Speaker 1: Our dear Agent Squires here, producer extraordinary at power Talk,
Speaker 1: likes to use the saying I'm just a simple country
Speaker 1: boy out here trying to make a living, but and
Speaker 1: then proceeds to give his opinion on whatever the topic
Speaker 1: at hand is, which I think is an admirable bit
Speaker 1: of existential epistemic humility on the part of our good
Speaker 1: Agent Squires. And I think I will adopt such an attitude.
Speaker 1: Just because you have a microphone in your face doesn't
Speaker 1: mean you have any idea about what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: I know some things about many things. I know a
Speaker 1: little bit about law, I know a little bit about
Speaker 1: social conservative issues. I know a little bit about Fresno
Speaker 1: news politics, things like that. I'll admit I don't really
Speaker 1: know much about international geopolitics, and I will echo, oh,
Speaker 1: the sentiment of Agent Squares, I'm just simple country boy
Speaker 1: out here trying to make a living. I guess I
Speaker 1: would say I'm just simple suburban boy out here trying
Speaker 1: to make a living. And with that declaration that I
Speaker 1: know nothing, I want to talk a little bit about
Speaker 1: the raging debates about Ukraine and the Trump administration's sort
Speaker 1: of posture as far as negotiations and negotiating a settlement
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, where maybe this is a problem of me
Speaker 1: subscribing to National Review, which I do. I find that
Speaker 1: they are a useful source of news and information and opinion,
Speaker 1: which basically I think it's good fodder for this show.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's good fodder for every show, but
Speaker 1: I find it's kind of good fodder for this show.
Speaker 1: And let's my show be a little bit distinct as
Speaker 1: far as the kinds of things I talk about. But
Speaker 1: they're all very upset. They're all very upset. All these
Speaker 1: writers at National Review, well most of them other than
Speaker 1: Michael Brendan Doherty, whom I'd really recommend to all of you.
Speaker 1: They're all very upset about the way that Trump has
Speaker 1: been talking about Ukraine and Russia. That Trump has said
Speaker 1: basically if basically a little bit of victim blaming. They're
Speaker 1: arguing with Ukraine. Trump saying that, you know, if if
Speaker 1: if we hadn't had discussions about NATO expanding, we wouldn't
Speaker 1: be in this. If I were president in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, Russia would never have invaded. He's called
Speaker 1: the president of Ukraine a dictator or something like a
Speaker 1: dictator because Lensky has not had elections. They're they're they're
Speaker 1: delayed on having a lot elections. And the retort is, well,
Speaker 1: how can they have elections when so much of the
Speaker 1: country is under attack and they're in the middle of war.
Speaker 1: I don't know, we had an election in the middle
Speaker 1: of a civil war once, so I don't know what
Speaker 1: their excuse is. And the idea that we're doing all
Speaker 1: this quote for the defense of democracy, and meanwhile the
Speaker 1: democracy that we're defending is not allowing democratic elections to
Speaker 1: take place. It kind of strains credulity a little bit. Also,
Speaker 1: you have the testimony for Marco Rubio and JD. Vance
Speaker 1: that Zelensky is sort of talking out of both sides
Speaker 1: of his mouth, says one thing to them in private
Speaker 1: during negotiations, and runs to the pres and says other
Speaker 1: kinds of things, which really ticked off Rubio in Advance.
Speaker 1: But the whole posture seems to be President Trump is
Speaker 1: being too mean in and how he talks about Ukraine,
Speaker 1: how he talks about them. The money is still flowing,
Speaker 1: but he's being too mean, and how he talks about Ukraine,
Speaker 1: and that the idea that he's going to have some
Speaker 1: settlement with Russia, gaining territory, He's going to make all
Speaker 1: these concessions to the Russians is terrible. The general thought
Speaker 1: is it's terrible that Trump is going to make so
Speaker 1: many concessions to Russia in this deal. Why is he
Speaker 1: talking to the Russians first rather than with the Ukraine?
