Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show.
So we are getting new indications that, as many have said before, Israel appears to have destroyed everything in Gaza except for Hamas.
Let's go and put this up on the screen.
We're getting lots of new red triangle videos from Hamas on a near daily basis. You can see here this is infamously this is their targeting showing they're still able to operate in various parts of the Gaza Strip, including we know that there have been IDF casualties, and we'll get to that in a moment in the northern Gaza strip where they had already gone in and completely annihilated,
supposedly declared mission accomplished. But guess what, you didn't destroy Hamas, You left a complete vacuum and so surprise surprise, Hamas is filling that vacuum. And also surprise surprise when you murder and slaughter a bunch of civilians, kids, women, destroy homes, hospitals, schools, et cetera. Guess what the ideology that fuels Hamas.
You are doing.
Nothing but pour gasoline on that ideology.
So let's put this up on the screen.
This is incredible from Politico Biden admin openly hammering Israel's military strategy in Gaza.
They got a.
Bunch of quotes, both on and off the record from Pentagon leaders who are saying there's no total victory against Hamas.
That's quote unquote unlikely.
You have another individual who says, not only do you have to actually go in and clear out whatever adversary you're up against, you have to go in hold the territory, then you got to stabilize it. If that doesn't happen, allows your adversary then to repopulate in areas if you're not there. So that does make it more challenging for them as far as being able to meet their objective,
being able to militarily destroy and defeat Hamas. Those comments followed others by Tony B. Lincoln, who last week predicted the eventual withdrawal of Israeli forces could leave a vacuum that's likely to be filled by chaos, by anarchy, and ultimately by Hamas. Again, this is like preschool level. It was so easy to see this and was foreseen and predicted even by people like us who are not military experts. Jako was talking about this like three days into the
Israeli offensive that they were making. If they actually wanted to target Hamas, this was the exact wrong way to go about it. Of course, that was never the actual goal. That was the goal sold to the Israeli public and the US public in the world, never the actual goal. The actual goal has always been complete and utter annihilation. Some other incredible quotes from this article, though, Let's go
and put this up on the screen. They say, although hamas communications and military abilities have been degraded, only thirty to thirty five percent of its fighters those who were to Hamas before October seventh, have been killed, and about sixty five percent of their tunnels are still intact, according to US intelligence. Let's put the next piece up on the screen. Biden officials have also become increasingly concerned that Hamas has been able to recruit during wartime thousands over
the last several months. That has allowed the group to
withstand months of Israeli offensives. According to a person familiar with US intelligence, So honestly, Sagar, when you look at these numbers that they've only and this is according to US intelligence killed thirty percent of HAMAS fighters, that Hamas has been able to recruit thousands more fighters during this time, which again it was obvious that the Israeli offensive year was only going to make people more likely to take up hamas ideology of armed resistance and also join actively
join Hamas. When you put those two numbers together, it's reasonable to ask whether they have degraded Hamas's numbers at all.
Yeah, And inspectually frustrating is that all of this was obvious to anybody, and I think, you know, look, I'm not going to choo my own horn, but it's like, basically, a buy came up with Iraq and Afghanistan covering the Pentagon, and so all of the people who came up and really took over the Pentagon during the counterinsurgency movement knew this from the very beginning. That's part of the reason that Jocko's able to identify that. I will point here
to General Joseph Votel, who was a great general. He was the head of the US Central Command during the fight against ISIS covered him extensively at the time, had special operations access. And here's what he says. Quote, everybody gets the fact that you have to destroy HMAS, But then what what's the plan to take care of the two point five million Palestinians. What is the plan to deal with the remainder of mass fighters? It seems incomplete.
I don't think they have communicated or have thought through that as well as they would have hoped that they would have. Now you're couching that in very friendly language. But this is obvious and has been and I will point again to the quotes from General Petraeus, from all of his staff that was involved in Iraq. They are repeating the exact same mistakes that the United States did in its war in Iraq. And again, let's not forget it took some two years for the full blown insurgency
to happen. Even three years, you know, some might argue for the actual civil war to heat up to the point where most people in America would pay attention. We are watching this and that's why those videos matter so much, because what do you see guerrilla warfare? Freedom of movement, using the ability to move in and out of the rubble, disguise yourself amongst the civilian population, and hit the occupying force wherever it is, even if they have superior military technology.
And as long as you have the civilian population on your side, or at the very least you're able to recruit a ton of people from there, you are going to win. Just because you can outlast the other ones. They cannot by definition kill all of you. It's just not possible. And you know I would point again to in here is that the very top of our military command is now outwardly saying this, including our new Chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff. The reason why is
we are the ones who are paying these bills. Now, this is what we're going to talk about with Ken. You know, our year has been a disaster. We spent half a billion dollars on it, we've barely gotten any aid the plan from the Israelis, from the Saudis, and all of that is to ensnare the United States sencom and all the soldiers and command officials who came up in Iraq to try and repeat that experiment in Gaza this time around, and basically, you know, get bought off
by the Israelis. So we have to resist this at every turn possible. And you know, you can read this very clear. These are sober minded individuals who have extensive experience fighting these exact type of militants and they're looking at this and they're seeing a full blown nightmare. Yeah, they could see it clearly.
And it's not like it went all that well when we tried to do it either, but there.
Are worth for a bit.
Yeah, but I mean, yeah, listen, if you actually are going to if you are actually serious about destroying quote unquote Humas, even if you do kill thirty fifty sixty percent of their fighters, if you're fueling the ideology, then you are going to see them bounce back tenfold. And so what would really actually degrade Hamas. It's not a hard question to answer, because we've seen over time when
Hamas has been more or less popular. Hamas is at its most popular at times frankly like this, when peace seems impossible, especially through non violence and diplomatic negotiations when there's absolute fury at your treatment at the hands of the Israelis. That's Those are the factors that fuel and bolster Hamas. Nothing has been a greater gift to Hamas, which I think it's true, doesn't really care about, you know, civilian life, and is perfectly willing to sacrifice Palestinians in
the service of their cause. Nothing has bolstered them more than this response. What has diminished Hamas popularity is when there is an actual possibility and real prospect of peace.
