Ben Shapiro talks about Israel vs Hamas and why he would never support Biden over Trump

[Music] if you would like to ask a question please raise your hand on membership card I'm going to go to a very quick member in the middle yes yeah that's you um would you like to want starting that way yes um so Ben your argument was predicated entirely on Hamas but thousands of Palestinians including hundreds of minors and children are being held hostage by Israel without any charge with well documentation of abuses including sexual abuse which Israel's own human rights organizations have reported Hamas did not exist for decades after Israel's creation and they're not in

the West Bank so if you're going to be arguing about Hamas how can we ignore that over 200 Palestinians have been killed including over 40 children making it the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank before October 7th that does not even include the killings happening now just in 2023 so what justification do you have for that if Israel intends to quote unquote go after Hamas it's killing many people especially children under the the justification of Hamas so what justification do you have of them targeting the West Bank even if we were to buy

anything you said which honestly unquestioning [Applause] sure so the casualties that have been incurred in the West Bank are prior to October 7th largely there have been many since October 7th because there have been many conflagrations between the ID F and Palestinian Authority and Islamic Jihad members in the West Bank there's significant violence over the course of the early part of this year there's a a breakaway group from the Palestinian Authority it's called the Lions the lions were a small terrorist all the lions then they were committing acts of Terror in places ranging from Jerusalem

to areas of the West Bank and the IDF was going in and making operational decisions to kill many terrorists in these areas there are many areas in the West Bank that have been particularly infiltrated by terrorism that the city of would be probably the the example of of the place that has been most infiltrated by Terror groups it's unfortunate but Hamas is not the only terror group in the region Palestinian is Islamic Jihad is an excellent example of another terrorist group that has wide presence in the West Bank more so actually than Hamas there a

Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket obviously that fell on that Gaza Hospital the entire world then tried to blame on Israel okay I'm allow to respond right okay so if your entire argument once again is predicated on terror groups what response do you have about the great March of return which is which is a very well-documented incident where peacefully Palestinian civilians just march to their own land that they have a right to go and return to but they were killed shot at and murdered in Cold Blood what year are we talking about which group are you talking

about I need more specificity I'm talking about the great March of return I know I'm asking for more specificity because I'm unaware of all the details of what you're speaking about so the great March of return is a well-documented instance where many Palestinians after a tweet by a Palestinian encouraged other Palestinians to go March peacefully back to their land which land is theirs what are we talking about talking about occupied Palestine are you talking about inproper Israel where are we talking about like which areas we're talking about on the we're talking about on the borders

of Palestine and we're also talking about their right to return to Pal there is no right to return if you're talking about in Palestine if you're talking about the land that is inside the 67 borders there is no right of return TOA there's no right of return to Tel Aviv there's no right of return to West Jerusalem so you have to remember that there are many many many Elders who are older than the state of Israel you have to remember that Palestine is not a Muslim land you were equating this to a religious conflict it's

not when Palestine before it was occupied you had Jews Christians and Muslims peacefully coexisting Palestine is not a Muslim Homeland it's a land that existed where many people that are alive to this state are older than the state of Israel so are you making the argument that any population of any time all of their descendants now have a right to go back to the place that their great great great great great grandfathers went not great great great grandfather we have grandmother okay grandmothers grandfathers is that the idea that you you can walk across the lines

of any sovereign state and simply claim the place that you said that you had even though you never established property rights and say the Jordanian West Bank or you abandon this place in Kaa so your your claim is that right now people get to walk across the border of a Sovereign Nation and simply setup shop in kifa this is your claim so so if you're okay so even if you were to buy what you're saying which is obviously not true I encourage you to Google about the break March of return which was a peaceful resistance

against a wrongful occupation of palistine even if you were to buy what you were can can you just Define wrongful occupation which part of palistine is occupied you're not answering my question I mean I'd like you to answer mine about Terror groups I give you an example of peaceful resistance I'll give you an example where people were wrongfully shot at including children and you still can't answer about why that's Justified so if again I talking about Hamas and Terror groups and you give examples of other Terror groups even though I give you examples of civilians

