Russel Brand Take a Side

Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh how are you guys doing? I recently watched a video from Russell Brand, and English comedian and activist who was talking about the Palestine Israel issue. So let's see what he has to say, and come back and talk about this. Really, when you're saying do a video, you're saying, take a side, take a side, then iving, you are part of the problem, you're part of the problem. Because in a way, what side is there is for me this there, these are the two sides ongoing conflict solution. And like I would if there were a side labeled solution, and I would be on that side, as we can see here with this brand takes a pragmatic approach, you can see says if there

was a side named solution, I would be on that side. And what I found really, to be honest, disappointing, I have to say, because Russell Brand is someone who's usually quite open and honest, doesn't care, what people have to say, is well known in the past to have taken controversial opinions. And, you know, and we've respected him, I think, as the British public for so doing, and particularly I think, the Muslim community, I've respected him as well, because of his sympathetic kind of approach to us. And we know it's those things, we have to say, we know it's those people who are sympathetic and open minded to us from those who, who imbue animosity and and those kinds of

characteristics. So, that having been said, let's say now that when he says, If you ask me or paraphrasing you to take aside, then you're part of the problem. I think that's absolutely false. And to be quite honest with you, I don't think that would be his stance on many of the historical and justices that have happened to so many different peoples, the aborigines, the Native Americans, the South Africans, the apartheid state of South Africa, we are to ask Russell Brand, what is your opinion on the racial apartheid, racist apartheid that took place in South Africa, I think you'll be very open and take a side straightaway on these issues, to be honest with you. But what is really

much different here? What, what are we talking about? If you're asking me to take aside, then you're part of the problem, but you take sides all the time, with all due respect, it's not as if you don't take sides. It's not as if I if I did a data analysis of your body of work, that you haven't taken very clear and decisive, political and historical sides, if you want to put it that way? What do you mean, don't take a side and if you if you asked me to take a side, you're part of the problem. This is a kind of deflection mechanism. This is a kind of way you're trying to kind of absolve yourself from a controversy, which To be quite honest with you is not like you, you're usually quite brave

and forthright and open and honest on these issues. So I have to say, I am totally disappointed, especially considering the fact that this case is so clear, we are talking about we are talking about a so called state that after its inception in 1948, has literally, quote unquote, in its words of its of its president today, conquered land. He then spoke about conquering Gaza. If I was to ask you about ISIS, if I were to ask you about the conquering of land, the ISIS committed, which is antithetical to UN treaties and international law, I think you'd be quite honest and open and say, Oh, well, this is an abomination. This is abominable. This is condemnable. This is monstrous. And

you will take a side straightaway. If I were to ask you about many different kinds of injustice, as you take aside straight away, as I've just mentioned, but why on this? Do we allow a state as so called State of Israel, to literally take land legend is what they're doing. They aren't it be very clear and be very clear. The parts in which they are in control some parts, which they are in control, according to international community, they don't have rights to East Jerusalem, they don't have rights to that land. They are not considered by the international community or un law as being the country in charge of East Jerusalem. They are occupiers According to the UN. And they in all

hypocrisy claim to believe in international law. But the UN, an organization which was responsible for for forgiving this so called state legitimacy in the first place. The UN is an organization which condemns and calls this an occupying force, Amnesty International. Many organizations which you've been associated with in the past or quoted in the past, I'm sure respect their work have said the same thing Human Rights Watch, have said the same thing.

The premise that if we're not going to find a solution that I'm going to remain, I'm going to remain silent on the matter or I'm going to not take aside

is, number one is not consistent with what you've done and other issues that must be on the record. And number two, quite frankly, is not even a logical way of dealing with injustice. Why should just because justice is not something which is, let's say, practical in the in in real time today. If justice is inaccessible to us otherwise not retrievable in the current times, does that mean to say that we will stay silent on the matter, anything must be productive, otherwise, it should not be said. And when we say productive, we're talking about political and historical, historically, politically productive. That's really it seems like a false premise to me. So I think in summary, I

would say Russell Brand, to be honest, I'm very disappointed. I'm very disappointed with you. I'm not trying I'm not sure who you're trying to appease with this. But this is not like you to be

to be honest with you walking on eggshells in this manner, and not taking a stance. I encourage you to change your tone on this issue. I hope you will come to your senses said I want to come to light what