ristian apologist might say, no, no, no, Deuteronomy 20 is not a Christian text. It's a Jewish text. It's in the Old Testament, not the New Testament. This is a tactic. This is an obfuscation. Christians claim that there is one God, and that it is the same God in both Testaments. They also believe that the Old Testament was inspired by this one God. Who is this God? The God of Abraham. Christians claim that this God is a triune God. He's a Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Trinitarians also believe in the doctrine of perichoresis. This is the intercommunian interpenetration of the three persons of the Trinity. It means that they are inseparable in action and of one mind. In other words, when they act, they always act together and they never disagree. Therefore, God, Father, Son, and Spirit ordered Kherem in the Old Testament, and the Son here is also known as the Logos, and the Logos incarnated into the flesh of a man named Jesus of Nazareth. So there is no escaping this. Here's a book recommendation. Professor Philip Jenkins, I didn't mention him on the slide. Philip Jenkins, it's called Laying Down the Sword, Why We Can't Ignore the Bible's Violent Verses. This is a must read.  Now you might ask, but didn't I quote Deuteronomy earlier to support my contention? So is the Bible accurate or not? Okay, well, Islam has the answer for the state of the Bible. The Qur'an is called the muhammin, the overseer, the supervisor of the Bible. The Qur'an is the forqan, the standard of judgment when it comes to the Bible. And the Qur'an refers to the tariff of the biblical texts, alteration, fabrication, de-consexualization. The text of the Bible has been corrupted to a certain significant degree. So here, we as Muslims have a major difference of opinion with anti-Zionist Haredi Jews. This is a major point of disagreement. For the Haredi, the text of the Torah is sound and authentic. But the Zionists have corrupted the meanings. Okay, in other words, for the Haredi, there is tahrif of the ma'na of the Torah and not of the nas. In other words, the text is sound, the meanings, the tafsir is wrong. Okay, for us, the tahrif of the Torah is both of the nas and the ma'na. That's a dominant opinion. And obviously, if the former is there, if the text is wrong, the ma'na will be corrupted as well. And this is totally mainstream historical scholarship of the Bible. It took historical scholars about 1200 years to catch up to the Qur'an here. In fact, scriptural alteration of the Torah is admitted in the Tanakh itself. In Jeremiah, Jeremiah 8.8, it says, how can you say, we are wise, and we have the Torah adonai, the law of God. And then in Hebrew it says, Hinei, the shaker, Asa 8, shaker sofrim, the false pens of the scribes have turned it the Torah into a lie. Now, how do modern rabbinical authorities deal with these Kherem passages? This is really important, right? It's really three ways. So you have the normative Jewish opinion, right? So there are 613 commandments, mitzvot, in the Torah, from Genesis to Deuteronomy. The first commandment, the first mitzvah, is Genesis 1.28, get married and produce children. Okay? The mitzvah to commit Kherem in the Holy Land is one of the 613 mitzvot in the Torah. It's number 528 of 613, according to the numbering of Maimonides. It says, leave none alive of the seven nations. And this is taken directly from Deuteronomy 20 that I quoted earlier. Six of the seven nations are mentioned in the next verse. Deuteronomy 2017, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Parasites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. There's another group called the Gyrgashites, as Rashi and others mention, are also included to be exterminated. Now, Abraham Ben Ezra and Rabbi Hezekiah Ben Manoa and many others maintained that this mitzvah was limited only to the generation of Moses. Okay? So according to the traditional understanding, Kherem of the seven nations was only for that time, at that place, and never again. And the reason is because these groups are gone. They no longer exist. So while the 613 mitzvot are believed to be perennial and perpetual, trans-historical, there is simply no application of this mitzvah because these groups are gone. As Maimonides says, if even descendants of these groups remain unto today, mixed among other nations, as long as their evil culture has gone, their idolatry, their child sacrifice, or immorality, then the mitzvah remains fulfilled and there is no application. So this is traditional Judaism. Now it is important to mention that almost no critical historians of the Bible believe that such a massive extermination of these nations ever really took place. These stories are exaggerations. They're really intended as scare tactics. They function to scare the enemies of Israel, as well as to give hope to the Israelites. What actually happened to these groups? These groups migrated, they assimilated, they converted. Yes, there was wars and battles from time to time, but this kind of wholesale genocide, probably not. But what matters is belief. And the Orthodox take these stories literally, they believe them to be historically true, as the most eminent Christian scholars from Augustine to Aquinas to John Calvin from the east and the west. Okay, I'm gonna skip ahead here a little bit. Okay, now another opinion says that Holy Land will happen one more time at that place, but only when the Messiah comes. Okay, so they must wait for the Messiah.  So only the Messiah can begin this process of kibbutz galut, the regathering of the Jews from diaspora, re-establishing the Jewish state. He'll fight the Milchamad Adonai, as I mentioned earlier, the wars of the Lord, et cetera, et cetera. The third opinion is the position of religious Zionism, the position of the Tzionot Datit. There has been a consistent and sustained sentiment among religious Zionist Jews that the Palestinians are the modern day Canaanites. This very common sentiment among the religious Zionists. Therefore, given this notion of the beginning of the redemption, it is a religious duty of the government of Israel to wage a war of extermination against the Palestinian people. And this is what we are seeing right now in all of its horror. This is radical Judaism. They are preparing the land for their Messiah. So I encourage people to look up Gush Emonim, the coalition of the faithful. This was an ultra nationalist Orthodox Zionist movement found in the 1970s in Israel. Founded by students of Yehuda Kuk, the director of the America Zaurav and the son of the infamous, I should say, Rabbi Abraham Kuk. In the minds of these religious Zionists, the Israeli government has a religious duty to implement Mitzvah number 528 and utterly destroy the Palestinians in some form or fashion. They believe that the coming of their Messiah can be hastened through a continued aggression, conquest, and settlement of Palestinian territories. And this aggression will culminate in the coming of their Messiah. As an organization, Gush Emonim no longer exists, but their ideology has permeated government officials in Israel. Gush Emonim also championed what's known as the Greater Israel Project, Erez Yisrael Hashlema. This idea that it is the religious duty of the Israeli government to fully annex all Palestinian territories as these constitute Greater Israel. Mara Kahana and Baruch Goldzine were staunch advocates of Greater Israel. Guess what? The political party known as Ha Likud is full of extremely dedicated religious Zionists and Greater Israel advocates. Of course, Likud's chairman is Netanyahu. He has also been Prime Minister of Israel since 2009. And so he's surrounded by these radical Jews. Here's something interesting. It was widely reported that when Netanyahu was the Israeli ambassador to the UN in the 1980s, the famous Rebbe of the Chabad Hasidic dynasty named Menachem Mendel Schneerson told him that he, Netanyahu, would be the Prime Minister of Israel when the Messiah arrives. In 1990, and this is documented, somebody sent me a YouTube video of this, Schneerson commanded Netanyahu to do more to hasten the coming of the Messiah. He said, what are you doing? There's a few hours left in a day. What have you done? Oh, working on it. It was 1990. Schneerson died in 1994. And by the way, many Zionists consider Greater Israel to be all of the land between the two rivers, the Nile and Euphrates. And this is based upon a passage in Genesis 15. So Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights, that is the tip of the iceberg. Greater Israel, half of Egypt, all of the Levant, half of Iraq. The Israeli flag might even depict this. Some say this is a conspiracy theory, right? That's how they want to, if you label a conspiracy theory, it's called a thought stopper. People who think outside the box, right? In other words, smart people.  That's supposed to stop their thinking. Oh, I don't want to be that. When you think about it, everything's a conspiracy anyway, right? Everyone's a conspiracy theorist. But if you look at the Israeli flag, there are two blue lines, the two rivers, and then a star of David in the middle, Nile, Euphrates. So the radical Zionist Jews believe that they can use divinely sanctioned violence to essentially prepare the land for the Messiah, for the coming of the the messianic redemption. They can get the ball moving before his arrival. They can start the process. The Messiah will finish it. And again, we say, we see that the plain and obvious policy that the Israeli government as a whole is applying to the Palestinians and Gaza, as well as the West Bank, because they want the Temple Mount. This policy cannot be described as anything other than harem. This is harem in 2023. They're preparing the land for the Messiah.  Professor, Ross Siegel, professor at Stockton University, Israeli journalist. He's Israeli. He specializes in Holocaust and genocide studies. In his expert opinion, what Israel is doing right now to the Palestinians is quote, a textbook case of genocide, textbook genocide. And he cites a UN definition of genocide. Pope calls it incremental genocide. Zionists will say, that's ridiculous. This is not genocide. If it were genocide, Israel would just kill everyone right now. Besides, there are a million Arabs who live in Israel right now. Outside of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, no one is killing them. So such ignorance fails to recognize that genocide is a process. It took the Nazis years to get to the final solution. Things don't happen overnight. So here's article two of the UN's genocide convention. Genocide means any, any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in part or in whole, sorry, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as, a, killing members of the group, b, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, c, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about as physical destruction in part or in whole, sorry, I wouldn't mix those up, in whole or in part, d, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. Can we shut that door, please? And e, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Israel fulfills all five. One of these constitutes genocide, all five. Dr. Siegel also points out that there are two essential elements here that qualify this as a genocide. Number one, special intent with dehumanizing language. I'll get to some of that. Number two, conditions to bring about the destructions of the group. That is to say, the dynamics of violence on the ground.  