Judging Freedom - Prof. John J. Mearsheimer : Netanyahu In Trouble

Episode Date: June 13, 2024

Prof. John J. Mearsheimer : Netanyahu In TroubleSee 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 Thursday, June 13th, 2024. Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, my dear friend, always a pleasure. Thank you for coming on the show. I want to spend some time talking to you about the dilemma that Prime Minister Netanyahu is in between what the Americans want him to do and what the right-wingers in his cabinet are demanding that he does. But before we get there, let's talk about breaking news, and that is the presence of Russian warships off the coast of Florida and notably in Havana Harbor. American warships have been in the Black Sea since 2007. Is the media making a big deal out of this? Is Putin sending a message? How does John Mearsheim review this? Well, I think there's no question that Putin is sending a message.

He has long been deeply upset about the fact that we're interested in bringing Ukraine into NATO. And Ukraine is in his backyard, and he considers that an existential threat. It's his version of the Monroe Doctrine. And basically what he's doing is he's saying to the Americans, if you can play the game of trying to move into our backyard, I can signal to you that I have the potential to move into your backyard and in effect, in a tantalizing way, probe at the Monroe Doctrine. And that in effect is what he's doing here. You and I have, I don't know if it was jokingly or seriously, I'm going to say seriously hypothesized, how would we react if Mexico signed an agreement with the Chinese and the Chinese put offensive weaponry in Tijuana and aimed it at Dallas? This is almost the same thing, except that it's

aimed at Miami, not aimed at, but right there. Do we know the offensive capabilities of these ships and submarines, Professor Mearsheimer? They have hardly any offensive capability. It would be quite unnerving if there were nuclear weapons involved here, but there are no nuclear weapons on the submarine, the Russian submarine that has come into the Western Hemisphere. It is a nuclear-powered submarine, but it doesn't have nuclear weapons. How about the surface ships? They must have some weaponry on them. Otherwise, what are they, just fishing boats? Or are they surveillance ships? I mean, what are they? Well, I mean, these are just normal naval ships that have almost zero offensive capability against the United States. If they

ever tried to shell the United States or use the weaponry that they have available against us, we'd sink that ship to the bottom of the Jolly Roger pronto. So this is not being sent over for the purposes of offering a meaningful threat. This is symbolic. And basically what the Russians are saying is we can put military forces in your backyard, just the way you're putting military forces in our backyard. And of course, they can eventually up the ante, and you could end up in a Cuban Missile Crisis-like situation. Because you remember in 1962, the Soviets put missiles in Cuba that had nuclear warheads with them.

As these ships arrived in Havana Harbor, they were given a 21-gun salute by security forces, military. I'm not sure what military Cuba has, but some governmental entity gave them the highest salute and public recognition that it could. You don't see a Cuban Missile Crisis coming, do you? No, I don't think that that's going to happen. I think the Russians would be remarkably foolish to do that. And President Putin, as many things, being a fool is not one of them. No, I think that President Putin, he's not perfect, but he is a first-class strategist. I think there's no question about that. I think our leaders pale in comparison to him when it comes to formulating and executing strategy. Does he really send a message if the ships are toothless? Offensively, let me say this,

offensively toothless. Yeah, he sends a message. I mean, he's not interested in starting at the top of the escalation ladder. He's starting at the bottom of the escalation ladder, and he's sending a clear signal. And the mere fact that you and I are talking about this as the lead issue at the start of your show indicates that the message is getting through. Is President Biden knowingly risking either a wide regional war in Ukraine or even, I don't know what this phrase means anymore, but I'll throw it out, World War III? Well, there is, I think at this point, a slim possibility of a major escalation. I think that the Biden administration has gone to great lengths to calibrate all of its moves so as to avoid that. I think the Biden administration, for all its faults, understands that the last thing we want is a great power war involving the United States and Russia in Ukraine. So we've gone

to great lengths to try to avoid that. And with regard to these missiles, these Ataka missiles, and the fact that we've given Ukraine permission to use them against Russia to attack the Russian homeland, we've made it manifestly clear to the Ukrainians that they cannot use those missiles for deep strikes. They can use them for cross-border attacks into Russia, but for nothing more. And the reason we're doing that is we're trying to keep a lid on things. And so far, so good. And because the Russians are doing extremely well on the battlefield against the Ukrainians, and the missile strikes have not really mattered that much. There's no serious threat of escalation at the moment,

but there's no question we have to be very careful moving forward. As we speak, the G7 is on the Adriatic coast of Italy, and there is a person there who is not in the G7 with the hat in hand, and that's President Zelensky. Are you concerned about what kind of a deal President Biden might get out of the other six members of the G7, which will result in that hat in hand filled, so to speak? Well, I think there's no question that the G7 leaders led by the United States are going to do a number of things to try, and I underline the word try, to improve Zelensky's situation. We've just upped the sanctions. I don't know how meaningful that is, but we've upped the sanctions.

