You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
First, our conversation, which I just mentioned with Congresswoman Nicole Mally Gattaca. She's with us right now from Capitol Hill on what is an important day for her and for the body is lawmakers get back together and, as I mentioned, seek progress on a border deal. And Congresswoman, we thank you for joining here. It looks like your bill h R. Five two eighty three is going to get a vote
right after we talk here today. The Protecting our Communities from Failure to Secure the Border Act is what it's called here. Of course, the migrant crisis in New York is not lost on US. Congresswoman, how would it change that?
Well, look, obviously the crisis has gotten out of control, and the President unfortunately refuses to undo his executive orders and present I mean, I'm sorry, Senator Schumer refuses to bring our Border Security Act, which passed in May, to the floor for a vote that would end this crisis by reverting back to the policies of the previous administration
that we're working to stem the flow. So what I'm trying to simply do here is to prohibit federal funds from now being used to allow for our national parks to be turned into encampment. Those listening from New York City understands that Floyd Bennett Field, which was a park enjoyed by over one hundred thousand New Yorkers annually, has now been made a migrant encampment for roughly two to three thousand individuals. So it's number one, inappropriate, it's wrong
to take these public spaces from our citizens. And number two, it's just simply unsustainable. Look what is happening in New York right now with our mayor saying they need to do slash across the board cuts billions of dollars that they're spending on this migrant crisis that was self made, by the way, because of the policies of the president and then the misinterpretation of the right to shelter law by our mayor. So those two things have created this mess. We need to just stop it.
People.
We are a welcoming nation, we are a welcoming city. I'm the daughter of immigrants myself, but people have to follow the proper process, and the proper process, by the way, for asylum is you apply from the next safe country. We have people from over one hundred and twenty countries claiming asylum at our border when we're only bordered by
two countries, So people are abusing the system. Not to mention that fifty percent of those cases are denied in court, which means people are utilizing this to gain access to our country, but they don't even have legitimate claims, and they're hurting all the people that are in the system waiting but followed the rules and have done everything right.
Well, I want to definitely talk to you about asylum law. There are a couple of very specific questions I have for you, Congresswoman. It's not lost on me, though, that you mentioned the Floyd Bennett field in Brooklyn, New York on the Historic Registry. We understand that a lot of migrants who have been sent there got on a bus and went right back to Manhattan because there was nothing there for their families. They didn't know how to get
their kids to school. Do you have the votes to pass this bill?
I do believe we have the votes and I do believe that it will pass with a bipartisan vote, as it did in the committee earlier this month or last month. But what I'll say is this, You're right, and it's not safe for the migrants either. Right, there's been significant flooding on that property. It was really devastated during Hurricane Sandy. But even during a terrible rainstorm like we had a few weeks ago, it had about it had, you know, a foot of water. So it's not safe for anybody involved.
And the reality is the mayor just has to stop doing what he's doing, and the President needs to take action to secure the border. And you mentioned your comprehensive immigration reform. Yes, I mean the Republicans certainly want border security, but we're willing to work with the Democrats on more visas to make sure people can come and work legally. We do have an employment issue in our country where we have a worker shortage. This can be addressedic. It could be a win win if we do it right.
But the bottom line is the process needs to be appropriate and legal. Okay, what's happening right now? Who's benefiting the drug cartels who are being paid thousands of dollars per person to smuggle these individuals into our southern border. We know from Doctors Without Borders their recent report hundreds of these individuals and just Panama, by the way, in one month they had been raped women and children. So it's very dangerous. It's treacherous. People drown daily and not daily,
but regularly. In Eagle Pass US this weekend there were fourteen.
Well, let's talk about specifics in here, Congressman, if we could, I'd like to ask you about asylum reform. I'd like to ask you about the parole system. These are things that our listeners are really kind of keying into now as the contours of a potential deal come together. We're hearing from Democrats in the Senate congresswomen who say they are open to changing asylum law. What does that look
like when we come back to it. Is it a toughening of standards for those who can express credible fear, for instance, coming from other nations. What would a change in asylum law look like to you?
Well, first of all, we need to add more judges and asylum officers to actually hear these cases and determine at the border whether they are legitimate cases or not. Because Like I said, fifty percent of these cases are not legitimate. They get denied in court, and meanwhile they're
clogging off the system. The second thing we need to change is this last in, first out system that this administration is put in place, where somebody comes over the border, they're actually first to be heard in court as opposed to people who have been waiting in line. That's really unfair to those have been waiting years to be able to hear their cases and now they're being shoved further back in the line because of this mass migration from board.
