Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: So, in response to three of our service members being
Speaker 1: killed in Jordan, the US has now launched strikes in
Speaker 1: two different countries, as of course, comes on top of
Speaker 1: the strikes we had already launched in Yemen, so we
Speaker 1: are now bombing three different countries. National Security Advisor Jake
Speaker 1: Sullivan did a little media tour this weekend to try
Speaker 1: to explain how we got here and what the plans
Speaker 1: are going forward. He says, we are not finished with
Speaker 1: these strikes yet.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen, well, George.
Speaker 5: Part of the purpose of the strikes, the central purpose
Speaker 5: of the strikes has been to take away capabilities from
Speaker 5: the Iranian back malte is in Iraq and Syria that
Speaker 5: are attacking our forces and from the huthies that continue
Speaker 5: to threaten red sea shipping, and we believe they had
Speaker 5: good effect in reducing degrading the capabilities of the militias
Speaker 5: and of the Houthis, and as necessary, we will continue
Speaker 5: to take action.
Speaker 2: So do you expect more retaliation for the strike against
Speaker 2: US forces and Jordan earlier this week.
Speaker 5: Well, the first thing that I would say, and you
Speaker 5: noted it at the top of your program, is that
Speaker 5: this was the beginning of our response. There will be
Speaker 5: more steps. Some of those steps will be seen, some
Speaker 5: may not be seen, but there will be more action
Speaker 5: taken to respond to the death of the tragic death
Speaker 5: of the three brave US service members. And we cannot
Speaker 5: rule out that there will be further attacks from Iranian
Speaker 5: back militias in Iraq and Syria or from the Houthis.
Speaker 5: We have to be clear O eight about that. The President,
Speaker 5: in being clear eight about that, has told his military
Speaker 5: commanders that they need to be positioned to respond to
Speaker 5: further attacks as well.
Speaker 1: So he says this is the beginning of our response.
Speaker 1: He also says, hey, we can rule out that our
Speaker 1: people are going to continue to be attacked. And we've
Speaker 1: had something like over one hundred and sixty attacks attempted
Speaker 1: attacks on our service members in the region, which raises
Speaker 1: a whole host of questions. One of those questions being
Speaker 1: aimed at Jake Sullivan by Kristin Welker. Hey, you guys
Speaker 1: said you didn't want a wider war. Now here you
Speaker 1: are bombing for three different countries. Aren't we kind of
Speaker 1: in that wider war situation?
Speaker 6: Yet?
Speaker 4: Let's sake, isn't His response?
Speaker 3: Is the United States already in a wider war in
Speaker 3: the Middle East?
Speaker 7: Jake?
Speaker 5: What the United States is doing is responding to threats
Speaker 5: as we see them, with significant but proportionate force.
Speaker 3: But has the war? Has the war expanded in the region?
Speaker 1: Jake?
Speaker 5: Well, first, we don't accept that what's happening in the
Speaker 5: Red Sea, for example, Kristin is entirely tied to the
Speaker 5: war in Gaza because the Huthis are attacking shipping that
Speaker 5: has absolutely nothing to do with Israel. So there are
Speaker 5: connections among these things, to be sure, but these are
Speaker 5: distinct threats as well that we need to deal with
Speaker 5: on their own basis. So in the Red Sea, we
Speaker 5: need to deal with the threat to commercial shipping, and
Speaker 5: we are doing so with the coalition of countries in
Speaker 5: a rock and Syria. We need to deal with threats
Speaker 5: to our troops and we are doing so, including with
Speaker 5: the strikes the president in order.
Speaker 4: To Friday Night, I am sager.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I've ever seen someone look so incredibly
Speaker 1: dead inside because he knows what he's saying is total nonsense.
Speaker 1: This idea that oh with the Hohu zero, this has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with Israel. Please, first of all, take
Speaker 1: them out their well, like they're telling you, this is
Speaker 1: about Israel.
Speaker 4: Not to mention.
Speaker 1: We know, as I've said many times, as pointed out
Speaker 1: by many analysts, during the period when there was a
Speaker 1: brief six day ceasefire, guess what, their attacks almost completely stopped,
Speaker 1: and the attacks on our service members from these other
Speaker 1: regional militias completely stopped. So this is all about what
Speaker 1: Israel is doing in Gaza. And then I don't know
Speaker 1: how you did. You bomb three countries not to mention
Speaker 1: what's happening in the run, not to mention Israel and Lebanon,
Speaker 1: not to mention even what's unfolding the Ones Bank. And
Speaker 1: you're going to pretend like, oh no, it's all contained,
Speaker 1: it's all fine, there's no wider war. Here, like, how
Speaker 1: stupid do you think that we are?
Speaker 2: One thing that really bothers me about this? Can we
Speaker 2: put the map please up on the screen, just to
Speaker 2: show everybody where the three countries and all the strikes
Speaker 2: that were conducted. This was in Iraq and in Syria.
Speaker 2: It excludes the strikes that happened in Yemen. Is what
Speaker 2: you can see, Crystal, is that it took about a
Speaker 2: week for US to respond and to bomb these supposed
Speaker 2: IRGC command headquarters of these militias that are tied to Iran.
Speaker 2: By all accounts, it just seems like some command huts
Speaker 2: and others were bombed and some low level militants were killed. Okay,
Speaker 2: great in terms of a response. But here's the thing,
Speaker 2: by their own accounts, on the ground, everybody knew that
Speaker 2: the response was coming, and so the high level commander
Speaker 2: and others, the people were responsible for launching the drone
Speaker 2: on American service members, they're long gone, they're back any run.
Speaker 2: But guess what, our people have nowhere to go. They're
Speaker 2: still stuck on the same damn base. So they all moved.
Speaker 3: We telegraphed what was going to happen.
Speaker 2: You know, people responsible and all that long ago absconded
Speaker 2: or you know, went underground or whatever. As we continue
Speaker 2: our response and our troops are still in the same base,
Speaker 2: in the same barracks, with the same defense systems which failed,
Speaker 2: you know, whenever that drone and stack happened on American
Speaker 2: service members, or the same bases where missiles were able
Speaker 2: to get through, they remain sitting ducks. That's I mean,
Speaker 2: that's why we can't obscure all this in terms of
Speaker 2: the response and the tit for tat nature.
Speaker 3: It's not a game.
Speaker 2: Already three Americans are dead, and it's like, well, they
Speaker 2: know exactly where we are. We don't have the luxury
Speaker 2: to go underground or to go elsewhere. Our presidents, our
Speaker 2: leaders and everybody else is just like, well, you know,
Speaker 2: you got to have this base in Syria. Case isis,
Speaker 2: which has been dead for several years. It comes back
Speaker 2: and it's like, what what are you talking about? Why
Speaker 2: don't we just leave? Why don't we go back? These
Speaker 2: guys were Army reservists. Why were they there in the
Speaker 2: first place? Anyone want to tell them that, like anyone
Speaker 2: would tell any of those family members. We're asking me, like, hey,
Speaker 2: what the hell was my daughter doing in Jordan, what
Speaker 2: we should support it for? What reason? Can anyone justify
Speaker 2: this to me? No, No, that's the problem.
Speaker 1: They can't even explain to the American people what actually
Speaker 1: is the purpose of these people being in the region
Speaker 1: other than to serve as sitting ducks and you know,
Speaker 1: potentially demanding some sort of escalatory response. I mean it's
Speaker 1: always like, you know, this lack of agency over the US, like, oh,
Speaker 1: we're just getting pulled in, Like we have no other choice,
Speaker 1: We're just getting pulled into this escalation.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Number one, you don't have to be there. Number two,
Speaker 1: you have complete control over what your response is. And
Speaker 1: number three, you even have US officials admitting they know
Speaker 1: the whole source of this conflict and the escalation is
Speaker 1: what's going on in Gaza. But rather than dealing with
Speaker 1: what is very clear the issue where there there is
Speaker 1: no de escalation until that.
Speaker 4: Problem is solved. I mean, that is the bottom line.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, you're absolutely right what they told the Israelis
Speaker 1: is like, this is just the beginning of the response.
Speaker 1: We're going to do more, because of course the Israelis
Speaker 1: like want us to get into some hot regional war
Speaker 1: and get dragged in completely. So we're time to worry.
Speaker 1: We're going to do so much more. We're giving which
Speaker 1: this I mean, I support trying to avoid an escalatory
Speaker 1: response from Iran. That's the reason why there was a lag,
Speaker 1: as you point out, to allow them to get sort
Speaker 1: of their critical leaders out of the way so that
Speaker 1: we can just like show our.
Speaker 4: Strength through our bob exactly.
