You can use my link ground.news/coleman to get 30% off an unlimited access subscription or get their pro plan for as little as $1/month before Nov 4, 2023. I’m excited to partner with Ground News at this time because it is one of the best ways to read news about politically charged issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict in a balanced way.
If the sunnis can’t live together with Shias then how would jews live together with Arabs with equality? If that were true while does Jewish or Israeli population keeps shrinking in Arab majority countries?
Coleman, keep trying! You are a very good conversationalist and you are getting better and better! This was a difficult topic and you had a very tuff and very experienced in protecting his side guest. He knew how to avoid direct answers, he was "replying" your questions by asking you a question. I am impressed by your great questions and by your ability to stand your ground especially considering that the Middle East is a new topic to you! My encouragement to your work comes from beautiful Scotland!
Arguing that a one state, Arab majority western style democracy is possible where no one state Arab majority western style democracies exist because most Arabs don't want such a thing is quite bizarre...and disingeuous.
Exactly. It's like saying the solution to the North vs South Korea conflict is to have one state under the Kim regime. Or saying that Iran and Saudi should live in one state under the Ayatollahs regime. Or let's just get Yugoslavia back together again, that will work just fine!
Yup. And as soon as the freely elected government decided the Jews are a problem this same guy will argue the UN or some other body should do it's thing which is essentially nothing and all the while the Jews will have their asses handed to them. I'm more sympathetic to Palestinians than Israel at the moment but there's no denying that if the shoe was on the other foot there'd be maybe 10 Jews left in the area. @@itamaradio
Exactly! And that is why Coleman is correct, Yousef is either in complete denial, or totally naïve to think that Palestinians will Setup a state in which Jews have equal rights. The whole notion is a ridiculous fantasy!
Came here to write the same comment. Thanks. It would also be worth noting that even putting aside the democracy aspect, religious minorities have been historically persecuted in all arab majority countries, with greater numbers of deaths and displacement than the Palestinians with Israel.
Dude lost we when he said “how many countries have been built on the ruins of another people” - All of them. Literally all of them. Name a country and that moment is foundational to their identity. Not only that this is not just ancient history, but He basically described the process of the formation of the modern state. Does he think Germany just existed for 5,000 years, or does he not know about how prussia formed and then dominated the process of formation of the german state.
In the really real world, we call this “history.” And if you look at who occupied “Palestine”, it was a hodge-podge of people who came around after the Romans expelled the Jews. I want to see receipts all the way back to 10,000 BC before I’ll grant Arab rights to the land.
@@moonchild7909 You're right about that. That was a poor argument on the part of Yousef. But you're grasping at straws. In the end, Coleman was made to look like a complete fool at every turn in this "debate," not only because he is not as well-informed as Yousef, but because Yousef's analysis and perspective is so much more clear and honest. I like Coleman, but he has no business discussing this issue with a real scholar of the conflict. I've been so disappointed with him, going on Joe Rogan, spitting out these tired and hollow pro-Israel talking points whilst he doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about. It's beneath a man of his intelligence to be behaving in such a way. He got thoroughly undressed in this "debate" and he deserved it. He needed to be humbled.
Yousef lives in the US which according to many is occupied land. According to his argument that would justify violence by the natives and indigenous populations. I wonder if Yousef will pack his bags anytime soon?
That is exactly the logic the Zionists use to justify the actions of the state of Israel. They say Jewish history predates the locals that lived there, it is there traditional home. What is surprising is that you do not see the flaw in the logic. The state of Israel users these exact justifications. None of it makes any sense if you actually think about it.
That liar should be expelled from the United States. He should move to Gaza....😂 He sounds pretty convincing turning the history of the area upside down
Yousef's comment about the motivation for the 2005 pullback from Gaza was new to me. So I went online and searched for the reference. Now that I have read what Dov Weisglass, Ariel Sharon's advisor, actually said I know Yousef took things out of context. The missing part is " ... my agreement with the Americans was that you don't deal with some of the settlements until the Palestinians become Finns ..." meaning that yes, pulling back from Gaza should shut the door on any future Palestinian state because the Palestinians will use Gaza as a base for terror (unlike Finland which is peaceful) - thereby showing the world they should not be given a state in the west bank. This is a far cry from Yousef's claim that Ariel Sharon wanted Gaza to fail. In fact, Sharon hoped for the Palestinians to turn away from terror and start state-building, and as a nod towards future possibilities evacuated 5 Israeli settlements from the west bank (at the same time as the pullback from Gaza). History proved Sharon both right and wrong. Right - because the Palestinians in Gaza only increased their terror attacks on Israel since the pullback. Wrong - because Israel gained no diplomatic credit or moral high ground in the eyes of most western public (excepting Coleman for one).
You are so disingenuous. Here is the full quote " The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. That is exactly what happened. You know, the term 'peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did.[17]" Additionally Ehud Olmert (the architect behind the unilateral disengagement) clearly said that the main goal of the plan was first and foremost keep Israel a jewish state. It was no plan for self governance for Palestinians "There is no doubt in my mind that very soon the government of Israel is going to have to address the demographic issue with the utmost seriousness and resolve. This issue above all others will dictate the solution that we must adopt. In the absence of a negotiated agreement - and I do not believe in the realistic prospect of an agreement - we need to implement a unilateral alternative... More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state... the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem... Twenty-three years ago, Moshe Dayan proposed unilateral autonomy. On the same wavelength, we may have to espouse unilateral separation... [it] would inevitably preclude a dialogue with the Palestinians for at least 25 years"
Essentially, he said that we wait to see if Gaza becomes a peaceful place then we can move on with the West Bank? Not like, we're confident it'll fail?
Nice job pointing out his deceitfulness. Started out as taqiya in Islam to protect the Muslim from the unbeliever - now it seems to mean lie whenever it protects the points of views of Muslims and Islam in general
This is exactly why I am cruising the comment section. I thought that was the most interesting thing I heard in the debate/interview, and I wanted to find the 'editorial' he was referencing and read it for myself. Thank you, I could not remember the name Dov Weisglass. Can you direct me to the material you found?
Coleman...consider having Yousef and Benny Morris on together and let them duke out the details regarding the history. That would be an AMAZING podcast!
Maybe, but the two seem to have a vastly different understanding of even the basic “facts”. I’m afraid it might just degenerate into an academic pissing match on who has the better credentials and “knows more”. There is no resolution here. Neither side is saying anything that is novel or unexpected. What bothers me is the dearth of any discussion on a practical solution, even if it’s just spitballing ideas.
27:40 So he had wanted only one state and not a partition. After complaining about the so called "denying of Palestinian self determination" he goes full blown into denying Jewish self determination. For anyone who still doesn't understand: This is the core of the problem. One side wants to have a state (Israel) and one side wants the other side not to have a state (Palestine).
@@kickinsnarehat Nope, the British abstained from the UN vote to partition. They also favoured the Arabs from the 1930s onwards. The British saw their interests with the Arabs. As for the USA, they were less pro-Israel than the Soviet Union in the 1940s. When the USSR sided with the Arabs in the most cynical, power move, the USA saw aligned itself with Israel. The details are complex, but it wasn't the USA and the UK. It was the UN.
@@kickinsnarehat False. And I can flip it back to you by saying there was no self determination of Palestinians, it was determined by Soviets and the Arab league for their interests.
A major speaking point regarding this conflict is in fact the ideology of Islam - I respect Coleman immensely for bringing this up. The concept of jihad has been implemented for years now, that is why Islam spread wildly in the Middle East, North Africa, etc - the Islamic states are indoctrinated to despise the Jews heavily and wage war against those who do not accept the religion of Islam. Jews weren’t only slaughtered in Eastern Europe, for centuries they were killed by other Islamic powers (Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Yemen, etc).
Yes and the other guy says oh well you can interpret any religion to justify these things Etc but you don't have to interpret Islam.. it says straight out in multiple places to kill the Jews.
yeah so many people are ignorant about islam and the fact that the prophet ended up hating jews (and christians) because they laughed at him and didn't take him seriously as a prophet
Yousef’s one state solution is a American style liberal democracy, where minority rights are protected and rule of law eradicates terrorism. Which Arab country is like that? The solution is utopian.
Exactly. Just one example: in Israel you have every year LGBT pride parades. Even in "moderate" Arab countries (such as Egypt or Jordan) it is a crime to even wave the pride flag (look up Sarah Hegazi). Does the "one state" Yousef wants has pride parades? What happens when queer people want to march?
If that is the best pro Palestinian the people could come up with to suggest, it doesn’t look too good in their corner: he is dodging every uncomfortable question, scolds the host on every topping he is logically cornered that it’s not true and he should be educated again, contradicts himself so many times that I stopped counting after 10. And btw: his logic of it being natural to become monsters when occupied is the cheapest excuse I heard for this poor on so far. Tibetans are occupied as well, yet managed not to murder, torture, rape, mutilate and burn their occupiers.
@@rolandmtran 1. That the Palestinians won't genocide the Jews in a one state solution. 2. That the Israelis can be convinced a one state solution is the way to go. 3. That Hamas doesn't do the will of the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people and that just like the Germans were responsible for the atrocities of the Nazis, so are the Palestinian people responsible for the attrocities commited by Hamas, the PLO, and other terrorist groups on the Palestinian side.
Yousef Manayyer predominantly uses Ad Hominem Abusive attacks, which involves dismissing opposing views by questioning the opponent’s knowledge/understanding or character/motives, rather than engaging with the actual content of their arguments. Coleman *masterfully* countered this style of argument. Here is the how to: - Don't be sidetracked. Steer the conversation back to the topic and the arguments at hand. - Politely ask for specific examples or evidence when they make broad statements. - Support your arguments with clear evidence and fact. - Don't respond with personal attacks. - Question how their response is relevant. - Maintain a respectful tone. - Recognize when the discussion is unproductive.
Amazing strategy by the host. I liked specially when, for several times, he didn't listen the response of the guest and asked the same question, annoying the guest. That was on purpose, right? Because if not, the only alternative I see is that the host took Xanax before the talk.
And constantly responding to questions like "What would be your endgame?" with a question instead of answering. Often an absurd counter question like asking Coleman if he would like someone moving into his *house* and occupying three-quarters of it.
Yousef Manayyer has been indoctrinated with the lies, as he said, his family left the region he was brought up on those lies. I think he has no clue that he is even misinformed. I would like to think that he does not really know the truth, and is not doing it on purpose. The only reason those arabs were asked to leave was because they kept attacking and killing jews. Yousef is not willing to admit that claiming that Israeli oppression gives them the right to do that. When he says an end to occupation, what he means is an end to Israel.
59:16 - I learned from the last episode that Palestinians were offered an 80/20 solution at one point (1930?) and they rejected it, so this argument is ridiculous.
Seeing Yousef blatantly ignore Coleman holding him to task when he gives the South Africa Palestine comparison but then won’t admit that the intentions of Hamas leadership relative to Nelson Mandela could not be more different was very telling. Details and comparisons only matter when they fit his narrative.
Yeah, unfortunately this was not the most fruitful discussion. It does tell us that the typical thought process of the majority of Palestine arguments.
@@cjzanders5430 Sadly, from all I have heard, you are correct. And I think we can look at 70+ years of this circuitous thinking that has kept them where they are, living in rubble, complaining about their lot in life, and completely unwilling to look at their thought processes and views.
104:33 “You don’t think any of it has to do with the fact that there are so many passages in the Koran talking about how terrible the Jews are?” “No, I don’t.” Very difficult to take any of the rest of Mr Yousef’s argument seriously after this.
The Quran doesn't say jews are terrible and if you want to say that then you have to at least concede the Bible does the same. But I'm guessing you're not much of a scholar on scripture if you have a politically driven view of ant holy books.
@@georgeshiroda1173 “[4.46] Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say: We have heard and we disobey and: Hear, may you not be made to hear! and: Raina, distorting (the word) with their tongues and taunting about religion; and if they had said (instead): We have heard and we obey, and hearken, and unzurna it would have been better for them and more upright; but Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little. “[4.160] Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way. “[5.13] But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).”
@@georgeshiroda1173 ignore the passages about infidels if you like, fortunately many Muslims do, unfortunately many don't. Just in the last week I've seem multiple Muslim speakers including from 🇵🇸 lebanon and America referencing rocks and trees calling out for jews behind them to be killed. To ignore the religious motivation is ridiculous.
@Tadneiko to target the religion and dismiss it as a whole because of the individuals who take it at its word is also foolish. It'd be the equivalent of suggesting getting rid of Christianity and anything it had an influence on because of the passages that alienate and stigmatize individuals.
Yousef has disengenously called out Britain for pushing for the two state solution in 48', when the clear history indicates that Britain did not know how to solve the disputes between the Jews/settlers and the Palestinian population, so they deferred to the United Nations to solve the problem, and it was the UN that came up with the two state solution as seen as the fairest way to settle the situation, by dividing the land 55% to Israel, 45% to Palestinians, where the former (Israel) got numerically more land, but it was mostly desert land, whereas Palestinians got the best lands including all of Jerusalem. Historical fact.
And Palestinians, and the arab nations rejected it wholesale, and when they lost the debate, and the resolution was passed, their response was to all attack israel at once. And they lost. So they started plotting a second attack, and got caught with their pants down, and lost embarassingly for a second time. So they attacked on the holiest day in judaism, only to lose AGAIN. and ever since then it's sour grapes over losing over and over and over.
Whether Britain or the UN, why should anyone have to settle for something they didn't want in the first place. One said yes, the other said no, but they should have agreed because that was the right (only) way? It's like, here's what's going to happen whether you like it or not. Liking it is best. Either way, this is happening.
@@musiqueguy1 - That is an unlettered comment in any regard. Over a dozen countries were created after WWI and II, specifically in the mideast. Even Saudi and Iraq traded lands when all of this was happening. But why is it that the last piece of tiny land couldn't be divided to support two countries, when the Jews had twice prior had countries in this area when there was never an arab muslim country prior? So, the arab muslims that no other country wanted or would take were left stateless and decided that even though all the wars started against Israel were lost, that to keep on fighting was the way to peace? Give me a break. When wars are won and lost, boundaries get established. Its pretty rich to keep losing wars yet not just expecting a do over every time, but to literally destroy all Jews. It is completely ignorant not to understand here that Hamas, like all Jihadists, want all Jews, dead. To not recognize the core of the problem here is to be ignorant. Its a pipe dream anyways of a Palestine as a state, they are completely dependent on welfare from other states, have virtually no resources, are the most corrupt over any other banana republic, AND who would govern it? PA or Hamas? They can't even get along as a people, let alone as a country. Even Abbas has admitted that the arab muslims should of taken the UN partition plan. I guess you have to lose multiple wars to figure out its not worth killing off your own people, and that you are not ever going to win, right?
Yousef Munayyer is dodging the issue of jihad and Islamic totalitalirism, exclusivism and supremacy, there no example. of tolerance in Islamic nations.
His solution was completely insincere. It was basically "I am willing to gamble on this highly dubious solution, just so long as it's the OTHER GROUP who is the minority (so they'll be the ones who get screwed when it falls apart)". It really shouldn't need explaining why jews post-WW2 were never gonna trust in something like that.
You mean European Jews in post World War II. This is the problem with these “debates”. People come out and simply don’t know what they’re talking about. There were already Jews living in Palestine pre-WWII. But they were a minority. They comprised about 5% of the population in Palestine in the late 1800s. The genocide you are referring to was committed by Europeans, not Palestinians. This is a European problem, not a problem created by Palestinians. Palestinians did not put Jews in ghettos (and actually Israelis are doing that to the people of Gaza today). They did not put Jews in ovens. They did not march them into death camps. Germans did that with the help and collaboration of other Europeans. You just don’t know what you are talking about.
@@P4DR Let me make a quick correction: "Germans did that with the help and collaboration of other Europeans and Arabs including from Palestine who sent soldiers to fight for Hitler". There you are. There wasn't a 'Palestinian' people in the 1800s. A Palestinian identity simply didn't exist at the time. As for the population of Palestine in the 1800s, no one knows precisely but it's highly probably that there was mass immigration from the surrounding nations, especially Egypt, once the Jews arrived and started a global agriculture trade in particular in oranges. Moreover, the Jews are the only people who have a historic attachment to the land. Both peoples had a legitimate claim to the land and the UN decision to partition it was reasonable. You know that the Jews accepted it and the Arabs rejected it, don't you? You just know a little about what you are talking, but not much.
@@freedahlogic8368 yes, Jews comprised about 5% of the population in Palestine in the late 1800s. There are other sources but I did a search and found the following Wikipedia entry which points out other sources. “In the late nineteenth century, prior to the rise of Zionism, Jews are thought to have comprised between 2% and 5% of the population of Palestine, although the precise population is not known.[90] Jewish immigration had begun following the 1839 Tanzimat reforms; between 1840 and 1880, the Jewish population of Palestine rose from 9,000 to 23,000.[91] According to Alexander Scholch, Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews.[92]…. According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy,[94] the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs. The estimated 24,000 Jews in Palestine in 1882 represented just 0.3% of the world's Jewish population.[95].” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
Ya when Coleman said at the start that he was very respectful, I was shocked at how disrespectful the guest constantly was. Also so incredibly biased. I mean I’m biased too on Coleman’s side, but at least we would readily admit it where I’m guessing the guest would say something like I’m biased to the truth. Nah your biased to Palestine which is fine but admit it
Good point I’m most likely slightly biased on Coleman’s side but I see both sides. And hopefully if I was that pissed I would just admit I was pissed and don’t really care about the logic.
@@colinobrien631 The truth of this remains so strange to Americans that it's bound to be frustrating if you've spent 30 years trying to bring it to them, only to be met with the youthful Coleman who, despite meaning well, is very obviously clueless about Palestine.
What underlies the core disagreement in this discussion is that Coleman takes the Palestinians at their word about what they intend to do to the Jews and Yousef does not. The idea that you could set up an America-style democracy in the land of Israel, with a Palestinian Arab majority who 1) hates Jews and 2) have among them at least a sizable minority of whom wish to live under a caliphate or Sharia law -- this strikes me as laughably out of touch with the reality of the ground. Liberal, Western Democracy only works when you have a population that supports the values of Liberal Western Democracy. Yousef in this conversation more or less says "The religious passages in the Quran that call for violence against Jews and nonbelievers have nothing to do with the violence we see. People have always used religion to give cover to their political violence." This is the problem with moderate left-wing apologists for Islam -- they simply cannot believe that the beliefs of religious fundamentalists are sincere and emanate from religious texts. They believe that religion is a "cover" for underlying motivations rather than the source of it. That everyone is like us Westerners and we all fundamentally want the same things. We do not want the same things. I, for one, can't imagine what more Hamas and many Palestinians could do to convince the world they are sincere in their religious beliefs and serious about killing as many Jews as they possibly can. I also found it notable that almost every time Yousef is challenged on some factual basis he essentially says "Google it, bro" without producing any concrete counterexamples. Maybe he's correct, but who are the Palestinian Gandhi's and Mandela's that Yousef cites as being brutalized and imprisoned by Israel? He couldn't name one. This is the first I've heard of nonviolent Palestinian peace activists being thrown in jail or killed by the Israeli government. Again -- perhaps this has happened, but why couldn't he delve into a single example? This strikes me as deeply suspicious. Hat's off to Coleman for his Herculean patience and cordiality with such a condescending and dishonest guest.
That i think is an issue that most secular societies, commentators and yes politicians have. Something that Iran's Socialists (who were in bed with the Ayotollah Khomeini and his mullahs) discovered way to late after the Iranian revolution.
I at a loss as to how someone like yousef can get into the position there in in life with a reputation as an "intelligent person" while saying things like you have mentioned. but Iguess it becomes more and more clear that its not a joke when [people say the left actually believes in living in a fairy land.
The Christian Bible is full of passages that have been used to justify violence and oppression throughout history. And yet, today there are plenty of majority Christian countries that are nontheless pluralistic and liberal. The 20th century also abounds with examples of anti-religious communists committing horrific crimes against humanity. It's not that violent Muslims aren't influneced by the Quran, it's that, historically, holy books full of justifications for violence are neither necessary nor sufficient for creating actual violence.
When a fact is Googled, the searcher tends to pick what they want to see & hear. Search engines tend to use AI to anticipate what you want from previous choices. It is easy to be caught up in a tribal echo chamber because of search engine algorithms.
@colemanhughesofficial, I greatly appreciate your thoughtfulness. Your opponent kept suggesting that a Palestinian state with a Jewish minority would work fine, but he neglects to mention that there are no more Jews, or nearly so, in nearly all Arab states anymore, mostly through ethic cleansing. Sadly, thei Palestinian solution is one where the Palestinians destroy Israel, either militarily, or demographically through a right of return, and then become a majority. I was greatly saddened that, even this speaker refused to acknowledge that Israel was attacked on its founding, and that Hamas perpetrated an evil act, instead trying to pin it back on Israel.
palestinians accepted jewish ppl who ran from the haulocaust they only started the resistence once the jewish ppl there started illegally snatching their land
@@UltraAporia These people need to be told what to think. They have been told what to think. So that is what they think. But they've been sure to keep enough room in their heads to also think they're really clever.
He's not bullying. He's passionate about the horrors that his people are currently enduring. I don't think you'd be so even keeled if your people were decimated for the world to see. Or maybe you avoid seeing war imagery. I've been a Coleman subscriber for almost 3 years. Not many people alive have the zen like calmness that he has. I don't agree with Coleman's assessment of the conflict, but am glad to hear his viewpoint.
I agree he was patient and calm in his effort to get his questions answered. However I also felt that I would have liked Coleman to ask questions regarding the number of times the Palestine’s were offered their own state at 45% in 48 and also in 67 and they declined. I would have liked to hear the guest why he feels not Accepting and then shortly after declining they attacked Israel. In 1948 and in 1967. I may have the years wrong but in my opinion the Palestinian people were given offers that they should have accepted and establish their lives and make compromises for the sake of the country’s future. So my question is why did the Palestinian people not compromise when offered 45% of the state? I’m sure the guest will say “why should they compromise and leave their homes to build a new life in the designated areas.” There are over 20 Arab countries around the area of Israel, and only 1 place for Jews , Israel. It’s Biblical that that land is rightfully theirs. Plus the name Palestine has never been declared a state or country in all of history.
