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 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Let's
Speaker 2: move on to Ukraine. This was also a very important story.
Speaker 2: This is one which we've been tabling for a little while.
Speaker 2: There's been no immediate developments with the biggest news that
Speaker 2: really came out from just two days ago. Let's put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen is you can look
Speaker 2: view it in two ways. President Putin of Russia has
Speaker 2: replaced Sergei Shogu, who was the longtime defense Minister, one
Speaker 2: of his closest allies in the Russian government, in a
Speaker 2: major security shakeup. Allegedly Crystal he had. He's been nominated
Speaker 2: and given a promotion. But I guess they call this
Speaker 2: promotion a promotional firing in the best way possible. But
Speaker 2: what's fascinating is that he did not put a military
Speaker 2: man to replace him. He actually put a former deputy
Speaker 2: prime minister quote who specializes in economics to replace Shogu. Now,
Speaker 2: the reason why that's so important is that this shows
Speaker 2: basically that the Russian economy post sanctions, the way they've
Speaker 2: been able to survive is to fully ramp up their
Speaker 2: entire military industrial complex. It's the way that they've been
Speaker 2: able to pump so much money into their economy. They
Speaker 2: become one of the major employers. Obviously, they've drafted and
Speaker 2: or recruited hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens
Speaker 2: into the military. They've got artillery production which is coming up.
Speaker 2: So economic management and a fusion of the war industrial
Speaker 2: complex tells us actually that Russia is in a more
Speaker 2: robust and actually self sufficient place than it was prior
Speaker 2: to the war. Sergei's firing really comes on the heels
Speaker 2: of obviously his failed invasion of Ukraine and some of
Speaker 2: his embarrassing It just revealed the oligarchic corruption that was
Speaker 2: inherent to the system. Hiring somebody like this, especially on
Speaker 2: the heels of the many Russian victories recently that have
Speaker 2: been happening. It tells us where things are going in
Speaker 2: that they're coming at this from a total position of strength.
Speaker 2: Their economy is doing better than the Eurozone according to
Speaker 2: the IMF, you know, the international molitor fun You've got
Speaker 2: putin basically more popular than ever, more of a stronger
Speaker 2: hold on power. The oligarchs themselves all have not deserted
Speaker 2: him despite all of these sanctions, And now you're putting somebody, frankly,
Speaker 2: even more competent who's in charge, which, if you think
Speaker 2: Russia's an adversary, is not necessarily something that you want.
Speaker 2: So by all means, their military is much more powerful,
Speaker 2: their new leaders are much more efficient, and they're showing
Speaker 2: us that their war footing is actually on more of
Speaker 2: a basis today than it was before, and that any
Speaker 2: attempt to degrade their capacity has not happened, despite the
Speaker 2: two hundred billion dollars or whatever that we've spent so far.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so reportedly, there's a few things going on here.
Speaker 1: To start with, Shoigo is the guy who thought that
Speaker 1: they would just roll into Kiev and knock off the
Speaker 1: Zelenski government and it'd be over like this and no problem.
Speaker 1: And obviously that didn't work out. And you'll remember the
Speaker 1: early phases of this war went very badly for Russia.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was really a truly a catastrophic, like
Speaker 1: disastrous showing from the Russia military. There's also you know,
Speaker 1: all these I'm sure justified allegations of corruption in the
Speaker 1: sense that he's like, you know, corrup dude, who's feeding
Speaker 1: off the teat of the state. So there's that, and
Speaker 1: then the i think bigger picture here is that they
Speaker 1: describe this economist I'm going to go with Belusov as
Speaker 1: his name. They say he's a fan of military Kanesian Kanesianism.
Speaker 1: He believes in the supremacy of the government in the economy,
Speaker 1: government first, then business. And so it's an acknowledgment too
Speaker 1: of the contours of where this war is at this
Speaker 1: point that basically, like you know, you're in this somewhat
Speaker 1: of a stalemate or Russia is starting to gain the
Speaker 1: upper hand. And one of the key questions here is,
Speaker 1: you know, how can your economy perform, how can you
Speaker 1: spin up as much defense production as possible? And as
Speaker 1: as Sager is about to talk about, there are a
Speaker 1: lot of signs that you know, the Ukrainians, not only
Speaker 1: because there's been a lull in their support from the US.
Speaker 1: That role has now been filled. Don't worry, guys, all
Speaker 1: the stuff is coming to you. But because they have
Speaker 1: so little of their own defense production capabilities that you know,
Speaker 1: over the long run, if Russia is focused on being
Speaker 1: able to spin up their own production and using that
Speaker 1: to bolster their economy and also keep people happy in
Speaker 1: terms of wages and jobs, et cetera, they're going to
Speaker 1: be They're going to be in a much better position.
Speaker 2: No, and they are in a better position. So let's
Speaker 2: go to the next part. We've just got sign after
Speaker 2: sign after sign that this is just catastrophic news at
Speaker 2: every turn for the Ukrainians. Here we have major offensive
Speaker 2: in the Kharkiev regions.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: According to their own commander, the Russians simply walked in.
Speaker 2: This is the commander of the Ukrainian Special Reconnaissance Union
Speaker 2: who fought in the Karkiev offensive. And yet what is
Speaker 2: he talking about here? He says, quote, Now his men
Speaker 2: are facing the prospects of doing the exact same walking
Speaker 2: in all over again. Because Russian forces have made small
Speaker 2: but significant gains right along the border of the Kharkiv region.
Speaker 2: Their advances quote are only a few miles deep, but
Speaker 2: have swallowed up nearly one hundred kilometers already of Russian territory,
Speaker 2: and that in the more heavily defended east of Ukraine,
Speaker 2: it has taken Russia months to achieve the same. So
Speaker 2: they're trying to consolidate as many of their gains as
Speaker 2: possible before major aid begins to flow from the west.
Speaker 2: But even if the aid does begin to flow, you're
Speaker 2: going to see that the Russians have really mastered of
Speaker 2: attritional warfare on the ground. They know what they're doing
Speaker 2: now at this point, let's put this up there. For example,
Speaker 2: Russia's bombardment of Ukraine is more lethal than ever. And
Speaker 2: what you see is that the Russians have now had
Speaker 2: two years to test NATO missile defense systems and ones
Speaker 2: that the Ukrainians have, and have developed custom strike packages
Speaker 2: that are maximized penetration and so that they can hit
Speaker 2: all of the targets that they want. They say, in
Speaker 2: the past six months, Ukraine has intercepted only forty six
Speaker 2: percent of Russian missiles, compared with seventy three percent in
Speaker 2: the preceding six months before. The interception rate has fallen
Speaker 2: to thirty percent now and the interception rate for these
Speaker 2: long range Iranian drones has fell one percent to eighty
Speaker 2: two percent in the past six months. So drones, you know,
Speaker 2: remain relatively easier for them to shoot down. They seem
Speaker 2: to have mastered that. But missiles, which are you know,
Speaker 2: frankly something that Russians, any highly advanced nation state would
Speaker 2: be able to develop, has largely been able to use
Speaker 2: and employ them. And it's something that the Ukrainians themselves
Speaker 2: has been one of the biggest strategic problems for them
Speaker 2: that is happening on the ground. I would also show
Speaker 2: you this a very recent interview with the Ukrainian top
Speaker 2: Ukrainian General General Sbitsky. This is from the economists. I'll
Speaker 2: read you directly what he has to say. He does
Speaker 2: not see a way for Ukraine to win the war
Speaker 2: on the battlefield alone. Even if it were able to
Speaker 2: push Russian forces back to its borders quote an increasingly
Speaker 2: distant prospect, it wouldn't end the war. Such wars can
Speaker 2: only end with treaties, he says. Right now, both sides
Speaker 2: are jockeying for the most favorable position ahead of potential talks,
Speaker 2: but according to him, meaningful negotiations can begin only in
Speaker 2: the second half of twenty twenty five at the earliest.
