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: Hey guys, So we had some major updates that could
Speaker 1: not wait for Monday, so wanted to go ahead and
Speaker 1: bring the news to you. The headline is this Israel
Speaker 1: striking Iran. This in retaliation for the Iranian strikes on Israel.
Speaker 1: Those strikes, of course, in retaliation for what was the
Speaker 1: beginning of this whole escalatory chain, the Israeli strikes on
Speaker 1: the Iranian consulate building in Damascus.
Speaker 4: So let me go ahead and pull up what we
Speaker 4: know at this point.
Speaker 1: And there are still some question marks about what exactly
Speaker 1: has unfolded. So let me show you how the New
Speaker 1: York Times is reporting this. They say Israel strikes Iran,
Speaker 1: but scope of attack appears limited. I'll read you a
Speaker 1: little bit from their report they say, here are the
Speaker 1: latest developments. The Israeli struck Iran early on Friday, according
Speaker 1: to two Israeli and three Iranian officials, and what appeared
Speaker 1: to be Israel's first military response to Iran's attack last weekend,
Speaker 1: but one whose scope, at least initially appeared to be limited.
Speaker 4: And that is the good news here.
Speaker 1: You gotta love how the New York Times leaves out
Speaker 1: how this all began with the outrageous Israeli strike on
Speaker 1: the Iranian consulate building in Dabascus, a violation of international
Speaker 1: law and the Vienna Convention. Moving on, they continue, The
Speaker 1: Iranian officials said that a strike had hit a military
Speaker 1: air base near the city of Isfahan in central Iran.
Speaker 1: Initial reaction in both Israel and Iran was muted, and
Speaker 1: Iranian leaders did not publicly blame Israel for any strike,
Speaker 1: which analysts said was a sign that the rivals were
Speaker 1: seeking to de escalate tensions. For nearly a week, world
Speaker 1: leaders have urged is and Iran to avoid sparking a
Speaker 1: broader war in the region. Let me go ahead and
Speaker 1: show you some of what they're talking about in terms
Speaker 1: of the Iranians downplaying this strike or attempted strike. In fact,
Speaker 1: the Iranians are even claiming that this was just drones,
Speaker 1: that the Iranian air defenses hold that they shot everything down,
Speaker 1: that there actually wasn't any sort of an impact in
Speaker 1: Iran proper. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.
Speaker 1: It could be that they are just saying that because
Speaker 1: they don't want this wider war, and frankly, they're acting
Speaker 1: like the most responsible party in this whole conflict. Let
Speaker 1: me show you a little bit of what Iranian state
Speaker 1: media is reporting, how they are reporting this, just to
Speaker 1: give you a sense of the way that they're trying
Speaker 1: to downplay what happened here, thankfully, is this here we go,
Speaker 1: that's the one Okay, So this is one analyst saying,
Speaker 1: Iran State broadcaster in Isfahan, this AA is saying, cities
Speaker 1: in complete calm and security. People are going on with
Speaker 1: their normal lives. One to two hours ago, sounds were
Speaker 1: heard in the sky. We understand several miniature UAVs were
Speaker 1: overhead which were shot down. So very clearly here you've
Speaker 1: got Iranian state broadcaster in the city that was allegedly
Speaker 1: struck saying nothing really big happened, Everything's fine, everything's calm. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we had a little few UAVs overhead, they were shot down,
Speaker 1: nothing actually hit, and trying to project calm and hopefully
Speaker 1: de escalate this situation. You know, it's impossible to underscore
Speaker 1: just how fraught and perilous this whole thing has been.
Speaker 1: And of course the context here is the US under
Speaker 1: Joe Biden has claimed since post October seventh that they
Speaker 1: wanted to keep Israel's assault on Gaza from spreading into
Speaker 1: a wider, rich regional war. They have failed on all counts.
Speaker 1: You know, not only do we have now these direct
Speaker 1: strikes traded between Israel and Iran, with Israel beginning this
Speaker 1: provocation with the strikes on the Iranian embassy, which you know,
Speaker 1: you can imagine how the US would respond if our
Speaker 1: embassy and a number of our top military commanders were assassinated,
Speaker 1: you can imagine how we would respond.
Speaker 4: So then Iran responds.
Speaker 1: With what appears to have been calculated to be a
Speaker 1: large show of force, but intentionally calculated to avoid significant casualties.
Speaker 1: So just as this sort of presentation of force, and
Speaker 1: we can say that because they gave the US and
Speaker 1: our allies seventy two hours notice, so that we would
Speaker 1: be in position to shoot down a majority of what
Speaker 1: they were firing, which we did, and by the way,
Speaker 1: I do mean in a majority, because the US apparently,
Speaker 1: according to the reports, was involved in shooting down a
Speaker 1: majority of what was shot at Israel.
Speaker 4: So it was meant to be.
