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 coverage.
Speaker 3: 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: We also want to just take a quick look at
Speaker 1: how Kamala Harris is bearing with a group that really
Speaker 1: could be pivotal, especially in the state of Michigan, which
Speaker 1: is Arab American voters. There was recently a focus group
Speaker 1: that was convened and wasn't great for Kamala Harris because
Speaker 1: every single panelist said they will not vote for Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris and that at this point, given her support for
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's policies Visavi Israel's Jonasid in the Gaza strip,
Speaker 1: there is nothing she could do at this point that
Speaker 1: would win them back.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to how that went.
Speaker 5: Who was voting for Donald Trump and four it's possible,
Speaker 5: It's possible.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's definitely not by Harris, that's for sure.
Speaker 5: Who's voting for Kamala Harris here? Absolutely no, No, not possible.
Speaker 4: There's nothing she can do or say for us to
Speaker 4: change our mind.
Speaker 5: Who's voting third party in twenty twenty four, good chance,
Speaker 5: so Jill Stein slightly.
Speaker 3: It's also possible to this less, we'll just abstain from
Speaker 3: voting altogether. But we do know that that's not the
Speaker 3: best political strategy.
Speaker 5: You know, why are you voting for Donald Trump? Because
Speaker 5: my main goal is to get someone who is actively
Speaker 5: funding a genocide out of office. Is your vote for
Speaker 5: Donald Trump a vote endorsing Donald Trump? Or is it
Speaker 5: a vote against Kamala Harris?
Speaker 4: Against Kamala Harris.
Speaker 5: Donald Trump has said he will reinstate the Muslim ban,
Speaker 5: so that last time he's said that he wants Natagnell
Speaker 5: who to finish the Jobnald Trump said a lot of
Speaker 5: things his first time around that terrified me. The campaign
Speaker 5: that the Democrats ran was that Donald Trump pays us.
Speaker 5: I felt safe well in the country when Trump was
Speaker 5: in office. I don't feel safe right now with Kamala
Speaker 5: in office. So I mean that to me speaks more.
Speaker 1: He's donning and We've seen polling among Arab Americans in
Speaker 1: Michigan and other swing states that suggests a majority of
Speaker 1: them may in fact vote for Ji Jill Stein. And
Speaker 1: you've seen the Democrats actually launch their first ever ad
Speaker 1: campaign specifically against Jill Stein. So you know, it's not
Speaker 1: surprising necessarily to hear these voters say, yeah, there's nothing
Speaker 1: she could do, like it's too much, it's too long,
Speaker 1: She's she had a chance to separate herself from this policy,
Speaker 1: and at every opportunity she's done the opposite. At every
Speaker 1: opportunity she's chosen a signal no, I will do exactly
Speaker 1: what Joe Biden did. So, you know, if Democrats lose
Speaker 1: Michigan because of this voting block, they have no one
Speaker 1: but themselves to blame, Like, don't blame Jill Stein, don't
Speaker 1: blame third parties, don't blame Donald Trump even you know,
Speaker 1: you have yourselves to blame for number one, backing and
Speaker 1: absolutely immoral policy, and number two.
Speaker 4: You know, just completely.
Speaker 1: Ignoring what was a massive movement against this policy in
Speaker 1: including you know, huge numbers of activists on the ground,
Speaker 1: including a massive amount of energy, including if you just
Speaker 1: look at the polls, like overwhelming majority of people want
Speaker 1: certainly a ceasefire, but also to withhold weapons from Israel
Speaker 1: to to you know, to end this core that we've
Speaker 1: all seen in our social media feeds every day. So
Speaker 1: I'm glad that they talk to these voters, and I'm
Speaker 1: glad Democrats will have to look at that on their
Speaker 1: favorite network and understand that you don't get to lecture
Speaker 1: these people about who they're going to.
Speaker 2: But in reality, what happens, They're just going to run
Speaker 2: ads about how Jill Stein is bad. I mean, the
Speaker 2: Stein campaign or the anti Stein campaign might be the
Speaker 2: most vicious that I've ever seen it. There's a New
Speaker 2: York Times hit piece out this morning. There's the Democratic ads.
Speaker 2: They've got Democratic activists now actively trying to smear her
Speaker 2: every single day on the timeline and this is exactly why.
Speaker 2: But as you said, it's actually on Kamala. If you
Speaker 2: look at the way that she even talks about the issue.
Speaker 2: Here she is being asked in Detroit about Israel, Palestine,
Speaker 2: about Gaza, about message to Muslim voters.
Speaker 3: Take a listen, how risky is it that you could
Speaker 3: lose the election?
Speaker 6: Well, it is undeniable that it is something that everyone
Speaker 6: is aware of what is happening there. I speak publicly
Speaker 6: all the time about the fact that there are so
Speaker 6: many tragic stories coming from Gaza, and of course, the
Speaker 6: first in this phase of everything that has happened, the
Speaker 6: first most tragic story is October seventh and what happened
Speaker 6: that day, and then what has happened since. And I
Speaker 6: think what's critically important as we look at this moment
Speaker 6: is one acknowledging the tragedy of what has happened in
Speaker 6: Gaza in terms of the extraordinary number of innocent Palestinians
Speaker 6: have been killed, and taking that seriously and speaking truth
Speaker 6: about that. In addition, of course to what I said
Speaker 6: about what happened on October seven, in terms of twelve
Speaker 6: hundred innocent Israelis being slaughtered, women being horribly raped, and
Speaker 6: then fast forwarding to today with the killing of Sinoar,
Speaker 6: this creates an opening that I believe we must take
Speaker 6: full advantage of to dedicate ourselves to ending this war
Speaker 6: and bringing the hostages home.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you caught that everybody else, but
Speaker 2: what did she say? The first and most tragic thing
Speaker 2: that happened was October seventh. If you're a Muslim, voter
Speaker 2: you're hearing that in Detroit, Like, what are you exactly
Speaker 2: if Gaza's your number one issue?
