May 29, 2024 • 42 mins
This week on Back Story with Dana Lewis - Is the International Criminal Court a protector of global justice or an overreaching institution threatening national sovereignty? Join us for an eye-opening conversation with Ambassador John Bolton as he critically examines the ICC's legitimacy and its impact on countries like the U.S. and Israel. Bolton argues that the court's actions undermine the democratic processes of sovereign nations.
And Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas predicts Netanyahu could be finished as Prime Minister in a matter of months. We analyze Netanyahu's maneuvers to shift the narrative in his favour amidst growing political turmoil and potential resignations from key figures like Benny Gantz. Tune in for a thorough analysis of these critical issues and their broader geopolitical implications.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
John Bolton (00:00):
Well, the ICC is fundamentally illegitimate.
It's an infringement onnational sovereignty,
particularly for countries thathaven't adopted it.
It doesn't have any realability to affect the real world
, accountable, unelected,unbeholden to any democratic
(00:24):
authority, just kind of outthere.
No executive branch, nojudicial branch.
It's a pretend court.
Alon Pinkas (00:30):
There's this myth in Israeli politics that many in
the world, and the world mediaindeed, have bought into, and
that is that Mr Netanyahu is avictim here and he is being held
hostage by an impossiblecoalition that is extorting him,
that is making his lifedifficult, that is constricting
(00:53):
his womb of maneuvering Nonsense.
This is entirely his making.
Dana Lewis (01:15):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis, this week'ssmart, insightful Alon Pincus,
who has advised Israeli leadersin the past, now on the present
and where Israel goes in its warwith Gaza.
But first, ambassador JohnBolton, on the International
Criminal Court, which he sayshas no authority, and on foreign
(01:38):
affairs, from China and Taiwanto Ukraine and Russia, taiwan to
Ukraine and Russia.
Ambassador John Bolton is aformer national security advisor
under the Trump administration.
He was also the US ambassadorto the UN serving under George W
Bush.
Welcome, mr Ambassador, good tosee you again, glad to be with
(02:00):
you as we speak.
I like to start with the news.
I mean there are reports thatIsraeli tanks now are in the
center of Rafah and, as you know, the ICC, the International
Criminal Court, is pursuingarrest warrants not only against
Hamas but against a number ofIsraelis, including Prime
Minister Netanyahu.
Why shouldn't they, in yourview, be doing that?
(02:22):
Why?
John Bolton (02:23):
shouldn't they, in your view, be doing that?
Well, the ICC is fundamentallyillegitimate.
It's an infringement onnational sovereignty,
particularly for countries thathaven't adopted it.
It doesn't have any realability to affect the real world
.
It's like a piece of government, unaccountable, unelected,
(02:45):
unbeholden to any democraticauthority, just kind of out
there.
No executive branch, nojudicial branch.
It's a pretend court.
It's a pretend court, like theInternational Court of Justice,
usually called the World Court,and it issues pretend rulings
based on a pretend jurisdiction.
Here the pretense is that theICC has jurisdiction because of
(03:07):
the state of Palestine, whichdoesn't exist, and so they are
purporting to go after Israeliofficials based on that tenuous
hook, even though Israel, likethe United States, like China,
russia and India, have neveragreed to the statute the Rome
Statute that creates theInternational Criminal Court.
(03:28):
So this is a kind of fantasythat the world has indulged in
for a long time, that courtswill resolve international
political questions, and legalinstitutions are no good at
resolving political questions.
That's why our courts in thiscountry don't touch them, and
it's why the very notion of aninternational criminal court is
(03:50):
so inherently political and sounaccountable, as it's been
created, that I think Israel canjust safely ignore what they
say.
Dana Lewis (03:59):
But why shouldn't that court be empowered, john?
I mean, why shouldn't countrieslike the US and many countries
do support the ICC?
Why shouldn't countries likethe US sign on to to serving
their arrest warrants andhelping them prosecute war
criminals, in effect, if that'swhat, indeed, they prove to be?
John Bolton (04:21):
Well, if other countries want to do it, that's
up to them, but I regard it as afundamentally anti-democratic
institution.
We are a democratic rule of lawconstitutional society and we
hold our leaders accountablewhen they don't live up to our
legal standards.
We don't need a bunch ofinternational nannies or
(04:41):
platonic guardians who thinkthey have some higher vision of
what's right, telling us what todo.
That's just not evencontemplated in the Constitution
.
We judge ourselves.
We make mistakes.
We're human.
By the way, so are the judgeson the International Criminal
Court.
Nobody sprinkled angel dust ontheir heads when they put those
(05:03):
robes on to make them completelyperfect.
And that's the sort of fantasythat says well, I can get rid of
my responsibility to protectmyself and to behave responsibly
in the international system byexpecting some court's going to
take care of everything for me.
Dana Lewis (05:22):
So it may be that you get an enemy country or a
hostile country that has undueinfluence over that next panel
of judges prosecuting America orCanada, or Britain for that
matter.
John Bolton (05:35):
Yeah, look, nobody has ever shown that the world
court or the ICC has everdeterred a bad guy from doing
anything, and that's why theBiden administration rejection
of the effort to get arrestwarrants for Israeli officials
is an unsatisfactory answer.
And, by the way, the onlyAmerican politician of any note
(05:58):
who supports this decision isBernie Sanders, which tells you
a lot.
You can't say we're in favor ofa court that goes after bad
guys but doesn't go after goodguys, and in fact, vladimir
Putin, xi Jinping, the AyatollahKhamenei, kim Jong-un in North
Korea they couldn't care lesswhat this court does.
Dana Lewis (06:17):
What do you think?
In one of the op-eds that youwrote that disruling the issuing
of potential warrants againstpeople like Netanyahu could
spell an end to the court.
John Bolton (06:29):
Well, you know, I've been writing about what's
wrong with the ICC for over 25years and at a debate in Harvard
in the late 1990s I said the USwill not join the ICC within
the lifetime.
Of anybody in this room Now,that was almost 25 years ago.
The court has not lived up toanybody's expectations.
(06:52):
And now, by going after Israel,a democratic rule of law
society fighting against theexistential threat of
Iranian-backed terrorism isbeing second-guessed by a group
of people with no responsibility, no accountability If they turn
out to be wrong on this, havingexercised this enormous threat
(07:14):
of arrest warrants, where doesIsrael go to get satisfaction
for having been unfairly treatedIn the middle of this kind of
conflict?
To say that there's any warrantfor thinking that the ICC is
going to make a positivecontribution.
The argument just doesn't fly.
Why do you think it could bethe end of the court?
Because I think so many peoplein this country now see what the
(07:39):
court is like in operation andby going after Israel it's often
said Israel is the canary inthe coal mine for the United
States that people go after themfirst when the real objective
is attacking us.
So when you have 535 members ofthe House and the Senate and a
big one has spoken up in supportof what the court has done.
(08:00):
I think that's prettysignificant.
Dana Lewis (08:03):
Switch gears.
Your old boss is before thecourt this week.
Former President Trump.
Regardless of what the courtrules do you still believe that
he's unfit to be president?
And why don't a lot ofAmericans agree with you?
Because he's still ridingpretty high in the polls.
John Bolton (08:19):
Well, I do think he's unfit to be president, and
it's too bad that people whoagree with me haven't been able
to explain clearly enough whythat is.
I think this prosecution, whichis based on an unfounded and, I
think, erroneous legal theoryabout what constitutes a
violation of federal electionlaw Remember, this is a New York
(08:40):
state court, a New York stateprosecutor.
We're talking about that.
