Norman Finkelstein Cuts Through Israel’s Propaganda: Gaza Genocide, Oct. 7 & Netanyahu’s Corruption

Perustin pyöräilyvää teitä valmistavan ornotin vuonna 2013. Mielestäni parasta Shopify saan se, että voimme harjoittaa liiketoimintaa ilman teknistä osaamista. Voimme hallinoida yrityksen taustajaristeelmiä ja front-endia sekä myydä verkossa, vaivatta. Jos Shopify olisi pyöräilyvaruste, se olisi mielestäni itse polkupyörä. Sillä asiat hoidetaan ja meidän liiketoimintamme hoituu Shopify-sa. Aloita ilmainen kokeilu Shopify-piste-com-sivustolla. Onko se, että se on johtajien autonus, että se on johtajien autonus. Se on johtajien autonus, ja se on johtajien autonus, ja se on johtajien autonus. Se on johtajien autonus, ja se on johtajien autonus. Ja se on johtajien autonus, ja se on johtajien autonus, ja se on johtajien autonus. Se on johtajien autonus, ja se on johtajien autonus, ja se on johtajien autonus, ja se on johtajien autonus. Ja se on johtajien autonus, ja se on johtajien autonus, ja se on johtajien autonus, ja se on johtajien autonus. Ja se on johtajien autonus, johtajien autonus, johtajien autonus, kuten se on johtajien autonus. Okei, koska Egypt ganet minustatioon kuten se on johtajien autonus, jota vuotta 1948. Se on johtajien autonus, jota vuotta minustatioon kuten se on johtajien autonus. Egypt shun kontrol. If we fast forward to 1967, in July 1967, Algor Senior, the father of the person. - Senator from Tennessee. - Correct. Algor Senior, he goes to visit Gaza. That's correct. And then he comes back and he testifies before Congress on what he observed. And he describes Gaza as "a concentration camp on the sand, if you will." So, already beginning in 1948, outside observers coming to Gaza, that's their reference. Now, in 2004, the head of the Israel's National Security Council, his name is Giora Island. Giora Island is not a peacenick. He's still among living, still very active, advising writers who speak the Israeli government. He was the one who said around 2024. He said, "If epidemics break out in southern Gaza, that's a good thing. It's a good thing for the epidemics." - Epidemic of disease? - Yes. And now, in 2004, he's having a conversation with senior U.S. officials. And he describes Gaza as "a huge concentration camp." Now, bear in mind, the first individuals I mentioned, that's 50s or at least mid-60s, concentration camp had a very definite resonance. And yet, those are the words that left to mind, or those are the descriptives that left to mind. Giora Island is Israeli. He's Jewish. He's the chief of Israel's National Security Council, as a Jew and as an Israeli. Surely he knew the resonance of describing a parcel of land as a concentration camp. That's the descriptive he used. Now, here's the, not footnote, but here's the big qualifier. That was Gaza in its best days. That's a fact. In 2006, our president George Bush, he embarked on what he called "democracy promotion." You might remember that phase. And part of democracy promotion was, he told the guys that Palestinians, they had to hold elections. Hamas did not want to participate in the elections, because they saw it as part of what was called the Oslo process, namely when Clinton, president Clinton, Yasa Arifat, and etc. being signed in agreement in 1993, which Hamas felt was a sellout. So they didn't want to participate in the elections, because they thought it was part of what was called the Oslo process. Pressures put on them, pressures put on them. They finally agreed to participate. Well, they run on a reform platform, because the Palestinian authorities hopelessly corrupt, and they win the election. Well, the wrong side won. Hillary Clinton later said we made a big mistake. We should have made sure that Hamas didn't win, which is her concept of a democratic election. So the moment Hamas gets elected in what Jimmy Carter, who observed the election, he called it "free" and completely free and fair elections. That's how he described it. It was actually the first free and fair democratic elections in the Arab world, the first time. Some people say Tunisia before, but I think it's credible to say these were the first fully free and fair elections. Israel at that moment, it imposes, and then followed by the US and the EU, imposes this medieval blockade on Gaza. It draws up this long list of things that you can't allow into Gaza. You can't allow in chocolate. You can't allow in baby chicks. You can't allow in potato chips. You can't allow in any condiments. You can't allow in musical instruments. You can't allow in notebooks. They were very open. I shouldn't say they were very open about it, but the documents were eventually released. They were going to put the people of Gaza on a "humanitarian minimum diet", which is another way of saying a starvation plus diet. They said they were very open about their goal. We're going to keep the Gaza economy on the precipice of collapse, so the people will ultimately remove Hamas from office. What was cool, if you remember, and you don't call back that far, but when the popular unity government came into power in Chile in 1971, and the US was very upset about that, and they said that we're going to turn the screws on Chile until the economy screams. And that's what Israel attempted to do in Gaza. And by 2008, the UN humanitarian chief, Mary Robinson, she visited Gaza, and she said, "A whole civilization is being destroyed. I'm not exaggerating. A whole civilization is being destroyed." By October 6, I think it was the economist magazine described Gaza as a sinking ship. A UN official described it as a toxic slum. disaster, a disaster zone, a human-made disaster zone that illegal in human blockade of Gaza. And then every few years Israel launched what it called an operation in Gaza. They use the term we're going to "move the lawn" in Gaza, which is a kind of humorous metaphor until you factor in that one half of Gaza's population are children. And then if we connect the metaphor with the reality, that means the blades of the mowers are cracking the skulls of the children of Gaza. So how do you pray? Well, for a lot of people, the answer is complicated. Our friends at the Hallow app need to help make it much simpler. If you're uncertain about where to start your prayer journey or what to say when you talk to God, then Hallow's newest prayer challenge is perfect for you. It's 21 days of prayer designed to help you intentionally make time for faith. Probably the most important thing, it will change your life. 21 days of prayer, you will hear from people from totally different backgrounds and how they pray. Pastures, nurses, athletes, like Deon Sanders, all answering the same critical question of how they communicate with Jesus. It's not an abstract theological exercise, it's a comprehensive experience that brings you closer to God. That's the point. So if you're not sure where to begin in your relationship with God, if it seems kind of intimidating, answer this invitation. Give God 21 days with Hallow and see what happens. Download Hallow for three months for free at Hallow.com/TuckerHallow, H-A-D-L-O-W. Have you ever heard of the Pelosi stock tracker? Well, here's the stock training app behind it. Most of us don't have access to classified information, yet our politicians seem to. For years, they've been publicly trading stocks with some being oddly timed around certain legislation. Well, this team said if you can't beat them, join them, and build auto-pilot. It connects directly to your brokerage account, like a Robin Hooder Schwab, and mimics Nancy Pelosi and other politician's stock trades automatically. So instead of debating what stocks to buy, you just trade alongside them, hands free. And the key thing here, your money stays in your own account. The app already has 1.3 billion invested so far. So if you wanted to check it out, search auto-pilot in the app store, or go to joinautopilot.com. That's joinautopilot.com. Investing has risks like the loss of principle. I get it. This isn't just physical. It's a person. That's why I recommend Rujiet Ready, a 3-in-1 treatment that works on your body and your brain, fast-acting, long-lasting, prescribed by a licensed physician. Get started at rujiet.com/justin today. That's r-u-g-i-e-t.com/justin. So you had Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09 Operation Pillar of the Fence in 2012, Operation Protective Edge 2014, these high-tech killing sprees. When Operation Protective Edge ended in 2014, it was 51 days. I believe it began July 7 and ended August 26. I'm pretty sure. When it ended, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, his name was Peter Morrer. He went to Gaza. Now bear in mind the job description of the head of the ICRC, the International Committee of the Red Cross is basically the tour war zones. He walked out of Gaza and he said, "Never in my life have I seen the level of destruction that I seen I saw in Gaza." Now just to give your listeners a juxtaposition, that means placing side-by-side, an Operation Protective Edge 18,000 homes were destroyed or severely damaged. Morrer said, "I've never seen levels of destruction