So if you were.
Serious about undermining Hamas and destroying the legitimacy of their ideology and ability to recruit, you would go in the polar opposite direction of what Israel has done. And this will be relevant in the next topic we discussed as well, which is recognition of Palestinian statehood. And there's all this conversational this is a good gift to Hamas, a gift to terrorists, etc. Quite the opposite actual negotiations towards peace. Nothing would undercut the Hamas ideology more than a real
prospect of peace and something approaching a just resolution. To the point earlier about how we know it's not just you know, their hamas propaganda videos, but they are inflicting casualties and exacting real cost on the occupation forces.
Let's put this up on the screen.
You had three IDF soldiers who were killed in Northern Gaza fighting Northern Gaza. Those soldiers, they were killed in a variety of ways. There was one who was killed as a result of an explosive device that went off inside of building. A reservist and a combat officer were also seriously wounded in that other incident. The other two were killed by sniper fire, and another soldier from that same division was also seriously wounded. So this is in
northern Gaza. You have at the same time this now massive action in Rafa, which you know, anyone looking at this would definitely classified as major even though the Biden administration doesn't. You've had almost a million Palestinians once again forcibly displaced from Rava with nowhere safe to go. You have aid effectively completely cut off. We'll talk to Ken
a little bit more about that absolutely dire situation. Civilians still being killed, and you know, to the point of well, why isn't their plan for a day after and why have they never you know, laid out what their plan is for the day after. Well, there are certainly people who are in the you know, in the fold, who are cabinet ministers, who have said very plainly what their plan is, one of them being Ben Gavier, who is one of the most psycho members of the Israeli BB nine.
Now whose cabinet, let's put this up on the screen. I'll read you what he said recently, indicating that he wants to occupy all of Gaza with Jewish settlement. He says, but that's not enough. One more step, which is the most important step. Immigration. Yes, I'm not saying all of them, by the way, And then he says, explain to me to go back to the settlements we occupied during the war. But not only that, you have a lot more to
occupy it. If there's an emigration of hundreds of thousands who will leave, you will enter with more and more people. And the questioner says, you will be the first to live there, and he says, I will be very happy to live there.
Yes, why not?
So not only do you have we're going to resettle the entire Gaza strip, We're going to ethnically cleanse it of Palestinians. I personally am interested in living there. This is the goal of you know, powerful elements within the Israeli government. This is what they have always wanted, this is what they've said clearly. For some reason, US politicians pretend they don't hear this, pretend they don't know that this is a very clear goal of a very important
part of the BB Netnahu coalition. And I think that Meerscheimer is right that the original goal of bb himself was this ethnic cleansing, which hasn't really succeeded, and so then shifted to just all out annihilation. And you know, writing is on the wall as far as that's all concerned.
This is why I also think a government change in Israel would be profound. Is even getting people outside of that, like outside of the government and even forcing diplomatically their hand to try and to form some sort of post war strategy is definitely still better of an alternative than the current situation because b B himself refuses to rule. For example, in a CNN interview, he rules out he says there will be no is really settlement in Gosa.
But then you have members of his own cabinet which are out there saying it on top of many of the previous things that he has said. I'm not saying Benny Gantz is an angel or any of these other things, but if you want to look at how to actually move forward, I think it's pretty clear that the current situation is unsustainable, both militarily, strategically and domestically. For the current situation, which will not doesn't necessarily mean that they
will change anything. They will probably still continue.
When you say it's not sustainable, what do you mean by that?
Oh, sustainable as in so you can't, you know, continue a pup. So basically they don't have the military capacity to pull off a complete annihilation. It's literally impossible. They could try, but you know, given international pressure and all, that not going to happen. Same time, in terms of strategically, you see the ICC charges, international isolation, growing challenges even here at home, even Nancy Pelosi says, hey, bebe, don't
come and speak to Congress right now. So you have a big problem in terms of your biggest ally, and then domestically you have got a basic problem with your domestic coalition. You've got the hostage issue which continues to blare in your face and huge protests that are there at home with a viable opposition leader who is sitting there getting more popular by the day. So on all
three fronts, you have a serious issue. That doesn't mean it won't sustain for a long period, but I still think it's a big problem.
I hope you're right.
I'm just not sure because we also have an election coming up, and you know, Donald Trump administration isn't even going to do the performative handrain that the Biden administration occasionally does. They're not going to have those quote unquote tough conversations. They're going to give them everything they want when they want it, and go above and beyond, because that's the position that the whole Republican Party has staked out.
Trump included that Biden hasn't been supportive enough of Israel, So can they sustain it through the election? I mean any of the previous Like you know, when we had that minute of them saying, oh we paused a shim and it was this big deal.
That's all gone.
Now you know, a million pals things have been displaced from RAFA, this supposed red line has been you know, more than crossed, and now all you see is just back to the bear hug. So I don't see any sign that the Biden administration is planning to change their policy orientation towards Bebe and his government. I don't see that they're willing to do anything other than you know, these tough conversations behind the scenes really to try to
effectuate an inucome, which we I wasn't going to do anything. So, you know, can they wait it out until the Trump administration comes in? Do they really over the long term the fact that they're a pariah nation. Yeah, I think that that bites and that's going to be a problem for them. But in terms of sustaining you know, this horrible status quo where people are just dying and dying and dying and nothing seems to really change, I don't know.
I'm afraid that they can't sustain that.
The only thing that I have going forward is that Trump hates bb because he congratulated Joe Biden on the election. So it could be his own pettiness gets in the way. Remember he's attacked him in every interview that he's been given on the state of Israel.