Speaker 2: He says, by then Russia will be facing serious headwinds
Speaker 2: because their military production has expanded, but it will reach
Speaker 2: a plateau by early twenty twenty six due to shortages
Speaker 2: and material and engineers. Frankly, this is all cope and
Speaker 2: it's bs. You know, their artillery production, all of their
Speaker 2: military production, has no signs that it's going to plateau
Speaker 2: anytime soon. If anything, they're making exponential games year over
Speaker 2: year and crystal. If they're going to admit that even
Speaker 2: if they were to achieve their so called military objective
Speaker 2: and push the Russians all the way back to their borders,
Speaker 2: that they still wouldn't win the war, then what are
Speaker 2: we doing here? Why are we spending all of this
Speaker 2: money except you know, increasing the risk of nuclear war
Speaker 2: and or a serious problem in Eastern Europe, which the
Speaker 2: last thing that we all need right now.
Speaker 1: I mean, I can tell you what we're doing. It's
Speaker 1: just pushing the problem off to you know, after the election,
Speaker 1: and pushing it, kicking the can down the road because
Speaker 1: there's no real possibility of ending the war at this point.
Speaker 1: There's you know, effort to secure some sort of negotiation.
Speaker 1: As we've discussed before. Anytime that American presidents actually you know,
Speaker 1: draw down troops which offer am area, they get take
Speaker 1: help from the news media. I mean, you could imagine
Speaker 1: if there was some actual concrete deal and Ukraine had
Speaker 1: to give up the Dunbas or.
Speaker 4: Crimea or whatever.
Speaker 1: Officially, Biden would be killed he I mean not literally, guys,
Speaker 1: but in the press they would. It would be wall
Speaker 1: to wall negative coverage, just like we saw with Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: So it's just like, we'll keep funding it, We'll just
Speaker 1: try to preserve the status quo, kick the can down
Speaker 1: the road at the cost of you know, courting disaster
Speaker 1: and at the cost of decimation of generations of Ukrainian
Speaker 1: men and you know, future possible instability years and years
Speaker 1: to come. So that's the phase we're in at this point,
Speaker 1: and no one even denies that. I mean, there's not
Speaker 1: even a plan. You don't even hear this. It's not
Speaker 1: even talked about in the media anymore. We're entering that
Speaker 1: phase as well, you see. You know, obviously we've pulled
Speaker 1: some Wall Street journal reports and whatever, but when's the
Speaker 1: last time you heard them talking about this on cable news?
Speaker 1: Is very much slid from the front page. It's just
Speaker 1: this sort of perpetual, ongoing conflict that they're working hard
Speaker 1: to push to the back of Americans memories and you know,
Speaker 1: attention span and hope that something undefined potentially one day.
Speaker 2: Changes absolutely and last but not least, just to highlight
Speaker 2: why this remains dangerous, let's put this up there. We
Speaker 2: still see a lot of actions from Putin and from
Speaker 2: Russia which we don't want in a stable world. Putin
Speaker 2: orders tactical nuclear weapon drills quote to deter the West,
Speaker 2: which was only a week or so ago. He said
Speaker 2: on Monday that it would practice their deployment of tactical
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons after what Moscow said were threats from France,
Speaker 2: Britain and the United States. This is because the insanity
Speaker 2: of all of this is that as the Ukrainians do
Speaker 2: worse and worse on the battlefield, and as the West
Speaker 2: realizes that AID alone it will never be able to
Speaker 2: prop them up. We have two choices. We can force
Speaker 2: them to cut a deal and we can just wash
Speaker 2: our hands of an irrelevant conflict. Or what the British
Speaker 2: and the French want to do is, hey, maybe we
Speaker 2: send some troops there on the ground special forces and others. Immediately,
Speaker 2: the Russians were like, yeah, if you do that where
Speaker 2: we will kill them. We will strike and kill soldiers
Speaker 2: who are deployed onto Ukraine. And now what you know,
Speaker 2: we're an Article five territory. We're in a whole other disaster.
Speaker 2: And that's why the tactical nuclear weapon drills are not
Speaker 2: all that far away. I mean, we talk about this
Speaker 2: too with Israel and Iran, just because it didn't go
Speaker 2: hot that one time. It's just all about tension and
Speaker 2: tension and tension. When you read history, it's very rare
Speaker 2: that a single event just happens in a vacuum. It's
Speaker 2: easily predictable if you go back and you look at
Speaker 2: all the signs, some of which can take years. I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, ten to fifteen years of tension and build
Speaker 2: up and all that before something eventually explodes. So recency
Speaker 2: bias is far too high. This is still a very
Speaker 2: very dangerous conflict.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's absolutely the case. Let's turn to
Speaker 1: the latest out of Israel. CNN actually spoke to an
Speaker 1: Israeli whistleblower about the extensive program of torture of Palestinian
Speaker 1: detainees This was quite a report, especially coming from CNN.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to a little bit of what
Speaker 1: they found.
Speaker 5: Away from the military facility near the beaches of Tel Aviv.
Speaker 5: One young Israeli Army reservist agreed to speak about schools
Speaker 5: of detainees at Seti to Man. He says are kept
Speaker 5: in cages or pens, constantly shackled and blindfolded, many for
Speaker 5: weeks on end. We've hidden his identity and voice to
Speaker 5: shield him from prosecution.
Speaker 6: We were told they are not allowed to move and
Speaker 6: must sit upright. They're not allowed to talk or peak
Speaker 6: under their blindfolds.
Speaker 5: And what happened if they if they did do that,
Speaker 5: what punishments would meet it?
Speaker 6: At we were allowed to pick up problematic people and
Speaker 6: punish them, having them stand with their hands above their
Speaker 6: heads for an unlimited time. If they didn't keep their
Speaker 6: hands up, we could zip tie them to the fence.
Speaker 5: The Israeli military says detainees are handcuffed based on their
Speaker 5: risk level and health status, but the account talies with
Speaker 5: photographic evidence obtained by CNN of Palestinian detainees inside Seti
Speaker 5: to Men, and with hand and wrist injuries shown to
Speaker 5: CNN by dozens of Palestinians released back into Gaza. It
Speaker 5: was zip tied and blindfolded, says this former detainee, and
Speaker 5: tortured in a way I never imagined. One source telling
Speaker 5: us the restraints were so tight they had to amputate
Speaker 5: a man's hand.
Speaker 1: And this is not an isolated report. We had heard
Speaker 1: previous reporting from doctors that it was relatively routine that people,
Speaker 1: because of the way that they were handcuffed, would have
Speaker 1: to have limbs or hands amputated. You know, the Israelis
Speaker 1: obviously claim like these people are all under suspicion of terrorism,
Speaker 1: but we know the way that they have interpreted any
Speaker 1: quote unquote military age male as a potential Hamas terrorist.
Speaker 1: We've even also talked about how they were planning on
Speaker 1: setting up checkpoints around Rafa to not allow any military
Speaker 1: age male, regardless of whether they had even a purported
Speaker 1: tie to Hamas or other terrorist groups, to leave that area.
Speaker 1: And so this is absolutely horrifying. Like we remember Abu Grab,
Speaker 1: we remember the massive international backlash over that scandal of it,
Speaker 1: the way that the media was covered. Kudos to this
Speaker 1: whistleblower who is incredibly courageous to come forward to CNN,
Speaker 1: and thank you to CNN for doing this report. But
Speaker 1: it's very limited what you hear ultimately about the treatment
Speaker 1: of these Palestinian detainees. And we even SAGA recently had
Speaker 1: a report of a prominent doctor in Gaza who died
Speaker 1: from torture in one of these facilities. So it's an
Speaker 1: outrageous and unacceptable situation.
