Judging Freedom - Scott Ritter: Israel threatens nuclear war.

Episode Date: November 15, 2023

Scott Ritter: Israel threatens nuclear war.#israel #hamas #gaza #ukraine #russia #biden #putin #Zelenskyy #peaceABOUT:Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer whose service over a 20-plus-year career included tours of duty in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control agreements, serving on the staff of US Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf during the Gulf War and later as a chief weapons inspector with the UN in Iraq from 1991-98.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. Scott Ritter joins us for his weekly time on the show. Scott, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me. Of course. You have a very interesting piece out about the Israeli government and nuclear weapons. But before we get to it, just a couple of other questions. Over the weekend, the Washington Post, the mouthpiece for the CIA, released a crazy story that a Ukrainian colonel now in jail in Kiev because of somebody dying in a botched effort to get a Russian pilot to defect, the

facts with which I'm unfamiliar, there he is in the holding cell in a Kiev courtroom, claims that he was the orchestrator of the demolition of the Nord Stream pipeline. This, of course, is absurd. Cy Hersh doesn't give it any credibility at all, nor does anybody except those who slavishly follow the CIA. But why would the CIA release this now? Well, again, I think there's a lot of politics being attached to the Nord Stream pipeline destruction because winter is coming. And nations are once again called upon to reflect that they have insufficient gas supplies, that if there is a cold winter, they're in deep trouble. They're in deep trouble nonetheless because businesses are closing. Germany has another major car parts manufacturer laying off people right now, holiday season, just like everything else, bad time, because they can't

afford to stay in business because the energy costs have become prohibitive. Jobs are fleeing Germany, businesses are fleeing Germany, And there is a political problem. And if you're the German government, people are starting to ask the question, why did you let Joe Biden blow it up? Because remember, people have to keep this in mind. Joe Biden stood in the White House back in February of 2022 and told the assembled press right in front of Olaf Scholz that if Russia moves into Ukraine, the Nord Stream pipeline is going to be taken down. That was the President of the United States saying that. Here it is.

Yeah. If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it. How will you do that exactly since the project and control of the project is within Germany's control? We will, I promise you, we'll be able to do it. What the camera didn't show is that standing next to him was the Chancellor of Germany, who said nothing. Who said nothing. I mean, but this is the important thing here. The President of the United States said, we will do it. Now that's the royal we, that means me,

I, you Americans are doing it. Nowhere in there did he say that a Ukrainian special forces colonel will lead a six person team of Ukrainians to Germany to rent a luxury boat and take it out there to do a mission impossible style, style deep diving attack on a pipeline. So, I mean, common sense has to literally kick in at some point in time. Colonel, just to correct the story, he denies it. He's been thrown under the bus by the Washington Post article. He has actually said, I didn't have anything to do with that at all. But his name is being put out there.

You know, but the CIA is desperate to look for a cover story. The Ukrainians are helping the CIA come up with a cover story by throwing this colonel under the bus. I mean, he's arrested. He's been charged with other offenses. He's going to deny this. But the fact that he's being charged makes his denial less meaningful. But, you know, while Cy Hersh's story, you know, nobody knows, but, you know, he's a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter with a very good track record. And nobody's been able to contradict his story yet. They've come up with this harebrained, you know, the Ukrainians did it thing.

It's just it's a ludicrous angle. There's no evidence to back this up. I mean, saying this colonel was involved, that's not evidence. That's just throwing a name out there to breathe life into the story. The fact of the matter is the president of the United States ordered this to be done. He said so. He said it himself. Why are we even talking about this? He said, if Russia moves their tanks and troops into Ukraine, that pipeline will take out. We will do it. I promise you it will happen. End of story. I don't want to get too deep into the politics, but do you think this has something to do with the dispute between General Zelensky and President Zelensky and their dispute over Zelensky's realism that we're out of stalemate and Zelensky's fantasy and delusions that we can still beat the Russians?

I mean, I don't know, because the timing of this, you know, the timing of the Ukraine did it aspect of it, you know, goes back to when we were actively seeking money and supporting the Ukrainian counteroffensive. And so, you know, were we throwing Zelensky under the bus even back then? Some people might say yes. I think it's more, look, the CIA doesn't care about anybody but the CIA. And Cy Hersh's story put them and some covert aspects of the Department of Defense in a spotlight they didn't want. And so they ran with a cover story regardless of the damage it does. They don't care about anything except protecting the CIA. You can bring on Mr. Devine and he will tell you that's the truth.

