Mike, I am in my new studio. As you can see behind me, it's not yet finished. Please forgive the nature of this recording. Also, there's no Charles here. No indeed, he is on holiday with his family and a well deserved one at that. I got a message this morning, Mike, in, I don't know, Telegram or whatever it was, someone said what's happening in Gaza's it the, the, the line was, well,
this is what happens in a war. And it was in response to the absolutely devastating footage of what's of what we're seeing there. It's not a war. That is an excellent point, right? A war is a conflict between two relatively equal parties, or maybe multiple relatively equal parties, you know, that are effectively armed, the same, have the same kinds of budgets and they're determined to, you know, beat each other up
somewhat. This is not a war in the sense that, you know, Hamas, no matter what you think about Hamas as an organisation, is a militia. It's not a, it's not a national army because there is no nation and they have no budget. And so, you know, the relative, the, the relative disparity between that that side, the Palestinian side and the Israeli side is, is what makes this conflict so reprehensible and what has made the entire situation so reprehensible from
the beginning. And I have to say, Jeremy, you know, this was this was something a conversation that I had with, with people that were pro Palestine or, sorry, pro Israel right back to, you know, October 7. And it's something that people that are pro Israel don't seem to get. They think that Israel is justified in doing anything that it does because they're dealing with terrorism. Just to remind everybody that, you know, the, the, the, the principle of terrorism isn't
even defined. And in fact, one of the things that this conflict seems to be doing is to, is to be raising that point. And, and people are starting to ask the question also, the fact that the, that the Terrorism Act is being used with such impunity in the United Kingdom to shut down freedom of speech. These issues are, are raising the question of, of even what is terrorism. But the other final point to make on this is the question of international law in this situation and and the question
of occupation. And because Israel is an occupying power under international law, Palestinians have the right to do whatever they feel is necessary to resist that occupation. And you know, if we think back to the Second War, World War, for example, the French or the Belgian resistance groups or the Dutch resistance groups or even the German resistance groups were not considered by Britain or the United States to be terrorist organisations.
Undoubtedly they were considered to be terrorist organisations by the Nazis. So, you know, we've got to be, we've got to be careful with their definitions. We've got to be, try to be objective no matter what we think about, about the thing, try to be objective with, with our, you know, our observation of what's going on and, and our use of the word war, because using war in this context is
just completely inappropriate. Well, I just looked up the definition of terrorism and it says yeah, it's defined as the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce A civilian, population or government with the goal of furthering political, social or ideological objectives. You could probably argue, therefore, that Israel is a terrorist. Well, absolutely, absolutely. And and Britain and any country that is supporting a conflict anywhere but. But then the term is fuzzy.
Then the term is. Precisely. That was exactly what I was about to say. The problem with that definition is that that certain terms are undefined and where's the line drawn? You know, at the moment Britain is drawing a line with respect to terrorism that that effectively, if someone throws some paint on an aeroplane, whether or not it's on an RAF base is irrelevant. They throw some paint on an aeroplane, that's a an act of terrorism. It's, it's not an act of terrorism, that's an act of
protest. And so that's at least in my mind, that's an act of protest, not an act of terrorism in somebody else's mind. So because the definition is so open to, to distortion and, and subjectivity that that in itself is problematic. But that doesn't, you know, in, in this case, that doesn't change the fact that the people of Palestine are subject to, to an occupation and therefore they have rights under international law. And this is international law that we have all signed up to.
And so, you know, the fact, the fact that the fact that that our countries are prepared to say on one hand, yeah, we we are fully behind the rules based international order, international law, all these kinds of terms are are bandied about by our politicians with the full intention of pretty much ignoring them. OK, but then the term war is also fuzzy because it would it would imply that there is an equal force on either side, and as you just pointed out, this is
an occupation. Yeah, I mean this, this does not the, again, this is not a war. This, this is an occupation. And and this is a resistance to an occupation. And this is the absolutely brutal suppression of a resistance using, you know, methods which are so disproportionate and, you know, but, but the other point of this is German that it's absolutely clear now, it's been clear for a long time that the what the ultimate intention of this is, and that is to remove Palestinians from Gaza.
