May 3, 2024 • 64 mins
On Back Story Journalists Reena Ninan and Dana Lewis, scrutinize the fabric of free speech and human rights, in the wake of police raids on University Campus' in America.
Controversial debates on global arms supply take center stage when Omar Shakir of Human Rights Watch joins us, and his calls for justice against war crimes carried out by Israel and Hamas.
And a new aid package for Ukraine to fight off Russia - will it make a difference?
(Ret) U.S. Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt weighing in on the Biden administration's latest arms approval. "Not a game changer" but a vital chapter in Ukraine's defence says Kimmitt.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Dana Lewis (00:00):
I guess it remains to be seen, when those people go
to court, really who they were.
Reena Ninan (00:06):
I do believe that what we saw in New York there
were some outside actors becauseit turned so violent in some,
there were some violent moments,I do believe Was the use of
force justified.
I think that's a question thatmany universities have to
grapple with.
Dana Lewis (00:21):
So does Human Rights Watch.
Line up in the camp that saysno weapons at all to Israel.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights (00:26):
Human Rights Watch has been very
clear, and this is around theworld, it's not unique to Israel
.
Anytime there's a risk that theweapons will be used for the
commission of serious abuses.
Anytime we've documented apractice of systematic rights
abuse, we call for an armsembargo.
We call for arms to be cut off,to be suspended, so long as
those abuses continue.
(00:46):
That is our position in thecase of Israel-Palestine.
So what?
Dana Lewis (00:50):
changes the game if it's not more weapons.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (00:53):
I think we've got to take the gloves
off.
I think if the Ukrainians aregoing to have a measurable
effect and perhaps even somewhatof a victory in the fight,
we've got to lift theserestrictions, not only on the
use of the weapons, but I justthink we've got to unleash and
(01:14):
take off the handcuffs that wehave put on these weapons
systems.
Dana Lewis (01:26):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
This week, as police are calledin to restore order on American
university campuses, was itnecessary to arrest
pro-Palestinian students?
Was it free speech or a steptoo far in occupying buildings
and camping out in defiance ofuniversity rules?
Journalist Rina Naina weighs inIn the West Bank thousands of
(01:52):
Palestinians suffering fromviolence from extremist settlers
supported by the Israeli army,human Rights Watch, omar Shakir,
on the arrests of thousands.
While the siege of Gazacontinues.
And Ukraine.
The Biden administration hasapproved $61 billion in new
weapons.
Better late than never, says USBrigadier General Mark Kimmett.
(02:15):
But he also says a deal withRussia to stop the war will have
to happen eventually.
Reena Nainan is an American TVbroadcaster.
She's a podcast host and she isalso running a company called
Good Trouble Productions.
Hi, reena, how are you doing?
Reena Ninan (02:36):
Hey, dana, great to be with you.
Dana Lewis (02:37):
Did I get all that?
Reena Ninan (02:37):
right, got all that right.
Good, well done, well done.
(03:08):
Help me walk through what'shappening in the US right now
Some pretty ordinary and yet,when you look at the width and
breadth of it, extraordinaryscenes coming from not only the
UCLA overnight, but otheruniversities and colleges where
police are, you know, raidingthose colleges and arresting
students, pro-palestiniandemonstrations.
I think the big news, everyonereally has been captivated by
Columbia University and we'veseen New York Police Department
this week, just in the pastcouple of days, arrest close to
300 people who had been insideof this hall for days,
essentially, and they had threebig demands One, they wanted the
(03:29):
university to divest fromIsrael.
They wanted to know moretransparency on who and what the
university is invested in.
And third, they wanted amnesty.
They wanted no disciplinaryaction for their actions.
With these protests and thislock-in into this university
hall, what I found fascinatingare two other universities
Overnight.
(03:50):
Northwestern University andBrown University have actually
come up with agreements withthese campus and they're going
to allow more Palestinianstudents, they're going to fund
for a couple of years twoPalestinian professors and Brown
(04:13):
University is going to alsohave a committee that'll allow
students to have an opendiscussion and dialogue with
university officials ondivestment, on who and what they
are invested in.
It's a fascinating, hopefullyan end for these universities,
because what has captivated theworld are the sometimes violent
images that have come out ofthis, and New York Police
(04:34):
Department has said that it'stheir belief that some of these
protesters they were outsideinfluence, including people who
had taken part in Occupy WallStreet in 2020.
Dana Lewis (04:44):
Yeah, I mean, that's where it takes a turn, doesn't
it?
Because I mean, a lot of it isroutine in the sense that these
are, you know, students who feel, rightly or wrongly, that the
Palestinian cause is worthsupporting and that the US
administration shouldn't besupporting Israel, and they talk
about the divestment from armsmanufacturing and some of those
(05:06):
companies that you mentioned.
And yet you have the arrests atColumbia, where you know, one
of the intelligence officialswith the NYPD then made the case
in front of the mayor as well,right, and with the mayor's
support, that this was moresinister than just students at
(05:27):
Columbia, that these protestersquote unquote have been
influenced by external actorswho are unaffiliated with the
university, some of whom havebeen known to our department and
others for many years.
They're dangerous, disruptiveand criminally activity
associated with protests foryears.
Is that just justifying thepolice going in there in a very
(05:51):
muscular way, or do we I guessit remains to be seen when those
people go to court, really whothey were?
Reena Ninan (06:00):
I do believe that what we saw in New York there
were some outside actors becauseit turned so violent in some
there were some violent moments,I do believe Was the use of
force justified.
I think that's a question thatmany universities have to
grapple with over and over again.
University of Texas there's onejournalism professor early on
(06:20):
last week who said that I saw aFacebook post saying that he had
interviewed 50 of the peoplewho were just a simple sit-in.
They were just totallynonviolent, sitting in and Texas
had brought in all of thesepolice officers and the
professor was saying they have aright to be able to protest
peacefully.
It's a sit-in and these wereall university students.
I interviewed all of them.
(06:42):
I think what happens is peoplefrom the outside or other
outside actors can sometimescome into these universities and
that's where the blurring ofthe line happens.
But you know, is the forcejustified?
On campuses?
They see one thing, then theystart to think the other.
It is a very complicatedsituation.
I was last week on the campus ofGeorge Washington University
(07:03):
for a board meeting and I haveto say it popped up overnight
Largely peaceful students oncampus, but where the university
drew the line was they made itvery clear anybody from the
outside, including theneighboring schools like
American or Georgetown, anybodycoming onto campus to protest
will be considered trespassers.
(07:23):
Coming onto campus to protestwill be considered trespassers.
And I think part of it wasbecause they're seeing the
outside influence from otheruniversities and they said you
on campus can protest peacefully, but we're not letting this get
out of hand.
And then we saw the reverse theDC Police Department refused to
come in and step in when theywere called as well.
So it's become so politicized.
I was happy to see that somesort of deal was reached with
Northwestern and BrownUniversity, because it has
(07:46):
gotten out of hand in manycollege campuses.
But you also want to balancethe right to freedom of speech
and ability to protest in apeaceful way.
Dana Lewis (07:55):
And we don't know who.
On the pro-Israeli side.
A lot of them were wearingmasks when they were clashing
with pro-Palestiniandemonstrators and it got very
violent.
It's one of the reasons why thepolice came into UCLA in the
(08:19):
end.
Who they were?
Pro-palestinian demonstratorsmay, in fact, not be students
and may be connected to othermovements and criminal, you know
, with criminal pasts.
I mean, you question who werethese pro-Israeli demonstrators
as well.
So it does seem like, I mean,the vast majority of them are
students, but there were outsideinfluencers in there trying to
(08:43):
light a fire, you know, and kickoff a powder keg.
So what is the Bidenadministration when you talk
about?
It's become so political.
What are they doing wrong?
Reena Ninan (08:54):
I think part of it started in the beginning because
I think there was a misjudgmentof the Arab streets, and Arab
streets I mean some of the Arabstreets also in America.
Very quickly, this became notjust about the Palestinian
(09:32):
people but, as one person said,we don't care if you're Sunni or
Shiite.
This is an issue that affectsall.
So complicated feel like thisis the underdog.
You know the Hamas officialnumbers according to them was
35,000 killed and that theseatrocities should not be allowed
to happen.
And this is America.
You should have the right, andyou do have the right, to
peacefully protest, but it can'tcome at the expense of other
people's safety and security.
That's determined already.
And if you look at the Israelipeople, dana, as you know,
they've been for two yearsprotesting judicial changes that
(09:55):
Benjamin Netanyahu's governmenthas tried to put forward.
They're protesting even thegovernment itself.
And they're also protesting,demanding.
They really have one demand,from what I've seen over and
over again releasing thehostages.
Over and over again, pollinghas showed they are willing to
sacrifice and give up a lotPeople in jail, people with
blood on their hands.
(10:15):
They want those Israelis backperiod and that has been the big
focus.
And I think there's a bigdivide between people pushing to
get the hostages out and adisconnect with the Netanyahu
government, who they feel isn'tdoing enough.
Dana Lewis (10:30):
Right, and you have the Biden administration going
back to American politics,pushing for some kind of
resolution and ceasefire.
Reena Ninan (10:37):
Now they have been pushing for a while.
Dana Lewis (10:39):
Hoping that Hamas will take the deal.
Blinken calling on Hamas.
You know you've got to takethis deal now.
It's a pretty good chancethey're not going to take it at
all and this is going tocontinue on through the election
season in America and it's notgoing to help Biden in any way.
Reena Ninan (10:58):
I mean, and politically I think you know, of
course they want this war toend, but I think also there's a
big political calculus that youcan't ignore, I think, the fact
that Hamas keeps saying no overand over again.
In many ways, senouar, theleader of Hamas who helped
orchestrate this entireelaborate massacre, and Benjamin
Netanyahu have very similarfates.
(11:20):
When this war ends.
Both of them will have to facethe current situation at hand.
For Netanyahu, if his coalitionfalls apart and he strikes some
deal with Hamas, you know, isit over for him?
He's got a series of trialsagainst him on political
corruption and all sorts ofother issues, with the failure
of intelligence in hisleadership when these attacks
(11:41):
happened.
And then Senwar you look atsomeone like him.
What happens to him?
After all this, the politicalleadership of Hamas sitting in
Qatar will probably have a verydifferent take.
He's the one orchestratingthings on the ground.
So if the movement is tocompletely remove Hamas
leadership in the Gaza Strip,he's the first person people
would want to remove.
Dana Lewis (12:02):
How realistic is Israel's goal of removing Hamas?
You've been to Gaza, so have I,and you know that Hamas is not
only popular in Gaza, but nowits popularity has spiked in the
West Bank too.
Reena Ninan (12:17):
I think it's almost impossible.
Only because, as I spoke to onenot political Gazan, he's just
a person down the middle whoI've trusted, he said to me what
happens to all those people whohave been removed from their
homes, whose homes have beencompletely flattened, who have
lost their mothers and theirgrandmothers and their sisters
and their sons, and he goes.
You don't forget that Hamas isremoved if it's at all possible.
(12:42):
The ideology remains and theyhave patience.
You know, one of the thingsthat have always stood out to me
is Osama bin Laden said when hesaw the Hezbollah bombing of
the Marine barracks in the early1980s in Lebanon, that that was
the kernel planted in his heartfor 9-11.
He knew that something evenmore spectacular was possible.
(13:03):
And I wonder how many other binLadens have that kernel planted
in their heart after this Gazawar?
Dana Lewis (13:09):
You know there's a real fueling of extremism.
It's not the Israeli wish isthat all of this pain and
suffering in Gaza eventuallyremoves, you know, makes people
less extreme because they aresuffering, their families are
suffering or eliminated and theyrealize that their future maybe
is not what Hamas, whichstarted all of this by entering
(13:30):
Israel.
But the reality may be that youknow they rally around Hamas,
just hating Israel all the more.
You know, the headline in YnetNews today sort of caught my
attention.
It says all eyes on RafaIsrael's dilemma.
Netanyahu faces tough choicelaunch a full-scale offensive in
southern Gaza, dealing with amillion displaced for total
(13:53):
victory, or maintain ties withkey allies in normalized
relations with Saudi Arabia.
No easy options.
There's never an easy option.
Reena Ninan (14:06):
And this entire war , you know, since October 7th,
has been fully about goals thathave not been realized.
You know it's to make Israelsafe is what they said.
They went into Gaza, butthey've made Jews across the
entire world less safe,including it doesn't matter
where you are, you don't have tolive in Israel.
What's also been interesting tome, dana was speaking to small
business owners in the West Bankbefore this attack happened in
(14:28):
August and September.
I was just talking to somefriends and there was great
dissatisfaction back then withMahmoud Abbas.
They just felt that there is nomovement in the economy because
of him, Because they feel like95 percent.
Because of him, because theyfeel like 95 percent.
This is before October.
Overwhelmingly, overwhelminglyin the West Bank, they would
(14:51):
prefer a Hamas government overAbbas, and it is because they
feel that he's, in many ways, apuppet to the Israelis.
He's not doing enough on thesettler violence and he's not
doing enough to grow the economy.
They feel like he has becomethe fat cat.
His family has all the moneyand it's not trickling down, and
(15:12):
that is a grave and seriousproblem that needs to be
addressed.
I do not believe there is afuture Palestinian state with
Mahmoud Abbas as a leader.