Speaker 1: A large show of force, but calculated to not actually
Speaker 1: create significant damage and not to cause any significant casualties,
Speaker 1: which it did not. So the reports are, and this
Speaker 1: is all, you know, very difficult to say what actually unfolded.
Speaker 1: Reports are that the US tried to talk Israel out
Speaker 1: of doing any sort of response to that, and basically saying, listen,
Speaker 1: take it as a win that the Iranian offensive here,
Speaker 1: that they this attack was all. You know, your defense
Speaker 1: is held, no significant damage done, declare victory, and let's
Speaker 1: move forward. Bb neat Yahoo, who has for decades wanted
Speaker 1: this big war with Iran, of course, couldn't just you know,
Speaker 1: leave well enough alone. He started this provocation to begin with.
Speaker 1: There were also reports, and I can actually put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen because this is you know, you
Speaker 1: can make of this what you will as well, there.
Speaker 4: Were reports that the US.
Speaker 1: Actually agreed to Israel's plan for a ground invasion of
Speaker 1: Rafa where a million Palestinians are currently sheltering in return
Speaker 1: for not carrying out a large Iran strike. The US
Speaker 1: is denying this report. Is it true, is it not?
Speaker 1: We don't really know. But the fact that we're in
Speaker 1: a position where we're having to like bargain and beg
Speaker 1: the Israelis who are wholly dependent on us, who rely
Speaker 1: on us for diplomatic protection, military aid, etc. That we're
Speaker 1: having to bargain and beg and basically, you know, sacrifice
Speaker 1: the lives of Palestinians to try to keep from getting
Speaker 1: dragged into this broader regional war directly in conflict with Iran.
Speaker 1: Is such a testament to just how failed the Biden
Speaker 1: policy has been with regard to Israel this entire time.
Speaker 1: You know, the whole idea from Biden was I'll do
Speaker 1: the bb Night Yahoo bear hug, and then since I'm
Speaker 1: showing all this public support for him, It'll give me
Speaker 1: more leverage behind the scenes to try to coerce this
Speaker 1: conflict in the direction that I want. And one of
Speaker 1: the primary goals again from the beginning, according to the
Speaker 1: administration and you know leaks to reporters, was to avoid
Speaker 1: exactly the situation we find ourselves in now. But since
Speaker 1: at every turn, when pressed, the US says there are
Speaker 1: no real red lines, We'll do anything for Israel. We
Speaker 1: stand with Israel no matter what. Of course, BB feels
Speaker 1: enabled to do whatever the hell he wants to do,
Speaker 1: including creating a wildly dangerous situation for our own service members,
Speaker 1: for the entire region, and dare I say it, for
Speaker 1: the entire world. That's what our policy of nothing but
Speaker 1: enabling whatever the Israelis want want to do, that's what
Speaker 1: that policy has ultimately brought us to. So, you know,
Speaker 1: it's a strange situation. The best possible news that I
Speaker 1: could wake up to this morning is that the Iranians
Speaker 1: are trying to downplay and say, hey, listen, nothing really
Speaker 1: happened here, hopefully giving them enough like saving enough face
Speaker 1: for them to avoid feeling like they now have to
Speaker 1: respond again and tacking once again.
Speaker 4: Up the ladder of escalation.
Speaker 1: But it's small comfort that we've come to this place
Speaker 1: where we are so on the brink that the best
Speaker 1: news we can hope for is that they're pretending that,
Speaker 1: you know, this additional strike wasn't a big deal, That
Speaker 1: we have direct exchanges between Iran and Israel. That's where
Speaker 1: the Joe Biden policy has ultimately led us. And again,
Speaker 1: you know, we'll see what happens with regard to Rafa.
Speaker 1: Bibe has been making it very clear that there is
Speaker 1: no avoiding their ground invasion. He set the date, he said,
Speaker 1: he's got the plan in place. Apparently Joe Biden, who
Speaker 1: has expressed at least some hesitation or some reluctance about
Speaker 1: this ground invasion into Rafa at a time when not
Speaker 1: only have you had already mass civilian death, mass destruction
Speaker 1: of civilian infrastructure in the Gaza strip, you also have
Speaker 1: this all out humanitarian crisis, people starving to death, a
Speaker 1: famine officially set in at least in northern Gaza. You've
Speaker 1: got a million plus displaced Palestinians in Rafa. And if
Speaker 1: the report is true, Biden basically capitulating and saying, all right,
Speaker 1: because you've brought us to the brink of this hot
Speaker 1: war with Iran, we're gonna let you invade Rafa. Go
Speaker 1: ahead to avoid this, you know, to have a more
Speaker 1: limited strike on Iran. So there's a lot of questions
Speaker 1: here this morning. There's still very open questions about where
Speaker 1: things go for peer, you know, The other couple of
Speaker 1: things worth mentioning are Number one, this retaliatory strike on
Speaker 1: Iran comes on the same day that our un representative
Speaker 1: vetoed in the Security Council.
