The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Aaron Mate - Contrasting Rationales for Judging Ukraine, and Israel/Gaza

Episode Date: December 5, 2024

GrayZone journalist and host of the Useful Idiots Podcast, Aaron Maté, comes in to argue about Ukraine, Israel, and all the rest.

This is Live from the Table, the official podcast of the world-famous comedy cellar. Available wherever you get your podcasts. Available on YouTube. Available on Sirius On Demand. We no longer have our regular Sirius slot, but we are available on demand. Dan Natterman here with Noam Dwarman, the owner of the world-famous comedy cellar with locations in New York City and Las Vegas. Perry Alashenbrand is here, author, comedian, and I guess co-host, I guess.

I mean, that's what... Oh, brother. Anyway, we have with us Aaron Maté, who is a journalist with the Gray Zone News, and he has a sub stack, maté.substack.com. And he's a co-host of the useful idiot pod. And he is with us today. And this conversation should be lively. And this, I'll just say this for my own benefit as well as everybody else's. Let's try to be civil and calm. It's for your benefit. I've never seen aaron loses cool well that's for me and perry

uh and my mic but it's all right i'll deal with it anyway i i probably won't say too much but uh no i doubt that damn it looks no take it away well all right so first of all there's nobody that i um uh interact with that I get more disappointed looks than Aaron Maté. And because I'll talk to Norman Finkelstein, who hates me now anyway, but I'll say, well, you know, I enjoy

him, but I think he's nuts. I do think he's nuts. Good friend. I think he's a genius anyway. I think he's quite bright. I've learned from him, but the interactions I had with him, the way he went from zero to six, he started screaming names at me,

and I didn't do anything, nothing but nice to him, and gave him the place for free one night for him in Cornel West, and then the way he tried to get his neighbor's son deported. Anyway, he's volatile, put it that way. Okay, I agree with that. Yes, I agree with you there.

He is volatile, yes. But I enjoy him. And I don't know who else. But Aaron, actually, first of all, I met Aaron before October 7th. Thank God. Thank God we met before October 7th. And we liked each other. We were on the same side of the Russiagate stuff,

and we socialized. And, you know, I continue to like him and be happy to see him when I do see him. And so I was in the car. I forgot about this until now. I was in the car, the car dictating to my recorder app, which then transcribes. I just have my thoughts. There's two times I do

good thinking. I don't have to say anything. In the shower and in the car. I don't know why that is. The shower is deceptive, though, because lots of times I have thoughts in the shower or the steam room that I think are great, and then they turn out to be shit. How do you know? i write jokes in in that environment that i think are great in

that environment and then i try them they never ever ever work ever well okay but i don't have that experience i i i find that i'm very fluid and fluent in the shower and then um very often i i write things down right after i get out of the shower and I, and I go back to them and, and they're good. So anyway, so, um, and so I,

but also when, when I was driving and, and so I said, well, you know, I, I kind of have to explain to the audience my talk a little bit up front, like why,

why it is, um, how I, why platform this man? No, not platform. Like, like it's not even that like platforming.

I don't even, you know, I don't respect the idea that you shouldn't platform people. I, I, I don't like the idea that you shouldn't platform people. I don't like the idea that you should speak to people without skepticism of your own stuff like that. But I think it's fine to interview a Nazi or whoever you want. I mean, Phil Donahue used to do it.

David Suskind used to do it. Nobody ever thought twice of it. The whole thing is dumb, I think, to not platform people. Anyway, you know I'm a free speech guy. But I just want people to understand why I feel this way. Because people,

as I said, they give me that look, right? So the first of all is your personality. There is this one issue of Israel that I really don't agree with you on. And probably, you know, some of your worldview. But, you know, we spend our whole lives as kids and young adults and just with friends and interacting. And very often these issues never even come up between humans. And, you know, these should not break the bonds of relationships,

families, friendships. I just don't believe that. Not that never, not that there's no scenario where you could say, well, this is too much. But in general, I don't think they can. And especially with you, because you're always ready to talk about anything. We have a, well, I'm going to get to something else, but we have a mutual respect for backing up our facts and making our cases.

And I listen to you, you listen to me, and you may think I'm out to lunch, but whatever it is, in some way, at least in our own minds and our own fantasies, we have the same devotion to the truth, right? And I think that if you were to give me truth serum and you truth serum, I think our answers about how we feel about what we're doing would be similar. I think that, and it must be said, and this is tricky, you've been right about some things. You know, I've always said this stuff.

