Speaker 1: Hello, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, comrades and friends.
Speaker 1: It hasn't been that long, has it. What with that
Speaker 1: successful re release of the original Donald Trump, I'm noticing
Speaker 1: a lot of people are really liking that. So thank
Speaker 1: you for those of you who hadn't listened before and
Speaker 1: are checking it out now, and thank you to those
Speaker 1: of you who were giving it a re listen. I
Speaker 1: really appreciate that. So anyway, yeah, I wanted to first
Speaker 1: acknowledge that and then give you this newest special episode
Speaker 1: of History Impossible. I want to first thank my executive
Speaker 1: producer level supporters John Andre Sather and Mike Mayleban, longtime supporters.
Speaker 1: Really appreciate you, guys. If any of you listening like
Speaker 1: what I'm doing and want to support at that level
Speaker 1: or any level, I would really appreciate it. You can
Speaker 1: do so over on Patreon dot com, slash History Impossible,
Speaker 1: or over on History Impossible dot substack dot com, or
Speaker 1: you can send me a message via the website History
Speaker 1: Impossible dot com if you want to support in a
Speaker 1: different way, or if you just want to, you know,
Speaker 1: chew me out for something I said that made you
Speaker 1: not happy. We'll say I do appreciate any and all feedback,
Speaker 1: especially on more contentious issues like the one that we're
Speaker 1: about to get into. On top of that, if you
Speaker 1: want to share this episode, or any of the episodes
Speaker 1: you've listened to that you like, with someone you think
Speaker 1: might find them interesting or illuminating, please do so. Promote
Speaker 1: this show as best you can. That is a really
Speaker 1: good way to help keep the lights on in its
Speaker 1: own way. Leaving a review over an Apple Podcasts that
Speaker 1: also helps. So I've noticed a lot of people listen
Speaker 1: to this show on Spotify and I don't. I'm not
Speaker 1: really sure if they have a review system there, So regardless,
Speaker 1: I appreciate any and all of you who give this
Speaker 1: show a listen. Like I said, this episode gets into
Speaker 1: some contentious territory, namely the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas,
Speaker 1: and it gets into my thoughts on the particular accusation
Speaker 1: and general I would say use of the word genocide,
Speaker 1: not just in the case of this conflict. This conflict
Speaker 1: is the sort of centerpiece to that people who subscribe
Speaker 1: to the History Impossible substack or to the Patreon probably
Speaker 1: have seen the written version of this, though this has
Speaker 1: been adapted for an audio format, as many of you
Speaker 1: listening who have also read that piece will know and
Speaker 1: can tell, But in this case it goes some pretty
Speaker 1: dark places if you haven't gotten a chance to read that.
Speaker 1: So those of you have will recognize that, but to
Speaker 1: those of you haven't, I do want to recommend some caution.
Speaker 1: I don't often do that with this show, as longtime
Speaker 1: listeners likely know, but in this case, it does get
Speaker 1: pretty unpleasant. I also want to note that this is
Speaker 1: a bit of a It's something I'm trying because this
Speaker 1: is going to be a bit of a polemical introduction
Speaker 1: to the next sort of closer to full length episode
Speaker 1: that I'm putting out as part of a trilogy of
Speaker 1: episodes that I am doing based on the research I've
Speaker 1: been doing in grad school. This first one we'll have
Speaker 1: to do with the Air Revolt of nineteen thirty six
Speaker 1: to nineteen thirty nine. It'll have a much more academic
Speaker 1: feel to it, and like I said, you know, using
Speaker 1: the word polemical, a much less polemical feel to it
Speaker 1: than this one does. But I got to get my
Speaker 1: opinions out there in some cases, guys, I guess that's
Speaker 1: all I all I can say anyway, with all that said,
Speaker 1: thank you again for listening, and let's get into some
Speaker 1: impossible history.
Speaker 2: Well, let me to tell you what you would have
Speaker 2: seen and heard.
Speaker 3: If will not be pleasant listening, if you're at lunch,
Speaker 3: or if you have no appetite, now it is a
Speaker 3: good time to switch auth the radio.
Speaker 4: An ancestor of mine main Chaine that if you eliminate
Speaker 4: the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable. I wish I could
Speaker 4: say tonight that a lasting piece is inside. I mean
Speaker 4: the alopping dream I feel anpping night more.
Speaker 2: If we share pressure to kill, If we share pressure
Speaker 2: to kill.
Speaker 3: Some say the world will end empire, some stay a
Speaker 3: night for what I've tasted. Of desire, I hold with
Speaker 3: those of favor fire. But if it had to perish twice,
Speaker 3: I think I know enough of hate to say that
Speaker 3: the destruction ice is also great, and would suffice.
Speaker 5: This is history or hustle.
Speaker 6: No du.
Speaker 2: Matin h m hm, yell when hell whenne let s
Speaker 2: u Sierra into Samisburgh.
Speaker 7: Sierra us haleaki actory defund the.
Speaker 3: Man m.
Speaker 2: It's a bed win. Yeah, it's abe jump co Tara
Speaker 2: Wollops had them in huh tr rock Hexamer Sierra, Lamer Sierra.
Speaker 8: He's a.
Speaker 2: The hire one thing she mm hm, but never than.
Speaker 8: A half.
Speaker 7: And am yam.
Speaker 2: And am I and Aki had a yacht. Yeah look
Speaker 2: Aki attonman in Mahaddan.
Speaker 8: A year.
Speaker 2: This officer had the intill this not hop must nots
Speaker 2: ymri so.
Speaker 8: Having them. I came and I'm stating you never.
Speaker 7: A letter kick, Yes, that's.
Speaker 2: Eb.
Speaker 8: I've torn alpeis allah.
Speaker 2: Amina.
Speaker 1: Early on in twenty twenty four, a story from the
Speaker 1: Israel Hamas War emerged that did not just tug on
Speaker 1: the heartstrings, it ripped them free and threw them on
Speaker 1: the ground. On January twenty ninth, a family including five
Speaker 1: children was fleeing part of northern Gaza by car. According
Speaker 1: to a Palestinian Red Crescent Society or PRCS report, the
Speaker 1: car was struck by an IDF tank, killing everyone side
Speaker 1: except a five year old girl named Hindri Job and
Speaker 1: her fifteen year old cousin, Lyon Hamidae. According to an
Speaker 1: investigation by Goldsmith's University of London research Group Forensic Architecture,
Speaker 1: the tank and fire three hundred and thirty five rounds
Speaker 1: into the black Kia that carried her, Job and her Family. CNN,
Speaker 1: which led the reporting on this incident, described what happened
Speaker 1: after the initial strike as follows quote. Heine's cousin, fifteen
Speaker 1: year old Lion Hamiday, made a desperate call for help
Speaker 1: to emergency services that was recorded by the PRCS and
Speaker 1: shared on social media. Audio of gunshots heard during the
Speaker 1: call revealed that Hamiday was killed while making the call.
