Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo carp Play and then roud Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
I'm Kaylee alongside Joe here in Washington, and of course right in between those two cities on the eastern seaboard ands where you find Philadelphia, of course, in the critical swing state in this election, Pennsylvania, and also the location of this first and potentially only debate we will see between the two presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, who, of course right now are in their final preparations before they get ready to take that stage at nine pm Eastern time.
Now the m Trak corridor are looming large tonight. I guess Donald Trump making his way up from Florida. I believe Kamala Harris from Pittsburgh where she's been for the last I guess half week or so, prepared two very different preparation styles, as we saw in the first debate here, so a lot of questions about style over substance and who brings what. Of course, you know it's a big deal when David Goura is on the site and our
asset has made his way to Philadelphia. In fact, he's in the spin room right now where things start pretty early. They're David, it's great to see you. We know that Republicans and Democrats will be using that room you're standing in to try to spin everything that is said, walk things back, try to reinforce points later on. Of course, all of that follows the debate that starts at nine o'clock.
Give us the lay of the land.
Yeah, so we're in the media filing center. The spin room is just over my shoulder, and I think it's a more traditional media filing center and spin room than we had at the last debate that of course took place in the basketball arena for Georgia Tech, so a very different feel, very different atmosphere. And then, of course the way that debate unfolded led to a very strange half hour or so after that debate when Surgates came out to talk to reporters after it concluded. This is
like that last debate stands to be incredibly important. I think both candidates recognize that you mentioned the means by which they've been preparing for this. We know that Kamala Harris has been in Pittsburgh, hold up in that omni hotel, going through a lot of policy preparation, doing the kind
of mock debates that we've seen historically candidates do. Felipe Rhinis, the Democratic consultant and strategist who played the role of Trump for Hillary Clinton when she ran in twenty sixteen, playing that role in those mock debates out in Pittsburgh. Donald Trump choosing to do what he did last time, hold a lot of events, hold a lot of big rallies, and talk about policy with his advisors. We'll see sort of how that preparation comes to bear in the debate
that takes place here tonight. I should say not where I'm standing, not in the convention center, but a few blocks away. So again kind of strange similarity to Georgia, where we won't be in the actual room. There won't be an audience in the room for the debate itself. It'll be the two candidates on stage, each of a different podium, and those two moderators, David muer and Lindsay Davis of ABC News, asking the questions and hopefully keeping the trains running on time.
Well, and it's not just the lack of a live audience that makes this more unique compared to president debates we've seen in the past, David, it's also muted microphones when it is not the candidates turned to speak. We saw this tested first on the CNN debate between Trump and Biden back in June. How is that going to be consequential in determinating how these determining how these candidates
conduct themselves. Knowing Kamala Harris was pushing back heavily against these rules up until just a few days.
Ago, Yeah, it was a source of disagreement, as you say, for many weeks. And I think what Vice President Harris wanted to capture was a moment like she had when she was up against Mike Pence. He interrupting her trying to talk and she's saying quite emphatically, I'm speaking, And that was a moment that went viral and sort of bolsted her campaign. People really who supported her really thought that was a signal moment in her campaign. You're not going to get that this time around.
Again.
It's the same rules that we saw in Georgia, and I think what's interesting is what the commentary was like going into that debate in Atlanta. A lot of people thought that would be a detriment to Donald Trump. But again, the circumstances of that debate were so strange and unpredictably so, and it was actually Donald Trump in that debate. Who is dare I say, more muted or not somebody who was interjecting a lot over the course of that debate. Of course, he could do that tonight. The vice president
could do that as well. Even if we don't hear what the other candidate has to say, he or she could say something that razes or kind of needles the other candidate, and that could manifest itself, at least in how they react to it on the stage.
All right, Bloomberg correspondent David Gera live in Philadelphia, will of course be checking in with David all evening and through the night here on Bloomberg TV in radio, as we have many hours of coverage of this presidential debate prepared for you and of course with us for the duration.
