Speaker 1: Wake that ass up in the morning. Breakfast Club.
Speaker 2: Morning, everybody is tej n V. Charlamagne the guy. We
Speaker 2: are the Breakfast Club. We got a special guest in
Speaker 2: the building. Yes, indeed got the brother Mark Lamont Hill.
Speaker 1: Morning morning, y'all. Now, last hour we had Jonathan Green
Speaker 1: Black here, the head of the ad L, and you know,
Speaker 1: of course he's he's I would say pro Israel, that's
Speaker 1: safe to say.
Speaker 3: Right, yeah, yes.
Speaker 1: And you know, Mark, I was thinking about all the
Speaker 1: people that I know who've been to Israel, been to Pakistan,
Speaker 1: who've been speaking about this issue.
Speaker 4: For a long time, for a long time.
Speaker 1: Marcus Mark has not only just been one of them,
Speaker 1: Marcus taking bullets, you know, for speaking out and being
Speaker 1: pro Palestine. Yeah, so what did you think that too
Speaker 1: broad a question?
Speaker 3: I'll say one thing. There's some points where.
Speaker 2: Before we go that can we can you detail people
Speaker 2: of what's going on there from your view because you
Speaker 2: were there, Get to that let and then you can
Speaker 2: talk about that so people can understand it first, because
Speaker 2: you might not know this is a new hour, they
Speaker 2: might not know what's going on.
Speaker 3: They connectcause John, I think, is replying to.
Speaker 1: The events that have taken place in Israel and in
Speaker 1: Gaza over the last week or two. And I think
Speaker 1: where he and I agree one hundred percent is that
Speaker 1: this is an awful and unprecedented tragedy. There's no way
Speaker 1: to even wrap your mind fully around what it means
Speaker 1: for over a thousand people to be killed. Correct, the
Speaker 1: attacks that happened in Israel were devastating. As someone who
Speaker 1: believes in justice, and as someone who believes in human rights,
Speaker 1: and as someone who believes that international law and rules
Speaker 1: of war have to be followed, I would say, and
Speaker 1: I'm speaking for me and lots of other people, I'm
Speaker 1: almost representing my opinion right now that Hamas's attack was
Speaker 1: a violation of international law. As an organization rooted in
Speaker 1: Islamic principles, it's also violation of religious law to attack civilians,
Speaker 1: to attack innocence, even in times of war. If I
Speaker 1: took the law off the table, just basic decency, I
Speaker 1: would say, this is awful.
Speaker 3: So we agree on that.
Speaker 1: Where we disagree very quickly is how we make sense
Speaker 1: of how we got here and what we do moving forward.
Speaker 1: History didn't start on October seven, and oftentimes we see
Speaker 1: this in the United States when a target gets blown
Speaker 1: up or set on fire, or a police car gets
Speaker 1: slipped over or whatever, whether we agree or disagree with
Speaker 1: the action. At that moment, the media starts to say,
Speaker 1: look at these animals, look at these savages. I can't
Speaker 1: believe they did that. And if you were to come
Speaker 1: up from another planet and watch this, you would think
Speaker 1: that history started on ferguson the night that shit got
Speaker 1: set on fire. You would think that the world just
Speaker 1: started at these moments, when in fact, there's a long
Speaker 1: history that gets you there. Israel has been in apartheid
Speaker 1: state since nineteen forty eight years, yes, years. It has
Speaker 1: been an occupying power since nineteen sixty seven, right, fifty
Speaker 1: six years, yeah, and it has been. It has held
Speaker 1: the guys in people in particular, under siege since two
Speaker 1: thousand and six, seventeen years going on eighteen in January.
Speaker 1: So these are the things that get you there. And
Speaker 1: the people of Gaza are catching hell. This isn't ordinary, Hell,
Speaker 1: this isn't normal. Just inequality. We're talking about not having
Speaker 1: access to clean water, We're a potable water right, not
Speaker 1: having access to schools, being constantly under siege, where you're
Speaker 1: getting bombs, you're getting shot at, you're vulnerable to premature
Speaker 1: death every single day. This is what they're dealing with
Speaker 1: for the last seventeen years. And so when Hamaz emerges
Speaker 1: and engages in this activince, which is not excusable because
Speaker 1: I don't want everybody say he's trying to excuse me.
Speaker 1: I'm not excusing me. I'm saying it's inexcusable, right, But
Speaker 1: we have to understand where it starts. And when you
Speaker 1: put people in an open air prison, which is what
Speaker 1: Gaza is, it's an open air prison, you have to
Speaker 1: expect people to respond at some point. So whose fault
Speaker 1: is the condition, guys in? Is it Hamas? Because that
Speaker 1: hasn't Hama's been in control since six Hamasa. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean it's the right question, right, And what Jonathan would say,
Speaker 1: what a lot of pro israel folk would say, is well,
Speaker 1: you know, all the Jewish settlers left in two thousand
Speaker 1: and five, and Hamas took over in two thousand and six,
Speaker 1: and therefore, whatever happens, that's on y'all. Problem is Pilotitians
Speaker 1: have not had one minute, not one minute of self
Speaker 1: determination in those seventeen years. In other words, yeah, they left.
Speaker 1: It would be like if you were in a prison,
Speaker 1: and they say, Okay, all the guards left, but you're
Speaker 1: still in prison. We're still on the border of the prison.
Speaker 1: You still can't get out of the prison, right you
Speaker 1: STI don't have any more food, and we control it,
Speaker 1: right God. Israel controls Gaza by land, by air, and
Speaker 1: by sea. It controls the population registry, It controls the
Speaker 1: electromagnetic sphere. It controls everything that goes in and everything
Speaker 1: that goes out. It is military. It is effectively controlling
Speaker 1: or effectively occupying Gaza, just from the outside. And so, no,
Speaker 1: they haven't had an opportunity for self determination. They haven't
Speaker 1: had an opportunity to build. They are under occupation in
Speaker 1: a different way, but the same as the people in
Speaker 1: the West Bank. And so it is a very very
Speaker 1: very different situation. That's not to say that Hamas is perfect.
Speaker 1: There are lots of stuff about Hamas I disagree with.
Speaker 1: I disagree with religious rule in general. And Hamass is
Speaker 1: rooted again. They come from as As Jonathan accurately said.
Speaker 1: Their roots are in the Islamic Brotherhood of Egypt, and
Speaker 1: they do have a vision of freedom that is rooted
Speaker 1: in Islamic principles. I happen to disagree with with religious governments.
Speaker 1: I agree with that. There's other critics that have this
Speaker 1: critice to have every government, but it's important to acknowledge
Speaker 1: that Hamas is a government, and you can't have it
Speaker 1: both ways. Sometimes they'll say, well, Hamas is a terrorist organization.
Speaker 1: You can't talk to them, you can't deal with them,
Speaker 1: you can't do this, you can't do this, and that
Speaker 1: kind of language makes it impossible to have a diplomatic
Speaker 1: or political solution. They make it seem as if the
Speaker 1: only thing you can do is blow them up because
Speaker 1: they're not a government.
Speaker 3: They're not a government.
Speaker 1: I wondered about that too when it comes to Hamas,
Speaker 1: because you know, they say they're a government, but their
Speaker 1: charter just says they want to destroy Israel and kill
Speaker 1: Jewish people. So it's like, can you negotiate with somebody
Speaker 1: if that's literally your charter. That's that's an interesting question.
Speaker 1: A couple of things. Hamas starts in nineteen eighty seven.
Speaker 1: As again, Jonathan said that accurately, they started in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty seven as a nationalist group. Their goal was the
Speaker 1: liberation of the entire land of Palestine. At some point
Speaker 1: they got to a space where they wanted to also
Speaker 1: be involved in politics. So nineteen eighty seven is a
Speaker 1: very different moment than two thousand and five, two thousand
Speaker 1: and six when they ran in these elections, when they
Speaker 1: ran apart in these elections against Fatah. At that moment,
Speaker 1: their goal was still a free Palestine that for them
Speaker 1: meant getting rid of what they call design escentity, didn't
Speaker 1: mean a certain kind of vision of freedom that did
Speaker 1: not include the state of Israel as a Jewish state. Right.
Speaker 1: But Hamas over time was willing to have a unity
Speaker 1: government with the Palestinian authority, with the FACTA in particular.