Let's all learn a little bit of history Before Israel, there was a British mandate, not a Palestinian state. -Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state. -Before the Ottoman Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state. -Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid Empire, not a Palestinian state. Godfrey IV of Boulogne, known as Godfrey de Bouillon, conqueror of Jerusalem in 1099 -Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state. -Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there was the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state. -Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine empire, not a Palestinian state. -Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state. -Before the Sassanid Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state. -Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state. -Before the Roman Empire, there was the Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state. -Before the Hasmonean state, there was the Seleucid, not a Palestinian state. Before the Seleucid empire, there was the empire of Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state. -Before the empire of Alexander the Great, there was the Persian empire, not a Palestinian state. -Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state. -Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state. -Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state. -Before the kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state. -Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state. Actually, in this piece of land there has been everything, EXCEPT A PALESTINIAN STATE!
He’s actually a bright guy. I’m surprised you’d say that..When you get the views of the historians and citizens of either Israel or Gaza they have a very unique take on these things. They have skin in the game. Usually gets heated and these guys/girls
Probably because he's sick of RUclips historians trying to pretend they know more than an expert and actual Palestinian who's personally lived this conflict
Frustrating interview. Yousef refuses to directly answer questions nearly the entire time, a common feature of the Palestinian narrative. A total refusal to acknowledge that the Jews, who have inhabited Israel for literally thousands of years, have any right to be there.
If Jews have a right dating back thousands of years, don't those displaced by a war in 1948 have an even stronger claim of right to return to their homes?
In his defense the Jewish population was primarily Holocaust survivors, not the descendents of Biblical Israel (with some exceptions). Do North Africans have a right to just move to Spain because Castile and Aragon destroyed Al-Andalus?
To be completely fair, answering questions that are badly framed is not the most intelligent thing to do. That would be like me going "When did you stop beating your wife?" ... lol
Calm, yes. Respectful? Mostly but not entirely. I didn’t feel an honest engagement with Yousef’s counterpoints. Or maybe it’s just a failure of imagination: imagining the complete powerlessness of the people in Gaza for whom boycotting and divestment need to come from abroad as they’re incapable of exerting those pressures from within. And by the way, France has banned BDS in support of Palestinians dubbing it as hate speech. Coleman is an interesting guy and I dig his work in many cases but he needs to bone up on this subject some. (Although I admit I find a very compelling conversation around the ethical dilemma of freeing the unarmed or underarmed captive that you know will be armed or better armed and immediately try to kill you.)
Terrorism. 'The unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.' Merriam-Webster dictionary Hopefully we all agree that morally and strategically the invasion and occupation of Iraq was wrong. Hopefully we all agree it was blood thirsty, greedy, corporate, weird, evangelical behaviour. It was also illegal (you don't say) according to the United Nations. Therefore, and referencing the dictionary definition, why do people/media/other countries not call the United States a terrorist State?
This reminded me of a conversation I had about 15 years ago with a Syrian Christian doctor that I worked with. Nothing Israel did was right. Nothing that Palestinians did was wrong. I finally told him there was no point to keep talking about it. Israel left Gaza almost two decades ago and Hamas turned it into a hell hole. Sometimes things really are that simple.
Yeah, if by "left alone" you mean perpetually blockaded and surveilled, with multiple invasions and bombings sprinkled in. "Left alone" is gonzo cuckoo bananas ostrich logic.
Israel left Gaza to turn it into a concentration camp where the people are locked down and then bombed - god damn I’m so sick of Christian Zionists - Israel couldn’t have got away with this horrific 75 year long nightmare if Christian Zionists weren’t trying to bring Armageddon - my only comfort is that their bloodthirsty doctrine will come true - but they will find they were on the side of Anti-Christ
When you choose war and lose, you have to live with the consequences of defeat. This is the crucial principle that’s been consistently missing in the debate, and the solution starts when everyone start to recognize it. For every other conflicts in history this principle applies. But for whatever reason, when it comes to Israel, no one cares about it. 100% of Palestine would still be in Muslim hands if the Turks hadn’t chosen to side with the Germans in World War I. But they did. They tried to attack the Suez Canal from Palestine and failed. The British then counterattacked Palestine and succeeded. That’s how Britain (and later the UN) got jurisdiction over Palestine. 50% of Palestine would now be a Palestinian state if the Arabs had accepted the UN Partition Plan. But they didn’t. They chose war and lost, badly. Then they refused to make peace. In ’67 they chose to mass troops on Israel’s borders and were again decisively defeated. That’s how the Palestinians ended up in their predicament. Their side keeps choosing war and losing. The notion that Israel is going to disappear is a Palestinian fairy tale. They need to set aside daydreams of a “right to return” to lands they lost on the battlefield decades ago. To those who say this is just “might makes right,” I remind you the Arabs chose the God of War to arbitrate their cause. They were perfectly willing to let military victory decide the issue when they thought they would win. But every time their armies are defeated they expect to reverse the verdict with an effusion of whining and terrorism. It doesn’t work that way. This conflict really is not that complicated if we can all stop pandering to the Palestinians and start pushing them to accept the consequences of their actions. It's certainly not going to be resolved when you continue to pander to idiots like Munayyer who thinks you can attack your neighbor, loses, and expects to move in and live together with them.
@@AllBusiness-e5fyeah overall I thought Coleman did a good job but I think he was trying so hard not to lose his cool that he sometimes didn't fight back hard enough. A challenge understandably
@@soltantioit's hard to debate pro-Palestinians since they are so shameless in their lies and distortions. They literally have no sense of guilt and ethics.
Coleman handled himself well, as you would expect. I'd like to add a few points: - This conversation does a great job outlining why there's no peace. The answer is Palestinian intransigence. Yousef, like the vast majority of Palestinians, is not interested in any peace that retains a Jewish state. Israelis are likewise uninterested in a peace that wouldn't retain the Jewish state. - Yousef's analogy to a white nationalist country is ironic too. What do you think all of the Arab countries are? Arabs dominate the ME today because of conquests centuries ago. Nearly all of these countries are despotic and enforce a state religion. - His one-state solution is a non-starter for Israelis. It's embarrassingly naive to think that a one state solution based on “freedom, justice, and equality” would succeed the Israeli state. The irony in all of this is that the only country in that entire region that respects those platitudes is Israel. At the end of the day, it is an indisputable fact that Israeli Arabs have more civil liberty and freedom in Israel than in any Muslim majority country in the world. - There isn't a single historical example of Muslim majority countries where minority rights are respected. Islamic law demands subjugation in the form of Dhimmi status. Ask Christians in Lebanon, Coptics in Egypt, Kurds, Yazidis, etc. - Yousef's POV demonstrates clearly why the two-state solution failed. It will always fail because no Palestinian leader will agree to a plan where Israel's continued existence with a Jewish majority is preserved. Hence, the conflict continues. - Even if you assume the Palestinians have legitimate grievances, at a certain point there's a statute of limitations. At a certain point you must recognize that you lost and work towards a better future. Palestinians have been offered everything they claimed to want in peace, except the right of return or any similar measure that would threaten the Israeli state. Israel is a modern secular state that is a beacon of light in a region of darkness. Israel has now existed for 75 years and is not going anywhere and seemingly neither is the Palestinian insistence for control over the entire area. - The Palestinian national identity is a fabrication set up in opposition to Zionism. If this weren't so, then where was the movement to create a Palestinian state when Egypt controlled Gaza or Jordan controlled the West Bank? - Lastly, Yousef slyly tried to get Coleman to back BDS. Is BDS violent? no, although many of their supporters love violence. But BDS isn't the solution because it assumes that Israel is uniquely responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. BDS is just another diversion tactic aimed at weakening Israel with the ultimate aim of destroying the state, not two states living side by side. Go look at what BDSers actually want, they don't hide the ball themselves. Blame should instead be levied at the Palestian leaders who enrich themselves and refuse to recognize that Israel will not commit suicide to create a one-party state. Might is not always right, neither is weakness. In theory, I too want justice for the Palestinians. I want Palestinian children to grow up to live meaningful lives. I lay the blame for their misery at the Palestinian society that lives in the past and is willing to sacrifice any number of generations for the eventual eradication of a Jewish presence in the ME. This charade has gone on long enough. There are no homes from 1948 to return to. More Muslims live as full citizens of Israel than at any other point pre-1948. - If any people in the history of the world deserve a state, it's the Jews. We are no longer a weak people wondering the world begging for acceptance. We want peace with our Arab neighbors, most of us are willing to concede land and treasure in that pursuit. But we will not accept the elimination of our state and if that means continuing the status quo, to the detriment of Palestinians, so be it. Any sympathy towards innocent Palestinians has now been washed away after Hamas decided to slaughter 1400 civilians. Only when Palestinians finally renounce Jihad and want a state of their own to live side by side Israel will there be peace.
You are Yousef, but on the other side. You are bad faith and a propagandist. And this comes from someone who supports Israel slightly more than Palestine. Or at least I did until I read your comment. a) You say "he is not interested in any peace that retains a Jewish state". Totally bad faith. Did you mean to say "any peace that does not recognize that Israel was created on stolen land?". The land was stolen BEFORE the war. b) You say "His one-state solution is a non-starter for Israelis." Umm .. isn't it ALREADY one state? It is. Didn't Netanyahu show a map in the UN of the entire region being ONE STATE? He did. The only difference between today's Israel and that 'future state' is that it would not have second class citizens. Making this comment without even acknowledging the occupation or the fact that different people have different IDs and can use different roads, schools, and hospital is gross. Not mentioning the illegal, genocidal, extremist settlers is frankly gross too. c) Funny how you say "Israeli Arabs" to make your bs point about liberties (even though Israeli Arabs too go through horendous abuse and discrimination) but you say NOTHING of the "Arabs" under occupation. I wonder why that is. Perhaps because they are second class citizens so they don't even enter your frame. What about the "Arabs" that are never given permits to build houses or the "Arabs" whose houses are demolished for literally no reason? d) You say "Palestinians have been offered everything they claimed to want in peace, except the right of return". Uh, so basically they were not offered THE MOST IMPORTANT PART? Their land and homes were stolen and you propose to fix that by ... not addressing that their land and homes were stolen? 🤣 e) You say "Israel is a modern secular state that is a beacon of light in a region of darkness". This is a stretch and it is particularly funny because in your various remarks you don't seem to know whether it is a secular state or a Jewish one or a secular Jewish with second-class citizens. Israel is an ethno-nationalist surveillance state, for anyone actually looking for an accurate description. f) Your last paragraph is complete and total horseshit. We have statements from various Israeli governments about how they never intended to allow a Palestinian state. They spied on the Palestinain delegation during the various "peace talks". Security and jewishness are all a pretext. Settlements don't improve security. Settlements don't make "peace" easier. They don't bring solutions. I don't believe there has been a single Israeli PM who has openly supported a "2 state solution" in decades now. Netanyahu, just months ago, was calling it "Sovereignty plus", or some bullshit like that, and went to the UN with a map that completely deletes Palestine from the map. I would respect you more if you were upfront about your actual genocidal motives. Nobody believes the pretext of security or the crocodile tears anymore. Unironically, propagandistic comments are the reason why so many unhinged crazies came out as terrorist sympathizers on October 8th.
Here is the form of this discussion: 1. Coleman asks a question > the guest doesn’t answer and engages is obfuscation. 2. Coleman follows up to get an answer > the guest continues to obfuscate, refuses to answer and eventually begins restating his talking points. 3. Coleman makes a point > regardless of the accuracy of the point the guest claims the point is wrong. The guest did not act in good faith and his performance in this interview shows why talking is pointless. Talking for Israel is pointless: 1. Israel’s neighbors will not engage in good faith discussions 2. Israel’s neighbors refuse to cease their violence and even escalate (Oct. 7) 3. Israel cannot move 4. Israel is unable to tolerate the continued and escalating violence What is left for Israel to do? History, in the guests hands, is moldable as putty…
What happens when your "neighbor" drops his home on top of yours? Couldn't Europe create a state for Israel on their own land? Those are clearly European jews. Wild that they could fight for rights on land their ancestors are not from.
@@jonaswunderkind4580 the Ottoman Empire was one of the most accepting nations of its time, far more than any Christian nation of that era. Sorry, but you're just ignorant.
I don’t get it. He’s on the podcast for 1.5 hours but continually urges listeners to do their research because he says Coleman is wrong. But doesn’t explain it… seems fishy.
No he is saying the foundation of what he is speaking on he doesn't want to restate all of it so just go read..That's pretty common what he is doing it saves time actually
@@BLAX832 I've run into so many, especially right-wingers, but increasingly across the board, who basically do what is called a Gish Gallop, where they load a bunch of material for YOU to read (quit your job, take a week or so, and get back to me and I'll lecture you further), and then act as if they've just laid a trump card and won the hand/argument.
@@BLAX832do not mistake saving time and deflecting. I mean for example when he was asked about war crimes done by Israel, saying "it's documented go look it up" seems unserious. I mean this is exactly what people are here for, and it also denies Coleman the right to counter his argument. Giving a 5 min backstory for a 1 sentence statement is unnecessary yeah, but on core issues in this topic it's important to have an elaborate debate so people can indeed learn from it
host: what are your thoughts on 7 October attack munayyer: this is not the right framing we need to go back to 1947 host: ok but in 1947 the Arabs rejected the un partition plan and attacked the Jewish state munayyer: this is not the right framing we need to go back to the beginning of this entire process so basically anytime Coleman raises something that doesn't fit his narrative he will ignore it and just "reframe" and move to another time period, rinse and repeat 🤦♀
I think you should listen again to this podcast. Ignore munayyer's condescension and you will realize he actually gave context that might shed light on the current situation
This was definitely one of the more in-depth views into the pro-Palestinian position I've seen so thanks for airing it. As some feedback for Yousef, if you encourage the audience to go more in-depth and do more research ourselves, please provide links or at least one example of what you mean so we can go look it up. If you use terms like genocide or ethnic cleansing it helps to provide examples otherwise it sounds like hyperbole without a concrete example. Ultimately, the problem boils down to the fact that the Palestinian side will only consider a one-state solution and Israel will only consider a two-state solution. Yousef's vision is quite utopian and seems to be based on his experience living in the democratic US. Currently, there is no country in the Middle East with a Muslim majority modeled on a US-style democracy, and until then it would be unfair for Israel to be asked to be the guinea pig for that type of vision, especially when the vision is not shared by groups like Hamas or even by the current majority of the Palestinian people. Maybe a one-state solution could work in 100 years when there's peace in the Middle East but not now. Coleman, please keep diving into this issue, especially with more Palestinian (And more Israeli) speakers, especially together, so we can find out more about this. It also helps to have speakers focused more on the future than the past. There are a lot of countries built on colonialism (Israel's only difference is that it was one of the last colonial projects before decolonization) and it's not realistic to expect Israel to decolonize any more than it would be realistic for the US to give all its land back to Native Americans, nor do I see any serious left-wing thinkers make this proposal in the US, so it's hypocritical to expect Israel to do the same. There is a statute of limitations on past grievances, now time to find some real solutions to the current issues.
It seems like you are genuinely interested about the history of this conflict and open to arguments that opposes your viewpoint. For the history of the conflict, read(or watch their lectures) Benny Moris and Ilan Pappe. Both are Israeli historians while Benny Moris argues for the pro-zionist side, Ilan Pappe opposes it. You can decide whom to agree with based on the strength of their arguments. If you want to know the nitty gritty of the present conflict, read(watch lectures) Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein (Both Jewish). They will use UN, International Human Rights Organizations and Israeli sources to make their argument. You can at least watch the debate between Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz about this conflict which is available on RUclips and decide on your own as to whose arguments are more concrete. So far I have only mentioned Jewish authors. If you are interested in Palestenian scholars, you can read (watch) Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi. And if you are wondering why you do not hear these names in the mainstream media, you can read(watch lectures on this topic) Professor John Mearsheimer's book titled "The Israel Lobby and The U.S. Foreign Policy" and come to your own conclusions.
This guy isn’t answering any of Coleman’s questions or responding directly to what he’s actually saying. Just a lot of “you should do some research on (insert topic of Coleman’s statements/questions)”
Yousef does a great job going on the offensive and refusing to consider any perspective but his own. He is a good debater, but a poor conversation partner. Props to Coleman for stepping up and being willing to attempt to engage.
You act as if Coleman entertained any other perspectives but his own. He was bias just like Yousef, well duh, that's how a debate happens. Coleman couldn't keep up.
Calm down, you know nothing about this conflict to even debunk any of his points, how can you claim propaganda unless you can actually shoot down specific points? Coleman doesn't have an education on the topic, that's the issue.@@galtha5824
I'm sorry, but this isn't a serious man. 16:50 - Am I dreaming or does he actually suggest that in 1948 Israel was not in a defensive war, but rather the aggressor(!) when invaded by 6 Arab armies, the countries of some of which it doesn't even share a border with? If that twisted take on reality actually represents any Arab thinking, then it explains a lot.
You've earned a subscriber. Great work! This is an accurate showcase of why there is no peace in that piece of land and why there won't be any peace until a new, educated, literate generation arises within Palestinian society. There is simply no way to conduct any meaningful conversations, much less negotiate peace, when the guy you're talking to refuses dodges every key notion and is "selective" about his history or is flat out falsefying history. Palestinians deserve better. After the war is over, there MUST be some external power managing Gaza AND the West Bank in charge of security and education. Palestinians have proven that in 100 years of conflict they are unable to progress their society into one that is tolerant, educated, peaceful and compromising. Yousef Munayyer is the best Palestinian society has to offer. If you think of the average Palestinian, you will see much more hate, even less education and then you understand why Hamas is the most popular movement among Palestinians.
SO when is Israel going to stop breaking international law and building settlements in the occupied territories? When are the settlerrs going to stop attacking Palestinans and forcibly removing them from there homes?
Gazans in UNRWA schools learn to hate Jews with money from the US and Europe. Every cent that goes in is co-opted - willingly or not - into terrorist indoctrination, armament, and violence. The reason is simple: Palestinian Arabs are the most religiously extremist in the region. Jordan doesn’t want them, Egypt doesn’t want them, and Iran funds the extremists from afar. I would love nothing more than peace and stability in Israel and a state for Palestinians which didn’t wage religious war. But the past century would suggest otherwise. The population hates Jews more than they love their own lives. All the history suggests this. So I’m not sure how hopeful I am for this future of “literate Palestinians.” I think a future of nuclear war with Iran seems more likely, if utterly horrifying. Obama’s and, subsequently, Biden’s joint weakness on Iran may well live in infamy.
If you are honest, you will concede that there are fundamentalists on both side. Ariel Sharon , and Benjamin Natanyahu at the Helm. Concessions must be made on both sides.
@@Cesar-hf2vl I like sticking to reality and facts, therefore clustering Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu (who I have lots of criticism on both of them, especially Netanyahu) together with Hamas and the radical leaders Palestinians had, is dishonest. There is no moral equivelancy between both sides. The only reason you think that is that innate quality people have (especially common among liberals) that "Strong is wrong", "oppressor vs. oppressed" and if you are stuck in that dogma, the "strong side" can't possibly have a moral high ground, while reality tells a different story that doesn't conform to those simplistic dogmas. So you take whatever information you get to support your dogma and take it at its word, while disregarding any information that contradicts your dogma because "we all know oppressors lie". In reality this conflict obviously has a lot of gray area, and Israel is no saint or angel, no one in conflict ever is in all of human history, and yet Israel still operates by the guideline of Western moral values, while Palestinians operate by the guideline of radical islam and eternal war. Break out of your box.
My position entering this conversation was quite similar to Colemans: slightly biased pro Israel but honestly eager to learn and understand the view of Palestinians. But man, this was frustrating. When the opposing side is SO convinced that it is right in actually every single aspect of this very complex and long going conflict … and your attempts to describe your views are constantly rejected as “bizarre” and “ignorant” … and instead of the slightest compromise you get the “solution” that only Israel needs to give in and loosen its grip, because *this time* (unlike all the other times) this will open the path to the first and only ever Muslim majority democracy respecting minority rights in the middle east … in stark contrast to the written, articulated, demonstrated and celebrated will to kill Jews whenever possible by so many Palestinians … i really don’t know what to say and think of this. It’s utterly depressing. If you so rigorously insist on only ever looking at this conflict through the “oppressor vs. oppressed” goggles, where all the responsibility for everything bad lies with the oppressor and every action by the other side, even unimaginable cruelties, are justified and explained away because of them being oppressed … this will never end. Also, religion plays a waaay bigger role in all of this imho … because there are many many muslim regimes with no one opressing their religious leaders. And still they follow an immensely cruel agenda in the name of Koran.
He is an articulate. The war of words types are really gaining traction these days,and form a very significant column.Pre1948 or no further back- 1919 life as tenant s of absentee landlord may have been ideal. I think an absentee landlord over these 2 may be an idea. But it'll never happen. War of words continues with an occasional greusome event as we witness now.
The reality is that in 1882, there were only 24,000 Jews living in Palestine, and they represented about 2% of the regional population. Then Zionist efforts began. Aliyah Aleph and Aliyah Bet. In 1922 (census) there were about 80,000 Jews in Palestine. They represented about 11% of the regional population. In 1931 (census) there were about 175,000 Jews in Palestine. They represented about 17% of the regional population. In 1936 (demographic study) there were about 384,000 Jews in Palestine. They represented about 29.5% of the regional population. The compromise of the anti-immigration Great Revolt of 1936-1939 were the White Papers of 1939, which were ignored by the Zionists. In 1945 (demographic study) there were about 553,600 Jews in Palestine. They represented 31% of the regional population. In 1948 (demographic study) there were about 650,000 Jews in Palestine. They represented 34% of the population. Then Zionists seized control of the region, and 750,000 of the region's 1.2 million non-Jewish inhabitants either fled (and were subsequently denied the right of return), were forcibly removed by the order of Israeli officials, or were killed. Another 725,000 Jews came to the newly-formed state of Israel between 1948 and 1953. Their population doubled between 1948 and 1953. The population of non-Jews was decimated by +60%. In 1955, there were 1.3 million (75%) Jews living in the newfound state of Israel, and only 450,000 (25%) non-Jews. Today, the demographics are similar. Jews represent 73.5% of the population. So, to recap, Jews went from being 2% of the population to 75% of the population within one human lifetime (1882-1955). Non-Jews went from being 98% of the population to 25% of the population within one human lifetime (1882-1955). Tell me how this ^^ doesn't constitute ethnic cleansing. If it were literally any other group, no one would be denying that it was. Today, there are 5 million people in neighboring countries registered as Palestinian refugees.