I can't see him going against Israel. I mean, think think of how many of his major donors are extremely pro Israel. Think of where the Republican Party establishment is. Think of the comments that he's made about you know, he's very clearly in the camp now Biden hasn't done enough for Israel, So I just I can't see that. So, you know, in terms of the Israeli political pressure, again, it's not like the Israeli.
Public opposes the war.
The rub is feeling accurately like Bebe doesn't actually care about the hostages. He doesn't, you know, obviously they could have had a hostage deal that could have been secured. So perhaps that pressure ultimately amounts to something, But I don't know.
He's a very wily operator.
He's you know, held onto power this long, and he's certainly improved his prospects of being hang on being able to hang onto power a lot longer. And then the other question is like, wou would Benny Gantz or whoever, really be any that much different aeof Galant, who's you know, also facing arrest warrants from the Hague and it's the one who announced the siege, and we're going to treat him like human animals because that's what they are. He
is also considered a quote unquote moderate. So it's also an open question if you did get a governmental change, how much it would really amount to true.
I don't know. I don't know. Like I said, I hope you're right, I just said I'm not sure.
All right, Let's move on to another significant development here. You have three more countries, is sorry, Ireland, Spain, and Norway which have now recognized the state of Palestine. They're joining some it's now some eighty percent of the world actually that does recognize the state of Palestine.
Of course, our nation.
Here, of course, not in Canada, and some other of our closest followers also do not recognize the state of Palestine. They had a joint press conference to announce this shift in their diplomatic posture. Here's a little bit of the Irish Prime Minister and what he had to say.
Last month.
I stood on these same steps with Prime Minister Sanchez of Spain and we said that the point of recognizing the state of Palestine was coming closer. That point has now arrived. Today Ireland, Norway and Spain are announcing that we recognize the state of Palestine. Each of us will now undertake whatever national steps are necessary to give effect
to that decision and the lead up today's announcement. I've spoken with a number of other leaders and counterparts, and I'm confident that further countries will join us in taking this important step in the coming weeks.
You have a whole Israeli freak ount over this action, which is primarily symbolic but again contributes to that Israel becoming a prior nation, Palestine becoming more recognized, more.
Accepted, etc.
You also have more European countries who are saying, hey, listen, we may have some quibbles with what the International Criminal Court at the Hague is doing, but bottom line, we support it. So if he becomes here and there's an arrest warrant, we're going to arrest him. Let's put this next one up on the screen. France and Germany, we're the latest European nations to show support for the ICC
after their prosecutor applied for those arrest warrants. In a statement Monday, France's foreign minister said that the decision over whether to issue a.
Rest warrants arrested with the icy these judges. Quote.
France supports the International Criminal Court, it's independence, the fight against impunity in all situations Germany, which has been They describe a staunch ally of Israel. Certainly the case, describe the court as a fundamental achievement of the international community. They did express reservations that decision to apply for rest warrants against both Israeli and Hamas leaders quotes give us
the false impression of equivalents. Nevertheless, Berlin reaffirmed its support for the ICC quote Germany respects its independence and its procedures like those of all other international courts.
Cyber I'm curious for your reaction to.
The significance of so many European countries saying like, listen, if there are rest warrants, we are going to do our duty.
That's going to be the most important one we will see. In terms of the Irish nor what is it Ireland, Norway and Spain. Yeah, it's a little bit, you know. I mean, these are not top tier with great powers on the continent. You would want France, Germany or any of the other big economies that actually have a decent
amount of poll That hasn't happened yet. I will say that the French Foreign Ministry decision is the most import and one, and the German one as well, because they specifically say this quote France supports the International Criminal Court, it's independence and the fight against impunity in all situations,
basically saying there is no Israel carve out. Germany, though, which has all those crazy laws on the books, says that the court is a fundamental achievement of the international community, and specifically though it does say that there has been given a false impression of equivalents, but still affirms its support for ICC. So I think what they are staking
out is an eventuality position. But some of the things that you and I have talked about here before is there's still some procedural hurdles there, you know, for Israel, for Hamas, and there's still a lot of ways in which they find their way out of it. And if I had to guess, that's what they're trying to stake out in terms of the decision, like if it eventually
does come to it. But they're going to be working behind the scenes, especially with the Germans with some of the language that was there.
There's going to be a real full courts. It was
already happening on the ICC. I mean, in the announcement, the ICC prosecutor really chastise those I've seemed very much directed at the American politicians who were trying to bully and threaten them and suggest not only would they, you know, sanction the ICC, which by the Biden administration is now second they're open to as well, mister international law when it came to Russia, a suddenly very different tone when it comes to Israel, out and out suggesting sanctioning the
International Criminal.
Court that as well.
But the Republican letter suggested they would also sanction like their family members, and that there would be aquo. It was like mafia language. There'd be a price to pay, et cetera, et cetera. So he was chastising them for saying that. He also indicated, I know you and Ryan covered this that some politician, possibly Lindsay Graham, because we know he had spoken to him recently, said this is just for.
You know, Africans.
Yeah, but Russian Africans.
And Russians says, not these, you know, our allies.
How dare you use?
But I think he's I actually think that's honest and true, which is correct. I mean, I agree, but what it has.
Been and what it should be are two different things.
OCCA there is no such thing. This is this kind of I've been wanting to talk about this. If we go back to Nuremberg. Nuremberg happened because we conquered the Nazis and basically put them on trial in collaboration with the Allied power. Same with the Japanese. I mean, it's not the idea behind it, and the enforcement was that we had them under full blown military occupation. Without that, it doesn't exist. I mean, it's true the ICC the United Nations is a tool of the Great Power nations.
That's why the UN Security Council exists. That's also why to the China and Russia has not signed on to the ICC or has not supported a lot of this stuff with israel Is because China.
Does support this.
