General
Haaretz: Israel treats Gaza as a war, the West Bank as a security dispute, and the weeks-long withholding of a Palestinian body as a procedural issue, compartmentalizing Palestinians in ways that obscure the broader project connecting them
|
“We’re Here To Destroy The White Race”: Democratic Socialist Of America Hero Declares War On West
Zero Hedge: “We’re Here To Destroy The White Race”: Democratic Socialist Of America Hero Declares War On West
From an electoral-risk perspective, Piker is becoming a liability for Democrats. His far-left, anti-American rhetoric provides Republicans with what we called “a gift” last week. Even Hillary Clinton warned on Friday that the GOP’s “anti-communist messaging is very effective.”
The Democratic Party’s failure to formally denounce Piker and distance itself from his agenda…
Piker calls on his followers to “kill capitalists”:
Piker: “We want more immigrants to come into your countries and then they’re gonna f**k your sisters and then your daughters. We’re here to destroy the White Race, Bitch.”
Piker: “Overall, my favorite flag is Hezbollah.”
Piker: “America deserved 9/11. I do not support the United States of America.”
Piker: “I don’t have any sort of patriotism in my heart for America.”
…deserves considerable scrutiny.
Piker’s close proximity to DSA-aligned candidates, combined with anti-American rhetoric and revolutionary Marxism that is hostile to America’s political and capitalist system, has federal investigators examining the possibility that revolutionary activity is being supported by foreign subversion networks:
- Hasan Piker Says Quiet Part Out Loud, Maps Radical Left NGO Network To China-Based Marxist Financier
- Feds Subpoena Hasan Piker, CodePink Cofounder Over “Humanitarian” Trip To Communist Cuba
- Feds Nab Alleged Member Of “Sprawling” Cuban Communist Subversion Network Linked To Hasan Piker’s Havana Trip
- “Americans Deserve To Know”: State Dept. Report Details Cuban Espionage, Subversion, And Role In Rise Of Far Left
Piker is becoming such a liability for America’s left that a potential inflection point may have been reached.
JNS reports that the University of Washington has decided to cancel a scheduled Piker event. This taxpayer-funded institution offers extensive coursework shaped by Marxist, feminist, and other far-left frameworks while placing limited emphasis on capitalism. If even one of America’s most progressive universities now views Piker as a liability, it may signal the beginning of a broader retreat from America-hating communists who spread hateful and violent rhetoric among America’s youth.
“I’m happy that the University of Washington, for literally the first time ever, has made the correct decision to not have an America-hating communist spread his hatred and terrible ideology to young people at our taxpayer-funded universities,” Travis Couture, a Republican state representative, told JNS.
“Obviously universities are a place for First Amendment free speech, but someone who said that America deserves 9/11 and that capitalist blood should spill in the street should not be someone we are promoting with our tax dollars,” Couture said.
“Every elected official and taxpayer-funded organization should be asked to condemn socialism, communism and Democratic Socialists of America people like Hasan Piker,” Couture told JNS. “If they will not condemn those people, actions and extreme ideology, then they should be disqualified from serving the people of Washington state.”
The cancellation suggests that his political toxicity may now outweigh his usefulness in mobilizing socialist and Marxist candidates who campaign on positions that denounce America and capitalism and are deeply unpopular with mainstream voters.
Haaretz: ‘We’re not thwarting terror’: IDF soldiers describe how settlers dominate the West Bank
Ethnic Cleansing on the West Bank
IDF Turns Palestinian Family Home Into Army Lookout to Secure West Bank Settlement Inauguration
With the establishment of Emek Dotan, one of 19 settlements planned for the northern West Bank, Palestinians who have lived for decades without a settler presence face growing restrictions, including land seizures, demolitions and checkpoints
Israeli soldiers removed a Palestinian family from its home in the northern West Bank and turned the house into a temporary military outpost ahead of the inauguration of a new settlement nearby, in a ceremony attended by ministers and lawmakers.
In the northern West Bank, there had been almost no Israeli civilian presence for decades – not since Israel’s 2005 pullout from the area, when four settlements were evacuated.
Since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government took power, Jewish development in the area has massively increased, with 19 new settlements approved by the security cabinet, including the four settlements evacuated in 2005. The rapid acceleration in settlement expansion has brought a host of new restrictions on the Palestinian population.
Homeowner Hazem Hamad, a resident of Arraba, south of Jenin, told Haaretz that the army notified him of the evacuation last night. At 7:00 A.M., he left the house with his wife and children and returned after 1:00 P.M. after forces left. Hamad emphasized that the soldiers did not damage the family’s property or harm his home.
Hamad, the forces took over the entire house. He stressed that it is a residential home where he lives with his wife and five children – four daughters and a son – and not a building under construction. This is the first time, he said, that the army has taken over his home in this manner.
The army also blocked the road connecting Arraba with the nearby village of Ya’bad.
Earlier on Sunday, families began moving into permanent homes in the new settlement, Emek Dotan, which was established on a hill whose entry to Israelis had been prohibited by Israeli law until the relevant provision was repealed by the Netanyahu coalition in March 2023. Since the current government was established, the cabinet has authorized 104 settlements throughout the West Bank.
Four settlements – Homesh, Sa-Nur, Eival and now Emek Dotan – have already been established in the north. During the summer, founding groups are expected to move into several settlements in the area, including Ganim, Kadim, Emek Dotan, Noa, Alonei Shomron and Shalem. In recent weeks, development and construction work at the sites has progressed rapidly.