@@seth.kenvin 1st example, when Coleman states the Palestinians attacked Israel in the 1947 war and Yousef he says it's inaccurate . . . "political violence toward the Palestinians began before 1947." Rather than saying, yes they did and here is why he call that inaccurate.
@@jeremybowser7690 that's indeed inaccurate -- that war was versus attacking "Arab League" of about half dozen nations. Palestinians were refugees, encouraged to be refugees by Arab League to scatter & make room for fighting ere their (wrongly) anticipated quick victory, with that flight facilitated by fledgling Israel, because : Nakba
@@seth.kenvin really, so were just going to pretend that the Palestinians were not part of the Arab League that was attacking Israel? Not one of them lifted a finger or a rifle to attack the nation of Israel even though "about half a dozen other nations" were fighting on their behalf? No, they participated as well and they loss land that would have been theirs as a result. That's accurate.
It would be interesting to see Yousef's view of the bunkers under UN headquarters that the IDF found this past weekend. The UN who is so quick to say Israel is committing war crimes. How about Hamas and numerous war crimes they have committed since Oct. 7th. So sick of countries like the US and Israel being held to different standards than Iran, Palestine, Qatar, etc.
The host showed an enormous amount of maturity, restraint and respect. The guest came off as immature. He dodged question after question and seemed on the verge of losing his temper.
Please ask Yousef: What happened with EVERY minority religions in the vast majority of the islamic arab countries in the last -100 years? I will answer him, almost all of them "disappeared"!
He keeps saying that the Palestinians right for self determination was denied while completely neglecting the fact that their right for self determination was addressed in the partition plan. What kind of bs is this?
Sooooo frustrating. Right from the beginning Coleman asked him to outline war crimes and he answered nothing. He just said they commit war crimes and you should research it. What crimes Yousef? I’m not even saying they don’t, but if it’s a reality surely you can outline at least one.
In a debate, aren’t you supposed to try to persuade people with your arguments - not just tell them that they’re wrong and if they’d do more research like you did, then they would see the light? Reminds me of a truther or Q-Anon. “I’ve done all this research that contradicts everything you know, and even though I won’t share any details about it, you too would reach the ‘truth’ if you did the same.”
I was very frustrated by this myself. Can he not even give one example? He basically said there is a lot of evidence, ‘trust me bro’ and if you do not then you are ignorant. Why even come on for a discussion if that is your answer to things?
Diaspora Palestinians modify their lies with western world triggering words , as the west and especially America forgot what is a religious war. According to his theory why Iran 🇮🇷 tried to kill Arabs and Jews in Israel with ballistics misslies attack ? What is the connection ? Is this is also a political violence ?? Ohh liars don’t get states
How old are you guys? You really need others to give you passing knowledge on UK UK Israel Saudi Iran Iraq Palestine intertwining history? Read more. And stay in tune.
This, or 2 states with full return of millions of refugees to Israel is the second most common “democratic” argument I’ve heard. Both Trojan horses. Sad indeed because unless Israelis are suicidal there will be no resolve or gain for Palestinians with these proposals. One is even left wondering if the advocates of these faux proposals really care about Palestinians, who may end up with nothing.
This was incredible frustrating to listen to. Nothing is as infuriating as a interviewee/debator who answers their own questions instead of the one asked. Not only that, Yousef also, after promising not to, repeatedly interrupts Coleman in asking questions. Add on top of that an incredibly smug attitude and clear signaling that he thinks his position is the only well thought one, he's not entring this discussion with any notion of the points on the other side having any validity. Finish it all of whith a sprinkle of "whataboutism" and you have the perfect train wreck.
Except I think neither are racism. I'm anti-Zionist for the same reasons I don't like wokeness. Zionism is the ideal type of identity politics. But I actively like Jews - I'd prefer more in my neighborhood, they account for a huge disproportion of great civilizational things we enjoy. But going from a small Jewish minority in 1917 to a Jewish state in 1948 necessitated disposessing the people already there and that was the stated plan as early as 1921. And the continued denial of this is really galling. The anti-woke have a real identity politics double standard when it comes to Zionism. By no reasonable calculus were European Jews entitled to a state in Palestine in 1917. I can't figure out the rationale for why Palestinians should have just self deported to create an ethnostate. Especially given genetics shows they are largely just descended from Jews who never left Palestine and converted to Islam. Contrary to the victim narrative Jews were not expelled en masse from all of Roman Palestine and what on earth that has to do with 1900 years later is beyond me.
Israel is a nation state (most world’s Jew’s don’t live there). Criticism of a nation state definitionally isn’t be solely limited to race, religion or ethnicity of the people living there.
Yousef was very frustrating. His argument was just “you don’t understand” without ever being able to explain why Coleman was wrong. People who argue like that come across as bullies who want to look right but have no real arguments to back up their position. He may be right but he never actually made arguments supported by evidence to make me believe that.
Usually when a war is lost the matter is settled. Giving back land to those who started the trouble is a bad idea. Those people are warped.. not capable of discerning truth
Who else in the world is doing this.. think about all the wars and the lands that were lost. Is anyone else still yelling and screaming. These people will never move forward. It’s not about land it’s a religious war
I don’t see it that way at all. Coleman kept asking him the same thing and Yousef already answered. Coleman can’t seem to accept his answer. I’m not sure how anyone can deny the facts of what he is saying in regards to the history and what Palestinians have been fighting for.
@BIGGOODBOY israel is breaking international law by taking in over land in the west Bank as we speak. This is not some past war. It is still happening.
Pay attention to the deflection of each factual reference by Coleman. Every time Coleman raises an inconvenient event, Youssef dodges it by raising a different event to circumvent the inconvenience.
What is trying to justify violence going to do for anybody living under these conditions on both sides? This guy is trying to say the October 7th massacre had to happen. That is the problem. Playing the victim with blood all over their hands.
I think that was the real kicker with this argument. Regardless though, I actually really liked Youssef overall, and I thought he brought some valuable perspective from the Palestinian point of view.
Could he have named one? I don't know. But in a world where any and all measures, including violence, are taken against any Palestinian who stands up to Israel, would it really be right for Munayyer to name someone, and thereby cause them to be under great scrutiny, at greater risk for themselves and their family?
Really? Salam Fayyad was arguably the most pacifist political figure of the entire region, and he was PM of the PNA (and still by far the most popular political figure in Palestine). What's hard is to find a non-violent leader in Likud. All the Israeli pacifists are Labor, and they haven't been in power for the last 20 years.
This was pretty painful to watch. Would love to hear someone defend Palestine who uses actual nuance, makes concessions on some points and uses actual counter factual arguments rather than raising their voice and hand waving everything. He just seems willfully ignorant and able to overlook so many things.
I just watched the cenk interview with Tim pool. Ceek was the same way. Saying only right wing has terrorist. When the left wing burned DC and chased Trump into his bunker. It's like you know he's lieing. This guy knows all Palestinians want to destroy Israel.
There is no pro-palestinian that can do that, because the Palestinian cause is a lie and the idea of occupation is easily disproven in an actual conversation. Watch any other pro-palestinian person, they are all like this.
Well, I could have used more specifics from this guy instead of vagaries. I think most viewers are pretty familiar with the history, and he was short on specifics about solutions for my taste. I do have to say, though, that Coleman seems a little out of his depth in some of his comparisons to South Africa and partition in India. Still a big fan, and I can see how those comparisons could make sense in an argument, but I feel like he has a slightly oversimplified view of how those movements/events took place and evolved, so his comparisons (those two in particular) ultimately fell flat.
He lives in fairly land to pretend that Palestine was this paradise prior to 1948. It’s a verified fact that the British got sick of managing the land due to all the internal issues which is why they told the UN to handle it
Have you listened the interview AND understood it? I guess not. To explain you the whole history he is reffering to would need more time than some seconds. Nothing for tictoc-users
The problem with this discussion is that one party thinks Israel should exist and the other thinks Israel shouldn't exist. So they just go around in circles. Great discussion given that context though.
Clearly you didn’t listen to the entire video. I don’t know how you can conclude that after Coleman looked really foolish throughout the discussion. He appeared flustered and his eyes looked watery at times when he appeared visibly nervous.
I swear I can't take anyone who uses the phrase "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" seriously anymore.
right?! So, if a basketball player can't make a shot but keeps practicing, and eventually gets it, they're insane. It's especially funny when they say, 'literally', when it's literally not the definition and makes no sense.
Yousef did not get Coleman's point about nonviolence. Coleman's point was that there needs to be a leader with popular Palestinian support who *rejects* violence and advocates for a real practical solution for both Israelis and Palestinians. There are popular Palestinian leaders but none of them have done this. The fact that Palestinians support boycotting Israel is completely irrelevant to that point.
Unfortunately, that cannot be the response to radical Islam. Ever ! Children would have to be separated from their parents, the propaganda would have to be replaced with real history. The Muslim world is not at all willing to be honest or change. We are at a civilizational impasse of epic proportions.
The first hamas leader Yassin, the dude in the wheelchair, started getting too moderate and arguing against violence so Israel blew him up while he was walking out of a mosque. Obviously they weren't at war at the time so the international community and UN called them out. Naturally after that the people weren't super happy. We also know from netanyahus own words that they strategically funded and helped build Hamas in hopes of driving a wedge between Gaza and the west bank. Sure seems those decisions came back to bite them lol. Same thing we've done in the US, arm and fund terrorists then act all surprised when they fight against us.
1) If there needs to be a leader for the Palestinians such as Coleman describes, there might well be equal need for such a leader on the Israeli side (which he doesn't mention). 2) The Oslo Accords of 1993 were signed by leaders of each side who had opted for a peaceful process that advocated a practical solution for both Israelis and Palestinians. All successive Israeli governments following Rabin's consistently undermined this process, most grievously by continuing (illegal by any definition) settler expansion in the West Bank. Coleman showed naivete on this as well as on many other points in this discussion.
Yousef completely understands. When you take the point Israel are occupiers it ends there until they are expelled. Both sides don't want to live under each others rules.
There needs to be an Israeli leader who isn't for terroristic violence and ethnic cleansing. But unfortunately, there isn't. Becauae Israeli leaders are overtly in favor of an ethno-state.
1:03:30 I have a sincere doubt about that claim. Though it has been referred that Jews were better under Muslim rule than Christian, the fact remains the same: Though natives to that land and with a countable population at the arrival of Islam to their region, the result of a minority of 3% of Dhimmi's, to me, is not considered a peaceful coexistence.
Palestinian propagandist denial of basic history or rewriting of it and speaking in narratives and not facts is exactly why I became pro-Israel. This man on the podcast was a perfect example of all this.
100% I started off pro Palestine but the more I hear about Iran promoting Hamas and hezbolah and I hear Palestinians unwilling to have any solution other than “from the river to the sea”… not to mention Hamas’s war tactics..: I don’t feel sorry for them. … so sad.
No surprise that while being placed in a difficult position you continued to express yourself in Coleman style: calm, informed, and thoughtful! Thank you for taking-on this conversation and showing the world how to handle difficult people!! It is hard to imagine that Yousef speaks for all Palestinians.
@@casacarol2034Showing your bias. Yousef would not admit to the Arabs/Palestinians causing Israel to defend itself. He wouldn't admit that throughout history this region has seen unsolicited murder on both sides. He kept going around in circles, back to his talking points. Never once conceding an idea or discussion point or even just saying we will need to disagree since we have a difference of opinion, instead he undermined Coleman each chance he got and kept saying go check out what I have written about before. No couldn't defend his own points.
That's because he doesn't believe there's anything to hold them accountable for. Right or wrong, he was too cowardly to outright admit that he supports the violence.
Of COURSE Israelis should be held accountable for their government's actions, and so too should the Palestinians. Just one small problem: Hamas is not the elected representatives of anybody. They are wildly unpopular among Palestinians (less than 30% support Hamas). Hamas has committed atrocities. There's no question. But that doesn't mean this is supported by Palestinians, and in fact it is NOT. Hamas is just the latest violent faction to arise and seize power, and is not representative of the Palestinians at all. But in any case, Palestinians only have the government that Israel allows them to have. This is not self-determination. Palestinians have no real freedom or independence.
@@RudeBoy-hx1fn agreed. Polls I’ve read suggest 52% favourability even in the West Bank, as high as 64% in East Jerusalem. It is not Israel or the West’s responsibility to relieve Palestine of their self-destructive governance. If the commentariat actually cared about Gazans, they’d be calling for the surrender of Hamas.
@@terencedoherty3049 WHERE did you get that 30% figure from? They were democratically elected in the first place, and when I searched just now 'percentage support Hamas Palestinians' I got figures like 86% and 71% supporting violence from Hamas in 2021. The only percentage I found in the 30s was 33% of young people support Hamas. The other thing is - they may not all like Hamas, but you can't tell me they support the PA - so who will they vote for if given the chance? I think we know.
Over and over these people dodge the question of those innocents slaughtered on Oct 7th. So 1948 makes it okay to kill people minding their own business? And I say this as someone that doesn't pick a side here. Go after the Government or the military, not people at a concert.
It took some effort to finish this interview. As much Coleman was trying to steer the conversation towards a productive way, this guy Yosef was borderline insufferable. Multiple times he implied that Coleman was ill-informed or uninformed, called him ridiculous just showed incredible bias. He's done himself and his side no favors.
He's literally standard boiler plate for the palestinian side. I've seen numerous people held up as standard bearers for that side of the debate, and every time they're insufferable asshats providing endless levels of charity and excuses for terrorism while portraying every single thing israel does and has ever done as the most barbaric evil that has ever existed. I don't think they realize that they are quite literally showing that there are no civilians in gaza at this point, because if this is the westernized version of the debate, you can only imagine the actual gazans and how they feel. There is a reason Hamas has nearly 60% approval, and their even more radical opposition group "islamic jihad" has 70-80%. Gazans are the most radicalized people on earth, no muslim nations welcome them in their borders because they commit terrorist attacks, and try to overthrow the government in all nations that take them. They are a people without rulers because they are people who cannot be controlled.
@@NavAK_86Nothing he said was wrong? Lol. The flood of words coming from this clown does not compare to Colemans attempt at a real discussion. Did Yousef even answer a single question?
Coleman, thank you for this episode. Between this broadcast and the one with Dr. Benny. I have a much more thorough understanding of the Israel-Hamas issue going on. I must say you handled yourself very well during the interview with Yousef.
I’ve been a huge fan for the last 3 years, but he’s lost a lot of respect for me on this issue. To start with trying to define what war crimes are shows that this conversation was intended to legitimatize what almost all of the world is opposed and disgusted by. Call it what it is people…. G E N O C I D E. If United Nations members and Doctors Without Borders call it that, it’s probably for a reason.
Colman, thank you for your support to Israel. As you can see, there is no way to have a normal discussion and reach a compromise with people who always look for the cheat code that will win them the debate. "War crimes", "occupiers", yada yada yada. Never a word of criticism to their own choices and actions.
If you have another Palestinian activist. Ask them why the mufti of Palestine went to visit hilter to discuss the eradication of jews? This was long before the state of Israel.
they will say that the palestinians never elected the mufti and he wasnt their representative a better thing to ask (and maybe it was...i havent watched the entire interview) is if arabs engage in violence because of oppression, why did arab pogroms against jews start during 1920 in the mandate and run through the arab revolt of 1936...how were the jews living in mandate palestine, oppressing the arabs if occupation is the issue, why did the arabs not only not fight the occupation of the west bank by jordan and gaza by egypt, the plo formed in 64, did not include those areas in what they claimed would be their state?
I appreciate that you gave him the amount of pushback you did, Coleman. You also exercised a level of patience with this gentleman that I would find a hard.
21:53 "Do you think, in 1947, that the Palestinians attacked the Jews, or did the Jews attack the Palestinians?" No clearer example of how juvenile and hollow is Coleman's perspective on this issue.
57:00 he asks how many countries have been formed by bloody invasion and imperialism (paraphrasing), and I would answer: all of the Muslim countries. I mean if he wants context and history, he has to acknowledge the Islamic empire exists because of conquest. Which is to say “they did it first”.
@@fastmotionforme Or the Jews were happy because they got what they wanted: a portion of land that wasn't theirs. And the Palestinians weren't happy because they only lost what they used to have.
Actually it does: it emphasized who was acting in bad faith. Arabs attacked jews during the 1920s riot. Despite jews accept the two stage solutions, the Arabs didn’t. They want all of it and instead went to war with Israel.
The point Yousef was trying to make is a two state solution is not necessarily fair, would it have been fair if instead of American slaves being given equal rights and accepted as citizens of the US, they had a border drawn around areas that most black people live (excluding rich areas that the white Americans would want to keep) that would be turned into its own country, a country the US would then go onto ensure was a failed state. If you think carving out a country for a people equals freedom for those people, search up the states that South Africa tried to set up so that they could pretend they weren't oppressing people and why the entire world rejected to recognise these states as they were made out of blatant racism and as a way to keep blacks down
Again Yousef did dodge the question, Palestinians being "denied the right to self-determination"? People, keep in mind there was neither an Israeli state nor Palestinian state first. Next, the two state partition plan would of given Palestinians the very same self-determination as Israel. But, again, the gotcha here is that Palestinians and all Arab nations wanted to fight to destroy all Jews in the area, rather than accept the two state solution.
They always want more than what is being offered, they don't realize that offers tend to disepear, you can't reject 5 deals and than ask for them back,
This is absolutely not true and ahistorical when it comes to the Palestinian (and Israeli) response to Oslo or other subsequent attempts at securing peace. Look no further than Netanyahu’s own party for answers about the failure of peace talks.
@@certifiedlb3451 - Incorrect. You are vastly and inaccurately overgeneralizing with hyperbole here. All the attempts at peace were genuine, and most importantly, were at least completely genuine leading up to Camp David in 2000 under Clinton. Between Peres and Barak, the attempt was made to heal the wounds by declaring peace, and moving towards a two state solution, and literally every single time an agreement was close, Hamas intervened with multiple suicide bombings in Israel. The final attempt to give a Palestine everything it wanted was in 2000, 95%+ of the West Bank, and then all of it eventually, right to return for valid descendants of those exiled, billions in paid reparations, and the list goes on. But, Arafat, that criminal embezzler who stole several billion from his own people, renigged on the deal literally at the very last second. He told Clinton that he didn't know how to run a country, he was a soldier, so after that idiot collapsed those talks, which Barak did everything he could, the suicide bombings began again right after, by Hamas. Hamas is a group as you well should know does not want peace, or a side by side state, they want one state. Arafat ruined their chances, and the state of Israel tolerated this nonsense long enough. No other power in the world would of tolerated this Islamist Jihadist nonsense. So, that is why Netanyahu gave up, and no one blames him. All the other Arab muslim countries now privately look forward to the eradication of Hamas. From there, its only possible to move towards talks of two states, but not an Islamist Jihadist one. The time for Hamas, is ending.
@@certifiedlb3451Is it not true that the Palestinians have rejected a two state solution no less than 5 times? I agree with the comment…ultimately this comes down to the Arab population not wanting a Jewish nation state in the region. Regardless of the words spoken, this is what the action indicate. Hamas needed fertile soil to establish itself, and that soil is the deep antisemitism of the Arab world.
@@Michael-cb5nm There have been rejections of moves towards peace on both sides. The difference is I’m willing to say it. The idea that Israel has only ever always been a good faith actor approaching negotiations for peace is delusional and divorced from historical reality. The Israeli right wing has rejected peace numerous times, and has rejected the idea of the existence of a Palestinian state out of hand. There is to this day Palestinian support for a two state solution, just as there was after Oslo, just as there was in subsequent peace talks. However, of course problems arise when questions of right of return for refugees, settlements, control over ports, airspace, water, trade, etc. are not adequately addressed. Let’s not play around and act like Israel has ever been warm to the idea of a sovereign Palestinian state. Despite this, there was Palestinian recognition of the Jewish state during Oslo. Bonus: look into Netanyahu’s opposition of Oslo, protests he led and encouraged, the assassination of the prime minister at the time, and his quick paced ramping up of the construction of settlements, making land swaps increasingly difficult.
What's great about this conversation is that it demonstrates, among other things, the way in which pro-Palestine people shift the discussion to fit into their isolated narrative bubble. This plays out so clearly in minute 25:00, when Coleman accuses his guest of dodging his question and then the guest proceeds to dodge the question again by going back in time. Everyone who lives on Planet Earth understands that 1948 is one of the most significant years in both modern Palestinian and Israeli history. Getting stuck there is one of the many tactics pro-Palestine individuals employ in order to stall the conversation rather than move it forward. It's the same tactic BDS supporters use when they interrupt dialogue on college campuses. I really feel badly for Coleman's guest because he is part of a collective narrative that basically chooses victimhood. Then, when called on their victimhood, they further isolate the narrative by blaming Israelis entirely for their current suffering. When you are a child or adult of war, becoming a refugee is not necessarily a choice, and it primarily is forced upon you. This undeniably tragic and painful. However, refugee status when you are the great-grandson of people who were displaced in 1948 is an entirely different thing. In fact, when you actually look into it, there are not as many Palestinian refugees as people think. Any Palestinian living outside of Palestine, whether or not he or she was personally displaced from his or her home, is entitled to check a box next to "refugee" and this ensures they remain a refugee FOR LIFE. On what planet do people choose such a cruel victimhood? One in which it is easier to only blame the "oppressor," because unfortunately the rock you have been living under is actually way more diplomatic than you may have thought, and Israel is not the "Genocidal" entity people make it out to be. Both Jews and Arabs were and are entitled to the land in Palestine/Israel. This is indisputable. What happens as a result of war, though, is that there is a winning side and a losing side. When the losing side refuses to accept they have lost and live in the fantasy that one day they will defeat the Jews and have their right of return fulfilled, then they only continue to lose and be met with further disappointment and suffering on a larger scale than they were prepared for. Every war it gets worse and worse for the Palestinians, and while Israel shows its military might, the international community gives it the middle finger and tells Israel to stop punishing the Palestinians. Well, when a child continues to steal the cookies from the cookie jar and does not learn his lesson from a 10-minute time out or spanking, then you have to get more creative with punishment. In the case of the Palestinians, their dreams for a sovereign state will remain lofty and unlikely if they do nothing to prevent militants like Hamas from ruling over their population because this ensures the cycle of violence where Hamas attacks and Israel retaliates, and so on.