Actually we are Israel, right, but they supported on Israel. But oh, we want to talk about Jinjang. No way, that's never going to happen. And the Russians got they got all these breakaway provinces right in Ukraine. They're like, I'm not going to do that. So again it's like it's all fake, at least in my opinion.
But again, yeah, there's a difference between what it is.
Yea, you are not wrong in any way about what it.
Is and what it should be and the way our politicians talk about it, right, because they certainly don't openly talkalk about it as this selective tool of great power politics, and not just with regard to the ICC, which obviously, you know, we're worried that those rules might apply to us, which is why we're not a party to it. So Lindsay Graham in a moment and some comments that he
made about that which was amusing. But you know, the the grand idealistic notion that has been sold is that we have these lines in the sand that you know, we we said we're not we're going to try to protect civilians, we're going to try to protect hospitals. We're going to try to avoid allowing a genocide to unfold before our eyes. We're going to have these certain rules and standards and norms, and we're going to have these international bodies to enforce them when the local governments fail.
Now has that actually been with of course not. Of course it's been selective. Of Course they've been hypocritical. But that's why you know, previously we're talking about whether this legitimizes or delegitimatizes the ICC, And I think it's a very fraught moment because in a sense.
The fact that the rules could apply to.
Bb neat Yahoo, that he could face arrest if he goes to Paris again, that's profoundly legitimizing. That brings the court closer to its stated principles and what it is supposed to be, not what it's been, but what it's supposed to be. On the other hand, there is a real risk that you know, they try, that they do issue the arrest warrants and then it doesn't change behavior and it doesn't matter, and then everyone can sort of thumb their knows at it.
So it's a moment of great peril.
But if they didn't issue the arrest warrants, then they're already they're automatically delegitimized. Given the extent and the clear nature of the atrocity, I.
Don't disagree, and I think really what this again is a very big difference in worldview. I am happy that this is happening. I want people to understand that their quote unquote rules based international order is.
Not real that Babby, what's happening.
The destruction of the idea that it's just for Africans and Russians is true. It's like the global international system is a tool of the American Empire, which it all just be honest about what we are doing here. I prefer that we need bilateral relationships which are not in the fakery of oh, well we have human rights and that that's all really important, except whenever it's a barbarian Saudis and then we need their oil or it's like anything.
Let's just be real about what we're all doing here, let's ask.
I think that's station superior to the state of hypocrisy, having an acknowledgment of.
The reality of the world.
I would prefer a world in which we actually did have norms and standards that were enforced consistently or as best as you know, as consistently as human beings can be expected to, or civilians are protected, where genocide isn't just allowed to unfold and we all just go, well, they are a big power and they got a lot of guns, so what are you going to do. I guess the Palestinians just to have to, like, you know,
watch their kids get slaughtered. I would prefer to live in a world where they actually lived up to the norms Now, I think one step towards building that world is exposing the previous hypocrisies, understanding what the actual realtion is now, and trying to make it so that you do have consistent application of the principles, which is again why I think it's really important that this has been applied to Israel, because it starts to build a more
consistent regime where even US allies can suffer some consequence when they're blatant war criminals as being nine yaw.
Maybe I guess I just for me, it's about limiting principle. Like for example, and this is going to sound real hardh so clip it if you want to, But if Russia was committing a straight up genocide, what would we do about it? You know, like, should we militarily invade a nuclear armed power if they were committing a genocide? I would say, no, I don't think it's worth it,
even though I think it's horrible. Sure, I think we should bring to bear whatever we can, But there are limiting principles of action we know in the global system. And that's what I mean about being honest here. Yeah, it's a nice world, you know, to be able to think that some global body can impose rules, but that's just not true. Like all of it comes back to the force of power, and we are an empire. I think we should be honest. I don't even think it's
necessarily a bad thing. You know, it works to our advance. Now, it definitely works at the disadvantage of some. But the hypocrisy is what drives a lot of other people crazy. So us like kind of revealing. Yeah, it's like this international body has no enforcement except against you know, anti Western leaders. I'm like, yeah, that's a good thing. We should we should sho people.
Should a good but people should It's not good.
But you know, we're at an interesting moment though, because the unipolar world of you know, American superpower soul super power status, it's done. It's over, it's gone. You know, maybe we're hanging on to the last vestiges of it. So now there's a real question about what is the world that you know was built after that?
What does that look like?
And you see some inklings here of you know, South Africa and Ireland in some of the smaller countries around the world trying to actually pick up you know, the mantle of the idealistic notion of what the US had laid out before, and are trying to create more legitimacy in this system that has previously existed. There, you know,
the odds are stacked against it working. You know, the odds are very much in favor of Okay, Well, in the new order, you'll just have this push and pull between you know, who takes control of these institutions and how do they use it to their advantage, et cetera, et cetera.
But that's not inevitable.
So in any case, that's why I think this is incredibly important, and why I think it matters that you have France and Germany saying no, we actually aren't, even though this is uncomfortable for us, and we don't really like that you're charging baby and you're charging ams to you know, we think that's a false equiment.
That's totally complete bullshit.
But anyway, put that aside, that they're still saying no, we support it, and if they come here, we will arrest them. So that's not there's no enforcement mechanism. I mean, that's real right. Bbe likes to travel internationally.
Sure, Israel prides.
Itself on being this you know, global high tech country, very dependent on foreign direct investment. Their economy is already taking a huge hit and their stance in the world. You know, they're starting to realize like, oh, even though we don't see it this way, people are on the world see us as equivalent to humas.
Those things do.
Actually matter in the long term and can constrain behavior, because it really does limit you as a country if you're you know, the pariah nation, separated and cut off from everybody else.
