with
our, you know, our observation of what's going on and, and our
use of the word war, because using war in this context is
just completely inappropriate. Well, I just looked up the
definition of terrorism and it says yeah, it's defined as the
(04:13):
unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce
A civilian, population or government with the goal of
furthering political, social or ideological objectives.
You could probably argue, therefore, that Israel is a
terrorist. Well, absolutely, absolutely.
And and Britain and any country that is supporting a conflict
(04:37):
anywhere but. But then the term is fuzzy.
Then the term is. Precisely.
That was exactly what I was about to say.
The problem with that definitionis that that certain terms are
undefined and where's the line drawn?
You know, at the moment Britain is drawing a line with respect
to terrorism that that effectively, if someone throws
some paint on an aeroplane, whether or not it's on an RAF
(05:00):
base is irrelevant. They throw some paint on an
aeroplane, that's a an act of terrorism.
It's, it's not an act of terrorism, that's an act of
protest. And so that's at least in my
mind, that's an act of protest, not an act of terrorism in
somebody else's mind. So because the definition is so
open to, to distortion and, and subjectivity that that in itself
(05:24):
is problematic. But that doesn't, you know, in,
in this case, that doesn't change the fact that the people
of Palestine are subject to, to an occupation and therefore they
have rights under international law.
And this is international law that we have all signed up to.
And so, you know, the fact, the fact that the fact that that our
(05:45):
countries are prepared to say onone hand, yeah, we we are fully
behind the rules based international order,
international law, all these kinds of terms are are bandied
about by our politicians with the full intention of pretty
much ignoring them. OK, but then the term war is
(06:07):
also fuzzy because it would it would imply that there is an
equal force on either side, and as you just pointed out, this is
an occupation. Yeah, I mean this, this does not
the, again, this is not a war. This, this is an occupation.
And and this is a resistance to an occupation.
And this is the absolutely brutal suppression of a
(06:29):
resistance using, you know, methods which are so
disproportionate and, you know, but, but the other point of this
is German that it's absolutely clear now, it's been clear for a
long time that the what the ultimate intention of this is,
and that is to remove Palestinians from Gaza.
(06:51):
And the, the other thing that that's going on, of course, is
while all the focus is on Gaza, similar activities are going on
in the West Bank. And, and in fact, Israel this
week has been attempting to holda meeting.
They tried on Tuesday and it wasput off until Thursday and then
(07:12):
they tried again on Thursday andthey've put it off again.
They were holding a meeting about whether to annex part of
the West Bank following the demands by Britain and France
that they would recognise the Palestinian state.
Now, my personal view of this recognition of Palestinian state
(07:33):
is the these claims from Britainand France is that they're
basically telling Israel to get on with it because if they don't
achieve their goals by a certaindate, you know this.
So this is about putting pressure on Israel to get on
with things. Nonetheless, Israel has as, As
for whatever reason, I suspect because they don't feel that
(07:55):
they can get on with things as quickly as, as they're being
encouraged to, that they were considering annexing part of the
West Bank to sort of minimise the the implications of a
recognition of a Palestinian state.
But UAE has stepped in and said,well, no, if you do that, we're
going to withdraw from the Abraham Accord.
(08:16):
So, so Israel's now dropped thatidea again for the meantime, but
this is an idea that has come come up periodically.
So, so undoubtedly it's going tocome up again in the future.
But you know this, this is a country which is, which is
behaving absolutely beyond any sense of reasonableness.
But of course any criticism of that is subject to accusations
(08:39):
of anti Semitism. And this whole conflation of
anti Zionism and anti semitism Ithink is really problematic.
You said international. Law.
I swore yes. It doesn't mean anything.
That's that's not true. I think that I think that
(09:02):
Western governments are trying to make it not mean anything.
They certainly are ignoring it when it, when they, when it
suits them. I think that Russia and China
have been pretty reasonable in their in their observance of
international law in the last lot of years.
(09:23):
That is much to the disgust of the United States, the United
Kingdom and other countries on the UN Security Council, because
Russia and China have used theirveto to really limit the the
scope of some of the bad behaviour that that Britain and
the United States have wanted topursue.
On the other hand, Britain and the United, well, Britain
(09:46):
doesn't veto anything. Britain only abstains.
It doesn't ever vote against anything in the Security
Council. That's a policy decision, but
the, the United States is quite happy to use this veto And the,
the, the, the contrast that I would make here is that Russia
and China use their veto to prevent conflict and to prevent
war. Britain and the United, well,
(10:07):
the United States on Britain's behalf, uses the veto to
maintain conflict and maintain war.
