First Gaza, Now Tehran: The Calculus of Genocide with Sami Hamdi

Iran is once again under fire, but the Israeli war machine is on the move. I don't think anyone expected the rabid nature of the Israelis. Don't expect them to go that far. Israel and Trump have very different interpretations about what happened in Iran today. Trump may well have decided that I will give this bone to the Israelis. You can go and attack the Iranians. If they come back to the dialogue table, he will keep the leash on the Israelis and prevent them from attacking the Iranians.

Sami Hamdi is likely one of the most important and influential political commentators of our time. How do we overcome this fear? The Ummah has power. It's a myth that it doesn't. There's a reason we're Muslim today. It's because those who felt fear before us, they didn't give up on us. Because they weren't paralyzed by fear. They didn't stop when they felt fear.

As we move forward, we are beginning to see now that the cracks are emerging in the Zionist influence. And welcome back to the Thinking Muslim. Thank you for having me.

Well, thank you for being with us, and we're speaking on the day where the Israelis launched, uh, what we probably see to be an audacious attack on Iran, hitting key Iranian nuclear installations as well as, um, some very key, uh, military personnel, in particular the chief of the IRGC, uh, the chief of, uh, this really important, all-important military wing of the of the Iranians. So I suppose my first question to you, uh, is why now?

I think that if you were to put yourself in the position of the Zionists and of the Americans sitting in the White House one year ago, Iran was in control of Syria. It was in control of Lebanon. In Syria, via the Assad regime and in Lebanon via its proxy Hezbollah. Today, it has been significantly diminished in terms of its capabilities, and the Assad regime has been toppled. Iran's arm is no longer as long as it used to be, and it's no longer as strong as it used to be. From the Zionist perspective, Iran now has its back to the wall. Iran now is unprecedentedly weak. This is the time now to really hit home the point and try to diminish Iran's capabilities in order to prevent it from ever being able to establish such a reach again.

And I think the Zionist argument has been beyond just Netanyahu's desire for war. The Zionist argument has been that given that we now have this window of opportunity in the region to reshape the region, to reshape its borders, to bomb however we want without any consequence from any of the Muslim leaders or the like, why don't we continue to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities? Why don't we continue to bomb Iran's airports and military capabilities and render it into a country that is unable to do anything?

And I think from the Israeli perspective, given that the Iranians have been trying to develop—the Iranians say they're not trying to develop a nuclear weapon, but even if the Iranians were—on the basis that Israel should not be the only power allowed to have a nuclear weapon given its antagonism towards the Iranians, the Israelis believe we have to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon because if it has a nuclear weapon, then that compensates for Iran's inability to control Syria or Lebanon or any of these other reach.

The Americans, however, are more hesitant, primarily because Israel doesn't have the power on its own to diminish Iran's capabilities. Israel is only able to attack a regional power with US support. Without US support, Israel does not survive in the region. Israel collapses within a few weeks. Israel is unable to stand against any of the regional powers. So, Israel needs the US to be on board in order to attack the Iranians.

And here is where there is division amongst the US powers. There are some who believe that this is the golden opportunity that we should attack Iran and Iran should be diminishing its capabilities—the neocons and the and the hawks and the like. The other side, however, the MAGA America first and even other advisers in the past under Democrat administration argue that even if there is a possibility that they could permanently paralyze the Iranian military capabilities, it would cost a lot of money, a lot of American soldiers, and there is no guarantee that they would succeed. And given that context, it's unlikely that the American population would support such an endeavor to diminish Iran, primarily because for many in the American population, they've never met somebody from Iran who is necessarily antagonistic. Iran, many of them can't even point to it on a map. And many are unsure or unconvinced about any imminent danger that Iran might pose. And that's why we're seeing many on the American right, whether it's Candace Owens or Tucker Carlson or even Matt Walsh and these others who've come out very heavily against this latest strikes that have taken place on the Iranians.

In light of this difference, the question therefore is why now? What brought these two conflicting ideas together, the idea of going against the Iranians and the American reluctance over the price they need to pay, has to do with Trump specifically. It's unclear to what extent Trump actually supported the initiative or to what extent he planned it or to what extent he's going to allow the Israelis to go. What is clear is that when Trump began the latest round of negotiations with the Iranians over a nuclear deal, he said initially that Iran has 60 days to agree to the deal. Today, Trump tweeted is the 61st day.

One of the reasons for Trump's frustration is that Iran is now digging its heels over a particular point that Trump has changed his mind on. In particular, the issue of how much enrichment is Iran allowed to have. How do you allow Iran to have a deal by which you afford it the right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes but you limit the enrichment to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon? Initially, there was a certain percentage—whether it's 2 or 3%, I forget the exact number—but when Trump went to the region expecting them to talk about Gaza but found them instead talking about the Iranian threat and the need for security apparatus and the need for a guarantee of a NATO-style security agreement against the Iranians. Trump and Witkov appeared to have returned from the region, and whatever they heard from the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Qataris, and the other countries or diplomats they spoke to, they changed the goalpost. They moved it from that 2 or 3% to 0%—something that is unrealistic to ask of any particular country—and all of the talks, the progress that was being made, the Iranians suddenly dug their heels in and they said, "This is unrealistic of you to demand of us."

But there was no indication when Iran began to stall in the negotiations that Trump would use force. And the proof is that the Romani foreign minister, Busidi, tweeted just yesterday or the day before recording on the day, just after the night that Israel attacked the Iranians. The Romani foreign minister said that on Sunday, the Sunday coming, that the latest round of talks was going to take place in Muscat, and there was no indication from Washington or Tehran that they wouldn't attend, suggesting that from Donald Trump's perspective, the Israelis would have presented an argument to him in saying, "We want to go to war with Iran." He would have said, "No, we need to go to war with Iran and take advantage of their unprecedented weakness. Syria now is out of their hands. Lebanon now is out of their hands. Let's hit the Iranians." Trump said, "I'm not spending the money. I'm not using American resources in order to attack." The what I think the compromise was. Trump said, given the Iranians are stalling on the deal, the Iranians are negotiating with me as if they still have Syria and Lebanon, and the Iranians don't have the power or authority to debate with me on the demand that I've made regarding their enrichment. And if the Iranians think they can negotiate with me on this, let me show them what happens to them if they choose not to sign the deal.

And I think what Trump has done is if he's kept Israel on the leash and said to them, I'm the one preventing Israel from attacking, which is true, I'm going to loosen the leash a little bit, and the Israelis went in and killed a whole host of senior Iranian officials to say to the Iranians, you're not as strong as you think you are. This negotiation is not between equals. I am saying to you, I'm giving you a way out, a way of peace. You don't negotiate with me on this. I'm giving you the paper; you have to sign that particular paper.

What has been devastating for the Iranians is not just the diminishing of Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has come out and said we will not be retaliating on behalf of the Iranians. We will not initiate an attack on the Israelis because they don't want to have the same bombardment that came beforehand. The militias in Syria, the Iranian militias now no longer operate in the way they used to under Ahmed Shar's government. What's been devastating for the Iranians is the precision of the Israeli strikes. They killed Alisham Khani, one of the senior negotiators on the nuclear deal, one of the most senior members of parliament in Tehran. They killed, I think about five scientists, senior scientists associated with the nuclear program. They killed some of the senior leaders of the IRGC, of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. They've been able to kill people who are so senior in what deemed to be position strikes, which suggests that the intelligence that the Israelis have on the Iranians is something the Iranians never knew the Israelis had. There's been an intelligence leak. More than that, the Israelis are publishing videos that suggest that a lot of the drone strikes from inside happened from inside Iran. Meaning Israel has been able to gather the capabilities to be able to penetrate Iran itself and then launch the drones and then go and attack these people in their homes.

And the proof that the Iranians were caught unguarded is that even as Trump announced that he would withdraw officials from the region and the US ambassador indicated there was an attack coming, the Iranians did not believe Trump would attack them. The Iranians believe that Trump's no-war policy—Trump was bluffing. Trump was flexing. And the proof is Alisham Khani, who probably should have expected he would be on the target list, was sleeping at home. A lot of these people were found sleeping at home, indicating they did not perceive that the threat was genuinely imminent, suggesting that whatever assurances they got from Trump, they believe that Trump would not allow the Israelis to do so.

And this is what leads me to conclude that while the Israelis are hoping that this becomes an all-out war, Trump may well have decided that I will give this bone to the Israelis. You can go and attack the Iranians, but I don't want an all-out war that ruins my deal. And Trump's tweet has suggested if they come back to the dialogue table, he will keep the leash on the Israelis and prevent them from attacking the Iranians. And more than that, the US ambassador to Turkey tweeted today in a very ironic way. He tweeted the famous quote of Muawiya Abu Sufyan, in which Muawiya has a famous saying, "If a lash works instead of the sword, I'll use the lash. And if my tongue works and I don't need to use the lash, I'll use my tongue. And if all that remains between me and my brother is a hair, then I will do everything to make sure that hair doesn't break," suggesting no matter how bad things get between us, we call it shuwa. No matter how bad things get between us, there's always the room for dialogue. The Turkey, the US ambassador to Turkey tweeted today that the hair of Muawiya is there; it exists between Iranians and the Americans, suggesting that this might be a one-off, provided the Iranians come back to the table and they agree to Trump's terms.

Before I walked in here, I saw a report—Trump, uh, tweeted or wrote on Truth Social or whatever social media platform he uses. He said, "The Iranians are now talking to me. I'm in communication with the Iranians," suggesting the Iranians are saying to Trump, what can we do to deescalate? How can we negotiate around this? But the biggest devastation for Iran is whereas before they could retaliate with some missiles or the like, their military capabilities have been so diminished, it's unlikely they will be able to retaliate in the way that they would want. And there is now a debate taking place on Iranian social media which says, should we be retaliating in the way that we would like or is this perhaps time in which we retreat, we rebuild our strength, we make some sort of temporary peace and we rebuild for another day until we're strong enough to actually engage and actually retaliate to the Americans? [Music] Because the children of Raza deserve to have a better life. Today, Betimal celebrated with our children the best day possible; we celebrated by dancing, by playing, by distributing some ice cream to these children. We enjoyed the day to the max, and we hope this war will come to an end so the children will have a better life. [Music] [Applause] [Music] I'm with the grandma. [Music]

So I want to, um, separate a lot of what you've said there and and and actually ask for some more detail. But let's start with Iran, uh, because for some time Iran has shown amazing or enormous restraint when it comes to Israeli, uh, activity, uh, either with its proxies or even on its soil. Um, so if we think back to the pager attacks, uh, Iran left effectively Hezbollah to deal with that itself. When you think about the death of the killing of Ismail Haniya, um, um Iran has shown—think about the enrichment of uranium. I mean, for for decades now, for a decade, over a decade, Netanyahu has been claiming that Iran is a few weeks away from a nuclear weapon. Now, if we were to believe that, and um there's nothing to say that that that isn't the case, Iran does have the technology to enrich uranium to the degree that, uh, it can build a nuclear weapon. It's obviously got ballistic missile technology, so it could weaponize that nuclear weapon very quickly. But Iran has chosen not to do that. Um, it it seems to me that Iran, um, in many ways was did come across initially, you know, prior to October the 7th as a formidable power, at least a regional power, but since then Iran has portrayed itself as a paper tiger. It's quite weak. Um, um, so I suppose my question is did yesterday's or this morning's attack indicate, uh, or consolidate this weakness in the eyes of, uh, Israel in particular but also the Americans?

