Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: So we are getting new indications that, as many have
Speaker 1: said before, Israel appears to have destroyed everything in Gaza
Speaker 1: except for Hamas.
Speaker 3: Let's go and put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: We're getting lots of new red triangle videos from Hamas
Speaker 1: on a near daily basis. You can see here this
Speaker 1: is infamously this is their targeting showing they're still able
Speaker 1: to operate in various parts of the Gaza Strip, including
Speaker 1: we know that there have been IDF casualties, and we'll
Speaker 1: get to that in a moment in the northern Gaza
Speaker 1: strip where they had already gone in and completely annihilated,
Speaker 1: supposedly declared mission accomplished. But guess what, you didn't destroy Hamas,
Speaker 1: You left a complete vacuum and so surprise surprise, Hamas
Speaker 1: is filling that vacuum. And also surprise surprise when you
Speaker 1: murder and slaughter a bunch of civilians, kids, women, destroy homes, hospitals, schools,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Guess what the ideology that fuels Hamas.
Speaker 3: You are doing.
Speaker 1: Nothing but pour gasoline on that ideology.
Speaker 3: So let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This is incredible from Politico Biden admin openly hammering Israel's
Speaker 1: military strategy in Gaza.
Speaker 3: They got a.
Speaker 1: Bunch of quotes, both on and off the record from
Speaker 1: Pentagon leaders who are saying there's no total victory against Hamas.
Speaker 3: That's quote unquote unlikely.
Speaker 1: You have another individual who says, not only do you
Speaker 1: have to actually go in and clear out whatever adversary
Speaker 1: you're up against, you have to go in hold the territory,
Speaker 1: then you got to stabilize it. If that doesn't happen,
Speaker 1: allows your adversary then to repopulate in areas if you're
Speaker 1: not there. So that does make it more challenging for
Speaker 1: them as far as being able to meet their objective,
Speaker 1: being able to militarily destroy and defeat Hamas. Those comments
Speaker 1: followed others by Tony B. Lincoln, who last week predicted
Speaker 1: the eventual withdrawal of Israeli forces could leave a vacuum
Speaker 1: that's likely to be filled by chaos, by anarchy, and
Speaker 1: ultimately by Hamas. Again, this is like preschool level. It
Speaker 1: was so easy to see this and was foreseen and
Speaker 1: predicted even by people like us who are not military experts.
Speaker 1: Jako was talking about this like three days into the
Speaker 1: Israeli offensive that they were making. If they actually wanted
Speaker 1: to target Hamas, this was the exact wrong way to
Speaker 1: go about it. Of course, that was never the actual goal.
Speaker 1: That was the goal sold to the Israeli public and
Speaker 1: the US public in the world, never the actual goal.
Speaker 1: The actual goal has always been complete and utter annihilation.
Speaker 1: Some other incredible quotes from this article, though, Let's go
Speaker 1: and put this up on the screen. They say, although
Speaker 1: hamas communications and military abilities have been degraded, only thirty
Speaker 1: to thirty five percent of its fighters those who were
Speaker 1: to Hamas before October seventh, have been killed, and about
Speaker 1: sixty five percent of their tunnels are still intact, according
Speaker 1: to US intelligence. Let's put the next piece up on
Speaker 1: the screen. Biden officials have also become increasingly concerned that
Speaker 1: Hamas has been able to recruit during wartime thousands over
Speaker 1: the last several months. That has allowed the group to
Speaker 1: withstand months of Israeli offensives. According to a person familiar
Speaker 1: with US intelligence, So honestly, Sagar, when you look at
Speaker 1: these numbers that they've only and this is according to
Speaker 1: US intelligence killed thirty percent of HAMAS fighters, that Hamas
Speaker 1: has been able to recruit thousands more fighters during this time,
Speaker 1: which again it was obvious that the Israeli offensive year
Speaker 1: was only going to make people more likely to take
Speaker 1: up hamas ideology of armed resistance and also join actively
Speaker 1: join Hamas. When you put those two numbers together, it's
Speaker 1: reasonable to ask whether they have degraded Hamas's numbers at all.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And inspectually frustrating is that all of this was
Speaker 2: obvious to anybody, and I think, you know, look, I'm
Speaker 2: not going to choo my own horn, but it's like, basically,
Speaker 2: a buy came up with Iraq and Afghanistan covering the Pentagon,
Speaker 2: and so all of the people who came up and
Speaker 2: really took over the Pentagon during the counterinsurgency movement knew
Speaker 2: this from the very beginning. That's part of the reason
Speaker 2: that Jocko's able to identify that. I will point here
Speaker 2: to General Joseph Votel, who was a great general. He
Speaker 2: was the head of the US Central Command during the
Speaker 2: fight against ISIS covered him extensively at the time, had
Speaker 2: special operations access. And here's what he says. Quote, everybody
Speaker 2: gets the fact that you have to destroy HMAS, But
Speaker 2: then what what's the plan to take care of the
Speaker 2: two point five million Palestinians. What is the plan to
Speaker 2: deal with the remainder of mass fighters? It seems incomplete.
Speaker 2: I don't think they have communicated or have thought through
Speaker 2: that as well as they would have hoped that they
Speaker 2: would have. Now you're couching that in very friendly language.
Speaker 2: But this is obvious and has been and I will
Speaker 2: point again to the quotes from General Petraeus, from all
Speaker 2: of his staff that was involved in Iraq. They are
Speaker 2: repeating the exact same mistakes that the United States did
Speaker 2: in its war in Iraq. And again, let's not forget
Speaker 2: it took some two years for the full blown insurgency
Speaker 2: to happen. Even three years, you know, some might argue
Speaker 2: for the actual civil war to heat up to the
Speaker 2: point where most people in America would pay attention. We
Speaker 2: are watching this and that's why those videos matter so much,
Speaker 2: because what do you see guerrilla warfare? Freedom of movement,
Speaker 2: using the ability to move in and out of the rubble,
Speaker 2: disguise yourself amongst the civilian population, and hit the occupying
Speaker 2: force wherever it is, even if they have superior military technology.
Speaker 2: And as long as you have the civilian population on
Speaker 2: your side, or at the very least you're able to
Speaker 2: recruit a ton of people from there, you are going
Speaker 2: to win. Just because you can outlast the other ones.
Speaker 2: They cannot by definition kill all of you. It's just
Speaker 2: not possible. And you know I would point again to
Speaker 2: in here is that the very top of our military
Speaker 2: command is now outwardly saying this, including our new Chairman
Speaker 2: of the Joint chiefs of Staff. The reason why is
Speaker 2: we are the ones who are paying these bills. Now,
Speaker 2: this is what we're going to talk about with Ken.
Speaker 2: You know, our year has been a disaster. We spent
Speaker 2: half a billion dollars on it, we've barely gotten any
Speaker 2: aid the plan from the Israelis, from the Saudis, and
Speaker 2: all of that is to ensnare the United States sencom
Speaker 2: and all the soldiers and command officials who came up
Speaker 2: in Iraq to try and repeat that experiment in Gaza
Speaker 2: this time around, and basically, you know, get bought off
Speaker 2: by the Israelis. So we have to resist this at
Speaker 2: every turn possible. And you know, you can read this
Speaker 2: very clear. These are sober minded individuals who have extensive
Speaker 2: experience fighting these exact type of militants and they're looking
Speaker 2: at this and they're seeing a full blown nightmare. Yeah,
Speaker 2: they could see it clearly.
Speaker 1: And it's not like it went all that well when
Speaker 1: we tried to do it either, but there.
Speaker 2: Are worth for a bit.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I mean, yeah, listen, if you actually are
Speaker 1: going to if you are actually serious about destroying quote
Speaker 1: unquote Humas, even if you do kill thirty fifty sixty
Speaker 1: percent of their fighters, if you're fueling the ideology, then
Speaker 1: you are going to see them bounce back tenfold. And
Speaker 1: so what would really actually degrade Hamas. It's not a
Speaker 1: hard question to answer, because we've seen over time when
Speaker 1: Hamas has been more or less popular. Hamas is at
Speaker 1: its most popular at times frankly like this, when peace
Speaker 1: seems impossible, especially through non violence and diplomatic negotiations when
Speaker 1: there's absolute fury at your treatment at the hands of
Speaker 1: the Israelis. That's Those are the factors that fuel and
Speaker 1: bolster Hamas. Nothing has been a greater gift to Hamas,
Speaker 1: which I think it's true, doesn't really care about, you know,
Speaker 1: civilian life, and is perfectly willing to sacrifice Palestinians in
Speaker 1: the service of their cause. Nothing has bolstered them more
Speaker 1: than this response. What has diminished Hamas popularity is when
Speaker 1: there is an actual possibility and real prospect of peace.
