Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 2: Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 2: for everybody today. What do we have Krystal, indeed we do.
Speaker 1: The Biden administration and many other liberals changing their tune
Speaker 1: a bit after that Israeli airstrike killed seven AID workers
Speaker 1: for World Central Kitchen. We'll tell you about that. We
Speaker 1: also have some big news on the warfront. Israel has
Speaker 1: withdrawn from southern Gaza. What does it mean a lot
Speaker 1: of speculation, a lot of questions there, so we'll get
Speaker 1: into that. We're also keeping an eye on how a
Speaker 1: run will retaliate for that Israeli strike on their consular
Speaker 1: building in Syria and very dramatic escalations and questions there
Speaker 1: as well. Campus Owens has opened a rift in conservative media.
Speaker 4: It's a very interesting story.
Speaker 1: Obviously ties in with her being fired from the Daily
Speaker 1: Wire and her commentary with regard to Israel and possible
Speaker 1: questions around anti Semitism.
Speaker 4: So we'll break all of that down for you.
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan is debating Coleman Hughes on whether or not
Speaker 1: Israel is committing genocide.
Speaker 4: Very interesting exchange there that is worth parsing.
Speaker 1: Trump had a massive fundraiser, raising some fifty million dollars
Speaker 1: in one day and making some quite noteworthy promises to
Speaker 1: the big donors in the room. I have a monologue
Speaker 1: breaking down that big report from plus nine seven to
Speaker 1: two magazine that came out last week about the way
Speaker 1: that Israel is using AI to supercharge their assault on
Speaker 1: the Gaza Strip. Really important journalistic piece, so I'm looking
Speaker 1: forward to spending some time with that one. Before we
Speaker 1: get to any of that, Sagar, We've been teasing this
Speaker 1: for a while, but we do have some big news
Speaker 1: that is coming up soon.
Speaker 3: I promise you, we promise, we promise.
Speaker 2: Logistics running nobody ever seen that doing this was easy,
Speaker 2: but if you do want to be the first to
Speaker 2: hear about it, you can sign up at breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 2: It will be coming very soon. We promised you will
Speaker 2: eventually see it. It's going to be an upgrade to
Speaker 2: our premium service and also some extra content. I think
Speaker 2: you guys are going to be very excited about. So
Speaker 2: if you can help us out Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 1: All right, So we wanted to start with the Biden
Speaker 1: administration's reaction to that strike that killed seven aid workers.
Speaker 1: For Jose Andre's organization, World Central Kitchen for the first time,
Speaker 1: they're changing their tune a bit, and actually reportedly in
Speaker 1: a phone call, Biden didn't really change US policy, but
Speaker 1: threatened to potentially change US policy, and even just that
Speaker 1: threat has compelled some changes in behavior on the Israeli side.
Speaker 1: Here is John Kirby, Pentagon spokesperson, talking about the possibility
Speaker 1: that military aid in the future could be conditioned if
Speaker 1: Israel does not change the way that they are conducting
Speaker 1: this war.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: Is the Biden administration position still that there should be
Speaker 5: zero conditions on aid military aid to Israel.
Speaker 6: I'm not going to get ahead of the President or
Speaker 6: decisions he might or might not make going forward. He
Speaker 6: was very clear in his call with the Prime Minister
Speaker 6: that if we don't see some changes in their policies
Speaker 6: in Gaza and the way they're prosecuting operations, We're going
Speaker 6: to have to make some changes.
Speaker 5: In our You do think these are Israeli policies?
Speaker 4: Then a new block.
Speaker 3: Eight they have.
Speaker 6: They get to decide how they prosecute this war. It's
Speaker 6: their operation. We just talked about them pulling troops out.
Speaker 6: What that means. They get to decide how they prosecute operations.
Speaker 6: We get to decide how we're going to react to
Speaker 6: that and how we're going to administer our own policy
Speaker 6: with respect to Gaza. We make those decisions, and the
Speaker 6: President was clear with the Prime Minister. If there's not changes,
Speaker 6: if things don't get better, then we're going to have
Speaker 6: to make changes of our own.
Speaker 1: If things don't get better, then we're going to have
Speaker 1: to make changes of our own. Leaving it very vague,
Speaker 1: The President also asked about what all of this means
Speaker 1: in a short exchange on the fly.
Speaker 4: Let's take listen what he had to say.
Speaker 7: We do breaton documentitary, Hey, they thread, I have them
Speaker 7: agree what they're doing.
Speaker 1: Helpful there. I asked them to do what they're doing.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, let's dig into a little bit of
Speaker 1: what they are doing. Let's put this up on the
Speaker 1: screen from Axio. So immediately after that phone call, Israel
Speaker 1: announced that they had agreed to increase humanitarian aid delivery
Speaker 1: to Gaza. There's a number of actions that they're taking
Speaker 1: on this front. So they're opening the arrest crossing the
Speaker 1: Northern Gaza Strip. That would be the first time since
Speaker 1: October seventh. We also have a quote from Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: in this piece. She said, the President made clear we
Speaker 1: will make sure Israel isn't left without the ability to
Speaker 1: defend itself. At the same time, if there are no
Speaker 1: changes to their approach, we are likely to change our approach.
Speaker 1: So very similar to Kirby's comments, let's go ahead and
Speaker 1: put up the fifth element on the screen here, guys,
Speaker 1: to show you the additional actions that were taken. So
Speaker 1: the UN says that Israel also approved the reopening of
Speaker 1: twenty bakeries and a water pipeline in northern Gaza. There
Speaker 1: are also some additional legis efforts that they are claiming
Speaker 1: that they're going to make in order to create a
Speaker 1: better functioning coordination so that more aid can enter the strip.
Speaker 1: And in addition, according to the Israelis yesterday saw three
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty two AID trucks entering.
Speaker 4: The Gaza Strip.
Speaker 1: That is the highest daily number of AID trucks that
Speaker 1: has entered the enclave since October seventh. Again, this is
Speaker 1: according to Israeli official So take that for what it's worth,
Speaker 1: as reported by Barack Revide. But you know, there's a
Speaker 1: couple things that are noteworthy here. I mean, first of all,
Speaker 1: the Israelis have long been saying, oh, we're not doing
Speaker 1: anything to blockade, We're doing everything we can to get aided.
Speaker 1: Oh really, Well, it turns out that you could, at
Speaker 1: the snap of finger open new crossings, reinstate a pipeline,
Speaker 1: reopen twenty bakeries that have been shuttered, increased coordination, immediately
Speaker 1: surge the number of AID trucks coming through. So this
Speaker 1: line that they've been feeding you all for months now,
Speaker 1: that all we're doing everything obviously complete and utter bullshit. Second,
Speaker 1: really noteworthy point here is for the people are saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: Israel's a sovereign country. We really don't how many say
Speaker 1: over what they do. The Biden administration did not even
Speaker 1: change policy. He made one phone call where he threatened
Speaker 1: to potentially in some amorphis way change policy in the future,
Speaker 1: and that was sufficient to compel a change in behavior
Speaker 1: from the Israelis.
Speaker 2: Well, it validates a couple of points we've been talking
Speaker 2: a lot about here. Number one is that, yes, there
Speaker 2: is some certain personal sovereignty that Israel has, but there's
Speaker 2: also a client state relationship here. This is the nation
Speaker 2: that has received more foreign aid than any other country
Speaker 2: in the entire history of the US if you look
Speaker 2: at the overall dollar amount that we've given to Israel,
Speaker 2: and for vast majority of that is military aid. On
Speaker 2: top of that, Biden administration has been a critical lifeline
Speaker 2: to the Israeli military whenever it comes to its weapons,
Speaker 2: and we've also seen a pretty major change in their
Speaker 2: battle strategy.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: There's a lot to say about this, and nobody really
Speaker 2: quite knows because you could see either way. I please
Speaker 2: put yes IDF is ending quote its active ground invasion
Speaker 2: and completely withdrawing from southern Gaza. This is from the
Speaker 2: Jerusalem Post, which is more of a right wing organization
Speaker 2: inside Israel, and they say that the decision comes less
Speaker 2: than two days after Israel opened the Aras crossing and
Speaker 2: the Eshdod port to transfer humanitarian aid. I do want
Speaker 2: to spend some time on this because I saw actually
Speaker 2: some interesting analysis from again Israeli commentators, and one who
Speaker 2: in English put it this way. He says, these are
Speaker 2: two very concerning data points from Gaza.
Speaker 3: One.
Speaker 2: After the multi week campaign in and around Al Shifa,
Speaker 2: mortars are still being fired at the IDEF from northern
Speaker 2: Gaza as troops are leaving the Gaza Strip. This shows
Speaker 2: that the enemy still has quote plenty of forces in
Speaker 2: the north too.
Speaker 3: After months of battles.
Speaker 2: Now in Communis by the ninety eighth Division and its
Speaker 2: commando Brigrade, four soldiers were just killed yesterday, announced by
Speaker 2: the IDF. This shows that the enemy still uses tunnels
Speaker 2: and has weapons despite months of being chased around. The
Speaker 2: problem with the strategy of clear and not hold is
Speaker 2: that it seems to inevitably mean Hamas returns now. He's
Speaker 2: writing it from a very like pro is really military perspective.
Speaker 2: But the reason why it really struck out to me
Speaker 2: is that even the clear ride is really military. Analysts
Speaker 2: inside the country are like, hey, this entire military campaign
Speaker 2: did not actually achieve it's so called military end we
Speaker 2: have rockets and military capability in northern Gaza and in Conunis,
Speaker 2: both of which were promised as the justification. You can
Speaker 2: see majority from the US commentators and even defenders of
Speaker 2: military strategy is it's working, and yeah there's a high
Speaker 2: civilian casualty, but what are you going to do? But
Speaker 2: this is actually evidence that the enemy both retains its
Speaker 2: military capacity, that they have not been able to destroy Hamas,
Speaker 2: and that even with all of their tactics, their effective
Speaker 2: free fire zone, etc. That it hasn't worked, Which is
Speaker 2: I mean, frankly predictable from the start with the way
Speaker 2: that they've decided to wage the war.
Speaker 1: It is not only predictable from the start, it was
Speaker 1: predicted from the start, including by people who are not
Speaker 1: you know, deep military experts such as ourselves, the idea
Speaker 1: that you were going to defeat Hamas and that was
Speaker 1: going to be the you know, the actual goal of
Speaker 1: the strategy. I mean, it never made sense from day one,
Speaker 1: first of all, that you would even be able to
Speaker 1: do that or what that even means. Second of all,
Speaker 1: the tactics from the beginning, remember we covered those comments
Speaker 1: from JOCKO about this. The tactics were never consistent with
Speaker 1: that goal. The tactics were consistent with revenge. The tactics
Speaker 1: were consistent with annihilation. The tactics were consistent with collective
Speaker 1: punishment of the entire civilian population, which is where you know,
Speaker 1: the siege comes into play.
Speaker 4: And I've got a lot more on how.
Speaker 1: Those tactics actually were decided on and how they were
Speaker 1: executed in the field in my monologue today. But the
Speaker 1: idea that this was some you know, hunt for Hamas
Speaker 1: and it was really this targeted military campaign directly at Hamas,
Speaker 1: that was preposterous from the jump. But now they're at
Speaker 1: a place where they can sort of no longer sustain
Speaker 1: the lie, even amongst you know, our own supporters who
Speaker 1: want to believe the lie, who want to believe that justification.
Speaker 1: It becomes too preposterous for anyone who is looking at
Speaker 1: this thing clearly to sustain. So what the Israeli Defense
Speaker 1: Ministerio of Glant is saying about their withdrawal from communists
Speaker 1: from southern Gaza, leaving a very minimal number honestly of
Speaker 1: soldiers still remaining in the Gaza strip. Basically they are
Speaker 1: posted up along the corridor between North and South. This
Speaker 1: dividing line to prevent Palestinians from returning to their homes
Speaker 1: in northern Gaza. That is the bulk of where the
Speaker 1: troops remain in the Gaza Strip now, they claim, and
Speaker 1: US Intelligence has also put out a statement to the
Speaker 1: same effect that the reason they are withdrawing from communists
Speaker 1: and southern Gaza at this time is to rest up
Speaker 1: and prepare the operation for Rafa.
Speaker 4: We know that Natanyahu has.
Speaker 1: Very aggressively asserted that there is no way he will
Speaker 1: be deterred from going into Rafa. That is still hanging
Speaker 1: out there. So what this actually means, I think it's
Speaker 1: very honestly difficult to say at this point and what
Speaker 1: it means for the future. The other thing that's hanging
Speaker 1: over this, you know, with a lot of question marks,
Speaker 1: is there are ongoing negotiations occurring in Qatar for some
Speaker 1: sort of ceasefire. Don't know the length, don't know the
Speaker 1: contours of that, don't know how likely that is to
Speaker 1: actually come to fruition. But one of the things Hamas
Speaker 1: has been insisting on is some sort of IDF withdrawal.
Speaker 1: So the other possibility is this withdrawal a precursor to
Speaker 1: some sort of either temporary or more lasting ceasefire deal.
Speaker 4: We simply don't know.
Speaker 1: At this point, but obviously the fact that there was
Speaker 1: such a significant withdrawal from southern Gaza is incredibly significant
Speaker 1: and something to really keep our eyes on now in
Speaker 1: terms of Netan Yahoo and his domestic political situation, as
Speaker 1: we've said a million times, and we're not the only ones,
Speaker 1: he has to keep this war going, to hold on
Speaker 1: to his position and power. Obviously, there are huge questions
Speaker 1: about him leading to October seventh. He is deeply unpopular
Speaker 1: in Israel almost across the board. Once the war is over,
Speaker 1: there will be a clamoring for new elections and he
Speaker 1: will be in big trouble. Bet So, I think he
Speaker 1: almost has to hold on to, you know, a potential
Speaker 1: a Rafa invasion, as he asserts, as a certainty, he
Speaker 1: has to hold on to, you know, what's going on
Speaker 1: in northern Israel and their tit for tat escalations with
Speaker 1: Hezbola that still has the possibility of really.
Speaker 4: Flaring up and escalating.
Speaker 1: And then we're going to talk more in the next
Speaker 1: block about this additional front that he's opened up directly
Speaker 1: vis a vis Iran and what that could mean. For
Speaker 1: the future, because again, his political fate depends on keeping
Speaker 1: this war going, which is why I'm a little bit
Speaker 1: skeptical that the withdrawal of troops from southern Gaza at
Speaker 1: this point really spells like, oh, they're actually winding things
Speaker 1: down and this is coming to some sort of a close.
Speaker 2: I think that they're trying to keep their options open.
