Sorry, I'm late.
I had to stop by the Whites Museum again and get the fingered at FDR.
We know Al-Qaeda, Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria.
Are we supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?
It's a proud day for America, and by God, we've kicked Vietnam syndrome once and for all.
Thank you very, very much.
I say it, I say it again, you've been hacked.
You've been took.
You've been hoodwinked.
These witnesses are trying to simply deny things that just about everybody else accepts as fact.
He came, he saw us, he died.
We ain't killing their army, but we killing them.
We be on CNN like Say Our Name been saying, saying three times.
The meeting of the largest armies in the history of the world.
Then there's going to be an invasion.
All right, you guys, it's Friday's interview with the great Sheldon Richman, my partner with Jared LaBelle at the Libertarian Institute.
And Sheldon writes every Friday, TGIF, the goal is freedom.
And this one is called Why Palestine Matters.
Welcome to the show.
How you doing, Sheldon?
Great to be here.
I'm doing fine.
And always a pleasure to talk to you, whether it's on the air or not.
Agree.
Yes, sir.
All right.
So tell me, why does Palestine matter, Sheldon?
Well, I said for reasons I think I could probably come up with some others, but I thought three is always a good number.
Right.
When you're giving people like a talk or an article, three things to remember, you know, four is too many.
And everything up from there is like you're going to lose your audience.
So it's very important.
Actually, that's very sound advice.
Thank you, man.
I'm going to try to restructure the things I say a little bit along those lines.
That's probably smart.
Sorry.
Go ahead.
Even if you have more than three, try to jam them into three.
Get them in there, but still just have three items.
People can handle that.
So it matters simply because there has been massive, I mean, very, very serious.
I can't overstate this very, very serious, historical and continuing violations of individual rights.
You know, people tend to call human rights, but I want to stress that these are they are human rights, of course, but they're individual rights.
Human beings come in individual units.
So I want to stress that.
And I'm including property rights and also all kinds of personal rights that typically people acknowledge just sort of basic everyday rights.
So there's been this ongoing, continuous, serious violation of individual rights in what was historic Palestine.
The second and we can go into detail, of course, the second reason it matters is the United States.
In other words, the American people through force involuntarily, of course, because the tax system is not voluntary, is the underwriter and enabler of this massive and continuing violation.
And the third thing is, and this is should not be a controversy at all, although I don't think the other two are.
The third thing is that the Middle East and Palestine being at the heart of all the turmoil there has always been seen as a possible potential spark for a wider war.
Not just region wide, but even beyond, because, you know, the Soviet Union previously in Russia has what they see as state interests there.
The United States, of course, is deeply involved in all aspects of the Middle East, different countries.
Iran is a is a large, very old power influential in the in the in the Middle East.
It's got a big land area.
It's got a big population.
It's always been a player and will always be.
And so there's the great potential for a real a big war.
And we're seeing this in Syria, where the U.S. is, you know, the U.S. is there.
Israel is there in the sense of bombing Syria and Iran.
Russia and Iran, which are allies of Syrian President Assad, are there and just have to pick up the paper every day and see potential for conflict among great parties, which could then branch out without our being able to predict.
It's just war is a dangerous thing.
It's like a wild elephant, as Randolph Bourne put it when he was talking about World War One.
So those are three pretty substantial reasons why we ought to pay attention to this and why it deserves a huge amount of attention.
And, you know, sometimes people think, well, if you pay a lot of attention to Israel, Palestine, especially if you are sympathetic to Palestinian plight, that's that's often called an obsession.
And so I want to show it's not an obsession, if that's meant to mean suspicious or unhealthy.
It is this is such a serious problem that it's deserving of major attention by people.
People should know more about it.
What I tried to do in this article is kind of put in one place, put in about three thousand words, a little more than that.
You know, people are going to be reading.
Most people are going to be reading books, journal articles or even a lot of magazine articles on this.
I tried to kind of get the essence in this one three thousand word article, which at least will give people the lay of the land from my point of view and from an awful lot of other people's point of view.
So, Sheldon, I'm not sure if you've had a chance yet to see Max Blumenthal and Dan Cohen's film Killing Gaza.
I have not.
I know about it.
I heard your interview, but I haven't seen it.
Yeah, no, you need to watch it.
Everybody needs to watch it.
It's three bucks on Vimeo.
Seriously, to watch it.
It's great.
And so the thing of it is, and I'm repeating myself a bit here, but I think it's probably a good jumping off point that, you know, I talk about on this show, Israel and Palestine, most often with Ramzi Baroud, a refugee from Gaza.
And the only reason he's from Gaza is because he's a refugee from somewhere else in the first place, of course, his family.
And we do talk about it in legal terms and in real terms as being like apartheid, like Jim Crow inside Israel and worse in occupied territories.
But that film really drives it home so much that this is really just like if we were allowing Jim Crow to still rule the apartheid South in Alabama and Mississippi and Missouri up into the present day like this.
And just it's an absolutely intolerable situation.
And yet it's tolerated.
That's exactly right.
Now, we can make some distinction, and I do, in the article between the territories acquired through conquest in 1967 by war, which under international law is illegal and under common sense rules of morality is illegal.
You can't acquire territory by war.
And that would be Gaza and also the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
On the one hand, and what's going on inside Israel, the borders established in a 1949 armistice.
And so what's going on inside Israel, sometimes called inside the Green Line or Israel proper or whatever term you want to use pre-67.
There are different situations.
In fact, there are even different situations in the two territories, which we can go through in the West Bank.
In the West Bank, you have basically martial law, military rule for Arabs, for the Palestinians.
Israel has built many Jewish only settlements in the West Bank, taking up something like half a million Jews now living in the settlements, which is also illegal under international law.
If you conquer a territory, I was going to say by war, it's kind of redundant.
You're not allowed to move your population, part of your population into those territories.
That's considered illegal.
It's well established under international law.
Now, there's two sets of laws there.
There is military law for Palestinians, Arabs, sorry, Arab Christians and Muslims.
And there's civil law, I guess the typical regular Israeli law for Israeli Jews who are citizens.
The Arabs, the Palestinians are not citizens.
They have zero rights.
And I mean that literally, zero rights.
The Jews have the full rights of an Israeli citizen, of a Jewish Israeli citizen, because that's a distinction I'm going to make in a second.
So by any standard, that's considered apartheid.
I mean, some people have described it as worse than how blacks were treated in South Africa.