Speaker 1: All Right? I just feel like so much of it
Speaker 1: is criticizing the sizzle rather than the stake Trump wants
Speaker 1: the war to end. I've looked at maps of basically
Speaker 1: there are only three maps that you need to look
Speaker 1: at as far as the progress of the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: So there's the map of how far the Russians had
Speaker 1: advanced within the first six months, and there's a lot
Speaker 1: of territory that they'd taken, territory sort of in the
Speaker 1: southeast of Ukraine, and then at a bunch of chunks
Speaker 1: of territory sort of in the northeast of Ukraine. Within
Speaker 1: six months of that, the Ukrainians, with a lot of
Speaker 1: American funding, pushed the Russians back. Most of the games
Speaker 1: the Russians made in the northeast were pushed back. The
Speaker 1: Russians were driven back in the northeast, and the Russians
Speaker 1: had only really taken a lot of territory in the southeast.
Speaker 1: Two years later, there's no difference, there's no change. Basically,
Speaker 1: the map as it exists now is more or less
Speaker 1: the same as the map at the start of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three. The Russians have taken a big chunk of
Speaker 1: land in the southeast of Ukraine. So we've had two
Speaker 1: years of fighting, two years of the United States pouring
Speaker 1: in money, and we're now at the point where America
Speaker 1: is given a total of about two hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: to Ukraine, which I remember the first time, Oh, fifty
Speaker 1: billion dollars just to help the Ukrainians completely doestimate the
Speaker 1: Russian military. That's a great deal. And then it was, oh,
Speaker 1: one hundred billion dollars to help the Ukrainian military doestimate Russia.
Speaker 1: That's a good deal. You know, fifty billion here, fifty billion.
Speaker 1: They're eventually you're talking about a lot of money. Basically,
Speaker 1: the war just is at a stalemate. The Ukrainians clearly
Speaker 1: can't get the funding or the man power. Really, it's
Speaker 1: a man power situation. Ukraine only has so many men.
Speaker 1: Russia has way more. Ukraine can only get so much money,
Speaker 1: so much manpower. They're not going to drive the Russians
Speaker 1: completely out. They're just not gonna. Short of the United
Speaker 1: States coming in, putting boots on the ground and starting
Speaker 1: a major offensive against a major world power, a major
Speaker 1: geopolitical foe, it ain't gonna happen. So the Trump administration
Speaker 1: is realizing, well, we don't want to keep funding this indefinitely.
Speaker 1: This seems like a horrible situation just on it from
Speaker 1: a humanitarian perspective, and the way Trump talks about it,
Speaker 1: he says, I think this war is terrible. I think
Speaker 1: this is terrible from a humanitarian perspective. I want there
Speaker 1: to be peace. Well, you're not gonna conclude a peace
Speaker 1: by talking about what a terrible monster Vladimir Putin is.
Speaker 1: Is he a terrible monster? Yes? And by the way,
Speaker 1: he has a Secretary of State who said it repeatedly.
Speaker 1: Trump has been far less eager to say, just out
Speaker 1: loud that Vladimir Putin is a terrible guy. But clearly
Speaker 1: he wants this to stop. Now. Can you criticize Trump
Speaker 1: for his rhetorical choices? Why are you so harsh on Zelensky?
Speaker 1: But you treat Putin with kid gloves. Well, appeasing Putin
Speaker 1: in order to conclude a piece might be a slightly
Speaker 1: more important thing. Maybe you disagree with the strategy, but
Speaker 1: the notion, I mean, yes, just Trump is a consistent
Speaker 1: criticism that Trump is consistently pretty nice publicly to Putin. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but it's also the case that Putin clearly respected Trump
Speaker 1: is more of a threat. I don't think it's coincidence
Speaker 1: that Putin waits until Joe Biden's in office before he
Speaker 1: starts a military offensive. He didn't try anything when Trump
Speaker 1: was in office. Trump took a different, more tough posture
Speaker 1: or where I think countries were afraid to tangle with him.
Speaker 1: Why is he having this? Why is he having negotiations
Speaker 1: first with Putin rather than with Zelencia. Well, let's be real,
Speaker 1: Ukraine is our proxy. The only reason they've had any
Speaker 1: ability to stay in this war is because we funded them.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Do you think of bilateral negotiations are going
Speaker 1: to happen between Zelenski and Putin? No, They're gonna happen
Speaker 1: between the United States and Putin. That's how it's gonna happen.
