Transcript [00:00] There is no standard by which Israel [00:01] committed a genocide in Gaza just on a [00:03] factual level. [00:03] >> I understand the tendency for people to [00:06] assert that on the basis of the images [00:10] and the proportionality as it relates [00:13] genocide. [00:14] >> No no and by the way I agree with you [00:16] >> and international and proportionality [00:18] doesn't mean that if you kill my child [00:20] and I then kill seven criminals that [00:22] I've been disported. So Gavin Nuome, the [00:25] uh Democrat governor of California, [00:28] recently had Ben Shapiro on his podcast [00:30] in a transparent effort to endear [00:34] himself to Jews and to the pro-Israel [00:37] community. And it didn't go exactly as [00:40] he expected. You got to watch this clip [00:42] and then I've got a lot to say about it [00:44] about what's actually going on in this [00:47] whole interview and what Gavin Newsome [00:49] is trying to do. But take a look at this [00:51] >> seems to be have become a sort of [00:53] debuggore [00:54] requirement for Democrats who are [00:56] running for office to now suggest for [00:58] example Scott Weiner just did this. He's [01:00] running for Congress that Israel [01:01] committed a genocide in Gaza that is [01:03] forget about anti-semitism and [01:04] discussions of it because I think that [01:05] those have become really loose and [01:07] people don't have a consistent [01:08] definition of anti-semitism. Let's just [01:10] talk about what's true. [01:10] >> That's true. [01:11] >> I think it's true about the the [01:13] definition. I mean we as you know been [01:14] struggling with that in California as it [01:16] relates to a lot of laws. Of course, [01:18] anti-semitism is is a fundamentally [01:20] different cat than, for example, racism. [01:21] It's basically a conspiracy theory about [01:23] Jewish power in the world, but [01:24] >> and it makes me sick to my stomach. And [01:26] I say that clearly. And no, but not just [01:28] of course. I mean, we've we've tried to [01:29] lead in terms of our response and we've [01:32] called out and called balls and strikes [01:33] in terms of the outrageous [01:35] >> without I would, you know, in my own [01:37] framework of anti-semitism, I think that [01:38] saying overtly false things about the [01:41] Jewish state [01:42] >> is a form of anti-semitism. But I don't [01:45] think that that is really important as [01:48] much as it is is it true or not. So [01:51] Democrats have now been dragged into [01:53] this conversation some drag some some [01:55] run with you know flags waving uh into [01:58] the conversation [01:59] >> of genocide. Yes. [02:00] >> Yeah. I mean look [02:01] >> Israel did not commit a genocide in [02:03] Gaza. There is no standard by which [02:04] Israel committed a genocide in Gaza just [02:06] on a factual level. [02:07] >> Just a legal and factual level. [02:09] >> Yes. [02:09] >> Yeah. [02:10] >> What is your opinion of this? My my [02:12] opinion is I understand the tendency [02:17] for people to make that to assert that [02:21] on the basis of the images and the [02:26] proportionality [02:28] doesn't mean genocide. No, no. And by [02:29] the way, I agree with you [02:30] >> and international and proportionality [02:33] doesn't mean that if you kill my child [02:35] and I then kill seven criminals that [02:37] I've been disproportionate. [02:38] >> I'm not disagreeing with you, but I [02:40] think the but I understand that tendency [02:43] on the basis of trying to reconcile the [02:48] proportionate nature of how the war was [02:50] ultimately conducted. [02:52] >> I have a question. Why do you why do you [02:53] feel the need to create a permission [02:57] structure for that sort of stuff? I mean [02:58] meaning it's not true. [03:01] >> Why not just say it's not true? [03:02] >> Yeah. I look I don't know the definition [03:04] and I don't know the legal threshold. [03:05] That's not my opinion. So I don't I [03:07] don't share that opinion as relates to [03:09] genocide. I do not I do not agree with [03:10] that notion that [03:12] >> but you do understand that if you accuse [03:14] Israel of committing a genocide that now [03:15] puts Israel in the position of it should [03:17] be a pariah state because states that [03:18] commit genocide should be pariah states. [03:20] So granting legitimacy to that position [03:22] inherently [03:23] >> I'm not I'm not granting legitimacy. I'm [03:24] just saying the the the devastation in [03:28] Gaza that the at the human level. You're [03:30] you've got four kids. Of course, it's [03:31] terrible. No, but but I think it's also [03:32] important to absorb that a little bit [03:34] more just as it was sick and we were [03:37] clear in our