Debate Prep (Obsidian Notes)

DISCLAIMER

This article will never be more up to date than the obsidian version. The most up to date entries can be found here.

The Table of Contents is highly encouraged to properly navigate the following article due to the breadth of content.
While the content of the article will be similar, there may be tangible differences between the page and the actual published obsidian documents due to the fact that:
1. The formatting of Destiny's notes may be changed for enhanced readability.

Last updated on 09 May, 2024

Jones and Greenwald Debate

Final report of the Select Committee to investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol

Composition

Formation - Wikipedia

On May 19th, 2021, the House voted to form an independent bicameral commission to investigate the Jan 6th insurrection.
- Vote passed 252-175 with 35 Republicans joining in favor.
Senate Republicans blocked the bicameral commission, leading to House Speaker Pelosi to appoint a select committee using only House members.
On June 30th, 2021, House Resolution 503 "Establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol" passed the House 222-190. All Democrats and only two Republicans, Kinzinger and Cheney, voted in favor.
On July 1st, Pelosi appoints eight members, with Cheney being the sole Republican.
On July 19th, McCarthy suggests Jim Banks, Jim Jordan, Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls.
- Banks, Jordan and Nehls voted to overturn the EC results in Arizona and Pennsylvania.
- Banks and Jordan signed onto the Supreme Court case Texas v. Pennsylvania to invalidate the ballots of voters in four states.
On July 21st, Pelosi announced that she would reject Jordan and Banks, but would accept the other three recommendations.
- McCarthy said it was all or nothing, costing Republicans almost all of their representation on the January 6th Select Committee.
On July 25th, Pelosi announced her appointment of Adam Kinzinger to the committee.
- Notably, Kinzinger was one of only ten House Republicans to vote for Trump's second impeachment.
Members
- BENNIE G. THOMPSON (D) Mississippi, Chairman
- LIZ CHENEY (R) Wyoming, Vice Chair
- ZOE LOFGREN (D) California
- ADAM B. SCHIFF (D) California
- PETE AGUILAR (D) California
- STEPHANIE N. MURPHY (D) Florida
- JAMIE RASKIN (D) Maryland
- ELAINE G. LURIA (D) Virginia
- ADAM KINZINGER (R) Illinois
Majority of the witnesses involved in the J6 Select Committee Report were Republicans.
- Two of President Trump’s former Attorneys General, his former White House Counsel, numerous members of his White House staff, and the highest-ranking members of his 2020 election campaign, including his campaign manager and his campaign general counsel.

Donald J. Trump Indictments

The Mar-a-Lago Classified Documents Case

Originally filed on June 8th, 2023
Superseding indictment filed on July 27th, 2023
- The Indictment

Facts

The classified materials are alleged to contain classified national security information regarding potential vulnerabilities and counter-attack strategies for the United States against foreign adversaries.
Tens of thousands of members and guests visited Mar-a-Lago between January 2021 and August 2022. The club hosted more than 150 social events.
The boxes brought from the White House were stored in various parts of the resort.
Trump knowingly showed off classified material at least two times.
- In July 202I, at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey ("The Bedminster Club"), during an audio-recorded meeting with a writer, a publisher, and two members of his staff, none of whom possessed a security clearance, TRUMP showed and described a "plan of attack" that TRUMP said was prepared for him by the Department of Defense and a senior military official. TRUMP told the individuals that the plan was "highly confidential" and "secret." TRUMP also said, "as president I could have declassified it,'" and, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."
  - Audio Recording
- In August or September 2021, at The Bedminster Club, TRUMP showed a representative of his political action committee who did not possess a security clearance a classified map related to a military operation and told the representative that he should not be showing it to the representative and that the representative should not get too close.
On March 30th, 2022, the FBI opened a criminal investigation into the unlawful retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. A grand jury issued a subpoena soon after.
Trump accused of obstructing the FBI/grand jury investigations by:
- Suggested to his attorney to lie about having the documents.
- Directed Waltine Nauta to hide boxes of documents from Trump's attorney.
- Suggested that his attorney hide or destroy documents.
- Handing only some documents over while retaining others and lying about it.
- Certifying a knowingly false statement that all documents called for had been produced.
- Attempting to delete security camera footage to conceal information.
Trump returned documents after months of delay.
Trump's public statements as candidate for president of the United States:
- On August 18, 2016, TRUMP stated, "In my administration I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."
- On September 6, 2016, TRUMP stated, ·'We also need to fight this battle by collecting intelligence and then protecting, protecting our classified secrets. . . . We can't have someone in the Oval Office who doesn't understand the meaning of the word confidential or classified."
- On September 7, 2016, TRUMP stated, "(O]ne of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information.'
- On September 19, 2016, TRUMP stated, "We also need the best protection of classified information.
- On November 3, 2016, TRUMP stated, "Service members here in North Carolina have risked their lives to acquire classified intelligence to protect our country.
Trump's public statements as President of the United States:
- On February 16th, 2017:
  - "The first thing I thought of when I heard about it is, how does the press get this information that's classified? How do they do it? You know why? Because it's an illegal process, and the press should be ashamed of themselves. But more importantly, the people that gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves. Really ashamed."
- On July 26th, 2018:
  - "As the head of the executive branch and Commander in Chief, I have a unique, Constitutional responsibility to protect the Nation's classified information, including by controlling access to it. . .. More broadly, the issue of a former executive branch official's) security clearance raises larger questions about the practice of former officials maintaining access to our Nation's most sensitive secrets long after their time in Government has ended. Such access is particularly inappropriate when former officials have transitioned into highly partisan positions and seek to use real or perceived access to sensitive information to validate their political attacks. Any access granted to our Nation's secrets should be in furtherance of national, not personal, interests.""
Trump was personally involved in the transportation of his documents to Mar-a-Lago.
Trump's documents were, for a time, stored publicly in the Mar-a-Lago Club's White and Gold Ballroom, where events and gatherings took place.
Photographs were taken of boxes toppled over in the storage room with classified information both available for view and texted back and forth between employees and lawyers.
In May of 2022, Nauta made false and misleading statements to the FBI
- Lied about being aware of Trump reviewing the material in his boxes.
- Lied about knowing how the boxes got to the residence.
- Lied about knowing where the boxes were stored.
Of the 15 boxes Trump provided NARA in January of 2022, 14 boxes contained 197 classified documents, 98 were marked "SECRET", 30 were marked "TOP SECRET", and the remainder were marked "CONFIDENTIAL."
In response to a grand jury subpoena, Trump told his attorneys
- I don't want anybody looking, I don' t want anybody looking through my boxes, I really don 't, I don' t want you looking through my boxes.
- Well what if we, what happens if we just don 't respond at all or don 't play ball with them?
- Wouldn't it be better if we just told them we don't have anything here?
- Well look isn't it better if there are no documents?
While meeting with attorney's, Trump told the following story:
- Attorney, he was great, he did a great job. You know what? He said, he said that it - that it was him. That he was the one who deleted all of her emails, the 30,000 emails, because they basically dealt with her scheduling and her going to the gym and her having beauty appointments. And he was great. And he, so she didn't get in any trouble because he said that he was the one who deleted them.
Trump demanded to be present and changed his travel plans accordingly to oversee the attorneys going through his boxes to search for classified material.
Between May 23rd and June 2nd, Trump instructed Nauta to remove a total of ~64 boxes from the storage room and to bring them to Trump's residence.
- On May 24, 2022, between 5:30 p.m. and 5:38 p.m., NAUTA removed three boxes from the Storage Room.
- On May 30, 2022, at 9:08 a.m., TRUMP and NAUTA spoke by phone for approximately 30 seconds. Between I0:02 a.m. and 11:51a.m., NAUTA removed a total of approximately 50 boxes from the Storage Room.
Trump implied to Attorney 1 to discard any particularly sensitive classified material.
- He made a funny motion as though - well okay why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out. And that was the motion that he made. He didn't say that.
Trump took classified material that he and Nauta thought were important or relevant and packed them on a plane and flew them north for Trump's Summer vacation.
In June, after a request for camera footage in Mar-a-Lago, Trump likely instructed Nauta to return to Mar-a-Lago and delete security camera footage.

Timeline

Beginning in March 2021, NARA repeatedly demanded that Trump turn over records.
On January 17th, of 2022, after months of demands from NARA, Trump provided only 15 boxes/197 documents with classification markings.
On February 9th, 2022, NARA referred the discovery of classified documents to the DoJ.
On March 30th, 2022, the FBI opened a criminal investigation.
On April 26th, 2022, a federal grand jury opened an investigation.
On May 11th, 2022, the grand jury issued a subpoena to Trump to produce all documents with classification markings in his possession.
On June 3rd,, 2022, Trump's attorney provided 38 more documents.
On August 8th, 2022, the FBI recovered 102 more classified documents while executing a court-authorized search warrant.

The Georgia RICO Case

Indicted on August 14th, 2023
- The Indictment

Facts

False statements made to state legislatures to solicit a new slate of electors.
False statements made to many members of Georgia to change the outcome of the election.
The enterprise created and transmitted false electoral college documents.
False claims made about Ruby Freeman.
Trump told Acting AG Rosen with Donoghue "Just say that the election was corrupt, and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen."
The enterprise told the VP to reject valid Georgia electors.
Members of the enterprise conspired to unlawfully access secure voting equipment and data, and then distributed it to other members of the enterprise.
Members of the enterprise committed perjury in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Acts of Racketeering

Donald Trump planned to announce his victory in a speech drafted four days before November 4th.
Act 108: Eastman submitted false claims in the case of Trump v Kemp that he emailed other attorneys admitting his knowledge that at least some of the allegations were not accurate.

The Jack Smith Election Fraud Case

Filed on June 8th, 2023
- The Indictment

Facts

The conspiracies
- Using knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to change their election outcome.
- The organization of fraudulent elector slates in seven states.
- Utilizing the reputation of the DoJ to send letters to targeted states claiming legitimate investigations and concerns existed regarding the election in an attempt to convince said states to choose fraudulent electors.
- Trying to bully Pence into accepting fraudulent electors, rejecting legitimate electoral votes, or sending them back to states for review rather than counting them.
- Continuing to levy false claims about election during Jan 6 riots.
People who told Trump there was no fraud
- Vice President Pence, whom Trump had asked to study fraud allegations.
- Senior leaders of the DoJ, appointed by Trump himself.
- The direction of National Intelligence,
- The DHS's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the CISA Director, appointed by Trump, and subsequently fired after announcing publicly that the election security experts agreed there was no fraud.
- Senior White House attorneys, selected by Trump.
- Senior staffers on the Defendant's 2020 re-election campaign.
- State legislators and officials, many whom were political allies of Trump.
- State and federal courts, 11 judges of whom were nominated by his administration.
Trump and friends had a whole fake elector scheme where false electoral voters certified and transmitted fake electoral slates in 7 states in order for Pence to throw the election back to the House delegation.
Trump asked Acting AG Rosen "Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen."
Donald Trump communicated to Jeffery Clark to ask Rosen and Donoghue to sign a letter together claiming that the DoJ knew that the outcomes of elections were wrong, and that Georgia had two valid slates of electors transmitting their votes to Congress, urging the state legislature to convene a special session to hopefully choose the fraudulent electors of the legitimate ones.
- Jeffery Clark on the 2nd said Trump would make him the acting AG if the AG and deputy AG refused to sign the letter.
Trump only relented in his plan to replace Rosen with Clark when told it would result in mass resignations at the DoJ and of his own White House Counsel.
During the Jan 6th riots, Trump and his cronies tried to contact several senators/congressmen to slow down the election.

Links

False Electoral Slates

AP report: Trump advances false claim that 3-5 million voted illegally

Trump: I'll accept election results 'if I win'

January 6th Insurrection

This section has been majorly revised to remove a significant portion of obsolete content in the original Obsidian publication to improve readability.

Republican Lawmakers

Support for Donald's election-denial

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/12/politics/liz-cheney-gop-conference-vote/index.html

Punishing members who speak against Trump

Cheney was ousted from the Republican leadership from the third highest position in the House for her intense criticisms of Donald Trump's claims about election rigging.
- Cheney had one of the most conservative voting records in Congress, and voted in line with Trump's agenda 92.9% of the time.
Representatives Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) were censured by the Republican party for participating in the J6 House Select Committee. Cheney would go on to get crushed in her election, Kinzinger had already announced he would not be running again.

Donald Trump

"The Big Lie"

Trump has knowingly spread false information despite being informed multiple times exactly how election night would go down.

In the weeks before election day 2020, Donald Trump’s campaign experts, including his campaign manager Bill Stepien, advised him that the election results would not be fully known on election night.
Prior to the 2020 election, Donald Trump’s campaign manager Bill Stepien, along with House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, urged President Trump to embrace mail-in voting as potentially beneficial to the Trump Campaign. Presidential advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner recounted others giving Donald Trump the same advice.
- Donald Trump won in numerous States that allowed no-excuse absentee voting in 2020, including Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

People knew ahead of time that Trump was going to attempt to claim victory early.

Steve Bannon: And what Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory, right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner. He’s just gonna say he’s a winner . . . The Democrats—more of our people vote early that count. Theirs vote in mail. And so they’re gonna have a natural disadvantage, and Trump’s going to take advantage of it—that’s our strategy. He’s gonna declare himself a winner. So when you wake up Wednesday morning, it’s going to be a firestorm . . . . Also, if Trump, if Trump is losing, by 10 or 11 o’clock at night, it’s going to be even crazier. No, because he’s gonna sit right there and say “They stole it. I’m directing the Attorney General to shut down all ballot places in all 50 states.” It’s going to be, no, he’s not going out easy. If Trump—if Biden’s winning, Trump is going to do some crazy shit.
Roger Stone: I really do suspect it will still be up in the air. When that happens, the key thing to do is to claim victory. Possession is nine-tenths of the law. No, we won. Fuck you, Sorry. Over. We won. You’re wrong. Fuck you.
On election day, Vice President Pence’s staff, including his Chief of Staff and Counsel, became concerned that President Trump might falsely claim victory that evening. The Vice President’s Counsel, Greg Jacob, testified about their concern that the Vice President might be asked improperly to echo such a false statement. Jacob drafted a memorandum with this specific recommendation: “It is essential that the Vice President not be perceived by the public as having decided questions concerning disputed electoral votes prior to the full development of all relevant facts.”