And the, the other thing that that's going on, of course, is while all the focus is on Gaza, similar activities are going on in the West Bank. And, and in fact, Israel this week has been attempting to hold a meeting. They tried on Tuesday and it was put off until Thursday and then they tried again on Thursday and they've put it off again.
They were holding a meeting about whether to annex part of the West Bank following the demands by Britain and France that they would recognise the Palestinian state. Now, my personal view of this recognition of Palestinian state is the these claims from Britain and France is that they're basically telling Israel to get on with it because if they don't achieve their goals by a certain date, you know this. So this is about putting pressure on Israel to get on
with things. Nonetheless, Israel has as, As for whatever reason, I suspect because they don't feel that they can get on with things as quickly as, as they're being encouraged to, that they were considering annexing part of the West Bank to sort of minimise the the implications of a recognition of a Palestinian state. But UAE has stepped in and said, well, no, if you do that, we're going to withdraw from the Abraham Accord.
So, so Israel's now dropped that idea again for the meantime, but this is an idea that has come come up periodically. So, so undoubtedly it's going to come up again in the future. But you know this, this is a country which is, which is behaving absolutely beyond any sense of reasonableness. But of course any criticism of that is subject to accusations of anti Semitism. And this whole conflation of anti Zionism and anti semitism I think is really problematic. You said international. Law.
I swore yes. It doesn't mean anything. That's that's not true. I think that I think that Western governments are trying to make it not mean anything. They certainly are ignoring it when it, when they, when it suits them. I think that Russia and China have been pretty reasonable in their in their observance of international law in the last lot of years.
That is much to the disgust of the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries on the UN Security Council, because Russia and China have used their veto to really limit the the scope of some of the bad behaviour that that Britain and the United States have wanted to pursue. On the other hand, Britain and the United, well, Britain doesn't veto anything. Britain only abstains.
It doesn't ever vote against anything in the Security Council. That's a policy decision, but the, the United States is quite happy to use this veto And the, the, the, the contrast that I would make here is that Russia and China use their veto to prevent conflict and to prevent war. Britain and the United, well, the United States on Britain's behalf, uses the veto to maintain conflict and maintain war. And, and that is for the last 20 years, that's absolutely the
model that has been used. So, you know, there's lots to criticise Russia and China about, but in this respect and and with respect to international law, they have absolutely been on the right side of events. OK, All right. That's interesting. I suppose so there are there are some countries that are playing by the rules, Israel not being I'm.
Not going to say they're, they're always playing by the rules, but they're certainly doing a lot better job at it than than than our countries are, yes. But I mean, so if Israel is not playing by the rules, what does it mean ultimately if South Africa supposedly took them to court? What came of that? Yeah, look, South Africa is, is doing what South Africa can do.
The, the, the so called global S is doing what they can do at the end of the day, you know, without the majority support within the UN Security Council, Israel is clearly getting the go ahead to do whatever it likes that that's with the open support of of Britain in the United States and, and, you know, outside of the Security Council of other European countries. That's our problem.
We've got to deal with that. And, and of course, this is this is where the system falls down in a sense, because it relies on everybody's recognition of their role in upholding international law. And, and we are not fulfilling our obligations because partly because our, our societies are completely split on this issue. And but you know, the fact, the fact of the matter is that that increasing numbers of people are recognising what's going on here.
Increasing numbers of people are making their, their feelings felt about it. And you know, I was, I was fascinated that if you, if you went to any of the pro Palestine demonstrations in the UK since 7th of October, you generally saw, you know, immigrant left wing Asian or Middle Eastern faces in the, in the, in the, in the, in the demonstration until the UK banned or prescribed Palestine action.
And whenever the following demonstration happened, which was there to to basically support in support of Palestine action and demand that the UK drop this defining Palestine action as a terrorist organisation. The faces in the in the crowd were quite different. They were white, they were middle class, they were doctors,
they were lawyers. This was something that this was a demographic in the UK that was not out on the on the pro Palestine demonstration, at least not significantly out on those demonstrations over the last couple of years. And, and suddenly this what what as soon as the British government was perceived to have taking a step too far in the shutting down of, of freedom of speech and the right to gather and the right to demonstrate and the right to demand that
something changed. Then those people came out in support and that. So I think I think there's there's although none of this is actually stopping Israel doing what it's doing. There is massive pressure on Israel at the moment and and that needs to build even further. But you know, as I say, the problem here is the the society is divided on the issue.
