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. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 4: When do we have.
Speaker 1: Crystal indeed we do. We got a lot of breaking
Speaker 1: news with regards to Israel. So, first of all, Benny
Speaker 1: Gantz is out of the government of that war cabinet.
Speaker 1: He announced that he is pressuring for a ceasefire deal.
Speaker 1: We've got Tony Blincoln who is there in the region
Speaker 1: as well, So a lot to get to there and
Speaker 1: what that could mean. We have four Israeli hostages rescued
Speaker 1: and roughly one thousand Palestinians killed or injured in that
Speaker 1: operation by the IDF, and some questions about American involvement,
Speaker 1: So a lot to get to there. That's very consequential.
Speaker 1: We have new polls outless some interesting insights into whether
Speaker 1: or not Trump's convictions are going to matter, and then
Speaker 1: whether or not people really care about them. Their beers
Speaker 1: to basically be not so much. Very interesting things coming
Speaker 1: out of Europe as well. They had the EO parliamentary elections,
Speaker 1: and in particular in France and Germany, huge surge for
Speaker 1: the far right. Macron Is announced snap elections, so that
Speaker 1: is kind of fascinating. Sometimes that can be a canary
Speaker 1: in the coal mine for our own politics that we
Speaker 1: want to take a look at that. And we also
Speaker 1: have Brianna Joy Gray fired by the Hill, needless to say,
Speaker 1: Saga and I both have some thoughts and potential insights
Speaker 1: there to share with you.
Speaker 3: I never heard of it, Iver heard of.
Speaker 1: It, former Hill refugees ourselves. We've got some thoughts about
Speaker 1: what's going on there.
Speaker 2: All right, that's right, Okay, Before we get to that,
Speaker 2: we actually have a major story coming later today. We
Speaker 2: weren't able to fit it in the show for timing
Speaker 2: reasons from Ryan Grimm. We're going to be interviewing him
Speaker 2: and he's to be breaking some major Supreme Court related news.
Speaker 2: So everybody stay tuned on all of our channels. We
Speaker 2: will be posting that and we'll email it out two
Speaker 2: premium subscribers as well. But we are expecting this to
Speaker 2: actually make some news and possibly picked up by the
Speaker 2: mainstream press. So it's going to be a fun day
Speaker 2: here at Breaking Points. We want to support our work
Speaker 2: Breakingpoints dot com. We really appreciate it. But with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the Bennigans news.
Speaker 1: All right, So Benny Gantz announced a press conference and
Speaker 1: he made it official that he was leaving the war cabinet.
Speaker 1: We've got a little bit of the coverage from Sky
Speaker 1: Sky News, which has the advantage of being in English,
Speaker 1: so let's stick go listen to a little bit of
Speaker 1: what he had to say.
Speaker 4: We can tell you that he is unhappy with the
Speaker 4: apparent lack of a plan for after the war with Gaza.
Speaker 4: He has been threatening to resign. He was going to
Speaker 4: release a statement yesterday, but the news that those four
Speaker 4: Israeli hostages have been rescued from Gaza. Nemative statement was
Speaker 4: delayed until today, But in the last few moments he
Speaker 4: has resigned from the Israeli war Cabinet. He says in Nettigna,
Speaker 4: whose government political considerations are impeding strategic decisions in the
Speaker 4: Gaza war. He also says that Benjamin Netanyah, who is
Speaker 4: preventing real victory, we are leaving emergency government.
Speaker 3: He says.
Speaker 4: He also calls on Benjamin Netanyah, who to set an
Speaker 4: agreed election date, and he's been calling on the defense minister.
Speaker 4: You have Galant to be brave and do what is
Speaker 4: right and presumably follow his lead by resigning from the
Speaker 4: war cabinet.
Speaker 1: There was also a major military official who just announced
Speaker 1: his resignation as well, who was in charge of the
Speaker 1: Gaza aryans. And I've basically failed on October seventh to
Speaker 1: keep Israeli safe Benny Gance. As part of that press conference,
Speaker 1: he also apologized to the hostage families and asked for
Speaker 1: their forgiveness, saying, quote, we failed. The responsibility is also mine.
Speaker 1: So you guys will recall the war cabinet is made
Speaker 1: up of Yaho was Benny Kantz, and you of Galant,
Speaker 1: now moderate in the Israeli context. Always keep in mind
Speaker 1: none of these people are against the war. None of
Speaker 1: them are quote unquote moderate. However, there are some differences
Speaker 1: in terms of how they wanted to approach things. Gans
Speaker 1: in particular, is more favorable towards the ceasefire deal that
Speaker 1: has been floated by Joe Biden. You have Glant seems
Speaker 1: to be more in that direction as well. Both of
Speaker 1: them have been pushing for a plan for the quote
Speaker 1: unquote day after. And so that's why Sager is really
Speaker 1: noteworthy and also not surprising that he points in Nan
Speaker 1: Yahoo and says, basically, you're putting politics first. You don't
Speaker 1: actually care about the war, you don't care about the hostages,
Speaker 1: you don't care about Israel, you care about your own
Speaker 1: political survival. And Gance had previously issued an ultimatum basically saying, listen,
Speaker 1: you need to call for elections. We need some sort
Speaker 1: of concrete, workable plan for the quote unquote day after
Speaker 1: in Gaza. Otherwise I'm leaving the war cabinet, And that,
Speaker 1: in fact is what he has done. Now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's really interesting.
Speaker 2: Really, what it comes down to is the both domestic
Speaker 2: political situation, but also Ganz is not an idiot. He
Speaker 2: basically has the taskit backing of the United States, the
Speaker 2: Biden government, the European Union.
Speaker 3: He's not facing any international problems.
Speaker 2: If Netta Nah Who goes away a he's likely going
Speaker 2: to face a criminal trial for his own corruption allegations
Speaker 2: that pre date long October seventh. But second, you know,
Speaker 2: he's actually got to grapple with his political legacy. Just
Speaker 2: to explain to people because it's a little bit confusing,
Speaker 2: this does not actually bring down the nets On Yahu government.
Speaker 2: His old coalition pre October seventh coalition still stands. He
Speaker 2: has sixty four seat majority in the Israeli Parliament. The
Speaker 2: question then comes to the shakiness of that the calling
Speaker 2: for the election, and really the way I guess people
Speaker 2: could think about it for historical context is when Clement
Speaker 2: Attlee left the government of the Wartime Coalition after Britain
Speaker 2: won the Second World War and they called for an
Speaker 2: election and actually Churchill ended up being defeated, so possibly
Speaker 2: there could be some parallels there. The point, though, is
Speaker 2: just that the shakiness brings effectively domestic politics, as in
Speaker 2: like Capital Pe politics back to the country of Israel,
Speaker 2: which has been totally united on domestic front. Interestingly enough,
Speaker 2: this is the only question is the timing of the
Speaker 2: so called hostage mission because and we're going to get
Speaker 2: to this, but it really affected Benny Gantz. He originally
Speaker 2: had the speech on the books for withdrawing. The day
Speaker 2: of the hostage release, he ended up having to cancel
Speaker 2: a speech. But that is probably the single most popular
Speaker 2: thing that Netanya, who has done since what since October seventh,
Speaker 2: prior to that, the best thing that he possibly could
Speaker 2: have done for his political futures. So this actually does
Speaker 2: raise the question of maybe he could survive. It's certainly possible.