Speaker 2: But I mean, again, these really right wing is actually
Speaker 2: reading it as a defeat. So apparently I'm reading back
Speaker 2: here again from a translation. But the Israeli radio this morning,
Speaker 2: resh At B, apparently a large radio organization, said this
Speaker 2: morning that basically Hamas is getting a lot of what
Speaker 2: it wanted and that the withdrawal of forces from Communist
Speaker 2: is basically quote a kind of sea.
Speaker 3: Sire without it being official.
Speaker 2: They also say that considering the narrative during the war
Speaker 2: that there won't be Hamas and military pressure is bringing
Speaker 2: the release of hostages, we are wondering now if those
Speaker 2: talking points will be quietly shelved. So I think they're
Speaker 2: in a holding pattern. I don't think they really know
Speaker 2: what they're doing. Of course, they're going to try and
Speaker 2: say face and be like no, no, no, we're going into
Speaker 2: Rafa but international pressure and changes and wins here in
Speaker 2: the US very clearly dramatically shifting after the strike on
Speaker 2: the World Central Kitchen. I don't get me wrong, I
Speaker 2: would not put it past them whatsoever. And if things change,
Speaker 2: if these things fail, or if something else happens, that
Speaker 2: could influence events very much, could be possible. But regardless,
Speaker 2: I think we're in an interesting kind of.
Speaker 3: A flux situation right now that could go in two
Speaker 3: different directions.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, I think my personal assessment is that BB has
Speaker 1: to hold on to the invasion is coming.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think he said it so clearly and made that
Speaker 1: promise so clearly so many times. I really don't think
Speaker 1: he can back off of it without, you know, immediately
Speaker 1: jeopardizing his political position, which is his end all feel.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's an ideological actor, but he's also first
Speaker 1: and foremost a political animal. There's a reason that he
Speaker 1: has held power so often and for so long in
Speaker 1: Israeli society. So I think he has to stick to
Speaker 1: that pledge. But perhaps there's you know, responding to this
Speaker 1: tiniest bit of US pressure that the Biden administration has
Speaker 1: put on of you know, let's back off for a
Speaker 1: bit and let things cool down, let a little bit
Speaker 1: more of a trickle of aid flow into the strip
Speaker 1: in response to these concerns from the Americans. And again,
Speaker 1: just take note, take note everyone. It did not even
Speaker 1: take an actual change in policy to compel some changes
Speaker 1: on the Israeli side. All it took was the threat
Speaker 1: of possible future undefined action, and we saw immediate.
Speaker 4: Response from the Israelis.
Speaker 1: So keep that in mind the next time they try
Speaker 1: to gaslight you into oh Biden's doing all he can,
Speaker 1: and oh we just you know, we're just impotent. We
Speaker 1: have no power in this situation. That is nonsense. That
Speaker 1: is utter and complete nonsense. The strike on these is
Speaker 1: by the Israelis on the World Central Kitchen Aid workers
Speaker 1: has had tremendous fallout, I would say, especially among American liberals,
Speaker 1: which is interesting for a variety of reasons. But chefjose
Speaker 1: Andres himself speaking out over the weekend and taking a
Speaker 1: very hard line against the Israelis here really calling into
Speaker 1: question their quote unquote investigation into what happened. Let's take
Speaker 1: a listen to a bit of what he had to say.
Speaker 8: We could argue that the first one, let's say, was
Speaker 8: a mistake the second. The third, do you believe.
Speaker 9: Old Central Kitchen was targeted on purpose?
Speaker 10: My humanity tells me that Obviously, I don't want to
Speaker 10: believe that was a kitchen was targeted, and probably this
Speaker 10: was not the case because I'm sure they knew our movements.
Speaker 10: I'm sure they knew our teams. I'm sure they were
Speaker 10: in the red content with the different people that coordinate
Speaker 10: in these situations. But obviously this seems keeps happening, this
Speaker 10: breaking of communications keeps happening.
Speaker 9: You wrote a very emotional tweet this week about Zomy, saying,
Speaker 9: I wish I never founded your organization. You would be
Speaker 9: alive somewhere today, smiling and making somebody somewhere feel like
Speaker 9: they were the most beloved person in the world. Said
Speaker 9: you wish you'd never found it Central Kitchen.
Speaker 10: You know, I will forever have to live with this,
Speaker 10: as well as the families and all the members of
Speaker 10: Los Andel Gitchen.
Speaker 8: I I.
Speaker 10: Founded with one very simple idea, can we provide food
Speaker 10: and water quicker than anybody else?
Speaker 8: Obviously, something like this makes you think we did what
Speaker 8: we did.
Speaker 10: Because it's a lot of people that are always forgotten,
Speaker 10: many civilians, women, children, that the only thing they did
Speaker 10: was trying to get close by to somewhere that they
Speaker 10: were giving them flower or breadth. This is not anymore
Speaker 10: about the seven men and women of World Central Kitchen
Speaker 10: that perish on this unfortunate e band.
Speaker 8: This is happening. Wait for too long.
Speaker 10: It's been six months of targeting anything that seems moves.
Speaker 10: This doesn't seem a war against terror. This doesn't seem
Speaker 10: anymore a war about defending Israel. This really, at this
Speaker 10: point seems is a war against humanity itself.
Speaker 1: So obviously some really strong comments there made by Chef
Speaker 1: jose Andre saying this doesn't seem anymore a war about
Speaker 1: defending Israel. This really, at this point seems it's a
Speaker 1: war against humanity itself.
Speaker 4: Remember early on.
Speaker 1: He was a supporter of this war early on, so
Speaker 1: to hear that from him is quite striking. In an addition,
Speaker 1: suggesting they were targeted directly calling for an independent investigation,
Speaker 1: calling into question the results of the Israeli investigation that
Speaker 1: already occurred, talking about it seems that they are targeting
Speaker 1: everything that moves, killing women and children whose only crime
Speaker 1: is seeking out a loaf of.
Speaker 4: Bread or a bag of flour.
Speaker 1: Let's go ahead and pull up this next piece, this
Speaker 1: IDF investigation that occurred and what they claim to have found.
Speaker 1: So they dismissed two officers over those deadly drone strikes
Speaker 1: on aid workers. Basically, they're sticking with this, with this
Speaker 1: story that somebody spotted a supposed militant with a gun,
Speaker 1: not even a militant, just a person with a gun,
Speaker 1: and that that was enough for a strike on this
Speaker 1: aid convoy to be authorized. And again keep in mind,
Speaker 1: first of all, in a war zone, it is entirely
Speaker 1: appropriate to have someone with a gun escorting an aid convoy.
Speaker 1: Second of all, as jose Andres himself indicating as you
Speaker 1: could see in that photo that was just up on
Speaker 1: the screen, all three of the vehicles had the World
Speaker 1: Central Kitchen logo on the top. They were coordinating directly
Speaker 1: with the IDF. They were traveling along a known deconfliction route.
Speaker 1: They were following protocol to a t. Every communication was
Speaker 1: made to try to ensure that the Israelis knew, hey,
Speaker 1: we are leaving our warehouse and we are heading out
Speaker 1: in these vehicles. And did they weren't struck once, they
Speaker 1: weren't struck twice, They were struck three times, and we're
Speaker 1: supposed to believe that, you know, it was Oh, it
Speaker 1: was just a mistake. It was just a misunderstanding. We
Speaker 1: couldn't see the World Central Kitchen logo in the darkness,
Speaker 1: so that was what they found.
Speaker 4: But even soager if.
Speaker 1: You believe their story, it really demonstrates the actual rules
Speaker 1: of engagement on the ground, which even the theoretical potential
Speaker 1: presence at one point of someone with the gun was
Speaker 1: enough to justify the murder of seven aid workers using
Speaker 1: three different drug strikes.
Speaker 11: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't want to sound insensitive, but part of what
Speaker 2: has annoyed me about the turn on this we're about
Speaker 2: to get to this is that it took the killing
Speaker 2: of these Western aid workers to prompt this. This has
Speaker 2: been self evident since what the very day that they
Speaker 2: announced what was it that they announced that they were
Speaker 2: doing a complete siege into the Gaza strip, Like we
Speaker 2: have known from day one, this was evident whenever three
Speaker 2: Israeli hostages came out of a building waving a white
Speaker 2: flag in Hebrew saying we are hostages, and they shot
Speaker 2: them dead because the rules of engagement were so it
Speaker 2: wasn't enough when they killed their own people.
Speaker 3: It wasn't enough whenever they killed people on camera. At
Speaker 3: this point, if you are living on the internet and
Speaker 3: you have watched videos of the IDF that's engaged in combat,
Speaker 3: you have known that this is what the rules of
Speaker 3: engagement were. Nobody was fired or held.
Speaker 4: To video for that they put out.
Speaker 3: That's what I mean.
Speaker 4: In many instances, by the way.
Speaker 2: It was only when a member of DC Royalty was
Speaker 2: personally affected by this, as everybody decided to like pearl
Speaker 2: clutch around them.
Speaker 3: I'm not erasing the lives of these aid workers.
Speaker 2: It's just such a self interested portrait that I actually
Speaker 2: want people at home to take in. Jose Andrace is
Speaker 2: royalty in this town. He owns a bunch of restaurants.
Speaker 2: You know, his world's central kitchen stuff is always that's
Speaker 2: like secondary. He is a social pillar of Washington, has
Speaker 2: been for me at least fifteen twenty years. All of
Speaker 2: the news anchors that were about to show you who
Speaker 2: are now quote turning on Israel, they're all friends with him.
Speaker 2: They have all dined in his restaurants. That's the only
Speaker 2: reason that they are changing their tunes. So do not
Speaker 2: be mistaken that this has been some major change of
Speaker 2: consciousness as usual in DC. It's only whenever people are
Speaker 2: personally affected by something.
Speaker 3: I guess that's human nature.
Speaker 2: That is the only thing they can genuinely compel anything
Speaker 2: to change, which in my opinion, is frankly outrageous. If
Speaker 2: you're going to look at a situation on its merits or.
Speaker 1: Not, it's certainly the nature of these people. I don't
Speaker 1: think you could say it's human nature when you see,
Speaker 1: you know, the overwhelming bulk of public opinion, when you
Speaker 1: see the protesters in the street, most of whom don't
Speaker 1: have a personal stake in this conflict, don't know people
Speaker 1: who are dying and being starved to death in real time.
Speaker 1: They were able to see the humanity of Palestinians and
Speaker 1: the horror of the situation before someone who they personally
Speaker 1: knew was impacted. But such is the narcissism and the
Speaker 1: bubble and the casual dehumanization that you know, the elites
Speaker 1: in Washington swimen that it wasn't even This is important too,
Speaker 1: to underscore your point, Soccer, It's not like these are
Speaker 1: the first even aid work Western aid workers who have
Speaker 1: been killed. True, there's some two hundred plus aid workers
Speaker 1: who have been killed in this conflict. We've had, you know,
Speaker 1: doctors who are We've had professors who are killed.
Speaker 4: We've seen the utter destruction.
Speaker 1: I mean, this has been in front of our eyes
Speaker 1: since the beginning, truly, as you said, since they announced
Speaker 1: a complete siege. How can you sustain the concept that, oh,
Speaker 1: this is a targeted hunt for Hamas when by definition,
Speaker 1: complete siege means you are holding the entire population hostage.
Speaker 1: So it wasn't when they were targeted attacks on journalists.
Speaker 1: It wasn't even you know that there was an American
Speaker 1: citizen here. It was that a personal friend of theirs
Speaker 1: was impacted.
Speaker 4: That's what it took.
Speaker 1: But it has apparently created a dramatic change in the
Speaker 1: way that some liberals are now viewing this conflict.
Speaker 4: You can almost see it too in the news. Rich
Speaker 4: like the we have covered.
Speaker 1: So much the anesthetic, like sanitized language that's used when
Speaker 1: it comes to Palestinians being killed versus Israeli's being killed.
Speaker 1: You can even see in real time some of that
Speaker 1: language shift in terms of the news coverage. But put
Speaker 1: this next piece up on the screen. I never expected
Speaker 1: to see this headline. Nancy Pelosi, who just basically minutes
Speaker 1: ago was smearing any sort of ceasefire protesters as being
Speaker 1: paid by Russia or being paid by China, et cetera.
Speaker 1: She has now joined onto a letter calling to halt
Speaker 1: US weapons transfers to Israel. Now there are some caveats
Speaker 1: with regards to this letter. The language is a little squishy, right,
Speaker 1: let me read you a little bit. It says, in part,
Speaker 1: in light of the recent strike against aid workers and
Speaker 1: the ever worsening humanitarian crisis, we believe it is unjustifiable
Speaker 1: to approve these weapons transfers. That letter, they go on
Speaker 1: to write in Axios, which was released after the IDF
Speaker 1: anounced initial findings of its investigation to the attack, includes
Speaker 1: a call for an independent probe if this strike, they write,
Speaker 1: is found to a violated US or international law, we
Speaker 1: urge you to continue with holding these transfers until those
Speaker 1: responsible are held accountable. So, again, the letter doesn't go
Speaker 1: so far as to say just cut off the weapons transfers.
Speaker 1: And that's that they're saying. We want an independent investigation.
Speaker 1: We say we want accountability. If you do those things,
Speaker 1: then you can continue transferring the weapons. But the fact
Speaker 1: that Nancy Pelosi signed onto this at all with any
Speaker 1: sort of language in the direction of potentially possibly conditioning
Speaker 1: arms transfers is pretty extraordinary.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's because just on January thirty first, twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: so three months ago, Nancy Pelosi nominated Jose Andres for
Speaker 2: the Nobel Peace Prize, and Nancy Pelosi has often a
Speaker 2: lot of the work of Jose Andres, of whom which
Speaker 2: he has appeared before with several times. It's just it's
Speaker 2: all a club, like it's all just a social club.
Speaker 2: If anybody in the social club is effective and something
Speaker 2: is changed, otherwise it doesn't it doesn't even matter. This
Speaker 2: is actually a key inside too into why ukraine Mania
Speaker 2: has taken over Washington, Because there's freaking Ukrainians all over
Speaker 2: this town, and because for some reason, Ukrainians are the
Speaker 2: only human beings on planet Earth that are supposed to
Speaker 2: be like whatever. If they're being invaded, then it's a
Speaker 2: threat on democracy. Russia is the great enemy. Russia Gate
Speaker 2: also played a good role. But you know, to pay
Speaker 2: very close attention as to who is granted personhood status
Speaker 2: and who is not.
Speaker 1: That's right, that's right, And listen, I'm glad that they're
Speaker 1: shifting their view, but it is I saw someone say
Speaker 1: on Twitter like it is just two on the nose
Speaker 1: that what it took is for their like wealthy liberal
Speaker 1: friend to be directly impacted before they could see what
Speaker 1: has been obvious to the overwhelming majority of the world
Speaker 1: since the or very early days of this conflict. You
Speaker 1: reference this before, but just to give you a sense
Speaker 1: of how the tone and approach to Israel has changed,
Speaker 1: just like this, like flipped on a dime. We've got
Speaker 1: a little compilation here for you, just to set it up.
