 Renowned YouTuber and daily wire contributor Candice Owens has addressed the widespread speculation surrounding her departure from the platform, a move many have attributed to her recent critiques of Israel and ensuing clashes with pro-occupation advocates worldwide. Opinions vary on whether her exit was voluntary or enforced, with some interpreting it as a dismissal, while others believe she chose to leave independently. The situation has been further muddied by contradictory signals on Owens's social media channels, while her personal and podcast Twitter pages still prominently feature daily wire branding and many of her top performing videos retain the daily wire logo, there has been no official statement or acknowledgement of her departure on her podcast handle, instead cryptic remarks on her personal account hint at a newfound sense of freedom, possibly tied to the news of her platform exit. Should Owens' departure be confirmed and reflected in the necessary alterations to her social media presence, it would mark a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict between Owens and pro-Israel media figures, a feud that has been simmering since October 7th. The open-minded thinker show news team has sought to maintain impartiality amidst the controversy involving figures such as Rabbi Schmuley, Ben Shapiro, and others who have targeted Owens, a conservative black mother, for advocating for a more humanitarian approach to military operations against Palestinians. Owens's stance, advocating for measures to prevent the dire situation in Gaza, while acknowledging Palestinians' right to self-defense against oppressive occupation forces, has been met with accusations of anti-Semitism. However, she maintains that such labels are often employed to stifle dissent and genuine discourse. And since that very moment, a man by the name of Rabbi Schmuley and his hag daughter have been harassing me. They have made videos after videos smearing me, libeling me as an anti-Semite saying that I defend Hitler, that I defend—just an absolute nonsense. I want to be clear, it's been going on for two years. They watch every minute of the show, take me out of context, and essentially are trying to create hatred between me and the Jewish community, which is never going to happen. I'm telling you, it's just never going to happen. I have too many Jewish friends. I love Jewish people. They're part of my story so much in the things that they have done for me. Since I was a child, you know, I've shared that with you. You don't need to recap that. It's just, it's never going to work, but he won't stop. The threats don't stop. And I showed you guys basically just a small snippet, really just a minute of their harassment over the last two years, and some of you guys were very stunned and shocked, and I'm finally defending myself, and I feel good about it. I'm not pregnant anymore. I'm like, let's go. Like, let's go, Rabbi Shmueli. So he sees me defending myself, and he's now doubling down. He's getting crazier, crazier in his threats against me. This is unbelievable. The Jerusalem Post, which by the way, I actually really like that publication because they do a very good job of just telling you what happened. There's no twist on it. They're telling you basically, here's the headline, Kenneth Owens and Rabbi Shmueli squabble over anti-Semitism, blackmail and Kanye West, and they do a very good job of this article of just giving you the play-by-play of what has happened since the very beginning. But burying into this article, I could not believe this. Like, they reached out to him for a comment, and he actually said this. Quote, there can be no question that Candice's serious defamation against me and the Jewish community must be met with a comprehensive lawsuit that will bankrupt her. Bankrupt her. He wants to bankrupt me for defending myself against him and his ag daughter, right? Why do I call him an unholy rabbi? Because who does that? It's one thing to say, like, I want to sue somebody. It's another thing to say that I want to bankrupt that person. He constantly makes these sorts of financial threats. And why should we talk about that? Because if I or somebody else said, oh, you know, Jewish people always try to come after people in the means of money, it would be referred to as an anti-Semitic trope. Well, what is he doing right here if not engaging or creating that very trope by saying that he wants to bankrupt somebody? Why? Oh, because, like, she's defending herself. Like, she doesn't have a right to defend herself. I can go after her and smear her and libel her for two years straight, and she better not say anything. Listen, rabbi, I don't know what thug life you think you're a part of, but I want to be very clear that I am definitely an uppity black person. I say that, obviously, as a nod to Clarence Thomas. Rabbi Schmuley, infamous for his contentious appearance on the Piers Morgan show, where he was sharply rebuked by Norman Finkelstein, continues to play a prominent role in the controversy surrounding Candice Owens. His recent remarks threatening financial repercussions for Owens and his gloating over her departure