Yeah. I mean, when you talk about occupation, the immediate response is no, it's the country and multiple countries around the world recognise Israel as a country. So therefore it's not an occupation. It is now a legitimate country, no? No, no, with the hip Gaza is not part of Israel and and in fact, Israel has built a big, huge, big wall around it to make sure that it's not part of Israel. The West Bank is not part of Israel either.
So it's an occupation in the sense that there are, you know, that that Gaza is a has a for a long time effectively been an open air prison in the sense that there's a wall around it that people cannot come and go freely. There are watchtowers and regular places with people with guns and, and people with, with at all those guns have been using those guns with impunity. So, you know, you, you began this conversation by talking about a video that you'd seen of
children being killed. Well, the point is that this has been going on for a very, very long time. Well, well beyond, further back than the 7th of October. And, you know, no matter what we think about the 7th of October, you know, many, many people, people within Gaza saw that as being a, a reaction to the types of terrorism. I'm going to use that word in this case that Israel has been perpetrating on Gaza for a long time. It's not the first time that Gaza has been bombed.
You know, Israel has used really very unpleasant like white phosphorus bombs, for example, weapon weaponry. This is actually illegal under international law, but they did it anyway. And, and so, you know, Israel has been behaving this way towards Gaza for a very long time. That's where the occupation is not, not within Israel itself. I got a, a, another comment from somebody part of the same discussion who said, yes, I'm being ignorant because Israel, Mike pulled out.
It withdrew from Gaza in 2005 or 2006, you know, and it was the Gazans, Mike, who voted in Hamas. And they must now deal with the consequences of having Hamas as their government. I think that's a pretty loaded statement. Look, Hamas is 2 things. It's, it's like Sinn Fein IRA, it's, it's two things. It's got a political wing, which is the part of it which runs the the country in a or the, the territory in a sense. And and it has the militia. But Israel never really
withdrew, did they? Because they're constantly attacking. And no. And they they controlled the sea space and and the air space too. Precisely. You know, anybody that tries to, I mean, it's, it's often the case that that Gazans who go fishing for food are being attacked by Israel. Israel is constantly attacked or was constantly attacking into Gaza. And, you know, I want to just make it absolutely clear here. I'm not an expert on this.
So, so, you know, I'm, I'm giving my thoughts on, on my awareness of it. There are many other people that, that understand the, the, the sort of detail of what has happened over the years much better than I do. So, so, you know, don't take my word for this. Go to those voices. Yes, but you are allowed to have an opinion and I think this is where where people fall apart. They'll go well, have you been there? Well, you're just following the propaganda line.
So I'll quote Al Jazeera. Yes, but that's that's anti Israel propaganda. OK, well what about the point is, is that how do you philtre through? Someone might say yes, but the videos you saw of babies or children being killed, that's propaganda to make you hate Israel. Ultimately, you're sitting now with the situation, Mike, of the fog of war propaganda. Yeah, but it's not a war. So, so, so right.
I have look this this conflict, this conflict, this occupation, this is something very different to anything else that's going on in the world. And the reason for that and the reason that I really have trouble with people that support Israel's actions here, is it not in all cases, but more often than not, the reason they support it is because of some kind of religious or ideological belief in Israel as being something that existed in biblical times.
And that this is the modern iteration of that. And therefore the chosen people, but the chosen country and so on. And, and therefore it has the right to do whatever it likes because God said so. And that, that that is often the view of, of people.
And I'm have a real problem with, with people that call themselves Christians or call themselves Jews, who are, you know, who are religious and, and believe in a God and believe in the 10 commandments and so on. And are prepared to settle that aside because of some notion that they have in their own minds that that this nation state, which is nothing whatever to do with anything that happened historically, is it somehow represents what happened historically and therefore has
the right to treat human beings like animals. And this is really something which is beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned. We've got to look at this conflict objectively. We've got to consider that the people that are on the receiving end of the of the bullets, the bombs are, you know, human beings and they should be. They have rights and Israel does not have rights in this case.
So, you know, we know also that there's that aside from all of that thing that that behind what's going on here is this this big geopolitical game for control of West, Southwest Asia.
