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

If you

would

like to ask a question, please raise your hand on the membership card. I'm going to go to a very quick member in the middle. Yes, that's you. Would you like to start that way? Yeah, so Ben, your argument was predicated. entirely about Hamas, but thousands of Palestinians, including hundreds of minors and children, are being held hostage by Israel without charge and with good documentation of abuses, including sexual abuse, which Israel's own human rights organizations have reported that Hamas does not existed for decades after the creation of Israel and We are not in the West Bank, so if we are going to discuss Hamas, how can we ignore that over 200 Palestinians have been killed, including over 40 children, making this the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank before October 7? include the murders happening now right in 2023, so what justification do you have for that?

If Israel intends, quote, to persecute Hamas, it is killing many people, especially children, under the justification of Hamas. So what justification is there for them to even target the West Bank? If we were to believe something that you said, that honestly, without question, for sure, the casualties that have occurred in the West Bank are before October 7, to a large extent there have been many since October 7 because there have been many conflagrations between the Israel Defense Forces and the Palestinian Authority and Members of Islamic Jihad in the West Bank there was significant violence over the course of the first part of this year there was a splinter group of the Palestinian Authority called the Lions the lions were a small terrorist all the lions were then committing acts of terrorism in some places from Jerusalem to West Bank areas and the IDF was entering 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 and that the city of

would

probably be the example of the place that has been most infiltrated by terrorist groups is unfortunate, but Hamas is not the only terrorist group in the region Palestine is Jihad Islamic is a prime example of another terrorist group that has a wide presence in the West Bank, more actually than Hamas there, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket obviously fell on that Gaza hospital, the whole world then tried to blame Israel , okay, I can answer fine, so if your entire argument is once again based on terrorist groups, what answer do you have on that? the great March of Return, which is a very well-documented incident where Palestinian civilians peacefully just marched to their own land that they have the right to go to and return to, but they were shot and killed in cold blood.

What year are we in? talking about what 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 don't know all the details of what you're talking about so the great The March of Return is a well-documented example in which many Palestinians , after a tweet from a Palestinian, encouraged other Palestinians to return to their land. What land is yours? What are we talking about? Speaking of occupied Palestine. Are you talking about inadequate Israel? Where are they? We are talking about areas of the borders of Palestine and we are also talking about your right to return to Pal.

There is no right to return if you are talking about Palestine. If you are talking about the land that is within the 67 borders, there is no right of return to TOA, there is no right of return to Tel Aviv, there is no right of return to West Jerusalem, so you must remember that there are many, many Elders who are older than the state of Israel, must remember that Palestine is not a Muslim land. They were equating this with a religious conflict; It is not when Palestine, before it was occupied, there were Jews, Christians and Muslims coexisting peacefully.

Palestine is not a Muslim homeland, it is a land that existed where many people who are alive in this state are older than the state of Israel, so are you arguing that any population of any era, all their descendants now have the right to return to the place where your big big big? great-great-grandparents weren't great-great-grandparents, we have grandmother, okay, grandmothers, grandfathers, is that the idea that you can cross the lines of any sovereign state and just claim the place that you said you had even though you

never

established property rights and let's say Jordanian West Bank or you abandon this place in Kaa, then your claim is that at this time people can cross the border of a sovereign nation and simply set up shop in kifa, this is your claim, so if you are fine, even if you bought it what are you saying, which is obviously not true, I encourage you to google about the breakup of the March of Return, which was a peaceful resistance against an unjust occupation of palistine, even if you bought what you could, can you just?

Define illicit occupation which part of palistine is occupied. You are not answering my question. I mean, I'd like you to answer mine about terrorist groups. I give you an example of peaceful resistance. I'll give you an example where people were unjustly shot. including children and you still can't answer why it is justified so if I again talk about Hamas and terrorist groups and you give examples of other terrorist groups even though I give you examples of civilians who marched and were attacked but even now some A few days ago there were Palestinians living in Israel itself, which is occupied Palestine, who are being shot by farmers in their gardens and on their farms, and these people can get away with shooting them with impunity, why? that is not true, many of those people have been arrested, they are all currently in an Israeli jail, the settler who just shot a Palestinian was arrested, he was not arrested.