who marched and were shot at but even now a few days ago you had Palestinian people living in Israel proper which is occupied Palestine who are being shot at by Farmers on their in in their Gardens and in their farms and those people are being able to get away with shooting them with total impunity so why is it that that's not true many many of those people have been arrested they're all currently sitting in Israeli jail the settler that just shot at a Palestinian have been arrested was not arrested I encourage you to look into

this I I did look into this this morning and as far and can I please get one answer before you leave because this an interesting conversation which part of Israel is occupied Palestine all of Israel there we go there we go there we go so what you're calling for is the obliteration of the state of Israel and all of this is just a cover for that I appreciate your [Applause] time and now like up thank you and may I first say thank you for coming to speak with the you do this evening it's a real

pleasure um I'm a theology student myself and I was wondering how do you reconcile your conservative political views into into the microphone sorry yes um how do you reconcile your conservative political views um with the religious vol of compassion and your your own Jewish faith and your stance on the Israeli and pistan War I I don't see why it's uncompassionate to call for the overthrow of Kamas a terrorist group in the Gaza Strip which has been oppressing its people and stealing billions of dollars from its own people isma H is living in a f-star hotel

in katar while his people are living in absolute misery because of a war that he initiated by killing 1500 people inside Israel proper and then taking 233 hostages I don't see why that's non-comp passionate it seems to me that compassion also requ that you obliterate terrorist threats to your own population thank um [Applause] remember can you all hear me all right what about now um so okay I'll speak W up I'll try my best um hello Ben it's it's good to see you I've been watching you since 2015 you started my conservative journey and um

here we are um I saw unfortunately you had to bring some pretty gruesome photos and uh I have to say I hope those photos aren't real and I have my doubts because recently you posted an AI generated image of a charred infant corpse no I didn't that is a lie that is true it was not an AI photo it was not an AI photo it was distributed by the Israeli government and the prime minister of Israel it was verified by the United States government that fake Community note that said that it was an AI generated

photo was in fact taken down by Twitter because it was a fake Community note that is unfortunately not an AI generated photo I wish it were it was it was a baby obliterated beyond recognition because it had been burned to death so is it is it the word of the IDF Israel versus the word of no actually it's the photo is it's it's the actual camera footage taken by GoPro cameras by Hamas terrorists as they invaded Israel proper I don't have to take Israel's word for it a lot of the stuff was live streamed so

to to what extent as as you're posting to social media are you willing to make sure the information you're posting is is accurate um to not exchange a truth for um giving Aid to Israel I'm certainly doing my damn best there's a lot of information flowing around I'm I'm doing my on that one for sure 100% it is a lie that that is an AI generated photo that is not true in any way shape or form and it shows how the it does show how we live in a very dangerous era where anybody can I

mean this is happening on a routine basis you're seeing for example some of the pictures there they're horrible pictures coming out from Gaza and a huge number of those are of course absolutely real you're also seeing people who are repurposing pictures that are taken from Syria and then saying those are happening in Gaza so yeah unfortunately there is a lot of information that's floating around that is hard to kind of lock down and verify that picture is 100% real unfortunately I sympathize with you because as AI gets more advanced it becomes increasingly hard to discern

information so I know you be and I mean this is going to be a serious problem as time goes on seriously like the flow of information is going to be more and more uncertain because of that that I agree with on a general level awesome thank you for your time that's for remember in the B yes sorry it was the member behind you is the member at the very back y I'll to you [Applause] after um hi if Israel is Justified in killing civilians because of the acts of Terror committed by Hamas why isn't Hamas

justified in doing what it did because Israel is keeping 13,000 children it has tried them in military courts since the establishment of Israel 55,000 Palestinian homes have been bulldozed so why isn't hamad's justified in doing what it did if we use your logic um well so I'm going to answer your question then I'm going to ask you a question if you don't mind is that right so the the So my answer is that Israel would not be justified in killing Palestinian civilians because of the actions of terrorists Israel would be justified in attempting to kill

