Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/5/24

Episode Date: April 5, 2024

IDF releases report on World Central Kitchen strikes

Truth Social, you've seen this stock on the move in this, I'll call it remarkable, maybe even crazy way. I'll say two words, GameStop. GameStop, that's what you think is going on here? I mean, it's ridiculous. The company has no revenue. But do you think it could ever be a bigger business? Do you think if he wins the presidency, it becomes... No, why? Why would it be bigger? Look, he's only interesting now because he's out there entertaining the folks. I hope if he does get elected, he just plays golf for four years. But so do you think that all of the investors, investors in this are are getting scammed?

Do you think they think this is a transference of wealth from from one side to the other? And that's the goal. What do you think is happening? I think they're dopes. I mean, who would buy a company that literally has, I mean, I think, what does it have? $30 of revenue? Why would you put a, how could you put a value on it? They're buying it for other reasons, just like they bought theaters when there was no theater business, or they bought GameStop or whatever. It's stupid. It's stupid stuff. It was a thousand times revenue, I think.

It was four million. It was four million, four million dollars in revenue. That's four million dollars in revenue. It's ridiculous. I'm not saying it's not. Why are you even talking about this? It's a scam, just like everything he's ever been involved in is some sort of con. Why are you even talking about this? That is billionaire media executive Barry Diller slamming Trump media and its investors, comparing the company to meme stocks with no real value. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It's Friday, April 5th, a very busy Friday morning, including President Biden teaming up with Senator Bernie Sanders on the issue of TikTok. We'll show you that campaign pitch. Plus, a new development this

morning, the race for the White House is looking less likely. There will be a serious third-party candidate this year. And speaking of third-party candidates, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s campaign disowns its own fundraising email hours after sending it out. We'll explain what they sent out and why they're doing that. With us this morning, the host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, U.S. Special Correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kaye, and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, Associate Editor of the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson. Joe, good morning. A lot to get to, but just quickly back to truth social. I think the word we're looking for there is dismissive with Barry Diller, wondering why Eugene Robinson. Joe, good morning. A lot to get to, but just quickly back to Truth Social.

I think the word we're looking for there is dismissive with Barry Diller, wondering why we're even discussing a company that had four, count them, four million dollars in revenue last year, lost fifty eight million dollars. And yet the fanboys of Donald Trump propping up the stock briefly before it came crashing down. Yeah, and it'll keep crashing down even more. It's a complete scam, Willie. And we do have a lot of news to get to today. But first, there are times, there are moments in time that really mark the passing of a generation. If you're a sports fan, of course, 1980 in Lake Placid.

2004, of course, when the Red Sox dreamed the impossible dream. It was unbelievable. I guess you could talk about, of course, Jim Valvano's extraordinary win, the Wolfpack's win. And then last night at Citi Field. Take a look at this. 3-2 coming to Taylor. That's hoped.

Base hit down the left field line. Here comes Beatty around third. He will score. And the Mets have their first win of the season. Tyrone Taylor with a game-winning hit. Wow. Wow. The New York Mets.

Wow. You know, I wanted to hear, give me one moment in time. And it would have been great if the 13 people at Citi Field could have held hands, come together and held hands. It looked like Atlanta Fulton County Stadium when I was a young kid going to see the Braves play, and you'd be sitting behind home plate, and Jeff Burrows would hit a foul ball down the right field line. And at first, you thought you had to run, right, to right field to get the ball. And pretty soon you figured out you could walk.

Nobody else was there. You just pick up the ball. So I'll skip. The Mets are on the board, though. Look, Joe Scarborough is down there, a little six-year-old Joey. Yeah, they knew all of our names. But the Mets won a game.

And let me say, I will say, I was very excited about it. It was great to see how excited they were, right? The fans are down on them and everything. But, you know, these guys, they know it's early in the year and they could come back and, you know, these guys, they know it's early in the year and they could come back. And, you know, a good, good, good season.

They could they could only lose 96, 97 games this year. You know, Gary Cohen, the great play by play announcer for the Mets, he sort of gave us a nice snapshot of these early days of the Mets season. The Mets were down one nothing in the eighth inning. They'd already lost the first game of the doubleheader, of the Mets season. The Mets were down 1-0 in the eighth inning. They'd already lost the first game of the doubleheader, winless for the season. Here's the way Gary Cohen saw it. Nobody in the ballpark. 0-5. Hitless through seven. Feels like rock bottom. Rock bottom and it's April 3rd or whatever it was yesterday april 4th something that's tough yeah rock bottom and they've gone 13 innings without a hit but my gosh willie and we talk

about this all the time it's april it's april right there is such a long way to go is uh in in baseball that's why you know a lot of people say football baseball actually baseball is life you can be oh and six you can be two and fourteen and and get your act together and win the world series i mean gosh look at the atlanta braves a team that that that has just uh been touring the second half of the season the past couple of years. So there's hope for all of us, which, of course, Lemire and I both know the reverse of this is the fact that the Sox started 5-2, and they look, man, they look like winners. And by the way, go Liverpool.

They look like real winners, but, you know, it's a long way to go. Joe, you left out the Yankees. They're 6-1. Oh, Richard, we'll get to the Yankees in a second. Hold on. Let me respond to this first. Yes, no, you're right about the Sox, who have been encouraging and a pleasant surprise on their West Coast trip, 5-2.