Speaker 2: It's going to be a big question of both international politics,
Speaker 2: how these really people themselves feel about it, and also
Speaker 2: don't forget this, but Gance could still lose.
Speaker 3: It's very very possible.
Speaker 2: It could be that some liqued successor to Netsa naw
Speaker 2: who are somebody who's like him, actually does end up
Speaker 2: prevailing in intelection, none of the baggage, same hardline policy,
Speaker 2: very very possible for the future.
Speaker 1: So right after October seventh, both Benny Gantz and yay
Speaker 1: Are Lapede, who is like the opposition leader, were approached
Speaker 1: about joining this you know, temporary war cabinet government, and
Speaker 1: Gants demanded that the far right, most far right Psychosmotrich
Speaker 1: and ben Gevere were h They didn't have to be
Speaker 1: pushed out of government entirely, but they couldn't be part
Speaker 1: of the war cabinet, and Lapede had a more more
Speaker 1: hardline position of these guys can't be involved in all
Speaker 1: and that's my condition, and Nanna who said no, and
Speaker 1: so yeah, you're Lapede remained outside of the war cabinet government.
Speaker 1: I read a Haretz analysis that basically, you know, really said,
Speaker 1: Benny Gantz has sort of propped up Netanyahu here, has
Speaker 1: really given him a legitimacy that he didn't deserve, and
Speaker 1: gave him a sort of grace with the public that
Speaker 1: allowed him to persist in this role for this long. Now.
Speaker 1: The counterside of that would be while Gants pressured for
Speaker 1: you know, the original ceasefire deal that led to you know,
Speaker 1: very brief pause in hostilities and the release of a
Speaker 1: certain number of hostages, and perhaps if Gance hadn't been
Speaker 1: in the war cabinet, maybe that wouldn't have happened. Perhaps,
Speaker 1: but there were other pressures on NETANYAHUO at that point
Speaker 1: as well. So that's some of the Israeli domestic debate,
Speaker 1: to the extent that there's a moderate coalition in Israel.
Speaker 1: They basically feel that Beny Gance stayed far too long
Speaker 1: and perhaps shouldn't have ever taken part in this to
Speaker 1: begin with. So, as I mentioned before in Sagio alluded to,
Speaker 1: it can put us up on the screen Tony Blank
Speaker 1: and State Department. Our Secretary of State will arrive in
Speaker 1: Israel today and meet with Gance and Netan Yahoo. The
Speaker 1: US is also pushing this supposedly Israeli cease fire deal
Speaker 1: that of course now Israel is not willing to actually
Speaker 1: back some resolution through the UN Security Council, so the
Speaker 1: US is sort of working on pushing that through the
Speaker 1: UN Security Council. There's a lot of questions over it
Speaker 1: appears that the hostage deal isn't really moving anywhere anyway.
Speaker 1: So I'm seeing all these headlines that are like Beny
Speaker 1: Gance leaving the government complicates the hostage cease fire negotiations.
Speaker 1: And I don't really know that that's the case, because
Speaker 1: it doesn't appear that they're actually really moving anyway. So
Speaker 1: if anything, maybe it shakes it up, maybe it shakes
Speaker 1: something loose. I don't know. We can put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen. Also about the domestic political reaction from
Speaker 1: significant Israeli political figures. Netanyahu molds dissolving the war Cabinet,
Speaker 1: Ben Gavier is demanding a seat at the table. We've
Speaker 1: got Bibi putting out this strange tweet. In my opinion,
Speaker 1: cryptic doesn't actually mention Benny Gance, but this is let's
Speaker 1: clearly who's this is about. He says, Israel is in
Speaker 1: an existential war on several fronts. My son, this is
Speaker 1: not the time to abandon the campaign. This is the
Speaker 1: time to join forces citizens of Israel. We will continue
Speaker 1: until victory and the achievement of all the goals of
Speaker 1: the war, primarily the release of all our hostages and
Speaker 1: the elimination of Hamas. My door will remain open to
Speaker 1: any Zionist party that is ready to get under the stretcher.
Speaker 1: And this is by the way the Google translates, so
Speaker 1: I don't know the reason it seems weird, might be
Speaker 1: because of the Googol translation, but anyway, ready to get
Speaker 1: under the stretcher and assist in bringing victory over our
Speaker 1: enemies and ensuring the safety of our citizens. We've got
Speaker 1: opposition leader Yayer Lapide saying Gansas and Eisenkott's decision will
Speaker 1: leave the failed government is important and correct. The time
Speaker 1: has come to replace this extreme and reckless government with
Speaker 1: a sane government. That will lead to the return of
Speaker 1: security to the citizens of Israel, the return of the hostages,
Speaker 1: to the restoration of Israel's economy and international status. So
Speaker 1: this is the primary opposition leader to Netnyaho. Of course,
Speaker 1: he's very interested in elections sooner rather than later. And
Speaker 1: then you have National Security Minister Itamar ben Gavir. Put
Speaker 1: this next one up on the screen. He says, as
Speaker 1: a minister in the government, chairman of a party, and
Speaker 1: a senior partner in the coalition, I hereby demand to
Speaker 1: join this cabinet in order to be a partner in
Speaker 1: determining Israel's security policy in the current times. It's time
Speaker 1: to make brave decisions. So one of the most psychotic
Speaker 1: members of the Netnyahu coalition now asking to be included
Speaker 1: in the war cabinet. At the same time, we can
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen in terms of I
Speaker 1: alluded to this before. Where we are with the ceasefire negotiations,
Speaker 1: washing post headliness bye, Biden's urging ces fire deal shows
Speaker 1: no progress. As I alluded to before, they're pushing this
Speaker 1: UN Security Council resolution. Whether that gets through, whether that
Speaker 1: makes a difference, I don't know. Seems kind of unlikely,
Speaker 1: but they're reporting here, they say. More than a week
Speaker 1: after President Biden declared a decisive moment in the eight
Speaker 1: month Israel Gaza war and besieged both sides to quickly
Speaker 1: approve a US back ceasefire deal, there is dwindling evidence
Speaker 1: that either has bought what he is selling. Despite Biden's
Speaker 1: personal and very public urging, his dispatch of senior administration
Speaker 1: officials to the region, the drafting of a new UN
Speaker 1: Security Council resolution, and the marshaling of allies to join
Speaker 1: in a course of approval, neither Israel nor Hamas appear
Speaker 1: to have budged on their wide divergence over the proposed
Speaker 1: roadmap to permanently end the war in Gaza. Israel's successful
Speaker 1: rescue forour hostages early Saturday, while welcomed my further complicated
Speaker 1: administration efforts bolstering Prime Minister Ntnia, whose insistence on a
Speaker 1: full military victory and release of all remaining Hamas led
Speaker 1: hostages before Israel's guns are silenced. So the big divide
Speaker 1: in terms of a ceasefire is basically Hamas once the
Speaker 1: war to end in Israel bb Nagna, who does not
Speaker 1: want the.
Speaker 3: War to end.
