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.
We have a number of important reports coming out of Israel. This one I've referenced a couple times. Let's put this up on the screen. So this is from Lancett, which is widely respected medical journal. And there's always been this question of what the true death toll in Gaza actually is.
And there have been concerted efforts to deny the reports of the deaths coming out of Gaza because the only people who are available to count the dead is the Gaza Health Ministry, which they love to call the Hamas run Gaza health industry. Now, their numbers have been pretty
accurate in the past. However, according to these experts, they say, if you look at past conflicts and you look at the level of devastation and destruction of infrastructure in medical care, etc. In Gaza, they say, applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the thirty seven three hundred ninety six deaths reporting, which by the way, doesn't include those buried under the rubble, it's not implausible to estimate that up to one hundred and eighty six
thousand or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. That they describe this as a conservative estimate. In past conflicts, the ratio of direct deaths to indirect has been up to fifteen. It's certainly possible in Gaza. We're seeing that level, just again, given the level of destruction. As I mentioned before, this does not even include those who are considered to be buried under
the rubble, which is about another ten thousand individuals. But even with this conservative estimate, you're talking about about eight percent of the population of Gaza that has been killed in this conflict.
Eight percent.
So you know, we've even had the White House denying the death toll, You've had members of Congress directly denying the death toll, and we've been saying all along that if anything, it is very likely the number of deaths are being understated. Now you have a medical journal publishing an analysis exactly to that effect that you could have somewhere around eight percent of the entire Palestinian population in Gaza that has been killed.
Sober well, it would be abnormal that it would be only thirty seven. It doesn't take a genius, you know, to figure it out and do what from famine, hunger conditions, sanitation, sanitation,
and mass placement, I mean yeah, exactly. Even in a normal in any place, even if there was no bombing or anything going on, if you forcibly take people over what one point eight million or something and move them out of their homes, a lot of people are going to die, people who are old, people in the medical condition, access to medicine, etc.
At war.
On top of that, it's very much like what happened in the US invasion of Iraq, where we would estimate the death tolls and then the eventual real tally that came out a decade later was almost ten times the initial number that was estimated, specifically for these reasons was massive placement, the bombing campaign and elsewhere. So it only I think, only confirms what I think a lot of people already know.
Yeah, and I think it'll be years before we really know the toll. And that's also common in conflicts, and especially here you've had the Israeli government which has denied any independent access to be able to assess the toll, and then they then deny that the death toll even though they prohibit anyone else from being able to come in and assess the situation themselves. So, you know, for those who have long suspected that the death toll is quite a lot larger than the official numbers, I think
this provides a lot of confirmation for that. At the same time, for those who have been being raked across the cools, we're talking about the Hannibal directive from the beginning, even though in the New York Times indicated that the Hannibal directive had been used at least in one instance, you now have Harats with some blockbuster reporting here confirming, by the way, the reporting of a number of independent outlets that the IDEAF did order the Hannibal directive on
October seventh to prevent Hamas taking soldiers captive. Here is some of the details that we can pull out here. They say one of those decisions was made at seven to eighteen am when an observation post at the Yifta outpost reported someone had been kidnapped at the Eras border crosses adjacent to the IDF's liaison office. Hannibal at Eres came the command from Divisional Headquarters dispatch a zeke. The zeke is an unmanned assault drone and the meaning of
this command was clear. At another time, at eleven twenty two am, across the entire Gaza Division network, the order was issued not a single vehicle can return to Gaza, meaning that if you are in the area and you see cars headed back to Gaza, you don't need to worry about whether these are civilians who are fleeing, whether
there are people on board who are kidnapped. In fact, that's the whole purpose of the Hannibal directive, is that you would rather kill those civilians than allow them to be taken and to be kidnapped into Gaza.
So, you know, as we.
Move forward and we think about that horrific death toll on October seventh, it is a legitimate question to say how many of those were Hamas and how many of those were IDF. That is not to deny Hamas atrocities on that day, something we have said consistently and will continue to say.
However, there were.
Many multiple instances, now documented by a number of outlets, the latest being Haretz and Israeli News outlet that the Hannibal directive was employed in multiple instances and civilians were fired on the IDAF in an attempt to prevent kidnappings
from occurring. So this is an astonishing, blockbuster revelation and a truly courageous bit of reporting too for Haretz, which I mean Haretz is a you know, sort of liberal Zionist publication by and large, they have shown a lot of courage in the way that they have reported some aspects of this, in particular some of the Hamas atrocity lies from October seventh, and have earned themselves direct threats of being shut down and banned by the government because
of their reporting. So, you know, I really applaud them for being willing to put this out.
Yeah, no, it's actually I mean, look at a certain point, it's also what it's July ninth, So it took ten months for them to put that out. The UN already put it out, and there were already Questions October seventeenth.
I forgot that one hadn't even said it covered that.