I think that the Iranians are under no illusions about where their powers lie. There's a reason why the Iranians propagated the idea of a Shia crescent that goes from Tehran through Iraq through Syria into Lebanon. It was primarily because the Iranians were aware and remain aware that they lack the military capabilities for any head-on confrontation with any power in the region and specifically the US power and the US bases in the region in and of themselves. I think the Iranians, after the Iran-Iraq war, it demonstrated the limited capacity of Iran to be able to engage in head-on confrontation. And that's why we've seen that Iran's military exploits in the region have all been conducted via proxies such as the establishment of militias in Iraq, which would later come together and come to form what is now known as the Hashd al-Shaabi or the popular mobilization force. It used its sort of religious connection with Bashar al-Assad to find some sort of ties and then embark in a cultural push and drive to Shiritize Damascus and the like. There were, uh, scenes that took place in Damascus under Assad that were unprecedented, including long lines of Latam where the the procession would go for Muharram to lament the the death of Hussein. We saw the Iranians since the Islamic revolution in Sudan, in Tunisia, in Bosnia, wherever they lent support to the government, they would always ask in exchange for the opening of a cultural office. And through that cultural office, they would begin to spread their ideas or their version of what happened after the death of the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam. In order to spread a more sectarian ideology, Ben Ali panicked when they started their missionary activities in Tunisia and quickly shut down the office. Bashir, when he was in the the president of Sudan, he shut down the Iranian office in Bosnia. They significantly restricted the activities of this office even though Iran was a primary or or significant supporter of their resistance. The point is Iran's military capabilities stemmed on this idea that if we can build this ideological front and then develop militias in that environment that would fight on our behalf, then we would not need to expose the Iranian army or Iranian resources on the front lines. We can use these proxies instead. And we saw them use it to full effect in the Syrian revolution when Hezbollah, who was hailed by the Sunni world as a sort of—after his own war with the Israelis—threw all of that aside to cross over into Syria on a in an ideological capacity to give victory to his ideological allies over the Syrian people who are trying to liberate their country and trying to find some sort of freedom.

The point here is it's not that Iran became a paper tiger. Iran knew where its limitations lay. When Iran decided that to intervene for—and I believe that it didn't do so for Machiavellian reasons—and the reason being is there was no political gain for Iran in intervening for—it's on record that Hassan himself was very upset at the events of October 7th, believing they were ill-timed—is when he spoke to—after October 7th—asking for support. The Iranians responded and said, "Well, you never asked us before you did October 7th. How can you expect us to support you?" This was documented in Reuters, and it was one of the reasons why the Israelis began the ground offensive because it got leaked that the Iranians had told the Palestinians, "We're not going to give you more support. You didn't consult with us." Nevertheless, Iran deployed its proxies to frustrate the Israelis and fire missiles into northern—what is what they like to refer to as Israel or we refer to as occupied territories—to fire missiles. That drove 60,000 settlers out of the lands that they stole from the Palestinians into the inner part of what we call what they call Israel, we call occupied territories. The Houthis began to fire at the Elite port. The point is Iran deployed its proxies in this regard. What Iran did not expect was that Israel would go beyond the ta and utterly destroy the proxies. Why did they not expect that? Because you know this Israeli government, this Netanyahu regime is out of control. It has very few safeguards, very few guardrails to its activity in the region.

Why is it that it just didn't see this coming? I think one thing that is worth noting, I was watching an interview with Mayor Shimemer and and some of these others. There is a collective consensus amongst analysts that very few could have predicted how far the Israelis have gone. Many people thought that this would be like what we've seen before, a few weeks or a few months of retaliation by the Israelis and then they would settle down. There was an expectation that the Americans would not allow the Israelis to go so far, especially given that they were chasing normalization with Saudi Arabia. They were chasing some sort of rewriting for the region. Brett McGurk was talking about deprioritizing the region, going to the Chinese. I don't think anyone expected the rabid nature of the Israelis. Although they were known to be rabid, no—don't expect them to go that far. And I think the Iranians—and the Iranians made it clear to the Israelis, this is tit for tat. This ends when you stop in Gaza. So you've done your operation. We won't go into Gaza itself. Just as soon as you stop, we'll stop as well. I think the Israelis, when they realized that the Iranians were uncomfortable and then they saw that Americans were not willing to restrain them—Biden in particular—I think the Israelis thought the Americans might restrain them, but they were surprised by the extent of Biden's ideological commitment to Zionism and Blinken's willingness to lend every form of diplomatic support. I think the Israelis were expecting to be reigned in and were surprised by just the extent to which Biden allowed them to go. I think that the Iranians, when they thought it would be tit for tat, as the Israelis pushed into Lebanon—which Biden once said was a red line—when they realized it wasn't a red line, the Israelis said, let's just demolish Hezbollah; let's annihilate them—and then it started a domino effect that the Israelis did not predict. In demolishing Hezbollah and its capabilities and killing and then wiping out much of the leadership of Hezbollah, it caused the domino effect in Syria. Bashar—and in Syria, the only reason he was still standing is because of the Iranian militias. Without the Iranian militias, he had no grassroots support in order to remain. Once those Iranian militias were weakened by the Israelis, suddenly the road to Damascus suddenly opened up for...

Ahmed Shar. That doesn't mean the Israelis supported Ahmed. I don't think the Israelis anticipated the impact that Hezbollah's weakness would have in Syria. Nevertheless, a domino effect. And then Israel and Iranians were surprised by just how far the collapse started taking place. That not only did it collapse in Lebanon, but Assad collapsed within 10 days after giving reassurances to the Iranians and the Russians that he had enough power in order to be able to stay in.

I think the Israelis in their surprise at what's happening and the Iranian surprise, they are beginning to realize the Iranians, it's not that they're weaker than they thought. The Iranians always knew where their strength lied. But the Israelis are saying that the rapid pace of the collapse of Iranian power is something to go and take advantage of. It's not that Iran is a paper tiger. It's that Iran made one miscalculation. Iran, instead of pursuing a common narrative with Muslims in the region, Iran very aggressively pushed the sectarian narrative. Iran very aggressively pushed the flags of Hussein and Fatima Zah and revenge for those; there's often this idea that by mentioning it you promote sectarianism.

It's important to remember that Hassan was arguably one of the greatest heroes in the Muslim world after 2006 because of his engagement with the Israelis and because he came out of that engagement having humiliated the Israelis. His Shia belief did not stop Tunisians supporting him. Did not stop Algerians lording him. Did not stop Egyptians celebrating him. The Shia was irrelevant. The Shia nature was irrelevant. The Iranians, when they went into Syria and people starting seeing videos of Iranian militias waving the flag saying, "We're taking revenge for what Yazid did to Sil Hussein." This is when people went, "Wait a minute. What are these flags? What is this idea that Iran is pushing?" And what Iran did was it alienated large segments of the population.

When ISIS emerged in Iraq, ISIS which united the Muslim world against ISIS. ISIS emerged and both Sunna and Shia were against them. The militias that Iran built in Iraq that were allied with Iranians on a sectarian basis. I'm not saying all Shia support the Iranians. I'm saying the militias specifically that supported that were supported by the Iranians. Instead of going to attack ISIS direct, they used ISIS as a false flag to go to Anbar and Dala and demographically alter the populations to change Sunni demographics into Shia demographics and they did that in Syria. What Iran did is that the flag of Palestine that it waved and the idea that it could create some sort of Muslim unity, the reality of how it implemented it in its sectarian slaughter and killing turned the Syrians against Iran. It turned Iraqis against Iran. It turned a lot of the Muslim world against Iran in such a way that as Israel bombs the Iranians, many in Syria, Saudi and Iraq are unsure whether to celebrate or whether to condemn because for them this is the tyrant. Finally, the chickens are coming home to roost for the tyrant. That's not my opinion. I'm saying as a result of how Iran built it. This is why it became a paper tiger. It wasn't a paper tiger initially. It became a paper tiger when that widespread support it once had dissipated in the blood that it spilled in order to achieve a sectarian goal instead of going beyond sectarianism and providing a unified family.

Okay. So I want to ask you an ideological question here, a question about world view because, of course, uh we know that Iran has played a horrible role in the Middle East, a belligerent role in the Middle East and Iran is responsible for the deaths of so many Muslims in Syria and and beyond. Uh and it's done that really very much for its national interest. So I think that's that's not out for question and anyone who follows this show and anyone who follows our shows together knows that we've been very clear about calling out Iran and and its activities in in the Muslim world but also praising it when it has done good uh in in the Muslim world. However, there are many today on social media who are gloating who are saying finally, you know, the chickens have come home to roost. Maybe some Syrians are saying that as well uh about these attacks on Iran. So just as as a quick answer like how should we as Muslims uh observe and perceive this Israeli attack on on Iran?

Iran's gamble in the region was that no matter what it does in the region, the Americans no longer have the appetite to exert effort in the region in the way that it used to. It outmaneuvered the Americans in Iraq. It outmaneuvered the Americans in Syria. It was able to use its ideological base to subvert what the Americans were trying to achieve in those areas. Sometimes I don't think necessarily that you need to have a position on everything that happens. I think that it is equally justifiable or equally uh legitimate to condemn the attacks on Iran while also pointing out that one of the reasons those attacks are able to happen is because of Iran's actions in the region that Iran's actions that lost public opinion created an environment where Israel is able to fly over Arab airspace or Israel is able to conduct operations in the region that perhaps once upon a time would have been sabotaged by Arab nations seeking to defend their brother Iran from an attack on the part of the Israelis.

I think that in the explanation it's it's it's equal to say that I'm against the slaughter of what's happening in Iran. I take no pleasure in seeing an apartheid occupier colonizer go and bomb my brothers and sisters in Iran and the like. Do not gloat at the death of innocent civilians. Do not gloat because it could be you tomorrow but rather let your heart feel pain at the state of the region and let's see how with the principles Allah told us which is principles of forgiveness, of reconciliation, of moving forward and I'm not saying the Syrians should forgive. I'm not saying the Syrians should ignore what Iran did cuz I don't think Iran is has asked for has apologized yet for it did in Syria. I'm not belittling what happened in Syria. What I'm saying is in the long term if we can find a way to say to the Iranians that we can unite the region on more than just sectarianism, I think that would be more of benefit.

I want to understand something Sammy about the relationship between the Trump administration and the Netanyahu, let's call it the regime, the Israeli regime because, of course, there's a lot lot of conversation about prior to this event about a split, you know, a a conscious uncoupling between the two sides, right, you know, the Trump administration has been restraining, it seemed at least on on paper, restraining uh the uh Israelis from its more regional ambitions yet unleashing it on on Gaza and not paying very much attention to it after the first ceasefire. Uh so there's all of that going on and you know many commentators, in fact, the majority of commentators believed that that impulse of restraining the Israelis would win through but, of course, uh yesterday uh the uh Americans in effect greenlighted this operation. I think it's it's pretty clear that they knew about the operation even though there is a contradiction, right, the state department, Rubio did suggest that uh America had nothing to do with this but but Trump has and and Netanyahu have confirmed that there was coordination or at least or some level of of organization uh even if it's at a high level so just allow us to understand uh what is that relationship between the Americans and the Israelis, how tight do you think form uh policy formulation is currently uh um uh currently in engagement between the two sides?

