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: All right, Let's go ahead and move on to a
Speaker 1: lot that is unfolding in Israel. Right now, I can
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. We have beb once
Speaker 1: again to get back to the US humiliation, snubbing the
Speaker 1: US which is claimed to want them to wrap up
Speaker 1: their assault on Gaza kind of soon, and say, you
Speaker 1: know what, Actually, this war against some US it's set
Speaker 1: to continue at least into twenty twenty five. He reportedly
Speaker 1: told local council chiefs from communities near Gaza on Tuesday,
Speaker 1: he anticipates the war against from US extending into twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, According to an unsourced Channel twelve report on
Speaker 1: the meeting, which was held at the IDF's Southern Command
Speaker 1: headquarters and attended by other Security Cabinet ministers Natana who
Speaker 1: told the Council chiefs that according to the current assessment,
Speaker 1: the war may continue into next year. I'm going to
Speaker 1: get in a moment into the psychology of not only
Speaker 1: Babe who we focused on before, his incentives in keeping
Speaker 1: this thing going forever and potentially expanding this thing, you know,
Speaker 1: even more aggressively into at least a northern front, potentially
Speaker 1: drawing in Iran Iran as well. But if you look
Speaker 1: at the entirety of the War Cabinet and the Defense establishment,
Speaker 1: they all have a lot of interest in keeping this
Speaker 1: war going. So I don't want anybody to get it
Speaker 1: into their head that it's just like one bad apple
Speaker 1: who wants this to go on forever and has incentives,
Speaker 1: personal political incentives tied to his own ambitions to hold
Speaker 1: onto his power, that has an interest in keeping this
Speaker 1: thing going. Basically all of the leadership share very similar
Speaker 1: interests in that regard. At the same time, Jake Sullivan
Speaker 1: and Tony B. Lincoln, we're at the World Economic Forum
Speaker 1: in Davos spinning their version of what they would like
Speaker 1: to see supposedly in the quote unquote day after in Gaza,
Speaker 1: and they continue to push for a two state solutions,
Speaker 1: something I certainly support. I think the only resolution to
Speaker 1: this conflict is not a military resolution, It is a
Speaker 1: diplomatic resolution that results in Palestinians having actual statehood and
Speaker 1: actual rights and dignity. They claim to support that, Let's
Speaker 1: take a listen to what they had to say.
Speaker 4: We seek to stop the spread of conflict and to
Speaker 4: create the conditions for de escalation. Our approach is and
Speaker 4: remains focused on moving towards greater integration and stability in
Speaker 4: the region. Long before October seventh, the United States was
Speaker 4: deeply engaged in an effort to secure a political horizon
Speaker 4: for the Palestinian people, with Israel security guaranteed as part
Speaker 4: of that.
Speaker 1: So listen, that's well, all well and good, except I mean,
Speaker 1: he's lying when he says that we were doing anything
Speaker 1: to try to push for Palestinian statehood before October seventh.
Speaker 1: We'd completely thrown them under the bus in this attempt
Speaker 1: at normalization with Saudi Arabia. But the other problem Saga
Speaker 1: is this is utter and complete fantasy. The only way
Speaker 1: you're going to have any sort of a two state
Speaker 1: solution at this point is if the US basically forces
Speaker 1: it is really actually willing, and I think we could
Speaker 1: theoretically do this to use our muscle and to use
Speaker 1: the points of leverage that we have to force this
Speaker 1: outcome in spite of the fact that this is not
Speaker 1: what the Israelis want. And I'm not just talking about Netanyahu,
Speaker 1: who is out there bragging about how he is thwarted
Speaker 1: a two state solution for years now and that he
Speaker 1: is your guy to guarantee there will never be a
Speaker 1: Palestinian state. But Israelis are by and large the population
Speaker 1: not interested in a two state solution. Put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen. This was prior to October seventh. The
Speaker 1: numbers that I've seen post October seventh are actually very
Speaker 1: similar to where this stands, which is only thirty two
Speaker 1: percent of Jewish Israelis and five five percent of the
Speaker 1: Israeli public overall believe that you could have an independent
Speaker 1: Palestine that could coexist peacefully. And that's why you hear
Speaker 1: Netanyahu out there campaigning effectively to keep his job based
Speaker 1: on a promise that he will guarantee this never ever happens.
Speaker 1: So it would be one thing sager if the US
Speaker 1: had shown any willingness to use the points of leverage
Speaker 1: they had to obtain this outcome. But if you're just
Speaker 1: going to go out there at Davos and pretend like
Speaker 1: there's some fantasy world out there that exists that doesn't
Speaker 1: actually exist, and you are not willing to use any
Speaker 1: sort of power to try to create that reality you
Speaker 1: claim to support, like you're just a liar and a fraud.
Speaker 5: At that point.
Speaker 2: The problem I think that they really have here is
Speaker 2: that everyone in the international system is pretending otherwise. So
Speaker 2: I was reading earlier today the Saudi Arabians and the
Speaker 2: UAE are like, we must have Palestinian statehood, and it's.
Speaker 3: Like okay, well, like what are you going to do
Speaker 3: about it?
Speaker 2: And then the Israelis are like, well, we don't really
Speaker 2: want Palestinian statehood, and in America is like, well, we
Speaker 2: do want Palestinian stated but we're not necessarily going to
Speaker 2: do anything.
Speaker 3: Like you said.
Speaker 2: I think we may be able to force them, but honestly,
Speaker 2: I don't know. Their political system is so screwed up
Speaker 2: and their democratic incentives are such that they may honestly
Speaker 2: favor either a break of relations or like really daring
Speaker 2: us to actually break off, and I think they would
Speaker 2: win in a standoff, Crystal, like we're in a standoff
Speaker 2: with our political system, as in Americans would break first
Speaker 2: in terms of like no Israel, like don't go. We're
Speaker 2: not really going to do anything we promise, Whereas I
Speaker 2: think the Israelis, I mean, at least for where the
Speaker 2: population is and all of that, they could certainly walk
Speaker 2: considering where things are trending in that direction.