like that." In Gaza now, 325,000 homes were destroyed since October 7. In Protective Edge, there was left behind roughly 2.5 million tons of rubble. In Gaza now, 61 million tons of rubble. Back then, it was unparalleled in conflict zones in 2014. Now, it's not even a blip on the screen compared to what Israel has done. Do we have a reliable estimate of the number of people all aggregate number of people killed in Gaza since October 7? No. I mean, there are all sorts of projections on the number of persons killed, everything from the numbers that the Gaza Ministry of Health give to, as I said, there's so many different projections that's hard to know which are credible, which are not credible. And also, how do you calculate it? You know, are they deaths from bonding artillery shells? But then, what about all the deaths from people who, because of hunger, their immune system, the children? Their immune systems are significantly compromised and they die technically not from direct fire. They die from medical, medical reasons. So, I don't think there is a good number. One number which I found interesting, I've not made the comment publicly, I only recently started to think about it. There are all sorts of denials that Israel has committed to genocide in Gaza. And I'm happy to engage with you on that question. But on a strictly statistical level, the most recent UN report on Gaza deals with the targeting of children in Gaza. And also the West Bank, the targeting of children in particular in Gaza. Now, if you take the case of the Nazis, and they also say that's a key indicator of whether or not we're dealing with a genocide or we're dealing with a war. If large numbers of children are being targeted, then the argument that this is a war begins to, questions are raised about whether it's a war or whether it's a genocide. The percentage of the current statistics we have, the Gaza Ministry of Health, the percentage of children killed is put at 30%, roughly 30%. In the Nazi Holocaust, the estimates are six million Jews were killed of whom 1.5 million were children. So, roughly 25% of those killed were children. Now, if it's correct, and I believe there's certainly a plausible argument, that the number of children killed a percentage is an indicator of whether we're dealing with a war or whether we're dealing with a genocide. I would say if 20, if we're all agreed what happened during the Nazi Holocaust was a genocide, and 25% of the victims were children, then certainly by analogy, a plausible case is in Gaza, if 30% are children, that's a strong argument that it's a genocide. I should warn you that the AHRA definition of anti-Semitism includes comparing the actions of the Israeli government to those of the Nazis, so you just committed anti-Semitism. Well, the problem is, what the AHRA definition is, Israelis are all the, Israelis are all the time comparing their enemies to Nazis. That's a great point. Why do they get to do it? Why do they get to make the comparison, but nobody can compare them to Nazis? That's just totally inconsistent. You go back in the history, they said not sir in the Bible. in Egypt, the first President of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, they said he was Hitler. They said Saddam Hussein, you might recall, head of state in Iraq, they said Saddam Hitler. They all the time saying, they're actually saying the muas in Iran are worse than Hitler. Netanyahu said, Prime Minister Netanyahu said, the Hitler only wanted to conquer Europe, but the muas in Iran, when to conquer the world, they're worse than Hitler. Hamas is Hitler? Everybody is Hitler, but the moment you say they carry on like Nazis, it suddenly becomes a taboo, a red line, but that doesn't make any sense to me. Imagine as 3 a.m. you're dead asleep, you wake up to a weird noise, it sounds like it's coming from inside your house, what's terrifying? Is it a home invasion? How do you react? By panicking? Well, not if you have stop box pro. Stop box pro is probably the best way to store your firearms. It's built for actual people who want real protection without giving up speed or control. There are no keys and there are no batteries, and that means you'll always be able to get the stop box open. There's a 5-button interface that gives you and just you immediate access when you really need it. That means your firearms would be 100% secure but always right within reach. Stop box pro is made proudly in the United States by Americans. Real jobs, no child labor in some weird country, it's totally American. For a limited time, the show's listers can get 10% off at stop box when using the Code Tucker at checkout. Visit stopboxusa.com and use the Code Tucker for 10% off the whole order. After you purchase feel free to say that you heard about it right here on this show. So you think it is fair to say that Israel's committing genocide in Gaza. I would say the following. If you take the accumulation, the cumulative effect of what Israel has done, you don't look at it discreetly, this action, this action, this action, you take the total picture. So Israel's the density and the rate of Israel's bombing in Gaza, unprecedented in modern conflict. In some cases, even as far back as world were two, if you take the worst cases in world war two like Dresden, the intensity and rate of destruction is higher in Gaza. That's a fact. Then Dresden? That's correct. That's correct. Not just Dresden, it was Dresden and a couple of other major cities, but they've slipped my mind. Number of children killed. Oh, that's shocking what you just said. Yeah. If you take all combat zones in the world combined for the years, say 2020, 2021, 2021 and combined them all the combat zones, more children killed in Gaza, amputees, child amputees. I'm not sure it's child, or maybe it's all amputees. It's now the densest concentration of amputees anywhere in the world. Schools, 97% of Gaza schools have been destroyed or severely damaged. Targeting of hospitals, targeting of medical personnel, targeting of UN workers, targeting of journalists. They're all in a totally different category. They're in a totally different universe than the closest second, closest third, closest fourth. So then what do you conclude? When you add up, as I said, you take the cumulative picture. I don't see how you can possibly reach any other conclusion. The one qualification I would make is, and it's not so much of qualification, it's a clarification. I don't believe Israel's goal is genocide. Its goal is empty out Gaza. They were very clear about that. They want to ethnically cleanse Gaza. But the means they are using their modest operandi is the destruction of the Gaza population until they leave. Now you could say, but they can't leave because the border is sealed and nobody wants them. And that's true. So they will continue killing until they achieve their goal. And if it's to kill everybody, they will kill everybody. They are dead set on for once and for all solving the Gaza question. They want to solve the Gaza question. And for them, solving the Gaza question means the expulsion of the population. And the only way they can persuade the population to leave and persuade neighboring countries in the world at large to take them in is to commit a genocide. So I have spent quite a lot of time going through the human rights supports and various other documents. And when you see the cumulative effect of what's been done, I don't see how you can reach any other conclusion, which is why, as I'm sure you know, not only many, if not most leading authorities in international law, not a few of them Jewish, even Israel's major human rights organization for the occupied territories that sell them. Persons like, I believe Arya Nair, who founded a human rights watch, Kenneth Roth, Arya Nair is a refugee from the Nazi Holocaust. Kenneth Roth, who was the former head of human rights watch in various venues, they have all concluded that it's a genocide. But there's another factor. Now, I'm not saying it's authoritative, but I would certainly say it's indicative. The estimates are 30 to 40% of American Jews believe it's a genocide. But that's a kind of astonishing fact, bombarded as they are from youth to love Israel, attending synagogues where support for Israel is a key, a tenet of belonging. And yet, and to their absolutely eternal credit, it's genuinely a sight to behold. And maybe I should, but I kind of rebelled against it to take pride in as a Jew. 30 to 40% believe Israel is committing a genocide. It's a credit to that community. And I would add, as I'm sure you're aware, because you told me before the interview that you have been in, so to speak, a Jewish milieu, a large part of your life, very educated. These are not people who are easily bamboozled or duped or tricked. And yet, they have reached that conclusion. So here again, I say, if you look at the cumulative picture, experts, human rights organization, international court of justice, which reached the preliminary conclusion that Israel was plausibly committing a genocide, that was back in January 26th, 2024. So it's long before the horror