I think first and foremost American policy always take priority takes priority over the Israeli policy. Adam Bola, Trump's envoy to discuss the release of hostages with Hamas, the one who said I'm talking directly with Hamas. When he was asked by a Fox News presenter or CNN for asked by a Fox News presenter or CNN presenter, "Won't the Israelis be unhappy that you are talking directly to Hamas?" He replied and said, "Well, we're looking after American interest. We're not looking at it's it's America comes first here." I'm paraphrasing what he said. Having said that, I think that the Israelis lobbied the US very hard for this. It is possible to reconcile Rubio's statement with Trump's statement by suggesting that Trump greenlighted but didn't allow US assets to be used in the attack. That what Trump did was he withdrew the US assets that might be attacked in retaliation by the Iranians and rather instead just took his hand off the leash, let the Israelis run wild in Iran before grabbing the leash once more in order to give plausible deniability and say to the Iranians, "I let the Israelis loose, but I haven't used American power yet, so come back and discuss." And I think there are certainly differences between the US administration and Israel on a number of issues ranging from on foreign policy. One of them is Syria. The Trump administration believes in the argument that is being presented by Erdogan, by Muhammad bin Salman and by Ahmed Shar in which they are saying to the Americans that, "look, you may not like what happened in Damascus. You may not like Ahmed Shar. You may not like the kind of individual he is. You may not like his ideological beliefs, but once upon a time you had Iran here. And I know that you hate the Iranians more than you hate Ahmed. And Ahmed hates the Iranians just as much as you hate these Iranians. Ahmed Desar is your guard dog. Ahmed Shar can be the one who is your wall against Iran in the region." Because for Ahmed, his priority is not the Israelis. His priority is cleaning up Syria of all of the damage that Iran did, to reverse the demographic changes that Iran did in large parts of Syria, to reverse the cultural damage that Iran did in its propagation of its ideologies and the like, and to try to find a Syria that is safe from Iranian plot to try to take over again. And for those who say this in exaggeration, it's important to remember that I think it's Alisham Khani himself, if I'm not mistaken, or or another Iranian MP in 2014 who famously said that when the Houthis took over Sana'a, they said that we in Iran now control four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Sana'a and Beirut, indicating that the Iranians believe that Syria was now under our control. It's part of that land bridge that allows us to get to Lebanon. Ahmed Shara is pitching himself as "I am your guard against the Iranians." So Trump is saying, "hang on a second. I think this could work for me because I'm convinced these guys hate the Iranians. I know they do. I know they've got bitter feud with the Iranians. If they promise to protect Syria against the Iranians, I'm willing to support." The Israelis are saying that even if he protects you against the Iranians, if you give him time to become strong, he'll turn on us because he's supported by Erdogan. And we know that Erdogan has only keeps good ties with us because he's weak. When he's strong, he'll abandon ties and he dreams of entering al-Aqsa. Have you not seen the movies that he's created about Salahuddin? Have you not seen his rhetoric? His whole Islamic and Muslimic and whatever words they want to use. Erdogan dreams of conquering us. We can't trust Ahmed. The Israelis have been bombarding southern Syria in the hope that Ahmed will retaliate and attack the Israelis, giving a belly for the Americans to say, "We're going to go into Syria because you attack the Israelis and therefore we're going to have to attack you." Ahmed Shar hasn't attacked the Israelis. He's backing off aware that the Israelis are baiting him into a war to drag the US into a war against him. And Ahmed is holding tight and saying, "Syrians, be patient. I know you don't like what's happening in southern Syria, but I promise you that it's temporary. Israel is trying to ruin it. I'm talking to Trump and I can get the Israelis off via talking to Donald Trump."

On foreign policy on Syria, they completely disagree. I think that when it comes to policy on Yemen, Trump and Netanyahu clearly diverge. Trump pulled a ceasefire, did a ceasefire with the Houthis without consulting the Israelis. Why? Because the story goes according to the reports that Trump asked Sentcom, the US generals, "how much money are we spending in our bombing campaign in Yemen," and they told him, "we're spending about 1.5, 1.6 billion a month or something like that, 1 billion a month." So Trump was so angry about this particular number that he contacted the Houthis and said to them, "Guys, let's make a ceasefire. I don't want to spend 1 billion on it. I don't want to spend American resources on it. I don't see why I need to spend my time bombing the Houthis. There's no immediate threat to American interest and I don't need to." So he goes and signs a unilateral ceasefire and then comes out and says the Houthis, I rate them, they were able to hold their ground and stand firm while the Israelis essentially went into hysteria about how dare Trump go to Yemen without consulting the Israelis.

The third point on which they disagree: Gaza. When Adam Bola went to negotiate with Hamas, the reason why the Israelis got so upset is because Adam Bola did it without the Israelis knowing. Meaning Trump sent an envoy to Hamas without telling the Israelis because he believed the Israelis would jeopardize the deal. So he said, "These Israelis are annoying me. Move out of the way. Let me talk to Hamas directly so I can secure the lease of hostages." And according to Adam Bola, "I can negotiate a 10-year ceasefire with Hamas and I'll force the Israelis to do so." Suggesting that whatever discussion was taking place between the Israelis and Donald Trump, they did not see eye to eye on Gaza and there is this wrestling match that's taking place.

The fourth point, when Donald Trump sacked Mike Wals, the national security adviser, because he was co-conspiring with the Israelis to force Trump into a war with the Iranians, and then Trump sacks four Zionist ministers about a week or two weeks ago from the time of this recording, it indicates that whatever the Zionists are telling Trump in the White House is not something that Trump wants to hear. Whatever they're advising him in the White House, Trump is not entirely on board.

Fifth point, when Netanyahu goes to Washington three times in order to meet with Trump and say to Trump, "Mr. Trump, I want war with Iran. Mr. President, I want to continue genocide in Gaza." And then Trump ambushes Netanyahu in the press conference and says, "I want to deal with the Iranians." And then in another press conference, he says, "You keep talking to me about Turkey. Erdogan is my good friend, and if I you two go to fight, I can't promise you I'll support you against Erdogan. You need to figure out with him because I like the guy. I like Erdogan." It clearly shows they're not completely aligned on foreign policy. And this is what leads me to believe that Israel and Trump have very different interpretations about what happened in Iran today. The Israelis believe this is potentially the start of a war where we can finally get rid of Iran, redraw the borders, take land from Jordan, take land in the West Bank, take land from Lebanon, and potentially even from Saudi Arabia and force bin Salman to give us land so we can build this greater Israel. For Donald Trump, this only matters in the framework of trying to get Iran to push for a deal. That doesn't mean that they're aligned. The problem with this analysis, however, is that on the ground, the manifestation on the ground is more bombing, more bloodshed, and more killing. But the reason why I highlight these points of disagreement is because they didn't exist under Biden. They exist under Trump. And I think what the Israelis are concerned about more than anything else is something that was epitomized in a conference attended by Melanie Phillips, a Zionist writer, British journalist here, writer who went to America and one of her co-panelists at that conference summit of Jews and Zionists. The the co-panelist on the podium told the audience, "This is the first time we're losing American public opinion. We need to do better because if we lose American public opinion, we will lose America. And if we lose America, then Israel will collapse. Israel won't be able to stand." And Melanie Phillips then went on the stage and said, "We need to be bolder about saying that the Palestinians are lying. We need to be bolder and saying that there is no Palestine," suggesting there is a concern that the frictions emerging under Donald Trump might have lasting consequences even if the actions look synchronized today.

So, so Samia, I mean that that's uh really clear to me. Um uh so there is a divergence between uh on between American foreign policy and Israeli foreign policy and I think that uh sometimes that's lost when we talk about uh Israel as a as an actor in in the region. Uh but let's just talk about American foreign policy because, of course, what we've become used to uh after the cold war and even during the cold war is a grand strategy. The Americans would have a strategic approach to the world. And, of course, the tactics will change once in a while, but there is a discernable strategy to their policy. And now, it seems to me that the Trump administration doesn't quite have that. They're moving from issue to issue, and often it comes down to the person of Donald Trump as to what they're going to do next. um do you discern a strategy to this administration or is it a little bit more ad hoc um and and unclear in terms of what their approach is to this region?

I think sometimes we underestimate the extent to which the current generation of Americans view war. This is not the generation of 9/11 anymore where there was the vivid images of the twin towers being hit by the planes and the sudden blood lust to just kill and slaughter. It doesn't matter if the planes took off from or if the people had come from a certain country, we'll just go bomb Iraq, which has nothing to do with it. We'll just go and bomb whatever. This generation is a generation that saw defeat in Afghanistan, that saw nothing achieved in Iraq and just American soldiers dying for no reason. On top of being told stories that in Vietnam they failed, that they didn't achieve much in the first Cold War. Yeah. That all of the military engagements that America has engaged in since 1950, since World War II, have not been successful engagements by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever. So Trump and this even Obama when Obama came to power, Obama's pitch when he became president was, "I will end these forever wars. These wars are not bringing us any benefit. I know Americans you're angry. I know you're upset. I know you don't have an appetite to send our boys abroad anymore." And Obama got roped in by the neocons to continue the war as did Trump later, as did Biden, although Trump started winding them down, talking to the Taliban in Doha and then withdrawing from Syria and all of these other various different moves. But the point is it's not Trump as an individual who's doing it. It's a it's a noticeable shift in the American public opinion that American public are no longer in favor of wars in the way that they used to be. Look at the reaction to this attack by the Israelis on the Iranians. You've got Candace Owens coming out and saying to the right-wing audience, one of the most watched podcast amongst the right-wingers coming out and saying, "Why are we going to another war for the sake of a foreign nation, for the sake of Israel? What benefit do we have here?" You have Marjorie Taylor Green coming out and saying, "Why are we going to war again? What is the benefit here for the Americans?" You have Matt Walsh saying, "Mr. Trump, you said never again. We're not going to go to war again. Why I'm not willing to spend American blood and American money to go," Carlson says, "These guys are trying to drag us into a war. Why are we listening to the Israelis and to these neocons?" This generation of Americans are not the post-9/11 generation in which they saw the Twin Towers being destroyed and there was a bloodlust. This is a generation that no longer believes that America should necessarily be engaged in a lot of these adventures and military escapades. And this is the problem that Israelis are having in America itself in this idea that it's not that there is an American foreign policy per se. It's that American foreign policy knows what it does not want. What it does not want is to become bogged down in forever wars again. It doesn't know what it wants because as soon as they talk about withdrawing from the Middle East, they panic that China is coming in and they decide to stay. So they don't know what they want in the region. They don't know what it looks like in terms of what the region should look like. What they do know is they don't want to spend American resources. They don't want to spend American troops. And they don't want.

To spend American blood. And this is what Trump represents. This is what Biden had to wrestle with amongst his own party. And Biden's adamant support for the Israelis resulted in such a decline in support for Israel amongst the Democrats that it's now at 21%—only 21% of Democrats support the Israelis because they could not understand why Biden, an American president, is so committed to a foreign nation.

I'm not saying that American foreign policy is moving away from imperialism. I do think that one of the reasons there is this huge trade war with the Chinese is that America is worried that it will lose its edge. It will lose its competitive edge and it will no longer be the main hegemon in the power. America doesn't want to share the world. But certainly, I think that the absence of an appetite amongst the American population for military adventurism is seeping into American foreign policy, where now you have this sort of schizophrenic approach. Does Trump listen to his base that doesn't want a war? Or does he listen to unpopular neocons and go to war? Does Trump listen to his base and stop using American resources to prop up apartheid regimes in Israel? Or does Trump listen to the hawks and listen to those who want war, even if that costs him his base in America? That's the debate that's taking place in American foreign policy. Who do we listen to, Zionist donors or the American population?

And I'll finish on this point. John Hudson had an excellent tweet during the US elections, and I mentioned it numerous times in the podcast where we sat together. John Hudson said that new data—and he was indicating it's unprecedented data—he was saying new data captures the difference between what donors are asking of Biden and 13% of Democrat supporters who are willing to abandon Biden if he listens to this request from the donors. Meaning, to paraphrase, donors, lobbyists, those with special interests were asking of Biden what the Americans did not want. And Biden was caught between the millions of dollars that the donors were asking of him and the ordinary American population that doesn't want to see the special interests of these lobbies realized. And now we're seeing it now, whether it's in the New York race or the like. We're seeing now that the debate is becoming: do we represent New York or do we represent Israel? Do we represent the American citizens or is it Israel first? Do we give $8 billion to those who suffered in the hurricane in Florida, or do we give priority to Israel first before we give money to those who had their homes devastated? Do we look after those who can't afford healthcare in America first? Or do we give $14 billion to the Israelis first so they can go and do whatever it is they want to do to achieve their interests, and the Americans are told to wait, they're told to suffer because Israel comes first? This is the debate that's taking place in American foreign policy. That's not to say that Zionism will be decisively defeated in American foreign policy; what it means is Zionism is in a very new struggle in American foreign policy, whereby before all it had to contend with was a difference of opinion amongst advisers. Now it has to contend with American public opinion that it is losing rapidly.

So we've got this disconnect between the MAGA base and the neocons, the neo—the liberal interventionists who, you know, for a very long time have developed and coined American foreign policy. But we thought at the very beginning of this presidency that Trump, unlike the first-term Trump, was going to clean out these neocons from his administration. It seems to me that the residue of these neocons as well as the Zionist lobby still very much remains in American foreign policy.