On election night.

Stepien: You know, very, very, very bleak. You know, I—we told him—the group that went over there outlined, you know, my belief and chances for success at this point. And then we pegged that at, you know, 5, maybe 10 percent based on recounts that were—that, you know, either were automatically initiated or could be—could be initiated based on, you know, realistic legal challenges, not all the legal challenges that eventually were pursued. But, you know, it was—you know, my belief is that it was a very, very—5 to 10 percent is not a very good optimistic outlook.
Miller: I was in the Oval Office. And at some point in the conversation Matt Oczkowski, who was the lead data person, was brought on, and I remember he delivered to the President in pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose.
President Trump refused, and instead said this in his public remarks that evening: “This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. We did win this election .... We want all voting to stop.” And on the morning of November 5th, he tweeted “STOP THE COUNT!” Halting the counting of votes at that point would have violated both State and Federal laws.
- William Barr: "Right out of the box on election night, the President claimed that there was major fraud underway. I mean, this happened, as far as I could tell, before there was actually any potential of looking at evidence. He claimed there was major fraud. And it seemed to be based on the dynamic that, at the end of the evening, a lot of Democratic votes came in which changed the vote counts in certain States, and that seemed to be the basis for this broad claim that there was major fraud. And I didn’t think much of that, because people had been talking for weeks and everyone understood for weeks that that was going to be what happened on election night...."
In one of the Select Committee’s hearings, former Fox News political editor Chris Stirewalt was asked what the chance President Trump had of winning the election after November 7th, when the votes were tallied andevery news organization had called the race for now-President Biden. His response: “None.”

After the election

As the Committee’s hearings demonstrated, President Trump made a series of statements to White House staff and others during this time period indicating his understanding that he had lost.50 President Trump also took consequential actions reflecting his understanding that he would be leaving office on January 20th. For example, President Trump personally signed a Memorandum and Order instructing his Department of Defense to withdraw all military forces from Somalia by December 31, 2020, and from Afghanistan by January 15, 2021.51 General Keith Kellogg (ret.), who had been appointed by President Trump as Chief of Staff for the National Security Council and was Vice President Pence’s National Security Advisor on January 6th, told the Select Committee that “an immediate departure that that memo said would have been catastrophic. It’s the same thing what President Biden went through. It would have been a debacle.”
Barr: And I repeatedly told the President in no uncertain terms that I did not see evidence of fraud, you know, that would have affected the outcome of the election. And, frankly, a year and a half later, I haven’t seen anything to change my mind on that.
Exchange between Staff and Stepien
- Committee Staff: How did he react to those types of conversations where you told him that an allegation or another wasn’t true?
- Stepien: He was—he had—usually he had pretty clear eyes. Like, he understood, you know—you know, we told him where we thought the race was, and I think he was pretty realistic with our viewpoint, in agreement with our viewpoint of kind of the forecast and the uphill climb we thought he had.
Trump Campaign Senior Advisor Jason Miller told the Committee that he informed President Trump “several” times that “specific to election day fraud and irregularities, there were not enough to overturn the election.”
Pence: There was never evidence of widespread fraud. I don’t believe fraud changed the outcome of the election. But the President and the Campaign had every right to have those examined in court. But I told the President that, once those legal challenges played out, he should simply accept the outcome of the election and move on.
The General Counsel of President Trump’s campaign, Matthew Morgan: What was generally discussed on that topic was whether the fraud, maladministration, abuse, or irregularities, if aggregated and read most favorably to the campaign, would that be outcome determinative. And I think everyone’s assessment in the room, at least amongst the staff, Marc Short, myself, and Greg Jacob, was that it was not sufficient to be outcome determinative.
A group of prominent Republicans have more recently issued a report—titled Lost, Not Stolen—examining “every count of every case brought in these six battleground states” by President Trump and his allies. The report concludes “that Donald Trump and his supporters had their day in court and failed to produce substantive evidence to make their case.” President Trump and his legal allies “failed because of a lack of evidence and not because of erroneous rulings or unfair judges . . . . In many cases, after making extravagant claims of wrongdoing, Trump’s legal representatives showed up in court or state proceedings empty-handed, and then returned to their rallies and media campaigns to repeat the same unsupported claims.”
Indeed, eleven of the judges who ruled against Donald Trump and his supporters were appointed by Donald Trump himself.
One of those Trump nominees, Judge Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, rejected an appeal by the Trump Campaign claiming that Pennsylvania officials “did not undertake any meaningful effort” to fight illegal absentee ballots and uneven treatment of voters across counties. Judge Bibas wrote in his decision that “calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” Another Trump nominee, Judge Brett Ludwig of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, ruled against President Trump’s lawsuit alleging that the result was skewed by illegal procedures that governed drop boxes, ballot address information, and individuals who claimed“ indefinitely confined” status to vote from home. Judge Ludwig wrote in his decision, that “this Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits” because the procedures used “do not remotely rise to the level” of breaking Wisconsin’s election rules.
Nor is it true that these rulings focused solely on standing, or procedural issues. As Ginsberg confirmed in his testimony to the Select Committee, President Trump’s team “did have their day in court.” Indeed, he and his co-authors determined in their report that of these post-election cases were dismissed by a judge after an evidentiary hearing had been held, and many of these judges explicitly indicated in their decisions that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs was wholly insufficient on the merits.
Not a single witness ever provided proof to the J6 committee that fraud existed on any reasonable scale in any state.

Undermining the Electoral Process

"Beginning election night and continuing through January 6th and thereafter, Donald Trump purposely disseminated false allegations of fraud related to the 2020 Presidential election in order to aid his effort to overturn the election and for purposes of soliciting contributions. These false claims provoked his supporters to violence on January 6th."
"Despite knowing that such an action would be illegal, and that no State had or would submit an altered electoral slate, Donald Trump corruptly pressured Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes during Congress’s joint session on January 6th."
"Donald Trump sought to corrupt the U.S. Department of Justice by attempting to enlist Department officials to make purposely false statements and thereby aid his effort to overturn the Presidential election. After that effort failed, Donald Trump offered the position of Acting Attorney General to Jeff Clark knowing that Clark intended to disseminate false information aimed at overturning the election."
"Without any evidentiary basis and contrary to State and Federal law, Donald Trump unlawfully pressured State officials and legislators to change the results of the election in their States."

"Donald Trump oversaw an effort to obtain and transmit false electoral certificates to Congress and the National Archives." "Donald Trump pressured Members of Congress to object to valid slates of electors from several States.

Plan to Overturn Election Results

"Knowing that he and his supporters had lost dozens of election lawsuits, and despite his own senior advisors refuting his election fraud claims and urging him to concede his election loss, Donald Trump refused to accept the lawful result of the 2020 election. Rather than honor his constitutional obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” President Trump instead plotted to overturn the election outcome."

Speech on January 6th

"Based on false allegations that the election was stolen, Donald Trump summoned tens of thousands of supporters to Washington for January 6th. Although these supporters were angry and some were armed, Donald Trump instructed them to march to the Capitol on January 6th to “take back” their country."

Dominion Case

210 Jan. 6th criminal defendants say Trump incited them

Tucker Carlson
Whitmer Kidnapping Attempt
Comparison to BLM stuff

Donald Trump Speech Transcript
Donald Trump Speech

al gore toss out votes???

LAWSUITS FOR ELECTION THINGS FROM RUDOLPH GIULIANA, how many of these did Trump's campaign file?

page 237 for case breakdown

Reddit: Weird how biden won alot of these states in 2020 then overnight suddenly Trump was wining! Smells like collusion!

Trump was never calling people to violence
He just wanted people to vote out their leaders
Who caused it? What set things off?
Police removing barricades, waving them in
Ray Epps telling people to storm the capitol, he admitted to orchestrating it

What are they protesting?

We're going to vote you out?
- The protesters were there to get the Republicans to not certify the vote
Pence
- Was throwing the election out a coup?
- "Keep the election in his favor."