I encourage you to look into this. I looked into it this morning and So far, can I get an answer before it leaves? Because it's an interesting conversation about what part of Israel is occupied Palestine, all of Israel, there we go, we go, we go, we go, so what you are calling for is the destruction of the state of Israel and this is all just a cover. I appreciate your time and now, thank you. First, let me say thank you for coming to speak with you tonight. It's a real pleasure. I am also a theology student. and I was wondering how you reconcile your conservative political views on the microphone, sorry, yeah, um, how do you reconcile your conservative political views with the religious volume of compassion and your own Jewish faith and your stance on the Second Israeli War and Pistana?

I don't see why it is uncompassionate to call for the overthrow of Kamas, a terrorist group in the Gaza Strip that has been oppressing its people and stealing billions of dollars from its own people. Isma H lives in a first-star hotel in Qatar, while his people live in absolute misery due to a war he started by killing 1,500 people inside Israel and then taking 233 hostages. I don't see why that's not passionate. It seems to me that compassion also requires eliminating terrorist threats to your own population thank you remember can everyone listen to me okay what happens now then okay I'll talk.

Upstairs, I'll do my best. Hi Ben, it's a pleasure to see you. I've been watching you since 2015, when you started. my conservative trip and um, here we are, um, unfortunately I saw that you had to bring some pretty gruesome photos and uh, I have to say that I hope those photos are not real and I have my doubts because you recently posted an AI generated image of a man charred. child corpse no, I did not do it, that is a lie, it 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 United, that fake community The note that said it was a photo generated by AI was deleted by Twitter because it was false.

Community note that unfortunately it is not an AI generated photo. I wish it were. It was a baby erased beyond recognition because it had been burned. to death, so is the IDF's word Israel versus the word of no? Actually, it is the photo, it is the actual footage taken by GoPro cameras by Hamas terrorists while they invaded Israel. I don't have to take Israel's word. So a lot of the stuff was live streamed, so to what extent, as you're posting on social media, are you willing to make sure that the information that you're posting is accurate?

Do not exchange a truth for providing help. Israel I am certainly doing the best I can, there is a lot of information flowing. I'm doing my job on that with 100% confidence. It is a lie that it is an AI-generated photo that is not true in any way. or way and shows how shows how we live in a very dangerous era where anyone can. I mean, this happens routinely. You're seeing, for example, some of the images that are there, they are horrible images coming out of Gaza. and a large number of them, of course, are absolutely real.

You also see people reusing photographs taken in Syria and then saying that this is happening in Gaza, so yes, unfortunately, there is a lot of information floating around that is difficult to understand. type of blocking and verify that the image is 100% real unfortunately I sympathize with you because as AI advances it becomes more and more difficult to discern information so I know you will be and I want to say that this will be a serious problem to as time goes by. Seriously, the flow of information is going to be increasingly uncertain because of that, which I agree with on a general level.

Awesome thank you for your time that's to remember on the B yeah sorry it was the member behind you it's the member on the Far back and I'll get back to you after um hello if Israel is justified in killing civilians because of the acts of terrorism committed by Hamas, why is Hamas not justified in doing what it did? Because Israel is holding 13,000 children and has tried them in the army. courts since the establishment of Israel 55,000 Palestinian homes have been demolished, so why is it not justified for Hamad to do what he did if we use his logic?