So let's talk about then, directly, Gaza policy because, of course, at the very beginning of the Trump presidency, he was suing for some form of ceasefire. He then lost interest, it seems to me, and allowed the Israelis to break the terms of the original agreement, and phase two was never realized. We've now seen that since then Donald Trump announced his Gaza Riviera, you know, this idea of cleaning out Gaza. And I don't think he's ever stepped back from that—the idea of just removing Gaza, the Palestinians from their land and establishing this so-called Riviera of the Middle East, this sort of utopia or whatever, this Nana of the Middle East. What is Trump's current policy on Gaza? I think that Trump's policy on Gaza is not set. Trump does not lean towards any particular solution. Trump follows the waves that are being buffeted against him. Whether it's the Zionist wave or whether it's the wave that's coming from his base. When the wave from his base, when he came to power, was particularly strong as a result of the shift in sentiments amongst his base, Candace Owens went from being Zionist to essentially calling it a genocide and turning against the Zionist. Tucker Carlson and these likes and Matt Walsh. Trump responded to his base by imposing a ceasefire against the wishes of the Israelis. Trump had promised there'd be a ceasefire by the time he gets to power. He threatened to unleash hell on Hamas. Hamas said, "You can't do worse than what we're already in." And when Trump realized that Hamas were not going to buckle, he made the Israelis buckle instead because, in Trump's calculations, the base is more important than the Israelis.

The concern of the Israelis was such that Netanyahu went to go see Donald Trump to say to him, "Mr. President, what on earth are you doing?" And Donald Trump would respond by meeting with Israeli hostages and saying, "I'm going to unleash hell on the Palestinians once more." The Israelis were very keen to ensure that phase two does not happen. And as part of ensuring phase two doesn't happen, they specifically targeted Witkov, the envoy who had negotiated the ceasefire. They called him a Qatari Islamic agent and the like. There is an interview between Whit and Tucker Carlson where Tucker Carlson says, "I can't believe people are calling you a Qatari Islamist agent," indicating that amongst right-wing circles and Zionist circles, there was a push to call the Jewish Steve Witkov a traitor to Zionism and is working for the agenda of Hamas. Moreover, the Israelis were particularly troubled by news that emerged that Trump had sent an envoy to talk to Hamas directly without letting the Israelis know, sending Adam Bola to not only discuss the release of American hostages but to discuss a 10-year truce. And when it got leaked, instead of Trump removing Bola, Trump sent Adam Bola to the news, including Fox News, to defend the position of negotiating with Hamas, even if it upset the Israelis. Which is why the presenter asks Adam Bola, "Are you not worried the Israelis would be upset?" And he says, "We're Americans. We're looking for American interests first and foremost. These guys don't have horns on their head, and we're negotiating a 10-year ceasefire." The Zionist lobby goes into hysteria. Why? Not because the Palestinians are pushing back against them, but that whereas Biden gave them unfettered support, here was Trump going behind their backs, pursuing an alternative policy in Gaza to that which the Israelis want.

The breakdown in the ceasefire comes about as a result of Israel trying to force the status quo and also Trump becoming sick and tired of the constant pressure over Gaza and him deeming it not a priority. Him considering other issues a priority, whether it's Russia, Ukraine, Zelensky, and the like, and the Israelis take advantage to ruin that ceasefire. Nevertheless, Trump and Israel are not aligned on Gaza. And the proof is that where Israel has been pushing for the displacement of Palestinians in Gaza, Trump initially suggested he was on board by proposing a Riviera, then King Abdullah of Jordan went to the White House to sit with Donald Trump and said to him, "Mr. President, with the greatest of respect, you're a man of peace. If you let these Palestinians be displaced, if they enter Jordan and Egypt, they will resist from Jordan and Egypt. I can't guarantee the safety of Israel. If I close them down, then my own people will revolt against me. Our regimes will fall. They'll be replaced by more Islamist regimes that are anti-Israel, and Israel will collapse regardless. This plan that you think is sound will actually ruin the Israelis. Please don't force the displacement." Trump comes out in the press conference and says the Riviera was just an idea. "Let's see where it goes." The Israelis panic again, in particular because when King Abdullah goes back to the region after meeting with Donald Trump, Trump has said "unleash hell," and now the Riviera is just an idea. When King Abdullah goes back to the region, he tells CC that Trump has indicated to me that he's willing to accept a plan and that he's not necessarily on board with the Israeli plan. "If we give him a viable plan, Trump might follow it. Trump is not Biden. Biden only followed the Israeli plan. Trump might listen to us." So CC quickly gets a plan together and says, "Let's do an emergency Arab League meeting. I'll set up a police force in Gaza." Hamas agrees to surrender authority to a different authority, and Jordan will work on the creation of a new Palestinian authority. Hamas have some misgivings about the new police force and handing over their weapons, but broadly they agree with the Egypt plan. The Israelis, their lobbying of Donald Trump comes up against the wall of Trump saying, "Let me see what the Arabs propose first." And this is when the Israelis reach out to the UAE. They say, "Trump is not listening to us. UAE, I need you to make sure that CC fails in this." So the UAE, they send a message to CC and they tell him, "CC, what's the draft of your Arab League summit?" CC says, "We categorically reject the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza." The UAE say, "Hang on a second. Let's edit it. Let's put 'we categorically reject the forced displacement of Palestinians' because the Israelis are not saying they're going to force the Palestinians." Trump is not saying, "We're going to force the Palestinians." Let's add this phrase 'forced,' indicating we'll accept a displacement, just not forced displacement. CC refuses because CC sees that this is UAE representing the Israelis. As a result, Bin doesn't attend the meeting. Bin Salman doesn't attend the meeting. Their absence means that Algeria's Tabun doesn't attend the meeting because it's clear there's no Arab United Front. It's a wasted effort. And the Arab plan ends up collapsing. And Trump turns around and says, in the absence of any plans, "Let them figure it out. I'm focused on Ukraine. I'm focused on Russia. I'm focused on Zelensky. I'm focused on China. I'm focused on tariffs. Gaza is not my priority."

At the same time, however, as Israel continues in its genocide and struggles to find a solution, remember Trump's base are still talking about it, and then clips are going viral of Douglas Murray being humiliated by Dave Smith. Trump's base keep talking about the genocide. So it becomes a matter for Trump once more. Trump then is scheduled to go to a meeting. And here is where I think a change happens in Trump's approach. Trump says that, "I'm willing to go to the region. I'm willing to go to Saudi Arabia first instead of the United Kingdom. Last time they gave me $450 billion. If they give me $550 or $600 billion, I might go to them." The Saudi crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, sees an opportunity. He says, "Yet Trump, I will give you $1 trillion if you come and visit me in Saudi Arabia." All of the news around Trump's visit suggests that Trump is going to the region to announce a ceasefire. Some go way beyond to say he's going to recognize a Palestinian state, which I don't think was ever on the cards. But some suggest that Trump is going to the region in order to call for a ceasefire. And the mood is the Israelis are panicking. The Israelis are saying to Trump, "Why are you going to the region? At least consult with us and tell us what you're going to do. At least tie any deal with normalization." And it becomes clear Trump is not going to tie any deal with the Saudis with normalization. All of the articles coming out of the Israelis are suggesting that Trump is not the ally we thought he was. That this visit is going to be a disaster. That Trump is not consulting with us and he's sidelining us. And when they ask for a show of support, when they tell Trump, "Include Tel Aviv on your visit," not only does Trump refuse to include Tel Aviv on his visit to go and show solidarity with the Israelis, he cancels Esper's visit, the defense secretary, to Tel Aviv to express his anger and say, "I'm not even going to send Esper there." And in the goodwill gesture of Hamas to release Eden Alexander on the plane to receive him just before his visit, Trump sends Adam Bola and Witkov on the plane almost as a poke in the eye to the Israelis to say, "These two who you pushed to have me remove—to remove them from the case—I've put them back on the case. They're now going to take the hostages." The Israelis are reeling.

When Trump lands in Riyadh or lands in Saudi Arabia, Bob Woodward wrote a book about when Blinken, Biden's Secretary of State, went to the region. He writes that on the plane, "we were expecting that the Arabs would give us hell for our support of what was happening in Gaza. And Blinken was bracing himself for a hairdryer treatment. And Blinken was shocked to find that not only did he not get the hairdryer treatment, he was shocked to find that predominantly the Muslim rulers were saying, 'Well, if you're going after Hamas, go for it. We have no problem with what Israel is doing to Hamas in Gaza. We have no problem what's happening in Palestine and the like.'" Almost as if Blinken found there was almost tacit support for what's happening. And of course, Jared Kushner would later go to Saudi Arabia and in the heart of Saudi Arabia would say that they're trying to ruin normalization, but they won't be able to ruin normalization while the genocide was taking place. Trump goes to Riyadh expecting that the Saudis are going to say to him, "We'll give you $1 trillion, but give us a ceasefire in Gaza." Instead, all he hears is Vision 2030, the setting up of a nuclear technology for civilian development and Iran. "Please stop Iran's nuclear weapon. Please give me a security agreement against Iran. Guarantee me what Biden would not give me, which is security against the Iranians because they've surrounded me. The militias are up there in the north. Yemen Houthies are in the south. They keep bombing my oil facilities and they keep threatening me. And Iran mainland is in the east. Mr. President, I need your Patriot missiles. I need you to guarantee my security." Instead of hearing about Gaza, all he heard was Iran. When the UAE heard that bin Salman was giving $1 trillion, the UAE said, "I don't want bin Salman to be the primary influence over Donald Trump." So they say to Donald Trump, "We'll give you $1.4 trillion, but come to Abu Dhabi and what we want? We want impunity in Congress over what we're doing in Sudan, in Libya, and the like. And we also want Iran's nuclear activity to be curtailed because Iran is a threat in the region. We want Iran, Iran, Iran, and Iran." Qatar panic. Qatar said, "Bin Salman, bin Zayed, they both did the blockade on me with the support of Donald Trump. I have to give Trump something so Trump doesn't allow them to do the same. Yet Trump, I will give you $1.4, $4 trillion and a Boeing 747 plane that's called the 'Palace in the skies' as long as you don't listen to bin Salman and bin Zayed."

The point is, on Donald Trump's trip, where the Americans are expecting Gaza to be the number one issue, they find Gaza a marginal issue. They find it is not a priority. They find that there is no urgency with regards to Gaza. It's important to remember, Jalen, that before Trump went on the visit, the expectation of a ceasefire was such that even European nations like France and the UK were coming out and saying that we're willing to recognize a Palestinian state. They were suggesting that the shift in America was allowing an environment where we want to be on the right side. We should be proactive and say we're going to recognize Palestine because it looks like this issue is winding down. As soon as Trump finished his visit and didn't call for a ceasefire, didn't talk much about Gaza, and he flew back to Washington, the UK and France, four or five days ago from the time of this recording, came out and said that not only will we not recognize a Palestinian state, but maybe the Saudis should be encouraged to normalize now with the Israelis. Why? Because when they went to the Muslim leaders, they found that Gaza is not a red line. When they sat with these Muslim leaders, they found that Palestine is not a red line. Genocide is not a red line. They found that the power they were leveraging, the money they were using to buy Trump—they found that we thought these Muslims would lambast for Gaza; it turns out it's not a priority. So why would Trump be more royal than the king? Why should Trump pursue the ceasefire when the Arab states are not making the ceasefire the priority either?

