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. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: We have a number of important reports coming out of Israel.
Speaker 1: This one I've referenced a couple times. Let's put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. So this is from Lancett, which
Speaker 1: is widely respected medical journal. And there's always been this
Speaker 1: question of what the true death toll in Gaza actually is.
Speaker 1: And there have been concerted efforts to deny the reports
Speaker 1: of the deaths coming out of Gaza because the only
Speaker 1: people who are available to count the dead is the
Speaker 1: Gaza Health Ministry, which they love to call the Hamas
Speaker 1: run Gaza health industry. Now, their numbers have been pretty
Speaker 1: accurate in the past. However, according to these experts, they say,
Speaker 1: if you look at past conflicts and you look at
Speaker 1: the level of devastation and destruction of infrastructure in medical care, etc.
Speaker 1: In Gaza, they say, applying a conservative estimate of four
Speaker 1: indirect deaths per one direct death to the thirty seven
Speaker 1: three hundred ninety six deaths reporting, which by the way,
Speaker 1: doesn't include those buried under the rubble, it's not implausible
Speaker 1: to estimate that up to one hundred and eighty six
Speaker 1: thousand or even more deaths could be attributable to the
Speaker 1: current conflict in Gaza. That they describe this as a
Speaker 1: conservative estimate. In past conflicts, the ratio of direct deaths
Speaker 1: to indirect has been up to fifteen. It's certainly possible
Speaker 1: in Gaza. We're seeing that level, just again, given the
Speaker 1: level of destruction. As I mentioned before, this does not
Speaker 1: even include those who are considered to be buried under
Speaker 1: the rubble, which is about another ten thousand individuals. But
Speaker 1: even with this conservative estimate, you're talking about about eight
Speaker 1: percent of the population of Gaza that has been killed
Speaker 1: in this conflict.
Speaker 4: Eight percent.
Speaker 1: So you know, we've even had the White House denying
Speaker 1: the death toll, You've had members of Congress directly denying
Speaker 1: the death toll, and we've been saying all along that
Speaker 1: if anything, it is very likely the number of deaths
Speaker 1: are being understated. Now you have a medical journal publishing
Speaker 1: an analysis exactly to that effect that you could have
Speaker 1: somewhere around eight percent of the entire Palestinian population in
Speaker 1: Gaza that has been killed.
Speaker 2: Sober well, it would be abnormal that it would be
Speaker 2: only thirty seven. It doesn't take a genius, you know,
Speaker 2: to figure it out and do what from famine, hunger conditions, sanitation, sanitation,
Speaker 2: and mass placement, I mean yeah, exactly. Even in a
Speaker 2: normal in any place, even if there was no bombing
Speaker 2: or anything going on, if you forcibly take people over
Speaker 2: what one point eight million or something and move them
Speaker 2: out of their homes, a lot of people are going
Speaker 2: to die, people who are old, people in the medical condition,
Speaker 2: access to medicine, etc.
Speaker 3: At war.
Speaker 2: On top of that, it's very much like what happened
Speaker 2: in the US invasion of Iraq, where we would estimate
Speaker 2: the death tolls and then the eventual real tally that
Speaker 2: came out a decade later was almost ten times the
Speaker 2: initial number that was estimated, specifically for these reasons was
Speaker 2: massive placement, the bombing campaign and elsewhere. So it only
Speaker 2: I think, only confirms what I think a lot of
Speaker 2: people already know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think it'll be years before we really
Speaker 1: know the toll. And that's also common in conflicts, and
Speaker 1: especially here you've had the Israeli government which has denied
Speaker 1: any independent access to be able to assess the toll,
Speaker 1: and then they then deny that the death toll even
Speaker 1: though they prohibit anyone else from being able to come
Speaker 1: in and assess the situation themselves. So, you know, for
Speaker 1: those who have long suspected that the death toll is
Speaker 1: quite a lot larger than the official numbers, I think
Speaker 1: this provides a lot of confirmation for that. At the
Speaker 1: same time, for those who have been being raked across
Speaker 1: the cools, we're talking about the Hannibal directive from the beginning,
Speaker 1: even though in the New York Times indicated that the
Speaker 1: Hannibal directive had been used at least in one instance,
Speaker 1: you now have Harats with some blockbuster reporting here confirming,
Speaker 1: by the way, the reporting of a number of independent
Speaker 1: outlets that the IDEAF did order the Hannibal directive on
Speaker 1: October seventh to prevent Hamas taking soldiers captive. Here is
Speaker 1: some of the details that we can pull out here.
Speaker 1: They say one of those decisions was made at seven
Speaker 1: to eighteen am when an observation post at the Yifta
Speaker 1: outpost reported someone had been kidnapped at the Eras border
Speaker 1: crosses adjacent to the IDF's liaison office. Hannibal at Eres
Speaker 1: came the command from Divisional Headquarters dispatch a zeke. The
Speaker 1: zeke is an unmanned assault drone and the meaning of
Speaker 1: this command was clear. At another time, at eleven twenty
Speaker 1: two am, across the entire Gaza Division network, the order
Speaker 1: was issued not a single vehicle can return to Gaza,
Speaker 1: meaning that if you are in the area and you
Speaker 1: see cars headed back to Gaza, you don't need to
Speaker 1: worry about whether these are civilians who are fleeing, whether
Speaker 1: there are people on board who are kidnapped. In fact,
Speaker 1: that's the whole purpose of the Hannibal directive, is that
Speaker 1: you would rather kill those civilians than allow them to
Speaker 1: be taken and to be kidnapped into Gaza.
Speaker 4: So, you know, as we.
Speaker 1: Move forward and we think about that horrific death toll
Speaker 1: on October seventh, it is a legitimate question to say
Speaker 1: how many of those were Hamas and how many of
Speaker 1: those were IDF. That is not to deny Hamas atrocities
Speaker 1: on that day, something we have said consistently and will
Speaker 1: continue to say.
Speaker 4: However, there were.
Speaker 1: Many multiple instances, now documented by a number of outlets,
Speaker 1: the latest being Haretz and Israeli News outlet that the
Speaker 1: Hannibal directive was employed in multiple instances and civilians were
Speaker 1: fired on the IDAF in an attempt to prevent kidnappings
Speaker 1: from occurring. So this is an astonishing, blockbuster revelation and
Speaker 1: a truly courageous bit of reporting too for Haretz, which
Speaker 1: I mean Haretz is a you know, sort of liberal
Speaker 1: Zionist publication by and large, they have shown a lot
Speaker 1: of courage in the way that they have reported some
Speaker 1: aspects of this, in particular some of the Hamas atrocity
Speaker 1: lies from October seventh, and have earned themselves direct threats
Speaker 1: of being shut down and banned by the government because
Speaker 1: of their reporting. So, you know, I really applaud them
Speaker 1: for being willing to put this out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, it's actually I mean, look at a certain point,
Speaker 2: it's also what it's July ninth, So it took ten
Speaker 2: months for them to put that out. The UN already
Speaker 2: put it out, and there were already Questions October seventeenth.
Speaker 4: I forgot that one hadn't even said it covered that.
Speaker 2: The show, so you know, in a certain sense, like
Speaker 2: you're following it a little bit. That said, of course,
Speaker 2: it does actually take a long time to confirm something
Speaker 2: like this, and it does mean something that in Israeli
Speaker 2: paper were to actually we admit it. But it does
Speaker 2: seem like in the midst of the Biden news that
Speaker 2: a lot of the things that have been confirmed or
Speaker 2: things bubbling underneath the surface. I don't think anything is
Speaker 2: going particularly good for Israel, and we have to keep
Speaker 2: our eyes on it, right because things could explode in
Speaker 2: any moment. I mean, Israeli troops are now back in
Speaker 2: Gaza City, which in itself is an admission of failure.