terrorists and civilian casualties are a cost of War that is just a reality of life during World War II there were 70,000 Brits who died during the blitz bombing and there were 2 million Germans who died civilians who died during World War II and I don't see a lot of monuments in Britain because of the 2 million civilians who died in Germany the costs of War are brutal they are terrible they're horrifying there's a vast difference in moral scope between deliberately going into a civilian area and murdering everyone you can find and trying to kill

a terrorist who is deliberately hiding beneath a civilian area hiding their rockets in civilian areas is starving their own people there is a vast difference okay so let me now I get to ask my question if you don't mind so my question is do you believe that there is a moral difference between Kamas going into for example karaza and murdering entire families and Israel attempting to Target terrorist and accidentally hitting civilians Israel is effectively doing the same because Gaza is the most densely populated region in the world there are 15,000 people per square mile so

doas get immunity because they're there soas get immunity Israel is kill 3,500 children in the past 3 weeks that's more children that's more children than have died in conflicts around the world in each of the last four so just to be clear your logic is that if you're a terrorist group located in a densely populated community and you hide behind civilians you're now immune where were the children meant to go so you're immune okay that's a violation of the Geneva conventions but okay you're you're now immune your logic is that if you're a Hamas terrorist

sorry since 2005 23 out of every 24 conflict deaths have been Palestinian I don't see any moral equivalency there it's clearly unjust what the IDF has been doing to the Palestinians because there's a vast disparity between the number of Palestinians being killed and the number of Israelis I mean I would certainly hope that Israel is killing more this isn't a conflict this isn't a conflict this is one-sided ethnic cleansing again I'm just asking you if based on the numbers more Germans died than Brits in World War II did that mean that British the British were

wrong in World War II because they did many more Germans side than Brits based on the numbers that mean that Britain was wrong in World War II Britain wasn't bombing civilian [Applause] civilians there's a clear difference you you should talk to you should talk to the people in Dron but you can't cuz they're there's a clear difference War I agree that war is horrible but this is not a just War what Israel is doing is not a just War there's a difference between fighting the Nazis not fighting the Nazi it is not it is not

it is not a just War when you fight a war against people who murder 1500 of your civilians and take 233 of them at last count CED into tunnels it is not a just War to obliterate them please name a just War Israel's been killing civilians for the past 75 years and there was no headlines about it and there nobody said that the Palestinians were does not purpose kill civilians Palestinian terrorists do Israel has Israel put down guns tomorrow if Israel put down its guns tomorrow there would be a second Holocaust if the Palestinians put

down their guns tomorrow there would be a Palestinian state that is the reality and let me ask you this would not be a pales I'm going to ask you I'm going to ask you I'm going I'm going to ask you I'm just going to ask you the last question the same question I asked her which part of Palestine is occupied the entirety of Palestine but I'm not for the destruction of Jew I appreciate I appreciate you expressing your full genocidal intent for the Jewish people living between the rivers why is it genocidal to call for

a state that is not apartheid you can have a state where all citizens have equal rights Jews and Muslim I'm sure that's going to go amazing under the same people who are governing the Gaza Strip where currently zero of time can we move on to the next uh question please um that's I think the remember in the green jumper yeah oh sorry I thought it was green yeah [Applause] yep um Ben it's an absolute displeasure to see me standing well it's ABS I will get to my question however thank you for coming anyway my displeasure

now I'll repeat the the question that i i s to ask you um you have recently been discussing a lot about the history uh of the occupation of Palestine I will call it that I know you will oppose that but I will call it that the occupation of Palestine the whole thing right just to be clear the entirety of Palestine thank you you may accuse me of genocide if you wish that is not my position sure and I will but go ahead anyway so the the point about the occupation of Palestine you have released multiple

videos you have uh essentially made it made yourself the cheerleader of Israel in a lot of sort of Western media spaces so I watched some of your videos about the conflict and I found uh a number of inaccuracies first of all you describe in 1920 you refer to Jordan as part of Palestine historically that has never been the case there has never been a state of Jordan British Mand Palestine yes that is still not the case Jordan has never been part or considered part of Palestine the only part only time that Jordan has been considered

