Krystal and Saagar Thomas Massie reveals AIPAC influence, Oct 7th sexual assault claims debunked, and former State Dep Annelle Sheline on why she resigned over Israel.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.com/
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Let's turn to Republican Congress and Thomas Massey, who you
guys probably know him, but just for those of you
who don't follow these things closely, he's libertarian, and he's
one of the few in Congress, and especially one of
the few on the Republican de side who's willing to
go against the grain. And he has voted against you
know how, they've been passing all of these Israel resolutions,
condemning anti Semitism, standing up for this, standing up for that,
(00:47):
and also obviously tons of money that they just voted
on to shift Israel as well.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
And he will be frequently one of the.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Lone voices on the Republican side, one of the loan
votes against a number of those provisions.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
That has, of course.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Made him a huge target of a pack well congresson
Massey was recently on with Tucker Carlson and the subject
of APAC and how this all works in Congress came up,
and his comments are very interesting.
Speaker 4 (01:17):
Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (01:18):
Is there any other Republican who has your views on this?
Speaker 6 (01:22):
We Why have Republicans who come to me on the
floor and say, I wish I could vote with you today.
Yours is the right vote, but I would just take
too much flak back home. And I have Republicans who
come to me and say, that's wrong, what APAC is
doing to you. Let me talk to my APAC person.
(01:42):
By the way, everybody but me has an APAC person.
Speaker 5 (01:45):
Does that mean an APEC person.
Speaker 6 (01:47):
It's like your babysitter, your APAC babysitter who is always
talking to you for APAC. They're probably a constituent in
your district, but they are firmly embedded in a pack.
Speaker 5 (02:01):
And every member has someone like this.
Speaker 6 (02:04):
I don't know how it works on the Democrat side,
but that's how it works on the Republican side. And
when they and when they come to DC, you go
have lunch with them and they've got your cell number
and you have conversations with them. So I've had like.
Speaker 5 (02:20):
That's absolutely crazy.
Speaker 6 (02:21):
I've had four members of Congress say I'll talk to
my APAC person and it's literally what we call them,
my APAC guy. I'll talk to my APAC guide, see
if I can get to you know, dial those ads back.
Speaker 5 (02:34):
Why if I never heard this before.
Speaker 6 (02:37):
It doesn't benefit anybody. Why would they want to tell
their constituents that they've basically got a buddy system with
somebody who's representing a foreign country. It doesn't benefit the
congressman for people to know that. So they're not going
to tell you that.
Speaker 5 (02:53):
It's it's in. Have you seen any other country do
anything like this, like Russia. Russia obviously determines the outcome
of our elections. We keep hearing that does anyone have
a putin guy that they talk to?
Speaker 6 (03:05):
Not only do they not have a putin guy? Look,
they don't. They don't have a Briton guy. They don't
have an Australian guy. They you know, they don't have
a Germany dude. Like, it's the only country that does
this that has somebody that like uniformly, I guarantee there's
some spreadsheet at APAC where where you know the APAC
(03:30):
dude is, who's matched up with the congressman is there?
And then all the congressman's votes on the issue. Oh,
has the congressman been to Israel? They pay for trips
for congressmen and their spouses to.
Speaker 5 (03:41):
Go to Israel.
Speaker 7 (03:42):
I may be.
Speaker 6 (03:44):
I mean, I'm not the only Republican who hasn't taken
the APAC trip to Israel, but I'm probably one of
a dozen that hasn't taken that trip, and the other
ones just haven't got around to it.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
The a pack babysitter.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
By the way, that thing about the trips that they
pay for not just for politicians, It's also for any
number of prominent people and media figures. In fact, I
don't know if I talked about this here or somewhere else,
but when I started MSNBC got an email asked you
if I wanted to go on the APAC trip to Israel.
Speaker 4 (04:17):
I said no, But you know.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
That's part of what they do, because then they can
take you to Israel and they can show it to
you through their lens and have a chance to you know,
subtly and not so subtly propagandize you and plus just
create this human sense of like, oh, I owe this
person something because they took me on this great trip.
Speaker 4 (04:34):
And I had a great time.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
You know, so I like them, they're friends, They're friends
with me, like I should listen to what they have
to say. It's very intelligent in terms of influence pedaling.
But I think, you know a lot of Americans are
very shocked to learn that this is how this.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
All works soccer.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
I mean, yeah, it is like as you said, it's
amost funny because it is common knowledge here. I also
have been offered many free trips Israel. My only trip Israel,
by the way, paid on my own dime.
Speaker 5 (04:56):
Thanks.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
I don't take free trips from anybody. And that's the issue.
Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
Well, you have very clearly here quote bipartisanship or Republican meddling.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
APAK is the biggest source of.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
GOP donations in the Democratic primaries. It says, apaxy's support
for israelis bipartisan and its donors come from both parties.
It's practice of sending money from GOP donors into democratic
racist is quote enraged progresses. But I mean one of
the flagship cases here, Crystal, I'm sure you've been tracking
is Man. Dear Jones, who has effectively disavowed all of
(05:30):
his form progressive positions, has been basically what has he
been doing. He's been keeping them not only an arms length,
and he's been a huge beneficiary.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Well, he endorsed against Jamal Bowman's primary opponent, and Bowman
is under fire. He's been very courageous on Israel and
he deserves a lot of credit. And his district has
a significant Jewish population. Although you know, it doesn't cut
the way that people necessarily think that it's going to,
because I'll show you some numbers in just a minute.
Speaker 4 (05:59):
But you know, a pack donor base.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
It's not like your average working class Jewish American or
even average like Jewish professional American.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
It is the elite.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
It is very very wealthy, predominantly like CEOs and executives
who cut big checks to a pack. So it's not
like they're reflective of the Jewish community at large. And
in fact, there was polling that was done in Jamal
Bowman's district that found a very significant majority of voters
in his district, which again has a significant Jewish population,
(06:31):
said they would be much more likely to support a
candidate who backs a ceasefire, which Jamal Bowman does. However,
mandere Jones, who is desperately you know, trying to win
his congressional seat back, feels that Jamal Bowman's positioning himself
as an Israel critic has been damaging for him too,
and he feels afraid that that's going to be a
(06:53):
problem for him in his congressional race. So he's made
this very cynical political move to back Jamal Bowman's primary
opponent and basically disavow progressivism altogether. I mean, it's just
incredibly craven and the A PAC money is.
Speaker 4 (07:09):
A huge, huge part of that.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
I want people to think about this, you know, the
piece about how a Pack is the source of the
largest number of Republican donations into democratic primary races.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Like imagine if it was a.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
George Soros backed organization that was being incredibly significant the
largest player in Republican primaries. Conservatives would be outraged at that.
They would think that was completely outrageous. And so progressives
really feel that way about a Pack, which gets a significant,
you know, about more than a majority of their money
(07:44):
from Republican donors. But it's not just that as well.
Here's a quote from the piece just giving you a
sense of the scale of their efforts. Here they say
competitive democratic primaries are the biggest targets for a Pack's
affiliated super pac, which is called the United Democracy proput
which has already spent almost twenty million dollars in the
race this year in democratic primary races this year, including
(08:07):
almost ten million in that Jamal Bowman George Latimer race.
That makes it by far the biggest outside group in
democratic primaries, with more money flowing from that a Pack
super Pack than the next ten.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
Biggest spenders combined.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
So the biggest player in democratic primaries is a group
that isn't even about American electoral issues at all.
Speaker 4 (08:34):
It's about the.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
Interests of a foreign government funded by largely a lot
of Conservatives, playing in democratic primaries. I mean, it really
is quite quite extraordinary, quite astonishing, and the money has
a huge impact both in terms of who wins these
races and also in terms of politicians look at this
and they're like, I don't want them playing in my race,
(08:55):
so I'm just going to do whatever they want me
to do. And that's something that Ryan Grimm has done
the best reporting on the way that they have served
as a check on Democratic candidates who might otherwise have
some level of criticism as of Israel. That is reportedly,
again according to Ryan, the sort of origin story for
John Fetterman being the most like embarrassingly pro Israel, like
(09:17):
Israel no matter what guy who's out there. It wasn't
that he cared about it that much before, but he
asked his basically apat guy where he should be to
keep them out of his Democratic primary race, and he
just took that and ran with it.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Yeah, you're absolutely right, and to your point about how
American Jews are not the monolith that apparently all of
media and Congress wants them to be. Let's put this
up there on the screen from Michael Tracy, because what
you see from this survey is that just twenty three
percent of American Jews plan to vote for Trump, down
from thirty percent in twenty twenty, despite Trump and a
(09:52):
lot of Republican donors saying, well, you know.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Basic, what do they say you're basically if you vote.
Speaker 4 (09:57):
For Biden, basically you're not a Jew.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
As completely astounding you can see here very clearly if
the presidential election were held today, who would you most
likely vote for?
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Biden?
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Sixty one percent Trump, twenty three ten percent actually say
someone else will not vote as six which of the
two party candidates for president would be better for the
US Israel relationship. You've got fifty percent there who say
Joe Biden. So I mean, this is a American Jewish
Coalition survey, nonpartisan organization. Basically, from what we can see here,
this is a pretty representative sample of American Jews. It
(10:29):
turns out that American Jews are just like everybody else.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
They're stratified.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
A lot of them who are wanting to vote for
Joe Biden are doing so for multifaceted reasons, Israel not
necessarily being the number one issue. Maybe it's a little
bit higher than many people who might vote for Biden
or for Trump, but they're.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
Just like the rest of us.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
And that's been the most annoying and thing about this
is Jewish students unsafe from protesters who are also sometimes
Jewish Zionism. You know, if without the thing I think
the most discussing name that Biden has said throughout this
entire conflict, just for me is if it weren't for Israel,
not a Jew in the world would be safe because
(11:08):
it undermines the theory of America itself. It would be
like saying, you know, for me, as a person of
Indian descent, that if it weren't for India's existence, I
would not be safe in the United States. No, my
passport says United States of America on it, and there's
nothing else the passport that I have, unlike many people
in Israel, by the way, who are a dual citizen.
(11:30):
So it's just it undermines the theory of the nation
state for a select group of people, which is antithetical
to the very idea of what it even means to
be American. And clearly many and most Jews see it
that way too.
Speaker 4 (11:47):
Yeah, that's what it's like.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Who are you, mister Irish Catholic, to be litigating what
that means for everybody else?