And there's good reason to think that.
The Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to the arbitrary whim of the soldiers who man checkpoints and otherwise have this presence.
They're all over the place.
You need permits to do anything, to go anywhere.
You can be driving to the store, trying to get your kid to a hospital and be held up at checkpoint and you don't know how long it will be.
And that's obviously up to the arbitrary will of unaccountable soldiers who are heavily armed, by the way.
They can just hold you up because they feel like it or ask you to get out and search you.
I mean, imagine living that way.
I don't think Americans understand that.
That's what life is like on the West Bank.
And that's not counting the occasional, you know, beatings and somewhat regular beatings and even shootings of Palestinians, including children, firing at the crowds.
Not even nonviolent demonstrations are met with massive force by the Israeli military.
And many civilians, people who had no weapons or worse, maybe had a rock and weren't threatening soldiers, who were well armed and shielded and guarded and all that stuff, have gotten shot and maimed and killed.
And the numbers are huge.
You can look them up.
Look at B'Tselem, which is the Israeli human rights organization that monitors the territories.
It's very easy.
Go to their site and look at the documentation.
Not controversial.
I just want to add just this one point on top of that, which is they come and they get people in the middle of the night.
Just like I was raised as this is the hallmark of the worst totalitarianism of the 20th century.
The Nazis and the Soviet communists.
This is what they do.
And they come and get you like the boogeyman and they get children, children, Sheldon, out of their beds and haul them off to military prison at gunpoint at 3 a.m.
Imagine being a child and having to go to sleep with the legitimate fear that that is going to happen to you.
Look, the list of abuses is so long, it's very easy to forget them, forget items, particular items.
You're right, they do.
In the middle of the night, they take you away.
But that leads to the other thing.
There is indefinite detention without charge, without trial.
And even though there's some term, six months or something, it can be renewed.
So in effect, it's just indefinite detention.
So imagine living like that.
Americans need to ask themselves, imagine living like that.
OK, that's the West Bank.
The other thing is, of course, in accordance with the settlements, all the settlements that are being built and expanded, they've built this wall, known as a separation wall.
But it's not on the border.
It's not on the old border between the West Bank and pre-67 Israel.
It snakes deeply into and through the West Bank as a way of isolating the Palestinian towns and encircling them and basically protecting the settlements.
So Israel, while it claims it wants to negotiate a final settlement with the Palestinians, we know that's a lie because while they wrangle about the terms of sitting down and talking, they're gobbling up the land.
They basically control the entire Jordan Valley, which means it's Israeli territory, de facto annexed Israeli territory, between the Palestinian towns and the Jordan River.
And then, of course, they also control what's between Israel proper and those towns.
So they've encircled any land which is still kind of under control of the Palestinians or the Palestinian Authority, although ultimately it's still under control of Israel because it's still occupied territory.
But unless things were to drastically change, any Palestinian state on the West Bank would be a joke.
It would be a few communities that are cut off from each other, that have sort of Israeli settlements and Israeli military on all sides.
They haven't left anything left.
You know, nothing remains for a viable Palestinian state.
So for them to keep talking about, yeah, we accept the two-state solution for the Israelis to say that, is a joke.
Look at what they do, not what they say.
So that's the West Bank.
They've also been expanding settlements, of course, in East Jerusalem, which is, you know, kind of right at the, it just borders the West Bank.
And in the typical official documents of human rights organizations and others, they talk about, they say the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
So those things are really not two units.
They've annexed East Jerusalem, which means there's no way, again, without drastic change of heart on the part of the Palestinians, that East Jerusalem could ever be the capital of a new, of a separate Palestinian state, because they've taken it.
And when, you know, Israel has already declared Jerusalem, East and West Jerusalem, as the unified and eternal capital of Israel, which is, of course, a slap in the face of the Palestinians.
It's certainly a slap in the face of any two-state solution.
And Donald Trump, of course, recognized that when he moved the U.S. embassy there just recently.
So that's the West Bank.
Let's turn to Gaza.
Gaza is that little strip that has the Mediterranean to the west, it has Israel to the east, and it has a little border to the south with Egypt.
That was under similar rule to the West Bank from 1967, when it was conquered in that war, until, what is it, about 2006 or 2007, when former Prime Minister of the late Ariel Sharon grandly, and by the way, before this point, Israel had built settlements, Jewish-only settlements.
By the way, these are Jewish-only, and in the West Bank, I forgot to mention, there are these beautiful new roads to get from settlement to settlement and into Israel proper, that are Jewish-only, talk about apartheid, Jewish-only roads, gorgeous, nice, modern roads.
And Palestinians have to take these badly kept, rough, you know, paths.
That's what they get to walk or drive on.
So back to Gaza.
Settlements were built there, and the military patrolled inside Gaza until this point, 2006 or so.
But it was a headache to Israel.
So Sharon grandly announces, we are withdrawing from Gaza.
And they told the settlements, the army's leaving.
So at that point, there was no appetite, I guess, for the settlers to stay, because the army wasn't going to be there.
So they picked up and left.
Maybe they weren't happy.
I think some people were carried out, you know, kicking and screaming.
And the settlements were dismantled.
And ever since, of course, the friends of Israel have said, look what happened.
Israel withdrew, which was the demand of the Palestinians, right?
Withdrew from Gaza.
And what happened?
Did we get peace?
Did we get this?
Did we get that?
Was a new world ushered in?
No.
Yeah, except they didn't really withdraw.
Or they withdrew in the same sense, as I put in the article.
Imagine a prison, and the guards are inside, you know, keeping track of everybody and roughing up people when they felt it was necessary, when they wanted to, just for the fun of it.
And then they say, OK, we're withdrawing from this huge complex, this prison complex.
So instead of being inside, we're just going to go outside and surround the outer gate.
So we're going to have our troops all around as far as we can, because with Gaza, of course, there's the sea on one side.
But we're going to be outside the fence.
And by the way, don't get too close to the fence, prisoners, because they're going to shoot you.
That's what Gaza is.
It's been called an open air prison.
It's also been called, and some people will cringe at this, the largest concentration camp.
Let me add real quick here that the political motive there, according to Dov Weissglass, who worked for Sharon, he said the significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process.
The disengagement is actually formaldehyde.
So the point being, they didn't want Gaza nearly as much as they want the West Bank.
And they wanted to divide and conquer Gaza and the West Bank from each other by creating this separate situation for Gaza to kill Oslo.
