A

Did you know?

B

Lululemon's iconic Flow Y bra also comes in tank top styles and even a

A

dress now in new fun summer colors. Flow Y brings a racerback shape to

B

streamlined styles you can wear anywhere.

A

Our buttery soft nulou fabric feels nearly

B

weightless with sweat wicking four way stretch for comfort. You'll want to keep on after practice. Flow freely on and off the mat with light support and refined design.

C

Shop Flow y now@lululemon.com right. Is what you advocate a one state solution without citizenship for Palestinians? Is it a two state solution? What is it? What do you advocate?

B

Yeah, so. So I acknowledge that there is a lot of complexity. I will never advocate for a Tuesday solution. I think that's dead and I'm against it completely.

A

Today we enter the arena for a clash of the intellectual titans on one of the most explosive issues of our time, Israel and Palestine. We've got two radically different minds, two entirely different frameworks. In one corner I have Dr. Ben Burgess, and in the other, Navy trained nuclear submariner Nick Matau, who's considered one of the most fearsome political debaters of our time. And before we jump in, please be sure to like, share, comment and subscribe because it helps us a ton with the algorithm. Here we go. Keep it real.

C

Keeping it real. Keeping it real.

A

Keeping it Real with Jillian Michaels. All right, guys, thank you so much for coming. You both know that this is, this conversation, in my opinion, honestly puts lives on the line. And I have not been able to have it with two people who are honest actors. And I think you're both that, you know, Ben, you're pro Palestine. Nick, you're pro Israel. To be honest, I lean more pro Israel. But I'm here to learn. I'm certainly not an angel. I have no ability to gang up on you whatsoever. And I will not be. So I'm going to ask questions and this is a conversation, not a debate or any sort of ugly exchange. And let's start with the beginning here. Let's talk about the land. Who has a right to exist on the land? I think we said, Ben, you were going to go first.

C

Sure. I think everybody who lives there has a right to exist there. And I think that this is often conflated by the way people talk about this, that there's this question that pro Israel people love to ask, you know, say, do you acknowledge Israel's right to exist? And I think the that question is kind of designed to make it sound like if you say no, that means you think Israeli Jews should be Wiped out. But there are two different questions here. One is, who has a right to exist on that land? And the other is, you know, is it morally okay for Israel to be organized as a Jewish state? And I think in many other cases we could see very easily how those two questions could come apart. If we were having this discussion about South Africa in the 1980s, for example, no sane person would deny that white South Africans had a right to live in South Africa. But that's a very different question from saying that, you know, South Africa has a right to like make sure that it stays a white state forever, even if that means not letting black people vote.

A

Okay, okay, so then is, is your assertion that it should be an Arab run state and the Jews can live there?

C

My, my or two state solution. So I think if I could just ask a magical genie, we didn't have to worry about how it was going to come about. Right. You know, like what process was going to lead to it. My strong first, first preference would just be for a single democratic state with equal rights for Jews, Palestinians and everybody else. That doesn't mean, you know, Arabs run it. That doesn't mean Jews run it. That means everybody who lives there runs it. The way that the United States works, that, you know, it's not that, you know, Christians run the United States, it's not that some non Christian minority runs the United States, it's that everybody who lives here gets equal rights. I think that any system that departs from that, I have a moral problem with. And what Israel has been doing since 1967 is a single state from the river to the sea with very unequal rights, depending on who you are. And you know, yeah, I think that the by far the sort of most just solution would just be to give equal rights to everybody throughout that single state. Failing that, I think the next best thing would be for Israel to withdraw to its internationally recognized pre1967 borders so there could be a Palestinian state in the other 22% of the country.

A

Okay, Nick?

B

Yeah. So first answer and thank you. I really appreciate senior and well, first I want to say I do agree. I want to start off with what I agree with him about this idea. Like there's two different questions. When you say, do people have the right to exist? Of course, I think everyone does. In fact, we see that in Israel. We don't see that in the Palestinian Authority territories, we don't see that in Gaza, nor do we see a desire for that. But we do see that in what's called Israel. Proper. And I do believe that Christian, Muslim, jew, atheist, Arab, there's 5% of the nation is non Arab, non Jewish, 21 is Arab. And so, yeah, I, I agree with that. Now, I do find it a little interesting. You said that you would be okay with a Palestinian state. Would that Palestinian state, wouldn't that be an ethnostate?

C

Well, if you remember what I said, I said that my first choice would be a single state with equal rights for everybody. I think that if you had, I think that if you had an ethnic partition, I think that leads to a lot of bad consequences. We've seen that in Northern Ireland, we've seen that in India, Pakistan. But yeah, look, if we're just comparing bad outcomes, then I think having those millions of people who spent every day of their lives as subjects, but not citizens of Israel, letting them be citizens of something, would at least be a step in the direction of some kind of standard of human rights.

B

Right. No, I got you. You definitely, yeah. You have a preference. And I also believe in one state solution. I do see equal rights when it comes to Israeli citizens, whether they be Arab, Jewish or non Arab, non Jewish. What I believe you're talking about, and I'm sure we'll probably expand as we go on what you're talking about is the differences between two separate systems and two separate governments where there's one is an Israeli citizen and one is not an Israeli citizen. Do you believe that Israeli citizens do not have equal rights?

C

Well, it is a fact that the Israeli citizens do not have equal rights. But I think this is probably really.

A

See, I thought, I thought they had fully equal rights if they were Israeli citizens, regardless of if they were Arab and Muslim.

C

So let me. So let me make just two quick points about that.

A

Okay?

C

One is that. No, not really. I mean, I think that the. I think that those Palestinians who are on the Israeli side of the line after the initial ethnic cleansing in the 1940s and were eventually given Israeli citizenship, they weren't citizens at all for the first couple decades after independence. But those people who are eventually given Israeli citizenship, I think do not have, have equal rights. I think they're discriminated against in lots of ways that would be illegal in a normal Western democracy. So I could give you a couple of quick examples of what I have in mind there. One of them, one big one, is housing discrimination. So about 93% on the estimate that I saw when I was looking this up before of the land is owned by something called the Jewish National Fund, which I'm ashamed to say I can remember mindlessly donating to. Right. You know, when I was growing up, I'd see the little donation box. You know, I like, put a little change in it. And that has an explicit mission of promoted Jewish settlement. So it explicitly, by its mission, discriminates against non Jewish tenants. There's also, there's also something called. Yeah, we're still talking about Arabs. Yes, exactly. We're also so sticking with housing discrimination. There's also a law from 2011 saying that any community of less than 700 people can have an admissions committee that can screen potential residents for social suitability, which is obviously there to allow for discrimination against Arab residents. So I, so I think that there are a lot of ways in which there's like open housing discrimination of a kind that would be completely illegal in this country. For example, I think we could also talk about marriage, that because Israel doesn't have civil marriage, it's, it's impossible to have mixed marriages inside, inside of, of Israel. There's also also if, if you're, if you're a Palestinian. Well, okay, but hold on just a second. If you. Yeah, but you're going to have to hold on for a minute because if we're going to do this. Right, Right. I think rather than stop it to try to adjudicate.

B

Yeah, every point.

C

Go ahead.

A

No, like they have a, there's this is very.

C

If you're, you know, if you are a Palestinian citizen of Israel, your family ended up on the right side of the line in the 1940s, and you marry a Palestinian on the other side of the line, you're legally prohibited from living together in Israel, allegedly because of security. I don't know that anybody really believes that. And also in terms of political participation, there's, there's lots of discrimination that, you know, that any, that Arab political parties are, are, are barred from running for the Knesset if they don't accept the basic premises of Zionism. In other words, if you say, hey, those people like us right across this line should also get to vote in these elections, you are barred from running for office yourself. So those are all ways in which there's discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel. But the other last thing I promise, 10 seconds. Last thing I'd say about this is just this, that they have when people say. Right. I know this is going to be a question coming up. Right. Israel is an apartheid state.

A

Right.

C

They're not primarily thinking of the myriad forms of discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel. They're primarily thinking of the millions of people who Israel has ruled over since 1967 who don't get to become citizens of Israel because they have the wrong ethnic background. And if you made them citizens, there would be too many citizens of the wrong ethnic background. Okay, that's what they're talking.

A

Okay, go ahead.

B

A couple things I want to start maybe going like point by point because it's just, it just drags us way off topic because I was talking about Israel proper and you're talking about over the Green line, which is not Israel proper. And so it's not that the last

C

10 seconds, everything before that was about Israel proper.

B

So as for jnf, in terms of like state owned land and stuff like that, that's actually not uncommon. That we see that all the time. We saw that with even the British and the British mandate for Palestine, we saw that with the Ottomans. In fact, I think over 50% not even just religiously owned land during the Ottomans was Ottoman controlled, state owned land. It's not uncommon. But I want to pull away from that because I do believe that discrimination can exist in an area from both sides. For that matter, sometimes there's discrimination against Jews by their own government. I don't think that's the same as the original premise and question of what rights do they not have. I do believe that discrimination can happen. There's discrimination in the sense that in Tel Aviv University, which is overwhelmingly Arab in terms of their population, which is about 21%, I think half of Tel Aviv University is Arab. They don't have to take certain entrance exams, right? Because they're Arab, they get more funding in some cases. They don't have to do certain, not just entrance exams, entrance interviews that Jews do have to do. When you look at conscription, they are not required to serve in the idf, by the way. I'm not against any of this stuff at all. I'm just saying there's a difference between discrimination and rights. And I'm going to, I'm going to put a pin in that for now because I know he's right. We're going to talk about apartheid obviously later. So I don't want to skip ahead.

A

As for flow into it organically, fair enough.

B

But as for just like the idea of the. To get back to the original question, right. An existence of a people in a land, right. I don't want any idea of attacking people because they are this people, right? As for what he said at the end with the Green Line and people not. They're not citizens and this all is in the legal base framework of the Oslo Accords, which, by the way, I'm not even really for, but it doesn't matter if I'm for or not.

A

Let's outline that real quick, guys, because I have heard, like, oh, before the Oslo Accords, then Israel expanded, and then it's like, no, but Israel gave Gaza back. But so can we just be real quick, like, what are the Oslo Accords and what are the borders that you're. We're talking about here?

B

Sorry, Oslo. Fine. Oslo 1 was in 1993. Oslo 2 is in 1995. Oslo 2 is more of an interim position. It was supposed to aim for a peaceful settlement. It's not like it was particularly completed, Obviously. You had Camp David about five years later. Well, I forgot this was with Clinton.

A

Right. And it's in Clinton. My understanding is Yasser Arafat walked away out of Camp David.

C

That's. That's a common claim. I don't really think that's true.

B

Well, that's from Clinton himself.

C

He literally was quoting Clinton said that if we're going to base everything on the honesty and integrity of Bill Clinton, I think that that's.

B

Well, Yasser Arafat also said.

C

Well, no, Yasser Arafat did not say that.