And and also now with Trump, we've got this third element of the so called Trumps Riviera where he's basically looking at this as some fantastic property deal, some fast, fantastic, you know, financial opportunity that he can take a turn turn Gaza into some kind of. Dubai equivalent and and just basically kick, kick the the people that have lived there out of that area and throw them into the desert and say off you go
look after yourselves. You know they're they're this is this thing is wrong in so many levels. It's unbelievable. And and the people that are pro Israel I think need to take a step back and and consider this. Yeah. Did you see that Breitbart article where it's said that Trump has made a suggestion of removing everybody from Gaza for about 10 years, like just about 10 years, so they can rebuild it and make it into some sort of Singapore, Hong Kong type super advanced country?
No. No, they're not going to make it into a Singapore, Hong Kong type super advanced country. They're going to make it into. They're going to make it into a playground for the rich and the powerful. And there's no, there is not one single person that's currently residing there that's still alive, that is going to get back there after this job is done right, That this, this is a lie. Now we've got to remember who created this, this plan.
And you know, it was a number of organisations, but the Tony Blair Institute was absolutely involved in this. And so you know that but, and this is something that Trump is clearly very, very keen to, to get involved with because he's a property dealer at the end of the day. And this is, this is kept well. Well, there's some debate about that and how much money is actually made successfully on
these property deals. But nonetheless, you know, he, he clearly sees this as a massive opportunity. And if it wasn't for these, you know, silly poor people that need to get up, get the hell out of the way, you know, it's, it's despicable. Yeah, I was thinking more philosophically, Mike, how, how do you actually engage in this kind of conversation? Because it's, it's a forever debate, right? It's always going to be polarised. It's black and white, it's binary. That's it, right.
You, I'm, I'm not a Jew, I'm not an Arab, right. So I don't actually have a dog in that fight pretty much the same as you, but I do I do feel that innocent people. No, I look, I'm going to interrupt you there 'cause I think you do have a dog in this fight. I think that anybody that considers themselves a human being has a dog in this fight because, because, because at the end of the day is basic morality.
And do we believe that some the state has the right to or people have the right to kill each other? We do in certain circumstances. This is defined as we've already talked about in this conversation, if you are suffering oppression as a result of an occupation they have you have the right to armed resistance. Everybody agrees that that's correct. We also agree in all the various international lodge and even conventions all the rest. We also agree that Israel has no
right to do what it's doing. And that's written down in black and white in principle right now, the fact that, that, that our governments are prepared. Well, I'm not, I shouldn't say our governments because because your government hasn't done this. Your government has attempted to, to take this situation to the International Criminal Court. But my government, the United States government, EU governments have decided that that international law and, and basic human rights should be set
aside in this case. And you know that, that there's nothing else to say here, that that this is there, there, there are basic principles in place that we are choosing to ignore. And that, that aside from from what you think about is, you know, Israel's right to exist as a, as a state, as an entity, no matter what you think about that, that should be where this conversation comes back to. What I was going to ask you is how do you actually engage because this is so heated, it's
so polarised. I just yesterday I chatted to somebody and they are vigilant, militant in their response. Israel is defending itself. It doesn't want to be wiped off the face of Earth, Mike. Yes. How do you, how do you engage with it? You can't engage with that because that there's something ideological about that position. There's something fundamentally there's something else going on because yes, it is absolutely
wrong. It's it's, it's wrong because what threat at the end of the day to the existence? Now, we're not talking about individual killings or individual acts here. What that person was talking about is the existence of Israel. Now, what possible thing can Hamas do to affect the existence of Israel? Absolutely nothing. They don't have the weaponry for it. Now, if if you're saying that Hamas is supported by Iran and that Iran has the capability of dealing with Israel, that is
true. But I would like to somebody to point. Out to be. Well, I'd like somebody to point out to me an example of when Iran proactively attacked Israel without having been attacked first. Now the issue of Iran, Israel relations relations is, is something which is for the international community. It's not, it's not an open conflict at the moment, but Iran is and other places are. I mean, obviously Hamas is getting it's, it's limited
weaponry from somewhere. And so I presume, I don't know for a fact, but I presume that Iran has something to do with that. I don't see that that is somehow an existential threat to Israel because Iran is not providing Hamas with nuclear bombs, you know, So Israel is a nuclear armed state. It has every piece of Western built technological killing hardware the the available to it
that it could possibly ask for. It seems to have unlimited supplies of it. Whatever Hamas has has to be smuggled into the country under the nose of of Israel. And therefore, you know what, what possible existential threat can Hamas be? It is completely irrational. It's ridiculous position for anybody to take and and it's just justification for brutality and murder. While you were talking, I got a message from Vanessa Bailey regarding her disappointment in the BRICS countries around Gaza.