Speaker 1: We've got Morning Joe, really, you know, taken a task
Speaker 1: an Israeli econ Minster. Now, his choice of line of
Speaker 1: questioning is interesting. We can talk about it after the fact,
Speaker 1: but the aggressiveness of the tone is kind of what's noteworthy.
Speaker 12: Here.
Speaker 1: You have Jen Saki, Biden's former press secretary, actually talking
Speaker 1: about possibly conditioning AID and criticizing directly the Biden administration approach.
Speaker 1: I haven't personally heard her criticize the Biden administration on
Speaker 1: anything since she left that post, so that was very noteworthy.
Speaker 1: And then you have former CIA director Leon Panetta making
Speaker 1: some extraordinary claims about the way that the Israeli Army operates.
Speaker 1: In general, you definitely want to hear that. Take a
Speaker 1: listen to all of those.
Speaker 13: You're feeding that wolf, and you're telling that wolf to
Speaker 13: feed the Nazis and Daza. So explain to me, because
Speaker 13: I really want to know. Why was Benjamin Netanyahu and
Speaker 13: his government funding they.
Speaker 3: Were allies with.
Speaker 13: Cutter and the funding of Hamas?
Speaker 8: Why.
Speaker 14: I think it's a mistake, and it was uncovered October seventh.
Speaker 14: October seventh demonstrated that if you think you could buy
Speaker 14: quiet peace by funding Hamas, it's a huge mistake and.
Speaker 3: It's weird to me.
Speaker 13: Why did Benjamin metan Yahoo knowing that their charter said
Speaker 13: that they were to kill Jews and eradicate Israel. Why
Speaker 13: would any leader of Israel work to fund that organization
Speaker 13: to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Speaker 15: Look, clearly, the strategy that the United States is implementing
Speaker 15: at this point is not working to change the behavior
Speaker 15: of Prime Minister net Yahoo is not working to.
Speaker 4: End the war.
Speaker 15: So obviously something has to change, and I think it's
Speaker 15: pretty clear they're discussing that, I think in the White House,
Speaker 15: and I hope in the White House, in this situation
Speaker 15: room at this point in time, the question is what
Speaker 15: that will be.
Speaker 16: You have to be able to verify it, to take
Speaker 16: time to make sure that the information that you're getting
Speaker 16: is accurate with regards to targets. And I have to
Speaker 16: tell you that in the past, at least in my experience,
Speaker 16: the Israelis usually fire and then ask questions.
Speaker 1: The Israelis usually fire and then ask questions, What did
Speaker 1: you make of those various comments?
Speaker 2: The last one in particular, I was just telling you
Speaker 2: what was playing. Leon Panetta was a man who had
Speaker 2: the greenlit a huge portion of the Obama drone program.
Speaker 2: I mean, and if we were to take at the
Speaker 2: worst the civilian casualties under the Obama drone program with
Speaker 2: some ninety something percent at best, it was like maybe
Speaker 2: forty five to fifty percent. Don't exactly want to hear
Speaker 2: it from mister Panetta who did some of that behavior,
Speaker 2: But I mean, I guess it's one of those where
Speaker 2: you could take it from his word. At the very least,
Speaker 2: you could say this BLO Bob is shifting against them.
Speaker 3: Panetta.
Speaker 2: I should remind people former Secretary of Defense, former CIA
Speaker 2: director at one point advocated for literal war with Russia.
Speaker 2: We can roll the tape if anybody wants to go
Speaker 2: and check it.
Speaker 3: So for somebody like.
Speaker 2: Him to change his tune, I would say, it's certainly noteworthy.
Speaker 2: The Morning Joe piece is just like, what are we
Speaker 2: doing here?
Speaker 8: Dude?
Speaker 2: We were talking about this on October eighth. No, actually,
Speaker 2: I think our first show was October ninth. Okay, so
Speaker 2: October ninth. That was the very first time that you
Speaker 2: heard it here.
Speaker 3: On the show. It was a legitimate point of view
Speaker 3: and conversation about how we got here and want some
Speaker 3: of the backup about.
Speaker 1: Babe bolstered Hummas, like to create a divide between the
Speaker 1: West Bank and Gaza, built them up and funded them
Speaker 1: and even made explicit comments about how if you want
Speaker 1: to block a two state solution, you need to bolster Humas.
Speaker 4: But yeah, that that is the conversation.
Speaker 2: Now, so why is that the conversation? Yeah, what are
Speaker 2: exactly are we doing here?
Speaker 17: Okay?
Speaker 3: I just want to return to this.
Speaker 2: One of their friends was personally affected by the situation,
Speaker 2: So now everybody's got it's like Jensaki, I can't.
Speaker 3: It would be difficult to.
Speaker 2: Count the number of times she's probably personally eaten at
Speaker 2: Jose Andres establishment.
Speaker 3: And when you're in the White House. He's there all
Speaker 3: the time. He was there. You know, this is like
Speaker 3: a by Parson thing. Don't get me wrong.
Speaker 2: When Trump he was a celebrity here in Washington too,
Speaker 2: So for them, Israel's only real crime was hitting a
Speaker 2: staff member of somebody who is basically royalty here in Washington.
Speaker 2: But that was enough for people in the media to change.
Speaker 2: So I don't know, you keep saying over and over again.
Speaker 1: Just to comments on some of the specific comments. Part
Speaker 1: of what I thought was really noteworthy about Panetta's comments
Speaker 1: is they weren't confined specifically to this onslaught in Gaza.
Speaker 1: He said, the Israelis usually fire and then ask questions,
Speaker 1: So it is extraordinary. It's quite noteworthy for a member
Speaker 1: and good standing of the BLOB to cast dispersions over
Speaker 1: Israeli military conduct across not just this war, but many
Speaker 1: previous conflicts and mowings of the grass previously, and would
Speaker 1: have been unthinking up till basically this moment and would
Speaker 1: have probably you know, gotten you tagged as an anti
Speaker 1: Semite or whatever. And the line previously was always all
Speaker 1: this is the most moral alarmy on the planet, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So that was no worthy to me. The Saki thing
Speaker 1: speaks for itself. The fact that she even feels compelled
Speaker 1: to critique the administration.
Speaker 4: It's a little bit of.
Speaker 1: You know, kid gloves or whatever, but that she says
Speaker 1: anything against them is noteworthy in the morning, Joe one,
Speaker 1: because the line of questioning is so strange at this moment,
Speaker 1: It's so not the point of what people are really
Speaker 1: concerned about right now, when you have somewhere around forty
Speaker 1: thousand Palestinians who have been killed, you have the entire
Speaker 1: Gaza strip completely decimated and in rubble. You know, you
Speaker 1: have obviously the killing of these aid workers. You have
Speaker 1: this situation that could spiral out of control with regard
Speaker 1: to this, you know, attack on the Iran Consular building
Speaker 1: and you're going back to almost attack Bbe from the
Speaker 1: right of You were supporting Hamas and you were bolstering Hamas,
Speaker 1: and you were too supportive of Hamas. My read into
Speaker 1: it is that Joe Scarborough is smart enough to know
Speaker 1: that the moment has changed, that he can't have this
Speaker 1: Israeli government person on and just play patty cakes with
Speaker 1: him the way that he would have, you know a
Speaker 1: week ago before this strike. But he doesn't actually really
Speaker 1: want to criticize what's happening in Gaza right now. So
Speaker 1: this was the line of question that he felt like
Speaker 1: was safe for all of his various constituent audiences, but
Speaker 1: could sort of like bluster to the Mourning Joe audience
Speaker 1: and you know, the liberals who watch MSNBC that he
Speaker 1: was being tough on Israel but not in a way
Speaker 1: that actually matters right now. For what it's worth, That's
Speaker 1: what I read into the Morning Joe exchange. There the
Speaker 1: last one we wanted to show you, which this is
Speaker 1: very striking Senator Tim Kaine, who is you know, the
Speaker 1: most kind of mainline, run of the mill Democrats.
Speaker 4: With a few exceptions.
Speaker 1: He's kind of good on like on like the surveillance,
Speaker 1: mass surveillance, and then he has a few things where
Speaker 1: he but typically just like the most run of the mill,
Speaker 1: mainstream Democrat. He made a suggestion that are troops that
Speaker 1: are being sent to build this peer which are coming
Speaker 1: from Virginia, so he has you know, direct stake as
Speaker 1: their representative in the Senate that not only could they
Speaker 1: be in danger from Hamas and other militants, they could
Speaker 1: be in danger from the IDF themselves.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 12: Even this US military operation. These are some troops that
Speaker 12: are deployed out of Virginia. Fort Eustas in Virginia in
Speaker 12: charge of this marine peer operation. We knew when we
Speaker 12: announced that they might be in harms way from Hamas.
Speaker 12: But you know, after the events of this week, anybody
Speaker 12: doing humanitarian aid is going to wonder if they're in
Speaker 12: harms way from the IDF.
Speaker 1: So suggesting that US troops could be in harms way
Speaker 1: from the IDF, what did you make of that, Zager?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, obviously I think it's very important. And
Speaker 2: what I think is we get what people look. This
Speaker 2: has opened up a conversation. We are allowed to talk
Speaker 2: now about conduct as will affect foreigners who are in Gaza.
Speaker 2: This is basically how the expansion of the Overton window
Speaker 2: gets save the overturn window for the Canvaswin's discussion. The
Speaker 2: point is is that as this is changing and things
Speaker 2: are going to a point where they're trying to send
Speaker 2: the signal basically, they're trying to salvage their ability to
Speaker 2: be pro Israel in the future by putting down some
Speaker 2: of these noteworthy comments. And here with immense pressure I think,
Speaker 2: to try and back up Biden, and generally the other
Speaker 2: Western countries, including the European Union, which we often don't
Speaker 2: talk about, but they're very, very different on this issue
Speaker 2: than even here, Even the pro Israel nations are much
Speaker 2: more willing to criticize to pressure to try and recognize
Speaker 2: Palestinian statehood. I think things are very obviously going in
Speaker 2: a certain direction, and they are kind of leading from
Speaker 2: behind in the old Obama speak, But I.
Speaker 3: Mean, I think it is true.
Speaker 2: I think it's what's really crazy to me to watch
Speaker 2: here with Biden is the vacillation his being his hand
Speaker 2: quote unquote being forced only when a member of Washington
Speaker 2: Royalty is personally affected, never at actually leading with principle
Speaker 2: or with guidance, or it's just the absence of leadership
Speaker 2: in this with both with his own personal ideology, stubbornness,
Speaker 2: and really the see team of people he has with
Speaker 2: him is just so self evident in the entire handling
Speaker 2: of this discussion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I don't want to make too much of
Speaker 1: this shift, because I think it's entirely possible that Israel
Speaker 1: does just enough of, you know, letting a little more
Speaker 1: aid trucks in opening another crossing doing enough to placate
Speaker 1: the Biden administration and to go back to those original
Speaker 1: Biden comments that we played you to me. That's what
Speaker 1: his comments are indicative of. He says, Oh, I asked
Speaker 1: them to do what they're doing, indicating Oh, he's satisfied
Speaker 1: with the response.
Speaker 4: It's enough for him.
Speaker 1: And I think it is very possible, if not likely,
Speaker 1: that we still don't really see a change in US policy,
Speaker 1: that the Biden administration goes back to basically lockstep support
Speaker 1: and points to these few little, you know, additional crumbs
Speaker 1: that were thrown out here from Israel as some big win,
Speaker 1: big humanitarian win, and we go back to business as usual.
Speaker 1: I think that's probably the most likely outcome here. So again,
Speaker 1: I don't want to make too much of it, but
Speaker 1: you know, between not just this strike on jose Andres
Speaker 1: humanitarian aid workers, but also the political writing is just
Speaker 1: so clear on the wall. Now there's another piece in
Speaker 1: I believe Politico about how it's sunk in to some
Speaker 1: of the president's campaign team that the image that voters
Speaker 1: previously had of him as this like, eh, I may
Speaker 1: not agree with everything, but he seems like a nice
Speaker 1: guy dead and gone, done, done, and they can see
Speaker 1: the battleground pulling. They can see the problem they have
Speaker 1: in Michigan, they can see the problem they have with
Speaker 1: young voters. More on that in a later block as well.
Speaker 1: And so between those two things they feel the need
Speaker 1: to aggressively tone shift and at least extract something they
Speaker 1: can point to from the Israelis to say, see, we
Speaker 1: care and we made them change.
Speaker 4: We did that, we.
Speaker 1: Force their hand and that's how you know, that's the
Speaker 1: way that we conduct themselves and not ourselves. And that's
Speaker 1: why we're way better than Trump too, by the way,
Speaker 1: on this issue. But am I incredibly hopeful that we're
Speaker 1: going to see it entire like sea change in terms
Speaker 1: of US policy?
Speaker 4: Not particularly Yeah, I think you're right.
Speaker 1: Let's go ahead and get to the potential fallout from
Speaker 1: that Israeli strike on a consular building of Iran in Syria,
Speaker 1: because you know, it's easy to lose sight of this
Speaker 1: because so much of the conversation has been about those
Speaker 1: World Central Kitchen Aid workers. But at the very same
Speaker 1: time you had that strike, which was a violation of
Speaker 1: Vienna conventions, quite an extraordinary provocation on the Israeli part.
Speaker 1: And now the question is how is run going to respond.
Speaker 1: All of the actors involved seem quite convinced that there
Speaker 1: is almost as a necessity, going to be some sort
Speaker 1: of Iranian reaction. So what is that going to look like.
Speaker 1: Let's put this up on the screen from CNN. Their
Speaker 1: headline is US preparing for significant Iran attack on US
Speaker 1: or Israeli assets in the region as soon as the
Speaker 1: headline says next week, that would be this week. They
Speaker 1: write here, the US is on high alert, actively preparing
Speaker 1: for a significant attack that could come as soon as
Speaker 1: within the next week by Iran targeting Israeli or American
Speaker 1: assets in the region in response to Monday's Israeli strike
Speaker 1: and Damascus that kill top Iranian commanders. A senior Administration
Speaker 1: official TELCNN. US officials believe that attack is inevitable. That
Speaker 1: view is reportedly shared by their Israeli counterparts. Two governments
Speaker 1: are furiously working to get in position ahead of what
Speaker 1: is to come, as they anticipate that Iran's attack could
Speaker 1: unfold in a number of different ways, and that both
Speaker 1: US and Israeli assets and personnel are at risk of
Speaker 1: being targeted. A senior Administration official described the US warning
Speaker 1: to Iran as quote, don't think about coming after. US
Speaker 1: State Department spokesperson did not provide further information about how
Speaker 1: the US message was conveyed to Iran.
