Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: So we've got a few updates for you with regards
Speaker 1: to wherever we are with that ceasefire proposal. First, we
Speaker 1: wanted to bring you Jake Taper announcing on his program
Speaker 1: that Hamas had rejected the deal, which was not exactly
Speaker 1: exactly accurate and getting corrected in real time.
Speaker 4: Let's take to listen to that.
Speaker 5: Haamas has responded to the latest proposal for a hostage
Speaker 5: and ceasefire deal, and Hamas has rejected it. CNN political
Speaker 5: and foreign policy analyst Barack Ravide is breaking this. Did
Speaker 5: Hamas Barrock give any explanation for its rejection?
Speaker 6: Hi, Jake, So, First, Hamas did not say that it
Speaker 6: rejected the deal. Hamas said that it gave a response
Speaker 6: to the Katarian Egyptian mediators that it gave several comments
Speaker 6: and remarks on parts of the Israeli proposal. Israel, the
Speaker 6: Israeli government, Israeli officials are the ones saying that after
Speaker 6: they received Hamas's response and analyzed.
Speaker 7: It, they treated as a rejection. I think we still
Speaker 7: need to hear from the mediators and most importantly from
Speaker 7: the White House. That White House spokesman John Kirby said
Speaker 7: that the whites is still analyzing and studying the Hamas response.
Speaker 7: So Hamas is saying it just gave a few comments,
Speaker 7: Israeli saying Hamas rejected the deal. The White House still
Speaker 7: hasn't said anything of substance. I think we should wait
Speaker 7: and hear more what the White House says, what the
Speaker 7: Qataris say, and what.
Speaker 3: The Egyptians say.
Speaker 7: What I heard from US officials in the last few
Speaker 7: weeks is that because sinoar thinks that as the war
Speaker 7: goes on, Israel will be more under pressure in the
Speaker 7: US will put more pressure on Israel. This is why
Speaker 7: they try to mobilize the international community to support President
Speaker 7: Biden's speech, including the Security Council resolution that passed yesterday.
Speaker 7: That the Biden administration thought that if Sinwar cares so
Speaker 7: much about the international pressure on Israel, maybe when he
Speaker 7: sees the Security Council resolution, he'll have second thoughts on
Speaker 7: where the international pressure is directed. Maybe he'll understand that
Speaker 7: he's also under pressure, and not only these ways.
Speaker 1: So kind of a funny and subtly revealing moment there,
Speaker 1: because the actual story was israeally officials had said, and
Speaker 1: that was the Axios headline. Israeli officials had said, a
Speaker 1: monster rejection of the deal, and Taffer just takes.
Speaker 4: Us a monster rejected the deal because he just takes.
Speaker 3: Their hard work.
Speaker 2: That the Israeli journalist who is an Israeli citizen and
Speaker 2: I believe he served in the idea previously, he said
Speaker 2: a whole dude, He's like.
Speaker 3: That's just what the isral.
Speaker 2: That's a perfect example, is that the Israeli media more
Speaker 2: skeptical of their own government or of their own coverage
Speaker 2: than the US media.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, how else can you that is it?
Speaker 2: You used to look at that and put it in
Speaker 2: a time capsule, look at it from all the time
Speaker 2: for perfect moment.
Speaker 1: But I mean I have to say, like I've read
Speaker 1: everything there is to read about their response and where
Speaker 1: we are, and it's honestly impossible to parse what is
Speaker 1: going on behind the scenes because it's very difficult to
Speaker 1: separate the spin from the reality of who is position.
Speaker 1: Where the best that I can come to, I want
Speaker 1: to show you some elements here that give you a
Speaker 1: sense of what we know, But I think we're still
Speaker 1: just at this fundamental impasse where Hamas wants to remain
Speaker 1: in existence because they're self interested. They want the war
Speaker 1: to end and there to actually be a permanent ceasefire
Speaker 1: and some guarantee of that, and Israel, especially led by
Speaker 1: Bibana and Yahoo, does not want the war to end.
Speaker 1: And it seems to be that that's a pretty unbridgable divide,
Speaker 1: at least without us exerting much more pressure than they
Speaker 1: have to date to make this thing happen. We did
Speaker 1: hear from Tony Blinkoln He described his characterization of what
Speaker 1: Hamas's response was here, saying that some of the changes
Speaker 1: were minor, others were unacceptable and unworkable.
Speaker 4: As take a listen to his exact words.
Speaker 8: Hamas has proposed numerous changes to the proposal that was
Speaker 8: on the table. We discussed those changes last night with
Speaker 8: Egyptian colleagues and today with the Prime Minister. Some of
Speaker 8: the changes are workable, some are not. A deal was
Speaker 8: on the table that was virtually identical to the proposal
Speaker 8: that Hamas puldfore on May the sixth, a deal that
Speaker 8: the entire world is behind, a deal Israel's accepted, and
Speaker 8: Hamas could have answered with a single word yes. Instead,
Speaker 8: Amas waited nearly two weeks and then proposed more change,
Speaker 8: a number of which go beyond positions that had previously
Speaker 8: taken then accepted.
Speaker 1: So listen, I'm not portraying Hamas. It's like a good
Speaker 1: actor in this, but it's worth being skeptical of the
Speaker 1: US's commentary here as well, because they clearly from the
Speaker 1: beginning they've framed this as this is the Israeli proposal
Speaker 1: and they totally support it. It's Hamasa's standing in the
Speaker 1: way when Israel, you know, the leaders of Israel Nanyahu
Speaker 1: in particular, were consistently saying, well, actually, we don't agree
Speaker 1: with what the US is put forward, and this isn't
Speaker 1: exactly reflective of our proposal. So in any case, you
Speaker 1: can take that for what it's worth. We also have
Speaker 1: some harets reporting about according to Israeli officials what they
Speaker 1: are saying. Hamas's objections were here some of the provisions
Speaker 1: that are considered quote unquote unworkable. So they've demanded that
Speaker 1: the ceasefire agreements stipulate that Israel withdraw from all areas
Speaker 1: of the Gaza Strip in the first week of the
Speaker 1: deal's implementation, that if Israel does not do so, the
Speaker 1: release of hostages will be halted. In a response given
Speaker 1: by Hamas and mediators on Wednesday, the group is seeking
Speaker 1: a complete cessation of fire from the Israeli army, the
Speaker 1: withdrawal of the idea from population centers on the first
Speaker 1: day of the ceasefire. On the third day, Hamas seeks
Speaker 1: and Israeli withdrawal from the sala Addin Road, which connects
Speaker 1: between both sides of the strip and the coastal Road.