Speaker 2: There's rafa, you know, we have continues. I saw reporters
Speaker 2: that are on the ground. There's like full on active
Speaker 2: combat that's inside. So all of the talk, and then
Speaker 2: the Israeli generals who actually are forcedease fire because like, hey,
Speaker 2: we don't have any weapons anymore. They're like, we can't
Speaker 2: keep this shit going. And then so the government is all,
Speaker 2: you know, torn apart. So I would say, if anything
Speaker 2: like this is the time if Barber them to actually
Speaker 2: try and do a ceasefire, but we'll see.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, the political calculus continues to be against that.
Speaker 4: Forna.
Speaker 1: I mean, the latest that you see these insane news
Speaker 1: reports that are like the sticking point and the ceasefire
Speaker 1: deal is that Israel wants to continue fighting. It's like,
Speaker 1: what kind of a ceasefire deal is this? Yeah, it includes,
Speaker 1: but we want to keep fighting. We're going to talk
Speaker 1: to Jeremy and Ryan Moore about this because they have
Speaker 1: some really quite important insights into the way that Hamas
Speaker 1: is viewing all of this, and they agree with the
Speaker 1: Israeli analysts who have said this has been a failure
Speaker 1: for Israel now. Hamas disgustingly also treats civilian life very casually,
Speaker 1: including Palestinian civilian life. That also comes across in these interviews.
Speaker 1: But definitely stay tuned for that because you want to
Speaker 1: hear more from their perspective, which I know is always
Speaker 1: very controversial, but we've always said it's important to understand
Speaker 1: the perspective of all of the actors that are involved
Speaker 1: in these conflicts, regardless of how you feel about them.
Speaker 1: There was another blockbuster piece of reporting from another Israeli
Speaker 1: outlet that has done extraordinary work throughout this conflict. This
Speaker 1: is Plus nine seven to two magazine. The headline here
Speaker 1: from orn ZEEV is on bored so I shoot the
Speaker 1: Israeli armies approval a free for all violence in Gaza.
Speaker 1: We can put this next piece up on the screen.
Speaker 1: They were able to speak to six different sources IDF soldiers,
Speaker 1: all of them who confirmed many of the reports from
Speaker 1: Palestinian civilians on the ground. They were counted how Israeli
Speaker 1: soldiers routinely executed Palestinian civilians simply because they entered an
Speaker 1: area the military.
Speaker 4: Defined as a no go zone.
Speaker 1: The testimonies paint a picture of a landscape littered with
Speaker 1: civilian corpses, which are left to rot or be eaten
Speaker 1: by stray animals. The army only hides them from view
Speaker 1: ahead of the arrival of international aid convoys so that
Speaker 1: images of people in advanced stages of decay do not
Speaker 1: come out to The soldiers also testified to a systematic
Speaker 1: policy of setting Palestinian homes on fire after occupying them.
Speaker 1: Could put the next piece up on the screen. They
Speaker 1: also described how the ability to shoot without restrictions gave
Speaker 1: soldiers a way to blow off steam or relieve the
Speaker 1: dullness of their daily routine. Quote people want to experience
Speaker 1: the event fully. As a reservist who served in northern
Speaker 1: Gaza recalled, I personally fired a few bullets for no
Speaker 1: reason into the sea or at the sidewalk and abandoned building.
Speaker 1: They report it as normal fire, which is a code
Speaker 1: name for I'm bored, so I shoot. I really encourage
Speaker 1: you to read this entire report, which again confirms some
Speaker 1: of the things that we've been talking about for a while,
Speaker 1: including any Palestinian man, woman, child, etc. Elderly who wanders
Speaker 1: into a quote unquote no go zone there, you know,
Speaker 1: it's open season on them to just kill them. They
Speaker 1: also report that any man who is killed, whether there's
Speaker 1: any proof whatsoever that they're Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jahad
Speaker 1: or any other sort of resistance fider, every single man
Speaker 1: is assumed to be a terrorist and so they're logged
Speaker 1: as you know, this is a Hamas fighter who has killed.
Speaker 4: That's why Israel's.
Speaker 1: Numbers are so much higher than what any when estimates
Speaker 1: in terms of the Hamas fighters that they have killed.
Speaker 1: And you know, to go back to Joe Biden, and
Speaker 1: what a nice guy he is.
Speaker 4: This is what.
Speaker 1: He's this is what he's allowed, this is what he's overseen,
Speaker 1: this is what he's been too weak to stop, even
Speaker 1: when at times he's voiced some weak objections to what
Speaker 1: is going on here. In fact soccer yesterday, I don't
Speaker 1: know if you saw this exchange, John Kirby admitted that
Speaker 1: Israel was indiscriminately firing on civilians. Oh I didn't, he said,
Speaker 1: you know, it's always he said, it's always unfortunate when
Speaker 1: civilians are fired on indiscriminately. And you know, we continue
Speaker 1: to talk to Israel and try to get them to
Speaker 1: be more precise, like you just they just openly acknowledge
Speaker 1: the war crimes now like it's no big deal.
Speaker 2: Here's what drives me, not so, and we have this,
Speaker 2: let's put this up there on the screen. This is
Speaker 2: why it absolutely makes me lose my mind. The entire
Speaker 2: press corps and everybody yesterday was like, oh, Russia struck
Speaker 2: a children's hospital in deadly barrage across Ukraine. Forty missiles
Speaker 2: hit this children's hospital, and it's like, yeah, it would
Speaker 2: be terrible if something hit a children's hospital, right, And
Speaker 2: as they put right there at deadly strike hits northern
Speaker 2: Gaza hospital. I mean it was a week prior, maybe
Speaker 2: days prior, Israel hit a children's hospital in Gaza and
Speaker 2: they didn't care. And they probably did that, by the way,
Speaker 2: with American weapons.
Speaker 5: So spare me, spare me the moral to this conflict.
Speaker 2: Like and again I don't believe in moral language on
Speaker 2: all of this stuff. I believe this should be conducted
Speaker 2: in terms of great power, what's in it for us
Speaker 2: or not? But you can't selectively do It's this whole
Speaker 2: week here in Washington is an entire you know, apotheosis
Speaker 2: of Ukraine. Everything is about oh this poor little unjust
Speaker 2: Ukraine which got invaded.
Speaker 6: I'm not saying it's just.
Speaker 2: And by the way, I think it's terrible that the
Speaker 2: Russians are striking a children's hospital.
Speaker 3: But what how are you going to go to.
Speaker 2: The International Criminal Court, the Hague and everywhere else and
Speaker 2: prop up international institutions to go after your geopolitical foe
Speaker 2: when you're backing one of your allies doing the exact
Speaker 2: same thing. It rings nothing. So the Russians, what do
Speaker 2: you think they're doing? I saw this is hilarious, is
Speaker 2: there are all these Indian experts here in America, and
Speaker 2: one of them was like, I'm so disappointed at Mody
Speaker 2: for going to Russia and for hugging Putin. And the
Speaker 2: man was like, I guess India is just in its
Speaker 2: own is only looking.
Speaker 4: Out for its own national interests.
Speaker 2: I'm like, yeah, it would be a real shame to
Speaker 2: have a president who only looked out for their national interests.
Speaker 2: And if you're Mody and you're seeing all this stuff
Speaker 2: that's going on with America, Israel and everybody else, like oh,
Speaker 2: why should I listen to you your joke.