from Daily Wire suggest a vindictive streak that belies any claim to principled behavior. While the exact financial implications of Owens's departure remain unclear, it's evident that such a move could have significant ramifications for someone whose livelihood is intricately tied to her creative endeavors. Despite his extensive literary output, numbering 31 books, Rabbi Schmuley's public persona is marked by a lack of integrity, particularly evident in his unwavering support for controversial Israeli policies, including those regarding Gaza and his admiration for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His conduct stands in stark contrast to the values one might expect from a spiritual leader, and his involvement in various scandals, including his connections to the late Michael Jackson, further tarnishes his reputation. In a similar vein, Rabbi Michael Beckley's appearance on Owens's show serves as another example of the vehement opposition she faces for her criticisms of Israel. Beckley's fervent denunciation of Owens as evil for her stance on Israel's use of American funding for military endeavors across the Middle East reflects a narrow-minded refusal to engage with legitimate concerns. Throughout the hour-long segment, Beckley struggled to justify accusations of antisemitism within the context of Gaza and the oppressive actions of Israeli occupation forces. His inability to provide a coherent explanation for what constitutes antisemitism only serves to highlight the weakness of his position and the lack of substantive arguments against Owens' views. That we have to have a concrete definition of work with because then you can just update and say, actually, I've changed that, and now this is what constitutes antisemitism. But Candice, that is the horror of antisemitism. So what you are saying to me is that antisemitism is this and does not change. What I am saying to you is that the entire world and scholars about antisemitism recognize that it is a unique hate, that if you define it as the, that you should not be able to exist collectively. Okay, as a collectivator, shouldn't have that right. That changes from the Middle Ages with religion the 18th through 20th centuries about race and then after Israel's created, it's a hatred based on the nation. And until that is understood that it is, this isn't something that's really questioned about among academics, theologians, Jewish scholars. I'm not presenting it. This is why I thought I'm so optimistic about a dialogue. But I think part of it is you view that the hate can't mutate it. What I'm trying to tell you is we have 2,000 years of history that demonstrate the exact opposite. So, and I'm gonna just push back, just gently here. For me personally, if I thought that racism could just be an ever shifting definition based on the experience of black people, it would be a remarkable power and I would be able to create something like BLM which could say that everything was racist. So I am not going to be able to agree that definition should be able to transform according to what's happening during the day. But here's what I will say. If you could, just because I think it's really important for us to get to going through this article because then you might be able to explain why you view it as anti-Semitism, if you could just give us what you are saying the current definition of anti-Semitism is today, that would be very helpful. The definition of anti-Semitism today has to do with what the feelings are. It has to do with anti-Zionism number one. That is a definition. Anti-Zionism, anti-Israel is anti-Semitism. Okay, so you believe that Jewish people can be anti-Semitic? Absolutely. Okay, so when you see a gathering of Jewish people who say, you know, I'm Jewish, but I don't support Israel or Bibi Netanyahu, you say that person can be anti-Semitic. You just did two different things that were totally unrelated to campus. You said that Jews that do not support Israel. And you said Jews that do not support Bibi Netanyahu. I'm just saying that because he's the current prime minister. So I'm saying like, if they say they don't support... This is where you're missing the point. So I'm gonna go under the following premise. I'm gonna go under the premise that you care about people. You and I don't care about people. You and I don't know each other, but I'm gonna go under that premise. I'm gonna go under the premise that you have no desire to ever hurt anyone. Okay? That's the premise I'm coming into the dialogue with. You have been devastatingly hurtful. And I think that I'm gonna go from there. You don't understand what it means to the Jewish world. There's a great teaching that comes out of every sociologist, every person in academics is that I don't get to tell a black man if he's experiencing racism. He knows. I don't get to tell you if you're experiencing misogyny. You know. If I make a comment and it's misogynistic and you say, rabbi, you know, that was really misogynistic. My job is to say, wow, I didn't mean that. I apologize. That's not what I meant. And do you and do not get the right to say what is anti-Semitic, which you hate for