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Yeah, and not to go too deep into the history here,
it was worth mentioning that, you know, the founding of
the state of Israel, there's sort of a corrupt bargain
between Western powers that you know, wanted to basically wanted
to remain, you know, with their image of like oh,
we're on the side of the Jews, and we're like,
you know, interested in protecting them, et cetera. But they
(12:15):
didn't actually want to like take in Jewish refugees themselves.
And Zionists who really found it to be a threat.
The idea that Jews could be integrated into America or
the UK or France or anywhere else. They saw that
as a direct threat to their project. You can understand why,
because if you have a safe Jewish diaspora that's integrated
(12:38):
into their communities, then there's less of an incentive to
move to Israel. So there was sort of this corrupt
bargain at the beginning that has continued to exist, as
reflected in those comments from Joe Biden. But if we
could go to B three, our friend Bronco Marttis did
a very interesting analysis of APAC donors versus donors to
(12:58):
the squad and he writes here in this tweet where
he tweeted out his analysis, he says he looked at
more than five hundred donors to APAX super Pac, which
is United Democracy Project that's the one we were just
talking about. It shows nearly sixty percent our top level executives,
nearly half of whom work in the fire sector, which
(13:18):
is finance and real estate. The average donation was nearly
ninety thousand dollars, so not exactly you're like average person
shelling out ninety k. Put the next one up on
the screen because he put together some great charts that
really illustrate the difference here, so you can see on
the left he says United Democracy Projecting, and that's eight
pack superPAC Wall Street Base. You can see how many
(13:41):
of their donors, what percentage come from finance, slash, insurance,
real estate, are retired, probably from one of those industries
misscelaneous business, lawyers and lobbyists and everything else is like
pretty small. And then you look at their donors versus
donors to the squad who have been the primary targets
of a pack. You have twenty percent of apack donors
(14:04):
are CEOs, significant percentage who are owners or founders, another
thirty nine percent who are top executives. That little yellow
bar you see there, that's working people. On the other hand,
the donors to squad members, sixty percent of them are
working people and basically none of them from CEOs, founders,
top executives, etc.
Speaker 4 (14:23):
So it just shows you you know.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
Part of why the discourse in the media, I mean,
there's a whole plethora of reasons why, but part of
why the discourse in the media just assumes that all
Jewish Americans have the same perspective is because there is
a class divide, even within the Jewish community about how
they view these issues and how they prioritize these issues
as well. So I thought Bronco really got to the
(14:46):
heart of some of that class divide and why you
shouldn't assume that the position of a pack is reflective
of broader Jewish American sentiment, which I think has been
consistently the.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Ay, this is the same for all ethnic groups. I
see the stuff all the time. Yeah, Indian Americans against it,
and I'm like, hey, shut up, all right, I'll keep
it kind you know. On this one, I'm like, you
don't speak for us, You speak for yourselves and your friends.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
And I don't ever presume to.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Speak a quote unquote on behalf of the community, because
who's elected me zenative. Somehow though, in this ethnic group
that's considered not only okay but cannon, and then widely
accepted by a bunch of evangelical crit and Catholic Christians
to be canon for what they presume to speak on
(15:31):
behalf of, so totally ridiculous. It's always a class story
here in America, which means that really it's about something
totally different than what is being presented to you.
Speaker 3 (15:41):
Crystal, what do you taking a look at?
Speaker 1 (15:43):
A mainstream outlet has just kicked a hornet's nest, taking
direct aim at the claims of mass rape by Hamas
on October seventh, and finding no evidence to back those claims.
No surprise, a massive backlash has already begun, So let's
take some time to dig into this one. So, as
you may know, following October seventh, the Israeli garment pushed
a series of invented atrocities in order to justify a
(16:05):
military campaign filled with unjustifiable horse wasn't enough that Hamas
had wantonly murdered civilians, including young partygoers at a desert ravee.
The Israeli government and its American accomplices needed more graphic
visual imagery that could persuade the world that Gaza was
filled with inhuman monsters who must be wiped off the
face of the earth. We heard gruesome stories of forty
(16:28):
beheaded babies in actuality. One baby was horrifically killed on
October seventh, none were beheaded. Another baby we were told
was baked in an oven, also completely false. We were
told a pregnant woman had a fetus cut out of
her that was also untrue, and that volunteers had seen
bodies piled up in a pyramid, once again false.
Speaker 4 (16:47):
But nothing has been.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
As persistent or as politically charged as the oft repeated
allegation that Hamas used rape systematically on October seventh as
a weapon of war. This allegation has been embraced in
polite society as an ironclad fact and one which should
never be questioned. It was a subject of an Israeli
government social media campaign hashtag Believe Israeli Women, subject of
(17:11):
a Sheryl Sandberg documentary, a UN report, a now discredited
but hugely hyped New York Times investigation, and even a
congressional resolution which claimed Israeli police had evidence of quote
countless instances of rape, gang rape, sexual mutilation, and other
forms of sexual violence. Media elit's current political figures, including
(17:34):
Joe Biden, and past political figures like Hillary Clinton all
repeated the claim that not only did sexual assault occur
on October seventh, but that it was widespread and directed
from the top down.
Speaker 7 (17:45):
And let me be clear, hamas usually rape, sexual violence
and terrorism and torture Asraeli women and girls is appalling
and unforgivable. And I was there, saw some of the
photographs and it is beyond it's just beyond comprehension.
Speaker 8 (18:02):
We had two events last week. We had three panels
about Ukraine and they were superb. They went off without
a hitch. We learned a lot and were challenged. Two
days later we had panels on conflict related sexual violence.
(18:25):
It included Ukraine, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Israel,
and it was protested. You just have to ask yourself
how you could have an event focused on using rape
as a tactic of war against women and girls, which
(18:50):
is in conflict across the world, and you include the
most recent horrendous example out of Israel, and that brings
out the protesters. So there is an invidious strain of
anti Semitism that has never gone away. But we had
(19:10):
hopes it had been certainly submerged. That has been poking
its head up for quite some time now.
Speaker 7 (19:21):
Fifteen thousand Palestinians have been killed in Israeli airstrikes, three quarters.
Speaker 5 (19:27):
Of whom and are women. And it's horrible. But you
don't see Israeli soldiers raping well, Dana, I think we're not.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
I could probably do entire monologues about each of those clips,
but the last one with Dana Bash really gives up
the game. Sure, Palestinians getting killed, it's terrible, but at
least they aren't getting raped like Israeli women. She uses
the mass rape claims to dismiss in real time the
horrors of Palestinians, which of course is the whole reason
why these claims were marketed so aggressively by the Israeli.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Government to begin with.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
But from the beginning there were some brave voices out
there asking for evidence that just had not yet been produced.
Electronic Intofada, the Gray Zone, Z Squirreld, Intercept, and many
more began looking critically at the reports, pointing out where
narratives collapsed, evidence was lacking, or stories were ever shifting.
All of these attempts at actual journalism as opposed to
(20:21):
just writing up whatever government spokesfur us and wants you
to say. All of these were roundly smeared. The individuals
involved were personally intact as pro hamas rape apologists. Brianna
Joy Gray was just fired from the Hill because of
her willingness to question this narrative. Well, now a mainstream outlet,
The Times of London, has conducted an investigation into those
(20:42):
mass rape allegations, an attempt to sort fact from fiction.
And while listen, there are some parts I could take
some issue with, I still really highly recommend it. The
piece is very sympathetic to Israeli perspectives, even to the
ultra religious Zaka volunteers whose lies formed a core of
the mass rape evidence, and other atrocity fictions as well.
(21:02):
But ultimately Times of London concludes the bottom line is this,
there is no forensic evidence of rape. There is no
video evidence. Of October seventh, rate the government of Israel
claimed they had evidence of thousands of sexual assaults. They
have produced zero evidence to support a single claim. Here
(21:23):
is the report quote. To this date, police have not
interviewed a single survivor. On December twenty fourth, the police
issued a decree to hospitals ordering them to hand over
accounts of any rape survivor who had sought treatment. On
January fourth, the police put out a fresh appeal for witnesses,
saying they had succeeded in interviewing just three and had
been unable to match their accounts with the bodies collected
(21:46):
from the massacre site. The Times of London also discusses
the lack of evidence in the UN report compiled by
Promila Patten. Quote in all the Hamas video footage Patten's
team had watched and all the photographs they had seen
were no depictions of rape. We hired a leading Israeli
dark web researcher to look for evidence of those images,
(22:06):
including footage deleted from public sources. None could be found.
They also detail how the rape claims were obsessed over
and politically weaponized in a way that actually was damaging
to other survivors. After three hundred thousand people marched in
London to protest the ongoing genocide, and Israeli government spokespersons
smeared them all as a rape apologist. What's more, the
(22:27):
quest to prove the mass raped narrative erased the focus
on other horrific trauma and atrocities that were meted out
on that day. Doctor Rut Plonsker, a senior psychologist with
non governmental organization Safehart believes the focus on sexual violence
has been unhelpful for Nova Festival survivors wrestling with their trauma.
She said, I don't think there were a lot of
(22:48):
sexual assaults. There was a lot of murder. That's what
happened there. People were hiding and watching very horrible things.
She's skeptical that political leaders have the victim's interest in mind.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Quote.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
Therapists are interested in the victims and the survivors. I
think politicians are interested in the image of Israel. The
head of an Israeli ripe rape crisis center told The
Times of London she was disgusted by the way the
rape allegations had been politicized.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
Quote.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
On October eleventh, the Foreign Ministry launch a campaign under
the hashtag believe Israeli Women. I did not think that
was sensible, she said. They didn't mean believe Israeli women,
they meant believe Israel Now. The article did not conclude
that no rape had occurred, and left open the possibility
that mass systematic rape had indeed been part of the
(23:35):
mass October seventh attack, but simply pointed out what is
inescapable at this point. As of now, there is no
evidence to back those claims. Now, naturally, a backlash has
been both swift and very revealing. Those three Israeli experts
that were interviewed for the piece wrote a joint response
claiming their words had been quote, misrepresented, twisted and cynically exploited.
(23:58):
One can only imagine what pressure these experts are under
in Israel itself. Notably, though they don't actually dispute any
of the facts from the piece, nor do they specify
these supposed misrepresentations or directly claim that they were actually misquoted.
