A Masterclass Completely DEBUNKING ISRAEL for 3 Hours Straight (Ft. Abdullah Andalusi)

Palestinians have inhabited their land for millennia, with genetic studies confirming 70-90% correspondence between modern Palestinians and ancient Canaanites from 4,000 years ago. This scientific evidence directly contradicts the Zionist narrative that portrays Palestinians as newcomers to the region.

• Genetic research shows Palestinians have preserved more ancient Canaanite DNA than European Jews who have approximately 40-50% correspondence
• Ben-Gurion himself acknowledged Palestinians descended from Jewish farmers who lived in the region 2,000 years ago
• The land was called "Palestine" for over two millennia, named after the Philistines encountered by Herodotus around 500 BCE
• Lord Balfour admitted Britain "deliberately declined to accept the principle of self-determination" in Palestine
• Einstein opposed Zionist political control, advocating instead for a "secured bi-national status in Palestine"
• Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism – Ben-Gurion understood Palestinian opposition was to foreign occupation, not Judaism
• The occupation of West Bank and Gaza violates the UN Charter principle that territory cannot be acquired through conquest
• Israel's security arguments parallel those used to justify slavery and other historical oppressions
• Under Islamic governance, Jews historically enjoyed protections and rights denied them in Christian Europe

Our history shows Muslims, Christians, and Jews can coexist peacefully under a system that respects religious differences while ensuring equal rights. We must challenge false narratives and work toward justice based on historical truth.

Chapters

• 0:00 The Palestinian Right to Their Land
• 18:57 Origins of Zionism and Self-Determination
• 36:15 Anti-Zionism Is Not Anti-Semitism
• 48:46 Occupation and International Law
• 1:08:56 False Peace Proposals and Negotiations
• 1:23:22 Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing
• 1:38:17 October 7th and Hamas: Examining Facts
• 1:50:00 The Islamic Solution

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

The rebuttal was beautiful. I'm surprised that most people don't bring it up. Ben-gurion himself, the Palestinians he does believe, do descend from Jews that were farmers 2,000 years ago. You don't need to be Einstein to know this, but if you need him, here's what he says. So 1973, this is where you see the first arguments made that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. What causes anti-Semitism is when they justify what they do by saying that sounds pretty anti-Semitic to me, and he never said that they hate Jews. He actually said I can see where they're coming from. We're invaders, we're foreigners. If you are against Jewish self-determination, you're anti-Semite. Oh, but for Arabs, it's not absolute right for them. In the exact same article, the arrogance. You couldn't make up this level of arrogance, and you know what. The truth is even more ridiculous, and when. You know why it will shock you and it's not for the reasons you think You're going to be shocked. We're going to get to that, though.

Speaker 2: 1:01

As-salamu alaykum wa rahmatull wabarakatuh, brothers and sisters and friends, this is Hamza Andres Sousis, and welcome to the next episode of Islam 21c's podcast on God. Now I want to thank you, every single one of you, for making it successful so far. Please share and subscribe Now. This episode is epic. It's amazing.

Speaker 2: 1:25

It's with our dear brother, abdullah Al-Andalusi, and he dismantled a whole host of Zionist claims, the false Zionist narratives. And before we get into the podcast, let me quickly introduce him and I'm telling you you're going to enjoy every moment. So Abdullah Al-Andalusi is an international speaker, thinker and intellectual activist for Islam and Muslim affairs. He is a researcher for the i3 Institute, an instructor and head of the Department of Occidentology at the Quran Institute and co-founder of the discussion forum, the Muslim Debate Initiative. For 20 years, his work has been in explaining and demonstrating the intellectual proofs for the Islamic belief system, promoting the Islamic way of life and Islamic solutions for contemporary problems, and advocating for the rights of Muslims across the world. Abdullah has taught a number of courses and has given a variety of lectures at universities and colleges internationally, but he is better known for his numerous TV appearances and public debates. Enjoy the podcast. As-salāmu alaykum wa rahmatullāhi wa barakātuhu my dear brother Abdullah, how are you?

Speaker 2: 2:47

I'm good, alhamdulillah, how are you? May Allah bless you. I'm good, I can't complain. So it's without a doubt for people of conscience and people who have any humanity left in them that there is an ongoing genocide and starvation, and you're the best person to speak about this topic. We have a bunch of questions. I'm going to go straight to the first one, because we want to dismantle false Zionist narratives. And the first question is, bro, do Palestinians have a right to the land of Palestine?

Speaker 1: 3:23

Well, I wouldn't say I was the best person to speak to about it. There are great literary and academic giants that have written tons of books on this topic, so all I can say is I'm the one present right now to speak to you. So, inshallah, bismillah. So it might seem like a very simple question, a question that even does not need to be asked, like what right do people who live in their land have a right to be in their land?

Speaker 1: 3:49

But, as a friend of mine said, sometimes in certain situations the hardest thing to explain to people is, as he says, the bloody obvious. And in this case, the bloody obvious, or the bleedingly bloody obvious, is that these, the Palestinians, have been dehumanized and they've been viewed as not human and not subject to the same rights that we would convey to others. I think there was an infamous situation where someone maybe put on chat GPT they asked you know, do Jews have a right to live in Palestine or Israel? And they'll say of course, every nation has a right to self-determination and Jews have the right to self-determination too. And then, when they ask the same question do Palestinians have the right to live in Palestine? And they say this is a complicated question and there's many factors and many different sides, so this is one of the issues.

Speaker 1: 4:36

So, put simply, they do have a right to live in their own land, the land that they've been living in. But what is typical from Zionist interlocutors and what was infamous from interviews with, for example, benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, and Jordan Peterson which I saw and I responded to with, obviously, with a colleague of yours, muhammad Hijab was they argued that Palestinians are newcomers to the land and they'll say, well, they don't have no right to be there, but they imply that Jews have a better right to be there and therefore Palestinian considerations and rights should take a second place. So what we really need to go in is to just look at the history, and I have a little bit of a history lesson, but I'll make it as brief and as painless as possible. So, in essence, there's multiple genetic studies have been done on Palestinians as well as Jews from around the world, and they compared it to bodies that were exhumed with the DNA that was found in Megiddo up to 4,000 years ago. So in the Canaanite era, this is obviously the pre-biblical era, and of course, they discovered that to no one's real surprise. There's a match between Palestine. Palestinians generally have roughly 70% correspondence to 70 to 90% correspondence to ancient Canaanite DNA from the region, with Jews, actually varying depending on the region they come from. So if they're from the Middle East, a bit more correspondence. Not more than Palestinians, but they have more than European Jews. So roughly maybe 60, 50 percent, and then European Jews between 50 to 40 percent. When looking at European Jewish DNA they discovered, of course, that they also have 50 percent, roughly on average, european DNA because they've lived in Europe for 2000 years and they've intermarried, although not as much as other European groups, but they certainly have intermarried Europeans and have European maternal lines. Now I don't think we need to go to genetics on this, but let's rewind the clock and explain and then we'll discuss where the Palestinians come from.

Speaker 1: 6:57

So you had the Canaanites up until about roughly around 1200 BC. We know that there was no Israelite rule there because Egypt was ruling Palestine at that point in time, or Canaan as it was called. Then there was the Bronze Age collapse long story and they withdrew from that land and then you had Canaanite city-states. We see in the Manephtha steel, which is a kind of engraving onto by the Egyptian monarch, engraving of his victories and conquests. So we see, dated around 1208 BC, that he talks about them going back into Palestine, not conquering it but, you know, reducing the land and subjugating the city, the Kenyan city-states. And then he refers to defeating and he uses a hieroglyph denoting a tribe of people, not a land or a city, but a tribe of people known, as possibly historians believe it's referring to Israel. The word is Israel, israel, so they think there's a, they encounter, and the icon is actually for a group of people, not an area of land or a city-state like the Canaanite city-states that he was he mentioned in this deal. So historians have concluded that it seems like around 1208.

Speaker 1: 8:20

By this point in time, israelites had migrated, usually in where, roughly, is the West Bank today. They had immigrated, migrated and they were maybe semi-nomadic peoples. They weren't actual sedentary city dwellers of that land. If you add to that, further looking into the history was that there was also a typical name for people who were nomads, mercenaries and sometimes brigands, called Habiro or ivrito, which is in Hebrew, or ibri, or the Hebrews comes from this term, meaning like the semi-nomadic brigands or fighters or mercenaries or what have you. So these were usually people for hire, maybe it was a general term for a group of people that did this and they were believed to be such a group or one of these groups, and so they were given that name. These are the habiru, these are just habirus, and it's that's roughly where it believes comes from. So what we see is that the israelites were semi-nomadic. Um, they didn't exist prior to there's no mention of them, uh, during the egyptian imperial period of palestine. So they seem to have come on the scene at a certain point in time.

Speaker 1: 9:42

Now, the, the hebrew bible, mentions an invasion of the israelites coming in from jordan. They cross over the river jordan and they invade into the promised land of palestine. Uh, for them now, this time it was just called canaan, the land of canaan. Okay, so then? What happened? Well, long story short, going a few thousand years, they split into two kingdoms. They became one, so 12 tribes became one kingdom, under, it's believed, maybe, king Solomon, king David, alayhi salam. There is actually archaeological evidence for the house of David's mentioned, but not necessarily the King David or King of Solomon, but that gives a supporting weight.

Speaker 1: 10:25

They say, okay, and then they split the two kingdoms. One was called the kingdom of Israel in the north, and the second underneath was called the kingdom of Judea. So, or the kingdom of Judah, sorry, then it would become Judea later. So then Babylonians, assyrians invade, take them captive. So then Babylonians, assyrians invade, take them captive.

Speaker 1: 10:45

Then you have Cyrus the Great, as he's called, persian emperor. He allows the Israelites to go back to their land, but under imperial control of the Persians. But it was a benign, apparently a benign control. They were given autonomy and so on. They only really. And then it was you.

Speaker 1: 11:12

Knowander the great comes in, he invades, he dies. One of his generals, um uh, takes over the different parts of the split into different pieces, and one of his generals, uh, takes over the area which we see of egypt and palestine. And then they established a Hellenistic rule over there. Then there was an uprising, and now we're getting towards, roughly now, about 2,200 years ago or so, the Maccabean uprising. They actually defeat the Hellenists or Macedonians or Greeks and get some independence back, but this only lasts about 100 years. And then the Romans come on and take and first make a, turn him into a client state and then, due to another uprising after the time of Jesus, it becomes a Roman territorial province.

Speaker 1: 11:59

Now the Greek historian, herodotus, in 500 BC that's 2500 years ago for those of you who want a rough understanding obviously encounters that there's a coastal area around Gaza where there was people that settled there, called the Philistines, the Philistine city-states, and so names the territory based on the people they encounter, which is they call it, you know, in essence Palestinian, or Palestina as the Romans would probably call it. And this is typical in the ancient world, like, for example, the Muslims called Europeans for Angie because we just encountered the Franks there's, there's more than just the Franks, but we just said, oh, they're all for Angie, english, whatever for Angie. So Palestine actually is the name that was given to land after Canaan and most people don't realize. Interestingly enough, and this is a side point, but is Palestine has only actually had two names of the land in its time. That encompasses the whole territory. Well, at least after the Egyptian withdrawal, one was Canaan and after was actually Palestine.

Speaker 1: 13:09

It was never actually called Israel as the name of the territory, as the name of the actual land. It's like we're living on the Isles of Britannia, right, the British Isles or Britannia as the Romans called it. England is the name of the political jurisdiction. The British Isles or Britannia as the Romans called it, england, is the name of the political jurisdiction, not the name of the actual physical land. The land is Britannia, so the physical land is Canaan or Palestine, but was never actually called. This land is Israel. It was called the land belonging to Israel, in that sense land of Israel, meaning it belongs to the tribes of Israel. But we know the tribes of Israel is a tribe, as the Bible mentions. They even called Israel before they even go to Palestine. So they are a tribal people. So England is the land belonging to the Angles and all the Saxons. It's not the name of the actual geographic territory. So this is where people often get confused territory. So, um, this is where people often get confused, but anyway.

Speaker 1: 14:09

So romans uh turn into a province after a failed uprising around the 70 um ce of the common era, as they call it, or the christian era, and for a good 500 sorry, 600 years or so it's's under Roman rule and people become Christian. So the natives slowly become Christian. Some leave. Actually many Jews left before the uprising was crushed by the Romans. Because one of the typical Zionist narratives was they'll say we were expelled from the land, we were made into exiles. And I said that's pretty hard to uh make that your narrative when the talmud gets in a sense canonized in palestine 200 or about 100 or 200 years after your supposed exile from palestine.

Speaker 1: 14:55

So who was doing the canonization right? It was the, the clerics, the, the rabbis, and so on, so forth. There was, there was a Jewish population that remained. There were Jews that left and went into the Roman Empire for economic reasons, by the tens of thousands prior to the Roman suppressing of the uprising against Roman rule in around 70 CE. So there was no evidence of a mass exile and in fact, historians have pointed out that there was the actual farmers and, you know, tillers of the land and so on, but by and large still, you might call jews or others that were just living there, that had that, would have been there for some time. So what happened then? Over, gradually, there was a mass conversion to christ. That occurred as the Roman Empire was Christianizing, so Palestine became more and more Christian. We know that synagogues were converted into churches by their own congregation. They had left Judaism and became Christian. Okay, and this all lasted until, of course, around the 8th century, 7th century, 8th century, around the 8th century, 7th century, 8th century, of course when a new power rose up, which is obviously islamic civilization. It spread prior to that time.

Speaker 1: 16:12

By the way, people often tell you that arabs come from arabia. Right, all arabs, they come from arabia. So if you see arabs in palestine, they are foreigners to that, that land. They come from Arabia. Well, not so on two counts. The first count is that the Sinai, the Sinai desert, but also the Naqab, or the Negev as they call it, has actually always had Bedouin Arab tribes, even during the biblical period. So there's always been Arabs there, and there were Christian Arabs living around the whole region. Arabic was actually the lingua franca of that region, so there was no sudden influx by Muslims in the 7th century, but there was actually a lot of Christian Arabs. There was the Nabataean empire was an Arabic kingdom that controlled the Naqab and Jordan and that whole area. You can go see them, the remains of their stone cities, petra, and so on. So Arabs, in a sense, have been there for many, many centuries, but the new influx of Muslim Arabs coming from the Middle East obviously was 7th century.

Speaker 1: 17:19

Okay, so what did they do when they reached Palestine? They did the same thing they did everywhere else, which is, once they deposed the imperial overlords, they actually kept the administrators. That's why most of the early administration documents of the early caliphate is actually in Greek, because that was how administration was done. Strangely enough, you actually see the first Greek sorry, the first Arabic Bibles at this point in time, when the Romans because I think prior to christian arabs had kept their sacred texts in greek or aramaic. But they start, they start to translate into arabic.

Speaker 1: 17:52

Um, but what you see generally is that the population does not move. Muslims never, never, kick out anybody. I mean the. The overlords change. Yes, those who inhabit the military barracks or the palaces might change, but the population doesn't move anywhere. So then, what happened? Well, over many, many centuries and actually it was very slow, but the population begins to slowly convert to Islam.