Hillary and FBI

Strozk "insurance policy"
Russia collusion scheme

Deserved to know about Hillary
Hunter Biden

He agrees with them

Jones—Greenwald Debate Strategy

Ground Rules

No one should be above the law. All sworn in individuals in the United States swear and oath to the Constitution.
We agree that we can figure out intent without reading minds or requiring a confession.
We agree that "isn't it weird" isn't an accurate attack. Strong claims need strong evidence.
Donald Trump and his campaign made phone calls to multiple states pushing his false election fraud claims in order to get state election officials to flip their EC votes. Trump knew these claims were false. What would it take to convince you that Trump was making knowingly false claims? Would we apply this same standard to other people (e.g. Hillary's emails)? What about Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham in private texts saying they didn't believe Powell's claim of Election Fraud?
1. Trump won in states with no-excuse absentee voting in 2020, including Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming. He had no reason to believe absentee voting was rigged or corrupt.
2. Trump would repeat election fraud claims that had been widely debunked, many times just days after being informed and being shown evidence that they had been debunked.
3. All of these people were trusted by Trump to investigate claims of election fraud:
  1. Bill Stepien, Trump's National Field Director for his campaign, a lifelong Republican, who also worked on Giuliana's presidential campaign in 2007-2008, told Trump he had lost on election night.
  2. Chris Miller, Trump's Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, attested that Matt Oczkowski, Trump's campaign's top data scientist, told him on election night that he was going to lose.
  3. William Barr, Trump's Attorney General of the Department of Justice, told Trump repeatedly that he'd investigated and found absolutely no signs of voter fraud.
  4. Jeffry Rosen, Trump's acting Attorney General of the Department of Justice, called or met with Trump only ever day to tell him there was no election fraud.
  5. Richard Donoghue, Trump's acting attorney general, told Trump the information he was getting was false.
  6. Chris Stirewalt, former Fox New political editor, said that Trump had no chance of winning the election after the votes were counted.
  7. Jason Miller, the Trump Campaign Senior Advisor, informed Trump several times that there wasn't enough evidence of fraud to overturn the election.
    "When our research and campaign legal team can't back up any of the claims made by our Elite Strike Force Legal Team, you can see why we're 0-32 on our cases. I'll obviously hustle to help on all fronts, but it's tough to own any of this when it's all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership."
  8. Mike Pence, Trump's Vice President, said there was never evidence of widespread fraud, and that he believed there was no good evidence of enough fraud to overturn the election.
  9. Matthew Morgan, the General Counsel of Trump's campaign, claimed that the Trump staff, including him and Marc Short and Greg Jacob, didn't believe there was sufficient evidence of voter fraud.
  10. Brad Raffensperger, the Republican Georgia Secretary of State, denied every single claim that Trump made about election Fraud.
  11. Brian Kemp, the Republican Governor of Georgia, denied that the election was stolen in Georgia.
  12. A group of prominent Republicans (4 Federal Judges, 2 former Senators, a lawyer and someone who worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years) published a conservative report, titled Lost, Not Stolen, which claimed
    The report concludes “that Donald Trump and his supporters had their day in court and failed to produce substantive evidence to make their case.” President Trump and his legal allies “failed because of a lack of evidence and not because of erroneous rulings or unfair judges . . . . In many cases, after making extravagant claims of wrongdoing, Trump’s legal representatives showed up in court or state proceedings empty-handed, and then returned to their rallies and media campaigns to repeat the same unsupported claims.”
  13. Eleven of the judges who ruled against Trump were Trump federal judiciary appointments.
    One of those Trump nominees, Judge Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, rejected an appeal by the Trump Campaign claiming that Pennsylvania officials “did not undertake any meaningful effort” to fight illegal absentee ballots and uneven treatment of voters across counties. Judge Bibas wrote in his decision that “calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” Another Trump nominee, Judge Brett Ludwig of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, ruled against President Trump’s lawsuit alleging that the result was skewed by illegal procedures that governed drop boxes, ballot address information, and individuals who claimed“ indefinitely confined” status to vote from home. Judge Ludwig wrote in his decision, that “this Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits” because the procedures used “do not remotely rise to the level” of breaking Wisconsin’s election rules.
  14. Ivanka and Kushner, Trump's daughter and son-in-law, prepared to move right after the election, with Ivanka stating she believed Barr's testimony.
  15. Alex Cannon, Trump's campaign lawyer, said he told advisers that there was no election fraud.
  16. Kellyanne Conway, Trump's counselor, wrote in her published memoir that she had told Trump he lost.
    “The team had failed on November 3, and they failed again afterward. By not confronting the candidate with the grim reality of his situation, that the proof had not surfaced to support the claims, they denied him the evidence he sought and the respect he was due. Instead supplicant after sycophant after showman genuflected in front of the Resolute Desk and promised the president goods they could not deliver.”
  17. Ken Block, a data mining firm hired by Donald Trump to find evidence of voter fraud, said they found very little evidence of voter fraud, and that it was equal on the Democratic and Republican side.
4. Trump's campaign filed 62 suits and lost 61 of them, 30 of them due to not even having adequate evidence to bring a suit forward, and most of them asking for insane or unreasonable remedies.
  The one suit was a victory in Pennsylvania, which allowed voters to not go back and "cure" ballots if they had failed to provide identification. The ruling did not change the outcome in Pennsylvania.
5. Donald Trump called Georgia and Michigan making false claims in order to make them decertify their vote.
  1. Trump makes a litany of false claims that have all been rejected by Raffensberger in his call to Georgia. After the call, Trump's mischaracterization of the call lead to Raffensberger leaking it to the public.
  2. Trump and Giuliana called Republican Senate Majority leader Mike Shirkey and Republican House Speaker Lee Chatfield and repeated more false claims to them about the election, which both said had been investigated and denied. In response, Trump and his team maliciously tweeted out Shirkey's personal cell phone number and a number for Chatfield for people to spam. Shirkey said he received nearly 4,000 text messages.
Donald Trump created and implemented a fake elector scheme to undermine the legitimate state electors. There was never any compelling reason to believe any part of this scheme was legal. Would we feel the same if Biden had refused to certify the vote for Trump because of "Russia Collusion?" What about Gore refusing to certify the vote over the Florida recounts in 2000? What if Kamala Harris refuses to certify the vote for Trump?
1. Donald Trump and his team enticed 7 sets of electors to fraudulently fill out ballots and transmit them to NARA, falsely claiming that they were the duly appointed electors authorized to transmit the votes. They lied about being the duly appointed electors and they lied about meeting in the State Capitols to certify their votes.
2. According to the first Eastman memo, Mike Pence would read and count through the ballots, declare that there are multiple sets of electors for the 7 states that Trump had false electors set in for, then declare that no sets of electors can be declared valid. At this point, Trump would have 232 EC votes to Biden's 222, making him the winner. If the Democrats claim 270, a majority of votes, is required, Pence can throw the vote back to the House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote on who the president should be. Republicans had 26 states controlled in the senate, meaning Trump could still win the election with their votes.
  1. Eastman had already said prior to this that the strategy was not valid. He told Greg Jacobs, Mike Pence's legal counsel, that the Supreme Court would reject his legal theory, 9-0.
    "I don’t agree with this. The 12th Amendment only says that the President of the Senate opens the ballots in the joint session then, in the passive voice, that the votes shall then be counted. 3 USC § 12 of the Electoral Count Act says merely that he is the presiding officer, and then it spells out specific procedures, presumptions, and default rules for which slates will be counted. Nowhere does it suggest that the president of the Senate gets to make the determination on his own. § 15 of the Electoral Count Act doesn’t either."
  2. Pence's private counsel, Richard Cullen, contacted former Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig, a conservative judge that Eastman previously clerked for. Luttig testified there was no basis in law for Eastman's theory.
    Judge Luttig completely rejected Eastman’s “blueprint to overturn the 2020 election” as “constitutional mischief” and ‘the most reckless, insidious, and calamitous failure in both legal and political judgment in American history.”
  3. Pat Cipollone, White House Counsel for Donald Trump, said that the idea to overturn the election using Mike Pence was crazy.
  4. Eric Herschmann, another White House lawyer, said the plan was "completely crazy" and "obviously made no sense."
  5. Pat Philbin, Deputy White House Counsel, also had the same understanding that the plan wasn't possible.
3. The second Eastman memo claimed that Pence himself could make the determination as to which slates of electors were legitimate.
Establish that Donald Trump attempted to bully Pence into unilaterally overturning the election. Is it in the spirit of the Constitution to ask Pence to toss out electoral slates? What is the difference at this point between Trump and an authoritarian?
1. Trump asked Pence multiple times to commit to this course of action. Pence and his legal counsel responded negatively, every single time.
  In a January 1st call, Trump told Pence he was "too honest" after he explained that he did not have the power to unilaterally determine the outcome of the election.
2. Trump tweeted multiple times and called out in his January 6th speech multiple times for Pence to "do the right thing." He continued these tweets even as the riots raged on, leading to protestors chanting "Bring him out!" and "Hang Mike Pence!""
Establish that Donald Trump capitalized on the Jan. 6th riot to continue his pressure to decertify the election. Why would Trump not want to stop the riots if they weren't his intention? Shouldn't he be doing everything within his power to stop the riots if they were going to make him look bad? Why were the rioters chanting 1776, what were they sent to the Capitol by Donald Trump to protest?
1. Trump was getting a play-by-play update on everything going on at the Capitol, with people begging him to call off the rioters.
  1. Minutes after arriving back at the White House, a White House staffer informed him of the rioting. This happened at 1:21 PM.
  2. Ben Williamson, the White House Acting Director of Communications, and Sarah Matthews, the Deputy Press Secretary, went to Mark Meadows and Kayleigh McEnany to urge the president to issue a statement.
  3. Hutchinson, Kushner and Cipollone all tried to convince Trump to put out a statement to stop the rioters.
  4. Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, the two who spent the most time with Trump during the Capitol Riots, both refused to respond to subpoenas about their interactions with Trump that day.
  5. McCarthy told Trump in a call from 2:26 to 3:06 that he needed to put a stop to this. Trump said "Well, Kevin, I guess they're just more upset about the election theft than you are."
  6. Marjorie Taylor Green texted Meadows at 2:28 PM: “Mark I was just told there is an active shooter on the first floor of the Capitol Please tell the President to calm people. This isn’t the way to solve anything.”
  7. Laura Ingram, at 2:32 PM: “Hey Mark, The president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home.” “This is hurting all of us.” “He is destroying his legacy and playing into every stereotype . . . we lose all credibility against the BLM/Antifa crowd if things go South.” “You can tell him I said this.”
  8. Mick Mulvaney at 2:35 PM, "Mark: he needs to stop this, now. Can I do anything to help?"
  9. Representative Barry Loudermilk, 2:24 PM: "“It’s really bad up here on the hill.” “They have breached the Capitol.”232 At 2:48 p.m., Meadows responded: “POTUS is engaging.”233 At 2:49 p.m., Loudermilk responded: “Thanks. This doesn’t help our cause.”
  10. Representative William Timmons, 2:46 PM: “The president needs to stop this ASAP.”235 At 2:49 p.m., Meadows responded: “We are doing it.”
  11. Donald Trump Jr., 2:53 PM: "“He’s got to condem [sic] this shit. Asap. The captiol [sic] police tweet is not enough.”237 Meadows responded: “I am pushing it hard. I agree.”238 Later, Trump, Jr., continued: “This his [sic] one you go to the mattresses on. They will try to fuck his entire legacy on this if it gets worse.”"
  12. Ivanka went into the room to also tell Trump to call off the rioters, having to regroup in Kushner's office at times in between going into the room to request he call off the rioters.
2. Most of Trump's tweets were provocative, and he tried to continue to pressure Congress not to certify the vote.
  1. Trump's first tweet at 2:24 PM. "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!""
  2. At 2:38 PM, Trump tweeted "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"
3. Trump and Giuliani were trying to make phone calls to talk about the EC votes during the riots.
  1. At 2:26 PM Trump called Tommy Tuberville of Alabama to talk objections to the electoral count.
  2. From 2:26 to 3:06, Trump spoke to McCarthy.
  3. After Trump's phone call with Giuliani, Giuliani began to call Members of Congress to talk about delaying the certification of the vote.
    - He called Senator Marsha Blackburn, Senator Mike Lee, three calls to Senator Bill Hagerty, two calls to Jim Jordan, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Josh Hawley, and Senator Ted Cruz.
    - Giuliani testified that he was calling to see if anything could be done about the vote. One of the voicemails he left to Senator Tuberville was:
      - "The only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous States and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow—ideally until the end of tomorrow. So if you could object to every State and, along with a congressman, get a hearing for every State, I know we would delay you a lot, but it would give us the opportunity to get the legislators who are very, very close to pulling their vote."

Did Trump betray his people?

Alex Jones and others said he would show up, he never did.
Why didn't Trump pardon any of them? Why did he call them Antifa?
Trump only pardoned those close to him, he is the swamp.

4 years have passed since the last election. All of the investigations and court cases to find significant voter fraud have completely failed, yet Donald Trump still believes that significant voter fraud existed. Why should we believe that if the J6ers managed to delay the certification of the vote for additional investigations, that Donald Trump would believe anything that disagrees with his assumption that he won the election? Why would we expect him to leave office and not just continue to push to investigate more and more and more and more?

Ray Epps

The Claims

Ray Epps led the very first "breach team" on January 6th
The FBI stealthily removed Ray Epps from its Capitol Violence Most Wanted List on July 1st
Ray Epps worked alongside several individuals, many of whom were suspiciously unindicted
Ray Epps has never been charged with a crime
- Ray Epps pleaded guilty to Jan. 6th misdemeanor (Indictment)
  - Prosecutor alleges that Epps had no connection to the FBI.
  - Unclear why Justice Department decided to charge him with a crime 2½ years after the events of January 6th.
Stewart Rhodes was an inexplicitly protected Jan 6th instigator who founded the Oath Keepers and led the conspiracy to revolt.
- Rhodes was convicted to 18 years in prison for seditious conspiracy.

Questions

If Ray Epps was a known FBI informant, why did they mess up and publish him on their FBI Washington Field Twitter account and their most wanted list?
Did Ray Epps actually make any commands on the day of January 6th?
If Baked Alaska was so intelligent in being able to point out that Ray Epps was a "glowie" issuing illegal commands to people, why the fuck did he actually then proceed to enter the Capitol building the next day???
Why didn't the FBI scrub Epps' presence before choosing him for this essential mission?
Why did Epps himself confess to his local newspaper about being at the J6 protests?
Why did the FBI so blatantly remove Suspect 16 and not replace him with another photo, change the numbering of everyone on the site, or just leave him up so as to not draw obvious suspicion?
Why wouldn't the FBI just block webcrawlers like the wayback machine like so many other sites have???
Why wouldn't the FBI have just arrested Epps immediately to hide suspicion?
Why wouldn't they take down all the videos posted online about him if they controlled platforms like Twitter?
Why is Ray Epps intelligent enough to infiltrate the January 6th protests, instigate riots, and coordinate the first breach of the Capitol grounds, but stupid enough to text his nephew claiming he orchestrated it?

Counter Narrative

Boomer guy who believed that Trump genuinely thought the election was stolen, so he showed up to protest in the Capitol, but wanted things to remain peaceful.
Probably didn't have any active major connections, and probably wasn't involved in any violent coordination.

Ben Shapiro Debate

Who Wants To Be Speaker of the House?

4:50 - "Donald Trump backed a bunch of really bad candidates in Purple Districts."

Giving one strong reason why Trump is a bad leader. He has bad political instincts and is not effective at choosing good candidates for either his cabinet, nor candidates for other races.

4:50 - Big Trumpy candidates also cost senate seats in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania because of how much swing voters dislike Trump.

Trump is a bad pick for Republicans because of how much he galvanizes support on the other side.

8:40 - This notion that running against the entire system (like Trump did) produces good results has not been borne out.

This is very true, it's the failure of ALL populist leaders, and it is EXACTLY what Donald Trump aims to repeat in the next election if he were to win.

11:50 - One norm of the house is that you don't remove members from committees just because you don't like them.

Marjorie Taylor Greene was not removed from her committees simply because "Democrats did not like her." If that was the case, wouldn't there be numerous other Republicans removed from committees? What about Geatz? What about Bobbert?
MTG wasn't removed from her committees because people simply didn't like her, it was because
- She supported 9/11 conspiracy theories.^[1]
- She harassed a school shooting victim, David Hogg, about using children as shields for red flag laws. She also claims that he's a paid actor in the same video.^[2]
- She claimed that the Parkland School Shooting was a false flag event.^[3]
- She supported executing Democratic leaders like Pelosi and members of the FBI before running for Congress.^[4]
- She mentioned Jewish space lasers causing fires in California.^[5]
- Spoke alongside Nick Fuentes at AFPAC.
Paul Gosar was also removed from committees^[6] and censured for making an AoT spoof with Republicans attacking Democrats^[7] (tbf the video was incredibly badass).
- Spoke alongside Nick Fuentes at AFPAC.

14:00 - He brings up AOC's tweets about Gaetz's lack of support for institutions.

Ben doesn't engage with this at all. Did McCarthy deserve infinite support from the Democrats?

14:20 - Democrats suggested they could ram judicial nominees through with 51 votes.

Nuclear option research on history of judicial nominees.

21:10 - Is Donald Trump going to whip votes? Is he going to fundraise on behalf of members of the house?

Donald Trump is just not good for the Republican party.

32:00 - Joe Biden is running this economy into a ditch.

What could he be doing better?

33:00 - Joe Biden encourages us to talk to us neighbors, Ben Shapiro claims he's a "dead president."

Biden's answer here was incredibly diplomatic and exactly what we need right now.

41:10 - The reason these Kaiser strikes are happening is because Joe Biden is president of the United States.

Really? Did any strikes at all happen under Trump?

41:27 - Economic stagnation is the real threat of the Biden administration.

Isn't the US outcompeting the G7?

42:00 - Where's AOC crying about the border wall?

Are Democrats against all border security? Or just children separated from their family?Biden wall fact check.

Oxford Union Ben Shapiro Debate with Students

Q: How do you excuse or explain the violence in the West Bank preceding October 7th

A: A breakaway group from the Palestinian Authority called "Lions Den" are responsible for many terrorist attacks from Jerusalem and through the West Bank.
Islamic Jihad is a terrorist group with wide presence in the West Bank.

My Questions

Does Shapiro believe all violence in the West Bank against Palestinians is justified? Is it always while targeting a terror cell?
Does Shapiro believe the IDF ever commits indiscriminate violence against Palestinians in the West Bank?
Does Shapiro believe in unjustified Settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank?

Q: What do you think about IDF enacted violence against the March of Return?

A: Ben isn't familiar.