Yousef avoids answering the questions directly and uses language that minimizes the responsibility of Palestinian leadership. Hamas has a history of using teenage suicide bombers, they have attacked, murdered and raped civilians. The problem with these Pro Palestine people is they dance around anything Palestinians have done to contribute to them being a national security risk to Israel, Jordan and Egypt.
You mean like minimizing the crimes of one Ariel Sharon or snipers opening fire on civilians during The Great March of Return? That kind of minimizing?
@@Luca.Rubinato "great march of return" was not peaceful by any means, there were thousands of gazans cutting the border and tossing IEDS, molotovs and incendiary balloons.
@@Luca.Rubinatoyou can name as many atrocities as you want from either side, but by NOT taking responsibility for ANYTHING the side you are defending has done, you get no where towards understanding. No doubt Israel is responsible for many terrible things, but I’ve heard more Israeli’s and Israel supporters agree to those truths than I’ve heard any Pro Palestine supporters even mention anything wrong that has been done by them.
Palestinians have the right to resist occupation even by armed struggle. There is no legal right of an occupation to defend against the legal resistance of the occupied. There is no legal right to defend occupation.
@@ArturoTorres-kh2oyno one has the right to r*** women and target babies. If your cause brings you to that point, you have already lost all your soul.
@ArturoTorres-kh2oy Hamas actions were not legal resistance...That was illegal massacre if you want to speak in those terms.....Hamas is part of the occupation against Palestinians...Hamas does not care for Palestinians
He said he hoped we learned something from him, but I seemed to hear him never answer a question - even on his own ideas and articles - and say things like "I wrote about it. You can look it up." I'd think one would be able to speak to their own writing.
@@CaesarCapone He clearly stated his position on the matter. Also backing it up with facts. Asking what would you have done, or questions of the like, is irrelevant! There really is so much information on this. But in order to research it, it takes a lot of time if you research the correct way! There is one common denominator so many have not discussed at all! Which is so important ! That is the treatment of the Palestinians ! When I say the treatment, I mean the treatment very similar to what happened in Oct 7th! These horrible acts are not just coming from Palestinians. They are coming from soldiers in the military throughout the decades! These soldiers were in their mid to late 70’s possibly in their early 80’s . Some still in their mid to late 20’s 30’s ! So a variety of former military . Some who grew up in Israel, and had to do their service and some who traveled to Israel to do their service, once they turned of age , because they have to , and some also wanted to. ! I have listened to many who have written book. Many videos and many documentaries. There’s no way after watching and reading from so many different-resources /ages/careers and one man lost his grandparents in the Holocaust and he was just a small baby but in the camps! He went to live in Israel as soon as he came age and after so many years, had to leave. He just couldn’t unknown AB’s see what he knew! So one has to ask themselves why ? Why, aren’t sane who have huge presence in Israel, MSM, etc… not talking about it! Also theirs are many historians, professors, etc who have followed it for decades and have written books! But you never ever hear any of it , from anyone ! I mean not a word!
Terrorism. 'The unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.' Merriam-Webster dictionary Hopefully we all agree that morally and strategically the invasion and occupation of Iraq was wrong. Hopefully we all agree it was blood thirsty, greedy, corporate, weird, evangelical behaviour. It was also illegal (you don't say) according to the United Nations. Therefore, and referencing the dictionary definition, why do people/media/other countries not call the United States a terrorist State?
Well, then you would have to consider Coleman a scholar who is generally uninformed on one side of this issue. (Not totally unfair since he somewhat admirably admits his own bias/lean.)
Munayyer argues in very bad faith, it's notable how patronising and combative his tone is throughout, talking down to Coleman the whole time. Coleman never resorts to doing that, and it's very noticeable. EDIT: I actually think Munayyer has some very strong points, and I am not siding with either Coleman or Munayyer, I am listening with an open mind. But my God Munayyer just comes across so badly, it really mars the points he's trying to make because it looks like he feels his arguments are too weak to stand on their own, like if he presents them in an adult, neutral tone, it won't be enough. He goes out of his way to get digs in, with virtually every point he makes, addressing Coleman with contempt and like Coleman is an idiot. It's disrespectful, it's completely unnecessary, and like I said, it actually only makes his stance look really weak, that he has to resort to that non-stop during the debate. Are your points strong or aren't they? Stop couching every statement in tones of a petulant child.
He also makes several wrong and hypocritical points. Accountability, for instance. Israel actually court martials soldiers for war crimes and disobeying orders in a manner causing unnecessary civilian casualties. Hamas, the PA and PLO honour war criminals as martyrs and shower their families, who are honoured, with money. He also has a lot of freaking nerve talking about moral equivalence. Nobody who’s watching thinks the Israelis are perfect. But to draw an equivalence with Hamas is pure gaslighting. Israel is also condemned at the UN about every 5 minutes. Far, far more than Hamas, or other militant dictatorships. This is just one example if his bad faith and lack of integrity.
If this is the best that the Palestinian side has to offer, then that's really depressing. All I'm hearing is a lot of emotional buzzwords like "war crimes" "genocide" "ethnic cleansing" etc without a single concrete example to illustrate them. And I'm sure there are plenty of examples of these things that he could bring up, but instead he just keeps essentially telling us to do our own research, and if we don't we are "ridiculous" "absurd" or "bizarre."
If you want to be fair, it's pretty clear that Coleman wanted to focus on Hamas and the region only post-October 7 2023, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict overall, certainly not any examples before 1948.
@@robs.5847before 1948 the Arabs picked on Jews constantly, there was an uprising every few months, and Arabs outnumbered Jews like 10 to 1. The only way Jews withstood it was by staying quiet and to themselves. Until they got their own army backed by the Brits.
Wow you people are so committed to not seeing this for what it is? And I’m actually genuinely surprised. I’m glad I came to watch this video to attempt to understand how on earth some people are so committed to denying the history and plight of the Palestinians. This consistent denial of the injustice of the Israeli occupation is really quite alarming. Please step back and think. The occupation genuinely has all the trappings of an apartheid, to understand that in a simplistic way, please go and watch the short AJ+ video on the topic (search Israel Gaza Apartheid). This Palestinian scholar has very clearly and very simply explained the situation that has blighted the hopes, dreams and livelihoods of his people. I am beginning to more clearly understand much of this type of pro-Israeli perspective which entirely hinges on focusing only on the existence and activity of Hamas - a gross misrepresentation and an exceptional destruction of vital context.
Oh right one man accounts for the entire people of Palestine. " emotional buzz words " " genocide" I bet you'd never apply this mockery to the Jews and the Holocaust.
"And I'm sure there are plenty of examples of these things that he could bring up, but instead he just keeps essentially telling us to do our own research, and if we don't we are "ridiculous" "absurd" or "bizarre." You apparently don't do anything risky here but post about your dogs bringing you a coin, heady stuff never censored, what there is to KNOW would possibly censor this video. And if you don't understand that there is a genocide on going and not only of this ethnic peoples but also other groups, like what's going on in EU, then ya, it's because you just don' t care to know, you prefer doggo vids.
Yeah he dismisses this by saying all religions have some bad stuff in their religious texts. Cop out. Also, would like him to answer how unbridled immigration of peoples with incompatible beliefs and practices is working put for the EU. He probably thinks that is going swimmingly
I listened with an open mind. This guy made a couple of almost-convincing points, but the overwhelming condescending tone, the naive denialism about anti-Jewish sentiments in the region, avoiding the attack as obvious evidence of violence, and failing to provide any examples for his position... he has ultimately failed to convince me of anything.
he makes v more afraid of Muslims. he believes in what he believes which palestine is the oppressed, then he goes out n finds sources that supports his claim. I cannot tolerate this conversation after 27min. it's too much. he is the reason why the world has no peace.
If you don't like Yousef's tone, check out Darryl Cooper's "Martyrmade" podcast on the history of this conflict. Darryl is a white ex-military, right-leaning Christian, and not overly biased towards either side. The podcast is entertaining and very illuminating.
@@kermitfrog593 I dunno, if anybody says that Israel should be peaceful after this attack and that them responding is causing the whole terrorism problem, I'm probably not going to agree, regardless of tone. I keep finding propaganda when I go check out the Palestinian side of the argument, not acknowledgement of how unilateral the attacks are and how Israelis could possibly live in peace with that. I'll check it out, though.
@@pmberkeley Why are you presenting a straw man argument? Barely anyone is saying Israel 'should be peaceful after this attack.' As for propaganda, I personally keep finding Israeli propaganda when I check out their side of the argument as well. The closest I've come to an "objective" history of the conflict is Darryl Cooper's "Martyrmade" podcast.
Coleman, than you for bringing Yousef Munayyer on to you podcast. I have traditionally been pro-Israel, and I continue to admire the country for many reasons. However, I've wanted to check my thoughts about this eternal conflict. I've really listened to the Palestinian position the last few weeks. I thought Yousef made some points I never understood about the Palestinian point of view. What wasn't discussed in the utopian vision the Yousef laid out was the fact that the Palestinian and Israeli populations are approaching parity in the region. We've seen what happens to ethnic and religious minorities in other Arab countries. The persecution of the Copts in Egypt is just one example. Moreover, the Israeli population will continue to become more fundamentalist as the cultural Jews have fewer children than their faith-based countrymen. I don't think Yousef is a good spokesperson for the Palestinians. He's strident, dismissive of ANY counter argument, resolute in his position, and offers no understanding for why Israel would take the position that it does with Gaza. He offers no contrition for any of the terror inflicted upon innocent Jewish citizens. He sees only blood in Gaza. While I'm glad you brought him on, I would hope that Palestinians might find a much better person to speak for their position. I think your point (that Yousef dismissed with a pre-packaged slap down argument) about finding an advocate for peace/spokesperson/leader was an important point of inquiry. I don't know how there could be any trust until you had someone like a Mandela to help navigate that mess.
You really think the people of Gaza are at a point of parity with Israeli citizens? The former doesn't even have consistent access to potable water and electricity.
Coleman's point around peacemakers from Palestine wasn't good at all. Yousef pointed out that non-violent Palestinian movements are met with bullets and prison. That whole vision falls flat, when all of the Palestinian Mandelas are locked up or dead. The BDS movement is reviled by people who are pro Israel, despite it being a peaceful approach to dealing with Israeli oppression and occupation. It should be lauded as a good thing, much better folks aren't buying products than committing horrible war crimes.
Unfortunately this is what a reasonable proponent for the Palestinian position sounds like. Worlds better than Palestinian and Arab leaders who can’t even condemn Oct 7th, but still a far cry from anyone being able to bridge the gap of reality and having empathy for the other side.
54:05 I am a raging idealist but even so, this is the point where Yousef completely lost me (the condescending tone he’s put on throughout the whole video has certainly not helped either). Even as a college student I understand that not everywhere is like America. In high school I maybe would have given that answer because it feels good to imagine that every country can be a peaceful democracy… but I expect Yousef, as an adult (who has contributed to policy in this matter!), to be more realistic about the sacrifices that need to be made. On the other hand, the argument that he made at this timestamp could just be a cover for saying that he doesn’t care abt the Israelis that he would hypothetically force to live in a one state solution under a Palestinian government… just horrible all the way around.
Respect, Coleman, for being the most patient and open-minded interviewer. When you said Yousef was the most recommended to present the Palestinian perspective, I was genuinely looking forward to the interview. Unfortunately, Yousef's many admonishments to the listeners, and to you (!) to read up on the "well documented" laws, articles, and literature referring to various topics smack of patronizing disrespect and not the genuine ability to answer with facts. The same goes for his many references to slogans like "ethnic cleansing" and "apartheid" which belong to the language of activists and not academics or intellectuals. In the end, Yousuf's proposition of one democratic Arab majority state is not just utopian, but ridiculous in view of what Hamas has recently demonstrated in their attitude towards the Jews. Even ISIS did not slaughter babies. None of the almost 30 Muslim states are known for having produced a liberal democracy respecting minority rights. Even with all the issues in Israel, Yousuf probably enjoys more freedom in Israel than most of his co-religionists who live in Arab states. Also, two important points that neither of you mentioned is that 1) about 700,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries after the creation of Israel. Today more than half of Israelis are their descendants. They have always lived in the Middle East since the Roman exile. 2) Unlike the Palestinians, Jews actually had a sovereign state in the area of today's Israel. Both the history and archeology of Israel testify to the Jewish presence, culture, and civilization on those lands. King David, King Solomon, King Saul, and many others were ancient rulers of Israel. Can anyone name a ruler of a Palestinian state? No, because Palestine existed only as a Roman province, and then as a British Mandate - both COLONIAL creations. It never existed as a sovereign entity. It was only after the Ottoman Empire collapsed that Arab nationalism began to take place on these lands. Antisemites of the early 20th century Europe wanted Jews to move to Palestine, as it was considered a historically JEWISH land. Unfortunately, Palestinians are brainwashed to believe that Jews have no connection to this land and were arbitrarily offered a Jewish state there by the British. Until the Palestinian education system changes, even well-meaning Palestinians won't be able to see beyond their grievances or make compromises with the Israelis on the land. They were already offered a state many times, and each time it was not enough, because they subscribed to Yousuf's proposition of a majority-Arab state "from the river to the sea". If anyone had any illusions that that would ever work, October 7 events should have been enough to set them straight. Yousuf Munayyer was a disappointment.
Mosab Yousef would have been a MUCH better Palestinian to discuss that point of view. He’s logical and reasonable and actually lived and grew up in that culture and has no idealized notions what the reality of life and the mindset of the people and the leaders they choose will do (and have done) if given free reign over Jewish and other non-Muslim lives.
I also get very frustrated when people fail to bring up that most jews in Israel are from middle eastern background; that were terrorised in Arab countries, had their property stolen, and essentially did everything Arabs accuse Israelis of having done to Palestinians. It’s such a vital part of the story
@@shaynakfcmyhill I love your point. And your right it doesn't come across probably because it doesn't fit there narrative. Of course if it's brought up someone might claim "two wrongs don't make a right." Which is a total write off. But I think the point is these kinds of things have happened for thousands of years people fleeing and people taking over eachother, in this case the sore loser is a Psychopathic Barbarian who doesn't mind destroying their own family. ( venting)
When I hear someone say “ you need to read up on this more”, instead of just contesting the argument with actual facts; it makes me think you just want to move on from the point without actually addressing it.
Wheeeeee boy. That was a ride to watch. I applaud you, Coleman, for inviting someone who you knew would have a different viewpoint. Very tense but very objective and diplomatic conversation. Very disappointing to not hear Yousef condemn Hamas. My guess is that he'd have a bounty on his head if he did that.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
You can use my link ground.news/coleman to get 30% off an unlimited access subscription or get their pro plan for as little as $1/month before Nov 4, 2023. I’m excited to partner with Ground News at this time because it is one of the best ways to read news about politically charged issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict in a balanced way.
If the sunnis can’t live together with Shias then how would jews live together with Arabs with equality? If that were true while does Jewish or Israeli population keeps shrinking in Arab majority countries?
Coleman, keep trying! You are a very good conversationalist and you are getting better and better! This was a difficult topic and you had a very tuff and very experienced in protecting his side guest. He knew how to avoid direct answers, he was "replying" your questions by asking you a question. I am impressed by your great questions and by your ability to stand your ground especially considering that the Middle East is a new topic to you! My encouragement to your work comes from beautiful Scotland!
Ground News is probably the best advertisement I’ve seen in all my years on RUclips. Such a clever idea and so needed
Thank you Coleman!!!
What's wrong with a One Nation State solution with (equality & justice) for all???
Arguing that a one state, Arab majority western style democracy is possible where no one state Arab majority western style democracies exist because most Arabs don't want such a thing is quite bizarre...and disingeuous.
Exactly. It's like saying the solution to the North vs South Korea conflict is to have one state under the Kim regime. Or saying that Iran and Saudi should live in one state under the Ayatollahs regime. Or let's just get Yugoslavia back together again, that will work just fine!
Yup. And as soon as the freely elected government decided the Jews are a problem this same guy will argue the UN or some other body should do it's thing which is essentially nothing and all the while the Jews will have their asses handed to them. I'm more sympathetic to Palestinians than Israel at the moment but there's no denying that if the shoe was on the other foot there'd be maybe 10 Jews left in the area. @@itamaradio
Exactly! And that is why Coleman is correct, Yousef is either in complete denial, or totally naïve to think that Palestinians will Setup a state in which Jews have equal rights. The whole notion is a ridiculous fantasy!
Lebanon already ran that experiment. Didn't turn out well.
Came here to write the same comment. Thanks. It would also be worth noting that even putting aside the democracy aspect, religious minorities have been historically persecuted in all arab majority countries, with greater numbers of deaths and displacement than the Palestinians with Israel.
Which Muslim majority would Yousef put forth as an example for this society of equality that he thinks they're capable of living in?
He would probably say the Turks. With the living on stolen land, Constantinople and the Armenian genocide all things he probably endorses.
Palestine, pre-Israel.
@@Lurch685 So with british rule then.
@@JSRINTX no, under British rule the Jews couldn’t stop committing terrorist attacks.
@@Lurch685 Ottoman Empire? You think the Jews would be safe under an Islamist watch? Are you a liar or just stupid?
Dude lost we when he said “how many countries have been built on the ruins of another people” - All of them. Literally all of them. Name a country and that moment is foundational to their identity. Not only that this is not just ancient history, but He basically described the process of the formation of the modern state. Does he think Germany just existed for 5,000 years, or does he not know about how prussia formed and then dominated the process of formation of the german state.
I was watching this stream live and I literally said the same thing at that moment “literally every country”. Yousef is a first class fool.
😂😂 exactly, the country he himself sitting in right now was built like that. Such a disingenuous person
I had the same reaction. Literally the whole of human history had been that of one group conquering another.
In the really real world, we call this “history.” And if you look at who occupied “Palestine”, it was a hodge-podge of people who came around after the Romans expelled the Jews. I want to see receipts all the way back to 10,000 BC before I’ll grant Arab rights to the land.
@@moonchild7909 You're right about that. That was a poor argument on the part of Yousef. But you're grasping at straws. In the end, Coleman was made to look like a complete fool at every turn in this "debate," not only because he is not as well-informed as Yousef, but because Yousef's analysis and perspective is so much more clear and honest. I like Coleman, but he has no business discussing this issue with a real scholar of the conflict. I've been so disappointed with him, going on Joe Rogan, spitting out these tired and hollow pro-Israel talking points whilst he doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about. It's beneath a man of his intelligence to be behaving in such a way. He got thoroughly undressed in this "debate" and he deserved it. He needed to be humbled.
Yousef lives in the US which according to many is occupied land. According to his argument that would justify violence by the natives and indigenous populations. I wonder if Yousef will pack his bags anytime soon?
This is something I think about as well
Haha he never will!
😁🙄😬
That is exactly the logic the Zionists use to justify the actions of the state of Israel. They say Jewish history predates the locals that lived there, it is there traditional home. What is surprising is that you do not see the flaw in the logic. The state of Israel users these exact justifications. None of it makes any sense if you actually think about it.
That liar should be expelled from the United States. He should move to Gaza....😂
He sounds pretty convincing turning the history of the area upside down
Yousef's comment about the motivation for the 2005 pullback from Gaza was new to me. So I went online and searched for the reference. Now that I have read what Dov Weisglass, Ariel Sharon's advisor, actually said I know Yousef took things out of context. The missing part is " ... my agreement with the Americans was that you don't deal with some of the settlements until the Palestinians become Finns ..." meaning that yes, pulling back from Gaza should shut the door on any future Palestinian state because the Palestinians will use Gaza as a base for terror (unlike Finland which is peaceful) - thereby showing the world they should not be given a state in the west bank. This is a far cry from Yousef's claim that Ariel Sharon wanted Gaza to fail. In fact, Sharon hoped for the Palestinians to turn away from terror and start state-building, and as a nod towards future possibilities evacuated 5 Israeli settlements from the west bank (at the same time as the pullback from Gaza). History proved Sharon both right and wrong. Right - because the Palestinians in Gaza only increased their terror attacks on Israel since the pullback. Wrong - because Israel gained no diplomatic credit or moral high ground in the eyes of most western public (excepting Coleman for one).
Appreciate someone following up on that bit.
You are so disingenuous. Here is the full quote
" The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. That is exactly what happened. You know, the term 'peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did.[17]"
Additionally Ehud Olmert (the architect behind the unilateral disengagement) clearly said that the main goal of the plan was first and foremost keep Israel a jewish state. It was no plan for self governance for Palestinians
"There is no doubt in my mind that very soon the government of Israel is going to have to address the demographic issue with the utmost seriousness and resolve. This issue above all others will dictate the solution that we must adopt. In the absence of a negotiated agreement - and I do not believe in the realistic prospect of an agreement - we need to implement a unilateral alternative... More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state... the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem... Twenty-three years ago, Moshe Dayan proposed unilateral autonomy. On the same wavelength, we may have to espouse unilateral separation... [it] would inevitably preclude a dialogue with the Palestinians for at least 25 years"
Essentially, he said that we wait to see if Gaza becomes a peaceful place then we can move on with the West Bank? Not like, we're confident it'll fail?
Nice job pointing out his deceitfulness. Started out as taqiya in Islam to protect the Muslim from the unbeliever - now it seems to mean lie whenever it protects the points of views of Muslims and Islam in general
This is exactly why I am cruising the comment section. I thought that was the most interesting thing I heard in the debate/interview, and I wanted to find the 'editorial' he was referencing and read it for myself. Thank you, I could not remember the name Dov Weisglass. Can you direct me to the material you found?
Coleman...consider having Yousef and Benny Morris on together and let them duke out the details regarding the history. That would be an AMAZING podcast!
