Judging Freedom - Investigating the Intricacies of International Politics with Professor Jeffrey Sacks

Episode Date: November 15, 2023

Welcome esteemed Professor Jeffrey Sacks as we plunge headfirst into the murky depths of international politics in this gripping episode. From the CIA leak concerning the Nord Stream pipeline to the ongoing turmoil in Ukraine, we're peeling back the layers of secrecy and scrutinizing the facts. We're asking tough questions and seeking truths: Could the US have been behind the pipeline destruction? Why is there a reluctance to permit an independent investigation? And can President Zelensky navigate his nation through this crisis without a coherent plan from the US?Then, we're shifting our gaze to the devastating conflict in Gaza, termed 'Netanyahu's War.' We're applying the core doctrine of Von Klauswitz to gain insights into the Israel-Palestine conflict, and looking at how Netanyahu's right-wing government is maintaining regional dominance despite the toll on Gaza's population. We're considering the prospect of a regional war and evaluating US policy's role in this unfolding situation. With Professor Sacks on hand to provide expert analysis, we're discussing the elusive two-state solution and why the world's disapproval of US policy is growing. This is an enlightening journey into the heart of current international affairs - don't miss it!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 Tuesday, November 14th, 2023. Professor Jeffrey Sachs, home from four weeks of traveling to the far corners of the earth, returns to us from New York City. Professor Sachs, always a pleasure. Great to be with you. Hope you caught up on your sleep, and thank you so much for coming back to the program. I want to spend most of our time discussing Israel, but I need to ask you one or two questions about Ukraine. And before we get to Ukraine proper, I would like

your thoughts on the latest CIA leak through the Washington Post that a Ukrainian colonel currently in prison because of some botched effort to recruit a Russian pilot, which somehow ended up in people's desks there's a picture of him in one of those glass cells in a courtroom that he orchestrated uh and and supervised the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline Cy Hirsch of course says this is nonsense but the European press has picked it up well how convenient that someone already under arrest in Ukraine is now blamed. What do we know? We know the CIA lies relentlessly. We know that from the beginning, when Nord Stream was blown up, the fingers were pointed to Russia. You remember those early days, U.S. officials saying Russia probably did it.

Then we had Cy Hersh's detailed account. Then we have had the CIA say, well, actually, you know, we knew about this in advance. We were given advanced warning, but we didn't act on it. And yeah, probably was the Ukrainians. What I can tell you is that I was asked to testify by the Russian government, though, of course, I testified as an independent scholar and expert to the UN Security Council earlier this year. And I said something very straightforward, which was, we need an independent investigation of what happened. And of course, the United States

was the one that opposed that. The US has blocked any independent investigation. It's absolutely outrageous. And I was sitting there as the US ambassador said, oh, we don't need an independent investigation. Everything is going ahead properly. There's a there's a clip. I don't think we have it, Chris. It's an old, old clip from early on in the war, the Ukrainian war, where President Biden says we can destroy Nord Stream anytime we want. And who's standing next to him? The chancellor of Germany.

Of course. Doesn't open up his mouth or say a word or a peep. Well, Biden actually said, you know, if the invasion takes place, Nord Stream is finished. And a European reporter said, Mr. President, this is a piece of European infrastructure. How can you do that? And the president said, thank you, USA, showing a picture of the bubbles on the surface after Nord Stream was blown up. Blinken in a press meeting with the Canadian foreign minister saying this is the best opportunity ever to wean Europe away from dependency on Russian natural gas. So we've heard a lot of hooey on this. Why do you think the CIA has come out?

I'm saying the CIA because it came out in the washington post and we all know that relationship but why do you think they're coming out with it now i mean the last thing they came out with was um was a gilligan's island like thing you know with six people on a sailboat which of course is really really absurd and insulting but why are they coming out with this now why this guy in jail saying that he did it? And if he did it, does that mean General Zeluzhny knew about it? And does that mean that, even though this is not even remotely truthful, I don't get the reason it came out now and what the connection is. I wish I could tell you, I'm waiting for Cy Hirsch to weigh in on this, which he needs to do, actually,

and I expect him to do it. There's a lot of intrigue hour by hour in Kyiv right now between Zelensky and his team. Zelensky, the U.S. is obviously deeply involved in the intrigue in Ukrainian politics. So it's very murky. I unfortunately can truth-telling and any independent investigation of this from the very beginning and continues to do so until today. What is the status of affairs in Ukraine? Is it all but over except for the U.S.'s refusal to acknowledge that? Well, there's an absolute military catastrophe that continues underway with Ukraine bleeding people, infantry on the ground without armored protection, of course, no air cover, and hourly stories about how Russia is about to take out the energy infrastructure for the winter. Everything is possible right now. What is absolutely clear is that

