Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: So today is primary day in New York and also Colorado. Actually,
Speaker 1: Lauren Bobert is going to be on the ballot, maybe
Speaker 1: losing her primary, but the one that most people are
Speaker 1: focused on is in New York. Jamal Bowman versus Westchester
Speaker 1: County Executive George Latimer. We can put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. A lot of this race hinges on Jabal
Speaker 1: Bowman's pro Palestinian stances, his increasingly vocal stance, which is
Speaker 1: interesting I'll get into in a moment, and the massive
Speaker 1: flood of money into this race, which is making it
Speaker 1: literally the most expensive congressional primary in history. Dan Maren's
Speaker 1: has a look at some of the underlying dynamics here.
Speaker 1: That's an interesting read. He says, it's not just a
Speaker 1: pack out. Jamal Bowman alienated voters who once supported him. So,
Speaker 1: you guys may recall the way Jamal Bowman originally was
Speaker 1: able to win the seat was also in a Democratic primary,
Speaker 1: took out Elliott Engle. Now, Ingle had been a stalwart
Speaker 1: ally of the pro Israel crowd. He was a top
Speaker 1: recipient of a pack funding. He was, you know, really
Speaker 1: staunched on that point. And Jamal Bowman at that point
Speaker 1: was trying to take sort of the liberal Zionist position,
Speaker 1: the sort of more more moderate J Street style positioning there.
Speaker 1: I think perhaps he hadn't really thought all that much
Speaker 1: about the issue, was trying to just say the things
Speaker 1: that Democrats typically say to try to appease everyone. He
Speaker 1: wins that seat. It was in the context of the
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter protest. Elliott Ingle had gotten caught on
Speaker 1: a hot mike, you remember the soccer saying basically like
Speaker 1: the only reason I'm hers because I'm up for election.
Speaker 1: He was never in the district. He took it for granted.
Speaker 1: And so Jamal Bowman is able to win the district
Speaker 1: has always been a little bit difficult for him because
Speaker 1: it is a combination of there's a part of the
Speaker 1: bronx in there that's very like diverse working class. There
Speaker 1: are other diverse working class neighborhoods in the district. There's
Speaker 1: also a significant area of like affluent suburban liberals and
Speaker 1: a significant Jewish vote as well. So there were a
Speaker 1: lot of lingering bad feelings among those for whom Israel
Speaker 1: is their number one issue about Jamal Bowman taking out
Speaker 1: Ellie and Engel. And then post October seventh, when Jamal
Speaker 1: Bowman emerges as one of the most vocal Congress people
Speaker 1: in service of the Palestinian cause and you know, not
Speaker 1: going along with all of these resolutions that are being
Speaker 1: passed through Congress, et cetera, he ends up with a
Speaker 1: giant target on his back and his opponent, Westchester County
Speaker 1: Executive George Latimer, who is you know, very like centrist
Speaker 1: right laying he doesn't want to raise He's really running
Speaker 1: on like I won't raise anyone's taxes, including the billionaires.
Speaker 1: He's taking one hundred percent of the APAC line, et cetera.
Speaker 1: He's also a really well known figure in Westchester County
Speaker 1: because he's been a local politician there. So those are
Speaker 1: some of the dynamics we can go ahead and put
Speaker 1: this or what do we have next? Is the terroristiat
Speaker 1: or the thought that we have next.
Speaker 4: We've got a little.
Speaker 1: Taste of some of how Jamal Bowman has been talking
Speaker 1: about the funding that's been going into this race. He
Speaker 1: and George Latimer in one of their debates. He's talking
Speaker 1: about how Apak has been funding his opponent, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to how that exchange went.
Speaker 5: The wealthy and particularly from my opponent's campaign, billionaire Republicans
Speaker 5: are buying our democracy. The reason why our democracy doesn't
Speaker 5: work for working class people and the majority of the
Speaker 5: American people is because of big money in politics. He
Speaker 5: is running a big money campaign. They're spending more money
Speaker 5: in this race to get me out than they have
Speaker 5: ever spent in their history, meaning Apak more money than
Speaker 5: they have ever spent. The house dog.
Speaker 3: Is one issue, one issue, special interest. Their issue, according
Speaker 3: to Politico, is Israel.
Speaker 5: Correct, So let me I think I still had time
Speaker 5: on the clock. Good. So their one issue is Israel,
Speaker 5: not Mount Vernon, not the Bronx, not New Rochelle, not Portchester,
Speaker 5: not White Plains, not Tuckahoe, Israel. And they recruited him
Speaker 5: to run against me, and they're spending more money in
Speaker 5: this race than they have ever spent in their history.
Speaker 5: Why because I'm fighting against the genocide in Gaza and
Speaker 5: because I'm speaking up for black and brown people here.
Speaker 5: We should not be sending billions of dollars to another
Speaker 5: country to commit genocide while we are struggling to live
Speaker 5: day to day right here in this district.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: I mean, I agree with him, but you can see
Speaker 1: there he doesn't. He doesn't have She calls it a genocide.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot that's interesting about this doger. So,
Speaker 1: first of all, Apak has put in some fifteen million
Speaker 1: dollars into this race, which is astonishing. And most of
Speaker 1: the ads they're running, by the way, don't have anything
Speaker 1: to do with Israel, but they obviously prefer George Latimer
Speaker 1: over Jamal Bowman. So what they've gone with, and what
Speaker 1: Latimer has gone with, is this idea that Jamal Bowman
Speaker 1: is all talk and no substance. In Latimer's this like
Speaker 1: technocratic executive who's going to be actually able to, you know,
Speaker 1: work the levers of power and deliver for the district.
Speaker 1: So that's you know, that's the dynamics of the campaign.
Speaker 1: One of the things that's really interesting with Jamal Bowman is,
Speaker 1: as I was saying before, when he was first running,
Speaker 1: it seems like I don't know that he had a
Speaker 1: really well formed opinion on the issue.