According to Pope, every 10 minutes a Palestinian child is murdered. So there is the rhetoric, the reality, and the capacity. All three are present. Israel uses the language of genocide. They make rap songs about it. They make children sing about it. It implements the structures of genocide, and it has the capacity to commit genocide. So speaking of special intent with dehumanizing language, here's a quote from defense minister, Yorov Galan. This was on October 9th, quote, I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. No electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals. We are acting accordingly. We'll eliminate everything. That is called harem. We must get to know this word and educate people about this. We heard about jihad, jihad, jihad, ad nauseam after 9-11. Why have we not heard of harem? Why is it that in 2004, my non-Muslim neighbor was asking me to explain taqiyah? But in 2023, most of us have no idea about harem or amalek. We'll talk about that little doozy in a minute. How is it that for several years after 9-11, whenever I would participate in interfaith dialogues, I was constantly bombarded in several churches and community centers by non-Muslims about jihad. I've probably answered the jihad question hundreds of times that we are still ignorant of harem and amalek. Why don't we know these concepts? I remember once in a Q&A session during an interfaith event, a man in the audience, he started arguing with me about jihad. He was a Christian. He wanted to correct me about jihad. So I said to him, you know, I'll explain jihad to me when you explain harem. And he said, what's that? I do. He wanted to correct me about something in my tradition, but he doesn't know something found in his own religion, his own scripture, his own tradition. So I think it's time for us to push back a little bit. It's time for us to demand answers. We are constantly putting ourselves in a defensive position. It's time to expose the double standard in a more robust way. The present policy cannot be the new normal because, let's call a spade a spade, what is happening to the Palestinians right now is sheer terrorism. Zionism, as deployed by Israel, is radical Judaism, and radical Judaism is terrorism. Let's not forget the persecution of the Palestinians with the hands of the radical Jewish elements goes back to 1917, way before October 7th, 2023. This did not start on October 7th. That's like saying the Nat Turner slave revolt in 1831 started black-white conflict in America. That's asinine. Galant called the Palestinians human animals. Now there is a consistent teaching in Orthodox circles that there is an essential difference between Jews and Gentiles. This cannot be denied. None other than Rabbi Abraham Isaac Cooke, as we said, one of the founders of religious Zionism, infamously advanced the opinion that the difference between a Jewish soul and a Goy soul is greater than the difference between a human soul and a cow soul. Other authorities say the Jew has two souls, a nifesh habbeh mit, nafsul bahimiyah, and a nifesh elahut, nafsul ilahiyah. But the Gentile only has a bahimiyah. He's an animal. Allah, Subhanahu wa ta'ala says. We had, and joined upon the children of Israel, upon the children of Israel that whoever murders someone as if they've murdered the whole of humanity and if they save someone's life is as if they've saved the whole of humanity. Verily our messengers came to them with clear guidance but a great part of them many of them are in the earth extremists. So here's the difference between traditional Judaism and radical Judaism in this ayah. Everything is in the Quran. Everything is in the Quran. Ibn Abbas or Ibn Omar one of them he said if I lose the halter on my camel I can find it in the Quran. That means everything is in the Quran. I find all my answers in the Quran. This special intent of genocide is on full display when you listen to Israeli politicians and military officers. These Zionist hijackers of Judaism. These Jewish radicals. The IDF, the official IDF spokesman Daniel Hagarri said quote the emphasis is on damage not on accuracy. Is this defensive? This is minimizing collateral damage. This is surgical you know precision and fighting the enemy. No the intention is to maximize collateral damage. He admits it. One more time the emphasis is on damage not on accuracy. This is not some pundit on Fox News. This is the official IDF spokesman. The former Prime Minister of Israel, Nafthali Bennett, when asked about Palestinian babies and hospital incubators who need electricity to survive he said the following are you seriously talking about Palestinian civilians? I'm quoting him directly by the way.  We are fighting Nazis. I'm not feeding electricity or water to my enemies. End quote. Isaac Herzog, the president of Israel. Direct quote. Ready? He's the president of Israel. It is not true. This rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It's absolutely not true. In other words there is no distinction among Palestinians. All of the Palestinians are aware and involved in terrorism. We can slaughter them en masse. Marav Ben Ari, Israeli politician and Knesset member. The children of Gaza have brought this upon themselves. And this is a woman speaking. What happened to this woman? Zionism happened. Avigdor Lieberman, Israeli politician, member of parliament. He tweeted the following. There are no innocents in Gaza. Does it get any more clear? Is this a war against Hamas or Palestine? Here, recently a top UN official, Craig McIver, resigned. He was a director of the New York office of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. Here's a quote from him. The current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people rooted in an ethno nationalist colonial settler ideology. In continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs and coupled with explicit statements of intent by leaders in Israeli government and military leaves no room for doubt. He means that it's genocide. He continues. What's war? The government of the United States, United Kingdom, Europe are wholly complicit in the horrific assault. Of course, America gives $4 billion a year to Israel. Recently, Biden approved 15 billion to Israel, 15 billion to be user genocide. Tanks, missiles, white phosphorus. Imagine what that money could do for Americans. Poor Americans, poor families who can not even afford food or gas due to massive inflation. Instead, we got Joe, the Manchurian candidate, Biden, parroting Israeli talking points line after line, as Dr. Rashid Khalidi says, line after line parroting Israeli talking points. Now what's interesting is that modern anti Zionist activities. Sorry, activists have been recently citing studies that demonstrate that Levantine Arabs, including Palestinian Arabs, have genetic continuity with ancient Canaanites. In other words, they are descendants of Canaanites. Why are anti Zionists highlighting these studies? Well, this relates to the debate about the land. Who was there first? As one Zionist put it, the word Jew comes from Judea. The word Arab comes from Arabia. So who's occupying whose land? In other words, the Jews were there first. But now these recent studies are being cited to show that the Palestinians are actually descendants of the ancient Canaanites. Who were there before, the Israelites? Even Philip Jenkins says it is, quote, without doubt that the Palestinians are descendants of the Canaanites. But we can only imagine how this argument can actually embolden the religious Zionists of Israel. You see, they admit they're Canaanites. It's our duty to wipe them out. They admit it. Let's implement mitzvah 528. Religious Zionists will use this to further galvanize their murderous base. What's up with the Canaanites? You know, as Muslims, it's time for us to know some Bible. Come on. Thank you. I can't tell you how many Muslims in the past said, you shouldn't read this. This is cool for the mitzvah. The Bible is the key to understanding religious Zionists are doing right now. This one goes back to Genesis 9. It's called The Curse of Canaan. Have you heard of this? In Genesis 9, we are told that sometime after the flood, Noah got drunk, a stoff at a law, and passed out in his tent naked. His sons, Shem and Jepeth, covered their father's nakedness. But Ham did not. When Noah woke up, he said, Curse it be Canaan! A servant of servants shall he be under his brethren. Who is Canaan, the son of Ham? The supposed progenitor of the Canaanites. Now, the basic consensus of biblical historians today maintains that the book of Genesis was written hundreds of years after Musa al-Isra. Genesis was written by multiple authors across multiple centuries, starting around 1000 BCE. Study something called the documentary hypothesis, or the supplementary hypothesis. In other words, Genesis was written during a time when the ancient Israelites were engaging militarily with the ancient Canaanites. Okay, the people who are indigenous to ancient Palestine. So this story about Noah and the Curse of Canaan was written to serve as a piece of political propaganda. It served to insult and dehumanize the Canaanites to make them easier to enslave and kill. This was not written by Moses, peace be upon him, by consensus of historians. The point was to say, even Noah cursed these people. Genesis 19, same thing. We're told that two daughters of Lot got their father drunk, then assaulted him, and they both got pregnant. The son of the older daughter was named Moab. The son of the younger daughter was named Ben-Ami. The author of Genesis then says, Moab is the father of the Moabites that you see today. And Ben-Ami is the father of the Ammonites that you see today. You see the Moabites and the Ammonites were two tribes that were fighting the ancient Israelites. Genesis 19 served to bastardize and slander these tribes to justify Israelite aggression against them. These Moabites, these Ammonites, they're all descendants of incest. They're illegitimate people. Don't feel bad about acting with violence towards them. That's the whole point. Now, there are two more myths vote that deserve our immediate and undivided attention. Mitzvah number 604, cut off the seed of Amalek. That is, destroy them utterly. Commit Hedem against Amalek. And 605, and both of these are taken from Deuteronomy 2519, blot out the mention of Amalek, but also don't forget Amalek. Extremists, Messianic, Israeli settlers often invoke Amalek as a justification for the massacre and displacement of the Palestinian people. Okay, now, who or what is Amalek? Amalek was the first nation to fight against the Israelites according to the Torah, Exodus 17. They're also called the Amalekites.  