Speaker 1: That's obviously true because there's not even willingness.
Speaker 5: To even try.
Speaker 3: So even if we did, I think they were win.
Speaker 1: There's no way, I mean, we're not even willing to
Speaker 1: even try. This is all fantasy. These people are smart
Speaker 1: or not. Like Jake Sullivan is not an idiot, for
Speaker 1: all of the issues I have with him. Tony Blinken. Also,
Speaker 1: these are not stupid people. They know the reality of
Speaker 1: who not only nan Yahu, but the entire you know,
Speaker 1: the war cabinet and where is really public.
Speaker 5: But they know all of this.
Speaker 1: They know that the settlements that have been allowed to
Speaker 1: expand under every single Israeli prime minister, not just Benjamin Natanah,
Speaker 1: every single one. Okay, those settlements make it almost impossible
Speaker 1: and that's the goal of the settlements to have any
Speaker 1: store of a two state solution. They know that Naanyahu
Speaker 1: made this cynical deal of I'm going to prop up
Speaker 1: Hamas because They're a useful foil for me, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to keep the West Bank and the Gaza Strip separated,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to use Himas to say, look, we
Speaker 1: don't have a partner. They know all of this, but
Speaker 1: they are willing to go out there and lie and
Speaker 1: create some fantasy situation and potential solution that they are
Speaker 1: not in any way willing to actually back up and
Speaker 1: push for, you know, to get back to what I
Speaker 1: was saying about Bibi and his interests in forever war,
Speaker 1: which is shared by the war cabinet. This was a
Speaker 1: fantastic piece that laid out the calculus here from Haretz
Speaker 1: got and put this up on the screen.
Speaker 5: The headline is.
Speaker 1: Why Israel's political and military leaders want a perpetual war.
Speaker 1: Many of the country's decision makers appear enamored of a
Speaker 1: situation in which the Israel War Hamas war continues with
Speaker 1: no end in sight. This is why it could benefit them.
Speaker 1: And he goes through peace by piece member, my member
Speaker 1: and says, this is their calculus, this is why it's
Speaker 1: in their interests to keep this thing going forever. He
Speaker 1: starts with this quote, could keep this up on the
Speaker 1: screen because we've got the quote there. The war has
Speaker 1: become the objective. Think about that. Just the war itself
Speaker 1: has become the goal. Former Shinbet Security Agency director Amy
Speaker 1: Alen told me in a recent Haretz interview the statement
Speaker 1: attracted wide attentional tension in Israel and around the world
Speaker 1: because think of what an omission that is. No, we're
Speaker 1: not trying to take Ahamas now, We're not really trying
Speaker 1: to accomplish, you.
Speaker 5: Know, security for our people. All we want is war.
Speaker 5: That's the whole goal is war.
Speaker 1: To keep the war going forever, not because it served
Speaker 1: the interests of certainly not the Palestinians, certainly not the
Speaker 1: israel public, because it serves their own political interest to
Speaker 1: keep this thing going. So as one example here to
Speaker 1: see the way that this thinking plays out, Benny Gance,
Speaker 1: who is supposedly, you know, oppositional to Netnyahuo, who joined
Speaker 1: the war cabinet as a show of unity in the
Speaker 1: wake of October seventh. He writes, Gan seems to be
Speaker 1: basking and success in the polls, concerned he would lose
Speaker 1: his high rating in the polls if he quits the government.
Speaker 1: From that perspective, there's little difference between him and Netanyahu
Speaker 1: and their management of the war. The decisions of both
Speaker 1: are motivated by personal and political considerations. In addition, keep
Speaker 1: in mind it's not just net Yahu and his policy
Speaker 1: that failed on October seventh, It was also the entire
Speaker 1: defense security intel establishment. So people like Joev Galant, who
Speaker 1: again had been at odds with net Yaho over the
Speaker 1: judicial coup situation, he shares in that failure on October
Speaker 1: seventh of preventing and then responding to those attacks. So
Speaker 1: he also has an interest in keeping this thing going
Speaker 1: as long as possible to avoid the questions in the
Speaker 1: scrutiny that will come of what the hell happened that
Speaker 1: enabled this all to unfold. They also believe that the
Speaker 1: more fighting they do, you know, decimate Gaza, okay, then
Speaker 1: we'll move on to Hesbalah and wherever else beyond that.
Speaker 1: They can then bring home more supposed victories to the
Speaker 1: people and maybe that'll bolster their political standing. And let's
Speaker 1: be honest, for them, also, it's not like what's happened
Speaker 1: in Gaza has gone all that well for them, they
Speaker 1: have not destroyed Hamas. They have not come even close
Speaker 1: to destroying Hamas. They have not destroyed the tunnel system.
Speaker 1: They haven't even been able to They have not been
Speaker 1: able to free the hostages. The only time hostages were
Speaker 1: being freed was from through a ceasefire, which they all
Speaker 1: oppose because they want this thing to go on forever.
Speaker 1: They killed three of their own hostages, that's more than
Speaker 1: they were able to rescue, and top Hamas leadership remains
Speaker 1: at large within the Gaza strip. So they have not
Speaker 1: accomplished anything close to the impossible goals that they sent
Speaker 1: out the beginning of this, which were now are really
Speaker 1: the real goals, and have every interest in keeping this
Speaker 1: thing going and expanding it even further.
Speaker 2: Well the expansion actually, you know one of the things
Speaker 2: that we've been looking and wanted to fly for all
Speaker 2: of you. Can we put D six please up on
Speaker 2: the screen. It's about the Wall Street Journal. They say
Speaker 2: Israel's war in Gaza is entering its most perilous phase yet.