Speaker 3: You're gonna lecture me enough to go and visit.
Speaker 5: You're going to Bibi and you guys are patting. You
Speaker 5: invited baby to your country to speak in your your congress.
Speaker 3: You're gonna lecture me.
Speaker 5: I'm gonna go get some cheap gas, folks, because I
Speaker 5: got a billion poor people that I'm supposed to care for.
Speaker 4: They'll just never understand.
Speaker 1: I keep coming back to that column from earlier, I
Speaker 1: don't know, maybe a couple months in after October seventh,
Speaker 1: that said, you know this is going to cheapen all
Speaker 1: human life. It doesn't just stay in Gaza and that's
Speaker 1: exactly true, because I feel the same thing I see like, oh,
Speaker 1: nine Ukrainians killed.
Speaker 4: Yeah, right, that's nothing. And obviously that's not true.
Speaker 1: That's a disgusting way to look at it, because these
Speaker 1: are human beings who had lives and families and dreams
Speaker 1: and aspirations. And there should be horror and outrage at
Speaker 1: a children's hospital being struck here by Russia or a
Speaker 1: children's hospital being struck in Gaza by Israel. But if
Speaker 1: we could put that, PUTS four back up on the
Speaker 1: screen here, because it's not just the lack of the
Speaker 1: moral language, it's the inability.
Speaker 4: To ascribe blame appropriately.
Speaker 1: So when it's Russia, the headline is very direct, Russia
Speaker 1: strikes children's hospital in deadly barrage across Ukraine. Oh okay,
Speaker 1: I understand who the aggressor was. I understand what they struck.
Speaker 1: I understand what happened here here When it was Gaza,
Speaker 1: it's deadly strike HiT's Northern Gaza hospital where many were sheltering.
Speaker 4: Oh well, who who deadly strike?
Speaker 1: As Asaul rot who has tracked many of these things
Speaker 1: over the course of this warsay, who committed that deadly strike? Gee,
Speaker 1: I don't know, did a bomb just fall out on
Speaker 1: a sky? Who can say? This hypocrisy is something, by
Speaker 1: the way, that Matthew Miller was just pressed on yesterday
Speaker 1: as well, State Department ghoule Matthew Miller and you know, okay, well,
Speaker 1: how come you're able to very quickly assess and condemn
Speaker 1: Russia striking a hospital, but when it's Israel, we're going
Speaker 1: to talk to them. There's got to be an investigation.
Speaker 1: We don't really know what happened, and of course he
Speaker 1: just you know, spins out.
Speaker 4: It's totally different.
Speaker 1: Of course, it's not like you are able to make
Speaker 1: these assessments in real time, clearly when it comes to
Speaker 1: a country you don't like, like Russia. But when it's
Speaker 1: our great ally with our weapons by the way, being
Speaker 1: used to strike these hospitals, suddenly you're going to have
Speaker 1: to get back to us, which we all know you
Speaker 1: literally never will, or you'll say, oh, well, we'll trust
Speaker 1: the Israelis to investigate themselves. Okay, yeah, that's real credible.
Speaker 1: So no, their lies in the hypocrisy are so brazen
Speaker 1: that I don't think I mean even they can't say
Speaker 1: these things anymore with a straight face, because it's just
Speaker 1: so obvious to the world.
Speaker 4: What's really going on?
Speaker 3: No, I doubt that.
Speaker 2: I think they're going to be talking about that children's
Speaker 2: striker or whatever tomorrow. Just just wait, just with a
Speaker 2: straight face, they'll talk about crimes against humanity and all
Speaker 2: this other. So why we all got to pony up
Speaker 2: even more for the war machine. It's just I can't
Speaker 2: do it anymore, I really can.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go and get to Ryan and Jeremy,
Speaker 1: Ryan Grim, Jeremy Scahill, who just launched drop Site. They
Speaker 1: have left the Intercept and they are already out with
Speaker 1: some blockbuster reporting, so let's bring them in. So we
Speaker 1: are joined now by the co founders of drop Site,
Speaker 1: Ryan Grim, our own Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill.
Speaker 4: Great to see you both, see you guys.
Speaker 3: Good to see you guys are doing.
Speaker 1: So you all are up this morning with an explosive
Speaker 1: piece of reporting. I want to go ouad and put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. Jeremy, you spoke to a
Speaker 1: number of top HAMAS officials. The headline here is on
Speaker 1: the record with Hamas. In a drop Site News exclusive,
Speaker 1: HAMAS officials discuss their motivations, political objectives, and the human
Speaker 1: call US of their armed uprising against israel I.
Speaker 4: Want to get into the.
Speaker 1: Specifics of the piece, but before we do that, actually, Jeremy,
Speaker 1: I'd like you to talk about how this is reflective
Speaker 1: of what you intend to do with drop site, and
Speaker 1: why we haven't seen any reporting like this, which I
Speaker 1: think is incredibly critical to understand the mindset of both
Speaker 1: sides of the conflict, why we don't see this sort
Speaker 1: of thing in really hardly any other outlet.
Speaker 7: I mean, look, Crystal, we're in the midst of a
Speaker 7: sustained genocide in Gaza that's gone on now, it's entering
Speaker 7: its tenth month, that has been armed, bankrolled, politically, diplomatically, legally,
Speaker 7: supported by the most powerful nation in the world, by
Speaker 7: the Biden administration, and by the entirety of the US
Speaker 7: National security apparatus. And we're being told that this is
Speaker 7: such an urgent cause that we have to just pour
Speaker 7: weapons into pummeling two point three million people trapped inside
Speaker 7: of what is essentially an open air prison. And the
Speaker 7: justification for this is that around eleven hundred Israeli's six
Speaker 7: hundred and ninety five of whom were civilians, were killed
Speaker 7: on October seventh, and I think it's journalistic malpractice not
Speaker 7: to speak to the individuals who organize this and to
Speaker 7: understand what their motivation was for it, because this is
Speaker 7: a tremendously consequential policy on the part of the United
Speaker 7: States government. Our primary goal is to hold our own
Speaker 7: government accountable. But also this is a genocide that we're
Speaker 7: watching unfold in real time, and I think that it's
Speaker 7: of great public interest to actually speak to the people
Speaker 7: that organize the attack that then spurred this massive genocidal
Speaker 7: response from Israel. Dan Rad interviewed Saddam Hussein's CNN had
Speaker 7: reporters go and interview with Osama bin Laden. I've interviewed
Speaker 7: members of al Qaeda before. I think this is basic
Speaker 7: journalistic practice that should be embraced, not demonized. But I
Speaker 7: know how people are going to respond to this. I mean,
Speaker 7: you know, look, look what happens when just some networks
Speaker 7: interview a Republican. People lose their minds. So, you know,
Speaker 7: I want to apologie for it a all. I think
Speaker 7: it's a vital journalistic role to go and interview people
Speaker 7: you're told of the enemy that.
Speaker 2: Is so obvious and yet so lacking, and so controversial,
Speaker 2: and yet so controversial. So yeah, Jeremy, why don't you
Speaker 2: give us some of the specifics you spoke on the
Speaker 2: record with senior Hamas leaders here in the midst of
Speaker 2: this ceasefire negotiation, give us into their thinking.
Speaker 3: Yeah, please, I'll.
Speaker 6: Give you some new right.