Speaker 3: Like what exactly are supposed to take away from that?
Speaker 1: I mean, we're talking about a significant number of voters
Speaker 1: who literally have family.
Speaker 3: Members who are in Detroit yet.
Speaker 1: Directly impacted, you know, who may have literally lost family members.
Speaker 1: And you know, I maybe I shouldn't harb on this,
Speaker 1: but it just really displays to me the outrageous double
Speaker 1: standard that she has never, to my knowledge, that anything
Speaker 1: about the proven, documented systematic use of rape by the
Speaker 1: IDF against Palestinian detainees, for which there is vastly more
Speaker 1: evidence than that of systematic rape on October seventh. And
Speaker 1: I know these are uncomfortable things to say, but that's
Speaker 1: just the fact and the reality.
Speaker 4: And you know that.
Speaker 1: Narrative has been used over and over again by her
Speaker 1: and so many others to justify everything that has come after.
Speaker 1: That I think is important, even as it is uncomfortable
Speaker 1: to call it out once again and to point out
Speaker 1: on the other side, actually there is multiple even the
Speaker 1: Israelis themselves at least attempted to arrest some IDF members
Speaker 1: for their rape of a Palestinian detainee. We have multiple
Speaker 1: independent reports suggesting this is not a one off. This
Speaker 1: was a systematic policy of abuse within this effectively concentration
Speaker 1: camp that they have set up. And you know, so
Speaker 1: I know a lot of listen. I think the voters
Speaker 1: who said there's nothing she could do at this point, like,
Speaker 1: I believe them, and I think that that's perfectly understandable
Speaker 1: position to take. And you know, I can or others
Speaker 1: can say till we're blue in the face, like Trump
Speaker 1: would be worse, and I think that's true. Miriam Maddison
Speaker 1: is one of his top donors, roughly one hundred million dollars.
Speaker 1: She wants to just completely annex the West Bank. So
Speaker 1: you were pointing out Israeli is very clear on who
Speaker 1: they would rather have as president of the United States,
Speaker 1: as like sixty eight percent say they would prefer Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Bib and at Yaho very clear that he would prefer
Speaker 1: Donald Trump on the off chance that Kamala Harris actually
Speaker 1: done something different than Joe Biden. But you know, I
Speaker 1: think all of that amounts to not a lot when
Speaker 1: you're talking to people who really care about this, you've
Speaker 1: been watching this, or may even have a direct personal
Speaker 1: steak in the real check.
Speaker 2: That woman who she was like, look, I'm just voting
Speaker 2: against that person, and i want to punish them.
Speaker 3: So that's what I'm going to do.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's a perfectly understandable position, you know, like
Speaker 2: you just say, you can say to you like for
Speaker 2: till you're blue in the face, as you said, like,
Speaker 2: well if it's different, except but that's you know, it's
Speaker 2: a different way of thinking, especially if you've got personal steaks.
Speaker 2: So she's got real issues. We did mention this about Elon.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up on the screen. This is currently
Speaker 2: going around. A funded pack by Musk is currently micro
Speaker 2: targeting Muslim people in Michigan and Jewish people in Pennsylvania
Speaker 2: with opposite messaging about Kamala Harris using zip code targeting.
Speaker 2: One on the left says Kamala Harris stands with Israel.
Speaker 2: That's too Muslim voters in Michigan to Jewish voters in
Speaker 2: Pennsylvania saying two face, Kamala Harris stands with palesigine, not
Speaker 2: our ally Israel that has crossed out, and we're true.
Speaker 4: Be a little more to face. Comm let's see it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it's obviously like obviously a deeply cynical strategy,
Speaker 1: but it also reveals it also reveals that they that
Speaker 1: Elon musk At leaves his pack believes this is you know,
Speaker 1: an effective, an effective direction and an important fisher within
Speaker 1: the Democratic coalition and are doing what they can to
Speaker 1: try to exploit it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think that it's funny because it's actually
Speaker 2: probably more resonant on the Muslim part. But all the
Speaker 2: data that we have right now is that, you know,
Speaker 2: American Jews are overwhelmingly Democrats. I voted for like sixty
Speaker 2: or so, almost seventy percent for Joe Biden last time Aroundeah,
Speaker 2: I have not seen a single scrap of like large
Speaker 2: scale sample data that outside of like Bill Ackman and
Speaker 2: like rich Jews work in finance, that there's been any
Speaker 2: sort of grand realigning it.
Speaker 1: Well, it's Trump thinks of Jews in the stereotypical way
Speaker 1: that like Democrats are twenty sixteen, we're thinking about Latinos
Speaker 1: in life voters of like, oh your brown immigration must
Speaker 1: be your number one issue, or oh you're black, like
Speaker 1: criminal justice reform must be the only thing that you
Speaker 1: care about. He thinks the only thing Jewish voter should
Speaker 1: care about is Israel, right, And that's I mean, it
Speaker 1: is anti semitic to think, first of all, to associate
Speaker 1: every Jew with this out of control genocidal state is
Speaker 1: in my opinion, anti semitic. And number two, just to
Speaker 1: collapse any large demographic group down to like a single
Speaker 1: issue like oh, you're one of those people, this is
Speaker 1: what you care about is gross and you know, and racist,
Speaker 1: I think in my opinion.
Speaker 4: So you know, which I also said.