To be clear, I do agree with you, and that's why I think for Israel they should be carrying themselves different because they're not a global nuclear arm superpower and the chief empire in the world, so they have to be you know, consider of whatever. But let's be real, like we can do whatever we want. Basically. I mean, we invaded a country, Iraq, destroyed it, spent seven trillion dollars and we survived. That's honestly nuts, especially when you
consider Afghanistan. That's part of the thing that was in the Lindsay Graham thing. But the example, I guess I'm just trying to get to, yes, we are, and I agree that the unipolar moment is over. I think that will actually make the world safer, and it will make us safer as well, because we have had tremendous hubris, like the ability to invade Iraq at Afghanistan and suffer
no consequence. I think that the rise of actual balance brings us to a place where we have to mutually respect both the great power nations of Russia, of India, of China, of the global and especially growing GDP in Asia. All of that will make us safer because we have to recognize our own limitations. And the problem with the quote unquote rules based international order, which is basically a template for American dominance of the world, is that we talk out of one side of our mouth and then
we do something that is actually to our benefit. I would rather us just deal honestly with the world, which in a multipolar system, you do have to start operating more like that and not be blatantly hypocritical as we have done throughout the eighties and nineties and the mid two thousands. So anything, I think we're returning to a
more balanced system. I think the Israelis in the long term will suffer dramatically, specifically because they no longer have the unipolar umbrella that protected them in the Yon Poor moment and others.
And they assume they only need the United States. And in the short term that may be true. But over the medium to long term, if there are any Palestinians who survived this moment, then you know, I think it'll face it will be a much different political diplomatic landscape. So in terms of the Israeli reaction and whether they think that these actions matter, you know, we've already brought you Babie's response to the potential ICC or usmore call them one of the greatest anti Semites of all time
or so, I mean, just completely unhinged insanity. Let's put this up on the screen. So Israel Is saying they are now not going to transfer much needed funds to the Palestinian authority as punishment for three European countries recognizing a Palestinian state. So the fact that you had Ireland, Spain and Norway SI we're going to recognize a Palestinian state.
The Israelis are.
Then punishing the Palestinian people for this stance of the European countries, which obviously makes no sense and is wrong and in morall illegal. Decision came from the psycho Finance minister Bezaliel Smotrich, far right leader opposes Palestinian sovereignty, threatened to push the Palestinian government, they say, into a deeper fiscal crisis. He said in a statement he'd informed Net and Yahoo he would no longer send those tax revenues to the authority which administers part of the West Bank
and close cooperation with Israel. So the Palaana Authority already in really dire financial straits. There have been these ongoing negotiations. Basically Israel collects tax revenue on their behalf. PA is effectively collaborators with the Israeli government. Some of that tax revenue goes to Gaza, and so there's been this ongoing dispute about whether the tax revenue was still going to come to the PA.
They seemed to.
Work on a deal where a third party was going to hold on to the portion that's supposed to go to Gaza and the rest of it was going to
go to the West Bank. You also have real economic problems because a lot of the Palestinians who previously were had work permits and we're working in Israel those you know, it's become much more difficult and much more limited the number of Palestinians being allowed in so huge economic crisis there, and this will obviously it could actually cause the PA to completely collapse because they're in these sort of dire financial straits. The US reacted to this negatively, but it's
not like they're threatening to actually do anything. Jake Sellovan, we could put this up on the screen, said quote. I think it's wrong on a strategic basis because withholding funds destabilizes the West Bank, It undermines the search for security and prosperity for the Palestinian people, which is in Israel's interest. And I think it's wrong to withhold funds
that provide basic goods and services to innocent people. But again, you know, empty words, no indication that there will be any action, so basically meaningless on that front, and to the point of sacerrinized previous conversation about whether or not the Hague should apply those rules of international law should also apply to our war criminals, which I very much think that they do. Lindsey Graham had an interesting moment where he came out said they can come for Israel,
they could comfort us. Next didn't get exactly the response that he was expecting because there were a bunch of anti war activists in the room who would be happy to see our own war criminals locked up as well as say to listen to how that went down.
So we hopefully together we'll find a way to rest our displeasure with the ICC coasts. If they'll do this to Israel, we're next. This group tried to come after our soldiers. Yeah, you can clap all you want to. They tried to come after our soldiers in Afghanistan, but reason prevail. So at the end of the day here, what I hope to happen is that we level sanctions against the ICC for this outrage, to not only help our friends in Israel, but protect ourselves over time, Miss Secretary,
your statement yesterday was excellent. The president statement was excellent. Senator Schumer's statement on the floor was excellent about the outrage here. They have destroyed the notion of complementarity. They have misled people in the United States sentence about their intention, and they shall and will pay a price. Miss Secretary, I appreciate what you've said. Is now time for us.
To act, so real, real pipartisan moment there shouting out all the Democratic leaders who he agrees with with when it comes to the ICC. But it reminds me Sager of BB and his response. He was like, this would be like locking up Bush for nine to eleven, and a lot of people were like, hmmm, I'll take that deal.
I hate to say it. I do agree with Lindsay. I mean only in the fact of in terms of that's why I don't support multi lateral organizations like this having jurisdiction over US. What annoys me always, and this is I think the difference is. I hate the conflation of Israel, a basically client state of the United States with a tiny population, a tiny GDP number fifty on our trading list, being equated to a great superpower. I think they should be understood of the vassal state that
they are. It drives me crazy that they assume, you know, some great power status when they get away with the things that great powers are supposed to get away with, even though they have nothing to their name except being under and entirely by the US security umbrella. But again, this is just you know, some I don't believe in multilateralism really period.
So there should be no, uh, no consequence for being a war criminal.
The consequence is that we are an.
African or a Russian. In the words of Lindsay.
I would say, do I think that Bush should be in jail for nine to eleven and for the response? Yeah? Do I think there we should let the Hague or any something like that do that. No. I think that the democratic check of our own country is the one that should take care of it. And the reason why it still it didn't work out right exactly.
I mean that's and that's been weird. That's the idea.
Power to the Hague presidents ludicrous, Yeah, are going to happen.
I think there's should I think there should be accountability.