A third of all, we need to enforce the law that says that you have to go to the next safe country. By those By that standard, only people from Mexico or Canada would be coming to the United States, and that would certainly stem the flow. People would apply from the next safe country and then they could wait until their court date, and then they.
Could should that in Mexico policy as well well.
If they yes, well it should if they are coming from a third country. That's what I'm trying to say. We can actually address all of it where they don't need to stay in Mexico, they would stay in the next safe country and that's really what the remain in Mexico was all about. It wasn't it just about having people from all these countries stay on the other side of the Mexican border.
It was more about.
Staying in the next safe country and applying from there and then waiting your turn in court. So I think if we do those things and add the border security provisions, we would really shut this thing down and have a more controllable process. Remember ten years waiting period right now to get a court date in.
New York City.
So adding the judges and asylum offices is a big part of it. But we also have to stem the flow at the border and its visas.
It appears that there's some common ground on that that that actually you might in fact get Democrats and Republicans together. The sticking point appears to be the parole system as it's called, which allows essentially the president to give humanitarian exceptions to people from countries like we're seeing now Venezuela, Cuba, and some others here. Tom Taillis said on the Senate side, of course, a Republican asylum reform is not enough to
get us to the number that we need. So what happens to the parole system.
Well, you know what, my mother was a Cuban refugee, and so I relate to those individuals from Cuba and Venezuela who are escaping socialist policies from communist policies, and I think that we can certainly look, this is what happened though. The president issued this parole, but then he didn't enforce the border law. So the idea of the parole was so the people from Venezuela can apply via
parole instead of coming to the border. And now it was supposed to shut down Venezuela's coming from the border, but that did not happen because he managed to keep the system the borders open. So there's a limit to the number of parole. But then you were not enforcing the people who did not apply by parole but then came to the border regardless, and that was the whole point of parole was so they didn't come to the border. So you have to have enforcement right anyway you look
at it. We need to have enforcement the southern border. It's not just because the flow of migrants is unsustainable. It is because it is completely unsafe. We have drug cartels who are pushing drugs over the border. They are setting up shop in New York City. I just had a meeting today with a Drug Enforcement administration very concerning.
They intercepted two hundred thousand pounds of fetanyl or derivatives, and that is certainly something that we have to take seriously as we see well over one hundred thousand Americans dying from these drug overdoses. So there's a lot here that is a problem because of our open border. And what I would say is Republicans want to see border security. We will not give this administration more money to continue
processing paperwork. Want we want our CBP to actually do their job, and that means keeping the border secure so we know who is coming in and out. One point seven million. One point seven million individuals aside from the six million that had come in and applied for asylum, have come in undetected. That is what CBP estimates. We don't know who they are, where they are, what their intentions are, and that is very concerning to me as a New York City representative in a post nine to eleven world.
You are definitely passionate about this, Congresswoman, but I do want to ask you about another matter facing the Republican conference now, and that is, of course, someone from your own delegation, George Santos, the Congressman from New York, who's facing it appears an expulsion vote at some point in the next twenty four hours or so. Will Republicans expel George Santos from the House?
Well, I, well, I think the majority of Republicans will, and I think it will be a bipartisan vote, and we need two thirds of the body to to expel for it to be successful. I will be voting to expel mister Santos. Look, we earlier this year referred it to the Ethics Committee. We've asked them to do their
due diligence. They have. They issued thirty eight subpoenas, they talked to forty different witnesses, They reviewed one hundred and seventy thousand pages of documents, and they were able to produce the evidence and determine that mister Santos did, in fact use his campaign donations for personal benefit, for botox, for a porn website, for a purchase of luxury goods at Ferragamo and Amez, and so we have to take action and remove him. Now. He will have his day
in court as it relates to the criminal charges. But in terms of being able to continue his service in Congress, we believe we have seen enough and that he does not merit to continue serving in this body, and his constituents do deserve better.
Is this a good message for Republicans right now? Is there an opportunity for you to send this message to voters to say that this is an act of responsibility and that we intend to keep that seat because Democrats think that they're going to flip that for you in New York.