Speaker 1: So that has been a fairly unbridgeable divide for some
Speaker 1: time now. Biden tried to put pressure on through this
Speaker 1: big speech that he gave and you know, rhetoric effectively,
Speaker 1: but Soger once again appears that he is set up
Speaker 1: for a massive humiliation here because he's unwilling to actually
Speaker 1: use the tools and levers that the US government has
Speaker 1: outside of his own rhetoric, which clearly has been insufficient.
Speaker 2: It reminds me a lot of the Obama administration's handling
Speaker 2: of Syria. It was very similar. It was very haphazard.
Speaker 2: It was all over the place. They would try inspect ceasefires,
Speaker 2: they'd try and inspect grand bargains. At the same time
Speaker 2: we had our own radical what were they called moderate
Speaker 2: rebel policy.
Speaker 3: It was just like a failure.
Speaker 2: Oh but also Asad can't use chemic weapons, but also
Speaker 2: if he does, maybe, but also maybe he didn't. It's
Speaker 2: just it's a like a just complete incompetence. And that
Speaker 2: really is a lot of the same characters are involved, literally,
Speaker 2: Brett McGirk and others who are the ones jet setting.
Speaker 2: Anthony Blincoln was in the State Department at that time,
Speaker 2: and they seem to just re recreating that policy. They're
Speaker 2: banking everything on this ceasefire agreement, which neither side particularly
Speaker 2: seems like they want to do, and they also are
Speaker 2: banking everything on this very bizarre Saudi normalization deal. Arguably,
Speaker 2: that Saudi deal is going to be the most important
Speaker 2: thing that could come out of this, because they're effectively
Speaker 2: going to give the Saudi is an extension of non
Speaker 2: NATO major ally status and security guarantee the entire country,
Speaker 2: which is insane, just so everybody understands, and change of
Speaker 2: our policy to the region almost dramatically escalates, you know,
Speaker 2: US involvement and basically ties US to two countries in
Speaker 2: the Middle East, as opposed to just kind of trying
Speaker 2: at least to be above traditionally is what we always
Speaker 2: tried to do. We always usually wanted a balance of
Speaker 2: power approach here. We would explicitly align ourselves in legal
Speaker 2: fashion with a single nation and then almost guarantee some
Speaker 2: sort of confrontation with Iran coming down the title. Of course,
Speaker 2: that's you know what a lot of people in this
Speaker 2: town want, so don't put that past them. But there's
Speaker 2: a lot of very consequential stuff that's happening here. I
Speaker 2: do think if netshen Yahu is replaced, even with somebody
Speaker 2: like Dance. Look, you may not like the policy whenever
Speaker 2: it comes to Gaza, but internationally I do think there
Speaker 2: would be a mayor change. I think some sort of
Speaker 2: like ceasepile and or hostage deal seems a lot more likely.
Speaker 2: Those guys Netsion Yahu is basically dead, you know, his
Speaker 2: future is very uncertain for them. It's not the same,
Speaker 2: you know, they don't have all the baggage of the past.
Speaker 2: They want to try and they can see. They're not
Speaker 2: stupid for what the future looks like for the nation.
Speaker 2: They want to dig themselves out of that hole. So
Speaker 2: in a way, I think that against Lapee led government,
Speaker 2: anything like that would be a dramatic improvement, you know,
Speaker 2: for Israeli policy going forward.
Speaker 1: The difference is again neither as opposed to the war.
Speaker 1: Neither has any issue with the you know, massacres that
Speaker 1: have been committed and the fact that Gaza has been
Speaker 1: effectively annihilated, reduced to rubble, the massive number of deaths
Speaker 1: and civilians who've been killed. None of them have any
Speaker 1: issue with that, you know who, though faces pressure from
Speaker 1: the far right, I mean the literal terrorists who are
Speaker 1: in his government, and so he is constantly trying to
Speaker 1: split the difference between you know, maintaining some acceptability to
Speaker 1: the you know what is the Israeli mainstream and these
Speaker 1: you know, really hardline I think very fair to say,
Speaker 1: fascist individuals that are in his government. And so that's
Speaker 1: where he is pressured, which is why you know, you
Speaker 1: see him, you'll hear him say things that can be
Speaker 1: directly contradictory depending on the time. Benny Gantz and Yayr
Speaker 1: Lapede are more likely to be influenced by the public
Speaker 1: that's on the side of we just got to get
Speaker 1: the hostage.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and more like you know, the traditional secular coalition
Speaker 2: of Israel.
Speaker 1: Right exactly. And so there is we've covered the polls
Speaker 1: here again. The Israeli public, Israeli Jews have no issue
Speaker 1: with the horrors that have been inflicted by the idea.
Speaker 1: If you have a number who say, hey, I haven't
Speaker 1: gone far enough, you only have four percent who say
Speaker 1: they've gone too far, So that's not where the pressure lies. However,
Speaker 1: we have also seen polling that says there is a
Speaker 1: clear majority in favor of prioritizing the release of the
Speaker 1: hostages over this fantasy of complete elimination of Hamas. And
Speaker 1: so if you had a Lapede or a Gance who
Speaker 1: had more power, they would be pressured war by that.
Speaker 1: Public sentiment and public opinion could lead to a different outcome.
Speaker 1: But I mean, Nanayahu shows no signs of calling new elections.
Speaker 1: There's no imminent sign that his government is going to
Speaker 1: collapse and force his hand there. So he's a wily guy,
Speaker 1: and you know, with his political life on the line,
Speaker 1: and also, by the way, facing corruption charges that could
Speaker 1: literally land him in prison. At this point, he seems
Speaker 1: to be hanging in there, and he's thinking, hey, you know,
Speaker 1: as friendly as Biden's been towards me, I can I can.
Speaker 1: If I can hang in there through the November elections,
Speaker 1: Trump will be an even greater buddy to me and
Speaker 1: go along with whatever I want to do. So I
Speaker 1: think that's a calculation for him at the point.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't bet against him.
Speaker 2: I think I also think I'd probably give him fifty
Speaker 2: percent chance of survival. But that's a lot less than
Speaker 2: has been in the future. Ye see, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, things are definitely shaking up there and it
Speaker 2: will go in two directions, are either going to lose
Speaker 2: in the center left slash center right will take power,
Speaker 2: or he will remain in power by making common cause
Speaker 2: with you know, much more of the far Israeli right either,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean both, and that's the thing, let's
Speaker 2: not diminish it. It will have still a major consequences
Speaker 2: for foreign policy. If that latter case I just describe
Speaker 2: takes it, you know, cease fires not only off the table,
Speaker 2: just won't care anymore.
Speaker 3: They won't even pretend, you know, to look at it.
Speaker 2: In terms of west Bank too, there could be a
Speaker 2: lot of different changes. While aganst government is going to
Speaker 2: handle that very very differently going going forward, and it's
Speaker 2: going to be a lot more receptive to US pressure
Speaker 2: and like I guess public management of Israeli perception in
Speaker 2: the future with the European Union with the US.
Speaker 3: So they have a choice and we'll see which way.
Speaker 1: And BB hasn't really tried to even like put a
Speaker 1: reasonable face. Yeah he does the horors they're inflicting, whereas
Speaker 1: Gance may go to greater lengths to sort of, you know,
Speaker 1: provide some sort of cover for what.
