Ryan and Saagar discuss former Israeli official running Israel policy at White House, Israel admits big coverup in medic massacre, neocons out for blood on Iran deal, Rogan mocks Douglas Murray after disaster debate, Pope Francis dead at 88.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Here, independent media just played a truly massive role in
this election, and we are so excited about what that
means for the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 4 (00:33):
All right, speaking of who's going to fill this vacuum,
let's put this element up on the screen, the first
of what hopefully will become many co broad lines with
my colleague Saga and Jetty. This drop site news article
of headline Trump's and a seed director for Israel and
Iran previously worked for Israeli Ministry of Defense. That headline
(00:53):
is what it says it is. Well, you're like, wait
a minute, you can do that. You can work for
the Israeli Ministry of Defense and then you can work
for the night I said, well, of course you can.
Speaker 5 (01:01):
Why did you think that you couldn't.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Well it's very interesting, isn't it. Ryan, Yeah, let's break
some of this down for the audience.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
So this is very important.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
So, as I explained previously about the NSC, we just
talked about power vacuum. So not only do we have
Mike Wallace, who we know advocated for war with Iran
when the Israelis were here, we now know that he
put in charge of the Israel and the Iran portfolio,
combined that portfolio under this woman, Marav Saren, now Marev
Saren is the director for Israel and Iran at the NSC. Now,
(01:31):
what we know from her own background publicly reported let's
put that up there on the screen, please shall we,
is that she admits quote worked at Israel's Ministry of Defense,
where she participated in negotiations in the West Bank between
Israel's coordinator for government activities and the territories and palesinating
authority officials. So this is a person, Ryan, who literally
(01:55):
worked for the Israeli Ministry of Defense.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Basically we were just talking about the Pentagon.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
He Israeli version of the Pentagon who is not working
in the United States government to develop policy visa VI
that person. I should also mention there that that biography
comes from the Foundation for Defensive Democracies. What is the
probably single most pro war with Iran organization in the
United States today.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
Yeah, and so what was so that was previously known.
What wasn't known is that she's working at the NSC.
There was ever a public announcement made about that, but
the NSC has confirmed it to us.
Speaker 5 (02:28):
We can read this.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
NSC spokesperson Brian Hughes says, the following. Morav is a
patriotic American who has served in the United States government
for years, including for President Trump, Senator Ted Cruz, and
Congress and James Comer. We are thrilled to have her
expertise in the NSC, where she carries out the President's
agenda on a range of Middle East issues, because I
had asked, do you have anything set up in place
(02:52):
to mitigate potential conflicts of interest, because you know, she
is overseeing policy with a country where she previously served
that country.
Speaker 5 (03:05):
And this is why this matters so much.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
That country, Israel, is currently trying to blow up our
negotiations with Iran and between Iran and the United States.
We are involved, and we're going to talk about those
more in a moment. We're involved in these direct talks
with Iran because the President of the United States has
repeatedly said he believes that negotiations are a better resolution
(03:29):
solution to our problem with Iran than an attack. Israel
disagrees Israel wants us to attack. Yes, Israel has argued
internally that it wants us to attack. So the NSC
director for both of those countries previously worked for Israel.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
How do you get a security clearance if ver former
employee boggles the mind and inevitably ran, what are we
going to be smeared as anti semi? It's calling in
to question somebody's loyalty. No, I would say this about anyone.
I'm Indian descent.
Speaker 5 (04:03):
Religion doesn't matter, this about the country.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
If the guy running the NSC India desk is a
Indian citizen.
Speaker 5 (04:10):
Or who worked for the Indian worked.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
For the Indian military, I would say absolutely not.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
How can you trust this guy's judgment? And then even worse,
if you're in charge of the Iran portfolio, that's like
taking a former Indian military official who appens to have
US citizen and put him on the Pakistan desk. What
saying the vice versa, you're gonna put somebody in charge
of the mortal enemy of a government if you used
to work for and by the way, mortal enemy. I'm
using their language, the Israeli languages. That's so they see them.
(04:37):
I'm not saying I believe that, but that's how.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
They view it.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
And in fact, the general policy of the US government,
and I've seen this with friends firsthand, is to not
send somebody of a particular nationality to serve in a
particular country. Let's say you are and I've seen this firsthand.
Let's say you're Iranian American and you're born here in
the United States. You are as American as I am.
(05:01):
They will not have you work on Iran inside the
CIA or the State Department, even though you might speak
Persian and know the country.
Speaker 5 (05:08):
That it's a little too close.
Speaker 4 (05:10):
It's it's there's some suspicion in orderline racism. If you're
Pakistani American, you're born here in the United States, they
will not have you serving Pakistan. Ecuadorian American, they won't
send you. I think there are exceptions.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
I will defend that's actually a good policy.
Speaker 5 (05:25):
I think it's fine too.
Speaker 4 (05:26):
I get it, like I understand where it's coming from,
because it's like, all right, look, we're all we're all
Americans here, and there's a lot of places we can
send you. We're gonna send you know, we're gonna send
the Iranian, the ecuador Ecuadorian into Iran. Right, But so
that's there, like it or not. That is the general approach.
You can find exceptions, but that is the general approach
that the American government takes to foreign countries and your
(05:49):
place of birth that those are now, those are not
people who worked for the Iranian Ministry of Defense or
the Equadorians. Their parents or parents are from there. She
personally worked for the Israeli Ministry of Defense.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
By her own admission again and by the way, at
the FD the Foundation for Defensive Democracies whose chairman Mark
Dubowitz is the chief opponent right now of any Trump
negotiation with Irani. So you have Trump who wants to
deal with Iran, and then the person running his White
House's Iran desk is a former employee of the organization
who wants to kill the American organization which wants to
(06:28):
kill an Iran deal.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
And of a government which also wants to kill that deal.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Truly, do not preach to me about how you can't
say that this is a most obvious conflict of interest,
And yes, dare I say an accusation of dual loyalty
is in order, because you don't just go work for
that government if you don't have at least some allegiance
or something to it, and then to come and work
for our country, shall we?
Speaker 1 (06:53):
You know this is one where they have would be.
Speaker 4 (06:56):
Strange if she worked for the Ministry of Defense in
Israel and wasn't loyalty of course.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Even weirder So then what what so that the only
alternative where this somehow works is that she's a US
double agent who was working for secret about that and
then going out in the Yeah, something tells me doesn't
seem to be true, and that, by the way, inevitably
this is going to cause a massive freak out, even
just you and I reporting on this.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
For our Washington audience that's watching this and wondering, Uh,
the answer to your question is she related to Omri Sarah? Yes,
that's right, that's her brother.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Yeah, omriy is a long time, no long known person
here in Washington works for Senator Ted Cruz, one of
the most vociferous pro Israel voices probably in the United
States opponent of the around you. That's fine, listen, you know,
yeah he works her Ted Cruise. That those are tech
Cruises views.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
I don't have any problem. I don't know problem.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Absolutely, I have no problem with that. Absolutely, even her
working for Ted Cruise. Yeah, a little weird, you know
previously in my opinion, but you're not running the countries,
you know, foreign policy, and uh, you know, to step
back a little bit again and just for to explain
some Washington terms. So we're in the middle of this
Pentagon power vacuum.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
But the thing is is that the NSC's job is
to develop options.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
It's genuinely a staff agency.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
So when Donald Trump tells his National security advisor in
Mike Waltson says I need options on Israel and run,
the person Mike Waltz turns to is her. So her
job is to coordinate from all of the different agencies CIA, Pentagon, DIA,
you know, GEO and Spatial Intelligence Agency whatever, bring them
all together and say we need to prepare strike packages
or whatever. The person who's in charge of that has
an immense amount of power because they're controlling the actual
(08:27):
stuff that goes to the President's desk. Let's say here
on the Hooty strikes, things like that, Well, if you
have this type of ideology and you previously worked for
this government, what do you think the mindset that you're
going to bring? And that doesn't even bring into question.
Remember there was this huge story. Do we have that
New York Times story? I have no inside information around this,
but this says Trump waived off this really strike after
(08:48):
Division's emergency administration. The pro Israel side was adamantly convinced
right that the America firsters on the NSC are the
people who leaked this. I no longer am so sure.
Let's say you're a former employee of the Israeli Mystery
of Defense, and your former employer didn't get what it wanted,
(09:08):
and you wanted to make it clear to many people
on the outside about what your employer, Donald Trump is
now currently doing and is stifling some of the ideology
that you have now pushed for and believed in for
the better part of a decade. Well, I don't know, Ryan,
maybe I would leak it to the New York Times, Yeah,
and wouldn't I.
Speaker 4 (09:24):
And this Times article is fascinating because it includes Tulca Gabbard,
Director of National Intelligence, saying that she is against the
US striking Iran. It includes Jade Vance, the Vice President,
saying that he is against striking Iran. It includes Pete Hegseith,
Secretary of Defense, saying he is against striking Iran.
Speaker 5 (09:43):
And in it even Michael Waltz.
Speaker 4 (09:46):
Acknowledges in the meeting that the Israeli plans won't work
without US support, and he offers little skepticism. Now, he
and Carrillo, the Stentcom commander, had previously engaged with Israel
on these war plans, and and they're they're clearly the
most open to it of any of the top administration officials.
And while Sager and I were writing the story, the
editor was like, Okay, in this meeting, like who is
(10:09):
Who's who's taking this support for Israel side and saying
that we should bomb around Because clearly you've got everybody,
the head of the Intelligence Community, head of the Pentagon,
John Ratcliffe, everybody is saying don't do this. So it's
a meeting, there's it's a debate. Tell us, who is
on the yes side, And the ironic answer is Israel,
(10:31):
Like there actually weren't American officials in the meeting. Who
are as who think that it is in America's interests
to launch this strike? Yet the entire echelon from the
President across all of his leadership is debating this issue.
Speaker 5 (10:49):
Look, who are you debating? Why are you debating?
Speaker 4 (10:51):
Like, if nobody inside the United States thinks that this
is in the interest of the United States, why.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Are we even having a meeting about it?
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Which is Wow, it's completely nuts.
Speaker 5 (11:02):
And they might get their way, and yet.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I want to be very clear here, they may win.
In fact, I would not bet against these people.
Speaker 5 (11:10):
I wouldn't want to be a run.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Yeah, you're living here and working on this stuff.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
Imagine you're a run in these negotiations and they're like,
you know, you just met with witcough and now you're
moving on to the technical side. And you sit down
across the table in your trading paper and you look
up and it's somebody from the Israeli ministries.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
You're like, wait what You're like, you're supposed to be
working for them? How does that work? Yeah? I mean,
would you be serious?
Speaker 3 (11:33):
Would you trust that person to negotiate or develop policy
and good faith, absolutely, especially.
Speaker 5 (11:38):
After we don't have a great track record of sticking
to our deals.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
Yes, it's a different things.
Speaker 5 (11:43):
It deals with China, deals with Mexico, deals with the run,
you name it.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
And look, that's why Ryan and I wrote the story.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
It's important the public needs to know about the people
who are actually working on this stuff. And there are
a lot of patriots who still work in the United
States government. There are a lot of patriots who look
at this and say, I have no idea how you
can get a security clearance. I can't believe that you
can to work here. That you and your boss, Mike Wallas,
your boss literally caught including Jeffrey Goldberg, and you get
to stay right and he gets to continue to be
(12:09):
in the Oval, and you know, push for war with Iran,
and just to show everyone that's the edifice that is
being protected here behind the scenes. America deserves to know.
I don't want to war. I don't think most people
do either. But people who do, they're in power right
now and they could win. They could very easily win.
Speaker 5 (12:26):
They could absolutely all right.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
So with that, let's get over to the Israel section.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
The Israeli military is out with its own report on
the massacre of fifteen paramedics in Gaza, which happened on
March twenty third, shortly after the Israel broke it cease
fire with Hamas and Gaza. You can put this element
up on the screen. This is from our drop side
of news Twitter account which go through goes through kind
(12:53):
of the full report. I put up E three while
we're at it. This is the video footage that later
emerged that kind of forced this report out. So what
we have from the Israeli military report is effectively a
complete whitewashing of the incident. They they they say that
(13:15):
it adds up to accountability because one deputy commander was
removed from his post as a result of the findings
of this. But for those who didn't follow a Hamas,
I'm not sorry, not not Hamas. They claimed it was Hamas. Later,
a Red Crescent medical vehicle was was fired on by
(13:41):
Israeli forces. We interviewed one of the only the only
known survivor of that. He said he said that they're
just driving along the road and all of a sudden,
gunshots ring out, and the two people in the front
of the vehicle killed. He was then he was then grabbed,
dragged out, beaten ruth sleeve for many hours, and then
he witnessed what happened next which you just saw on
(14:05):
that video, which is the other vehicles coming, medical vehicles
coming to try to figure out what happened to the
ones that they had lost contact with. The Israelis then
opened fire on all of them, and according to the
Red Crescent, based on autopsies of them, there are a
lot of headshot wounds and wounds to the torso that
(14:26):
indicate that.
Speaker 5 (14:27):
They were executed.
