3.6m Tiktoker questions on Palestinian, Hamas & Israeli narratives
Channel: Abdullah al Andalusi
File Size: 99.50MB
When it comes to the Israeli and Palestine conflict, who's right and who's wrong, it can be difficult to tell, because generally, we're only hearing one side or the other. Starting today, I'm gonna be interviewing intellectuals from both sides so that you could get both perspectives, and then afterwards, bring them together for a debate. Today, I'm gonna be speaking with Abdullah Andalusi. He's an international speaker and researcher. I'll be posting clips from the video on all platforms with information on how to see the entire video. Right. Hello, my name is John bez routes. And today I'm joined by Abdullah Al Andalusi. He's an international speaker and researcher.
I thank you for having me on the show, John.
Of course, anyway, from the main reason why when I sit down and talk to you, and also someone from the Israeli side, particularly people who are intellectuals was to be able to have a higher level of conversation, and to be able to really have particular people in the West understand the Palestinian point of view, because with the way our media works here, generally when we get in one side or the other. So again, I really appreciate you coming in and having a talk with us. And so people understand at home, how this is going to go. This right now is not necessarily a debate, I'm going to be allowing him to kind of explain his perspective, the Palestinian perspective of the current
events, and then I'm going to ask him tough questions at the end. And I'm going to do that same type of discussion with someone from the Israeli perspective. And then after that, bring them together for debate. So starting off right now, why don't you start off telling everybody what kind of makes you qualified and unique to have this type of discussion.
I want to give some some caveats. I don't really you could say, represent the Palestinian perspective of a of a nationality or a people and so on, I'm not ethnically
Levantine from the Levant, to that area of the world. And my perspective is really just one of a of, you could say, a historian,
a political philosopher, in a sense, looking at political philosophy. And really just, I often describe myself as a glorified fact checker, really, I'm only here to present the facts of the matter. And the potentially the arguments used by different sides, just to understand what was going on. Now I do, I'm not completely, you could say,
impartial from any moral system or worldview. Of course, I'm a Muslim. And I have a worldview, which does inform, obviously, how we evaluate these, you know, these events that are happening down there. And so I have a moral system to draw from, but I will make it very clear when I'm talking about facts, which are just, you know, matters of history matters of, of evidence, and, of course, where we I'm going to make a moral argument from my worldview, but also where we can see points of, of commonality in in moral arguments. So for example, you know, I think everyone believes in the right to self defense, right, this is something that we can all we can all share. So these are where I
will be arguing for where we can have common bases, as well as holding people to their word, if someone makes an agreement, then they must be held to their word, we all these are common moral ideas that generally speaking, we all can hold, and we can make some kind of argument from so that will be really what I'm coming from is just to kind of
discuss the facts. And then I will obviously make it clear where I'll be arguing for my moral, moral worldview, but also from a moral worldview, which I think is commonly shared,
concerning political agreements concerning, you know, right to self defense, survival, and so on, so forth. So that's really where I'll be coming from, I don't represent any, any perspective and just off the bat, the Islamic perspective is actually anti nationalist. So we don't believe that tribes or nations
are, have kind of a moral obligation to be dominant politically, just for the sake of they are a nation or they are a tribe. We believe, I believe that sovereignty comes from justice from from
obviously righteousness according to one's beliefs. And of course, you know, Christians have have the Bible as their ultimate basis for for sovereignty I used to be anyway. Okay, Jews, we see what it is it is the the XR and of course for Muslims, it's the Quran and Sunnah, although we recognize the, the previous revelations that came before us and respect them. But we believe that you could say God is the basis of sovereignty, God is the basis of, of ruling and judgment and so on, because there's no other meaning in the universe other than the purpose of life of human beings, which is to worship the Creator. This is the Islamic perspective. So I'm not arguing that for nationalism. So
Palestinian nationalist would probably disagree with me.
And of course, Zionists, who are a kind of Jewish nationalist would disagree with my worldview, but I would argue that nationalism is a modern invention, and it's actually caused more harm than it does good. So that's where I'm going to be bringing a bit of my value system into this to inform the discussion next door. And so with those type of fact checking, I mean, today, we're already seeing people selecting certain facts that they want the public to see, how do you see the facts, as they come out? Is with the current situation going on in Israel and Gaza?
Well, you know, one of the many reasons why
it's a complicated topic is because you can't just, you know, like, screenshot, or freeze in time that just recent events and not look at what happened before. Not look at trends, past injustices, or even recently, recent past and justices. And so, you know, if you want to see, just for example, right, so, you know, let's see, say someone comes up to, you know, you and they slap you on the front around the face, right, and then they walk away. And then let's say someone had a camera phone, you know, on and they start recording after that event. And then you go back and you'll, you'll say, hey, what you're doing is talking about the face and you hit that person back. I could
that person with the camera focus, say, John Petrucci is, is attacking someone. Right? But no, wait a second, if you just saw before that recording, they actually initiate attack on you. Yeah, I apologize if I mispronounce your name, do correct on that one as well. That was better than most definitely, very, most of my professors tell you the truth. But anyway, yeah. And that's why I wanted to have you know, a discussion and not just watch this clip and watch this video. But in particular, to like the most recent attack from on Israel from Hamas, how is it? Do you see that? And of course, we will talk up as much time leading up to that attack, but but for you just as an
individual, how do you view that particular time? Well, I mean, here's the thing, right? If you say an attack on Israel, what are you talking about? Because as far as the Palestinians are concerned, it's the land is Palestine. And there's an occupying force there off.
More specific specifically.
So today, I believe that actually took the Israeli government is reporting that they took maps and planets off of some of the individuals who were killed from the Palestinian side of Hamas, excuse me, specifically, but the mosque, and they had plans to specifically target schools. So how how, what is your response to Hamas targeting schools, particularly children? I would hate to think that we'd have to get independent verification because there was manuals that were taken off of Hamas, which were in Arabic, and they were translated. And they mentioned nothing about targeting of schools or, or targeting of children. They talked about taking hostages was the primary thing, so to
say the attacking the nearby settlements, taking hostages and used the word for negotiation.
And several also news organizations in the United States, Fox News, CNN and NBC, ABC, which they again, of course, news outlets can be misleading. However, they are exclusive
news outlets, so So would you say you're just disagreed with even the contents of that argument still? No, I'm just I always say we must wait for verification. I'll give you an example. So immediately after, in the aftermath of of Hamas, leaving the enclosed confines of the Gaza Strip,
there was a report to I forget which, which which American report it was, from some soldier, unknown soldier, which said, there's like they saw 40 beheaded babies. And this went around the world was, was reported on on CNN on all these major news outlets, until people started asking questions like, you know, I mean, there's always pictures that are taken gruesome blood and they may be but they can be verifiable, or could they the names identification of these babies be released. And when these questions started to rise, the is ready for the official Israeli military said that they cannot confirm that report. That is,
yeah, that is a very good example. However, if I'm not correct, when CNN and other news agencies were reporting that they were using the term allegedly, then now with which then again, I will concede that those points ended up coming out now.
I'd be exactly what we're originally claimed. However, in this circumstance with those documents being released, those blue jays agencies are verifying that information. But if that's not verification to you, what would be then proper verification for reports? Well, I would I mean, like, as I said, this is all happening just really reported today. So I would like to, I'm just asking for,
like, the appropriate time to get experts to look at it. So not even look at me at look at it. experts that have report on Hamas have examined Hamas is documentation before, they know their style. They know how to authenticate theirs. And also a response from him asked himself if that's if they might issue a denial that this is not our documentation. So really, in a way, almost just give us give us an extra day. This is all brand new. But as I said, there's no justification for targeting schools if that's the case. That's not there's no in front of all of us a moral question here, whether it's okay or not. The question is rather authentication. And so I'm sure Hamas is
perfectly capable of, of denying or, or owning up to that. But this is since this is this has really just been kind of released just in the last few days or so. I just wanted to wait for the experts to actually verify before jumping on, on everything as it comes off the press, because you don't want to make the same mistake as happened with the 14 beheaded babies allegation, which was quite egregious, and it was used around the world for days, but before it was questioned, so that's all I'm saying is prudence Amani, caution, cautioning prudence, prudence, I think it is more than reasonable, however, just wouldn't not match. earlier comments from Hamas are saying that they wish
Israel and the Jews that occupy it.
Again, I don't want to measure prudence with that I think that's appropriate. Well, I always ask again, which document that Hamas say they want to eradicate Jews or eradicate the Jews.
They want to, sorry, they want to, so they want to eradicate Israel as a as a political entity. That's correct, that they've said that in their manifesto, and so on, they haven't been bashful about that. But to eradicate Jews now, I want to kind of also kind of
explain to the Anglo Saxon speaker
that in the Middle East, as always the case, people are referred to by the names, such as, like, for example, Western Europeans were called the Franks, by Arabs, you know, called the Ferengi. Right, Franks. And in some cases, they still use it to this day. And they say all the Franks did is now in World War Two, for example, when fighting the Germans now, people generally said fighting the Germans didn't say fight the Nazis. The Nazis are separate from the Germans, not every German is an anti, for example. But this common parlance was used. So when Hezbollah has used rhetoric, like they're fighting the Jews, but they are referring to Zionist in that particular case, rather than
Jews, Jews, collectively, all Jews everywhere. And I say this because as you know, it's the Muslim world has had 1300 year history. So 1400 year history of having a Jews living in every part of the Muslim world residing alongside Muslims, on the pacts on the treaties, and
having their law courts protected, having their synagogues protected. So the issue is not about eradicating the Jews or eliminating Jews as as Jews per se. But rather, they are usually referring to Zionists. And this is a problem because obviously, when it gets translated, it gets misunderstood by Anglo Saxon speakers who say, why aren't you more specific, but even then, like in World War Two, they said, We're fighting the Germans, but they're not fighting. All Germans are date, reference,
mosses own manifesto from the early 2000s. But I will reread that I do not have it presently in front of me, and then I'll bring that back up on our next discussion. However, if you're saying that their manifesto is only saying to reclaim Israel, since I don't have a document in front of me, I'll just go ahead and say that's true. But I will check that one later. So you want to
so you're standing hard on the stance that in the manifesto, it does not say that they wish to eradicate Jews or the people in this just to reclaim Israel, the territory?
like they don't say, we need to eradicate all Jews from the Muslim world, kick out all Jews from the Muslim world, or kill all Jews, specifically.