The show, so you know, in a certain sense, like you're following it a little bit. That said, of course, it does actually take a long time to confirm something like this, and it does mean something that in Israeli paper were to actually we admit it. But it does seem like in the midst of the Biden news that a lot of the things that have been confirmed or
things bubbling underneath the surface. I don't think anything is going particularly good for Israel, and we have to keep our eyes on it, right because things could explode in any moment. I mean, Israeli troops are now back in Gaza City, which in itself is an admission of failure. There's rafa, you know, we have continues. I saw reporters that are on the ground. There's like full on active
combat that's inside. So all of the talk, and then the Israeli generals who actually are forcedease fire because like, hey, we don't have any weapons anymore. They're like, we can't keep this shit going. And then so the government is all, you know, torn apart. So I would say, if anything like this is the time if Barber them to actually try and do a ceasefire, but we'll see.
Yeah, no, the political calculus continues to be against that.
Forna.
I mean, the latest that you see these insane news reports that are like the sticking point and the ceasefire deal is that Israel wants to continue fighting. It's like, what kind of a ceasefire deal is this? Yeah, it includes, but we want to keep fighting. We're going to talk to Jeremy and Ryan Moore about this because they have some really quite important insights into the way that Hamas is viewing all of this, and they agree with the Israeli analysts who have said this has been a failure
for Israel now. Hamas disgustingly also treats civilian life very casually, including Palestinian civilian life. That also comes across in these interviews. But definitely stay tuned for that because you want to hear more from their perspective, which I know is always very controversial, but we've always said it's important to understand the perspective of all of the actors that are involved in these conflicts, regardless of how you feel about them.
There was another blockbuster piece of reporting from another Israeli outlet that has done extraordinary work throughout this conflict. This is Plus nine seven to two magazine. The headline here from orn ZEEV is on bored so I shoot the Israeli armies approval a free for all violence in Gaza. We can put this next piece up on the screen. They were able to speak to six different sources IDF soldiers, all of them who confirmed many of the reports from
Palestinian civilians on the ground. They were counted how Israeli soldiers routinely executed Palestinian civilians simply because they entered an area the military.
Defined as a no go zone.
The testimonies paint a picture of a landscape littered with civilian corpses, which are left to rot or be eaten by stray animals. The army only hides them from view ahead of the arrival of international aid convoys so that images of people in advanced stages of decay do not come out to The soldiers also testified to a systematic policy of setting Palestinian homes on fire after occupying them.
Could put the next piece up on the screen. They also described how the ability to shoot without restrictions gave soldiers a way to blow off steam or relieve the dullness of their daily routine. Quote people want to experience the event fully. As a reservist who served in northern Gaza recalled, I personally fired a few bullets for no reason into the sea or at the sidewalk and abandoned building. They report it as normal fire, which is a code
name for I'm bored, so I shoot. I really encourage you to read this entire report, which again confirms some of the things that we've been talking about for a while, including any Palestinian man, woman, child, etc. Elderly who wanders into a quote unquote no go zone there, you know,
it's open season on them to just kill them. They also report that any man who is killed, whether there's any proof whatsoever that they're Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jahad or any other sort of resistance fider, every single man is assumed to be a terrorist and so they're logged as you know, this is a Hamas fighter who has killed.
That's why Israel's.
Numbers are so much higher than what any when estimates in terms of the Hamas fighters that they have killed. And you know, to go back to Joe Biden, and what a nice guy he is.
This is what.
He's this is what he's allowed, this is what he's overseen, this is what he's been too weak to stop, even when at times he's voiced some weak objections to what is going on here. In fact soccer yesterday, I don't know if you saw this exchange, John Kirby admitted that Israel was indiscriminately firing on civilians. Oh I didn't, he said, you know, it's always he said, it's always unfortunate when
civilians are fired on indiscriminately. And you know, we continue to talk to Israel and try to get them to be more precise, like you just they just openly acknowledge the war crimes now like it's no big deal.
Here's what drives me, not so, and we have this, let's put this up there on the screen. This is why it absolutely makes me lose my mind. The entire press corps and everybody yesterday was like, oh, Russia struck a children's hospital in deadly barrage across Ukraine. Forty missiles hit this children's hospital, and it's like, yeah, it would be terrible if something hit a children's hospital, right, And as they put right there at deadly strike hits northern
Gaza hospital. I mean it was a week prior, maybe days prior, Israel hit a children's hospital in Gaza and they didn't care. And they probably did that, by the way, with American weapons.
So spare me, spare me the moral to this conflict.
Like and again I don't believe in moral language on all of this stuff. I believe this should be conducted in terms of great power, what's in it for us or not? But you can't selectively do It's this whole week here in Washington is an entire you know, apotheosis of Ukraine. Everything is about oh this poor little unjust Ukraine which got invaded.
I'm not saying it's just.
And by the way, I think it's terrible that the Russians are striking a children's hospital.
But what how are you going to go to.
The International Criminal Court, the Hague and everywhere else and prop up international institutions to go after your geopolitical foe when you're backing one of your allies doing the exact same thing. It rings nothing. So the Russians, what do you think they're doing? I saw this is hilarious, is there are all these Indian experts here in America, and one of them was like, I'm so disappointed at Mody
for going to Russia and for hugging Putin. And the man was like, I guess India is just in its own is only looking.
Out for its own national interests.
I'm like, yeah, it would be a real shame to have a president who only looked out for their national interests. And if you're Mody and you're seeing all this stuff that's going on with America, Israel and everybody else, like oh, why should I listen to you your joke.