The United States is now talking about giving Ukraine a 10-year security guarantee, a military commitment. We can't bring them into NATO, but the United States will give them this security commitment. And then we're talking about trying to figure out a way to give them $50 billion, a $50 billion loan that will eventually be paid off by the interest on these Russian assets that are in European banks. So we're trying to do things like that to help the Ukrainians, but it really doesn't matter. This is too little too late, because the Ukrainians are doomed on the battlefield. The Ukrainians need more manpower on the battlefield. They need more weaponry, and we don't have weaponry to give them in meaningful numbers. And we certainly don't have any manpower to give them. So there's really not much we can do

at this point in time. And I would argue, by the way, that by doubling down the way we're doubling down, especially by giving Ukraine a 10-year military commitment. We're just guaranteeing that the Russians have a powerful incentive to really wreck Ukraine. Your friend and sometimes sparring partner, Gil Doctorow, agrees with you 100% on that. He said he wouldn't be surprised if the Russians level Kiev just to sort of put an end to this, since it's been going on for so long. That'd be out of character for President Putin. But I guess Putin himself is under pressure from those to his right in the government and in Russian society to bring this military operation to a successful conclusion, isn't he?

Yeah, there's no question about that. I don't think he's going to level Kiev. And I think if he did level Kiev, it really wouldn't work. We have a rich history of what happens when countries engage in massive strategic bombing, and it never works out very well. You mean like we did to Dresden? Well, what we did in Europe, and more importantly, what we did in Japan. Right. You want to remember that before we dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan on August 6th and August 9th, that we were firebombing Japan, and we were burning Japanese cities to the ground. Yes. I believe we killed more people the first night we firebombed Tokyo

than we killed at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. That just gives you a sense of how severe the firebombing was. But, of course, in both the European theater and the Pacific theater, we were engaged in strategic bombing, and it was not responsible for bringing the war to an end. Are, is the United States effectively, morally, militarily, politically attacking Russia? Well, we're not actually doing the fighting in Ukraine. We're pretty much doing everything else. use of top secret codes, which can only be input by Americans. So it is clear that American human beings and know-how, aside from crafting this stuff and paying for it and getting it there and teaching them how to use it, is actually involved in aiming it and setting it off.

Yeah. Just a little bit more context here. We're giving them lots of intelligence. They couldn't do this without really sophisticated intelligence. And it's our intelligence that's helping to make this possible. Strengthens my argument. More we're helping them to plan the operation or the operations. And then your point that Scott Ritter makes, which is probably true, which is that we are helping them actually operate the weapons. And if that's true, you can make a case that we're directly involved in the fighting. Were you, Professor Mearsheimer, scandalized when President Biden and Secretary Blinken authorized the distribution of American military equipment to the Azov Battalion, these professed outward swastika-tattooed proto-Nazis in the Ukraine military? No, I wasn't surprised at all. And I believe

if you go back to the period after 2014, when we started training Ukrainian forces, there's all sorts of evidence that we were training individuals who fit that profile. I'm not sure we were training a whole scale units like the Azov Battalion, but we were definitely training individuals who were affiliated with organizations like the Azov Battalion. So I find this hardly surprising. The United States is a ruthless great power. Indeed, I argue all great powers are ruthless, and they do this sort of thing all the time. They cover it up, of course, and the United States used to be good at putting the velvet glove over the male fist, but we've lost our touch. And now what you see with the United States is pretty much just all the male

fist. And when we try to put the velvet glove over it, most people at this point in time understand what we're doing and really don't take us seriously. Before we get to the latest in Gaza and Benjamin Netanyahu's troubles, here's Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov just the other day. I'd like your thoughts on this. Cut number 13 chris a profound transformation of international relations is taking place in front of our eyes it is associated with the formation of a more just polycentric system of the world order which would reflect the entire palette of cultural and civilizational diversity of the modern world ensure the right of the people to determine their

own Destiny and their own path of development the main trend is the strengthening of the voice of the world majority States outside the collective West Caribbean I think that's a mistranslation of the word Caribbean but you he's obviously talking about uh gross domestic product of BRICS exceeding that of the gross domestic product of the West. Yeah, I mean, it's very important to understand that two things are happening here. One is there is a major shift in the balance of power that has taken place over the past 10 years. And what's happened here is we've moved from unipolarity, where the United States was clearly the dominant player in the system, to a multipolar world. And organizations like BRICS have come online and are now quite formidable institutions. And this all reflects the change in the balance of power.