Dana Lewis (15:18):
But there's probably not a future Palestinian state
without somebody moderate,because Israelis will not agree.
I mean, they will say we leftGaza.
It turned into a militaryplatform to launch attacks
against Israel.
Now you want us to turn overthe West Bank at some kind of
(15:38):
two-state solution proposal bythe international community and
do what?
Allow them to arm, allow themto tunnel, allow them to do this
to us in another five or 10years.
I mean, israelis themselvescannot.
Even if they were pro-peace inthe 90s, they can't.
This is probably the lastmoment that they want to hear
(15:59):
anything about Palestinianautonomy and a two-state
solution.
Reena Ninan (16:03):
You're absolutely right.
And even the people who areleft of left you know that I've
known over the years have saidto me nobody it is.
You can't even begin to talkabout a two-state solution until
those hostages are back.
Nobody, he goes.
No peace, nick, no person who'sleft of left, nobody wants to
talk about that until we getthem home, period.
And that was sort of a wake upcall to me that you can't move
(16:27):
forward on this issue.
But status quo is no longer anoption either, like there has to
be something big that's done.
I do still believe, when thiswar ends, that the possibility
of Saudi normalization ofrelations with Israel I think
they were the closest they'veever been and I do think it's a
big priority for the Bidenadministration.
It seems like a very tall taskto get that done before
(16:47):
elections, but I do think it'ssomething the Saudis do want.
But optically, they can't dowith people getting slaughtered
in Gaza or, you know, anonslaught into Rafah shortly,
you know, in the coming weekspotentially.
Dana Lewis (16:59):
I mean, I was kind of reflecting myself on how do
you take this very dark momentand somehow light a path to some
kind of diplomatic solution tothe conflict?
And it seems to me that itnever mind public opinion and
polling.
(17:19):
That will come later.
That will come later.
It requires really visionaryleaders and moderates on both
sides, because both sides aresuffering from a lack of those
to stand up and say this is theway and this is how we're going
(17:40):
to live side by side.
But at the same time you know Ihave a pretty good memory.
We went through that in the OsloAccords.
And so who is it, I mean, whosuddenly deals with
de-radicalization on thePalestinian side and on the
Israeli side too?
I mean, there was a radicalright there, as you well know,
from Kahane Kahane Hai.
Some of them are in cabinet.
It's going to require a changeof political leadership on both
(18:03):
sides and some kind of visionaryleaders that will come forward
and say we're going to do this,we're going to shake hands,
we're going to sign an agreement, implement some kind of phased
plan to de-escalate all of this,de-radicalized, and then, you
know, maybe there'll be aPalestinian state, an armed one,
I don't know.
Reena Ninan (18:21):
I was reminded when the Japanese prime minister's
wife came to the White Houserecently.
And you know we don't livethrough history.
It could have happened in thedinosaur era.
You don't feel it, you don'tunderstand it fully, but I can't
understand a moment in UShistory with such horrific
relations with the Japanese anda generation later seeing them
welcomed into the White House,seeing business opportunity in
(18:42):
the sector grow.
I do believe it is possible.
I do believe it comes at agreat price.
You look at Sadat, you look atRabin, you look at the great
political price they paid withtheir lives.
In the end, I just am one whois not big on predictions.
All I can say with definitivecertainty is something drastic
(19:03):
has to change, because this nextgeneration that is up and
coming won't tolerate it in theUS, globally, in Gaza and in
Israel.
So, if anything for them, Ijust am listening very closely
to the younger generation andwhat they are saying and I think
there is hope.
They do tell me they believethings are possible and I think
when you're younger you have somuch hope and vision about what
(19:26):
the future can be, which is good.
But there's no question you'reright, dana, drastic measures
need to be taken and there hasto be significant change,
because the current status quois no longer sustainable.
Dana Lewis (19:40):
That's a great way to end, and so thank you, Rina,
and I know for people that don'tknow Rina she was based in
Jerusalem and has been to Gazaand the West Bank as all of us.
Reena Ninan (19:52):
And with you throughout the Middle East and
Iraq, with you right by my side.
So I'm grateful for all theopportunities that we got to
work together today.
Dana Lewis (20:01):
Great to talk to you .
Thanks, Rina.
Reena Ninan (20:02):
Thank you.
Dana Lewis (20:16):
All right.
Omar Shakir serves as theIsrael and Palestine director at
Human Rights Watch and heinvestigates human rights abuses
in Israel, the West Bank andGaza.
Welcome, omar, thanks forhaving me.
You're in Amman because,essentially, you were kicked out
of Israel at one point.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights (20:29):
That's correct.
I was based there for my workfor two and a half years and the
Israeli government, as part ofa years-long campaign against
Human Rights Watch, ordered medeported.
They alleged that I support theboycott divestment sanctions
movement.
We challenged that in the courtsystem.
I was able to stay another yearand a half while that pended,
(20:49):
but ultimately the court upheldthe government's interpretation
of the anti-boycott law to applyto human rights advocacy,
calling for businesses not toabuse human rights.
So I was deported in the end of2019 and I've been working
outside Israel-Palestine since.
Dana Lewis (21:05):
So the divestment scheme.
Maybe you can just explain it,but because that is essentially
what is driving the debate inAmerican universities right now
too.
I mean, students are demandingthat universities divest.
Can you?
Omar Shakir/Human Right (21:21):
explain that?
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean.
Look, I think the debate onuniversity campuses right now is
about the nature of US possiblecomplicity in Israel's grave
crimes taking place in Palestine, including the provision of
arms to the Israeli government.
But also, in the case ofuniversities, it's their
endowments, which are investedin a range of companies that do
(21:42):
business either in the occupiedterritory or that have
agreements with abusive arms ofthe Israeli government.
And so when it comes to HumanRights Watch, you know we don't
take a position one way oranother on boycott calls,
because ultimately our advocacyis catered towards duty bearers.
So we call on states andcompanies and others that have
(22:04):
rights, obligations or duties tonot abuse rights, to not be
complicit in rights abuses.
So, in the case ofIsrael-Palestine, we've called
for businesses not to operate inor with settlements, because
doing so makes you invariablyimplicated in the grave human
rights abuses that stem fromsettlements, which are war
crimes, violations ofinternational humanitarian law.
(22:26):
We have also said thatcompanies should avoid all forms
of complicity in apartheid,which we've documented, and in
the atrocities We've documented,grave abuses, including war
crimes, taking place in Gaza.
And certainly students arearticulating their own demands,
which also, in some cases,relate to questions of
complicity and calling for theuniversity to act to ensure that
(22:50):
they're not complicit one wayor another as students in their
university's actions.
Dana Lewis (22:57):
There's a lot in there.
You've packed a lot in thereand I don't want to break it all
down because the wholeconversation will go in that
direction.
But obviously, if you'repro-Israeli, you believe that
the state is being threatened bythings like Hamas' attack in
October the 7th, you wouldbelieve that it's right for
(23:17):
America to keep supplyingweapons to Israel.
The debate then becomes howthose weapons are used, where
those weapons are used.
Are they used against defeatingterror or are they used on a
civilian population?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights W (23:34):
Look , I mean I think there are many
strands of what pro-Israel isright.
I mean I think there are manythat are supportive of the
Israeli government but haveconcerns about their human
rights abuses and concerns aboutUS weapons that may be
contributing to grave abuses orthat are being transferred at a
time in which the Israeligovernment is committing
atrocities.
There are some that wouldsubscribe to that view.
(23:55):
There are obviously some thatwould say, well, maybe Iron Dome
is in a different category thanproviding artillery or
providing, you know firearmsthat might go to settlers, or
JDM, you know bombs that areused in Gaza.
So there are some in thepro-Zero camp that would you
know.
Maybe debate about what, thekind of weapons?
And, yeah, there are othersthat would be defensive of any
(24:16):
sort of condition,conditionality or restrictions.
Dana Lewis (24:19):
But the human rights watch lineup in the camp that
says no weapons at all to Israel.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights (24:25):
Human Rights Watch has been very
clear.
You know, and this is aroundthe world, it's not unique to
Israel.
Anytime there's a risk that theweapons will be used for the
commission of serious abuses.
Anytime we've documented apractice of systematic rights
abuse, we call for an armsembargo.
We call for arms to be cut off,to be suspended, so long as
those abuses continue.
That is our position in thecase of Israel-Palestine that
(24:48):
there should be a suspension onarms and military transfers to
the Israeli government.
Dana Lewis (24:53):
That would essentially strip Israel of its
ability to defend itself fromanything.
I mean, you'd do away withhelicopters, you'd do away with
F-16s, you would do away with1555 millimeter artillery that
defends different borders.
I mean, it's very hard to parseall of that, isn't it?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights W (25:10):
It's not really actually, because at
the end of the day, the firstassessment is whether or not
you're giving weapons to acountry committing war crimes
and grave abuse of human rights.
If you're doing so, there is arisk that you are going to be
complicit in those abuses.
So the first duty of a state isnon-complicity.
We're talking about Israel.
That has its own arms industry.
It has very advanced weapons.
(25:32):
We're not talking about anyother situation.
We're talking about countrieslike the United States asking
themselves whether or not thesupply of weapons to a state
committing and this is very welldocumented that they're
committing war crimes.
The International Court ofJustice has even said that
claims that the rights ofPalestinians under the Genocide
Convention are falsely beingviolated.
Dana Lewis (25:51):
Israel supplied weapons to Palestinians as well.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watc (25:54):
I mean, look, they gave the
Palestinian Authority weapons,and Human Rights Watch has
actually also said that weapons,abusive arms of the Palestinian
Authority should stop, giventhe serious abuses we've
documented.
This is not about cutting.
We've also said the same thing,by the way, about Hamas.
We've called on states thatsupply weapons to Palestinian
armed groups that are committingunlawful attacks.
(26:15):
Those should stop.
Dana Lewis (26:16):
so long as they continue to commit abuses.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watc (26:19):
I covered Egypt for Human Rights
Watch.
We made the same recommendationabout arms to Egypt, so we're
very consistent and Israel'sheld to the very same standard,
including Iran, sorry maybe youcouldn't hear me, but Iran
supplying weapons to Hamas, iransupplying weapons to Hezbollah
in Lebanon?
Dana Lewis (26:34):
Yes, we've been very clear.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Wat (26:35):
We specified Iran when it comes to
provision of weapons to Hamasin our publication Very clearly,
that should stop.
That hasn't worked too well.
But publication, Very clearly,that should stop.
That hasn't worked too well.
Well, it's not worked with theUS and Israel either, if the
arms keep on coming despite thegrave abuses.
So ultimately, our call is thesame to everybody that we need
to stop supplying arms that havea risk of contributing to grave
rights abuses, whether it'sIran to Hamas or the United
(26:57):
States to Israel.
We're talking about a verydifferent scale of provision of
arms, but it's the sameprinciple.
Dana Lewis (27:02):
Certainly a different scale.
Look, I didn't invite you on todebate with you and I hope that
it doesn't sound like I am, butthere are obviously many
different sides and differentlayers here.
But let's return to theoriginal question.
Somebody asked me the other dayis Gaza so much bigger than the
(27:25):
West Bank?
Which is strange?
Right, because you and I bothknow that Gaza is so much
smaller compared to the WestBank geographically.
The population is even smallerthan the West Bank, but
obviously Gaza seems so muchlarger it looms so large right
now because that's where themain conflict is taking place
that we see through very narrowlens.
(27:48):
But we see, between the IDF theviolence has spiked in the West
Bank as well the operations bythe IDF backing, in some cases,
(28:13):
settlers who they're supposed tobe, in some cases policing, but
don't seem to be.
It's a major problem for somany Palestinians who are not in
Gaza, who were not involved inOctober the 7th, who are living
in the West Bank under the ruleof Israel, under military rule.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights W (28:31):
Yeah , you know it's funny If you
look at October 3rd, mycolleagues in Geneva stood up on
the floor of the Human RightsCouncil and literally gave a
speech about the unprecedentedviolence happening in the West
Bank, and that predated October7th.
And what we've seen happensince October 7th actually is an
order of magnitude worse thanwhat we saw happen in the months
(28:52):
before October 7th.
So look, when it comes toviolence in the West Bank, you
have multiple trends, all ofwhich point in a damaging
direction.
One is what you mentioned.
We see settler violence at adegree that's simply
unprecedented Multiple attacksper day.
You have entire parts of theWest Bank.
You mentioned my deportation westarted with.
There are areas in the WestBank that I used to know as
(29:13):
having Palestinian communities.
You go there today and they arewiped off the map.
They do not exist Palestiniancommunities that have been
entirely.
Dana Lewis (29:21):
Can you give me one example?
And how big are those?
How big were those?
Omar Shakir/Human R (29:24):
communities .
These are relatively smallcommunities but we're talking
about at least seven that havebeen entirely depopulated.
Some estimates are higher.
We say people from 20communities have been displaced.
There's another estimate of anIsraeli NGO that 18.
But the areas I'm talking aboutare like the central West Bank.
So if you look at the areastarting Highway 1, which
connects Jerusalem and Jericho,north to like Douma, that's east
(29:46):
of Mughayyar and Ramallah andwest of Jericho, that area has
been almost entirely depopulatedof Palestinians.