Speaker 2: Military is aiming to take control of the maze of
Speaker 2: tunnels under communists. As refugees crowd into the South and
Speaker 2: international outcry grows over the death toll. The reason that
Speaker 2: they put it that way is that a obviously there's
Speaker 2: no more shelter in Gaza, so it's not like you
Speaker 2: can tell people to leave. But the tunnel network that
Speaker 2: is in, the tunnel network from the Egyptian border is
Speaker 2: the one that the Israeli has had the least amount
Speaker 2: of visibility in and brings them not only in contact
Speaker 2: with the vast majority of whatever's left of the civilian populace,
Speaker 2: but more and more likely of a mistake and a
Speaker 2: perilous step over the border with Egypt. Because Egypt has
Speaker 2: their military all right there at the Rafa crossing, They're
Speaker 2: very sensitive and have been previously to any like military
Speaker 2: incursion or any age to the Egyptian status quo. That
Speaker 2: all goes back to the the peace agreements. Already both
Speaker 2: are technically in violation of some of the Sinai agreements,
Speaker 2: but this could make it so that if the Israelis
Speaker 2: do cross the border, if there's one you know, wrong
Speaker 2: strike or which we've previously seen in the past, dramatically
Speaker 2: escalate tensions. Not to mention the civilian problems, and also
Speaker 2: because Rafa is the main way which humanitarian aid has
Speaker 2: been going through, which we know that there's a new Dalon,
Speaker 2: but this could even imperil that because if you destroy
Speaker 2: the infrastructure, there's nowhere to even move anything through.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, Egypt is extremely pissed at Israel for a variety
Speaker 1: of reasons, but in particular because Israel tried to throw
Speaker 1: them under the bus at the International Court of Justice
Speaker 1: and claim they were the reason that Palestinians were not
Speaker 1: receiving anywhere close to sufficient aid and why half of
Speaker 1: the population of the Gaza strip is starving right now,
Speaker 1: a disease spreading rampantly and no wildly inadequate medical supplies,
Speaker 1: amputations happening on children without anesthetic.
Speaker 5: They tried to blame Egypt for that.
Speaker 1: Egypt was so pissed off that they're now submitting their
Speaker 1: own filings disputing that is really report to the ICJ
Speaker 1: to rebut those you know, scurrilous claims that were made,
Speaker 1: and you know so at the same time as you
Speaker 1: have all of this interest in the direction of forever war,
Speaker 1: Israel is really making themselves into a global paria to
Speaker 1: the extent that, of course they had charges filed against
Speaker 1: them at the ICJ claiming that they violated the Genocide
Speaker 1: Convention and the very latest that we can show you
Speaker 1: with regard to that, they claimed, you know, oh, we
Speaker 1: don't bomb any hospitals. That's part of what the claims
Speaker 1: that they made at the ICJ. Well, we have another
Speaker 1: hospital reportedly. Put this up on the screen, Al Nasar Hospital.
Speaker 1: This is in southern Gas. I believe in your conunis
Speaker 1: that multiple news organizations have reported is now under attack.
Speaker 1: You can see there were thousands of Palestinians who had
Speaker 1: been displaced, who were sheltering there. Not to mention that,
Speaker 1: you know, many of the hospitals across the Gaza Strip
Speaker 1: are now completely holy or partially incapacitated. So this is
Speaker 1: one of the few places that still remained and was
Speaker 1: treating patients to the best of their ability given the
Speaker 1: woeful inadequacy of medical supplies. So you see people fleeing
Speaker 1: now from that hospital, and you know, the toll here
Speaker 1: is unbelievable. You referenced Sager, there was a deal. We
Speaker 1: can put the D seven up on the screen here.
Speaker 1: There was some sort of a deal that was struck
Speaker 1: for additional medical aid. In particular, this was in Hamas
Speaker 1: in Qatar they say Hamas and Israeli forces have negotiate
Speaker 1: an agreement to bring aid to Gaza. The Katari Foreign
Speaker 1: Ministry said the deal arrangement cooperation with France. We'll see
Speaker 1: medicine and other humanitarian aid delivered to civilians in the
Speaker 1: most affected and vulnerable areas of Gaza. I think northern
Speaker 1: Gaza in particular, in exchange. This is why the Israelis
Speaker 1: agreed to it for the delivery of medication to Israeli
Speaker 1: captives held in Gaza. The ministry spokesperson said that the
Speaker 1: medication aid would leave Doha on Wednesday to each before
Speaker 1: being transported into Gaza.
Speaker 5: This has actually sparked also a whole.
Speaker 1: Domestic dispute within Israel, because there was question over whether
Speaker 1: the Israelis were going to inspect this aid before it
Speaker 1: goes in or not. It seemed like the agreement said
Speaker 1: no and then Natanya who claimed yes. And in any case,
Speaker 1: there was a whole additional divide over this. But the
Speaker 1: fact that you need additional aid going in is kind
Speaker 1: of an admission that what has been going in has
Speaker 1: been wildly inadequate, to the extent that you know in
Speaker 1: the hostages who the Hamas has every interest in keeping
Speaker 1: alive and keeping well, we're not getting sufficient careag.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's really interesting just to look at this whole thing,
Speaker 2: because you know, it's like things are moving in a
Speaker 2: bunch of different directions. You've got the hostage situation which
Speaker 2: remains completely unresolved, the humanitarian situation, the military one on
Speaker 2: top of that, and then Israeli domestic politics.
Speaker 3: So we have this we can put up there on
Speaker 3: the screen.