Right.
Yeah, that's a good point.
But as far as things look on the ground, it is a prison.
And I mean that literally.
You can't get in or out without the military's permission.
Goods, goods and building materials, et cetera, facilities for repair, things for repairing sewage plants and water plants and stuff.
Can't get in or out, in this case in, without government permission.
And this is even before the embargo of about 10 years ago.
Before that, there were still very strict rules.
Then they imposed an embargo because in 2006, the Bush administration pushed for an election in Gaza and the Palestinians, upset with the Palestinian authority in the West Bank, and we can talk about the reasons for that, but I'll leave that for now.
Upset with what they saw as corrupt leadership in Ramallah and the West Bank, elected Hamas to be basically the government, although it was always under Israel, the government of Gaza.
Well, that's not what the Bush administration expected.
I remember Condoleezza Rice saying something like, maybe we shouldn't have pushed for an election.
And the funny thing is that Hillary Clinton, who was in the Senate at the time, said at that time, I don't think we should have pushed for an election.
And then she added this.
And keep in mind what she's been saying and all her friends say about Russia and the 2016 election.
If we were going to have an election, we should have at least made sure that the people we wanted would win.
So there's a good, there's a good laugh footnote about Hillary Clinton.
So anyway, the party they wanted to win did not win.
They wanted the Palestinian authority to win.
Hamas won.
That was Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton wanted Fatah to win, but maybe the Israelis actually did want Hamas to win.
I think they did.
And I think they kind of ran that election against Fatah that time.
But anyway, it was regarded as a fair election.
I think Jimmy Carter and others observed that it's regarded as a fair.
Yeah, but what happened was the Israelis withheld all the tax revenue from Fatah so that they couldn't deliver on services in the time leading up to it.
And so they couldn't, you know, pay their bribes to certain factions, buy up the votes that they needed, that kind of thing.
And then, of course, and actually, though, once it succeeded, there's the Gaza bombshell about how they tried to do a coup for Fatah against Hamas there, which backfired and led to Hamas seizing the whole thing.
Yeah, I was going to say, the U.S. then backed the coup against Hamas.
Sorry.
Trying to overturn an election, and it failed.
So the United States and the European Union immediately imposed sanctions on Gaza to punish the Palestinians in Gaza for electing Hamas.
And it was a, look, they weren't in great shape to begin with, the little economy there because of Israeli control.
But this was crushing.
And it became a full-blown blockade, which you hear about in the news almost every day.
At least you can find it if you look.
Stuff can't get in, according to Norman Finkelstein, who's written great stuff on this.
He's got several books on this.
He pays close attention to detail.
Everything is documented, believe me, everything.
You can't get potato chips or toys or chocolate into Gaza.
Now, every once in a while when there's been violence, which I'll talk about in a second, they somewhat ease it up, but then they immediately put it back.
So they make some show.
But the Israeli officials have been quite clear about why they imposed this killer blockade.
And the expression has been used, we mow the lawn every once in a while.
Those sort of cutback stuff.
They claim it's to stop terrorism, but others have been more candid and pointed out that it's a way of keeping them, quote, on a diet.
In other words, keep their caloric intake low enough, which harms their health and morale, in order to weaken the resistance.
Now, people will say, but Hamas.
Now, I like to say, and I say in the article, but Hamas is not an argument.
Okay, if someone says, but Hamas, they have not made an argument, and they should be called out on that.
It's not an argument.
A couple of things about Hamas that are important to mention.
First of all, in the 1980s, when Hamas, it comes out of the Muslim Brotherhood, but when it begins to sort of gel into an organization, Israel helps it along.
And this is, I cite a Washington Post article that's been written about many times.
They helped it along in various ways, for a very good reason.
Fatah, from the beginning, the PLO, the Yasser Arafat movement, from the very beginning was a secular movement.
It had Christians in it.
It had Muslims in it.
And it never talked about a theocracy.
It wasn't like the Islamic Republic of Iran, or anything like that, or Saudi Arabia.
It was clearly secular.
The idea about helping Hamas along was to produce an alternative to Palestinians.
In other words, it was divide and conquer.
Hey, let's water down the allegiance to the PLO by building up this religious alternative, because most Palestinians are Muslim, and this will splinter and disunify the Palestinian opposition to Israeli rule.
It will just make things a little weaker if you don't have a single group.
So it's a little funny that Israel today says, well, we can't negotiate because they're different groups, they're not unified.
That's a joke.
To the extent that they argue that Hamas is a threat to Israel, and by the way, it's not an existential threat.
That's a joke.
Look closely.
There's no way Hamas could bring down the state of Israel.
But Israel helped to create its own threat, which is typical of what Israel has been doing since the beginning.
It creates its own threat and then says, oh, look, threat.
Hamas, which its charter was inflammatory early on, has over the years, since 2006 or 2007, I think when it first entered into a unity government with the Palestinian authority of the PLO, or at least unified, it has accepted the pre-1967 Israel.
In other words, they've endorsed the two-state solution.
You can't endorse two states without saying, oh, one of the states is the current Israeli state.
So Hamas is completely demonized.
But on the other hand, they've acknowledged the existence of Israel under international law.
It is a member of the UN.
So I'm not a legal positivist, but if you're going to look at international law, Israel is a member of the UN, therefore it's recognized under international law.
And as you said in the article, Netanyahu then moves the goalposts and says, no, you have to say that it's a Jewish state, which means basically they have to rhetorically sell out all the Palestinian Christians and Muslims that are the citizens of Israel, the second class ones.
Yes, you're right about the demand that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state, which is a brand new demand in the last couple of years, very new.
As has been pointed out by others, this has never come up in previous, in these big meetings that occur, you know, Camp David, all the various high level negotiations that different administrations have put on with the Israelis and the Palestinians.
It has never been part of it.
And Norman Fickelstein tells the story of when the Iranians had their revolution and they wanted to be an Islamic republic, they didn't demand that people recognize them as Islamic republic.
What they did was change their name to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
So he says there's nothing to keep Israel from changing its name to the Jewish state of Israel, but they won't do it.
For one thing, nobody knows what that means.
They've been arguing forever about who actually is a Jew.
And every once in a while there's a ruling that someone doesn't count as a Jew because he got converted by the wrong rabbi, stuff like that.
So that's very contentious, which may be one reason why it's never been seriously proposed that they change the name of the state.
If they change the name of the state, then to say you recognize Israel, you know, de facto means you've recognized Israel as a Jewish state.
