Speaker 1: Keep on riding with us as we continue to broadcast
Speaker 1: the balance and defend the discourse from these hip hop
Speaker 1: weekly studios. Welcome back to Civic Cipher. I am your host,
Speaker 1: Ramsey's job. Big shout out to my man c Ward,
Speaker 1: who is somewhere in South America trying to change the world,
Speaker 1: and I think we're all going to be a little
Speaker 1: bit better for it. Unfortunately, you couldn't be here with
Speaker 1: a dear friend of ours and a dear friend of
Speaker 1: the show of Amy Horwitz, who is come back today
Speaker 1: to help us with an update on the conflict going
Speaker 1: on in Palestine Israel Hamas war. And for those just
Speaker 1: joining us, Amy Horwitz is a fellow journalist. He is
Speaker 1: a man who has gone underground with Hamas and just
Speaker 1: a gorilla journalist who's on the ground, you know, getting
Speaker 1: people's opinions. A conservative journalist. It's important to point that
Speaker 1: out and over here we're decidedly not conservative folks in
Speaker 1: the same way, and we're going to continue a conversation
Speaker 1: that we've been having, so stick around for them. In
Speaker 1: the meantime, it's time to discuss Baba becoming a better ally.
Speaker 1: Baba and today's Baba sponsored by Friends of the movement.
Speaker 1: You can sign up for the free voter wallet from
Speaker 1: fotmglobal dot com just for black businesses and allied businesses
Speaker 1: as well as make an impact whether your spending. Again,
Speaker 1: that's fotmglobal dot com. Today we are going to shout
Speaker 1: out my jinf dot org, the most trusted name in
Speaker 1: Israeli donations. I want to disclose to you that I
Speaker 1: have done some research on this org and they do
Speaker 1: have a facet where they fund the IDF in terms
Speaker 1: of soldiers and protecting the soldiers and so forth. I
Speaker 1: need you to be aware of that this was given
Speaker 1: to me by a dear friend of mine, Michael Malice,
Speaker 1: who is a supporter of this cause. He is a
Speaker 1: Jewish man and a decades long friend of mine, and
Speaker 1: so I'm going to read this with you on his behalf.
Speaker 1: This is not an endorsement. This is just what we do.
Speaker 1: And today we're giving the microphone to our Jewish brothers
Speaker 1: and sisters. So since they're founding in nineteen oh one,
Speaker 1: Jewish National Fund USA USA's passion commitment envision for the
Speaker 1: future of Israel and the Jewish people has remained clear
Speaker 1: and unwavering. Charity Navigator and Better Business Bureau consistently at
Speaker 1: wore Jewish National Fund USA with their highest ratings indicating
Speaker 1: the organization's trustworthiness and fiscal responsibility. You can read more
Speaker 1: about their vision work and what makes them the leading
Speaker 1: organization supporting the land and the people of Israel. Excuse
Speaker 1: me at my dot JNF dot org. So again, this
Speaker 1: is not a personal endorsement, and I would not personally
Speaker 1: ever recommend anyone donate money to fund war. That's just
Speaker 1: not my way, It's not in my heart. But I
Speaker 1: was I asked a person that had more insight than me.
Speaker 1: This was what I was given, and I gave my
Speaker 1: word that I would share it. And so if this
Speaker 1: moves you, you have my dot JNF dot org to visit. Next.
