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, all.
Speaker 1: Right, guys, So we have a lot of big updates
Speaker 1: for you with regards to Israel. Let's put this first
Speaker 1: extraordinary development up on the screen. So, Egypt now joining
Speaker 1: South Africa's case at the ICJ, which alleges that Israel
Speaker 1: is committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Senior
Speaker 1: Israeli officials are describing this, I would say, probably accurately
Speaker 1: as a new low in relations between countries, certainly in
Speaker 1: recent history post peace agreement. Egypt's announcement, they say, is
Speaker 1: not expected to have a material effect on the ICJ's
Speaker 1: legal process, but reflects a new low. Israeli sources fear
Speaker 1: the ICJ may issue new orders against Israel as the
Speaker 1: operation in Rafa as having a major impact on access
Speaker 1: to humanitarian aid. Reportings suggests that Egypt's really quite extraordinary
Speaker 1: decision to join South Africa in their case at the ICJ,
Speaker 1: has everything to do with the Israeli assault on Rafa,
Speaker 1: in the fact that they have already invaded and taken
Speaker 1: control of the Rafa crossing on the Palestinian side. We've
Speaker 1: been reporting for months how Egypt has been raising red
Speaker 1: flag after red flag against about that potential incursion into Rafa,
Speaker 1: talking about what a provocation that would be, what a
Speaker 1: problem it would be for Egypt, And so in their
Speaker 1: letter where they signaled they were joining on with the ICJ,
Speaker 1: they said in that statement that the move comes quote
Speaker 1: in view of aggravating intensity and scale of Israeli attacks
Speaker 1: against civilians Agaza and the quote continued perpetration of systematic
Speaker 1: practices against Palestinians, including direct targeting of civilians in destruction
Speaker 1: of infrastructure. Egypt also called the Rafa operation a flagrant
Speaker 1: violation of international law and called on Israel to commit
Speaker 1: to the principles of international law as an occupying power.
Speaker 1: In addition, South Africa just on Friday submitted a request
Speaker 1: the ICJ to issue new emergency orders against Israel due
Speaker 1: to the operation in Rafa. So you've got two things.
Speaker 1: You've got South Africa coming back to the ICJ and
Speaker 1: saying you've got to issue new injunctions.
Speaker 4: You'll recality.
Speaker 1: First injunctions did not go so far as demanding a ceasefire,
Speaker 1: So they're really pushing the envelope, pushing directly for that
Speaker 1: that call for a ceasefire from the ICJ. And you
Speaker 1: have Egypt joining, which saga I mean is significant for
Speaker 1: a lot of reasons, not least of which that I mean.
Speaker 1: Egypt is a massive recipient of usaid, considered a great
Speaker 1: American ally, So the fact that they're at this point
Speaker 1: also saying, hey, Israel, we think you're committing genocide. We're
Speaker 1: signing onto this, we're pushing for a direct injunction is
Speaker 1: really quite significant.
Speaker 2: Well, it's important for several reasons. For basically, let's say
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy to let's say the twenty tens, when Iran
Speaker 2: became the major driver in the Israel relationship, all of
Speaker 2: US foreign policy with respect to Israel was balancing the
Speaker 2: two great powers of Israel and Egypt. Where there's a
Speaker 2: saying in Arabic which is difficult to translate, but it
Speaker 2: roughly translates to, like, where Egypt goes is where the
Speaker 2: rest of the Arab world go was. The idea is
Speaker 2: that it's like a cultural heart and center that's like.
Speaker 4: The heart of the Arab Yeah, it's like the heart exactly.
Speaker 3: Let's put it that way. It's difficult to like put
Speaker 3: into English.
Speaker 2: But the point is that with Egypt where it is
Speaker 2: right now, we wanted to always balance the two. It's
Speaker 2: why the Camp David nineteen seventies agreements were so important
Speaker 2: and why both of them are recipients of major military aid.
Speaker 2: Iran and Iraq basically took that off the table and
Speaker 2: changed everything. We kind of took the Egypt Israel relationship
Speaker 2: for granted. Well, what we're all learning here is that
Speaker 2: these things can fall apart very very quickly, and that
Speaker 2: the Israeli kind of arrogance and with respect to its
Speaker 2: operations in Rafa without a lot of consideration of the Egyptians.
Speaker 2: And let's not forget I mean we covered it here
Speaker 2: at the time. The Egyptians warned them that it was coming.
Speaker 2: They called them in early October. They're like, there is
Speaker 2: a major terrorist attack that is going to happen, and
Speaker 2: you need to listen.
Speaker 3: They didn't listen to the Egyptians. They tried to prevent this.