it? I'm sorry. No, I'm not trying to. I don't think I said anything about me having the right. I just said to you, would you then view, because I did host somebody who was Jewish, Dave Smith on my show. I'm sure you're familiar with him. He's a community libertarian. He is not pro-Zionist. So I'm just asking you for clarity, because you're saying that you can't dismiss a Jewish person, but aren't you thereby dismissing Jewish people who say that I don't support Israel as a state? I'm just trying to have you answer that question, Dave. I will ask you about the same question. Are there blacks who do not support, blacks are there, pick the cause for the minority who do not support or actually are even better? You and I both sit on the conservative side of the limit. We share that, right? And we face the same way when it comes to that. And we both, I think, are disappointed in those who Republicans name over. Right? Yes. Okay. Does that mean they're not Republicans? Well, I wouldn't describe a race as a political ideal, like a political party. That's very different. So to say that you can't be a race, like you're not black if you don't support this is different than, like you're basically saying that a Jewish person can't be anti-Semitic. So that would be like saying a black person can in fact be racist towards, or they're not black? I'm not going to comment on black community. I will say there are plenty of self-hating Jews. Okay, so you do believe, that's all I was trying to get you to say. Is that Jewish people who don't support Israel, you are saying they are anti-Semitic. I just want to understand that. I'm saying it very clearly, they are self-hating Jews. Let's use that term very specifically. And you need to understand why they are self-hating Jews. And you need to understand as numerous people have talked about, I've written about, Prager's talked about, Gorka's talked about, Levin's talked about. The number of people have talked about, Shapiro's talked about, as I say I've written about, is that people want to assimilate. For 2,000 years Jews have been persecuted and so they want to assimilate. And so many have converted from Judaism not to another religion, but to leftist politics. That becomes their religion. And they lose their identity, that is a reality. So you need to understand, or I shouldn't say you need to, that's not fair and I apologize. I would hope that you understand a history and an understanding that we define what anti-Semitism is. And what happened on October 7th, what happened on October 7th, and I wrote an article about you in November, I don't know if you read it or not. I was told that you had, but I don't know if you did or not. I did not. Okay. I wish you had, and I really wish you had, because we might be in a very different place. You want to talk with Carlson, after all, this is November, and... Okay, go ahead. I'm going to say I want to talk about that because you put that in this article, which was published just last week. So I wrote a very specific article and you can find it right now. And it was an impersonal invitation to you and for you that despite everything else I had read or seen or heard, that my belief and my hope is that your, your comment of wanting to have an academic's discussion about October 7th came from a place of not really realizing what October 7th was. October 7th is unique and recorded human history as the ugliest day of humanity. What was done on October 7th, taking a young woman, taking her phone to videotape her being raped on the corpse of her dead boyfriend and then shot on it and sending that video to her parents, beheading a man with a garden hoe, kicking a woman until her body parts fall off, is unique in terms of the intention to attack civilians. And so in November, after you made the comment on Tucker Carlson about wanting an academic discussion about how, you know, those kind of comments that you made and the on-way that you demonstrate. I wrote an article saying that I would arrange for you, there's a film, a 47 minute film by the IDF. It is based, it is not based, it is all the footage done by Hamas terrorists of what they were doing, so proudly what they wanted to do. And that my belief was, I don't think that you quite realize that and I would arrange for private screening for you and your friends that I would arrange that and then have the discussion about how you feel about October 7th. Okay, so I just really would like to get to your article because I think it's important. I want to acknowledge your pain about October 7th. You are- That's not an opinion. That's not an opinion. I didn't say opinion. I said I want to acknowledge your pain about October 7th. I apologize. I apologize. I apologize. I didn't say that. I said I want to acknowledge your pain about October 7th and I want to get to that because you are- Because I don't have pain. Yeah, you're mischaracterizing what I said on Tucker Carlson but I do have the clip and we're going to be able to watch it. I definitely did not say I wanted to have an academic to be about October 7th. That's not what I said at all. You did base for the 7th. But like I said, I have the clip