1/2/24: Israel Withdraws Troops From Gaza, Israel Constitutional Crisis, Media Flips On Ukraine Amid Russia Strikes, Maine Drops Trump From Ballot, MSNBC Rips Biden Poll Numbers, Tucker And Shapiro War Over Israel Loyalties'

not going particularly well. We have another state that is trying to kick Trump off of the ballot, and obviously, look, the Iowa caucuses are in weeks, which is absolutely insane to me. So things are coming down to the wire here. We've got Biden getting some dire poll numbers from MSNBC of all places, and Sager making a little bit of news with his Tucker Carlson interview, Tucker coming after Ben Shapiro.

you a little bit of this report. Israeli military announced on Monday it will begin withdrawing several thousand troops from Gaza, at least temporarily, in what would be the most significant publicly announced pullback since the war began. They cited a growing toll on the Israeli economy. I'm going to tell you a little bit more about that in a minute.

Following nearly three months of wartime mobilization, Daniel Hagari, the Israeli military spokesman, emphasized the move to demobilize some soldiers did not indicate any compromise on Israel's intention to continue fighting, and he did not mention the American request to scale back. He indicated some will be called back to service in

the coming year. Still, the fighting remains intense across Gaza, and some of the details here they say we're servis from At least two brigades will be sent home this week, and three brigades will be taken back for training. They vary in size, up to roughly four thousand troops per brigade. Israeli military does not disclose how many troops it has deployed in Gaza, so hard to say exactly what this means in the grand scheme of things could be shifting

to another phase. Something we've looked at here before on the show is just how you know what huge cost this war is imposing on the Israeli economy. Of course, it's nothing compared to the suffering that Gazans are experiencing. But we know in terms of their stated goal of destroying Hamas, even by their own very rosy estimates of

they say they've killed roughly eight thousand Hamas fighters. Well, Hamas had a fighting force of roughly thirty thousand people, and we know they haven't announced that they've been able to take out any of their top targets in terms of Hamas leadership, So they are nowhere close to their stated goal which always seemed, you know, to many analysts to be completely impossible, of taking out Hamas and destroying

Hamas completely. And we do know also on the ground, Hamas continues to release their propaganda fighting videos and they continue to have the ability to shoot rockets into Israel. So they are not you know, they're not in any kind of notable disarray. Let's go ahead and put this up on the screen. This is the latest Hamas propaganda fighting video that you can see they're using a tunnel.

up shipping in the Red Sea. You are going to talk a little bit more of that in a minute, but put this Washington Post report up on the screen and then, Emily, I want to get your reaction. We've got a report saying that gross domestic product is going to fall from three percent growth to one percent in twenty twenty four. May sound like not a lot, but that is actually really significant, huge impact on Israel's high

tech sector. The as many of the individuals who've been called up to you know, who are in the reserve Forses who've been called up work in the high tech sector. Not only are they paying for those reservists, the bombs and the bullets. They're also supporting two hundred thousand evacuees who have been displaced from Israeli villages. They're being housed, they're being fed in hotels, all at government expense. You have tourism which has completely flatlined, Tel Aviv beaches and

the Old City in Jerusalem bereft of foreigners. Christmas celebrations in Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank were canceled. Construction, which is very dependent on Palestinian labor, that has all come to a near holt. They've suspended the work permits of more than one hundred thousand Palestinians. So the sort of labor force that does a lot of the jobs that Israeli citizens don't want to do is not being

permitted to come in. So those industries have really taken a huge and economists have estimated the war has cost the government about eighteen billion dollars. That's about two hundred and twenty million dollars a day. So Emily, that's part of what they're citing in their decision to announce this partial drawdown.

the invasion. That's basically exactly what Joe Biden, what we were hearing in press reports, what Joe Biden had been telling Netnyahu behind the scenes, is that the timeline is that as soon as the new year rules around, this invasion of Gaza should be scaled back significantly. So I think it's worth remembering that, and also worth remembering the political pressures on net and Yah, who at home, I

think get papered over in domestic American press. He has this wide spectrum of pressures from people within his own government, from members of the public and chrysl We're actually about to talk about some of the political reality that Netanyah who faces domestically when it comes to the legal landscape in Israel. The economic points are so so well taken.

That's another thing. It's easy to forget how disruptive this the operation has been since October seventh to the daily lives of thousands and thousands of Israelis and how disruptive it has been to the entire country. So the pressures in Netanyaho are just immense. So it's not at all surprising that Israel made this decision. But to your point, we're going to see what it actually means over the course of the next couple of days and then you know, into the future as well.

power in particular. The Supreme Court now saying no, we don't accept that and striking it down in a narrow decision. Let me go ahead and read you a little bit of this report so you can get a sense of the crisis. They say, in a momentous ruling that could ignite a constitutional crisis. Israel Supreme Court on Monday struck down a law passed by bb Netnyaho's right wing government that was meant to limit the courts on powers by

majority eight judges to seven. It's likely to rekindle the grave domestic situation that began a year ago over the government's judicial overhaul plan, which sparked mass protests that brought the country to a near standstill at times, even as Israel is at war. In Gaza, you have the Lacud party calling the Supreme Court's decision in opposition to the nation's desire for unity, especially in a time of war.

And then you have a parliamentary opposition leader, Yayr Lapede, hailing the court for quote faithfully fulfilling its duty to protect the.

really lost sight of the security situation. You had troops who were moved from that area near Gaza that was most aggressively attacked on Actober seventh to the West Bank or near the West Bank to sort of placate his far right coalition partners. You have this list of security failures.

There was just a big New York Times expose actually on how even on the day of October seventh, the IDF was in complete disarray, leaving ordinary people to try to fend for themselves for hours and hours and hours. And the sense was that this judicial reform, which really tore the country in two, had distracted them to the extent that not only did they fail to anticipate October seventh, but they were then unable to respond on that day. So that's part of how this is all tied in.

