Иран отменяет подписание МОВ; IHRA отстраняет хирурга за критику геноцида

Iran cancels MoU signing, IHRA cancels surgeon for speaking out against genocide

Источник: https://www.ryandawson.org/p/iran-cancels-mou-signing-ihra-cancels

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ ═══ Транскрипция видео ═══ ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

═══ Транскрипция видео 1 ═══

Hello and welcome to the Deep Dive Perspective. Do like, share, subscribe. We need your support. As you well know, we're constantly pushed down the algorithms on this channel because we bring in guests who tell the truth. That's the bottom line of it. And today's no different. Ranjit Brahe, head of the Communist Party of Great Britain. ML is with us. Welcome, Ranjit. Thanks, Justin. Good to be with you. Good to have you again. And of course, no stranger to DDP is Ryan Dawson, the one and only. Ryan, welcome. Thanks. Good. It's always good to be here. I know you're celebrating the attacks on Israel with popcorn. I don't know whether others do it with champagne, but we all got our different ways of celebrating tyranny being. I literally am. That's kind of Korean popcorn. I need to try that sometime. But on a serious note, the conversation today that we're going to have is one which impacts you, Ranjit, very directly, but actually impacts everybody. And it's about something called the IHRA definition for anti-Semitism. So in this climate where Israel is literally responsible for attacking at least seven nations in its region simultaneously, where the US provides cover for this kind of aggression in its neighborhood, where yet another round of attacks on Iran are afoot, we've got this other double whammy of Western citizens being shut up. Freedom of speech, freedom of movement, all of it's being affected by this definition, which essentially, whilst it talks about anti-Semitism, actually seems to be a way of protecting Israel and Zionism potentially. That's what it seems like. Because the latest victim of this is Senk Uyghur. Senk is, of course, a very well-known influencer. He's, you know, the head of the Young Turks podcast, very well followed. And somebody who's been very outspoken on Israel and the US is, you know, you know, unflagging support for Israel in any circumstances, whether it commits genocide or not. So this links into what you've been facing, because you're now being put on trial, essentially, for something you said at an event which basically spoke up on behalf of 168 children killed by American Uyghur aggression in Minab. So you're also probably very much online. And you've also now started a procedure which hopefully, potentially, will bring out what the IHRA definition is really about.

It could affect everybody in terms of the way we speak about Israel, the way we talk about Judaism or Jewishness, or just anti-Semitism as a whole. That's the background. Tell me where we're at with this IHRA definition. What's the problem with it? It's a great introduction. I think we can finish that. Can we cut? Can we finish the program there? We're done. Well, I have to say this, as you say, it's a very dystopian framework that is being rolled out across society. And really the question is, you know, how does Britain enable genocide to continue? Because it's not just cover that the US supplies and Britain supplies. It's everything. It's finance. It's the bombs. It's the weapons. It's the constant diplomatic support. It's the military support. The US has integrated Israel into its entire armed forces. And basically you can see that the NATO countries have integrated Israel into their armed forces. So I don't look upon this as an Israeli genocide alone. This is a British genocide. This is an American genocide. And therefore this is state-sanctioned violence. And so how do you create a framework in which the state sanctioned violence seems normal? But anyone who speaks against it themselves looks violent, outrageous, beyond the pale. And I'm afraid to say you both already failed the anti-Semitism test in your opening remarks because you said you're celebrating strikes against Israel.

Well, that makes you violent. You're not only violent, you're an anti-Semite. You're both violent anti-Semites because you're celebrating strikes upon Israel, which is the only Jewish state. And thereby you are denying Jews their right to self-determination. And you're kind of implying that Israel is a racist endeavour. Now, that's very interesting because you were at that speech, you know, that I gave in front of the United States Embassy at the Palestine encampment. So what's the relationship of violence? The United States, I pointed out, is a centre in this embassy that we're looking at, this bunker, this concrete bunker in Nine Elms with its military missile encampments on the roof and its system of fortifications and bunkers. It's literally a fortified zone. I said from centres like this, US conduct its terrorism all around the world. And I said, we should ask this centre to get out. I said, I didn't want, I'm one of those who didn't want the strikes on Israel after the Nine Day War to end, precisely because Israel is a state involved in genocide. Israel has no right to exist precisely because Israel is a state involved in genocide. Now, what they'll do is they'll use the IHRA definition to question the legitimacy of such statements. And it's not just the fact that, you know, they have a definition of anti-Semitism. Fine, you can look up a dictionary definition of anti-Semitism.

It's hatred of Jews because they are Jews or discrimination against Jews because they are Jews. Very simple. But they have a whole number of definitions, 11 examples, which they say are modern day examples, which denote examples that may be anti-Semitism. And though it's a legally non-binding framework, this has been adopted and taken up by, you know, actually Theresa May on behalf of Britain. And then it's been taken up by all the political parties, including Jeremy Corbyn, in the midst of the Labour anti-Semitism witch hunt. He actually led the Labour Party to adopt it and roll it out. And all the political parties in Britain have adopted it. And the police forces and colleges, schools, institutions, and now West Streeting has taken it and put it into the NHS. And what that means is, although it's a non-binding definition of anti-Semitism, why would we care if someone made a definition of anti-Semitism? It was initially made by a group of researchers at Tel Aviv, by a group of Zionists, including someone from the American Jewish Committee, Kenneth Stern, Dina Porat from Tel Aviv University, and Michael Wine, who is an interesting person because he's at the heart of the British Zionist establishment and working for the Community Securities Trust. These people invented it precisely because actually, at that time, they found world anti-Semitism was going down when they did a country-by-country analysis. But of course, it's central to the narrative of Zionism, and therefore Israel, that everyone who's not a Jew is inherently prejudiced against Jews. That's the whole rationale, actually, for Zionism wanting to found the state of Israel. And they wanted a definition which included sentiment that was hostile to Israel, and that would be classed as anti-Semitism. And it was initially put forward as a data gathering tool, but it's gone through various iterations. It was adopted by the EU and then rejected. It was then taken up by this group, IHRA, at their plenary meeting in Bucharest in 2016. And finally, Theresa May took it. And it's actually, it's been rolled out not just across Britain, but actually across the NATO and Five Eyes countries. And it's that overarching framework in which civil law, criminal law and regulatory frameworks of professions are being interpreted to outlaw criticism of the violence and the genocide of Israel, and by extension, the foreign policy of Britain-US. It's a very clever device. It's kind of obvious on the one hand, it's hypocritical on the other hand, it's ridiculous on the other hand, but it's being used in a very serious way to limit our free speech and our right to criticize this genocide that's going on in Palestine. Well, you've certainly trumped my introduction there with a fantastic overview. That really puts the cat amongst the pigeons. Ryan, your response? Because in the US, the IHRA exists as well. I didn't have a lot of idea about it, but clearly it does exist. What's been your interaction with the IHRA and the way that the Zionist lobby uses it in the US? It's a simple trick. I mean, they're trying to conflate a nation with an ethnic group. And that's as silly as saying if you criticize Russia, you're just anti-white. Or here I am in South Korea, so if I criticize North Korea, it's because I hate Koreans, or I just don't like what they're doing. You know, it's ridiculous. And these lobbies, you know, like AIPAC, the I in AIPAC stands for Israel, not Jews. You know, it's got nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Like Israel, in fact, I'd argue that definition is itself anti-Semitic because it's saying that it's acting like whatever Israel does is some biological product of Jewishness when it's not. It is a state. States do things, you know, it's a nation. It's ethnic makeup is irrelevant. The US has every ethnicity. It does bad things. What do you do? It's a silly definition, but they use it. And you got all these politicians playing stupid because the five-year-old can understand the difference between an ethnic group and a country. Anyone can see that. You can't, it'd be like saying, oh, you can't criticize Obama or you just hate black people. Like you cannot put some kind of collective thing on an individual decision. What Israel does is ethnic cleansing and annexation of land and all these horrible things, raping prisoners. Like that is something that a government is doing. You can't put that or blame that on an ethnic group or a religious group. It's a state. If you don't know the difference between a nation, ethnicity and a race, you're dumb. I mean, you can't conflate those things, but they're trying to act like it's like playing identity in politics from the US left and kind of the religious politics from the right. It's whatever is convenient. It's a, it's a racial minority when that's to its advantage. And it's a religious minority when that's to its advantage. But in the reality, it's neither one. Israel is a country and it's a very brutal country that murders civilians on purpose and does every manner of war crime ever. Of course, you can criticize that. Of course, you can criticize a genocide. And if somebody calling you racist should not affect your decision that you know that that shouldn't stick. But this is the kind of desperate things they do. But it's a lot worse outside the US. If you go to Canada, Australia, and increasingly in Britain too, you will get legal punishment for saying the wrong thing on the wrong social media network. I myself am banned on them anyway. So it doesn't matter. And I live in a free country and I can criticize Israel. They can call me names. Korea doesn't care. But increasingly, and in certain, certain places in the US, Florida and Texas, you can get in trouble too. And it's just, how did we get to this point? You can't blame what Israel does on Jewishness. It's so silly. So practically speaking, of course, the Americans have a much clearer set of rules, you know, First Amendment, Second Amendment, I always hear you get thrown around. But the one that relates to your right to free speech, and saying what you want, added to now what's happened to Senk, this idea of him not even being able to move around freely to certain places, I guess that's not down to the American government, that's down to the British government, Shabana Mahmood, who banned him. But are you, you talked about sort of more problems outside of America. What is it that you are allowed to say in the US around this issue? What was interesting, she can ban him from the debate at Oxford, but how did he get banned from not, can't even enter the country? Only the government can do that, right? You can't, that's, but no, the First Amendment protects free speech, but there are other punishments. So you won't, you won't get in legal trouble. You can't go to jail because you said something, unless it's like, actually, go kill so-and-so. It actually really is advocating violence or something, that's different. But you can say any political opinion you want without legal trouble, but you could still get fired from your job, kicked out of your university, ostracized, other kinds of subtle punishment, not by the state, but by a business or by a school or something. You do get those punishments, and those are not protected by the First Amendment. But it's still better than some other places. Ranji, Ryan's set out the stall for what's going on over there. How is this practically manifested in terms of the way people have been gagged, or threatened, or prosecuted? Well, what you've got to understand is that it's the major framework that stands behind the entire oppression of the pro-Palestine movement. The reality is that our ruling class and the Labour Party as a central part of that ruling class, the same Labour Party of which Shabana Mahmood is the Home Secretary, and so she used her constitutional powers to ban Uyghur from coming to the United States to visit us, because that was likely to cause disorder. But what's the basis? The basis was because he criticized Israel, criticized Israel as being interpreted as being anti-Semitic. There's no other way in which it can be justified. But similarly, we've seen over the past two and a half years, we've seen probably 10 million British workers march on the streets of Britain, and march persistently and demonstrate their support for Palestine. We've seen many people in the healthcare profession, many lawyers, many people who have some kind of regulatory background at work, people who work for businesses. We've seen them be targeted by their profession, by their regulatory bodies and by the police.