Speaker 1: Sources in Hamas told Haratz that the amendments that were
Speaker 1: submitted are intended to ensure the withdrawal and ceasefire be
Speaker 1: established in the first phase, and that Israel will not
Speaker 1: be able to evade the implementation of all stages of
Speaker 1: the deal and return to fighting once all hostages are released.
Speaker 1: They also want China, Russia, and Turkey to be guaranteurs
Speaker 1: of the deal, So again Sagur. To me, it seems
Speaker 1: to come down to this fundamental divide that Hamas wants
Speaker 1: the war to be over, a ceasefire to be permanent,
Speaker 1: and Israel wants to keep their options open to continue
Speaker 1: the shooting and the bombing once Phase one is up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just think it's not. I don't at this point,
Speaker 2: I almost think it's impossible. Israel wants Hamas to commit
Speaker 2: to a sea spire, release the hostages, and then commit
Speaker 2: to not being in power after the war is over.
Speaker 3: Is like, no, I'm not going to do.
Speaker 2: No organization, And again I am not defending them, but
Speaker 2: what I am saying is that no organization except literally
Speaker 2: exhausting every single other option, is going to agree to
Speaker 2: effectively what is an unconditional surrender. There was a Wall
Speaker 2: Street Journal article that quoted a lot of leaked texts
Speaker 2: from Yahwa Sinwar, the head of Hamas, and the headline
Speaker 2: was basically like Sinwar willing to sacrifice like hundreds of
Speaker 2: thousands of Palestinians because he believes that he is winning
Speaker 2: the war. And I was starting to think about it,
Speaker 2: I think he is a lot like any of these
Speaker 2: other like insurgent character leaders who is in like a
Speaker 2: nationalistic struggle against a stronger enemy. And again I'm not
Speaker 2: justifying purely analysis, but if you look at Ho Chi
Speaker 2: Minh and others, huge portions of the polit bureau during
Speaker 2: the NVA, we're like, yeah, we're going to lose a
Speaker 2: million Vietnamese at the end of the day, there's protests
Speaker 2: that are happening in the US. We can outlast, you know,
Speaker 2: these Yankee imperialists, and.
Speaker 3: We will win.
Speaker 2: And they want us to surrender to them. They want
Speaker 2: us to literally give up our ability to govern what
Speaker 2: we see as our own country.
Speaker 3: As long as we outlast them, we will win. And
Speaker 3: they were right.
Speaker 2: And basically what he says in a lot of these
Speaker 2: text messages is yeah, it's sad, but a lot of
Speaker 2: people are going to continue to die. You can see
Speaker 2: that the West is beginning to rise up. There's a
Speaker 2: lot of outrage over the Israeli state. All I have
Speaker 2: to do is survive up until the point where their
Speaker 2: government breaks and international pressure comes. And the way that
Speaker 2: they are conducting themselves is giving their opponents all the
Speaker 2: ammunition that they need.
Speaker 3: Well, he's like, I mean, in a very rational.
Speaker 2: Way, he is exhibiting his own best self interests and
Speaker 2: he has hostages to negotiate with.
Speaker 3: And I think I said this on our editorial call.
Speaker 2: Everyone's like, well, they should just give up and release them, Like, yeah, look,
Speaker 2: I agree, it would be nice, But there's only really
Speaker 2: a few recorded instances in history where a group actually
Speaker 2: voluntarily surrenders and puts itself up for annihilation. The Japanese
Speaker 2: under World War two, and even then they had to
Speaker 2: agree that they were going to be able to keep
Speaker 2: their emperor after we nuked them and effectively annihilated the
Speaker 2: vast majority of their populated cities. And Nazi Germany, where
Speaker 2: again we militarily occupied them and gave them no other
Speaker 2: choice after they fought to the death for every single
Speaker 2: scrap of their territory absent that it's not going to happen.
Speaker 3: As we saw with the Nazis, we had.
Speaker 2: Conquered the vast majority of Germany and they still wouldn't surrender.
Speaker 2: So you know, you can see you really only have
Speaker 2: one or two options here, like you can give up
Speaker 2: on this quote unquote unconditional.
Speaker 3: Surrender or you can continue.
Speaker 2: And he's going to keep pursuing the strategy which is
Speaker 2: in his own best interest.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there was a revealing State Department exchange a few
Speaker 1: days back that really underscores the point you're making Soccer,
Speaker 1: which is like, listen, if you're going to have a negotiation,
Speaker 1: both sides have to feel like they're getting something out
Speaker 1: of it, and if you're on the Hama side, and
Speaker 1: again this is just you know, to analyze the way
Speaker 1: they're looking at things. It's like, oh, I'm just going
Speaker 1: to agree to you can go back to bombing, and
Speaker 1: also we're going to just self destruct and go away.
Speaker 4: Why would we agree to that?
Speaker 1: And that exact question, this is d four guys that
Speaker 1: I'm queuing up. That exact question was put to Matt
Speaker 1: Miller in a State Department briefing, and frankly, his answer
Speaker 1: was utterly preposterous.
Speaker 4: Take a listen.
Speaker 9: Hamas just a few weeks ago signed off on it,
Speaker 9: but first identical proposal.
Speaker 10: But you just spoke to the points of why this
Speaker 10: would be wonderful for Israel. And you know, there's the
Speaker 10: way you've approached this so far, is that Hama the
Speaker 10: way a lot of people have approached that. Hamas doesn't
Speaker 10: care about the housing people. They only care about themselves,
Speaker 10: and so there are in a sense three parties to
Speaker 10: this Israel, the palsing people, non Hamas and Hamas. So
Speaker 10: but I think the answer to my question, which is
Speaker 10: what's in it for Hamas is essentially nothing for that.
