Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: You're tuned into the all new freedom 106.5.
[00:00:04] Speaker B: 106.5 and to speak with us this morning. I'm not sure if I'm gonna get his name correctly, but I'm gonna try it is Benji got that correct? Or Benjai? Benji.
[00:00:16] Speaker A: Benji.
[00:00:17] Speaker B: Benji Rosen. Okay, I'll leave that one to you.
[00:00:22] Speaker A: Rosensweg.
[00:00:23] Speaker B: Rosensweg. All right.
Rosenswag. Okay, I'd leave that.
I love the name, though. It's a very unusual name. Good morning to you, Benji, and Welcome to Freedom 106.5 FM. Thank you for taking time out. For those of you who don't know Benji, Benji is a TEDx Detroit speaker and I'm a fan of TEDx. I have listened to TEDx and what some of the things on TEDx I've seen you before. And he's a very seasoned public presenter and expertise in storytelling and corporate consulting. Outside of a real estate executive, public speaker and entrepreneur with deep commitment to community, identity and storytelling. He also is the host of the of One show at a Time and A Yellow Balloon Experience, a podcast focused on recovery, music and personal transformation with more than 85 published episodes. And his bio is very long.
I want to read this part, though. In 2023, Benjai Obengi launched Storied, a multimedia nonprofit platform that celebrates jurist collaboration and the contribution to modern music, originally conceived as a live performance series.
So as we talk about this thing this morning, let's get into the crux of our conversation to help our local listeners understand what is taking place geopolitically and even on the war front in the Middle east with respects to the Americas. Getting involved in a war that clearly was unprovoked.
[00:01:43] Speaker A: I mean, clearly unprovoked is, I think, the crux of the.
The issue in the polarization of the conversation. So there are some people who are viewing this as clearly unprovoked, and there are some people who are seeing this as clearly provoked.
I think that, that you, you, you hit the nail on the head there in the framing of that.
[00:02:08] Speaker B: For me. One of the things we looked at, I listened to. I mean, you would imagine us in the media.
We are bombarded with information. We are following lead stories.
And when we, when I examine it, it's as though one country is saying, if you attack me, if you attack me, but you get help from this particular person over there, we will attack. We will retaliate to you and also to them.
That's what was said. But if you attack me and they don't get involved, then we will deal conflict to conflict.
They saw it as well. Wait, now you're threatening us? But they're not threatening you. They're saying if you join them, then we have no choice but to war you because you are now buying a fight for them.
And that is where the unprovoked situation of scenario rears its head. Nobody threatened you, but they were seeing the neighboring conversations between the both nations, and they're saying, this is not your warrior. Stay out. Talk to me, Benji.
[00:03:16] Speaker A: So I would say that that analysis makes sense if history started two weeks ago. But, you know, history has been going on for a long time and in the recent years. The recent conflict is about 2 1/2 years old and started on October 7th. On October 7th, Hamas attacked Israel unprovoked. Hamas was not standing alone. Hamas was funded and trained and directed by Iran. Like Hezbollah was funded, created and directed by Iran. The Houthis was funded and directed by Iran. So Israel's been fighting a war for the last two and a half years with Iran being the puppet master of that war, Iran being the architect of that war. Now, Israel's done an incredible job of taking Hamas off the. Well, it's not off the table, but crippling Hamas, decapitating Hezbollah, and rendering the Houthis mostly useless. But, yeah, I heard a great analogy that when you're, when you're fighting a war, you don't want to shoot the archers down, you want to shoot the archer, right? Because the archer can keep throwing arrows at you.
Let me say that again. You don't want to shoot the arrows down. You want to shoot the archer. And Iran, specifically the irgc, not the Persian people of Iran, but the irgc, the Ayatollah, has been this archer. And, you know, you look at the last two and a half years, and you look at the last 47 years, what, what the IRGC has done to its people is terrible, and I don't support that. But I can't go to war for what he's doing to somebody else's people. But the way that Israel sees this, and remember, Israel and the United States are allies and America has interests in Israel, and America is a partner with Israel on numerous financial and other things.