An acquittal or a hung juryhere will actually help Trump,
because it will show that hisargument that he's being picked
on by the deep state and by theBiden administration may turn
out to be true and, if he'sconvicted, it may help him as
(09:00):
well, because it will furtherprove that he's being picked on
by the deep state.
I just think if your objectiveis to make sure that Trump's not
elected, you have to bear inmind what his supporters think,
and that's why what I've beentrying to do is argue why he's
unfit.
Going after him through whatsome people call lawfare, I
(09:22):
think could turn out toboomerang.
It's like you're forgetting theobjective.
Some people are just so eagerto see Trump prosecuted that
they're not thinking throughthat the consequences of the
prosecution might actually helpTrump politically, whatever the
verdict Russia and Ukraine.
Dana Lewis (09:38):
you no doubt are watching the situation and
you're an expert on a lot ofthis.
They're going after Kharkiv.
I mean.
I think it's heartbreaking tosee some of these missiles
hitting residential areas andmalls and a factory that was
binding books.
The Russians are increasinglyinvading from the north, saying
(10:04):
that there are restrictions onthe weapons that America have
given to Ukraine not to use themin Russia.
Can you assess all of that forme?
Is it a mistake in foreignpolicy right now to keep the
handcuffs?
John Bolton (10:17):
on Ukraine.
Well, I think it's absolutely amistake to keep the handcuffs
on Ukraine.
In fact, NATO Secretary GeneralJens Stoltenberg is now saying
the time has come to lift theselimits.
Really, the time came onFebruary the 24th 2022, when the
Russians invaded.
You can't respond to anunprovoked act of aggression
(10:38):
like that by saying I thinkwe'll just fight this war on the
territory of the country that'sattacked and not go after the
territory of the aggressor.
I mean, I just think this is amatter of common sense that the
Biden administration has badlymishandled under the misbegotten
fear that somehow Putin has thecapability to make a wider war.
(11:00):
If he had the troops and thecapability to do that, he would
have done it already, or hewould have sent these troops
into Ukraine, where his army hasbehaved incredibly poorly.
So I think we've put theserestraints on ourselves in
Ukraine from the beginning ofthe conflict after the Russian
invasion.
It was a mistake, like themistake of doling out different
(11:23):
kinds of weapon systems toUkraine after long, painful
debate, not strategically, notthinking how can we help Ukraine
achieve victory over Russia.
Because we've deterredourselves, we have hampered our
own effort for this illusoryfear of a wider war.
Dana Lewis (11:41):
You don't believe that Putin?
Well, actually you're notsaying that, so let's clarify Do
you believe that Putin wants awider war, whether he can mount?
John Bolton (11:51):
one or not, this war when it began and the notion
that they would try and spreadthe war invites what's left of
the Russian army from beingchewed up as well.
(12:12):
And I will say that Putin'snuclear threats, which he has
made from time to time, havenever shown any redeployment of
any Russian nuclear forces.
And I think if theadministration has done anything
, it's tried to convince Putinthat it would be disastrous if
he did use nuclear weapons.
(12:33):
I think you always take thethreat seriously, but I think
throughout the past two-plusyears here from Moscow, it's
been nothing but bluff.
So what?
Dana Lewis (12:42):
does the West do to give Ukraine a victory?
John Bolton (12:45):
Ambassador Bolton, Well, I think, live up to what
the stated position of everyNATO member is, which is a
restoration of full sovereigntyand territorial integrity to
Ukraine, and by saying, ok, well, if that's the objective, what
do we need to do to give Ukrainethe wherewithal to do it?
I mean, there have been somecalls.
French President Macron saidrecently we should consider
(13:06):
putting NATO troops on theground in Ukraine.
I don't particularly care ifFrance does that I don't think
he actually means it but I don'tthink NATO troops on the ground
are required.
I think the Ukrainians areprepared to continue to do the
fighting.
We just have to aid them in astrategic way, which we have not
done.
Dana Lewis (13:24):
Last question on China.
I'm making you work hard hereon so many things
internationally today and Iappreciate your time.
China, of course, by the way,has helped Russia a lot with the
use of some of the microchipsthat are in missiles and tanks
and other things.
But China has now encircled theisland of Taiwan after a very
(13:44):
pro-democracy president waselected in the latest election.
How should America handle this?
Would America come to Taiwan'said, do you think, and what
should be done?
I mean because Taiwan is reallybeing pressured by mainland
China.
John Bolton (14:00):
Well, I think we should be prepared to come to
Taiwan's aid, but I think theway to make sure it never
happens is to do a lot of thingswe could do but are not doing
to deter China.
There's the threat of a Chineseinvasion around Taiwan and, in
effect, defy the United States,japan and others to come to
(14:30):
Taiwan's aid and break theblockade.
And if we don't, then I thinkTaiwan would fall into China's
lap like a piece of ripe fruit,which is really what China wants
.
They don't want to do to Taiwanwhat Russia is currently doing
to Ukraine.
They want all of Taiwan'sproductive facilities, including
particularly the chipfabricators, to come in
(14:52):
basically unharmed.
So I think we need a lot morethinking and, even more than
that, a lot more action abouthow to put Taiwan in a place
where Beijing is deterred bothfrom thinking about an actual
invasion but also deterred fromeven contemplating a blockade.
And one way to do that, in myview, is to announce that we're
(15:13):
going to home port a couple ofAmerican naval bases in
Kaohsiung, the biggest port cityin Taiwan, basically to show
our presence there and to makeit clear to China that if they
did put a blockade around Taiwan, whatever we think of the
Taiwanese we would have to cometo provide security for our own
(15:37):
assets there, and that would besomething, I think, that would
be a powerful deterrent to Chinafrom getting into this to begin
with, ambassador.
Dana Lewis (15:46):
John Bolton, always great to talk to you.
Thank you so much, John Well,thanks again for having me.
Alon Pincus is a diplomat andhe also served as Israel's
consul general to New York, andit was a foreign policy advisor
to multiple foreign and primeministers.
As the advisor to multipleforeign and prime ministers,
unofficially he was this wisesage walking the dark back halls
(16:11):
and boardrooms of power,whispering into the ears of
political leaders the recipes ofwhat they needed to do that,
hopefully, wasn't just to holdon to power alone, but also to
do the right thing.
Can I say that?
Alon Pinkas (16:29):
thing is that.
Can I say that, yeah, but youknow, although to to be fair, um
, I gotta, I gotta say you know,two, two, uh, um, two caveats
here.
One is they rarely listened andtwo is it wasn't about.
You know, the power relates tothe politics and I mostly I did
foreign policy, relations withthe us and so, um, combine the
two and they basically did notheed any of those.
Dana Lewis (16:50):
All right, you can imagine the next question, right
?
The scenario is I don't know ifyou want to get that close to
the guy, but you are very withininches of the ear of Prime
Minister Netanyahu.
What would you be whisperinginto those ears right now?
Alon Pinkas (17:04):
Well, okay, it's an improbbable, implausible
scenario, because under undercurrent political conditions, I
would really not get close tohim.
Um, and and that that you know.
That takes us back to themoment he formed the government.
Um, I would have advised himthen do not form a government
(17:26):
with these extreme right-winglunatics.
I understand what you're tryingto do.
I understand that politicalsurvival is your utmost and
ultimate concern.
I understand that you're facingthree indictments and an
ongoing trial.
I understand that you feel thatyou're being persecuted by a
vast left-wing liberal cabal ineach state.
(17:49):
But, mr Prime Minister, youasked for my advice, so here I'm
giving it to you.
This is the recipe that's goingto ultimately bring you down.
John Bolton (18:00):
And it will.
Alon Pinkas (18:03):
Go ahead.
Sorry, I don't want tointerrupt.