You're gonna lecture me enough to go and visit.
You're going to Bibi and you guys are patting. You invited baby to your country to speak in your your congress.
You're gonna lecture me.
I'm gonna go get some cheap gas, folks, because I got a billion poor people that I'm supposed to care for.
They'll just never understand.
I keep coming back to that column from earlier, I don't know, maybe a couple months in after October seventh, that said, you know this is going to cheapen all human life. It doesn't just stay in Gaza and that's exactly true, because I feel the same thing I see like, oh, nine Ukrainians killed.
Yeah, right, that's nothing. And obviously that's not true.
That's a disgusting way to look at it, because these are human beings who had lives and families and dreams and aspirations. And there should be horror and outrage at a children's hospital being struck here by Russia or a children's hospital being struck in Gaza by Israel. But if we could put that, PUTS four back up on the screen here, because it's not just the lack of the moral language, it's the inability.
To ascribe blame appropriately.
So when it's Russia, the headline is very direct, Russia strikes children's hospital in deadly barrage across Ukraine. Oh okay, I understand who the aggressor was. I understand what they struck. I understand what happened here here When it was Gaza, it's deadly strike HiT's Northern Gaza hospital where many were sheltering.
Oh well, who who deadly strike?
As Asaul rot who has tracked many of these things over the course of this warsay, who committed that deadly strike? Gee, I don't know, did a bomb just fall out on a sky? Who can say? This hypocrisy is something, by the way, that Matthew Miller was just pressed on yesterday as well, State Department ghoule Matthew Miller and you know, okay, well, how come you're able to very quickly assess and condemn Russia striking a hospital, but when it's Israel, we're going
to talk to them. There's got to be an investigation. We don't really know what happened, and of course he just you know, spins out.
It's totally different.
Of course, it's not like you are able to make these assessments in real time, clearly when it comes to a country you don't like, like Russia. But when it's our great ally with our weapons by the way, being used to strike these hospitals, suddenly you're going to have to get back to us, which we all know you literally never will, or you'll say, oh, well, we'll trust the Israelis to investigate themselves. Okay, yeah, that's real credible.
So no, their lies in the hypocrisy are so brazen that I don't think I mean even they can't say these things anymore with a straight face, because it's just so obvious to the world.
What's really going on?
No, I doubt that.
I think they're going to be talking about that children's striker or whatever tomorrow. Just just wait, just with a straight face, they'll talk about crimes against humanity and all this other. So why we all got to pony up even more for the war machine. It's just I can't do it anymore, I really can.
All right, let's go and get to Ryan and Jeremy, Ryan Grim, Jeremy Scahill, who just launched drop Site. They have left the Intercept and they are already out with some blockbuster reporting, so let's bring them in. So we are joined now by the co founders of drop Site, Ryan Grim, our own Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill.
Great to see you both, see you guys.
Good to see you guys are doing.
So you all are up this morning with an explosive piece of reporting. I want to go ouad and put this up on the screen. Jeremy, you spoke to a number of top HAMAS officials. The headline here is on the record with Hamas. In a drop Site News exclusive, HAMAS officials discuss their motivations, political objectives, and the human call US of their armed uprising against israel I.
Want to get into the.
Specifics of the piece, but before we do that, actually, Jeremy, I'd like you to talk about how this is reflective of what you intend to do with drop site, and why we haven't seen any reporting like this, which I think is incredibly critical to understand the mindset of both sides of the conflict, why we don't see this sort of thing in really hardly any other outlet.
I mean, look, Crystal, we're in the midst of a sustained genocide in Gaza that's gone on now, it's entering its tenth month, that has been armed, bankrolled, politically, diplomatically, legally, supported by the most powerful nation in the world, by the Biden administration, and by the entirety of the US National security apparatus. And we're being told that this is such an urgent cause that we have to just pour weapons into pummeling two point three million people trapped inside
of what is essentially an open air prison. And the justification for this is that around eleven hundred Israeli's six hundred and ninety five of whom were civilians, were killed on October seventh, and I think it's journalistic malpractice not to speak to the individuals who organize this and to understand what their motivation was for it, because this is a tremendously consequential policy on the part of the United States government. Our primary goal is to hold our own
government accountable. But also this is a genocide that we're watching unfold in real time, and I think that it's of great public interest to actually speak to the people that organize the attack that then spurred this massive genocidal response from Israel. Dan Rad interviewed Saddam Hussein's CNN had reporters go and interview with Osama bin Laden. I've interviewed members of al Qaeda before. I think this is basic journalistic practice that should be embraced, not demonized. But I
know how people are going to respond to this. I mean, you know, look, look what happens when just some networks interview a Republican. People lose their minds. So, you know, I want to apologie for it a all. I think it's a vital journalistic role to go and interview people you're told of the enemy that.
Is so obvious and yet so lacking, and so controversial, and yet so controversial. So yeah, Jeremy, why don't you give us some of the specifics you spoke on the record with senior Hamas leaders here in the midst of this ceasefire negotiation, give us into their thinking.
Yeah, please, I'll.
Give you some new right.