Speaker 1: Well, and that's the thing I mean, And that was
Speaker 1: completely revealed, and it's the same logic applies here, completely revealed.
Speaker 1: When Biden was asked, so are the strikes against the
Speaker 1: who he's working? Yeah, and he says, and I quote,
Speaker 1: are they working? No?
Speaker 4: Are they going to continue?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 4: They know this isn't.
Speaker 1: Going to degrade their capabilities or de escalate or do
Speaker 1: anything on the sort. They just have this foreign policy
Speaker 1: blob mindset where it's like they hit us, so we've
Speaker 1: got a sh we're strong and hit back, even though
Speaker 1: you know it's not going to end the conflict, it's
Speaker 1: not going to de escalate the conflict. It's only going
Speaker 1: to put our service members more at risk. And so
Speaker 1: it's complete insanity to your point, let's put up the latest.
Speaker 1: There were more strikes targeted the Huthi's just in the
Speaker 1: past days. US and Britain carried out large scale military
Speaker 1: strikes on Saturday against multiple sites in Yemen controlled by
Speaker 1: Houthi militants. According to a statement from those two countries,
Speaker 1: Those attacks against thirty six hoothy targets at thirteen sites
Speaker 1: in northern Yemen came barely twenty four hours after the
Speaker 1: US carried out a series of military strikes against Iranian
Speaker 1: forces and the militias they support at seven sites in
Speaker 1: Syria and a rock. There were eighty five targets in
Speaker 1: Syria and a Rock that were struck on Friday, as
Speaker 1: the map that we just showed demonstrated. So the policy
Speaker 1: makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And so you increasingly have,
Speaker 1: I mean hardly a day goes by where you don't
Speaker 1: have some SoundBite from some US OFFI dead eyed US
Speaker 1: f fish like Jake Sullivan trying to deny what's obviously
Speaker 1: absolutely obvious before anyone's eyes, that this has already spread
Speaker 1: into a wider war.
Speaker 3: And some of things. It's like we're just doing this
Speaker 3: to feel good.
Speaker 2: Like you said, we gave them enough time that all
Speaker 2: the people were look, we either kill them or we don't.
Speaker 3: It's like what is the point.
Speaker 2: Also, you know, I don't know if you know this,
Speaker 2: we use B one bombers actually in these strikes. They
Speaker 2: cost sixty thousand dollars an hour to fly sixty one
Speaker 2: thousand dollars and they flew all the way from America
Speaker 2: to a rock and back.
Speaker 3: That's like a thirty some hour round trip.
Speaker 2: This single strike cost millions of taxpayer dollars for what reason.
Speaker 2: And it's like I can never just get around the
Speaker 2: fact that we just seem to be playing like risk
Speaker 2: for the purpose of it, like it's a game, as
Speaker 2: if we're like, well, we gotta show them we're strong here.
Speaker 2: And it's like there are real people whose lives were I.
Speaker 3: Mean they were ended.
Speaker 2: There were still people in critical condition in hospitals who
Speaker 2: were injured by this.
Speaker 3: Okay, so then we have a decision to make.
Speaker 2: Are going to kill the people who are responsible and
Speaker 2: actually kill them, or we're going to go down to
Speaker 2: the diplomatic road. I personally, I'm going down the diplomatic
Speaker 2: road because I don't want to put more of these
Speaker 2: people in danger. But instead we don't kill the people
Speaker 2: who are responsible. We kill like their deputies, deputies, deputies,
Speaker 2: brother or whatever.
Speaker 3: Happened to be the last idiot who was on the base.
Speaker 2: After a week and our people are still there and
Speaker 2: remain in danger. How how can you possibly say you're
Speaker 2: doing this, you know, to support the American service members,
Speaker 2: to defend, avenge them, whatever, or to ensure that more
Speaker 2: death will not occur.
Speaker 3: All of this lives.
Speaker 2: You said, though, Crystal is downstream of a ceasefire, and
Speaker 2: I'm curious your thoughts on the latest updates because I'm
Speaker 2: personally sased on what is happening.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so, as we've been reporting, they've been ongoing ceasefire
Speaker 1: talks being mediated by the US guitars involved were happening
Speaker 1: for a while in Paris, and we got conflicting reports yesterday.
Speaker 1: Originally there was a report that Hamas had rejected the
Speaker 1: terms of the temporary ceasefire because they wanted a complete
Speaker 1: ceasefire in exchange for release of all the hostages that
Speaker 1: they're holding, and some number of Palestinian hostages being held
Speaker 1: by the Israelis would also be released. Put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen. Then Hamas came out and said, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: we have not rejected the terms of the ceasefire. This
Speaker 1: is c nine guys, if you can put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen. Hamas denies rejection of the hostage ceasefire deal,
Speaker 1: says they will deliver answers soon. According to report, the
Speaker 1: terror organization is set to demand an increase in the
Speaker 1: number of Palestinian terrorists released from Israeli prisons. So some
Speaker 1: of the reporting I've seen is that there is a
Speaker 1: split between the Hamas leadership and Gaza and the Hamas
Speaker 1: political leadership outside of Gaza, where the political leadership will
Speaker 1: is willing to accept what would be roughly a two
Speaker 1: month temporary ceasefire, whereas the military leadership on the ground
Speaker 1: wants to be more hardlined and say no, we don't
Speaker 1: accept this unless there is a commitment to a complete
Speaker 1: cease fire. That's what's being reported on the Israeli side.
Speaker 1: There's also huge questions. We'll get into a little bit
Speaker 1: more of the dynamics with net Yahoo and then these psychos,
Speaker 1: I mean they're all psycho, but they're you know, extra
Speaker 1: psycho Smo Church and Ben Gavie like actual you know,
Speaker 1: terrorists that are part of this government who are saying
Speaker 1: they're willing to blow up his government coalition if he
Speaker 1: accepts any sort of a hostage exchange deal that would
Speaker 1: lead to significant release of Palestinian prisoners that are being
Speaker 1: held net Yahoo has at time signaled openness to the steal,
Speaker 1: at times poured cold water on it. So it's also
Speaker 1: really an open question what's going to go on on
Speaker 1: the Israeli side. But you know, if the US actually
Speaker 1: wants to avoid further escalation into an even hotter, even
Speaker 1: broader war than what we're seeing, some sort of ceasefire
Speaker 1: agreement is what we need to be aggressively pushing and
Speaker 1: what we need to be using our sway and influence
Speaker 1: with the Israelis in order to achieve that is the
Speaker 1: real way and they know this, by the way, that
Speaker 1: is the real way to achieve security for our service members,
Speaker 1: to stop the bloodshed in Gaza and be able to
Speaker 1: get in some significant humanitarian aid so people are no
Speaker 1: longer starving to death and dying of communical diseases, etc.
Speaker 1: It's also in the interest of Israeli security because long term,
Speaker 1: the longer this horrific bombing and humanitarian situation unfolds on
Speaker 1: the ground in Gaza, there is no doubt that you
Speaker 1: are birthing more and more and more people who are
Speaker 1: committed to hating you and violent resistance. So the crazy thing,
Speaker 1: Sagur is that it's not like US officials don't know this.
Speaker 1: Tony Blinken even said he knows there's no military solution
Speaker 1: to Hamas, so it's like, what are we doing here,
Speaker 1: Biden Metz, he knows these strikes aren't working. Jake Sullivan
Speaker 1: is at pains to try to explain how this policy
Speaker 1: makes any damn sense, Like they all know that the
Speaker 1: policy is insane. It's not going to accomplish the things
Speaker 1: that they claim to want to accomplish, and yet it's
Speaker 1: like they can't help themselves but to continue down the
Speaker 1: same path.
Speaker 2: Though that they at least behind the scenes, are trying
Speaker 2: to push forward. So apparently Secretary blink And they just
Speaker 2: happened moments ago, just landed in Riod in Saudi Arabia
Speaker 2: to try and to push for the peace framework in
Speaker 2: Gaza for the ceasefire. It remains unclear to me though
Speaker 2: how much influenced Riod actually even has over the ceasefire
Speaker 2: in terms of pressure on Hamas. I believe Qatar is
Speaker 2: the one, you know, where a lot of this is happening.
Speaker 2: As he said, I guess We're just going to wait
Speaker 2: and see.