The CIA takes care of the CIA before it takes care of anything else. A member of Prime Minister Netanyahu's cabinet by the name of Amikai Eliyahu recently gave a radio interview in Israel, which gave the distinct impression that the Netanyahu government has available to it and might consider, I think his phrase was, that's one way to do it, or that's one way, the use of nuclear weapons to degrade, destroy, and demolish Gaza. This may sound like a ridiculous question. You're the world-class UN nuclear inspector.

Does Israel have nuclear weapons? Of course they do. They've admitted having nuclear weapons. They just have a policy of deliberate ambiguity, meaning that they officially won't say we have the weapons until they do. For instance, in 2004, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon all but admitted that he put Israel in a class of nuclear weapons states. In 2006, Omer, the other, you know, Prime Minister came after him, did the same thing, spoke about Israel as a nuclear power. Israel has on occasions brought out their, in the Gulf War, 1991, Israel trotted out the Jericho missile and fired it, a test fire from, you know, their launch site into the Mediterranean, the exact range between Israel and Baghdad, letting the Iraqis know that if they fire chemical warheads or biological warheads into Israel,

Israel will respond with a nuclear weapon. So Israel has alluded to this, but the whole purpose of deliberate ambiguity is to create unknown, because it's political. In fact, we knew Israel was developing a nuclear weapon. We knew from the very beginning. JFK knew. Lyndon Johnson knew. Richard Nixon knew.

Ben Gurion lied to JFK. I mean, that's a historical fact. Well, he lied, but then he came and told the truth. What he said is, and then Golda Meir did the same thing. They said, we won't be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. Now, some people would say, well, that means they're not going to build them. But when pressed, Golda Meir's people said, no, possession doesn't mean introduce. So they're very clear about that. Possessing a nuclear weapon doesn't mean we've introduced it. It's

only introduced when we publicly say it is and have demonstrated it exists. So the Israel concept is they can build nuclear weapons, they can have nuclear weapons, but they haven't introduced them until they've admitted they have them and they're preparing to use them, which is why this minister's statement caused so much problem, because we're at a point right now where Israel is coming close to the conditions under which they may have to acknowledge having nuclear weapons. If Hezbollah gets involved and if Iran gets involved, we're looking at a scenario where Israel could suffer strategic defeat. And the Samson option, which is, of course, the deterrence model under which the Israeli nuclear weapon exists, it doesn't exist as a

battlefield support weapon or things like that. It exists if Israel is about to go down, they will take everybody out. That's the whole concept, that they will hit Tehran, they will hit Cairo, they will hit Amman, they will hit Damascus, they'll hit Beirut, they'll hit Ankara, they'll hit anybody they want to because they're basically saying, this is Samson taking down the temple, man. We're not going to go down alone. If we go down, you all go down. Therefore, we don't go down. And that is a very delicate thing. A song and dance has to be done with the United States. And so for this minister to get out there and introduce the notion of the potential of nuclear weapons existing and being employed by Israel, even though he's not part of the decision-making cycle, that's why he was reprimanded. Not because he was saying

things about killing Palestinians. The Israelis don't care. He introduced nuclear weapons prematurely. That's a decision that would be made by the Israeli government at a time and place of their choosing, and he didn't get to make that call. So that's why he got in trouble. But no, the Israelis have nuclear weapons. I think 60 to 80 is the number that they're talking about. Maverick disagrees. He's saying there's about 200. But I think the latest numbers are about 60 to 80 nuclear weapons in the Israeli army. I'm going to play a clip of Prime Minister Netanyahu at the United Nations not very long ago, ranting and raving about Iran and that it's run by fanatics. But the most important thing he says is the last sentence.