Well, then I'm going to answer his question and then I'll ask him a question. If you don't mind, is that so? So my answer is that Israel would not be justified in killing Palestinian civilians due to the actions of terrorists. Israel would be justified in trying to kill terrorists and civilian casualties are a cost of war that is simply a reality of life during World War II, there were 70,000 British who died during the blitzkrieg and there were 2 million Germans who died, civilians who died during the Second World War and I don't see many memorials in Britain because of the 2 million civilians who died in Germany the costs of war are brutal they are terrible they are horrific there is a huge difference in moral scope between deliberately going to a civilian area and assassinate everyone you can find and try to kill a terrorist who is deliberately hiding under a civilian area hiding his rockets in civilian areas is starving his own people, there is a big difference, okay, Now let me ask you my question, if you don't mind, my question is: do you think there is a moral difference? between Kamas entering, for example, Karaza and murdering entire families and Israel trying to attack terrorists and accidentally hitting civilians, Israel is effectively doing the same thing because Gaza is the most densely populated region in the world, there are 15,000 people per square mile, so you don't get immunity because they are there to get immunity.

Israel has killed 3,500 children in the last three weeks, that's more children than have died in conflicts around the world in each of the last four, so, to be clear, their logic is that if a terrorist group located in a densely populated community and you hide behind civilians, now you are immune to where the children were supposed to go, so you are immune, okay, that is a violation of the Geneva conventions, but okay, now you are immune . The logic is that if you are a Hamas terrorist, sorry since 2005, 23 out of 24 deaths in the conflict have been Palestinian.

I don't see any moral equivalence in that. It is clearly unfair what the IDF has been doing to the Palestinians because there is a huge disparity between the number of Palestinians killed and the number of Israelis, I mean I certainly hope Israel is killing more, this is not a conflict, this is not a conflict, this is again unilateral ethnic cleansing. I'm just asking you if it's based on the figures that more Germans than British died in World War II, does that mean that the British were wrong in World War II because they made many more Germans side with the British on the basis of to the numbers that mean Britain was wrong in World War II?

Do not bomb civilians. There is a clear difference. You should talk to the people at Dron, but you can't because there is 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 is a difference betweenfighting the Nazis and not fighting the Nazis, it's not, it's not, it's 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 in tunnels its not a just war to destroy them please name a just war

israel

has been killing civilians for the last 75 years and there were no headlines about it and no one said the palestinians were not out to kill civilians palestinian terrorists will

israel

make israel stop weapons tomorrow if Israel lays down its weapons? weapons tomorrow there would be a second Holocaust if the Palestinians laid down their weapons tomorrow there would be a Palestinian state that is the reality and let me ask you, wouldn't this be a nonsense I'm going to ask you I'm going to ask you 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 in favor of the destruction of the Jews.

I appreciate, I appreciate that you expressed all your genocidal intention for the Jewish people who live between the rivers. Why is it genocidal to ask for a state that is not apartheid? You can have a state where all citizens have the same rights. Jews and Muslims. I am sure it will be so. To be unbelievable under the same people who rule the Gaza Strip, where there is currently no time, can we move on to the next question? Please, that's what I think you remember in the green jumper, yes, oh, sorry, I thought it was green, yes, yes, Ben.

It is an absolute displeasure to see myself standing well, it is ABS. I will answer my question, however, thank you for coming anyway, my displeasure will now repeat the question I must ask you. They've been discussing the story a lot recently. of the occupation of Palestine I will call it that, I know you will oppose that, but I will call it the occupation of Palestine, everything is fine, to be clear, all of Palestine, thank you, you can accuse me of genocide if you want. My position is not secure and I will continue forward anyway. To the point about the occupation of Palestine, you have published several videos, you have essentially become Israel's cheerleader in many Western media spaces, so I looked. some of your videos about the conflict and I found a number of inaccuracies, firstly, 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 Palestine, if that.

It's not like that yet. Jordan has never been part of or considered itself part of Palestine. The only time Jordan has been considered adjacent to Palestine is part of a kind of biblical mythology in which trans Jordan was a wildly inaccurate reason for the British. The British mandate was had a mandate over all of Palestine and then they separated trans Jordan and gave it to the Hasite kingdom of Jordan. You will have the opportunity to respond. Let me now finish my second point, my second point, the second point that you have consistently and consistently expressed. A fairly popular Zionist talking point is the fact that the Arabs have rejected peace every time it has been offered to them.