Speaker 3: Period.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, listen, this ties into US domestic politics too,
Speaker 1: because we may cover this tomorrow. You know, the House
Speaker 1: is putting forward just like Israel Aid with no certainly
Speaker 1: no conditions, but also even no pay forward to the
Speaker 1: tune of fourteen billion dollars. The Senate has a separate
Speaker 1: package that they're pushing. It would be very easy for
Speaker 1: the White House to say, no, you're not getting any
Speaker 1: of it unless you all are serious about the ceasefire
Speaker 1: and net yahoo. Right now, all of his interests are
Speaker 1: in the direction of being swayed by the you know,
Speaker 1: the extremists who don't want any sort of ceasefire ever,
Speaker 1: who want to ethnically cleanse Gazo, want to resettle the
Speaker 1: entire Gazza strip, I mean, are out there actively talking
Speaker 1: about it. All of his political incentives lie in that direction.
Speaker 1: So if the US isn't willing to come in with
Speaker 1: some sort of force and apply some sort of pressure
Speaker 1: that we have plenty of given our financial support for
Speaker 1: this country over a long period of time, then it
Speaker 1: is more likely that you're not going to be able
Speaker 1: to come to some sort of ceasefire deal that the
Speaker 1: conflict is not going to end, and that our service
Speaker 1: members are going to continue to be at risk. At
Speaker 1: the same time, Biden Di, I'm interested in Sager's reaction
Speaker 1: to this. There's a big debate over whether this is
Speaker 1: meaningful at all. Put this up on the screen, Biden,
Speaker 1: just on the day that he was traveling to Michigan,
Speaker 1: a state with a significant Arab American population, Asian executive
Speaker 1: order sanctioning for Israeli settlers over West Bank violence. He
Speaker 1: says that violence in the West Bank has reached quote
Speaker 1: intolerable levels. The sanctions I'm reading from this article from
Speaker 1: the BBC, they block the individuals from accessing all US
Speaker 1: property assets in the American financial system. Violence in the
Speaker 1: West Bank has spiked since some months launched an unprecedent
Speaker 1: attack on Israel in October seventh. Some three hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy Palestinians have been killed in the West Banks since
Speaker 1: then in the West Bank guys. According to the UN,
Speaker 1: the majority of those have been killed by Israeli forces,
Speaker 1: but at least eight of them have been killed by
Speaker 1: Israeli settlers. The UN said, and as I mentioned no
Speaker 1: accident that this what I would consider a sort of
Speaker 1: like symbolic gesture of caring about the rule of law
Speaker 1: and violence against Palestinians comes on a day when Biden
Speaker 1: was traveling to Michigan. The Arab American Institute quoted in
Speaker 1: this article of pointing out that support by Arab Americans
Speaker 1: for the Democratic Party has plummeted from fifty nine percent
Speaker 1: that was in twenty twenty to just seventeen percent. These
Speaker 1: sanctions can't be applied to American citizens, although some of
Speaker 1: them are thought to be involved in the violence. State
Speaker 1: Department spokesman Matthew Miller said the US does believe the
Speaker 1: sanctions will have an impact on these four individuals and
Speaker 1: expects Israel to do more to hold accountable those responsible
Speaker 1: for settler violence. What do you think about this move, Soger.
Speaker 2: I mean, it just seems look, it seems rather toothless.
Speaker 2: At the same time, it is having a It's two things. Obviously,
Speaker 2: it is the correct decision. I think if that is
Speaker 2: going to be the state of US policy of saying
Speaker 2: that we are pro to state solution, then you can't
Speaker 2: be endorsing or not having sanctions on the West Bank,
Speaker 2: especially because I don't know if people know this, there
Speaker 2: are American citizens who are inside the West Bank who
Speaker 2: are currently being prevented from actually passing into Israel, which
Speaker 2: is israelly violation of the US visa law that we
Speaker 2: currently have with them because we have anyway in terms
Speaker 2: of our citizenship. Much of this is downstream of the
Speaker 2: overall settler policy. Now, the actual sanctions that have been
Speaker 2: put into place, as you said, are only on for people.
Speaker 2: Clearly they should probably be extended to them to a
Speaker 2: much larger group of people who are involved in the
Speaker 2: overall action because it is a direct content prevention of
Speaker 2: stated US State Department policy going back at least two decades.
Speaker 2: The thing is is that even with the four as
Speaker 2: you said, it is still receiving like maximalist pushback inside
Speaker 2: of Israel. Yeah, because it is being denounced as anti Semitic.
Speaker 2: But it does actually show you the extension of the
Speaker 2: power of the US Empire because they can cry all
Speaker 2: they want, their banks are still complying with the order
Speaker 2: right now, because if you want to do business with
Speaker 2: America and you are in violation of OPAC, you will
Speaker 2: get your.
Speaker 3: Ass handed to you in the global financial system.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so a few things about the specifics of
Speaker 1: this Executive order, and I think your points are all
Speaker 1: really well taken there. I mean, first of all, let's
Speaker 1: just keep in mind every one of these settlements is
Speaker 1: illegal under international law and contravention of US state longstanding
Speaker 1: US let's base.
Speaker 3: Start with the US policy.
Speaker 4: It is against US, it is against US policy.
Speaker 1: It also is considered, you know, a blanket around the
Speaker 1: globe illegal according to international laws. So both of those
Speaker 1: things are true.
Speaker 4: So when you have a.
Speaker 1: Policy that's just aimed at four people who you know
Speaker 1: were directly violent and inciting violence against Palestinians, it's almost
Speaker 1: like a tacit, like, well, the settlements themselves are okay,
Speaker 1: but there's just a few bad apples that we.
Speaker 4: Want to go after. That's number one. Number two.
Speaker 1: I think it's very telling that of the three hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy Palestinians who've been killed in the West Bank
Speaker 1: since October seventh, eight of them were killed by Israeli settlers. Now,
Speaker 1: there's been cute, massive violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians,
Speaker 1: and that has ramped up post October seven.
Speaker 4: Even before October seventh, this.
Speaker 1: Was one of the most violent years on record in
Speaker 1: terms of settlers settler violence against Palestinians, but the overwhelming
Speaker 1: majority of Palestinians are being killed by the government. So
Speaker 1: there's a sort of a sort of feint here or
Speaker 1: an idea here that you know.
Speaker 4: The government.
Speaker 1: Government's official policy isn't these settlers and isn't being person
Speaker 1: zu the government's ends aren't being pursued by the settlers
Speaker 1: who are continuing to violently push Palaestines off of their land,
Speaker 1: when in fact, for decades, under both right wing and
Speaker 1: supposedly liberal prime ministers, the settlements have continued to expand,
Speaker 1: and this has been official government policy of the Israeli government,
Speaker 1: And oftentimes when settlers are engaging in violence against Palestinians,
Speaker 1: they are being backed up by the IDF. In fact,
Speaker 1: Saraille recall that part of why they were caught so
Speaker 1: unawares on October seventh and the response with such shit
Speaker 1: to protect their own Israeli citizens on October seventh, was
Speaker 1: because the IDF had been moved from that part of Israel,
Speaker 1: near Gaza to the West Bank in order to protect
Speaker 1: these settlers. So, but to your point, it doesn't mean
Speaker 1: the fact that it's like toothless and doesn't really do anything,
Speaker 1: and it's just sort of a symbolic, pathetic gesture. Doesn't
Speaker 1: stop the Israelis from completely freaking.
Speaker 4: Out about it.
Speaker 1: Net Yahoo responded, Israel takes action against all law breakers everywhere.
Speaker 1: What a bunch of bullshit that is, and therefore there
Speaker 1: is no need for unusual measures on the issue. That's
Speaker 1: from Netanyahu's office. Put this next one up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Ben Gevie reacted, or to the US officials to rethink
Speaker 1: present Biden's wrong about the citizens of the State of
Speaker 1: Israel and the heroic settlers. Those who are attacked, those
Speaker 1: who are pelted with stones and attempt to hurt and
Speaker 1: murder them are the heroic settlers in Judea and Samaria
Speaker 1: their name for the West Bank. But this one, keep
Speaker 1: this up on the screen is really incredible. Smochurch is
Speaker 1: basically calling Biden anti Semitic. He says the settler violence
Speaker 1: campaign is an anti Semitic lie that enemies of Israel
Speaker 1: disseminate to smear the pioneering settlers and the settlement enterprise
Speaker 1: and harm them and thus smear the entire state of Israel.
Speaker 1: So you know the fact that this is like policy
Speaker 1: is sort of pathetic ass covering some sort of you know,
Speaker 1: stop to attempt to win back some portion of the
Speaker 1: Arab American population, which certainly is not going to happen
Speaker 1: so long as we're you know, backing the net Yaho
Speaker 1: government in every other way. That doesn't mean that the
Speaker 1: Israelis aren't going to completely freak out about it because
Speaker 1: they're not used to being checked by this administration in
Speaker 1: any way whatsoever.
Speaker 2: Well, I think they're not really check it used to
Speaker 2: getting checked by the US government.