But you're right about what you say, how it would be an insult, really, to the non-Jewish citizens, the people who are officially citizens.
I'm going to talk about that in a second.
Let me just finish up Gaza, though, so we keep this kind of tidy.
Yeah.
So apart from the fact that it's an open air prison and that this is a very strict blockade, which includes, you know, a blockade of the sea.
And everybody will remember a few years ago when a flotilla of ships, of private people trying to get some goods into Gaza came to try to get to Gaza and was assaulted by the Israeli military, including that, what is it called, the Mavi Mamara ship in which several people on board were killed, including a young, what, Turkish-American kid was killed.
And I believe Ray McGovern was on that boat.
And so it's been, you know, they've made this effort, even for peaceful efforts, to keep out goods to try to help these long-suffering people.
I think Ray went two years later on the next one where they were just arrested, but not the one where they were completely attacked and killed.
Right.
You had, what is it, paratroopers or whatever rappelling down ropes from helicopters.
And they did kill an American citizen named Furkan Dogan, who was already down on the ground when they shot him point blank in the head multiple times.
He was Turkish-American, a young guy, a teenager.
And they made a big deal of the fact that, oh, these people picked up sticks.
Well, you know, you had these heavily armed people coming down from helicopters, which were probably also gunships.
And they complained that these people had sticks in self-defense.
Anyway, against that background, that terrible background of a blockade, which is, you know, illegal under international law, not to mention cruel, there is these every couple of years, and there's been about 10, I think, over the last more than 10 years, all-out military assaults, and I'm not exaggerating, all-out military assaults on Gaza, this little place, this very skinny place, maybe 25 miles long, but very skinny.
It's very densely populated.
I'm told it's more densely populated than Tokyo.
It's one of the most densely populated places on earth.
People are huddled together.
There's rubble, all kinds of, you know, it's a mess because they can't fix things because they can't get the materials.
But every once in a while, there's some pretext where Israel starts to, you know, bomb them and drone them.
And then launch ground assaults by the Israeli so-called defense force.
And they always have these big grand names, right?
Operation Cast Lead, 2008-2009, for like 21 days.
One went to 51 days or so.
All kinds of, you know, Operation Protective Edge.
You know how these military guys and politicians come up.
We've always done it with the attacks on Iraq, the U.S.
Always have these grand names, or Afghanistan.
Anyway, these are devastating.
These are not only firing heavy duty power mortars and stuff into residential areas.
They destroy thousands and thousands of homes.
Just make a total wreck of the place.
And then leave tons and tons of rubble.
Of course, they don't even have the equipment to remove the rubble.
So it leaves people homeless, not to mention dead and maimed.
Now, the Israelis like to say, you know, unlike the terrorists, we don't target civilians.
They're collateral damage.
You know, they'll concede there's some collateral damage, although they'll always understate it.
But the human rights organizations always document how terrible it is.
But as Norman Fickelstein likes to point out, under international law, and this is even acknowledged by Israel's most eminent authority on international law, the guy who either is or once was, until recently, the president of Tel Aviv University.
I think his name is Dinstein.
Indiscriminate shelling and assaults on residential areas are no different under international law than deliberate targeting of civilians or noncombatants.
It's not different.
If you fire into residential areas, you can't claim, oh, my gosh, I didn't mean to kill civilians.
It's a foreseeable and even inevitable consequence.
So this is what they've done.
The last one was 2014.
And, you know, of course, they were shooting people for the last couple of months at the border, at the boundary, at the fence, because they were protesting and trying to demand the right of return because they want to go back to their homes, which they haven't been allowed to do.
And they're flying kites, some of which, I guess, were set on fire and have burned some crops.
But, you know, this kind of damage can't even be seen on a graph if you put it up against the damage and the casualties and the deaths at the hands of the Israeli military.
I mean, you wouldn't even see it on a reasonable, a graph of a reasonable scale.
So to talk about Bad Hamas, Bad Hamas, Bad Hamas, is really a dishonorable attempt at an argument.
So the final part of our section one, which is namely the inhumanity and the wholesale violation of human rights, is inside Israel.
In other words, inside the Green Line.
The Green Line refers to the 1949 armistice in which after the war, so-called War of Independence, things were frozen in place.
And so that's where pre-1967, it's also called the pre-1967 borders, Israel's borders without what are now called by the world court, by the internet, yeah, the world court, the occupied Palestinian territories.
That's what the world court calls it.
Adelson might want to call it disputed territories, but that's not what it's known as in international law.
Anyway, so it's Israel without Gaza, without East Jerusalem, which is regarded as part of the West Bank, and therefore without the West Bank.
It also includes Golan, but let's leave that aside.
It's a different case.
The Israeli citizens, not all Palestinians were driven out in 1947-48.
750,000 were, but I don't know, 100,000, 150,000 managed to hang on, even though they were displaced from their homes, they managed to stay inside those borders.
So they were allotted citizenship, although they were under military rule, martial law, unlike Israeli Jewish citizens, until 1966, the year before they went to war and took the territories.
Since that time, they've not been under military rule.
They've been under civil rule, and they are regarded as citizens.
However, their papers, they're known not as Israelis where it says citizenship or nationality.
They're called Arabs, and Jews aren't known as Israelis either under the citizenship laws.
They're known as Jews.
So it's a really odd country, because if you're a citizen of America, your citizenship is American, not Christian, not Jew, not whatever.
If you're in England, you're British.
If you're in Great Britain, British.
So if you were born in what's now Israel, inside that green line, and you didn't get driven out, so you maintained your presence there, you became an Israeli citizen, but what counts is not whether you're Israeli, but whether you're Jew or Arab, and it counts for a lot of things.
Now, it's true, Palestinian citizens, Christian and Muslim, can vote for the Knesset, and certainly local elections.
They can form parties, and there are some parties, and they can even get elected to the parliament, I suppose at the village level also.
But anyway, the parliament's the key thing.
However, they can't do much more than that.
They don't have the same rights.
The Israelis, the Israeli government, which of course, like most places, controls so-called public services, electricity, water, sewage, education, a lot of vital things.
We don't want the state having them, but the state is in control.
It favors Jews over Arabs in the allocation of these things.
There's no doubt about it.
It's been documented by Ben White, who's done a book on this, and it's been documented forever.
It's not in dispute.
They're second or third class citizens.