Speaker 1: 18:22

So these were people who were maybe a mix of Canaanites, and we don't know if the Bible narrative is 100% accurate that they massacred all the Canaanites when they came. Some evidence suggests that they intermarried, maybe they kept slaves, but whatever, the DNA is still there, the Canaanite DNA is still there. They're Jews and then, from Jews, they become Christians and then they slowly start to convert to Islam. It comes to the point that, by the turn of the 20th century, palestine has approximately about 88% Muslims, 10% Christians, 4% Jews, and these are all Palestinians. These are people, the natives.

Speaker 1: 19:06

Now, sure, there's been intermarrying and intermixing throughout the Middle East, but generally speaking, the genome of that region is more or less the same Same with the Lebanese, same with the Egyptians. They all look different from each other, even though they might be called Arabs. And that brings me to the second definition of the word Arab. Arab is anyone who speaks Arabic. If you adopt Arabic as your mother tongue, you become Arab. It doesn't matter what your ethnicity is, you're just called an Arab, even though Egyptians. No one would say you're just all from Arabia because you're called Arabs. No, they say well, yeah, you descend from the ancient Egyptians. No one has any confusion about Egyptians, even though they're called Arabs. But Zionists like to portray the Palestinians as they are Arabians, not Arabs. So this is basically.

Speaker 1: 19:53

What happened is that Palestinians are. There's a genetic continuity to ancient Canaanites 4,000 years prior. Interestingly enough, now, when you look at the DNA analysis of not just Palestinians, but they also compared it to Jews, european Jews, arab Jews, as I mentioned before, there was a lot of surprising things. They discovered that there was a particular chromosome that goes in the male line, which about 30% of Palestinians have, but very rarely occurs in the Kohen line of Jews. Now, for those of you who don't know, the Kohen are like the priestly caste and that only carries via the male lineage, not by the female lineage. So to be a Jew you must be from the female lineage, so your mother must be Jew, but to be a Kohen your father must be a Kohen. So they discovered that it's actually very rare. This chromosome occurs amongst Kohenim, as they call it, the Kohens, but it's actually quite preponderant amongst Palestinians and there were studies to show that this where they indicated that this seems that the Palestinians had preserved more of the DNA from that region than European Jews had preserved that ancient DNA. But there is still some traces amongst them of that, especially in the priestly caste. There was loads of studies to show that European Jews they have actually 80% of their mitochondria maternally passed mitochondria are basically from European maternal lines. Now I don't know what this means in.

Speaker 1: 21:32

Obviously, in Jewish law, in terms of what makes someone a Jew or not, they would definitely say you can convert. So as long as if you profess to be Jewish and you believe it, then you're Jewish. Generally that's not an issue, but it can be passed raciallyially, even if you identify as an atheist, for example, they say well, you can still be called um a jew, although if you actually are a muslim or christian, uh, they would not consider you to be obviously racially a jew anymore and the laws, the racially racial laws of israel actually reflect this. So if you are an atheist, you say I reject god, I reject everything about the bible. Reject God, I reject everything about the Bible, I reject the Talmud, everything about that history. I'm just, my mom is just a Jew, but that's it.

Speaker 1: 22:12

You have the right to return, quote unquote Israel gives you the racial right to return back to Palestine. But if you are like, if you both, if you're a Kohen on both sides of your family, even your mother's a Kohen, let's just say right, you are like card carrying ultra orthodox rabbis on both sides of your family, you know like 100%, 110% Jewish. You could say but you are a Christian or you're a Muslim, then Israel does not consider you have the right to return to Palestine. So their racial laws because that is literally a racial law makes an exception for religion. It's not about all religions, it's also about race. But you apparently can lose your race and lose your inheritance, your birthright, if you follow the wrong religion.

Speaker 1: 23:04

So, anyway, it's a funny point anyway. So, in essence, long story short, palestinians are descendants of canaanites, so they've there for 4 000 years at minimum right, if not beyond. If that doesn't give someone a right to live on their land, I don't know what does if. If that is negated, then all rights to anyone to be native to any place on this planet Earth is negated, and so, ultimately, that would be establishing the ancestral aspects of the Palestinians and, as I said, there are too many genetic studies that confirm this. Now, you might think, did we have to wait for today to know these things about, you know, with genetic tests? And so no, ben gurion himself, who was the first prime minister of the state of israel, as well as the leader of um, the jewish agency well, it was a before it got independence to become a full state he discusses in his letters that the palestinians he does believe we call them the arabs the local arabs do uh, you know, the farmers and most of the city dwellers do descend from jews that were farmers, uh, two thousand years ago in palestine. So they acknowledge that these arabs or palestinians, which they obviously don't consider to be part of their people, are actually ancestry from that region. They knew this. It was not a big secret.

Speaker 1: 24:31

The Zionists never argued that in the past, that they were a foreign people. Only more recently has been argued this argument. They didn't stop them. It did not stop them from mistreating them. It didn't stop them from dispossessing their land. It didn't stop them from viewing them as a separate people that you have to be partitioned away from. So, ultimately speaking, the Zionists don't really care if the Palestinians are natives to that land. Our Canaanites have been there for as long as anyone else has I mean technically longer than European Jews have, because European Jews spent 2000 years in Europe.

Speaker 1: 25:11

That's a long, long time. So they don't ultimately care.

Speaker 2: 25:15

So this is a perfect point for, I think, the next question. So you've kind of established that the Palestinians have a right to the land by virtue of the history and the biology and the genetics and the DNA they've just mentioned.

Speaker 1: 25:34

But I didn't go into the you could say the current international law or legal aspects of it, because that's you could say the other side of the coin here, because people tend to argue not from genetic rights for the most part.

Speaker 2: 25:49

Yeah. So what would Jews say, or the Jews that support Israel? And what would the ideologues say? And the Zionists say and the Israelis say with regards to their claim that they have a right to all of the land of Palestine? How does that mix in now?

Speaker 1: 26:08

Well, I mean referring specifically to the main pundits of Zionism, so those who believe that Jews have a sovereign and exclusive right to the land of Palestine, or those who believe that Jews should be the rulers of the land of Palestine in some way, shape or form, because they can have minorities, but as long as they are the ruling group. So what they tend to argue is that they have a stronger right than Palestinians to the land and they have a right to return to that land and they have a right to self-determination. Now they cite the argument of self-determination.

Speaker 1: 26:53

After the era of empires, it was argued that the best way to organize the world was nationalism, was. Each nation has a right to self-determination via its own political unit as best as possible, with some exceptions. If they are a minority group within a certain territory, then they have what's called an internal right to self-determination, which is that they have the right to be represented in government and vote and so on. But if they are the majority group, then they have the right to external self-determination, which is that they determine the foreign policy and they determine the state's security because they are the ones with the majority group. It was the best way they could fit their post-imperial age was nationalism. Nation-states, that's the new paradigm. So in this argument, which was what was specifically created by um, the, the allies after world war one, was we want to change the world from empires.

Speaker 1: 27:52

The british probably say not us but everyone else yes, although they view themselves as we're going to help everyone to become independent with it, you know, with the training wheels for them, and we will um support them in this endeavor at some undetermined point in for them, and we will support them in this endeavour at some undetermined point in the future, but we will give them independence. But the argument was that everyone has a right to self-determination and that was the key basis behind all political rights. This was denied the Palestinians and it was denied the Palestinians because the British government had promised the land of Palestine to Zionists to say, well, this is for a Jewish national home. And how do we reconcile this with the fact that the majority of people that live there haven't been consulted, would probably object to it and this kind of could possibly, or indeed most likely will, impinge their right to self-determination, which they had. They made an exception to this. So, for example, lord Balfour, obviously infamous for the Balfour Declaration that indicated British government's official backing of the idea of a national home in Palestine for Jews. He argued and he admitted in.

Speaker 1: 29:08

This was in 1919, so about two years after the Balfour Declaration. He admitted that this was a weakness of their you could say, international arguments for their policy in their region. He said this the weak point of our position, of course, is that in the case of Palestine, we deliberately and as he calls it, rightly declined to accept the principle of self-determination. If the present inhabitants were consulted, they would unquestionably give an anti-Jewish verdict. Our justification for our policy is that we regard Palestine as being absolutely exceptional, that we consider the question of the Jews outside of Palestine as one of world importance and that we conceive the Jews to have an historic claim to a home in their ancient land, provided that home can be given them without either dispossessing or oppressing the present inhabitants. In fact, the Zionist organization the branch based in London that would later be called the World Zionist Organization but prior to that was called the Zionist Organization they released a missive during this time, arguing that they were worried that America might take control of Palestine, and at that time Woodrow Wilson was the president of the United States and he was talking about self-determination and democracy wanted to spread. That that was, he thought, was a good international policy for America to begin doing.

Speaker 1: 30:33

At that point in time. They argued that they actually don't want to see America take over Palestine because they're worried that the American public declaration of democracy and self-determination would apply in Palestine. And they said that democracy in a sense has been called the melting pot, in which the quantitatively lesser is assimilated into the quantitatively greater. This doubtless is natural in America and works on the whole very well. But if the American idea were applied, as an American administration, might apply it to Palestine, what would happen?

Speaker 1: 31:11

The numerical majority in Palestine today is Arab, not Jewish. Qualitatively, it is a simple fact that the Jews are now predominant in Palestine, qualitatively, obviously, but not in quantity, and, given proper conditions, will be predominant quantitatively also in a generation or two. But if the crude arithmetical conception of democracy were to be applied now or at some early stage in the future to Palestine conditions, the majority that would rule would be the Arab majority and the task of establishing and developing a great Jewish Palestine would be infinitely more difficult. So they indeed argued, actually against democracy. No, no, not democracy for Palestine, because we would be the minority at this point in time. We need time to colonize it, to come in great numbers and so on, and eventually develop it, and even in a meeting with the advisors. So just, I don't want to interject.

Speaker 2: 32:14

But just like what's happening now with regards to the genocide and international law has been broken, rules-based order, world order has been broken. The kind of ideological principles that they believe to be, these kind of intellectual holy cows, have been dismantled and burnt. We think the genocide in Gaza is a kind of proof of that. But they dismantled all of the principles from the very beginning, beginning the balfour, with the exception the americans saying about you know, let's forget about democracy from that perspective. So it's like they create their intellectual gods in the morning and then they eat them in the evening. Right, it's just so fascinating. I've never, ever, heard that before. That's a brilliant quote, actually, and it just goes to show they've been breaking principles and breaking their so-called ideological foundations for the very beginning, for something that is oppressive and unjust well, indeed, that's the issue, the you could say the original sin.

Speaker 1: 33:22

I think he's a christian term of the whole matter was that Palestinians were denied self-determination for the get-go and Zionists were in full support of that referred the matter to the United Nations to talk about the solution for Palestine, because they didn't want to upset the Arab client regimes or their populations, to be more precise, by publicly supporting the full kind of takeover of Palestine by Zionists, but at the same time they didn't want to back down from their promise to the Zionists, which had, by this point in time, excessively lobbied for their state. And so they said OK, you know what, let the UN deal with it, because we can't reach it and we don't want to be blamed by anybody, even though everyone blames them for starting this in the first place. But what Ben-Gurion argued in front of the UN Committee for Resolving the Matter of Palestine? This was a UN committee that was going to look into it and investigate it, and they were doing this and they took representations from all the different parties and people and Ben-Gurion gave his representation and he argued that at 1947, even at that point in time, even during or, the solution is, if not partition, then at least delay democracy Say, look, maybe in 10 more, we need 10 years where we can maybe constitute the majority. We're hopeful, maybe we can get to that majority. So, uh, give an administration where democracy is delayed for 10 years, while we we try to get a majority there. So he's calling for the abeyance of democracy, saying no, no, don't apply democracy because we're still a minority. Wait till it favors us, and then it's okay to do so. And, depending on how you interpret him, it seems to imply that it would be under a Jewish administration for those 10 years. So it'd be under, in essence, an apartheid state with second class citizenship until Arabs can be a minority, and then they'd be given full democratic rights, but not before that.

Speaker 1: 36:02

So Ben-Gurion was public on this, but even, as I said, mark Sykes, also from the Sykes-Picot Treaty, as well as Arthur Balfour. I mean Arthur Balfour. There was a discussion he had with some members of the US states Justice Brandeis, colonel House and Felix Frankfurter, who would become a high justice, who was a Zionist. They had a discussion of this and Arthur Balfour, in a particular discussion, mentioned that he was concerned with the public statements of Woodrow Wilson, which was talking to a universal self-determination of Woodrow Wilson, which was talking to a universal self-determination, and when he was talking to members of the American government about this. They assured him and I'll try to give this is actually the minutes of the meeting here. So Mr Balfour wrote a memorandum to the prime minister and he believed it went to the president of the United States, pointing out that Palestine should be excluded from the terms of reference referring to self-determination, the new mandate system, league of Nations, because the powers had committed themselves to design this program, which inevitably excluded numerical self-determination.

Speaker 1: 37:20

Palestine presented a unique situation. We are not dealing with the wishes of an existing community, but are consciously seeking to reconstitute a new community and definitely building for a numerical majority in the future. So we said we're not dealing with the wishes of the existing community, we want to make a new community that eventually will become a majority, and that is what we want to establish. So they've been very explicit we need to ignore the palestinians, ignore the their rights of determination that we've been preaching to the world, because palestine is a special exception, and when you know why they considered palestine an exception, it will shock you, and it's not for the reasons you think. All right, you're going to be shocked, we're gonna get to that though. So, anyway, ultimately it rests on the right of Palestinians to their own state in Palestine. Self-determination is a bedrock of international law and it's a bedrock of secular national politics, which is propounded throughout the world. And you don't need to be Einstein to know this, of course, but if you need him, here's what he says.

Speaker 2: 38:35

What did Einstein say?

Speaker 1: 38:37

He said it seems to me a matter for simple common sense that we cannot ask to be given the political rule over Palestine, where two-thirds of the population are not Jewish. What we can and should ask is a secured bi-national status in Palestine with free immigration. If we ask more, we are damaging our own cause and it is difficult for me to grasp that our Zionists are taking such an intransigent position, which can only impair our cause. So it's 1946, einstein.

Speaker 2: 39:11

So, bro, it seems, from the very beginning of this kind of issue, if you like, they broke their own rules, they dismantled the democratic principles, international law, right to self-determination from the very beginning. Now, from that perspective, some audiences will be like you know what I don't like Zionism. I don't agree and I don't support the Zionist project. And many people will become anti-Zionist just by virtue of what you just said. Right, if they were unaware. Now that opens the door to a specific question. Now, right, which is well, is being anti-Zionist, anti-semitic, right? I'm proudly anti-zionist, right? I think every human being should be by virtue of what you've just said and, hopefully, what we're going to unpack in the rest of this podcast. So let's make it personal hamza is anti-zionist, abdullah is anti-zionist yes does that mean, we are anti-Semitic?

Speaker 1: 40:28

Hell, no, no, no, no. And that's the issue. We should not conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, but Zionists do want to conflate this. And the interesting thing is that when Ben-Gurion was actually addressing the UN committee for resolving the matter of Palestine in 1947, he actually explained the Arab position, as he calls it, and he never said that they hate Jews at all, he said. He actually said I can see where they're coming from. We're invaders, we're foreigners, we speak a different language. I mean, it actually was German or yiddish. Uh, it wasn't a hebrew. Hebrew was only came a little bit later. You could say um.