Speaker 3: So if you were.
Speaker 1: Serious about undermining Hamas and destroying the legitimacy of their
Speaker 1: ideology and ability to recruit, you would go in the
Speaker 1: polar opposite direction of what Israel has done. And this
Speaker 1: will be relevant in the next topic we discussed as well,
Speaker 1: which is recognition of Palestinian statehood. And there's all this
Speaker 1: conversational this is a good gift to Hamas, a gift
Speaker 1: to terrorists, etc. Quite the opposite actual negotiations towards peace.
Speaker 1: Nothing would undercut the Hamas ideology more than a real
Speaker 1: prospect of peace and something approaching a just resolution. To
Speaker 1: the point earlier about how we know it's not just
Speaker 1: you know, their hamas propaganda videos, but they are inflicting
Speaker 1: casualties and exacting real cost on the occupation forces.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: You had three IDF soldiers who were killed in Northern
Speaker 1: Gaza fighting Northern Gaza. Those soldiers, they were killed in
Speaker 1: a variety of ways. There was one who was killed
Speaker 1: as a result of an explosive device that went off
Speaker 1: inside of building. A reservist and a combat officer were
Speaker 1: also seriously wounded in that other incident. The other two
Speaker 1: were killed by sniper fire, and another soldier from that
Speaker 1: same division was also seriously wounded. So this is in
Speaker 1: northern Gaza. You have at the same time this now
Speaker 1: massive action in Rafa, which you know, anyone looking at
Speaker 1: this would definitely classified as major even though the Biden
Speaker 1: administration doesn't. You've had almost a million Palestinians once again
Speaker 1: forcibly displaced from Rava with nowhere safe to go. You
Speaker 1: have aid effectively completely cut off. We'll talk to Ken
Speaker 1: a little bit more about that absolutely dire situation. Civilians
Speaker 1: still being killed, and you know, to the point of well,
Speaker 1: why isn't their plan for a day after and why
Speaker 1: have they never you know, laid out what their plan
Speaker 1: is for the day after. Well, there are certainly people
Speaker 1: who are in the you know, in the fold, who
Speaker 1: are cabinet ministers, who have said very plainly what their
Speaker 1: plan is, one of them being Ben Gavier, who is
Speaker 1: one of the most psycho members of the Israeli BB nine.
Speaker 1: Now whose cabinet, let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: I'll read you what he said recently, indicating that he
Speaker 1: wants to occupy all of Gaza with Jewish settlement. He says,
Speaker 1: but that's not enough. One more step, which is the
Speaker 1: most important step. Immigration. Yes, I'm not saying all of them,
Speaker 1: by the way, And then he says, explain to me
Speaker 1: to go back to the settlements we occupied during the war.
Speaker 1: But not only that, you have a lot more to
Speaker 1: occupy it. If there's an emigration of hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: who will leave, you will enter with more and more people.
Speaker 1: And the questioner says, you will be the first to
Speaker 1: live there, and he says, I will be very happy
Speaker 1: to live there.
Speaker 3: Yes, why not?
Speaker 1: So not only do you have we're going to resettle
Speaker 1: the entire Gaza strip, We're going to ethnically cleanse it
Speaker 1: of Palestinians. I personally am interested in living there. This
Speaker 1: is the goal of you know, powerful elements within the
Speaker 1: Israeli government. This is what they have always wanted, this
Speaker 1: is what they've said clearly. For some reason, US politicians
Speaker 1: pretend they don't hear this, pretend they don't know that
Speaker 1: this is a very clear goal of a very important
Speaker 1: part of the BB Netnahu coalition. And I think that
Speaker 1: Meerscheimer is right that the original goal of bb himself
Speaker 1: was this ethnic cleansing, which hasn't really succeeded, and so
Speaker 1: then shifted to just all out annihilation. And you know,
Speaker 1: writing is on the wall as far as that's all concerned.
Speaker 2: This is why I also think a government change in
Speaker 2: Israel would be profound. Is even getting people outside of that,
Speaker 2: like outside of the government and even forcing diplomatically their
Speaker 2: hand to try and to form some sort of post
Speaker 2: war strategy is definitely still better of an alternative than
Speaker 2: the current situation because b B himself refuses to rule.
Speaker 2: For example, in a CNN interview, he rules out he
Speaker 2: says there will be no is really settlement in Gosa.
Speaker 2: But then you have members of his own cabinet which
Speaker 2: are out there saying it on top of many of
Speaker 2: the previous things that he has said. I'm not saying
Speaker 2: Benny Gantz is an angel or any of these other things,
Speaker 2: but if you want to look at how to actually
Speaker 2: move forward, I think it's pretty clear that the current
Speaker 2: situation is unsustainable, both militarily, strategically and domestically. For the
Speaker 2: current situation, which will not doesn't necessarily mean that they
Speaker 2: will change anything. They will probably still continue.
Speaker 3: When you say it's not sustainable, what do you mean
Speaker 3: by that?
Speaker 2: Oh, sustainable as in so you can't, you know, continue
Speaker 2: a pup. So basically they don't have the military capacity
Speaker 2: to pull off a complete annihilation. It's literally impossible. They
Speaker 2: could try, but you know, given international pressure and all,
Speaker 2: that not going to happen. Same time, in terms of strategically,
Speaker 2: you see the ICC charges, international isolation, growing challenges even
Speaker 2: here at home, even Nancy Pelosi says, hey, bebe, don't
Speaker 2: come and speak to Congress right now. So you have
Speaker 2: a big problem in terms of your biggest ally, and
Speaker 2: then domestically you have got a basic problem with your
Speaker 2: domestic coalition. You've got the hostage issue which continues to
Speaker 2: blare in your face and huge protests that are there
Speaker 2: at home with a viable opposition leader who is sitting
Speaker 2: there getting more popular by the day. So on all
Speaker 2: three fronts, you have a serious issue. That doesn't mean
Speaker 2: it won't sustain for a long period, but I still
Speaker 2: think it's a big problem.
Speaker 3: I hope you're right.
Speaker 1: I'm just not sure because we also have an election
Speaker 1: coming up, and you know, Donald Trump administration isn't even
Speaker 1: going to do the performative handrain that the Biden administration
Speaker 1: occasionally does. They're not going to have those quote unquote
Speaker 1: tough conversations. They're going to give them everything they want
Speaker 1: when they want it, and go above and beyond, because
Speaker 1: that's the position that the whole Republican Party has staked out.
Speaker 1: Trump included that Biden hasn't been supportive enough of Israel,
Speaker 1: So can they sustain it through the election? I mean
Speaker 1: any of the previous Like you know, when we had
Speaker 1: that minute of them saying, oh we paused a shim
Speaker 1: and it was this big deal.
Speaker 3: That's all gone.
Speaker 1: Now you know, a million pals things have been displaced
Speaker 1: from RAFA, this supposed red line has been you know,
Speaker 1: more than crossed, and now all you see is just
Speaker 1: back to the bear hug. So I don't see any
Speaker 1: sign that the Biden administration is planning to change their
Speaker 1: policy orientation towards Bebe and his government. I don't see
Speaker 1: that they're willing to do anything other than you know,
Speaker 1: these tough conversations behind the scenes really to try to
Speaker 1: effectuate an inucome, which we I wasn't going to do anything. So,
Speaker 1: you know, can they wait it out until the Trump
Speaker 1: administration comes in? Do they really over the long term
Speaker 1: the fact that they're a pariah nation. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: that that bites and that's going to be a problem
Speaker 1: for them. But in terms of sustaining you know, this
Speaker 1: horrible status quo where people are just dying and dying
Speaker 1: and dying and nothing seems to really change, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I'm afraid that they can't sustain that.
Speaker 2: The only thing that I have going forward is that
Speaker 2: Trump hates bb because he congratulated Joe Biden on the election.
Speaker 2: So it could be his own pettiness gets in the way.
Speaker 2: Remember he's attacked him in every interview that he's been
Speaker 2: given on the state of Israel.
Speaker 1: I can't see him going against Israel. I mean, think
Speaker 1: think of how many of his major donors are extremely
Speaker 1: pro Israel. Think of where the Republican Party establishment is.