Speaker 1: They were willing to engage in diplomatic relations. And it's
Speaker 1: dishonest to suggest that they haven't been engaged in Israel,
Speaker 1: that we can't talk to them the guys. If Israel
Speaker 1: want to blow up all of Hamas and all the guys,
Speaker 1: that they could have already done that, right. But they've
Speaker 1: always worked with They've always worked with Hamas, They've always
Speaker 1: worked with them since two thousand and six to keep
Speaker 1: the perimeters steady because they don't want instability. They don't
Speaker 1: want five or six groups fighting, right, So they've always
Speaker 1: negotiated with Jimas so it's sort of designed to say
Speaker 1: that we just can't talk to them. I understand the
Speaker 1: concern that Hamas's vision of a solution for the political
Speaker 1: issue is different than israels solution for the political issues
Speaker 1: was different than the other party solution for the political issues.
Speaker 1: That's fine, But they are democratically elected government, and they
Speaker 1: have a right as a democratically elected government to.
Speaker 3: To negotiate and to have a worldview. And Israels are
Speaker 3: right to.
Speaker 1: Have theirs, but you can't undermine them as a government
Speaker 1: even if we disagree with them. I might say that
Speaker 1: thing that happened on October seventh was an act of
Speaker 1: terrorism inexcusable. I would say that, I am saying that,
Speaker 1: But that does not mean that it's impossible to have
Speaker 1: a diplomatic or political solution to this problem. We cannot
Speaker 1: pretend that the only way to solve this issue is
Speaker 1: to just blow everything up and to just kill everybody.
Speaker 4: Let me ask you a question. Now, you did say
Speaker 4: their attack was not.
Speaker 1: By the rules right of war in neither Israel's right.
Speaker 2: So now with Israel talking and I guess sending flies
Speaker 2: and pamphlets out and says, you know, we're giving you
Speaker 2: twenty four to forty eight hours to leave Gaza. We're
Speaker 2: going to start bombing Gaza. And I heard this morning
Speaker 2: on the news that said, you know, the hospitals are saying,
Speaker 2: we can't get out. We can't get these people out
Speaker 2: because by the time we try to get them out,
Speaker 2: they will die.
Speaker 1: Right yep.
Speaker 4: So, if let's say.
Speaker 2: Hamas is not following the rules, a lot of people say, well,
Speaker 2: why shit Israel followed the rules.
Speaker 1: Well, if we followed. The problem is if we follow
Speaker 1: that logic down, Let's say I can see both of
Speaker 1: those points. I don't, but let's say I did, right,
Speaker 1: then I could say, well, hamaskus say, well, we didn't
Speaker 1: have to play by the rules because Israel had u
Speaker 1: under Leegal occupation for since nineteen sixty seven. They we've
Speaker 1: been underseased since nineteen Since since nineteen we've been underseased.
Speaker 3: In two thousand and six seven.
Speaker 1: We've been we've been literally since nineteen forty kicked out
Speaker 1: of our homes, all the violations of international law. A
Speaker 1: right to return is international law. Palestinians can't go back
Speaker 1: to their homes. They were ethnically cleansing in nineteen forty
Speaker 1: eight in the neckba right and somebody in the in
Speaker 1: the Israel Kannessed, which is basically the Congress, said we
Speaker 1: would to have another nekba right now. So that's a
Speaker 1: violation of international laws. The target and civilians, the refusal
Speaker 1: to provide certain supplies as an occupying power as a
Speaker 1: violation of international laws right now. Collectively punishing all Palestinians
Speaker 1: for the act of Hamas is a gross violation of
Speaker 1: international law and rules of war. Forced transfer of people
Speaker 1: from one place to another, expulsion is a violation of
Speaker 1: the rules of war. And even Jonathan is saying they
Speaker 1: would have a humanitarian corridor in the Egypt side of
Speaker 1: their country. That is another neck But that's exactly what happened,
Speaker 1: and how you got refugees before the planners that can
Speaker 1: put them out, it's not to bring them back. So yeah,
Speaker 1: the ideas to say that, well, yeah, Israel shouldn't play
Speaker 1: bout us because Hamas doesn't know if you play that game,
Speaker 1: the original rule breaker is Israel by international law and
Speaker 1: by all historical standards, so they don't they don't play
Speaker 1: that game. But I don't think we should play that game.
Speaker 1: I think at all moments we should do the most ethical,
Speaker 1: the most just, the most fair, the most humane thing
Speaker 1: that is possible, and that right now is a ceasefire.
Speaker 1: That right now is a return of all hostages. I'm
Speaker 1: talking to Hamas now right a return of all hostage
Speaker 1: from Jimas. It's it's stopping all violence right and it's
Speaker 1: coming up with a political solution that allows Palestinians to
Speaker 1: stay in their home. It is not yelling out as
Speaker 1: members of the Israeli government have said, We're going to
Speaker 1: shrink the size of Gaza because you can't. You can't
Speaker 1: start a war with Israel and leave with the same
Speaker 1: mind of land that you started with. Taking land by
Speaker 1: force is a violation of international law, occupying occupying land
Speaker 1: since nineteen sixty seven, violation right, I mean everything here,
Speaker 1: violation eighteen. Human rights organizations before all it started agreed,
Speaker 1: including Israeli human rights organizations like Bett Sellem, agreed that
Speaker 1: Israel isn't a Partheight state and it's been in Apartheight state.
Speaker 1: So somehow the global community standing up and being outraged
Speaker 1: at what happened in Israel, that makes sense to me.
Speaker 1: But what doesn't make sense to me is how we
Speaker 1: weren't outraged the day before when these things were happened
Speaker 1: to Palestinian people, and for the last seventy five years
Speaker 1: they've been happening to Palestinian people. And it doesn't make
Speaker 1: sense to me why right now we're not equally disgusted
Speaker 1: that over seven hundred at this point, I think it's
Speaker 1: even eight hundred Palestinian children have been killed in the
Speaker 1: last week. We changed the whole world for Ukraine and
Speaker 1: Russia killed about four u and fifty of those children
Speaker 1: over course of a whole year.
Speaker 2: What is your thoughts with the US, you know, bringing
Speaker 2: the largest aircraft carrier a ship out to show support
Speaker 2: of Israel.
Speaker 4: What are your thoughts on that which you're saying?
Speaker 2: But the all the thing is, nobody said anything beforehand,
Speaker 2: but now it seems like they're getting support of the US.
Speaker 4: Whatich you're thought?
Speaker 1: Right? And part of the problem is a lot of
Speaker 1: us were right. Three point six or three point eight
Speaker 1: billion dollars a year agoes from the United States to Israel.
Speaker 1: We fund the occupation and that's why mereause, if y'all
Speaker 1: wonder why you should care, because you pay for it. Right,
Speaker 1: this could not happen without anybody else's help, but the US,
Speaker 1: the US has offered weapons. They've offered weapons to make
Speaker 1: sure that israelways has the best weapons. They call a
Speaker 1: qualitative edge. They've made sure that technologies come through. We
Speaker 1: support this thing. What the US is doing right now
Speaker 1: with the aircraft carrier is a very small drop in
Speaker 1: the bucket compared to what the US has done, not
Speaker 1: since nineteen forty eight, but certainly since the nineteen sixties
Speaker 1: and nineteen really the nineteen seventies with regard to support
Speaker 1: for Israel. And that's the thing we should.
Speaker 3: Be outraged about.
Speaker 1: We should be outraged at Biden's response. We should be
Speaker 1: outraged about many members of the US Congress's response. We
Speaker 1: should be outraged by lots of people. Again, you should
Speaker 1: have been outraged when those innocent Israeli children were killed.
Speaker 1: Their lives are worth something. They're worth the same as
Speaker 1: palasating because their lives are worth something. All of our
Speaker 1: lives are worth something, right, But the outrage can't just
Speaker 1: be for Israeli kids. They got to be for kids
Speaker 1: in Palestine. They got to be for kids in Armenia,
Speaker 1: they gotta be for kids in ch I mean everywhere,
Speaker 1: But in this issue, it got to be for everybody
Speaker 1: on the table. Do you think it's because people are
Speaker 1: seeing it right now, but they're saying, Palastinian kids, do
Speaker 1: you know what it is? It's the language that we use.
Speaker 1: They use a language of Even when Jonathan was talking respectfully,
Speaker 1: there's a way that we start to talk about this
Speaker 1: is barbaric.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: When you start using words like barbaric, when you start
Speaker 1: to frame people as subhuman or inhuman, that is a
Speaker 1: deep problem. Now, Jonathan gold Black, Green Black, excuse me.
Speaker 1: Jonathan Green Black rightly pointed out that there's a long history.
Speaker 1: He alluded to the long history of Jewish people being
Speaker 1: constructed as subhuman and as animals. Right, it's a disgusting
Speaker 1: anti Semitic trope that helped animate the forces of the Holocaust.