And in a previous discussion I had with Vanessa, she also expressed a disappointment in the Arab countries that does. They just don't seem to care. What do you think is going on? I think that that I mean, that's such a big that's about such a big question. If it take the the Arab look, I think that any country who is, who thinks that they can in any way negotiate with the West or or behave in a certain way because actually they're scared of the West.
You know, if so, Arab countries want to stay in bed with Britain, the United States for their, you know, for their own ends because for no other reason, perhaps. I mean, I don't know what's in their minds, but I'm just speculating here. They're, they're looking at the, the behaviour of Britain and the United States over the last 40-50 years and they're saying, well, we don't want to be on the receiving end of that. So we've got to be their
friends. I, I can see why that would be as a thought process that would go through anybody's head. I, I think that, I think it's more than economic. I, I think that, that, you know, Britain and Britain, the United States, the West has demonstrated A willingness to bomb the crap out of a country for the sake of regime change because they didn't like the, the cut of, of a particular
leader's jib. You know, if we look at Iraq, we look at Syria, we look at Libya, you know, this, the, the, the demonstration has been made time after time after time. And each time these things happened, it was under very questionable international law situation. So, so we have the West has demonstrated time and again that it's willing to set aside international law for its own
geopolitical ends. And so any country in the, in Southwest Asia, Arab countries are looking at this and, and you know, I would say they're, they're looking at the world with some nervousness and, and they're attempting to stay in certain people's good books. I, I think that's not the right approach personally. Now, As for the bricks, again, we're looking at a situation where people are still playing geopolitical games. They're still wanting to have
influence in certain areas. And there there's massive competition between, in Southwest Asia, between Belton Road and other so called economic corridors, which are more aligned with, with, you know, ideas for economic corridors which are more aligned with, with Western countries. And so, you know, I'd, I completely understand Vanessa's position on this and agree with it, but there isn't really a but
here. The, the reason for it, I think is, is, is because of the, the, for the reasons we've just discussed for, for geopolitical reasons. And, and, you know, at the end of the day, that's, that's something that, that needs to change.
You know, in the last few days we've had the, the, uh, Shanghai, uh, corporation organisation, uh, meeting, we've had Modi shaking hands with Xi Jinping for the first time and basically saying, well, we appreciate that there's been a border conflict between India and China, but, but we're going to set that aside and, and, and build something together. We had for the commemoration of the, the defeat of Japan in the Second World War, Putin and and Kim Jong Un.
So, you know, China has has clearly is clearly hoping that North Korea is going to come back into the fold as it were and not be such a pariah state. You know the the point. Here is Yeah, sorry. Go on. Yeah, no, no, you why? Tell us why you're laughing. Because North Korea is like, it's this, it's this weird. It's just this weird scenario. It's like a situation. It's not even a country. I don't know what, I don't know what's going on. I know nothing about North.
Korea, I'm going to, I'm going to say something different there. I have massive respect for North Korea right now. I'm not particularly, I don't have massive respect for its political system. But the fact of the matter is that North Korea took a decision that it was not going to put capitulate to Western demands that it behaved in a certain way. And North Korea has absolutely suffered. It has absolutely suffered as a result.
They are extremely poor. And like I say, I'm not going to, I'm not going to say that I'm any kind of a fan of of Kim Jong Un or his father or the way that that country is governed internally. But the fact that they basically stuck 2 fingers up at the West and said you do you, you run your sanctions regime, you do whatever you like. We are not, we are not going to become your your sort of puppets in the world. I think that's got to be respected. It'd be great if many more
countries did that. But but you know, coming back to the, to the Russia, China thing and Israel, yeah, they, I think they, if they are going to at least use the language of, of saying we stand for international law and we want a level playing field and we want win, win and all these kinds of things. They, they need to be much stronger on taking a position over Israel's behaviour. There's no question about that in my, in my mind.