And, and that is for the last 20years, that's absolutely the
model that has been used. So, you know, there's lots to
criticise Russia and China about, but in this respect and
and with respect to international law, they have
absolutely been on the right side of events.
(10:29):
OK, All right. That's interesting.
I suppose so there are there aresome countries that are playing
by the rules, Israel not being I'm.
Not going to say they're, they're always playing by the
rules, but they're certainly doing a lot better job at it
than than than our countries are, yes.
But I mean, so if Israel is not playing by the rules, what does
(10:52):
it mean ultimately if South Africa supposedly took them to
court? What came of that?
Yeah, look, South Africa is, is doing what South Africa can do.
The, the, the so called global Sis doing what they can do at the
end of the day, you know, without the majority support
(11:14):
within the UN Security Council, Israel is clearly getting the go
ahead to do whatever it likes that that's with the open
support of of Britain in the United States and, and, you
know, outside of the Security Council of other European
countries. That's our problem.
We've got to deal with that. And, and of course, this is this
(11:34):
is where the system falls down in a sense, because it relies on
everybody's recognition of theirrole in upholding international
law. And, and we are not fulfilling
our obligations because partly because our, our societies are
completely split on this issue. And but you know, the fact, the
fact of the matter is that that increasing numbers of people are
(11:56):
recognising what's going on here.
Increasing numbers of people aremaking their, their feelings
felt about it. And you know, I was, I was
fascinated that if you, if you went to any of the pro Palestine
demonstrations in the UK since 7th of October, you generally
(12:17):
saw, you know, immigrant left wing Asian or Middle Eastern
faces in the, in the, in the, inthe, in the demonstration until
the UK banned or prescribed Palestine action.
And whenever the following demonstration happened, which
(12:39):
was there to to basically support in support of Palestine
action and demand that the UK drop this defining Palestine
action as a terrorist organisation.
The faces in the in the crowd were quite different.
They were white, they were middle class, they were doctors,
they were lawyers. This was something that this was
a demographic in the UK that wasnot out on the on the pro
(13:02):
Palestine demonstration, at least not significantly out on
those demonstrations over the last couple of years.
And, and suddenly this what whatas soon as the British
government was perceived to havetaking a step too far in the
shutting down of, of freedom of speech and the right to gather
and the right to demonstrate andthe right to demand that
something changed. Then those people came out in
(13:24):
support and that. So I think I think there's
there's although none of this isactually stopping Israel doing
what it's doing. There is massive pressure on
Israel at the moment and and that needs to build even
further. But you know, as I say, the
problem here is the the society is divided on the issue.
(13:45):
Yeah. I mean, when you talk about
occupation, the immediate response is no, it's the country
and multiple countries around the world recognise Israel as a
country. So therefore it's not an
occupation. It is now a legitimate country,
no? No, no, with the hip Gaza is not
part of Israel and and in fact, Israel has built a big, huge,
big wall around it to make sure that it's not part of Israel.
(14:07):
The West Bank is not part of Israel either.
So it's an occupation in the sense that there are, you know,
that that Gaza is a has a for a long time effectively been an
open air prison in the sense that there's a wall around it
that people cannot come and go freely.
There are watchtowers and regular places with people with
guns and, and people with, with at all those guns have been
(14:30):
using those guns with impunity. So, you know, you, you began
this conversation by talking about a video that you'd seen of
children being killed. Well, the point is that this has
been going on for a very, very long time.
Well, well beyond, further back than the 7th of October.
And, you know, no matter what wethink about the 7th of October,
(14:52):
you know, many, many people, people within Gaza saw that as
being a, a reaction to the typesof terrorism.
I'm going to use that word in this case that Israel has been
perpetrating on Gaza for a long time.
It's not the first time that Gaza has been bombed.
You know, Israel has used reallyvery unpleasant like white
(15:14):
phosphorus bombs, for example, weapon weaponry.
This is actually illegal under international law, but they did
it anyway. And, and so, you know, Israel
has been behaving this way towards Gaza for a very long
time. That's where the occupation is
not, not within Israel itself. I got a, a, another comment from
(15:34):
somebody part of the same discussion who said, yes, I'm
being ignorant because Israel, Mike pulled out.
It withdrew from Gaza in 2005 or2006, you know, and it was the
Gazans, Mike, who voted in Hamas.
And they must now deal with the consequences of having Hamas as
their government. I think that's a pretty loaded
(16:00):
statement. Look, Hamas is 2 things.