Speaker 3: They're the war.
Speaker 2: It's very possible I mean, you know, you know, in
Speaker 2: a lot of ways, you can look at it like this.
Speaker 2: They're like, look, the Ratha thing, it's not gonna happen.
Speaker 2: Our partners are broadly like not really with us. We
Speaker 2: could just sign this ceasefire deal we call it when
Speaker 2: you know, we just move on and then there'll be
Speaker 2: some whatever, some humanitarian the blaming aid trucks, et cetera.
Speaker 3: It's I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but none of that's coming anytime soon.
Speaker 3: No, I don't do it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the bottom line. Okay, let's move on to
Speaker 1: this hostage rescue slash massacre that occurred over the weekend.
Speaker 1: We can put this up on the screen. One woman,
Speaker 1: this is Noah Arkhamani, who was captured at that Nova
Speaker 1: Music festival, and she really became quite famous because there
Speaker 1: was some horrifying video of her being captured and taken
Speaker 1: away crying out for her boyfriend. This is one of
Speaker 1: the other male hostages who was released. But as part
Speaker 1: of this quote unquote rescue mission, you had just an
Speaker 1: absolute massacre, one of the deadliest days that we have
Speaker 1: had in this entire Gaza war. You can see here
Speaker 1: the rubble. You can see dead bodies, you can see
Speaker 1: the injured, and reports are that from the Health Ministry
Speaker 1: that two hundred and seventy four Palestinians were killed in
Speaker 1: this effort to rescue the four hostages. We can put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. From the Financial Times, they
Speaker 1: have some more details about what occurred. Their headline here
Speaker 1: Israel's raid to free hostages takes a horrific toll on
Speaker 1: central Gaza. Hundreds of Palestinians killed and injured, and gun
Speaker 1: battles and bombardment that accompanied the operation. I'll read you
Speaker 1: a little bit of this again so you can get
Speaker 1: some of the details. The raid which freed those four
Speaker 1: hostages was a boost, they write for Netnyahu's government, which
Speaker 1: has spent the last week arguing whether to agree to
Speaker 1: a US backed plan to end the fighting. But the
Speaker 1: devastating firepower used by Israeli forces also made June eighth
Speaker 1: the deadliest day for Gazans in months, with Enclave's Health
Speaker 1: Ministry saying the raid, which was accompanied by gun battles
Speaker 1: any fierce bombardment, had killed two hundred and seventy four
Speaker 1: Palestines and injured six hundred and ninety eight One medical
Speaker 1: chief described the horrific scenes in his hospital after the raid.
Speaker 1: The director of the Alaximarder's hospital said, they came with
Speaker 1: horrific injuries, torn lower limbs or upper limbs, some with
Speaker 1: broken skulls, their brains pouring out, some shot in the abdomen.
Speaker 1: Indian testines. There are women, children, the elderly. Houses have
Speaker 1: been destroyed and families wiped out. I also wanted to
Speaker 1: note from that article you had the chief Israeli military spokesman,
Speaker 1: Daniel Hagari, because this is giving credence to those on
Speaker 1: the net Nyahu side of the equation who say, hey,
Speaker 1: we don't need a cease fire, even though that's the
Speaker 1: way that obviously the largest number of hostages were released
Speaker 1: by far, and overall Israel has still killed far more
Speaker 1: hostages through their military operations than they have rescued. But
Speaker 1: it's giving credence to this idea of oh no, we
Speaker 1: don't need a cease fire deal. We can just you know,
Speaker 1: we can just do this again and just you know,
Speaker 1: massacre hundreds of Palestinians to rescue the rest of the hostages.
Speaker 1: But Daniel Hagari, even the Israeli military spokesman rejects that view, saying,
Speaker 1: we know that we cannot do operations to rescue all
Speaker 1: of them because the conditions won't allow it. We saw
Speaker 1: already that what brought the biggest number of hostages home
Speaker 1: was a deal. There is no argument about that. And
Speaker 1: so Sagar, I mean, you know, it's one more instance
Speaker 1: where it's just very clear in terms of the US
Speaker 1: political elite, certainly the Israeli political elite, but with our
Speaker 1: own political elite, that Palestinian lives just don't count the
Speaker 1: same way that Israeli lives do, you know? To celebrate
Speaker 1: this mission and listen, I think the hostages should be released.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm happy for these hostages that they are
Speaker 1: home with their families, but at the cost of hundreds
Speaker 1: of Palestinians, this is celebrated as a victory. And you know,
Speaker 1: a thousand dead and injured war that are trapped under
Speaker 1: the rubble and this is considered a victory. I mean,
Speaker 1: it just shows you how grotesque the immorality around this
Speaker 1: has become.
Speaker 2: I look, I think it's a tragedy, but this is
Speaker 2: a complicated one because this is one where they actually
Speaker 2: did achieve militarily what they had sought to now listen.
Speaker 3: I will say this, the.
Speaker 2: US military does not conduct operations this way. They would
Speaker 2: never have pulled the trigger. The circumstances are a little
Speaker 2: bit difficult because what happened is is that the vast
Speaker 2: majority of the debts occurred after they had stormed the
Speaker 2: apartment building and then apparently the vehicle that the Israelis
Speaker 2: were in and broke down. They were getting fired on
Speaker 2: by RPG, so they called an air support. Basically, clear
Speaker 2: out the road, take the hostages out, take them to
Speaker 2: the helicopter.
Speaker 3: I agree.
Speaker 2: I mean it's an absolute tragedy, the number of civilians
Speaker 2: killed here.
Speaker 3: It also was intentionally placed.
Speaker 2: I just think militarily, this is a very different operation
Speaker 2: then let's saying carpet bombing the crap out of a
Speaker 2: refugee camp and saying, well, we hit a single terrorist.
Speaker 2: It was genuinely was in port of a rescue like
Speaker 2: hostage mission. You could see a Western operation like the
Speaker 2: US something like this go down in a similar situation
Speaker 2: where our guys get bogged down, the hostages are there,
Speaker 2: the vehicle that they're in, you have to call in
Speaker 2: air support. At that point it is a matter of
Speaker 2: life and death. I just think this one is is
Speaker 2: a little bit different.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. No, it is they bombed a
Speaker 1: rotted marketplace in the middle of the day.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean they're there.
Speaker 1: Hundreds, nearly three hundred Palestinians murdered to rescue four people.
Speaker 1: You're right, I mean, on the one hand, our military
Speaker 1: would not have green lent this operation. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: we were actually involved in some capacity. According to the
Speaker 1: New York Times, there was an American role team of
Speaker 1: the US Hostage Recovery Official station in Israel assisted in
Speaker 1: the Israeli military's effort by providing intelligence and other support.
Speaker 1: But going back to your I mean, if you had
Speaker 1: imagine Omar Badar, I'm taking this from me, he made
Speaker 1: this calming Ynswery. I think it's so important if you
Speaker 1: had Hamas massacre close to three hundred Israelis to rescue
Speaker 1: four of their prisoners. By the way, Israel holds thousands
Speaker 1: of Palestinian hostages, no one would accept that. No one
Speaker 1: would accept that them going into massacring and as the kids, women,
Speaker 1: civilians in a busy, crowded marketplace, taking out entire multi
Speaker 1: story apartment buildings to get four people. No one would
Speaker 1: look at that math and say that that's acceptable. So
Speaker 1: why is it acceptable when it's Israeli.
