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: We're going to get to you in a minute. Biden's
Speaker 1: big speech and this ceasefire proposal that maybe his, maybe Israel's,
Speaker 1: maybe Jimas's. We'll get to all of that with our
Speaker 1: guests in a minute. But we have some other major
Speaker 1: breaking news with regard to Israel and Joe Biden. Let's
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. So Israeli Prime Minister
Speaker 1: Benjamin NETANYAHUO, fresh off of likely facing international criminal court
Speaker 1: ARRUSS warrants, has now officially been invited to deliver and
Speaker 1: address to Congress.
Speaker 4: We can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: All four congressional leaders signed off on this invitation. After
Speaker 1: weeks of delay, the letter US went out, So Sager,
Speaker 1: thanks to Mike Johnson, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, and to
Speaker 1: King Jeffries, true bipartisan uniparty coming together, all of them
Speaker 1: to invite a man who continues to carpet bomb babies
Speaker 1: and centerate children inside of tents where they've been discored.
Speaker 2: What is so foolish about this is I do not
Speaker 2: understand how these reel establishment and how the US Congress
Speaker 2: did not learn its lesson from twenty fifteen that moment.
Speaker 2: I mean, and you'll definitely know this, Crystal, back during
Speaker 2: the Iran Deal. At that time, the consensus around Israel
Speaker 2: was probably ten times more ironclad than it is today.
Speaker 2: And look, I know what everybody thinks, but that means
Speaker 2: you really can't imagine what it was like back then.
Speaker 2: What broke open any ability to even criticize an Israeli
Speaker 2: prime minister was the flagrant violation of international norms of
Speaker 2: an Israeli prime minister coming to the United States at
Speaker 2: the behest of the opposition party to openly speak against
Speaker 2: the international priority and the foreign policy priority of the
Speaker 2: President of the United States, who at that time was
Speaker 2: Barack Obama. That little little thing cracked open the ability
Speaker 2: to criticize Apak, which mobilized against the Iran Deal bob
Speaker 2: Prime Minister Netanyahu and actually gave Democrats the ability to
Speaker 2: back their president Barack Obama against the leader Netanyahu. And
Speaker 2: from that very very day, the Israeli Party or the
Speaker 2: Israeli government has basically aligned itself fully with the Republican Party,
Speaker 2: where the Republican Party will always one hundred percent go
Speaker 2: to bat for Israel. Mount Don't get me wrong, It's
Speaker 2: not like the Democratic Party of today has not been
Speaker 2: also going along with it. But as you and I know,
Speaker 2: with the base where they are and the younger voters
Speaker 2: on top of enough of you know, these people don't
Speaker 2: get enough attention. It's not just the ilhan Omars of
Speaker 2: the world. There's a lot Rokan, I mean, many others.
Speaker 4: And is risking his seat market taking hands.
Speaker 2: You know, these are not household names. But who are
Speaker 2: out there being like listen, I'm not voting for this anymore.
Speaker 2: That is still extraordinary, never would have happened, or even
Speaker 2: like a Chris van Hall, right, a Chris van Holl again,
Speaker 2: he's continued to vote for it.
Speaker 5: But the fact that he even talks differently about with Warren,
Speaker 5: it's like standard issue Democrat, you know, who's like close
Speaker 5: to leadership that will even talk critically of Israel, speak
Speaker 5: critically of the Biden.
Speaker 1: Administration's approach to Israel. It is different than it was
Speaker 1: even just a few years ago. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: remarkable to me because again this goes back to where
Speaker 1: we were talking about the Ukraine segment, all the talk
Speaker 1: about human rights, international law, Putin's a war crimne, all.
Speaker 4: Of this stuff.
Speaker 1: Bibing at Yaho is facing a West Warren's from the
Speaker 1: ICC for war crimes. The ICJ has just on the
Speaker 1: heels of them saying or after they said, this is
Speaker 1: like applausibly a genocide and we're going to investigate. Now
Speaker 1: they've issued an injunction saying you have to stop this
Speaker 1: invasion of Raffa. They did not stop the invasion of Raffa.
Speaker 1: Not only that Biden himself there was a red line
Speaker 1: with regard to invasion of Rafa that they completely blue pass,
Speaker 1: and there's a full on invasion, completely humiliating him and
Speaker 1: once again exposing his total weakness. You have Bibi's own
Speaker 1: government falling apart. Benny Gantz and Yoev Golant, who are
Speaker 1: the other two ministers in the war cabinet. So it's
Speaker 1: bb Yoev Glant and Benny Gantz. So those two are
Speaker 1: basically ready to quit the war cabinet. The country is
Speaker 1: in chaos with you know, mass protests and huge divisions
Speaker 1: over what to do going forward, just with regard to
Speaker 1: the hostages. They you know, overwhelmingly support the extent and
Speaker 1: the horror of these wars. The society does. But nevertheless,
Speaker 1: he's on the rocks. You had Chuck Schumer previously, Mry
Speaker 1: gave him holding. He needs to go calling for regime change.
Speaker 4: What happened to that? What happened to that?
Speaker 1: And now's the moment when you're going to rescue this
Speaker 1: guy with this huge honor and have him come and
Speaker 1: address Congress like it's just grotesque. It's honestly just grotesque
Speaker 1: for them to do this at this moment. And and
Speaker 1: on top of this, we have additional Biden officials who
Speaker 1: continue to resign over just unconscionable situations that they are
Speaker 1: being put in. So this is Alex Smith. He was
Speaker 1: interviewed over on Democracy Now. He's a former contractor for USAID.
Speaker 1: He says he was pushed out of USAID Samantha Power,
Speaker 1: you know, big humanitarian, etc. So I wrote a whole
Speaker 1: book about genocide. After he made a presentation on maternal
Speaker 1: and child health impacts of the Israeli war on Gaza,
Speaker 1: they told him, you can either resign or get fired.
Speaker 1: How dare you write a report about maternal and child
Speaker 1: health impacts of the war on Gaza. He decided to resign.
Speaker 1: Here is what he had to say to democracy Now.