Total extermination. King Saul, however, spared their king. His name was Agag. Now in the book of Esther, chapter three, we're told that Haman, the Persian minister of Xerxes, was an Agagite. In other words, he was a descendant of Agag. In other words, he was an Amalekite. And Haman wanted to exterminate the Jews. So this is the MO of the Amalekites. They wanted to destroy Israel. Okay. Now, the Torah also says, the Lord will be at war against Amalek from generation to generation, Exodus 17.16. Medur d'Or means from generation to generation. In other words, forever perpetual warfare against Amalek. The Lord declares perpetual warfare against Amalek. Now, modern traditional Jews, they tend to interpret these commandments against Amalek on strictly genealogical grounds. In other words, any and all descendants of Amalek must be killed irrespective of their culture. This is why when it comes to the seven nations, you know, the Kenanites broadly speaking, you can actually convert to Judaism or become a Ben Noach. You can adopt the seven Noahidic laws. But there's difference of opinion about the conversion of an Amalekite. There's difference of opinion as to whether he should be allowed to convert or not. If not, he should be killed. However, many would argue, since it is impossible to identify who is a true Amalekite, this commandment simply cannot be fulfilled. So Maimonides limits the application of this mitzvah to destroy Amalek to a Jewish king. In other words, only an anointed Jewish king can carry out this mitzvah. In other words, the Messiah and other authorities are more explicit about that. It only applies to the reign of the Messiah after he's taken full possession of the land, etc. However, a common among Jewish Zionists is this horrible and disturbing teaching. That the term Amalek refers to any enemy of the Jews in any generation, the mindset of Amalek, the mentality of Amalek, the culture of Amalek continues perpetually. They say the Midot, the Midot of Amalek, which means the characteristics of Amalek. So the Romans were the Amalek of their day. The Nazis were the Amalek of their day.  So what does that mean? They have to find an Amalek in every generation. There's a Jewish professor at UCLA, Zionist Deborah Lipstadt. She famously referred to to British historian of German history, David Irving, as quote, a contemporary Amalek. In other words, he deserves to be killed for his views on history. This is a dog whistle.  In other words, it contains a message that only a few people can understand. But now we understand. Now guess upon whom the modern Zionists apply this designation more than any other? Well, broadly, anyone who argues for the dissolution of the modern state of Israel, anyone who argues against the legality of the modern nationalistic apartheid state of Israel, apartheid, according to even Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, but more specifically, Iran has been called Amalek. So like a month ago or something, the Israeli Minister of Economy, his name is Nier Barkat, he threatened to quote, wipe Iran off the face of the earth, his words. And then we have these neocon war hawks in our government, the American government, who have these unconditional obedience to Israel and do nothing but escalate the situation. And now they're recycling all of his 911 rhetoric about the axis of evil, etc. But here's another quote, going back to Amalek, the modern Amalek, the former director of Israel Land Authority, Benzy Lieberman said this in 2004, he's the director. Okay, so these are people in positions of power, quote, the Palestinians are Amalek, we will destroy them. And now you understand what he means. He's invoking them genocide of the Palestinian people. This goes back to plan Dalit in 1948. So these are religious extremists drunk on messianic fervor, and they are trying to inaugurate their messianic age with a massive human sacrifice, a gift to their king. And I truly believe, again, that Jewish people who are good, just compassionate. I believe that when the real Messiah comes, they will believe in him and follow him. When Isa bin Miriam, alayhi salam returns, the good people will follow him. Okay. And that's the verse in the Quran we talked about earlier. Ah, here's something crazy. I gave a lecture on October 27. And I mentioned Amalek, and these things, you know, news for most people in the audience, the very next day, BB himself, you must remember what Amalek has done to you. It's a dog whistle. The initiated nobody means. Now we know what he means. He also made this appeal to their 3000 year legacy going back to Joshua, the son of noon. Right. According to the Tanakh, Joshua ben noon implemented him against the ancient Canaanites. Interestingly, Rabbi Jacob Shapiro, who is an anti Zionist rabbi and follower of the late Rabbi title bomb, he said that that there's no street in all of Jerusalem named after Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Moses. The naming begins with Joshua. The reason according to him is because religious Zionists believe that Judaism actually started with the seizing of the land. Not with Abraham, not with Moses, not with a covenant at Sinai. No, for them, Joshua is essentially the founder of Judaism. So Netanyahu mentions Joshua, but Abraham not Moses. And this guy Netanyahu even blamed the Holocaust on the Palestinians. This was years ago. He claimed that Hitler just wanted to exile them. But when Hitler met with Mufti Amin al-Harsani, the Grand Mufti of Palestine, the Mufti convinced Hitler to exterminate the Jews.  His father was at Auschwitz. Finkelstein said that this claim is quote beyond lunacy. Netanyahu blamed the Holocaust on the Palestinians. He's lost it. What else does the Torah say about Amalek? 2519, you must blot out the very mention of Amalek from under the sky. Umahu dhikr amalik min tahtis sama. You must blot out the very mention, the very mention of Amalek. And the word in Hebrew here is zikr. It's the same word zikr. Right now in Western public discourse, there's a disturbing trend. Any defense of the Palestinian people is being branded as supporting terrorism and anti-Semitic. Why this trend? Well, the members of Amalek, the very mention of Amalek must be blotted out. And for these Zionist extremists and zealots, Palestine is Amalek. And Western mainstream media, let's be honest, is totally controlled by Zionist propaganda. So now just having a Palestinian flag is seen as supporting terrorism and hating Jews. People are losing their jobs across multiple industries for even uttering a word of support for Palestinian lives, for speaking out against the carpet bombing of civilians. The House passed Resolution 894, which makes anti-Zionism anti-Semitic. American politicians are scared of death, scared to death of offending Jews. Meanwhile, in Gaza, Palestinian families, listen to this, are debating about whether they should all stay in one place or split up. Because if they split up and Israel drops bombs, at least the entire family won't be killed. This is what Palestinians are doing right now. This is their discussion over dinner. Palestinian parents are writing the names of their children on their children's bodies in case if they're bombed, they can identify them. This is what Palestinians are doing right now. Gazans right now are slowly starving. They're living in extremely close quarters with limited water, which means that disease is about to spread. This is all a strategy of war deployed by Israel. They admit this.  God knows what they can do with AI. We have this Israeli actress pretending to be a Palestinian Muslim nurse in the Al-Shifa hospital, fake tears, speaking English with a Hebrew accent, horrible acting. It's all tricksterism. We're told that there was a Hamas command and control center under the major hospital. Total lie. The Jerusalem Post went with this narrative that Palestinians are using dolls like fake dead babies. This was debunked. They retracted the story. No apology. These are real babies. They're real human beings. You see, Israel has to manufacture consent because the truth is not with them. I'll say it again. Read the Bible. Read Genesis. Just read Genesis. The person of Jacob in the book of Genesis. Okay. This is the Torah. Not the Quran. In Genesis, Jacob is a master trickster who no matter what he does, God continues to bless him. He has unconditional divine support for his deception. And Jacob is also called Israel. Jacob is Israel. From the very beginning of his life until the very end of his life, he's tricking people, deceiving people. And at the end of the book of Genesis, even Jacob's son Joseph ends up tricking the Egyptians. He tricks them, ends up enslaving the Egyptians. I don't remember reading that in the Quran. The Quran corrects these false narratives. Right at the beginning of Surah Yusuf. But Genesis is the primary text of Judaism. And they say, as they say, if such are the clergy, then God blessed the congregation. If one of the greatest patriarchs described in a most sacred book, who is also the namesake of their nation, was a master trickster, what do we expect from Zionist Israel? This is the, this was the motto of Mossad. This is Israeli, Israel's national intelligence agency. This used to be that they changed it, but it was By deception, you may wage war. They're telling us everything. What actually happened on October 7th? How many civilians were killed? It was 1400. Then they said 1200. 1100. No babies were beheaded. No women were raped. No people were burned alive and tortured. No babies thrown in ovens. There's no evidence of this. The Israeli newspaper edit said there's no evidence of this. Israeli newspaper. However, there is evidence that Israeli Apache helicopters fired hellfire missiles at cars and Israeli tanks shelled Israeli homes, causing the death of many, many Israeli civilians. At Kibbutz Baeri, an eyewitness named Yazmin Porat, an Israeli woman, said that she saw the IDF kill Israeli civilians. What about these release hostages? Why were they so nice and pleasant with their Hamas captors? Shaking hands, smiling, saying shalom as they left. Oh, they had Stockholm syndrome. Why don't Palestinian hostages and detainees have Stockholm syndrome? Palestinian hostages are returned broken and battered. Why do we rarely hear from these released Israeli hostages? The reason is because their firsthand testimony contradicts the Israeli narrative. And the horrible aspect of this is that I have heard otherwise decent and moral people defend Israel's attack on Palestine. They say this is not the same as Hiroshima or Nagasaki. In Hiroshima, the express purpose was to target civilians. But in Palestine, the Israeli military says that they don't intend to kill civilians. It just happens on accident. So it's okay. Civilians are killed on accident. Absolute nonsense and how incredibly disturbing. According to that logic, Israel could kill in theory a million children and say, oh, that wasn't our intention. So for these cowardly apologists for Israel, we need to ask them, when will it be enough for you to grow a backbone and condemn Israel? How many more children have to be cut to pieces? How many whole families taken off the planet before you grow a backbone and condemn what is obviously a genocide? If a Hamas fighter was hiding in a hospital in Tel Aviv, would Israel blow up that hospital in Tel Aviv? Of course not. But in Palestine, yes, there was a Hamas fighter. Everyone else was killed on accident. Wink, wink.  