Speaker 4 (14:29):
We know then they were buried in a mass grave
and tried to bury the even even the vehicles with them.
So the Israeli report says that they don't have any
evidence that they were shot point blank range, that's one thing,
but they make that claim without evidence. They criticize the
commanders for burying the ambulance with bulldozers under the sand.
(14:53):
They say that they said there was no reason to
do that. They say burying the bodies in a mass
grave was acceptable.
Speaker 5 (15:00):
Now finally at the end, then a UN.
Speaker 4 (15:03):
Vehicle approaches the situation and the Israelis fire on the
UN vehicle as well. That they say was a breach
of protocol. So that is the only thing and everything
that I've just laid out, other than the burring of
the ambulance by a bulldozer, that the Israelis hear say,
(15:23):
constituted something that they were at fault for and as
a result, deputy commander relieved from his responsibilities.
Speaker 5 (15:30):
One thing that hasn't gotten anywhere.
Speaker 4 (15:33):
Near enough attention in the western press coverage of this
is a startling video that Israel's Channel fourteen obtained, and
we can roll some of this here. So the Golani Brigade,
which is known as a fairly reckless brigade in Israel
even among other Israeli forces, is the one that carried
(15:53):
out this masacre. This is a deputy command. This is
a commander speaking to the Golani Brigade. He says, go out,
kill a lot of enemy, take a lot of territory.
And that's how up until now we have returned hostages.
Everyone we meet is an enemy. We identify a figure,
we open fire, eliminate it, we move on. So that
is a commander of the Golani Brigade speaking to Golani
(16:20):
Brigade forces. This is before this incident with the paramedics.
He says to them, everyone we meet is an enemy,
kill them and move on. They then encounter these fifteen paramedics,
they kill them and they move on. Israel's response is
(16:40):
that they are going to remove just one figure.
Speaker 5 (16:43):
From this Sagar. This was.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
To a global community that is pretty inured to the
violence and the carnage going on. This one broke through
because of its kind of horror film esque nature of
it and because they are targeting people who are just
(17:09):
out trying to do trying to save people's lives. Israel
immediately came out and claimed that they had killed some
Hamas fighter.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
His body was not found.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
They named the Hamas fighter they said was with them,
body was not there.
Speaker 5 (17:23):
That was a lie. Then they said that were well six.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
Of them were Hamas, Like you couldn't tell these were ambulances,
but you could somehow tell it.
Speaker 5 (17:31):
These dead people, well, I think it's were Moss members.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
Ryan for you to break down the chain of how
this all happened. So, if it was not for outlets
like drop Site and independent journalists, I do not believe
that this would have come to life.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
Because the legacy press covered it as is.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
They were like Israel says they killed so and so
they didn't even remember you flag this. The New York
Times did not even call up the Red Crest asked
what actually happened with all this and the fact that
it was on video and you know, literally there's a
horrible video of the guy who died recording his last
words to his mother. If it wasn't for that, I
don't think any of this gets picked up, if no
investigation even happened.
Speaker 4 (18:08):
The first Palestine reporter I saw break this was Hin Kaudrey,
who I don't think we've had her on the program,
but she's a terrific journalist in Gaza who she was
one of those those who kind of blew up on
Instagram and TikTok very very early on, and she has
a huge kind of global following. And immediately on March
(18:30):
twenty third, she started hearing what had happened, and because
of her, another Palestinian reporter, some of which went on
to report for drops the news about this that version
was out there. Then the New York Times comes out finally,
like two Times didn't even want to cover it, and
there was an internal fight within the Times about whether
they should even do an article on it, and they
(18:51):
buried it in one unrelated article, and then when they
finally did cover it, they said, you know, who's to
say what happened? Because the Israelis said that the ambulances
were quote advancing suspiciously, which is just an absolutely comical
addition to our new lexicon. How does an ambulance advance suspiciously?
(19:13):
The Israelis claimed that there were the sirens and the
lights of the ambulances were not on, and that might
have been the end of the story if one of
the assassinated medics had not filmed his own death. So
he had his phone going as he's as he's going
through this rafa area, and you all of a sudden
(19:33):
and you see, so he's filming the entire thing. You
saw his that was his view, that was his video
that you saw at the top of this segment. You
see that the lights are on, lights are obviously on,
and all of a sudden, you hear the gunfire erupt
and you hear him say before he is killed, forgive me, mother,
(19:54):
forgive me. All I wanted to do was help people.
And you can just sense that guilt, the guilt of
a son that is not rational because nobody should feel
guilty for being murdered because you're trying to help people.
But you know that his mother said to him so
many times, be careful, be careful, and he told her,
(20:15):
don't worry, Mom, I'm gonna be careful.
Speaker 5 (20:17):
I'll be fine. I need to help other people.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
And now in his last moments, he's realizing that these
just promised that he made to his mother that he
would be fine and that he would come home. Uh,
he's going to break that promise by being executed at
the hands of these Israeli forces that he hears getting
closer and closer and then finally killing him buried by him,
(20:40):
burying him in a mass grave, right and if And
then they forgot to steal his phone and destroy it.
And so when he was unearthed a week later, because
the Israelis were blocking the un from going and get
and clearing the scene, uh, they discovered his phone and
fortunately they were able to, I guess get through his
(21:01):
pass code. And then and they found this video and
they're like, oh, everything Israel said about this was a lie.
The sirens were on, there was no Hamas fighter, nobody's
shooting back.
Speaker 5 (21:14):
You killed these people in cold in cold blood.
Speaker 4 (21:18):
And you go back and read the drop site interview
with the only survivor. He watched them bury these people.
He watched them bury the vehicles, which is like what
compels you to take a bulldozer to an ambulance and
try to bury it under sand other than.
Speaker 5 (21:37):
Trying to like completely cover up this scene.
Speaker 4 (21:40):
And it also shows the scale of the sense of
impunity that is felt by some Israeli forces any other
force on this planet. At this point, if you kill
fifteen paramedics, you know the world is going to know
about this. You're not even like you're cancox some story
(22:01):
about what happened, but you're not going to try to
cover it up like that, like bur by.
Speaker 5 (22:04):
Burying the ambulances.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
But there's so much impunity that they have gotten away
with so many things that they thought it was in
the within the realm of possibility that they could get
some bulldozers out there and bury these ambulances under the
sand with the bodies and move on.
Speaker 5 (22:21):
At the end, they're correct.
Speaker 4 (22:24):
One guy is getting removed from his job and celebrated
in the in their report, and there's really report.
Speaker 5 (22:30):
They celebrate the guy. He had an amazing career, he
was wounded.
Speaker 4 (22:34):
But you know, he shouldn't have fired on the They
shouldn't have allowed them to fire on this one vehicle.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
At the same time, Ryan, we have this story. Let's
put it up there on the screen. Can you describe
for us what happened here?
Speaker 5 (22:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (22:43):
So Fatma Hosana was who is a photo twenty five
year old photojournalist in Gaza who had also picked up
a lot of international attention for her for her own
kind of charisma and confidence and courage and all also
for her photographs, just absolutely compelling work. She is the
(23:09):
focal point of a documentary that was just accepted into
Khan So, how you said, a huge achievement in the
world of documentary filmmaking. The day after her film was
accepted into Khan the Film Festival, her homes is hit
(23:30):
with a targeted strike, which kills I believe at this
count ten members of her family.
Speaker 5 (23:37):
Of course, they're.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
Saying which so they're saying that they were aiming for
some Hamas fighter or something.
Speaker 5 (23:45):
Let's say that that's true just for a second.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
It means that they're willing to kill ten innocent people
for one Hamas fighter in his home, which is a
violation of the laws of war, like even if a
person and was previously a combatant, when they go back
to their home, laws of war say you don't attack
somebody in their homes, particularly you don't do it with
nine of their family members surrounding them. The coincidence to
(24:12):
me is too stark. They have targeted so many people
have who have risen to global celebrity.
Speaker 5 (24:22):
That and target we're not talking about.
Speaker 4 (24:25):
They hit a huge apartment building and they happen to
be inside the apartment building. Hit her home like a
direct hit on their home, just like they hit when
they killed the poet ray fat Alarier.
Speaker 5 (24:36):
He was in a second floor apartment they hit.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
They hit the second floor apartment only with a direct hit,
killed him, a bunch of his family, family members, the
I forget, I forget his name of the Instagram and
TikTok star in the Northern Gaza, who was famous for
as a chef cook just cooking for people and because
of what he was able to do, he developed his
global audience, killed him direct post on Shabot our reporter
(25:03):
killed directly. There's not accidental killings. These are people who
sit around make a decision to target somebody. Send that
up the chain and it is signed off on and
then it is executed yep.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
And you know, every once in a while somebody like you,
somebody like Trey Yanks at Fox News will try and
bring attention to this, but by and large completely ignored.
Speaker 4 (25:27):
And they have to now that the director said, they
they're changing the ending now, like not the ending, but
the end card. The end card said, uh, you know,
Fatma is alive in Gaza and continuing her pursuit of photojournalism.
They now have had to add a new card to
the end of that documentary and there won't be a
dry eye in the house. And when the movie comes out,
(25:49):
you'll have pro Israel forces complaining about it, trying to
shut down theaters that will play it, and then asking
why the world hates them?
Speaker 5 (25:59):
Yeah, why is the world so against us?
Speaker 6 (26:03):
Right?
Speaker 1 (26:04):
No clue, Let's break the Iron deal down? What do
you got for us on.
Speaker 4 (26:07):
That despite all of the obstacles thrown up in their
way direct us around, talks are preceding with some significant momentum.
Let's put this treat of Parsi post on the screen says,
So the teams met in Rome on Saturday, and what
is surprising coming out of this is that they said,
(26:29):
all right, the technical meeting coming out of this will
be in four days, and we're going to meet just
a couple of days after that for political meetings again
and to give people a sense of how these go.
So you get the political people in a room and
they kind of draw the political outline of what the
deal is going to look like, and you don't need
(26:49):
the necessarily the technical experts in there. So in this case,
the big fight between and Israel, as continues to insert
itself into this into these negotiations, they want there to
be zero nuclear program in Iran, no civilian nuclear program
at all, Whereas the US and Iran have said at
(27:13):
this point we're okay with a civilian nuclear program with
the Atomic Energy Agency monitoring it and you know, verifying
that there is no capacity for a breakout. Israel says,
if you allow them to have that, that gets them
too close to being able to break out to a
bomb if the deal collapses. So that's the political argument.
(27:35):
So by setting up the technical meeting just a few
days after the political one, suggests that the political meeting
went well, because now you need the technical folks to
come in and say, okay, what does it mean to
have a civilian program that is under this level of
you know, enrichment threshold. And it also means that the
(27:56):
technical details. The fact that they schedule the next political
meeting soon after the textical one suggests that they think
the technical dealers aren't that complicated. They should be able
to sit down, hash this out and get on with it.
Nikki Haley put up He's six here sees this happening
as well good sign that things are moving apace that
(28:18):
Nicki Haley is freaked out. She says Obama two point
zero because she thinks, I think rightly that the only
reason Trump well, Trump ripped up the Iran deal for
two reasons. First it was called the Obama Nuclear Deal,
and second, his pro Israel hawks insisted that he ripped
it up. So Sel Madilson didn't like it. And it's
(28:40):
called the Obama Nuclear Deal.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
Day one.
Speaker 5 (28:43):
Get it out.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
And what we just discussed about this former ID, you know,
Israeli Ministry of Defense employee, her old boss, Mark Tubowitz.
Here's I want to be clear about what these people want.
It's not that they object to a deal. Here's what
he had to say, just yesterday. The Islamic Republic is
weaker than ever, hated by most Iranians, hammered by.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
The IDF and mosade that part's true is terror. It's terror.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Army's air defense's missile production capability are in ruins. Never
a better time to dismantle its nuke program and finish
off the regime.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
Will whoa whoa? Hold on a second, So we're not
talking about the deal.
Speaker 5 (29:22):
Do we have the retchers?
Speaker 3 (29:23):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (29:23):
Yeah, yes, yeah.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
It's like you're like, oh, so this isn't about the
nuclear program at all. This is about finishing off the regime.
This is not about Obama. This is about regime change.
And they finally are being forced to say the quiet
part out loud because they can't even rely on getting
the whole right wing ecosystem jammed up around Obama. They
(29:45):
have to now counter signal Trump. The way they're doing
it is how Nikki Haley is on, Oh, this is
all about Obama and all this, but let's not, like,
let's be honest about their goal. They want a straight
up regime change war. That strike by Israel was not
about the Iranian nuclear program. That was a pretext to
suck the United States and into a war of total
annihilation and regime change in Iran?
Speaker 1 (30:06):
Period? Now, did you sign up for that? Do most
people want that?
Speaker 3 (30:10):
I don't think so. I think it would be a
complete disaster. And it's pretty clear the agenda that's happening inside.