Speaker 1: Think of the comments that he's made about you know,
Speaker 1: he's very clearly in the camp now Biden hasn't done
Speaker 1: enough for Israel, So I just I can't see that. So,
Speaker 1: you know, in terms of the Israeli political pressure, again,
Speaker 1: it's not like the Israeli.
Speaker 3: Public opposes the war.
Speaker 1: The rub is feeling accurately like Bebe doesn't actually care
Speaker 1: about the hostages. He doesn't, you know, obviously they could
Speaker 1: have had a hostage deal that could have been secured.
Speaker 1: So perhaps that pressure ultimately amounts to something, But I
Speaker 1: don't know.
Speaker 3: He's a very wily operator.
Speaker 1: He's you know, held onto power this long, and he's
Speaker 1: certainly improved his prospects of being hang on being able
Speaker 1: to hang onto power a lot longer. And then the
Speaker 1: other question is like, wou would Benny Gantz or whoever,
Speaker 1: really be any that much different aeof Galant, who's you know,
Speaker 1: also facing arrest warrants from the Hague and it's the
Speaker 1: one who announced the siege, and we're going to treat
Speaker 1: him like human animals because that's what they are. He
Speaker 1: is also considered a quote unquote moderate. So it's also
Speaker 1: an open question if you did get a governmental change,
Speaker 1: how much it would really amount to true.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I don't know. Like I said, I
Speaker 3: hope you're right, I just said I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: All right, Let's move on to another significant development here.
Speaker 1: You have three more countries, is sorry, Ireland, Spain, and
Speaker 1: Norway which have now recognized the state of Palestine. They're
Speaker 1: joining some it's now some eighty percent of the world
Speaker 1: actually that does recognize the state of Palestine.
Speaker 3: Of course, our nation.
Speaker 1: Here, of course, not in Canada, and some other of
Speaker 1: our closest followers also do not recognize the state of Palestine.
Speaker 1: They had a joint press conference to announce this shift
Speaker 1: in their diplomatic posture. Here's a little bit of the
Speaker 1: Irish Prime Minister and what he had to say.
Speaker 2: Last month.
Speaker 4: I stood on these same steps with Prime Minister Sanchez
Speaker 4: of Spain and we said that the point of recognizing
Speaker 4: the state of Palestine was coming closer. That point has
Speaker 4: now arrived. Today Ireland, Norway and Spain are announcing that
Speaker 4: we recognize the state of Palestine. Each of us will
Speaker 4: now undertake whatever national steps are necessary to give effect
Speaker 4: to that decision and the lead up today's announcement. I've
Speaker 4: spoken with a number of other leaders and counterparts, and
Speaker 4: I'm confident that further countries will join us in taking
Speaker 4: this important step in the coming weeks.
Speaker 1: You have a whole Israeli freak ount over this action,
Speaker 1: which is primarily symbolic but again contributes to that Israel
Speaker 1: becoming a prior nation, Palestine becoming more recognized, more.
Speaker 3: Accepted, etc.
Speaker 1: You also have more European countries who are saying, hey, listen,
Speaker 1: we may have some quibbles with what the International Criminal
Speaker 1: Court at the Hague is doing, but bottom line, we
Speaker 1: support it. So if he becomes here and there's an
Speaker 1: arrest warrant, we're going to arrest him. Let's put this
Speaker 1: next one up on the screen. France and Germany, we're
Speaker 1: the latest European nations to show support for the ICC
Speaker 1: after their prosecutor applied for those arrest warrants. In a
Speaker 1: statement Monday, France's foreign minister said that the decision over
Speaker 1: whether to issue a.
Speaker 3: Rest warrants arrested with the icy these judges. Quote.
Speaker 1: France supports the International Criminal Court, it's independence, the fight
Speaker 1: against impunity in all situations Germany, which has been They
Speaker 1: describe a staunch ally of Israel. Certainly the case, describe
Speaker 1: the court as a fundamental achievement of the international community.
Speaker 1: They did express reservations that decision to apply for rest
Speaker 1: warrants against both Israeli and Hamas leaders quotes give us
Speaker 1: the false impression of equivalents. Nevertheless, Berlin reaffirmed its support
Speaker 1: for the ICC quote Germany respects its independence and its
Speaker 1: procedures like those of all other international courts.
Speaker 3: Cyber I'm curious for your reaction to.
Speaker 1: The significance of so many European countries saying like, listen,
Speaker 1: if there are rest warrants, we are going to do
Speaker 1: our duty.
Speaker 2: That's going to be the most important one we will see.
Speaker 2: In terms of the Irish nor what is it Ireland,
Speaker 2: Norway and Spain. Yeah, it's a little bit, you know.
Speaker 2: I mean, these are not top tier with great powers
Speaker 2: on the continent. You would want France, Germany or any
Speaker 2: of the other big economies that actually have a decent
Speaker 2: amount of poll That hasn't happened yet. I will say
Speaker 2: that the French Foreign Ministry decision is the most import
Speaker 2: and one, and the German one as well, because they
Speaker 2: specifically say this quote France supports the International Criminal Court,
Speaker 2: it's independence and the fight against impunity in all situations,
Speaker 2: basically saying there is no Israel carve out. Germany, though,
Speaker 2: which has all those crazy laws on the books, says
Speaker 2: that the court is a fundamental achievement of the international community,
Speaker 2: and specifically though it does say that there has been
Speaker 2: given a false impression of equivalents, but still affirms its
Speaker 2: support for ICC. So I think what they are staking
Speaker 2: out is an eventuality position. But some of the things
Speaker 2: that you and I have talked about here before is
Speaker 2: there's still some procedural hurdles there, you know, for Israel,
Speaker 2: for Hamas, and there's still a lot of ways in
Speaker 2: which they find their way out of it. And if
Speaker 2: I had to guess, that's what they're trying to stake
Speaker 2: out in terms of the decision, like if it eventually
Speaker 2: does come to it. But they're going to be working
Speaker 2: behind the scenes, especially with the Germans with some of
Speaker 2: the language that was there.
Speaker 1: There's going to be a real full courts. It was
Speaker 1: already happening on the ICC. I mean, in the announcement,
Speaker 1: the ICC prosecutor really chastise those I've seemed very much
Speaker 1: directed at the American politicians who were trying to bully
Speaker 1: and threaten them and suggest not only would they, you know,
Speaker 1: sanction the ICC, which by the Biden administration is now
Speaker 1: second they're open to as well, mister international law when
Speaker 1: it came to Russia, a suddenly very different tone when
Speaker 1: it comes to Israel, out and out suggesting sanctioning the
Speaker 1: International Criminal.
Speaker 3: Court that as well.
Speaker 1: But the Republican letter suggested they would also sanction like
Speaker 1: their family members, and that there would be aquo. It
Speaker 1: was like mafia language. There'd be a price to pay,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. So he was chastising them for
Speaker 1: saying that. He also indicated, I know you and Ryan
Speaker 1: covered this that some politician, possibly Lindsay Graham, because we
Speaker 1: know he had spoken to him recently, said this is
Speaker 1: just for.
Speaker 2: You know, Africans.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but Russian Africans.
Speaker 1: And Russians says, not these, you know, our allies.
Speaker 3: How dare you use?
Speaker 2: But I think he's I actually think that's honest and true,
Speaker 2: which is correct. I mean, I agree, but what it has.
Speaker 3: Been and what it should be are two different things.
Speaker 2: OCCA there is no such thing. This is this kind
Speaker 2: of I've been wanting to talk about this. If we
Speaker 2: go back to Nuremberg. Nuremberg happened because we conquered the
Speaker 2: Nazis and basically put them on trial in collaboration with
Speaker 2: the Allied power. Same with the Japanese. I mean, it's
Speaker 2: not the idea behind it, and the enforcement was that
Speaker 2: we had them under full blown military occupation. Without that,
Speaker 2: it doesn't exist. I mean, it's true the ICC the
Speaker 2: United Nations is a tool of the Great Power nations.
Speaker 2: That's why the UN Security Council exists. That's also why
Speaker 2: to the China and Russia has not signed on to
Speaker 2: the ICC or has not supported a lot of this
Speaker 2: stuff with israel Is because China.
Speaker 3: Does support this.
Speaker 2: Actually we are Israel, right, but they supported on Israel.
Speaker 2: But oh, we want to talk about Jinjang. No way,
Speaker 2: that's never going to happen. And the Russians got they
Speaker 2: got all these breakaway provinces right in Ukraine. They're like,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to do that. So again it's like
Speaker 2: it's all fake, at least in my opinion.