Q: Do you think the IDF shoots at civilians with total impunity?

A: That's not true, many of them have been arrested. "They're all currently sitting in Israeli jail."

My Questions

Do you believe the IDF or Settlers are generally held accountable when it comes to committing violence against Palestinians?
What about the pardons given to the perpetrators of the Kafr Qasim massacre?

Q: Do you think Israel is justified in killing civilians using your logic?

A: There is a difference between going in and deliberately killing civilians vs attacking infrastructure and killing civilians through collateral damage.

My Questions

What about

Q: A question about the political climate in the United States.

A: "We should nominate somebody who's sane...on one hand, we have a geriatric old guy, on the other hand, we have Donald Trump."

My Questions

If we were truly looking to nominate someone based on their sanity, do we feel like Donald Trump's behavior is truly a better reflection of sanity than Joseph Biden's?

Q: Why not support Biden over Trump? Trump's call for a suspension of the Constitution and Trump's incitement of January 6th.

A: In Trump's imagination, he's a serious threat to Democracy, but since Democracy survived he must not have been a serious threat.
A: January 6th was not a threat to American Democracy. There is no point in time on January 6th that a military coup had been launched and that Donald Trump would retain the presidency.
A: Joe Biden has used the power of the executive branch in new and exorbitant ways. For example, when he tried to use OSHA to enforce vaccination policies.
A: "I think Donald Trump only cares about Donald Trump."
A: Joe Biden doesn't believe in the Supreme Court. He's attacked the Supreme Court with alacrity. His party has talked about packing the Supreme Court.

My Questions

Does someone need to always have a clear chance at thwarting Democracy to be considered a threat to Democracy? Does a failure to be anti-Democratic mean that you are, by definition Democratic?
During Jan 6th, is it inconceivable that a few more people could have caused substantial damage to the actual members of government? Were protestors at one point not a single hallway away from lawmakers? What would have happened if they were caught? Did Trump's constant election denialism not fuel this riot?
Did Donald Trump not flex incredibly executive power? What about in regards to restricting immigration, enacting tariffs, doing border policy, doing executive actions, etc..?
Isn't Donald Trump's obsession with himself a danger to all of us when he's supposed to be representing the American people instead of his own ego?
The Democrats literally lost a Supreme Court pick to the Republicans. Biden has explicitly refused to consider packing the Supreme Court.^[8]

Ben Shapiro Final Debate Prep

It's important to acknowledge that both sides want an American government that enables us to live happy, healthy and productive lives.

Conservatives tend to think that enabling individuals with maximum freedom and minimum administrative burden enables them to do so, e.g. a person who's rights are secured by the government with taxation and bureaucracy kept at a minimum is best able to utilize his talent and work, if he so chooses, to accomplish whatever he wants. They value community driven efforts, like churches, to allow more local, democratic contribution of funds and distribution of help to people in the community who need it.

Liberals tend to think that opportunities made available to people allow them to flourish, and that some supportive government systems along with a more equitable burden of taxation allows for more people to flourish, e.g. a person who's minimum needs are met with some government assistance is better able to utilize his talent and work, if he's empowered, to accomplish whatever he wants. They value data driven, government policy distribution to collect tax funds and redistribute them in ways that minimize burden to wealthy people and maximize assistance to more needy people in a broader sense across the country.

I believe we need a bit more on the liberal side of effective redistribution, especially in areas of housing, food and education, to ensure that our population is as productive as possible.

Kash Patel says as Trump’s next CIA Director he will lead “patriots” appointed by Trump in an all-out effort to prosecute and jail people in government and the media, “We will find the conspirators in govt and the media. Yes, we are going to come after the people in the media.”^[9] Trump publicly asking for Bill Barr to indict Obama and Biden for crimes/spying on his campaign.

Trump tweet about "MSDNC"

Trump saying he would suspend the Constitution to search for voter fraud.

118th congress one of the least productive ever, is going after Hunter a good idea?

What is a good president?

Ben Shapiro Material

Reference Material

2023.11.01 - Oxford Union Ben Shapiro Debate with Students

2023.10.05 - Ben Shapiro video on Who Wants to be Speaker of the House

2023.08.28 - "The great irony here is that Biden is getting off easy. Corrupt and dishonest are far more applicable to Biden than Trump."

Broad Political Narratives I'd like to Outline

Ben Shapiro contributes to one-sided historical analysis.
The Trump leadership's downstream effects can be seen across all of the Republican leadership.
1. The Speaker of the House fiasco is a great example of this.
Donald Trump is not healthy for the Republican party or for the conservative movement.
1. He attacks conservative leadership, "dividing Republican against Republican."
2. He's inconsistent on his values and beliefs (are they even conservative?).
3. He chooses poor candidates to back in races.
4. He doesn't fundraise for candidates. (Do presidents normally do this?)
Donald Trump's record on any of the large issues he ran on is not good.
1. Foreign wars, he ended none.
2. Border security he failed on.
3. Balanced budget he failed on.
4. Gun control increased under Donald Trump.

Two large strains of argumentation

Donald Trump is a bad candidate to support if you are truly a conservative.
Joe Biden is a better candidate for the overall health of America.

Biden’s Car Crash Economy

Email 1
Hi Destiny, Listening to your talk with Pisco about potential Ben Shapiro debate topics. A couple items I think that would be good to brush up on ahead of time, if it ends up being Trump vs Biden's record / foreign policy. Trump \| Afghanistan My thoughts: Not only did Trump negotiate the withdrawal and pushed it to Biden's administration, but Trump BRAGGED about how Biden couldn't have stopped the process even if he wanted to. Trump clip in June 2021, 2 months prior to withdrawal. Trump \| refusal to pull us out of Yemen, against rare bipartisanship in Congress My thoughts: I bring this up as an example to MAGA family whenever they say Trump is against foreign wars. Trump \| Yemen raid My thoughts: I recalled this while watching your talk with Tim Pool when he was obsessed with Obama's "extrajudicial killings". Immediately upon taking office, Trump called on a military raid in Yemen (one that the Obama administration didn't do because it was considered too risky), resulting in the deaths of women, children, and an American SEAL. Trump \| Drone Program My thoughts: Not only did Trump expand America's drone program, but made it harder to account for civilian casualties. 2018-19 Government Shutdown My thoughts: Trump had one of the longest government shutdowns while Republicans controlled BOTH houses. Insane. If I recall, the Democrats were even going to give Trump all the border wall funding he wanted so long as he saved DACA. But Stephen Miller (arguably one of the actual racists in Trump's cabinet) stopped it, receiving criticism from Lindsey Graham. Good luck!

Ben Shapiro says trump is not a threat to democracy. (For destiny vs Ben debate)

Email 2
Hey Steven, Thought I share this timestamped video with you from Ben Shapiro's Oxford Union QA this week (5 minutes max). One of the audience members asks Ben why he would support Trump over Biden. Ben goes into his rational and reasons for disliking Biden more, I think it's an excellent starting place for formulating your arguments and research for the upcoming debate. https://youtu.be/-1NFirxhXWE?si=OvtivJbZiuF4ap-w&t=1761 That said I think debating the legitimacy of settlements or Zionism seems more interesting since its a more unique view Ben holds. Thanks,

Email 3(?)
REPUBLICANS CAN'T RULE FIRST TIME EVER MAJORITY LOSES HOUSE SPEAKER SEAT??? What legislation have Republicans brought to the House floor? Under Pelosi, it was a record amount of legislation. (fact check) Are Real Wages Rising? CDC H1N1 In April 2009, a Novel H1N1 influenza A (genetically distinct from seasonal flu virus) strain of swine origin was identified. Unlike previous seasonal influenza viruses, this pandemic influenza virus disproportionately infects a wider age-range of people. Based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) recommendations, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has guidelines for employers to assist them in the development of a framework in preparing their workplaces in order to minimize transmission of a pandemic virus. OSHA does expect facilities providing healthcare services to perform a risk assessment of their workplace and encourages healthcare employers to offer both the seasonal and H1N1 vaccines. It is important to note that employees need to be properly informed of the benefits of the vaccinations. However, although OSHA does not specifically require employees to take the vaccines, an employer may do so. In that case, an employee who refuses vaccination because of a reasonable belief that he or she has a medical condition that creates a real danger of serious illness or death (such as serious reaction to the vaccine) may be protected under Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 pertaining to whistle blower rights.^[10] Beer Hall Pusch "As Hitler controlled the masses support for the political right, the conservative elite believed that they could use Hitler and his popular support to ‘democratically’ take power. Once in power, Hitler could destroy the political left. Destroying the political left would help to remove the majority of political opponents to the ring-wing conservative elite. Once Hitler had removed the left-wing socialist opposition and destroyed the Weimar Republic, the conservative elite thought they would be able to replace Hitler, and appoint a leader of their choice."^[11] Read this and thought it might be a useful line of attack for the biden/trump debate. Beyond policy, what about character, values, and real leadership? Some quotes "Was it stupid that, in February, Trump was tweeting about how Covid-19 was like the flu and that we didn’t need to worry? Yes, but it takes on a different color when you listen to him tell Bob Woodward that in January he knew how bad it was, how much worse it was than even the worst flu, and that he was deliberately going to downplay the virus for political purposes."^[12] "I guess I just always thought you believed in the lessons you taught me, and the things we used to listen to on talk radio on our drives home from the lake. All those conversations about American dignity, the power of private enterprise, the sacredness of the Oval Office, the primacy of the rule of law."^[12] "If Donald Trump were even half-competent, one elected official told me, he could probably rule this country for 20 years. I have trouble figuring what’s worse—that he wants to, or that he wants to but isn’t competent enough to pull it off. Instead, Washington is so broken and so filled with cowards that Trump just spent the last four years breaking stuff and embarrassing himself."^[12] "Or is it worse, that my own father cares more about his retirement accounts—and I’ll grant, the runup of the market has been nice for me, too—than the future he is leaving for his children? Are you so afraid of change, of that liberal boogeyman Limbaugh and Hannity and these other folks have concocted, that you’d rather entrust the country to a degenerate carnival barker than anyone else? I see all this anger, what is it that you’re so angry about? You’ve won. Society has worked for you. My own success is proof."^[12] "So what is it? Because it can’t possibly be that you think this guy is trustworthy, decent, or kind. It’s definitely not about his policies… because almost every single one is anathema to what Republicans—and you—have talked about my entire life."^[12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOryDXS4skQ&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOryDXS4skQ DON'T LET THE "trump is just dumb lol" ARGUMENT EVER FLY

Finkelstein and Rabbani

Debate Outline

Palestine: Norm Finkelstein, Mouin Rabbani
Israel: Benny Morris, Steven Bonnell

Rhetorical notes

Stop hedging so much.
Always restate narratives as much as possible during questions and responses.

Make sure to maintain chain of argumentation from before and after every question and answer to maintain causal chains.

Primary Claims

I. Britain over-promised the same land to two people. Jewish people bought tracts of land in Palestine from willing Arab sellers even before British guarantees to a right to settle in Palestine. It's inarguable that the Arabs living within the borders of Mandatory Palestine felt betrayed by the British. The Jewish people, however, were betrayed as well. In the wake of the perceived British betrayal, and in the aftermath of the Holocaust, both sides would have felt justified in fighting the other for control over this land. At some point, however, it must be recognized that Israel emerged from the fighting in this region victorious, and surrounding Arab states were forced to recognize Israel as a legitimate entity.

Why is this important?
1. Factual Disagreement — It is incorrect to state that incoming Jews were clearly in the wrong, and that they were a colonial project by Great Britain.
2. Moral Significance — It is important to recognize that the founding of Israel represented promises made to both Jewish citizens and Ottoman Empire subjects because it illustrates the moral fallibility of assigning blame in the early stages of the Mandatory Palestine period to either the Jews or the Arabs. Blame should be more heavily assigned to Great Britain.
This factual and moral claim is literally found in the first 1964 PLO Covenant, written by the first PLO Chairman, Ahmed Shukeiry.
1. "Article 19. Zionism is a colonialist movement in its inception, aggressive and expansionist in its goals, racist and segregationist in its configurations and fascist in its means and aims. Israel in its capacity as the spearhead of this destructive movement and the pillar for colonialism is a permanent source of tension and turmoil in the Middle East in particular and to the international community in general. Because of this the People of Palestine are worthy of the support and sustenance of the community of nations."
Relevant Deals
1. Balfour Declaration
2. McMahon-Hussein correspondence.
3. Sykes-Picot agreement
4. The League of Nations Mandate System
There was never a clear expectation on either the British nor Arab side that Palestine would be 100% dedicated with borders to a single Arab Palestinian state.
Jewish Purchasing of land was legal at all stages.
Multiple binational agreements/concepts rejected by the Arabs until finally the Peel Commission.
Was 1948 a top-down, pre-planned ethnic cleansing of the Arab population within the newly formed Israeli borders?

II. While Israel might have been initially hungry for extra territory, the Arab states constantly gave Israel an excuse to take territory from them. The 1939 White Paper by British would have guaranteed a Palestinian state in 10 years, but Husseini and the AHC rejected it. In 1947, Israel accepted the UN Partition plan while the Arabs refused and instead invaded in 1948. In 1949 (The Lausanne Conference), Israel agreed to accept 100,000 refugees or annex the Gaza Strip in exchange for peace and recognition of its borders, yet the Arabs refused. In 1956, Egypt's closures of the Straits of Tiran gave Israel legitimate casus belli. In 1967, despite repeated requests from Israel not to attack, Jordan attacked anyway along with Egypt and Syria, losing the West Bank in the process. Israel was willing to return the Golan Heights in 1967 to Syria in exchange for peace. When Israel attempted to reach a final agreement on the Palestinian problem in 2000, and again in 2008, Arafat and Abbas refused.

