Judging Freedom - Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: Can Ukraine and Gaza Be Saved?

Episode Date: April 3, 2024

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: Can Ukraine and Gaza Be Saved?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, April 3rd, 2024. Professor Jeffrey Sachs joins us now. Professor Sachs, always a pleasure, my dear friend. We have a lot to talk about. When you were last on this show, you referred to the government of Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel as a criminal gang. I think there's more evidence of that to support that. We don't need it, but more evidence keeps coming in. Let's start with the breaking news. Two days ago, it appears that Israel bombed and destroyed an Iranian consulate adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria. The land is legally Iran. The structures are legally owned by Iran. The attack killed two generals and five other persons. Does Israel not recognize international law

that diplomatic embassies and consulates are off grounds for attacking? Well, Israel does not recognize international law. You could stop there. It's violating international law every day in countless ways. It's violating the 1948 Genocide Convention. It is violating many Geneva Conventions on war and this attack on a diplomatic mission, but also not just an attack on a diplomatic mission, a political assassination, is another direct violation of international law. Israel is a rogue state. This is the basic point. It believes that because the U.S. is its benefactor, it can do what it wants, that it can act with impunity. One suspects that Israel made this attack to widen the war. I believe Israel would like to pull the United States into a wider Middle East war, especially a war in which the U.S. would join against Iran, a war that would be devastating

for Israel and for the Middle East and for the world. But I think that that is the intention of the Israeli government. And it's a very shocking point, but Israel goes out of its way to provoke. Maybe it also is a way for Israel to make sure that there's no diplomatic off-ramp to this crisis, because most of the world, including myself, believes that the way to end this crisis is not through war, but through the creation of a state of Palestine as a member state of the United Nations. And that, I believe, can and should be accomplished immediately through diplomacy at the United Nations in the UN Security Council and in the UN General Assembly. And one feels that Israel makes moves like the one in attacking the Iranians to prevent diplomacy from taking place as well, because it's obviously the goal of this government to prevent any kind of diplomatic solution to this crisis. Israel wants to solve this through purely military means, ethnic cleansing, disposing of the Palestinians. And so anything which could move towards a diplomatic end,

to say, you know, even with Iran, there could be a peace, they want to prove the opposite. So in short, yes, this is a war crime. It's acting with impunity. And it's all based on the notion, so far not disconfirmed, that Netanyahu can do anything and Biden will follow meekly along. It's a little bit of an aside here, but you tweaked my curiosity. Can the United Nations, the General Assembly and the Security Council, or maybe I don't have this right, admit the Palestinians as a Palestinian state with full rights as a state over Israel's objection? Of course it could. It would be a vote of the Security Council. Oh, so the U.S. would veto it? The U.S. could veto it. It shouldn't veto it. But the fact is, if you ask, could the U.N. admit the state of Palestine, the answer is yes. There is a state of Palestine, by the way. Everybody

should remember that 140 countries recognize Palestine as a state, but Palestine is not a UN member state. There are 193 UN member states. Back in 2011, Palestine applied for UN membership. When you apply for UN membership, you submit an application to essentially the UN Security Council. And then the UN Security Council, sitting as an admissions committee, reviews the application to see whether the applicant qualifies as a potential UN member state. Well, that process actually took place a dozen years ago. And the conclusion was that Palestine is a valid applicant to the UN as a member state. But the United States, in its normal, cynical way, told the Palestinians, don't push right now. Don't push. You know, Israel is a little bit against it. So don't push. Accept observer status for the moment, and then we'll move this application right along.

The United States has never been an honest broker, obviously, in the Israel-Palestine affairs. That goes back now basically to 1948 and onward. And so the Palestinians were pushed to accept observer status, which is not a member state status. But the legal application was not dismissed. It's sitting there. My own view is it should be accepted immediately. Now, again, the United States could well veto it, contrary to, again, what President Mumbles says all the time. Biden will mumble, oh, we believe in a two-state solution, and then we'll do what Netanyahu says. Oh, Professor Sachs, let me stop you for a second. Here's Tony Blinken two days ago in Paris on the very same subject, mumbling, hand-wringing, but saying the very same thing two days ago. We also agree that we have to find a path to a durable lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis

alike and we both agree that ultimately that has to include the establishment of a Palestinian state with necessary security guarantees for Israel. Okay, it was one day ago, it was yesterday, the United States will be eating its own words of it to veto that. Don't you just want to cry every time you listen to Blinken? Yes. He's so sad. And, you know, it's it is something if only if only someday he could become Secretary of State of the United States, it would really be amazing. But he just looks at it and he's an academic and so he wrings his hands. But someday, Tony, you could be Secretary of just like you say you want. And maybe there'd even be a president that someday could do something. But it's so sad for Biden. You know, he just longs to be president. But we know what he wants because he tells us all the time he wants a two-state

solution. He wants to end the war in Gaza. He wants to stop the attack on Rafah. And someday, Joe, you could be president of the United States, not President Netanyahu. It would be amazing. Hmm. Two or three days ago, the Israelis, over a course of several hours and several miles, pursued, followed, hunted down, and murdered seven international food workers, one of whom was an American. Now, there's no justification for this. There's no justification for what Israel is doing in Gaza at all when it kills

innocent civilians. What do you expect will be the repercussions to this? Nothing? Or is this the straw that will break the camel's back? Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. WGU is an online accredited university that specializes in personalized learning. With courses available 24-7 and monthly start dates, you can earn your degree on your schedule. You may even be able to graduate sooner than you think by demonstrating mastery of the material you know. Make 2025 the year you focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Well, there's no straw that will break the camel's back. But it's, of course, this is another crime and just another notch in an ongoing disaster. But I think what's interesting about it, actually, aside from the tragic event itself, is this seven people died and it's received more

attention, I would say, than probably the last 10,000 Palestinians. The president of Israel came out and made an apology, made an apology for seven people dying. He didn't make an apology for 33,000 Palestinians dying because he's been party to their deliberate murder. Palestinians in the Israeli eyes are not human beings, it seems. These seven have generated an apology by the president of Israel. Now, you know, partly this is profoundly cynical PR because there's a famous chef who is a part of this humanitarian effort, and so it gets more news and attention. But I find the reaction not in the slightest way, how should I put it, you know, gratifying that Israel has recognized its responsibility. I find it stunning in the contrast that Israel murders thousands and thousands, starves more than a million people right now, children dying, emaciated, coming to the ruins of hospitals,

which Israel has destroyed, and dying of emaciation and starvation. And here we have an apology for seven people. But it mostly highlights the shocking double standard that, well, there's an American, these are whites, if I could put it in that ugly way. But that's the ugliness that I see because the Israelis are not counting Palestinians as human beings suffering in this context. So there's no apology for that. Where's the apology, President Herzog, for the hundreds of thousands of people on the brink of starvation? You don't offer one word of apology.

It's outrageous. This will raise your blood pressure. Here's Admiral Kirby yesterday attempting to answer a question about this. Cut number one, Chris. Thanks, Admiral. On the death of those World Central Kitchen Aid workers, which includes one American who was killed, Netanyahu's reaction was, quote, it happens in war. What is your reaction to that comment from Netanyahu? I don't think it'd be useful for me to get

into a tit for tat here with the Prime Minister of Israel from the podium. How can you take Netanyahu at his word? As Nancy was saying, this was a deconflicted zone. They had marked their car. They had even coordinated their movements with the IDF. Yeah, and as I said in my opening statement, obviously, setting aside this incident, because this isn't the first one, there are issues of deconfliction

that clearly need to be fleshed out and improved. So how can the U.S. continue to send aid to Israel without any conditions? Yes, they have a right to do that. We're can the U.S. continue to send aid to Israel without any conditions? Yes, they have a right to. We're not sending aid to Israel. We're sending aid into Gaza. And that's. How can they, how can the U.S. continue to send military aid? Military assistance. Without any conditions? Is there no red line? You know, we've had this, we've had this discussion, you and me, quite a bit from up here. These are verbal urgings, verbal commitments. There's no other incentive besides the urgency of the discussion.