Is our signature political panel. Who is here with us now, Genie Shanzina of the Center for the Study of the Presidency in Congress, where she is a senior Democracy Fellow together with Rick Davis Stone Court Capital Partner as well Republican and Democratic strategist respectively. Genie, I'll start with you. Just because it is Kamala Harris, the Vice president who does seem to be coming into the debate with more momentum than Donald Trump has at this time, does that
make the bar even higher for her? She actually the one who has the most to lose tonight.
I think that the bar is higher for her because, let's face it, more people are unfamiliar with Kamala Harris. I mean, it's stunning because she's been vice president for four years. But that said a lot of us as Americans, excluding you guys, you've watched politics all the time, you don't have as much attention paid to the vice president normally, so she's less of a known figure. Donald Trump, this is his third run at the White House, he has
been president. People know him. Even looking at the latest New York Times poll, you had almost three out of ten people say or respondents say that they wanted to learn more about Kamala Harris, and only nine out of ten say, or nine out of one hundred saying they wanted to know more about Donald Trump. So the stakes are higher for her in that regard. And of course he's much more practiced at this, having done this so many times at this level. So I do think the
bar is a bit higher for her. And of course, let's not forget the gender factor. For a woman to face Donald Trump, we have seen it before. It is a challenge that she is I'm sure ready for. I think she's going to do a very good job. But it does change the dynamics, and we've seen this throughout the last twenty thirty years in American politics when men and women face off on the debate stage.
Well, you do wonder which Donald Trump is going to show up tonight? Maybe they all will.
Rick.
Is this going to be Comrade Kamala Donald Trump, someone who questions her racial identity for instance, some of the things that we've heard from him that have offended voters, Or is it going to be look at what I did for the economy, look at the wall on the southern border, or do we get both?
Well, you know, Donald Trump is good at a debate technique called Gish gallup, which is regardless of what the question is, he throws out five or six different attacks all at the same time and tries to basically get his opponent to buy into that. And of course Joe Biden did exactly that in the first debate this year. He started responding as much as he could with data to, you know, refute all these outlandish claims that Donald Trump would just throw out there. And we don't know if
Donald Trump even believes these claims himself. But when you start actually defending or responding to outlandish claims, you've immediately lost the debate. And so I think that that's what we can expect to see out of Donald Trump. It's a it's a well honed technique that debaters use, and nobody really knows whether he actually thinks he's doing Gish gallop or whether he just does it because he's Donald Trump.
But the other thing I'd look.
At is Lindsay Davis, who's one of the moderators. You know, she has a unique standing in this sort of debate with Donald Trump in that he hasn't handled female questioners very well in the past too, and so I'm dying to see what kind of dynamic gets gets presented with Lindsay's moderating.
Well, yeah, if we see repeats of pasta uction cycles like what we saw with Megan Kelly, for example, Rick to go back to the kind of gish gallop thing you're talking about here, the idea that he does seem to just throw things out there, and in fact, many times, if he's talking about statistics in the border, for example, he'll say, no, one knows what the number is. I think it's twenty million. Makes it pretty clear that he's
not actually talking based in fact. Knowing he has that proclivity to, if not outright lie frequently at least misrepresent facts. Is that something Kamala Harris needs to be prepared to actually fact check if the moderators don't do so, or to your point, do you just need to let it slide and make your own points.
Well, we know the moderators aren't going to fact check, right, I mean, that has become the standard with Donald Trump, and when they've tried it in the past, it hasn't gone well, So my guess is they're not in that business, and they'll say so. The reality is when you try to then fact check all these outlined dish claims, you then lose all the initiative that you're trying to promote on what you're talking about. So you're just responding to the negative, to the to the attacks by Donald Trump.
So that too isn't necessarily a good debate tactic to just sort of take his lead, especially when you can't rely on any of the data that he has. And so I think that's something that that that people are onto. Certainly, if you look at the tape from the Biden debate, you'll realize that he fell into that trap and he was having other problems late to dage, but like he was definitely trying to refute and be the fact checker
and it just wasn't working. There's no you know, no wall too high to get over on that one for Donald Trump. So my guess is she stays away from it and uses this opportunity to communicate, you know, her capabilities to the to the few voters who are still searching around for an alternative to Donald Trump.