But in in the meantime, as I say, there's lots of positives going on in that part of the world as well. Mike, you were talking earlier about the problems arising from being ideologically driven around this sort of thing named pro Israel or or anti Palestine or whatever it might be.
But if if any of the neighbouring Arab countries like the Gulf States or whatever, that all the countries from the Levant or whatever, if they got involved, would that not also be an ideological imposition of sorts? No, no, I was talking about people in in the West who support Israel are doing so often from an ideological standpoint and therefore willing to ignore or even in some cases
support brutality. Not because they think it's not because they think that in and of itself it's the right thing to do, but because because they think that for biblical reasons, Israel has the right to do this. And, and I think, I think when you set aside your principles on that basis, then you're on a slippery slope to a bad place. No, no, no. Yeah, sorry. You're correct. What I was asking is, do you think that I being ideological
is not always a bad thing? It's basically what I'm asking because if you if you're ideological for principled reasons, then it's then it's fine. Like let's say, let's say. As long as it's not hypocritical. I mean right if you know the. Basis Egypt. Egypt. Let's say no. Egypt. No, but no. Hold on a second. No, hold on a second, Jerm. The basis of Christian and Jewish ideology is the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments, depending how you interpret it.
Some say that the that the relevant commandment is thou shalt not kill. Others say it's thou shalt not murder again, we're back to definitions and and whether whether Israel's activity is murder or not. And but the fact of the matter is, and I think if you're being objective about it, that particular commandment is without question being very severely challenged by what's
going on here. And the fact that people, Jews and Christians are prepared to set aside that commandment, which is supposed to be the absolute foundation of their entire ideology for the sake of political expediency. Is, is that's, that's that's the issue here. Now I would suggest that that that religious wars, wars based
on ideology are never good. And that is something that that is a you know, since the fall of the Roman Empire until pretty much the modern day religious wars have been a feature big and small. Even where I grew up with it was a feature for 30 years. So, you know, I think it is, I think religious wars are really the stupidest type of war that you can possibly have because it's, it's for no other reason
than than what you believe. I mean, for goodness sake, it's not even a war over water or resources. It's a war over ideology. And this is the most ridiculous excuse for killing people that I can possibly imagine. So I know I had to. So to answer your question, I don't believe there's ever a a A use for an ideological justification or I don't think there's ever a justification
ideologically for war. An interesting converse consequence of this whole thing is that it's created also extreme antagonism and animosity towards Jews. I think that that is, I'm not going to say the fault, but it's, it's, it's the, the Jews are their own worst enemy in
this case. Because, because although there are significant numbers of Jews who, who are openly anti Zionist and some real really thoughtful people like Gilad Atzman, for example, who, who are making have been making this argument for a very long time, you know, an anti Zionist argument for a very long time. Yes. Well, indeed, there are a number of of really excellent voices on
this. The the fact of the matter is that that the, the use of Jewish money and the Zionist lobby as it's described to shut down any criticism on the basis that anti Zionism or anti Israel sentiment is somehow anti Jewish sentiment is really problematic. It's it's, it's beyond problematic. It's just, it's, it's
reprehensible. And, and of course the, the Jewish community themselves kind of fall for this narrative and, and automatically feel that that an attack on, on the behaviour of, of one particular political ideology is an attack on them, when in fact it's not. Now, I'm, I absolutely think that anybody that throws stones at a synagogue on the basis of what's going on in Israel, I think that that's ridiculous.