Well, I do think it is an active responsibility. And look, the last time this happened, it was a Democrat and it didn't be politicized. I mean, you have to remove in individuals a bad apple like that. He lied his way to get to Congress, and then he committed these horrific activities and inappropriate use and illegally use quite frankly of his donors' money. And so we believe that by removing this bad apple, we will be better served as an institution, as a party, and his district will be
able to elect someone who is not a fraud. And I do believe that Republicans can hold onto that seat if you look what happened in Nasa County this year. They have flipped everything. They have flipped their congressional seats, they flipped their county executive, county legislature, the district attorney. So Nasa County, I have good faith that they will be able to elect another Republican. But yes, it will remain a competitive a seat as it has.
In the past.
You don't know what he's going to say eight o'clock tomorrow morning. Do you have Have you heard from your colleague from New York about what this news conference is about.
No, I have not heard, and I guess we'll find out. Hopefully we'll be able to expel him prior to that.
Wow, what a day this is going to be. Congresswoman Nicole Malia Takis of New York with us. We appreciate the time as always, Will your bill get a vote at one point thirty as we're hearing, is at your expectation, yo.
The debate will begin at two pm and then we'll have the vote following that.
Great to see you again, Congresswoman. Thank you for the insights. Grabbing the third rail here as they say, and that's of course border policy, border security and immigration reform that appears to be the center of this grand debate over funding for Israel and for Ukraine. I'm Joe Matthew in
New York today. We'll call it a special edition of Soundown because we've got Rick Davis with us up here as well at world headquarters, Bloomberg Politics contributor iconic Republican Strategists, joined today by Brad Howard, Democrats strategist, former spokesperson for the Blue Dog Democrats. Great to have you both here. Thank you for joining Brad the conversation, and Rick, it's good to see you here in New York. As we
consider what's happening in Washington. There's a lot I could ask you about here, but I'm just going to start with George Santos because we were just talking about that with Nicole Maliatak. As it does appear that the Republican Conference is prepared to say goodbye.
Yeah, I think the Republican Conference, the Democratic Conference, if there was an independent or a socialist conference, said I'll be piling on on this one.
Look.
I mean, as Congressman Mallytakers pointed out, the Ethics Committee did their report fifty pages. You know, Congressman guests the chairman of that committee. A searing indictment like none we've ever seen out of the Ethics Committee. And that's what matters. It doesn't matter ultimately to the House whether or not he is prosecuted for criminal charges that is, that is not what they're going to vote on. They're going to vote on a massive failure to a to adhere to
the ethics of the House of Representatives. It's a no brainer. Anybody actually who votes against expulsion has to be questioned as to what they see as the standard.
Democrats, I'm guessing Brad are going to vote to expel. I know they were having fun last time keeping George Santos around, and maybe it's a game they can play with Republicans. But Democrats will vote to expel, right.
Yeah, I think for you know, a couple of reasons here. You've got the expulsion on the merits, and you know, I think there's there is some credible response from George Santos that you know that nothing's been proven in a court of law, and there is a concern about the President of Sets. But this is such a unique and such an obvious violation of your oath of office and the trust you have with voters, and it's well documented.
I mean, you know, it's it's you know, most people always get caught with like accounting and documents and the sort of tax evasions ultimately gets a lot of gangsters back in the day. This is a similar situation where it is a very clear and documented, long sets of evidence that he broke federal law and misused campaign contributions
along the way. And so I think just the severity and the clearness of these violations, you know, I think Democrats resoundingly understand that this is something that needs to be rejected and removed from the House Representatives. But secondly too, I mean, obviously this is a city of politics, and
Democrats think that they can retake that seat. Thomas waz who was the congressman beforehand, is the clear front runner for that seat, and he will be a great member of Congress should he win a special election.
There's going to be a special and then a real election here, Rick is the conventional wisdom fare that Democrats flip that seat.
Not necessarily, I mean, I don't think we have a real handle on what this election cycle is going to look. So going backwards from the November elections in twenty twenty four. I think it's a jump ball whether Republicans can retain that seat and retain the House. You know, when you look at the generic ballot, it's pretty dead even right now, So there's no real headfake that's empirical that tells you
who's going to win. Now, no question, Democrats have to have a leg up on the special because of the embarrassing nature of the expulsion that Republicans are going to have to get over. So if they can get over that, then they can make it a competitive district.