Speaker 9: So again, right, So they claim to represent I'm not
Speaker 9: trying to be cute. They claim to represent the interests
Speaker 9: of the past.
Speaker 7: I don't believe that.
Speaker 10: And you've made it clear many many times that you
Speaker 10: don't think that they do care about.
Speaker 9: I suppose this. I suppose that this proposal puts that
Speaker 9: question very square, didn't.
Speaker 10: The last one and the one before that and the
Speaker 10: one before.
Speaker 9: Given that this one is nearly identical to the one
Speaker 9: that Amas presented, I think so.
Speaker 1: Madley, by the way, incredible, just always nails these guys
Speaker 1: dead to rights. But he's like, you're betting on Hamas
Speaker 1: to put like this the safety of the Palestinian people first.
Speaker 1: You're betting on like the goodwill of Hamas and for
Speaker 1: them to not be self interested whatsoever. In what other
Speaker 1: sense of this conflict do you hold that view?
Speaker 4: Now? I would also add to that.
Speaker 1: I mean, in addition to the idea that you're you're
Speaker 1: giving them nothing and expecting them to just you know,
Speaker 1: completely capitulate in total surrender. But also Hamas's provisions are
Speaker 1: designed to guarantee there is in fact a permanent ceasefire.
Speaker 1: And this is something that you can go and listen
Speaker 1: to Beabing and Yahoo and they're you know, you unrepresented.
Speaker 1: All these people in government themselves say they do not
Speaker 1: accept that, they will not commit to that. So there
Speaker 1: also is just this even if you know you want
Speaker 1: to growl Hamas has only the good will of the
Speaker 1: palasing people in mind. Even through that frame, they wouldn't
Speaker 1: accept without some sort of conditions and guarantee that there
Speaker 1: is a permanent ceasefire. There was an interesting exchange on
Speaker 1: Maddie Hawson's networks at Taiale with the nephew of a
Speaker 1: hostage explaining his view of Bibi's mentality and the way
Speaker 1: that he's been approaching these negotiations that I thought was
Speaker 1: worth hearing out as well as take a listen to.
Speaker 11: That always he and the government always choose the wrong way,
Speaker 11: and always, ever since October eighth, everything they do is
Speaker 11: directed at not getting the hostages back. This is the
Speaker 11: plain truth. They had many opportunities to sign a deal
Speaker 11: they're always abotaging their own initiatives. When people from the
Speaker 11: professional you know, the negotiating team itself are crying out loud,
Speaker 11: this this thing can go on. We were sabotaging our
Speaker 11: own moves. And this is the reality for the past
Speaker 11: nine months. This is why we didn't get any hostages
Speaker 11: back alive. And Nataia was the first to jump on
Speaker 11: the photo app and push inside, push himself inside the
Speaker 11: frame with his post, as he said, called the heroic
Speaker 11: military operation. The other that came back doing the hostage deal,
Speaker 11: it didn't get a visit. It's not such a good
Speaker 11: photo app apparently for his base to see people coming
Speaker 11: alive and well in a deal.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and I think he puts that.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's like that's the inescapable truth at this point,
Speaker 1: because there were have been deals, potential deals available all
Speaker 1: the way along. We know the bulk of the hostages
Speaker 1: that were released overwhelmingly came in the context of a deal.
Speaker 1: We also, this is something that's very present in Israeli politics.
Speaker 1: Sager is Biebe has refused to meet with the hostage
Speaker 1: families in quite a long time. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: completely shut them out, and in this way, he really
Speaker 1: is dramatically at odds with the Israeli domestic public, even
Speaker 1: a majority within his own you know, fairly hard right
Speaker 1: party Lacud party want to see a deal to bring
Speaker 1: the hostages home. And that is, you know, the opposite
Speaker 1: of his priority, because he just wants to be able
Speaker 1: to continue and continue and continue.
Speaker 3: I just think his dance is going to continue.
Speaker 2: And unless we can literally change irreconcilable differences, then nothing
Speaker 2: is going to happen. If the condition is that's well,
Speaker 2: that's the other thing. If the condition, and this is
Speaker 2: why things could change, if Benny Gance becomes the prime minister,
Speaker 2: if the condition becomes release of the hostages first, quote unquote,
Speaker 2: defeat of Hamas second, then we're in business. Right, Hamas
Speaker 2: may sign that deal. They'll be like, okay, fine, you
Speaker 2: in the war. We're good to go. We're probably going
Speaker 2: to stay in power.
Speaker 3: That's fine.
Speaker 2: You're not existentially asking us to basically give up our arms.
Speaker 2: After that though, the military organization. I was just looking
Speaker 2: back at those text messages that I referenced. He Sinoar
Speaker 2: believes he is winning. He's like, yeah, it's sad, It's true.
Speaker 2: A lot of people have died, He said, I believe
Speaker 2: that the Israelis are right where we want them. This
Speaker 2: is something he said like multiple days ago. There is
Speaker 2: no way that they would voluntarily just give up military
Speaker 2: resistance and then give up their hostages. I'm speaking purely
Speaker 2: from a cold calculation. That's why the North Vietnamese example
Speaker 2: is a good one. In the end of the day,
Speaker 2: they were correct about their ability to withstand. Yes, millions
Speaker 2: of people died, but they knew that that sacrifice in
Speaker 2: their communist worldview or whatever, was worth it, and ultimately
Speaker 2: they succeeded. So who's going to be the one who
Speaker 2: has more to lose is the other question. Sinoar also
Speaker 2: references that with Netanyahu, he's like, even if he wins,
Speaker 2: he said, even Israeli victory could be a huge defeat
Speaker 2: because he knows what that would entail and what consequence
Speaker 2: is that he could invite on the Israeli military if
Speaker 2: that were to occur. So you can hate him if
Speaker 2: you want, But these people can both be ideological and
Speaker 2: deeply rational, and everything that they're doing is quite rational
Speaker 2: right now from their own self injured perspective.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's divorcing morality from the question it's not
Speaker 1: just Hamas leaders who feel that Israel is losing and
Speaker 1: Israel is failing in their objectives. I mean, you can
Speaker 1: read analysis to that effect in many mainstream Israeli really
Speaker 1: press newspapers. They're saying, listen, they haven't destroyed the tunnels,
Speaker 1: they haven't destroyed Hamas. They've only gotten a relatively small
Speaker 1: lesson of a majority of their fighters have been killed.