Speaker 1: When it came to Democrats stereotyping the same way. So yeah,
Speaker 1: he's of course wrong. And when you look at the polls,
Speaker 1: majority of American Jews want to cease fire quite a
Speaker 1: large number. Also, you know hate bb NA Naho. By
Speaker 1: the way, the greatest supporters of bb Nan Yahoo by
Speaker 1: religious group in this country are not American Jews. They
Speaker 1: are American evangelicals who who support Baby Nanaou And whatever
Speaker 1: he wants to do, it must give part blanche.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So you know this is part of what Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: coalition is very aligned on the issue of Israel. They're
Speaker 1: very pro Israel pretty much across the board. There's a
Speaker 1: very marginal dissent, and you know, their critique is that
Speaker 1: Kamala and Joe Biden have not done enough, have not
Speaker 1: given bib enough of a blank check.
Speaker 4: That's their position.
Speaker 1: But yeah, since there is somewhat of a fracture in
Speaker 1: the Democratic base, especially between Democratic elites and base voters,
Speaker 1: Republicans are you know, trying to exploit that understandably as
Speaker 1: best that they can. And you know, ultimately, again it's
Speaker 1: it comes down to the actual policy and Kamala's complete
Speaker 1: unwillingness to break from Joe Biden on an area.
Speaker 4: And again for people who don't.
Speaker 1: Really care about this issue, which is a majority of
Speaker 1: Americans who don't who aren't going to be voting on it,
Speaker 1: you know, she could have done herself some favors too,
Speaker 1: just by actually breaking with Biden on an issue, since
Speaker 1: that's been something she's really struggled with as well, just
Speaker 1: creating some space.
Speaker 4: And showing she's her own person.
Speaker 1: So, you know, it's just it's a moral and political
Speaker 1: failure on every level, is basically all you can say
Speaker 1: about it at this point. All right, let's go ahead
Speaker 1: and move on to Israel. So last week we brought
Speaker 1: you the news that Israel had assassinated yeah Yah Sinoar
Speaker 1: that of course an extraordinary development. He was the you know,
Speaker 1: he was the leader of Hamas, especially after the assassination
Speaker 1: previously of Ismail Haniah, who had been the head of
Speaker 1: the political branch of Hamas. He also was the architect
Speaker 1: in large part of October seventh, so incredibly significant develops
Speaker 1: their developments there. In the wake of that news, MSNBC shockingly,
Speaker 1: one of my old friends, Amanroyle Dean there brought on
Speaker 1: our friend dropsite co founder Jeremy Scahill to talk about
Speaker 1: the significance of these events, and he really called out
Speaker 1: MSNBC on there our own airwaves.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 7: I just want to begin by saying that as we're
Speaker 7: speaking tonight, the Israelis are waging an extermination campaign in
Speaker 7: the north of Gaza. For the past two weeks, they've
Speaker 7: surrounded the area and they've intensified it after the killing
Speaker 7: of Jakhas Sinoir. No food or medicine of any kind
Speaker 7: has reached most parts of the north. I'm in direct touch.
Speaker 7: I'm in with medical officials in the north and with
Speaker 7: journalists a colleagues. I understand that at least eighty people
Speaker 7: have been killed tonight in a horrifying set of attacks
Speaker 7: on half a dozen residential buildings. I've just gotten done
Speaker 7: seeing images from the ground where children are being shredded
Speaker 7: like meat in a butcher's shop. I don't understand how
Speaker 7: any of us, whether we're journalists or not, this isn't
Speaker 7: about objectivity, how any of us can watch this genocide
Speaker 7: unfolded real time and watch the pontificating of the politicians
Speaker 7: running for president and not just cry out this has
Speaker 7: to stop. I mean, this has to stop. We've looked
Speaker 7: at this. I mean, I know you've id it on
Speaker 7: the ground from Gaza. I mean, we're watching a genocide
Speaker 7: in real time, and I'm sorry, but on this network
Speaker 7: also there are people who have promoted propaganda from Israel.
Speaker 7: There are people cheerleading for those running for office who
Speaker 7: are lying to the American people about concern for the Palestinians.
Speaker 7: And yes, we should talk about Yaha Sinhar, but Yahka
Speaker 7: Sinwar is also in many ways the story of Gaza.
Speaker 7: You know, yes, this was a violent man, but his
Speaker 7: violence was rooted in the fact that he was born
Speaker 7: in a refugee camp and Israel, throughout his entire life
Speaker 7: waged a war of annihilation against the Palestinians. I'm not
Speaker 7: here to defend Yakha Sinwar. I'm here to say that
Speaker 7: we can't talk about who yah Ja Sinhwar was or
Speaker 7: what Hamas is without talking about seventy six years of colonialism,
Speaker 7: of apartheid, of mass killing, of mowing the lawn, of
Speaker 7: controlling the calories.
Speaker 4: No lines detected there.
Speaker 1: Let me just say, Aiman is such a real one
Speaker 1: for bringing Jeremy on.
Speaker 3: I in trouble for that one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and Jeremy, I'm quite sure where that was the
Speaker 1: last time're going to se Jeremy on smbc's airways for
Speaker 1: quite a while. You know, he used to be And
Speaker 1: if you guys go and listen to the interview that
Speaker 1: Ryan and Emily did with Jeremy. He used to be
Speaker 1: a fixture on MSNBC. Rachel Mattow have him on all
Speaker 1: the time back in the era when it was the
Speaker 1: Bush era, and you know, they were all aligned and
Speaker 1: going after George W. Bush and you know, exposing torture
Speaker 1: and all the abuses of that era.
Speaker 4: They love to have him on. And then the moment
Speaker 4: that it.