adjacent to Palestine is part of sort of biblical mythology where trans Jordan was a reason that's wildly inaccurate the British the British mandate was had a mandate over all Palestine and then they separated off trans Jordan and handed it to the hasite kingdom of Jordan you will get your chance to reply let me finish now my second point my second point the second point that you have phrased constantly and consistently and it's quite a popular Zionist talking point is the fact that the Arabs have rejected peace every time it was offered to them now I

would like of course there's been multiple times where peace has been offered so let's discuss some of them the PE commission the PE commission entailed expelling multiple Arab families and multiple Arab communities largely agrarian from the land in order to create a Jewish State under a colonial Authority now I understand of course you are a Zionist so you believe that's desirable but for the Palestinian Farmers I can imagine they would not have enjoyed that number two you mention that the um um what's it called that after 1948 the Arabs had the chance to negotiate and

make peace with Israel apart from the fact that in 1956 Israel invaded the seni in Egypt unprovoked purely due to the fact that President Nasser nationalized the Suz Canal then you claimed that the 196 7 war was a war of extermination but if you will read any trusted and respected historian over the 1967 war and perhaps you may even decide to read some of the books of mosha Dian about the actual conflict where he describes that Israel actually provoked the conflict and there was no chance of the extermination of Israel then you claimed that the

1973 war was a war of the destruction of Israel once again which was not it was actually the reclaiming of the seni and uh the golden height which Israel has illegally occupied so you have lied multiple times I can continue if you would wish but I would like to ask you the question when you lie do you feel shame okay so in order for me to feel shame I would have to be lying as opposed to you just being wrong about all of these things which you are so let me start from the very beginning

of what you said let's try to go through the calendar British mandate Palestine was ruled by the British they carved up trans Jordan in 1920 and trans Jordan was made into trans Jordan with a hashimite kingdom which by the way is not domestic to the actual era of Jordan so if you're talking about a colonial Outpost Jordan would be it since the has Kingdom has nothing to do with the actual Palestinian Arabs who are living in trans Jordan about the peal commission if the idea is that there would have to be a separation of populations

in order to effectuate a two-state solution which you deny then I was right of course there was a deal on the table the Jews accepted it the Arabs rejected it so you did not actually under there should be no deal in the firstan in his diary stat on hold on hold on I I listen to your whole [ __ ] history for like five minutes here so at least let me respond to it your entire claim is that the Arabs did not reject peace and then in your own disquisition you admitted that the Arabs rejected

the peel commission plan which was a separation between the Jews and the Arabs which gave an extraordinary amount of land to the Arabs the Arabs then rejected the peace partition plan proposed by the United Nations in 1947 they then proceeded to reject the Oslo Accords in '93 after that they rejected the Y River Accords in 98 they rejected HUD barack's very generous offer in 2000 they rejected om's very generous offer in 200 2008 every single peace deal that has been proposed by Israel or anyone else has been rejected by the Arabs for a very simple

reason which was the very first question I asked you you do not accept that there should be a Jewish State anywhere in this region so as long as that's the case there's literally nothing to argue about you cannot simultaneously maintain the position there should not be a Jewish State anywhere in the region and then tell me that I'm wrong when I say that the Arabs will not accept a two-state solution you yourself say that there should not be a two-state [Music] solution so the F the first point that you the I'll firstly address the last

point that you made about the um Palestine and whether there should be a Jewish State um the point you are making there is you're suggesting that the Arabs will not will not accept a Jewish State well the reason that the Arabs would not accept the Jewish state is multifaceted ah it's complex let me finish so the reason that it's multi fascist is due to a variety of Dynamics the Zionist movement arrived as a settler colonial projects and it is described as that you can read the books of javinsky you can read Zionist literature from the