Speaker 1: There're thousands of new recruits signing up. You've created a
Speaker 1: hotbed for future terrorism because of all the death and
Speaker 1: destruction that you've sown. And listen, the reality is before
Speaker 1: October seven, again, this is divorcing morality. This is not
Speaker 1: sanctioning anything any of the horrors that were committed on
Speaker 1: October seven against civilians. Before October seven, the Palestine question
Speaker 1: was basically dead. Even someone like this is something you know,
Speaker 1: Professor Norman Finkelstein talks about here. He is someone who's
Speaker 1: devoted his entire adult life and career to studying this,
Speaker 1: and he himself had given up because it felt like
Speaker 1: no one cared to me. There was no possibly at
Speaker 1: the Abraham according these normalization deals that were occurring, and
Speaker 1: Palestine was playing no part in it. The idea was
Speaker 1: just to pretend this didn't exist. And we are now
Speaker 1: in a very different landscape and Israel is increasingly a
Speaker 1: pariah country. Are going to get to this new UN
Speaker 1: report that accuses them of extermination. They're facing genocide charges
Speaker 1: at the ICJ, bib Net and Yahoo and Yoav Glant,
Speaker 1: the Defense Minister, are facing icc war crime prosecution. This
Speaker 1: didn't make it into our show, but we were looking
Speaker 1: at was an intel that pulled out of a huge
Speaker 1: fifteen billion dollar deal in Israel. Their economy is really suffering.
Speaker 1: You know, the Western pross is one thing, but if
Speaker 1: you go around the world at the way that they're
Speaker 1: viewing Israel, the way they're viewing this conflict, this has
Speaker 1: been devastating to Israel. It's also been devastating by the
Speaker 1: way to the US and whatever prestige we had remaining
Speaker 1: in the world as well. So when you look at
Speaker 1: all those pieces, I think you have to agree with
Speaker 1: the assessment that this has not gone well for Israel.
Speaker 1: And it's not a surprise because Bbnight, now, who doesn't
Speaker 1: care first and foremost about Israel, Israeli security, certainly doesn't
Speaker 1: care about the hostages.
Speaker 4: He cares about himself.
Speaker 1: He wants to stay in power, and he wants to
Speaker 1: stay on in prison too, because don't forget, he's facing
Speaker 1: corruption charges. So you know, the US tried to give
Speaker 1: an alternative version of victory to the Israelis. Biden tried
Speaker 1: to frame. You know what they've done already is hey,
Speaker 1: you've degraded their capacity so they can no longer conduct
Speaker 1: another operation like October seventh. Call that a victory and
Speaker 1: move on is basically what Biden was proposing to the Israelis,
Speaker 1: and without any sort of actual muscle being applied on
Speaker 1: the US side, i'd any sort of pressure or leverage.
Speaker 1: There may be some actors in the Israeli government that
Speaker 1: would accept that, but beating that Yahoo is not one
Speaker 1: of them, and that is incredibly clear and has been
Speaker 1: incredibly clear, by the way, for a long time. So
Speaker 1: that's where we are the best I can tell, with
Speaker 1: the cease fire deals, anything else you wanted to see
Speaker 1: there before I move on. There's a UN commission that's
Speaker 1: been looking into atrocities committed by both Hamas and Israel
Speaker 1: on October seventh and through the end of last year.
Speaker 1: So they just put out a report that is quite
Speaker 1: detailed and accuses Israel and Hamas. By the way, but Israel,
Speaker 1: you know, that's the government that we're funding, so we
Speaker 1: take particular interest in of some outrageous war crimes and
Speaker 1: even crimes against humanity. Let's put the New York Times
Speaker 1: right up on the screen. We give you some of
Speaker 1: the headlines here. So the headline is UN report accuses
Speaker 1: both Israel and Palestinian groups of war crimes. A commission
Speaker 1: produced the UN's most detailed examination yet of the October
Speaker 1: seventh attacks and the subsequent war in Gaza. Read you
Speaker 1: a little bit of this in that report, released on Wednesday.
Speaker 1: The three person commission does not itself carry any penalties,
Speaker 1: but lays on a legal analysis of actions in the
Speaker 1: Gaza conflict that is likely to be weighed by the
Speaker 1: International Court of Justice in an other international criminal proceedings.
Speaker 1: Israel to not cooperate with the investigation surprise surprize, and
Speaker 1: protested the panel's assessment of its behavior. Some of the
Speaker 1: details here in terms of the Israeli side, they say,
Speaker 1: during their months long campaign in Gaza to aust Hamas,
Speaker 1: they have committed war crimes like the use of starvation
Speaker 1: as a weapon.
Speaker 4: Of war through a total siege of Gaza.
Speaker 1: The report also said Israel's use of heavy weapons in
Speaker 1: densely populated areas amounted to a direct attack on the
Speaker 1: civilian population and had the essential elements of a crime
Speaker 1: against humanity, disregarding the necessity of distinguishing between combatants and civilians,
Speaker 1: causing disproportionate high number of civilian casualties, particularly among women
Speaker 1: and children. The conflict has killed or named tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of Palestinian children, a scale and a rate of
Speaker 1: casualties that were unparalleled across conflicts in recent decades. Other
Speaker 1: crimes against humanity committed by Israel include extermination, murder, gender persecution,
Speaker 1: in targeting Palestinian men and boys for a simple transfer
Speaker 1: of the population, torture, and in human and cruel treatment.