They just shoehorn Hamas in there and it makes genocide a-okay. This is collective punishment and collective punishment illegal according to international law. Israel violates the principle of proportionality, the principle of distinction, and the principle of precaution. How many laws are they breaking? No, Finkelstein said it. Quote, they are using October 7th as a pretext for the final solution to the Gaza problem. Chris Hedges, he says Israel's goal is to turn Gaza into a moon escape. You've seen what the moon looks like. The goal is to annex Gaza. They keep recycling this human shields argument. This is based, this is bread and butter. First of all, Israel uses human shields. They allow settlers, civilians, to live on occupied territories, stolen land, right next to Israeli military bases. They are putting people in harm's way. They're using settlers as human shields.    We have nowhere else to go. Why don't we exit our house and you can send cops to find this guy, pull him out and arrest him? No, your choice is, leave your house so we can bomb it or Stain will bomb it. So they bomb the house and then the police blame the murderer for your death and the death of your family. He was using them as human shields.  These people are clowns. This is asinine. So I end with this, deception is everywhere. The western media is gaslighting the world. The oppressed are depicted as the oppressors and vice versa. It's like the world is under a spell. Very strange. This is a beautiful dua from the Prophet Muhammad SAW that we should recite during these times. O Allah, show us the truth as truth and give us the ability to follow it. And show us falsehood as falsehood and give us the ability to reject it. Let me ask Allah SWT to give us the ability to see through the smoke and mirrors. So there's a hadith, Sunan Abu Dawud, the Prophet SAW said, The Prophet SAW, he said, Let him who hears of the dajjal, the imposter Messiah, keep a distance from him for I swear by Allah that a man will come to him thinking he's a firm believer and end up following him because of confused ideas, heretical matter, shubu hat, roused in him by the dajjal. Don't fall for this Orwellian weird Israeli speak. The tribulation of the imposter Messiah is the most evil of tribulations. So this is a serious business. The Prophet SAW used to seek refuge in Allah from the punishment of hell, the punishment of the grave, and from the imposter Messiah. Of course the Prophet SAW is free of all these things, but he's teaching us by example. So protect yourself against the anti-Christ. The Prophet SAW said, There's some weakness in the hadith, but it's true in its meaning. We pray for the people of Gaza, pray for their souls, pray for yourselves. Allah says, Save yourselves and your families from the fire. Hold fast to the Kitab and Sunnah. Don't leave the prayer. Remember what we said at the beginning of the seminar? Our state in the world will not change until we realize and take it to heart that only Allah can help us. When we turn to Allah with all of our being, then our conditions will improve. When we realize that the only opinion that matters is Allah's opinion, then things will change. No one else is really going to help us. Everything else is a band-aid. We are neither right nor left on the political spectrum or Muslim, or neither blue pill nor red pill or green pill.  Now, I'm no fan of TikTok, but isn't that ironic? Loyalty to Zionism trumps the first amendment.  There's your right wing. How's the left wing doing? Recently, an Obama national security advisor verbally unloaded on a poor Arab Halal truck vendor in New York. You see this? This was Obama's guy, Uba Ma. Right? This is what we were told. Barak Hussein, Uba, he's with us. In Farsi, Uba Ma means he's with us. Uba Ma, Barak Hussein, Uba Ma. What happened? So this Obama advisor said that the death of 4,000 Palestinian children was not, this was weeks ago, it's 10,000 now. That's not enough, he said.  Here's your left wing. None of these people are our allies. None of these people are our allies. Learn this dua. We can take some questions. Okay, we have two questions here on the sister side. We'll do one at a time. The first question is where does the word Zionism come from and who coined this term? So, good question. The word Zionism comes from the Hebrew with Sion. Sion is one of the names of Jerusalem in the Bible, Zion. So one of the names in the Hebrew Bible, it means like a sunny place, a place where the weather is nice, something like that. Right, so it's a reference to Jerusalem. Who coined the term Zionism? I don't know. I don't know. Okay, next question. Are the names Israel and Jerusalem Hebrew words and is the name Israel given to Palestine by Zionists? Israel? Yeah, Israel is Hebrew. Yerushalayim, there's difference of opinion. Some say it's Hebrew. It means city of peace. But there's different ways of actually pronouncing Jerusalem. So Yerushalayim in something, city of the two pieces, something like that. So there's an opinion that actually pre-Israelite. So it's some ancient Canaanite language. So that's the term of opinion. What was the second part of the question? Is the name Israel given to Palestine by Zionists? Yeah, they called it Israel. Now, 2,000 years ago, the northern half of Palestine was called Israel, the southern half was called Judea. Right, so they want to revive that name. Right, so this sort of gives them in their minds a claim to the land just using the same name. It's the same name so we should be living there, right? It's like 2,000 years ago we lived there. There weren't much people who imagined this.  It's 100 years ago, this was our land. Get out of my house. What would you do? You call the cops. And it's called Eloni, the city, Eloni College. It's the same name. Yeah, that means it's ours. Really? That's your argument? These people are clowns, man. I have a question. Well, a couple of questions. Are the people in Israel and the people that are Palestinian are they pretty much the same people because if you look at the time when Yusuf al-Islam went to Egypt and then Yaquba al-Islam went with him and the tribe went with him. They came back with Moses to their homeland, essentially, where they left. Are they not all the same people, essentially? Yeah, there's definitely genetic continuity among Arabs and Jews. So this is just a religious war? It's what? Just a religious war? Well, people appeal to race. So the Zionists, they're appealing to race, right? They want to redefine Judaism as a Jewish race. That's it. That's original Zionism. That's secular Zionism. It has nothing to do with religion. Okay. What was the poetry again? It's a nice quote. Right? Most Zionists don't believe in God but they all believe that God gave them Palestine. And the second question was you referred to some of the Christian sources here. Is there any source that goes back to like the original Bible as close as it was? That was the last part? As close as possible. To the original Bible? Yeah. What do you mean by Bible? Like the original Bible that God revealed to Yusuf al-Islam. Oh. Well, it's a question that deserves a long answer. But in my opinion, I think the original teachings of Yusuf al-Islam to a certain degree can be extracted from Matthew and Luke because they had a source in common called the Q-Source document. So take a class on Intro to the New Testament, this historical studies of the New Testament. You'll learn about something called Q. So this is a gospel, a sayings gospel. Dennis McDonald calls it the first gospel that Matthew and Luke had access to. It's probably pre-Pauline. It's probably written in the 40s or 50s that Matthew and Luke had access to. Mark did not. So whenever Matthew and Luke have material in common, it's probably from Q. And if you look at all the Q information, the Q material, because we can sort of piece it together, none of it really contradicts Islam. And it's the earliest historical source that the gospel authors were using when writing their gospels. But as far as anything authentic from Issa A.S., from our perspective, no, we don't have anything like that. I just want to ask two questions, maybe a little more if you don't mind. So I know that the types of Israel who are, they're just tribes of Yaqub A.S. And is it true that they did come from the Arabian Peninsula or have they always, well, essentially Canaanites did historically come from the Arabian Peninsula. So is it possible that they're not a distinctive identity as being Jews because we know some Ben Isra'id were Muslims and some were Nassar and some were Yehud. So is that true or is that like a theory that people have came up with? What is the theory? That some Ben Isra'il, like Ben Isra'il are not distinctly Jews. Like they are some were Muslims and the majority, they went astray and they were Nassar or like Christians and Jews and not. I mean, according to our Aqidah, the Muslims of the past, the Yehud were the Muslims of the past, right? They were the Muslim Ummah, right? So the people of Musa A.S., those were the Muslims. The people of Ibrahim A.S., those were the Muslims. I see. Yeah. So if you're asking when did when did the sort of term Jew as a religious distinction come about? This is much later. So in other words, what were the people of the Israelites at the time of Musa A.S.? What was the name of their religion? This is a good question. Nobody knows. What did they call themselves? Samaritans. Like if Musa A.S., if I were to speak to Musa A.S. and I said to him, are you a Jew? He would say, no, I'm a Levite. So he would think, I'm referring to a tribe. Right? I said, no, no, no. Are you, do you practice Judaism? He would say, well, what is that? There's an, it's anachronism, right? So what's the name of your religion? And I actually asked a rabbi one time. I said, if I were to ask Musa A.S., Moshe, right? Shalom Ha'alaih. That's they also say, A.S., I say, blessed memory. If I asked him, what is your religion? What would he say? And he actually said to me, he'd probably say something like Shalom or Islam or something like that. But Judaism as a religious distinction is a second temple period. This is like, this is way hundreds of years later. So that was interesting. He said, the rabbi said