Speaker 1: Now back to Ami, I left us off in the
Speaker 1: middle of some some sort of debunk or now heavily questioned,
Speaker 1: uh talking points that I want to get just kind
Speaker 1: of a response on. So I'll finish reading them the
Speaker 1: ones that you can speak to please, the ones that
Speaker 1: you don't feel are important. We'll just move on cause
Speaker 1: we still have a ton to cover. I suspect we
Speaker 1: won't get to all of it. Okay, so the forty
Speaker 1: beheaded babies. Obviously, that was something that everyone had to
Speaker 1: reel in. After the fact Hamas's main base being under
Speaker 1: the Al Shifa Hospital, the Associated Press UH found ultimately
Speaker 1: one room with a couple of metal cots in it
Speaker 1: that looked like it was out of use. The Washington
Speaker 1: posts that they found no evidence of a base. The
Speaker 1: Israeli Minish military sorry, found the Gaza Ministry of Health
Speaker 1: to be a reliable source of info. And you mentioned
Speaker 1: we spoke before today's meeting that this this information was
Speaker 1: not reliable. But when I researched the sources that you
Speaker 1: gave me and the resources that I was researching prior
Speaker 1: to that, it turned out that one source was slightly
Speaker 1: more credible left leaning than the source that you gave me,
Speaker 1: which was like I believe it was like the tablet
Speaker 1: or something like that. But the other source was science based,
Speaker 1: so it doesn't have a bias one way or the other,
Speaker 1: and it was green lit all the way down. And
Speaker 1: that source is the I have it right here, give
Speaker 1: me one second. The oh sorry, I have it in
Speaker 1: my email. I'm gonna grab it for you in one second.
Speaker 1: But so in terms of the numbers, of the people
Speaker 1: that have been killed, the twenty five thousand women and children,
Speaker 1: and so forth, the four out of the five hundreds.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, not twenty five thousands of the twenty
Speaker 2: one thousand dead. It is not twenty one thousand women
Speaker 2: and children were killed.
Speaker 1: What we have here thousand women and children. The number
Speaker 1: is much higher than that. So this is the number
Speaker 1: of women and people under the age of eighteen makes
Speaker 1: up twenty five thousand. The difference of adult men would
Speaker 1: make up the difference in the number of the dead total,
Speaker 1: which is above thirty thousand. This is based on the
Speaker 1: numbers from the most credible source that I've found just
Speaker 1: yet and against science based and in fact, I'll find
Speaker 1: it to find it for you and share it with you,
Speaker 1: just so that you have it here. It is the
Speaker 1: the lancet. The lancet is kind of a medical It's a.
Speaker 2: L I know the left of the lancet is which
Speaker 2: is highly bia sources.
Speaker 1: That's not what I found based on the media, and
Speaker 1: I use the same media. How can I point it good?
Speaker 2: Doesn't make any sense. How can the lancet know anything
Speaker 2: about how many people were killed in Gaza? This doesn't
Speaker 2: make any sense. They have to get their number from somewhere.
Speaker 2: There's only there are only two people who have any
Speaker 2: sense of what people are being killed, people on the
Speaker 2: ground in Gaza and these early military.
Speaker 1: So let me make sense. Yeah, yeah, yeah, so that's
Speaker 1: that's a great point. I'm glad you brought it up.
Speaker 1: So let me make sure that stated correctly. The Lancet
Speaker 1: is not saying that the numbers are accurate. They're saying
Speaker 1: they have found no evidence that the numbers have been inflated.
Speaker 1: So that is those are two different things, but it's
Speaker 1: not unlike that what you sent over from the Tablet,
Speaker 1: which again based on the same the same fact checking
Speaker 1: source that I use to determine media bias, and I
Speaker 1: use it for all of them. I use it for CNN,
Speaker 1: Fox News, I use it for the Lancet, I used
Speaker 1: it for the Tablet, I use it for everything that
Speaker 1: we used for today. So I use that as they
Speaker 1: define what center is, they define what credible is, and
Speaker 1: relative to every other source, I can use them as
Speaker 1: a guidepost. And so what I found based on what
Speaker 1: was sent over from you the Tablet thing is that, uh,
Speaker 1: that article that was suggesting that these numbers have somehow
Speaker 1: been inflated. What a lot of that article is also speculative.
Speaker 1: It wasn't based on data. It was just based on
Speaker 1: these numbers don't quite look right. Wasn't based on these
Speaker 1: numbers are factually wrong.
Speaker 2: Good statistical variability. And the math behind that.
Speaker 1: Is data is not necessarily data is data. Data is data.