Given that advice, which heobviously did not heed, I would
tell him, throughout 2023, toback off from the constitutional
coup that he instigated.
And I would say look, I knowwhat you think you're getting
out of this.
I understand where this anger,resentment and frustration with
(18:27):
the judiciary comes from.
You think it's an elite thingagainst you.
You think it's a deep stateconspiracy against you, but this
is going to divide the peoplein a way that will ultimately
bring you down and then we movefurther forward.
Okay, so we did not heed thatadvice either.
(18:48):
We are on September.
I'm sorry, we are on October7th.
I would tell him to resign andif I see that he's unwilling to,
I would say, okay, so do atleast the following Stand up,
say that this was a horrendouscatastrophe, that this was a
(19:10):
debacle, that, whatever thecircumstances, whatever the
causes, it was under your watch.
You cannot, at this point, dealwith politics, but you
understand people's devastationand anger and you understand why
(19:31):
people hold you responsible andaccountable, which is why I,
prime Minister BenjaminNetanyahu, am announcing here
that this is not a time forresignation, because this needs
to be managed, and I think Icould do it, it, but I'm calling
for an election 10 months fromnow.
He did not heed that adviceeither, so I he took part of it.
Dana Lewis (19:57):
He said that we'll try to form some kind of
national unity or coalitioncabinet.
Alon Pinkas (20:04):
That's a fortune cookie slip of paper that he
meant nothing by he meantnothing by.
Dana Lewis (20:10):
He meant I'm staying no matter what it takes.
Alon Pinkas (20:14):
And that's basically what he's saying.
More importantly, that isfundamentally what he is doing.
He is trying to distancehimself from the debacle of
October 7th.
He's trying to formulate orcraft some kind of an
alternative narrative in whichthis really wasn't about October
(20:35):
7th.
It was never about himstrengthening Hamas in order to
weaken the Palestinian Authority.
This was always about the worldtrying to superimpose a
Palestinian state on him.
This is all about acivilizational conflict with
Iran.
So you know, if there was afailure on October 7th and there
(20:58):
definitely was it was the IDF'sfault.
It was the intelligenceservices' fault.
They did not alert him.
They led him to think thatHamas is not interested in a war
, that Hamas is busy trying tocover Gaza.
He went along with that, soit's not his responsibility.
That, of course, is bogus anddisingenuous, but that is the
(21:20):
narrative that he's trying tosolve.
In order to advance thatnarrative, you see his
deliberate attempts to seekconfrontation with President
Biden, even though it seemscounterintuitive and almost
patently illogical to whomeveris listening or watching us.
(21:40):
But that's exactly what he'sdoing in order to prove and
vindicate himself that this isabout Biden stopping him from a
major victory and trying toimpose, superimpose a
Palestinian state on him.
He will stand up to, and he'sthe only one who can resist.
Dana Lewis (21:58):
Well, that kind of takes me.
I didn't want to go in thisdirection, but I will, because
you mentioned that you wouldhave advised him at the very
beginning don't bring thesecrazy radical rights into your
cabinet.
Alon Pinkas (22:10):
I would have advised him.
I would have advised him, youwould have advised him.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Dana Lewis (22:17):
I know I don't advise him.
You would have advised him.
Alon Pinkas (22:18):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know I don't advise him.
I'm not on speaking terms withhim.
Dana Lewis (22:22):
I assumed that, yeah , but I mean you're cutting him
a little bit of distance there,You're cutting him a little bit
of slack when it comes to.
You know, there's the radicalright and Netanyahu, who just
formed a government with thembecause he wanted to be in power
, because he wouldn't have had acoalition otherwise.
I mean, he's pretty righthimself is he not?
Alon Pinkas (22:46):
Oh yeah, but you asked me very politely to
pretend that I'm advising and Itold you that that's improbable
and implausible.
Exactly because of what yousaid, I don't think there's any
daylight between the extremeright wingers.
The only noticeable difference,the only discernible political
(23:06):
difference, is that they employmessianic religious language,
while he uses nationalistic,semi-authoritarian life, and
it's a big difference inpolitical science.
In real life, it is completelyblurred.
I don't think you know.
There's this myth in Israelipolitics that many in the world,
(23:33):
and the world media indeed,have bought into, and that is
that Mr Netanyahu is a victimhere and he is being held
hostage by an impassablecoalition that is extorting him,
that is making his lifedifficult, that is constricting
his room of maneuvering Nonsense.
(23:53):
This is entirely his making,and it's his making not because
of a lack of politicalalternative.
He had a political alternative.
Dana Lewis (24:04):
Don't forget.
Let me just pick up on that ifyou don't mind and I don't want
to interrupt.
No, you're not.
You've just written a piece forHaaretz last week.
I think it was where you wroteNetanyahu believing, or
pretending to believe, andimpart the impression that
Israel cannot exist without him.
He's instigated aconstitutional coup to weaken
(24:24):
the judiciary and degrade checksand balances, with one purpose
in mind transitioning Israelinto an authoritarian state that
he believes is crucial to itssurvival, not just his survival.
Sorry, I went out of thequotation there.
Back to the quotes.
He's perverted historyrepeatedly, talking about this
being 1938 all over again, asthe existential condition of
(24:47):
Israel, a danger that only hecan avert.
Is that his way of holding onto power?
Does he actually believe that'sthe?
Alon Pinkas (24:56):
Both, both and I don't know which came first
whether or not he developed thisLouis XIV syndrome in which he
identifies himself with thestate.
Let us say why.
I am the state, therefore thestate cannot exist without me,
which is sort of a distortion ofwhat Louis XIV actually said,
(25:16):
but that's beside the point.
Sort of a distortion of whatLouis XIV actually said, but
that's beside the point.
So I don't know if he beganthat way and waited for the
right time and opportunity toshape politics in that image or,
conversely, because of hispolitical travails, because of
his political predicaments, hedeveloped this as a defense
(25:39):
mechanism against his politicalouster.
Listen, he failed to win thelast five election campaigns.
He failed in 2019, twice in 2020, and again in 2021, in which a
(25:59):
more centrist, even though acentrist right-wing government
was formed, but without.
That was devastating for him,because that left him, in his
mind, completely exposed to histrial, which is a trial for
bribery and corruption andobstruction of justice and so on
bribery and corruption andobstruction of justice, and so
(26:24):
on.
And then he vowed that if shegets even close to forming a
government, he will not allowthe centrist or the centrist
left into that government, eventhough it makes sense in the
state of Israel.
But he needs to extricatehimself from that trial and he
needs to change the judiciary,weaken the guardrails, weaken
the checks and balances, weakenthe gatekeepers, to the point
(26:46):
where his trial will meannothing.
Dana Lewis (26:51):
That seems to be an international recipe right now
for America, for Russia, for wecan go on and on and in.
Alon Pinkas (26:58):
Hungary and Brazil and many, many and, by the way,
that is that is his referenceteam, that these are his
soulmates Bolsonaro in Braziland Orban in Hungary, and Putin
and maybe Trump again in Americaand Lukashenko in Belarus and
(27:20):
his buddy, trump in America.
Dana Lewis (27:23):
So the polls say that.
You know, most Israelis don'tsupport Netanyahu.
They think he should go, butthey do support the ongoing
military campaign in Gaza.
What do you make of that,despite all of the problems
there and the lack of victory?
Alon Pinkas (27:38):
because the devastation of october 7th was,
uh, life-changing for a lot ofisraelis, because it wasn't just
a terror attack, uh, that woulddevastate anyone any day.
It was.
It was on a scale, um, thatthat few israelis could even
fathom was possible.
Not only was it devastating inthe number of deaths and the
(28:04):
barbarity and gory way in whichit was done, but it was
humiliating militarily.