Why is this important?
1. Factual Disagreement — It is incorrect to say that Israel was acting territorially greedy against passive states, and that the Arab states around them were not engaged in a healthy amount of provocation on their own.
2. Moral Significance — It is important to recognize that, especially in 1948, every state in the region was hungry for land, and the push for territorial conquest was not one-sided. It's also important to recognize that, while Israel ultimately succeeded in conquering additional land, there were multiple opportunities for Arabs to push for peace in ways that would have forced Israel to agree. Peace between Israel and the Arab states didn't come until much, much later because everyone in the region assumed that additional fighting would lead to additional territorial gains, but this only proved to be true for Israel.
Quotes from Israel leaders cautioning territorial expansion pre-1967.
1. "David Ben-Gurion was still powerfully drawn to Judea and Samaria by his historical-ideological and strategic considerations, but international diplomatic considerations dictated caution and restraint. Besides, the Jordanians had made it abundantly clear that they were out of the fight, and the Israelis still feared British military intervention should hostilities with Jordan be renewed. Zvi Ayalon, the Central Front OC, assured Ben-Gurion that it would take only "5 days" to conquer the West Bank or large parts of it. But Israel's representatives at the General Assembly meeting in Paris, Abba Eban and Reuven Shiloah, weighed in firmly against." (1948, Benny Morris, pages 350-351)
Quotes of Arabs/Palestinians Rejecting Peace
1. Abba Eban quipped in 1973 "The Arabs [or the Palestinians] never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
2. In regards to Husseini rejecting the 1939 White Paper, Philip Mattar wrote that the mufti's decision "clearly indicated that he was putting personal considerations and his idealism above practical politics."
Examples of Palestinian aggression disrupting ongoing peace processes
1. March 27th, 2002, the Passover massacre occurs the day before the announcement of the Arab Peace Initiative.
  1. Suicide bomber killed 30, injured 140.
2. The 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign, to derail peace talks between Netanyahu and Abbas.
  1. Random attacks ended with 5 killed, and 5 injured.
The lead-up and causes for the Six Day War.

III. The mythologies, loaded languages and international virtue signaling of both sides severely hamper any ability for either people to make progress in this conflict. The victory of Israel in the 1967 war drove their expectations for territorial acquisition to unrealistic heights, causing them to underestimate their Arab neighbors for a crushing psychological defeat in 1973. Similar myths exist on the Palestinian side, where surrounding Arab neighbors drove their expectations for land to unrealistic height, then the international community through UN Resolutions and international declarations made them believe they would acquire a state within the 1967 borders if they simply held out long enough. Constant claims of "apartheid", "concentration camp conditions" and "genocide" have left the Palestinians believing someone in the international community is going to come along and save them from their predicament.

Why is this important?
1. Factual Disagreement — The legal status of every single part of this conflict is incredibly hairy, with no clear answers on any side.
2. Moral Significance — By constantly claiming that Israel is committing apartheid, or genocide, or forcing Palestinians to live in concentration camps, the international community is making it seem as though the conditions the Palestinians live in are so dire that someone externally is going to swoop in and save them. This will not happen, the Palestinians need to unite around a coherent leadership structure so they can negotiate with Israel and save themselves.
International criticisms of Israel is highly disproportionate compared to its population and number of people of affected.
1. HRW
2. Amnesty International
3. UN Resolutions
"Anti-Semitism"
1. This has rightfully been called out by Rabani and Finkelstein as a way to shut down all criticism of Israel and to create an environment where all criticisms can be hand-waved as simply anti-Semitic. This shuts down conservation and makes it impossible to facilitate progress.
"Ethnic Cleansing"
1. This isn't even a formally defined crime or thing in international law.
2. Civilian populations move around and retreat during war, but this term never seems to be used for any other conflict besides the Bosnian War and Israel-Palestine.
  1. Examples:
    1. Ukrainians fleeing during Russia's invasion.
    2. In 1923, 1.6 million people were exchanged between Greece and Turkey
    3. In 1944-1950, 12-14.6 million Germans expelled from Europe after WWII
    4. In 1947 10-20 million people were displaced and 1 million died in the Partition of India.
    5. Jews being expelled from the West Bank in 1948.

"Open Air Prison" or "Concentration Camps"

Definitions
1. There is no definition for either of these things.
Hamas Administration
1. According to Israel and Palestinian sources, Hamas spends over $150m/year on their military budget, including $40m/year just on building tunnels.
2. Hamas leadership are worth billions while living abroad in Qatar.

Living conditions

The living conditions are clearly better in the Gaza Strip than in any concentration camp, and are in fact competitive with most Middle Eastern countries.

Infant Mortailty
Rank Country Mortality Rate
(No. of deaths/1,000 births)
26 Yemen 45.5
81 Iraq 19.2
85 Morocco 18.7
88 Egypt 17.3
91 Gaza 16.0
92 Syria 15.5
106 Jordan 13.6
158 Lebanon 6.9
Life Expectancy in years
Rank Country Average Lifespan
66 Lebanon 79.0
105 Jordan 76.3
133 Gaza 74.8
134 Egypt 74.7
137 Syria 74.6
142 Morocco 74.0
146 Iraq 73.5
191 Yemen 67.8
Under-5 Mortality
Gaza 26.8 per 1,000
The Middle East/North Africa 27.6 per 1,000
Today, the global population average 38 per 1,000

Human Development Index
Rank	Country	HDI
97	Egypt	0.731
102	Jordan	0.720
106	Palestine	0.715
112	Lebanon	0.706
121	Iraq	0.686
123	Morocco	0.683
150	Syria	0.577
183	Yemen	0.455
"HDI declined from 0.703 in 2013 to 0.698 in 2014, and from 0.716 in 2020 to 0.715 in 2021,46 in the aftermath of the July–August 2014 escalation and the May 2021 escalation, life expectancy declined by 1.4 years." — The United Nations Development Programme

How many deaths due to malnutrition?
1. It's hard to say if anyone before October 7th died of starvation or malnutrition in the Gaza Strip; it's difficult to say for sure if anyone has even died after October 7th thus far from malnutrition or starvation.

Quotations to support his argument
1. "Repeating a personal view that he had previously expressed to other USG visitors, NSC Director Eiland laid out for Ambassador Djerejian a different end-game solution than that which is commonly envisioned as the two-state solution. Eiland's view, he said, was prefaced on the assumption that demographic and other considerations make the prospect for a two-state solution between the Jordan and the Mediterranean unviable. Currently, he said, there are 11 million people in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip, and that number will increase to 36 million in 50 years. The area between Beer Sheva and the northern tip of Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza) has the highest population density in the world. Gaza alone, he said, is already "a huge concentration camp" with 1.3 million Palestinians. Moreover, the land is surrounded on three sides by deserts. Palestinians need more land and Israel can ill-afford to cede it. The solution, he argued, lies in the Sinai desert."
  
  — Giora Eiland from a Israeli Debrief relating to the Unilateral Disengagement Plans
  1. This quote is from 2004 and is not an analysis of the living conditions of those in the Gaza Strip.
2. "The Gaza Strip today is a concentration camp, but not like Bergen-Belsen. The differences are clear and known. This writer is opposed to parallels lacking information, knowledge and understanding, drawn for purposes of provocation, but is also opposed to creating hierarchies of suffering, which, whether concealed or openly, justify any suffering that does not reach the “climax” (which we, the Jews, define). The use here of the term “concentration camp” is based on the need to break free of the linguistic bonds of the Nazi period.”
  
  — Amira Hass wrote in Haaretz.
  1. This quote, of which Finkelstein omits the last sentence of, seems to stand in opposition to his utilization of this to prove the horrendous living conditions of the people in Gaza. Amira's goal is to broaden the concept of what a concentration camp is, while Norm is attempting to use it in a very narrow way to describe Gaza.
3. "Various versions of this idea became very popular among Israeli Jews and the construction of the fence began at the initiative of the former Minister of Defense, Benjamin Ben Eliezer, more or less along the pre-1967 lines. In fact, the fence around the Gaza Strip was completed a long time ago and the Strip has become the largest concentration camp ever to exist."
  
  Baruch Kimmerling, Politicide: Ariel Sharon's War Against the Palestinians page 169
  1. There is zero analysis here, just an opinion offered by the author.

Apartheid
1. Definitions
  1. "Article 7(2)(h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
2. Prosecutions
  1. No one has ever been convicted of the crime of apartheid, despite Africa carrying on its apartheid regime for almost 2 decades after the Convention Against Apartheid.
    1. Two people have been indicted as of 2021 in South Africa.
3. There are no laws or policies that treat different races inside Israel differently. Most of the different treatment either comes through immigration policy (which countries have their own right to dictate) or through citizenship status.
  1. The Nation State Law creates no legal distinctions between citizens and has never been utilized for legislation or policy making.
4. As applied in the different territories:
  1. The Gaza Strip: There are no Jews.
  2. The West Bank: Law is not applied based on racial domination, it's applied based on citizenship status.
5. The Palestinians initially compared themselves to the NLF in Algeria, and now compared themselves to South Africans.
Genocide
1. Was October 7th genocidal? Or any of Hamas’ actions, when they explicitly state that they want to remove or destroy a nation?
2. The ICJ case
  1. The case only needed to reach the “plausibility” standard, which is incredibly low.
    1. “5. The Court is not asked, in the present phase of the proceedings, to determine whether South Africa’s allegations of genocide are well founded. At this stage, the Court may only examine whether the circumstances of the present case, as they have been presented to the Court, justify the ordering (“indication”) of provisional measures to protect rights under the Genocide Convention which are at risk of being violated before the decision on the merits is rendered. For this examination, the Court need not address many well-known and controversial questions, such as those relating to the right to self-defence and the right of self-determination of peoples, or regarding territorial status. The Court must remain conscious that the Genocide Convention is not designed to regulate armed conflicts as such, even if they are conducted with an excessive use of force and result in mass casualties.”
      
      — Declaration of Judge Nolte
    2. “14. The information provided by South Africa regarding Israel’s military operation is not comparable to the evidence before the Court in The Gambia v. Myanmar in 2020. While the Applicant cannot now be expected to provide the Court with detailed reports of an international fact-finding mission, it is not sufficient for South Africa to point to the terrible death and destruction that Israel’s military operation has brought about and is continuing to bring about. The Applicant must be expected to engage not only with the stated purpose of the operation, namely to “destroy Hamas” and to liberate the hostages, but also with other manifest circumstances, such as the calls to the civilian population to evacuate, an official policy and orders to soldiers not to target civilians, the way in which the opposing forces are confronting each other on the ground, as well as the enabling of the delivery of a certain amount of humanitarian aid, all of which may give rise to other plausible inferences from an alleged “pattern of conduct” than genocidal intent. Rather, these measures by Israel, while not conclusive, make it at least plausible that its military operation is not being conducted with genocidal intent. South Africa has not called these underlying circumstances into question and has, in my view, not sufficiently engaged with their implications for the plausibility of the rights of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip deriving from the Genocide Convention.”
      
      — Declaration of Judge Nolte
  2. Incorrect ICJ Facts
    1. Why does the ICJ case say the March of Return was ”a large-scale peaceful protest along the separation fence between Gaza and Israel, in which thousands of Palestinians participated every Friday for over 18 months” when the UN says “while the vast majority of protestors have acted in a peaceful manner, during most protests dozens have approached the fence attempting to damage it, burning tires, throwing stones and Molotov cocktails towards Israeli forces and flying incendiary kites and balloons into Israeli territory; the latter resulted in extensive damage to agricultural land and nature reserves inside Israel and risked the lives of Israeli civilians. Some incidents of shooting and throwing of explosive devices have also been reported.
      1. March of Return gender violence
        Preliminary findings of a survey carried out by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) in the second quarter of 2019 revealed that 38 per cent of women in Gaza reported some form of psychological, physical, sexual, social or economic violence by their husbands, at least once during the preceding 12 months.7
        
        While domestic violence is a longstanding concern in the oPt, the Gender-Based Violence (GBV) Sub-Cluster estimates that the GMR has exacerbated it.8(https://www.ochaopt.org/content/two-years-people-injured-and-traumatized-during-great-march-return-are-still-struggling#ftn8) Evidence gathered by partners to the working group indicate that mothers have been often blamed by their husbands for the injury or death of their children during a demonstration, and experienced increased related violence. Additionally, widows are at higher risk of immediate psychological and economic violence by family members, as some are expected to re-marry and the family of the late husband often take control over their finances. Further, girls who lost a father, or have a father with a disability, are at increased risk of forced child marriage due to the decreased level of household income, as fathers/husbands are usually the breadwinner of the family.
        