Now I would like, of course, that there have been several occasions where peace has been offered, so let's look at some of them. The EP commission. The EP commission. It involved expelling multiple Arab families and multiple largely agrarian Arab communities from the land to create a Jewish state under colonial authority. Now I understand, of course, that you are a Zionist, so you think that is desirable, but for Palestinian farmers I imagine they would not do it. I enjoyed that number two, you mention that um um, what is it called that after 1948 the Arabs had the opportunity to negotiate and make peace with Israel, apart from the fact that in 1956 Israel invaded the seni in Egypt without provocation simply because to the fact that President Nasser nationalized the Suz Canal and then you claimed that the 1967 war was a war of extermination, but if you read any reliable and respected historians about the 1967 war and maybe even decide to read some of the books by Mosha Dian about the 1967 war, a conflict where you describe that Israel actually caused the conflict and that there was no possibility of extermination of Israel, then you stated that the 1973 war was a war of destruction of Israel once again, which is not It was like that, actually it was the recovery of the seni and uh. the golden height that Israel has illegally occupied, so you have lied several times.

I can continue if you want, but I would like to ask you the question when you lie, do you feel shame? Okay, so for me to feel ashamed, I would have to do it. be lying rather than just being wrong about all these things you are, so let me start from the beginning of what you said, let's try to go over the calendar British Mandate Palestine was ruled by the British, they divided Trans Jordan in 1920 and Trans Jordan became Trans Jordan with a Hashimite kingdom which by the way is not national of the royal era of Jordan, so if you are talking about a colonial outpost Jordan would be like that since the Kingdom has nothing to do with real Palestinian Arabs living in TransJordan on the appeal commission, if the idea is that there would have to be a separation of populations to achieve a two-state solution, which you deny, then you were right, of course, there was an agreement on the table the Jews accepted it the Arabs rejected it so actually you didn't there shouldn't be any agreement on the first in your diary stat on hold on hold I listen to your whole story for about five minutes here so at least let me answer the whole thing his claim is that the Arabs did not reject peace and then in his own disquisition he admitted that the Arabs rejected the Peel commission plan, which was a separation between the Jews and the Arabs that gave an extraordinary amount of land to the Arabs.

The Arabs then rejected the peace partition plan proposed by the United Nations in 1947, then proceeded to reject the Oslo Accords in '93, after that they rejected the River Accords, and in '98, they rejected the very generous offer of Barack's HUD, in 2000, rejected Om's very generous offer. In 2008, each and every peace agreement proposed by Israel or any other country was rejected by the Arabs for a very simple reason, which was the first question I asked them. They do not accept that there should be a Jewish State anywhere in this country. region, so as long as that is the case, there is literally nothing to discuss, you cannot simultaneously maintain the position that there should not be a Jewish state anywhere in the region and then tell me that I am wrong when I say that the Arabs they will not accept a two-state solution you yourself say there should not be a two-state solution, so the first point you will address first is the last point you raised about Palestine and whether there should be a Jewish state. what you are pointing out is that you are suggesting that the Arabs will not accept a Jewish State, well the reason why the Arabs would not accept the Jewish State is multifaceted, ah, it is complex, let me finish, so the reason why it is multifascist is due to a variety of dynamics, the zionist movement came as a settler colonial project and is described as you can read javinsky's books, you can read zionist literature from the early 20th century, it claims it was a colonial project, now let's address the lies you mentioned, let's address the reputation you earned in 1937, the PE commission if you read the Diaries of David Ben Gurian, he explicitly states that partition sorry, thank you because partition was a temporary move to ensure the conquest of the entire land in In 1948 there had already been a civil war between communities in Palestine in which the Jewish Defense Forces had faced off against Arab forces.

