Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

🇺🇸🎙🇵🇸 Jackson Hinkle asks Hamas political bureau member Basem Naim if "October 7th" was a victory for the Palestinian people: "October 7th had made it clear that Palestinians can achieve their goals. Israel is defeatable. Palestinians can do it even alone. Maybe for some reasons, we can say that... these very high prices are partially also not only because of the brutality of the Israelis, which is the case, and they have talked about this in many occasions. But it is also because of the complexity of a lot of countries, in particular in the West. And the top of this is the United States. And Palestinians, at the end, they are not asking more than their genuine rights, their rights according to international law, to have their own state, independent, self, sovereign state, to live in dignity and freedom. Therefore, again, it is when we understand this context, it is a victorious step."show more

Tabz

5,232 subscribers

28,046 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology News & Politics Education

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

4 Comments

Sputnik1 year ago

@jacksonhinklle This was the best interview I’ve seen💯💯

WenatcheeRN1 year ago

Goals achieved? Looks like it.

Ot1 year ago

@jacksonhinklle Very easy to see who are the good guys If israel want to wipe out Hamas they could easily do it but they choose not to But if Gaza could they would wipe out without blinking… but they can’t

nazek.haimour1 year ago

@jacksonhinklle ✌️💚🇵🇸☝️🙏

Related Videos

⚡️🇵🇸JUST IN: Hamas leader Bassim Naim to Jackson Hinkle [Jackson Hinkle 🇺🇸] on Legitimate Targets Channel: “It is between Palestinians and Israel, maybe this time it’s lead by Hamas, 20-30 years ago it was lead by Fatah and before that it was lead by PFLP….We have no problems with Jews or Judaism, it is clear we are fighting for political goals, we are fighting against the occupation…..If we can achieve our goals politically and peacefully then this is welcomed from our side” “We tried peace before we signed an agreement in 1993, Olso agreement and we gave the international community 30 years until 2023 to implement this deal so that Palestinians have their own sovereign independent state but it had all collapsed due to more land annexation, settlements expansion…..”

⚡️🇵🇸JUST IN: Hamas leader Bassim Naim to Jackson Hinkle [Jackson Hinkle 🇺🇸] on Legitimate Targets Channel: “It is between Palestinians and Israel, maybe this time it’s lead by Hamas, 20-30 years ago it was lead by Fatah and before that it was lead by PFLP….We have no problems with Jews or Judaism, it is clear we are fighting for political goals, we are fighting against the occupation…..If we can achieve our goals politically and peacefully then this is welcomed from our side” “We tried peace before we signed an agreement in 1993, Olso agreement and we gave the international community 30 years until 2023 to implement this deal so that Palestinians have their own sovereign independent state but it had all collapsed due to more land annexation, settlements expansion…..”

Suppressed News.

198,258 views • 1 year ago

🇵🇸 🇺🇳 “What is the alternative? A one State reality where Palestinians are denied equal rights and forced to live under perpetual occupation and inequality or a one State reality where Palestinians are expelled from their land. That is not peace. That is not justice. That is not in accordance with international law. That will only increase the global isolation of Israel in the international stage. Statehood for the Palestinian people is a right. Not a reward.”

🇵🇸 🇺🇳 “What is the alternative? A one State reality where Palestinians are denied equal rights and forced to live under perpetual occupation and inequality or a one State reality where Palestinians are expelled from their land. That is not peace. That is not justice. That is not in accordance with international law. That will only increase the global isolation of Israel in the international stage. Statehood for the Palestinian people is a right. Not a reward.”