Speaker 2: There's just all there's these things are just like on
Speaker 2: the news every day, and I guess, you know, look
Speaker 2: again as somebody who's not like the lefty Kefia where
Speaker 2: and all that all I ever asked for is honesty
Speaker 2: and for people to just be real about what's happening,
Speaker 2: and these are all selectively ignored. I mean, the next
Speaker 2: part Crystal works, We're about to get to the you know,
Speaker 2: videos of these Israelis rampantly destroying AID inside or inside
Speaker 2: of Israel headed into the Gaza strip with the police
Speaker 2: just sitting there and standing by. I'm like, how, you know,
Speaker 2: how in the world does this get not one ounce
Speaker 2: of media coverage here? And then also for all okay there,
Speaker 2: you know, because do the show with you and others.
Speaker 2: I see so many people who are left as very
Speaker 2: sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. And every time they're always asked,
Speaker 2: they're like, hey, do you condemn? And they're like yeah,
Speaker 2: And it's like, well, how many people who are out
Speaker 2: there on social media and who are basically working as
Speaker 2: a fifth column in our country? Why are they not
Speaker 2: you know, asked, do you condemn like this violence? And
Speaker 2: you know, saluting of all of this aid like why
Speaker 2: it's the most basic and simple one and that's why
Speaker 2: it's ignored completely. Yeah, where's Dana Bash's segment about it.
Speaker 4: Such a great such a great point.
Speaker 1: When you have, i mean, the number of statements and
Speaker 1: the actions coming from the Israeli government, it's you know,
Speaker 1: it's insane. And we're going to get to Lindsay Graham
Speaker 1: in a minute calling to New Gaza, like do you
Speaker 1: condemn that? Like you, we're very concerned about what a
Speaker 1: nineteen year old might have chanted on a college campus.
Speaker 1: But what about when Lindsay Graham goes on Network News
Speaker 1: and says, hey, maybe we should New Gaza, let's go
Speaker 1: ahead and put up on the screen what soccer was
Speaker 1: referring to. Now, this has been going on for months,
Speaker 1: but these are right wing psychos in Israel who are
Speaker 1: blocking and destroying aid.
Speaker 4: These are new images.
Speaker 1: The Gaza Strip is in obviously dire humanitarian crisis. You
Speaker 1: can see here the amount of AID that was supposed
Speaker 1: to go into the Gaza Strip that was completely destroyed.
Speaker 4: Here here are the trucks.
Speaker 1: Now this is entirely and this shows you how this
Speaker 1: is an Israeli government policy.
Speaker 4: These are all the trucks that are lined up at
Speaker 4: the Egypt border.
Speaker 1: And by the way, Egypt has also said since the
Speaker 1: Israelis seized the Rafa crossing in violation of their treaty agreement,
Speaker 1: that they are not going to cooperate at the Rafa border,
Speaker 1: So that has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's easy to like, obviously these psychos are responsible for
Speaker 1: their own contribution to genocide, but it's also very clear
Speaker 1: that this is the Israeli government policy number one, because
Speaker 1: they're allowed to block the state and no one ever intervenes,
Speaker 1: no one arrests them, etc. The Washington Post reported on
Speaker 1: how the police in the Israeli military were there and
Speaker 1: they were like hanging out together and like sharing food
Speaker 1: and whatever, and you know, telling them you're good to go. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: protests against the BB government, you know, much more aggressive
Speaker 1: response there. So we know that from you know, we
Speaker 1: know this is tacitly, if not actively supported by the
Speaker 1: Israeli government, and we also know the official policy, which
Speaker 1: from the beginning was announced We're going to have a
Speaker 1: complete siege. They then opened up the tiniest trickle. But
Speaker 1: you have extraordinarily dire circumstances which are being exacerbated by
Speaker 1: the day because you now have a complete cutoff effectively
Speaker 1: of aid, especially into the Southern Gaza Strip. Northern Gaza
Speaker 1: Strip is already under famine conditions. And just to emphasize
Speaker 1: what a dire circumstances is at this point, Ryan Graham
Speaker 1: are on Ryan Graham doing some fantastic reporting about put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. American doctors, about twenty of them,
Speaker 1: are trapped in a hospital in Gaza, in the Southern
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip and they are facing death by dehydration as
Speaker 1: the entire population clings to life. So let me read
Speaker 1: you a little bit of this report. This is from
Speaker 1: Ryan Grihm and Hind Kudari who is there in Gaza.
Speaker 1: She's a Palestinian journalist. Upward of twenty American doctors are
Speaker 1: trapped in Gaza as a result of Israel's post invasion
Speaker 1: closure of the Raffa border crossing into Egypt, Israeli has
Speaker 1: blocked fuel, food, and water from entering Rafa for over
Speaker 1: a week, leading to severe dehydration among the general population
Speaker 1: as well as among the doctors on mission. Relatives of
Speaker 1: the doctors were told by the State Department rescue efforts
Speaker 1: were underway, including through coordination with the UN and the IDF.
Speaker 1: Yet on Monday, the Israeli military fired on a UN
Speaker 1: vehicle that was traveling to that hospital in Conunis near Rafa,
Speaker 1: killing a UN employee and injuring another. So, just to
Speaker 1: underscore what's being said there, you've got twenty American doctors
Speaker 1: suffering from severe dehydration who are trapped at this hospital
Speaker 1: in Conunis. The UN is supposed to be helping them
Speaker 1: in coordination with the State Department. They send a rescue
Speaker 1: mission vehicle, and the Israelis. It appears we know that
Speaker 1: a UN vehicle was targeted in UN aid work are
Speaker 1: killed by these reelies. It appears that was the vehicle
Speaker 1: that was headed to rescue these American doctors. Now keep
Speaker 1: in mind, you can only imagine if these are the
Speaker 1: conditions that American doctors in Gaza are suffering through. Imagine
Speaker 1: what ordinary Palestinians are suffering through living in a tent
Speaker 1: for monthson and having no resources available to them whatsoever.
Speaker 1: It really underscores for you how dire the circumstances are
Speaker 1: for absolutely everyone involved. Ryan was able to attend the
Speaker 1: State Department briefing yesterday and ask the spokesperson there about
Speaker 1: this report and about what the State Department was going
Speaker 1: to do about these Americans who are trapped in the
Speaker 1: Gaza strip and with their lives online.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to what they had to say.
Speaker 7: Citizens, doctors who are at the European Hospital and comunists
Speaker 7: facing de hydration. At least one of them is on
Speaker 7: an IV drip. Now is our understanding is that relatives
Speaker 7: have been in touch with the State Department, usministrations or
Speaker 7: anything you can say about efforts to get them out,
Speaker 7: And was the UN vehicle that was on the way
Speaker 7: to the European hospital part of those efforts?
Speaker 3: So let me start with the second part.
Speaker 8: I'm not sure of the operational and logistical specifics of
Speaker 8: what was involved in those specific efforts or not, but
Speaker 8: I can say is that we're aware of these reports
Speaker 8: of US citizens, doctors, and medical professionals currently unable to
Speaker 8: leave Gaza. As I've said before, we don't control this
Speaker 8: border crossing, and this is an incredibly complex situation that
Speaker 8: has very serious implications for the safety and security of
Speaker 8: US citizens. But we're continuing to work around the clock
Speaker 8: with the government of Israel, with the government of Egypt
Speaker 8: to work on this issue, not just to address the
Speaker 8: very serious humanitarian assistance concerns that I just talked about,
Speaker 8: but as you so pointed out and Matt have addressed before,
Speaker 8: RAFA is a conduit for the safe departure of foreign nationals,
Speaker 8: which is why we continue to want to see it
Speaker 8: get open as possible.