Speaker 2: You know, he had, Yeah, you and I interviewed him
Speaker 2: at the time. He was yeah, he was kind of
Speaker 2: all over the place.
Speaker 1: I mean, he just you know, it was sort of
Speaker 1: like very typical. And there's a lot of new politicians
Speaker 1: who are like this.
Speaker 4: They just haven't thought all that much about it, They
Speaker 4: don't know all that much about it.
Speaker 1: So he gets into office and he agrees to go
Speaker 1: on a trip to Israel that was sponsored by J Street.
Speaker 1: Now J Street is meant to be the like liberal
Speaker 1: Zionist alternative to APAC, so they're not as hardline, they're
Speaker 1: not his right wing. They're in favor of a two
Speaker 1: state solution, but they're still Zionists. So he decides to
Speaker 1: go on this trip. And actually, at the time it
Speaker 1: was a big thing on the left. The DSA was
Speaker 1: very upset about the fact he was going on this trip,
Speaker 1: et cetera. But as it turns out, according to his
Speaker 1: own telling, actually going to Israel and seeing the reality
Speaker 1: and meeting with Palestinian these young Palestinian students actually visualizing
Speaker 1: and experiencing the reality of the apartheid system there, and
Speaker 1: how some places are just you know, off limits if
Speaker 1: you're not Jeoish, off limits certainly if you're Palestinian. That
Speaker 1: actually really changed his view and even made him feel like,
Speaker 1: you know, this this nonsense we've been fed about the
Speaker 1: two states solution, how this is an ongoing process, like
Speaker 1: this is a fantasy.
Speaker 4: So the more that he.
Speaker 1: Came in contact with the reality of what Israel is today,
Speaker 1: not just the sort of like top line talking points
Speaker 1: that liberals have been speaking to for years and years
Speaker 1: and years in the absence of like an actual desire
Speaker 1: among the Israeli government to pursue any sort of a piece.
Speaker 1: Once he actually had exposure to that, it hardened him
Speaker 1: in terms of his pro Palestinian positions and made it
Speaker 1: so he's not just a liberal Zionist now. It's shifted
Speaker 1: him to really being an anti Zionist, and he speaks
Speaker 1: about that now and has a lot of sort of
Speaker 1: moral force. So you know, the bottom line here is
Speaker 1: he's very very very likely to lose.
Speaker 4: Today.
Speaker 1: We've got the new York Times article we can put
Speaker 1: up on the screen here. APAC on leash's record fourteen
Speaker 1: point five million dollars in a bid to defeat Jamal Bowman,
Speaker 1: critic of Israel. The delusion outside spending, they say, also
Speaker 1: includes another one million from a different pro Israel group.
Speaker 1: There have been some other groups that have come in
Speaker 1: on Jamal Bowman's side, but obviously can't even come close
Speaker 1: to matching that amount of money. This is a PAC
Speaker 1: also making good on their promise to unleash one hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars to take out and punish anyone who is
Speaker 1: a critic of their pro Israel policies. So you know,
Speaker 1: they really want to make an example of him, and
Speaker 1: I think they have a very good chance to do it.
Speaker 1: Let's put this up on the screen from Ryan. This
Speaker 1: is the latest poll and it has Jamal Bowman losing
Speaker 1: badly to George Latimer forty eight to thirty one, and
Speaker 1: that polling has shifted. There's limited polling in the context
Speaker 1: of a primary, but what we've seen it is shifted
Speaker 1: dramatically since that APAC money has come in.
Speaker 2: Definitely friend of the show. Dan Marins in the Huffington
Speaker 2: Post in his ride up, though he did say that
Speaker 2: Bowman has kind of been not at odds with the district,
Speaker 2: but he gave himself an opening that October seventh was
Speaker 2: going to be exploited. So they talk about that vote
Speaker 2: against the bipartisan Infrastructure Bill back in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 2: which is very important to people in New York because
Speaker 2: of various tax breaks hidden.
Speaker 3: Within there thanks to Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 2: They also talk apparently here about that pulling of the
Speaker 2: fire alarm.
Speaker 3: A lot of people were very.
Speaker 2: Rist about that entire situation, they say, And this is
Speaker 2: a He has a quote here from a chair of
Speaker 2: the Democratic Committee who actually was a Bowman donor as
Speaker 2: recently as January, and he said he had been frustrated
Speaker 2: with Bowman's failure to follow through on efforts apparently to
Speaker 2: arrange conversations quote with her rabbi and other Jewish friends,
Speaker 2: as well as his July twenty twenty three decision not
Speaker 2: to attend Israeli President Isaac Herzok's speech to Congress, which Bowman,
Speaker 2: as you said, cited his previous Israeli visit as reason
Speaker 2: for not doing something.
Speaker 4: I think I was the one who said there were
Speaker 4: no uninvolved civilians.
Speaker 2: With the Madi Hassen interview, which was after October seventh.
Speaker 2: What Maren's rights in the piece is basically, you have
Speaker 2: the fire alarm thing. You already had some previous just
Speaker 2: like annoyance with these like normy liberal Democrats, and then
Speaker 2: Israel toured gasoline on the fire and gave all the
Speaker 2: money in the world to anybody who wanted.
Speaker 3: To exploit that.
Speaker 2: You put all of that together, and you've got the
Speaker 2: perfect storm to be able to kick him out of office.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I always appreciate Dan's writing, and I think
Speaker 1: the piece is worth reading. But I will say that,
Speaker 1: you know, if you just look at the polling and
Speaker 1: the way it's moved since the money came in, Like
Speaker 1: clearly the APAC money has been very significant.
Speaker 4: Part of this race.
