ook like they're starving, that's not something you'd be wrong about. So my guess is that while Israel might be trying as hard as they can to avoid it, there's probably some starvation happening. That's a lie, Scott. We all know it's happening. Yeah. So anyway, I think as soon as you say we all know that something's happening, then you're not a serious person because you can't really know too much about what's happening over there, even if you think it's really obvious. Probably we don't.

But there's more on this topic apparently. And then Trump quite reasonably is talking about the need to feed the people. So that's the right focus. I like it when he does that.

Trump gave Keir Starmer of the UK what the Independent is calling a green light to recognize the Palestinian state. You probably heard that France decided to recognize Palestinian state or promote a two-state solution, I guess. So now Starmer wants to do that. It's not a done deal, but he checked with Trump and Trump said you could do that. Now, that's interesting to me because I don't remember Trump ever saying he favored or did not favor a two-state solution, which is weird that I don't know that. Because that would be the most important thing to know, right? Does anybody know has Trump said anything recently about a two-state solution versus a one-state solution? I don't know.

However, in my opinion, it doesn't matter what anybody else wants because Israel is the only one that's going to decide, and I don't think that they're anywhere near wanting a two-state solution. So we'll see how many people line up against Israel's one-state solution, and it might be the United States. It's entirely possible that Trump has the political capital to say, you know what, you really need to make a two-state solution. Now, I'm not saying I'm in favor of that or that's a good idea. What I say is I'm American, so they just need to work it out. And I will just observe. I will not condemn and I will not recommend.

Trump does say he wants Netanyahu to quote soften his tactics in Gaza. He may have to do it a different way. We don't know what that different way would look like. But here's the big question. I'm going to teach you something about debate today. And you may have heard me say this before, but if somebody tries to win a debate by forcing you to accept their definition of a word, that's not a debate. That's not a reason. That's somebody trying to weasel you into winning a debate by getting you to accept their own definition of a word.

For example, with abortion, if you say that's a living human person as soon as the body produces whatever the fetus is, if you say it's a person, then it sounds like murder if you do an abortion. If you say it's a fetus, then it doesn't sound so much like murder. So with a lot of our debates, we try to win the debate by insisting that somebody accept our definition of something. For example, in the pandemic, if I say to you the experts have created a kind of a shot that can help you in various ways, but you say no, it's an experimental shot. If you can make me accept that it's experimental, then you've won the argument. There's nothing else to say.

So here again with Israel, the word genocide is becoming the debate. So if you could get the people who disagree with you to accept the definition of genocide that you want to push forward and you could say Israel is involved in genocide. But if somebody else can get you a definition that doesn't say that then they could win their argument just by definitions again.

So I went to Grok and asked it to define genocide because I was pretty sure I didn't know exactly the definition. So let me tell you what Grok says is genocide and then you can say is that happening over in Gaza? So it would include killing members of the group but that's not by itself. That wouldn't be enough by itself because there's lots of wars where people are killing members of the other group, but those wars are not all genocide, right? So that would be an indicator, but it wouldn't be enough by itself. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, that would be in the same category of causing harm to people. Inflicting conditions to bring about physical destruction. Is that happening in Gaza? Is Israel inflicting conditions to bring about physical destruction? Yes. Yes, they are. But that doesn't mean it's genocide. We're going to look at all the definition before we decide.

What about preventing births within the group that's being targeted? Well, there's no evidence that Israel is intentionally preventing births, but I would guess there are fewer of them under the current situations. I don't know, could be wrong. It might go the other way. But again, these are not you must have checked all the boxes. So it's not an every box situation. And then forcibly transferring children to another group. There may be some of that for orphans, but it doesn't seem like that's a major element that's going on.

And then here's the important part. For something to be legally categorized as genocide, listen to this part. This is the most important part. You would have to prove intent. So if Israel's intent is self-defense and all of their documents say that and all their public statements say that and you can't find any counter to that, it just looks like this is their version of what would help their self-defense. If that's true, it's not a genocide. And as far as I know, there has not been any statement or leak or whistleblower who would say, "Oh yeah, the real intention is to kill as many of the residents of Gaza as we can and depopulate it." I don't believe you would find that. If you did and it was coming from the top, well, that'd be a pretty good argument that it's genocide, but I don't believe we've seen that.

Experts are split on the question of whether scale makes a difference. So in other words, if it's a big enough killing, then some would say some experts would say the size of it alone tells you their intention because nobody accidentally kills millions of people of the same group, right? So if it's big enough, you don't have to ask yourself, well, is there a document that says that you intended to do it? Well, it's so big. Killing millions of people, obviously, you intended it. Sort of like the Holocaust. You know, you don't have to ask, well, could you give us more thinking about that Holocaust situation? What were they thinking? You could talk about that all day long, but the scale of it is enough to say it was a genocide. You don't need to know too much about their inner thoughts.

So it's subjective and I'm not going to make a determination about whether that's genocide or not. The closest you could get is that Israel says they want total victory. And I'm wondering, is that what Germany and Japan experienced? Would you say that the US had a genocide in Japan at the end of World War II or would you say there was a genocide in Germany after Germany surrendered because it got pretty ugly. There was a lot of starvation in Germany in particular, probably in Japan.

I'll just say this. To me, the Hamas versus Israel situation has a weird quality, which is that if Israel were not doing what it's doing, and Hamas got its way, they would create a genocide of the Israelis. So if you're trying to determine if one side is doing a genocide, I feel like it matters who your target group is. If your target group is somebody who you could reasonably, very reasonably say if they had the power, they would genocide us. If Hamas had the power, would they genocide Israel? It looks like it, right? So if you have two entities that appear like they both think their only option is to genocide the other one, do you even talk about genocide? It just feels like it's not even the right conversation. So it's a very special case where you've got such extremism on both sides. It's not like a war where somebody wants to capture some territory or something like that, you know, like Ukraine. Ukraine's a war. But whatever is going on in the Middle East, you got some extremism there that's not like anything else.

So I will not give you my opinion of whether genocide is happening because that would be trying to win an argument with a definition. And the definition has enough squishiness in it and the situation is unique enough that you're trying to stop somebody who you think would genocide you if you didn't stop them. So I would just avoid that word altogether.

Trump reminds us on Truth Social that he's quote not seeking a summit with Xi of China. Now, apparently there was some reporting that says that he was seeking a summi