Unbelievable stuff. Quite a moment that we're approaching here. Rick Davis with me in New York, Rad Howard in Washington. If you're with us on YouTube, do it now. Go to YouTube search Bloomberg Global News. Brad will keep you warm with the fireplace in his office. Well played, Brad. I'm Joe Matthew at World Headquarters in New York. We'll have a lot more ahead as we run for the border. This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg Dot Com and the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
As border security is debated on Capitol Hill, nevermind funding Israel and Ukraine, which of course all overlap. It's a tough room today for Joe Biden, the President of the United States, wakes up to hear from Jamie Diamond and Bill Ackman, both not looking forward to his reelection. Bill Ackman going even further here kind of amazing, essentially telling him that he's peaked and must drop out of the twenty twenty four campaign. It comes against the backdrop of
new numbers from Gallup. Again, tough room, poor marks for Biden. The headline Middle East Economy, Foreign Affairs. Look at this thirty seven percent approve, fifty nine percent disapprove, unchanged from last month's ratings, which remain in the basement. So let's reassemble our panel. Rick Davis is with us, of course, Bloomberg Politics contributor, Republican strategist, joined today by Brad Howard, Democratic strategist, former spokesperson for the Blue Dog Democrats with
us today on the fastest show in politics. Great to have you both here, Brad, what do you do for Joe Biden? He's asking you for your advice. He's got a list of accomplishments that he thinks should get him re elected, from infrastructure to the ira but these numbers have been incredibly stubborn and the situation in Israel is not helping.
Yeah, before I get the advice that I would give to the president, which you know he doesn't call me that often, but should he? Yeah, But first I just want the polling is tricky for a Democratic incumbent in general, because we have a sector of our base that's never satisfied that we go far enough right, and so they are always going to be disapproving of the president's job performance because they didn't think he went liberal enough and maybe satisfied with some of the things he did, but
they want more. For instance, Barack Obama in October twenty eleven was below or Joe Biden is today, and yet he resoundingly beat Mitt Romney a year later. So there's a factor of that involved here. Am I concerned about the poll numbers? Absolutely? And what I you know, the president needs to go out and talk about some of these accomplishments, but not in a way that says vote for me because I've done this. Like todding, your accomplishments builds trust with the voter. I said I would do this,
I've done this. Now here's what I want to do for you if you give me another term. And I think that second part of that message the White House has yet to address. I mean, they're prepared to attack Donald Trump, who I think is going to be the Republican nominee. I think most people do, and I think in that situation, Joe Biden can and will win. But what is Joe Biden's vision for another four years and to the compment that he has peaked. I think you're
seeing Joe Biden's peak right now. In his career as president, he is delivering time and again. He is passing historic pieces of legislation from infrastructure to climate change to prescription drug reforms that bring prices down for seniors that no president's been able to do before. And he's also standing with our allies abroad defending Ukraine in Israel from barbarica
attacks from either a terror script or authoritarian regime. And I'm proud of the work he's doing in foreign policy to strengthen NATO and hold firm of their allies like Israel.
U Crane.
Well, let's hear from Bill Ackman, then we'll get to speaking of peaking. Here's how he put it in conversation with Bloomberg.
Rick Listen, there's actually an interesting candidate who just announced his candidacy on the Democratic side that I would say. No one has heard of a congressman named Dean Phillips, so you probably have heard of him, may know him. Met with him recently. I was impressed. I think the best. I think Biden's done a lot of good things, but I think his legacy will not be a good one
if he is the nominee. I do think the right thing for Biden to do is to step aside and to say he's not going to run and create the opportunity for some competition of old.
Step aside, say he's not going to run. I've peaked. Meanwhile, Rick Jamie Diamond is urging. He says even liberal Democrats to back Nikki Haley. Should Joe Biden worry about what billionaires think?
No, Joe Biden shouldn't give it a second thought, but he should care about what is Democratic voters think, and they actually echo a little bit of what Bill Lackman's saying. They are not happy with his performance in office. As Brad was saying, I mean, it's a Democrat. It's hard to manage a group voters like that. They're very different ideologically, but they have an incumbent president and they're putting that
at risk. Democrats alone could lose this election no help from the Independence, who, by the way, aren't also buying the Biden administration's case for reelection. So Republicans are sort of done right, we could like call out today and if the election were held today, the Republicans will vote exactly the same way they're going to do in November,
regardless of who the Republican nominee is. There's a substantial difference in how Democrats and Independence see a reelection of Joe Biden a different Democrat or even a potential third party entrant in this and that's the wild card that this Biden campaign has to start to deal with. And it's basically been the campaign from nowhere, right, I mean, like, where are they today, what are they doing? How are they trying to help him win these constituencies?