Speaker 4: Un Security Council.
Speaker 1: Vetoed the recognition of a Palestinian state, so doing Israel's
Speaker 1: bidding on the very day that they do the exact
Speaker 1: opposite of what we had wanted them to do. Not
Speaker 1: to mention that vetoing palestinane state seems to be at
Speaker 1: odds with our purported policy of supporting a two state solution.
Speaker 4: So there's that.
Speaker 1: It also comes at a moment when our representatives are
Speaker 1: busy pushing through a record breaking amount of aid both
Speaker 1: to Ukraine but also to Israel to continue shipping them
Speaker 1: the weapons that they are using not only to massacre
Speaker 1: Palestinian civilians, women, children, and innocent men, but also that
Speaker 1: they are using to put our own service members and
Speaker 1: national security interest at risk. So extraordinary developments. Thank god.
Speaker 1: The Iranians seem to be wanting to downplay this, wanting
Speaker 1: to end this escalatory chain. You know, if this is
Speaker 1: where it ends, we all honestly owe them a debt
Speaker 1: of gratitude, because you can only imagine if it was
Speaker 1: our military commanders assassinated at our embassy. I doubt we
Speaker 1: would be so restrained, doubt we would be so measured.
Speaker 1: So that's where we are today. That's the most I
Speaker 1: can tell you about where we are obviously still incredibly
Speaker 1: fraud and incredibly risky situation. If there are additional developments
Speaker 1: I'll make sure to bring them to you this weekend.
Speaker 1: Otherwise we'll give you all the very latest on Monday.
Speaker 1: Hope you guys enjoy the weekend and I'll see you soon.
Speaker 1: Excited to be joined this morning by one of our
Speaker 1: great partners over at Lemer News, David Stroodis of that
Speaker 1: great outlet, who has a bunch of new exciting projects
Speaker 1: to talk to us about. And David, I was saying
Speaker 1: to you, I was so excited to see that at
Speaker 1: a time when a lot of news organizations are struggling
Speaker 1: and having to lay off staff, that you all are
Speaker 1: actually expanding, which I think is a real testament to
Speaker 1: the need that you serve and the unique reporting that
Speaker 1: you all have done on you know, frankly compared to
Speaker 1: the giant corporate media outlets, a fraction of the budget.
Speaker 4: So congratulations on that.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Thanks so much.
Speaker 5: And what I'm really excited about is we've been able
Speaker 5: to hire journalists, journalists to do the digging the investigations.
Speaker 3: That we do. I think.
Speaker 5: We're losing a lot of journalists right now, and I
Speaker 5: know people have some criticism of the media industry generally,
Speaker 5: which I share that criticism.
Speaker 3: I think one thing I'm.
Speaker 5: Most worried about is the loss of people employed to
Speaker 5: actually report and surface original information.
Speaker 3: So that's what we're investing in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, we've really relied on your work. We relied
Speaker 1: on it with regard just recently to the Baltimore Bridge
Speaker 1: collapse and the masch Nations to try to limit liability
Speaker 1: for this giant shipping company. I know you all are
Speaker 1: relaunching the lever Time podcast and you're taking a look
Speaker 1: at what has been very perplexing to a lot of
Speaker 1: the media class, which is why, in spite of the
Speaker 1: fact that there is low unemployment, in high stock market
Speaker 1: and some other sort of macroeconomic indicators that are positive
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden, his economic numbers continue to be so poor.
Speaker 1: We actually have a little bit of a trailer for
Speaker 1: the relaunch of that podcast.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 6: I think that the more rough and tumble, the more debate,
Speaker 6: the more vigorous exchange, the more you are battle testing
Speaker 6: your party, the more you are battle testing your ultimate
Speaker 6: general election nominee for that battle with the Republicans. And
Speaker 6: I look back to two thousand and eight, you talked.
Speaker 2: About Ronald Reagan being a transformative political leader.
Speaker 3: I did not mention his name. Well, I'm here until.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that primary is vicious. I feel like people don't remember.
Speaker 7: It's just how tense things got between the Clinton and
Speaker 7: Obama teams. Like if you read accounts from back then,
Speaker 7: you see just how much vitriol there was between both
Speaker 7: of them and personally too.
Speaker 6: Absolutely, and the same thing with the nineteen ninety two primary.
Speaker 6: I mean that was a brutal primary between Bill Clinton
Speaker 6: and Mario Cuomo was potentially gonna run and Jerry Brown.
Speaker 7: I don't think.