And while I want to hold these up, I just
don't think you can or you can understate how colossal
the campaign against this is.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
So for example, let's put this up there on the screen. Please.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
Trump has now appointed Mark Levin from Fox News to
quote lead the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Now, Mark Levin
is one of the most anti Iran deal forces in
the American conservative commentariat. This guy is straight out of
the FDD playbook. He's somebody wants regime change. He attacks
(30:53):
anybody who previously is not like Holy subservient to the
State of Israel, who's been appointed previously to the Pentagon.
He's actively led that against him. Trump of course respects him.
Why because he's on television and now he's putting him
on this advisory council with more access to Trump. Well,
this individual that's a very strong voice. Mark Levin has
(31:14):
also targeted Tulsi Gabbard. Why because Tulsi Gabbard had the
audacity Ryan to present US intelligence saying if we bomb Iran,
if Israel bombs aren, we're going to be drawn into
a war. And he said she needs to be fired
and retract that evidence. This is the Iraq war level shit.
You know, this is Dick Cheney going to the CIA
(31:36):
to meddle with the national intelligence estimate about Iraq's nuclear
weapons program. That's what we're dealing with here. And again
I'm not betting against them.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
I think they're going to win. That's the terrifyable.
Speaker 4 (31:48):
And there was just an intelligence assessment that came out.
And remember when Tulsi and Ratcliffe were testifying before Congress
recently and the whole hearing devolved into fighting over the
Jeffrey Goldberg signal chat. So the reason that those were
scheduled were actually to talk about the new intelligence assessment
(32:11):
for the annual Intelligence Assessment. The assessment that they presented
to Congress was that Iran has made zero move toward
a militarized nuclear program, and that their intelligence assessment is
that they have zero interest in moving to a military
nuclear program, a weaponized nuclear program, none whatsoever. They did
(32:34):
say that because of all of the bellicost rhetoric from
Israel and from the United States that there were some
hardline figures in Iran who advocated for a military nuclear
program in ways that they had not done so before,
so that the politics were changing a tiny bit as
(32:55):
a result of all of the pressure. They said from
the Ietola and elsewhere, there were no interest at all.
That's that's the American intelligence assessment. And what Dubs is
saying is, how dare you? I want different facts again?
Speaker 3 (33:10):
This is this literally is out of the Iraq War like.
It's not a joke, it's it's reality. This is exactly
how it all went down, with the politicization of the
intelligence and the meddling and making sure that it said
exactly what they wanted so they could present all this
bullshit the Congress and the Secretary of State. This is
the same playbook that's happening right now. I would be
remiss if I didn't at least give like some good news.
(33:32):
Let's put this up there please on the screen.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
At e eight.
Speaker 3 (33:36):
Adam Boehler, who will all recall, was sidelined for several
months for having the audacity to what was it again.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
Talk with oh right, that's to say that we're not
a audacity when.
Speaker 3 (33:47):
On television and said we are not a client state
of Israel, and for that was benched for several months.
Has now been appointed to an expanded hostage on V
royal role after the Hamas tawks uproar. Allegedly he has
put in for you know, an application or whatever to
try and restart some negotiation with Hamas or or continued
cease fire and you know, hostage release. We wish him
(34:09):
the best of luck, but also if that happened to you, Ryan,
are you ever going to open your mouth again about
the usum band fines that it is?
Speaker 4 (34:15):
No? Yeah, okay, sorry, so correction right, they are, we
are clients my fault.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Yeah, oops, yeah, so you know that.
Speaker 3 (34:23):
Look, Steve Wikoff lives, He lives to fight another day,
Bowler survives. These are all good things, but there's a
lot of other.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
Bad stuff that's happening.
Speaker 5 (34:32):
They have everything.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
I think the danger is what they want to do
is because Trump wants to get this done quickly, and
Trump also is not paying that much attention. So for example,
on the Ukraine thing, well he told us to be
wrapp by day one.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
Okay, well's day ninety whatever.
Speaker 3 (34:46):
Marco Rubio just the other day goes, hey, if Russia
and Ukraine don't sign a deal soon, America will lose interest.
So they're trying to do bilateral trade negotians with seventy
five countries, wrap up the largest land war in Europe,
and wrap on Irani nuclear all in a three month period.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
Well, if all.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
That happens is it just drags on, right, then the
more political capital that the pro Iran war caucus has
to say to them, Hey, we tried negotiations, they're not
coming to the table.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
Let's go ahead and bomb them. That is the real
danger here.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
Yeah, Trump wants an accelerated timeline. Maybe Iran will give
it to him. I'm not so sure I would. If
I were there, right, I would. I would have wanted
a lot of trust and a lot of verification before
hour ever in or something.
Speaker 4 (35:29):
The number one thing that iron is asking for is
an ironclad guarantee that they will not rip up this deal. Yes,
and are you gonna You can't really blame them for
doing that, like they they interestingly abided by the terms
of the Iran deal for a significant amount of time
(35:51):
after Trump walked away from it. And remain in the
deal with the Europeans and the Russians because it was this,
you know, there was a large global deal that with
the on. So they're like, just promise us you're not
going to break it this time, and we're like.
Speaker 5 (36:04):
I'm not so sure about that, right, that's right?
Speaker 1 (36:06):
Have a hard bard, guys. Yes, you know, not not
an ideal situation. I'll just put it that way.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
But listen, we remain relatively optimistic here, and we'll continue
to track it. Finally, final segment or actually, no, we
still have to cover the pope too, we'll get that later.
Let's start with Douglas Murray catches some straits in the
latest Joe Rogan podcast episode.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7 (36:31):
Have you been there? Right?
Speaker 5 (36:34):
That's a good point.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
Have you even you haven't been?
Speaker 7 (36:37):
By the way, how is he and all these wars?
Speaker 5 (36:39):
Can I just go to wars?
Speaker 7 (36:40):
By the way, how are you let Are you allowed
to just go to wars?
Speaker 1 (36:46):
Can you just go to what to see of going?
Speaker 7 (36:49):
Can I just go to wars? Or do I have
to come back and say what people want me to
say about the wars? Can I go to the wars
and have my own opinions or do I have to
have the opinions?
Speaker 5 (36:58):
Not if you want to go back.
Speaker 7 (36:59):
That's right that it's very interesting this war tourism. How
do I get all this war tourism. I'd like to
go to the Ukraine.
Speaker 5 (37:05):
I want to go. I want to go.
Speaker 7 (37:07):
I want to go to all this war tourists.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
Do you have any awards that they can melt down
and make bullets out of?
Speaker 7 (37:12):
Joe, think about this. Do I seem like a guy
that has a lot of awards.
Speaker 5 (37:16):
Didn't you get one of those.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
YouTube plaques when you hit a hundred thousand?
Speaker 5 (37:19):
I don't even know where they send it. I don't
know where.
Speaker 7 (37:21):
I don't know where they're sending those YouTube plaques those.
But I like this idea give your tourism. I like
the idea of going to a war and then coming
back having having a very black and white views. I
been there, I get it, and I know and and interesting.
Speaker 1 (37:37):
Okay, I like that. I like that.
Speaker 5 (37:39):
I love that you feel better than the other people.
Speaker 7 (37:41):
Well, of course there's a lot of people. It gets
very murky. Most people I know that have been to
war have a very murky.
Speaker 5 (37:47):
Complex view of things.
Speaker 7 (37:49):
But it is good to go to a war and
then come back and be as sure as you were
before you came. You don't have to go for very long.
Speaker 5 (37:56):
No, you go for an hour, a couple hours.
Speaker 7 (37:58):
It's a lunch.
Speaker 5 (37:59):
Yeah, it's lunch.
Speaker 1 (38:00):
On flack jacket that says press. That's rough there, Ryan
for Douglas.
Speaker 3 (38:06):
If for anybody who doesn't get the photo reference, let's
put that one on the screen. Our producer Griffin's been
dying to show everybody this photo for quite some time now.
This is the chair where sinwar what was killed by
and Israeli drone And as you could see, Douglas there
on an IDF sponsored tour with his big press flack jacket,
not really in danger because again he's on a you
(38:27):
know you IDF military sponsored thing. TI Tim actually made
the best point, and that's something that I immediately texted
Dave about is I was like, dude, he keeps saying,
you've never been there. The only reason he gets to
go is because he's a pro war propagandist, and so
the government is allowing him to go. If you or
I tried to set foot in the crossings, we're done,
all right, We're done. I don't even know if they'll
(38:47):
let us in the country, all right, And having been
to Israel before before I was ever made any public statement,
Holy shit, I have never been put through the ringer
any other country in the world.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
Why are you here? What are you doing?
Speaker 3 (38:58):
What is your dad in Muslim? You know it's wild
and that's just a normal visitor to the country that's
not made up those actual questions.
Speaker 1 (39:06):
So nowadays, oh.
Speaker 3 (39:08):
Man, Yeah, if you and I try to set even
one hundred miles foot in Gaza, not gonna happen.
Speaker 4 (39:13):
A lot of people who've been come back with a
far worse impression of the situation on the ground than
they have been than they had before.
Speaker 5 (39:21):
But yeah, it was.
Speaker 4 (39:22):
It was quite strange to hear Murray say it, because
anybody who's casually followed the conflict knows that Israel has
banned Western journalists from getting into Gaza.
Speaker 5 (39:31):
So then how on earth did he sneak in?
Speaker 6 (39:34):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (39:34):
It turns out the IDF, you know, put him in
their own little flat jacket and drove him to this
scene for this this photo.
Speaker 1 (39:42):
Op.
Speaker 4 (39:43):
I don't think you should be able to wear a
press vest in that circumstance. In what way are you
press you're not You're not You're just completely.
Speaker 1 (39:51):
You're just play acting. It's you know, Tim made a
funny joke about Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (39:54):
I mean it's the same thing, like what you think
you are getting anywhere close to these really to the
Ukrainian front line.
Speaker 1 (40:00):
And obviously the same thing about Russia.
Speaker 3 (40:01):
You know, if Russia was like, hey, you want to
come in to it, it's like, no, I'm not being
used by you, you know, to show me what you
want in your little dog and pony show. And this
is the same for anybody. You know, as you and
I know covering the Pentagon beat, you only get to
see what you want, what they want you to see.
You get to ride around with the secretary. Yeah, that
make you feel important in a humvy or whatever, but
you're never going off the base. You don't get to
go in bed with troops. Actually, one of the interesting
(40:23):
things is that in the early days of the war,
during I Rock in Afghanistan, they actually did let journalists
do that, and they started to pull back those you know,
so that you don't have Remember that documentary Ristreppo, I
mean that changed a lot of people's minds, where that
book generation kill having the guy literally in the front
Humby and people were like, oh, this is a clusterfuck.
I can't believe that this is what's happening. They shrank
that stuff way down. So and it's our military, which
(40:44):
is relatively relatively more open. Now we're talking about the
Israelian military, Ukrainian and other things. So that was the
preposterous nature of his argument. But there's also like a
personal thing happening there where Douglas he opened his segment
with Joe by being openly antagonistic, being like concern trolling
him over not having enough people.
Speaker 1 (41:08):
Came to the expert there.
Speaker 4 (41:10):
The specific moment that he was challenging Dave Smith about
have you been there? Was about when Dave Smith said
they're not letting in humanitarian aid. Yes, and he's and
he said, well, have you been been to the crossings?
And what's so insane about that is that Israel has
(41:30):
announced that since March second. I don't know when he
did his little tourist trip there, but Israel announced on
March second that they're not letting in aid. They said
it publicly. They have repeated that many times since then.
They have publicly said they're not letting in aid in
order to put pressure on the Palestinians through starvation to
(41:51):
get them to reach a different deal than the ceasefire
deal they've reached before. All you need is you don't
even need a subscription to new papers. You can just
read the free versions and you can read these quotes
from it. You don't need to go to the crossing.
In fact, if you go on a an Israeli sponsored
trip to a crossing and you observe anything different than
(42:13):
what they are saying they're doing, then you are being
lied to separately. The idea that you could just stand
at a crossing and look at some trucks and that
gives you any indication of what the humanitarian condition is
inside of Gaza is also preposterous. The idea that you
could sit in Sinwar's chair and know what the prices
(42:34):
of eggplants and tomatoes are at the market is absurd.
The way you find that out is you talk to
Palestinians who go to the markets. There are more than
a million of them. You can talk to them. So
reporting can be done without going inside there. Reporting can
be done by Palestinian journalists who are inside Gaza. But
the notion that you have to be there in order
(42:57):
to see that is undermined by the fact that what
he was saying that Aid was getting in was a lie.
Speaker 5 (43:04):
He was wrong.
Speaker 4 (43:06):
So yes, he's been there, but he's either a liar
or an idiot, exactly right.
Speaker 3 (43:11):
And yet him and Bill Maher had to further concern
troll together on Bill Maher's show, Let's take a listen.
Speaker 6 (43:18):
You were on Joe Rogan a couple of days ago,
a week ago, something like that. I got a lot
of press, and I'm glad you said what you said,
which is I mean, I mean, I like Joe, but
he has on people who entertain these crazy conspiracy theories
and doesn't really push back on them. It's okay to
have I mean, I'm a free speech absolutist pretty much,
but there seems to be no pushback on this.