I know. You want us to hang some sort of condition over their neck. And what I'm telling you is that we continue to work with the Israelis to make sure that they are as precise as they can be and that more aid's getting in, and we're going to continue to take that approach. The Admiral took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The laws of the United States, he's acting like he doesn't know what they are, absolutely and unequivocally prohibit military aid to any country that is engaged in genocide or obvious acts that are war crimes. And he's saying, you don't want us to put any conditions on our aid?

He should be fired. Well, look, he should be fired because he lies every day, aside from everything else. But he should also be fired because he's such a bad actor. You actually see the smirk in almost every answer. It's the same with their guy, Matt Miller at the State Department. These people smirk because they know they're playing a game. This is all about narrative. It's all about spin. It's all about the news cycle. It's nothing about truth. It's

nothing about decency. It's nothing about the law. Kirby lies every time he moves his mouth, as the old expression has it. But he smirks along the way. So he's just a lousy, lousy actor at the same time. But by the way, you can't raise my blood pressure with Kirby anymore. No, because the man is an absolute disgrace, but he's proved that time and again. So nothing can surprise me about anything that comes out of Kirby's mouth. Here's one more cut on this. This is News Australia about an aid worker uh killed as well number three a direct hit from a targeted drone strike straight through the charity logo that was meant to ensure those inside

were protected from harm three vehicles seven aid workers obliterated among them australian zombie frankham hey this is Zomi from World Central Kitchen. The 43-year-old's death now the centre of a new diplomatic war with Israel. This is completely unacceptable. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in a 20-minute early morning call with his Israeli counterpart. I expressed Australia's anger and concern at the death of Zomi Francom. The killing summed up in two words by Foreign Minister Penny Wong. Outrageous and they are unacceptable.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admits Israeli Defence Forces were responsible but claims it was unintentional. This happens in wartime. We are thoroughly looking into it and will do everything to ensure it does not happen again. Well, it's the same story. an aid worker dying, rather than on the deliberate starvation of a million people and the slaughter of 33,000 and rising every day, 70% of whom are women and children. These politicians are fundamentally dishonest and maybe instinctually racist or not, but they count the one life of their citizen as this overwhelming deal that requires an investigation And they otherwise sit back as a mass genocide takes place before our eyes.

So, again, the death is tragic. The circumstances are a genocide. to have politicians that understand the most basic, or not understand, that will tell the truth about the most basic facts that are before our eyes. We're going to take a break. When we come back, we'll discuss with Professor Sachs the latest efforts in Congress to send another $61 billion to Ukraine and what that would mean and how teetering on the brink Ukraine is as we speak. But first this. How do you really feel about your financial future right now, today? Stable or uncertain? Despite all the happy talk that the Fed and the banks want you to buy into, I believe that 2024 is going to be a very unstable year, politically and financially.

That's one of the reasons I decided to buy physical gold and silver. And I suggest you should do the same and do it now. Why? Because throughout times of economic uncertainty, gold and silver have rightly earned a reputation for stability. Owning precious metals has made me feel more stable and it can do the same for you. Reach out to my friends at Lear Capital and get their free wealth protection guides. You can reach them at 800-511-4620. Lear has earned an excellent reputation by helping thousands of customers just like you move portions of their retirement savings into Lear gold and silver IRAs.

It's easy to do and it's tax and penalty free. Don't be caught off guard. Experts predict the markets may tank again. You'll be happy if you have protection in place. So call Lear at 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them your friend the judge sent you. Do you think, Professor Sachs, that the attack on the K and I forget the initials, the Ukrainian intelligence services were involved, given President Putin's stern and serious statements, given the Kremlin's characterization of the conflagration in Ukraine. It's no longer a special military operation. It's now a war. Well, I think that it was a horrific event, not only as a terrorist attack that took so many lives, but as a direct reminder that there is a lot of engagement of CIA and MI6, as you say, with jihadists. And we're going to

learn more about this, no doubt. The Russians have a lot of information, no doubt, and it's also going to come out. The CIA has been running jihadists for more than 40 years, as we've discussed, starting back in Afghanistan and then going through the Balkans, the Caucasus, Ukraine. This is Syria. This has been part of the modus operandi of the CIA, which is to arm jihadists to supposedly do America's business. Of course, the blowback and the disasters have been far more noted, I would say, but this is part of a long story. We don't know all the details here. Will this be a turning point? No, because there was a more fundamental issue, which is that this war is going to continue until there are negotiations between the U.S. and Russia, and the U.S. refuses to negotiate. So there is no turning point. There's just a continued bloodshed in Ukraine, continued Ukrainian losses of people and territory.