Speaker 1: They are shooting at us. The tank is right next
Speaker 1: to me. We're in the car. The tank is right
Speaker 1: next to us. Lyon screams amid intense gunfire in the background.
Speaker 1: Lyan then goes quiet and the rounds of fire stop.
Speaker 1: The paramedic on the phone tries to speak to her,
Speaker 1: repeatedly saying hello, Hello, but there is no response. Alone,
Speaker 1: terrified and trapped in the car with the bodies of
Speaker 1: her relatives around her, Hind makes a desperate call for help.
Speaker 1: Come take me. Will you come and take me? I'm
Speaker 1: so scared, Please come, Hind can be heard saying in
Speaker 1: a recording of the call to the responders released by
Speaker 1: the PRCS unquote. Rajab and her family were not discovered
Speaker 1: until two weeks later, all of them dead, along with
Speaker 1: two of the paramedics. Dispatched to rescue them nearby in
Speaker 1: their destroyed ambulance. According to the PRCS quote, the occupation
Speaker 1: deliberately targeted the Red Crescent despite obtaining prior coordination to
Speaker 1: allow the ambulance to reach the location to rescue the
Speaker 1: girl Hind. According to the IDF, they initially were quote
Speaker 1: unfamiliar with the incident described unquote, and the weeks and
Speaker 1: months that followed the story of Hind and her family's
Speaker 1: death reverberated through activist circles and among those invested in
Speaker 1: the outcome of the ongoing war, with everyone from Hamas's
Speaker 1: Foreign Ministry to the rapper Maclamore Weiane in on Israel's
Speaker 1: alleged crime. Heine's death likely served as a major catalyst
Speaker 1: for the growing agitation on many of the United States's
Speaker 1: college campuses in the spring of twenty twenty four, though
Speaker 1: there were certainly many other factors at work during those
Speaker 1: fevered months. Some reactions were blunt, with the Euromediterranean Human
Speaker 1: Rights Monitor calling Heine's death quote a planned execution carried
Speaker 1: out by the Israeli army in Gaza City in broad daylight,
Speaker 1: while some were more diplomatic, with the Washington Post writing
Speaker 1: that after a thorough review of the evidence by six
Speaker 1: munitions experts, it was clear that while none quote could
Speaker 1: definitively say what munition caused the damage or killed the
Speaker 1: paramedics based on the ambulance alone unquote, it was also
Speaker 1: clear that quote the damage to the ambulance sent to
Speaker 1: rescue the family was consistent with the potential use of
Speaker 1: a round fire from Israeli tanks that matched the vehicles
Speaker 1: captured on satellite imagery in the area that day unquote.
Speaker 1: But amid all of this analysis and opining, there was
Speaker 1: a word that kept being repeated. That word was genocide.
Speaker 1: We've been hearing that word genocide well at this point
Speaker 1: for over a year, but at that point we'd been
Speaker 1: hearing it since the beginning. But it was when this
Speaker 1: happened that many people started saying genocide with much more ferocity.
Speaker 1: This event was evidence, one piece among many supposedly that
Speaker 1: Israel was committing a genocide against the Palestinians of Gaza.
Speaker 1: It was not just student activists or ideologically possessed opinion
Speaker 1: writers saying this either. By this point, you went special
Speaker 1: reporter on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese
Speaker 1: said much the same thing just a month after Heine's
Speaker 1: body was discovered. And as I just said, this phrase,
Speaker 1: this accusation of genocide continues to be said many many
Speaker 1: months later, and will likely continue to be said for
Speaker 1: many months, if not years to come. It's a very
Speaker 1: common tread when it comes to discussing this conflict in
Speaker 1: certain circles. But this begs the question and is it
Speaker 1: Is it truly a genocide? This question has been asked many,
Speaker 1: many times before, especially in the decades following the Second
Speaker 1: World War and the revelations of the Holocaust. This general
Speaker 1: question is this genocide? Perhaps the best known case, at
Speaker 1: least in very modern history, is a Srebernita massacre, sometimes
Speaker 1: actually called the Srebrenica genocide, that occurred in the chaotic
Speaker 1: post yugoslaviyears of the nineteen nineties in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Speaker 9: The genocide indictment against General Ratcom Maladic divides his crimes
Speaker 9: into various phases, the early part of the war around
Speaker 9: pried Or northwest Bosnia, then the siege of Sarajevo in
Speaker 9: the center, and then finally the enormous catalog of crimes
Speaker 9: that took place in this place in nineteen ninety five Srebrenitza.
Speaker 9: The UN had declared the Srebernitza enclave to be a
Speaker 9: safe area, but in fact, as Mladich planned its capture,
Speaker 9: the Dutch UN troops who were meant to defend it
Speaker 9: had been abandoned by their higher commanders. Srebrenita was overrun
Speaker 9: and more than twenty thousand frightened Muslim women and children
Speaker 9: crammed into the Dutch base. Laddich guaranteed the women and
Speaker 9: children's safe passage, but meanwhile his troops hunted the men
Speaker 9: of sre Bernitza. They were gathered in places like this school.
Speaker 9: The man who told us that Melide and Norawich went
Speaker 9: back with us for only the second time since Serb
Speaker 9: troops brought him and hundreds of others here to kill them.
Speaker 10: Kay.
Speaker 1: Oh thought, yeah, I was okay, just a liseral.
Speaker 3: H h.
Speaker 5: M hmmm.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Video, what's there? H's once?
Speaker 2: I'm be.
Speaker 9: Mevludin survived by playing dead among the corpses, and at
Speaker 9: night he escaped over the mountains to government territory.
Speaker 11: Oh mhm.
Speaker 12: Mevludin Owich is haunted by the loss of his father,
Speaker 12: brother and numerous cousins, and also by the fact that
Speaker 12: he still recognizes Serbs around here from those killing fields,
Speaker 12: it has.