They go to the Angels tonight. Still haven't even played a game at Fenway yet. I will say, though, the Mets, before that happened, a friend of mine sent me a picture of Mets manager Carlos Mendoza. He's a rookie manager. This is when they were 0-5. He sent me a picture of Carlos Mendoza and a friend of mine sent me a picture of Mets manager Carlos Mendoza. He's a rookie manager. This is when they were 0-5. He sent me a picture of Carlos Mendoza and a head of lettuce, clearly making the Liz Truss comparison that his time in power would be as short as that prime minister.

But just a short time later, the Mets get a win. Gary Cohen's pathetic tableau turns into one of a scene of celebration. Maybe they turn things around. Maybe they turn things around. Maybe they turn things around. And, of course, this is exactly why we have Katty Kay here to talk about Liz Truss and the head of Cabbage and the New York Mets. And also, of course, Katty, a house divided, split down the middle between Arsenal and City. As we go really deep this morning with Mika off,

good luck navigating that. Maybe Liverpool can take care of it and just win the Premier League by itself. Right, Katie? Win out. That's right. Yeah, I mean, I know City is struggling, which is rare for City.

It's good. It's a moment of humility for my husband. He hasn't known one for a very long time since City came into the money. Exactly. I don't know. I think you might be the only happy one. I don't think I'm going to have a happy son or a happy

husband in my household this year. And I think you're going to be the one to blame, Joe, so I'll just get back to you on that. Let me know when you're done with the baseball and then I'll finish whatever it is I was doing and just come talk to me in my ear and I'll get back to you. Well, we're not going to talk.

20 minutes or so? Have I got time to go get a coffee? Give me about 30 seconds because I'm going to get a phone call from Mika if I don't move this along really quickly. Richard, we're not going to talk about the Yankees because they're going to win 129 games this year. And if you don't win 129 games, you're abject failures and should be ashamed of yourself.

We're going to finish this up, though, with Gene and say, Gene, what about the Nationals, man, America's team? What are they going to do this year? Well, we're not quite having a Mets-like beginning of the season. I think we're like 2-3 or 2-4 or something like that. So we have got wins. It's, you know, we're hoping that we're climbing out of the rebuilding phase. Or the pitcher we hope is going to become our ace, and he's a great young pitcher, Josiah Gray. He's had a couple of rocky outings.

And so, but he'll settle down. I think he'll get into his rhythm. And so I think we'll have a decent season. I'm not looking for us to finish at the top of the table, but I think we'll be ahead of the Mets, frankly. Well, boy, that's not saying a lot. I set the bar where it belongs. So we're going to be out of this.

Nationals, though, Willie, is a great place. I don't know if you've seen them play, but you've got a great stadium. It's a great place to see baseball. It is. It is. Could be a long season there, but we'll see. It's very early. Six games in.

By the way, shout out to the Tigers and the Pirates. Those great baseball cities off to big starts. We'll see if they can keep it going. OK. OK. I speak for Mika when I say let's get to the news now. Thank you. Thank you. Exactly. And let's begin this hour with President Biden's warning to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The two leaders spoke by phone yesterday for about 30 minutes. That was their first conversation since the Israeli airstrikes that killed seven food aid workers in Gaza. The White House says the president told the prime minister Israel needs to change its approach to Gaza with immediate action

and that future support for the country from the United States depends on them doing so. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was on that call, gave more detail about the conversation yesterday while at NATO meetings in Brussels. The president emphasized that the strikes on humanitarian workers and the overall humanitarian situation are unacceptable. He made clear the need for Israel to announce a series of specific, concrete, and measurable steps to address civilian harm, humanitarian suffering, and the safety of aid workers. He made clear that U.S. policy with respect to Gaza will be determined by our assessment of Israel's immediate action on these steps.

He underscored as well that an immediate ceasefire is essential to stabilize and improve the humanitarian situation and protect innocent civilians. And he urged Prime Minister Netanyahu to empower his negotiators to conclude a deal without delay to bring the hostages home. After the phone call between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israel committed to opening more aid routes into Gaza, saying it will use the Ashdod port for the direct delivery of assistance and will open a crossing to allow aid to reach the northern part of the territory. Israel also will significantly increase the amount of deliveries from Jordan into Gaza. No timetable spelled out yet. However, according to

a White House National Security Council spokesperson, the steps announced by Israel, quote, must now be fully and rapidly implemented. So, Joe, another intense phone call this time between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu, all, of course, coming on the heels of that awful tragedy where seven aid workers were killed. We had one of the ministers, the foreign mayor of Jerusalem, on our show yesterday. Didn't seem terribly sympathetic to what had happened. Said it was a, quote, mistake, but wanted to focus on other things and continue the war there. But it's clear now from the White House there will be conditions, perhaps, going forward on aid from the United States to Israel. Right. And he wanted to talk about the hostages. And of course,

that's great. Wanted to ignore the fact that the Gazan people are facing famine, extraordinary hardship, and wanted to talk about Hamas, as do we. We all agree that Hamas, and we've always believed Hamas, were a group of terrorist thugs. But that separates us from Benjamin Netanyahu, who, again, it can't be said enough. Benjamin Netanyahu saw Hamas as a political ally for years. Benjamin Netanyahu was the response that was responsible for the funding of that terrorist organization for years. Benjamin Netanyahu told Qatar to give tens of millions of more dollars to Hamas weeks before the attack, the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust. So for those, and I've heard it for the past, read it for the past 16, 18 hours since this phone call, for those saying, oh, but what about Hamas? How could Joe Biden not talk about Hamas? Why doesn't Joe Biden see Hamas as a real enemy here? He does. But that's what separates Richard Haass, Joe Biden