Speaker 1: And it's also really clear, I mean from the way
Speaker 1: APAC has positioned itself and some of the races they've
Speaker 1: got involved in. Dan seems to suggest that if Jamal
Speaker 1: Bowman had just moderated a little bit on Israel, he
Speaker 1: may have playcated them. And I just don't buy that
Speaker 1: because we saw them come in, for example, to a
Speaker 1: race in California where the person who was running whose
Speaker 1: name I'm blanking on. He hadn't even he'd been a
Speaker 1: little bit critical of Benjamin Nett Yahoo. But he was
Speaker 1: pro Israel, like he was on all of the talking points.
Speaker 1: But they still, because they're worried about him dissenting even
Speaker 1: a little bit, they still put millions into that race
Speaker 1: to try to defeat him. And so Jamal Bowman had
Speaker 1: already said enough that I think there was if you
Speaker 1: don't go along with every single thing that they want.
Speaker 4: They know George Latimer is.
Speaker 1: Going to do everything, you know, and they already were
Speaker 1: upset that he had taken out Elliott Ingle. So I
Speaker 1: don't think that there was a space for him to
Speaker 1: position himself. There just isn't, you know, at this point,
Speaker 1: the sort of positioning of a quote unquote liberal Zionist,
Speaker 1: It really isn't possible anymore. It's just that that space
Speaker 1: is gone because we've all been faced with too much
Speaker 1: of the reality of what Israel is, what it does,
Speaker 1: the way it lies, the way that processes the occupation,
Speaker 1: the way the occupation has expanded under every Israeli administration,
Speaker 1: whether they were right wing or quote unquote moderate or not.
Speaker 1: So you know, to me, what was interesting is that
Speaker 1: Jamal Bowman, the more that he came in contact with
Speaker 1: that reality, the more his position shifted against, you know,
Speaker 1: what had been the liberal Zionist sort of standard talking points.
Speaker 1: And you see this, you know, the stance with Joe
Speaker 1: Biden where he's kind of a no man's land, still
Speaker 1: trying to pair it the liberal Zionist position when it
Speaker 1: makes it doesn't really make sense to anyone. It's become
Speaker 1: very binary. You're either, you know, against the what I
Speaker 1: see in what Jamal Bowman anothers see is a genocide,
Speaker 1: or you're not. So I don't know that there was
Speaker 1: like a middle ground that he could have occupied that
Speaker 1: would have kept a pack out of this race, which
Speaker 1: is why people like John Fetterman, when he was looking
Speaker 1: to keep a pack in their affiliated or allied super
Speaker 1: PACs out of the race, he just went to them
Speaker 1: and was like, tell me what I need to say. Literally,
Speaker 1: according to Ryan Graham, and that's the only way that
Speaker 1: you can get away with it is you're just literally like,
Speaker 1: I will, I will sub out my Israel policy to you.
Speaker 1: I will do one hundred percent of what you say.
Speaker 1: If there's even like a hint of independent thinking or daylight.
Speaker 4: Forget it. They want you gone.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's Yeah, I mean it's a smart
Speaker 2: political strategy here obviously, especially with the constituents that you've got.
Speaker 2: It's like the perfect storm. And yeah, I mean look
Speaker 2: in general it was a problem for him. It always
Speaker 2: was we'll see how things go. But it's not looking good. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's not looking good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's I think it's would be a massive crazy
Speaker 1: things have happened, but I think it would.
Speaker 3: Be It would be crazy if he wins.
Speaker 2: I will say, what you want a blow to a pack?
Speaker 5: Would that?
Speaker 3: It would be shocking? Yeah, I will say. I was
Speaker 3: telling you, guys, I was.
Speaker 2: I was at the gym yesterday and somebody random asked
Speaker 2: me to go, hey, who is that congressman who can
Speaker 2: bench four oh five?
Speaker 3: That is Jamal Bowman. So maybe he is winning over.
Speaker 2: The critical bodybuilder demographic. They're like, that's all I need
Speaker 2: to know about it.
Speaker 4: Look crazy.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, there are a lot of bros out
Speaker 2: there who are impressed. He did three reps, four or
Speaker 2: five decent form. That's I'm impressed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, impressed, we completely I mean I don't know that
Speaker 1: much about I know that that's a lot of weight.
Speaker 4: But people were saying, this is.
Speaker 1: Like the you know, he's like the top point five
Speaker 1: percent yea.
Speaker 4: Of like powerlisters.
Speaker 2: I would put it this way, if you're not juicing
Speaker 2: and you're able to do that naturally, that is shocking.
Speaker 2: So you know, I always thought, no offense, I thought
Speaker 2: he was fat, But now after seeing that, I'm like, no,
Speaker 2: he's got that that power lifting body. Yeah, he's got
Speaker 2: like the he's got the meat and he's got the muscles.
Speaker 3: So respect where it's deserved.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Last thing I'll say on this before we move on
Speaker 1: to what's going on in Ukraine is just you know,
Speaker 1: Jamal Bowman is not stupid. I'm sure he knew that
Speaker 1: this was going to be an issue for him in
Speaker 1: this race. He knows his district, he knows I think
Speaker 1: there's about one hundred and fifty thousand Jeish people. Not
Speaker 1: Jewish people aren't a monolith, right, they'd all all see
Speaker 1: the things that the way that Apak does. However, and
Speaker 1: there's also classified among Jewish people that we've seen as well. However,
Speaker 1: the Jewish people in his district are predominantly relatively affluent,
Speaker 1: and he knew this was an issue, right, and he
Speaker 1: said genocide, and he you know, called in question some
Speaker 1: of the lies in the propaganda, and he's been very outspoke.
Speaker 1: He's taken votes that I'm sure he knew were going
Speaker 1: to be a problem for him, and he deserves quite
Speaker 1: like that is actual political courage.
Speaker 4: I'm sure he.
Speaker 1: Knew he was risking his seat when he was taking
Speaker 1: those votes. And so I just want to say I
Speaker 1: appreciate that, I respect it, and we'll see what happens
Speaker 1: for him tonight.
Speaker 4: For a pack.