Speaker 1: Taken on a level of symbolic horror for countless Bosnian Muslims,
Speaker 1: and for a good reason. Occurring during the final year
Speaker 1: of the Bosnian War, which was part of the long
Speaker 1: running disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. In the years that
Speaker 1: followed jos bros Tito's death in nineteen eighty, forces from
Speaker 1: the Army Republica Serpska or the Army of the Serbs
Speaker 1: of Bosnia, under a man named Rad Komladitch, captured the
Speaker 1: town of Srebenita on July eleventh, nineteen ninety five, after
Speaker 1: overwhelming the Dutch soldiers of the UN Protection Force that
Speaker 1: were stationed there. Despite the town of Srebinita being declared
Speaker 1: a humanitarian quote unquote safe area for civilians, the days
Speaker 1: that followed that initial occupation were an orgy of death
Speaker 1: and destruction. From July thirteen through the twenty second of
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety five, groups of men and boys were taken
Speaker 1: to various sites near Serbenita and executed by gunshot in
Speaker 1: batches of a few hundred at a time. Sometimes these
Speaker 1: executions were out in picturesque meadows. Sometimes it was near rivers,
Speaker 1: and sometimes it was over predug graves, oftentimes dug by
Speaker 1: the victims themselves. Not all of them were killed, with
Speaker 1: some survivors managing to create a picture of the horror
Speaker 1: that befell the Bossian Muslims of Srebenitza and the surrounding area.
Speaker 1: One survivor of the men and boys killed at Branjevo
Speaker 1: between July fourteenth and July sixteenth would recall the following quote.
Speaker 1: When they opened fire, I threw myself on the ground
Speaker 1: and one man fell on my head. I think that
Speaker 1: he was killed on the spot, and I could feel
Speaker 1: the hot blood pouring over me. I could hear one
Speaker 1: man crying for help. He was begging them to kill him,
Speaker 1: and they simply said, let him suffer, we will kill
Speaker 1: him later unquote. On the first day of the killing,
Speaker 1: another survivor would describe his attempt to escape after several
Speaker 1: farm sheds in Kravitza were used as killing centers. Quote,
Speaker 1: I was not even able to touch the floor, the
Speaker 1: concrete floor of the warehouse. After the shooting, I felt
Speaker 1: a strange kind of heat, warmth, which was coming from
Speaker 1: the blood that covered the concrete floor. And I was
Speaker 1: stepping on the dead people who were lying around. But
Speaker 1: there were even men, just men who were still alive,
Speaker 1: who were only wounded. And as soon as I would
Speaker 1: step on him, I would hear him cry moan. Because
Speaker 1: I was trying to move as fast as I could.
Speaker 1: I could tell that people had been completely disembodied, and
Speaker 1: I could feel the bones of the people that had
Speaker 1: been hit by those bursts of bullets or shells. I
Speaker 1: could feel their ribs crushing. Then I would get up
Speaker 1: again and continue. This cruelty exacted upon the people of
Speaker 1: Strebernita had no discrimination for age either, oftentimes mirroring the
Speaker 1: savagery visited upon the Serbs by the Croatian Mustasia during
Speaker 1: the Second World War, which we have talked about on
Speaker 1: this show. Public torture and murder for the amusement of
Speaker 1: the occupying soldiers was carried out against children. Survivor Zumra
Speaker 1: Shejometowitz later testified that at one point the soldiers attempted
Speaker 1: to force a boy to rape his nine year old
Speaker 1: sister and was killed when he refused, and the same
Speaker 1: rid of summons Kadahochich testified that she saw a baby
Speaker 1: get its throat cut because its mother could not silence
Speaker 1: its cries. And Ramiza Gerdych testified that a urb in
Speaker 1: a Dutch uniform, presumably taken from the overwhelmed un forces,
Speaker 1: killed a ten year old boy sitting next to his mother,
Speaker 1: cut his head off, and quote placed the head of
Speaker 1: the young boy on his knife and showed it to everyone. Quote.
Speaker 1: With the exception of horrifying events like these, the men
Speaker 1: and boys had been separated from the women and girls,
Speaker 1: but the latter did not escape the torment of their captors.
Speaker 1: By the thousands, women and girls as young as seven
Speaker 1: years old were frequently and repeatedly raped by the Serb soldiers.
Speaker 5: In April nineteen ninety two, Pakira was having coffee at
Speaker 5: home in Vichigrad with her husband and two teenage daughters
Speaker 5: when the local police officer Velko asket in with two
Speaker 5: Serbian soldiers.
Speaker 6: Nimble prostitute is about it that was lost, Kadasai scatt
Speaker 6: the Malja to Niko Koch.
Speaker 1: You could not hear exactly what this woman was saying
Speaker 1: in this interview, and what she said does not matter,
Speaker 1: particularly as much as the feeling that you could no
Speaker 1: doubt hear in her voice. This is unfortunately not uncommon
Speaker 1: when watching the testimonies of women who survived the Cerebrinita
Speaker 1: genocide or the Bossian War in general. What she experienced,
Speaker 1: witnessing the rape of her own daughter and then experiencing
Speaker 1: rape herself was all too common throughout Bosnia during those
Speaker 1: horrible years of the early nineteen nineties. We can see
Speaker 1: this in all the testimonies that came out in the
Speaker 1: years that followed the end of the Bosnian War. A
Speaker 1: Dutch medical orderly would testify during the prosecutor viv Radaslav
Speaker 1: Kerstitz judgment the following quote. We saw two Serb soldiers.