And also, of course Emily you know, really paus into question the ability to maintain any sort of unity across the country and among the citizenry because this is such an incredibly divisive, difficult issue.

been immense displeasure that he hasn't met with everyone. I think one meeting in a few weeks back was capped at fifteen people something like that, and so he wasn't able at that particular meeting to confer with all of the families. And all of this has created a really bad domestic picture for net and Yahoo. And to your point, this was passed by parliament in July, supported by people

like net Yaho. Israel does have a very very powerful court, and reading from an old New York Times article before October seventh, they say, supporters of the measure, which Parliament this is at the time, is expected to vote on next Monday, presented as a boon for democracy, a modest limit on the ways in which an elected government can be stymied by unelected judges who will in any case

they'll have other tools to overrule ministers. So that's what this was essentially about, that the Court could say nope on this definition of reasonableness. We will not robber stamp this ministerial appointment. And for some people, they say that's reducing judicial oversight for Net and Yahoo and his allies, they say, actually, that's really important to kind of push back on this idea of unelected judges. And the entire debate was royal in the country. There were mass protests

that you mentioned, Crystal and people certainly remember. And so this is a really really difficult domestic situation for Net and Yahoo. It is not there is not a united front at home or even among his allies abroad about what Israel should do going forward, and it raises maxive questions about you know, people talk about, and myself included, what is eradicating Hamas mean? What kind of comes up in that vacuum? You know, say the eight thousand number

is accurate. So you've gotten rid of a third of Hamas fighters and a whole lot of the infrastructure. Okay, So what is what is Israel going to do in future steps in the war Net Yahoo or not? What is the plan? What does the is really government look like in the next two years, let alone five years. These things are really unsettled.

terms of planning the war effort. Eighty one percent of Israeli Jews say it should either be not considered at all or considered very little.

of quote unquote voluntary migration of Palestinians out of Gaza. Now, how voluntary is a migration when your home has been bombed and your children are being starved to death. We'll talk about that again in just a moment, but huge, huge developments. And just to give people a sense lastly on this judicial reform and striking down that law by the Supreme Court of how fraught this has been. There's actually a lawmaker, a former cabinet member from Netnyahu's Lecud party,

Gallat distel At Barian. Sorry, I'm sure I said that name wrong, who just apologized for being involved in this. They said, I'm here sitting and telling you, the democratic secular public, I sinned against you, I caused pain for you, I caused you to fear for your lives, and I am sorry for this. So it shows you how high emotions are running that even someone who was involved in this attempt said that they sinned against.

receiving a distress call. Interestingly, the USS Eisenhower is actually withdrawing from the region's been there from the beginning. Interesting note, I believe it's the Eisenhower that's withdrawing. This comes as put this up on the screen, and Iranian warship has

now entered the Red Sea. Ronz Albor's warship enter the Red Sea a semi official news agency reported on Monday, at a time of soaring tensions on the Key shipping route amid the Israel Hamas warren attacks on vessels by forces, allies to Tehran and the UK looking to get more involved in these attacks on Huthi's and even floating direct attacks air strikes on Huthi rebels put this next one up.

Britain is reportedly considering air strikes on Huthi rebels after the US said it's navy sank three boats that have been targeting a containership in the Red Sea Grant shops. That Defense secretary said the government would not hesitate to take direct action to prevent further attacks amid reports the UK and US are preparing a joint statement to issue a final warning to the Yameni group. Obviously, this is massively significant. We are directly engaging and killing houthy militants.

We have put together this attempt at a coalition so that we aren't the only ones who are being attacked or facing these risks, but Emily, all of our allies effectively have been extraordinarily reluctant. The coalition, such as it is, is quite lackluster. Includes next to know Arab allies. There were a number of countries who didn't want to publicly.

Israeli commerce. But then you also have just the incredible risk of this blowing up into something much larger than it already is and dragging us much more directly into these sorts of engagements. With so many of our troops still in the region, we are huge risks that abound.

your point, what a powder keg. This situation is and we're going to talk about Ukraine shortly, but I think it is really worth remembering that this is happening in a split screen. That you know, one of the most terrifying things after October seventh and since has been the way that China, Russia, all of these different sort of emerging blocks have responded to different threats and different events that have cropped up over the course of the post

October seventh conflict. And that is really really scary stuff. And what we are seeing in the naval sector here is a lack of American control, a lack of control among it. To your point, you know, our friends, people who are at least are countries that are supposed to be the friends of the US. We look Biden looks

completely out of control. And that's always been the case, you know, when you see these group, scrappy groups, you know, come in and up end our you know, our ability to hold certain areas whatever it is since September eleventh. I mean, it's it's always embarrassing when stuff like this happens. But there seems to just be no cohesion in the response here, and and that becomes clear and clear.

And one of the updates that I did over the holiday, I talked about the insanity of a former Israeli Prime minister in the Wall Street Journal calling demanding that we try to foment regime change in Iran outrageous, completely insane. But you, of course have the typical hawks in the US, people like Lindsay Graham, people like John Bolton out there aggressively calling for US to directly attack Iran, even though Iran, yes, they support Humas, Yes, of course they support the Huthies.

by continuing keeping this conflict going. And so he can say, listen, yes, there are many questions that need to be answered about the security situation, the intelligence failures leading up to October seventh, but that's all for after the war. So he has this incentive to keep this war going indefinitely. And he also has an incentive and they've been making a lot of noises and have been sort of laying the groundwork to open up another full front with Hesbola in Lebanon

after they pull back in Gaza. So this is, you know, massively risky. The Israeli you know, domestic political situation is pushing them in the direction of actually wanting a broader war. And we've seen no ability of Biden in the US administration to push back on anything that Israel is doing, including drawing us into this broader conflict, which we've already by nature of our engagement here with the Hoho Thies,

which we've already been drawn into. I want to go ahead and turn for a moment here because I never want to lose sight of this, of the immense suffering that is unfolding in Gaza right now, which is really unlike anything else that we have seen in this century. Put this up on the screen. We now have a report from the UN that half of Gazan's are in

danger of starvation. They are starving something like ninety percent, reports that they regularly go a full day without eating anything, and huge numbers are at risk due to the collapse of the healthcare system Israel targeting hospitals both in the north and the south of Gaza. Very few remain in operation. There's very lit in the way of medical supplies as well.

This tweets as we could see almost a quarter of Gaza's population, close to half a million human beings dying within a year, largely deaths from preventable health causes and collapse of the medical system. It's a crude estimate, but one that is data driven. Let me read you a little bit of what's going on here. They say tragically, the nearly unprecedented death and injury we've seen so far

as likely to only be the beginning. From looking at similar conflicts across the world public health experts know we are likely to see more children dying from preventable disease than from bullets and bombs. The World Health Organization spokespersons said diarrhea rates among children in refugee like camps in Gaza were already in November. Early November, this was a while ago. Now more than one hundred times normal levels, and there are effectively no treatments available. Children can become

dehydrated and die quickly. Diarrheal diseases are the second leading cause of death in children under five worldwide. Their cause contaminated water sources, lack of access to oral rehydration fluids, upper respiratory infections, chicken pox, and painful skin conditions have also increased. Their fears that the recent floods may result in untreated sewage mixing with fresh water used for drinking

and cooking and cause a cholera outbreak. This is something Ryan's been flagging for a while now that oftentimes in war zones, especially when you have you know, all of the sanitation, basic sanitation has been destroyed, you have people living in these crowded camp situations that oftentimes the disease that spreads is even deadlier than the bombs and the bullets, which have been plenty deadly enough. So incredibly dire situation unfolding there with no end in sight. Put this next

piece up on the screen. You'll remember, in the early days after October seventh, there was a lot of discussion of how the Hamas attack was equivalent to fifteen nine to elevens for a nation of Israel's size. Well, they sort of stopped doing this nine to eleven math now because the equivalent figure for Gaza, where more than twenty thousand people have now been killed, is approaching nine hundred

nine elevens. I actually recommend people read this entire Mother Jones article How Joe Biden became America's top Israel Hawk, because it digs into the fact that he has long been one of the most hawkish with regards to Israel, one of the greatest allies of everyone every Israeli Prime minister, including Netnyahuo. How he actually actively undermined some Obama and Hillary Clinton initiatives to back net Yahoo during a time

when those relations were very fraught. So it's incredibly interesting and revealing history for understanding how and why Joe Biden is doing what he is and giving them unconditional support in this moment.