Maybe, but the two seem to have a vastly different understanding of even the basic “facts”. I’m afraid it might just degenerate into an academic pissing match on who has the better credentials and “knows more”. There is no resolution here. Neither side is saying anything that is novel or unexpected. What bothers me is the dearth of any discussion on a practical solution, even if it’s just spitballing ideas.
They would talk directly past each other.
@@sinatra222 yousef would
Also add Chomsky and Pappe, let them play Majong!
That would be great.
27:40 So he had wanted only one state and not a partition. After complaining about the so called "denying of Palestinian self determination" he goes full blown into denying Jewish self determination. For anyone who still doesn't understand: This is the core of the problem. One side wants to have a state (Israel) and one side wants the other side not to have a state (Palestine).
There was no self determination for the Jewish people. It was determined by the British and American interests in having power in that region.
@@kickinsnarehatTell that to Theodore Herzl.
@@kickinsnarehat Nope, the British abstained from the UN vote to partition. They also favoured the Arabs from the 1930s onwards. The British saw their interests with the Arabs.
As for the USA, they were less pro-Israel than the Soviet Union in the 1940s. When the USSR sided with the Arabs in the most cynical, power move, the USA saw aligned itself with Israel.
The details are complex, but it wasn't the USA and the UK. It was the UN.
@@kickinsnarehat False.
And I can flip it back to you by saying there was no self determination of Palestinians, it was determined by Soviets and the Arab league for their interests.
This!
A major speaking point regarding this conflict is in fact the ideology of Islam - I respect Coleman immensely for bringing this up. The concept of jihad has been implemented for years now, that is why Islam spread wildly in the Middle East, North Africa, etc - the Islamic states are indoctrinated to despise the Jews heavily and wage war against those who do not accept the religion of Islam. Jews weren’t only slaughtered in Eastern Europe, for centuries they were killed by other Islamic powers (Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Yemen, etc).
Yes and the other guy says oh well you can interpret any religion to justify these things Etc but you don't have to interpret Islam.. it says straight out in multiple places to kill the Jews.
yeah so many people are ignorant about islam and the fact that the prophet ended up hating jews (and christians) because they laughed at him and didn't take him seriously as a prophet
You’re clown
That's not completely true, though.Jews thrived under the islamic caliphates of spain and fled to morocco after the christians expelled them
@@dudebro91-fn7rz True but it depended on a whim of ruler and could have changed in a moment.
Yousef’s one state solution is a American style liberal democracy, where minority rights are protected and rule of law eradicates terrorism. Which Arab country is like that? The solution is utopian.
Exactly. Just one example: in Israel you have every year LGBT pride parades. Even in "moderate" Arab countries (such as Egypt or Jordan) it is a crime to even wave the pride flag (look up Sarah Hegazi). Does the "one state" Yousef wants has pride parades? What happens when queer people want to march?
There is an Arab country like that actually. It is called Liberalistan and it resides in Yousef's head.
He’s a unique combination of terrorist enabler and woke distortionist.
Like most lefty solutions to conflicts in the entire Middle East, the answer is always unicorns and rainbows!
His one state solution is actually Israel annexing Gaza and the West Bank.
If that is the best pro Palestinian the people could come up with to suggest, it doesn’t look too good in their corner: he is dodging every uncomfortable question, scolds the host on every topping he is logically cornered that it’s not true and he should be educated again, contradicts himself so many times that I stopped counting after 10.
And btw: his logic of it being natural to become monsters when occupied is the cheapest excuse I heard for this poor on so far. Tibetans are occupied as well, yet managed not to murder, torture, rape, mutilate and burn their occupiers.
can you name Yousef top 3 errors in judgment?
@@rolandmtran 1. That the Palestinians won't genocide the Jews in a one state solution.
2. That the Israelis can be convinced a one state solution is the way to go.
3. That Hamas doesn't do the will of the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people and that just like the Germans were responsible for the atrocities of the Nazis, so are the Palestinian people responsible for the attrocities commited by Hamas, the PLO, and other terrorist groups on the Palestinian side.
Yousef Manayyer predominantly uses Ad Hominem Abusive attacks, which involves dismissing opposing views by questioning the opponent’s knowledge/understanding or character/motives, rather than engaging with the actual content of their arguments.
Coleman *masterfully* countered this style of argument.
Here is the how to:
- Don't be sidetracked. Steer the conversation back to the topic and the arguments at hand.
- Politely ask for specific examples or evidence when they make broad statements.
- Support your arguments with clear evidence and fact.
- Don't respond with personal attacks.
- Question how their response is relevant.
- Maintain a respectful tone.
- Recognize when the discussion is unproductive.
Amazing strategy by the host. I liked specially when, for several times, he didn't listen the response of the guest and asked the same question, annoying the guest. That was on purpose, right? Because if not, the only alternative I see is that the host took Xanax before the talk.
He’s completely insufferable.
And constantly responding to questions like "What would be your endgame?" with a question instead of answering. Often an absurd counter question like asking Coleman if he would like someone moving into his *house* and occupying three-quarters of it.
@elkarion typically, the response of the guest was about 180 degrees from the question asked.
Yousef Manayyer has been indoctrinated with the lies, as he said, his family left the region he was brought up on those lies. I think he has no clue that he is even misinformed. I would like to think that he does not really know the truth, and is not doing it on purpose. The only reason those arabs were asked to leave was because they kept attacking and killing jews. Yousef is not willing to admit that claiming that Israeli oppression gives them the right to do that. When he says an end to occupation, what he means is an end to Israel.
59:16 - I learned from the last episode that Palestinians were offered an 80/20 solution at one point (1930?) and they rejected it, so this argument is ridiculous.
Seeing Yousef blatantly ignore Coleman holding him to task when he gives the South Africa Palestine comparison but then won’t admit that the intentions of Hamas leadership relative to Nelson Mandela could not be more different was very telling. Details and comparisons only matter when they fit his narrative.
Yeah, unfortunately this was not the most fruitful discussion. It does tell us that the typical thought process of the majority of Palestine arguments.
@@cjzanders5430 Sadly, from all I have heard, you are correct. And I think we can look at 70+ years of this circuitous thinking that has kept them where they are, living in rubble, complaining about their lot in life, and completely unwilling to look at their thought processes and views.
@@tedmom3029 that's it living in a rubble bubble........
Ask nelson mandella what he thinks
104:33 “You don’t think any of it has to do with the fact that there are so many passages in the Koran talking about how terrible the Jews are?”
“No, I don’t.”
Very difficult to take any of the rest of Mr Yousef’s argument seriously after this.
My thoughts exactly. It's not even the existence of those passages that is an issue but the warm embraces with which many Muslims hold them
The Quran doesn't say jews are terrible and if you want to say that then you have to at least concede the Bible does the same. But I'm guessing you're not much of a scholar on scripture if you have a politically driven view of ant holy books.
@@georgeshiroda1173 “[4.46] Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say: We have heard and we disobey and: Hear, may you not be made to hear! and: Raina, distorting (the word) with their tongues and taunting about religion; and if they had said (instead): We have heard and we obey, and hearken, and unzurna it would have been better for them and more upright; but Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little.
“[4.160] Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way.
“[5.13] But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).”
@@georgeshiroda1173 ignore the passages about infidels if you like, fortunately many Muslims do, unfortunately many don't. Just in the last week I've seem multiple Muslim speakers including from 🇵🇸 lebanon and America referencing rocks and trees calling out for jews behind them to be killed. To ignore the religious motivation is ridiculous.
@Tadneiko to target the religion and dismiss it as a whole because of the individuals who take it at its word is also foolish. It'd be the equivalent of suggesting getting rid of Christianity and anything it had an influence on because of the passages that alienate and stigmatize individuals.
Yousef has disengenously called out Britain for pushing for the two state solution in 48', when the clear history indicates that Britain did not know how to solve the disputes between the Jews/settlers and the Palestinian population, so they deferred to the United Nations to solve the problem, and it was the UN that came up with the two state solution as seen as the fairest way to settle the situation, by dividing the land 55% to Israel, 45% to Palestinians, where the former (Israel) got numerically more land, but it was mostly desert land, whereas Palestinians got the best lands including all of Jerusalem. Historical fact.
Correct. The Jews used to hold out hope that they were dealing with rational actors seeking peace.
And Palestinians, and the arab nations rejected it wholesale, and when they lost the debate, and the resolution was passed, their response was to all attack israel at once. And they lost. So they started plotting a second attack, and got caught with their pants down, and lost embarassingly for a second time. So they attacked on the holiest day in judaism, only to lose AGAIN. and ever since then it's sour grapes over losing over and over and over.
Whether Britain or the UN, why should anyone have to settle for something they didn't want in the first place. One said yes, the other said no, but they should have agreed because that was the right (only) way? It's like, here's what's going to happen whether you like it or not. Liking it is best. Either way, this is happening.
@@musiqueguy1 - That is an unlettered comment in any regard. Over a dozen countries were created after WWI and II, specifically in the mideast. Even Saudi and Iraq traded lands when all of this was happening. But why is it that the last piece of tiny land couldn't be divided to support two countries, when the Jews had twice prior had countries in this area when there was never an arab muslim country prior? So, the arab muslims that no other country wanted or would take were left stateless and decided that even though all the wars started against Israel were lost, that to keep on fighting was the way to peace? Give me a break. When wars are won and lost, boundaries get established. Its pretty rich to keep losing wars yet not just expecting a do over every time, but to literally destroy all Jews. It is completely ignorant not to understand here that Hamas, like all Jihadists, want all Jews, dead. To not recognize the core of the problem here is to be ignorant. Its a pipe dream anyways of a Palestine as a state, they are completely dependent on welfare from other states, have virtually no resources, are the most corrupt over any other banana republic, AND who would govern it? PA or Hamas? They can't even get along as a people, let alone as a country. Even Abbas has admitted that the arab muslims should of taken the UN partition plan. I guess you have to lose multiple wars to figure out its not worth killing off your own people, and that you are not ever going to win, right?
@user-gl8eh3kt2u Thank you for your response and for providing an answer. Wars happen, and it's best to just accept the outcomes.
Yousef Munayyer is dodging the issue of jihad and Islamic totalitalirism, exclusivism and supremacy, there no example. of tolerance in Islamic nations.
that is exactly right
Any empire does this its mute point to try and demonize people
His solution was completely insincere. It was basically "I am willing to gamble on this highly dubious solution, just so long as it's the OTHER GROUP who is the minority (so they'll be the ones who get screwed when it falls apart)".
It really shouldn't need explaining why jews post-WW2 were never gonna trust in something like that.
You mean European Jews in post World War II. This is the problem with these “debates”. People come out and simply don’t know what they’re talking about. There were already Jews living in Palestine pre-WWII. But they were a minority. They comprised about 5% of the population in Palestine in the late 1800s. The genocide you are referring to was committed by Europeans, not Palestinians.
This is a European problem, not a problem created by Palestinians. Palestinians did not put Jews in ghettos (and actually Israelis are doing that to the people of Gaza today). They did not put Jews in ovens. They did not march them into death camps. Germans did that with the help and collaboration of other Europeans.
You just don’t know what you are talking about.
Are you aware of the current ethnic breakdown of Jewish Israelis and how it came to be? Also, ever heard of the farhood? @@P4DR
@@P4DR Let me make a quick correction: "Germans did that with the help and collaboration of other Europeans and Arabs including from Palestine who sent soldiers to fight for Hitler". There you are.
There wasn't a 'Palestinian' people in the 1800s. A Palestinian identity simply didn't exist at the time. As for the population of Palestine in the 1800s, no one knows precisely but it's highly probably that there was mass immigration from the surrounding nations, especially Egypt, once the Jews arrived and started a global agriculture trade in particular in oranges. Moreover, the Jews are the only people who have a historic attachment to the land.
Both peoples had a legitimate claim to the land and the UN decision to partition it was reasonable. You know that the Jews accepted it and the Arabs rejected it, don't you?
You just know a little about what you are talking, but not much.
@@P4DR you’re going too hard on the propaganda mate ‘5%’ ? No. Dude. way off.
@@freedahlogic8368 yes, Jews comprised about 5% of the population in Palestine in the late 1800s. There are other sources but I did a search and found the following Wikipedia entry which points out other sources.
“In the late nineteenth century, prior to the rise of Zionism, Jews are thought to have comprised between 2% and 5% of the population of Palestine, although the precise population is not known.[90] Jewish immigration had begun following the 1839 Tanzimat reforms; between 1840 and 1880, the Jewish population of Palestine rose from 9,000 to 23,000.[91]
According to Alexander Scholch, Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews.[92]….
According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy,[94] the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs.
The estimated 24,000 Jews in Palestine in 1882 represented just 0.3% of the world's Jewish population.[95].”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
Nevermind the topic of the discussion, it’s impressive how calm Coleman stays despite being constantly attacked and almost personally insulted.
to me he seems stuntingly confounded facing ethical logic instead of visceral hysteria
Ya when Coleman said at the start that he was very respectful, I was shocked at how disrespectful the guest constantly was. Also so incredibly biased. I mean I’m biased too on Coleman’s side, but at least we would readily admit it where I’m guessing the guest would say something like I’m biased to the truth. Nah your biased to Palestine which is fine but admit it
Good point I’m most likely slightly biased on Coleman’s side but I see both sides. And hopefully if I was that pissed I would just admit I was pissed and don’t really care about the logic.
@@colinobrien631 The truth of this remains so strange to Americans that it's bound to be frustrating if you've spent 30 years trying to bring it to them, only to be met with the youthful Coleman who, despite meaning well, is very obviously clueless about Palestine.
He wasn't being attacked. He was being schooled. If anything was insulting it was his own gormless ignorance.
What underlies the core disagreement in this discussion is that Coleman takes the Palestinians at their word about what they intend to do to the Jews and Yousef does not. The idea that you could set up an America-style democracy in the land of Israel, with a Palestinian Arab majority who 1) hates Jews and 2) have among them at least a sizable minority of whom wish to live under a caliphate or Sharia law -- this strikes me as laughably out of touch with the reality of the ground.
Liberal, Western Democracy only works when you have a population that supports the values of Liberal Western Democracy.
Yousef in this conversation more or less says "The religious passages in the Quran that call for violence against Jews and nonbelievers have nothing to do with the violence we see. People have always used religion to give cover to their political violence." This is the problem with moderate left-wing apologists for Islam -- they simply cannot believe that the beliefs of religious fundamentalists are sincere and emanate from religious texts. They believe that religion is a "cover" for underlying motivations rather than the source of it. That everyone is like us Westerners and we all fundamentally want the same things. We do not want the same things.
I, for one, can't imagine what more Hamas and many Palestinians could do to convince the world they are sincere in their religious beliefs and serious about killing as many Jews as they possibly can.
I also found it notable that almost every time Yousef is challenged on some factual basis he essentially says "Google it, bro" without producing any concrete counterexamples. Maybe he's correct, but who are the Palestinian Gandhi's and Mandela's that Yousef cites as being brutalized and imprisoned by Israel? He couldn't name one. This is the first I've heard of nonviolent Palestinian peace activists being thrown in jail or killed by the Israeli government. Again -- perhaps this has happened, but why couldn't he delve into a single example? This strikes me as deeply suspicious.
Hat's off to Coleman for his Herculean patience and cordiality with such a condescending and dishonest guest.
That i think is an issue that most secular societies, commentators and yes politicians have. Something that Iran's Socialists (who were in bed with the Ayotollah Khomeini and his mullahs) discovered way to late after the Iranian revolution.
I at a loss as to how someone like yousef can get into the position there in in life with a reputation as an "intelligent person" while saying things like you have mentioned. but Iguess it becomes more and more clear that its not a joke when [people say the left actually believes in living in a fairy land.
The Christian Bible is full of passages that have been used to justify violence and oppression throughout history. And yet, today there are plenty of majority Christian countries that are nontheless pluralistic and liberal.
The 20th century also abounds with examples of anti-religious communists committing horrific crimes against humanity.
It's not that violent Muslims aren't influneced by the Quran, it's that, historically, holy books full of justifications for violence are neither necessary nor sufficient for creating actual violence.
When a fact is Googled, the searcher tends to pick what they want to see & hear. Search engines tend to use AI to anticipate what you want from previous choices. It is easy to be caught up in a tribal echo chamber because of search engine algorithms.
I am going to use this. Good. @@kenandbarbie-b6c
@colemanhughesofficial, I greatly appreciate your thoughtfulness. Your opponent kept suggesting that a Palestinian state with a Jewish minority would work fine, but he neglects to mention that there are no more Jews, or nearly so, in nearly all Arab states anymore, mostly through ethic cleansing.
Sadly, thei Palestinian solution is one where the Palestinians destroy Israel, either militarily, or demographically through a right of return, and then become a majority. I was greatly saddened that, even this speaker refused to acknowledge that Israel was attacked on its founding, and that Hamas perpetrated an evil act, instead trying to pin it back on Israel.
palestinians accepted jewish ppl who ran from the haulocaust they only started the resistence once the jewish ppl there started illegally snatching their land
The fact that Yousef can't attribute ANY wrongdoing or blame to the Palestinians proves that he's not a serious person, he's just a propagandist.
You regularly in the victim blaming business?
Agree, there is little value in what he's saying when he so obviously is have different standards for the israeli and palestinians.
@@UltraAporiayour comment is just a linguistic trick. You’re not a serious person.
@@ruvbak what isn't serious is the constant projection and double standards coming from defenders of Israeli crimes against the Palestinians
@@UltraAporia These people need to be told what to think. They have been told what to think. So that is what they think. But they've been sure to keep enough room in their heads to also think they're really clever.
Your guest resorts to bullying, belligerence and condescension while you remain even handed, patient and focused. You are a true peace maker.
He's not bullying. He's passionate about the horrors that his people are currently enduring. I don't think you'd be so even keeled if your people were decimated for the world to see. Or maybe you avoid seeing war imagery. I've been a Coleman subscriber for almost 3 years. Not many people alive have the zen like calmness that he has. I don't agree with Coleman's assessment of the conflict, but am glad to hear his viewpoint.
@@person_108yeah she gave the typical white one sided view
I agree he was patient and calm in his effort to get his questions answered. However I also felt that I would have liked Coleman to ask questions regarding the number of times the Palestine’s were offered their own state at 45% in 48 and also in 67 and they declined. I would have liked to hear the guest why he feels not Accepting and then shortly after declining they attacked Israel. In 1948 and in 1967. I may have the years wrong but in my opinion the Palestinian people were given offers that they should have accepted and establish their lives and make compromises for the sake of the country’s future. So my question is why did the Palestinian people not compromise when offered 45% of the state? I’m sure the guest will say “why should they compromise and leave their homes to build a new life in the designated areas.”
There are over 20 Arab countries around the area of Israel, and only 1 place for Jews , Israel. It’s Biblical that that land is rightfully theirs. Plus the name Palestine has never been declared a state or country in all of history.
Let's all learn a little bit of history
Before Israel, there was a British mandate, not a Palestinian state.
-Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a
Palestinian state.
-Before the Ottoman Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state.
-Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid Empire, not a Palestinian state. Godfrey IV of Boulogne, known as
Godfrey de Bouillon, conqueror of Jerusalem in 1099
-Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state.
-Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there was the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state.
-Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine empire, not a Palestinian state.
-Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian
state.
-Before the Sassanid Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a
Palestinian state.
-Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not a
Palestinian state.
-Before the Roman Empire, there was the Hasmonean state, not a
Palestinian state.
-Before the Hasmonean state, there was the Seleucid, not a Palestinian state.
Before the Seleucid empire, there was the empire of Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state.
-Before the empire of Alexander the Great, there was the Persian empire, not a Palestinian state.
-Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a
Palestinian state.
-Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state.
-Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state.
-Before the kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state.
-Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian
state.
Actually, in this piece of land there has been everything, EXCEPT A PALESTINIAN STATE!
this list goes into the weeds - Before there was the USA ....before there was California there was Mexico.. and on and on.@@tiffanywalker6409
Your guest was completely condescending in tone. Kudos to YOU for being civil and polite.
I've been on binge lately and this seems to be a consistent theme among these debates.
Lmao! He was condescending how?! Because he brought facts and slapped all his Right Zionist talking points? 😂
He's not condescending, he's knowledgeable. And pointing out how ill educated Coleman is on the topic.
He’s actually a bright guy. I’m surprised you’d say that..When you get the views of the historians and citizens of either Israel or Gaza they have a very unique take on these things. They have skin in the game.
Usually gets heated and these guys/girls
Probably because he's sick of RUclips historians trying to pretend they know more than an expert and actual Palestinian who's personally lived this conflict
Frustrating interview. Yousef refuses to directly answer questions nearly the entire time, a common feature of the Palestinian narrative. A total refusal to acknowledge that the Jews, who have inhabited Israel for literally thousands of years, have any right to be there.
If Jews have a right dating back thousands of years, don't those displaced by a war in 1948 have an even stronger claim of right to return to their homes?
In his defense the Jewish population was primarily Holocaust survivors, not the descendents of Biblical Israel (with some exceptions). Do North Africans have a right to just move to Spain because Castile and Aragon destroyed Al-Andalus?
To be completely fair, answering questions that are badly framed is not the most intelligent thing to do. That would be like me going "When did you stop beating your wife?" ... lol
@@4x4r974Thank you. Pretending as if the conflict started after 1947’s attack by the neighboring Arab states is historically ignorant.
Seriously his questions were not answered.
Complete admiration for the host for his calm demeanor in conducting the debate in a very peaceful manner.
Calm, yes. Respectful? Mostly but not entirely. I didn’t feel an honest engagement with Yousef’s counterpoints.
Or maybe it’s just a failure of imagination: imagining the complete powerlessness of the people in Gaza for whom boycotting and divestment need to come from abroad as they’re incapable of exerting those pressures from within.
And by the way, France has banned BDS in support of Palestinians dubbing it as hate speech.
Coleman is an interesting guy and I dig his work in many cases but he needs to bone up on this subject some.
(Although I admit I find a very compelling conversation around the ethical dilemma of freeing the unarmed or underarmed captive that you know will be armed or better armed and immediately try to kill you.)
@@ericdeissler209well said. No matter which side you're on. Coleman was a little tunnel vision
Coleman didn't even know that nonviolent approaches like BDS have been banned. Embarrassing lack of preparation
Terrorism.
'The unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.'