MK Ze’ev Elkin (New Hope) celebrated the inauguration of Emek Dotan: “It is difficult to describe the excitement when you see our dream coming true, and after the return to Homesh and Sa-Nur,” which were evacuated in 2005, “We are participating today in the establishment of another new settlement in the area.”
Education Minister Yoav Kisch celebrated the inauguration on Sunday, saying it sends a “super-super significant message here. I thank God for giving me the privilege of being here.”
United Torah Judaism chairman Yitzhak Goldknopf also joined in the congratulations. “When I see these children and what is destined to grow on this mountain, compared to what our enemies tried to bring about here, I know that this place will provide an answer and response to the whole world,” he said.
The establishment of settlements leads to restrictions on Palestinians living in their vicinity: land seizure, clearing of agricultural land, demolition of buildings and residences alongside roads, checkpoints at village entrances that can be suddenly closed, and once open spaces which are now blocked for entry.
All of this takes place under the justification of “security needs” to protect Israelis in the area, while Palestinian freedom of movement and property rights are curtailed.
About two weeks ago, the army issued requisition/seizure orders for land around the settlement. Most of that area – about 60 dunams (15 acres) according to one of the landowners – is olive groves. The orders allow the IDF to uproot the trees in the area.
Ahmad Zaki al-Aridi said that he and the other landowners found out about the order through social media, just three days before it was due to take effect. Al-Aridi said that about 50 Palestinians are set to be affected by the measure.
“The land is not just a number on a title document for us. It is the family’s livelihood, its history, and an investment passed down from generation to generation,” he told Haaretz. He also said that the Arraba municipality had begun collecting land registry extracts and legal ownership documents in order to file an objection to the order.
Haaretz Podcast with Amos Harel: ‘Trump Started a war with no plan. Now he doesn’t know how to end it’
Last month, Central Command Chief Avi Bluth signed 15 land requisition orders to take control of land – ostensibly controlled by the Palestinian Authority according to the Oslo Accords – intended to connect the new settlements of Noa and Emek Dotan, which are near Kadim.
A seizure order allows the military to take possession of real estate or property. International law permits an occupying power to use such orders only for a clearly defined security purpose and temporarily.
However, according to the research organization Kerem Navot, this is the first time the IDF has used such orders in Area A – under full PA administration – to connect settlements, in a move intended to serve a civilian purpose.
In an investigation published by Haaretz this June, several research organizations warned that the locations of the new settlements had been chosen to cause the collapse of the Oslo Accords.
According to the organizations, the most likely route between the two settlements necessarily passes through Area A – and several weeks later, Central Command Chief Maj. Gen. Avi Bluth did indeed sign a series of such orders. The army explained that they were intended for operational needs against the backdrop of the establishment of the new settlements, but did not answer Haaretz’s question as to whether it would prohibit Israeli civilians from using them.
Last week, the first structures were placed in the Kadim settlement in the northern West Bank. Kadim is one of four settlements in the northern West Bank that were evacuated as part of the 2005 disengagement plan. Their resettlement became possible following the repeal of the Disengagement Law in March 2023.
The settlement, whose area is expected to be larger than it was previously, is intended to be home to a religious group from Tel Aviv.
Mark Wauck: Trita Parsi Assesses The Current Situation And The New ‘Lobby’ Book
Triti Parsi: We’re seeing how Israel and the US’s relationship with Israel is becoming a litmus test in numerous American primary elections, both on the left and on the right. We saw that it was a litmus test in Michigan, two or three nights ago. It was a litmus test in Kentucky in Massie’s primary election, and I think is going to continue to be that in several others. So, we’re entering a completely new phase in American politics in which supporting Israel in the manner that many members have done, supporting AIPAC’s position, is going to be politically costly in a manner that never has been the case in US history before. It’s always been a political no-brainer. Even if people recognized clearly that this was bad policy, it was nevertheless good politics, because it kept the member of Congress safe. It kept the president safe. That is now changing. It is a complete gamechanger for America’s domestic politics and also for its foreign policy in the Middle East.
…
What has been proposed on the intelligence merger goes way beyond what has existed in the past. It was put forward by Tom Cotton in the Senate. That amendment would essentially mean that the US intelligence services are forced to share all kinds of intelligence with Israel. Forced. And the only way that can be prevented is if the president personally intervenes, which means that he would constantly have to set aside all other duties that he has during the day in order to review every intelligence data point and decide whether they should or should not be shared. Which means that essentially it would happen on a very rare occasions and as a result the US would be forced to share almost everything. It is disastrous. It goes way beyond anything the US has ever done with Israel or with any other country. It also jeopardizes the US’s intelligence sharing arrangement with many other countries because no one’s going to share anything with the US any longer, knowing that everything that is shared with the US immediately ends up in Israeli hands.
Nap: This is the same Israel that destroyed the USS Liberty. The same Israel that welcomed Jonathan Pollard and took his stolen data and sold it to the the the Soviet Union. The same Israel that spies on the White House.
Mark Wauck: I’ve done a transcript of a stimulating exchange between Trita Parsi and Judge Nap. The transcript covers approximately the second half of the linked video. Parsi presents his views on the current situation in Trump’s war on Iran. Then, spurred by the Judge, Parsi discusses the new book on the Israel Lobby, which I discussed last week:
Lastly, Parsi also discusses Trump’s plan to subordinate American NatSec agencies to Israel.
In addition, much of the exchange is prompted by an article by Parsi:
Before Hormuz there was Suez: What Trump can learn from Eisenhower.