Speaker 1: We don't want to ever go back there, but we
Speaker 1: also don't want to transfer that to Palestinian people or
Speaker 1: to Arabs. And when you start calling them barbarians, when
Speaker 1: you start hear needs extraordinary and to some of them
Speaker 1: unsubstantiated point claims about.
Speaker 3: Babies being beheaded.
Speaker 1: What it does is it creates a kind of outrage
Speaker 1: at Arabs and at Palestinians and at brown people more broadly.
Speaker 1: That then makes barbaric responses seem justified. But I want
Speaker 1: to be clear. It's not just that I disagree with
Speaker 1: disproportionate force. It is illegal to engage in disproportionate force.
Speaker 1: There is a law of proportionality in international law, that
Speaker 1: is to say that I can only use force to
Speaker 1: the extent that it's that it engaged, that it that
Speaker 1: it fulfills my military uh mission. In other words, if
Speaker 1: if we're at war and you shoot at me, and
Speaker 1: I should, I can't shoot that the whole block up.
Speaker 1: I can't. That's just common hoods sense, like you can't
Speaker 1: just shoot up the whole blo because you gotta be
Speaker 1: for one person. You can't, right, and international law protects
Speaker 1: that logic and asserts that logic. And so what Israel
Speaker 1: has done is engaged in a disproportionate force. You kill us,
Speaker 1: We're gonna kill all of y'all. We're gonna wipe them
Speaker 1: off the map that they say, We're gonna knock them
Speaker 1: three generations. We're gonna turn guys into tens. These are
Speaker 1: all quotes that we're hearing. And the problem is if
Speaker 1: you think that they're animals anyway, then it's a lot
Speaker 1: easier to do. It's just like when you hear that
Speaker 1: prisoners are starving. No one said people are going to prisoners.
Speaker 1: They don't deserve you know, they're unsafe. Oh well, you know,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, because we've decided that they don't deserve
Speaker 1: the same thing as everybody else. Right, we can't think
Speaker 1: like that. Palisandi lives are worth just as much as
Speaker 1: Israeli lives. And until we recognize that and own that
Speaker 1: in policy, then we're going to continue to see the
Speaker 1: kind of force that we're using. And that's why I
Speaker 1: don't like this narrative of those animals, those barbarians, those
Speaker 1: uncivilized people. No, there's civilized people who can be engaged
Speaker 1: through diplomacy, through through politics, through legal solutions, just like
Speaker 1: everybody else. What's the difference between Hamas and just citizens
Speaker 1: of Palestine. Well, Hamas is a political party, you know,
Speaker 1: and they also have a kind of armed wing that
Speaker 1: is a little more extreme. But the Palacinian people haven't
Speaker 1: had a chance to vote for Hamas. I don't know
Speaker 1: what they want. They won the election, I believe for
Speaker 1: forty four the vote in two thousand and six, forty
Speaker 1: nine percent of the dozen population is under eighteen. So
Speaker 1: imagine if seventeen imagine if Donald Trump won the election
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four, God forbid, and then he decided,
Speaker 1: which is not completely unplausible, that he's not leaving office.
Speaker 1: Oh he's going to do that, right, exactly, exactly right.
Speaker 1: I agree. So there's seventeen at least of him winning
Speaker 1: part then seventeen years later he's still in office. You
Speaker 1: can't blame the people who never got a chance to
Speaker 1: vote for him. You can't blame anybody for him being
Speaker 1: office seventeen years later if it's a four year term.
Speaker 3: And so part of it is the everyday people, the guys.
Speaker 1: I don't speak for them. I don't want to say
Speaker 1: whether they support himass or not. Right, What I know
Speaker 1: is they want to be free and they know that
Speaker 1: the other party of FETA has basically caved. They know
Speaker 1: that Paliseni authority doesn't represent their interest. They don't have
Speaker 1: a mandate either, and so it's very difficult to know
Speaker 1: what Palisi people want.
Speaker 3: Let them have free and fair elections and then we
Speaker 3: can find out what they want.
Speaker 1: But in terms of the Palestinian people in general, they
Speaker 1: don't just live in Gaza, they live in the West Bank,
Speaker 1: they live in cities like Ramaala and Bethlehem. They live
Speaker 1: in these cities and they are under military occupation. What
Speaker 1: they did, and Jonathan talked about wanting a two state solution,
Speaker 1: and again there are lots of people who want the
Speaker 1: two state solutions. I don't oppose a two state solution philosophically,
Speaker 1: but what they've effectively done since those Oslo Accords of
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety three is turned Gaza into a cage and
Speaker 1: the West Bank into two hundred and twenty eight separate ghettos.
Speaker 1: So the Palestinian people don't have unity. They don't they're
Speaker 1: ruled by different parties. Area A, they're ruled by Palestinians,
Speaker 1: Area B, there is coordinated with Israel. Area C is
Speaker 1: all Israeli control. So even the part where they're supposed
Speaker 1: to be free, they're not. And Oslo was supposed to
Speaker 1: be an opportunity to work toward a two state solution.
Speaker 1: But over the time as they're negotiating, the area is
Speaker 1: getting smaller, Palestinian freedom is getting smaller.
Speaker 3: Settlements are growing. I think I used the example before.
Speaker 1: It's like if you and I are arguing over how
Speaker 1: to divide the pizza and as we argued, whore going
Speaker 1: to which way to split it? You keep eating slices,
Speaker 1: right at some point there's nothing left to divide, and
Speaker 1: we say, well, now now there's two slices level, let's
Speaker 1: split it. Mark Well, I'd be like fuck you right,
Speaker 1: like it's too laugh. And that's basically what is happening
Speaker 1: right now in Palestine. And so Palestinian people are saying, look,
Speaker 1: we've been waiting. We we negotiated with Oslo and it
Speaker 1: was it was a farce with no Ada calls it
Speaker 1: a sovereignty trap.
Speaker 3: We tried to march in protest.
Speaker 1: They had the Great March of Return in Guys up
Speaker 1: to the undefined border of Israel, and from five hundred
Speaker 1: meters away, Israeli snipers were shooting down people, picking them
Speaker 1: off like birds. They marched. They said, tell your story
Speaker 1: through medium. My colleague get Algaeta shooting a buokla. They
Speaker 1: killed her with the press jacket on with no justice.
Speaker 1: They not First they said Palastinian killed it. Then they said, okay,
Speaker 1: we did it. Then they said as an accident, is
Speaker 1: there any justice? No, So just like black folk, here
Speaker 1: your march, they say it's wrong. Your protests, you say
Speaker 1: is wrong. Your boycott the BDS movement they've tried to criminalize, right,
Speaker 1: which is a boycott, dives, investment, and sanctioned movement called
Speaker 1: by a civil society Palestinian people saying, look, we got
Speaker 1: to do something different. So every possible strategy has been
Speaker 1: met with resistance, has been met with criminalization, has been
Speaker 1: met with violence. And so when I see these awful
Speaker 1: events that again are inexcusable, they don't come from nowhere.
Speaker 1: They don't come from from day one being October seventh,
Speaker 1: They come from day one, not even being nineteen forty eight,
Speaker 1: really day one being there late in nineteenth century, late
Speaker 1: twentieth centuries, late nineteenth century, Excuse me, when we started
Speaker 1: to see Palestinian land being settler colonized.
Speaker 2: Now, what is your thoughts on? You know, Jonathan was
Speaker 2: also upset with some chapters of Black Lives Matter supporting
Speaker 2: Black Lives Matter Chicago and Chicago. It was a couple
Speaker 2: of chapters actually that was supporting Palestine and Hamas. What's
Speaker 2: your thought on that? The reason we asking all these
Speaker 2: questions because you know, I'm not verse. I don't know
Speaker 2: if Charlamagne is versed, but I'm not verse think.
Speaker 1: I The one I saw in Chicago was the one
Speaker 1: with the paraga, a paraglider, and I thought that was
Speaker 1: impoor taste.
Speaker 3: Again, I don't because there.
Speaker 1: Was a paragliders that came in and shot up the
Speaker 1: right right.
Speaker 3: And I don't sell.
Speaker 1: I don't want to celebrate or romanticize the killing of civilians,
Speaker 1: and so I didn't like that. Standing in solidarity with
Speaker 1: the Palestinian people as they resist is nothing wrong with that.
Speaker 1: And as a nascent sovereign, as a young emerging sovereign state,
Speaker 1: a mass has the right to resist military occupation. And
Speaker 1: let's be very clear, Palestinians have the legal right, not
Speaker 1: just the natural right, but the legal right to resist.