        Yasmin, is a 22-year-old mother living in the north area. “I used to live a happy life, but all changed after my husband was killed in May 2018, during a GMR demonstration. With my two sons I returned to my family’s house and stayed there for a year and a half. As a widow, I was under tighter control by my family.” As is customary, Yasmin was requested to marry her brother-in-law. At first, she refused, but following pressure she accepted. “I didn’t want to go back to my husband’s family home, as they treated me badly. Soon after we married, my new husband began beating me. I never imagined that someone would do that to me. After the killing of my first husband, I started to attend psychosocial support sessions. They helped me feel better, less stressed. However, after I married again, I could no longer attend as my husband’s family opposed that. Now it’s all back again.”
      2. Participants in GMR were likely ruled as combatants.
        “If some of the demonstrators can be classified as direct participants in the armed conflict that exists between Israel and the Hamas (this is certainly the case with respect to the terrorists and the armed persons among them; two close categories also includes both members of the terrorist organizations who disguise themselves as demonstrators and also participants in the protest who agree to serve as “human shields” for the terrorists hiding behind them), then the demonstrators lose the protection granted to them pursuant to the principle expressed in Article 51(3) of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, which prescribes that the protection afforded to them as civilians shall be removed for such time during which they (actually) take a part in hostilities. In situations such as those, it is highly likely that the three pronged criterion – which was outlined by the team of international experts that the Red Cross convened – would be fulfilled. Upon the fulfillment of the three conditions by the demonstrators, civilians who take part in hostilities lose their protections. […]” IHL case study website
    2. “Dumb bombs” talking point.
      1. Has nothing to do with anything related to target discrimination.
    3. Quotes
      1. “On 12 October 2023, President Isaac Herzog made clear that Israel was not distinguishing between militants and civilians in Gaza, stating in a press conference to foreign media — in relation Palestinians in Gaza, over one million of whom are children: “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware not involved. It’s absolutely not true. … and we will fight until we break their backbone.”449 On 15 October 2023, echoing the words of Prime Minister Netanyahu, the President told foreign media that “we will uproot evil so that there will be good for the entire region and the world.””
        Full context, as per their own source: "It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It's not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It's absolutely not true.
        
        "They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup 'd état
        
        "But we are at war, we are defending our homes, we are protecting our homes, that's the truth and when a nation protects it's home it fights and we will fight until we break their back bone."
        
        He acknowledged that many Gazans had nothing to do with Hamas but was adamant that others did.
        
        "I agree there are many innocent Palestinians who don't agree with this, but if you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen and you want to shoot it at me, am I allowed to defend myself. We have to defend ourselves, we have the full right to do so."
        
        In Netanyahu’s speech, he says that the IDF will do what it can to minimize civilian casualties and calls upon civilians to flee south.
      2. “On 9 October 2023, Defence Minister Yoav Gallant in an Israeli Army ‘situation update’ advised that Israel was “imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” He also informed troops on the Gaza border that he had “released all the restraints”, stating in terms that: “Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything. If it doesn’t take one day, it will take a week. It will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places.” He further announced that Israel was moving to “a fullscale response” and that he had “removed every restriction” on Israeli forces.”
        Human Animals
        “But I don't think any Israeli actually understood it that way. "Chayot Adam", "Human Animals" is a common phrase in modern Hebrew, meaning "people acting in inhuman ways". An individual, moral condemnation, tied to inhuman acts. Not a racial, pseudo-biological remark. It's commonly used to describe Israeli criminals of all sorts, from rapists to gangsters. The most famous use of this phrase recently, was a 2019 remark by Oshrat Kotler, a leading Israeli news anchor, as a response to a story about Israeli soldiers beating a bound Palestinian, that the soldiers sent to the West Bank return as "human animals". This was a very controversial statement, that raised a huge outcry. But even the most outraged right-winger didn't assume Kotler referred to the entire Israeli people as subhuman.”
        
        The rest of this all refers to expanded military actions, none of this necessarily implies Palestinian people, nor genocidal intent.
      3. “Israeli Minister of Finance: On 8 October 2023, Bezalel Smotrich stated at a meeting of the Israeli Cabinet that “[w]e need to deal a blow that hasn’t been seen in 50 years and take down Gaza.””
        As per their own source: The powerful finance minister, settler leader Bezalel Smotrich, demanded at the cabinet meeting late Saturday that the army “hit Hamas brutally and not take the matter of the captives into significant consideration.” “In war as in war, you have to be brutal,” he was quoted as saying. “We need to deal a blow that hasn’t been seen in 50 years and take down Gaza.”
"Refugee Camp"
1. These are cities.
2. UNRWA definition requirement.
Facts
1. Potential bad historical claims
  1. The 2008 Mavi Marmara incident
    1. 4THOT summarizing Finkelstein's retelling of these.
  2. Iron Dome stuff
    1. Norman missed a huge conflict of interest with Postol’s research partners.
      “Most of the coverage by the media referring to Pedatzur fails to note his conflict of interest as a proponent of laser defensive systems, or the fact that the system he supported was one of the proposals rejected by Danny Gold and the IDF. Richard Lloyd also appears to have had a serious conflict of interest. A LinkedIn profile page appearing to belong to Mr. Lloyd claims to have developed a new “Iron Dome Warhead kill mechanism”. This information is dated December 2012, a full 3 months before the New York Times article was published, which should have allowed the NYT plenty of time to note Lloyd’s financial and professional conflicts of interest.”
    2. Postol’s research also plagiarized pictures and relied on YT videos.

IV. International support should be reserved for peaceful Palestinian movements, not violent ones. Historically, Israel has been willing to pursue reasonable attempts at peace made by her neighbors, e.g. Egypt (1979), Jordan (1994), Bahrain (2020), the UAE (2020), Morocco (2020) and Sudan (2021, and attempted to with the Palestinians (1993, 2000, 2008) and Syria (1967, 2000). These peace deals have come at great cost to Israeli leadership (Begin's fierce resistance from his own party for transferring the Sinai, Rabin's assassination in 1995 for the Oslo Accords) and to Arab leaders (Egypt was suspended from the Arab League for 10 years and Sadat was later assassinated for being a sell-out to the West). Palestinian leaders seem to prioritize their personal political careers and their consolidation of political support over the interests of the Palestinian people (Arafat for the Oslo Accords, and Camp David/Taba Summit, and Abbas in 2008). The Palestinians need a leader who is willing to risk some political division among the PLO/PA, and the people need to opt towards peace since that is the greatest way to apply optimal international pressure against Israel. A violent adversary has historically always given Israel room for territorial acquisition (1947-1949, 1967, 2000, 2010), while a peaceful adversary has always sparked international pressure for Israel to negotiate.

Why is this important?
1. Factual Disagreement — Palestinians are not improving their position through violence, yet that has been essentially their preferred arm of negotiating since 1948, with fedayeen attacks, the creation of the PLO, and international terrorist attacks. Violence has caused operations that have severely damaged Palestinian interests, such as Swords of Iron, Protective Edge, Cast Lead, and unilateral disengagement from Gaza. Violence from Palestinians has also consistently caused them to become alienated from their Arab neighbors (Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood/assassination attempts, Jordan with Abdullah's assassination in 1951, Black September in 1970, Wasfi-Tal's assassination in 1971, Lebanon from 1970-1982).
2. Moral Significance — Encouraging the Palestinians to act with violence gives Israel an excuse to continue the blockade in Gaza and to refuse Palestinians a state, while supporting Palestinian peace-makers puts pressure on Israel to come to a final settlement of the Palestinian problem while removing their justification for aggressive action. Israel's greatest fear, historically, has always been an Arab leader pushing for peace. If Arafat had pushed for peace against Israel, the settlements would be so much smaller than they are now. If Sadat hadn't pushed for peace with Israel, it's possible they would control the Sinai to this day.
Norm's position on violence:
1. 2015 Reddit AMA
  1. "until and unless they engage in mass nonviolent resistance, such as during the first intifada, it's hopeless"
  2. "There's a huge reservoir of international support now for the Palestinians, while Israel's stock has plummeted. If Palestinians put forth reasonable demands (based on international law) and engaged in mass nonviolent resistance, Israel would be cornered"
2. October 7th, 2023 on Norman's website
  1. Today they breached the camp’s walls. If we honor John Brown’s armed resistance to slavery; if we honor the Jews who revolted in the Warsaw Ghetto—then moral consistency commands that we honor the heroic resistance in Gaza. I, for one, will never begrudge—on the contrary, it warms every fiber of my soul—the scenes of Gaza’s smiling children as their arrogant Jewish supremacist oppressors have, finally, been humbled.

V. The basis for negotiations is only informed by international law, not defined by it. None of Israel's major prior bilateral negotiations with any partners (Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, the UAE, Morocco, Sudan) have been restricted by UN resolutions or international law. These negotiations have only succeeded when both parties were willing to recognize the political, social and military realities on the ground that both sides could reasonably agree to. Harping over and over again on "moral" interpretations of international law is meaningless, as Israel will not realistically begin negotiations in any place that calls for them to return to prior rejected arrangements (1947 partition plan, 2000 Taba Summit).

Why is this important?
1. Factual Disagreement — Negotiations historically for Israel have not been restricted to international law or UN Resolutions. Negotiations need to begin with intense consideration for the realities on the ground.
2. Moral Significance — Fixating on certain interpretations of international law will continue to drive Palestinian expectations to unrealistic heights. International law is not going to expel 450,000 Israeli's from the West Bank.
The legality of the settlements
"Recalling the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including “natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001." - SC 2334 (2016)
Resolution 242
1. Not legally binding, this was passed under Chapter VI of the UN charter.
  1. The "peaceful resolution" requirement of this was violated by every Arab state in 1973, and was continually violated by the PLO and any other group that engaged in violence against Israel to "end the occupation."
2. This shaped the resolutions between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Oslo I and Oslo II, yet did not lead to the creation of any permanent state of permanent resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
3. "There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from "the" territories or from "all" territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning "the." We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be "rationalized"; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. We also wanted to leave open demilitarization measures in the Sinai and the Golan Heights and take a fresh look at the old city of Jerusalem." — Dean Rusk, US Secretary of State, As I Saw It, page 389.
4. "And it was only when this euphemism was embedded in the language of a UN Security Council Resolution that Israel was ready to endorse it. The constructive ambiguity of the November 1967 Security Council Resolution Number 242, which called for peace based on the restitution of ‘territories’ instead of ‘the territories’, allowed Israel to claim that the borders would have to be modified on all fronts as a condition for peace and gave maneuvering space to her post-war diplomacy. Resolution 242 was the result of the need to find a formula that would reconcile Israel’s unrealistic expectation to have full peace for less than all the territories, and the Arabs’ drive for a full restitution of land in exchange for a watered-down state of non-belligerency." — Shlomo Ben-Ami, Scars of War, Wounds of Peace page 128
Who has the majority support right now in the region?
1. Israel
  1. Normalization of relations with Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Sudan, UAE, Bahrain, (Saudi Arabia), formal treaties signed by Egypt.
2. Palestine
  1. Recognition?
3. USA
  1. Public still overwhelming supports Israel and their mission to remove Hamas. source
4. Norm's references to this.
  1. "If you're serious about trying to build a mass movement, you can't go beyond what the public is ready to accept."
  2. "If you want to use the law to reach public opinion, you can't be selective with the law."
  3. Does Norm still support the Houthis?

VI. The Palestinian refugee problem is being artificially inflated. There are no other groups of refugees on the planet that have the unique treatment right now afforded to the Palestinians, and it only serves to drive a deeper wedge in between Israelis and Palestinians in regards to solving this conflict.

Why is this important?
1. Factual Disagreement — The Palestinian refugee situation is unacceptable. No other refugee group has this treatment.
2. Moral Significance — The artificial treatment of Palestinian refugees keeps prolonging the suffering of both Palestinians in Palestine and outside of it because it makes it more difficult for any final agreement to be reached, while simultaneously preventing Palestinians outside of Palestine from ever being settled into a new home.
Facts
1. UNRWA refusal to resettle. Arab League Resolution 1547 (Khartoum Conference), definition of refugee/refugee camp.
2. UNRWA regulations on refugees
3. "The descendants of Palestine refugee males, including adopted children, are also eligible for registration."
  — UNRWA on Palestinian Refugees
Unrealistic expectations from the Palestinians.
1. "The essence of the right of return is choice: Palestinians should be given the option to choose where they wish to settle, including return to the homes from which they were driven. There is no historical precedent for a people abandoning their fundamental right to return to their homes whether they were forced to leave or fled in fear. We will not be the first people to do so. Recognition of the right of return and the provision of choice to refugees is a pre-requisite for the closure of the conflict."
  — Reservations to the Clinton Parameters.
Euphemisms
1. "Refugee camp" = cities
2. "Refugees" - you can be born in another country, with full citizenship, and social services, etc...etc...

VII. Israel's jus ad bellum, their response to Hamas invading their country and killing 1,139 people in Israel (695 civilians, 373 security forces and 71 foreigners) and taking some 250 hostages, is fully in compliance with international law. All available evidence of Israel taking extraordinary steps to warn civilian populations of incoming attacks likely satisfies their obligation to Article 58 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, while death and casualty numbers in the highly urbanized environment seem to satisfy that Israel is distinguishing between targets (an obligation under API Article 48). On the contrary, Hamas had no good jus ad bellum as their October 7th attack was not preventing or in response to any incoming Israeli attack, and their jus in bello is clearly not justified as they have failed to uphold their obligations (under API Article 58) to protect their civilian population, failed to distinguish between military and civilian targets, and utilized their civilian population in an attempt to shield themselves from Israeli military forces.

Why is this important?
1. Factual Disagreement — Claims that Israel is conducting themselves in a way that, by policy, disagrees with the LoAC is entirely unsubstantiated, and has been for all of their major Gaza conflicts. Claims that excuses Hamas' actions, or make them comparable to the Israeli government, are completely absurd.
2. Moral Significance — Israel, morally, has a right to defend itself. Drawing false equivalences between Hamas and Israel, especially by incorrectly citing international law and disregarding the laws of armed conflict, undermines the validity of international law and endangers the safety of all civilians in future armed conflict. It is also essential to recognize that Israel, a Democratic country that is sensitive to the whims of its voters and to international pressure, has made much more information available from its archive than the parties they face. Their reluctance to participate in certain international investigations is understandable.
International humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict.
1. IHL seeks to balance two key goals – military necessity and humanity. In this way, the law protects civilians from the ravages of war while still enabling effec- tive military operations. Interpretations of the law that leave militaries with no lawful means by which to engage in necessary operations are often viewed as counter-productive and pose the risk of generating disregard for legal norms. The Goldstone Report unfortunately fails to give sufficient weight to this inherent bal- ancing – the most basic and historic premise of humanitarian law: the ‘desire to diminish the evils of war, as far as military requirements permit’.
  