Speaker 3: I would flip it around and say, I think you're
Speaker 3: making a media point. I don't even disagree with you.
Speaker 2: I mean, obviously people in the media cut like a
Speaker 2: lot more slack. But I mean, each any nation, group, etc.
Speaker 2: Has the ultimate responsibility to look out for its own
Speaker 2: troops and for its own people.
Speaker 3: In this particular case, their people are at risk.
Speaker 1: They also have a responsibility to follow the laws of war. Wow,
Speaker 1: which means listen. Hamas held these hostages in residential areas.
Speaker 1: That is a war crime. Yes, that does not alleviate
Speaker 1: the responsibility of Israel or any other nation to take
Speaker 1: precautions when it comes to civilians. The fact that Hamas
Speaker 1: does something wrong doesn't give you a get out of
Speaker 1: jail free pass. And that's the way that they've acted.
Speaker 1: That's the entire justification for this entire genocide. They did
Speaker 1: bad things, they committed war crimes on October seven. True,
Speaker 1: So that gives us a green light to do whatever
Speaker 1: the hell we want to do and not care one
Speaker 1: bit about Palestinian civilians. I mean, this was the deadliest
Speaker 1: day we've seen in Gaza in months. It's wholly unjustifiable,
Speaker 1: especially given the context that there is a deal on
Speaker 1: the table to rescue all of the hostages without killing
Speaker 1: a single Palestinian civilian. So if beaming at Yahoo and
Speaker 1: the rest of the military establishment and these far right
Speaker 1: goons actually care about the hostages, then they would agree
Speaker 1: to the ceasefire deal that they supposedly put forward themselves.
Speaker 1: So it's no, it's not justifiable. And they also, let's
Speaker 1: put this piece up on the screen. They also, as
Speaker 1: part of this disguise combatants in civilian clothing. This is
Speaker 1: a picture, by the way, this isn't fully verified, but
Speaker 1: this is the image that was floating around of this
Speaker 1: civilian vehicle AID truck. This is a helicopter that landed
Speaker 1: right by the quote unquote humanitarian peer. The US is saying, oh, no,
Speaker 1: we had nothing to do with it. You know, we
Speaker 1: didn't use the peer, et cetera, et cetera. But that
Speaker 1: helicopter is literally right next to the pier. So you
Speaker 1: make of that what you will. But put this next
Speaker 1: piece up on the screen. This is from ken Roth.
Speaker 1: Disguising combatants in civilian clothing to commit hostilities constitutes perfidy.
Speaker 1: That is a war crime. And this is not from
Speaker 1: you know, Palestinian sources, which nobody seems to believe. This
Speaker 1: is from Israeli news sources. Israel's rescue team reportedly enter
Speaker 1: the area in a furniture truck driven by a female
Speaker 1: soldier in civilian clothes. There's a good reason why this
Speaker 1: is a war crime, which is if you're using civilian trucks,
Speaker 1: if you're using especially humanitarian AID trucks, think of how
Speaker 1: much danger AID workers have already been in in this conflict.
Speaker 1: So now you're basically putting an even greater target on
Speaker 1: their back because there's a suspicion now if you see
Speaker 1: an AID truck that it could be idea of soldiers
Speaker 1: coming in to commit another massacre. So that's why that's
Speaker 1: considered a war crime.
Speaker 3: But this is where I just disagree.
Speaker 2: It's like, well, then all you know US special operations
Speaker 2: are quote unquote a war crime.
Speaker 3: It's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: I mean, our people are talking about, well, you think
Speaker 2: we haven't sent CIA agents and Delta Force operatives disguised
Speaker 2: in civilian garb to go smash and grab or like
Speaker 2: rescue our own hostages or rescue West.
Speaker 1: Of course, a truck in an AID truck AID truck.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree, I wouldn't do it. Obviously these realized
Speaker 2: you're going to be doing different things. But this is
Speaker 2: what I'm saying about the whole discourse run quote unquote,
Speaker 2: war crime, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Like it's a lot of it is just a farce.
Speaker 2: It's not the way that people actually operate in a
Speaker 2: military environment.
Speaker 1: I think, not the way they operate in a military environment.
Speaker 1: But the reason that we have it is that we
Speaker 1: have language to talk about why it is wrong and
Speaker 1: why it should be out of bounds, and so that
Speaker 1: there is some way to put pressure and not just
Speaker 1: out well might read. I mean, they can murder people,
Speaker 1: so why not let's just look the other I guess
Speaker 1: it's fine. They got four people, so, you know, killing
Speaker 1: three hundred and injuring another seven hundred, reducing another entire
Speaker 1: neighborhood to reubele. I guess it's fine because they can
Speaker 1: do it.
Speaker 2: No, it's that Look, at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: they were also under like a huge amount of fire.
Speaker 2: This was a very different environment they're under RPG.
Speaker 1: So if you want the hostages back, do the ceasefire.
Speaker 1: G Yeah, I agree, you don't have to murder a
Speaker 1: single Palestinian. There don't have to be little kids with
Speaker 1: their limbs blown off and getting amputations with no anesthetic
Speaker 1: and no mom and no dad, and by the way,
Speaker 1: you know, a lot of hatred in their hearts and
Speaker 1: God knows what they're going to want to do when
Speaker 1: they grow up.
Speaker 2: I agree that I wouldn't operate this way, but I
Speaker 2: just think this is very, very substantively different than a
Speaker 2: lot of the carpet bombing operation that we've seen all
Speaker 2: throughout Gods, or the intentional withholding of humanitarian aid, et cetera.
Speaker 2: But like, are we really going to say that operators
Speaker 2: are allowed to go into a war environment and not
Speaker 2: you know, be.
Speaker 1: In humanitarian aid trucks?
Speaker 2: Yes, Look, I'm just not going to say that because
Speaker 2: given the fact that any US citizen or others who
Speaker 2: are if I ever get you know, abducted, do whatever
Speaker 2: you need in order to get me back.
Speaker 3: And I think that's all a lot of do do
Speaker 3: with ceasfire deal.
Speaker 1: Well, c that's the thing, you're pretending like this was
Speaker 1: the only option, murdering three hundred people and injuring seven
Speaker 1: hundred others, that that was the only no. And by
Speaker 1: the way, guess what the reports are from the Health
Speaker 1: Ministry that other hostages were killed, including potentially an American citizen.
Speaker 1: That's possible unconfirmed report. Okay, that's not confirmed. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: we do know that. What we had a quote from
Speaker 1: Israeli hostages, just one of the ones that just released,
Speaker 1: who was talking to ha Retz who said, our greatest
Speaker 1: fear was the idea of bombing that we heard. So
Speaker 1: don't talk to me about you know, this is fine
Speaker 1: because it got the hostages back. No, if you care
Speaker 1: about the hostages, do the ceasefire deal. That's what Betty Gantz,
Speaker 1: who you know, I'm no fan of. That's what he's saying.
