Judging Freedom - Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: Analysis of Major Wars and Paths to Sustaining Peace

Episode Date: November 21, 2023

The Israel-Palestine conflict is a complex and controversial topic that has raged for decades. The debate around it often boils down to the language used, particularly the term ' #genocide '. We unravel this explosive debate after watching Admiral Kirby's recent remarks on the use of the word. #JohnKirby strongly claims that while civilian casualties in #Gaza are heartbreakingly high, #Israel's actions cannot be classified as genocide, but rather as self-defense against what he describes as a genocidal terrorist threat in #HamasHowever, we don't let the conversation stop there. We also consider opposing viewpoints, particularly those suggesting that Israel's intentions might indeed revolve around wiping out the #Palestinian population. This aspect is backed by incendiary statements from the #Israeli government and defense forces, leading to a lawsuit by the Center for Constitutional Studies. We take you through the evidence, the arguments, and the potential repercussions of such a hotly contested issue. Join us for this candid, in-depth look at one of the most contentious discourses of our time. #JudgingFreedom#Israel#Hamas#Gaza#IsraelPalestine#MiddleEastConflict#PeaceInTheMiddleEast#GazaUnderAttack#Ceasefire#Jerusalem#PrayForPeaceSee 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 21st, 2023, Thanksgiving week here in the United States. Professor Jeffrey Sachs joins us now. Professor Sachs, a pleasure as always. I want to talk to you at some length about your compelling comments that you delivered to the United Nations the other day. But before we do, just a couple of other questions, one of which is in your other wheelhouse as an economist. How has the Israeli economy suffered from the sudden loss of 350,000 males of age 20 to 40 who are now, who are reservists and now in the military, as well as the loss of labor customarily performed

by the Palestinians that were allowed to leave Gaza and come to Israel and work. Is any of that measurable? Well, it's a huge jolt to the economy. We call it a supply-side shock and a demand side shock. The supply side is, as you say, a massive diversion of resources from the civilian economy, from day-to-day life and day-to-day work to the military. That's a big deal. And at the same time, this war is very expensive. All wars are very expensive. And I heard a number, which I can't verify, of $100 million a day. I don't know whether that's right, but it's a lot. And it's a big burden from the budgetary point of view. And Israel will pay a heavy price for that. And of course, the U.S. is proposing, or the Biden administration is proposing to pick up a lot of that tab as well, and we're not exactly in a healthy fiscal situation. We have an enormous deficit, which reflects in no small part the

extraordinary military spending of our country. So all in all, wars are bad for the economy, bad for the budget. You know, if people think war is good because it boosts spending and so forth, yeah, maybe if you are Northrop Grumman or Boeing or General Dynamics, okay, I can imagine it's not bad for you. But if you're the rest of us, this is no help at all. We have other things to do with our time, our money, our resources, our budget revenues, and we should be doing other things with them. Now, the U.S. has not started to send, because I don't think the Congress authorized it yet, any funds or equipment to Israel from and after October 7th, other than the aid that had been pre-authorized, which was before the attack on October 7th. But whatever we send now, we'll have to borrow, probably from the Chinese. It's almost absurd. We're going to borrow from the Chinese and give to the Israelis,

and then we're going to print cash to pay the interest on the borrowed money. I think everybody understands that our public debt has soared to more than 100% of our national income. And on top of that rising mass of debt is the sharply higher interest rates. So suddenly, the interest payments on the debt are not a footnote, but have become a very, very major part of our budget outlays. And when the Congressional Budget Office projects forward based on our current policies and extends them out in future years, the debt to GDP, that is the share of the ratio of our public debt to our national income continues to rise sharply in the decades ahead to reach 180 or 190 percent of our national income by the middle of the century. So, you know,

we don't pay our bills, but we say, don't worry, we'll pay other people's bills, too. Not a good idea. I don't want to dwell on this too much, but I say, don't worry, we'll pay other people's bills too. Not a good idea. I don't want to dwell on this too much, but I got to ask you another question. How long could the United States survive with a debt to GDP ratio like that? Well, we can survive, but it is very unhealthy because the interest payments will start swamping other things that we absolutely need to do in our society to have a decent society. It squeezes out everything else. And so we're, I'm sorry to break some heavy news to people, but even though no political party will touch this, and I don't know for how many years to come,

we're going to actually need higher taxes in this country. And that's not my speaking as a lefty or liberal, it's looking at the budget. And so this is real. For a long time, both parties completely pretended that it's not real, both parties. The Republicans pretended you make a long time, both parties completely pretended that it's not real. Both parties. The Republicans pretended you make a tax cut and we gain more in output so we don't even lose revenues. Okay, wonderful story. And for the next fairy tale, we'll go someplace else. The Democrats basically took a different line.