Speaker 1: 41:12

In terms of um, they had to reconstruct it, but anyway, that's a long story. So they saw invaders. They are the majority. They have see all their neighbors being given self-determination and their own state and they want the same. And we are in the way of doing this. So of course we understand their position. But then he argues that our position is that we have an historical right and we're being persecuted and so on and so forth. So even Ben-Gurion, who was actually in Palestine and he was in the Ottoman Caliphate, so he was there living in Ottoman times, so he actually understood Muslim mentality very well. He didn't say that they hate Jews. It wasn't because they hate Jews at all. He understood. It was simple. It's as simple as it is. It's obvious.

Speaker 1: 41:58

They are a bunch of European-looking guys speaking European languages, european accents, coming in usurping the rights of the native, brought in by an imperial power, usurping the rights of the natives to self-determination that they see being given to everyone around them. It's a no-brainer, as they say. Of course they would oppose it, it doesn't matter. The Algerians opposed the French, not because they are francophobic, but they opposed the French occupation. The Libyans opposed the Italian occupation, right? Not because they're was that Italophobic, I don't know right. It's because they opposed the occupation of their country by these foreigners coming and speaking European language. They're not one of them. They're coming in and they are dictating terms and they want to colonize their land and bring their settlers in. It's not because they hate French people or Italian people, it's again a no-brainer. So in this situation it was the same.

Speaker 1: 42:52

Ben-gurion said it. All the early Zionists understood this was the case. It wasn't because of a personal hatred against Jews, but it became the argument used by the Zionists in about around 1970s, so 1973, israeli foreign minister Abba Eban says he actually writes an article in an American Jewish newspaper or magazine, rather, and it was called Our Position in the Human Scheme, talking about where, arguing, you know where Jews should see themselves, in Western civilizations, in the world, and so on and so forth, in the grand scheme of things, so to speak. And it's him that argues that. He says one of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world, non-jewish world, is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism. This is where you see the first arguments made that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Now he argues that if the base is this, if you are a nationalist which, as Muslims, we're not, but anyway but if you're a nationalist, you believe that everyone has a right to self-determination based on their ethnicity and nationhood. So if you believe that every nation has the right for that but not jews, then you're racist because you are singling them out. So now you don't have that right.

Speaker 1: 44:34

There's two main issues of this. One is that there's actually a debate, and has always been a debate amongst jews, and it still is debate to this day whether jew Jews actually are a nation or a religion. Because even at the time of Arthur Balfour and the government of his time, one member of the cabinet the only Jewish member of the cabinet, edwin Montagu, opposed Zionism. He said that I'm a British Jew and to say that Jews belong in Palestine is to say I don't belong in Britain. I'm British, right, and I'm as British as any other British person. I just have a different religion from the majority. But it doesn't mean I'm not British. It doesn't mean I'm not part of the British people as a nation. That is my nation. So he made this very strong argument and many other Jews have argued similarly that Judaism is a religion, it's not a nation.

Speaker 1: 45:36

People wouldn't say Christians are one nation and many Zionists would argue they say you know why are you opposing the only Jewish country in the world? You know there are Christian countries, there's Muslim countries. Why are you opposing the only Jewish country? And most people don't realize is that Israel is an aberration in the world in terms of its nationality, how it defines nationality. No country in the world.

Speaker 1: 46:00

If you're let a ecuadorian, roman catholic and you, you go to italy or spain and you say, well, this is a roman catholic country, you're christian, so I'm, you know, giving my my passport, that's it. No, you're ecuadorian, you're not italian or spanish or portuguese or whatever. You yeah, I don't care if you're roman catholic, you are ecuadorian. Go back to ecuador, you're not. You know, you're not a national here, but we follow the same religion. It's the national religion of your state. Is is Christianity. Or you know Roman Catholicism and say, yeah, so what? You're not a national of our country, but in Israel it's not. Simply, the official religion is Judaism, it's no, it's a nation state of the Jewish people, not of the Israeli people.

Speaker 1: 46:50

In fact there's a recent court case about, maybe about 15 years ago, where the Israeli Supreme Court struck out the definition of Israelis being a nation, definition of Israelis being a nation, right? No, israel's a nation-state for Jews. Not is nation-state of Israelis, right? People try to say, well, look, you know, there's different religions here, different ethnic groups. Why can't we all just be Israeli? You know, in France is a is the nation-state of the French people, but French can be, anyone could be from, originally West African, or from even, you know, east Asia, wherever. But you become French or French, that's it said. No, it's a nation state of an F, a specific ethnic group, although they define it as Jews or a religion, jews.

Speaker 1: 47:42

That is an aberration, because you don't find that anywhere in the world. You go to Saudi Arabia and say, hey, I'm Muslim, where's my passport? They will laugh you out of there. If you're lucky, maybe a few clips on the air or something for being impertinent, it doesn't matter. If you're Muslim, they don't care. They'll simply say, yeah, but you're not a national. You're not a national. You're not a saudi national, you're not an egyptian national, you're not, um, a algerian national. They don't care. So israel is really an aberration because you never see any other state in the world say no, we are a nation state to one particular ethnic group and religion, or either one religion or a particular ethnic group. No, the idea of ethno-nationalism is a dead idea. It died after World War II, thankfully Sure.

Speaker 2: 48:32

On Guard is more than media. It's dawah, defence and duty. In an age of confusion, we speak truth for the sake of Allah. If you believe this is a cause worthy of reward in this life and the next, then become a guardian, stand with us and be written among those who strove. Click below to find out more and subscribe to On Guard wherever you get your podcasts. And now back to the episode. What if, though, they say something like this? They say well, well, the Jewish people, whether you consider them a race or a religious group. They have been a persecuted group for hundreds of years, and they may argue. The Zionists may argue. Well, you know what Zionism, or the Zionist project, is the only project that can protect the Jewish people. Therefore, not supporting that project is anti-Semitic.

Speaker 1: 49:32

Well, I'd like to point out that you know, because we all remember, how many pogroms against Jews happens in the United States of America and Holocaust against them. Oh, actually, right, zero. The best country in the world where Jews have enjoyed the greatest protection of their rights, property and have enjoyed prosperity is actually the United States of America, where, incidentally, the second highest concentration of Jews live in the world after Israel. So you don't see any Iranian missiles fall down on the United States of America. You don't see any Hamas operations against Jews in America. You don't see any PLO or Hezbollah missiles or any of that against Jews in America. In fact, the safest and most comfortable place in the world for Jews is the United States of America, and many Jews have said it. In fact, even during World War II or after World War II, many Jews who went to Palestine used it as a stopping off point to actually apply for citizenship and go to America from there. So even they understood that. Why do you want this arid piece of land in a hostile place where we can just go to America, basically, or Canada as well, canada as well, most European countries they protect Jews pretty good by law. No, there's no pogroms, there's no massacres, and you know that's really good that they have these protections. All people should be protected from pogroms, massacres. No one should be killed based on their religion or their race, obviously.

Speaker 1: 51:09

But if you're going to look at it, I mean historically speaking if there's one place in the world that has been very dangerous for Jews, ancient Israelites, Hebrews, whomever, it's been the Middle East. That the crossroads of nations, crossroads of invading armies. That's the worst place ever historically speaking, because you've had Assyrians, babylonians, romans, macedonians it's all kinds of invaders, crusaders, so you've had all kinds of rampaging armies that have killed Jews going through there. But the best place has actually been elsewhere, at least now anyway, after Christianity has ceased being the ruling power in the West, and the other place where Jews have enjoyed prosperity has been in Muslim lands under Muslim rule. Now I remember reading Maimonides, the famous rabbi and thinker, and also physician as well.

Speaker 2: 52:10

He was the physician of Salahuddin.

Speaker 1: 52:12

You're going to give away the ending there. Sorry, I do apologize so he basically encountered some heretical sect called the typical, called the Almohads in Spain, and he left Spain and said oh, you know these Ismailites, you know they Ismailites. How they treat us, it's really bad. And so, because this heretical sect believed that Christian Jews should be forced converted to Islam, so they did that. It was an aberration. They were a splinter group from the rest of Ahl al-Sunnah as well as the Abbasid caliphate.

Speaker 1: 52:49

They were a rival caliphate. So where does he go? Where does he seek refuge in? He goes right to the Middle East and becomes the personal physician for Salahuddin Ayyubi so clearly the Muslim. He knew where you're gonna get the better treatment.

Speaker 2: 53:07

Well, one would also argue and I know we're gonna address this later, but just to get the intellectual juices flowing one would argue that the basis of the argument if that is the argument as well that you know, this is the only entity that's going to preserve this, this group of people. Well, if you look at it historically, the only entity that's going to preserve this group of people, well, if you look at it historically, the only entity that really preserved the Jewish people was under the Islamic model. Like the popular historian Karen Armstrong talks about that, the only time that Jews, muslims and Christians kind of lived peacefully together for the first time was under Islam. But it was the kind of peace where these people weren't really fighting right. But what the Zionists are doing, but it was the kind of peace where these people weren't really fighting right. But what the Zionists are doing it's kind of it's fake, it's a faux peace, because they've created a model and a system and an apartheid system and so on and so forth to actually facilitate more trouble.

Speaker 2: 54:03

Do you see my point? So, by the underlying logic of the argument, they should be saying well, actually we should be calling for the Islamic model, because that has been truly the model that has preserved the Jewish people, but not only preserved the Jewish people, but created a model where they're not fighting but the Zionists. They claim they're protecting the Jewish people, but they've created a model that actually has created this conflict because of the injustice and the oppression and so on and so forth, which leads to the next question Israeli occupation of the West Bank and of Gaza. It's illegitimate. Many people say this historians, thinkers, put thinkers, politicians and so on and so forth. The question I have is why?

Speaker 1: 54:54

well, I kind of, in a way, want to finish off that the the last question with, again an interesting point, which is when Theodor Herzl was arguing for what we call political Zionism. So you know, find a place for Jews to go where they are safe and they are kept away from persecution. He didn't actually necessarily care where it was, so he thought maybe Argentina was a good place, or Palestine. They both have merits and demerits. He said well, he's an atheist, by the way, he didn't care about the Bible, he doesn't believe in God. He just thought well, there's a cultural resonance with many Jews, so Palestine might be a good reason for that, but it's very arid. He himself said that we're not adapted to hot climates anymore. And when he heard someone mention maybe we should go back and speak Hebrew and what have you? He said what Jew can even order a bus ticket in Hebrew Because we speak German. He actually wanted German to be the new language of the state, because most of the Jewish support he had was basically German.

Speaker 2: 56:07

He was a German speaker himself.

Speaker 1: 56:09

So there was two actually Zionisms at the time. One was called territorial Zionism and one was called now, I suppose, the mainstream or political Zionism. Territorialist Zionism didn't care where Jews could go to get a state, as long as they had a state and it was independent. It's fine, and I've often said that. Let's say, you know, we discover there's an island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, let's call it Atlantis. It rises up from the ocean and it is lush, great climate, resources. It is, uh, you know, the most amazing place to be in on planet earth, very comfortable, and it's completely empty. There's no people there, right? And then zionists arrive there and then they say, well, let's, let's migrate there and and form a society or state. What have you? We'd have no opposition to that whatsoever, no problem, why? Because there's no one there that's being kicked out their land, being oppressed, being turned into a second class group or an apartheid system or ethnic cleansing, if it's no one there. But it's a beautiful, lush territory with, like the most amazing climate, loads of abundant resources, fertile land. We'd say, enjoy, hey, I might even come for some tourism and check it out, whatever. But fine, you've been persecuted by the West. They never really accepted you as one of their own. Fine, we don't have no issue with that, but that's not what happened. We don't have no issue with that, but that's not what happened. What happened was they say well, our needs are greater than the needs of other people, and if we have to do very bad things, make exceptions to the rules of general, the human rights we propound or when we claim we believe in, then we're going to do it, and even if it means denying their rights and continuing to deny their rights. So this is the thing, and what really causes anti-Semitism is not basically people just hating on the fact that they are oppressing and persecuting Palestinians. And what causes anti-Semitism is when they justify what they do by saying but this is the right of the Jewish people to do this.

Speaker 1: 58:48

Say, wait a second. Are you saying that to be jewish is to dominate a land, irrespective of other ethnic groups, even if they're the majority? Are you saying this? Because that sounds pretty anti-semitic to me. Right, you have a right. You know, they often argue. Well, our religion says that god gave it to us. I say so. Are you saying that you have a right to impose your religion onto other people? You're imposing your religion? They don't. They're not jewish in terms of their beliefs, right, maybe their ancestry, whatever, but they're not jewish in their beliefs. And you're saying, well, that because of that, we now have to disregard their rights. We can keep them out, we can remove them, we can isolate them and box them in, put them into fences around them and shoot them if they come within 200 meters of an invisible line that we arbitrarily set. Too bad right, well, that's anti-semitic, and you don't have to be einstein to realize that. But if you need him, here's what he says. Oh, there's another quote another quote.

Speaker 2: 59:44

Yes, I was not joking about it right.

Speaker 1: 59:48

So Einstein says that when it was talking about the argument that Jews, the best way that Jews can survive is they have a state for themselves. And he says I, for, for my part, do not think so. I believe that the unique durability of the Jewish community is, to a large degree, based on our geographical dispersion and the fact that we consequently do not possess instruments of power that will allow us to commit great stupidities out of national fanaticism. So the persecutions will never cause us to perish. Any friend, any persecution that happened, never cause jews to perish.

Speaker 1: 1:00:33

So he actually argued that, with an implication there that, uh, what can endanger jews is if jewish nationalists, see, you know, took power and, in the name of Jewishness, committed what he called great stupidities out of national fanaticism, and then say this is what Jews should be doing, should be supporting. And if you criticize us doing these great atrocities or stupidities, you're criticizing what it means to be jewish. That connects atrocity to being jewish and that is anti-semitic, right. So it actually, in a way, we are the leading um anti-anti-semites. We are against anti-semitism. We are saying that it's not intrinsically Jewish to do these things. In fact, it's a slur against Jews to connect this national extremism with Jewishness. They're not the same thing.

Speaker 2: 1:01:37

Absolutely so. From that perspective, the Zionists are the greatest anti-Semites.

Speaker 1: 1:01:41

Purveyors of anti-Semitism.

Speaker 2: 1:01:45

So you're talking about the atrocities and all of this injustice. So let's move back to the question, which is we have Gaza and the West Bank. These are occupations, atrocities, oppression. Why is this? These occupations illegitimate.

Speaker 1: 1:02:04

Is this, these occupations, illegitimate? Okay, so many people often say it's illegal by international law and Zionists will say, no, it's not. And then some people don't have a counter argument. I was hoping that you would just accept the point that it's illegal, because I heard it on the news. They say it's illegal according to international law. So what is international law and what does it say about this situation?

Speaker 1: 1:02:27

So the British submitted the question of Palestine to the UN for a recommended resolution, but it was actually up to Britain to implement that. Now, britain, the UN resolution, or UN recommendation, was a partition of the state and the partition of state was 55% for Zionists, 45% for Palestinians, who were two thirds, the majority. That was never going to be accepted by the people living there, palestinians living there, especially because they didn't get a say in that, they didn't get to vote on that or what have you. And in that sense, what happened is that Israel was created and they expanded beyond that partition to take over basically 78% of the land of historic Palestine. Now the 1948 and 1949 armistice. This is where it came to effect and the you know the green line, as it's called, green line boundaries were established, because it was a pen was green and in this, in these boundaries, israel submitted itself to the UN for recognition and the West Bank was the Palestinian. There was a Palestinian government, you could say well, a bunch of representatives of the Palestinians who formally declared they would annex themselves to Jordan. And then you had the all-Palestine government in Gaza. It was called the all-Palestine government that argued that they would basically be a protector of Egypt and then at some point they formally joined Egypt. So when you enter the UN, you could say the UN takes a snapshot of your country in a sense. Here's what the boundaries are like. This, the agreements, the armistice agreements, which was a type of ceasefire, but it was that the boundaries will not be changed by military operations or activity, but only by negotiations. So the boundaries were temporary, but they could only be solidified or resolved by negotiations, not by armed force. This was the international agreement made by Israel, jordan, syria, egypt and all the surrounding countries.