What they what they arguing is against the Zionist entity, you know, you know, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with Hamas, regards whether we agree or disagree with
The IDF, the Israeli Defense Force,
we have to be factually accurate and trying to not straw man, you know, their stances and I try in my line of work, I have to try to understand people on their own terms that goes for Hamas that goes for the IDF as well.
So like I like the idea of have never had an official document that said, eradicate all Arabs kick out all Arabs.
And that's never been an official policy of the IDF as much as peoples rhetoric have argued that they have, that's what they want to do. So that would be straw manning the IDF argue, but we're difficult because currently 20% of the population in Israel is Arab. And however 0% of the population in Gaza is zero. So isn't there was not a really women argument.
Well, I mean, if you're, if you're, if you were a Jewish Palestinian, which there weren't Palestinian Jews are Jewish Palestinians, prior to the creation of the State of Israel, and they were going there was an area whereby that you'd have rights by the state and you'd be treated, you'd have privileges and you'd have access to water, you've had access to food, no blockades, no embargoes, nothing. Or you could live on the side that is suffering from blockades and embargoes and bombing and so on? Well, where would you want to live? Right? You wouldn't want to live amongst the Palestinian Arabs, you would want to live amongst the area where your family are safer and have
better prospects. So the Palestinians don't, there's never been a policy of Arab Palestinians kicking out Jews
are called to envision a Palestinian state with no Jews. In fact, the Palestinian Authority actually had actually some Palestinian Jewish members in it. Not many, but they were they were there, you can check out their names. Of course, you know, these people were condemned as traitors in Israel in ready press. But the point is that for the Palestinians, it's not an issue. I mean, here's I think, I think this is gonna want to be the main conception is this is not a Jewish versus Arab conflict. And this is not a Muslim versus Jewish in the religious sense. Conflict. I want to make that very clear before we move on, because there's a lot of tangles of misconceptions, Jordan Peterson, I was
very disappointed in him who's going outside of his profession, and talking about matters that he hasn't properly researched a and he had a message to Muslims saying, why'd you hate the Jews? And like, what? Why would we
hate the Jews? Specifically? Like that's, it's ridiculous. And there's there's two reasons there's two angles there. So there's an ethnic angles so do Muslims or Middle Easterners? are Arabs motivated to hate Jews as an ethnicity? Well, no, they would they we both speak Semitic languages from the region meant there are many common words in both Hebrew and Arabic.
The most Arabs, Arabs, the term Arab is a is a name that really the notes anyone who speaks Arabic, the Middle East is filled with people of different ethnicities. Sometimes it was using the blanket term Arab, because they now speak Arabic, but amongst Arabs, there are people who have significant histories or be of Jewish ancestry around the Muslim world. Even I mean, myself. I don't I'm not my background. And it's because I'm from Portugal. It's not wasn't the Muslim world, it's almost similar at the moment, of course, it was because in the past, but as I told you before, even I have some Jewish ancestry in my past, I discovered it by looking at my my family name, and it was
confirmed by when you did the DNA, you know, ancestry test, that there was some remnants more than other Portuguese people, so that they would back that up.
Arabs Jews, there's no ethnic component there, because in essence, we're all from the same region, for those who are from that region, and we all are intermixed, and we all have into mixed ancestry. So there's no such thing as you know, what you saw in Europe of the idea of a purity of Germanic blood against these Semite impure Semites, which he could have Arabs, by the way, initially, in in the 19th century German kind of racialist thinking, Okay, so there's no ethnic component to hate because we're all intermixed, and so that wouldn't make sense and our language is also middle Semitic.
What about the religious components? Yeah. So is there a reason for Muslims to hate Jews as a religion? So just to educate your your listeners very briefly is the the most important principle in Islam is monotheism. Right? It's our most important principle is we call it Tawheed. It is the belief in one God, that there's only one God and there is no other gods everything
So just false idols. There's only only God is worthy of worship. Now, as you know, Muslims have some disagreement with the Christian concept of the Trinity, where it's believed that God is both the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but three and one and one, but not but not the one God but yet three separate persons. This is an issue and of course, considering Jesus to be God incarnate, right? So as Muslims, we viewed that to be an affront to monotheism, an affront to a purity of God being unlike his creation is not like the, his creation is not a human being, basically. And yet there is in the Quran, you know, in advocates, Muslims to respect Christians.
But Jewish theology doesn't have that Jewish theology is believed in one God doesn't believe that God comes down as a human being and worships the exact same code that Muslims worship, and we all worship the same God
has the same Semitic names for God, Allah, or Allah, or in Aramaic or Syriac Allaha. You know, these are all, they all spelt the same way. Right? I suppose when an Anglo Saxon here's Allah say, Well, what's this? Weird foreign concepts? Right? But just go and look at that movie Passion of the Christ, where it was, it was filmed in Aramaic. Right? The language they think they fought, most likely Jesus spoke. Listen to where he says God in that he got a lot.
Yeah. Language, the backseat kind of this. So
please, yeah, yeah. So I was just saying that basically, Theologically speaking, Muslims and Jews, we have the similar concept of Tawheed of monotheism. To the extent that, for example,
actually, Jews also considered that Christian Trinity doctrines are somewhat
an affront to monotheism to the point that they're not allowed to go into Christian churches, many religious Jews would say, a Jew is not allowed to pray in in a Christian church, but they can go into a mosque. Right? And of course, the Muslims don't have that restriction on churches. But basically, we consider we have so many similarities with between Islam and Judaism, religiously speaking, we don't eat meat that has blood in it, when when it died. So you know, we believe that the meat must be sanguine. ated.
You know, we pray in similar ways. There's so much similarities between Judaism and Islam more than there is between Islam and Christianity. So why would we have a specific hatred against Judaism when Judaism is very, it's very similar to Islam, and also has monotheism as its as its root as its root core, which for us as Muslims is the is our highest concern is monotheism. And so for us, we don't view
Jews as polytheists, or pagans or any of that kind of stuff. Because they have the same, you know, one God concept that we have, and God that doesn't come down as a human being, and so on so forth. It doesn't come down as a statue, or you can worship Him by a statute, they have the same understanding that we do. So there's no special animals against them, that Muslims would hold. So that's where I would correct those misconceptions. There is no specific or special hatred for Jews that Muslims Muslims hold. In fact, of all the religions in the world, the Jewish Jews are the closest to Muslims in terms of beliefs and practices. I appreciate you explaining that. I don't
think I've been able to do that. Such an articulate way as you did the similarities between
Islam and Jews now, instead of talking about I guess, then why it happened. Let's talk to that. You called yourself a fact checker of just what happened.
About today's now there's been over a week since the initial attacks took place. Are you able to acknowledge that civilians and children were killed in that attack from Hamas? Yes, they were the non combatants that were killed during the Hamas attacks. Yes. I think this is a good time for us to kind of clarify what you mean by combatants, because I think a lot of people have difficulties with that definition, if you don't mind. Okay, well, a noncombatant is someone.
There are there is a difference of opinion in even Western schools of looking at warfare in a war theory as to what is noncombatant? But, but there are, there are two opinions, I think both in the Western and Islamic jurisprudential thinking. So a noncombatant is someone who is not part of any military organization or is not a reservist or a noncombatant, as someone who doesn't actually presently have a weapon on them and is not actively involved in
In combat, so there are these two different definitions of what is a combatant. But it's it is safe to say that by both those definitions, there were those who were not reservists who were killed. And that's regrettable, because that's, you know, human life should never be taken unjustly and those who are not involved in fighting should never be involved in fighting, this is an Islamic jurisprudential principle, which has, which has 1300 years of scholarly
unanimity behind it from Islamic scholarship. And as well as the same thing, it's similar. It's a similar agreement in western schools of thought, or don't, not entirely, because some Western schools of thought, debate as to whether governments are complicit and are closer to the military targets targets to in a war.
And what counts as, as someone who is guilty or reprehensible. You know, is this someone that votes for the government that is committed that is committing war crimes? Are they also culpable? These were questions that have been raised
amongst Western political theorists themselves, which is a different discussion, of course, but I would I, it's clearly a fact that there are people who are non combatants by both definitions, which have regrettably died. And of course, more so. on the Palestinian side, much more non combatants have died on the Palestinian side
of the case. We'll go there next right after this, but with that acknowledgement, and I'm not asking you to completely condemn or asking if you're going to condemn a mosque or an entire organization, but you condemn those actions as a Muslim,
by Hamas, specifically, just the killing of non combatants. I condemn all injustice is, regardless of who does it and who has been done to the Quran says, Stand for for justice, even against yourselves. So this is, of course, I have no no compunction in condemning injustice, and the killing of innocents or those who are not involved in, in fighting. Yeah, I agree. I think that's very well said. Let me ask you, we were having a conversation the other day.