State of Palestine

81,339 views • 1 year ago

The polls are in and Brigitte Gabriel breaks it down. The Arab world for research and development ran a poll of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Here are the results. 3/4 Palestinians support Hamas’ October 7th massacre. 98% said that October 7th made them proud. 77% want to destroy Israel. And in the West Bank? Hamas is even more popular. 88% approval rating. Islamic Jihad 93% support in the West Bank. 98% of Palestinians in the West Bank say they hate America. 96.8% in Gaza hate America. Oh, and the UK?! 100% said they hate the UK. Yes, you read that right. 100%. 92% hate the EU and 88% hate the UN. Can you say death cult who hates everyone and wants everyone dead? As Brigitte so eloquently said “We don’t really believe in evil. Even when we come face to face with it, we make excuses for it.” Wake up, folks. The Palestinian people have chosen terror over freedom. They have chosen to build a rotten society from the ground up instead of building a flourishing state. The hard truth is, this isn’t a war between Israel and Hamas. This is a war between the west, represented by Israel, against radical Islam represented by the Palestinian people and their elected government, Hamas. Numbers don’t lie and the Palestinians have chosen death over life.

The polls are in and Brigitte Gabriel breaks it down. The Arab world for research and development ran a poll of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Here are the results. 3/4 Palestinians support Hamas’ October 7th massacre. 98% said that October 7th made them proud. 77% want to destroy Israel. And in the West Bank? Hamas is even more popular. 88% approval rating. Islamic Jihad 93% support in the West Bank. 98% of Palestinians in the West Bank say they hate America. 96.8% in Gaza hate America. Oh, and the UK?! 100% said they hate the UK. Yes, you read that right. 100%. 92% hate the EU and 88% hate the UN. Can you say death cult who hates everyone and wants everyone dead? As Brigitte so eloquently said “We don’t really believe in evil. Even when we come face to face with it, we make excuses for it.” Wake up, folks. The Palestinian people have chosen terror over freedom. They have chosen to build a rotten society from the ground up instead of building a flourishing state. The hard truth is, this isn’t a war between Israel and Hamas. This is a war between the west, represented by Israel, against radical Islam represented by the Palestinian people and their elected government, Hamas. Numbers don’t lie and the Palestinians have chosen death over life.

Hillel Fuld

449,844 views • 2 years ago

NEW: Antony Blinken revealed to the NYT that he was set to meet with Israel and Saudi Arabia on October 10th to discuss a path toward a Palestinian state, but Hamas' October 7th attack derailed the meeting. Hamas only hurts Palestinians—hijacking their rights, oppressing and killing them, and destroying their hopes for self-determination. Supporting Hamas is supporting the destruction of Palestinian rights and aspirations.

NEW: Antony Blinken revealed to the NYT that he was set to meet with Israel and Saudi Arabia on October 10th to discuss a path toward a Palestinian state, but Hamas' October 7th attack derailed the meeting. Hamas only hurts Palestinians—hijacking their rights, oppressing and killing them, and destroying their hopes for self-determination. Supporting Hamas is supporting the destruction of Palestinian rights and aspirations.

Hen Mazzig

376,087 views • 1 year ago

The Constitution of Ireland begins not with government, but with the Nation—with the People themselves. That is not symbolism. That is authority. It is from the People that all power flows, and it is by our collective will that we established the Constitution as the supreme law of this State. Within it, we gave ourselves courts—not as instruments of control, but as guardians of liberty. Under Article 34, we vested those courts with a solemn duty: to protect and vindicate our personal rights. Those personal rights are not abstract ideas. They are expressly recognised and protected across the Constitution—beginning in Article 40, and extending through Articles 41, 42, 42A, 43, and 44. Together, they safeguard what it means to live freely and with dignity in Ireland: our personal liberty, our families, our children, our right to educate according to conscience, our private property, and our freedom of religion. These rights do not exist at the pleasure of the State. They do not depend on policy, preference, or administrative convenience. They are fundamental, and they are inalienable. What we are witnessing at this moment is something profoundly serious. A member of the Government—holding office as a Minister of State, an office that exists only by statute—has purported, through a statutory instrument, to prevent the People of Ireland from exercising their constitutional rights in their own courts. That cannot stand. No statutory instrument can override the Constitution. No minister, junior or otherwise, can suspend fundamental rights. No act of secondary legislation can lawfully obstruct access to the courts where those rights are vindicated. To suggest otherwise is not merely mistaken—it is constitutionally impossible. The courts do not belong to the executive. They do not belong to departments. They belong to the People, because the Constitution says so. And so, this is where the line is drawn. The Constitution is not optional. Fundamental rights are not negotiable. Access to justice is not a privilege to be rationed. Tomorrow, the law will be laid plainly before the Minister for Justice—not in defiance, but in fidelity to the Constitution; not in anger, but in duty to the People; not for personal grievance, but for the protection of all. Because if fundamental rights can be restrained today, they can be extinguished tomorrow. And if we do not stand now, we leave our children standing alone later. This is not about power. It is about principle. It is about ensuring that the Constitution lives—not on paper, but in practice. And it is about the furtherance of our fundamental rights, so that we may protect ourselves, our families, our children, the way we educate our children, our private property, and our religion—today, and for generations to come. #NoFeeOnGuarantee