Dana Lewis (29:53):
And then if you go to the South Hebron Hills, so
this is an area southwest ofHebron Again you have an area
where you have communities likeThurbet al-Wahim and Thurbet
al-inluta that you can find on amap several years ago that
aren't there today.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights W (30:13):
Tell me how, first of all, they were
depopulated and can you then goto the why?
What's really taking placethere?
Let's do that.
The how.
It's quite simple it's beensettler violence.
So, although these communities,in many cases, have faced years
of home demolitions, deniedaccess to water and electricity,
the thing that forced them outultimately is the fact that
these communities are facingattacks by these herding
(30:33):
outposts.
So we're talking about thembeing assaulted, their livestock
being killed, families beingattacked at their homes, their
cars burned, some cases, theirhomes burned, in some cases,
killings.
So that level of settler, inmany cases with Israeli soldiers
standing by or evenparticipating, that has
succeeded.
Where, and, by the way, thesecommunities, once they're
(30:55):
displaced the day of an attack,we've documented how they've
been unable to go back to theirhomes.
In some cases they've filedlawsuits.
In some cases they've tried tomove back and face continued
settler violence.
So that's the how.
It's the settler violenceforcing them out.
Because when a family has theirlivelihood, like their
livestock, killed, or their kidscan't go to school, or others
(31:16):
are not safe in their own homes,that's going to trigger the
sort of action that all theseother policies have held.
In terms of the why, for us it'sa pretty simple explanation.
There's been years of impunityfor these attacks and you have
very clear statements fromsenior Israeli officials, like
Atamar Ben-Gavir, stating thatcommit the violence, you will
(31:38):
not be held to account.
And then this is happening invery strategic areas of the West
Bank that settlement councilsand other authorities have said
they want to keep and maintainfor use by Israeli settlers.
So it's a confluence of thesefactors that is creating this
unprecedented violence.
And, by the way, we didn't evenget into the other layers of
West Bank violence, which I canget to later, but this is just
(32:00):
one facet of the repression inthe West.
Dana Lewis (32:01):
Bank just one facet of the repression in the West
Bank.
This is because there are, youknow, radical right members of
Netanyahu's cabinet who believeessentially, that Israel should
forever rule the West Bank andprobably depopulate Palestinians
if they can.
I mean, that is not themajority of the Israelis, that
is not the majority of theIsraeli government, but these
are.
I mean they hold cabinet posts.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights W (32:24):
Yeah , but look, I think you're right
and that's part of what we'vedocumented.
But this is not a newphenomenon.
This is not something thatstarted, you know, a year and a
half ago when this governmentcame to power.
This has been a decades-longpattern of unchecked expansion
of settlements and impunity forsettler violence.
It happened under Gantz andLapid.
And impunity for settlerviolence it happened under Gantz
(32:45):
and Lapid.
It happened under other Israeligovernments.
So, yes, you know that's partof the issue.
But this is not a few badapples.
This is a structure or a systemthat you know.
I'll give you an example.
If a settler attacks aPalestinian and the army is
there, they do not have amandate to protect Palestinians.
Their mandate is to protect thesettlers.
It's the Israeli police, whichis barely present in the
(33:06):
occupied West Bank, that has theauthority to protect
Palestinians.
So there's a structural gap.
That's there.
You mean border police.
Dana Lewis (33:16):
Border police, exactly Because the regular
police are not deployed thereanyway.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watc (33:21):
I mean it's complicated because
there are, but generally borderpolice, there are a lot of joint
operation right.
Dana Lewis (33:26):
but I mean, I I've been there in previous in in in
previous years where in fact theidf would stop, it would step
in to settler violence, like inhebron, for instance, where they
um, you know, you have, youhave uh cells, qahana, high
radical right, where there havebeen massacres on Palestinians
(33:50):
in the Hebron Mosque andelsewhere.
Well, hebron's a good example.
They would step in and theywould separate settlers who were
being aggressive and Ipersonally have seen settlers
machine gunning homes and goingdown the street and just
shooting randomly after anattack on settlers in that case.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights W (34:08):
Look , I mean, that's a good example
of Hebron, because, yeah, theyseparate so, but what does that
mean in practice In Hebron?
It means entire sections ofHebron are off access to
Palestinians that live there andpeople who live in those
communities where settlers are.
They may be able to go andreturn to their homes, but
they're not able to inviteothers, they're not able to sort
(34:29):
of fully function.
Many of them are then forced toleave.
So the solution when they do sois to basically erect and
further apartheid, to furtherthe separation, partition as a
structural matter.
The army's duty is to protectthe settlers.
So even when they areseparating them, they're not.
Dana Lewis (34:45):
I mean they're doing so out of a mandate to protect
the settlers.
Omar Shakir/Human Right (34:49):
They're not prosecuting, they're not
arresting.
They're not arresting settlersExactly.
That's a good way to put itOkay.
Dana Lewis (34:56):
Israel would argue and there's again, there's a lot
of different chapters of thisdiscussion but they would argue
that there was a lot of supportfor Hamas and the attack in the
West Bank.
Something like 70% ofPalestinians polled and there
are different polling, butaround 70% of Palestinians
support Hamas' attack on Octoberthe 7th, which I think a lot of
(35:20):
us find remarkable.
I think a lot of us findremarkable, and for that reason,
the IDF was going in andconducting operations in the
West Bank to prevent a similarattack emanating from the West
Bank as it did from Gaza.
What would you say to that?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watc (35:34):
I would say, by that logic, most
Israelis support the bombardmentof Gaza, so, by your logic,
palestinian armed groups wouldhave the same latitude to go and
attack Israeli communitieswhere there is high support for
it.
That's not how internationallaw works.
International works based on aseparation between civilians and
combatants, and the realityhere is that you know, when it
(35:55):
comes to the West Bank, you donot have.
I mean, the center ofhostilities have been in Gaza
and the West Bank.
There have been differentgroups that have opposed the
Israeli army, resisted somecases, you know, used violence
against Israeli forces, and youknow those should be.
You know Israel, under the lawof occupation, you know, has
tools to deal with that.
They can arrest theperpetrators.
(36:16):
If they face an imminent threatto life, they can use lethal
force.
But that's really not whatwe're seeing, right?
I mean you know, and when weand when they do do that, I mean
Naftali Bennett, the formerprime minister in 2022, april,
said there are no restrictionson the Israeli army, and so
we've also seen a pattern ofunlawful killings of
Palestinians in the West Bank.
(36:36):
Let's be clear morePalestinians were killed in the
West Bank in 2023, more thandouble than in any year since
the UN began reporting data onPalestinian killings in 2005.
So in 18 years it's more than2x as high.
Dana Lewis (36:51):
Why and how many?
And could you give me a B partof your answer, which is not
only the killings but how manyhave been arrested since October
the 7th?
It's in the file.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights (37:01):
Great point, it's also, yeah, you
have it Since October the 7th.
It's in the file.
Great point, it's also yeah,you have it.
Well, we don't know how I mean,I don't know the exact number
since October 7th, but you have,for example, about 9,000,
according to the latest Israeligovernment data Palestinian
prisoners in detention.
That doesn't include Gaza, butGaza aside, just from West Bank,
east Jerusalem, and about athird of those about 3,500,
depending on the day are beingheld in administrative detention
(37:23):
without trial or charge, basedon secret information, many of
them detained since October 7th.
That number on administrativedetention is about a 30-year
high.
If you compare before October7th, it's again about 2x or more
the numbers that existed atthat point.
So, yeah, if we take a stepback from all we've talked about
(37:43):
rising settler violence, risingkillings of Palestinians,
rising detention.
So all of this creates asituation which obviously it's
not like the scale of Gaza, butwe are seeing the situation very
much teetering and there is areal concern that the situation
will lead to much worse violenceif we don't deal with some of
(38:05):
these root causes.
Dana Lewis (38:07):
Omar does the policing of the West Bank by the
Israeli army?
And there are different unitsin the IDF.
To be fair to the IDF, I meanthere are some that have been
named by the Americanadministration.
I believe at least one brigadewhere they want to impose
(38:28):
sanctions correct.
There are different.
There's a broad spectrum of IDFunits operating there.
Discussion of a two-statesolution and a peace process or
does it just take us further andfurther away from any moderates
(38:49):
that might deliver some kind ofpeace process between Israel
and Palestinians?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watc (38:55):
I think the current reality
highlights why the decades-longframework for talking about
Israel-Palestine was misguided,because, while we kept talking
about solutions and what theylook like, we forgot about
dealing with the problem thatnecessitates a solution.
We forgot about the root causesimpunity for unlawful attacks,
israel's apartheid againstPalestinians.
(39:15):
There is some parts of Israelisociety that have responded to
October 7th by saying we can'tgo back to how things were,
where we pretended that thePalestinian issue didn't exist,
that we sort of, you know,talked about annexation and
moving forward and just erasingthe Palestinian cause from the
issue, because ultimately, whenyou rule millions of people that
are denied their fundamentalrights, that isn't the basis for
(39:38):
any long-term future.
So look, I think all of thisemphasizes why we need to deal
with root causes, but in a verydifferent way.
We need to sort of centerdealing with the human rights
abuse and the repression.
They cannot be dealt with, thesymptoms, they are the problem.
So we need accountability forall the perpetrators, whether
they be the October 7th attacksor Israel's apartheid and
repression against Palestinians.
(39:59):
We need there to be an end toall forms of complicity by
states, including providing armsthat could be used to commit
serious rights abuses.
Palestinians.
We need there to be an end toall forms of complicity by
states, including, you know,providing arms that could be
used to commit serious rightsabuses.
There needs to be.
You know, the first step tosolve a problem is to diagnose
it correctly.
Right, the wrong diagnosisleads to the wrong policy
prescription.
So we need to start by, youknow, applying the right tools
(40:20):
to understand that reality, andwe have some processes underway
at the International Court ofJustice, the International
Criminal Court.
They're really important and Ithink states should be
supporting those processes andbe taking other steps to prevent
more atrocities.
Dana Lewis (40:34):
So you really wanted .
You would absolutely favorseeing the ICC indict Netanyahu
and other members of thegovernment for war crimes.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watc (40:43):
I am in favor of the ICC moving
forward against perpetrators ofserious crimes.
Let the evidence lead where itleads.
The prosecutor has been lookingat this for years.
There are serious crimes thathave been committed not just by
Israeli forces, but also byPalestinian armed groups, and
those should all be looked at,and the prosecutor should bring
charges against those for whichthere is evidence that they're
(41:04):
implicated in crimes that fallunder the Rome Statute.
Dana Lewis (41:06):
The dark state of affairs which you know.
While the Americans and othersand European governments are
talking about, let's moveforward to a two-state solution.
Let's find a long-term plan toallow Palestinians to exist side
by side with Israel, you haveIsrael poised right now to
invade Rafah in Gaza.
(41:28):
What is that and I know we'reout of time, but I want to end
with that because it's probablywhere we're heading what is that
going to do if Israel movesinto Rafah and tries to, you
know, extinguish Hamas, in theterminology of the Israeli
government, in Netanyahu?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watc (41:47):
I think a Rafah incursion, when
there is no safe place to go inGaza and you have more than one
million displaced Palestiniansthere, would be catastrophic and
unlawful.
There is no safe place to go inGaza.
Much of the population of Gazais there because Israel told
them to go there, becauseeverywhere else was under
(42:08):
sustained attack.
You know there is nowhere elseto go, and so I agree with you
this is where we have to end,because a rough incursion would
be catastrophic and states musttake action to prevent further
mass atrocities.
Lives hang in the balance and,by the way, it's not just
Palestinian lives.
You have the families ofIsraeli hostages that are taking
(42:29):
to the streets of Tel Aviv.
You had one on Thursday May 2nd, where hostages or families
were saying it's either Rafah orthe hostages.
The hostages should beimmediately and unconditionally
released, irrespective of whathappens on the ground.
Dana Lewis (42:54):
But they understand that an incursion like this
could very well threaten notjust.
Omar Shakir/Human (42:58):
Palestinians , but also Netanyahu, though at
the same time, in parallel withthat is saying Rafa's going, and
months may well be determinedby whether or not this incursion
.
And let's also not make it likeit's a binary question, because
Israel continues to carry outairstrikes and other incursions
there.
So you know, even if it's not afull-scale invasion, it could
still have very damagingconsequences for the population.
Dana Lewis (43:19):
Well, Marcia Kira of Human Rights Watch.
Thank you so much.
It's great to meet you and talkto you.
I appreciate it very much.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Wat (43:25):
My pleasure.
Thanks for having me and feelfree to reach out anytime.
Dana Lewis (43:33):
Brigadier General Mark Kimmett is the former
Assistant Secretary of State forPolitical Military Affairs.
Prior to joining the StateDepartment, he was a Brigadier
General in the US Army andserved as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for theMiddle East.
Hi, Brigadier, Good to see yousir.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (43:50):
Morning Dana.
Dana Lewis (43:51):
I often used to sit in front of you in Baghdad and
listen to your briefings, soit's good to see you on a Zoom,
not that it wasn't good to seeyou there.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (44:02):
Yeah, and under better circumstances
today as well.
Dana Lewis (44:07):
Tell me, you and I were on a panel on another
television network last week andI thought you were pretty
pessimistic about new arms forUkraine, and because I said that
I thought in answer to aquestion that some of them the
package is not a game changer,but some of the arms within the
(44:28):
package potentially could be agame changer in terms of what's
happening there.