No, no great respecting nation should ever have. It would be fine with me to a multi gearge W.
Bush, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, you can throw you know, Barack Obama for the drone program. Totally fine with the Hague having actual enforcement mechanisms. And you know, clearly, uh, I think there are a lot of people who agree with the sense that things like genocide.
Should be off the table, that there should.
Be some sort of body and accountability that doesn't just rely on if your justice system is you know, basically beholden to the political class and not going to have any sort of consequences for domestic war criminals.
Yeah, I think there should be.
It would be nice to live in that world. Yeah, that's realistic, That's what I'm saying. But it's not going to happen, so we might as well just leave it off the table. It's like, okay, well, are the Russians going to voluntarily hand over Vladimir Putin?
No, but I would not have.
Ever thought that it was a possibility in my lifetime. Then Israeli prime minister would be facing arrest at the Hague, Like.
It's almost preposterous to me. He is France and Germany.
You're saying, no arrest, You'll still continue live in Israel, probably hang out here and he's a Pizzy's how much Pittsburgh NATed?
Yeah, but you can't say like it doesn't matter at all. I mean again, you would have said a year ago, there's no way the ICC whatever issue probably warrant against an Israeli prime minister. It's a world that's not going to happen, So why even pretend let's just acknowledge this is all fake. Well, guess what the world does exist now?
That world does exist where there's an arrest warrant that's going to be issued for bb Night now who and go off galant and continuing investigations, and they might be found guilty.
Of the genocide.
So, you know, just because things seem unlikely, which I would have said the same thing, very unlikely, likely, impossible, doesn't mean that it is completely off the table. I think we should still advocate for the world that we
would ideally want to live in. And that world, for me, is one in which the language about human rights protecting civilians is not meaningless bullshit, that it actually matters, that it's applied consistently across the board, whether you're from a quote unquote great power or not.
Well, I think that the way to achieve that world is not through multilateralism, fakery and rhetoric. It's through basically achieving a balance where it's in everybody's interest and to pursue exactly that. So that's why I talk in the language of interest. I don't think it's in Israel's interest to be prosecuting the war itself. Right, Talking in the language of morality eight can missus nobody and be you know, basically, Okay, let me just on.
That point about Israel's interests. Part of why it's not in quote unquote Israel's interest is because of these multilateral institutions.
That's not true.
Anything that you can't say, that's not part of why this is a problem for them, because the reason they're becoming more and more of a pariat state is because of the plausible genocide, is because of unfinding reasonable grounds that there's a genocide, is because of the arrest warrants, because France and Germany are saying we'll arrest b B if he comes on our soil. Because you have more countries that are saying, like, screw you, this is outrageous, We're going to recognize a palace.
There was no multilateralism in the nineteen hundreds when the Ottomans slaughtered a million Armenians. But in the world where people can have photographs and real life like accounts of what's happening, they became a pariah state and they eventually crumbled because of that. That's my point is that you caslaughtering people. It's not multilateralism which stops it. It's the inherent morality of mankind who looks at that and be like, oh,
this is horrible. Same with the aversion to the Japanese Empire and its slaughter of Chinese and Korean civilians in World War Two. It wasn't the League of Nations of the UN. It was good meeting. People were like, this is horrible, We're going to do something about it. Same with the Germans and.
Not multi extect again full blown military occupation so absent that and literal subjugation of the entire people and the nation in some sort of rule where you know, we have arrest warrants where somebody can't travel to Paris.
It's like, okay, well, you know, there's not a lot that's going to be happening here. I'm not diminishing all of the importance of it. I do think it's going to have an effect.
But that's it's trying to get you to acknowledge, is that it's not nothing.
Is that multi lato multilateralism in the nineteen hundreds For the British population to be outraged about what was happening with the Ottomans, right, you just needed people to be like, this is horrible, We're going to do something about it.
Or I'm trying to think there's there's a lot of examples. Basically, since the invention of modern media and photography being able to go wide, all mass civilian slaughter has always been met with basically a horrified population in the rest of the world, and eventual for a military action, you didn't necessarily need multilateralism to do anything about it. Now, they thought that it would be a fix for it, but obviously I think that was incorrect, and we've seen that.
We saw it all fall apart during the Cold War whenever it became in the interest to ignore certain things. But you know, given back to power itself is the only fixed for us.
Even as broken as these even as you know, hypocritical and broken as these multilateral institutions certainly are, I would really submit that, you know, the fact that we actually have a report that the ICJ may issue actual ceasefire injunction is from that Israel Hay.
Yeah, that's been credible in the past.
I'm not that familiar with the outlet, but it's an Israeli news outlet, and apparently ICJ South Africa had come back to them and said, listen, look what's happening, and Robbie, you really need to issue an injunction that it looks like may happen on Friday, We'll be watching for it,
et cetera. But even the fact that there was this determination that a genocide was potentially that it was plausible that the Palestinians' rights were being violated and that genocide was occurring, even that has had an impact just in terms of think about American political conversation. You know, to your point about the population's revulsion mattering, you now have a plurality of Americans who say this is a genocide. You now have a clear majority of Biden voters, Democrats
who say this is a genocide. I don't think that happens if you don't have this sort of international legendacy of putting that on the table. That really furthered that conversation. Now with that ICC arrest warrants, right, Phoebe's not excited about the fact that he can't travel internationally anymore, that his life is personally, you know, curtailed. What that means for him and his family and his son, and the way he's viewed.
Israelis a nation is.
Not excited about the fact that they feel there, you know, correctly being seen as like on a level with Hamas around the world. They're not happy about that. I'm not saying it's an end. I'll be all at this point. But even now, even in the state of hypocrisy and brokenness of this institution, of these institutions, they still are
having some impact. And so I don't I just don't think you can deny that or deny the possibility that they could be improved, that this could be actually a step of creating more legitimacy where they actually matter more. It can strain behavior more.