Speaker 1: That's what the Israeli public is demanding. That's what the
Speaker 1: protests are all about. That's, by the way, even what
Speaker 1: the Israeli military Mary spokes for some Daniel Hagari is saying,
Speaker 1: like this is not sustainable. The way to get the
Speaker 1: hostages back isn't to murder little kids. It's to do
Speaker 1: a ceasfire deal and end this war. So no, I
Speaker 1: don't think it's excusable. And if you look at the
Speaker 1: look at past historical examples, of successful hostage rescue missions.
Speaker 1: There was a thread that somebody put out online. I
Speaker 1: wish you had it in front of me, but you'll
Speaker 1: see like zero civilians killed, zero, maybe three civilians killed,
Speaker 1: two hundred and seventy. No, it's not proportionate. It's not acceptable,
Speaker 1: especially again when there is a deal on the table
Speaker 1: that could bring all the hostages home and not require
Speaker 1: a single death.
Speaker 2: I don't disagree that they should take the ceasefire deal.
Speaker 2: I agree the US military never would have done this.
Speaker 2: We have how much higher level of professionalism, thank god,
Speaker 2: in terms of the people that we run. Our substantive
Speaker 2: disagreement is about the idea that you're not allowed to
Speaker 2: use like military force in the course of a hostage
Speaker 2: rescue mission.
Speaker 1: Which did I say that no? But I didn't say
Speaker 1: that no, son, How is that a disagreement?
Speaker 3: But that's what happened.
Speaker 1: Three hundred people killed is unaccepted.
Speaker 2: In the middle of that operation, their car broke down
Speaker 2: because they were getting RPGs and machine guns fired at them,
Speaker 2: and they called in air support. That the exact same
Speaker 2: thing that any Western style military would do.
Speaker 3: In the exacts.
Speaker 1: They provided cover and bombing on the way in and
Speaker 1: the way out. They did it during the day when
Speaker 1: there was a busy marketplace there, and that's how so
Speaker 1: many civilians were murdered. Not to mention, they took out
Speaker 1: multiple residential buildings, not just the two that the hostages
Speaker 1: were being held in. Not to mention, very possible that
Speaker 1: they killed their own hostages in this operation. So no,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't have done it. It's not acceptable. We have
Speaker 1: also committed workers. I'm not like excusing us and pretending
Speaker 1: like we're angels, but I just don't see how you
Speaker 1: look at this and say this was this was fine,
Speaker 1: this was acceptable. Well, it seems to me, what's you're arguing.
Speaker 2: I think it is substantively different than many of the
Speaker 2: other things that have been committed on.
Speaker 1: Would they say the same thing they said, Oh, well,
Speaker 1: we've bu on the refugee, we got a Hamas batty,
Speaker 1: so it's fine, we accomplished our military goals.
Speaker 2: How is this different because they were in the middle
Speaker 2: of our rescue operation?
Speaker 3: This literally is different.
Speaker 1: Insanely disproportionate. Insanely disproportionate. I mean, it's just it's outrageous
Speaker 1: to say that it's acceptable to have three hundred dead
Speaker 1: to rescue four people when you could get them all
Speaker 1: of the hostages and protect all of the hostages who
Speaker 1: are again at risk because of the idea bombing operation
Speaker 1: without killing a single person. I just, I mean, I
Speaker 1: just can't agree with with this whatsoever.
Speaker 2: The reason that I'm pushing back Crystal is because of
Speaker 2: exactly like the ken Roth rhetoric, this idea that you know,
Speaker 2: you're never.
Speaker 3: Like you can't dress in civilian garb.
Speaker 2: I mean, I just think at a certain point we
Speaker 2: all need to stop living in a fantasy land where
Speaker 2: everybody is just going to be abiding by the laws
Speaker 2: of war.
Speaker 1: We're not living in a fantasy. We're living in a nightmare. Yeah,
Speaker 1: people in Gaza are living a hell on earth. And
Speaker 1: so it's disgusting to me that we have US politicians
Speaker 1: who claim this as a victory when again, if the
Speaker 1: shoe was on the other foot and it was four
Speaker 1: Palestinian hostages who were rescued in an operation that killed
Speaker 1: hundreds of Israelis, no one would say that was okay,
Speaker 1: And it wouldn't be okay. I wouldn't say it was okay.
Speaker 1: But because Palestinians are so dehumanized and considered so inconsequential,
Speaker 1: it's just fine to wave your hand as it's fine
Speaker 1: for it to be collateral damaged.
Speaker 2: As I said, I think you're arguing against media personalities,
Speaker 2: which I don't even necessarily disagree with what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: And honestly, though, if I was looking at it from
Speaker 2: a Hamas perspective, I was Palestinian and four of our
Speaker 2: guys need to be rescued, and then people were shooting
Speaker 2: it of the people who are going to go rescue them,
Speaker 2: and you did whatever a token order to get them out,
Speaker 2: I'd be like, yeah, I mean, I'm not saying that's
Speaker 2: a good thing, but if I was in their position,
Speaker 2: I'd probably do the exact same thing. Most rational nation
Speaker 2: states and or military groups would do that.
Speaker 3: Now, it's not true.
Speaker 1: You just said that we wouldn't do it. No, well,
Speaker 1: you just said we wouldn't do it, Tager.
Speaker 2: You would not plan an operation this way. But if
Speaker 2: we found ourselves in a situation.
Speaker 1: Then point to the people where we did something. It's
Speaker 1: been a long time I went to a single example. No,
Speaker 1: Klen Again, I think I'm not saying we're perfect, right,
Speaker 1: we commit war crimes. Also, I've been very critical, but
Speaker 1: you can't say any rational nations state would do it,
Speaker 1: and also say we never would have done No.
Speaker 2: I said, we wouldn't plan a military operation this way,
Speaker 2: but incessarily in a similar circumstance though if our people
Speaker 2: were under fire in the middle of a hostage rescue
Speaker 2: mission there was no other way to get out. Absolutely
Speaker 2: US military would probably pull the trigger in the same way.
Speaker 1: But you can't point to an example where it's happened.
Speaker 2: Well, it's been I mean, I said, I don't even
Speaker 2: know the last time I had a major rescue operation.
Speaker 2: I want to say it was Kayla Mueller with under
Speaker 2: Ice I was almost I think seven eight years ago.
Speaker 3: Since the last time.
Speaker 2: Now we've operated in a very different environment, I can't
Speaker 2: necessarily say the same thing. I think, again, we have
Speaker 2: a much higher level of professionalism and conduct than the
Speaker 2: way that they could the way that they execute military operations.
Speaker 2: But the disagreement, as I said, is both about the
Speaker 2: difference in the way that they're quote unquote killing terrorists
Speaker 2: and terrorizing the population as opposed to a single thing.
Speaker 2: And my big disagreement is with a lot of this
Speaker 2: idea that you know that we're just supposed to condict
Speaker 2: military operations in some sort of world where everybody just
Speaker 2: abides by the laws of war.
Speaker 3: It's not like they weren't getting shot at bombed by Yeah.