Speaker 5 (43:38):
The reason I did this pushback, I mean, you just
have to. I mean, you just have to. In my view,
it's basic social hygiene.
Speaker 8 (43:45):
If you've got somebody who's coming along who pretends to
be a historian, who then can always do the thing
of saying, oh, I actually don't call myself a historian,
it's just other people I allowed to call me a historian.
I'm not a car mechanic, but if I kept on
being introduced as a car mechanic, I would say, oh no,
you got the wrong guy. So they don't mind it.
They don't mind it. They have this slipout. These people
that are trying to call out on Joe's show, they
(44:08):
are doing things like Hitler wasn't that much of an
anti semi main problem in the twentieth century was Winston Churchill.
Winston Churchill was the warmonger. Adolf Hitler wanted peace, and
I just look, it's a matter of social hygiene. Don't
feed me this shit. What they're watering and what's going
(44:32):
to come up underneath them are going to be people
who believe this Rod and a lot of people you
can clearly see on the right at the moment, are
very happy if you can denigrate the tradition of Winston
Churchill and pretend that Adolf Hitler wasn't so bad, because
then you can do things like Christian nationalism. You can
(44:54):
do really really tough nationalist stuff.
Speaker 6 (44:57):
They basically by Kane album.
Speaker 5 (45:01):
That's the lost stage.
Speaker 3 (45:03):
So straw maning, he's like equating Dave Smith, Darryl Cooper
and Ian Carroll all in one. As he showed on
the show, he did not even really know that much
about Cooper and nor Ian Carroll whenever he was trying
to denigrate them. But you know, let's just come back
to the final point about having been there and about gatekeeping.
This is a guy who, again when he was in
(45:24):
is what mid twenties wrote neo conservatism and why we
need it in six when the Iraq War was a disaster,
has since written books about migration, about wokeness, and now
about whatever. His latest in Defense of the West book
is he is just as unqualified and as lack of
an expert as any of those individuals, and to be honest,
(45:45):
actually less informed obviously from you know, his public comments
that are all on the subject.
Speaker 1 (45:50):
They're so reductive.
Speaker 3 (45:52):
And then finally, you know, for these two free speech
non gatekeepers and all those people bullshit, you're obvious you're
indicating right there for gatekeeping. And you know, when's the
last time anybody interesting was on Bill marshow be serious, Like,
let's be honest.
Speaker 4 (46:08):
And on the point of him not being informed, he's
really playing weird games with this line where he was
saying that people quote unquote downplay or Hitler's anti semitism.
So apparently, like what he complained about on Rowan, He's like.
Speaker 1 (46:27):
You were going to get into that, we can, but yeah,
we should just do.
Speaker 5 (46:30):
A second because like what he's saying.
Speaker 4 (46:32):
So Darryl Cooper and others have said that at various
times throughout Hitler's rise to power, he downplayed his own
anti semitism and his true designs for the Jewish people
in Germany and throughout Europe because those views were unpopular
with the German public and abroad in particular abroad, and
(46:54):
he had to smuggle those views in and then once
he got power, then he carried then he and people say, well,
he wrote my comp Yes. So it feels like this
shouldn't have to be explained to people, but apparently apparently
it does. Politicians often will say something earlier in their
career that is the truth, and then as they rise
(47:17):
through power, they downplay that correct say, I don't really
believe that. You know, I'm not for not for one
hundred and fifty percent tariffs or not for pure free
trade and whatever is that in your interest in the
political moment, you say that he's not saying that Hitler
was not a thorough anti semi through and through with
(47:37):
designs on a genocide, a holocaust.
Speaker 5 (47:42):
That's not what he's saying.
Speaker 1 (47:43):
Let me just lay this out for people. Chapter one.
Speaker 3 (47:45):
I was doing a rereading chapter one, Volume two Ian
Kershaw's Hitler nineteen thirty six to nineteen forty.
Speaker 1 (47:54):
Five, called Nemesis.
Speaker 3 (47:55):
There's a citation chapter one about the nineteen thirty six
Berlin which year was the Olympics, I think it was six, Yeah,
nineteen thirty six Earlian Olympics. They took down all the
anti Semitic signs specifically to do what to make sure
to downplay the antizis. So this is a matter of empirical.
Speaker 5 (48:11):
Fact because they thought it was embarrassing.
Speaker 3 (48:12):
This is a matter of fact fact that they and
they even admitted it in documents that her Kershaw is
able to review.
Speaker 1 (48:20):
And by the way, Kershaw is about as like. Kershaw
is not a quote unquote objective biographer. He hates it.
So he hates and he makes it very quick.
Speaker 3 (48:29):
And you know what's funny is he actually does the
same thing in his introduction of his book that Daryl does,
where he goes I am I detest Hitler.
Speaker 1 (48:36):
I find him disgusting.
Speaker 3 (48:38):
However, I want to view with an objective, as a
lens as possible as to how this person is ideology
was able to rise in Germany, and with that we
must have some empathy and to try and to understand
from which this arose so that it may never happen again.
Speaker 4 (48:54):
Right, And if you listen to Douglas Murray, ye, then
your view of Hitler is that he always was from
his chest expressing his full anti Semitic viewpoint, and he
came to power anyway. The reason that Douglas Murray's view
is dangerous is because it is wrong, and because it
(49:16):
would lead you then to say, Okay, a future Hitler
who we're going to try to prevent from coming to
power is only someone who was always screaming their anti
semitism from the rooftops, and that if they downplay it
at any point, that's not Hitler, and so we can
then it's okay, Okay, they've toned down some of their rhetoric,
(49:38):
so let's give them a second chance. What the actual
reading of the actual Hitler is is that you have
to figure out what they're going to do on your own,
not just from their own rhetoric. Because if you allow
their rhetoric to control what you think of them, they're
just going to fool you, like Hitler fooled the German public.
(50:00):
So Murray's interpretation, which is a historical and illiterate, is
actually the dangerous one because it could cause people to
then miss the next person totally.
Speaker 5 (50:12):
Yeah. I mean yeah, I could go.
Speaker 3 (50:14):
On this forever, but it's just ridiculous to me that
somebody who is supposedly an expert, I mean, this is
you know, what makes them It's funny. I'm talking about
this book as if someone No, I'm reading.
Speaker 1 (50:24):
The that's the most possible.
Speaker 5 (50:25):
That's the historical that is, like.
Speaker 3 (50:28):
Yeah, that's like reading Band of Brothers for the first
time about World War Two.
Speaker 1 (50:32):
Okay, that's it.
Speaker 3 (50:33):
That's the research historiography that it takes to be able
to cite something like this, and he's not even aware
of a basic reference. Okay, all right, Finally, let's talk
about the Pope, Pope Francis. We'd said at the beginning
with the Pope sadly passed away this morning, eighty eight
years old. Just yesterday met with Senator jd Vance. I
(50:53):
believe we have a sorry for Vice President JD.
Speaker 1 (50:56):
Vance.
Speaker 3 (50:57):
A matter of habit, we've got the Vice President, who
himself is a practicing Catholic, meeting with the Pope. Vance
put out a statement today about his passing. Let's see
what he said. He said, I just learned the passing
of Francis. My heart goes out to the millions of
Christians all of the world who loved him. I was
happy to see him yesterday, who he was obviously very ill.
(51:17):
I'll always remember him from the below homily he gave
in the early age of the early days of COVID.
Speaker 1 (51:22):
It was really quite beautiful. May God rest his soul. So,
you know, unfortunate timing. Therefore, the Vice president, I think
we can say.
Speaker 4 (51:29):
That, well, there were reports that the Pope had snubbed
him and said, well, now it's obviously he was just
like sent his deputy out to give him a lecture
about morality and particularly in the context of the creeping
authoritarianism and the treatment of migrants. And yeah, so I
think you can forgive the Pope for not making the
broader we for our meeting. You know, this was a
(51:52):
pope who I'm sure from the right people are not
a big fan of. You know, he came in at
the beginning of the kind of greater Wokening, the global
great Awokening did and one of the so he you know,
he he had a lot of left wing instincts well
back like that for the you know, support for the poor,
(52:12):
support for migrants. What really ticks people off is when
he came in and said nice things about gaining lesbian people,
and towards the end allowed the Catholic Church to even
bless you know, gay marriages.
Speaker 1 (52:28):
Did he? I forget exactly. It's there's always controversy.
Speaker 4 (52:32):
And then uh loosened the loosened the rules for divorced Catholics.
Speaker 3 (52:37):
Yeah, I mean there were there's a huge debate inside
of the Catholic By the way, I know non Catholic
I'm friends with some and they me doing some secondhand,
you know, explanations.
Speaker 1 (52:48):
So if I get this wrong, I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (52:50):
But I know that there are a lot of fights
within Catholicism and this we we were talking earlier about
the show The Young Pope, and there's like a big
debate about modernization of Catholicism versus like returning to some
sort of like Latin service and you know, Vatican two
and some of the previous edicts that was meant to
(53:10):
modernize the church and make it more accessible to millions
of people, like quote unquote meeting people where they are
as opposed to like sticking to the dogma and to
the long held teachings and the structure. Now, I do
think that the conservatives have been validated in that Catholicism
remains down. You know, across the world, the number of
practicing Catholics continues to decline. So the idea of like
(53:33):
meeting people where they're at and being more socially transformed
or whatever has not really worked.
Speaker 1 (53:37):
Out for them.
Speaker 5 (53:37):
Maybe the decline would be worse.
Speaker 3 (53:39):
It could be worse. It's unfalsifiable. But what I'm saying
is like, for a lot of the more conservative elopments
in the church, their belief is that their belief is
that by trying to modernize, you've both betrayed like the
base of like practicing conservative Catholicism, while also not even
preserving what you meant to, which is like the throngs
(54:01):
of people coming into the church, and also making sure
that you have more people who are practitioners. Again, this
is just my like outside analysis, but I do know
it generally reflects like big fights within it and about
who gets blessed or who gets cardinalship or whatever. And
so within that that is the dynamic heading into what
will inevitably be the next papal conclave and how they
(54:25):
then respond to kind of the way that this pope
decided to both guide the church and make himself obviously
the face you know, as the Holy Father. And so
what the policy is that flows from that is actually
pretty interesting because it's also a direction that a lot
of Christian churches in America are grappling with. Right, You've
got Methodist Church. I mean, this is a huge schism
(54:46):
about like BLM and pro gay friendly churches, and some
people are like this is auretical right, and so there's
like big fights and splits within the same argument I'm
talking to you about right now, is like liberalization has
not increased a more Christian country or any of that.
Speaker 1 (54:59):
There's fight.
Speaker 3 (55:00):
I mean, obviously it's Protestantism, so they can actually fight
about the Word of Jesus. But it is interesting, you know,
we'll see, I'm curious see which direction they go into.
Speaker 4 (55:07):
And I have a ton of Catholic family members, cousins
really mostly like Oklahoma, but they've spread out, spread out
from Oklahoma. Uncle who moved to Oklahoma to be in
the Air Force converted and and so the Grim, the
Grim family out in Oklahoma now. And my my, my
(55:27):
sense of it is that there's more room room to
move in a liberal direction because the more conservative Catholics
they're kind of dug in, like like they're going either way.
They're gonna grumble about it, but but they're they're sticking
with it.
Speaker 5 (55:42):
And while we're doing it.
Speaker 4 (55:43):
One of my cousins, Christy, her boyfriend now Garrett, is
a huge fan of the show Shadow. He like, it
didn't even believe, No, what that's your cousin because her
last name is not Grim.
Speaker 1 (55:54):
That's cool.
Speaker 5 (55:54):
It used to be.
Speaker 4 (55:56):
I know, it actually didn't used to be so anyway
out the Garrett.
Speaker 1 (56:00):
Yeah, we love you guys.
Speaker 5 (56:02):
Okay, Oh one other, one other thing.
Speaker 4 (56:04):
The reason I'm here today and not and Crystal will
be in on Wednesday is that my wife is getting
surgery tomorrow. So I just wanted to say, you know,
thank you uh to everybody for all the warm wishes,
the prayers. Everything is as we've as we've gone through this.
So her chemo is now all done. The battle is
(56:24):
going well. Uh, we'll find out more after after the surgery.
Then there'll be a little bit of radiation. And you know,
the thing I've learned is like it's obvious, but this
stuff is hell. And there's a lot of people who
are going through this as we speak, or have have
gone through it, and you know, we're we're with you.
There are setbacks, there's uh, but you know there's there
(56:48):
are triumphs and you know.
Speaker 5 (56:50):
It's it's helpful to have that that the community and
so really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (56:55):
Dude.
Speaker 3 (56:55):
Everybody is behind you, the team, the audience. It's inspirational,
your data or mother for fighting cancer.
Speaker 1 (57:02):
I'm gonna tear up even talking about it.
Speaker 3 (57:04):
Having a kid, it's like even thinking about what you
guys have to go through, it's it's crazy.
Speaker 1 (57:09):
So you're you're an inspiration to me and slush, So
thank you, man.
Speaker 5 (57:12):
I'm looking forward to welcoming you into the Land of
the Father.