Ah, the debt doesn't really matter. We owe it someplace else. The Democrats basically took a different line. Ah, the debt doesn't really matter. We owe it to ourselves. Interest rates are low as far as the eye can see. Another fairy tale. And so both parties have done this. But from 2000 till today, the debt in 2000 was about 35% of our national income. Now it's around 100% of our national income. You could debate a little higher, a little lower, depending on what's covered. That's striking. That's startling. That's the responsibility, or better said, the irresponsibility

of both parties. That is war after war that has been funded out of borrowing. And now we want to fund other people's wars too. It's extraordinary. Correct. Are you satisfied that the plan of Prime Minister Netanyahu is to eradicate Gaza and the West Bank of all Palestinians. We don't know about the West Bank yet, but the result of the policies right now is absolutely ethnic cleansing in Gaza. They say, no, no, no, don't, even, you know, longtime colleagues and friends of mine in Israel, how dare you use that expression? Well, if you destroy half the housing in northern Ghana, you've cleansed the region. If you have pushed hundreds of thousands of people south and then announce, as they're doing right now, we're moving into south Gaza.

What else can you call it? This is not a hunt for Hamas. This is destroying Gaza. And we know that there are people in the Netanyahu cabinet who are vulgar and explicit on these points. And it's unbelievable incitement. It is war crimes as far as I'm concerned. And I think legal specialists are going to be finding that. It's horrific and it's ongoing. I don't know if you know of or have ever met this retired Israeli Major General Giora Eland, E-I-L-A-N-D. Major General Eland is the former head of the National Security Council and current advisor to the defense minister and to the prime minister, who sees no difference between the Hamas fighters and the civilian population. And that's the advice that he's giving on a daily basis to the defense minister. He's come just one word short of the phrase ethnic cleansing or the word genocide.

Quite frankly, I'd never heard of him until one of our colleagues sent me a piece which quotes a speech that he gave just the other day. And the finance guy, Smotrich, I think I have his name right? That's right. Tweeted out the speech and put it out on all the social media. He liked it so much. This is dangerous stuff, Jeff. Well, it's extraordinarily dangerous. It's criminal behavior. And I don't mean that in an emotional sense. I mean that in a literal sense. And the Centers for Constitutional Studies, one of the think tanks in our country on constitutional studies say that there's growing evidence of genocide. And under the Genocide Convention, genocidal intent is part of the crime of genocide. You have to show intent. And these Israeli leaders are leaving a trail of intent, which is absolutely shocking. And this Centers for Constitutional Study has said that the United States, by providing armaments and standing along with Israel, is complicit in this possible genocide.

Now, I want to be careful that these are potential legal claims, but I think that they have potential significant merit. And all of this over-the-top the bottom rhetoric of these Israelis is setting a record that is stark for referrals to the International Criminal Court and for the Court of Global Opinion. I was at the UN. I met the UN frequently, but did the UN General Assembly, at the UN Security Council. People are watching and they're hearing this and they're completely shocked by it. I want to run two clips. First, Admiral Kirby yesterday on genocide. This is about as animated as I've seen him. Apparently someone, I don't know how you can do this,

spray painted on one of the walls of the White House. I don't know how a human being can get to a wall of the White House that wants to spray painted. And they spray painted. Well, I don't even remember during the Vietnam War anybody spray painting anything negative about LBJ in the White House. Anyway, somebody spray painted Genocide Joe. Someone on the staff? No. Well, they don't know who it was. We won't go there.

No, God. Well, apparently there's a lot on the staff that are of that view. Nevertheless, somebody spray painted that. Here's Admiral Kirby, but as animated as I've ever seen him on genocide. I said this the other day. Again, people can say what they want on the sidewalk, and we respect that. That's what the First Amendment's about. But this word genocide's getting thrown around in a pretty inappropriate way by lots of different folks.

What Hamas wants, make no mistake about it, is genocide. They want to wipe Israel off the map. They've said so publicly on more than one occasion. In fact, just recently. And they've said that they're not going to stop. What happened on the 7th of October is going to happen again and again and again. And what happened on the 7th of October? Murder, slaughter of innocent people in their homes or at a music festival.

That's genocidal intentions. Yes, there are too many civilian casualties in Gaza. Yes, the numbers are too high. Yes, too many families are grieving. And yes, we continue to urge the Israelis to be as careful and cautious as possible. That's not going to stop. From the president, right on down. But Israel is not trying to wipe the Palestinian people off the map.

Israel's not trying to wipe Gaza off the map. Israel's trying to defend itself against a genocidal terrorist threat. So if we're going to start using that word, fine, let's use it appropriately. Convinced that he's incorrect, that Israel does want to wipe Gaza off the map, that it does want to remove the Palestinian people from what Israel claims is greater Israel, whether they're civilians, women, children, poor, young, old, or not? You know, when we use an expression like, what does Israel want to do? Of course, what we mean is what do particular politicians and particular leaders want. We mean the Netanyahu government.

Yeah, we mean specifically the cabinet or the Israeli defense forces or others. And there is a growing body of statements that are really ugly. And they have been compiled, as I said, by the Center for Constitutional Studies. And that center made a lawsuit. I don't know whether it was thrown out or not. I haven't followed the events, but they made a lawsuit in California claiming that the United States was guilty of complicity in war crimes and potential genocide. And in providing, making that lawsuit, they provided dozens of pages of evidence that people should look at, including Mr. Kirby, to start with, because Mr. Kirby's throwing around slogans and narrative.