There was already a conflict that preceded 1948. Claiming that the Arabs simply rejected the UN partition plan is once again a historical fact that they then make literally. I rejected it, how could it be historic if they literally rejected it? If there was a war beforehand. If there was a war once again. You simply fundamentally reject the existence of the State of Israel. Spot. I tried to interrupt you. They told me to keep quiet, so I would ask you again, please silence my point now. I would like to continue. I would like to continue. And then you mention what the peace plan was that you mentioned afterwards.

I'm fine, which one should we do? We should do? We should do? ended in 1948, what after, okay, then there was ahud Barak's 2000 P plan, there is ahud's 2008 PE plan, there is an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 handing it over to Hamas, let's bring the next person now, I'm fine, thank you. Thank you very much, a final note: there can be no two state solution when they literally will not accept the possibility of a two state solution, that is the end of the story, no more discussion SOC, the former president on the bench forward, uh, thank you.

Ben, I'm not going to ask any questions about Israel Palestine, but I wanted to ask something that you talked about in your opening remarks. You said that the reason you feel called to speak is one of the areas you feel called to. Talking about what's happening in Gaza right now is that you think it's about the West standing up for its values ​​and asserting its identity and knowing what it is. I tell you that maybe the reason why That's so controversial and you saw 100,000 people marching in London on the Saturday before the Saturday before that, etc., is that the West or many Western countries no longer have a kind of common sense of what they are as nation states and, therefore, what they should. represents um, do you think that's true? what you think, the consequence, I mean, I think the consequence of this is the dissolution of the West, I mean, if the West is not going to be strong in defense of whatever it believes to be its core values, then of course, will be overtaken by alternative value sets.

Is it the replacement for the West if it simply adopts a new code of values? Yes, I mean, if the West wants to mean more than just a location, it will have to mean a whole. of values ​​and those values ​​traditionally in Britain have meant things like a classical liberalism, they have meant things like freedom of religious worship, these are all aspects of the Anglo, now Anglo-American system, uh, which I've been adopted across the pond as well and When those values ​​disappear, what you get is a morally relativistic state that cannot defend its own values ​​and has no reason to continue.

So do you think the collapse of a communal moral code is now inevitable? In fact, I don't think there's going to be much of a reaction against the crazy self-blinding that's going on in the West, this belief that everyone is deep down thinking the same kind of things and and Eng are participating in the same kind of structure of thought. incentives. I don't think that's the case. I don't think the West always believes that this doesn't mean that the West is perfect, that the West hasn't made huge, horrible mistakes. it certainly has, but the value system of the West is certainly better than the other value systems that have been made available to the planet over the last two centuries.

I am sure you will agree with me that the basis of a large part of the moral code of the West is a kind of Judeo-Christian. Do you think mass secularization after World War II, at least in the United Kingdom, has been delayed much further in the United States? Yeah, I mean, I think the Judeo-Christian religion values ​​that have been, you know, brought into the secular world by a diverse society and then, and then, in some ways, secularized in terms of the way that they've been incorporated into our laws. . Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of the Enlightenment values ​​that originally had their roots in Judeo-Christian culture uh, I think they're starting to erode.

I think we are suffering from what one author called the cut flower syndrome, that if the idea is that the Judeo-Christian valleys have to

support

a system of Western liberalism where there has to be a common agreement in terms of the things we value and the type good that we consider the highest good so that there is room to remain and advance within that good and the tolerance of minorities and the marginalized within that same framework, a framework has been agreed upon when you separate that from its fundamental religious roots, it is very difficult for flowers to survive, they can survive for a while in water, but eventually they wear out, so if not I don't think CL will ask a question any quicker.