There are other ways to to to give opposition to what's going on. Stop buying products that are that are, you know, produced in Israel or or connected to Israel in some way. Certainly absolutely support the idea of protest against anybody that's manufacturing arms for Israel or shipping arms for Israel. I'm totally in support of anybody that verbally criticises Zionism or Israel's and certainly their right to make
those criticisms. But yeah, I mean, I don't see that, that, you know, violence against the person, any person is anything other than utterly hypocritical. You know, if we're going to criticise Israel for what it's doing, it's, it seems to be ridiculous to go around and beat up, you know, the nearest Jewish person that you can find. This is this is beyond hypocritical. I wonder if this is just a never ending a never ending debate,
no? I don't think it's AI, don't think it's a never ending debate. I think it appears never ending because at this point in time the Zionist lobby is so powerful. But I think that is absolutely changing and I think that that that October the 7th has has done a lot to change that. Now, the, the cost for the Palestinians has been horrendous, but I think that the tide is without question, the
tide is turning. And the fact that we are having this conversation, I, I'm absolutely optimistic on the long term basis. I'm utterly pessimistic on a short term basis because I think that that, that a lot, a lot more people are going to have to pay the ultimate cost before, before that situation changes. I mean, I think, I think that, you know, the brutality that's on. That's on show here is, is beyond anything that that can be
possibly justified. But you know, but so many are are dying on on a daily basis that that, you know, by the time that that this opposition builds to a point where where it can't happen anymore, there's going to be significant further loss. And I think that is that's where I'm pessimistic. I'm optimistic in the end because I think that that you know, that, that, that what is being done is just is, is so reprehensible. It can't be ignored on a long
term basis. And, and ultimately it's going to, it's going to, I think see the end of Israel as a state. I think Israel is, is very close to, to, I think their own behaviour is the existential threat here. Not, not, not anything that's coming from outside. That's a good point. Do you reckon they'll make 100 years? No, not. Not if they continue this policy and and and you know, as I honestly think not if they continue this policy.
So, you know, we we all we always have to remember that that Israel as a state, as an entity is a creation of Britain and it it was imposed on the region and it was imposed on the region. We understand why it was imposed on the region for geopolitical reasons. And it would be really nice if, if the Jewish community as a whole recognised that they were pawns in this game as much as the Arabs are pawns in this game.
And, and I think part of the problem here is that that we are ordinary people of whatever colour, creed and and so on, are not recognising what's going on here. We're, we're absolutely determined to fight with each other. We're due against Muslim, Muslim against Christian, Christian against whatever we, we are determined to fight. We're just, we are continually played by global elites. And this is just another one of
those games. And, and I, I, I use the word game there because for them it is a game for us. It's of course, it's much more serious when we're on the receiving end of these games. You know, they, they used to call it the great game, the whole geopolitical thing and for them it is just a game. We've got to start recognising who the real enemy is and, and start recognising that we are many and they are few. And as Shelly said, we need to
rise like lions. I've often said that our enemies are not those to our left and right, but those who are above us. I. Mean this that that is such a great point because because those to our left and right are on are on our left and right because they've because they and we have fallen for this paradigm that we're somehow you know that that although we've got different views that suddenly makes us somehow enemies and therefore we've got to fight each other this this whole
people on my left and my right thing is something which has been done to us it's it's. That's a good point, Mike. Sorry, Yeah, I'm just jumping in there. The the the the whole left right dichotomy has caused so many issues. Yeah, because we fall for it every time, you know? It's all about left wing or
right wing this. Yeah. Well, well, look, the first step in my opinion, the first step to to to objectivity here is to recognise that that left and right is not a a straight line where you've got an extreme left on one side, an extreme right on the on.
When you actually look at if you, if you look at what are considered extreme left and extreme right regimes in the last in history and we look at the behaviour of the those regimes, you show me, you know, a fund a significant difference in, in those regimes, whether they're extreme left or extreme
right. So we should be looking at this so called left right spectrum as a circle with, with the extremes joining because because there's very little to, to very little difference to be seen in, in extreme left wing and extreme right wing regimes that their behaviour is the same. So, so we're not on a straight line and and we should, we should recognise that being at the extremes is not necessarily where we want to be. Yeah.