It's, it's like Sinn Fein IRA, it's, it's two things.
It's got a political wing, whichis the part of it which runs the
the country in a or the, the territory in a sense.
And and it has the militia. But Israel never really
withdrew, did they? Because they're constantly
(16:22):
attacking. And no.
And they they controlled the seaspace and and the air space too.
Precisely. You know, anybody that tries to,
I mean, it's, it's often the case that that Gazans who go
fishing for food are being attacked by Israel.
Israel is constantly attacked orwas constantly attacking into
Gaza. And, you know, I want to just
(16:44):
make it absolutely clear here. I'm not an expert on this.
So, so, you know, I'm, I'm giving my thoughts on, on my
awareness of it. There are many other people
that, that understand the, the, the sort of detail of what has
happened over the years much better than I do.
So, so, you know, don't take my word for this.
Go to those voices. Yes, but you are allowed to have
(17:07):
an opinion and I think this is where where people fall apart.
They'll go well, have you been there?
Well, you're just following the propaganda line.
So I'll quote Al Jazeera. Yes, but that's that's anti
Israel propaganda. OK, well what about the point
is, is that how do you philtre through?
Someone might say yes, but the videos you saw of babies or
children being killed, that's propaganda to make you hate
(17:29):
Israel. Ultimately, you're sitting now
with the situation, Mike, of thefog of war propaganda.
Yeah, but it's not a war. So, so, so right.
I have look this this conflict, this conflict, this occupation,
this is something very differentto anything else that's going on
(17:51):
in the world. And the reason for that and the
reason that I really have trouble with people that support
Israel's actions here, is it notin all cases, but more often
than not, the reason they support it is because of some
kind of religious or ideologicalbelief in Israel as being
(18:13):
something that existed in biblical times.
And that this is the modern iteration of that.
And therefore the chosen people,but the chosen country and so
on. And, and therefore it has the
right to do whatever it likes because God said so.
And that, that that is often theview of, of people.
(18:33):
And I'm have a real problem with, with people that call
themselves Christians or call themselves Jews, who are, you
know, who are religious and, andbelieve in a God and believe in
the 10 commandments and so on. And are prepared to settle that
aside because of some notion that they have in their own
minds that that this nation state, which is nothing whatever
(18:57):
to do with anything that happened historically, is it
somehow represents what happenedhistorically and therefore has
the right to treat human beings like animals.
And this is really something which is beyond the pale as far
as I'm concerned. We've got to look at this
conflict objectively. We've got to consider that the
(19:18):
people that are on the receivingend of the of the bullets, the
bombs are, you know, human beings and they should be.
They have rights and Israel doesnot have rights in this case.
So, you know, we know also that there's that aside from all of
that thing that that behind what's going on here is this
this big geopolitical game for control of West, Southwest Asia.
(19:43):
And and also now with Trump, we've got this third element of
the so called Trumps Riviera where he's basically looking at
this as some fantastic property deal, some fast, fantastic, you
know, financial opportunity thathe can take a turn turn Gaza
into some kind of. Dubai equivalent and and just
(20:05):
basically kick, kick the the people that have lived there out
of that area and throw them intothe desert and say off you go
look after yourselves. You know they're they're this is
this thing is wrong in so many levels.
It's unbelievable. And and the people that are pro
Israel I think need to take a step back and and consider this.
Yeah. Did you see that Breitbart
(20:26):
article where it's said that Trump has made a suggestion of
removing everybody from Gaza forabout 10 years, like just about
10 years, so they can rebuild itand make it into some sort of
Singapore, Hong Kong type super advanced country?
No. No, they're not going to make it
into a Singapore, Hong Kong typesuper advanced country.
(20:46):
They're going to make it into. They're going to make it into a
playground for the rich and the powerful.
And there's no, there is not onesingle person that's currently
residing there that's still alive, that is going to get back
there after this job is done right, That this, this is a lie.
Now we've got to remember who created this, this plan.
(21:07):
And you know, it was a number oforganisations, but the Tony
Blair Institute was absolutely involved in this.
And so you know that but, and this is something that Trump is
clearly very, very keen to, to get involved with because he's a
property dealer at the end of the day.
And this is, this is kept well. Well, there's some debate about
(21:30):
that and how much money is actually made successfully on
these property deals. But nonetheless, you know, he,
he clearly sees this as a massive opportunity.