Speaker 1: 1:04:57

Now I have to resist the urge to mention things that most people didn't realize, for example, that uh, the 1948 war where the arab countries intervened, uh, was only at the pressure of their own populations. Uh, they even told the british, like the? Uh, the foreign minister of iraq told the british that, look, we actually don't want to, we don't care about it, we don't want to get involved, but if we don't get involved, our people will basically come after us, right, um, and they sent token forces. What most people don't realize is that at the start of the war, the arabs were outnumbered by the zionist forces two to one, so arab forces were the combined armed force of the arabs, were actually outnumbered by zionists. They were the minority, and by the end of that war they were outnumbered three times to one actually. So they had less manpower and less training because they were new armies and the Zionists, many of them, had served in World War II, so they served in different armies and they came to volunteer as part of the Haganah forces, the new IDF, as it is called, um and so anyway. So they they didn't really, they weren't really interested in in um, in taking any territory, uh, apart from jordan, uh. But jordan made an agreement and this is mentioned in ben gurin's diary beforehand uh, that he said look, I won't go into the areas that the un partition has designateders designated to be the Jewish state, I just want a lot of the West Bank for myself, basically, and that was it. So you saw, the Jordanian Legion was the most effective fighting force. Actually, only take a few areas, basically the West Bank, which would become part of the remaining 22% of Palestine that was not taken by Zionists, anyway, just to mention that on the side.

Speaker 1: 1:06:46

So the armistice was agreed by all the countries and they, generally, they actually all abided by it. The first person to break this armistice was Israel. In 1957. They invaded Sinai with, along with the British and French, because of the Swiss Canal being nationalized by Gamal Abdel Nasser. Long story short, actually America intervened to say no, don't do that, everyone leave, basically. And then it got reversed.

Speaker 1: 1:07:14

But in 1967, israel and most people don't realize Israel shot the first bullet, it launched an invasion of Sinai and when Jordan and Syria had entered into a defense pact with Egypt they actually had entered into defense because they were worried about Israeli aggression. So Israel cited that the Egyptian blocking of the Tehran states, which was done in response to a protest, because Israel had actually invaded into Jordan about a year prior and destroyed a Jordanian village in a punitive raid, claiming that terrorists were coming from there, which was disavowed by all UN observers and what have you. So they saber-rattled because everyone was looking to go after Nasr. Look, look, they are launching raids into your allies, your fellow Arabs, like do something. But he was actually was too scared of Israel to do anything. So he said, okay, I'll just blockade the tyrant straits to make a show, and I'll make I'll. You know, I'll send some Egyptian armies near the border, a small army, not a big one, all right, not one that actually is an invasion force.

Speaker 1: 1:08:28

Everyone agreed at the time. All the CIA, everyone, all the estimates, even Israeli planners realized this is not an invasion army, it's a SABLA rattling army. But they saw, you know what we can use this as a pretext. So the Israeli army took over Sinai within six days. And, of course, jordan and Syria did a token token. They shot some artillery to in a token gesture, to show you know, you can't just invade our ally here. We've entered the defense pact and all the Arabs looking to us, they want you to helping Egypt. And then Israel said, who knew that they were going to come to their defense? But again, no Arab invasion armies. They said, okay, well, great, now we're gonna take the West Bank.

Speaker 1: 1:09:08

And even when Syria said, okay, look, you know, let's have a ceasefire, agree to ceasefire. They said no, actually just grab the goal on quickly, right. So they used it to expand their territory and expand their land into areas which was internationally recognized as Syrian territory, internationally recognized as Jordanian territory and internationally recognized as Egyptian territory. This is where it becomes illegitimate Now. Yes, egypt then makes a normalization peace treaty with Israel in exchange for getting the Sinai back. But this art.

Speaker 1: 1:09:44

But they had to launch a war in 1973 and then being ensconced on the in Sinai and not being able to be budged and really bloody the Israelis, for the Israelis to then agree okay, with American pressure, okay, we'll withdraw from Sun. They had been building settlements in Sinai and had to withdraw those settlements. They they planned to stay. It wasn't planned to, I'll give you back for peace. Nope. So they gave that back. But Egypt gave up protecting Gaza and said we give this to the Palestinians, it's for the Palestinians to have. And Jordan did the same thing with West Bank. They did their peace treaty with Israel and said like we basically remove all claims over the West Bank and we give it back to the Palestinians.

Speaker 1: 1:10:36

This establishes the legal international basis for why West Bank and Gaza are not Israel. Israel and the un charter is specific. If there's one law in it that's absolutely sacred. The whole point of the un is you can't get territory by conquest right. That's the point of the un, otherwise there's no point to it. That's why people started in the first place. So israel has broken this cardinal rule and that's why their occupation of land is illegitimate.

Speaker 1: 1:11:11

But Israeli lawyers have argued that there is a lesser-known principle called utiesidentis Iuris right Latin term. It's a customary international law. They used to claim that actually the whole of Palestine is ours, it belongs to Israel. I say, why is that? Because they say that it is a customary international law that when a territory, a former colonial territory, gets given back to the people, the colonial power withdraws, then the state that is established there, the territory belongs to that state and you can't have people seceding from it or splitting from it, because then you have minority ethnic groups saying, well, I don't want to be part of this state, so we're going to declare independence unilaterally, and so on. So there was understanding that you have to maintain the territorial integrity of a state, trump's minority right to external self-determination, if you remember what that term means. So you can't say I must be completely separate as long as they are represented within the state.

Speaker 1: 1:12:31

So this was advanced by a lot of Zionist lawyers, one more recent one, natasha Hausdorff, who has come on debates alongside Douglas Murray and others saying this argument and she repeats it again, again, again, again. So they argue that the first state that was declared when the British left quote unquote was the state of Israel. Therefore, the whole state belongs to the state of Israel. This was their argument and they even used it in the ICJ when there was a consideration of whether the the Gaza Strip embargo and sanctioning and basically cutting off and siege of it, this is from 2006, whether that was legal or not. So they said well, it's not actually an occupation because it belongs to us anyway. And they made this as one of the many arguments right and the, the rebuttal was beautiful.

Speaker 1: 1:13:32

The rebuttal to this was absolutely beautiful. It was actually not done by the court. It was actually done by those making a making a counter to that, submitting it to the court, a counter representation, and they're saying that. Well, actually now it was cited that yes, for example, in the case of canada, quebec wants to secede, but just because the quebecois, the people of quebec, might want to have a referendum and say we become independent would cannot take any effect unless the canadian government allows them to, because of Utiposidentes Ioris their one territorial continual state only if the state allows a referendum to happen and them to secede. Same with Scotland yes, they'll give them a referendum, but only if Parliament ratifies that referendum. Then they have the right to secede. But the rebuttal was beautiful. It actually argued this the purpose of Oti Procedentes Iuris was that it's actually based on the right of majority self-determination.

Speaker 1: 1:14:38

The majority group have the right of self-determination within a contiguous land. No one can separate out from that. If that actually is applied correctly and properly, then Palestine actually must be maintained as a whole and the ruling group are gonna be the Palestinians, because they all should have a right to vote and they are the majority. So that was actually denied them and so the whole point of Utip Resendiz Yudist was actually refuted. But also and this is an, to use an old phrase, bestie extra, bestie right, have you noticed, was they cite that even the Israeli High Court accepts or rejects the idea of Utip Resendiz Yudist. Because there was this is funny, there was a company that was from before the Israeli state was established, that maybe was owed money by the colonial authorities beforehand, and then, when Israel basically took over, they said OK, well, israel owes us money. And the Israeli high court, argued by the Israeli government's lawyers themselves, said no, we don't owe you money because we are not the successors. We're not the successors to the colonial administration of the British. We are a separate, independent state that was created within the partition, the UN partition, ie we are not the successors of the entire territory, but only part of that territory ruled over in the israeli high court by the israeli government's own argument. So they refute themselves. So no, they themselves. When it comes to money, oh no, no, no, we're not the. We don't uh own the whole territories. We don't have a right to the control of the whole territory. We're not the successors of brit, british mandate afterwards, we're just part, we were essentially part of that territory. So that really debunks their main argument.

Speaker 1: 1:16:31

And I'm surprised that most people don't bring it up, because the ICJ didn't even consider the ulti-procedentis juris argument by the Zionists, because that was clearly the counter-argument. It's like, yeah, that's ridiculous. So that's basically it. In essence, west Bank and Gaza have been given back to the Palestinians by Jordan and Egypt and they are for the Palestinians, according to international law, to decide their own destiny and no one else. So any occupation there and all the atrocities and injustices, not to mention those commit against them which are breaches of the Geneva Conventions, like, for example, controlling their war supply, limiting their freedom of movement and so on and so forth, as well as in Gaza, which is now even beyond, I think they've broken. I think, when it comes to Geneva Convention, the Israelis on Gaza viewed it as a checklist as opposed to a list of prohibitions. So, anyway, but that's why the very claim that Israel has to even control those territories is completely illegal, which includes, of course, east Jerusalem, which is part of the West Bank and would, under international law, belong to the Palestinians.

Speaker 2: 1:17:45

Absolutely so. Someone new to this would be like OK, there's conflict, there's occupation, there's claims, there's counterclaims. We want peace now. Forget history, and then they may come up with a Zionist argument and say well, zionists have offered the Palestinians peace. They've offered the Palestinians their own state. Why?

Speaker 1: 1:18:17

have the Palestinians rejected this. The Zionists have never offered the Palestinians their own state, and this is what is common and common misconception. So they they might cite, you know, ehud barak, and they might cite um, uh, the, uh, the wire cords and taba agree, taba agreements and things like this, uh, which is really just agreement on principles, but they never really got beyond any any negotiations and israel has never offered ever the Palestinians to have East Jerusalem back, especially as their capital.

Speaker 2: 1:18:50

Never.

Speaker 1: 1:18:51

So what's going on here? What's happening here? So what in 1973, or even before, actually, with Eid al-Alan and the Eid al-Alan plan, but also as their stated policy, which they've said it very publicly is that they will never give up any part of the land of Israel, as they call it, the whole land of Palestine. But what to do with the Palestinians? Because you can't make the Palestinians full citizens, because they're the majority and you can't give them the right to return, because then they will become overwhelming majority, and at the same time, you can't, you know, let's say, physically, kick them out, because the eyes of the world are watching and no one, not even Donald Trump, would justify the physical pushing out of Palestinians, Although he might allow making conditions really bad for Palestinians that they want to leave and that's been Israel's general policy in slow motion for all these decades is just making it gradually worse and worse and worse in the areas they want to cleanse, to get the Palestinians to leave those areas. So what has been their policy? And I will quote you again, abba Eban, who said, in the same document he talked about anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. So in the same document he says if you're against Zionism, then you are an anti-Semite. What did he say? Almost, it seemed like, in the same breath. So he says to be Jewish also means to be Hebrew. And here I want to express the concern for Israelis' cultural future. There is a danger of inundation, like being swamped. It is a danger that we shall be Arabicized. I refer to the effects of the present political and territorial situation. We must reach a firm decision on how Jewish we want the Jewish state to be. Looking at demographic projections for Jews and Arabs in Israel and the West Bank this was that he was looking at it going ahead by 1990. It says there will be 40 to 43% Arabs. The destiny of such a society will not be the subject of Jewish decisions, because a 40% Jewish minority will in effect constitute a majority. Because our 60% Jewish population is a pluralist population, it reaches its decisions by controversy, not by consensus. Therefore, on any issue which Jews are divided, the Arabs will decide. Our political life will be dominated by a constant pursuit of the Arab vote. I take it that if we decide on a unitary state that there will have to be free and equal rights, whatever you say of that society, it will not be jewish.

Speaker 1: 1:21:52

And he goes on and on and he talks about uh in the beginning of his article when he talks that. He says that being anti-zionist is anti-seemitic because you're denying Jewish self-determination. He says at the beginning of this but what he then says in the same article is Self-determination is not an absolute right. The absurdity of Arab nationalism in its official policy Is that it demands 100% self-determination, saying that all Arabs, wherever they might be, nationalism in its official policy is that it demands a hundred percent self-determination, saying that all where Arabs, wherever they might be, they must. Wherever they are they are, they must live under their sovereign flags. So it's like if you are against Jewish self-determination, you're anti-semite. Oh, but for Arabs it's not absolute right for them. He said it in the same article. He first declares that anti-semitism is anti-zionism because of denying jewish rights and then he denies the arab right to self-determination in the exact same article.

Speaker 1: 1:22:55

The arrogance, you couldn't make up. This level of arrogance, you really couldn't. So, um, then he argues that the future he envisions for the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza is a separate political destiny, but not sovereignty. He says I believe it's not incompatible with a high measure of social economic integration and maintenance of process of mutual human accessibility. I believe it is possible to reconcile separate sovereignty with the creation of large unions of economic, energy and organization and, above all, keep the frontiers open. And then he says but I believe that this decision does not determine maximal satisfaction to self-determination, ie they have autonomy within an Israeli state, but not self-determination.

Speaker 2: 1:23:43

So in essence, apartheid basically. So you're saying any of the so-called peace proposals were basically not that they had self-determination. It was, they're going to be, a kind of autonomous but politically subjugated community within the Israeli hegemony.

Speaker 1: 1:24:05

Oh yes, definitely Including control of airspace, control of border. They're not allowed to have an official army, so it's like saying be at peace with us but be subjugated. Basically, here's your Indian reservation, subhanallah, because the Indian reservations in the United States of America in theory have sovereignty, so they have their own sovereignty, and that would be unjust, but they are American on the full American control, and that would be unjust and oppressive.

Speaker 2: 1:24:35

And therefore what these so-called peace proposals were saying is have peace without justice. But can peace without justice even exist?

Speaker 1: 1:24:44

Yeah, pretty much. You don't determine your economic destiny, you don't determine your security, they're determined for you by overlords, subhanallah. So in none of these negotiations was a full independent state offered, and not even Jerusalem. And Yasser Arafat? He commented on even Ehud Barak's generous offer. And Ehud Barak, by the way, people say, oh, he made a vision of office for 93 percent or 96 percent or what have you?

Speaker 1: 1:25:14

People often forget two things. One, the the Palestinians never said we don't want any more negotiations. We, they say well, here's a counter proposal and israel rejects it. Here's a reasonable one, but but yes, arafat said it's very, I think, poignant, but very on the on the mark comment. He said how are we arguing and negotiating for 22 of our homeland? Yes, they still want to argue with us for the remaining 22% of our homeland, or you can't get it back fully, even, not even Jerusalem.

Speaker 1: 1:25:53

He said no one has the right to surrender Jerusalem, least if not me. So this is not even a. You know he sits on the board. He said I sit on the board of the Organization of Islamic Conference, which was established to protect Jerusalem, to protect Al-Qqud and to protect al-aqsa masjid. I can't surrender that.