  — Laurie R. Blank, “> THE APPLICATION OF IHL IN THE GOLDSTONE REPORT: A CRITICAL COMMENTARY
Lack of accountability
1. “The Gaza Strip falls under the jurisdiction of the PA according to the Oslo Accords (pursuant to which the PA was established). However, in June 2007, after armed confrontations with PA forces, Hamas established a de facto administration in Gaza and has since controlled internal affairs there, including the administration of justice. The Hamas de facto administration has neither prosecuted nor shown any intention to prosecute members of its armed wing or members of other armed groups responsible for firing rockets into southern Israel. On the contrary, during periods when they are not committed to a ceasefire with Israel, Hamas leaders promote such unlawful attacks.”
  
  — Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
Jus ad bellum
1. Israel
  1. Self-defense, destruction of Hamas, fully justified.
2. Hamas
  1. They have no cause for war. Occupation is not a cause for war.
Jus in bello
1. Principle of distinction
  1. The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants
    1. Rule 1 of IHL, The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants
    2. The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks may only be directed against combatants. Attacks must not be directed against civilians.
  2. Violations
    1. “Mortars and so-called Qassam rockets, which are locally made in Gaza, and longer range Grad-type rockets smuggled into Gaza via the tunnels from Egypt, are unguided projectiles which cannot be directed at specific targets. Attacks using such rockets are indiscriminate and hence unlawful under international law.”
      
      — Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
    2. “Between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 the armed wing of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups based in Gaza launched rockets and mortars 109 on a daily basis into towns and villages in southern Israel, as well as against Israeli military positions and patrols inside Gaza and along Gaza’s perimeter.”
      
      — Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
    3. “In other words, these weapons cannot be accurately aimed in a manner that distinguishes between military objectives and civilian objects, as required by international humanitarian law. Hence, when these weapons were used with the intent of striking military targets in Israel, but struck civilian objects instead, they constituted indiscriminate attacks. When rocket attacks were intended to strike homes, civilian infrastructure or civilians, they were direct attacks on civilians or civilian objects. In either case, such attacks constitute serious violations of international humanitarian law and are war crimes (see Chapter 5).“
      
      — Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
    4. “On at least one occasion a Palestinian rocket which fell short of its target landed inside Gaza and caused damage to a World Food Programme (WPF) warehouse near the Karni merchandise crossing between Israel and Gaza (the crossing has been closed since 2007). The warehouse is usually guarded by Israeli forces and since the beginning of Operation “Cast Lead” no UN staff members had been present there. The rocket strike caused no casualties but it damaged the warehouse, which at the time contained 400 tons of food and non-food items. The UN Board of Inquiry found that the damage to the warehouse was caused by a Qassam-type rocket locally manufactured in Gaza.”
      
      — Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
    5. “In response, the groups have argued that they have no other weapons, nor any way of obtaining precision weapons like those used by the Israeli army. They also say that they are acting in response to Israeli attacks which have killed more than 1,000 Palestinians for each Israeli killed by rockets. Some have argued that the attacks are aimed at Israeli military bases or positions in and around towns and villages in southern Israel and that the Israeli villages around Gaza are mostly military bases. While some of the rockets might strike military targets, which the groups would consider strategically more valuable, the argument is invalidated both by the obviously indiscriminate nature of the attacks and by the fact that whenever the rockets strike people these are invariably civilians. Other spokespeople have argued that the rockets are rarely lethal and that their main aim is to “disturb” life in Israel so long as Israel does not allow Palestinians to have a normal life. All these arguments are inadmissible under international humanitarian law. Whether or not attacks actually result in civilian casualties, they are in violation of international law, which also prohibits attacks aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population. The patterns of attacks and statements by members and leaders of Palestinian groups also indicate that they have no qualms about launching attacks against civilians and that they in fact carry out such attacks intending to kill and injure Israeli civilians. Such attacks constitute war crimes.”
      
      — Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
    6. “The organization has stated that the campaign of suicide bombings and other attacks against civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups amounted to crimes against humanity.”
      
      — Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
2. Principle of proportionality
  1. Principle of Proportionality in Attack
    1. Rule 14 of IHL, Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.
    2. This principle is codified in Article 51(5)(b) of AP I, and repeated in Article 57.
    3. Under the statue of the ICC, “intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects … which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”
      1. The overall military advantage anticipated is important.
  2. Violations
    1. Every single attack into Israel fails the proportionality check. The rocket attacks are indiscriminate and are rarely aimed at military installations or positions.
3. Principle of precaution
  1. Principle of Precautions in Attack
    1. Rule 15 of IHL, In the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
  2. Violations
    1. Every single Hamas attack is a violation of this rule. Hamas does not ever take time to warn the Israeli civilian population in any way before engaging in attacks
4. Human Shields
  1. Rule 97, The Use of Human Shields is prohibited.
    1. The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.
    2. It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.
  2. Article 58 of AP I also precautions against the effects of attack.
    1. The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:
      1. without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;
      2. avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;
      3. take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.
  3. Violations
    1. Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups also violated international humanitarian law in their conduct within Gaza. They launched rockets and located military equipment and Amnesty International July 2009 Israel/Gaza: Operation ‘Cast Lead’: 22 days of death and destruction positions near civilian homes, endangering the lives of the inhabitants by exposing them to the risk of Israeli attacks. They also used empty homes and properties as combat positions during armed confrontations with Israeli forces, exposing the inhabitants of nearby houses to the danger of attacks or of being caught in the crossfire.” - Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
    2. ”Between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 the armed wing of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups based in Gaza launched rockets and mortars 109 on a daily basis into towns and villages in southern Israel, as well as against Israeli military positions and patrols inside Gaza and along Gaza’s perimeter.“ - Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
    3. “Hamas and other armed groups also endangered Palestinian civilians by failing to take all feasible precautions in the conduct of their military activities, notably by firing rockets from residential areas and storing weapons, explosives and ammunition in them. They also mixed with the civilian population, although this would be difficult to avoid in the small and overcrowded Gaza Strip, and there is no evidence that they did so with the intent of shielding themselves. The extremely high population density in Gaza, a small territory and one of the most densely populated places in the world, entails additional challenges for all the parties involved in conflict or armed confrontations. Notwithstanding these difficulties, Hamas and other armed groups have an obligation to avoid conduct which, by intent or through recklessness, exposes the civilian population to danger, and have an obligation not to use the civilian population as a cover for their military activities. Intentionally using civilians to shield a military objective – often referred to as using “human shields” – is a war crime” - Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
    4. “Hamas and other Palestinian groups endangered civilians by firing rockets from populated residential neighbourhoods.” - Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
    5. “In another area of Gaza City, a resident showed Amnesty International delegates a place from where a rocket had been launched: a small patch of empty land some 50m from residential houses. Television footage from the Arabic TV station al-Arabiya broadcast during Operation “Cast Lead” also showed a presenter, seemingly caught off guard, saying that she had just heard a rocket being fired from the street near the building which houses the TV station, in the centre of Gaza City.” - Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
    6. “Hamas and other groups generally store weapons in civilian areas and there is no reason to believe that it was any different during Operation “Cast Lead”. By doing so, it rendered such locations possible targets of attack and therefore exposed civilians who may have been present to risk.” - Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
    7. “The groups openly acknowledge that their fighters and military facilities are present in towns and villages in Gaza, but argue that their role is to defend their communities against Israeli attacks and invasions.“ - Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
    8. “Some of the armed groups deny having fired rockets from populated areas or having stored them there, while others argue that they were merely defending their communities and that Israeli forces targeted civilians not involved in military activities and locations from which no attacks had been launched.” - Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
    9. “The placing of combatants and a variety of weapons within towns and villages by Hamas and Israel, while not in itself of evidence of using “human shields”, does amount to a violation of their obligation to take the necessary precautions to protect civilians under its control from the dangers of military operations “to the maximum extent feasible”, and in particular “avoiding locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas”.” - Amensty International 2009, OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION
5. Destroying civilian infrastructure
  1. Applicable international law
  2. Destroying civilian infrastructure is not a war crime.
Comparisons to other conflicts
1. The Nat Turner comparison completely fails.
  1. The Palestinians in the Gaza strip are not in any ways chattel slavery like African slaves imported to the United States. The conditions are not even remotely comparable and it is grossly downplaying the institution of slavery in the United States to pretend.
  2. The Nat Turner rebellion was composed of slaves who fought with knives, hatchets and fence posts. Hamas receive international aid from all over the world, taxes from smuggled goods, military training from Iran, financing from Qatar, and smuggle weapons and components for rockets into their territory, all to the detriment of the people they are supposed to be administering to.
2. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising quite literally would have been justified in every sense of the word.
  1. The Jews were fighting against SS Soldiers that were coming to the ghetto to take them to a concentration camp where Jewish people were already being exterminated.
  2. The Jews were not an organized army receiving funding and training from countries and militaries around the world - on the contrary, their plight was being completely ignored.
  3. The Jews were not targeting civilians, they were fighting against soldiers coming into deport them to Treblinka and Majdanek.
The Blockade
1. Impacts to Palestinians
2. And Finkelstein’s apologia for the 10/7 Hamas fighters––who were presumably in their late teens and 20s––is that they were “born into a concentration camp” and have known nothing else–– which suggests that Gaza has been a concentration camp for almost two decades.
Contemporary issues undermining the International Community position
1. Al-Shifa hospital stuff
  1. How much warning did Israel give before attacking the hospital?
  2. UNRWA
  3. Hospital staff in al-Shifa
  4. Workers affiliated with Hamas
  5. Huge tunnel near UNRWA building/area
  6. Tunnels
  7. Munition stores
List conditions for peace/objectives on both sides, Israel vs Hamas.
1. Administrative Detention of Palestinian
When Israel leaves things get bad - Gaza Strip 2005, West Bank/Second Intifada (2000-2005), Lebanon (Hezbollah)
Ceasefires broken by both sides

Norman Finkelstein

Live From The Table Podcast: Norman Finkelstein & Eli Lake Debate - Israel Hamas Debate

Gaza has been illegally annexed by Israel according to international law.

has it been? Does the IC say that?

Day after elections, Jimmy Carter declared them fair, then Israel put up a blockade.

Why did the blockade go up? Legal status of blockade

Operation Cast Iron ceasefire was broken.

it was, but let's get more information about this.

I use all the sources, they say Hamas uses no human shields.

sources even from AI and the UN say they do, so do Hamas??

The Gaza ministry of health is a civilian organization

What is the status of Gazan organizations?

"Nobody says anything about the Israeli numbers when the number changed after Oct 7th"

What are the official numbers, and why did they change?

"Israel has the best first responders in the world...how did the number keep growing?"

the implication being this was faked??

97% of water is poisonous from the ground wells. It's not potable.

is it?

He says again "they're all animals" and "they're all legitimate targets"

are these quotes accurate?

Half dozen quotes by Israeli officials "let's use this as an opportunity to get rid of the Palestinians from Gaza"

what are they?

They want to force Egypt to let them into the Sinai.

where have they said this?

People were trying to discredit the PLO back in the days. They did everything they could to get a two state solution under international law.

black September??? Jordan/Lebanon??? Camp David??? Geneva accord???

Beginning in 2006, there were many attempts to reach a settlement of the conflict. 30 year Truce.

were there??? What did they look like???

When I say Settlement, I mean based on the principals of International Law.

palestinian refugee situation is unique, they go back right to their homes???

Every year the UN votes on "Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine question."

what are the terms?

Why doesn't Egypt let any out to travel?

dodges question and makes it about letting ALL Palestinians out

They want to release them into the Sinai to rot and die.

what??? Israeli settlements were popping up in the Sinai after '67, also again where is the proof for this?

Does Hamas need to be dismantled? Well if Hamas needs to be dismantled, so does the Israeli government.

do they really conduct themselves in the same way? Also he says he never dodges questions but this is ANOTHER DODGE.

It "mows the lawn"

source of this quote needed

The people in Gaza were never given a chance.

Were they?

Bush forced elections, they voted Hamas, and then Israel put up the blockade.

are we missing something here???

It was a dictatorship, but that dictatorship was the result of never giving the people another election.

didn't Hamas toss out the Fatah and cancel all elections????

Sociologist book "Politicized" called Gaza the largest concentration camp in 2003. More mow the lawn quotes.

look up this rationale

They did terror bombing in WWII to get the civilians to rise up against the Germans. Over 800,000 civilians killed.

did they?

Mouin Rabbani vs Joseph Cohen on Palestine and Israel - “Allow Me To Speak!” | Full Debate

75% of residents of gaza strip are refugees

How many Jews are refugees?
How many are ACTUAL refugees from 1948?
Israeli politician quotes about ethnic cleansing/genocides
People shot by snipers in "safe corridors"
jews set up committees to study transfer/expulsion in the 1930's
1948 how much was ethnic cleansing vs people fleeing etc...
is ethnic cleansing always bad?
Do Norm and Mouin want to see Israeli's ethnically cleansed from the West Bank?
Can Jews live in Area A/B? Why not?
"Arab leaders telling Palestinians to flee is a hoax."
Nation State Law for Israel

UNRWA FAQ

Why is Hamas bad?

Not democratically elected. Coup'd Fatah, no elections.
Transmits propaganda to children.
Inhibits any peace process, they just want war. Remember the fighting with Abbas when he wanted truce in 2005.
Utilize human shields. Even IC recognizes this.
Hoards and diverts money from humanitarian places. Digging up pipes, stealing money, hoarding food.
Digs tunnels, fires rockets constantly.