And if it wasn't for these, you know, silly poor people that
need to get up, get the hell outof the way, you know, it's, it's
despicable. Yeah, I was thinking more
(21:51):
philosophically, Mike, how, how do you actually engage in this
kind of conversation? Because it's, it's a forever
debate, right? It's always going to be
polarised. It's black and white, it's
binary. That's it, right.
You, I'm, I'm not a Jew, I'm notan Arab, right.
So I don't actually have a dog in that fight pretty much the
same as you, but I do I do feel that innocent people.
(22:15):
No, I look, I'm going to interrupt you there 'cause I
think you do have a dog in this fight.
I think that anybody that considers themselves a human
being has a dog in this fight because, because, because at the
end of the day is basic morality.
And do we believe that some the state has the right to or people
have the right to kill each other?
(22:36):
We do in certain circumstances. This is defined as we've already
talked about in this conversation, if you are
suffering oppression as a resultof an occupation they have you
have the right to armed resistance.
Everybody agrees that that's correct.
We also agree in all the variousinternational lodge and even
conventions all the rest. We also agree that Israel has no
(22:58):
right to do what it's doing. And that's written down in black
and white in principle right now, the fact that, that, that
our governments are prepared. Well, I'm not, I shouldn't say
our governments because because your government hasn't done
this. Your government has attempted
to, to take this situation to the International Criminal
Court. But my government, the United
(23:19):
States government, EU governments have decided that
that international law and, and basic human rights should be set
aside in this case. And you know that, that there's
nothing else to say here, that that this is there, there, there
are basic principles in place that we are choosing to ignore.
(23:40):
And that, that aside from from what you think about is, you
know, Israel's right to exist asa, as a state, as an entity, no
matter what you think about that, that should be where this
conversation comes back to. What I was going to ask you is
(24:00):
how do you actually engage because this is so heated, it's
so polarised. I just yesterday I chatted to
somebody and they are vigilant, militant in their response.
Israel is defending itself. It doesn't want to be wiped off
the face of Earth, Mike. Yes.
How do you, how do you engage with it?
(24:22):
You can't engage with that because that there's something
ideological about that position.There's something fundamentally
there's something else going on because yes, it is absolutely
wrong. It's it's, it's wrong because
what threat at the end of the day to the existence?
Now, we're not talking about individual killings or
individual acts here. What that person was talking
(24:46):
about is the existence of Israel.
Now, what possible thing can Hamas do to affect the existence
of Israel? Absolutely nothing.
They don't have the weaponry forit.
Now, if if you're saying that Hamas is supported by Iran and
that Iran has the capability of dealing with Israel, that is
(25:09):
true. But I would like to somebody to
point. Out to be.
Well, I'd like somebody to pointout to me an example of when
Iran proactively attacked Israelwithout having been attacked
first. Now the issue of Iran, Israel
(25:29):
relations relations is, is something which is for the
international community. It's not, it's not an open
conflict at the moment, but Iranis and other places are.
I mean, obviously Hamas is getting it's, it's limited
weaponry from somewhere. And so I presume, I don't know
(25:49):
for a fact, but I presume that Iran has something to do with
that. I don't see that that is somehow
an existential threat to Israel because Iran is not providing
Hamas with nuclear bombs, you know, So Israel is a nuclear
armed state. It has every piece of Western
(26:11):
built technological killing hardware the the available to it
that it could possibly ask for. It seems to have unlimited
supplies of it. Whatever Hamas has has to be
smuggled into the country under the nose of of Israel.
And therefore, you know what, what possible existential threat
(26:31):
can Hamas be? It is completely irrational.
It's ridiculous position for anybody to take and and it's
just justification for brutalityand murder.
While you were talking, I got a message from Vanessa Bailey
regarding her disappointment in the BRICS countries around Gaza.
And in a previous discussion I had with Vanessa, she also
(26:53):
expressed a disappointment in the Arab countries that does.
They just don't seem to care. What do you think is going on?
I think that that I mean, that'ssuch a big that's about such a
big question. If it take the the Arab look, I
think that any country who is, who thinks that they can in any
(27:17):
way negotiate with the West or or behave in a certain way
because actually they're scared of the West.
You know, if so, Arab countries want to stay in bed with
Britain, the United States for their, you know, for their own
ends because for no other reason, perhaps.
(27:37):
I mean, I don't know what's in their minds, but I'm just
speculating here. They're, they're looking at the,
the behaviour of Britain and theUnited States over the last
40-50 years and they're saying, well, we don't want to be on the
receiving end of that. So we've got to be their
friends. I, I can see why that would be
as a thought process that would go through anybody's head.