It gets I want to make sure the audience understands. In particular, it says this is in relation to Islam. And this perspective is Islamic perspective on non combative and you gave a
an example of a DOD employee, and if they were killed, whether or not they're actually had a weapon in my hand, or they were a particular soldier, would you mind elaborating on that? Just so the audience understands that in the terms of is Islam on automatic?
Well, again, there's there's
there's, there's kind of two opinions in Islamic jurisprudence as to what is a noncombatant. So one, the typical one is someone that doesn't have a weapon on them and is not participating in, in a fight, right. So if there's even a battle and the enemy drop their weapons, and they run away, then they're not to be be killed, basically could be captured but not killed.
Because they've ceased being a combatant at that point in time. There's another opinion, of course. But this is more concerning tribal warfare, where all males have a tribe where all males who are capable of activity were assumed to be combatants. And this was a case where you have tribal fights, and then who is who is culpable in tribal warfare. The Old Testament or the tunap has the same actually understanding about tribal warfare that males in a tribe that have committed in excess or they've done injustice, the women and children are not to be blamed. And maybe the old people are not necessarily to be blamed the dumb, not in all cases when it comes to some of the Canaanites that
was wiped out when the Israelites invaded Canaan or Palestine. But in Islam, we there's an exception for old people and those and young people, people who are not involved in when it comes to tribal warfare. And the presumption that all military males, military age males are the tribe are culpable for the actions of the tribe itself. So that's a different discussion, but that But it concerns what but in what society are you dealing with? So if you're dealing with a society, which is, you know, an empire like a Roman Empire or the Persian Empire, the people are not part of the fighting. They're just the ruling empires, the one that has an army and that they have that armies to be
blamed for whatever it does. But then, if it comes to tribal warfare, then that's a different, a different lens to look into, then it becomes military age males can become can be culpable for the actions of the tribe generally in in fighting, because it's expected that all military age males are actually involved in the fighting.
I cut you off a little bit early.
So, once you go back and kind of explain that perspective that you were talking about, as far as the more recent events regarding Israel and Palestine, and Palestinian perspective
Um, well, I mean, I mean, like, it is it is there is a debate amongst,
amongst perhaps, you know, jurisprudential scholars and others, where, who is culpable in when fighting an enemy? Is it someone who is
is actively has a weapon on them at the time? Or are they worth their military service than then they're not on active duty, but they are potentially they're on there potentially, to be caught up at any point in time for active duty. I'll give you an example from the case that you might know very well being that you had some adventures in Afghanistan when you were in the army. So the US military, they don't care if a Taliban commander or leader or even just a Taliban fighter, puts down his weapon and goes home to his family or in the house, because they will still shoot a drone through their window and blow it up. Because for them, it was like, well, they were active in the
Taliban once, that's sufficient for them to be culpable. Therefore, they can be tugged at any point in time, even if they've dropped their weapon, even if they've retired. Right. So the American military don't care if you have a weapon in your hand or not at the point of that they kill you.
But only that you at some point were involved in military actions. Right. So the same discussion happens amongst some Palestinians as to whether military reservist Israeli military service, which are 18 to 40, or could be a bit higher, depending on emergencies, which are both males and females, except those who are who have given birth, and then they are exempt.
Whether they are combatants are not, because they are military, reservists. They are military trained, they've served in the Israeli Defense, quote unquote, Defense Force. And they, they might have committed crimes or they might have been dead. They're part of that organization. So then there's a discussion as to whether they are combatant or not, you know, so there's, there is difference of opinion. So I would say that if you don't, if you're not holding a weapon, you're not a combatant. And I also would say, if you were part of a criminal organization that was involved in, in killing civilians, then you blame you. You lies with you collective, the collective guilt
organization, since you were a military reservist in that organization, much much like the same as the Americans treated the Taliban, and anyone associated with the Taliban doesn't matter what you were doing, they could kill you and say, well, that's Taliban, Commander, Taliban, Administrator, whatever. Now, obviously,
context with that, but in general, I would say what you said, rather accurate. But I mean, that's a whole nother discussion as far as US involvement and the way that we use drones. And there's probably most things you may agree on when it comes to that. So this is moving on. A lot of people get confused that because they see the protests in the street or riots history, whichever you want to call it, and there's there May I May I May I just quote something to you. Because again, I'm a bit of a fact checker. Right? So I went to the Hamas,
kind of the covenant of 1988, the kind of their manifesto. And I'm because I don't want people to take my word for it. I always go with the assumption that I will be challenged on everything I say. And in a way that's good, we should always have healthy skepticism.
If you look at article 31, I ask everyone to read article 31. Here's what Heart Math says about the fall of Judaism as it says under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the free religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam, past and present history our best witness to that.
It is it's so this is where they talk about now. Yeah, Hamas want Middle East to return back to Islamic ruling as it was before the British invaded. But the point is, this is that they want they argue that Islam is the best way to guarantee coexistence between Christians, Jews, and Muslims. And they are arguing that this is where people can live in peace. Jews can live in peace with Muslims and Christians and and Christians with Jews and vice versa. So if it's Hamas, is it goal was to eliminate Judaism from the face of the earth?
You know, they wouldn't be saying that Islam is gives the solution for people for Jews, Christians and Muslims to coexist peacefully. It wouldn't be congruent with that narrative.
manifesto. I'm sorry. Hamas manifesto for what year? 1988. It was the oldest one, the older one.
That's where that might focus. I believe I was referencing one early 2000s. Which again, I'm not going to oh, they toned down the later
All right, the latest one is toned down, the only one is much more you could say.
Roar. In, in there in there. Again, read it, find the section if necessary, bring it up in the next conversation. Yeah, of course this anything. Please feel free. Now that best I just wanted to bring that up because it was mentioned. And so I want I wanted to quote it verbatim
from the 1988 document.
So when it comes to the past the current Palestinian goal in I believe you want to separate the Palestinian NGO verse, the Hamas goal Correct? Or do you think those are very much in line? As far as what's their end state?
Well, I mean, since Hamas are Palestinians, ostensibly, they would represent a current a particular current in Palestinian thinking. And of course, Fatah. They're kind of rivals represent another current in Palestinian thinking.
And so there are there are two kinds of approaches or general objectives, one, so the Fatah kind of method, Fatah would,
would be one where they would want a separate state from
the Government of Israel and a state where Palestinians could be unmolested and kept separate. Now, Hamas is kind of earlier stated goal was to remove the Zionist occupation in its entirety and restore Palestine, and perhaps the region to the the unitary Islamic rule, it was under before the British invaded in 1915. So
but since that point in time, they've kind of toned down their objectives. And they've, they've argued that they are happy to engage in a prolonged truce with with the Government of Israel, or undefined of undefined length, basically. So that's basically the kind of you could say the objectives but but there are maybe some Palestinians who have argued that the two state solution is no longer feasible, because the state of Israel keeps keeps building settlements on the West Bank, which it hasn't formally annexed. And if that's the case, then they want some Palestinians and even maybe the person or authority which is under Fatah, has threatened
the State of Israel with it with its worst possible fear. And that is the equalization of Palestinian citizenship citizens into an amalgamation into the state itself. It's okay, you know, what, this Tuesday solution no longer feasible? Let's make a one state solution then give us Israeli citizenship, and we will just be under the same, the same rule and at least we then have
fixed rights and representation and the why that's the worst possible scenario for a Zionist is because the proportion of, of Jews to quote unquote Arabs is about 5050 in the entire territory. And if you had a democratic state with 5050, Arabs and Jews, designers to goal of a state which represents specifically Jews and Judaism and or Jewish interests, or Jewish
kind of perspectives, will will basically just dissipate because they're ethno nationalists and you can't have an ethno nationalist state when there is actually equal portions of other ethnic groups there
is rarely free perspective and I'm definitely an individual but but the reason why I say this, because that is a post that is a it's a small minority opinion amongst Palestinians, but it's a growing one. Because once they give up on the idea of two states, and they say, Okay, let's just live together in one state, the Palestinian struggle becomes less of a struggle for statehood, and it becomes a civil rights struggle, um, in the in the land of,
of Palestine, under the Israeli government, they say, Look, you know, what, you if you if the Israel, Israel controls the West Bank, if Israel says that the West Bank belongs to them, okay, officially annex it, and give us citizenship, then you're not in this limbo, where we under military occupation where we don't control the laws that govern us in Area C, which is 60% of the West Bank. And or, you know, the Gaza strip can be blockaded as a separate state or a separate entity, it's in some gray area. But let's go out of this gray area now and just become actual citizens of the State of Israel. At least then we can have a chance of representation, right? So that's the third or
kind of a third minority opinion amongst the Palestinians, which is a turning into a civil rights struggle and ending the two state solution objective. And I think it's appropriate to understand all this perspective. So I'm glad you brought that up. I think for a lot of people in the Western society, particularly the United States, that kind of confuses them with all the different perspectives, because we see it maybe like you see our politics, we have the Republican policy, libertarians, liberals, moderates here, United States, but at the same time, there's only one United States foreign policy. So I see you in that terms, what would be the Palestinian foreign policy as
far as end state of one when it comes to Israel?