I think they're third class, because I think for a long time the Jews from Arab countries were actually second class citizens.
They didn't get as triggered as well as the European Jews.
So the Palestinians are really like third class.
And so that's a violation, it seems to me, of good liberal principles.
I think even, I mean, we libertarian anarchists say that as long as there's a state, and certainly not discrimination in the allocation of those services because of one's religion or ethnic origin or national origin.
If you live here, and especially if you're a citizen, but even if you're not, if you live here, there shouldn't be a differentiation.
That's just a general good principle, certainly in violation of international law.
So that's the third way.
Now, the second category about why this matters is, as I was saying, there's been a party to this, an accomplice in this gross violation of human rights throughout Israel-Palestine against the Palestinians, regardless of their religion or whether they're secular.
And this is just wrong.
I mean, this should concern Americans.
We're a party to this.
We give a tremendous amount of money, over $3 billion a year that's used for military equipment.
And they get it under the most favorable terms.
I mean, I've read, I've seen this recently.
You know, when we give military aid, the government gives military aid to other places, you know, X amount per year, they don't get the whole lump sum on January 1st, right?
It's parceled out.
And, you know, of course, the U.S. then is going to either borrow it or, you know, use the money for other purposes.
And then when a payment comes due to give to the foreign government, it then comes up with the money somehow, and then they can bank it and get the interest.
So they get these even favorable, not only do they get this amazing amount of money, they get favorable, extremely favorable terms on the money.
And this goes to weapons of all kinds and terrible, you know, very destructive things.
And, of course, Israel uses it in violation of not only international law, but American law, because the law will say when the U.S. sells or gives weapons to foreign governments, they're not allowed to use it to violate human rights.
They're not allowed to use it to launch offensive wars or to impose martial law on people.
They're not supposed to use it for that.
So, you know, all of what Israel uses the stuff for, the American provided stuff for, is a violation of rights and therefore illegal.
But no one ever calls them on that.
And so, you know, the pro-Israel people hated Israel.
Well, I don't think he had any love for Netanyahu.
Netanyahu was obviously disdainful of Obama, but it didn't have any practical effect.
The aid hit record levels.
There was no criticism of the illegal settlements, which everybody agrees is illegal except, you know, the Israelis themselves who believe, you know, God or history gave the land to them.
And so there was never any let-up.
The only thing he could say about Obama was that toward the end of his administration when Kerry was trying in a last-ditch attempt to try to get them together to talk and was sitting down with him, the only sign was that instead of vetoing an anti-settlement resolution in the Security Council, you know, he broke a long string of American vetoes of stuff that criticized Israel, he simply abstained from voting.
And that, of course, Netanyahu through Jared Kushner through Michael Flynn tried to convince the Soviets, sorry, the Russians and a whole bunch of other Security Council members to at least delay if not veto or vote against that resolution.
And there was Israel, you know, meddling in a way that if the Russians were doing it everybody would be pulling their hair out screaming.
So we've been totally in Israel's corner without exception.
When the U.S. goes into a free administration, when the U.S. sets up talks at Camp David or wherever the place may be, the U.S. side always starts with Israel's bottom line demands.
We then incorporate that and demand concessions on the part of the Palestinians.
And so every little concession Israel makes from its bottom line is considered highly generous.
Every bit of resistance by the Palestinians and every major concession and there have been major concessions by the Palestinians is ignored.
I mean, Palestine, the Palestinian negotiators and I'm no fan of the Palestinian Authority.
We can make plenty of criticism of that and Abbas and Arafat before him, a bunch of corrupt people.
But on the other hand, some of them are honorable people and they put forth serious proposals which they never get any credit for.
Their last time that they exchanged maps they showed that they said that Israel can keep 60% of the housing units in the settlements on the West Bank.
And that constituted about 2% of the West Bank and they were asking for land swapped, an equivalent amount of acreage or square mileage nearby, something like that.
You never hear about that.
We never see the word generous attached to anything the Palestinians do.
The default is always the Israelis are right, the Palestinians have to prove themselves, prove themselves worthy.
Why?
They were the ones who had, in the words of David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister, who had their land stolen from them.
Ben-Gurion says, if I was a Palestinian I wouldn't negotiate with us either.
We stole their country.
Israel said it.
You look at the movie Exodus or read the novel Exodus, which is the famous pro-Israel novel and movie, there's a major character there, the father of Paul Newman's character saying we stole this land.
He wasn't against what was happening but he acknowledged it.
And this constantly happens.
I think it's even acknowledged in the movie Munich, which was about the retaliation for the killing in 1972 where they express some sympathy for Palestinians saying, you know, we did take their land.
So it's not a secret.
It's been totally documented by Israeli historians.
And yet we are just firmly in the camp and every administration has to say there's no light between us and the Israelis.
We're in lockstep with the Israelis.
Shared values, shared values.
Well, really shared values?
I guess if you talk about the values of the extermination of the Indians at least 48, we can go back beyond that.
Yeah, I guess those are shared values but I don't think that's what they want us to think when we talk about shared values.
So that's number two.
The third thing finally is the prospects for war, the danger of a more general war, wider war in the Middle East.
I mean, this is no secret.
It's long been talked about as the possible potential spark for a larger war involving Russia, and we see this in Syria, right, where you have Iranian forces, you have Russians, you have Americans, you have Israelis, you have planes flying near each other.
I know they have this, what do they call it, deconfliction where they talk to each other but there can be mistakes, there can be apparent mistakes that maybe aren't really mistakes, and a more general war could break out in this region.
So it matters and it should matter very much to Americans.
Here's who sponsors this show.
Mike Swanson and his great investment advice at wallstreetwindow.com.
He's actually posting some stuff at the Libertarian Institute website now.
Really great stuff.
The great Mike Swanson, and he's also the author of the book The War State, which is a really great history of the rise of the New Right military-industrial complex after World War II in the Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy eras.
The War State by Mike Swanson.
Also, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, Inc.
If you listen to Mike, you'll be buying some metals.
You'll want to buy them from Roberts and Roberts.
They've been around as long as I've been alive.
They've got a great reputation.
They take the very smallest premium possible in order to help arrange the very best sales for you of platinum, palladium, gold, silver, of course.
And no premium at all if you buy with Bitcoin.
They're at Roberts and Roberts.
That's rrbi.co.rrbi.co for your precious metals.
There.
As I mentioned before, ZenCash.
ZenSystem.io to learn all about this great new digital currency, which is also a secure messaging application and document transfer device and all the rest there.