B

He said in the Johannesburg address specifically that he said. I said no. And he told Muslims in Arabic actually to remember the Hudabaya treaty. And he explicitly said, why the Hudabaya treaties is a treaty of Muhammad back in the terms of Mecca with his old tribe and a treaty that they had.

C

And then they later using the phrase, I said no. Right. I think that we would need to look at a lot more context to say that means he walked away. You can watch a clip of Zeg Brzezinski. Right. Who's. Who's not exactly a radical, pro Palestinian person. On Morning Joe, where Joe repeats this idea that, oh, Arafat, you know, walked away from Camp David. That's where it fell apart. And Brzezinski is like, what are you talking about? No, that's not true. Negotiations continued at Taba. Right. There was like, there was a lot there that he had to bring back to his people and go through. But negotiations continued, and ultimately it was the Israelis that pulled the plug. That's not me. That's not Noam Chomsky. It's not Norm Finkelstein. That's Zag Brzezinski. Right. So I think that this. I think that this claim that, like, that Yasser Arafat, you know, sort of just categorically refused to keep talking or make any sort of deal. I don't think is really true.

B

But what counter did he offer?

C

They have. So I think that trying to, trying to, to litigate all of the details of like the nitty gritty of the, you know, of peace talks at Camp David is ultimately going to be completely beside the point because I think that

B

like, there's that he countered and he continued.

C

I said, I said, I said that negotiations continued. I have a, that's, I think that like saying like trying to like go through the nitty gritty of every offer and counteroffer is going to be completely beside the point point here. Now, I do know that Benjamin Netanyahu, for example, I'm sorry, I'm not going to do that. I think this would be a complete waste of our time if this is the way that we proceeded. I'm not going to do competitive trivia, right? Like, I want to talk about the actual core of the issue. And they have. And you know, I also know, by the way, Benjamin Netanyahu is on record bragging about putting poison pills right in that deal that, you know, he knew, you know, that like, that he knew that, that if they, that if they included these would make it much harder for Palestinian negotiators to accept them. But ultimately nobody's actual position on Israel, Palestine in 2026 on either side is downstream of what they think about the details of who offered what at, you know, at Camp David. I think they're much bigger issues.

A

Can I say the only reason that I think about that personally is because I'm under the impression that the Jews have tried and made concessions and the Palestinians in the charter of Hamas is river to see dead Jews. So it seems like that's, that's how I see it. Okay, I'm not saying I'm right and I'm just telling you, I'm telling you why I asked you.

C

Well, I mean, I, first of all, I wouldn't equate Israel with the Jews any more than I would equate like al Qaeda with, you know, all Muslims or, you know, any more than I would equate, you know, Christians with, you know, different Christian governments around the world, you know, that have done, you know, that have done terrible things. But I also think that the idea that Palestinian negotiators haven't conceded anything is pretty wild to me because the whole, you know, because the whole idea, the whole premise, right, of the peace process, before we get into nitty gritty, of who, you know, of who offered what and who counter offered what and all of that stuff, which again, I think the devil is not in those details, but I think that the whole premise of the whole thing was that, was that the plo, that's what we're talking about here, right, would accept a Palestinian state that would not include, you know, other than maybe some land swaps for settlements, any of Israel's pre 1967 borders. So what that means is that the 78% of the historical territory of Israel, Palestine would be Israel and at most there would be a Palestinian state in the remaining 22%. And there's no Israeli government, not even the most liberal, that's offered a full retreat to Israel's internationally recognized pre 1967 borders that's never been on the table to allow like a real independent Palestinian state with a Palestinian army and a Palestinian navy and all of that stuff. What they've offered at best, right, the current Israeli government says no, no, no, there will never ever be a Palestinian state. But like more liberal Israeli governments in the past, what they've offered at best have been this weird demilitarized semi state that would be segmented with the next settlement blocks and Israeli only roads on parts of the remaining 22%. So when you look at one, you know, one side of that negotiated table said yes, we're, you know, we will take 22%, let you have the other 78%. And by the way, this isn't true.

B

Can I respond?

C

No, sorry, which, what is it true? What did I say?

B

So, so the 2008 realignment plan actually specifically talked about removing and from 94 to 96% of all the settlements, he is correct, there were some very, very small amount for security purposes that were being kept. And to make up for that, they actually offered about 8 to 10%. I've seen 8 to 12% but 8 to 10% of Israel proper land. So even more than the percentage that they were holding solely for security, every other settlement would have been pulled out of. So it was offered to Mahmoud Abbas, right. And the 2008 was by Omert and all of it would have been pulled out of except for just those security zones. And they made up for that almost double or more the amount of Israel proper land. So it wasn't just the remaining 22%. Also historical Palestine, if you want to go with history. Actually 1921 is when the Emirate of Transjordan was actually created. Historical Palestine actually would have included all of that. The British took 77 to 78% of the land, by the way, about 10,000 or so, give or take Jews who lived in that Part were kicked out and then told. There are no Jews that are allowed to migrate here. Right. And that was part of historical Palestine. Right. That's 78% of that. We're not talking about a small chunk here. And there are zero free Palestine movements called for Jordan. They took that land. They didn't call it Palestine. They didn't give it. I think most, correct me if I'm wrong, most of Jordanians are Palestinians. And they don't. I'll wrap it up. They don't actually. I don't want to gallop too much. They. That would have been historical Palestine, 1921. They create the emitter Transjordan like that, out of thin air. That was the British. They signed the white papers later. And then Jordan illegally annexes Judea Samaria during the armistice in 1949. Administratively in 1950. Right. And they literally put in their law, no Jews allow. Not no Zionists. I know Israelis, no Jews. Right. And they ethnically cleanse the Jews out of that area. So when we talk about. Because this is the crux, and I'm going to finish with this Judea and Samaria, then talk about this idea of like, well, it's occupied. It's occupied by Palestine. When was it ever Palestinians again? I have no problem with Arabs living in the land that are in good faith. I don't attack a people. Right. To get back to the original question we asked, I attack an ideology, right? If that ideology isn't in a person, I don't care if you're Muslim or brown, white, black. I don't care if you don't have that ideology to undermine the state, by all means, I love it. One of my closest friends is Yosef Haddad. He's an Arab, right? Love the guy. He doesn't have that kind of ideology. So this idea of we have to take the assumption to hear your arguments and not just yours. You're not the first person to make these arguments of Judea and Samaria somehow being this sovereign area for Palestinians. When was it? When was it Palestinians?

C

So I just have to point out that you started that by saying that what I said wasn't true. And then you never pointed out anything that was incorrect that I said. And then. No, you know, you don't know. You didn't actually. Because I did not say any of that.

B

I just. One sentence real quick. I did. I said that you said it was only the remaining 22%. I talked about the Olmert plan that actually goes beyond that area. I talked about the settlements being pulled out. Of, and I talked about your definition of historical Palestine. I literally mentioned those.

C

So. Okay, first of all, I never used the phrase historical Palestine.

B

You did.

C

No, I did not. Just anybody who's watching this rewind. I did not use that phrase. What I said is historical Israel, Palestine. In other words, the entire territory being contested.

B

That's what I meant.

C

I made, I made no claims about, you know, any of that being inherently Palestinian or any, any of that. Right? That's something you made up to respond to. I didn't say it. That's one thing. The other thing is what I said is that at most, right, if you go with the, if you go with the two state solution, at most you get a contiguous Palestinian state in 22% of the total land that we're talking about. Right? That's all historical Israel, Palestine means in that sentence. And that no Israeli government has ever offered to withdraw all the way to that border. What you said after saying that's just not true is you conceded the premise. You conceded that the most generous plan was not in fact withdrawing all the way to that border. You conceded that the most generous plan still annexed some illegal Israeli settlements. And they have. And, and, but you said it was okay because of the land swaps.

B

Even if you think, even if you

C

think it's okay because the land swaps, that doesn't mean that it's not correct that they weren't willing to withdraw all the way to the pre 1967 border just once. That's the point. That's the point. And then after that, everything else you said that after that was just, was just irrelevant. Everything else was just. What about is.

B

I got you.

C

Oh, here's something that Jordan did, here's something that the British did, but none of that has any relevance.

B

Why is.

A

Clarify real quick.

B

My point I agree with. I did say that I don't think it's okay because I don't even want that to happen. That's.

C

What do you want to happen?

B

Before I do, I want to point out what I actually said. My point is, is why is this idea of the Green Line even the premise? Where does it come from? Because for me to even respond to your argument as a basis, right, I have to accept that premise and I don't. That's what's the point.

C

What's the premise you think that I have.

B

You did, you said withdraw. They've never offered to withdraw to the, the Green line. And I'm saying why is that even the premise to Matt, like, why is that the standard of that would be good or bad. That's my point. Well, the point, that's why I brought

C

up all this point, is that even if they did withdraw all the way

B

to the Green Line, why are we saying that in the first place?

C

Well, let me finish the sentence. Right. The point would be that even if they did withdraw all the way to the Green Line and so have a continuous Palestinian state in all of the west bank, and then it would still be geographically disconnected from Gaza, but at least continuous throughout all the west bank, that even if that happened. Right. That would still mean that Palestinian negotiators would be conceding the vast majority of territory in question. That was the point that I was making. Now, you know, if you think that the Green Line shouldn't be relevant to anything, then it sounds like what we're talking about.

B

I'm not saying that. I'm just wondering why is that the basis or premise? And also, just so I didn't add this, but Omer Plan actually did offer a connection with Gaza and the west bank or Judaism area, but neither here nor there. Because that's kind of the minor point that you're making. The major point is why is it even the premise.

C

I don't know what you mean by the premise.

B

Why is it that the basis. Right. The standard is, well, they've never offered to withdraw to the green light. Why does that even matter? Why is that like the starting point? When has the Green Line, right, Judea Samaria, when has that ever even been historically Palestinian? I'm not saying you said that, by the way. I know you didn't. I'm just simply saying you're offering that as like the. They never did this. Okay, but. But why does that even matter if they didn't do this or that?

C

Well, I mean, because they're obligated to under international law. And there's absolutely nothing to do with. They absolutely are. They. They absolutely are. If you deny that you're not living in the real world like this is just a report from some alternate dimension. But they have a. But the important thing is if you think two options, the Green Line is relevant, the Green Line is irrelevant. If the Green Line is relevant. Right. That's because you think that what Israel has been doing since 1967 is a temporary military occupation. If you think it's irrelevant, right, then what that means is that you think that Israel is actually making a claim to this territory as part of its own territory. Now, if you think that it's a temporary military occupation, then at some point you have to end that they have, you know, you can't do a temporary military occupation until the end of time. And, and, and once you do, then your obligation would be to completely end it. But if you think they're making an actual claim to the land, it's like, no, this is Israeli land. Right. This is part of what Israel should be. That actually makes the Israeli position much worse. Because if it's actually you're saying that this is Israeli land, then you're saying, no, no, no, this isn't a temporary military occupation. This is just what the borders of our country are. And within those borders of our country, there are millions of people who, we're not going to give citizenship in our country because they have the wrong ethnicity.