You know, this is a war that Iran has been provoking for a long time. And, you know, October 7th was not just a war that they started. It was a war that they showed us what their intent was. You know, for a long time, they've been saying, remember, the IHC had a clock into Iran that said countdown, a doomsday countdown for Israel. We're going to get Israel erased off the map. That's a genocide of 9 million people, right? Almost 10 million people.
But that was talk. That was talk. That was, that was, that was bolstering.
October 7th was no longer talk. They were showing us their intention of what they were going to do.
And if you tell me that you're going to do this and then you show me how you're going to do this and then you start implementing, we gotta stop you.
[00:05:57] Speaker B: The thing about it is, from what I, my research is showing me, and I love the fact that you went back and say, if history had started two weeks ago, so we understand the historic data between the allies of both countries, both nations, however, does that give Donald Trump the rights that if you are unprovoked and your friend is entering to a battle to fight somebody else, that is their battle? Why do you think you needed to be proactive in this event and strike first when you clearly was not? There was no strike against you?
You were cautioned, leave this battle alone between me and this man. You were cautioned, however you see it as a threat and say, nah, you can't threaten me. So you is the big bad bully then.
[00:06:44] Speaker A: Listen, I am no blind supporter of Trump and I think that Trump has done a lot of things that I'm not a fan of. Not. I think I know that Trump has done a lot of things that I'm not a fan of. I also know that Trump is the President of the United States and has access to information that you and I don't have. I know that Trump is looking at a global political ecosystem. It's not just about a one on one conversation with Iran. It's, it's, he's, he's playing chess.
And I appreciate the fact that he's looking at the, the attempt at complete destabilization in the Middle east that Iran is trying to implement. And if Iran gets nukes, they will destabilize not just the Middle east, they'll destabilize the world. And would I make the same decisions as Donald Trump has made? I don't know the answer to that because I don't have the same information that Donald Trump has. And so I can't tell you what my answer would be, but I can tell you that the way that I see it, Donald Trump is trying to prevent worse war, more, more impactful war that Iran has not just said, but shown us that they're trying to implement.
[00:08:05] Speaker B: You know, why would why would.
[00:08:07] Speaker A: Why would the United States wait for them to strike first? Let's take it out before it happens.
[00:08:11] Speaker B: Let's take it out before it happens. Let's look at what take place with Britain.
They have attacked the Brits, they've attacked the military bases. Brit still has not retaliated on a war front as yet. They are still holding back. I have info the British Prime Minister being questioned in Parliament about it, and he did deploy some F16s, and whatever he sent, he sent out. However, they have not actively engaged. Now, you made a very startling point about why wait.
But then in one strike, they cannot obliterate the US off the map. It will take multiple. So why not prepare yourselves in a ready. In a ready position that should this happen, this is going to be your quick response. Because when you take up a proactive approach, like Donald Trump did, whether we are a fan of him or not, as you rightfully say, he has made some very, very unpopular geopolitical decisions. When you take a preemptive approach to strike, are you not concerned that you are. There's going to be collateral damage. Women and children will die, innocent lives will be lost. Your troops are going out there. You're not talking about boots on the ground. So you're sending sons and daughters of your soil in a battle that again, started with an unprovoked position.
It was more of a caution to you.
That's my position.
[00:09:42] Speaker A: Yeah. So, again, the premise that this was unprovoked, I don't buy that.
You know, if somebody says to you, you know, I'm gonna kill you, and I'm gonna do it by trapping you limb from limb, do I have to wait for him to cut off an arm before I start stopping him? Right. Iran, this is not unprovoked. Iran has been actively working and telling us exactly what they were going to do and how they were going to do it. Now that they got close to having those capabilities and started the implementation, the United States stepped in. The fact that Britain hasn't stepped in, I can't. I can't speak to that. But states that are close in the Middle east that are, that are, you know, neighbors are stepping in, Saudi Arabia, stepping in. Kuwait, Qatar. Qatar, you know, these, these countries are stepping in because they're, they're in the neighborhood, right? They're. They understand what's happening.
[00:10:38] Speaker B: They, they. I mean, and you rightfully say that they're stepping in because they don't have a choice. With them not stepping in, we would have problems. One texter is saying, Davy Iran declared war in America since the 1980s when they held 56American hostage for 444 days. Again, are we, are we buying into a narrative of, of, of, of some generational curse thing?