from Benjamin Netanyahu. Joe Biden never saw Hamas as an ally. Benjamin Netanyahu did. And those who are attacking Joe Biden for stepping in and actually trying to help Israel help itself. They claim to be right wing supporters of Israel. In fact, they're just like a parent that wants to shove candy down a diabetic child's throat. What they are doing, what they are suggesting hurts Israel in the short run and in the long run. And they knew it and they knew it. And I would love to see all the editorials talking about how much damage this is doing to the standing of Israel in America, in the West and across the world, because because unlike what The Wall Street Journal editorial page says this morning, this is not coming from left wing anti-Israel factions. This is coming from, in my case, a conservative pro-Israeli faction, in the president's case, a very pro-Israeli Democrat, there are those of us who actually want Israel to be protected from the damage

that Benjamin Netanyahu is inflicting on the Gazan people and on the Israeli people and on the families of the hostages and on Israel's long-term standing health and strength in the world community. Yeah, this whole phrase pro-Israel actually makes it almost impossible to have a serious conversation. The idea that if you're critical of Israeli government policy, the most right wing government in Israel's history, the government, as you said, that for of what they're doing is harmful to the relationship between Israel and its most important backer, the United States. So certain terms like pro-Israel and the rest, let's just put those to the side. I think the real test now going forward, Joe, after the phone call is what did the Israelis take from this? Yes, they've slightly opened the spigots on food aid. Why it took them so long? We can put that conversation to the side right now. Well, I don't want to put

that conversation to the side. It is increasingly looking like Benjamin Netanyahu had a plan to to force famine on on the Palestinian people, on the Gazan people to amp up the pressure on Hamas. Of course, it seems to me that the hostages aren't even secondary in his mind because, of course, and people say, well, Hamas could release hostages. Yeah, they could. They're terrorists. They're terrorists. They're not going to release the hostages unless the conditions are right, which the conditions most likely are a ceasefire and the allowing of the worst terrorists to escape out of Gaza with their lives. But but this whole idea that that if we starve the Gazan people, that's going to somehow help Israel in the long run. That's going to help the hostages. No, no, that's hurting the hostages. It's hurting Israel. And of course, you're starving women and children in Gaza. And as Katty said yesterday, they're now having to grind up dog food and cat

food and eat that and drink salt water. I mean, it's savage conditions and it's calculated. And let me say it's calculated just like Stalin's starvation of Ukrainians was calculated. This is calculated by Benjamin Netanyahu. And somebody needs to ask me why the hell the United States shouldn't intervene with a guy that has a 20 percent approval rating and knows that when the war is over, he could be going to jail. This is what's what you're seeing from Israeli policy, I would argue, is truly misguided. There's been, I think we'll just call it what it is, a siege on Gaza, as you say. But in these kinds of situations, we've learned from the American experience in the Middle East, you know, the old argument, you've got to try to win the hearts and minds. And what's so striking to me

about Israeli policy is there's been nothing to win over the people. You see the siege on humanitarian supplies. You see the fact that maybe 18 or 20,000 civilians have been killed, not to mention the 200 aid workers. You see settlement activity, land expropriation continuing. You see no introduction of any ideas politically that would offer a political alternative to the violence of Hamas. So how is this supposed to end well? Does Israel seriously think it can somehow militarily alone destroy Palestinian nationalism as manifested by Hamas? And that's going to do it. So what's what's striking to me is both what Israel is doing, Joe, and how it's doing it, but also what it's not doing. This is a policy that I would say is doomed to fail. You know, Jonathan, we have always said that those chanting from the

river to the sea, I won't say, I'll say it are talking about driving Israel into sea into the sea. It is an anti-Semitic chant. It is an anti-Israeli chant. Sadly, that's where Benjamin Netanyahu has come. I mean, he now is taking a position and the extremists in his government are taking the position of from the river to the sea. This is all Israel. The Gazans need to leave. We're going to continue to steal land from the Palestinians in the West Bank. We're going to continue driving Palestinians off their own land.

Benjamin Netanyahu and these extremists now say all of the land is theirs. The West Bank, Gaza, everything. The Palestinians need to leave. Let me tell you something. The Trump administration thought that they could get Middle East peace by cutting the Palestinians out. I thought it was a preposterous idea at the time. I was glad to see some Arab nations making peace with Israel.