So I myself, for example, forget myself a second. If you look at just the number of demonstrators, very early on, when we had a Tory administration before this Labour administration, they said, "Oh, you know, we've arrested over a thousand people." Very early days at demonstrations. How were they doing that? The police were working hand in glove with Zionist activists. The Zionist activists were going around identifying things they didn't like. Someone had a parachute on the back of their shoulder. Parachute is a proxy for saying, "Oh, the Palestinians have broken out and are resisting, fighting back, as they're legally entitled to do. People under occupation have a right to resistance, enshrined in UN law." Lots of laws. But our personal, you know, again, another Home Secretary, Priti Patel, Tory in 2022, outlawed one of the Palestinian groups named Hamas. They said, "Oh, this is a proxy for Hamas. So you're being outlawed. You're an anti-Semite and you're a terrorist." So these two, you're a terrorist and you're an anti-Semite. And these are the reasons. So Zionist activists going around, arrest this person, arrest this person, communicating with the police. Mass arrests, actually, at these demonstrations. Mass arrests under this. And then they've been prosecuted under the criminal justice legislation, the civil order legislation. But in light of saying, "Oh, this is a racially aggravated crime."

So section 18 of the Civil Order Act, section 5 of the Civil Order, calling the disturbance of the peace, trying to inflame racial hatred, racially aggravated act. So this is the way people are being persecuted. So that means they're having bail conditions. They can't participate in demonstrations. That means they're being sanctioned at work. Their work is then being targeted and people are losing their jobs. And if you're in a regulated profession, as I am, there's been systematic harassment, actually policing of social media, which the Israeli state do together with the British state, together with the Zionist activists. And they find any comment that they interpret using the IHRA definition as racist, make a file of your social media, send it to your work, send it to your regulatory place. So I've been arrested three times at demonstrations at my home, outside police stations. I've done nothing at all. And ultimately, all of it drops because I challenge it very fiercely. I've had one and now a second regulatory fitness to practice action going through the General Medical Council, all on the basis that I may be an anti-semite based on criticism of Israel, which may bring the profession into disrepute. And even though it hangs on nothing, you have to get involved in a lengthy process of arguing it in order to push it aside. It might take you a year. Most people won't have the stamina.

It's easier to give in the cave, to say sorry, to be allowed to go back to work and to be quiet. And that's what they want. And then obviously the last case, at my workplace, I was suspended for two weeks for an urgent investigation, urgent investigation to protect patients and to protect staff who might have sympathies with Israel, because I have been, may have been anti-semitic. And now the investigation found no hint of wrongdoing. They couldn't say that I was anti-semitic. Anti-semitic criticism of Israel is not criticism of race, as our friends pointed out. All Zionists are not Jews, all Jews are not Zionists. They're totally separate things. This is a political criticism. So it's protected under my Article 10 rights, apparently, of the European Convention of Human Rights. But nevertheless, it was done. I was suspended. Eventually they said, "Oh, come back to work, come back to work, come back to work." But even though you've done nothing wrong, so we can't discipline you, we take it seriously. Reflect upon your anti-semitism. So I can't do that. I'm not anti-semitic. I'm not a racist. I'm a lifelong anti-racist campaigner. If you do anything like this, again, we'll come for you with a proper, to do anything like what. The whole point is you haven't been able to find anything that I've done, apart from criticize a state involved in genocide. So there's nothing. And then finally, if you want to make any comments that may bring you into a similar situation, they should be first passed to the Trust Communication Department before that you can give them. So they want the hospital to act as my censor.

Simultaneously with this, I was arrested. So it's clear that it doesn't come from my hospital. It doesn't come from the police. It comes from some third actor who points to both. And that very much points at West Streeting and the Labour Party government who reached out to use this framework as a means of repressing me criminally, they're arresting me from my home. You know, you can see that video on my YouTube channel, on my Instagram channel. It's amazing to watch two police come to your house and tell you they're arresting you because, and they're not quite sure why, and they're going to leave your children running around the house by yourself. And my wife's a surgeon, she's also working. And they're doing all of this on the basis that you've criticized Israel. How is that racist? I can't tell you, but it's been adjudicated independently. Where does the complaint come from? I don't know. You know, so UK lawyers for Israel are just a front group, anonymous letter. But if I sent an anonymous letter, I couldn't get you suspended. I couldn't get anyone else suspended. I couldn't get the police to act. So it's the political will of the state as enacted and understood by the Labour Party, which is pushing this very strongly. And it's using this definition as its pseudo legal basis, upon which all of the other, you know, all of the decisions, all the state persecutions, the police persecutions, the workplace persecutions, the having doctors struck off, the disrupting services, all hangs on this definition. The definition is deeply flawed. In fact, it's designed to be flawed, because it's designed, it's not an accident, it's designed to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and therefore to expectively make it impossible for working people who overwhelmingly in Britain, 60, 70, 80% of British workers are against the genocide. It's designed to stop them from being able to voice it, and therefore to affect our state politics. Okay. Ryan, that's a harrowing set of, you know, accounts which Ranjit's given us. What's your reaction to that? Because I'm not sure whether the same kind of thing is happening in the States. Is there is there that kind of witch hunting going on there? Not to that level, but yes, it does happen. But just hearing these kind of stories, it's a nightmare. It makes a lot of people not even want to visit the UK. Like, I don't want to do that. I might go to jail. I wrote the wrong thing on Facebook or something. To have your name run through the mud and to be accused of anti-Semitism because you don't want an army to shoot children, because you don't agree with sending money to finance and weapons also to help support a genocidal regime that has racial apartheid and annexation of land and routinely engages in ethnic cleansing and prison rape. That's the horror. You're not allowed to criticize these monsters, and we're going to call you racist. We're going to take your job away. And you know, some people even get prison time for saying the wrong thing. And it makes people think, what is this? Are you sure this is the UK? That's not the image we used to have, but it's increasingly getting like that. And it's happening in places like Canada and Australia too. There's laws in Australia. You can't criticize Israel or we're just going to claim that you're being anti-Semitic, which is akin to like, well, then you love Hitler and you wanted the Holocaust to happen or something. It's totally ridiculous. And the thing is, you know that these people cannot be that stupid. They're not arguing in good faith. They're just making up excuses to further Israeli policies because it's the UK's policies as well. So, this threat that exists must exist within the political circles. Because if, as Ranjit's pointing out, that it goes right to the upper echelons, where people like Shabana Mahmoud and every consecutive Home Secretary that I've known in my living memory seems kowtow to this kind of exceptionalism for Israel. But now it's becoming something which is going to the next level.