Speaker 1: I'm going to get into some of the specific details here,
Speaker 1: which were the subject in particular a lot of commentary
Speaker 1: and discussion online, but just to zoom out for a
Speaker 1: second of the import of this, because you guys might be, oh,
Speaker 1: you another UN report, who really cares? Which in one sense, okay,
Speaker 1: fair enough. In another way that you have yet another
Speaker 1: report accusing Israel of such grain crimes against humanity, and
Speaker 1: that this is likely to weigh heavily in a future
Speaker 1: International Court of Justice ruling with regards to genocide, and
Speaker 1: also potentially the ICC may take a look at this
Speaker 1: also in terms of crimes prosecution against bb Net, Yahoo,
Speaker 1: Yoev Goalan and potentially others in the future. By the way,
Speaker 1: that's what gives this some weight and makes it really significant.
Speaker 1: It also carried a lot of out mainstream press was
Speaker 1: forced to cover this and talk in detail about this,
Speaker 1: and it's yet another instance of Israel's increasing pariah status internationally.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, and there's also a lot of other stuff, Crystal,
Speaker 2: if we want to get into about the Hannibal directive,
Speaker 2: which they found, which is very interesting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so could we put the Hannibal directive piece of
Speaker 1: this up on the screen? So the Hannibal directive the
Speaker 1: basic idea, and this has been documented in the past
Speaker 1: that the Israeli military will kill their own in the
Speaker 1: process of attempting to get the bad guys orwort hostage
Speaker 1: taking in particular, and there's already been credible reporting in
Speaker 1: places like The New York Times that there had been
Speaker 1: some instances of the Hannibal directive being operative during the
Speaker 1: response to October seventh. Well, noteworthy in this report you
Speaker 1: have this paragraph that says, quote, the Commission also verified
Speaker 1: information indicating that in at least two other cases, the
Speaker 1: Israelis had likely applied the Hannibal directive, resulting in the
Speaker 1: killing of up to fourteen Israeli civilians. One woman was
Speaker 1: killed by ISF helicopter fire while being abducted from near
Speaker 1: Oz to Gaza by militants. In another case, the Commission
Speaker 1: found that Israeli tank fire killed some or all of
Speaker 1: the thirteen civilian hostages held in a house that's in
Speaker 1: that Kibbutz inn Beery. That was the instance that I
Speaker 1: think has been most documented and basically admitted to by
Speaker 1: the Israelis who were involved in that operation and witnesses
Speaker 1: survivors had also testified to that as well. But still
Speaker 1: noteworthy to see this confirmed in this report.
Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely, I mean this is not only has it
Speaker 2: been I mean this has been something that's been danced
Speaker 2: around previously, but it's important also just underscore remember there
Speaker 2: were some revisions about the death toll on October seventh,
Speaker 2: and it does still remain questions about specifically the Nova
Speaker 2: Music Festival up to have a confirmation or at least
Speaker 2: supposed confirmation here by the United Nations not nothing.
Speaker 1: Yes, And they looked into the Nova Music Festival piece
Speaker 1: as well, and they weren't able to come to a
Speaker 1: conclusion there over whether the Hannibal directive was also operative
Speaker 1: at the Nova Music Festival, so they left that question
Speaker 1: open at this time. Another area that they dealt with
Speaker 1: was an incredibly politically sensitive issue, which is rape and
Speaker 1: gender based violence committed by Hamas on October seventh. And
Speaker 1: I wanted to put this is going to be a
Speaker 1: little bit lengthy, guys, but I just want to make
Speaker 1: sure you have all of the information that was in
Speaker 1: the report so that you can know fully what this
Speaker 1: commission found. Let's go and put the first piece up
Speaker 1: on the screen. The TLDR here is that the commission
Speaker 1: found quote indications that members of the military wing of
Speaker 1: HAMAS and other Palestinian armed groups committed gender based violence
Speaker 1: in several locations on October seventh. These they say, were
Speaker 1: not isolated in but perpetrated in similar ways in several
Speaker 1: locations by multiple Palaestinating perpetrators. The acts that were documented reflected,
Speaker 1: they say, clear abuse of power by male perpetrators. Disregard
Speaker 1: for special considerations and protection of women's integrity. So that's
Speaker 1: gender based violence.
Speaker 4: Let's go to the next paragraph in the report.
Speaker 1: They indicate that Hamas rejected those accusations. However, they get
Speaker 1: into some of the specifics of the evidence that they
Speaker 1: found of sexual violence and gender based violence perpetrated against
Speaker 1: women in and around the Nova Festival site, as well
Speaker 1: as at a military out post and several.
Speaker 4: Of the kibbutz.
Speaker 1: They say they collected and preserved digital evidence, including images
Speaker 1: of victims' bodies displaying indications of sexual violence of pattern
Speaker 1: corroborated by independent testimonies from witnesses. Reliable witness accounts obtained
Speaker 1: describe bodies that have been undressed in some instances with
Speaker 1: exposed genitals. They receive reports and verified digital evidence concerned
Speaker 1: the restraining of women, including hands and sometimes feet of
Speaker 1: women being bound, often behind the victims backs, prior to
Speaker 1: their abduction or killing. Additionally, the commission made assessments based
Speaker 1: on the position of the body, for example, images displaying
Speaker 1: leg spread or bent over, and signs of struggle or
Speaker 1: violence on the body such as stab wounds, burns, lacerations,
Speaker 1: and abrasions. So let's go on to the next piece.
Speaker 1: They say, however, that they looked at testimonies obtained by
Speaker 1: journalists and Israeli police concerning rape, specifically so as distinct
Speaker 1: from general gender based violence or general sexual violence, but
Speaker 1: they were not able to independently verify those rape allegations
Speaker 1: due to lack of access to victims, witnesses and crime
Speaker 1: seats and obstruction of investigation by Israeli authorities. Commission was
Speaker 1: unable to review the unedited version of such testimonies for
Speaker 1: the same reasons. The Commission was also unable to verify
Speaker 1: reports of sexualized torture and genital mutilation. Additionally, the Commission
Speaker 1: found some specific allegations to be false, inaccurate, or contradictory
Speaker 1: with other evidence or statements and discounted these from its assessment.