that unfolded since January 26th. I think it's the other side that has to make a case. The broad consensus is there now. It's a horrible consensus. We're going to make it in the case. What I see happening is attacks, it not just verbal attacks, but you know, attacks on people's employment against anybody. who says, wait, this is this is cruel and awful, those people, the Trump administration stripped them of their green cards in a bunch of cases. So I don't see anybody trying to make the case for Israel. I see supporters of Israel attacking anyone who questions Israel. I guess that's what I'm saying. That's absolutely correct. What was new after October 7th was that before October 27th, when there would be events in Gaza, I won't call them flare-ups because, you know, as high-tech killings released, it's not much more than a flare-up. When there were before, usually, Jewish organizations, Jewish supremacists, billionaires, they operate behind the scenes. They would call the university president, I don't think you should give that guy tenure. Or, oh, did that happen to you? Yes. It's just kidding, no famous, famously. But I think it happened with a certain amount of frequency, but it was behind the scenes. It would change after 2007, for the reasons that you just suggested, it was very hard anymore to make a case in public. Too much was known, too much was seen on the social media, and too much of it Israel carried on in such a flagrant and brazen fashion with its own citizens in their citizen army, posting on the social media. The horrors they were committing, it had become so flagrant and brazen, it was impossible to conceal. The big difference, I think was. Yeah, I want to give you a chance. And so, they started in a very brazen and flagrant way to play the blackmail weapon, people like Bill Ackman, and there were many others, but he sort of was the public face. They would call up, they would say publicly, there would be petitions that were publicized, saying, if you don't crush the encampments, the students who were supporting Gaza, we're withholding alumni contributions. We're not going to give you money. Now, it's true places like Harvard have large endowments, very large endowments. However, it's also true to say that that alumni money was not small change. People like Bill Ackman, he gave Harvard, I believe, $50 million, two alumni, two Jewish alumni of Harvard gave it respectively, one gave 200 million, one gave 300 million. That was big money. Though I say, still next to the endowment, it's not so big, but still, absolutely, it's money. Okay. And then they went from school to school by the end of the, by the end of 2024, the encampments were in the spring of 2024. They had succeeded in ousting Claudine Gay at Harvard, Liz with McGill at U of P, Shafic at Columbia, and then there were many, many, many others. I'm just giving it to Ivy League, the big names. When McGill was ousted from U of P, I happened to be friends with somebody who knows her well from business connections, and he met her, and he conveyed to her his sympathies, and two words came forth from her mouth, quote, money talks. Cost of living is already making it hard to live here, and it's not getting any better. Unfortunately, it's likely to get worse, and a lot of Americans fill the gap with credit cards, not just for fancy dinners, but to cover things like groceries and bills. That is a disaster. It's understandable, but don't go down that road, because there is a tax in effect to survival tax if 20% interest or more. Why would you do that? Why would you hand money to the big banks when you can keep it for your family? Our friends in American financing have a better way. If you're looking to buy your first home or refinance your current one, they're helping Americans achieve the dream of a ownership with monthly mortgage rates currently in the fives. American financing saves its customers an average of 800 bucks per month, that's nearly 10 grand every year back to you. This isn't just alone. It's a total financial reset. So debt is tough, but there's a smart way to do it in a reckless, self-destructive way to do it, credit cards. And so we recommend American financing. They're salary-based, not commission-based, which means they actually work for you, not the banks. They're called America's home for home loans for a reason call 800-685-696-800-685-5696 or visit americanfinancing.net. So most people don't wake up in the morning and decide to feel horrible, exhausted foggy disconnected from themselves, but it does happen and it happens slowly. You're working hard, you're showing up and your energy disappears by midday, your focus is dull, your weight won't move, a lot of people are told that's just getting old. That's what it is, but that's not actually true. For many men and women, these are not personal affairs. They are signals tied to your metabolism, your home loans and nutrient imbalances that go undetected for years. You don't even know you're deficient. And that's why we're happy to partner with Joy and Blokes, a company that was built for people who were all done guessing and ready to figure out what exactly is going on. And that starts with comprehensive lab work and a one-on-one consultation with a licensed clinician. An actual human being explains what's happening inside you and builds a personalized plan which includes hormone optimization, peptide therapy, targeted supplements. So don't settle, go to joyandblokes.com/tucker. Use the code Tucker for 50% off your lab work and 20% off all supplements. That's joyandblokes.com/tucker. Use the code Tucker, 50% off labs, 20% off supplements. Join Blokes. Get your edge back, slash Tucker. It wasn't just universities, by the way. I have friends who work in hospitals. Everybody was terrified, terrified, terrorized, to take down anything on their social media in support of Gaza. I have friends at Lincoln Center. The good side of the Jewish tradition is they give generously to cultural institutions, libraries, arts institutions, universities, and so forth. You can walk into a library in New York City. They list the main donors, 95% Jewish. And that's true across the board. Hospitals, obviously, but the bad side is, it's a lot of cultural power. It's a lot of cultural power. And it was then used for, in my opinion, nasty sinister purposes. You mentioned, and it's true, of course, the Trump administration went after people threatening deportation, disappearing them, throwing them into places of confinement, which were not accessible. But here's the thing. That was all spearheaded by the Jewish supremacist billionaire class. And here's another thing. Did they ever protest it? Did they ever say what was done to Machmouz Khalil from Columbia was wrong? Did they register a single word of the of the scent? This was the most audacious and stupendous assault on academic freedom. I am, I'm ready to argue with anybody. I've studied academic freedom in our country of written a large amount on it. There's been nothing like it in the modern history of the United States. The concept of academic freedom begins at the beginning of the 20th century. The early 1900s, and there have been waves of assault on freedom in general and academic freedom, the red scare in the early part of the 20th century. Obviously the McCarthy era where alleged communists were persecuted and lost their jobs, but there's never been anything. Now I know people are going to say I'm engaging in hyperbole, but I ask you the question and I ask the listeners. Three, three Ivy League presidents were ousted. They were all women. Two of the three were women of color. So they had all the so-called, you can call it, ideological protections of a woke culture. It didn't protect them, you're right. They had all the protections. Do you know how the New York Times would have screamed to high heaven at three women to women of color being ousted? Not a peep. And that reign of terror, it is a reign of terror, that continues to this day. I can tell you, factually, since that spring of 2024, I've only been invited to speak at two colleges in the United States. That's a fact too. What's your normal rotation? The word is a period. Mine has gone up and down for various reasons, which are not worth going into, but there were periods where I spoke at 40 schools a year. That's true. Well, rough 40 schools a year. And I'm talking about collectively, I spoke at University of Massachusetts that was last year. I actually was nicely greeted at Cornell University and the president of the university showed up and he introduced me, which is, I thought courageous on his part. He was actually friendly to me. I was very tough. I was very tough, but he seemed to believe in the principle of free speech, the John Stuart Mill principles. And he had me there, but that's it. Now remember, I've not been invited anywhere in New York. I live there. I live there. There's a terror that has this time to come from. I wonder why I think it's perfectly rational. I mean, I have to be honest with you. Look, let me give you a couple examples at Harvard University. Okay. As you probably