Speaker 1: If they lose, oh boy, I was devastating for them.
Speaker 1: If they win, you know, it's there successfully demonstrating once
Speaker 1: again that you are punished if you dissent from their
Speaker 1: line on Israel. And that's really their goal here, is
Speaker 1: to you know, put a target on his back, to
Speaker 1: make an example of him, to show they've got the
Speaker 1: muscle to prevail in you know, at least in certain.
Speaker 4: Places in the country. So we'll see what happens, right, all.
Speaker 1: Right, So we wanted to bring you an update on
Speaker 1: this protest that happened in Los Angeles. So the protests,
Speaker 1: which no one in media will apparently tell you, was
Speaker 1: in the context of a real estate event at a
Speaker 1: synagogue where they were selling off stolen land in the
Speaker 1: West Bank, exclusively available by the way to Jewish people. Now,
Speaker 1: in America, restrictive covenants are illegal. You can't say this
Speaker 1: neighborhood is for whites oldly anymore. But in Israel you
Speaker 1: can say this neighborhood is for Jews only. And so
Speaker 1: there's been a series of these real estate events. There
Speaker 1: was one in t Neck, New Jersey. There have been
Speaker 1: some in Canada. This was the latest happening in la
Speaker 1: and so protesters showed up to protest this event. Counter
Speaker 1: protesters also showed up. And the whole thing, as the
Speaker 1: cops are just standing by and letting it happen, devolves
Speaker 1: into chaos and violence, would be a little bit of
Speaker 1: a taste of.
Speaker 4: That, you know, you've got.
Speaker 1: I don't know who's who, who's instigating, et cetera. I
Speaker 1: can tell you there were journalists who had their one
Speaker 1: journalist who had his phone stolen by a pro Israel protester.
Speaker 1: I also want to mention that there were protests outside
Speaker 1: of that t Neck, New Jersey, synagogue real estate event
Speaker 1: as well, and those remained peaceful because the cops kept
Speaker 1: the two sides separated. So there have been This isn't
Speaker 1: even the first time that protests have erupted at this thing. Okay,
Speaker 1: so that is what it looked like. Let me show
Speaker 1: you the poster of the real estate event that was,
Speaker 1: you know, for what was occurring at this synagogue. They say,
Speaker 1: come and meet representatives of housing projects and all the
Speaker 1: best Anglo neighborhoods in Israel. And again this group, the
Speaker 1: my Home in Israel real estate company. They offer properties
Speaker 1: that are for sale in the occupied West Bank. And
Speaker 1: you know, this is illegal by international law, probably illegal
Speaker 1: in US law too, certainly against US policy, et cetera.
Speaker 1: The way this was covered in the press was so
Speaker 1: incredibly dishonest.
Speaker 4: It was unbelievable. Unbelievable.
Speaker 1: Well, actually it's totally believable, and part of the course,
Speaker 1: honestly the way that they oay that.
Speaker 2: They approach it, because as you so, I check in,
Speaker 2: I log in, I was like, okay, wow, it was
Speaker 2: like some crazy stuff went down in Los Angeles, and
Speaker 2: so I look into it and I'm like, by the way,
Speaker 2: as people know, I'm I'm pretty neutral on this.
Speaker 3: I'm open to it.
Speaker 2: A bunch of Palestine Caffea Maski's you know, beaten people up.
Speaker 3: It's possible, skeptical.
Speaker 2: So we look into it and they're like, oh yeah,
Speaker 2: it doesn't seem good. Now all of this, all these
Speaker 2: politicians start condemning the act. Everyone's like, oh my god,
Speaker 2: this is terrible. There was a pogrom in Los Angeles.
Speaker 2: Now I'm starting to get suspicious because any someone starts
Speaker 2: to see that language come.
Speaker 4: Out like wait a second.
Speaker 2: So then you know, our producer is like, well, you
Speaker 2: know it was in response to a real estate event,
Speaker 2: And I said, what what are you talking about? So
Speaker 2: then we start to look and we checked it. We
Speaker 2: had to check that flyer. We confirmed it. We go
Speaker 2: to the Los Angeles Times and we read, you know,
Speaker 2: the local paper about what happened, and you have to read,
Speaker 2: I want to say, twenty paragraphs.
Speaker 4: Now we had this input it up on the screen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we can put D three please guys up on
Speaker 2: the screen. And it takes scrolling and scrolling and scrolling
Speaker 2: and scrolling to discover the context of the real estate event.
Speaker 2: And in my opinion, that kind of does change everything though,
Speaker 2: because all the rhetoric that I see online is everyone's like,
Speaker 2: why are they protesting?
Speaker 3: And synagogue. This is disgusting.
Speaker 2: This is a religious temple, Like, how can they do
Speaker 2: this out of all the places to choose. I'm like, okay, Well,
Speaker 2: if you're a host in a real estate event auction
Speaker 2: and off land in the West Bank and it says
Speaker 2: Anglo neighborhoods early, that's a little bit crazy.
Speaker 3: Can we all agree with that?
Speaker 2: All?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 4: Now?
Speaker 2: I'm not saying anybody gets deserved violence. You know, I
Speaker 2: don't think there should be any violence. Oh good ah,
Speaker 2: this side agree, but you know, legitimate I think around
Speaker 2: for a protest, So I mean, this is what I mean.
Speaker 3: Let's flip it around. So I'm Indian.
Speaker 2: Let's say that there is a Hindu temple like the
Speaker 2: one I used to go to where I was growing up,
Speaker 2: and there was an event there where they were auctioning
Speaker 2: off land in Kashmir. That'd be a little bit crazy, yeah,
Speaker 2: And we said it was only for Hindus, and then
Speaker 2: a bunch of Pakistani showed up and we were and
Speaker 2: then there was like a clash or whatever, and people
Speaker 2: said that they had unprovoked attacked.
Speaker 3: But be even me.