Questions for Norm

Does Hamas have a moral justification for terrorism against Isralies?
Are their actions taking Palestine closer to or further from peace?
How should Israel respond to Hamas?
Why does Israel have the blockade?
Why didn't Egypt or Jordan make a Palestinian state in '48?
Do you have any criticisms at all for Hamas?
Is getting rid of Hamas a worthy goal?
Do you support a one state or two state solution?
Why doesn't the IDF "mow the lawn" in the West Bank?
Why do you say consensus says blockade illegal but only cite one footnote in chapter 4 of Method and Madness.
Why do you describe the Turkel report as Quasi-Official?

The Blockade in Gaza

Started in 2005
Incident - In May of 2010, attack on Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara
On September 27th, 2010, a UN General Assembly report from the HRC declared (on line 53/54) the blockade in Gaza to be collective punishment, or illegal under international law.
In September of 2011, a report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry on the 31st of May, 2010 Flotilla Incident claimed that the blockade followed international law.
Elections in the Gaza Strip
Background
- 2006 elections were the second set of elections for the PLC
- The Palestinian Cairo Declaration
  - Called for the elections to be held using a mixed voting system.
- Under USAID, the US spent $2.3million in support for Palestinian elections.
  - Some claim that this was an attempt to influence the results.
Plan to overthrow Hamas
- Bush administration approved a plan to overthrow Hamas by funneling arms and resources to Fatah in the Gaza Strip.
- May 2007 - The Desoto Report of the same affair,
- Did Hamas moderate?
2008 Israel ceasefire breaking
Tunnels are a right to self-defense
Operation Cast Lead
3 times ceasefire that reduced blockade restrictions
Protective Edge

Future video

Turkel Commission

Situation on Registered Vessels of Comoros, Greece and Cambodia

Report of the international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, resulting from the Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance

Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident

Examination of the weapons and equipment found on the Mavi Marmara indicates that preparations had been made in advance for an active confrontation with IDF soldiers

Gaza: Palestinians tortured, summarily killed by Hamas forces during 2014 conflict

International Humanitarian Law - Rule 97. Human Shields

Israel/Gaza: Operation “Cast Lead”: 22 days of death and destruction

‘STRANGLING NECKS’ - Amnesty International

Human Shield Stuff
Detailed discussion on 242, treatment into the future
Restricting cookies/sugar
Shlomo Ben Ami video/quote from book
2000 Camp David Summit
- Scars of War, Wounds of Peace
- Deprecated Link

How Hamas Manipulates Gaza Fatality Numbers

APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN THE GAZA STRIP

Israel-Hamas War: Norman Finkelstein vs Rabbi Shmuley | Full Debate

"Israel is plausibly committing genocide by the ICJ."
Finkelstein has no concern for the Charlie Hebdo victims???
"The intensity of the bombing, the density of the bombing, the magnitude with destruction of civilian infrastructure, the absolute number of children killed, the relative number of children killed to combatants killed, the percentage of women and children killed, the number of medical personnel and journalists killed"...Israel's assault on Gaza, this is why they were brought before the ICJ.

Topics from Lex

Beginning statement

Goal: The goal today is not for anyone to win arguments, but to together explore the history, present, and future of Israel and Palestine… and human civilization broadly.

Agree & solutions: I would love to find places we agree, and places that give an inkling of hope for a solution in the future.

Respect: I ask that we show respect and compassion toward each other.

Basics: I also ask that we try to briefly define/explain terms, events, people when we discuss them, for folks in the audience that are not as familiar with the topic.

Time: I will do my best to allocate time equally between two sides of the table, but I would also love for this to be a free-flowing conversation.

Opening question

1948: First question is about 1948. For Israelis, 1948 is the establishment of the state of Israel and the war of independence. For Palestinians, 1948 is the Nakba, catastrophe, or the expulsion or flight of 700,000 Palestinians from their homes as a consequence of the war. What to you is important to understand about 1948?

Order of response to first question is: Norm, Benny, Mouin, and Steven

Topics

History and wars

Before WW2 (Zionist congress, Balfour Declaration, League of Nations Mandate, Creation of the Haganah, Hebron Massacre, Arab Revolt, Peel Commission, 1939 White Paper)
WW2
Holocaust
1947 - UN Resolution 181
1948 - War, Nakba
1967 - Six-Day War
1982 - 1st Lebanon War → Hezbollah
intifadas
- First intifada - Dec 1987 to Sep 1993
- Second intifada - Sep 2000 to late 2005
2006 - 2nd Lebanon War
2008-2009 - Operation Cast Lead
2012 - Gaza - Operation Pillar of Defense
2014 - West Bank - Operation Protective Edge
2021-23 - 11-day war in 2021, 3-day war in 2022, Operation Shield & Arrow in 2023
2023 - Oct 7 attacks & Israel-Hamas war

Solutions & attempts at peace - what went right, what went wrong?

Two-state, one-state
1967 borders - green line
Attempts at peace agreements
- 1967 - UN Resolution 242
- 1978 - Camp David Accords
- 1988 - Arafat acknowledges Israel's right to exist
- 1991 - Madrid Peace Conference
- 1993 - Oslo Accords I
- 1995 - Oslo Accords II
- 2000 - Camp David - Clinton
- 2002-2003
- 2005 - Israel withdrawal from Gaza
- 2007 - Annapolis Conference - Olmert
- 2009-2014 - Obama
- 2020 - Trump "deal of the century"
Normalization with other nations
- TODO
- 1994 - Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty
- 2020 - Abraham Accords

Leadership

Palestine
- PLO, PA, Hamas
- Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas
Israel
- David Ben-Gurion, Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin, Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu
US
- Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden, 2024 president

Philosophy, legal, politics

Zionism
Value of human life
Proportionality
Corruption
Jihadism
Martyrdom
Human shields
Civilian deaths in war
Genocide

Geopolitics

Role of Iran
Role of US

General & Misc

Al-Aqsa Mosque
Jerusalem
Land - Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula

Religion

Islam, Judaism
Sunni & Shia - Shia (Iran, Iraq, Lebanon)
What would Jesus do?
What would Muhammad do?

Books

I'll reference content from several books by Norm
I'll reference content from several books by Benny

Omar Badder, Emily, Ryan Grim - Israel Palestine

Rhetorical Approach

Demeanor
1. Calm with measured speech, but far more aggressive than general conversations.
  1. Take notes, respond to everything.
2. Less hedging, absolute certainty with factual disagreements.
  1. Force interlocutors to state a clear disagreement and to annunciate a clear counter-argument with accurate sourcing.
3. Open arms, aggressive posture.
Need to be incredibly firm on factual foundations for claims
1. We need to establish shared agreements on what types of reporting or sources we can trust.
  1. Why can't we trust the IDF or Israel, when Israel is an open democracy that hosts a lot of its own criticism (Haaretz, B'Tselem, etc...), but we can trust Hamas, who makes nothing available to the public for investigation or inspection?
2. Force them to acknowledge when I have made a correct point, and move from there.
  1. Stop allowing the "okay and" answer in response to things I've said, force them to acknowledge factual grounds I establish.
3. I need to force my interlocutors to stake strong, precise claims, do not allow them to weasel away from what they’re actually saying.
  1. e.g.: if they believe Israel is targeting civilians with airstrikes, force them to admit that they are issuing top-down orders and policies to murder civilians for no reasons!
Address things people on the show have previously shared on social media, ask if they still agree with what they've said.
1. "3 specialists on this topic + 1 random argumentative influencer who knows next to nothing on this topic is an extremely bizarre way to conduct a "deep, respectful exploration" of said topic"." - Omar Baddar, February 14th, 2024.
  1. Who had the issue with respect in this conversation?
2. "Justice is the ONLY way out of this mess, & the only question left is: How many more Palestinians & Israelis have to die before Israel realizes that decades of military violence can't bring peace, & starts seeing Palestinians as equal human beings who deserve freedom & justice?" Omar Baddar, October 7th, 2023
  1. What about decades of Palestinian violence?
3. Saagar's "callout" after revealing that he didn't even watch the debate.
Revisit things related to the Finkelstein conversation.
1. Do they admit he was embarrassing in that debate due to the name calling?
  1. On Briahna Joy Grey’s show Finkelstein literally said he wasn’t going there in good faith.
  2. Point out this is likely his most popular appearance ever, he should have completely dominated me on the facts.
2. Do they admit he was incorrect with regards to the ICJ ruling?
  1. LonerBox clip of the past ICJ Judge
  2. How did he not know about the genocidal special intent? If he read it 4 times?
3. There isn't a single clip of anyone calling out a factual inaccuracy during that debate. How is that possible if my knowledge is so lacking?
  1. This is incredible and inexplicable, I should have been battered around like a lost child in this conversation.
4. That Benny Morris agreed with me the entire time?
Solutions for problems need to be kept in mind ALWAYS.
1. The focus of all of my criticisms of the opposing rhetoric is that their criticisms of Israel make the problem unsolvable or intractable. My criticisms (since they are based in reality) provide real solutions to problems.
  1. e.g.: if you think Israel is top-down genociding and targeting civilians, a claim you have no evidence for, that means that the only way to really solve the problem is to completely dismantle the Israeli government. This is probably never going to happen. My solution, focusing on recklessness, provides for us to demand more openness or transparency from the IDF when it conducts war.
2. What is a good end-goal for this conflict?
  1. If it's one state...
    1. What does that look like, structurally? A demand for total equality between all people? What if Hamas gets elected again, do we overturn that government? What if the Arabs don't even want a democratic government?
    2. Do Jews have a reason to feel safe in their single state?
    3. If they begin to suffer massacres, would they believe any foreign power would intervene?
Strong position requests.
1. Was October 7th justified?
2. Do we acknowledge the history of Palestinian terrorism? The PLO, Black September, the multiple plane hijackings?
3. The Fedayeen attacks all from ‘48 onwards?
4. The violence of the second intifada?
5. The violence towards Jews after Resolution 181?
6. Should funding to Palestinians be conditional?
7. Do we want to do regime change? Why were we opposed to it with Assad, Saddam, Gadaffi, The Houthis?
8. For Hamas, these are war crimes just to induce mistakes
  1. Do they store ammo in houses?
  2. Do they booby trap houses?
  3. Do they take hostages?
  4. Do they operate out of civilian hospitals? Al-Shifa…
  5. Do they refuse to build bomb shelters for their citizens?
  6. Do they refuse to coordinate to set up a humanitarian zone?
  7. Do they steal aid?
  8. Do they use ambulances to move around?
  9. Do they operate in civilian clothing?
  10. Do they tell their citizens not to leave their homes?
  11. Have they attacked humanitarian pier?

[1] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhe9Fd6YRyA

[2] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM05FwyhHPA

[3] ttps://www.mediamatters.org/false-flag-conspiracy-theory/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-facebook-2018-parkland-school-shooting-was

[4] ttps://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-democrats-violence/index.html

[5] ttps://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/marjorie-taylor-greene-qanon-wildfires-space-laser-rothschild-execute.html

[6] ttps://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-11-17/paul-gosar-censured-removed-from-committees-over-violent-post-about-democrats

[7] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opQPN3Uqq_A

[8] ttps://www.npr.org/2020/10/13/923213582/biden-says-hes-not-a-fan-of-expanding-the-supreme-court

[9] ttps://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1732130346010063053?s=20

[10] ttps://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2009-11-09

[11] ttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch

[ryanholiday-12] 12.0 ^12.1 ^12.2 ^12.3 ^12.4 [1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

Infant Mortailty
Rank	Country	Mortality Rate (No. of deaths/1,000 births)
26	Yemen	45.5
81	Iraq	19.2
85	Morocco	18.7
88	Egypt	17.3
91	Gaza	16.0
92	Syria	15.5
106	Jordan	13.6
158	Lebanon	6.9

Life Expectancy in years
Rank	Country	Average Lifespan
66	Lebanon	79.0
105	Jordan	76.3
133	Gaza	74.8
134	Egypt	74.7
137	Syria	74.6
142	Morocco	74.0
146	Iraq	73.5
191	Yemen	67.8

Under-5 Mortality
Gaza	26.8 per 1,000
The Middle East/North Africa	27.6 per 1,000
Today, the global population average	38 per 1,000

Debate Prep (Obsidian Notes)

Jones and Greenwald Debate

Final report of the Select Committee to investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol

Composition

Donald J. Trump Indictments

The Mar-a-Lago Classified Documents Case

The Georgia RICO Case

The Jack Smith Election Fraud Case

Links

January 6th Insurrection

Republican Lawmakers

Support for Donald's election-denial

Punishing members who speak against Trump

Donald Trump

"The Big Lie"

Undermining the Electoral Process

Plan to Overturn Election Results

Speech on January 6th

Dominion Case

Jones—Greenwald Debate Strategy

Ground Rules

Did Trump betray his people?

Ray Epps

The Claims

Questions

Counter Narrative

Ben Shapiro Debate

Who Wants To Be Speaker of the House?

Oxford Union Ben Shapiro Debate with Students

Ben Shapiro Final Debate Prep

Ben Shapiro Material

Reference Material

Broad Political Narratives I'd like to Outline

Finkelstein and Rabbani

Debate Outline

Rhetorical notes

Primary Claims

Norman Finkelstein

Live From The Table Podcast: Norman Finkelstein & Eli Lake Debate - Israel Hamas Debate

Mouin Rabbani vs Joseph Cohen on Palestine and Israel - “Allow Me To Speak!” | Full Debate

UNRWA FAQ

The Blockade in Gaza

Israel-Hamas War: Norman Finkelstein vs Rabbi Shmuley | Full Debate

Topics from Lex

Beginning statement

Opening question

Topics

Omar Badder, Emily, Ryan Grim - Israel Palestine

Rhetorical Approach

Navigation menu

Search