So right now, you know, there's you have CI Director William Burns and other US officials, officials from Qatar, Egypt, Israel and also from Hamas that are are now trying to restart these negotiations to try to see if there can be at a minimum some form of a temporary
ceasefire so there could be an exchange of captives. And over the weekend, Netanyahu sort of blew this up again and apparently behind the backs, even if his own negotiators went and leaked to the media for things that he said were non negotiables in these you know, in these discussions that are taking place between Israel, Hamas and the mediators, and you know, some of them are basic things like he wants an to smuggling of weapons across the Rafa
crossing from Egypt. He doesn't want Hamas fighters to be able to return to the north of Gaza.
He wants a.
Maximum number of living Israeli hostages returned to Israel. But the big one is he said, Israel is not going to budge on our commitment to continue the war to total victory at a time of our choosing. And this
is basically the most inflammatory aspect of this. And there had been indications, and I got some of this from Hamas that they were actually at Hamas was willing to kind of not entirely back off of a demand for a full and permanent ceasefire, but to allow for an incremental, staged settlement or resolution with Israel that would at the
onset result in the exchange of some prisoners. You know, there are thousands and thousands of Palestinians, And on that micro level, one of the sticking points is that Hamas' leaders told me that one of their primary goals of the October seventh attacks was to take as many Israeli soldiers prisoner as possible and bring them back to Gaza, because they don't just want to get Palestinian women and children out of Israeli prisons. They want to get combatants.
They want people that are Hamas and Palestinian Islamic jihad fighters, some of whom are serving life sentences or multiple life sentences in Israel for killing Israelis, and the Israeli government has said no, we will not release anyone that has
Jewish blood on their hands. And Yakha Sinhwar, the Gaza based head of Hamas, one of the three or four main organizers of the October seventh attacks, spent twenty two to twenty three years and in Israeli prison, and he himself was freed in twenty eleven in this very type of deal where in Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was returned to Israel and then one thousand and thirty plus Palestinians were freed, including Yakha Sinwar, the man that would then go on to be the main organizer of Alaksa flood
on October seventh.
Ran what is your sense of where we are with the ceasefire negotiations. I'd love you to tie this in also with something we've been talking a nauseum about, which is President Biden's manifest decline. It's my impression that on domestic policy he's sort of handed over the reins to the rest of the staff, but for better and largely worse, he hangs on with his death grip to foreign policy in spite of the fact obviously the Netnyahu bear hug
strategy has completely failed. His latest humiliation as he gave this big speech, Oh, Israel is put forward this incredibly generous ceasefire proposal. Meanwhile BB's out there saying things like, well, my condition of ceasefires that I can go back to fighting this war. So it seems very unlikely that we're going to achieve a ceasefire so long as Israel is committed to not having a ceasfire.
Yeah.
Biden really ties his worth as president to his foreign policy acumen, which is, you know, we can set the irony of that aside, given the fact that he's been wrong on almost every foreign policy issue that he's weighed in in like fifty years. But when he talks publicly about why he ought to be elected, that's what's immediately
what he goes to. He's got NATO here this week, and he feels like if he can look like a president around NATO and then also bring together a ceasefire and not a ceasefire, because he wants a ceasefire to this war, in particular because McGirk and blank and have convinced him that I think that if he can get a Saudi Israel deal, that kind of senses it for him, that like settles his legacy as this great foreign policy thinker, and it will also overshadow the questions about his ability
to finish thoughts, to complete sentences, and whether or not he's just too old and frail to actually serve as president. So I think he sees a ceasefire or at least a pause kind of as a as a necessary condition to get to the next step, which is what he wants, which is Saudi Israeli normalization, which he thinks then it
would be his like kind of landmark legacy project. But like you said, net Yah, who is now in July and staring at the prospect of a likely Trump presidency in November, Ntyaho is a political adversary of Democrats generally and of Biden in particular, and Yea who's going to do everything he can to prolong this war for his own survival and also to get to that place where Trump is president, where then he feels like he's got a reset.
Jeremi, could you speak some too, because this has been discussed previously, the way that these normalization deals, which were started under Trump and then continued under Biden. The way those played into the impetus for the October seventh attacks by Hamas.
Yeah, I mean, it's a great question.
And you know, the status quo for twenty plus years has been, and this has been the approach of many Arab nations that there isn't going to be any more landmark peace agreements or normalization agreements with Israel if it doesn't include a robust addressing of the question of Palestinian
statehood and the condition under which Palestinians are living. And so from the perspective of Hamas, they watched as Donald Trump and Jared Kushner embraced Netanyahu's principle, which is that the Palestinians should have no vt over Israel's ability to create new relationships in the Middle East. And you know, actually, two weeks before October seventh, Netnahu gave a speech at the United Nations. It was a largely empty chamber. It was just to sort of his little minions were in there.
But he he talked about a new vision for the Middle East that connects you know, Europe, you know, that connects Asia to Europe. And he holds up a map and it and and there is no Palestine on it. Palestinians were entirely erased from the map, and that was you know, symbolic of what had happened under Trump. And then Biden comes into office. Biden picks up the mantle from Jared Kushner and says, you know, we're going to
keep going full steam ahead with these agreements. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are watching this and.
They're like, no way.