Speaker 1: So this is consistent with the Times of London piece
Speaker 1: that I did a monologue on earlier this week, which
Speaker 1: is effectively in terms of rape and specifically there's another
Speaker 1: piece that speaks to this rape being used systematically as
Speaker 1: a weapon of war, with top down instructions from military
Speaker 1: commanders to use rape as a weapon of war. There
Speaker 1: is no evidence at this point, no testimony, no forensic
Speaker 1: evidence to back up those claims.
Speaker 4: We have one more.
Speaker 1: Piece that speaks to this specifically, they say that the
Speaker 1: Commission identified patterns indicative of sexual violence in several locations.
Speaker 1: The attack on October seventh, they say enabled perpetrators to
Speaker 1: commit sexual and gender based violence, and this violence was
Speaker 1: not isolated. But they say they did not find credible
Speaker 1: evidence that militants received orders to commit sexual violence, and
Speaker 1: so it was unable to make conclusions on this issue. However,
Speaker 1: they inflammatory language disbelief observed with both parties resilencing and
Speaker 1: discrediting survivors, further exacerbating trauma and stigmatization. So I know
Speaker 1: this was a lot to go through, true, but I
Speaker 1: just wanted to give all the details of what the
Speaker 1: Commission report found, what they documented, what they claimed, and
Speaker 1: you know, it gives a little bit of a fuller
Speaker 1: picture of what we know at this point of what
Speaker 1: happened October seventh, which is they found indications of gender
Speaker 1: based violence, of sexual violence. They did not they were
Speaker 1: able to falsify some of the journalist tellings, some of
Speaker 1: the news accounts.
Speaker 4: Of specific rapes.
Speaker 1: They were not able to find evidence of specific rapes.
Speaker 1: Israeli government continues not to cooperate, and they found no
Speaker 1: indications that this was used systematically as a weapon of
Speaker 1: war with top down instructions, which again is consistent with
Speaker 1: prior reporting.
Speaker 2: Take I boy, you will call it tedious if you want.
Speaker 2: Go ask any normy Israel supporter out there, and they're
Speaker 2: going to bring up rape in the babies every single time.
Speaker 3: So if you think this stuff doesn't.
Speaker 2: Matter, it's kind of like going back in two thousand
Speaker 2: and five and be like, does it really matter that
Speaker 2: we didn't find WMD in Iraq? And it's like, no, Yeah,
Speaker 2: it actually really does matter because the indittional justifications for
Speaker 2: the eventual fallout they matter a lot. And that one
Speaker 2: of the very effective tactics that the Bush administration war
Speaker 2: supporters and all those people did is they moved past
Speaker 2: all of their lies and started architecting new ones instead
Speaker 2: of actually reconciling what really happened. We didn't get a
Speaker 2: full accounting until what twenty ten basically of like what
Speaker 2: really went down in those initial years, and by that
Speaker 2: time the damage was done. Yeah, I say, don't ever forget.
Speaker 2: It's kind of like nine to eleven. Do the details
Speaker 2: of nine to eleven still matter? In some sense? No.
Speaker 2: In others, we just learned two weeks ago that the
Speaker 2: Saudi government had even more to do with you know,
Speaker 2: funding me hijackers than we knew at the time, and
Speaker 2: it was totally covered up. I would say it does matter.
Speaker 2: It matters both the historical record and for future US policy.
Speaker 1: Well, and it also matters because Israeli government really used
Speaker 1: this as a center of their push to justify barbarism,
Speaker 1: not just them, oh.
Speaker 4: Absolute, I mean Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: I I showed the clip of him lying about always
Speaker 1: saw the photographs. No, you didn't, because those photographs didn't exist.
Speaker 1: So that's why your word tedious is correct. I also
Speaker 1: find it somewhat tedious, but I want to make sure
Speaker 1: that we're really clear about what we know actually happen
Speaker 1: on that day, what evidence supports, what it doesn't support.
Speaker 1: There was one last piece that I wanted to put
Speaker 1: up here because this looked both at you know, Israeli
Speaker 1: actions and Palestinian actions, crimes committed against Israelis and against Palestinians.
Speaker 1: There was quite a significant section about gender based and
Speaker 1: sexual violence committed against Palestinians.
Speaker 4: We can put this up on the screen. This was
Speaker 4: a portion of it.
Speaker 1: They say that the frequency, prevalence, and severity of sexual
Speaker 1: and gender based crimes perpetrated against Palestinians since October seventh
Speaker 1: across the OPT indicate that specific forms of this type
Speaker 1: of violence are part of Israeli operating procedures. Palestinian men
Speaker 1: and boys experienced specific persecutory acts intended to punish them
Speaker 1: in retaliation for the crimes committed on October seven. The
Speaker 1: way in which these acts were committed, including their filming
Speaker 1: and photo graphic and conjunction with similar cases documented in
Speaker 1: several locations, leads the Commission to conclude that forced public
Speaker 1: stripping and nudity and other related types of abuse were
Speaker 1: either ordered, ordered or co condoned by Israeli authorities. So
Speaker 1: they're suggesting that there may have been operating orders to
Speaker 1: humiliate Palaestini men and boys in particular and perpetrate sexual
Speaker 1: violence gender based violence against Palestinie men and boys in
Speaker 1: a systematic way post October seventh, to quote unquote get
Speaker 1: revenge for the crimes that were committed on that day.
Speaker 1: And there's quite a bit of detail in the report
Speaker 1: about some of the acts that have been reported, which
Speaker 1: again consistent with prior reporting we had report from previous
Speaker 1: UN reports. We also just had New York Times documenting
Speaker 1: torture and abuse against Palestinian prisoners who have been taken
Speaker 1: by the Israelis, including multiple reports of hot electric rod
Speaker 1: being used to sodomize multiple Palestinian men.
Speaker 4: So you know this report provides additional detail theres.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, said Crystal, what are you taking to look
Speaker 3: at well?