he would, that Musa A.S., he would say that he was a Muslim or in their language is, or is it Shalom? Shalom, yeah, that means peace. Like some sort of submission unto God. I see. Right. Yeah. I mean, that's the origin of Islam is. Yeah. So they have, Hebrew and Arabic and Aramaic have common roots. Yeah. So like Jews, when they meet, they say Shalom Ha'alaihem. That's our greeting. That's our Isa A.S. I would have greeted the disciples. And the second question is, is it true that there is this group, they call themselves Samaritans? None of you have heard of them, but the Samaritans. Some people argue that they follow a true version of the Torah. Now we believe that the Torah and the engine and the book of Zabur, which is known as or possibly the book of Psalms, we believe that they have been corrupted and truly they have been corrupted. As the previous body was asking, is there remnants, like very few remnants that could suggest that the truth remained, but mostly it was corrupted or is it completely corrupted that you can't find anything? There's, we can only confirm things in Ma'ana. So for example, Deuteronomy 6.4 says, Here are Israel, the Lord or God. The Lord is one. That's a true meaning. Right. God is one. Echad. Ahad. But is that exactly what Musa A.S. said? I don't know. There's no Sanad. So we can confirm the Ma'ana, but not the Luf, not the Nus. The Nus we don't, we have no Sanad. So Ibn Taymiah, he says, when you look at the Bible, there's really three categories of these, Isra'iliyat. Right. Says there are things that are true in their meaning and we can affirm those meanings. And there are things that are clearly false in their meanings and we deny them. And there's a lot of gray area. But nothing we can say with 100% definitive reliance, as it were, that this is definitely from Wahi. We don't know. The Samaritan version of the Torah is basically the same as the Masoretic text, which is the sort of received text that is used by Jews the world over, is basically the same. There are some differences and spelling and word order and things like that. Sometimes there's different descriptions, but it's basically the same. As Americans, they do pray in an unusual way. They actually, when they pray, they make Ruku and Sajda. And they say, this is from Musa al-Islam, Allah-u-Alam. Oh, thank you. As-salamu alaykum. Alaykum. Alaykum. So, as my preface is with when I go on social media, I'm a first-generation Muslim American here, Middle Eastern background. My mom is from Mecca, my dad Lebanese, and I grew up in a kind of Republican area, so I understand what it's like to have to be on the defensive, especially during 9-11 or my mom was running for a political office. And anyway. But, you know, I'm actually pleasantly surprised in one hand when I go to social media, like even Instagram. I didn't used to like a lot of these social media stuff, but it is a way to connect with people who are trying to convey an idea, obviously. So I noticed one thing I like to do, I think it's important to even like Malcolm X, and a lot of people talk about it, learn from your enemy, right? Or like I consider you have to learn from the other side or what they're saying. So I would even look at, like I used to watch a lot of Jewish media, Hollywood shows, like Seinfeld or whatever. So even I noticed that one of these actresses, Deborah Messing, writes very zionistic posts. And they like to use, they use this tactic of also getting some token Arab or Iranian or Muslim to condemn or they'll say, oh, we're pro-Palestinian too, but as long as Hamas must release all the hostages. So what I'm trying to get at is that I try to look at what they're saying too, so I know what, and the good thing is that I start to see that if they do allow people to post a lot of pro-Palestinian, they jump on it. And they write the hypocrisy of it all. But like sometimes we have to, we have to like in debate, right? We have to learn, even maybe as Muslims to play devil's advocate a little bit or sometimes I notice with some Israeli or the pro-Zionist ones, they want to say, well, oh, the Arab world has all these countries, Muslim countries, or Saudi is Muslim, or why can't we just have our own state or things like that? So how do we answer that or those kind of things? Yeah, I don't care if there's a Jewish state that has nothing to do with me, but you can't take someone else's country. That's the problem. And I don't think that's unreasonable to make that objection.  But that's a question for their own tradition, though. They have an internal conflict because 150 years ago, they all believed that they're in exile. So they can, they can ask for traditional authorities what's wrong with having a Jewish state and you're going to get a very substantive religious and moral and ethical response to why that can't be the case because Judaism is rooted in the fear of God and God has put us in exile. If you don't believe in God, well, you can do whatever you want, basically, right? But if you believe in God, then you're expected to fear God. So I don't know if that, yeah. Yeah, it's like, if I want something, if I don't have a car because I can't afford one, can I steal your car? I mean, this is very basic. I mean, I have to explain these, not that I'm not, you know, but sometimes we have to kind of break it down in a very basic way. Can I steal something if I don't have it? No, I can't. Maybe I can work with a person and say, hey, can I have this and we can, in goodwill, and maybe I can share something or someone will give me something, something like that. You win the peace, you win with goodwill. Coming with violence and stealing, it's not gonna work. There's no trophy for that. And we've seen it. Make one of these guys, he tweeted, if there's no Israel, then Jews would be killed all over the world. What? The most dangerous place on earth for a Jew is Israel. It's exactly the opposite of the truth. So I have a quick question about the Dejad, because I'm thinking of the Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ, which says every prophet warned his people about the Dejad. And I wonder if there's any traces of such a warning in the Jewish scriptures or do they have absolutely no mention of the Dejad or what's the understanding of that concept? Yeah, I mean, it's a good question. It's nothing really sort of commensurate with our tradition. I mean, I get this question a lot. I would say the closest thing to an Antichrist is this idea of Amalek in their tradition. Right, there's going to be a force in the world that wants to eradicate Israel and that this force will be alive and well in the world when the true Messiah comes and will oppose the Messiah. So in that sense, it's the Antichrist. Right. And they certainly don't like Issa al-Asalam. I don't know if they go so far. I mean, certainly he was a pseudo Messiah, according to them. And you know, if you read the Talmud again, don't read it. But you know, the way that he's described depicted as someone who basically, you know, cause a lot of problems to say it mildly. Shabtai Sfi, another one of these, what they consider to be a false Messiah who claimed to be the Messiah and then he converted to Islam and it was a big fiasco. So you have these pseudo Messiahs. He's going to minor Antichrists. But is there like this idea of a Dejal as a singular sort of Messiah Dejal? I don't know. I don't, I don't, I haven't come across anything like that. The closest thing is Amalek. And, and Amalek is, they refer to Amalek as a singular. They don't, they usually don't say Amalekites. They say Amalek as if it's one person. Asalaamu Alaykum, Shaykh. Just one more question. Is it true that that we know that modern day YAHUD, they mainly come from Central Europe or at least the Ashkenazi. So we can no longer say that they are Samites since they've gone astray because they rejected the message of Allah and His Prophets. We can no longer claim that they are Samites. So we would be, like if someone were to criticize them, it would be more like anti-Jew but not anti-Semite. If, if that's a correct way to put it, since genetically they are no longer connected to the land of Canaan. Yeah, I spoke about that earlier as well. The Ashkenazi, there's there's difference of opinion. There are things that are no longer politically correct to say about them. Sort of traditional in the past, it was sort of proposed that their converts, right, the Kingdom of Hasaria. Did I mention this about Hasaria? I mentioned it earlier, yeah. So I don't want to repeat myself. Just watch. I don't know if you're here or not. Just watch the recording, inshallah. Okay, we'll go with one final question, kind of all-encompassing from the online viewers. What is the claim of Zionism overall? Is it primarily about land, religion, race, or is it all-encompassing? What is the claim of Zionism? The overall claim, what are they claiming to? Is it race? Is it land? Is it religion? Is it all? And I think the question is towards supremacy or overall encompassing ideology of Zionism? Well, it's different things. Most Zionists are secular, right? So it's this idea that we need a Jewish homeland because of what happened in Europe.  We need a safe haven for Jews. Again, I'm not against that. But the problem is when you go into a country that's already populated and he spread lies about that country and say, oh, this is a country without a people. No. I think any decent person if they have any type of moral compass would say, I'm against that. And including many, many Jews, right? Jews united for Israel, Natura Karta, the Satma. A lot of these rallies, pro-Palestinian rallies and events, they're led by Jews, ethnic Jews, right? Whether they're secular or religious. So people are using Palestine for their own purposes, some for religion, some for whatever. For moral reasons in their minds. So, some for political reasons. Yeah, as you can see, I'm getting a little bit tired now. Thank you for attending. We'll see you soon. And I'll see you soon. Peace be upon you. Peace be upon you too. Peace be upon you too.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jazby's CaseBreaks.com coming at you with the filler for Bowman's Best Picker Team 5 and Number 6. We call this a team random, usually. Yeah, buy one of the first 19 spots in this team random and get entered to win a couple free spots. You also have a chance to win a sealed box as well. Everyone's guaranteed something as long as you're in. You're either gonna get a sealed box, a Bowman's Best, current edition, or a team in Picker Team 5 or 6. Big thanks to this group for making it happen. Here's the first 19 right there. So top two of the 19, that's our first dice roll. The second dice roll will be matching up with something. Three and a six, nine times. Top two, get extra spots after nine. There's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and ninth and final time. After nine, congrats to Eric and Simon. Extra spots for you going your way. There's Eric and there's Simon. All right, so congrats to the both of you. Now we can match you up with either a box of the current Bowman's Best or you'll get a team. That's our second dice roll. Let's get everyone's names in here and let's roll it and randomize it five into two seven times. Good luck. One, two, three, four, five, six, and seventh and final time.  