Speaker 6: It was told to remove words like Palestine, Palestinians, Israel,
Speaker 6: Gaza border, and several others, and then there was a
Speaker 6: column of preferred language. I went along with that. I
Speaker 6: removed the word Palestine from the organization name UNFPA Palistine
Speaker 6: because that was objected to. I removed a map that
Speaker 6: UNOCHE provided that was acknowledged as an accurate map, but
Speaker 6: that couldn't be included because it showed the borders and
Speaker 6: the sea borders of Gaza. Also on that Monday, I
Speaker 6: was told this is a very sensitive issue because an
Speaker 6: hour before we were having our chat, the ICC request
Speaker 6: for an indictment came down from the prosecutor, and so
Speaker 6: I was told that it's a sensitive issue because of that.
Speaker 6: I mentioned that I was a legal fellow at the
Speaker 6: ICC back when I was in law school that I
Speaker 6: had worked on specifically starvation as a weapon of war,
Speaker 6: and that was an area of interest of mine, and
Speaker 6: that I thought it would be useful to talk about
Speaker 6: international humanitarian law frameworks as they apply to every country,
Speaker 6: Gaza included. And I think that set off alarm bells.
Speaker 6: There were many more layers of editing, and then on Tuesday,
Speaker 6: I was told that the presentation was canceled. Before I
Speaker 6: was told the presentation was deleted from the conference.
Speaker 7: Website, Congress Member Castro said, so there's famine already occurring there.
Speaker 7: Samantha Power said yes. Castro then asked Power how many
Speaker 7: children were at risk of dying in the coming weeks
Speaker 7: due to famine. She said, in northern Gaza, the rate
Speaker 7: of malnutrition prior to October seventh was almost zero. It's
Speaker 7: now one in three, one in three kids. So was
Speaker 7: she aware of the demand that was made of you
Speaker 7: to change all the language.
Speaker 6: I don't know. I don't know who in leadership was
Speaker 6: told about the presentation. I know that there was a
Speaker 6: lot of chatter that I wasn't privy to about my
Speaker 6: presentation in the days leading up to it, But I
Speaker 6: don't know if she has seen the presentation slides or
Speaker 6: my resignation letter.
Speaker 1: So, in addition, we covered last week a State Department
Speaker 1: official named Stacy Gilbert who also had resigned. We're getting
Speaker 1: more details over the specifics of her resignation.
Speaker 4: Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So she'd sent an email to her colleagues explaining she
Speaker 1: was leaving because of an official finding by the department
Speaker 1: she worked in that Israel was not deliberately obstructing the
Speaker 1: flow of food or other aid in the Gaza, according
Speaker 1: to the posts. She took issue in particular with the
Speaker 1: former State Department report to Commerce on mid tenth noting
Speaker 1: Israel to not fully cooperate in the first months of
Speaker 1: the Gaza war, but it had significantly increased humanitarian access
Speaker 1: more recently, in fact, after a spike in humanitarian deliveries
Speaker 1: in late April and early May, they have fallen to
Speaker 1: near zero in the weeks since. So she's effectively blowing
Speaker 1: the whistle at this point, saying this report was a croc.
Speaker 1: They're just lying in this report, and it's an untenable
Speaker 1: situation for me as a professional, and that is why
Speaker 1: she decided to resign. So you have in both instances
Speaker 1: officials resigning over the suppression of accurate information about what
Speaker 1: Israel is doing with regards to Gaza.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's important.
Speaker 2: I mean, really, what we're watching is like the disintegration
Speaker 2: of a lot of the humanitarian people who work in
Speaker 2: the Biden administration at the actual bureaucratic level.
Speaker 3: Because these people I've actually.
Speaker 8: Met many of them.
Speaker 2: I kind of went to school with a lot of
Speaker 2: these Yeah, these types, they really believe in that mission.
Speaker 2: Kind of what we talked previously about with respect to Ukraine.
Speaker 2: They're probably the most Slava Ukraine people out there, Like
Speaker 2: this is horrible, this is a legal invasion. They're big,
Speaker 2: like in an international law respectors, you know, and all
Speaker 2: of that. And so for them to watch this kind
Speaker 2: of revert right back to real politic almost in a way,
Speaker 2: or not even really, but at least in terms of
Speaker 2: the way the Biden administration justifies the Israeli actions and goasa.
Speaker 3: That's a bridge too far from them.
Speaker 2: I mean, that violates thirty years really of their understanding
Speaker 2: of the international system Samantha Power is probably the best example.
Speaker 2: Now let me be clear, I think her ideology is
Speaker 2: deeply destructive and wrong, but she wrote the entire book
Speaker 2: to justify a doctrine called responsibility to Protect, which basically
Speaker 2: says that the United States, anywhere where humanitarian law as
Speaker 2: we understand it is being violated, should use the force
Speaker 2: of the US military and of the US Empire to
Speaker 2: work directly to make that happen, regardless of the security
Speaker 2: real politic cost. Now I deeply, deeply disagree with that,
Speaker 2: but that ideology, and she herself is really what rules.
Speaker 2: What I would say is the international relations student and
Speaker 2: others who kind of came up in that era like
Speaker 2: I did and ended up working at a place like
Speaker 2: USAID or for the Biden campaigner anywhere else.
Speaker 3: So for them, I mean, I get it because I
Speaker 3: literally know these people. That's why they can't stomach what's
Speaker 3: happening right now.
Speaker 1: The problem with her doctrine is it can be used
Speaker 1: far too easily, and is used far too easily to
Speaker 1: just engage in interventions or wherever the hell of the
Speaker 1: US feels like it. And you know, use, you know,
Speaker 1: these liberal humanitarian justifications for just going in and meddling
Speaker 1: with other people countries. So and you know, again not
Speaker 1: because of the humanitarian peace, but because of our own
Speaker 1: interest as perceived by the elites.
Speaker 4: In this country. But she wrote a book.
Speaker 1: She got a Pulitzer for this thing problem from How
Speaker 1: America and the Age of Genocide, talking all about, you know,
Speaker 1: why the problem of genocide persists, and how America becomes
Speaker 1: complicit and ignores these problems, et cetera, et cetera. Now
Speaker 1: here you are here, you are so pressing a report
Speaker 1: on the horrors being inflicted on women, mothers and children
Speaker 1: in Gaza. So yeah, anyone with like a shred of
Speaker 1: self respect, it just it becomes a bridge too far.
Speaker 1: It's one thing probably if the report's okay, they're being
Speaker 1: massaged as that USAID contractor was talking about.
Speaker 4: Oh you know, some of the language was changed.