The exchange is preceded by Parsi speaking about the ways things used to be—when the US was able to intervene militarily in the Persian Gulf region. I think you’ll see Parsi raise certain themes that we’ve been emphasizing lately—such as that Iran is seeking escalation on its terms:
Trita Parsi : What the US Misunderstands about Iran : LIVE – (PART TWO)
TP: Sitting in Kuwait today, however, is a very different story because that America no longer exists. The America that had that capacity, that had the ability to sell to the American people that the US needed to go into a ground war in the Middle East for the sake of a minor kingdom. That America no longer exists. And as a result, relying on [that proposition] today is a completely different proposition than relying on it 20 30 years ago.
Judge: All right, I want to post a statement by Mr. Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian parliament. This was just two days ago:
“Massive attack coming. Wait, never mind. They want to negotiate. That’s theater diplomacy on loop using bullying, broken promises, fake news as leverage as a failed strategy. Acknowledge the facts and fulfill your commitments. We don’t need more theater.”
It appears as though the Iranians see right through Trump and aren’t afraid to say so publicly.
TP: Yes, I think we have reached the point at which it is clear that Trump cannot escalate his way out of this conflict. And, on top of that, he can no longer bluff his way out of this conflict. The Iranians are calling the American bluff. And I think when they also see reports revealing that the US is not only extremely short on interceptors, but has also depleted its offensive projectiles such as Tomahawks, etc. that reinforces their view that the US actually does not have the capacity to revert to war to achieve its objectives.
In this next paragraph Parsi is referring to the fact that Iran is actually seeking escalation in order to put Trump in a box that would force him to accede to Iran’s conditions.
It is actually to this point, that I think Iran was trying to drive this situation after the second round of the war, based on a conviction that the only time Trump will actually become serious about diplomacy–will truly dedicate himself to diplomacy–is when he has internalized that he does not have a military option. Only then will he be able to resist the temptation of thinking that he just might be able to bomb a little bit in the middle of the negotiations in order to improve his negotiating position. As long as Trump felt that he had that option, he used that option. He did that in the second round.
Nap: But this is the thinking of a mob boss, of a Mafia chieftain–not of a president of the United States who should have at his disposal a vast array of diplomatic tools.
TP: Absolutely. an [garbled] advice that would tell him that this is a foolish idea. Don’t go back into this war. You’re not going to be able to change the facts on the ground to your liking. And it’s, again, stunning to me that having experienced the first round of war that did not end up the way Trump wanted, he went back into it without a new idea, without a new strategy, without a new tactic, without new intelligence, without some new plan that would make it different. So throughout those first 13 days I thought to myself, ‘Okay, he probably has some sort of a card up his sleeve.’ And he didn’t. It’s just stunning to me that he did this a second time without changing anything, thinking that the same method, the same strategy, everything else the same would lead to a different result. And that the advice from the people around him, particularly the military advice, was not strong and clear enough for Trump to understand that this is not going to work. There was no reason why it would have worked.
Nap: I want to ask you a few questions about Israel. And, of course, the absence of Israel from many of these negotiating tables. Not a surprise. But before we do, this is a terrific clip by a colleague of yours, Ian Lustick, on the dangers of a foreign entity having control over the government of the United States.
Ian Lustick, Co-author of Israel’s Lobby: “What George Washington prophetically pointed out in his farewell address after he decided not to take a third term, he warned the country that there was a flaw in the system. There was a vulnerability in the system. The vulnerability was that if there was in the United States a faction that was passionately attached to a foreign country or passionately opposed to a foreign country because of its ethnic or religious or ideological background, there would be no natural countervailing force to it inside the country. That would mean that unless there was an agreement that foreign policy was not something that should be part of the electoral process, that politics should stop at the ocean, that there should be bipartisanship beyond the borders of the United States. If that wasn’t the case, that passionate minority attached to another country could control US policy, entangle us in wars we shouldn’t be in, and distort our image and our affairs abroad.
Now, Washington had in mind the fact that the Democrats associated with Jefferson were in love with the French Revolutionaries. That’s no longer the issue. But the issue that did come through to show that Washington was right about what he was worrying about was the issue of Israel. Because there has never been any group in the United States attached to a foreign power with as much political clout as the group that is represented by the Israel Lobby in the United States.”
Please note the way Lustick phrases that. He’s saying that the Israel Lobby represents a “group in the United States.” That group is attached to a foreign power, Israel, but The Lobby represents the group—not Israel.
Nap: “Any group in the United States attached to a foreign power with as much political clout as the group that is represented by the Israel Lobby in the United States.” An absolutely accurate, true, profound and courageous statement.
TP: Absolutely. So Ian and his co-author, Eli Clifton, are coming out with this book. I think the release date is on Monday. It is called Israel’s Lobby. In some ways it is a followup on John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt’s first book from 2007, The Israel Lobby, but in some ways it goes deeper and also looks at one factor that was not addressed in full in the previous book–which is the money trail, the manner in which campaign finances, etc. have enabled this lobby to become as influential as it’s been.