And one of my observations, and one of the reasons, like, I got a call from somebody kind of well-known. Me? No. Yes. How does it feel to have been, I shouldn't even say it. Never mind. But anyway. No, no, no.

Say it. No, no, no. Stop. Don't do that. Say it. Just say it. No, I'm not going to say it. Let me go.

But you've been right about certain things about you. And what I've noticed is that if I'm going to find out, listen, the notion that anybody, any state actor, let alone any person, never does bad things, never abuses power, never murders, never. This is absurd, right? It's just absurd. So how am I going to find out about what Israel is doing wrong? I know. I'll go to commentary.org and I'll read an article from John Bud Horace. Right. So I know that.

And, you know, John Bud Horace is a hero of mine. But commentary does not exist to expose and take a deep dive into what Israel may or may not be doing right. Absolutely. So where am I going to get that from? I'm going to get that from the people who are disposed to be skeptical of Israel. That's the way it has to be. And even if I think that 95% of the time they're being unfairly skeptical, they're cherry-picking. Whatever it might be, I need to not close myself off to, I wouldn't say that about everybody.

Like, I'm going to talk to you later about what you think about Candace Owens. I don't feel that way about Candace Owens because I think she's batshit crazy. And I think I could demonstrate that. Many moons ago, before they decided to establish Israel as a country, I know you've read like the short version in the classroom and it was like, oh, the Holocaust happened and then we realized establish Israel as a country. I know you've read like the short version in the classroom and it was like, oh, the Holocaust happened. And then we realized that Israel needs to stay. No, that's not how it went down. That's not how it went down at the F all. Okay. Catholics and Christians were going missing on Passover. And then they would find bodies, okay, across Europe

and they were able to trace them back to Jews. Blood libel, there weren't Jews, okay? These were Frankists. And so just like Leo Frank killed Mary Fagan on Passover back in 1913 or 1914, I can't remember the exact date, he did it during Passover for a reason. This Frankist cult, which is masquerading behind Jews, still participates in this shit to this day, okay? Why would you want, as a small nation that is the size of New Jersey, okay, why would you want the pedophiles to flee there? Why would you want the pedophiles to be procreating? Unless the nation of Israel may have been established by some Frankists as looking like Theodor Herzl's family was from the exact same area in Moravia and in Bohemia where the Frankist cult was founded.

Crazy, crazy when you get into his family that like maybe Theodor Herzl who wrote in a book that he didn't care how many Jews had to die for him to get the state of Israel, like maybe he was not actually a Torah-worshiping Jew. Like, I don't know. I'm just throwing out some ideas here. And by throwing out some ideas, I mean I've read a ton of books and I figured it out, okay? I am just, like, so over the idea that Israel is our ally. And if another person says that stupid statement, I'm going to personally punch you in the face. I am. It's going to be me. That's a joke. Don't take this video off of Twitter.

Wink. And I I'll be pleased if you would back me up on that. But you're not batshit crazy. And and and you're not saying that Israel was actually a refuge for the progeny of pedophiles who aren't actually even Jews, and you're not saying that Kamala Harris isn't black, she's actually Jewish, and you're not saying – True, I'm not saying those things. You're not saying those things. Correct. So, and you know what, I mean, you could say the stuff you guys got right, but they were immediately right about pouring cold water about some of these, like, was it the ambulance drivers who claimed they saw the sexual assaults or something like that? Oh, on October 7th? Yeah, yeah. That's a long story, but yeah, I mean, some of the sources for the claims of atrocities on October 7th come from this group called Zaka, which were shown to be false.

And that included, you know, a few other people who took part in also the rape allegations as well. But there was also a lot of allegations by Zaka that proved to be true. They had video evidence of it. I mean, I'm familiar with it. I don't want to get into a tit for tat on Israel like we did last time. Not that I want to just talk any facts. But I do want to zoom out about it because the one thing

that happened, I saw it, I mentioned to you when I saw you socially, we had a big argument about the Six Day War. Oh, no. Yes. Yes. And I said, and I have my facts, the Jordan attack, Israel had no interest in the West Bank.

It was unplanned that Israel was actually afraid of an invasion. I went through the whole thing. And you kept saying to me, you have to read Avi Shlame's The Iron Wall. You have to read Avi Shlame's The Iron Wall. He's the guy. And I said, but Aaron, I looked all the stuff. I even had King Hussein's memoir where he took responsibility for the attack, you know. But this is the matter.