Even on the issue of the flotilla, Erdogan refused to allow the flotilla to leave from Istanbul. Across the board, the Muslim leaders did not make Gaza a priority in their relations. Even the relations between Turkey and Trump. Instead of Gaza being the priority, Syria was the priority. Erdogan was saying, "I want to make sure PKK can't operate in Syria. I want to make sure I get my share of Syria. I want to make sure Ahmed gets Syria." In other words, Gaza was not the priority. Hakan Fidan, the foreign minister of Turkey, was greeting Marco Rubio with warm hugs and the like. Why? Because Trump understood that for them there's at least five, six different priorities before Gaza comes on it. So when Trump goes back to the White House, not only does he stop talking about a ceasefire because they're no longer talking about it, but Gaza begins to fall down the pecking order. The only reason now there is a suggestion there might be a ceasefire—there's a report that suggests that Trump, on the 10th of July, has agreed to go to Tel Aviv for the first time in the second term on the condition a ceasefire is achieved beforehand—is not because the Muslim leaders are calling for it. It's because he sees the rise in his base and he's concerned Israel is trying to drag him into a war, and Trump does not want the war. Trump wants a de-escalation. My point is the pressure is coming from this side. Trump and Israel don't agree on Gaza. Trump and Israel don't agree on the future of Gaza. Trump and Israel don't agree on the future of Palestine. It's that Trump is disinterested and has no vision for what it should look like. While the Israelis are trying to create a vision for Donald Trump and drag him into that vision, but Trump is torn between two waves: a wave of Zionists that tell him, "Let us annex the West Bank and take over Palestine," and a wave of a change in public opinion from his base that's telling him, "Mr. President, we need to stop listening to the Israelis." And it's unclear which wave is stronger.

Sammy, when we last spoke a few months back, actually, we spoke about how it's within the gift of these Muslim rulers to dent, if not stop, this genocide. And the Muslim rulers are not using their political leverage to call for an end to this genocide in Gaza. In fact, they've got more parochial nationalistic interests that they're worried about. In your answer there, you talked about Saudi Arabia in particular, but there has been a shift in tone at least of the Saudis, it seems. The Saudis today, for example, condemned as aggression the attack on Iran. The Saudis have taken the Abraham Accords off the table. I mean, I think a few months ago, we were talking about how it was very likely that normalization would be signed very soon between the Saudis and Israel. So something has shifted and changed. There is a little bit more—they're more upfront in condemning the Israelis today than they were maybe even two or three months back. The dua of the in the Haramain is now given for the people of Gaza. So there has been a shift. What more would you expect for the Saudis to do?

I don't think there's been a necessarily a change in the Saudi position. The dynamics remain the same. Saudi airspace remains open for Israeli airlines. Israeli delegations are visiting Saudi Arabia. We've seen Israeli journalist YouTubers visiting Medina Monara. Bin Salman's two billion plus investment in Israel via Jared Kushner's investment fund continues to flow through the Israeli economy. In other words, as far as the de facto push towards normalization has taken place, none of that has been reversed. Bahrain

Has not reversed normalization with the Israelis, suggesting the Saudis have not demanded it of the Bahrainis. Given that Bahrain was kicked into normalization as a deposit by the Saudis when they said they couldn't normalize themselves because of backlash, but they were willing to show goodwill by forcing Bahrain to normalize.

I think the statements made by Saudi Arabia is more about trying to maintain the balance between an angry public opinion over genocide with the actual position of the Saudis in which they have not made Palestine a priority. And there's a reason why they haven't made Palestine a priority. It's because the Saudis are concerned about the implications of a ceasefire domestically.

The Saudis are concerned that given that there is a widespread view that the Saudis have betrayed the Palestinians and that they were complicit in the genocide that took place, there is a concern that in a region that has seen a regime in Damascus fall to an armed group that persisted over the years and then managed to take power. There's a concern in Saudi Arabia that a ceasefire that is presented as a Palestinian victory against Israeli aggression might inspire populations across the Arab world to begin to turn on their own regimes and believe that even if the world is against you, you can still defeat it with the support of Allah subhana wa tala.

The concern in Saudi is that if the ceasefire is presented as an abandoned group of Palestinians having weathered this genocidal storm of an apartheid occupying power and colonial power, then people will say that even if you don't have the support of regimes and the like you can still stand on your feet because Israel didn't enex Gaza. It didn't take Gaza; wasn't able to occupy more territory and it was frustrated despite two months of bombardment and being supported by the Americans and the Europeans.

The Saudis need a ceasefire by which the Palestinians are a defeated party that are shown mercy in a ceasefire by the intervention of Arab nations that stepped in and managed to negotiate the ceasefire on behalf of a nation that is to be pied, that nation that is Palestine. Because what the Saudis fear is that in Saudi Arabia itself, a ceasefire where the Palestinians are deemed to be victorious in spite of Saudis complicity will result in unrest within Saudi Arabia itself.

There is a concern in the region that Egypt and Jordan in particular, the regimes are particularly fragile and if any of these regimes fall, it will result in a domino effect. In other words, something similar to perhaps to an Arab Spring version two, which is the narrative that the Israelis are trying to push as well. Yay. Laid of the centrists, if there's such a thing exists in Israel, is saying that our actions in Gaza are jeopardizing the security of Egypt and Jordan. These are our allies. We should be careful about preserving these regimes and not putting them in a position whereby their people might turn against them and topple these regimes that are in essence our allies.

And I also think for the Saudis, one of their main issues is that the immediate security concerns regarding Iran means that for them, Palestine is more of a distraction and that until they are able to secure an effective security arrangement against the Iranians that will prevent a repeat of 2019 when Houthis fired missiles at oil facilities, when pro-Iran militias in Iraq filed missiles at the Royal Palace, actions that didn't result in American intervention. Trump's America refused to intervene and protect the Saudis as well. The Saudis believe that how do we keep a balance where we assure the Israelis that we still want normalization while we do enough dua in the haram to keep our population appeased while trying to secure what we want from the Americans and keeping the Iranians at bay.

And the final point worth mentioning here is that in this very concise answer and the final point worth mentioning here is that the Saudi crown prince Muhammad bin Salman believes there is no real pressure to move with regards to Palestine because in spite of the reports of complicity in being seen to be close to the Israelis or refusing to abandon the trajectory of getting close to the Israelis, this is not affecting regional powers appeasing Muhammad. bin Salman. The Syrian minister of endowment of minister of endowment told bin Salman during the Hajj season when they were at a dinner that I believe in my heart you are the one who will unite the umah. We've seen Ahmed in Damascus go to visit the Saudi crown prince Muhammad bin Salman seeking funds and the like and appeasing Muhammad bin Salman in a bid to secure those funds to rebuild his country. We've seen Erdogan try to appease the Saudi crown prince Muhammad bin Salman to secure money in order to be able to rebuild Turkey. We've seen Trump go to visit Muhammad bin Salman to improve the ties and investments and the like and whatnot. We've seen the refuse to talk about anything bin Salman does as part of their reconciliation pact in order to try to keep the peace. Bin Salman sees that for all of the anger amongst the Muslim populations, Muslim nations are still seeking to appease the Saudi crown prince Muhammad. So there's no urgency to move with regards to gun.

Is the UAE really a state of hypocritical Arab Zionists? I think it's important to separate between the people and the regime. There is I met an Imirati when I was in the US and I remember asking and saying, "Do you guys really not care? Do you not give a damn about what's happening in Palestine?" And I was rebuked. The Imirati said, "Well, you of all people should know better. You know what it's like to live in the UAE." Mhm. They were telling a story that one day they were sitting with friends talking about Gaza and someone shut the toilet bathroom, the bathroom door and everybody went, you know, terrified that somebody had been listening in. They said we were talking in whispers and we had our phones on the other side of the room. the people. It's important to remember that these are police states generally. And I think a lot of the images that you see on Instagram and the like, they are people who go there to live private lives within their four walls and restrict Islam to the spiritual, not to the social transformation that perhaps the prophet Muhammad came to achieve.

In terms of the UAE regime itself, the UAE believes that there are immediate benefits to normalization with the Israelis that are simply not worth jeopardizing for the sake of Palestine. It's important to remember that the reason the UAE normalized is because they believed that Israel is the key to the White House. And if you normalize with the Israelis, you get unfettered access to the White House and therefore impunity in your foreign policy. And you're also able to wield the White House in your policy. And for the UAE, that is a huge boon that they are not willing to give up. Particularly when you consider what they're trying to achieve in Sudan today whereby their militia that they supported and that they backed and they elevated in Sudan has failed to take the capital Kum has failed to fulfill the coup designed to prevent Sudan from becoming an example of a revolution that might deliver Islam to power democratically which is what the UAE fears the most. So what the UAE has done in Sudan is it senti to Nala and Al Faser and to the western part towards the Darur areas in the hope that can set up a rival administration and the UAE has taken a group of civilians led by a man called Abdullah who was a former prime minister under the the under the people who negotiated the for power after the Omar Bashir was toppled. They've put Abdullah as the potential interim prime minister of this rival administration. This rival administration cannot survive without international recognition. The UAE believes that if I reverse normalization with the Israelis now, they will not help me to get America to recognize this militias parallel government in the UAE has been going via Chad, via Kenya, via Ethiopia and via Haftar in Libya, securing the border in those areas in favor of this militia in the hope they can split Sudan into two because they were unable to take Sudan entirely. to get international recognition. They are relying on the Israelis to secure that in the Congress and the White House. Particularly given that the US, although not opposed to the genocide in Sudan, although not opposed to regime change, although not opposed to the UAE's overall aims of preventing any Islamic power in Sudan in of itself, are uncomfortable with the tactics that the UAE is using because they believe that it's causing them a bit of discomfort to be seen to be openly supporting a genocide in Sudan. America wants to be seen as a sort of mediating power even if they are not in reality a mediating power. UAE will not compromise relations with Israel for that.

UAE is also interested in carving Yemen into two with a southern separatist movement ruling the south and with a very weak northern part ruled by the Houthis because most of the resources is in the south. The UAE believe that if we split Yemen into two and there is a narrative in UAE to split Yemen back to what it was as they say in quotation marks in the creation of South Yemen. They believe they can paralyze the Houthis by making them dependent on the resources in the south. In order to secure international recognition in the south, which is something that the Saudis do not want. In order to secure international recognition, the UAE believes that they can use Israel to lobby Congress to get Washington to internationally recognize that government too. and force the Europeans to do so as well.

The UAE in Libya believes that given Haftar has failed to take Tripoli, failed to take all of Libya, the UAE wants to split Libya into two and set up a rival administration, which it has done in eastern Libya. The problem with this rival administration is it lacks international recognition. The UAE believes it needs Israel in order to get Israel to lobby Washington to secure international recognition to prevent the Libyans from having any ability to choose their own rulers. Because in the words of Muhammad bin Zed in a New York article speaking to Brett Mgherk and Jake Sullivan, he said, "If you allow these people to rule, they will choose a 1400-year-old book as a constitution, the Quran. And if you allow these people to rule, you need to understand what the people of this region are like. If a man was to stand up in Mecca and say I am the mahi, 80% of my army will go to join them. Do you Americans really want that?" And they said no, we don't want that. But the Americans don't like to be led by the UAE. And they have reservations on some of the tactics. Not tactics of genocide, but the manner in which it's being done. The UAE believes that I'm not going to compromise my relations with Israel, which I need to keep the Americans on board for the sake of the Palestinians. And that's why there is this push in the UAE to say that the Palestinians deserve it. They brought it on themselves. It's nothing to do with me. Let Saudi or let Turkey go do something with regards to the Palestinians. And the UAE has even gone so far as to adopt the Israeli line whereby when Trump left Abu Dhabi, when he left the UAE, Trump, the Abdullah bin Zed, the UAE foreign minister came out and said the war ends when Hamas releases the hostages. Something that even the Israelis are not saying themselves anymore. The Israelis are saying even if the hostages are released, we won't end the war. The UAE is repeating outdated Israeli propaganda, suggesting that it's not a priority for them whatsoever.

Um, back to my original question about the Muslim rulers, um, you um, argue that it is within their gift to dent this genocide or at least to um, to to create a some form of consensus where the genocide becomes a little bit more implausible. So practically, just give me the practicals. What is it that these Muslim countries, these Arab rulers, uh Turkey, um uh Qatar, what is it that these countries can actually do short of military action to stop this genocide?