I personally believe that this is going to be the most important book of 2026, and it’s coming out at an absolutely crucial point. We’re seeing how Israel and the US’s relationship with Israel is becoming a litmus test in numerous American primary elections, both on the left and on the right. We saw that it was a litmus test in Michigan, two or three nights ago. It was a litmus test in Kentucky in Massie’s primary election, and I think is going to continue to be that in several others. So, we’re entering a completely new phase in American politics in which supporting Israel in the manner that many members have done, supporting AIPAC’s position, is going to be politically costly in a manner that never has been the case in US history before. It’s always been a political no-brainer. Even if people recognized clearly that this was bad policy, it was nevertheless good politics, because it kept the member of Congress safe. It kept the president safe. That is now changing. It is a complete gamechanger for America’s domestic politics and also for its foreign policy in the Middle East.
Nap: So here’s the question. The removal of the IDF and Israeli dominance in Gaza and in Lebanon is an absolute requirement for peace between the United States and Iran from the Iranian perspective. It’s even articulated not Gaza but Lebanon in the Memorandum of Understanding. Can anybody expect that Trump can compel Netanyahu to withdraw from these two territories? It’s hard for me to believe he would ever do that voluntarily. He would only do it with a gun to his head.
TP: Well, he started doing it when the MOU was in place. As you recall, this was a requirement of the MOU and, once the MOU was signed, you saw that Trump started talking very differently about Israel’s presence in Lebanon. He said the Israelis were conducting themselves in a way that is unacceptable. You don’t blow up an entire building just because you’re trying to take out one person. JD Vance went out and said that Israel cannot kill its way out of every problem. He reduced Israel’s standing to the same standing such as France and the UK–allies of the United States but not exceptional states. This was not an exceptional relationship, a special relationship. So you started to see clear measures towards implementing this. Unfortunately, the whole thing collapsed over differences over the Strait of Hormuz and also, incidentally, Trump spoke about a regional ceasefire no longer as an Iranian demand but as an American requirement for the deal to work.
So I do believe that the intent was there to make it work. I think there were other elements in the Trump administration that opposed it because, suddenly, immediately after the MOU, you had Marco Rubio go to the region and sign this Lebanese – Israeli agreement that completely contradicted the terms of the MOU. In that agreement the Lebanese government inexplicably signed on to an agreement that said that Israel would stay in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah had disarmed, whereas the MOU makes no such mention. As a result the Israelis were allowed to stay in southern Lebanon–completely contradicting the MOU. It really puts the question to Trump in the clearest possible way. What’s most important to you? Is it to end the war with Iran or is it more important to you to allow the Israelis to do whatever they want in Lebanon?
Nap: But here in the US–with very very little debate and likely passage–is Trump’s proposal to create a merger between the Israeli military and the Pentagon, between Mossad and the CIA. The latter probably already exists de facto. This would make it de jure, would make it by law, which would facilitate or even require the sharing of intel and security information. We don’t have that with any other country. Do we have a treaty with Israel? No. This is a demolition of American national sovereignty in deference to exactly what Mr. Professor Lustick was talking about.
TP: Yes. A couple of points of clarification though. What has been proposed on the intelligence merger goes way beyond what has existed in the past. It was put forward by Tom Cotton in the Senate. That amendment would essentially mean that the US intelligence services are forced to share all kinds of intelligence with Israel. Forced. And the only way that can be prevented is if the president personally intervenes, which means that he would constantly have to set aside all other duties that he has during the day in order to review every intelligence data point and decide whether they should or should not be shared. Which means that essentially it would happen on a very rare occasions and as a result the US would be forced to share almost everything. It is disastrous. It goes way beyond anything the US has ever done with Israel or with any other country. It also jeopardizes the US’s intelligence sharing arrangement with many other countries because no one’s going to share anything with the US any longer, knowing that everything that is shared with the US immediately ends up in Israeli hands.
Nap: This is the same Israel that destroyed the USS Liberty. The same Israel that welcomed Jonathan Pollard and took his stolen data and sold it to the the the Soviet Union. The same Israel that spies on the White House.
TP: Oh, the same Israel that is the second, and at times the main, target of American counterintelligence efforts, because it is so intense in its efforts to spy on everything going on in the US. Let me give you another example. During the JCPOA negotiations, in the beginning, the Obama administration, hoping to be able to please the Israelis, shared all details of the negotiations with the Israelis. In fact, when the American negotiators had completed their negotiations in Geneva or wherever it was, they tended to fly first to Israel to brief the Israelis before they came back to Washington. So, often times State Department officials were not in the know for 48 hours of the details of the negotiations because the Israelis got the information first. The reason why the administration stopped doing so is because they found out that that intelligence, that was willingly shared by the Obama administration in the hope that the Israelis would not be opposed to the deal, was being used by the US Israeli embassy in Washington to lobby Congress, share the information in a selective manner in order to get Republican opposition to that deal. So they were using that intelligence to sabotage the negotiations on American ground in Congress. Once that became clear the administration stopped sharing almost any information with the Israelis. And again, we know the rest of the story how the Israelis completely opposed the deal. But they opposed it all along. They were just having an easier time opposing it and sabotaging it when the US administration was actually sharing that information.
The other part of what you said—just one clarification. I am under the clear impression that the administration certainly did not initiate the language in the NDAA that would have that type of a merger, with the sharing of — what they’re essentially trying to do is to take away the money that the US is giving Israel on a yearly basis and put it in some sort of a bureaucratic process in the Pentagon that would be out of sight of Congress and out of sight of the American public. This was initiated by Benjamin Netanyahu himself. He took credit for it. I’m not entirely clear of the extent that the administration has been supportive of it. Its final outcome is still not entirely clear but, if it passes, similar to what we saw with the intelligence merger essentially, it will be absolutely disastrous.