It's almost like there's this kind of Big Brother-esque kind of march against thought. Because thinking something could also be prosecuted. Because the British police are well known for being one of the most active in terms of arresting people online for statements and things that are said. That's, I think, on record. They are amongst the highest, by far. That in itself is frightening because it's not just speaking at protests or restricted to face-to-face discussion within meetings or as part of your political activities. This could be everyday comments on Facebook, on social media, which again dangerously does seem to be highly dominated by Zionist folk. You know, whether it's Peter Thiel or whether it's kind of the likes of, I don't know, Facebook's fraternity. When you go and look at the trails, they seem to all have strong affiliations with Zionism. Whether it's Musk, whether it's kind of Zuckerberg or whoever. Virtually everyone. He's an Epstein client. There's a lot of Epstein people in charge of social media. What are the odds? Were you targeted because of anti-Semitism at any point by these channels? Is that why a lot of the grief that you got took place? Yeah, I've been banned on everything, including payment processors. I've been called a Holocaust denier, which is funny because I actually debated real revisionists. I won those debates, by the way. It doesn't matter because they're not arguing in faith. We know this. I think I still have the longest Canary Mission rap sheet of anybody, like more than Bassem Youssef, more than Norman Finkelstein, more than anybody. They went after me constantly.

And yeah, they just write letters and make things up. So I lost my Patreon, my PayPal, my YouTube, my Facebook, Instagram, Discord, Coinbase, Streamlabs, Google Ads, you name it. I've been banned off of it. I got Twitter returned in 2023, but then it's pretty much nerfed. So it was free temporarily. And then that got clapped back, kicked off TikTok, kicked off all these things. Substack is the only place, the only social media that doesn't do that. And I guess bit shoot for videos. But honestly, it's because it doesn't matter. Like YouTube has like a 99% share of everyone that watches videos, watches them on YouTube, you know, so they have such a head start monopoly. And it's run by people that, you know, they partnered with the ADL. And the Anti-Defamation League is a name only because it's a defamation league. There's nothing anti-defamation about it. It was formed as an offshoot of Benai Brith to protect Leon Frank, which was a pedophile that murdered a 13 year old girl, Mary Fagan, that was working in his pencil factory. Because it was a Jewish guy that raped and murdered someone, they came to his defense because they thought that would make all other Jews look bad. Like, this is the kind of collectivist nonsense they're thinking about. Like, no, defending a murdering rapist makes you look bad. Not the fact that this one guy did, an individual did something. But this is the origin of the ADL. And all the ADL does is, and the SPLC, which is the same kind of thing, is they go and defame people and attack them and destroy their reputation. And this will roll over into where you'll lose your social media, you'll lose your payment processors. It's very hard to be a journalist. If you're a student, they'll get you thrown out of school. And unless you're self-employed, you become unemployable because as soon as they find out where you're working, they'll hound them until they get you fired. And it's, you know, we live, America is a very, very much not racist. That's why everyone said, "Oh, America is so racist." I would, I would argue, absolutely not. They are militantly anti-racist. There's nothing worse than being labeled racist. There's nothing that's more of a scarlet letter than that. You could be a rapist and probably still work in Hollywood or in the government. But as a racist, no. Like, you could bomb Africans in Libya, for example, and still be president. But if you said the N-word, oh, you'd be gone in a second. You know, it's like the worst crime there is. It is the holy, most sacred cow, is don't be racist. It's just drilled in everyone's head. And yeah, racism is stupid. I get it. But it is, should not be on par with genocide and murder and rape and actual crimes. But it is. Like, it will get you, just the accusation alone will get you canceled off everything. And it's totally ridiculous. The Jews are not a race. It's a religion composed of multiple different races and ethnic groups. And Israel can call itself the Jewish state, but it's not. Judaism is much older than Israel.

Judaism is a faith that believes in certain theology. And it has nothing to do with, really, with the modern nation state, with nuclear weapons and a military that makes political decisions to steal land from their neighbors. Renji, this is still a thorny issue. And I've heard Jewish folk come on here, you know, good folk who fight against imperialism, who are against racism, who are against, you know, apartheid, against Israel, actually. And they've been often the most targeted as well. You know, I've had people like Gilad Atzman, there's been Professor Haim Bresheth, you know, there are several people that I can name that have been deliberately targeted. So it's not just non-Jews. I mean, Jews can be called anti-Semitic. They could be also targeted by this IHRA definition for standing up, and are. So this is clearly something which is political. I get that. They'll argue, though, that, you know, Israel is exceptional. It needs protection because it's under attack from neighbors who hate it, and because the Holocaust was something that started with this kind of Jew hate, and this is all part of that. And Israel, being the only state which is a home for Jews, essentially, primarily, is worthy of protection, extra protection, and therefore that protection should be across the board. And this is the argument that the Western politicians particularly go with and legislate for. Is that fair? And how does that compare to, say, protection of other groups, for instance? Because there is that issue of Islamophobia I could raise and whatever and start going into that side of things about comparisons. But do you think it's, do you think they have an argument that the Israeli Jews or Zionists deserve some protection?

Everyone deserves protection as human beings. But we don't live in a world where everyone gets protection as human beings. We live in a profoundly unequal world. It's a total distraction. To frame a question in that way. To me, race is anyway, a social construct. If you're a power that lives on exploitation of a group of people. So let's just go with capitalism. British capitalism, as it developed from the 1600s onwards with the East India Company, and started as a trading empire, very good. Their main initial labor force that they exploited and relied on was the British workers. They separated from the land, the expropriation. We had the peasant clearances. So we separated workers from any means of supporting themselves, except by selling their labor power to the British capitalists. Now that was a technological revolution at the same time. They were more and more productive. These dark satanic mills of the Keynesian time were also the workshop of the world. So they produced more goods than ever, cheaper than ever. And as Marx said, the cheap price of their goods was the artillery with which the British bombarded all Chinese walls. The reason that the British empire went everywhere was this manufacturing revolution. It had the capitalist revolution first. It relied upon exploitation of working people. As it went abroad, and as that trading relationship changed, and as their wealth became so great, they started to intrigue in other people's affairs. And it turned from a trading empire into a direct colonial empire. Don't forget India.

That 350 million people lived under the rule of the East India Company until it was taken over by the British state. It's a corporate rule. How do you justify that? Yes, it was basically just based upon naked greed. That's all it is. But then how do you justify it? You justify it with racism. So this concept that racism doesn't exist, and it's the worst insult you can throw. Racism is the stock in trade of colonialism. But it's actually become the stock in trade of imperialism. But the racism changes. The racism has to be adopted to the needs of the situation. So British racism, when they had a larger immigrant population from the Caribbean and India, was mainly anti-black and anti-Indian racism, Indian-Pakistani racism. When they're having wars in the Middle East, it becomes anti-Arab racism. So anti-Arab racism, anti-Palestine racism, and Islamophobia, though it's not a race, becomes extremely popular. You have to use that racism and put it everywhere to justify the wars. It's not about we're not stealing their oil. We're not just going there to wipe people out and kill millions of people and steal their oil. No, no, no. It's a civilisation question. Clash of civilisations. We're a Judeo-Christian civilisation. They're Arabs. They're Muslims. They're inherently this. They're inherently that. So these ideas, despite the fact they're unpopular, they're not the base ideas of the working people. They're constantly pumped. Why is it that we have Unite the Kingdom March, where Tommy Robinson is allowed to parade through London, get people dressed in hijab, get the crowd to jeer at them, take them off. Yay, everyone's even happy. But this is directly sponsored by Elon Musk, who is sponsoring these far-right groups everywhere. And they're even making deals with them to say, "Oh, don't do your traditional racism. Double down on your anti-Arab, anti-Muslim racism, because that's what we want." And that fits with the whole policy towards the Middle East, where still two thirds of the words oil resides.