Speaker 4 (24:13):
It's all left very vague.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
Nonetheless, this response has fueled calls for The Times of
London to apologize or even to retract the report entirely
needless to say, that would be a strange thing to do,
given that no error has actually been revealed. Meanwhile, however,
The New York Times has published an explosive new report
that does detail sexual assault used as a tool of
(24:36):
war in a systematic way, with actual evidence to back
it up. But you probably didn't hear about that report
because it was about Palestinian prisoners being tortured and sodomized
by their Israeli captors. In a lengthy investigation into abuse
of Palestinians at an Israeli military based turned prison. They
write that Palestinians were subjected to brutal beatings, electric shocks,
(24:59):
in intentionional degradation, including being forced to wear only diapers,
and sexual assault. Quote Mister Elham Lowie, the senior nurse,
said a female officer had ordered two soldiers to lift
him up and press his rectum against a metal stick
that was fixed to the ground. He said the stick
penetrated his rectum for roughly five seconds, causing it to
(25:22):
bleed and leaving him with unbearable pain. A leaked draft
of the unreport detailed an interview that gave a similar account.
It cited a forty one year old detainee who said
that interrogators quote made me sit on something like a
hot metal stick and it felt like fire, and also
said that another detainee died after they put the electric
(25:43):
stick up his anus. But there will be no congressional
resolutions about these assaults, No Sheryl Sandberg film, no convenience
with Hillary Clinton to discuss why we should hashtag believe
Palestinian men, because BB and Biden they never cared about
human rights or protection from sexual assault, health they don't
even actually care about Israeli women, since they're content to
(26:05):
continue to let hostages languish in Gaza with no ceasefire deal.
They care about cynical emotional manipulation for their own political
ends and to justify their own atrocities.
Speaker 4 (26:17):
Just a couple of dudes who couldn't.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Care less about violence against women using fake feminism to
justify a genocide. At least one outlet is no longer
falling for the ruse and saga.
Speaker 4 (26:30):
I want we mentioned this and if you.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a
premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
We are very fortunate to be joined this morning by
doctor Annelle Sheeline. She is a former State Department official
who resigned over our government's policy visa of the Israeli
and especially the Israeli assault on Gaza. Great to have you, doctor,
you thanks for having me, and I understand now should
give a shout out to our friends over at Quincy
Institute that you are a research fellow for the Middle
(27:01):
East there as well. Just start by introducing yourself a
little bit to our audience. What your position was at
the State Department and what led you finally to resign?
Speaker 9 (27:11):
So I was a foreign affairs officer with the Bureau
of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor's Office of Near Eastern Affairs,
so drl NEA, the office that works on human rights,
does the human rights reports.
Speaker 10 (27:25):
And I had only been at the.
Speaker 9 (27:26):
State Department briefly when October seventh Hathbad. I'd only been
there about six months, and in the end, I served
for a year, which I had an obligation to the
government to serve for a year, and I resigned over
the unconditional support for Gaza, in particular the ways that
(27:47):
the Biden administration is violating American law. I think that obviously,
not only is this having a devastating effect for the
people for Palestinians inside Vezza, but also for America's leadership
in the world. I think we are doing incredible damage
to the international order, to international law. And I think
(28:08):
that this is going to come back to bite us
because as other countries see that the US behaves in
a way that the US and Israel have total disregard
for international law, what is to prevent other countries from
behaving similarly. Obviously we've saw Russia do that with the
invasion of Ukraine. But as we enter a world where
other countries are growing increasingly more powerful, I think the
(28:29):
US and Israel may come to regret the ways that
they thought they could just violate international law that there
would be no consequences.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
Can you talk to us about what it was like
inside the State Department at that time? And I presume
that you were trying to voice dissent within the Department.
What was it like in terms of the incoming from
other countries and then trying to bubble that up to
Anthony Blincoln and how receptive was he to the criticism.
Speaker 9 (28:56):
So, yes, exactly, there is the descent channel inside this
Date Department. So I co authored a dissent cable and
signed to other cables expressing my opposition and that of
my colleagues to the unconditional US support for Israel and
the effect this was having, and participated in open fora
(29:19):
The State Department was aware of the deep level of
concern and alarm over what these policies were doing, again
not only to the people directly affected, but also just
more broadly so from my office trying to promote human
rights in the Middle East, which already was not an easy.
Speaker 10 (29:37):
Thing to do. To be clear, I mean, this is
a deeply autocratic system.
Speaker 9 (29:41):
Many of these are governments where the US is much
more interested in maintaining the security relationship or you know,
just the nature of US relationships is not really governed
by human rights sort of as a rule. But just
the point was that after October s it just became
completely impossible to try to advocate for human rights, not
(30:04):
only because these governments would immediately turn around and say,
how can you criticize us on human rights given what
you're doing and supporting, and also that organizations, you know,
civil society organizations on the ground in these countries, many
of them were no longer interested in having anything to
do with the State Department.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
You know, you clearly didn't go in with a pollyann
of you. You're an experience professional. You wouldn't go in
thinking like, oh, the US always stands with human rights
and so that's the utmost priority. And yet still you
were shocked and horrified enough to you know, to ultimately
feel like you had to for your own integrity resign.
Was there a particular breaking point were you truly shocked
(30:44):
by the you know, the blanket support even for you know,
things that were just outrageously clearly violations of US law. Either, Like,
what was it that really surprised you about the response,
given that you came in sort of clear eyed about
the pragmatic nature of what you were going to be
doing at the State Department.
Speaker 9 (31:04):
Well, it's definitely true that I did not come in with,
you know, under any illusion that human rights were going
to be the top priority even for the you know,
for the Human Rights Office. However, you know, for me,
there was not one particular point. I think it was
really just the slow accumulation, just realizing day in and
(31:25):
day out that just kind of, no matter what Israel did,
the US just continue to provide more and more weapons
and more and more money, and it just seemed that
there was really no red line that Israel could cross
that would suddenly push the Biden administration to finally say,
all right, that's it, you know, we can no longer
support this. And you know, so, as I mentioned, I
(31:47):
was there exactly a year because I owed the government
a year. I'd had a fellowship that obligated a year's service,
so I decided that I would fulfill the obligation, and
then on you know, exactly three hundred and sixty five
days after I started, was when I handed in my resignation.
I had not planned to go public initially because I
(32:07):
was so new there.
Speaker 10 (32:08):
I didn't think I was important enough to go public.
But it was speaking with.
Speaker 9 (32:12):
Colleagues who said, please reconsider, Please consider going public, because
you know, these were colleagues who weren't in a position
to resign, and so they really at that time and
had only been Josh Paul, who'd resigned very early in
the war, and then Tara Kabash, who's a political appointee
from the Department of Education, were the only two public
(32:32):
resignations at that point, but that after I resigned in
late March, we've subsequently seen.
Speaker 10 (32:38):
Three or four more public resignations.
Speaker 9 (32:41):
And the hope was that by resigning publicly to build
this pressure you know that we're seeing from many parts
of American society, obviously from college campuses, from the Uncommitted
movement and others really trying to say that the American
people do not support what the administration is doing.
Speaker 3 (32:58):
Can you tell us about last year? Just referenced a
lot of.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
Those colleagues who may not be in the same position
you obviously had, you know, you could make alternative arrangements,
et cetera. For a lot of the people who are
lifers and others who are inside of the State Department,
What would you say the prevailing opinion is.
Speaker 3 (33:12):
Is it the vast majority? Is it? You know, half
and half are there? You know how representative?
Speaker 2 (33:18):
I guess what do your views be inside of the
State Department amongst normal career officers?
Speaker 10 (33:24):
It's really hard to say.
Speaker 9 (33:25):
I mean, the State Department is massive, and I don't
you know, I'm not in touch with you know, the
thousands of people who work there, of course, right, but
I can just speak to, you know, those that I
was in touch with. There's a group called Fedes United
for Peace, for example, which represents not only people at State,
but people across the federal government who are are deeply,
(33:48):
deeply opposed to what's going on. And so they were
the ones who really supported me as I made the decision.
Well can contributed to me making the decision to go
public and then supported me, especially through the bit of
a just a lot of media attention that followed, which
I was not expecting.
Speaker 10 (34:06):
Like I said, I didn't think people would care. So
I mean, it's.
Speaker 9 (34:12):
Really hard to say the level of opposition, but I
do think in particular from those who know the region
well and who have worked on this issue, that's often
where you see some of the deepest levels of opposition.
You know, these are people like Josh Paul, like Stacy Gilbert,
who recently resigned from the Bureau of Population, Refugees and
Migration because she had been working directly on the NSM
(34:32):
twenty and that the final report that came out did
not reflect the work that she and her colleagues had
done on it, which I just reflects the ways that
the State Department is ignoring the expertise of these many
hundreds of individuals who know so much about the region
and know this incredible damage that these policies are doing
to us interests. Again, this is not just motivated by
(34:56):
sort of a bleeding heart concern for Palestinians, although that
is obviously, you know, part of it for many people,
but it's also just this is directly harmful to American
interests and arguably to Israeli interest We saw the myth
of Israeli security punctured on October seventh. The clearly perpetual
occupation is not a recipe for Israeli security, and so
(35:17):
the US would best serve you know, American donors who
are so concerned about the future of the state of Israel,
if that's their primary motivation, they should be supporting of
some kind of stable resolution that allows Palestinians to live
in a circumstance where they don't they're not motivated to
(35:38):
react violently, you know, to engage and action like October seventh.
You know, like the extent to which this is also
self defeating is It's truly mind boggling because many of
the people working on this are such experts and know
so much, and yet we continue to see this same
futile and failed policy over and over and over again.
Speaker 4 (36:00):
Yeah, I think that's so well said.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
I wanted to get your reaction to the UN Security
Council resolution that the US just pushed through. We can
put this first element up on the screen, guys with
the numbers here. This is from Axius reporter Barack Revied breaking.
The UN Security Council adopted a resolution on Monday calling
on Hamas to accept the proposal for a hostage and
ceasefire deal. Fourteen member states voted yes and Russia abstained.
(36:24):
This has all been very strange. Why I wanted to
get your reaction to it. So Biden comes down, he
gives this big speech. He says, Israel has made this
very generous proposal for a permanent cease fire. Here's the phases. Now,
we're calling on Hamas to accept it.
Speaker 7 (36:38):
Well.
Speaker 4 (36:39):
Hamas and in.
Speaker 1 (36:40):
Reaction also to this resolution for the UN Security Council said.