Speaker 1: I could kind of like live with that, but it
Speaker 1: gets to a point where it's like, no, now, this
Speaker 1: just doesn't reflect reality, Like you're just lying and it's
Speaker 1: blatant and it's brazen. Not everyone has completely lost their
Speaker 1: soul in the way of like Matthew Miller. I don't
Speaker 1: think John Kirby ever had one. You know, the dude
Speaker 1: that people outrageously say looks like you whatever his name is.
Speaker 2: These other states that is to use to use their
Speaker 2: term that is a blood libel right against me and
Speaker 2: against our people. He's not even from the same region
Speaker 2: of India, the right, We don't all look the same.
Speaker 2: That's like saying a dude from West Virginia is the
Speaker 2: same as some guy from Los Angeles, right, It ain't
Speaker 2: the same folks, all.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, anyway, the biggest problem with him is that, like,
Speaker 1: I mean, they'll just you see these increasingly preposterous situations
Speaker 1: and things that they try to defend, which are I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's just so brazen that you even have what's
Speaker 1: his name, Ed O'Keeffe, who's like, how many more charred corpses?
Speaker 1: Like that's how hard even the mainstream press is going
Speaker 1: at this point, because they're just they're just sick of
Speaker 1: being lied to and propagandized on a daily basis, at
Speaker 1: least those of them who even have a shred of
Speaker 1: a shred of self respect and integrity. So in any case,
Speaker 1: noteworthy that you continue to have this letter of resignations,
Speaker 1: and also very noteworthy what they have to say about
Speaker 1: the direct lies and suppression of accurate information coming out of.
Speaker 4: The Godza Strip.
Speaker 1: Let's go ahead and get to this huge news with
Speaker 1: regard to Joe Biden. So this was a crazy situation.
Speaker 1: We're going to have omar on in just a minute
Speaker 1: to help us make sense of it. So last week,
Speaker 1: pretty soon after the whole Trump verdict came out, we
Speaker 1: get this notice that Biden is going to give a
Speaker 1: major address on them to least and on Israel Palestine,
Speaker 1: which was weird because it's like, you know, you probably
Speaker 1: want to let the Trump news like this is good
Speaker 1: for you. You probably want to let that settle. But okay,
Speaker 1: let's see what you have to say. So he comes
Speaker 1: out and he announces what he describes as a ceasefire
Speaker 1: proposal that he makes a big show of saying came
Speaker 1: from the Israelis. Now, there were few things that were
Speaker 1: weird about this. First of all, it sounded very much
Speaker 1: like actually a proposal that came from Hamas not that
Speaker 1: long ago, that Hamas had agreed to and the Israelis rejected.
Speaker 1: In addition, in spite of the fact that he claims
Speaker 1: this came from the Israelis, he also spent a lot
Speaker 1: of time in the speech trying to persuade the Israelis
Speaker 1: that they should accept the deal that they purportedly.
Speaker 4: Had themselves developed.
Speaker 1: But then nevertheless goes on to you know, put the
Speaker 1: onus on Hamas and say, you know it's this is
Speaker 1: on you, and you're the ones who have to accept
Speaker 1: this deal. So there's a lot that was strange and
Speaker 1: confusing going on here. The timing of it was also interesting,
Speaker 1: coming on Friday with the Sabbath starting, knowing that there
Speaker 1: was going to be no ability for the Israeli government
Speaker 1: to react for a full day, so that was noteworthy
Speaker 1: as well. In any case, let's take a listen to
Speaker 1: a little bit of what Joe Biden had to say,
Speaker 1: and then we can tell you about the reaction and
Speaker 1: what the hell is going on here.
Speaker 4: Take a listen.
Speaker 9: After intensive diplomacy carried up by my team, my many
Speaker 9: conversations leaders of Israel cutter in Egypt and other Middle
Speaker 9: Eastern countries, Israel has now offered Israel is offered a
Speaker 9: confrehensive new proposal. It's a roadmap to an endurance, cease
Speaker 9: fire and the release of all hostages. Staces work relentlessly
Speaker 9: to support Israeli security, to get humanitarian supplies in the Gaza.
Speaker 9: You get a ceasefire and a hostage deal to bring
Speaker 9: this war to an end. Yesterday, With this new initiative,
Speaker 9: we've taken an important step in that direction, and I
Speaker 9: want in love with you today as to where we
Speaker 9: are and what might be possible. But I need your help.
Speaker 9: Everyone who wants peace now must raise their voices. Let
Speaker 9: the leaders know they should take this deal, work to
Speaker 9: make it real, make it lasting, and forge a better
Speaker 9: future out of the tragic terror attack and war. It's
Speaker 9: time to begin this new stage. But the hostage them home,
Speaker 9: for Israel to be secure, the suffering to stop. It's
Speaker 9: time for this war to end.
Speaker 1: Time for this war to end. All right, let's put
Speaker 1: the details of this proposal up on the screen. Some
Speaker 1: things are left, I think intentionally vague, but this is
Speaker 1: the framework that the White House tweeted out along with
Speaker 1: texts that said Israel has now offered again putting this
Speaker 1: on Israel, a roadmap to an enduring ceasefire and the
Speaker 1: release of all the hostages. Yesterday this proposal was transmitted
Speaker 1: to katarb to Hamas. Today I want to lay on
Speaker 1: its terms of the world. So this is a three
Speaker 1: phase deal. It's similar to what we has been floated
Speaker 1: and bandied amount for a while. But you've gotten phase one,
Speaker 1: a complete ceasefire whichra all of Israeli forces from populated
Speaker 1: areas in Gaza, release of some hostages, and some remains
Speaker 1: of hostages. Palestinian civilians can return to their homes in Gaza.
Speaker 1: That has been a key demand from the hamaside, and
Speaker 1: a surge and humanitarian aid in Phase two, which according
Speaker 1: to Biden, and this is actually critical. Phase one would
Speaker 1: continue with the complete ceasefire until the Phase two details
Speaker 1: could all be worked out. That was previously a major
Speaker 1: sticking point on the Israeli side. Okay, Phase too permanent
Speaker 1: and to hostilities exchange for the release of remaining living hostages.
Speaker 1: Israeli forces withdraw from Gaza, and in phase three you
Speaker 1: have major reconstruction plans. This is quote unquote day after
Speaker 1: final remains of hostages are returned to their families. We
Speaker 1: have some reaction from all sides to this. Again proposal
Speaker 1: that supposedly came from the Israelis. Let's put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen from bb Net and yaho. He says
Speaker 1: Israel's conditions for ending the war have not changed. The
Speaker 1: destruction from maasa's military and governing capabilities, the freeing of
Speaker 1: all hostages, and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a
Speaker 1: threat to Israel. Israel will continue to insist these conditions
Speaker 1: are met before permanent ceasefire is put in place. The
Speaker 1: notion that Israel will agree to a permanent ceasefire before
Speaker 1: these conditions are fulfilled is a non starter.