Speaker 1: This is how many people died, this is how many
Speaker 1: people are We don't know. That's data, statistical variability. It
Speaker 1: could be an anomaly, it could be uh again, just
Speaker 1: something that people didn't expect to see. But it is
Speaker 1: not in any way a confirmation. And I suspect that
Speaker 1: coming from a source that is so questionable, so far
Speaker 1: right leaning, and so questionable with respect to the tablet,
Speaker 1: it absolutely is so So this is this is something
Speaker 1: that I looked up last night. But that's that's neither
Speaker 1: here nor there. Because we need right we do need
Speaker 1: right leaning media sources as well, because between the two
Speaker 1: somewhere we'll find the truth. So I'm not knocking them
Speaker 1: for that. Is there's pro Israel right leaning news source. However,
Speaker 1: they do have questionable uh they publish questionable are to
Speaker 1: articles and their data is not considered to be reliable
Speaker 1: across the board, not to the degree that the lance
Speaker 1: it is not to the agree. I'm sorry, please your response.
Speaker 2: No, no, I'm okay. I disagree. First of all, TABLET.
Speaker 2: I don't see it as a right wing right wing
Speaker 2: at all.
Speaker 1: The admitted you can. You could look it up on
Speaker 1: their Wikipedia page. You can look it up on their website.
Speaker 2: So I'd say, and the Lancet is absolutely not not
Speaker 2: UnBias source plans and at no point going, no point
Speaker 2: going in who's right, who's wrong, who's who's But let me,
Speaker 2: let me let let's put a let's let's put aside. Yeah,
Speaker 2: the numbers themselves. No, sorry, we'll deal the numbers. But
Speaker 2: let's assume that AMASS numbers. As dubious as that sounds,
Speaker 2: the belief coms number, let's assume their numbers are correct.
Speaker 2: Just assume it right, thirty thousand people roughly killed. Again,
Speaker 2: we have to devoid and both you and I have
Speaker 2: been emotional about this is an emotional thing, and it's
Speaker 2: totally normal to the emotional. But but I think ultimately
Speaker 2: you have to look at the data in context, and
Speaker 2: the context is actually kind of simple. Is if you
Speaker 2: look at the situation that Israel findslf in and you
Speaker 2: compare it to let's say, where what most people would
Speaker 2: argue was the most moral, ethical army on Earth today,
Speaker 2: which is NATO, and you compare them to how many
Speaker 2: civilians are killed versus militants in Afghanistan, which is a far,
Speaker 2: far easier place to conduct war in in terms of
Speaker 2: avoiding civilian casualties. And I think most people argue NATO
Speaker 2: tries to avoid civilian casualties. Their average is one militant
Speaker 2: or three civilians. It's almost static number that they've had
Speaker 2: for decades when they engage in war. And if you
Speaker 2: assuming you take Hamas's numbers, right, think both numbers as fact.
Speaker 2: The amount of how many Hamas militants have been killed,
Speaker 2: terrorists have been killed that Israel has calculated, and how
Speaker 2: many civilians have been killed. You're talking twelve ten to
Speaker 2: fourteen thousand and Hamas soldiers out of that thirty thousand civilians.
Speaker 1: So are suggesting that the Hamas soldiers are including people
Speaker 1: who are under the age of eighteen. Oh of course, okay,
Speaker 1: that's that's okay. I see that. That's not something that
Speaker 1: I delineated in myself. So I wanted to marry no.
Speaker 2: Fair enough, and and and normally when you're dealing with
Speaker 2: a military, you wouldn't because most kids don't fight wars, right,
Speaker 2: so you would assume that because you don't have fifteen
Speaker 2: year olds going and trying to kill people. But unfortunately,
Speaker 2: let me in this situation, you do so, right. But
Speaker 2: the point is is that you're talking roughly one point
Speaker 2: and one point five, so you have for every terrorist
Speaker 2: who's killed one point five, civilians are killed less than
Speaker 2: two one to two, which is an again to put
Speaker 2: in context, in the most difficult possible fighting environment that
Speaker 2: exists on planet Earth, densely urban warfare is specifically putting
Speaker 2: its own civilians as shields, which is not botherly not
Speaker 2: argued by anybody in that environment. Israel is roughly killing
Speaker 2: fifty percent less civilians than NATO.
Speaker 1: So let me so your point as well made. Let
Speaker 1: me let me make sure that I push back just
Speaker 1: a bit right here. So when we talk about the
Speaker 1: human shields, I think that that you're right when you
Speaker 1: say that. There's a lot of people who don't question that, right.