Speaker 1: 1:26:13

And the person and the israelis were saying well, you know, you don't you know, jerusalem is not necessarily on the table for you, or maybe we'll give you a, a suburb of jerusalem, perhaps. Or they said to him that, okay, we can, we might um you in name official sovereignty on the Temple Mount or the Al-Aqsa, but Israelis have residual control over it. It was a legal fiction. Basically, which is in name, it's yours, but Israelis control it. Yes, all right. So he said this is absolutely ridiculous, that they have to negotiate for 22 percent. Uh, it should. Simply, they don't even get that 22 percent and it's not even independent. What it should be is. Israel says we're going to withdraw from that 22 percent, and what? And let's come to terms and let's agree before we withdraw what the peace terms will be afterwards, that we live side by side, we cooperate side by side, and so we're going to withdraw, but can we be assured of peace afterwards? That's what he was expecting. That's what the Palestinians have always been expecting, despite the fact it's 22% of their remaining land.

Speaker 2: 1:27:20

Now.

Speaker 1: 1:27:22

I'm going to mention an argument you haven't brought in, a counter argument that Zionists will bring up. They say Palestinians are not interested in peace. If they were, why is it that the PLO organization was set up as a resistance fighting organization in 1964, before the Palestinians lost the West Bank and Gaza in 1967? They'll often say this, often say this, and what people forget is un resolution 194, I mean un resolution 242, states that israel should leave the west bank and gaza. That happened in 1967.

Speaker 1: 1:27:56

But your resolution um, uh 194, um, stipulates that all those palestinians, the 750 or so thousand Palestinians that were ethnically cleansed and kicked out of their lands in Palestine, in the territory which is now internationally recognized as Israel, that they have the right to return. And Yasser Arafat, in 1964, argued that the PLO would keep fighting Israel until that resolution is honored. They have a right to return to their old villages, their old towns. Of course, ben-gurion and many others said no, no, we will not accept their return. They lost and got kicked out.

Speaker 1: 1:28:41

Or he didn't say like that. He said they lost and left, yeah, so they don't have a right to come back. So that's interesting, because the whole premise of Zionism, you claim, or historically anyway is that you were kicked out by the Romans Not true? And that you have a right to come back after 2000 years, but the Palestinians don't have a right to come back after within living memory. Basically, that's the double standard and hypocrisy. And of course, the zionists will say but if we allow them back in, uh, they will constitute a sizable majority, um, and we can't have that and what you refer to, the around 750 000000 Palestinians that were basically what's the best word to use?

Speaker 2: 1:29:33

They were forced and displaced, then hundreds of villages were burnt to the ground. This is known as the Nakba, the great catastrophe, catastrophe. So look, let's, let's move on a little bit. Let's talk about now another kind of false Zionist argument, and it was placed in the mouth of Benjamin Netanyahu, right? He basically said that the Palestinians were actually responsible for the Holocaust, and this was mentioned, I believe, in the Jordan Peterson podcast.

Speaker 1: 1:30:12

Actually before 2015,. Benyamin Tanar said so many things in that Jordan Peterson podcast. There was too many inaccuracies, but he actually said it first. Yeah, yeah, 10 years ago he first came out of it and that's when it caused a massive storm. But he's but, despite the fact that he's been corrected by so many scholars, he still says it again and again and he repeated it in the podcast um, I can't remember if it was that podcast he repeated, but he has repeated it in other podcasts.

Speaker 2: 1:30:41

Yes, okay, maybe not that one.

Speaker 1: 1:30:42

Maybe it was a ben shapiro one.

Speaker 2: 1:30:43

He said a lot of stupid and false things in that podcast and Jordan Peterson was extremely intellectually. He was an intellectual coward. He didn't even push back or, frankly, I don't think he even cared. But yeah, so fair enough, he is on the record to have said that the Palestinians were responsible for the Holocaust. What's that about? Is that even an argument?

Speaker 1: 1:31:08

bro. So so um, he implies, um, so he says it by implication. Okay, so he talks about the grand mufti of jerusalem, the, uh, the infamous one of the Palestinians, haj Amin al-Husseini. In 1941, november, goes to see Hitler in Nazi Germany and asks for Germany's help against the British occupation, the British control of the Middle East. And Hitler assures him that of course Germany has no imperial designs over the Muslim world or the Arabs. So to Haj Amin al-Husseini he's basically the lesser of two evils the British are the ones which are occupying his land. So he goes to Hitler. That's how, presumably, historians have explained his mindset, why he went and his motivations. But what Zionists argue, what some have argued revisionists you could say, and Benjamin Tenayev being one of them is that Hitler only wanted to expel Jews from Europe. He didn't want to massacre all of them systematically. But in November 1941, haj Amin al-Husseini meets Hitler, has a meeting, documented meeting with him and gives him the idea he said actually, why don't you just have a final solution for them? Kill them, kill them all in Europe.

Speaker 1: 1:32:37

And because Haj Amin al-Husseini is considered to be the grand mufti of Jerusalem, so clearly he's in a leadership position of the Palestinians. So in a sense the Palestinians bear an implied collective responsibility. It's almost like Christian New Testament anti-Semitic trope where in the New Testament the Romans, you know, capture or they're holding Jesus, allegedly, you know, and they say to the Jews, what do you want us to do with him? They say kill him. And they say, well, we bear the guilt for this. And allegedly the Jews say collectively that no, let the guilt be upon us and our descendants.

Speaker 1: 1:33:24

And then that was used as an anti-Semitic trope by Christians to say you killed Jesus and it's on the blames, on you. It was almost like it follows that kind of argument that this collective blame is upon you. You killed the Jews, even though it was the Palestinians didn't collectively have a referendum on this and vote on this or anything on that. So the simple issue of that is it's a complete lie and fiction. The meeting that decided upon the quote-unquote final solution. Well, firstly, hitler has been talking about massacring the Jews for at least over a decade prior to that point or more.

Speaker 1: 1:34:02

He actually threatened that if the Because he believed in a Jewish world conspiracy. So he believed that the Jewish world conspiracy urges both the Bolsheviks, the Communists and the capitalists to fight, and Germany that he will take it out on the Jews and kill them massive. You know they will. They will have suffered a great catastrophe for doing for this. Inspiring this, this is was in his, in his delusional head. But he threatened this. He threatened he would kill them, massacre all of them. He's been saying it.

Speaker 1: 1:34:33

They really had death camps, not necessarily formal, I mean how you define formalized. They didn't say I'll sign an official document, but it was in essence, it was known, ordered by Hitler, by the Nazi leadership. Yes, camps, let the Jews die in those camps as work camps, and what have you? Or just letting their soldiers kill? Are we encouraging the soldiers just to kill, with summary executions due? So this was already happening before Haj Amin Husseini comes onto the scene, to the scene.

Speaker 1: 1:35:10

But the Wannsee meeting, as it's called, where you had the technocratic heads of German army and government meet to discuss how to systematically what they call liquidate the Jewish populations of Europe. And they come to the idea of gas chambers and using gas. It was really sick and you know what's really sick. This shows you the quote-unquote European Enlightenment ideals in their mindset. The reason they chose gas was, they said, it was humane. It was sick. It's really sick, anyway, because they're following the Enlightenment ideals of Europe.

Speaker 1: 1:35:43

They thought themselves as humanitarians. That's why they outlawed animal vivisection. They thought themselves as humanitarians. That's why they outlawed animal vivisection. They thought they were humanitarians. They were just doing this to defend the German people against a threat. It was really sick and in some ways their fellow European cousins have mindsets that haven't fallen too far from the tree. They follow the same mindsets of in certain circumstances you can justify doing all kinds of atrocities and things, um, which we've seen in colonialism done to many peoples around the world. But anyway, I digress. Yes, so uh, there's no link. Basically, that the one I see conference. It does occur after the meeting with hajj al-Husseini. Yes, but it was ordered in the summer of 1941, before November 1941, where Haj Amin al-Husseini arises.

Speaker 1: 1:36:33

It was ordered to convene for that purpose to decide the mechanism by which Jews would be liquidated, but not that should Jews be liquidated or not. That was already decided before Haj Amin al-Husseini appears on the scene. Also, we have the transcript fully documented in minutes of the meeting and what was said between Hajj Amin al-Husseini and Hitler, and there was no recommendation by Hajj Amin al-Husseini. Oh, by the way, hitler, in case you haven't realized or forgotten, here's an idea that you could use. So this is absolutely ridiculous. It's a nonsense argument. It's an absolute nonsense argument. But why does Benjamin Netanyahu use this? Well, he's desperate, he's an ideologue, and not the only one right, but he used it to say the Holocaust, one of the most monstrous events that's happened in humanity. The palestinians are to blame in some way, shape or form.

Speaker 1: 1:37:33

And and you know what the truth is even more ridiculous hajj amin al-husseini, the grand mufti of jerusalem. Who made him grand mufti of jerusalem? He's quite young. To be a grand mui, usually you have to have a lot of white hairs and be pretty old. He was a Zionist, right? Yes, yes, yeah, yeah, you're still right.

Speaker 1: 1:37:54

The colonial administrator of the British mandate of Palestine, herbert Samuel, is Jewish and Zionist, a member of the British government. So he was given the task to decide. The previous Mufti was out of the picture and they wanted to get a new one. So there were a number of options. There was people that were highly qualified, old, elderly gentlemen, but highly qualified, very knowledgeable. But there was a young guy who he didn't put himself up for, I think, but he was part of the hosseini family and the hosseini family were viewed as influential and hosseini family they had disagreements amongst each other, but they were viewed as an influential, so family. So he thought maybe I can placate the palestinians um, this is in in 1920s, now, right, I mean, I can placate them by getting the Hosseini family on board with the British colonial power, by giving one of their members a honorary position, a very honored position. So he appointed Haj Amin al-Hosseini as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Speaker 1: 1:39:08

Haj Amin Al-Husseini as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem A Jewish, zionist guy was the person who appointed him, made Haj Amin Al-Husseini the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Most people don't realize that. It's not hard to find. You can find it online very simply. And yet the Palestinians are not only to blame for a false allegation that they allege that he did, but he didn't even select him in the first place. The Zionists literally selected him, so it wasn't the Palestinians that selected him.

Speaker 2: 1:39:33

it was actually the Zionists, yes, subhanallah. So look, you mentioned the Holocaust. So another kind of Zionist argument is well, the Jews were killed, murdered, but also expelled. There was nowhere else to go apart from Palestine. Is that an argument?

Speaker 1: 1:39:54

Well, actually no, it's not an argument, and the reason why is because so people often think that they somehow misinterpret or they don't know the history. They think Zionism began or was an answer to the Holocaust. No, Zionism was 50 years or more before the Holocaust.

Speaker 2: 1:40:17

Fyodor.

Speaker 1: 1:40:18

Herzl, the one who led, or you could say was the main driver of the movement of political Zionism. The one who made it successful, say, was the main driver of the movement of political Zionism. One who made it successful. He lived in, he died before Israel was ever created. He died before World War II, died before World War.

Speaker 1: 1:40:35

I never saw any of those things and yet he argued that the solution for Jewish persecution, which was mostly in East Europe at that time and Russia, was they should have a state for themselves. But where were the Russian Jews going? They were streaming into the United States of America. They were going to the UK. Funnily enough, arthur Balfour was opposing that. Arguably he tightened immigration laws to restrict Jewish immigration into England, supposed savior of Jews and pro-Zionist guy. I do want to cover this, which is there's a surprising reason why he supported Zionism and you'd be quite surprised. You will be shocked when you discover why Arthur Balfour, of the Arthur Balfour Declaration, and Prime Minister Lloyd George and Mark Sykes, why they all supported Zionism so strongly. But we'll get to that Anyway. So Jews were going to America.

Speaker 2: 1:41:43

So why didn't they give them? They should have gave them parts of Texas. Maybe it's a big land.

Speaker 1: 1:41:49

Initially there was an idea of Jews immigrating to a part of the United States of America not to take it over, but to just get become majority in a particular area and then, in essence, because you have local democracy, they could have some kind of autonomy in some way.

Speaker 1: 1:42:05

Much like you could say the Mormons view Salt Lake City, I suppose. But anyway. So what happened was that, you know, jews mostly went to other parts of the world. But when Palestine opened up, britain actually initially allowed immigration to come in at full stint, although immigration, from being a form of Jews going into the Middle East actually started under Sultan Abdul Hamid II. Under the Ottoman Caliphate. Jews were seeking refuge from persecution and the Ottomans welcomed them in Said you can come in. So they were actually coming into the Middle East under the Islamic caliphate with the express reason that they were to be given refuge from their persecution. So they didn't need to establish a state or get the British to invade. They didn't get the British to invade, but there was no need for European Zionists to do so.

Speaker 2: 1:43:02

Yeah, but the Holocaust is post-caliphate. So one would argue is well, fine, that's fair enough. There's no need for European Zionists to do so. Yeah, but the Holocaust is post-Caliphate. So one would argue, is well, fine, that's fair enough. We don't have a Caliphate anymore to welcome the Jews. So they might just say, well, where else can they go? And they may argue this was the only place that they can go after the Holocaust.

Speaker 1: 1:43:22

Well, here's the thing is thatain america could have simply let them in, like they let in about tens of thousands others prior to, but what happened was that america, the, the, uh, the government, uh was quite uh was under, you could say, anti-semitic um influences more like they wanted to appease anti-semites in their own country who were opposing Jewish immigration. So they said you know what? There's a place open for them. Send them all there. Send them to Palestine.

Speaker 2: 1:43:52

Maybe that's why, initially, when Churchill, churchill didn't use the argument, the Jewish argument, right Like we have to save the Jews in the beginning, when in the beginning of his kind of you know campaign against Hitler um, in the beginning of his kind of you know uh campaign against hitler, I I'm, I'm sure, yeah, no, actually I actually learned this from you in, yeah, yeah in one of the media.

Speaker 1: 1:44:11

Uh, shows you did with I mentioned in pierce morgan. It's a great argument.

Speaker 2: 1:44:14

He said they didn't really I mean expand that bit because I don't know much, but I'm just echoing what you previously said.

Speaker 1: 1:44:19

So just tell me what that's an interesting point actually, uh, I mean, ultimately it was Neville Chamberlain's ultimatum, and then Winston Churchill. Obviously, neville Chamberlain obviously withdrew from government when his idea of appeasement and peace fell through, and then Winston Churchill continued. But never were there demands at any point in time that if Germany continues to persecute Jews At that time they didn't know that they were systematically killing them or were going to more precisely, but they never said stop persecuting Jews or we'll fight you. No mention they didn't care Again. In America they actually even the media was told to downplay reports of massacres against Jews by the Nazi government. In America, they're told to downplay it. Finally, isn't it a strange irony of history that Palestinian massacres, so massacres of Palestinians, today are being downplayed in mainstream American media, but back then it was the massacres against Jews are being downplayed because it would bring up the argument of well, we need to give them space in America for as refugees. So, in a sense, and America didn't feel the need for any pressure because they, instead they pressured Britain to say Britain, you need to open up immigration to Palestine, because they have a place to go, right, send them there. So in a sense, it's because Palestine was open that they, that they were sitting there and in fact it was argued that, uh, despite the fact that the person was open, um, because britain still had limited migration and the germans never let them go early on, uh, they let jews go early on, but that america, america could have saved at least 300 000 jews by um opening up uh immigration early on, because there were many Jews actually who wanted to go to America, wanted to leave, to go there first. It actually was harder to get to Palestine, so it didn't really. I mean, sure, there were Holocaust survivors going there, but by and large, most of the Holocaust survivors that went to Palestine happened after World War II, so after Germany was already defeated.