Speaker 7: And what does it say about conditions more generally in
Speaker 7: rothen and in Conunis If American doctors only arrived there recently,
Speaker 7: are already suffering from the hydration and maltnutrition.
Speaker 8: So look, we have not been unambiguous about the humanitarian
Speaker 8: situation in Gaza. It is a crisis.
Speaker 1: So if you ever were under the illusion, if you
Speaker 1: were traveling abroad and you got into some sort of trouble,
Speaker 1: your government would move having an earth in order to rescue.
Speaker 1: You should disabuse yourself of that notion right now, because
Speaker 1: it depends very much on the politics of taking such
Speaker 1: an action. And so here you see this very bland,
Speaker 1: non plus language from the State Department. And by the way,
Speaker 1: Sager Ryan posted an update that one of the doctors
Speaker 1: that is trapped there by israel siege is Adam Hamaway,
Speaker 1: an Army veteran who famously saved the life of Senator
Speaker 1: Tammy Duckworth after her helicopter crash in Iraq. So these
Speaker 1: are American doctors, one of whom you know, I think
Speaker 1: you can very much say an American hero. And this
Speaker 1: is the sort of non plus reaction you get from
Speaker 1: the State Department.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's crazy. I mean yeah, like you said, I mean,
Speaker 2: there used to be a time the whole the sun
Speaker 2: never sets on an American citizen whenever they're traveling abroad.
Speaker 2: I'll admit I used to think that too, whenever i'd
Speaker 2: travel BI go out. Fine, and some of the sketchier places.
Speaker 2: Not so sure about that one, especially now, kudos to
Speaker 2: Ryan for doing the report on that. Yeah, you also
Speaker 2: found this and I actually did some reading on this
Speaker 2: is very interesting. Let's put this please up on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is from Haretz and it's an analysis. It says
Speaker 2: why Israel's generals are now openly briefing against Neta Yahu.
Speaker 2: They say Israel's military commanders should have confronted Neton Yaho
Speaker 2: about the lack of strategy for the Day after Hamas
Speaker 2: before entering Gaza in October. Now, they may be right
Speaker 2: to blame him for squandering their tactical gains, but they
Speaker 2: should also shoulder some of the blame. And what's happening,
Speaker 2: Crystal is that there is a glowing acknowledgment from the
Speaker 2: military establishment, both in Israel and actually here in the US,
Speaker 2: that the Day After plan and the inability to even
Speaker 2: think about that before tactically going in was a total disaster.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons that I know that the elite
Speaker 2: opinion is turning is it's kind of hard to explain,
Speaker 2: but back in the mid two thousands there was a
Speaker 2: big counter insurgency revolution in the military about strategy in Iraq.
Speaker 2: It was led by David Petraeus famously and a bunch
Speaker 2: of other guys like John Nagel and a few other
Speaker 2: scholars who kind of took over US military strategy in Iraq,
Speaker 2: and it worked for a period of time until there's
Speaker 2: debates around it, but it did certainly work, at least
Speaker 2: in what they were trying to do in a very
Speaker 2: narrow scope from two thousand and seven to twenty ten. Well,
Speaker 2: these people whose fundamental insight is that you have to
Speaker 2: separate terrorist population from the civilian population and at times
Speaker 2: even expand at that time US lives to protect the
Speaker 2: civilian population to create a more stable environment in place,
Speaker 2: was the insight that should have been brought by the
Speaker 2: Israelis into what was going on in Gaza. Well, Crystal,
Speaker 2: Now they are all being quoted in the Washington Post
Speaker 2: being like, yeah, that was a mistake. They clearly haven't been,
Speaker 2: you know, making any of that effort. That's what they
Speaker 2: if you were going to do this from they begin.
Speaker 2: Of course, this is all very couch, but if you
Speaker 2: know enough to read between the lines, you can see
Speaker 2: that both in Israel and here we are beginning to
Speaker 2: set the stage for the blaming of what will eventually follow.
Speaker 2: We're now in the Iraq five years where it's like, oh,
Speaker 2: things are starting to actually get bad. Turns out the
Speaker 2: mission wasn't accomplished a little bit of an insurgency popping
Speaker 2: off in Gaza city and communists, oh, we have about
Speaker 2: this little rafa thing dangling. As soon as all of
Speaker 2: that is resolved and we get to see the real
Speaker 2: not destruction, but the full probably either resuscitation or whatever
Speaker 2: the hell, you know, insurgency comes next inside of Gaza,
Speaker 2: we will be having this debate, so you know, you
Speaker 2: can mark your calendar. It'll be a year from now,
Speaker 2: maybe six months from now. But the ground is being
Speaker 2: set by people in the know, and they're like, we
Speaker 2: got to throw these people onto the bus.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And obviously all of these people we're talking about here
Speaker 1: with the IDF top brass, Baby nine Yang, the entire
Speaker 1: war cabinet, like, these people are.
Speaker 4: All extremely pro war.
Speaker 1: They have zero qualms about the incredible level of devastation
Speaker 1: and civilian massacres that have occurred, you know, ever since
Speaker 1: the first bombs were dropped post October seventh in the
Speaker 1: Gaza strip. And so the significance of this, though, is
Speaker 1: that you can see these divides starting to emerge for
Speaker 1: these generals in coordinated fashion to brief to the media
Speaker 1: against Bebe Net and Yahoo. That is a very stark
Speaker 1: domestic political situation that is worth taking note of now
Speaker 1: in terms of like thereands certainly aren't clean here in
Speaker 1: terms of a quote unquote day After plan either because
Speaker 1: they're the ones who came up with the plan of
Speaker 1: we're not going to.
Speaker 4: Do targeted strikes, We're going to do this overall.
Speaker 1: Mass campaign of annihilation, even knowing that there was no
Speaker 1: quote unquote Day After Plan.
Speaker 4: Like they knew that from the beginning.
Speaker 1: They were expressing concern about it from the beginning, and
Speaker 1: yet they still push this plan which was ultimately adopted
Speaker 1: of the total and complete annihilation. So you can't really
Speaker 1: sell they you know, it's all Bebe's fault, its etcetera. No,
Speaker 1: everyone was in this together. Everyone signed off on this plan,
Speaker 1: knowing that Bibi didn't want to actually say what his
Speaker 1: plans were for the Gaza strip because he wanted to
Speaker 1: keep his hold on power. He didn't want to alienate
Speaker 1: either the you know, extreme right wing terrorist psychos that
Speaker 1: are in his government coalition or the quote unquote moderates
Speaker 1: that are in his coalition, none of whom were actually moderate,
Speaker 1: and so he wanted to keep it vague. And at
Speaker 1: this point, I mean, they're really scrambling the latest thing
Speaker 1: you sent this, I think this morning. They're like trying
Speaker 1: to talk the Palestinian Authority into taking control of the
Speaker 1: Rafa crossing, but they don't want them to say it's
Speaker 1: the Palestinian Authority. They want them to do it like
Speaker 1: in disguise, which of course the PA is like, oh,
Speaker 1: why would we do that? BB had previously said he
Speaker 1: didn't want to work with them. A Also, it's a
Speaker 1: complete obviously it's a cluster from a military perspective, they're
Speaker 1: having to go back into Gaza City, having to go
Speaker 1: back into Jibali, a refugee camp because of course, because
Speaker 1: of course, because the idea they were ever going to
Speaker 1: completely decimate Hamas is preposterous. And now you have top
Speaker 1: administration officials we played for you, Tony Blinkin, but Jake
Speaker 1: Sullivan and let's see, there was another one who said
Speaker 1: the same thing in the past couple of days, like, no,
Speaker 1: you're not going to defeat Hamas, So what are we
Speaker 1: doing here? We're just destroying civilian life in the Gaza strip,
Speaker 1: which has been really quite apparent from the very beginning.