condemnation these people [03:38] like me as it relates to what Hamas did [03:41] and that act of barbarism and terrorism. [03:44] Terrorism and wartime collateral damage [03:47] of course and if we refuse to [03:48] acknowledge that reality then we end up [03:50] >> collateral damage. I just I have [03:52] stronger opinions. It wasn't just [03:53] collateral. You know, [03:54] >> really, you think that Israel is [03:55] targeting civilians? [03:56] >> I I think some of the double tapping [03:59] issues. I have a I have a lot of issues [04:00] without BB ultimately conduct the war. I [04:02] personally do. And I have a lot of [04:04] issues that are also painted on the [04:05] basis of the conversation I had when uh [04:07] a few weeks later uh after October 7th, [04:10] the way he talked about the [04:11] Palestinians. I kept talking about [04:13] Hamas. He kept talking about the [04:14] Palestinians. I kept coming back to [04:16] Hamas. And then ultimately how the war [04:18] was conducted. Uh not saying it was a [04:21] genocide. I'm not. But I have issues. [04:23] >> What is the thing that he Because right [04:24] now, for example, [04:25] >> but the genocide protesters where the [04:26] protest where are the members of the [04:28] Democratic party protesting and wearing [04:29] pins for the protesters in Iran who are [04:31] getting mowed down maybe by the tens of [04:33] thousands this week. [04:34] >> Well, I know where I am. I put out a [04:36] pretty clear statement this week. And [04:37] >> I'd like to see more Democrats. [04:39] >> Yeah, I I don't disagree with you. By [04:40] the way, also thought it was I thought [04:42] it was the right thing to do that strike [04:43] and I thought it was unbelievably [04:45] effective and efficient. um and u had no [04:47] problem saying that uh during the strike [04:50] not didn't wait for the outcome. So, uh, [04:53] yeah, I marched to a beat of a little [04:54] bit of a different drum, a little bit [04:56] more nuance here, but there is I look, [04:58] it's this. No, everything's so black and [05:00] white. It just there's nuance here. Now, [05:02] first of all, first let's deal with this [05:05] issue of proportionality [05:07] and genocide that Gavin Newsome is [05:09] saying like he was talking about the [05:10] proportionality and and Ben was [05:13] correctly saying, well, these are this [05:15] is collateral damage and warfare. So, [05:16] let me just clear this up and uh and [05:19] let's go to the Geneva Conventions. [05:21] Okay. So in the Geneva Convention, in [05:23] the Geneva in article 51 of the 1949 [05:26] Geneva Convention, we read as following. [05:28] So this is all about u protection of [05:31] civilians, protection of civilian [05:33] population and indiscriminate attacks [05:36] are prohibited. Uh those are not [05:38] directed at a military objective. [05:41] And then down here it says, "An attack [05:45] would be considered indiscriminate, [05:48] which may be expected to cause [05:50] incidental loss of civilian life, injury [05:52] to civilians, damage to civilian [05:54] objects, or a combination thereof, which [05:57] would be excessive in relation to the [06:00] concrete and direct military advantage [06:04] anticipated." That is the principle of [06:07] proportionality in warfare. That's the [06:09] clause. When people say that a military [06:12] action was disproportionate [06:15] um from a legal perspective, they're [06:16] referring to that passage in article 51 [06:19] of the 1949 Geneva Convention. So, for [06:22] example, if there's a rocket launcher on [06:25] the roof of a uh if there's a rocket [06:28] launcher on the roof of a home that is [06:30] aimed at at Israel, let's say, and the [06:33] home then becomes a legitimate military [06:36] target. So an air strike on that home is [06:39] legitimate and is proportional. It's [06:41] proportional regardless of how many [06:44] casualties there are. The term [06:45] proportional in warfare means that it is [06:48] proportional because it serves the [06:50] legitimate military advantage of [06:52] destroying the rocket launching [06:54] capabilities of that site. Should an air [06:58] strike to destroy that that rocket [07:00] launcher be a massive air strike that [07:03] also takes out a whole bunch of houses [07:04] around that house, destroys numerous [07:07] other houses and kills lots of people [07:09] that aren't even anywhere near the house [07:11] that has the rocket launcher on it, [07:13] serving no military advantage by their [07:15] destruction. That response would be [07:18] deemed uh would not be considered a [07:22] proportional response. That's the [07:23] principle of proportionality in warfare. [07:25] Gavin Newsome has no idea what he is [07:28] talking