The Constitution of Ireland begins not with government, but with the Nation—with the People themselves. That is not symbolism. That is authority. It is from the People that all power flows, and it is by our collective will that we established the Constitution as the supreme law of this State. Within it, we gave ourselves courts—not as instruments of control, but as guardians of liberty. Under Article 34, we vested those courts with a solemn duty: to protect and vindicate our personal rights. Those personal rights are not abstract ideas. They are expressly recognised and protected across the Constitution—beginning in Article 40, and extending through Articles 41, 42, 42A, 43, and 44. Together, they safeguard what it means to live freely and with dignity in Ireland: our personal liberty, our families, our children, our right to educate according to conscience, our private property, and our freedom of religion. These rights do not exist at the pleasure of the State. They do not depend on policy, preference, or administrative convenience. They are fundamental, and they are inalienable. What we are witnessing at this moment is something profoundly serious. A member of the Government—holding office as a Minister of State, an office that exists only by statute—has purported, through a statutory instrument, to prevent the People of Ireland from exercising their constitutional rights in their own courts. That cannot stand. No statutory instrument can override the Constitution. No minister, junior or otherwise, can suspend fundamental rights. No act of secondary legislation can lawfully obstruct access to the courts where those rights are vindicated. To suggest otherwise is not merely mistaken—it is constitutionally impossible. The courts do not belong to the executive. They do not belong to departments. They belong to the People, because the Constitution says so. And so, this is where the line is drawn. The Constitution is not optional. Fundamental rights are not negotiable. Access to justice is not a privilege to be rationed. Tomorrow, the law will be laid plainly before the Minister for Justice—not in defiance, but in fidelity to the Constitution; not in anger, but in duty to the People; not for personal grievance, but for the protection of all. Because if fundamental rights can be restrained today, they can be extinguished tomorrow. And if we do not stand now, we leave our children standing alone later. This is not about power. It is about principle. It is about ensuring that the Constitution lives—not on paper, but in practice. And it is about the furtherance of our fundamental rights, so that we may protect ourselves, our families, our children, the way we educate our children, our private property, and our religion—today, and for generations to come. #NoFeeOnGuarantee

Patrick McGreal

11,354 views • 8 months ago

The United States continues to believe that the sole viable path is a two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians each exercising their legitimate right to live in a state of their own, with equal measures of security and freedom, of opportunity and dignity.

The United States continues to believe that the sole viable path is a two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians each exercising their legitimate right to live in a state of their own, with equal measures of security and freedom, of opportunity and dignity.