Speaker 4: A non starter.
Speaker 1: Now, he doesn't definitively say no to this proposal, but
Speaker 1: the language seems to suggest there was another statement from
Speaker 1: the israelis Let's put this up on the screen. This
Speaker 1: is a statement from the Prime Minister's office, again from Bibi.
Speaker 1: The Government of Israel's United and its desired to return
Speaker 1: the hostages as soon as possible is working to achieve
Speaker 1: this goal. The Prime Minister authorized the negotiating team to
Speaker 1: present a proposal to that end, which would also enable
Speaker 1: Israel to continue the war until all its objectives are achieved,
Speaker 1: including the struction from US as military and governing capabilities.
Speaker 1: The actual proposal put forward by Israel, including the conditional
Speaker 1: transition from one phase to the next, allows Israel to
Speaker 1: uphold those principles so that one is a little more
Speaker 1: ambiguous in terms of the orientation. Of course, the far
Speaker 1: right ministers Ben Gaveran's Mochritz immediately freaked out, we could
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. They told nan Yaho
Speaker 1: that if this proposal is implemented, they will leave the coalition,
Speaker 1: they will top the government if he goes through with this.
Speaker 1: And you know, Socager, I'm interested to get your reaction meanwhile,
Speaker 1: and we'll get to this in a minute. Hamas actually
Speaker 1: responded positively said they're interested in engaging with this. So
Speaker 1: I'm not really sure what's going on here, I think so.
Speaker 1: I think the vagueness of what Biden put forward is
Speaker 1: a key piece here. The critical sticking point between the
Speaker 1: Israelis and Hamas has always been Hamas wants a complete
Speaker 1: end to the war and the Israelis don't, at least
Speaker 1: not at this point. I mean, we just had an
Speaker 1: Israeli minister come out and say this is going to
Speaker 1: go on till the end of the year, like we're
Speaker 1: nowhere close to being finished.
Speaker 2: Year.
Speaker 1: You've had Bibe saying consistently like we're nowhere close to done,
Speaker 1: and no indication that he's ready to.
Speaker 4: Wrap this war up whatsoever.
Speaker 1: So there are a lot of things pointing in conflicting directions.
Speaker 1: I think what happened is that the Israelis did put
Speaker 1: forward something that was colorably close to this, at least
Speaker 1: under duress from Biden and within the war cabinet from
Speaker 1: Yoev Galant and Benny Gantz. Biden sort of seized on
Speaker 1: that in what would be a clever maneuver to put
Speaker 1: pressure on the Israelis if it was combined, yes, with
Speaker 1: any willingness to withhold weapons and actually use any sort
Speaker 1: of leverage.
Speaker 4: To accomplish this goal.
Speaker 1: But since that is not being put on the table whatsoever,
Speaker 1: it's probably just another opportunity for Biden humiliation.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. I think you're correct.
Speaker 2: My general read is, like you said, there was some
Speaker 2: sort of handshake agreement or understanding which the Israeli government
Speaker 2: had kind of agreed to in principle.
Speaker 3: Biden's like, look, we're going to roll with this.
Speaker 2: We're just going to I mean, it's a clever move,
Speaker 2: you know, that people have done in the past, Akin
Speaker 2: to during the Cuban missile crisis.
Speaker 3: Khruschet says, it's two notes.
Speaker 2: We only respond to the first one, and we just
Speaker 2: decided that the second one never mattered, except very critically
Speaker 2: in this case, is that all political incentives in that
Speaker 2: country are against Bbe actually agreeing to this under pressure,
Speaker 2: and there was no commeserate actual threat like in that
Speaker 2: situation of ever doing anything. I only don't know really
Speaker 2: what to make of this because all the reporting currently
Speaker 2: indicates that the Israeli government did agree at least to
Speaker 2: some of this in principle, but they don't have any
Speaker 2: real Okay, let's separate a couple of things. There's actual
Speaker 2: cease fire deal, and there's also a lot of what
Speaker 2: Biden said, as I understand it is the very first
Speaker 2: time that he's ever said, but the war has to
Speaker 2: end and not a temporary ceasefire number one, number two,
Speaker 2: and let's not forget about this too. He is saying,
Speaker 2: at least this is his opinion and presumably that of
Speaker 2: US intelligence. Hamas has been degraded to the point where
Speaker 2: there will no longer be in October seventh, akaa, the
Speaker 2: actual you know, the actual war outlay from the beginning,
Speaker 2: the goal of war has been achieved. And third, what
Speaker 2: he's really committing to is not quote unquote the total
Speaker 2: destruction of Hamas. He is effectively admitting that US policy
Speaker 2: right now is that, yeah, Hamas terrorists have been degraded,
Speaker 2: but working with these people in some political fashion for
Speaker 2: the future day after Gaza is basically non ago.
Speaker 3: All of that.
Speaker 2: I agree with, actually, but you know, do these Raelies
Speaker 2: accept that condition? Will the American political right except that
Speaker 2: condition obviously?
Speaker 1: Know?
Speaker 3: So that's really where a lot of the.
Speaker 1: Problem comes right now, right So it reminds me of
Speaker 1: the way that the Biden administration tried to persuade Israel
Speaker 1: when it came to so you recall the whole Israel
Speaker 1: Iran exchange. Israel attacks and Iranian embassy and kill some
Speaker 1: of their high level military commanders. Iran then response, and
Speaker 1: the US tried to persuade Israel like we shot down
Speaker 1: all their stuff that they shot it. Take that as
Speaker 1: a win, like, declare victory. And that's basically what is
Speaker 1: being said here too, is I mean the subtext is
Speaker 1: your original goal of destroying him oud Like we all
Speaker 1: know that that is ridiculous, was ridiculous, has always been ridiculous.
Speaker 4: So just frame what you've done as a win.
Speaker 1: Just we like, eh, they're degraded and this many battalions
Speaker 1: taken down this much of the tunnel system, and we
Speaker 1: promised they can't do another October seventh whatever, Like, take
Speaker 1: that as the win and wrap this thing up again.