Speaker 1 (57:16):
Yes, I'm excited to join. All right, We'll see you
guys later.
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Here, independent media just played a truly massive role in
this election, and we are so excited about what that
means for the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 4 (00:33):
All right, speaking of who's going to fill this vacuum,
let's put this element up on the screen, the first
of what hopefully will become many co broad lines with
my colleague Saga and Jetty. This drop site news article
of headline Trump's and a seed director for Israel and
Iran previously worked for Israeli Ministry of Defense. That headline
(00:53):
is what it says it is. Well, you're like, wait
a minute, you can do that. You can work for
the Israeli Ministry of Defense and then you can work
for the night I said, well, of course you can.
Speaker 5 (01:01):
Why did you think that you couldn't.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Well it's very interesting, isn't it. Ryan, Yeah, let's break
some of this down for the audience.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
So this is very important.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
So, as I explained previously about the NSC, we just
talked about power vacuum. So not only do we have
Mike Wallace, who we know advocated for war with Iran
when the Israelis were here, we now know that he
put in charge of the Israel and the Iran portfolio,
combined that portfolio under this woman, Marav Saren, now Marev
Saren is the director for Israel and Iran at the NSC. Now,
(01:31):
what we know from her own background publicly reported let's
put that up there on the screen, please shall we,
is that she admits quote worked at Israel's Ministry of Defense,
where she participated in negotiations in the West Bank between
Israel's coordinator for government activities and the territories and palesinating
authority officials. So this is a person, Ryan, who literally
(01:55):
worked for the Israeli Ministry of Defense.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Basically we were just talking about the Pentagon.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
He Israeli version of the Pentagon who is not working
in the United States government to develop policy visa VI
that person. I should also mention there that that biography
comes from the Foundation for Defensive Democracies. What is the
probably single most pro war with Iran organization in the
United States today.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
Yeah, and so what was so that was previously known.
What wasn't known is that she's working at the NSC.
There was ever a public announcement made about that, but
the NSC has confirmed it to us.
Speaker 5 (02:28):
We can read this.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
NSC spokesperson Brian Hughes says, the following. Morav is a
patriotic American who has served in the United States government
for years, including for President Trump, Senator Ted Cruz, and
Congress and James Comer. We are thrilled to have her
expertise in the NSC, where she carries out the President's
agenda on a range of Middle East issues, because I
had asked, do you have anything set up in place
(02:52):
to mitigate potential conflicts of interest, because you know, she
is overseeing policy with a country where she previously served
that country.
Speaker 5 (03:05):
And this is why this matters so much.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
That country, Israel, is currently trying to blow up our
negotiations with Iran and between Iran and the United States.
We are involved, and we're going to talk about those
more in a moment. We're involved in these direct talks
with Iran because the President of the United States has
repeatedly said he believes that negotiations are a better resolution
(03:29):
solution to our problem with Iran than an attack. Israel
disagrees Israel wants us to attack. Yes, Israel has argued
internally that it wants us to attack. So the NSC
director for both of those countries previously worked for Israel.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
How do you get a security clearance if ver former
employee boggles the mind and inevitably ran, what are we
going to be smeared as anti semi? It's calling in
to question somebody's loyalty. No, I would say this about anyone.
I'm Indian descent.
Speaker 5 (04:03):
Religion doesn't matter, this about the country.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
If the guy running the NSC India desk is a
Indian citizen.
Speaker 5 (04:10):
Or who worked for the Indian worked.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
For the Indian military, I would say absolutely not.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
How can you trust this guy's judgment? And then even worse,
if you're in charge of the Iran portfolio, that's like
taking a former Indian military official who appens to have
US citizen and put him on the Pakistan desk. What
saying the vice versa, you're gonna put somebody in charge
of the mortal enemy of a government if you used
to work for and by the way, mortal enemy. I'm
using their language, the Israeli languages. That's so they see them.
(04:37):
I'm not saying I believe that, but that's how.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
They view it.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
And in fact, the general policy of the US government,
and I've seen this with friends firsthand, is to not
send somebody of a particular nationality to serve in a
particular country. Let's say you are and I've seen this firsthand.
Let's say you're Iranian American and you're born here in
the United States. You are as American as I am.
(05:01):
They will not have you work on Iran inside the
CIA or the State Department, even though you might speak
Persian and know the country.
Speaker 5 (05:08):
That it's a little too close.
Speaker 4 (05:10):
It's it's there's some suspicion in orderline racism. If you're
Pakistani American, you're born here in the United States, they
will not have you serving Pakistan. Ecuadorian American, they won't
send you. I think there are exceptions.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
I will defend that's actually a good policy.
Speaker 5 (05:25):
I think it's fine too.
Speaker 4 (05:26):
I get it, like I understand where it's coming from,
because it's like, all right, look, we're all we're all
Americans here, and there's a lot of places we can
send you. We're gonna send you know, we're gonna send
the Iranian, the ecuador Ecuadorian into Iran. Right, But so
that's there, like it or not. That is the general approach.
You can find exceptions, but that is the general approach
that the American government takes to foreign countries and your
(05:49):
place of birth that those are now, those are not
people who worked for the Iranian Ministry of Defense or
the Equadorians. Their parents or parents are from there. She
personally worked for the Israeli Ministry of Defense.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
By her own admission again and by the way, at
the FD the Foundation for Defensive Democracies whose chairman Mark
Dubowitz is the chief opponent right now of any Trump
negotiation with Irani. So you have Trump who wants to
deal with Iran, and then the person running his White
House's Iran desk is a former employee of the organization
who wants to kill the American organization which wants to
(06:28):
kill an Iran deal.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
And of a government which also wants to kill that deal.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Truly, do not preach to me about how you can't
say that this is a most obvious conflict of interest,
And yes, dare I say an accusation of dual loyalty
is in order, because you don't just go work for
that government if you don't have at least some allegiance
or something to it, and then to come and work
for our country, shall we?
Speaker 1 (06:53):
You know this is one where they have would be.
Speaker 4 (06:56):
Strange if she worked for the Ministry of Defense in
Israel and wasn't loyalty of course.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Even weirder So then what what so that the only
alternative where this somehow works is that she's a US
double agent who was working for secret about that and
then going out in the Yeah, something tells me doesn't
seem to be true, and that, by the way, inevitably
this is going to cause a massive freak out, even
just you and I reporting on this.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
For our Washington audience that's watching this and wondering, Uh,
the answer to your question is she related to Omri Sarah? Yes,
that's right, that's her brother.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Yeah, omriy is a long time, no long known person
here in Washington works for Senator Ted Cruz, one of
the most vociferous pro Israel voices probably in the United
States opponent of the around you. That's fine, listen, you know,
yeah he works her Ted Cruise. That those are tech
Cruises views.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
I don't have any problem. I don't know problem.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Absolutely, I have no problem with that. Absolutely, even her
working for Ted Cruise. Yeah, a little weird, you know
previously in my opinion, but you're not running the countries,
you know, foreign policy, and uh, you know, to step
back a little bit again and just for to explain
some Washington terms. So we're in the middle of this
Pentagon power vacuum.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
But the thing is is that the NSC's job is
to develop options.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
It's genuinely a staff agency.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
So when Donald Trump tells his National security advisor in
Mike Waltson says I need options on Israel and run,
the person Mike Waltz turns to is her. So her
job is to coordinate from all of the different agencies CIA, Pentagon, DIA,
you know, GEO and Spatial Intelligence Agency whatever, bring them
all together and say we need to prepare strike packages
or whatever. The person who's in charge of that has
an immense amount of power because they're controlling the actual
(08:27):
stuff that goes to the President's desk. Let's say here
on the Hooty strikes, things like that, Well, if you
have this type of ideology and you previously worked for
this government, what do you think the mindset that you're
going to bring? And that doesn't even bring into question.
Remember there was this huge story. Do we have that
New York Times story? I have no inside information around this,
but this says Trump waived off this really strike after
(08:48):
Division's emergency administration. The pro Israel side was adamantly convinced
right that the America firsters on the NSC are the
people who leaked this. I no longer am so sure.
Let's say you're a former employee of the Israeli Mystery
of Defense, and your former employer didn't get what it wanted,
(09:08):
and you wanted to make it clear to many people
on the outside about what your employer, Donald Trump is
now currently doing and is stifling some of the ideology
that you have now pushed for and believed in for
the better part of a decade. Well, I don't know, Ryan,
maybe I would leak it to the New York Times, Yeah,
and wouldn't I.
Speaker 4 (09:24):
And this Times article is fascinating because it includes Tulca Gabbard,
Director of National Intelligence, saying that she is against the
US striking Iran. It includes Jade Vance, the Vice President,
saying that he is against striking Iran. It includes Pete Hegseith,
Secretary of Defense, saying he is against striking Iran.
Speaker 5 (09:43):
And in it even Michael Waltz.
Speaker 4 (09:46):
Acknowledges in the meeting that the Israeli plans won't work
without US support, and he offers little skepticism. Now, he
and Carrillo, the Stentcom commander, had previously engaged with Israel
on these war plans, and and they're they're clearly the
most open to it of any of the top administration officials.
And while Sager and I were writing the story, the
editor was like, Okay, in this meeting, like who is
(10:09):
Who's who's taking this support for Israel side and saying
that we should bomb around Because clearly you've got everybody,
the head of the Intelligence Community, head of the Pentagon,
John Ratcliffe, everybody is saying don't do this. So it's
a meeting, there's it's a debate. Tell us, who is
on the yes side, And the ironic answer is Israel,
(10:31):
Like there actually weren't American officials in the meeting. Who
are as who think that it is in America's interests
to launch this strike? Yet the entire echelon from the
President across all of his leadership is debating this issue.
Speaker 5 (10:49):
Look, who are you debating? Why are you debating?
Speaker 4 (10:51):
Like, if nobody inside the United States thinks that this
is in the interest of the United States, why.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Are we even having a meeting about it?
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Which is Wow, it's completely nuts.
Speaker 5 (11:02):
And they might get their way, and yet.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I want to be very clear here, they may win.
In fact, I would not bet against these people.
Speaker 5 (11:10):
I wouldn't want to be a run.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Yeah, you're living here and working on this stuff.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
Imagine you're a run in these negotiations and they're like,
you know, you just met with witcough and now you're
moving on to the technical side. And you sit down
across the table in your trading paper and you look
up and it's somebody from the Israeli ministries.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
You're like, wait what You're like, you're supposed to be
working for them? How does that work? Yeah? I mean,
would you be serious?
Speaker 3 (11:33):
Would you trust that person to negotiate or develop policy
and good faith, absolutely, especially.
Speaker 5 (11:38):
After we don't have a great track record of sticking
to our deals.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
Yes, it's a different things.
Speaker 5 (11:43):
It deals with China, deals with Mexico, deals with the run,
you name it.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
And look, that's why Ryan and I wrote the story.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
It's important the public needs to know about the people
who are actually working on this stuff. And there are
a lot of patriots who still work in the United
States government. There are a lot of patriots who look
at this and say, I have no idea how you
can get a security clearance. I can't believe that you
can to work here. That you and your boss, Mike Wallas,
your boss literally caught including Jeffrey Goldberg, and you get
to stay right and he gets to continue to be
(12:09):
in the Oval, and you know, push for war with Iran,
and just to show everyone that's the edifice that is
being protected here behind the scenes. America deserves to know.
I don't want to war. I don't think most people
do either. But people who do, they're in power right
now and they could win. They could very easily win.
Speaker 5 (12:26):
They could absolutely all right.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
So with that, let's get over to the Israel section.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
The Israeli military is out with its own report on
the massacre of fifteen paramedics in Gaza, which happened on
March twenty third, shortly after the Israel broke it cease
fire with Hamas and Gaza. You can put this element
up on the screen. This is from our drop side
of news Twitter account which go through goes through kind
(12:53):
of the full report. I put up E three while
we're at it. This is the video footage that later
emerged that kind of forced this report out. So what
we have from the Israeli military report is effectively a
complete whitewashing of the incident. They they they say that
(13:15):
it adds up to accountability because one deputy commander was
removed from his post as a result of the findings
of this. But for those who didn't follow a Hamas,
I'm not sorry, not not Hamas. They claimed it was Hamas. Later,
a Red Crescent medical vehicle was was fired on by
(13:41):
Israeli forces. We interviewed one of the only the only
known survivor of that. He said he said that they're
just driving along the road and all of a sudden,
gunshots ring out, and the two people in the front
of the vehicle killed. He was then he was then grabbed,
dragged out, beaten ruth sleeve for many hours, and then
he witnessed what happened next which you just saw on
(14:05):
that video, which is the other vehicles coming, medical vehicles
coming to try to figure out what happened to the
ones that they had lost contact with. The Israelis then
opened fire on all of them, and according to the
Red Crescent, based on autopsies of them, there are a
lot of headshot wounds and wounds to the torso that
(14:26):
indicate that.
Speaker 5 (14:27):
They were executed.
Speaker 4 (14:29):
We know then they were buried in a mass grave
and tried to bury the even even the vehicles with them.