Department of State

361,216 views • 2 years ago

"Ongoing" - One of the phrases increasingly used next to the term "Nakba" is "Ongoing" as in the recent proposal by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Now westerners assume that the "ongoing" seeks to highlight continued suffering of Palestinian Arabs, but as with so many other phrases that serve as "dual use language" (as Eran Shayshon coined) is that the deep meaning is very different. Once it is known and understood that the real time meaning of the Nakba, as described by Constantin Zureiq as "Seven Arab states declare war in an attempt to subdue Zionism, stop impotent before it, and return on their heels" was the shameful failure to defeat the lowly Jews in war - it becomes crystal clear why it remains "ongoing": As long as Israel exists, the Arab, and especially Palestinian Arab shameful failure to dismantle Jewish sovereignty and "subdue Zionism" remains "ongoing". As long as, per Bevin's quote, the top goal of the Palestine Arabs "to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of the land" remains unfulfilled, their definition of disaster remains "ongoing". In the updated book of The War of Return, "October Return", Dr. Adi Schwartz and I included a dictionary of sort to explore this dual use language. I share it here with you: "This becomes especially clear when analyzing the language of Palestinian identity and that of its supporters around the world. Terms such as “two states,” “justice,” “return,” and “rights” carry one meaning in dialogue between Palestinians and Westerners or Israelis—but an entirely different meaning within internal Palestinian discourse. "Take “two states,” for example. During the years of negotiations, Palestinian leaders—and many surveys—expressed support for the “two-state solution.” Israelis and Westerners reasonably assumed that this meant one state for Palestinian Arabs and one for Jews. In retrospect, we should have checked. For when Palestinians speak of “two states,” they also maintain that millions of Palestinian “refugees” have a right to settle inside Israel. The implication is that the phrase “two states” actually means a Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza, alongside a second Arab-majority state that replaces Israel via the mass return of refugees. In effect: “this one is ours, and that one is also ours.” "To this day, no official Palestinian peace plan includes the recognition of a Jewish state on any part of the land between the river and the sea. "It is also worth examining the meaning of a word like “justice”—so frequently invoked in phrases like “a just peace,” “a just solution,” or in the names of organizations such as “Students for Justice in Palestine.” To many in the world, “justice” may simply mean that Palestinians should have a state of their own, or that Israel should not control their daily lives. That is a reasonable interpretation. But it is not the Palestinian one. "For Palestinians, there is only one concept of justice: the reversal of the injustice they associate with the creation of the State of Israel. And central to that “corrective justice” is return—which, by definition, entails the end of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. "The same applies to words like “rights,” “liberation,” and, of course, “return.” As will become clear in the pages ahead, there is no ambiguity: “return” is the concept that embodies victory over the Jewish state and its elimination. "That is why the butcherty of October 7 was greeted with euphoria."

"Ongoing" - One of the phrases increasingly used next to the term "Nakba" is "Ongoing" as in the recent proposal by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Now westerners assume that the "ongoing" seeks to highlight continued suffering of Palestinian Arabs, but as with so many other phrases that serve as "dual use language" (as Eran Shayshon coined) is that the deep meaning is very different. Once it is known and understood that the real time meaning of the Nakba, as described by Constantin Zureiq as "Seven Arab states declare war in an attempt to subdue Zionism, stop impotent before it, and return on their heels" was the shameful failure to defeat the lowly Jews in war - it becomes crystal clear why it remains "ongoing": As long as Israel exists, the Arab, and especially Palestinian Arab shameful failure to dismantle Jewish sovereignty and "subdue Zionism" remains "ongoing". As long as, per Bevin's quote, the top goal of the Palestine Arabs "to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of the land" remains unfulfilled, their definition of disaster remains "ongoing". In the updated book of The War of Return, "October Return", Dr. Adi Schwartz and I included a dictionary of sort to explore this dual use language. I share it here with you: "This becomes especially clear when analyzing the language of Palestinian identity and that of its supporters around the world. Terms such as “two states,” “justice,” “return,” and “rights” carry one meaning in dialogue between Palestinians and Westerners or Israelis—but an entirely different meaning within internal Palestinian discourse. "Take “two states,” for example. During the years of negotiations, Palestinian leaders—and many surveys—expressed support for the “two-state solution.” Israelis and Westerners reasonably assumed that this meant one state for Palestinian Arabs and one for Jews. In retrospect, we should have checked. For when Palestinians speak of “two states,” they also maintain that millions of Palestinian “refugees” have a right to settle inside Israel. The implication is that the phrase “two states” actually means a Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza, alongside a second Arab-majority state that replaces Israel via the mass return of refugees. In effect: “this one is ours, and that one is also ours.” "To this day, no official Palestinian peace plan includes the recognition of a Jewish state on any part of the land between the river and the sea. "It is also worth examining the meaning of a word like “justice”—so frequently invoked in phrases like “a just peace,” “a just solution,” or in the names of organizations such as “Students for Justice in Palestine.” To many in the world, “justice” may simply mean that Palestinians should have a state of their own, or that Israel should not control their daily lives. That is a reasonable interpretation. But it is not the Palestinian one. "For Palestinians, there is only one concept of justice: the reversal of the injustice they associate with the creation of the State of Israel. And central to that “corrective justice” is return—which, by definition, entails the end of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. "The same applies to words like “rights,” “liberation,” and, of course, “return.” As will become clear in the pages ahead, there is no ambiguity: “return” is the concept that embodies victory over the Jewish state and its elimination. "That is why the butcherty of October 7 was greeted with euphoria."