Speaker 2: Now they have their own domestic politics going on, but
Speaker 2: clearly their own population is very upset about what's happening,
Speaker 2: and their own government sees major fallout from Israeli policy
Speaker 2: and especially this operation in Rafa, and so for them
Speaker 2: to join on to this is a monumental event in
Speaker 2: US foreign policy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's absolutely right. And from the Egyptian perspective, first
Speaker 1: of all, you have a population which is overwhelmingly sympathetic
Speaker 1: to the Palestinian cause, and so you have pressure from
Speaker 1: the population. You also have deep concern from the Egyptians,
Speaker 1: which to your point, Zager, they've been very clear about
Speaker 1: deep concern about a potential mass of refugees fleeing Gaza
Speaker 1: Strip because of Gatten. Of course, clustered in Rafa, you
Speaker 1: have some probably around a million Palestinians at this point,
Speaker 1: because you've had about three hundred thousand who have won
Speaker 1: again been forcibly displaced from Raffa, but you still have
Speaker 1: an extraordinary concentration of population.
Speaker 4: There with no where to go.
Speaker 1: So there's deep concern about that as well, and they
Speaker 1: are arguing quite accurately. I don't think you can really
Speaker 1: dispute this that Israel taking control of Palas and the
Speaker 1: inside of the border is a direct breach of an
Speaker 1: agreement that Egypt had with Israel with regard to that
Speaker 1: Rafa crossing and that whole area of the border region
Speaker 1: between Egypt and the Gaza Strip. So this is, you know,
Speaker 1: this is really no worthy. The other thing that I'll
Speaker 1: mention here is the Israeli seem very nervous that the
Speaker 1: ICJ is going to actually issue some additional injunctions. Now
Speaker 1: is that going to come to pass? What is that
Speaker 1: based on? I have no idea, but the fact that
Speaker 1: you have South Africa going back, Egypt joining on, and
Speaker 1: this invasion now which has already occurred. The US administration
Speaker 1: is saying it's not a major invasion, but it's you know,
Speaker 1: it's an invasion. They've taken control of the crossing, They've
Speaker 1: hit some very significant number of targets in Rafa, They've
Speaker 1: displaced already hundreds of thousands forcibly of Palestinians from the areas.
Speaker 1: So you clearly have action with regard to Rafa and
Speaker 1: BBNT Yaho signaling there's no end in sight with regard
Speaker 1: to that. Those things, I think it is plausible could
Speaker 1: combine to seeing the ICJ taking some more aggressive and
Speaker 1: more full throated action with regard to Israel. So we
Speaker 1: have some video we can show you of some of
Speaker 1: the things that I was just referring to in terms
Speaker 1: of the expansion. This is leafleting in Rafa. So reports
Speaker 1: are that some three hundred thousand Palestinians have now been
Speaker 1: once again told to move. In addition, you have new
Speaker 1: idea of actions in the northern part again of the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip. This is Jibali, a refugee camp that came
Speaker 1: under massive attack again and we'll talk more about the
Speaker 1: significance of that. Here you see civilians fleeing from Israeli firepower.
Speaker 4: The bombs are falling everywhere. They say.
Speaker 1: You have additional images here from Rafa. And then this
Speaker 1: video is Israeli settlers putting rocks in the road and
Speaker 1: coming up with new extraordinary tactics to block medicine, food
Speaker 1: and fuel from going into the Gaza Strip. This is
Speaker 1: an effort that has been on going for months now
Speaker 1: that they have escalated. And finally you can see here
Speaker 1: a map showing that people are being forced to flee
Speaker 1: north from Rafa, and they are also being told to
Speaker 1: flee south from that Jibalia area, the Jabalia refugee camp,
Speaker 1: and again NPR, New York Times, any number of outlets
Speaker 1: that are pretty sympathetic to the Israelis have documented the
Speaker 1: fact that there is nowhere safe to go the Alawassi
Speaker 1: area that they've touted as this safe stone. First of all,
Speaker 1: it has not been a safe stone. Second of all,
Speaker 1: there is nowhere near the sort of food, fuel, sanitation, water,
Speaker 1: et cetera that you would need to host some million
Speaker 1: plus Palestinians. It's already overcrowded there. So this is a
Speaker 1: horrifying situation. I wanted to mention Sager, the Jibalia refugee
Speaker 1: camp bombing is really significant. You guys might remember this
Speaker 1: is one of the places that was attacked aggressively in
Speaker 1: the early phases of the war. They killed some hundreds
Speaker 1: of Palestinians using two thousand pound bombs to allegedly potentially
Speaker 1: get one hamas militant. But this is the area in
Speaker 1: the northern Gaza strip which has been utterly decimated. But
Speaker 1: since you know, after they left that area, since there
Speaker 1: was no alternative to Hamas put in place. Hamas is,
Speaker 1: you know, has not been defeated. Hamas is still a
Speaker 1: coming back in reconstituting taking control over civilian functions, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So it really underscores how much of a failure the
Speaker 1: Israeli approach here has been and how much incredible spin
Speaker 1: it requires to present what they've done and the horse
Speaker 1: they've perpetrated in the Gaza strip as anything approaching a
Speaker 1: win quote unquote for the Israeli side.
Speaker 2: It's ridiculous because what it shows also is the ineffectiveness
Speaker 2: of their military campaign. It's funny because they haven't been
Speaker 2: engaged in a lot of military activity in the last
Speaker 2: several months, at least at like a major campaign level,
Speaker 2: so we haven't been able to talk about it.
Speaker 3: But this is the ultimate sign of failure.