Speaker 1: But again, yeah, there's a difference between what it is.
Speaker 3: Yea, you are not wrong in any way about what it.
Speaker 1: Is and what it should be and the way our
Speaker 1: politicians talk about it, right, because they certainly don't openly
Speaker 1: talkalk about it as this selective tool of great power politics,
Speaker 1: and not just with regard to the ICC, which obviously,
Speaker 1: you know, we're worried that those rules might apply to us,
Speaker 1: which is why we're not a party to it. So
Speaker 1: Lindsay Graham in a moment and some comments that he
Speaker 1: made about that which was amusing. But you know, the
Speaker 1: the grand idealistic notion that has been sold is that
Speaker 1: we have these lines in the sand that you know,
Speaker 1: we we said we're not we're going to try to
Speaker 1: protect civilians, we're going to try to protect hospitals. We're
Speaker 1: going to try to avoid allowing a genocide to unfold
Speaker 1: before our eyes. We're going to have these certain rules
Speaker 1: and standards and norms, and we're going to have these
Speaker 1: international bodies to enforce them when the local governments fail.
Speaker 1: Now has that actually been with of course not. Of
Speaker 1: course it's been selective. Of Course they've been hypocritical. But
Speaker 1: that's why you know, previously we're talking about whether this
Speaker 1: legitimizes or delegitimatizes the ICC, And I think it's a
Speaker 1: very fraught moment because in a sense.
Speaker 3: The fact that the rules could apply to.
Speaker 1: Bb neat Yahoo, that he could face arrest if he
Speaker 1: goes to Paris again, that's profoundly legitimizing. That brings the
Speaker 1: court closer to its stated principles and what it is
Speaker 1: supposed to be, not what it's been, but what it's
Speaker 1: supposed to be. On the other hand, there is a
Speaker 1: real risk that you know, they try, that they do
Speaker 1: issue the arrest warrants and then it doesn't change behavior
Speaker 1: and it doesn't matter, and then everyone can sort of
Speaker 1: thumb their knows at it.
Speaker 3: So it's a moment of great peril.
Speaker 1: But if they didn't issue the arrest warrants, then they're
Speaker 1: already they're automatically delegitimized. Given the extent and the clear
Speaker 1: nature of the atrocity, I.
Speaker 2: Don't disagree, and I think really what this again is
Speaker 2: a very big difference in worldview. I am happy that
Speaker 2: this is happening. I want people to understand that their
Speaker 2: quote unquote rules based international order is.
Speaker 3: Not real that Babby, what's happening.
Speaker 2: The destruction of the idea that it's just for Africans
Speaker 2: and Russians is true. It's like the global international system
Speaker 2: is a tool of the American Empire, which it all
Speaker 2: just be honest about what we are doing here. I
Speaker 2: prefer that we need bilateral relationships which are not in
Speaker 2: the fakery of oh, well we have human rights and
Speaker 2: that that's all really important, except whenever it's a barbarian
Speaker 2: Saudis and then we need their oil or it's like anything.
Speaker 2: Let's just be real about what we're all doing here,
Speaker 2: let's ask.
Speaker 1: I think that's station superior to the state of hypocrisy,
Speaker 1: having an acknowledgment of.
Speaker 3: The reality of the world.
Speaker 1: I would prefer a world in which we actually did
Speaker 1: have norms and standards that were enforced consistently or as
Speaker 1: best as you know, as consistently as human beings can
Speaker 1: be expected to, or civilians are protected, where genocide isn't
Speaker 1: just allowed to unfold and we all just go, well,
Speaker 1: they are a big power and they got a lot
Speaker 1: of guns, so what are you going to do. I
Speaker 1: guess the Palestinians just to have to, like, you know,
Speaker 1: watch their kids get slaughtered. I would prefer to live
Speaker 1: in a world where they actually lived up to the
Speaker 1: norms Now, I think one step towards building that world
Speaker 1: is exposing the previous hypocrisies, understanding what the actual realtion
Speaker 1: is now, and trying to make it so that you
Speaker 1: do have consistent application of the principles, which is again
Speaker 1: why I think it's really important that this has been
Speaker 1: applied to Israel, because it starts to build a more
Speaker 1: consistent regime where even US allies can suffer some consequence
Speaker 1: when they're blatant war criminals as being nine yaw.
Speaker 2: Maybe I guess I just for me, it's about limiting principle.
Speaker 2: Like for example, and this is going to sound real
Speaker 2: hardh so clip it if you want to, But if
Speaker 2: Russia was committing a straight up genocide, what would we
Speaker 2: do about it? You know, like, should we militarily invade
Speaker 2: a nuclear armed power if they were committing a genocide?
Speaker 2: I would say, no, I don't think it's worth it,
Speaker 2: even though I think it's horrible. Sure, I think we
Speaker 2: should bring to bear whatever we can, But there are
Speaker 2: limiting principles of action we know in the global system.
Speaker 2: And that's what I mean about being honest here. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's a nice world, you know, to be able to
Speaker 2: think that some global body can impose rules, but that's
Speaker 2: just not true. Like all of it comes back to
Speaker 2: the force of power, and we are an empire. I
Speaker 2: think we should be honest. I don't even think it's
Speaker 2: necessarily a bad thing. You know, it works to our advance. Now,
Speaker 2: it definitely works at the disadvantage of some. But the
Speaker 2: hypocrisy is what drives a lot of other people crazy.
Speaker 2: So us like kind of revealing. Yeah, it's like this
Speaker 2: international body has no enforcement except against you know, anti
Speaker 2: Western leaders. I'm like, yeah, that's a good thing. We
Speaker 2: should we should sho people.
Speaker 3: Should a good but people should It's not good.
Speaker 1: But you know, we're at an interesting moment though, because
Speaker 1: the unipolar world of you know, American superpower soul super
Speaker 1: power status, it's done. It's over, it's gone. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe we're hanging on to the last vestiges of it.
Speaker 1: So now there's a real question about what is the
Speaker 1: world that you know was built after that?
Speaker 3: What does that look like?
Speaker 1: And you see some inklings here of you know, South
Speaker 1: Africa and Ireland in some of the smaller countries around
Speaker 1: the world trying to actually pick up you know, the
Speaker 1: mantle of the idealistic notion of what the US had
Speaker 1: laid out before, and are trying to create more legitimacy
Speaker 1: in this system that has previously existed. There, you know,
Speaker 1: the odds are stacked against it working. You know, the
Speaker 1: odds are very much in favor of Okay, Well, in
Speaker 1: the new order, you'll just have this push and pull
Speaker 1: between you know, who takes control of these institutions and
Speaker 1: how do they use it to their advantage, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 3: But that's not inevitable.
Speaker 1: So in any case, that's why I think this is
Speaker 1: incredibly important, and why I think it matters that you
Speaker 1: have France and Germany saying no, we actually aren't, even
Speaker 1: though this is uncomfortable for us, and we don't really
Speaker 1: like that you're charging baby and you're charging ams to
Speaker 1: you know, we think that's a false equiment.
Speaker 3: That's totally complete bullshit.
Speaker 1: But anyway, put that aside, that they're still saying no,
Speaker 1: we support it, and if they come here, we will
Speaker 1: arrest them. So that's not there's no enforcement mechanism. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's real right. Bbe likes to travel internationally.
Speaker 3: Sure, Israel prides.
Speaker 1: Itself on being this you know, global high tech country,
Speaker 1: very dependent on foreign direct investment. Their economy is already
Speaker 1: taking a huge hit and their stance in the world.
Speaker 1: You know, they're starting to realize like, oh, even though
Speaker 1: we don't see it this way, people are on the
Speaker 1: world see us as equivalent to humas.
Speaker 3: Those things do.
Speaker 1: Actually matter in the long term and can constrain behavior,
Speaker 1: because it really does limit you as a country if
Speaker 1: you're you know, the pariah nation, separated and cut off
Speaker 1: from everybody else.