ד״ר עינת וילף Dr. Einat Wilf

83,590 views • 4 months ago

🇵🇸🇲🇻 “Israel’s genocide and war crimes against Palestinians continue, and their actions are not confined to Gaza. Its military attacks across the region have violated the sovereignty of other states. No state should be shielded from accountability by its power or political alliances. But condemnation alone is not enough. Every member state must ask: what have we done to end this violence? The United Nations must ask itself the same question. The problem is not a lack of law. The rules are clear. What is absent is equal application. Humanitarian international law cannot bind the weak and bend for the powerful. The same rules, the same standards, no exceptions. Israel’s genocide in Gaza must end. Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine and other Arab lands must end. Illegal settlements must end. Humanitarian assistance must reach Palestinians safely, rapidly, and at scale. International courts and the resolution of this organization must be respected and implemented. For the Palestinian people, a sovereign future means freedom, dignity, self-determination, and the right to live securely in their own state. The Maldives will always stand with the Palestinian people and their undeniable right for their future. This is why I reiterate our call for the recognition of the independent and sovereign State of Palestine, based on the pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. And if this organization is to restore trust and delivery for all, Palestine must become a full member of the United Nations.”

🇵🇸🇲🇻 “Israel’s genocide and war crimes against Palestinians continue, and their actions are not confined to Gaza. Its military attacks across the region have violated the sovereignty of other states. No state should be shielded from accountability by its power or political alliances. But condemnation alone is not enough. Every member state must ask: what have we done to end this violence? The United Nations must ask itself the same question. The problem is not a lack of law. The rules are clear. What is absent is equal application. Humanitarian international law cannot bind the weak and bend for the powerful. The same rules, the same standards, no exceptions. Israel’s genocide in Gaza must end. Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine and other Arab lands must end. Illegal settlements must end. Humanitarian assistance must reach Palestinians safely, rapidly, and at scale. International courts and the resolution of this organization must be respected and implemented. For the Palestinian people, a sovereign future means freedom, dignity, self-determination, and the right to live securely in their own state. The Maldives will always stand with the Palestinian people and their undeniable right for their future. This is why I reiterate our call for the recognition of the independent and sovereign State of Palestine, based on the pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. And if this organization is to restore trust and delivery for all, Palestine must become a full member of the United Nations.”

State of Palestine

67,821 views • 3 days ago

This is a pertinent clip from Sam Harris on the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The moral difference comes down to understanding the answer to this question: what would each side do if they had the power to do it? TRANSCRIPT: The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” This is a political document. We are talking about a government that was voted into power by a majority of Palestinians. The discourse in the Muslim world about Jews is utterly shocking. Not only is there widespread Holocaust denial—there’s Holocaust denial that then asserts that we will do it for real if given the chance. The only thing more obnoxious than denying the Holocaust is to say that it should have happened; it didn’t happen, but if we get the chance, we will accomplish it. There are children’s shows in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere that teach five-year-olds about the glories of martyrdom and about the necessity of killing Jews. And this gets to the heart of the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. And this is something I discussed in The End of Faith. To see this moral difference, you have to ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it. What would the Jews do to the Palestinians if they could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that question, because they can do more or less anything they want. The Israeli army could kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. So what does that mean? Well, it means that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident. They’re not targeting children. They could target as many children as they want. Every time a Palestinian child dies, Israel edges ever closer to becoming an international pariah. So the Israelis take great pains not to kill children and other noncombatants. What do we know of the Palestinians? What would the Palestinians do to the Jews in Israel if the power imbalance were reversed? Well, they have told us what they would do. For some reason, Israel’s critics just don’t want to believe the worst about a group like Hamas, even when it declares the worst of itself. We’ve already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit genocide, we should listen. There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could. Would every Palestinian support genocide? Of course not. But vast numbers of them—and of Muslims throughout the world—would. Needless to say, the Palestinians in general, not just Hamas, have a history of targeting innocent noncombatants in the most shocking ways possible. They’ve blown themselves up on buses and in restaurants. They’ve massacred teenagers. They’ve murdered Olympic athletes. They now shoot rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas. And again, the charter of their government in Gaza explicitly tells us that they want to annihilate the Jews—not just in Israel but everywhere.