Speaker 1: Since there's no willingness to actually or US power in
Speaker 1: this regard, it's only war words.
Speaker 4: How much does it mean? Not a whole lot.
Speaker 1: But to your point Zager about we have gotten confirmation
Speaker 1: from a number of sources that the Israelis did somewhat
Speaker 1: agree to some facets of this or some semblance of
Speaker 1: what Biden put for We could put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. You had a senior Israeli official say the quote,
Speaker 1: the plan presented by Biden is indeed the offer made
Speaker 1: by the War cabinet. Again, the war cabinet is bibing
Speaker 1: at Yahoo. You have Galant and Benny Gantz through the
Speaker 1: mediators to Hamas. However, there is one main difference between
Speaker 1: the President's speech and the actual offer made by Israel.
Speaker 1: Quote Israel has never agreed that negotiations between Stage one
Speaker 1: and Stage two can continue indefinitely and during that time
Speaker 1: the cease fire last. This might mean Hamas can keep
Speaker 1: the hostages that were not freedom continue to negotiate forever,
Speaker 1: thus achieving the end of the war, will still holding
Speaker 1: onto the hostages. The attached quote from the President's speech
Speaker 1: is what they are referring to. But again the main
Speaker 1: point is that they confirm it's an Israeli proposal.
Speaker 4: This is a key part though.
Speaker 1: Because Okay, if you recall, in Phase one, there is
Speaker 1: a complete ceasefire and there's an exchange of a significant
Speaker 1: number of the hostages and the hostage remains, So it
Speaker 1: could be that the Israelis in floating something approximating this.
Speaker 1: We're thinking they could do another like temporary ceasefire, sort
Speaker 1: of like what was done early in the war, and
Speaker 1: get a lot of their hostages back and claim that
Speaker 1: as a victory and then go back to the war
Speaker 1: and tie up the negotiations. Because what they're saying here
Speaker 1: this senior is really official is no, no, no. We
Speaker 1: never agree that that Phase one would last indefinitely with
Speaker 1: the ceasefire until we work out Phase two. We want
Speaker 1: to be able to go back to shooting and bombing
Speaker 1: if we can't work out the details of Phase two.
Speaker 1: So that may have been the thinking is we'll put
Speaker 1: forward what appears to be a decent faith like Phase
Speaker 1: three ceasefire, total ceasefire proposal to play. Kate Hamasu's demand
Speaker 1: is that this thing ends completely with no intention of
Speaker 1: really ever going ba on Phase one. That's kind of
Speaker 1: what I read as one possibility into this. As I
Speaker 1: mentioned before, I let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: From the Hamas side, they say they positively view the
Speaker 1: Gaza seasfowl. Read this specific language quote. Hamas confirms its
Speaker 1: readiness to deal positively in a constructive manner with any
Speaker 1: proposal that is based on the permanent ceasefire and the
Speaker 1: full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza strip, the
Speaker 1: reconstruction of gods, the return of the displace to their places,
Speaker 1: along with the fulfillment of a genuine prisoner swap deal
Speaker 1: if the occupation clearly announces commitment to such deal. So
Speaker 1: that's the HMAS side of things. We'll see how they
Speaker 1: react to the specifics in this proposal. But Soger, that's
Speaker 1: kind of.
Speaker 3: Where we are.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think that's a good place to bring in our guest,
Speaker 2: Omar Badar, he's standing by.
Speaker 3: Let's get to it.
Speaker 4: All right, guys.
Speaker 1: Very happy to be joined in studio today by Omar Badar.
Speaker 1: He is a Palestinian American political analyst who has been
Speaker 1: just such a great resource on all of these things.
Speaker 4: So great to see you, Omar, Thank you so much.
Speaker 8: Good to seeing me here.
Speaker 4: Yeah, our pleasure.
Speaker 1: So we just went through what Biden said, the ceasefire
Speaker 1: propose that is purportedly from the Israelis. But the Israelis
Speaker 1: aren't so sure that they're in love with this thing
Speaker 1: at this point. I mean, what did you make up
Speaker 1: this whole situation?
Speaker 10: Yeah, look, I think it's worth backing up just to
Speaker 10: kind of set the context for this a little bit
Speaker 10: in talking about what Israel's goals are in this process.
Speaker 8: Right, they have two stated goals.
Speaker 10: One is the defeat of Hamas militarily and the second
Speaker 10: is the forcible retrieval of hostages. And those two declared
Speaker 10: goals have been a complete and total failure on their part,
Speaker 10: There's just no question about it. There is a third,
Speaker 10: not officially declared, but very strongly implied, and it's very
Speaker 10: visible when you look at the situation on the ground,
Speaker 10: which is effectively to ethnically cleanse Gaza through this genocidal
Speaker 10: violence campaign that they are currently carrying out, and that
Speaker 10: they see as a way to actually achieve one of
Speaker 10: those goals, the defeat of Hamas in an indirect way,
Speaker 10: you know, to use the language of Benjamin Attiniaoho himself,
Speaker 10: he's talking about thinning the population in Gaza down to
Speaker 10: a minimum, and that's how he sees a path forward
Speaker 10: where he can present an image of victory when there is.
Speaker 3: No victory otherwise for Israel to be had.
Speaker 10: So cease fire proposal that Israel has put forward has
Speaker 10: been one that is predicated on Israel getting to have
Speaker 10: its cake and eat it too.
Speaker 8: So they want the temporary ceasefire.
Speaker 10: Hamass releases all the hostages and then the genocidal vinyls
Speaker 10: continue so that Israel can still get the victory that
Speaker 10: they want out of it. Obviously, that's a ridiculous proposition.
Speaker 10: It's a non starter. There is no incentive for Hamas
Speaker 10: to accept it, and it's not going to lead to
Speaker 10: anything positive. This is not anybody who starts from a
Speaker 10: functioning moral compass cannot go along with a proposal like that.
Speaker 2: Okay, and then let's get to the ceasefire proposal itself.
Speaker 2: What is the incentive here? What are the details? And
Speaker 2: then the incentive so we set it up, you know,
Speaker 2: in terms of that, But what are the details that
Speaker 2: jumped out at you as to whether this is sincere
Speaker 2: or not and what you will actually be accepted.