Speaker 3: It does demonstrate again to me that.
Speaker 2: You know, the arm of the empire is long, and
Speaker 2: you know, like I said, just because you can bitch
Speaker 2: and moan, but your banks are going to have to
Speaker 2: cut your ass off if you want to do business
Speaker 2: with us. And this is again, this is where I
Speaker 2: have to come back to. This is Israel. It's not Russia.
Speaker 2: It's not China. Russia has got a lot of oil,
Speaker 2: it's got a abilitary base.
Speaker 3: China is the same thing.
Speaker 2: I mean, they may not have as much oil, but
Speaker 2: they have a lot of industry.
Speaker 3: They can build their own things.
Speaker 2: This is a tiny little strip of land which relies
Speaker 2: predominantly on exports and imports in order to keep their
Speaker 2: economy functioning. So when you're in that situation, you need
Speaker 2: to maintain ties with the global financial system, with everybody
Speaker 2: with You need the Red Sea to be functioning, and
Speaker 2: all these things to have the basics of the modern
Speaker 2: Israeli way of life, which is like a first world
Speaker 2: European standard. It costs a lot to bring all these
Speaker 2: things in and in that then you need the support
Speaker 2: of the European Union, the United States, Russia, and China,
Speaker 2: and are you're beginning to lose support. And you know,
Speaker 2: with all of these actors even here, for America to
Speaker 2: put sanctions on the West Bank, it may be, as
Speaker 2: you said a couple of people, it's still a pretty
Speaker 2: extraordinary It doesn't happen, you know, all that much in
Speaker 2: modern history. So for that to for us to be
Speaker 2: in a part where this is being imposed and the
Speaker 2: standards and all that are being set, the overall showdown
Speaker 2: is going to happen at some point, because at a
Speaker 2: certain point, let's say with the ceasefire, we're going to
Speaker 2: have a two month seaspire. Let's say that happens and
Speaker 2: the Israelis are torn about whether to restart or not,
Speaker 2: it's still going to come down to the fact that
Speaker 2: the United States policy and the Arab policy as well,
Speaker 2: is to demand a two state solution. And then the
Speaker 2: question will come to America and others, are we going
Speaker 2: tom imposed sanctions on people who are in direct violation
Speaker 2: of overall American policy under Biden?
Speaker 3: That may not be. The answer may not be yes,
Speaker 3: but the answer may be yes sometime in the future.
Speaker 2: And as we have seen now we have the Clint
Speaker 2: administration and dealt with this problem and forward like this
Speaker 2: is you know, the Carter administration, the generation before.
Speaker 3: Them, This is not going away.
Speaker 2: And so when you open these types of things as
Speaker 2: policies for them as a country, it is genuinely existential.
Speaker 1: There was a remarkable interview with Inamar Ben Gavier by
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal, which had a lot of pieces
Speaker 1: which are quite noteworthy. Now, as I've been pointing out,
Speaker 1: he and Smotrich are willing to throw their weight around
Speaker 1: Netna who has you know, is barely holding on to
Speaker 1: power by his fingertips, and it's becoming increasingly impossible to
Speaker 1: keep this coalition together. Israeli's overwhelmingly want Netnaho gone, and
Speaker 1: he basically is just there as long as the war
Speaker 1: goes on. Which is why he wants the work to
Speaker 1: go on and definitely put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: They lay out in this Wall Street Journal piece the
Speaker 1: headline Israeli firebrand driving netanyahuo further to the right and
Speaker 1: of our Ben Gavier spells on his plan for resettling
Speaker 1: Gaza that would be a cleansing during a rare interview
Speaker 1: and says Trump would be better for Israel than President Biden.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's shows you how crazy these people are,
Speaker 1: is that he doesn't think that Biden has gone far
Speaker 1: enough when this man has given unconditional support, rushed weapons there,
Speaker 1: circumvented US policy in order to do so, etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: But he thinks Trump would even provide them an even
Speaker 1: freer hand. It wouldn't even do the little like symbolic
Speaker 1: hand ringing that Biden does. Basically, But what they write
Speaker 1: here is Ben Gavier told the Wall Street Journal net
Speaker 1: Yahoo is quote at a crossroads and he has to
Speaker 1: choose in what direction he will go. He's got enough support,
Speaker 1: Ben Gavier does in the ruling coalition to undermine Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's rule, and he says he is willing
Speaker 1: to use it. In his first interview with a foreign
Speaker 1: news organization since joining the government. Ben Gavier warned he
Speaker 1: would oppose any deal with Hamas that would free thousands
Speaker 1: of Palestinians held for terrorism or end the war before
Speaker 1: Hamas was fully defeatable Hamas, there is no military solution
Speaker 1: to Hamas. As their own policy makers, I've said this
Speaker 1: has probably only strengthened Hamas for the long term. An
Speaker 1: increasing portion of Israelis they write, especially on the right,
Speaker 1: instead of you the October seventh attack as a chance
Speaker 1: to start a new course for Israel by resettling the
Speaker 1: battlescuarred enclave. Ben Gaverer laid on his own plan for Gaza,
Speaker 1: which would repopulate the devastated coastal strip with Israeli settlements
Speaker 1: while Palestinians would be offered financial incentives to leave. That
Speaker 1: was part of what was outlined at that ethnic cleansing
Speaker 1: resettlement conference that ivered recently that we covered here on
Speaker 1: the show recently as well. Ben Gavier also said he
Speaker 1: thought the Biden administration was hampering Israel's war effort, and
Speaker 1: said he believed Republican presidential Canada Donald Trump would give
Speaker 1: Israel a freer hand to quash Hamas. Ben Gavier's approaches
Speaker 1: gaining popularity, wants a fringe idea. A small majority of
Speaker 1: Jewish Israelis now fully or somewhat support the establishment of
Speaker 1: Jewish settlements inside Gaza, according to a poll conducted by
Speaker 1: Tel Aviv University last month. So Sagar, he is actively
Speaker 1: threatening to blow up the net Yahoo coalition if any
Speaker 1: sort of a ceasefires agree to, Which is why it's
Speaker 1: so important that you have the US willing on the
Speaker 1: other side to use some sort of leverage and actual
Speaker 1: power in order to secure and end to this because
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a disaster for Palestinians and for Israelis.
Speaker 1: It's a disaster for us, for our interest in the region,
Speaker 1: for our service members, etc.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we're just going to wait and see what happens.
Speaker 2: That's why we're highlighting that interview is because if we
Speaker 2: do have a ceasefire, he very much could move and
Speaker 2: he could blow up the government and then who they
Speaker 2: all knows what comes next, truly have no idea.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: At the same time, the media continuing to cover themselves
Speaker 1: in glory in their coverage of this conflict, and some
Speaker 1: truly shocking pieces were published over the weekend. That we
Speaker 1: had to take note of. This first one is just
Speaker 1: I genuinely can't believe they published this. Put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen wall Street Journal. Welcome to Dearborn, America's
Speaker 1: jihad capital in Moms and politicians in the Michigan city
Speaker 1: side with Hamas against Israel and Iran against the US.
Speaker 1: This whole piece is insane. I mean, they smear this
Speaker 1: American city, which has a majority Arab American population outside
Speaker 1: of Detroit, as being full of terrorists and gie hottists.
Speaker 1: Of course, there have not been any terror attacks or
Speaker 1: incidents in the city of Dearborn. Furthermore, they smear this
Speaker 1: entire city, of course, based on the actions or words
Speaker 1: of a few. They also use things like protest chants
Speaker 1: to try to claim they're supporting Hamas or supporting terrorism, etc.
Speaker 1: Here's a line from it they say open support for
Speaker 1: Hamas is spreading. Since October seven, similar protests have occur
Speaker 1: in major American cities featuring pro g hottest imagery, chants
Speaker 1: and slogans. Rallies are now also expressing support for the
Speaker 1: Iran Bakhoufi's who are lobbying missiles at Israel and trying
Speaker 1: to sink commercial vessels in the Red Sea. What's happening
Speaker 1: in Dearborn, they say, isn't simply a political problem for Democrats.
Speaker 1: It's potentially a national security issue affecting all Americans. Counter
Speaker 1: Terrorism agencies at all levels should pay close attention, so Sager,
Speaker 1: as if it's not enough to level this racist smear
Speaker 1: against an entire city, they also want to call in
Speaker 1: the FBI and CIA to make sure to investigate and
Speaker 1: surveil the residents of this city as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the thing is is if you're going to say
Speaker 2: it's an America's jihad capital, that you're going to provide
Speaker 2: evidence of the vast majority of the people in the
Speaker 2: city actually support terrorism. And as usual in this conflict,
Speaker 2: like when you actually look at it, they are people
Speaker 2: who are supporting a Palestinian state or who are protesting
Speaker 2: against these really military campaign It's the exact inverse of saying,
Speaker 2: like any criticism of Israel is anti Semitic, because it's
Speaker 2: conflating religion with a conflict over land. It's like, that's
Speaker 2: what actually drives me the craziest about this entire thing.