Speaker 2: To be clear, I do agree with you, and that's
Speaker 2: why I think for Israel they should be carrying themselves
Speaker 2: different because they're not a global nuclear arm superpower and
Speaker 2: the chief empire in the world, so they have to
Speaker 2: be you know, consider of whatever. But let's be real,
Speaker 2: like we can do whatever we want. Basically. I mean,
Speaker 2: we invaded a country, Iraq, destroyed it, spent seven trillion
Speaker 2: dollars and we survived. That's honestly nuts, especially when you
Speaker 2: consider Afghanistan. That's part of the thing that was in
Speaker 2: the Lindsay Graham thing. But the example, I guess I'm
Speaker 2: just trying to get to, yes, we are, and I
Speaker 2: agree that the unipolar moment is over. I think that
Speaker 2: will actually make the world safer, and it will make
Speaker 2: us safer as well, because we have had tremendous hubris,
Speaker 2: like the ability to invade Iraq at Afghanistan and suffer
Speaker 2: no consequence. I think that the rise of actual balance
Speaker 2: brings us to a place where we have to mutually
Speaker 2: respect both the great power nations of Russia, of India,
Speaker 2: of China, of the global and especially growing GDP in Asia.
Speaker 2: All of that will make us safer because we have
Speaker 2: to recognize our own limitations. And the problem with the
Speaker 2: quote unquote rules based international order, which is basically a
Speaker 2: template for American dominance of the world, is that we
Speaker 2: talk out of one side of our mouth and then
Speaker 2: we do something that is actually to our benefit. I
Speaker 2: would rather us just deal honestly with the world, which
Speaker 2: in a multipolar system, you do have to start operating
Speaker 2: more like that and not be blatantly hypocritical as we
Speaker 2: have done throughout the eighties and nineties and the mid
Speaker 2: two thousands. So anything, I think we're returning to a
Speaker 2: more balanced system. I think the Israelis in the long
Speaker 2: term will suffer dramatically, specifically because they no longer have
Speaker 2: the unipolar umbrella that protected them in the Yon Poor
Speaker 2: moment and others.
Speaker 1: And they assume they only need the United States. And
Speaker 1: in the short term that may be true. But over
Speaker 1: the medium to long term, if there are any Palestinians
Speaker 1: who survived this moment, then you know, I think it'll
Speaker 1: face it will be a much different political diplomatic landscape.
Speaker 1: So in terms of the Israeli reaction and whether they
Speaker 1: think that these actions matter, you know, we've already brought
Speaker 1: you Babie's response to the potential ICC or usmore call
Speaker 1: them one of the greatest anti Semites of all time
Speaker 1: or so, I mean, just completely unhinged insanity. Let's put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. So Israel Is saying they
Speaker 1: are now not going to transfer much needed funds to
Speaker 1: the Palestinian authority as punishment for three European countries recognizing
Speaker 1: a Palestinian state. So the fact that you had Ireland,
Speaker 1: Spain and Norway SI we're going to recognize a Palestinian state.
Speaker 3: The Israelis are.
Speaker 1: Then punishing the Palestinian people for this stance of the
Speaker 1: European countries, which obviously makes no sense and is wrong
Speaker 1: and in morall illegal. Decision came from the psycho Finance
Speaker 1: minister Bezaliel Smotrich, far right leader opposes Palestinian sovereignty, threatened
Speaker 1: to push the Palestinian government, they say, into a deeper
Speaker 1: fiscal crisis. He said in a statement he'd informed Net
Speaker 1: and Yahoo he would no longer send those tax revenues
Speaker 1: to the authority which administers part of the West Bank
Speaker 1: and close cooperation with Israel. So the Palaana Authority already
Speaker 1: in really dire financial straits. There have been these ongoing negotiations.
Speaker 1: Basically Israel collects tax revenue on their behalf. PA is
Speaker 1: effectively collaborators with the Israeli government. Some of that tax
Speaker 1: revenue goes to Gaza, and so there's been this ongoing
Speaker 1: dispute about whether the tax revenue was still going to
Speaker 1: come to the PA.
Speaker 3: They seemed to.
Speaker 1: Work on a deal where a third party was going
Speaker 1: to hold on to the portion that's supposed to go
Speaker 1: to Gaza and the rest of it was going to
Speaker 1: go to the West Bank. You also have real economic
Speaker 1: problems because a lot of the Palestinians who previously were
Speaker 1: had work permits and we're working in Israel those you know,
Speaker 1: it's become much more difficult and much more limited the
Speaker 1: number of Palestinians being allowed in so huge economic crisis there,
Speaker 1: and this will obviously it could actually cause the PA
Speaker 1: to completely collapse because they're in these sort of dire
Speaker 1: financial straits. The US reacted to this negatively, but it's
Speaker 1: not like they're threatening to actually do anything. Jake Sellovan,
Speaker 1: we could put this up on the screen, said quote.
Speaker 1: I think it's wrong on a strategic basis because withholding
Speaker 1: funds destabilizes the West Bank, It undermines the search for
Speaker 1: security and prosperity for the Palestinian people, which is in
Speaker 1: Israel's interest. And I think it's wrong to withhold funds
Speaker 1: that provide basic goods and services to innocent people. But again,
Speaker 1: you know, empty words, no indication that there will be
Speaker 1: any action, so basically meaningless on that front, and to
Speaker 1: the point of sacerrinized previous conversation about whether or not
Speaker 1: the Hague should apply those rules of international law should
Speaker 1: also apply to our war criminals, which I very much
Speaker 1: think that they do. Lindsey Graham had an interesting moment
Speaker 1: where he came out said they can come for Israel,
Speaker 1: they could comfort us. Next didn't get exactly the response
Speaker 1: that he was expecting because there were a bunch of
Speaker 1: anti war activists in the room who would be happy
Speaker 1: to see our own war criminals locked up as well
Speaker 1: as say to listen to how that went down.
Speaker 5: So we hopefully together we'll find a way to rest
Speaker 5: our displeasure with the ICC coasts. If they'll do this
Speaker 5: to Israel, we're next. This group tried to come after
Speaker 5: our soldiers. Yeah, you can clap all you want to.
Speaker 5: They tried to come after our soldiers in Afghanistan, but
Speaker 5: reason prevail. So at the end of the day here,
Speaker 5: what I hope to happen is that we level sanctions
Speaker 5: against the ICC for this outrage, to not only help
Speaker 5: our friends in Israel, but protect ourselves over time, Miss Secretary,
Speaker 5: your statement yesterday was excellent. The president statement was excellent.
Speaker 5: Senator Schumer's statement on the floor was excellent about the
Speaker 5: outrage here. They have destroyed the notion of complementarity. They
Speaker 5: have misled people in the United States sentence about their intention,
Speaker 5: and they shall and will pay a price. Miss Secretary,
Speaker 5: I appreciate what you've said. Is now time for us.
Speaker 1: To act, so real, real pipartisan moment there shouting out
Speaker 1: all the Democratic leaders who he agrees with with when
Speaker 1: it comes to the ICC. But it reminds me Sager
Speaker 1: of BB and his response. He was like, this would
Speaker 1: be like locking up Bush for nine to eleven, and
Speaker 1: a lot of people were like, hmmm, I'll take that deal.
Speaker 2: I hate to say it. I do agree with Lindsay.
Speaker 2: I mean only in the fact of in terms of
Speaker 2: that's why I don't support multi lateral organizations like this
Speaker 2: having jurisdiction over US. What annoys me always, and this
Speaker 2: is I think the difference is. I hate the conflation
Speaker 2: of Israel, a basically client state of the United States
Speaker 2: with a tiny population, a tiny GDP number fifty on
Speaker 2: our trading list, being equated to a great superpower. I
Speaker 2: think they should be understood of the vassal state that
Speaker 2: they are. It drives me crazy that they assume, you know,
Speaker 2: some great power status when they get away with the
Speaker 2: things that great powers are supposed to get away with,
Speaker 2: even though they have nothing to their name except being
Speaker 2: under and entirely by the US security umbrella. But again,
Speaker 2: this is just you know, some I don't believe in
Speaker 2: multilateralism really period.
Speaker 1: So there should be no, uh, no consequence for being
Speaker 1: a war criminal.
Speaker 2: The consequence is that we are an.
Speaker 3: African or a Russian. In the words of Lindsay.
Speaker 2: I would say, do I think that Bush should be
Speaker 2: in jail for nine to eleven and for the response? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Do I think there we should let the Hague or
Speaker 2: any something like that do that. No. I think that
Speaker 2: the democratic check of our own country is the one
Speaker 2: that should take care of it. And the reason why
Speaker 2: it still it didn't work out right exactly.
Speaker 3: I mean that's and that's been weird. That's the idea.
Speaker 2: Power to the Hague presidents ludicrous, Yeah, are going to happen.
Speaker 1: I think there's should I think there should be accountability.
Speaker 2: No, no great respecting nation should ever have. It would
Speaker 2: be fine with me to a multi gearge W.