Speaker 1: It's not gonna happen with Zelenski and Putin? Do we
Speaker 1: want this war to stop or don't we? I think
Speaker 1: that that's the other big question that I have for
Speaker 1: some of these critics of the Trump administration's posture. What
Speaker 1: do you want to happen? What is your preferred outcome?
Speaker 1: No one can sort of say that Ukrainian victory, what
Speaker 1: is that? What does Ukrainian victory look like? Not one
Speaker 1: Russian boot on one piece of Ukrainian dirt, because that
Speaker 1: ain't gonna happen. That's never gonna happen. Short of the
Speaker 1: United States invading, that's not gonna happen. So what do
Speaker 1: you want? Then? What is the end goal? Like if
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris had won the election, what would we be
Speaker 1: doing with Ukraine? Not pursuing a peace agreement? Just keep
Speaker 1: going on, just keep on chugging, just keep having the
Speaker 1: meat grinder of war grinding up more and more and
Speaker 1: more Ukrainian and Russian men, more and more Ukrainians or
Speaker 1: Russians making snuff videos with drone footage showing people dying.
Speaker 1: But you do a Google search for drone attack Ukraine
Speaker 1: and you'll see a bunch of snuff videos of people dying.
Speaker 1: It's wild, it's barbara. It's honestly barbaric that all these
Speaker 1: videos are online just for people to, oh, well, look
Speaker 1: about Russian getting smoked. So I guess my thought is
Speaker 1: everyone's everyone on in the foreign policy sort of soft
Speaker 1: right is like so critical of Trump for everything. He's saying,
Speaker 1: how come he how dare he say this about Zelensky.
Speaker 1: All Zelensky's trying to do is protect his country. All Zelensky. Okay, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Zelensky's trying to protect his country. That's fine, that's fair.
Speaker 1: But Trump can be more realistic with Zelensky, has more
Speaker 1: of an ability to be realistic and point out problems
Speaker 1: and positives and minuses with Zelensky than he does with Russia.
Speaker 1: He's not gonna convince Putin to have free and fair elections.
Speaker 1: He could convince Zelensky too, though, And I think he's saying, hey,
Speaker 1: if we're giving all this money for the alleged defensive democracy,
Speaker 1: maybe you should have your elections or otherwise, what are
Speaker 1: we doing here? I mean, that was the whole motive
Speaker 1: for coming in here in the first place. So I
Speaker 1: guess I just failed to see the meat and potatoes
Speaker 1: problem with the way Trump is trying to conclude this piece. First,
Speaker 1: the fact that he's trying to conclude peace at all,
Speaker 1: I think is totally noble and worthwhile clearly nothing is
Speaker 1: happening in this Ukraine Russian stalemate, and the only thing
Speaker 1: we get is because well, because America is not funding
Speaker 1: it enough. How much do you want us to fund it?
Speaker 1: What's the number? A trillion dollars, two trillion dollars? What
Speaker 1: is the number that people on this sort of Ukraine
Speaker 1: hawk side want. I mean, we can give him all
Speaker 1: the money in the World's not going to replace manpower.
Speaker 1: And at a certain point, I mean, do you actually
Speaker 1: want American troops over there? I think that's honestly what
Speaker 1: some of these people like. What some of these people want,
Speaker 1: They just can't say it because they know the American
Speaker 1: electorate is like, hell no, we don't want any American
Speaker 1: troops fighting in Ukraine, no way. So is that the thing?
Speaker 1: I just don't understand. It seems like every criticism of
Speaker 1: Trump's posture like, and I'm not saying Trump's infallible or
Speaker 1: that Trump is perfect. Yeah, I think it's weird that
Speaker 1: he doesn't that he's not willing to say more negative
Speaker 1: things about Putin. But on the other hand, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Putin's a difficult partner to have to negotiate with. Maybe
Speaker 1: you can't talk about him the way you would talk
Speaker 1: about normal people. I guess it's almost like there's this
Speaker 1: desire on the part of the pro Ukrainian hawks. Does
Speaker 1: iire for some sort of Oh, he needs to be
Speaker 1: more morally clear that Putin is bad? How much clearer
Speaker 1: do we have to be about Putin being bad? When
Speaker 1: Trump himself, throughout his first administration and still in his
Speaker 1: second administration, is still providing military funding to the Ukrainians
Speaker 1: to fight off the Russians. Oh, but he's not messaging
Speaker 1: it well enough. He's giving them weapons and military training,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Like I guess, I just don't. It's all
Speaker 1: about sizzle, seemingly, and no one's talking about the steak.