But their calculation was, we can buy off these countries. We can give them something that they want. And all the Arab countries hate the Palestinians anyway. So they'll be glad to cut the Palestinians out of the peace deal. That was the calculation. You can't cut the Palestinians out. We've seen what happens when you try to pretend they don't exist. And this is the fantasy world that Benjamin Netanyahu is living in. And why should Americans that don't give a damn about the Middle East care about it? Because it impacts us. Because we are Israel's guarantor, not just militarily,

but we guarantee their existence. And if we're going to guarantee their existence like we have since 1948, then we need a partner that is going to act responsibly and it's going to understand there has to be a two state solution. And now they've moved away from there's a no two state solution. Well, it's just not going to work. And the United States can't continue as Israel's partner if there's not going to be a two-state solution, because we're going to see war for another, what, 60, 70, 80 years? And we're going to be in the middle of it. Yeah, Netanyahu has operated in open defiance of what President Biden and the White House

has wanted for months now, predating even October 7th for some of the judicial reforms. And that's only accelerated since then. And yesterday, that phone call was the U.S. finally laying down a marker saying, this is an ultimatum. Things need to change. They need to change soon in terms of hours or days. However, still not quite clear what the consequence would be. The suggestion of aid, perhaps conditions being placed to aid or military weapons, but they weren't spelled out. It wasn't quite clear what Israel would do to trigger those conditions, Katty. And this comes at a moment, of course, where President Biden is under immense criticism. He's been under criticism from progressives for quite some time about his handling of the war there in Gaza. But lately, far more mainstream voices as well say he needs to stand up to Netanyahu. Some of his closest allies, the Democratic Party, have said to him, enough's enough.

This can't keep going like this. We're seeing these aid workers killed, the immense toll on the civilians. This is impacting your domestic political standing, but also how the U.S. is viewed around the world. So let's get your analysis here. Did President Biden do enough yesterday? And do we think the prime minister, Netanyahu, is going to listen? I think the question is going to be whether the Israelis do enough. I mean, what the White House's argument speaking to them yesterday has been that we didn't put condition on aid because we wanted to have leverage at the table.

We wanted to be in the discussions as they were happening around Gaza. So to try and make things, if possible, better. But even the White House recognizes that they haven't got very much to show for that leverage. And American diplomats in the region have been telling the BBC that America, frankly, looks weak at the moment. It looks like it keeps giving to Israel and getting nothing back in return. That's not a position that the White House wants to be in. But, Jean, you know, if I was sitting in Israel right now, a couple of things would really concern me beyond today,

and that is what on earth is the long-term plan for all of those people in Gaza? As Don Rumsfeld used to say, if you kill one person in some of those situations in Iraq, you've just created 10 more terrorists. They have killed 30,000 people. Every one of those families is going to have a grudge against Israel and they'll be prepared to take up arms against Israel. We saw this in Lebanon after Sabra and Shatila.

It can last for a generation. So what's the plan, really, for dealing with Gaza and for the citizens of Gaza who remain, many of whom have suffered enormously. And then the issue is, what do you do about America, where polls were showing even before October the 7th that young Americans just don't feel the same way about Israel? They don't have the same. We're seeing a generational shift in this country with people as we get further away from the Second World War saying, I don't know, should Israel be given the kind of blank check that we don't give to other countries? All of what you just said, Netany hatred for what the Israelis have done this year. And I think it's going to be to the Palestinians seen as another Nakba, which is how they referred in 1948 and the foundation of the state of Israel when a lot of Palestinians lost their homes.

And I think it's going to have that scale of impact because you're talking not only about Gaza having been reduced largely to rubble, but now you're talking about famine, and you're talking about widespread hunger, and you're talking about, what is it, 33,000 deaths so far and counting. It is so short-sighted. And there is no good answer to the questions you posed or no answer that's good for Israel. It is this is on Benjamin Netanyahu at this point. And, you know, President Biden, I can imagine that phone call yesterday. I don't think it was polite. I don't think President Biden was at all polite in that phone call.

But Netanyahu will bob and weave. And I see no indication that he's ready to get serious about the U.S. and the international demands, which are for an immediate ceasefire and for humanitarian aid. And I have a question for Richard Haass, which is that we just had a clip of Secretary Blinken speaking. And so he went down those U.S. demands and he said there must be an immediate ceasefire. And then in sort of the next sentence, he said, and, you know, we take steps to get all the hostages home. It seemed to me that before the administration had those both in the same sentence, you know, it was kind of like a deal to bring home the hostages and have an immediate ceasefire all in a package. It almost sounded to me as if Blinken were separating those two and said, saying,

we need an immediate ceasefire now. We also need a deal to get the hostages home. Is that how you heard it? Do you think there's been that sort of shift in U.S. policy? I heard it that way also. But it's important to remember that the deal the U.S. is trying to negotiate using Bill Burns, the head of the CIA, is not for an open-ended ceasefire, and it's not to get all the hostages back. It's a pause again, if you will, a temporary ceasefire for some of the hostages. And my guess is that's the most that's on the table. Hamas understands all too well that hostages are a principal source of their leverage. And all this gene circles back. I think one of the big debates in the next few days is not simply the amount of aid that goes in, not simply how Israel uses military force, but whether Israel uses military force on a large scale. concentrated in southern Gaza. And the question is, does Israel go ahead with this? Does the United States persuade them to hold off for some type of a temporary ceasefire if Israel goes in?

How does it use military force? I actually think the call simply tees up the fact that we, Israel and the United States, are not on the same page as to what is meant to happen next. But Richard, Richard, could I just follow up one other question, which is if if there were is the U.S. idea that if there were a temporary ceasefire, that that could be somehow lengthened into a more permanent ceasefire? Is that the U.S. hope? I don't see how that could happen unless Israel agreed to withdraw. Hamas's demands for a permanent ceasefire are the end of Israeli military presence in Gaza. That is not the U.S. position because that would essentially mean that Israel would accept Hamas's permanence.

