Debunking Hilary Clinton and Morning Joe on the History of Israel/Palestine (ft. RM Brown)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 май 2024
- Ben and company debunk ridiculously condescending claims made by Hillary Clinton on the Morning Joe show about the history of Israel and Palestine. Then they watch a clip of Morning Joe's own father-in-law refuting to his face his deceitful account of the United States' historical role in "peace" negotiations.
Sign up for Ben's Capital class starting next Sunday:
patreon.com/benburgis/join
More info on the class:
benburgis.substack.com/p/marx...
Follow RM on Twitter: @xrmbrownx2
Follow Ben on Twitter: @BenBurgis
Follow GTAA on Twitter: @Gtaa_Show
Become a GTAA Patron and receive numerous benefits ranging from patron-exclusive postgames every Monday night to our undying love and gratitude for helping us keep this thing going:
patreon.com/benburgis
Read the weekly philosophy Substack:
benburgis.substack.com
Visit benburgis.com
"Stunningly superficial" is on point
Lol you'd at least think that she'd have the common sense to go away lol
Perhaps the first thing that might have clued Mrs. Clinton into thinking that her students didn't know about history, was the fact that they were asking her for advice, given her past record of signing on to endeavors which turned out to be epic historical failures.
First time viewer, but I did read the title as Ben’s Burgers.. Food for thought anyways.
J. Mascis, play a solo!
zbig is such a beast 💪
So, are you going to explain what was wrong about Joe's "embarrassing" summary of what took place?
Brzezinski said "and then they got aborted..."
Aborted how? Why?
And how is that different from Arafat walking away from the deal?
He said “Sharon got elected and everything got aborted” clearly his implication is that the new Israeli government was not as amicable to the deal. He explained clearly that the deal had a number of provisions and catches so Arafat chose to go to other Arab nations instead of straight up agreeing to it. Which delayed negotiations until they were cancelled in art because of Sharon’s election
@@darshanpadayachee4383 - Oh. So it was Sharon's government that walked away from the deal?
@@velvetmagnetta3074he pointed out that trying to ask the other Arab states isn’t walking out, and that Sharon’s government didn’t go back to negotiating. In that factual summary you can see who seems to be leaving the table
@@benzur3503 - Both sides worked out that deal. Neither side got everything it wanted. That much is clear.
But only one side "walked out". Sure, Arafat said "brb", but did anyone really believe that? Did Arafat himself believe he'd be back? He already knew he could either persuade the Palestinian people and a few other key Arab nations to support the deal. He also knew his gun-running gravy-train would run out of track in that deal
What incentive did Arafat have to come back to the table?
Was Arafat even ever serious about a deal in the first placel? Or was he spinning the Israeli delegation around in painstaking negotiation for months on end?
I think Sharon's government probably knew the answers to these questions by then. And those answers do not contradict Morning Joe's "embarrassing" summary of what went down.
Simply put, Arafat walked out.
You’re making a number of suppositions that can’t really be backed up. There are matters of record being what was said and done, then your argument based on what you believe about Arafat’s motivations and intent. Were either side acting in complete good faith? Probably not, but one side was and continues to be an occupying force, therefore whatever Arafat’s intentions and beliefs were, they were secondary to that fact.