know, the Israel supporters, they rented trucks, put students pictures on the trucks and went through Boston, Cambridge, calling them terrorists. Okay. Students who were mad at the Israeli government. Students who were active in the encampments. Now, let me tell you something. They also went to the neighborhoods 500 miles away where the kids' families lived. Do you get that? Yeah. Collective punishment. If that truck came to my parents' house, my parents would kill me. Now, my parents were in the far left. I'm serious. My parents were in the far left. I told you, they were Stalinist die-hards till their last breath. But could you imagine a truck going up and down the Jewish neighborhood saying, "Norman Ficklestein Terrorist, with my picture there?" No. So when you ask me, why did they capitulate? It's amazing. Remember these schools cost $80,000 a year. And the kids are being threatened with suspension, expulsion, and even deportation. So what do you think is going to happen? Now, on that point, where is there any grounds for it? These claims about these students being supporters of terrorism or terrorists or anti-Semites. Let me give you one example, an exemplary case. And that's Harvard. Harvard produces a report 312 pages on anti-Semitism on Harvard campus in the wake of the crushing of the encounters. I sit down. I read it. I'm curious. I'm ready to believe maybe an incident here, maybe an incident there. I go through the report. There's nothing there. It's a nothingburger. So I said, "No. I must have gone in with the prejudice." I mean, I said, "I must have gone in with the prejudice." I let me reread it. I reread it. They said, "At the encampment, somebody had a picture of Alan Garber, the president of Harvard, as a devil." As a devil. "Somebody had a post during the encampment." They said, "That's obviously anti-Semitic." Well, I'm not sure where that came from. Yeah. They said another person had a map of Palestine where Israel wasn't there. So I think to myself, "Well, Mr. Netanyahu holds up not Palestine in the U.N. and there's no Palestine there and there's just Israel there." So that can be really anti-Semitic. So what is the anti-Semitism? What is it? And here I'm going to tell you what it is. It's that they said that Israeli Jewish students, in particular, Israeli Jewish students don't feel wanted at Harvard. They feel shunned. They feel like they're parais. And they said, "Harvard has to be pluralistic. Harvard has to be inclusive. So in order to correct for anti-Semitism at Harvard, we have to embrace diversity, embrace everyone." I'm thinking to myself, "Well, I'm all for being inclusive. I'm all for being pluralistic. I'm all for a big tent." But you know what? My big tent is not include child killers. I'm not going there. You lose me. A lot of people are using peptides to get in shape. Not all peptides are the same. If you take them, do you really know what you're ingesting? Probably not. Joined Blokes makes it very simple. You start with an easy online health assessment. Then, if necessary, your license clinician will order comprehensive lab work to understand exactly what prescription is best for you. Not everybody just for you. It's a complete review to ensure the best results. Your peptide protocol is built specifically around you, so there's no guesswork. There's not a one-size-fits-all plan. It's totally customized. Prescriptions are filled by American-based pharmacies using ingredient source from FDA-registered facilities. Tons of quality testing. No stone unturned. You're getting the best. You don't have to gas about what's going in your body. Starting now, this shows listeners can get 65% off labs plus 20% off peptides and supplements by going to joyinblokes.com/tucker and using the code Tucker at Checkout. This is one of the biggest discounts any of our partners have ever offered. That's joyinblokes.com/tucker. They are Campfire Cinnamon, Sunset Mango, and Cowboy Coffee. Available in 4 milligram and 8 milligram, because if you're going to use nicotine, you don't have some options. Get the new Frontier Collection out at outpouch.com/tucker. After World War II, for all I know, this or that guard in a Nazi concentration camp went back to school to get a degree. You want me to be inclusive of the people that exterminated my family? I'm not going there. And it's the same thing. You're going to have to bear that burden. I'm not going to be inclusive of child killers. Israel has become a nation of child killers. They killed children for play, for play. And there's ample at this point, ample documentation of that, of snipers killing children, of drones killing children. Even in March 2018, during the Great March of Return, when the people of Gaza attempted non-violently to end that medieval siege. The UN report found that Israel was targeting children, journalists, medics, racism, targeting double amputees who were 300 meters away from the perimeter fence. That's 2018 before the horror that was unleashed after October 7th. And now you're telling me that I have to be inclusive and pluralistic with these child killers, a nation of child killers to its credit. Israel has a citizen army, and that's how it should be because everybody, I know this two of your producers or tech people, they were in the Marines, they mentioned to me, everybody should have to bear the burden of the ultimate sacrifice to keep their country free of foreign occupation. So in my opinion, that's a correct principle. Unlike in my day, during the war in Vietnam, where students got that, the ferment, college deferment and so was overwhelmingly a poor army. And then it became an even overwhelmingly more poor army because it was a volunteer army and who volunteers overwhelmingly. Those who don't see a future otherwise. So that's to its credit, but then it becomes to its discredit if the army is committing genocide because that army is a cross section of Israeli society. You can't, as I did when I was a young man, think of those who are carrying out the murder and they had in Vietnam as having nothing to do with me. We were anti-war, but this is not the Israeli army. The Israeli army is representative of the Israeli Jewish population with one tiny exception, representative of the Israeli Jewish population. And so they are a nation of child killers. And even Garber admitted, it was about six months ago or a little more, he said a large part, I mean, that's his phrase, a large part of what was called anti-Semitism, he said, it was just criticism of Israel, he acknowledged it. Now you might say, what about slogans like from the river to the sea, okay? We're Americans, we're Americans. In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled it's legal to advocate the violent overthrow of your government. That's our jurisprudence. In our country, it's legal to burn the American flag. In our country, I was going to give a couple of other examples, but you can criticize the United States, all you want. You can criticize, listen, you can not only criticize it, you can call for its violent overthrow, and you're completely protected by the law. So the slogan from the river to the sea is so pale by comparison. I mean, even in our country, there was a case of fellow walked into a local courthouse with a t-shirt emblazoned on it, fucked the draft. It went to the Supreme Court, I said, it's protected speech. So next to our jurisprudence from the river to the sea is so pale by comparison. How could it possibly be illegal to shout that slogan in the United States? So there was no basis for these claims. The problem is, as I'm sure you understand, the other side doesn't care, because by the time these cases make their way through the courts, right? It's all over. They succeeded in their goal. They silenced all the scent on our college campuses in our cultural institutions, in our hospitals. It won't be upheld. I'm confident of land. I've been several rulings since, you know, supporting the dissenters. It won't be upheld, but it already did the damage. It'll be too late once it's undone. So you said the president of Harvard later conceded that. A large part. A large part of what some said was anti-Semitism was merely criticized. - That's what he said. - Criticism of foreign government. That's obviously true. Why would, it seems very shortsighted, in fact, self-destructive to equate criticism of a foreign government, a foreign politician, Netanyahu, specifically, who's not even that popular within Israel, to say that's this criticizing him as the same as hating all Jews. Why would anybody make that case? That seems crazy. - Well, on the one hand, it's to deligitimize all criticism, obviously. The other thing is, I mean, I think we have to be honest about these things. Netanyahu is the longest sitting crime minister in Israeli history, okay? Every few years, or even every few months here, he's going to be out of office. He's going to be voted out of office. This is the end, the end, the end. And it never happens. And the reason why, in my opinion, it never happens. Because Netanyahu is the perfect reflection of Israeli society. He's an