Speaker 2: The Israeli Labor Party actually issued a no confidence vote
Speaker 2: which kind of calls into question the current coalition which
Speaker 2: is governing Israel. That was a no confidence vote against
Speaker 2: nata Yah, who challenging his approach. Now this this would
Speaker 2: be like if the Labor Party in Britain during the
Speaker 2: you know, coalition wartime government of Winston Churchill had to
Speaker 2: no confidence vote against his leadership, which really called into
Speaker 2: the entire idea of like a bipartisan war and that. Now,
Speaker 2: let's be clear, it's not like the Labor Party is
Speaker 2: against the war per se, but they are very much
Speaker 2: against nata Yah who. I mean, in my opinion, wouldn't
Speaker 2: be a bad outcome for them to be a new
Speaker 2: Prime minister, just to give them some better legitimacy. In
Speaker 2: terms of their own popular and they need to have
Speaker 2: an election so they can decide what they want to do,
Speaker 2: because right now you're being ruled by the guy who
Speaker 2: was Basically all of this is his fault, and every
Speaker 2: incentive he has, as you laid out, is keep this
Speaker 2: thing going on as long as possible. Now, if these
Speaker 2: Raelies want war with Lebanon, okay, you know, go for it.
Speaker 2: You guys can sign up, hopefully you'll pay for it,
Speaker 2: and you can do all of it yourself. But you know,
Speaker 2: it's like you should have some sort of say and
Speaker 2: vote over that. I'm kind of shocked there isn't more
Speaker 2: of a pressure inside society. Maybe the hostage thing is
Speaker 2: just takes.
Speaker 3: I'm not there. You know, it's very difficult to figure
Speaker 3: out what the political sentiments.
Speaker 1: So on the Labor Party no confidence vote, Let's be
Speaker 1: clear about how irrelevant the Labor Party is at this
Speaker 1: point in Israeli politics.
Speaker 5: They have four on of one hundred and twenty seats
Speaker 5: in the Kaddessa.
Speaker 1: What they have said about the reason that they are
Speaker 1: doing this is they tweeted, our daughters and sons have
Speaker 1: been held captive by Jamas for one hundred and three days,
Speaker 1: one hundred and three days, that the state of Israel's
Speaker 1: torn between Israel and Gaza and the government doesn't care
Speaker 1: at all, echoing some of the criticism from the hostages
Speaker 1: who were released and also the families of those who
Speaker 1: those hostages and those who still remain in Gaza. In
Speaker 1: another post, the party said they don't have time. We
Speaker 1: do not have time, and there's no trust in the
Speaker 1: government that does not do everything to return them. There
Speaker 1: is no trust in a government that does not put
Speaker 1: the kidnapped as a priority, a government that cares about
Speaker 1: its own corrupt interest and not those who give their
Speaker 1: lives for it. They ended by saying, this is a
Speaker 1: government that cannot be trusted. It should be overthrown. So listen.
Speaker 1: The Labor Party has become fairly irrelevant in Israeli politics,
Speaker 1: but the sentiment they're express here is extremely common in
Speaker 1: Israeli politics, and you can see this in the incredibly
Speaker 1: low ratings for Netanyahu in particular right now. I mean
Speaker 1: the last one we saw you had like a six
Speaker 1: percent approval rating. So he's been able to forestall any
Speaker 1: political consequences by saying, yes, I hear you, We're going
Speaker 1: to talk about it. After the war, and then he says,
Speaker 1: but by the way, the war's going to go on forever.
Speaker 1: So you know their theory, his and Yoav Galant and
Speaker 1: the rest apparently of the war cabinet's theory of the
Speaker 1: way to secure the hostage release is by continuing to
Speaker 1: bomb the hell out of the Gaza strip. That's the
Speaker 1: way to secure the hostage release. And even many of
Speaker 1: the hostages who came back, who were furious, who thought
Speaker 1: they were going to be killed, and some of whom,
Speaker 1: by the way, were killed by Israeli forces, they said,
Speaker 1: you have.
Speaker 5: No idea what you're doing here.
Speaker 1: The only time hostages were released was through a ceasefire deal,
Speaker 1: the polar opposite of the strategy that they claimed to
Speaker 1: be employing here.
Speaker 5: So you know, their strive for obtaining the hostage getting.
Speaker 1: The hostages back has clearly failed at this point. But
Speaker 1: of course they're not going to acknowledge that, because to
Speaker 1: acknowledge that which to acknowledge that there needs to be
Speaker 1: some sort of a diplomatic solution, and that would create
Speaker 1: some sort of an opportunity for reckoning on their own
Speaker 1: failed leadership.
Speaker 5: And of course they don't want any of that.
Speaker 1: The Houthis have, surprised surprise, continued to attack US ships
Speaker 1: and other commercial vessels in the Red Sea even after
Speaker 1: we struck, and actually we conducted additional strikes in Yemen,
Speaker 1: illegal strikes in Yemen against their facilities and their weapons capacity.
Speaker 1: Clearly hasn't slowed them down one bit. Let's put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. The Huthi's hit a US ship.
Speaker 1: This was after the US took this additional step which
Speaker 1: I think the Houthis probably rightly see as like fairly
Speaker 1: meaningless as designating them as a terror organization. The Huthi
Speaker 1: group said they hit the Genco Paccardi Bolt carrier with missiles,
Speaker 1: which resulted in a direct hit. US military says the
Speaker 1: vessel was hit by a drone on Wednesday evening. Washington's
Speaker 1: new designation of the Houthis will require US financial institutions
Speaker 1: to freeze Hoothy funds and its members will be banned
Speaker 1: from the US. Put the next one up on the screen.
Speaker 5: This comes on the.
Speaker 1: Heels of a different Hoothy attack. They launched another attack
Speaker 1: on merchant shipping on Tuesday, just hours after the US
Speaker 1: preemptively struck missiles and Yemen that were prepared to launch,
Speaker 1: according to a statement from US sent Com. US Income,
Speaker 1: by the way, said there were no injuries reported from
Speaker 1: the merchant ship and Counterpoints covered this yesterday, But just
Speaker 1: to underscore how stupid and counterproductive this whole strategy has been,
Speaker 1: Shell has suspended red sea shipments amid fears of more
Speaker 1: hoothy attacks. We'll have to see whether this becomes a
Speaker 1: longer standing issue. That CEO told the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: in Davos, So, congratulations, you haven't slowed them down one bit.