Speaker 1: Earlier this week, Israel injured and killed roughly one thousand
Speaker 1: palest Indians in an effort to rescue four Israeli hostages
Speaker 1: who had been taken by Hamas on October seventh. In
Speaker 1: spite of the horrific death toll two hundred seventy four
Speaker 1: souls approximately, this massacre was almost uniformly celebrated by American
Speaker 1: political elites and mainstream news figures, who heralded the brave
Speaker 1: heroes conducting this daring mission. But a few voices did
Speaker 1: recoil at the mass civilian death and clear war crimes,
Speaker 1: which displayed a monstrous disregard for human life and the
Speaker 1: crowd over at Morning Joe, while they just couldn't let
Speaker 1: that slide. But the fact that there wasn't absolute universal
Speaker 1: celebration of this latest Israeli slaughter really got to contributor
Speaker 1: Donny Deutsche in particular, who popped off in a little
Speaker 1: monologue designed to explain why, actually, if you think about it,
Speaker 1: killing and injuring hundreds of civilians, including children and grandma's
Speaker 1: was perfectly fine.
Speaker 4: Good even take a listen.
Speaker 12: We have to start to really talk honestly about the
Speaker 12: definition of civilian casualties. Four hostages rescued and two hundred
Speaker 12: and seventy Palestinian civilians killed. We need to start to
Speaker 12: look at that word civilians. When the hostages are being
Speaker 12: held by a Palestinian journalist, a civilian, and a Palestinian
Speaker 12: doctor a civilian. These are not civilians. These are Hamas ambassadors.
Speaker 12: And yes there are innocent civilians. But I think back
Speaker 12: to also the hundreds and thousands of rabid Gazans as
Speaker 12: they dragged a corpse through Gaza, cheering, hysterical, with glee
Speaker 12: and joy, and it's just once again, the media coverage
Speaker 12: is And these were four hostages that were taken on
Speaker 12: a day that twelve hundred Israelis were slaughtered, main decapitated,
Speaker 12: killed in the most gruesome way.
Speaker 3: And I don't know.
Speaker 12: If Americans had four hostages that were taken and we
Speaker 12: had a rescue mission, and yes, there were two hundred
Speaker 12: and seventy casualties, and many of those Palestine casualties are deep, deep,
Speaker 12: deep sympathizers of Hamas. Would the coverage be the same
Speaker 12: way anybody be criticizing the rescue mission or would it.
Speaker 4: Be truly one of heroism?
Speaker 12: But I do think we have to start to really
Speaker 12: be talk honestly, honestly about the definition of civilian casualties.
Speaker 1: Now, Donnie was so proud of this little moment. He
Speaker 1: posted on Twitter proclaiming, let's have an honest conversation about
Speaker 1: quote civilian casualties. So all right, Donnie, let's go ahead
Speaker 1: and do that. So off the bat, let's talk about
Speaker 1: this hypothetical American hostage mission that successfully rescued four of
Speaker 1: our citizens. You claim there would be no criticism of
Speaker 1: such a toll, and maybe, But I don't agree. Because
Speaker 1: although political and media elites, the Morning Joe types turned
Speaker 1: the other cheek when it came to war crimes of
Speaker 1: the War on Terror era, many Americans did not. There
Speaker 1: was a robust opposition to the civilian death toll, from
Speaker 1: drones strikes to CIA black sites, and torture and Gitmo
Speaker 1: and Abu grab.
Speaker 4: But let's pause it.
Speaker 1: You're correct that the American public would accept the death
Speaker 1: of two hundred and seventy four people in exchange for
Speaker 1: four hostages. That still doesn't make it right. Furthermore, there
Speaker 1: are American hostages being held Gaza. In fact, Hamas claims
Speaker 1: that one of them was killed as part of this
Speaker 1: glorious rescue mission. Obviously, we shouldn't take AMAS claims without
Speaker 1: evidence at face value, any more than we should take
Speaker 1: IDF claims at face value. We can say, however, with
Speaker 1: absolute certainty, that every hostage, American and otherwise has been
Speaker 1: in grave peril due to Israeli bombing campaigns, including this one.
Speaker 1: You don't have to take my word for it. One
Speaker 1: of the just rescued hostages told Harets quote, our greatest
Speaker 1: fear was the IDF's plans and the concern that they
Speaker 1: would bomb the building we were in. Now the US
Speaker 1: is not attempted a rescue mission for our five hostages. Instead,
Speaker 1: we're actually considering negotiating with Hamas to bring them home,
Speaker 1: which makes all the sense in the world. Since the
Speaker 1: overwhelming majority of hostages who had been freed came home.
Speaker 1: In the context of seatsfire negotiations, many more have been
Speaker 1: killed by bombing than saved. Finally, we might take a
Speaker 1: look at some past hostage rescue missions for a little
Speaker 1: comparison of what level of quote unquote collateral damage has
Speaker 1: been typical and accepted by the supposedly civilized world. And
Speaker 1: freedmen healthily compiled a list of some recent hostage rescue missions.
Speaker 1: And would you look at that Mayre Scalabama. That was
Speaker 1: the US Navy zero civilians killed, Somalia, US Navy zero
Speaker 1: civilians killed, Nigeria, US Navy zero civilians killed.
Speaker 4: Then we get to the Israeli operations and the number.
Speaker 1: Of civilians killed skyrockets sixty six in Operation Golden Hand.
Speaker 1: And of course this latest operation we now know took
Speaker 1: more than two hundred civilians. So no, while we are
Speaker 1: a no beacon of virtue and participated directly in this
Speaker 1: specific monstrosity, we have not operated this way, and our
Speaker 1: citizens have not all just accepted brazen war crimes. But
Speaker 1: let's dig a level deeper here, shall we, Because while
Speaker 1: Donnie Moo's the words that, of course there are some
Speaker 1: innocent civilians, his commentary strongly suggests that actually there really aren't,
Speaker 1: even though the population is half literal children in Gaza.
Speaker 1: He asks us to think of the hundreds or thousands
Speaker 1: of quote rabid Gazins, cheering and hysterical with glee and joy,
Speaker 1: who he says, celebrated a dead Israeli in the streets.