Back.
It's their own base that, according to this Gallup poll, they don't like what he's doing in Ukraine, they don't like what he's doing in Israel, they don't like what he's doing on the economy. These are Democrats saying things. They got to get that straight.
Today, Brad Axios decided to take a look at Arab American and Muslim American anger over President Biden's handling of the Israel Hamas War. Interesting numbers here. They're looking at Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, all of course important swing states that have sizeable populations of both. The Arab American Institute estimating from its own polling about fifty nine percent of Arab American
voters supported Joe Biden in twenty twenty. It says polling indicates a dramatic decline in recent weeks, and that would that would jive with what we've heard about younger voters eighteen to thirty four who were upset about the loss of civilian life and Joe Biden's full throated support for Israel. All of these knowing how narrow divisions are and how close the selection is going to be, either way, all of these could be game changers. How much of a problem is this now for Joe Biden.
Yeah, I mean it is a problem, But you know, I also understand polling after crises like the one we're facing the Israel is temporary and volatile. It always is, and it will not be at this level a year from now, regardless of the situation in conflict. Maybe different issues and different concerns, but you're talking the debate around the war in Israel is so emotionally charged at the moment that you kind of have to let that polling, you know, fizzle out and then address it in the
longer term. But it is a problem. But I think for all the times that Republicans accused President Biden not standing up to the far left elements of his party, where the progressive winking his party, which he has time and again when you look at the legislation he's passed, this is another instance where the president is standing up to the far left elements of his party and doing what he thinks is right for the American people and for the long term national security interests of the country.
And so, you know, I think this is going to This is a tense moment in American politics on both sides of the isle, and I think we'll continue to see how this plays out. He's got to do some work to build relationships and repair those relations in the Muslim community and in the progressive community. But you know, I think from before Republicans jump up and down, they're not exactly running to the president of the Republican side where Donald Trump is proposing a national but Muslim fan.
Again, listen, that's a great point. I guess it becomes a story of turnout at that point. But no, these are not going to be converted to the Trump base.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcast.
Welcome to our two of Bloomberg Sound On. I'm Joe Matthew at World Headquarters in New York, joined now by Kaylee Lines at Bloomberg's bureau in Washington, d C. Kaylee, it's great to see if we've got what could be breaking news coming here. The latest from Israel is pretty remarkable, Kaylee, as negotiators go for another extension. Here we're in day six. Remember we had a four day pause or truce depending on who's talking about it, that has led to the
release of dozens of hostages. We are, what a couple of hours away from what would have been the end of this truce. Negotiators including the CIA director, are in Cutter trying to see if they can push this forward once again.
Yeah, there's a lot of different players in this game right now, Joe, as you say, the Biden administration, the CIA Director, the President himself have been pushing for this brief truce to last as long as possible due to humanitarian considerations. The Cutter is involved, Egypt is involved, a lot of mediators trying to see if they can prolong this brief piece between Israel and Hamas at least for
another period of time. Knowing Joe that while there have been dozens, as you say, hostages released over the last several days, there are still many more being held in Gaza, though not all of them are being held actively by Hamas.
Is our understanding right so far, and our numbers might sound or look a little bit differ because not all of the hostages were released by Hamas, but so far the group has freed eighty one hostages, mainly women and children. Israel Kayley says they have freed one hundred eighty Palestinians who were imprisoned, but we're still talking about it. At least well over one hundred hostages who are left, and we don't know where they all.
Are, yeah, exactly, and a number of them understood to be American as well, Joe. So there is still work to be done here and ultimately more humanitarian aid that needs to get in, not just hostages that need to get out. The question is whether or not another agreement can be made, knowing the longer this truce goes on,
potentially the more opportunity it gives Hamas to regroup. And as we've had conversations on this show as well as well as on balance of power, the humanitarian consideration, the consideration for the hostages may at some point run into conflict with israel strategic objectives, as Netanyahu still says they will go back to fighting until the end intel Hamas has been eliminated.
Well, let's start our conversation with Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, where he is director of Research and Foreign Policy and a very reliable voice on what's happening in this part of the world. Michael, it's good to see you. Thank you. We understand negotiators are talking about potentially another two days. Is that realistic? Are you optimistic?
Readings?