Speaker 1: There was reporting, what was that The New York Times
Speaker 1: that said, you really haven't degraded their offensive capabilities really
Speaker 1: one bit, because they are very mobile, they're very agile,
Speaker 1: they're very used to be bomb to hell all the time.
Speaker 1: So you haven't degraded their capacity. You certainly haven't degraded
Speaker 1: the will of the many people who are overwhelming le
Speaker 1: back them, and all these commercial vessels are like, Okay,
Speaker 1: this is an active war zone. Now there's no way
Speaker 1: that we're shipping through the Red Sea. So commercial shipping
Speaker 1: has only gone in the opposite direction of what you wanted.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's actually pretty terrifying to just realize how delicate,
Speaker 2: you know, we talked about Taiwan and all this with
Speaker 2: how delicate and asymmetric you can have an impact on
Speaker 2: the global economy with some of these choke points. And
Speaker 2: actually it's more surprising that it hasn't happened up until now,
Speaker 2: and it's probably a function of just technology, which is,
Speaker 2: these Hoothis are spending forty grand on a drone and
Speaker 2: we have to spend one hundred million dollars to destroy
Speaker 2: maybe fifteen percent of their offensive capability. Even you know,
Speaker 2: if you just read the Scentcom statement out this morning
Speaker 2: about the fourteen new strikes, they say that they destroyed
Speaker 2: fourteen missiles and their launchers. Is who Thi's were preparing
Speaker 2: to fire them? Two US officials said that the strikes
Speaker 2: were carried out with Tamahawk cruise miss I mean, these
Speaker 2: are four hundred grand a pop every time we fire
Speaker 2: one of these, fired by navy vessels. Local news outlets
Speaker 2: and Yemen said that they had struck who the controlled territory.
Speaker 3: They're still doing battle damage assessment.
Speaker 5: What's the coalition doing here, Foger? What are they doing
Speaker 5: for us?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a great point.
Speaker 2: Interesting, every US coalition ends up just being US dropping
Speaker 2: the bombs.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's kind of great and paying for it.
Speaker 5: By the way, occasionally the UK we'll do some little something.
Speaker 2: But we sell them the weapon, so it's not even
Speaker 2: real so because it's like if you use our bomb
Speaker 2: to bomb somebody, then whatever.
Speaker 3: That's a whole other conversation.
Speaker 2: Let's put up the final part here because it just
Speaker 2: demonstrates about the precarity of this, and this is kind
Speaker 2: of the function of this segment in looking at the
Speaker 2: Israel situation. The Chief of Staff of the IDF currently
Speaker 2: says that the likelihood of war in the North is
Speaker 2: higher than before made the remarks during actually visit to
Speaker 2: reserve forces in the North on Wednesday, a mere growing
Speaker 2: fears of a war with Hesbolah. You as pointed out
Speaker 2: this crystal gallant. The Defense Minister also apparently said something
Speaker 2: very similar. We saw some remarks that came out from
Speaker 2: Ben Givie, the right wing politician inside of Israel. They
Speaker 2: really really want you know, they want war with Israel,
Speaker 2: or so they want war with Hesbola. It's clear the
Speaker 2: military wants it, the defense establishment wants it. Netanyahu definitely
Speaker 2: wants it. The only people who don't want it is America.
Speaker 2: Now it's relatively unclear whether Hesbola wants it or not.
Speaker 2: They've been pretty you know, as they've stayed out of it.
Speaker 2: They've had some tit for tat strikes, They've taken some casualties.
Speaker 2: These Raelies have taken some casualties. Both seem to realize
Speaker 2: how devastating and horrible the conflict would be. But it
Speaker 2: is clear to me that this is kind of like
Speaker 2: in Afghanistan Iraq situation. Even when we were at war
Speaker 2: in Afghanistan, our defense establishment and top leaders, army and others,
Speaker 2: they really wanted to invade Iraq. It took two years
Speaker 2: to build the political case and all that. Obviously we're
Speaker 2: on an accelerated timeline and all this. But if the
Speaker 2: political will is there at the top of the government,
Speaker 2: if they want to do this, then we should take
Speaker 2: it really, really seriously. There's only really one check that
Speaker 2: could have happened in the US, which would have been
Speaker 2: like genuine small d democratic you know, revolt. I don't
Speaker 2: know how the Israeli public feels about something like this.
Speaker 2: I will give them credit for at least this because
Speaker 2: they have mandatory they have mandatory enlistment. They are not stupid.
Speaker 2: They all watched two thousand and six. It wasn't that
Speaker 2: long ago. Their sons and daughters had to fight with Hesbola.
Speaker 2: So they could have some you know, at least input
Speaker 2: or try to campaign or something like against us, because
Speaker 2: they know too there's there are a country that reads
Speaker 2: a lot of the news. They would know that thousands
Speaker 2: and thousands of them would die in a conflict like this,
Speaker 2: not to mention a.
Speaker 3: Lot more civilians.
Speaker 2: Israeli civilians would die in this than probably any October
Speaker 2: seventh because of the sheer capability of Hesbola from missiles
Speaker 2: and all that. On the other side, maybe they think
Speaker 2: of it as like a last stand. They're like, listen,
Speaker 2: you know, October seventh was our nine to eleven. Now
Speaker 2: we have to do something, you know, just to make
Speaker 2: we have to make sure that this never happens again.
Speaker 2: And you can use the extension from Hamas to Hesbola.
Speaker 2: I could see the Israeli public signing up for that
Speaker 2: and be like, sure, you know, we're going to risk
Speaker 2: tens of thousands, but they'll ensure our security in the future.