the U.S. did not have a plan, pushed the Ukrainians into a disastrous counter-offensive. One argument that's circulating right now, which has some plausibility, is that the U.S. was gambling everything on Prokosian's attempted coup, which ended within the first moments of that attempt. But maybe that was the secret play that was the last card that the U.S. was going to play. They don't know what to do. Again, I've not seen such a miserable foreign policy team. We've had pretty bad ones all along, so maybe I shouldn't be comparative, but this is an incompetent group. And so I don't think that there is a strategy. And for Ukraine, this is a kind of end game. And Zelensky, obviously, is in desperation. The long knives are out in Kiev.

We can't follow it hour to hour. But there are very deep recriminations. And in the meantime, Russia has air superiority, missile superiority, ground superiority, and there is no coherent approach by the United States to try to negotiate an end to this war. And what do the neocons want us to do? Forget about Ukraine and focus on Israel and Gaza, because they have no explanation, they have no justification, they have no, you and I have used this phrase for almost a year now, off-ramp. Well, you know, for me, one of the most insightful essays I ever read was a 1970, I believe it is, essay by Daniel Ellsberg, who recently died, where he talked about the mess in Vietnam in an article called the Quagmire Myth and the Stalemate Machine. And Ellsberg had come out of reading the thousands and thousands of pages of

background, which constitute the Pentagon Papers. And what they showed was how much lying the U.S. did at every moment and how the generals lied to the public about the prospects of the war and so forth. But what was the one constant consideration was that the politicians wanted to hide any bad news at least till the next election. But in the U.S, okay, there's always a next election. So it's an unending sequence of lies, but always geared towards get us to next November. So what the neocons right now want is to hide their failure. Biden is running for reelection. He's up to his neck in this failure. He's been at this personally all through his vice presidency and now his presidency. This is not something he inherited. This is something he led with Victoria Nuland back in 2014 and even earlier. So they want

to hide the bad news. So they want somehow to keep things going. That's why they asked for another major round of financing, which I absolutely hope Congress says stop. And I think that they are saying stop. But this is basically help us get through next November, but that's too far away for them to succeed on this. This is so dreadful. The time has run out. The time for negotiations actually was there years ago, but it's really clearly and presently here right now. Switching gears, Professor Sachs, why do you call the IDF slaughter in Gaza Netanyahu's war? Well, Netanyahu is in charge, and all wars are political. This is the first and most important lesson of war. It's the central doctrine of von Clausewitz in his great tome on

war written in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars. Von Clausewitz famously said that war is the continuation of politics with other means. So when you see a war, whether it's in Ukraine, which I have described as a war over NATO enlargement, or you see a war in Gaza, which is really a war for the right-wing Israelis to maintain domination over Palestine, you have to look not at the immediate proximate events, which was October 7, the catastrophe of a Hamas massacre committed on Israelis, but the longer, deeper facts, which is that Israel has been dominating the Palestinian people for decades, and Netanyahu and his government are the most right-wing government in Israel's history, and their view is that that domination should continue.

And we have had the horrific response to that, which is terrorism, which is deadly. But I call it Netanyahu's war because this is a war not fought towards a just political end, which would be end Hamas so that we can move to peaceful coexistence with the Palestinian people, but end Hamas so that we can continue our domination over what these right wingers call greater Israel. And the meaning of that is partly religious, partly security, but what they mean is that Israel should not contemplate a Palestinian state, but rather keep control over all of the territories conquered in the 1967 war. That's the essence of Netanyahu's war. You don't hear him saying, we will defeat Hamas so that we have a two-state solution, so that we address the underlying causes. In fact, quite the contrary, even when the United States made a statement, the U.S. government, Blinken made a statement a few days ago

that the Palestinian Authority should take over responsibility of Gaza. Netanyahu immediately pushed back, no, no, no, this is Israel will keep control over Gaza. Is he more interested in killing Palestinian fighters than he is in rescuing the hostages? Well, certainly. This has nothing to do with rescuing the hostages. This is to militarily defeat Hamas. But this is urban warfare to the extent of bombing hospitals systematically, surrounding and bombing hospitals, cutting off the electricity of hospitals. And it's not a surprise that the death toll is well over 11,000, not counting the children under the rubble. And more than 4,000 of that 11,000 are children, they're not paying attention to that. They think that they are going to defeat Hamas militarily,