I've seen some pretty serious pregaming from both campaigns. Donald Trump today rolling out new and Horseman's from forty seven prosecutors. He will, of course talk about her role as a prosecutor in California.
She's out with a new.
Ad following the one yesterday we talked about, called the Best People. There's one now featuring Barack Obama's speech at the convention, in which she talked about Donald Trump's obsession with crowd size and the sizes of other things. Is this just par for the course, now, Genie, or is the object tonight really to get under the skin of your opponent?
You know, I think she should try, and I know Donald Trump will try to get under her skin, to get under his skin. And I keep saying this. I have her spend the day watching a few good men. She's a prosecutor. She should be Tom Cruise in that
courtroom against Jack Nicholson. And you can't handle the truth and let him go because the more she gets him to say things about the twenty twenty election being stolen, the twenty sixteen election, his crowd sizes, it reminds people of what this will be like again, which is what they want to do if Donald Trump wins. This is what you're in for. So I think she should be
goading him. We know she's a prosecutor. I have to say I think it was smart that Trump put out about the prosecutors so that the Trump team did because she is a prosecutor and she's well known for having made her case in the Senate as the Attorney General of California. So I am getting my popcorn ready to sit with you guys to watch this. I think it's gonna be great. I think it should be, you know, a holiday in the United States debate day, but it's not.
But I think it's going to be fascinating to see how both of them prosecute these cases.
Well, and of course prosecuting it over the airwaves in advertisements as well. As you allude to, Joe, that's something that costs money, and the money advantage is something that Kamala Harris does have at the moment, Rick, how much of tonight is not just about reaching voters but about reaching donors At this point in the race, do those incremental donations, if they can convince more people to pony up the money, does it matter?
I think, as you point out, it's incremental, you don't really need it at this point. Both campaigns have enough to close. Kamala Harris has already made or media biz in most of these states for the balance of the election, and the reality is that money is not going to decide the outcome. So there'll be some money come in because partisans will see their candidates full view tonight, over twenty or over fifty million people probably watching, like the
first debate, and there'll be some momentum there. But unless there's a knockout blow, I don't think you can expect a big surgeent donations. And the reality is it has a marginal impact. This kind of TV time, face to face that's got impact, And I think this could be decisive for the outcome of the election because I can't see anything else happening between now an election day that's going to get this much attention.
Well, you know, Donald Trump, Genie has one very powerful question that he can ask Harris tonight about every issue that she talks about solving, Why didn't you do anything about it for the last three and a half years you were in the White House.
How does she answer that?
Well, can't she ask him the same question? Why didn't you address these things when you were in the White Say?
Things were perfect when I was By the way.
Why did we take over with the economy the way it was? You know, why did why it was immigration the way it was? So I think she can respond to that. You're absolutely right, he is going to be asking that. It is smart on his part because he wants to tie her to a very or a relatively unpopular Biden presidency. And I do think she has to distinguish herself on that point. She's got to be new, shiny objects change candidate and let him be a return
to the past. So I think she's going to be prepared to answer those But that's absolutely I think Joe he's listening. He's going to ask those very questions all night.
I know they're both listening right now. Rick, I'd love we only have a minute left. Rick, how would you counsel the candidate to answer that question?
Yeah, Look, I think she just ignores him. The reality is again, engaging him and his attacks has never really worked for anybody who's opposed him. And I think she's just got to stay on her message and talk about the future and just keep saying, if you want to go back, that's a direction I'm not headed and I'm headed forward. This has been the theme of her entire convention. I think it can reflect well on her, and by the way, the message isn't just we're not going back
to you, Donald Trump. We're not going back to my president Joe Biden either, and so it works both ways, and I think that's a safe harbor for her.
All Right, you guys, get some rest.
We're going to be back here on the later edition of Balance of Power that's at five pm Eastern and our special coverage, Kayleie, that's at.
Eight pm Eastern time. Did you eat your waties?
Oh?
Yeah, okay, extra caffeination on a day, caffeine hydrate.
Repeat, that's good.
On debated.