Speaker 3: They can use violence to resist. They're under military occupation.
Speaker 1: It is not illegal to resist, but you have limits
Speaker 1: on how you can resist. Again, if you punch me
Speaker 1: in the face, I have a right, even by this law,
Speaker 1: to punch you back and to defend myself. I don't
Speaker 1: have a right to pull out a knife for Bazuoka
Speaker 1: in Blae your way with the gun whither you have
Speaker 1: though you're in Florida, you can do facts. That's very true.
Speaker 1: That that's very true right, But even in there it's limits.
Speaker 1: Like I think, if Florida, you can't be black and
Speaker 1: do it right. Book Palastadians is right, International law says
Speaker 1: you can. I wrote a book called Except for Palestine,
Speaker 1: And part of the point is all these rules work
Speaker 1: except for Palestine. Every other sovereign state has a right
Speaker 1: to defend itself. And when you're under a legal military
Speaker 1: or when you're in a military occupation, when you're a
Speaker 1: legal occupation, when you're it's a daily form of violence
Speaker 1: that legally you can defend yourself with.
Speaker 3: What you can't do is kill civilians.
Speaker 1: And so when I see people, if I see somebody
Speaker 1: where it's BLM or anybody else romanticizing the killing of civilians,
Speaker 1: I say no, I say that's wrong. I say that
Speaker 1: doesn't help our cause. But I don't want to pretend
Speaker 1: that the only strategy that black folk have, or the
Speaker 1: only strategy that Palestinians have, or the only strategy that
Speaker 1: any people have is nonviolence. This idea that Palastinians is
Speaker 1: supposed to just sit there as they get beaten and
Speaker 1: shot and killed is ridiculous.
Speaker 4: Why do you think you don't hear that much of
Speaker 4: that story?
Speaker 1: Of which part of the of the because I mean.
Speaker 2: You hear more about hamas you hear more about what
Speaker 2: you know Israel, but you never hear that part of
Speaker 2: the story.
Speaker 1: Because it again, they do the same thing here with us,
Speaker 1: right like there's stories when violence happens. No disrepect to
Speaker 1: the New Black Panther Party, But there's about twelve people
Speaker 1: in the New Black Panther Party. If you would have
Speaker 1: watched watch Fox News, you would think that all the people,
Speaker 1: all the people in Fergus in march, and all the
Speaker 1: people in Minnesota marchan that it was these twelve people
Speaker 1: that said the craziest, wildest stuff were the representaters of
Speaker 1: all black people. They always take a one slice of
Speaker 1: a people and tell that and make that the whole story.
Speaker 1: That they pick it the they pull up the threads
Speaker 1: that are easiest to pull at. So that becomes part
Speaker 1: of the reason. The other part of the reason is
Speaker 1: we've never represented the Middle East or Africa in ways
Speaker 1: that show their humanity. We've always shown them as as uncivilized,
Speaker 1: as violent, as as unprepared for democracy, and that's how
Speaker 1: you end up here in the first place.
Speaker 3: But we need to tell those stories. That's our job.
Speaker 1: That's our job to tell the story of the occupation,
Speaker 1: tell the story of suffering, to tell the story of misery.
Speaker 3: Because if we don't do that, then we're complicit.
Speaker 1: That's why when those eighteen human rights organizations stood up
Speaker 1: and said, Israel is in apartheid state, that there are
Speaker 1: different rights given to some folks versus other folks based
Speaker 1: on who they are. That is the definition of apartheid.
Speaker 1: It doesn't have to look just like South Africa. It
Speaker 1: has to be based on a system of racialized hierarchy
Speaker 1: or other forms of hierarchy. And it is so when
Speaker 1: those nations came out and said that, people started paying attention.
Speaker 1: It's in many ways frustrating for me because I feel
Speaker 1: like we were just starting to turn a corner when
Speaker 1: people were noticing the injustices in Palestine. People were starting
Speaker 1: to speak out against what was happening. People were starting
Speaker 1: to say, wait a minute, Israel also has to do something.
Speaker 1: Political candidates were running it, like Bernie Sanders are saying, look,
Speaker 1: we can't give unconditional eight to anybody, but even Israel.
Speaker 1: Israel has to not have human rights violations for us
Speaker 1: to keep giving them our money. This is where the
Speaker 1: conversation was turning, and this moment creates an, unfortunately for me,
Speaker 1: an opportunity to say, look, we don't have to hold
Speaker 1: Israel accountable for anything. We can only focus on Palestinians.
Speaker 1: And I think everybody, everybody needs to be held accountable.
Speaker 1: I guess I keep getting slightly confused because we talk
Speaker 1: about Hamas and Palestinian citizens, and I wonder if that
Speaker 1: if that's fair. And the reason I say that because
Speaker 1: it feels like Hamas is willing to sacrifice the Palestinian
Speaker 1: people because they have to know you're not gonna win
Speaker 1: a war with Israel. They had to know when they
Speaker 1: committed that act of terror what the response was going
Speaker 1: to be, and they had to know that so many
Speaker 1: innocent Palestinians were going to be killed because of it.
Speaker 3: You know, it's an interesting question.
Speaker 1: I asked that very question to Osama him Dan, who's
Speaker 1: one of the who's senior spoken for for Hamas. I asked.
Speaker 1: I had him on my Algazeri show last week as
Speaker 1: well as an Israeli official, and I asked him that
Speaker 1: very question. I said, if you know your response is
Speaker 1: going to be this, why would you do that? Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's an interesting set of questions responses that he didn't
Speaker 1: he didn't say this, he avoided the question. But my
Speaker 1: response would be one, I'm not sure they knew that
Speaker 1: they'd be this successful.
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 1: I think they they thought the Israeli intelligence and Israeli
Speaker 1: military would be better prepared.
Speaker 3: For this UH, for this uh for this.
Speaker 1: Attack than they than they than they were, and I
Speaker 1: think Israel is and I think Jonathan's basically said that,
Speaker 1: like everybody was a little surprised by this. They may
Speaker 1: have underestimated Hamas's capability, and Hamas may have overestimated Israel's capability,
Speaker 1: at least in that moment. So I think part of
Speaker 1: it was they weren't planning, They weren't prepared for this to
Speaker 1: be They didn't think they'd get this many hostages. They
Speaker 1: didn't think they'd be able to breathe it, you know,
Speaker 1: to kind of get past the barrier and kill that
Speaker 1: many people. So I think some of this might have
Speaker 1: been this is me speculating now. I think some of
Speaker 1: this might have been oh shit, we end oh shit,
Speaker 1: like we hear, let's figure this out. The second thing is,
Speaker 1: I think what they would say to you is we're
Speaker 1: dying now slowly, and yes, this may cause an act
Speaker 1: of extraordinary, disproportionate retaliation by Israel, but at least we
Speaker 1: have an opportunity to change the conditions on the ground.
Speaker 1: At least the world is watching. At least we have
Speaker 1: an opportunity to do something else. Do I think that's
Speaker 1: the right decision? Though I don't. I think that's a
Speaker 1: terrible political calculation. And I don't think that you can
Speaker 1: sacrifice civilians any interest of this. I just don't think
Speaker 1: you can do that. But I also understand that if
Speaker 1: we do nothing at all, if we do nothing at
Speaker 1: all under occupation, if we do nothing at all under slavery,
Speaker 1: if we do nothing at all under any gross community
Speaker 1: system of injustice, our presses don't just free us. And
Speaker 1: Palactians were dying anyway, They're being ethnically cleansed anyway, They're
Speaker 1: being taken off their land anyway, And so there's no
Speaker 1: reason to believe that if Hamas had just sat on
Speaker 1: their hands then things would have gotten better. So we
Speaker 1: can have a critique of Hamas and say, hey, that
Speaker 1: was wrong, but we also have to recognize that it's
Speaker 1: not like things were getting fixed and Hamas went and
Speaker 1: messed them up. They were dying anyway. Palatines are dying
Speaker 1: every single day. Those hospitals already don't have enough power.
Speaker 1: People die.
Speaker 3: Those hospitals are death camps anyway.
Speaker 1: And right now, and just think about this again, Israel
Speaker 1: is turning off all the electricity, all the fuel the hospital.
Speaker 1: The international representative from the Red Cross, the International Red Cross,
Speaker 1: said that this hospital will be a graveyard if Israel
Speaker 1: doesn't give them energy. And when I spoke to Israel
Speaker 1: officials about this directly, they said, well, talk to Hamas
Speaker 1: about that. Can you explain Hamasa's relationship to the Palestinian government.