Speaker 7: So right now, you know, there's you have CI Director
Speaker 7: William Burns and other US officials, officials from Qatar, Egypt,
Speaker 7: Israel and also from Hamas that are are now trying
Speaker 7: to restart these negotiations to try to see if there
Speaker 7: can be at a minimum some form of a temporary
Speaker 7: ceasefire so there could be an exchange of captives. And
Speaker 7: over the weekend, Netanyahu sort of blew this up again
Speaker 7: and apparently behind the backs, even if his own negotiators
Speaker 7: went and leaked to the media for things that he
Speaker 7: said were non negotiables in these you know, in these
Speaker 7: discussions that are taking place between Israel, Hamas and the mediators,
Speaker 7: and you know, some of them are basic things like
Speaker 7: he wants an to smuggling of weapons across the Rafa
Speaker 7: crossing from Egypt. He doesn't want Hamas fighters to be
Speaker 7: able to return to the north of Gaza.
Speaker 3: He wants a.
Speaker 7: Maximum number of living Israeli hostages returned to Israel. But
Speaker 7: the big one is he said, Israel is not going
Speaker 7: to budge on our commitment to continue the war to
Speaker 7: total victory at a time of our choosing. And this
Speaker 7: is basically the most inflammatory aspect of this. And there
Speaker 7: had been indications, and I got some of this from
Speaker 7: Hamas that they were actually at Hamas was willing to
Speaker 7: kind of not entirely back off of a demand for
Speaker 7: a full and permanent ceasefire, but to allow for an incremental,
Speaker 7: staged settlement or resolution with Israel that would at the
Speaker 7: onset result in the exchange of some prisoners. You know,
Speaker 7: there are thousands and thousands of Palestinians, And on that
Speaker 7: micro level, one of the sticking points is that Hamas'
Speaker 7: leaders told me that one of their primary goals of
Speaker 7: the October seventh attacks was to take as many Israeli
Speaker 7: soldiers prisoner as possible and bring them back to Gaza,
Speaker 7: because they don't just want to get Palestinian women and
Speaker 7: children out of Israeli prisons. They want to get combatants.
Speaker 7: They want people that are Hamas and Palestinian Islamic jihad fighters,
Speaker 7: some of whom are serving life sentences or multiple life
Speaker 7: sentences in Israel for killing Israelis, and the Israeli government
Speaker 7: has said no, we will not release anyone that has
Speaker 7: Jewish blood on their hands. And Yakha Sinhwar, the Gaza
Speaker 7: based head of Hamas, one of the three or four
Speaker 7: main organizers of the October seventh attacks, spent twenty two
Speaker 7: to twenty three years and in Israeli prison, and he
Speaker 7: himself was freed in twenty eleven in this very type
Speaker 7: of deal where in Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was returned
Speaker 7: to Israel and then one thousand and thirty plus Palestinians
Speaker 7: were freed, including Yakha Sinwar, the man that would then
Speaker 7: go on to be the main organizer of Alaksa flood
Speaker 7: on October seventh.
Speaker 1: Ran what is your sense of where we are with
Speaker 1: the ceasefire negotiations. I'd love you to tie this in
Speaker 1: also with something we've been talking a nauseum about, which
Speaker 1: is President Biden's manifest decline. It's my impression that on
Speaker 1: domestic policy he's sort of handed over the reins to
Speaker 1: the rest of the staff, but for better and largely worse,
Speaker 1: he hangs on with his death grip to foreign policy
Speaker 1: in spite of the fact obviously the Netnyahu bear hug
Speaker 1: strategy has completely failed. His latest humiliation as he gave
Speaker 1: this big speech, Oh, Israel is put forward this incredibly
Speaker 1: generous ceasefire proposal. Meanwhile BB's out there saying things like, well,
Speaker 1: my condition of ceasefires that I can go back to
Speaker 1: fighting this war. So it seems very unlikely that we're
Speaker 1: going to achieve a ceasefire so long as Israel is
Speaker 1: committed to not having a ceasfire.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Biden really ties his worth as president to his foreign
Speaker 8: policy acumen, which is, you know, we can set the
Speaker 8: irony of that aside, given the fact that he's been
Speaker 8: wrong on almost every foreign policy issue that he's weighed
Speaker 8: in in like fifty years. But when he talks publicly
Speaker 8: about why he ought to be elected, that's what's immediately
Speaker 8: what he goes to. He's got NATO here this week,
Speaker 8: and he feels like if he can look like a
Speaker 8: president around NATO and then also bring together a ceasefire
Speaker 8: and not a ceasefire, because he wants a ceasefire to
Speaker 8: this war, in particular because McGirk and blank and have
Speaker 8: convinced him that I think that if he can get
Speaker 8: a Saudi Israel deal, that kind of senses it for him,
Speaker 8: that like settles his legacy as this great foreign policy thinker,
Speaker 8: and it will also overshadow the questions about his ability
Speaker 8: to finish thoughts, to complete sentences, and whether or not
Speaker 8: he's just too old and frail to actually serve as president.
Speaker 8: So I think he sees a ceasefire or at least
Speaker 8: a pause kind of as a as a necessary condition
Speaker 8: to get to the next step, which is what he wants,
Speaker 8: which is Saudi Israeli normalization, which he thinks then it
Speaker 8: would be his like kind of landmark legacy project. But
Speaker 8: like you said, net Yah, who is now in July
Speaker 8: and staring at the prospect of a likely Trump presidency
Speaker 8: in November, Ntyaho is a political adversary of Democrats generally
Speaker 8: and of Biden in particular, and Yea who's going to
Speaker 8: do everything he can to prolong this war for his
Speaker 8: own survival and also to get to that place where
Speaker 8: Trump is president, where then he feels like he's got
Speaker 8: a reset.
Speaker 1: Jeremi, could you speak some too, because this has been
Speaker 1: discussed previously, the way that these normalization deals, which were
Speaker 1: started under Trump and then continued under Biden. The way
Speaker 1: those played into the impetus for the October seventh attacks
Speaker 1: by Hamas.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, it's a great question.
Speaker 7: And you know, the status quo for twenty plus years
Speaker 7: has been, and this has been the approach of many
Speaker 7: Arab nations that there isn't going to be any more
Speaker 7: landmark peace agreements or normalization agreements with Israel if it
Speaker 7: doesn't include a robust addressing of the question of Palestinian
Speaker 7: statehood and the condition under which Palestinians are living. And
Speaker 7: so from the perspective of Hamas, they watched as Donald
Speaker 7: Trump and Jared Kushner embraced Netanyahu's principle, which is that
Speaker 7: the Palestinians should have no vt over Israel's ability to
Speaker 7: create new relationships in the Middle East. And you know, actually,
Speaker 7: two weeks before October seventh, Netnahu gave a speech at
Speaker 7: the United Nations. It was a largely empty chamber. It
Speaker 7: was just to sort of his little minions were in there.
Speaker 7: But he he talked about a new vision for the
Speaker 7: Middle East that connects you know, Europe, you know, that
Speaker 7: connects Asia to Europe. And he holds up a map
Speaker 7: and it and and there is no Palestine on it.
Speaker 7: Palestinians were entirely erased from the map, and that was
Speaker 7: you know, symbolic of what had happened under Trump. And
Speaker 7: then Biden comes into office. Biden picks up the mantle
Speaker 7: from Jared Kushner and says, you know, we're going to
Speaker 7: keep going full steam ahead with these agreements. Hamas and
Speaker 7: Islamic Jihad are watching this and.
Speaker 3: They're like, no way.