early 20th century it states that it was a colonial project now let's address the lies that you mentioned let's address the reputation that you made in 1937 the PE commission if you read the Diaries of David Ben gurian he explicitly states that the partition sorry thank you that the partition was a temporary move to ensure the conquest of the full land in 1948 there had already been an intercommunal civil war in Palestine which had seen Jewish Defense Forces versus the Arab forces there was already a conflict that preceded 1948 to claim that the Arabs simply

rejected the UN partition plan is once again a historical you then make they literally rejected it how could it be a historical if they literally rejected it if there was a war beforehand if there was a war once again you just reject fundamentally the existence of the state of Israel period I attempted to interrupt you I was told to silence so I would ask you again please shut up my point now I would like to continue I would like to continue and you then mention the uh what was the Peace plan you mentioned after I

okay which one should we do should we do the should we do the we finished 1948 what after okay so there was the 2000 P plan from ahud Barak there's the 2008 PE plan from ahud there's a pull out of Israel from Gaza Strip in 2005 handing it over to Hamas let's get the next person up now I all right um thank you very [Applause] much one final note there can be no two-state solution when literally you will not accept the possibility of a two State solution that is the end of the story there is

no further discussion SOC the ex president on the front bench uh thank you Ben I'm not going to ask any questions about um uh Israel palestin but I wanted to ask something about what you talked touched on your opening remarks uh you said that the reason you feel called to speak out one of the Reas you feel called to speak out about what's going on in Gaza at the moment uh is that you think that it is a question about the West standing up for its values uh and asserting its uh identity and knowing what

it is um I put to you that perhaps the reason that that is so controversial and you saw 100,000 people marching in London on Saturday Saturday before Saturday before that Etc is that the west or many countries in the west no longer have a sort of common sense of what they are as nation states and therefore what they should stand for um do you think that's true what you think the consequence I mean I think the consequence of that is dissolution of the West I mean if if the West is not going to be muscular

in defense of whatever it believes its core values to be then of course it's going to be overtaken by alternative sets of values is it the replacement of the West if it just adopts a new value code yes I mean if if the West is to mean anything other than a location it's going to have to mean a set of values and those values traditionally in in Britain have meant things like a Classical liberalism they've been they've meant things like freedom of religious worship these are all aspects of the Anglo now anglo-american system uh that

I'm been adopted across the pond as well and when those values fall away what you end up with is a morally relativistic state that that cannot stand up for its own values and has no reason to to continue so do you think that collapse of a communal moral code is now inevitable uh not at all I don't in fact I think that there is going to be a quite a backlash to the insane self-blinding that is taking place by the West this belief that everybody is uh at root thinking the same sorts of thing and

and Eng engaging the same sort of incentive structure I do not think that that is the case I don't think the West always believe that this is not to say the West is perfect that the West hasn't made enormous and horrifying mistakes the West certainly has but the West value system is certainly better than the other value systems that have been Avail made available to the planet over the course of the last couple of centuries I I'm sure you'd agree with me in that the foundation of a lot of the moral code of the West

is sort of judeo-christian do you think that mass secularization post the second world war at least in United Kingdom it's been much more delayed in the United States yes I mean I I I think that that the religious judeo Christian values that have been you know brought into the secular World by uh by a diverse society and then and then sort of secularized in terms of the way they've been embedded in our laws yes I mean I think a lot of the Enlightenment values that originally had their roots in judeo-christian culture uh I think those

are beginning to wear away I think that we're suffering from a what what one author called The Cut Flower syndrome that that if the idea is that judeo-christian valleys have to undergr a system of Western liberalism where there has to be a common agreement in terms of the things that we hold dear and the kind of good that we hold is the highest good in order for there to be room to stick and move within that good and toleration of minorities and the marginalized within that same framework it has been agreed upon framework when you

cut that off from its fundamental religious Roots it's very difficult for for the flowers to survive they can survive for a little while in water but eventually they weather so if you don't think CL one more question very quickly fine thank you um if you don't think then that the uh loss of a common moral code is inevitable do you therefore think you'll see massive rapid desecularization of the West I think that you will see that I I do think that you're going to see people seeking Community I think that we've seen extraordinary isolation of