So part of their you know, part of their stated rationale for the October seventh attacks was to try to derail these agreements. I don't think that they were deluding themselves into believing that they would succeed in that, because, as Mueen Rabani pointed out to me in the in the in the in my piece, you know, Palestinian blood has never stopped these Arab you know, nations from making
any kind of an agreement with Israel. But I think what is true is that Hamas and Islamic she had We're sending a message to Arab populations in countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan and elsewhere that you better not let your governments make these deals with Israel. At the cost of Palestinian lives. I think, though, Crystal, it's really important to say the main objective I think of the October seventh attack was to call the question on the siege,
the blockade, the prison of Gaza. Hamas was starting to get blamed by Palestinians in Gaza for their life conditions, which was the aim of Israel's collective punishment strategy of putting them on a calorie restricted diet, you know, mowing the lawn through regular military operations. Opinion polling suggested that people were getting really furious with Hamas. So I think on a political level, all of these things converged and Hamas said it's now or never. You know, they were
in trouble internally within Gaza. They were watching the annexations spreading. They were watching the situation at Alaxamas being defiled, the holiest site in Islam and Palestine. They were watching these agreements being broker that cut Palestinian out of Palestine, out of the deal, and they said, this has to be our stand and I think that that, I believe it. I think that is sincerely what they wanted to do. They wanted to shatter the paradigm you know, irrevocably.
Yeah, Jeremy, what was fascinating reading your piece is the surprise by how mass leaders, of how successful October seventh was, the surprise also of the number of negoligye, of the number of civilians that they were able to capture, and the subsequent fallout. You talk about the prisoner's dilemma that they're now in with respect to the ceaspar Could you break that down of what that looks like for the audience.
Yeah, this is really important.
You know, My understanding is that the primary objective in terms of taking you know, what Israel calls hostages, what Hamas calls prisoners with soldiers, because they can get a much higher price for the soldiers. As I mentioned, they wanted to get the impossibles. They also wanted to know the impossibles meeting these guys who have been locked up for charges that they've murdered Israelis or that they're armed terrorists.
They also wanted to free other Palestinians, but their primary objective was to get their own people out.
On this issue.
Though I'm told that, you know, I think that there is reason to believe it that when the second and third wave of people then start pouring across the prison walls and fences that Hamas blew apart, and they started entering Israel. Individual groups of people start also snatching Israelis, you know, elderly women, children and others and bringing them
back to Tagaza. And so you know, I heard from both Hamas and from an Israeli negotiator that works that is currently working to try to free Israelis from Gaza and deals with Hamas that on the fourth day after October seventh, Hamas was basically begging net Yahu to take a bunch of the civilians back. Hamas was not equipped to hold them. They didn't want to have them, they didn't consider them valuable. They had an enormous number of soldiers, way beyond what they thought they would get, and the
net Nyahu government refused that. Yahu was insisting that he was going to address this militarily. And so you know, both Israeli negotiators and Hamas have confirmed to me that not only did Hamas not want to be holding large numbers of civilians, actually actively tried to give them back.
And Ryan final question to use as Jeremy's peace and his reporting, but you're obviously deeply familiar with it as well. I mean, one of the key questions is how did Hamas view the civilian deaths and injuries and kidnappings of Israelis on October seventh, and how have they viewed the massive amount of Palestinian civilian deaths that have occurred, you know,
as a result of their actions. Obviously israelis to blame, they're the ones dropping the bombs, but Hamas knew that this would trigger a massive response.
What is their view of those civilian.
Deaths right there?
There's obviously some some cynicism involved and also some you know, what would you call it just kind of cold blooded calculus in the sense that they, you know, they and Jeremy can talk more at length about this, but you know, they they obviously understood that there would be an Israeli response that would be catastrophic and would result in civilian casualties.
Now, they they did not expect.
That they would succeed as significantly as they did, which means that they didn't expect the extent of the bombing campaign. They've talked about saying, well, you know, we expected, similar to the past several weeks, maybe even months, of a relentless bombing campaign ending with you know, a prisoner exchange and a ceasefire deal.
You know, so they.
Got more, that they got more than they bargained for. At the same time, you know, the Palestinian cause is
probably at its highest place internationally. You know that it has been in many decades, perhaps since the first mostly non violent Antifada, And so that raises like these really uncomfortable and thorny ethical ethical questions about about military and strategic and geopolitical aims and the costs to civilian lives, to civilian lives without of course, you know, uh, excusing any kind of Israeli slaughter like that doesn't that doesn't mean it's justified to respond in the way that Israel has.
One last point on that, Crystal, there's I heard different perspectives on this question from different people within Hamas. I get the sense that they're still struggling with how to answer that question, you know. On the on the one hand, I had a Hamas official say to me, you know, this is a really sensitive question that you're asking, and I don't I don't think any of us expected this
level of a genocidal war. And then others are saying, listen, what do you expect us to to to die peacefully, to to just let you continue to slowly murder us, kill us off, kill us at checkpoints, kill us and drone strikes, starve us to death, deny us medical care, you know, and sort of entrenched in that position of saying, you know, this is on Israel, that they did it. We had a right to rise up against them. These are occupiers. We were legitimately engaged in armed resistance, as
recognized under international law. I don't get the sense that they have a central party line on this question, and it's quite interesting to hear the debate. It's why I also spoke to people like Rashid Khalidi and Susan Ablhawa, the famous Palestinian novelists, because they represent different perspectives that exist in the broader Palestinian diaspora.