Fine, thanks. If you don't believe then that the loss of a common moral code is inevitable, do you think you will see a rapid and massive desecularization of the West? I think so. Look, I think you're going to see people looking for community. I think we've seen an extraordinary isolation of people, atomization of people, this is particularly true during Co and I think people are looking for a sense of community. I think, unfortunately, a lot of people. They are looking for community in political movements, which is quite dangerous. Atomized individuals tend to unite in revolutionary movements, but I think the substitute for that would be to recommit to many of thelocal and important institutions that used to provide the foundation for a happy society. life for the people and those traditionally were the Family Church synagogue mosque.

I mean, those would be the things that people participate in, thank you, so it's on the member on the right, yes, yes, yes, thank you very much for being here. I wanted to ask you a question about the American political climate, so your analysis of the two previous American presidential elections and your forecast for the next election in 2024 is that the candidate against whom the election is a referendum will lose. Do you think this is a consequence inevitable of American bipartisanship? political system or simply a recent trend caused by the nature of the candidates offered to the American electorate no, I think it is probably an inevitable consequence of a bipartisan trend.

I think it is very difficult to think of a presidential election that has had a positive referendum on the candidate, probably the last one in the United States was in 2008, people voted positively for Barack Obama because they considered him a transformative figure, but that is a rarity, the The usual nature of politics is there is a kind of orientation and negativity, so I don't think there is anything unnatural about that. My only call has been that both parties should nominate someone who is sane and who is the first party of rationality in the United States who is likely to win.

Unfortunately, we have on the one hand it's a jerotic gesture and on the other hand we have Donald Trump, so, you know, the American people elect their own candidates and you know, as HL M said, that American democracy is the theory that you should get what you deserve. The American people are about to get what they deserve good and hard, so that's what it is. In that sense, do you think states would benefit from a stronger third party like we have in the United Kingdom or Canada, for example? I don't think the system lends itself very well because, I repeat, it is not a parliamentary democracy.

I mean, the idea in the United States is very much based around the kind of two-party binary system that is very difficult for a third party. To make serious progress, which we have seen in recent years, it is much easier to take over one of the main parties. Trump effectively took over the Republican Party from within and changed it around him, and you can see that something similar could easily happen. Within the Democratic Party, in fact, Bernie Sanders has been quite successful in moving the Democratic Party significantly further to the left than it was 10 or 15 years ago.

Okay, thank you very much, thank you, let's go to the member and yes, yes, yes. I've also been watching you since 2015, but then when I grew up, I became left-handed, but yeah, so I wanted to ask you if you're one of the most common-sense Republicans out there because you're not a complete Trump fan. I think you

support

Ronda Santis, is that right in the current primaries, yeah, I vote for the s in the primaries, all right, um, so yeah, I was thinking why don't you say Trump wins, why don't you go out and You support Biden why?

It's clear you don't like Biden, right? And you know everyone has their own political views, but Trump strikes me as a fundamentally serious threat to American democracy, which Biden simply is not. Then Trump Trump called for the suspension of the Constitution and has facilitated an interaction. Biden said none of those things. He's been a pretty toasty president, so why doesn't he endorse Biden? I disagree with some of the premises in question number one regarding Donald Trump being a serious man. I think to the best of his imagination it would probably be endangered 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 the American order, it was not a serious threat. For American democracy there was no moment on January 6 when there was a real possibility that a military coup had been launched and Donald Trump would retain the presidency after January 6; It was just not going to happen, so the US institutions and the legal institutions are still quite strong and were able to limit whatever the peculiar desires of Donald Trump are, on the one hand, on the other, 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 repress, for example, Donald Trump's policies, the things he actually did as president, not the crazy, nutty tweets.