And this is where I would like to someday be able to get a meeting of the minds with you. So we went back to the book, Avishle and i and i bought the book and i sent it to aaron and every single thing that i said was in this book i mean every single fact that i think and and i have i have it here and i wrote it to aaron and this is the thing and aaron said oh you're right actually it does say that you can look up Actually, it does say that. You can look up the image. It does say those things. And then you did something which I would say defines the difference between me and you.

You simply said, oh, I have some other sources. Rather than what I would have hoped, which was, oh, shit, this guy who's a left-wing historian who I've always regarded as reliable and everything else, he's not saying what I thought was true. So, uh-oh, maybe, just maybe, I'm wrong. Maybe this narrative, maybe Noam was right about this part of the narrative. Now, it's an essential part of the narrative because it revolves around the very basis of the Arab-Israeli conflict that we have today. But this bothered me, and this is something that I see over and over,

and this is what I want to get into with the Ukraine arguments, with the Israel arguments, and then just the final thing I'll say. You might have already said this is the final thing I'll say, you might have already said this is the final thing I'll say. I try to practice what I preach. And I've had on this podcast when there were accusations that Israel was binding prisoners with such

cruelty that they were having prison amputations of their limbs. I had on the reporter who broke that story when there was accusations that Israel was holding back aid in Gaza, you know, causing food insecurity. I had on the reporter who broke that story. And most recently, when the New York Times had this story about the kids who were shot, the Palestinian babies who had bullets in their heads. We had Han Faroz,

and we had a long conversation here, which is to say that when I read a story which makes my skin crawl in terms, or gives me that sick feeling in my heart, oh my God, could this be true? Could Israel have done something that I should be, you know, that we should be so ashamed of? My first instinct is to take a deep breath and look into it and let the chips fall where they may. That's what I do. I forced myself to do it. The first time it was hard and it became easier and easier. And I said to Aaron, why don't you do that? You can't think that Hamas, there's no shortage of terrible stories

about stuff Hamas has been accused of doing. And Aaron said, and that was off the top of his head, so maybe he has a better answer to that. He says, well, I think the power differential makes that not appropriate. And that's a very interesting answer. So why don't we start there?

Well, let me start with the Abishleim thing. Okay, you can start with Abishleim. So yes, you're correct on your show. As a rhetorical, you know, in the midst of a debate that I hadn't prepared for at all, I miscited my source. I said that Abishleim agrees with my view that it was Israel that provoked 1967. And 1967 was not a defensive war. And you're right, going to the book, Abish Lime says that 1967 was a defensive war, so he agrees with your view.

But that doesn't change my view that 1967 was provoked by Israel and that it was not a defensive war. I just got my source wrong. There's many Israeli sources that I think back up what I was saying. Not many, but here's the thing. I can read you some. I just looked it up. I know you can. That's actually my point. Listen, actually, that's the thing I left out was what I've learned is that in any conflict,

long term, but even like a two-year marriage, you can just, you can cobble together facts to make any narrative that you want. And the question is, which is more persuasive? Well, I'll tell you what, so what's most persuasive always is a testimony against interest. Meaning, if I tell you I'm cheating on my wife, that's much more persuasive than I tell you I'm not cheating on my wife, right? If I say I'm not cheating on my wife, but if I say, you know what, I'm cheating on my wife,

that's probably believable because it's so much, so when you have a left-wing, very much a left-wing historian and highly respected historian among your peer group giving chapter and verse of how this goes, if that doesn't cause at least you to straddle your opinion and say, you know what, at least I don't even know anymore. I used to think, but if Avi Shlaim, who is a historian,

who's gone to the archives and he's written it all out, now he's not some guy that's like an ultra- He's not at all. He's a very good historian. He's highly respected. Even Benny Morris respects him, right? Yeah. For him to give such detail,

for you just to disregard it, is simply bias, in my opinion. Well, yes, it is bias. Of course it's bias. But everybody has a bias, and the question is, is my bias, in my opinion. Well, yes, it is bias. The force is bias. But everybody has a bias, and the question is, is my bias supported by facts? We don't want to get into a debate again about 1967,

because I think we're... No, I don't want to do that. But you can read your source, and I'll read mine. Because even if Israel was waging a defensive war, the question is, why have they occupied it ever since and stolen more land and build up illegal settlements there?