And that would be the end to any military reprisals for October 7th or any military actions to degrade Hamas. So I don't see how that could be. That would be a fundamental change in the U.S. position. I do think the U.S., though, is coming around to the idea that they do not want to see any major military operations, that they would they would be comfortable with Israel acting in very targeted, calibrated way, but not something, if you will, not the renewal of big military operations. Joe, we're just getting some breaking news into us as we discuss this, which is the IDF releasing its report on what exactly happened when seven people were killed working with World Central Kitchen in that three vehicle convoy a few days ago. I'm just reading some pieces of it. It's a

lengthy report. The investigation's findings indicate the incident should not have occurred. Those who approved the strike were convinced that they were targeting armed Hamas operatives and not World Central Kitchen employees. The strike on the aid vehicles is a grave mistake stemming from a serious failure due to a mistaken identification, errors in decision making, and an attack contrary to the standard operating procedures. A couple of the commanders have been dismissed from their positions. Several others have been formally reprimanded. So in this report, anyway, Joe, IDF taking full responsibility, saying it was a grave mistake. The full report is available now. It was just posted. People can read through it, draw their own conclusions. But they say they thought there were Hamas terrorists inside the

warehouse. They thought they had gotten into some of those trucks and were moving through Gaza. Obviously, tragically and horrifically mistaken about that as this report lays out. So that is, they promised a report. It is out. It's posted now. The IDF calling it a grave mistake. And again, a couple of commanders have been dismissed from their positions and a few others have been formally reprimanded by the military there. Kevin will be, of course, awaiting the response from Chef Jose Andres. And, you know, Richard, tragic mistakes happen in war. The United States has made tragic mistakes at every war. The Wall Street Journal tries to put this down to a one off, suggests that Joe Biden was using this one incident, this one tragedy to go after Israel, that's ridiculous.

This is the end of a long line of unfortunate decisions made by the Netanyahu government that's been damaging. First of all, I agree with you, the Israeli government won't accept Hamas as a permanent fixture in Gaza. They shouldn't. Hamas can never, ever run Gaza again. There are many ways to do that without starving and killing 10,000 more civilians. So I agree with that. I'm sure you do, too, that Hamas can never, ever run Gaza again. But the second thing is you talked about the most right wing government ever. Unfortunately, it's not like the United States. I don't think in this case where we always seem to be going back and forth, we'll go too far right. And then Americans in the midterms will bring it to the middle and then they'll go left and go too far left. And we sort of we have this this balance, this counterbalance

in American politics. And we will even after the age of Trump is mercifully over. But unfortunately, in the case of Israel, religious extremists have continued to move in to Israel and religious extremists continue to not care about considerations that most of the Israeli people care about, they will continue, this small minority will continue to control the Netanyahu government. And unfortunately, I'm afraid governments in the future, if this trend continues, what do you think? Two things, Joe. Agree with you 100% that Hamas should not have a role in the future in Gaza politically. But you can't beat something with nothing. If you want to basically sideline Hamas, yes, you militarily pressure them. That's only half of it. You've got to show there's a better path, that if Palestinians are willing to rule out violence, they can realize some of their political ambitions. That is 100 percent missing from the policy of this Israeli government.

Second of all, you raise a really good point. Everyone's saying we have to have elections. We have to get rid of Bibi Netanyahu. I get that. But 13 to 14 percent of Israel is now ultra-Orthodox. That is the fastest growing minority in Israel. And if one looks also the Russian immigration, the demography of Israel is changing politically. There's no longer a left in Israel to speak of. So it's not clear to me that future Israeli governments down the road are going to necessarily have a meaningfully more forthcoming policy towards the Palestinians. But Richard, I don't mean to interrupt you. I don't I don't want people to misunderstand this.

This isn't about right left. This is about religious extremists versus secular Jew. And when I say secular, I'm just talking about the government like the United States government, other governments being driven by more secular considerations instead of theocracy in Iran. You know, Israel use, you know, Israel has always been one of the countries in the region, the only country in the region not run by theocracy or by monarchs. So this is again, it's not right versus left. This is this is secular versus religious extremist. But what you're also having is you're now as a fusion,

Joe, of religious nationalism. And that's what we're seeing in the Netanyahu government. Now, October 7th, both reflects it, but it has galvanized it. It was there before October 7th. It's now more serious. It's worse. And I think it raises real questions. You know, we began this conversation in some ways talking about the growing alienation between a younger generation of Americans in Israel. Well, one of the things that worries me is if the kind of forces in Israel we're just discussing here become dominant over time, I actually think that will increase the breach between the United States and Israel. It's one of the many things that worries me looking down the road. And Willie, it does seem that Prime Minister Netanyahu is taking

some steps to appease what President Biden asked him for yesterday, opening up aid routes, putting out this report about the aid strike, about the strike that killed those aid workers. But as Richard noted earlier, some real flashpoints loom, particularly Rafah. In this call this week between U.S. and Israeli officials, Israel thought they could clear Rafah and make it ready for military operation, providing safe haven civilians in four weeks. U.S. officials think that will take four months. And that's a significant gap. And there could be a real problem there for Washington if Israel goes in while those civilians are still there. And as a final note, we've been talking a lot about the congressional aid package supplemental for Ukraine. There's a lot of chatter last night in the wake of what's happened this week in Israel.