Speaker 6: Those primaries weakened those general election nominees. I think they
Speaker 6: battle tested those general election nominees, and I think those
Speaker 6: general election nominees came out stronger and better and more
Speaker 6: suited to win the general election. But I feel like, honestly,
Speaker 6: I feel like that view is in the minority of
Speaker 6: the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: So Bold stands there in favor of actual democracy, and
Speaker 1: it ties in with the economic conversation because I think
Speaker 1: anyone who's tried to understand, okay, well, why do Americans
Speaker 1: still have legitimate upset around the state of the economy
Speaker 1: at this point has been met with this sort of
Speaker 1: derision of like, oh, well, what do you just want
Speaker 1: Donald Trump to get reelected again?
Speaker 5: Yeah? I mean, I think there's this perfect storm, perfectly
Speaker 5: bad storm for the Democrats in this way that they've
Speaker 5: suppressed a primary, which means that they've suppressed a debate,
Speaker 5: a discussion about, for instance, economic issues, and the White
Speaker 5: House has gotten comfortable just saying, hey, listen, these are
Speaker 5: your choices, take it or leave it. We don't have
Speaker 5: to actually use a primary process to sharpen our message. So,
Speaker 5: in other words, Biden hasn't, in not having a primary,
Speaker 5: hasn't faced the kinds of questions in a day to
Speaker 5: day basis that he will face in the general election,
Speaker 5: for instance, about the economy. So there's been a year
Speaker 5: or two of the White House just sort of trying.
Speaker 3: To flip it off. But those questions about the economy
Speaker 3: aren't going away.
Speaker 5: Now you said, you're right, the macroeconomic data is decent,
Speaker 5: and look, the country would be in worse.
Speaker 3: Shape if the macro data was worse.
Speaker 5: But that doesn't mean people's day to day lived economic
Speaker 5: experience is particularly good. And Biden up until very recently
Speaker 5: I don't think hasn't really had a really sharp message
Speaker 5: to say to voters, to address those concerns to voters,
Speaker 5: and those are real concerns.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Instead, a lot of the approach has been, at
Speaker 1: least from the sort of like Biden's orders and spokespeople,
Speaker 1: has been to gaslight or to tell you your experience isn't real,
Speaker 1: You're just being tricked by media coverage that's negative of
Speaker 1: the economy. So what are some of the pain points
Speaker 1: that you have been able to identify that are real
Speaker 1: and are contributing at least to the fact that many
Speaker 1: Americans are not happy with the Biden economic record in
Speaker 1: spite of the fact that you know, some of the
Speaker 1: things he's done I think are a really positive step
Speaker 1: forward economically. Labor and antitrust really stand out to me.
Speaker 1: We covered with Emily on Counterpoints, covered the new DOJ
Speaker 1: suit of Live Nation Ticketmaster. That direction is really promising
Speaker 1: but doesn't necessarily impact Americans right now today.
Speaker 5: Well, look, there's two things going on in the people's
Speaker 5: lived experience of the economy. There are things that are
Speaker 5: bearing down on them housing costs, the cost of money itself,
Speaker 5: interest rates creating higher costs for auto loans.
Speaker 3: Transportation and the like.
Speaker 5: Grocery prices have up until recently been going up. So
Speaker 5: these are real pain points, basically pain points on the
Speaker 5: necessities of life, right like food, housing, shelter, etc.
Speaker 3: Etc.
Speaker 5: And there is an argument to be made that no
Speaker 5: one president and in the course of one term, can
Speaker 5: solve all of those problems immediately, problems that were developed
Speaker 5: over multiple basically generations of neoliberal economic policies. So you
Speaker 5: have these pain points here that are real. I think
Speaker 5: the reason any incumbent gets blamed for that is because
Speaker 5: they're the incumbent. But I also think that the incumbent
Speaker 5: can do things to combat being blamed for that. Let's
Speaker 5: go back to let's remember that Franklin Roosevelt ran for
Speaker 5: reelection in the middle of the Great Depression.
Speaker 3: Re election in the middle of the Great Depression.
Speaker 5: Right, he didn't run around saying, hey, listen, all you
Speaker 5: people are just you know, you're misled about how bad
Speaker 5: the economy is.
Speaker 3: You know, the media is gaslighting you, right.
Speaker 5: He positioned himself instead as the sharp tip of the
Speaker 5: spear against the corporate forces that were creating that pain,
Speaker 5: as opposed saying, hey, everything's getting better.
Speaker 3: So Biden has not really done that.
Speaker 5: He has not really positioned himself as the sharp tip
Speaker 5: of that spear. And I think, if we're being honest,
Speaker 5: part of it is a white House messaging problem. They
Speaker 5: haven't faced a primary that's prompted them to have to
Speaker 5: actually really engage day to day. But if we're also
Speaker 5: being honest, part of it, I think is the fact
Speaker 5: that he's an eighty one year old guy, and it's
Speaker 5: hard to communicate a strong, tough economic leadership message as
Speaker 5: the sharp tip of the outrage at corporate forces bearing
Speaker 5: down on people. It's hard to do when you're as
Speaker 5: old as he is. It's not to run him down
Speaker 5: for being old. It's not to say it's it's his
Speaker 5: fault for being old. But I think almost inherent is
Speaker 5: that part of the job of being president is using
Speaker 5: the bully pulpit.