Was it there are? There are obviously different? Two, general generally different perspective. So one is a two state solution where Palestinians have sovereignty for themselves a person Arabs have sovereignty. And, you know, the State of Israel keeps the sovereignty in pre 2019 67 borders. So then 6967 borders, becomes the basis for
a Palestinian state and a quote unquote, Israeli state.
Warriors, what is that border, Gaza, in West Bank? Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem?
Now, so that's that's one perspective. The other perspective is that which is perhaps more Hamas is perspective. And another's is that the we do away with nation states. And we instead have returned back to a kind of Islamic unitary rule of the Middle East, we've all we've all Middle Eastern countries, kind of rejoining into one unitary state, as was before under the Ottomans, and each religious community having their own law system, their own customs, protected their, their rights, and so on, so forth. Their own autonomy. Basically, in a way, you could say that the Islamic political system is a federation of religious communities, would be the best way to describe it.
Where you will be able to practice equally under Hamas is a new state of Israel.
Well, I mean, I'm not entirely sure that the Hamas
kind of blueprint for an Islamic state, you're currently talking about the masses.
reason why is because they reference pre existing ideas or models of Islamic state that was before before them, which is the Ottoman Miller system whereby each religious community was autonomous and had their own courts in there and in cases their own police force for their own community. And they could manage their affairs internally without interference from from the state or from the government. So in a way, Hamas would, why would want to go back, we will rewind the clock back to 19 1950 1916.
And kind of keep the go back to that, that Middle East, as it was before, before you had the the rise of nations or the creation or imposition of nation states is the kind of the objective there. But but here's the key issue, which is
there. No, no, at least no serious.
There's never an argument that we start to say, Jews must leave the Middle East. Right. And I think that's where people often miss, misrepresent.
Any kind of discussion? Yeah. Well, I mean, I mean, generally, or just the Palestinians desires generally, even up to the point when, you know, the Arab League made an ultimatum to
the Israeli government, which is to basically on the eve of its of its independence with the declaration was independence. That to say that, look, we we want to unitary state there have Jews and Arabs and Christians Arab
are Muslims. I mean, technically speaking, you know, you could also call it Arab Jews as well, because they speak Arabic they also they also Arab as well.
But this was resisted by designers because Zionist wanted to create an ethnos state. You can't have an ethno state when there's equal proportions, your ethnicity and whether or not a person's ethnicity in that region. So to put it into a buzzword, I suppose the the the desire by others is that the Zionist must leave but Jews can stay would be the best way of putting it.
But some of the some of people's objectives what they want to see, because Jews have lived in Middle East for 1400 years and beyond. But in terms of the Muslim experience, living alongside us isn't it's not a new thing for us. It's not radical thing for us. It's, it was, you know, over a millennium old tradition. Again, people get confused
have, you know, the more reasonable perspective, but then what they see as Hamas is perspective? And again, I know you can't get inside their head, but they are currently the people who govern Palestine in which I'm assuming come up with the Gaza Strip. Yeah. Right, that then most likely would
be the leading force in the governance of a one state of Israel under Hamas, for Islamic State. And so I know you can't get inside their head, and it'd be wrong for me to ask. But I want to ask you, as a researcher, as an intellectual, who understands a lot of issues, do you believe if Hamas was under control of the Israeli state, that the Jews truly would be able to live free and practice?
Well, I mean, you know, I can't look into the minds of the leaders of Hamas, I can only go by public statement as a, as a political analyst, I clinical by public statements by documents, and by the general feeling of, of what many politicians have reported for research, really, yeah. But according to their own manifesto, the older one than the more quote unquote, radical one or what you want to call it, they themselves say that,
that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity can coexist, and their followers can coexist. But under the rubric of, of an Islamic system, so that being their their professed declaration, I can only assume that if they were to create an Islamic state of Palestine, that would be there, how they would operate, just that there's other public statements, there's calls in the streets, there's actions taking place, there's more than just words from that manifesto. So you as an intellectual who's able to view all these things, not just use one thing as an example. And then you get to your information, do you believe Jewish people would be able to live and prosper in a state under Hamas?
Again, this is a US discussing a hypothetical like would Hamas to again, I, again, I'm only limited to the, to their public professions, what they say what they claim. And, you know, if if they were not intending that, that would go against their stated objectives and their stated declarations to the to the people, again, many Palestinians, there are so persons alive, they're old, but they will live. And they will tell you that they remember living side by side with Jewish neighbors.
Who were Palestinian Jews, or Palestinian Arab Jews, we're going to call it
and, you know, there's no reason why Palestinians wouldn't go back to that set situation, to live alongside
the net as neighbors
throughout the territory of Palestine, and beyond, and beyond. But as well as whether Hamas, you know, did they secretly intend to do something else? Well, I can't speak for what for, you know, hypotheticals and whether they secretly do this better. Now, that'd be speculating, I can only go by their public statements. And that's what they that's what they've said. They've said that they want to create Islamic State for Jews, Christians and Muslims.
community, how would they live? Would they be able to live in the Hamas territory ruled by Hamas? Well, that's a different subject matter and discussion, I'm going to have to go into it, which is, in essence, this is now more question of Islamic law. And again, I'm going to now making an assumption, I'm going to make an assumption that Hamas wants to stick by Islam, but don't leave the territory.
Well, you okay, let's, let's be one is a bit right. So, you know, in the Bible, the Tanakh, the New Testament, and of course, in the Quran, there's actually no word for a person who's caught gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans. There's, there's no word for
to define a political community with a political identity. This is a recent Western invention that was in from the 19th century initially came from was popularized by a guy called craft von ebbing when he talked about sexual psychopathy. This is where we're going in a different discussion here.
In in biblical law, both Jewish Christian and of course, in the Koran. There's no group of people called
homosexuals. There's no group of people called heterosexuals, or bisexuals, they're just people and actions
in the Bible, or the Quran, I think the conversation is more based on how people are going to live under a state of current Israel or Israel, controlled by Hamas in with all the information from whether it's the Koran, current events, public statements as an intellectual
whether they're Arabic
Jewish Islam, will they be able to live openly
in a state ruled that Hamas?
Well, again, I don't know about Hamas, I'm only I'm going to bind the assumption that Hamas will be true to their word, hypothetically that they will follow Islamic law, as is understood by Muslims for centuries. Now, based on that assumption? Well, I have studied what Santa Claus says throughout the centuries, the practical application of the law. And so I can only I'm now going based on that presupposition. I don't know if Hamas would do so. Right. But I can only tell you what Islamic law says, what is known by Islamic law. And in Islamic law, you don't, what people do in the privacy of their own homes, is not the state, it's not the business of the state. Right? That's always been the
case. There's no such thing as a gay person, or a heterosexual person, that those those definitions, it's irrelevant to any of the laws. In fact, I said that these are recent terms of 19th century. So there's so if you if you identify as a gay person,
you're not a because the classic trope, and usually Islamophobic, the trope is that you identify as a gay person and they're going and somehow an Islamic system or state will kill you just for that. No, right? Because that's not a classification of Islamic law, neither of biblical law either.
Islam only looks at what you do in public. And in this case, to waste Punchbowl is basically having sex in public. That's what is punishable under Islamic law. Inside your own home, there's the Koran
guarantees the right of privacy. So the state can't look at you what you do inside your mom, they can't tap your phones and collect data and mass data in bulk, like the NSA does. Right? So the Chrome will give you better rights than you have in America actually, in that in that particular case. So that would be multiplex. You mentioned the word LGBT, because you mentioned that but that's not necessarily it's not relevant to the discussion about Israel and Palestine. But I want to make an extra, an extra factcheck correction there. You refer to the land as Israel, the land is has never been called. It will be what you called Palestine, that whole area, it's never been called
Israel in front history.
I give an you might be surprised, but what you mean is not called the kingdom of Israel? or what have you know, Israel is the name of the people, right? Israel is the tribe that the 12 tribes are the 12 tribes of Israel, the land was on this jurisdiction, these 12 tribes were called the land belonging to these tribes, the land of Israel, but the name of the land is the actual name of it is the toponym of the of this was either canon before the invasion of the Israelites or Palestine or Philistine by the world earliest for mentioned is the Greek historian Herodotus, which is, which is I think, I think before Roman control of that area, and the Romans referred to as Palestine that was
it was named because they named the whole land by a coastal name of the Philistines, then the name the whole land by that that that name.
And it did you know, like, for example, England is not the name of the land, right, England is the name of I suppose the jurisdiction of the Anglo Saxons that control it, the name of the land that I have UK I live in, it's called Britannia. Right? That's the name of the land. Okay. It's different from the jurisdictions, the political jurisdictions,
by controller, so Israel is the name of a political jurisdiction,
which originally came from the name of a tribe, but it's not the name of the land. So Palestine or canon, whichever you want to pick. Those are the names of the land itself has always been and in the seventh century, you see Muslim chroniclers calling it Palestine. Of course, the Romans codified Palestine Herodotus, the Greek historian could call it
Palestine, in essence, and of course, prior to that, you see, up until the 17th century BC, it had been called cannon before the Israelite invasion that occurred in about roughly 11th 11th or 12th century BC.