Merriam-Webster dictionary
Hopefully we all agree that morally and strategically the invasion and occupation of Iraq was wrong. Hopefully we all agree it was blood thirsty, greedy, corporate, weird, evangelical behaviour.
It was also illegal (you don't say) according to the United Nations.
Therefore, and referencing the dictionary definition, why do people/media/other countries not call the United States a terrorist State?
And trying to change history
This reminded me of a conversation I had about 15 years ago with a Syrian Christian doctor that I worked with. Nothing Israel did was right. Nothing that Palestinians did was wrong. I finally told him there was no point to keep talking about it.
Israel left Gaza almost two decades ago and Hamas turned it into a hell hole. Sometimes things really are that simple.
Its ironic he accused coleman of playing "good vs bad guys" when its obvious that's how he views it. Ethnonarcissism or something more?
Yeah, if by "left alone" you mean perpetually blockaded and surveilled, with multiple invasions and bombings sprinkled in.
"Left alone" is gonzo cuckoo bananas ostrich logic.
Israel left Gaza to turn it into a concentration camp where the people are locked down and then bombed - god damn I’m so sick of Christian Zionists - Israel couldn’t have got away with this horrific 75 year long nightmare if Christian Zionists weren’t trying to bring Armageddon - my only comfort is that their bloodthirsty doctrine will come true - but they will find they were on the side of Anti-Christ
When you choose war and lose, you have to live with the consequences of defeat.
This is the crucial principle that’s been consistently missing in the debate, and the solution starts when everyone start to recognize it. For every other conflicts in history this principle applies. But for whatever reason, when it comes to Israel, no one cares about it.
100% of Palestine would still be in Muslim hands if the Turks hadn’t chosen to side with the Germans in World War I. But they did. They tried to attack the Suez Canal from Palestine and failed. The British then counterattacked Palestine and succeeded. That’s how Britain (and later the UN) got jurisdiction over Palestine.
50% of Palestine would now be a Palestinian state if the Arabs had accepted the UN Partition Plan. But they didn’t. They chose war and lost, badly. Then they refused to make peace. In ’67 they chose to mass troops on Israel’s borders and were again decisively defeated. That’s how the Palestinians ended up in their predicament. Their side keeps choosing war and losing.
The notion that Israel is going to disappear is a Palestinian fairy tale. They need to set aside daydreams of a “right to return” to lands they lost on the battlefield decades ago.
To those who say this is just “might makes right,” I remind you the Arabs chose the God of War to arbitrate their cause. They were perfectly willing to let military victory decide the issue when they thought they would win. But every time their armies are defeated they expect to reverse the verdict with an effusion of whining and terrorism. It doesn’t work that way.
This conflict really is not that complicated if we can all stop pandering to the Palestinians and start pushing them to accept the consequences of their actions. It's certainly not going to be resolved when you continue to pander to idiots like Munayyer who thinks you can attack your neighbor, loses, and expects to move in and live together with them.
You can debate this Yousef guy better than Coleman.
@@AllBusiness-e5fyeah overall I thought Coleman did a good job but I think he was trying so hard not to lose his cool that he sometimes didn't fight back hard enough. A challenge understandably
Very well said
@@soltantioit's hard to debate pro-Palestinians since they are so shameless in their lies and distortions. They literally have no sense of guilt and ethics.
So what your saying is, you have no problem with Colonization?
Coleman handled himself well, as you would expect. I'd like to add a few points:
- This conversation does a great job outlining why there's no peace. The answer is Palestinian intransigence. Yousef, like the vast majority of Palestinians, is not interested in any peace that retains a Jewish state. Israelis are likewise uninterested in a peace that wouldn't retain the Jewish state.
- Yousef's analogy to a white nationalist country is ironic too. What do you think all of the Arab countries are? Arabs dominate the ME today because of conquests centuries ago. Nearly all of these countries are despotic and enforce a state religion.
- His one-state solution is a non-starter for Israelis. It's embarrassingly naive to think that a one state solution based on “freedom, justice, and equality” would succeed the Israeli state. The irony in all of this is that the only country in that entire region that respects those platitudes is Israel. At the end of the day, it is an indisputable fact that Israeli Arabs have more civil liberty and freedom in Israel than in any Muslim majority country in the world.
- There isn't a single historical example of Muslim majority countries where minority rights are respected. Islamic law demands subjugation in the form of Dhimmi status. Ask Christians in Lebanon, Coptics in Egypt, Kurds, Yazidis, etc.
- Yousef's POV demonstrates clearly why the two-state solution failed. It will always fail because no Palestinian leader will agree to a plan where Israel's continued existence with a Jewish majority is preserved. Hence, the conflict continues.
- Even if you assume the Palestinians have legitimate grievances, at a certain point there's a statute of limitations. At a certain point you must recognize that you lost and work towards a better future. Palestinians have been offered everything they claimed to want in peace, except the right of return or any similar measure that would threaten the Israeli state. Israel is a modern secular state that is a beacon of light in a region of darkness. Israel has now existed for 75 years and is not going anywhere and seemingly neither is the Palestinian insistence for control over the entire area.
- The Palestinian national identity is a fabrication set up in opposition to Zionism. If this weren't so, then where was the movement to create a Palestinian state when Egypt controlled Gaza or Jordan controlled the West Bank?
- Lastly, Yousef slyly tried to get Coleman to back BDS. Is BDS violent? no, although many of their supporters love violence. But BDS isn't the solution because it assumes that Israel is uniquely responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. BDS is just another diversion tactic aimed at weakening Israel with the ultimate aim of destroying the state, not two states living side by side. Go look at what BDSers actually want, they don't hide the ball themselves. Blame should instead be levied at the Palestian leaders who enrich themselves and refuse to recognize that Israel will not commit suicide to create a one-party state. Might is not always right, neither is weakness. In theory, I too want justice for the Palestinians. I want Palestinian children to grow up to live meaningful lives. I lay the blame for their misery at the Palestinian society that lives in the past and is willing to sacrifice any number of generations for the eventual eradication of a Jewish presence in the ME. This charade has gone on long enough. There are no homes from 1948 to return to. More Muslims live as full citizens of Israel than at any other point pre-1948.
- If any people in the history of the world deserve a state, it's the Jews. We are no longer a weak people wondering the world begging for acceptance. We want peace with our Arab neighbors, most of us are willing to concede land and treasure in that pursuit. But we will not accept the elimination of our state and if that means continuing the status quo, to the detriment of Palestinians, so be it. Any sympathy towards innocent Palestinians has now been washed away after Hamas decided to slaughter 1400 civilians. Only when Palestinians finally renounce Jihad and want a state of their own to live side by side Israel will there be peace.
You're excellent, with excellent views. Thank you for correctness.
It’s almost like you don’t get to force your way into someone else’s land and then demand they accept you.
You are Yousef, but on the other side. You are bad faith and a propagandist. And this comes from someone who supports Israel slightly more than Palestine. Or at least I did until I read your comment.
a) You say "he is not interested in any peace that retains a Jewish state". Totally bad faith. Did you mean to say "any peace that does not recognize that Israel was created on stolen land?". The land was stolen BEFORE the war.
b) You say "His one-state solution is a non-starter for Israelis." Umm .. isn't it ALREADY one state? It is. Didn't Netanyahu show a map in the UN of the entire region being ONE STATE? He did. The only difference between today's Israel and that 'future state' is that it would not have second class citizens. Making this comment without even acknowledging the occupation or the fact that different people have different IDs and can use different roads, schools, and hospital is gross. Not mentioning the illegal, genocidal, extremist settlers is frankly gross too.
c) Funny how you say "Israeli Arabs" to make your bs point about liberties (even though Israeli Arabs too go through horendous abuse and discrimination) but you say NOTHING of the "Arabs" under occupation. I wonder why that is. Perhaps because they are second class citizens so they don't even enter your frame. What about the "Arabs" that are never given permits to build houses or the "Arabs" whose houses are demolished for literally no reason?
d) You say "Palestinians have been offered everything they claimed to want in peace, except the right of return". Uh, so basically they were not offered THE MOST IMPORTANT PART? Their land and homes were stolen and you propose to fix that by ... not addressing that their land and homes were stolen? 🤣
e) You say "Israel is a modern secular state that is a beacon of light in a region of darkness". This is a stretch and it is particularly funny because in your various remarks you don't seem to know whether it is a secular state or a Jewish one or a secular Jewish with second-class citizens. Israel is an ethno-nationalist surveillance state, for anyone actually looking for an accurate description.
f) Your last paragraph is complete and total horseshit. We have statements from various Israeli governments about how they never intended to allow a Palestinian state. They spied on the Palestinain delegation during the various "peace talks". Security and jewishness are all a pretext. Settlements don't improve security. Settlements don't make "peace" easier. They don't bring solutions. I don't believe there has been a single Israeli PM who has openly supported a "2 state solution" in decades now. Netanyahu, just months ago, was calling it "Sovereignty plus", or some bullshit like that, and went to the UN with a map that completely deletes Palestine from the map. I would respect you more if you were upfront about your actual genocidal motives. Nobody believes the pretext of security or the crocodile tears anymore. Unironically, propagandistic comments are the reason why so many unhinged crazies came out as terrorist sympathizers on October 8th.
All set up by the West to be a never ending conflict to destabilize the Middle East, and it's working according to plan.
Brilliant commentary
Here is the form of this discussion:
1. Coleman asks a question > the guest doesn’t answer and engages is obfuscation.
2. Coleman follows up to get an answer > the guest continues to obfuscate, refuses to answer and eventually begins restating his talking points.
3. Coleman makes a point > regardless of the accuracy of the point the guest claims the point is wrong.
The guest did not act in good faith and his performance in this interview shows why talking is pointless. Talking for Israel is pointless:
1. Israel’s neighbors will not engage in good faith discussions
2. Israel’s neighbors refuse to cease their violence and even escalate (Oct. 7)
3. Israel cannot move
4. Israel is unable to tolerate the continued and escalating violence
What is left for Israel to do?
History, in the guests hands, is moldable as putty…
Israel doesn't need to exist. And it does it can exist somewhere else.
What happens when your "neighbor" drops his home on top of yours? Couldn't Europe create a state for Israel on their own land? Those are clearly European jews. Wild that they could fight for rights on land their ancestors are not from.
wrong. Israel was a nation in that land with a history of 3000 years. study. @@HiLaToya
@@HiLaToya2/3 of Israelis are Arab Jews.
Yes, muslim countries are famous for thriving diverse communities where Christians, Jews and gays live happily ever after 😄
In the past? Yes, at least better than Europe.
@@timon20061995 I talk about last 50 years or so, but even in the distant past it wasn't nice to Christians or Jews ever, well unless you pay xD
Hindus, buddhists, atheists, I mean they even don’t like music and dogs.
Not all but the hardliners.
@timon20061995 Right, where the Jews and Christians were officially second class citizens.
@@jonaswunderkind4580 the Ottoman Empire was one of the most accepting nations of its time, far more than any Christian nation of that era. Sorry, but you're just ignorant.
Coleman's calmness is unbelievable. I am learning from him.
I don’t get it. He’s on the podcast for 1.5 hours but continually urges listeners to do their research because he says Coleman is wrong. But doesn’t explain it… seems fishy.
No he is saying the foundation of what he is speaking on he doesn't want to restate all of it so just go read..That's pretty common what he is doing it saves time actually
Is Coleman a young Uncle Tom or one black guy who would doubt the murders of Civil Rights workers in Mississippi in the 1960s?
@@BLAX832 you find out he's full of it after the podcast is over
@@BLAX832 I've run into so many, especially right-wingers, but increasingly across the board, who basically do what is called a Gish Gallop, where they load a bunch of material for YOU to read (quit your job, take a week or so, and get back to me and I'll lecture you further), and then act as if they've just laid a trump card and won the hand/argument.
@@BLAX832do not mistake saving time and deflecting. I mean for example when he was asked about war crimes done by Israel, saying "it's documented go look it up" seems unserious. I mean this is exactly what people are here for, and it also denies Coleman the right to counter his argument.
Giving a 5 min backstory for a 1 sentence statement is unnecessary yeah, but on core issues in this topic it's important to have an elaborate debate so people can indeed learn from it
host: what are your thoughts on 7 October attack
munayyer: this is not the right framing we need to go back to 1947
host: ok but in 1947 the Arabs rejected the un partition plan and attacked the Jewish state
munayyer: this is not the right framing we need to go back to the beginning of this entire process
so basically anytime Coleman raises something that doesn't fit his narrative he will ignore it and just "reframe" and move to another time period, rinse and repeat 🤦♀
I think you should listen again to this podcast. Ignore munayyer's condescension and you will realize he actually gave context that might shed light on the current situation
Unless he has to go back 2000 years and discuss the ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Judea (israel), by the Romans.
Nah that’s not how it was 😊
Or, the Ottoman oppression of everyone from 1453? to 1923@@kosemkamtsan
yes it was. @@Tsukoyomi460
This was definitely one of the more in-depth views into the pro-Palestinian position I've seen so thanks for airing it. As some feedback for Yousef, if you encourage the audience to go more in-depth and do more research ourselves, please provide links or at least one example of what you mean so we can go look it up. If you use terms like genocide or ethnic cleansing it helps to provide examples otherwise it sounds like hyperbole without a concrete example. Ultimately, the problem boils down to the fact that the Palestinian side will only consider a one-state solution and Israel will only consider a two-state solution. Yousef's vision is quite utopian and seems to be based on his experience living in the democratic US. Currently, there is no country in the Middle East with a Muslim majority modeled on a US-style democracy, and until then it would be unfair for Israel to be asked to be the guinea pig for that type of vision, especially when the vision is not shared by groups like Hamas or even by the current majority of the Palestinian people. Maybe a one-state solution could work in 100 years when there's peace in the Middle East but not now. Coleman, please keep diving into this issue, especially with more Palestinian (And more Israeli) speakers, especially together, so we can find out more about this. It also helps to have speakers focused more on the future than the past. There are a lot of countries built on colonialism (Israel's only difference is that it was one of the last colonial projects before decolonization) and it's not realistic to expect Israel to decolonize any more than it would be realistic for the US to give all its land back to Native Americans, nor do I see any serious left-wing thinkers make this proposal in the US, so it's hypocritical to expect Israel to do the same. There is a statute of limitations on past grievances, now time to find some real solutions to the current issues.
Underrated comment! You get to the crux of the issue at hand.
Agree 100%.
100% underrated comment. We need more comments like this if we want to move forward in understanding
It seems like you are genuinely interested about the history of this conflict and open to arguments that opposes your viewpoint.
For the history of the conflict, read(or watch their lectures) Benny Moris and Ilan Pappe. Both are Israeli historians while Benny Moris argues for the pro-zionist side, Ilan Pappe opposes it. You can decide whom to agree with based on the strength of their arguments. If you want to know the nitty gritty of the present conflict, read(watch lectures) Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein (Both Jewish). They will use UN, International Human Rights Organizations and Israeli sources to make their argument. You can at least watch the debate between Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz about this conflict which is available on RUclips and decide on your own as to whose arguments are more concrete.
So far I have only mentioned Jewish authors. If you are interested in Palestenian scholars, you can read (watch) Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi.
And if you are wondering why you do not hear these names in the mainstream media, you can read(watch lectures on this topic) Professor John Mearsheimer's book titled "The Israel Lobby and The U.S. Foreign Policy" and come to your own conclusions.
@@SadmanShafiq-u1i I'm interested to know your opinion on the topic, to give me some sort of baseline
"Not from Nelson Mandela" was a crushing line, Coleman. Perfectly delivered.
This guy isn’t answering any of Coleman’s questions or responding directly to what he’s actually saying. Just a lot of “you should do some research on (insert topic of Coleman’s statements/questions)”
that's all they have. The Jews were there long before them. ...much like the modern day, they just don't accept the sources.
Yeah, very condescending. Very frustrating, as I think he could have answered the questions in a way that could be enlightening.
Yousef does a great job going on the offensive and refusing to consider any perspective but his own. He is a good debater, but a poor conversation partner. Props to Coleman for stepping up and being willing to attempt to engage.
I don't think that Yousef is a good debater at all. He is a good propagandist. That's the extent of his talents.
Well said.
@@galtha5824I agree
You act as if Coleman entertained any other perspectives but his own. He was bias just like Yousef, well duh, that's how a debate happens. Coleman couldn't keep up.
Calm down, you know nothing about this conflict to even debunk any of his points, how can you claim propaganda unless you can actually shoot down specific points? Coleman doesn't have an education on the topic, that's the issue.@@galtha5824
Guest: complains about host moralizing the issue.
Also Guest: Moralizing the entire conversation.
💯
It's a form of flim-flam.
Exactly one fallacy of logic after another!
Spot on
How did he do that?
I'm sorry, but this isn't a serious man. 16:50 - Am I dreaming or does he actually suggest that in 1948 Israel was not in a defensive war, but rather the aggressor(!) when invaded by 6 Arab armies, the countries of some of which it doesn't even share a border with? If that twisted take on reality actually represents any Arab thinking, then it explains a lot.
You've earned a subscriber. Great work!
This is an accurate showcase of why there is no peace in that piece of land and why there won't be any peace until a new, educated, literate generation arises within Palestinian society.
There is simply no way to conduct any meaningful conversations, much less negotiate peace, when the guy you're talking to refuses dodges every key notion and is "selective" about his history or is flat out falsefying history.
Palestinians deserve better. After the war is over, there MUST be some external power managing Gaza AND the West Bank in charge of security and education. Palestinians have proven that in 100 years of conflict they are unable to progress their society into one that is tolerant, educated, peaceful and compromising.
Yousef Munayyer is the best Palestinian society has to offer. If you think of the average Palestinian, you will see much more hate, even less education and then you understand why Hamas is the most popular movement among Palestinians.
SO when is Israel going to stop breaking international law and building settlements in the occupied territories? When are the settlerrs going to stop attacking Palestinans and forcibly removing them from there homes?
Gazans in UNRWA schools learn to hate Jews with money from the US and Europe. Every cent that goes in is co-opted - willingly or not - into terrorist indoctrination, armament, and violence. The reason is simple: Palestinian Arabs are the most religiously extremist in the region. Jordan doesn’t want them, Egypt doesn’t want them, and Iran funds the extremists from afar. I would love nothing more than peace and stability in Israel and a state for Palestinians which didn’t wage religious war. But the past century would suggest otherwise. The population hates Jews more than they love their own lives. All the history suggests this. So I’m not sure how hopeful I am for this future of “literate Palestinians.” I think a future of nuclear war with Iran seems more likely, if utterly horrifying. Obama’s and, subsequently, Biden’s joint weakness on Iran may well live in infamy.
If you are honest, you will concede that there are fundamentalists on both side. Ariel Sharon , and Benjamin Natanyahu at the Helm. Concessions must be made on both sides.
This guy is trying hard, very hard to sound impartial, but the harder he tries , the more he exposes himself.
@@Cesar-hf2vl I like sticking to reality and facts, therefore clustering Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu (who I have lots of criticism on both of them, especially Netanyahu) together with Hamas and the radical leaders Palestinians had, is dishonest.
There is no moral equivelancy between both sides.
The only reason you think that is that innate quality people have (especially common among liberals) that "Strong is wrong", "oppressor vs. oppressed" and if you are stuck in that dogma, the "strong side" can't possibly have a moral high ground, while reality tells a different story that doesn't conform to those simplistic dogmas. So you take whatever information you get to support your dogma and take it at its word, while disregarding any information that contradicts your dogma because "we all know oppressors lie". In reality this conflict obviously has a lot of gray area, and Israel is no saint or angel, no one in conflict ever is in all of human history, and yet Israel still operates by the guideline of Western moral values, while Palestinians operate by the guideline of radical islam and eternal war.
Break out of your box.
My position entering this conversation was quite similar to Colemans: slightly biased pro Israel but honestly eager to learn and understand the view of Palestinians. But man, this was frustrating. When the opposing side is SO convinced that it is right in actually every single aspect of this very complex and long going conflict … and your attempts to describe your views are constantly rejected as “bizarre” and “ignorant” … and instead of the slightest compromise you get the “solution” that only Israel needs to give in and loosen its grip, because *this time* (unlike all the other times) this will open the path to the first and only ever Muslim majority democracy respecting minority rights in the middle east … in stark contrast to the written, articulated, demonstrated and celebrated will to kill Jews whenever possible by so many Palestinians … i really don’t know what to say and think of this. It’s utterly depressing.
If you so rigorously insist on only ever looking at this conflict through the “oppressor vs. oppressed” goggles, where all the responsibility for everything bad lies with the oppressor and every action by the other side, even unimaginable cruelties, are justified and explained away because of them being oppressed … this will never end.
Also, religion plays a waaay bigger role in all of this imho … because there are many many muslim regimes with no one opressing their religious leaders. And still they follow an immensely cruel agenda in the name of Koran.
As soon as you hear the term “oppressor” you may as well give up on having a conversation with that person because they aren’t open to reason.
Right on .... beautiful
Koreans are not muslims, so what, unimaginable cruelty
He is an articulate. The war of words types are really gaining traction these days,and form a very significant column.Pre1948 or no further back- 1919 life as tenant s of absentee landlord may have been ideal. I think an absentee landlord over these 2 may be an idea. But it'll never happen. War of words continues with an occasional greusome event as we witness now.
Fully agree. Well stated
The reality is that in 1882, there were only 24,000 Jews living in Palestine, and they represented about 2% of the regional population.
Then Zionist efforts began. Aliyah Aleph and Aliyah Bet.
In 1922 (census) there were about 80,000 Jews in Palestine. They represented about 11% of the regional population.
In 1931 (census) there were about 175,000 Jews in Palestine. They represented about 17% of the regional population.
In 1936 (demographic study) there were about 384,000 Jews in Palestine. They represented about 29.5% of the regional population.
The compromise of the anti-immigration Great Revolt of 1936-1939 were the White Papers of 1939, which were ignored by the Zionists.
In 1945 (demographic study) there were about 553,600 Jews in Palestine. They represented 31% of the regional population.
In 1948 (demographic study) there were about 650,000 Jews in Palestine. They represented 34% of the population.
Then Zionists seized control of the region, and 750,000 of the region's 1.2 million non-Jewish inhabitants either fled (and were subsequently denied the right of return), were forcibly removed by the order of Israeli officials, or were killed.