Speaker 1: The steak is that this is not a war that
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians can win, and that if you want to
Speaker 1: have some sort of resolution to it, guess what, The
Speaker 1: Ukrainians are going to have to give up stuff. And
Speaker 1: it sucks and it's unfair and it's unjust, but you're
Speaker 1: dealing with a bad hand and you're trying to make
Speaker 1: the best of a bad situation. You've been dealt a
Speaker 1: terrible hand. Russia unjustly aggressively invaded Ukraine. And I'll admit
Speaker 1: I think some of the Tucker Carlson arguments about it's
Speaker 1: Ukraine's fault that Russia invaded, it's the fault of NATO
Speaker 1: that Russia invaded. And I'll say, I mean, okay, Russia
Speaker 1: didn't want NATO to expand further east towards countries on
Speaker 1: its doorstep. Maybe there was too much sort of you know,
Speaker 1: playing foot see with the idea of Ukraine joining NATO,
Speaker 1: that Russia viewed that as a threat to itself, and
Speaker 1: thus Russia invaded. Okay, that's a reason that Russia invaded.
Speaker 1: It's not a sufficient reason, it's not a legitimate reason,
Speaker 1: it's not an excusable reason. No, Russia still shouldn't have
Speaker 1: invaded Ukraine. It was an evil thing to do, a murderous,
Speaker 1: evil thing to do. And also I don't really believe
Speaker 1: that NATO was the only reason. The messaging from the
Speaker 1: Russians is Ukraine is legitimately a part of Russia. Ukraine
Speaker 1: has no actual independent cultural existence apart from Russia. It
Speaker 1: is rightly part of Russia. I mean that they have
Speaker 1: a bunch of weird imperialistic motives that they have. The
Speaker 1: Russians have publicly messaged about it. So I'm not like
Speaker 1: in the Tucker Karlson camp of thinking that like Russia's
Speaker 1: And maybe I might even be overstating the Tucker Carlson position,
Speaker 1: But at the same time, I just feel like Trump
Speaker 1: is dealing with reality as it is. This is not
Speaker 1: a winnable war. It's not a winnable war short of
Speaker 1: the United States directly fighting it, and that's a bad idea. Really,
Speaker 1: you want the United States involved in a direct military
Speaker 1: come conflict with a nuclear power, No, thank you. I
Speaker 1: don't want my little brother, Lieutenant Joe Girardi dying for
Speaker 1: Eastern Ukraine. Sorry, Like, I just don't know. I just
Speaker 1: don't think that is a thing we should do, and
Speaker 1: it's not something I would have voted for. And by
Speaker 1: the way, we elected Donald Trump, Okay, we didn't elect
Speaker 1: I don't know who's some more pro hawkish Ukraine Republican politician.
Speaker 1: I don't know. This is not the party of the
Speaker 1: Lindsay Grahams and the whoever's anymore Donald Trump's the president. Clearly,
Speaker 1: this is the mandate he has from the American people
Speaker 1: to conclude that to handle this situation the way he
Speaker 1: thinks is best to handle it. And he ran on
Speaker 1: the platform of I want to bring a peace deal
Speaker 1: to Ukraine. The notion that he's evil, because oh, he's
Speaker 1: not saying Putin's evil often enough and loudly enough. I
Speaker 1: just find to be silly when we return a couple
Speaker 1: thoughts on Israel and Palestine, just so I can talk
Speaker 1: about as many things I don't really know a lot
Speaker 1: about as humanly possible on this show. That's an accent
Speaker 1: on the John Gardy Show, continuing the theme that I'm
Speaker 1: just a simple child of Suburbia out here trying to
Speaker 1: make a living, riffing off of Agent Squires. I'm just
Speaker 1: simple country boy out here trying to make a living
Speaker 1: theme of talking about stuff I don't know a ton about.