So, I know in current times, we have a hard time even agreeing on what's currently happened. So the past is, noticed surprise getting even more difficult. However, that's not my realm of expertise, expertise, but I think I'm just going to reference from what I understand the Bible says, which I want people to make sure they understand and correct me if I'm wrong. Islam does acknowledge the Old Testament correct. And in that Joshua entered Israel 1400 BCE, kingdom of David 1000 BC, first temple built in 900 bc
Are you saying is that not? Am I not quoting that accurately? Okay, so there's two points here. So what was the the land call that's different junctures, or, or and what was what is the slums perspective on the Bible. So sounds perspective on the turnoff. And the New Testament is that it does capture some revelation, but not perfectly, that these things the revelation hasn't been perfectly preserved by human beings in these these prior
records, that the Injeel is not the same as the New Testament, by the way, why the NGO the the revelation of Jesus or his salaam, peace be upon him is not the same as the New Testament, you get, like almost 50% of New Testament is the writings of Paul, who came afterwards and never even saw Jesus in the flesh. Right.
Sorry, referencing the Geneva which is like an older version of the Bible. But
But in the turnoff. I mean, what was the land? Like you know, when Moses was was informed, at least Salam May peace be upon him when Moses was a form that he'd be given the land, it wasn't me, he'd be given the Land of Israel, it'd be given the land of Canaan. Right? And Joshua, you know, was to enter the land of Canaan, and fight the Canaanites take and take possession of their land. Right? So the land of Canaan that's in the Bible that the word Canaan is in the Bible, and is also confirmed by historical evidence,
as well, really old, old historical weapons prior to the invasion of the Israelites that
I'm just referencing particular when Joshua entered Israel 14. Did you see that?
So 14 1400 BCE? Well, we don't know the exact dates, although the earliest mention of
the earliest mention of the word Israel is deemed to be in the Manipur tasks, steel, which is like a kind of wooden, I'm sorry, no wood as rock stone engraving around 12 108 BCE. And the word Israel, the icon used for that is a people not a land, it says it talks about Dave, he's a Egyptians have planted Canaan talks about this, Kenya has been plundered, Ashkelon has been overcome GIS has been captured, your now has been made on a non existent he's in town named city names. And then it says
the Israel are the icons for a people's the people's is has been laid waste and his seed is not the seed of Israel has been is gone as in their lineage. So it's referring to a people. So the earliest mention of Israel's always been as a people not as the name of the land, even in this ancient Egyptian record, right?
And so there's really no debate about this.
Let's have a look. Let's look at the Bible that if you'd like look at numbers, God said to him, do you name is Jacob you'll no longer be called Jacob will be called Israel. So God named him Israel. And then the Lord said to Moses, command the sons of Israel, then Israel said you when you enter Canaan, the land will be allotted to you. So it talks about him entering Canaan, not Israel. So this is where the name of the land has was, has been Canaan, or has was later called Palestine by I suppose you could say foreigners who just said, Oh, we see some Philistines, so we'll call it Palestine.
But the name of the land has never been called Israel. Now, there was a small exception when there was a split in the kingdom of Israel, between the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel, where the kingdom of Israel, which was part of Palestine was just nicknamed Israel, and Judah was just called Judah. But that was much later on. But the land in its entirety has always been called either Canaan or Palestine, but never has been called Israel might be called the land belonging to the Israelites, like you know, Eretz Israel, but not the land is the name of the land is
Israel. So that's just a
kind of the historical facts. And again, I, I lost, please go check it out for yourself, I
challenged me on this.
I'm not going to fact check live outreach, look at these and bring them up to our next discussion. But if that's what you have in front of you on arm with right in front of your face.
So back to the current events, one of the things I find troubling, just in general, is doing the refugees.
And I, the Palestinian refugees in particular, and what confused me, and I think a lot of the Westerners is, why is countries like Egypt not opening up the borders to the Palestinian refugees, in your opinion.
Oh, most likely because
what happens like what happened in 947 was Palestinian refugees came streaming out of orphanages and towns that were attacked by the hunter now these really the proto is very different.
For quote unquote, Defense Force,
and era good. And these were typical terror groups at a time, publicly, internationally malicious terror groups is good and stern gang. So they came, they came streaming out. And as soon as they stream out, then Israel takes possession of the land and says this now belongs to the State of Israel. And they even have a made a law to
justify that called the absentee property law. Okay, you can again, Google it yourself, check it out for yourself, please read it for yourself. If a Palestinian leaves their land on within Palestine
within a certain boundary within certain defined boundaries, the state can can declare them to be absentee, not that they've left it permanently, they might have just gone for potentially a holiday, but they can, it can be declared that it is app's their absentees. And in one case, when persons didn't leave, they were declared present absentees, which is the most confusing thing I've ever heard in my life, that you're present, but you're absent at the same time. Again, check that out for yourself, do not take my word for it at all, please check out the like and give you the the references to the laws in question. I actually have them here is the Yes, it's called the absentees
And if you look at that got a lot of text. I'm not going to read it for you. But I want you to read it yourself. So so here's what happens. The Palestinians are concerned themselves also that once they leave an area of land, they can't come back to it because that's always been their, their experience. And so if the refugees if if refugees leave Gaza, escaping the bombing,
and Gaza is temporarily depopulated of Palestinians as they want to escape the mess, like just a couple days ago, they confirmed 6000 bombs were dropped on Gaza, and each bomb can take out one apartment block.
They'll never come back to Gaza, you'll never be allowed to come back to Gaza. So Egypt and many of the surrounding Arab states
have tried to counter the committee's really demographic strategies by simply refusing refugees to go away. Although many have taken for our history. The Jordanians took so many it was it was it was concerned that 50% of Jordan was Palestinian, basically, because it's how many refugees they took. And Lebanon has tons of refugees from the past. But it's kind of confusing, I think to the audiences so what's the reason it's not taking? It seems like your argument is that because they're respecting some type of 73 year old Palestinian law that current day Egypt is not taking Palestinian refugees that's basically Egypt. Okay, Egypt doesn't want
Israel to kick up the Palestinians out of Gaza deep depopulate them some might say ethnically cleanse. And then and and that will be the permanent stable fair, they will lose the Palestinians will be evicted from Gaza Strip permanently. Because I because as has happened in the past, that's what that's what's happened when Israel takes over an area by kicking out the the existent Palestinians in it who are trying to escape the bombs, they will confiscate it completely. And the refugees will never be allowed a right of return back to their own villages, their own homes. And what allows that is a Israeli law that was implemented so they can confiscate you basically, you
leave your home, you lose it, you just leave it not permanently, you just leave it to for a week or two, maybe to escape the bombing, but you can then lose your home. So um, Egypt doesn't want to be foisted with all these refugees are in its own borders, who will be permanent, permanent Egyptians? Because going off any public statement currently by the Israelis or the Jordans for that opinion? Are you just gonna know that we're talking about Ed, why Egypt hasn't opened up the RAF our border border, so it doesn't want Palestinians surging into its territory, and becoming permanently permanent, a permanent problem for them? When, what Egypt would I'm a common goal and basically,
Egyptian policy, like many of the other regional states is that they want Palestinians to have their own state in their own land and not be permanently kicked out of Palestine. And so they will stop refugees from leaving the photograph our border by the south of Gaza Strip, because it wants the Palestinians to stay in Palestine and not lose it for good because
there are Palestinian refugees in Jordan, in Lebanon and Syria and they will never they can never go back to Palestine. They will never be let in. It's like the you've left done by you're now permanently Lebanon in Lebanon, permanent Syria. Permanent Jordan, you can go back to your ancestral home. You
So I do a lot about Palestinian and mosque perspective. But just let me ask you your personal opinion, do you think it would be easier to attain peace under an Israel territory govern by its current a setup in government? Or under a Hamas slash Palestinian, whoever you see as being the ones who take over that territory? In the long term wise? Or near future ish? What? What state do you think will be more peaceful? Under which government?
Oh, I mean, look, I think you have to look at the motivations of different actors, because we haven't discussed
the various Zionist movements, Zionist strands and the dominant ones and
what they want, because ultimately, it's not just the Palestinians can't, it's not nor about what they want, you know, they're the powerless ones. They don't have a state military, they don't have the American taxpayer backing them up. Right, they are powerless. And by comparison, they could never ever destroy the State of Israel never defeat the State of Israel.
They don't have the weapons or the man or suppose man powers is relative, because depending on the technology, they don't have the infrastructure, they don't have anything really, that could defeat the State of Israel. Now, if the State of Israel saw wanted if the international community could turn a blind eye, and if it's unwanted, it could wipe the person Arabs out completely, or kick them out completely from all the land. But there's just always there's always going to be consequences if that they did try to do it so blatantly. Now,
I think your viewers need to understand the motivations here, right?
There's the motivation.
Where of designers themselves what what what the designers even like, want, or didn't even want in the first place? Yeah.
I told you before, when we were discussing before that, you know, this program that I believe in the rational actors kind of model, I believe that
people act rationally, according to what desires they want to achieve. They'd now be desires might not be rational, exactly. But they have these desires, they have these goals, or they have some starting assumptions. And based on the starting assumption, they act rationally, even if the assumptions are not rational, because they assumptions. So the Zionist movement started in the 19th century, in the face of in Western Europe and such where Jews were being discriminated against and there was persecutions happening in maybe in England not and there was no pogroms in England. Exactly. There's no pogroms against Jews in Canada and America, of course, but there was some, you
know, anti semitism, anti Jewish animus, there, there was, you know, there was mistreatment of Jews, there was trials, the Dreyfus Affair in France, for example, where a loyal Lord Jewish kind of general or not general, sorry, kind of a commander was was accused of being a traitor to France for the Germans.