Speaker 4 (36:43):
Okay, we're open to it.
Speaker 1 (36:44):
Let's talk like, yes, if it's going to end the war,
we are open to that. And in fact, yesterday you know,
directly indicated that they supported the text of the Security
Council resolution. Israel, on the other hand, who's ceasefire proposal
this allegedly was, has been much more reluctant. There's you know,
was really divided opinion within the war cabinet. You know
(37:05):
how Benny Gantz out of the war cabinet. Natanyahuo reiterating
that he will not accept any deal that will end
the war without completely eliminating Hamas, which we all know
has always been a preposterous goal. So what do you
make of this whole situation and what do you make
specifically of the significance of this ceasefire resolution passing through
(37:25):
the UNSC.
Speaker 10 (37:29):
I'm it is confusing. I agree.
Speaker 9 (37:33):
I think the reason we're seeing this, at least to
my interpretation, is that the Biden administration believes that if
they portray this as sort of Israel's idea and then
they have to get Hamas to agree, then that I
guess would allow BB to maintain sort of the argument
(37:54):
that like, he was the one in charge and he's
the one you know, Hamas is agreeing to his terms.
Speaker 5 (38:00):
But this just.
Speaker 9 (38:00):
Reflects this ongoing blindness or naivete of the Biden administration
because Ibinet Nyahu has no interest in ending the violence,
because if the violence and the war stop, then we're
going to have elections and he's going to lose the
Prime ministership and then he's most likely going to go
to jail so from because of corruption. I mean, he's
(38:23):
you know, that's that's his future, most likely, and he's
hoping that as long as he keeps the violence going,
maybe public opinion would shift to the extent that he
could continue, you know, maybe he could win the next election,
or you know, just somehow keep kicking that can down
the road so he doesn't have to face accountability for
his crimes and so you know, this, this notion that
(38:47):
the Biden administration has that if they frame this in
such a way that it looks as if Israel's the one,
you know, winning here or setting the terms that then
they'll agree to it just reflects this same failed approach
that's been going on this whole time, which is that
Israel does not want the violence to end. They've said
(39:08):
that they're not going to accept anything that ends the war,
which is, as you just pointed out, their military objective
of completely eliminating UMAs is impossible. And not only would
it be you know, I mean you've heard horrifying statements
from whether it's you know, for right members in Israel
or even in this country just saying to you know,
(39:31):
nuke the whole place still, I mean survivors and there
are there's a massive Palestinian diaspora.
Speaker 10 (39:37):
I mean, there will.
Speaker 9 (39:38):
Always be opposition, you know, there will always be those
trying to seek revenge. The state of Israel will never
be secure as long as there is not a just stable,
you know, secure solution for Palestinians. And so even if
they somehow managed to eliminate Humas, which as you said,
(39:58):
is like clearly notw happening.
Speaker 10 (40:01):
This is not going to end you know who.
Speaker 9 (40:04):
It may take a little while, but this will continue
to happen as long as we continue to see Israel occupying.
So I don't understand, really, why is the Biden administration
continues to pursue this failed policy, you know. We we've
also seen a lot of emphasis on the Israeli Saudi
normalization deal, including the announcement that that Biden wants to
(40:28):
extend the security to guarantee to the Saudis even if
there isn't a normalization deal, which is crazy, Like, why
how is it in US interest to extend this, you know,
very ironclad security guarantee to the House of Saud when
they're not even getting you know, the supposed objective was
(40:53):
kind of Israeli Sadi normalization, let Israel feel more secure.
I mean, that's been the modus operende all along this
that if you make help Israel feel secure, then they'll
be in a position to feel like they can move
towards peace, which is the opposite of true. Instead, the
more unconditional support the US gives to Israel, the more
they have been emboldened to expand the occupation, to annex
(41:16):
more territory to engage in greater and greater violence against
Palestinians because they know that there's no red line and
that the US will continue to provide them support no
matter what they do.
Speaker 10 (41:27):
So all that to say.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
It just.
Speaker 9 (41:33):
I you know, they're ostensibly they're very smart people inside
the White House making these decisions, and I really just
don't get it.
Speaker 1 (41:42):
Can you speak to something that I don't know, I'm
sort of personally fascinated by, which is you see people
like Matthew Miller, who you know, State Department spokesperson probably
would describe himself as having very similar worldview as you do.
Speaker 4 (41:56):
You know, like he's this, I'm.
Speaker 1 (41:57):
Sure he sees himself as like a liberal internetism. I'm
sure he sees himself as believing in these laws that
are on the US books that are supposed to prohibit
transfer of weapons to human rights abusers and to countries
that are blocking humanitarian aid as Israel clearly is doing.
And you see them get up there day after day
and you know, ask us to defy what our own
(42:21):
eyes and ears are seeing in front of us, Like
having been inside, what is the like? How do you
get to that place mentally where you're just willing to
go out there and say things like, oh, we're waiting
for HAMASTI accept the deal and Israel's on board. When
Israel is out here being like, no, we're not on board.
That allows you to say no, no, I didn't really
(42:41):
see that report about Israel blocking AID, even though obviously
you have obviously you know what we're talking about.
Speaker 4 (42:47):
Or to say, oh, we're going to look into.
Speaker 1 (42:48):
That there's going to be an investigation, when you know
there's never going to be an investigation, certainly not one
that we ever hear the results of.
Speaker 4 (42:54):
Like how do you how do you end up there?
Speaker 10 (42:59):
That's a good question, you know.
Speaker 9 (43:01):
I thought the point about kind of the difference between
the position that I was in as someone who came
in later. You know, I have an academic background. I
was coming from the think ting sector. Now I'm back
in the thinking sector. That is very different from someone
who's spent their whole career inside government.
Speaker 10 (43:17):
This is their entire professional network.
Speaker 9 (43:20):
The prospect of trying to leave, especially to have left
publicly where you've burned all those bridges and suddenly you're
seen as a traitor by your colleagues with whom you've
worked your whole career. You know, I understand why for
many people it is really challenging to think of resigning,
and especially to do so publicly when it comes to
Matt Miller or others who are in this position of
(43:43):
having to essentially lie. I shouldn't say essentially to lie
to the two reporters, to the public. We know he's
lying because of statements from people like Hala Raret, who
was the Arabic spokesperson who resigned over Uzza.
Speaker 10 (44:03):
A matter of weeks ago.
Speaker 9 (44:04):
She would send these horrifying videos coming out of Gaza
and send the clear evidence, you know, photos and videos
and clear statements that Israel is blocking US humanitarian support.
Therefore they are no longer eligible to receive US security assistants.
Speaker 10 (44:24):
That is the law.
Speaker 9 (44:26):
All of this stuff she and many others are making
sure is in the inboxes of all of these high
level officials every day. So you know, for someone in
that position, it's you know, I mean, it's perhaps gets
(44:47):
to things like the banality of evil. You know, Hannah
aren't talked about how it was that the Nazis were
able to function, that it's people just doing their jobs
being told. You know, these are your orders, and if
you don't do them, you know, you're out of a job,
you lose your income, you lose your status. I mean,
I think for many people inside State, there is very
(45:08):
much this sense of status. There is this feeling that
you are involved in something very important. I've been in
touch with colleagues who are opposed to what's happening, but
they believe it's important that they continue to do what
they're doing. Maybe they're not working on anything related to
Israel Palestine, but they feel that their own work is important.
Speaker 10 (45:30):
And I don't want to discount that.
Speaker 9 (45:32):
But I do think that everyone, you know, everyone in
this whole town, you know, Washington is full of people
who came who do this work because they want to
make a difference.
Speaker 10 (45:41):
They believe in making a difference.
Speaker 9 (45:43):
And yet I do feel that I hope that everyone
sometimes takes a step back and really ask themselves, like
what impact am I having? What is the impact of
me continuing to go in and do my job every day?
You know, whether it's something little or something really important,
are you really changing anything? Because it doesn't seem like
(46:07):
much is changing. So all of these people who you know,
got the degrees and put in the legwork and now
have the position they were hoping for, or they're angling
for the position they feel like, we'll let them finally
make a difference. I just would challenge them to look
in the mirror and question, what impact are you really
having other than.
Speaker 11 (46:27):
To perpetuate the status quo, to perpetuate this system within which,
you know, the primary motivation for politicians is, you know,
the money from big donors, and big donors are actors
like major you know, defense contractor, you know, the Big
five defense you know, like the.
Speaker 9 (46:47):
Military industrial complex is such a huge driver of our
foreign policy and our politics. So yeah, you know, and
I get it, you know, for kind of the any
individual person, how are they supposed to like take that down?
But I do think that if you're in a position
(47:07):
to come out publicly against what's going on, and especially
at a moment like this where we do have you know,
I mean, history will judge those who were in positions
to have made different choices and yet continue to make
the same choice. And this is part of why I
decided to go public, even though I, you know, was
(47:28):
not anyone in a position of particular power, but I
did just want to be able to you know, look
myself in the face. And you know I've spoken about
this before that I have a young daughter and the
you know, imagining that she one day will be studying.
Speaker 10 (47:44):
This and we'll ask what we're.
Speaker 9 (47:47):
Doing, like, weren't you in government at this time? And
if I had said yeah, I mean I was, but
you know, there's really wasn't much I could do, you know,
I would be lying. I think, you know, I wanted
to be able to tell her, you know, I tried.
Speaker 10 (48:02):
I tried to do what I could.
Speaker 1 (48:04):
Yeah, well, doctor Sheeline, We're really glad you landed at Quincy.
We love their work and we're especially grateful to you
for your courage and also for your time today.
Speaker 4 (48:12):
Thank you so much. Tell people where they can follow you.
Speaker 9 (48:14):
By the way, I'm on Twitter and Nelle Sheeline and
you can find my work at the Quincy Institute quincyinst
dot org and you know we'll be working on these issues,
you know, look forward. You know, really appreciate all the
work that you all are doing to draw attention to this,
(48:35):
because I think the media narrative has been so influential,
and unfortunately the mainstream media has been so detrimental and
so I so appreciate those who are bringing uh who
are really you know, drawing attention to what's actually going on.
Speaker 4 (48:50):
Well, thank you.
Speaker 1 (48:51):
We're very grateful for that and great to have you,
and we'll hope to talk to you again.
Speaker 2 (48:55):
Thank you guys so much for watching. We really appreciate it.