So racism is a real thing, but it's a construct of an exploitative system which uses it to cover the real reasons. But then you can separate. You get the white people of Britain and say, "Oh, you are having a tough time. It's all these immigrants coming, especially the Muslims." And that fits with what we're doing in the Middle East. We've got to support Israel. They're also fighting the hostile Arabs who are very aggressive and we have to protect their rights. So the two things go hand in hand. So racism goes through periods when it's very low. It's deliberately pushed and stoked. And that doesn't come from nowhere. It doesn't come from the mass of the people. It comes from above. It comes from the comic books. It comes from TV and the radio. Let me give a recent example. Nigel Farage, he asked for cold rage in response to the killing of Novak by a Sikh chap who obviously committed, well, it seems he committed the crime. I can't say obviously unless he's tried. He's now being attacked with sugar and hot water, boiling hot water in prison on the back of the whole situation that's been whipped up because clearly there was some political mileage that was had.

Farage, when it comes to say the defense of Israel or the support of Zionism, is no different from any of the other political actors. Tommy Robinson is actively exposed as being funded and financed by sources that go back to Israel as well. This link between the far right and Zionism and Israel now seems to be increasingly evidenced. Loki does it regularly. Anybody who wants to look at the facts and figures that he pulls up on Double Down News and other places, it's now pretty much obvious that there's something going on which is very, very dark and dangerous. So not only is the IHRA scenario going on, but you've got this other development of political capital built up on the back of racism, real racism. I'm not saying there's no racism against Jews. There certainly is, bound to be and is. But to the scale and for the purposes that the far right seem to want, it seems to be very convenient that it all seems to be whipped up by the media and politicians. What do you think of Farage and Tommy Robinson and their take on Zionism? These are our traditional enemies of the working people.

Demagogues who whip up the working people, who seek to inculcate divides, foster division and have working people fight each other off the back of these kinds of murders. There are murders that happen throughout British society. Poverty, stabbing, but to use it to reinforce racism and division is the role of this kind of politics. And we've fought that. I've fought that my entire life. That's what's so interesting. I'm a lifelong anti-racist campaigner. I've seen almost no evidence that there is really a high amount of anti-Jewish racism in our society. It used to be very prevalent in the Middle Ages. It was a major feature of European society. And in fact, it was British in a ruling class who fostered and pushed it in Germany as it was the German ruling class in the interwar years. And that's precisely because the workers at that point were very revolutionary. They were on the point of overthrowing this entire system that didn't serve them. They were suffering under the Versailles Treaty, under the general crisis of capitalism in the 20s and 30s, the Wall Street crash. Their conditions were incredibly hard. There was the October Revolution and the Russian Revolution happened here. It looked like Bolshevism and Marxism was spreading to the whole of Europe. And this radical anti-Semitism, this radical capitalist anti-Semitism, which was basically just a dictatorship of capital, designed for the time, was expressly used to win as many workers as possible away from communism, away from Marxism, and create a militant army to fight and murder. Every time there was an election, every weekend they were killing tens and hundreds of communists in this way. That was the weapon they used. They're quite happy to have anti-Semitism. There are even Jewish bankers in Germany who are writing, "Yes, of course we don't like the anti-Semitism, but it's necessary to win the workers back to nationalism so they're under our control." It has a very specific and definite use. But right now, no, they are saying, "How can we combat?" What they're really seeing is there's a mass wave of sentiment against the genocide because it's been socially, you know, streamed, especially to our young people. There have been many genocides, many wars. I was against the Iraq war, but I didn't see it, you know, you saw these clinical bomb pictures on your TV screen. You didn't see the real human tragedy, the real human terror of this genocide in the way that our young people and our population have. And they're against it. And so the question is that our ruling class have sat down and said, "How can we carry on our genocide even though the whole of the people don't like it?" So we must divert their sentiments, make the pro-Palestinian movement seem alien, foreign, hostile, invaders, team up with anti-immigrant sentiment, divert the people away and divide them. And that's really what they're doing. So they're pushing. And that's what's really ironic about the IHRA. It seems like it's being pushed as a way of fighting racism. But it's actually the opposite.

It's a way of covering and distracting from the real racism that's being pushed in a very strong way. Anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim sentiment being pushed into the people. And it's being protected under the cover of saying, "If you expose it, you yourself are a racist, you yourself are a racist." What's the word? Machiavellian? It's very sinister. It's kind of clever, precisely because people in our country, they actually don't want to be tarred, a lot of them, with being called a racist. So you're afraid of it. The stigma that attaches to it is real. So it's like a crying and shooting at the same time as pushing their racism, at the same time as conducting their genocide. They're aggressively targeting people who speak against their genocide and calling them racist. It's a totally false accusation from actually the culprits. The people who are perpetrating genocide are making complaints against those who are against their genocide and getting them victimised as racist by the police and at work. Real economic and social consequences. Ryan, weaponisation of anti-Semitism, is that something that you'd agree with? And also, the question really is, if it's a lie, then does it have a chance of backfiring on the Jewish community, the diaspora and beyond, because people know it's a lie and therefore they lose sympathy with all Jews? Because if Israelis are occupying the idea of Judaism, being Jewish or Jewishness, then that puts, technically, Jews on the front line of being mistrusted and, again, probably targeted. So are they generating anti-Semitism with this? Is Bibi Netanyahu essentially triggering anti-Semitism?

Yeah, it's called being guilty of your own accusations is a certain form of projection. But what you're saying, though, is, well, if they're going to do all these horrible things under the name of Jewishness, the Jewish states like this, will that cause actual anti-Semitism? It will to some people who can't see through that in the same way that some Christian fundamentalists turn people off from Christianity or a Muslim fundamentalist turns people off from Islam. Like, if you're going to have this radicalized form of Judaism, which does exist in a lot of sects in Israel, it will put people off to it collectively, just as a whole. But you've got to realize, like, religion is as religion does. Like, people practice their faiths differently, and then no one has, like, a monolithic definition, although it's the no true Scotsman type of thing. Well, real Christians like this, or real Jews like this. Like, you're conflating a state with a faith. But yes, if that happens enough, people are just going to get what they call fatigue. So that, let's say there is a case of actual anti-Semitism, people might roll their eyes because they hear that false accusations so much that when indeed it is true, people might not pay attention to it because they've cried wolf too many times. Well, I'm going to conclude with one last question which comes to your case, uh, Ranjit. Can I, can I add something? Oh yes, please, please. I would say this, like, I'll steal this from Andrew Tate too, because we're kind of talking about class warfare. Um, they use whatever works, whether it's religious secretarianism, racism, whatever can divide the bottom. You know, but when a black billionaire, and a white billionaire, and a Jewish billionaire, and an Asian billionaire meet, they don't sit around and talk about race. It doesn't matter. Like, that is just something to feed the plebs, to get them to, who are already frustrated, who've already met their allostatic load, to just start blaming things on each other and divide the bottom. Fascinating. In conclusion, you are going after this, say, IHRA definition, uh, with a, I don't know the processes in detail, but certain legal people have said that actually, uh, your, your own case is precipitating you challenging the IHRA definition. Tell me a little bit about that, and what's the process there? What's going on? Because there's a hearing coming up, and you've worked very hard to try and, um, get this thing into the, the, the public realm.