There'll be some Democrats who will oppose that bill because it will provide aid to Israel because they're so upset about what's happened. And they would want to see real changes from Netanyahu's policy going forward in order to vote for it. So there's some significant flashpoints ahead, even in the wake of this call. Yeah. And John, on the question of whether Israel will change its military strategy, you and I were sitting across yesterday on the set from Nir Burkhat, who's the economic minister, the former mayor of Jerusalem. He said plainly, we are going into Rafah. We are going to finish this job, period. End of story. He said plainly, we are going into Rafah. We are going to finish this job, period. End of story. It did not seem like someone ahead of that call yesterday anyway, who was ready or a government that was ready to change its direction. One note, as we

head to break here, we told you about the breaking IDF report on what happened at the World Central Kitchen, saying it was a grave mistake, mistaken identification, errors in decision-making, some dismissed. Now a statement from World Central Kitchen that says the IDF has acknowledged its responsibility and its fatal errors in the deadly attack on our convoy in Gaza. It's taking disciplinary action against those in command and committed to other reforms. These are important steps forward. However, it is also clear from the preliminary investigation the IDF has deployed deadly force without regard to its own protocols, chain of command, and rules of engagement. The statement goes on, we demand the creation of an independent commission to investigate the killings of our WCK colleagues. The IDF cannot credibly investigate

its own failure in Gaza. That's part of the statement this morning from World Central Kitchen. Much more on this ahead. Richard Haass, thank you very much. And still ahead this morning, new legal trouble for Donald Trump as New York Attorney General Letitia James questions the financial stability of the firm behind that $175 million bond he posted. Plus, the No Labels group abandons plans for a third-party presidential ticket. We'll tell you who the organization's national director now is supporting in November. Also ahead this morning,

President Biden heading to Baltimore today for a look at the federal response to last week's bridge collapse. We'll be joined by Maryland Governor Wes Moore ahead of the president's visit. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Trump hosted a star-studded fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago last night for a MAGA robot named Carrie Lake. It was quite a who's who headlined by none other than Roseanne Barr. Email me or Twitter me or whatever you call me and I'll help you with your life. But you've got to get on calls because it isn't nothing but devil worshiping, baby blood drinking Democrat donors. Love ya. The Connors, new tonight on ABC.

Oh, it seems like she's doing great. She's not doing well. So this is a story that I think is so important, and it's been flying under the radar, I think, for a lot of politicians, pollsters. weeks ago with a pollster who couldn't figure out why there was a growing divide between young men and young women politically, with men breaking, young men breaking far more to the right than young women. Well, according to a recent analysis by The Economist, data shows that in many rich countries, younger women are becoming sharply more liberal while their male peers are not. The divide is evident here in the United States as well. The latest Wall Street Journal poll finds

that President Biden draws only 37% in men in the seven swing states on the ballot. That includes only him and Trump. Those are far weaker showings than the 46% of men that Biden won in the 2020 election. In 2020, Biden won 55 percent of women and 46 percent of men, a gap of nine points in the Journal's national and swing state polls. That gap's now at 13 points due mostly to his deteriorating support among men. You know, and Willie, this is something that I remember in 2017,

2018, talking to a friend who was the head of school at one of the most elite prep schools in America and saying from just what I was picking up from, from these campuses, these elite campuses, whether it was prep schools or colleges, I said to him, I said, listen, you have to understand something. If you keep pushing young boys, young men into the corner, telling them, uh, you know, that they're toxic or are, are just suggesting they're guilty because they're men, you shove them into that corner, I promise you they're going to come out Trumpers. This is whatever you think you're doing, whatever wrongs you think you were writing, you're actually doing just the opposite.

And you are going to strengthen Donald Trump. And you're going to strengthen people Trump and you're going to strengthen people like Donald Trump with these actions. Well, he smiled. We remained friends. And of course, he and everybody else did absolutely nothing. And it's not just an elite prep schools, Willie, and elite colleges, even though that's happening there. Not as much, I think, as it was a few years ago. But you've seen it just like so many other New York City parents have. Yeah. I mean, if you tell young boys and young men that they're toxic, that they're in some way inherently bad, at some point they begin to resent that and look for a place that's not telling them that, in fact, is saying the opposite. So there is it's such a complicated and fascinating issue.

And I'm so glad we're doing this segment because there is something about recapturing some old version of masculinity that Donald Trump and podcasters and a certain culture in this country that is really putting its finger on and trying to convince men and young men that they can help bring us back to that place. But then there's also the other side of it, which is pushing men away in many ways. And there are so many inequities and inequalities in terms of gender that need to be righted over centuries and centuries. And we're on our way to doing better with that, I hope. But I don't think you have to do. I think you can do two things at once. As we say on this show, you can lift people up without pushing the other gender down. Let's continue this conversation with the deputy editor of The Economist, lead author of the piece we just mentioned, Robert Guest.