B

Yeah. Again. So when you actually look at East Jerusalem, an area that they actually annex, they offer every single year, by the way, Palestinians citizenship, by far the vast majority of them do not take it because they do not want to recognize.

C

How is that relevant to what I just said?

A

The only reason. I'm so sorry. No, no, no. The reason. You know what, again, I'm commenting as a layman, so the reason I would think it's relevant just generally speaking is because it's like they're treated as second class citizens. Well, they're not citizens, but we gave them a chance to be citizens, but they turned us down.

C

But then I'm like, the reason I'm asking why it's relevant is because he's talking, he's talking about East Jerusalem. He's not talking about the West Bank. People in the west bank have never been given an opportunity for Israeli citizens.

B

Well, nor should they.

A

Okay, sorry, go ahead.

B

But my question for you is why. Okay, let me just ask directly. Why did Israel, why does they even offer East Jerusalem alliance?

C

Because they, because they formally annexed it and because they have, they don't want to be more of a rogue state than they are. So they have a. So, so they, they feel, they feel obligated to do that much that they have, you know, because they, there would be too much international pressure.

B

But you just had the opposite before. You said they wouldn't offer it to them, and now you're saying, okay, they would even.

C

Because, because, because that's an evasion. The word them is referring to two different things in those two different sentences. In one case you're talking about East Jerusalem, the other case you're talking about the West Bank.

A

Okay?

C

And what I'm saying was part of. Part of does not mean equal to. Right. That's an evasion. I think you know better than that. That's. That's not. They have. There are millions of Palestinians, West Bank, Gaza, who have lived every day of their lives as subjects, but not citizens of Israel. And the only reason that no Israeli government has ever offered them citizenship again, East Jerusalem. Yes. Rest these people know, right? The only reason no Israeli government has ever offered them citizenship is because then there would be too many of the wrong ethnic category of citizens.

B

No, that's not why. It's because they haven't annexed it.

C

Yeah, but why have they annexed it?

B

Okay, that's a. I. I'd be more than glad to have a different conversation.

C

It's not a different conversation. It is exactly what we're talking about.

B

You're saying right now that, that they haven't offered them citizenship. Why would they. They haven't annexed it. It doesn't even make sense to. So, so under the framework of the also Accords, right now, I think their citizenships under the Palestinian.

C

Silly legal, legalistic evasion, I think that they have. Again, this gets back to the question. Is Israel doing a temporary military occupation that will end at some point, or is it claiming this as part of its own territory? Now? It has acted like it's claiming it as its own territory since 1967. It is built cities full of its own citizens. All over the west bank. They have the people. If you live in one of those cities, you are treated for every legal purpose as living in Israel, not living abroad. You have all the rights of any other Israeli citizen. You're voting in Israeli elections. You know, if, you know, I don't know. My dad, for example, lost his mind tomorrow and decided that he wanted to become an Israeli settler in the West Bank. He would have a legal right to do that. Right under the, under the. The Law of Return. And he could, you know, he could just move straight there. Right? Like that would be considered moving to Israel. That would be considered establishing his residency in Israel. So they have tripped. Yeah.

B

In accordance with the Oslo Accords.

C

I don't care about that.

B

But it doesn't matter if you care about it or not. It's still a thing. I also don't like the Oslo Accords, but I don't get to say I'm going to ignore it. That's not how it works.

C

In accordance with. Has no relevance to the point that's being made. The point that's. Of course it does not. And I think you know that. The point that's being made is that Israel has treated the west bank as part of its own territory for every purpose except one. That one is giving the people their citizenship. The reason that it hasn't done formal annexation the way. The reason it's done this weird dance that's like, oh, this is a temporary military occupation. Except it's not. Except it is. And, oh, yeah, we're going to move. Like, we're going to move hundreds of thousands of our own citizens to live on this territory permanently. The reason it's done that dance instead of just doing a simple annexation of the whole thing is because then it would have to offer them citizenship and then there would be too many Arab citizens.

B

Yeah, of course. Listen, there is context here, and it's definitely a complex situation that of course they think about their security. And I know it's not just because they're Arabs, but, yes, of course there's a security concern. You'd be a fool, even if you're a pro Palestinian, to consider anything differently because you'd have to offer citizenship to people that are in the Jenin Brigades just as much as maybe a Yosef Haddad.

A

That's a brigade.

B

It's a terrorist organization in Jedi. Yeah, no, no, that's okay. And, and so, yes, of course there is context here. So I'm not going to kind of keep trying to pull the conversation to this idea of like, well, why haven't they annexed yet? Or not. Of course there's context that whether you're pro Palestinian or pro Israel, you have to acknowledge that. But to bring us back into the claim right now, it sounds like. And I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll ask you real quick, are you saying to come to these arguments, we have to ignore the Oscars? Because you kept saying it doesn't matter

C

at all because you were bringing it up where it has no possible relevance. They have a.

B

The point is the Oslo Accords were signed by both.

C

I know what the Oslo Accords. I know what the Oslo Accords are. And I'm sorry, I'm not going to let you drag the conversation off into this thing that has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

B

You said. You said that. You know, I said they had no

C

relevance to the point I was making. I explained the point I was making and I explained why that had no relevance.

B

Said that they. They are allowing for these settlements in Area C. I'm telling you, I did

C

not use the phrase Area C. I

B

did not say you didn't. But that's where the settlements are.

C

Yes, but the. But what Oslo says or doesn't say has absolutely nothing to do with the point that I'm making.

B

Oslo is treaty law. Right. So it overrides a lot of customary international law. Yes. Treaty law and customary international law goes together at times. And then above that is Article 107, UN Charter. And then above that is just Kogan's norms, peremptory norms when it comes to international law. Right. So I agree. Those would trump.

C

This is a fascinating argument against something I never said.

A

Okay, can I, can I ask you. Because I'll be honest. Following. Following this, I imagine, for a regular person is almost impossible. And the fact that we're talking about, like, a sliver of land also feels completely unhinged. Not you guys. The fact that human beings cannot coexist is. I can't it.

B

I'm trying to respond to questions about settlement.

A

I just want to point out that

C

the reason that it's hard to follow is I keep on trying to talk about very basic points of principle, and he keeps trying to talk about whether treaty law overrides customary law, even though

A

it has nothing to do with my, here's my.

C

What Jordan did, settlements. And all of that has nothing to do with anything. Why not just argue about the point of principle if you're confident in your argument?

B

But did you not bring up settlements?

A

I, I, I thought, okay, so what

C

was I making about settlements? Were you just opening up the settlement file in your head and say, oh, see, he used the word settlement. Keyword settlement. Therefore, open up this file? Because that's what it sounded like.

B

Yeah, because you cut me off. Of course it sounded like that.

A

Hold on. Here's what I'm thinking. Following, I think, is that 1967, we redraw the maps. Am I right about this?

C

1967, Israel conquers the west bank and Gaza.

A

Okay. Okay. Does it matter who initiated that fight? Is that relevant in this argument?

C

Not even a little bit.

A

No. Really? Okay, got it. Sorry.

B

Not, not for this argument.

A

Okay, Fair. Fair. Because, Because I thought it would be like, well, Israel did this.

B

Because what I've been trying to get to. He keeps cutting me off, saying I'm making a different argument, and I'm not just bringing up the Oslo Accords for no reason. Right. The reason I'm trying to bring it up is because we have to accept the premise, Right. That first off, it's illegal. Okay? There are advisory opinions. There's never been a Chapter 7 filing at all that talks about any of this being illegal. There are advisory opinions, and I acknowledge those opinions. And I just. So I can please Finish. So he knows I'm not just bringing this up a random. Whatever. These advisory opinions, I acknowledge that people have them. I don't care. That's not the same thing as saying they're absolutely legal. This is disputed and there are just as many people that argue against as they argue for it. I acknowledge that, of course.

A

Okay.

B

That's why we have debates like this.

A

Okay.

B

What I'm saying is, is why do we have to even accept the premise. First, that it's illegal in the first place. Second, that if it is illegal that they're occupying the Palestinians specifically. When was it ever Jordan? Just so you know, prior to 1967, it was controlled by Jordan illegally, by the way, it wasn't even recognized internationally.

A

Palestine that we know today was Judea

B

Samaria got the whole area what the colonizers call the west bank, which is a colonial term. Okay, yeah. When did the word west, when did you know, Whatever, it doesn't matter, right? West Bank. West bank is by the way, a brand new phrase. I was put in by Jordan. The reason it's on the east side is because the west bank of the Jordan river it has historically always been known Judea Samaria. This isn't even up for argument. Of course west bank is a brand new term, but it doesn't matter because that's not really what we're arguing about. What I'm saying is, is that Jordan illegally annexes it only recognized, I believe by the UK and Pacific Pakistan and that's it. No one else recognized it. Okay? So even at very best argument you can make is that yeah, Israel in 1967 occupied Jordan because they were the controllers, even if those illegal. But let's, let's just throw legal, legality out of the window for a second. They were literally the ones occupying that area. Okay. When they pushed Jordan out, you can at maybe best say they're occupying Jordan territory, except Jordan officially relinquished all claim in 1988. And by the way, anyone at home go Google the Palestine's Independence Day, November 15, 1988, 40 years after Israel, it lines up with, with Jordan. And something I wanted to bring up earlier about the this whole. Because to get back to the original with this whole like who's an impediment to peace, right? The cartoon resolution of the three no's, right? One of it is no peace with Israel.

A

That is something that cartoon resolution is

C

talking about the 1970s because he doesn't want to talk about what the actual facts on the ground have been for decades at this point. They have A. So the three no's of Khartoum are, you know, a bunch of Arab nations in the 1970s saying that they weren't willing to make a deal with Israel.

A

Okay.

C

Now if you want to bring it a little bit closer to our lives now, right, talk about something that happened while he and I were actually alive, we could talk about the Arab peace initiative in 2002, where all of these same countries said we would, you know, we would be willing to extend full diplomatic recognition and normalization and peace with Israel in. In exchange for a two state solution, Israel withdraws to its internationally recognized borders, allows the, the formation of a Palestinian state, there's a token or symbolic resolution of the refugee issue, and that's it, we're good. That's been the official position of all of these countries for decades now.

A

Okay, Nick.

B

Right. And I'm saying, why is that the premise that that's a good standard to accept? I don't understand why. Why do we have to accept this premise that, oh, Israel would be the good guys if they just removed 550 to 700,000 what they call settlers, which just means Jews in Judea, Samaria, remove them all and give the Palestinian states. That's what I've been saying since the very beginning, and I haven't got an answer. Why is the basis this idea that it would be good if they just gave this to the Palestinians? Because that's who they're occupying. When have we ever established that they were occupying Palestine or Palestinians? I understand some people believe that, but can somebody explain it to me? Because they pushed Jordan out. It was controlled by Jordan. Jordan relinquished all claim. At what year did it become Palestine?