Speaker 2: I mean, and I know I'm dispassionate because I don't
Speaker 2: particularly care who controls the land or whatever, and you
Speaker 2: can look at it through more for our you know,
Speaker 2: in terms of interest. But the conflation religiously with land
Speaker 2: over a centuriled conflict which is far less old than
Speaker 2: the actual religions themselves does nobody good. And whenever he cites,
Speaker 2: you know, supposed evidence or any of these within there,
Speaker 2: he highlights like a few leaders or moms or others,
Speaker 2: and doesn't talk about the actual population. We spoke to
Speaker 2: the mayor who was popularly elected. He says, I'm concerned
Speaker 2: about civilian casualties in Gaza, and that's why I may
Speaker 2: not support Biden. Okay, that's not terrorism. You can agree
Speaker 2: or disagree. Again, it is a totally legitimate position I
Speaker 2: think to hold in US politics. And so yeah, it's
Speaker 2: a smear. There's no other way to say it. And
Speaker 2: you know, you could flip it and just say, I mean,
Speaker 2: what if I, you know, I live in a in
Speaker 2: a neighborhood with a lot of Jews, a lot of
Speaker 2: people who are very pro israel I sent you a
Speaker 2: picture about the gay Pride flag with the Israeli with
Speaker 2: the Israeli flag super imposed on it. What if you
Speaker 2: were to say that these people are all dual nationals
Speaker 2: and are not real American citizens. You cannot say that,
Speaker 2: you know, like, yeah, they support it, Okay, that's fine.
Speaker 3: You know whatever.
Speaker 2: You're very juiciar, but you cannot smear them without actually
Speaker 2: knowing their character and what they call for. Now, accusations
Speaker 2: of dual loyalty are I think legitimate. If we're talking
Speaker 2: about individual actors who have in the past said that
Speaker 2: they have a direct allegiance to a foreign country, fine,
Speaker 2: but you cannot say that to an overall group of people,
Speaker 2: especially when you do not have evidence about it.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's absolutely outrageous. The mayor did respond and
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. He said, it's twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four in the Wall Street Journal, still pushing out
Speaker 1: this type of garbage, reckless, bigoted, Islamophobic. Dearborn is one
Speaker 1: of the greatest American cities in our nation, fastest growing
Speaker 1: city in Michigan, home to the number one travel destination
Speaker 1: in Michigan. That's the Greenfield Village, Henry Ford Museum, home
Speaker 1: of the Ford Motor Company.
Speaker 4: Coffee, food, food culture.
Speaker 1: Capital of Michigan, and among the most diversities in Michigan.
Speaker 1: This was so egregious that even President Biden was like,
Speaker 1: all right, I gotta say something about this one, especially
Speaker 1: as he was heading you know, to Michigan, and like,
Speaker 1: is at least somewhat aware that this has become a
Speaker 1: massive issue, potentially terminal issue for his presidential campaign. Put
Speaker 1: that up on the screen. Issue this sort of like
Speaker 1: weakned you know, no place for hate thing. Americans know
Speaker 1: that blaming a group of people based on the words
Speaker 1: of a small view is wrong. That's exactly what can
Speaker 1: lead to Islamophobia and anti Erab hate. And it shouldn't
Speaker 1: happen to the residents of Dearborn or any American town.
Speaker 1: We must continue to condemn hate in all forms. And
Speaker 1: there's also an element of this saga I think that's
Speaker 1: quite central to this.
Speaker 4: I mean, it.
Speaker 1: Really is such a post two thousand and one flashback.
Speaker 1: There's the use of fear to try to you know,
Speaker 1: bolster the national security state. There's the you know, just
Speaker 1: smearing of entire groups of people. There's the conflating of
Speaker 1: free speech and political dissent with terrorism and support for terrorism,
Speaker 1: which is completely you know, outrageous and insane, so just
Speaker 1: absolutely disgusting and wild that this was able to make
Speaker 1: it to the pages of a prominent newspaper, and I.
Speaker 3: Mean I looked into it.
Speaker 2: It's from the Middle Least Research Memory, which is an organization.
Speaker 2: You're indeed, this is all like goes back to, you know,
Speaker 2: some of the some of the g hot watch days
Speaker 2: of early two thousands.
Speaker 3: So it's not actually all that surprising whenever we consider it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, anyways, kind of crap was used to justify an
Speaker 1: expansion of the surveillance and security capabilities of the state
Speaker 1: that will never be rolled back and only get expanded further.
Speaker 3: So that's amazing, very rare. If you read it.
Speaker 2: He's like, oh, in National Security, FBI and all these
Speaker 2: other people should take advantage.
Speaker 3: I'm like, listen, we watched it all happened.
Speaker 2: The post nine level security state pivoted after the Iraq
Speaker 2: War and after the so called terrorism and using Entrappman
Speaker 2: and all of this. How do you think that Whitmer
Speaker 2: kidnapping case or whatever you want to call it actually
Speaker 2: came to occur. They got a lot of practice and
Speaker 2: snaring and and trapping a lot of people. And now
Speaker 2: this is my personal favorite. I've always hated Thomas Friedman
Speaker 2: because he's like a good reasons for that somebody, you know,
Speaker 2: the Big Bang Theory, that show is very popular, and
Speaker 2: somebody said, this is a dumb person's idea of what
Speaker 2: a smart person would talk. So that's kind of how
Speaker 2: I think of Thomas Rereadman. He is a dumb person's
Speaker 2: idea of what a foreign policy intellectual would look like.
Speaker 2: And his more excent column highlights that. Let's put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. He says, Understanding the Middle
Speaker 2: East through the Animal Kingdom.
Speaker 4: Oh, that's going to go well.
Speaker 2: Now, keep in mind that this is the man who
Speaker 2: has often talked about his excitement and insight into Middle
Speaker 2: Eastern politics by talking to taxi drivers while he's abroad, notoriously,
Speaker 2: of course, the best people.
Speaker 3: To tell you about what's going on.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the next part here to explain the situation,
Speaker 2: he says, the US is like an old lion. We
Speaker 2: are still the king of the Middle East jungle, more
Speaker 2: powerful than any of us to go actor, but we
Speaker 2: are a tired lion. That's why other predators are no
Speaker 2: longer afraid to test us. Iran is like a parasitoid
Speaker 2: wasp is to nature. Now, is there a better description
Speaker 2: of Lebanon, Yemen? Syria and Iraq today they are the caterpillars.
Speaker 2: The irgc is the wasp, the hoho these hesibla hamas
Speaker 2: cut up hasbula are all the eggs that hatch inside
Speaker 2: of the host lebanon Ye and Syria nic rock and
Speaker 2: eat it out from the inside out. We have no
Speaker 2: counter strategy that safely and efficiently kills the wasp without
Speaker 2: setting fire to the whole jungle. Now look, I get
Speaker 2: what he's going for. I guess that said I would
Speaker 2: generally avoid animal metaphors whenever we're talking about people and others.
Speaker 2: But the other thing is, this doesn't even make any sense,
Speaker 2: this idea of parasitoid wasp old lions.
Speaker 3: First of all, those don't exist in the same place.
Speaker 2: But second, I mean, why can't you just describe the
Speaker 2: situation for what it is.
Speaker 3: Why don't we have to use the animal kingdom metaphor
Speaker 3: at all?
Speaker 2: Why we're like, well, the US is a preeminent hegemon
Speaker 2: in the region or regional power, it has diminishing influence.
Speaker 2: Iran is a rising hegemon which has satellite states much
Speaker 2: like Europe. It SARTs like Russia does in the post
Speaker 2: Soviet Union. It's not a difficult concept for people to understand,
Speaker 2: and I would act say that I would come away
Speaker 2: from this if I knew nothing even more confused about
Speaker 2: the situation.