obnoxious, self-righteous, Jewish supremacist. That's Israeli society. Obnoxious, self-righteous, Jewish supremacists. So when they see him, they see themselves. And that's why he keeps winning, despite all of these corruption allegations, and despite all these other attacks on his person. - The Israelis don't really care. - Do you go to Israel? - I went there on the route to the Occupied Post and the Interatories at the time. I was denied entry in 1989. And then I did get in. And then in 2004, I was denied entry again. And I never returned because they don't tell you. I was denied for 10 years, but the government smoothed progressively to the right. So I decided it was pointless to fly. - How could you be denied entry into Israel? I thought that all Jews had a right to return. In fact, I thought it was called the right of return. - I'm not sure on what a particular law I was denied entry. There must have been some security exception to the right of return. I never really investigated it. It wasn't important enough to me. I just accepted acquiesce. - Huh. Seems a little strange though, no? Like you're not Jewish anymore because the government doesn't like you or something. What did they get to decide? - I recognized that they could, there would be displeased with the things I said. So I wasn't altogether shocked. Gradually I started an eye entry to a lot of Jews. I may have been in the head of the queue. - Is that true? - Yeah, there were a lot of Jews who were active in one way or another opposing the occupation who were denied entry. My recollection is a couple of years later, Professor Chomsky was denied entry and there were many other people I know personally who were denied entry. I never considered it particularly significant. - What has it done to your life here in the United States to take the positions you have? - I would say, "Restable, I'm not Edith Piaf. You're not regrettably enough." (laughing) - A fairytale, you know. I have my regrets, but the overall trajectory, this is what I resolved to do as a young man, probably around the age of 16, not having to do with Israel Palestine, but fighting for a more just world. And the people who were important in my life, life as to use the corny expression. Roll models, they had committed themselves to the cause. Many of them passed or were killed early in life because of their commitment. And those are the ones who inspired me. And so I recognized that I would pay a price and I was prepared to pay it. And in a great scheme of things, I'm now 72 years old. I still have a roof over my head. I am not wanting for the basics in life. And I lived most of my life of sound body and I like to believe also of sound mind. So I can say it's caused me any by comparison to the people I admired and the suffering of others. I can say I've paid a big price. I would say the only frustration if I can put that way is I happen to like to teach. I like the interaction with young people who are old enough to think for themselves which comes with roughly college age 18 to 22. And also they are not yet jaded or cynical about the real world. They still have ideals. So it's a wonderful age to interact with and also to teach the excitement of the life of the mind, ideas, thinking through problems, not tweets. A tweet is not an argument. Oh, it's not. No. An argument is quite complex. It has major premises, minor premises. It's very complicated to work out. And it requires a classroom to do that and it requires a text to go over together. And so it's a really a wondrous experience to be a college professor. It's a responsibility, but it's also an experience. And I was significantly denied that opportunity. I don't take it so much personally as I think I could have inspired many more young minds. Not propaganda is them. I am totally against propaganda in the classroom. I'm pretty much a stickler about that. Not propagandize them, not trying to convey to them the joys of the life of the mind. And I think I was deprived of that right because of political considerations. Why are you against propaganda in the classroom? Because a lecture is not a cell box. There is a place if you have political convictions when you're trying to persuade others of your beliefs. But I don't believe that's the place of a classroom. You're not trying to persuade. You're trying to get people to think for themselves and getting people to think for themselves. And my opinion is making the best arguments on both sides if the student is decidedly of one political end of the spectrum to make the best arguments from the other end of the spectrum and force them to work through an argument and reach a conclusion based on the evidence. I think Bertrand Russell, the great British philosopher, he once said, "There are always good arguments to be made on both sides. There are always good arguments to be made on both sides." It's rarely the case that in a major issue of contention, let's say it's abortion or affirmative action, it's rarely the case that all the arguments are on one side and there are no arguments on the other side. There are always arguments on both sides. And then you have to make the best case and let each student decide for himself not who is right and who is wrong. No. What the student has to do is weigh the arguments on both sides and decide on which side is the preponderance of better arguments. It's never like this, the scale. The scale is usually like this. It's always arguments on both sides. You have to weigh the arguments and then decide who has the better case. So, that's your view. Yes, it's my view based on, you know, I read the Supreme Court decisions. I thought I know this will sound like sacrilege. I thought plusy versus Ferguson, which legalized separate but equal in our country, was a much better argument than Brown, the 54 decision that ended separate but equal. Brown wasn't even really a court decision. It wasn't a administrative decree. It was so poorly done and I'd call it liberals like to call it the Mona Lisa of Supreme Court decisions. No. It was very poorly done. The abortion, the role case is in my opinion. It's a complete disaster. It's a disaster for very obvious reason for anybody who reads it. The role says a woman has her right to do with her body as she pleases, until another life enters the picture or what they call potential life. So, they say, of course, a woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases. That's protected by the 14th Amendment. The due process clause of our Constitution, liberty, they sometimes call it the liberty clause and this is a personal right that falls under the liberty clause of the Constitution. But it says you have to take into account when a potential life enters the picture. So, obviously the question is, when does the potential life enter the picture? Is it that conception? Is it at, yeah, right? When does it enter the picture? The court says physicians disagree, theologians disagree, doctors disagree, philosophers disagree. The court says we can't take a position. We don't know when it, because nobody knows when life begins. Well, we have a problem here. If nobody knows when life begins, but if it's a potential life or a real life, then you lose your right to abortion. How do you decide? How do you decide when a woman has the right to her body and when the state has the right to interfere? You said you don't know when life begins. So they say, we'll decide its viability. When the fetus can survive on its own outside the mother's body. But that's a technical question. It just means when machines can keep the fetus alive. Doesn't tell you when life begins. No. So the whole, the whole row case was so poorly argued. And you could see, and I go over it with the class. And by the end, there's probably a large amount of agreement that it should be viability, but there's a recognition that as a legal issue, it's a disaster. And so it was pretty easily overturned. And I would say the bockie case, the affirmative action case, I thought that was pretty well argued. I grant that, but it's also was a very complicated case. I'm not going to go into now how was finally decided. But in general, as a general principle, I believe that one of my important responsibilities as a professor to the extent I was able to practice my profession is to show students that there are always arguments to be made on the other side. So I think we have different politics, or I thought we did, but I would be thrilled to have you teach my children, if the attitudes you just explained are your attitudes in the classroom. I think that it is. Now, I will tell you something, except I believe for two classes when I was at the Paul University, which eventually denied me tenure, I was never allowed to teach the Israel-Palestine conflict. What? Yeah, I was never allowed to teach it. Why? I think that's pretty obvious. I was at Brooklyn College, Hunter College. Those are City University of New York. The pool I recall, there were two senior seminars where I taught the Israel-Palestine conflict. Then I was unemployed from 2007 to about 2020. I had no work, long period of my life. You were totally unemployed? Hardly unemployed. 