This is a pertinent clip from Sam Harris on the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The moral difference comes down to understanding the answer to this question: what would each side do if they had the power to do it? TRANSCRIPT: The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” This is a political document. We are talking about a government that was voted into power by a majority of Palestinians. The discourse in the Muslim world about Jews is utterly shocking. Not only is there widespread Holocaust denial—there’s Holocaust denial that then asserts that we will do it for real if given the chance. The only thing more obnoxious than denying the Holocaust is to say that it should have happened; it didn’t happen, but if we get the chance, we will accomplish it. There are children’s shows in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere that teach five-year-olds about the glories of martyrdom and about the necessity of killing Jews. And this gets to the heart of the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. And this is something I discussed in The End of Faith. To see this moral difference, you have to ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it. What would the Jews do to the Palestinians if they could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that question, because they can do more or less anything they want. The Israeli army could kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. So what does that mean? Well, it means that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident. They’re not targeting children. They could target as many children as they want. Every time a Palestinian child dies, Israel edges ever closer to becoming an international pariah. So the Israelis take great pains not to kill children and other noncombatants. What do we know of the Palestinians? What would the Palestinians do to the Jews in Israel if the power imbalance were reversed? Well, they have told us what they would do. For some reason, Israel’s critics just don’t want to believe the worst about a group like Hamas, even when it declares the worst of itself. We’ve already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit genocide, we should listen. There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could. Would every Palestinian support genocide? Of course not. But vast numbers of them—and of Muslims throughout the world—would. Needless to say, the Palestinians in general, not just Hamas, have a history of targeting innocent noncombatants in the most shocking ways possible. They’ve blown themselves up on buses and in restaurants. They’ve massacred teenagers. They’ve murdered Olympic athletes. They now shoot rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas. And again, the charter of their government in Gaza explicitly tells us that they want to annihilate the Jews—not just in Israel but everywhere.

Colin Wright

4,195,596 views • 3 years ago

So it’s not about the 7th of October… I received this different times question (Do you condemn the 7th of October attacks) when I showed with different western media channels, but they keep cutting my answer because they actually don’t like my answer. They believed it may be hard for me to answer or I will be afraid to answer! A lot of journalists kept advising me to run from this question, but I told myself I am Motaz. So I answered this question multiple times but they never kept it or shared it because they record my interview before and then take what is suitable for their agenda. If you want a besieged Palestinian to condemn it, you need to declare that you condemn what Israel been doing against Palestinians before the 7th of October, since 1948 and during the genocide, and after it. Palestinians are not terrorists, Israel killing Palestinians everyday like its duty for them. Israel is a terror state.

So it’s not about the 7th of October… I received this different times question (Do you condemn the 7th of October attacks) when I showed with different western media channels, but they keep cutting my answer because they actually don’t like my answer. They believed it may be hard for me to answer or I will be afraid to answer! A lot of journalists kept advising me to run from this question, but I told myself I am Motaz. So I answered this question multiple times but they never kept it or shared it because they record my interview before and then take what is suitable for their agenda. If you want a besieged Palestinian to condemn it, you need to declare that you condemn what Israel been doing against Palestinians before the 7th of October, since 1948 and during the genocide, and after it. Palestinians are not terrorists, Israel killing Palestinians everyday like its duty for them. Israel is a terror state.