We're gonna have a great counterpoint show for everybody tomorrow.
We will see you all on Thursday.
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Let's turn to Republican Congress and Thomas Massey, who you
guys probably know him, but just for those of you
who don't follow these things closely, he's libertarian, and he's
one of the few in Congress, and especially one of
the few on the Republican de side who's willing to
go against the grain. And he has voted against you
know how, they've been passing all of these Israel resolutions,
condemning anti Semitism, standing up for this, standing up for that,
(00:47):
and also obviously tons of money that they just voted
on to shift Israel as well.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
And he will be frequently one of the.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Lone voices on the Republican side, one of the loan
votes against a number of those provisions.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
That has, of course.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Made him a huge target of a pack well congresson
Massey was recently on with Tucker Carlson and the subject
of APAC and how this all works in Congress came up,
and his comments are very interesting.
Speaker 4 (01:17):
Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (01:18):
Is there any other Republican who has your views on this?
Speaker 6 (01:22):
We Why have Republicans who come to me on the
floor and say, I wish I could vote with you today.
Yours is the right vote, but I would just take
too much flak back home. And I have Republicans who
come to me and say, that's wrong, what APAC is
doing to you. Let me talk to my APAC person.
(01:42):
By the way, everybody but me has an APAC person.
Speaker 5 (01:45):
Does that mean an APEC person.
Speaker 6 (01:47):
It's like your babysitter, your APAC babysitter who is always
talking to you for APAC. They're probably a constituent in
your district, but they are firmly embedded in a pack.
Speaker 5 (02:01):
And every member has someone like this.
Speaker 6 (02:04):
I don't know how it works on the Democrat side,
but that's how it works on the Republican side. And
when they and when they come to DC, you go
have lunch with them and they've got your cell number
and you have conversations with them. So I've had like.
Speaker 5 (02:20):
That's absolutely crazy.
Speaker 6 (02:21):
I've had four members of Congress say I'll talk to
my APAC person and it's literally what we call them,
my APAC guy. I'll talk to my APAC guide, see
if I can get to you know, dial those ads back.
Speaker 5 (02:34):
Why if I never heard this before.
Speaker 6 (02:37):
It doesn't benefit anybody. Why would they want to tell
their constituents that they've basically got a buddy system with
somebody who's representing a foreign country. It doesn't benefit the
congressman for people to know that. So they're not going
to tell you that.
Speaker 5 (02:53):
It's it's in. Have you seen any other country do
anything like this, like Russia. Russia obviously determines the outcome
of our elections. We keep hearing that does anyone have
a putin guy that they talk to?
Speaker 6 (03:05):
Not only do they not have a putin guy? Look,
they don't. They don't have a Briton guy. They don't
have an Australian guy. They you know, they don't have
a Germany dude. Like, it's the only country that does
this that has somebody that like uniformly, I guarantee there's
some spreadsheet at APAC where where you know the APAC
(03:30):
dude is, who's matched up with the congressman is there?
And then all the congressman's votes on the issue. Oh,
has the congressman been to Israel? They pay for trips
for congressmen and their spouses to.
Speaker 5 (03:41):
Go to Israel.
Speaker 7 (03:42):
I may be.
Speaker 6 (03:44):
I mean, I'm not the only Republican who hasn't taken
the APAC trip to Israel, but I'm probably one of
a dozen that hasn't taken that trip, and the other
ones just haven't got around to it.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
The a pack babysitter.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
By the way, that thing about the trips that they
pay for not just for politicians, It's also for any
number of prominent people and media figures. In fact, I
don't know if I talked about this here or somewhere else,
but when I started MSNBC got an email asked you
if I wanted to go on the APAC trip to Israel.
Speaker 4 (04:17):
I said no, But you know.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
That's part of what they do, because then they can
take you to Israel and they can show it to
you through their lens and have a chance to you know,
subtly and not so subtly propagandize you and plus just
create this human sense of like, oh, I owe this
person something because they took me on this great trip.
Speaker 4 (04:34):
And I had a great time.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
You know, so I like them, they're friends, They're friends
with me, like I should listen to what they have
to say. It's very intelligent in terms of influence pedaling.
But I think, you know a lot of Americans are
very shocked to learn that this is how this.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
All works soccer.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
I mean, yeah, it is like as you said, it's
amost funny because it is common knowledge here. I also
have been offered many free trips Israel. My only trip Israel,
by the way, paid on my own dime.
Speaker 5 (04:56):
Thanks.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
I don't take free trips from anybody. And that's the issue.
Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
Well, you have very clearly here quote bipartisanship or Republican meddling.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
APAK is the biggest source of.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
GOP donations in the Democratic primaries. It says, apaxy's support
for israelis bipartisan and its donors come from both parties.
It's practice of sending money from GOP donors into democratic
racist is quote enraged progresses. But I mean one of
the flagship cases here, Crystal, I'm sure you've been tracking
is Man. Dear Jones, who has effectively disavowed all of
(05:30):
his form progressive positions, has been basically what has he
been doing. He's been keeping them not only an arms length,
and he's been a huge beneficiary.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Well, he endorsed against Jamal Bowman's primary opponent, and Bowman
is under fire. He's been very courageous on Israel and
he deserves a lot of credit. And his district has
a significant Jewish population. Although you know, it doesn't cut
the way that people necessarily think that it's going to,
because I'll show you some numbers in just a minute.
Speaker 4 (05:59):
But you know, a pack donor base.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
It's not like your average working class Jewish American or
even average like Jewish professional American.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
It is the elite.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
It is very very wealthy, predominantly like CEOs and executives
who cut big checks to a pack. So it's not
like they're reflective of the Jewish community at large. And
in fact, there was polling that was done in Jamal
Bowman's district that found a very significant majority of voters
in his district, which again has a significant Jewish population,
(06:31):
said they would be much more likely to support a
candidate who backs a ceasefire, which Jamal Bowman does. However,
mandere Jones, who is desperately you know, trying to win
his congressional seat back, feels that Jamal Bowman's positioning himself
as an Israel critic has been damaging for him too,
and he feels afraid that that's going to be a
(06:53):
problem for him in his congressional race. So he's made
this very cynical political move to back Jamal Bowman's primary
opponent and basically disavow progressivism altogether. I mean, it's just
incredibly craven and the A PAC money is.
Speaker 4 (07:09):
A huge, huge part of that.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
I want people to think about this, you know, the
piece about how a Pack is the source of the
largest number of Republican donations into democratic primary races.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Like imagine if it was a.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
George Soros backed organization that was being incredibly significant the
largest player in Republican primaries. Conservatives would be outraged at that.
They would think that was completely outrageous. And so progressives
really feel that way about a Pack, which gets a significant,
you know, about more than a majority of their money
(07:44):
from Republican donors. But it's not just that as well.
Here's a quote from the piece just giving you a
sense of the scale of their efforts. Here they say
competitive democratic primaries are the biggest targets for a Pack's
affiliated super pac, which is called the United Democracy proput
which has already spent almost twenty million dollars in the
race this year in democratic primary races this year, including
(08:07):
almost ten million in that Jamal Bowman George Latimer race.
That makes it by far the biggest outside group in
democratic primaries, with more money flowing from that a Pack
super Pack than the next ten.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
Biggest spenders combined.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
So the biggest player in democratic primaries is a group
that isn't even about American electoral issues at all.
Speaker 4 (08:34):
It's about the.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
Interests of a foreign government funded by largely a lot
of Conservatives, playing in democratic primaries. I mean, it really
is quite quite extraordinary, quite astonishing, and the money has
a huge impact both in terms of who wins these
races and also in terms of politicians look at this
and they're like, I don't want them playing in my race,
(08:55):
so I'm just going to do whatever they want me
to do. And that's something that Ryan Grimm has done
the best reporting on the way that they have served
as a check on Democratic candidates who might otherwise have
some level of criticism as of Israel. That is reportedly,
again according to Ryan, the sort of origin story for
John Fetterman being the most like embarrassingly pro Israel, like
(09:17):
Israel no matter what guy who's out there. It wasn't
that he cared about it that much before, but he
asked his basically apat guy where he should be to
keep them out of his Democratic primary race, and he
just took that and ran with it.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Yeah, you're absolutely right, and to your point about how
American Jews are not the monolith that apparently all of
media and Congress wants them to be. Let's put this
up there on the screen from Michael Tracy, because what
you see from this survey is that just twenty three
percent of American Jews plan to vote for Trump, down
from thirty percent in twenty twenty, despite Trump and a
(09:52):
lot of Republican donors saying, well, you know.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Basic, what do they say you're basically if you vote.
Speaker 4 (09:57):
For Biden, basically you're not a Jew.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
As completely astounding you can see here very clearly if
the presidential election were held today, who would you most
likely vote for?
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Biden?
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Sixty one percent Trump, twenty three ten percent actually say
someone else will not vote as six which of the
two party candidates for president would be better for the
US Israel relationship. You've got fifty percent there who say
Joe Biden. So I mean, this is a American Jewish
Coalition survey, nonpartisan organization. Basically, from what we can see here,
this is a pretty representative sample of American Jews. It
(10:29):
turns out that American Jews are just like everybody else.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
They're stratified.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
A lot of them who are wanting to vote for
Joe Biden are doing so for multifaceted reasons, Israel not
necessarily being the number one issue. Maybe it's a little
bit higher than many people who might vote for Biden
or for Trump, but they're.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
Just like the rest of us.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
And that's been the most annoying and thing about this
is Jewish students unsafe from protesters who are also sometimes
Jewish Zionism. You know, if without the thing I think
the most discussing name that Biden has said throughout this
entire conflict, just for me is if it weren't for Israel,
not a Jew in the world would be safe because
(11:08):
it undermines the theory of America itself. It would be
like saying, you know, for me, as a person of
Indian descent, that if it weren't for India's existence, I
would not be safe in the United States. No, my
passport says United States of America on it, and there's
nothing else the passport that I have, unlike many people
in Israel, by the way, who are a dual citizen.
(11:30):
So it's just it undermines the theory of the nation
state for a select group of people, which is antithetical
to the very idea of what it even means to
be American. And clearly many and most Jews see it
that way too.
Speaker 4 (11:47):
Yeah, that's what it's like.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Who are you, mister Irish Catholic, to be litigating what
that means for everybody else?