13 years? Yes. It was a dark period for me, because most people, their structure in life is determined externally. Yes. I have a job. I have to get up. Exactly. Go to work. And I had to every morning wake up and try to rationalize a purpose. To my existence. And it was not easy. I was not go crazy. You want to know the truth? I've forgotten those years. Yeah. But I will say they were a dark period. Then I was doing some adjuncting that's a substitute teacher for those of you who aren't in the academic road. And at Hunter College again, they let me go and then recently at Brooklyn College. It was scattered. It was very demeaning. Yeah. You know, you know what? An adjunct allowed me to explain to your viewers is usually graduate students who they hire at the last minute to fill a class because a professor got a grant. This had a family tragedy. So you hire. And it's usually a graduate student. And I am very far from a graduate student. In just physical years. And to be an adjunct and to be treated. I know I shouldn't say this, but I don't much care. At Brooklyn College this last semester. I hadn't been paid. I get paid pittance. Pittance. They didn't pay me for six weeks. I was so incensed, so enraged, treated like garbage. So it was a very humanly demeaning position for a person. Let's leave aside my quote-unquote academic achievements just my age to be an adjunct. No. We're also not to be vulgar about it, but the most famous person in Brooklyn College by a lot. I rather not say that it's for others to say. Well, that's my characterization. You're certainly, I don't know if anyone else in Brooklyn College is more famous than you are. How did that happen? I mean, can you get specific? I won the DePaul case. About 20 years ago was relatively well-covered as much as it should have been, but basically the department and then the college voted to give you tenure pretty overwhelmingly. And then a bunch of outside forces, including donors and Alan Jershowitz, intervened in the university, the president, if I'm remembering this correctly, denied you 10 years. That correct? I think the final decision was made by the president, Father Holt Schneider, I believe. I'm not sure in the allocation of responsibility who makes that last decision, that too is kind of a blur in my life who was not the last year was really pretty terrible. Do you have any idea in specific terms how you were prevented from being a college professor? Remember, we're living in very different times now. Israel is on the defensive and those who are supporting the rights of Palestinians in opposing the various Israeli aggressions. They are on the offensive. When I first got involved in the conflict, which was in June 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon, we're talking about a handful of, I think it's fair to say, you know the Yiddish expression of Mishuga. Crazy people. A handful of Jewish Mishuga post-Israel sections. The only notable exception was Professor Chomsky, who sort of gave stature to our cause, but it was just a handful of people. And early on, I had written my doctorate of dissertation on the theory of Zionism. And while writing the doctorate of dissertation, there was a book that came out way before your time. It was called From Time in Memorial. And the major thesis of the book was that Palestine was empty. The Jews came, made it flourish, and then all these Arabs from neighboring states infiltrated into Palestine and pretended to be indigenous to it. The book became an instant national bestseller. It was endorsed by the who's who of the American intelligentsia, which largely consisted of Jews at that period, but in 1984, '83. And the book was a sensation, it was a national sensation, because now we've proven that this whole thing about Palestine has been contrived by anti-Semites in order to discredit the Jews and so forth. I sat down and I read the book. Or I should also say the book was certified for its accuracy by a phone named Philip Hauser, who was the head of population studies at the University of Chicago, which is an imposing title. Definitely. Yes. I sat down. I worked at that point the part-time job I was reading my doctoral dissertation. I came home every night. A lot of it was demographics, numbers, tables, numbers, tables. I would sit at home and take out my pattern paper, I didn't use calculators. And I'm flipping the pages. The tables are in the back. The text is in the middle going back and forth, back and forth. I'm going to figure this out. And then one night, I discovered one key number, one key number in the tables with fake. It was a fake. It was a Eureka moment. A Eureka moment. Chills down my spine. I lived in this tiny studio apartment like, oh, Rascalma Court. And I'm pacing the apartment back and forth, back and forth. I'm saying, I did it. I did it. I did it. I was just overwhelmed. It was like one o'clock in the morning. Who can I call? Who can I tell? Well, I'm Jewish. I call my mother. I said, Mom, I did it. I did it. It was one o'clock in the morning. She said, "Norm, I'm so happy for you. What did you do?" Now, there was no way I can explain to her how I proved this is a demographic for it. In any case, and it became a real. real battle, because I had the goods, as they say nowadays, I had the receipts. And that was going to mean I was just a graduate student. And all of these experts had lent their name to the book. All of these authorities, these soul, bellow, Ely Wiesel, Barbara Tuckman, Lucido Widowitch, they don't mean anything to your name. They do. Yeah, well, they were very big names. And so I remember I sent out my findings to several around 20 prominent people who support the rights of Palestinians. You know, it was a different era, you type it up. You have to zero access. You send it in the mail. Most of these people, and I'm not going to give the time of day to a graduate student, they get too many other pieces of correspondence from important people. And once Saturday morning, I got a call. And the call was, hello, is this Norman Finkelstein? I said, yes. And the person then said, this is Norm Chomsky. I read what you wrote, and I found it convincing. And that was the beginning of a whole new chapter in my life, he became a friend, a close friend, and most importantly, a mentor. But he warned me on the very first correspondence. He said, be aware that if you continue on this path, there will be many brick bats coming your way. Honestly, I am not a saint, I am very far from a saint. As Gandhi would also often say, I have 10,000 faults. And I do. And I will never pretend otherwise. But of one thing, I can say, with a certain amount of conviction, I cannot be bought. And I attach a lot to truth. I attach a lot to justice. And I don't, I'm not open to compromising those values. So with all due regard to my mentor, the great known Chomsky, it was not a tough decision at all to pursue it. His wife, Carol, who I was first wife, who I was close to, we were family friends. She would occasionally say that she was, and she liked me. She sympathized with my situation. She would occasionally say, I'm angry at norm, that he didn't discourage you. Because I paid, you know, relatives, I paid some price, okay. And I would say, no, Carol, you're wrong. He did warn me. But it was no way I wouldn't persist. At the beginning, I went, I was called up by Robert Silvers. I'm not sure of that name means anything to you. He was the editor of the New York Review of Books. And the New York Review of Books was by a wide margin, the most influential journal among the intelligence here. Okay. And he called me down to his office. A door was opening. A big door. You know, I was so excited. My heart was palpitating. And he said to come down in like two hours. It wasn't an appointment in the future. I had to, I had to calm down. So I went out for a run. Okay. It was in Washington Heights, the bodegas with the aluminum onings. If you remember what they look like. Yeah. And I ran on the one and I cut a gash in my skull from here to here. Oh, come on. I swear, I cut a gash of long gash and start to bleed. I'm not going to miss this appointment. I'm not going to miss it. This is it, my chance in life. You know, like they say in Britain's got talent. Simon Tollis says, this is those these three minutes might change your life. So I stopped bleeding. I went. And he told me to meet his friend, a fellow named author Bert or rabbi burger. No, rabbi Hertzberg, author Hertzberg, who was in a rabbi and an academic Columbia. I go down to meet Hertzberg. And he says, we Zionists, something like so. Where did that we come from? We said like me and him. And then he said, he'll be my dissertation advisor. I said, no, I'm at Princeton, you're a Columbia. He said, I'll take care of that. And then he asked me a question. He said, I'm quoting now long time ago, 1984, but I remember he said, are you in Shamskis stable? I didn't know what that expression meant, but I self got the idea. And I know, you know, it's what you call the door die moment. I knew if I said, yes, the door was