So even if it was defensive, what justification is there for holding onto that land for now, what, we're in 57 years? I mean, it's a 57-year military occupation, which nobody acknowledges as legitimate. But let me quote you. Yeah, go ahead. But the reason why I come to my conclusion

is because I don't just read Avi Schleim, but I read other historians who have assembled a lot of evidence. So let me read you Prime Minister Menachem Begin. This is because I don't just read Avi Schleim, but I read other historians who have assembled a lot of evidence. So let me read you Prime Minister Menachem Begin. This is what I sent you in the email, the follow-up. He was in the cabinet in 1967. In June 1967, we again had a choice.

The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. That's the Egyptian front. I'll just give you one more quote. This is from General Moshe Dayan, who was a top general in 1967. He's talking now about the Syria front, the other major front in 1967. I know how, and this is from the New York Times, I know how at least 80% of, and he's

talking about the period before Israel launched a six-day war. I know how at least 80% of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80%, let's talk about 80%. It went this way. We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything in the demilitarized area and knew in advance the Syrians would start to shoot.

If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. And that to me is part of a playbook laid out by early Zionist leaders like David Ben-Gurion, who said, yes, we'll publicly accept partition. This is 1947 now. We'll publicly accept partition, you know, the UN mandate, the UN lines for Israel, but we're going to set the borders of our own state. And that's why they proceeded to ethnically cleanse Palestinians and then take more land in 67,

which they've held on to ever since. I don't want to get into the whole thing. I just want to get into what we argued about. I do acknowledge Avi Schleim supports you. He agrees with your narrative. I don't remember the whole thing about that Syrian thing. I've heard it before, but the fact that,

again, that some mischief might have been going on at the border of Syria by Israel, or tit-for-tat mischief, but I'm sure the Syrians had their own games that they were playing, back and forth. I can't— Diane says 80%. We started it. I don't—I really don't know, but i um it's that's just a you know this quote mining thing but but the bagan thing anybody can look bagan's point was not that israel shouldn't have been invaded in 67 or that not that um israel didn't have causes bellite to they did legally they did because because um uh nasser had uh thrown the un key seekers out, had blockaded the Straits of Tehran,

and 110,000 people, troops, massed. But the point of his speech was to say that sometimes you need to act. He was not lamenting that Israel did something wrong. He was saying, look, we didn't have to. We could have waited. And I think at some point in that speech, he talks about someone else who did wait, maybe it was World War II. It's some other historic example of when they did wait and it

was too late. But none of that was really what we argued about, because what I was saying, obviously, that was Egypt. And the occupied territory is in Jordan. And Jordan had the occupied territory. Jordan had the occupied territory. Jordan controlled the occupied territory. Jordan had annexed it, but the current occupied territory was in Jordan. It was under Jordanian control, yes. Okay, and Israel took it

because it was attacked from that land. And whether or not it... By who? By Palestinians? By the Jordanians. By... The Jordanians... I want to get to Ukraine.

Yeah, okay. Well, listen. Because Ukraine's... Let's agree. Okay, listen. Rather than litigate... So, obviously, Israel was paralyzed by fear, by conflicting currents of opinion. These two weeks were traumatic experience for the Israeli public.

And they went down in history as a period of waiting. During this period, the entire nation succumbed to a collective psychosis. Although Israel objectively was much stronger than its enemies, many Israelis felt their country faced a threat of imminent destruction. The Six-Day War was a defensive war. It was launched by Israel to safeguard its security, not expand its territory. War aims for territory emerged only in the course of fighting a confusing contradictory fashion eshkol's government did everything in its power to confine the confrontation to the egyptian front they wanted to avoid a clash with jordan and the inevitable complications of

having to deal with the palestinian population the fighting on the eastern front was initiated by jordan not israel king hussein got carried along by the powerful currents. Well, there's a block there. There's an Arab military block, and in solidarity with each other, with Israel launching... That's on them. Yeah, well, or it's actually them trying to be in solidarity because... It doesn't matter. They're dealing with a state that is recently born and was founded on ethnic cleansing.

It doesn't matter. And they see that as a threat to them, which it was. But it doesn't matter. If you get attacked, you have to defend yourself. But Israel launched the war first. I just quoted you Bagan, who said, the Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Israel is about to attack us.