Speaker 1: 1:46:35

It was viewed that, well, despite the fact that they had discovered the death camps and they had realized where anti-Semitism led to, they still argued that, yeah, but we can't keep the Jews in Europe. It's like, oh, you're basically going to finish what Hitler started, in a sense, not necessarily killing, but by moving them out, saying no, they should go to Palestine, they shouldn't migrate to Palestine, they can't be left in Europe. Many of these it's like, well, that's not what you would do. You would liberate them from the death camps and let them go back to their homes in Europe, where them from the death camps and let them go back to their homes in Europe where they were as you rebuild Europe and what have you? So that's a bogus argument, the idea that there was nowhere else to go, because there was plenty of places to go. But in a way, palestine was used as an excuse for other countries to deny Jews to go to their countries, and it was the anti-Semitic policies of actually America, trying to appease this anti-Semitic base, that caused it to limit Jewish migration.

Speaker 2: 1:47:36

Okay so the Zionists enter Palestine and they ethnically cleanse Palestine and continue to do so. But there's a Zionist argument that says well, aren't 20% of Israelis actually Palestinian? So how is it the case that the Zionist regime is actually ethnically cleansing the Palestinians when 20% of the Palestinians live in Israel and they're not being ethnically cleansed?

Speaker 1: 1:48:07

There actually isn't. According to Israel, 20% of their population are Palestinians. That's not the case in Israel.

Speaker 2: 1:48:16

In.

Speaker 1: 1:48:16

Israel, they'd say 20% of population are Israeli Arabs, not Palestinians. Now, that's not the main rebuttal to it, but it's to show you that, in a sense, what is a genocide or what is ethnic cleansing? The definitions of ethnic cleansing include taking children from an ethnic group, forcing them, raising them in a different society with different values, so that their cultural identity is destroyed, like what happened to Native American Indians. That's included in the definition of ethnic cleansing and genocide actually. So what we see is that Palestinians who survived the ethnic cleansing of the Nakba were re-designated. You're not Palestinians, you're Israeli Arabs. The Palestinians are in the West Bank, are in Gaza. That's where the Palestinians are. So that's one aspect.

Speaker 2: 1:49:23

So they removed the ethnicity, so it's like another form of ethnic cleansing. Basically, yes, but also that's not the.

Speaker 1: 1:49:27

So they removed the ethnicity. So it's like another form of ethnic cleansing. Basically, yes, but also that's not the only thing they did, right? So what many Zionists will tell you is they say that they have equal rights. Right, they'll only refer to them as Palestinians in debates outside the country where they're saying no, we don't ethnic, we didn't ethnic cleanse the Palestinians there are, 20% of our population is Palestinians. That's the only time they ever get referred to as Palestinians Within Israel. They're called Israeli Arabs. So what they'll say is they have equal rights.

Speaker 1: 1:50:01

And I will respond by saying Jim Crow. And I will respond by saying Jim Crow, did you know that African-Americans or black Americans have equal rights? Since their emancipation from slavery in the mid 19th century? They were, under the US Constitution, equal. So why the American civil rights movement? Why is that necessary? Ah, because just because you're equal under law doesn't mean you're not treated differently and in such a way, institutionally differently that produces a separate but equal outcome. Yeah, of course.

Speaker 1: 1:50:42

So we see in quote, unquote the state state of Israel and referring to the area which is internationally recognized as quote-unquote, the state of Israel, that we see that Arab areas or Arab towns and cities are overcrowded because there is virtually no funding given to urban development, while there is massive funding given to development of Jewish towns, jewish villages, cities. They allow things such as, by the way, you're not allowed to own property or land in the state of Israel. You can't actually own land. All land is actually owned by the state of Israel. They learned from their practices of how they took over the land with buying land during the British Mandate period, so they make sure that no one else can repeat that against them. So you can only have a leasehold of that land and although 7% of the land is allocated to the Jewish National Fund so they actually do they are separate, a private company which own land. Ok, so what the Israeli state does is OK, you can't own land, you can only lease it.

Speaker 1: 1:51:51

But if you're, let's say, an Arab family, you want to move into a new town or place which is majority Jewish, you have to go by the local neighborhood committee. The local neighborhood committee which is allowed under law to consider you whether you're a good fit, culturally and value in your values, to that local neighborhood, which, coincidentally, you know means that many Arab families get turned away from being able to buy property in Jewish majority neighborhoods what a coincidence. We see schools in Arab majority neighborhoods underfunded, we see infrastructure underfunded, and so on. So exactly like almost what was happening in the USA in the 50s and 60s, prior to the civil rights movement being more successful. Now they'll say well, we don't have Jewish-only buses and Arab-only buses and so on. Well, that's true, they don't, but they have arranged things in such a way as it produces a de facto separation. So, apart from maybe, haifa, which is a little bit more mixed, most cities are very segregated. The Jewish community and Arab communities are very segregated from each other.

Speaker 2: 1:53:09

Yeah, and I think there was a legal study done I think it's called the Adalah database. If you go to adalahorg and they investigated the laws in Israel and they said around over 60 laws actually are like apartheid laws. They they favor the Jewish people over any other type of Israeli citizen, like an Arab Israeli citizen. So these many of these laws are indicative of what you've just said. So look, well it.

Speaker 1: 1:53:45

Here's the thing. It's Israel very careful for how they draft the laws. So they will draft the laws in such a way as to not avoid, avoid reference to ethnicity, with the exception of the law of return, which says specifically Jewish, only Jews can return back to Israel. Only and as long as they have a Jewish ancestry and follow the Jewish religion, or even converts. Right, a law of return based on just converting. So what can like Buddhist Thai people go to India and get Indian citizenship because they're Buddhist? That's where Buddha comes from. What, anyway, anyway. But what they will do is they they'll make the law, uh, in such a way as to ensure that it generally, it only targets yeah, so it's the law and applied law.

Speaker 2: 1:54:36

So you could write law in a particular way that maybe on the surface doesn't look like it's, you know? You know pro apartheid if it's like a manifestation of apartheid, but in its application it happens to be so yes, like the absentee, property law is an infamous one, yeah absolutely, because law doesn't work in abstracto. Yeah, because there's law and applied law and that's how they're trying to be smart with it.

Speaker 1: 1:55:00

But if you I think that another database actually explains that further and says look these, when you apply these laws, it's just apartheid well, I mean that the law is is very cleverly designed to say that, um, uh, anyone, any israeli citizen that visits uh or has a uh that leaves the state of israel, travels to a country that is deemed to be an enemy country, which happens, happens to be even countries that are normalized of Israel, jordan, egypt, whatever, or has leaves their property, their property can be seized, for example. Of course, who would ever go to those other countries would be Israeli Arabs. Quote unquote.

Speaker 1: 1:55:40

So in the application, then absolutely yeah, or if you're, if you are living in an area that was at the point at the time of um, 1947, 1948 war, was, in it, considered to be enemy territory, ie arab areas were even within the state of israel.

Speaker 1: 1:55:56

they very carefully how they all, how they word it, yeah of course it basically applies to the arab areas, ie the, the Arabs of the state of Israel. They could lose their property and it means, for example, let's say you co-own a house with your uncles and things. One uncle goes to live in Lebanon or goes to live in Egypt or what have you. The whole house can be taken and they'll say, oh, we'll compensate you. We can compensate you for your, for your, your share, but the state takes a share of that. That goes to the state and the state and then eventually the state will compensate you and then we'll reallocate that to a um, a housing authority, uh, like the jewish national fund. Which the jewish national fund is is then, within its corporate constitution, is designed, is there to house Jews who are returning. So, while it's a great legal acrobatics, the Israeli state recognizes the Jewish National Fund as an official housing authority that it can designate property to, and within the Jewish National Fund's corporate articles, it explicitly has a racial policy of own for housing jews.

Speaker 1: 1:57:10

So the state can say, well, we don't have any racial laws we just recognize this particular corporation to house people, and this corporation just so happens to have a within its corporate rules but not officially law of the state, a racial-based law. But as long as we're not having racial-based laws, well, we're not racist.

Speaker 2: 1:57:30

Well, it's obvious by virtue of what you've just said that the intent of the law and its application, notwithstanding how it's worded, is designed to basically create an apartheid or some form of ethnic displacement of people, or maybe not by location, but at least by resources and ownership, gradually losing property. Yes and being second-class citizens, so look.

Speaker 1: 1:57:58

I also want to add one more extra thing and last point, which is, of course, when Ben-Gurion looked at the potential segregation of the land into the UN partition plan, two things occurred to him. One, I'll answer another question, but one thing was he said that the demographic breakdown would mean that Arabs would be 40% of the UN partition Jewish state. He said you can't have a viable state with 40% Arabs. They were never arguing. They want to eliminate all Arabs from their state. They even argued that Arabs would be a good source of cheap labor, but that 40% is too much. Like Abba Eban would say, at least 20 years later, he'd say that 40% is too much. Like Abba Eban would say, at least 20 years later, he'd say that 40% is too much. So they want to reduce Arabs down to a manageable amount. Now some estimates say that after the Nakba it was even down to 10%, not 20% down. But the Palestinians, being a very loving people, managed to multiply, to double that and for a significant portion of time.

Speaker 1: 1:59:13

Even to this day, the discourse in Israel is the concern over Arab multiplication, of Israeli Arabs within the state of Israel, and there was an argument and there was a Pew poll. I believe that was conducted, but there's a more recent one, but there's a Pew poll that was conducted in 2016. So this is before recent events, where they asked the Jewish Israeli population, what do you think should happen to Israeli Arabs? And 49% said and they were the majority group said they should be evicted from Israel, removed from Israel, whereas then I think 46% said, well, they should remain in Israel. So it's not all of them, but but it's clearly a the majority. The rest was on, I don't know, undecided, sure, on this.

Speaker 1: 2:00:12

So this is the issue is it's demographics is an obsession with many Zionists because they want to have a demo, they want to have a democratic state, because they're from that European tradition, because they're Europeans, but at the same time, is there has to be a Jewish state? Yes, and so that's why they're from that European tradition, because they're Europeans, but at the same time, it has to be a Jewish state, and so that's why they're always obsessed with demographics, with getting the Palestinians to be relocated, with not honoring their UN commitments, like the Resolution 194, where they allegedly said we affirm this. They were actually asked do you affirm this before you? We recognize you as, uh, as the un.

Speaker 1: 2:00:51

We recognize you as a state, as a member state within the un I said yes, of course you know there are many, but there are many different ways this can be achieved, because the um, the, the resolution 194, says that it should be resolved either by letting them back in or compensating them if they want to be compensated and don't want to come back, and, you know, sorting out their relocation if they want to be relocated, okay. So they agreed to that. The Israelis agreed to that resolution saying, of course, of course, let us be a member of the UN. We'll agree to that in principle. There's many ways it can be resolved and we're going to encourage maybe the other ways more, but that was meant to be for each Palestinian refugee to decide what they want to do. So Israel has actually not been abiding by UN resolutions from its very Even before it literally joined the UN. The only resolution that Israel enjoyed was the partition resolution, and even then it was only as a temporary measure, which we will come to with evidences as to why I say that.

Speaker 2: 2:01:54

Zakir Hibro. It's been long, we've just got a few more questions, but I think the last few questions are very important. So let's zoom in on October the 7th or what's been happening after that date. So there's two questions connected to October the 7th. The first is general. It's like look, it's not everything that Israel has done justified. It's not everything what Israel has done justified in protecting the safety and security of its people. That's an argument that some people will make. You know, october the 7th happened and look Israel. Now they believe they are justified, or the Zionist regime is justified in doing what it has done thus far. I mean, I find it shocking that people would actually even assert such a question and believe that Israel is justified in any shape or form. But it's because of the intention of this podcast to educate those who are blind to these realities. So what would you?

Speaker 1: 2:02:56

say. The common argument that Zionists always argue is that security, security, security, so security and safety and security of mind. So they'll say that all these policies we implement, whether it's making big fences confining Palestinians into these small zones because we've made illegal settlements around them and we have to protect the Jewish settlers, of course, from the Palestinians They'll say it's for the safety and security of Jews. That's why we do these things, and that if you don't have these repressive or restrictive measures, you don't have measures such as, you know, a invisible 200-meter zone around a newly established military checkpoint and then if someone walks into that they get shot. Oh, but it's too bad. They should have known there was a military checkpoint there and that was because these are standard safety protocols and I'm not just making this up.

Speaker 1: 2:03:58

There was a court case where an Israeli soldier shot dead a seven-year-old Palestinian girl because she had entered into a, a this invisible exclusion zone, and she hadn't. She wasn't just like walking straight to them, she had. She had like been startled by them, by them shouting or whatever. And then she turned around and was as she was walking off, she was shot and then the soldier went up to her body on the ground as she was basically pretty much either dead by that point in time or fatally injured and shot, emptied his magazine into her to confirm the kill officially. To confirm the kill he got off in court, in Israeli court. He's saying it's a standard policy. It was simply standard policies. Anyone who enters an exclusion zone can be shot, and she entered it, so that was it. And confirming the kill after the justification to engage a target has been met is standard policy, irrespective of who it is and who does it. And he was let off because he was following agreed military protocols and policy and this was all justified as necessary policies to contain the threat of the Palestinians or what have you, palestinian militancy.

Speaker 1: 2:05:19

I can't think why they'd be so angry, these Palestinians, and this is the mindset and they always say it's for the safety and security of Jews. The main issue with this is that, for example, you could say that in society we need to put cameras in everyone's houses, big Brother style in their bathrooms, even because crimes occur inside people's houses rape, murder, domestic violence and one act of domestic violence is one act too many, right? So we need to put cameras in everyone's rooms and have state monetary think. Of course, people say, oh hell, no, I I'm not going to let that happen. Why? But it's for security. It's for safety Because they say, well, our human dignity is under threat.

Speaker 1: 2:06:15

The danger to us will become subservient to the state. The state will be able to control us. We would be restricted, limited. This would be in misery, basically being surveilled by the state. Even this would be in misery, basically being surveilled by the state, even if it ostensibly is meant to be for good intentions of preventing crime.

Speaker 1: 2:06:40

You can't justify an infinite limitation of human rights for the sake of security. That's not security or protection, that's subjugation. Now, that's a state protecting its own people from its own people. What about another people? Uh, from uh, so it's people from other people.

Speaker 1: 2:06:53

Well, if that same kind of logic was argued against the abolition of slavery in the united america, if you liberate all the slaves African slaves, black slaves, whatever term they used they would be a threat to society, they'd be a threat to the white race, they would commit crime, they would run amok. They are not civilized Just for the sake of the safety and security. They're in the best place they can be, utilizing the best manner for a society better than what they could be if they were free. That was the argument used to justify slavery, the subjection of one race by another, because it's for that that master race is safety and security and peace of mind. Right, that argument is bogus and sick.

Speaker 1: 2:07:48

You can't justify infinite restrictions based on security. There has to be an equal consideration for both sides. The Palestinian farmer in the West Bank must be as safe and secure as any Israeli citizen is, without fear of being attacked or violence. What have you? But instead, what you get is you get Israeli military accompanying settlers attacking the Palestinian farmer, and they've been given strict orders to protect Israeli settlers. That's it. They don't arrest the settlers who are literally there, literally accompanying, who are vandalizing the palestinian property or even attacking the occupiers.