Learn all about it at ZenSystem.io.
And read the book.
It's by Hussein Badakchani.
It's how to run your tech business like a Libertarian.
That's not the title.
The title is No Dev, No Ops, No IT.
Those are all one word each if you take my meaning.
No Dev, No Ops, No IT by Hussein Badakchani.
It's really great.
And check out LibertyStickers.com for all your anti-government propaganda.
I made up most of them.
And, yeah, that didn't work out with the new website I kept promising you.
But now, supposedly, someone else is promising one.
You'll get a new website.
But there's still a lot of great anti-government propaganda and you can buy it at LibertyStickers.com.
Now, one more thing.
Check out ScottHorton.org.
We've been having some server problems, but otherwise, ScottHorton.org is a great looking new website, as you can tell.
And if you want a good 2018 model website for your business or for whatever you're doing, your opinions, check out ExpandDesigns.com, slash Scott.
You'll save 500 bucks.
Yeah, well, and so, and here's the thing that's worth pointing out all the time, too.
Ramzi Youssef, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mohammed Atta, and Osama Bin Laden all cited this issue, American support for Israel in Palestine, and at that time their war in Lebanon, as their accostus belli.
This was their reason for war against the United States right there next to the occupation of Saudi Arabia in order to enforce the blockade and the no-fly zones over Iraq in the 1990s, Sheldon.
And I'm not saying that makes it okay or anything like that.
I know people like to try to misunderstand this stuff, but this is the motive of our enemies, is unlimited support for Israel, not being Mr. Nice Guy, but Jewish, and so, you know, we have to protect our innocent, wonderful friend here.
It's their inhuman cruelty to their subjects that is at issue here.
And it's what we are helping them do to people that is wrong, that is motivating enemies for us.
I really recommend that people look, if they don't have time to read his books or articles, although I recommend that, to look up some YouTube lectures where he's just, like I said before, very thorough, documents everything, because he knows he's going to have to defend everything and one little error, he's going to get hammered with.
He frames this very well.
He says people talk about how complicated this whole issue is, Palestine-Israel.
It's so complicated.
It's ancient religious animosity.
It's a clash of civilizations.
We hear these grand phrases, metaphysical issues, right?
And that's a way of saying, look, don't try to think about this.
It doesn't fit that way.
So in other words, that's a way of saying to most people, don't think about this.
You're not going to figure it out.
It requires a rocket scientist to figure it out.
And leave it to us who know.
That's right.
And listen, that works, because that worked on me.
I mean, I actually, in all my interest to foreign policy, I put off learning this till last because, oh, God gave us this land.
No, God gave us this land.
Because they're trying to trump the obvious plain old natural rights that even atheists believe in that Palestinians possess.
He says this is not complicated at all.
And that most of the controversies, and he names a couple that are legitimate controversies on the side of, among people who want justice for the Palestinians.
But most of the controversies are made up.
They're fake.
And he gives examples.
As far as how Israel got established, and by the way, when we discuss how Israel got established, that doesn't really tell us about what we ought to do today.
I want to make that clear.
You can agree with what I'm about to say and still think, look, Israel has been established.
There have been generations who were born there who know no other home.
And so it doesn't, what I'm about to say doesn't mean, therefore, ergo, wipe Israel off the map or whatever it is.
I'm talking about the origin of something and what you do today.
Those are really different subjects.
So I'm just talking about how Israel got founded.
There is no question that there was a catastrophe, which is called in Arabic the Nakba.
We know this.
We knew it before.
It was documented.
The people involved, Begin and Ben-Gurion, they all talked about it in their diaries which had been published in memoirs.
It was not a secret.
And, you know, there must have been some seal on it for some time.
And I think the second half of the 80s, these were opened up to historians.
And there was a flood of books by Israeli, which is to say Jewish historians, a younger generation of historians, the best known being Benny Morris, Tom Sekev is one, and Avi Shalim is another.
There's a bunch of them.
Ilan Pape, they showed beyond any doubt, if there was before, that what happened to the Palestinians in what became Israel was nothing less than ethnic cleansing.
They started using those words.
Israeli Jews started using those words.
That's not just something that was conjured up by people who hate Jews or hate Israel.
And they went on to show something else.
Ethnic cleansing occurred because you can't have a Jewish state if you don't have a Jewish majority.
And there was no way, given the demographics of Palestine, because it was an overwhelming majority of Arabs, there was no way you could gerrymander and subdivide Palestine, even if you wanted to do that, which would produce a Jewish majority.
It could not be done.
In other words, as Benny Morris pointed out, ethnic cleansing, transfer is what Herzl and the earlier guys used to call it, nice euphemism, transfer, was required if you're going to have a Jewish state and you need a Jewish majority.
And he says it's inherent.
Now, let me be careful.
Let me be clear.
Benny Morris is not a left winger.
He's not an anti-Zionist.
He thinks that ethnic cleansing was proper.
Just the way, by the way, he thinks the ethnic cleansing of American Indians was proper because he says there wouldn't have been a great America without it.
And he says there wouldn't have been Israel without it in that case.
If it's inherently proper, he regrets it didn't go far enough.
In other words, they left too many Arabs, Palestinian Arabs, inside what became that armistice line.
So he's no radical critic of Israel.
He's a right winger.
He's a real right winger.
So it's not a question.
Ethnic cleansing was at the foundation of Israel.
We can't whitewash that.
There are people, there are Americans today who still, I mean, American propagandists for Israel today, wants to deny this.
The second thing is the human rights record.
There's no debate.
Every major, including even minor, human rights organizations, starting with the top international ones, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and all the local ones, B'Tselem, which is dedicated to what's going on, watching what's going on in the occupied territories.
It's an information clearinghouse for information, for human rights violations.
There are other groups, too, watching this.
And B'Tselem is Israeli, Israeli-Jewish, of course.
They work with Arabs, but it's not like an Arab organization.
They've documented, with almost zero disagreement, the wholesale violation of individual rights, what they call human rights, but as I said earlier in this interview, humans come in individual units, so individual rights, that occur every day, not just when these onslaughts occur, this sort of punctuated, this punctuated violence, but just every single day.
It's not in doubt.
In other words, it's not complicated.
And the third big thing is that the International Court of Justice, the World Court in 2004, when it was asked to give an advisory opinion on the wall, we mentioned the wall before, the Israelis have been building this wall in the West Bank, not on the border, not on the border looking forward to the West Bank, separating Palestinians from other Palestinians and Palestinians from farmland or groves, citrus, olive groves.