Speaker 1: One of them was standing guard and the other one
Speaker 1: was lying on the girl with his pants off. And
Speaker 1: we saw a girl lying on the ground on some
Speaker 1: kind of mattress. There was blood on the mattress, even
Speaker 1: she was covered with blood. She had bruises on her lefele,
Speaker 1: there was even blood coming down her legs. She was
Speaker 1: in total shock. She went totally crazy. Other survivors testified
Speaker 1: that many rapes like this occurred, and many women often
Speaker 1: killed themselves by hanging afterward, oftentimes to avoid the shame
Speaker 1: of being impregnated by their rapist, and this was not
Speaker 1: unreasonable for them to fear. The systematic nature of the
Speaker 1: rapes was made even clearer by the fact that they
Speaker 1: often occurred in specially designated zones, including gymnasiums, camps, and
Speaker 1: most disturbingly, the infamous Velinovlas Spa that came to be
Speaker 1: known as Bosnia's Rape Hotel. This hotel was the headquarters
Speaker 1: of the White Eagles, headed by the now imprison for
Speaker 1: life Milan Lukich. Lukitch himself was accused of multiple rapes,
Speaker 1: including of a woman who accused him of doing so
Speaker 1: before killing her sixteen year old son with a knife. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: the Srebrinita genocide claimed the lives of up to eighty
Speaker 1: three hundred and seventy two people, with six thousand, eight
Speaker 1: hundred thirty eight being identified through DNA analysis as of
Speaker 1: twenty twelve. However, this figure does not include the estimated
Speaker 1: twenty to fifty thousand women who were systematically raped during
Speaker 1: the three year war. This also does not include the
Speaker 1: multitudes of children who were born and who lived to
Speaker 1: this very day, many of them adopted in the UK
Speaker 1: and other places thankfully, and have been able to live
Speaker 1: relatively normal lives despite the circumstances of their conception. You
Speaker 1: can actually find that interviews of these young people I
Speaker 1: shouldn't even say that young, they're barely younger than I am.
Speaker 1: Talking about their experiences. Learning about this disturbing nature of
Speaker 1: their family's background, one can understand why they would not want,
Speaker 1: or at least their mothers would not want them raised
Speaker 1: under such circumstances, especially given the fact that many of
Speaker 1: the rapists, the ones at least who were not prosecuted
Speaker 1: and put in prison for their crimes, are walking free
Speaker 1: to this day, living among the Bosnians that they tormented
Speaker 1: for years. And this is to say nothing of the
Speaker 1: intense shame felt by the women who experienced this unthinkable crime.
Speaker 1: Because the crime did not just stop at rape. As
Speaker 1: bad as that it is, much of that rape, it
Speaker 1: has been suggested very compellingly, was done in service of
Speaker 1: what could be called genocide. The use of rape as
Speaker 1: an ethnic cleansing strategy or even genocide is unbelievably shocking
Speaker 1: and disturbing, especially to modern readers. So it requires a
Speaker 1: deeper examination because it provides insight into the most contentious
Speaker 1: aspect of genocide accusations that is, of the intent to
Speaker 1: destroy a population at its very root. While it is
Speaker 1: extremely difficult to apply this standard to every conflict in
Speaker 1: history that has involved sexual assault as well as genocide,
Speaker 1: it is much easier to do so when looking at
Speaker 1: the Bosnian War, thanks to the explicitly genericidal nature of
Speaker 1: the mass rapes that occurred between nineteen ninety two and
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety five. It had been known that Bosnian Serb
Speaker 1: troops were using rape as an explicit weapon of ethnic cleansing.
Speaker 1: According to the remembran Srebred needs to Charity in England,
Speaker 1: which was who was interviewing that woman from a couple
Speaker 1: moments ago. They write that quote, the rapes were carried
Speaker 1: out in fulfillment of official orders as part of the
Speaker 1: Bosnian Serb strategy of ethnic cleansing in the region. Several
Speaker 1: victims recalled how Serb soldiers re marked that it is
Speaker 1: better to give birth to Chetniks than to Muslim filth quote. However,
Speaker 1: while rape was certainly involved from a legal and even
Speaker 1: philosophical perspective, calling it genocidal in and of itself is
Speaker 1: not quite accurate. In fact, the icidal nature of the
Speaker 1: crime is like all genocide in the intent behind the
Speaker 1: rapes themselves. That intent is the goal of forced impregnation.
Speaker 1: As legal scholar Cybin K Fisher wrote in a paper
Speaker 1: explaining this phenomenon quote, the conflict in the former Yugoslavia
Speaker 1: also raises a question beyond the criminal treatment of rape
Speaker 1: during war. For perhaps the first time in modern history,
Speaker 1: an aggressor in a military conflict may have used rape
Speaker 1: not only as a tool of war, but also to
Speaker 1: implement a policy of impregnation in order to further the
Speaker 1: destruction of one people and the proliferation of another, a
Speaker 1: policy of genocide by forced impregnation. Forced impregnation, as an
Speaker 1: intentional policy of an aggressor to destroy a group of people,
Speaker 1: is distinct from the crime of rape, and is at
Speaker 1: its core a crime of genocide. Genocide, as defined in
Speaker 1: the Genocide Convention of nineteen forty eight, involves the destruction
Speaker 1: of a group of people. It may seem counterintuitive that
Speaker 1: impregnation the creation of new life, can in fact be
Speaker 1: an instrument of genocide, but force impregnation interference with autonomous
Speaker 1: reproduction can destroy a group. This interference in the group's
Speaker 1: reproduction may take a number of forms. First, women may
Speaker 1: be psychologically traumatized by the pregnancy and unable to have
Speaker 1: normal sexual or child bearing experiences with members of their
Speaker 1: own group. Second, women who are raped and bear the
Speaker 1: children of the aggressors may no longer be marriageable in
Speaker 1: their society. Third, the women, simply because they are pregnant
Speaker 1: with the children of the aggressors, cannot bear their own
Speaker 1: children during this time their wombs are occupied. It is
Speaker 1: indeed counterintuitive, and yet that is what makes this interpretation
Speaker 1: of force impregnation via rape so chilling. It is also
Speaker 1: illuminating because the aforementioned intent behind the rape, the deeper intent,
Speaker 1: the desire to eliminate or at to very least curtail
Speaker 1: an entire population of people based on ethnic and religious characteristics,
Speaker 1: lines up with the most important part in the definition
Speaker 1: of genocide. The hard truth for so many to accept,
Speaker 1: probably the hardest truth, honestly, is that this most important
Speaker 1: part of defining genocide almost certainly applies to the story
Speaker 1: of Strebenitza, and at least as of twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: almost certainly does not apply to the suffering experienced by
Speaker 1: young girls like Hindra Job and the family that she
Speaker 1: left behind.
Speaker 2: It has been.
Speaker 1: Over one year since Hamas unleashed its attack on Israel
Speaker 1: that left around twelve hundred people killed and several hundred
Speaker 1: more kidnapped and held hostage in an effort to instigate
Speaker 1: that country that is Israel, into its furious retaliation that
Speaker 1: has left their international reputation in tatters for many people.