A

So you guys agree on the same thing about the land, but you're basically saying why should the Jews have to give it up? And you're saying the Jews have to give it up.

C

Okay, right. Absolutely not. First of all, I would never ever in a million years equate Israel with something called the Jews. There's no such thing as the Jews. Right? They have a. Like this is, you know, we're talking about. You're talking about many millions of people, most of whom don't live in Israel and who have all different political opinions. Right?

A

That's actually what upsets me so much about this conversation. And I just made the mistake myself.

C

So, so that's, so that's one thing. But secondly, again, you know, my preference, right. Would be that, you know, since 1967, we've had a single state from the river to the sea, that doesn't have equal rights for everybody there. My preference would be to just have a single state that did have equal rights for everybody there. Failing that. Right, Yeah. I think that, you know, I think that you know, two state solution which if Israel withdraw all the way to its internationally recognized borders would not leave much for a Palestinian state. But you know, but sure, that would be a distant second place solution. The reason that it's the reason that that would be better than what we have now. Right. Like which is all I've said right. About that. Right. That they have. Not that it's the best of all possible worlds. I think the best of all possible worlds would be a single state with equal rights for everybody. Right, but I think that you agree on that Nick.

A

Single state with equal. Like if in our perfect world we had a single state with equal rights for everybody, would you think that's the perfect world?

B

Yeah, of course.

A

Like I do too.

B

Well, I think if we're talking about the perfect world there wouldn't be any borders and everyone would be nice to each other and there wouldn't be wor. Like. Yeah, but I live in reality, not in this.

A

I agree, but I'm just simply saying like we all agree that that would be the ideal world. And I just want to know.

B

But I do have a question.

C

If that happened. You said a lot of stuff and I haven't been able to respond to much of it. If you, if that happened. Right, those settlers, yeah they could all stay, right? They have a. They could, you know they. Now we'd have to, we'd have to, we'd have to integrate those towns with. Right. They couldn't be segregated Jews only cities anymore. Right. But like all of those people could stay. Right. And that would be my first choice. But yes, the reason why that the second choice, the reason why it would be better than what we have right now. If Israel withdrew to its internationally recognized borders and we had a Palestinian state in what was left is because then they would be citizens of something. Because the basic point here is that every single human being just for being a person deserves the same package of democratic rights as anybody else. That so I don't think anything, I don't think any nationalist cause any so called security concern, any, anything could possibly justify keeping millions of people as non citizen subjects for decades. Right. I think that the. Either you, either you, you make them citizens of the state they're already in or you let them secede to form another. A different state they could be citizens of. But I think that as a batter of basic human rights and democracy principles that I suspect the three of us would all agree on in literally every context except for this one. Those people should all be citizens and no amount of what about ism, about what Jordan did or Britain did, or the Ottomans did could have any possible relevance there.

B

To be fair, and I agree with you, maybe we should recenter the conversation. To be fair, I brought all this stuff up as responses to certain claims that you made. I agree with you that we can recenter the conversation, but this idea that I just brought this stuff up for nothing, like literally nothing at all, is. It's insane. Of course I brought them up for reasons. But fine, let's recenter the conversation. The fact that you're willing to say, like, hey, look, this is my first, this is what I'd like to see, but failing that, this is better than what exists now. Is it fair to say. Right, and this is just a sub question, but is it fair to say that you agree that there is a complexity here that is unique, that lets you into a position where you say, this is my first choice and second choice and third choice?

C

I think that it's actually an incredibly simple moral issue at its core. The incredibly simple moral issue at its core is does every human being have a right to democratic self government, to the same legal and human rights that we all enjoy? And I think if you say yes, then you know, we can talk about whether door number one or door number two, one state solution or two state solution, better realizes that. But if you say yes, that means there's no amount of complexity in the world that could justify what we have right now.

A

They say that every day your business is late to AI, you fall two days behind, the competition is moving faster than ever. But don't panic, because there's NetSuite Next. And you guys already know NetSuite as the trusted AI powered business management suite used by over 43 customers. It unifies your financials, inventory, commerce, HR and CRM into one single source of truth. But NetSuite Next is a massive leap forward because AI is now built into everything that you do. It automatically flashes custom insights throughout your day, and smart AI agents work alongside you to smash routine tasks. You got a complex question, just ask. It's like having a conversation with a colleague. Guys. It's completely tailored for a wide range of industries supporting the exact way your business truly works. So whether you're earning millions or hundreds of millions, it's time for NetSuite Next, where your business meets AI. And for the first time ever you can try NetSuite Next for free. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, go to NetSuite AI. Jillian. Built for every industry, ready for every boardroom. That's netsuite AI slash Gillian. Israelis tell me they want to kill us, they want us dead. How do you cohabitate with that? And then you know, you've got the Hamas charter that's like death to all the Jews is political. Islam is like death to the infidels. But I've been told that some of the people that attacked on October 7th were actually working for those Israeli families. And then they're like, see, see, we were working with them, they were in our homes and look, they came and killed us. We can't have peace with these people.

B

I just wanted to just say, because I just want to finish. We can shift to that. Yeah, the, the, the admittance of that it is a complex issue and it is unique, which we both agree with. And I think anyone who's, unless they're insane, agrees with that. That complexity itself shows, right, that there are more than just like simple answers to this and there are complex answers. And so therefore it is understandable for some people in Israel to say, like, hey, this is why I don't want to annex. There's a lot of people who don't want a two state solution that also say, but one state solution does have a lot of problems. In fact, there's something called the emirates plan by Dr. Mordecai Kater, which is like a. He calls it the eight state solution. There's a lot there, of course you understand that, but I don't mind shifting. I just wanted to get that out, that this complexity, it has to be acknowledged.

C

Yeah, I think, I think that again, I think that people want to say, oh, it's so complicated. It's so complicated. Because that's an evasion. It's an evasion of a really simple moral issue that flows from a principle that again, I think we would all agree on in every other context. And I think that that principle has very clear implications here. Just like it did in South Africa, for example. Right. You cannot rule over non citizen subjects for decade after decade after decade. Nothing could justify that. That is the absolute moral baseline. And I do not see a lot of complexity there.

A

Okay, so, all right, we've got the nuance of they're not a citizen, they're a citizen. You have annex territories, it seems, and Israel, just so I understand this, Israel cannot make the majority of people in the annexed territories citizens because then it's no longer run by I want to say Jews because it seems like Israel is there to protect Jews.

B

Let me just ask this question just like more directly. What would you be willing to. It was a one state solution. You got your, your what you actually want, not your second choice. What would you, what measures would you put in to force this, these principles that are upheld for both sides for that matter.

C

What do you mean by force those principles that are upheld. The force in the principles would be very simple which is that Israel would just give citizenship to the people who spent.

B

No, no, I'm saying that's done under

C

Israeli rule at that point we're done, we've got the principle.

B

No, no, I'm saying I'm someone, I'm talking about the principles, right. Equal rights and Jewish autonomy or sorry, self determination, all that. I'm saying though, the principles that you mentioned earlier with like effectively equal rights and whatnot. How do you stop again from both sides? I'm not even going to say Arab or Jew, but let's say, you know, hypothetically Arabs become majority and they just vote all this out and then Jews become demi status again at very best, if not worse.

C

Yeah. So I think that the, that if you had, if you gave, if you gave citizenship to, to everybody who lived under Israeli rule right now, if you, you know, let in, I think any number of refugees who are realistically likely to, you know, to take that offer and come back now, what that would give you would be approximately equal number numbers of Jewish and Palestinian citizens now with.

B

Right.

C

Yeah. I think that's because you're making unrealistic assumptions about how many people would take. Take that up. But let's say for the sake of argument. Well, no, I think you are, but

B

there's three and a half million in West bank, there's 2.1 million in Gaza. That alone with the about two point something million in Israel already is more than how many Jews are in Israel. So you're just, you're wrong. Even if one person took right of return, it would still be over 50%.

C

Yeah. So remember the word I use. There was approximately they have. And you know, you're saying over 50%. Over 50% does not contradict approximately. But regardless right at the start having a birth rate.

B

That's what I'm saying.

C

So they have. So what you're, you know, so what you're talking about. Right. Is a situation. By the way, Judaism would still be the plurality of religion. Religion, you know, religion. Because they're Palestinian Christians and you know Those principle, you know, so the question is hypothetically, right? If you had. And by the way, to get this to happen, you would have to assume that. That Palestinians who are already citizens of Israel, like, secretly long to, you know, to, to impose this, like, Islamic theocracy where Jews would have demi status, but they have a. Which, you know, is a fascinating assumption if we're just helping ourselves to that. But ultimately, the reason I'm so unmoved by this is the reason that I would have been so unmoved. If we were having a conversation in the 1980s about South Africa. You said, oh, well, you know, if there was, you know, if you, if you let all the black people in South Africa vote, you know, what would happen if they, you know, eventually voted? Discrimination against white people. And what I would say in both cases is the same thing that I'm very unmoved by saying because of a possible hypothetical future scenario which, you know, despite the fact based on history. Well, no, it's not.

A

They have a hypothetical.

B

No, it's not. He keeps.

C

He. It's. It's, it's literally hypothetical. That's what hypothetical means. You're saying that I, you know, that if we do this, I think this happens.

B

Debates, debates get into hypothetical all the time. But your argument right now, one for the 10th time, deflecting to South Africa when there's clear differences.

C

It's. It's not deflection.

B

When I brought up Jordan for a reason, it was a problem.

C

Sorry, but that's. What about ism? That's where you're saying, let's not talk about what Israel has done. Let's talk about the bad things these other people have done. That's a very different thing. That's exactly what you were doing.

B

No, what I did.

C

I'm sorry, you were clearly doing that. Now, what I'm doing is not saying, oh, let's not talk about the bad things that, you know, Israel or Hamas or anybody else is doing, because let's instead talk about something South Africa did. My point is to try to say we should have consistent standards. What we said about South Africa is what we say about Israel. Because it's the same principle. Calling that a deflection either means that you're doing a very bad job of following the conversation.

B

No.

C

Or you're being intentionally evasive. That's not a deflection. That's an analogy that's been used to make sure. To make, to make sure that we're applying consistent principles.

B

Can I get everyone. I just. Sorry. Because so a Couple things. One, what South Africa did, took actual citizens and put them in Bantu states and strip them of their citizenship. It's literally not the same thing. This is so. So why I have to be able.

C

Yeah, but you. But you tried to interrupt me for every single sentence what I just said. They have so doing. So what? So what I want to know. I'm going to treat you as you treat me. What I want to know right now is why is that relevant?