It was humiliating in termsthat, you know, it wasn't a
one-guy suicide bomber, itwasn't blowing up a building or
a plane, or a cafe or a bus.
This was an invasion.
(28:25):
True, this is not the GermanWehrmacht of World War II, it's
a terror group, but nonetheless,there were over 2,000 Hamas
fighters, terrorists, murderers,call them what you want who
crossed the border and it tookthe IDF 48 hours to push them
(28:49):
out Slightly less than 48, butin that vicinity, and the
stories and the pictures and thedescriptions of what went on on
October 7th in those villages,towns, on Kibbutzim, along the
Gaza-Israel border, were suchthat the anger, the resentment,
(29:12):
the sense of revenge, thecomplete indifference to what
will happen.
Dana Lewis (29:16):
And I don't want to wallpaper over any of that
because even now, more imagesare coming out and you know
these young women doing theirmillouine, doing their army
service, and you know, if peoplehaven't seen it, it's the Hamas
gunmen standing over them.
Alon Pinkas (29:36):
I'm talking about how beautiful some of them are
after they just murdered theirand then went on, and then went
on I don't want to be gory herebut then went on to rape them
Absolutely.
Dana Lewis (29:49):
Now, this is what's driven Israelis to enter Gaza.
So how does it For Israelis?
Is there an end goal here?
I mean no, no, no.
They want to remove Hamas.
Alon Pinkas (30:01):
I did not finish answering your previous question
, so sorry.
So you understand why thesupport for the war was so
comprehensive, so broad and sodeep.
Now, as the months went by,people starting to sense that
this is not going according toplan.
(30:21):
So then they started.
Then they started questioning,and now I'm moving to your
current question.
Then they started questioningwhether there even was a plan
because, because you know, atthe outset the US warned Israel
publicly obviously in private,but then publicly that the only
(30:43):
way you're going to sort ofeliminate Hamas which is a goal
that is unattainable to beginwith, but let's assume it is
viable or feasible militarilythe only way that can be
achieved is if you reoccupy theGaza Strip and stay there for
months, if not years.
And since the US urged Israelnot to do so, and since Israel
(31:06):
gave all the indications that itdoes not intend to, people
started questioning what's goingon with the war.
You have to add to that acompletely other dimension that
you know the person on thestreet, the average Joe walking
in Tel Aviv or Haifa orJerusalem, doesn't perhaps pay
(31:26):
attention to, but nonethelessit's permeating, and that is
that Israel lacks a post-warplan, meaning that this you know
, not everyone in the street hasread von Clausewitz on war and
diplomacy, but people dounderstand, even instinctively,
that a war needs politicalobjectives, that military means
(31:50):
must be aligned with attainablepolitical objectives.
And what they saw were notmilitary objectives that were
unattainable, they saw nomilitary objectives at all.
And when the US came up with anidea of an international force
with an inter-Arab component init that includes the Palestinian
(32:13):
Authority, israel for twomonths refused to even engage in
that dialogue and finally saidabsolutely not.
And the Americans said okay,fine, we understand your
reservations.
If not this, then what?
To this day, eight months,almost eight months into the war
, israel did not come up with acoherent plan for post-war.
Dana Lewis (32:37):
Gaza.
I bet you Elon Pincus has one,or he at least has a vision of
how this is going to end, soI'll put you on the spot.
Alon Pinkas (32:46):
You know, it's not me, it's President Biden.
He came up with a plan.
It may sound pretentious tocall it the Biden doctrine, as
some called it, but it is, in away, a doctrine is in a way a
doctrine in that it ties a setof principles and policies into
a not perfect and not fullyarticulated, but a coherent plan
(33:09):
.
And it goes like this aceasefire and a hostage deal, an
immediate entrance of aninternational force including an
Arab component in it.
Egypt, jordan, saudi Arabia,the Emirates and Qatar have all
and Bahrain have all indicatedthat they will be willing to
(33:32):
participate in such a force.
That force has to include thePalestinian Authority.
Participate in such a force.
That force has to include thePalestinian Authority.
Once that is done, israelcommits to a peace process or a
disengagement process thatdefines its desirable goal as a
future Palestinian state.
You need not commit to anythingat that point.
(33:53):
When that happens, you startrebuilding Gaza, because Gaza
can't be rebuilt.
I'm sorry, gaza can't bereconstructed, it needs to be
rebuilt from the foundation.
As long as they understand thatthere is a peace process here,
(34:19):
that includes extendinggovernance from the West Bank to
Gaza, meaning that you have apeace process.
If that begins.
Then Saudi Arabia and Qatarnormalize relations with Israel
and Israel achieves somethingthat it's been praying for for
decades, and that is effectivelypeace with the entire Arab
(34:40):
world.
Because we have agreements withEgypt, we have a peace
agreement with Jordan, we havesort of an agreement with the
Palestinians, by force of whichthere's a Palestinian authority,
we have diplomatic relationswith the UAE, the United Arab
Emirates.
Now you'll have it with thebiggest, most important and
central country in the Arabworld today, and that's Saudi
(35:03):
Arabia, and the richest, whichis Qatar.
Once that happens, theAmericans are saying OK, now
let's sit down and talk about aloose not necessarily modeled on
NATO, modeled on NATO a defensealliance that would counter or
constitute a serious, a potentdeterrence against Iran.
(35:27):
You take this plan, you presentit to an Israeli prime minister
15 years ago, 20 years ago, 30years ago.
Everyone would take it.
How could you not?
This is exactly what we wanted.
And now you have a governmentof lunatics, of messianic
religious freaks, who thinkswell, no, you were going to say
(35:52):
something.
Dana Lewis (35:55):
No, no, I'm yeah.
We understand the nature ofthat government.
Alon Pinkas (36:03):
Some of them want to push Palestinians, intoinians
, into the desert.
In the sign I mean exactly so.
Or mr netanyahu that just wantsto prolong this?
Dana Lewis (36:09):
uh, how does it go?
Last question to you, because Iknow I'm over time how does it
go forward?
Alon Pinkas (36:15):
it doesn't.
That's the tragic thing.
It doesn't.
As long as this government isin power and as long as the
Americans are somewhat aloof andstandoffish and they are it's
not going to go anywhere.
Now, what I do think happenedtwo days ago in Rafa, with what
(36:35):
Netanyahu called a tragicmistake Well, yeah, it's a
tragic mistake, but what thehell were you thinking?
I mean, how could it not happen?
Dana Lewis (36:46):
Everybody's warned you have 800,000.
About entering Rafa.
Everybody's warned them aboutbombing Rafa.
Everybody's warned them awayfrom Rafa.
Alon Pinkas (36:53):
Exactly, and so, until and after this government
is done with, I don't thinkanything is going to move
forward.
When are they done?
That depends, I still think,sooner rather than later.
I think that it's a matter oftime before the coalition begins
(37:13):
to crack and then disintegrate.
Parallel to two other thingsYou're going to see Benny Gantz,
the former chief of staff andhead of one of the opposition
parties, withdraw from thegovernment.
That will then give an impetusto widespread demonstrations,
(37:33):
which in turn may rile thecoalition, and at the same time,
you will have the chief of thegeneral staff, you will have the
head of the Shabbat, thegeneral security service, resign
, and they will not walk.
You know, they will not saluteand walk away.
They will say things about MrNetanyahu.
(37:54):
They will not have the onlything that they have left, and
that is the reputation that theyhad before October 7th, be
tarnished by Mr Netanyahu.
And so what everyone is waitingfor is the convergence of all
these processes onto one point along time.
(38:19):
I think that is going to happenin the next two, three months,
but I may be wrong.