Speaker 10: Yeah, So in contrast to this, Israeli position, the Hamass
Speaker 10: position is we're willing to give up the hostages, but
Speaker 10: we need a permanent ceasefire. Sure, and there seems to
Speaker 10: have been an Israeli proposal at some point that has
Speaker 10: that as a staggered process, where you start with a
Speaker 10: temporary six weeks ceasefire, you do most of the hostage
Speaker 10: prisoner exchanges, and then you potentially transition into a permanencyas
Speaker 10: fire that is based on some conditions. In this case,
Speaker 10: Israel's conditions are still Israeli victory, the defeat of Hamas,
Speaker 10: the elimination of Hamas rule and Gaza. And I think
Speaker 10: what Biden did here is he ad libbed his own
Speaker 10: little detail, his own spin on the Israeli plan, which
Speaker 10: is to say, this transition from phase one to phase
Speaker 10: two is one in which the ceasefire will just continue
Speaker 10: indefinitely so long as there is talking happening, and that
Speaker 10: is suspicious for both Israel and Hamas. Interestingly, from Hamas's perspective,
Speaker 10: what they're worried about is that they do give up
Speaker 10: most of the hostages in phase one. Israel says, Okay,
Speaker 10: the negotiations are not working. Right back to the genocide
Speaker 10: and so there's no incentive for them to say as
Speaker 10: to that. From Israel's perspective, what Nataniyaho's worried about is
Speaker 10: that this, and it seems to be the more likely interpretation,
Speaker 10: is that Biden is trying to chorus Israel into a
Speaker 10: permanencyas fire by saying that between phase one and Phase two,
Speaker 10: this is an indefinite cease fire as long as some
Speaker 10: kind of talking is happening, And what there were about
Speaker 10: is that you are going to get to phase one
Speaker 10: and as long as Hamas is engaging in some kind
Speaker 10: of conversation, then the ceasefire is effectively permanent. That's where
Speaker 10: the suspicion comes from on both sides. But from Nataniejo's perspective,
Speaker 10: given the fact that when you listen to Biden's speech,
Speaker 10: it's heavily emphasized on the idea that there is no
Speaker 10: total Israeli victory, that people in Israel's cabinet are not
Speaker 10: going to like this proposal, it seems to be shifting
Speaker 10: in the direction of pressure on the Israeli government to
Speaker 10: really start letting go of the fantasy that they're going
Speaker 10: to have some sort of epic victory at.
Speaker 1: The end of this, and the most just trying to
Speaker 1: frame what they've done already is look, you've as good job, guys.
Speaker 10: And the most critical part of that is that I
Speaker 10: think this shift in Biden's approach came after the Israeli
Speaker 10: military announced just a few days before that that they
Speaker 10: anticipate the campaign and Gaza to last at least another
Speaker 10: eight months. Biden knows this is not going to work
Speaker 10: for him. The election is coming up well before that.
Speaker 10: The level of rage and anger that exists domestically within
Speaker 10: the United States about this genocidal campaign that the US
Speaker 10: is arming and funding is just you know.
Speaker 8: Really through the roof.
Speaker 10: And finally, Biden seems to be understanding that this policy
Speaker 10: of allowing Israel to behave with impunity to do whatever
Speaker 10: it wants, the car blanche approach that he has given
Speaker 10: the Israeli government is going to lead to very very
Speaker 10: negative consequences for Biden. And now he's trying to up
Speaker 10: the pressure a little bit to move things around.
Speaker 1: Because he's still thinking, like, Okay, I think I could
Speaker 1: still rescue the real act if I get this set
Speaker 1: some sort of a ceasefire and some sort of a
Speaker 1: Saudi normalization deal and that's what he's really betting on.
Speaker 1: So when you have them coming out and saying we're
Speaker 1: not wrapping this up till twenty twenty five at least, Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's seeing the writing on the wall of how foolish
Speaker 1: that is, how unlikely that is to.
Speaker 10: Happen, and frankly, the fact that it's obviously all part
Speaker 10: of a ploy that Nataniahu wants to get Trump into
Speaker 10: office so that he can have completely needs to, you know,
Speaker 10: just loosen the reins entirely for Israel to do whatever
Speaker 10: it once.
Speaker 1: And I want to emphasize what you were just saying
Speaker 1: about this Phase one phase two because it seems like
Speaker 1: a detail, but it's really important. This is what we
Speaker 1: were just talking about before you came in. A senior
Speaker 1: Israeli official said that the plan presented by Biden is
Speaker 1: indeed the offer made by the War Cabinet. However, there
Speaker 1: is one main difference. Quote Israel has never agreed that
Speaker 1: negotiations between Phase one and Phase two can continue indefinitely
Speaker 1: and during that time the ceasefire last, and that's exactly
Speaker 1: what you're pointing to here, Omar, And just to underscore
Speaker 1: for people again, it seems like what israel thought is
Speaker 1: that they could float this proposal that sort of meet
Speaker 1: some of the demands of Hamas. That way they can
Speaker 1: get a lot of their hostages back. But then if
Speaker 1: the negotiations fall apart, so we never go to phase two,
Speaker 1: we just go back to shooting. We just go back
Speaker 1: to the campaign as it was before. So we can
Speaker 1: bring this form of a victory to the Israeli public
Speaker 1: of basically like you know, continued annihilation and destruction.
Speaker 8: Yeah, a stre that's exactly right.
Speaker 10: And the first time Israel presented this proposal without this
Speaker 10: indefinite ceasefire part between phases one and two, Hamas said
Speaker 10: no to it. And is really Press reported that Nataniajo
Speaker 10: has effectively relieved that Hamas had said no to it
Speaker 10: because he's very nervous about the prospect of Israel being
Speaker 10: in a position where they're going to be worse into
Speaker 10: a permanent ceasefire as a result of that, and it's
Speaker 10: not something for personal reasons, it's not something that he wants.
Speaker 10: The second this onslaught ends is immediately the second that
Speaker 10: there is accountability for Benjamin Attaniahu, and it's you know,
Speaker 10: getting out of office is one thing, and potentially worse,
Speaker 10: this is about completely ruining his legacy, and he's just
Speaker 10: clinging with his clause, trying to salvage some image of victory,
Speaker 10: not just for his immediate political position, but for his
Speaker 10: legacy as well, and that's simply just not going to happen.
Speaker 8: There is no realistic path forward.
Speaker 10: And the question is how many more Palestinian children are
Speaker 10: going to be slaughtered in order to feed Nataniaja's fantasy?
Speaker 10: And at what point is our government going to say
Speaker 10: enough is enough?