So the Israeli report says that they don't have any
evidence that they were shot point blank range, that's one thing,
but they make that claim without evidence. They criticize the
commanders for burying the ambulance with bulldozers under the sand.
(14:53):
They say that they said there was no reason to
do that. They say burying the bodies in a mass
grave was acceptable.
Speaker 5 (15:00):
Now finally at the end, then a UN.
Speaker 4 (15:03):
Vehicle approaches the situation and the Israelis fire on the
UN vehicle as well. That they say was a breach
of protocol. So that is the only thing and everything
that I've just laid out, other than the burring of
the ambulance by a bulldozer, that the Israelis hear say,
(15:23):
constituted something that they were at fault for and as
a result, deputy commander relieved from his responsibilities.
Speaker 5 (15:30):
One thing that hasn't gotten anywhere.
Speaker 4 (15:33):
Near enough attention in the western press coverage of this
is a startling video that Israel's Channel fourteen obtained, and
we can roll some of this here. So the Golani Brigade,
which is known as a fairly reckless brigade in Israel
even among other Israeli forces, is the one that carried
(15:53):
out this masacre. This is a deputy command. This is
a commander speaking to the Golani Brigade. He says, go out,
kill a lot of enemy, take a lot of territory.
And that's how up until now we have returned hostages.
Everyone we meet is an enemy. We identify a figure,
we open fire, eliminate it, we move on. So that
is a commander of the Golani Brigade speaking to Golani
(16:20):
Brigade forces. This is before this incident with the paramedics.
He says to them, everyone we meet is an enemy,
kill them and move on. They then encounter these fifteen paramedics,
they kill them and they move on. Israel's response is
(16:40):
that they are going to remove just one figure.
Speaker 5 (16:43):
From this Sagar. This was.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
To a global community that is pretty inured to the
violence and the carnage going on. This one broke through
because of its kind of horror film esque nature of
it and because they are targeting people who are just
(17:09):
out trying to do trying to save people's lives. Israel
immediately came out and claimed that they had killed some
Hamas fighter.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
His body was not found.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
They named the Hamas fighter they said was with them,
body was not there.
Speaker 5 (17:23):
That was a lie. Then they said that were well six.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
Of them were Hamas, Like you couldn't tell these were ambulances,
but you could somehow tell it.
Speaker 5 (17:31):
These dead people, well, I think it's were Moss members.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
Ryan for you to break down the chain of how
this all happened. So, if it was not for outlets
like drop Site and independent journalists, I do not believe
that this would have come to life.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
Because the legacy press covered it as is.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
They were like Israel says they killed so and so
they didn't even remember you flag this. The New York
Times did not even call up the Red Crest asked
what actually happened with all this and the fact that
it was on video and you know, literally there's a
horrible video of the guy who died recording his last
words to his mother. If it wasn't for that, I
don't think any of this gets picked up, if no
investigation even happened.
Speaker 4 (18:08):
The first Palestine reporter I saw break this was Hin Kaudrey,
who I don't think we've had her on the program,
but she's a terrific journalist in Gaza who she was
one of those those who kind of blew up on
Instagram and TikTok very very early on, and she has
a huge kind of global following. And immediately on March
(18:30):
twenty third, she started hearing what had happened, and because
of her, another Palestinian reporter, some of which went on
to report for drops the news about this that version
was out there. Then the New York Times comes out finally,
like two Times didn't even want to cover it, and
there was an internal fight within the Times about whether
they should even do an article on it, and they
(18:51):
buried it in one unrelated article, and then when they
finally did cover it, they said, you know, who's to
say what happened? Because the Israelis said that the ambulances
were quote advancing suspiciously, which is just an absolutely comical
addition to our new lexicon. How does an ambulance advance suspiciously?
(19:13):
The Israelis claimed that there were the sirens and the
lights of the ambulances were not on, and that might
have been the end of the story if one of
the assassinated medics had not filmed his own death. So
he had his phone going as he's as he's going
through this rafa area, and you all of a sudden
(19:33):
and you see, so he's filming the entire thing. You
saw his that was his view, that was his video
that you saw at the top of this segment. You
see that the lights are on, lights are obviously on,
and all of a sudden, you hear the gunfire erupt
and you hear him say before he is killed, forgive me, mother,
(19:54):
forgive me. All I wanted to do was help people.
And you can just sense that guilt, the guilt of
a son that is not rational because nobody should feel
guilty for being murdered because you're trying to help people.
But you know that his mother said to him so
many times, be careful, be careful, and he told her,
(20:15):
don't worry, Mom, I'm gonna be careful.
Speaker 5 (20:17):
I'll be fine. I need to help other people.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
And now in his last moments, he's realizing that these
just promised that he made to his mother that he
would be fine and that he would come home. Uh,
he's going to break that promise by being executed at
the hands of these Israeli forces that he hears getting
closer and closer and then finally killing him buried by him,
(20:40):
burying him in a mass grave, right and if And
then they forgot to steal his phone and destroy it.
And so when he was unearthed a week later, because
the Israelis were blocking the un from going and get
and clearing the scene, uh, they discovered his phone and
fortunately they were able to, I guess get through his
(21:01):
pass code. And then and they found this video and
they're like, oh, everything Israel said about this was a lie.
The sirens were on, there was no Hamas fighter, nobody's
shooting back.
Speaker 5 (21:14):
You killed these people in cold in cold blood.
Speaker 4 (21:18):
And you go back and read the drop site interview
with the only survivor. He watched them bury these people.
He watched them bury the vehicles, which is like what
compels you to take a bulldozer to an ambulance and
try to bury it under sand other than.
Speaker 5 (21:37):
Trying to like completely cover up this scene.
Speaker 4 (21:40):
And it also shows the scale of the sense of
impunity that is felt by some Israeli forces any other
force on this planet. At this point, if you kill
fifteen paramedics, you know the world is going to know
about this. You're not even like you're cancox some story
(22:01):
about what happened, but you're not going to try to
cover it up like that, like bur by.
Speaker 5 (22:04):
Burying the ambulances.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
But there's so much impunity that they have gotten away
with so many things that they thought it was in
the within the realm of possibility that they could get
some bulldozers out there and bury these ambulances under the
sand with the bodies and move on.
Speaker 5 (22:21):
At the end, they're correct.
Speaker 4 (22:24):
One guy is getting removed from his job and celebrated
in the in their report, and there's really report.
Speaker 5 (22:30):
They celebrate the guy. He had an amazing career, he
was wounded.
Speaker 4 (22:34):
But you know, he shouldn't have fired on the They
shouldn't have allowed them to fire on this one vehicle.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
At the same time, Ryan, we have this story. Let's
put it up there on the screen. Can you describe
for us what happened here?
Speaker 5 (22:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (22:43):
So Fatma Hosana was who is a photo twenty five
year old photojournalist in Gaza who had also picked up
a lot of international attention for her for her own
kind of charisma and confidence and courage and all also
for her photographs, just absolutely compelling work. She is the
(23:09):
focal point of a documentary that was just accepted into
Khan So, how you said, a huge achievement in the
world of documentary filmmaking. The day after her film was
accepted into Khan the Film Festival, her homes is hit
(23:30):
with a targeted strike, which kills I believe at this
count ten members of her family.
Speaker 5 (23:37):
Of course, they're.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
Saying which so they're saying that they were aiming for
some Hamas fighter or something.
Speaker 5 (23:45):
Let's say that that's true just for a second.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
It means that they're willing to kill ten innocent people
for one Hamas fighter in his home, which is a
violation of the laws of war, like even if a
person and was previously a combatant, when they go back
to their home, laws of war say you don't attack
somebody in their homes, particularly you don't do it with
nine of their family members surrounding them. The coincidence to
(24:12):
me is too stark. They have targeted so many people
have who have risen to global celebrity.
Speaker 5 (24:22):
That and target we're not talking about.
Speaker 4 (24:25):
They hit a huge apartment building and they happen to
be inside the apartment building. Hit her home like a
direct hit on their home, just like they hit when
they killed the poet ray fat Alarier.
Speaker 5 (24:36):
He was in a second floor apartment they hit.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
They hit the second floor apartment only with a direct hit,
killed him, a bunch of his family, family members, the
I forget, I forget his name of the Instagram and
TikTok star in the Northern Gaza, who was famous for
as a chef cook just cooking for people and because
of what he was able to do, he developed his
global audience, killed him direct post on Shabot our reporter
(25:03):
killed directly. There's not accidental killings. These are people who
sit around make a decision to target somebody. Send that
up the chain and it is signed off on and
then it is executed yep.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
And you know, every once in a while somebody like you,
somebody like Trey Yanks at Fox News will try and
bring attention to this, but by and large completely ignored.
Speaker 4 (25:27):
And they have to now that the director said, they
they're changing the ending now, like not the ending, but
the end card. The end card said, uh, you know,
Fatma is alive in Gaza and continuing her pursuit of photojournalism.
They now have had to add a new card to
the end of that documentary and there won't be a
dry eye in the house. And when the movie comes out,
(25:49):
you'll have pro Israel forces complaining about it, trying to
shut down theaters that will play it, and then asking
why the world hates them?
Speaker 5 (25:59):
Yeah, why is the world so against us?
Speaker 6 (26:03):
Right?
Speaker 1 (26:04):
No clue, Let's break the Iron deal down? What do
you got for us on.
Speaker 4 (26:07):
That despite all of the obstacles thrown up in their
way direct us around, talks are preceding with some significant momentum.
Let's put this treat of Parsi post on the screen says,
So the teams met in Rome on Saturday, and what
is surprising coming out of this is that they said,
(26:29):
all right, the technical meeting coming out of this will
be in four days, and we're going to meet just
a couple of days after that for political meetings again
and to give people a sense of how these go.
So you get the political people in a room and
they kind of draw the political outline of what the
deal is going to look like, and you don't need
(26:49):
the necessarily the technical experts in there. So in this case,
the big fight between and Israel, as continues to insert
itself into this into these negotiations, they want there to
be zero nuclear program in Iran, no civilian nuclear program
at all, Whereas the US and Iran have said at
(27:13):
this point we're okay with a civilian nuclear program with
the Atomic Energy Agency monitoring it and you know, verifying
that there is no capacity for a breakout. Israel says,
if you allow them to have that, that gets them
too close to being able to break out to a
bomb if the deal collapses. So that's the political argument.
(27:35):
So by setting up the technical meeting just a few
days after the political one, suggests that the political meeting
went well, because now you need the technical folks to
come in and say, okay, what does it mean to
have a civilian program that is under this level of
you know, enrichment threshold. And it also means that the
(27:56):
technical details. The fact that they schedule the next political
meeting soon after the textical one suggests that they think
the technical dealers aren't that complicated. They should be able
to sit down, hash this out and get on with it.
Nikki Haley put up He's six here sees this happening
as well good sign that things are moving apace that
(28:18):
Nicki Haley is freaked out. She says Obama two point
zero because she thinks, I think rightly that the only
reason Trump well, Trump ripped up the Iran deal for
two reasons. First it was called the Obama Nuclear Deal,
and second, his pro Israel hawks insisted that he ripped
it up. So Sel Madilson didn't like it. And it's
(28:40):
called the Obama Nuclear Deal.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
Day one.
Speaker 5 (28:43):
Get it out.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
And what we just discussed about this former ID, you know,
Israeli Ministry of Defense employee, her old boss, Mark Tubowitz.
Here's I want to be clear about what these people want.
It's not that they object to a deal. Here's what
he had to say, just yesterday. The Islamic Republic is
weaker than ever, hated by most Iranians, hammered by.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
The IDF and mosade that part's true is terror. It's terror.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Army's air defense's missile production capability are in ruins. Never
a better time to dismantle its nuke program and finish
off the regime.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
Will whoa whoa? Hold on a second, So we're not
talking about the deal.
Speaker 5 (29:22):
Do we have the retchers?
Speaker 3 (29:23):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (29:23):
Yeah, yes, yeah.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
It's like you're like, oh, so this isn't about the
nuclear program at all. This is about finishing off the regime.
This is not about Obama. This is about regime change.
And they finally are being forced to say the quiet
part out loud because they can't even rely on getting
the whole right wing ecosystem jammed up around Obama. They
(29:45):
have to now counter signal Trump. The way they're doing
it is how Nikki Haley is on, Oh, this is
all about Obama and all this, but let's not, like,
let's be honest about their goal. They want a straight
up regime change war. That strike by Israel was not
about the Iranian nuclear program. That was a pretext to
suck the United States and into a war of total
annihilation and regime change in Iran?
Speaker 1 (30:06):
Period? Now, did you sign up for that? Do most
people want that?
Speaker 3 (30:10):
I don't think so. I think it would be a
complete disaster. And it's pretty clear the agenda that's happening inside.
And while I want to hold these up, I just
don't think you can or you can understate how colossal
the campaign against this is.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
So for example, let's put this up there on the screen. Please.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
Trump has now appointed Mark Levin from Fox News to
quote lead the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Now, Mark Levin
is one of the most anti Iran deal forces in
the American conservative commentariat. This guy is straight out of
the FDD playbook. He's somebody wants regime change. He attacks
(30:53):
anybody who previously is not like Holy subservient to the
State of Israel, who's been appointed previously to the Pentagon.