So Israel was provoked. And they were not provoked in 67 by some talk about Ukraine joining NATO at some point in the future because Israel was provoked by the country that it was technically in a state of war with, amassing 110,000 troops on its border, throwing out the peacekeepers and imposing an economic blockade, which again is a legal cause for war. And Israel then decided not to wait to be attacked, but to attack. Now, let's just imagine if in this case with Ukraine, Ukraine had amassed 100,000 troops on the border of Russia,

was making noises about invading, had thrown out, you know, whatever tripwires there might have been, and attempted some sort of economic blockade of Russia. Would any of us be arguing now like we are now about whether Putin was provoked? We say Ukraine was doing everything it could to do exactly what it looks like to attack Russia. Why the hell, including saying so, why the hell would Russia wait? But when you had indications... But you're sympathetic to the claim that Russia was provoked based on the current facts.

Well, Russia was provoked, actually, in part because Ukraine was concentrating its forces not on the border with Russia, but on the line of demarcation with the ethnic Russian areas of Ukraine that Russia supported and that were trying to join Russia. Yeah.

And had been, there had been a war there for 10 years. Shelling did increase there. There's skirmishes there between you, you know more about this than I do, but between Russian speaking in Eastern Ukraine, Russian speaking, who people,

not all of them, but some percentage of them feel allegiance to Russia. Some are Russian speaking, but feel allegiance to russia some are russian speaking but feel allegiance to ukraine yes ukraine's and this is in the donbass and it's it's limited to that area it doesn't really have anything to do with yeah and i and by the way my i've never defended russia's invasion what i always thought that russia should do is try to get a peacekeeping force at the un and if that failed if the u.s vetoed that then fine send in forces just to the donbass but you know let's take that scenario then fine, send in forces just to the Donbass.

But you know the right to go... Let's take that scenario. You know the right to go invade all of Ukraine. Let's say there was a peacekeeping force in the U.N. and let's say Ukraine one day throws them all out and masses their troops on the border. You know you would agree with me there. What if you're Egypt and the problem is you're a part of an alliance where, again,

to me, this comes down to what you see as the original sin. To me, it's the creation of Israel and the ethnic cleansing that followed. The UN created Israel. You're a big international law guy. Is that the original sin, the creation of Israel? Yes, I do think it is the original sin. That's fine.

You can say that Israel has, like the UN created Israel, so then it does have legitimate borders. But then the problem is Israel, and this is what I think is the real original sin, Israel didn't respect its own borders and they did expel hundreds of thousands of people and stole their homes and didn't let them return. And that's the problem

that then leads to 67 because people start to resist that. You have Palestinians in the West Bank who are resisting that in Gaza as well. Of course. And that creates...

I'm going to stick to Ukraine, but it would just say... And you also had Israelis who wanted to take over more territory because they weren't even satisfied with the West Bank and Gaza. And the reason why Egypt – And plenty of Arabs who want to take over more territory. Well, and the reason why Egypt asked the UN peacekeepers out is because it feels threatened itself.

And it also – there's also an act of solidarity with other Arab states that are being threatened by Israel too. This much we know already. Including in Syria. This much we know already from Arab sources. Nasser was just drunk on power. He was erratic. This is what King Hussein has said, and I'm reading about Sadat now. Sadat felt the same way.

As soon as Sadat took over, he looked to undo Nasser's excesses. He immediately, and this is actually very interesting. This I learned from Finkelstein, this Gunnar Jarn proposal. Sadat wasn't even taken seriously. He was making noises about peace almost from the day he took over, and nobody believed him, because the Egyptians had been so bellicose for so long.

But Nasser... And Sadat proceeded to sell out the Palestinians by reaching the Camp David Accord. That wasn't his intention in the beginning. Well, that's what Camp David was. It took Egypt out of the equation and it helped Israel accelerate its theft of West Bank land. I think he would say he

was fooled in some way. Look, he was trying to take his country out of a conflict with Israel, which I understand, but in the process it sold out Palestinians. But the people who were pushed out during the War of Independence were pushed out over the line to the part of the land which was to be their land, their country.

They weren't pushed out into a foreign country. They were pushed out into – Well, that's not true. Plenty of Palestinians you can meet were pushed out to Lebanon. No. Yeah, no. Very few. Very few.

I know many of them. I mean, yes. So a lot of Palestinians went to the West Bank. That's where they are now. And Gaza as well. They were pushed. But just because you get displaced to a place that the UN says can be your new homeland doesn't mean you don't have the right to return to your actual home and not have it stolen. Normally, I don't know.