Speaker 3: And look, when you're eighty one years old, it's probably
Speaker 3: harder to use the bully pulpit.
Speaker 5: By the fact, by virtue of the fact that you're
Speaker 5: an older person.
Speaker 1: I think there's that which I noted actually when these
Speaker 1: latest inflation numbers came out that were hotter than expected,
Speaker 1: and you know, people like you and me who have
Speaker 1: been talking about gra inflation from the beginning and were
Speaker 1: initially dismissed as like fringe until it was kind of undeniable,
Speaker 1: and you've got these CEOs admitting on earning skulls, like yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what we're doing. There was an opportunity there for
Speaker 1: him to come out and not try to downplay that,
Speaker 1: you know, groceries cost more than they did last year
Speaker 1: and then that's significant for people, but to really called
Speaker 1: the task the corporate price gouchers who are contributing to
Speaker 1: that state of affairs. But that would mean he was
Speaker 1: a completely different person with frankly a different ideology and
Speaker 1: a different level of vigor that he's able at this
Speaker 1: point to bring to the table.
Speaker 5: Look, I totally agree, and I think the sad part
Speaker 5: about this, among other things, is that I actually do
Speaker 5: think that the Biden administration has a story to tell.
Speaker 5: I think when you look at what's going on at
Speaker 5: the FTC, when you look at what's going on doj
Speaker 5: anti trust, when you look what's going on at the NLRB,
Speaker 5: when you look further back to what happened with the
Speaker 5: American Rescue Plan. Now granted that expired, but the American
Speaker 5: Rescue Plan a huge investment in the working class of
Speaker 5: this country. The Biden administration does have a story to tell.
Speaker 5: They just haven't told it very well. And you're never
Speaker 5: going to tell that story only through your FTC chairperson
Speaker 5: or only through your deputy or assistant Attorney general. For
Speaker 5: anti trust, the president has to be the one telling
Speaker 5: that story. And I don't think the story has been told,
Speaker 5: but I think there's still is time here. And what
Speaker 5: I'm saying is is that I think when you look
Speaker 5: at the State of the Union address that Biden just delivered,
Speaker 5: the themes of that State of the Union address, I
Speaker 5: do think we're right on. He really was trying to
Speaker 5: position the administration as a counter to corporate power. Is
Speaker 5: it a too late I don't think it's exactly too
Speaker 5: late yet Is it going to be enough?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 5: Can he deliver that message in the noise of the
Speaker 5: general election, I'm not so sure. And will they actually
Speaker 5: sharpen the message enough where enough people will believe that
Speaker 5: they are really serious about being that challenge to corporate power.
Speaker 3: These are all the unanswered questions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's that's my last question for you, David,
Speaker 1: is how much are people even processing politics at this
Speaker 1: point about being about economics because they have the sense of, like, well,
Speaker 1: whether it's a Democrat or Republican, things don't really change
Speaker 1: much for me personally, So I guess I should just
Speaker 1: vote on like who signals the right way in the
Speaker 1: culture war, or how I feel about Donald Trump, which
Speaker 1: I don't want to dismiss those things as illegitimate by
Speaker 1: the way. I mean, I think the looming threat of
Speaker 1: Trump is real, and it's it is legitimate to be
Speaker 1: concerned about that. But how much has economics just sort
Speaker 1: of vanished from landscape of what people even expect politicians
Speaker 1: to deliver at this point?
Speaker 3: Well, this is the part.
Speaker 5: Now You're really getting to my personal pain point, because
Speaker 5: it's the thing that I get depressed and demoralized about
Speaker 5: that it feels like, at least right now, we're in
Speaker 5: an a historical moment in this way that in the past,
Speaker 5: are you better off than you were four years ago
Speaker 5: used to be kind of the defining a question of
Speaker 5: presidential elections, or, as James Carvel had put it, you know,
Speaker 5: it's the economy, stupid. I'm not sure we're living in
Speaker 5: a society anymore where economics is considered salient and germane
Speaker 5: to elections and how we pick presidents, which I think
Speaker 5: is actually a problem.
Speaker 3: Right to me, that should be the first and foremost
Speaker 3: question of.
Speaker 5: What does this presidential election mean for the economic future
Speaker 5: and destiny of this country and the economic experience of
Speaker 5: people in their daily lives. I think that's the first
Speaker 5: and foremost thing that we actually do have the most
Speaker 5: control over as a country, right, Like the policies directly
Speaker 5: affect us here and now, economic policies, and if those
Speaker 5: policies aren't part of how we're making a decision in
Speaker 5: these elections, we're basically saying we can't change the economy.