MoTaz

1,115,800 views • 2 years ago

🇵🇸 🇲🇻 “We may be small but we have never ever failed to stand for what it is right. This is why we recognized the State of Palestine in 1988. The State of Palestine exists. The Palestinian flags flies outside this hall. Its sovereignty and its people must be not erased. Palestinians have the inalienable right to remain to return and to govern State of their own, freely and fully.”

🇵🇸 🇲🇻 “We may be small but we have never ever failed to stand for what it is right. This is why we recognized the State of Palestine in 1988. The State of Palestine exists. The Palestinian flags flies outside this hall. Its sovereignty and its people must be not erased. Palestinians have the inalienable right to remain to return and to govern State of their own, freely and fully.”

State of Palestine

58,469 views • 1 year ago

🇺🇸🇪🇺🇮🇷 Trump asks NATO states to protect the Strait of Hormuz: I'm demanding that these countries come in and protect their own territory because it is their territory. It's the place from which they get their energy. We [the US] have a lot of oil." *US washes the hands of it?

🇺🇸🇪🇺🇮🇷 Trump asks NATO states to protect the Strait of Hormuz: I'm demanding that these countries come in and protect their own territory because it is their territory. It's the place from which they get their energy. We [the US] have a lot of oil." *US washes the hands of it?

Lord Bebo

62,923 views • 6 months ago

‘Israel’s war on the Palestinians and Arabs is NO LONGER A JUST WAR, it will bring about the end of Zionism.’ —Former Chief of Israel’s Shin Bet Admiral Ami Ayalon ‘Our war with the Arabs and the Palestinians started since the beginning of the Zionism, at the end of the 19th century. What I claim is that we won this war. We won this war because in Beirut in 2002, all the Arab League members, they met and they reverse the three no’s of Khartoum, as a result of the Israeli victory in the Six Day War, they met in Khartoum and they come to decide on three no’s: No to recognition, no to negotiation, and no to peace with Israel. It took several years and in 2002 they met again in Beirut and they understand that what they're facing is a new region, new Middle East, a new reality. And they reverse and they decide on the three yes: yes to recognition, yes to conversation and negotiation, and yes to peace with Israel, on the conditions, on the parameters of the UN Security Council resolutions. This is a major victory and we refuse to see our victory...since they accepted our presence, our right to declare a Jewish state in the Middle East, what I claim is that since this moment our war is not a just war anymore. Because what we are fighting for, and we do not understand in Israel, is in order to expand our eastern border, to deny the creation of a Palestinian state and the Palestinian right to self-determination…this is the end of the Zionist dream. Because if we are not majority in our state, we do not have the power and we do not have the right to dictate the culture, the language, the symbols, the way we celebrate our holidays. So in a way we are fighting without understanding that this war will bring the end of Zionist concept.’ Watch the full interview in the quoted post below👇

‘Israel’s war on the Palestinians and Arabs is NO LONGER A JUST WAR, it will bring about the end of Zionism.’ —Former Chief of Israel’s Shin Bet Admiral Ami Ayalon ‘Our war with the Arabs and the Palestinians started since the beginning of the Zionism, at the end of the 19th century. What I claim is that we won this war. We won this war because in Beirut in 2002, all the Arab League members, they met and they reverse the three no’s of Khartoum, as a result of the Israeli victory in the Six Day War, they met in Khartoum and they come to decide on three no’s: No to recognition, no to negotiation, and no to peace with Israel. It took several years and in 2002 they met again in Beirut and they understand that what they're facing is a new region, new Middle East, a new reality. And they reverse and they decide on the three yes: yes to recognition, yes to conversation and negotiation, and yes to peace with Israel, on the conditions, on the parameters of the UN Security Council resolutions. This is a major victory and we refuse to see our victory...since they accepted our presence, our right to declare a Jewish state in the Middle East, what I claim is that since this moment our war is not a just war anymore. Because what we are fighting for, and we do not understand in Israel, is in order to expand our eastern border, to deny the creation of a Palestinian state and the Palestinian right to self-determination…this is the end of the Zionist dream. Because if we are not majority in our state, we do not have the power and we do not have the right to dictate the culture, the language, the symbols, the way we celebrate our holidays. So in a way we are fighting without understanding that this war will bring the end of Zionist concept.’ Watch the full interview in the quoted post below👇