Speaker 2: So that's the question is then and then what is
Speaker 2: the fallout from this? Is this just going to dissolve
Speaker 2: like every other cease fire? I mean already these reelis
Speaker 2: have effectively disabout it at least somewhat.
Speaker 3: The Hummus, as you said.
Speaker 2: Is kind of supportive of it, but not really in
Speaker 2: terms of the talking. And then the US just seems
Speaker 2: to be on the phone all the time. So what
Speaker 2: is the likely you know, one week from now, what
Speaker 2: do you think is going to beepp.
Speaker 10: Look, I think the only question that can answer that
Speaker 10: is to say, is Biden going to find a backbone
Speaker 10: on this or not? And so far, if the record
Speaker 10: is indicative of anything, it's that he does not have
Speaker 10: a backbone on this issue. But now that he has
Speaker 10: made this public statement, the level of humiliation for the
Speaker 10: President at this point, if Israel just knocks this proposal
Speaker 10: off and moves on carrying on doing whatever it wants,
Speaker 10: it's just deeply embarrassing, and it just speaks to something
Speaker 10: fundamentally rotten in the relationship between the United States and Israel. Frankly,
Speaker 10: where for literally decades the official American position has been
Speaker 10: oppositioned to the Israeli occupation, opposition to settlements, calling for
Speaker 10: more Palestinian and freedom movement and statehood and so on.
Speaker 8: But policy in practice is the exact opposite.
Speaker 10: It is providing Israel with unlimited military funding, unconditional diplomatic support,
Speaker 10: using its veto at the UN left and right to
Speaker 10: shield Israel from accountability. That contradiction is just so obvious
Speaker 10: and so tragic and so frankly embarrassing to the United
Speaker 10: States across the world. And something's got to give at
Speaker 10: some point. And this is where we've upped the ante
Speaker 10: to a maximum. And if Biden one more time, I mean,
Speaker 10: just at this point, it's difficult to put into words.
Speaker 1: Wow, help us understand the is rarely domestic political context,
Speaker 1: so that the war cabinet is just three people. It's
Speaker 1: Baby Nanas, you have Glant, the defense minister, it's Benny Gans.
Speaker 1: Benny Gans and you have Glan have both been making noises,
Speaker 1: issuing ultimatums, making noises about leaving this.
Speaker 4: Cabinet you had.
Speaker 1: Apparently smo Church and Ben Gevere were not read in
Speaker 1: on whatever this proposal originally was. They immediately freak out
Speaker 1: threatened to leave Bibe's coalition that could potentially topple his government.
Speaker 1: How are we of other Yeah? Or Lapie says no,
Speaker 1: we'll back you up, so the government will fall. What
Speaker 1: is what are the political calculations here for Bib at this.
Speaker 4: Point, because unfortunately only four percent.
Speaker 1: Of Jewish Israelis say that the IDEAF has gone too
Speaker 1: far in Gaza, However, there are splits and divides in society,
Speaker 1: specifically with regard to the hostages. There's been a huge
Speaker 1: protest movement that once the government to be war focused
Speaker 1: on bringing home the hostages. So how is how is
Speaker 1: his political future being determined in this moment?
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think.
Speaker 10: There's a contrast that both of these things are true.
Speaker 10: But when he talks about the threat that Smotrich and
Speaker 10: ben vere pose to his ministership if they were to quit,
Speaker 10: that government falls apart. That I think is the one
Speaker 10: that he's more invested in, because at the end of
Speaker 10: the day, the more pragmatic, when you know pragmatic in
Speaker 10: the Israeli context, we should always preface these things on benigansticide,
Speaker 10: those are competition for Natiniaho. These are not people that
Speaker 10: Nataniaho can trust we're going to have his back. Really
Speaker 10: in the long term, they might have his back long
Speaker 10: enough to actually get this deal sorted out for the
Speaker 10: sake of getting some hostages back, But in the long term,
Speaker 10: they're not really invested in Nataniaho.
Speaker 8: They see him as an opponent.
Speaker 10: They want a different a change in leadership, and so
Speaker 10: Nataniaho has no long term incentive to actually go.
Speaker 8: Along with that line.
Speaker 10: And right now you have the dynamic is set that
Speaker 10: in a way where Nataniaho is being effectively accused of
Speaker 10: really straining their relationship between Israel and the United States
Speaker 10: to a maximum. But again, just when you look at
Speaker 10: what's happening domestically in the United States is even more disheartening.
Speaker 10: The way in which cong lines up Walt Wall to
Speaker 10: effectively back Natanyaho at a time in which Natiniajo is
Speaker 10: facing all this pressure domestically even in Israel of people
Speaker 10: who want him to make that deal. Who's wanted by
Speaker 10: the ICC the prosecutor. The warrants are not officially out,
Speaker 10: but the ICC prosecutor is looking for a warrant for
Speaker 10: Nataniajo for the atrocious war crimes he has committed. And
Speaker 10: for this to be a time in which the US
Speaker 10: Congress is willing to give Nataniahu some backing, I think
Speaker 10: is incredibly trying, and.
Speaker 1: In inviting him to come speak to them talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about the Saudi normalization deal that the Biden
Speaker 1: administration seems to really be you know, putting a lot
Speaker 1: of stock in really putting a lot of sort of
Speaker 1: political chips on.
Speaker 10: That, you know, not just beyond this audio deal in particular,
Speaker 10: it's the Abraham Accords more broadly, are just such an
Speaker 10: inflated talking point that people just make so much more
Speaker 10: of them than actually there is to be merited. These
Speaker 10: are governments that are already secretly in alliance with Israel.
Speaker 10: They have a common enemy in the Iran. There are
Speaker 10: on the same team for the sake of domestic consumption.
Speaker 10: They're not eager to be on good terms with Israel
Speaker 10: publicly because they know that's very costly. Even in Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 10: the polls about what people think of Israel, and it's.
Speaker 8: Onslaught on Palestinians.
Speaker 10: I mean just significant, very very significant, dominant opposition over
Speaker 10: ninety percent of people who want to see Saudi Arabia
Speaker 10: basically completely cut off Israel and isolate Israel as a result.