Speaker 4: But you will recall, Sagar that.
Speaker 1: Immediately after this strike, the Iranians made it clear, no
Speaker 1: uncertain terms, that not only blamed Israel, they also blamed US. Now,
Speaker 1: we deny that we knew anything about it, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, there's no real good scenario here. If we
Speaker 1: did know about it or we didn't know about it.
Speaker 1: Both of those things are a problem. But it's you know,
Speaker 1: first of all, the question of what happens is important,
Speaker 1: and second of all the realization that Israeli actions and
Speaker 1: our unconditional support of Israel have put our service members
Speaker 1: now in grave danger.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, what is also actually shocking to me has
Speaker 2: not been the change not It wasn't the actions itself,
Speaker 2: although I mean obviously a violation of the Vienna Convention.
Speaker 2: It was how quickly the Vienna Convention has begun to
Speaker 2: fall apart. And as they're watching this with great interest,
Speaker 2: let's put this up there on the screen. This actually,
Speaker 2: by the way, is something that's happening in our hemisphere
Speaker 2: and might affect US. Mexico has completely severed diplomatic ties
Speaker 2: with Ecuador, where days after the Iranian strike, Ecuador actually
Speaker 2: put actually words, police stormed in to the Ecuadorian or
Speaker 2: into the Mexican embassy to arrest their former vice president.
Speaker 2: This is an extraordinary breach of the Vienna Convention on
Speaker 2: Consular Relations. And I mean, for example, the head of
Speaker 2: the Mexican consular said in Quito, this is not possible,
Speaker 2: it cannot be. This is crazy. I am very worried
Speaker 2: they could kill him. There is no basis to do this.
Speaker 2: This is totally outside of the norm. I mean, for
Speaker 2: all time, people have dissidents and others. I don't even
Speaker 2: know much about the particular governments here involved, and I
Speaker 2: don't care because the reason why this is dangerous, this
Speaker 2: is all happening at the same time, is that collapse
Speaker 2: of consular relations is exactly especially amongst sovereign nations. We're
Speaker 2: not talking here about protest groups or something like that.
Speaker 2: Storming an embassy and holding people hostage is really a
Speaker 2: total breakdown in international norms and violations, which, after they
Speaker 2: become normalized over and over again, could lead to extraordinary things.
Speaker 2: For example, there were often CIA plans to assassinate Julian
Speaker 2: Assange inside of the Ecuadorian MS in London. Even the British,
Speaker 2: the US and the CIA was like, no, we can't
Speaker 2: do it. They were just even there, no matter what,
Speaker 2: not possible. Even in the height of the Cold War,
Speaker 2: the United States never breached the Soviet embassy here in Washington. Now,
Speaker 2: we definitely dug tunnels around said embassy and did some
Speaker 2: interesting things, and they did the same to us, but
Speaker 2: even they would never dare to enter our embassy. So
Speaker 2: to watch the breakdown of this happen in real time,
Speaker 2: this actually is what struck some real fear into me
Speaker 2: because this is the problem. And this has also been
Speaker 2: with the way that the US has operated. You know,
Speaker 2: our military operates very differently. But then we have our
Speaker 2: freaking John Kirby, spokesman for the White House, is like, oh,
Speaker 2: Israel's most moral army in the world. Like they've even
Speaker 2: done things that we would never do. Like that's not true,
Speaker 2: that's actually not true at all.
Speaker 3: I know a lot of people who got their limbs
Speaker 3: blown off, you know, going door to door when it
Speaker 3: would have been a lot easier to just drop a
Speaker 3: bomb the way that the Israelis did.
Speaker 2: We never even considered it for a second US commanders
Speaker 2: at that level. So watching this all become normalized has
Speaker 2: actually been highly dangerous, I think to the international system, there.
Speaker 4: Is no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: And again, now our consular facilities, now our embassies abroad
Speaker 1: are also at risk because there's no putting this toothpaste back.
Speaker 4: In the tube.
Speaker 1: We didn't say boo about this Israeli strike in Damascus
Speaker 1: on Iran's consular building. We didn't say anything. We didn't
Speaker 1: object to it, we didn't criticize it, we didn't say
Speaker 1: anything about it. So how are we going to then
Speaker 1: critique another country if they do the same thing.
Speaker 4: This is now on the table, period.
Speaker 1: End of story, and doctor Tree to Parsi making a
Speaker 1: point about how it's not just with regard to this violation,
Speaker 1: this flagrant violation of the Vienna Convention. Let's go and
Speaker 1: put his tweet up on the screen. Here he says,
Speaker 1: international norms being destroyed in front of our eyes. Israel
Speaker 1: ignores you and Security Council resolutions and ICJ rulings. The
Speaker 1: US after voting for that one resolution, then immediately oh,
Speaker 1: it's not binding. Well, that is just not true. We're
Speaker 1: just making stuff up. Israel bombs the Iranian consulate and
Speaker 1: violation of Vienna Convention. Ecuador then attacks the Mexican embassy,
Speaker 1: violating also the Vienna Convention. And you know, we've already
Speaker 1: seen the way this is unfolded. Tzager previously, remember all
Speaker 1: the moral language that the US would use about Russia's
Speaker 1: actions in Ukraine.
Speaker 4: They really kind of had to drop.
Speaker 1: That because what Russia has done in Ukraine it's horrifying.
Speaker 1: It was a violation of international law. I opposed it
Speaker 1: from the beginning. I still oppose it today. It looks
Speaker 1: tame compared to what Israel has done in the Gaza strip.
Speaker 1: When you look at the numbers, when you look at
Speaker 1: the destruction, when you look at the amount of civilian buildings,
Speaker 1: targeting universities, just absolutely destroying the healthcare system, Alshifa Hospital,
Speaker 1: desecrating cemeteries, schools, high rise apartment buildings, etc. There's no
Speaker 1: going back from that. Those things are now on the table,
Speaker 1: not just in Gaza, but everywhere around the world.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean in April of twenty twenty two, Biden
Speaker 2: MCCUs putin of committing quote Jenis in Ukraine, Like it's like, really, now,
Speaker 2: how could you possibly this is?
Speaker 3: And by the way, this is why I oppose.
Speaker 2: A lot of moralistic language and we're going to get
Speaker 2: a guest here is because then you get caught into
Speaker 2: little traps like this. It's like, well, what is the
Speaker 2: difference between Russia and Israel's like whoa, oops, and you
Speaker 2: see exactly how now they have to drop it and
Speaker 2: now we have no strategic rationale for we got to
Speaker 2: support Ukraine. We got to make sure that we're on
Speaker 2: the front line of democracy. And now just watch. I
Speaker 2: don't from what I understand, I haven't even seen yet
Speaker 2: a response to the US or whatever the hell is
Speaker 2: going on here with Mexico and with Ecuador. And you may,
Speaker 2: you may pretend you know that it doesn't matter, but
Speaker 2: Mexico and Ecuador the hell of a lot closer than
Speaker 2: Gaza and Moscow or Kiev. These are places which really
Speaker 2: could affect us, breakdown relations between the two of them.
Speaker 2: Vital US trading partner, one of the largest trading partners
Speaker 2: in the world, and we just ignore it, you know, completely,
Speaker 2: a flagrant attack and violation here in the Western hemisphere.
Speaker 3: So was it greenlit by America.
Speaker 2: That's another even more interesting, you know discussion, because if
Speaker 2: it was, then we've basically had quasi you.
Speaker 3: Know, green lights of a breach.
Speaker 2: Of these things happen in a one week period, which
Speaker 2: would have been extraordinary if they'd happened in the last
Speaker 2: fifty years, even a couple of times. Really very underrated
Speaker 2: discussion unfortunately. And I think that the Iranian the strike
Speaker 2: on the Iranian embassy already we're seeing the result.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is amazing, how quick, because I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: sure Ecuadorians aren't stupid, they knew. We can't say anything
Speaker 1: about it right now because we.
Speaker 4: Just want Israel. So what are we going to say?
Speaker 1: Wow, it's been great, but anyway, moving on, we can't
Speaker 1: say anything about it because of what we have allowed
Speaker 1: Israel to do.
Speaker 4: And this is what Israel.
Speaker 1: They do a little trial balloon, they test something out.
Speaker 1: Hey can I get away with you know, attacking the hospital?
Speaker 4: Oh we can.
Speaker 1: Okay, we're going to destroy the entire health system. And
Speaker 1: we know you're not going to say anything about it.
Speaker 1: We know there's not going to be any accountability. We're
Speaker 1: going to drop two thousand pound bunk or buster bombs.
Speaker 1: On a refugee can killing hundreds of people to maybe
Speaker 1: possibly get one Hamas Bady, You're going.
Speaker 4: To say anything about it, You're gonna do anything?
Speaker 8: No?
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, this is going to be our modus operande
Speaker 1: for the rest of the war. Oh can we get
Speaker 1: away with massacring civilians who are just trying to grab
Speaker 1: a bag of flour so that they and their family
Speaker 1: don't starve?
Speaker 4: Can we get away with?
Speaker 14: Oh?
Speaker 4: Yeah we can. Okay, what else can we get away with?
Speaker 1: And keep in mind again to go back to the
Speaker 1: original point made here. Now this has put our service
Speaker 1: members in grave danger because Ron.
Speaker 4: Is not stupid.
Speaker 1: They look at our very close relationship with Israel, They
Speaker 1: look at how dependent the Israelis are ultimately on the
Speaker 1: US supply of weapons, and they don't see this as
Speaker 1: an attack just from Israel. They see this as an
Speaker 1: attack from the US. And think about all of the
Speaker 1: radicalization and all of the anti US hatred that is
Speaker 1: being stoked around the world that could have massive blowback
Speaker 1: consequences for our country and our service members for decades
Speaker 1: to come. That is what our policy in the Middle
Speaker 1: East has wrought.
Speaker 4: For our country.
Speaker 2: There has been a major fracture in the conservative media
Speaker 2: ecosystem over the departure of Candace Owens from The Daily Wire.
Speaker 2: Now we're not just covering YouTube drama for the sake
Speaker 2: of it. This has genuinely become a major ideological fissure.
Speaker 2: We've seen major figures in conservative media and conservative activist
Speaker 2: debate what this means, what should be allowed. We've played
Speaker 2: for everybody previously the comments by Ben Shapiro where he
Speaker 2: justified the departure of Candace Owens, saying that the Daily
Speaker 2: Wire itself is a publisher, that it is not a
Speaker 2: platform and thus has no obligation to employ somebody who
Speaker 2: doesn't agree with them. Very discontinent in the past, with
Speaker 2: some of Ben's comments on Cancel culture and on social
Speaker 2: media for example. This has definitely been taken notice by
Speaker 2: some new entrants to the sphere, Patrick bet David in particular,
Speaker 2: and comedian Andrew Schultz as well.
Speaker 3: Here's what they had to say.
Speaker 11: CBN is what what does CBN stand for?
Speaker 17: Christian BRANCHA.
Speaker 11: It's not a RBN religious broadcasting note fork, It's what
Speaker 11: Christian broadcasting net worth. Daily Wire can be Daily DJW
Speaker 11: Daily Jewish Wire or d i W Daily Israel Wire.
Speaker 11: No problem. If that's your value, stick to that. We
Speaker 11: all love in America. It should be America first, not
Speaker 11: Iran first, not Armenia first, not Israel first. It should
Speaker 11: be America first. If you think it's Israel first, go
Speaker 11: to Israel.
Speaker 3: I agree. I agree with every word the man just said.
Speaker 2: You know, he actually, frankly, is probably more powerful than
Speaker 2: me because he's not even from here. He said, as
Speaker 2: he said, he's like, he's what I think, Armenian Christian
Speaker 2: from Iran. He's like, if you're Israel first, or if
Speaker 2: you're Armenian first, or any of that.
Speaker 3: He's like, that's fine. He's like, but put it there
Speaker 3: in the title.
Speaker 2: And I think what he's got I wouldn't have said
Speaker 2: daily Jewish Wire personally Daily Israel Wire.
Speaker 3: I mean, you listen based upon the comments that they
Speaker 3: have made.
Speaker 2: You had the CEO Jeremy Boring, who did Twitter space
Speaker 2: whatever it's called x space is now at this point
Speaker 2: he said, I would never hire somebody who said that
Speaker 2: there was a genocide happening in Gaza. And it's like, well,
Speaker 2: why you know, I mean, look, even if you disagree,
Speaker 2: why is that what is your I cannot imagine personally
Speaker 2: having any redline about any country.
Speaker 3: I'll give you a perfect example. My family is Indian.
Speaker 2: Ryan is very critical of the Modi government and has
Speaker 2: done multiple segments about censorship, including by the Way, which
Speaker 2: people in India got very upset at me about. You
Speaker 2: know what I said, stick to your own business in
Speaker 2: my country. This guy gets to do whatever he wants.
Speaker 2: Those are my editorial principles. Whether I agree or not,
Speaker 2: I don't care. I don't live there. I'm not an
Speaker 2: Indian citizen. Ben though, for example, and actually the entire
Speaker 2: leadership of the Daily Wire somehow think that it is
Speaker 2: okay to enforce foreign shibolits on our soil as it
Speaker 2: relates to an American media company. And I think it's
Speaker 2: entirely legitimate to level the criticism that Patrick and others
Speaker 2: have now put into the sphere.
Speaker 3: To go ahead, before I play Andrew.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to reiterate we're going to talk more
Speaker 1: about Rogan and his comments. But I thought a very
Speaker 1: important point that he made when he initially said, hey,
Speaker 1: I think this is a genocide, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: talking about Israel's conduct in Gaza. It's a little bit
Speaker 1: different than whatever your like philosophical view is on abortion,
Speaker 1: or your philosophical view is on gay rights, any sort
Speaker 1: of like you know, culture war issue you're talking about. Basically,
Speaker 1: what Jeremy Boring and Ben Shapiro are saying is you
Speaker 1: are not allowed to acknowledge reality. You're not allowed to
Speaker 1: talk honestly about the atrocities that are unfolding in front
Speaker 1: of us, that idea soldiers themselves are posting on TikTok.
Speaker 1: If you talk honestly about those things, you don't have
Speaker 1: a place at this network. And so I think that's
Speaker 1: part of why this actually ends up being important, because
Speaker 1: you know, the whole like facts versus feelings, Ben Shapiro,
Speaker 1: the facts are pretty undisputable about you.
Speaker 4: Listen there.
Speaker 1: You may not want to say the word genocide, but
Speaker 1: war crimes, ethnic cleansing. I mean, they have whole conferences
Speaker 1: there celebrating the idea of, hey, we're going to resettle Gaza,
Speaker 1: We're going to push everybody out. These things are undeniable.