Well, optimism isn't really a word. I allow myself to feel too much of how this war at the moment, because yes, two days of additional relief would be great, But of course it does, as you just pointed out, beg the question of what comes next, and how long whatever comes next would last, and what kinds of constraints would be placed upon the use of force, how many Palestinians would suffer, how many Israelis would continue to suffer.
So I do think there's a distinct possibility that you could imagine if more hostages are potentially released or proposed for release, than that could certainly lead Israel to accept the burdens that Kylie just pointed out of or the potential costs of giving Hamas a little more time to regroup. And you know, I'm not sure those costs are that high at this point. If Hamas has already had several.
Days, you know, almost a week. Two more days may not make a big difference.
So I think Israel, if we can get more hostages back, probably would be inclined to do this. And Israel's probably still refining what it wants to do militarily in the Southern Pirate Oza in particular, where we see there's been a debate with the United States about just what kind of force to use, whether to get close to hospitals and other such facilities, whether to use certain kinds of
weapons or not. And to the extent, Israel still processing all that conflicting advice, you know, advice from the Americans, advice from its own military leadership, desires to eliminate hamas as much as possible.
It may welcome a couple more tastes for planning.
Well, you say, eliminating hamas as much as possible, how much realistically is possible, as Netnilahu was promising to see this through until the very end. Are we looking at potentially indefinite conflict here?
Well, we in the United States remember well, of course, how we felt after nine to eleven, and at that time, the notion of seeing any al Qaeda fighters survive our retaliation probably would have been seen as unacceptable, but we all know that twenty years later, there's still al Qaeda out there. Most of them, of course, are people who were not in the ranks on September eleventh, two thousand and one. But some of the original supporters of that
organization we never were able to find. They could just put down their guns and blend back into a population. Depending on where they were, there might or might not ever be intelligence about what they had done to implicate themselves in that original attack or other al Qaeda activities. Hamas is the same, you know, the leadership, the top leadership,
and those who cross the border on October seventh. Presumably Israel is going to work its very hardest and be willing to take some risks and pay some serious costs to get those people. But even that group of you know, a few hundred or into a couple thousand, is going to be hard to identify with complete precision and complete thoroughness.
And the other thirty thousand ish Hamas fighters who at one time or another have taken up weapons for the organization, I think are going to be a human intelligence challenge that Israel can never figure out. Terms of having any kind of basis to say who exactly is Hamas and
who's not. So if you literally take the idea of getting rid of every single Hamas fighter to its logical conclusion, you specify a strategy for a war that cannot be one, cannot be successfully accomplished, and will cause certainly huge numbers of casualties along the way. Israel's going to have to
scale back from that ambition. They're going to have to focus on leadership on the most lethal trigger pollers, on weapons, caches, training facilities, major infrastructure, major command and control capabilities, and that's going to have to be their definition of the Hamas they destroy. Together with the idea of Hamas as the government for Gaza. I think most of those goals are largely within reach.
We know that Israel has been provided the names of another group of hostages due to be freed today. But Michael I get nervous about headlines like this one that we're seeing from Hamas and a claim that the youngest of the Israeli hostages. We've been hearing a lot about a ten month old boy named Kiefer Bebus. His brother
and mother, they say are no longer alive. There was hope that those names would be in this batch provided to the Israelis Today, Michael, if this turns out to be true, this is the type of headline that can change this conversation very quickly.
You're right, and we obviously always want to bear in mind the very human and individual costs of this conflict, and any casualty is one too many. But I have to say, at a level of military and strategic analysis, I'm surprised how many hostages apparently are still alive. And I would have thought that Hamas might have been trying to deter Israel's initial air strikes and artillery strikes by putting more of the hostages near the likely targets of
those strikes. So the fact that we are still in a world where a lot of the hostages are alive, to me is hopeful, and you know, it's a silver lining of hopefulness in what's an enormous tragedy, and they are going to still be individual tragedies, I'm afraid, as you point out.
Yeah, absolutely, and again returning to where we began this conversation, there is effort underway to prevent potentially any tragedy from occurring. For much longer keeping the pause and fighting going, including reporting today from Bloomberg that Saudi Arabia is now in discussion with Iran about making investments into that heavily sanctioned economy in return for Iran stopping the backing of some
of its proxies, avoiding this conflict spreading any further regionally. Michael, what do you think about that?
Well, you know, that's the kind of hope we all have had for the Middle East for decades that's always been dashed.
You know, the idea of having a two state.