military and all of its sort of strategic decisions. And so that has been a point of contention between Biden and net Yahoo. And where does this go. If Biden's pressure will learn more in the days to come, If the Biden administration's pressure was absolutely instrumental in what proves to be a long term and definite sort of pause in this invasion, that's a very different question. It's a

different side of Biden we'll see potentially. And the Mother Jones article highlights how this would be a different side of Biden when it comes to net and Yahoo, and it just highlights the political pressures here at home, the political pressures actually abroad places the United Nations, at Allied countries that think differently and have always approached this conflict differently than the United States. And that raises one more

huge question question, Crystal. And this is where the rubber really meets the road for me, the eradication of Hamas. When you're looking at that nine to eleven number in particular, this stands out that the aftermath of our response to nine to eleven, as many people have highlighted since October seventh, was a lot of power vacuums that actually allowed really radical movements to fester. And is that what is being

set up? Like what is the plan? Because there really is not going to be a response that fully eradicates Hamas from Israel, and it sure as heck is not going to eradicate that kind of underlying ideology and a long term, drawn out response Crystal, along the lines that you just mentioned, the humanitarian concerns for civilians when it comes to wide scale illness and starvation. What does that

do in Israel's interest going forward? This is a lesson that many countries have had to learn over the last several decades about what happens in inhuman power vacuums and whether it is ultimately in the interest of a country like Israel or a country of the United States for that situation to continue long term, and that's just looming over all of this right now.

for Hamas and other radical groups rises. And we already see you know, obviously it's very difficult in Gaza to conduct a pull at the moment, but there's indications that support for Hamas has actually gone up during this time period.

Support for Hamas has skyrocketed. So in terms of quote unquote eradicating Hamas, they have utterly failed and only made the situation worse, at great risk to their own population and at great risk to US US as well, because these bombs that are being dropped close you know, somewhere around thirty thousand at this point, a majority of which are quote unquote dumb bombs being dropped indiscriminately on civilian populations.

saying it much more clearly. So put this up on the screen. This is one of the ministers in the net Yahoo government, Bezaliel Smotrich.

There's been a plan that has been floated reportedly in the US with some by partisan interest to use US AID dollars to basically force local Arab allies of the United States to take in this refugee population. And so you know, this has been again, this has been pretty obvious for a while, but now there's not even any any denials around it. It's coming directly from top officials themselves.

And you know, I think every US politician and every US media figure needs to be asking every US politician about whether or not they support this and what their plan is to stop it.

military budget. But the question is munitions. So when Joe Biden's government is prosecuting this war and the US is prosecuting this war and Yahoo says, you know, for years he does not believe in a two state solution, that disconnect is not sustainable and it is not a tenable situation to lay or let's say, justification to lay waste to civilian populations. If the two major powers involved in the war are on completely this is not a minor difference.

They are on completely different pages in completely different universes when it comes to the end goal, and that is a recipe for disaster. And I say that as somebody who actually believes that there was a real necessity for a military response after October seventh. It shouldn't have been

a cease fire October eighth, October ninth, October tenth. But you cannot lay waste to civilian populations with that level of a disconnect, because it means that you are intentionally driving headfirst into a quagmire and causing suffering without a clear path out of that destruction. It's embarrassing that we are involved in a conflict where there's that little clarity about what the end goal is that has caused and

is continuing to cause so much suffering. That's the thing that really is among the most disgusting elements of all of those.

Russia has launched I'll just read from the article the biggest air attack on Ukraine since the beginning of its full scale invasion, which remember we are coming up on the anniversary of this is from the Ukrainian military telling CNN that quote. With an unprecedented number of drones and missiles fired at targets across the country, They've killed at least thirty one people and injured more than one hundred

and fifty others. The wave of attacks began overnight into Friday and struck nationwide, with blasts reported in the capital Kiva and well as well as at a maternity hospital in the central city of Nipro and the eastern city of Kharkiv, the southeastern port of Odessa, and the western city of Leviv, far from the front lines. It's also worth emphasizing the strikes continued Friday afternoon. Ukraine's air force said as a barrage of missiles targeted the northern Chikasi region,

with one hitting the city of Smila. Other missiles were detected from Russia'skirsk region, heading towards the northeastern Ukrainian city of Sumi. The massive overnight assault cnn ADS comes just days after Ukraine struck a Russian Navy landing ship in Crimea on Tuesday, So this is all within the last week, and the onslaught CNN continues also came shortly after Ukraine received the last package of military aid from the United

States until Congress approves the Biden administration's funding requests. Biden is requesting another sixty billion dollars. We're already around one hundred billion dollars into this, which Biden and Zally is like to point out, what a bargain. It's about one percent of our annual GP GDP. So, as Lindsay Graham says, you know you couldn't ask for a better return on your investment. This is just all this is all just

a great deal for the United States of America. That is front and center as Congress returns in the new year, they're going to have to make all kinds of decisions. And you know, we heard Ryan and I talked to the new chair of the Freedom Caucus, Bob Good just a couple of weeks ago, who said straight up on the show on Counterpoints that Ukraine AID is dead on arrival because the Freedom Caucus has a huge ability to maneuver.