Speaker 2: If you have to keep going back bombing people in
Speaker 2: the North, then your entire mission accomplished. Speech, which happened
Speaker 2: already was fake. It's like it's exact, you could roll
Speaker 2: the tape it were predicted it here say there's no
Speaker 2: way to do this in the way that they are.
Speaker 2: All you're doing is just blowing the crap out of
Speaker 2: the place, destroying the rubble. You have your cartoonish children military,
Speaker 2: you know, rolling in and shooting and everything that they want.
Speaker 2: No I even attempt to try and separate the population
Speaker 2: to build something for the next day, you will almost
Speaker 2: certainly just create an insurgency. Well what happened, and now
Speaker 2: immediately they would draw from the area. Rockets are being
Speaker 2: fired from there. So now they say that they have
Speaker 2: to go back in. There's no plan, there is no
Speaker 2: actual effective military strategy. And if that's the case, it's like, well,
Speaker 2: what was the entire point of all of this. Let's
Speaker 2: put the next one, please up on the screen. You're
Speaker 2: also watching here. Now three hundred thousand people quote forced
Speaker 2: to evacuate. This is from Rafa saying quote as you said,
Speaker 2: there is nowhere to go. The humanitarian zone is quote
Speaker 2: neither safe nor equipped to handle all of them.
Speaker 3: According to the United Nations.
Speaker 4: Either safe nor humanitarian.
Speaker 3: Runs the zone.
Speaker 2: And so then the question is it's like, well, are
Speaker 2: you going to go in Rafa and do the exact
Speaker 2: same thing that you did in Conunis and in Gaza,
Speaker 2: Because if so, then neither of those works. This is
Speaker 2: part of what drives me crazy about The entire thing
Speaker 2: is everyone's like, they need to go in and they
Speaker 2: need to finish Jamas. I'm like, well, they didn't finish
Speaker 2: themas in Gaza today, they didn't finish Jamas in communists
Speaker 2: or in Jabali a refugee camp, and so what evidence
Speaker 2: do we have that you're going to be able to
Speaker 2: do that in Rafa?
Speaker 3: Basically none. You know, from a military point of view.
Speaker 2: There has been basically, you know, no ignor knowowledgement of
Speaker 2: the fact that overall, right now, this has been a
Speaker 2: strategic and tactical failure. If you are analyzing from the
Speaker 2: basis of the outset gain or the outset goals free
Speaker 2: the hostages, destroy the terrorists, neither of those have happened.
Speaker 3: You've killed more hostages than you free.
Speaker 4: That's right, That's exactly right.
Speaker 1: And there's a deal on the table right now to
Speaker 1: free all of the hostages.
Speaker 4: That baby Nan who doesn't want to take.
Speaker 1: So also has completely exposed the lie you hear all
Speaker 1: the time of like, oh well, if they just freed
Speaker 1: the hostages, the war could end tomorrow.
Speaker 4: Bullshit.
Speaker 1: They said they would free the hostages, and guess what
Speaker 1: has really said, No, we want to continue the war. No,
Speaker 1: this hasn't been about getting Hamas. It's been about revenge.
Speaker 1: It's been about destruction. It's been about you know, the
Speaker 1: same sort of you know, base instincts that were fed
Speaker 1: and fueled and that we saw a lot of in
Speaker 1: the aftermath of nine to eleven. That's what this has been.
Speaker 1: It really, I don't you know, it's it's a force
Speaker 1: to imagine otherwise, and it has been from the beginning
Speaker 1: because you know, as we cover from the early days,
Speaker 1: if your actual goal was we're going to get the
Speaker 1: bad guys who play in October seventh, we're going to
Speaker 1: make sure this can never happen again. The utter destruction
Speaker 1: and devastation, mass targeting of civilians, et cetera. Is completely
Speaker 1: inconsistent with anything approaching those goals, and it also exposes
Speaker 1: another lie from the Israelis, which is this idea of well,
Speaker 1: we've defeated Hamas throughout the rest of the Gaza strip,
Speaker 1: now we just got to go into Raffa and finish
Speaker 1: the job.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: That's what you hear all the time from Bbebe and
Speaker 1: his defenders and supporters, et cetera. We got to go
Speaker 1: into Rafa, we got to finish the job, Well, what
Speaker 1: are you talking about? You clearly there's much more Hamas
Speaker 1: still remaining than you are portraying. Clearly they're not all
Speaker 1: just clustered in Rava. In fact, we got to report
Speaker 1: that even Sinwar, who is you know, a major target
Speaker 1: of IYRE and high level October seventh plannerar et cetera,
Speaker 1: that he is not even in Rafa anymore, that perhaps
Speaker 1: he's in Conunis at this point. So the idea that oh,
Speaker 1: we're going to finish the job when we go into Rafa,
Speaker 1: no you're not. You're just going to slaughter more civilians.
Speaker 1: It's going to be more horror, more atrocities, more outrage,
Speaker 1: with no plan in sight for any sort of peace
Speaker 1: day after.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's just never been a.