In other words, incorporating, de facto incorporating, large parts of the West Bank into Israel through this wall.
The World Court was asked to rule on the legality of that wall.
The court realized that to answer that question, they had to ask two other questions.
Is the occupation legal and are the settlements legal?
So they went back to ground one and they said the occupation is illegal.
Why?
Because it's very clear in international law that you're not allowed to acquire territory through force.
And Finkelstein is clear, you know, very, emphasizes the fact that it doesn't say through offensive war.
So people say, well, the 1967 war was defensive.
Well, it wasn't defensive.
And the Israelis knew it.
And that's on the record too.
But even if it was defensive war, you're not allowed to keep territory acquired by force.
Second about this, if you do acquire territory, you're supposed to give it back.
In the meantime, you're not allowed to move your own population onto the territory and build housing.
You know, Israel used to say, well, we need to keep the West Bank for security.
Well, that obviously is a lie because if it's about security, why would you move settlers there?
Civilians there?
It doesn't make sense.
You're putting them in harm's way, according to your own earlier statement about security.
You want it as a buffer.
But no, it's not a buffer.
They have moved, what is it, something like close to 600,000 Israeli Jews who have privileges that Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank don't have.
They're under martial law that Israeli Jews have swimming pools while the other, the Arabs can barely get water, you know, out of the tap or electricity.
So you're not allowed to do that.
And so the world court said, OK, number one, acquisition of territory by force wrong.
Number two, you're not allowed to move your population there and build housing.
And therefore, you're not allowed to build this wall.
And so it said the wall's got to be dismantled.
The people have to be compensated for the damage that came from building the wall because there was a lot of damage.
Right.
They took homes, they took property to build the wall.
They didn't build it on Israeli, old Israeli territory.
They built it in the West Bank.
So in other words, they got to get out.
So we have this and Finkelstein attaches a lot of weight to this.
We have this standing.
It's 14 years old now.
Right.
A 14 year old world court decision that says the whole kit and caboodle are illegal.
This was a decision, by the way, as he likes to also point out, 14 to one.
You rarely see that kind of overwhelming vote.
There's something like 15.
There are 15 judges from around the world, including some Americans.
Including some Americans on this court.
And I wrote, I have a term, I don't know, nine years or something.
Anyway, 14 to one.
He says, you know, much easier questions, although he didn't think this is a hard question, but he said much easier questions get, you know, split.
You know, they'll get like a, you know, one vote margin in the vote.
This is amazing that it was 14 to one and even the one was not a true dissent because that one judge who's an American judge called, didn't call his opinion a dissent.
He called it a declaration where he said, you know, you can't achieve with a lot of what's in the majority opinion.
And he also agrees that you can't acquire territory by force.
And everything follows from that.
So, it's not complicated.
Benny Morris himself says the reason, the driving motor, I think is the term he uses for the, for the Arab animosity towards Zionism was fear of displacement and dispossession.
Territorial displacement and dispossession.
He doesn't say, oh, Arabs have this ancient hatred for, for Jews or it's a clash of civilizations.
None of that.
He's, he, like so many other people, have just, when they look at it sort of honestly, they say, there's only one reason why Palestinians are not crazy about the Zionists and Jews.
After all, it's the Jewish state.
It's not that they are anti-Semitic, whatever that may mean in this context since Arabs are Semitic.
That's a language group anyway.
It's not a race.
None of those reasons apply.
There's only one reason.
Their land has been taken from them.
They feared it originally because it was the plan to transfer and the idea of a Jewish state requires that.
And there had been land dispossession even, you know, even in the early 20th century.
People would buy farms from absentee landlords and then kick off the people that have been tilling the soil for many generations.
So they had a rational fear and of course, as we know, that fear was borne out because they, they lost their land and they can't come back.
The third issue, of course, is refugees, whether the refugees should be able to come back.
There's something like, what's, six million or something refugees.
And even the Palestinians there have been generous, a word never used with them, because they've, they've been willing to scale that back and say, okay, let's let, you know, several thousand come back and then maybe compensation for others.
I mean, they've been very flexible.
Again, another word you never hear connected to the, to the Palestinians.
So it's not complicated.
People have to get over this idea that, oh, I can't even, I can't, I'll never penetrate it.
I'm not going to bother.
Not, it's not complicated.
Yeah.
And you know what?
I just want to mention again, that movie killing Gaza by Max Blumenthal and Dan Cohen.
And that's something, you know, I mentioned just the absolute intolerable discrimination and suffering.
These people are being put through is the most powerful thing you get from it.
But another major message in there, which I don't think was their intention.
It just comes through in all these interviews.
With these Palestinians, none of them ever say, I'm sworn by God to oppose Jews or anything along those lines in any way.
Everything that they say is like, listen, this is my property and you can't take it from me and I'll fight you over it too.
And they sound just like Texans, only they speak Arabic or they speak English with an Arabic accent instead of a Texan one.
But other than that, it's the exact same position that any red blooded American male would take.
You want my land, you're going to have to fight me over it.
Well, let's not forget that the Arabs and Jews lived together fairly well for many, many years pre-Zionist movement.
Much better than they lived with Europeans for all those years.
It's only a recent time.
European Jews would escape to Muslim lands for protection from the Christians.
And that goes way back, right?
When Maimonides left, had to leave Europe, he ended up in Cairo.
I think he was stopped in Palestine and ended up in Cairo.
It's true.
So we have to remember that.
People don't want to remember that.
They'll say, oh, what about the violence in the mid-30s?
In the mid-30s, Zionism was already in full swing.
Hey, and what about too, that modern Christian support, especially at its strongest end, is the most cynical, insane kind of support for Zionism.
Where John Hagee, who he and his counterparts gave speeches at the dedication of the embassy in Jerusalem and said that this is all fulfilling prophecy.
But we know what their prophecy is, that the apocalypse is going to come and kill every Jew who refuses to convert to Christianity, which is completely crazy and dangerous.
And you know, Jim Loeb quotes Irving Kristol as saying, well, it's their theology.
It's our Israel.
And that was after because the Israel lobby in America was buying Jerry Falwell a 737 or something so he could fly around the country preaching this stuff.
And American Jews were saying, well, geez, but we don't like Jerry Falwell on anything.