We saw that playout over the course of the last year, and they don't want Mike Johnson to basically give an inch on Ukraine AID without also doing you know what's basically impossible to see Biden compromising on the border. Another thing worth emphasizing. The Polish military reported a quote unidentified airborne object entering their airspace from Ukrainian territory early on

Friday morning. Their Chief of the General Staff said everything indicated that a Russian missile had entered and then left Polish airspace. That's from Polish reporting, basically, So another reminder of what a powder keg this is crystal.

continuing the support, and they were unable to. You know, the idea was, all right, we'll give Republicans some border security money. Everybody apparently just wants to give Israel whatever they want, even though it's a wealthy country, and then we'll stick the Ukraine Aid in there, and that's how we'll try to get it through.

journalists and civilian infrastructure destroyed. I mean, what Israel's doing in Gaza makes what Russia has done in Ukraine look like child's play. As this is playing out, it just becomes totally undeniable that all of this supposed US commitment to the rules based order and to democracy and to these values based commitments is all bullshit. And so you had Medi Hassan pointing this out. Put this up on the screen. I thought this was interesting, sparked a lot of conversation.

subjugate its people. He must be stopped. Of course, none of that emotional and clear language has ever been applied to what Israel is doing on a much vaster, much more devastating, devastating scale within Gaza. And you know this is incredibly apparent to people around the world. You now have put this up on the screen, the global seuth effectively abandoning Ukraine. The UN was having a bad twenty

twenty three. Then came the war in Gaza. As I mentioned before, there was already a different view in the global South. However, they write the war between Israel and Hamas has upended their calculations. The atrocity Samas committed on October seventh shook diplomats from all over the world, but the ensuing war's massive humanitarian toll and US refusal to support a ceasefire in Gaza over the past two months, coupled with European states divided response, the war has alienated

the majority of you and members. Diplomats who previously backed Ukraine in the General Assembly have indicated they will not do so in the future. Out of frustration over the west lack of solidarity with the Palestinians. Kieve quietly dropped a planned resolution commemorating the Hilatamore, the Soviet era famine in Ukraine manufactured by Stalin, as it became clear it would not secure strong majority support in the General Assembly.

So listen, much of the world, Emily has already felt the US to be very hypocritical where it comes to the our quote unquote commitment to the international rules based order. You know, it's been quite clear for decades that we apply these rules one and how we see fit, but it has never been quite as stark and quite as blatant as it is right.

including three children, according to local officials. Now, Russia's Defense Ministry is saying that these are check made Vampire rockets and Ulka missiles that were fired with cluster munition warheads. The Associated Press adds importantly it provided no additional information, so they were unable to verify those claims. But cities across western Russia have come under regular attack from drones since May, with Russian officials blaming Kiv. Ukrainian officials never

acknowledge responsibility for attacks on Russian territory or the Crimean peninsula. However, large aerial strikes against Russia have previously followed heavy assaults on Ukrainian cities. Now let's also then move to B seven. This is from the New York Times on December twenty third. This is about potential. I'm so sorry. This is B six. There are two New York Times tear sheets we're about to talk about. The first one is that Putin quietly signals he has opened to a ceasefire in Ukraine. That's

the headline. This is remarkable reporting that will not be a surprise to any listeners or viewers of this show, but again undermines the Biden administrations or the lack of strategy and then occasionally horrible strategy that the Biden administration has applied to this conflict. So reporting here from the New York Times, Mister Putin has been signaling through intermediary since at least September that he has opened to a ceasefire that freezes the fighting along the current lines far

short of his ambitions to dominate Ukraine. Two former senior Russian officials close to the Kremlin, and American and international officials who have received the message from mister Putin's envoice say the lead there from The New York Times that was all one sentence if you were following along, but jam packed with information. The story continues. In fact, mister Putin also sent out feelers for a ceasefire deal a

year earlier, in the fall of twenty twenty two. According to American officials, that quiet overture, not previously reported, came after Ukraine routed Russia's army in the country's northeast. Mister Putin indicated that he was satisfied with Russia's captured territory and ready for an armacist Now again, many of you

know this. The captured territory, Mantravit has been under contention since twenty fourteen at least, and there has been you know, not fighting in those regions, and many of those regions are already very favorable to Russia. So Putin sort of being satisfied with the territory that he has it makes sense. There's sort of logical from his kind of cold calculated

strategic perspective a logical reason behind that. The New York Times later in the story says the signals come through multiple channels, including via foreign governments with ties to both the US and Russia. Russifal unofficial emissaries have spoken to interlocrators about the contours of a potential deal that mister Putin would accept. Putin in the Russian Army. This is a quote from the story from a source. They don't

want to stretch their capacity further. That's according to an international official who actually met with Russian officials just a couple of months ago in the fall. There's no evidence. The New York Times continues that Ukraine's leaders, who have pledged to retake all their territory, will accept such a deal. Some American officials and this was Chris, I don't know, but you I found this to be the critical point

of the story. Some American officials say it could be a familiar Kremlin attempt at misdirection and does not reflect genuine willingness by mister Putin to compromise. The former Russian officials add that mister Putin could well change his mind again if Russian forces gained momentum. So there you see the New York Times giving a little bit to its

sources in intelligence. Just reading this as a journalist, it looks like what they're doing is giving a little bit, you know, they're reporting something that American intelligence does and want them to report, because they're saying, this's just Putin trying to muddy the waters, blame the US for scuttling peace talks, which which makes him look like the negotiator who you know, the US is turning its back on peace with over and over again. But actually we are

turning our back on peace over and over again. And it's not just Vladimir Putin's claims are not the only proof of that we have. We have the proof of claims of people in the Ukrainian government. Fiona Hill wrote a story reporting about this in Foreign Policy, of all people from the sort of Brooking sect writing about this in Foreign Policy. Not long ago, we know that Mark Milly encouraged Keith to negotiate what was this last year,

a fall of twenty twenty two. Actually I guess that was two years ago now because it's newly twenty twenty four. But other American officials, according to the Times believed it was too soon for talks. So again, Crystal, very very clear that the us IS is not satisfied with the terms that could be brought to the table right now to stop. We're at hundreds of thousands of deaths, according to serious attestaments, hundreds of thousands of deaths.

sort of good faith. I actually read this article a little bit different, or interpret a little bit different than you, Emily, because we have had these multiple reports now for years about those early negotiations and the fact that it would us pressure specifically and then with our buddies coming in from the UK over the top that killed those negotiations, and we said, no, we want you to go to war, we want this fight. We wanted to use Ukraine as

our little pawn to try to weaken Russia. We used them, and then now here we are years later, as you said, after hundreds of thousands of lives lost, after so much and that's of course the worst of it. And then you talk about the economic destruction and the lives ruined that we pushed for. And I've said this before, it's

actually bade me really learning and understanding. This has actually made me more sympathetic to the like all in for Ukraine people, because what we did was the most morally indefensible, which is, we're going to make you fight this war, but we're not going to give you everything that you need in order to be successful. We're just gonna, you know, dribble in enough to keep you hopeful so that you

can fight to the last man standing. And if you read the reports about the enlistment shortage and the way they're pulling men off the street, and you know the average age of the fighting force, now it's absolutely atrocious. They've lost effectively entire generation of men in Ukraine because

we wanted them to fight this war. And now, the reason the way I read this report is this was not none of this information about a potential peace deal, potential negotiation, none of this had been reported out by Western media.

the B seven up on the screen. Guys, this is a New York Times editorial board member who wrote, now and again, these were things you were not allowed to say without being a Putin apologist, etc.

the west. It would be exactly what mister Putin most feared from a neighboring state with deep historical ties to Russia, and it would be a testament to what Russia promised to become in nineteen ninety one when both countries broke free of the Soviet Union, before mister Putin entered the Kremlin and succumbed to grievance in the lore of dictatorial power and imperial illusion. In many ways, mister Putin has achieved the opposite of what he set out to do.