Iran must face a credible nuclear threat. Take a listen. Now, you know, ladies and gentlemen, you know there's a fly in this ointment. Because rest assured, the fanatics ruling Iran will do everything they can to thwart this historic peace. Iran continues to threaten international shipping lanes, hold foreign nationals for ransom,

and engage in nuclear blackmail. Over the past year, its murderous goons have killed hundreds and arrested thousands of Iran's brave citizens. Iran's drones and missile program threaten Israel and our Arab neighbors, and Iran's drones have brought and bring death and destruction to innocent people in the Ukraine. Yet the regime's aggression is largely met by indifference in the international community. Eight years ago, the Western powers promised that if Iran violated the nuclear deal, the

sanctions would be snapped back. Well, Iran is violating the deal, but the sanctions have not been snapped back. To stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, this policy must change. Sanctions must be snapped back. And above all, above all, Iran must face a credible nuclear threat. From him. Yep, that's the, again, when you take a look at the Israeli, they have a three-phased approach to their nuclear deterrence. The phase one is deliberate ambiguity. Yeah, we got them, but we ain't talking about them. And that just leaves everybody

guessing. And it also makes it so that the United States doesn't have to hold Israel accountable for violating American nuclear nonproliferation policy. Because if Israel ever said we are a declared nuclear state, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty doesn't recognize them as such. Therefore, they'd be susceptible to mandatory sanctions from the United States. So we're playing a game. Nixon started it where, you know, see, no, here we speak. We just won't talk about it. But now the Israelis phase two of their deterrence policy is to allude to the existence of this. As I said, you know, Ariel Sharon did so, Omer did, and now Netanyahu just did it. They must face, he didn't say Israel has the credible nuclear threat. He didn't say we have nuclear

weapons. But the way he said it, everybody knows what he's talking about. They must face a credible nuclear deterrent. Netanyahu doesn't dictate American nuclear deterrence policy. So he can't be speaking on behalf of us or anybody else. He can only be speaking on behalf of Israel. So Israel's moved into phase two of their deterrent thing, which is why the conditions we face today are very dangerous. Because once you allude to it, the next step might be you're getting into demonstration. So the missiles may come out again and be test fired again. And then there might be an underground nuclear test to say, we ain't joking, we got it. And then if Iran continues to do this, the next step is fire the missiles, take out Tehran. How absurd to hear him call the leadership of Iran fanatics,

when of course he is a fanatic. How ridiculous it is for him to complain that Iran is violating sanctions or the sanctions haven't been imposed. He's violating, the Congress is violating American federal law by giving any financial and military assistance to a country that fails to comply with the UN protocols, which you know better than anybody on the planet for nuclear weapons. But before you reply, Scott, here is my friend and former colleague Chris Cuomo trying to get a yes or no out of Prime Minister Netanyahu on whether Israel has a nuclear capability. 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. Same as Ben-Gurion. We won't be the first to introduce them into the region. Yeah, that's their standard. And it's as good an answer as you're going to get. I can't imagine the Congress obeying federal law, which prohibits it from giving funds to countries that fail to comply with UN protocols on nuclear weapons if that country is Israel. Can you? Well, I can imagine it because the Congress, I mean, let's just be frank here, Judge, they're bought out by the Israeli lobby. I mean, AIPAC was bought.

I can't imagine Congress not giving the money because of this. Oh, no, no, no, no. Congress is controlled by BB Nets and Yahoo when it comes to aid to Israel. Yeah. How many times have you heard a congressman or senator ask a member of the U.S. intelligence community, does Iran have a nuclear weapons threat? Do we have to worry about Iran's nuclear? And they get an answer. How many times has a senator turned to those same intelligence people and said, does Israel have a nuclear weapon? They've never asked the question.

They've never asked the question. And they won't ever ask the question because to answer it, we'd open up that whole Pandora's box of if Israel has a nuclear weapons and we know they do. I can guarantee you we know. I mean, that's about all I could say on that, except we know there's no ifs, ands or buts. We know they have that. And the fact is they won't ask the question because we are living a lie. Everything, just so people know, everything we're doing with Israel, everything we're doing is a violation of the United States Constitution. This isn't anti-Semitic.

This isn't because I'm anti-Israeli or anything. It's because the law is the law. Judge, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution is when we enter into a treaty that's been ratified by the United States Senate, it becomes the law of the land. We are signatories of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which was not imposed on us. We wrote it, and we are therefore bound by it, but we're deliberately ignoring it in the case of Israel. Before we watched the clips of Prime Minister Netanyahu, you were talking about Israel's conventional military capabilities. Does Israel have the conventional military capability to fight a two-front war, one in Gaza and one on the West Bank, near the West Bank against Hezbollah?