Speaker 1: Part of their of their intentions, never been part of
Speaker 1: their intentions whatsoever. I also just have to mention that
Speaker 1: New York Times headline, we could put D three back
Speaker 1: up for one more second. It now says that three
Speaker 1: hundred thousand Gozzens are forced to evacuate. This original headline
Speaker 1: said three hundred thousand gozzens are on the move. Like
Speaker 1: so sanitized and at least they had enough shame after
Speaker 1: backlash to change to indicate no, no, they're not just
Speaker 1: on the move because they feel like getting up and going.
Speaker 1: They're being forced to evacuate many of these I mean,
Speaker 1: just try to put yourself in there shoes, right.
Speaker 4: Imagine you're someone who.
Speaker 1: Was living in Gaza City and you were told you
Speaker 1: got to get out, and you went to Communis and
Speaker 1: you were told you got to get out of there,
Speaker 1: and you went to You've got no money left your.
Speaker 4: You know, very little food.
Speaker 1: You've been living in a tent for seven months now,
Speaker 1: You've been displaced time and time again, and now you're looking.
Speaker 4: Where do you go? Where do you go?
Speaker 1: So there are horrifying decisions that are being made here
Speaker 1: by people who just have no or at their absolute
Speaker 1: wits end, and have no idea what to do that
Speaker 1: is going to help preserve the lives of themselves and
Speaker 1: their children and their family members. It's outrageous, it's absolutely outrageous.
Speaker 1: And to paint that as some sort of humanitarian gesture
Speaker 1: that oh, we you know, we are so moral because
Speaker 1: we tell these people to move. No, you forcibly displaced
Speaker 1: the entire Goszas shop, basically millions of Palestinines at this point,
Speaker 1: and there is nowhere that they can go and feel
Speaker 1: like they're going to be Okay, let's put this next
Speaker 1: piece up on the screen, because this was also very noteworthy.
Speaker 1: The UN General Assembly approved a resolution that would grant
Speaker 1: Palestine new rights and would revive its UN membership bid.
Speaker 1: This vote in the General Assembly was overwhelming. It called
Speaker 1: on the Security Council to reconsider Palestine's request become one
Speaker 1: hundred and ninety fourth member of the UN. The vote
Speaker 1: was one hundred and forty three in favor, nine against.
Speaker 1: You will not be surprised to learn the US was
Speaker 1: one of those against, with twenty five abstentions. You had
Speaker 1: a lot of US allies, including France, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Australia, Estonia,
Speaker 1: Norway who voted in favor of this resolution. It also
Speaker 1: demonstrated a growing support for the Palestinian So there was
Speaker 1: a similar General Assembly resolution back on October twenty seventh,
Speaker 1: that one called for a humanitarian ceasefire in gaz. It
Speaker 1: was approved one hundred and twenty to fourteen with forty
Speaker 1: five abstentions. So a more overwhelming vote here, and we
Speaker 1: can put the next piece up on the screen. Because
Speaker 1: doctor Parci laid down why this is noteworthy, Because I
Speaker 1: know it's easy to be like, who cares what really happens.
Speaker 4: At the UN fair enough?
Speaker 1: But he says that based on a draft of the
Speaker 1: resolution he'd reviewed, he thought this resolution could become a
Speaker 1: big deal. It does three important things. Reiterates a Palestine
Speaker 1: state must be created based on the sixty seven borders
Speaker 1: by that rejects the facts on the ground that Israel's
Speaker 1: manufactured through its settlement project. Second, it expresses deep regret
Speaker 1: and concern over Biden's veto at the UN Security Council
Speaker 1: last month. And third, it appears to grant Palestine full
Speaker 1: rights and privileges of a member even if the Security
Speaker 1: Council fails to admit Palestine. This would be an unprecedented
Speaker 1: decision designed to circumvent Biden's veto at the Security Council.
Speaker 1: He goes on to say the draft I've seen points
Speaker 1: out that this is done on an exceptional basis and
Speaker 1: without setting a precedent. This language is there in order
Speaker 1: to alleviate concerns. This could become a new tool that'll
Speaker 1: be used on a regular basis to admit states such
Speaker 1: as Kosovo or Taiwan. If it passes, it will further
Speaker 1: show how isolated the US is on this matter. He
Speaker 1: goes on to say, US law requires the US defund
Speaker 1: global institutions that admit Palestine as a member. If Biden
Speaker 1: chooses to defund the UN as a result, will only
Speaker 1: further mind the US is standing.
Speaker 4: It is truly inescapable.
Speaker 1: Biden support for Israel is coming at a massive cost
Speaker 1: to the US itself. My understanding is that since this
Speaker 1: draft that doctor Parci reviewed, the one that actually passed
Speaker 1: was somewhat watered down from this to try to avoid
Speaker 1: both China and Russia did have fears about like, oh
Speaker 1: this could be used for Taiwan, or this could be
Speaker 1: used you know with regard to Russia in ways that
Speaker 1: they didn't like either, and it was watered down to
Speaker 1: try to avoid the potential implication of the US being
Speaker 1: forced to defund the UN. But nevertheless very significant and
Speaker 1: shows the isolation of the US with regard to their
Speaker 1: position on Palaceae.