Speaker 1: Is Hamas the Palestinian government. Hamas is the Palestinian government
Speaker 1: effectively in Gaza. So basically, so they're in a leadership
Speaker 1: in Gaza, in Gaza God, but so there's a Palasinian
Speaker 1: Authority Palsin national Authority. In nineteen ninety three, they effect
Speaker 1: the Palsonian National Authority became the ruling government or the
Speaker 1: ruling authority and representative of the Palestinian people. This is
Speaker 1: part of the Oslo Accords, which was an attempt to
Speaker 1: create a two state solution. And so they said, okay,
Speaker 1: the PLO is working the Palsenian Liberation Organization, who they
Speaker 1: used to call terrorists. Right, they said, you know what,
Speaker 1: we'll rec ugnized them as the AS, the U as
Speaker 1: the AS the representative of the Palatine people. And then
Speaker 1: we're going to have elections and parties can run. FATTA
Speaker 1: is one of the parties, right, and they're the party
Speaker 1: that rules in the West Bank. That's that's everything, that's
Speaker 1: the west bank of the Jordan River, that's all the
Speaker 1: land that was occupied in the after the nineteen sixty
Speaker 1: seven war, that's that's them. And then Gaza had elections
Speaker 1: and Fata Haran then there too. They did not win.
Speaker 1: They lost by a fairly slim margin. The elections were
Speaker 1: contested and at some point but Hamas won and so
Speaker 1: then what you saw is what you wanted to see,
Speaker 1: was a unity government that didn't happen. Part of why
Speaker 1: the unity government didn't happen was the US and Israel
Speaker 1: undermined it. But at the end of the day, you know,
Speaker 1: have uh Hamas running this part of the of of
Speaker 1: Palestine and you have another party running FATA, running the
Speaker 1: other part of Palestine, and that is.
Speaker 3: Why you have some challenges.
Speaker 1: But what's interesting is when we're fighting over Jerusalem as
Speaker 1: a global community Muslims, Christians, when we're fighting for Jews,
Speaker 1: we're talking about Jus, We're talk about stats judism that
Speaker 1: doesn't have anything to do with Hamath, that has due
Speaker 1: with with Mahamurabads, that has due with this party in
Speaker 1: the West Bank, when we're talking about in a part
Speaker 1: type wall being built throughout the West Bank, when we're
Speaker 1: talking about the treatment of people and mother, when we're
Speaker 1: talking about a program committed in the West Bank, in
Speaker 1: the Palestinian village by Israeli military general standards, all that I.
Speaker 3: Ain't got nothing to do in Hamas.
Speaker 1: Hamas is like they become almost like a boogeyman that
Speaker 1: we can talk about when we should be talking about
Speaker 1: all these other issues. There are legitimate Palestinian representatives who
Speaker 1: they also have refused to meet with. There are legitimate
Speaker 1: negotiations that could happen that they've also refused to have.
Speaker 1: So Hamas in some ways is saying, look, the rest
Speaker 1: of our leadership is sold out. We're going to hold
Speaker 1: the line here. Again, it doesn't mean I grew with
Speaker 1: their tactics, but again it didn't start from nowhere part
Speaker 1: of what Jamas has some of the admiration of the people,
Speaker 1: it's because they're the only people who haven't capitulated and
Speaker 1: so and they can't vote for anybody else.
Speaker 3: So this is this is the challenge of it.
Speaker 1: So the Palestinian leadership is even divided based on where
Speaker 1: they are. And the reason why that happens is because
Speaker 1: again Israel and the Alslo courts divided the Palisenian territories
Speaker 1: up in a way that Palisanians don't have one cohesive,
Speaker 1: continuous piece of land with access to water, all the
Speaker 1: things you would need for a country. They put them
Speaker 1: broken up in these little ghetto so that they could
Speaker 1: never have a full body representing them, both geographically or politically.
Speaker 1: So in Israel waging war, is it just contained to
Speaker 1: Gaza at one area? It is right now, although as
Speaker 1: of the last report I saw seven people were killed
Speaker 1: in the West Bank too, but by Israeli forces. But
Speaker 1: but yeah, right now, it's only happening in Gaza. And
Speaker 1: we've also seen things happen when you hear clashes in
Speaker 1: ox of Moss, that's happening in the West Bank, that's
Speaker 1: happening and occupied East Jerusalem, when you hear.
Speaker 3: About you know.
Speaker 1: Br Goldstein, a settler from Brooklyn who came and engaged
Speaker 1: in a massacre at the Iberheim Mosque in Khalil and
Speaker 1: Hebron and the nineties that was in the West Bank
Speaker 1: and the military clashes that came after that were there.
Speaker 1: So there's It really just depends on where you're talking
Speaker 1: about at a given moment. But right now we're talking
Speaker 1: about just the guys A strip, which is a very
Speaker 1: specific strip of land uh with within the region. Most
Speaker 1: people are up north right Gadsa City, and right now
Speaker 1: they're being told go to the southern part of the country.
Speaker 1: That's another important thing because part of what people say
Speaker 1: is Israel has the most restraint. They have the most
Speaker 1: restraint driven military in the world. They give people warnings
Speaker 1: before they bomb them. They tell people.
Speaker 3: So they do have what's called a roof knocking strategy,
Speaker 3: where they say, well, you know, we'll knock on the
Speaker 3: roof and in three minutes later with we'll drop a
Speaker 3: non explosive on your roof and then you have like
Speaker 3: three minutes to.
Speaker 1: Leave before we blow it up.
Speaker 3: That's not a lot of time.
Speaker 1: Second, they've they've gotten rid of that strategy they say, well,
Speaker 1: if to the point you made earlier, I say knocking,
Speaker 1: we ain't knocking, We're just blowing shit up now.
Speaker 2: Also, well, let's say you know my question to that too,
Speaker 2: because if you knock on and as Hamas, Hamas knows
Speaker 2: now you're gonna bomb me.
Speaker 4: So they know how to get the hellouse.
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 4: That doesn't make much sense at all.
Speaker 1: Evil.
Speaker 3: The argument was a lot because they say a.
Speaker 2: Lot of people that that Hamas is what even what
Speaker 2: Jonathan green Blast said was they they are setting up
Speaker 2: in churches, they're setting up in hospitals, they're sitting up
Speaker 2: in schools, they're setting up in bacad.
Speaker 1: I haven't. I have yet to see intelligence reports that
Speaker 1: say that. The problem is they say Hamasis everywhere. They
Speaker 1: say Hamasis everywhere, and they have tunnels everywhere. So then
Speaker 1: when you blow up a school, that school is filled
Speaker 1: with children, and they say, well, yeah, but Hamas was
Speaker 1: in there. The narrative is constructed as if Palestinian people
Speaker 1: stand in front of their babies with guns and so
Speaker 1: and force you to kill both of them. Right, that's
Speaker 1: the narrative, right, history intelligent reports don't necessarily suggest that that.
Speaker 1: Oftentimes what is seen as a military target often is
Speaker 1: just a civilian target. I mean when the classic example
Speaker 1: historically is the bombing of the King David Hotel, they say, oh,
Speaker 1: it was a British military target.
Speaker 3: That is that is rarely terrorists blew up.
Speaker 1: Right, turns out it wasn't and it's stories it wasn't
Speaker 1: a military talk there were civilians in there, right, These
Speaker 1: are the things that happened. Schools are getting bombed, hospitals
Speaker 1: are getting bombed, homes are getting leveled. I spoke to
Speaker 1: a woman whose entire family eleven people in the house
Speaker 1: were killed when the apartment was leveled last week, and
Speaker 1: none of them were military.
Speaker 3: None of them were members of Jimaz.
Speaker 1: But this idea of saying what we had to blow
Speaker 1: it up because Hamas is basically saying Jimaz stands in
Speaker 1: civilian areas and forces us to kill everybody. But there's
Speaker 1: no evidence of that. But again, international law doesn't say
Speaker 1: you can just do that. You can't just arbitrarily do that.
Speaker 1: And you can't move one point one million people to
Speaker 1: the south in twenty four hours and at the same
Speaker 1: time that you shoot down the corridor to get them there,
Speaker 1: and you're shooting at transport vehicles, they transferred people from
Speaker 1: the north to the south. If all that is happening,
Speaker 1: you can't in good faith say that we gave everybody
Speaker 1: a warning, as if all the civilians were going to
Speaker 1: leave to the south and Homasa is gonna be standing
Speaker 1: up in the Northay, hey here we are come get
Speaker 1: us right, Like that's not realistic, honest, and we have
Speaker 1: to be honest about that.