Thanks, Mr. So we're, we're pretty for a judicial review. We've hired a firm of solicitors. They're Farhani Taylor solicitors, and we have some prominent bar, barristers, and one is a deputy high court judge. We are trying to use a legal device, uh, to argue that the entire framework of the IHRA is illegal, that the way it's being enforced goes against our article 10, um, rights, and therefore goes against the entire freedom of speech. Moreover, it's prejudicial, um, and there's a, there's a case that it's, um, uh, uh, by, by definition, um, goes against the Human Rights Act. And if you contrast, for example, there was a recent adaptation of an anti-Muslim hatred definition, and it was made, that went for consultation to Uncle Tom Cogley and all. That went to every, every faith group, um, free rights groups, and eventually it came as kind of so weak, yes, being, you know, exhibiting hatred or violence towards Muslims is anti-Muslim hatred. Basically, that's it. But then it says in a whole list of examples before and afterwards, this doesn't preclude the right of ridiculing religion, ridiculing and the prophet ridiculing. You know, it's like, it's basically, it's a Charlie Hebdo exclusion clause. It's like absolutely fine to carry on. It doesn't, you know, Tommy Robinson can say anything. It was basically, it's like, yes, it's a, it's Muslim hatred, but it's perfectly all right to carry on and do it. It's incredible. It's literally like this. And it went for consultation everywhere. So that's as a process with like, wow, one, it's like almost an own goal to have it. What's, what's the best benefit of having, having such a definition, which actually enshrines the right to, to hate Muslims and to say whatever you want about them. And so if you contrast that both with the process of adoption and the way it's used, and the fact there's no such freedom of speech clause attaching to the IHRA definition, we can see just what different political devices they are. So on both grounds, the fact that it's being used in ways it shouldn't be, it's actually acting as an overarching framework, which is changing the entire nature of criminal civil law and the nature of your workplace. I'm literally being told, actually, I'm not allowed to work as a surgeon. I can't save your life. If you come to me and you're someone's cut your arm off, I can't sew it back on. If someone stabbed you in the neck, I can't sew you back up. If you're dying of a ruptured aneurism, I can't fix it though. I've trained for 30 years and I can save your life. I can't do it if I criticize Israel. That's the bottom line. That's how it's being used.

Now that goes to the heart of our society. You can't say we live in a democracy, if that's the case. But it also shows you that our ruling class, our government and our Labour Party are more determined to protect their genocide and have no criticism spoken about it than they are concerned about the lives or the health service, the lives of a British citizen, the lives even of someone an extremist who comes to a health service who needs help. That's the bottom line. It's totally illegal. It's totally fraudulent. It's been put in place behind the backs of the British people. We hope with our judicial action to challenge it and actually to put a sledgehammer through this definition. Not because we are racist. Precisely the opposite. Because we believe in the rights of all. That all people should be treated equally. And we believe that if you want to stop a genocide, the working people have to have the right to criticize it and make sure it's stopped. And those who are guilty are brought to justice. This is like an insurance policy for our for our ruling class and our and our Labour government, who I insist in this whole process are war criminals. They're guilty of perpetrating the genocide. And they're using this legislation to stop us from actually convicting them for their crimes. This is what it's really all about.

So I hope if people can spare the money, if you'll be able to share the crowdfunding link, we've already raised 20,000 really just from a few tweets. But as this process comes to court, we will have more publicity. Where can people go to support your... If you just literally Google Ranjit, which is my first name, and I-H-R-A, I'm Ranjit I-H-R-A. But you find the crowdfunder. It's the crowdfunder. And essentially, you'll find the link. I'm sure we can put the link, but it's very easy to find from Google. We'll do that, yes. And you can Google it. And please do, you know, people can contribute what they can. Every doctor should contribute. Because actually no doctor who supports Palestine is safe. The Man Report has literally said, "If you wear a watermelon symbol, you're actually creating a hateful and hostile environment where Jews can't have free treatment." It's just, it's an absolute nonsense. You cannot speak out in favour of Palestine, against genocide, against war. You can't criticise British foreign policy and work in the health service. This is the environment that's being created. And by challenging and throwing out this definition, we'll reverse that and we'll be able to at least have, you know, maybe we won't solve the world's problems, but we'll create a space where legitimate political speech can be had without the, you know, the sword of Damocles being held over your head. If you speak up, actually it's a legal obligation to oppose genocide. It's a moral obligation to oppose genocide. But if you exercise that right, you can't work, you can't live, you can't eat. You know, that's what's being done to our country. And this case will drive a coach and horses through that. Some of the legal people who were working in the background indicated to me that actually, the the Muslim factor is a major player in terms of creating protection for the wider public against the way the IHRA definition is being misused. That in a way, they aren't being treated in the same way. I wasn't sure exactly what that that meant, why why that was brought in. But is that is that something that is going to make a big, big play within this this hearing? It was a section 14 or something. I think so. Look, if you if you are if you are targeted by a systemic racism, not just like someone calls you a name in the street, but you've got reduced chance of getting jobs, reduced chance of getting employment, your life chances are affected. You know that those communities who are really targeted by racism in the press, at work in society know it. And I think, you know, since this whole period since the Iraq war, certainly, Muslims have felt themselves to be under special scrutiny and special oppression, through no fault of their own.

They're invited to come here to rebuild this country after World War Two, like Sikhs, like the people from the Caribbean, all of them have been targeted with a certain amount of racism, but especially that I think the Muslim community feel that oppression. And they stand with Palestine, they can see the injustice of it. So the whole of democratic opinion, actually of British workers, stands with Palestine, overall, mass. But this community feel it in particular. And I think it's seeing the IHRE that's made the community want to push for this definition that says, look, there should be some protection for us. I don't think they've got it. But I think in that process, I think they've exposed the difference. They've actually done something to expose the racist way in which anti-Muslim hatred is a feature of our normal politics. You know, from mainstream politics, at election time, they can't help but push this button when they're offering working people very little in a worsening economic situation. So I think it will play into this case. And if we can get this case shut out, it's every one of our duty. It's a general fight to kick out racism. It doesn't serve the interests of working people, doesn't serve the interest of humanity. But this definition, the IHRE definition, is not that. It's actually part of a pillar which is enforcing a wider anti-Palestinian, anti-Muslim hostility and legitimizing it, and stopping those who speak out against genocide and against war. For those reasons, I think everyone should support this case. Ryan, last word goes to you.

Your Starmer is making me want to really celebrate the 4th of July. I'm proud of that. I don't have the same rules. You know, I criticize America a lot. I mean, it's my whole life. There's all horrors, the Iraq war, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, all these pointless military endeavors. The least free speech, we have a modicum of that left. And it is, it's under assault too, but it's nowhere near the level that you see in in Europe and in Canada and Australia. It's, it makes you really appreciate it. Now, of course, not in East Asia. We don't have any of these issues yet. But, and it's homogenous societies. There's no religious sectarianism because no one's religious. There's no racial division because it's like 99% the same ethnic group. But, you know, these places can get along either way. You look at a place like Singapore or something like that. It's multiracial works. The problem in the West is it's, there's an ideology of dominance and this sort of amoral corporatism with this kind of Machiavellian outlook where they don't even see it as wrong to exploit people and to cause division. And these wars are something you think would be a relic of the past, but we're never learning from history. You see what's going on today, active bombing between Iran and Israel and Yemen and Lebanon. And, you know, America's right there in the middle of it. These things could be resolved, but the problem is I don't think we can fix any of our political situations until we fix the media. And like, this is the core of what you're talking about today. If you don't have free speech, you can't fix anything that's downstream from that. If you can't organize and speak freely, you can't think freely. And so without being able to point out what's wrong and how to fix it, then it can't be done. Politics is downstream from culture and culture is downstream from mass media. And if you, so if you don't have free speech, it's unfixable and it's just going to get worse. That's why that's the most valuable freedom of all the, all the Bill of Rights in the United States. That's why it's in the First Amendment, because they realize that is the linchpin of everything else. If you're not allowed to speak freely, you cannot fix any of these problems. Thank you very much, Ranji.

Thank you so much. Please go on to Ranji's fundraiser. We'll pop it up on the lower thirds. Do donate support in any way you can. Clearly, it's a fight for freedom of speech. It's the right for people to be, you know, just normal human beings living in a supposed democracy, which seems to be under challenge. And do also check out Rand Dawson. He's on Substack for sure. He's on X as well, but do support his work and his narratives. This space, Deep Dive perspective, is here for you, the people who are the victims of the system. The system attacks us all in different ways, ways, whether it's through health, whether it's through our freedom of speech, whether it's through the kind of the poverty that's inflicted on people, or, you know, the inflation. All of this, to me, ultimately, the source goes back to the same Epstein elitists, as is increasingly being coined. There is a fraternity out there that seem to be impervious to all of the things that we have to suffer. And it's regardless of whether you're part of the global south or the global north. I see the resistance to that as one. I don't see it as separate at all. Ranjit puts it as the working class struggle. Whichever way you want to see it, the fact is, there is an oppressor class and there is the oppressed. You're either one or the other, it seems to me. If you want to pretend you're not either, then you're probably putting your head in the sand.

Thank you for watching this edition of Deep Dive Perspective. And do like, share, subscribe to this channel, because you know we're going to get, we're going to get algorithmed by all those forces that don't like the truth being put out there. But thank you for bearing with us. And thank you once again to Ranjit and to Ryan. Goodbye.