This is Bloomberg TV and Radio.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Can just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and enroid Oro with the Bloomberg Business ad. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
In Washington, where we're counting down to the big debate nine o'clock tonight. It is our focus today here on Balance of Powers. We try to bring you a range of voices to get a sense of what to watch and what to expect.
Kaylie.
This is going to be arguably the most important day on the campaign.
Trail between now in November for good reason.
Well, absolutely, it may be the only time we see these two share a stage. It comes at a time when poll after poll suggests that this is an incredibly close YEP race. There is no clear leader right now nationally or in the swing states that will decide the
balance of the electoral college. And what that means is that they're not only trying to convince their bases of voters tonight that they can trust them, that they should turn out for them, but especially that they're trying to focus on those people who may yet be undecided or are just trying to decide whether or not they're going to bother showing up at all on November.
Fifth, all the while trying to needle their opponent. As yes, we hear, they are both trying to get under the other's skin tonight. There's been a lot of pregaming and trolling going on, So there are quite a few jobs they're both trying to do at once here in a bit of three D chess.
Yes, indeed, so as we look at the board, the chessboard that is, we want to bring back now to balance of power. Professor Jen Jackson, who is joining us from Syracuse University, where she is Assistant professor of Political Science. Always great to have you here, Jen, if we could just actually begin with a conversation we were just having
a few moments ago. We spoke with the Israeli Minister of the Economy, who, no surprise, spoke quite forcefully about what his government is trying to accomplish as it fights its ongoing war against Tamas in Gaza. He didn't really seem to want to weigh in on what he's looking for in the debate tonight from either of these candidates.
What are undecided voters, specifically the ones that you've spent a lot of time talking to, young black voters or voters of color, more progressives who may feel passionately about this Israel issue. What are they looking to hear?
You know, I think a lot of young people have been waiting to hear the same things, probably for the past few years, as they have been the past few weeks, which is a really clear stance on what lies ahead for the folks who are most vulnerable in the United States. I'm thinking right now about LGBTQIA plus Americans and those folks who have been working really hard on the past
few years to recover from the COVID nineteen crisis. So while Gaza and the ongoing conflict that's happening with Israel and the Gozen on the Gozen Peninsula, there's also some questions here about what it means for those Americans who have been asking and asking and asking for answers also back home domestically.
You wonder to what extent geopolitics will factor into this debate at all, Jen, and you can speak to that. The moderators have a lot of places they could go here with so many questions about policy proposals, more of them I think aimed at Kamala Harris than Donald Trump, and I wonder your thought on that. I think it's been established that the bar is higher for the Vice president. She's less known than Donald Trump and has not put forth details on some of her ideas.
What do you think, you know?
I think it's they have different issues that they're facing tonight, right, So what we know is that there's a lot of concern about Project twenty twenty five and the fact that in the first ten pages there are overt attacks against marginalized Americans, namely, you know, black and brown Americans, immigrant
folks and also LGBTQIA and disabled folks. So a lot of folks who are typically associated with the Democratic Party are really paying attention tonight to hear more about how this Project twenty twenty five might actually affect their lives. Where VP Harris has the opportunity is to actually give us some sort of policy that will actually speak against this kind of retraction of protections, this retraction of rights that is very clearly a part of not only Project
twenty twenty five, but some of Trump's previous administration. His previous Agenda forty seven is almost mirrored identically in Project twenty twenty five, and this was the agenda that was seeking to make binary gender it kind of federal statute to think about ways to retract support for policies that offer gender affirming care, and also to sue practitioners and even identify folks like librarians and teachers as sex offenders.
So there's an opportunity for VP Harris to set herself apart and explain how show create a more progressive vision for folks who are most afraid of what the outcomes might be in a selection. But for the Trump camp, they've got to help people understand why we should take them seriously at all. And I would say at this point maybe we shouldn't.
Well, okay, professor. As we consider whether or not Kamala Harris will be outlining more progressive ideas, she may be haunted a bit by her primary campaign of twenty nineteen, in which a lot of these attacks that she's been fielding from her opponents emanate from her stance on fracking,
for example, healthcaren and other matters. Is it wise for her to try to hold the center tonight or does she need to be pulled to the left a little bit if she wants to turn out the voters who will actually amount to them that could make her president.