B

What I'm saying, right, is I never brought up Jordan to say, hey, Jordan brought up these, did these bad things, so who cares what Israel did? That's how he's framing my argument, and it's disingenuous. Of course, I never said, oh, Israel's allowed to do bad things because Jordan did bad things. That's ridiculous. I never made that argument. I brought that up because history matters and it led to the domino effect. To explain why my actual argument was, why is this basis and premise. This. I started with that. But when you interrupt someone halfway through, it's very easy to say, see, your argument's this. My argument's not that. That is establishing. So that way I can make my actual claim.

A

Can I ask this? It seems like, would you say that the Arabs have done things that are not good?

C

The Arabs made in who, Arab countries?

A

Palestinians?

B

Sure.

C

Hamas has done lots of things.

A

Would you say Israel has done things that are not good?

B

Of course.

A

Okay, this is. This is where it's like, why is it then. And this is just me asking you guys, honestly, how come it's always all or nothing? So if we can say like, okay, nobody's behaved perfectly here. I get the moral equivalence conversation. I think it goes nowhere. I really do. Because it's like, I have to hear the most grotesque things that happened on October 7th versus the amount of mortalities that have happened in Gaza. And it just breaks my brain.

B

One is a response.

A

I know, but I get.

C

Pretended that October 7th was a response to anything is incredibly ridiculous.

A

But. But here. So here would be my question, though, because it seems like you have two groups of people that cannot coexist. So what is the solution? Because it's like, okay, then you've got the genocide conversation. I know where that's going to go. Right, because it's going to say it's a genocide. No, it's not. The numbers of the Palestinians have gone up. If the Jews wanted to kill all the Palestinians, they would have just done it in a matter of days. Why did they drop the flyers? Why is Hamas going We're going to.

B

I don't even make those arguments really.

A

That's there. Okay.

B

I mean, I agree with some of those things.

A

Is it a genocide?

B

I just want to know. Did you mean to say what you just said? You said pretending October 7th was a response to anything. Do you mean the response October 7th?

C

No, I mean. I mean saying that history.

B

I agree.

C

October starts pretending that history starts on October 7th.

B

When did I ever say that?

C

Well, because you said that. The difference is that one was a response, so. As if October 7th is the first link in the chain of attacks and counter attacks.

B

I do not believe that.

C

Okay, well, it's fair enough.

B

In fact, I actually, just real quick, I've never sort of.

C

When you said the differences. Response.

B

Well, first off, I. She didn't even say anything about October 7th. You brought it up. Said a lot. She said that. Why is it all or nothing? Hold on one sec. She said it was all or nothing. And she said, Arabs, have they done something wrong? Have Jews or Israelis done something wrong? I said, yes, she. Yes, I agree. She brought up that. And among a lot of things, I was responding to her entire claim that I said one is a response. I never said the response of October 7th. I was just talking about how they respond all the time. I was thinking of. Actually, I was thinking of the Six Day War specifically, but Six Day War, October 7th as well. I never said anything that. Also, I want to point out, I've never, ever, ever heard a Zionist say everything started on October 7th. The only people that say that are pro pallies that say Zionists say that. I've never. And by the way, if I ever do, I promise you I'll call them out, because that's the dumbest thing ever. Pretending it started on October 7th is as ridiculous as pretending it started in 1948 or 1917. Because it also didn't. Which is funny, because their side. I'm not gonna say him because I don't. I don't know his position, but a lot of the times pro pallies say that all the time. It didn't start October 7th. Okay, when did it start? 1948. Well, that's just as stupid. That is just as stupid.

A

Why is that just as stupid?

B

Because, of course, things.

C

The.

B

The context, we're talking about the domino effect, saying it started in 1948. Okay, fine. Then what was the purpose of the Hebron massacre of 1929 then? And if they say it started in 1929, okay, fine. Or, sorry, the Jaffa riots, they killed about 500 Jews during the. Not just the Jaffa riots, the Arab revolt riots that started in 36 and on. And then when you go to the Hebron massacre, they go into a hostel that was actually made for peace. It was Arabs and Jews that lived together. It was started by Jews, and it was supposed to be a peace thing. They go in in the midst of the night when they're sleeping, they slaughter 67 women, children, and men. And. And so when they say, okay, fine, it started in 1929, okay, then what was the purpose? I can go all the way back to the 1517 Hebron massacre and the 1517 spot massacre.

A

So that's why.

B

It's just ridiculous.

A

It seems biblical because it keeps going back.

B

It's also not just Hamas. That's the problem.

A

I'm not saying is a right or wrong. I'm just saying.

B

I hate how we just keep saying Hamas. It's not just Hamas. Right. Hamas started in 1987 with Ahmed Yassin. Right. It's also.

A

Hold on.

B

Okay. Yeah, I'll just. I'll just end it real quick. Right. There is a historical presence, which is why I asked the question. And we don't have to go back to it, but I'm just saying that's why I asked the question, like, what standards or metrics would you put in to verify this? And just to say, oh, that's just a hypothetical. You don't know if that'll happen. It's not like I'm. Of course it is a hypothetical. I agree. But it's not that it's coming from absolutely nowhere. It's a fair question.

A

Okay, sorry, go ahead, Ben.

C

Okay. I don't know what he's talking about when he says. I keep saying Hamas. Hamas, Hamas. I asked you.

A

Well, okay, that's okay.

C

That's okay.

A

Don't worry about it. So you're not. We're not just talking about.

C

So, So I. You said Arabs, and I said, well, who do you mean specifically? Yeah, and, you know, and. And you said.

A

So I responded to radical Islamist that want to Jews. Is that what I mean? I. I mean, whoever is perpetrating these atrocities and that want to see the Jews off the planet.

C

I think that one of the things that drives me crazy is this is hearing like, you know, the Arabs or even the Palestinians as if this is.

A

Yeah, you're right.

C

As if this is a. This, this is a hive mind. So. So, like. So. So if.

B

If.

C

If you want to, you know, if you want to ask me a question. Right. About what? You know, some Palestinians have done. Then. Then you need to be specific, right? Like which Palestinians we're talking about. That was my point.

A

I don't even know because. Because then when, okay, I interview Leland Vitter, right, who was a journalist, and he tells me that there's a woman who was a suicide bomber, and she. She tries to, you know, blow up the Jews and herself. It goes wrong. The Jews, the Israelis take her to a hospital. They. They educate her, they heal her. And he's like, are you so glad that you didn't end up dying? And she said, no, I tasted heaven, the Holy Land. And, you know, that's my calling, and I'm going to do it again. And he's like, that's when I was like, okay, there's no way.

B

Who is that person? I do have a.

A

That kind of radical ideology. I just don't know how you feel.

C

Okay, before. Before we get.

A

Yeah, go ahead.

C

Sure. Before we get his question, you did say a bunch of stuff earlier about genocide in Gaza, and you sort of rattled off, right. You know, really quickly, like these, like, five or six sort of talking points about attacking why it's. Why it's not genocide.

A

Okay.

C

And I would really like to respond to those. I don't know if you want me to do that before he asks this question or go back to it. I just, I just.

B

It's just a quick question. My question is, who is. If we're. If we're talking about. It's like, not just Hamas, and I agree with you, you shouldn't literally say the word all Arabs.

C

That's.

B

That'd be ridiculous. Because it's not. Like I said, I'm really good friends with Yosef Adad. He's an Arab. He doesn't think that way.

A

I'm Arab.

B

Except for you and me, who is the most. If you had to pick of the. There's over that. I can think of a dozen organizations or representatives of the Palestinian people, whether we're talking about Gaza and. Or Judas, Mayor, West Bank. Who is the most moderate Palestinian organization that represents the Palestinian people? Whether they're popular or not is irrelevant. Just who's the most moderate one?

C

Well, I mean, I think that the. I don't know why we would talk about anybody except for Hamas or the plo, because those are the only ones that you could, in the real world, as you say, engage in any sort of negotiations with. If we, if we talk about the, the plo, then. Then I think we know exactly what kind of peace deal they would take. They've been Very, very clear on that. And, you know, again, that would be, you know, that would be a two state solution based on the pre1967 borders and a symbolic, you know, recognition of the injustice that was done to refugees.

B

So.

C

So they have a. That seems pretty reasonable to me. In fact, I think. I think. I think it's well short of justice. Right? So I don't. I don't know what this. Like, you know, like since we have one of the major factions that we know is willing to take that deal, has been willing to take that deal for the. I just, I'm just so. They have. I don't. I don't understand the point of the question. Is the point. You know, like, it's not for you

B

to understand the point of the question for me. All right, well, no, if we keep going in a not pedantic way, of course you may. I mean, if you don't know after that, then, sure, ask me. But all I've done is ask the question, and you're just not answering.

C

I'm sorry, I'm sorry. We have a limited amount of time.

B

Okay.

C

I'm not gonna get dragged off into this side.

B

Thing is, is that you're saying that that like. And again, I agree it shouldn't literally be all Arabs 100 agree with you. We're on the same page. That is also equally ridiculous.

A

That's all my.

B

No, no, it's fine. You're just speaking and people speak. It's fine. But it's equally also ridiculous to just say Hamas, Hamas, Hamas. And I'm not saying you particularly said that. So please don't go off on that rabbit hole. What I'm just saying is, is that if we look at the Palestinian representation to see how the Palestinians believe, the Arab Institute of research, even Dr. Khalil Shakaku, has been doing polling out of Ramala. He's a Palestinian for 30 plus years, maybe more. He found that even after October 7th and even being told what was on videos and what they did on October 7, whether you believe it or not, he told him this. 89% supported the military wing of Hamas. 89%. That's not a small number. My question, the reason I'm asking, if you must know why I need to ask my question is because if this is a representation of the Palestinian people, not Hamas, I'm asking you who's the most moderate. If you say it's the page, well, they spend more money on terrorism than they do their own education system. If you say it's Hamas, I don't know why you would, but I think I can debunk that as well. If you say it's the pij, the pfop, the dfop, the prc, army of Islam, Mujahideen Brigades, Jadim Brigades, Lion's Den, they're all terrorist organizations or support terrorism. So when you sit here and you say, again, I agree, it's not all Arabs. Of course not. That's ridiculous. But don't minimize the representation of the Palestinian people because they show their interest in terrorism.

C

So what percentage of Israeli Jews do you think support what's been done to Gaza since October 7th?

B

I don't think what's been done to Gaza is the same as the military.

C

No, I have. I agree. It's much, much, much worse. And this brings us back to the genocide stuff, right? Because, you know. Because you just, you know, you rattled off a few minutes ago, right, several things that people say when they say it's not genocide.

A

The population's gone.

C

Okay? So. So nobody thinks the populace. So the population has gone up. I've always been confused by that talkie point because it seems like we. What are people talking about? Are they talking about since the occupation started or they talk about since October 7th?

A

I don't know.

B

Do you think the gen. Just so I can understand, do you think the genocide has been since 67, or are you talking about the genocide post October 7th?

C

Talking about post October 7th.

B

Okay, then obviously she's talking about post October 7th.