Speaker 1: But what I think that a lot of people who
Speaker 1: are talking about outside of the very decidedly pro Israel circles,
Speaker 1: which in my estimation is very insulated from criticism, very
Speaker 1: insulated from you know, there's there's laws on the books
Speaker 1: in Arizona that I've seen with these eyes. You cannot
Speaker 1: protest the nation state of Israel and enter into a
Speaker 1: government contract. Otherwise your contract will be dismantled or voided
Speaker 1: or whatever. I forget seen it myself, see it myself.
Speaker 2: Want Okay, the words were, you can't criticize it as well,
Speaker 2: or you can't can't protest, you can't engage in BDS protest, Okay,
Speaker 2: I don't. I'm okay, I'm clarified.
Speaker 1: But in any of it. The point I'm making here
Speaker 1: is that again with with pro Israeli folks, they're very
Speaker 1: insulated from these types of criticisms. But what I would
Speaker 1: argue is that there are folks who look at this
Speaker 1: and say, well, that's just the justification that Israel would
Speaker 1: need to finally get this off right. The human shields thing, right, Oh, well,
Speaker 1: they're using the human shields. We mentioned the I believe
Speaker 1: it's the au It's in my notes, but it's the hospital,
Speaker 1: right that everyone was thinking, Okay, there's a military base,
Speaker 1: remember seeing the diagrams one room. This is from the
Speaker 1: a P. This isn't from Ramses, this isn't from Homy.
Speaker 1: This is there was one room they found with two
Speaker 1: cots in it.
Speaker 2: CNN, CNN had an entire crew go down there. This
Speaker 2: is just not true.
Speaker 1: Okay, So so the AP is lying because the a P.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if
Speaker 2: AP more credible.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, trust me, I know this, Okay, I can incredible
Speaker 1: then seeing.
Speaker 2: I can tell you that when the AP interviewed me
Speaker 2: for a video that I did, and I crushed them
Speaker 2: in the interview. You know what the AP did, but
Speaker 2: totally biased interview. They didn't play. They didn't play the interview.
Speaker 2: CN ended with CEN interviewed and I crushed them interview,
Speaker 2: they still played it. I don't know. Look, I'm not
Speaker 2: saying I'm not saying AP is a completely corrupt source
Speaker 2: of information. I'm not saying that they are a relatively
Speaker 2: credible source information. But so, but okay, I have to
Speaker 2: see the article. I can only tell you that I
Speaker 2: saw Fox News, CNN go down into the tunnels under
Speaker 2: Al Shifa, and it wasn't one room. Now, it may
Speaker 2: not have been, it may not have been the main
Speaker 2: Hamas military base, but it was an incredibly, incredibly sophisticated
Speaker 2: system out of there where there are plenty of weapons. List.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that's that's not in. The Washington Post has
Speaker 1: another article kind of explaining the whole thing, to which
Speaker 1: again has a left bias to it, so less credible
Speaker 1: than the AP in my estimation, I like the news
Speaker 1: center and I like it to be very credible, right right,
Speaker 1: But you know, we take both sides around here because
Speaker 1: we need to. But the fact is is that you
Speaker 1: can imagine by saying, Okay, well they have this military
Speaker 1: base underneath this hospital, and they're using the hospital effectively,
Speaker 1: using the humans in the hospital as human shields, so
Speaker 1: we can bomb that hospital. Ops, they're not there. Well,
Speaker 1: maybe they're under the next hospital. Let's bomb that one. Oh,
Speaker 1: maybe they're under the next hospital. Let's bomb that one.
Speaker 1: And as far as I know, I think it's all
Speaker 1: but three or four hospitals have been blown up. And
Speaker 1: so this starts to shift away from Wow, Hamas has
Speaker 1: this really sophisticated terrorism network to Wow, this really looked
Speaker 1: like a convenient excuse to just bomb all the infrastructure
Speaker 1: in the Gaza strip and then now we're back to
Speaker 1: talking about how folks outside of that insulated bubble are
Speaker 1: becoming more and more critical of Israel's response, hence the
Speaker 1: shift in attitudes global support of Israel more in favor
Speaker 1: of Palestine. So all of these things work together where
Speaker 1: folks are now looking at this like, okay, so this
Speaker 1: is not fair, this is not humanitarian, this does not
Speaker 1: look like defense at all. There's no hostages recovered that.