and I do also want, I think it's best for us to dive into what you actually wrote about me because there are several mischaracterizations I believe of what I said but both of us are going to be able to watch it. So again, this is the article and by the way, you did say in this article that you heard that I received your invitation. That is false. I think it's important to just maybe name the people who told you that I received your invitation. No, I'd rather not do that especially since you're saying that it's incorrect and in which case I apologize. No, you can apologize. I just think that like a lot of the reason that things happen is because there is this sort of back channeling and discussion and nobody told me that I got an invitation and now you've written that I refuse an invitation. And so that adds to people believing. So Candice, I'm going to ask you a question right now. I'm inviting you, so get about the article because I have no issue and would love to write an article saying I was wrong and Candice Owens does not feel that way. I would love that. So I'm inviting you right now, I will set up a screening for you. Will you come? If you set up a screening for me after we go through this, I just, I want to also be able to estimate your character by going through some of the things that you wrote. You did write some things that I believe. Wait, wait, wait, I'm asking you a yes or no question. No, no, no. And I just said to you, I'm going to give you an answer to that but I want to first go through your article because I want to be able to estimate. Wait, wait, wait, I'm asking you a question. I will take the entire article. I am not saying I'm not going to answer your question. I am just saying that I would like to go through this. See how you feel. But I'm going to give you an invitation. If you said you haven't had an invitation, I'm asking you. I don't have to be there. I'll set it up for you. Okay, sure. If you want to set it up for me to have a screening of that here without you there, that's fine. What I'm saying is that I would not, based on what you wrote about me, I wouldn't take an invitation from you anywhere. I think that's fair given what's in this article. I think that's a normal human response that if somebody has written somebody, something that is utterly libelous about you, it mischaracterizes what you said. But if you want to set it up separately and you want to send it to the Daily Wire and you want to have a private screening, I absolutely will watch the events of October 7th. That's, you know what? God bless you. And had I never heard you say that, I wouldn't have written an article. Well, I think you still would have, but you made a lot of points in here. No, no, I wouldn't have. No, I wouldn't have because I believe in the idea that it's about what we act and learn. And we have a constant philosophy in Judaism. No, actually, honestly, had you said there, at any point what you just now said to me that you would watch a screening, I don't need to be there, but you would watch the screen if I set it up. I would not have written that article. Okay. Well, I do still want to go through these points though, because you- Okay, but do you hear that, please? Yes, I hear that. And thank you for saying that. But a lot of what you wrote in this article is a lot of what I'm assuming, you have a friendly relationship with Rabbi Shmueli has been saying about me. So it's really important to go through these points because when you write something like, is a Jew hating bigot, that's very strong language and we need to go through these points. So- Go through all of them, sure. Yes, thank you. Okay, let's just begin here. So you basically make the argument that I'm drunk on fame and that that is the reason why I have let out the truth about who I am, which makes me a Jew hater. First thing you say is that this is a woman who is such an anti-Semite and so ignorant of history that in 2018, she publicly said that Hitler was okay. Do you actually believe that I publicly said that Hitler was okay? So from the recording that I heard, including the congrats ceremony, which I think was taken out of context and from the comments that you said, okay, if I, and you correct if I'm wrong, but my understanding from your comments is you were asked a question about nationalists and you responded about nationalism using the example that nationalism was good and that what Hitler did, Hitler was nationalistic in Germany and that was okay. You have said specifically, you think Hitler is a horrible, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And you have condemned Hitler, thank God, without question and you also brought him up in that discussion about nationalists, is that all accurate? So when you just write, she publicly said Hitler was okay. That is dishonest because what I actually was saying was answering a question as you brought up where we were not even talking about Jews, not talking about the Holocaust. A woman was asking about whether or not it's okay for people today to say that they're nationalists when it's often associated as a dirty word. And what I was saying was that it's wrongly