Speaker 1: Central to that tattered reputation is the oft repeated claim
Speaker 1: that Israel is engaging in a genocide, and to support
Speaker 1: this claim, many stories like those of Heindra Job have
Speaker 1: been cited in order to tug in the heartstrings, and
Speaker 1: understandably so, however manipulative it might feel to do so.
Speaker 1: Others point to the fact that the United Nations, which
Speaker 1: is no stranger to seemingly singling Israel out compared to
Speaker 1: other more nefarious nations, it should be noted, investigated Israel
Speaker 1: for its alleged war crimes and eventually came away with
Speaker 1: a conclusion that clearly pleased nobody as evidence of a
Speaker 1: genocide occurring. To clarify, according to an article that was
Speaker 1: published in The Guardian on June twelfth, twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: written by Emma Graham Harrison and Peter Beaumont, Israel and
Speaker 1: Hamas have both committed war crimes since the seventh of October.
Speaker 1: According to the UN body that investigated these claims, they
Speaker 1: relied on parallel reports that describe serious crimes during Hamas
Speaker 1: attack and israel subsequent offensive in Gaza. So clearly nobody's
Speaker 1: going to be happy when they hear that, even though
Speaker 1: it is likely closest to what is actually true. Granted,
Speaker 1: my bias usually puts me in the position of assuming
Speaker 1: that the truth lies between the two most extreme claims
Speaker 1: being made, And obviously I have my biases that have
Speaker 1: been made pretty clear on this show by this point.
Speaker 1: But like I said, if I was a gambling man
Speaker 1: on this claim, on these claims of war crimes, I
Speaker 1: would be willing to bet we're going to find evidence
Speaker 1: of it happening on quote unquote both sides.
Speaker 6: In this case.
Speaker 1: Regardless, when it came to the claim of genocide being
Speaker 1: committed by Israel against the people of Gaza, there just
Speaker 1: wasn't enough evidence to make it a slam dunk that
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people who hate Israel would
Speaker 1: like to believe. Despite this, there are others who most
Speaker 1: persuasively one could argue, but in my opinions still insufficiently.
Speaker 1: They will point to some of the comments made by
Speaker 1: members of Benjamin Netanyahu's government. Some of these comments included
Speaker 1: a LECUD member of the Israeli parliament named Mario Klner
Speaker 1: saying that Israel needed to conduct a quote nakba that
Speaker 1: will overshadow the Nakba of forty eight, and similarly, another
Speaker 1: lawmaker named Revital Tally Gautli demanded that the Ideaf quote
Speaker 1: do everything and use doomsday weapons fearlessly against their enemies unquote,
Speaker 1: and perhaps most chillingly, Defense Minister Joav Gallant said, quote,
Speaker 1: if Hezbealah makes mistakes of this kind, the ones who
Speaker 1: will pay the price are first of all the citizens
Speaker 1: of Lebanon unquote, which honestly, at least only at the
Speaker 1: surface level, does resemble something like Hitler's prophecy, in which
Speaker 1: he said that if the world was plunged into a
Speaker 1: world war, the Jews would be annihilated in Europe. But
Speaker 1: that really only applies as a comparison if one is
Speaker 1: assuming the worst about what is being said, which I
Speaker 1: don't think is necessarily fair without further context that I
Speaker 1: honestly have not really looked into I'm just trying to
Speaker 1: demonstrate what people have pointed to being said in the
Speaker 1: Israeli government that is caused for concern and understandably if
Speaker 1: you're a little worried about this sort of thing, the
Speaker 1: justifications for calling something a genocide, now, the argument over
Speaker 1: genocide in general is nothing new, and I wanted to
Speaker 1: give some perspective on just what this whole debate typically
Speaker 1: looks like, because it very much looks like what we're seeing,
Speaker 1: and it always demonstrates why we need to be precise
Speaker 1: in our language and talking about this. The previously discussed
Speaker 1: rebenitza genocide was downplayed by the likes of Noam Chomsky, who,
Speaker 1: at least in my opinion, never ceases to amaze with
Speaker 1: his seeming willingness to pretend genocide does not exist unless
Speaker 1: it is purpose traded or allowed to occur by the
Speaker 1: United States. I mean, you don't have to look past
Speaker 1: this Crebnizza genocide controversy involving him, But you know, if
Speaker 1: you want to look into his comments made about the
Speaker 1: Cambodian massacre by the Khmer Rouge back in the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 1: if you really want to get your skin crawling. Now
Speaker 1: in a sense, it might be more honorable at least
Speaker 1: or prudent to show restraint in calling things genocidal or
Speaker 1: accusing something of being a genocide. And I tend to
Speaker 1: try to, you know, fall into that category. But that's
Speaker 1: only if the standard being applied is applied equally, which
Speaker 1: it almost certainly is not applied that way. When it
Speaker 1: comes to Chomsky and his ilk who tend to have
Speaker 1: a funny way of getting proven wrong many years after
Speaker 1: the fact, like I was suggesting a moment ago, of course,
Speaker 1: that could well happen in my case here, and I
Speaker 1: will be the first person to admit I was wrong.
Speaker 1: If it comes to pass that Israel is somehow can
Speaker 1: implicit in committing a genocide, but based on the information
Speaker 1: that we do have about Israel's conduct during the past
Speaker 1: year or so, as well as examples of actual proven
Speaker 1: genocide in history, and the legal precedent that they set
Speaker 1: or met, like I was talking about earlier, the claim
Speaker 1: that Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinians just
Speaker 1: does not really pass Muster. The most difficult part of
Speaker 1: defining genocide is trying to define it while it is happening,
Speaker 1: because intent matters so much in making such a determination.
Speaker 1: This is simply the unfortunate reality of such things, and
Speaker 1: it is understandable that no one concerned about genocide is
Speaker 1: going to feel happy about needing to wait for the killing, rape,
Speaker 1: and ethnic cleansing to be over in order to make
Speaker 1: the most accurate determination on whether or not the horrible
Speaker 1: events unfolding were in fact genocide. But that is the
Speaker 1: nature of the yeast Stating intent is relevant to the
Speaker 1: diagnosis of genocide, but it is also insufficient on its own,
Speaker 1: So the comments made by the members of netn yahoo's
Speaker 1: government don't really matter enough on their own. In other words,
Speaker 1: genocide is in its most basic definitional sense, according to
Speaker 1: the United Nations General Assembly that created the definition in
Speaker 1: nineteen forty eight and then ratified it in nineteen fifty one,
Speaker 1: involved the following quote, any of the following acts committed
Speaker 1: with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial,
Speaker 1: or religious group, as such a killing members of the group,
Speaker 1: b causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of
Speaker 1: the group, C Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of
Speaker 1: life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. In whole
Speaker 1: or in part, d imposing measures intended to prevent birth
Speaker 1: within the group, or e forcibly transferring children of the
Speaker 1: group to another group.
