This interview happened in 2022 when Cenk Uygur had Dennis Prager on his show .Dennis Prager was defending Israel and doing what could be called hasbara against Cenk’s accusations. Let’s have a look at the main points raised by Cenk and how Dennis addressed them.
Cenk accused Israel of not seeing Palestinians as human beings. The Palestinians are oppressed, held in bondage and denied freedom because it is said that they cannot govern themselves. He went on to ask why Palestinians should not be allowed to have freedom like every other people.
Prager’s answer
Prager argued that the Palestinians cannot be allowed to have freedom for they will elect Hamas which is seeking to destroy Israel and it will be suicidal for Israel to do so. Gaza is a very good example of what will happen in the West Bank if Israel gives them freedom.
How a Neutral Observer Will View the Case.
An arbiter will see a situation where Israel is refusing to allow the Palestinians to become free and will continue to subjugate, occupy and colonize them because they are afraid that the Palestinians can vote in a government which Israel will not like and who might attack them.
That reason on its own is not enough to actually deny people their right to freedom for the following reasons as a neutral observer.
Firstly, it is an assumption on what might happen in the future because it happened earlier but there is no law or obligation that says it must be as was obtained in Gaza. That assumption feels like that which many colonists made against the people they were colonizing and refused granting them freedom for fear of been attacked. It sounded like what Botha of South African apartheid government said in 1985 when he said he will not stop apartheid and that “I m not prepared to lead white South Africans and other minority groups on a road to abdication and suicide”. Apartheid was repealed and there was no suicide or abdication but due to the attacks by the ANC and other anti-apartheid movements then, it might appear so to Botha. It is like the British saying that they will not give up Ireland and Kenya for the people will elect the IRA and Mau-Mau who will slaughter all the colonizing British people. But the British did give up those lands and nothing happened. Thus it is wrong of Israel to use that assumption and continue occupying, subjugating and colonizing a group of people seeking for their freedom.
Secondly, no people were denied freedom because they might hate their neighbor. If the fact that the Palestinians on becoming free may hate Israel is a reason for denying them freedom, then Israel ought to have done everything to ensure that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iran, and virtually every country who do not like it is not free but under occupation. What dictates international relations are legal treaties and agreements and not whether they like one another or not.
Thirdly, Israel cannot claim that they have given up Gaza and thus expect the Palestinians to stop fighting against it. Gaza is part and parcel of the territories of Palestine which the people are seeking for its liberation from Israeli occupation. There are other territories in the West Bank still under occupation. After leaving Gaza, Israel blockaded and controlled its airspace and water. So Israel cannot say that Gaza is completely free. Colonizers giving half measures to the colonized never solved the problems of agitation and resistance. In many situations it is only when the occupiers and colonizers give complete freedom and stop their occupation and colonization of the people’s entire territory that the struggles cease. From Africa to Poland, Asia, etc, half measures never stopped resistance to colonialism. Israel ought to have given up the whole Palestinian territories it is occupying before claiming that the Palestinians are attacking it unjustly.
Fourthly, who says that when Palestinians become free and even got Hamas elected as their government that they will start attacking Israel? It is because the Palestinians are yet to become a free state and thus cannot be bound by international laws as it pertains to international relations that the Hamas leaders are acting against Israel. If they become free, they will be obligated to abide by international laws and also face the consequences of violating them. Israel cannot be saying that Hamas will be attacking it when freed because Hamas is yet to be bound by the rules of international relations. That’s why Hamas can act against international law and not respect relations between nations. Let Israel allow them to be free before judging whether they can abide by the law or not.
If Israel is to continue the occupation and denial of freedom for the Palestinians, how long will it last if they refuse to elect who Israel likes?
Prager’s Answer
He gave no direct answer but it could be deduced that he answered it with the comment about this happening only when the Palestinians renounce terror. He also said he is in support of the two state solution
How a Neutral Observer Will View the Case.
So it means that Israel will never allow them to be free till they elect those who will become Israel puppets and stop resisting occupation, agitating or moving for the rights of the Palestinians. This is a typical example of interference in internal affairs of a nation. Prager sounds hypocritical to say that he supports a two state solution but that two states will not be equal in rights as one will be half a state for its internal affairs and elected leaders will be based on who it’s neighbor will like. Also no colonized people ever renounced their struggle before been allowed to be free. Many times, their violent struggle coupled with diplomatic pushes enabled them to become free. Why should that of the Palestinians be different?
Why should it be that when Hamas kills innocent people, it becomes terrorism but when Israel does, it won’t be terrorism?
Prager’s Answer
Are you comparing Israel to Hamas and Nazi Germany?
How a Neutral Observer Will View the Case.
A legitimate question; why should Hamas be terrorists for killing innocent people while Israel will not be when they kill innocents too? If Israel says it is a mistake and not deliberate, Hamas can say that too. The red herring about comparing Israel to Germany or Hamas does not matter here.
Besides the above, that people are called terrorist by their oppressors does not mean that they are wrong. The Jews of Warsaw ghetto were called terrorists by the Nazis. Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were called terrorists by the British and they later became Israel leaders and praised for fighting Britain. Nelson Mandela, the Mau Mau, FLN, the Polish freedom fighters and numerous other resistance groups were all called terrorists by their oppressors. Even the IPOB of Nigeria got called a terrorist group by the Nigerian government. It is the actions and justice behind a cause that determines its legitimacy and not the name it got given by the enemies.
Are the oppressed allowed to fight against their oppressors like the Jews against the Nazis and if true, why should the Palestinians fighting against Israeli oppression be wrong?