Speaker 2: I'd be like, come on, guys like this, look they're
Speaker 2: within their rights. You know to show up. This is
Speaker 2: America last time I checked. None of that is in
Speaker 2: the public sphere. The way people are talking about it,
Speaker 2: it's as if it was totally unprovoked, and I just think,
Speaker 2: look again, I condemn violence. I don't think should have happened.
Speaker 2: I think the police should have kept them separate, et cetera.
Speaker 2: That said, if you don't report that, you are just
Speaker 2: being a platon dishonest.
Speaker 3: So, because that's the issue.
Speaker 4: Here's the way to be honest with you.
Speaker 1: The LA Times, the fact they even mentioned that there
Speaker 1: was a quote unquote real estate event with none of
Speaker 1: the like, oh and by the way, they're selling you know,
Speaker 1: I legal stolen land, et cetera, and it's for Jews only.
Speaker 1: The fact they even mentioned that puts them better than
Speaker 1: like ninety five percent of mainstream coverage, which all portrayed
Speaker 1: this as like people just hate Jews. So they were
Speaker 1: protesting a synagogue with none of the context. Now listen,
Speaker 1: I think it's fair if people want to say, listen,
Speaker 1: I don't care what they were doing in a synagogue.
Speaker 1: I think that a house of worship should be off
Speaker 1: limits parent you shouldn't protest. I don't agree, but I
Speaker 1: think that's a reasonable position you could take.
Speaker 4: Okay, if you want to say, you.
Speaker 1: Know, certainly you could say there shouldn't be violent, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's fine. I don't agree with the nature of the protest.
Speaker 1: I think also you could say, from a tactical perspective,
Speaker 1: was it wise to go and protest isn't knowing the
Speaker 1: way the media may portray it, et cetera. So I
Speaker 1: think that's a legitimate point of view to make that
Speaker 1: argument as well. To pretend people just showed up because
Speaker 1: they hate Jews and they wanted to protest a synagogue
Speaker 1: is so incredibly dishonest, and this turns into, of course,
Speaker 1: a whole thing.
Speaker 4: Joe Biden puts out.
Speaker 1: A statement condemning the anti semitism, Gavin Newsom, the mayor
Speaker 1: of La Karen Bass, none of them acknowledging that. By
Speaker 1: the way, also, you know, selling occupied land in the
Speaker 1: West make that is supposed to be counter to US
Speaker 1: policy as well, So in theory they should be on
Speaker 1: the same ideological side of the protesters. And then there's
Speaker 1: also just the double standard of every time a Palestinian
Speaker 1: protester pro Palestine protester does anything that the media can
Speaker 1: spin and lie about and colorably make a pear like
Speaker 1: it's all about anti Semitism. The president's got to put
Speaker 1: on a freaking statement. Well, there was an incident alleged
Speaker 1: in Texas where some unhinged woman asked a mom who's
Speaker 1: Palasaidian American? Where she was from, and then tried to
Speaker 1: drown her kids. But when she learned that they were
Speaker 1: Palestinian American, where's the statement on that, where's the statement
Speaker 1: on the the you know Bezaliel's smoochurch Israeli minister a
Speaker 1: speech just came out where he said, hey, we're going
Speaker 1: to annex the whole West West Bank or you know
Speaker 1: the video we showed you yesterday where they tied an
Speaker 1: injured Palestinian to the hood of an IDF vehicle and
Speaker 1: are using him as a literal human shield. Like, where's
Speaker 1: the outrage and the statements over that? But so this one,
Speaker 1: this drove me absolutely insane. Just to give you a
Speaker 1: little bit more background, here's D four can put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. As I mentioned before, this wasn't
Speaker 1: the first of these events. This has been a series
Speaker 1: of events across our country and also in Canada. This
Speaker 1: one is focused on the Teneck, New Jersey, event they
Speaker 1: described as the disastrous Gret Israeli real estate event and
Speaker 1: most of the events, they say was a company called
Speaker 1: my Home in Israel, which also was involved in this
Speaker 1: one in La brought along to showcase available properties in
Speaker 1: both Israel and the Palestinian territories. It occupies multiple and
Speaker 1: it's in a building in East Jerusalem, East Jerusalem townhouses
Speaker 1: in the heart of the West Bank, and a five
Speaker 1: bedroom villa with a pool in the luxury enclave of
Speaker 1: a frat south of Bethlehem. From the first stop, they say,
Speaker 1: in Montreal, protesters have shown up to condemn the sale
Speaker 1: of houses built on settlements illegally expropriated from palest means.
Speaker 1: In the West Bank and in Teaneck. I believe we
Speaker 1: actually covered here. There was a Jewish man who showed
Speaker 1: up at a community meeting and said, you know, this
Speaker 1: is outrageous, it's illegal, it's in Worl.
Speaker 4: It shouldn't be happening here.
Speaker 1: And he's in his words he said, and there's going
Speaker 1: to be a protest because I'm going to lead it.
Speaker 1: This was a Jewish man in that community. So that's
Speaker 1: the truth of what happened. Here, But maybe the most
Speaker 1: outrageous and dishonest coverage came from where else, CNN, where
Speaker 1: they had Van Jones joined to call it a pogrims
Speaker 1: As you rightly said, Sager, just listen to this insanity
Speaker 1: in the way that he portrays this.
Speaker 6: If you don't like what's happening in Gaza, it's your
Speaker 6: right to protest. That's not a problem. But you protest
Speaker 6: a policy. You don't protest a people. When you protest
Speaker 6: a policy, you go to city hall and you protest,
Speaker 6: You go to the Israeli consulate peacefully, you protest, maybe
Speaker 6: you go to your elected representative.
Speaker 3: Your protest.
Speaker 6: You don't bum rush a Jewish neighborhood and run up
Speaker 6: on a synagogue.
Speaker 3: That's not protesting a policy.