What happens during war? We're going to get talked into this. I really want to talk about Ukraine. But, you know, I've said many times, talking about the 1940s, when we just dropped an atom bomb, civilians were being slaughtered right and left in basically every battle on planet Earth. We're not, we can't really talk about it in terms of our current ethic or even God forbid, we should know what's going on between Russia and Ukraine. But, and when, and, and we're closer in time then to the Holocaust,

then we are now to COVID. Think about that. This is, these were Holocaust victims closer in time to the camps than we are to COVID. That's how fresh it was. Their ambitions to expel the Palestinians long preceded the Holocaust. I don't know what the ambitions were, but this is when it happened. Because you can read and say, well, their ambitions were modified by realistic, they were happy to get what they could get. They modified their ambition to what it was

that they actually had in front of them, and they were happy with that. They danced in the streets. I know this because I know the people of that generation. David Van Goren privately wrote, we will define our own borders, and we're going to take more land. God forbid you should see what Al-Husseini privately wrote. Yeah, well, but the problem is, he's, okay, but look.

Let me just get my point out. Let me just get my point point out you can go into somebody's diary and you can build a whole case and i don't think that's quite fair but you can do that i think you have to judge people by their actions but as in that war of independence when there was really no way and we have it today where you know hamas doesn't wear uniforms. Nobody knows who's a fighter, who's not a fighter. In the context of what was going on on planet Earth at that time, to push a kind of fifth column, and they didn't push all of it, over the line to what is supposed to be the new Palestinian state in a world full of refugees at that time, seems to me, and to people who we know really can't live together, to this day they can't live together time seems to me, and to people who we know really can't live together, to this day they can't live together, seems to me would be handled by money. In the same way,

when we push somebody out of their home here to build a highway, it's very vulgar to talk about it this way, but say, we give them money. There was no way Israel was going to bring those people back at that time with that threat of violence. And maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. But you can't expect a Palestinian to accept that. No, no. Okay, ethnic cleansing happens. I don't expect them to accept it. I don't expect them to accept it. What I do expect them to do, not Palestinians, every people, every leader, there is a moral obligation to the practical. These poor Palestinians have been suffering now for 75 years on the dream that's been fed to them that somehow they are going to return. And we, you know, and I know,

and their leaders know that's not going to happen. And this may, in the same way, if the Native Americans of America wanted to continue violence until the day that they have these lands back and their leaders get them into this thing and they get slaughtered and 10, 30, 40,000 of them die in this stuff, you're going to say to them,

look, I'm not going to tell you your cause is wrong. But at some point, you're going to say to them, look, I'm not going to tell you your cause is wrong. But at some point, you're going to have to say, you know what, we're going to have to move on. Give us millions of dollars. Build us new things. The notion, I want to go live in that shopping mall that used to be my home. This is silly already. Give yourself a holiday season of not stressing over meals. HelloFresh makes mealtimes manageable with pre-prepped and portioned ingredients that come straight

to your door. With 50 chef-crafted recipes to choose from each week, plus customizations to make your meals exactly how you like them, it's the easiest way to get dinner on the table. If you're traveling for the holidays, you can even skip a week's delivery if you need to. HelloFresh works around your schedule, which is great for me because I'm a comedian,

so I'm running around, and I love the fact that it can work around my schedule. Spend your holiday season with family and friends, and let HelloFresh worry about the mealtimes. Get 10 free meals at HelloFresh.com slash free seller. your holiday season with family and friends and the hello fresh worry about the meal times get 10 free meals at hellofresh.com slash free seller applied across seven boxes new subscribers only varies by plan that's 10 free hello fresh meals just go to hellofresh.com slash free seller where i partially agree with you is i mean i, I live on stolen land. I live here. It was taken from the indigenous people. So who am I to insist on an outcome in Palestine

that has perfect justice where every single person- Much less justifiably stolen. Well- It wasn't stolen in a defensive war. Well, again, I don't think there's any justification- You're not indigenous to America in any way. Palestine, okay, yes, but Palestinians are indigenous to that land.

And so are the Jews. Well, no, Jews, okay, see, again, this is where I don't even agree with that, because Jews have to say, yes, there's been a small percentage of Jews in Palestine forever, but most of the Jews that came to Palestine were European, no, I think, ancestral connection at all to that land. Not today. All they had was a Bible saying,

hey, 2,000 years ago. Not today. Today, more than half of them... But let me get to my point. But more than half of them are Middle Eastern now. Well, now, yes, but in 1948. And they were chased out of their homes. I'm not indigenous to Palestine. My family's from Hungary.