Dana Lewis (38:25):
Alon Pinkus, it is and I never say it lightly a
privilege to talk to you.
Alon Pinkas (38:29):
Thank, you Privilege to be on your show,
Dana.
Dana Lewis (38:32):
And that's our backstory this week.
Share the podcast if you likeit, and how couldn't you?
Alon Pinkas (42:07):
no-transcript.
Well, the ICC is fundamentally illegitimate.
It's an infringement onnational sovereignty,
particularly for countries thathaven't adopted it.
It doesn't have any realability to affect the real world
, accountable, unelected,unbeholden to any democratic
(00:24):
authority, just kind of outthere.
No executive branch, nojudicial branch.
It's a pretend court.
Alon Pinkas (00:30):
There's this myth in Israeli politics that many in
the world, and the world mediaindeed, have bought into, and
that is that Mr Netanyahu is avictim here and he is being held
hostage by an impossiblecoalition that is extorting him,
that is making his lifedifficult, that is constricting
(00:53):
his womb of maneuvering Nonsense.
This is entirely his making.
Dana Lewis (01:15):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis, this week'ssmart, insightful Alon Pincus,
who has advised Israeli leadersin the past, now on the present
and where Israel goes in its warwith Gaza.
But first, ambassador JohnBolton, on the International
Criminal Court, which he sayshas no authority, and on foreign
(01:38):
affairs, from China and Taiwanto Ukraine and Russia, taiwan to
Ukraine and Russia.
Ambassador John Bolton is aformer national security advisor
under the Trump administration.
He was also the US ambassadorto the UN serving under George W
Bush.
Welcome, mr Ambassador, good tosee you again, glad to be with
(02:00):
you as we speak.
I like to start with the news.
I mean there are reports thatIsraeli tanks now are in the
center of Rafah and, as you know, the ICC, the International
Criminal Court, is pursuingarrest warrants not only against
Hamas but against a number ofIsraelis, including Prime
Minister Netanyahu.
Why shouldn't they, in yourview, be doing that?
(02:22):
Why?
John Bolton (02:23):
shouldn't they, in your view, be doing that?
Well, the ICC is fundamentallyillegitimate.
It's an infringement onnational sovereignty,
particularly for countries thathaven't adopted it.
It doesn't have any realability to affect the real world
.
It's like a piece of government, unaccountable, unelected,
(02:45):
unbeholden to any democraticauthority, just kind of out
there.
No executive branch, nojudicial branch.
It's a pretend court.
It's a pretend court, like theInternational Court of Justice,
usually called the World Court,and it issues pretend rulings
based on a pretend jurisdiction.
Here the pretense is that theICC has jurisdiction because of
(03:07):
the state of Palestine, whichdoesn't exist, and so they are
purporting to go after Israeliofficials based on that tenuous
hook, even though Israel, likethe United States, like China,
russia and India, have neveragreed to the statute the Rome
Statute that creates theInternational Criminal Court.
(03:28):
So this is a kind of fantasythat the world has indulged in
for a long time, that courtswill resolve international
political questions, and legalinstitutions are no good at
resolving political questions.
That's why our courts in thiscountry don't touch them, and
it's why the very notion of aninternational criminal court is
(03:50):
so inherently political and sounaccountable, as it's been
created, that I think Israel canjust safely ignore what they
say.
Dana Lewis (03:59):
But why shouldn't that court be empowered, john?
I mean, why shouldn't countrieslike the US and many countries
do support the ICC?
Why shouldn't countries likethe US sign on to to serving
their arrest warrants andhelping them prosecute war
criminals, in effect, if that'swhat, indeed, they prove to be?
John Bolton (04:21):
Well, if other countries want to do it, that's
up to them, but I regard it as afundamentally anti-democratic
institution.
We are a democratic rule of lawconstitutional society and we
hold our leaders accountablewhen they don't live up to our
legal standards.
We don't need a bunch ofinternational nannies or
(04:41):
platonic guardians who thinkthey have some higher vision of
what's right, telling us what todo.
That's just not evencontemplated in the Constitution
.
We judge ourselves.
We make mistakes.
We're human.
By the way, so are the judgeson the International Criminal
Court.
Nobody sprinkled angel dust ontheir heads when they put those
(05:03):
robes on to make them completelyperfect.
And that's the sort of fantasythat says well, I can get rid of
my responsibility to protectmyself and to behave responsibly
in the international system byexpecting some court's going to
take care of everything for me.
Dana Lewis (05:22):
So it may be that you get an enemy country or a
hostile country that has undueinfluence over that next panel
of judges prosecuting America orCanada, or Britain for that
matter.
John Bolton (05:35):
Yeah, look, nobody has ever shown that the world
court or the ICC has everdeterred a bad guy from doing
anything, and that's why theBiden administration rejection
of the effort to get arrestwarrants for Israeli officials
is an unsatisfactory answer.
And, by the way, the onlyAmerican politician of any note
(05:58):
who supports this decision isBernie Sanders, which tells you
a lot.
You can't say we're in favor ofa court that goes after bad
guys but doesn't go after goodguys, and in fact, vladimir
Putin, xi Jinping, the AyatollahKhamenei, kim Jong-un in North
Korea they couldn't care lesswhat this court does.
Dana Lewis (06:17):
What do you think?
In one of the op-eds that youwrote that disruling the issuing
of potential warrants againstpeople like Netanyahu could
spell an end to the court.
John Bolton (06:29):
Well, you know, I've been writing about what's
wrong with the ICC for over 25years and at a debate in Harvard
in the late 1990s I said the USwill not join the ICC within
the lifetime.
Of anybody in this room Now,that was almost 25 years ago.
The court has not lived up toanybody's expectations.
(06:52):
And now, by going after Israel,a democratic rule of law
society fighting against theexistential threat of
Iranian-backed terrorism isbeing second-guessed by a group
of people with no responsibility, no accountability If they turn
out to be wrong on this, havingexercised this enormous threat
(07:14):
of arrest warrants, where doesIsrael go to get satisfaction
for having been unfairly treatedIn the middle of this kind of
conflict?
To say that there's any warrantfor thinking that the ICC is
going to make a positivecontribution.
The argument just doesn't fly.
Why do you think it could bethe end of the court?
Because I think so many peoplein this country now see what the
(07:39):
court is like in operation andby going after Israel it's often
said Israel is the canary inthe coal mine for the United
States that people go after themfirst when the real objective
is attacking us.
So when you have 535 members ofthe House and the Senate and a
big one has spoken up in supportof what the court has done.
(08:00):
I think that's prettysignificant.
Dana Lewis (08:03):
Switch gears.
Your old boss is before thecourt this week.
Former President Trump.
Regardless of what the courtrules do you still believe that
he's unfit to be president?
And why don't a lot ofAmericans agree with you?
Because he's still ridingpretty high in the polls.
John Bolton (08:19):
Well, I do think he's unfit to be president, and
it's too bad that people whoagree with me haven't been able
to explain clearly enough whythat is.
I think this prosecution, whichis based on an unfounded and, I
think, erroneous legal theoryabout what constitutes a
violation of federal electionlaw Remember, this is a New York
(08:40):
state court, a New York stateprosecutor.
We're talking about that.
An acquittal or a hung juryhere will actually help Trump,
because it will show that hisargument that he's being picked
on by the deep state and by theBiden administration may turn
out to be true and, if he'sconvicted, it may help him as
(09:00):
well, because it will furtherprove that he's being picked on
by the deep state.
I just think if your objectiveis to make sure that Trump's not
elected, you have to bear inmind what his supporters think,
and that's why what I've beentrying to do is argue why he's
unfit.