Picture this scenario with me tomorrow. You read a headline that more than 50 Muslim countries around the world withdraw their ambassadors from Washington and withdraw their ambassadors from London and withdraw their ambassadors from Paris and withdraw their ambassadors from Berlin in protest that support for these the support by these countries for the genocide taking place in the Israelis. Then picture a headline in which the military arrangements and exercises that take place between these powers that are considered to develop the ties and ensure coordination have been suspended by these countries in protest at what's taking place in the genocide. Then imagine a headline the following day that says that Saudi Arabia announces that it is pausing its $1 trillion investment in America and conditioning that on a ceasefire in Gaza. And then Qatar follows suit and says that we are conditioning our $1.4 trillion dollar investment also on a ceasefire in Gaza. UAE will is willing to do that. UAE will be isolated. But as a result of the other countries doing it, UAE 2 days later then announces the same thing as well. Imagine that. You see that in the same way that the Saudis kicked out the Canadian ambassador for criticizing human rights record of Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia announces and tells the American ambassador, "I'm sorry, you're not welcome here at the moment. that there's a genocide taking place. You are supporting it. I can't keep you in my country until you decide that you're going to stop the genocide."

These are all diplomatic measures that have been done before to other countries for self-interest. Algeria withdrew the Algerian ambassador to Paris and kicked out the French ambassador from Algeria over a documentary that was broadcast in France about the role of the army in politics. Erdugen withdrew the Turkish ambassador from Paris over a law passed in the French parliament that recognized the quote Armenian genocide. The UAE withdrew the UAE ambassador to Lebanon over a media appearance by a media minister who criticized the role of the UAE in Yemen. These are diplomatic measures that have been done before to show disdain.

The reason why I mentioned the investments is because Macron when Trump imposed the tariffs on France, Macron called an emergency meeting of all of the top companies companies in France and said to them, I forbid you from investing in America and I forbid you from expanding your investments because quote look at this. I don't want to exaggerate. I'm not going to say it's but you can see the parallels in the meaning. What message does it send? He says, "Macron, if you're investing in a country that is attacking us, what message does it send?" Macron understands what it means when a country is attacking you and you still invest in it. They're attacking and the Muslim world is giving $3.4 trillion. An Ibraim of Malaysia instead when when China said, "We're not going to buy Boeing planes because of the tariffs," An Ibraim came out and said, "We'll buy the Boeing planes for you." Why? Why would when when China is saying that I'm going to punish Trump and punish America for the tariffs by cancelling the Boeing contracts and Trump reverses course over the tariffs? Why did you as a Muslim leader knowing that the Americans are supporting the genocide? Why did you scramble to say to Trump, I'll rescue you and buy the Boeing planes instead?

This is the point here. The point is not that the Muslim nations are doing nothing. It's that they're doing the opposite of what you're expecting them to do. You expect them at least to take, don't go to war. We understand you don't have the power to go to war. Fine. We understand that you don't want to risk going to war. Fine. But how can you invest? How can you continue to support? How do you not even do the most basic of diplomatic initiatives? How do you not even register your complaints? How do you not call an Arab League meeting where every leader attends, not your deputies, where every leader attends and says, "We will not allow American military presence here to support the genocide." Why is the injured base in Turkey still open? Why is Elid still operating? Why does Katar expand the Al capabilities instead of saying to the Americans, I can't viably continue with this relationship while you are committing genocide. Where is the diplomatic? No one is calling for war. If I thought war was the only way to stop the genocide, we would have advocated it. It's not. You don't need war to stop the genocide. You do not. There are a range of diplomatic and economic means to end the war. King Fisal managed to force the Americans to get the Israelis to withdraw from within 20 km of Damascus by threatening to cut off the oil by threatening an oil embargo and then implementing it causing damage as far as Australia where they had constitutional crisis because of the sudden drop. You have power. Allah has given power to this ummah.

The problem that we're finding in Gaza is that Eldan continues to trade with the Israelis until he loses a municipality elections. He loses 10 cities because the Turks punish him. Erdogan of his own will doesn't want to suspend trade with the Israelis. He has to be forced by the Turks to do so. Bin Salman doesn't want to do dua for Palestine. He has to be forced by people doing Omra to do dua for Palestine. Bin Zed doesn't want to give aid to Gaza. He does so because people are exposing their complicity in the genocide. So he throws 20 million so that there could be a headline to say UAE gives aid to Gaza. The Sudin understood when the UAE tried to send aid to Sudan. They rejected it. They said we don't want an aid. Just tell your government to stop supporting the militia that's killing us and slaughtering us and leaving the corpses slaughtered across the street.

The um has power. It's a myth that it doesn't. These leaders have power. It's a myth that it doesn't. But instead of drawing on the power of the people and the economy and the willingness of the people to deploy these diplomatic means, they pay one trillion to Donald Trump to for him to protect them from the people. What? Why is Bin Salman paying 1 trillion to Donald Trump? To protect him not just from the Iranian threat, but from the backlash from the people as he deislamizes Saudi Arabia. Why did UAE give 1 trillion to Trump? 1.4 trillion to protect him in case Saudi flexes against the UAE to try to bring the UAE into a common Arab line. Why did Qatar give 1.4 trillion and expansion of Al and the 747 Boeing jet to the Americans? It's so that the Americans can bring troops in to point guns at Saudi Arabia. Everyone is paying Jiza Jalal instead of using the power that they have in order to stand for Gaza. And this is the point. People say that this is all the Muslim nations can do. They haven't even tried. And the reason being is that these leaders are not assured of their own popularity amongst their own people themselves.

And this is why I argue that the tragedy of this genocide is not that it's taken place. That's a tragedy. The tragedy of this genocide is that it could end tomorrow by unilateral action from the Muslim world. But instead of deploying that power or even staying neutral, it actively reassures the genocidal colonial power that whatever you do in will be fine. Whatever you do in will still keep the ties. Whatever you do in will keep investing. Whatever you do in will keep trading. Whatever you do in will do military exercises with Morocco and the like. And we'll do it publicly. Whatever you do in will still keep talking. Whatever you do in Gaza, you are welcome in Medina. Whatever you do in Gaza, you're welcome to participate in our sports tournaments in the Dhaka rally in Saudi Arabia. Whatever you do in will continue putting money in the Israeli economy. Whatever you do in will continue funding Zionist companies in Silicon Valley. Whatever you do in Gaza, we will make sure that we will not push for anything that will hinder your genocide. All we ask of you, oh genocidal power, is for you to ensure that the White House can give me vision 2030 can allow me to do raves in real can allow me to do raves in Jeda. That can protect me against my local scholars. That can protect me against these backward Muslims that can keep me in power. That can let me introduce a casino in the UAE without backlash. That can let me introduce alcohol in Saudi without backlash. That can let me liberalize Qatar without a backlash. that can let me establish Bahrain as an alco capital without backlash that can let me go against the wishes of my people so that when they rise against me to ruin my power you promise to help me keep them in check. That's the tragedy of that's why the Palestinians are cursing this um many of them that's why they're saying what is this um of yours they're saying it not because the um is weak but because they look at the leader and say where are you we look like you you think that you'll be You are the ones.

Who are next? Oh, bin Salman bin Zed. You're going to be next. Do you think you're the first to think you can manipulate the White House for your interest? Saddam once thought America was an ally of theirs. Gaddafi once thought that the Americans would be good in cooperation with theirs. I'm not saying these were good leaders. I'm saying these were dictators like you. And look how they ended up. So you will too.

The point that I'm saying is that these Muslim leaders have the ability. The question is, how can you sit on so much power and do nothing? How can you sit on so much capabilities and do nothing? Why is it that when people ask of you, not that you might be toppled—no one is saying go and topple Muhammad bin Salman—they're saying, Salman, you are 36 years of age. You could be a hero of their age. You could be the new Salahuddin of the era if you just harness the power. No one is saying that Saudi Arabia should be democratic. They're asking for justice and righteousness and for you to lead, Muhammad bin Salman. Yeah. No one is asking you to go and do everything; people are looking at you for hope that maybe you will be able to stand for just causes where everybody else has abandoned it. But as soon as you get into power, you become a Turkish nationalist and you start flirting with those racist ideologies just to stay in power.

The reason why there is so much heartbreak over this genocide—why? Why there is so much anger about it—is because if we had no power, I would say, ya, we are powerless; I would say, Allah, I'm defeated, give me victory. What tears me apart is the power is there; the power exists, and they don't even try. The power is there; it exists; they don't even stay neutral. The power is there and exists, and instead of using it against the genocide, they use it against me and Palestine. Sami Um, you said something there which I think was really, um, pertinent. The people of Gaza, they make dua against the Muslim ummah. I heard this from Abu Bakr Abid, uh, where he said that, uh, regularly now they make dua against a Muslim ummah for our inaction, and that's really troubling. It's perturbing for all of us. You know, we feel that, uh, how much can we actually contribute to, uh, ending this genocide where these Muslim rulers are so hypocritical and betray this ummah.

I've got a question for you, and and that question really is, maybe it's a tricky question, but it's it's a question about I think something that all of us are feeling. We all want to do more for Gaza. We all feel this sort of sadness and emptiness when we see, uh, what is taking place to our to our brothers and sisters in Gaza. Uh, but short of, you know, marching to, uh, to Gaza, which we know is an impossible task, or joining the flotilla, which is an impossible task, or going on demonstrations, which we all do, uh, and writing emails and, uh, and, uh, you know, getting taking part in elections. We do all of these actions, uh, but nothing seems to be denting this genocide. Um, so my question for you is that we know that from an Islamic perspective we are responsible for removing the monker, but of course removing the monker comes with, uh, capabilities. There may be some people who have far more capabilities and ability than others to remove the monker, right? And so some have resigned themselves. I spoke to a a Muslim, uh, preacher recently, and, um, you know, it was a very polite conversation, and I sort of politely pointed out to him that why is it that in these last 18 months of genocide you haven't once spoken about Gaza in any of your conversations, like you haven't once spoken about—he's he's got a mailing list, zero, nothing about Gaza—and his response was, you know, it was unbelievable; his response was, you know, should we talk about Gaza or should we talk about Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala? And it was, you know, I I, you know, I I lost it after that. I said, you know, this man has no worth in my eyes, uh, after making that statement, and maybe I was wrong in saying that. Um, what's my about my point is really about capability, you know, he probably believes that what can I really do for Gaza, you know, I'm not going to be able to make a a change; maybe these rulers will be able to make that shift, but until these rulers change we can't do anything about it. So, how do you weigh up capability in in relation to our activism?

First, I want to push back on a premise of your question that we are struggling to dent this genocide. This genocide is dented irrespective of the Muslim rulers. The reality is that when you look at what's happening in the public opinion, when you look at the shift that's taking place, when you look at the way that companies are leaving the Israelis as a result of the boycott, when you're looking at the way the protests—in the words of Naftali Bennett—are devastating the influence of Zionism in capitals of their allies, when you look at the way that Greta Thunberg and Rema Hassan and these others get on a flotilla, and one boat manages to get the Israeli defense minister to go and say, "Oh my god, oh my god, let's send the IDF up to go and intercept it," and they go and they try to intercept that flotilla—just one boat made the whole apartheid colonial state have to go and panic and move in order to stop it. They didn't panic because they were worried that the flotilla was bringing an army. They didn't panic because they thought that the flotilla was going to inspire Muslim leaders to move. They didn't panic because they thought that suddenly the Muslims in Gaza would suddenly rise up and they would be able to drive out the Israelis. They panicked because that flotilla was humiliating the Israelis at a time in which they are losing public opinion, in a time in which they are trying to argue that Hamas doesn't allow humanitarian aid in. They were proving and demonstrating that this colonial and apartheid power is the reason why humanitarian aid is not going in. And the reaction of the world was, we don't get it. Why won't you even allow 100 kg of flour into it? It wasn't a failure; it was a success. You're seeing the Sumud convoy that took off from Algeria and went through Tunisia and went through Misrata. You see the Egyptian government panic. There's reports of people being deported. Reports of people being not let into Egypt. Reports of them being stalled in Sinai. Reports of the Egyptian government having no idea how to handle it as hundreds and thousands of people start to pour into Egypt in preparation to walk towards Gaza, to walk towards Rafah. What's so terrifying about these people that an entire nation, a government has to intervene to stop them? Where millions have to be spent to silence them? Where millions have to be spent to lobby against them? Where when you do a boycott, they spend millions to try to pass a bill in Congress in order to fine you $1 million or give you jail time if you boycott Israeli products. The genocide has been dented, and they are feeling it.