I, I think that, I think it's more than economic.
(28:00):
I, I think that, that, you know,Britain and Britain, the United
States, the West has demonstrated A willingness to
bomb the crap out of a country for the sake of regime change
because they didn't like the, the cut of, of a particular
leader's jib. You know, if we look at Iraq, we
look at Syria, we look at Libya,you know, this, the, the, the
(28:23):
demonstration has been made timeafter time after time.
And each time these things happened, it was under very
questionable international law situation.
So, so we have the West has demonstrated time and again that
it's willing to set aside international law for its own
geopolitical ends. And so any country in the, in
(28:45):
Southwest Asia, Arab countries are looking at this and, and you
know, I would say they're, they're looking at the world
with some nervousness and, and they're attempting to stay in
certain people's good books. I, I think that's not the right
approach personally. Now, As for the bricks, again,
(29:06):
we're looking at a situation where people are still playing
geopolitical games. They're still wanting to have
influence in certain areas. And there there's massive
competition between, in Southwest Asia, between Belton
Road and other so called economic corridors, which are
(29:28):
more aligned with, with, you know, ideas for economic
corridors which are more alignedwith, with Western countries.
And so, you know, I'd, I completely understand Vanessa's
position on this and agree with it, but there isn't really a but
here. The, the reason for it, I think
(29:49):
is, is, is because of the, the, for the reasons we've just
discussed for, for geopolitical reasons.
And, and, you know, at the end of the day, that's, that's
something that, that needs to change.
You know, in the last few days we've had the, the, uh,
Shanghai, uh, corporation organisation, uh, meeting, we've
had Modi shaking hands with Xi Jinping for the first time and
(30:13):
basically saying, well, we appreciate that there's been a
border conflict between India and China, but, but we're going
to set that aside and, and, and build something together.
We had for the commemoration of the, the defeat of Japan in the
Second World War, Putin and and Kim Jong Un.
(30:34):
So, you know, China has has clearly is clearly hoping that
North Korea is going to come back into the fold as it were
and not be such a pariah state. You know the the point.
Here is Yeah, sorry. Go on.
Yeah, no, no, you why? Tell us why you're laughing.
(30:55):
Because North Korea is like, it's this, it's this weird.
It's just this weird scenario. It's like a situation.
It's not even a country. I don't know what, I don't know
what's going on. I know nothing about North.
Korea, I'm going to, I'm going to say something different
there. I have massive respect for North
Korea right now. I'm not particularly, I don't
have massive respect for its political system.
(31:15):
But the fact of the matter is that North Korea took a decision
that it was not going to put capitulate to Western demands
that it behaved in a certain way.
And North Korea has absolutely suffered.
It has absolutely suffered as a result.
They are extremely poor. And like I say, I'm not going
(31:35):
to, I'm not going to say that I'm any kind of a fan of of Kim
Jong Un or his father or the waythat that country is governed
internally. But the fact that they basically
stuck 2 fingers up at the West and said you do you, you run
your sanctions regime, you do whatever you like.
(31:56):
We are not, we are not going to become your your sort of puppets
in the world. I think that's got to be
respected. It'd be great if many more
countries did that. But but you know, coming back to
the, to the Russia, China thing and Israel, yeah, they, I think
they, if they are going to at least use the language of, of
(32:20):
saying we stand for international law and we want a
level playing field and we want win, win and all these kinds of
things. They, they need to be much
stronger on taking a position over Israel's behaviour.
There's no question about that in my, in my mind.
But in in the meantime, as I say, there's lots of positives
going on in that part of the world as well.
(32:41):
Mike, you were talking earlier about the problems arising from
being ideologically driven around this sort of thing named
pro Israel or or anti Palestine or whatever it might be.
But if if any of the neighbouring Arab countries like
the Gulf States or whatever, that all the countries from the
Levant or whatever, if they got involved, would that not also be
(33:06):
an ideological imposition of sorts?
No, no, I was talking about people in in the West who
support Israel are doing so often from an ideological
standpoint and therefore willingto ignore or even in some cases
support brutality. Not because they think it's not
(33:30):
because they think that in and of itself it's the right thing
to do, but because because they think that for biblical reasons,
Israel has the right to do this.And, and I think, I think when
you set aside your principles onthat basis, then you're on a
slippery slope to a bad place. No, no, no.
Yeah, sorry. You're correct.
What I was asking is, do you think that I being ideological
(33:54):
is not always a bad thing? It's basically what I'm asking
because if you if you're ideological for principled
reasons, then it's then it's fine.