Speaker 1: I want to talk a little bit about Israel and Gaza.
Speaker 1: Just been hitting my just been noodling about it, thinking
Speaker 1: about it for a little bit here. In the last
Speaker 1: few last week or so, it seems that a lot
Speaker 1: of the world got to a point of being sort
Speaker 1: of sick and fed up with Gaza, well with Hamas
Speaker 1: certainly specifically and Gaza as a whole, even like Middle
Speaker 1: Eastern countries, like they're of fish head. Representatives of the
Speaker 1: Muslim religion from various countries, like imams and sort of
Speaker 1: leaders within Islam from a lot of different countries like
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia and other countries looked at Gaza with kind
Speaker 1: of disgust when Hamas threw in Gaza like this party,
Speaker 1: this like public ceremony party thing for handing over the
Speaker 1: bodies of four Israeli hostages whom who had died under
Speaker 1: their watch. They claim it was from Israeli air strikes.
Speaker 1: Evidence indicates that Hamas murdered these people, including direct physical
Speaker 1: evidence from the bodies of some of the bodies that
Speaker 1: they gave over. Two of these people were babies, like
Speaker 1: a four year old and it looked like a three
Speaker 1: year old and a one year old, babies who autopsy
Speaker 1: of their bodies showed that they were strangled to death,
Speaker 1: and then their bodies were they manipulated the bodies to
Speaker 1: try to make it look like it was something else.
Speaker 1: It's so personally specifically evil that I can't even think
Speaker 1: about it too long, especially having little kids at home
Speaker 1: and seeing the pictures and videos of this family that
Speaker 1: it was like the mom and the two babies, where
Speaker 1: all three of them kidnapped, and not actually kidnapped apparently
Speaker 1: by Hamas militants, it was just random citizens, random civilians
Speaker 1: I guess from Gaza, who just kind of grabbed them
Speaker 1: and kidnapped them. And it's horrific. And it's gotten to
Speaker 1: a point where I, I don't want to make broad
Speaker 1: generalizations about a region with like three million people in it,
Speaker 1: but gosh, I don't know how you actually conclude some
Speaker 1: kind of peace with these people. I'm gonna dig more
Speaker 1: into it when we return. I'm realizing now I have
Speaker 1: more thoughts than this segment allows. More on the Gaza
Speaker 1: situation after this, This is the John Girardi Show. More
Speaker 1: John Girardi meandering on international geopolitics topics that he doesn't
Speaker 1: know a lot about. All Right, I want to think
Speaker 1: through this whole Gaza story, especially the story a few
Speaker 1: weeks ago where we're in this ceasefire that's been concluded
Speaker 1: between Israel and Gaza. A lot of people thought that
Speaker 1: this ceasefire stunk, that it was like something that Biden
Speaker 1: team was happy about and the incoming Trump team was
Speaker 1: happy about. But it was like a fraction of the
Speaker 1: Israeli hostages were being handed over in exchange for a
Speaker 1: ton of Hamas terrorists. Seems like it was just a
Speaker 1: dog breakfast dog's breakfast of a deal. Trump then made
Speaker 1: about a week or two ago some threat that if
Speaker 1: all the hostages weren't handed over, that there'd be hell
Speaker 1: to pay. And I'm not sure what's come of that threat,
Speaker 1: but anyway, as part of this cease fire, some Israeli
Speaker 1: hostages were handed over, not all of them, not all
Speaker 1: of them, and in some cases it was just the
Speaker 1: bodies of dead Israeli hostages, and Hamas has been cagy
Speaker 1: about how many people were actually dead. And as I
Speaker 1: mentioned the last second, they had this ceremony, probably most
Speaker 1: of you have seen it. I'm a little late to
Speaker 1: the game, but it provides I don't know, I think
Speaker 1: I've had some time to mold this over. They had
Speaker 1: this big ceremony handing over the bodies of four Israeli hostages,
Speaker 1: a mom for two babies, and one older man whom
Speaker 1: they had kidnapped. I don't think was related to the
Speaker 1: other three. The bodies of the two babies literally like
Speaker 1: a looked like a three year old and a one
Speaker 1: year old or something like that, were found to have
Speaker 1: been strangled to death and then their corpses to have
Speaker 1: been desecrated, manipulated basically to try to make it look
Speaker 1: like it was something other than strangulation. The body of
Speaker 1: the woman was not actually the actual body of the woman.