Speaker 3: So it's not even a particularly helpful explainer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, not to mention, not a great idea to compare
Speaker 1: human beings to insects and vermin at a time when
Speaker 1: the ICJ and the US Court just plausibly found that
Speaker 1: israel'ski being genocide. Just gonna throw that out there, Not
Speaker 1: really a great idea. He closed that column by saying,
Speaker 1: sometimes I contemplate the Middle East by watching CNN. Other
Speaker 1: times I prefer Animal Planet. Okay, imagine you said that
Speaker 1: about Africa. Yeah, well, how would people like that? It
Speaker 1: should be the exact same reaction. I think Ryan tweeted like,
Speaker 1: first of all, it seems like he was like on
Speaker 1: shrooms or something when he wrote this. And second of all,
Speaker 1: how the hell did any editor not look at this
Speaker 1: and be like, you can't compare human beings to animals,
Speaker 1: let alone insects, and think that this is going to
Speaker 1: be okay? Not to mention on top of like, outside
Speaker 1: of the racism and the detail humanization, this doesn't make
Speaker 1: any goddamn sense howl. Was there no one at the
Speaker 1: New York Times, which supposedly cares about racism. How did
Speaker 1: no one look at this and say, you know what,
Speaker 1: maybe let's cut this one out and try for a
Speaker 1: different a different draft that doesn't compare human beings to
Speaker 1: watching the Animal Planet. Not that watching CNN is a
Speaker 1: better choice in terms of understanding the Middle East.
Speaker 3: Actually that's worse. It does appear to have been deleted.
Speaker 2: But they haven't so I'm on his byline. It is
Speaker 2: no longer there. It was available yesterday. That's why we
Speaker 2: had those screenshots. So maybe they did take it down.
Speaker 1: I think when I looked it up yesterday it was
Speaker 1: hard to find, but it was still there. They sort
Speaker 1: of like buried it under a bunch of other columns.
Speaker 2: It is no longer there under his byline. It was
Speaker 2: yesterday whenever we were preparing for the segment.
Speaker 1: At the same time, CNN's own staffers are calling them
Speaker 1: out for what they described as journalistic malpractices. According to
Speaker 1: report from The Guardian, we can put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. This is pretty wild, so CNN staffsa As
Speaker 1: Networks Pro Israel slant amounts to journalistic malpractice.
Speaker 4: The majority of News.
Speaker 1: This is according to one stafford that they interviewed, since
Speaker 1: the war began, regardless of how accurate the initial reporting
Speaker 1: has been skewed by a systemic and institutional bias within
Speaker 1: the network towards Israel. Ultimately, CNN's coverage of the Israel
Speaker 1: Gaza war amounts to journalistic malpractice, according to accounts from
Speaker 1: six CNN staffords in multiple newsrooms and more than a
Speaker 1: dozen internal memos and emails obtained by The Guardian. Daily
Speaker 1: news decisions are shaped by a flow of directives from
Speaker 1: the CNN headquarters in Atlanta that have set strict guidelines
Speaker 1: on covers. They include tight restrictions unquoting Hamas and reporting
Speaker 1: other Palestinian perspectives while Israeli government statements are taken at
Speaker 1: face value. In addition, every story on the conflict must
Speaker 1: be cleared by the Jerusalem Bureau before broadcast or publication.
Speaker 1: The Guardian here basically confirming the reporting of Daniel Boguslaw
Speaker 1: at the Intercept, which we covered at the time, that
Speaker 1: CNN has made a conscious choice to root all of
Speaker 1: their Israel coverage and Gaza coverage through the Djuri slam Burero,
Speaker 1: which is subject to this IDF censorship regime, and so
Speaker 1: every story that goes in comes down on the other
Speaker 1: side with the you know, language downplayed and Palestinians dehumanized,
Speaker 1: and of course Israeli government statements are immediately greenland and included,
Speaker 1: Palestinian perspectives downplayed or erased altogether. There was a piece
Speaker 1: in here because you know, we've covered there have been
Speaker 1: like last week I covered the how Jeremy Diamond, one
Speaker 1: of CNN's reporters, stumbled on they actually drove him through
Speaker 1: a desecrated cemetery and he was like, hey, what the
Speaker 1: hell is going on with this and caught them in
Speaker 1: a complete live So I don't want to say they
Speaker 1: haven't done any valuable reporting, but apparently those on the
Speaker 1: ground reports, which have at times been fairly solid, are
Speaker 1: vastly downplayed on the US version of CNN, And you know,
Speaker 1: everything else that gets rooted through this Jerusalem bureau is
Speaker 1: just you know, classic, Like the language for Israelis is
Speaker 1: very evocative, it's very visceral. The language for Palestinians is
Speaker 1: you know, killed in a blast, no lay in assignment,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera, as we've shown before, so really
Speaker 1: confirming what the intercept showed before.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, look, once again, it's one of those
Speaker 2: where we show Israeli statements and Palestinian statements all the time.
Speaker 3: I don't see why it's all that difficult.
Speaker 2: You can just parse both and be skeptical and just
Speaker 2: be like, Okay, here's what one side said, and here's
Speaker 2: what the other side said, and they.
Speaker 3: Just decide that they don't want to do that.
Speaker 2: The thing is for them, and I think this in
Speaker 2: general is they they're in a place where if you're
Speaker 2: going to have people sign off from the Jerusalem Bureau,
Speaker 2: then what's the point even in speaking out or whatever.
Speaker 2: It's like, clearly these they have committed themselves to a narrative,
Speaker 2: to access and to all that. To a certain extent,
Speaker 2: I understand because how they're probably just kick you out
Speaker 2: of the country. But you need to have a lot
Speaker 2: more disclosure, which is what I appreciated in the past
Speaker 2: when they would air some of these things, as opposed
Speaker 2: to some of the silent things they were like listen,
Speaker 2: in order to film inside Gaza, we had to provide
Speaker 2: to this the IDF and they straight up censor whatever
Speaker 2: they want. But the silent censorship that goes through, you know,
Speaker 2: on the back end that they don't disclose. That's actually
Speaker 2: what I think is the most punish it's.
Speaker 1: Very pernishe yes, it's really prodicious. And you know, there
Speaker 1: have been multiple analyzes. I think also some of these
Speaker 1: were by the intercept as well. At the language that's
Speaker 1: used to describe Palestinians versus the language that's used to
Speaker 1: describe Israeli's, how much Israeli deaths are covered versus actually
Speaker 1: is the Palestinian death toll rows they got covered less.
Speaker 1: So these do represent, you know, not a one off.
Speaker 1: You know, this particular story maybe shouldn't have compared the
Speaker 1: Middle East to the Animal Kingdom. It really does represent
Speaker 1: a systematic bias at CNN in particular. But the truth
Speaker 1: of the matter is a similar bias has been proven
Speaker 1: by that type of analysis at basically.
Speaker 4: Every Western media outlet.
Speaker 1: But I have to say, to have your own journalists
Speaker 1: saying that what you're doing amounts to journalistic malpractice is
Speaker 1: pretty extraordinary.
Speaker 3: Yeah, all right, Chris, Well, what do you take a look.
Speaker 1: At Another day, another hefty load of evidence for the
Speaker 1: hegg against Israel. The IDF has been forced to admit
Speaker 1: that they have been running a propaganda channel on telegram
Speaker 1: aimed at Israeli citizens that featured snuff films of Palestinians
Speaker 1: being murdered, dehumanized as insects and vermin, their bodies desecrated,
Speaker 1: and the destruction of Gaza glorified. Here are the details.
Speaker 1: The channel, named seventy two Virgins Uncensored, celebrated everything from
Speaker 1: a Palestinian being repeatedly run over to a mother grieving
Speaker 1: over her son, to the destruction of places of worship
Speaker 1: and reduction of Gaza City to rubble. The existence of
Speaker 1: the channel has been known for some time, as created
Speaker 1: on October ninth. Haretes was the first mainstream outlet to
Speaker 1: cover its existence in early December of last year. Now,
Speaker 1: in that first report they were able to cite a
Speaker 1: senior military official who anonymously confirmed that the IDF was
Speaker 1: in fact directing the channel at the time. However, the
Speaker 1: IDF denied those claims. Now in a follow up, the
Speaker 1: IDEA has been forced to admit that their own propaganda
Speaker 1: unit was behind seventy two Virgins the whole time. Here
Speaker 1: is Haretes with that reporting quote reversing an earlier denial,
Speaker 1: is railing Millik military officials have admitted that the Telegram
Speaker 1: Channel seventy two versions uncensored, was operated by members of
Speaker 1: a department of the Israeli Defense Forces Operations Directorate. The
Speaker 1: admission comes after a Haretz published an expose on the
Speaker 1: channel last month, which led to an internal investigation into
Speaker 1: the matter. The probe, conducted by Major General od Ed Basiak,
Speaker 1: head of the Operations Directorate, found that the information led
Speaker 1: to the original denial that the channel was operated by
Speaker 1: or on behalf of the army was incorrect and relied
Speaker 1: on misinformation relaid by members of the Influencing Department. In
Speaker 1: the wake of these findings, the unit's wartime commander is
Speaker 1: to end his military service. So now the idea of
Speaker 1: claims that the Influencing Department was in fact running the channel,
Speaker 1: but they were just freelancing doing so without authorization. Can
Speaker 1: make your own judgments about how accurate this new version
Speaker 1: of the story is. Haretes also documented some of the
Speaker 1: genocidal language, gore, and war crimes that were celebrated on
Speaker 1: this channel. Quote in October eleventh post read burning their mother.