You know, I think that she's been working really hard for the past few weeks to get those moderate voters on her side, and I think she's going to have
to have a balanced kind of approach tonight. There are people who are listening who actually I think that typically folks see is kind of in the pocket of the Democrats, those people who are more on the radical left or the more leftist politics leave that those folks will automatically show up to vote because they they're hoping that those young people, those marginalized folks, those vulnerable populations, working class Americans will want to save us from this from bascism
and hope that this will be a preservation of democracy. But they can't just count on people believing that she'll stand up for them. They can't take those voters for granted. So she will absolutely have to toe the line between some of that more kind of left leaning policy work and helping us understand what that looks like, but also remembering that moderate voters are still asking questions of both sides.
Jenna's our job to try to pull you into policy.
Here we're on Bloomberg TV and radio, and you're pretty good at that. But I wonder to what extent this is a personality contest tonight and the battle of the Zingers.
You know, that's the thing that I'm actually concerned about. You know, we've seen over the last few weeks that Trump has come out and literally said that his team told him not to a had commelin a personal way, and he did it anyway. And so I think that, you know, there will always be kind of folks choosing their approach, and we know that for Donald Trump that has previously been through the kind of character assassinations and the efforts to detegreate people based on who they that
he thinks they are. So I think where VP Harris has really stood apart from him is that she's focused on how she's going to show up for everyday Americans. Well, so he may be fighting that fight, he may be jousting in terms of those negative attacks tonight, but I don't think that she's going to lower herself to that level. She hasn't yet, and I don't think she should today.
Jen, how should we be considering the role of the moderators here, knowing there was essentially no fact checking at all in the CNN debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden back in June, do you expect to see different behavior from those actually asking the questions tonight? Answering them is one thing, but actually trying to solicit true represent truth effectively in a forum like this when millions of Americans will be watching is a major question here.
You know, I think that's something that a lot of us are concerned about, those of us who do social scientific work and are hoping that the facts will prevail. But what we've also seen is that specifically on the Trump side, there's been efforts to pull back on fact checking, and we saw this at the navg J the NMBJ
conference earlier this season. So I think that the concern has been that even if there are some kind of guardrails in place to ensure that facts are centered, there may be also some tactics to try and pull back on that. So I think that the moderators have a tough road ahead of them because we know that this is a tactic that the Trump administration, even when he was in office, used to manipulate the kind of narratives that came out from the policies that he enacted. So
I'm not confident that it'll be an easy conversation. I actually think it'll be quite hard to keep him on topic, to keep him on task, and then get him to actually answer the hard questions. And that's where you know, Americans have continued to be disappointed by these conversations because they're not giving to answer that they're looking for.
Hey, Jenna's great to have you back. I know you'll be watching like we are tonight.
Jen Jackson, Assistant professor political Science, Syracuse University, author of Black Women, taught us in intimate history of black feminism. Always a smart conversation, Jenna. We appreciate that.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and then broun Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
It's not just any Tuesday, though, It's the Tuesday that brings us potentially the only presidential debate between Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris that we will see this election cycle. Will have full coverage of it for you here on Bloomberg TV and Radio, myself Kaylei lines alongside Joe Matthew. And what we know Joe is that obviously top of mind to the American electorate are more domestic issues,
the border and the economy. Yet on that stage tonight, the candidates may have to field a number of foreign policy questions as well when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, China perhaps, and of course what could be most difficult for the incumbent vice president is questions around Israel and the ongoing war against Himan.
Knowing the fissures we've seen in the Democratic Party, the outrage in some cases by progressive Democrats, and a needle to thread here for Kamala Harris. Is it the same policy as the Biden administration? Will there be continuity here or is this a new approach? Donald Trump, I suspect will suggest as much. And there has been this narrative that Donald Trump would be more friendly or at least less hard on Benjaminett Yah who that they have a better working relationship.
Maybe some of this will come up tonight, but you bring up a great point.
People typically do not vote on geopolitics, and we could be in a different world in this campaign illuminated tonight.