Speaker 2: 2:08:30

I mean another argument would would be and I think this is an international legal argument that do they even have a right to raise the question? Because they're occupying force? Yeah, like, look at this hypothetical scenario Imagine France invades London, bro yeah, and they invade London and they occupy London and subjugate all of the Londoners for about 10 years. And then the surrounding areas Kent, surrey, you know, milton Keynes, luton, all of these places they gather together to create a little kind of, you know, rebel force to try and liberate Londoners and get back what is theirs, which is, you know, britain, london. Right now, imagine the French saying we're going to kill every single one of you now or subjugate you even further because we have a right to defend ourselves or we have a right to protect ourselves. I mean, is that even an argument? You're an occupying force. Do you see my point?

Speaker 1: 2:09:32

No, I mean, of course, but the Zionists would argue and this is what they do argue with, which is that West Bank and Gaza must be controlled because they themselves are existential threats.

Speaker 2: 2:09:44

If they were left free, they would be an existential threat.

Speaker 1: 2:09:48

Well, exactly, that's exactly the point. Is that, um, and?

Speaker 2: 2:09:50

it's. And just like what the french would say if they occupied london. They will say the same thing. Look, we've, we've dealt with these people so badly, we've occupied them. We've, we've subjugated them. We've got an apartheid here. We now have to maintain them now, because they're going to be an existential threat. Obviously, why wouldn't they be? Because you're occupying them and you're subjugating them Well indeed.

Speaker 1: 2:10:11

I mean.

Speaker 2: 2:10:12

I mean, that's the argument that could be made.

Speaker 1: 2:10:14

One parallel is well, you just brought up the French, the French resistance against the Germans. So the French resistance would ambush German army convoys, paramilitary units or police units and at times also kill collaborators and other such things. So this was done in the context of the resistance against Nazi occupation. What the Nazis would do, of course, is they can't find it's hard to find or know who's the French resistance, but they would suspect that this town is supporting the French resistance or whatever. So they would go in and they would basically raise part of the town to the ground. They'd kill or decimate the population. They'd round up suspected supporters they don't have any evidence of, but they would just kill them with summary executions or send them to death camps. The Germans would say we're just defending our German soldiers. You know, in this territory, which is surely as Germans, we have to protect our soldiers surely not?

Speaker 1: 2:11:13

Yeah, exactly, but not at the expense of the security of the civilians. And if you can't find the insurgents, then you don't start killing people who you suspect to be insurgents or resistance fighters who you suspect to be insurgents or resistance fighters. And this is, in essence, the issue of the Israeli occupation is that they believe that the remotest insecurity they have or slightest fear justifies any kind of force they need. So, for example, syria is a recent example. Syria, bashar Assad falls, a new government takes over. They say look, we've had civil war, we're war-torn, we just want peace. We're not a threat to anyone, really. We're just not a threat to certainly a very powerful, modern military right next to us at all. So we just want to rebuild.

Speaker 1: 2:12:08

And Israel says oh, the uh is the next jihadi. So this justifies us moving into syrian territory and bombing the place, and and bombing, even bombing some navy ships of the syrian navy in the port of tartus, I think it was which is like how's that a threat to your border? How does that relate to, of course, bombing all the anti-aircraft missiles, which are defensive weapons used to defend themselves against, of course, having the airspace invaded and incurred upon, which we would then see why they did that, because to get to Iran, obviously. So Israel cites the slightest insecurity and says this justifies us preemptively self-defending ourselves. Yeah, self-defending, right. So they will oppress them and, taken to its extent and people saying this is exactly where they're going is they can argue that they need to militarily and, in fact, are dominating the entire Middle east and muslim world because they have to pre-emptively defend themselves well, the argument swings both ways.

Speaker 2: 2:13:13

So imagine the rest of the world takes the same logic of their argument and they now attack israel and take over israel, because they'll be arguing well, you guys have already occupied a particular place on earth, you've subjugated the people in that location and you've created an apartheid state. Therefore, this is a threat to the whole world, because maybe you're going to do it to the rest of us. Do you see my point? It's the door swings both ways.

Speaker 1: 2:13:43

That's why the argument is so ridiculous.

Speaker 2: 2:13:45

If you just reverse, you know, swing the door the other way, it just collapses.

Speaker 1: 2:13:51

And that's why some Iranian members of the Iranian government have said that they need to have a nuclear weapon. Because how come Israel gets nuclear weapons? So that if Israel feels like it, it could press a red button and tehran disappears in the mushroom cloud. Every iranian lives every day knowing that that could happen at any moment if benjamin netanyahu feels like it. And if he did it, what would really happen to him? Trump would just have an angry phone call and then slap on the wrist.

Speaker 2: 2:14:20

Yes, don't do that again. If they were to use strategic nuclear weapons, yeah, yeah so okay so that okay. So that's well answered. So let's zoom in a little bit more. October the 7th and Hamas. Now right, so it's been claimed that Hamas ordered the mass killing of Jews on October the 7th. So, zionists would argue, isn't Israel justified in trying to exterminate all of the members of Hamas?

Speaker 1: 2:14:48

Okay. So one of the things which you know, when October 7th happened and there was a lot of confusion initially what's going on? What's happening? And Then things started to emerge as to what was happening. People start to talk about it, but, more importantly, they you know they were members of Hamas that were captured by the Israeli forces and subject to interrogation, and the interrogations were published. There were pamphlets or leaflets or documents found on dead bodies of Hamas fighters which were dropped onto telegram groups. Very quickly. They were taken a picture of, dropped the very early ones, which are very unlikely to have been Israeli state propaganda or them alleging something. So it's so we start to see this and, of course, then Hamas made their own official statement of this.

Speaker 1: 2:15:33

Now I want to state very clearly that, as people who are in looking into what's happening in the Middle East, who have a concern for the rights of human beings anywhere in the world, we need to look at what truthfully happened for the sake of getting the facts right, because we can't make any judgments if we don't have all the facts correct. It doesn't matter who it is or what it is, whether it's going to be pro-Israel, anti-israel, pro-palestinian, anti-palestinian or pro-whichever group or anti-Israeli group. We just want to know what the facts are. That's simply that. So what the facts seemed to have been covered was what was Hamas's intent? That we can discern from their publications and other evidences, circumstantial evidences, and what the Zionists say. So we know the Zionists say that the Zionists deny every genocide claim against them, except they say, oh, but Hamas tried genocide because they were given orders to kill Jews, and you don't have to kill all Jews for that to happen. You can kill just part of an ethnic group to happen. As long as you are basically killing a particular ethnic group because of that ethnic group, then that's what makes it a genocide. So the question is did Hamas intend to kill Jews for being Jews? I suppose is the question that we need to look into, because that's the argument made by the Israeli state, by Zionists, and then they will then use that to then say, well, if, if Hamas intended to kill Jews because they're Jews, and then they will then use that to then say, well, if, if Hamas intended to kill Jews because they're Jews, and then they will cite some polls to say and there's there is arguments that there are some polls to show that they have some support amongst Palestinians, therefore all Palestinian. You can't. You can't. The dots, or these Palestinians, or a majority of Palestinians, or a significant proportion of Palestinians, want to kill Jews because they are all Jews, so why should we have any sympathy for them? That's the kind of implied argument that's being given by the zionist. So let's then check that first premise before we check the rest of the uh, the syllogisms you're greek, you like checking, uh, syllogisms and arguments, so we can go into that. So the first premise uh, what was Hamas's intent? Is the question. And well, what can we discern?

Speaker 1: 2:17:50

So people often cite the 19, the 1988 charter of Hamas, which they have actually changed in 2017, but they said the trial of saying that. Doesn't it say kill all Jews, or this is we have. The aim is to kill all Jews. Um, when I checked it and I didn't refer to that at all it said it talked about that. It viewed its fight against the state of Israel in the context of a hadith from the Prophet Muhammad that talked about a future where there'll be Muslims who are fighting a group of Jews. It didn't say all Jews or every Jew. It just said Muslims will be fighting a group of Jews. It didn't say all Jews or every Jew. It just said Muslims will be fighting a group of Jews, so a group of Muslims fighting a group of Jews, and there will be this fight. This fighting will occur, and so on, and they will be killed, or what have you. It didn't specify any other content. It didn't say civilians. It didn't say women, children. It didn't say anything. It just said this future thing will happen. It's in a narration by the prophet muhammad. So the uh hamas used this narration, or they said this narration is that they, they see their fight against israel in a is possibly a fulfillment, or it will fulfill this, or this might be referring to an eventual victory they will have over the israeli state, but in the same constitution that they have. I think it is uh, article 31, if I remember correctly. But uh, but uh, check it for yourself, but it is definitely in there.

Speaker 1: 2:19:17

What does hamas say they envision as the solution? What they want? What do they want to create? What they say they want to create an islamic state of all palestine. Palestine is one unitary state, um under the wing of islam, is what they say, where they say jews, christians and muslims um will live under or live together.

Speaker 1: 2:19:39

That doesn't sound like what I would expect from people who want to wipe out all jews. Because why, would you say, I'm going to create? We want to create a state, an Islamic state, with Jews, muslims and Christians all on living under the wing of Islam. If you do, you want it to be no more Jews. That doesn't, then, make sense. We also see the, the founder of Hamas, who said that he didn't fight the Jews because they're Jews, but because they've come to his land. They kicked him out of the land and they've taken his houses. He said he'd fight his own brother if his brother occupied his house and kicked him out of the house. His house and kicked him out of the house. So, sheikh Yassin, this is what you was. There's a clip of it you can see online. That's probably been done the rounds. It doesn't sound like what I would expect from an organization which is accused by, obviously, the Zionists, of demanding the massacre of all Jews and wiping out all Jews globally, or something like this.

Speaker 1: 2:20:50

I don't get that. Then Then, in 2017, they reissued a new constitutional document where they made quite explicit they said that we're not fighting Jews for Jews, we're fighting Zionistsists. Um, as these european occupiers have come to our land, yes, and I've taken it over so, uh, and they published that, and presumably I did not hear of any backlash from their own people say no, no, this is not what we were set up for. We were set up for, as a zionist say, to kill all jews. No, didn't. There was no backlash. That was it viewed as they were simply suppose, clarifying or arguing that this is making it more clear that we're fighting Zionists who are colonialist occupiers, not because they're Jews per se. That doesn't sound like what the Zionists accused them of of basically just wanting to kill every single Jew on planet Earth.

Speaker 2: 2:21:45

Yes, right. So I just want to be clear about something. You are just mentioning facts here. You are just responding to a particular question in a factual way, because the question kind of implies that Israel justified in its response or in exterminating all of Hamas because the Zionists argue that Hamas is hell-bent in massacring Jews and doing a mass slaughter of Jews. And what you're saying is well, let's look at the facts. And when you look at what's on the public record, then it doesn't really align. And the reason I'm mentioning this is because you know, from a UK law perspective, you know Hamas is a prescribed terrorist organization and you're not advocating for any organization, of course that is prescribed. You're just merely saying in response to a particular question these are facts on the ground and there is a claim by the Zionists. And when we look at the facts there's not an alignment.

Speaker 1: 2:22:50

Yeah, we're not talking about moral judgments or moral positions.

Speaker 2: 2:22:53

Yes, we're simply talking about I just want to make that clear, yeah here's a claim made by the Zionists.

Speaker 1: 2:22:59

It's a claim of fact, saying that Hamas are their aim is to kill every Jew on planet Earth and it's saying well, if that's the case, it doesn't seem to fit with other, with evidences that we can see that show that their motivations. While they do call for the destruction of the state of Israel as a political unit, clearly, but they don't appear to call for the killing of all Jews. In fact, their argument is they want to create an Islamic state, for that will be where Jews. In fact, their argument is they want to create an Islamic state where Jews, christians and Muslims will be under quote unquote the wing of Islam, sure.

Speaker 2: 2:23:34

So going back to the original question, so you're responding to the argument that Hamas ordered the mass killing of Jews. So you've looked at the facts on the ground and your argument is well, no, that's not the case. But then the other part of the question was well, isn't now Israel justified in exterminating all of Hamas?

Speaker 1: 2:23:55

Well, I want to kind of first substantiate some more based, or at least bring to attention more evidences, just to further for us to reflect upon, to see does it fit the Zionist narrative? So I mean, in a sense, all I've been doing today is really fact-checking the Zionist narrative and only fact-checking. So in this case, so like Hamas published I think they've made a publication explaining their motivations and their aims and so on, and they argue, they make a number of arguments, such as, you know, they want to release Palestinian hostages, so they wanted to capture Israeli hostages to negotiate for Palestinian hostages. Some political analysts have said that they also seem maybe they were aiming at scuppering the Saudi normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia and that might be one reason what motivated them to do so. Another political analyst, michael Clark I believe, who's quite famous for talking about, I think, political and military analysis of the Ukraine war, of the ukraine war. So he gave a statement, if I remember correctly, arguing that um hamas had, when they initiate operation, they didn't expect to be so successful and they had lost control of their own operation, and there was also mention of that. There were also opportunists from gaza. Some people left the because the hole in the wall was made in the gaza war and some people went to loot and some people, you know, had vendettas, took out revenge for people that died in their family or and they they hate, they hate Israelis and so on. So I mean they would all they, and some captured.

Speaker 1: 2:25:41

His Hamas fighters were asked and this was published by the state of Israel. They said why did you do what you did? Why did you, uh, you know, kill civilians? Uh, did uh, what are you told to do? What does this psalm say is uh, you should do about civilians? And they, they would say, um, isn't it not wrong? And they said, yes, it is wrong, it's haram to kill non-combatants. And, uh, you know, didn't you learn this? Uh, you know, in your madrasas and schools? And so, yes, we did. We were told that we learned this in our schools, that it was wrong for us to kill non-combatants. And I asked the question to myself in what? Ghazan Islamic schools and madrasas, who runs those? Because that would presumably be supervised in some way, shape or form, by Hamas, would presumably be supervised in some way, shape or form, by Hamas.

Speaker 1: 2:26:29

And if Hamas were arguing that you can kill non-combatants, why would they teach their fighters that it's haram to kill non-combatants. It didn't make sense with what I was expecting, considering the Zionist narrative. I mean ISIS fighters would argue that, yes, you can kill non-combatants. They say openly, they don't shy about it. Isis itself makes public justifications of killing non-combatants. But suddenly now you have Hamas disavowing that, saying we never intended, um, we never ordered the killing of non-combatants, and um, and and basically yeah, disavowing that. I was like, well, that doesn't make sense if you take the Zionist narrative to be true.

Speaker 1: 2:27:13

Also, a pamphlet that was discovered that was released on a telegram group very early on in the operation, in the counter-operation by the Israeli force, when they killed and they captured or they found dead bodies of Hamas fighters. So in the counter-operation they found these pamphlets and some people took a picture of it and got telegram groups and that went to the media. It mentions the orders of the fighters saying that capture hostages for negotiation. It's like, oh, but not kill as many people as you can find, or kill as many as the zionist taught us was the was. What was the order?