He's actively led that against him. Trump of course respects him.
Why because he's on television and now he's putting him
on this advisory council with more access to Trump. Well,
this individual that's a very strong voice. Mark Levin has
(31:14):
also targeted Tulsi Gabbard. Why because Tulsi Gabbard had the
audacity Ryan to present US intelligence saying if we bomb Iran,
if Israel bombs aren, we're going to be drawn into
a war. And he said she needs to be fired
and retract that evidence. This is the Iraq war level shit.
You know, this is Dick Cheney going to the CIA
(31:36):
to meddle with the national intelligence estimate about Iraq's nuclear
weapons program. That's what we're dealing with here. And again
I'm not betting against them.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
I think they're going to win. That's the terrifyable.
Speaker 4 (31:48):
And there was just an intelligence assessment that came out.
And remember when Tulsi and Ratcliffe were testifying before Congress
recently and the whole hearing devolved into fighting over the
Jeffrey Goldberg signal chat. So the reason that those were
scheduled were actually to talk about the new intelligence assessment
(32:11):
for the annual Intelligence Assessment. The assessment that they presented
to Congress was that Iran has made zero move toward
a militarized nuclear program, and that their intelligence assessment is
that they have zero interest in moving to a military
nuclear program, a weaponized nuclear program, none whatsoever. They did
(32:34):
say that because of all of the bellicost rhetoric from
Israel and from the United States that there were some
hardline figures in Iran who advocated for a military nuclear
program in ways that they had not done so before,
so that the politics were changing a tiny bit as
(32:55):
a result of all of the pressure. They said from
the Ietola and elsewhere, there were no interest at all.
That's that's the American intelligence assessment. And what Dubs is
saying is, how dare you? I want different facts again?
Speaker 3 (33:10):
This is this literally is out of the Iraq War like.
It's not a joke, it's it's reality. This is exactly
how it all went down, with the politicization of the
intelligence and the meddling and making sure that it said
exactly what they wanted so they could present all this
bullshit the Congress and the Secretary of State. This is
the same playbook that's happening right now. I would be
remiss if I didn't at least give like some good news.
(33:32):
Let's put this up there please on the screen.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
At e eight.
Speaker 3 (33:36):
Adam Boehler, who will all recall, was sidelined for several
months for having the audacity to what was it again.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
Talk with oh right, that's to say that we're not
a audacity when.
Speaker 3 (33:47):
On television and said we are not a client state
of Israel, and for that was benched for several months.
Has now been appointed to an expanded hostage on V
royal role after the Hamas tawks uproar. Allegedly he has
put in for you know, an application or whatever to
try and restart some negotiation with Hamas or or continued
cease fire and you know, hostage release. We wish him
(34:09):
the best of luck, but also if that happened to you, Ryan,
are you ever going to open your mouth again about
the usum band fines that it is?
Speaker 4 (34:15):
No? Yeah, okay, sorry, so correction right, they are, we
are clients my fault.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Yeah, oops, yeah, so you know that.
Speaker 3 (34:23):
Look, Steve Wikoff lives, He lives to fight another day,
Bowler survives. These are all good things, but there's a
lot of other.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
Bad stuff that's happening.
Speaker 5 (34:32):
They have everything.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
I think the danger is what they want to do
is because Trump wants to get this done quickly, and
Trump also is not paying that much attention. So for example,
on the Ukraine thing, well he told us to be
wrapp by day one.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
Okay, well's day ninety whatever.
Speaker 3 (34:46):
Marco Rubio just the other day goes, hey, if Russia
and Ukraine don't sign a deal soon, America will lose interest.
So they're trying to do bilateral trade negotians with seventy
five countries, wrap up the largest land war in Europe,
and wrap on Irani nuclear all in a three month period.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
Well, if all.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
That happens is it just drags on, right, then the
more political capital that the pro Iran war caucus has
to say to them, Hey, we tried negotiations, they're not
coming to the table.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
Let's go ahead and bomb them. That is the real
danger here.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
Yeah, Trump wants an accelerated timeline. Maybe Iran will give
it to him. I'm not so sure I would. If
I were there, right, I would. I would have wanted
a lot of trust and a lot of verification before
hour ever in or something.
Speaker 4 (35:29):
The number one thing that iron is asking for is
an ironclad guarantee that they will not rip up this deal. Yes,
and are you gonna You can't really blame them for
doing that, like they they interestingly abided by the terms
of the Iran deal for a significant amount of time
(35:51):
after Trump walked away from it. And remain in the
deal with the Europeans and the Russians because it was this,
you know, there was a large global deal that with
the on. So they're like, just promise us you're not
going to break it this time, and we're like.
Speaker 5 (36:04):
I'm not so sure about that, right, that's right?
Speaker 1 (36:06):
Have a hard bard, guys. Yes, you know, not not
an ideal situation. I'll just put it that way.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
But listen, we remain relatively optimistic here, and we'll continue
to track it. Finally, final segment or actually, no, we
still have to cover the pope too, we'll get that later.
Let's start with Douglas Murray catches some straits in the
latest Joe Rogan podcast episode.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7 (36:31):
Have you been there? Right?
Speaker 5 (36:34):
That's a good point.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
Have you even you haven't been?
Speaker 7 (36:37):
By the way, how is he and all these wars?
Speaker 5 (36:39):
Can I just go to wars?
Speaker 7 (36:40):
By the way, how are you let Are you allowed
to just go to wars?
Speaker 1 (36:46):
Can you just go to what to see of going?
Speaker 7 (36:49):
Can I just go to wars? Or do I have
to come back and say what people want me to
say about the wars? Can I go to the wars
and have my own opinions or do I have to
have the opinions?
Speaker 5 (36:58):
Not if you want to go back.
Speaker 7 (36:59):
That's right that it's very interesting this war tourism. How
do I get all this war tourism. I'd like to
go to the Ukraine.
Speaker 5 (37:05):
I want to go. I want to go.
Speaker 7 (37:07):
I want to go to all this war tourists.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
Do you have any awards that they can melt down
and make bullets out of?
Speaker 7 (37:12):
Joe, think about this. Do I seem like a guy
that has a lot of awards.
Speaker 5 (37:16):
Didn't you get one of those.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
YouTube plaques when you hit a hundred thousand?
Speaker 5 (37:19):
I don't even know where they send it. I don't
know where.
Speaker 7 (37:21):
I don't know where they're sending those YouTube plaques those.
But I like this idea give your tourism. I like
the idea of going to a war and then coming
back having having a very black and white views. I
been there, I get it, and I know and and interesting.
Speaker 1 (37:37):
Okay, I like that. I like that.
Speaker 5 (37:39):
I love that you feel better than the other people.
Speaker 7 (37:41):
Well, of course there's a lot of people. It gets
very murky. Most people I know that have been to
war have a very murky.
Speaker 5 (37:47):
Complex view of things.
Speaker 7 (37:49):
But it is good to go to a war and
then come back and be as sure as you were
before you came. You don't have to go for very long.
Speaker 5 (37:56):
No, you go for an hour, a couple hours.
Speaker 7 (37:58):
It's a lunch.
Speaker 5 (37:59):
Yeah, it's lunch.
Speaker 1 (38:00):
On flack jacket that says press. That's rough there, Ryan
for Douglas.
Speaker 3 (38:06):
If for anybody who doesn't get the photo reference, let's
put that one on the screen. Our producer Griffin's been
dying to show everybody this photo for quite some time now.
This is the chair where sinwar what was killed by
and Israeli drone And as you could see, Douglas there
on an IDF sponsored tour with his big press flack jacket,
not really in danger because again he's on a you
(38:27):
know you IDF military sponsored thing. TI Tim actually made
the best point, and that's something that I immediately texted
Dave about is I was like, dude, he keeps saying,
you've never been there. The only reason he gets to
go is because he's a pro war propagandist, and so
the government is allowing him to go. If you or
I tried to set foot in the crossings, we're done,
all right, We're done. I don't even know if they'll
(38:47):
let us in the country, all right, And having been
to Israel before before I was ever made any public statement,
Holy shit, I have never been put through the ringer
any other country in the world.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
Why are you here? What are you doing?
Speaker 3 (38:58):
What is your dad in Muslim? You know it's wild
and that's just a normal visitor to the country that's
not made up those actual questions.
Speaker 1 (39:06):
So nowadays, oh.
Speaker 3 (39:08):
Man, Yeah, if you and I try to set even
one hundred miles foot in Gaza, not gonna happen.
Speaker 4 (39:13):
A lot of people who've been come back with a
far worse impression of the situation on the ground than
they have been than they had before.
Speaker 5 (39:21):
But yeah, it was.
Speaker 4 (39:22):
It was quite strange to hear Murray say it, because
anybody who's casually followed the conflict knows that Israel has
banned Western journalists from getting into Gaza.
Speaker 5 (39:31):
So then how on earth did he sneak in?
Speaker 6 (39:34):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (39:34):
It turns out the IDF, you know, put him in
their own little flat jacket and drove him to this
scene for this this photo.
Speaker 1 (39:42):
Op.
Speaker 4 (39:43):
I don't think you should be able to wear a
press vest in that circumstance. In what way are you
press you're not You're not You're just completely.
Speaker 1 (39:51):
You're just play acting. It's you know, Tim made a
funny joke about Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (39:54):
I mean it's the same thing, like what you think
you are getting anywhere close to these really to the
Ukrainian front line.
Speaker 1 (40:00):
And obviously the same thing about Russia.
Speaker 3 (40:01):
You know, if Russia was like, hey, you want to
come in to it, it's like, no, I'm not being
used by you, you know, to show me what you
want in your little dog and pony show. And this
is the same for anybody. You know, as you and
I know covering the Pentagon beat, you only get to
see what you want, what they want you to see.
You get to ride around with the secretary. Yeah, that
make you feel important in a humvy or whatever, but
you're never going off the base. You don't get to
go in bed with troops. Actually, one of the interesting
(40:23):
things is that in the early days of the war,
during I Rock in Afghanistan, they actually did let journalists
do that, and they started to pull back those you know,
so that you don't have Remember that documentary Ristreppo, I
mean that changed a lot of people's minds, where that
book generation kill having the guy literally in the front
Humby and people were like, oh, this is a clusterfuck.
I can't believe that this is what's happening. They shrank
that stuff way down. So and it's our military, which
(40:44):
is relatively relatively more open. Now we're talking about the
Israelian military, Ukrainian and other things. So that was the
preposterous nature of his argument. But there's also like a
personal thing happening there where Douglas he opened his segment
with Joe by being openly antagonistic, being like concern trolling
him over not having enough people.
Speaker 1 (41:08):
Came to the expert there.
Speaker 4 (41:10):
The specific moment that he was challenging Dave Smith about
have you been there? Was about when Dave Smith said
they're not letting in humanitarian aid. Yes, and he's and
he said, well, have you been been to the crossings?
And what's so insane about that is that Israel has
(41:30):
announced that since March second. I don't know when he
did his little tourist trip there, but Israel announced on
March second that they're not letting in aid. They said
it publicly. They have repeated that many times since then.
They have publicly said they're not letting in aid in
order to put pressure on the Palestinians through starvation to
(41:51):
get them to reach a different deal than the ceasefire
deal they've reached before. All you need is you don't
even need a subscription to new papers. You can just
read the free versions and you can read these quotes
from it. You don't need to go to the crossing.
In fact, if you go on a an Israeli sponsored
trip to a crossing and you observe anything different than
(42:13):
what they are saying they're doing, then you are being
lied to separately. The idea that you could just stand
at a crossing and look at some trucks and that
gives you any indication of what the humanitarian condition is
inside of Gaza is also preposterous. The idea that you
could sit in Sinwar's chair and know what the prices
(42:34):
of eggplants and tomatoes are at the market is absurd.
The way you find that out is you talk to
Palestinians who go to the markets. There are more than
a million of them. You can talk to them. So
reporting can be done without going inside there. Reporting can
be done by Palestinian journalists who are inside Gaza. But
the notion that you have to be there in order
(42:57):
to see that is undermined by the fact that what
he was saying that Aid was getting in was a lie.
Speaker 5 (43:04):
He was wrong.
Speaker 4 (43:06):
So yes, he's been there, but he's either a liar
or an idiot, exactly right.
Speaker 3 (43:11):
And yet him and Bill Maher had to further concern
troll together on Bill Maher's show, Let's take a listen.
Speaker 6 (43:18):
You were on Joe Rogan a couple of days ago,
a week ago, something like that. I got a lot
of press, and I'm glad you said what you said,
which is I mean, I mean, I like Joe, but
he has on people who entertain these crazy conspiracy theories
and doesn't really push back on them. It's okay to
have I mean, I'm a free speech absolutist pretty much,
but there seems to be no pushback on this.
Speaker 5 (43:38):
The reason I did this pushback, I mean, you just
have to. I mean, you just have to. In my view,
it's basic social hygiene.