Speaker 2: I could see it going both ways. But I mean
Speaker 2: it's pretty terrifying because from a reserve perspective and military perspective.
Speaker 2: Their Israel's not doing very well right now. They had
Speaker 2: to pull a lot of their troops out of Gaza,
Speaker 2: a lot.
Speaker 3: Of their reserves. They're sending them back to the economy.
Speaker 2: If you get into war with Hesbol, you're going to
Speaker 2: call every single one of those guys not just back up,
Speaker 2: but they're in forever. They're in for a long time,
Speaker 2: for a long haul. This is not Hamas you know,
Speaker 2: a couple of month deployment. We're talking fifteen twenty months
Speaker 2: or something like that.
Speaker 1: The US really in a sense went mad after nine
Speaker 1: to eleven, and that was that was exploited right by
Speaker 1: you know, neocons who had a long standing agenda that
Speaker 1: they wanted to pursue, and it took them a very
Speaker 1: little small amount of time to push for a war
Speaker 1: in a rock that made absolutely no sense, in a
Speaker 1: you know, indefinite war in Afghanistan that you know, initially, okay,
Speaker 1: go in and get in Latin, that part made sense.
Speaker 1: But then whatever the hell we were doing after that,
Speaker 1: even the people who were in military leadership couldn't explain
Speaker 1: what we were doing, what the goals were, what counted
Speaker 1: as success, et cetera. So we went mad after nine
Speaker 1: to eleven. I think the Israeli public has gone mad
Speaker 1: after October seventh, and I think net, Yahoo and co.
Speaker 1: Are using that in a very similar way that the
Speaker 1: neocons use it to further their own ends and agenda,
Speaker 1: to further their own ends and agenda. You know, the
Speaker 1: real response to what happened on October seventh was, listen,
Speaker 1: this idea that you can imprison people forever, that you
Speaker 1: can definitely thwart their like basic rights to self determination,
Speaker 1: control what's happening in their own territory, that you can
Speaker 1: have you know, this massive security established and all this
Speaker 1: high tech and that that's going to keep you safe.
Speaker 1: You're going to be able to quote unquote control the flames.
Speaker 1: Well after the horror and humiliation of October seventh, that
Speaker 1: fell apart. So the real response is, Okay, there is
Speaker 1: no military solution to this. There is no occupying force
Speaker 1: solution to this. The only actual solution to this is
Speaker 1: a diplomatic one. But of course no one wants to
Speaker 1: hear that when they're in the midst of rage and
Speaker 1: fury and disgust and horror and pain and loss and
Speaker 1: suffering and all of that. So instead the direction is
Speaker 1: not in the favor in favor of diplomacy. The direction
Speaker 1: is in favor of We're going to do war even harder.
Speaker 1: We're going to crush from Moss and by the way,
Speaker 1: those of you in northern Israel, we're going to crush Hasblatwo,
Speaker 1: so you don't have to worry about them either. That
Speaker 1: was our mistake, is that we didn't crush them and
Speaker 1: their ambitions and their spirit hard enough that we weren't
Speaker 1: big enough assholes in the region to deter everyone from
Speaker 1: you know, ever messing with us. So we have to
Speaker 1: launch this insanely brutal and I certainly would say in
Speaker 1: the ic J South Africa case would agree genocidal assault
Speaker 1: on the Gaza Strip. That's what we have to do
Speaker 1: to make sure no one messes with us ever again.
Speaker 1: And that's the logic that has taken hold with at
Speaker 1: least it appears based on the polling a majority of
Speaker 1: the Israeli public. And that's why these politicians think it's
Speaker 1: in their cynical best interests to continue the war going
Speaker 1: indefinitely and you know, bring home as many horror, horrible
Speaker 1: military prizes as they possibly.
Speaker 3: Can it's a big question.
Speaker 2: I mean, we just don't know, right, because it's like
Speaker 2: the US public went along with it until they didn't
Speaker 2: go along with it, So it's two do it took
Speaker 2: four years?
Speaker 3: Yeah, a lot of people died in the interim.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying it was a good thing, but it's
Speaker 2: not like you know, it was actually kind of rapid
Speaker 2: sometimes if you think about it. By four five or so,
Speaker 2: people were at least beginning to have the conversation we
Speaker 2: wanted to spare them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, everybody told we elected George W.
Speaker 1: Bush.
Speaker 2: Biden literally went over there and he's like, you really
Speaker 2: should not make the same mistakes as nine to eleven.
Speaker 3: And they didn't want to listen. So this is their problem.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately, you know, to the extent that we cover a
Speaker 2: lot of this conflict, it's also about it's our problem
Speaker 2: because we're the ones bombing the.
Speaker 3: Who these not the Israelis.
Speaker 2: Where are the ones who are bearing the vast majority
Speaker 2: of the cost, not the Israelis?
Speaker 3: And so they have had it.
Speaker 2: They have always had this tremendous ability to outsource the
Speaker 2: vast majority of their problems, but then they get to
Speaker 2: keep all of the benefits to their overall security very
Speaker 2: you know, very very unbalanced relationship, and they very much
Speaker 2: risk I think balancing it definitely in the wrong way
Speaker 2: in the long term, not necessarily in the short when
Speaker 2: you can see so much of the domestic political situation
Speaker 2: shifting here.
Speaker 3: But why don't we get to our guests great guest.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we have a great guest standing by to talk
Speaker 1: about some of the other sick incentives that constantly pushed
Speaker 1: us all towards more war and more conflict.
Speaker 5: Let's get to it.
Speaker 1: Our next guest has been shining a light on a
Speaker 1: really undercovered part of Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 1: Anthony Lowenstein is an independent journalist and author of The
Speaker 1: Palestine Laboratory who was based in East Jerusalem between twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen and twenty twenty, and he joins us now, great
Speaker 1: to see you, Anthony, Welcome.