Speaker 1: And this is a big deal for the Israelis, and
Speaker 1: in Jewish practice, like they put a huge priority on
Speaker 1: getting the bodies even of dead hostages back for appropriate
Speaker 1: burial like that they it is a huge priority for
Speaker 1: the Jews living in Israel, and historically this has been
Speaker 1: something that the Israelis have done in negotiations with terrorists
Speaker 1: within the Israel Palestine conflict, of giving up these incredibly
Speaker 1: lopsided exchanges where the Israelis will give up tons of
Speaker 1: terrorists whom they've kidnapped and not executed, and in exchange
Speaker 1: they get a pittance as far as a few hostages
Speaker 1: back or a few bodies of hostages back. But the Israelis,
Speaker 1: i guess, feel so strongly that this is such an
Speaker 1: important religious priority for them to provide proper burial for
Speaker 1: the bodies of their own that and it it becomes
Speaker 1: sort of a thing. Israel being a democracy and its
Speaker 1: political leadership having to be accountable to its people. It's
Speaker 1: such an important thing for the people, for the families involved,
Speaker 1: that those kinds of exchanges why of happening, including this
Speaker 1: most recent exchange, this most recent ceasefire that the Trump well,
Speaker 1: it was sort of during the transition between Biden and
Speaker 1: Trump that this deal was agreed upon. Now again, the
Speaker 1: Hamas has this party for the handover or they're filming it.
Speaker 1: They've got what looks like couple. It looks like maybe
Speaker 1: a thousand plus thousand people gathered at this thing. Thousand
Speaker 1: plus people gathered at this thing, look like nor ordinary citizens,
Speaker 1: people bringing their children to see this exchange. It's insane.
Speaker 1: It's genuinely barbaric, and it makes me wonder a couple
Speaker 1: of things. First, I think there's often this polite fiction
Speaker 1: that we engage in with geopolitics that is some times
Speaker 1: true but not all the time true. That when the
Speaker 1: United States is dealing with some foreign adversary or there's
Speaker 1: some bad actor on the international stage, the polite fiction
Speaker 1: that we indulge that we indulge in is you know,
Speaker 1: Iran is doing bad stuff. This is not a criticism
Speaker 1: of the noble people of Iran who yearn for freedom
Speaker 1: under the yoke of oppression. And throughout the history of
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union, it was always we stand shoulder to
Speaker 1: shoulder with the Russian people who who yearn for freedom
Speaker 1: under the yoke of Soviet imperialism. And sometimes that's true.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's true all the time. I don't
Speaker 1: get the sense that the people in Gaza, maybe even
Speaker 1: still are that unhappy or that much in disagreement with Hamas.
Speaker 1: Let's sure. I mean, the the only data point we
Speaker 1: have for Hamasa's popular support was in granted, it was
Speaker 1: a long time ago. It was I believe it was
Speaker 1: two thousand and two thousand and six or two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight was the last time Gaza held elections, and
Speaker 1: the elections were between Hamas and Fatah. Fatah is the
Speaker 1: other kind of Palestinian kind of political party. Political All
Speaker 1: these parties have political slash religious elements to them and
Speaker 1: then seem to have some kind of security things, real
Speaker 1: kind of jack of all the Swiss army knives of
Speaker 1: political parties. They do a lot more stuff than American
Speaker 1: political parties do anyway. They had these elections in Gaza,
Speaker 1: a couple million people living there. Hamas won the election Fatah,
Speaker 1: which is a little bit more secular. That was like
Speaker 1: Yaser Arafat's party, a little bit more secular, a little
Speaker 1: bit less crazy, a little bit less dogmatic Muslim. Fatah lost,
Speaker 1: Hamas won. Hamas then proceeds to have a mini little
Speaker 1: war in Gaza to drive all the Fatah leadership out
Speaker 1: by force. Hamas has installed no elections since then, but
Speaker 1: it doesn't seem like there was much public resistance to
Speaker 1: what was going on under Hamas. One of the things
Speaker 1: Israelis did was, hey, if you can provide any lines
Speaker 1: of communication were open. Telecommunication lines were open, Messaging was
Speaker 1: sent from Israel into Hamas. If you have information about hostages,
Speaker 1: if you can give them up, we will give you
Speaker 1: cash rewards, we will you know, blah blah blah. And
Speaker 1: they basically got no takers. Now, you might say, well,
Speaker 1: if someone gave up an Israeli hostage or gave information
Speaker 1: to the Israeli government about hostages, they'd probably be assassinated
Speaker 1: or killed. Well, yeah, in France in nineteen forty two,
Speaker 1: if you were hiding a jew underneath your floorboards. To
Speaker 1: save their lives, you would go to jail or die.
