Judging Freedom - Aaron Maté : Israel, Biden, and International Law (MUST WATCH!)

Episode Date: March 27, 2024

Aaron Maté : Israel, Biden, and International Law (MUST WATCH!)See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, March 27th, 2024. Our dear friend Aaron Matei joins us now. Aaron, it's a pleasure. Thank you very much for being on the show. Since we were here last, the UN Security Council voted to ask for a ceasefire in Gaza, and the United States abstained. This is the fifth such vote. The first three, the United States vetoed. The fourth one, the United States offered it. It was so tepid and so meaningless that the Russians and the Chinese vetoed it. This fifth one, the vote was 14 to

nothing to one abstention. As soon as the vote was taken, and the custom there is to allow the ambassadors to express their country's opinions briefly, the U.S. ambassador said, well, it's non-binding. And within an hour, Admiral Kirby, after much pushing and shoving verbally with reporters, basically said the same thing. Now, my understanding of the law, I mean, I'm obviously licensed to practice law. I'm not an international lawyer, but I can read documents, is that everything the Security Council does is binding. Not the General Assembly, but the Security Council. What's your take on all of this? The Biden administration's line was that because this was passed not under Chapter 7, that this is therefore non-legally binding.

But that's the first time I've ever heard that argument. And there are plenty of legal scholars who said that it's meritless. But it's very clear that the Biden administration was trapped here. They've, as you've mentioned, vetoed several resolutions calling for a ceasefire. Then they put out this transparent scam where they're pretending to call for a ceasefire when really the resolution that they put forward last week was basically reiterating the U.S.-Israeli position that at best Hamas should get a pause to the genocide, but they will not get a complete end to it. And so that was vetoed by Russia and China. And then because there's so much global protest against Biden and Biden's facing protest at home, I think a decision was made that, all right, let's finally let this

one pass so we can pretend as if we're on board with a ceasefire. But then immediately, just to make sure the Israelis know that we're still fully on board with the genocide, we're going to make clear that it's non-binding. And that was the tact that they pursued, basically letting it pass, but making sure that everyone knows immediately that they're not going to change their policy one bit. That's what John Kirby made very clear. And we're seeing that already because what happened after this resolution passed calling for a ceasefire, Israel committed several massacres, continued to attack the hospital at al-Shifa, but where people are being slaughtered and are holed up hiding. Israel's

taken over that hospital, turned it into basically yet another prison for the besieged Palestinians. So Israel certainly heard the Biden administration's message that this is non-binding. Chris, can you play the montage of the three UN ambassadors each speaking. They each speak for about 30 seconds or so after the vote was taken. We'll start with the American ambassador. We fully support some of the critical objectives in this non-binding resolution.

And we believe it was important for the council to speak out and make clear that our ceasefire must, any ceasefire, must come with the release of all hostages. The resolution just voted upon makes it seem as if the war started by itself. Well, let me set the record straight. Israel did not start this war, nor did Israel want this war. This must be a turning point. This must lead to saving lives on the ground. This must signal the end of this assault of atrocities against our people. A nation is being murdered.

A nation is being dispossessed. And the only one that was truthful was the Palestinian representative. Of course, Israel wants the war. Netanyahu wants the war. Smotris wants the war. Ben-Gavir wants the war. Defense Minister Gallant, who's in the U.S. as we speak, wants the war. Defense Minister Gallant was in the U.S. as we speak, wants the war. Now, in response to this, Netanyahu called Ron Dermer and the others back.

They hadn't actually left. You're not going to go to Washington. Now he's changed his mind. He's asked for an invitation again. Is this a joke? Is this a game they play at the U.N.? Absolutely, it's a joke. And it works for both sides' favor, both the U? Absolutely. It's a joke and it works for both sides favor,

but both the U S and Israel, the U S gets to pretend that they favor a ceasefire, even though they quietly slip in that the measure is non-binding. Notice how Linda Thomas Greenfield, the U S ambassador to the UN delivered that line about it being non-binding. You have to kind of really pay attention carefully to hear her saying the words non-binding. She's trying to, she's,inding. She sort of speeds up as she says it, trying to slip it in there. Because, of course, they don't want to be so forthright in saying that this resolution that they're not vetoing is still, in their opinion, toothless. That they're not going to actually respect it. So she tries to slip it in there. Then the Israeli ambassador, by the way, claims that this whole thing started on October 7th, as if there wasn't a multi-decade