[00:11:00] Speaker A: You know, I agree with you there. I agree with you there. I saying that they did something in the 80s, just, that's not provocation. That's 40 years ago. That's, that's understanding a history of who they are. But that's not a current provocation. I agree with you there.
[00:11:14] Speaker B: Let's take a call. Very quickly. Caller, good morning. Very respectfully, please, you can chat.
[00:11:19] Speaker C: Morning, bv. Good morning, Benji. Welcome to the Caribbean. Benji and Tobago.
I want to ask you this question.
When Barack Obama came into office, security services told him Iran is about to have a nuclear weapon that must not be permitted. What did he do? He took the rest of NATO, they call, he ran around the table, they said, listen, we only want you to reach to this point, not weapons grade. If you maintain that we're going to release some sanctions, you behave yourself, we might give you more and we're going to have a form of robust inspection. That was going well. When Donald Trump came into office, Warmonger Netanyahu, tell him he didn't like that at all. Tear that up. And that is how we reach to this point. What do you think?
[00:12:04] Speaker B: Good question.
[00:12:06] Speaker A: It's a great question. So when you say, you know, the inspections were going well, the inspections were going well. On paper, everything that I've researched and everything that I've looked into, essentially Iran was playing three card Monty. And so they were saying, look over here, there's nothing happening over here. Meanwhile, what they were actually working on was over there.
You know, the, when you, when somebody tells you, I'm creating a nuclear weapon so that I can kill, you know, millions of people. And then when you say, hey, we don't want you to build a nuclear weapon, they say, okay, fine, we're going to use a nuclear weapon for energy.
What nuclear energy projects were they working on? None. They weren't, they were saying that as a, as a mask of legitimacy, they were working on nuclear weapons. They told us, they showed us they were working on nuclear weapons. The facilities that they were working on were for nuclear weapons. So, you know, it's like, you know, it's like, it's like creating an arsenal of, of machine guns and handguns and saying, hey, I'm just a hunter. What are you hunting with those? You know, they were creating nuclear weapons. It was, it was Iran's playing a game of Three Card Monte with the inspectors. And I don't think that there's anybody other than, you know, the people who check the boxes who would disagree with that. It was, it was a shell game.
[00:13:25] Speaker B: I don't disagree. I want to take some calls with you. But there's something that you said that I find it. Very often politicians are shielded by this statement.
They have information that we probably don't. They sit at the top of the National Security Council. They are the head of the security apparatus for the country. So they may be privy to intel that we don't know. And they mask, they hide behind this mask in order to do things that is totally unexplained to the public.
How are we to perceive this? Because I'll tell you this, Benji, in the absence of information, perception becomes reality.
So because we are not thoroughly. I mean, I don't expect you to give out all the national security secrets, but there must be.
[00:14:07] Speaker A: I don't have any.
[00:14:07] Speaker B: That's right. Not you, but I'm talking about the heads of state. But there must be some sort of information being able to put to the public or some kind of accountability and transparency that would help us to swallow and digest your actions into taking our sons and daughters into war where lives are lost. He said it haphazardly, you know, well, they're gonna. That's just the way it is. More will probably happen when the four Americans die and mock it up.
That sends a clear message.
[00:14:36] Speaker A: Listen, I'm not a fan of sitting around and griping and talking about the world's problems.
But we are in a position in the world and I know that this is true in the United States. I don't know if it's true in Trinidad and Tobago.
We have gotten to a place where nobody trusts the media because the media is polarized, right? Nobody trusts information because information is polarized. You and I can read the same article and come to do two different conclusions and then write an article based off that. And those have become different versions of truth. And you believe what you say, and I believe what I say. And that's astonishing, okay, because we're in that position.
You know, you look at a president and if you support that president and why what he tells you, then you believe him. And if you don't support that president, then it doesn't matter what he says, you don't believe him. And now we're in a place where everybody believes, myself included, that we're good at research and we're good at connecting dots and we're good at connecting geopolitical, political information. And the truth is we're all connecting dots that we think are accurate. But it's frustrating. I don't know the answer. I don't know the answer. And I, and you are right that you know, it's the President's job and it's the media's job to gain back some of the trust that we've lost. And I don't know how, I don't know how that's going to happen.