And that will continue because Russia is resisting NATO. And Biden doesn't want to talk about it, never has, has been part of this war effort for decades. And the war itself is, of course, 10 years old now, more than 10 years old. It's not something that started a couple of years ago. It started in February 2014 when the U.S. conspired to help violently overthrow the Ukrainian government for the purposes of expanding NATO. So there is no turning point. There's just ongoing war until the United States figures out finally that it has to negotiate. It has to stop telling lies. It has to sit down and talk about the mutual security of Ukraine, Russia, and the United States, something that the U.S. has never been willing to do. And I think it's really important to understand that the U.S. continues to drag Ukraine into deeper and deeper disaster. This is Biden's

war going back to 2014. It was Obama's and Hillary Clinton's and Victoria Nuland's and Jake Sullivan's and Tony Blinken's war. It came from the push for NATO enlargement. It came from the violent overthrow of a neutral Ukrainian government. And we've been lied to all the time about this war. And, Judge, I pulled out because I wanted to check the lies. Now we have a new call for another $61 billion. Yeah, let's rip up another $61 billion. Unbelievable. A large amount of money by liars who tell us falsehoods all the time, every day. And one of the things I looked at in the last 24 hours was all the things that were claimed about how our

aid was going to lead to the successful Ukrainian counteroffensive. And it's the same people. Ukraine's spring counteroffensive has, quote, very good chance, says Secretary Austin. Ukraine making, quote, steady progress, says top U.S. general. Ukraine likely to succeed, says defense secretary. Russia may suddenly break under pressure, says former U.S. general David Petraeus, with all his stars on his shoulder. Ukraine's counteroffensive may yet surprise critics. Ukraine offensive is beginning, David Petraeus is optimistic, we're told in the Washington Post. Ukraine's counteroffensive will be, quote, very impressive, says U.S. General Petraeus. hundreds of thousands of people. And because Congress is so pathetic and weak-willed and so much subservient to the campaign contributions of the military industrial complex and so incapable of honest thought, they're probably going to give another $61 billion the way

it's going right now for absolutely nothing. The Speaker of the House, there's the headline from either yesterday's or today's Times. Johnson is the Speaker of the House, outlines plan for Ukraine aid. House could act within weeks. if he were right here, to try and change his mind, to save the American taxpayer from throwing $61 billion into the fireplace, to end the slaughter in Ukraine, to save a generation. President Zelensky today signed legislation lowering the draft age. They're going to go into the graduate schools, the law schools, the medical schools, and the colleges to extract young men, train them for two or three weeks, put them on the front lines, and they'll be dead. You know, I would say, Speaker Johnson, you yourself said that the U.S. needs a plan,

a strategy, some clarity. So how could you even consider at this point voting $61 billion? And maybe I would give them a little tutorial about $61 billion not being chump change. How could you even consider this when there's obviously no plan, no strategy? Why don't you just tell the truth? And let Biden, by the way, tell the truth. It's his war. He started it. He and Obama and Clinton and others back in 2014. He was there when the U.S. was party to a coup. Okay, get him to explain. Don't just hand over our money for God's sake again. And it's not helping Ukraine. It's wasting $61 billion. Again, we could have a little tutorial about why that's not chump change. And then think about what it's going to do for Ukraine. You want to lose Odessa? You want to

keep going? Have Russia keep making its advances because we refuse to talk about anything? That's what I would tell them. What are you doing? You yourself, Mr. Speaker, said we need a strategy and a plan. Now you want to move the vote forward? Give me a Surely the professionals around Biden must understand that this is so far gone, such a lost cause, that $61 billion would succeed in doing nothing except enriching American arms manufacturers. It's not going to change the outcome of the conflagration. It may delay the outcome a little bit. I don't even know if it would do that because- No, Judge, it's going to do three things only. Yes, it will enrich the arms manufacturers who will give back some campaign contributions to the congressmen who duly voted this against the wishes of the American people. Second, it will cause tens or