military occupation. The world's longest running military occupation going on by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank, as if that's non-existent, that the history begins on October 7th. But yes, this is a joke. So the Biden administration gets to pretend as if they favor a ceasefire. And Israel gets to pretend as if they're defying the U.S., as if there's some rift, which always plays well for domestic audiences in Israel, because there's a sense in Israel that everyone's against them, including the U.S. So Netanyahu gets to pretend as if he's standing up to the U.S. and they have this big rift and they're trying to, like everybody else, punish Israel. And that will actually benefit Netanyahu. So ironically, the Biden administration, which now claims to challenge Netanyahu, really actually isn't strengthening him in front of his domestic constituency. I mean, the Biden administration

lies to Congress. You have written about this when it certifies that the IDF is complying with international law certification it must make in order to send military gear over there bypassing Congress. So they've got to make three certifications. I suggest to you they're all lies. The first is this is an American national security matter. The second is this is an emergency and there isn't time to bring it to Congress. And the third is that the people were are sending this ammunition and these weapons to are complying with international law.

And whoever signed that, the ones that I know about, Tony Blinken signed, I don't know if he signs all of these, is committing perjury. I 100% agree. And it just underscores that all these performative measures

we've seen from the Biden administration and its allies in Congress, they're just there to whitewash the genocide. So there already was the Leahy Law, which bans U.S. arms transfers to countries committing human rights violations. Israel wasn't following that. So then a group of senators got together and pushed forward this new national security memorandum that Biden signed and said he would comply with, which specifically requires Israel to certify that it's following international law and that it's not blocking aid into Gaza. And just this week, we got from Tony Blinken's State Department a new certification that, yep, Israel is totally in compliance. Nothing to see here.

And then they throw in some caveats to saying, this is an active process. We're still determining this, but this is based on the information we have, what we're seeing. And of course, what's the consequence? Nothing. Are the senators going to do anything about this? Is anybody rescinding their votes for Israel's mass murder campaign? No. I mean, just recently, even Chris Van Hollen, the Democratic Senator, has been very critical of Israel, called out their lies about UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinians. He even just recently voted to cut off funding for UNRWA. So does anybody take seriously the consequences of these lies? Or is it just those of us who have been critical of the Netanyahu government, the Netanyahu regime in Gaza? Somebody must take seriously the consequences of lying to the

Congress and sending hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ammunition to Israel on a daily basis based on lies? I think the only consequence they care about is whether or not they're going to lose funding from AIPAC and related groups, and also whether AIPAC will target them if they don't play along, because that's what AIPAC does. Not only does AIPAC, the Israel lobby, wield leverage by funding campaigns, it also wields leverage by funding opponents of people who don't tow the party line, who don't line up behind arming Israel. So I think those are the only consequences these people care about, including supposed critics of Israel like Chris Van Hollen. Here's Congressman Roe Kahan. These are great, great questions he put to

Secretary Austin. Well, you'll hear the questions and you'll see the Secretary's efforts to answer. Cut number three, Chris. Secretary Austin, last week you spoke to Defense Minister Gallant and you said, clearly, there needs to be a plan to ensure the safety and support of those sheltering in RAFA before any military operations proceed. National Security Advisor Sullivan has said he has not seen any plan yet. John Kirby said it would be a disaster to invade Rafah. If Netanyahu defies the United States and invades Rafah, will you commit today that you will halt any future military sales to Israel? Obviously, sir, that's a presidential decision. But, you know, we expect that – and, by the way, I spoke to Minister Gallant last night.

And I expect that when we provide munitions to allies and partners, that they'll use them in a responsible way. But would you make a commitment that they defy what we're saying and they violate international law, by the way, which is opposed to National Security Memorandum 18 and National Security Memorandum 20, that if they don't do what we are saying, that we would halt those arms sales or transfers. Again, the decision to halt the provision of security assistance would not be mine. It would be What would you recommend?