The second thing that's happened is that the United States has done enormous damage to its reputation, in large part because of what's happened in Gaza since October. And countries all over the world, I should say countries outside of the West, are incredibly critical of the United States compared with what they used to be. There used to be, I think it's fair to say, a healthy respect for the United States in most places outside of the West. Not all places, for sure, but in most places. But that respect has deteriorated in all sorts of ways in all sorts of countries, and it's in large part because of our hypocritical behavior. And again, the main source of this problem is our relationship with Israel, what's happening in Gaza. Transferring over to Israel, how does Netanyahu get out of this dilemma that he's in now? Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, and Admiral Kirby, Admiral Kirby comically so, not intending to be

comical, we'll play it if you want to see it. Insisting that the three-stage ceasefire proposal emanated from the Israelis. Secretary Blinken and President Biden insisting it emanated from the Israelis. I haven't heard the Israelis claim credit for it or even say they're in favor of it. The only thing we have is Secretary Blinken repeatedly saying, I just left Netanyahu. He's in favor of it. I just left Netanyahu. He reinforced his support for it. We haven't heard a peep from Netanyahu. I suggest to you, the minute he goes to a microphone and says he's in favor of it, Smotris and Ben-Gavir and their colleagues leave the government, and the Israelis are confronted with an election. Yeah, it's hard to disagree with your analysis. I mean, the actor that really wants this ceasefire is the United States. Biden desperately needs a ceasefire. He has to have a ceasefire before the Democratic

National Convention so he can crow about it. Well, also, he's just getting clobbered from both the pro-Israel faction inside the Democratic Party and the progressive side of the Democratic Party. He just has to put an end to this conflict because it's killing him politically. It's just a disaster. So it's the Americans who really want this. Netanyahu doesn't want this agreement at all. And there are two reasons for it. One is, as you pointed out, Smotrich and Ben Kabir, these individuals who were in his cabinet and who were on the far right, have said that they will leave the cabinet and his cabinet or his government will fall if that's the case. So he can't afford to agree to this ceasefire because it will mean

the end of his government. But furthermore, he has said that he is committed to defeating Hamas. And if this ceasefire is put into place and it actually works, Hamas comes out the winner. Hamas is not defeated. The Israelis will be forced to leave Gaza having not defeated Hamas. So this would be a significant defeat for him. So he has no interest in this ceasefire agreement. And what he's hoping is that Hamas will reject it and he can blame Hamas. I would have accepted it, except that Hamas did not accept it. And of course, Tony Blinken is playing along with that. Tony Blinken is constantly indicating that Netanyahu has accepted this agreement and the only roadblock is Hamas. But as you pointed out a minute or two ago, this is not true. The Israelis have seen this. I apologize for it. But it's like in Shakespeare, he protested too much. He's just saying too many times in 30 seconds. It's an Israeli proposal. It's an Israeli proposal. It's an Israeli proposal. And then we'll talk about it. And then I'm going to play another one from Blinken, slightly different.

But Admiral Kirby cut number nine. That proposal, an Israeli proposal, has been given to Hamas. It was done on Thursday night, our time. We're waiting for an official response from Hamas. We would note that publicly, Hamas officials came out and welcomed this proposal. This was an Israeli proposal. We have every expectations that if Hamas agrees to the proposal, as was transmitted to them, an Israeli proposal, that Israel would say yes. I don't think anybody believes in that it's an Israeli proposal, even in light of what you said, that he hoped that the Israelis would hope Hamas rejects it.

Do you believe him when he says it's an Israeli proposal? No, I think what he's saying is untrue. Okay, here's Secretary Blinken saying it was Biden's proposal, cut number 12. Proposal that President Biden laid out 12 days ago was virtually identical to one that Hamas had accepted and put forward itself on May the 6th. So there's no reason why this agreement should not be reached. The only reason would be Hamas continuing to try to change the terms. But here's what's the reality. The reality is, as this negotiation is going on, during the 12 days that it took Hamas to respond, the world wasn't standing still Gaza wasn't standing still people were suffering every single day uh Palestinian

children women and men suffering every single day so from my perspective from our perspective it's time to stop all of this haggling and back and forth and start a ceasefire. This is so disingenuous of him. First of all, I don't know whose proposal it was now was in their minds. It seems as though our friend Cy Hersh has written a piece. He says he has three sources from the West Wing. The Biden's political people put the proposal together to put pressure on Netanyahu, and they want it to sound like it's an Israeli proposal. But for him to blame the suffering in Gaza on Hamas, not on the slaughter by the Israelis, is so disingenuous and deceptive. Take it from there, please. Yeah, I don't disagree at all. And also to say that basically this Biden plan is Hamas's plan and therefore Hamas could accept it

is not true either. Look, what's going on here is that what Hamas wants is Hamas wants a permanent ceasefire, number one, and number two, it wants all Israeli troops out of Gaza. And the proposal on the table has three phases to it. And in the first phase, the Israelis pull out of the cities, but they remain in Gaza. And in the second phase, they leave completely. In the first phase, it's a temporary ceasefire. And then in the second phase, you get the permanent ceasefire. So the second phase is really what Hamas wants, a permanent ceasefire and Israel is gone. And that, of course, is what the Israelis do not want.