Like let's say, let's say. As long as it's not
hypocritical. I mean right if you know the.
Basis Egypt. Egypt.
Let's say no. Egypt.
No, but no. Hold on a second.
No, hold on a second, Jerm. The basis of Christian and
(34:17):
Jewish ideology is the 10 commandments.
The 10 commandments, depending how you interpret it.
Some say that the that the relevant commandment is thou
shalt not kill. Others say it's thou shalt not
murder again, we're back to definitions and and whether
whether Israel's activity is murder or not.
(34:40):
And but the fact of the matter is, and I think if you're being
objective about it, that particular commandment is
without question being very severely challenged by what's
going on here. And the fact that people, Jews
and Christians are prepared to set aside that commandment,
(35:01):
which is supposed to be the absolute foundation of their
entire ideology for the sake of political expediency.
Is, is that's, that's that's theissue here.
Now I would suggest that that that religious wars, wars based
on ideology are never good. And that is something that that
(35:23):
is a you know, since the fall ofthe Roman Empire until pretty
much the modern day religious wars have been a feature big and
small. Even where I grew up with it was
a feature for 30 years. So, you know, I think it is, I
think religious wars are really the stupidest type of war that
(35:44):
you can possibly have because it's, it's for no other reason
than than what you believe. I mean, for goodness sake, it's
not even a war over water or resources.
It's a war over ideology. And this is the most ridiculous
excuse for killing people that Ican possibly imagine.
So I know I had to. So to answer your question, I
don't believe there's ever a a Ause for an ideological
(36:09):
justification or I don't think there's ever a justification
ideologically for war. An interesting converse
consequence of this whole thing is that it's created also
extreme antagonism and animositytowards Jews.
(36:32):
I think that that is, I'm not going to say the fault, but
it's, it's, it's the, the Jews are their own worst enemy in
this case. Because, because although there
are significant numbers of Jews who, who are openly anti Zionist
(36:53):
and some real really thoughtful people like Gilad Atzman, for
example, who, who are making have been making this argument
for a very long time, you know, an anti Zionist argument for a
very long time. Yes.
Well, indeed, there are a numberof of really excellent voices on
(37:14):
this. The the fact of the matter is
that that the, the use of Jewishmoney and the Zionist lobby as
it's described to shut down any criticism on the basis that anti
Zionism or anti Israel sentimentis somehow anti Jewish sentiment
(37:37):
is really problematic. It's it's, it's beyond
problematic. It's just, it's, it's
reprehensible. And, and of course the, the
Jewish community themselves kindof fall for this narrative and,
and automatically feel that thatan attack on, on the behaviour
of, of one particular political ideology is an attack on them,
(38:00):
when in fact it's not. Now, I'm, I absolutely think
that anybody that throws stones at a synagogue on the basis of
what's going on in Israel, I think that that's ridiculous.
There are other ways to to to give opposition to what's going
on. Stop buying products that are
(38:22):
that are, you know, produced in Israel or or connected to Israel
in some way. Certainly absolutely support the
idea of protest against anybody that's manufacturing arms for
Israel or shipping arms for Israel.
I'm totally in support of anybody that verbally criticises
(38:47):
Zionism or Israel's and certainly their right to make
those criticisms. But yeah, I mean, I don't see
that, that, you know, violence against the person, any person
is anything other than utterly hypocritical.
You know, if we're going to criticise Israel for what it's
doing, it's, it seems to be ridiculous to go around and beat
(39:08):
up, you know, the nearest Jewishperson that you can find.
This is this is beyond hypocritical.
I wonder if this is just a neverending a never ending debate,
no? I don't think it's AI, don't
think it's a never ending debate.
I think it appears never ending because at this point in time
(39:31):
the Zionist lobby is so powerful.
But I think that is absolutely changing and I think that that
that October the 7th has has done a lot to change that.
Now, the, the cost for the Palestinians has been
horrendous, but I think that thetide is without question, the
tide is turning. And the fact that we are having
(39:52):
this conversation, I, I'm absolutely optimistic on the
long term basis. I'm utterly pessimistic on a
short term basis because I thinkthat that, that a lot, a lot
more people are going to have topay the ultimate cost before,
before that situation changes. I mean, I think, I think that,
(40:13):
you know, the brutality that's on.
That's on show here is, is beyond anything that that can be
possibly justified. But you know, but so many are
are dying on on a daily basis that that, you know, by the time
that that this opposition buildsto a point where where it can't
happen anymore, there's going tobe significant further loss.