Even just, he was a scapegoat, right. He was just he was a made a scapegoat, because he was Jewish. He was just, you know, let's just, you know, blame the Jews or doubt them. So they faced all these issues, and this was an era of nationalism, right nationalism was was was growing, you're so so Fado. Hutsul considered to be the founding father of Zionism and political Zionism
made an argument called the Jewish state, he wrote a book called the Jewish state, and he argued that the only way that Jews can ever get their rights will be treated fairly is if they control a state, right? They're the ones control the state, they can't trust other ethnic groups, or anyone else. They can't be a minority and on a per person state, they have to control their own state. Okay. And now, fader Hutsul was an atheist, the kind of the founding you could say fathers of the Israeli government on the ground at Benjamin, Ben Gurion and others, were socialists, atheists and socialists. They weren't religious Jews tried, actually, Jews believed most British Jews believed
that you couldn't recreate the State of Israel, or the kingdom of Israel, until the Messiah comes. Right? That was the common Jewish belief.
Okay, so where am I going with this?
Now, yeah, where Jews persecuting Europe, of course, when it discriminate in Europe? Yes, of course, throughout I mean, in America even that was it was Henry Ford. He wrote this, instead of a series of pamphlets called, I think the international Jew was very anti semitic, very, very nasty against the Semite peoples and their religion. The West has had a history of mistreating Semite religions and peoples anyway, and it's still doing it. But but two different kinds of Semites now, anyway, so
You know, was there? I could, you could say a reasonable motivation for Zionists to think that the only way that they could. Jews could be protected. They control their own state. Well, maybe you might you could say that maybe you think well, yes, you know, we can't trust Gentiles because look how we were treated in Gentiles in Europe. Yeah.
But that's not this the experience of Jews of Jews in the Middle East, right. So this was a movement amongst Ashkenazi Jews, your European Jews, basically Western Jews, I suppose. But not in eastern Jews. Right. They had a different experience. They didn't have that bad experience, like the ones in in Europe did. So it started out from some something that people could be sympathetic with almost. It sounds like okay, yeah, you know, maybe they should have their own state because look how he's pogroms in Russia and, and look at the discrimination they get. And so I want I mean, maybe not pogroms and Anglo Saxon countries. But, you know, like, there are some anti semitism and so on. So,
okay. But here's the sin. Here's where the sin happens, right? You could say, you know, from good intentions, right? The sin, you know, then sinner murderers,
was there was little regard to
wherever Jews would settle to make a political state, there was little regard to the already existing inhabitants. And I say, wherever they might settle, because did you know that they hadn't actually, or at least federal hutzpah and the Zionist movement hadn't actually all agreed on Palestine there. She thought there was one point there was two very viable options, which both had pros and cons. Argentina.
Right. You know, Theodor Herzl wasn't religious, so he didn't care about the Bible. And what about Palestine in that sense, right? And by the way, they use the word Palestine themselves. Yeah, to describe the name of the land, right. So it could have gone either way, eventually, the Zionist movement later on, settled on, no, no, let's, let's make it Palestine, not Argentina, because that that has more of a historical gravitas and we can unite more Jews under this kind of historical background to it is better. But again, for the Hutsul atheist didn't really care about religion, religion, or any of that kind of stuff anyway. So that's what the sin emerges when no, they never
really paid much attention to the natives would the natives agree to having to basically losing losing political authority in their land to create an ethnos state with the express intention, but it must be must be a particular ethnicity that is represented by the government, and it's not going to be them? Right. That's where the problem occurred. This is where the, the original sin of Zionism occurred was they never considered seriously what the natives would how they would react, and whether they'd be happy with it, it just assumed that they could be, they could be bought off, they could be paid to relocate? Or, you know, they would or they would just accept and they wouldn't
fight back or they wouldn't have any disagreement with. That is where this whole issue began. The problem began. Now fiddleheads will try to buy Palestine from the Ottomans. He said, maybe I'll buy it from the Ottomans, you know, Botsman said, No, we're gonna sell you the land. You can come in, you can move there some day, let us come into migrate, you can move there, but you can't take it over as a ethno state. Right. So Jews migration began into Palestine under Ottoman Islamic rule. Right. People don't realize that but but you know, but then when the British Okay, long story short, the British made an agreement with
the under the Balfour Declaration in agreement with some prominent Jews in England, to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine, they were going to cover up the cover the Middle East, so they saw some utility in kind of, of weakening the Muslim control and in the region by the, you know, Lebanon was created to give a Christian the Christian majority there. So they kind of did these shenanigans, the French and the British
territory for Islam correct with Jordan. So it's not like they were just granting land to Israelis.
Jewish and Christians, correct.
They weren't taking considerations of Islam at the time. No. Well, Jordan isn't Jordan wasn't given us an Islamic state. It was it was just that they there was just a store state for the it was carved up for the Jordanian Hashemites who Arabs have mixed mixed backgrounds by a Christian and Muslim musician. It's really from the British.
Sorry. So that wasn't part of that resolution from Britain wherein they're going to territory to the Jews given territory to the Christians and giving territory to Islam, or Muslims.
Well, the British carved up according to
quote unquote, quick to create these these artificial states that never been states before and we're not separate
made borders between Jordan, Syria, Lebanon when
culturally speaking Jordanians, Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians are considered to be all kinds of love and time, they will live n times. And they have a really very similar culture. A similar dialect of Arabic. You know, to create borders between them is artificial, it's just artificial. Why would you do that they kind of they will get the all kind of can see themselves as the Valentines or in Arabic Shami right from Al Sham, that is the whole area. But but you know, the British wanted to make small weaker states which could be easily controlled by an outside power, ie them, basically, a big a big massive state that will
control this, because it kind of seemed like that action by the British was coming off particularly to harm or give a great amount of power to the Israelis, nice linen, make sure people kind of really knew that it wasn't just territory, unique to Israel, Palestine and Lebanon, that it was almost entire Middle East and even parts of Africa.
So I'm not sure why. So I don't follow sorry. I mean that they cut all the cuts into different parts. Yes. Right. It just just when you originally making explaining it kind of just made it seem like it was being unique to that they were giving land to the Israeli Israel's, but we're taking in consideration for any of the other Islamic states and trying to give unique power.
To the Jews.
Were okay, what was it to the Jews with they they made it, they gave the made Palestine a specific mandate to make it a Jewish homeland for Jewish migration of those who are not already residing there. Right. That was new, that was unique, that was exceptional, that they didn't do that elsewhere, everywhere else. Everywhere else. They cut the borders up between people who are already living there. Jews, Muslims and Christians are already living these different border, different regions. But Palestine was very unique because they were going to allow mass migration from a foreign population into Palestine, that who had hadn't lived there for
Yeah, alright, so that is unique. Yes. And what I meant about about Lebanon was, you know, Lebanon has a Christian community around Mount Lebanon. But it was, it was cut up specifically to make, you know, local gerrymandering, you know, where you create certain majorities of certain political parties that might get, you know, increased the amount of chances that you get your, your political party to power. So they made a country whereby the Christians were 30%, whereas before, they will just be a minority around Mount Lebanon. Right now we're going to create special state, just to make Christians a 30% majority, to disrupt any,
any movement for reunification, or any Islamic transnationalism, I suppose, from returning back to the region, crystal. So that's why Lebanon was created specifically for that reason for that reason. But that didn't involve importing or taking people from that from Lebanon. But that's just a point. I'm talking about why they cut it up and drill into that. The other reasons they made Iraq, you know, the reason why Iraq looks like the way it was, the north part was actually gonna go to Syria, but then British discovered oil there. And they said, Oh, wait a second. We don't want the French controlled Syria to have that oil. So no, France, Iraq's and it looked like this. Right. And they
added the oil bit in the north. Right. So sometimes oil was the reason for the borders that the British determined, right. Anyway, that's a side by side discussion, where it was so okay. So as as a Jewish migration comes from, from Europe and Russia, you know, there was persecuted Jews in Russia. You know, obviously the local native Palestinians who were seeing everywhere around them all these different regions will be given their own national self determination quote, unquote, as natives who were under the yoke of the Ottomans and they couldn't express the national will so every one was promised and don't worry, we British will give you national self determination of your own
land or not to you Palestinians though, we've got some people coming in and they're going to take over that land as the as the ethnic group that is the preeminent one that will dominate that but don't worry, you have the same civil rights you'll just be under a you'll just be a minority under a state that will represent the majority which aren't me was not going to be you basically. So what do you think happened but even the Palestinians would you know, react to that so I guess this is why they're gonna throw flowers and welcome you know, people coming in that they had, they were not given a choice or they weren't consulted with they weren't asked to give consent. You know,
regarding and, you know, prior to the breach can
troll British control of Palestine there wasn't. There wasn't really so much animus against against Jews just migrating to Palestine because it's a crossroads area, there's there's been people migrating and going there all the time to live amongst the people, it's not an issue. But when the person is caught wind of
the designers project, and in fact, some of them caught wind of it before the British invaded.
They there was then you began to see an animus against these migrants coming into to Palestine. And yeah, there was there was mob fights, and there was, there was all kinds of things happening. Most of them I've inexcusable on both sides of both sides, both the migrants as well as the indigenous Palestinians. But that's what happened. And it just continued that way. And of course,
you know, Ben Gurion, I'm going to just, this is very important exposition. So you understand this?
Ben Gurion was a socialist, right? And he believed in democracy, right? He wasn't against democracy. And he didn't want to physically.
Like if you asked him, would you like to kill Arabs? And you know, and kick them out by force? He wasn't gonna say no, he wouldn't say yes, sorry. He was gonna say, yes, yes, I want to do that.