[00:16:03] Speaker B: And that's all I'm saying. But another question to you. I mean we have limited time but we get into it. America has now been one of the largest producers of oil in the world to date.
Why is it that this war is making oil prices go up?
What is happening to your knowledge?
[00:16:20] Speaker A: I, I don't know where oil prices are going up. I haven't seen them go up locally. I'm in Detroit. I don't, I don't know.
Again, hypothesizing, there's many people who have said that the reason why United States stepped in in Venezuela was to control the oil prices. Venezuela has a third of the world's oil and the Straits of Hormuz controlled a third of the world's oil. And so they were sort of replacing one with another. I haven't seen oil prices but go up. But.
[00:16:49] Speaker B: All right, well, I mean I want to talk about the Venezuela issue is another issue. Let's take a call quickly. Hello, good morning. Very quickly and respectfully please.
[00:16:58] Speaker C: Of course, respectful it is. Good morning sir.
To the last point that you just made.
That is where because oil prices has gone up. Because I'm asking the question if you start a war and one of your argument towards your citizen was to reduce the cost of gasoline. Gasoline has gone up in the US from we looking in the price of oil go went up. Price of gasoline in the US went up. And just based on that alone, people are talking about, they're talking about trading in the 4K or wherever it is because of people have no funds. That is what I saw up to just last night. But Davy, from a historical standpoint, this wall two years started because of an issue that one religion had against one not so okay that that incursion it started because of something happened how many years ago. So Mr. Gentlemen, this war is not awarded this start two weeks ago. This war started generations ago. And on top of that Israel was not Israel where Israel is today.
That piece of land was handed to a group of people, let me say 10ft navy and over A period of years.
[00:18:14] Speaker B: Okay, please. Zeroing on your question or your, or your point, please.
[00:18:18] Speaker C: No, but the point is he's saying it, this war is just started. And I agree with you. Let me deal with what transpired within the last two weeks. No, these people.
[00:18:27] Speaker B: But he never said that. He did say it was something. He said if history started in two weeks, we could go this way. But Ben Jai also alluded to history, to previous years, to things generations ago.
[00:18:39] Speaker C: But he also made a point to you about the 50 something people they kidnapped. And you all sort of try to
[00:18:44] Speaker B: say, well, because at the end of the day, right, we, we, I always mention we are not in 2063, 1963. We are not back then, sorry, we
[00:18:53] Speaker C: are not fighting our war from 1960.
[00:18:56] Speaker B: Thank you very much. You've been going on and on and I needed to come in. Hello, Good morning. Quickly please.
[00:19:00] Speaker C: Hey, morning, baby. Good morning to the guest as well. Davy, I support everything you say. You know, this is, this, this, we were, I thought a late 80s shy, right. I grew up in peace when, when the, the millennium was now changing and everybody, we had everything, you know, the economy was stable in the world and everything was good. Nobody had any war, any talker, any war was, it was like, you know, we, we want no war again, pretty well, you understand?
[00:19:25] Speaker B: Understood.
[00:19:26] Speaker C: And now we see the same country and I'm not bashing nobody, I, I, I love citizens. But now we see in the same country that was pushing for peace, you know, going out and doing these things against UN and against me. So I think so it's real scary that to go up with all these people and then pushing for peace. And now we have everything, the economy stable and everything. I know they're doing all these things and getting rid of the peace and inciting war is really bad.
Have a great day.
[00:19:52] Speaker B: All right, thank you.
[00:19:55] Speaker A: If I may, I just want to address, I just want to address two things. The previous caller said that, you know, Israel wasn't Israel before and he was referring to before 1948. I just want to remind you that if you open up any Jewish prayer book that has had the same prayers for 2500 years.
In the prayers, in the prayers that Jews have been saying for 2000 years, there's references every single day to returning to Zion.
Jews came from Judea and Samaria before, after Judea, when we were expelled by the Romans, we went to Iran, we went to Iraq, we went to Morocco, we went to Europe. And Jews have been in the diaspora for 2000 years. Okay, interesting historical Modern state of Israel. The modern state of Israel started in 1948. But the Jewish yearning for coming back to the state of Israel, to the land of Israel, is 2000 years old. And we were in Israel for 1500 years before that.