(40:35):
And I think that is that's whereI'm pessimistic.
I'm optimistic in the end because I think that that you
know, that, that, that what is being done is just is, is so
reprehensible. It can't be ignored on a long
term basis. And, and ultimately it's going
to, it's going to, I think see the end of Israel as a state.
I think Israel is, is very closeto, to, I think their own
(41:00):
behaviour is the existential threat here.
Not, not, not anything that's coming from outside.
That's a good point. Do you reckon they'll make 100
years? No, not.
Not if they continue this policyand and and you know, as I
honestly think not if they continue this policy.
So, you know, we we all we always have to remember that
(41:22):
that Israel as a state, as an entity is a creation of Britain
and it it was imposed on the region and it was imposed on the
region. We understand why it was imposed
on the region for geopolitical reasons.
And it would be really nice if, if the Jewish community as a
(41:44):
whole recognised that they were pawns in this game as much as
the Arabs are pawns in this game.
And, and I think part of the problem here is that that we are
ordinary people of whatever colour, creed and and so on, are
not recognising what's going on here.
We're, we're absolutely determined to fight with each
(42:07):
other. We're due against Muslim, Muslim
against Christian, Christian against whatever we, we are
determined to fight. We're just, we are continually
played by global elites. And this is just another one of
those games. And, and I, I, I use the word
game there because for them it is a game for us.
(42:29):
It's of course, it's much more serious when we're on the
receiving end of these games. You know, they, they used to
call it the great game, the whole geopolitical thing and for
them it is just a game. We've got to start recognising
who the real enemy is and, and start recognising that we are
many and they are few. And as Shelly said, we need to
(42:53):
rise like lions. I've often said that our enemies
are not those to our left and right, but those who are above
us. I.
Mean this that that is such a great point because because
those to our left and right are on are on our left and right
because they've because they andwe have fallen for this paradigm
that we're somehow you know thatthat although we've got
(43:16):
different views that suddenly makes us somehow enemies and
therefore we've got to fight each other this this whole
people on my left and my right thing is something which has
been done to us it's it's. That's a good point, Mike.
Sorry, Yeah, I'm just jumping inthere.
The the the the whole left rightdichotomy has caused so many
(43:36):
issues. Yeah, because we fall for it
every time, you know? It's all about left wing or
right wing this. Yeah.
Well, well, look, the first stepin my opinion, the first step to
to to objectivity here is to recognise that that left and
right is not a a straight line where you've got an extreme left
(44:00):
on one side, an extreme right onthe on.
When you actually look at if you, if you look at what are
considered extreme left and extreme right regimes in the
last in history and we look at the behaviour of the those
regimes, you show me, you know, a fund a significant difference
in, in those regimes, whether they're extreme left or extreme
(44:23):
right. So we should be looking at this
so called left right spectrum asa circle with, with the extremes
joining because because there's very little to, to very little
difference to be seen in, in extreme left wing and extreme
right wing regimes that their behaviour is the same.
(44:44):
So, so we're not on a straight line and and we should, we
should recognise that being at the extremes is not necessarily
where we want to be. Yeah.
But Mike, the human condition, unfortunately, is such that you
have somebody like Donald Trump comes in and he's a bit of a pot
piper. He's very likeable in many ways,
(45:04):
which is what a populist does. He's he's good at being
likeable. And suddenly he brings millions
and millions and millions of people back into the system,
back into that, that binary way of thinking.
Which is why we're doomed to repeat this kind of situation
until we grow up. It's really that simple in my
mind. Well, on that note, but I mean
(45:29):
like I'm trying to, I'm still trying to establish, I know I
asked you this earlier, but I'm still stuck on this because I've
recently had this conversation with somebody close to me and I
don't know how to engage. I just don't know.
Do what do you do? Do you just be quiet and smile
and not or like I'm I'm trying to figure out because it always
(45:50):
becomes a heated argument and that goes no way.
Right. So, so well, this, this all this
is a a good point. This all depends on your view of
conversations like that. So I'm good to say to you that
there are times where I, in a gathering, for example, I hear
(46:11):
somebody saying something which is just so absolutely wrong.
And I know that it's wrong. And there are times actually,
I'm thinking, well, how do I, how do I communicate with this
person? And I actually don't know.
And so I stay silent and I don'tknow how to communicate with
that person. That's, that's an opportunity
for me to go away and consider, well, the next time that
(46:32):
situation arises, how am I goingto deal with it?