Who's gonna get the sealed box though? That's gonna be that's gonna be for Raymond. Congrats to you Raymond. After seven times you get a sealed box going your way and everyone else you're getting teams. So Rob with the Yankees in six, Chad with the White Sox in five, Tristan with the White Sox in six, Raymond with the Tigers in five. Should we just do pick your team five first? Might be a little bit easier. All right, so Chad with the White Sox in five, Tristan, Raymond, Tigers in five, Rob with the Dodgers in five, Raymond with the Cubs in five, and Simon with the Early Bird Spot Rockies in five, Ed with the Phillies in five, Simon with A's in five, Tristan with the Blue Jays in five, Brian with the Braves in five, Kenny with the Marlins in five. The rest of you pick your team six, Rob with the Yankees in six, Tristan with the White Sox, Rob with the Guardians, Eric with the Tigers, Nick with the Midodgers, Devon with the Padres, Connor with the Rangers, David with the Cubs in six, Maloon with the Rockies, Rob with the Giants, Jacob with the Cardinals, Eric with the Phillies in six with your Early Bird Spot, Rob with the A's, Kenneth with the Jays, both in six, Raymond with the Braves, and David with the Marlins in pick your team six. All right, there you go gang. Thanks for getting into it. I'm Joe for jazpescasewrakes.com. I'll see you in the next video for pick your team five. Bye-bye.


Once again, Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz found themselves in a rematch on the Piers Morgan Uncensored show, but this time with a distinct intellectual flair. Much has transpired since their last encounter on the same platform. Back then, Israel basked in the glow of favorable media narratives, perpetuating falsehoods that obscured the grim reality of its policies, particularly its occupation of Palestine, notably Gaza, home to over two million people living in what amounts to an open-air prison. Their previous meeting occurred without reports of the widespread destruction inflicted upon Gaza and its civilian population. There were no accounts of Israel obstructing aid to the starving populace or resorting to violence against those seeking assistance. The occupation's media apparatus wasn't yet caught in the web of deceit about its presence in the strip. During that time, Israel capitalized on a narrative of victimhood, portraying itself as the aggrieved party while casting those enduring decades of occupation as aggressors. In today's debate, Alan Dershowitz faces the challenge of navigating through the shadow cast by Israeli war crimes and their aftermath, while engaging in dialogue with the methodically articulate Norman Finkelstein. What form will his defense take this time? Will he acknowledge the grave offenses committed by his country, as recognized by the International Criminal Court, ICC? How will he address Israel's repeated refusals to negotiate the safe release of detainees held by Palestinians? And what response will he offer to the admission by Israel itself of defeat in Gaza? This debate holds a compelling allure precisely because it revolves around substantive issues. Participants are focused on the matters at hand, devoid of personal attacks. It's an event worth watching for its genuine engagement with critical issues. In the spirit of our commitment to unbiased reporting and insightful geopolitical analysis, we encourage you to engage with this discourse, remain informed about developments in Palestine, and subscribe to our channel for regular updates. Thank you, Piers. First of all, as a general point, I agree with the notion of a statute of limitations on your claims to a parcel of land. The first time I came across that expression was reading Arnold Toinby's Great History of the World, actually, and he makes the point in his history that isn't there a statute of limitation on the claims of Jews to Palestine? He said that claim was made 2,000 years ago, and it's claimed that, even today it's claimed that, based on what happened 2,000 years ago, there's a large portion of Israeli population who believes they have title to the West Bank, they have title to Gaza, because of that claim 2,000 years ago. Isn't there a statute of limitations? Allow me to complete my thought, and then you can disagree. Isn't there a statute of limitations on the claim from 2,000 to 3,000 years ago? Now, I would like to focus on Gaza. The population is expelled from Israel into Gaza. Now, if you look at Benny Morris' history called Border Wars, he says that between 1949 and 1953, literally, listen closely, about 2,700 to 5,000 Palestinian expellees, that's including in the West Bank and in Gaza, between 2,700 and 5,000 Palestinian expellees were killed by Israel when they tried to return home. Now, Benny Morris says 90% of those killed were unarmed. They were what he called economic infiltrates who wanted to see their homes. They wanted to see their land. They wanted to see their neighbors. They were brutally, if you believe Professor Morris, brutally murdered between those years. In 1956, as you know, peers England, France and Israel invaded Egypt, including at the time Gaza. What happened then? According to Benny Morris in the book Border Wars, he said between 470 and 500 Palestinian men were lined up and shot down. Now, let's bear in mind, peers, this is long, long before this entity called Hamas came into the picture. Now, if we fast forward to 1967, after Israel occupies Gaza, there are new assaults on the people of Gaza, this time carried on by, at the time, defense, no, he wasn't defense, agricultural minister, Ariel Sharon. Now, without getting sidetracked, I do have to say Professor Dershowitz, every time I listen to you, even when we debated each other in 2003, I guess, or 2004, I can't recall, you keep escalating your claims about having written UN resolution 242 or contributed to the resolution. Professor Dershowitz, I understand people have fantasies and I understand that people have failings of memory as they get older. But Professor Dershowitz, when we had our original debate, you didn't even know who wrote UN resolution 242. You had all these names, it was Lord Karadin, anybody who was involved in the process would know that. So let's make, let's agree on one thing, we both, both of us should agree to only state facts. And if we have any doubts about the facts, let's set them aside and try to give viewers, listeners, as accurate a record as possible, we can disagree. But when you engage in your fantasies, it really to me is very disturbing and disorienting. Okay. Well, let me ask Professor Dershowitz to respond. Well, first of all, let's get the facts straight. I was Arthur Goldberg's law clerk. Arthur Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations. He asked me to come down. I actually moved in with him at the Waldorf Historia Towers and work with him on 242. Yes, I confused the name Carrington with something else, but I worked closely. In fact, I was partly responsible for changing the words, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I worked on the matter. I didn't work with Lord Karadin. I worked with Arthur Goldberg and together we managed to get rid of the word Palestinian before refugees in order to make sure that the resolution applied both to Palestinian refugees and to Jewish refugees for whatever you're interrupting me. So let me finish. This is a detail. It's a fact. Now, let's talk about what happened involving the Gaza Strip. I agree there's a statute of limitations. I'm opposed to any biblical claims on Israel. I believe Israel has a political and moral claim to the land. There have always been Jews living there from the time of Jesus and Muhammad to 1948. And wisely the British decided for a compromise plan for a division and that plan was accepted by the Jewish and Zionist leaders. It was rejected by the Palestinians. And then as you know, Israel tried to give the entire Gaza Strip over to Egypt. Back to Egypt during the Camp David Accords. It almost caused a breakdown in the Camp David meetings because the Egyptians didn't want it. And Israel very reluctantly held on to it. And then in 2005, Israel abandoned the Gaza. And only when rockets and a bloody coup occurred did Israel respond by having border controls. Let me tell you one thing. They weren't strong enough. If there had been better border controls, Hamas would not have been allowed to bring in concrete, which it used to build tunnels, to bring in weapons, which it used to murder all these people on October 7th. So Israel was not strong enough. It should have had far better border controls as other countries had in comparable situations. And so one more point. Toynbee and Benny Morris both are regarded as kind of one-sided historians. There are claims that dispute both of them, particularly Toynbee. Toynbee was an overtly anti-Zionist historian who didn't believe that the Jewish people had any claim to Israel. There's also a statute of limitations on that. And so let's move forward. And moving forward means potentially a solution where Hamas is no longer in control of Gaza. Remember, too, you're absolutely right, Norman. Terrorism began way before Hamas. Terrorism was an essential part of the Palestinian leadership. The Olympic massacres that occurred way before Hamas, the terrorism on airplanes, the blowing up of airplanes, the hijacking of airplanes, the problem is that the world rewarded terrorism and it's rewarding them again by allowing Hamas to free hundreds of people, legitimately many convicted and not all convicted, many convicted in exchange for a small number of completely innocent hostages. You can't compare completely innocent hostages with convicted murderers. Okay, Norman, respond to that. But also, I also want to move on. Once you respond to it, also move on, if you will, to the issue of settlements because one of the things I find hardest to have any sympathy with Israel about is the continued expansion of settlements and in particular the West Bank and I think we may find some consensus here. But first of all, Norman, your response to what Alan Dershowitz just said, but also then move it to settlements. Yeah, well, I would like to try to, well, actually I can bring it up to the settlements on the case of Gaza. So I would like to just continue where I left off with so to speak at the risk of being boring, the timeline. I said in 1970, there were atrocities committed in Gaza against the people of Gaza by the agriculture, the head by the agricultural minister at the time, Ariel Sharone. In 1987, as you perhaps remember, peers, the first Intifada broke out. It was overwhelmingly, here