Prager’s Answer
Yes, the Jews should have fought against Germany if they have got the means and option. He was moot on the part of the Palestinians. The red herring act “Are you comparing Nazis to Israel?”
How a Neutral Observer Will View the Case.
Double standard at work here on the part of Prager; a red herring been thrown around with that comparing to the Nazis thing. If the Jews should fight against the Nazis and attack them if they have the opportunity, then it should not be wrong for the Palestinians to attack Israel. Saying otherwise means double standards at its zenith.
- HA’ARA
Now, what if rather than employing hasbara to answer Cenk, Dennis Prager had employed Ha’ara and hatkafa? The outcome would have been totally different and the neutral observer would not have drawn that conclusion he did with hasbara. Let’s look at the accusations and how ha’ara and hatkafa could have done justice to that.
Hasbara did its defensive thing and kept explaining and running after the guy. Ha’ara and hatkafa will take the initiative from the beginning, shape the interview with enlightenment and then put that Cenk guy on the defense and on the run to justify, clarify and defend his claims rather than have him yap and run his mouth. Lets have a look.
Cenk accused Israel of not seeing Palestinians as human beings. They are oppressed, held in bondage and denied freedom because they cannot govern themselves. He went on to ask why Palestinians should not be allowed to have freedom like every other people.
Ha’ara answer
Firstly, it’s good that the guy did not continue with that thing about seeing Palestinians as sub humans for he will be told that “No, Palestinians are not sub humans. They are humans but are a bundle of trouble as the Arabs imperial weapon seeking for the destruction of the only indigenous Jewish nation in the Middle East after the Arabs have virtually destroyed every other indigenous culture and nation of that area, stolen their lands and destroyed their identity”.
Palestinians are not oppressed, held in bondage or denied any freedom to govern themselves. One can actually say that they are the oppressors. They are acting as the Arabs point tactical and political weapon in stealing Jewish territories. The Arabs lost the shooting match and since they cannot win by war, they invented this Palestinians since 1964 as their point weapon in stealing Jewish lands. Israel is not oppressing them; they are the ones oppressing Israel. Israel cannot breathe and have a moment’s rest from the constant accusations and attacks from these guys in their quest to steal Jewish territories. What is more oppressive than that?
“And who told you that the Palestinians are in bondage and not free?” They are not and never in bondage. They are free to move to wherever they like out of Israeli territories from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. It will be the utmost happiness for Israel if they will actually stop occupying and holding Israeli territories in bondage and move to Egypt, Sinai, Jordan or any of these other Arabic nations from where they came from initially or even any other place. They are as free as a bird. Israel does not have any single problem with them governing themselves. However, Israel will have a lot of problems with them trying to establish their nation on anywhere in the lands of Eretz Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This is because they have zero, nada, eber, zilch claim to an inch of land in that place. They have zero indigenous, national or legal rights to go forming a nation there and doing that their governing themselves thing in those areas. They are welcome to govern themselves and that is what I am hoping for and they are very capable of doing that for themselves and it is no concern of mine about whatever kind of government they elect for themselves but it will not be in any territory of Eretz Israel.
Like every other people on earth, they have rights to govern themselves and it will be nice to have that. Israel is not interested in governing them. Let them just go to their lands and do that. Is that too much to ask? I did not see the Colons of Vietnam, Pied Noir of Algeria, Germans of Wroclau, white settlers of Kenya and other colonists used by empires to colonize other people’s lands move to form nations and govern themselves in those places they colonized and occupied after the people have taken their lands back. Why should the Palestinians who were used by the Ottomans and other empires to occupy and colonize Jewish lands and also the myriads of them who were illegal migrant workers and Mujahideen be allowed by Israel to form a nation on Jewish territories and govern themselves there? It won’t happen.
This first answer from ha’ara will of course shape the direction the discussion will go and I bet there won’t be any reason to ask the second question because already Israel is not interested in who they elected as their leader so long as they did not do that in the lands of Eretz Israel. Cenk will be busy justifying and explaining what he means by oppression and who is oppressing who, freedom and bondage and who between Israel and the Palestinians are actually holding the other in bondage and all the other accusations he made. He will also be busy trying to justify why the Arabs will be colonizing Jewish lands and all the other points made through ha’ara. He won’t have time for the second question.
Why should it be that when Hamas kills people, it becomes terrorism but when Israel does, it won’t be terrorism.
Ha’ara answer
That’s why it is necessary to hammer on the concept or idea that it is not really about the word “terrorism” but what is the justification for that terrorism. Whether it is called terrorism or not, what matters is the reason or what drives that action.
Ha’ara will not talk about terrorism but rather how it is unjust, evil, terrible and horrible for the Arabs to employ the tactics of terror attacks as a part of their weapon of Palestinianism which was created as a point weapon to steal Jewish lands. The fight by Israel against terror will then be in the context of Palestinianism and all the arsenal and tactics it deployed from terrorism to diplomatic and UN pressure, BDS, etc to achieve its aim of destroying Israel.
Terrorism as part of the arsenal of the Arabs imperial weapon of Palestinianism is wrong and has zero relationship or comparison with deaths of non combatant Arabs that died due to Israeli military operation. Israel is not deliberately targeting those that the Palestinians called civilians who in many situations cannot be distinguished from the real attackers and what it is trying to achieve on those attacks are a noble ideal of defending its people from a colonizing, imperial weapon and cause. It is unfortunate that those people died but some Israelis are also mistakenly killed. That is unlike Hamas terror attacks which are geared towards killing off the Jews and stealing their lands as the Arabs armed weapon in their imperial agenda.
Number fourth question would not have arisen after number three ha’ara answer for it would have answered that. This is because the question is about the justification for attacking oppressors.