A

Yeah. They say there's more Palestinians if. Then I, I get. I got. I thought it was from October 7, but it could be.

C

I would, I would be. I would be shocked if anybody seriously contends that the number of Palestinians in Gaza has gone up since October 7th.

B

So I can answer this. It actually comes from you. It does. It comes from a UN report. And it's not in Gaza. That's disingenuous. It's the amount of Gazans.

C

Well, if it's not in Gaza, why.

B

Because genocide is a destruction of people for that people. Right. It's more than that, and we'll get into it. But just so I can move on to the point. There has been reported, at minimum 150,000 to about 250,000 somewhere in that range that have migrated out of Gaza since October 7th. So if you don't include just people migrating, because obviously that wouldn't imply genocide if they migrated out. Right?

C

If you don't, why they migrated up.

B

No, it doesn't.

C

It does, actually. If you care about. If you care about the definition of genocide in international law. It absolutely counts.

B

I can.

C

Now, if you read, if you read the answer. If you read, if you read the UN Convention on genocide that defines what the crime. Crime of genocide is. They have. Then they, they give a series of acts. And if you say, they say, if you commit any of these acts in pursuit of the destruction of, of an ethnic group in whole or in part, that's genocide. What does in part mean? In part means that if your goal is to have a land, right, A piece of territory where this ethnic group lives, to have them no longer live there. Right. Like if that is the reason that you're. That is absolutely correct.

B

Ethnic cleansing, which is not genocide.

C

Yes. Under the legal definition of genocide, if you're committing these acts in pursuit of ethnic cleansing, it absolutely does count as genocide.

B

Second to last.

C

So they have a. So they, so there, so there are, there are five acts, right? There was, there was, there was a. Well, no, actually you were interrupting me as I was trying to say this.

A

Get through the five act. And then, and then.

C

Yeah, so. So they have. And if you look at this list, they have, you know, they certainly include members of the group. They certainly include causing egregious bodily harm to members of the group. And they include. And this is the one that if you've been paying any attention to the news for the last two and a half years, you should start to hear alarm bells going off, you know, making the physical conditions of life. Right. You know, impossible for people to keep living in an area. Now, if that, if, if them doing that is why all these people have migrated, then it does go to genocide. I think people who say it's not genocide what they're thinking of, right. The definition of genocide in their head is not the legal definition for the

A

un the definition of ethnic cleansing, a

C

group of people, the definition of genocide in their head is. Well, it has to be like the Nazi holocaust that you're trying to. Really. Every single member.

A

Okay, is it.

B

Okay, so back to what I was saying when I was cut off. Right? So first. The second. I have to answer some of this stuff now, and I don't even remember what I was saying before. The second to last page of the Genocide Convention specifically says cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does simply dispersing a group. So everything he just said was incorrect. It's in the Genocide convention. It's in the second to last page. Yes, you did, you said displacing based off of certain reasons. This is not what is required for genocide. That being said, genocide has two elements, the mental element and the physical elemental element being the very hard. The hardest thing to prove. On top of that, what people miss is that it requires what's called the dolus specialis, right? The special intent. And what that means specifically is that everything you do with this intent has to be for the special intent of genocide, not you're doing it with the intent of other things. Right? And then you can also just double up and say it's also because of genocide. Right? It has to be with the intent for that genocide. So I agree with some of the examples. He's correct. It does give you a list of examples, but it must meet the base definition, right? The dola specialis, the special intent.

A

Can I play devil's advocate real quick? Okay, so here's. If I say to you I'm just going after Hamas, though, can't help the fact that there are hundreds of kids there, how do you determine. Listen, I'm just saying, how do you determine that?

B

Are you asking an international law or just in morality in general, what are you asking?

A

Okay, so, so this, the specialist thing you just so especially, right? If, if I'm saying but my intent is to get terrorists, but then a bunch of civilians die, that can be

B

a violation of ihl doesn't necessarily prove genocide. It could be part of genocide for sure. But that alone, that example doesn't automatically prove genocide. In fact, genocide is very difficult to prove. A lot of time pro Palestinians use what could be considered war crimes if their representation was correct. But let's say, for example, your example, absolutely, that can be a violation of IHL, Rome Statute, etc. But that doesn't mean a genocide. Now to answer your question, the international law effectively states. I'm paraphrasing here, I'm trying to get as close as I can remember, but it effectively says that it has to meet the military advantage, right? So what that means is that the military advantage, Z Corps actually outweighs, right? The civilian death or these hundred kids, for example, which I can't imagine it ever would, then, then you would be in violation, like let's say obviously the. The military advantage, right? Getting Sinwar, for example, whether it be Muhammad Sinwar, Yaya Sinwar. Muhammad Sinwar was under a hospital when he was killed, right? That comes to Article 19 of Geneva Conventions 4. Right. Even though they didn't really bomb that hospital, there was some damage to it because technically they hid an area that was right outside. But Al Jazeera reported Israel bombs hospital and then about A few hours later to a day later, turns out, oh, they actually Mohammed Sinwar, now you can say, oh, like look, they're bombing these hospitals, right? But that is actually not genocide or an example of them making life conditions so hard because of specifically dolus specialis. Now if that dolus specialist didn't exist, then he would absolutely be correct because it didn't matter. But when the intent follows Article 19, for example, which allows for this, then you cannot double up and say, oh, it's also for genocide. And again, I want to make it clear, right, that ethnic cleansing is a different thing than genocide. Ethnic cleansing was actually defined. It's actually not illegal under international law, at least yet it's not. Now, certain actions, I want to make it very clear and I'll try to wrap this up quickly. I want to make it clear and I'll try to wrap this up quickly. But certain actions of how you do ethnic cleansing absolutely can violate Rome's statute. I want to make that very clear. And a lot of people get confused, confused with that. Ethnic cleansing was after the Yugoslavia conflict and then I believe 1994, there was an interim report and then a final report in 94 by the United nations, give or take here, I'm going off memory here, but it's actually meant to use terroristic means to make an area ethnically homogeneous, right? Not more ethnically this way, ethnically homogeneous. That's actually what it means. And again, it's not illegal under international law. But certain actions, how you do it could be.

A

Ben, do you, do you have a response to that or should I ask a question?

C

Well, I again, I would just say as far as the intent goes, if you read South Africa's file into the International Court of Justice, they, you know, you have, you have a good dozen pages of quotes from Israeli officials that are expressing genocidal intent. I think that, you know, if you, you know, I mean, honestly, which is not surprising if you, I think that nothing has been as damaging to Israel's reputation in the Western world, at least among the subset of the Western world that's on Twitter than the translate function, right, where you can see what people are tweeting in Hebrew and you know, you could translate it, you see a non stop flood of, of genocidal rhetoric, you know, certainly at the grassroots. And, and that's also been reflected in statements by Israeli leadership, by Israeli cabinet members, by Israeli parliamentarians, by Israeli generals. So I think that the, I think that the intent is there in abundance.

A

I don't think so. Okay.

B

Yeah, so you have to have physical and mental elements. So this could be used as evidence. And it has been in prior genocide case. I believe the Rwandan case actually brings this up. But that by itself actually does not improve intent at all because you must meet both elements of physical and mental element. This would be used not even actually to prove, but as evidence against mental element. I agree with him on that. But it's incorrect to say that this proves intent.

C

Yeah, I, I think people should check it out. They could read the whole thing online.

B

It's pretty convenient. Never been a genocide ever in history that has been proven and used as intent solely by just that alone. It has been used as evidence. I agree. Where people say things, if they're in governmental positions, it is never once and anyone can fact check me on this, never once has that been the sole reason to prove intent ever. Never will be.

C

By the way, you're talking about a tiny number of precedents. Again, I would just encourage anybody who's curious, Right. It's very easy to look up and read the whole PDF for yourself. Right? You know, this, this doc. Great. Well, you've read it. Everybody else should read it too.

A

Okay, so again, here's what I'm hearing. If you translate Hebrew, you're going to see that they want the Palestinians dead. Conversely, if you translate Arabic from Palestinian or a certain faction of Palestinians, you're going to see they want the Jews dead. We've got civilian casualties. And again, it's like, I don't. I. Where does this go? So here's my question. Is there any universe, right, where you think civilian atrocities are justified? Because you've got tons on both sides and some are so awful. The best summer pieces are the ones that you end up wearing on repeats. They're comfortable, they're versatile, and somehow they're right for every single occasion. Which is why I love quince. They make elevated essentials using premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, washable silk, without the traditional retail markup. And this summer, I found myself reaching for quince again and again. Their 100% European linen pieces are so comfortable and lightweight and incredibly easy for me to style. And if I can do it, anybody can do it, whether it's a casual day out or a dinner with friends. Friends. The linen pants, the dresses, they're always fantastic. And they start at just 32 bucks. I'm also a fan of their soft denim and their organic cotton sweaters, which are perfect for layering when the evenings are cool. And their beautiful 14 karat gold jewelry has become my Go to Finishing touch. Simple hoops or a delicate chain can instantly elevate an outfit without feeling overdone. So guys, make your summer wardrobe feel easier. Go to quince.comjillian for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available in Canada as well. That's Q U I n c e.com/Jillian for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comJillian I do, I do see what you made.

C

But I would also say that I'm an American. And so as an American, my primary moral responsibility is to oppose crimes that are committed with the participation of, of my government. Not just any crimes that happen to be committed anywhere that I have nothing to do with and I can't do anything about. Right? So if my government were sending 2,000 pound bombs to Hamas to drop on Israeli schoolchildren, I would protest that too.

A

Okay.

B

I just remember when I was cut off from earlier that we never finished, it was when I was talking about the amount of Gazans in and then I said 150 to 250,000 have left. And that's when he cut me off to say that could be genocide depending on how, why they left. I want to finish that real quick because I think it's actually important. It just, I'm sorry, it clicks. No, no, no, you're the 150,000. 250,000 have left if you don't just count that. And again, I get, maybe we disagree on what that means, but the amount of BIRS according to UN report, even just one year in October 7 to October 7, 2024. Right. One year in was about 130 to 150,000 birds. Even if you go with Moss's numbers, which I don't particularly always agree with because they've historically lied about the separate. They've never, they've been historically correct about at least within a fair amount of the total number of deaths. But they have historically lied in every major war about the separation of how many were terrorists and collaborators versus how many were civilians. But even if we go with that, right now it's at 72, 600, I believe, give or take. And that's, that's where the idea comes from with the population has gone up. Right. In terms of death rate versus birth rate. Sorry, we can get back to it or you can respond to that. I just, I really wanted to get that out because that's what I was trying to say earlier.

A

I guess I just, I don't see how people can be like these Israel's evil and the. I think Hamas is evil for sure. But the plight of innocent civilians, the whole thing is very hard to reconcile.

B

Yeah.

A

You know what I mean?

B

I think the human rights.

A

What is the solution? And then, and then my.