That's number one. The second thing that I just wanted to address, he was talking about, you know, generations of war. Golda Meir was the prime minister, the first female prime minister of Israel. She was the prime minister of Israel in the 60s. And she famously said, if. If the Arabs put down. If the Arabs put down their weapons, there'd be no more wars in Israel. And if Israel puts down its weapons, there would be no more Israel. Right. We would love to live in peace with our neighbors, but we need to have a partner in peace with our neighbors.
[00:21:23] Speaker B: All right. Calla. Good morning.
[00:21:25] Speaker C: Good morning, David.
[00:21:26] Speaker B: Good morning, sir.
[00:21:28] Speaker C: I want to point out something here, David, why the United States were not serious about any negotiations. And I want to tell your guest this year the attack on Iran was done on Purim.
Am I correct? He will answer me after. And number two, it was done a
[00:21:44] Speaker A: few days before Purim.
[00:21:45] Speaker C: Huh?
[00:21:47] Speaker A: It was done a few days before Purim. Purim was on Monday night.
[00:21:50] Speaker C: It was on a few days before. So which means it was pre planned. We have deduced that it was preplanned. And this ambition is for a part six year. It is for a wider Israel to tell us that Iran is about nuclear ambitions. It's a bit farcical. Moreover, when Israel have nuclear weapons, when last have they been inspected by the international body respected guests? Can you tell me when they were inspected? You can't. And another thing I want to point out here to you is that the Oslo accord was broken by Israel. Israel is who broke the Oslo accord and infiltrate inside of Palestine. And the ambitions that we are seeing here it is being supported by the United States on the basis of biblical prophecy. That is why the commanders are telling us that they were informed that this is about prophecy. This war is not about nuclear weapons. That's a facade. It's farcical. And to point out that to the wider region to tell us and we should accept that no, we will see the truth. It is another Afghanistan and Iraq. Loading. Where the president George Bush tell us he was misled. There was no weapons of mass destruction. I wanted to tell us where possible of mass destruction that was found in those countries.
Have a good morning.
[00:23:08] Speaker A: Indeed.
[00:23:09] Speaker B: All right, thank you.
[00:23:10] Speaker A: So.
[00:23:10] Speaker B: So there's a lot of information back to what this.
[00:23:14] Speaker A: Yeah, there's a lot of things so you know, unfortunately one of the wars that Israel's been fighting is a propaganda war where Iran and Qatar have been a drip campaign of misinformation into the psyche and into the knowledge base of the people of the world.
The idea that Israel is trying to create a Greater Israel and expand the borders is a fallacy.
It's just non existent. It's a joke.
In fact, if you look at history, Israel has been willing to give land to other nations. Israel gave the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for peace. And by the way, that peace has lasted since it was written in 1970. Since that agreement was written in 1973. 3, 1976 I believe.
I want to make sure that I say that accurately.
Israel has been willing to give up land for peace in the Camp David negotiations.
The idea that Israel is going for an expanded Greater Israel, it's a fallacy, It's a joke. It's not reality. The idea that Israel could manipulate the United States into going into war again, this is, this is age old anti Semitic tropes. We don't control the world, we don't control the United States, we don't control these things. It's just, it's not reality.
You know, when you say that Israel invaded Palestine, there's no, there is no place called Palestine. It doesn't exist. You want to say Israel invaded Gaza? No, Israel responded to October 7th where, where Hamas killed 1200 Israeli citizens and took 255 hostages. I would hope that if somebody came into your country and killed 1200 people and took 255 hostages that your government would go and retrieve them. I would hope that your government would do that for you.
You know, I think that the idea that this was premeditated because it happened on Purim, I think that's a lofty coincidence.
Attacks like this are premeditated and that they take a lot of coordination.
Do I think that there's some like religious imperial, you know, idea that this happened on Purim?
Sure. If you believe that, that Hamas specifically attacked Israel on Sabbath Torah because it was a Jewish holiday, maybe. I don't know. I think that people look at everything that, that the Jews do as nefarious and when it's done to us, they're like, well, that's the consequences.
[00:25:51] Speaker B: Yeah, I hear you and thank you very much for the history there. They talk about the Brent crude oil prices jumped by 12%. This happened just after the Israeli and the US began bombing Iran on Saturday.