But I didn't sense that youshared my opinion, so I wanted
to flush that out with you alittle bit.
Republicans has been approved.
Arms are now speedily movingtowards Ukraine to try and fill
(44:55):
some of those empty artillerypieces and weapons that have
been without ammunition.
You don't feel it's a gamechanger?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (45:02):
Look, I'm very, very glad, Dana, that
the ammunition is coming.
I'm glad to see different kindof ammunition, like a TACOMS,
different kind of ammunitionlike a TACOMS is starting to
arrive.
I've always been concerned withthe term game changer, though
we thought the tanks were goingto be game changers.
We thought the javelins weregoing to be game changers.
(45:23):
We thought the HIMARS weregoing to be game changers.
I don't believe that the warwill tip on the basis of this
new tranche.
I don't believe that the warwill tip on the basis of this
new tranche.
I don't think that, other thanthe enormous morale boost that
it's going to give to theUkrainians, I don't think we're
going to see a significanteffect either in the character
(45:45):
of the war or the quality of theground operations.
Dana Lewis (45:49):
So what changes the game if it's not more weapons?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (45:54):
I actually wrote an article which
was summarily rejected by everyone of the periodicals I write
for.
I think we've got to take thegloves off.
I think if the Ukrainians aregoing to have a measurable
effect and perhaps even somewhatof a victory in the fight,
(46:15):
we've got to lift theserestrictions, not only on the
use of the weapons such as theATACMS.
You noted that that would bepossible to hit the Black Sea
Fleet, which it needs to havehappen.
I just think we've got tounleash and take off the
handcuffs that we have put onthese weapons systems, the F-16s
(46:37):
.
No reason why, when they come,they should not only attack
inside of Ukraine but inside ofRussialy.
I think that we ought to justlet the Ukrainians fight the war
(46:58):
they think it should be fought.
Dana Lewis (47:00):
How did you read and I don't know if you saw it, but
you probably did how did youread this disconnect between
Jake Sullivan saying that theattack comes only for use in
Ukraine, not against Russia, andthen General Austin in fact
(47:21):
said, well, we'll let theUkrainians decide how to use
them, and so you know, with asmile on his face, but clearly
saying that he doesn't thinkthat those rules apply to just
using them on occupied areas ofUkraine?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (47:33):
Well, I certainly hope that Lloyd is
right.
I certainly hope that he hasthe backing of his boss, the
president, in allowing the useof these beyond the territorial
limits.
The open water, the Crimean Sea, the Black Sea, and inside
(47:53):
where they can reach in Russia,go against their supply lines.
The Russians have cleverlyrecognized that.
They maintain large supplydepots in range of the current
weapon systems.
They're going to get knockedout, so they pull them back a
little bit, and now they're notin range of the HIMARS, but they
are in range of the ATAKOMsWe've got to.
(48:14):
If we believe that theUkrainians should win this war,
then I believe we've got toallow them to fight it the way
they want to fight it, and thatis, candidly, to bring more pain
on the Russians than on theUkrainian people, to bring more
pain on the Russians than on the.
Dana Lewis (48:31):
Ukrainian people, general Ben Hodges, who you
probably know, who was the USArmy commander in Europe at one
point.
I knew him as a brigadecommander with the 101st
Airborne and the invasion ofIraq in 2003, but he came a long
way since then.
He said why are we talkingabout helping them defend
themselves?
Us administration shouldn't betalking about helping them.
(48:54):
Much of what you just saidhelping them win.
This is about enabling them tobe victorious over invading
Russian forces.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (49:03):
That's exactly right.
I've known Ben even longer.
We were in the same brigadetogether, that same brigade that
he later commanded.
He was there as a young majorand a great one.
You remember, ben.
He not only was part of theinvasion interact, but he did it
with a sling on his arm and acigar in his mouth.
He's a great officer.
I've got nothing but respect,and the comments that he is
(49:26):
making characterize Ben Hodgesand, candidly, I think we share
the same view now.
Dana Lewis (49:40):
Would you reach back to your roots a little bit as
well?
You came from artillery, right?
You were an artilleryman andthen you commanded artillery
units.
I think I said in ourtelevision interview that you
were first and foremost anartilleryman and I apologize for
that.
I understand you're notforemost somebody from artillery
, but you clearly understandwhat is an attack on them and
why.
Do you think that that changesthe game?
(50:01):
It basically doubles the rangeright of what the Ukrainians
have.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (50:06):
Well, first of all, let me clarify.
I am first and foremost anartilleryman, as were my two
brothers and my father.
My father commanded in worldwar ii and in korea.
My brother commanded artilleryunits in vietnam and I picked up
the mantle after that.
I was suggesting that it wasn'tjust this lunk-headed
artilleryman way behind thelines that.
Dana Lewis (50:28):
nor was I, nor was sir, nor were you suggesting.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (50:30):
But if I wasn't doing artillery stuff,
I was doing strategic andoperational level planning.
That was the point I was tryingto make.
What is an ATACMS?
An ATACMS is essentially a verylarge missile that is shot by
ground troops.
It's about three times the sizeof a high Mars rocket.
(50:53):
Because it's a missile, it'sguided and very, very precise
and it can go far greater ranges.
It can put on the ground boththese bomblets that we've seen
used on the battlefield, but italso has a very large unitary
round, something that could,quite frankly, if it hit a ship,
(51:16):
it could sink a ship.
Greater range, greatercapability and certainly more
lethality.
Dana Lewis (51:25):
So why don't you share some of the same
reservations that the Bidenadministration had?
You know months and months ago,when they wouldn't release
these to the Ukrainians, thatthey could be fired into Russia,
and you essentially have.
You know missiles fired,american missiles fired from
Ukrainian ground at Russia andinto Russia, which could really
(51:48):
escalate the war which couldreally escalate the war.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (51:54):
Well, first and foremost to use the
term earlier, I was a bigbeliever that in the early part
of the war, while the Russianswere on their back feet, that
would be the time to negotiate.
But as the war has gone on andas it has become a static fight,
it looks more and more like therussians have the initiative.
(52:14):
This is the classic russian wayof war.
Now that they have theinitiative, now that their
military production is backonline, now that the manpower is
no longer a problem, you justsee this large bulldozer
starting to get larger andlarger.
As a result, I don't thinkthere's any chance for
(52:35):
negotiations.
If Zelensky was to come to thenegotiating table now, the terms
would be harsh and even worsethan we might think.
So that simply means that youcan either stay with the frozen
conflict, which the Russianswill try to unfreeze at a very
(52:57):
high cost to the Ukrainianmilitary and the people back
against the wall, then maybethis is the time to attack and
bring as much pain on theRussian people and the Russian
infrastructure as they have doneto Ukraine.
(53:17):
So that's why I believe thatcontinuing this fight,
constrained inside theterritorial limits of Ukraine,
doesn't make Russia pay the cost?
And, to answer your specificquestion, this incrementalism,
(53:38):
this self-deterrence that we puton our own forces and the
forces of Ukraine that firstthey couldn't drop this, then
they couldn't drop that, thenthey couldn't use this, and then
we'll start giving them moreand more capability.
First it's the M1.
Then it's the F-16.
(53:58):
Look, putin is watching this.
Putin understands what's goingon and he knows that as you
bring more capability to thefight, he's ready to withstand
it.
So at this point, I think it'sjust take the gloves off, as Ben
said, and let the Ukrainians doit the way they think they need
(54:20):
to do it.
This notion that somehow thisis going to spiral into a
nuclear war he may be a madman,but I certainly don't think that
Putin is suicidal, because heknows that if this thing went
too far, the pain would bebrought to Russia, and not just
to the edges of Russia, butactually to the cities of Russia
(54:42):
as well administration.
Dana Lewis (54:55):
I know you didn't clearly say that, but you
implied the slow drip of notgiving them certain things, then
later on turning around F-16s,the HIMARS, the ATAKOMs.
If you fault the Bidenadministration, do you not worry
that a Trump presidency isgoing to be even more difficult
to navigate, Because he'sbasically talked about just
getting the conflict over withand seems to favor the Russians
(55:19):
ruling part of Ukraine?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (55:22):
Yeah, first of all, dana, let me be
clear that I'm not here to faultthe Biden presidency Again, as
a strategic planner sitting onthe edge of the inter-German
border watching the Russians foryears and years and the Warsaw
Pact, it was clearly Russiantactical, low-level doctrine to
(55:43):
use tactical nuclear weapons.
They did not have this boundarybarrier between the use of
tactical conventional weaponsand tactical nuclear weapons.
They just said you know, it'sjust a big bomb.
And I think the Bidenadministration was concerned
(56:15):
about that in the early parts ofthe war that if this went
against the Russians, they wouldgo to their battlefield
tactical doctrine and use it.
There is clear doctrine thatsays certainly, if we are
attacked inside of Mother Russia, it's not only an option but in
many ways it's an imperative.
So I want to start off by notfaulting the thought process
behind the Biden administration.
But I think we are still usingthat logic too far into the
(56:39):
fight and I think at this pointit's highly unlikely that he
would be able to use or bewilling to use those tactical
nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Dana Lewis (56:48):
You know.
That's a really importantdistinction and I follow your
logic and respect that.
Can I ask you most Americancommanders?
The thing that people don'tknow about them is they're very
well educated.
Probably one of the firstconversations you have with even
you know, colonel Rankop, it'salways what books are you
reading and what have you read?
(57:09):
And is what books you read andwhat have you read, and they're
well-schooled in history.
And here you are.
You know you talk about beingbased in Europe.
At one point I know you werealso in NATO at the headquarters
.
So do you buy into thisargument by a lot of European
(57:32):
leaders and by many Americanpoliticians as well, that this
is not just about Ukraine, thatRussia will go further into the
Baltics and maybe Poland?
Some have even talked aboutclaiming back, flying back,
parts of Germany or do you seethis more?
You know what, if we're wrong?
Is this just a specificregional fight, that Russia
(57:55):
wants a buffer zone up against apotential NATO country and it
may just stop in eastern Ukraine?
I mean, where do you stack?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (58:04):
up.
If you look through history,you will see that the Russians
have always had an obsessionwith maneuver space between
themselves and the West.
If my memory serves, you hadthe Ukraine in Western Bosnia.
(58:25):
You had Ukraine, which I thinkliterally translated in Polish,
ukrainian means the buffer orthe frontier.
And this is a country thatknows its history.
It was invaded by the French, itwas invaded by the Germans and
this goes to the fundamentalquestion and handedly, the
(58:46):
disagreement between the Reaganslash Bush team that had an
agreement with the Russians thatwe would not expand NATO and
more current administrationsthat had been more of the view
that NATO expansion is a goodthing.
So if you put yourself, youknow, if you're sitting around a
(59:07):
Daha in Russia looking atwhat's happening for the last 25
years, you see NATO encroachcloser and closer and closer to
their frontier and in fact inmany ways have eliminated this
frontier.
So that in many ways is theobsession that in my mind drives
(59:29):
the Russian paranoia aboutgoing into Ukraine, perhaps
having Ukraine as a NATO member.
But you asked another questionDoes Ukraine necessarily lead
the Russians to acquiringprobably the Baltics, possibly
(59:50):
Poland, romania, bulgaria, theway it used to have in the war
we?
Dana Lewis (59:56):
haven't even talked about Central Asia, Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, all of that.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (01:00:00):
Right, right.
Well, that's a differentproblem.
That's part of an old story.
I can tell you about theirbelief in this arc of
instability.
But, having said that, I dobelieve that it is a significant
leap for Putin to, number one,go against a non-NATO Ukraine
(01:00:27):
versus going against what hethought at one time was a NATO
that could not cohes, that wasready to fall apart.
But I think he would have tothink twice about whether that
bluff and that gamble that NATOwould not respond if he went
into the Baltics or if he wentinto Western Poland.
(01:00:50):
I just think at this pointthat's a real leap for him to
make, that he can go intoUkraine and seeing the response
he got from NATO indirectlywould be the same that would
happen if he attacked NATOdirectly.
Dana Lewis (01:01:08):
Last question to you , then why not give them what
they have now?
Why not let them keep Crimea,lugansk and Donetsk?
And so, if you don't fear thathe's trying to reestablish the
old empire, why not just givePutin that and call it a day and
push the Ukrainians to acceptan armistice or ceasefire?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (01:01:30):
Well, that's exactly where I think
Trump will take it and you?
Dana Lewis (01:01:35):
you believe that that's the place to take it.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (01:01:38):
I believe that's the person that
will make that offer.
Uh, whether that's the rightthing or not, uh, we've got to
accept that Eastern Ukraine isprimarily Russian speaking.
We've got to accept.
Accept that in many ways thereare some legitimate claims that
Russia has to a culturalconnection with eastern Ukraine.
(01:02:01):
If you ask the questiondifferently, which is, should we
continue a long war supportingUkraine to take back Crimea and
the Donbass in Luhansk?
I'm not sure that that's in thefuture.
Dana Lewis (01:02:25):
Interesting.
Brigadier General Mark Kimmett,a pleasure to talk to you and
some surprises in there for me,but there's definitely different
schools of thought on wherethis goes and how far the West
and European governments andAmerica should pursue this, and
(01:02:45):
that debate is going to go onand intensify, no doubt.
So thank you very much, sir.
Well, thank you for having meand that's our Backstory this
week.