Speaker 3: And honestly, Antonio is the head of the UN.
Speaker 1: Other nations are beginning to say that they're saying, Look,
Speaker 1: this is disproportionate for us, this is too much. You
Speaker 1: can't blow up all the hospitals. You have to give
Speaker 1: people food, you have to give people electricity. And the
Speaker 1: fact that we're sitting here right now having a fight
Speaker 1: over whether or not Palestinians can get food, clothing, shelter, electricity,
Speaker 1: fuel is absurd. Thousands of Palastinians have been killed and
Speaker 1: we're pretending like it's just okay, and it's not. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I wonder about that too, Like why do people have
Speaker 1: to be pro Israel or pro Palestine? Like, I'm pro
Speaker 1: I don't want to see kids get killed. I'm pro
Speaker 1: I don't want to see anything. I'm anti war, Like,
Speaker 1: why do people have to pick this side? Like I
Speaker 1: don't understand. I'll tell you why. At this moment, we
Speaker 1: can all say we don't want violence. I agree, you
Speaker 1: don't have to know about the issue. And look, I
Speaker 1: just don't want to see anybody die. That's why I'm
Speaker 1: at this moment. I want to see another Israeli child dead.
Speaker 1: I don't want see another Palestinian child dead. I don't
Speaker 1: want to see anybody die, not just children, adult. I
Speaker 1: don't want nobody to die. But the problem is if
Speaker 1: you say that you are pro Israel as it is
Speaker 1: currently constituted, then you are saying that you are in
Speaker 1: support of a government that is systematically colonizing people, that
Speaker 1: is systematically displacing people, that is systematically stealing people's land,
Speaker 1: that is systematically ethnically cleansing people, as we see in
Speaker 1: Gaza right now. Those people leave gods and can't come back.
Speaker 1: They've been ethnically cleansed. Right When you say you pro Palestine,
Speaker 1: then they'll say you pro Hamas. Here's the difference. If
Speaker 1: I say I'm pro Hamas, I'm saying I'm pro Hamas, right,
Speaker 1: I can be pro Palestinian and support Pilistlian self determination
Speaker 1: and still disagree with Hamas. The problem is Israel as
Speaker 1: it is constructed. Israel as it is defined. Israel, by
Speaker 1: its own definition, is not a state of all of
Speaker 1: its citizens, by virtue of being a Jewish state, and
Speaker 1: by virtue of giving people different rights based on whether
Speaker 1: or not they are Jewish, by virtue of the fact
Speaker 1: that Palestinians have different rights and privileges, even those who
Speaker 1: are citizens of Israel. Arab sisms of Israel have different
Speaker 1: rights rules, and they'll say that's a lie. There are
Speaker 1: Palastinians and are kinnessed. They're Palestinian members in a supreme court.
Speaker 1: Palastinians at the exact same rights. There are about sixty
Speaker 1: laws on the books that show a difference, either facially
Speaker 1: or in practice in terms of how people get treated
Speaker 1: based on whether or not they are an Arab or not.
Speaker 1: Even for Arab sisterms of Israel. Right now, people in
Speaker 1: the West Bank don't have rights and freedoms. So the
Speaker 1: way Israel is constructed, it is by definition operating against
Speaker 1: the interests of Palestinian people. That's the difference. It would
Speaker 1: be like saying I'm not anti Indian, I'm just pro
Speaker 1: United States. That'd be a hell of a thing to
Speaker 1: tell a Native American right, because the United States, by definition,
Speaker 1: by its construction, is created in a way that stomps
Speaker 1: on the rights Ofative Americans here. So I can't say
Speaker 1: to something. I can't look at Native American in the
Speaker 1: eye and say, well, I'm not I don't pick a side.
Speaker 1: I'm neutral on this right. I like Native Americans and
Speaker 1: I and I and I love what America created, like
Speaker 1: nah bruh, Like you gotta pick one on that right.
Speaker 1: And so it doesn't mean, though that I have to
Speaker 1: hate Israeli's or that I have to hate Jewish people.
Speaker 1: I don't hate either. I want everyone to live in peace, safety, dignity,
Speaker 1: self determination, and justice, and that's important to be said.
Speaker 1: I guess that's why I don't like conflating to Hamas
Speaker 1: in Palestinians, because Hamas charter literally does say they want
Speaker 1: to destroy Israel and kill Jewish people.
Speaker 3: That was that was that that was their that was
Speaker 3: their charter.
Speaker 1: And I think that we can have an opposition to
Speaker 1: Hamas's charter. I think we can have an opposition to
Speaker 1: Jumas all the way and still support the Palestinian people. Again,
Speaker 1: Haimas is a government and an organization. They're not the
Speaker 1: Palestinian people, right. I think that's what a confusion is.
Speaker 1: And I think we can have a disagreement with the
Speaker 1: Israeli government, right and I could say, hey, they're they're
Speaker 1: they're Israelis. There's Ionists. There are Jewish people here who say, look,
Speaker 1: I don't agree with the Israeli government, but I disagree
Speaker 1: with the government, but I support the government's right to exist.
Speaker 1: I hear you. What I'm saying is is that the
Speaker 1: Jewish state as is constructed right now, as is constructed
Speaker 1: right now, and as it was designed since nineteen forty eight,
Speaker 1: was constructed in a way that depended upon the ethnic
Speaker 1: cleansing of Palestinian people, the settler colonizing of Palestinian people,
Speaker 1: and the continued a dispossession of Palestinian people.
Speaker 3: And so that's the difference. This isn't about what I
Speaker 3: agree with the government.
Speaker 1: And now everybody has governments issue shouldn't be held to
Speaker 1: a higher standard or a lower standard. Issua should be
Speaker 1: held to the same standards all governments. You can critique them,
Speaker 1: you can agree with them, you can support them, you
Speaker 1: can resist them, you can do all that stuff. I'm
Speaker 1: not against that, but I'm saying right now, Palestinian people
Speaker 1: have been dispossessed, they have been made stateless, they have
Speaker 1: been made refugees in their own home, and they've been
Speaker 1: made refugees around the world, and it's only getting worse.
Speaker 1: And so what we have to do right now is
Speaker 1: not just ask how can we stop this violence, which
Speaker 1: we should. I hope the violence stops tomorrow, but if
Speaker 1: we go back to the way we were two weeks ago,
Speaker 1: that also is an act of gross of irresponsibility and
Speaker 1: really violence on our part. Because Palestinians are getting treated
Speaker 1: like animals every single day.
Speaker 4: Somebody might say, well, well, why are you so passionate
Speaker 4: about this? What you know? Because you you've been passionate
Speaker 4: about this for a long time.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So if somebody asked, well, why is Mark Lamont Hill
Speaker 2: is so passionate, what would you tell.
Speaker 1: Them A couple of reasons. As an American citizen, my
Speaker 1: tax dollars go to it. I don't make as much
Speaker 1: money as y'all, but I pay a significant amount of taxes,
Speaker 1: so I feel like even more, I'm even more culpable
Speaker 1: my money goes to funding this occupation, I'm responsible for
Speaker 1: it as an American citizen, as a black person.
Speaker 3: I believe in justice everywhere.
Speaker 1: The week before I was grilling the Israeli minister in
Speaker 1: the Hamas Minster, I was grilling the Minister of a
Speaker 1: Zetba Jean because I'm worried about what's happening to people there. Right,
Speaker 1: So it's not just as real. It'sue shouldn't be shouldn't
Speaker 1: be isolated. We should be focused on it. In justice everywhere.
Speaker 1: But the reason in particular why this issue comes to
Speaker 1: me is one as somebody who study in the Middle East,
Speaker 1: it's a fascinating issue to me. But also, we don't
Speaker 1: give everybody four billion dollars a year, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean. I might be pissed off of what's going
Speaker 1: on in Uzbekahstan, but we don't put that much money.
Speaker 1: And it was Becky Wallace, right, So I don't even
Speaker 1: think that's how you said. So that's part of it
Speaker 1: as well. Also, there's a long history of solidarity of
Speaker 1: Palestinian people with black folks. Some people that they don't
Speaker 1: care about us, that's not true. Now there's some stuff
Speaker 1: we got to work out but Malcolm X cared about
Speaker 1: this issue. Malcolm X is my hero. So when Malcolm
Speaker 1: X cared about this issue, when he wrote an issue
Speaker 1: a piece on this in the Egyptian Gazette called Zionist Logic,
Speaker 1: I cared. In a fall of sixty four, I cared
Speaker 1: because Malcolm cared.