Speaker 1: Was the Obama era and Jeremy was still doing this
Speaker 1: thing and say, hey, he's you know, increased the drone
Speaker 1: ward like pointing out the failures there. Suddenly that was it,
Speaker 1: he was asked, and he's never heard from Rachel Matdow
Speaker 1: since because he did I think something similar of calling
Speaker 1: out MSNBC on her program, and she expressed to him
Speaker 1: in real time like you can't do that, this is
Speaker 1: a problem, and then that was it for his So
Speaker 1: I don't know, this was his first return to MSNBC
Speaker 1: since that era, which would have been you know, quite
Speaker 1: a while ago. But I again don't expect we'll see
Speaker 1: him back there for another maybe two decades.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. I mean his story like he told with
Speaker 2: I mean Ryan too. Ryan was an MSNBC contributor. You
Speaker 2: guys were on there and then you know, at a
Speaker 2: certain point they made a decision. They're like, this is
Speaker 2: the direction.
Speaker 3: We're going in.
Speaker 2: Obviously, look at it has worked, right. They are the
Speaker 2: number two cable news network. Yes, they have the oldest
Speaker 2: audience and all of cable news, seventy two years old
Speaker 2: boomer white liberals. These are mostly people who love the network,
Speaker 2: but for them like this is genuinely shocking to see
Speaker 2: something like this. Anybody who watches our show or frankly,
Speaker 2: he's even on the Internet. You could be a pro
Speaker 2: Israel person on the Internet and you would still not
Speaker 2: be shocked by something Jeremy has to say. But the
Speaker 2: thing is is that on that network and him calling
Speaker 2: them out directly on their face, I do think it
Speaker 2: has some power, you know, to hear hear it stated
Speaker 2: that because it's so foreign, it's such a foreign even
Speaker 2: way of thinking.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, That's why Tony E. C.
Speaker 1: Coats and his book and his interview rounds have been
Speaker 1: so significant too, is that, you know, that perspective is
Speaker 1: just mostly almost completely absent from elite media airwaves, whether
Speaker 1: it's MSNBC, New York Times, I'm, CNN, Fox News, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So so anyway, it was quite quite striking to see
Speaker 1: that perspective offered there.
Speaker 4: I really suspect.
Speaker 1: Aiman will get in trouble for all Jeremy on because
Speaker 1: he already has been under quite a bit of fire,
Speaker 1: remember after October seventh, Yeah, they took him off the
Speaker 1: air for a while. Obviously, medi got fired for probably
Speaker 1: for his approach to that conflict, and especially the aggressive
Speaker 1: way that he would question people about the conflict is
Speaker 1: probably specifically what got him canned, possibly by the ADL.
Speaker 1: People are very influential there, so we'll keep an eye
Speaker 1: on that. At the same time, I referenced earlier that
Speaker 1: Israel for some reason decided to actually put out the
Speaker 1: video of Yeah, I guess and More's final moments. We
Speaker 1: can put this up on the screen so we can
Speaker 1: take a look at some of this. You know, this
Speaker 1: was after he had already been part of a battle
Speaker 1: with a tank and the idea have to not find him.
Speaker 1: You can see him sitting in that chair and it
Speaker 1: looks like his arm is you know, like potentially severed.
Speaker 3: Uh yeah, the photo did show.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it appears to look like it's partially severed. So
Speaker 1: he's basically as one arm. He uses that one arm
Speaker 1: you'll see here at a moment this is a drone
Speaker 1: that's surveilling him. He uses that one arm to throw
Speaker 1: a stick at the drone camera. And so, you know,
Speaker 1: this video kind of dispelled some of the Israeli mythology
Speaker 1: about him. You know, they had portrayed him really as
Speaker 1: like a rat hiding in tunnels. They also portrayed themselves
Speaker 1: as knowing exactly where he was located and saying he
Speaker 1: was surrounded by hostages and some underground bunker, and here
Speaker 1: he is actually you know, fighting to the bitter end,
Speaker 1: throwing a stick at the drone that's sent into to
Speaker 1: assassinate him. And you know, I think that part saga
Speaker 1: I'm interested for your reaction here, you know, part is
Speaker 1: the Israelis for their domestic audience just seeing him finished.
Speaker 1: And in this, you know, in this state where he's
Speaker 1: surrounded by rubble and all the level of devis station
Speaker 1: like for an Israeli domestic audience, this plays well. And
Speaker 1: I think that's probably bebing Aa who's primary concern thought.
Speaker 1: But in terms of the global impression, and even especially
Speaker 1: among Palestinians, many of whom, according to Poles, had.
Speaker 4: Really turned on sinewa Orse. They blame him because they blame.
Speaker 1: Him in part for you know, I think they blame
Speaker 1: Israel too, but they're like, you brought this upon us,
Speaker 1: and they bought into this idea that you're you know,
Speaker 1: living this more luxurious life and you're hiding, well, we're
Speaker 1: being bombed. This has increased a large amount of sympathy
Speaker 1: for him within the Palistinian population and bestowed on him
Speaker 1: a sort of like valor that is really propaganda had
Speaker 1: effectively robbed.
Speaker 4: Him up proof.
Speaker 2: I'm just struck by the difference between the US and
Speaker 2: between Israel. Here, let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is from the Wall Street Journal. It says in
Speaker 2: depth hamas leader may have won wider support than when
Speaker 2: he was alive. And there's just so many differences. If
Speaker 2: you look at the way that the US operated against
Speaker 2: Osamb and Laden. For example, there's a photo allegedly of
Speaker 2: Bin Laden's face like split it half, like a and
Speaker 2: cake or something that when he was shot by those
Speaker 2: Navy seals and steal Team six, and that was never
Speaker 2: released to the public. They made great effort to make
Speaker 2: sure that he could never be seen as a martyr
Speaker 2: or to give Isis, which was big at that time,
Speaker 2: any propaganda or al Qaeda, and they may buried his
Speaker 2: body at sea, you know, make sure that there was
Speaker 2: never any grave that people could flock to. It was
Speaker 2: just a very different reaction. And I mean, what I
Speaker 2: would point out is people celebrated here. I was there
Speaker 2: at the White House to night that Bin Laden was killed.