The Ukrainian nation, whose existence he poo pooed, has been steeled in fire, and on December fourteenth, the European Union formally agreed to open accession negotiations with Ukraine, the very westward shift mister Putin went to war to block. Finland

has joined NATO, Swedeness edging closer to membership. These are not the elements of victory, because the alternative perspective Emily, which has some validity, is to say, well, if you let Putin get away, which is taking this territory, what message does ascend to China, what message does ascend to Russia? That okay, well, we let you get away with it here. You know what else is on your list, on your

wish list. But what he points out is so important, which is that this has already been a disaster for Russia.

about whether they'll get any more aids. So they're in a very weekended position. But when you're in a hole, stop digging. It could get much worse than it is right now. And so that's why I see these as almost I mean, it's horrifying what's happened in Ukraine. These are at least some hopeful signs that perhaps diplomacy, negotiations and peace could theoretically be at the table.

lives were lost. From A when it was not okay to talk about any of these things less you have blood on your hands or be a Putin apologist, to point B, where now it's like, you know what, maybe they can give up the dombas. Tens of thousands of lives were lost. And you alluded to a Wall Street Journal story that was published right before Christmas that showed pretty clear evidence people on the record being illegally drafted by Ukraine into war with a system of bribery that

was disproportionately shielding affluent Ukrainian men from service. So after this filled offensive that places like the New York Times were drip drip dripping telling us was going to change the war, was going to send Putin back on his heels. All of this now we have a wild mismatch between Western elites appetite for war and much of Ukraine's That's not to say there aren't you know, Ukrainian soldiers and Ukrainians that aren't still saying let's go out there get Russians.

We will lay down our lives for this territory. Of course that still exists. But if you are having to illegally draft middle aged men by pulling them off the street as this Wall Street Journal story documents, and Western elites are still saying, let's go get them, let's keep

sending you this money. And the way that Crystal you made a great point, we'll, you know, we'll we'll kind of send you the money, but it's going to be on the schedule, and maybe you won't get everything you want when you want it, and we're kind of in charge of the war, but we'll also kind of let you do things like you go do what you do with the nord Stream. It's just a disaster and a lot of people are dead because of it.

as full of it. When it comes to all of our supposed concerns about democracy in the international rules based order, it's just never been more clear than it is at this moment. Let's go ahead and turn to some domestic politics because while we were out over the break, major development in terms of Donald Trump and his various legal battles. So we had covered previously Colorado, the state Supreme Court issuing a ruling that, if upheld by the Supreme Court,

would keep Trump off of that ballot. This under the provision in the Constitution that says you cannot engage in an insurrection if you'd previously held an office, taken an oath, et cetera. So now we've got another state attempting to remove Trump from the ballot.

they say. The decision makes Main second state to disqualify Trump from office after the Colorado Supreme Court handed down its own stunning ruling that removed him from the ballot earlier this month. She said her decision will be put on hold until Mains Superior Court, a trial level court, makes a ruling. It is not the highest court in the state, but it's the next level where Trump or

others can appeal. Main's laws mandate that the superior court must make a decision within twenty days from Thursday that was January. That would be January seventeenth, So the main Superior Court has to weigh in here. That is not the highest level court in MAINEZ. I assume it'll go all the way up to the main Supreme Court, and then very likely I would assume the US Supreme Court is going to have to weigh in on these challenges

and how to interpret this part of the constitution. Main Secretary of State was pressed on her decision here on CNN.

signatures was lawful and correct. So my job I qualified mister Trump for the ballot, and under mean law, any registered voter can bring a challenge to that qualification. In this case, there were three challenges, and I was required by law to hold of hearing, an administrative hearing to review the evidence here testimony, both sides were represented by counsel, and mister Trump was represented by an attorney, and then

I'm required to issue a decision. That's my obligation under the oath, I sworted the Constitution.

dozen Republican presidential candidates. So every state is different. My obligation and duty, my soul consideration, is my hope to uphold the Constitution.

He has not been charged with insurrection and Crystal. There are historic, I think differences between what was being discussed, and we have an article on this. Actually you can put C three up on the screen. This is from ABC News. What was being discussed as the fourteenth Amendment was written very specifically about people who took up arms

personally personally took up arms against the United States. Now, the fourteenth Amendment does have a point about people who gave aid or comfort to people who took up arms against the United States, and that sort of makes it much more open ended and kind of vague. But it has never been interpreted in this way at all, and with nobody, let alone Donald Trump being charged with insurrection.

And I don't say that to mean that Jacksmith should charge Donald Trump with insurrection personally, with the kind of insurrection that Confederates did when they literally fought to the death people from their own country to preserve, as Nicki Haley is a little bit scared to say, the institution of slavery. We could get into that, Crystal, but really there's no need to, because there's no point to talking

about Nikki Haley anymore. But I mean, this was a very specific This is a very very specific phenomenon that was being addressed in the fourteenth Amendment about taking up arms and fomenting an insurrection, a war against your own country. And Donald Trump had insane disagreements, some that he didn't even believe in, I think is very clear, and did mislead people about. I continue to think that's one of the most disgusting parts of all this is the way

Donald Trump treats his own voters. And you know, he did horrible things, that's all true. Charging him with insurrection, Crystal not only do I think it is legally wrong or not charging him with insurrection but then taking him off the ballot. Not only do I think it's legally wrong and dubious and sets a terrifying precedent, I also think it's really pushing us towards the brink of something very, very frightening. It feels like a recipe for a lot

more January sixth going forward. When you kind of take that out of the voter's hands, people feel powerless. It makes people feel powerless more and more, and that's when people get desperate. So I just the whole thing is frightening.

legal issues here are genuinely very tricky. I read the Colorado State Supreme Court ruling and like all of the different pieces that they were grappling with I just want to read for people what Section three of the fourteenth Amendment actually says in terms of the just like plain you know English meaning that people are taking from because

you do have a majority of America. It's actually a pretty strong majority, including a quarter of Republicans who said yeah, actually agree with the color Rado Supreme Court on this.