What he was hoping was that there'd be so much Jewish migration into Palestine, that the Jews would get a majority without necessarily needing to needing to be violent. Right, and that they will achieve their goal of a Jewish ethno state. And, but maybe he did talk about encouragement, like encouraging Palestinians to get employment elsewhere, you know, move out the country, you know, encouraging them, and so on, so forth. But ideally, no one starts off wanting to kill the other people, right, they fought, let's use the soft approach, let's use let's be let's, you know, in an idealistic world, let's do it this way. But of course, the Palestinians just weren't going to accept
being overtaken by those people who are migrants. And the, they saw the difference between Palestinian Jews who are indigenous with them. And it is Europeans who came with European ways and European ideologies, Western ideologies, they didn't look like the Palestinian Palestinian Jews were their neighbors. Right. And so that, that led to the to, to the conflicts that led to them their resistance and their inability to resist, and more importantly, let out of course, with with international support with donations from wealthy backers
of the Zionist movement internationally, the Jewish National Fund and many other Jewish banks
gave the migrants an edge, and the indigenous population just couldn't compete. They couldn't coordinate, they weren't organized, because they've never been needed to be organized in one central solidity. Before they were overwhelmed, they had no means of resisting. And of course, then came the the question, which is, well, you know, the British are now want to stop Jewish migration because of the the Arab uprising that did that occurred at one point and it was was was suppressed by the British and Zionists joining forces together.
So what would you do you know, when migration now was slowing to a trickle, and you can't get that Jewish majority you want by just, you know, hoping for migration to take its course. So what you saw was the instigation of 1947 Wars. And
the Jewish military had had a plan called plan Dalit, which explicitly I mean, this is, you know, explicitly mentioned that they're going to create security zones, and they're going to push
Arabs away from strategic areas, because it just in case they might, they might be able to help an invasion force come in. And of course, this led to the depopulation of, of 700,000 Palestinians, all across Monday, Palestine, being pushed to the West Bank being pushed to Syria being pushed to Lebanon, being pushed to Egypt, where they when they managed to cross the borders and leave. But due to bombing of their cities, psychological warfare was used for threats of massacres and actual massacres occurred.
Did you know Benjamin Gurion was kind of clever and how they did it they don't want they don't want to give an official sanction although they did to some cities being cleared out. But you can tell that he could stop it if he wanted to, because when the hug and I reached Bethlehem, it was majority Christian and then he he stepped in said, Guys, guys, don't kick out don't kind of cleanse Bethlehem because it's Christians majority Christian city, and we don't want that the Christian superpowers from around the world, taking an interest in it and being outraged. Right, so not not
Bethlehem okay, just we don't want that that heat. Alright. So this is what happened right and of course then in the minor six seven war the Palestinians were living in West Bank last West Bank to and were made now citizenship lists they didn't have any formal sit they lost their Jordanian citizenship. And of course the the Gaza strip which was under Egyptian control lost, they lost their Egyptian citizenship. And and we and it kind of brings us up to now we live we live in a situation where Jew Jewish
interests amongst the the designers have have interest for for Jewish expansion of of West Bank settlements which are majority of vast Jewish inhabitants not not the local West Bank Palestinians whereas the local West Bank person can't live in these West Bank settlements, right in which a neighboring them, okay, and there's walls built all the way around them and it's their property only by a particular ethnic group. And this is where the argument for apartheid comes up that now the Palestinians live under apartheid, there's there's barbed wire and walls around them around their population centers in the West Bank.
And they can't cross over the road to a place that their grandfather could cross to. Because there's a settlement there with a virtually exclusively only one ethnic group populating that which is row tacitly allows and it's against international law. This is the Palestinian perspective, this is their experience. And I'm not even gonna get I'm gonna get started on how depopulation of East Jerusalem on how Israeli police treat Palestinians differently to treating
kind of Israeli Jews.
In America, you know, you think that, you know, African Americans get treated, get a raw deal from the police and get treated differently. This is you should see how the Palestinians are treated, they can be shot for mere suspicion of being dangerous. And, you know, but it is ready to get shot by a police officer. There's a much higher scrutiny over why that person was shot, right. And this is all this is all evidenced. And this is this is this is the situation that leads to these clashes. That leads to the rancor and the hatred
and the fighting and of course, the the Aqsa Mosque, the, you know, the temple mount with Alex I'm also not talking to the Temple Mount, but it's the environment of that place, which was promised to be just a Muslim area for prayer.
Is is there's there's many attempts to kind of say no, we're going to appropriate that for actually Jewish religious
instructional building or what have you by kind of now these
religious religiously motivated Jewish nationalists with and of course, you know, when you see when you see violence in the Aleksa mosque, right, you have to ask yourself a simple question. Okay. It's a mosque. And there are Muslims in the mosque. Why are they being cleared up by police? Yeah. Why? Like, why is the police going into a mosque to clear out Muslim dabba mosque? Because isn't that where Muslims are meant to be? Or, like, can't you go into a mosque or Muslim? Well, the reason being is because to allow visits by Israeli Jews, to allow them to visit the police, due to for some for security reasons must make sure that there's no there's no security concerns. And so when they
want to organize a visit by a tool by Israeli Jews, they will clear every Muslim male of a set between certain ages out out of the mosque and of course they will this is the most white king, you know, carrying us out of our own mosque and that's where the the police kind of shoot CS gas and you know, rubber bullets and all this kind of stuff to clear out a lux mask and of course, it's makes the Palestinians angry. And of course, then you see them react both both the Palestinian Authority, as well as Hamas who often react to the outrageous occurring against Palestinians in the West Bank. So there's a lot there's a lot of stuff happening here a lot of things to unpack, but these are all
factually the cases in like, you know, the clearing out of Al Aqsa Mosque is a is a situation that is really please go into a mosque, and they clear out the environment environment. No one denies that there's not disputed this, but no one questions. Wait a second. Wait. There's a lot of actions in place.
Nice. I'm really glad I had you on like, you are clearly intelligent. I don't think anyone could really argue that. And I believe you actually have good intentions. And that you just want to educate people and that you believe in peace.
And we talked about you know, there's a lot of hyped up anger on both sides. And I think you are very good at laying out their good perspective.
Good news and facts. But one thing I might, if I see it all, is that you were kind of jump to say that you don't know intent of Hamas or whatnot, when you don't like their actions. But then when you see action is done by maybe an Israeli IDF soldier who says you kill they kill a Palestinian individual simply because they're Palestinian, isn't that kind of jumping to an intent in that circumstance, but you're only doing it on one side?
Well, actually, we've actually ever said that I never did.
What I will, what I will really point you to is the fact that there's a different burden of evidence on the Israeli police officer who would
absolutely agree with that. But did you not just say a couple of minutes ago when you were talking about issues with African Americans in policing the United States, and then you referenced Israeli police officer who couldn't shoot a Palestinian for simply being a Palestinian? I might? No, no, no, I said for the the slightest concern to their safety. They will shoot first ask questions later, more than they would have fought for and is ready do that's what I'm saying. And the same goes for police officers in in nicer to America to is that they're more likely to shoot first and ask questions later. Because selling African American because because of this fractiousness ethnic
fractiousness where, you know, which is a more fundamental human psychological issue whereby you view the, the older ethnicity as different to yourself or, or, or unknowable or not as, as, as predictable as your own people, quote, unquote. So you're more likely then to react or misinterpret these other people's than you would your own peoples. That was my point.
That's a psychological principle of humans, unfortunately, is that they react in that way. They have a diff, differential treatment to those they consider to be their people. And they'll be all that people use, always prejudiced or manly prejudice, or do you think it's ever also based on maybe that person's personal life experience, and even though they may not be indifferent towards another individual, but because of some things that personally happened to them, they take accidents differently. For example, if earlier in that week, if a soldier was killed by somebody who was going to police officers claiming they needed help and stabbed the officer, then maybe later in the week,
the end another police officer, even though they might not be prejudiced, they are concerned for their own safety and based on current events and history in their lifetime, that they acted accordingly.
Well, I mean, I have no doubt that, you know, these scare stories are propagated and they think, Well, you know, this could be
more of a dangerous for me and myself. And this is the same thing occurs, obviously, amongst the police in the minds of America. They're told about police officers being shot by African Americans, and they start to think, well, I don't trust African Americans as much as I would Anglo Saxon Americans, right, or European Americans. And that's a problem. Right? We know in America that African Americans get disproportionate prison sentences for the same crimes.
So just imagine what the what Palestinians can
experience in the West Bank. And I want to make it very clear. West Bank, Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. They're under military rule. They don't in Area C, which is 60% of the West Bank. They don't determine the laws over them.
So there was one military ordinance that bans the Palestinian flag, they're not allowed to weigh the Palestinian flag. And the Israeli army can arrest them with a court administrative detentions and they're not they get military court. They don't get a civilian court that judges them.
And of course, they can be the thing sometimes they don't even they don't even have the right to habeas corpus, or they're not, you know, they can be held indefinitely in detention. Some would call it hostage taking. Right. But you know, where I have often said, when Hamas does, it's called hostage taking. When when the IDF do it, it's called administered detentions. But these are not their citizens. You know, the the West Bank president didn't vote for the Israeli government. They didn't they're not even given elections. If I'm correct, the American government was was created on the basis of no taxation without representation, right? No laws about representation at least be
represented. The West Bank, Palestinian area, see have no representation. They're under military rule of the Israeli army by diktat whatever the Israeli army wants to walk or if you're a Bedouin, or you're living in a, in a place that you might have lived there for centuries for centuries.