Well, I certainly, again, I really do expect The provision of security assistance would not be mine. It would be. What would you recommend? Well, I certainly, again, I really do expect that they utilize the weapons that we provide them in a responsible way. And then if they don't. I just want to, for time purposes, it seems to me if they're defying what you're telling him, what Kirby's telling him, what Sullivan's telling him, that wouldn't be responsible. You know, Aaron, he's under oath, the secretary. And when he says something like, I expect that when we provide munitions to allies and partners, that they'll use them in a responsible way. Is the man blind? He's not blind because at that same hearing, and you played this clip before on your show, he admitted that Israel's killed over 25,000 women and children alone.

And that was at the end of February. Who knows what the actual toll is now? So Austin knows they're not using his weapons in a responsible way. He knows they're slaughtering women and children, over 25,000 of them, by his own count. Yet he can pretend that somehow the possibility of them not being lawful is somehow perspective. It's not actual right now. And then when it comes to Rafa, again, they've made clear, the Biden administration has made clear there will be no consequences.

Asked about this recently, Kamala Harris said, we'll consider consequences if Israel attacks Rafa. Joe Biden said attacking Rafa was a red line, but then in the next breath said that he won't cut off weapons to Israel. So in its actions, the Biden administration is giving Israel a green light to attack Rafa was a red line, but then in the next breath said that he won't cut off weapons to Israel. So in its actions, the Biden administration is giving Israel a green light to attack Rafa, no matter what it says about opposing it. Here's a Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, commonly known as AOC, on CNN suggesting, I didn't know about this, maybe you do, that even United States aid in Egypt is having a difficult time making its way to Gaza. It's at the tail end of her clip.

When we are talking about famine, the actions of Hamas should not be tied to whether a three-year-old can eat. The actions of Hamas do not justify forcing thousands, hundreds of thousands of people to eat grass as their bodies consume themselves. But we are talking about a population of millions of innocent Palestinians. We are talking about collective punishment, which is injustifiable when they're talking about inspections. We're talking about U.S. aid, the United States aid. And so I think that if we are to operate as allies, then we must operate in good faith to uphold the principles of democracy.

All right. Israel is not an ally. We don't have a treaty of alliance with Israel, but I don't want to get hyper-technical with her. My question to you is, are there American trucks with American aid trying to make their way from Egypt into Gaza? And is the IDF stopping that? Yes, because Israel reserves the right to inspect every single item that goes into Gaza because Israel, contrary to its claims, is an occupying power. It's been that way for decades now. So yes, there have been USAID that's been prevented from going into Gaza because Israel says so. Whether it's coming in from Egypt or from Israel, Israel reserves the right to inspect it because it's the occupying power. So for AOC to call that out was very on

point. She's calling out the normalization of collective punishment with our complicity, letting Israel determine whether or not Palestinian children can eat or not, letting Israel reject the most basics of supplies. And this long predates even this current phase of Israel's mass murder campaign. During the siege of the last two decades, Israel has barred things like chocolates and eggs. I mean, one Israeli official said that we're going to put Gaza on a diet. So this has been going on for a very, very long time. It's just that much more extreme now that the people of Gaza are facing an actual genocide. Antiwar.com is reporting this morning that Itamar Ben-Gabir, one of the right-wing fanatics in Prime Minister Netanyahu's coalition, who also happens to be the head of internal security, I guess roughly the head of the FBI in Israel,

if you allow that analogy, has offered legislation in the Knesset, which if passed, would allow Israeli police to shoot and kill Palestinians on the streets without any civil or criminal liability. Can this possibly be, could the Knesset possibly consider such monstrous legislation? I can totally believe that they would let that pass. And even if it gets rejected, it's not that different from current policy. There's some, you know, look at the footage from the occupied West Bank, the daily terror that Palestinians live under with settlers and armed soldiers shooting people randomly at checkpoints, in the streets, in raids, on their homes and hospitals. I mean, this happens pretty frequently. And then in Israel, in Gaza, sorry, you've had recently multiple flower massacres where people lined up to receive aid, get gunned down by Israel. So whether this legislation

passes or not, and I wouldn't be surprised if it does pass, Israel's just that extreme, pretty much is already the de facto policy. How many, I understand it's about 5,000, maybe you have a different understanding of this. Palestinians are still in Israeli jails, subject to abuse and torture, and never charged with a crime. Oh, there's thousands of them, including many people who are under the age of 18, children. They were included in one of the first rounds of releases that happened early on in Israel's mass murder campaign. Remember, we had some prisoner exchanges, and so many of the Palestinians who were freed during those early rounds were