We're a serious podcast.
No apologies, this isn't aboutpushing a political agenda.
Like many other podcasts, it'sjust serious talk by serious
guests on serious situations,and you can make up your own
(01:03:07):
mind.
I'm Dana Lewis.
Thanks for listening toBackstory and I'll talk to you
again soon, thank you.
I guess it remains to be seen, when those people go
to court, really who they were.
Reena Ninan (00:06):
I do believe that what we saw in New York there
were some outside actors becauseit turned so violent in some,
there were some violent moments,I do believe Was the use of
force justified.
I think that's a question thatmany universities have to
grapple with.
Dana Lewis (00:21):
So does Human Rights Watch.
Line up in the camp that saysno weapons at all to Israel.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights (00:26):
Human Rights Watch has been very
clear, and this is around theworld, it's not unique to Israel
.
Anytime there's a risk that theweapons will be used for the
commission of serious abuses.
Anytime we've documented apractice of systematic rights
abuse, we call for an armsembargo.
We call for arms to be cut off,to be suspended, so long as
those abuses continue.
(00:46):
That is our position in thecase of Israel-Palestine.
So what?
Dana Lewis (00:50):
changes the game if it's not more weapons.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (00:53):
I think we've got to take the gloves
off.
I think if the Ukrainians aregoing to have a measurable
effect and perhaps even somewhatof a victory in the fight,
we've got to lift theserestrictions, not only on the
use of the weapons, but I justthink we've got to unleash and
(01:14):
take off the handcuffs that wehave put on these weapons
systems.
Dana Lewis (01:26):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
This week, as police are calledin to restore order on American
university campuses, was itnecessary to arrest
pro-Palestinian students?
Was it free speech or a steptoo far in occupying buildings
and camping out in defiance ofuniversity rules?
Journalist Rina Naina weighs inIn the West Bank thousands of
(01:52):
Palestinians suffering fromviolence from extremist settlers
supported by the Israeli army,human Rights Watch, omar Shakir,
on the arrests of thousands.
While the siege of Gazacontinues.
And Ukraine.
The Biden administration hasapproved $61 billion in new
weapons.
Better late than never, says USBrigadier General Mark Kimmett.
(02:15):
But he also says a deal withRussia to stop the war will have
to happen eventually.
Reena Nainan is an American TVbroadcaster.
She's a podcast host and she isalso running a company called
Good Trouble Productions.
Hi, reena, how are you doing?
Reena Ninan (02:36):
Hey, dana, great to be with you.
Dana Lewis (02:37):
Did I get all that?
Reena Ninan (02:37):
right, got all that right.
Good, well done, well done.
(03:08):
Help me walk through what'shappening in the US right now
Some pretty ordinary and yet,when you look at the width and
breadth of it, extraordinaryscenes coming from not only the
UCLA overnight, but otheruniversities and colleges where
police are, you know, raidingthose colleges and arresting
students, pro-palestiniandemonstrations.
I think the big news, everyonereally has been captivated by
Columbia University and we'veseen New York Police Department
this week, just in the pastcouple of days, arrest close to
300 people who had been insideof this hall for days,
essentially, and they had threebig demands One, they wanted the
(03:29):
university to divest fromIsrael.
They wanted to know moretransparency on who and what the
university is invested in.
And third, they wanted amnesty.
They wanted no disciplinaryaction for their actions.
With these protests and thislock-in into this university
hall, what I found fascinatingare two other universities
Overnight.
(03:50):
Northwestern University andBrown University have actually
come up with agreements withthese campus and they're going
to allow more Palestinianstudents, they're going to fund
for a couple of years twoPalestinian professors and Brown
(04:13):
University is going to alsohave a committee that'll allow
students to have an opendiscussion and dialogue with
university officials ondivestment, on who and what they
are invested in.
It's a fascinating, hopefullyan end for these universities,
because what has captivated theworld are the sometimes violent
images that have come out ofthis, and New York Police
(04:34):
Department has said that it'stheir belief that some of these
protesters they were outsideinfluence, including people who
had taken part in Occupy WallStreet in 2020.
Dana Lewis (04:44):
Yeah, I mean, that's where it takes a turn, doesn't
it?
Because I mean, a lot of it isroutine in the sense that these
are, you know, students who feel, rightly or wrongly, that the
Palestinian cause is worthsupporting and that the US
administration shouldn't besupporting Israel, and they talk
about the divestment from armsmanufacturing and some of those
(05:06):
companies that you mentioned.
And yet you have the arrests atColumbia, where you know, one
of the intelligence officialswith the NYPD then made the case
in front of the mayor as well,right, and with the mayor's
support, that this was moresinister than just students at
(05:27):
Columbia, that these protestersquote unquote have been
influenced by external actorswho are unaffiliated with the
university, some of whom havebeen known to our department and
others for many years.
They're dangerous, disruptiveand criminally activity
associated with protests foryears.
Is that just justifying thepolice going in there in a very
(05:51):
muscular way, or do we I guessit remains to be seen when those
people go to court, really whothey were?
Reena Ninan (06:00):
I do believe that what we saw in New York there
were some outside actors becauseit turned so violent in some
there were some violent moments,I do believe Was the use of
force justified.
I think that's a question thatmany universities have to
grapple with over and over again.
University of Texas there's onejournalism professor early on
(06:20):
last week who said that I saw aFacebook post saying that he had
interviewed 50 of the peoplewho were just a simple sit-in.
They were just totallynonviolent, sitting in and Texas
had brought in all of thesepolice officers and the
professor was saying they have aright to be able to protest
peacefully.
It's a sit-in and these wereall university students.
I interviewed all of them.
(06:42):
I think what happens is peoplefrom the outside or other
outside actors can sometimescome into these universities and
that's where the blurring ofthe line happens.
But you know, is the forcejustified?
On campuses?
They see one thing, then theystart to think the other.
It is a very complicatedsituation.
I was last week on the campus ofGeorge Washington University
(07:03):
for a board meeting and I haveto say it popped up overnight
Largely peaceful students oncampus, but where the university
drew the line was they made itvery clear anybody from the
outside, including theneighboring schools like
American or Georgetown, anybodycoming onto campus to protest
will be considered trespassers.
(07:23):
Coming onto campus to protestwill be considered trespassers.
And I think part of it wasbecause they're seeing the
outside influence from otheruniversities and they said you
on campus can protest peacefully, but we're not letting this get
out of hand.
And then we saw the reverse theDC Police Department refused to
come in and step in when theywere called as well.
So it's become so politicized.
I was happy to see that somesort of deal was reached with
Northwestern and BrownUniversity, because it has
(07:46):
gotten out of hand in manycollege campuses.
But you also want to balancethe right to freedom of speech
and ability to protest in apeaceful way.
Dana Lewis (07:55):
And we don't know who.
On the pro-Israeli side.
A lot of them were wearingmasks when they were clashing
with pro-Palestiniandemonstrators and it got very
violent.
It's one of the reasons why thepolice came into UCLA in the
(08:19):
end.
Who they were?
Pro-palestinian demonstratorsmay, in fact, not be students
and may be connected to othermovements and criminal, you know
, with criminal pasts.
I mean, you question who werethese pro-Israeli demonstrators
as well.
So it does seem like, I mean,the vast majority of them are
students, but there were outsideinfluencers in there trying to
(08:43):
light a fire, you know, and kickoff a powder keg.
So what is the Bidenadministration when you talk
about?
It's become so political.
What are they doing wrong?
Reena Ninan (08:54):
I think part of it started in the beginning because
I think there was a misjudgmentof the Arab streets, and Arab
streets I mean some of the Arabstreets also in America.
Very quickly, this became notjust about the Palestinian
(09:32):
people but, as one person said,we don't care if you're Sunni or
Shiite.
This is an issue that affectsall.
So complicated feel like thisis the underdog.
You know the Hamas officialnumbers according to them was
35,000 killed and that theseatrocities should not be allowed
to happen.
And this is America.
You should have the right, andyou do have the right, to
peacefully protest, but it can'tcome at the expense of other
people's safety and security.
That's determined already.
And if you look at the Israelipeople, dana, as you know,
they've been for two yearsprotesting judicial changes that
(09:55):
Benjamin Netanyahu's governmenthas tried to put forward.
They're protesting even thegovernment itself.
And they're also protesting,demanding.
They really have one demand,from what I've seen over and
over again releasing thehostages.
Over and over again, pollinghas showed they are willing to
sacrifice and give up a lotPeople in jail, people with
blood on their hands.
(10:15):
They want those Israelis backperiod and that has been the big
focus.
And I think there's a bigdivide between people pushing to
get the hostages out and adisconnect with the Netanyahu
government, who they feel isn'tdoing enough.
Dana Lewis (10:30):
Right, and you have the Biden administration going
back to American politics,pushing for some kind of
resolution and ceasefire.
Reena Ninan (10:37):
Now they have been pushing for a while.
Dana Lewis (10:39):
Hoping that Hamas will take the deal.
Blinken calling on Hamas.
You know you've got to takethis deal now.
It's a pretty good chancethey're not going to take it at
all and this is going tocontinue on through the election
season in America and it's notgoing to help Biden in any way.
Reena Ninan (10:58):
I mean, and politically I think you know, of
course they want this war toend, but I think also there's a
big political calculus that youcan't ignore, I think, the fact
that Hamas keeps saying no overand over again.
In many ways, senouar, theleader of Hamas who helped
orchestrate this entireelaborate massacre, and Benjamin
Netanyahu have very similarfates.
(11:20):
When this war ends.
Both of them will have to facethe current situation at hand.
For Netanyahu, if his coalitionfalls apart and he strikes some
deal with Hamas, you know, isit over for him?
He's got a series of trialsagainst him on political
corruption and all sorts ofother issues, with the failure
of intelligence in hisleadership when these attacks
(11:41):
happened.
And then Senwar you look atsomeone like him.
What happens to him?
After all this, the politicalleadership of Hamas sitting in
Qatar will probably have a verydifferent take.
He's the one orchestratingthings on the ground.
So if the movement is tocompletely remove Hamas
leadership in the Gaza Strip,he's the first person people
would want to remove.
Dana Lewis (12:02):
How realistic is Israel's goal of removing Hamas?
You've been to Gaza, so have I,and you know that Hamas is not
only popular in Gaza, but nowits popularity has spiked in the
West Bank too.
Reena Ninan (12:17):
I think it's almost impossible.
Only because, as I spoke to onenot political Gazan, he's just
a person down the middle whoI've trusted, he said to me what
happens to all those people whohave been removed from their
homes, whose homes have beencompletely flattened, who have
lost their mothers and theirgrandmothers and their sisters
and their sons, and he goes.
You don't forget that Hamas isremoved if it's at all possible.
(12:42):
The ideology remains and theyhave patience.
You know, one of the thingsthat have always stood out to me
is Osama bin Laden said when hesaw the Hezbollah bombing of
the Marine barracks in the early1980s in Lebanon, that that was
the kernel planted in his heartfor 9-11.
He knew that something evenmore spectacular was possible.
(13:03):
And I wonder how many other binLadens have that kernel planted
in their heart after this Gazawar?
Dana Lewis (13:09):
You know there's a real fueling of extremism.
It's not the Israeli wish isthat all of this pain and
suffering in Gaza eventuallyremoves, you know, makes people
less extreme because they aresuffering, their families are
suffering or eliminated and theyrealize that their future maybe
is not what Hamas, whichstarted all of this by entering
(13:30):
Israel.
But the reality may be that youknow they rally around Hamas,
just hating Israel all the more.
You know, the headline in YnetNews today sort of caught my
attention.
It says all eyes on RafaIsrael's dilemma.
Netanyahu faces tough choicelaunch a full-scale offensive in
southern Gaza, dealing with amillion displaced for total
(13:53):
victory, or maintain ties withkey allies in normalized
relations with Saudi Arabia.
No easy options.
There's never an easy option.
Reena Ninan (14:06):
And this entire war , you know, since October 7th,
has been fully about goals thathave not been realized.
You know it's to make Israelsafe is what they said.
They went into Gaza, butthey've made Jews across the
entire world less safe,including it doesn't matter
where you are, you don't have tolive in Israel.
What's also been interesting tome, dana was speaking to small
business owners in the West Bankbefore this attack happened in
(14:28):
August and September.
I was just talking to somefriends and there was great
dissatisfaction back then withMahmoud Abbas.
They just felt that there is nomovement in the economy because
of him, Because they feel like95 percent.
Because of him, because theyfeel like 95 percent.
This is before October.
Overwhelmingly, overwhelminglyin the West Bank, they would
(14:51):
prefer a Hamas government overAbbas, and it is because they
feel that he's, in many ways, apuppet to the Israelis.
He's not doing enough on thesettler violence and he's not
doing enough to grow the economy.
They feel like he has becomethe fat cat.
His family has all the moneyand it's not trickling down, and
(15:12):
that is a grave and seriousproblem that needs to be
addressed.
I do not believe there is afuture Palestinian state with
Mahmoud Abbas as a leader.
Dana Lewis (15:18):
But there's probably not a future Palestinian state
without somebody moderate,because Israelis will not agree.
I mean, they will say we leftGaza.
It turned into a militaryplatform to launch attacks
against Israel.
Now you want us to turn overthe West Bank at some kind of
(15:38):
two-state solution proposal bythe international community and
do what?