C

Well, sorry, if it's okay. You asked what is the solution? And I just want to say, because I know we're getting into our last ten minutes or so. I, I don't think I've, I've heard yet like, like what your, what your solution is. Right, so.

B

So it's for what specifically the cause of war right now or. Well, that's what you were asking, but

C

is that what you were asking?

A

I think so. Like, because this is what I mean, it's like they did this. Well, they did that all the way back now, hundreds of years.

C

So if you're talking about a time frame of hundreds of years, you're not just talking about the Constitution.

B

So what's the question?

C

I'm sorry, so, so I thought what you were asking.

A

Correct me for the concession. How do we fix this? I feel like anybody who goes to address this needs to just look forward. You cannot look back. It is an impossibility.

B

It is a quagmire I want to eliminate. Again, I don't, I don't attack people because they're, they're two thirds of Israel, right? Israel proper are people of color. It has nothing to do with if they're brown or, or if they're Arab or Muslim or Jewish or Christian or atheist or gay or not. Like, that's, that's not my point. I attack ideologies and people that are in bad faith or support such an extreme bad faith to undermine the Jewish state. And my, my goal and my belief, I'm not Jewish. But is the security. That's what's important to me, right. That is my number one primary. So that's the one thing. I know we never asked the question, but I believe if I remember correctly, one of your questions is going to be like, what should one side concede? For me, I just don't want to concede. Right. The security of all Israelis, right? Whether that be Jewish, Muslim, Israeli Arabs, which make up. There's more percentage wise, more Israeli Arabs in, in there than there are black people in America, right? Percentage wise. I, I don't, I'm just saying Israelis, the security of Israelis, Druze, Bedouins, Samaritans, Jews. And I don't think Israel disagrees. If it really was just being the wrong ethnicity, which I think you said a couple times, how Come they haven't attacked the Druze or the Samaritans. Are they the right ethnicity? I understand.

C

So that was a question. Let me answer the question. They have a. So I do want to also point out that his, that he kept saying the security of Israelis and I'm so curious about this security of Palestinians because they have, you know, we hear all the time Israeli security, Israeli safety, Israel's right to self defense. I never hear anybody ever invoke the, the, the security or safety of all those millions of Palestinians who live without rights under Israeli rule or what their, or what their right to self defense might be.

B

I didn't say that was important. Just real quick, I just said my number one. I didn't say that nothing else was, but go ahead.

C

Okay, well, well, all right. So I'm not sure sure why that's number one and this is number two, why one matters more than the other. But like again, I think as far as the question about the Druze and all of that, right. I mean this is really the sort of standard evasion when you say, okay, Israel has denied millions of people citizenship or democratic rights for every day of their lives. Anybody who's born in 19, after 1967 in Gaza or most of the west bank, right. Like is, has, has been, has been denied those rights since 1967. That sure sounds like apartheid. And what people say is, oh, wait a second, but you know, what about, you know, what about the Druze? What about these other Israeli Arabs, right?

B

That's not why I asked that. I asked it because you said wrong ethnicity. So again, you can't keep like avoiding questions by just saying I'm evading. That's not the point.

C

What was the sentence that I used? The word wrong phrase, wrong ethnicity.

B

Right? You said that if they were to an or they don't want to annex it because they don't want to give them suggestion because they are the wrong ethnicity. And then you looked at me. So I'm simply asking, not as a deflection, but are they the right ethnicity, the Druze or the band? Because if your premise, if your premise. Sorry, one second. If your premise is that it's solely because they're the wrong ethnicity, your premise falls apart with this. If that's not what you meant to say, or maybe I misheard you, fair enough. But if your premise is it's the wrong ethnicity, then my question is at least somewhat valid. You can't just keep saying deflection to avoid it.

C

Well, okay, I haven't avoided any, anything that you've said, I think anybody who reviews this can see that they have a. But also I think that your own argument earlier, right. You said earlier that if Israel gave citizenship to everybody who's lived every day of their lives under its rule, right. Which includes a lot of people who had qualify for senior citizen discounts right now. Right. They have that if Israel gave all those people citizenship, that would be terrible because when we add it up, right, the number of Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza with those Israeli Arabs, Druze, etc, then there would be this Arab majority which you know, which you predict, you know, it would lead to second class citizenship.

B

I didn't say it or wouldn't.

C

That's okay.

B

I said there was historical precedents to be worried about that. So I asked what, please, what would you put in place?

A

I would worry about Jews, people living

B

minimization of my argument.

C

Sure. I'm happy to accept you worry that it would have that consequence as a friendly amendment to you say it would have that consequence. But the point is that argument answers your own question just now. Right? The point is when I say they've denied they don't want to give these people citizenship because they have the wrong ethnicity. The point is exactly what you said earlier, that if they gave these people citizenship then when you added those to the people who are already citizens of, of Israel, then you would have too

B

many based off of ideology though, not ethnicity.

A

I'll own it.

C

But it's, but it's not, it's based on it. It's based on ethnicity. In fact, every mainstream ideology, every, every, every mainstream Israeli politician will say they have no shame about this. They have no compunction about say it this, that we can't do that because it would undermine the Jewish character of the state. That's not, that's not a claim about ideology. That's a claim about ethnicity that you can't do that because, because, because then Jews would be a minority of citizens. That's what they're saying.

B

I just want to say just real quick that I am about as right wing Zionist as one can get bar being an extremist that wants to like kill people just because they're Arabs. Right? Not that, but pro one state solution. And if, let's say I look into one second, if I can look into the future and say like hypothetically I can just see all the futures and for all the future there'd be an Arab majority state and they literally were just like, no, we're protecting our Jews, we give them full autonomy. They're not dhimmis. They can. They have all their rights and everything like that. Everything. Right. Full autonomy for the Jewish people in their ancestral indigenous homeland. But it was Arab majority. I would say absolutely yes, that's fine. In fact, bar extremists who just had hate Arabs or brown people or whatever. I'm pretty sure everyone agree with that. But the thing is, is that's not living in reality. And so it is absolutely ideology. If it was an ideology, I wouldn't have just said that. And I promise you I'm not lying. I would have said no, I don't want Arabs.

C

So. So what? Israeli politicians said Jewish character of the state. What are they.

B

Well, you're debating me. If you want to debate an Israeli politician in the future, fine. I can also point to Israeli politics. I didn't say that this is a deflection. But we're not telling you.

C

But they have a. But the question that we're talking about

B

is can you tell me which are which. Which is really.

C

Oh my God. I have a.

B

So I'm not saying they did and I just can't. So I can answer directly if I agree or disagree.

C

Okay. I think, please fact check me if I'm about this, if I'm wrong. I think that that is a very, very commonly used phrase in Israeli political discourse.

A

The phrase that the Jews have to

C

maintain the Jewish character of the state. The Jewish nature of the state.

B

Right, but that doesn't imply. Why did anyone say they have to maintain majority? Because I don't want Arabs. Or did they say because the ideology would eliminate the Jewish autonomy?

C

Okay, so first of all, I don't know why Jewish autonomy is what you're talking about as opposed to just everybody having equal rights. They have this the same way. But hold on. But you wouldn't, you wouldn't generally say they've done it.

A

They went in the Lebanon.

C

But wait a second. He just, he just said that he would be okay with a hypothetical one state solution with equal rights for everybody. Which by the way, I'm still. I've tried so many times to get him to say what his actual preferred solution would be. And I haven't heard it. But they have a But he just said he would be okay with mine. Right. If, if this, if this. Well, no, no, no. But, but he's. I think I.

B

Minimizing my argument.

C

Let me just, let me just finish it. He said he would be okay with that. If. Right. That state respected Jewish autonomy. Okay, so they have a. So my question is.

B

And everything else.

C

Okay, sure. And a lot of other things. But that's, but that's not. But, yes, but the thing is the, the rest of your list I agree with, I'm talking about this item because this is the item I don't agree with. Right. So the question is, why is Jewish autonomy something that you would want even in a one state solution? Because normally, right, if, if somebody, if somebody talked about like white autonomy, Jewish

B

autonomy means, I'll tell you what do you think their ability.

A

Okay, can I, can I tell you, here's, here's what I would say it means from my perspective is they decide their own destiny. And the reason I think that's important Is because there's 14 million of them left in the world and they need to have a safe space because the anti Semitism throughout history and now in particular is raging and there's 14 million of them left in the world. They need one safe space. Whereas at least Arabs have like 50, excuse me, Muslims. Muslims have 55 countries, it seems like.

C

Okay, but first of all, I don't

A

know how to label the people that don't like Jews.

C

Relevances of other major majority Muslim countries to whether Palestinians should, should be citizens of the state that they live in.

A

You asked me why Jews should have autonomy over their own state.

C

That sounds like the answer you're giving me.

B

Right?

C

And like again, what I was trying to figure out is what he means by it. And I'd love to hear it. Right, but like, but it sounded like what you were, what you were talking about. That's my simple answer is when you said, when, you know, when you started saying here's why Jewish autonomy is important, it sounded to me like you're describing, here's why you think having a Jewish state is important. Right, but that seems different from what you're saying because you're saying that one of the conditions, not the only condition, but one of the conditions that would have to be passed for you to be okay with a one state solution would be that it would have to respect something called Jewish autonomy. And what I'm trying to figure out is what that means to you and why you think that's why they have

B

deterrence for their own people. Of course you can still within the bounds of the laws of the state, the state. I'm not saying they get to just bypass everything just because they're Jews. Of course, within the bounds of the laws of the state. That's the same as, I don't understand. It's. Do you agree that indigenous Americans have some kind of Autonomy that's kind of separate from other ethnic groups, but it's still within the bounds of the laws of the state.

C

So. So is that what you agree with that? Is that what you're talking about, that they. That you think.

B

Well, I don't think it should be pound for pound like the exact same thing. I'm just asking you. I'm just asking, can you comprehend the idea of. Let me finish then. Can you comprehend the idea that. What did you think I meant when I said Jewish autonomy? You think I meant they get to bypass everything. They get to do whatever. Okay, well, then I don't understand what the problem is, having a Jewish autonomy.

C

Well, because if somebody said, I think it's very important that, like, there be some sort of recognized white autonomy within the United States. Right.

A

Like white people haven't been hunted.

C

I understand.

B

Right.

C

But the point is, I was about

B

to say there's a little bit of context missing here. I think it's important to add that context.

A

Okay, but what's surrounded by people that want them dead.

B

Right. And if they did, I would actually talk about wide autonomy if.

A

And I know you need to go, like, so you can end this whenever you need to. You told me 12:45, and it is your time. I'm telling you. So nobody thinks anybody walked out of this. I was given a very clear heart out by Ben. So you decide. You know, I just want you to be able to decide when you.

C

So, so I'm just, I'm just very confused. You know, you. Like when I. Whenever I try to ask what you mean by Jewish autonomy, you get very defensive and you don't actually talk.