Speaker 7: So part of their you know, part of their stated
Speaker 7: rationale for the October seventh attacks was to try to
Speaker 7: derail these agreements. I don't think that they were deluding
Speaker 7: themselves into believing that they would succeed in that, because,
Speaker 7: as Mueen Rabani pointed out to me in the in
Speaker 7: the in the in my piece, you know, Palestinian blood
Speaker 7: has never stopped these Arab you know, nations from making
Speaker 7: any kind of an agreement with Israel. But I think
Speaker 7: what is true is that Hamas and Islamic she had
Speaker 7: We're sending a message to Arab populations in countries like
Speaker 7: Saudi Arabia and Jordan and elsewhere that you better not
Speaker 7: let your governments make these deals with Israel. At the
Speaker 7: cost of Palestinian lives. I think, though, Crystal, it's really
Speaker 7: important to say the main objective I think of the
Speaker 7: October seventh attack was to call the question on the siege,
Speaker 7: the blockade, the prison of Gaza. Hamas was starting to
Speaker 7: get blamed by Palestinians in Gaza for their life conditions,
Speaker 7: which was the aim of Israel's collective punishment strategy of
Speaker 7: putting them on a calorie restricted diet, you know, mowing
Speaker 7: the lawn through regular military operations. Opinion polling suggested that
Speaker 7: people were getting really furious with Hamas. So I think
Speaker 7: on a political level, all of these things converged and
Speaker 7: Hamas said it's now or never. You know, they were
Speaker 7: in trouble internally within Gaza. They were watching the annexations spreading.
Speaker 7: They were watching the situation at Alaxamas being defiled, the
Speaker 7: holiest site in Islam and Palestine. They were watching these
Speaker 7: agreements being broker that cut Palestinian out of Palestine, out
Speaker 7: of the deal, and they said, this has to be
Speaker 7: our stand and I think that that, I believe it.
Speaker 7: I think that is sincerely what they wanted to do.
Speaker 7: They wanted to shatter the paradigm you know, irrevocably.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Jeremy, what was fascinating reading your piece is the
Speaker 2: surprise by how mass leaders, of how successful October seventh was,
Speaker 2: the surprise also of the number of negoligye, of the
Speaker 2: number of civilians that they were able to capture, and
Speaker 2: the subsequent fallout. You talk about the prisoner's dilemma that
Speaker 2: they're now in with respect to the ceaspar Could you
Speaker 2: break that down of what that looks like for the audience.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is really important.
Speaker 7: You know, My understanding is that the primary objective in
Speaker 7: terms of taking you know, what Israel calls hostages, what
Speaker 7: Hamas calls prisoners with soldiers, because they can get a
Speaker 7: much higher price for the soldiers. As I mentioned, they
Speaker 7: wanted to get the impossibles. They also wanted to know
Speaker 7: the impossibles meeting these guys who have been locked up
Speaker 7: for charges that they've murdered Israelis or that they're armed terrorists.
Speaker 7: They also wanted to free other Palestinians, but their primary
Speaker 7: objective was to get their own people out.
Speaker 3: On this issue.
Speaker 7: Though I'm told that, you know, I think that there
Speaker 7: is reason to believe it that when the second and
Speaker 7: third wave of people then start pouring across the prison
Speaker 7: walls and fences that Hamas blew apart, and they started
Speaker 7: entering Israel. Individual groups of people start also snatching Israelis,
Speaker 7: you know, elderly women, children and others and bringing them
Speaker 7: back to Tagaza. And so you know, I heard from
Speaker 7: both Hamas and from an Israeli negotiator that works that
Speaker 7: is currently working to try to free Israelis from Gaza
Speaker 7: and deals with Hamas that on the fourth day after
Speaker 7: October seventh, Hamas was basically begging net Yahu to take
Speaker 7: a bunch of the civilians back. Hamas was not equipped
Speaker 7: to hold them. They didn't want to have them, they
Speaker 7: didn't consider them valuable. They had an enormous number of soldiers,
Speaker 7: way beyond what they thought they would get, and the
Speaker 7: net Nyahu government refused that. Yahu was insisting that he
Speaker 7: was going to address this militarily. And so you know,
Speaker 7: both Israeli negotiators and Hamas have confirmed to me that
Speaker 7: not only did Hamas not want to be holding large
Speaker 7: numbers of civilians, actually actively tried to give them back.
Speaker 1: And Ryan final question to use as Jeremy's peace and
Speaker 1: his reporting, but you're obviously deeply familiar with it as well.
Speaker 1: I mean, one of the key questions is how did
Speaker 1: Hamas view the civilian deaths and injuries and kidnappings of
Speaker 1: Israelis on October seventh, and how have they viewed the
Speaker 1: massive amount of Palestinian civilian deaths that have occurred, you know,
Speaker 1: as a result of their actions. Obviously israelis to blame,
Speaker 1: they're the ones dropping the bombs, but Hamas knew that
Speaker 1: this would trigger a massive response.
Speaker 4: What is their view of those civilian.
Speaker 3: Deaths right there?
Speaker 8: There's obviously some some cynicism involved and also some you know,
Speaker 8: what would you call it just kind of cold blooded
Speaker 8: calculus in the sense that they, you know, they and
Speaker 8: Jeremy can talk more at length about this, but you know,
Speaker 8: they they obviously understood that there would be an Israeli
Speaker 8: response that would be catastrophic and would result in civilian casualties.
Speaker 3: Now, they they did not expect.
Speaker 8: That they would succeed as significantly as they did, which
Speaker 8: means that they didn't expect the extent of the bombing campaign.
Speaker 8: They've talked about saying, well, you know, we expected, similar
Speaker 8: to the past several weeks, maybe even months, of a
Speaker 8: relentless bombing campaign ending with you know, a prisoner exchange
Speaker 8: and a ceasefire deal.
Speaker 3: You know, so they.
Speaker 8: Got more, that they got more than they bargained for.
Speaker 8: At the same time, you know, the Palestinian cause is
Speaker 8: probably at its highest place internationally. You know that it
Speaker 8: has been in many decades, perhaps since the first mostly
Speaker 8: non violent Antifada, And so that raises like these really
Speaker 8: uncomfortable and thorny ethical ethical questions about about military and
Speaker 8: strategic and geopolitical aims and the costs to civilian lives,
Speaker 8: to civilian lives without of course, you know, uh, excusing
Speaker 8: any kind of Israeli slaughter like that doesn't that doesn't
Speaker 8: mean it's justified to respond in the way that Israel has.
Speaker 7: One last point on that, Crystal, there's I heard different
Speaker 7: perspectives on this question from different people within Hamas. I
Speaker 7: get the sense that they're still struggling with how to
Speaker 7: answer that question, you know. On the on the one hand,
Speaker 7: I had a Hamas official say to me, you know,
Speaker 7: this is a really sensitive question that you're asking, and
Speaker 7: I don't I don't think any of us expected this
Speaker 7: level of a genocidal war. And then others are saying, listen,
Speaker 7: what do you expect us to to to die peacefully,
Speaker 7: to to just let you continue to slowly murder us,
Speaker 7: kill us off, kill us at checkpoints, kill us and
Speaker 7: drone strikes, starve us to death, deny us medical care,
Speaker 7: you know, and sort of entrenched in that position of saying,
Speaker 7: you know, this is on Israel, that they did it.
Speaker 7: We had a right to rise up against them. These
Speaker 7: are occupiers. We were legitimately engaged in armed resistance, as
Speaker 7: recognized under international law. I don't get the sense that
Speaker 7: they have a central party line on this question, and
Speaker 7: it's quite interesting to hear the debate. It's why I
Speaker 7: also spoke to people like Rashid Khalidi and Susan Ablhawa,
Speaker 7: the famous Palestinian novelists, because they represent different perspectives that
Speaker 7: exist in the broader Palestinian diaspora.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, I really recommend people read the entire piece, which
Speaker 1: is up on drop site drop site news dot com. Right,
Speaker 1: I'm getting the web address right, And congrats to both
Speaker 1: of you. I'm so excited about what you're up to.