Speaker 1: Bush, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, you can throw you know,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama for the drone program. Totally fine with the
Speaker 1: Hague having actual enforcement mechanisms. And you know, clearly, uh,
Speaker 1: I think there are a lot of people who agree
Speaker 1: with the sense that things like genocide.
Speaker 3: Should be off the table, that there should.
Speaker 1: Be some sort of body and accountability that doesn't just
Speaker 1: rely on if your justice system is you know, basically
Speaker 1: beholden to the political class and not going to have
Speaker 1: any sort of consequences for domestic war criminals.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think there should be.
Speaker 2: It would be nice to live in that world. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that's realistic, That's what I'm saying. But it's not going
Speaker 2: to happen, so we might as well just leave it
Speaker 2: off the table. It's like, okay, well, are the Russians
Speaker 2: going to voluntarily hand over Vladimir Putin?
Speaker 3: No, but I would not have.
Speaker 1: Ever thought that it was a possibility in my lifetime.
Speaker 1: Then Israeli prime minister would be facing arrest at the Hague, Like.
Speaker 3: It's almost preposterous to me. He is France and Germany.
Speaker 2: You're saying, no arrest, You'll still continue live in Israel,
Speaker 2: probably hang out here and he's a Pizzy's how much
Speaker 2: Pittsburgh NATed?
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you can't say like it doesn't matter at all.
Speaker 1: I mean again, you would have said a year ago,
Speaker 1: there's no way the ICC whatever issue probably warrant against
Speaker 1: an Israeli prime minister. It's a world that's not going
Speaker 1: to happen, So why even pretend let's just acknowledge this
Speaker 1: is all fake. Well, guess what the world does exist now?
Speaker 1: That world does exist where there's an arrest warrant that's
Speaker 1: going to be issued for bb Night now who and
Speaker 1: go off galant and continuing investigations, and they might be
Speaker 1: found guilty.
Speaker 3: Of the genocide.
Speaker 1: So, you know, just because things seem unlikely, which I
Speaker 1: would have said the same thing, very unlikely, likely, impossible,
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that it is completely off the table. I
Speaker 1: think we should still advocate for the world that we
Speaker 1: would ideally want to live in. And that world, for me,
Speaker 1: is one in which the language about human rights protecting
Speaker 1: civilians is not meaningless bullshit, that it actually matters, that
Speaker 1: it's applied consistently across the board, whether you're from a
Speaker 1: quote unquote great power or not.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that the way to achieve that world
Speaker 2: is not through multilateralism, fakery and rhetoric. It's through basically
Speaker 2: achieving a balance where it's in everybody's interest and to
Speaker 2: pursue exactly that. So that's why I talk in the
Speaker 2: language of interest. I don't think it's in Israel's interest
Speaker 2: to be prosecuting the war itself. Right, Talking in the language
Speaker 2: of morality eight can missus nobody and be you know, basically, Okay,
Speaker 2: let me just on.
Speaker 1: That point about Israel's interests. Part of why it's not
Speaker 1: in quote unquote Israel's interest is because of these multilateral institutions.
Speaker 2: That's not true.
Speaker 1: Anything that you can't say, that's not part of why
Speaker 1: this is a problem for them, because the reason they're
Speaker 1: becoming more and more of a pariat state is because
Speaker 1: of the plausible genocide, is because of unfinding reasonable grounds
Speaker 1: that there's a genocide, is because of the arrest warrants,
Speaker 1: because France and Germany are saying we'll arrest b B
Speaker 1: if he comes on our soil. Because you have more
Speaker 1: countries that are saying, like, screw you, this is outrageous,
Speaker 1: We're going to recognize a palace.
Speaker 2: There was no multilateralism in the nineteen hundreds when the
Speaker 2: Ottomans slaughtered a million Armenians. But in the world where
Speaker 2: people can have photographs and real life like accounts of
Speaker 2: what's happening, they became a pariah state and they eventually
Speaker 2: crumbled because of that. That's my point is that you
Speaker 2: caslaughtering people. It's not multilateralism which stops it. It's the
Speaker 2: inherent morality of mankind who looks at that and be like, oh,
Speaker 2: this is horrible. Same with the aversion to the Japanese
Speaker 2: Empire and its slaughter of Chinese and Korean civilians in
Speaker 2: World War Two. It wasn't the League of Nations of
Speaker 2: the UN. It was good meeting. People were like, this
Speaker 2: is horrible, We're going to do something about it. Same
Speaker 2: with the Germans and.
Speaker 6: Not multi extect again full blown military occupation so absent
Speaker 6: that and literal subjugation of the entire people and the
Speaker 6: nation in some sort of rule where you know, we
Speaker 6: have arrest warrants where somebody can't travel to Paris.
Speaker 2: It's like, okay, well, you know, there's not a lot
Speaker 2: that's going to be happening here. I'm not diminishing all
Speaker 2: of the importance of it. I do think it's going
Speaker 2: to have an effect.
Speaker 1: But that's it's trying to get you to acknowledge, is
Speaker 1: that it's not nothing.
Speaker 2: Is that multi lato multilateralism in the nineteen hundreds For
Speaker 2: the British population to be outraged about what was happening
Speaker 2: with the Ottomans, right, you just needed people to be like,
Speaker 2: this is horrible, We're going to do something about it.
Speaker 2: Or I'm trying to think there's there's a lot of examples. Basically,
Speaker 2: since the invention of modern media and photography being able
Speaker 2: to go wide, all mass civilian slaughter has always been
Speaker 2: met with basically a horrified population in the rest of
Speaker 2: the world, and eventual for a military action, you didn't
Speaker 2: necessarily need multilateralism to do anything about it. Now, they
Speaker 2: thought that it would be a fix for it, but
Speaker 2: obviously I think that was incorrect, and we've seen that.
Speaker 2: We saw it all fall apart during the Cold War
Speaker 2: whenever it became in the interest to ignore certain things.
Speaker 2: But you know, given back to power itself is the
Speaker 2: only fixed for us.
Speaker 1: Even as broken as these even as you know, hypocritical
Speaker 1: and broken as these multilateral institutions certainly are, I would
Speaker 1: really submit that, you know, the fact that we actually
Speaker 1: have a report that the ICJ may issue actual ceasefire
Speaker 1: injunction is from that Israel Hay.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's been credible in the past.
Speaker 1: I'm not that familiar with the outlet, but it's an
Speaker 1: Israeli news outlet, and apparently ICJ South Africa had come
Speaker 1: back to them and said, listen, look what's happening, and Robbie,
Speaker 1: you really need to issue an injunction that it looks
Speaker 1: like may happen on Friday, We'll be watching for it,
Speaker 1: et cetera. But even the fact that there was this
Speaker 1: determination that a genocide was potentially that it was plausible
Speaker 1: that the Palestinians' rights were being violated and that genocide
Speaker 1: was occurring, even that has had an impact just in
Speaker 1: terms of think about American political conversation. You know, to
Speaker 1: your point about the population's revulsion mattering, you now have
Speaker 1: a plurality of Americans who say this is a genocide.
Speaker 1: You now have a clear majority of Biden voters, Democrats
Speaker 1: who say this is a genocide. I don't think that
Speaker 1: happens if you don't have this sort of international legendacy
Speaker 1: of putting that on the table. That really furthered that conversation.
Speaker 1: Now with that ICC arrest warrants, right, Phoebe's not excited
Speaker 1: about the fact that he can't travel internationally anymore, that
Speaker 1: his life is personally, you know, curtailed. What that means
Speaker 1: for him and his family and his son, and the
Speaker 1: way he's viewed.
Speaker 3: Israelis a nation is.
Speaker 1: Not excited about the fact that they feel there, you know,
Speaker 1: correctly being seen as like on a level with Hamas
Speaker 1: around the world. They're not happy about that. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying it's an end. I'll be all at this point.
Speaker 1: But even now, even in the state of hypocrisy and
Speaker 1: brokenness of this institution, of these institutions, they still are
Speaker 1: having some impact. And so I don't I just don't
Speaker 1: think you can deny that or deny the possibility that
Speaker 1: they could be improved, that this could be actually a
Speaker 1: step of creating more legitimacy where they actually matter more.
Speaker 1: It can strain behavior more.
Speaker 2: And why I say, I'm not saying it had zero impact.
Speaker 2: I just pointed this. What's going to be more impactful
Speaker 2: the United States, the great power of the world pulling
Speaker 2: weapons from Israel, or the ICJ. That's that's it.
