This show proudly sponsored by Real American Freestyle Wrestling. Since when do you abandon the only democracy in the Middle East? And Lawrence, let's start from there. I mean, first off, immediately people say, well, who cares if France, the UK, Australia, Portugal, other Western countries join about another 140 in recognizing a Palestinian state? It's a non-starter.
But it does complicate things internationally, diplomatically for Israel. in the UN as well as when you look at um Uh, the president and the deals, the peace treaties that he's trying to accomplish all over the world is caving. And Brian, I continue to make the point: who is the government then? If we're going to acknowledge them as a state, then who is the government? Hamas.
So, we watched Prime Minister Starmer to answer Peter Doocy. He said, Why, you know, why do you recognize the Palestinian state? He goes, First off, we don't recognize Hamas.
Well, you do you understand what we're dealing with here? Do you've been paying attention at all? Can you get out of your think tank into the real world?
So, this is what they're saying. Here are the consequences. That if it provides a basis for a complete revision of bilateral relations with Israel. A country that recognizes Palestine has to review agreements with Israel to make sure they do not violate its obligations to the Palestinian state. This would include political, territorial integrity, as well as economic, cultural, social, and civil relations.
So now, all of a sudden, you're going to be dealing with them like they're a true state when it was pretty clear they're not a state. They were created really in the 1950s. Yeah, but also Brian, who's going to manage the death and destruction there? I mean, you gotta ask yourself a question. Why don't any of the neighbors want to take their people?
It's because they're chaotic. There's a lot of radicals there, and they don't want them staring up trouble. Jordan doesn't want it, Saudi Arabia doesn't want it, Egypt doesn't want it.
So, I mean, if you guys are going to acknowledge them, are you going to be there to make sure that they don't invade the border again and we have another October 7th?
Well, no, they want to keep that border closed in Egypt, and they don't want to let anyone into Jordan.
So, here's the letter. And you tell me if this deal is a non-starter or a starter. Trey says. That they are going past Benet Yahoo to Qatar in order to get a direct letter to Trump. Listen to his story, Cut 25.
Fox News has learned from a senior Trump administration official and a second source directly involved in the negotiations that Hamas has drafted a personal letter to President Trump asking him to guarantee a 60-day pause in the fighting in exchange for immediately releasing half of the hostages being held inside Gaza. We understand this letter is currently with the Qataris and is expected to be delivered to the president this week. Remember, there are still 48 hostages being held by the terror group inside the Gaza Strip. It's estimated around 20 are believed to be alive. And the negotiations were moving forward, but earlier this month, the Israelis launched airstrikes against Hamas inside the Qatari capital of Doha.
They have been stalled ever since. But officials hope this letter will help to jump-start the conversations and ultimately get President Trump directly involved to try and reach an agreement to get the hostages home and end this war. Your thoughts? First of all, the President is already directly involved. I think the deal is a non-starter.
When when I see first of all The second about Hamas hasn't honored the past deals. They haven't done what they were supposed to do with the past deals. Why would we give them another way to regroup and reshape again? I think it starts where the president said the last time: release all of the hostages first. No more of these one-offs, half here, a quarter of the hostages.
You have to release them all. Then we can talk about other things.
So we'll talk about that as it progresses because at the UN, that's going to be the story today. Of course. Lawrence, I also want to talk about the great coverage yesterday with Kayleigh McEnady on the memorial that lasted between five and six hours. I was amazed. It just went perfectly from the size of the crowds, the behavior, no violence.
The overflow went to a nearby arena. The others just stand on the outside with the big screens. They estimate the New York Post, 200,000 people showed up. I mean, this is free. I got it.
But no one had any guaranteed seats. They showed up anyway and noticed no violence. Before we get into some of the sound, your thoughts.
Well, thanks, Brad. But I I am uh More impressed how uplifting it was. I mean, Conservatives have every reason to be upset right now. And the spirituality that was there, the return to God, to faith, the continuation of the movement, it was not depressing at all. It was very uplifting.
And I think that says a lot about the movement. As Erica Kirk said, there was no violence. Right. But yet, some people are not in support. Tone deaf, and I think just un Unbelievably ignorant about who he was and what were they doing.
I mean, think about the squad in particular. All of them sounded off, it seems, against Charlie Kirk, cut 10. We don't have to agree with every single word. But I do believe he was a reprehensible, hateful man. Like, that is my view of the words that he has said about every single.
identity that I belong to. He didn't believe that we should have equal access to anything. He also just didn't even believe I could be smart enough. I could have thoughts that could be equal to a white man. I where are we missing this conversation about who this man was and the things that he said?
That's not true. That's not true. No, he did not say that. And you heard it yesterday. With all the tales and the stories of Charlie.
And I just think it's very evil and disgusting to say that when the man was assassinated for what he believed in, and he's not alive to defend himself. And he would have definitely engaged on that. He would have welcomed that approach. But AOC was even worse, Cut 11. We should be clear.
about who Charlie Kirk was. A man who believed that the Civil Rights Act that granted black Americans the right to vote was a mistake. Who, after the violent attack on Paul, claimed that, quote, some amazing patriot. Unquote, should bail out his brutal assailant. And accused Jews of controlling, quote, not just the colleges.
It's the non-profits, it's the movies, it's Hollywood, it's all of it. Unquote. His rhetoric, I mean, this is you this is at this point defamation. Right. Defamation.
He was close. Netanyahu, the Jewish state. Do you think Netanyahu would be supporting Charlie Kirk if he was anti-Jewish? But there's a sense on the podcast world with certain people pointing out that he was threatened by Ken Ackman. Out in the Hamptons saying if you don't change your tune, you're going to basically regret it.
And he changed his tune on Israel. That's what people are saying, but it's just not true. There's people that were at those meetings at that point, because Brian, you're right, the conspiracies that are going on, even before he was even put into the ground, were just not true. The people who were at those meetings said that that didn't take place. And Erica Kirk.
Apparently, he is going to have to respond to some of these conspiracies on his show today. Yeah. And by the way, this unmute picked up too. Jonathan Carl on ABC was in the crosshairs of Donald Trump this week. He hosted, pointed out some things I thought were positive and very level-headed about.
Charlie Kirk, but he also added this, cut 12. The 31-year-old activist's murder shocked the nation, and it was condemned by sensible and compassionate people in and out of politics. and across the political spectrum. It has also been senselessly celebrated by some, a small minority, who didn't like what Kirk stood for and thought it was somehow therefore justified. Celebrating or excusing violence is abhorrent.
The murder of Charlie Kirk was not a political act, it was a gruesome crime. His alleged killer now faces the death penalty. Our thoughts this morning are with the Kirk family, especially his two young children who are who will now grow up without their father. Not a political act. Excuse me, sir.
It was both. It was a gruesome murder and a political assassination. He was doing so well, but he couldn't just state the obvious. We have gotten an investigation. We knew what the assassin's inspirations were.
His parents have been vocal about the radicalization and things that were taking place. His cousins, people at the dinner table with him. We've seen text messages as well. He said why he did it. We don't have to speculate about this anymore.
Yeah, I mean, he said that it was hates it, something that can't be discussed. Go ahead to kill him instead. It's the Will Kane Show. Watch it live at noon Eastern, Monday through Thursday on FoxNews.com or on the Fox News YouTube channel. And don't miss a show.
Get the podcast five days a week at foxnewspodcasts.com or wherever you download your favorite podcasts.