Do we really want to boost him at the expense of everything we believe in in America just to support Israel?
And then Irving Kristol's answer was, yeah.
Yeah, people have to get over this idea.
And this is extremely important that there's, and I think they have it in the back of their mind, even if they never outright think it to themselves or say it, that there's something in sort of the Arab DNA that's against Jews.
I mean, that is just, there's just no evidence.
All of history, you know, shows that not to be true.
And I recommend that the other day I read in 1974, there was a big breakthrough for the Palestinians.
Arafat was asked to address the General Assembly, which, of course, the U.S. complained about and Israel complained about.
They probably didn't sit in there when he spoke.
But you can find that address online.
It's extreme.
I think I actually linked to it in the piece from Friday.
It's definitely worth reading.
It's an extremely intelligent speech.
Whatever you want to say about Arafat, and look, I don't approve of suicide bombing or hijacking airplanes or the stuff that used to happen.
I don't approve of that.
On the other hand, you know, when those things weren't happening, the Palestinians were totally ignored.
So, you know, everybody can make up for his own mind.
What do you do if you're oppressed like that and it looks like the only thing that will get you even attention on the world stage is some kind of violence?
I mean, I'm not going to try to solve that here, but let's at least understand it if we don't approve of it.
But so, I'm not endorsing Arafat, but look at this speech.
He goes, at length, he talks about the relationship between Arabs and Jews and what his view is and what the PLOs and Fatah, their attitude is toward Jews and what he envisions.
Now, he was, at that stage, he was a one-state person, a one-secular, liberal, democratic state.
He said, now you can say, you know, I don't believe him, he's a liar.
Anyway, you should read it.
And, of course, he was never tested to see whether he meant it, but I think it's interesting reading and there's some, lots of historical facts in that that people are not aware of about the, how Jews and Arabs got along.
And we certainly, when you compare it to, and even to say this sounds like I'm downgrading it, my earlier statement, but I'm not, but when you compare it to the relationship between Christians and Jews in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, you know, and the Russian Empire, but let's not rule out France and, of course, Germany, even way before the Nazis, the record is not even comparable.
The Arabs don't belong in the same, you know, stadium with the Christians, the European Christians.
They were positively like, you know, I don't know, Florence Nightingale in helping Jews versus the way the Christians treated them for so long.
Which, by the way, I mean, when I was in high school, I think, was when Jews bought the last no Jews allowed country club in Houston and said, oh yeah, how do you like me now?
But that was in the 1990s, Sheldon.
Yeah.
For Christ's sake, man.
The Muslims always regarded Christians and Jews as the people of the book because they looked, they accepted the Old Testament as the word of God.
They just saw Muhammad as the successor to all the other prophets, all the other prophets, Jesus and then all the Jewish prophets.
So if there's a continuity, I'm not saying therefore go out and become a Muslim.
I'm not a Muslim.
I'm not a Christian.
I'm not a Jew.
I'm a rationalist and a secularist.
So that's not my point.
I'm not advocating any religion here.
I'm talking about the attitude.
And it's a terrible mistake to regard criticism of Israel or defending a Palestinian who only wants his land back to accuse that person of anti-Semitism.
Yet this is happening because every so many years it gets into the news that there's a new anti-Semitism on the rise.
This happens over and over again.
And who puts it out?
AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, other Jewish organizations in the U.S., the Prime Minister of Israel will then chime in.
New anti-Semitism, new Hitler's on the scene.
The campuses are dangerous for Jews.
It's happening now because Israel's been getting a lot of bad press because of what they've done in Gaza.
And so whenever they need to counter this bad press they say, oh, new anti-Semitism rising.
And so it's just public relations.
It's a lie.
When Finkelstein has tried to confirm the various events that have been reported, it turns out they never happened.
And one person reported that a Columbia, I don't know, an Arab broke into a dorm room and, I don't know, killed or hurt a Jewish student.
He calls the newspaper that published this.
And it wasn't like a mainline newspaper.
It was a website or something.
Anyway, he says, you know, can you confirm this for me?
Where'd this come from?
And they didn't answer and then they finally answered and they put him on to the reporter.
He talks to the reporter.
The reporter says, oh, I heard it on the 700 Club.
The school said it never happened.
So it's happening because we have the BDS movement, which is growing, the boycott disinvestment and sanctions movement against Israel is growing and it really scares the Israelis that there are going to be economic consequences by cutting off companies that do business in the West Bank or that like Caterpillar that actually participate in the repression by providing equipment that harms people.
It was a Caterpillar, wasn't a Caterpillar vehicle that killed Rachel Corey, the Americans, the Americans some years ago who went over to protest the house demolitions.
I mean, they use their material, they use their equipment to demolish houses.
So anytime there's bad press for Israel, they'll throw up and their supporters will throw up the idea that there's a new anti-Semitism on the rise.
If there's anything on the rise on campuses, it's anti-Muslim, not anti-Semitism.
Well, and you know what?
It's worth mentioning too, you mentioned Finkelstein there.
There's a great documentary also called Defamation where a liberal Israeli Jew goes out in search of anti-Semitism and can't find any anywhere, including when he goes to ADL headquarters.
And they go, yeah, we have our list of anti-Semitic incidents right here.
Some lady says that some guy yelled something at her or something loud out the window while he was driving by, but she didn't quite make it out.
This kind of thing.
It's like, oh man, that's six anti-Semitic incidents this week.
Yeah, Finkelstein points out that one of the last, you know, swells of these charges, the Chronicle of Higher Education at the same time had an article about how it's never been a better time for Jews on American campuses for the Jewish student.
Hey, listen, I should let you go.
Thank you, Sheldon.
I really appreciate this.
I enjoyed it.
All right, you guys, that's the great Sheldon Richman, the author of a great many books, one about guns, one about homeschool, one about the IRS.
How's that for libertarian for you?
This incredible piece.
Huh?
The Constitution.
Oh, and the Constitution and how we shouldn't have it.
Let's go back to the Articles of Confederation.
I love you, man.
You know that?
Well, that's kind of moderate and compromising.
You know what?
You're very moderate some of the time.
There's too much government in the Articles.
Yeah, yeah.
So here we go.
Why Palestine Matters.
It's incredible.
It's a really great piece, a very important piece.
I hope you'll read.
I hope you'll share it.
It's at the Libertarian Institute, libertarianinstitute.org and also at antiwar.com.
Thanks again.
My pleasure.
Talk to you soon.