Going after him through whatsome people call lawfare, I
(09:22):
think could turn out toboomerang.
It's like you're forgetting theobjective.
Some people are just so eagerto see Trump prosecuted that
they're not thinking throughthat the consequences of the
prosecution might actually helpTrump politically, whatever the
verdict Russia and Ukraine.
Dana Lewis (09:38):
you no doubt are watching the situation and
you're an expert on a lot ofthis.
They're going after Kharkiv.
I mean.
I think it's heartbreaking tosee some of these missiles
hitting residential areas andmalls and a factory that was
binding books.
The Russians are increasinglyinvading from the north, saying
(10:04):
that there are restrictions onthe weapons that America have
given to Ukraine not to use themin Russia.
Can you assess all of that forme?
Is it a mistake in foreignpolicy right now to keep the
handcuffs?
John Bolton (10:17):
on Ukraine.
Well, I think it's absolutely amistake to keep the handcuffs
on Ukraine.
In fact, NATO Secretary GeneralJens Stoltenberg is now saying
the time has come to lift theselimits.
Really, the time came onFebruary the 24th 2022, when the
Russians invaded.
You can't respond to anunprovoked act of aggression
(10:38):
like that by saying I thinkwe'll just fight this war on the
territory of the country that'sattacked and not go after the
territory of the aggressor.
I mean, I just think this is amatter of common sense that the
Biden administration has badlymishandled under the misbegotten
fear that somehow Putin has thecapability to make a wider war.
(11:00):
If he had the troops and thecapability to do that, he would
have done it already, or hewould have sent these troops
into Ukraine, where his army hasbehaved incredibly poorly.
So I think we've put theserestraints on ourselves in
Ukraine from the beginning ofthe conflict after the Russian
invasion.
It was a mistake, like themistake of doling out different
(11:23):
kinds of weapon systems toUkraine after long, painful
debate, not strategically, notthinking how can we help Ukraine
achieve victory over Russia.
Because we've deterredourselves, we have hampered our
own effort for this illusoryfear of a wider war.
Dana Lewis (11:41):
You don't believe that Putin?
Well, actually you're notsaying that, so let's clarify Do
you believe that Putin wants awider war, whether he can mount?
John Bolton (11:51):
one or not, this war when it began and the notion
that they would try and spreadthe war invites what's left of
the Russian army from beingchewed up as well.
(12:12):
And I will say that Putin'snuclear threats, which he has
made from time to time, havenever shown any redeployment of
any Russian nuclear forces.
And I think if theadministration has done anything
, it's tried to convince Putinthat it would be disastrous if
he did use nuclear weapons.
(12:33):
I think you always take thethreat seriously, but I think
throughout the past two-plusyears here from Moscow, it's
been nothing but bluff.
So what?
Dana Lewis (12:42):
does the West do to give Ukraine a victory?
John Bolton (12:45):
Ambassador Bolton, Well, I think, live up to what
the stated position of everyNATO member is, which is a
restoration of full sovereigntyand territorial integrity to
Ukraine, and by saying, ok, well, if that's the objective, what
do we need to do to give Ukrainethe wherewithal to do it?
I mean, there have been somecalls.
French President Macron saidrecently we should consider
(13:06):
putting NATO troops on theground in Ukraine.
I don't particularly care ifFrance does that I don't think
he actually means it but I don'tthink NATO troops on the ground
are required.
I think the Ukrainians areprepared to continue to do the
fighting.
We just have to aid them in astrategic way, which we have not
done.
Dana Lewis (13:24):
Last question on China.
I'm making you work hard hereon so many things
internationally today and Iappreciate your time.
China, of course, by the way,has helped Russia a lot with the
use of some of the microchipsthat are in missiles and tanks
and other things.
But China has now encircled theisland of Taiwan after a very
(13:44):
pro-democracy president waselected in the latest election.
How should America handle this?
Would America come to Taiwan'said, do you think, and what
should be done?
I mean because Taiwan is reallybeing pressured by mainland
China.
John Bolton (14:00):
Well, I think we should be prepared to come to
Taiwan's aid, but I think theway to make sure it never
happens is to do a lot of thingswe could do but are not doing
to deter China.
There's the threat of a Chineseinvasion around Taiwan and, in
effect, defy the United States,japan and others to come to
(14:30):
Taiwan's aid and break theblockade.
And if we don't, then I thinkTaiwan would fall into China's
lap like a piece of ripe fruit,which is really what China wants
.
They don't want to do to Taiwanwhat Russia is currently doing
to Ukraine.
They want all of Taiwan'sproductive facilities, including
particularly the chipfabricators, to come in
(14:52):
basically unharmed.
So I think we need a lot morethinking and, even more than
that, a lot more action abouthow to put Taiwan in a place
where Beijing is deterred bothfrom thinking about an actual
invasion but also deterred fromeven contemplating a blockade.
And one way to do that, in myview, is to announce that we're
(15:13):
going to home port a couple ofAmerican naval bases in
Kaohsiung, the biggest port cityin Taiwan, basically to show
our presence there and to makeit clear to China that if they
did put a blockade around Taiwan, whatever we think of the
Taiwanese we would have to cometo provide security for our own
(15:37):
assets there, and that would besomething, I think, that would
be a powerful deterrent to Chinafrom getting into this to begin
with, ambassador.
Dana Lewis (15:46):
John Bolton, always great to talk to you.
Thank you so much, John Well,thanks again for having me.
Alon Pincus is a diplomat andhe also served as Israel's
consul general to New York, andit was a foreign policy advisor
to multiple foreign and primeministers.
As the advisor to multipleforeign and prime ministers,
unofficially he was this wisesage walking the dark back halls
(16:11):
and boardrooms of power,whispering into the ears of
political leaders the recipes ofwhat they needed to do that,
hopefully, wasn't just to holdon to power alone, but also to
do the right thing.
Can I say that?
Alon Pinkas (16:29):
thing is that.
Can I say that, yeah, but youknow, although to to be fair, um
, I gotta, I gotta say you know,two, two, uh, um, two caveats
here.
One is they rarely listened andtwo is it wasn't about.
You know, the power relates tothe politics and I mostly I did
foreign policy, relations withthe us and so, um, combine the
two and they basically did notheed any of those.
Dana Lewis (16:50):
All right, you can imagine the next question, right
?
The scenario is I don't know ifyou want to get that close to
the guy, but you are very withininches of the ear of Prime
Minister Netanyahu.
What would you be whisperinginto those ears right now?
Alon Pinkas (17:04):
Well, okay, it's an improbbable, implausible
scenario, because under undercurrent political conditions, I
would really not get close tohim.
Um, and and that that you know.
That takes us back to themoment he formed the government.
Um, I would have advised himthen do not form a government
(17:26):
with these extreme right-winglunatics.
I understand what you're tryingto do.
I understand that politicalsurvival is your utmost and
ultimate concern.
I understand that you're facingthree indictments and an
ongoing trial.
I understand that you feel thatyou're being persecuted by a
vast left-wing liberal cabal ineach state.
(17:49):
But, mr Prime Minister, youasked for my advice, so here I'm
giving it to you.
This is the recipe that's goingto ultimately bring you down.
John Bolton (18:00):
And it will.
Alon Pinkas (18:03):
Go ahead.
Sorry, I don't want tointerrupt.
Given that advice, which heobviously did not heed, I would
tell him, throughout 2023, toback off from the constitutional
coup that he instigated.
And I would say look, I knowwhat you think you're getting
out of this.
I understand where this anger,resentment and frustration with
(18:27):
the judiciary comes from.
You think it's an elite thingagainst you.
You think it's a deep stateconspiracy against you, but this
is going to divide the peoplein a way that will ultimately
bring you down and then we movefurther forward.