How am I going to? And, and so that helps me learn
the same with the heated conversations because inevitably
there's going to be positions taken on either side of the
conversation that the other person doesn't know how to
respond to or doesn't have a response to other than to shout
(46:54):
a bit louder. And of course, once you start
shouting a bit louder, then you've you've effectively lost
the argument at that point. These are opportunities because
you know, what that says is thatI have not considered that that
point before. And so I haven't got an answer
for it. And if I haven't got an answer
(47:14):
for something, then I've got to find an answer for it.
So, so that's a time to start thinking about, about that
particular point. And, and you know, in that's in
the process of doing that, if you do that, you're, you're
potentially adjusting your own position as well.
Because as I've said this many, many times, my view is, and I
try to do this as much as I can,my, my position on anything is
(47:39):
not fixed because I may not haveall the evidence.
So I've drawn A conclusion, I'vemade an analysis, but, but it's
not actually a conclusion in thesense that it can't be changed.
So, you know, I, I think we should be always challenging our
own positions and our own precepts and, and, and the first
(47:59):
person that we should be arguingwith is ourselves.
But these these conversations wehave with other people where
we're left in exactly the situation you described, Jerm,
are conversations that we shouldbe absolutely enthusiastic about
taking part in because they helpus hone our our own skills and
(48:19):
our own arguments. Sharpening the sword?
Absolutely, Mike. OK, let's come in for a landing.
I guess the moral of the story is A to to try not take sides
(48:41):
other than that of what what it means to be human.
That's what that's your initial point.
And then also to try and not getinto a heated debate with
somebody unless you're able to objectively as much as possible,
or rationally think about your own position and hold up the
(49:03):
mirror and challenge yourself atthe same time so that you're
able to engage in a meaningful way, right?
Well, I mean, I'm not going to say don't, I'm not ever going to
say don't get involved in that. I mean, I, I actually would say
do get involved in those arguments because that's that's,
that helps, as I say, that helpshone your, your own position.
(49:23):
But yeah, I mean, I appreciate that that it's very, very
difficult to take an objective view on what's going on with
with some issues. But but look, the bottom line is
this germ the the countries in Southwest Asia, in North Africa,
(49:45):
in the Horn of Africa in state. Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang
on. Sorry, sorry, sorry.
Before you go any further, Southwest Asia is an interesting
term. A lot of people will say Gulf
States. That's what you're referring to,
right? No, I'm referring to the whole
Middle East region, which may include the Gulf states.
But but the what I was going to say there, what was I going to
(50:08):
say there? I'm so sorry.
I shouldn't have broken your train of thought, but it's that.
But that's an interesting idea, The Southwest Asia aspect, being
part of the Gulf states, that's something I didn't think about
until only a few months ago. Yeah, yes, sorry.
You, you, You said North Africa.Oh yeah, yeah, right, right.
My point was going to be if if we look objectively and
(50:33):
carefully at what's happened in those countries, at what's going
on in Sudan, I mean the the Sudan is another conflict which
is, which is basically flying under the radar at the moment.
We find tactics being used thereby foreign influence, Britain,
the United States, EU, France, Germany, whatever it happens to
(50:56):
be, tactics being used to dividesocieties there which are
resulting in real physical combat, conflict and real death,
destruction, suffering, hunger. We need to, with respect to
Israel, Palestine and and Iran, and in fact the region as a
(51:21):
whole, we need, one of the things we absolutely need to do
is to take a step back, start looking at it objectively, look
at the tactics that are being used there.
And then make a comparison to what's going on in our own
countries with respect to immigration and the way that we
are being manipulated over around that narrative and how
(51:45):
close we already are to open civil conflict.
Not going to go as far as sayingcivil war at this point, but I
don't think it's too far away. This country, European
countries, even the United States in some way, some ways
are at boiling point on this issue.
And that has been, that is a created situation using very
(52:06):
similar tactics to have been used in the Middle East slash
Southwest Asia. We got to start recognising the
symptoms and trying to decide who what the cause of those
symptoms actually is. Otherwise we're going to find
ourselves in exactly the same position that those people are
(52:26):
in. And that this is, you know, the,
the old, it's a cliche. I know that the old saying, you
know, if you're unfamiliar with history, you're dimmed to repeat
it. This is really important.
I think one of the things that people need to do is to look
carefully at at how empires manage themselves and see the
(52:51):
parallels to what's going on today.
OK Mike from my half assed studio, I'll catch you.
I'll catch up with you next week.
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com