Speaker 5: That both parties, all of the candidates are just simply
Speaker 5: uninterested in making any kind of change that would benefit
Speaker 5: the majority of the population.
Speaker 3: I don't want to be in that place.
Speaker 5: I think that's a really that is in a sense,
Speaker 5: that is the democracy crisis. If we simply say economics
Speaker 5: is just not part of how we pick people.
Speaker 3: I don't want to.
Speaker 5: Believe that we're there. It would really be a break
Speaker 5: from history if we are there. But yes, it does
Speaker 5: feel like we now live in an era of vibe
Speaker 5: elections that are almost exclusively about the culture war and
Speaker 5: nothing about the class war.
Speaker 1: David, where can people check out lever Time?
Speaker 3: You can find it at levernews dot com. Just go
Speaker 3: right there. You'll find it right there. All right, great
Speaker 3: to see you, my friend. As always, thank you, thank
Speaker 3: you so much.
Speaker 2: Joining me now is Arta Moeni, doctor Arta Moeni. He
Speaker 2: is the research director at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for joining me, Sir, I appreciate it.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Sogeric. Glad to be here.
Speaker 2: So doctor Moonani, you caught my attention. You had a
Speaker 2: long Twitter thread and was backed up by an article
Speaker 2: I wanted to put it up here on the screen.
Speaker 2: It is the Gaza War and the twilight of international moralism.
Speaker 2: So without getting two in the weeds, I think the
Speaker 2: takeaway that I had at the very least is that
Speaker 2: using moralistic language genocide being one very much in vogue
Speaker 2: at the moment, but in general that we deploy in
Speaker 2: international politics is in some ways counterproductive and doesn't achieve
Speaker 2: the moral outcomes that those who use the term want.
Speaker 2: So why don't you give us your argument for why?
Speaker 8: Yeah? Sure, I mean so, I think proponents of international
Speaker 8: law often sort of have very good intentions. They want
Speaker 8: to end conflicts, they want to they want to minimize casualties,
Speaker 8: and they have this sort of attachment with this construct,
Speaker 8: which for me is a construct, a non natural construct
Speaker 8: called international law. But the moralism that they attach to
Speaker 8: their framing of the world actually, in many ways, ideology
Speaker 8: ideologizes conflicts, politicizes conflicts, demonizes others, and makes a kind
Speaker 8: of actual conversation that's required for diplomacy impossible. So I
Speaker 8: think by shaking or shedding our moralistic frames, by shedding
Speaker 8: our sort of needs for these kinds of ideological framings,
Speaker 8: we can actually and prioritizing national interests and real power relations,
Speaker 8: we can develop a certain strategic empathy and either prevent
Speaker 8: conflicts from happening prior or to find and find solutions
Speaker 8: to them, and resolve them more easily once they are
Speaker 8: once they do arise.
Speaker 2: So why don't you operationalize that to let's say the
Speaker 2: Israel conflict. Like we said, using the word genocide, apartheid,
Speaker 2: all of these things, whether or not they're technically true
Speaker 2: or not, but even the definitions the game itself you
Speaker 2: view as counterproductive. Let's say, to achieving an end which
Speaker 2: I think we all want here, which is a piece
Speaker 2: to the conflict, what would your approach be then.
Speaker 8: Yeah, So my framework is that if we have adopted actual,
Speaker 8: sort of realistic view of the world and not look
Speaker 8: to demonize the other side. So I mean, this happens
Speaker 8: on both sides. So when we think about Israel, I
Speaker 8: mean I think the is very clear that the sort
Speaker 8: of opponents of of Israeli policy use a certain framework
Speaker 8: of genocide language labeling to demonize the other side. And
Speaker 8: I think that is very unhelpful because it actually kind
Speaker 8: of the human dehumanizes and discredits the other side, making
Speaker 8: them actually doabble down on the policies that I have
Speaker 8: a lot of problems with, and maybe many others do
Speaker 8: as well. But I think by doing that tactic actually
Speaker 8: is very unhelpful to getting them to change their policies.
Speaker 8: And it happens on the other side as well, which
Speaker 8: is not just a problem that for example, the left has.
Speaker 8: I mean, the pro Israel right, for example, uses similar
Speaker 8: kind of human rights discourse or moralizing language by trying
Speaker 8: to connect the sort of its own opponents to Hamas
Speaker 8: or to or calling them anti Semites or whatnot. I
Speaker 8: think these kinds of rhetoric are sort of a framework
Speaker 8: that come from ideology and actually thinking about realistic understanding
Speaker 8: of how and why states do what they do and
Speaker 8: why you know, power relations and how that's important in
Speaker 8: this sort of in the world that can really change
Speaker 8: the dynamics on the ground. I mean think about for example,
Speaker 8: I mean, I would just say this, in America, we
Speaker 8: have had a tradition of statesmanship going back to George
Speaker 8: Washington that emphasizes what I call and they colleague Washingtonian realism.