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Yeah, and not to go too deep into the history here,
it was worth mentioning that, you know, the founding of
the state of Israel, there's sort of a corrupt bargain
between Western powers that you know, wanted to basically wanted
to remain, you know, with their image of like oh,
we're on the side of the Jews, and we're like,
you know, interested in protecting them, et cetera. But they
(12:15):
didn't actually want to like take in Jewish refugees themselves.
And Zionists who really found it to be a threat.
The idea that Jews could be integrated into America or
the UK or France or anywhere else. They saw that
as a direct threat to their project. You can understand why,
because if you have a safe Jewish diaspora that's integrated
(12:38):
into their communities, then there's less of an incentive to
move to Israel. So there was sort of this corrupt
bargain at the beginning that has continued to exist, as
reflected in those comments from Joe Biden. But if we
could go to B three, our friend Bronco Marttis did
a very interesting analysis of APAC donors versus donors to
(12:58):
the squad and he writes here in this tweet where
he tweeted out his analysis, he says he looked at
more than five hundred donors to APAX super Pac, which
is United Democracy Project that's the one we were just
talking about. It shows nearly sixty percent our top level executives,
nearly half of whom work in the fire sector, which
(13:18):
is finance and real estate. The average donation was nearly
ninety thousand dollars, so not exactly you're like average person
shelling out ninety k. Put the next one up on
the screen because he put together some great charts that
really illustrate the difference here, so you can see on
the left he says United Democracy Projecting, and that's eight
pack superPAC Wall Street Base. You can see how many
(13:41):
of their donors, what percentage come from finance, slash, insurance,
real estate, are retired, probably from one of those industries
misscelaneous business, lawyers and lobbyists and everything else is like
pretty small. And then you look at their donors versus
donors to the squad who have been the primary targets
of a pack. You have twenty percent of apack donors
(14:04):
are CEOs, significant percentage who are owners or founders, another
thirty nine percent who are top executives. That little yellow
bar you see there, that's working people. On the other hand,
the donors to squad members, sixty percent of them are
working people and basically none of them from CEOs, founders,
top executives, etc.
Speaker 4 (14:23):
So it just shows you you know.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
Part of why the discourse in the media, I mean,
there's a whole plethora of reasons why, but part of
why the discourse in the media just assumes that all
Jewish Americans have the same perspective is because there is
a class divide, even within the Jewish community about how
they view these issues and how they prioritize these issues
as well. So I thought Bronco really got to the
(14:46):
heart of some of that class divide and why you
shouldn't assume that the position of a pack is reflective
of broader Jewish American sentiment, which I think has been
consistently the.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Ay, this is the same for all ethnic groups. I
see the stuff all the time. Yeah, Indian Americans against it,
and I'm like, hey, shut up, all right, I'll keep
it kind you know. On this one, I'm like, you
don't speak for us, You speak for yourselves and your friends.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
And I don't ever presume to.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Speak a quote unquote on behalf of the community, because
who's elected me zenative. Somehow though, in this ethnic group
that's considered not only okay but cannon, and then widely
accepted by a bunch of evangelical crit and Catholic Christians
to be canon for what they presume to speak on
(15:31):
behalf of, so totally ridiculous. It's always a class story
here in America, which means that really it's about something
totally different than what is being presented to you.
Speaker 3 (15:41):
Crystal, what do you taking a look at?
Speaker 1 (15:43):
A mainstream outlet has just kicked a hornet's nest, taking
direct aim at the claims of mass rape by Hamas
on October seventh, and finding no evidence to back those claims.
No surprise, a massive backlash has already begun, So let's
take some time to dig into this one. So, as
you may know, following October seventh, the Israeli garment pushed
a series of invented atrocities in order to justify a
(16:05):
military campaign filled with unjustifiable horse wasn't enough that Hamas
had wantonly murdered civilians, including young partygoers at a desert ravee.
The Israeli government and its American accomplices needed more graphic
visual imagery that could persuade the world that Gaza was
filled with inhuman monsters who must be wiped off the
face of the earth. We heard gruesome stories of forty
(16:28):
beheaded babies in actuality. One baby was horrifically killed on
October seventh, none were beheaded. Another baby we were told
was baked in an oven, also completely false. We were
told a pregnant woman had a fetus cut out of
her that was also untrue, and that volunteers had seen
bodies piled up in a pyramid, once again false.
Speaker 4 (16:47):
But nothing has been.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
As persistent or as politically charged as the oft repeated
allegation that Hamas used rape systematically on October seventh as
a weapon of war. This allegation has been embraced in
polite society as an ironclad fact and one which should
never be questioned. It was a subject of an Israeli
government social media campaign hashtag Believe Israeli Women, subject of
(17:11):
a Sheryl Sandberg documentary, a UN report, a now discredited
but hugely hyped New York Times investigation, and even a
congressional resolution which claimed Israeli police had evidence of quote
countless instances of rape, gang rape, sexual mutilation, and other
forms of sexual violence. Media elit's current political figures, including
(17:34):
Joe Biden, and past political figures like Hillary Clinton all
repeated the claim that not only did sexual assault occur
on October seventh, but that it was widespread and directed
from the top down.
Speaker 7 (17:45):
And let me be clear, hamas usually rape, sexual violence
and terrorism and torture Asraeli women and girls is appalling
and unforgivable. And I was there, saw some of the
photographs and it is beyond it's just beyond comprehension.
Speaker 8 (18:02):
We had two events last week. We had three panels
about Ukraine and they were superb. They went off without
a hitch. We learned a lot and were challenged. Two
days later we had panels on conflict related sexual violence.
(18:25):
It included Ukraine, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Israel,
and it was protested. You just have to ask yourself
how you could have an event focused on using rape
as a tactic of war against women and girls, which
(18:50):
is in conflict across the world, and you include the
most recent horrendous example out of Israel, and that brings
out the protesters. So there is an invidious strain of
anti Semitism that has never gone away. But we had
(19:10):
hopes it had been certainly submerged. That has been poking
its head up for quite some time now.
Speaker 7 (19:21):
Fifteen thousand Palestinians have been killed in Israeli airstrikes, three quarters.
Speaker 5 (19:27):
Of whom and are women. And it's horrible. But you
don't see Israeli soldiers raping well, Dana, I think we're not.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
I could probably do entire monologues about each of those clips,
but the last one with Dana Bash really gives up
the game. Sure, Palestinians getting killed, it's terrible, but at
least they aren't getting raped like Israeli women. She uses
the mass rape claims to dismiss in real time the
horrors of Palestinians, which of course is the whole reason
why these claims were marketed so aggressively by the Israeli.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Government to begin with.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
But from the beginning there were some brave voices out
there asking for evidence that just had not yet been produced.
Electronic Intofada, the Gray Zone, Z Squirreld, Intercept, and many
more began looking critically at the reports, pointing out where
narratives collapsed, evidence was lacking, or stories were ever shifting.
All of these attempts at actual journalism as opposed to
(20:21):
just writing up whatever government spokesfur us and wants you
to say. All of these were roundly smeared. The individuals
involved were personally intact as pro hamas rape apologists. Brianna
Joy Gray was just fired from the Hill because of
her willingness to question this narrative. Well, now a mainstream outlet,
The Times of London, has conducted an investigation into those
(20:42):
mass rape allegations, an attempt to sort fact from fiction.
And while listen, there are some parts I could take
some issue with, I still really highly recommend it. The
piece is very sympathetic to Israeli perspectives, even to the
ultra religious Zaka volunteers whose lies formed a core of
the mass rape evidence, and other atrocity fictions as well.
(21:02):
But ultimately Times of London concludes the bottom line is this,
there is no forensic evidence of rape. There is no
video evidence. Of October seventh, rate the government of Israel
claimed they had evidence of thousands of sexual assaults. They
have produced zero evidence to support a single claim. Here
(21:23):
is the report quote. To this date, police have not
interviewed a single survivor. On December twenty fourth, the police
issued a decree to hospitals ordering them to hand over
accounts of any rape survivor who had sought treatment. On
January fourth, the police put out a fresh appeal for witnesses,
saying they had succeeded in interviewing just three and had
been unable to match their accounts with the bodies collected
(21:46):
from the massacre site. The Times of London also discusses
the lack of evidence in the UN report compiled by
Promila Patten. Quote in all the Hamas video footage Patten's
team had watched and all the photographs they had seen
were no depictions of rape. We hired a leading Israeli
dark web researcher to look for evidence of those images,
(22:06):
including footage deleted from public sources. None could be found.
They also detail how the rape claims were obsessed over
and politically weaponized in a way that actually was damaging
to other survivors. After three hundred thousand people marched in
London to protest the ongoing genocide, and Israeli government spokespersons
smeared them all as a rape apologist. What's more, the
(22:27):
quest to prove the mass raped narrative erased the focus
on other horrific trauma and atrocities that were meted out
on that day. Doctor Rut Plonsker, a senior psychologist with
non governmental organization Safehart believes the focus on sexual violence
has been unhelpful for Nova Festival survivors wrestling with their trauma.
She said, I don't think there were a lot of
(22:48):
sexual assaults. There was a lot of murder. That's what
happened there. People were hiding and watching very horrible things.
She's skeptical that political leaders have the victim's interest in mind.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Quote.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
Therapists are interested in the victims and the survivors. I
think politicians are interested in the image of Israel. The
head of an Israeli ripe rape crisis center told The
Times of London she was disgusted by the way the
rape allegations had been politicized.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
Quote.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
On October eleventh, the Foreign Ministry launch a campaign under
the hashtag believe Israeli Women. I did not think that
was sensible, she said. They didn't mean believe Israeli women,
they meant believe Israel Now. The article did not conclude
that no rape had occurred, and left open the possibility
that mass systematic rape had indeed been part of the
(23:35):
mass October seventh attack, but simply pointed out what is
inescapable at this point. As of now, there is no
evidence to back those claims. Now, naturally, a backlash has
been both swift and very revealing. Those three Israeli experts
that were interviewed for the piece wrote a joint response
claiming their words had been quote, misrepresented, twisted and cynically exploited.
(23:58):
One can only imagine what pressure these experts are under
in Israel itself. Notably, though they don't actually dispute any
of the facts from the piece, nor do they specify
these supposed misrepresentations or directly claim that they were actually misquoted.