Speaker 1: So is the facts or is it feelings? I think
Speaker 1: we on this one issue we have a very.
Speaker 4: Clear answer here.
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, look like you just said about you. Look again,
Speaker 2: I don't use more language. I think these are all
Speaker 2: loaded terms. My point though, is that when it comes
Speaker 2: to how about this critical behavior that has been at
Speaker 2: the very least has backfired against his or can we
Speaker 2: talk about that.
Speaker 3: I haven't even heard to say that.
Speaker 2: Every time I check this man's feet, it's all retweeting
Speaker 2: the justification, including Israel PM's like military justification of what's
Speaker 2: happening on the ground. I mean, why you're going to
Speaker 2: trust what they have to say? And this is coming
Speaker 2: from a person I'm a patriotic American. I love this country.
Speaker 2: I don't trust the US military. Right when the US
Speaker 2: military is like, hey, here's what we did to this
Speaker 2: hospital in Kundu's I'm like, well maybe, And you know
Speaker 2: who I ask. I ask people who are actually in
Speaker 2: the military, not that people were the spokesperson, and they're like,
Speaker 2: oh yeah, they're lying. The brass is full of shit,
Speaker 2: and they're you know, trying to, you know, paint you
Speaker 2: a different picture. Why can why do I have the
Speaker 2: wherewithal to do that in a country that I love.
Speaker 2: I'm not even a country that I'm not even from
Speaker 2: or don't live in.
Speaker 3: Very interesting, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Comedian Andrew Schultz also I thought he put it really
Speaker 2: well in his discussion around centrist. One thing I love
Speaker 2: about comedians is that they're observational by nature and that
Speaker 2: whenever they see something, they don't come into it with
Speaker 2: the same preconceived like rhetoric and all that you're supposed to,
Speaker 2: and they can just kind of say it as it is.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say. He makes the argument
Speaker 3: for censorship.
Speaker 18: He calls it something else.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I forget the term I have in my phone,
Speaker 3: but I don't even think he's using the term right.
Speaker 18: But he's basically like, there's a window of ideas we accept, yes,
Speaker 18: and we accept ideas between this this. I guess this
Speaker 18: is if I get window, you're looking like this, So
Speaker 18: we accept ideas between here and here, and anything outside
Speaker 18: of that window, well, you're fireable.
Speaker 3: That's censorships.
Speaker 19: But he's acting as if this is like a justified
Speaker 19: reason for firing people when you built your identity and
Speaker 19: platform off of no censorship and freedom of speech facts,
Speaker 19: don't care about your feelings and all this shit.
Speaker 2: It's also funny that that window happens to end where
Speaker 2: his beliefs enday not being pro Israel, that's where the
Speaker 2: window ends.
Speaker 3: That's also your specific personal belief I just don't.
Speaker 18: Can't have an opinion on your platform that is not
Speaker 18: pro a country that is not ours.
Speaker 3: Yeah wait a minute, crazy, So is the Daily Wire.
Speaker 18: An American media platform or is it an Israeli media platform.
Speaker 8: I'm just asking. This guy's cooking.
Speaker 2: He's just asking, and he's asking the right question. I
Speaker 2: think that again, is that And this is also why
Speaker 2: I think it's hilarious is that Israeli military defenders and
Speaker 2: israel firsters in the US have actually created their own
Speaker 2: worst nightmare where their behavior is now so obvious and
Speaker 2: is so so just so blatant in terms of flipping
Speaker 2: on a dime as regards to ansorship, cancel culture, free speech,
Speaker 2: student protests where oh, we're supposed to be upset because
Speaker 2: kids are crying on campus, that it is now clear
Speaker 2: what their real and first objective is. They care more
Speaker 2: about Israel than they do even about concepts and principles
Speaker 2: that we hold dear here in this country. And that's
Speaker 2: why I think it's very important that this fight has
Speaker 2: broken out. I will not lie and say that I
Speaker 2: don't think that they are very much still remain in power,
Speaker 2: especially whenever it comes to the elected you know, representatives.
Speaker 2: But as all things, you know, the online discussion is
Speaker 2: a precursor to possibly change fifteen twenty years down the line.
Speaker 2: And that is where I at least see things going
Speaker 2: right now, because this decision in particular has opened up
Speaker 2: a lot of people's eyes.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well they turned on a dime, you know.
Speaker 1: I mean it was very like, I'm a free speech
Speaker 1: absolutist in this period.
Speaker 4: End of story.
Speaker 1: And you can if you're the New York Times, you know,
Speaker 1: you can't say the Tom Cotton op ed is out
Speaker 1: of bounds. You can't fire that editor, the greenlitos because
Speaker 1: that's cancel culture. There was no discussion of an overtin
Speaker 1: window when it came to that, or you know, even
Speaker 1: more recently, when it came to Ronald McDaniel's firing it
Speaker 1: over at NBC News, that overton window was apparently not acceptable.
Speaker 1: I mean, frankly, yeah, the sort of language Ben is
Speaker 1: using now sounds like a lot of what liberals were
Speaker 1: saying when they were justifying censorship, saying no, at this outlet,
Speaker 1: these are the values that's perfectly acceptable. People should lose
Speaker 1: their jobs for having views, having viewpoints, expressing opinions, that
Speaker 1: are outside of what we consider to be acceptable discourse.
Speaker 1: That was the liberal justification, and now it's just very
Speaker 1: clear that you share that view. It just happens that,
Speaker 1: you know, you're fine with the views that they had
Speaker 1: problems with, You're fine with those on your platform. But
Speaker 1: there are other views, including most specifically on the issue
Speaker 1: of Israel, that are out of bads And I don't
Speaker 1: know that that's the only way to mentioned abortion as well.
Speaker 1: That probably is another one that would be out of
Speaker 1: bounds for him if you had someone there who was saying, no,
Speaker 1: I think women should have the right to choose, you know,
Speaker 1: all the way through the third trimester that air and
Speaker 1: we also would be out of bounds and grounds for
Speaker 1: firing on Ben Shapiro's network as well. So you know,
Speaker 1: just own up to it. Your views are different than
Speaker 1: what you said that they were, and you built an
Speaker 1: entire media platform and a lot of wealth on, you know,
Speaker 1: espousing that you were this free speech, anti cancel culture guy,
Speaker 1: and you're not.
Speaker 4: That's the bottom line here to me.
Speaker 2: That's actually probably what bugs me more than anything is
Speaker 2: because it would be I'm trying to think of an example. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it would be like if we started reading pharmaceutical ads,
Speaker 2: you know here on the show.
Speaker 3: Like that would be insane.
Speaker 2: We have raised money from well meaning, hard earned people's
Speaker 2: money to fund our program and then we're like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: we're just going to start reading like pvisor ads or
Speaker 2: something here on the show. People rightfully would be outraged,
Speaker 2: and they should be, because then why did we present
Speaker 2: years and years and years of building up a brand
Speaker 2: and trying to maintain integrity. I mean, and just so
Speaker 2: people know, we have turned down massive offers for such
Speaker 2: types of things here on the show, regardless of how
Speaker 2: much money it is, simply because we know it would
Speaker 2: be a betrayal. But you know, if the real value
Speaker 2: is about something else, as we all start to learn
Speaker 2: here in this very revealing episode, I think it does
Speaker 2: tell us quite a bit. Let's put up this as well,
Speaker 2: because there has been now a gauntlet throne by Candace.
Speaker 2: So Candace Owen's challenging Ben Shapiro to a debate. There
Speaker 2: has been a lot of back and forth, and I
Speaker 2: won't get into all the details, but she says, barring
Speaker 2: the insinuation that there basically it was all this beef
Speaker 2: about whether she was traveling to London or not. Candace
Speaker 2: says that she does not want to participate in a
Speaker 2: debate with Ben Shapiro on the Daily Wire platform and
Speaker 2: that she wants it to be in person. She then
Speaker 2: says that I fully accept there will be no moderator.
Speaker 2: I will get in touch privately to get all of
Speaker 2: this set up. There has been a major win. But
Speaker 2: one of the problems, Crystal, if we look at some
Speaker 2: of the back and forth traffic, and then I think
Speaker 2: Candace is entirely correct about is she was like, Okay,
Speaker 2: let's debate, and Ben Shapiro was like, fine, come to
Speaker 2: my studio and debate me on my own show. And
Speaker 2: she said, well, why don't we pick Lex Friedman or
Speaker 2: Joe Rogan or any of those places? And Jeremy Boring
Speaker 2: was like, no, accept that. Going after Patrick Tiff David
Speaker 2: Ben just participated in a debate on Lex Women's podcast
Speaker 2: were freaking destiny, you know, so why can't you do
Speaker 2: it with Candace Owans. It's one of those where there
Speaker 2: it's so weasily honestly, this idea that the moderator would
Speaker 2: put his foot on this, you know, would put his
Speaker 2: foot on the gas and some sort of direction. It's
Speaker 2: just one of those where, look, I hope that it
Speaker 2: actually does happen. I genuinely do, even though both sides
Speaker 2: have now allegedly agreed. We'll see if the Daily Wire
Speaker 2: at this point does try to get out of it.
Speaker 2: But you know the lengths and the lengths that they
Speaker 2: have gone to protect and to justify this decision over
Speaker 2: there as a business, I don't think we can ever
Speaker 2: say that this is a quote unquote free speech organization ever.
Speaker 3: Again, Yeah, at the very.
Speaker 1: Least, let me also say I genuinely think that some
Speaker 1: of Candace's comments. I mean, she's still on there defending
Speaker 1: Kanye West, who literally said I love Hitler.
Speaker 4: Okay, I do think.
Speaker 1: That some of her comments are incredibly can be classified
Speaker 1: as anti semitic. But she was making those comments before
Speaker 1: where you hired her here, and so that's the thing
Speaker 1: to me, is like, it's very clear that actually wasn't
Speaker 1: the line that was fine. It was when you were
Speaker 1: very theciperously critical of the Israeli government. And even he
Speaker 1: brings up who's the other commentator who has more of
Speaker 1: a like Listen, I just think we shouldn't be involved
Speaker 1: in anything. He's like that view was fine when it
Speaker 1: comes to israel I think it's but because he is,
Speaker 1: you know, very clear that he thinks Israel is a
Speaker 1: moral actor, that's also fine, that's acceptable. But if you're
Speaker 1: actually directly critical of the Israeli government in a way
Speaker 1: that you know, Ben finds it acceptable be critical of
Speaker 1: the American government, but you can't be critical in that
Speaker 1: way of the Israeli government. That's where the line was.
Speaker 1: It wasn't the you know, weird Hitler comments, It wasn't
Speaker 1: backing up Kanye West. It was when you were directly
Speaker 1: critical of the Israeli government.
Speaker 4: That was the line too far.
Speaker 1: And so I think it's really important because people may
Speaker 1: look at some of our comments and you know what
Speaker 1: those around the bounds, and I see why they don't
Speaker 1: want that at that network. But that was not actually
Speaker 1: where the line was drawn. So keep that in mind.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and look, let's also talk in terms of like
Speaker 2: popular opinion, and it's perfectly acceptable at the Daily Wire
Speaker 2: to be against IVF.
Speaker 3: That's like a three percent position here in the United States. Okay,
Speaker 3: so that but that's fine, But you know, it's not
Speaker 3: fine to be like, yeah, again, that's actually in a country,
Speaker 3: our country that affects US our policy.
Speaker 2: And I think that should be allowed. I am actually
Speaker 2: free speech absolutists. I'll pretty much hear anybody out, even
Speaker 2: if they're saying some absolutely crazy shit. But for them,
Speaker 2: for some reason, it's like that's within the bounds of
Speaker 2: the quote unquote Overton window, even though it's really not
Speaker 2: if you consider you know, US discourse, and here we're
Speaker 2: having a debate about a foreign country, and apparently that
Speaker 2: is completely out of bounds.
Speaker 3: So let's just hammer that home.
Speaker 1: It's fine you want to have an Overton where you
Speaker 1: are allowed to have whoever you want to have on
Speaker 1: your plant.
Speaker 4: That's fine.
Speaker 1: But I don't want to hear your criticism of other
Speaker 1: news outlets and other publishers quote unquote Overton window and
Speaker 1: the way they draw the lines, if they have to
Speaker 1: be a little different fro where you draw the lines.
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear that criticism anymore, because you
Speaker 1: do not have grounds to stand on avice point.
Speaker 2: I could not agree with that more. There was also
Speaker 2: really interesting. There's some other actors that have been entering
Speaker 2: the debate. Christopher Rufo, the CRT kind of campaigner who
Speaker 2: entered the fray with some analysis let's put this up
Speaker 2: on the screen. It's really worth reading. We have the
Speaker 2: full statement here, but basically it comes down to this.
Speaker 2: He says, it is not a violation of freedom of
Speaker 2: speech to let a multimillion dollar contract expire, which is
Speaker 2: reportedly what happened. The Daily Wire is not obligated to
Speaker 2: subsize Candace owns, especially if she's deviating from the publication's
Speaker 2: editorial standard or causing problems. DW is not an open
Speaker 2: platform such as YouTube, Facebook x, and the owners of
Speaker 2: the publications are under no obligation, so that is definitely true.
Speaker 3: They say.
Speaker 2: Owen spent months taking public shots at Ben Shapiro and
Speaker 2: Jeremy boring a tacit request to get canned and then
Speaker 2: play the martyr, she said. Then, he continues, Owens is
Speaker 2: a gifted speaker who has been able to turn controversy
Speaker 2: into attention, a valuable capability, but she does not advance
Speaker 2: a serious politics. She is clearly traveling down and ugly
Speaker 2: but unfortunately well trodden path. She has rationalized. Okay, blah
Speaker 2: blah blah, all this about Candace. There is an audience
Speaker 2: for such kind of material. Infot Wars does a robust
Speaker 2: business vitamins and emergency prep kits. But it's a political
Speaker 2: dead end. Why does it matter? Because the right faces
Speaker 2: an inflection point. There are serious people who are trying
Speaker 2: to advance a serious political movement with a vision for governing.
Speaker 2: I consider the Daily Wire to be among them. And
Speaker 2: then there are serious people who are willing to sell
Speaker 2: ca fabe and conspiracy leading us nowhere. I care about
Speaker 2: politics because I believe we have subjective work to do
Speaker 2: for the country, and this requires putting together a coalition
Speaker 2: capable of taking responsibility. The choice is ours, so interesting
Speaker 2: analysis there now Here's the other issue that I have
Speaker 2: with this. If you presume that the Daily Wire is
Speaker 2: a serious political organization and all of that, well, this
Speaker 2: is a political vision for an incredibly unpopular GOP, I
Speaker 2: would venture, I mean, I would say with Canvas at least,
Speaker 2: I'd much rather be with her in terms of where
Speaker 2: she's willing to go, especially with regards to Donald Trump
Speaker 2: and some more maga style politics actually as a shot
Speaker 2: at electability, than with people who are out there sparking
Speaker 2: conversation why cutting social security, banning abortion, banning IVF, Which
Speaker 2: do you think is a more serious political movement and
Speaker 2: capable of moving things forward, but curious what you have
Speaker 2: to say.