And I think that when it comes to the issue of the capabilities, I think the reason the problem I have with this question is that one, we haven't even tried our capabilities. We haven't even seen the extent to which we're willing to go because we're so paralyzed by fear. The imam, when you think about it, we talk about protest. Has anyone gone in front of the Saudi embassy, a group of people, to say, "Yeah, bin Salman, move and do something"? Has anyone gone and stood in front of the UAE embassy? The UAE, maybe Sudan have done it because of the genocide that's taking place in Sudan. Has anyone considered going in front of the Turkish embassy and cutting all trade ties with the Israelis? Why does it take you so long to do so? Has anybody considered doing so? And when you ask them why you don't do so, the imam tells you, I'm going to Umrah next week. The imam tells you, I want to go to Hajj. The imam tells you, I want to go see the bricks of the Kaaba. The Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam said that the blood of a Muslim is dearer than the brick of the Kaaba. But for this imam, the brick of the Kaaba is dearer than the blood of the Muslim. The Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam said to Ali and said, when Ali said, let me look after the pilgrims, the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam said to him, jihad is better for you; to go out and strive for the Muslims is better for you than to organize and care for the pilgrims. He wasn't undermining it; he was saying they're not equal; to strive for what's right is not the same as seeking Umrah and denying the or stopping or refusing to speak about Gaza because you want to go to Umrah. And this is the tragedy. Mecca and Medina have become the shield of Muhammad bin Salman from that Islamic legitimacy and right to call out what's wrong. Mecca and Medina have become the shield of Muhammad bin Salman from the legitimate criticism of the imam. Mecca and Medina have become the shield for those who are complicit in genocide because the Muslim believes it is dearer for them to go and do Umrah than it is to risk Umrah for the sake of calling the regime in Saudi Arabia to do something. For they say to you with a look of trepidation in their eyes. You go to in in in Ohio or you go to other places around the world and someone, a young guy, says to you, "My heart is burning. My heart is broken. I want to do more for Gaza, but my imam doesn't talk about it." What is the role that we can play, and can we convince Saudi Arabia? He doesn't say to topple bin Salman. Can we convince bin Salman to do something? The imam runs from the office, switches off the live stream. Yes, Habibi, I'm going to Umrah in two weeks. Please don't talk about Saudi Arabia. Mecca became the shield for oppression. How did the Muslim ummah allow this to happen?

I think that when it comes to the issue of the capabilities, the reality is, Jalal, that we saw that when we moved in the past two years or the past 18 months, we thought protests don't make a difference. We thought protests are just something we go, we shout, and we go home. Those protests are the reason why David Lammy imposed sanctions on the Israelis. It may be only 10%, but the Israelis were so upset about it because they realize in a case in the ICJ that if David Lammy is asked, why did you impose sanctions? He will say because we suspected war crimes; Israel might be found guilty as a result of that. That happened that came because of the protest. People say, why should we keep moving politically? The reason Labour went and said that we might recognize a Palestinian state and then impose sanctions on Ben-Gvir and Smotrich is because Labour gambled after the general election that Muslims and their allies would go home, that they would no longer engage in politics, that they would no longer go and vote and punish and the like. Then they found in the council elections they're still losing counselors. They're still losing to independents. They're still losing to new parties. Why? Because one year on, people are still protesting. They refuse to forget. There's a consistency in the action, and Labour acted accordingly. We saw in France, Rema Hassan; she called people, the French people, to go to the streets. More than 150,000 French people took to the streets with Marine Le Pen, one of the main party leaders who came first in the last elections, to come out and say, we stand with you, Rema. We stand against Zionism. We stand against that which is happening. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund has announced that it's starting to divest from the Israelis. CapriSun, one of the brothers who made an app that listed them on the boycott because of the the activities in Israel, he came and he said, CapriSun sent him a letter of cease and desist. Why? Because CapriSun said that our presence on your boycott app means that we, the people, are still boycotting us, but we've left Israel. Take us off your boycott app, otherwise we will sue you. The boycott genuinely works. We look at, for example, oh, we don't have business comp—Muslim companies that can rival and compete. Look at these Yemeni cafes across America. Go and ask them why suddenly they're able to compete with Starbucks. Why are they able to compete with Costa and all these others? You ask them, they say, "Sami, 2019, we started; 2020, almost broke; 2021, COVID almost bankrupt; 2022, we're about to file; 2023, we break even; 2024, record profits." How do you make record profits in 2024? Because Muslims started coming. Muslims started boycotting the others, and they came and they poured their money and they were able to create businesses and companies that can compete. We're not as weak as we think we are. We think that speaking on social media is some pitiful action that we can do. If that was the case, why is it that they wanted to ban TikTok, and the only reason it wasn't banned is because Trump's son likes TikTok? Who were they targeting when they wanted to ban TikTok? Why do they spend millions to try to ban it while you believe that it's something that is minor? When people started moving and speaking, they realize they can change people's hearts. When people realize that they can actually deploy effort, they realize they were achieving results they did not know that they could achieve because before they never used their capabilities; before they never knew their capabilities. They resigned before they even deployed them. They use the hadith about capabilities about if you can change something with your hand, change it; if you can't, then with your voice. They would say, but this is my capabilities. No Muslim knows their capabilities because they never deployed it; they never tried it; and when forced you to try it, you changed the world. When forced you to try it, you managed to isolate Israel. When forced you to try it, you managed to find that Israel now is the country that's on the back foot; they're spending millions while you're deploying your capabilities for free. They're the ones who are losing money. And the reality is that when you look at the capabilities that people talk about, we haven't we haven't manifested our capabilities. We're just in the beginning. People said that wouldn't matter in the US elections, that it couldn't punish Harris. And then you look at the data. Wisconsin, 32,000 difference. There are 70,000 Muslims in Wisconsin. Add to that their allies. It could have swung the other way. In Georgia, in Pennsylvania, 117,000 difference. Michigan, 80,000 difference. The fine margins. Gaza swung the elections. And John Fetterman recognized it. Bernie Sanders recognized it. Ro Khanna of California recognized it. The polls recognized it. YouGov recognized it. Pew Research recognized it. 34 polls in America said that if Harris had changed her position on Gaza and called for a ceasefire, she would have seen a 5% swing in her favor. 5% is more than the 3 million votes that she lost by to Donald Trump in the elections. YouGov suggested that 15 million Americans who did not vote in the elections, 29% of those 15 million, almost 5 million voters, more than the 3 million difference between Trump and Harris, the reason they did not vote was because of Gaza, was because they said, "I can't vote between a fascist and a genocider. What da'wah told them there was a genocider on the cards?" What da'wah did they hear? What call did they hear? It was us. We were manifesting a capability that shook an entire election. We were manifesting a capability that finally communicated with the hearts of Americans. And when they heard the call, their hearts flipped. Candace Owens flipped. Tucker Carlson flipped. Joe Rogan flipped. When they heard the message, they started asking, "Why is it that we're giving $8 billion to Israel when we have Americans who are struggling from the hurricanes?" They heard the da'wah. They heard Abi talking to Nashi. They heard Muslim talking to Jew. They heard the Muslim da'wah, and their hearts resonated. Their fear resonated. And when Harris lost, Trump identified it was because of Gaza, which is why he went on and did the ceasefire. The Zionists panicked. They decided to go after the organizations. They went after American Muslims for Palestine in Michigan. The attorney general took them to the court. The attorney general had to drop the case because the judge was about to investigate foreign influence because he said in his judgment, "I don't understand why I'm receiving external influence on this case." And the attorney general, fearing an investigation, dropped the case. American Muslims for Palestine, they walked free in Nevada. American Muslims for Palestine were dragged through the courts because a Zionist student said, "I feel unsafe." The judge ruled in favor of the American Muslims for Palestine saying, "Am I to understand that you brought this case because you disagree with somebody on their on their right to free speech?" You look at the cases of those who were imprisoned for deportation. Mahmoud Khalil imprisoned by Trump, green card, not even a citizen. They take him to Louisiana. The court says he should be deported. Another judge says he shouldn't. He's still in America because they can't deport him. The Zionists are saying, "I don't get it. Why can't I influence the courts? Why are the courts not ruling in my favor? Let me go after Mosin Medu in Colombia. He's been released. Let me go after Romea in in Boston. She's been released." The Zionists are going after court case after court case and realizing they're losing one court case after the other. Then the Zionists say, "Oh my god, I don't understand these people. They're moving. I didn't know they had this capability. Why won't they stop moving? They're moving for free. Let's spend millions to try to get a bill in Congress to ban the boycott, to make an anti-BDS bill." Marjorie Taylor Greene of all people, someone considered amongst the most racist of in Congress, comes out and votes against the bill and leads a MAGA initiative to have the bill removed from Congress. A bill that would have banned, that would have sanctioned anyone who is boycotting Israel with a $1 million fine and jail time. It was Marjorie Taylor Greene, not Muhammad bin Abdallah or anyone else who led the initiative to take the bill out because she said, "I don't understand why we're voting for the interest of a foreign power." When Mahmoud Khalil got imprisoned and he was detained and they were threatening to deport him, the most unlikeliest of allies came out because of the da'wah of people who believed they had no capabilities. Because of the da'wah of people who chose to move though they doubted their capabilities. Because of the da'wah of a people who moved because Allah said that their voice can make the one who is your enemy today into your warmest ally because they finally read the Quran and realized that da'wah can flip societies and cultural. Kuldeep told Vivek Ramaswamy that I would never vote for you, though I agree with every one of your policies because you're Indian. Kuldeep said, I don't like Mahmoud Khalil, but are we imprisoning him because of the First Amendment right to free speech? I'm very troubled by it. Bill Maher said, "I think Mahmoud Khalil is a scumbag, but I think it's very dangerous when we're going after people for the First Amendment right." Matt Walsh goes on the Tucker Carlson show. Tucker Carlson says, "Why are we doing all this stuff for the Israelis?" And Tucker Carlson then asks him, "What gives a nation the right to exist?" Matt Walsh says, "Any nation that can't survive without American support doesn't deserve to exist." Tucker Carlson says, "Well, by that logic, Israel doesn't have the right to exist." Douglas Murray says to Dave Smith, "Israel has the right to self-defense." Dave Smith, Jewish comedian, says to him, "My listen, in America, if you were to shoot somebody on his lawn and then shoot somebody's relative and then that person goes and blows up your entire apartment block, that's first-degree murder in the US; that's not self-defense." Then you see now in the election in the New York mayoral race where Andrew Cuomo, the Zionist candidate, the candidate that they are backing, the candidate that they want to win is suddenly behind a random candidate called Zahran Mandani who's popped out of nowhere and leading him in the polls. The Zionists are now sweating that not only are they losing in the courts, not only are they losing public opinion, not only are they struggling in terms of influencing Trump's policy, not only are they struggling to keep their allies on board—Nigel Farage, by the way, on GB News says to the Israeli ambassador, says to her, "You're losing a lot of friends. These friends can't support you anymore," turning on her. And she's like, "I don't understand why people are turning on us." Mandani in New York. The Zionists are realizing we're losing in the courts. We're losing in terms of policy. We're losing public opinion. ADL says we've lost an entire generation. Naftali Bennett begs the Americans to stop.

The protest. The Yale encampments have started again. Colombia is seeing less people apply now. Harvard is resisting. You see in California, they are divesting. You see all of these trends that are happening.