associated with Hitler. I don't believe that Hitler was a nationalist because obviously Hitler invaded Poland. He obviously had ambitions outside of. So we have a clip, we have a clip, so we're gonna play it. So again, the question is being asked. We eagerly awaited the rabbi's elucidation on antisemitism, particularly in the context of opposition to Israel's destabilizing actions in the Middle East. However, his explanation left much to be desired, failing to clearly define who qualifies as an antisemite. This lack of specificity raises questions, especially considering that Arabs themselves as Semitic people are often branded as such for their resistance to Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands. It's crucial to recognize that the term Semite encompasses a broader range of peoples beyond just Jews, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Hebrews, and even some Ethiopians like the Amhara and Tigrayans. This underscores the complexity of identifying antisemitism solely based on opposition to Israeli policies. Moreover, acknowledging that individuals with black skin to Candice Owens can also be Semitic highlights, the absurdity of labeling criticism against them, such as accusations of piracy or war crimes, as inherently antisemitic, as per the rabbi's argument. Will the rabbi confront this inconsistency and recognize the racial discrimination faced by Ethiopian Israeli women, including alleged cases of sterilization? Regrettably, the rabbi's stance extends to branding Jews critical of Israeli occupation authorities as self-hating Jews. This notion is convoluted, particularly regarding those who oppose the Zionist notion of Jews abandoning European identities and migrating to occupy Palestinian homes. Ironically, Christianity, which the rabbi decries as anti-Hebrew, contributed to the idea of European connections to ancient Hebrews through the Protestant Reformation's revival of the Hebrew Bible. The Protestant belief in the return of Jews to Palestine to hasten the Second Coming of Christ intertwined contemporary European Jews with their ancient counterparts. Philologists of the 18th century further solidified this connection through the discovery of Semitic languages. The rabbi's stance begs for clarity and honesty in navigating these complex historical and theological intersections. I'm actually not gonna edit my language for two people that have been attacking me for two years, and so what I'm going to say is that, and I wanna be very strong on this, I am not going to be told whether you wanna dress it up as anti-Semitism, you wanna dress it up as that, that I cannot respond and defend myself. I'm certainly not going to be told that I need to be contained in how I respond after two years of consistent attacks from two individuals. So I wanted to say on that point, you and I will never come to an agreement. I'm speaking by everything that I said about him, and I'm not gonna have that everything that I say, including yesterday, when he says that me finding his, the products and stuff that he sells and promotes as a rabbi to be unholy, to say that I am only saying that because it's made in Israel. It's pointed ridiculous, but it looks like to a lot of people, and I'm gonna tell you this, and I'm expressing this, in case you are an individual, as I'm sure you are, that is concerned about the rise of anti-Semitism. But my suspicion is that people that are watching this are going to think that now we are using the word anti-Semitism like BLM began using racism, right? Which is to say that you cannot, let me finish my statement, I'm just telling you, what I am going, this is my suspicion, and I have tons of Jewish listeners, but given what you've said about Dave Smith, who is a libertarian, he is not a far-left liberal, he just does not support what Israel is doing. So in this, you have said that Jewish people, you've made comments about a lot of Jewish people who maybe don't agree with what's happening in Israel, you are now saying that a person who's been attacked for two years still needs to be careful on how they approach a Jewish person that's been doing the attacking, no one is going to accept that, that's ridiculous. And then to say this particular word, it sounds like everything that anybody says it needs to be first need to weigh in against the feelings of somebody and their history. You, I could find examples of black people being called witches, I can't then say that nobody can ever call a black person a witch, you know, even if it has what happened in Salem, you could go on and on, right? But the point is that if you're a black person, you've been attacking her for two years, you don't care if a person calls him a rabbi. In fact, I would question what it means to be a rabbi, maybe you can explain, if you have been consistently attacking and threatening somebody, literally he gave a quote to the Jerusalem Post, which actually I like the Jerusalem Post, they report on things very accurately, in which he says that he wants to bankrupt Candace Owens. That is a direct threat to somebody's livelihood. It is despicable, and because you call yourself a rabbi does not mean