children who had never been charged with anything. So there's thousands of them. They're not considered hostages by our US media and political class, but that's what they are. They're people rounded up from their homes by an occupying army, taken and thrown into Israeli dungeons. You also have high-profile people like Marwan Barghouti, who's a Palestinian political leader, who he was convicted of being involved in the murders of Israelis, I think on pretty specious grounds. But regardless, he's also someone who really significantly has the support of multiple Palestinian factions. Hamas has called for his release, even though he comes from the Fatah faction of the Palestinian political

movement, which is the PLO. He's called for using nonviolence and he's called for resisting Israel through peaceful means. And Israel accordingly sees him as a very big threat because they don't want a nonviolent movement and they certainly don't want someone who can unite all the Palestinian factions because that's what allows them to keep ruling over the Palestinians and keeping their occupation going. So there are people not charged with anything and then there are people like Marwan Barghouti who are just political prisoners who is being held and treated very terribly. There was recently some abuse allegations lodged against his jailers. And they want to keep him there and so many others because they don't want to see

a cohesive Palestinian movement for freedom. Transitioning to Moscow. And by the way, as we transition, let me remind you, if you appreciate what we're doing, like and subscribe. You know what that does to the algorithms on the folks that carry this program. In your mind, is it rational to argue that MI6 and CIA were indifferent to what they knew was coming in the massacre at the Crocus Concert Hall. I totally do not blame anyone for believing that. These are the world's most cynical, nefarious people, these intelligence agencies. So it's very plausible to me that they would let something like this happen.

They did issue some public warnings about attacks on concerts. So that could be seen as a sign there that actually they were trying to alert Russia about something that they picked up. But more broadly, these groups like ISIS-K and other extremists like that, they've been allowed to fester and grow as a result of U.S. regime change wars. In Syria, for example, the U.S. admittedly watched ISIS grow. There's a really important clip of John Kerry being recorded. He didn't know he was being recorded. He was speaking to some Syrian opposition activists. And he basically explained that the U.S. watched ISIS grow inside Syria to use it as a tool of leverage for regime change against Bashar al-Assad. He said that we saw ISIS was growing. We saw that they were threatening Damascus. We thought we could manage this. We thought this would put pressure on Assad

and that he would negotiate his way out of power because of the pressure he faced from ISIS. So that's John Kerry saying that we were using ISIS as a tool for regime change in Syria. But then he says there was a problem because Russia came in. He says Russia came in because they didn't want an ISIS government. That's a quote. Russia didn't want a Daesh government, unlike the U.S., which was willing to risk that. And so accordingly, it doesn't surprise me that ISIS would now try to target Russia because they want revenge for things like Syria, where Russia, contrary to the U.S., prevented an ISIS government in Damascus. And then also in Ukraine, you had ISIS figures going there, not just after Russia invaded, but even in the years

before. And in fact, on the front lines of the Donbass War, the war that began after the U.S.-backed coup in 2014, where now the new coup government was fighting against Ukrainians who were rebelling with the backing of Russia against the coup government. You had not only the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, but you also had Islamic extremists fighting on the front lines on behalf of the Ukraine government. So in that environment, are groups like this going to grow? Are they going to plot attacks on Russia and use their proximity to Russia to carry them out? Absolutely. And that's the criticism I would lodge here against the US and the UK and their partners, whether or not they knew about this specific attack. They certainly created the policies and the conditions for groups like this to develop and carry out atrocities like this. Alexander Bortnikov, who's the head of the FSB, that's the head of the Russian intelligence services, when asked if the U.S., Britain, and Ukraine were involved,

answered, we think that this is so. Now, this is not like the American head of the CIA who regularly testifies before Congress and even answers questions of the press. This guy never appears in public, but he went out of his way to say this to RT today. It's inconceivable he would say something like this without his boss, President Putin, agreeing to it. Do you think it's rational for the Russians to agree that Ukraine, MI6, and CIA knew about this? Well, I'd like to see what kind of evidence they have. Again, I would never rule anything out. Anything is plausible, but I'm not inclined to accept it unless they can present credible