Things that he says all the time, but in what he did in terms of the economy, in terms of foreign policy, I'm obviously much more aligned with his actual policy positions than I am with Joe Biden in terms of threats. of democracies I say one is more subtle and one is more obvious and in some cases the more obvious it is actually the easier to reject, well I don't know, this position seems quite strange to me because you have essentially considered that. Trump doesn't believe in American democracy, he doesn't believe in American institutions, I think he believes in Trump and practically nothing else, yes, I think he believes in Donald Trump and not much else, yes, precisely, but okay, sure maybe can't do it. create the Trump dictatorship, but is it really healthy for a democracy to have a leader in charge who doesn't believe in any institute of America, you know, say what you want about Biden, but he is proudly American and believes in the institutions of America should surely support him in this egomaniac well I mean I don't think he really believes in some of the institutions meaning him attacking the Supreme Court would be a good example of him attacking the Supreme Court with aity in the After the overturning of R v.

Wade, for example, his party has talked about packing the Supreme Court when it comes to the use of the Supreme Court, but he is not rejecting it, although his party has talked about it. Donald Trump talked about a lot of things and that hasn't materialized either, so again, he would prefer that all of these candidates absolutely disappear. I prefer that all these candidates disappear. That's why I say the first party in sanity wins mhm, okay, I mean, that's fair, I think that position is very untenable, but I'll leave it at that, thanks. I think we'll have one last question or one last pass before we wrap up, let's go to the member at the front.

Hello. Ben, it's good to have you. I wanted to go back to the current conflict and I was wondering, since there is obviously a side that does know respect for human rights, as you pointed out, they are trying to give their answer. Israel tries Go to your answer in the best way possible, at least I would say that you have another site that has a fundamentally different alignment of values ​​that does not take into account the lives of civilians and, in purely practical terms, that makes it quite difficult to wage war in a civilized way, as far as you can tell, so in terms of maybe bringing out a potential, I don't want to call it a path to victory, but a path to defeat Hamas, but reconcile it with our values ​​and you he knows how to kill as few civilians as possible and I understand that you know Benjamin Netanyahu and so on, so could you lay out a possible realistic path to victory that could be reconciled?

So I'm not aware. to the kind of military planning of the Israeli administration um I'm not on their security councils um what I will say is that any position that Israel takes that doesn't end Hamas off the board is going to be extraordinarily dangerous for the future of the state of Israel, so that that's the ultimate goal, everyone understands that that's the ultimate goal, it's dangerous, not only because Hamas has proven to be significantly more dangerous than everyone thought Hamas was, but also because that leads to a perception of Israel. Military weakness and the inability to protect one's own citizens lead other groups, including in the West Bank and also on the northern border, to get involved and that is incredibly incredibly dangerous.

So is there the best of all possible worlds, yes, the best of all? possible worlds is for Kamas to surrender. I think all good-hearted people should agree on this point, if not agree that Kamas should surrender. I doubt why I just have some serious disadvantages, questions about why that again is very difficult for me. find any reason other than Jew hatred why you wouldn't want Hamas to do it, not even for the sake of the Palestinians, why you wouldn't want Hamas to go away, um, that would be the most obvious bill . Hamas is going to do that, probably not, which means that it is in everyone's interest or should be in everyone's interest to depose Kamas as quickly and easily as possible.

They've made it incredibly difficult, obviously, the tunnel system. They have about 300 miles of tunnels underground. They have stolen billions of dollars to get them to have accumulated resources there, it will be a SLO, it will take a lot longer than people think and it will cost at the end of this, it will cost a lot. of the Israeli soldiers lives because they will have to try to enter serious urban terrain and fight this war, so I would like to see a good way out. I don't see a good way out. I think, people you know, there are In the West we tend to think of many happy solutions, but very few tend to materialize in war.

I guess that's the realities of war and I just wanted to say it on a personal basis, not as a Czech citizen. Republic, I think we stand very firm with the history of your Ro application and I hope that everything is resolved as quickly as possible and also through your personal connection. You know, I wish you the best. Thank you very much, let's go to the elected member. from the standing committee hello, so you've expressed pro-life sentiments before, how can you? So when low-income women are often in places where abortions are illegal. I have lived in a country where abortions are illegal, and low-income people go. -Those who have income are the ones who have to do unsafe abortions at home, those who have to go and do it in Backstreet, places where there are vendors, how can it be justified that this is safe so that women have the security of their health and women's rights?