So it says no person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office civil or military under the United States or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the US, or as a member of any state legislator, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the US, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid

or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability. So we just had the Colorado GOP appeal the state Supreme Court ruling there. One thing that was interesting to me is they did not actually contest on the grounds that Trump was not engaged in or giving aid or

comfort to the enemies engaged in an insurrection. They challenged some of the these more technical legal pieces, including whether the President of the United States is a quote office of you know that this would apply to, which I always have thought was preposterous. And one of the things that that that news article we had up a moment ago mentions is that in the debate over the language

of this amendment, this actually came up. There's a single reference in that Senate debate to the fact that president and vice president are not specifically mentioned in this draft, and a Maryland Democratic center said, why did you admit

omit to exclude them? And this person who drafted responded, let me call the cenator's attention to the words or hold any office civil or military under the United States is included, And that ended the discussion, basically meaning like, well, it says any office, like of course the president is included here. So it was interesting to me that the Republican party that filed this appeal did not actually take issue with the idea that Trump engaged and insurrection or

gave aid and comfort to. It was some of these tricky legal issues. So listen, my view is it's appropriate to have this provision in a constitution to protect the state from you know, insurrectionists and people who give aid and comfort to insurrectionists.

we can you know, here's how we can work with this moving forward. The last thing, and i'll call your attention to in that news article about what the debate was at the time, is, you know, there's a question of whether this was even meant to apply to future insurrections or if it was really just specifically for the

Civil War. And there was some language in the debate about they say this is to go into our constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the president, and I should like to have that point definitely understood. So there was a sense at the time, and you know, for the conservative justices who claim to be your originalists, and to look at what the meaning and intent was at the time, and to look at the plain text reading of the language of the Constitution.

The Colorado Supreme Court in particular wrote there, my cat's going crazy in the background, guys.

very real polling. And if you look at the RCP averages, for example, of Ronan De Santis and Donald Trump, you see this. Ryan described it as like an alligator jar crocodile draw. I forgot which one. He said. As soon as the indictment started coming down, of Trump's support just going up. De Santas's support just going down. That the sort of ongoing lawfair against Trump just solidifies people's support

for him. And that's where Chris, what's your point. You know, some Republicans are involved in filing these challenges and some Republicans supporting what Colorado's decision was. That's I mean, Donald Trump is just incredibly polarizing, and I think maybe one thing that we can agree on is the Democrats have and never Trump kind of Republicans sort of desperately have

flung lawfair at Donald Trump. Since twenty fifteen, when the dossier was first funded by Republicans, by the way, they have tried to thwart Donald Trump in every way except actually persuading the voters that they shouldn't support Donald Trump.

They've like not figured out the persuasive argument for this hard and thirty percent of the country that supports Donald Trump to the point where he can win a primary and then convince, you know, another twenty percent of the country that the other option is so bad that you know, they have to go with Donald Trump for a number

of different reasons, for a number of different voters. And and that again is the real like, that's that's another real problem that hangs over all of this is that that that argument of you know, things are Joe Biden is talking about the economy as though everything is rosy, and of course he is. He's been president for a couple of years. In the middle of re election campaign,

he wants to say we've made progress. And you know, there's an argument that some progress has been made, but people express they aren't feeling like the economy is the same way that Joe Biden is talking about the economy. They expressed that they're not feeling the same way about geopolitical stability and American leadership on the world days as Joe Biden is saying that they should. And that's where Trump comes in and is persuasive to a lot of people.

So there's still an incredible vacuum in the persuadability of a chunk of the country, not everyone. We're extremely polarized around the issue of Trump, and very polarized in general, but that continues, I think to be a real handicap for Trump's enemies.

for Donald Trump. They certainly have tried. But what they've been unwilling to do or unable to do, given their own, like you know, compromised situations and see of money and politics that infects both parties, they've been unable and unwilling to offer an affirmative, positive agenda that is a viable alternative, and so to me, it's very logical, and you know very clear if you look at history that if people feel like democracy isn't delivering for them, then they may

sour on democracy or they may not prioritize democracy. And I think that's a lot of what you're seeing here, as people feel like, you know, whoever I vote for in this upcoming election, it's not gonna help me, it's not going to affect in my life. They don't feel like these the stakes of these elections aren't really the same because there's no expectation that either major political party is going to actually deliver for them, and so instead it's like, all right, well, who's on my side in

the culture war? Who's like owning or hating on the person that I also hate? And that's what our politics devolves to, as as well as willingness to reach for authoritarian tactics to keep the group that you see as an existential threat that you've been told by media as an existential threat, to try to keep them at bay. So I think that's part of what's going on here

in terms of like the lawfair against Donald Trump. I mean, there's no doubt about it, like the Russia Gate nonsense, all that stuff, But you do have to separate, separate out like which of these claims are legitimate and have some base and which are just total like fabricated distraction and bullshit. So the fact that some of the claims are distraction and bullshit does not mean that all of the claims are distraction and bullshit.

he's got trouble on basically every front. And listen, I mean, in some ways, the best thing he's got going for him, he should be very much opposed to these decisions from Colorado and May because I think the only shot is that people find Trump even more odious and distasteful than they find him.

to Trump than to Biden. And I know that sounds weird, but I really think that the more Trump goes after RFK Junior, the more attractive he looks to some people on the West, on the left, because there's been so little conversation about his long support and just like very substantive activist work in the environmental movement and in other sort of anti corporate spaces over the last couple of decades.

And people can disagree about RFK Junior, but there hasn't been a lot of highlighting that part of his record. And if Donald Trump's campaign start to highlight that part of his record, I think that makes those numbers tick upwards in a way that Karnaki is saying seventeen percent

for a third party candidate. Well, going forward, if you depending on who stays in the race, who goes independent, who stays independent, all these different questions that will be hatched out in less than a year now, that is I mean, if you have two big independent bids. If

you have you know, RFK Junior and somebody else. We saw jill Stein actually get you know, not because putin you know, controlled the minds of voters in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, but we saw jill Stein actually do better than a lot of elites expected her to in twenty sixteen, much of the chagrin of those elites. So if you have someone as high profile as RFK Junior and then someone else, maybe at Cornell West, that gets the type of support that Jill Stein did, you put those two together, that's

big trouble for both of the candidates. And I really would expect Crystal heading into the spring here, heading into Iowa and New Hampshire, just in the next couple of months, hysteria about third party candidates is really going to start ramping up.

approval rating with Democrats. But I always thought it would be more complex than that, because, for one thing, what you're pointing to, you know, negative polarization is so strong that if you just have Trump like relentlessly and other right wing figures relentlessly attacking RFK Junior, then you're going to have, you know, a reaction from people who are more liberal, more on the left. You're going to have an opposite reaction from people who are Republicans, and so

those numbers could shift. He's a Kennedy, right, That's a big thing in terms of how people about him. And you know, so I always thought it was very possible that the way people were thinking about him shift.