evidence. And certainly what I think is clear is that the threats of groups like ISIS have grown as a result of our policies, whether it's in Syria and in Ukraine, where again, you had members of not just the neo-Nazi Azaf Battalion, but also Islamic extremists fighting against the Russian-backed rebels. But in terms of a direct involvement in this plot by the US, UK, or Ukraine, I'd like to see the evidence that Russia has for this. I mean, I could also see Russia, because they are fighting a war, it would be in their interest to maybe exaggerate the extent of Ukraine and the US in this for their own purposes, because it never hurts when you're trying to manufacture support for a war to use incidents like this toward that goal. So to me, I think it's plausible. I don't blame anyone for being extremely skeptical

of the U.S. role in this and of Ukraine, because these are people who have backed terrorist attacks in foreign countries, including inside Russia. We've seen that recently, that New York Times article that has been discussed many times on this show about the CIA role in Ukraine since 2014. It talked about the CIA basically being involved with Ukrainian attacks on Russian soil. Whether that's the case here with this ISIS-K attack, I can't say for sure. You know, Aaron, you have such journalistic integrity that my hat is off to you. There's no question about that. Here's no question that you have the integrity and no question that I am a profound admirer of it. Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, an American who lives and works in Brussels, who was an expert on Russia, trying to connect dots between what happened at the theater and our friend Victoria Nuland, cut number 15.

We note that several related facts, Madam Nuland, Victoria Nuland, was fired on the 5th of March. It's highly interesting that this coincidence. I and others have spoken of her connection with the German generals plotting a strike on the Kerch Bridge using their cruise missiles. However, it is more likely that she was fired because the mission that she had supervised to attack Russia, a terrorist attack using Islamic extremists on the 8th of March was no longer operable. You may know that the originally targeted date was March 8th because of a very patriotic performer there and many government officials that were going to be there. These creeps apparently showed up and decided there's no way we're going to get through all this security. So the whole thing was canceled. I don't know if Mrs. Nuland knew about it or not.

You remember that comment, we have a nasty surprise for President Putin. I agree, we do need to get more evidence out. But this professor makes very interesting arguments. What do you think? You know, again, I understand why people are so skeptical of people like Victoria Nuland who are capable of such evil, such pointless evil, just because they have these obsessions with hegemony and they hate Russia, they hate Putin. I totally understand. So you can't put anything past them. But when Victoria Nuland talked about nasty surprises for Russia on the battlefield, I think she was talking about the integral role of the U.S. and its allies in managing their proxy Ukraine's military decisions. The U.S. is heavily involved in targeting. Nuland's especially been advocating that Ukraine attack Crimea, specifically the Kerch Bridge. They're obsessed with that.

Nuland was humiliated because she served in the Obama administration that presided over Russia taking Crimea back in March 2014 after the Maidan coup. That's what I think she was talking about. If Newland was somehow involved or aware of an ISIS-K attack on Russia, even someone like her with all of her hubris and arrogance, I don't think she'd be broadcasting it publicly. I just don't think that's how it works. But again, this is all speculation. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But I would guess just based on what I know that Nuland was not talking about anything to do with ISIS-K, but talking about the battlefield surprises that she was hoping that Ukraine would inflict on Russia this year. And that makes sense to me because the U.S. is so involved in Ukraine. They're a client state of the U.S. U.S. approves targets. It provides

targets. It's taking credit for killing Russian generals on the battlefield. So it makes sense to me that that's what she was talking about, not the ISIS-K attack. Aaron Matei, thank you, my dear friend. Thanks for your critical analysis and breadth of knowledge that you're willing to share with us on both of these unfortunate topics, Ukraine and Moscow and Gaza and the UN. All the best, my friend. I hope we'll see each other soon. Thank you, Judge.

Thanks for the opportunity. See you soon. Of course. Coming up at five o'clock Eastern, Professor John Mearsheimer. If you like what you saw with Aaron Mate Mate, like and subscribe. More of it is coming.

And at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning, Thursday morning, Holy Thursday, Scott Ritter, with his, the results of his research on the attack on the Moscow concert hall. Judge Napolitano for

judging freedom. Thank you.