Yeah.
Well, I really recommend people read the entire piece, which is up on drop site drop site news dot com. Right, I'm getting the web address right, And congrats to both of you. I'm so excited about what you're up to. I can't wait to see what else you have in store for us, and I really really hope that our audience and others out there support the work that you're doing, which is difficult and expensive and thankless and controversial and
all of those things. Ryan, Why don't you just tell people what they should do to support you guys.
Yeah, go to the yesterday you guys supported us, you know, big Lee as as as.
Our man would say, we did our goodest job at that Ryans job.
At drop site news dot com, you can just sign up to get the you know, the free alerts. I think you know, we're almost at one hundred thousand. I think we're ninety five thousand subscribers, so you know this. You know today you guys can put us over the top of that if you can, you know, support it financially, do that. But but if not, that's also okay. The journalism will always be free. You know, we'll be on here a lot talking about you know, the results of
our investigations. But if you if you can support it, you know, you can do that right there at drop site news dot com or donate dot drop site news dot com too.
Well. We look forward to that and thank you both.
Great to see you, Thanks guys, Thank you keep up the great work. Joining us now is Owen Jones. He is a YouTuber columnist and UK politics expert, and we're very honored to be joined by him.
It's good to see you own polistic expert. I'll tell you that. Hey, very good to man.
Let's put this up there on the screen and we had to get your read as to what is going on in the UK. Labor wins big, but as the headline says here, the UK's electoral system is creaking. I know you've got some thoughts as to what's happened. I believe your Prime minister is actually here in our town here in Washington, only a few miles away from us. So what has happened as a result of this election and what should we know about it?
So well, the Labor were always on course for a big, big win.
That's because of the Conservative collapse.
The Conservative government was the most disasterous and democratic history by two counts. I would say, firstly, it doesn't have any big achievements on its own terms.
So previous Conservative governments, people like me would.
Reile against them, but they would think we did a big success. We did this, this and this Thatchers in reshape Britain its own image and also presided over the worst queasy living standards ever recorded in modern British history.
So and then they had multiple scandals.
They had Liz Trusty turned Britain into a big laboratory its citizens as guinea pig. So this really weird hard right libertarian economic experiment which went badly wrong, crashed the economy, led to her being kicked out of Downing Street after forty eight days. She famously a lettuce outliveder which I think became very famous internationally will let the letters or his jowls survive. So basically they were in a mess.
They collapsed as a political force. What was striking though is maybe we're going to win a landslide by default. Even though Kistan is not popular, he's the most unpopular leading the opposition to win an election in modern times.
And what's you know?
We have a bizarre electoral systems past the post like your own, but with its own British sort of twist, and Labour won a third of the vote.
In fact, Labour got.
Almost the same share of the vote as they got last time in twenty nineteen under Jomie Corbyn when they were routed and they got a lot less than Jamie Corbyn got in twenty seventeen, so they got forty percent of the vote in twenty seventeen. They actually got less votes this time than they got last time, but they won a landslide. On fact on a third of the vote, they've won two thirds of the seats.
That sounds odd, it sounds bizarre. It is.
It doesn't make any sense fundamentally. It's our electoral system. A lot of Starmer's defenders go, well, that's the game. You know, you have to win the electoral system.
I get that. You know they're a legitimate government.
But if you're winning, no government has ever won a majority or such a low share of the vote. They didn't just win a majority, they won a massive landslide in seats.
People are calling this.
A gener you know the game of Genger where you were you build it up and it's with a little pody can come crashing down.
It's like a landslide. That's a big Jenger tower.
Because it's built on such a slim's share of the vote, and on the both the herds right and also from the left, they faced labor big challenges which they if they can place it, the whole thing will come crashing down.
Yeah, so it seems like less of a major victory. It was less that Labor one and more that the collapsed and also voter turnout collapsed as well as people were and this is something we're very familiar with, not so happy with the choices that they had available to them. Let's go and put E three up on the screen.
Guys.
This was Owen's column that he wrote in The Guardian, in which you pointed out that this left for volt is significant and that it could be a.
Real problem for Labor.
I'd love you to speak to some of the issues that lefties such as yourself have been upset over. But you point out something that's really quite astonishing here. Half of Labor voters cited getting Tories out as the main reason for their vote. Only five percent cited that it's because they agree with Kere Starmer's policies, and only one percent cited here Starmer's leadership. So not exactly inspiring statistics there.
No, this is a poll by you goov. So they asked what was the main reason you've voted labor? For nine percent said to get the Tories out five percent, As you said.
The policies.
I'd look to actually ask these five percent, what are your three favorite labor policies, They would struggle. The vast majority of the public aren't even aware of what most of Labour's policies are.
I mean, you know.
The issue though, in terms of what labor perspectives is is Britain is in a mess. It's in its worst mess since the war, worst creason living standards ever recorded.
The public sphere is just falling apart.