Speaker 10: We stand today at the threshold of a great event,
Speaker 10: both in the life of the United Nations and in
Speaker 10: the life of mankind. This Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Speaker 10: may well become the international Magna Carter of all men everywhere.
Speaker 11: This Convention can become an important and beneficial element in
Speaker 11: the development of international law and of the international community.
Speaker 11: And I say can become because whether it will do
Speaker 11: so depends, in our opinion, to a major degree, upon
Speaker 11: one controlling condition, and that is that we can achieve
Speaker 11: impartial trial and adequate punishment of Wilson's guilty of geneside.
Speaker 11: Whatever their nationality, their status are, their rank.
Speaker 4: For the adoption of the Convention is as follows, Yes
Speaker 4: fifty five. There are no votes against the Convention. There
Speaker 4: are three absentees, So the Convention is adopted by this
Speaker 4: Assembly by unanimous vote. Now we are protecting the most
Speaker 4: fundamental right of all, the very right of human groups
Speaker 4: to exist as groups. And in so doing, the General
Speaker 4: Assembly is taking positive action to fulfill its mission under
Speaker 4: Article thirteen of the Charter that is to promote the
Speaker 4: progressive development of international law and his codification. I would urge,
Speaker 4: and I think that's the spirit, the unanimous fuel of
Speaker 4: the Assembly, that this Convention be signed by all states,
Speaker 4: ratified by all parliaments of the Earth, in order the
Speaker 4: basic human rights be given the protection of international law
Speaker 4: for the psych of progress, social and international faith.
Speaker 1: Many have little trouble recognizing the emotional truth of connecting many,
Speaker 1: if not all, of the five different criteria to what
Speaker 1: Israel is doing in Gaza or Lebanon, But that is
Speaker 1: fundamentally unhelpful and inaccurate to what is indeed happening. In
Speaker 1: the end, what Israel is doing, according to the evidence
Speaker 1: of what we have, does not fall under any of
Speaker 1: these criteria because of what is known as the mensreea
Speaker 1: or provable mental state of the person committing the so
Speaker 1: called genocide. Are their genocidal sounding statements being made by
Speaker 1: members of the Netanyahu cabinet and his party's government. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: we just covered that, But are they proof positive of
Speaker 1: the response to the worst Pogram and Jewish history since
Speaker 1: the Holocaust, constituting a genocide. Unfortunately, for those who believe
Speaker 1: in their heart of hearts that they are. The answer is,
Speaker 1: as of this recording in November of twenty twenty four, No,
Speaker 1: what animates the people who sincerely believe that what Israel
Speaker 1: is doing in its efforts to destroy Hamas and now
Speaker 1: Hasbllah constitutes genocide is when not colored by a deep
Speaker 1: seated anti Semitism, because that is out there, guys, what
Speaker 1: animates them is perfectly normal and even admirable in a way,
Speaker 1: because what it is is in despair at the destruction
Speaker 1: of innocent life. And when not educated on the history
Speaker 1: of genocide, it is understandable that this, namely the death
Speaker 1: of civilians, is what genocide means to a lot of people. However,
Speaker 1: by using that metric, that would also require these same
Speaker 1: people to admit that what happened on ten Seves twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three was a genocide as well, and hence why
Speaker 1: the sneakier among those who try to minimize the horror
Speaker 1: of ten to seven will bring up Israel's conscription laws
Speaker 1: forgetting about the many migrants who also found themselves getting
Speaker 1: butchered that day. Based on the standards of genocide, I
Speaker 1: am still inclined to say that the Hamas massacre on
Speaker 1: ten to seven was not a genocide. This is not
Speaker 1: because the intent to slaughter every Jew in Israel was
Speaker 1: not present. I think it actually almost certainly was, but
Speaker 1: it was held back only by means and opportunity. Conversely,
Speaker 1: and this is a point that I've seen made by
Speaker 1: a lot of people, and I think it's a good one,
Speaker 1: Israel has both the means and opportunity to slaughter every
Speaker 1: single human being in Gaza, Lebanon, and possibly even Iran,
Speaker 1: and yet they do not do that. This is another
Speaker 1: major factor in determining whether or not Israel is engaging
Speaker 1: in genocide. I would wager that this fact alone is
Speaker 1: why the term does not apply to Israel, at least
Speaker 1: in this case, however, because Hamas did not have the
Speaker 1: means an opportunity to do what they did on ten
Speaker 1: to seven, and given that their leadership almost certainly knew that,
Speaker 1: given that their strategy, as most people seem to agree,
Speaker 1: was almost certainly to provoke Israel into overreacting in order
Speaker 1: to boost their popularity and diminish Israel's as well as
Speaker 1: their Jihadis rivals. But given that their leadership almost certainly
Speaker 1: knew that they did not have the means an opportunity
Speaker 1: to kill every single Jew in Israel. I do not
Speaker 1: believe it is fair to call the events of October seventh,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, a genocide, and that also might rub
Speaker 1: some people the wrong way. I've had some conversations already
Speaker 1: about this, based on the original essay I wrote on
Speaker 1: this subject, and that's fair. You know that I'm open
Speaker 1: to discuss that as well. Regardless, I don't necessarily believe
Speaker 1: that you could call it a genocide, a massacre, a
Speaker 1: crime against humanity, absolutely, but not a genocide. And while
Speaker 1: I do believe Israel does not get enough credit for
Speaker 1: their attempts at precision in destroying Hamas and especially has Belah,
Speaker 1: I can certainly accept the argument that their efforts to
Speaker 1: quote unquote mow the grass as they called it, as
Speaker 1: net Yahoo called it. I believe in Gaza has produced
Speaker 1: an excess of civilian death and suffering, but again, that
Speaker 1: is not genocide. Perhaps it will emerge that there was
Speaker 1: a criminal element to what Israel has been doing, but
Speaker 1: unfortunately it will not become truly clear until the conflict
Speaker 1: is essentially over. The point being, genocide does not need
Speaker 1: to be the qualifier that we use in order to
Speaker 1: demonstrate that something is a tragedy beyond the pale, and
Speaker 1: the deeper point being genocide should not be a moral
Speaker 1: qualifier at all. And I know it's hard for me