And why I say, I'm not saying it had zero impact. I just pointed this. What's going to be more impactful the United States, the great power of the world pulling weapons from Israel, or the ICJ. That's that's it.
But I don't see those things as disconnected, because with Biden it has certainly created That's part of why you got this like little temporary pause. That's part of why they look increasingly ridiculous trying to defend, you know, even complying with their own law, with our own laws, like the Layy Act. Part of what has put them in a difficult position and has perhaps made it unsustainable, to use your word from earlier, is that you have these
you know, now you're shipping bomb still criminal. Now you're shipping bombs to a country that's plausibly doing a GEM site is creating more political pressure on.
I would posit it as much more just the straight up images coming out of Gaza, and probably domestic political pressure more than ICC IC.
But I'm not saying but I'm not saying that stuff doesn't matter. I'm saying they build on each other and it's nothing, nothing, exactly nothing that I.
Think you're confusing me saying it doesn't matter at all. What I'm saying is that the primacy of power and military force will always preempt multilateralism, which is why I think multi latism is stupid and mostly doesn't work. And especially people who put way too much faith in institutions like the ICGA, the ICC, or the United Nations or whatever, NATO or any of these other things. These are just constructs. They're a part.
Like who else are we.
Supposed to put faith in. It's clearly not the US government.
Well, then we should try to change in US government, because they're the only force that can really do We and maybe four or five other nations in the world are the only ones with the capacity to change anything. So I care a lot about our government, but I wouldn't put any stock in the UN or any of these other places, because in the long run, our hour future is always going to happen.
You keep shifting them.
You're like, I'm not saying they don't matter, and then you're like, they don't matter, they don't matter.
Why would you.
Put You said I would don't put any stock in the UN. That would indicate like it's completely meaningless, it doesn't matter, It doesn't help to constrain or drive any sort of behavior at all. And I just don't think that's an accurate picture of the world. You can say absolutely, of course, it would be more impactful if Joe Biden, if we pulled our support, it'd be.
Over, There's no doubt about it.
Part of what is building the pressure that could result in some sort of a shift, and has already resulted.
I mean again, Pelosi.
Signing onto a letter saying we maybe should condition aid to Israel, Chuck Schumer calling for BB to be pushed out. These are things that we're not even on the table before that, even in our own cramped, bought and paid for politics are now on the table. Part of it is it's not the whole, but part of it is the judgment of those multilateral institutions. So you can't say that you should put no stock in them and it's
meaningless and it doesn't matter at all. You can say you don't think it should matter, and they should just go away and we should just focus on great power politics. But I just don't think it's an accurate picture of the world to say these things haven't mattered at all.
I'll revise and say it is marginal at best in my opinion, especially with respect to the US, all US actions thus far, I don't think it's been dictated largely by these multilateral revulsion or anything. It's been domestic politics, and it's been the actual state of play inside of Israel and or US interests in the actual region. Like I don't know, maybe spending a billion dollars in a single day to protect a bunch of people who struck in Iranian embassy and then suddenly, you know, have to
claimed the right of self defense. Yeah, that's always again, I think that's where it really does come from. Now, maybe you know, Biden and all of them have been moved by this, but considering that they immediately come out and blast the organization and do me ticket Seriously, I don't see a lot of evidence for it.
Clearly, the Israelis feel that these things are.
And they should because they're not a great power. They're not a superpower. Right.
But again, if you're saying, you know, it doesn't matter at all, like there's two players who have the most impact here, the US and Israel. Now, I do think that these decisions have really shaped the conversation. That's but you can now say, you know, the word genocide was used on MSNBC. Again, a majority of Biden Varcitos jumps. These things were not were fringed that you could barely say, you couldn't say it right very recently, and that has helped to me in.
St So it's pretty sure forty percent of some people say genocide way before ic C, right, but don't need the ICC to say.
Even if you dismiss, oh, this has no impact on US public opinion, that has no impact of the Biden administration, et cetera. Even if you acknowledge it has impact on Israel, which I think is very clear, then it still has impact.
Okay, So the reason I say, the reason the difference is that Again, small nations who don't have the capacity to actually have freedom of action, yeah, they should care. Any small nation should care. Yeah, but a great power like the US and this who I care about and who I'm thinking of in terms of our action. No, it doesn't matter for US really at all. Now again, who matters more for Israeli action is the United States, the UN, or even the European Union. It's going to
be the US. So the actual impact of US policy is the basic soul determining factor of the state of play inside of Israel, for their geopolitics, for their actions, for the vast majority of the things that they do in the world, for their number one trading partner, for their securities.
I mean in a sense, yes, but we also see that the Israelis have completely I mean at this point we seem like we're the client state, Like they do.
Whatever the hell they want, regardless of the Biden.
Administrations, like concerns et cetera, et cetera. So having an impact on them, like that's they're the actual center of gravity with this, since Biden's society is just going to let do the bear hug and let them do whatever they do.
That is true and that is because we have a foolish president who has subjugated our not just president, our political system has subjugated our interest to a country of eleven million people, our number fifty trading partner and all of that. So I would not disagree on that front.
Well, but that is just because we can end on that point to embrace.
Our empire staff. And if we did that, we would be better off. Okay, we had a great.
Ticket to talk about one of our ineffectual efforts here with regard to Gaza. More patheticness from Joe Biden. The whole peer situation, let's get to it. Join us now to break down the whole peer situation is the newly independent Ken Clippenstein, fantastic journalist covering national security in particular.
Great to see you, Ken, see you man, Hey guys, good to be with you. Before.
First question, where can people follow you? How can they support you? Always do fantastic work, continue to get bombshell scoops that the mainstream media can't get their hands on, even in newly independent status.
So where can people follow you in support?
Check me out on substack.
That's Kenklippenstein dot substack dot com.