Speaker 6: Man, Thanks for having me. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Tell us a little bit about the book and how
Speaker 1: it relates to what we're seeing right now.
Speaker 7: The book essentially is a multi year investigation looking at
Speaker 7: how Israel's occupation of Palestine's a long best in modern times,
Speaker 7: and over those decadeses more than half a century, Israel's
Speaker 7: developed huge amounts of tools and technologies to maintain that occupation.
Speaker 7: So in the modern act, you're talking about drones, spy where,
Speaker 7: biometric tools, all these different methods that Israel used to
Speaker 7: control Palestinians twenty four to seven. That's bad enough, but
Speaker 7: what Israel's been doing for decades, pretty much since the
Speaker 7: nineteen fifties, so very soon after Israel's birth, is promoting
Speaker 7: and selling and marketing those tools and technologies as so
Speaker 7: called battle tested in Palestine on Palestinians, to the world.
Speaker 7: And essentially what that means practically is that I calculated
Speaker 7: at least one hundred and forty countries, so the majority
Speaker 7: countries on the planet have brought some form of this
Speaker 7: technology in the last decades. How that relates to what's
Speaker 7: happening now since October seven, is really clear is that
Speaker 7: Israel has been live testing, both the government and private
Speaker 7: companies live testing new weapons in Gaza. And that's not
Speaker 7: just for a domestic Israeli audience who obviously are mostly
Speaker 7: supporting the war, but for a global market that in
Speaker 7: months and years to come a likely want to buy
Speaker 7: those tools and technologies in their own wars.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Anthony, I remember that Israeli drones made a big
Speaker 2: appearance in Azerbaijan, and I'm wondering if you could talk
Speaker 2: a little bit about that, because I know that those
Speaker 2: drones were kind of the forefront of the technology and
Speaker 2: they've made a couple of appearances in being sold into
Speaker 2: that and they actually made quite a bit of a difference.
Speaker 3: If you could tell us about that.
Speaker 7: Yeah, well, those drones were suicide drones mostly in Israel
Speaker 7: is a really key provider and developer of those tools.
Speaker 7: Now that's obviously a conflict that, as you say, hasn't
Speaker 7: got a lot of international attention, but should because Israel's
Speaker 7: pretty much on arguably the wrong side.
Speaker 6: They're the very repressive side.
Speaker 7: And one of the things I think that shows in
Speaker 7: that as a Baioijan conflict is that and this is not,
Speaker 7: on one level, massively different to say the US. The
Speaker 7: US is the world's biggest arms dealer, sells about forty
Speaker 7: forty five percent of the world's weapons.
Speaker 6: Israel's tenth.
Speaker 7: And there's not really any moral qualms to sell to anybody,
Speaker 7: literally anybody, I mean at the moment as far as
Speaker 7: where Israel does not sell to sirious South Korea or Iran,
Speaker 7: but the majority of other nations in.
Speaker 6: The world they will.
Speaker 7: And the reason so many other nations want these tools
Speaker 7: is because they're tested in Palestine on Palestinians like literally.
Speaker 7: To the point I show this in the book and
Speaker 7: it's appeared in other shows that I've talked about on film,
Speaker 7: is that Israel routinely will document these testing in Palestine.
Speaker 6: And they show those videos to clients.
Speaker 7: So in the last years, some of the most notorious
Speaker 7: examples obviously these Pegasus, the phone hacking tool that has
Speaker 7: been appearing in countless countries from India to Bangladesh to others,
Speaker 7: and those tools were originally tested in Palestine and then
Speaker 7: in fact they're still being used in Palestine and other
Speaker 7: countries around the world. So the Jezerbaijan conflict was one,
Speaker 7: and there are so many others that I think don't
Speaker 7: get enough attention, but they should.
Speaker 1: Haraz took a look at related topic here. Let's put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. The headline here is shark
Speaker 1: tanks with Gaza as testing ground israelly. Defense startups flourish,
Speaker 1: suicide drones and AI systems. Strict regulations and the dominance
Speaker 1: of the major defense firms. I mean few small and
Speaker 1: startups are found in Israel each year. They are looking
Speaker 1: at new opportunities amid geopolitical tensions, rising military budgets and
Speaker 1: the Gaza war. Can you just talk to us about
Speaker 1: how the profit motive incentivizes war and conflict.
Speaker 6: Well, it's key, isn't it.
Speaker 7: Because the global arms trade is now over two trillion dollars,
Speaker 7: not just in Israel but globally. And of course, after
Speaker 7: Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February a couple of years ago,
Speaker 7: huge amounts of European nations were begging the US and
Speaker 7: Israel for new missile the finance shields, another kind of
Speaker 7: equipment which they claim would protect them against potential attack
Speaker 7: by Russia if that ever happened. What Israel I think
Speaker 7: is doing in that article Equote is interesting, which also
Speaker 7: mirrors what I'm hearing from my sources, is that a
Speaker 7: lot of Americans, Silicon Valley venture capital companies and others
Speaker 7: are looking to Israel since October seven, And it started
Speaker 7: before then, of course, but particularly since October seven, and
Speaker 7: they see opportunity. They see the huge amounts of possibilities
Speaker 7: of not just weapons, but also economic opportunities investing, and
Speaker 7: a lot of those companies are live testing the weapons
Speaker 7: in Gaza to the point where they're often putting that
Speaker 7: on social media live, which is then promoted and sold
Speaker 7: to other nations across the globe. So the arms industry
Speaker 7: is booming. And it's interesting the latest figures we have
Speaker 7: from Israel's twenty twenty two it was twelve and a
Speaker 7: half billion US, which is the biggest by far. Twenty
Speaker 7: four percent of that were Arab Autocracy is the so
Speaker 7: called abraham acause that Trump began and Biden has continued.
Speaker 7: And so these are nations like Saudi and UAE, Bahrain,
Speaker 7: Morocco and others. They're buying all this surveillance equipment because
Speaker 7: they're petrified at the next Arab spring basically, and Israel
Speaker 7: is the key provider of that.