going to shut in my face. But there was no way on God's earth that I was going to say, no, that's not going to happen. And I said, I consider him my mentor and a friend. It was the last time I ever heard from the New York review books. So to answer your question, to answer your question, everybody knows those moments where you know, the door may open or it may shut in your face. Yes. And everybody faces those moments in life, it's called life. And they doors kept shutting. And I tell you, I was bitter because I liked to teach. I was bitter because it was so demeaning. I remember once at Harvard, at Hunter College, I was mimographing some papers for the class at that time, long before to your viewers, long before electronic, you know, send a syllabus and everything through electronic, electronic technology. And one of the professors came into the office was at night, said, what are you doing here? I said, well, I'm an adjunct just Xeroxing some stuff for the class. She called security on me. I was already in my 50s. No. And just for that, just to establish for viewers, I mean, no, you were at Princeton, where were you educated? undergrad, I went to Binghamton University, then Princeton, and then I studied at the Ecopotique, there's only two in Paris. That was my three periods of education. Otherwise, we've been home. So that's the story. And are you bitter about it now? Now I laugh, even though I laugh now, I know it's, it's not a bitter laugh. But let's say, I wrote the only scholarly book, the only scholarly book in Gaza's political history, the only one, Sarah Roy of Harvard University, she wrote the only scholarly economic history of Gaza, excellent book. Okay, I wrote the only political history. I came out in 2018. Okay. It's still the only one. Not reviewed anywhere, nowhere. Never mentioned. You know how sometimes newspapers like The New York Times, when a event becomes from page news, they'll have a little list of books you should read. You know, background books, never mentioned, never mentioned. So now I left. So does this grave diggers, which you've written? How do you expect that to be received? You know, it's a question mark because of the social media. It's very hard to pretend I don't exist. Yes. It's a challenge. Places like New York or magazine, no possibility, no possibility. Maybe the Times will do a hit job. It's possible. But in general, I'm pessimistic. But on the other hand, there is the, I think what they call the alternative media has now sort of become the mainstream media and the mainstream media has become the alternative media. So I think there are, there are prospects. It's a, I think it's a good book. It's not an easy book, but I believe it's a good book. And I do think, I do a kind of research, nobody does, you know, the philosopher, John Stuart Mill, he once said, the more valuable you become to yourself, the more valuable you become to others, which is another way of saying, the more you home your God-given gift, and I believe I'm old fashioned, I believe everybody has a God-given gift. Yes. And it's most people, they go through life. It's latent. Yes, I see that. They don't have the opportunity to discover. They never find out what it is. And some who do find out and never find the time or resources. They can't apply it. So I have a skill. It's a small skill. It's an attention to detail. It's checking every footnote. It's applying my mind where I think something is implausible to finding the errors in the argument. The great advantage that truth has over falsehood is this truth holds together because it's true. Falsehood, if you apply your eye in a conscientious, almost maniacal way, and it requires a certain amount of fanaticism, you can prove its false because at the end of the day, it doesn't hold together. And that's been kind of my life's, I won't say, vocation, it's my gift. It's not a big gift. But what I like to say is what I do is not much. I acknowledge that. But what I do, I do well. I can take any text which is implausible at first glance, prophecy, implausible. I can put my eye to it, page by page, sentence by sentence, and I can demonstrate this is not true. And that's what I largely do in this book. For example, one example that will be familiar to you listeners, there's no question that atrocities of a significant magnitude were committed by Hamas and other militant groups on October 7th. And I am not a denier of any sort of atrocity. So far as the evidence shows as of now, it happened. But then there were claims made as all of your listeners know that Hamas had weaponized rape and sexual violence. I found that for reasons not worth going into right now, I found that implausible. And then I started to go through the evidence. And there is no material evidence to support that claim. I devote the first chapter of the new book, God says grave diggers, the chapter is called rape fantasies. I go through all the alleged evidence. And I find it not only non persuasive, I find the evidence non-existent. So it's totally made up. Yes. Yes. I have to be careful about my words. You ask me the question, is it totally made up? I would say the evidence based on the evidence that's been adduced. Yes. It's totally made up. So let's give you one example. And then you judge for yourself, assuming what I'm telling you now was true is accurate. Okay. After my book came out, this is very, I should start it up. The claim has been widespread. I mean, widespread. You hear it everywhere. Right. And I'll get to that. Just remind me as I continue and remind me of the name Charles Sandberg, which I'll get to if you remind me. I know Charles Sandberg. Okay. Good. So let's take after my book came out, this new Israeli report was published by they call a civil commission. And the main author of the report is somebody named Dr. Cochav. I forgot a levy her last name. I'll come back to me. So here's what she says. Okay. She says Hamas committed widespread rape on October 7th widespread systematic sexual violence on October 7th. You're familiar with those claims, of course, as are as is your viewers. And then she said the Hamas had weaponized this sexual violence, including rape and gang rape in order to shatter the Israeli national asprey spirit. So it posted all of these acts of rape and sexual violence on the social media, even contacted the families of the victims using their own cellphones, the family cellphones, which they seized and so forth, iPhones. And disseminate all the evidence. Okay. That's an interesting claim. So what do you discover? I hope your viewers are all ears. They say that they have 10,000, 10,000 photographs and digital segments of what happened on October 7th, 10,000. They also say that if you were to view it, it would take 1,800 hours to view all of their photographic and digital evidence. It would take 1,800 hours. That means if you're a single researcher and you go through this evidence, it would take you and you did eight hours a day, eight hours a day every day of the week. It would take you more than seven months to go through all of the photographic and digital evidence of October 7th. Now here is the kicker. There isn't one single image. One single frame of Hamas committing rape or sexual violence on October 7th. How can that be? How is that possible? Not one image. They say Hamas was posting the image. of sexual violence in order to demoralize, shatter the national spirit. They said, "We have Hamas, excuse me, we have Hamas dash cams, we have Hamas body cams, we have Hamas go pros, we have it." They said, "We have extensive images from Hamas." But none of those images show sexual violence or rape. There has not been one image, not one, put forth by Israel, and Amnesty International said, "Nobody even claims they have such an image." How is that possible? By there, I should also add, they have CCTV imagery, digital evidence, they have traffic camera evidence, they have iPhone evidence from October 7th. There's no evidence, there's no image. How can that be? So, they have no physical evidence. Part of it seemed plausible to me. They said, "We have no forensic evidence because they weren't prepared for a massacre of the magnitude of October 7th, so they processed the bodies very quickly to prepare them for Jewish burial, and they didn't preserve any or then preserve significant forensic evidence." That seemed plausible to me, but no digital evidence. That didn't sound right. That didn't even sound, not only didn't sound plausible, it didn't sound possible. The only thing they have is witnesses. So, they have this witness. She says, "I was sitting in a little room, I was hidden." The room was sealed, they call a caravan, a caravan. The room was sealed of a vehicular hiding place. She said, "Sitting in the room, I heard," this is her words, I'm calling it, "I heard a gang rape here, I heard a rape here, and I heard another rape there." Then she starts giving more details of these rapes. She heard in the loo, a rape here, a rape. She said, "Here, here, and here, there, there, and there." That's their best evidence. Did she identify the victims of these rapes? She was