people atomization of people this is particularly true during Co and I think people are seeking a sense of community I think unfortunately many people are seeking community in political movements which is quite dangerous atomized individuals tend to band together in Revolutionary movements but I think the substitute for that would be to re-engage with a lot of the local and important institutions that used to provide the foundation for a happy life for people and those traditionally were Family Church synagogue mosque I mean those would be the things that people engage in thank [Applause] you so is

on the the member to the right yeah y yeah yeah thank you very much for being here I wanted to ask you a question about the American political climate so your analysis of the previous two American presidential elections and your forecast for the upcoming 2024 election is that the candidate against whom the election is a referendum will lose do you think this is an inevitable consequence of America's two-party political system or just a recent Trend caused by the nature of candidates offered to the American electorate no I think it's probably an inevitable consequence of a

two-party Trend I think it's very difficult to to think of a of a presidential election that was a positive referendum on the candidate probably the last one in America was 2008 people positively voted for Barack Obama because they thought of him as a transformative figure but that's a rarity the the usual nature of politics is sort of negative and orientation and so I don't think there's anything unnatural about that my only call has been that both parties should should nominate somebody who's sane first party to rationality in the United States is likely to win unfortunately

we have on the one hand a jerotic do and on on the other hand uh we have Donald Trump so uh it's uh you know the the the American people chooses its own candidates and you know as HL M said the American democracy is the theory that you ought to get what you deserve the American people are about to get what they deserve good and hard so that that is what it is so on that note do you think that the states would benefit from a stronger third party like we have in the UK or

in Canada for example uh I don't think that the system lends itself to it very well because again it's not a parliamentary democracy I mean the the idea in the United States is is very much built around the sort of binary two party system it's very difficult for a third party to make serious inroads what we have seen over the past few years it's a lot easier to take over one of the major parties right Trump effectively took over the Republican party from the inside and changed it around himself and you can see something similar

that could easily happen inside the Democratic party actually Bernie Sanders has been quite successful in moving the Democratic party significantly further to the left than it was even 10 or 15 years ago okay thank you very much thank um let's go to the member and [Applause] yeah um yeah I I've also also watch you from uh 2015 but then like I grew up uh I became a lefty but um yeah so I wanted to ask um so you're one of the more common sense Republicans out there because you're not a complete Trump fanatic right I

think you support Ronda santis is that right in the current primaries yeah i' vote for the s in primary very good um so yeah so I was thinking why do you not let's say Trump wins why do you not come out and support Biden because because uh what you you clearly don't like Biden right and you know everyone has their own political views but Trump seems to me to be a fundamentally uh serious threat to American democracy which Biden simply isn't uh so Trump Trump's called for the suspension of the Constitution and he's facilitated an

interaction Biden's said neither of those things he's been fairly milk toast president so why don't you uh endorse Biden so I disagree with some of the premises of the question so number one as far as Donald Trump being a serious danger democracy I think in the best of his imaginations he probably would be in many ways but this constitutional system is extremely durable January 6th was not in fact a serious threat to American democracy it was a serious threat to American order it was not a serious threat to American democracy there was no point in

time on January 6 where there was a real possibility that a military coup had been launched and Donald Trump would retain the presidency after January 6 it just was not going to happen so the institutions of the United States and the legal institutions remain quite strong and were able to hem in whatever Donald Trump's peculiar desires are on the one hand on the other hand there are different types of threats to democracy so Joe Biden for example has used the power of the executive branch in new and exorbitant ways most obviously for example when you

tried to use OSHA which is the occupational safety administration he tried to use that to cram down for example policies of Donald Trump the stuff that he actually did as president not not the crazy tweets and the and the Nutty stuff that he says all the time but in what what he did in terms of the economy what he did in terms of foreign policy I'm obviously much more in alignment with his actual political positions than I am with Joe Biden as far as the threats of democracies I say one is more subtle and one