Speaker 1: That is a great point. Ye, you made the IVF
Speaker 1: point previously. The serious ones are the ones who are
Speaker 1: in favor of banning IVF, something that almost literally no
Speaker 1: one supports. Okay, but you know what, I would dissent
Speaker 1: from you in one regard. I actually think his analysis
Speaker 1: here of Candace Owens is basically correct. Those are all
Speaker 1: reasons to have not hired Candace Owens in the first place,
Speaker 1: but it has nothing to do with the reason she
Speaker 1: was actually fired.
Speaker 4: So it's a little bit irrelevant, Like you might be happy.
Speaker 1: She's gone for these other various reasons you don't think
Speaker 1: she's a quote unquote serious person, which okay, I mean
Speaker 1: I kind of agree with you there, but again, that
Speaker 1: isn't really relevant to what happened here and the specific
Speaker 1: reasons the specific context around why she was fired at
Speaker 1: this point in time. Yes, these would all have been
Speaker 1: good reasons for Ben Shapiro never to hire her, and
Speaker 1: you know, to have never indulged the supporting Kanye when
Speaker 1: he was saying things that were really unsupportable. But all
Speaker 1: of those things were fine. So let's not pretend otherwise,
Speaker 1: like I said, Christopher Rufe, you may be glad she's
Speaker 1: gone for all those ritary that's fine, but that really
Speaker 1: is kind of irrelevant.
Speaker 2: It's also a misunderstanding too, of what we're doing. The
Speaker 2: Daily Wire is not a political organization. It is an
Speaker 2: entertainment media company whose job is to make money. And
Speaker 2: that's why they hired Candice Owens in the first place.
Speaker 2: It's also why they have all these freaking cartoons and
Speaker 2: whatever their movies.
Speaker 3: Isn't there coming with snow White? I think? Anyway? My
Speaker 3: point is that's not what serious political actors do.
Speaker 1: Lady scholars, yeah, very serious, very serious film sager, lady ballers.
Speaker 2: Well to check, and I have not yet seen a
Speaker 2: quote unquote conservative movie out there that is in any
Speaker 2: way like actually good.
Speaker 4: You know, Griffin said, it wasn't that bad. Okay, all right,
Speaker 4: it wasn't that bad.
Speaker 3: I don't know that.
Speaker 4: I don't know that I call it serious.
Speaker 2: My only point here would be exactly that you're right,
Speaker 2: and that it's actually a misunderstanding.
Speaker 3: That's why they hired Candae in the first place because
Speaker 3: of the ratings. They want ratings, they want the controversy,
Speaker 3: they want people to watch, they want people to subscribe,
Speaker 3: and that's fine.
Speaker 2: Just be honest though about what line of business you're in.
Speaker 2: So this is also a big misunderstanding, I think, both
Speaker 2: on the political level and also here in terms of
Speaker 2: what they're actually trying to achieve. Let's move on now
Speaker 2: to Joe Rogan. There was a really interesting conversation between
Speaker 2: Joe Rogan and Coleman Hughes on their podcast around Israel.
Speaker 2: Coleman previously has been I would say, I think it's
Speaker 2: fair to say a defender of Israeli military actions, but
Speaker 2: even generally, he's a serious guy and he's willing to
Speaker 2: kind of hear things out and to debate. So him
Speaker 2: and Rogan kind of went at it around is really
Speaker 2: military conduct? Some revealing things here in the discussion. Let's
Speaker 2: take a listen, we'll react on the other side.
Speaker 20: There was one point where you were kind of saying,
Speaker 20: it's almost as if the Jews are doing what was
Speaker 20: done to them, well as what it's genocide.
Speaker 21: I'm saying that when you're killing thirty thousand innocent civilians
Speaker 21: in response to something that killed twelve hundred innocent civilians,
Speaker 21: and you're continuing to bomb an area into oblivion, which
Speaker 21: is what it looks like when you're looking at Gaza.
Speaker 21: There's many people that have made the argument that that
Speaker 21: is at least the steps of genocide or a form
Speaker 21: of genocide. You're destroying thousands and thousands of people's homes
Speaker 21: and killing them.
Speaker 20: So when you say thirty thousand civilians, it's not thirty
Speaker 20: thousand civilians that have been killed.
Speaker 17: Though, how many thousands have been killed?
Speaker 20: So according to Gaza Health Ministry, which is it is
Speaker 20: run by Hamas, the number they have is thirty two thousand,
Speaker 20: but they don't distinguish between Hamas and civilians.
Speaker 17: How many members of Hamas are there.
Speaker 20: Forty thousand something like that. I don't think the number
Speaker 20: is known, but it's tens of thousands. So Hamas says
Speaker 20: thirty two thousand people have been killed, civilians and soldiers.
Speaker 20: Israel says thirteen thousand soldiers have been killed by Israel.
Speaker 20: You just being let's not doubt either number. They could
Speaker 20: both be eated. But but if both of those numbers
Speaker 20: are accurate, which they may or may not be, that
Speaker 20: would be thirteen thousand soldiers killed nineteen thousand civilians killed,
Speaker 20: which for urban combat in the Middle East is a
Speaker 20: very normal ratio.
Speaker 21: I could see see what you're saying if you wanted
Speaker 21: to look at it cold and objectively.
Speaker 8: Yeah, but don't.
Speaker 20: I still I hope it doesn't come across cold because but.
Speaker 21: It's mostly women and children that are dying, that are
Speaker 21: that are dying because they're in a place where these
Speaker 21: terrorists are, right, I mean this is it's.
Speaker 20: Not because the terrorists on purpose embed themselves with the
Speaker 20: civilian population, which is a war crime.
Speaker 21: Which is a strategy that they have clearly employed when
Speaker 21: you see them and when when the IDEF went into
Speaker 21: that hospital and found the recently. Yes, yeah, so it's real.
Speaker 21: It's not just a conspiracy theory. We know that that's real.
Speaker 21: But it's still you're still talking about twenty thousand whatever
Speaker 21: it is of innocent people getting bombed into the Stone Age.
Speaker 21: That one aidation was that they were shooting people that
Speaker 21: were trying to get aid.
Speaker 17: Yes, yes, and you don't think that's the case.
Speaker 20: I think it's very unlikely.
Speaker 17: Is it possible, Yeah, it's possible. Absolutely, there is.
Speaker 20: The assumption is that there is going to be war
Speaker 20: crimes in this war, right because and I know Kurt
Speaker 20: would probably say, I'm doing the tragedy of war thing.
Speaker 20: But it's actually a legitimate point. In every single war,
Speaker 20: even the just ones, there are war crimes by berserk
Speaker 20: soldiers by the good guys. That doesn't mean it's genocide,
Speaker 20: and that doesn't mean it's not a just war.
Speaker 3: Interesting, Carsonal, So there's a lot here.
Speaker 1: So first of all, with regard to the targeting of
Speaker 1: women and children, we actually just learned quite a bit
Speaker 1: and I am going to lay all this out in
Speaker 1: my monologue, but there is an act of Israeli government
Speaker 1: official policy which says, Hey, first of all, we're not
Speaker 1: just going to target the high level Hamas commanders. We're
Speaker 1: going to target even just like random rank and file
Speaker 1: Hamas members. Okay, fine, but we're going to specifically do
Speaker 1: that using a program a kid you not called Where's
Speaker 1: Daddy that allows us to target them when they are
Speaker 1: at home with their wives and children.
Speaker 4: Furthermore, we are going to generate.
Speaker 1: Our target list using AI and we're not actually going
Speaker 1: to check whether these are Hamas militants. The only thing
Speaker 1: we're going to check is whether or not they are male.
Speaker 1: This speaks to the comments from reporter Barack Revide about
Speaker 1: how basically the assumption from the Israeli government is that
Speaker 1: any fighting age male, including miners, by the way, is
Speaker 1: a Hamas militant. So when you see their numbers about
Speaker 1: how many Hamas members they've killed, they are not correct.
Speaker 1: No serious body believes the Israeli narrative of how many
Speaker 1: Hammas fighters have killed. Okay, So what is the civilian
Speaker 1: ratio here? Because you know he's saying, okay, you can't
Speaker 1: trust the Gaza Health Ministry because they're affiliated with Hamas well.
Speaker 1: Previous research has shown that they're members are actually quite correct,
Speaker 1: but let's put that aside. UN report says that seventy
Speaker 1: percent of those killed are women and children. Okay, so
Speaker 1: you don't have to take the Israeli government or the
Speaker 1: Gaza Health Ministry's.
Speaker 4: Word for it.
Speaker 1: Seventy percent of those killed are women and children. So
Speaker 1: that's on the death toll. Then you talk about the
Speaker 1: destruction of civilian infrastructure and the way Coleman portrays it,
Speaker 1: it's like, oh, well, you know, one hospital maybe because
Speaker 1: there was a command and control center, which again the
Speaker 1: Israelis never actually proved the allegation, the extraordinary allegations that
Speaker 1: they made about what was allegedly happening at Alshievla Hospital,
Speaker 1: But that was far from the only health care facility
Speaker 1: that was targeted. Three hundred and one according to euromed monitor,
Speaker 1: health care facilities have been targeted, including twenty nine hospitals,
Speaker 1: sixty nine clinics, two hundred and three ambulances. So this
Speaker 1: was an all out destruction, intentional destruction of the healthcare system.
Speaker 1: You had universities that were destroyed through controlled demolition. They
Speaker 1: never even made an argument though, oh Amas is hiding here,
Speaker 1: blah blah. No, they just decided to destroy the entirety
Speaker 1: of the university system in Gaza as well churches, mosques.
Speaker 1: Two hundred and sixty nine thousand homes have been at
Speaker 1: least partially destroyed. One hundred and twenty two thousand homes
Speaker 1: have been completely destroyed. The devastation is greater than dressed in.
Speaker 1: So to look at this and say, oh, it's this
Speaker 1: you know, targeted, strategic, very disciplined operation.
Speaker 4: Yeah, maybe there may be an occasional war.
Speaker 1: Crime or two, is just to really deny the actual
Speaker 1: reality of what's happening here and to frankly, dishonestly manipulate
Speaker 1: the facts that we know in order to try to
Speaker 1: support something that is increasingly difficult to.
Speaker 3: Support our respect women.
Speaker 2: I think what he is missing here is that it's
Speaker 2: about intent, and I understand, you know, he's his point
Speaker 2: about like I think war crimes are inevitable.
Speaker 3: I actually agree.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's possible for human civilizations to go
Speaker 2: into combat.
Speaker 3: For me, it is about the intent of the highest.
Speaker 2: Military authorities in the civilian leadership that are at hand.
Speaker 2: Is the intentional purpose that is then filtered down through
Speaker 2: the military and then through enforcement of rules to minimize
Speaker 2: that to as much as possible or is it not?
Speaker 17: Now?
Speaker 2: We have not seen that behavior from the very beginning
Speaker 2: from the Israeli military, from the Israeli government, and within
Speaker 2: frankly the Israeli You know, from the lowest level to
Speaker 2: the highest level, you have had zero enforcement of a
Speaker 2: actual reasonable rules of engagement. You've seen very little actual
Speaker 2: military strategy for accomplishing their alleged end.
Speaker 3: You've seen collective punishment.
Speaker 2: You have seen a basically a policy of indistinguishable likes
Speaker 2: rules of engagement employed against civilians versus militants.
Speaker 3: That's where it all comes to.
Speaker 2: I think a reasonable picture of what this is and
Speaker 2: why people who can be quote unquote pro the ability
Speaker 2: to go to war or even in a just war,
Speaker 2: can criticize best at policy in the age of precision
Speaker 2: guided munitions, in the age of counterinsurgency and more. It
Speaker 2: is one thing, you know, to talk about bombing civilian
Speaker 2: populations from b twenty nine's on Tokyo when there was
Speaker 2: a limited amount of military you know, military capacity, there
Speaker 2: was you know, very very difficult options that were to
Speaker 2: be changed. It's another when we were talking about non
Speaker 2: peer to peer nations that are going to war with
Speaker 2: each other in the twenty first century with the capacity
Speaker 2: to militarily occupy if they wanted, with a capacity to
Speaker 2: distinguish civilians from militants if they wanted, and then explicitly
Speaker 2: to not make that choice. That is what my biggest
Speaker 2: criticism I would say of him was. And I also think,
Speaker 2: you know, not really engaging too either with some of
Speaker 2: the aid workers that Rogan brings up.
Speaker 3: There at the end.
Speaker 2: And that's why I think it is self evidently available
Speaker 2: and obvious to people who are observers of the conflict
Speaker 2: that even if you don't have a bias, and especially
Speaker 2: if you don't have a bias, just try to look
Speaker 2: at it. You know, one to one and you're like, okay, look,
Speaker 2: we can be reasonable here. We can understand that some
Speaker 2: sort of response is justified, you know, and we can
Speaker 2: have compassion and feel the horror of October seventh and
Speaker 2: justify and understand the state of Israel and where they
Speaker 2: come from and all that, and still have very very
Speaker 2: reasonable criticisms of that state, which is part of the
Speaker 2: why I like to look at the actual Israeli society,
Speaker 2: where apparently they're allowed to have more dissent than we are.
Speaker 2: I guess, at least to a point. That's what I
Speaker 2: would say.
Speaker 4: I think a couple more points.
Speaker 1: So just to me, when the government announces a complete
Speaker 1: siege and now we see children and babies literally starving
Speaker 1: to death from that point on, from the announcement of
Speaker 1: the complete siege, it becomes preposterous to say they're not
Speaker 1: targeting civilians. Like, to me, that's this game over. Obviously
Speaker 1: they are. They just announced it. They said these are
Speaker 1: human animals, they're gonna be treated as such. We're announcing
Speaker 1: a complete stage. How can you then argue, oh, they're
Speaker 1: not targeting civilians. It's preposterous. Also, they dropped indiscriminately two
Speaker 1: thousand pound bunker buster bombs, which are on military said,
Speaker 1: way too much in an urban fighting environment on refugee
Speaker 1: camps to maybe possibly get one Hamas militant and you're
Speaker 1: killing hundreds of civilians. This is not this is not defensible.
Speaker 1: In no context is this defensible. And this wasn't a whoopsie.
Speaker 1: We've actually thought it was a whole Hamas.
Speaker 4: Brigade there or whatever.
Speaker 1: Know, they intentionally dropped two thousand pounds bunker buster bombs
Speaker 1: on refugee camps.