about. And you know the law of [07:30] proportionality doesn't mean that if you [07:31] kill a 100 people then if we kill more [07:34] than 100 people it was it was not [07:35] proportional. [07:37] Proportionality in warfare again just to [07:39] sum up this point proportionality in [07:40] warfare legally is defined as actions [07:43] that are taken that are proportional to [07:46] the military goal. The military goal of [07:49] the action taken. Anything beyond the [07:52] military goal would be considered [07:54] anything more than that and would be [07:56] considered excessive and therefore not [07:58] proportional. Every single action that [08:00] Israel has taken in the Gaza Strip has [08:02] been proportional to its military goals. [08:04] Now, if that means that there's hundreds [08:06] of miles of tunnels underneath every [08:08] single building and they have to get [08:09] through these buildings and and and and [08:11] destroy them or the fact that virtually [08:14] every residential building in Gaza [08:17] stored weapons in it and had rocket [08:19] launchers in it. Okay? And this this is [08:22] something that is well known. I've heard [08:23] it personally from numerous soldiers who [08:25] fought in Gaza when they were doing [08:26] their house-to-house searches. There's [08:28] weapons everywhere. The entire Gaza was [08:30] militarized. So when Israel is taking [08:32] out the terrorist infrastructure and [08:35] they have to visit all this destruction [08:37] on Gaza, never mind the fact that Israel [08:39] always dropped leaflets and made sure [08:40] that there would be minimal civilian [08:42] casualties and many experts uh made it [08:45] very clear that Israel did more than any [08:46] other army in history to minimize [08:48] civilian casualties. [08:51] Um the the idea that Israel committed a [08:53] genocide is absurd. The statistic that [08:56] really gives the greatest lie to the [08:58] whole thing is simply the fact that the [09:00] population of Gaza has grown since [09:02] October 7th. It has grown. Okay, this is [09:04] a fact. Now, let's talk about this Gavin [09:08] Newsome Ben Shapiro conversation because [09:09] this is what's really interesting. Why [09:11] did this conversation take place? Gavin [09:13] Newsome is this left-wing Democrat [09:16] governor of California. Okay, he's got [09:18] this podcast. Why does he have Ben [09:20] Shapiro on recently? Well, here's what's [09:23] going on. See, Ben Shapiro recently [09:26] caused a lot of controversy in the MAGA [09:29] movement in the right in the [09:30] conservative political space. When he [09:33] showed up at America Fest at Turning [09:35] Point USA's America Fest, he was the [09:37] first keynote speaker in Phoenix, [09:39] Arizona. That now America Fest is the [09:41] largest gathering of political [09:43] conservative activists every single [09:44] year. So Ben Shapiro gets up on stage [09:47] and [clears throat] he calls out [09:50] Candace Owens and he calls out Tucker [09:51] Carlson and he calls out Megan Kelly for [09:54] for for what he what his speech focused [09:58] on was that they violated the trust of [10:02] their audiences, okay, by being [10:04] disingenuous and dishonest in their in [10:07] their approach to what they say. That [10:08] was what his speech was basically about. [10:10] and he got attacked. He got attacked by [10:14] a lot of people in the MAGA movement [10:16] during the rest of that conference and [10:17] in the days after it for for what they [10:21] claimed was that he was calling for [10:23] cancellation of voices like Tucker [10:25] Carlson and Candace Owens and Nick [10:26] Fuentes and whatever. Now, Ben Shapiro [10:28] never said he was calling for anyone's [10:29] cancellation. And I I don't want to [10:31] weigh in on on how much I liked or [10:33] didn't like Ben Shapiro's speech and how [10:35] he handled that. That's not the point. [10:37] The point is this. Ben Shapiro has [10:39] positioned himself within the political [10:42] conservative space as being the opponent [10:45] of the voices that have been [10:47] anti-Semitic as the opponent of Tucker [10:50] Carlson and of Candace Owens and of [10:52] their enablers and the people who [10:54] support them and platform them. That's [10:56] how Ben Shapiro has been positioned. [10:58] Okay. Now, [11:01] I believe that what Gavin Newsome is [11:03] doing right now and what he's going to [11:05] continue to do and we'll see him [11:07] continue to do this in the campaign, I'm [11:09] making a prediction right here, is this. [11:11] If JD Vance, [11:14] who is close friends with Tucker [11:16] Carlson, Tucker Carlson's son, Buckley, [11:19] works for JD Vance. JD Vance has [11:21] defended him and he refuses to denounce [11:24] him and people are calling on him to do [11:26] so. I again, I'm not going to weigh in [11:27] on whether I think he should or [11:28] shouldn't do anything like that, but JD [11:30] Vance has a close association with [11:32] Tucker Carlson, who's really the leader [11:35] of this anti-Semitic, anti-Israel wing [11:38] of MAGA. So, what's happening now? [11:41] Here's what Newsome is doing. Nuome [11:44] brought Ben Shapiro on his show to have [11:46] a conversation with Ben Shapiro where he [11:48] Gavin Newsome could come off as moderate [11:51] and somewhat pro-Israel [11:54] and they could tisk tis tisk at all the [11:57] anti-semites. [11:58] And what Gavin Newsome is going to do in [12:00] the campaign is he's going to make all [12:02] sorts of statements that sound [12:04] pro-Israel and pro-Jewish and denouncing [12:06] anti-semitism. [12:08] Simultaneously, the Democrats are going [12:10] to demonize [12:12] J. D. Vance for his friendship with [12:14] Tucker Carlson, for his closeness to [12:17] Tucker Carlson, and use the Jewish issue [12:19] as a wedge to try to get Jews who have [12:24] been politically conservative and [12:25] pro-Israel people who've been in the [12:27] politically conservative camp to back [12:29] away from their support of JD Vance. And [12:33] that is the political game that Gavin [12:35] Newsome is playing. That is why he had [12:37] Ben Shapiro on his show. So he's [12:39] embracing Ben. And this way, you know, [12:41] he can seem like he talks to everybody. [12:43] You know, here he's he's opening up [12:44] dialogue with conservative and a and a [12:46] and a and a and a and a more liberal and [12:48] a Democrat having a conversation [12:50] together and he's sort of pro-Israel and [12:52] he's pro-Jewish and he denounces an [12:54] anti-semitism is terrible and kamas is [12:56] terrible. But he's doing this as a [12:58] political device to try to take [13:01] advantage [13:02] of the the positioning of Ben Shapiro [13:05] against the Vance camp, the Tucker [13:08] Carlson camp of MAGA. And that way he [13:11] could defeat he could defeat JD Vance in [13:15] an election by painting JD as being part [13:19] of this problematic wing. And the [13:21] earlier he does it by doing it now, [13:22] which is way in advance of the ele of [13:25] the presidential campaign, he builds up [13:27] credibility for this position. This is [13:29] what he is doing. And what you're going [13:31] to see in the coming days is more and in [13:33] the coming years as we lead up to the [13:35] election, so long as JD Vance is the [13:38] candidate that the Republicans are [13:39] pushing, and right now it seems to be [13:41] that he's the main guy that people are [13:42] pushing. If they do that, you're going [13:44] to see the Democrats, they're going to [13:46] tack towards being pro-Israel in words, [13:49] in statements, towards being pro-Jewish [13:52] and and against anti-semitism. This [13:54] might cause a little bit of an outcry by [13:56] the pro- kamas wing of the Democratic [13:58] party, which will only help this [14:00] campaign because it'll make whoever is [14:02] the candidate seem more moderate and [14:04] more mainstream. They're kind of they're [14:06] going to try to position him kind of [14:07] like a Bill Clinton. I don't mean about [14:09] all the sorted stuff Clinton did, but [14:11] when Clinton ran for office, he was [14:13] painted as a kind of moderate Democrat, [14:15] not so liberal and a little bit more [14:16] conservative. He was raised a Baptist, [14:19] etc., etc. So Gavin Newsome is going to [14:21] try to tack towards the middle, tack [14:23] towards the Jewish community, tack [14:25] towards Israel as a way of pulling [14:28] people away from the Republican party [14:30] with the stain of this association with [14:34] Tucker Carlson and others in that camp [14:37] and make it seem that the that the [14:38] Republicans are are uh are a little too [14:41] friendly with anti-semmites. And this is [14:43] going to present a bit of a challenge [14:44] for the Republicans, for the MAGA [14:46] movement. what do they do in order to [14:48] counteract this? But that's what's [14:50] actually happening in this interview. [14:52] And of course, as you saw, it didn't go [14:54] as exactly as as Nuome expected. Uh [14:57] because here he's playing all these [14:58] games like, "Oh, yeah, yeah, I'm against [15:00] Hamas. I'm against all this." Meanwhile, [15:02] he's giving legitimacy to the absurd [15:04] claims that Israel committed genocide. [15:06] So, that's my take on that little [15:09] snippet of interview between uh between [15:12] Gavin Newsome and Ben Shapiro. If you're [15:14] enjoying this content, please like and [15:16] subscribe and share this stuff.