Robert, good morning. It's great to have you on. In the piece for The Economist, titled Why Young Men and Women Are Drifting Apart, you write about why we're seeing such divergent priorities between the sexes. You write, in part, the most likely causes of this growing division are education. Young men are getting less of it than young women. Experience. Advanced countries have become less sexist and men and women experience this differently. And echo chambers. Social media aggravate polarization. Also,

in democracies, many politicians on the right are deftly stoking young male grievances, while many on the left barely acknowledge young men have real problems. But they do, starting with education. Although the men at the top are doing fine, many of the rest are struggling. In rich countries, 28% of boys and only 18% of girls failed to reach the minimum level of reading proficiency, and women have overtaken men at university. So, Robert, where do you start looking at this trend? What's the source of this? Because, as you say, it was equal for many, many years and seems to have gone in a different direction in recent.

So what you start by is remembering this is not just an American problem. This is something we're seeing all around rich and developed countries, places as different as Poland, America, France, South Korea, China. And then you've got to look at what's changed. And we were very, very careful not to exaggerate this. We got our data team to look very carefully at the highest quality polling and how it had changed over time. And we found that the gap, if you put yourself on a scale of sort of, you know, one to 10 from sort of very liberal to very conservative, 20 years ago, there was basically no difference between young men and

women. That's sort of 18 to 29-year-olds across the 20 rich countries that we looked at. But now the gap is about 0.75. And that may not sound very much, but most people cluster around the middle. It's actually a very big gap. It's about twice as large as the gap between people who went to college and people who didn't go to college. And, you know, people who go to college tend to skew much more liberal. And in America, the gaps double the average. It's 1.4. That's very big.

And that suggests that people are hearing a different account of reality. And it's, you know, we think it's partly because, you know, men are more likely to be doing badly in education. And that affects them in the job market. And that affects them in the job market. And that affects them in the dating market. And some of them, a minority, but a significant minority, are blaming women for the fact that they're not doing very well in the job market and the dating market. And then when you add social media to that, everyone's in these echo chambers. So, you know, if you're female and you look at a Me Too story, you're going to be served up more Me Too stories.

If you're a guy and you look at a story about someone being falsely accused of rape, you're going to be served up more stories like that. And this gives you a greatly exaggerated view of the risks that you personally face. And that's very polarizing. Robert, I wrote quite a lot about this in a book I wrote last year, The Power Code. And we looked at this thing called loss aversion theory, the idea that men, young men in particular, felt that they were losing out and that that caused resentment. They didn't see the pie growing. There was a sort of theory that, you know, if women were getting

on better, that must mean they were getting on worse. I mean, I'm not entirely sure women are getting on that much better because there's just been a report out this week showing the number of women in C-suites in America anyway has declined for the first time in a while. So perhaps everybody's losing out. But one of the political theories that I'd heard posited was that women, because women have been at the kind of losing end of power structures until fairly recently, when they start getting into power, they retain more empathy for immigrants or for people lower down the scale. They tend to have more support, understandably, for sort of DEI initiatives and stuff. And that tends to actually

push women more to the left. So it's not just that men are going more to the right, it's that women are becoming more liberal. And I wanted you to talk about that side of the equation. What's happening there? This is about how people express their sort of political allegiance. And I think, you know, generally speaking, younger generations are more liberal than older generations. But there's also a tendency to take for granted all the progress that's happened in the past and understandably to focus on the things that still need correcting. So, you know, nobody, it's not an issue anymore whether, you know, women are allowed to enter the legal profession, which was a really big deal back in the 1960s. Things like sort of marital rape have been criminalized everywhere, certainly in rich countries. So people tend to take for granted the progress of the past, which has been considerable, and focus on the problems that they're facing in the future.

And for women, that means you're focusing on things like the imbalance in the C-suite, which is still very large. But when young men who haven't been to college hear about that, and they're told, well, you shouldn't you shouldn't be complaining because, you know, the C-suites are almost entirely male. They're like, yeah, but that's other men. That's not us. You know, we're the guys who are struggling to make a living. And so people do tend to focus on their own issues, understandably. And like I said, with social media, they tend to get an exaggerated view of how bad things are for them and how likely really bad things are to happen to them. So, you know, some of the interviews we did, we interviewed one guy in Atlanta who said that, you know, if you go to the gym and you look in the general direction of a woman,

next minute you're going to be famous on TikTok as an abuser. Now, this hadn't happened to him. This hadn't happened to anybody he'd ever met. But he'd seen it on his phone. So it kind of loomed large in his consciousness. And, you know, I think a lot of people, it's probably a good idea if we kind of calm down a bit, realize that the world is not quite as bad as it seems on social media and try to concentrate on fixing the things that we can. And one of the sort of obvious things that we

could do would be to try to improve the outcomes for men in education at the bottom level. So boys in education, because that's something you can do without, you know, without dragging down girls. But if you've got 28 percent of men in rich boys in rich countries not learning how to read properly to the sort of basic PISA standard, that's a very big handicap in in the job market in a way that it wasn't. You know, a generation ago, you could just get a job that involved brawn. And so people, the loss aversion thing you mentioned, a lot of guys are saying, you know, well, my dad was able to get a job just using his hands. Why can't I? Well, you know, those jobs have gone. So, Robert, I've been reading for some time now that the divide between men and women going to college and graduating from college continues. The divide continues to grow with far more women going to college now than men.

What's causing that? Why are men struggling education wise? It's not just because a second grade teacher called a boy toxic, is it? No, it's not that. I mean, this is a very difficult question. Partly it's that a lot of girls seem to find school discipline easier to deal with. They're better at sitting down and concentrating, particularly at a young age. It may be because girls are seeing more role models in schools. I mean, almost all primary school teachers in rich countries are female.