is more obvious and in some cases the more obvious is actually the easier to reject well I don't know this this position seems quite strange to me because you've you've essentially considered that Trump does not believe in American democracy he doesn't believe in American institutions I think he believes in Trump and pretty much nothing else yes I think he believes in Donald Trump and not much else yeah precisely and but okay sure he might not be able to create the the Trump dictatorship but is it is it really healthy for a democracy to have have

a leader in charge who does not believe in any of America's instit you know say any say what you like about Biden but he is proudly American he believes in the institutions of America surely surely you should support him over this this egomaniac well I mean I don't think he actually believes in some of the institutions meaning he's attack the for Supreme Court would be a good example he's attacked the Supreme Court with aity in the aftermath of the overruling of R versus Wade for example his party has talked about packing the Supreme Court when

it comes to the use of the he's not pucking it though his his party has talked about it right he he you're right he has not and Donald Trump talked about a lot of stuff and that hasn't materialized either so again would I prefer that all of these candidates go away absolutely I prefer all of these candidates go away this why I say first party to sanity wins mhm okay I mean that's fair enough I think I think that position is very untenable but I'll I'll leave it there thank you uh I think we'll take

one final question or one final pass before we wrap up let's go to member in the front here hi Ben uh so good to have you I wanted to go back to the current conflict and I was wondering given that obviously there's one side which does have you know a respect for human rights as you pointed out they try to go about their response Israel tries to go about their response in a you know in the best way possible um at least I would argue and you've got another site that has a fundamental fundamentally different

alignment of values that does not have regard for the civilian lives and in purely practical terms that makes it quite difficult to wage war in an well in a civilized way as far as you can say that so in terms of perhaps drawing a potential I don't want to call it path to Victory but a path to defeating Hamas but reconciling that with our values and you know killing as few civilians as we can what and I understand that you you know Benjamin Netanyahu and so on so could you draw a possible sort of realistic

path to victory that might reconcile so I'm not I'm not privy to the sort of military planning of of the Israeli Administration um I'm not in their security councils um what I will say is that any position that Israel takes that does not end with Hamas off the board is going to be extraordinarily dangerous for the future of the state of Israel so that is the end goal everybody understands that's to be the end goal it's it's dangerous not only because Hamas has proved itself to be significantly more dangerous than everybody assessed Hamas to be

but also because that leads to a perception of Israeli military weakness and inability to protect own citizens that leads other groups including in the West Bank and also in the in the northern border byah to to to get involved and that's incredibly incredibly dangerous so is there a Best of all possible worlds yeah the best of all possible worlds is for Kamas to surrender I think every everybody of good heart should agree at this point if you don't agree that Kamas should surrender I I doubt why I just I I I have some serious cons

questions about about why that again very difficult for me to find any reason other than Jew hatred why you wouldn't want Hamas to even for the sake of Palestinians why you wouldn't want Hamas to go um that that would be the most obvious bill is Hamas going to do that probably not which means that it's in everybody's interest or should be in everybody's interest to depose Kamas as quickly and easily as possible they've made it incredibly difficult obviously the tunnel system they have some 300 miles of tunnel uh underneath the ground they've stolen billions of

dollars in order to pursue that theyve built up resources under there it's going to be a SLO it's going to be it's going to take a lot longer than people think it's it's going to take and it's going to cost by the end of this it's going to cost a lot of Israeli soldiers lives because they're going to have to attempt to go into serious Urban Terrain and and and wage this war so I I wish I saw a good way out I don't see a good way out I think people you know there are

a lot of happy solutions that we tend to think about in the west but very few of them tend to materialize in war I suppose such are the realities of war and as a I just wanted to say on a personal not as a citizen of the Czech Republic I think we stand very firmly with his Ro app history of doing so and I hope everything is resolved as quickly as possible and through your personal connection as well I you know wish you the best of thank you very much let's go to the elected member