Allow them to arm, allow themto tunnel, allow them to do this
to us in another five or 10years.
I mean, israelis themselvescannot.
Even if they were pro-peace inthe 90s, they can't.
This is probably the lastmoment that they want to hear
(15:59):
anything about Palestinianautonomy and a two-state
solution.
Reena Ninan (16:03):
You're absolutely right.
And even the people who areleft of left you know that I've
known over the years have saidto me nobody it is.
You can't even begin to talkabout a two-state solution until
those hostages are back.
Nobody, he goes.
No peace, nick, no person who'sleft of left, nobody wants to
talk about that until we getthem home, period.
And that was sort of a wake upcall to me that you can't move
(16:27):
forward on this issue.
But status quo is no longer anoption either, like there has to
be something big that's done.
I do still believe, when thiswar ends, that the possibility
of Saudi normalization ofrelations with Israel I think
they were the closest they'veever been and I do think it's a
big priority for the Bidenadministration.
It seems like a very tall taskto get that done before
(16:47):
elections, but I do think it'ssomething the Saudis do want.
But optically, they can't dowith people getting slaughtered
in Gaza or, you know, anonslaught into Rafah shortly,
you know, in the coming weekspotentially.
Dana Lewis (16:59):
I mean, I was kind of reflecting myself on how do
you take this very dark momentand somehow light a path to some
kind of diplomatic solution tothe conflict?
And it seems to me that itnever mind public opinion and
polling.
(17:19):
That will come later.
That will come later.
It requires really visionaryleaders and moderates on both
sides, because both sides aresuffering from a lack of those
to stand up and say this is theway and this is how we're going
(17:40):
to live side by side.
But at the same time you know Ihave a pretty good memory.
We went through that in the OsloAccords.
And so who is it, I mean, whosuddenly deals with
de-radicalization on thePalestinian side and on the
Israeli side too?
I mean, there was a radicalright there, as you well know,
from Kahane Kahane Hai.
Some of them are in cabinet.
It's going to require a changeof political leadership on both
(18:03):
sides and some kind of visionaryleaders that will come forward
and say we're going to do this,we're going to shake hands,
we're going to sign an agreement, implement some kind of phased
plan to de-escalate all of this,de-radicalized, and then, you
know, maybe there'll be aPalestinian state, an armed one,
I don't know.
Reena Ninan (18:21):
I was reminded when the Japanese prime minister's
wife came to the White Houserecently.
And you know we don't livethrough history.
It could have happened in thedinosaur era.
You don't feel it, you don'tunderstand it fully, but I can't
understand a moment in UShistory with such horrific
relations with the Japanese anda generation later seeing them
welcomed into the White House,seeing business opportunity in
(18:42):
the sector grow.
I do believe it is possible.
I do believe it comes at agreat price.
You look at Sadat, you look atRabin, you look at the great
political price they paid withtheir lives.
In the end, I just am one whois not big on predictions.
All I can say with definitivecertainty is something drastic
(19:03):
has to change, because this nextgeneration that is up and
coming won't tolerate it in theUS, globally, in Gaza and in
Israel.
So, if anything for them, Ijust am listening very closely
to the younger generation andwhat they are saying and I think
there is hope.
They do tell me they believethings are possible and I think
when you're younger you have somuch hope and vision about what
(19:26):
the future can be, which is good.
But there's no question you'reright, dana, drastic measures
need to be taken and there hasto be significant change,
because the current status quois no longer sustainable.
Dana Lewis (19:40):
That's a great way to end, and so thank you, Rina,
and I know for people that don'tknow Rina she was based in
Jerusalem and has been to Gazaand the West Bank as all of us.
Reena Ninan (19:52):
And with you throughout the Middle East and
Iraq, with you right by my side.
So I'm grateful for all theopportunities that we got to
work together today.
Dana Lewis (20:01):
Great to talk to you .
Thanks, Rina.
Reena Ninan (20:02):
Thank you.
Dana Lewis (20:16):
All right.
Omar Shakir serves as theIsrael and Palestine director at
Human Rights Watch and heinvestigates human rights abuses
in Israel, the West Bank andGaza.
Welcome, omar, thanks forhaving me.
You're in Amman because,essentially, you were kicked out
of Israel at one point.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights (20:29):
That's correct.
I was based there for my workfor two and a half years and the
Israeli government, as part ofa years-long campaign against
Human Rights Watch, ordered medeported.
They alleged that I support theboycott divestment sanctions
movement.
We challenged that in the courtsystem.
I was able to stay another yearand a half while that pended,
(20:49):
but ultimately the court upheldthe government's interpretation
of the anti-boycott law to applyto human rights advocacy,
calling for businesses not toabuse human rights.
So I was deported in the end of2019 and I've been working
outside Israel-Palestine since.
Dana Lewis (21:05):
So the divestment scheme.
Maybe you can just explain it,but because that is essentially
what is driving the debate inAmerican universities right now
too.
I mean, students are demandingthat universities divest.
Can you?
Omar Shakir/Human Right (21:21):
explain that?
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean.
Look, I think the debate onuniversity campuses right now is
about the nature of US possiblecomplicity in Israel's grave
crimes taking place in Palestine, including the provision of
arms to the Israeli government.
But also, in the case ofuniversities, it's their
endowments, which are investedin a range of companies that do
(21:42):
business either in the occupiedterritory or that have
agreements with abusive arms ofthe Israeli government.
And so when it comes to HumanRights Watch, you know we don't
take a position one way oranother on boycott calls,
because ultimately our advocacyis catered towards duty bearers.
So we call on states andcompanies and others that have
(22:04):
rights, obligations or duties tonot abuse rights, to not be
complicit in rights abuses.
So, in the case ofIsrael-Palestine, we've called
for businesses not to operate inor with settlements, because
doing so makes you invariablyimplicated in the grave human
rights abuses that stem fromsettlements, which are war
crimes, violations ofinternational humanitarian law.
(22:26):
We have also said thatcompanies should avoid all forms
of complicity in apartheid,which we've documented, and in
the atrocities We've documented,grave abuses, including war
crimes, taking place in Gaza.
And certainly students arearticulating their own demands,
which also, in some cases,relate to questions of
complicity and calling for theuniversity to act to ensure that
(22:50):
they're not complicit one wayor another as students in their
university's actions.
Dana Lewis (22:57):
There's a lot in there.
You've packed a lot in thereand I don't want to break it all
down because the wholeconversation will go in that
direction.
But obviously, if you'repro-Israeli, you believe that
the state is being threatened bythings like Hamas' attack in
October the 7th, you wouldbelieve that it's right for
(23:17):
America to keep supplyingweapons to Israel.
The debate then becomes howthose weapons are used, where
those weapons are used.
Are they used against defeatingterror or are they used on a
civilian population?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights W (23:34):
Look , I mean I think there are many
strands of what pro-Israel isright.
I mean I think there are manythat are supportive of the
Israeli government but haveconcerns about their human
rights abuses and concerns aboutUS weapons that may be
contributing to grave abuses orthat are being transferred at a
time in which the Israeligovernment is committing
atrocities.
There are some that wouldsubscribe to that view.
(23:55):
There are obviously some thatwould say, well, maybe Iron Dome
is in a different category thanproviding artillery or
providing, you know firearmsthat might go to settlers, or
JDM, you know bombs that areused in Gaza.
So there are some in thepro-Zero camp that would you
know.
Maybe debate about what, thekind of weapons?
And, yeah, there are othersthat would be defensive of any
(24:16):
sort of condition,conditionality or restrictions.
Dana Lewis (24:19):
But the human rights watch lineup in the camp that
says no weapons at all to Israel.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights (24:25):
Human Rights Watch has been very
clear.
You know, and this is aroundthe world, it's not unique to
Israel.
Anytime there's a risk that theweapons will be used for the
commission of serious abuses.
Anytime we've documented apractice of systematic rights
abuse, we call for an armsembargo.
We call for arms to be cut off,to be suspended, so long as
those abuses continue.
That is our position in thecase of Israel-Palestine that
(24:48):
there should be a suspension onarms and military transfers to
the Israeli government.
Dana Lewis (24:53):
That would essentially strip Israel of its
ability to defend itself fromanything.
I mean, you'd do away withhelicopters, you'd do away with
F-16s, you would do away with1555 millimeter artillery that
defends different borders.
I mean, it's very hard to parseall of that, isn't it?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights W (25:10):
It's not really actually, because at
the end of the day, the firstassessment is whether or not
you're giving weapons to acountry committing war crimes
and grave abuse of human rights.
If you're doing so, there is arisk that you are going to be
complicit in those abuses.
So the first duty of a state isnon-complicity.
We're talking about Israel.
That has its own arms industry.
It has very advanced weapons.
(25:32):
We're not talking about anyother situation.
We're talking about countrieslike the United States asking
themselves whether or not thesupply of weapons to a state
committing and this is very welldocumented that they're
committing war crimes.
The International Court ofJustice has even said that
claims that the rights ofPalestinians under the Genocide
Convention are falsely beingviolated.
Dana Lewis (25:51):
Israel supplied weapons to Palestinians as well.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watc (25:54):
I mean, look, they gave the
Palestinian Authority weapons,and Human Rights Watch has
actually also said that weapons,abusive arms of the Palestinian
Authority should stop, giventhe serious abuses we've
documented.
This is not about cutting.
We've also said the same thing,by the way, about Hamas.
We've called on states thatsupply weapons to Palestinian
armed groups that are committingunlawful attacks.
(26:15):
Those should stop.
Dana Lewis (26:16):
so long as they continue to commit abuses.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watc (26:19):
I covered Egypt for Human Rights
Watch.
We made the same recommendationabout arms to Egypt, so we're
very consistent and Israel'sheld to the very same standard,
including Iran, sorry maybe youcouldn't hear me, but Iran
supplying weapons to Hamas, iransupplying weapons to Hezbollah
in Lebanon?
Dana Lewis (26:34):
Yes, we've been very clear.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Wat (26:35):
We specified Iran when it comes to
provision of weapons to Hamasin our publication Very clearly,
that should stop.
That hasn't worked too well.
But publication, Very clearly,that should stop.
That hasn't worked too well.
Well, it's not worked with theUS and Israel either, if the
arms keep on coming despite thegrave abuses.
So ultimately, our call is thesame to everybody that we need
to stop supplying arms that havea risk of contributing to grave
rights abuses, whether it'sIran to Hamas or the United
(26:57):
States to Israel.
We're talking about a verydifferent scale of provision of
arms, but it's the sameprinciple.
Dana Lewis (27:02):
Certainly a different scale.
Look, I didn't invite you on todebate with you and I hope that
it doesn't sound like I am, butthere are obviously many
different sides and differentlayers here.
But let's return to theoriginal question.
Somebody asked me the other dayis Gaza so much bigger than the
(27:25):
West Bank?
Which is strange?
Right, because you and I bothknow that Gaza is so much
smaller compared to the WestBank geographically.
The population is even smallerthan the West Bank, but
obviously Gaza seems so muchlarger it looms so large right
now because that's where themain conflict is taking place
that we see through very narrowlens.
(27:48):
But we see, between the IDF theviolence has spiked in the West
Bank as well the operations bythe IDF backing, in some cases,
(28:13):
settlers who they're supposed tobe, in some cases policing, but
don't seem to be.
It's a major problem for somany Palestinians who are not in
Gaza, who were not involved inOctober the 7th, who are living
in the West Bank under the ruleof Israel, under military rule.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights W (28:31):
Yeah , you know it's funny If you
look at October 3rd, mycolleagues in Geneva stood up on
the floor of the Human RightsCouncil and literally gave a
speech about the unprecedentedviolence happening in the West
Bank, and that predated October7th.
And what we've seen happensince October 7th actually is an
order of magnitude worse thanwhat we saw happen in the months
(28:52):
before October 7th.
So look, when it comes toviolence in the West Bank, you
have multiple trends, all ofwhich point in a damaging
direction.
One is what you mentioned.
We see settler violence at adegree that's simply
unprecedented Multiple attacksper day.
You have entire parts of theWest Bank.
You mentioned my deportation westarted with.
There are areas in the WestBank that I used to know as
(29:13):
having Palestinian communities.
You go there today and they arewiped off the map.
They do not exist Palestiniancommunities that have been
entirely.
Dana Lewis (29:21):
Can you give me one example?
And how big are those?
How big were those?
Omar Shakir/Human R (29:24):
communities .
These are relatively smallcommunities but we're talking
about at least seven that havebeen entirely depopulated.
Some estimates are higher.
We say people from 20communities have been displaced.
There's another estimate of anIsraeli NGO that 18.
But the areas I'm talking aboutare like the central West Bank.
So if you look at the areastarting Highway 1, which
connects Jerusalem and Jericho,north to like Douma, that's east
(29:46):
of Mughayyar and Ramallah andwest of Jericho, that area has
been almost entirely depopulatedof Palestinians.
Dana Lewis (29:53):
And then if you go to the South Hebron Hills, so
this is an area southwest ofHebron Again you have an area
where you have communities likeThurbet al-Wahim and Thurbet
al-inluta that you can find on amap several years ago that
aren't there today.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights W (30:13):
Tell me how, first of all, they were
depopulated and can you then goto the why?
What's really taking placethere?
Let's do that.
The how.
It's quite simple it's beensettler violence.
