First casualty of war is truth. You see, we contextualize this argument of Israeli and Palestinian dynamics based upon two factions. When the reality is, there's an originating circumstance that gets [00:00:17] eliminated from the argument, not even part of the discussion. Now I do believe Cenky is correct on the narrative dynamic associated with this, but historical context is required. 1917 is your historical context because in 1917, [00:00:35] something happened that was unprecedented. The European world decided, well, to back a 67 word document called the Balfour Declaration. Put up Mr. Balfour. [00:00:52] Mr. Balfour, and also a man named Lionel Walter Rothschild at the center of the debate. They get left out of this. I'm about to put these gentlemen squarely where they belong. [00:01:10] The Balfour Declaration, which resulted in a significant upheaval in the lives of Palestinians, was issued on November 2, 1917. The Declaration aimed to establish a Jewish state in [00:01:26] Palestine into a reality when Britain publicly pledged to establish a national home for the Jewish people there. The pledge is generally viewed as one of the main catalysts of the Nakba, [00:01:42] the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and the conflict that ensued. It is regarded as one of the most controversial and contested documents in the modern history of the Arab world and has puzzled historians for decades. [00:01:59] The Balfour Declaration, which means promise in Arabic, all right? Was a public pledge by Britain in 1917 declaring its aim to establish a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. [00:02:18] That is a fact. The statement came in the form of a letter from Britain's then Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, addressed to Lionel W Rothschild. It was made during World War I. [00:02:34] This was 1914 to 1918 and was included in the terms of the British Mandate for Palestine after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The so-called mandate system set up by the Allied powers [00:02:51] was a thinly veiled form of colonization and occupation. They colonized, forced colonization. The system transferred rule from the territories that were previously controlled by the powers defeated in the war Germany, [00:03:11] Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria to the victors. The declared aim of the mandate system was to allow the winners to administer the newly emerged states until they could be independent. That was the first proclamation. The document was controversial for multiple reasons. [00:03:28] Number one, it was, in the words of the late Palestinian-American academic Edward Said, made by European power about a non-European territory. And a flat disregard of both the presence and [00:03:46] the wishes of the native majority resident in that territory. In essence, the Balfour Declaration promised Jews a land where the natives made up more than 90% of the population. [00:04:03] There's much more history connected to that, which also includes how Palestinians attempting to boycott this invasion. Eventually, economically withdrew from the ecosystem [00:04:19] of economy of Jewish made things, Jewish grown food. The British came in and did a mass incarceration, arrested them by the thousands. When they enacted these, well, [00:04:34] policies to create more equity in their system. And then on the other side of that, you have this force that is enforcing their rule of law. There's no diplomacy here. [00:04:50] There's no opportunity to engage thoughtfully. There's our way or no way. So when we talk about this conflict, understand war is never necessary. War is here because of the permeation of evil that exists inside of us [00:05:08] as human beings. That's the reason it's here. So don't accept their framework that it is necessary. War is not a necessary reality of our living. It is a reality that is before us, but it is not a necessary one. [00:05:25] So if we ever argue only inside of the framework of war, we've already lost the battle, because outside of that, we are able to actually live peacefully. There are no winners in war. Why do you think the majority of the people of Israel are against war? [00:05:43] Why do you think the majority of the people of Israel are against Netanyahu? So when you stand for the Israelis, stand for the ones that wake up every morning going to work, making money to pay a mortgage, to put food on the table. Because the vast majority of them are against the leadership that presently [00:06:02] states that they speak for everybody. So I stand with Israel for real. I stand with Palestinians for real. I stand with humanity for real. All right, Jordan, thoughts here? >> Speaker 2: What we're seeing in Gaza is, more often than not, [00:06:20] especially in Western press, the complete removal of the humanity in the situation. It is talked about in broad strokes, it's talked about in abstract terms. And people, civilians who are killed are reduced to statistics. [00:06:38] And when there is a push for a ceasefire, it's met with including some Democratic members of Congress opposition, rebuttal. You had John Fetterman last night tweet out that this is not the time to call for a ceasefire. [00:06:54] Thousands of people in Gaza have already died. Thousands, many of whom, if not the majority of whom, had nothing to do with this to begin with. And you provided this historical context for this conflict, which is important and [00:07:11] almost always lacking in most analysis of the current situation. And you mentioned economic boycotts. It is a crime, it is illegal in over a dozen states in the US to participate in economic boycotts of Israel. [00:07:28] One of the most peaceful ways to demonstrate your stance or take a stand on something, and no one gets hurt. You can't do that in many states in this country. The UN just yesterday tried to pass a resolution calling for [00:07:43] a pause to allow in humanitarian aid. And the United States, using its veto power as one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council, vetoed it. Had they not done that, it would have passed. And it's moments like this that makes people feel really frustrated and [00:08:02] powerless, because nobody wants to see suffering on either side. Obviously, any rational person who sees this is not celebrating the death of innocent civilians. But when you have a superpower like the United States stepping in to [00:08:17] block a UN proposal to call for a pause so we can get humanitarian aid in, it shows you what their motive really is. And this didn't start with Hamas's attack on Israel a week and a half ago. It did not start there. [00:08:33] And if that is the starting point for any conversation, it's not worth your time. So I implore people to educate yourselves, to consume reporting and analysis and historical context on this conflict because everyone will be better off. [00:08:51] And centering in all of this a push for the humanitarian cause, for a ceasefire. I set up a site, you can go to ceasefiretoday.com. You can, in 30 seconds, email your representative and your Senators. And there's also a call script on that website that allows you to click one [00:09:10] button, be connected to the Capitol switchboard. And you can call your representative and senators and ask them to support a ceasefire in Gaza so that no more innocent people get killed. >> Speaker 1: So, very well said. And when America made that decision to utilize [00:09:28] the awesome power of veto, which is insane, to allow aid to come to civilians, but we say from the microphone, we want innocent life protected. [00:09:44] Literally, the President just said this, but then we vote contrary to that proclamation, this is supposed to be a representative form of government. The vast majority of people in America are for that action, the ceasefire, making sure people, innocent folk get aid that they need. [00:10:03] How are we a representative form of government when our representatives are adversarial and antithetical to our form of government?