You know, they have the potential to put over a half a million troops in the field. And if you proportion these troops properly, for instance, you put, you know, 360,000 of them in the north against Hezbollah and you put the others to protect the periphery, the answer is they can have a holding action, meaning they can avoid being strategically defeated. But because Israel has done something which they had never planned for, Israel never thought Hamas would do what they did on October 7th. Israel did not have a contingency plan for what they're doing right now. This is an operation that's been made up on the fly with 300,000 reservists there doing something they

never were prepared to do and absorbing military resources that should be up north. If Hezbollah comes across, there is not sufficient military power there to hold Hezbollah back. Hezbollah could very well score a strategic victory against Israel that makes what happened on October 7th pale in comparison. How badly is the IDF sustaining casualties compared to the casualties they're inflicting on Hamas, not on Palestinian civilians? No, I mean, Israel is not suffering catastrophic losses of personnel, at least that they've admitted. They're up to 46 dead. That's a lot. I grieve, you know, everybody should grieve for families who lost loved ones, even if you don't agree with the cause. Nobody wants people to die. But these aren't catastrophic losses. They're considerable.

You know, they're heavy, but they're not catastrophic. But the fighting has just begun. And, you know, they have lost significant vehicular losses so bad that the Israelis, you know, they had sold a bunch of Merkava III tanks to Morocco and some other nations. They had to cancel those sales and reconfigure these Merkava battalions into emergency reserve battalions to replace the losses they've suffered both in Gaza and also against Hezbollah, who's destroyed a significant number of Merkava tanks over the course of the last several weeks. So, you know, they haven't suffered the kind of losses that they took in Yom Kippur. But this war has literally just begun. And, you know, we'll see. Nobody, again, nobody wants people to die. But let's just keep in mind that the Israelis have slaughtered over 12,000 civilians in Gaza.

They've killed anywhere from several hundred to a thousand Hamas fighters. But Hamas still has tens of thousands of fighters left who are operating from tunnels, and it's going to be a very difficult fight for the Israelis. What is Prime Minister Netanyahu's goal in Gaza? I mean, it's not a just peace. It's an obliteration, is it not? It's not even the rescue of the hostages, is it? Let's be very honest about this. What is Benjamin Netanyahu's goal in Gaza? His political survival. This is a man who was already walking on thin ice before October 7th by rewriting Israeli basic law

to take control of the judiciary to prevent him from going to jail on charges of corruption. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis were in the street protesting against that. Now he's the commander. Mr. Security, by the way. He's the guy who said, I'm the guy that Israel turns to to be secure. He failed on October 7th, an egregious failure, the worst security failure in the history of Israel under his watch. Under any normal conditions, he'd be out on the street, and so would his cabinet, so would his government. But because they declared war, they're using the Gaza conflict as a vehicle to keep themselves in power. And he's saying outrageous things like we will defeat

Hamas, we will occupy, we won't occupy Gaza, but we're going to take all of Gaza, things of this nature. Understand this, there's a lot of pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu to be pushed aside. The United States is talking about it. The Israeli cabinet's talking about it. So we have to take his words with a grain of salt. He may not be around much longer because he is literally living through the last moments of a failed prime ministership. And when Israel feels comfortable that they can find someone to replace him that won't weaken Israel to the point that they'll lose. I mean, right now, Israel is not going to replace Netanyahu if Hezbollah is threatening to come over the wire. Well, you know, if things calm down, stabilize, I can guarantee you that he's out.