Most middle school teachers, too. There's an argument made by Richard Reeves, who's looked into this guy used to be at the Brookings Institution, who suggests that actually because boys mature more slowly, you should get them starting school as a default one year later. And there's also been a failure in a lot of countries to come up with new kinds of vocational education. So, you know, not everyone's going to go to college, but vocational education should be equipping the boys who aren't quite so bookish to do some nontraditional jobs. I mean, there's lots of vacancies in areas like sort of health care and administration and teaching. And we're not really sort of creating pathways for them to go into that. And, you know, getting a getting a decent job and being able to support yourself and possibly a family is one of the sort of building blocks, most basic building blocks of adulthood. And if people can't make that transition, they're going to get angry. Well, boy, you know, we've pushed this idea sort of an all or nothing.

Go to traditional colleges, get grad degrees, law degrees, whatever, or do nothing. You're exactly right. Vocational education is so critically important and it hasn't been emphasized enough. Deputy editor at The Economist, Robert Guest, thank you so much for being with us and for this important article. We greatly appreciate it. Yeah. And Gene Robinson, I thought it was so fascinating how Robert described the dynamics of social media. And, of course, my kids always not on social media so much and are skeptical of it. And and I hear around the dinner table said that, you know, whether it's Instagram or some other social media, they will be sent things that intentionally provoke them. Because, of course, you want you want a response, provoke response, provoke response. And you also then get back more of

basically an echo chamber is created when Instagram figures out where you are or X or Y or whatever. But how fascinating that if you're a woman, a young woman, you'll you'll be fed me to stories, me to stories, me to stories, me to stories. And if you're a young man, you might be fed stories that talk about men falsely accused of rape, men being set up, men being lied about. And so you you have these echo chambers. And as Robert said, the truth is that it's just maybe it happened in Spokane, Washington, two months ago. And a kid is reading it in Pensacola, Florida. And he's like, look what

they're doing to men, you know, and same thing with women. And it's it's it's just a vicious cycle. Well, it is a vicious cycle. That is one thing that's different. Social media is one thing that's different from, you know, now as opposed to when you and I grew up. But at the same time, girls are getting stream on social media of, you know, on Instagram. They're seeing unattainable bodies. They're being kind of shamed about their appearance or feeling shamed about their appearance. So it's not like it's all, you know, milk and cookies for girls on social media as well. And so I guess that's why I still have trouble understanding this male fragility that we're seeing now. And that's kind of what it looks like. I mean, you and I, I don't know about you. I had women teachers in grade school. I didn't know there was such a thing as a male teacher until I got well up in the grades. And, you know, it just doesn't seem

that it can be just that. Maybe social media does affect boys differently from girls in terms of education and ambition. And maybe it has something to do with the difficulty in making a living with your hands anymore. But I still think we need to understand why boys are so fragile right now. Eugene Robinson, important conversation. Thanks so much. We appreciate it. We'll see you soon. As we cross the top of the hour here, we turn to President Biden's warning to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The two leaders spoke by phone yesterday for about 30 minutes. It was their first conversation since the Israeli airstrikes that killed seven food aid workers in Gaza.

NBC News senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez has more. President Biden is warning Israel that without immediate action to protect civilians in its war against Hamas, U.S. policy towards its staunch ally will change. The direct message coming during a phone call between the president and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The president emphasized that the strikes on humanitarian workers and the overall humanitarian situation are unacceptable. The 30-minute call was the first between the two leaders in nearly three weeks and marks a much tougher tone towards Israel. The White House says the president made clear the need for Israel to announce and implement a series of specific, concrete and measurable steps to address civilian harm, humanitarian suffering and the safety of aid workers. The White House has repeatedly said Israel faces a genocidal threat from Hamas,

just this week saying there will be no change in policy. But two U.S. officials tell NBC News the president strongly implied he may condition American military aid to Israel on whether Netanyahu makes immediate changes over humanitarian concerns in Gaza, including getting to a ceasefire. The White House saying changes must happen in days or even hours. Do you think the prime minister is really listening? It was I think it was evident in the phone call today. It was a good discussion, direct, no question, but a good discussion. The call was arranged in direct response to the Israeli strike that killed seven World Central Kitchen workers, including 33-year-old Jacob Flickinger, a dual American-Canadian citizen.

NBC's Raf Sanchez spoke with his parents. We are two people who suffered because we've lost our only self, but we're only two. There are thousands and thousands. Israel says the strike was a grave mistake and was not intentional. Gabe Gutierrez reporting there. And moments ago, the Israeli military filed a report and said it had fired two top officers following a deadly airstrike that killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers in Gaza. A lengthy statement released last hour, IDF announcing the findings of an internal probe launched following Monday's strike, writing in part, the investigation found the forces identified a gunman on one of the aid trucks, following which they identified an additional gunman. After the vehicles left

the warehouse where the aid had been unloaded, one of the commanders mistakenly assumed the gunmen were located inside the accompanying vehicles and that these were Hamas terrorists. End quote. The World Central Kitchen responded to that report in a statement, the group calling the firing of the military officers an important step forward, but reiterating earlier demands for the creation of an independent commission to investigate the killings of our WCK colleagues, saying the IDF cannot be trusted to take care of its own.