Speaker 8 (43:45):
If you've got somebody who's coming along who pretends to
be a historian, who then can always do the thing
of saying, oh, I actually don't call myself a historian,
it's just other people I allowed to call me a historian.
I'm not a car mechanic, but if I kept on
being introduced as a car mechanic, I would say, oh no,
you got the wrong guy. So they don't mind it.
They don't mind it. They have this slipout. These people
that are trying to call out on Joe's show, they
(44:08):
are doing things like Hitler wasn't that much of an
anti semi main problem in the twentieth century was Winston Churchill.
Winston Churchill was the warmonger. Adolf Hitler wanted peace, and
I just look, it's a matter of social hygiene. Don't
feed me this shit. What they're watering and what's going
(44:32):
to come up underneath them are going to be people
who believe this Rod and a lot of people you
can clearly see on the right at the moment, are
very happy if you can denigrate the tradition of Winston
Churchill and pretend that Adolf Hitler wasn't so bad, because
then you can do things like Christian nationalism. You can
(44:54):
do really really tough nationalist stuff.
Speaker 6 (44:57):
They basically by Kane album.
Speaker 5 (45:01):
That's the lost stage.
Speaker 3 (45:03):
So straw maning, he's like equating Dave Smith, Darryl Cooper
and Ian Carroll all in one. As he showed on
the show, he did not even really know that much
about Cooper and nor Ian Carroll whenever he was trying
to denigrate them. But you know, let's just come back
to the final point about having been there and about gatekeeping.
This is a guy who, again when he was in
(45:24):
is what mid twenties wrote neo conservatism and why we
need it in six when the Iraq War was a disaster,
has since written books about migration, about wokeness, and now
about whatever. His latest in Defense of the West book
is he is just as unqualified and as lack of
an expert as any of those individuals, and to be honest,
(45:45):
actually less informed obviously from you know, his public comments
that are all on the subject.
Speaker 1 (45:50):
They're so reductive.
Speaker 3 (45:52):
And then finally, you know, for these two free speech
non gatekeepers and all those people bullshit, you're obvious you're
indicating right there for gatekeeping. And you know, when's the
last time anybody interesting was on Bill marshow be serious, Like,
let's be honest.
Speaker 4 (46:08):
And on the point of him not being informed, he's
really playing weird games with this line where he was
saying that people quote unquote downplay or Hitler's anti semitism.
So apparently, like what he complained about on Rowan, He's like.
Speaker 1 (46:27):
You were going to get into that, we can, but yeah,
we should just do.
Speaker 5 (46:30):
A second because like what he's saying.
Speaker 4 (46:32):
So Darryl Cooper and others have said that at various
times throughout Hitler's rise to power, he downplayed his own
anti semitism and his true designs for the Jewish people
in Germany and throughout Europe because those views were unpopular
with the German public and abroad in particular abroad, and
(46:54):
he had to smuggle those views in and then once
he got power, then he carried then he and people say, well,
he wrote my comp Yes. So it feels like this
shouldn't have to be explained to people, but apparently apparently
it does. Politicians often will say something earlier in their
career that is the truth, and then as they rise
(47:17):
through power, they downplay that correct say, I don't really
believe that. You know, I'm not for not for one
hundred and fifty percent tariffs or not for pure free
trade and whatever is that in your interest in the
political moment, you say that he's not saying that Hitler
was not a thorough anti semi through and through with
(47:37):
designs on a genocide, a holocaust.
Speaker 5 (47:42):
That's not what he's saying.
Speaker 1 (47:43):
Let me just lay this out for people. Chapter one.
Speaker 3 (47:45):
I was doing a rereading chapter one, Volume two Ian
Kershaw's Hitler nineteen thirty six to nineteen forty.
Speaker 1 (47:54):
Five, called Nemesis.
Speaker 3 (47:55):
There's a citation chapter one about the nineteen thirty six
Berlin which year was the Olympics, I think it was six, Yeah,
nineteen thirty six Earlian Olympics. They took down all the
anti Semitic signs specifically to do what to make sure
to downplay the antizis. So this is a matter of empirical.
Speaker 5 (48:11):
Fact because they thought it was embarrassing.
Speaker 3 (48:12):
This is a matter of fact fact that they and
they even admitted it in documents that her Kershaw is
able to review.
Speaker 1 (48:20):
And by the way, Kershaw is about as like. Kershaw
is not a quote unquote objective biographer. He hates it.
So he hates and he makes it very quick.
Speaker 3 (48:29):
And you know what's funny is he actually does the
same thing in his introduction of his book that Daryl does,
where he goes I am I detest Hitler.
Speaker 1 (48:36):
I find him disgusting.
Speaker 3 (48:38):
However, I want to view with an objective, as a
lens as possible as to how this person is ideology
was able to rise in Germany, and with that we
must have some empathy and to try and to understand
from which this arose so that it may never happen again.
Speaker 4 (48:54):
Right, And if you listen to Douglas Murray, ye, then
your view of Hitler is that he always was from
his chest expressing his full anti Semitic viewpoint, and he
came to power anyway. The reason that Douglas Murray's view
is dangerous is because it is wrong, and because it
(49:16):
would lead you then to say, Okay, a future Hitler
who we're going to try to prevent from coming to
power is only someone who was always screaming their anti
semitism from the rooftops, and that if they downplay it
at any point, that's not Hitler, and so we can
then it's okay, Okay, they've toned down some of their rhetoric,
(49:38):
so let's give them a second chance. What the actual
reading of the actual Hitler is is that you have
to figure out what they're going to do on your own,
not just from their own rhetoric. Because if you allow
their rhetoric to control what you think of them, they're
just going to fool you, like Hitler fooled the German public.
(50:00):
So Murray's interpretation, which is a historical and illiterate, is
actually the dangerous one because it could cause people to
then miss the next person totally.
Speaker 5 (50:12):
Yeah. I mean yeah, I could go.
Speaker 3 (50:14):
On this forever, but it's just ridiculous to me that
somebody who is supposedly an expert, I mean, this is
you know, what makes them It's funny. I'm talking about
this book as if someone No, I'm reading.
Speaker 1 (50:24):
The that's the most possible.
Speaker 5 (50:25):
That's the historical that is, like.
Speaker 3 (50:28):
Yeah, that's like reading Band of Brothers for the first
time about World War Two.
Speaker 1 (50:32):
Okay, that's it.
Speaker 3 (50:33):
That's the research historiography that it takes to be able
to cite something like this, and he's not even aware
of a basic reference. Okay, all right, Finally, let's talk
about the Pope, Pope Francis. We'd said at the beginning
with the Pope sadly passed away this morning, eighty eight
years old. Just yesterday met with Senator jd Vance. I
(50:53):
believe we have a sorry for Vice President JD.
Speaker 1 (50:56):
Vance.
Speaker 3 (50:57):
A matter of habit, we've got the Vice President, who
himself is a practicing Catholic, meeting with the Pope. Vance
put out a statement today about his passing. Let's see
what he said. He said, I just learned the passing
of Francis. My heart goes out to the millions of
Christians all of the world who loved him. I was
happy to see him yesterday, who he was obviously very ill.
(51:17):
I'll always remember him from the below homily he gave
in the early age of the early days of COVID.
Speaker 1 (51:22):
It was really quite beautiful. May God rest his soul. So,
you know, unfortunate timing. Therefore, the Vice president, I think
we can say.
Speaker 4 (51:29):
That, well, there were reports that the Pope had snubbed
him and said, well, now it's obviously he was just
like sent his deputy out to give him a lecture
about morality and particularly in the context of the creeping
authoritarianism and the treatment of migrants. And yeah, so I
think you can forgive the Pope for not making the
broader we for our meeting. You know, this was a
(51:52):
pope who I'm sure from the right people are not
a big fan of. You know, he came in at
the beginning of the kind of greater Wokening, the global
great Awokening did and one of the so he you know,
he he had a lot of left wing instincts well
back like that for the you know, support for the poor,
(52:12):
support for migrants. What really ticks people off is when
he came in and said nice things about gaining lesbian people,
and towards the end allowed the Catholic Church to even
bless you know, gay marriages.
Speaker 1 (52:28):
Did he? I forget exactly. It's there's always controversy.
Speaker 4 (52:32):
And then uh loosened the loosened the rules for divorced Catholics.
Speaker 3 (52:37):
Yeah, I mean there were there's a huge debate inside
of the Catholic By the way, I know non Catholic
I'm friends with some and they me doing some secondhand,
you know, explanations.
Speaker 1 (52:48):
So if I get this wrong, I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (52:50):
But I know that there are a lot of fights
within Catholicism and this we we were talking earlier about
the show The Young Pope, and there's like a big
debate about modernization of Catholicism versus like returning to some
sort of like Latin service and you know, Vatican two
and some of the previous edicts that was meant to
(53:10):
modernize the church and make it more accessible to millions
of people, like quote unquote meeting people where they are
as opposed to like sticking to the dogma and to
the long held teachings and the structure. Now, I do
think that the conservatives have been validated in that Catholicism
remains down. You know, across the world, the number of
practicing Catholics continues to decline. So the idea of like
(53:33):
meeting people where they're at and being more socially transformed
or whatever has not really worked.
Speaker 1 (53:37):
Out for them.
Speaker 5 (53:37):
Maybe the decline would be worse.
Speaker 3 (53:39):
It could be worse. It's unfalsifiable. But what I'm saying
is like, for a lot of the more conservative elopments
in the church, their belief is that their belief is
that by trying to modernize, you've both betrayed like the
base of like practicing conservative Catholicism, while also not even
preserving what you meant to, which is like the throngs
(54:01):
of people coming into the church, and also making sure
that you have more people who are practitioners. Again, this
is just my like outside analysis, but I do know
it generally reflects like big fights within it and about
who gets blessed or who gets cardinalship or whatever. And
so within that that is the dynamic heading into what
will inevitably be the next papal conclave and how they
(54:25):
then respond to kind of the way that this pope
decided to both guide the church and make himself obviously
the face you know, as the Holy Father. And so
what the policy is that flows from that is actually
pretty interesting because it's also a direction that a lot
of Christian churches in America are grappling with. Right, You've
got Methodist Church. I mean, this is a huge schism
(54:46):
about like BLM and pro gay friendly churches, and some
people are like this is auretical right, and so there's
like big fights and splits within the same argument I'm
talking to you about right now, is like liberalization has
not increased a more Christian country or any of that.
Speaker 1 (54:59):
There's fight.
Speaker 3 (55:00):
I mean, obviously it's Protestantism, so they can actually fight
about the Word of Jesus. But it is interesting, you know,
we'll see, I'm curious see which direction they go into.
Speaker 4 (55:07):
And I have a ton of Catholic family members, cousins
really mostly like Oklahoma, but they've spread out, spread out
from Oklahoma. Uncle who moved to Oklahoma to be in
the Air Force converted and and so the Grim, the
Grim family out in Oklahoma now. And my my, my
(55:27):
sense of it is that there's more room room to
move in a liberal direction because the more conservative Catholics
they're kind of dug in, like like they're going either way.
They're gonna grumble about it, but but they're they're sticking
with it.
Speaker 5 (55:42):
And while we're doing it.
Speaker 4 (55:43):
One of my cousins, Christy, her boyfriend now Garrett, is
a huge fan of the show Shadow. He like, it
didn't even believe, No, what that's your cousin because her
last name is not Grim.
Speaker 1 (55:54):
That's cool.
Speaker 5 (55:54):
It used to be.
Speaker 4 (55:56):
I know, it actually didn't used to be so anyway
out the Garrett.
Speaker 1 (56:00):
Yeah, we love you guys.
Speaker 5 (56:02):
Okay, Oh one other, one other thing.
Speaker 4 (56:04):
The reason I'm here today and not and Crystal will
be in on Wednesday is that my wife is getting
surgery tomorrow. So I just wanted to say, you know,
thank you uh to everybody for all the warm wishes,
the prayers. Everything is as we've as we've gone through this.
So her chemo is now all done. The battle is
(56:24):
going well. Uh, we'll find out more after after the surgery.
Then there'll be a little bit of radiation. And you know,
the thing I've learned is like it's obvious, but this
stuff is hell. And there's a lot of people who
are going through this as we speak, or have have
gone through it, and you know, we're we're with you.
There are setbacks, there's uh, but you know there's there
(56:48):
are triumphs and you know.
Speaker 5 (56:50):
It's it's helpful to have that that the community and
so really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (56:55):
Dude.
Speaker 3 (56:55):
Everybody is behind you, the team, the audience. It's inspirational,
your data or mother for fighting cancer.
Speaker 1 (57:02):
I'm gonna tear up even talking about it.
Speaker 3 (57:04):
Having a kid, it's like even thinking about what you
guys have to go through, it's it's crazy.
Speaker 1 (57:09):
So you're you're an inspiration to me and slush, So
thank you, man.
Speaker 5 (57:12):
I'm looking forward to welcoming you into the Land of
the Father.
Speaker 1 (57:16):
Yes, I'm excited to join. All right, We'll see you
guys later.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com