Speaker 2: It's one of the craziest, honestly moments of my life
Speaker 2: just remembering what that was like. You know, for the
Speaker 2: country and for everything. It's not like people didn't celebrate
Speaker 2: and Obama didn't get the political bump that he needed,
Speaker 2: I guess, you know, if we're going to talk in
Speaker 2: crafts terms. But there was also a lot of thought about, hey,
Speaker 2: if we're going to do this, then we shouldn't release video.
Speaker 2: We should make sure that this doesn't become like a
Speaker 2: major thing in the Arab world or for people who
Speaker 2: are radical Islamists to be able to flock around. And
Speaker 2: this was like the opposite reaction that Israel decided to pursue.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: I would say even with that, I believe the bag
Speaker 2: Daddy video was never released, you know, by Trump. So
Speaker 2: it's not like Trump, I mean, obviously very different person
Speaker 2: than Obama and the way that he thought about things,
Speaker 2: even he never did that, you know, whenever Bagdaddy was killed.
Speaker 2: So that's just the major difference in the way that
Speaker 2: our countries look at these things. And I think probably
Speaker 2: because we have more experience with a twenty year g
Speaker 2: WAT you know, blowback campaign of what happened when we
Speaker 2: did try to have all these celebratory actions during the
Speaker 2: Iraq War and we found out hard in two thousand
Speaker 2: and five and two thousand and six, what that looks like.
Speaker 4: I think there's also just.
Speaker 1: Such as a gulf, massive gulf between how the Israeli
Speaker 1: domestic audience consumes these things versus how the global audience
Speaker 1: consumes these things. You know, when you look at the
Speaker 1: polling and you have you know, the preponderance of opinions
Speaker 1: saying we weren't tough enough in Gaza and we haven't
Speaker 1: you know, been brutal enough in Gaza. That's why we
Speaker 1: from the beginning had this question like why are they
Speaker 1: why aren't they taking the phones of the idea of
Speaker 1: soldiers so they can stop recording their war crimes, you know,
Speaker 1: And the answer is because they actually, from a domestic
Speaker 1: political standpoint, they liked the recording of the death, destruction,
Speaker 1: extermination for crimes. They liked it. Those soldiers that were
Speaker 1: posting these things became like, you know, heroes who were
Speaker 1: fed it at these various way let's resettle Gaza conferences.
Speaker 1: So the victory that's on offer to the Israeli people
Speaker 1: is one of utter annihilation. And so the more that
Speaker 1: those images of annihilation are shown to the Israeli domestic audience,
Speaker 1: the you know, the better BB does in the polls,
Speaker 1: and the more he's able to hold on to power,
Speaker 1: because that's that is the real victory that he is
Speaker 1: promising them. So I think that's part of why I
Speaker 1: saw some people theorizing that maybe the idea of hate
Speaker 1: phoebe and so they leaked this to like undermine what
Speaker 1: he'd been saying. But I don't buy that. I think
Speaker 1: they this is to feed the Israeli domestic audience who
Speaker 1: loves to see him there in the rubble in his
Speaker 1: final moments. And you know, the Wall Street Journal again
Speaker 1: to cite a very mainstream publication here and their analysis,
Speaker 1: they interviewed a number of individuals. One one, Gosen, said
Speaker 1: that once they saw the footage, it changed his mind
Speaker 1: about Sinwar. He said it showed he was fighting until
Speaker 1: the very end. Another analyst said it makes a difference
Speaker 1: to people in the Arab world that he was above ground,
Speaker 1: that he didn't escape, that he was fighting. How and
Speaker 1: where he died also refutes the Israeli narrative of Sinwar
Speaker 1: abandoning the people of Gaza. Many people feel Israel can't
Speaker 1: pretend this is a big achievement because his killing wasn't
Speaker 1: planned or done through using intelligence, so you know, pretty
Speaker 1: I think it's pretty revelatory their decision to release this
Speaker 1: video on what it says about Bibe's mindset and Israeli societies.
Speaker 1: At the same time, you know, there was let's put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. Apparently Bibe's own house came
Speaker 1: under attack. Israel's government said that a drone Hesbaled drone
Speaker 1: targeted Prime Minister Benjamin netna Who's house on Saturday. There
Speaker 1: were no casualties, but you know, an attempted assassination here
Speaker 1: on bbnatnah who.
Speaker 4: Certainly.
Speaker 1: Israel's military said dozens of projectiles were launched from lebanon,
Speaker 1: day after HESBLAD announced a new phase in fighting. Netnahu's
Speaker 1: office said that drone targeted his house in the Mediterranean
Speaker 1: coastal town of I don't know how to say this, Cesaria.
Speaker 1: Maybe yeah, neither he nor his wife was there. Wasn't
Speaker 1: clear if the house was hit, and of course we
Speaker 1: know from the military sensors. He will not allow you
Speaker 1: to report whether the house was hit or not. That's
Speaker 1: something they're very sensitive about showing any damage from attacks
Speaker 1: from Iran or from HESBLA. We can also put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. Israel taking a significant hit in
Speaker 1: terms of one of their top IDF commanders. This is
Speaker 1: Colonel Asan Doxa. It says lieutenant colonel, but it was
Speaker 1: actually a full colonel Asan Dosa, commander of Israel's foreign
Speaker 1: our first brigade, killed today in what this individual describes
Speaker 1: as a precise ambush by Palestinian fighters in Jabalia. This
Speaker 1: colonel very significant saga because he was really in charge
Speaker 1: of that assault on Jabalia refugee camp. So that's why
Speaker 1: it's quite noteworthy that he was killed by Hamas or
Speaker 1: other Aligne fighters there.