Speaker 1: I can't wait to see what else you have in
Speaker 1: store for us, and I really really hope that our
Speaker 1: audience and others out there support the work that you're doing,
Speaker 1: which is difficult and expensive and thankless and controversial and
Speaker 1: all of those things. Ryan, Why don't you just tell
Speaker 1: people what they should do to support you guys.
Speaker 8: Yeah, go to the yesterday you guys supported us, you know,
Speaker 8: big Lee as as as.
Speaker 5: Our man would say, we did our goodest job at
Speaker 5: that Ryans job.
Speaker 8: At drop site news dot com, you can just sign
Speaker 8: up to get the you know, the free alerts. I
Speaker 8: think you know, we're almost at one hundred thousand. I
Speaker 8: think we're ninety five thousand subscribers, so you know this.
Speaker 8: You know today you guys can put us over the
Speaker 8: top of that if you can, you know, support it financially,
Speaker 8: do that. But but if not, that's also okay. The
Speaker 8: journalism will always be free. You know, we'll be on
Speaker 8: here a lot talking about you know, the results of
Speaker 8: our investigations. But if you if you can support it,
Speaker 8: you know, you can do that right there at drop
Speaker 8: site news dot com or donate dot drop site news
Speaker 8: dot com too.
Speaker 4: Well. We look forward to that and thank you both.
Speaker 2: Great to see you, Thanks guys, Thank you keep up
Speaker 2: the great work. Joining us now is Owen Jones. He
Speaker 2: is a YouTuber columnist and UK politics expert, and we're
Speaker 2: very honored to be joined by him.
Speaker 3: It's good to see you own polistic expert. I'll tell
Speaker 3: you that. Hey, very good to man.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen and we
Speaker 2: had to get your read as to what is going
Speaker 2: on in the UK. Labor wins big, but as the
Speaker 2: headline says here, the UK's electoral system is creaking. I
Speaker 2: know you've got some thoughts as to what's happened. I
Speaker 2: believe your Prime minister is actually here in our town
Speaker 2: here in Washington, only a few miles away from us.
Speaker 2: So what has happened as a result of this election
Speaker 2: and what should we know about it?
Speaker 9: So well, the Labor were always on course for a big,
Speaker 9: big win.
Speaker 3: That's because of the Conservative collapse.
Speaker 9: The Conservative government was the most disasterous and democratic history
Speaker 9: by two counts. I would say, firstly, it doesn't have
Speaker 9: any big achievements on its own terms.
Speaker 3: So previous Conservative governments, people like me would.
Speaker 9: Reile against them, but they would think we did a
Speaker 9: big success. We did this, this and this Thatchers in
Speaker 9: reshape Britain its own image and also presided over the
Speaker 9: worst queasy living standards ever recorded in modern British history.
Speaker 3: So and then they had multiple scandals.
Speaker 9: They had Liz Trusty turned Britain into a big laboratory
Speaker 9: its citizens as guinea pig. So this really weird hard
Speaker 9: right libertarian economic experiment which went badly wrong, crashed the economy,
Speaker 9: led to her being kicked out of Downing Street after
Speaker 9: forty eight days. She famously a lettuce outliveder which I
Speaker 9: think became very famous internationally will let the letters or
Speaker 9: his jowls survive. So basically they were in a mess.
Speaker 9: They collapsed as a political force. What was striking though
Speaker 9: is maybe we're going to win a landslide by default.
Speaker 9: Even though Kistan is not popular, he's the most unpopular
Speaker 9: leading the opposition to win an election in modern times.
Speaker 3: And what's you know?
Speaker 9: We have a bizarre electoral systems past the post like
Speaker 9: your own, but with its own British sort of twist,
Speaker 9: and Labour won a third of the vote.
Speaker 3: In fact, Labour got.
Speaker 9: Almost the same share of the vote as they got
Speaker 9: last time in twenty nineteen under Jomie Corbyn when they
Speaker 9: were routed and they got a lot less than Jamie
Speaker 9: Corbyn got in twenty seventeen, so they got forty percent
Speaker 9: of the vote in twenty seventeen. They actually got less
Speaker 9: votes this time than they got last time, but they
Speaker 9: won a landslide. On fact on a third of the vote,
Speaker 9: they've won two thirds of the seats.
Speaker 3: That sounds odd, it sounds bizarre. It is.
Speaker 9: It doesn't make any sense fundamentally. It's our electoral system.
Speaker 9: A lot of Starmer's defenders go, well, that's the game.
Speaker 9: You know, you have to win the electoral system.
Speaker 3: I get that. You know they're a legitimate government.
Speaker 9: But if you're winning, no government has ever won a
Speaker 9: majority or such a low share of the vote. They
Speaker 9: didn't just win a majority, they won a massive landslide
Speaker 9: in seats.
Speaker 3: People are calling this.
Speaker 9: A gener you know the game of Genger where you
Speaker 9: were you build it up and it's with a little
Speaker 9: pody can come crashing down.
Speaker 3: It's like a landslide. That's a big Jenger tower.
Speaker 9: Because it's built on such a slim's share of the vote,
Speaker 9: and on the both the herds right and also from
Speaker 9: the left, they faced labor big challenges which they if
Speaker 9: they can place it, the whole thing will come crashing down.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so it seems like less of a major victory.
Speaker 1: It was less that Labor one and more that the
Speaker 1: collapsed and also voter turnout collapsed as well as people
Speaker 1: were and this is something we're very familiar with, not
Speaker 1: so happy with the choices that they had available to them.
Speaker 1: Let's go and put E three up on the screen.
Speaker 4: Guys.
Speaker 1: This was Owen's column that he wrote in The Guardian,
Speaker 1: in which you pointed out that this left for volt
Speaker 1: is significant and that it could be a.
Speaker 4: Real problem for Labor.
Speaker 1: I'd love you to speak to some of the issues
Speaker 1: that lefties such as yourself have been upset over. But
Speaker 1: you point out something that's really quite astonishing here. Half
Speaker 1: of Labor voters cited getting Tories out as the main
Speaker 1: reason for their vote. Only five percent cited that it's
Speaker 1: because they agree with Kere Starmer's policies, and only one
Speaker 1: percent cited here Starmer's leadership. So not exactly inspiring statistics there.
Speaker 9: No, this is a poll by you goov. So they
Speaker 9: asked what was the main reason you've voted labor? For
Speaker 9: nine percent said to get the Tories out five percent,
Speaker 9: As you said.
Speaker 3: The policies.
Speaker 9: I'd look to actually ask these five percent, what are
Speaker 9: your three favorite labor policies, They would struggle. The vast
Speaker 9: majority of the public aren't even aware of what most
Speaker 9: of Labour's policies are.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know.
Speaker 9: The issue though, in terms of what labor perspectives is
Speaker 9: is Britain is in a mess. It's in its worst
Speaker 9: mess since the war, worst creason living standards ever recorded.
Speaker 3: The public sphere is just falling apart.
Speaker 9: A national health service, which a former Tory politician called
Speaker 9: the closest the English hofter of religion. We take the
Speaker 9: NHS faciously an actual health service, probably one healthcare. Whether
Speaker 9: your right wing or left wing people see this as
Speaker 9: the kind of crowning glory. It's in a mess. It's
Speaker 9: falling apart. I mean, you could go on. It's just
Speaker 9: this place as a disaster. It's infrastructures for you know,
Speaker 9: people kind of think Britain needs to be switched off
Speaker 9: and maybe if you've sard it on, maybe it'll start working.