Speaker 8: We're going back to George Washington, and it prioritizes national
Speaker 8: interests and looking at things as they are instead of
Speaker 8: focusing on ideology. And we can fast forward to the
Speaker 8: Cold War and we have another classic realist like George Kennon,
Speaker 8: who also while some hawks in Washington would like to
Speaker 8: read him as the as you know, the force behind
Speaker 8: sort of military containment, actually understood that ideology cannot be
Speaker 8: fought through military force. And actually you need to find
Speaker 8: the real sources of conflicts and uh and and the
Speaker 8: political appeal of the ideology. So both of these can
Speaker 8: be applied to the to the Israel Gazo scenario because
Speaker 8: you can see how you know that the very idea
Speaker 8: of Israel thinking that it can eliminate Hamas, as we
Speaker 8: know from our experience in Afghanistan with the Taliban, it's
Speaker 8: impossible to uh physically eliminate a sort of a non
Speaker 8: state actor that is steeped in ideology. You have to
Speaker 8: find the reasons uh and for for their ideology and
Speaker 8: the spread of that ideology. So that's one thing. And
Speaker 8: then at the same time you have to understand that yes,
Speaker 8: Israel does have significant ontological insecurities and physical insecurities, and
Speaker 8: by trying to deal with them and telling them, for example,
Speaker 8: that hey, it is not in your in Israel's long
Speaker 8: term interest, a long term national interest to engage in
Speaker 8: this kind of behavior and this is going to actually
Speaker 8: have fundamental consequences for the future of Israel itself. This well, actually,
Speaker 8: I think make the conversation on realist ground much better
Speaker 8: and much stronger, and towards the CEA spire or towards
Speaker 8: whatever resolution we can try to imagine.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I get a lot of criticism when I talk
Speaker 2: in this way. People say that it's cold blooded. And
Speaker 2: one of the things that I liked it took away
Speaker 2: from what you said is that you can actually achieve
Speaker 2: more moral outcomes, you know, if you actually try and
Speaker 2: engage with this, if you look at things on a
Speaker 2: level playing field, and you're not always using moral outrage
Speaker 2: or anger or you know. For example, I think the
Speaker 2: perfect example here is that the Biden administration is branding
Speaker 2: Russia's actions in Ukraine as genocide, but then they deny
Speaker 2: that it is a genocide whenever it's Israel and it's Gaza.
Speaker 2: And it's like, well, now you have a selective application
Speaker 2: of rhetoric to a term that was supposed to mean something,
Speaker 2: now it actually means nothing. So arguably you have made
Speaker 2: a disservice to any future ability to say anything about what.
Speaker 3: Is or is not a genocide.
Speaker 2: Whereas if instead that we look at it as like,
Speaker 2: this is bad, this is counterproductive to Russian interest, is
Speaker 2: really interest and others, then possibly the Russians would listen
Speaker 2: to us, or the Israelis would listen to us. And
Speaker 2: vice versa, if we were to look at things actually level.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean that that's that's certainly true, I think,
Speaker 8: and it actually I think what you're bringing up is
Speaker 8: something that I also brought up in the article, which
Speaker 8: is the you know, yes, there is there is this
Speaker 8: sort of idea of hypocrisy in terms of selecting selected
Speaker 8: application of US policy in regards to international law. But
Speaker 8: that really shows a different question, which is the fundamental
Speaker 8: problem of enforcements in international law. There is no real
Speaker 8: global hedgemon now now once we shifted from unipolarity to multipolarity,
Speaker 8: and so we don't have an ultimate arbiter and ultimate enforcers.
Speaker 8: So for for so long as the United States was,
Speaker 8: we were in the unipolar moments of sort of American triumphalism,
Speaker 8: and the United States could select and pick and choose
Speaker 8: how to interpret international law, how to apply international law
Speaker 8: in different conflicts to serve its interest. Now, in the
Speaker 8: condition of multiplarity, using this sort of we are now
Speaker 8: in a great transition. And within this great transition we
Speaker 8: are seeing various different regions of the world. I don't
Speaker 8: like the term global soft, but global south is the
Speaker 8: common term for it. The various multiple regions of the
Speaker 8: world try are basically doing the same thing. The specter
Speaker 8: of interpretation is open to everyone, and so that actually
Speaker 8: means that what the United States specifically did since nineteen
Speaker 8: ninety after evolved the Soviet Union, we sort of shifted
Speaker 8: in the nineties to this sort of selective politicization of
Speaker 8: the international law framework, using human rights and using uh,
Speaker 8: you know, humanous as a weapon, using responsibility to protect,
Speaker 8: you know, all of those things that we did. Now
Speaker 8: others are doing as well. So almost for any conflict
Speaker 8: that you can think about in the world, you have
Speaker 8: the situation where Russia, for example, uses the same the
Speaker 8: very same argument that America used for NATO intervention in
Speaker 8: Serbia to justify its own intervention and aggressions in Ukraine.