═══ Транскрипция видео 2 ═══

coming out right now iran has cancelled their meeting in switzerland they are saying that israel has not conformed to the demands of the mou the first section being that there would be complete cessation of hostilities in lebanon so iran has cancelled that meeting in switzerland what is the type of leverage that's going to be used will that effectuate any change when it comes to the israelis we're going to be speaking about that we're also going to be speaking about the mou the mou has obviously and was confirmed to be released yesterday iran has going to have their assets for unfrozen iran's going to have sanction relief iran's going to have um the control over the strait of ramos and so we had the perfect person to join us which is paul craig roberts former u.s assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy he is an economist and a author and he's also a former sub cabinet office he held the former he held a position in the sub cabinet in the united states of america's federal government so very interested and important and looking forward to the economic conversation that we're going to also have in addition to the geopolitics paul thank you so much for taking your time out to join us how are you i'm just fine i'm very pleased to join you very kind of you paul we just got some breaking news it was literally five minutes before you came on that the iranians are saying they will not be going to the meeting in switzerland until israel stops all hostilities in lebanon what's your thoughts on this move well i predicted that i thought that would happen the iranians are going to see if president trump is capable of forcing israel to comply with the memorandum of understanding the only reason the iranians signed that memorandum wednesday evening digitally was to see if trump would be able to force israeli compliance and that's what iran is now testing they're going to see if trump can get a hold of netanyahu by the throat and tell him he has to comply or the relationship israel has enjoyed with the united states providing diplomatic cover for its war crimes it's genocide uh providing it with weapons uh endless billions of dollars uh that that is all threatened if israel prevents a resolution of the situation in the middle east so iran uh is testing that and we will we will see who is the strongest president trump or israel and its extremely powerful israel lobby inside the united states which of course includes the entire united states congress paul i'm not uh i'm just talking to my audience before you came on i'm not too sure about the legitimacy of this claimed split and what i mean by that is i mean i agree in terms of israel is continuing its attack on lebanon but if you look at the volume of attack it has subsided quite a bit since the agreement and i've spoke to many people on the ground in lebanon and they hold the view that actually israel struggling quite badly on the ground and they will only be able to last a couple of weeks and so i guess i'm positing this possibility to you and i want to hear your thoughts that could this be that the israelis were struggling they only had one or two weeks left there is the israeli army chief and various others who also conformed to this possibility that they were struggling also trump was struggling as i'm gonna speak to you about that in the economic aspect of it and so this became a unanimous agreed decision between the two and now and they just play into the public that there is some kind of disagreement and they forced israel out that's kind of something i want to posit to you but i want to hear your thoughts on that well anything of course is possible but both the israeli prime minister the israeli war minister the israeli minister for national security and the israeli finance minister all stated very recently unequivocally that they had no intention what so ever of stopping their attacks on lebanon and certainly none for withdrawing their occupation of lebanese territories they said that lebanon or the territories that israel occupies are essential to israeli defense of course they're not essential to israeli defense they are essential to the growth of a greater israel clearly the israeli zionist government intends to start gobbling up lebanon bit by bit just as they gobbled up palestine over 79 years iran is in israel's way because iran supplies the resistance movement in lebanon hezbollah and iran supplies the resistance movement in yemen the houthis so iran is scheduled to be removed by israel and israel thought that it had achieved this objective when it convinced the u.s president donald trump to attack iran a second time but the second time in a more fundamental and broader way that was supposed to result in the collapse of the iranian state it didn't and trump seeing that he has no viable military solution wants out because he faces a midterm election and although the american people are prejudice against iran prejudice against iran they don't support the war and they increasingly do not support israel so president trump is concerned that the midterm elections this fall this autumn may give the congress may give the congress to the democrats in which case he faces impeachment and possibly this time conviction and so trump wants out of this mess israel wants the war to continue particularly with americans help because israel cannot continue it by itself and so the benefit to iran is that israel at this moment and trump at this moment have different interests and i think it's very clever of the iranians to test the struggle between trump and netanyahu we're going to find out which is the most powerful and that decision will determine what happens with regard to future conflict with iran great point uh now another question i wanted to speak to you about was we spoke about how trump possibly wanted to get out of this war because of risks of impeachment he could lose the house and the senate in the midterms that being said he said yesterday and this is why i wanted to speak to you about as well in addition to many of the other things we're speaking about but he said yesterday he said we were running out of you um we meaning the united states of america we're running out of oil reserves there was only a month supply of oil left in the united states how much of an energy crisis was there in the united states of america a possible financial crisis he also mentioned that this we were us and the world was going towards a going towards a route that would take them towards a financial depression so taking those two things into consideration what's your thoughts about how those effectuated his decision making all right at first i will say that these are trump's excuses for making an agreement instead of continuing to bomb iran these are excuses that i'm doing this not for the iranians which the israel lobby accuses him of doing i'm doing this for americans and our allies and the whole world because with the straits of homoze close energy flows reduce the price of oil goes up the price of oil enters every product all prices in the world rise this is a terrible thing and me donald trump i'm preventing that by dealing with iran trying to arise at peace so that's the main reason for what he says now you asked me how valid are the claims well if the australian war moves stays closed and the world is deprived of about 20 percent of oil flows uh by this fall by this autumn by october world inflation will be worse and a lot of people in particularly uh in the third world but even in the united states are already pressed that the cost of things rises faster than their income and so it is a serious problem if we believe that voters actually have any influence over government from my long experience in washington i think the influence that voters have in a democracy is minimal the influence comes from the powerful organized interests that supply the campaign contributions that elect the members of the members of the government that's where the power is and that power is not in the hands of the people so i think that uh whereas there is a threat if oil flows remain uh restricted for a long period of time that the consequences uh that the consequences uh could be a problem for governments but i don't think that's what's in play with trump i think trump is under attack for being lenient to iranian terrorists and he's having to show that that's not the case that he's trying to uh save uh the world from hardships that can be avoided so that's my my response to your question fair enough fair enough i understand what you're saying now we saw the mo you come out and financially it was very beneficial for iran you had a scenario where they will have the assets unfrozen there is going to be a pathway to all sanctions being removed there is going to be a situation where they're going to have control over the strait of harmus and for the first 60 days they're not able to charge at all but after the 60 days the documents document seems to suggest that they will be able to do so from a financial economic perspective how much of an impact will this have on iran's economy how much of an impact will it have on iran developing as a middle eastern power how much of an impact will it have for iran to possibly move towards becoming a world power well this will certainly be favorable to iran but it'll also be favorable to a peace in the middle east uh because it strengthens iran relative to israel what what the arab community indeed the entire muslim community including the turks and the pakistanis and the iranians have ignored for a century is the zionist agenda of greater israel the entire muslim world acts like it's never heard of the zionist agenda of greater israel israel claims the entirety of the middle east as its territory originally the claim was limited israel existed from the nile to the euphrates that is uh the eastern part of of egypt uh and the western part of iraq so that meant syria a lemon on jordan parts of iraq and parts of egypt but in the last year two of the israeli ministers have modified the definition of greater israel it now extends from the nile to pakistan and last february just a few months ago the former israeli israeli prime minister bennett also an avowed zionist was in the united states to speak to the annual meeting of the american jewish organizations that is the israel lobby and he told the lobby this is a direct quote that that turkey is the next turkey is the next iran now at the time this was last february he expected the planned attack from trump uh netanyahu on iran would succeed and in iran would be history and he was giving the message to the american jewish lobby to start demonizing turkey to set them up as iran's replacement as a terrorist state and to get the propaganda going so the american public would accept turkey as the new terrorist state that could be safely attacked by israel with the aid of the united states so that was in that was planned again that was ready to go so you can see the israelis have an agenda of taking the entirety of the middle east even the non-arab elements such as the persians in iran and the turks and turkey so this agenda has never received attention from anyone the western world ignores it the arab world has ignored it and the consequence is libya's gone iraq's gone syria's gone israel has u.s at war with iran is trying to keep them at war with iran israel is starting to devour lebanon in little bit little bites little bites at a time the same way they ate up palestine over 79 years so this is the real problem this is the real challenge and it's not recognized no one addresses no one addresses it no not even the iranians have said what is this about greater israel do you mean you own all this territory where there are all of these independent countries how can you make this claim nobody's asked them that no one in the u.s congress has ever asked hey what is this claim that israel owns the entirety of the middle east maybe it's because the claim seems so absurd that no one can take it seriously but the zionists do the israelis take it seriously and therefore they have an agenda that no one else has an agenda so this gives them the upper hand and this upper hand is greatly strengthened by the power they exercise over the united states so we're now going to see whether donald trump's ego is sufficient to stand up to israel's power over the united states that's what's in play and it's the outcome of this test that will determine what next happens what's your thoughts on this um kind of tall that jd vance has been on culminating essentially in today where he's been very aggressive in his admonishment of israel and the israeli lobby for example he said the following quote what does bother me is that you see people in bb's cabinet have come out who have come out and attacked the deal and in some ways very personally attacked the president my message to them is donald j trump is the only head in head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of israel at this moment in time he also continued and said if i was in the cabinet of the israeli government i might not be attacking the only powerful ally that i have left that i have left two-thirds of the defensive weapons that have protected your homeland have been built by american hands and paid for by american tax dollars the problem for israel is not donald j trump and anybody in israel who thinks their biggest problem is the president of the united states of america needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that uh situation that country is in he also talked about how israel is very weak a country of nine million people they cannot do anything when it comes to military action or have effectuate any kind of impact or change what's your thoughts on jd vance and the statements he's been making over the last couple of days yes well i think the answer to the question is fairly simple jd vance is the vice president and the likely candidate for president to succeed trump and therefore he has to protect the trump regime if uh president trump and the regime is discredited then advances uh chances of succeeding uh trump or extremely poor so he will clearly uh defend trump against any and all accusations so the fact that some of the things he said about israel are true but that's not