A national health service, which a former Tory politician called the closest the English hofter of religion. We take the NHS faciously an actual health service, probably one healthcare. Whether your right wing or left wing people see this as the kind of crowning glory. It's in a mess. It's falling apart. I mean, you could go on. It's just
this place as a disaster. It's infrastructures for you know, people kind of think Britain needs to be switched off and maybe if you've sard it on, maybe it'll start working. Yet the country doesn't feel like it works. The trainers don't work, nothing works, and the problem is labor don't have policies to address that. They refuse to increase taxes on the rich. They're to the right of Biden. On economic policy, they don't. There were twenty billion pounds.
A year.
Cuts which are looming, and they've got to say physical rules of the Conservatives they support continued well, expanding privatization of the NHS. And on foreign policy they stood squarely behind Israel's genocide rampage, including kids start amor saying that is well, I had the right to cut off energy and water to civilians. So what that meant was and this is why it's called such an odd landslide. When Tony Blair won in ninety ninety seven, he won, he
won about forty four percent of the vote. He got about ten points higher than they did and you didn't have a left revolt in this election. The Greens took four seats they had one before, and various independence one seats as well. But also the Greens are now second place behind laboring forty seven seats, and that's ever happened before. This is the best result of the non labor left in British history. So now as well as on the hard right, there was challenges from the left because this
has happened before they were even in power. That's very rare. You don't get disillusionment from the left with Labor before they've even taken office normally, but that's already happened, and that's different.
And from Tony Black.
That's really interesting.
So yeah, as you said, as I understand the Reform Party and the Greens also put up significant results against both of the centrist coalitions. So in the US, everyone's like, oh, what a big win for Labor. Well, it's actually quite more of a complicated story than that. As you said, on foreign policy, maybe you can expand that a little bit, both with regards to Israel, but also with regard to Ukraine. Like I said, your Prime Minister is here in Washington
right now, as I understand it, he does. He share the same Ukraine policy as Rishi Sunak. Is there any change whatsoever in that? Maybe you can break both of those down for US.
Yeah, I don't think it there'd be any significant change, And to be honest, that's the consensus here. I mean even I mean, if you look at Fans the Friends left triumphed, they have the same policy on Ukraine. To be honest, I don't think there's much of a discussion a debate about that within British foreign policy. The big schism is over Palestine, and you know the position of the Labor leadership is that voters had nowhere to go.
Muslim voters have nowhere to go.
But there are four million, I mean better in mind our population sixty seven million or so, there are four million British Muslims. There were a significant part of Labour's electoral coalition. They're treated with contempts. They're briefed about in very derogatory ways by Labor officials. When Labor Muslim councilors were resigning. These are local party elected politicians. When they were resigning, a Labor official brief that Labor was shaking
off the fleas. And previously Muslim disillusionment was explained as anti Semitism and the homophobia just smears against the entire communities.
What you saw is.
Muslim voters either going for independence who have also they defeated two senior Labor shadow ministers. I mean, you've got a landside where Labor shadow ministers were getting defeated. It's very weird, and that's partly because of not just Muslim voters but other voters.
I mean, the Greens did partly well over Gaza.
I mean the fact is, you know, people playing that foreign policy is irrelevant in elections. It was barely discussed in the election campaign. We had no discussion pretty much about Palestine or any foreign policy issue, or even about you know, there was more discussion about trans people than there was about poverty. I mean, it's just it's insulting. And you know, this is the sort of democracy we have in this Kunji. There are some that powerles with what's going on over there.
I get that sounds familiar.
If anything is probably our fault, we exported it to you a little bit, a little bit.
Oh, and on that we can put what is this E two up on the screen? Do you expect any shift in the policy vis of the israel I?
Did see this?
Labor expected to drop challenge to the ICC over Netanyahu arrests warrant? So do you think there might be any improvement whatsoever? Were you heartened to see this move? What did you make of this?
Yes, I mean I welcome this.
And you know what Richie Sunak conservative government did as a parting gift to israel Is. They launched an appeal to the international criminal courts to stop the Chief prosecutor's requests for restaurants against Benjamin Yawho and his defense mister Yogalan, And they did that on the spurious claim basis that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Israel Palistine, when it absolutely does that has already been dealt with.
It was worrying.
It was concerning that the pre trial judges had even accepted that appeal to be consisers, which is what they had. They then extended the deadline for submission for the case on the basis there'd been an election.
That now appears that the.
Labor government is going to drop that, as say, the bars on the floor, because obviously other European governments haven't submitted that in the first place.
But obviously that's very welcome. What also may well happen?
I mean, they said, for example, the government he had likely been given well, they've been given legal advice over Israel. A conservative senior politician who was in charge of the Defense Committee, which in parliament which kind of strutuinizes government on the issue, she said that advice had been given that Israel had broken international law, which anyone who is in completely deranged conceison obvious truism but that would mean that Britain has to stop selling arms and cease all
intelligence cooperation with Israel. So the question now is will they release that advice and will they see arm sales. Britain doesn't sell that many arms to Israel compared to not just the US but Germany, which sells a lot more. But nonetheless that's important. But there's you know, what Britain has done at the moment the labor opposition in the manifestos they said they'll accept they'll recognize Palistine.
At some point in the future.
That's not what Spain has done and Norway done. They just they recognized Palistin already.
So the bar is on the floor.