Speaker 2: I would just put it as a symbolic vote, you know,
Speaker 2: like you said, who cares about the UN? I don't
Speaker 2: particularly care about the US, and I don't think there's
Speaker 2: any enforcement, if anything it is just important just to
Speaker 2: be like, Okay, well, how does the rest of the
Speaker 2: world feel about this?
Speaker 3: Interesting, Well, America, we're a global power.
Speaker 2: We have to do trade with everybody else, and it's
Speaker 2: very clear that our domestic politics is putting us on
Speaker 2: a different side than everybody else. Same on the issue
Speaker 2: of Ukraine, same on the issue of like basically everything else.
Speaker 2: That's important, very important in the long run, and it
Speaker 2: also gives a lot of power to people who are
Speaker 2: supposedly our enemies, like the Russians, because they can look
Speaker 2: at something like this, like you just said, and it
Speaker 2: could have serious consequences for them in the future. It's
Speaker 2: also an easy way for them to point out hypocrisy
Speaker 2: for US foreign policy and to win over African nations
Speaker 2: and others which they have consistently been trying to do
Speaker 2: business with, on top of the Chinese and on the
Speaker 2: Taiwan issue. So when you put all of that together,
Speaker 2: I would just say it is further isolation of the
Speaker 2: United States of America, putting us away from the rest
Speaker 2: of the world.
Speaker 3: I don't care about the UN.
Speaker 2: I care about trade and the prosperity of Americans, which
Speaker 2: in our current global system lies on good relations with
Speaker 2: the great powers, and we don't have that right.
Speaker 1: It's also important to point out like the hypocrisy. I mean,
Speaker 1: supposedly the Biden administration wants there to be a Palestarine state,
Speaker 1: but every time there's a chance to say we want
Speaker 1: a Palestinine.
Speaker 4: State, they vote against it.
Speaker 1: So you have to also look at this in terms
Speaker 1: of okay, so you're not serious when you're saying that
Speaker 1: you're not serious about it, because here you have a
Speaker 1: chance to vote for it and you're a post. There
Speaker 1: was also, I don't know if you saw this was
Speaker 1: all over my timeline, the Israeli diplomat to the UN
Speaker 1: brought up this tiny shredder and did this whole performative
Speaker 1: shredding of the UN Charter because they were so outraged
Speaker 1: by this vote, etc.
Speaker 4: Etc.
Speaker 1: It's just like the theatrics are also noteworthy. I would say,
Speaker 1: let's move on to some very significant developments with regard
Speaker 1: to our State Department. So they were required by Congress
Speaker 1: to issue in a report basically to say, hey, you know,
Speaker 1: we have this Lady law that says you you can't
Speaker 1: be supplying weapons to countries that are committing war crimes
Speaker 1: and blocking aid. It sure seems like we are supplying
Speaker 1: weapons to a country in Israel that is blocking aid
Speaker 1: and committing war crimes. So the State Department was compelled
Speaker 1: by Congress to produce this report. First they delayed the report,
Speaker 1: then they dropped it Friday evening, classic move right, and
Speaker 1: in it they tried to use this diplomatic speak to.
Speaker 4: Be like, well, they're.
Speaker 1: Probably maybe doing a little war crimes, but we can't
Speaker 1: be sure, so it's all fine, We're just going to
Speaker 1: continue to ship the weapons. Here is Tony Blincoln explaining
Speaker 1: the findings in this report on a Sunday talk show
Speaker 1: over the weekendless Taal List and what he had to say.
Speaker 5: Your National Security memorandum that you signed says Israeli civilian
Speaker 5: harm mitigation efforts are quote inconsistent, in effective, and inadequate.
Speaker 5: The Prime Minister himself said, Israel assesses the idea of
Speaker 5: killed fourteen thousand terrorists and sixteen thousand civilians. Does the
Speaker 5: US share the Israeli assessment that war civilians have been
Speaker 5: killed than actual terrorists.
Speaker 6: Yes, we do, And I think the report makes clear
Speaker 6: that while Israel has processes, procedures, rules, regulations to try
Speaker 6: to minimize civilian harm, given the impact that this operation,
Speaker 6: this war in gaz has had on the civilian population.
Speaker 3: And yet you're still surging those.
Speaker 6: Those have not been applied consistently and effectively. There's a
Speaker 6: gap between the stated intent and some of the result
Speaker 6: we've seen. But because it's so complicated in the midst
Speaker 6: of a war, and particularly in the midst of a
Speaker 6: war where you have an enemy that hides in civilian infrastructure,
Speaker 6: hides behind civilians. To make final determinations on these individual incidents,
Speaker 6: we're looking at the totality of what's happened. We think
Speaker 6: it's reasonable to assess, based on what's happened that there
Speaker 6: have been acts that have been inconsistent with Israel's obligations
Speaker 6: under internationally matter Shaind law, But we haven't drawn definitive conclusions.
Speaker 6: We need to pursue these investigations just as Israel is
Speaker 6: doing it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm sure we really trust the results of the
Speaker 1: Israeli investigations.