Now it's very strange that you didn't pick up on that or you're not hearing anything about it, but it's actually out there where those prices are soaring right about now.
[00:26:14] Speaker A: I'm seeing it in articles. I'm grateful that it. At the gas station by my house. I'm not seeing massive jumps. And so I just, I can't speak to it.
[00:26:23] Speaker B: That's great. Quickly, please, as we wind up the interview. Good morning.
[00:26:26] Speaker C: Good morning. Every morning, I guess. Mr. Benji, I just want to remind these persons, especially in Trinidad and Tobago, when they were protesting Iran, how, how protesters were massacred.
And if that is the type of regime we want to support, we're going to be very careful. It's a bad precedent. And also Iran has pledged the destruction of an entire nation. They wanted to destroy Israel. So they having a nuclear weapon would be something that they would want to use because of this sort of ideology that they have.
So you have to take before not taking front, before ting take. All right, so that is something that I support the war. I mean every war has casualties. But we have to prevent mass destruction of people in the world by stopping this regime.
[00:27:18] Speaker B: All right, you know, why won't people look at it in this way?
If, I mean, I think any government who is in a position, who finds themselves in a position where their citizens are being taken hostage and being murdered in a genocidic way, that's a word they would want to respond. They would want to get allies to push back.
When we look at the American history in terms of presidencies going into countries, destabilizing governments, one tend to think, if I'm doing something in my homeland, why is that affecting you? If my citizens, if my subjects, if you want to quote, unquote, call it that, I am governing my subjects in this manner, why are you upset? I'm not doing you anything. I'm just home, you know. But you are coming into my home to kidnap to take me. I don't want to use the word kidnap, but to arrest me in my home because I'm dealing with my children in a very strict manner. What are your thoughts on that? Because that's how the world, that's how certain people is perceiving the Cuban situation and the Venezuelan situation.
[00:28:26] Speaker A: So many things can be true at the same time, right? At the, at the end of the day, you look at Khomeini and he was not a good dude, right? He was, he was oppressing his people, right? Women were, women were jailed and beaten and, and, and killed for not wearing a hijab properly, right? He was not a good man for the world.
On the other hand, the United States doesn't need to be the police of the world and dictate policy for the world. And I also abhor war. I wish we lived in a world where people put down their guns and we didn't go to war and people could just live side by side.
And at the same time, Jews and people in Israel have the right to self determination in their ancestral homeland and Muslims living in Gaza and, and in the, and in the Judean Samaria, what some people call the West Bank. Right. They also deserve to live happy and, and have freedom. Like all these things can be true at the same time to your question about provocation in another country, I think all of these things can be true, but we're dealing with a set of circumstances that require, you know, all hands on deck here.
[00:29:39] Speaker B: All right. So in conclusion, we can deduce the fact that this war that's taking place in the Middle east from a perspective of the Americas is that we had to go in first because a direct threat was made against us.
[00:29:53] Speaker A: They told us and they showed us what they were doing.
[00:29:56] Speaker B: Thank you very much.
[00:29:57] Speaker A: It wasn't talk. They were showing us how they were going to do it.
[00:30:01] Speaker B: I want to reinvite you in on this program perhaps next week.
All right.
We have your contact info. Let's talk about this. Let's get, let me see some of the developments taking place within the next 72 hours on the Middle east land front. And I would love you and I to revisit conversations and invite our callers in as we pay attention to what is taking place geopolitically. I want to thank you very much.
Rosenwig, is it?
[00:30:29] Speaker A: I appreciate you. Rosenzweig.
[00:30:30] Speaker B: Rosenzweig. Rosenzweig. I remember that for next week. And let's go.
[00:30:35] Speaker A: You did great.
[00:30:36] Speaker B: Thank you so much. And let's talk about this situation next week, early next week. Mind that. All right. So thank you again. The producers will reach out. Have a good one. Thank you. Be safe.
[00:30:45] Speaker A: Thank you. All right, you too.
[00:30:46] Speaker B: So that concludes our interview this morning.
[00:30:48] Speaker A: You're tuned into the all New Freedom Formal 6.5. Formal 6.5.