“YOU’RE The Evil Monster!” Mohammad Marandi vs Alan Dershowitz on Iran — Plus Netanyahu Spokesman. Youtube, July 30, 2026.
[ED. This is an AI Transcript, edited as best I could for readability without losing what they are meaning to say. This was a very heated debate, so much that was said was ungrammatical and repetitive.]
[start at 22;00] Okay, Professor Marandi,
Marandi: is it my turn? because for the last half hour you’ve been busy with the spokesman for genocide and Epstein’s buddy who used to go to Rape Island, a person who frequented Rape Island, I think anything that he says is nonsense and I listen to him I listen to him but he’s a lawyer yet he cannot tolerate the words of Alma (?_. That’s how weak his argument is. Now, of course, someone who supports the genocidal regime of Israel would say this sort of nonsense. And of course we recall how the South African government in its ICJ complaint showed genocidal intent by the Israeli regime including the Israeli prime minister whose spokesman you brought on and had this little love fest before this discussion and you know what you don’t have to keep making
Dershowitz: Professor Marandi Professor just to be clear it wasn’t a lovefest. I made some tough statements. I treated him with the same respect I try and treat you until you inevitably — you always invariably go ad hominem on people. Try not to go ad hominum stop with the silly digs stick to the proper debate we’re having and viewers may learn something. Force yourself to let the viewers. Piers I know where you stand Piers I saw your previous interview with Barak I saw it with his spokesman. We know where you stand.
Marandi: So that’s not really important. But the point is that where do you think where do you think you stand? You stand with the genocidal regime. I once asked you three times in a row, do you consider an ethnosupremacist regime to be legitimate? And you refuse to answer. And the tone of your language, the fact that you’re not the fact that I’m not allowed to speak. Hang on, just to be clear I want to get back to the debate in a moment but just to be clear I have repeatedly asked you in our numerous interviews and I platform you regularly something you always try and diminish in terms of its significance but I do and I’ve always asked you to tell me one critical thing about your own regime and you always fail which is very telling so let’s just park that to one side let’s get back to the debate
Marandi: My regime is infinitely superior to your genocidal regime that helped the Israeli regime in the genocide. My regime, as you’d like to call it, your guest doesn’t want me to speak. Obviously, my regime did not pull the plugs on little infants in the in the in the hospital in the premature babies in the Al-Nassar hospital. pull the plug on those premature babies and let them die. My regime didn’t do that. The regime that you support did that. But getting back to the topic, the reality is that chemical weapons were used on our country with the support of your government. I survived two chemical attacks. And then your guest has the audacity to say that Iran would use weapons of mass destruction during the Iran-Iraq war. The state, the leader refused to produce chemical weapons even though the military politicians asked him. He said, “No, it’s immoral.” So, we had to suffer your chemical weapons and your governments prevented our government from even purchasing gas masks. My gas mask was bought on the black market. It was North Korean. So don’t talk about weapons of mass destruction to me when my friends have died because of your chemical weapons. Your regime is the regime that has used nuclear weapons twice and your genocidal ally the apartheid regime the illegitimate regime where 46 I think 44% of Jew young Jews below the age of 35 in the United States believe that Jews and Palestinians have to live together in one state with equal rights.
Marandi: That is exactly the Iranian policy. So despite your propaganda, despite your nonsense, despite the lies that you promote, people are waking up. Jews in the United States are waking up. Christians, Muslims, people from all walks of life are seeing who’s carrying out carrying out a holocaust in Gaza. You know, Ronald Reagan, when this genocidal regime in 1982 invaded Lebanon, he called it a holocaust. This is far worse than the Holocaust of 1982. But you refuse to acknowledge this genocide. Whereas the population in Gaza has collapsed. It’s not 70 or 80,000 people have died as a result of this war. Hundreds of thousands have died. The population has collapsed. People are dying every day, not just because the kids are being bombed or being sniped because they’re dying of illnesses and a lack of medicine that this filthy regime is imposing on the people, on the kids of Gaza. But you want to look away and antagonize the Iranian people or the Palestinians or Hezbollah or whoever else it is that you’d like to antagonize so that they can get away with this. But you will not be able to do so because people are waking up.
Morgan: We need to get Alan to respond. Okay, Alan hang on one second before you before you give a response to what you’ve just heard, I just want to stress again that Israel has never been more unpopular globally and not least in the United States where 50% nearly of Americans said they would like to see Netanyahu arrested for war crimes where two-thirds of Americans have a negative view of Israel. You know, my view of this is that Israel’s current government is populated with people like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, these other guys who are complete psychopaths and that the activities that they are promoting in for example the West Bank at the moment and so on are making Israel a global pariah. Does that not concern you?