Israel and most pro Israel of all three. But that doesn't mean that young voters who are disgusted with Joe Biden won't vote for you know, an RFK junior or you know, certainly at Cornell West origel Stein just kind of sheer disgusted with what he has actively been doing. You know, It's it's one thing to have a theoretical position on Israel. It's another thing to actually be there sending the bombs that are being dropped on children and destroying you know, schools and hospitals, et cetera.

the thing. And I don't know why he believes it's helpful to say these kinds of things about an incredibly difficult circumstance with an incredibly strong and decent and excellent president. I will never understand that. So you know, the real issue here, Emily, is anyone who would point out the fact that Joe Biden has literally the lowest approval rating of any incumbent president seeking reelection.

recent times too. Its criticisms of the Democratic Party just being coded increasingly as a party of the elites. And we can debate the substance of that, but James Carvell has made some pretty good points about how they come across to voters, the issues they choose to talk about, how they choose to talk about them, all of that. If Joe Biden needs anything right now, let's if I'm putting my you know, I'm at the Biden reelection campaign

right now. If he needs anything, it's tough love exactly from people like James Carvell, not bear hugs from people like John Fetterman that tell him everything is fine, Joe even saying it, you know, privately versus publicly. It's important that it's public so that there's pressure for the campaign. There's pressure from Democrats. Again, this is what the Democratic Strategist campaign had on. It's not a hat I like to wear, Crystal, but I will do it for the

sake of the show. They need this badly because they're in again. They're going up against, as Hillary Clinton did, the former host of the Celebrity Apprentice, who it's just this should not be hard, but it is for Democrats because they're so And it's same thing for the Republicans that are trying to challenge Trump for the primary, Like why is it hard to beat the former host of Celebrity Apprentice in an election? Because you guys suck, you suck, and they need someone to tell them that.

to do anything on the issue. He is just saying like, I won't make it worse. So nothing to me seems like a pretty logical takeaway from what his goals and the accomplishments are likely to be in a second term. And then they asked the same thing about Trump. What do they think Trump will accomplish? But this stuff on

the screen, he said revenge. That was number one for Trump was revenge, And I actually said Donald Trump said it, Well, he kind of did, because he reposted the word cloud and like owned it, like he was proud that that's what will want.

be here, my ministration will be here again. Though that might be an electoral strategy that has some benefits in the long term, that does not defeat the part of trump Ism that has anti democratic impulses. And I think that's a fair enough argument, as hysterical as I think some people who can sometimes be about that case, I think, you know, Donald Trump posting work cloud saying that the accomplishing revenge is sort of a funny point to that extent.

And the reason that this doesn't accomplish the defeat of those parts of Trump is in the long term is because people are turning to Trump in desperation for the substance, as we just talked about. So like if you're not if Joe Biden isn't running on you know, real wages, for example, real wages are not increasing because inflation is stubborn and there are science that it's going in the right direction, but overall it has not gone under the

right direction. And the Biden economy, student loans are a huge problem for a big chunk of the population right now. People turn to, whether it's whether it's Trump or someone for the left, they turn in desperation when the substance

is not delivered on. And so it's actually really dangerous to think you can just continue to elect your way out of what feels like an autocratic hole to some people, to Joe Biden and his folks, to say, we're just going to keep electing Democrats and that will keep Donald Trump at bay until one of our points of law

fair is successful he's in prison. That does nothing to eradicate Trump is and there's an argument we were just talking about the polling that it makes him stronger because there's some voters really don't like it, and it sort of can heighten tensions in the country in ways that push people more to Trump's side. We don't know, you know, some evidence that would happen, But the bottom line is

we do know. People are right that the substance isn't being delivered on and so the most moral and effective way to tackle this problem would actually be to try and improve the daily lives of Americans. But of course they can't do that.

a core of his appeal. And again, if people don't have an expectation that these leaders and this democratic system is going to deliver for them in any real way, just an oppositional message holds some level of appeal, so it's not an accident that they both land in that place.

should absolutely check that out on the channel. But here's the part of the interview that pretty viral because Tucker Carlson took a pretty big shot at one of the most successful commentators on the right, one of the biggest podcast hosts in the country, let alone on the right, and that's been Shapiro.

Third World conflict? Now we can say support, you know, not support, We can have criticisms, etc. For that, but what explains this, Like literal allegiance to narrative on Ukraine on Israel. Why is it that so many of these people don't seem to have the same level of care for actual American citizens, you know.

And I felt terrible for the people who were killed on October seventh. I still do, so I didn't I had no weird motive. I was just like, thinking about it from an American perspective, is this good for us?

link the issues. The only reason you're doing this is because you wish to downplay the atrocity that just happened in Israel. You're not up playing the atrocity of what's happening on America's streets. Those are two different types of atrocities. People who are addicted to fentanyl sticking needles in their arms and overdosing is a is a moral blight. It is a moral atrocity and a moral evil for people to kidnap women, rape them and drag them back to

the gods of border. Those are not the same thing, and Tucker knows that. But this is a cheap way of telling you not to look, don't look, stop caring, because after all, what does it matter?

was talking about. This is about the sort of paleo conservative argument that's been around since Pat Buchanan, even since like Ross Perrot but others have have made similar arguments, and that's where the personal disagreement I think is the least helpful. From what I just saw from Ben, who you know, I agree with on a lot but disagree with on some stuff as it pertains to Israel, he's I think, further to the right of a lot of

Republicans on Israel. He would probably admit that himself. I do think Lindsey Graham basically is calling people like Lindsay Graham and Lindsay Graham included are basically calling for a war with a run right, you know, and things that we surely know would likely spark a much broader, deadlier conflict. So I don't agree on that point. I think people actually are putting us in danger of a war with iron I agree with Talker on that point and disagree

with Ben on that point. But the kind of personal back and forth there, I think is unhelpful because it becomes one thing I've seen more and more from the right reminds me of something I saw a lot on the left in the aughts. As the left was I think much more deft at using digital tools like YouTube and social media. It became sort of soap operas. There became this bubble of soap operas driven by personality beefs.