and then they will have ethnically cleansed northern Gaza because they're literally destroying the habitability of northern Gaza. And this is, it's unbelievable. There is absolutely inimical to peace. And the approach that they're taking is, I think, every hour more likely to trigger a regional war that is out of control. Hezbollah in southern Lebanon has thousands and thousands of missiles that can do great damage, kill a lot of Israelis, trigger a wider war, kill a lot of American soldiers. So I don't think that there is a plan because fundamentally Netanyahu and his cabinet do not want a political solution that is viable. Here is Jake Sullivan, the president's national security advisor, speaking obliquely about a political solution, but basically attempting to answer the question of who will govern Gaza. Secretary Blinken has been clear that it's the West Bank and Gaza

that need to be under unified control and the Palestinian Authority likely to govern that. It doesn't sound like the Netanyahu government is on the same page as the Biden administration because the prime minister said something very different just yesterday. Well, from our perspective, the way forward, the basic principles of the way forward are straightforward. And this is something that

Secretary Blinken laid out publicly this past week. No reoccupation of Gaza, no forcible displacement of the Palestinian people. Gaza can never be used as a base for terrorism in the future, and Gaza's territory should not be reduced. Secretary Blinken also said that ultimately we do want to see the reconnection, the reunification of control between the West Bank and Gaza under Palestinian leadership. The Palestinian Authority is the current leadership on the West Bank. But ultimately it's going to be up to the Palestinian people to decide their future, who governs them. There haven't been elections held in ages. The United States will support a process. Well, that's right, Margaret. There haven't

been elections held since the early 2000s. But post-October 7th, we can't go back to the way things were on October 6th. Well, Netanyahu doesn't agree with anything that Sullivan just said. Yeah. And if the U.S. government is serious, it can take those proposals straight to the U.N UN Security Council for the recognition of a Palestinian state that includes Gaza and the West Bank, and that includes the demilitarization, demobilization of Hamas. And it would win the support of the Arab countries that have called for exactly that. It would win the support of the world community that would call for that. So if the United States would follow through on that logic, this war could end immediately. Of course, the Netanyahu government would object, but the Chapter 7 of the UN Charter gives the UN Security Council the power to implement actions to preserve the global peace.

And this is what the United States should do. Instead, the U.S. has vetoed any such approach. But if the U.S. would follow through on what Jake Sullivan said directly and clearly, we could reach peace. You have written, and I agree and I expect everybody watching us now agrees, that Netanyahu is corrupt and unprincipled, that he trades Israeli security for personal power. Here he is attempting to answer, I should say refusing to answer, who's responsible? Well, let me restate it. Will you, Mr. Prime Minister, take responsibility for what happened on October 7th?

Chris. The one thing they want to hear from you is that you take personal responsibility for failing to prevent the October 7th attacks and protecting your people. I know you say the time for that will come after the war. Why won't you take responsibility now? I've already addressed that many times. And I said this whole question will be addressed after the war. Just as people would ask. Well, did people ask Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor that question? Did people ask George Bush after the surprise attack of November 11th?

Look, it's a question that needs to be asked. I think those questions were asked. And I've said that one thing that is important, and I've said we're going to answer all these questions, including me. I'm going to be asked tough questions. Right now, I think what we have to do is unite the country for one purpose, one purpose alone, and that is to achieve victory. That's what I did. We formed a unity government where the country is united as never before. And I think that's what we have to pursue. And what the people expect me to do right now is two things. One, achieve this victory and bring the hostages back. And second, assure that Gaza never becomes a fledgling zone again.

And to Israelis who are disappointed that you still won't take responsibility, you say? Well, I said that I'm going to answer all the questions that are required, including the questions of responsibility. There'll be enough time for that after the war. Let's focus on victory. That's my responsibility now. He can't answer that truthfully, Professor Sachs. Well, he should have resigned that day. That's how a parliamentary system works, by the way. A parliamentary system works that a government takes responsibility for what was a catastrophic failure of security and intelligence on that day. We have a presidential system. It's a different system. But in a parliamentary system, he could be gone in a

moment and a new prime minister would be in place in a moment, and he should leave today. This is not to mention that he has been the single most divisive figure in Israeli political history, and that he has been essentially almost nonstop the prime minister of Israel during the last 14 years, during which Israel has come to this disastrous situation because he blocked every chance for a political solution. So for the longer term reasons, he should go. And for the responsibility of this catastrophic intelligence and security failure. On October 7, he should go. I want to talk to you about the third rail, which is nuclear power. Two of Prime Minister Netanyahu's cabinet members, you probably know their names, Amikai Eliyahu and Itamar Ben-Gavir have talked about using nuclear weapons. Now Israel,

we all know, has nuclear weapons. They can't acknowledge it publicly for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is federal law that prohibits federal aid to a country that doesn't comply with certain international protocols about acknowledging nuclear weapons. You know more about this than I do. I want you to watch Chris Cuomo trying to get an answer out of Prime Minister Netanyahu on this very topic, and tell me what you think of his answer. Does Israel have nuclear capabilities and nuclear weapons? Yes or no? We've always said that we won't be the first to introduce it, so we haven't introduced it. But that's not an answer to the question. Do you have them or do you not?