Speaker 1: You won't believe the video we got. You can hear
Speaker 1: their bones crunch We'll post it right away, get ready.
Speaker 1: Photos of Palestinian men captured by the IDF in the
Speaker 1: strip and the bodies of what they describe as terrorists
Speaker 1: were captioned exterminating the roaches, exterminating the hamas rats share
Speaker 1: this beauty. A video of a soldier allegedly dipping machine
Speaker 1: gun bullets and pork fat is captioned what a man
Speaker 1: grease's bullets with lard. You won't get your virgins. Another
Speaker 1: caption was garbage juice another dead terrorist. You have to
Speaker 1: watch it with the sound you'll die laughing. Analyst Knox
Speaker 1: Bilaal has been tracking the content on the channel as well.
Speaker 1: According to Blal, on seventy two Virgins, you could find
Speaker 1: this video of buildings in Gaza being demolished. Each time
Speaker 1: one is reduced to rubble, the twirling manora on the
Speaker 1: screen gets another candle. The caption reads, burn Gaza down.
Speaker 1: You can also find some of the images that horrified
Speaker 1: the world but apparently delighted the Israeli audience of seventy
Speaker 1: two Virgins, Men and young boys being detained and humiliated
Speaker 1: in Gaza. Here's what they apparently considered a whole larious
Speaker 1: post advertising a destroyed building as if it was luxury
Speaker 1: real estate. Gaza six rooms, three hundred and sixty degree view,
Speaker 1: spacious roof street with lots of parking exclusively for sale.
Speaker 1: For those interested, a pool can be added.
Speaker 4: Lol.
Speaker 1: Many commentators have been shocked by the willingness of IDF
Speaker 1: soldiers to publish tiktoks advertising their war crimes and atrocities
Speaker 1: to the world. Incredibly, the shock was often at their
Speaker 1: willingness to publish these crimes, rather than the commission of
Speaker 1: the crimes themselves. But here we have the propaganda unit
Speaker 1: of the IDF itself running a snuff aggregation channel. It
Speaker 1: makes several things really quite clear. First, far from being
Speaker 1: ashamed of their war crimes, the IDF in the Israeli
Speaker 1: government want Jewish Israelis to know just how brutal they
Speaker 1: are actually being, how complete the destruction and annihilation and suffering.
Speaker 1: After all, remember the polls found only one point eight
Speaker 1: percent of Israeli Jews thought the IDF were using too
Speaker 1: much firepower, nearly sixty percent that they were not using enough.
Speaker 1: And since the IDEF can't actually accomplish any of their
Speaker 1: supposed military objectives, brutality is meant to substitute for success.
Speaker 1: After all, Hamas is not destroyed, the idea has killed
Speaker 1: more of their own hostages than they have rescued. The
Speaker 1: tunnel system is largely intact, and far from creating a
Speaker 1: shock in the population that would lead them to abandon
Speaker 1: their fight, the Israelis have only strengthened the logic of
Speaker 1: violent resistance among Palestinians. Domestically, Israel suffering a tremendous economic
Speaker 1: blow and echin closer to outright global Paria's status having
Speaker 1: already been found to be plausibly committing genocide. Even the
Speaker 1: pathetic and genocide of Betting Biden administration, alongside the pathetic
Speaker 1: and genocide of Betting Stunac UK government are considering unilateral
Speaker 1: recognition of a Palestinian state.
Speaker 4: Hamas is likely strengthened, and.
Speaker 1: The security of the Israeli people has only been further compromised.
Speaker 1: So gore horror and incitement to genocide are proffered as
Speaker 1: a way to cover for the abject, systematic failure to
Speaker 1: accomplish any of these supposed goals of this up. The
Speaker 1: idea of atrocity. Tiktoks are not a bug, but a
Speaker 1: feature of this system, not just allowed, but encouraged After all,
Speaker 1: this entire seventy two versions channel was sustained and populated
Speaker 1: with multiple posts daily, including confidential operational details, four months
Speaker 1: by the very unit dedicated to putting out the version
Speaker 1: of the war and the messaging on the war that
Speaker 1: the official powers that be wont to see propagated. I'm
Speaker 1: reminded of Harad's recent report from the ethnic cleansing conference
Speaker 1: just held in Israel, intended by more than a dozen
Speaker 1: government ministers. According to their journalists there on the ground,
Speaker 1: the most rapturous response was reserved for exactly this type
Speaker 1: of content quote. The biggest response came for videos of
Speaker 1: soldiers in Gaza calling for the strip to be resettled,
Speaker 1: shouting out that there are no innocence or photographing themselves
Speaker 1: with banners for the Katif Block, that is, the former
Speaker 1: settlements in the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 4: So stop being.
Speaker 1: Puzzled by the mystery of idea of soldiers filming their atrocities.
Speaker 1: These same tiktoks, which spark revulsion around the globe are
Speaker 1: met with awe and admiration by the domestic population on
Speaker 1: whom Net and Yahoo and Code depend on for their
Speaker 1: grip on power. The soldiers committing those crimes, they're celebrated
Speaker 1: as heroes. Now it is cold comfort for the Palestinians
Speaker 1: who are being subjected to torture, servation, mass killings, and complete
Speaker 1: annihilation of their civil society. But every one of these
Speaker 1: incidents makes it that much more difficult for the Israeli
Speaker 1: government to wriggle their way out of those ICJ genocide charges.
Speaker 1: How can you argue that Bebe's calls to destroy Analek,
Speaker 1: or President Herzog's declaration that there are no inn and civilians,
Speaker 1: or Defense Secretary galantz comment that they are fighting human
Speaker 1: animals be taken as anything other than official government policy
Speaker 1: when the idea is running a channel to glorify actions
Speaker 1: entirely consistent with these genocidal comments.
Speaker 4: How can you possibly view these.
Speaker 1: Comments and actions as fringe when they're being pushed as
Speaker 1: the official face of the war by the idea of
Speaker 1: Propaganda Unit. The genocidal snuff films broadcast by seventy two
Speaker 1: Virgins are official God from It policy and Sagara.
Speaker 4: I think it's important for people.
Speaker 2: To recognet and if you want to hear my reaction
Speaker 2: to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today.
Speaker 3: At Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 1: The lever was able to get their hands on some
Speaker 1: internal documents from a PAC tremendous force in US politics,
Speaker 1: revealing some of their top donors. We can go ahead
Speaker 1: and put this up on the screen headline here inside
Speaker 1: the Israel Lobby's new ninety million dollar war chest. Internal
Speaker 1: APAC materials reveal huge gifts from moguls and the strategies
Speaker 1: lobbyists used to score the cash. Joining us now in
Speaker 1: order to break down that bombshell report is senior Enterprise
Speaker 1: reporter for the Level Lever Amos Barshad. Great to have you, Amos, welcome,
Speaker 1: thank you, great to be here. Yeah, of course, just
Speaker 1: tell us a little bit to start with about what
Speaker 1: you found here. Yeah.
Speaker 6: So basically we were able, to the course of our
Speaker 6: reporting learn a good amount about you know, internal APEC
Speaker 6: UH information, namely donors UH these are not donors that
Speaker 6: are public under you know, election disclosure laws, and also
Speaker 6: specifically the amount of money that has come in kind
Speaker 6: of at the end of twenty twenty three UH.
Speaker 7: And then from there also some.
Speaker 6: Of the UH manners in which they were able to
Speaker 6: solicit the donations, the h the actual kind of talking
Speaker 6: points and you know, effectively the way that APEX speaks
Speaker 6: to its own donors, which is, you know, despite you know,
Speaker 6: the APAX long and well well covered history.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 6: You know, as far as being a political player, this
Speaker 6: is not stuff that has previously been covered at length.
Speaker 2: So tell us tell us about some of the people
Speaker 2: that you were able to uncover, Amos.
Speaker 6: Yeah, there's a lot of finance, private equity individuals, a
Speaker 6: good amount of kind of well known founders of companies
Speaker 6: from from uh, companies like Zoomba, the founder of the
Speaker 6: Sharper Image.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 7: The name h one name.
Speaker 6: In particular that that may be well known or at
Speaker 6: least the company may be well known, as the the
Speaker 6: owner of only Fans, the internet platform that's kind of
Speaker 6: well known for the adult content.