Speaker 1: 2:27:54

That doesn't seem to be congruent, right, and of course, some of the captured hamas operators have said that while the operation was going on. They uh, there's a lot of chaos. Uh, communications were, there's some obviously chaos in it, and their leading commander the commander that was actually part of their squad, or what have you said? Well, actually it's okay if some non-combatants die. They're probably they're all reservists anyway in the Israeli military, and that's what I so, that's so. It doesn't sound like. I mean, why would they have to say that in the first place? Oh, they're always reservists anyway. Oh, but I thought you didn't care about non-combatants, you just kill.

Speaker 1: 2:28:37

The Zionists have told us that the narrative is kill every Jew you can find. That's what motivates the Hamas fight. It didn't fit the facts. So all I'm raising is that, whatever reasons that hamas did to initiate the operation and many political analysts have discussed that at length uh, releasing palestinian hostages, scuppering normalization deal, um, you know. Uh, maintaining hamas's relevancy. Whatever is the reason that people have speculated or discussed what their motivations were, the facts don't seem to comfortably fit the Zionist narrative and that's simply the question which I'd like everyone else to raise and discuss.

Speaker 2: 2:29:20

Yes, so the argument here is based on the facts. That the Zionist claim that Hamas want to annihilate all the Jews is actually not a substantiated claim by virtue of the facts that you've just raised.

Speaker 1: 2:29:32

And seems to contradict a reasonable interpretation of the facts. Yeah, okay, good.

Speaker 2: 2:29:38

All right. So let's just end with a very important final question, bro what's the solution, what's the Islamic solution to this? What does Islam say? What must we be doing collectively? Or at least what must we envision? What's going on? Talk to us.

Speaker 1: 2:29:59

Well, I'd say that look, the solution isn't. One of the things I felt is the solution is not a military solution. The state of Israel massacring Palestinians is so far away from the solution that you couldn't get further. It's the antithesis. It is the problem. That's always been the problem the occupation, the free fire, trigger happy policy of Israeli military, the disregard of Palestinians as being human beings. Now I would argue that they have no compunction about killing Palestinians and they treat them differently, but some people say that the Hannibal Directive has showed that they also. The Israeli military has no compunction about killing their own civilians if it serves their political purposes, as admitted by the government or former government members.

Speaker 1: 2:30:54

So the issue is that the Palestinians cannot live like this. This is not life, this is not living. The persecution, the mistreatment, the theft of their land, the harassment and just the brutalization of them, the cutting off of their resources, the starvation I mean I don't even know why I need to mention this. It's just so obviously so wrong, something wrong with this, and why the Israelis are doing this is really the root cause of the problem. The symptoms are the brutalization, but what's the root cause of the problem? The symptoms are the brutalization. But what's the root cause? And the root cause is their idea that the only I mean ultimately within Zionism.

Speaker 1: 2:31:37

The root motivation is the root narrative that they tell other Zionists is that Jews cannot trust non-Jews. That is it, because if you could, or you could, trust a system let's say, america's a nice place to go, canada's a nice place to go I was going to say England's a nice place to go, but since Brexit, I don't know. The root cause is we can't trust non-Jews. And then what do you do if the majority of people in your land, whoever will have claimed to you that are non-Jews, you're going to treat them with no trust. And what does that justify? It justifies, then, separating them out from your people and securing the resources for your people and making things nice, safe and comfortable for your people at their expense. Because you can't trust them. Because you can't trust non-Jews, even though it wasn't the Palestinians that did the Holocaust, contrary to Benjamin Netanyahu's claims.

Speaker 1: 2:32:45

Yes, it wasn't the Muslims that led pogroms, that did the Spanish Inquisition, that tortured Jews for their faith, it wasn't Muslim civilization. We actually protected them. You know, when Muslims actually were taking over Spain from the Christians, the Visigoths, the Jews actually helped the Muslims, because there was actually a lot of anti-Jewish laws that had been passed by the Roman Catholic. Visigoths and Muslims said well, we won't interfere in your religion, we will remove these laws. But the Muslims actually didn't have enough soldiers to garrison the cities that they were conquering because only a few 10,000 of them, and so many of the Jewish local population said well, give us some weapons and we'll garrison these for you, because they saw that Muslims would actually protect them.

Speaker 2: 2:33:37

Well, they saw them as liberators from Christian persecution.

Speaker 1: 2:33:40

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 2:33:41

Zion Zohar is a Jewish historian. He mentions that. So when the Muslims crossed the Strait of Gibraltar, the Jews saw them as liberators from Christian persecution. So, but what's the Islamic solution bro? Well, what's going?

Speaker 1: 2:33:53

on. What should we do? The you know, the Islamic solution is why is? Uh, there's a well, maybe you could say it's a connection, though by, but there is a connection between Islamic solution and that had been applied in history and why Jews win Nobel, peace Prizes, nobel Prizes not Peace Prize, but Nobel Prizes generally disproportionately proportionate to their population. Well, to be more precise, european Jews and not Middle Eastern ones. So it was often argued that, and people have often mentioned that in Nobel Prize winners, jews are disproportionately represented, right, so there's a larger proportion of Jews who win Nobel Prizes. And why is that? Like, you know what's going on Now, I mean, some people might say, oh, it's because they're chosen people.

Speaker 1: 2:34:50

If you're religious and you want to take that interpretation, but it was also pointed out that, well, jews from like Spain or Middle East or East Africa or anywhere else actually don't. They are, on average, according to a study, 14. They are, on average, according to a study, 14 IQ points less on average than European Jews are. So why is it? They have a low IQ and European Jews have a higher and they're usually a higher IQ. I think they said, yeah, they higher IQ, or even that the the average IQ in America is about nine points higher than the average IQ in America is about nine points higher than the average IQ in the state of Israel because it has a mix of different Jews from different backgrounds. So we don't understand that. But what's going on here?

Speaker 1: 2:35:36

why, is that right?

Speaker 1: 2:35:38

And the reason for that might surprise you, right? I'm going to get the study out here, so, if I can find it. So there was a study that was conducted and I will come to it. Oh yes, here we go. It was conducted in 2007, which was called Intelligence Differences Between European and Oriental Jews in Israel, and they noted that there was Ashkenazi Jews.

Speaker 1: 2:36:17

European Jews had a higher IQ, about 14 points greater than Oriental Jews, and they discussed why that is. Why is that? Is that in Europe, jews were persecuted to survive. In a sense, those who had more chance of surviving were those who were more intelligent, could get more money, and so they usually were good with. They said it was selected for skills like language and arithmetic right, so they tend to overperform in those areas because the Jews that were not so intelligent would probably be killed or they wouldn't see the program coming, or they couldn't buy their way into protection from a Gentile Christian patron or something like this. So they argued that it was, and because they were also. They argued that also because Jews were forced into certain professions, that they were restricted from a number of professions, that things like finances was things that they could do, money lending and things like this, because they were restricted from a whole number of professions.

Speaker 1: 2:37:26

So this study, as it says that they actually believe the best explanation is that they selected for certain traits in European Jews, but in Oriental Jews, in the Muslim world what have you? There was no restrictions on no persecutions, so it didn't create this natural selection for intelligence. So they just have normal intelligence like the average population does, but not anything exceptional per se. So, funnily enough, in a twist of irony, european persecution, they believe, led to these traits being selected for in Ashkenazi Jews, whereas because Muslims didn't persecute Jews, that they have the same intelligence as everyone else in their society does, because they didn't have to be clever to survive and only the survival of the fittest or the cleverest didn't need to occur in Muslim societies. So I found that quite interesting. Go check out the study. It's by Hannah David so it's an inverse link.

Speaker 1: 2:38:25

It's an inverse link.

Speaker 2: 2:38:26

It's an inverse link.

Speaker 1: 2:38:28

Yes, so it's not anything about chosen people or anything like this. It's rather much more mundane.

Speaker 2: 2:38:33

No, I mean it's an inverse link that the Islamic model, when they preserved the Jews because you know they were forced to flee Spain and other places the very fact that they preserved them maintained the average IQ. But the very fact that the ones who were persecuted and survived the European Jews, if you like, the ones that are considered European now they developed certain traits because of that selective pressure, and that selective pressure was the persecution. Yeah, yeah yeah, so.

Speaker 1: 2:39:12

So if I can quote um, it says uh, uh. So they said it's proposed that the difference between the iqs of the two groups of jews are as follows the the sites of theory. The theory states that ashkenazi jew Jews were forced into the niche of money lenders, and this selected for high verbal and mathematical intelligence. In the later middle ages, most European Jews migrated east to Russia and Poland, where they were permitted to work not only as money lenders but also as tax farmers, estate managers and tavern keepers. Then, it says, a number of authorities have noted that these occupational constraints were not imposed on the oriental Jews who lived for many centuries under the rule of the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

Speaker 1: 2:39:57

Thus the Ottomans' success in government largely consisted in the wise policy of toleration which they practiced towards Jews practice towards Jews, and also Theodor Herzl, the leading member of political Zionism. That made it successful. In his letters to Sultan Abdulhamid he said to him when he was trying to woo him and get him on board, to maybe allow Jews to buy Palestine, which Abdulhamid actually famously refused yes, he said that the Jews owe you around the world gratitude and thanks for your treatment of us, and we all recognize this, we all know of the treatment. So the Ottomans actually were the ones, the Muslims were the ones who had historically always treated them nicely. They was acknowledged, I mean, that's, treated them with not just toleration, but with an acceptance. Yes, because we?

Speaker 1: 2:40:55

I don't like the word toleration. Toleration is basically that, oh, I want to do something against you, but I have to like not, it's like no. Acceptance is which is I disagree with you and I'd like to invite you to the truth. But if you don't accept the truth of islam, I accept that you're going to be jewish, you're going to be christian, you're going to be yeah, sure, what have you? And you're going to live your to you, your dean, like from dean to you your dean yes, to me, my dean, my way of life, to you, your way of life.

Speaker 1: 2:41:23

So this is one of the things, and I'd also like to end with.

Speaker 2: 2:41:28

Before you end so you're already telling us what the solution is, which is Islam.

Speaker 1: 2:41:33

Yes.

Speaker 2: 2:41:33

In terms of bringing these people together and they live in harmony. Yeah, but I just want to push back on that very quickly. And I know we don't have time now, but you said the solution is not a military solution. No, yeah, now do you mean by that the long-term solution is not a military solution? Because many would argue, even secular academics, that the solution to solve the genocide and stop the genocide is actually military intervention okay so through through legal international means I'm glad you, you, um, that's an important distinction to make.

Speaker 2: 2:42:13

Yeah, yeah, because uh, you know, a genocide is happening, bro. We can't say, oh, you know, just wait for the next 20 years until we something gets established. I'm very glad, yeah, I'm very glad, you no problem.

Speaker 1: 2:42:23

You give me the chance to um because out of context, yeah, you could be seen as I was arguing I was arguing to the zionists, okay, that your, that a military solution will not bring peace and security and justice to that region, that your military, yes, okay, good, excellent, right, um, but the solution, uh, is two-pronged and I've always said this quite consistently.

Speaker 2: 2:42:48

The first prong is I'll give you the last 60 seconds to grab this up. Alright.

Speaker 1: 2:42:53

Well, the last prong is that the two prongs is. One of them is the West has to cut its umbilical cord supporting a genocidal, racist, ethno-nationalist state, like it did to South Africa. As soon as they cut the funds to it and they boycotted it, it capitulated and agreed to give everybody universal suffrage, so everyone has the right to vote. So if it's a unitary state, then everyone's equal. The second prong, of course and more would probably be something that would be absolutely needed is I call it the Salahuddin peace process or the Sultan Baybars peace process, which is it's not the first time that we've had invaders in the region massacre the people there, and we've.

Speaker 1: 2:43:42

We have a historical, tried and tested method, but that requires unity of the muslims under an islamic system, um, and once we are united, our resources, um, under the system that the prophet muhammad bequeathed to us, to unite ourselves, which is the, the successorship to his position as the imam of the jama'at, not as a prophet, but as the imam of the jama'ah not as a prophet, but as the imam of the jama'ah, the leader of the jama'ah of the Muslims, the khalifa, successor to his position as imam, where we unite under that system and we unite our resources and we deal with the salute, we deal with the ethno-nationalist Zionists who are killing people and we prevent them from doing so and we put entered it and we can. The region can go back to Muslims, christians and Jews and Zoroastrians and whoever, all living together, not under the need to have this ethno-nationalist. I must self-determine myself by oppressing you and no, no, I have to tell myself to suppress you, my ethnic group, my ethnic group.

Speaker 1: 2:44:52

No, it's. Let's remove the equation of ethnic groups and we all have our different ways of life and religion and so on. We all live according to our religious beliefs on our ways of life and our deen, our adiyan, without needing to impose on each other. We can give down, we can, but we can. It's not about ethnic group supremacy anymore. That's the islamic solution. But I will end with one final shocker, and that's it, and I promise it's the final one.

Speaker 1: 2:45:18

Okay, I thought I had promised to the audience that the reason why mark sykes and alpha balfour, why they support, supported Zionism, would shock you, as well as Lloyd George and potentially Winston Churchill. And they mentioned there was a reason that they thought they should support Palestine to be a national homeland for Jews. World War I was happening and Mark Sykes believed they needed all the help they could get. So did Lloyd George, so did Rafa Balfour. They believed in the anti-Semitic trope of a Jewish world conspiracy that Jews had control over. They can make things difficult for people, their enemies, and they all were somehow united. And I have some quotes that will make your toes curl as to what they mentioned. Sykes talks about. He says that we need to to get, promise them palestine to get them on board so that they can disrupt germany and cause dissension. Otherwise, if germany promises them palestine first, they'll cause trouble for us and disrupt the allies at war efforts.

Speaker 1: 2:46:29

And arthur balfour said, and I, I think the only way I can do justice is to quote him because it's so unbelievable. You're saying abdullah, I, I need to hear it. Yes, you know, like, uh, I believe you, but I have to see it for myself and I will get the quote for you and I'm just going to quote it to you here. All right, so he meets with the advisor to Woodrow Wilson, lieutenant Edward Mandel House, and they have a meeting and this is recorded in the diary Entry dated December the 31st 1918. So he talks about Balfour.

Speaker 1: 2:47:11

Balfour has arrived from London this afternoon. I spent nearly two hours with him. Okay, very good. And they talk about the current situations in the world. And then he said this he presented a very curious theory regarding the Jews, referring to Arthur Balfour. Some told him and he's inclined to believe it that nearly all of Bolshevism and disturbance of a like nature are directly traceable to the Jews of the world. They seem determined either to have what they want or to absent present civilization, I suggested that we put them in Palestine at least the best of them and hold them responsible for the orderly behavior of the rest of the Jews throughout the world. Balfour thought the plan had many possibilities. Oh my gosh that wasn't the first quote.

Speaker 1: 2:48:05

I have others, but time is limited. We'll save that inshallah for upcoming course, so that we'll be doing yes, where I will pack it full of these uh quotations and and to make sure.

Speaker 2: 2:48:18

thank you for that plug, by the way. Yes, yes, abdullah is delivering a in-depth palestine advocacy course and finishing off a book for sapiens institute. Watch this space, yep, last few seconds, what you want to say, bro? Then we'll end? Barakallah for having me and finishing off a book for Sapiens Institute. Watch this space, yep, last few seconds, what you want to?

Speaker 1: 2:48:31

say, bro, barakallahu feekh for having me and yeah, get ready for the course. It's going to have tons of more shokas and more gems. May Allah bless you, bro. It was very informative.

Speaker 2: 2:48:40

Jazakallah for coming and it's always a pleasure to listen to you, bro. May Allah bless you. You too, Asala.