the reason he said them he didn't say them to express truth he said them to protect uh the trump regime because he hopes to be the next one now i myself have said that israel is weak it's a tiny tiny place it's likely that if the iranians uh were more determined to recognize that they had an enemy they had to destroy they would attack the demona with their hypersonic missiles and the nuclear explosion or the release of the nuclear fumes whatever they call it would wipe israel out it wouldn't be there so but they don't do it and so israel has a strength that seems to be based into 79 years of getting away with everything including the theft of palestine if you look at the map in 1947 israel is a tiny little speck on the territory of palestine you look at it today and palestine's a tiny little speck on the map of israel yeah so a country that has that kind of success has confidence and the israelis have massive confidence in their agenda particularly as they have proclaimed it openly decade decade decade after decade holding up maps of greater israel for the arabs to see and they don't see it so um the israelis may end up a victim of their confidence but for the moment they have it and they are confident as the israelian newspapers uh headlines today said netanyahu will rely on the republican senators to control donald trump for israel well that's likely to work and so what iran is testing is who's the strongest israel or trump can israel break up this memorandum of uh understanding uh by not submitting to trump's pressure to comply and it seems from what you reported at the beginning of our meeting that the iranians have concluded uh israel is not complying and so they're not either so i thought the iranians would give it a longer test i thought they would give it three four days maybe even a week uh but apparently not or apparently they decided to increase the pressure on trump maybe they said well we're not complying because israel isn't in order that trump understands that he's on the spot he has to make israel comply or the deal is off and he hasn't any way out and he hasn't any way to explain to the american people about what a great peacemaker he is and he doesn't want the war either so we'll see i i don't really think at this point that the iranians are pulling out they're just telling trump that to see if he is capable of doing anything to make israel comply and we'll know that uh i think in a few days and as i said earlier in our discussion that'll tell us uh how events will unfold um so one thing i've been saying to my audience is that this is and could be a trap for iran and what i mean by that is if you look at the israelis they've been when looks when it was it comes to lebanon they've been increasing their attacks slowly on lebanon and so if you don't respond you fall into a trap where then you need some big event in order to respond and currently my position was that this is the key leverage point up until friday you have this well publicized meeting in switzerland which according to my good friend larry johnson was moved because of some threats by the israelis where they were possibly trying to assassinate the iranian negotiators but that being said this is the key leverage point we're now in wednesday i believe and so you have political leverage as per the meeting on friday which they've used and you also have military leverage and it's always better to try and use your political leverage first before moving to your military leverage which is obviously hitting israel with missiles and so i do think that it was a good move i think it was a smart move i believe it was the right decision to make in order to use that leverage right now what's your thoughts on this well my own thoughts is that the outcome is in iran's hands not trump's and not nothing i use and if iran sticks to its 14 points and it sticks to the reaffirmation uh that the iranian president made when he signed the memorandum of understanding the affirmation that they were loyal to their lebanese allies and would not betray them then the outcome is up to iran or iran's decisions it will depend on what iran decides and not on what did not know you or trump decide you have to remember the the original ceasefire not the memorandum of understanding but the original ceasefire that stopped the war that iran was clearly winning came from israel and trump not from iran i think it was a mistake for iran to agree to the ceasefire i think they should have continued destroyed israel and dictated the terms of peace but they didn't possibly because of putin leaning on the iranians saying make peace make peace something bad will happen i don't know but i suspect that just from looking at the way putin has conducted a five-day war now in the fifth year yeah exactly so the way i see it then it's what does iran make of what trump does of what israel says or does it's up to them i don't think the iranians have come around to the recognition that the zionist agenda of greater israel means iran means iran cannot exist it cannot exist it cannot exist and so for iran the conflict with israel is existential it's nothing that can be resolved in a peace negotiation unless the israeli government renounces the agenda of greater israel and what can make them do that nothing but a dreadful defeat and yet when iran had the opportunity to deliver israel a dreadful defeat it stopped and walked away the americans were helpless all of their radar and air bases and naval bases in the middle east were inoperable the mighty american fleet had to be kept out of the range of iranian missiles it was in iran's hands and they gave up their victory for a ceasefire that they didn't ask for they had no need for a ceasefire so this was a strategic blunder by the iranian government i think they realized it at least in part and so but i still think they're in the driver's seat there's no possibility of the united states invading iran with a land army iran is the size of western europe there are 90 million people israel can hardly deal with a lebanese militia how's it going to deal with an iranian army there's no possibility the iron dome is easily penetrated by the israelis or by the iranians so it's really up to iran what is what does iran really realize do they understand that the agenda of greater israel means they cannot exist no arab or muslim country in the middle east can exist not even turkey remember turkey is the next iran that's what bennett told the american uh jewish lobby last february so and the the latest uh map of greater israel includes saudi arabia all of it so when are the arabs going to wake up ever well i don't think the arabs or the muslims are going to wake up they're asleep they're in slumber right now paul uh just in terms of what you said um and this is it's always tough to you know fight these battles because there isn't much support so i agree with you but in terms of um what you mentioned i totally agree with you i think they should never have agreed to the ceasefire i think it was a mistake from my understanding there were two key reasons but then i think i agree with you so even though they're these are the two excuses they give i think that despite that being the case you had them on the knees you had your boot as i said to scott you had the boot on the neck of israel island america you don't let it up but their excuse is twofold so the first one is apparently they were in terms of you know the missiles are underground there was a bottleneck issue where they were struggling to get gas into those different uh areas and into these underground cities in order to launch the missiles fuel and the other thing was allegedly it was the chinese who essentially pressured iran iran then and even with this mou i'm also of the understanding that even this mou it was the chinese who pressured iran to agree to it because there was a couple of key points that iran still did not agree to in this the first was the 60 days without it all and the second one was that they felt that some of the language in some of the points was a bit too vague um but it was under chinese pressure where that apparently the chinese said to them look sign the document you've got our backing we'll make sure that you you know things go well for you so that's my understanding but what's what's your thoughts well i think you i think you're correct in identifying the chinese i chose to speak about putin because we have the obvious way he's failed to handle the ukrainian situation the chinese of course probably know nothing about the middle east and their main concern is they get the oil and they don't want any disruptions uh from uh oil flow uh flows not getting there that would cause uh trouble within the country uh the the chinese uh communist party which is no longer communist yeah it keeps the name uh there is communists the americans are capitalists yeah it's very much concerned about uh the people being happy and satisfied and not troubled and uh disruptions of oil flows could uh make them unhappy and and troubled and so that's the way that's the only way the chinese thinking about it we don't want any domestic problems from some disruption and energy flows so you go make peace iran you they're not thinking strategically about this and and so i think you're right though i did see that today the chinese government said that they they stand with the iranians now i don't know what it means putin's always standing with everybody but he never does anything so i don't i don't know what the chinese said means anything or not but i think you're right that the chinese were looking at this and saying we've got a lot to lose there'll be unhappiness at home if the oil flows are messed up and so we'll lean on iran or they could have leaned on israel yeah exactly or they could have leaned on the united states but they didn't so they went to what they regarded as the weakest party i think they're wrong i don't think iran's the weakest party i agree um guys make sure you like this video and retweet let's try and get as many people in here as possible now one of the other things i wanted to talk to you about was um this um 300 billion dollars allegedly that the united states is going to give iran now there are different hypotheses in terms of what this could mean some believe this is coming from us taxpayers trump denies this others believe this coming from us corporations others believe it's coming from gulf state and investment fund where is this money coming from what is the implications of this 300 billion by the way i'm someone who thinks that if this is coming from us corporations this is essentially iran selling out because you can't sell your country to corporate american interests and basically you have trump tower in tehran but what's uh what's your thoughts on what this 300 billion means okay according to president trump the 300 billion comes from none of those sources it comes from the gulf uh state oil sheetdoms oman qatar or the united arab whatever they are called republics this is money they give to iran as reparations or the damage inflicted on iran by the american israeli attack which the gulf states supported by having american air and naval bases on their territories so the source of the money is the oil sheikums in the persian gulf and according to trump that this money takes the place of iranian tolls on passage through the strait of hormos so this is how trump claims also that he is keeping the strait open and free of tolls uh no no no no no american is paying at all is paying this 300 billion it's the persian gulf oil sheikums so that's the source according to trump of the 300 billion now uh trump is accused in the united states of giving iran 300 billion dollars but that's untrue you may remember obama was when he made a deal with iran i was accused of giving iran hundreds of billions of dollars where that was from i don't remember possibly it was thought to be uh a product of removing sanctions which i don't think were actually removed but i can't remember so that's the way i would answer your question solomon it it it's not american money that is going to iran fair enough so it is going to be possibly gold state money possibly based on reparations or investment for me it doesn't matter what it is if it's investment again major problems if it's reparations it's just talk it's talk it's trump's in a mess and he has to have all kinds of ways of getting out of it and um so i wouldn't get too carried away by what the president of the united states says the question is what is what is he going to do iran has him locked in a potential conflict with israel and i think the iranians are betting that the outcome of this conflict will inform iran what to do and i think the iranians are waiting on the result of the conflict which they created when they signed the memorandum of understanding despite israel's rejection of it see i always wondered why did they sign the damn memorandum when israel has already said go to hell we're not going to pay any attention to it why sign it because it puts trump in conflict with israel so this was the first smart move by the iranian government the first thing they did that was smart it was it was extremely smart yeah and we got to see what happens if it may be trump simply lacks the power to engage in conflict with israel the the the world doesn't understand how powerful the israel lobby is in the united states for example the israel lobby has been been able to reach into the legislatures of i think 38 of the american states that's 25 would be half they've been able to reach into 38 state legislatures including republican states like texas and florida and have the legislators pass legislation that if an american criticizes israel it cannot work for the state government it cannot have a contract to supply goods and services to the state government and the governors have signed the laws. This is unbelievable power. We're not talking about the Congress in Washington, but the state legislatures. The Israelis have proved their ability to reach inside the tenure decisions of American universities and determine who the university is allowed to keep. Even Catholic universities, they have succeeded in establishing that students in American universities who demonstrate in favor of Palestine are expelled from the school.