B

Tell me get that in defensive. Oh, no, I did tell you. I said within the bounds of the state that you get to. I said this like, I said this like five times.

C

What do you mean? I have no idea what you mean.

B

Again, I'd be more than glad to, to. To expand, like, you have to, like you're saying, in specific conditions. What does that mean? It means they get to determine as the Jewish people, again, within the balance of state. I'm not saying they have some kind of special privilege or they get to bypass stuff that nobody else does. And by the way, I think the same for Muslims. I think there should be a Islamic leader, kind of like the Islamic waf. Control. I don't think this is just a Jewish thing. I don't even understand why this is the part you're, you're.

C

Well, no, just, just, just. I mean, the reason is because. Well, one that this, this sort of position that a one state solution with citizenship for everybody would be okay if there was something called Jewish autonomy? Maybe this is just my ignorance. Right. But over the course of many, many conversations about this, this is the first time that I've run into that position. And so it want to make sure

B

I was being clear that the hypothetical would never happen.

C

Yes, I think, I think everybody, I think everybody got that you were saying that like this is your, you know,

B

this is hypothetically if it did. Yeah, sure. And by the way, I'm not the first person to say that a lot.

C

I'm not saying that you are the first person. I'm saying that you're the first person I've talked to right. Over the course of doing several debates about this, writing a lot about this. You know, do you hear from a

B

lot of critics, like in a one state solution, the Arabs really were for. Not for a generation or two, I mean permanently would actually respect these. Fine. Put the Jewish economy aside because you didn't really like. Well, I just don't think everything else. But yeah, fine, everything else. Right.

C

Yes.

B

A complete protection. There's no second class. If they want. What about like stuff like. I know you have to go, but like stuff like, you know, gay pride parades. That, that Israel as a secular nation because it is secular. They want Palestinians come in. At bare minimum, they're already over 50%. They're going to continue to grow because they have a higher birth rate. Let's just be honest, what happens when they say no, actually we want to criminalize gay people.

C

I think the order.

B

Gay people not get the rights. I don't understand.

C

Okay. I don't think you can disenfranchise millions of people because you're worried that hypothetically. Right.

B

Disenfranchised. Well, I'm asking like you asked, what do you mean by autonomy? I'm simply asking you what do you mean by your solution? That's all.

C

Yes, what I think I've been pretty clear what I mean by my solution. I think that you should have citizenship and equal rights for everybody.

B

There.

C

Now you're saying that a concern about that is that one day in the future. Right. Like it, you know, then they can't get along. Then you know that you're going to get illiberal laws passed, all that stuff.

B

And I'm definitely happen.

C

Well, I don't think it would definitely happen. I do not accept that premise at all. But they have a. Yeah, you can laugh. That's cute.

B

They became a majority. You don't think they would vote. Let's just start with gay, gay rights. You don't think they would vote that out? Really? You actually want to look me in the face and say they would not.

C

I would, I would not assume that in a big pluralistic country where Jews made up a massive proportion of the voting population, where you'd have to have

B

disagree with that too. So you wouldn't even

C

have.

A

Ben Shapiro is a perfect example.

C

So he just. So I, so I haven't made any prediction about what would happen there. All I said is that I wouldn't assume it. But also though, even if we did assume it. Right. Yes, that would be bad. I would be against it. Just like when we, you know, didn't have, you know, when we, we didn't have gay rights, you know, like legally established in this country. I was against that. Right. They have a. But, but like my being against it.

B

There's a difference. Not having rights and criminalizing it.

C

Well, I mean, up until Lawrence versus Texas, it was criminalized among much of the United States. So that was, that was when I was in my early 20s.

B

Okay, let me rephrase. Difference in criminalizing in a Muslim majority state. Let me rephrase. I'm sorry.

C

Okay, so yes, they have. If they did that, I would be against it. But the, the, the possibility, let's say the probability. I don't care. The probability that, that that would happen. Yes. That they would make decisions I would disagree with. That they would have laws that I disagree with. That is that, that is that, that. That is not enough for me to say that you can keep millions of people as subjects but not citizens.

B

I think it's not agreeing with. Hold on. Not agreeing with your mind doesn't mean that I agree with that. The white people.

A

I know, I know.

C

But I would be happy to give you the last word if you would just tell me, because I've tried to ask so many times. Right. What would be your preferred solution?

A

Go ahead, Nick. To this.

B

Are you asking me to expand the entire thing or just like do my one state versus Tuesday?

C

Just, just, just, just, just, just like to, to, to do. Is what you advocate, right? Is what you advocate a one state solution without citizenship for Palestinians? Is it a two state solution? What is it? What do you advocate?

B

Yeah, so, so I acknowledge that there is a lot of complexity. I will never advocate for a Tuesday solution. And I think that's dead. And I'm against it completely. Right. 100%. And I'd be allowed to have a separate conversation about that. But Again, no, you're right, you're right.

A

Another time, another time.

B

But yeah, so I do advocate, I have consider because I don't believe, I don't actually like when either side, Israeli or pro Israelis or pro Palestinians are saying it's this or nothing. Right. I don't, I don't actually believe in that. I have considered Dr. Mordecai Kadir's plan that he pushes out a lot with what he calls eight state solution, or the Emirate plan, which actually support. I like to finish. So I have considered and have supported that to an extent, but I see issues with it. I have also considered and supported a one state solution. Right. And I have considered support that, but I also see the issues with it and the complexity of it. But when you ask me. No, Nick, tell me right now exactly what you want, down to the detail.

C

Give me a sentence. Like, it doesn't have to be down to the details.

A

You prefer what?

C

Give me a sentence.

A

You, you prefer one?

B

Well, see, that's the problem is it's not one sentence because I just gave you two different solutions that I have looked at and historically supporting. You're looking at me like I said the most evil thing ever. So this is the problem with a lot of people on the pro Israeli side and pro Palsy side.

C

I'm not looking, I'm not looking at you like you said the most evil thing ever. I'm looking at you like I'm really confused about what? Why you're evading the question.

B

I'm not evading the question. I've given you. Just like you kind of actually gave me. I've given you two different things. I also got interrupted, so I didn't get to speak past that. But I've given you two different things that I've looked at and have supported. Just because I'm not giving you what you want me to answer does not mean I didn't answer the question. Nick, what do you support as a solution? Hey, Ben, I've actually considered this and like it, but I see the complexity of it and I've considered this and like it.

C

I've seen complexity.

B

How is that not an answer? Okay, give me an example of what an answer would be.

A

Concrete answer.

C

Okay.

B

He wants me to be solidified and saying I want this beacon to have a binary option to say, well, there's the problems with this and this and this and this.

C

Here's an example of an answer. There should be a one state solution where with citizenship for everybody. Here's an example of another Answer. There should be a one state solution, but without citizenship for the Palestinians. Here's an example of a third answer. There should be a two.

B

What if I don't agree with that?

C

Okay, then tell me what you agree with. When you say you've looked at a one state solution and you know you like it but you see some problems or whatever, what's the version of it?

B

I have asked people who. With a two state solution, I said I can support that if. Let's ask. Let me ask somebody that's pro two state solution, which is you. Okay, fine. Would you accept the fact that if Israel does that and they give them full autonomy, they're totally separate state. They can be friends or not, doesn't matter, they're totally separate state. Israel would withdraws completely. The second Palestine attacks Israel. And I'm not talking about some radical that wasn't. I'm talking about actually Palestine attacks Israel. Israel gets to go in and completely annex all of it and take it all over and push them out. Do you agree with that?

A

You're saying we have peace, they blow it and enough's enough?

B

Yes, yes, enough is enough. If as long as we are going to concede this with the measure that if you do that, then we are done because we gave you everything you asked for at this point and you still.

A

I see.

C

That's that. That is. That is a psychotic. That's evil. I'll look at that like it's.

B

By the way, I'm not saying that I think they should do that. I'm asking because he's gonna try to frame this as oh, that's evil. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is, is that if you cannot concede that, then in your mind you think that they're still going to continue to attack even after getting rid of all the settlement.

C

That doesn't follow at all. Of course it doesn't follow. They have a.

B

That like would they attack Israel again if they withdrew from all the settlements and gave them the state?

C

No. And it could also the answer then I don't.

B

So it's just as ridiculous to say they should be a majority in the one solution. If you as a pro Palestinian can't even trust the answer to be no, why the heck should I trust it?

C

Said that the answer was no, but no.

B

You said it could be no. He literally just said literally five seconds ago.

C

Okay, okay. Nick is not going to tell me what kind of one state solution he likes. I have asked him so many times.

B

Every Israeli citizen should have equal rights just like it is now. Okay, pretty sure I said that at the very beginning.

A

So.

C

So to be clear, right. Yes or no? Yes.

B

If you're an Israeli citizen, you should have the same rights under the one

C

state solution you want. If you're a Palestinian who lives in Judea and Samaria, are they all accepting you?

B

Are they all accepting citizenship?

C

You should. Okay. Should you at least be offered citizenship?

B

Yes.

C

Okay, so, so, so we agree.

B

And just like Jerusalem, most of them won't accept it.

C

Well, I think in this scenario they would. And I think that you, and I think that you would not be a fan because you just told me do not want all the reasons. I think, I think that they would want citizenship in, in a single democratic state. I think that's a very different question. Right. Then you know this, that we continue to define Israel as a Jewish ethno state. And you know, do you want to, you know, do you want to be a citizen of that? Because then, you know you are going to have this very distantly second class status. So. Okay, I think just, just real quick.

B

The second class implies, right, that you're still a citizen, but you're second. Literally the full name is second class citizen. You're not second class if you're not a citizen. Right. It's the same as Israel doesn't have rights in area A. Right. It doesn't mean that Palestinian Authority is apartheid in the Israelis. I know it can keep going on and on.

A

That's the problem.

C

It's, it's, it's this again. At the core of this, there is such, there's such a simple moral issue. Is it acceptable to rule over millions of people without giving them citizenship? I think we might have finally gotten to know at the end there. I'm not totally clear, but we are 10.

A

I know I kept you. I know and I listen. First of all, I really appreciate you both showing up for this conversation. And look, hopefully people will continue to talk in this civil fashion and one day maybe there will be an answer. But it leaves me in the exact same place of feeling defeated about it, to be honest, and feeling just so sad and not knowing what that is, but seeing the humanity on both sides. And I guess the only thing I can ask for is that we keep. They need to keep talking about it. I don't even. We sit here and talk about it in a room, but they need to keep talking about it. We're going to war with each other over this. We can't even do anything. That's the part that's the most upsetting is we can't even solve this effing problem in this room. Ben, is there a final, final thing to say?

C

I think I've said everything I need to say.

A

Okay. Nick?

B

No. Thank you. I appreciate it, Ben.

C

Thank you, Nick.

B

Thank you.

A

Thank you so much for watching. If you enjoyed the podcast, please, like, comment, subscribe and share. And make sure to let me know what guests you want to see on in the future.