Speaker 10: So these governments understand that this is a deeply unpopular
Speaker 10: move to normalize relations. At the same time, they see
Speaker 10: the incentive to get closer to the United States, to
Speaker 10: operate more openly against Iranian interest in the region, and
Speaker 10: so on. So they do want that deal, but talking
Speaker 10: about it as if it's some kind of peace deal,
Speaker 10: this magnificent thing. There is no war to begin with,
Speaker 10: There is no conflict between these governments and Israel, So
Speaker 10: to even talk about it as some kind of grand
Speaker 10: peace deal, it's just completely ridiculous, And it's a talking
Speaker 10: point that Trump has used, and it's really unfortunate to
Speaker 10: see people like President Biden and many Democrats pay lift
Speaker 10: service to the idea that this is something that is
Speaker 10: really significant that ought to be replicated and promoted if
Speaker 10: it actually means anything at the end of it.
Speaker 3: I mean, this gets a broader question I think of.
Speaker 2: You know, if Trump does get into office and this
Speaker 2: mess lands in his lap, how do you think it's
Speaker 2: going to play out for him?
Speaker 3: So obviously I agree.
Speaker 2: He will give Natseniau everything he wants in the short
Speaker 2: term or at the very least the Israeli government, But
Speaker 2: one of his grand motivations was creating peace. But behind
Speaker 2: the scenes, do you think that even after this, that
Speaker 2: it is possible for the Saudis, the UAE, and the
Speaker 2: other Gulf regimes to steal back some sort of Abraham
Speaker 2: Accords framework given the level of pushback they would get
Speaker 2: in their own countries. Now, at this point, it seems
Speaker 2: to me that it's blown up, blown up the Abraham
Speaker 2: Accords probably for all time.
Speaker 10: Yeah, it's it's interesting to see how that all plays out.
Speaker 10: Saudi Arabia has made very clear that basically any kind
Speaker 10: of normalization with Israel depends on Palestinians being back in statehood,
Speaker 10: right whether they actually stick to that long term, I mean,
Speaker 10: right now, it's a particularly enraging moment in the region.
Speaker 10: Whether when things die down that changes or not remains
Speaker 10: to be seen. But it's funny that there is this
Speaker 10: contrast between Trump and Biden on a personal level on
Speaker 10: this issue. Trump on a personal level does not give
Speaker 10: a crap about Israel. It just really does not rear
Speaker 10: one with the other. It's all about him. But the
Speaker 10: incentives for him politically in the Republican Party is to
Speaker 10: be as pro Israel as possible.
Speaker 8: And you see it in all of the rhetoric right now.
Speaker 10: Everything is directed at Biden as being insufficiently pro Israel
Speaker 10: and how he's going to do more. And if Trump's
Speaker 10: history shows anything, it shows that indeed to be his
Speaker 10: calculus that he's put between Jared Kushner and David Friedman
Speaker 10: and all kinds of pro Israel extremists that have been
Speaker 10: put in place, giving Israel whatever it wants, recognizing Jerusalem
Speaker 10: as Israel's capital, kicking out the Palestinian ambassador in the
Speaker 10: United States, shutting down the American Consul of the East Jerusalem,
Speaker 10: all of that. I mean, it's very clear that it's
Speaker 10: most likely what Trump is going to do is in
Speaker 10: fact make things worse for purely personal interest reasons, even
Speaker 10: though he does not care about Israel one way or
Speaker 10: the other.
Speaker 8: Biden is the exact opposite.
Speaker 10: Biden has a deep emotional investment in Israel, but all
Speaker 10: of his political incentives are saying, cut this out. Your
Speaker 10: base does not want this policy of continuing to support
Speaker 10: this murderous onslaught. You know, it's an apartheid regime that
Speaker 10: is engaged in just absolutely horrific violence against an occupied people.
Speaker 10: And Israel's message to the world is there's no path
Speaker 10: forward in which Palestinians are free. They have to live
Speaker 10: permanently under siege and occupation, and if they don't like it,
Speaker 10: they can leave, or if they don't want to leave,
Speaker 10: then they can die.
Speaker 8: That's what Israel is offering.
Speaker 10: And the idea that somebody who pretends to be concerned
Speaker 10: about human rights and freedom and democracy and all of
Speaker 10: that can sit here and back a government who stated
Speaker 10: policy is this, it's just absolutely outrageous. I mean, it's
Speaker 10: really it's difficult to find the worst to describe how
Speaker 10: ugly and distasteful and outrageous that kind of position is.
Speaker 1: The last thing I was curious to get from you, Omars.
Speaker 1: We covered this somewhat mysterious shooting incident between Egyptian soldiers
Speaker 1: on the border and the IDF. One Egyptian soldier was killed.
Speaker 1: Neither government wants to talk about it. What did you
Speaker 1: make of that, the significance of it, What did you
Speaker 1: read into that?
Speaker 10: Yeah, I don't think politically it's very significant. Obviously, anytime
Speaker 10: you've got two army shooting at each other, that is
Speaker 10: significant as an individual incident. But the Israeli government and
Speaker 10: the Egyptian government are very very close. I mean, the
Speaker 10: only real point of contention between them is whether Israel
Speaker 10: wants to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in Gaza, and Egypt has
Speaker 10: made clear absolutely they will not accept a flood of
Speaker 10: Palestinians crossing the border into their country.
Speaker 8: That is the real point of tension.
Speaker 10: But beyond that, they have every interest in maintaining a
Speaker 10: positive relationship between the two countries, and I think the
Speaker 10: Egyptians are trying to put more pressure on the United
Speaker 10: States to put an end to the onslaught in Gaza
Speaker 10: in order to reduce the likelihood that there is going
Speaker 10: to be a forcible transfer of Palestinians out of Gaza.
Speaker 10: But beyond that, those are governments that are effectively on
Speaker 10: the same team. The human rights violations of the Egyptian
Speaker 10: government are absolutely unspeakable. Both of them are huge recipients
Speaker 10: of US military funding, so in the sense because they
Speaker 10: are on the same team in the broad scheme of things,
Speaker 10: I think they're both interested in playing the significance of
Speaker 10: this down and not really making anything out of it.
Speaker 10: It may have been just individuals on the border who
Speaker 10: decided to shoot at each other and things got out
Speaker 10: of had for a little bit, and everybody's eager to
Speaker 10: just move on from that, got it.
Speaker 2: Well, Amar, really great to have you to have your
Speaker 2: analysis here. It's been very helpful for me, so thank
Speaker 2: you very much.
Speaker 8: Thank you for joining me.
Speaker 4: Thanks.
Speaker 8: I really appreciate being with you.
Speaker 3: Yep, and we'll see you guys later