Speaker 1: to even say that. It's probably hard for a lot
Speaker 1: of people to hear that, because it is a horrible thing,
Speaker 1: it is a moral failing, to put it mildly. But
Speaker 1: I think it's more important to see it as simply
Speaker 1: a fact and one that can be proven, and more importantly,
Speaker 1: one that denotes an accusation of a crime, as in
Speaker 1: the most unspeakable crime in which a group or nation
Speaker 1: can engage. That is why, as I see it, it
Speaker 1: is no better to throw around accusations of genocide than
Speaker 1: it is to accuse a person of being a pedophile,
Speaker 1: a rapist, or a murderer without the sufficient evidence, especially
Speaker 1: outside of the context of a court of law. In
Speaker 1: this context and with the evidence available, I cannot say
Speaker 1: whether or not Israel is actually guilty of genocide, though
Speaker 1: like I've been saying, I am inclined to say, based
Speaker 1: on what I've seen, that it is not. And indeed,
Speaker 1: while I cannot say one way or another, neither can
Speaker 1: anyone else. That's really the key right there. Statements made
Speaker 1: by the more bigoted and imperialistic members of Israel's government
Speaker 1: are not proof enough on their own, troubling as they
Speaker 1: might be in the context of so much violence. Now,
Speaker 1: those still unconvinced of this might try to point to
Speaker 1: the notion that Israel is targeting the people of Gaza
Speaker 1: in order to destroy them in part quote unquote, thus
Speaker 1: meeting the criteria for genocide. But the problem is that
Speaker 1: there still is no evidence that Israel's government intends to
Speaker 1: exterminate the Palestinians, even in part as a people. The
Speaker 1: euphemistic term collateral damage understandably leaves a sour taste in
Speaker 1: anyone's mouth who utters it, but there is really no
Speaker 1: other way to define the civilian deaths in Israel's efforts
Speaker 1: to destroy Hamas. The notion that wark times have been
Speaker 1: committed is a far more defensible position, but that is
Speaker 1: now what most people critical of Israel, people like John Meersheimer,
Speaker 1: for example, have been arguing for the past year or so.
Speaker 1: As always, the position they take is that this is
Speaker 1: all genocide. Many have pointed to the Holocaust shaped elephant
Speaker 1: in the room when it comes to this debate about
Speaker 1: whether or not israel Is committing genocide or not. A
Speaker 1: common phrase I have heard, and it might be the
Speaker 1: most common one I've heard at this point is why
Speaker 1: were the Palestinians punished for the crimes Germans committed? My
Speaker 1: problem with that question is it exists as if nineteen
Speaker 1: forty eight was year zero for this conflict between what
Speaker 1: are now the Israelis and the Arabs of the region.
Speaker 1: As I and many others have hopefully made clear at
Speaker 1: this point, that is a very twisted reading of the
Speaker 1: Holy Land's modern history. Less common but in my opinion,
Speaker 1: far more useful retort, since it deals with the actual
Speaker 1: history involves the German's efforts to expel the Jews rather
Speaker 1: than massacre them, namely with their infamous Madagascar plan, in
Speaker 1: which all Jews in the Reich's path will be shipped
Speaker 1: off to Madagascar and exile. This plan is often lumped
Speaker 1: into the wider context of what would become the Holocaust,
Speaker 1: a step toward the final solution. Why, this hypothetical interlocutor
Speaker 1: may ask, does that get counted as genocidal and not
Speaker 1: what happened to the Palestinians in nineteen forty eight during
Speaker 1: the Nakba. Now that on its face is actually a
Speaker 1: good and fair question. What happened to the Palestinians in
Speaker 1: nineteen forty eight was in a lot of ways indeed
Speaker 1: very horrible, and I would even agree with the idea
Speaker 1: that it was a form of ethnic cleansing, and many
Speaker 1: people died as a result of the mass expulsion too. However,
Speaker 1: this all goes back to intent. It was never the
Speaker 1: goal to destroy the Palestinians, just and I'm putting that
Speaker 1: in big air quotes there to take their land. The
Speaker 1: goal of the Nazis, though, even with their Madagascar plan
Speaker 1: and by extension, their plan to ship the Jews up
Speaker 1: to the Arctic Circle when the Madagascar plan fell through,
Speaker 1: was indeed to destroy the Jewish presence in Europe by
Speaker 1: any means necessary, and was part of a plan for
Speaker 1: them to be eradicated as a people in general. According
Speaker 1: to historian David Blackburn, quote, it hardly needs to be
Speaker 1: said that implementation of the Madagascar plan would have meant
Speaker 1: high death rates by attrition, and it was intended to.
Speaker 1: Blackburn also explains that the genocidal nature of the proposed
Speaker 1: Jewish displacement is even clearer with the proposed plans to
Speaker 1: resettle them in the Arctic Circle, like I just mentioned,
Speaker 1: a plan bearing a striking similarity to the resettlement of
Speaker 1: the Armenians by the Turks in nineteen fifteen. If you
Speaker 1: recall that genocide, that still has a lot of contentions
Speaker 1: surrounding it. Historian Dan Stone, in his recent excellent book
Speaker 1: The Holocaust in Unfinished History, also concurs with its analysis,
Speaker 1: writing that quote one should not overlook the fact, as
Speaker 1: with ghettoization policy, the plant to to port millions of
Speaker 1: Jews to an island with no infrastructure to accommodate them
Speaker 1: was itself genocidal. Its failure constituted a psychological icebreaker for
Speaker 1: genocide in the East. One may wish to make the
Speaker 1: argument that a similar fate befell the Palestinian nineteen forty eight,
Speaker 1: but crucially that will miss the fact that the Nakba
Speaker 1: was anything but the psychological icebreaker for further destruction. It
Speaker 1: was the event, and a horrible one, for hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands of people, victimized by historical forces and having the
Speaker 1: worst possible leadership. It should be noted, as I've covered
Speaker 1: many times on history, impossible at this point, frankly attempting
Speaker 1: to frame the Nakba, whose name is already problematic enough,
Speaker 1: giving the linguistic linkages that exist between it and the
Speaker 1: word shoa. But that's a whole other thing. Attempting to
Speaker 1: frame the Knakba that way as morally comparable to even
Speaker 1: parts of the Holocaust feels like what it often is
Speaker 1: to me, and that is cynical and contrarian piggybacking, not
Speaker 1: a matter of principle or even a matter of accuracy,
Speaker 1: just as a means to manipulate the conversation or debate,
Speaker 1: rather via what Brendan O'Neil very astutely calls Holocaust envy.