Speaker 1: And people did it because they were heroes. And there
Speaker 1: doesn't seem to be much of a display of heroism
Speaker 1: going on here in Gaza. And I don't want to
Speaker 1: make this like, I don't know. I'm sort of teetering
Speaker 1: on the edge of like, I don't want to make
Speaker 1: this blanket statement that everyone in Gaza in Gaza sucks.
Speaker 1: And I also, though, don't want to have this naive idea, Oh,
Speaker 1: the good people of Gaza just unfairly oppressed by Hamas leadership,
Speaker 1: whom they all hate, and then just keep them under
Speaker 1: their thumb. I don't know that they dislike Hamas leadership.
Speaker 1: I don't know. It doesn't seem like they're that upset.
Speaker 1: Hamas got elected in the mid two thousands. They were
Speaker 1: in control and for seventeen years, instead of putting money
Speaker 1: they got into economic development. They used it to build
Speaker 1: up militia fighters and dig tunnels all underground throughout Gaza
Speaker 1: for their terrorists to hide and station their you know,
Speaker 1: military assets near hospitals and schools and mosques, deliberately to
Speaker 1: with the deliberate strategy of maximizing civilian casualties in order
Speaker 1: to make Israel look bad. So I don't know. And again,
Speaker 1: the whole, well, the whole idea of Hamas, like some
Speaker 1: of their fundamental ideals, are rooted in certain long standing
Speaker 1: interpretations of Islam, rooted in Sharia law that basically, if
Speaker 1: territory was once owned by Islam, it's supposed to be
Speaker 1: Islamic territory forever. And thus that the modern nation state
Speaker 1: of Israel has no right to exist and a two
Speaker 1: state solution. They're not doing a two state solution. That's
Speaker 1: the thing. I feel like the diplomatic American foreign policy
Speaker 1: blob as some people call it, they're still in on
Speaker 1: this whole two state solution thing. Well, two state solutions
Speaker 1: the only path forward, the only path forward, I agree.
Speaker 1: The problem is one of the two parties doesn't want
Speaker 1: a two state solution. They want a one state solution
Speaker 1: with Israel gone, the Jews gone. They literally, like it's
Speaker 1: in Hamasa's like founding documents that they're gonna hunt down
Speaker 1: every Jew behind every rock and every tree. They want
Speaker 1: the stones and the trees to shout out that there's
Speaker 1: a Jew hiding there, and they're gonna kill them like that.
Speaker 1: That's that's how Loco and Laca Beza they are, that
Speaker 1: they're not gonna agree to a two states solution. You can,
Speaker 1: you can want a two state solution until you're blue
Speaker 1: in the face, but if one of the two states
Speaker 1: doesn't want two states, it's not gonna happen. Furthermore, furthermore,
Speaker 1: going through puberty on the radio, they've so either Hamas
Speaker 1: has so thoroughly indoctrinated the people who live in Gaza,
Speaker 1: or the people in Gaza or such are so poorly
Speaker 1: educated or whatever it is, like they've done public opinion
Speaker 1: polls where there's this basic, unbelievable ignorance on the part
Speaker 1: of average citizenry in Gaza. So the nation of Israel,
Speaker 1: the nation of Israel has about nine point four million people,
Speaker 1: that's the total population is about nine point four million people,
Speaker 1: most of whom are Jews. So the Jews constitute about
Speaker 1: seven point two million of the total nine So Jews
Speaker 1: are about seven million. There's seven million Jews about two
Speaker 1: million Arabs who live in the modern day nation state
Speaker 1: of Israel. So it's a country of nine million people,
Speaker 1: seven million of them are Jews. You do public opinion
Speaker 1: polling in Gaza. They think that there's a huge percentage
Speaker 1: of the population in Gaza that believed that they were
Speaker 1: like less than a million Jews living in Israel, or
Speaker 1: they were like a million to two million Jews. They
Speaker 1: have no sense of how many people actually live in Israel.
