Hamza Tzortzis – Does Israel Have a Right to DEFEND Itself
AI: Summary ©
The speaker discusses the use of tools and techniques used during the horrific situations, including false arguments and accusations of bullying. They explain that assumptions used during these situations are logically incorrect and lead to false accusations and accusations of bullying. The speaker emphasizes the need to reframe the narrative and unpack the assumptions used to make statements and accusations.
AI: Summary ©
And Israel has the right to defend itself is very clever was a very
clever Shebaa because the premise is there, and what IBLEES does is
he sneaks in a premise, okay? And he makes any covers it with
emotion. The snuke premise is that you're the victim
is only a victim defends himself. And the emotion there is that hey,
I'm just I'm attacks.
Look how brilliant this was, as a phrase as a man who came up with
this what marketing agency deserves a billion dollars who
came up with this? You know, a statement that really, inside of
it is all sorts of falsehood. Yes, everyone has the right to defend
themselves. No one's gonna say anything bad about that, but not
get defend yourself, logically cannot defend yourself when you're
an aggressor. Right. So that's where the stuck premises. So talk
to us a little bit about the use of the tools that you've been
working on dealing with atheists, as they transfer over now to a
real time human conflicts. And all the misrepresentation
misinformation you've been seeing out there false arguments that
you've been seeing out there, because I have others will talk
about another one. Jolla, but I want to give you first. So with
regards to the horrific situations happening at the moment, when
people articulate a statement or phrase, you should always
understand that every statement, every phrase has its own
presuppositions or assumptions.
There is something logically that sits behind the phrase, for
example, when they say is or has a right to defend itself, when you
start thinking about okay,
intuitively, that sounds okay. But what does that really mean? That
means that there is an assumption that they are being attacked,
there is an assumption that they are not the aggressor. There is an
assumption that they have made, they have articulated this phrase,
and they're assuming that something has just started.
So when you unpack these assumptions, you need to question
Okay, are these assumptions coherent? Are they sound? Are they
based on any evidence? So when we talk about the assumption that
Israel is not the aggressor, then all you have to do is literally do
a Google search and look at the multiple human rights
organizations Human Rights Watch. Amnesty International, read the
books by Jewish academics like Elon Pepe, and Loewenstein and
many others. They all conclude
that, for 70 years, more than 72 years has been in an illegal
occupation.
For decades, there's been an apartheid regime.
For decades, there was ethnic cleansing.
When you look into, for example, the Nakba, you see that there are
around I think, 600 villages that were burnt to the ground, the
wells were poisoned, so people can't return. Over around 750,000
Palestinians were actually ethnically cleansed with no right
to return.
When you start looking at various UN reports, you would see that
these refugees have a legal right to return. So when you see the
context of apartheid, of ethnic cleansing of aggression, for
example, before October, the seventh, from around 2021 to
August 2023, around 130.
Palestinian children were killed in cold blood by IDF forces. Where
was the international outreach, there's selective empathy,
selective sympathy. So when you understand that there is a context
where Israel is the aggressor, and that the whole so called conflict
or crisis didn't begin on October the summit, it reframes the whole
narrative. And then you say, Hold on a second, if you're the
aggressor, the oppressor the killer. You have taken hundreds of
children into prison illegally, which is technically hostages.
Where are all these Palestinian hostages, these children, no one's
saying nothing about them. We were other news channels talking about
these children. So when you look at all of this evidence, genocide,
apartheid, ethnic cleansing, even torture, and so on and so forth,
you will now understand as the Zionist entity being the
aggressor, therefore when they say we have a right to defend
ourselves is ridiculous. It's like someone is assaulting somebody
else. And the one who's committing the assault, says I have a right
to defend myself against my Vic
Till I mean, what kind of nonsense is this? Mohamed hijab put it
quite nicely on the Piers Morgan show. He said, it's like a *
defending themselves from the victim. Yeah, yeah. Already in an
aggressive stance, they're already in an illegal stance. Right. So
that's one thing. The other thing is, which is connected to what I
just said, it assumes that something has just began. No, we
need to reframe the narrative and get them to realize, don't assume
that the crisis started on October the seventh, we've had seven
decades of illegal occupation, decades of apartheid, decades of
killing hundreds of children killed, do you want would argue
but a whole decade of bombing, right? Every couple of years, Gaza
has been, you know, literally carpet bombed. You have even Arab
Israeli citizens being treated like third class citizens, you
have Palestinians being treated, you know, worse than animals. So
from this perspective, we see that there has been an ongoing
aggression going on. Okay. So what we've just done is we've reframe
the narrative by saying, Well hold on a second, your statement
assumes that you are not the aggressor, that you're the victim.
But in the grand cosmic scheme of things on this issue, you are
actually the oppressor. You are tyrannical, you are terrorists
state, you're an apartheid state. And it really frames the whole
narrative, and we say didn't just start on October the seventh. So
all you need to do is listen to a statement and understand what does
that statement assume? you unpack one to three assumptions. And then
you question, are those assumptions sound? Do they have
evidence for them? Are they coherent? Do they logically make
sense? And then you look for any evidence for or against, and in
this case, there's an overwhelming evidence against the false
assumptions of the false statement of Israel has a right to defend
itself. So this is a very, very important way of dealing with
things. Every time someone makes a statement, a presupposition or an
assertion understand the assumptions behind that. you
unpack what those assumptions are you question if they have any
justification, any evidence, and you question, if they're logically
coherent, and then once you unpack that, then you're able to
basically respond in a particular way.