Speaker 6: That's protesting a people, and that is across any line
Speaker 6: in America, and it has to be called out. You
Speaker 6: cannot protest a people. That is not a protest, that's
Speaker 6: a program, and that has to stop.
Speaker 3: Let's talk about the policy.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about how the Biden administration, how the president's
Speaker 2: handling the policy.
Speaker 3: Van, how do you see it? Where does he need
Speaker 3: to improve on this?
Speaker 6: Well, listen, I think that the president is in a
Speaker 6: tough position because the base of the party is very
Speaker 6: concerned about these images that we keep seeing from Gaza,
Speaker 6: and he wants to take a strong stand on behalf
Speaker 6: of human rights for everybody. That's Joe Biden. At the
Speaker 6: same time, I think it's a little bit naive for
Speaker 6: some of the people that think that if it's Rael
Speaker 6: were just to suddenly just stop doing what it's doing,
Speaker 6: that rainbows and bunnies and sunshine would break out over
Speaker 6: the Middle East and it would all be, you know, be fine.
Speaker 6: The hostages have to be returned. If you can call
Speaker 6: for a cease fire, call for a seas fire on
Speaker 6: both sides, a mass is still firing its rockets. They
Speaker 6: still have hostages kidnapped. So this is a complex issue.
Speaker 6: But here's what's not complicated. Politics can be complicated, geopolitics
Speaker 6: can be really complicated. How you treat your neighbors, how
Speaker 6: you treat people in your community, is not complicated. You
Speaker 6: don't run up I haven't seen any Jewish people running
Speaker 6: up on mosques with Israeli flags. If they did that,
Speaker 6: I'd be denouncing that too. There's certain things you don't do.
Speaker 6: It is a red line. Don't if you want to
Speaker 6: be a part of a protest, and they say, we're
Speaker 6: going to go to a Jewish community center, We're going
Speaker 6: to go to a mosque, we're going to go to
Speaker 6: a Jewish restaurant. That's not a protest, that's a program.
Speaker 4: Oh my god.
Speaker 1: So if you done that whole segment, you would never
Speaker 1: know why the protesters were there. It's not just because
Speaker 1: they hate Jews and they wanted to protest in a
Speaker 1: Jewish neighborhood outside of a synagogue. It's so dishonest. He says,
Speaker 1: you protested policy, not a people. They literally were protesting
Speaker 1: a policy. That's why they were there. But you are
Speaker 1: too dumb or too much of a liar to actually
Speaker 1: inform your audience about what was going on. And like
Speaker 1: I was saying, listen, if you've got an issue, you
Speaker 1: don't think that that's acceptable. Okay, lay that out, but
Speaker 1: give people the facts of why they were actually there.
Speaker 1: They weren't just quote quote quote unquote bum rushing a
Speaker 1: Jewish neighborhood and running up on a synagogue. Disgusting, disgusting,
Speaker 1: such liars, it's unbelievable.
Speaker 3: What about the contexts?
Speaker 2: Say whatever you want, but it's like when you put
Speaker 2: it out of the context. That's what really pisses me off.
Speaker 2: And why is it that me as a news professional
Speaker 2: has to glg deep just to figure out the most basics.
Speaker 2: And at the same time, I'm like, yeah, that's why
Speaker 2: I even have a job, right, Like, in a perfect world,
Speaker 2: you don't even need to exist. But this is exactly
Speaker 2: what the issue is. So regardless of where you are,
Speaker 2: Like you know, some of the rhetoric here, it's like
Speaker 2: what are you going to do? Like are you going
Speaker 2: to send in the National Guard? I'm like, Yo, this
Speaker 2: is nuts. You're allowing foreign sales to happen in houses
Speaker 2: of worship. I mean, first of all, shouldn't you have
Speaker 2: your tax status poll if you're going to be doing
Speaker 2: stuff like that.
Speaker 3: I don't think that should be allowed in American soil.
Speaker 2: Maybe just me, I don't think you should be having
Speaker 2: foreign sale you know, foreign sales going down in houses
Speaker 2: of worship and stuff like this, which are official events.
Speaker 3: So anyways and.
Speaker 1: Close off, but to exclusionary too. Literally it means you
Speaker 1: can't go in and buy that real estate. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's not how we do things in America. It's you know,
Speaker 1: since Civil Rights Act, the Fairhousing Act. You have to
Speaker 1: allow people of all backgrounds, racist genders, et cetera to
Speaker 1: be able to So you're having this exclusionary event that
Speaker 1: is in contrary, that is counter to international law, and
Speaker 1: you're saying people are not allowed to protest that, and
Speaker 1: the only reason that they possibly could have been protesting
Speaker 1: that is because of anti Semitism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly can't stand it all right, Crystal, what do
Speaker 2: you taking a look at.
Speaker 1: More than forty thousand dead majority women and children, more
Speaker 1: devastation than Dresden, Hamburg and London combined, Bertal siege which
Speaker 1: has led to dozens of stardivation deaths and an entire
Speaker 1: population on the brink of famine, and all on AsSalt
Speaker 1: that has left nothing sacred, from schools mas to hospitals, cemeteries.
Speaker 4: And refugee camps.
Speaker 1: There's no world in which these atrocities committed by Israel
Speaker 1: and Gaza are justifiable, let alone righteous. But according to
Speaker 1: the Israeli government and our own, they are acceptable to
Speaker 1: be celebrated, even because they've been committed in service of
Speaker 1: a noble war aim eliminating Hamas. That's the logic that
Speaker 1: the Israeli public and a decent portion of our own
Speaker 1: has bought. Yes, the civilian deaths are bad, but it's
Speaker 1: a price we must accept in order to get the
Speaker 1: Hamas bad guys. But a new analysis in Foreign Affairs
Speaker 1: by political scientists and international security expert Robert Pape reveals
Speaker 1: that not only has Israel's genocide and Gaza been morally outrageous,
Speaker 1: it has actually strengthened Hamas. Israel isn't just falling short
Speaker 1: in their war objectives. They have bolstered the very group
Speaker 1: they are supposedly seeking to destroy. They have murdered countless
Speaker 1: civilians in service of making Hamas vastly stronger, incredible. But also,
Speaker 1: let's be honest, predictable turns out, death and destruction are not.