Speaker 1: In fact, the IDF is killing hostages now at this point,
Speaker 1: that's something that they admitted, you know, And this response
Speaker 1: and to everyone that says, okay, well, Israel has a
Speaker 1: right to defend itself, We're not going to call for
Speaker 1: a ceasefire, it just starts to look as calloused as
Speaker 1: it looks. It's just starts to look as self serving
Speaker 1: as it looks. If in fact, Israel is going after
Speaker 1: something other than Hamas, could it be land to be
Speaker 1: whatever you know you said with skinseriocy theory. I cannot
Speaker 1: prove or disprove that, and I won't try to. But
Speaker 1: you start to question things, and then people have that,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, emotional response like wait a minute, what's
Speaker 1: going on here? What's going on?
Speaker 2: Are you saying there's no terrace infrastructure. I don't understand.
Speaker 1: No, there absolutely is, and there are tunnels. There are
Speaker 1: tunnels there, Okay, But where they're identifying the tunnels and
Speaker 1: where we're supposed to find all of this stuff? Remember Israel,
Speaker 1: the Israeli militaries, I believe, the third most powerful military
Speaker 1: on earth. The intelligence that Israel has is about about
Speaker 1: there in terms of how sophisticated their intelligence is, their weapons,
Speaker 1: their training, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Indis militaries more powerful than Russia's.
Speaker 1: I forgive me if the numbers are wrong, but I
Speaker 1: know that it's a very powerful military. I believe it's
Speaker 1: in the top five military. Absolutely. This is something that
Speaker 1: I've read and maybe that's misinformation. Maybe the Israeli military
Speaker 1: not going to matter, okay, But I do know what it's.
Speaker 1: It's a sophisticated operation. It is not.
Speaker 2: It is not anything aistic is itst is no joke.
Speaker 1: It is Okay. So with the military that powerful, making
Speaker 1: a mistake like that, you.
Speaker 2: Have almost making mistakes, no matter how sophisticated you are,
Speaker 2: is part of war.
Speaker 1: Leaning into them is not. Leaning into them is not.
Speaker 1: And if it is, if leaning into your mistakes is
Speaker 1: a part of war. Then discuss again the the response
Speaker 1: of the world. See my thinking is, Amy, I love
Speaker 1: Jewish people, man. I've hugged when they when they lost
Speaker 1: loved ones. I've eaten at their tail, I've been in
Speaker 1: the houses these people took me in. Okay, this happened.
Speaker 1: I know. Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on,
Speaker 1: hang on. I have to hear what you have to say.
Speaker 1: But let me say this, Okay. These people I love
Speaker 1: with my whole heart.
Speaker 2: I know it.
Speaker 1: And then I see this response from Israel in the
Speaker 1: name of those Jewish people, in the name of defending
Speaker 1: those Jewish people, okay, and then I have to be
Speaker 1: critical of that response because those Palestinian folks, even though
Speaker 1: I haven't met any Palestinian folks until this time in
Speaker 1: my life, my default setting is to love them the same, okay,
Speaker 1: And when I do, I run the risk of being
Speaker 1: anti Semitic. Huh me me. I run the risk of
Speaker 1: being called this, and so does everyone else, right, and
Speaker 1: so you become fearful of these criticisms, and so when
Speaker 1: you ask these questions like listen, is this just justification
Speaker 1: to do this? Because you can say that, and then
Speaker 1: we can have that conversation, which I don't suspect it
Speaker 1: will ever happen, and I don't know that it is,
Speaker 1: but you start to see that global support shift away,
Speaker 1: and then you start questioning, Listen, is this guy, this
Speaker 1: met and Yahoo guy, is he really acting in the
Speaker 1: best interest of Jewish populations globally? Because you've been on
Speaker 1: the ground at universities and you've seen a change in
Speaker 1: temperature for Jewish people. You've seen that, and that's something
Speaker 1: that breaks my heart. And I suspect it's because of
Speaker 1: his response murdering all these people who have nothing to
Speaker 1: do with it. He did not vote in that election
Speaker 1: there and and the people that join Hamas, I Hamas
Speaker 1: call it a terrorist organization. I'll agree with you, okay.