Speaker 2: Well, also a little bit of a preview, what does
Speaker 2: it look like that's a you have got the army
Speaker 2: to come in refugee camp.
Speaker 3: He was killed by an IED.
Speaker 2: So they're learning exactly the same problems that the US
Speaker 2: forces learned in Iraq.
Speaker 3: We were.
Speaker 2: Some of the initial reporting said that some of the
Speaker 2: IED was actually assembled with unexploded ordinance that the israe
Speaker 2: Israel had dropped onto the Hongaza, which again same thing
Speaker 2: that people learned in Afghanistan. That is a classic play
Speaker 2: out of Afghanistan in Iraq. You can ask anybody who
Speaker 2: served over there, like these things are very deadly. And
Speaker 2: the more that they operate there and in Lebanon against
Speaker 2: Hesbola much more competent you know, enemy, which has already
Speaker 2: proven the ability to strike at them effectively, even hit
Speaker 2: Beebe's house. I mean, already they have accomplished more like
Speaker 2: better tactics against the IDF and their ability to penetrate
Speaker 2: Israeli defenses than anybody in Hamas ever could have dreamed of.
Speaker 3: You know, in the war. I'm just talking about, you know,
Speaker 3: post October seventh.
Speaker 2: So clearly they've got a big problem ahead of them,
Speaker 2: and the Israelis are really getting a taste of what
Speaker 2: this looks like.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And finally, when I want to lose sight of the
Speaker 1: continued assault on Gaza, this is one of the deadliest
Speaker 1: strikes that we've had in quite a while.
Speaker 4: Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: At least eighty people killed in Israeli missile strikes on
Speaker 1: a school compound in Gaza City. Six thousand displaced people
Speaker 1: were sheltering there. It was hit as they prepared for
Speaker 1: the morning prayers, reportedly once again caused a fire. Video
Speaker 1: from the scene, according to The Guardian, showed horrific loss
Speaker 1: of life, with body parts, rubble and destroyed furniture scattered
Speaker 1: across blood soaked mattresses. So you know, here we are
Speaker 1: obviously more than a year after October seventh, and yes,
Speaker 1: Amas is able to you know, to kill this colonel
Speaker 1: who was quite significant. So they have not been defeated.
Speaker 1: I don't think they're probably anywhere close. I don't have
Speaker 1: always thought that it's probably not really possible to thoroughly
Speaker 1: defeat Hamas. But Israel right back in Gaza City, Northern Gaza,
Speaker 1: and you know, continuing this campaign of devastation annihilation, also
Speaker 1: telling people once again to relocate, but in some instances
Speaker 1: shooting them as they try to flee, floating this idea
Speaker 1: of starving the population. There was a pr ploy effectively
Speaker 1: last week where the US seemed to pressure Israel to
Speaker 1: let them aid into northern Gaza. None had come in
Speaker 1: since the beginning of October. There was a photo op
Speaker 1: with fifty eight trucks, but all of the reports on
Speaker 1: the ground suggested that none of that actually went to
Speaker 1: northern Gaza.
Speaker 4: So that's where we are.
Speaker 3: Yeah, all right, we got kin clip is Steen standing by.
Speaker 3: Let's just get to it.
Speaker 4: Very happy to be joined this morning.
Speaker 1: By journalist Ken Clippenstein, who may have just gotten himself
Speaker 1: in trouble with the FBI yet again.
Speaker 4: Ken, Welcome to the show.
Speaker 3: Good just see you man. Hey, guys, good to be back.
Speaker 1: So effectively, Ken, you decided to publish some leaked US
Speaker 1: intelligence documents which we're assessing Israel's likely response to Iran,
Speaker 1: which we're still waiting to see what they have in store,
Speaker 1: and there's been a big public debate about that.
Speaker 4: First talk to us.
Speaker 1: Here's the piece that you posted on substack Israel props
Speaker 1: for strike on Iran, top secret leak reveals.
Speaker 4: Read the US intelligence reports the media won't publish.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot about this that is quite significant,
Speaker 1: including what is actually in the documents themselves. But just
Speaker 1: talk to us a little bit about your decision to
Speaker 1: go ahead and publish these documents, which is a move
Speaker 1: that other mainstream outlets have not taken.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So I got a copy of this from my
Speaker 3: friend early on Thursday, and I thought to myself, oh, well,
Speaker 3: this is already circulatding on social media. This would be
Speaker 3: up in a matter of time. And by Friday morning
Speaker 3: I realized not only have the documents not been published
Speaker 3: in any major media outlet. The media had even talked
Speaker 3: about it then, and it wasn't until that afternoon. This
Speaker 3: was like more than twenty four hours after I'd been
Speaker 3: circulating that Axios had the first story on it. Barackravid
Speaker 3: reporter is very close to the White House. And what's
Speaker 3: interesting is in his report they just describe they're just
Speaker 3: call it, I call it, you know, trust us journalism,
Speaker 3: Like here's what it says. You don't have to see it.
Speaker 3: They didn't publish underlying intelligence reports. Subsequent to that, virtually
Speaker 3: every major media outlet has now reported on it became
Speaker 3: impossible to ignore after the Axios story, and I published
Speaker 3: a few minutes after Axios. None of the other outlets,
Speaker 3: not one has published the underlying intelligence report. And the
Speaker 3: reason that that matters is because you're forced to sort
Speaker 3: of rely on the media's paraphrase, not just the accuracy
Speaker 3: of it, but even assuming that you know they have
Speaker 3: the best of intentions and they're not too close to
Speaker 3: the White House like I think Revid Barackravid is, but
Speaker 3: just that they would understand what the general public is
Speaker 3: interested in, and you know, just by pure accident, maybe
Speaker 3: they don't. And I think the reporting on. This shows
Speaker 3: that they don't know because they're getting key facts about
Speaker 3: it wrong. So, for example, the intelligence reports come from
Speaker 3: what's called the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, which deals with
Speaker 3: satellite imagery and analysis. It's been reported in both CNN
Speaker 3: and Reuters. I'm not making this up. You can go
Speaker 3: look it up that this was from the end. They
Speaker 3: mentioned this coming from the NSA, which is factually untrue.