Speaker 7: Uh. Leon named Dvinsky. Uh, we should say that he
Speaker 7: denied being a donor.
Speaker 6: Uh, but there was some information specifically uh wire transfer
Speaker 6: from his wife to a pac which which we weren't
Speaker 6: able to get comment on from him.
Speaker 1: So I actually have that part of the report if
Speaker 1: I could just read it, because it's kind of entertaining.
Speaker 1: You say that three individuals name on the list denied
Speaker 1: being donors. That includes Leon d Ardvinsky, the billionaire owner
Speaker 1: of OnlyFans. According to the internal documents, Radvinsky and his
Speaker 1: wife pledged eleven million to a pack, the most of
Speaker 1: anyone listed.
Speaker 4: Quote.
Speaker 1: I didn't donate or pledge eleven million, Radvinski wrote in
Speaker 1: an email, and supplies to me my foundation, my family.
Speaker 1: When the lever asked Radvinsky why APAC had listed him
Speaker 1: as a donor, he replied, I don't know. When the
Speaker 1: lever asked Radvinsky to comment on internal APAC documentation showing
Speaker 1: a wire transfer from his wife to a PAC, Radvinsky
Speaker 1: stopped responding. So once you showed him the actual documentation,
Speaker 1: suddenly he didn't have any more to say.
Speaker 6: We asked him to comment, We yeah, just to specify.
Speaker 6: We didn't share the actual documentation. We asked comment on that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 6: The whole the whole experience of reporting this was very
Speaker 6: interesting and at times colorful and intense. Yeah, basically cold
Speaker 6: calling billionaires and.
Speaker 7: They don't like that. But yeah, you know, I think
Speaker 7: at the same time.
Speaker 6: You know, some of the people that I spoke to
Speaker 6: were happy to explain why they were donors, and I
Speaker 6: think that was illuminating as well as you know, hearing
Speaker 6: some of the talking points directly from APAC.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think there was a lot.
Speaker 6: Of a lot, a lot to learn as far as
Speaker 6: the internal narrative of the internal conversations that are happening, I.
Speaker 7: Guess you could say, like within the APAC community.
Speaker 2: So amos, why did APAC solicit this money from these donors?
Speaker 2: What are they asking the money for? To what purpose?
Speaker 2: For a campaign for intervening in primaries? Give us an
Speaker 2: insight into the pitch and why people were able were
Speaker 2: willing to donate that money.
Speaker 7: Yeah, absolutely so.
Speaker 6: So so the through line, the headline is always you know,
Speaker 6: to strengthen the Israeli US relationship. You know, the idea
Speaker 6: is that both countries are better off for it. And
Speaker 6: then specifically this is kind of a you know, it
Speaker 6: gets kind of into the nitty gritty, but a PAC
Speaker 6: is a social welfare organization, so they're legal legally, their
Speaker 6: primary purpose can't be politics, So this money.
Speaker 7: Can't necessarily be spent on politics.
Speaker 6: Like within that, there's a wide range of ways in
Speaker 6: which it can ultimately affect, you know.
Speaker 7: The political process.
Speaker 6: But that's why it's not beholden to to federal election
Speaker 6: disclosure laws. So when they are asking for the money.
Speaker 6: They don't, they don't ask for it for any specific
Speaker 6: purposes like that. It's really always about uh. Uh, you know,
Speaker 6: Israel is at war and needs us, you know, through
Speaker 6: your support for for Israel. Right now, you too are
Speaker 6: part of this greater effort, you know.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 7: You know, uh, one of.
Speaker 6: The speakers through one of the events that we that
Speaker 6: we reviewed, you know, with speaking and suggesting that the
Speaker 6: supporters of APAC are now mobilized in the war effort,
Speaker 6: you know, literally part of the war effort.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 6: In this in this dramatic and and and kind of
Speaker 6: I guess you could say a bit over the top way.
Speaker 6: And you know, I think I think I think it's
Speaker 6: interesting because you know, there's not a lot of conversation
Speaker 6: about the overall you know, impacting gods that there's a
Speaker 6: lot there was a good amount of conversation about civilian casualties,
Speaker 6: but only so far as to say that the IDF
Speaker 6: is doing its best to minimize the civilian casualties.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 6: And then the the pitch is always you know, this community,
Speaker 6: the through line of the pitch is opten. You know,
Speaker 6: this community is coming together, you know, solidarity. You know,
Speaker 6: they need us they need you, they need your support financially,
Speaker 6: and it becomes, you know, a way to have impact
Speaker 6: beyond just giving money. Right, It's like it's like you're
Speaker 6: helping helping people in this grand and dramatic way. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Interesting.
Speaker 1: A few of the other names that you have on
Speaker 1: this list that people may find noteworthy, longtime sort of
Speaker 1: infamous polster Mark Penn, Les Wesner, famously very close associate
Speaker 1: of Jeffrey Epstein and Congressman David Trone, Which gets to
Speaker 1: the even though this is technically not a directly electoral
Speaker 1: politics organization, how impactful they are in terms of American
Speaker 1: politics and a fur their underscore that. I was reminded
Speaker 1: of the fact that APAC Leadership actually was granted a
Speaker 1: meeting with net Yahoo just a few months back. But
Speaker 1: in what ways talk about the significance of Representative Trone,
Speaker 1: who's now running for Senate in Maryland, of his donation
Speaker 1: and the way that they're already deploying some of this
Speaker 1: money in order to shape American politics.
Speaker 6: Yeah, so Tron is interestingly rare, uh, his his his campaign,
Speaker 6: he's running per sentate. It was was was happy to
Speaker 6: confirm this because he's actually discussed his support for for
Speaker 6: Israel and and and his support for a PACK in
Speaker 6: the past. Uh and so, you know, fundamentally is part
Speaker 6: of the reporting process. This was helpful for us to
Speaker 6: confirm the you know, veracity of the list and the
Speaker 6: information that we got in general.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 6: And then and then with him specifically, he's getting money
Speaker 6: back through the a PAC Pack, which is a recently
Speaker 6: in the twenty twenty two election cycle formed two groups
Speaker 6: of super Pack and a Pack so so so through
Speaker 6: the APAC Pack they can earmark contributions from donors directly
Speaker 6: to him.
Speaker 7: And so that's what's been going on recently with him.
Speaker 6: Uh and so yeah, so it's basically you know, uh,
Speaker 6: the idea that he that he himself is don't.
Speaker 7: And then in a way kind of getting the money back.
Speaker 6: I guess you could see it that way, but you know,
Speaker 6: kind of more generally speaking, he clearly has stated where
Speaker 6: he where he where he is in the political spectrum.
Speaker 7: You know, he is a proud APAC supporter.
Speaker 6: Interestingly, he has recently expressed support for a ceasefire and
Speaker 6: so and so, yeah, I think it is showing that
Speaker 6: as the you know, as as this war is continuing,
Speaker 6: some of the traditional hardline support, maybe maybe wavering in
Speaker 6: certain ways.
Speaker 7: I guess we'll see. I guess we'll learn as this continues.
Speaker 6: And then yeah, and then more generally, what we saw
Speaker 6: in the twenty twenty two through their APEX, through through
Speaker 6: their more newly formed organizations, effectively spending money in democratic
Speaker 6: primaries and so going after anyone that is deemed to be.
Speaker 7: Critical of Israel.
Speaker 6: And they also did so not by spending money on Israel,
Speaker 6: but actually spending money on the other campaign issues in
Speaker 6: any given number of those primaries.
Speaker 7: So it's just a.
Speaker 6: Way of spending money and would proved to be a
Speaker 6: very effective way, I think basically, and the majority of
Speaker 6: the primaries that they that they entered, that they spend
Speaker 6: money and they were successful in getting there preferred candidate
Speaker 6: over the line.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, and there were also instances, as Ryan Grim reported
Speaker 1: in his book, where just the possibility of them getting
Speaker 1: involved in a primary was enough to win over the
Speaker 1: unconditional support of John Fetterman, apparently in the state of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: And we've seen the way that that is all played out. Amos,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. This report is incredibly important. I
Speaker 1: think people need at the very least to understand where
Speaker 1: the money is coming from and the groups that are
Speaker 1: influencing our politics, and why we see some of the
Speaker 1: dynamics unfolding that we have. So thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us today to unpack some of that.
Speaker 7: Thanks amos, Thank you guys.
Speaker 3: All right, guys, thank you so much for watching.
Speaker 2: As we said, we've got the RFK junior focused group
Speaker 2: that is coming out or actually happening today. It'll be
Speaker 2: coming out soon thanks to our premium subscribers who can
Speaker 2: watch your early Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: Otherwise, we'll see you all tomorrow