But the Israeli army declare that to be a military zone, they will display can demolish of your town village will have you and move you out.
So, which has happened, which happened happens quite a lot. Do you see in the news you say? Well, no as much as should be. If you look for it, you see, you know,
especially with Arab Edwin's, who, you know, who have the nomadic lifestyle as well. But, you know, if you want to in East Jerusalem as well, which has been officially annexed by Israel, if you want to be you know, the person population, which will get bigger over time has happened, people have kids, right? What the Israeli government does is that, you know, when you have children or children, you live somewhere and there's, you know, there's all the plays are taken up. So you need to eat, build new place, eat and build a new house. For them, you need an even building space, but who's in charge of the building permits? It's the Israeli government. And statistically, I get please check
it for yourself. Don't take my word for it, statistically speaking,
the, you know, the the Israeli government rarely give our building permits to Palestinians. Most Palestinians in these areas live on unapproved land on approved buildings, and face the demolition because of that they say they don't have a federal building permits. Wait a second, aren't you the occupying power and you're the one that terms with the building permits? You know, that's not fair, because as far as they're concerned, they're living on their own land. And, you know, they don't have a governor who represents them. And now, they have to live somewhere and you just demolish the buildings because they have to live somewhere. They can't all be crowded into like sardines into
one, one house when they have all the generations of having kids, whereas building permits are the vast majority are granted to Israeli Jews. Right? Statistically, check it after the UN talks about this the UN show statistics. There's also one could there's also an organization called Beit Salaam. It's a Jewish kind of human rights organizations with predominantly Jewish Israelis run it and they post statistics of this. There is a plethora of issues that the Palestinians face. And all this stems if you were to kind of reduce all this down to all this stems to the concern of demographics that you can't have a Jewish ethno nationalist state, if Jews off even 5050 Ben Gurion said, Even
60% is not enough is is is not enough. You know, so Ben Gurion said this here, he had concerns so how can you have a viable Jewish state if if Jews only 6% of the population?
So this is basically why research is impossible, it is important to check the facts. So what I say is not disputed
by anyone because that these statistics are known and out there. But what you're generally getting or what I'm looking forward to seeing to the to the debate
with a kind of an inter Zionist interlocutor is how it is spun. Right? So they'll say there's no apartheid because 20% of the citizens of Israel are Palestinian Arabs. Yeah, that's, that's what he'll say. So that means that there's no apartheid, nothing like Did you know that even in South Africa, under apartheid, there was there was a small portion of black South Africans living in white areas? Will let's leave that for the debate, because I think that's gonna be one of the hot yeah, I'm just kind of staying stay in the case. But that's anyway. So
unless you're finishing up something with that last point.
Yes, like the the the treatment is different. But I want to give you one more thing, one more thing to indicate the even the law is right. There are actual racist laws in in, in the State of Israel. I'm not talking about the recent kind of nation state law, which they made explicit that this is this nation state for Jews, and, and so on. So for which was more explicit recently, I don't even need to talk about the reasonable I could talk about the right of return law, right?
Yes, this is obviously quite a famous law. If you're a Jew living in anywhere part of the world. As long as your mother is Jewish or poorly Jewish, I believe. You can claim the right of return to
to Palestine or the State of Israel, quote, unquote.
And this was argued that this is a ancestral right, that we give to all Jews to go back to the State of Israel.
But they don't tell you the exceptions. Right? Did you know that if you are a if both, even if your mother and your father are Jewish, and all their grandfather, your grandmother, or your grandfather, your grandmother's were Jewish going back generations, generations, but you convert to Christianity, or you were Christian
You convert to Islam, you lose the right to return.
You can be ethnically Jewish 100% Every are all your ancestry just online patrilineal matrilineal Jewish, you can come from a rabbi or from a family of rabbis and so on for your for the Kohanim. And all this stuff you can. And it matters not a single job because you lose that right? The moment you convert to Christianity, or Islam, you then no longer have the right to, quote unquote, go back to save Israel. But if you're an atheist Jew or a Jewish Jew, then of course, that is what who the rights is applies to under
Israeli law. So I don't want you to take my word for it.
Just check out the right the Law of Return 19 1950 Law of Return. Read it for yourself. I appreciate that. Lastly, I just wanted to mention, I wanted to send this in the beginning something I appreciate about you. Because a lot of people when they discuss difficult conversations, they generally have an agreement beforehand of topics that are off limits and whatnot, I want to make sure everybody knows that you did not ask for anything to be off limits. And then in fact, you encouraged me to ask hard questions. So I do appreciate.
Yeah, what would be boring otherwise?
Then I actually do some random questions. But would you like to finish anything up? Or do you think there's anything else that the general public should be aware of when it comes to this current crisis going on?
I'm just going to reiterate science at the very beginning.
The narrative of the Zionist side, I mean, how would you explain that? You know, you're bringing migrants into an area. And the native population don't like that. I mean, I know America's had a bit of a history of doing right. America was created that way of, let's say, migrants were the natives didn't have a choice, and they're coming.
But I want to say this, do not let people make I would say you believe that this is about anti semitism.
This is not about anti semitism. Jews and Muslims have lived side by side for centuries.
Were the closest to each other religiously, right? Our practices are, we have sometimes identical practices. As a Muslim, I can I can I have I can eat meat which has been sacrificed in a certain manner, according to Muslim law. I can also eat meat that Jews have sacrificed according to Jewish law. You know, I can't eat. It's called Hello, and hello me and kosher me I could have kosher meats. I can't have non kosher meat, non halal meat
sacrificed by Christians, at least modern day ones.
There's a dispute amongst Muslims as to as to that issue. But
point being is that, you know, like Jewish kosher meat is because to be ritually clean for us. Yeah. We have no issue with Jews with I mean, and Christians as well. I mean, we'll say 10% of Palestinian are Christian, by the way, let's not forget, and they too, have faced religious issues and problems as well.
This is not about hating Jews, or wanting to exterminate Jews, or even wanting to relocate Jews out the Middle East. I, I want to I know many Jews left Muslim countries to go to Israel, I'm totally happy for them. I would support any Jew that wanted to return back to the, the the Muslim country of origin, as well and get there, get the house back, get the land back because there was animals there was when the State of Israel was created. There was this nationalist animus because many Arabs were angry at what's happened to the Palestinians are being massacred. And many Jews faced, who would live for centuries amongst Muslims face discrimination. And that's wrong. Right? Actually, some
Muslims even wanted to stop Jews from going to Israel. So it'll look like stay here. Well, like Morocco did like, you don't have to leave, please, please do stay with us. You know, and there are still Jews living in Morocco today are quite significant community.
So don't let anyone make you think that this is about just, they just hate us. They just hate us Jews. That's why they are attacking us or they resist us. And so no, anyone would do the exact same things. You know, no one says those Native Americans, they just hate white people. They just hate Christians or Protestant Christians or pastors. No, they don't. It doesn't care who's coming to their land, right. It's the fact that they're taking over territory that they're making settlements and pushing them forward and killing them and hunting them and raid on their on their villages or their you know, their cabinets. They didn't like that and they react to it, right. This is what it's
I want to give you a little analogy for to understand this.
If you don't want people to know, the real reason, someone's angry view, you often just say the other person's just crazy. They're just crazy. You know, they don't know you at school did this. I've seen this at school, right when, you know, one guy went cheeky kid, he slaps them around the face, we hit them with takes their lunch, you know, whatever, and runs, yeah, runs next to the teacher, and then the the kid who has been
offended by this person run, you know, chases that the kid that hit them. And then even if our teacher hits them back in front of the teacher, what does the teacher say?
The kid, what did you do to make that person do that? Right? I what is the what is Do kids typically say? I don't know, that person just just hates me. He's angry, you know, just just just hates me or doesn't like me? Yeah. That's, in essence, the Zionist narrative. The most popular narrative is that it's all anti semitism, they just hate Jews and so on. So that's, that's the reason why. And it completely obfuscates what's, what's been happening on the ground and how anyone would react to,
to mass migration that was intended to create an ethnos state that where one ethnicity would would be, would have a degree of, of privilege, even by weight of numbers in a democracy, right? How would anyone react to that it doesn't matter what their ethnicity is, your insert, insert ethnicity in here could be anyone you could put you could exchange to any ethnicity, there would be a reaction to it. And also, as a side, small point, the Zionist narrative that obviously,
Jews have are oppressed by gentiles everywhere, unless they have their own state is actually not. Not true. Anyway, many, many Jews who left from Russia because they were being oppressed in Russia and went to Palestine, she jumped to use as a jumping off point to go to America. And America has the second largest Jewish population in the world, I think about 6 million, whereas in Palestine, it's about 7 million, so only about a million different, I think.
So Jews that have actually been quite comfortable and successful. And when was the last pogrom in America? I can't remember any, right? So even that, and Canada and the UK, as well. So even that narrative is actually false. You know, there was there was, there was nowhere else for us to go. Of course, there was there was, you know, there was many places to go. But you're still welcome in the Muslim world. Just don't bring an ethno nationalist state with you. You know, yeah. And that's really the passing argument. I'm gonna leave all that for the next guest to answer and for you guys to discuss on further but again, I really appreciate your time today, brother. Thank you so much,
John. Been a been a pleasure. And yeah, I look forward to the debate and discussion where all these points have said, I can face challenge and in return, I can then I could be more evidence and things like that.
All right. Well, cheers. Thank you. Take care.