Speaker 1: So absolutely, you know, extraordinary divisions that are starting to emerge.
Speaker 1: Blame game starting to emerge all amidst the backdrop of
Speaker 1: continuing deterioration and die your humanitarian circumstances as Israel has
Speaker 1: begun that invasion in Tarafa. That's right, all right, guys,
Speaker 1: wanted to share with you a little atrocity denial, fake
Speaker 1: news being perpetrated from Joe Scarborough over at MSNBC, among others.
Speaker 1: But he was one of the most high profile spreaders
Speaker 1: of this completely false nonsense.
Speaker 4: Let's put this up on the.
Speaker 1: Screen, so he claims here, UN has estimates of women
Speaker 1: and children killed in Gaza. Apparently the Hamas figures repeatedly
Speaker 1: cited are false. Now, if you were anywhere online yesterday
Speaker 1: in proximity of in Israel, no matter what type of person,
Speaker 1: you very likely heard a similar claim made. Let me
Speaker 1: show you what this was based on. Let's put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen so the UN change it changed
Speaker 1: the way that they were reporting fatalities. You can see
Speaker 1: here on May sixth they have the overall number of
Speaker 1: Palestinians killed thirty four thousand, seven hundred and thirty five
Speaker 1: you can see on the right. Two days later, on
Speaker 1: May eighth, very similar number. It goes up a little
Speaker 1: bit thirty four thousand, eight hundred and forty four Palestinians killed,
Speaker 1: so total numbers thirty four thousand n climbing.
Speaker 4: However, when you look below.
Speaker 1: In the May sixth one they say more than ninety
Speaker 1: five hundred women and more than fourteen thousand, five hundred children.
Speaker 1: In the May eighth one they say these are the
Speaker 1: individuals who are identified, nine hundred and fifty nine women
Speaker 1: versus seven seven hundred and ninety seven children so identified.
Speaker 1: So the difference here is whereas previously there were assumptions
Speaker 1: made about how many were women how many were children
Speaker 1: based on the overall numbers and some identifying information. The
Speaker 1: Ministry of Health in Gaza has since said that some
Speaker 1: roughly ten thousand of the individuals don't have complete identification information,
Speaker 1: so they're changing the way that they are reporting on
Speaker 1: these fatalities. The number of fatalities did not go down,
Speaker 1: in fact, it went up. In fact, if you look
Speaker 1: at the bottom, you can see that in addition to
Speaker 1: these thirty four thousand, you also have more than ten
Speaker 1: thousand who are reported missing or under the rubble, which
Speaker 1: means they are also likely dead. But this was used
Speaker 1: to claim that the UN has now decided the hamas
Speaker 1: numbers were wrong and have the number of women and
Speaker 1: children killed not.
Speaker 4: True at all.
Speaker 1: In fact, you and spokesperson yesterday, in response to Joe
Speaker 1: Scarborough and many others spreading this fake news, decided to
Speaker 1: clarify just exactly what was going on here.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 9: Thanks Varhan. There's some reporting that's come out that says, quote,
Speaker 9: the UN has half halved the number.
Speaker 10: Of casualties has It's a hard word to.
Speaker 9: Say you know what I'm talking about, though, yes I
Speaker 9: do know. Cut in half, cut in half. Thank you.
Speaker 9: The casualties from Gaza, is that true?
Speaker 10: It's it's not quite the case.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 10: What I can tell you is this the overall number
Speaker 10: of fatalities that's been tallied by the Ministry of Health
Speaker 10: in Gaza, which is our counterpart on dealing with the
Speaker 10: death tolls. That number remains unchanged and it's at more
Speaker 10: than thirty five thousand people since the Since October seventh.
Speaker 10: What's changed is the Ministry of Health and Gaza has
Speaker 10: updated the breakdown of fatalities for whom full details have
Speaker 10: been documented. So what they recently published was that they
Speaker 10: gave figures for twenty four thousand, six hundred and eighty
Speaker 10: six out of three hundred out of thirty four thousand,
Speaker 10: six hundred and twenty two overall fatalities recorded in Gaza,
Speaker 10: and those twenty four thousand, six hundred and eighty six
Speaker 10: people are the ones for whom full details have been documented,
Speaker 10: in other words, people who have been fully identified those.
Speaker 2: Out of those, then, out of that.
Speaker 10: Smaller number that subset of identified bodies, you have seven
Speaker 10: seven hundred and ninety seven children, four thousand, nine hundred
Speaker 10: and fifty nine women, nine hundred and twenty four elderly,
Speaker 10: and ten thousand and six men. And the Ministry of
Speaker 10: Health says that the documentation process of fully identifying details
Speaker 10: of the casualties is ongoing. Meanwhile, as you can see
Speaker 10: if you do the math, that there's about another ten
Speaker 10: thousand plus bodies who still have to be fully identified,
Speaker 10: and so then the details of those, which of those
Speaker 10: are children, which of those are women, that will be
Speaker 10: re established once the full identification process is complete. We
Speaker 10: are teams in Gaza are unable to identify, unindependently verify
Speaker 10: these figures given the situation on the ground and the
Speaker 10: continuing combat and the sheer number of fatalities, and so
Speaker 10: we cite the Ministry of Health as the source for our.
Speaker 9: Figures, and do you have any reason to believe that
Speaker 9: the Ministry of Health numbers are incorrect based on the
Speaker 9: years that the UN has worked with the Ministry of
Speaker 9: Health for Kaza.
Speaker 10: Unfortunately, we have the sad experience of coordinating with the
Speaker 10: Ministry of Health on casualty figures every few years for
Speaker 10: large mass casualty incidents in Gaza, and in past past
Speaker 10: times their figures have proven to be generally accurate.
Speaker 1: So important there at the end too, because this has
Speaker 1: used a lot of like, oh, well, you're just going
Speaker 1: to trust us, and says, well, listen, first of all,
Speaker 1: we can't in this war zone, with Israel, by the way,
Speaker 1: providing limited access, we can't independently verify. And second of all,
Speaker 1: based on historical record, actually the Ministry of Health has
Speaker 1: been quite accurate, and in fact, this change in the
Speaker 1: identification of the data is really an indication that they're
Speaker 1: being quite careful and trying to be very meticulous in
Speaker 1: the way that they record and identify these Palestinians who
Speaker 1: have been killed.
Speaker 4: So, you know, the thing that's.
Speaker 1: So gross, Sager is, first of all everybody was telling
Speaker 1: Joe Scart like this is just wrong, this is not true,
Speaker 1: and the tweet is still up.
Speaker 4: There's no community known on it.
Speaker 1: You know, the UE comes out and says, no, no,
Speaker 1: that's a lie, that's not what happens, it's not true.
Speaker 1: And yet you just know that this talking point is
Speaker 1: going to be used, even though it's thoroughly debunked everywhere,
Speaker 1: It's going to be used over and over and go
Speaker 1: over again. The same way that there's still Mike Johnson's
Speaker 1: still out there talking about people plural getting stabbed in
Speaker 1: the eye with a palasinating flagging though that never happened.
Speaker 1: The way that you still have people who are out
Speaker 1: there talking about babies being baked in ovens even though
Speaker 1: that never happened, and baby's beheaded even though that never happened.
Speaker 1: Like it gets debunked, but it doesn't matter, because it
Speaker 1: still persists. The claims still persist, and it still gets
Speaker 1: weaponized to dismiss, to dehumanize, to undercut the severity of
Speaker 1: what has been done in the Gaza strip. And it's
Speaker 1: just such a gross episode and so characteristic of the
Speaker 1: dishonesty that has been endemic to you know, the way
Speaker 1: that this confliction has.