sealed in the room. There were no windows. There was no windows. You have to ask her, did she hear the Vienna Boys choir here, and Boston pops here, and the Beatles reunion there, it was completely, and that was their star witness. If you look at the current report, I mentioned you the 300 page report. She's listed first. Of the survivors, there are two alleged survivors, one of October 7th, one a hostage survivor. But if you look at the report, neither of them said they were raped. They did not read what they said. The woman hostage survivor, she became quite prominent. Anat Susana, she said, "Something terrible was done to me." Maybe I'm not going to dispute that. Something awful was done to me, but she never said she was raped. She does not. There is a claim by a nail that he was raped on October 7th. When if you read his testimony to the so-called Civil Commission, there's no, he doesn't say he was raped. So, we're stuck with the following problem. No forensic evidence, no digital evidence, no photographic evidence, and of the survivor testimony, the one survivor from October 7th, who's touted as a victim of rape, he doesn't say he was raped. The one survivor of hostages, Anat Susana, she doesn't say she was raped. I tell you, at my age, the memory can slip. The author of the report is Dr. Kochav Elkayum Levy. She's the author. And I want to say, look, your program has reached, obviously. It's not BGT, neither three minutes, nor three hours are going to change my life. Because my life is over in the past. But it has reached. So, I say, you disagree with me. Dr. Elkayum Levy, let's debate it. Let's go to a public venue and debate it. I say the same thing to Cheryl Sandberg. Now, of Facebook, Cheryl Sandberg was the mate meta, COO Chief Operator Officer. And she's a bright woman. No question about it. I never deny people, I can load them, but I never deny people their achievements. She attended Harvard. She was an economics major. She was the top student in her economics class for her year. That's her significant achievement. Now, she makes a film, a documentary, she calls it. It's called screams before silence. And it claims that there was mass systematic rape and sexual violence on October 7, committed by Hamas, systematic widespread sexual violence. And she stars in the film, and she emotes, and she's in tears, and she's going, oh my god, she's looking at these images of sexual violence and rape on an iPhone. But Cheryl, I hope you're listening. You're a bright woman. But excuse my English, you're full of shit. There were no images. There was one image, but the independent, where they called forensic specialists, whatever they're called. They said you couldn't tell anything from those images. Screams before silence should be called Shalak before Shice. Your listeners can go to their, you get a dictionary to find out, you know, Shalak before Shice. These are Jewish supremacists who have no regard, whatever for facts. Because for them, it's the cause. And the cause is more important than any passing fact. She was in the economics department. She knows what evidence is. She knows what evidentiary standards are. It's the cause. Israel must live. So last question pertains to what you just said. Outside the United States, I think it's very, there's a consensus globally, pretty much, that what Israel is doing is totally indefensible. These are crimes. But the question is, will there ever be a reckoning? So your parents were polls, and we're both put in Nazi camps, including Auschwitz, and your family was murdered. But there was a reckoning, a reckoning. I mean, some of the people who committed those crimes were held to account. Will that happen in this case? Well, let's start from basics. When the whole society is implicated in a genocide, apart from a few senior figures, it's impossible for there to be a reckoning. That's why places like South Africa pioneered the idea of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission because if you're going to prosecute everybody implicate the partite, it's a large portion of society. So as a general rule, even in the best of cases, it's only a handful of people who are going to be held accountable. In the case of Israel, nobody will ever be held accountable. That for that to me is pretty transparent. Why? Well, because first of all, the United States won't allow it to happen. Part of it, as you know, is the domino effect. If they're held accountable, Trump is in a very, first of all, Biden and Blinken are in a very difficult situation because they enabled the genocide. If it weren't for Joe Biden and Tony Blinken, there couldn't have been a genocide in Gaza. It was funny. The New Yorker magazine wrote this article. I believe it was the New Yorker in which it, this is very recent, in which it claimed that it was written by a fellow Fitzpatrick, his name just, I think it was David Fitzpatrick. A former time supporter. And he said, oh, they tried so hard. They tried so hard. They couldn't do anything, you know, meaning Biden and Blinken and the others, Jake Sullivan, to prevent the genocide. And then in the course of the article, they have aligned that reads 70% of the weapons for the Gaza genocide came from the United States. You certainly had one option. Yeah. Don't send the weapons. Don't supply the weapons. So there's always the fear of the domino effect. If Israelis are indicted, where does that leave the Biden administration? So that makes it improbable that's going to happen. Same thing with Donald Trump, because the attack on Iran was the most brazen, flagrant aggression. In the modern history, there's not been to my knowledge. No, my knowledge is not unlimited. To my knowledge, there's never been a case in the modern world of a state attacking without a pre pretense of a pretext, a pretense, even Hitler in 1939 when he attacked Poland. He fabricated a border incident. Of course, you always have to claim self defense. Got a golf tongue in it. Yeah. I was just going to say, you beat me to the draw. In 1964, the US had to essentially fabricate or LBJ Lyndon Johnson, the president fabricate. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution in order to for those of you who won't go back that far and luckily for you, if you don't, for in I believe it was August 1964, the claim was made that a North North Vietnamese vessel attacked an American vessel. And that was then there were only two senators who vote against it was Ernst Groening and I forgot the second. And that became the piece of legislation that enabled the ground war in Vietnam. The US was already heavily involved during the Kennedy years, but it enabled the ground war in Vietnam. In the case of Israel and the US, there wasn't a pretense. There wasn't a pretense of a pretext. It was the most brazen, flagrant breach of the UN shorter and modern history in the middle of an negotiation. In the middle of an negotiation, so I was listening to your interview with Darryl Cooper and that was emphasized in the middle of a negotiation. It was so dishonorable. It was it was outrageous. But you know what's also dishonorable and outrageous. There was no reaction by the UN Security Council. Nothing, nothing. You could hear a pin drop in the silence. You know what else was dishonorable? On November 17th, 2025, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2803. And do you know what that resolution did amidst all the horror that the God for a second people of Gaza have endured since back in 1948, the concentration camp in which they have been immured for 80 years after the genocide over the past three years. The UN Security Council, I know this will sound like hyperbole, exaggeration. The UN Security Council handed the deed of Gaza to Donald J. Trump. He got the deed to Gaza. He was designated the head of the Board of Peace. He was subsequently given total veto power over any decision made by the Board of Peace. And the UN Security Council only put one condition, one. Every six months the Board of Peace should not have to should report to the Security Council on the situation in Gaza. The UN's Gaza. So there have been many shameless episodes. And in fact, that's what the purpose of my new book is to preserve for future generations. Assuming there will be future generations. And as you discussed with Darryl Cooper, there are all sorts of apocalyptic scenarios that are plausible in the case of the current aggression against the Ryan. But assuming, and those by the way, you are plausible, I've written about them. Oh, it's definitely possible. There are two crazy people at the helm. Yes, one in Tel Aviv and one in the over office. That's correct. And it's absolutely impossible what to predict what they might do. But assuming the worst doesn't come to the worst. What I've written is to preserve the record of that infamy of what has been done to the people of Gaza. But with the recognition that unlikely anyone is going to be held legally accountable for what was done to those God for second people. Well, in the absence of that, I'm glad you wrote this and I'm grateful that you took the time for this conversation.