I quote Benny Morris from his book, Righteous Victims, it was an overwhelmingly nonviolent civil resistance to the Israeli occupation. By 1990, three years after the beginning, or really two years, because it began in December 7th, 1987, by 1990, Israel started to institute, again, I'm sticking strictly to Gaza, what are called a closure policy. And the closure policy was basically to seal off Gaza. Okay? By 2002, 2003, if you read Baruch Kimmerling, he was a senior cell knee sociologist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He described Gaza as quote, the largest concentration camp ever. Now you might say Baruch Kimmerling was a person of the left and I will grant that. But then we have Giora Island. Giora Island at the time was the head of Israel's National Security Council. He said in March 2003, and now I'm quoting him, he described Gaza as a huge concentration camp. So you can say there is a consensus among knowledgeable people, sociologists at the Hebrew University, head of the National Security Council, that Israel had turned Gaza into a concentration camp. In 2006, in 2006, there is an election in January 2006. Hamas wins the election basically on the platform of reform because the Palestinian Authority is proverbially corrupt. It comes into power immediately as it comes into power. Israel institutes this brutal economic blockade on Gaza. And at that point, there have been various descriptions, I'm sure appears you wouldn't call the economist a left-wing magazine or anti-Semitic. It described Gaza as quote, a toxic dump. And at that point, it had a high, slowly, just to give you one example, peers and your listeners, because they should have a sense of what this blockade look like. Israel's explicit policy, its explicit policy was to keep Gaza on the precipice of economic catastrophe. That's how they described their policy. They prohibited baby chicks from entering Gaza. They prohibited chocolate from entering Gaza. They prohibited potato chips from entering Gaza. They prohibited any spices from entering Gaza. And it prohibited any exports from Gaza except at some points occasionally things like strawberries. So what had happened to Gaza? It had, on the eve of 2007, it had the highest unemployment rate in the world. It was about 60% unemployed, 50% for the population as a whole, 60% for youth. The people in Gaza were left to languish and die no past, no present, no future, to languish and die in the concentration camp. That was their prospect as of October 6th, 2003. Excuse me, yeah, 2023. Sorry about that. May I respond? Well, I tell you what, yes, actually, on that point, Professor Dershowitz, you respond to that point briefly if you could. Then I want to come back to Norma Finkelstein to move it on to settlement. So, Alan, just respond to what? I mean, just respond to that suggestion, which has been cited by many people that the conditions in Gaza in the period that Norma Finkelstein has been referring to have been described by many people as bordering on a concentration camp. And at the very least, a form of occupation where Israel wielded far too much control over what could come in and out of Gaza, including people. Well, they're right in the description that it was a toxic place. It was a toxic place because Hamas took over and because Hamas robbed the people of Gaza of their food. It took the material that was sent from Europe from countries around the world and took it away from the children and took it away from the hospitals, took it away from the schools and gave it to their fighters to build 350 miles of tunnels. Imagine what could have been done with all the resources that had been sent to Gaza. There was plenty of food in Gaza, except that Hamas was using it. There was plenty of material to build hospitals in Gaza, but instead Hamas was using it. It's Hamas that turned it into a toxic, toxic place. When Israel, in fact, occupied it, actually occupied it, it was in much better shape than when Hamas took it over. And so it's Hamas' fault. Hamas turned Gaza into this horrible place. And let's remember Israel has been prepared to give up Gaza over and over again. It tried desperately to give it back to Egypt and during the Camp David. It tried desperately to allow for the 2007 Omerit plan. Gaza is given to a Palestinian state. The 2002, 2001 Bill Clinton plan, Gaza is given over. They rejected it. If it was a toxic concentration camp, the guards were not Israelis. The guards were Hamas people who were throwing gay people off the roof, who were murdering Palestinian authority people and who were denying women the right to live their lives decently. Yes, Gaza was a terrible place, completely the fault of Hamas. Can we reach a point of agreement on the issue of settlements? I suspect we can. So, normal figures said, I don't want to keep responding. I don't want you to keep responding to each other about that. One sentence. What I would like you to do. One sentence. One sentence. Okay, give me one sentence, but then please address the issue of settlements. One sentence. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, a thousand humanitarian and economic organizations have all reached the same conclusion. It's very simple. The main cause of the disaster in Gaza is Israel's illegal blockade of that parcel of land. Full stop. That's wrong. That's wrong. That's wrong. That's false. Who's wrong? Who's wrong? Uncle Dad is wrong. The World Bank is wrong. The international monetary fund is wrong. Are they all wrong? Are they all anti-Semitic? Is that what's going on? I didn't say that. I didn't say that. They're wrong. I happen to know more about the law than any of them. Because the blockade was completely lawful, it was designed to prevent the importation and then the use of rockets against Israel. It's perfectly lawful for a country to engage in a blockade that is, you're not, let me finish. You can't have a doubt. Israel is exposed to a double standard, but we're not letting you impose a double standard on me. No, I'm going to finish my statement and you're not going to interrupt me. It's indeed perplexing why Professor Alan Dershowitz persists in defending Israel's forceful annexation of Palestinian territories. Despite numerous condemnations from international bodies regarding Israel's establishment of new settlements on Bedouin lands, the professor remains obstinate in his refusal to acknowledge the inherent flaws in this policy. Such steadfast support for actions deemed criminal only serves to tarnish Israel's reputation, a nation that has long prided itself on defending against perceived religious aggressors. The underlying agenda seems to revolve around a relentless pursuit of dominance and territorial expansion, disregarding the rightful claims of the Palestinian people, all while the international community and the principles of the rule-based order stand by, seemingly powerless to intervene. What's particularly striking is the professor's perpetuation of an antiquated narrative, one that sanctifies Israel's historical significance and dismisses the legitimate struggle of Palestinians for their land. It's disheartening to witness someone of his caliber peddling the notion that asserting one's rights equates to terrorism. In doing so, he conveniently overlooks the historical reality that European Jews themselves employed tactics akin to terrorism to oust the British from Palestine, paving the way for the establishment of the Israeli state on Palestinian soil. One can't help but question whether Alan Dershowitz truly comprehends the plight of those subjected to nearly eight decades of occupation. Professor Dershowitz, just as a matter of fact, I teach the laws of war. I've been teaching it for the last five years. To my understanding, you're biased. Okay, Professor Dershowitz. Okay, Professor Dershowitz, let's agree. I'm completely ignorant. Let's take that as a point of departure. How does it come to be that every humanitarian and political body in the world has declared that the blockade of Gaza constitutes collective punishment and therefore is a violation, a breach of international law, a war crime under international law? How did that come to pass? They're wrong. How is it that every... You're wrong. They're all wrong. You're not right. You're not right. No, no, no. You're wrong in describing... Professor Dershowitz. You're wrong in describing every group. There are many groups. Okay, Professor Dershowitz, name me one legal international legal body or human rights organization. Name me one. I'll take the pause. Name me one. That what? That says the blockade of Gaza is not collective punishment. Name me one. The law fair project in the United States. The law fair project, I said, name me one international legal or political body. It is. It is. Everybody's listening now. Pierce Morgan has a very large audience. Name me one. Name me one international or legal, legal or political body that says the blockade of Gaza is legal. Name me one. It is legal. And every organization that I have been associated with, the law fair project, the project run by a woman named Leitner and the international project, have all concluded that the blockade is legal. Also, the Israeli Supreme Court, which is above reproach and which is much fairer than the International Court of Justice, has also, with limits, has said that blockades designed to prevent the bringing of rockets to Israel is lawful. Also, use your common sense. What possible reason would there be for allowing a group in Gaza, a group of Hamas, to send rockets without trying to blockade them from bringing the rockets in and building tunnels? Use your common sense. Of course it's unlawful. Every country in the world would do exactly the same as Israel did in blockading. I think we've exhausted this part of the debate. I do want to, before we run out of time, we only have about five minutes left, and I do want to get into settlements. And I'll start with you, Professor Penkelsley. The issue of settlements, I think is pretty much indefensible, actually, what's been going on, and particularly in recent years on the West Bank. But what is your overview of the settlement issue? My overview of the settlement, as in all topics, is what international law says. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it's illegal for an occupying power to transfer its population to occupy territory. Now, when that issue came before the International Court of Justice in July 2004, every single judge, every single judge, including the American judge, Mr. Bergenthal, they all agreed on that one point. The settlements are illegal under international law. Now, under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, those settlements constitute war crimes. So what we're talking about now, since the settlement activity began right after the June 1967 war, what we're talking about is a protracted war crime over a period of a half century. And that's sometimes missed. When we talk about what's happened to Gaza, we're talking about two decades. If you go back to the closure in 1990, we're talking about the martyrdom of a people over three decades. Those young men who burst the gates of Gaza on October 7th were born into, to use your phrase now, a toxic concentration camp. They were born into it. And that settlement activity, which under the Rome Statute is a war crime, that's been ongoing for a half century. Okay. Let me get Professor Dutchman to respond. Let me respond, please. Yes, you can. Let me respond. First of all, Finkelstein and Hamas regard Tel Aviv and Jerusalem as settlements. So you can't take them seriously about anything. They regard all of Israel as settlements. And yes, I disagree with settlements on the West Bank. I have since 1970 when I debated Noam Chomsky. I called for a two-state solution. I agree with a military occupation designed to prevent rockets and prevent terrorism. But I disagree with civilian settlements. But the core point I want to mention is ultimately we've gotten to this point. Wait a second. No, of course not. They are not war crimes at all. They are disputes over what constitutes the UN Resolution Tool for Two, which allows Israel. If the UN says they're illegal, where does that leave it? The UN says a lot of things. The UN also called Israel Zionism Racism. The UN has no authority to define international law. The UN can give advisory opinions. Who does? Who does? But all 15 charges are the ICJ. Let me finish. So remember who appoints the justices. Countries appoint the justices. So when Lebanon appoints a justice, it's Hezbollah who's appointing the justice. The International Court of Justice is an illegitimate court. It is not a real court. But I want to get to the core point. What Finkelstein finally says. Thomas Bergenfraub. Let me finish, please. Let me finish. Set the settlements illegal. What Finkelstein is finally saying is that these people, he called them martyrs. I was at Beirah. I was at the Nova Music Festival. I saw the remnants of where a woman named Vivian Silver, a peacenik, who used to go over and bring Hamas and Ghazan people to hospitals was burnt to death. I saw where people were raped. There is no justification for collective rape. There is no justification for murdering a peacenik. This woman was probably murdered by the very people she brought to hospitals because they knew exactly where she lived and where the hospitals. It's an abomination to even suggest that any kind of martyrdom, dispute over land, dispute over any, could justify what happened on October 7th. Shame on anybody who thinks that civilized human beings should be praised or even justified for doing what they did. I met a man whose son had been beheaded and Hamas then took his head, brought it back to Gaza, put it on sale for $10,000, and this father had to bury his son without a head. That's what Hamas did. And not only Hamas, but people, ordinary civilians in Gaza came over the border and participated in these rapes and murders and shame on anybody who doesn't unequivocally condemn it. There is no justification for what happened on October 7th. No matter what the history is, the history is disputed, but I want to hear Norman Finkelstein say unequivocally, no matter what the history is, there is no justification for the massacres of October 7th. We'll end with Norma Finkelstein's response and answer that question. I guess I'll just have a question. My response is exactly the same one I gave you the very first time I met you, Pierce. There were atrocities, large atrocities that occurred on October 7th. I think it's indisputable. You then asked me, would you consider it terrorism? I then replied to you. I think atrocities denote terrorism. However, I said I take the same attitude towards the perpetrators of those atrocities as the abolitionists in the United States took towards the Nat Turner rebellion. Nat Turner? So you justified them? So you crazed them? So you glorified them and you honor them? That's the reality. Pierce, can I finish? Yeah. Can I finish? Yeah. Nat Turner and the slave revolt committed horrible atrocities. The abolitionists said horrible things happen, but they never condemned Nat Turner. No, they don't happen. They are perpetrated by people. What they did was...  What they did was... Finkelstein, this is the lowest point you've ever gotten to. And you've gotten to low points, but this is the lowest point you've gotten to comparing these rapists and these murderers to abolitionists in the lowest point in your history. Let him finish what he's trying to say. Sure. Thank you. By the way, Nat Turner's rebellion... Okay, in Nat Turner's rebellion, they committed horrible atrocities, including beheading babies. That's a fact. However, the abolitionists... And you're justifying that. And you're justifying that. They did not... Please, Piers, can you please tell them to stop? I think let him finish the point he's making, and then you respond. Okay, thank you so much. However, the abolitionists did not condemn the perpetrators. The abolitionists kept saying, we told you so. We told you so. We told you so. If you treat people like that, what happened with the slave revolt inevitably would happen. And I say, if you lock 2 million people in a concentration camp for 20 years, half of whom are children who were born into that concentration camp, don't react with shock and dismay and disbelief and indignation at what happened on October 7th. I have spent the last 20 years... I have spent the last 20 years of my life studying what's been done to the people of Gaza. And each time I reread what I wrote, I'm more firm than ever before. I will not condemn those people even as I acknowledge that massive, unspeakable atrocities occurred on October 7th. I'm industrious. You'll find those books. Let me have my last point. Norman Finkelstein, you would not condemn the Nazis, Hitler, Goebbels and Gehring because they too went through suffering after the end of the First World War. They too tried to justify what they did as inevitable because of the inflation, because of living under terrible conditions. They inevitably voted for Adolf Hitler. They inevitably built gas chambers. They inevitably built concentration camps. And you, Norman Finkelstein, who claim your parents are Holocaust survivors, you, Norman Finkelstein, by your logic would justify every single one of the 6 billion Jews who were murdered because the Germans who did it don't deserve condemnation because they were victims of the Versailles Treaty at the end of the World War I. That's the situation you're in, Norman Finkelstein. It's despicable. In conclusion, the rematch between Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz on The Piers Morgan Uncensored Show offers a compelling glimpse into the evolving discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While their previous encounter occurred amidst a media landscape dominated by Israel's narrative, this rematch is characterized by substantive engagement and genuine intellectual discourse. However, Professor Dershowitz's unwavering defense of Israel's policies raises troubling questions about justice and accountability. As the debate unfolds, viewers are left to ponder the implications of Dershowitz's stance and the urgent need for genuine dialogue to address the complexities of the conflict and strive towards a just resolution. Thank you for joining us today. To further our reach and amplify our message, we encourage you to like, share, and subscribe to our channel. Together, let's raise awareness and strive for peace. Until next time, stay informed and stay engaged. Peace.


Stevenson falls to Eastern in overtime, Glenn Clark with head coach Gary Stewart. Coach, obviously not the way you want the season to come to an end. What was the difference in overtime tonight? Well, I thought the second half really turned. It was a physical game, first half, and then in the second half, they go to line 20 times, we go two. And in a close game like that, I have nothing but admiration for the way that we played and how hard we fought and to get ourselves two overtime to make a basket at the end. You know, I just would like to focus in on my guys and really couldn't be more proud of the way that they competed. That's a great moment for Mikhail in his final game to have a memory like that with that last basket. Can you just take me through those guys that you know aren't going to be back here moving forward and what they've meant to you into this program? Well, they mean the world. You know, let's talk about what they are off the floor. You know, let's talk about their academics, let's talk about their character and how they comport themselves in the community and on campus. I mean, they're a credit to Stevenson. Our basketball program in the university is better because of them. And they represent everything good in Stevenson athletics.  They come every day.   Again, I have the luckiest guy in the world to be able to coach guys like that. What are you most proud of? And you'd rather be playing, right? You'd rather be getting ready for the tournament. But as you reflect on this team in the coming weeks, months, what would we be most proud of about them? Yeah, it's interesting. That's an interesting question, Glenn, in that we got better as the year went on, but we didn't eliminate the lapses in place. So our really good play was pretty good. You can see it today. I mean, we're playing against the defending conference champions and we go to Alvernia and we're up with two minutes left there who's going to win our conference. We beat Weidner at Weidner. So we had some really good moments. We just didn't have the consistency that the teams are playing at the top. They have one or two tough moments during a game. Ours were five and six minutes. And to get where we're trying to get, you've got to close that gap. And unfortunately, we weren't able to do that. Coach, do you have a message for these guys as you're last time together? I don't know how this works, right? What did you say to them as you got in the locker room? Well, I mean, this is a time where one door appears to be shut, but another one will open and I told them their best days are ahead of them. They're going to do some really good stuff. They're going to be great, great husbands and fathers and they're going to really be supportive of their communities. The best is yet to come. I mean, they've got a lot of really, really wonderful attributes. And again, I was just really fortunate to spend a part of their life with them. And I'll miss them on a daily basis, but it's a lifetime relationship and excited to see what's next. Coach, I appreciate it. It's disappointing, obviously, the result, but I appreciate taking the time all throughout the course of the season for it. Yeah. Thank you, Glenn. You've been terrific, as always, and very appreciative of everything you do for Stevenson. She's Gary Stewart. I'm Glenn Clark. Go Mustang Sports.TV. All rights reserved.