Speaker 8: And Ukraine also uses this, you know, the same principles
Speaker 8: of the UN Charter in terms of self defense and
Speaker 8: territorial integrity to make its own claim the sort of
Speaker 8: shrouded in legitimacy. So again, all of these states are
Speaker 8: engaged in PLOW. I mean again, the relationship of power
Speaker 8: is key, and I think by not looking at the
Speaker 8: power relations and the fact that nowadays international law is
Speaker 8: used as as an instrument for rhetorical and reputational influence
Speaker 8: and prestige to and you. Basically, once you do that,
Speaker 8: you get your side your partisans to accept your your
Speaker 8: side of things and use and basically have legitimizing arguments
Speaker 8: for your side of things, and your opponents will have
Speaker 8: the opposite view and opposite interpretation. This is the problem
Speaker 8: of lack of enforcement that's inherent to international law as
Speaker 8: it is constructed. Because again, the international law, the world
Speaker 8: first ward, is international. We know, as any good realist would,
Speaker 8: that the international system is not actually a sort of
Speaker 8: a monolith. It is not doesn't have a sovereign, and
Speaker 8: therefore it is anarchic. The condition of anarchy is returning
Speaker 8: where there is no unipolar order and no global sovereign
Speaker 8: like the United States too, that that can get away
Speaker 8: with doing those arbituations still according to its interests, but
Speaker 8: it can it cannot get away with it anymore, and
Speaker 8: other countries are doing it the same thing. So it
Speaker 8: means that effectively, the dawn of multi polarity shows the
Speaker 8: tensions inherent to international law because we cannot see it
Speaker 8: in an international way. We don't have that sort of
Speaker 8: enforcement mechanism. But that takes us to the second problem
Speaker 8: of international law as well, because international law is again
Speaker 8: the category of law is sovereign, and sovereignty that's at a
Speaker 8: domestic category. But also that implies that there are certain conventions,
Speaker 8: traditions and shared heritage. Let's say that has given way
Speaker 8: to codifying those traditions as law. However, what we have
Speaker 8: now this construct sacred cow of international law. It basically
Speaker 8: was premised on a particular code that was a European
Speaker 8: code that came out of the nineteenth and twentieth century,
Speaker 8: but then it was codified in post nineteen forty five.
Speaker 8: So it's a particular parochial viewpoint of the world in
Speaker 8: a world that's actually diverse. It doesn't have enforcements, but
Speaker 8: it also tends to universalize from a parochial position and
Speaker 8: basically try to make its position as the universal position.
Speaker 8: And the rest of the world that has different conceptions
Speaker 8: and different forms of life and different philosophies and different
Speaker 8: norms and values fundamentally now rejects that, but it increasingly
Speaker 8: has the power to say no and interpret it differently.
Speaker 8: So I think we need to get away from this
Speaker 8: international law of framework because it's unhelpful for a peaceful
Speaker 8: and I would there to say ethical relation between states
Speaker 8: that's based on some sort of regularity and rules. As
Speaker 8: proponents of the rules based order'd like to say that
Speaker 8: actually would happen when you prioritize power and think about
Speaker 8: power in that way. This mockery of power politics and
Speaker 8: real politics as something that's fundamentally immoral blinds us to
Speaker 8: the fact that seeing the world as it is instead
Speaker 8: of through the lens of ideology. And again, international law
Speaker 8: by definition is ideological because it it reflects only one
Speaker 8: perspective of the world, and then it universalizes it. And
Speaker 8: you know it was contingent as well, so there's nothing
Speaker 8: natural about it. It was always ideological, and it gives
Speaker 8: us this framework which can be abused and instrumentalized and
Speaker 8: politicized and actually makes the cause of peace much harder
Speaker 8: to achieve.
Speaker 4: Really well said.
Speaker 2: My favorite is when people are like, the Russian invasion
Speaker 2: of Ukraine is illegal. I'm like, well, is there a
Speaker 2: legal invasion. There's no such thing as illegal invasion, invasions
Speaker 2: or invasions. It's like, it doesn't mean anything. And if
Speaker 2: it is illegal, now what who's going to enforce it? Oh,
Speaker 2: you can't do anything about it, well, then international law
Speaker 2: is fake. So I really appreciate you, sir. I really
Speaker 2: recommend people go. I'll put your Twitter account and everything
Speaker 2: in the description. Very interesting thinker, one who wants I
Speaker 2: think the same outcomes as many of the people who
Speaker 2: use this rhetoric, but is advocating for a different course,
Speaker 2: one that I endorse wholeheartedly. So thank you very much.
Speaker 3: We appreciate you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. So I got about to get here.