Speaker 1: But the people that join that, I question what alternative
Speaker 1: do they have? Do I sit here and get bombed
Speaker 1: or do I fight back? And if I fight back,
Speaker 1: how does it look? Are these are people fighting? Do
Speaker 1: I join them? Okay?
Speaker 2: Ras? First of all, you know you know that I
Speaker 2: would defend you to the death for something. Call you
Speaker 2: and semitic, right, you know that?
Speaker 1: Thank you? Hammy?
Speaker 2: Okay, you know I don't you don't have an en
Speaker 2: Semitic bone in your body. But what my my point
Speaker 2: is is that I think sometimes we get lost in
Speaker 2: the anecdote and we're losing. We're losing the what I
Speaker 2: was the data I was breaking up before. Like, look,
Speaker 2: we could argue back and forth again, can mistakes be made,
Speaker 2: States can be made, Mistakes have been made, But ultimately
Speaker 2: you're not and cannot impeach an overall statistic of the
Speaker 2: amount of civilians who were killed relative to the amount
Speaker 2: of terrorists who were killed. Now to go back to
Speaker 2: for a moment to what you said about what choice
Speaker 2: they have again, I can't stress enough before October seventh,
Speaker 2: they had their own essentially nation state. What do you
Speaker 2: mean what choice they had? They were making all their
Speaker 2: own political choices, their own economic choices. They were essentially
Speaker 2: what it almost was was a dry run for a
Speaker 2: Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Okay, which
Speaker 2: by the way, I think ultimately that's where we have
Speaker 2: to be. But it makes that argument very hard when
Speaker 2: people on the right say to me, well, look what
Speaker 2: happened with Gaza. We gave them essentially a state they
Speaker 2: made to a terrorist state. You cannot find a single
Speaker 2: example of Israel attacking or bombing Gaza when it wasn't
Speaker 2: responding from attacks from Gaza. Not one. There always a
Speaker 2: response now when one says, well, how do you compare
Speaker 2: you know, fifteen hundred people being killed to thirty thousand,
Speaker 2: because that's not proportional, right, that doesn't seem proportional. That's
Speaker 2: not what proportionality is. That's not in the law. And
Speaker 2: we can only go by the laws of war, right,
Speaker 2: which have been set up for years over the court
Speaker 2: actually with the course of centuries, and there is or
Speaker 2: will not be prosecuted for war crimes. And I'm sorry
Speaker 2: they will not be found guilty of war crimes because
Speaker 2: they're not committee war crimes. They are following the rules
Speaker 2: of war, how ugly they may seem to be, including proportionality,
Speaker 2: and we can get to that later. But that's I
Speaker 2: want to stress that.
Speaker 1: Well, this show is way too short and it's heartbreaking
Speaker 1: because there's so much more that we need to talk about.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you talking to me because it allows me
Speaker 1: some understanding and hopefully it allows our listeners some understanding. Naturally,
Speaker 1: there are people who would would push back, and I
Speaker 1: suspect that I need to have less talking points in
Speaker 1: an episode when it comes to something like this, because
Speaker 1: a lot of these we cannot simply just gloss over,
Speaker 1: and that's what we've done, and still we haven't gotten
Speaker 1: to the videos that are on your social media that
Speaker 1: I would naturally be very critical of your methods of
Speaker 1: you know, context blind spots, all these sorts of things,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure you would welcome that, but we're going
Speaker 1: to have to table that for another discussion. Discussion. Please
Speaker 1: real quick before we go, please drop your social media
Speaker 1: so folks can tap in with you, just.
Speaker 2: At Ammi Horowitz and all the major socials.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and of course you can follow me at Ramsey's job.
Speaker 1: You can follow the show at Civic Cipher. Ammy. We're
Speaker 1: gonna have to have you back on again to finish
Speaker 1: this conversation. I hope you'll come back, but until then, peace,