And if they are foreign students here on valid visas, they are deported from the country. So you can't even criticize Israel. I can do it because I'm independent. If I had an employer, there would be pressure on my employer to fire me. If my wife was alive working, there'd be pressure on her employer to fire her. If I had a kid applying to Harvard, he'd be rejected. This is the power of the Israel lobby. We now have American conservatives running around saying, "If you don't love Israel, you can't be an American." We'll soon know because I don't see right now, there may be a way, Trump may come up with a way. I don't see quite how Trump is going to get out of this situation, but I don't see quite how Trump is going to get out of this situation. that the Iranians have put him in by signing the Iranians have put him in by signing the memorandum. How can he not try to make Israel comply with the requirement of the memorandum? Because that's the terms Iran signed it on. Israel's compliance. So if he doesn't even try, how can he turn around and blame the failure on the Iranians? If he can't blame the failure on the Iranians, how can he justify renewing the war? As if he could. I actually do not think the United States is capable of renewing the war. I don't believe that they're capable of it. Perhaps they are for two, three weeks. So that's the situation. I hope I've been clear and that everyone can understand what is really the facts. The Western media is a total failure in explaining any of this. They have no comprehension whatsoever. And since the Western media still, for reasons that I can't understand, influences the world media, it may well be the entire world world. I don't understand what the situation is. Well, I've tried to explain it. I hope I did a clear job. You did indeed. And I totally agree with what you're saying. If you look at the level of control that they have, whether it's, as you mentioned, I gave up millions of dollar contracts because of my position on being against Israel before October the 7th. I had a very lucrative deal. And then I had to stand up and speak against a lot of the propaganda that was occurring straight after that day because I was seeing and viewing that they were attempting to manufacture consent in order to commit a genocide in Gaza. So you were speaking to someone who's been impacted in the millions of dollars. But so I totally agree with you. And if you look at it, this is an attack on, you know what makes like, I'm a woman of society, because it develops ideas and thoughts. They're not put in a small box. And so when you see the direct attack on free speech in the United States of America, because I spent, my audience is actually all largely American. And I spent 50% of my time largely in America and then 50% in the UK. But in both countries, you see the same thing. An attack on free speech.

You look at the UK, people put these mass arrests that are occurring in the UK due to social media posts. What they won't tell you is the vast majority of those posts are if someone speaks out against Israel. There is the complete control over the US government, complete control over the UK government. Social media influences are completely controlled in the UK. At least with the US, there is some glimmers of certain people willing to have conversations about this, such as yourself, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and all these big people who are speaking about this. But it's completely controlled and occupied. And you don't have these ideas. And the ideas that have been pushed are basically an antithesis to what makes, I believe, Western society great. But what's your thoughts on this? Yes, it's extraordinary. What you've brought out is that Israel is so powerful, it can even repeal the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In fact, there's an effort in the United States Congress to do precisely that. And it's supported by Donald Trump. Well, he's issued a number of executive orders in order to do that. If anybody, he's got a czar who's going to be very, who's going to basically search for people who are anti-Semitic and to basically destroy as per what you said, their careers.

There's this new bill that they've got section 224, which merges the Israeli military, Israeli and American technology, drones and missiles. And we know that technology, that ability, those skills all come from the US. The Israelis are just going to leech off it and take the secrets of the United States. Yes, the integration of the Israeli and the American militaries. Yeah, their control is becoming complete. And let's hope that Trump's ego is so great that he won't bend and that we have a break in Israel's supremacy over the United States. Let's hope. Let's hope also that the Middle Eastern states realize the implications of the Zionist agenda of greater Israel. If they don't realize that, they have no chance whatsoever of survival. Totally agree with you. Let's hope so. But let's see what happens. But Paul, thank you so much for taking your time out to join us. Really appreciate your thoughts. First time I've spoken to you and really valued our conversation. Where can people find you if they want to see more of your work and more of the things that you're producing? It's very simple. I avoid social media. social media. My website is www.paulcraigroberts.org. Very simple. There's an enormous amount of material there. And I stand by all of it. I haven't had to go back and go back and delete any of it. Brilliant. Thank you so much for taking your time out to join us.

Appreciate your openness in this conversation. And thank you so much for taking your time out. It's really valuable. Well, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. I hope I have the pleasure again. It would be our honor and privilege. Thank you so much. Thank you. That was Paul Craig Roberts. Do give him a follow. What a legend. What a legend. Really enjoyed that conversation. Guys, make sure you like this video. Make sure you share this video and subscribe to the channel and have your notifications on. Let's try and get as many people in here as possible. I'm so glad I had him on. He was awesome. I liked him. Now, next, we're going to have like this video, by the way, guys. Next, we're going to have on David Payne. So I'm going to put it if someone can get it before me. Let me see. But we're going to have him on next. We have got a statement from the leader of Iran. I am going to go through that with him, as well as many of the other things that he wants to relay about this deal, which he believes is a total and complete victory by Iran. So that is there. So I've pinned it. Let's go across there. I'll be starting that in about three minutes.

So in terms of this video, it's linked. So I appreciate you guys joining in. I appreciate you guys listening. listening. And I'll see you on the link in a couple of minutes. Thank you.