Speaker 1: But I don't see those things as disconnected, because with
Speaker 1: Biden it has certainly created That's part of why you
Speaker 1: got this like little temporary pause. That's part of why
Speaker 1: they look increasingly ridiculous trying to defend, you know, even
Speaker 1: complying with their own law, with our own laws, like
Speaker 1: the Layy Act. Part of what has put them in
Speaker 1: a difficult position and has perhaps made it unsustainable, to
Speaker 1: use your word from earlier, is that you have these
Speaker 1: you know, now you're shipping bomb still criminal. Now you're
Speaker 1: shipping bombs to a country that's plausibly doing a GEM
Speaker 1: site is creating more political pressure on.
Speaker 2: I would posit it as much more just the straight
Speaker 2: up images coming out of Gaza, and probably domestic political
Speaker 2: pressure more than ICC IC.
Speaker 1: But I'm not saying but I'm not saying that stuff
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. I'm saying they build on each other and
Speaker 1: it's nothing, nothing, exactly nothing that I.
Speaker 2: Think you're confusing me saying it doesn't matter at all.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying is that the primacy of power and
Speaker 2: military force will always preempt multilateralism, which is why I
Speaker 2: think multi latism is stupid and mostly doesn't work. And
Speaker 2: especially people who put way too much faith in institutions
Speaker 2: like the ICGA, the ICC, or the United Nations or whatever,
Speaker 2: NATO or any of these other things. These are just constructs.
Speaker 2: They're a part.
Speaker 3: Like who else are we.
Speaker 1: Supposed to put faith in. It's clearly not the US government.
Speaker 2: Well, then we should try to change in US government,
Speaker 2: because they're the only force that can really do We
Speaker 2: and maybe four or five other nations in the world
Speaker 2: are the only ones with the capacity to change anything.
Speaker 2: So I care a lot about our government, but I
Speaker 2: wouldn't put any stock in the UN or any of
Speaker 2: these other places, because in the long run, our hour
Speaker 2: future is always going to happen.
Speaker 3: You keep shifting them.
Speaker 1: You're like, I'm not saying they don't matter, and then
Speaker 1: you're like, they don't matter, they don't matter.
Speaker 3: Why would you.
Speaker 1: Put You said I would don't put any stock in
Speaker 1: the UN. That would indicate like it's completely meaningless, it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter, It doesn't help to constrain or drive any
Speaker 1: sort of behavior at all. And I just don't think
Speaker 1: that's an accurate picture of the world. You can say absolutely,
Speaker 1: of course, it would be more impactful if Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: if we pulled our support, it'd be.
Speaker 3: Over, There's no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: Part of what is building the pressure that could result
Speaker 1: in some sort of a shift, and has already resulted.
Speaker 3: I mean again, Pelosi.
Speaker 1: Signing onto a letter saying we maybe should condition aid
Speaker 1: to Israel, Chuck Schumer calling for BB to be pushed out.
Speaker 1: These are things that we're not even on the table
Speaker 1: before that, even in our own cramped, bought and paid
Speaker 1: for politics are now on the table. Part of it
Speaker 1: is it's not the whole, but part of it is
Speaker 1: the judgment of those multilateral institutions. So you can't say
Speaker 1: that you should put no stock in them and it's
Speaker 1: meaningless and it doesn't matter at all. You can say
Speaker 1: you don't think it should matter, and they should just
Speaker 1: go away and we should just focus on great power politics.
Speaker 1: But I just don't think it's an accurate picture of
Speaker 1: the world to say these things haven't mattered at all.
Speaker 2: I'll revise and say it is marginal at best in
Speaker 2: my opinion, especially with respect to the US, all US
Speaker 2: actions thus far, I don't think it's been dictated largely
Speaker 2: by these multilateral revulsion or anything. It's been domestic politics,
Speaker 2: and it's been the actual state of play inside of
Speaker 2: Israel and or US interests in the actual region. Like
Speaker 2: I don't know, maybe spending a billion dollars in a
Speaker 2: single day to protect a bunch of people who struck
Speaker 2: in Iranian embassy and then suddenly, you know, have to
Speaker 2: claimed the right of self defense. Yeah, that's always again,
Speaker 2: I think that's where it really does come from. Now,
Speaker 2: maybe you know, Biden and all of them have been
Speaker 2: moved by this, but considering that they immediately come out
Speaker 2: and blast the organization and do me ticket Seriously, I
Speaker 2: don't see a lot of evidence for it.
Speaker 3: Clearly, the Israelis feel that these things are.
Speaker 2: And they should because they're not a great power. They're
Speaker 2: not a superpower. Right.
Speaker 1: But again, if you're saying, you know, it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: at all, like there's two players who have the most
Speaker 1: impact here, the US and Israel. Now, I do think
Speaker 1: that these decisions have really shaped the conversation. That's but
Speaker 1: you can now say, you know, the word genocide was
Speaker 1: used on MSNBC. Again, a majority of Biden Varcitos jumps.
Speaker 1: These things were not were fringed that you could barely say,
Speaker 1: you couldn't say it right very recently, and that has
Speaker 1: helped to me in.
Speaker 2: St So it's pretty sure forty percent of some people
Speaker 2: say genocide way before ic C, right, but don't need
Speaker 2: the ICC to say.
Speaker 1: Even if you dismiss, oh, this has no impact on
Speaker 1: US public opinion, that has no impact of the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Even if you acknowledge it has impact on Israel,
Speaker 1: which I think is very clear, then it still has impact.
Speaker 2: Okay, So the reason I say, the reason the difference
Speaker 2: is that Again, small nations who don't have the capacity
Speaker 2: to actually have freedom of action, yeah, they should care.
Speaker 2: Any small nation should care. Yeah, but a great power
Speaker 2: like the US and this who I care about and
Speaker 2: who I'm thinking of in terms of our action. No,
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter for US really at all. Now again,
Speaker 2: who matters more for Israeli action is the United States,
Speaker 2: the UN, or even the European Union. It's going to
Speaker 2: be the US. So the actual impact of US policy
Speaker 2: is the basic soul determining factor of the state of
Speaker 2: play inside of Israel, for their geopolitics, for their actions,
Speaker 2: for the vast majority of the things that they do
Speaker 2: in the world, for their number one trading partner, for
Speaker 2: their securities.
Speaker 1: I mean in a sense, yes, but we also see
Speaker 1: that the Israelis have completely I mean at this point
Speaker 1: we seem like we're the client state, Like they do.
Speaker 3: Whatever the hell they want, regardless of the Biden.
Speaker 1: Administrations, like concerns et cetera, et cetera. So having an
Speaker 1: impact on them, like that's they're the actual center of
Speaker 1: gravity with this, since Biden's society is just going to
Speaker 1: let do the bear hug and let them do whatever
Speaker 1: they do.
Speaker 2: That is true and that is because we have a
Speaker 2: foolish president who has subjugated our not just president, our
Speaker 2: political system has subjugated our interest to a country of
Speaker 2: eleven million people, our number fifty trading partner and all
Speaker 2: of that. So I would not disagree on that front.
Speaker 3: Well, but that is just because we can end on
Speaker 3: that point to embrace.
Speaker 2: Our empire staff. And if we did that, we would
Speaker 2: be better off. Okay, we had a great.
Speaker 1: Ticket to talk about one of our ineffectual efforts here
Speaker 1: with regard to Gaza. More patheticness from Joe Biden. The
Speaker 1: whole peer situation, let's get to it. Join us now
Speaker 1: to break down the whole peer situation is the newly
Speaker 1: independent Ken Clippenstein, fantastic journalist covering national security in particular.
Speaker 3: Great to see you, Ken, see you man, Hey guys,
Speaker 3: good to be with you. Before.
Speaker 1: First question, where can people follow you? How can they
Speaker 1: support you? Always do fantastic work, continue to get bombshell
Speaker 1: scoops that the mainstream media can't get their hands on,
Speaker 1: even in newly independent status.
Speaker 3: So where can people follow you in support?
Speaker 7: Check me out on substack.
Speaker 8: That's Kenklippenstein dot substack dot com.
Speaker 1: All right, So ken, let's put this latest report up
Speaker 1: on the screen. Apparently, as of this writing, none of
Speaker 1: the food aid that moved through the Gaza peer has
Speaker 1: actually made it to Palestinians. So tell us what this
Speaker 1: little peer situation was all about and what is going
Speaker 1: wrong thus far.