Speaker 2: Been trust you want to don't trust mass and don't
Speaker 2: trust is real. I don't need to trust all those
Speaker 2: people because I got two pairs of eyes. So whenever
Speaker 2: I watched the Battle of Mosul, we saw ISIS being like,
Speaker 2: they're killing civilians, they're massacring civilians. Independent sources. ISIS his
Speaker 2: own videos and the Iraqi videos all show the same thing.
Speaker 2: What Iraqi security forces engaging with isis ICIS and uses
Speaker 2: them as human shields, and that in the many cases
Speaker 2: they went to extraordinary lengths coalition forces uprate the civilian population. Okay,
Speaker 2: that's all it took. It's like the numbers eventually came
Speaker 2: out just validated what we saw at the time. What
Speaker 2: do we see right now, Well, you got videos coming
Speaker 2: about bombing a refugee camp. You got the IDEF coming
Speaker 2: out and saying, well, we're doing to hit one persons,
Speaker 2: we killed one hundred and fifty rubble that's collapsing all
Speaker 2: over the places. You got and this is actually again,
Speaker 2: all I need is you go into Gaza and to
Speaker 2: communists into Gaza city. We're like, we're going to destroy
Speaker 2: all the terrorists, and then you leave and then there
Speaker 2: are a bunch of terrorists that are still left there,
Speaker 2: and including rocket attacks and insurgent attacks, and the idea
Speaker 2: of death toll people haven't taken notice OF's starting to
Speaker 2: take up there even with these limited operations in Rafa,
Speaker 2: which tells us what that you've got a maximum amount
Speaker 2: of defense and that all of your strategy and all
Speaker 2: that hasn't been working. And so whatever the death toll is,
Speaker 2: whatever it is, it's not about the number. It's about
Speaker 2: the proportion, and it's about what lengths that you have
Speaker 2: gone to. We're going to talk with Arjun about this
Speaker 2: Lindsay Graham quote about why we should new Gaza. And
Speaker 2: there's a lot of talk always about resident and all
Speaker 2: those other things, and even today at are very controversial
Speaker 2: about why they are. But what everybody forgets is that
Speaker 2: the extraordinary links that were gone to both for Japan
Speaker 2: and for Germany to avoid ever having to make that
Speaker 2: catastrophic choice about trying everybody's best, from the highest sessions
Speaker 2: of the US military to including strategic bombing and trying
Speaker 2: to knock out different areas in places to minimize civilian casualties.
Speaker 2: And only when the Nazis and the Japanese Empire basically
Speaker 2: made it a choice of complete unconditional surrender and actually
Speaker 2: ramping up their defense and making surrender and victory as
Speaker 2: difficult as possible. Did they resort to the mass civilian
Speaker 2: casualty strategies of Drusien of Hiroshima and of the fire
Speaker 2: bombing campaign onto Tokyo, and those were peer competitive enemies.
Speaker 2: Israel basically just came out the gate without ever trying
Speaker 2: any of those steps. And what I would say is
Speaker 2: it because of the power and balance of that enemy
Speaker 2: they did not try and even do what the US
Speaker 2: did in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, which it's not
Speaker 2: even about morals, strategically and militarily backfired and is not working.
Speaker 2: You can see right now it's very clear.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just it's just disgraceful. And yeah, to
Speaker 1: your point also, I mean, there's a reason why after
Speaker 1: World War Two the world community came together and said
Speaker 1: we got to have some rules to protect civilians, because
Speaker 1: this is you know, what we just saw unfold is outrageous.
Speaker 1: It's unacceptable, and that's what we're seeing right now. It's
Speaker 1: clearly outrageous. It's clearly unacceptable. And so if you're seeing
Speaker 1: those things on their face. It's very difficult to defend.
Speaker 1: It's very difficult to deny the obvious horrors that are.
Speaker 4: Being done in our name with our dollars.
Speaker 1: And so that's why they pick up these lies and
Speaker 1: they run with them because the truth, the truth doesn't
Speaker 1: work for them anymore. It's nothing even approximating the truth
Speaker 1: works for them anymore. So, you know, I hope, but
Speaker 1: I don't really have any aspiration expectations of this. I
Speaker 1: hope this is a mark of shame against Joe Scarborough
Speaker 1: and other people who shamelessly spread this lie forever. This
Speaker 1: is a very problem that we played for Reied Zakaria earlier,
Speaker 1: one of Biden's favorite angers. This is Biden's other favorite
Speaker 1: anchor who is spreading this abject lie that you have
Speaker 1: thousands of people telling him this is a lie, This
Speaker 1: is not true. The un itself comes out and says,
Speaker 1: this is a lie, this is not true. And you know, soccer,
Speaker 1: the reality is given the level of devastation, given what
Speaker 1: we've seen, given the humanitarian situation, given the lack of sanitation,
Speaker 1: the starvation, the dehydration. American doctors who are on the
Speaker 1: brink of death right now because they don't have clean
Speaker 1: water to drink.
Speaker 4: Given what we know about that.
Speaker 1: I don't think that there's any way that these numbers
Speaker 1: even accurately reflect the full death toll caused by this war,
Speaker 1: because you know, how how could they how could they
Speaker 1: possibly know all of the individuals who have perished as
Speaker 1: a result of direct Israeli strikes and of the Israel
Speaker 1: Israeli siege policy. And we may never know, it may
Speaker 1: take years for us to have a more complete toll.
Speaker 1: But to try to lie and pretend like, oh, actually,
Speaker 1: you know these have been halved based on the changing
Speaker 1: and the reporting of some data is.
Speaker 4: So it's just so disgusting. It's just so utterly repulsive.
Speaker 2: All right, Well, we've got a good guest standing by
Speaker 2: Argent saying of lever Time podcast. We're going to discuss further.
Speaker 2: Let's get to it.
Speaker 1: So, our partners at Lever News have re upped, new
Speaker 1: and improved their podcast, which is called lever Time. We're
Speaker 1: really excited to be joined this morning by that podcast producer,
Speaker 1: Arjine saying, who is the Lever's senior podcast producer and
Speaker 1: has a fantastic new episode that I really recommend you
Speaker 1: guys check out going inside the Biden Administration's internal discussions
Speaker 1: and policy viz a Vi Israel Arghene.
Speaker 4: Welcome, great to have.
Speaker 2: You, Good to see you man.
Speaker 3: Thanks for you guys.
Speaker 1: So before I get into this podcast, I just want
Speaker 1: to sing your praises.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: I've told this to David. I've been talking to Sager.
Speaker 1: You're doing such an excellent job in terms of the
Speaker 1: quality of these podcasts. I've enjoyed all of them. I'm
Speaker 1: a big fan. So let's go ahead. Why don't you
Speaker 1: break down for us this particular episode and some of
Speaker 1: the things you learned about who's most influential behind the
Speaker 1: scenes in terms of Israel's quote unquote bear head hug
Speaker 1: of net Nyahu.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely so. In this episode, we began by looking
Speaker 3: a little bit at why Israel means so much to
Speaker 3: the United States, and in particular to President Biden, who
Speaker 3: has long considered himself one of Israel's strongest allies in
Speaker 3: the US government. Inside of the White House. During What's
Speaker 3: Happening Right Now, though, I spoke with Akbar Shahida Hmed,
Speaker 3: the Huffington Post diplomacy reporter, and he illuminated me to
Speaker 3: the fact that there are really three people inside of
Speaker 3: this administration who have consolidated power and taken control of
Speaker 3: Israel policy, and that is his Secretary of State Tony Blincoln,
Speaker 3: national Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. But most importantly is someone
Speaker 3: who many people have never heard of. He's a gentleman
Speaker 3: named Brett McGirk. He's an advisor to President Biden. He's
Speaker 3: been a staffer for his entire career. He has gone
Speaker 3: between the Bush administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration
Speaker 3: now to Biden, and he is the one who has
Speaker 3: really pushed Biden to take up things that people who
Speaker 3: have observed Biden were surprised at, such as a normalization
Speaker 3: deal with Saudi Arabia, which would involve a mutual defense
Speaker 3: pact including sharing civilian nuclear technology. Brett mcgirk's career, though,
Speaker 3: really started during the Iraq War, when he was tasked
Speaker 3: with more or less the Bush administration schoal of rebuilding Iraq,
Speaker 3: and I would say that was really not a successful,
Speaker 3: beneficial or humane policy. Yet he has continued through government
Speaker 3: government as a staffer, and being a staffer, he rarely
Speaker 3: gives interviews. He fits kind of behind the scenes, and
Speaker 3: I think that is something that has alarmed State Department officials.