Speaker 4: The same as victory.
Speaker 1: So here is Paithe in that article headlined Hamas is
Speaker 1: winning quote. The central flaw in Israel's strategy is not
Speaker 1: a failure of tactics or the imposition of constraints on
Speaker 1: military force, just as the failure of the US's military
Speaker 1: strategy in Vietnam had little to do with the technical
Speaker 1: proficiency of its troops or political and moral limits on
Speaker 1: the uses of military power. Rather, the overarching failure has
Speaker 1: been a gross misunderstanding of the sources of Hamas's power.
Speaker 1: To its great detriment, Israel has failed to realize that
Speaker 1: the carnage and devastation it has unleashed in Gaza has
Speaker 1: only made its enemy stronger. So essentially, Israel and the
Speaker 1: US have focused on how many Hamas fighters have been
Speaker 1: killed as a measure of the success of the war.
Speaker 1: That is entirely the wrong metric. It almost doesn't matter
Speaker 1: how many fighters Hamas has today. What matters is its
Speaker 1: recruitment potential for the future, how many new recruits can
Speaker 1: they pull from the next generation. Media reports and local
Speaker 1: pollings suggest that number has surged massively. Here's the Jerusalem
Speaker 1: Post reportedly Hamas is already looking to capitalize on this
Speaker 1: IDF enabled surge in popularity. Now, this is a right
Speaker 1: wing outlet, so you've got to sort through the propagandabout
Speaker 1: quote unquote Gaza youths, which appears to be an attempt
Speaker 1: to legitimize killing children and their credulous acceptance of Israeli
Speaker 1: lies about how many Hamas fighters they've actually killed. But
Speaker 1: the basics of the reporting are that Hamas is holding
Speaker 1: recruitment camps and training sessions to replace the fighters they've
Speaker 1: lost to death, injury, and arrest. They claim that Hamas
Speaker 1: is looking to add some twenty thousand new members to
Speaker 1: their ranks. But even this biased outlet has a pretty
Speaker 1: straightforward accounting of the landscape. Potential Hamas recruits face quote,
Speaker 1: eighteen year olds choosing whether to join Hamas or not.
Speaker 1: On the one hand, face the reality that so many
Speaker 1: who have joined Hamas have been beaten and killed by
Speaker 1: the IDF. On the other hand, they currently have no
Speaker 1: horizon for finding work or doing much of anything other
Speaker 1: than sitting around in refugee camps, since no one has
Speaker 1: even started planning the rebuilding Gaza process, which is likely
Speaker 1: to take many years. What they don't note is that
Speaker 1: those eighteen year olds face potential death in torture by
Speaker 1: the IDF whether or not they join Hamas, since the
Speaker 1: Israeli government has so indiscriminately slaughtered civilians and has operated
Speaker 1: under a presumption that all men and boys are to
Speaker 1: be assumed Hamas. Now, going back to Pape, Israel's actions
Speaker 1: have created ripe conditions for Hamas propaganda, according to him,
Speaker 1: which has been received favorably by many Palestinians. He points
Speaker 1: out the polls have found HAMAS support and support for
Speaker 1: violence against Israeli civilians, both surging after October seventh. In addition,
Speaker 1: Israeli atrocities have fueled what he describes as a quote
Speaker 1: cult of martyrdom, increasing the allure of HAMAS members.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 1: People are less likely to volunteer for high risk missions
Speaker 1: if their sacrifices go unnoticed. A community that honors the
Speaker 1: fallen fighters of a terrorist group helps sustain it. Martyrdom,
Speaker 1: legitimizes terrorist actions, and encourages new recruits. Terrorists will act
Speaker 1: as they see fit, but it is the community that
Speaker 1: ultimately decides where an individual's sacrifice is accorded high status
Speaker 1: or whether it is broadly viewed as irrational, criminal, and
Speaker 1: worthy of content. The community support for HAMAS has also
Speaker 1: directly hindered the IDF's ability to successfully target HAMAS leadership
Speaker 1: and locate hostages to additional supposed war aims. After all,
Speaker 1: what Palestinian with a shred of integrity would collaborate with
Speaker 1: the genocidal IDF YEP turns out. Indiscriminately murdering civilians while
Speaker 1: blocking peaceful pathways to negotiated settlement is a great way
Speaker 1: to search support for violent resistance. If you create massive
Speaker 1: amounts of grief, despair, and rage and block all nonviolent
Speaker 1: political processes, don't be surprised when that rage finds an
Speaker 1: expression in violence. In the words of security analyst Internet
Speaker 1: hippo quote, I'm not a political expert, but if you
Speaker 1: eliminate Hamas but killed my whole family in the process,
Speaker 1: my first move would be to start Hammas two point zero.
Speaker 1: The truth is, just as we would have been better
Speaker 1: off if we had done literally nothing in response to
Speaker 1: nine to eleven, Israel would have been better off if
Speaker 1: they had done literally nothing in response to October seventh.
Speaker 1: Now that's to say nothing, of course, of the Iraqi
Speaker 1: innocence and Palestinian innocence who were sacrificed on the altar
Speaker 1: of personal political interest masquerading as counter terror. For my part,
Speaker 1: got enough respect for Biebe to reject the notion that
Speaker 1: he was too dung to operate at the intellectual level
Speaker 1: of Internet hippo. They knew their campaign wasn't going to
Speaker 1: eliminate Hamas, But in a sixth sense, strengthening Hamas actually
Speaker 1: serves Bbe's political interests. After all, he has consistently worked
Speaker 1: to bolster Hamas in order to block a potential peace
Speaker 1: deal and to maintain division between Gaza and the West Bank.