Speaker 3: Total it shows you the problem with not giving people
Speaker 3: the underlying records. Media ends up reporting, repeating each other,
Speaker 3: and it becomes an echo chamber and they're not they're
Speaker 3: not able to check their underlying facts because nobody has
Speaker 3: the source material. Get to the source material, then, Ken,
Speaker 3: what can we learn from it?
Speaker 2: Exactly as just saw the rite up around what the
Speaker 2: potential sites and all that could look like, and you
Speaker 2: lay that out.
Speaker 3: For the audience. Yeah, what this shows is that despite
Speaker 3: all the happy talk about our ironclad relationship with Israel
Speaker 3: and how we have total trust, so on and so forth,
Speaker 3: we are spying on each other aggressively. And it's not
Speaker 3: just the satellite intelligence. It is human intelligence, you know, spies,
Speaker 3: it is cyber intelligence, it's all sorts of different things
Speaker 3: to paint a mosaic picture of what Israel is up
Speaker 3: to because we can't take them at their word. We
Speaker 3: don't take any nation state at its word. But in
Speaker 3: the context of the conflict that you guys were just
Speaker 3: describing in the previous segment, the stakes are really high,
Speaker 3: and so it becomes important to look at not just
Speaker 3: what are the officials saying and what are they saying
Speaker 3: to us in private, but to look at their military exercises.
Speaker 3: They were doing mid air refuel exercises, which is what
Speaker 3: you would need to do if you were going to
Speaker 3: strike your on because the distance from Tel Aviv from
Speaker 3: Israel is far enough that they couldn't make it in
Speaker 3: with one fuel tanker. And so you're looking at a
Speaker 3: bunch of different characteristics, military readiness, special operations. This stuff
Speaker 3: is really complicated, and so it shows that we, the
Speaker 3: US intelligence community, the Pentagon is looking at every one
Speaker 3: of these domains that might be indicative of an Israeli move.
Speaker 3: And I think what this should show you is this
Speaker 3: stuff is complex and it's not as straightforward as perhaps
Speaker 3: Biden suggested. When they asked him, I said, do you
Speaker 3: know about what Israel's going to do? He goes yes,
Speaker 3: and yes, there are all kinds of different factors you
Speaker 3: have to look at to try to make that judgment,
Speaker 3: and that puts us in a dangerous position because it's
Speaker 3: not a straightforward question about if we know what they're
Speaker 3: going to do or not.
Speaker 1: The news outlets, all of them who chose not to
Speaker 1: publish these documents, have they given any rationale for that decision?
Speaker 1: And what do you think that their rationale would be?
Speaker 1: Do you think part of it is just like when
Speaker 1: I look at these documents, you know, they require some
Speaker 1: understanding of underlying lingo, etc. To really makes sense of them,
Speaker 1: So you have to be somewhat of an expert to
Speaker 1: really glean much from them. Do you think that maybe
Speaker 1: they just have the sense like, oh, the general public
Speaker 1: isn't really going to understand these documents anyway, so we
Speaker 1: need to encapsulate for them what it is and what
Speaker 1: it means.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I don't have a problem explaining what the significance
Speaker 3: is because, as you say, these are very technical documents.
Speaker 3: They have all kinds of notations and markings on them
Speaker 3: that are not something that you know, the naked eye
Speaker 3: is that an ordinary person is going to know what
Speaker 3: it means. But the problem is they're getting it wrong.
Speaker 3: I mean, I just looked at the Times right up.
Speaker 3: You could see a number of factual errors in it.
Speaker 3: And as with science, the best thing for discourse is
Speaker 3: to have it openly so that we can check each
Speaker 3: other's errors. Nobody's perfect. Everybody makes mistakes. I make mistakes.
Speaker 3: But when you don't put that underlying record out there,
Speaker 3: then that conversation becomes difficult to have because people are
Speaker 3: going off of something that not everyone can see. So
Speaker 3: to answer your question, what was their rationale? In two
Speaker 3: cases there were admirably frank mentions in I think it
Speaker 3: was the CNN's article and ABC News' article where they say,
Speaker 3: we are not publishing the underlying documents, and in both
Speaker 3: cases they want to have further they said, we are
Speaker 3: not even going to quote directly from them. What that
Speaker 3: says to me is that they're saying, oh, look how
Speaker 3: responsible we are. And that's an unhealthy place for the
Speaker 3: media to be, to see itself as an adjunct of
Speaker 3: the national security state. I don't think it means I
Speaker 3: don't care about the country that I'm publishing these things.
Speaker 3: My own view is it's already out there, guys. I
Speaker 3: mean anyone can see it on Twitter. It's like we're
Speaker 3: engaged in this theater of acting like, oh, by withholding
Speaker 3: this somehow we're helping the secrecy. We're helping the task
Speaker 3: of the US military, which is just absurd. So I
Speaker 3: think that all of this is an outgrowth of what
Speaker 3: I talked about last time I was on the show
Speaker 3: about the Jdvans DOTSA and the media's perception that it
Speaker 3: is deputized into some kind of national security responsibility on
Speaker 3: the part of the federal government, which I think is
Speaker 3: really unhealthy for the media to see itself.