Speaker 1: These actions, he suggest, mean that Palestinians aren't really innocent
Speaker 1: civilians in the way that you or I are well
Speaker 1: Star two.
Speaker 4: Can play at that game. What have we here?
Speaker 1: Just Israeli Finance Minister Bezalielsmotrich suggesting that Palestinian corpses be
Speaker 1: paraded through the streets on carts, as they did in
Speaker 1: Biblical times sounds kind of akin to the actions Donnie
Speaker 1: klaim stripes Palestinians of their civilian status. Now Smotrich is
Speaker 1: a politician representing a large constituency. Should all those who
Speaker 1: celebrate these ideas be deemed combatants? Maybe just those who
Speaker 1: vote directly for Smotrich. Maybe the entire society that could
Speaker 1: produce such a monstrous death cult? What do you think, Donnie?
Speaker 1: And that brings me to my real point here. Donnie
Speaker 1: thinks he's such a special big boy for coming up
Speaker 1: with this brilliant logic, but it's not new or special.
Speaker 1: It is a logic of exterminationists and terrorists throughout history,
Speaker 1: boring and stale, as it is monstrous and disgusting. There
Speaker 1: are no innocent, no uninvolved civilians, because the entire society
Speaker 1: is dangerous, complicit, from the bay in the cradle to
Speaker 1: the Grandpa with this cane. If they are our enemies,
Speaker 1: they are by definition not innocent, not uninvolved, not civilians.
Speaker 1: That's the thinking, and it's the logic. For example of
Speaker 1: Osama bin Laden, who blamed all Americans for the crimes
Speaker 1: of American political leaders. We voted for them, after all,
Speaker 1: didn't we our tax dollars sustain their torture camps, buy
Speaker 1: the bombs, build the drones. Donnie doined to suggest all
Speaker 1: Palestinians are complicit because, in his words.
Speaker 4: They are deep, deep deep.
Speaker 1: Sympathizers of Hamas well. Bin Laden considered us deep deep
Speaker 1: deep sympathizers of Bush and Cheney. With I have to
Speaker 1: say more legitimacy because Hamas is authoritarian. Majority Palestinians were
Speaker 1: not even alive the last time elections were held. We
Speaker 1: at least theoretically have a democracy here. In fact, al
Speaker 1: Qaeda and bin Laden had quite a lot to say
Speaker 1: about their definitions of civilians that Donnie would seemingly readily
Speaker 1: agree with if it was applied to Palestinians and al Qaeda.
Speaker 1: Theologian wrote, for example, that anyone who was useful to
Speaker 1: the unbelievers was fair game. Quote our conclusion. But God
Speaker 1: knows better than anyone is as follows, those who can
Speaker 1: be useful to the unbelievers or to others must be killed,
Speaker 1: whether they are old people, priests, or invalids. You can
Speaker 1: hear echoes of this sentiment when Deutsch references the doctor
Speaker 1: a journalist who were supposedly holding hostages, a claim made
Speaker 1: by the IDF, by the way, and lacking evidence. Bin
Speaker 1: Lan himself directly echoes one of Donnie's arguments with evocative language.
Speaker 1: Donnie Deutsch brings up the horrors of October seventh to say,
Speaker 1: in essence, they did it to us first. Well, here's
Speaker 1: Osama bin Laden.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 1: Is very strange for Americans and other educated people to
Speaker 1: talk about the killing.
Speaker 4: Of innocent civilians.
Speaker 1: I mean, who said that our children and civilians are
Speaker 1: not innocence and that the shedding of their blood is permissible.
Speaker 1: Whenever we killed their civilians. The whole world yells at
Speaker 1: us from east to west, and America starts putting pressure
Speaker 1: on its allies and puppets who said that our blood
Speaker 1: isn't blood and that their blood is blood. In other words,
Speaker 1: just like Donnie's logic, Hey, they did it first, pseudo
Speaker 1: intellectual sophistry when coming from Osama bin Laden or Donnie
Speaker 1: Deutsch alike logic of a sociopathic kindergartener, which is what
Speaker 1: this all boils down to. Really tribal in, group out,
Speaker 1: group evil cloaked in a whole bunch of bullshit, which
Speaker 1: is why you'll be unsurprised to learn it is also
Speaker 1: the language of some of the other great terrorists of
Speaker 1: our time, the current Israeli regime, which tweeted this out
Speaker 1: from their official government account, quote, we need to talk
Speaker 1: about the elephant in the room. Many gas and civilians
Speaker 1: participating in killing, raping, and kidnapping Israeli's on October seventh.
Speaker 1: It is also reported that gaz And civilians were paid
Speaker 1: by Hamas to hold hostages captive in their homes. Hamas
Speaker 1: is intentionally involving the civilian population of Gaza in its
Speaker 1: war crimes. You can see they're on the picture, they say, quote,
Speaker 1: there are no innocent civilians there. They just come right
Speaker 1: on and say it. But of course this is nothing
Speaker 1: new the words of Israeli President Hertzog earlier in this conflict.
Speaker 1: He said, quote, it is an entire nation out there
Speaker 1: that is responsible. It's not true, this rhetoric about civilians
Speaker 1: not being aware, not involved, It's absolutely not true. They
Speaker 1: could have risen up, they could have fought against that
Speaker 1: evil regime which took.
Speaker 4: Over or Gaza in a coup deta.
Speaker 1: Those words, by the way, were cited as evidence of
Speaker 1: genocide in South Africa's ICJ case against Israel. So congrats
Speaker 1: Donnie for proudly broadcasting yourself discovering the logic of war
Speaker 1: criminals and terrorists. Tune into the Next Morning Joe, where
Speaker 1: they discuss how sodomizing Palestinian hostages with metal rods is
Speaker 1: actually really morally complicated if you think about it hard enough,
Speaker 1: just astonishing.
Speaker 2: I mean the key and if you want to hear
Speaker 2: my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today
Speaker 2: at Breakingpoints dot com.