And now the Zionists are saying, "Wait a minute. Is Zionism now going to become a political liability whereby we're even going to lose New York as well? We're even going to lose the capital?" They had a debate where they asked the mayoral candidates, "What's the first place you will visit when you become mayor?" And they said, "We all said we visit Israel except Mam Daniel who said, 'I'm a New York mayor. Why would I go to visit Israel? I have to focus on New York issues.'" And that saw a surge in the poll suggesting Zionism is becoming a political liability because a people who thought they had no capabilities are now using their capabilities.

And do you know what they're discovering, Jal? They're discovering that Allah told the truth. They're discovering that Allah is not a fable. They're discovering Allah is not a fairy tale. That when Allah says, "Take one step, I take 10," they're beginning to realize Allah carries them 10 steps. They're beginning to realize when Allah says, "Come to me walking and I come to you running," truly Allah subhana wa ta'ala is running and elevating those abilities. So when people say we have no capabilities, they are lying because they never even tried to manifest their capabilities. Now we're in the process of manifesting them whereby now Turkey was forced to suspend a certain number of trade because ordinary Turks punished him with the municipality elections. They knew the risk of allowing Jahe, the secular party, in power. But they said, "Yeah, Erdogan, we will not abandon Palestine. If you refuse to abandon the trade, we will punish you in the election even if it brings Jahape." Erdogan panin said, "Okay, I heard your message; I'll start suspending some trade here and there." Bin Salman said no dua for Palestine. And then was shocked when Muslims from around the world they're turning up with free Palestine jumpers. And he's saying, "Why do they keep doing so?" He tries to contain them. He cannot. So he tells the imams, "Go make dua for Palestine because I don't want these guys to inspire a movement in Saudi Arabia."

We have power. We have capabilities. We can do so much more than we believe we can do. And as we move forward, we are beginning to see now that the cracks are emerging in the Zionist influence. And who knows, in 2026, Angie Craig of Minnesota might fail in her bid to become the representative in the Senate and might fail in her bid to become governor because her support for Zionism might be the political liability that topples her bid. Maybe in Michigan when Abdman is sey runs for the Senate seat against a Zionist candidate that already has 20 million reportedly from Apac. Maybe Abdman is saying who's launching his bid against the Zionist candidate. Maybe when he wins they will lose New York. They lose Michigan. They lose in Indiana. They lose in Minnesota. Maybe, maybe because we finally decided to move instead of sitting down and lamenting our absence of capabilities when in reality we were just blind to the capabilities that Allah gave us. And as Gaza forced us to use them, we're realizing what we can do. Maybe, maybe the reason Zionism is cracking is not because we have a new-found power. It's because the dormant power we always had, we are finally beginning to deploy that power and we're realizing we're far more powerful than we ever imagined.

Sam, I've got one last question for you. Um, throughout today's discussion we talked about the Muslim rulers and we talked about the Arab populations and the Muslim populations and we talked about our own culpability as Muslims. Uh, and in that last answer you talked about our capability. But I find that a lot of us um still remain fearful of the outcomes. They're fearful of our activities, fearful of our jobs, our employment, fearful when it comes to uh speaking up for Palestine. Um, and fear is a natural uh disposition that all human beings have. How do we overcome this fear?

Allah says in the Quran in Ysef, he says, "Indeed in this book we tell you the best of stories, stories that prior to which you were ignorant of." And the reason Allah tells you these stories is because these stories are meant to be parallels of today that you see yourself, you see yourself in that story. The same emotions that the prophets had, you see your emotions reflected in that. And the point of these stories is that whatever stage you are in life, Allah is giving you an indication what the ending will be before the ending even comes. When the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam first receives the wahy from Jirelam, what's the first emotion that he feels? Fear. What does he do after he receives the command and the message to move to call to raise the call to Allah subhana wa ta'ala to go and transform society to stand up for what's right to stand up for what's just to challenge the oppressive society not to hide to challenge the oppressive society? What's his first reaction, Jal? Is it some sort of bravery where he says, "I'm going to do it"? No, it's he goes back to, he runs from, he goes to, puts his head in her lap and he tells, tells her that, "I am fearful, I am scared." And she reassures him and says, "Allah has never humiliated you. You are a good man. Allah will give you everything that you need. Allah will never embarrass you or humiliate you." The point is that the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam also felt scared. When Musa alayhis salam talks to Allah subhana wa ta'ala in that burning bush, Allah subhana wa ta'ala tells him to go to Pharaoh. Gives him two signs and tells him, "Go to Pharaoh." Musa alayhis salam says, "I have a stutter in my tongue. Allah, do the stutter and send with me Harun." Why send with me Harun in one area? He is more eloquent than I am. But the indication is, "I don't want to go alone. Allah, I'm scared to go alone. I'm scared to talk to Pharaoh alone." In another verse, Musa alayhis salam said, "We're both scared to go to Pharaoh because he might do horrible things to us." When Allah reassures them again, Musa alayhis salam is facing the sorcerers again. For oh, Musa alayhis salam felt fear in his heart and Allah reminds them again, "Don't be scared, just go." The point is the road to that which is just, the road that the prophets took, the prophetic road of standing up for what's right is one that people go feeling fear. There's nothing that indicates lack of iman in feeling the fear. The point of these stories is what did these prophets do with that fear? When goes to Najashi, listens to without listening to Ja'far and immediately puts the chains on the feets of the Muslims and says, "I'm going to send you back to Quraysh for you to be persecuted." Ja'far in a panic exclaims, "We, we came to you. We came to America. We came to Najashi where nowhere you there there is a freedom of speech where our prophet said no man is wrong." The Muslims went to the Christian king. The Muslim went to speak to the FRA of the Christian king. The Muslim went to speak to the FRA of the Christian society to say to them, "Hear what we have to say. We're not too different from you. If you hear what we say, you will find it resonates with you." Talib says in the midst of a hostile environment where you have the where you have the Abyssinian staring down at them, ready to deport them back to Quraysh. And he says, "We worship gods of wood and stone, elements of our own manufacturer." The rich neglect the poor and the act by which a brother lifts his fellow brother up is described by them as upsetting social order. To this inhumanity a prophet has come. And why should we be surprised? Did not God send Moses and Jesus and the like? And suddenly when he hears the rhetoric of when he hears the resonance of the message, he points and says, "The difference between us and you is no thicker than this line." Fear at the start, victory at the end. When Musab goes to, he's fearful that maybe the tribes might kill him. Mu'adh takes the spear to go to him and say, "What treacherous ideas are you spreading? If you don't convince me, I will kill you." We're talking a life and death situation. Musab says to him, "Hear what I have to say. Maybe you might like it." The rednecks of the the people in turn around and say, "We don't give you a chance. Either you tell us what your message is. If we don't like it, we will kill you." When he explains it to Mu'adh the initial fear ends up in victory and Mu'adh brings the whole city to their favor. When Amr goes up against the Romans and he writes a letter to, "I don't think I will be able to defeat them; I think I lack the resources and their general is a mighty general of Rome," and writes back, "They may have so and so of Rome but we have of the Muslims," go and he sends him some reinforcements. Amr is fearful but ends up with victory in Egypt. Fear is not something that paralyzes you. Allah says there's nothing wrong with having the fear but rather what do you do with that fear? How do you move with that fear? You may fear going to a protest but when you go you see the protest works. You fear doing a boycott but then you see the impact the boycott has. I remember getting a message. There was somebody who said, "You know, I was too scared to go even to work to talk about Palestine." And then I walked in one day. I said, "Guys, it's not what you think it is. Can we have just like one day where we can just talk about some of the history?" And then we did. We brought a speaker. We talked and now it seems it's diffused in the office place. The person was scared to even talk about it, but found that the fear was unfounded. She found that the environment shifted in her favor. When the people went to fight in the battle of Badr, they were fearful that the other side had 1,000 men while they had 313 illequipped people to fight against those in Quraysh. But Allah subhana wa ta'ala increased them in their iman and they were able to win that battle. That fear ended up a victory. The point is that fear is not a stumbling block. It's okay to be fearful. It's okay to have that fear moving forward. But there is also something else that is worth mentioning here which is that there is the fear that paralyzes and there is the fear that you conquer as you move forward.

In Bosnia when we went last year we went to the memorial twice in two weeks. On the second time, Almir Pyovich is next to us. Almir Pyovich. I said to him, "I hate coming to this place in Srebrenica." He said, "Why?" I said, "Because when I come, I remember how more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys were gathered and Mladic slaughtered them for no other reason than that they believe in Allah." He told him, ""You're safe if you abandon it. If you don't abandon it, we'll dig the pit and we'll throw you into it."" I told him, "What's your point, Almir?" He said, "Sami, I see you on the podcast with Jal and Thinking Muslim, and I see the way that you go to America, Australia, and the like. And when you talk about the stories of the prophets, you only talk about the stories where there is victory at the end. Where Yousef becomes Aziz, where Nuh alayhis salam is saved in the ark, where the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam enters Mecca. You only talk about the prophets where they survive and they win at the end. You don't talk about that Allah celebrates and talks about their story in the Quran. A people who were gathered and the pit was dug next to them and set on fire and they were told, 'If you don't give up, we will throw you in that pit.' There was no escape for them. There's no guarantee that they will escape. They knew, 'If we hold on to it, we are thrown in the pit.'" Samuel, you don't tell those stories. And it's because of those stories that I'm jealous of these Bosnians in Srebrenica. I said, "You twisted individual. How can you be jealous of them?" He said, "Think about it." He said, "When they were lined up over there, they could have committed kufr and given it up and they would have been survived, but they chose to give it all for Allah subhana wa ta'ala and they were killed as a result of it. My brother Sami, why do you come to this place with pity when these are a people who face the ultimate test? They pass with flying colors. They're in Jannah celebrating. It's me and you who should be panicking for ourselves. We are the ones who are trying to fight to figure out how to avoid hellfire itself."

Do you go to Uzbekistan? I was there a couple of weeks ago in Bukhara, Tashkent, Samarkand and the like. Do you see all the empires that came and went? Genghis Khan destroys Bukhara. You see the way the Soviets come in and shut down Masjids and repress the imams. They dig pits in Tashkent where they throw the imams in and they burn them alive. They restrict the teaching of Islam. They shut down madrasas and the like. Go to Uzbekistan today. The Soviets left. Islam stayed. You see the hijab on the streets. You see the imams. You see where they greet with As-salamu alaykum. They're still in a struggle perhaps with a a government that is wrestling with Moscow about the extent to which they're allowed to have the freedoms. But the Ummah doesn't die. The Ummah just keeps going. Those who went to the mountains in Algeria to liberate Algeria from the French, who for 132 years they fought. They were scared about what the French would do to them. Scared of the colonization, what it did to them. They knew that it was most likely that they won't be able to succeed. That fear did not stop them going out. And they ended up liberating Algeria so that my mother and the likes can be born in a free Algeria where the French aren't there because they weren't paralyzed by fear. They didn't stop when they felt fear. They didn't go home when they felt fear. They didn't say there's no point when they when they had fear. They didn't say they have more power than us. So there's no point in moving. They went in spite of their fear and they liberated Algeria and chanted, "Oh Muhammad Alazi, oh Prophet Muhammad, congratulations. We returned Algeria to you." My point is there are people who came before you. Those Turks who taught Quran in fear. Those Turks who taught Hadith in fear. Those in the Muslim world who taught the Quran and Hadith when they were being repressed. There's a reason we're Muslim today. It's because those who felt fear before us, they didn't give up on us. They didn't give up on Allah subhana wa ta'ala. So walk forward with the fear. Bravery is not the absence of fear. Bravery is the ability to move despite the fear. And in the belief that Allah subhana wa ta'ala will deliver in the end. And that just as Musa alayhis salam felt fear at the end of when people tell him that they're scared, he tells them, "Don't be, don't be fearful. Allah subhana wa ta'ala is with us." He believes in the end, we will believe in the end too. Inshallah. Thank you for your time. Please remember to subscribe to our social media and YouTube channels and head over to our website thinkingmuslim.com to sign up to my weekly newsletter. Fair.