Speaker 1: That we should avoid at times. I think we should
Speaker 1: avoid massacrering hundreds of innocent civilians. Okay. And by the way,
Speaker 1: there's a hostage deal on the table. And by the way,
Speaker 1: this puts hostages further at risk, and by the way,
Speaker 1: its fuels the hatred that will lead to more terrorism
Speaker 1: in the future. This was a political play for bb
Speaker 1: Netanyahoo in order to keep his grip on power at
Speaker 1: the expense of a thousand Palestinians between the dead and
Speaker 1: the injured. Okay, there was nothing justifiable about it, and
Speaker 1: I think it is a disgusting worldview that just dismisses
Speaker 1: this level of quote unquote collateral damage as being acceptable
Speaker 1: in any context.
Speaker 3: We move on, okay, but this is what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: You can't just say it's a disgusting world viehica. Then
Speaker 3: there's no operation.
Speaker 2: Ever where the right of self defense or military hostage
Speaker 2: rescue can happen under this.
Speaker 3: It's just not.
Speaker 1: True.
Speaker 2: The contrue I'm talking to a bigger generality, which, look,
Speaker 2: I have not disagreed that there shouldn't be a Ceaspire deal.
Speaker 2: But like, I'm sorry, this is just a that is
Speaker 2: frankly a pie in the sky like worldview where everybody
Speaker 2: signs contion.
Speaker 1: You know what, and the realities I would like to
Speaker 1: live in, but I acknowledge I don't live in that world.
Speaker 1: But even acknowledging the imperfect, imperfect world we live in,
Speaker 1: you also have to admit that our military wouldn't have
Speaker 1: greenlit this operation. That you can't point to another hostage
Speaker 1: rescue mission that led to hundreds of deaths, and so
Speaker 1: to pretend like this is all fine and good and
Speaker 1: just in the normal course of operations, No, this is
Speaker 1: outrageously side of what the world has looked like and
Speaker 1: what quote unquote rational nation state actors, including our own
Speaker 1: very imperfect country, has done in the past.
Speaker 3: No what again, Like I'm just going to reiterate, like
Speaker 3: it is.
Speaker 2: It really does come down to what it was going
Speaker 2: to look like in the context of an actual military operation.
Speaker 2: Whenever you're literally rescuing hostages, a vehicle breaks down, it's like,
Speaker 2: what are you supposed to do? You know you're going
Speaker 2: to die or you're going to You're going to get
Speaker 2: your way out. There actually is a zero sum game.
Speaker 2: Whenever it comes down, you're supposed to get a back situation.
Speaker 1: You are supposed to protect civilians. You are supposed to
Speaker 1: if you are a soldier, guess what part of your
Speaker 1: responsibility is to risk your life to protect civilians.
Speaker 3: Agree with that?
Speaker 1: Okay, well that's not what happened here. Okay, so no,
Speaker 1: but and again, don't green light such a dangerous operation
Speaker 1: to start with if it's going to potentially lead to
Speaker 1: hundreds of deaths, and if you care about the hostages,
Speaker 1: do the cease fire deal. So I just you know,
Speaker 1: on every level, I find it outrageous that is considered
Speaker 1: in any way justifiable or acceptable.
Speaker 2: I agree that the ceasefire deal should happen, and in
Speaker 2: some ways I think we're almost tooken past each other.
Speaker 2: But I guess where I really my major objection comes
Speaker 2: down to is a lot of the worldview that is
Speaker 2: put forward, I would say by a progressive left in
Speaker 2: the context of this conflict just leaves no room for
Speaker 2: like a military to operate, and in a military to
Speaker 2: operate in a manner which I think is quote unquote justifiable,
Speaker 2: not necessarily saying in this particular instance. What I mean
Speaker 2: by that is hostage rescues, the ability to conduct war.
Speaker 3: You know this idea that you're not supposed to disguise yourself.
Speaker 1: At this point, I mean it's listen. The official number
Speaker 1: is close to forty thousand dead. We both know it's
Speaker 1: probably far more.
Speaker 3: It's probably one hundred thousand.
Speaker 1: When we know that more bombs have been dropped on
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip than World War Two, The devastation is more
Speaker 1: extensive than dressed in right, When we know you have
Speaker 1: the largest population of child amputees in the world, When
Speaker 1: we know that starvation has been used as a tool
Speaker 1: of war, When we know that our political class, and
Speaker 1: the Israeli political class, and the entire Israeli society, with
Speaker 1: very few extremely brave exceptions, so trivializes Palestinian lives, that
Speaker 1: hundreds of Palestines being murdered to rescue four people is
Speaker 1: considered acceptable, when we have seen what's happen over all
Speaker 1: these months. How are you going to criticize the progressive
Speaker 1: left or whatever terminology you use for saying that this
Speaker 1: is unacceptable? Listen, I was never someone who said that
Speaker 1: there was absolutely no room for any sort of military
Speaker 1: operation in the wake of October seven. But as we've
Speaker 1: discussed from the beginning, the way they've gone about it
Speaker 1: from the jump has been unacceptable from their own national
Speaker 1: security interests and certainly from the interests of respecting any
Speaker 1: sort of humanitarian and lives of Palestinians. I mean, you
Speaker 1: have people who are starving to deuv you' a famine,
Speaker 1: you have humanitarian aid is completely blocked, you have an
Speaker 1: entire hospital system that is completely decimated. And so to
Speaker 1: say it's been unreasonable to object to the way that
Speaker 1: this war has been conducted, I just I find not
Speaker 1: completely outrageous.
Speaker 3: I said, That's not what I said.
Speaker 2: What I said is it's unreasonable to expect that it
Speaker 2: is unreasonable to apply, let's say, the same level of
Speaker 2: outrage logic, et cetera, that we would on a bombing
Speaker 2: a military or a refugee camp, or leveling a building
Speaker 2: in order to kill one or two people who allegedly
Speaker 2: may or may not have been there, as opposed to
Speaker 2: an operation where the fire was the vast majority of
Speaker 2: the death according to the Washington Post and according to
Speaker 2: the Financial Times, occurred after the hostages were successfully rescued
Speaker 2: and their vehicle broke down. There was a result of
Speaker 2: Hamas RPG's machine gun fire, and there basically was a
Speaker 2: zero sum game where they were either going to die
Speaker 2: or live and be able to shoot their way out.
Speaker 2: That is a very very different situation and one in
Speaker 2: which collateral damage is genuinely a.
Speaker 3: Tragedy, but is very very different.
Speaker 1: But it's not I would have looked at But it's
Speaker 1: not different because to do if you buy that logic,
Speaker 1: that's the same as accepting like, oh, but you know
Speaker 1: the refugee came. Yeah, they killed two d No hold on,
Speaker 1: let me finish, because they say, we got to it
Speaker 1: was a legitimate military targment. There were two humas, bad guys.
Speaker 1: We got those bad guys collateral damage. It's sad this
Speaker 1: war war.
Speaker 2: In this particular case, they actually did send special operating
Speaker 2: troops into the ground, didn't kill that many people on
Speaker 2: the way in allegedly at least according to the multiple
Speaker 2: ride ups and others things that I have seen, and
Speaker 2: that the vast majority of the casualties were suffered after
Speaker 2: they actually did what I have been saying they should
Speaker 2: have been done from the beginning, which is put their
Speaker 2: own soldiers at risk and grab their hostages in order
Speaker 2: to get them out, and or if you want to
Speaker 2: kill a terrorist in a refugee camp, you should do
Speaker 2: exactly this. You should drop people down on the ground
Speaker 2: and you should go and kill them, and then you
Speaker 2: should get yourself out.