Okay, so we did not heed thatadvice either.
(18:48):
We are on September.
I'm sorry, we are on October7th.
I would tell him to resign andif I see that he's unwilling to,
I would say, okay, so do atleast the following Stand up,
say that this was a horrendouscatastrophe, that this was a
(19:10):
debacle, that, whatever thecircumstances, whatever the
causes, it was under your watch.
You cannot, at this point, dealwith politics, but you
understand people's devastationand anger and you understand why
(19:31):
people hold you responsible andaccountable, which is why I,
prime Minister BenjaminNetanyahu, am announcing here
that this is not a time forresignation, because this needs
to be managed, and I think Icould do it, it, but I'm calling
for an election 10 months fromnow.
He did not heed that adviceeither, so I he took part of it.
Dana Lewis (19:57):
He said that we'll try to form some kind of
national unity or coalitioncabinet.
Alon Pinkas (20:04):
That's a fortune cookie slip of paper that he
meant nothing by he meantnothing by.
Dana Lewis (20:10):
He meant I'm staying no matter what it takes.
Alon Pinkas (20:14):
And that's basically what he's saying.
More importantly, that isfundamentally what he is doing.
He is trying to distancehimself from the debacle of
October 7th.
He's trying to formulate orcraft some kind of an
alternative narrative in whichthis really wasn't about October
(20:35):
7th.
It was never about himstrengthening Hamas in order to
weaken the Palestinian Authority.
This was always about the worldtrying to superimpose a
Palestinian state on him.
This is all about acivilizational conflict with
Iran.
So you know, if there was afailure on October 7th and there
(20:58):
definitely was it was the IDF'sfault.
It was the intelligenceservices' fault.
They did not alert him.
They led him to think thatHamas is not interested in a war
, that Hamas is busy trying tocover Gaza.
He went along with that, soit's not his responsibility.
That, of course, is bogus anddisingenuous, but that is the
(21:20):
narrative that he's trying tosolve.
In order to advance thatnarrative, you see his
deliberate attempts to seekconfrontation with President
Biden, even though it seemscounterintuitive and almost
patently illogical to whomeveris listening or watching us.
(21:40):
But that's exactly what he'sdoing in order to prove and
vindicate himself that this isabout Biden stopping him from a
major victory and trying toimpose, superimpose a
Palestinian state on him.
He will stand up to, and he'sthe only one who can resist.
Dana Lewis (21:58):
Well, that kind of takes me.
I didn't want to go in thisdirection, but I will, because
you mentioned that you wouldhave advised him at the very
beginning don't bring thesecrazy radical rights into your
cabinet.
Alon Pinkas (22:10):
I would have advised him.
I would have advised him, youwould have advised him.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Dana Lewis (22:17):
I know I don't advise him.
You would have advised him.
Alon Pinkas (22:18):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know I don't advise him.
I'm not on speaking terms withhim.
Dana Lewis (22:22):
I assumed that, yeah , but I mean you're cutting him
a little bit of distance there,You're cutting him a little bit
of slack when it comes to.
You know, there's the radicalright and Netanyahu, who just
formed a government with thembecause he wanted to be in power
, because he wouldn't have had acoalition otherwise.
I mean, he's pretty righthimself is he not?
Alon Pinkas (22:46):
Oh yeah, but you asked me very politely to
pretend that I'm advising and Itold you that that's improbable
and implausible.
Exactly because of what yousaid, I don't think there's any
daylight between the extremeright wingers.
The only noticeable difference,the only discernible political
(23:06):
difference, is that they employmessianic religious language,
while he uses nationalistic,semi-authoritarian life, and
it's a big difference inpolitical science.
In real life, it is completelyblurred.
I don't think you know.
There's this myth in Israelipolitics that many in the world,
(23:33):
and the world media indeed,have bought into, and that is
that Mr Netanyahu is a victimhere and he is being held
hostage by an impassablecoalition that is extorting him,
that is making his lifedifficult, that is constricting
his room of maneuvering Nonsense.
(23:53):
This is entirely his making,and it's his making not because
of a lack of politicalalternative.
He had a political alternative.
Dana Lewis (24:04):
Don't forget.
Let me just pick up on that ifyou don't mind and I don't want
to interrupt.
No, you're not.
You've just written a piece forHaaretz last week.
I think it was where you wroteNetanyahu believing, or
pretending to believe, andimpart the impression that
Israel cannot exist without him.
He's instigated aconstitutional coup to weaken
(24:24):
the judiciary and degrade checksand balances, with one purpose
in mind transitioning Israelinto an authoritarian state that
he believes is crucial to itssurvival, not just his survival.
Sorry, I went out of thequotation there.
Back to the quotes.
He's perverted historyrepeatedly, talking about this
being 1938 all over again, asthe existential condition of
(24:47):
Israel, a danger that only hecan avert.
Is that his way of holding onto power?
Does he actually believe that'sthe?
Alon Pinkas (24:56):
Both, both and I don't know which came first
whether or not he developed thisLouis XIV syndrome in which he
identifies himself with thestate.
Let us say why.
I am the state, therefore thestate cannot exist without me,
which is sort of a distortion ofwhat Louis XIV actually said,
(25:16):
but that's beside the point.
Sort of a distortion of whatLouis XIV actually said, but
that's beside the point.
So I don't know if he beganthat way and waited for the
right time and opportunity toshape politics in that image or,
conversely, because of hispolitical travails, because of
his political predicaments, hedeveloped this as a defense
(25:39):
mechanism against his politicalouster.
Listen, he failed to win thelast five election campaigns.
He failed in 2019, twice in 2020, and again in 2021, in which a
(25:59):
more centrist, even though acentrist right-wing government
was formed, but without.
That was devastating for him,because that left him, in his
mind, completely exposed to histrial, which is a trial for
bribery and corruption andobstruction of justice and so on
bribery and corruption andobstruction of justice, and so
(26:24):
on.
And then he vowed that if shegets even close to forming a
government, he will not allowthe centrist or the centrist
left into that government, eventhough it makes sense in the
state of Israel.
But he needs to extricatehimself from that trial and he
needs to change the judiciary,weaken the guardrails, weaken
the checks and balances, weakenthe gatekeepers, to the point
(26:46):
where his trial will meannothing.
Dana Lewis (26:51):
That seems to be an international recipe right now
for America, for Russia, for wecan go on and on and in.
Alon Pinkas (26:58):
Hungary and Brazil and many, many and, by the way,
that is that is his referenceteam, that these are his
soulmates Bolsonaro in Braziland Orban in Hungary, and Putin
and maybe Trump again in Americaand Lukashenko in Belarus and
(27:20):
his buddy, trump in America.
Dana Lewis (27:23):
So the polls say that.
You know, most Israelis don'tsupport Netanyahu.
They think he should go, butthey do support the ongoing
military campaign in Gaza.
What do you make of that,despite all of the problems
there and the lack of victory?
Alon Pinkas (27:38):
because the devastation of october 7th was,
uh, life-changing for a lot ofisraelis, because it wasn't just
a terror attack, uh, that woulddevastate anyone any day.
It was.
It was on a scale, um, thatthat few israelis could even
fathom was possible.
Not only was it devastating inthe number of deaths and the
(28:04):
barbarity and gory way in whichit was done, but it was
humiliating militarily.
It was humiliating in termsthat, you know, it wasn't a
one-guy suicide bomber, itwasn't blowing up a building or
a plane, or a cafe or a bus.
This was an invasion.