Deshowitz: Of course it does. And I’m not at all a supporter of Ben-Gvir. I’m not a supporter of Smotrich. I am a supporter of the nation state of the Jewish people. I am a proud Zionist. Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. Israel is the only non-colonialist state in the Middle East. All the other states were established by colonialist regimes after the First World War. Israel fought against colonialism and self-determination. I am not here to support everything Israel does. I wouldn’t vote for Ben-Gvir. I wouldn’t vote for Smotrich. I have to tell you that if in 1935 Winston Churchill had been the prime minister of England and he had gone into Germany and attacked them, he would be the most unpopular person in the world. It’s very unpopular to engage in preventive wars because you don’t know what you’re preventing. History is blind and deaf to the future. You only know what you’re doing now. And so it takes enormous courage. courage of the kind that not only Winston Churchill had but that Benjamin Netanyahu has had, that Ronald Reagan has had, that George Washington had back in the day. It takes tremendous courage to get involved in a war that is unpopular. The revolutionary war was unpopular with many many parts of the United States. It was the right war, the Second World War. Nobody wanted to get into it on the basis from the United States. Lindberg was against it. Uh the polls were showing against it. It took enormous courage to take on Adolf Hitler. And you know, I hate to say this, but I think I’m in 1935 and I’m sitting opposite Joseph Goebbels right now and he’s making the propaganda case for the Nazi regime just the way this professor is making the propaganda case for the new Nazi regime, which is the regime of Iran. Will you at least admit, sir, will you at least admit that Iran murdered in cold blood as many as 50,000 innocent protesters? And would you admit, if that’s true, that that comes closer to genocide than anything that Israel has been accused of doing in self-defense after its people were raped, kidnapped, murdered on October 7th, would you at least admit that the Iranian regime has killed many, many, many thousands of people? Yes or no?
Marandi: You know, we are not in 1935. We are not in 1939. We are in 1942. You are the Nazi regime that is carrying out a holocaust in Gaza. You are the Nazi who is doing it as we speak. You’re the evil monster. You say Israel is not a colonial regime. You’re from Eastern Europe. You’re European. All of those Ashkanazi Jews who are now running the country. They’re from Eastern Europe. You came and slaughtered. I’m talking. I didn’t interrupt you as you were ranting. You, the people who you support, the people who are running the country. They’re Polish. They’re Ukrainian. They’re from Czechoslovakia. They’re from Eastern Europe. You’re not Semites. You’re the anti-semite because you’ve been slaughtered. You won’t let me talk. You are afraid. You’re afraid because you know you have no argument. You have no leg to stand on. You slaughtered the Semite Palestinians and you took their land and you support you are a proud Zionist who supports a regime that celebrates the rapists in prison. They rape Palestinians in prison and then they’re celebrated on television. If you don’t let me talk, you’re just exposing yourself. You’re exposing yourself. You’re exposing yourself just as you expose yourself with Epstein. I’m [answering] in response to in response to your nonsense. The nonsense about 50,000 people. Those lies have been responded to by the Iranian people. Stop ranting. I’m speaking. You’re a lawyer. You’re a lawyer. 3,17 [?] people died thanks to an armed insurgency that your regime and the Israeli regime funded and supported. That you’re a coward. You are a coward. You won’t let me talk. You’re afraid. You’re afraid of me talking.
Dershowitz: Don’t tell me I’m afraid.
Marandi: Lawyer, Epstein’s lawyer, Trump’s lawyer, is afraid of me, a lay man talking. Why? Because you have no leg to stand on. The Iranian people have spoken. They went to the streets in the tens of millions. They went, “You’re a coward. You won’t let me talk. I let you talk because I’m not afraid of you.” People are not afraid of you anymore. You can kill Epstein. You can kill whoever you like, but we’re not afraid. You can bomb my house. You can kill me with my family, but I’m not afraid of you. I will support the Palestinian people until your regime bombs my home. So go and tell them that I’m prepared to die for the Palestinian people. But you, you who used to frequent Epstein Island, you have no principles and no morality. The Iranian people came to the streets in the tens of millions. We all know it. The footage is there. The international journalists were there, not just in Iran, but in Iraq. The Iranian people have spoken whose side they are. No one is going to be fooled by your […] propaganda to justify war.
Dershowitz: Well, let’s get this law how many times do you think I was at Jeffrey Epstein’s island? How many times? Say it again so we could get it on tape. How many times?
Marandi: One time is more than enough, but I think you’ve been there five, six times. Saying multiple times. How many times do you think I was there? I think you were there five, six times. Dershowitz: Say, say it again. Five, six times. Yeah, something like that. Yeah, I was his lawyer just the way I was the lawyer for Palestinian What a naive lawyer. No, no, don’t interrupt me. I was the lawyer for Palestinian students who try to hang the flag when Yassar Arafat died. I was the lawyer for Nazis in Skokie, Illinois. I helped represent them. I would even represent you if anybody tried to prevent you. I’m a lawyer. And that’s what lawyers should be proud of. And then I’m going to continue to represent people you don’t like as long as I have the current strength to do it. And you can cite that as an argument against Israel, but it has nothing to do with Israel. It’s just an ad hominem attack on me as a lawyer and on the American legal system. You wouldn’t understand the American legal system because you don’t have yourself regret being his lawyer. So don’t talk nonsense. Say it again.
Marandi: You yourself admitted that you regret being his lawyer. So don’t talk nonsense to me.
Dershowitz: I don’t regret being his lawyer. I’m proud to have been I’m proud to have been President Clinton’s lawyer. I’m proud to have been Ted Kennedy’s lawyer. I’m proud to have been the lawyer for hundreds of indigent people who didn’t have enough money to have a lawyer. And I would be happy to go to Iran and represent the people who can’t get lawyers there who were executed yesterday because they went to demonstrations. You have to say what you’re saying. The two people who were executed yesterday and I’ve tweeted the foot [?]. The two people I’m glad you said this.