But there is an improvement there, definitely, just by the fatless stot trying to hijack or sorry, the stocks, trying to you know, destroy the the the requests for a restaurants for example.
Interesting.
Oh and thank you so much. It's so great to have your analysis. We're really grateful for your time.
Thanks man.
All right, so we are sticking with the international theme here and turning now to France, where a left coalition really shocked the world with some surprising, surprisingly good results there and Arno Bertrand is back with US entrepreneur and analysts to discuss ourselves.
Great to see Arnaw, good to see you again.
Thank you for inviting me again.
Yes, of course, So give people a little bit of a backstory of how this left victory came together.
Sure, So first of all, I we don't characterize it as a victory because no one actually got a majority of the seats in parliament, which is what you need to have in order to form a government. But it's true that the left coalition, which is for the New Popular Front, got the most seats, so they're not the first political force in France. And so it's an alliance of various left parties, the Socialist, the Green, the France Asmes, which is the biggest. It means that it can be
translated to US as on bowed front. And so right now they have about one hundred eighty seats in the French Parliament out of five hundred and seventy seven, which is more than Macon which arrived second, and more than Lupenno.
They're right third, and so Arno, last time we spoke, and I believe this was a general consensus was that this was a major mistake by Macron to call this election. Can we put F two please up on the screen because we actually have the results in front of us. So we see, as you said, that the coalition has one hundred and eighty seats, Ensemble one hundred and fifty nine seats, the right wing Party one hundred and forty three seats. So do we still believe that this was
a mistake by Macrone? Did he call the bluff correctly? And was this a defeat for the right? How should we view this?
I think the general consensus is yes, that was a major mistake by my because he lost eighty seats in parliament, which is huge and right now the Left, who is been he has vilified throughout the election. There is, you know, a lot of bad blood between the Left and Macon. They're not the first political force in France and pretty much everyone in Macron's camp hates him now. So I don't think that this can be spinned at victory for Macon or successful gamble in any way.
So, as you point out someone's going to have to form a government, how does it look like that's going to come together at this point?
So it's the next veteran, So there are two choices. Basically, the left argues that because they came first, they should form of governments, and Macaron is actually trying to divide the left because again it is made of several different parties and try to basically gets the the party that are a bit more on the right in the left to align with him and the Republican right to form
a coalition and onto this coalition form of government. And so that's basically what's happening in France right now, those two you know, solutions competing. So far, the left doesn't seem to want to be divided. But you know, let's see, I think we still have there is some form of deadline. By the first time the new parliament is gonna you know, seit for the first time. I believe that's gonna happen
in ten days or so. So basically, you know, we we we have the next few days to to see how that's gonna pan.
Ount.
Now, what do you think is going to happen in the interim next few years? So this just seems like chaos because I believe Macron you can correct me if I wrong. He can't run again in twenty twenty seven, is that right? And so okay, you can't all right, So okay, So then what is going to happen in the interim ahead of then the presidential elections. What will that look like in terms of governance in France.
Well, it really depends on what happens with this with this new government.
So if there is a.
Broad coalition of you know, several parties getting together on forming a government on a specific project, on the majority in parliament, then you know, things can be not that chaotic because you know they have a majority on the pass laws on sow. But that's the unlikely scenario. The more likely scenario is that you have a minority governments with a majority in parliament and therefore they won't be able to pass law on they will face possiver. It's
called the motional censure motion. Basically, the government can be toppled down by Parliament at any point. So that option, which is the most likely scenario, would be would be fair chaotic.
Guys, can we put F three up on the screen? Arna?
What can you say about the issue set that was important in this election? This is some of the things that the Left coalition ran on. They want to raise the minimum wage, they want to lower the retirement age, build one million affordable homes, freeze the price of basic needs, invest in infrastructure. I saw they also ran on easing and expanding the asylum process. So you know, dramatic difference there from the right wing party and also from where.
Mccron has positioned himself.
Was this election driven primarily by these policies or other policy concerns? Was more about the tactical intelligence of the left, was more of a rebuke of the right.
How do you see those things?
Uh?
So those issues matter a lot because there is a strong feeling in the French population which is actually the truth that their living standards are going down. And especially Macron made a lot of very unpopular reforms, so for instance, raising the the the the age at which you can retire, which is what they want to undo. So those issues were definitely popular. Then the left ran quite a lot on Gaza. It was even i would say, one of
their main topics. And and you know in France now you have a fairly large electorate of Muslim background, and the voted massively for the left because the alternative were uh, you know, very islam of bigpen or Macron, who was actually quite pro pro Israel, so that metal as well. And then in between both rounds the first on the second round, there was a lot of uh, you know, tactical play in order to basically unsure that the assemble
will not win too many seats. And and that also played a big role because when you look at the number of votes, the personage of votes, uh, the assembles way less seeds then they will get if they had a proportional number of seats based on the on the percentage of votes and Macron has way more vote on the left to teny bit more. So you can see that these tactical moves had an effect.
Very interesting. Arnold, thank you so much for your analysis. It's really invaluable and it's great to see you again.
Thank you, no, thank you so much. Thank you.
It's our pleasure.
Thank you guys so much for watching me. Really appreciate it. Counterpoints will be on tomorrow and we will see you all on Thursday.