Speaker 4 (24:13):
It's all left very vague.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
Nonetheless, this response has fueled calls for The Times of
London to apologize or even to retract the report entirely
needless to say, that would be a strange thing to do,
given that no error has actually been revealed. Meanwhile, however,
The New York Times has published an explosive new report
that does detail sexual assault used as a tool of
(24:36):
war in a systematic way, with actual evidence to back
it up. But you probably didn't hear about that report
because it was about Palestinian prisoners being tortured and sodomized
by their Israeli captors. In a lengthy investigation into abuse
of Palestinians at an Israeli military based turned prison. They
write that Palestinians were subjected to brutal beatings, electric shocks,
(24:59):
in intentionional degradation, including being forced to wear only diapers,
and sexual assault. Quote Mister Elham Lowie, the senior nurse,
said a female officer had ordered two soldiers to lift
him up and press his rectum against a metal stick
that was fixed to the ground. He said the stick
penetrated his rectum for roughly five seconds, causing it to
(25:22):
bleed and leaving him with unbearable pain. A leaked draft
of the unreport detailed an interview that gave a similar account.
It cited a forty one year old detainee who said
that interrogators quote made me sit on something like a
hot metal stick and it felt like fire, and also
said that another detainee died after they put the electric
(25:43):
stick up his anus. But there will be no congressional
resolutions about these assaults, No Sheryl Sandberg film, no convenience
with Hillary Clinton to discuss why we should hashtag believe
Palestinian men, because BB and Biden they never cared about
human rights or protection from sexual assault, health they don't
even actually care about Israeli women, since they're content to
(26:05):
continue to let hostages languish in Gaza with no ceasefire deal.
They care about cynical emotional manipulation for their own political
ends and to justify their own atrocities.
Speaker 4 (26:17):
Just a couple of dudes who couldn't.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Care less about violence against women using fake feminism to
justify a genocide. At least one outlet is no longer
falling for the ruse and saga.
Speaker 4 (26:30):
I want we mentioned this and if you.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a
premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
We are very fortunate to be joined this morning by
doctor Annelle Sheeline. She is a former State Department official
who resigned over our government's policy visa of the Israeli
and especially the Israeli assault on Gaza. Great to have you, doctor,
you thanks for having me, and I understand now should
give a shout out to our friends over at Quincy
Institute that you are a research fellow for the Middle
(27:01):
East there as well. Just start by introducing yourself a
little bit to our audience. What your position was at
the State Department and what led you finally to resign?
Speaker 9 (27:11):
So I was a foreign affairs officer with the Bureau
of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor's Office of Near Eastern Affairs,
so drl NEA, the office that works on human rights,
does the human rights reports.
Speaker 10 (27:25):
And I had only been at the.
Speaker 9 (27:26):
State Department briefly when October seventh Hathbad. I'd only been
there about six months, and in the end, I served
for a year, which I had an obligation to the
government to serve for a year, and I resigned over
the unconditional support for Gaza, in particular the ways that
(27:47):
the Biden administration is violating American law. I think that obviously,
not only is this having a devastating effect for the
people for Palestinians inside Vezza, but also for America's leadership
in the world. I think we are doing incredible damage
to the international order, to international law. And I think
(28:08):
that this is going to come back to bite us
because as other countries see that the US behaves in
a way that the US and Israel have total disregard
for international law, what is to prevent other countries from
behaving similarly. Obviously we've saw Russia do that with the
invasion of Ukraine. But as we enter a world where
other countries are growing increasingly more powerful, I think the
(28:29):
US and Israel may come to regret the ways that
they thought they could just violate international law that there
would be no consequences.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
Can you talk to us about what it was like
inside the State Department at that time? And I presume
that you were trying to voice dissent within the Department.
What was it like in terms of the incoming from
other countries and then trying to bubble that up to
Anthony Blincoln and how receptive was he to the criticism.
Speaker 9 (28:56):
So, yes, exactly, there is the descent channel inside this
Date Department. So I co authored a dissent cable and
signed to other cables expressing my opposition and that of
my colleagues to the unconditional US support for Israel and
the effect this was having, and participated in open fora
(29:19):
The State Department was aware of the deep level of
concern and alarm over what these policies were doing, again
not only to the people directly affected, but also just
more broadly so from my office trying to promote human
rights in the Middle East, which already was not an easy.
Speaker 10 (29:37):
Thing to do. To be clear, I mean, this is
a deeply autocratic system.
Speaker 9 (29:41):
Many of these are governments where the US is much
more interested in maintaining the security relationship or you know,
just the nature of US relationships is not really governed
by human rights sort of as a rule. But just
the point was that after October s it just became
completely impossible to try to advocate for human rights, not
(30:04):
only because these governments would immediately turn around and say,
how can you criticize us on human rights given what
you're doing and supporting, and also that organizations, you know,
civil society organizations on the ground in these countries, many
of them were no longer interested in having anything to
do with the State Department.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
You know, you clearly didn't go in with a pollyann
of you. You're an experience professional. You wouldn't go in
thinking like, oh, the US always stands with human rights
and so that's the utmost priority. And yet still you
were shocked and horrified enough to you know, to ultimately
feel like you had to for your own integrity resign.
Was there a particular breaking point were you truly shocked
(30:44):
by the you know, the blanket support even for you know,
things that were just outrageously clearly violations of US law. Either, Like,
what was it that really surprised you about the response,
given that you came in sort of clear eyed about
the pragmatic nature of what you were going to be
doing at the State Department.
Speaker 9 (31:04):
Well, it's definitely true that I did not come in with,
you know, under any illusion that human rights were going
to be the top priority even for the you know,
for the Human Rights Office. However, you know, for me,
there was not one particular point. I think it was
really just the slow accumulation, just realizing day in and
(31:25):
day out that just kind of, no matter what Israel did,
the US just continue to provide more and more weapons
and more and more money, and it just seemed that
there was really no red line that Israel could cross
that would suddenly push the Biden administration to finally say,
all right, that's it, you know, we can no longer
support this. And you know, so, as I mentioned, I
(31:47):
was there exactly a year because I owed the government
a year. I'd had a fellowship that obligated a year's service,
so I decided that I would fulfill the obligation, and
then on you know, exactly three hundred and sixty five
days after I started, was when I handed in my resignation.
I had not planned to go public initially because I
(32:07):
was so new there.
Speaker 10 (32:08):
I didn't think I was important enough to go public.
But it was speaking with.
Speaker 9 (32:12):
Colleagues who said, please reconsider, Please consider going public, because
you know, these were colleagues who weren't in a position
to resign, and so they really at that time and
had only been Josh Paul, who'd resigned very early in
the war, and then Tara Kabash, who's a political appointee
from the Department of Education, were the only two public
(32:32):
resignations at that point, but that after I resigned in
late March, we've subsequently seen.
Speaker 10 (32:38):
Three or four more public resignations.
Speaker 9 (32:41):
And the hope was that by resigning publicly to build
this pressure you know that we're seeing from many parts
of American society, obviously from college campuses, from the Uncommitted
movement and others really trying to say that the American
people do not support what the administration is doing.
Speaker 3 (32:58):
Can you tell us about last year? Just referenced a
lot of.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
Those colleagues who may not be in the same position
you obviously had, you know, you could make alternative arrangements,
et cetera. For a lot of the people who are
lifers and others who are inside of the State Department,
What would you say the prevailing opinion is.
Speaker 3 (33:12):
Is it the vast majority? Is it? You know, half
and half are there? You know how representative?
Speaker 2 (33:18):
I guess what do your views be inside of the
State Department amongst normal career officers?
Speaker 10 (33:24):
It's really hard to say.
Speaker 9 (33:25):
I mean, the State Department is massive, and I don't
you know, I'm not in touch with you know, the
thousands of people who work there, of course, right, but
I can just speak to, you know, those that I
was in touch with. There's a group called Fedes United
for Peace, for example, which represents not only people at State,
but people across the federal government who are are deeply,
(33:48):
deeply opposed to what's going on. And so they were
the ones who really supported me as I made the decision.
Well can contributed to me making the decision to go
public and then supported me, especially through the bit of
a just a lot of media attention that followed, which
I was not expecting.
Speaker 10 (34:06):
Like I said, I didn't think people would care. So
I mean, it's.
Speaker 9 (34:12):
Really hard to say the level of opposition, but I
do think in particular from those who know the region
well and who have worked on this issue, that's often
where you see some of the deepest levels of opposition.
You know, these are people like Josh Paul, like Stacy Gilbert,
who recently resigned from the Bureau of Population, Refugees and
Migration because she had been working directly on the NSM
(34:32):
twenty and that the final report that came out did
not reflect the work that she and her colleagues had
done on it, which I just reflects the ways that
the State Department is ignoring the expertise of these many
hundreds of individuals who know so much about the region
and know this incredible damage that these policies are doing
to us interests. Again, this is not just motivated by
(34:56):
sort of a bleeding heart concern for Palestinians, although that
is obviously, you know, part of it for many people,
but it's also just this is directly harmful to American
interests and arguably to Israeli interest We saw the myth
of Israeli security punctured on October seventh. The clearly perpetual
occupation is not a recipe for Israeli security, and so
(35:17):
the US would best serve you know, American donors who
are so concerned about the future of the state of Israel,
if that's their primary motivation, they should be supporting of
some kind of stable resolution that allows Palestinians to live
in a circumstance where they don't they're not motivated to
(35:38):
react violently, you know, to engage and action like October seventh.
You know, like the extent to which this is also
self defeating is It's truly mind boggling because many of
the people working on this are such experts and know
so much, and yet we continue to see this same
futile and failed policy over and over and over again.
Speaker 4 (36:00):
Yeah, I think that's so well said.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
I wanted to get your reaction to the UN Security
Council resolution that the US just pushed through. We can
put this first element up on the screen, guys with
the numbers here. This is from Axius reporter Barack Revied breaking.
The UN Security Council adopted a resolution on Monday calling
on Hamas to accept the proposal for a hostage and
ceasefire deal. Fourteen member states voted yes and Russia abstained.
(36:24):
This has all been very strange. Why I wanted to
get your reaction to it. So Biden comes down, he
gives this big speech. He says, Israel has made this
very generous proposal for a permanent cease fire. Here's the phases. Now,
we're calling on Hamas to accept it.
Speaker 7 (36:38):
Well.
Speaker 4 (36:39):
Hamas and in.
Speaker 1 (36:40):
Reaction also to this resolution for the UN Security Council said.
Speaker 4 (36:43):
Okay, we're open to it.