Hamas's great fear is because the Israelis do not want what happens in the second phase. They'll accept the first phase. And then when that's over with and they get almost all of the hostages back, the Israelis will welch on the second phase, and what will happen then is they'll restart the war, and they'll go after Hamas. So what Hamas is now trying to do is make what's supposed to happen in the second phase happen in the first phase. And it makes perfect sense from Hamas's point of view. Right. It would make sense from a humanitarian point of view. Just to raise your blood pressure a little bit, here's Secretary Blinken again. Did you know that Hamas is responsible for the destruction in Gaza? Here he is. Cut number one. What I can tell you from my conversations with the prime minister in Netanyahu was a reaffirmation of Israel's acceptance of the proposal that's on the table.

And what does that proposal have in it? It says, first of all, that there'll be an immediate ceasefire, immediate. And in that, during that immediate ceasefire, Israel will pull its forces back from populated areas in Gaza, will surge more humanitarian assistance into Gaza. Palestinians living in Gaza will be able to return to their neighborhoods, their homes if their homes are still intact, anywhere in Gaza and during that initial phase six weeks both parties Israel and Hamas commit to negotiate toward a

permanent ceasefire with the understanding that The initial ceasefire will continue as long as those negotiations are going on and this is backed by the United States It's backed by Qatar. It's backed by Egypt. This is the quickest, most effective path to a durable ceasefire. This is the quickest, most effective path to Joe Biden's reelection. I think I gave the wrong number, but we're now going to play Blinken saying Hamas is responsible for all this, number one. A deal was on the table that was virtually identical to the proposal that Hamas put forward on May the 6th. A deal that the entire world is behind, a deal Israel has accepted, and Hamas could nearly two weeks and then proposed more changes a

number of which go beyond positions that had previously taken and accepted as a result the war that Hamas started on October 7th with this barbaric attack on Israel and on Israeli civilians will go on. More people will suffer. More Palestinians will suffer. More Israelis will suffer. Nothing about the Israeli barbaric attack on Palestinian civilians and the suffering that has caused.

Where does this stand, do you know, with the application before the ICJ to indict Prime Minister Netanyahu and issue an arrest warrant? That's before the ICC. I beg your pardon, the ICC, correct. These judges still deliberating it, I guess? Yes. I mean, the chief prosecutor has asked for the arrest warrants, and we don't know exactly what's happening because they keep this all secret. But I would imagine that, you know, in not too long, the arrest warrants will be approved and they will be issued. On July 24th, the head of a criminal gang and an apartheid government that engages in war crimes and genocide will be greeted with a standing ovation at a joint session of the Congress of the United States of America. Did you ever think you'd see such a thing? No, I didn't. I did not anticipate what is happening in Gaza. I mean, I was shocked by what happened on October 7th.

And it's really appalling what's happened since then. And the fact that Netanyahu is going to come to address Congress on July 24th is actually shocking. It's understandable given the power of the Israel lobby, but it is shocking. And he won't get just one standing ovation. He'll get many standing ovations. He'll be treated like a conquering hero. And I wonder if Congressman Mast will show up in his IDF uniform on the floor of the House. My longtime friend, Congressman Thomas Massey, told my other longtime friend, Tucker Carlson, the other day that APEC has assigned minders, handlers to every member of Congress. Some of them, like Congressman Massey, have said thanks but no thanks. Most of them listen to these people

and interact with them every day. I'm assuming you knew about this since you wrote the book about it, but I hadn't heard it since Congressman Massey said it last week. Yes, I knew about it. And it just shows you how incredibly powerful AIPAC is. And you want to think about Massey's comments when you watch what happens on July 24th. You want to ask yourself why someone who is running a country that is accused of genocide and that is under threat of having arrest warrants issued against him by the ICC is getting standing ovations from Congress. Why is this happening? And Thomas Massey is explaining it in good part. Yes. Only in America. Professor Mearsheimer, thank you very much. Thank you for your time this morning. Sometimes these conversations get me down a little bit, not because of you,

in spite of you, but because of all the death and horror and bloodshed that we now almost take for granted. You know, we talk about using nuclear weapons as if it's some realistic probability that will happen in the near future. It only happened once in American history, and it's still very controversial and was highly destructive. But you are the educator par excellence, and my audience loves you and I love you, and we deeply thank you For all of your time My pleasure judge

Okay we'll see you again next week Thank you professor All the best Coming up later today a man that I have longed to interview Will be here Most of you know him Pepe Escobar Three o'clock eastern

And at four o'clock another man Just like with Professor Mearshermer, whom I love questioning, Max Blumenthal. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.