Speaker 2: As Yeah, I remember, you know, so when we had
Speaker 2: the disc club, the discord leaks that that was another
Speaker 2: thing is you were getting to a very much way
Speaker 2: you talked about. We settled on quoting from them because
Speaker 2: I think, like you said, that's very important. At that time,
Speaker 2: there was still like some consternation around whether that would
Speaker 2: have actually like endangered troops because I wasn't as public
Speaker 2: as the one you're talking about. But as you said,
Speaker 2: if it's actually one hundred percent out there, it's out
Speaker 2: there and it's not just media outlets that have it,
Speaker 2: then you're not doing anybody any favors by just towing
Speaker 2: the line for the national security state.
Speaker 3: That's what I think is really important. Yeah, I completely agree,
Speaker 3: and you can tell the media they just don't want
Speaker 3: to talk about this. I more than twenty four more
Speaker 3: than twenty four hours after this thing was already circulating,
Speaker 3: that we know, before they even had the first report
Speaker 3: just vaguely mentioning it. You know, my editor and I
Speaker 3: were able to verify the authenticity of it based on
Speaker 3: the source of the intelligence community within about several hours.
Speaker 3: And you know, I hope I don't have better sources
Speaker 3: than the New York Times in the Washington Posts, because
Speaker 3: we're in real trouble if those guys just don't have anybody.
Speaker 3: So I'm guessing they could have done this all more quickly,
Speaker 3: But it seems like there was only any motion after
Speaker 3: my story in Axios's story came out and it sort
Speaker 3: of became untenable to pretend it wasn't happening anymore. But
Speaker 3: this view that the media is separate from the rest
Speaker 3: of the public and seeing this stuff unfold on social
Speaker 3: media is just indicative of this, you know, very unhealthy
Speaker 3: self image that I think that the press has.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's talk about a little bit about where these
Speaker 1: documents came from, and could put F two up on
Speaker 1: the screen us apparently investigating the leak of these documents.
Speaker 1: And you know, I also think that this reveals a
Speaker 1: little bit too, because it's obviously not that the New
Speaker 1: York Times on wash and posts never publish leaks out
Speaker 1: of the National security state. It's just usually those leaks
Speaker 1: are authorized leak of things that those groups want out
Speaker 1: to the public.
Speaker 4: But because you have.
Speaker 1: This as an unauthorized leak, something that these agencies, you know,
Speaker 1: find to be embarrassing to put out there, because you know,
Speaker 1: it reveals what we think of these planes. Also reveals,
Speaker 1: as you said, that even with this close ally, we're
Speaker 1: still having to spy on them to figure out what
Speaker 1: the heck that they're up to. Just speak a little
Speaker 1: bit to that in the response here where they're launching
Speaker 1: this investigation and try to figure out who leaked these
Speaker 1: documents and if you have any insight into how high
Speaker 1: level the individual would have to be to have gained
Speaker 1: access to these documents.
Speaker 3: My understanding is that I don't think this has been
Speaker 3: reported yet, is that the sense of the investigators is
Speaker 3: that this must have been a relatively low level individual
Speaker 3: similar to Jack Tshierra, the US Airmen that was responsible
Speaker 3: for the Discord leaks. That's kind of the preliminary assessment
Speaker 3: right now, but certainly the view that this was an
Speaker 3: insider within the US intelligence community. I've seen a lot
Speaker 3: of speculation about, you know, where this going to come from.
Speaker 3: I mentioned before some of the errors in reporting I've
Speaker 3: seen again and again it asserted that the possibility that
Speaker 3: this was from an Iranian hack, which is absurd because
Speaker 3: these are top secret documents which live on a server
Speaker 3: call on a system called JWIX, the US Military intelligence system,
Speaker 3: which is air gapped, so by definition, it couldn't have
Speaker 3: been hacked. It's not connected to the Internet, and that's
Speaker 3: something you can tell at a glance. Anyone who understands
Speaker 3: how the top secret system works knows that these things
Speaker 3: are put in skiffs, you know, secure compartmented information facilities
Speaker 3: that are not in any way connected to the Internet
Speaker 3: that you have to physically go into a you know,
Speaker 3: vault to look at. That's that's you know, cordoned off
Speaker 3: from the rest of the world. So the fact that
Speaker 3: the media is getting these very basic facts wrong is
Speaker 3: both embarrassing and a reminder of how important it is
Speaker 3: to be vetting the records that their claims are based on,
Speaker 3: because this is elementary stuff. I'm not trying to just
Speaker 3: ding them on. You know, the errors that invariably occur
Speaker 3: when you're reporting on something in real time, that's unavoidable.
Speaker 3: But to but to to say this is an iraniant
Speaker 3: hack just misunderstands the very basis of how the US
Speaker 3: intelligence system even works.
Speaker 1: Well said, Ken, thank you so much for sharing with
Speaker 1: us you're reporting. Tell people how they can follow you
Speaker 1: in and support your work.
Speaker 3: We run a substock and that's at Ken Klippenstein dot
Speaker 3: substack dot com.
Speaker 4: Always great to see you, my friends.
Speaker 1: Good luck with that next visit from the FBI and
Speaker 1: that second Yeah you got that guy, are going to
Speaker 1: be buddies.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'll put out some coffee for you. You got
Speaker 3: to record it. You got to record it. That's I
Speaker 3: got to get a ring camera this time. So just memorize, lawyer.
Speaker 1: I have nothing to say, listen, I just have to say,
Speaker 1: you have some balls, my friend, and I really respect
Speaker 1: the hell out of you for it.
Speaker 4: All right, take care, can We'll see you soon, bio.
Speaker 2: Thank you guys so much for watching, we appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Become a premiusubscriber if you can't otherwise from Steam