So, although these communities,in many cases, have faced years
of home demolitions, deniedaccess to water and electricity,
the thing that forced them outultimately is the fact that
these communities are facingattacks by these herding
(30:33):
outposts.
So we're talking about thembeing assaulted, their livestock
being killed, families beingattacked at their homes, their
cars burned, some cases, theirhomes burned, in some cases,
killings.
So that level of settler, inmany cases with Israeli soldiers
standing by or evenparticipating, that has
succeeded.
Where, and, by the way, thesecommunities, once they're
(30:55):
displaced the day of an attack,we've documented how they've
been unable to go back to theirhomes.
In some cases they've filedlawsuits.
In some cases they've tried tomove back and face continued
settler violence.
So that's the how.
It's the settler violenceforcing them out.
Because when a family has theirlivelihood, like their
livestock, killed, or their kidscan't go to school, or others
(31:16):
are not safe in their own homes,that's going to trigger the
sort of action that all theseother policies have held.
In terms of the why, for us it'sa pretty simple explanation.
There's been years of impunityfor these attacks and you have
very clear statements fromsenior Israeli officials, like
Atamar Ben-Gavir, stating thatcommit the violence, you will
(31:38):
not be held to account.
And then this is happening invery strategic areas of the West
Bank that settlement councilsand other authorities have said
they want to keep and maintainfor use by Israeli settlers.
So it's a confluence of thesefactors that is creating this
unprecedented violence.
And, by the way, we didn't evenget into the other layers of
West Bank violence, which I canget to later, but this is just
(32:00):
one facet of the repression inthe West.
Dana Lewis (32:01):
Bank just one facet of the repression in the West
Bank.
This is because there are, youknow, radical right members of
Netanyahu's cabinet who believeessentially, that Israel should
forever rule the West Bank andprobably depopulate Palestinians
if they can.
I mean, that is not themajority of the Israelis, that
is not the majority of theIsraeli government, but these
are.
I mean they hold cabinet posts.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights W (32:24):
Yeah , but look, I think you're right
and that's part of what we'vedocumented.
But this is not a newphenomenon.
This is not something thatstarted, you know, a year and a
half ago when this governmentcame to power.
This has been a decades-longpattern of unchecked expansion
of settlements and impunity forsettler violence.
It happened under Gantz andLapid.
And impunity for settlerviolence it happened under Gantz
(32:45):
and Lapid.
It happened under other Israeligovernments.
So, yes, you know that's partof the issue.
But this is not a few badapples.
This is a structure or a systemthat you know.
I'll give you an example.
If a settler attacks aPalestinian and the army is
there, they do not have amandate to protect Palestinians.
Their mandate is to protect thesettlers.
It's the Israeli police, whichis barely present in the
(33:06):
occupied West Bank, that has theauthority to protect
Palestinians.
So there's a structural gap.
That's there.
You mean border police.
Dana Lewis (33:16):
Border police, exactly Because the regular
police are not deployed thereanyway.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watc (33:21):
I mean it's complicated because
there are, but generally borderpolice, there are a lot of joint
operation right.
Dana Lewis (33:26):
but I mean, I I've been there in previous in in in
previous years where in fact theidf would stop, it would step
in to settler violence, like inhebron, for instance, where they
um, you know, you have, youhave uh cells, qahana, high
radical right, where there havebeen massacres on Palestinians
(33:50):
in the Hebron Mosque andelsewhere.
Well, hebron's a good example.
They would step in and theywould separate settlers who were
being aggressive and Ipersonally have seen settlers
machine gunning homes and goingdown the street and just
shooting randomly after anattack on settlers in that case.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights W (34:08):
Look , I mean, that's a good example
of Hebron, because, yeah, theyseparate so, but what does that
mean in practice In Hebron?
It means entire sections ofHebron are off access to
Palestinians that live there andpeople who live in those
communities where settlers are.
They may be able to go andreturn to their homes, but
they're not able to inviteothers, they're not able to sort
(34:29):
of fully function.
Many of them are then forced toleave.
So the solution when they do sois to basically erect and
further apartheid, to furtherthe separation, partition as a
structural matter.
The army's duty is to protectthe settlers.
So even when they areseparating them, they're not.
Dana Lewis (34:45):
I mean they're doing so out of a mandate to protect
the settlers.
Omar Shakir/Human Right (34:49):
They're not prosecuting, they're not
arresting.
They're not arresting settlersExactly.
That's a good way to put itOkay.
Dana Lewis (34:56):
Israel would argue and there's again, there's a lot
of different chapters of thisdiscussion but they would argue
that there was a lot of supportfor Hamas and the attack in the
West Bank.
Something like 70% ofPalestinians polled and there
are different polling, butaround 70% of Palestinians
support Hamas' attack on Octoberthe 7th, which I think a lot of
(35:20):
us find remarkable.
I think a lot of us findremarkable, and for that reason,
the IDF was going in andconducting operations in the
West Bank to prevent a similarattack emanating from the West
Bank as it did from Gaza.
What would you say to that?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watc (35:34):
I would say, by that logic, most
Israelis support the bombardmentof Gaza, so, by your logic,
palestinian armed groups wouldhave the same latitude to go and
attack Israeli communitieswhere there is high support for
it.
That's not how internationallaw works.
International works based on aseparation between civilians and
combatants, and the realityhere is that you know, when it
(35:55):
comes to the West Bank, you donot have.
I mean, the center ofhostilities have been in Gaza
and the West Bank.
There have been differentgroups that have opposed the
Israeli army, resisted somecases, you know, used violence
against Israeli forces, and youknow those should be.
You know Israel, under the lawof occupation, you know, has
tools to deal with that.
They can arrest theperpetrators.
(36:16):
If they face an imminent threatto life, they can use lethal
force.
But that's really not whatwe're seeing, right?
I mean you know, and when weand when they do do that, I mean
Naftali Bennett, the formerprime minister in 2022, april,
said there are no restrictionson the Israeli army, and so
we've also seen a pattern ofunlawful killings of
Palestinians in the West Bank.
(36:36):
Let's be clear morePalestinians were killed in the
West Bank in 2023, more thandouble than in any year since
the UN began reporting data onPalestinian killings in 2005.
So in 18 years it's more than2x as high.
Dana Lewis (36:51):
Why and how many?
And could you give me a B partof your answer, which is not
only the killings but how manyhave been arrested since October
the 7th?
It's in the file.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights (37:01):
Great point, it's also, yeah, you
have it Since October the 7th.
It's in the file.
Great point, it's also yeah,you have it.
Well, we don't know how I mean,I don't know the exact number
since October 7th, but you have,for example, about 9,000,
according to the latest Israeligovernment data Palestinian
prisoners in detention.
That doesn't include Gaza, butGaza aside, just from West Bank,
east Jerusalem, and about athird of those about 3,500,
depending on the day are beingheld in administrative detention
(37:23):
without trial or charge, basedon secret information, many of
them detained since October 7th.
That number on administrativedetention is about a 30-year
high.
If you compare before October7th, it's again about 2x or more
the numbers that existed atthat point.
So, yeah, if we take a stepback from all we've talked about
(37:43):
rising settler violence, risingkillings of Palestinians,
rising detention.
So all of this creates asituation which obviously it's
not like the scale of Gaza, butwe are seeing the situation very
much teetering and there is areal concern that the situation
will lead to much worse violenceif we don't deal with some of
(38:05):
these root causes.
Dana Lewis (38:07):
Omar does the policing of the West Bank by the
Israeli army?
And there are different unitsin the IDF.
To be fair to the IDF, I meanthere are some that have been
named by the Americanadministration.
I believe at least one brigadewhere they want to impose
(38:28):
sanctions correct.
There are different.
There's a broad spectrum of IDFunits operating there.
Discussion of a two-statesolution and a peace process or
does it just take us further andfurther away from any moderates
(38:49):
that might deliver some kind ofpeace process between Israel
and Palestinians?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watc (38:55):
I think the current reality
highlights why the decades-longframework for talking about
Israel-Palestine was misguided,because, while we kept talking
about solutions and what theylook like, we forgot about
dealing with the problem thatnecessitates a solution.
We forgot about the root causesimpunity for unlawful attacks,
israel's apartheid againstPalestinians.
(39:15):
There is some parts of Israelisociety that have responded to
October 7th by saying we can'tgo back to how things were,
where we pretended that thePalestinian issue didn't exist,
that we sort of, you know,talked about annexation and
moving forward and just erasingthe Palestinian cause from the
issue, because ultimately, whenyou rule millions of people that
are denied their fundamentalrights, that isn't the basis for
(39:38):
any long-term future.
So look, I think all of thisemphasizes why we need to deal
with root causes, but in a verydifferent way.
We need to sort of centerdealing with the human rights
abuse and the repression.
They cannot be dealt with, thesymptoms, they are the problem.
So we need accountability forall the perpetrators, whether
they be the October 7th attacksor Israel's apartheid and
repression against Palestinians.
(39:59):
We need there to be an end toall forms of complicity by
states, including providing armsthat could be used to commit
serious rights abuses.
Palestinians.
We need there to be an end toall forms of complicity by
states, including, you know,providing arms that could be
used to commit serious rightsabuses.
There needs to be.
You know, the first step tosolve a problem is to diagnose
it correctly.
Right, the wrong diagnosisleads to the wrong policy
prescription.
So we need to start by, youknow, applying the right tools
(40:20):
to understand that reality, andwe have some processes underway
at the International Court ofJustice, the International
Criminal Court.
They're really important and Ithink states should be
supporting those processes andbe taking other steps to prevent
more atrocities.
Dana Lewis (40:34):
So you really wanted .
You would absolutely favorseeing the ICC indict Netanyahu
and other members of thegovernment for war crimes.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watc (40:43):
I am in favor of the ICC moving
forward against perpetrators ofserious crimes.
Let the evidence lead where itleads.
The prosecutor has been lookingat this for years.
There are serious crimes thathave been committed not just by
Israeli forces, but also byPalestinian armed groups, and
those should all be looked at,and the prosecutor should bring
charges against those for whichthere is evidence that they're
(41:04):
implicated in crimes that fallunder the Rome Statute.
Dana Lewis (41:06):
The dark state of affairs which you know.
While the Americans and othersand European governments are
talking about, let's moveforward to a two-state solution.
Let's find a long-term plan toallow Palestinians to exist side
by side with Israel, you haveIsrael poised right now to
invade Rafah in Gaza.
(41:28):
What is that and I know we'reout of time, but I want to end
with that because it's probablywhere we're heading what is that
going to do if Israel movesinto Rafah and tries to, you
know, extinguish Hamas, in theterminology of the Israeli
government, in Netanyahu?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watc (41:47):
I think a Rafah incursion, when
there is no safe place to go inGaza and you have more than one
million displaced Palestiniansthere, would be catastrophic and
unlawful.
There is no safe place to go inGaza.
Much of the population of Gazais there because Israel told
them to go there, becauseeverywhere else was under
(42:08):
sustained attack.
You know there is nowhere elseto go, and so I agree with you
this is where we have to end,because a rough incursion would
be catastrophic and states musttake action to prevent further
mass atrocities.
Lives hang in the balance and,by the way, it's not just
Palestinian lives.
You have the families ofIsraeli hostages that are taking
(42:29):
to the streets of Tel Aviv.
You had one on Thursday May 2nd, where hostages or families
were saying it's either Rafah orthe hostages.
The hostages should beimmediately and unconditionally
released, irrespective of whathappens on the ground.
Dana Lewis (42:54):
But they understand that an incursion like this
could very well threaten notjust.
Omar Shakir/Human (42:58):
Palestinians , but also Netanyahu, though at
the same time, in parallel withthat is saying Rafa's going, and
months may well be determinedby whether or not this incursion
.
And let's also not make it likeit's a binary question, because
Israel continues to carry outairstrikes and other incursions
there.
So you know, even if it's not afull-scale invasion, it could
still have very damagingconsequences for the population.
Dana Lewis (43:19):
Well, Marcia Kira of Human Rights Watch.
Thank you so much.
It's great to meet you and talkto you.
I appreciate it very much.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Wat (43:25):
My pleasure.
Thanks for having me and feelfree to reach out anytime.
Dana Lewis (43:33):
Brigadier General Mark Kimmett is the former
Assistant Secretary of State forPolitical Military Affairs.
Prior to joining the StateDepartment, he was a Brigadier
General in the US Army andserved as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for theMiddle East.
Hi, Brigadier, Good to see yousir.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (43:50):
Morning Dana.
Dana Lewis (43:51):
I often used to sit in front of you in Baghdad and
listen to your briefings, soit's good to see you on a Zoom,
not that it wasn't good to seeyou there.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (44:02):
Yeah, and under better circumstances
today as well.
Dana Lewis (44:07):
Tell me, you and I were on a panel on another
television network last week andI thought you were pretty
pessimistic about new arms forUkraine, and because I said that
I thought in answer to aquestion that some of them the
package is not a game changer,but some of the arms within the
(44:28):
package potentially could be agame changer in terms of what's
happening there.
But I didn't sense that youshared my opinion, so I wanted
to flush that out with you alittle bit.
Republicans has been approved.
Arms are now speedily movingtowards Ukraine to try and fill
(44:55):
some of those empty artillerypieces and weapons that have
been without ammunition.