Speaker 3: Okay, but here's the best part, Crystal.
Speaker 2: It took them a matter of twenty days to determine
Speaker 2: that the Russians were committing war crimes in Ukraine. Afterwards,
Speaker 2: how many US observed well I'm sure there's plenty of
Speaker 2: CIA people who are on the ground, but in terms
Speaker 2: of people that we were trusting, we just take the
Speaker 2: Ukrainians word for it and we're like, yep, rubber stamp,
Speaker 2: here we go. So it's like, well, what about this?
Speaker 2: We have ten times more documentation on this, and our
Speaker 2: weapons aren't even the ones that are being involved where
Speaker 2: you legally have the obligation to make sure that it's
Speaker 2: not happening. That's seven months now at this point, that's
Speaker 2: all literally on tape.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, how many more could you ask for?
Speaker 2: Or this entire law is fake and we just give
Speaker 2: weapons to whoever who we want to now, But I'm
Speaker 2: actually fine with that. But it's the moral preening about
Speaker 2: all of this that drives me nuts. Russian's committing a
Speaker 2: genocide against Ukraine. I remember how they reacted to Bucha. Now,
Speaker 2: I'm not justifying or saying that it was a good thing,
Speaker 2: but that was like the biggest event on the planet.
Speaker 3: That doesn't even equal like a day.
Speaker 2: Of combat units or a low level military operation by
Speaker 2: the IDF.
Speaker 3: So which is it, folks, which are we going with?
Speaker 4: That's right?
Speaker 3: You know, these people are so full of shit on
Speaker 3: this matter.
Speaker 2: Like it drives me absolutely nuts because it is clear
Speaker 2: that the more language of the US means nothing. Again,
Speaker 2: I'm fine with that because I don't think it should
Speaker 2: be there, but if we are going to apply it,
Speaker 2: then it should properly and be equally applied to everyone. Instead,
Speaker 2: we have selective application, which further isolates the United States
Speaker 2: and makes it much more difficult for US to conduct
Speaker 2: foreign policy abroad as we are watching with our dwindling
Speaker 2: relationship with the entire world over this one issue with
Speaker 2: the country that is like number fifty on our trading
Speaker 2: list and is not all that important to us at all,
Speaker 2: and instead it's like the fifty first state.
Speaker 3: I don't get it.
Speaker 1: It's important to these presidential candidates and they're you know,
Speaker 1: fundraising committees.
Speaker 4: It's important to them.
Speaker 1: And Biden in particular has a ideological, like I think
Speaker 1: you have to conclude at this point, a hardcore ideological
Speaker 1: commitment to Israel's to the extent that he is actually
Speaker 1: willing to risk Trump getting reelected and losing his reelection
Speaker 1: bid in order to stand solidly by their side. But
Speaker 1: it's just so naked, like it's so obvious what they're
Speaker 1: doing here.
Speaker 2: They know, we just.
Speaker 1: Had one of our own American aid workers who was
Speaker 1: targeted and murdered by the Israelis, and we know lots
Speaker 1: about that. We know that they triple tapped that convoy.
Speaker 1: We know they went in and drones strike the first one,
Speaker 1: and then drone strike the second one when the survivors
Speaker 1: crawled to and then drones strike the third car as well.
Speaker 1: I mean, we know many things about what's going on here.
Speaker 1: And by the way, they're under an obligation in the
Speaker 1: development of these reports to also consider independent organizations that
Speaker 1: have been on the ground who have routinely assessed that
Speaker 1: war crimes are being committed as a matter of core,
Speaker 1: you know, the World Central Kitchen Aid Workers just being
Speaker 1: one among them. So it's just so clear that they
Speaker 1: know that they know that they're not fools. They see
Speaker 1: what's going on, but they don't want to stop shipping
Speaker 1: the weapons, so they put in this little weasley language
Speaker 1: about yeah, maybe something's going on, but you know, this
Speaker 1: Israelis are they're investigating it, and they're they're looking into
Speaker 1: measures of accountability, and you know, it's fog of war,
Speaker 1: like we really can't say this has been what we've
Speaker 1: seen from the beginning saga with regard to Russia is
Speaker 1: when it was Russia, there was no fog of war.
Speaker 1: It was very clear. It was very black and white.
Speaker 1: This was a war crime, this was is genocide. We
Speaker 1: know what those things mean. We're able to talk about
Speaker 1: it from the podium. When it came to Israel, it's like, eh,
Speaker 1: what even is a war crime? And who can really say?
Speaker 1: And it's going to take months before we even know,
Speaker 1: and we'll get back to you. We're going to do
Speaker 1: an investigation into that, but we're not really going to
Speaker 1: do an investigation. We're going to pretend we're doing and
Speaker 1: we'll get back to you probably never.
Speaker 4: So this is the sort of like.
Speaker 1: Written version of that approach of the America of the
Speaker 1: Bid administration from the beginning of this war. There was
Speaker 1: another piece that was interesting from Tony Blinkn that I
Speaker 1: wanted to bring to you, which relates to what we're
Speaker 1: talking about before with regard to Raffa and the idea
Speaker 1: that oh, this is how we're really finish off Hamas,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Even Tony Blinken admits that that is preposterous.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 3: They're two things.