of standing committee hello so you have expressed pro-life sentiments before how can you um so when women with from low-income backgrounds often in places where abortions are illegal I've lived in a country where abortions been illegal they go and people from low-income backgrounds are the ones who have to do unsafe abortions at home who have to go and do it in back in in Backstreet um vendors places how can you justify this as being safe for women to have just safety of of women health and women's rights the argument in favor of legislation against abortion

is to protect the life of The Unborn the ideal would be that people don't violate the law in order to pursue an abortion if you violate the law in pursuit of an abortion you're obviously violating the law I mean I'm I'm not sure what to say about that other than I'm not interested in women dying in back alley abortions because I'm not in favor of abortions but women are going to have people have abortions anyway abortions happen whether not in the same numbers I mean well in if it's just High income High income women do

have the opportunity to travel abroad and have abortions whereas it's particularly lowincome women who suffer the brunt of having to do at home abortions and it's unsafe and it results in people dying do you really think that it's safe for Women's Health um to allow whereas we can allow it we can allow it in a safe facility and it can prevent women dying and prevent people dying in unsafe abortion plac so I mean we're starting from completely different premises and we're trying to reconcile the premises so you're starting from the premise that the top priority

is that a woman who violates the law to terminate her pregnancy her safety is the number one priority my number one priority is protecting the baby that's growing inside of her so my answer to rich women are absconding in order to in order to terminate their unborn child that that when women are absconding to do that if they're rich my preference would be that it hit everybody equally meaning I don't want anybody getting abortion rich or poor so the so as far as you know the the second followon effect of that obviously any law is

going to have you know horrible downsides that's true of literally every law but the question is when you're making a law with regard to say abortion what are you attempting to prohibit and how many lives are you preserving in the process of doing that abortion is going to happen anyway well I mean I I understand that argument but the fact is that when you make it significantly more difficult to in abortion fewer people get abortions I mean that's the entire purpose of having a law against abortion that's why people presumably har Pro Choice don't want

there to be laws against abortion yeah um yeah mostly don't want um people to have laws against abortion lots of the time so that people can you know have them in a safe environment but but have them at all is sort of the first part of the sentence right yes yes yes thank you thank you um we don't need very long left just a call wrap up I wanted to ask two final questions um one of them is um you uh this didn't come up yet in the interview but you've been quite vocal in your

uh criticisms of black lives matter movement stating that all lives matter um but throughout this interview um you have not equally defended Palestinian lives the civilian Palestinian lives in the way that you have Israeli civilian Israeli civilian lives um so when it comes to Israel Palestine do all lives not matter then so first off that's a wild mischaracterization of a position that I've obviously expressed to you you literally asked me do I value Palestinian lives the same way I value Jewish lives and I said yes I don't believe that the act of evil in targeting

a Jewish child is the same as a military attempting to Target a terrorist who's hiding behind a baby so don't mistake the position please when it comes to the the all lives matter position of course I believe that all lives matter my fundamental disagreement with black lives matter is I don't agree with their premise their premise is that black people in the United States are being uniquely targeted by law enforcement for murder and I don't think that the statistics prove that I don't think the evidence is there for that so I I I don't agree

with the fundamental premise of the black lives matter movement not that I don't believe that black lives don't matter of course black lives matter they matter exactly the same amount as every other human life but again there's there's an I think a willful attempt to misin misinterpret my position on some of these issues okay thank you and one question that we ask all of our guests um who come here if you could leave our members with one thing to think about what would it be I mean I I think that tonight the the thing that

I would leave with is the same thing that I came in with which is that there are certain values that are worth protecting there are certain values that are worth protecting and one of those values is the value of understanding the value of understanding clear moral differentiation which obviously has been completely obscured and I think tonight you've seen some evidence of people obscuring some clear moral differentiation between the targeted burning of babies in their homes in front of their mothers by shoving them in an oven and people attempting to kill terrorists who are themselves putting

civilians In Harm's Way in violation of the rules of War and the Geneva conventions and if you're one of the people who's making this sort of moral equivalence I ask for you to check your own heart and if you're one of the people who's watching people make this moral equivalence in being convinced by the supposed complexity of the issue I ask for you to check your brain thank you