Great for clicks, great for ratings and all of that, but not super helpful towards the end of landing on the most moral version of the conservative argument. And I guess, you know, I don't think it's super helpful for the personal distractions to get in the way of what is a subsistant substantively. I don't think either of them should be saying the other person doesn't care about the lives on either side. You know, I don't think that about

either of them. I think there's a legitimate question though, of American interest, and I think it sucks if personal disagreements get in the way of actually debating substantively what America's interest is and israelined in Ukraine.

the cat just jumped on the table. And by the way, there's Salem, by the way, incredibly dishonest about the history that let us here and basically justify any Israeli action. I dramatically disagree with that. And it comes from a variety of places. I mean, you know, there's lots of I think there is an appropriate pointing out of hypocrisy

with regards to this. Is a manned Ben Shapiro, who has made living and become extremely wealthy with a core argument against identity politics and against quote unquote cancel culture and like the safe space on college campuses stuff, and you know, supposed commit meant to free speech. All of that has been tossed out the window when it comes to a cause that he is very very concerned about,

in part because of his identity. So that's the Shapiro side, you know, on the paleo conservative side, this argument of like, well, I don't know why you care. I can't wrap my head around that. For a variety of reasons here. I mean, first of all, for me, what really looms very large is the just moral catastrophe that is unfolding on our watch,

with our dollars, with our diplomatic cover, et cetera. I mean, this is the most devastating war documented now by a number of Western media outlets that we've seen in this century. More journalists killed, more children killed, more buildings destroyed, more civilian infrastructure destroyed, more people starving to death, like something unprecedented is happening before our eyes. And so to have this view of like, well, I don't get why you care about that. I just I just can't really wrap

my head around that. And then if you also consider that it's not like this is just some with regard to Israel and Gaza, that this is just some random conflict around the world that doesn't impact us.

them for years and years and years. So even if that's your policy once you're president, et cetera, you know, that doesn't erase our responsibility and implicate us directly and what's happening there, not to mention, of course, all of the implications about how this can spark security threats for US, how this can spark security concerns for our troops in the region, how this can draw us into a broader war.

So on every level, the paleo conservative view of like, well, we just shouldn't care about it and I don't know why everybody is so upset about this doesn't land for me. So that's why I say, like, I don't have a dog in for this fight, because in different ways, like I don't subscribe to either of their ideologies, and in

different ways I really disagree with them. But the one piece that you know, I will say I think is appropriate to shine a light on by people who are paleo conservatives, which is like Tucker, which is like, you know, I think Sager would put himself probably in that category. Is you had all these people during the Trump era on the right who ran around calling themselves America first and aligning themselves like they were paleo conservatives, and then the minute.

didn't agree with each other on everything. And you know, remember five years ago that sort of smack in the middle of a lot of these changes in the Republican Party and in the middle of the kind of Trump phenomena, and it was really friendly and it was it was like a very I thought it was a very helpful, like hour long interview. And that's interesting because yes, like Israel is becoming one of those clarifying moments for where

the Republican Party wants to go. And that's why, again, I feel like the personal stuff isn't super helpful because there's something serious that underlies a lot of this. I was on a panel earlier this year and about the kind of new Right for a bunch of political science professors, and one of the other panelists, i think, said something about the new Right being anti war, and you know, a lot of the members of the New Right want to bomb cartels, like that's long been a part of

this sort of America First philosophy. It is not as clear cut sort of Buchanonist because they would kind of gladly hand contracts to Lockheed and Raytheon to bomb the hell out of Sineloa in Mexico right next door to us, so it doesn't totally work or China, right or China, Yes, absolutely, And that's one of the things that I think, you know, Ben, I like both Ben and Tucker, and that to me in and of itself is interesting because you know, I'm not a fan of many genuine neo conservatives, and I

feel like Ben was one of the few people on the right that was kind of humbled by his experience with with trump Ism and didn't abandon different principles, but did think differently about certain things when it came to foreign policy. Obviously, Israel wasn't one of those things the Trump administration. Ben was very favorable to what they did with the Abraham Accords, and the Trump administration wasn't much

different on on Israel either. But that that argument, I think the most charitable version of the Tucker argument is that it's our attention to Israel comes at needlessly at the expense of our attention to suffering in the United States, and that again, like that's the most charitable version of it. So that that's again the kind of a different conversation,

and that's a different sort of burden of proof. You know, what, what are we doing abroad that we could be doing home when when it comes to attention, when it comes to money, there's an argument there, but it's sort of different than what was happening in that exchange too.

on a variety of levels. I think it's number one, there's all this just legacy cold War, and you see this in the Age Divide of like, you know, there's the people a lot of the countries that are on our side, and then there's the countries that are on the other side. And Israel's one of the countries on our side, therefore we should stand with them, period, end of story. So there's this like Cold war hangover. But then there is also this religious and identity based affinity

that isn't just among Jewish people. I mean, one of the strongest contingents, certainly on the Republican side of just like we're locked up with Israel, will never criticize them. Anything they do is inherently good and just actually is more like the Mike Johnson's of the world, who are hard right evangelical Christians who have this you know, end Times view and of you know, the Jews of the Chosen People, and so we have to back them up

no matter what. And so as with you know, the conflict between Israel and Palestine having being at its core a political and land dispute, but really having these overlays of religion, which make it even more difficult to untangle. Like, we certainly have those same dynamics unfolding here as well. And it was an intentional project of multiple Israeli governments and officials to try to forge that bond from the early days of Zionism, and in America it has been

extremely extremely successful. So that's part of what makes this makes it very difficult to have just like a policy based or even just morality based. Okay, here's war crimes that are being committed, here's atrocities against civilians. Why this gets really tangled up is based on these other cultural religious identity affiliations and layer on top of that a is like Cold War hangover mentality and a lot.

from Afghanistan. I should really say, the disastrous except from Afghanistan, without you know, much reconsideration fundamentally within the Pentagon and the highest heights of American foreign policy elites of what

American foreign policy should look like. And I think that's increasingly going to be a problem actually for Donald Trump going forward when he talks about what his plans would be for the Israel situation if he's elected president again less than a year from now, you know what he would what he would do that would, you know, either continue what he did in his administration or maybe take a different tack from what he did in his administration.

Remember the Biden administration, which a lot of people on the right felt undercut the Abraham Accords was publicly like Jake Sullivan a couple of weeks before October seventh, was talking about how there's a peace in the Middle East like there hasn't been before, basically on a continuation of what had happened with the Abraham Accords. So there is just not just for the right, but kind of you know,

the blob versus anti blob. There is a lot to be hashed out, you know, in the next And it's kind of crazy to me, Crystal that we're it's sort of like what we were talking about with you. But it's also you know, Biden seeing two state solution net and Yahoo, who has the support of the US government saying no too state solution. It's kind of crazy to me.

We're talking about how this has to be hashed out because we have basically a century of some some major foreign policy failures in the rear view near that we we just have never corrected. Essentially, the public is pressuring for corrections. The elites have not responded to that pressure in significant ways.

why can't we do it as well? So these things reverberate throughout history when we fail to grapple with them, and when we so clearly fall, when we so clearly fail to live up to what we claim to stand for in the world, which, again, as I said earlier, I don't think I don't think we will ever have any credibility to claim that we stand for international rule of law, any of these humanitarian principles that we supposedly built the World War two post World War two order on.

In any case, was a joy as always, Emily getting to chat with you today. Thank you for doing the show with me. Emily and Ryan are going to do normal counterpoints tomorrow and then actually have Ryan in with me on Thursday for a full breaking point. So we're mixing it up this week, giving Sager some very well deserved time off, and then he will be back next year. Next not next year. We're already in next year. Next week and next week.