that people cannot say, but it is pointedly ridiculous that you are using finances as a mode of threat against people because you don't like their speech. It is ridiculous, and let me tell you what, that leans into an anti-Semitic trope about Jewish people and money. For a rabbi, they sign up and say, let's bankrupt her. You can talk over me all day, you can scream, you can defend me. I'm not screaming, I've let you talk a lot, that's not fair, I've let you talk a lot. Candace, it's your show, you're gonna edit and say what you wanna say. I'm not gonna edit this whatsoever, I promise you. The great truth, I appreciate that. No one has, if someone is attacking you, you can defend yourself, and if someone is saying a bad thing about you, I would even go and defend you as well for them saying that she's a black such and such, she's a female such and such, whatever it may be. If he's attacking you, and again, I'm not privy to those two years of attacks that you have. But the moment you start saying things like an unholy rabbi, when you do not know a rabbi's job and you don't know Judaism, you don't know what is considered Kaddush, what is considered holy or not holy Judaism. When the moment you make those kinds of comments, you've crossed a line, and you didn't need to make them. I get you're angry, I get you feel violated by, I get you feel here that he attacks you unjustifiably. I haven't been part of the discussions, so I think he may have. That doesn't ever give you then the right to say what you said, and it demonstrates, again, a pattern of behavior of an unawareness that you have, about Jewish theology, a lack of awareness you have about Jewish history, and about anti-Semitism, the fact that you can't accept what all academics, with the academic, I shouldn't say all, because never think it's anything at all, but what academics, what Lord Sacks with theologians all accept about that anti-Semitism is the unique eighth that mutates what Prager has done and Prager you video on. The fact that you can't even accept that is in itself problematic. I just, I think that it's to understand that you have decided that you, Candice Owens, are more knowledgeable wise than you big, really it's in a lot of fields. That's not what I've said. That's not, I've never said these things. I didn't say I was more knowledgeable than I was. I just said, I call his daughter a hag, and I meant it. I'm not taking the words back. That's what I've said. But Candice, the fact that you can't accept that the definition of anti-Semitism, that you think you know the definition better than scholars, academics, Jewish theologians, better than rabbis, is a level of humorous. As I say, you may know all sorts of things about all sorts of topics, but you're now dancing in a field where Shapiro dances, I danced where Rauai Shmueli, and I'm trying to tell you that you were repeatedly doing anti-Semitic behavior, but your underlying premise that you said at the beginning of our dialogue was that you don't accept that definition of anti-Semitism. What I said is I don't accept that definitions mutate is what I said to you at the beginning of this dialogue. And I'm telling you that's the definition of anti-Semitism. You have now said that you know more than Lord Jonathan Saxo, I believe I'm gonna guess actually your father-in-law because it's not that big of a world there. And you can ask anyone about Lord Saxo, you are now saying that you don't accept the definition, well, okay. What I'm saying to you is that there's debate even amongst Jewish people about the definition of anti-Semitism, as I pointed to you. No, that's a pretty much accepted one. No, that's a pretty much accepted one. If you're saying the definition mutates, then you're saying it has no definition, right? It has no definition. No, that's not true. Come from the word define. If it has definition, it has a shape, right? You can't say the shape can mutate the square, can become a circle, can become a triangle. That means that it has no shape. You're talking about an amoeba, right? I'll say it again. It mutates because the definition, again, I'm quoting Lord Saxo, directly quoting him, where he says that Jews have, this is his definition, it's pretty much accepted. Jews have no right to exist collectively as Jews with the same rights as other human beings. Yes, that sounds like a definition. And the reason that it mutates how that becomes manifest is because in the Middle Ages, it's about religion. When they come out of the stettles, when they go into the cosmopolitan areas, and in the 18th through 27th or 20th century, excuse me, that hate has now manifested and mutated, so it's not about religion, it's about race. Just so I'm clear, did Lord Sax say it mutates or are you saying it mutates? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear it, I apologize. Did Lord Sax say it mutates or are you? Lord Sax. Lord Sax. He says it mutates. Can you just resay the quotation, his direct quotation? That is a hate that mutates. It is a hate that mutates. It is a piracy fault that mutates and that he's not alone in that. And then by the time you get to the 20th century, it now has mutated to be anti the nation. So the hate manifests as first religion then as race and now as nation. So would you say that anybody who takes issue with anything that Israel does is an anti-Semite? Of course not, that's ludicrous. Okay, because- That's a ludicrous thing. Okay, because then why are- That's a ludicrous thing. Okay, I'm glad you said that because earlier when we were talking about Dave Smith and I said that some Jewish people don't agree with what Israel is doing as a nation, you suggested that they were self-hating Jews. That's not what I suggested. What I said is there's a very difference between supporting Israel and supporting Bibi or the government. There's a huge difference. Support of Israel is to understand, and I think again, this is a place, Eugene Bishop, who was one of the heads of the Central Conference of American Bishops, great Catholic leader, said a number of things. And Monsignor Royal Batikin, bless his memory, I actually heard him say this. Royal said he was one of the first people to do interfaith dialogue after Batikin too. And Royal said the following, he said that no non-Jew can ever fully understand the relationship between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. In the same way that no Jew can understand how a bunch of old Bishops, excuse me, old Cardinals go into a building, white smoke comes out and suddenly one of them is infallible. It's a quote from Royal Batikin, bless his memory, one of the founders of interfaith dialogue in the 60s and 70s. What I'm trying to explain to you is our tie to Israel, that when you make an anti-Zionist, not just you, anyone makes a column, an anti-Zionist column, that is anti-Semitism. But when you say anti-Zionist. That's your facts, et cetera. And when you say anti-Zionist, you don't mean criticizing Israel's government. No, you can criticize government. Okay, so I'm just not. But criticizing, okay, but let's go, can we follow that half for a moment? Cause I think this might get us somewhere. As I said from the beginning, I'm optimistic I'd like to get somewhere. To criticize Israel's government is one thing. I want to do that great. Especially you want to criticize America's involvement, its relationship with Israel, your American citizen. It's a part of that. But understanding, have you ever read the Covenant of 1988 for Hamas? No, I have not read the Covenant of 1988 for Hamas. So let me tell you about Hamas. The in there charter, which you can find easily online with Covenant of 1988. They claim that they are the subsidiary for the region of the Muslim brother, which I'm sure you know a lot about or you've learned a lot. And they call for the obliteration of all Jews. They say in article seven that the Muslim day of judgment will not come until every Jew is killed and those few who still live hide between, this is a quote, between the rocks behind, I'm saying behind the rocks and the trees, and the trees call out, O Abdullah, O Muslim, there's a Jew hiding behind me, come kill me. The definition of a Palestine, which there is no historical Palestine. The definition of a Palestine from the river to the sea, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, means no Israel. It is, as Lord Sax said, it is that they don't have a right to live collectively in a nation. Repeatedly, prominent figures in anti-Palestinian media circles have levied accusations against Palestinian resistance groups. Alleging their aim is the complete eradication of Israel from the map. Rabbi Michael echoes this sentiment, oversimplifying the Palestinian struggle for liberation as merely seeking the destruction of Israel, thereby undermining the genuine efforts of indigenous people to reclaim their homes from European settlers. Rabbi Michael's rhetoric plays a dangerous game by omitting the context of Israel's expansionist agenda, including the notion of a greater Israel, which advocates for the annexation of Gaza and other Palestinian territories. By focusing solely on Palestinian resistance without addressing the occupation's own extreme proposals, Rabbi Michael perpetuates a narrative grounded in falsehoods and half truths. Indeed, Zionism's foundation appears riddled with deception. Falsified claims about the origins of European Yiddish people, misrepresentation of Palestine as a native homeland for Jews while disregarding the true indigenous inhabitants and fabrication surrounding religious prophecies and a supposed divine mandate for territorial expansion. This deception extends to fostering animosity towards other Semitic peoples across the Middle East. In the ongoing saga with Candice Owens as the central figure and the conservative daily wire as a morally dubious entity, Owens emerges victorious. She steadfastly defends her position, posing crucial questions and asserting her stance with unwavering conviction, ultimately prevailing even before any final resolution is reached. Thank you for joining us today. To further our reach and amplify our message, we encourage you to like, share, and subscribe to our channel. Together, let's raise awareness and strive for peace. Until next time, stay informed and stay engaged. Peace.