You don't feel it's a gamechanger?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (45:02):
Look, I'm very, very glad, Dana, that
the ammunition is coming.
I'm glad to see different kindof ammunition, like a TACOMS,
different kind of ammunitionlike a TACOMS is starting to
arrive.
I've always been concerned withthe term game changer, though
we thought the tanks were goingto be game changers.
We thought the javelins weregoing to be game changers.
(45:23):
We thought the HIMARS weregoing to be game changers.
I don't believe that the warwill tip on the basis of this
new tranche.
I don't believe that the warwill tip on the basis of this
new tranche.
I don't think that, other thanthe enormous morale boost that
it's going to give to theUkrainians, I don't think we're
going to see a significanteffect either in the character
(45:45):
of the war or the quality of theground operations.
Dana Lewis (45:49):
So what changes the game if it's not more weapons?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (45:54):
I actually wrote an article which
was summarily rejected by everyone of the periodicals I write
for.
I think we've got to take thegloves off.
I think if the Ukrainians aregoing to have a measurable
effect and perhaps even somewhatof a victory in the fight,
(46:15):
we've got to lift theserestrictions, not only on the
use of the weapons such as theATACMS.
You noted that that would bepossible to hit the Black Sea
Fleet, which it needs to havehappen.
I just think we've got tounleash and take off the
handcuffs that we have put onthese weapons systems, the F-16s
(46:37):
.
No reason why, when they come,they should not only attack
inside of Ukraine but inside ofRussialy.
I think that we ought to justlet the Ukrainians fight the war
(46:58):
they think it should be fought.
Dana Lewis (47:00):
How did you read and I don't know if you saw it, but
you probably did how did youread this disconnect between
Jake Sullivan saying that theattack comes only for use in
Ukraine, not against Russia, andthen General Austin in fact
(47:21):
said, well, we'll let theUkrainians decide how to use
them, and so you know, with asmile on his face, but clearly
saying that he doesn't thinkthat those rules apply to just
using them on occupied areas ofUkraine?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (47:33):
Well, I certainly hope that Lloyd is
right.
I certainly hope that he hasthe backing of his boss, the
president, in allowing the useof these beyond the territorial
limits.
The open water, the Crimean Sea, the Black Sea, and inside
(47:53):
where they can reach in Russia,go against their supply lines.
The Russians have cleverlyrecognized that.
They maintain large supplydepots in range of the current
weapon systems.
They're going to get knockedout, so they pull them back a
little bit, and now they're notin range of the HIMARS, but they
are in range of the ATAKOMsWe've got to.
(48:14):
If we believe that theUkrainians should win this war,
then I believe we've got toallow them to fight it the way
they want to fight it, and thatis, candidly, to bring more pain
on the Russians than on theUkrainian people, to bring more
pain on the Russians than on the.
Dana Lewis (48:31):
Ukrainian people, general Ben Hodges, who you
probably know, who was the USArmy commander in Europe at one
point.
I knew him as a brigadecommander with the 101st
Airborne and the invasion ofIraq in 2003, but he came a long
way since then.
He said why are we talkingabout helping them defend
themselves?
Us administration shouldn't betalking about helping them.
(48:54):
Much of what you just saidhelping them win.
This is about enabling them tobe victorious over invading
Russian forces.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (49:03):
That's exactly right.
I've known Ben even longer.
We were in the same brigadetogether, that same brigade that
he later commanded.
He was there as a young majorand a great one.
You remember, ben.
He not only was part of theinvasion interact, but he did it
with a sling on his arm and acigar in his mouth.
He's a great officer.
I've got nothing but respect,and the comments that he is
(49:26):
making characterize Ben Hodgesand, candidly, I think we share
the same view now.
Dana Lewis (49:40):
Would you reach back to your roots a little bit as
well?
You came from artillery, right?
You were an artilleryman andthen you commanded artillery
units.
I think I said in ourtelevision interview that you
were first and foremost anartilleryman and I apologize for
that.
I understand you're notforemost somebody from artillery
, but you clearly understandwhat is an attack on them and
why.
Do you think that that changesthe game?
(50:01):
It basically doubles the rangeright of what the Ukrainians
have.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (50:06):
Well, first of all, let me clarify.
I am first and foremost anartilleryman, as were my two
brothers and my father.
My father commanded in worldwar ii and in korea.
My brother commanded artilleryunits in vietnam and I picked up
the mantle after that.
I was suggesting that it wasn'tjust this lunk-headed
artilleryman way behind thelines that.
Dana Lewis (50:28):
nor was I, nor was sir, nor were you suggesting.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (50:30):
But if I wasn't doing artillery stuff,
I was doing strategic andoperational level planning.
That was the point I was tryingto make.
What is an ATACMS?
An ATACMS is essentially a verylarge missile that is shot by
ground troops.
It's about three times the sizeof a high Mars rocket.
(50:53):
Because it's a missile, it'sguided and very, very precise
and it can go far greater ranges.
It can put on the ground boththese bomblets that we've seen
used on the battlefield, but italso has a very large unitary
round, something that could,quite frankly, if it hit a ship,
(51:16):
it could sink a ship.
Greater range, greatercapability and certainly more
lethality.
Dana Lewis (51:25):
So why don't you share some of the same
reservations that the Bidenadministration had?
You know months and months ago,when they wouldn't release
these to the Ukrainians, thatthey could be fired into Russia,
and you essentially have.
You know missiles fired,american missiles fired from
Ukrainian ground at Russia andinto Russia, which could really
(51:48):
escalate the war which couldreally escalate the war.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (51:54):
Well, first and foremost to use the
term earlier, I was a bigbeliever that in the early part
of the war, while the Russianswere on their back feet, that
would be the time to negotiate.
But as the war has gone on andas it has become a static fight,
it looks more and more like therussians have the initiative.
(52:14):
This is the classic russian wayof war.
Now that they have theinitiative, now that their
military production is backonline, now that the manpower is
no longer a problem, you justsee this large bulldozer
starting to get larger andlarger.
As a result, I don't thinkthere's any chance for
(52:35):
negotiations.
If Zelensky was to come to thenegotiating table now, the terms
would be harsh and even worsethan we might think.
So that simply means that youcan either stay with the frozen
conflict, which the Russianswill try to unfreeze at a very
(52:57):
high cost to the Ukrainianmilitary and the people back
against the wall, then maybethis is the time to attack and
bring as much pain on theRussian people and the Russian
infrastructure as they have doneto Ukraine.
(53:17):
So that's why I believe thatcontinuing this fight,
constrained inside theterritorial limits of Ukraine,
doesn't make Russia pay the cost?
And, to answer your specificquestion, this incrementalism,
(53:38):
this self-deterrence that we puton our own forces and the
forces of Ukraine that firstthey couldn't drop this, then
they couldn't drop that, thenthey couldn't use this, and then
we'll start giving them moreand more capability.
First it's the M1.
Then it's the F-16.
(53:58):
Look, putin is watching this.
Putin understands what's goingon and he knows that as you
bring more capability to thefight, he's ready to withstand
it.
So at this point, I think it'sjust take the gloves off, as Ben
said, and let the Ukrainians doit the way they think they need
(54:20):
to do it.
This notion that somehow thisis going to spiral into a
nuclear war he may be a madman,but I certainly don't think that
Putin is suicidal, because heknows that if this thing went
too far, the pain would bebrought to Russia, and not just
to the edges of Russia, butactually to the cities of Russia
(54:42):
as well administration.
Dana Lewis (54:55):
I know you didn't clearly say that, but you
implied the slow drip of notgiving them certain things, then
later on turning around F-16s,the HIMARS, the ATAKOMs.
If you fault the Bidenadministration, do you not worry
that a Trump presidency isgoing to be even more difficult
to navigate, Because he'sbasically talked about just
getting the conflict over withand seems to favor the Russians
(55:19):
ruling part of Ukraine?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (55:22):
Yeah, first of all, dana, let me be
clear that I'm not here to faultthe Biden presidency Again, as
a strategic planner sitting onthe edge of the inter-German
border watching the Russians foryears and years and the Warsaw
Pact, it was clearly Russiantactical, low-level doctrine to
(55:43):
use tactical nuclear weapons.
They did not have this boundarybarrier between the use of
tactical conventional weaponsand tactical nuclear weapons.
They just said you know, it'sjust a big bomb.
And I think the Bidenadministration was concerned
(56:15):
about that in the early parts ofthe war that if this went
against the Russians, they wouldgo to their battlefield
tactical doctrine and use it.
There is clear doctrine thatsays certainly, if we are
attacked inside of Mother Russia, it's not only an option but in
many ways it's an imperative.
So I want to start off by notfaulting the thought process
behind the Biden administration.
But I think we are still usingthat logic too far into the
(56:39):
fight and I think at this pointit's highly unlikely that he
would be able to use or bewilling to use those tactical
nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Dana Lewis (56:48):
You know.
That's a really importantdistinction and I follow your
logic and respect that.
Can I ask you most Americancommanders?
The thing that people don'tknow about them is they're very
well educated.
Probably one of the firstconversations you have with even
you know, colonel Rankop, it'salways what books are you
reading and what have you read?
(57:09):
And is what books you read andwhat have you read, and they're
well-schooled in history.
And here you are.
You know you talk about beingbased in Europe.
At one point I know you werealso in NATO at the headquarters
.
So do you buy into thisargument by a lot of European
(57:32):
leaders and by many Americanpoliticians as well, that this
is not just about Ukraine, thatRussia will go further into the
Baltics and maybe Poland?
Some have even talked aboutclaiming back, flying back,
parts of Germany or do you seethis more?
You know what, if we're wrong?
Is this just a specificregional fight, that Russia
(57:55):
wants a buffer zone up against apotential NATO country and it
may just stop in eastern Ukraine?
I mean, where do you stack?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (58:04):
up.
If you look through history,you will see that the Russians
have always had an obsessionwith maneuver space between
themselves and the West.
If my memory serves, you hadthe Ukraine in Western Bosnia.
(58:25):
You had Ukraine, which I thinkliterally translated in Polish,
ukrainian means the buffer orthe frontier.
And this is a country thatknows its history.
It was invaded by the French, itwas invaded by the Germans and
this goes to the fundamentalquestion and handedly, the
(58:46):
disagreement between the Reaganslash Bush team that had an
agreement with the Russians thatwe would not expand NATO and
more current administrationsthat had been more of the view
that NATO expansion is a goodthing.
So if you put yourself, youknow, if you're sitting around a
(59:07):
Daha in Russia looking atwhat's happening for the last 25
years, you see NATO encroachcloser and closer and closer to
their frontier and in fact inmany ways have eliminated this
frontier.
So that in many ways is theobsession that in my mind drives
(59:29):
the Russian paranoia aboutgoing into Ukraine, perhaps
having Ukraine as a NATO member.
But you asked another questionDoes Ukraine necessarily lead
the Russians to acquiringprobably the Baltics, possibly
(59:50):
Poland, romania, bulgaria, theway it used to have in the war
we?
Dana Lewis (59:56):
haven't even talked about Central Asia, Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, all of that.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (01:00:00):
Right, right.
Well, that's a differentproblem.
That's part of an old story.
I can tell you about theirbelief in this arc of
instability.
But, having said that, I dobelieve that it is a significant
leap for Putin to, number one,go against a non-NATO Ukraine
(01:00:27):
versus going against what hethought at one time was a NATO
that could not cohes, that wasready to fall apart.
But I think he would have tothink twice about whether that
bluff and that gamble that NATOwould not respond if he went
into the Baltics or if he wentinto Western Poland.
(01:00:50):
I just think at this pointthat's a real leap for him to
make, that he can go intoUkraine and seeing the response
he got from NATO indirectlywould be the same that would
happen if he attacked NATOdirectly.
Dana Lewis (01:01:08):
Last question to you , then why not give them what
they have now?
Why not let them keep Crimea,lugansk and Donetsk?
And so, if you don't fear thathe's trying to reestablish the
old empire, why not just givePutin that and call it a day and
push the Ukrainians to acceptan armistice or ceasefire?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (01:01:30):
Well, that's exactly where I think
Trump will take it and you?
Dana Lewis (01:01:35):
you believe that that's the place to take it.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (01:01:38):
I believe that's the person that
will make that offer.
Uh, whether that's the rightthing or not, uh, we've got to
accept that Eastern Ukraine isprimarily Russian speaking.
We've got to accept.
Accept that in many ways thereare some legitimate claims that
Russia has to a culturalconnection with eastern Ukraine.
(01:02:01):
If you ask the questiondifferently, which is, should we
continue a long war supportingUkraine to take back Crimea and
the Donbass in Luhansk?
I'm not sure that that's in thefuture.
Dana Lewis (01:02:25):
Interesting.
Brigadier General Mark Kimmett,a pleasure to talk to you and
some surprises in there for me,but there's definitely different
schools of thought on wherethis goes and how far the West
and European governments andAmerica should pursue this, and
(01:02:45):
that debate is going to go onand intensify, no doubt.
So thank you very much, sir.
Well, thank you for having meand that's our Backstory this
week.
We're a serious podcast.
No apologies, this isn't aboutpushing a political agenda.
Like many other podcasts, it'sjust serious talk by serious
guests on serious situations,and you can make up your own
(01:03:07):
mind.
I'm Dana Lewis.
Thanks for listening toBackstory and I'll talk to you
again soon, thank you.
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