Speaker 1: So I think we also need to acknowledge that those
Speaker 1: reports are coming from what the IDF is saying to.
Speaker 3: What else are we supposed to do?
Speaker 1: I mean, listen to Palestinians who are on the ground,
Speaker 1: who were talking about what happened.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and they're saying that the most vast majority of.
Speaker 1: The death So why did they have to decimate multiple
Speaker 1: apartment buildings that weren't holding hostages? What about that?
Speaker 3: Also?
Speaker 1: What about the people who were buried under the rubble
Speaker 1: in these apartment buildings had nothing to do with holding hostages?
Speaker 1: What about the air cover that they provided quote unquote
Speaker 1: air cover that they provided on the way in, which
Speaker 1: also included gunfire and bombing. So I mean, I just listen.
Speaker 1: I think we should just move on because we're obviously
Speaker 1: not going to agree on this, and you know, I
Speaker 1: just I think it's wholly unacceptable to think that four
Speaker 1: hostages and by the way, other hostages possibly killed and
Speaker 1: put it risk in exchange for three hundred Palestinian lives
Speaker 1: and another seven hundred who have been you know, maimed
Speaker 1: and seriously injured and more reportedly under the rubble. To
Speaker 1: think that that's acceptable or justifiable, I just we're just
Speaker 1: not going to not get agree, all right. There was
Speaker 1: another thing that was put out by Israel, claiming that
Speaker 1: a New York Post wrote this up. This all comes
Speaker 1: directly from IDF sources claiming that an Al Jazeera journalist
Speaker 1: was holding three hostages in his home. This man's name
Speaker 1: is Abdallah al Jamal. No one is disputing that he
Speaker 1: was in fact killed by the IDF along with his
Speaker 1: family members when his home in Gaza was stormed. The
Speaker 1: Israeli military or the Israeli government rather put out a
Speaker 1: statement claiming number one that he was an Al Jazeera
Speaker 1: journalist and number two that he was holding hostages as
Speaker 1: per usual. No evidence of this was offered whatsoever. So
Speaker 1: let's put this next piece up on the screen. First.
Speaker 1: By the way, Israel had claimed that he was holding
Speaker 1: the woman Noah who Noah Argamani hostage in his home.
Speaker 1: Then when it became clear that wasn't the case, they
Speaker 1: claimed that he was keeping the three male hostages. That
Speaker 1: the story was shifting and there were a lot of
Speaker 1: inconsistencies here. For one, Abdullah apparently lived in an apartment
Speaker 1: that was on the first floor in a multi story building.
Speaker 1: Israel claimed those hostages were found on the third floor.
Speaker 1: And it also you know, they didn't now for any evidence,
Speaker 1: so this is very much in dispute. It also comes
Speaker 1: and we can put this next piece up on the
Speaker 1: screen from Al Jazeera. They put on a statement saying
Speaker 1: the ex account of the Israeli Ministry of Defense. In
Speaker 1: some Israeli websites quoted the name of a house name
Speaker 1: journalists from Gaza called Abdullah al Jamal and claimed that
Speaker 1: he works with Al Jazeera, that his name was linked
Speaker 1: to what happened in Israeli armies liberation of four prisoners
Speaker 1: in the central Gaza strip on Saturday. Al Jazeera Media
Speaker 1: Network confirms that he never worked with the network. He
Speaker 1: did contribute to an op ed in twenty nineteen, and
Speaker 1: these allegations are completely unfounded. Network stresses that these allegations
Speaker 1: are continuation of the process of slander and misinformation aimed
Speaker 1: at harming Al Jazeera's reputation. Professionalism and independence. So it
Speaker 1: appears like and this was verified by the way, by
Speaker 1: other news outlets. He contributed to an op ed in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen. So to calm like now to zero journalists
Speaker 1: is a stretch in any way. They don't offer any
Speaker 1: evidence that he had anything to do with holding the hostages.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this was going on.
Speaker 2: This was going everywhere because Jamal works for and maybe
Speaker 2: you can tell me more about this for some organization
Speaker 2: registered here in the US called Palestinian Chronicles, which is
Speaker 2: a five oh one c three organization. So I guess
Speaker 2: it was up in the air the question of whether
Speaker 2: he and by the way, why does any of this matter,
Speaker 2: because of a lot of the claims around journalists, and
Speaker 2: so we wanted to actually break down and to look
Speaker 2: at it. I agree, based on the circumstances, it does
Speaker 2: look like they originally claimed that he was holding a
Speaker 2: certain hostage and then based on the floor number that
Speaker 2: they then changed afterwards as possible that he lived in
Speaker 2: the building. The reason why again this matters, is that
Speaker 2: I have seen this blown up all over the American
Speaker 2: right and like the pro Israel right, because now they're
Speaker 2: going after Palestinian Chronicles five oh one C three tax
Speaker 2: Rice here in the US.
Speaker 3: But from what it looks like he did live in
Speaker 3: the built.
Speaker 2: Now, I mean that's not necessarily a good thing, you know,
Speaker 2: in terms of whether he knew or not whether these
Speaker 2: people were being held in the same apartment building as him.
Speaker 2: But from what they said, their story has changed twice
Speaker 2: now so far as to whether he lived or whether
Speaker 2: he was holding these people or not. They also said
Speaker 2: that his father was responsible, and that's the part where
Speaker 2: I'm very confused about from the initial explanation.
Speaker 1: Well because the father was also killed in the raid.
Speaker 1: So you know, they're just they're Israel should offer some evidence.
Speaker 1: If they have evidence to back up these claims, then
Speaker 1: you know, at this point they don't deserve the benefit
Speaker 1: of the doubt in any respect. And so the things
Speaker 1: that are very suspicious is number one, the story shifting right.
Speaker 1: Number two, the fact that they really tried to time
Speaker 1: to al Jazero, which I mean it's preposterous, like I've
Speaker 1: contributed to some opbed at some newspaper sometime in the past,
Speaker 1: and that doesn't make me part of their journalistic staff, right.
Speaker 1: And given the fact that they've i mean, they've banned
Speaker 1: al Jazeera and Israel, and they have tried to paint
Speaker 1: them quote unquote humas, So they were clearly trying to
Speaker 1: use this guy to further their own propaganda talking points.
Speaker 1: And then when you have these questions about like the
Speaker 1: you know, the floor number he lived on is not
Speaker 1: the one that they claimed that the hostages were being
Speaker 1: held on. Just you know, there's a lot of reasons
Speaker 1: to be very skeptical, I would say, of the claims
Speaker 1: that they are ultimately making here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm waiting to see because this actually could turn
Speaker 2: into a big thing here in the country in terms
Speaker 2: of congressional investigating. This could be basically become the next
Speaker 2: like five oh one.
Speaker 3: C three thing.
Speaker 2: That's one of the reasons we want to get to
Speaker 2: the bottom of it here on the show.