Yeah, and it is worth noting as we talk about the fissures within the Democratic Party. Maybe not everyone votes on geopolitics, but some may choose not to vote over these kind of issues. That's what the Harrison and Democrats broadly may be more worried about. Is this idea that it could depress turnout among more progressive voters and in critical areas like Michigan.
Well, as we make reference to the situation in Israel and throughout the Middle East, we're joined here in Washington by a major stakeholder that would be near Barcott Israel's Minister of the Economy visiting Washington on this important day for our politics here in the US. Minister, it's great to see you. Thank you for joining us again on VLUE.
Thank you very much for hosting me.
I don't know if you want to dip your toe into these waters tonight, but of course a lot of people around the world are going to be watching this debate to try to get a sense of what choices the United States and the world are facing here when it comes to the next president. Will you take time to watch tonight. Can you give us a sense of what you are looking to hear?
Well? Naturally, I think it's healthy for Israelis not to get involved in the American politics. We want to stay bipartisan. We want to make our case and remind the American public and the world public who are up against Israel's against radical jihadists that want to wipe us off the map. They also want to wipe out all non Muslims. This is jihad and what you saw the atrocities we saw in October seven. From their perspective, they want to rearm, regroup and do it again and again and again. That's
their charter, and this is what we're facing. Not only with Ramas, we're also facing Risabaalagin the North, the same Jihadis. They want to wipe us off the map. They're troubling our northern border. Just to give you some perspective, we have seventy thousand Israelis out of their homes. It's like two and a half million people in the United States. That's the equivalent doubled in San Diego if it was
attacked from Mexico, more than Manhattan. This is the kind of pain we're suffering in the North and we have to fix it. Add to that the fact that Iran and katal the head of the snake and the biggest funder of terror, are also part of that alliance. They're funding Katal is the bigger fund, biggest funder of terror around the world. Their blood money, Wolf in sheep's clothes, they funded Taliban, they funded Isis, they fund all terror
cells around the world. And Iran that wants to go after the Moderate Arab states as much as they're targeting us. This is the alliance that Israel Is against. And thank god, it's a great opportunity to thank the administration, to thank the American people for the huge support we're getting. We must understand that it's not a simple task. We have to eliminate Hamas off the map and not enable them to attack us again.
Well, as you talk about Cutter specifically being a funder of terror, they are also one of the parties at the negotiating table who are helping mediate ceasefire talks between your government and Hamas. Are they not credible in this? Why are they part of those conversations if it's like you have zero reason that you see to trust them.
One of the biggest mistakes our own government made, including the US government, is enable Katau to fand Ramas. A huge mistake we've made, and it's not too late to correct it. We prefer to see the Emirates and the Saudis that seek peace, that are looking for to expand the airbram cord. We'd like to see them support moderate
Arab Palestinians. And we have to eradicate and take away the ability the capabilities of Ramas, the atrocities that were still going through and look at what they've just done. They murdered in cold blood, sick as of the hostages in cold blood. They don't care about our lives.
They don't care. They think differently.
They use every weaponry they have in order to kill this way at least, and.
They don't care about their own lives. They don't care at all.
They hide behind their own civilians. We protect our civilians. They use their civilians as shield because they know our strength, which is perceived as a weakness by them, because we care about human life and they have no care. They promote death and destruction.
Your ministry, your finance ministry has cut its projection for growth in twenty twenty four in Bloomberg is reporting that you're lowering your GDP forecast for twenty five What is the cost financially speaking of this war.
Well, naturally every round of violence in Norwegian there's a dip in the war. It's clear people go to reserves. And you know we're focusing on winning the war.
Can you quantify that?
Yeah, Well, you know.
We entered the war at at a ratio of sixty percent debt to GDP, which is one of the best in the world. We're now about seventy percent debt to GDP. Will spread that throughout two years. We understand that we have to focus in winning the war first, I'm here speaking too many investors, and the potential of Israeli technology and high tech is not decreased, it increased. So right now there's a bit of a people are a bit
shying away. But as they are shying away right now, I know that the world is interested in great products, and we have great security product, healthcare, agro tech, food tech, desert tech.