Marandi: You are so naive. You’re not a good lawyer. I tweeted this yesterday and I will retweet it after this debate. The two people executed yesterday. They burned four police officers alive and stabbed them; they were executed for that. They were executed because of murdering four police officers. So I will repeat that today. But that’s ex and that by the way what happened during that arm be don’t be afraid. Let me explain. Don’t be afraid if you don’t listen to you. You are the one from the civilized world. You are the proud Zionist, the ethnosopremacist that we should all be listening to. So don’t worry if people hear what I say. Your own Israeli regime, the regime that you love so much self-admitted that they were behind the armed insurgency. Channel 14 of the Israeli regime, which is close to Netanyahu itself said, and I tweeted this and others have too, that the Israeli regime, they helped send in along with Americans, they helped send in the weapons that killed hundreds of police officers during those two days of armed insurgency. Your own regime admits it.
Dershowitz: Your own regime. I hope that’s true. I would like to see the United States and Israel together topple the Iranian regime and replace it by a democratic regime where all people can vote and all people have free speech. I would be happy to participate in any such attempt to try to topple this Nazi regime. That’s what would have happened in 1935 if they had done the right thing. We have a chance now to have peace in the world by toppling the Iranian regime. It won’t happen overnight. It won’t happen quickly, but ultimately the good people of Iran, the good people of Iran will rise up against their evil leaders who kill them in the street and will give them ultimately for the first time real democracy. That’s what we want.
Marandi: So says the genocide supporter, the genocide supporter who’s supporting an ongoing genocide where every day Palestinians are dying every single day as we speak. And Western media won’t tell anyone about it because it’s controlled by the same sort of people who you are aligned to. Those kids who are dying of disease every day, those parents who are dying every day because of a lack of proper food and medicine, you are responsible. And all those Western journalists who’ve been trying to distract public opinion away from it. The only guilt of the Iranian people, the only guilt of the Iranian people and Hezbollah and Yemen is that they say no to genocide. That has been the guilt for 47 years. For decades, your regime has been supporting the apartheid and genocidal regime of Israel and supporting the most brutal regimes across the world in Latin America, in Africa, in our region, and in Asia. But the only time your hostility is towards Iran because Iran says no to ethnosupremacism just like 46% [clears throat] of young Jews in the United States. Iran says no to genocide, no to ethnic cleansing, no to colonization, and that Palestine must be a land where Jews and Christians and Muslims live as equal human beings.
Marandi: Your regime, your Israeli regime, because you’re not loyal to the United States. You’re loyal to the Israeli regime, to the genocidal regime. Your regime bombed during this war. Your regime bombed a synagogue. Your regime bombed a synagogue in Tehran. Why? Because that synagogue was not a Zionist synagogue. You hate Jews. You hate Jews that are not Zionist. You are an anti-semite because you kill Palestinians and you’re from Eastern Europe. You have no right to slaughter and rape and murder.
Morgan: Let me bring Alan back in. All right, let me bring Alan back in. Alan, let’s just talk about the politics of this because you mentioned earlier this could take five years, it could take longer, but there’s a political relevancy to this, which is if Donald Trump was to lose the House and the Senate in the midterm elections, then he becomes a lame duck president and would then be highly likely to precipitate a loss in the general election for the Republicans. And the moment the Democrats get back into power, they’re going to get out of this. So this could all be over regardless of whatever you would like or Donald Trump would like or Netanyahu would like. This could all be over within the next, you know, just two and a bit more years because of the politics of this in America.
Dershowitz: That’s right. Because we have a democracy and we vote for what we want. Iran, on the other hand, which in which only Muslims have rights, in which there’s no free speech, there hasn’t been an election for [snorts] almost forever. They don’t have those rights. Yes, we can overthrow our government. Yes, the Democrats maybe will take control of the House and the Senate. That’s a risk. That’s what happened in Great Britain after Churchill won the Second World War with the United States. He got thrown out of power. Uh voters are fickle. But principled politicians, churchillian politicians do the right thing regardless of what the political implications are and the right thing is to continue to make sure that Iran doesn’t pose a nuclear danger to the world. Now I want to pursue a little bit more of what our distinguished professor here said. He said Jews control the media. Jews control the media. Jews and he and he started making other kinds of arguments.
Marandi: You’re a liar. You’re a liar. You’re a lawyer. You’re a lawyer, but you’re a liar. You’re a lawyer, but you openly lie. People are watching Jews. How 46 44% of young Jews in the United States under the age of 35. They don’t believe your nonsense anymore. No one believes you. You bomb the Jewish synagogue in the enemy of you are the I never said you say that. Your audience can judge for themselves. In fact, when you say Iran has no freedom of speech, you host I’ve invited him to come to Iran on multiple occasions to see if there is free speech. When I tell him to read the book Going to Iran, he gets angry because it goes against his narrative. But you speak on behalf of an ethnosupremacist regime and you speak of free speech. Your country is run by oligarchs. Do you think that the people of the United States have free speech when they lose their jobs? When on campus they can’t talk out against the Israeli regime and the brutality of the regime? Don’t talk nonsense. People lose their jobs in your country. Their futures are destroyed when they speak truth to power.
Morgan: But let me ask you, Professor Mirandi, let me ask you. Look, I presume there is one thing you would both agree on, which you would like this war to be over sooner rather than later. Correct?
Marandi: We would like justice. We would like that. We would like what would end all wars in this region is one thing that the land of Palestine be a land where Jews, Christians, and Muslims live as equal human beings. That’s something that your other guests would never support and never accept. And that’s why
Morgan: Well, let me ask you, Let me ask you for decades. Well, you said he wouldn’t accept it. Let me ask you, Alan, would you accept that? Of course, I accept it completely. I accept completely people in every part of the world living as equals without regard to their relation.