Another 725,000 Jews came to the newly-formed state of Israel between 1948 and 1953. Their population doubled between 1948 and 1953. The population of non-Jews was decimated by +60%.
In 1955, there were 1.3 million (75%) Jews living in the newfound state of Israel, and only 450,000 (25%) non-Jews.
Today, the demographics are similar. Jews represent 73.5% of the population.
So, to recap, Jews went from being 2% of the population to 75% of the population within one human lifetime (1882-1955). Non-Jews went from being 98% of the population to 25% of the population within one human lifetime (1882-1955).
Tell me how this ^^ doesn't constitute ethnic cleansing. If it were literally any other group, no one would be denying that it was.
Today, there are 5 million people in neighboring countries registered as Palestinian refugees.
whenever yousef says “that’s not accurate” it’s because coleman said something a little TOO clear and accurate and his only response is “just no”
please cite examples of Yousef inaccurately accusing Coleman of inaccuracy
No, Actually he is just ignorant.
and doesn't know anything about the real history
@@seth.kenvin 1st example, when Coleman states the Palestinians attacked Israel in the 1947 war and Yousef he says it's inaccurate . . . "political violence toward the Palestinians began before 1947." Rather than saying, yes they did and here is why he call that inaccurate.
@@jeremybowser7690 that's indeed inaccurate -- that war was versus attacking "Arab League" of about half dozen nations. Palestinians were refugees, encouraged to be refugees by Arab League to scatter & make room for fighting ere their (wrongly) anticipated quick victory, with that flight facilitated by fledgling Israel, because : Nakba
@@seth.kenvin really, so were just going to pretend that the Palestinians were not part of the Arab League that was attacking Israel? Not one of them lifted a finger or a rifle to attack the nation of Israel even though "about half a dozen other nations" were fighting on their behalf? No, they participated as well and they loss land that would have been theirs as a result. That's accurate.
It would be interesting to see Yousef's view of the bunkers under UN headquarters that the IDF found this past weekend. The UN who is so quick to say Israel is committing war crimes. How about Hamas and numerous war crimes they have committed since Oct. 7th. So sick of countries like the US and Israel being held to different standards than Iran, Palestine, Qatar, etc.
Bunker gotta have some where to hide idf killing un people too.... so your point is mute
The host showed an enormous amount of maturity, restraint and respect. The guest came off as immature. He dodged question after question and seemed on the verge of losing his temper.
Had exactly the same impression!
you're both completely delusional@@bluaska
The host doesn’t know what he’s taking about and apparently reads only the title of articles and has no context.
Please ask Yousef: What happened with EVERY minority religions in the vast majority of the islamic arab countries in the last -100 years? I will answer him, almost all of them "disappeared"!
Lies, there are still, Jews, christians, Yazidis, Buddhists and Hindus in majority Muslim countries.
An uncomfortable but excellent debate. We need more discussions like this. Thank you so much
He keeps saying that the Palestinians right for self determination was denied while completely neglecting the fact that their right for self determination was addressed in the partition plan.
What kind of bs is this?
This gentleman answered at least 3 different questions by saying "you should research more". Lol thanks, Yousef.
@lanishx8935 - Yes, it's a bit like saying "educate yourself so that you have the same opinion as me!"
Sooooo frustrating. Right from the beginning Coleman asked him to outline war crimes and he answered nothing. He just said they commit war crimes and you should research it. What crimes Yousef? I’m not even saying they don’t, but if it’s a reality surely you can outline at least one.
@@carlsnyder4833 exactly
In a debate, aren’t you supposed to try to persuade people with your arguments - not just tell them that they’re wrong and if they’d do more research like you did, then they would see the light? Reminds me of a truther or Q-Anon. “I’ve done all this research that contradicts everything you know, and even though I won’t share any details about it, you too would reach the ‘truth’ if you did the same.”
I was very frustrated by this myself. Can he not even give one example? He basically said there is a lot of evidence, ‘trust me bro’ and if you do not then you are ignorant. Why even come on for a discussion if that is your answer to things?
It is very difficult to buy Munnayyer’s “respect for all people” talk as he flagrantly demonstrates his own inability to be respectful.
Diaspora Palestinians modify their lies with western world triggering words , as the west and especially America forgot what is a religious war. According to his theory why Iran 🇮🇷 tried to kill Arabs and Jews in Israel with ballistics misslies attack ? What is the connection ? Is this is also a political violence ?? Ohh liars don’t get states
it's difficult to accept people's opinions about a subject they're just not knowledgeable about. ie Coleman should brush up on the history.
Twitter dropped the ball on nominating this guy to represent the Palestinian side. If this is the best argument they have. This is pathetic
I thought the same thing. If he is the most “reasonable” perspective on the Palestinian side the world is in big trouble.
Correct. It's both of those things. The Palestinian argument is hatred. They are so deeply drowning in it they can't recognise themselves.
How old are you guys? You really need others to give you passing knowledge on UK UK Israel Saudi Iran Iraq Palestine intertwining history? Read more. And stay in tune.
This, or 2 states with full return of millions of refugees to Israel is the second most common “democratic” argument I’ve heard. Both Trojan horses. Sad indeed because unless Israelis are suicidal there will be no resolve or gain for Palestinians with these proposals. One is even left wondering if the advocates of these faux proposals really care about Palestinians, who may end up with nothing.
@@geekylove3603You first. Tell us what you learn.
This was incredible frustrating to listen to. Nothing is as infuriating as a interviewee/debator who answers their own questions instead of the one asked. Not only that, Yousef also, after promising not to, repeatedly interrupts Coleman in asking questions. Add on top of that an incredibly smug attitude and clear signaling that he thinks his position is the only well thought one, he's not entring this discussion with any notion of the points on the other side having any validity. Finish it all of whith a sprinkle of "whataboutism" and you have the perfect train wreck.
When people say that criticism of Israel isn’t antisemitism, then proceed to equate criticisms of Islam with racism. 🫠
Except I think neither are racism. I'm anti-Zionist for the same reasons I don't like wokeness. Zionism is the ideal type of identity politics. But I actively like Jews - I'd prefer more in my neighborhood, they account for a huge disproportion of great civilizational things we enjoy. But going from a small Jewish minority in 1917 to a Jewish state in 1948 necessitated disposessing the people already there and that was the stated plan as early as 1921. And the continued denial of this is really galling. The anti-woke have a real identity politics double standard when it comes to Zionism. By no reasonable calculus were European Jews entitled to a state in Palestine in 1917. I can't figure out the rationale for why Palestinians should have just self deported to create an ethnostate. Especially given genetics shows they are largely just descended from Jews who never left Palestine and converted to Islam. Contrary to the victim narrative Jews were not expelled en masse from all of Roman Palestine and what on earth that has to do with 1900 years later is beyond me.
Israel is a nation state (most world’s Jew’s don’t live there). Criticism of a nation state definitionally isn’t be solely limited to race, religion or ethnicity of the people living there.
@@BigStar1972look at the Hamas charter and the Sunni/Shia Hadith about Jews. That would answer your question.
@@uedomwonyi Bingo
There’s a difference between saying Israel has bad policies or is doing bad things and saying Muslims are incapable of being peaceful
Yousef was very frustrating. His argument was just “you don’t understand” without ever being able to explain why Coleman was wrong. People who argue like that come across as bullies who want to look right but have no real arguments to back up their position. He may be right but he never actually made arguments supported by evidence to make me believe that.
He has no argument just makes up shit.
Usually when a war is lost the matter is settled. Giving back land to those who started the trouble is a bad idea. Those people are warped.. not capable of discerning truth
Who else in the world is doing this.. think about all the wars and the lands that were lost. Is anyone else still yelling and screaming. These people will never move forward. It’s not about land it’s a religious war
I don’t see it that way at all. Coleman kept asking him the same thing and Yousef already answered. Coleman can’t seem to accept his answer. I’m not sure how anyone can deny the facts of what he is saying in regards to the history and what Palestinians have been fighting for.
@BIGGOODBOY israel is breaking international law by taking in over land in the west Bank as we speak. This is not some past war. It is still happening.
Pay attention to the deflection of each factual reference by Coleman.
Every time Coleman raises an inconvenient event, Youssef dodges it by raising a different event to circumvent the inconvenience.
What were Coleman's facts?
That seems to be the running theme of every pro-Palestine expert I've come across.
I see what you're saying, but instead of deflecting, I think they were just talking past each other.
Youssef is clearly someone whose judgment is clouded by envy. And yes he is a bad person because of it
That is what they do all the freaking time . all the time
Coleman is quick lot becoming one of my favorite interviewers. Excellent job as always
Same for me, I'm glad I've found his work.
What is trying to justify violence going to do for anybody living under these conditions on both sides? This guy is trying to say the October 7th massacre had to happen. That is the problem. Playing the victim with blood all over their hands.
There is a pattern of denial which is typical for the Palestinian narrative.
Denial of what he’s literally giving you his point of view , the denial of any side is delusional your hatred for the Palestinians blinds you
@@bigm317your hatred of Jews blinds you.🤷🏽♀️
Denial of historical facts.
October 7 was a war crime, no acknowledgement from him whatsoever. I have no hate for the Palestinians or any other people.
@@MH7919No one acknowledges the dead on the other side.
THERE.
He can't name one non violent leader. If he could he would mention him.
Yep
I think that was the real kicker with this argument. Regardless though, I actually really liked Youssef overall, and I thought he brought some valuable perspective from the Palestinian point of view.
Could he have named one? I don't know. But in a world where any and all measures, including violence, are taken against any Palestinian who stands up to Israel, would it really be right for Munayyer to name someone, and thereby cause them to be under great scrutiny, at greater risk for themselves and their family?
Really? Salam Fayyad was arguably the most pacifist political figure of the entire region, and he was PM of the PNA (and still by far the most popular political figure in Palestine). What's hard is to find a non-violent leader in Likud. All the Israeli pacifists are Labor, and they haven't been in power for the last 20 years.
Why would a leader need to be non-violent, especially when their opponent is very, very, VERY violent?
This was pretty painful to watch. Would love to hear someone defend Palestine who uses actual nuance, makes concessions on some points and uses actual counter factual arguments rather than raising their voice and hand waving everything. He just seems willfully ignorant and able to overlook so many things.
I just watched the cenk interview with Tim pool. Ceek was the same way. Saying only right wing has terrorist. When the left wing burned DC and chased Trump into his bunker. It's like you know he's lieing. This guy knows all Palestinians want to destroy Israel.
There is no pro-palestinian that can do that, because the Palestinian cause is a lie and the idea of occupation is easily disproven in an actual conversation.
Watch any other pro-palestinian person, they are all like this.
Well, I could have used more specifics from this guy instead of vagaries. I think most viewers are pretty familiar with the history, and he was short on specifics about solutions for my taste. I do have to say, though, that Coleman seems a little out of his depth in some of his comparisons to South Africa and partition in India. Still a big fan, and I can see how those comparisons could make sense in an argument, but I feel like he has a slightly oversimplified view of how those movements/events took place and evolved, so his comparisons (those two in particular) ultimately fell flat.
He lives in fairly land to pretend that Palestine was this paradise prior to 1948. It’s a verified fact that the British got sick of managing the land due to all the internal issues which is why they told the UN to handle it
Have you listened the interview AND understood it? I guess not. To explain you the whole history he is reffering to would need more time than some seconds. Nothing for tictoc-users
The problem with this discussion is that one party thinks Israel should exist and the other thinks Israel shouldn't exist.
So they just go around in circles.
Great discussion given that context though.
Clearly you didn’t listen to the entire video. I don’t know how you can conclude that after Coleman looked really foolish throughout the discussion. He appeared flustered and his eyes looked watery at times when he appeared visibly nervous.
I swear I can't take anyone who uses the phrase "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" seriously anymore.
By that definition, all good statisticians must be insane. 😜
The definition of sanity is doing different things over and over and expecting the same results...
No, wait...
right?! So, if a basketball player can't make a shot but keeps practicing, and eventually gets it, they're insane. It's especially funny when they say, 'literally', when it's literally not the definition and makes no sense.
He moved on quickly when Coleman asked him about Al Husseini…😅
Yousef did not get Coleman's point about nonviolence. Coleman's point was that there needs to be a leader with popular Palestinian support who *rejects* violence and advocates for a real practical solution for both Israelis and Palestinians. There are popular Palestinian leaders but none of them have done this. The fact that Palestinians support boycotting Israel is completely irrelevant to that point.
Unfortunately, that cannot be the response to radical Islam. Ever ! Children would have to be separated from their parents, the propaganda would have to be replaced with real history. The Muslim world is not at all willing to be honest or change. We are at a civilizational impasse of epic proportions.
The first hamas leader Yassin, the dude in the wheelchair, started getting too moderate and arguing against violence so Israel blew him up while he was walking out of a mosque. Obviously they weren't at war at the time so the international community and UN called them out. Naturally after that the people weren't super happy. We also know from netanyahus own words that they strategically funded and helped build Hamas in hopes of driving a wedge between Gaza and the west bank. Sure seems those decisions came back to bite them lol. Same thing we've done in the US, arm and fund terrorists then act all surprised when they fight against us.
1) If there needs to be a leader for the Palestinians such as Coleman describes, there might well be equal need for such a leader on the Israeli side (which he doesn't mention). 2) The Oslo Accords of 1993 were signed by leaders of each side who had opted for a peaceful process that advocated a practical solution for both Israelis and Palestinians. All successive Israeli governments following Rabin's consistently undermined this process, most grievously by continuing (illegal by any definition) settler expansion in the West Bank. Coleman showed naivete on this as well as on many other points in this discussion.
Yousef completely understands. When you take the point Israel are occupiers it ends there until they are expelled. Both sides don't want to live under each others rules.
There needs to be an Israeli leader who isn't for terroristic violence and ethnic cleansing. But unfortunately, there isn't. Becauae Israeli leaders are overtly in favor of an ethno-state.
1:03:30 I have a sincere doubt about that claim. Though it has been referred that Jews were better under Muslim rule than Christian, the fact remains the same: Though natives to that land and with a countable population at the arrival of Islam to their region, the result of a minority of 3% of Dhimmi's, to me, is not considered a peaceful coexistence.
This man's entire argument appears to be repeating the words "self determination"
Yeah what a BS, right?
@@jvm-tvit is, if you use the word disingenuously and offer logical consistency.
And his opponent’s argument is to repeat that the other side is “violent”, “violent”, “violent”. He’s like a broken record.
Coleman, you're an absolute stud. Thank you for your critical thought, integrity and level-headedness.
Palestinian propagandist denial of basic history or rewriting of it and speaking in narratives and not facts is exactly why I became pro-Israel. This man on the podcast was a perfect example of all this.
100% I started off pro Palestine but the more I hear about Iran promoting Hamas and hezbolah and I hear Palestinians unwilling to have any solution other than “from the river to the sea”… not to mention Hamas’s war tactics..: I don’t feel sorry for them. … so sad.
No surprise that while being placed in a difficult position you continued to express yourself in Coleman style: calm, informed, and thoughtful! Thank you for taking-on this conversation and showing the world how to handle difficult people!! It is hard to imagine that Yousef speaks for all Palestinians.
By Palestinian standards he is an extreme moderate.
Confuse calm with apathy.
@@reactionaryjudaism Apparently you've never heard of Ben Shapiro or Alan Dershowitz.
Difficult people? Those that dont agree with you? Those that do not condone genocide & murder & actually do research?
@@casacarol2034Showing your bias. Yousef would not admit to the Arabs/Palestinians causing Israel to defend itself. He wouldn't admit that throughout history this region has seen unsolicited murder on both sides. He kept going around in circles, back to his talking points. Never once conceding an idea or discussion point or even just saying we will need to disagree since we have a difference of opinion, instead he undermined Coleman each chance he got and kept saying go check out what I have written about before. No couldn't defend his own points.
Man’s awfully willing to hold Israeli citizens accountable for their government’s policies- strange that doesn’t apply to the Palestinian people.
That's because he doesn't believe there's anything to hold them accountable for. Right or wrong, he was too cowardly to outright admit that he supports the violence.
Of COURSE Israelis should be held accountable for their government's actions, and so too should the Palestinians. Just one small problem: Hamas is not the elected representatives of anybody. They are wildly unpopular among Palestinians (less than 30% support Hamas). Hamas has committed atrocities. There's no question. But that doesn't mean this is supported by Palestinians, and in fact it is NOT. Hamas is just the latest violent faction to arise and seize power, and is not representative of the Palestinians at all. But in any case, Palestinians only have the government that Israel allows them to have. This is not self-determination. Palestinians have no real freedom or independence.
its not strange at all. Palestine is not a state.
@@RudeBoy-hx1fn agreed. Polls I’ve read suggest 52% favourability even in the West Bank, as high as 64% in East Jerusalem.
It is not Israel or the West’s responsibility to relieve Palestine of their self-destructive governance.
If the commentariat actually cared about Gazans, they’d be calling for the surrender of Hamas.
@@terencedoherty3049 WHERE did you get that 30% figure from? They were democratically elected in the first place, and when I searched just now 'percentage support Hamas Palestinians' I got figures like 86% and 71% supporting violence from Hamas in 2021. The only percentage I found in the 30s was 33% of young people support Hamas.
The other thing is - they may not all like Hamas, but you can't tell me they support the PA - so who will they vote for if given the chance? I think we know.
Why aren’t Jordan/Ethiopian/Egypt/ Syria/ Saudi accepting refugees
Jordan and Egypt did in the past and ended up kicking the Palestinians right out…
@@Blakmagic88 i wonder why...
Ethiopia?
Over and over these people dodge the question of those innocents slaughtered on Oct 7th. So 1948 makes it okay to kill people minding their own business? And I say this as someone that doesn't pick a side here. Go after the Government or the military, not people at a concert.
It took some effort to finish this interview. As much Coleman was trying to steer the conversation towards a productive way, this guy Yosef was borderline insufferable. Multiple times he implied that Coleman was ill-informed or uninformed, called him ridiculous just showed incredible bias. He's done himself and his side no favors.
But nothing he said was wrong though. Stop bitching about behavior and debate the ideas. Debunk the points or stop complaining.
open your mind from your wickedly oppressive religion@@NavAK_86
@@NavAK_86Judging by your response, you're not too big on actual arguments, so your default is personal attacks. You fit right in.
He's literally standard boiler plate for the palestinian side. I've seen numerous people held up as standard bearers for that side of the debate, and every time they're insufferable asshats providing endless levels of charity and excuses for terrorism while portraying every single thing israel does and has ever done as the most barbaric evil that has ever existed. I don't think they realize that they are quite literally showing that there are no civilians in gaza at this point, because if this is the westernized version of the debate, you can only imagine the actual gazans and how they feel. There is a reason Hamas has nearly 60% approval, and their even more radical opposition group "islamic jihad" has 70-80%. Gazans are the most radicalized people on earth, no muslim nations welcome them in their borders because they commit terrorist attacks, and try to overthrow the government in all nations that take them. They are a people without rulers because they are people who cannot be controlled.
@@NavAK_86Nothing he said was wrong? Lol. The flood of words coming from this clown does not compare to Colemans attempt at a real discussion. Did Yousef even answer a single question?
Coleman, thank you for this episode. Between this broadcast and the one with Dr. Benny. I have a much more thorough understanding of the Israel-Hamas issue going on. I must say you handled yourself very well during the interview with Yousef.
So my admiration for Coleman Hughes went up, and it was high already. Thank you, Coleman.
I’ve been a huge fan for the last 3 years, but he’s lost a lot of respect for me on this issue. To start with trying to define what war crimes are shows that this conversation was intended to legitimatize what almost all of the world is opposed and disgusted by. Call it what it is people…. G E N O C I D E. If United Nations members and Doctors Without Borders call it that, it’s probably for a reason.
Colman, thank you for your support to Israel.
As you can see, there is no way to have a normal discussion and reach a compromise with people who always look for the cheat code that will win them the debate.
"War crimes", "occupiers", yada yada yada. Never a word of criticism to their own choices and actions.
If you have another Palestinian activist.
Ask them why the mufti of Palestine went to visit hilter to discuss the eradication of jews?
This was long before the state of Israel.
they will say that the palestinians never elected the mufti and he wasnt their representative
a better thing to ask (and maybe it was...i havent watched the entire interview) is
if arabs engage in violence because of oppression, why did arab pogroms against jews start during 1920 in the mandate and run through the arab revolt of 1936...how were the jews living in mandate palestine, oppressing the arabs
if occupation is the issue, why did the arabs not only not fight the occupation of the west bank by jordan and gaza by egypt, the plo formed in 64, did not include those areas in what they claimed would be their state?
@thewkovacs316 excellent points.
I appreciate that you gave him the amount of pushback you did, Coleman. You also exercised a level of patience with this gentleman that I would find a hard.
the person who obstinately refuses to try conceiving of simple expressions of basic humanity principles is the patient one?
@@seth.kenvincheck again whose denying humanity
@seth.kenvin that is the state of Israel's offense or maybe the terrorist organization bent on the destruction of jews.
@@seth.kenvin please continue to watch TYT and their offspring for your political opinions 🙏
@@mikemcd2846 Please read some books about the conflicts your country stokes and supplies all the weapons for. How does that grab you.
21:53 "Do you think, in 1947, that the Palestinians attacked the Jews, or did the Jews attack the Palestinians?" No clearer example of how juvenile and hollow is Coleman's perspective on this issue.
57:00 he asks how many countries have been formed by bloody invasion and imperialism (paraphrasing), and I would answer: all of the Muslim countries. I mean if he wants context and history, he has to acknowledge the Islamic empire exists because of conquest. Which is to say “they did it first”.
It doesn’t matter who attacked first, what matters is that Jews accepted partition and Arabs did not.
So what
@ultra That means the Jews are happy with sharing the land and Arabs are not. It’s quite simple, but your hatred will not let you understand.
@@fastmotionforme Or the Jews were happy because they got what they wanted: a portion of land that wasn't theirs. And the Palestinians weren't happy because they only lost what they used to have.
Actually it does: it emphasized who was acting in bad faith. Arabs attacked jews during the 1920s riot. Despite jews accept the two stage solutions, the Arabs didn’t. They want all of it and instead went to war with Israel.