Speaker 9: Yet the country doesn't feel like it works. The trainers
Speaker 9: don't work, nothing works, and the problem is labor don't
Speaker 9: have policies to address that. They refuse to increase taxes
Speaker 9: on the rich. They're to the right of Biden. On
Speaker 9: economic policy, they don't. There were twenty billion pounds.
Speaker 3: A year.
Speaker 9: Cuts which are looming, and they've got to say physical
Speaker 9: rules of the Conservatives they support continued well, expanding privatization
Speaker 9: of the NHS. And on foreign policy they stood squarely
Speaker 9: behind Israel's genocide rampage, including kids start amor saying that
Speaker 9: is well, I had the right to cut off energy
Speaker 9: and water to civilians. So what that meant was and
Speaker 9: this is why it's called such an odd landslide. When
Speaker 9: Tony Blair won in ninety ninety seven, he won, he
Speaker 9: won about forty four percent of the vote. He got
Speaker 9: about ten points higher than they did and you didn't
Speaker 9: have a left revolt in this election. The Greens took
Speaker 9: four seats they had one before, and various independence one
Speaker 9: seats as well. But also the Greens are now second
Speaker 9: place behind laboring forty seven seats, and that's ever happened before.
Speaker 9: This is the best result of the non labor left
Speaker 9: in British history. So now as well as on the
Speaker 9: hard right, there was challenges from the left because this
Speaker 9: has happened before they were even in power. That's very rare.
Speaker 9: You don't get disillusionment from the left with Labor before
Speaker 9: they've even taken office normally, but that's already happened, and
Speaker 9: that's different.
Speaker 3: And from Tony Black.
Speaker 4: That's really interesting.
Speaker 2: So yeah, as you said, as I understand the Reform
Speaker 2: Party and the Greens also put up significant results against
Speaker 2: both of the centrist coalitions. So in the US, everyone's like, oh,
Speaker 2: what a big win for Labor. Well, it's actually quite
Speaker 2: more of a complicated story than that. As you said,
Speaker 2: on foreign policy, maybe you can expand that a little bit,
Speaker 2: both with regards to Israel, but also with regard to Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Like I said, your Prime Minister is here in Washington
Speaker 2: right now, as I understand it, he does. He share
Speaker 2: the same Ukraine policy as Rishi Sunak. Is there any
Speaker 2: change whatsoever in that? Maybe you can break both of
Speaker 2: those down for US.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I don't think it there'd be any significant change,
Speaker 9: And to be honest, that's the consensus here. I mean
Speaker 9: even I mean, if you look at Fans the Friends
Speaker 9: left triumphed, they have the same policy on Ukraine. To
Speaker 9: be honest, I don't think there's much of a discussion
Speaker 9: a debate about that within British foreign policy. The big
Speaker 9: schism is over Palestine, and you know the position of
Speaker 9: the Labor leadership is that voters had nowhere to go.
Speaker 3: Muslim voters have nowhere to go.
Speaker 9: But there are four million, I mean better in mind
Speaker 9: our population sixty seven million or so, there are four
Speaker 9: million British Muslims. There were a significant part of Labour's
Speaker 9: electoral coalition. They're treated with contempts. They're briefed about in
Speaker 9: very derogatory ways by Labor officials. When Labor Muslim councilors
Speaker 9: were resigning. These are local party elected politicians. When they
Speaker 9: were resigning, a Labor official brief that Labor was shaking
Speaker 9: off the fleas. And previously Muslim disillusionment was explained as
Speaker 9: anti Semitism and the homophobia just smears against the entire communities.
Speaker 3: What you saw is.
Speaker 9: Muslim voters either going for independence who have also they
Speaker 9: defeated two senior Labor shadow ministers. I mean, you've got
Speaker 9: a landside where Labor shadow ministers were getting defeated. It's
Speaker 9: very weird, and that's partly because of not just Muslim
Speaker 9: voters but other voters.
Speaker 3: I mean, the Greens did partly well over Gaza.
Speaker 9: I mean the fact is, you know, people playing that
Speaker 9: foreign policy is irrelevant in elections. It was barely discussed
Speaker 9: in the election campaign. We had no discussion pretty much
Speaker 9: about Palestine or any foreign policy issue, or even about
Speaker 9: you know, there was more discussion about trans people than
Speaker 9: there was about poverty. I mean, it's just it's insulting.
Speaker 9: And you know, this is the sort of democracy we
Speaker 9: have in this Kunji. There are some that powerles with
Speaker 9: what's going on over there.
Speaker 3: I get that sounds familiar.
Speaker 2: If anything is probably our fault, we exported it to
Speaker 2: you a little bit, a little bit.
Speaker 1: Oh, and on that we can put what is this
Speaker 1: E two up on the screen? Do you expect any
Speaker 1: shift in the policy vis of the israel I?
Speaker 4: Did see this?
Speaker 1: Labor expected to drop challenge to the ICC over Netanyahu
Speaker 1: arrests warrant? So do you think there might be any
Speaker 1: improvement whatsoever? Were you heartened to see this move? What
Speaker 1: did you make of this?
Speaker 3: Yes, I mean I welcome this.
Speaker 9: And you know what Richie Sunak conservative government did as
Speaker 9: a parting gift to israel Is. They launched an appeal
Speaker 9: to the international criminal courts to stop the Chief prosecutor's
Speaker 9: requests for restaurants against Benjamin Yawho and his defense mister Yogalan,
Speaker 9: And they did that on the spurious claim basis that
Speaker 9: the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Israel Palistine, when
Speaker 9: it absolutely does that has already been dealt with.
Speaker 3: It was worrying.
Speaker 9: It was concerning that the pre trial judges had even
Speaker 9: accepted that appeal to be consisers, which is what they had.
Speaker 9: They then extended the deadline for submission for the case
Speaker 9: on the basis there'd been an election.
Speaker 3: That now appears that the.
Speaker 9: Labor government is going to drop that, as say, the
Speaker 9: bars on the floor, because obviously other European governments haven't
Speaker 9: submitted that in the first place.
Speaker 3: But obviously that's very welcome. What also may well happen?
Speaker 9: I mean, they said, for example, the government he had
Speaker 9: likely been given well, they've been given legal advice over Israel.
Speaker 9: A conservative senior politician who was in charge of the
Speaker 9: Defense Committee, which in parliament which kind of strutuinizes government
Speaker 9: on the issue, she said that advice had been given
Speaker 9: that Israel had broken international law, which anyone who is
Speaker 9: in completely deranged conceison obvious truism but that would mean
Speaker 9: that Britain has to stop selling arms and cease all
Speaker 9: intelligence cooperation with Israel. So the question now is will
Speaker 9: they release that advice and will they see arm sales.
Speaker 9: Britain doesn't sell that many arms to Israel compared to
Speaker 9: not just the US but Germany, which sells a lot more.
Speaker 9: But nonetheless that's important. But there's you know, what Britain
Speaker 9: has done at the moment the labor opposition in the
Speaker 9: manifestos they said they'll accept they'll recognize Palistine.
Speaker 3: At some point in the future.
Speaker 9: That's not what Spain has done and Norway done. They
Speaker 9: just they recognized Palistin already.
Speaker 3: So the bar is on the floor.
Speaker 9: But there is an improvement there, definitely, just by the
Speaker 9: fatless stot trying to hijack or sorry, the stocks, trying
Speaker 9: to you know, destroy the the the requests for a
Speaker 9: restaurants for example.
Speaker 3: Interesting.