Speaker 1 (36:44):
Let's talk like, yes, if it's going to end the war,
we are open to that. And in fact, yesterday you know,
directly indicated that they supported the text of the Security
Council resolution. Israel, on the other hand, who's ceasefire proposal
this allegedly was, has been much more reluctant. There's you know,
was really divided opinion within the war cabinet. You know
(37:05):
how Benny Gantz out of the war cabinet. Natanyahuo reiterating
that he will not accept any deal that will end
the war without completely eliminating Hamas, which we all know
has always been a preposterous goal. So what do you
make of this whole situation and what do you make
specifically of the significance of this ceasefire resolution passing through
(37:25):
the UNSC.
Speaker 10 (37:29):
I'm it is confusing. I agree.
Speaker 9 (37:33):
I think the reason we're seeing this, at least to
my interpretation, is that the Biden administration believes that if
they portray this as sort of Israel's idea and then
they have to get Hamas to agree, then that I
guess would allow BB to maintain sort of the argument
(37:54):
that like, he was the one in charge and he's
the one you know, Hamas is agreeing to his terms.
Speaker 5 (38:00):
But this just.
Speaker 9 (38:00):
Reflects this ongoing blindness or naivete of the Biden administration
because Ibinet Nyahu has no interest in ending the violence,
because if the violence and the war stop, then we're
going to have elections and he's going to lose the
Prime ministership and then he's most likely going to go
to jail so from because of corruption. I mean, he's
(38:23):
you know, that's that's his future, most likely, and he's
hoping that as long as he keeps the violence going,
maybe public opinion would shift to the extent that he
could continue, you know, maybe he could win the next election,
or you know, just somehow keep kicking that can down
the road so he doesn't have to face accountability for
his crimes and so you know, this, this notion that
(38:47):
the Biden administration has that if they frame this in
such a way that it looks as if Israel's the one,
you know, winning here or setting the terms that then
they'll agree to it just reflects this same failed approach
that's been going on this whole time, which is that
Israel does not want the violence to end. They've said
(39:08):
that they're not going to accept anything that ends the war,
which is, as you just pointed out, their military objective
of completely eliminating UMAs is impossible. And not only would
it be you know, I mean you've heard horrifying statements
from whether it's you know, for right members in Israel
or even in this country just saying to you know,
(39:31):
nuke the whole place still, I mean survivors and there
are there's a massive Palestinian diaspora.
Speaker 10 (39:37):
I mean, there will.
Speaker 9 (39:38):
Always be opposition, you know, there will always be those
trying to seek revenge. The state of Israel will never
be secure as long as there is not a just stable,
you know, secure solution for Palestinians. And so even if
they somehow managed to eliminate Humas, which as you said,
(39:58):
is like clearly notw happening.
Speaker 10 (40:01):
This is not going to end you know who.
Speaker 9 (40:04):
It may take a little while, but this will continue
to happen as long as we continue to see Israel occupying.
So I don't understand, really, why is the Biden administration
continues to pursue this failed policy, you know. We we've
also seen a lot of emphasis on the Israeli Saudi
normalization deal, including the announcement that that Biden wants to
(40:28):
extend the security to guarantee to the Saudis even if
there isn't a normalization deal, which is crazy, Like, why
how is it in US interest to extend this, you know,
very ironclad security guarantee to the House of Saud when
they're not even getting you know, the supposed objective was
(40:53):
kind of Israeli Sadi normalization, let Israel feel more secure.
I mean, that's been the modus operende all along this
that if you make help Israel feel secure, then they'll
be in a position to feel like they can move
towards peace, which is the opposite of true. Instead, the
more unconditional support the US gives to Israel, the more
they have been emboldened to expand the occupation, to annex
(41:16):
more territory to engage in greater and greater violence against
Palestinians because they know that there's no red line and
that the US will continue to provide them support no
matter what they do.
Speaker 10 (41:27):
So all that to say.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
It just.
Speaker 9 (41:33):
I you know, they're ostensibly they're very smart people inside
the White House making these decisions, and I really just
don't get it.
Speaker 1 (41:42):
Can you speak to something that I don't know, I'm
sort of personally fascinated by, which is you see people
like Matthew Miller, who you know, State Department spokesperson probably
would describe himself as having very similar worldview as you do.
Speaker 4 (41:56):
You know, like he's this, I'm.
Speaker 1 (41:57):
Sure he sees himself as like a liberal internetism. I'm
sure he sees himself as believing in these laws that
are on the US books that are supposed to prohibit
transfer of weapons to human rights abusers and to countries
that are blocking humanitarian aid as Israel clearly is doing.
And you see them get up there day after day
and you know, ask us to defy what our own
(42:21):
eyes and ears are seeing in front of us, Like
having been inside, what is the like? How do you
get to that place mentally where you're just willing to
go out there and say things like, oh, we're waiting
for HAMASTI accept the deal and Israel's on board. When
Israel is out here being like, no, we're not on board.
That allows you to say no, no, I didn't really
(42:41):
see that report about Israel blocking AID, even though obviously
you have obviously you know what we're talking about.
Speaker 4 (42:47):
Or to say, oh, we're going to look into.
Speaker 1 (42:48):
That there's going to be an investigation, when you know
there's never going to be an investigation, certainly not one
that we ever hear the results of.
Speaker 4 (42:54):
Like how do you how do you end up there?
Speaker 10 (42:59):
That's a good question, you know.
Speaker 9 (43:01):
I thought the point about kind of the difference between
the position that I was in as someone who came
in later. You know, I have an academic background. I
was coming from the think ting sector. Now I'm back
in the thinking sector. That is very different from someone
who's spent their whole career inside government.
Speaker 10 (43:17):
This is their entire professional network.
Speaker 9 (43:20):
The prospect of trying to leave, especially to have left
publicly where you've burned all those bridges and suddenly you're
seen as a traitor by your colleagues with whom you've
worked your whole career. You know, I understand why for
many people it is really challenging to think of resigning,
and especially to do so publicly when it comes to
Matt Miller or others who are in this position of
(43:43):
having to essentially lie. I shouldn't say essentially to lie
to the two reporters, to the public. We know he's
lying because of statements from people like Hala Raret, who
was the Arabic spokesperson who resigned over Uzza.
Speaker 10 (44:03):
A matter of weeks ago.
Speaker 9 (44:04):
She would send these horrifying videos coming out of Gaza
and send the clear evidence, you know, photos and videos
and clear statements that Israel is blocking US humanitarian support.
Therefore they are no longer eligible to receive US security assistants.
Speaker 10 (44:24):
That is the law.
Speaker 9 (44:26):
All of this stuff she and many others are making
sure is in the inboxes of all of these high
level officials every day. So you know, for someone in
that position, it's you know, I mean, it's perhaps gets
(44:47):
to things like the banality of evil. You know, Hannah
aren't talked about how it was that the Nazis were
able to function, that it's people just doing their jobs
being told. You know, these are your orders, and if
you don't do them, you know, you're out of a job,
you lose your income, you lose your status. I mean,
I think for many people inside State, there is very
(45:08):
much this sense of status. There is this feeling that
you are involved in something very important. I've been in
touch with colleagues who are opposed to what's happening, but
they believe it's important that they continue to do what
they're doing. Maybe they're not working on anything related to
Israel Palestine, but they feel that their own work is important.
Speaker 10 (45:30):
And I don't want to discount that.
Speaker 9 (45:32):
But I do think that everyone, you know, everyone in
this whole town, you know, Washington is full of people
who came who do this work because they want to
make a difference.
Speaker 10 (45:41):
They believe in making a difference.
Speaker 9 (45:43):
And yet I do feel that I hope that everyone
sometimes takes a step back and really ask themselves, like
what impact am I having? What is the impact of
me continuing to go in and do my job every day?
You know, whether it's something little or something really important,
are you really changing anything? Because it doesn't seem like
(46:07):
much is changing. So all of these people who you know,
got the degrees and put in the legwork and now
have the position they were hoping for, or they're angling
for the position they feel like, we'll let them finally
make a difference. I just would challenge them to look
in the mirror and question, what impact are you really
having other than.
Speaker 11 (46:27):
To perpetuate the status quo, to perpetuate this system within which,
you know, the primary motivation for politicians is, you know,
the money from big donors, and big donors are actors
like major you know, defense contractor, you know, the Big
five defense you know, like the.
Speaker 9 (46:47):
Military industrial complex is such a huge driver of our
foreign policy and our politics. So yeah, you know, and
I get it, you know, for kind of the any
individual person, how are they supposed to like take that down?
But I do think that if you're in a position
(47:07):
to come out publicly against what's going on, and especially
at a moment like this where we do have you know,
I mean, history will judge those who were in positions
to have made different choices and yet continue to make
the same choice. And this is part of why I
decided to go public, even though I, you know, was
(47:28):
not anyone in a position of particular power, but I
did just want to be able to you know, look
myself in the face. And you know I've spoken about
this before that I have a young daughter and the
you know, imagining that she one day will be studying.
Speaker 10 (47:44):
This and we'll ask what we're.
Speaker 9 (47:47):
Doing, like, weren't you in government at this time? And
if I had said yeah, I mean I was, but
you know, there's really wasn't much I could do, you know,
I would be lying. I think, you know, I wanted
to be able to tell her, you know, I tried.
Speaker 10 (48:02):
I tried to do what I could.
Speaker 1 (48:04):
Yeah, well, doctor Sheeline, We're really glad you landed at Quincy.
We love their work and we're especially grateful to you
for your courage and also for your time today.
Speaker 4 (48:12):
Thank you so much. Tell people where they can follow you.
Speaker 9 (48:14):
By the way, I'm on Twitter and Nelle Sheeline and
you can find my work at the Quincy Institute quincyinst
dot org and you know we'll be working on these issues,
you know, look forward. You know, really appreciate all the
work that you all are doing to draw attention to this,
(48:35):
because I think the media narrative has been so influential,
and unfortunately the mainstream media has been so detrimental and
so I so appreciate those who are bringing uh who
are really you know, drawing attention to what's actually going on.
Speaker 4 (48:50):
Well, thank you.
Speaker 1 (48:51):
We're very grateful for that and great to have you,
and we'll hope to talk to you again.
Speaker 2 (48:55):
Thank you guys so much for watching. We really appreciate it.
We're gonna have a great counterpoint show for everybody tomorrow.
We will see you all on Thursday.
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
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
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.