Speaker 4: Lastly, Joe brings up.
Speaker 1: I think he's referring to the Flower masacre that we
Speaker 1: covered extensively here where you had over one hundred Palestinians killed,
Speaker 1: where you had this you know, aid convoy coming in
Speaker 1: and people who were waiting for it. This is in
Speaker 1: northern Gaza, where the humanitarian situation is the most dire
Speaker 1: and the highest levels of actual starvation, and some are
Speaker 1: saying now actually has tipped into famine. That's where we're
Speaker 1: talking about. And remember the Israeli military their story was, oh, well,
Speaker 1: they these Palestinians, they're just barbarians. They got out of control,
Speaker 1: they were stampeding each other and then the truck may
Speaker 1: have even run some of them over and we fired
Speaker 1: some warning shots. Said, but that's it, that's all we did,
Speaker 1: the Palestinian said, And by the way, this isn't the
Speaker 1: only massacre that has happened in the context of Palestinians
Speaker 1: seeking aid. They said, no, the Israelis fired on us
Speaker 1: using tanks and also using guns. And you know, the
Speaker 1: people who were killed overwhelmingly it was.
Speaker 4: From gunshot wounds.
Speaker 1: Okay, save two competing claims, how do you figure out
Speaker 1: which one is correct? Well, were most of the deaths
Speaker 1: caused from stampede, you know, crushing injuries, or were they
Speaker 1: from gunshot wounds? The doctors and independent observers on the
Speaker 1: ground said overwhelmingly it was from gunshot wounds to the
Speaker 1: head to the chest. This was not oh, we're firing
Speaker 1: warning shots their feet or whatever. So we do actually
Speaker 1: know what happened there. It is knowable because we have
Speaker 1: two competing stories, and the facts in reality match up
Speaker 1: much more closely with what the Palestinian said happened. So
Speaker 1: and then again to just sort of wave that one
Speaker 1: away as, oh, well, you know, war crimes, they're going
Speaker 1: to happen.
Speaker 4: Maybe that was a war crime. I don't know.
Speaker 1: And then to ignore all of the other AID massacres,
Speaker 1: all of the other assaults and civilian infrastructure.
Speaker 4: What's your war crumes?
Speaker 1: To ignore the complete siege, to ignore everything else that's happened,
Speaker 1: and just dismiss that as a one off, is to
Speaker 1: deny the reality of what has actually been a top down,
Speaker 1: systematic assault that is wildly in contravention at every turn
Speaker 1: with international lawn and very and is quite consistent according
Speaker 1: to the ICJ, according to according to the UN Special
Speaker 1: Rapperteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Territory Tories, is
Speaker 1: at least plausible and in the words of Francescalbani's reasonable
Speaker 1: grounds to say that this is an ongoing genocide. So
Speaker 1: that's what I would say in response to some of
Speaker 1: what was laid out there.
Speaker 3: Anyway, I'm at least glad he's having people on there
Speaker 3: debating this.
Speaker 2: It's good. It's good for people. All right, let's go
Speaker 2: move on to the next one. Trump Politics. We'll have
Speaker 2: some more politics in the show tomorrow. I promised, we're
Speaker 2: a mercy at the news here. But here's what we
Speaker 2: saw over the weekend. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. The Trump campaign says that it raised more
Speaker 2: than fifty million dollars at a Saturday fundraiser. This was
Speaker 2: a huge announcement because it was one both where according
Speaker 2: to his campaign aid, he pressed again for Joe Biden
Speaker 2: to debate him, but it was to debut the bundling
Speaker 2: organization that they had created behind the scenes. They say,
Speaker 2: quote Trump is pushing to close the massive fundraising disadvantage
Speaker 2: against Biden. Figures released by the two campaigns show that
Speaker 2: Biden ended March with one hundred and ninety two million
Speaker 2: dollars on hand, more than twice as much as Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: At Saturday's evening's event, we're asked to donate as much
Speaker 2: as eight hundred and fourteen thousand dollars, so he was
Speaker 2: able to make a dent with that one hundred and
Speaker 2: ninety two million gap, close twenty five percent of it
Speaker 2: in just a single night. And they say that Trump
Speaker 2: is actually set to hold another high dollar fundraiser on
Speaker 2: Wednesday in Atlanta. During the private marks, they say Trump
Speaker 2: reirated his call for Biden to debate him after refusing
Speaker 2: to participate in the Republican primary debates. Biden, of course
Speaker 2: last month had said that you know, he said, well,
Speaker 2: of course he wants to debate me, and he won't
Speaker 2: necessarily commit to it. Apparently, though he also made some
Speaker 2: actual comments when it comes to policy that we wanted
Speaker 2: to make sure we covered. Put it up there, please
Speaker 2: on the screen. They say, he told them that he
Speaker 2: will keep their taxes low. At the fifty million dollar fundraiser,
Speaker 2: according to him, they say, Trump speaked and spoke to
Speaker 2: the need to win back the White House so that
Speaker 2: we can turn our country around, focus on key issues
Speaker 2: including unleashing energy productions, securing our southern border, reducing inflation,
Speaker 2: extending the Trump tax cuts, eliminating the Biden electric vehicle mandate,
Speaker 2: protecting Israel, and avoiding global war in a roughly forty
Speaker 2: five minute speech.
Speaker 3: But attendees say that.
Speaker 2: When the cameras were off, he certainly said that he
Speaker 2: would keep taxes low to some of the billionaires, So
Speaker 2: it would explain, you know, why so many of them
Speaker 2: are very willing to shell out. Frankly, I would say
Speaker 2: he has more institutional Republican support today than he has
Speaker 2: at any point in his entire career because post January sixth,
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, Trump tax cuts and all that, they
Speaker 2: were still happy, but there was so much culture war
Speaker 2: nonsense going.
Speaker 3: On at the time.
Speaker 2: A lot of them wouldn't openly say it, but this
Speaker 2: really to me shows that he is not only in
Speaker 2: charge of the Republican Party obvious for quite a long time,
Speaker 2: but he's got a lot of the traditional business types too.
Speaker 2: Whoever is left in here, they're all in for Trump.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think Wall Street has gotten very comfy with
Speaker 1: the idea of another Trump term, not only because yeah,
Speaker 1: he was good to them in terms of tax cuts,
Speaker 1: but also because Biden has been very His administration has
Speaker 1: been good and aggressive on anti trust in a way
Speaker 1: that the business world absolutely hates. And just look at
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal and the like out and out
Speaker 1: jihad they have against Lena Kon however, many op eds
Speaker 1: that they've written, whatever, and so, because there's much more
Speaker 1: scrutiny of these big merger deals going through, that leads
Speaker 1: to a lot of Wall Street types who are getting
Speaker 1: they're big bonuses at the end of the year.
Speaker 4: They hate that.
Speaker 1: Of course, the CEOs and executive class and the owner class,
Speaker 1: they hate the fact that they're having to jump through
Speaker 1: these hoops and undergo scrutiny that they haven't faced in
Speaker 1: their entire lifetimes. With regards to these massive transactions in
Speaker 1: the way that they're screwing consumers and workers alike.
Speaker 4: So they don't like those pieces.
Speaker 1: And I think the original fears with Trump were like, oh,
Speaker 1: chaos and uncertainty and what's this going to mean for
Speaker 1: the business environment. But now that they've seen it once
Speaker 1: around and they have these antitrust and pro labor pieces
Speaker 1: from the Bidens station that they really hate, suddenly there,
Speaker 1: you know, Jamie Diamond and the like even are much
Speaker 1: more comfy with a Trump second term. So to the
Speaker 1: two things that I found most noteworthy there in the
Speaker 1: list of issues that were important to him were extending
Speaker 1: the Trump tax cuts, which yes, means these you know,
Speaker 1: billionaires will keep their breaks, and also protecting Israel, making
Speaker 1: sure to mention that, and he's you know, he's said
Speaker 1: some comments that could kind of be interpreted however you
Speaker 1: want to interpret them. But behind closed doors at this fundraiser,
Speaker 1: he's making it clear he's going to be lockstep support
Speaker 1: for Israel, as he was as well in his first term.
Speaker 2: I would not count out, though, the impact of these dollars,
Speaker 2: given the way that national trends are going and when
Speaker 2: we compare them let's go put the next one please
Speaker 2: up on the screen, just to give an example. So
Speaker 2: if you look at the March fundraising numbers, where Biden
Speaker 2: was significantly outpacing Trump, the Biden campaign, though, is raising
Speaker 2: twenty six million dollars, for example, quote in a single
Speaker 2: night with their star studed event, and that included Obama
Speaker 2: and Bill Clinton.
Speaker 3: This is double that one. Now, let's let's be real.
Speaker 2: They might have lined things up to get the headline
Speaker 2: the Trump campaign did to make sure that it got
Speaker 2: fifty million. I'm almost certainly let's watch and see what
Speaker 2: comes out of Atlanta, though, because if they're able to
Speaker 2: put up twenty some million dollars in the same way
Speaker 2: that the Biden campaign can, and note there ain't no
Speaker 2: protesters at Trump campaign events or Trump Trump Big Trump
Speaker 2: organization rallies, and that demonstrates that the unity of the coalition,
Speaker 2: a ton of money, and then the popularity that is
Speaker 2: going in the tide of Trump. One thing, as we'll
Speaker 2: always trying and do here is present the other side.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen. Some polls. Now,
Speaker 2: what we're beginning to see is that polls are suggesting
Speaker 2: a shift in the electorate in a way that is
Speaker 2: very counter to recent history. Joe Biden quote is struggling
Speaker 2: with young voters, but is performing better than most Democrats
Speaker 2: with older voters. Maybe they see a kinsman there in
Speaker 2: the White House. But from what we see, the quote
Speaker 2: unquote age inversion is quote the warning sign of a
Speaker 2: structural problem in twenty twenty four election polling. One of
Speaker 2: the reasons that they are showing this is that if
Speaker 2: you break down things by crosstabs, Biden's strength amongst older
Speaker 2: voters may actually indicate and undercount because even if Trump
Speaker 2: does surge amongst young voters, Latinos and all those other people,
Speaker 2: that's great, but let's be real, they don't vote. And
Speaker 2: I'm talking statistically younger voters. Minority voters too very very
Speaker 2: unlikely to actually vote in the same numbers as white boomers.
Speaker 2: The median voter in this country is a fifty five
Speaker 2: year old white man who is non college educated. If
Speaker 2: Biden is able to keep some strength with that person
Speaker 2: in the electorate, that will actually indicate that the polls
Speaker 2: right now could actually be overstating Trump support. Just something
Speaker 2: that we had to throw out there because it is interesting,
Speaker 2: and I mean I guess it makes sense.
Speaker 3: He's an older man.
Speaker 2: He is the embodiment of silent gen and boomerism. Like
Speaker 2: in one he's been around forever. Boomers love the whole
Speaker 2: like we need a man with experience thing in the
Speaker 2: White House. He like checks all the boxes. So and
Speaker 2: then they love cable TV and Biden. Biden is mostly
Speaker 2: beloved by MSNBC and CNN. So if you put those
Speaker 2: things together, it does actually tract to me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm a little mystified, genuinely about the polls. I
Speaker 1: don't know what to make of any of them at
Speaker 1: this point. You know, are they under counting Biden? Are
Speaker 1: they undercounting Trump? I have no idea.
Speaker 4: I'm just throwing my hands up and taking all of
Speaker 4: it with a grain of salt. I find it hard to.
Speaker 1: Believe they cite a couple of poles here that has
Speaker 1: Trump actually a head of Biden among millennial and gen
Speaker 1: Z voters. I find that hard to believe Biden taking
Speaker 1: a hit among those voters.
Speaker 4: And obviously younger.
Speaker 1: Voters are more open to third party candidates.
Speaker 4: Okay, but Trump actually beating Biden among those voters.
Speaker 1: It just if you look at the ideological profile of
Speaker 1: them It really doesn't add up, you know, when you
Speaker 1: think about their positioning on any number of issues across
Speaker 1: the board. It's hard for me to see that actually
Speaker 1: playing out. But it's being found in multiple poles. But
Speaker 1: then that's the other thing is then you can find
Speaker 1: another pole that has it like the complete opposite direction.
Speaker 1: Biden continuing to have a twenty point lead ahead of
Speaker 1: Trump with voters under the age of thirty five. So
Speaker 1: I'm just throwing out there, I don't know what the
Speaker 1: hell is going on with these poles.
Speaker 4: I genuinely don't know. I find it very hard to
Speaker 4: believe Trump is actually winning with young voters. Is eating
Speaker 4: into the lead? Is o RFK Junior.
Speaker 1: Posing a threat for Biden and causing him problems with
Speaker 1: these voters?
Speaker 4: Cornell West Jill Stein.
Speaker 1: Sure, but I'm skeptical that this massive like youth wave
Speaker 1: towards actually affirmatively towards Trump is actually happening.
Speaker 3: It depends on the gender balance too.
Speaker 2: If you told me he's me winning amongst young men,
Speaker 2: I would believe it actually at the very least of
Speaker 2: like fifty some percent if you include women in that.
Speaker 2: I do find it hard to believe. Ideologically, people are
Speaker 2: Let's be honest. People are all over the map and
Speaker 2: have very very divergent opinions whenever it comes to politics,
Speaker 2: so etan just looking at that and mapping it out
Speaker 2: onto the current candidates is not is not usually one
Speaker 2: to one.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I would say if it is true that Biden is
Speaker 2: doing better amongst older voters, that is a major sign
Speaker 2: of strength for him and one that we should pay
Speaker 2: very very close attention to. And that is one that
Speaker 2: I actually really do believe just given his politics, given
Speaker 2: the way that they like to see the country and
Speaker 2: the things that they value, they're probably a lot less
Speaker 2: likely than I mean, this is where the media question
Speaker 2: comes in. They live in a different universe than the
Speaker 2: rest of us. They are literally not online unless it's
Speaker 2: their email or Facebook. That is not the same. But
Speaker 2: the way that we all consume media, and with that,
Speaker 2: you're going to see a lot less Biden fumbling, You're
Speaker 2: going to see a lot less emphasis on some of
Speaker 2: the things that we talk about.
Speaker 4: And is going to be is not a problem for
Speaker 4: older voters.
Speaker 8: Don't care.
Speaker 2: They own their own houses, you know, And to the
Speaker 2: extent that they're in debt or whatever they're on social security,
Speaker 2: like they don't care.
Speaker 4: That's true too. From the economy is their.
Speaker 3: Economy is good.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's one of those where because of the parallel
Speaker 2: universe that they like, they're not feeling the same pressures
Speaker 2: that we are.
Speaker 3: And then you add media on top of that, I
Speaker 3: could believe it. Why he is doing better with older folks.