So everything he says is irrelevant because this war was started with Netanyahu in the driver's seat. It won't end with Netanyahu in the driver's seat. Here he is refusing to answer the question about why he won't take responsibility for October 7th. Number six, 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. And these questions will be 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. second, assure that Gaza never becomes a place for Israel 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. What do you think he's thinking, Scott? Remember, he's facing extraordinarily serious corruption charges, the kind of corruption charges which, if he's found guilty, and many people believe he is, although innocent until

proven guilty, could put him in jail for the rest of his life because he's getting up there in years. If you take a look at his face, you see he's coming off of heart procedures. He's not a healthy man. He's scared to death, and it's not just about him. His wife is also charged with similar corruption charges. So what is he thinking? How do I prevent myself from going to jail forever? That's all he cares about. He doesn't care about Israel. How could he? He's the guy who rewrote basic law that got rid of an independent judiciary that put hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. He only cares about Benjamin Netanyahu. And that proves

it. A real leader would say, I am responsible. The buck stops here. I'm the guy that's held responsible. And at the appropriate time, you all can take my head off. But until that happens, I have a job to do, and that's to lead our country down the path towards victory. because he is afraid of what the results would be, that the people will recognize him for being the most incompetent prime minister in the history of Israel, and that Israel's national security is threatened every day he stays in power. Benjamin Netanyahu has to go. And it's not just me saying that, the White House is starting to say that. The State Department is starting to say that. The international community. Do you know that Turkey has filed paperwork in the International Criminal Court calling Benjamin Netanyahu to hold him account for his war crimes? Other nations have done so as well. And the International Criminal Court can't ignore this. He is going to be an indicted war criminal very soon. Well, that would prevent him from traveling to certain countries. Most countries, actually.

The International Criminal Court was adopted by all but I think five countries, two of which are, three of which are Russia, China, and the U.S. Yeah, I don't think, I mean, the only country he could travel to is the United States. A, we're not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, so we're not held to its jurisdiction, and we would let him travel. But if he traveled to places in Europe, he would be arrested. But this is how the man should be known in history, not only as an indicted war criminal, but as a charged, tried, and convicted war criminal. And that's what he's concerned about. So this is why right now he has relevance. Right now he can pick up the phone and call Biden. Right now he can leverage his continued status as prime minister into things that give him credibility and viability. But the

moment he says, I am responsible, people are going to say, then get out. Because there's thousands of people demonstrating every night outside of his residence demanding his resignation and the majority of the people that are doing that are the families of the hostages and the families of people who lost relatives on october 7th because they know who's responsible and it's the man residing there the man we've been talking about benjamin netanyahu here's what he said cut one ch Chris, when he was asked to respond to the accusations of war crimes. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said just this morning that while Hamas has committed war crimes, the collective punishment by Israel of Palestinian civilians amounts also to a war crime. Can you definitively say right now that Israel is not breaking international law? Yes, I can say that what the commissioner said is hogwash.

Not a very compelling answer, Scott. Well, I mean, it doesn't address the issue. Benjamin Netanyahu is a man who claims to be familiar with international law. He likes to cite it often, especially when holding Iran to account. But he knows what collective punishment is. He also knows that the United States and Europe have collectively turned a blind eye to it. In 2006, it became the official part of the Israeli conventional deterrence doctrine, named after a West Beirut suburb, Dahia, which was leveled by the Israelis, not because Hezbollah was hiding there or anything. It was collective punishment. They said, because Hezbollah is fighting us successfully in the hills, we will level Western Beirut. And they did. And then they leveled towns

and villages, murdering Lebanese civilians. And then in 2010 or 2008, they used the same principle against the Gazans, and they've been using it ever since. It is the stated official policy of Israel to embark on collective punishment of innocent civilians. They acknowledge it in writing. There's no doubt about it. If you took their written policy to any court where the jurisdiction of international humanitarian law is in play, it is an automatic finding of guilt because you can't argue it away. And we haven't even gotten into discussing about distinction and proportionality. You are 100% correct. Collective punishment is by definition a war crime. If there's such a thing as summary judgment in a criminal case,

this would be the case for it. Scott, what is on your shoulders now? Well, that is Maverick's cat best friend, Luna. And if I try to intervene, I'm afraid she would create a storm. So I'm trying to quietly just let this happen. All right. We're done. We're done, Scott. Thank you so much. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your passion. Thank you for your insight and for all the information you bring to us. Thank you very much, Judge. All the best, my friend. Thanks. I thank you again for the numbers. We're up to 234,000 subscriptions. Our goal is a quarter of a million by Christmas.

One of the regular writers said, one million by Christmas 2025. We'll see what the world is like as we approach it. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.