The argument for anti-abortion legislation is to protect the lives of the unborn. Ideally, people should not break the law to have an abortion. If you break the law to perform an abortion, you are obviously breaking the law. law, I mean, I'm not sure what to say about it, other than I don't care about women who die in back-alley abortions because I'm not pro-abortion, but women are going to get abortions anyway. High-income women have the opportunity to travel abroad and have abortions, while it is particularly low-income women who bear the brunt of having to perform abortions at home and it is unsafe and results in people dying, really?

Do you think it is safe for Women's Health? Allow it, while we can allow it, we can allow it in a safe facility and it can prevent women from dying and prevent people from dying in unsafe abortion sites so I mean we're. starting from completely different premises and we are trying to reconcile the premises so that you start from the premise that the highest priority is that a woman who breaks the law to terminate her pregnancy her safety is the number one priority my number one priority is protecting the baby that is growing inside her, so my response to rich women running away so they can abort their unborn child, that when women are running away to do that, if they are rich, my preference would be for it to affect everyone equally.

I don't want anyone to have an abortion, whether rich or poor, so as far as you know, the second effect of that, obviously, any law is going to have horrible disadvantages that apply to literally all laws, but the question is when are you making a law? regarding abortion, what you are trying to ban and how many lives you are preserving in the process of doing it, abortion is going to happen anyway, well I understand that argument, but the fact is that when you make it significantly harder on abortion, fewer people have abortions. I mean, that's the purpose of having an anti-abortion law, that's why people presumably har Pro Choice don't want there to be anti-abortion laws, yeah, yeah, mostly, I don't want people to do it. having abortion laws a lot of times so that people can, you know, have them in a safe environment, but having them is kind of like the first part of the sentence, yeah, yeah, thank you, thank you, um, we don't need much.

There's only a summary of the call left for a long time. I wanted to ask two final questions, one of them is, you, this hasn't come up in the interview yet, but you've been quite explicit in your criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement, stating that all lives matter, but throughout this interview, you have not equally defended Palestinian lives, Palestinian civilian lives in the same way that you do the lives of Israeli civilians, so,When it comes to Israel, Palestine, all lives don't matter, so first of all, that's a mischaracterization of a position that I've obviously expressed to you, you literally asked me if I value Palestinian lives the same way I value Palestinian lives.

Jewish lives and I said yes, I don't think the evil act of attacking a Jewish child is the same as an army trying to attack a terrorist hiding behind a baby, so don't confuse the position please , when it comes to the position that all lives matter, of course, I believe that all lives matter. My fundamental disagreement with Black Lives Matter is that I don't disagree with your premise: your premise is that black people in the United States are being exclusively targeted for murder by law enforcement and I don't believe that statistics show that I don't think there's evidence of that, so I don't think I don't agree with the fundamental premise of the Black Lives Matter movement, it's not that I don't believe that black lives don't matter, of course black lives matter. of black people matter, they matter exactly the same as any other human life, but again, I think there is a deliberate attempt to misinterpret my position on some of these issues, okay, thank you and a question that we ask all of our guests who come here, if you could leave our members with one thing to think about, what would it be?

I mean, I think. that tonight the thing that I would do on leaving is the same thing that I came in with, which is that there are certain values ​​worth protecting, there are certain values ​​worth protecting and one of those values ​​is the value of understanding a clear differentiation morality that it obviously has has been completely obscured and I think tonight you have seen some evidence of people hiding a clear moral distinction between selectively burning babies in their homes in front of their mothers, putting them in an oven, and people trying to kill to terrorists who are putting civilians in harm's way in violation of the rules of war and the Geneva conventions and if you are one of the people who is making this type of moral equivalence, I ask you to check your own heart and If you are one of the people who sees people make this moral equivalence when convinced of the supposed complexity of the issue, I ask you to check your brain, thank you