Speaker 3: Malcolm.
Speaker 1: And when everybody here go back and listen to message
Speaker 1: to the grassroots, Malcolm is talking about what a revolution
Speaker 1: looks like, and he was talking about us being connected globally, right,
Speaker 1: That's why I care about this issue. The Black Panthers
Speaker 1: cared about this issue. Snick cared about this issue in
Speaker 1: the summer sixty seven. There's a lot of people black
Speaker 1: freedom fighters who we admire. People say, be like Malcolm,
Speaker 1: be like a side of people want to march him
Speaker 1: and be like Huey. People want to be like Angela.
Speaker 1: They all cared about Palestine. So I'm following that tradition,
Speaker 1: but I'm not doing it blindly. They understood that our freedom,
Speaker 1: our liberation as a people, had to require it demanded
Speaker 1: us to be connected to people in other places who
Speaker 1: are pressed. I can't get free if Palestine ain't free.
Speaker 1: I can't get free if South Africa ain't free, and unfortunately,
Speaker 1: that fight toward freedom will always alienate you.
Speaker 3: It'll always make you look marginal, It'll always make you
Speaker 3: look like.
Speaker 1: The bad guy. Nelson Mandela spent thirty years in prison.
Speaker 1: He was in prison from nineteen sixty four until nineteen ninety.
Speaker 1: He became the president of South Africa, and he still
Speaker 1: was on the United States terror watch list until twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: Until two thousand, we had a black president here and
Speaker 1: he was still on the terror list. He had been
Speaker 1: the president of a state, he'd been hailed around the world,
Speaker 1: he'd been at the Olympics, everybody loved him, everybody pretended
Speaker 1: that they didn't criminalize it, and he was still on
Speaker 1: our country is terror list. So we got to be
Speaker 1: real careful about who we call a terrorist. We got
Speaker 1: to be real mindful of how we use that language
Speaker 1: of terror, because one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.
Speaker 1: And that's not going to be taken out of context
Speaker 1: that I'm saying that I support what Hamas did. Again,
Speaker 1: I oppose what Hamas did. I oppose the killing of civilians.
Speaker 1: But what we're not going to do is pretend that
Speaker 1: oppressed people getting liberated by resisting violence in self defense
Speaker 1: is an act of terrorism.
Speaker 3: As such, we can't do that either.
Speaker 1: Can you explain your relationship between America and Israel? Because
Speaker 1: you said, you know, America gives them four billion dollars
Speaker 1: a year. Why are they such strong outa It's a
Speaker 1: great question, you know, and it's a question that lots
Speaker 1: of people ask. You know, it's a relatively so Initially
Speaker 1: the strongest support of Israel was.
Speaker 3: We're the British right. But then.
Speaker 1: By this nineteen seventies, nineteen eighties, and I talked about
Speaker 1: this in my book except for Palestine a lot, and
Speaker 1: there's other people who write is much better than me.
Speaker 1: Rassi Kality is a book called The One Hundred Years War.
Speaker 1: Nord Attakat has a book called Injustice for Justice for some,
Speaker 1: excuse me, justice for some, And there's many others Elin
Speaker 1: Pepe and others. I'd say, read the Palestinians before you
Speaker 1: read me, and these Raelies before you read me. But
Speaker 1: there's a way that the United States, I'll get to
Speaker 1: the heart of it. The US doesn't have feelings, it
Speaker 1: has interests. We watch violent atrocities happen in certain places.
Speaker 3: We don't say anything.
Speaker 1: We watch a small atrocity, and all atrocities are awful,
Speaker 1: happen in other places. I'm not talking about this though
Speaker 1: right now, and we're outraged, our outrage meter.
Speaker 3: Doesn't link to.
Speaker 1: It isn't doesn't directly correspond to what people did. It
Speaker 1: corresponds to what we need. Right there's certain places where
Speaker 1: we all we gotta go to and liberate the women, right,
Speaker 1: but that right now, we're best friends with Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 1: which has a gross human rights record, particularly against when
Speaker 1: you talk about beheadings. Look at Saudi Arabia, right They
Speaker 1: killed a journalist, Jamal Khoji five years ago.
Speaker 3: We're in the anniversary of that. So we don't have
Speaker 3: we're selective.
Speaker 1: Israel operates as the United States' strategic outposts, so there's
Speaker 1: a friendly relationship between US and Israel, but it also
Speaker 1: serves the US's military interests because the US wants a
Speaker 1: stake in the Midlis, just like everybody want to stake
Speaker 1: in the Middle East. And now you have the opportunity
Speaker 1: to have a nation that's not brown. Let me be clear, Israel,
Speaker 1: it still has a majority of miserdahij Jusey. I'm not
Speaker 1: suggesting the Israel's not a brown country, and the Israel
Speaker 1: doesn't have brown Jews the majority of Missadahim at this point.
Speaker 1: But my point is that Israel at its founding isn't
Speaker 1: an Arab country, and so being able to have to
Speaker 1: be an Arab territory and to have an Arab a
Speaker 1: non Arab country, there's your strategic outpost makes a lot
Speaker 1: of military sense.
Speaker 3: It it makes a lot of economic sense for the.
Speaker 1: United States, and of course for Israel, the United States
Speaker 1: serves a great purpose the military backing.
Speaker 3: It gives them money.
Speaker 1: Now, you know, there's a long history of the United
Speaker 1: States and the UK not wanting Jewish people here. So
Speaker 1: part of it was also animated by anti Semitism is
Speaker 1: that it was almost as if they said, look, we'll
Speaker 1: allow Israel to exist because we don't want Jewish people here.
Speaker 1: So the same so if you look at US immigration
Speaker 1: law through the twentieth century, they didn't want Jews here,
Speaker 1: they didn't want Irish people here, they didn't want Russians here.
Speaker 1: The lots of we were already here anal choice, but
Speaker 1: like they didn't want any of us here. And so
Speaker 1: part of why it was easy for the UK to
Speaker 1: get for the British to give Israel to to to
Speaker 1: the Zionist movement was because they didn't want Jews in
Speaker 1: Britain because of anti Semitism, and Americans didn't want them either,
Speaker 1: So part of the at the beginning was like, we
Speaker 1: don't want them here anyway. Now they've they've served strategic interests. Again,
Speaker 1: that's anti Semitic, it's deeply problematic, but that's part of
Speaker 1: the origin story of why we got into these political
Speaker 1: relationships that we got into. It's a two state solution.
Speaker 1: The solution I don't believe so, but I think it's
Speaker 1: up to Palestinians and Israelis to decide that. I want
Speaker 1: them to come up with a final analysis and a
Speaker 1: final plan that works for them. And I think the
Speaker 1: best plan that we could have is a one state solution.
Speaker 1: One country. Everybody gets one vote. It's secular. It's not
Speaker 1: a religious state. It's not a Jewish state, so it's
Speaker 1: not in Islamic state. It's just a secular democracy where
Speaker 1: everybody gets a vote. To me, that's fair, that's easy. Again,
Speaker 1: two state doesn't work because settlements. Two state doesn't work
Speaker 1: because Palestinians won't get their rights protected. So for me,
Speaker 1: it's a secular, democratic, one state solution. But you know what,
Speaker 1: it ain't up to me as an American taxpayer. All
Speaker 1: I want to do is not funded anymore. And I
Speaker 1: want the final plan to come from Israelis and Palestinians
Speaker 1: who can work together to figure out a plan. But
Speaker 1: that plan has to be one that has one thing
Speaker 1: that's not negotiable. The one not negotiable that it has
Speaker 1: to be is that it has to produce dignity, safety, justice, security,
Speaker 1: and self determination for every body. I don't want anybody
Speaker 1: to leave. I don't think anybody needs to leave. I
Speaker 1: think everybody needs to stay and get those rights, the justice,
Speaker 1: and that self determination. That's my that's my analysis. All right, Well,
Speaker 1: I hope we get there no more war.
Speaker 4: We appreciate you coming in and breaking it down.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I appreciate everything about this show. I appreciate what
Speaker 3: y'all doing.
Speaker 1: Man.
Speaker 3: The only thing I say real quick is Charlottmagne is
Speaker 3: trolling with that hat.
Speaker 1: I'm not. It's just repping my squad's all. Yeah, And
Speaker 1: this is what I mean, Like you got to pick
Speaker 1: a side, man, Like you know you're not from Dallas,
Speaker 1: like you literally signed with the enemy. But no, when
Speaker 1: I grew up in South Carolina, we didn't have a team.