We have a lot to offer to the world.
And there's no down in my mind that you're going to see a nice spike immediately after the.
War of success.
Well, so what are you hearing from investors about their criteria to come back in if you will, Just that the war needs to be over, that they already need to see a recovery in the Israeli economy. The reservists, for example, who had left their jobs being reincorporated back into the workforce. What is it going to take.
It's split the two people that are not familiar with Israel that are sort of they're sort of a bit of shying away because they're not certain where this is going. But a lot of Jews and people familiar with Israel see great opportunity right now because they understand that the strength of Israel's economy influences all Jews around the world. So you see, well, some people are shying away, the
others are getting more engaged and involved. And from my experience and coming from the tech world, I know that the immediately after you're going to see huge investment flow because we have great products, great entrepreneurs, great solutions to give to the world, and the world responds very favorably to great products, which that's why I'm very optimistic as in the future.
Of course, this is an important part of the conversation here on Bloomberg, and it sounds like you're seeing across the valley to a greater opportunity. Before this all started, we were talking about the cusp of an important economic partnership with the Arab world.
Will you restart those talks?
Will Saudi Arabia be back in this conversation in that world?
I believe so.
Look, the Airbram Accords are there, the Emirates, the Jordanians, the Egyptians. That's not perfect, but I see how the Saudis and other modern Arab states, including potentially Indonesia and others, are waiting to have a window of opportunity to enter the and expand the abram We bless it well. I think it's great for the stabidity of our region, the Sunnis, which is the moderate Absites, that the Saudis and the
Murates are threatened by Iran. Just the other day, about two weeks ago, Iran clearly stated that they are going after them. They're the biggest enemy for Iran. Iran wants to take over all the holy sites of the Islam and then go after Israel. And guess what, You're next in line. All the non Muslims are in the same line for these radical jihadis. So I think it's in our best interest, it's in their best interest, it's in America's best interest to align with the moderate Arab states.
They write big checks. They're interested in collaboration and integrating with the West, and we're the gateway for that.
Well, of course, as we consider the Middle East as a whole, and the fact that we're seeing a presidential debate tonight between two candidates who will not one of them will be president in January, will not be President Biden, who has said one of the things he wants to accomplish before he leaves office is pace in the Middle
East in a ceasefire deal. Does these really government have confidence this is something that could happen within the current administration or is this going to be something Donald Trump or Kamala Harris have to continue.
We always wish for peace and if there's a way, we will be there.
Do you see right now?
The challenge is it's you know, ceasefire is very simple. The minute Hamas lays down its weaponry, releases the hostages, there's a ceasefire immediately. But as long as they keep those hostages, and as long as they again and again say that they want to eradicate Israel and they want to do it again and again, we got to make sure, like what happened with the Nazis, Okay, you didn't leave some of the Nazis to regroup at the tail end
of the Second World War. Those criminals and these criminals, these psychopaths, we cannot enable them to continue ruling Gaza and to prepare for the next October seven attack. So from our perspective, I wish it was you know, it's strategic goal for Israel to have peace with its neighbors.
We've demonstrated that with.
Egypt forty years piece, with Jordan twenty five years now, the Abraham A Quart a few years.
We want to expand that with people.
That recognize the state of Israel, and when they don't recognize the State of Israel and they've committed those atrocities, we will not let them live.
After this round of violence.
We only have about a minute left, Minister, What has been the economic impact if any of the recent strikes that we've seen. There was a call for a general strike recently, can you see that born out in the numbers.
I'm proud of our democracy. It's a real democracy debate.
You know, people go out to the street and by the way, sometimes on both sides of the aisle, and they have the right to go to a strike. Eventually, you know, there's a price for democracy. Israel's willing to pay that price. We're proud of it and being the only democracy in the Middle East enabling people to succeed with human rights that no one around us has such human rights, and we're very, very proud of that. It's part of the price, and I'm proud of our democracy.
All right, we have to leave it their, Minister, thank you so much for joining us here in Washington while on your visit. That is the Israeli Minister of the Economy near barcott. We appreciate your time, sir, Thank you for being with us.
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.