Solution, but otherwise good governance throughout the region that allows for people to pursue prosperity, and that maybe benefits from some of the richer states investing in some of the poorest states. I mean, these are kind of the dreams or the aspirations upon which a lot of Middle Eastern
policy has been based for decades. But look where we are even here in twenty twenty three, where for a lot of groups, the idea of being rejectionists, the idea of impeding the progress of one's hated adversaries, actually seems to matter more than the benefits of one's own future generations.
What was the line, I forget you know the famous adage that was only going to be peace in the Middle East when people start loving the loving their own grand children more than they hate their enemies, and allow that prosperity, allow that investment that you just mentioned to
actually happen. But unfortunately, an example this past October where Hamas, perhaps eg gone by Iran or perhaps just resourced more generally by Iran, didn't like the possibility of the Saudis and the Israelis getting a lot better, which would have facilitated investment in the region and greater economic cooperation in the region, and so they carried out the October seventh attacks precisely to prevent that sort of positive development.
Well, well, we're compelled by it, not only by the story. Is such a power play potentially by Saudi Arabia, But remembering where we were a couple of weeks ago, Michael, when all the talk was about a second or third front. If the minimum is achieved here in Saudi Arabia can convince Iran or pay Iran to keep its proxies in check, and this remains a war largely between Israel and Hamas. Is that not progress?
Yes, that would be excellent. I'm just doubting whether it will happen.
I'm not challenging your contention that it would be progress. Thing that turned people more towards building a peaceful, prosperous future and away from inciting violence and tearing each other down would be great.
But you know, I don't see a lot of basis for thinking.
That's where Ron's headspace or mindset is right now.
And of course, this idea of how the Greater Region fits in and ensuring that the conflict does not spill over into other parts of it is one of the objectives of Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln as he makes another trip to this region. He's made multiple since October seventh, when this conflict started. What happens if we don't get an extension of the truth when Blincoln is there.
Yeah, I don't know.
At least he would be there to try to remind the Israelis to use force more carefully in the next round. You know, I mean, first of all, that guy's a workhorse, and I just I'm astounded at how hard he's been working.
But secondly, I also hope that he's got time and energy to think about not just the tactical data of extending a seaspire, but also where we're headed with this, and I don't I'm sure there are a lot of people working for him who are thinking about that question, but I think it's time to think about using some a fair amount of American leverage here to push the parties towards some kind of a durable conflict resolution strategy that they may not completely love, but that will leave
the place more stable long term. What I'm basically saying is trying to work with others in the region to impose some elements of a two state solution coming out of this, rather than just.
Wait for everyone to get to it. And I realized we can't.
Literally impose it, but we have a lot more leverage with all parties in the region than we're often prepared to acknowledge. And I hope there's some time and attention and just you know, enough energy in his body for that kind of question to be addressable and not just these immediate questions of extending sea spires.
I want to hear your reaction to something that the Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln said, looking beyond the immediate term here, we're talking about the minute to minute, hour to hour situation on the ground in Gaza. Listen to Secretary of State blink and talk about the road ahead, Michael, and we'll have you respond here.
He is everyone is focused on the day of what's happening in Gaza right now, but we also need to be focused at the same time, and we are in conversations with many other countries on what I called both the day after and the day after the day after.
What does the day after the day after look like, Michael, when none of Israel's neighbors will accept refugees, for instance.
Well, I think that the idea of a two stage post conflict strategy is correct, because in the first instance, what you need to do is allow life to resume and start to create some kinds of governance structures that are not just Israel occupying Gaza, but the international community and Stenians themselves gradually entering into some kind of greater role in at least the civilian governance of Gasa, but
then longer term. I hope what he's alluding to is a two state solution that we somehow use this terrible tragedy and crisis as a way to make possible what wasn't before, because now at least people realize how bad things can be if we just stay stuck in negotiation paralysis, as we've been for the better part of two or three decades now. So the day after, to use his framing, is presumably when the conflict stops and you start to recover.
The day after the day after.
Is presumably when you get to a maybe it's even a three step process, but you get to a long term, viable Palestinian polity that can avoid violence in the future and help its own people do better.
Michael, great conversation. I'm really glad you could join us today. Let's not let too much time go by Michael Hanlett the Brookings Institution with Kaylee in Washington. I'm Joe Matthew in New York. This is Bloomberg. Thanks for listening to the Sound On podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com.