Speaker 1: So like my dad and my granddad, they were all
Speaker 1: Cowboys fans. They're America's team.
Speaker 3: Do you see do you hear the propaganda?
Speaker 2: Well, at least earlier in the year, he was buying
Speaker 2: Super Bowl tickets and he was getting his hotels.
Speaker 3: But that's wh who do you want to see there?
Speaker 1: You would the halftime show? How Boys going to the
Speaker 1: Super Bowl? I did well? Probably up and up the
Speaker 1: stairs more question after question question. That's why you want
Speaker 1: me to ask nobody?
Speaker 4: But I asked them.
Speaker 1: I don't care he neither. I am interested in what
Speaker 1: go ahead. Jesus Christ. I didn't want that reaction, all right,
Speaker 1: Well he was bad, all right. Look I know what
Speaker 1: he said. I watch the sho every day. It was
Speaker 1: about I know what he said.
Speaker 3: I know what he said.
Speaker 1: It's the one time agree I actually hated to agree
Speaker 1: with him. You agree that they should say something? Yeah,
Speaker 1: hell yeah, they should say something. Really, if you are,
Speaker 1: it's yes, more Cali than Drake? Really, yeah, more Cali
Speaker 1: than Drake. Why because they never talk about social issues ever?
Speaker 3: I know, and I have an issue with that I
Speaker 3: have an issue with anybody.
Speaker 1: I don't think every famous person has to say something
Speaker 1: about everything, but if your people are being exterminated, if
Speaker 1: your people are being executed, if your people are being
Speaker 1: whatever its circumstances, I think you got to say something.
Speaker 1: He's like the most damn near the most famous Palestinian
Speaker 1: in the world. If I were the most famous black person,
Speaker 1: if any of us were the most famous black person
Speaker 1: in the world, the most famous Black person in the world,
Speaker 1: and black people were being killed in our country and
Speaker 1: nobody said anything, I would be deeply disturbed. I don't
Speaker 1: know what and the reason I'm not letting Drake off
Speaker 1: the hook, you know what I mean. There's plenty of
Speaker 1: reasons to have issues with driva Issus Drake the last month,
Speaker 1: but none of them about none of them political. It's
Speaker 1: all about the you know, his framing of gender and
Speaker 1: on his album and his treatment of everybody from Holly
Speaker 1: Buried you know, we going down list. That's another conversation.
Speaker 1: But for me, I don't know how Drake identifies in
Speaker 1: terms of his politics. I don't know how he identifies
Speaker 1: as a Jewish person. I don't know how he identifies.
Speaker 1: I know identifies racial as a black person, and so
Speaker 1: I don't know how connected he is ethnically, culturally, or
Speaker 1: politically to that issue.
Speaker 3: If he is, and he should speak up too, I
Speaker 3: just don't know.
Speaker 2: Drinks said he had a ball mince field when he
Speaker 2: was of age, and you know, yes, he talk about a.
Speaker 4: Lot of it.
Speaker 1: But but the problem is that argument presumes it because
Speaker 1: I'm Jewish that have to be pro Israel, and there
Speaker 1: are numerous Jewish people around the world are who are
Speaker 1: Jewish and not pro Israel.
Speaker 3: I don't think Drake has a responsibility pro to be
Speaker 3: pro Israel.
Speaker 1: I think I'd love for him to say something about
Speaker 1: it whatever wherever he stands on this issue.
Speaker 3: But Kyla, yeah, man, and yeah, it was none.
Speaker 1: Of those things either. Though Kyla is not connected culturally.
Speaker 1: I've seen him wear the coffee, I've seen him do stuff, yea,
Speaker 1: I've seen him be outside Palestinian. He don't lead with
Speaker 1: it because it's not great for business to walk around
Speaker 1: saying you're Palestinian.
Speaker 3: Someone argued that's that's a problem. I'm not here to
Speaker 3: judge that.
Speaker 1: All I'm going to say is I would have liked
Speaker 1: to hear him say something and The fact that the
Speaker 1: leading hip hop cop journalist Vlad and I on the
Speaker 1: same page on this issue should suggest to you how
Speaker 1: morally egregious it is that even that he and I
Speaker 1: are on the same page on this thing. When they do, though,
Speaker 1: what then what like? If they do then what like?
Speaker 1: What is that? I mean? I think that's always the question, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, like what happens when the NBA speaks out
Speaker 1: against such and such? Right? I do think that there's
Speaker 1: power in that. Part of it is awareness. There are
Speaker 1: people who will never watch this video. There are people
Speaker 1: and everybody watching the Breakfast Club, but just people who
Speaker 1: won't watch the Breakfast Club but will.
Speaker 3: Listen to DJ Kaled's Instagram story.
Speaker 1: That's why it matters. The same reason why when the
Speaker 1: NBA players wore hands up, don't shoot or Black Lives Matter,
Speaker 1: it mattered because they reached the sector of the world
Speaker 1: they wouldn't otherwise know that story. When Lebron and d
Speaker 1: Wade and Chris Paul said stuff, that shit mattered because
Speaker 1: people cared, you know what I mean? When Beyonce was
Speaker 1: talking about you know, you know, and again I didn't
Speaker 1: need her to give a press conference, but Beyonce did
Speaker 1: was extraordinary given her platform, and so and the difference is,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of.
Speaker 3: Black people that can speak.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of people who are Jewish who
Speaker 1: can speak. There's lots of people who are Indian who
Speaker 1: can speak. But how many people in the United States
Speaker 1: right now who are Palestinian have the platform in the calendars?
Speaker 1: Maybe Gigi Hadi maybe who spoke out right, there's one
Speaker 1: or two people, but in general, there's not really a
Speaker 1: space for that. So it's not just Calim for me,
Speaker 1: any any any of them who are Palestinian, any of
Speaker 1: them who are who have platform should speak up. And
Speaker 1: and I'm not putting that just on Pealastins. I'm saying
Speaker 1: that for black folks too. But I'm saying the stakes
Speaker 1: are even higher because it ain't but a Palestinians in Hollywood,
Speaker 1: you know, there's a million black folk.
Speaker 3: So I just feel like that you gotta do it.
Speaker 1: I guess if they want to, my thing would be
Speaker 1: past the microphone to somebody who know what they're talking about.
Speaker 1: I be okay with that. I be okay with that.
Speaker 1: If cal said, look, I don't know about this issue,
Speaker 1: but I want to bring these people together and make
Speaker 1: it happen, but he's he's moving as if it didn't happen,
Speaker 1: and it's weird to at least on social media, we
Speaker 1: don't know what he's doing behind the scenes. That's fair enough.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty connected to the Palestinian movement. I heard one
Speaker 1: person yet say that he's doing something. I ain't heard one.
Speaker 1: That's not to say he's not.
Speaker 3: I ain't heard one yet. But again, I'm not Palestinian.
Speaker 1: It's not my job to tell him what to do
Speaker 1: with his people or for his people. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: I share of lads disappointment that that I haven't heard
Speaker 1: anything from Calent and social media is reality for a
Speaker 1: lot of people. Call it gives us a narrative of
Speaker 1: his life, what's going on, what's going on world? And
Speaker 1: if you're selling a product while two thousand year people
Speaker 1: have been killed, fifteen hundred people have been killed, that
Speaker 1: feels that feels gross to me. It feels little gross
Speaker 1: to me, Like even if you didn't want to speak up,
Speaker 1: if if an all black neighborhood got bombed today and you said,
Speaker 1: I don't I Charlott Mayne, or if you don't feel
Speaker 1: like talking about it, I bet you wouldn't go in
Speaker 1: your story and be like yo, che check out my
Speaker 1: check out the trailer for my new documentary today on
Speaker 1: such and such, and check out my new book. You
Speaker 1: just you would have the decency to do nothing. And
Speaker 1: I'm saying part of what happens is when you move
Speaker 1: is if nothing is happening while the world is blowing up,
Speaker 1: I think it's it's it communicates even more so that
Speaker 1: this isn't worth caring about. We already have a media
Speaker 1: that does that. We already have an intellectual infrastructure that
Speaker 1: does that. We have a legal apparatus that does that.
Speaker 1: We don't need people who look like us doing it.
Speaker 1: That's all I'm saying. But that's again, Kyla might disagree,
Speaker 1: and I respect I would just respectfully disagree.
Speaker 4: All right, Well, Mark Lamont Hell, yes, it's the breakfast clubs.
Speaker 1: Sure you'll get them books too, man, except for Palestine.
Speaker 1: Wake that ass up in the morning. The breakfast club