Speaker 6: One is that, as the President said, and as we
Speaker 6: said in many conversations over the last couple of months,
Speaker 6: there has to be a credible plan for the civilians.
Speaker 4: Have you seen a credible plan that's sure.
Speaker 3: We have not.
Speaker 6: Second, there's something else that's important. We also haven't seen
Speaker 6: a plan for what happens the day after this war
Speaker 6: in Gaza ends. Because right now, the trajectory that Israel
Speaker 6: is on is even if it goes in and takes
Speaker 6: heavy action in Rafa, there will still be thousands of
Speaker 6: armed Hamas left. We've seen in areas that Israel has
Speaker 6: cleared in the north, even in conunis Hamas coming back.
Speaker 6: So the trajectory right now is that going into Tarafa,
Speaker 6: even to deal with these remaining battalions, especially in the
Speaker 6: absence of a plan for civilians, risks doing terrible harm
Speaker 6: to civilians and not solving the problem, a problem that
Speaker 6: both of us want to solve.
Speaker 4: So there you go.
Speaker 1: Even the State Department saying, like what the Israelis are
Speaker 1: selling is completely preposterous here in terms of their Rafa invasion. Now,
Speaker 1: will this administration actually do anything is a very open question.
Speaker 1: To be generous, we've already seen similar, like Weasley, bullshit
Speaker 1: language from Biden. They have already done an invasion of Rafa.
Speaker 1: They've already told three hundred thousand gossms that they have
Speaker 1: to move or else they're going to be bombed and killed.
Speaker 1: So this is quite a significant military invasion already.
Speaker 4: But Biden and co.
Speaker 1: Still leaning on this language of well, it hasn't been
Speaker 1: a major invasion, so we're not going to really do anything.
Speaker 1: And another thing saga. I'm sure you probably saw this too,
Speaker 1: and some of the big New York Times, you know,
Speaker 1: propaganda piece.
Speaker 4: About inside the Biden administration blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: In that piece they say, even this, you know, halting
Speaker 1: of the one shipment of two thousand pound bombs, it
Speaker 1: doesn't really matter. They have sufficient bombs to do whatever
Speaker 1: they want to do. They're still fully intending on shipping
Speaker 1: the entire fourteen billion dollars in a that was just
Speaker 1: passed that is more symbolic than it is actually meaningful
Speaker 1: to the Israeli's war efforts.
Speaker 4: So important to keep that in mind as well.
Speaker 2: Absolutely no, very important. This entire thing is just a
Speaker 2: complete crapshoot. And it's just ridiculous too, because again it's
Speaker 2: like the selective application of our own laws and the
Speaker 2: Israel exception means that all of it is fake. Let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. As we can see,
Speaker 2: the intercept has a great headline, which is why we've
Speaker 2: poked it. It says Israel likely used US supplied weapons
Speaker 2: in violation of international law. That's okay, though the Stage Department.
Speaker 4: Says very accurate report true.
Speaker 2: It's like, well, so what's the point of the law
Speaker 2: and if you can just fudge things and words have meaning.
Speaker 2: Like again, if Buka was a massacre where there was
Speaker 2: four hundred people who were dead. Now, one of the
Speaker 2: reasons I refuse to call it a massacre at the
Speaker 2: time is because anybody who knows that U history knows
Speaker 2: that in a real war a lot more people actually die.
Speaker 2: It was blown up as some genocidal event. As to
Speaker 2: why the United States must pour every weapon that's not strapped,
Speaker 2: you know, to the ground into Ukraine to stop these
Speaker 2: Russian monsters, it turns out it's a pretty run of
Speaker 2: the mill, low grade war, even if it is the
Speaker 2: largest one in Europe. It's like, well, what does a
Speaker 2: massacre actually look like? Well, we're watching it. It all happen.
Speaker 2: It's part of the reason why, you know, it's so galling,
Speaker 2: the fact that we still continue to both buy into
Speaker 2: the Ukraine narrative while we're continuing to support Israel.
Speaker 3: The two don't thick at all. They're completely counter to
Speaker 3: each other.
Speaker 2: And the main reason is because of domestic politics in
Speaker 2: this country with a powerful Israel lobby. Let's put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen, Crystal, do you want to
Speaker 2: read the email?
Speaker 1: Oh my god, Okay, this is a billionaire backer a
Speaker 1: major demo product party like super Funder, and has given
Speaker 1: tons of money to Biden. And so you know, Biden
Speaker 1: does little Weasley like, oh, we may stop weaponship and
Speaker 1: so if there's a major invasion of Rafa, he wrote.
Speaker 1: And you really have to see this because it looks
Speaker 1: like something that would be posted from like an unhinged
Speaker 1: comment er in a YouTube. No literally, secually, like the
Speaker 1: capitalization and punctuation, everything about it is unhinged.
Speaker 4: Anyway, let me read you this.
Speaker 1: This says, dear President Biden, we all caps the US,
Speaker 1: as you staged numerous times, believe Hamas should be defeated.