Speaker 1: I don't see why that logic would be any different today.
Speaker 1: So long as Hamas remains, the IDF has endless justification
Speaker 1: for ras bombings and occupation, endlessly prolonging war that BIB
Speaker 1: wants to be endlessly prolonged. He can proclaim to gradualist
Speaker 1: international leaders that they have no partner for peace, even
Speaker 1: if he makes it clear he has absolutely no interest
Speaker 1: in a two state solution or any other long term piece.
Speaker 1: The brutality of that annihilation campaign can satiate the post
Speaker 1: October seventh of bloodless from the Israeli public and begin
Speaker 1: to rebuild Netnyahu's political standing that's been working all while
Speaker 1: accomplishing BB's stated goal of quote finning out the Gaza population,
Speaker 1: which is the constant ethno state imperative. After all, if
Speaker 1: the whole logic of your state is that it must
Speaker 1: be controlled by a Jewish majority, then the very existence
Speaker 1: of non Jewish children is a looming threat to the
Speaker 1: entire national project. Eliminating Hamas is a convenient pretext for
Speaker 1: neutralizing that demographic threat through the mass laughter of Palestinian
Speaker 1: children and mothers, in particular now in Gaza, Bibe and
Speaker 1: the IDEF have seemingly destroyed everything but Hamas, and that
Speaker 1: may well have been the point. It's a great piece
Speaker 1: from Robert Papa. I know you took a look at
Speaker 1: it as well. He talks about, you know, the body
Speaker 1: count figures in terms of the number of Hamas fighters
Speaker 1: they've killed or are very disputed. Israeli say somewhere around
Speaker 1: fifteen thousand. US Intelligence says ten thousand, Hamas says more
Speaker 1: like five to six thousand. In any case, the amount
Speaker 1: of support for Hamas has been predictably dramatically surged. There
Speaker 1: has not been they were betting or there was some
Speaker 1: analysis of like, oh, if we, you know, make this
Speaker 1: really horrible for them, people will turn on Hamas. The
Speaker 1: opposite has happened. There's been a like rally around the
Speaker 1: flag effect. Again, very predictable and very consistent with what
Speaker 1: we've seen historically in terms of bombed and besieged civilian populations,
Speaker 1: and so in spite of the technological military vast superiority
Speaker 1: in terms of the actual stated war aims, it's been
Speaker 1: a total and complete failure on every level.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I keep coming back to North Vietnam, and I
Speaker 2: really recommend people need to go and read Robert Pape.
Speaker 3: He is incredibly smart.
Speaker 2: He's a scholar, he's a long studied air power, civilian populations,
Speaker 2: World War Two. I've read stuff for a long time,
Speaker 2: and since the October seven conflict, he's been doing amazing work.
Speaker 2: This is a very well reasoned piece. There's nothing emotional
Speaker 2: within it. It's just pointing to data. You're looking in
Speaker 2: your point look together the recruitment numbers, and look, if
Speaker 2: bombs could solve things, then we would have won the
Speaker 2: Vietnam War. If bombs could solve things, we would have
Speaker 2: won the Iraq War and Afghanistan. Guess what happened in
Speaker 2: every single case is that it was counterproductive, usually unless
Speaker 2: it was for a direct military purpose, and in the
Speaker 2: long run, they outlasted us and they won.
Speaker 3: I think in the same.
Speaker 2: Case, they have the will, they have the ability to
Speaker 2: stay forever and to operate in the shadows, and to
Speaker 2: now fundraise both and fundraise and recruit for the people
Speaker 2: who have been victimized as a result of the policy.
Speaker 2: All they have to do is survive. Israel is warring
Speaker 2: against a quote unquote ideology good luck. Have seen people
Speaker 2: try before, they always lose.
Speaker 1: It is not just it's not just that they're not defeated,
Speaker 1: it's that they actively Like Our operations in Iraq and
Speaker 1: the you know, attacks on civilians led to a surge
Speaker 1: in popularity for Iraqi resistance groups and you know, helped
Speaker 1: to create ISIS. Our operations in Afghanistan led to a
Speaker 1: star the Taliban was like down to almost nothing, and
Speaker 1: they were able to rebuild and you know, be such
Speaker 1: a formidable force that they just immediately take take back
Speaker 1: over when we leave. Because our occupation and our atrocities
Speaker 1: provided the moral justification and searched the support for these groups.
Speaker 1: So our actions and now it's you know, obviously what's
Speaker 1: happening with Israel and Gaza have actually searched support for
Speaker 1: that group. Again, it's entirely predictable. This is something that
Speaker 1: we've been saying from the beginning. We highlighted those Jocko
Speaker 1: comments from the beginning of like this is not.
Speaker 4: The way you go.
Speaker 1: If you are actually serious about taking out Hamas leadership,
Speaker 1: getting the hostages back, you have to win over the population.
Speaker 1: You need them to collaborate with, You need to provide
Speaker 1: them a different path that isn't Hamas. None of that
Speaker 1: was done, And I don't think it's because they just
Speaker 1: didn't understand and they were stupid and foolish. I think
Speaker 1: it's because the goal was never really eliminated Hamas, especially
Speaker 1: from BB's perspective. Again, he's always supported Hamas. I think
Speaker 1: he still finds Hamas to be very useful there because
Speaker 1: it gives him the pretext to do whatever the hell
Speaker 1: he wants. Prolong the war as long as he wants
Speaker 1: to be as brutal as he wants, you know, maintain
Speaker 1: his position of power, continue to block a two states
Speaker 1: illusion by saying there's no partner for peace. All that
Speaker 1: logic still remains. So I can't be so naive as
Speaker 1: to think that he doesn't also understand what's going on
Speaker 1: here and how the idea of eliminating Hamas was always
Speaker 1: doomed to fail from the job