Speaker 8: Yeah, so, the Bidy administration refuses to work with UNRA,
Speaker 8: the UN agency that provides aid to the Palestinian territories,
Speaker 8: Gaza in particular, and because of that, you know, that
Speaker 8: institution is one of the only ones that has the
Speaker 8: breadth of skill, the resources, the experience and the relationships
Speaker 8: on the ground in Gaza to be able to scale
Speaker 8: that aid. So what ends up happening is the administration
Speaker 8: finds itself in a very awkward position where it wants
Speaker 8: this frankly pr stunt of being able to say, Hey,
Speaker 8: look at all this great stuff we're doing, even though we're not,
Speaker 8: you know, seriously suspending support to the Israeli military. And
Speaker 8: so they're stuck with things like humanitarian aid drops from
Speaker 8: airplanes that don't reach form many people and then trying
Speaker 8: to create this aid peer, which without the help of
Speaker 8: an institution like UNRA, they're stuck relying on individual NGOs
Speaker 8: And if you look at the public messaging that the
Speaker 8: Press Secretary and Deputy Press Secretary of the Pentagon of
Speaker 8: putting out over the last several weeks running up to this,
Speaker 8: they couldn't answer who they're going to actually use to
Speaker 8: distribute the aid. And they were asked this repeatedly every
Speaker 8: time they had to punt the question because they don't
Speaker 8: have an answer to it, because there is no NGO
Speaker 8: level institution that is going to be able to distribute
Speaker 8: this at scale.
Speaker 2: Right and Ken, what do we know right now about
Speaker 2: the risk to US forces that are involved, about what
Speaker 2: has happened and the cost now that has come at
Speaker 2: the result of this boondoggle.
Speaker 8: Yeah, that's one of the most interesting and undercovered parts
Speaker 8: of the story. I think it's pretty well appreciated the
Speaker 8: problems with being able to distribute at scale. But as
Speaker 8: soon as this thing was announced, I started hearing very
Speaker 8: early on from service members that this is a risky
Speaker 8: proposition for the Biden administration. Now, the administration is huge
Speaker 8: messaging that there are going to be no boots on
Speaker 8: the ground. That's a little misleading because they're going to
Speaker 8: use a lot of military contractors and they already have
Speaker 8: in In addition to that, troops are moving some of these
Speaker 8: resources and having set up to peer initially, but the
Speaker 8: idea is they're not actually going to be operating on
Speaker 8: the ground, so who they need to operate instead. In
Speaker 8: large part has been reliance on the IDF to be
Speaker 8: able to set things up. There's been the IDEF has
Speaker 8: been inconsistent in saying that they would support it, saying
Speaker 8: that they're not going to support it. But in any case,
Speaker 8: there's a logistics there's an idea of logistics facility right
Speaker 8: next to the right next to the a peer, which
Speaker 8: is a legitimate military target under you know, the rules
Speaker 8: of war, and indeed has been a target of fighters
Speaker 8: as recently as the last several weeks. So they're legitimate
Speaker 8: military targets right next to this peer, you know, not
Speaker 8: just hamas but other military groups able to operate in
Speaker 8: the area. And so the concerns race to me privately
Speaker 8: by service members and now to some extent publicly by
Speaker 8: think tanks. Such seems like a really legitimate thing to
Speaker 8: be worried about. Is the US getting a bigger footprint
Speaker 8: in this and putting those contractors at risk as I.
Speaker 1: Can, I won't be the first to point out the
Speaker 1: total insanity of this whole boondoggle, because you've got miles
Speaker 1: and miles thousands of AID trucks lined up at the
Speaker 1: border into the Gaza Strip that just aren't being allowed in.
Speaker 1: So you know, this peer is not a solution to
Speaker 1: the AID problem, but pressuring these Raelis to actually allow
Speaker 1: that AID to enter the Gaza Strip is a solution.
Speaker 1: So what can you tell us about the overall aid situation,
Speaker 1: the level of humanitarian crisis? And also, you know, I
Speaker 1: sort of go back and forth. Is this whole peer
Speaker 1: situation some expensive, dangerous, stupid virtue signal basically to try.
Speaker 3: To persuade disaffected Biden.
Speaker 1: Voters that you know, no, we really do care about
Speaker 1: Palestinian life, Or is there a more nefarious goal here
Speaker 1: because we've also seen BBE talking about, hey, maybe we
Speaker 1: can use this peer for our ethnic cleansing project. We've
Speaker 1: also seen reporting that apparently the peer was Bbe's idea.
Speaker 1: So is it just the expensive, stupid boondoggle or do
Speaker 1: you see any indications that there's some other intent purpose
Speaker 1: for this thing?
Speaker 8: Well, I think that there are second order consequences of
Speaker 8: this facility that might not be intentional on the part
Speaker 8: of the administration, but which nonetheless can happen, which is
Speaker 8: to say another you know, uh spoke in the hub
Speaker 8: as it were, that the IDF is going to be
Speaker 8: interacting with and you know, I mentioned that logistics facility
Speaker 8: they are building up.
Speaker 7: You know, the war is not like in the movies.
Speaker 8: It is a logistical undertaking, and so you have to
Speaker 8: build things up and create infrastructure to be able to
Speaker 8: sustain that. And this might provide one more you know,
Speaker 8: spoken that hub for the.
Speaker 7: Israelis to be able to conduct these things.
Speaker 8: And so I think that's a legitimate concern, even if
Speaker 8: it's not the intent of the administration to do, which
Speaker 8: I personally from talking to people at State, get the
Speaker 8: impression that they just really need some kind of a
Speaker 8: win short of actually cutting off significant forms of military
Speaker 8: aid to the Israelis.
Speaker 7: Now, you know, there's been a lot of there's been.
Speaker 8: Much ado about the president's threat to suspend certain forms
Speaker 8: of aid. I do destory on that on my substack
Speaker 8: as well, showing that much of that aid is not
Speaker 8: going to be much of that much of those military
Speaker 8: weapons systems that are starting to come off cut off
Speaker 8: would not be felt for weeks or months and aren't
Speaker 8: even relevant to this stage of the conflict, which is
Speaker 8: in a very late stage. The kind of warfighting that
Speaker 8: they're going to conduct in REFA, it's going to look
Speaker 8: very different than.
Speaker 7: The air power heavy campaign at the beginning of the conflict.
Speaker 8: So it's really disingenuous for the administration to say, oh,
Speaker 8: look we're considering cutting off things in a way that
Speaker 8: would change their conduct in Refas. So all of that
Speaker 8: to say, they're in a position where they really need
Speaker 8: a win, to be able to bring to frankly, the
Speaker 8: entire democratic base and say hey, look we're doing something
Speaker 8: to help.
Speaker 7: And unfortunately, this is what they've they've settled on.
Speaker 2: So tell us a little bit more about where this
Speaker 2: thing goes from here. We've had zero aid, We've had
Speaker 2: what is about half a billion or so that has
Speaker 2: been invested. The Pentagon itself, on the record says that
Speaker 2: nothing is being delivered to Palestinians. Is there Are they
Speaker 2: going to ramp up this, you know, operation to try
Speaker 2: and get more aid in there, or is this just
Speaker 2: the best that we can expect.
Speaker 8: The most absurd part of this is that if you
Speaker 8: watch the press briefings, which I paid close attention to.
Speaker 8: I don't think they know what the next step is
Speaker 8: because they're frequently being asked the same questions and they go,
Speaker 8: we'll have an answer for you shortly, and we're currently
Speaker 8: we're in negotiations with the Israelis and contractors are trying
Speaker 8: to figure out So I don't have an answer to
Speaker 8: that because they don't have an answer for that, And
Speaker 8: that should tell you how seriously they're taking this entire thing.
Speaker 3: Wow. Absolutely insane. Ken, Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Congratulations on the shift to Congratulations on.
Speaker 3: Your newly won independence.
Speaker 1: I know you'll be successful there, and thank you, of
Speaker 1: course for breaking down your reporting this morning.
Speaker 2: Good to see you many thanks guys, my pleasures, our congratulations.
Speaker 2: Thank you guys so much for watching. We really appreciate you. Now,
Speaker 2: don't forget you got to sign up for your Locals account.
Speaker 2: Just transfer over there because supercast is ending support at
Speaker 2: locals dot com. Otherwise. We will see you all on
Speaker 2: Tuesday because of a Memorial Day, so we'll see you
Speaker 2: in a few days.
Speaker 5: Speak to