Speaker 3: People inside of the diplomatic community say that they've been
Speaker 3: felt locked out. And Okbard told me a lot of
Speaker 3: that has to do with Brett McGirk, who really seems
Speaker 3: to have idea of ego and kind of his own
Speaker 3: desires that he's pushed Biden on on these issues.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know brekfas McGurk. Actually I don't know in personally.
Speaker 2: I've covered him for many years for you know, like
Speaker 2: you said, for Iraq Syria, he was at the heart
Speaker 2: of that. Famously resigned from the Trump administration, but come
Speaker 2: back he's kind of the pre eminent. It's almost like
Speaker 2: a World War two esque type figure, like the bipartisan
Speaker 2: foreign policy connoisseur. But you're very correct to point that out.
Speaker 2: So one of the things that we wanted to get
Speaker 2: your reaction to was not only the kind of evolution
Speaker 2: of the pro Isra policy inside of the Biden administration,
Speaker 2: but also of broader Washington, where there does seem to
Speaker 2: be a complete coside really of Israeli military strategy, perhaps
Speaker 2: best exemplified by Senator Lindsey Graham. You can see both
Speaker 2: the emotion and the support here he has and clearly,
Speaker 2: you know, obviously there's at least a taste of this
Speaker 2: inside the Bide administration as well. In a recent interview,
Speaker 2: he suggested that there should be nukes employed against Gaza
Speaker 2: by the Israelis. Let's take a listen to what he said.
Speaker 7: Can I say this, why is it okay for America
Speaker 7: to not to drop two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and
Speaker 7: Nagasaki to end their existential threat war?
Speaker 2: Why was it okay for us to do that? I
Speaker 2: thought it was okay to Israel do whatever you have
Speaker 2: to do to survive as a Jewish state. Senor again,
Speaker 2: military officials say, ever you have to. She has changed.
Speaker 2: But let me ask you about how.
Speaker 4: These military officials that you're talking.
Speaker 2: About, let me ask you something or crap. So what'd
Speaker 2: you make of that?
Speaker 3: The shuffling on the papers emphasize at that point. But
Speaker 3: I mean that I think, as you said, Sarger, that
Speaker 3: underscores how emotional this issue is. And also that someone
Speaker 3: the Lindsay Graham feels completely comfortable to say that as
Speaker 3: a sitting senator. I mean, that's a pretty ridiculous comparison.
Speaker 3: On the one hand, World War two was a completely
Speaker 3: different issue than Israel and Gaza. The machinations that had
Speaker 3: to go into World War Two, where largely are surrounding
Speaker 3: will one of the worst wars in human history continue,
Speaker 3: you know, and I'm not justifying what they did in
Speaker 3: World War Two, but to use that as an example
Speaker 3: to justify completely one sided war. I mean, Israel is
Speaker 3: clearly on the dominant side of this war. Over thirty
Speaker 3: five thousand Palestinian civilians have died. The numbers are nowhere
Speaker 3: near in comparison, even taking into what happened on October seventh.
Speaker 3: So I think for Lindsay Graham to say that we
Speaker 3: should just go in and drop a nuclear bomb, it
Speaker 3: shows how comfortable the bipartisan consensus is that you can
Speaker 3: make such an extreme statement. If Lindsay Graham had said
Speaker 3: we should drop a nuclear bomb in a rock or Afghanistan,
Speaker 3: I do wonder would that have gotten the same level
Speaker 3: of acceptance. I mean that clip that you just showed,
Speaker 3: I didn't see that registered in New York Times Washington Post.
Speaker 3: If Lindsay Graham had said, Hey, we should just go
Speaker 3: and drop a giant in nuk on, North Korea, I
Speaker 3: imagine that's something that you would see the mainstream media
Speaker 3: absolutely jumping on top of But it does seem like
Speaker 3: that kind of a comment, is hey, part of the
Speaker 3: course from Washington, even if it sounds absurd.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's not even the first member of Congress
Speaker 1: to suggest such a thing like that's what's so crazy
Speaker 1: is or you know, a member of official in Israel
Speaker 1: they've also, some of them have suggested nuking Gaza, and
Speaker 1: it just sort of goes by as a blip. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: I saw pictures this morning of college student protesters who
Speaker 1: are being charged with felonies under some like nineteen fifties
Speaker 1: era rule against masking that was put in place to
Speaker 1: combat the KKKA. They're being charged with felonies for protesting
Speaker 1: and you know, rally chants that people don't like, and
Speaker 1: you've got a sitting senator who had actual power suggesting
Speaker 1: you nuke the gods of Strip and it's it's barely
Speaker 1: a blip.
Speaker 4: You barely hear about it.
Speaker 3: Yes, someone who's considered a statesman by people his own.
Speaker 4: Right, great point. That's such a great point.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask you about another development in terms
Speaker 1: of the Biden administration and their policy, which is, while
Speaker 1: you have, and Biden has always operated this way where
Speaker 1: he has a very small group of advisors and they're
Speaker 1: basically the only ones that count, and every any newcomers,
Speaker 1: anyone from the outside's very difficult to break through. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's been in Washington for what freaking fifty years and
Speaker 1: very locked into his ways. Not to mention, it seems
Speaker 1: like he personally has a deep ideological commitment to the
Speaker 1: Israeli cause, grounded on you know, a visit he had
Speaker 1: with Gold in my Ear in the seventies or whatever.
Speaker 1: But it's not uniform across the Biden administration. There are
Speaker 1: some individuals who, especially in positions in the State Department,
Speaker 1: who really do dissent from this jur and that's been
Speaker 1: manifested in a number of ways. You've had some of these,
Speaker 1: like anonymous letters of Biden staffers or Kamala Harris staffers
Speaker 1: will say we're very upset about this, but very anonymous.
Speaker 1: You've had a few different resignations, and this is the
Speaker 1: latest one, which I think is quite extraordinary and quite powerful.
Speaker 1: We can put this up on the screen. The letter
Speaker 1: that was written. This was from sorry, just pause this
Speaker 1: for a second. This is from US Army major Harrison Man,
Speaker 1: and part of what he said is that he felt
Speaker 1: so alone going about business his business. He was disturbed
Speaker 1: by the footage from Gaza. But he talks about how
Speaker 1: he had, you know, all of this sort of rationalizations
Speaker 1: of well, if it wasn't me, someone else would be
Speaker 1: doing this job, and my work here doesn't really matter
Speaker 1: that much anyway. But he says, I now realize the obvious.
Speaker 1: If I was afraid to voice my concerns, you were too.
Speaker 1: I've always known what kind of people you are, and
Speaker 1: I should have had more faith in this team. So
Speaker 1: I am deliberate not sending this to the entire agency.