Speaker 1: This has made all the more distasteful when the facts
Speaker 1: do not even line up to support such a comparison,
Speaker 1: as I hope this audio essay of sorts has demonstrated.
Speaker 1: In the end, one can believe all one wants about
Speaker 1: what has been going on in the Holy Land during
Speaker 1: the last four hundred days or so. However, the fact
Speaker 1: remains that the truest tragedy of the Palestinian people is
Speaker 1: that they almost always have had the worst advocates. This
Speaker 1: includes a people who repeat traditional bromides about free Palestine
Speaker 1: and the people who repeat the cliches about decolonization and
Speaker 1: so on, But it is most apparent that the Palestinian
Speaker 1: people themselves have had the worst international advocates in modern history.
Speaker 1: This should be obvious to anyone paying attention to that history,
Speaker 1: because their first international advocates were the literal Nazis. It
Speaker 1: does not really matter that the Nazis had ulterior motives,
Speaker 1: or that the Arab nationalists with whom they had allied
Speaker 1: themselves were not representatives of the Arab nationalist movement as
Speaker 1: a whole, or, for that matter, the Palestinian people in general.
Speaker 1: I would not be surprised that people in this day
Speaker 1: and age don't even know about that unless they've listened
Speaker 1: to my podcast. It seems it's a little bit more
Speaker 1: to it than that, actually, because of what's been going
Speaker 1: on with Wikipedia as of late, which will actually be
Speaker 1: something I talk about in an essay on American dreaming
Speaker 1: at some point that I will make sure to link
Speaker 1: to all of you guys. The point being is that
Speaker 1: a lot of people aren't even aware of this history,
Speaker 1: So in one sense I can hardly blame them for
Speaker 1: just falling back on the old cliches. But on the
Speaker 1: other I also think that there is definitely an information
Speaker 1: problem going on in which people don't want to believe
Speaker 1: certain things because it makes things a little too complicated. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: we are just as responsible for how our cause is
Speaker 1: remembered as those doing the remembering, if not more so.
Speaker 1: That's kind of how I see it. This is not
Speaker 1: to say that people in twenty twenty four are responsible
Speaker 1: for figures like Hajamin al Husseini or Rashida Li Alguilani,
Speaker 1: or any of the other Arab nationalists or Bosnian Muslims
Speaker 1: or other Islamists who allied themselves to the Third Reich
Speaker 1: did or said. I'm not saying that at all, far
Speaker 1: from it, actually, But what it is to say is
Speaker 1: that because of what those people said and did, and
Speaker 1: what mark they left on history, on the collective memory
Speaker 1: that they themselves created with their actions and words, there
Speaker 1: will be effects that are conducive upon anyone who takes
Speaker 1: up their respective causes in the modern day. To counteract
Speaker 1: that does require education. Like I said, there's a bit
Speaker 1: of an information problem here, but it's still required. In
Speaker 1: other words, one cannot blame anyone, much less a Jew
Speaker 1: or Israeli for flinching or getting defensive when they hear
Speaker 1: the words from the River to the Sea coming from
Speaker 1: someone wearing a cafea, as well as that person making
Speaker 1: the same claims or even similar sounding claims that were
Speaker 1: made by the actual Nazis and their allies while the
Speaker 1: Holocaust was burning its way through Europe. If one does
Speaker 1: not care, how it sounds fair enough, I guess, But
Speaker 1: then one should not be surprised on the pushback against
Speaker 1: the sentiment that was often shared and even amplified across
Speaker 1: the world by the Third Reich is harsh and even uncompromising.
Speaker 1: Stories like those of Hindri Job do not have to
Speaker 1: be classified in any particular way as genocide, for example,
Speaker 1: for them to be as heartbreaking as they self evidently are.
Speaker 1: Stories like that of Crebenita and of Velinavlass do have
Speaker 1: to be classified as such, however, because in doing so,
Speaker 1: that classification was instrumental in meeting out justice to the perpetrators.
Speaker 1: If such malice and evil can be proved when the
Speaker 1: now year old war in the Holy Land is concluded,
Speaker 1: then the conversation can and probably should start to change,
Speaker 1: at least from my end. But until then, the cheapening
Speaker 1: of one of our most vital classifications continues to do
Speaker 1: no one any favors, much less the victims of war.
Speaker 2: Na yack ay for all.
Speaker 8: H look at yeh way sure yea. Thank you, Lena
Speaker 8: manahem mm hmm Han laprail and mean yeah, I recommended
Speaker 8: rhyme m h melchom dean yeah, can all the way
Speaker 8: you can sign you know, serotstalk, Rat Lavina, I'm talagon
Speaker 8: Hi Rembu Gallegan m hm one of the Arlleen mm hmmm,
Speaker 8: the columne Haren.
Speaker 2: Probably you the's.
Speaker 3: Your y.
Speaker 1: Many thanks to all of the kind and generous supporters
Speaker 1: of History Impossible over on Patreon and substack. These great
Speaker 1: people include Bob Downing, Eric Hodges, Greg Hunter, s O Skip, Achaeco,
Speaker 1: Molly Pan, John Pisano, Ana R. PJ Raider, Matthew m Rice,
Speaker 1: Emily Schmidt, and of course Fu. It's very much appreciated, guys.
Speaker 1: I don't really have much else to say after that episode.
Speaker 1: I know it's a bit heavy, but I do appreciate
Speaker 1: the support, and if you like, I'll put that in
Speaker 1: air quotes what you just heard, or you just like
Speaker 1: what I do. Please consider supporting the show over on
Speaker 1: patreon dot com slash History Impossible orhistory impossible dot substack
Speaker 1: dot com. Thank you again, so much, guys,