All right, So ken, let's put this latest report up on the screen. Apparently, as of this writing, none of the food aid that moved through the Gaza peer has actually made it to Palestinians. So tell us what this little peer situation was all about and what is going wrong thus far.
Yeah, so, the Bidy administration refuses to work with UNRA, the UN agency that provides aid to the Palestinian territories, Gaza in particular, and because of that, you know, that institution is one of the only ones that has the breadth of skill, the resources, the experience and the relationships on the ground in Gaza to be able to scale
that aid. So what ends up happening is the administration finds itself in a very awkward position where it wants this frankly pr stunt of being able to say, Hey, look at all this great stuff we're doing, even though we're not,
you know, seriously suspending support to the Israeli military. And so they're stuck with things like humanitarian aid drops from airplanes that don't reach form many people and then trying to create this aid peer, which without the help of an institution like UNRA, they're stuck relying on individual NGOs And if you look at the public messaging that the Press Secretary and Deputy Press Secretary of the Pentagon of putting out over the last several weeks running up to this,
they couldn't answer who they're going to actually use to distribute the aid. And they were asked this repeatedly every time they had to punt the question because they don't have an answer to it, because there is no NGO level institution that is going to be able to distribute this at scale.
Right and Ken, what do we know right now about the risk to US forces that are involved, about what has happened and the cost now that has come at the result of this boondoggle.
Yeah, that's one of the most interesting and undercovered parts of the story. I think it's pretty well appreciated the problems with being able to distribute at scale. But as soon as this thing was announced, I started hearing very early on from service members that this is a risky proposition for the Biden administration. Now, the administration is huge messaging that there are going to be no boots on
the ground. That's a little misleading because they're going to use a lot of military contractors and they already have in In addition to that, troops are moving some of these resources and having set up to peer initially, but the idea is they're not actually going to be operating on the ground, so who they need to operate instead. In large part has been reliance on the IDF to be able to set things up. There's been the IDEF has been inconsistent in saying that they would support it, saying
that they're not going to support it. But in any case, there's a logistics there's an idea of logistics facility right next to the right next to the a peer, which is a legitimate military target under you know, the rules of war, and indeed has been a target of fighters as recently as the last several weeks. So they're legitimate military targets right next to this peer, you know, not just hamas but other military groups able to operate in
the area. And so the concerns race to me privately by service members and now to some extent publicly by think tanks. Such seems like a really legitimate thing to be worried about. Is the US getting a bigger footprint in this and putting those contractors at risk as I.
Can, I won't be the first to point out the total insanity of this whole boondoggle, because you've got miles and miles thousands of AID trucks lined up at the border into the Gaza Strip that just aren't being allowed in. So you know, this peer is not a solution to the AID problem, but pressuring these Raelis to actually allow that AID to enter the Gaza Strip is a solution. So what can you tell us about the overall aid situation, the level of humanitarian crisis? And also, you know, I
sort of go back and forth. Is this whole peer situation some expensive, dangerous, stupid virtue signal basically to try.
To persuade disaffected Biden.
Voters that you know, no, we really do care about Palestinian life, Or is there a more nefarious goal here because we've also seen BBE talking about, hey, maybe we can use this peer for our ethnic cleansing project. We've also seen reporting that apparently the peer was Bbe's idea. So is it just the expensive, stupid boondoggle or do you see any indications that there's some other intent purpose for this thing?
Well, I think that there are second order consequences of this facility that might not be intentional on the part of the administration, but which nonetheless can happen, which is to say another you know, uh spoke in the hub as it were, that the IDF is going to be interacting with and you know, I mentioned that logistics facility they are building up.
You know, the war is not like in the movies.
It is a logistical undertaking, and so you have to build things up and create infrastructure to be able to sustain that. And this might provide one more you know, spoken that hub for the.
Israelis to be able to conduct these things.
And so I think that's a legitimate concern, even if it's not the intent of the administration to do, which I personally from talking to people at State, get the impression that they just really need some kind of a win short of actually cutting off significant forms of military aid to the Israelis.
Now, you know, there's been a lot of there's been.
Much ado about the president's threat to suspend certain forms of aid. I do destory on that on my substack as well, showing that much of that aid is not going to be much of that much of those military weapons systems that are starting to come off cut off would not be felt for weeks or months and aren't even relevant to this stage of the conflict, which is in a very late stage. The kind of warfighting that they're going to conduct in REFA, it's going to look very different than.
The air power heavy campaign at the beginning of the conflict.
So it's really disingenuous for the administration to say, oh, look we're considering cutting off things in a way that would change their conduct in Refas. So all of that to say, they're in a position where they really need a win, to be able to bring to frankly, the entire democratic base and say hey, look we're doing something to help.
And unfortunately, this is what they've they've settled on.
So tell us a little bit more about where this thing goes from here. We've had zero aid, We've had what is about half a billion or so that has been invested. The Pentagon itself, on the record says that nothing is being delivered to Palestinians. Is there Are they going to ramp up this, you know, operation to try and get more aid in there, or is this just the best that we can expect.
The most absurd part of this is that if you watch the press briefings, which I paid close attention to.
I don't think they know what the next step is because they're frequently being asked the same questions and they go, we'll have an answer for you shortly, and we're currently we're in negotiations with the Israelis and contractors are trying to figure out So I don't have an answer to that because they don't have an answer for that, And that should tell you how seriously they're taking this entire thing.
Wow. Absolutely insane. Ken, Thank you so much.
Congratulations on the shift to Congratulations on.
Your newly won independence.
I know you'll be successful there, and thank you, of course for breaking down your reporting this morning.
Good to see you many thanks guys, my pleasures, our congratulations. Thank you guys so much for watching. We really appreciate you. Now, don't forget you got to sign up for your Locals account. Just transfer over there because supercast is ending support at locals dot com. Otherwise. We will see you all on Tuesday because of a Memorial Day, so we'll see you in a few days.
Speak to