Speaker 6: So that's I think a.
Speaker 7: Context that people often don't remember that Israel to me,
Speaker 7: and I say this to someone who's Jewish myself, is
Speaker 7: that Israel in some ways is exporting the occupation globally.
Speaker 6: What's happening in Palestine is not staying there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Anthony, give us some more examples of some of
Speaker 2: the things that you've seen just from resources and others
Speaker 2: in this current war, Traditionally they've relied, you know, currently
Speaker 2: on nothing particularly new, at least for now. We've seen
Speaker 2: like two thousand pound bombs. We've seen some infantry, but
Speaker 2: we've also, as you said, we've had suicide drones and
Speaker 2: those have also proliferated, been copied the hoo. Theies have
Speaker 2: been using them in some cases. So what is the
Speaker 2: current conflict? What are some of the technologies and others
Speaker 2: that you see that we're going to be seeing in
Speaker 2: other conflicts sometime soon.
Speaker 6: Some of it's surveillance tech.
Speaker 7: So after October seven, when Hamas took in large numbers
Speaker 7: of hostages, around two hundred and forty, there was a
Speaker 7: lot of those surveillance the Israeli companies that we used
Speaker 7: by the government to try to find those people in Gaza.
Speaker 7: Now arguably not very successfully. Of course, they are still
Speaker 7: now around one hundred and thirty one hundred and forty
Speaker 7: stuck in Gaza, and the intelligence is actually being provided
Speaker 7: to is Rael to find that. Now it's not just
Speaker 7: coming from Israel sexually, also coming from other sources of
Speaker 7: the US, particularly in effectual so Australia. So one of
Speaker 7: the advances that Israel is testing, yes, surveillance equipment also
Speaker 7: particularly sophisticated surveillance drones, suicide drones, and also I think
Speaker 7: the idea of moster sort of nightgoggles, but very sophisticate nightgoggles,
Speaker 7: because what Israel is facing in Gaza is a deeply
Speaker 7: problematic enemy from their perspective, where Israel is gone into
Speaker 7: Gaza all guns blazing, and they're actually having a problem
Speaker 7: because four months in hermast is still standing. Bloody to
Speaker 7: be sure, but it's still standing and arguably is never
Speaker 7: going to be fully defeated. So I think we're talking
Speaker 7: about surveillance tech, drones and various other forms like that,
Speaker 7: which is a set of being tested in real time,
Speaker 7: which will then we'll see in other conflicts around the
Speaker 7: world in the coming months and years.
Speaker 1: To that point, has there been any loss of confidence
Speaker 1: in this high tach because one of the things that
Speaker 1: we saw in October seventh is the first thing that
Speaker 1: Hamas did as they took these very low tech basically
Speaker 1: like off the shelf drone and disabled a lot of
Speaker 1: this incredibly expensive high tech equipment that the Israelis had.
Speaker 1: They took a bulldozer and took down the you know,
Speaker 1: multimillion dollar border wall, and as you pointed out, you know,
Speaker 1: for all of the high tech surveillance equipment that the
Speaker 1: Israelis have, they clearly haven't been able to locate or
Speaker 1: certainly effectively extract their own hostages, to the point that
Speaker 1: they actually killed three of their own hostages because they
Speaker 1: thought that they were Palestinians. So there has there been
Speaker 1: any reassessment or even any sort of leveling of the
Speaker 1: playing field in this era of gorilla warfare between the
Speaker 1: incredible high tech that the US and Israel and a
Speaker 1: lot of other modern countries rely on, and what these
Speaker 1: sort of you know, ragtag gorilla army type insurgencies are
Speaker 1: able to cobble together.
Speaker 6: Amongst the Israeli public.
Speaker 7: The answer is undeniably yes, I mean Israeli public, and
Speaker 7: I'm generalizing here, of course, there are always exceptions.
Speaker 6: Have spent years and years and years with.
Speaker 7: The deluded belief that you can occupy people in definitely
Speaker 7: in the West Bank and Gaza and get so called security. Now,
Speaker 7: obviously October seven shattered that so many of Israeli Jews
Speaker 7: in Israel do not feel safe anymore. If you ask
Speaker 7: me about how the Israeli defense sector and military feel
Speaker 7: their response has been hubris. So on the one hand,
Speaker 7: they are trying to make up for what they clearly
Speaker 7: failed miserably on on October seven, and that's just overwhelming force,
Speaker 7: massive amounts of war crimes and completely insane amounts of
Speaker 7: violence against Loactis Garzans in people themselves, but also infrastructure
Speaker 7: and Garza's way of life. But I think what I'm
Speaker 7: seeing actually is hubris in the Israeli defense sector. They
Speaker 7: very much seed akin to nine to eleven in the US.
Speaker 7: Nine to eleven was obviously a massive intelligence failure in America,
Speaker 7: but that in fact bolstered America's defense sector massively wars
Speaker 7: in Iraq, Afghanistan, and et cetera. You're going to see
Speaker 7: a very similar situation in Israel, where, yes, October seven
Speaker 7: was a catastrophic failure, clearly, but there's no indication that
Speaker 7: I've seen thus at all that those defense companies which
Speaker 7: failed miserably holding themselves account or they're actually being held
Speaker 7: account by these relevant government you get at all.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're actually really making more money probably than ever.
Speaker 5: Anthony, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: It was fantastic to talk to you and really recommend
Speaker 1: that people check out the book.
Speaker 5: It's incredibly revelatory.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we'll have a linked down in the description. Thank
Speaker 3: you very much, you guys.
Speaker 6: Sure.
Speaker 2: Thanks for watching, guys, we appreciate it. Well, we'll have
Speaker 2: some extra content for you over the weekend. Otherwise, we'll
Speaker 2: see you all on Monday.