people don t want to leave home. if they don t have food and don t have peace, they ll do what any of us would do as moms and dads, they ll find it. when we feed 120 million people we do every day, week, month, year, we survey people. we talk to people. they don t want to leave. this 42 million we re talk about, they re on famine s door. this is the worst-case scenario. it s a one-time ask for the world s billionaires. i saw elon musk s net worth went up $21 million yesterday. last year, the top 400 billion n bill billionaires network went up trillions of dollars. i m not picking on them. just help share in a one-time crisis. save lives. keep nations from destabilizing. keep mass migration from taking place. it is a cheap fix. please help us. as you have said, $6 billion does not solve world hunger, but it could save 42 million lives. we will see how elon musk responds and if he puts his
voices and that are they were big supporters of nonviolent movement. israeli army closed down the stations and embarrassed the palestinian authority in the west bank and ensured they were an authority without authority. you see we can not i have previously an argument about not possibility of having peace and we can have peace. it is impossible. either we have peace or don t have peace. can you not have half peace like you cannot have half what we immediate is real peace. and peace can happen if palestinians are in charge of their own territory, completely and fully with sovereignty. if israel has a claim it can present it to the palestinian authority. not to go inside, whenever they want. that is not behavior of a civilized country. i want to ask a provocative question which is i think there is a consensus when we have these conversations about peace,
my lee points, three suggestions. but i don t believe in peace in the foreseeable future. i believe that in a political settlement with a lot of problems all along the time. if we go back to gaza, if we go back to sharon, sharon has saved israel from 1.5 million palestinians. and that s my major point. i want to ensure the existence of israel as a jewish state. and as a viable jewish state. and as a state in which we have more or less a confirmed strong jewish majority. 75%, 80% jews. that s what they want. not the kind of border that in which would will find ourselves with 55% jews and 45% palestinians. that s in the long run. generood morning, general.
exclude gaza. third, status quo does not exclude the most important vicious factor that s destroying the stability of movement peace for the future. and that is the growth of settlement. keeping the situation today or even negotiating while settlements con to grow is like having two sides negotiating over a peace of cheese, one side is stuck behind bars on, palestinian side. the other side, israeli side has access to the piece of cheese and eating it while we are negotiating. at the end of the day, there will be no state solution. there will be no cheese to negotiate. ands that our way. it is bad for us and as much as it is bad for israelis because if two states it is true, would be assistant apartheid, segregation. solution to which will only be one-state solution. there is only one way out of this. not half peace, not status quo. serious and clear pressure on
saying that peace, diplomatic resolution on iran, two-state solution. these are fundamental american interests and fundamental to the security of the state of israel in the long run. rather than engage in the discussion about those sort of things, people prefer to talk about particular terms of one blogger might have used on a personal twister account or talk about the source of the funds. that distracts from its mere wrors, the actual debate that needs to take place. why is that happening? why? because i believe that the folks on the right don t have any answers to the question of how can israel remain jewish and democratic state over the long run if there isn t an independent palestine moving alongside it in peace and security. that fundamental question has no answer from those on the right. they rather smear the people on the center and the left and say where do you get your funding and why are you using the words you are using to engage in the actual debate? do you think