Speaker 1: They genuinely think it's like a few people and that
Speaker 1: if you just drive them out, you could just win.
Speaker 1: That they think they can win. They have no sense.
Speaker 1: They're so total excuse me, they're so indoctrinated or ignorant
Speaker 1: or whatever it is that they don't think any Jews
Speaker 1: even live in Israel, or that the numbers are way smaller.
Speaker 1: They have no sense of the scale. Like I think,
Speaker 1: they genuinely think that if they have enough, like October seventh,
Speaker 1: they can push all the Jews out. I don't know
Speaker 1: how you rationally deal with a partner like that. Now.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, I see like whole cities in
Speaker 1: Gaza that are completely leveled, and there's a part of
Speaker 1: me that has to say, Okay, well, I know there
Speaker 1: are Christians living in Palis and living Gaza who are
Speaker 1: not very thrilled with Israel's conduct at all. A lot
Speaker 1: of the Christian communities are are much more harshly that
Speaker 1: are in Palestine, are much more harshly critical of Israel
Speaker 1: of its conduct throughout this whole thing than American Christians are,
Speaker 1: or that the American right is. And I do have
Speaker 1: to take that into account, But at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, I just can't get over how fundamentally screwed
Speaker 1: up Hamas is and seemingly a lot of the population
Speaker 1: of Gaza, and I don't know how you fix that.
Speaker 1: And there's a part of me that's sort of saying, well,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump had this idea of moving everyone out
Speaker 1: and let's develop Gaza whatever. And the response from Rubio
Speaker 1: when everyone says that's a terrible idea, Rubio's saying, well,
Speaker 1: we challenge countries in the Middle East, you come up
Speaker 1: with a better plan. I think that's exactly the response
Speaker 1: we should take. I'm tired of this being our fault,
Speaker 1: our responsibility. I don't really want to keep militarily funding Israel.
Speaker 1: I want nothing to do with that whole part of
Speaker 1: the world when we return the idea of still being
Speaker 1: hung up over nineteen forty five population moves. Next on
Speaker 1: the John Girardi Show, the whole root of the Israel
Speaker 1: Palestine conflict, and the thing that activists and modern day
Speaker 1: Muslims still who are are very agitated about Israel's position
Speaker 1: with Palestine is premised around nineteen forty five the creation
Speaker 1: of the modern state of Israel. A bunch of Israel,
Speaker 1: a bunch of Jews from Europe displaced by the war
Speaker 1: move into the modern region of Palestine, which resulted in
Speaker 1: the displacement of a certain population of Palestinians Palestine lived there,
Speaker 1: forced out of their homes. Some injustices happened there. I'm
Speaker 1: not denying that some injustices happened there. Here's what I
Speaker 1: don't get. Do you know how many populations of different peoples,
Speaker 1: different ethnic groups were displaced as a result of World
Speaker 1: War Two? The Volga River Germans were all deported by
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union to Kazakhstan, that's really far away. The
Speaker 1: Soviets deported a bunch of Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians. I
Speaker 1: don't have to go through the whole list, but a
Speaker 1: bunch of peoples were displaced by World War Two. It
Speaker 1: was unjust, it was unfair, and for the most part,
Speaker 1: we just don't care anymore. We're not fighting wars over it.
Speaker 1: I don't understand why the injustice, that particular injustice there
Speaker 1: is still held up as the greatest injustice that's ever been,
Speaker 1: that needs to be militarily vindicated. That'll do it, John
Speaker 1: Girardi Show, See you next time on Power Talk