But he should look at what's actually being said by people that he's defending. And what is being said is absolutely ugly and disgusting. And not just words, the fact of the matter is Israel is, and when I say Israel, okay, I mean the Israeli army and government is in the process of killing thousands and thousands of people and thousands of children. And they know they're doing this and destroying the habitability of Gaza. And some have said, and I can only paraphrase, but the words matter. So we have to know the precise words, which I don't have in front of me, to the effect that Gaza won't be habitable again. I think I'm fairly paraphrasing at least some of these politicians. But the point is, there is a growing record. It's not going to be up to is no forbearance. They, many of them, are absolutely speaking in the worst, most intemperate, insightful and hateful ways. And it's completely distressing. But more than that, it is establishing a record that they will really regret of having said it this way.

You recently gave a compelling and articulate statement to the United Nations. I didn't know that private citizens, I realize the high regard that world diplomats have for you, but I didn't know that private citizens got to address the United Nations, but you did, and I read it, and many of us read it. But isn't the United Nations effectively toothless to stop this when the United States is going to veto anything that comes out of the Security Council that purports to admonish Israel. What I said with this great honor of addressing the UN Security Council is that the UN Security Council, under the UN Charter, has all the teeth it needs to bite into these wars and actually end them. Because it has the power to deploy armies, peacekeepers,

sanctions, to make referrals to the International Criminal Court, and to do many other things because in the wisdom of the founders of the United Nations in 1945, under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, the UN Security Council is empowered to keep the peace. So what I called on them to do is, especially for the P5 countries, those with the veto, that's the United States, China, Russia, UK, and France, to work together to end these wars. Because these wars are not in America's interest, nor in the interest of any one of the P5 countries. And if they work together, rather than grandstanding or vetoing, they have all the tools they need to end four wars that I talked about yesterday, the Israel-Gaza war, the Ukraine war, the war in Syria, and the war in the Sahel of Africa. All of them could be stopped immediately by the cooperation of the United States, China, Russia, UK, and France. And people say, oh, it's impossible to get cooperation. But the fact of the matter is, it's the United States, which is standing alone in invading responsibility.

And it's the United States. So weird. It's not Russia. It's not China. It's not anyone else. Was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations there when you spoke, Professor Sachs? She was right across from me. I was staring her in the eye. She was staring me in the eye. I haven't had a chance to talk to her since then. But absolutely, she was right across the table. And I hope that she heard because what I was saying was not a wish list of wouldn't the world be nice if. I was pointing out for four wars how to end them now in that chamber. Because wars can be ended by diplomacy, not only on the battlefield. But for diplomacy, you have to accept a diplomatic outcome. And that's, for example, Israel doesn't want to accept a diplomatic outcome of what every UN Security

Council resolution has called for, which is political rights for the Palestinian people. So it bombs, levels Gaza, kills thousands or possibly tens of thousands of people before this is over because it doesn't want a diplomatic outcome. But what about the United States? The U.S. professes to want a diplomatic outcome. President Biden said at the end of this is a two-state solution. So I said very practically, and it is practical, it's not some kind of dream, declare a state of Palestine. Now, the UN Security Council has the tools to do this, but the United States blocks the use of those tools. So instead of President Biden saying, oh, it's at the end of this, after how many thousands of children are killed, he could say it today and stop the killing.

So get on with it already. Let's just talk big picture for a minute, because your life's work has been in this. What is the value of international law if there is no mechanism for enforcement of it? Again, international law is our saving grace. But, and we have the mechanisms to use it. We can deploy sanctions. We can deploy peacekeepers. We can do many powerful things. But if the United States blocks it, then it doesn't work. So this is up to us to use international law effectively. The laws on the books right now, those are UN Security Council resolutions, have everything in them to make peace. It's all a matter of enforcement. And the point I was making yesterday is the United States is blocking enforcement. Now, why do we do that?

We do that because we think we're so powerful, we're so mighty that we don't have to use international law. We just get our way. What way exactly are we getting right now? Trillions of dollars of wasted money on wars, hundreds of thousands or millions of people dying if you add across these wars uselessly, endangering United States security around the world? What exactly are we getting by not sitting down with China, Russia, UK, and France to settle these wars? We're not getting anything out of this. That's the plain fact. And that's, I think the American people are understanding this more and more. Interestingly, in the opinion polling,

President Biden shows up at the bottom on foreign policy. People don't believe that there's any coherent foreign policy. What does it mean at the end of this is a two-state solution, when the two-state solution has been on the table for 56 years, what does it mean at the end of this? Make it tomorrow. Make it today. Make it this afternoon. You have the instruments to do that now. Professor Sachs, we could talk about this all afternoon, but we're trying to get as many of our regular and highly sought-after guests.

Of course. Who are foremost crammed into yesterday, today and tomorrow. And so we have to, we have to run, but thank you very much for your time. Happy Thanksgiving. Thank you so much. And Mrs.

Sachs and your family. I know you're traveling soon, but we'll, we'll catch up with you. Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll do that. All the best.

Colonel Lawrence wilkerson at noon just a couple of minutes from now judge napolitano for judging freedom Thank you.