Marandi: You would accept that all Palestinians living within in the West Bank and Gaza, listen. No, answer my question. All the Palestinians, including those living in the West Bank and Gaza, they would have equal rights to those Israelis who you brought in from Europe and from across the world. They would have equal rights. You accept that?
Dershowitz: Let me be very clear. The vast majority of Israelis come from Arabic backgrounds, North Africa, um, Muslim backgrounds, Arab Palestine.
Marandi: That’s not Palestine. That’s not Palestine. Morocco is not Palestine. Heard Iraq is not Palestine. They’re not speaking with a child orient Ashkenazim. Number one. You and those running the country are mostly Ashkenazi. And the [?] Jews are not Palestinian and they’re not Semites. Of course, I believe in complete equality for everybody. Now I want to ask you the question. Do you think the West Bank and Gaza in the West So you say. No, no, no. Don’t run away from the answer. You say that the that the Palestinian ind you answer the question. You say that the Israeli regime should dismantle the system that now exists and that all Palestinians in the land of Gaza and in the West Bank should have the right of vote and should have citizenship to this land and they cannot be removed from their homes. You say that, right? You accept that, right?
Dershowitz: Of course, I think that they should be citizens of an independent state in Gaza, an independent state.
Marandi: No, no, no, no. I didn’t say that. I did not say that. Don’t change. Don’t change the complete right to. Do you accept that the people in Gaza are refugees from Palestine? I believe in a peaceful Israel. Answer the question. Answer the question. The people in Gaza are refugees from Palestine. They’re not from Gaza. Gaza was a village 50, 60, 70 years ago. The people in the West Bank, many of them are not from the West Bank. Many people in Jordan, they are not from Jordan or Lebanon or in Syria or in Egypt. The Palestinian population that has been expelled from their homes that have been kicked out of their homes and have been decimated for decades. You believe that within Palestine, what is now today called Israel plus the West Bank in Gaza, that they should have equal rights and citizenship. Let’s remember how it started. 1947 the UN partition. Just say yes or no.
Marandi: We know how it started. UK. The people who run Israel came from Europe. We know where they came from. They came from Eastern Europe for the most part. Many came from Russia. We know they’re not semites. I’m asking you a simple question. Just say should the Palestinians in Gaza and in the West Bank and the Palestinians who’ve been expelled from their homes who are from that land and who are they have equal rights and citizenship?
Morgan: This is a simple question. Most of the showers ask you the question and you tried to you tried to shift the question. Let him answer. Let him answer.
Dershowutz: In 1947 United Nations divided what was then a place called Palestine named by the Romans into two areas. One where there were a majority of Jews and that could be a Jewish state and the other which was much larger with the Arab land which could be a Palestinian state. Palestinians would have had a completely free state on the West Bank and in the Gaza and the Palestinian leadership led by a Nazi named Husini turned it down and refused and attacked Israel in a genocidal war against Israel. That’s what caused people to leave their homes and abandon their villages. Ben Gurian wanted to welcome them all, kept them there, let them have a two-state solution. Israel said yes. The Palestinians said no. That was the origin of the conflict and we can’t go back in time now. Obviously things have changed but I want complete equality for everybody. I want every
Marandi: May I just may I just want because as a lawyer let me just tell you one thing for your own sake. It’s only for your own sake for the sake of it’s not for the sake of argument. What you are saying, the argument that you’re making these fairy tales worked before October the 7th. They worked because the West had the propaganda machine. The West had the centers of knowledge. It worked and most people did not know the truth. So it worked. But the mistake that you made was that after October the 7th and the South African complaint to the ICJ, after October the 7th in the complaint that the South African government to the ICJ in the south. In that complaint they showed the genocidal intent of your regime, your Israeli regime. And after that we saw it carry out that and gradually as time well anyone can read it online. I advise all the viewers to use the search engine to go and look at the South African complaint to the ICJ after that. Okay, people can read it. It’s just quotes. It’s just quoting your prime minister. is quoting your president and then people saw the genocide call out on television for the world.
Morgan: Just to be clear, I think it’s probably pretty clear to viewers now why negotiations took 21 hours and why the war is still raging. But I appreciate you both agreeing to each other.
Marandi: Iran did not attack the United States. Iran did not pierce. Iran did not attack the United States. And the United States is sacrificing the world for this ethnospremacist regime.
50 minutes, 57 seconds
It has killed so many
Morgan: I can say all I can say is good luck. All I can say is good luck to the negotiating teams who are trying to bring this war to an end because even trying to bring this debate to an end is proving completely impossible. I appreciate you both. Professor Mirandi, Alan Dershowitz, I’ve got to leave it there. I thank you both very much for your time. Thank you. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Li7erGp46k
Ben Samuels in Haaretz: America First, antisemitism second: The dangers of Tucker Carlson formally entering politicsI
| I always thought Haaretz writers were less crazy than the usual pro-Israel fanatics. Here, however, Samuels implies that Jewish money supporting Israel and having an impact on American elections is a myth–despite the $60 million that the pro-Israel candidate in the Michigan Senatorial election got, $30 million from AIPAC. (I omit what could be a very long list of such election-meddling by pro-Israel money.) And the same with dual loyalty–despite people like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin and the entire pro-Israel lobby. And of course any link between Jeffrey Epstein and Israel is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. And notice the baleful photo of Tucker that accompanies the article:
Needless to say, the ADL is not pleased. From their website:
There are a great many similar articles in the Jewish media, e.g., here. |
|
|
Also available at Barnes & Noble
Also available at Barnes & Noble