The point Yousef was trying to make is a two state solution is not necessarily fair, would it have been fair if instead of American slaves being given equal rights and accepted as citizens of the US, they had a border drawn around areas that most black people live (excluding rich areas that the white Americans would want to keep) that would be turned into its own country, a country the US would then go onto ensure was a failed state. If you think carving out a country for a people equals freedom for those people, search up the states that South Africa tried to set up so that they could pretend they weren't oppressing people and why the entire world rejected to recognise these states as they were made out of blatant racism and as a way to keep blacks down
Again Yousef did dodge the question, Palestinians being "denied the right to self-determination"? People, keep in mind there was neither an Israeli state nor Palestinian state first. Next, the two state partition plan would of given Palestinians the very same self-determination as Israel. But, again, the gotcha here is that Palestinians and all Arab nations wanted to fight to destroy all Jews in the area, rather than accept the two state solution.
They always want more than what is being offered, they don't realize that offers tend to disepear, you can't reject 5 deals and than ask for them back,
This is absolutely not true and ahistorical when it comes to the Palestinian (and Israeli) response to Oslo or other subsequent attempts at securing peace. Look no further than Netanyahu’s own party for answers about the failure of peace talks.
@@certifiedlb3451 - Incorrect. You are vastly and inaccurately overgeneralizing with hyperbole here. All the attempts at peace were genuine, and most importantly, were at least completely genuine leading up to Camp David in 2000 under Clinton. Between Peres and Barak, the attempt was made to heal the wounds by declaring peace, and moving towards a two state solution, and literally every single time an agreement was close, Hamas intervened with multiple suicide bombings in Israel. The final attempt to give a Palestine everything it wanted was in 2000, 95%+ of the West Bank, and then all of it eventually, right to return for valid descendants of those exiled, billions in paid reparations, and the list goes on. But, Arafat, that criminal embezzler who stole several billion from his own people, renigged on the deal literally at the very last second. He told Clinton that he didn't know how to run a country, he was a soldier, so after that idiot collapsed those talks, which Barak did everything he could, the suicide bombings began again right after, by Hamas. Hamas is a group as you well should know does not want peace, or a side by side state, they want one state. Arafat ruined their chances, and the state of Israel tolerated this nonsense long enough. No other power in the world would of tolerated this Islamist Jihadist nonsense. So, that is why Netanyahu gave up, and no one blames him. All the other Arab muslim countries now privately look forward to the eradication of Hamas. From there, its only possible to move towards talks of two states, but not an Islamist Jihadist one. The time for Hamas, is ending.
@@certifiedlb3451Is it not true that the Palestinians have rejected a two state solution no less than 5 times?
I agree with the comment…ultimately this comes down to the Arab population not wanting a Jewish nation state in the region. Regardless of the words spoken, this is what the action indicate.
Hamas needed fertile soil to establish itself, and that soil is the deep antisemitism of the Arab world.
@@Michael-cb5nm There have been rejections of moves towards peace on both sides. The difference is I’m willing to say it. The idea that Israel has only ever always been a good faith actor approaching negotiations for peace is delusional and divorced from historical reality. The Israeli right wing has rejected peace numerous times, and has rejected the idea of the existence of a Palestinian state out of hand. There is to this day Palestinian support for a two state solution, just as there was after Oslo, just as there was in subsequent peace talks. However, of course problems arise when questions of right of return for refugees, settlements, control over ports, airspace, water, trade, etc. are not adequately addressed. Let’s not play around and act like Israel has ever been warm to the idea of a sovereign Palestinian state. Despite this, there was Palestinian recognition of the Jewish state during Oslo. Bonus: look into Netanyahu’s opposition of Oslo, protests he led and encouraged, the assassination of the prime minister at the time, and his quick paced ramping up of the construction of settlements, making land swaps increasingly difficult.
Is Mr. Munayyer a former NBA player? Truly incredible pivots in this conversation.
hahahahaha
😅
Do you play for the MLB? because this was a wild steal!
(Just playing, but I have heard this joke before. You must be a Destiny fan.)
What's great about this conversation is that it demonstrates, among other things, the way in which pro-Palestine people shift the discussion to fit into their isolated narrative bubble. This plays out so clearly in minute 25:00, when Coleman accuses his guest of dodging his question and then the guest proceeds to dodge the question again by going back in time. Everyone who lives on Planet Earth understands that 1948 is one of the most significant years in both modern Palestinian and Israeli history. Getting stuck there is one of the many tactics pro-Palestine individuals employ in order to stall the conversation rather than move it forward. It's the same tactic BDS supporters use when they interrupt dialogue on college campuses.
I really feel badly for Coleman's guest because he is part of a collective narrative that basically chooses victimhood. Then, when called on their victimhood, they further isolate the narrative by blaming Israelis entirely for their current suffering. When you are a child or adult of war, becoming a refugee is not necessarily a choice, and it primarily is forced upon you. This undeniably tragic and painful. However, refugee status when you are the great-grandson of people who were displaced in 1948 is an entirely different thing. In fact, when you actually look into it, there are not as many Palestinian refugees as people think. Any Palestinian living outside of Palestine, whether or not he or she was personally displaced from his or her home, is entitled to check a box next to "refugee" and this ensures they remain a refugee FOR LIFE. On what planet do people choose such a cruel victimhood? One in which it is easier to only blame the "oppressor," because unfortunately the rock you have been living under is actually way more diplomatic than you may have thought, and Israel is not the "Genocidal" entity people make it out to be.
Both Jews and Arabs were and are entitled to the land in Palestine/Israel. This is indisputable. What happens as a result of war, though, is that there is a winning side and a losing side. When the losing side refuses to accept they have lost and live in the fantasy that one day they will defeat the Jews and have their right of return fulfilled, then they only continue to lose and be met with further disappointment and suffering on a larger scale than they were prepared for. Every war it gets worse and worse for the Palestinians, and while Israel shows its military might, the international community gives it the middle finger and tells Israel to stop punishing the Palestinians. Well, when a child continues to steal the cookies from the cookie jar and does not learn his lesson from a 10-minute time out or spanking, then you have to get more creative with punishment. In the case of the Palestinians, their dreams for a sovereign state will remain lofty and unlikely if they do nothing to prevent militants like Hamas from ruling over their population because this ensures the cycle of violence where Hamas attacks and Israel retaliates, and so on.
Yousef avoids answering the questions directly and uses language that minimizes the responsibility of Palestinian leadership. Hamas has a history of using teenage suicide bombers, they have attacked, murdered and raped civilians. The problem with these Pro Palestine people is they dance around anything Palestinians have done to contribute to them being a national security risk to Israel, Jordan and Egypt.
You mean like minimizing the crimes of one Ariel Sharon or snipers opening fire on civilians during The Great March of Return? That kind of minimizing?
@@Luca.Rubinato "great march of return" was not peaceful by any means, there were thousands of gazans cutting the border and tossing IEDS, molotovs and incendiary balloons.
@@Luca.Rubinatoyou can name as many atrocities as you want from either side, but by NOT taking responsibility for ANYTHING the side you are defending has done, you get no where towards understanding. No doubt Israel is responsible for many terrible things, but I’ve heard more Israeli’s and Israel supporters agree to those truths than I’ve heard any Pro Palestine supporters even mention anything wrong that has been done by them.
What about before Hamas man ?
Even that Palestine president condemned what happened.
and Hamas run schools teach children to glorify suicide bombers as martyr's.
It's insane how many pro Palestinian supporters refuse to condemn hammas.
Condemning Hamas is condemning Israel....Mossad helped create Hamas.. Understand that....Israel helped Hamas to power
You ever read any William Lloyd Garrison, bud? Give it a go. Good luck.
Palestinians have the right to resist occupation even by armed struggle. There is no legal right of an occupation to defend against the legal resistance of the occupied. There is no legal right to defend occupation.
@@ArturoTorres-kh2oyno one has the right to r*** women and target babies. If your cause brings you to that point, you have already lost all your soul.
@ArturoTorres-kh2oy Hamas actions were not legal resistance...That was illegal massacre if you want to speak in those terms.....Hamas is part of the occupation against Palestinians...Hamas does not care for Palestinians
A dialogue between a scholar and an activist
Underrated comment
He said he hoped we learned something from him, but I seemed to hear him never answer a question - even on his own ideas and articles - and say things like "I wrote about it. You can look it up." I'd think one would be able to speak to their own writing.
@@CaesarCapone
He clearly stated his position on the matter. Also backing it up with facts.
Asking what would you have done, or questions of the like, is irrelevant! There really is so much information on this.
But in order to research it, it takes a lot of time if you research the correct way!
There is one common denominator so many have not discussed at all! Which is so important !
That is the treatment of the Palestinians ! When I say the treatment, I mean the treatment very similar to what happened in Oct 7th!
These horrible acts are not just coming from Palestinians. They are coming from soldiers in the military throughout the decades! These soldiers were in their mid to late 70’s possibly in their early 80’s .
Some still in their mid to late 20’s 30’s ! So a variety of former military . Some who grew up in Israel, and had to do their service and some who traveled to Israel to do their service, once they turned of age , because they have to , and some also wanted to. !
I have listened to many who have written book. Many videos and many documentaries. There’s no way after watching and reading from so many different-resources /ages/careers and one man lost his grandparents in the Holocaust and he was just a small baby but in the camps! He went to live in Israel as soon as he came age and after so many years, had to leave. He just couldn’t unknown AB’s see what he knew!
So one has to ask themselves why ? Why, aren’t sane who have huge presence in Israel, MSM,
etc… not talking about it!
Also theirs are many historians, professors, etc who have followed it for decades and have written books!
But you never ever hear any of it , from anyone !
I mean not a word!
Terrorism.
'The unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.'
Merriam-Webster dictionary
Hopefully we all agree that morally and strategically the invasion and occupation of Iraq was wrong. Hopefully we all agree it was blood thirsty, greedy, corporate, weird, evangelical behaviour.
It was also illegal (you don't say) according to the United Nations.
Therefore, and referencing the dictionary definition, why do people/media/other countries not call the United States a terrorist State?
Well, then you would have to consider Coleman a scholar who is generally uninformed on one side of this issue. (Not totally unfair since he somewhat admirably admits his own bias/lean.)
Randomly came across you. Very dignified conversation and with opposing views, your curiosity came out. I subscribe now.
Munayyer argues in very bad faith, it's notable how patronising and combative his tone is throughout, talking down to Coleman the whole time. Coleman never resorts to doing that, and it's very noticeable.
EDIT: I actually think Munayyer has some very strong points, and I am not siding with either Coleman or Munayyer, I am listening with an open mind. But my God Munayyer just comes across so badly, it really mars the points he's trying to make because it looks like he feels his arguments are too weak to stand on their own, like if he presents them in an adult, neutral tone, it won't be enough.
He goes out of his way to get digs in, with virtually every point he makes, addressing Coleman with contempt and like Coleman is an idiot. It's disrespectful, it's completely unnecessary, and like I said, it actually only makes his stance look really weak, that he has to resort to that non-stop during the debate. Are your points strong or aren't they? Stop couching every statement in tones of a petulant child.
I don't see where he did that at all what discussion did you watch?
@@UltraAporia “as I’ve spent a lot of time explaining to you” what a patronizing cnt.
lol are you blind or deaf?@@UltraAporia
You should have seen the two ladies “debating” about this topic in Palestine-Israel
He also makes several wrong and hypocritical points. Accountability, for instance.
Israel actually court martials soldiers for war crimes and disobeying orders in a manner causing unnecessary civilian casualties. Hamas, the PA and PLO honour war criminals as martyrs and shower their families, who are honoured, with money.
He also has a lot of freaking nerve talking about moral equivalence. Nobody who’s watching thinks the Israelis are perfect. But to draw an equivalence with Hamas is pure gaslighting.
Israel is also condemned at the UN about every 5 minutes. Far, far more than Hamas, or other militant dictatorships.
This is just one example if his bad faith and lack of integrity.
If this is the best that the Palestinian side has to offer, then that's really depressing. All I'm hearing is a lot of emotional buzzwords like "war crimes" "genocide" "ethnic cleansing" etc without a single concrete example to illustrate them. And I'm sure there are plenty of examples of these things that he could bring up, but instead he just keeps essentially telling us to do our own research, and if we don't we are "ridiculous" "absurd" or "bizarre."
If you want to be fair, it's pretty clear that Coleman wanted to focus on Hamas and the region only post-October 7 2023, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict overall, certainly not any examples before 1948.
@@robs.5847before 1948 the Arabs picked on Jews constantly, there was an uprising every few months, and Arabs outnumbered Jews like 10 to 1. The only way Jews withstood it was by staying quiet and to themselves. Until they got their own army backed by the Brits.
Wow you people are so committed to not seeing this for what it is? And I’m actually genuinely surprised. I’m glad I came to watch this video to attempt to understand how on earth some people are so committed to denying the history and plight of the Palestinians. This consistent denial of the injustice of the Israeli occupation is really quite alarming. Please step back and think. The occupation genuinely has all the trappings of an apartheid, to understand that in a simplistic way, please go and watch the short AJ+ video on the topic (search Israel Gaza Apartheid). This Palestinian scholar has very clearly and very simply explained the situation that has blighted the hopes, dreams and livelihoods of his people. I am beginning to more clearly understand much of this type of pro-Israeli perspective which entirely hinges on focusing only on the existence and activity of Hamas - a gross misrepresentation and an exceptional destruction of vital context.
Oh right one man accounts for the entire people of Palestine.
" emotional buzz words " " genocide" I bet you'd never apply this mockery to
the Jews and the Holocaust.
"And I'm sure there are plenty of examples of these things that he could bring up, but instead he just keeps essentially telling us to do our own research, and if we don't we are "ridiculous" "absurd" or "bizarre."
You apparently don't do anything risky here but post about your dogs bringing you a coin, heady stuff never censored, what there is to KNOW would possibly censor this video. And if you don't understand that there is a genocide on going and not only of this ethnic peoples but also other groups, like what's going on in EU, then ya, it's because you just don' t care to know, you prefer doggo vids.
Thank you very much for this. I learned a lot. This is so much better than 2 people agreeing for over 1 hour.
I’m starting to think I’ll never hear someone argue this position in good faith…
The thing missing from the conversation is the actual religious element of this
Yeah he dismisses this by saying all religions have some bad stuff in their religious texts. Cop out. Also, would like him to answer how unbridled immigration of peoples with incompatible beliefs and practices is working put for the EU. He probably thinks that is going swimmingly
You’re right about that. A follower of Islam is always going to choose their religion over the state.
Fantasy has no place in discussions of real world matters.
🎯
I listened with an open mind. This guy made a couple of almost-convincing points, but the overwhelming condescending tone, the naive denialism about anti-Jewish sentiments in the region, avoiding the attack as obvious evidence of violence, and failing to provide any examples for his position... he has ultimately failed to convince me of anything.
he makes v more afraid of Muslims. he believes in what he believes which palestine is the oppressed, then he goes out n finds sources that supports his claim. I cannot tolerate this conversation after 27min. it's too much. he is the reason why the world has no peace.
@@hughkwan9681 I agree - his degree of ideological motivation is disquieting.
If you don't like Yousef's tone, check out Darryl Cooper's "Martyrmade" podcast on the history of this conflict. Darryl is a white ex-military, right-leaning Christian, and not overly biased towards either side. The podcast is entertaining and very illuminating.
@@kermitfrog593 I dunno, if anybody says that Israel should be peaceful after this attack and that them responding is causing the whole terrorism problem, I'm probably not going to agree, regardless of tone. I keep finding propaganda when I go check out the Palestinian side of the argument, not acknowledgement of how unilateral the attacks are and how Israelis could possibly live in peace with that. I'll check it out, though.
@@pmberkeley Why are you presenting a straw man argument? Barely anyone is saying Israel 'should be peaceful after this attack.' As for propaganda, I personally keep finding Israeli propaganda when I check out their side of the argument as well. The closest I've come to an "objective" history of the conflict is Darryl Cooper's "Martyrmade" podcast.
Coleman, than you for bringing Yousef Munayyer on to you podcast. I have traditionally been pro-Israel, and I continue to admire the country for many reasons. However, I've wanted to check my thoughts about this eternal conflict. I've really listened to the Palestinian position the last few weeks. I thought Yousef made some points I never understood about the Palestinian point of view. What wasn't discussed in the utopian vision the Yousef laid out was the fact that the Palestinian and Israeli populations are approaching parity in the region. We've seen what happens to ethnic and religious minorities in other Arab countries. The persecution of the Copts in Egypt is just one example. Moreover, the Israeli population will continue to become more fundamentalist as the cultural Jews have fewer children than their faith-based countrymen. I don't think Yousef is a good spokesperson for the Palestinians. He's strident, dismissive of ANY counter argument, resolute in his position, and offers no understanding for why Israel would take the position that it does with Gaza. He offers no contrition for any of the terror inflicted upon innocent Jewish citizens. He sees only blood in Gaza. While I'm glad you brought him on, I would hope that Palestinians might find a much better person to speak for their position. I think your point (that Yousef dismissed with a pre-packaged slap down argument) about finding an advocate for peace/spokesperson/leader was an important point of inquiry. I don't know how there could be any trust until you had someone like a Mandela to help navigate that mess.
You really think the people of Gaza are at a point of parity with Israeli citizens? The former doesn't even have consistent access to potable water and electricity.
Coleman's point around peacemakers from Palestine wasn't good at all. Yousef pointed out that non-violent Palestinian movements are met with bullets and prison. That whole vision falls flat, when all of the Palestinian Mandelas are locked up or dead. The BDS movement is reviled by people who are pro Israel, despite it being a peaceful approach to dealing with Israeli oppression and occupation. It should be lauded as a good thing, much better folks aren't buying products than committing horrible war crimes.
Yes! THIS comment!! Well said 👏
Unfortunately this is what a reasonable proponent for the Palestinian position sounds like. Worlds better than Palestinian and Arab leaders who can’t even condemn Oct 7th, but still a far cry from anyone being able to bridge the gap of reality and having empathy for the other side.
That person is Norman Finkelstein.
54:05 I am a raging idealist but even so, this is the point where Yousef completely lost me (the condescending tone he’s put on throughout the whole video has certainly not helped either). Even as a college student I understand that not everywhere is like America. In high school I maybe would have given that answer because it feels good to imagine that every country can be a peaceful democracy… but I expect Yousef, as an adult (who has contributed to policy in this matter!), to be more realistic about the sacrifices that need to be made. On the other hand, the argument that he made at this timestamp could just be a cover for saying that he doesn’t care abt the Israelis that he would hypothetically force to live in a one state solution under a Palestinian government… just horrible all the way around.
Yousef Munayyer seems to deflect the question of war crimes by not listing a single one.
Respect, Coleman, for being the most patient and open-minded interviewer. When you said Yousef was the most recommended to present the Palestinian perspective, I was genuinely looking forward to the interview. Unfortunately, Yousef's many admonishments to the listeners, and to you (!) to read up on the "well documented" laws, articles, and literature referring to various topics smack of patronizing disrespect and not the genuine ability to answer with facts. The same goes for his many references to slogans like "ethnic cleansing" and "apartheid" which belong to the language of activists and not academics or intellectuals.
In the end, Yousuf's proposition of one democratic Arab majority state is not just utopian, but ridiculous in view of what Hamas has recently demonstrated in their attitude towards the Jews. Even ISIS did not slaughter babies. None of the almost 30 Muslim states are known for having produced a liberal democracy respecting minority rights. Even with all the issues in Israel, Yousuf probably enjoys more freedom in Israel than most of his co-religionists who live in Arab states.
Also, two important points that neither of you mentioned is that
1) about 700,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries after the creation of Israel. Today more than half of Israelis are their descendants. They have always lived in the Middle East since the Roman exile.
2) Unlike the Palestinians, Jews actually had a sovereign state in the area of today's Israel. Both the history and archeology of Israel testify to the Jewish presence, culture, and civilization on those lands. King David, King Solomon, King Saul, and many others were ancient rulers of Israel. Can anyone name a ruler of a Palestinian state? No, because Palestine existed only as a Roman province, and then as a British Mandate - both COLONIAL creations. It never existed as a sovereign entity. It was only after the Ottoman Empire collapsed that Arab nationalism began to take place on these lands.
Antisemites of the early 20th century Europe wanted Jews to move to Palestine, as it was considered a historically JEWISH land. Unfortunately, Palestinians are brainwashed to believe that Jews have no connection to this land and were arbitrarily offered a Jewish state there by the British. Until the Palestinian education system changes, even well-meaning Palestinians won't be able to see beyond their grievances or make compromises with the Israelis on the land. They were already offered a state many times, and each time it was not enough, because they subscribed to Yousuf's proposition of a majority-Arab state "from the river to the sea". If anyone had any illusions that that would ever work, October 7 events should have been enough to set them straight. Yousuf Munayyer was a disappointment.
Your comment has enlightened me greatly. Thank you
Great comment. This guy blows.
Mosab Yousef would have been a MUCH better Palestinian to discuss that point of view. He’s logical and reasonable and actually lived and grew up in that culture and has no idealized notions what the reality of life and the mindset of the people and the leaders they choose will do (and have done) if given free reign over Jewish and other non-Muslim lives.
I also get very frustrated when people fail to bring up that most jews in Israel are from middle eastern background; that were terrorised in Arab countries, had their property stolen, and essentially did everything Arabs accuse Israelis of having done to Palestinians. It’s such a vital part of the story
@@shaynakfcmyhill I love your point. And your right it doesn't come across probably because it doesn't fit there narrative. Of course if it's brought up someone might claim "two wrongs don't make a right." Which is a total write off. But I think the point is these kinds of things have happened for thousands of years people fleeing and people taking over eachother, in this case the sore loser is a Psychopathic Barbarian who doesn't mind destroying their own family. ( venting)
When I hear someone say “ you need to read up on this more”, instead of just contesting the argument with actual facts; it makes me think you just want to move on from the point without actually addressing it.
Wheeeeee boy. That was a ride to watch. I applaud you, Coleman, for inviting someone who you knew would have a different viewpoint. Very tense but very objective and diplomatic conversation.
Very disappointing to not hear Yousef condemn Hamas. My guess is that he'd have a bounty on his head if he did that.