Going Underground

65,335 views • 2 months ago

Iran’s FM Araghchi: "In our culture, apologizing is a sign of dignity and strength" If it is assumed that Iran has attacked its neighbors, that assumption is wrong; we have not attacked our neighbors. - We have targeted American bases and facilities that unfortunately are located in the territories of our neighboring countries. Therefore, we have not targeted our neighbors; we target the Americans who have attacked us. We are responding. We were not the ones who started the war; it was the United States that started the war against us, and we are simply defending ourselves. It is clear that our missiles do not reach American soil. What we can do is target American bases and facilities around us that unfortunately are located in the territories of neighboring countries. - First, in our culture, apologizing is a sign of dignity and strength. Second, he apologized to the people of the region for the problems caused as a result of the US aggression and our response. In fact, it is the President of the United States who should apologize to the people of the region and to the people of Iran for the killings and destruction they have caused.

Iran’s FM Araghchi: "In our culture, apologizing is a sign of dignity and strength" If it is assumed that Iran has attacked its neighbors, that assumption is wrong; we have not attacked our neighbors. - We have targeted American bases and facilities that unfortunately are located in the territories of our neighboring countries. Therefore, we have not targeted our neighbors; we target the Americans who have attacked us. We are responding. We were not the ones who started the war; it was the United States that started the war against us, and we are simply defending ourselves. It is clear that our missiles do not reach American soil. What we can do is target American bases and facilities around us that unfortunately are located in the territories of neighboring countries. - First, in our culture, apologizing is a sign of dignity and strength. Second, he apologized to the people of the region for the problems caused as a result of the US aggression and our response. In fact, it is the President of the United States who should apologize to the people of the region and to the people of Iran for the killings and destruction they have caused.

True Promise - الوعد الصادق ✪🇮🇷

19,518 views • 6 months ago

🇵🇸🇮🇩“International law must be upheld consistently. Sovereignty must be respected and colonialism must be brought to an end. This is where Palestine remains one of the clearest tests of these principles, and the test of our conscience. The clear violation of international law in Gaza and the West Bank are reminiscent of our world pre 1945, a world pre the UN charter, pre the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and pre the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, a world where a certain race was almost annihilated. Indonesia knows what it means to struggle against colonialism, to struggle in a world where international law was weak and might was right. Our nation's journey to independence has shaped our consistent support for the Palestinian people and their right to determine their own future. Indonesia will continue to stand with the Palestinian people until their right to self-determination is fulfilled, and until an independent and sovereign state of Palestine is realised based on the two state solution, in accordance with international law and internationally agreed parameters. Palestine is not only a question for one region, it is a test of whether a multilateral system can uphold the very principles it was created to defend, and whether it can deliver when it matters most.”

🇵🇸🇮🇩“International law must be upheld consistently. Sovereignty must be respected and colonialism must be brought to an end. This is where Palestine remains one of the clearest tests of these principles, and the test of our conscience. The clear violation of international law in Gaza and the West Bank are reminiscent of our world pre 1945, a world pre the UN charter, pre the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and pre the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, a world where a certain race was almost annihilated. Indonesia knows what it means to struggle against colonialism, to struggle in a world where international law was weak and might was right. Our nation's journey to independence has shaped our consistent support for the Palestinian people and their right to determine their own future. Indonesia will continue to stand with the Palestinian people until their right to self-determination is fulfilled, and until an independent and sovereign state of Palestine is realised based on the two state solution, in accordance with international law and internationally agreed parameters. Palestine is not only a question for one region, it is a test of whether a multilateral system can uphold the very principles it was created to defend, and whether it can deliver when it matters most.”

State of Palestine

156,117 views • 2 days ago

I present the Misesian case against Israel, and argue the only way to understand the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is that it is the result of the denial of property rights for Palestinians based purely on their not belonging to the ruling ethnoreligious group.

I present the Misesian case against Israel, and argue the only way to understand the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is that it is the result of the denial of property rights for Palestinians based purely on their not belonging to the ruling ethnoreligious group.

Saifedean Ammous

25,253 views • 3 months ago