even hundreds of thousands more Ukrainian deaths. And third, it will cause Ukraine to lose even more territory because Russia will continue to make gains until we sit down to negotiate. The longer we delay, the more Ukraine loses. So this doesn't delay anything. This doesn't save anything. This is completely for Biden to get to November. But why in the world Johnson would be a party to that is baffling, except that they're all so weak-willed and so corrupted by the campaign contributions that they can't think straight for a day at a time. It's the speaker himself who said, we don't have a strategy, we need a strategy. Well, when the speaker was just Congressman Johnson, he sounded almost, not as articulate, not as eloquent like Jeff Sachs. But now that he's Speaker Johnson and he's part of the establishment, he doesn't object when Tony Blinken signs

documents under oath certifying that they need to bypass Congress and send equipment to Israel because it's a matter of American national security and it's an emergency. He doesn't object to the extension of a war and the slaughter of innocents and the destruction of more people and the loss of more territory in Ukraine. He's just part of the establishment now that he wants to go. I don't know the man. Yeah, I don't know him either. Maybe he's just so inexperienced. Maybe he's so corrupted. Maybe another story yesterday is there's a side deal to boost U.S. exports of Louisiana LNG as part of the bargain. Remember, Congress is so corrupt, it's swimming in side deals. We don't hear the truth about any of this right now.

And most pathetically, we don't have a president who knows what his job is. I want to take you back to Israel for a minute. The demonstrations against Prime Minister Netanyahu personally have been enormous and persistent. Is this likely to produce a change in the government? I know because you've told us and almost everybody that comes on this show that has a finger on the pulse of Israel has told us Benny Gantz may be even more aggressive in the way he directs the IDF. But are Bibi Netanyahu's days numbered, Professor Sachs?

Well, of course they're numbered. Everybody hates him. He believes that the war is his safety valve. It sounds so weird, but he thinks that, and he makes the argument explicitly, you don't change leader during a war. So as long as the war continues, he thinks he remains prime minister. The public's disgusted with him, by the way, on all sides, all ideologies. And the fact of the matter is simple. On October 7, he should have taken responsibility for a massive security failure, and he should have resigned that day. Professor Sacks, I want you to listen to one more clip before we finish for today. This is former congressman and running for his old seat again, Dennis Kucinich, a fierce, fierce opponent of war, letting Netanyahu have it here on this show yesterday.

We have all the elements for World War III here, and the bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus is clearly an act of war against Iran. It is a violation of international law. And at this point, the Netanyahu government doesn't care about international, as far as they're concerned, there is no international law. They are now a rogue government. And what's happening, you know, they've destroyed the El Shifa hospital. They've killed about 33,000 Palestinians and more, injuring countless people. They're driving a famine in Gaza right now, killing at least seven aid workers who were only there for the world's central kitchen

to give people food. I mean, when you look at this, and the United States is financing this. We are paying for it. Our taxpayers are paying for this. I do not want to see any of our sons and daughters from this country sent into a conflict that we're being dragged into by Netanyahu and his people in the Likud. It is time that we took a stand for American interest. It is not in our interest to go into World War III. If Netanyahu wants to have an expanded war, he should be told, pal, you're on your own. Nobody's ever going to say to me, pal, you're on your own. You make me smile because it's going to be great to have Dennis Kucinich back in the Congress. That's for sure.

Yeah. But is it fanciful in reality to expect that Joe Biden would accept Congressman Kucinich's advice not before November of 24? Look, we don't know. Biden, it just may be that he can't function as president right now. We don't really know. My hope and advice to the Democratic Party is give us a different candidate. Professor Sachs, thank you very much for your time. Very much appreciated. As always, you come to us from all over the planet today from your time. Very much appreciated. As always, you come to us from all over the planet. Today from your home. Absolutely.

We'll see you next week. From wherever you are. Best to Sonya. Thank you, Professor. All the best. Thank you. Coming up later today at 11 o'clock this morning, Colonel Douglas McGregor

at 2 this afternoon. Connor Freeman at 3 this afternoon. Our old standby, Phil Giraldi. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. We'll be you next time.