Speaker 1: Oh and thank you so much. It's so great to
Speaker 1: have your analysis. We're really grateful for your time.
Speaker 3: Thanks man.
Speaker 1: All right, so we are sticking with the international theme
Speaker 1: here and turning now to France, where a left coalition
Speaker 1: really shocked the world with some surprising, surprisingly good results
Speaker 1: there and Arno Bertrand is back with US entrepreneur and
Speaker 1: analysts to discuss ourselves.
Speaker 4: Great to see Arnaw, good to see you again.
Speaker 6: Thank you for inviting me again.
Speaker 1: Yes, of course, So give people a little bit of
Speaker 1: a backstory of how this left victory came together.
Speaker 6: Sure, So first of all, I we don't characterize it
Speaker 6: as a victory because no one actually got a majority
Speaker 6: of the seats in parliament, which is what you need
Speaker 6: to have in order to form a government. But it's
Speaker 6: true that the left coalition, which is for the New
Speaker 6: Popular Front, got the most seats, so they're not the
Speaker 6: first political force in France. And so it's an alliance
Speaker 6: of various left parties, the Socialist, the Green, the France Asmes,
Speaker 6: which is the biggest. It means that it can be
Speaker 6: translated to US as on bowed front. And so right
Speaker 6: now they have about one hundred eighty seats in the
Speaker 6: French Parliament out of five hundred and seventy seven, which
Speaker 6: is more than Macon which arrived second, and more than Lupenno.
Speaker 2: They're right third, and so Arno, last time we spoke,
Speaker 2: and I believe this was a general consensus was that
Speaker 2: this was a major mistake by Macron to call this election.
Speaker 2: Can we put F two please up on the screen
Speaker 2: because we actually have the results in front of us.
Speaker 2: So we see, as you said, that the coalition has
Speaker 2: one hundred and eighty seats, Ensemble one hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: nine seats, the right wing Party one hundred and forty
Speaker 2: three seats. So do we still believe that this was
Speaker 2: a mistake by Macrone? Did he call the bluff correctly?
Speaker 2: And was this a defeat for the right? How should
Speaker 2: we view this?
Speaker 6: I think the general consensus is yes, that was a
Speaker 6: major mistake by my because he lost eighty seats in parliament,
Speaker 6: which is huge and right now the Left, who is
Speaker 6: been he has vilified throughout the election. There is, you know,
Speaker 6: a lot of bad blood between the Left and Macon.
Speaker 6: They're not the first political force in France and pretty
Speaker 6: much everyone in Macron's camp hates him now. So I
Speaker 6: don't think that this can be spinned at victory for
Speaker 6: Macon or successful gamble in any way.
Speaker 1: So, as you point out someone's going to have to
Speaker 1: form a government, how does it look like that's going
Speaker 1: to come together at this point?
Speaker 6: So it's the next veteran, So there are two choices. Basically,
Speaker 6: the left argues that because they came first, they should
Speaker 6: form of governments, and Macaron is actually trying to divide
Speaker 6: the left because again it is made of several different
Speaker 6: parties and try to basically gets the the party that
Speaker 6: are a bit more on the right in the left
Speaker 6: to align with him and the Republican right to form
Speaker 6: a coalition and onto this coalition form of government. And
Speaker 6: so that's basically what's happening in France right now, those
Speaker 6: two you know, solutions competing. So far, the left doesn't
Speaker 6: seem to want to be divided. But you know, let's see,
Speaker 6: I think we still have there is some form of deadline.
Speaker 6: By the first time the new parliament is gonna you know,
Speaker 6: seit for the first time. I believe that's gonna happen
Speaker 6: in ten days or so. So basically, you know, we
Speaker 6: we we have the next few days to to see
Speaker 6: how that's gonna pan.
Speaker 4: Ount.
Speaker 2: Now, what do you think is going to happen in
Speaker 2: the interim next few years? So this just seems like
Speaker 2: chaos because I believe Macron you can correct me if
Speaker 2: I wrong. He can't run again in twenty twenty seven,
Speaker 2: is that right? And so okay, you can't all right,
Speaker 2: So okay, So then what is going to happen in
Speaker 2: the interim ahead of then the presidential elections. What will
Speaker 2: that look like in terms of governance in France.
Speaker 6: Well, it really depends on what happens with this with
Speaker 6: this new government.
Speaker 3: So if there is a.
Speaker 6: Broad coalition of you know, several parties getting together on
Speaker 6: forming a government on a specific project, on the majority
Speaker 6: in parliament, then you know, things can be not that
Speaker 6: chaotic because you know they have a majority on the
Speaker 6: pass laws on sow. But that's the unlikely scenario. The
Speaker 6: more likely scenario is that you have a minority governments
Speaker 6: with a majority in parliament and therefore they won't be
Speaker 6: able to pass law on they will face possiver. It's
Speaker 6: called the motional censure motion. Basically, the government can be
Speaker 6: toppled down by Parliament at any point. So that option,
Speaker 6: which is the most likely scenario, would be would be
Speaker 6: fair chaotic.
Speaker 4: Guys, can we put F three up on the screen? Arna?
Speaker 1: What can you say about the issue set that was
Speaker 1: important in this election? This is some of the things
Speaker 1: that the Left coalition ran on. They want to raise
Speaker 1: the minimum wage, they want to lower the retirement age,
Speaker 1: build one million affordable homes, freeze the price of basic needs,
Speaker 1: invest in infrastructure. I saw they also ran on easing
Speaker 1: and expanding the asylum process. So you know, dramatic difference
Speaker 1: there from the right wing party and also from where.
Speaker 4: Mccron has positioned himself.
Speaker 1: Was this election driven primarily by these policies or other
Speaker 1: policy concerns? Was more about the tactical intelligence of the left,
Speaker 1: was more of a rebuke of the right.
Speaker 4: How do you see those things?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 6: So those issues matter a lot because there is a
Speaker 6: strong feeling in the French population which is actually the
Speaker 6: truth that their living standards are going down. And especially
Speaker 6: Macron made a lot of very unpopular reforms, so for instance,
Speaker 6: raising the the the the age at which you can retire,
Speaker 6: which is what they want to undo. So those issues
Speaker 6: were definitely popular. Then the left ran quite a lot
Speaker 6: on Gaza. It was even i would say, one of
Speaker 6: their main topics. And and you know in France now
Speaker 6: you have a fairly large electorate of Muslim background, and
Speaker 6: the voted massively for the left because the alternative were uh,
Speaker 6: you know, very islam of bigpen or Macron, who was
Speaker 6: actually quite pro pro Israel, so that metal as well.
Speaker 6: And then in between both rounds the first on the
Speaker 6: second round, there was a lot of uh, you know,
Speaker 6: tactical play in order to basically unsure that the assemble
Speaker 6: will not win too many seats. And and that also
Speaker 6: played a big role because when you look at the
Speaker 6: number of votes, the personage of votes, uh, the assembles
Speaker 6: way less seeds then they will get if they had
Speaker 6: a proportional number of seats based on the on the
Speaker 6: percentage of votes and Macron has way more vote on
Speaker 6: the left to teny bit more. So you can see
Speaker 6: that these tactical moves had an effect.
Speaker 1: Very interesting. Arnold, thank you so much for your analysis.
Speaker 1: It's really invaluable and it's great to see you again.
Speaker 3: Thank you, no, thank you so much. Thank you.
Speaker 4: It's our pleasure.
Speaker 2: Thank you guys so much for watching me. Really appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Counterpoints will be on tomorrow and we will see you
Speaker 2: all on Thursday.