But Mike, the human condition, unfortunately, is such that you have somebody like Donald Trump comes in and he's a bit of a pot piper. He's very likeable in many ways, which is what a populist does. He's he's good at being likeable. And suddenly he brings millions and millions and millions of people back into the system, back into that, that binary way of thinking. Which is why we're doomed to repeat this kind of situation until we grow up. It's really that simple in my
mind. Well, on that note, but I mean like I'm trying to, I'm still trying to establish, I know I asked you this earlier, but I'm still stuck on this because I've recently had this conversation with somebody close to me and I don't know how to engage. I just don't know. Do what do you do? Do you just be quiet and smile and not or like I'm I'm trying to figure out because it always becomes a heated argument and that goes no way. Right. So, so well, this, this all this
is a a good point. This all depends on your view of conversations like that. So I'm good to say to you that there are times where I, in a gathering, for example, I hear somebody saying something which is just so absolutely wrong. And I know that it's wrong. And there are times actually, I'm thinking, well, how do I, how do I communicate with this person? And I actually don't know. And so I stay silent and I don't know how to communicate with
that person. That's, that's an opportunity for me to go away and consider, well, the next time that situation arises, how am I going to deal with it? How am I going to? And, and so that helps me learn the same with the heated conversations because inevitably there's going to be positions taken on either side of the conversation that the other person doesn't know how to respond to or doesn't have a response to other than to shout
a bit louder. And of course, once you start shouting a bit louder, then you've you've effectively lost the argument at that point. These are opportunities because you know, what that says is that I have not considered that that point before. And so I haven't got an answer for it. And if I haven't got an answer for something, then I've got to find an answer for it. So, so that's a time to start thinking about, about that
particular point. And, and you know, in that's in the process of doing that, if you do that, you're, you're potentially adjusting your own position as well. Because as I've said this many, many times, my view is, and I try to do this as much as I can, my, my position on anything is not fixed because I may not have all the evidence. So I've drawn A conclusion, I've made an analysis, but, but it's not actually a conclusion in the sense that it can't be changed.
So, you know, I, I think we should be always challenging our own positions and our own precepts and, and, and the first person that we should be arguing with is ourselves. But these these conversations we have with other people where we're left in exactly the situation you described, Jerm, are conversations that we should be absolutely enthusiastic about taking part in because they help us hone our our own skills and our own arguments. Sharpening the sword?
Absolutely, Mike. OK, let's come in for a landing. I guess the moral of the story is A to to try not take sides other than that of what what it means to be human. That's what that's your initial point. And then also to try and not get into a heated debate with somebody unless you're able to objectively as much as possible, or rationally think about your own position and hold up the mirror and challenge yourself at the same time so that you're able to engage in a meaningful way, right?
Well, I mean, I'm not going to say don't, I'm not ever going to say don't get involved in that. I mean, I, I actually would say do get involved in those arguments because that's that's, that helps, as I say, that helps hone your, your own position. But yeah, I mean, I appreciate that that it's very, very difficult to take an objective view on what's going on with with some issues. But but look, the bottom line is this germ the the countries in Southwest Asia, in North Africa,
in the Horn of Africa in state. Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Before you go any further, Southwest Asia is an interesting term. A lot of people will say Gulf States. That's what you're referring to, right? No, I'm referring to the whole Middle East region, which may include the Gulf states. But but the what I was going to say there, what was I going to say there? I'm so sorry. I shouldn't have broken your train of thought, but it's that.
But that's an interesting idea, The Southwest Asia aspect, being part of the Gulf states, that's something I didn't think about until only a few months ago. Yeah, yes, sorry. You, you, You said North Africa. Oh yeah, yeah, right, right. My point was going to be if if we look objectively and carefully at what's happened in those countries, at what's going on in Sudan, I mean the the Sudan is another conflict which is, which is basically flying under the radar at the moment.
We find tactics being used there by foreign influence, Britain, the United States, EU, France, Germany, whatever it happens to be, tactics being used to divide societies there which are resulting in real physical combat, conflict and real death,
destruction, suffering, hunger. We need to, with respect to Israel, Palestine and and Iran, and in fact the region as a whole, we need, one of the things we absolutely need to do is to take a step back, start looking at it objectively, look at the tactics that are being used there.
And then make a comparison to what's going on in our own countries with respect to immigration and the way that we are being manipulated over around that narrative and how close we already are to open civil conflict. Not going to go as far as saying civil war at this point, but I don't think it's too far away. This country, European countries, even the United States in some way, some ways are at boiling point on this issue.
And that has been, that is a created situation using very similar tactics to have been used in the Middle East slash Southwest Asia. We got to start recognising the symptoms and trying to decide who what the cause of those symptoms actually is. Otherwise we're going to find ourselves in exactly the same position that those people are in. And that this is, you know, the,
the old, it's a cliche. I know that the old saying, you know, if you're unfamiliar with history, you're dimmed to repeat it. This is really important. I think one of the things that people need to do is to look carefully at at how empires manage themselves and see the parallels to what's going on today. OK Mike from my half assed studio, I'll catch you. I'll catch up with you next week.