Speaker 1: We the US in this case, you, mister President, have
Speaker 1: decided to stop sending munitions to Israel to achieve the
Speaker 1: goal that we slash you have set up for Israel
Speaker 1: and ourselves even beyond Israel, to sends a terrible message
Speaker 1: to our Alice in the region. Beyond that, we can
Speaker 1: flip from doing the right thing you meant to say
Speaker 1: thing so bending.
Speaker 4: To political pressure.
Speaker 1: Let's not forget that there are more Jewish voters who
Speaker 1: care about Israel than Muslim vote that care about Hamas.
Speaker 1: Let that one sink in bad three commas bad, three
Speaker 1: commas bad, four commas decision comma on all levels, please
Speaker 1: pls reconsider. Thank you with respect, Tim Okay. So there's
Speaker 1: a lot of elements of this that are important. First
Speaker 1: of all, like I said, imagine sending off this like
Speaker 1: unhinged screed to the President of the United States is
Speaker 1: just extraordinary in and of itself. Number Two, that line
Speaker 1: framing like oh, there's more Jewish supporters of Israel than
Speaker 1: there are Muslim supporters of Hamas is so gross. It's
Speaker 1: so gross on every level because first of all, there
Speaker 1: are to conflate like oh, if you're Muslim, you must
Speaker 1: support Hamas and there's no other reason why you may
Speaker 1: be concerned about this is disgusting. Second of all, Obviously,
Speaker 1: as we've seen, it's the problem for Biden with regard
Speaker 1: to his policy is vast larger than just Muslim voters,
Speaker 1: by the way, so it's not only like racist, but
Speaker 1: also completely misunderstands the political calculation. But the most important thing,
Speaker 1: Sager is it just shows you, like the level of access,
Speaker 1: it shows you the inside game. So even though this
Speaker 1: is just one person, his vote theoretically shouldn't matter more
Speaker 1: than minor years or any other ordinary person out there,
Speaker 1: Like obviously that's just not the case.
Speaker 4: He has so.
Speaker 1: Much direct line, direct connectivity. These are the types of
Speaker 1: voices that are in the ears, not just a Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: of Trump, of RFK Junior, of every single member of Congress,
Speaker 1: House and Senate. These are the type of people and
Speaker 1: the type of messaging that they're getting. And so that
Speaker 1: very skewed ecosystem in those incredibly skewed political incentives are
Speaker 1: how you end up with a policy that is so
Speaker 1: dissonant from the country at large and from the Democratic
Speaker 1: base in particular. So this guy going to the mat
Speaker 1: throwing his weight around as a big Democratic mega downer
Speaker 1: to try to curb even the little minimal sort of
Speaker 1: like virtue signal change in policy direction that Biden did here.
Speaker 4: It's so naked and it's.
Speaker 3: So incredibly no, it's crazy.
Speaker 2: I mean he also literally was on the national board
Speaker 2: member of the Friends of the IDF. He served in
Speaker 2: the IDF. I mean'm pretty sure he's an Israeli citizens.
Speaker 2: Would you tolerate this from any other duals, like any
Speaker 2: other dual citizen group that would be using its influence
Speaker 2: and its wealth to guide US foreign policy.
Speaker 3: I've made the comparison before.
Speaker 2: I am Indian, and if I saw a group of
Speaker 2: Indians trying to do this with respect to US foreign
Speaker 2: policy where it was clearly detrimental, I would call them out,
Speaker 2: even if it might theoretically help some of my distant
Speaker 2: relatives who are alive in India.
Speaker 3: For some reason, we have an exception here, and it's very.
Speaker 2: Obvious, you know that this is a serious, serious problem
Speaker 2: and a very powerful impact on US foreign policy. So
Speaker 2: this is where it all comes from. And these people,
Speaker 2: I will never understate me their strength. I will never
Speaker 2: underestimate their ability to you know, not just push you
Speaker 2: a foreign policy. I mean, this is a Hollywood finance here,
Speaker 2: multi billionaire you know, it's like, just that's the forces
Speaker 2: that we're all up against, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's right, very very clear, And they can get on
Speaker 1: the phone with and by the politician in the country,
Speaker 1: possibly the world. And so when you're confused about why,
Speaker 1: not just on Israel, but on any number of other issues,
Speaker 1: why our political class seems to be so diametrically opposed
Speaker 1: to what the people actually want, remember this email because
Speaker 1: these are the waters that they're actually swimming in, and
Speaker 1: these are the type of people who actually have the
Speaker 1: most influence on policy.
Speaker 2: Absolutely all right, thank you guys so much for watching.
Speaker 2: We really appreciate you. Like I said, please join up
Speaker 2: breakingpoints dot com. You're going to be the first to
Speaker 2: hear about our major, major announcement, even bigger than Counterpoints Friday.
Speaker 3: Some people are.
Speaker 2: Saying it is a three year anniversary coming up, which
Speaker 2: is crazy.
Speaker 3: So thank you.
Speaker 2: Everybody has been with us since day one and we
Speaker 2: will see you all later. People