Speaker 3: Very interesting, Chrystal, what are you taking a look at well.
Speaker 1: Israelan's defenders swear that the IDF has followed the rules
Speaker 1: of war in their assault on Gaza, that they aren't
Speaker 1: at war with civilians but laser focused on hamas, that
Speaker 1: any civilian deaths are the fault of Hamas for operating
Speaker 1: within the civilian population or at the very worst, regrettable mistakes,
Speaker 1: such as in the case of the seven World Central
Speaker 1: Aid kitchen workers who were killed in that series of
Speaker 1: three drone strikes. The IDF, Israel's defenders say, is the most.
Speaker 4: Moral army in the world.
Speaker 1: A new shocking report from plus nine seven to two
Speaker 1: magazine definitively disproves every single one of these claims. Of course,
Speaker 1: anyone paying attention was fully disabused of these notions long ago.
Speaker 1: The ratio of civilian to militant debts alone is sufficient
Speaker 1: to prove that this war on humanity has been intentional,
Speaker 1: but plus nine seven to two once again has provided
Speaker 1: invaluable in sight into the exact mechanisms of the horror.
Speaker 1: They reveal for the first time the details of how
Speaker 1: Israeli algorithmic targeting supercharged a slaughter and critically, how the
Speaker 1: very human decisions made in this assault and desire for
Speaker 1: total revenge have fueled annihilation and genocide. Now I urge
Speaker 1: you to read the entirety of Yvale Abraham's collaboration with
Speaker 1: Local Call for nine to seventy two magazine titled Lavender,
Speaker 1: The AI Machine directing Israel's bombing spree in Gaza. I'm
Speaker 1: going to summarize the most significant findings, but I believe
Speaker 1: this will be one of the defining journalistic pieces of
Speaker 1: this entire onslaught. Every detail of this report really matters,
Speaker 1: so please, if you have the time, take a look.
Speaker 1: So here are some of the top line findings of
Speaker 1: that report. First of all, Israel has developed an AI
Speaker 1: targeting system called Lavender, which has been used to generate
Speaker 1: some thirty seven thousand targets in Gaza. Second, those human
Speaker 1: targets generated by the algorithm were imprecise, with a known
Speaker 1: error rate of about ten percent.
Speaker 4: In spite of this error rate.
Speaker 1: Next to note, human checking was performed before targeting individuals
Speaker 1: on the lavender list for assassination idea, soldiers were to
Speaker 1: consider these faulty AI target lists of alleged militants to
Speaker 1: be orders. Miners were included on the list along with
Speaker 1: civil service officers. Third, the IDF authorized extraordinary levels of
Speaker 1: collateral damage, officially twenty civilians per junior hamas fighter and
Speaker 1: one hundred civilians for higher level commanders. In practice, though
Speaker 1: collateral damage ratios could be even higher. The motive, according
Speaker 1: to the sources, was not to eliminate hamas it was
Speaker 1: pure and simple revenge. Fourth, contrary to claims about avoiding
Speaker 1: civilian casualties, Israel intentionally targeted civilians through use of a
Speaker 1: software program called ware Staty, which was used to target
Speaker 1: the private homes of militants when they were at home
Speaker 1: with their families and surrounded by other civilians. Little was
Speaker 1: done to make sure the alleged militant was even actually
Speaker 1: killed and not just his family members. Now those are
Speaker 1: the top line findings, but it is well worth digging
Speaker 1: into the sum of the stomach turning details here. Gazza
Speaker 1: has become a testing ground for dystopian AI driven military tech,
Speaker 1: which is plunging all of us into a new era
Speaker 1: of horrors and unchecked barbarism. Nine seven to two had
Speaker 1: previously reported on an AI system called the Gospel, which
Speaker 1: generates infrastructure targets with a focus on so called power targets.
Speaker 1: These are large centers of civilian lifelike high rise apartment
Speaker 1: buildings which were destroyed in order to demoralize and terrorize
Speaker 1: the civilian population. Drone equipped robot dogs are also increasingly
Speaker 1: wandering throughout the rubble in Gaza thanks to new developments
Speaker 1: from the Pentagon and US military contractors. And we can
Speaker 1: now add to this list of killer tech Lavender, which
Speaker 1: generates tens of thousands of human targets and operating hand
Speaker 1: in glove with Lavender is Where's Daddy Software, which targets
Speaker 1: those placed on the Lavender kill list for assassination while
Speaker 1: they are at their homes with their families. Where's Dad
Speaker 1: get it for the IDF When Daddy's home, it means
Speaker 1: it's time to murder every man, woman, and child who
Speaker 1: happens to be in the vicinity. Now, Lavender uses the
Speaker 1: data collected through mass surveillance of every Palestinian in Gaza
Speaker 1: to analyze the likelihood that they may be Hamas based
Speaker 1: on a list of identified attributes. Every Gazan is given
Speaker 1: a rating of one to one hundred as to how
Speaker 1: likely they are to be a militant. The algorithm is
Speaker 1: programmed with hundreds or thousands of attributes which are considered
Speaker 1: to be suggestive of Hamas or other militant membership. Some
Speaker 1: attributes identified in the piece include being in the wrong
Speaker 1: WhatsApp group or changing addresses too often. Now, if you
Speaker 1: are clocked with too many incriminating features as identified by Lavender,
Speaker 1: then you'll be placed on a kill list and marked
Speaker 1: for IDF assassination with next to no human verification. According
Speaker 1: to a nine seven to two source quote, a human
Speaker 1: being had to verify the target for just a few seconds.
Speaker 1: Be said, at first, we did checks to ensure that
Speaker 1: the machine didn't get confused. Point we relied on the
Speaker 1: automatic system, and we only checked that the target was
Speaker 1: a man.
Speaker 4: That was enough.
Speaker 1: Doesn't take a long time to tell if someone has
Speaker 1: a male or female voice. This assumption that all men
Speaker 1: are Hamas has been backed up in recent days by
Speaker 1: the stunning reporting of Axios reporter Barack Revied, now himself
Speaker 1: a former IDF soldier. Revee told Anderson Cooper that on
Speaker 1: the ground, soldiers were simply told to murder every man.
Speaker 7: This incident shouldn't come as a surprise. You know, you
Speaker 7: remember that just a few weeks ago, three Israeli hostages
Speaker 7: that managed to escape their captors were killed by Israeli
Speaker 7: soldiers who fired at them even though they were holding
Speaker 7: a white flag. Okay, and you know I spoke to
Speaker 7: an Israeli reserve officer who was in the same unit
Speaker 7: to those soldiers who shot those hostages, and remember him
Speaker 7: telling me that the orders are basically from the commanders
Speaker 7: on the ground is just shoot every man in fighting age.
Speaker 7: Those are the orders. But that's not the rules of
Speaker 7: engagement that is coming from the idea of leadership on
Speaker 7: the ground.
Speaker 8: That's what they're being told.
Speaker 1: The orders are shoot every man of fighting age. So obviously,
Speaker 1: if you're a man in Gaza, whether or not your
Speaker 1: name is bat out by lavender can quickly become a
Speaker 1: matter of life and death. And yet the generation of
Speaker 1: these kill lists was arbitrary based on entirely human judgments
Speaker 1: about what rating level was sufficient to justify conclusion that
Speaker 1: you are very likely Hamas is a sixty five rating
Speaker 1: out of one hundred, and Lavender's ai determination of Hamas
Speaker 1: like attributes sufficient to mark you out specifically for death.
Speaker 1: Does a seventy eight make you Hamas ninety two? The
Speaker 1: answer apparently differed at different times during the war Parade
Speaker 1: nine to seven to two source quote.
Speaker 4: The numbers changed all the.
Speaker 1: Time because it depends on where you set the bar
Speaker 1: of what a Hamas operative is. There were times when
Speaker 1: a Hamas operative was defined more broadly, and then the
Speaker 1: machine started bringing us all kinds of civil defense personnel,
Speaker 1: police officers on whom it would be a shame to
Speaker 1: waste moms. They help the Hamas government, but they don't
Speaker 1: really endanger soldiers. Now, of course, you have to appreciate
Speaker 1: the concern here for the rationing of bombs, not for
Speaker 1: the human beings that are being killed.
Speaker 4: Let's put that aside.
Speaker 1: So once you've got your Lavender created kill list, you've
Speaker 1: got to actually figure out how to get these guys.
Speaker 1: Finding Hamas in a battle space can be difficult and risky.
Speaker 1: But what's quick and easy is killing them at their
Speaker 1: known residences when they go back home to their wife
Speaker 1: and kids. Now, I want you to imagine for a
Speaker 1: second that a foreign military or terrorist group was targeting
Speaker 1: our soldiers en mass when they were at home in
Speaker 1: their private residences, wantonly slaughtering mothers and children for the
Speaker 1: sake of taking out some anonymous army private This is
Speaker 1: the equivalent of what the IDF is doing in Gaza
Speaker 1: per nine seven two sources quote. We are not interested
Speaker 1: in killing hamas operatives only when they were in a
Speaker 1: military building or engaged in military activity. On the contrary,
Speaker 1: the idea of bombed them in homes without hesitation as
Speaker 1: a first option. It's much easier to bab a family's home.
Speaker 1: The system is built to look for them in these situations. Now,
Speaker 1: contrast this to the Lafe language we hear about how
Speaker 1: the IDF does not target civilians, just hamas with those
Speaker 1: darn human shields. Here we have confirmation that the IDF
Speaker 1: does in fact target civilians by choosing as their first
Speaker 1: resort to bomb private homes full of women and children.
Speaker 1: It didn't even particularly matter whether the alleged lavender killless
Speaker 1: militant was there at the time, because the IDF didn't
Speaker 1: verify that the target.
Speaker 4: Was home when the bomb dropped.
Speaker 1: In plenty of instances, the target had actually left and
Speaker 1: the IDEF just murdered the family for no apparent reason.
Speaker 1: Because of this where's Daddy strategy, entire families have been
Speaker 1: routinely annihilated. Every name on every branch of the family
Speaker 1: tree killed. This embrace of civilian slaughter was not haphazard,
Speaker 1: it was systematized. In Gaza, the IDF authorized acceptable collateral
Speaker 1: damage levels that were historically extraordinary. Any old, low level
Speaker 1: Hamas rank and filer could be killed along with twenty civilians.
Speaker 1: In practice, it could be even higher because the IDF
Speaker 1: used rule of thumb guess work to determine how many
Speaker 1: people might be killed, and because they preferred to use
Speaker 1: so called dumb bombs to take out these low level
Speaker 1: possible soldiers. The IDF did not want to waste expensive
Speaker 1: precision guided munitions on inconsequential Hamas piance. Dumb bombs may
Speaker 1: take out a few houses instead of one, or collapse
Speaker 1: an entire apartment building instead of having the capability to
Speaker 1: just target a single floor. As one source told nine
Speaker 1: seven to two quote. In practice, the principle of proportionality
Speaker 1: did not exist when it came to senior commanders. Official
Speaker 1: guidelines allowed for one hundred civilians to be killed in
Speaker 1: connection with their assassination, but here too, the reality was
Speaker 1: that even higher civilian massacres were accepted per nine seven
Speaker 1: to two in order to assassinate aim and no fall.
Speaker 1: The commander of Hamas's Central Gaza Brigade, a source said
Speaker 1: the army authorized the killing of approximately three hundred civilians,
Speaker 1: destroying several buildings and airstrikes on Albarete refugee camp on
Speaker 1: October seventeenth, based on an imprecise pinpointing of Nafal between
Speaker 1: I mean sixteen to eighteen houses were wiped out in
Speaker 1: the attack. Amra Al Kaseb, a resident of the camp,
Speaker 1: told nine seventy two in local call, we couldn't tell
Speaker 1: one apartment from the other. They all got mixed up
Speaker 1: in the rubble and we found human body parts everywhere.
Speaker 1: So for comparison here, the US during the War on
Speaker 1: Terror typically operated at a non combatant casualty value or NCV,
Speaker 1: the official term for acceptable collateral damage of zero, even
Speaker 1: when targeting Osama.
Speaker 4: Bin Lan himself. The NCV was thirty. In actual execution.
Speaker 1: Of the bin Lan raid, Seal Team six killed three
Speaker 1: bin Laden sons and one woman. Now, I am not
Speaker 1: arguing in the US was a paragon of virtuous warfighting
Speaker 1: and avoided civilian casualties in the War on Terror. But
Speaker 1: there is no comparison between Israel routinely dropping two thousand
Speaker 1: pounds bunker buster bombs on crowded refugee camps to maybe
Speaker 1: take out a single person and the high risk operation
Speaker 1: which we used to kill Osama bin Laden. So let's
Speaker 1: put the pieces together here. If you classify every military
Speaker 1: age man as a combatant, and you classify every one
Speaker 1: of his family members as acceptable collateral damage, you have
Speaker 1: effectively turned an entire population into legitimate military targets. The
Speaker 1: tech is scary, but the humans making those decisions driving
Speaker 1: the tech, they are terrifying. You can see the same
Speaker 1: logic and the official idea of explanation for why they
Speaker 1: targeted the World Central Kitchen AID convoy. Just as with Lavender,
Speaker 1: all it took was the possible presence of one fighting
Speaker 1: age male with a gun for every one of those
Speaker 1: AID workers to be marked for assassination. There's a reason
Speaker 1: for this, though multiple sources made it clear to nine
Speaker 1: seven to two that in plenty of instances the real goal
Speaker 1: was not hunting some hamas commander or another was revenge.
Speaker 1: Per nine seven to two quote, there was a completely
Speaker 1: permissive policy regarding the casualties of bombing operations, so permissive that,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, it had an element of revenge. D
Speaker 1: An intelligence source claimed also use the word revenge to
Speaker 1: describe the atmosphere inside the army after October seventh, quote,
Speaker 1: no one thought about what to do afterward when the
Speaker 1: war is over, or how it will be possible to
Speaker 1: live in Gaza and what they will do with it.
Speaker 1: A said, we were told now we have to f Uphamas,
Speaker 1: no matter what the cost. Whatever you can you bomb,
Speaker 1: whatever you can you bomb. There's no turning back from
Speaker 1: these things, from the AI generated kill list based on
Speaker 1: mass surveillance to the normalization of murdering whole families to
Speaker 1: possibly get one rank and file soldier to revenge fuel
Speaker 1: destruction of every possible piece of civilian infrastructure. Israel's actions
Speaker 1: in Gaza have opened Pandora's box for new, previously unimaginable horrors,
Speaker 1: unchecked brutality, with unleashed and unaccountable tech Sagar.
Speaker 4: The details here are really extreme.
Speaker 2: And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot Com. Thanks
Speaker 2: everybody for watching, We appreciate it. Well, Gratio everybody tomorrow
Speaker 2: and we'll see that
Speaker 16: Mhm.