Speaker 1: I'm writing to people I know who might value hearing
Speaker 1: the reasons I chose to walk away. He also talks
Speaker 1: about how, as someone who is Jewish and was raised Jewish,
Speaker 1: how this moral imperative of never again and the inadequacy
Speaker 1: of just following orders was really impressed upon him from
Speaker 1: a young age, and so because of those moral conscious reasons,
Speaker 1: he resigned from the Biden administration. You know, do you
Speaker 1: have a first of all, just react to this letter
Speaker 1: in this resignation, and do you have a sense of
Speaker 1: how widespread this dissent from the Biden administration. Top line
Speaker 1: policy is among sort of rank and file individuals such
Speaker 1: as this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think what's really remarkable about this letter, and
Speaker 3: even thinking about Aaron Bushnell, who you know, did the
Speaker 3: self immolation in front of the Israeli embassy. These are
Speaker 3: not people who come from the traditional anti war constituencies.
Speaker 3: These are not activists. These are people who signed up
Speaker 3: for the US military, many of them in the wake
Speaker 3: of what we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you know,
Speaker 3: they had convictions that they believed in what the military
Speaker 3: was doing, they believed in the United States government. And
Speaker 3: it says something to me that what they saw in Gaza,
Speaker 3: what they saw as a lack of ability to dissent,
Speaker 3: which inside of government usually you have traditional dissent channels.
Speaker 3: They didn't feel that they were able to properly dissent
Speaker 3: to the point that they went back on what they
Speaker 3: believed in and they decided to resign. In Aaron's case,
Speaker 3: very sadly, he committed a self immolation. And I've heard
Speaker 3: that from State Department officials too. I spoke with one
Speaker 3: State Department official in January. He had worked on a
Speaker 3: RACK policy. He had worked on Ukraine policy. This is
Speaker 3: not someone who had an issue necessarily with the fact
Speaker 3: that the United States arms different nations. He said that
Speaker 3: in arms transfer as you start the goal of how
Speaker 3: how do you not do harm? But with how do
Speaker 3: you do harm reduction? He didn't necessarily debate the idea
Speaker 3: that you would be sending weapons. But what he saw
Speaker 3: happening with Israel was this rapid acceleration of getting weapons
Speaker 3: over there, the complete squashing of descent. And he told
Speaker 3: me that he felt the debate was stifled and that
Speaker 3: similarly to Man, he was not able to adequately speak
Speaker 3: out against these things. And these are the people who
Speaker 3: are going public. But when I spoke with that official
Speaker 3: in January, he said there were many many more people
Speaker 3: who privately said I completely agree with you. And when
Speaker 3: I spoke with Uckbart, he said something similarly to me.
Speaker 3: And so I do think that this is a very
Speaker 3: widespread problem within the State Department, especially for people who
Speaker 3: feel that in areas they've traditionally been able to provide descent.
Speaker 3: In this policy, there are communications and there are directives
Speaker 3: coming down from the top. The State Department officials said
Speaker 3: it was coming from White House, in top level State Department,
Speaker 3: Blincoln Sullivan McGirk, and they were not able to push
Speaker 3: back on this. They weren't even able to debate the
Speaker 3: righteousness of this policy, much less the speed of which
Speaker 3: things were happening. So I do think that what we're
Speaker 3: seeing is very remarkable within the United States government. For
Speaker 3: government officials, it takes a lot to resign, particularly in
Speaker 3: the case of the person we saw a couple of
Speaker 3: weeks ago, eighteen years at the State Department, Josh Paul,
Speaker 3: more than a decade at the State Department. These people
Speaker 3: built entire careers and they left, And that is just
Speaker 3: absolutely astounding to me in the way this administration is
Speaker 3: carrying this out.
Speaker 1: Arjenne, what's your sense of whether there is a realization
Speaker 1: that the quote unquote bear Hug strategy has utterly and
Speaker 1: completely failed, And what's your sense of whether there is
Speaker 1: an actual policy shift going on right now with the
Speaker 1: Biden administration versus a rhetorical one. Of course, I'm referring
Speaker 1: to the fact that he said, listen, if they do
Speaker 1: a quote unquote major invasion of RAFA, we're going to
Speaker 1: cut off some weapons shipments. But they have so are
Speaker 1: deemed what is the invasion that has already happened in
Speaker 1: Rava doesn't cross that red line for whatever reason. So
Speaker 1: it really does leave it open to interpretation whether this
Speaker 1: is an actual shift or whether it's an attempt to
Speaker 1: sort of pacify a left and young cohort in the
Speaker 1: party that is outraged over the atrocities that they see
Speaker 1: being committed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think in terms of this being a successful policy,
Speaker 3: it's not been a successful policy, and it is something
Speaker 3: that for Biden has politically failed for him, he has
Speaker 3: given a lot of his administration's re election chances to
Speaker 3: as you said, bear hugging Benjamin Netanyahu. Net Yahoo is
Speaker 3: quickly becoming isolated on the world stage, Akamar told me.
Speaker 3: Foreign allies are consistently saying to Tony blink In, the
Speaker 3: Secretary of State, why are you doing this? Why are
Speaker 3: you allowing this to continue? You have control over the situation.
Speaker 3: And there is a moment that I saw where India's
Speaker 3: Foreign minister actually said during a speech that he felt
Speaker 3: that the Palestinians had been denied sovereign for a homeland,
Speaker 3: and India under Mody had been and has been one
Speaker 3: of the strongest allies of Netanyahu. Mody and net Yaho
Speaker 3: are very close with each other. And that's again another
Speaker 3: remarkable statement to show that even a very strong ally
Speaker 3: who believes in this idea of what Israel is trying
Speaker 3: to do create this religious dominant state, they feel the
Speaker 3: need to have to speak out and tell their allies
Speaker 3: in their region that, look, we don't agree necessarily with
Speaker 3: all of these full objectives. As far as is this
Speaker 3: something that is really a change, I'm skeptical of that,
Speaker 3: to be honest, Crystal, this is a pause on a
Speaker 3: certain package of bombs. It feels a little bit mealy mouthed.
Speaker 3: And you know, I haven't seen Biden give a really
Speaker 3: forceful statement. He's given very taciturn comments saying I told
Speaker 3: them that if they went into Rafa, we would not
Speaker 3: provide these weapons. We've told them, We've told them. There's
Speaker 3: leaks to you know. Peter Baker the New York Times
Speaker 3: that he had a tough conversation with net Nyahu. He
Speaker 3: privately told I'm considering changing my mind. Yeah, that is
Speaker 3: not a strong change of heart to me. I think
Speaker 3: a real change of heart would be a reconsideration of
Speaker 3: the historic policy of arming Israel, and also a reconsideration
Speaker 3: of whether the United States should be supporting Israel in
Speaker 3: no matter what kind of policy. That I have not
Speaker 3: seen a change of heart. And Josh Paul, who was
Speaker 3: one of the first people to resign from the State Department,
Speaker 3: he said something similar. He said it was a good sign,
Speaker 3: but it doesn't portend a long term shift.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think that's all very well, said Arjine. Great to
Speaker 1: talk to you. Congrats again, guys. I can't recommend lever
Speaker 1: Time enough. It really is an excellent product. You'll learn
Speaker 1: a lot from it, and you guys have tackled a
Speaker 1: lot of really important and interesting topics, including airlines which
Speaker 1: lever News had a big hand in forcing some changes through,
Speaker 1: including the oil price fixing, which we covered here as
Speaker 1: well with Matt Stoler. So definitely check out the podcast guys,
Speaker 1: and great to meet you arjin Man.
Speaker 3: Great to meet you guys.
Speaker 2: Thank you, it's our pleasure all right. Thank you so
Speaker 2: much for watching the Counterpoints. Have a great show for
Speaker 2: everybody tomorrow and we will see you all later.