It's as good an answer as you're going to get. Well, everybody knows that Israel is a nuclear power. Of course it has them. And we already heard the cabinet ministers, one of them said, yeah, we could use them. And then he was suspended from his position for having said this. So this is not a close call. It's not a mystery. This is what it is. It's all the more reason for responsibility by Israel to find a path to peace. What I would emphasize about all of this that may be surprising to some people, though I hope not, is that the Arab countries have been calling for peace for years.

They actually launched in Saudi Arabia in 2002 an Arab peace initiative, which said very, very clearly a two-state solution will lead to normal relations, peaceful relations and security for Israel. And the Israelis didn't pick it up. And they didn't pick it up because many of these right wingers don't want a Palestinian state under any conditions. This is the basic point. It's often said, oh, there's no one to talk to on the other side. Wrong. All Israel has to do is pick up the phone and speak with Saudi Arabia, speak with Egypt, speak with Jordan. They all have said clearly two-state solution, normal relations, security arrangements. This is what needs to be done. The reason they don't do it is that there are zealots, including religious extremists,

that believe that this land is Israel's, that Palestinians are going to be under Israeli domination full stop? And what Netanyahu and his cabinet, like Smotrich, who's the finance minister and these other right wingers, believe is that they can brazen their way through anything because the U.S. will back them up no matter what they do. That's their gamble. Now, that may be a gamble that they're willing to take because it seems like the U.S. will back them up no matter what they do. Joe Biden speaks out of both sides of his mouth. We're wedded to the hip with Israel, but, oh, we need to cease fire. He can't do that. I think what's happening is the world's changing. The U.S. could brazen just about anything 20 years ago. But now the world really is multipolar. The whole rest of the world is and issued a very responsible statement. They didn't issue destroy Israel, drive it to the sea.

They said, no, this points even more urgently to the need for a two-state solution. So the United States will be alone in the world only with Israel and 191 other countries, and that is 95% of the world, will soon be on the other side. And the Biden administration and the diplomats in the State Department who are incredibly unhappy with what's going on in U.S. policy, that is, know that this is absolutely not in America's interest to just stand by Israel when peace is possible. And that's why you hear both sides of the mouth. That's, you know, as far as we get in American politics right now. But the point is, the U.S. cannot brazen this out. And Israel certainly cannot brazen this out if the U.S. isn't standing behind them.

Why can't the U.S. put conditions on the use of military equipment and cash that we give them, just like we put those conditions on military equipment we give to other countries. The U.S. could stop this in five minutes because Israel depends on the U.S. for its security. I think the best way to do this for the U.S. that doesn't put the U.S. absolutely in terms of domestic politics at the complete center of this is to demonstrate that the whole world wants a two-state solution other than Netanyahu and his cabinet, and no doubt many of the settlers in the occupied territories. But other than that, the U.S. doesn't have to stand alone. Biden doesn't have to absorb all the political heat. It's just that the United States has to stop vetoing what the whole rest of the world is

calling for. So of course the U.S. could stop this in a moment. Israel depends entirely on the U.S. backing. It's just been an automatic of U.S. politics up until now that that would always come. But the moment it doesn't come, we have a different approach. And that's all the U.S. has to do. And if it's smart, the way to do it is to join the other 14 colleagues in the U.N. Security Council tomorrow and say, you know, this war needs to stop for global safety and for our own national security, after all, because the United States has troops in the region being fired upon every day. And so the U.S. has a strong reason for pushing to peace. There are partners. The Saudis want peace.

Very clear. The Egyptians want peace. I'm speaking with the diplomats. There's no ambiguity about this. So this is all the United States has to do. And what Jake Sullivan said was fine. Live up to it. Actually do something. And it's easy to do because the whole world is on side. Israel's on side, aside from this government, which is a despicable government,

that has let the country down. Professor Sachs is articulate as ever. I had a few more questions, but what you just said was so powerful. We'll end right here. Okay. We'll be back together soon. Absolutely. We shall. Thank you for your time. Much appreciated by the audience and by me. Absolutely. Take care. Okay. Coming up, of course, Kevin Demeritt at 2 Eastern, Karen Kwiatkowski at 3 Eastern, and Scott Ritter himself at 4 30 Eastern today. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!