(28:25):
True, this is not the GermanWehrmacht of World War II, it's
a terror group, but nonetheless,there were over 2,000 Hamas
fighters, terrorists, murderers,call them what you want who
crossed the border and it tookthe IDF 48 hours to push them
(28:49):
out Slightly less than 48, butin that vicinity, and the
stories and the pictures and thedescriptions of what went on on
October 7th in those villages,towns, on Kibbutzim, along the
Gaza-Israel border, were suchthat the anger, the resentment,
(29:12):
the sense of revenge, thecomplete indifference to what
will happen.
Dana Lewis (29:16):
And I don't want to wallpaper over any of that
because even now, more imagesare coming out and you know
these young women doing theirmillouine, doing their army
service, and you know, if peoplehaven't seen it, it's the Hamas
gunmen standing over them.
Alon Pinkas (29:36):
I'm talking about how beautiful some of them are
after they just murdered theirand then went on, and then went
on I don't want to be gory herebut then went on to rape them
Absolutely.
Dana Lewis (29:49):
Now, this is what's driven Israelis to enter Gaza.
So how does it For Israelis?
Is there an end goal here?
I mean no, no, no.
They want to remove Hamas.
Alon Pinkas (30:01):
I did not finish answering your previous question
, so sorry.
So you understand why thesupport for the war was so
comprehensive, so broad and sodeep.
Now, as the months went by,people starting to sense that
this is not going according toplan.
(30:21):
So then they started.
Then they started questioning,and now I'm moving to your
current question.
Then they started questioningwhether there even was a plan
because, because you know, atthe outset the US warned Israel
publicly obviously in private,but then publicly that the only
(30:43):
way you're going to sort ofeliminate Hamas which is a goal
that is unattainable to beginwith, but let's assume it is
viable or feasible militarilythe only way that can be
achieved is if you reoccupy theGaza Strip and stay there for
months, if not years.
And since the US urged Israelnot to do so, and since Israel
(31:06):
gave all the indications that itdoes not intend to, people
started questioning what's goingon with the war.
You have to add to that acompletely other dimension that
you know the person on thestreet, the average Joe walking
in Tel Aviv or Haifa orJerusalem, doesn't perhaps pay
(31:26):
attention to, but nonethelessit's permeating, and that is
that Israel lacks a post-warplan, meaning that this you know
, not everyone in the street hasread von Clausewitz on war and
diplomacy, but people dounderstand, even instinctively,
that a war needs politicalobjectives, that military means
(31:50):
must be aligned with attainablepolitical objectives.
And what they saw were notmilitary objectives that were
unattainable, they saw nomilitary objectives at all.
And when the US came up with anidea of an international force
with an inter-Arab component init that includes the Palestinian
(32:13):
Authority, israel for twomonths refused to even engage in
that dialogue and finally saidabsolutely not.
And the Americans said okay,fine, we understand your
reservations.
If not this, then what?
To this day, eight months,almost eight months into the war
, israel did not come up with acoherent plan for post-war.
Dana Lewis (32:37):
Gaza.
I bet you Elon Pincus has one,or he at least has a vision of
how this is going to end, soI'll put you on the spot.
Alon Pinkas (32:46):
You know, it's not me, it's President Biden.
He came up with a plan.
It may sound pretentious tocall it the Biden doctrine, as
some called it, but it is, in away, a doctrine is in a way a
doctrine in that it ties a setof principles and policies into
a not perfect and not fullyarticulated, but a coherent plan
(33:09):
.
And it goes like this aceasefire and a hostage deal, an
immediate entrance of aninternational force including an
Arab component in it.
Egypt, jordan, saudi Arabia,the Emirates and Qatar have all
and Bahrain have all indicatedthat they will be willing to
(33:32):
participate in such a force.
That force has to include thePalestinian Authority.
Participate in such a force.
That force has to include thePalestinian Authority.
Once that is done, israelcommits to a peace process or a
disengagement process thatdefines its desirable goal as a
future Palestinian state.
You need not commit to anythingat that point.
(33:53):
When that happens, you startrebuilding Gaza, because Gaza
can't be rebuilt.
I'm sorry, gaza can't bereconstructed, it needs to be
rebuilt from the foundation.
As long as they understand thatthere is a peace process here,
(34:19):
that includes extendinggovernance from the West Bank to
Gaza, meaning that you have apeace process.
If that begins.
Then Saudi Arabia and Qatarnormalize relations with Israel
and Israel achieves somethingthat it's been praying for for
decades, and that is effectivelypeace with the entire Arab
(34:40):
world.
Because we have agreements withEgypt, we have a peace
agreement with Jordan, we havesort of an agreement with the
Palestinians, by force of whichthere's a Palestinian authority,
we have diplomatic relationswith the UAE, the United Arab
Emirates.
Now you'll have it with thebiggest, most important and
central country in the Arabworld today, and that's Saudi
(35:03):
Arabia, and the richest, whichis Qatar.
Once that happens, theAmericans are saying OK, now
let's sit down and talk about aloose not necessarily modeled on
NATO, modeled on NATO a defensealliance that would counter or
constitute a serious, a potentdeterrence against Iran.
(35:27):
You take this plan, you presentit to an Israeli prime minister
15 years ago, 20 years ago, 30years ago.
Everyone would take it.
How could you not?
This is exactly what we wanted.
And now you have a governmentof lunatics, of messianic
religious freaks, who thinkswell, no, you were going to say
(35:52):
something.
Dana Lewis (35:55):
No, no, I'm yeah.
We understand the nature ofthat government.
Alon Pinkas (36:03):
Some of them want to push Palestinians, intoinians
, into the desert.
In the sign I mean exactly so.
Or mr netanyahu that just wantsto prolong this?
Dana Lewis (36:09):
uh, how does it go?
Last question to you, because Iknow I'm over time how does it
go forward?
Alon Pinkas (36:15):
it doesn't.
That's the tragic thing.
It doesn't.
As long as this government isin power and as long as the
Americans are somewhat aloof andstandoffish and they are it's
not going to go anywhere.
Now, what I do think happenedtwo days ago in Rafa, with what
(36:35):
Netanyahu called a tragicmistake Well, yeah, it's a
tragic mistake, but what thehell were you thinking?
I mean, how could it not happen?
Dana Lewis (36:46):
Everybody's warned you have 800,000.
About entering Rafa.
Everybody's warned them aboutbombing Rafa.
Everybody's warned them awayfrom Rafa.
Alon Pinkas (36:53):
Exactly, and so, until and after this government
is done with, I don't thinkanything is going to move
forward.
When are they done?
That depends, I still think,sooner rather than later.
I think that it's a matter oftime before the coalition begins
(37:13):
to crack and then disintegrate.
Parallel to two other thingsYou're going to see Benny Gantz,
the former chief of staff andhead of one of the opposition
parties, withdraw from thegovernment.
That will then give an impetusto widespread demonstrations,
(37:33):
which in turn may rile thecoalition, and at the same time,
you will have the chief of thegeneral staff, you will have the
head of the Shabbat, thegeneral security service, resign
, and they will not walk.
You know, they will not saluteand walk away.
They will say things about MrNetanyahu.
(37:54):
They will not have the onlything that they have left, and
that is the reputation that theyhad before October 7th, be
tarnished by Mr Netanyahu.
And so what everyone is waitingfor is the convergence of all
these processes onto one point along time.
(38:19):
I think that is going to happenin the next two, three months,
but I may be wrong.
Dana Lewis (38:25):
Alon Pinkus, it is and I never say it lightly a
privilege to talk to you.
Alon Pinkas (38:29):
Thank, you Privilege to be on your show,
Dana.
Dana Lewis (38:32):
And that's our backstory this week.
Share the podcast if you likeit, and how couldn't you?
Alon Pinkas (42:07):
no-transcript.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
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!
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