Oh, you are, actually. Have you looked in the mirror lately? I'm flattered. I'm flattered. 500 years from now, a black American will still be able to say, I'm indigenous to Africa. It's not. Okay, listen.

Yeah. This goes back way too far. Where I, so. Doesn't mean you have rights to it. So anyway, but ultimately, morally, to me, it's up to a Palestinian to decide whether or not they accept the theft of their land. And they have every right to keep resisting it. Now, but I agree with you that in a situation where now you have Israel, it's been a state now for almost 80 years. It has internationally recognized boundaries.

Also has nuclear weapons. So it's going to be hard to undo the injustice of its creation and the ethnic cleansing. I do think there has to be a practical acceptance that it does exist. That would be my advice. It is. Norman Finkelstein. Yeah, but. Finkelstein was pro-partition. But the problem is, why aren't you

then criticizing Israel for refusing to accept its own internationally recognized borders? I do. So we agree then. What about the settlements? The settlements, and Israel's never agreed to accept the principle of Palestinian self-determination

in a contiguous state. Even when Palestinian leaders, including the PLO and at times— Hold on a second. Let me finish. Even members of Hamas, including the recently assassinated Ismail Haniyeh, had said we would accept the state in the 1967 borders. Israel is so extreme that not even a dovish Israeli leader has ever accepted that. Aaron, I want to talk about Ukraine.

So the lecturing should go to Israelis, not to Palestinians. Okay. Hamas, there is so much, this is the same thing as our argument before, there's so much evidence out there of Hamas's grand plan to take every single inch of Israel in this

October 7th fantasy that they had of everybody coming. They had Israel divided into cantons. Who was going to be expelled? Who was going to be kept? Who was going to be this? Is that realistic to be kept? Who was going to do this? Is that realistic? Like, do you think Hamas really thinks that they're going to do that? I don't know.

Hamas is formally, you know, Ismaili has said we would accept a state in 1967. So let me answer that. I'm going to take him up on that. Okay. Israel carried out a year-long genocide. I will answer that, and then I'm going to move to Ukraine. And a two-decade-long blockade. I'm going to ask them to move on to Ukraine.

Okay. There was one time, there was one statement where the Hamas had said that they will accept Israel to withdraw to 67 boundaries. But what they also said is, however, we will never accept Israel as a state, meaning that you can unilaterally move back to 67 borders, but we will not make peace with you. Sure. So Israel, so that's not, in other words, what they're saying is, listen, if you guys are ready to move back to 67 borders, we're fine with it, but we will make zero concessions

in return for it. That's nothing. The concession is they're accepting the theft of 78% of their land. No, they're not accepting it because they said the fight for all of Palestine will never end. I can quote it to you. First of all, they proposed a long-term truce,

what's called a hudna, and they said, we'll accept the state in 22% of our historic homeland. If you're accepting a state in 22% of your historic homeland, you're tacitly accepting the boundaries outside that homeland,

which is 78% of Israel's territory. They explicitly said in that document, they will not accept the boundaries outside. And of course, what complicates it, and let's get on to the group. They didn't say they wouldn't accept the boundaries. They said, we'll accept the boundaries of 22%. What they won't do is recognize Israel as a Jewish state because that's their homeland. Why should they accept? No, they also said they will never end the battle for all of Palestine. They said they

will struggle. There's something about struggling for, yes. And, and like, fair enough, they have the right to do that, but they're, but then Israel doesn't have to give it like that. That's not how peace treaties work, but they're, peace treaties are the end of a conflict. Well, okay. So then, so then we do in that case, if you're Israel and you're the U S you say, all right, well, listen, Hamas is saying they'll accept a Palestinian state. Let's see what else can come out of negotiations. Did any Israeli or U.S. leader express interest in that? No.

They put Gaza under a harsh blockade and they've never ever even entertained the idea of even talking to Hamas about this because they don't want the occupation to end. Israel wants to insist on its self-proclaimed right to steal Palestinian land in the West Bank. That's what they really care about. And that's why they keep accelerating the settlement expansion. So it's Israel that needs to actually recognize its own borders and accept that Palestinians, you know, for a long time, and again, it's not just Hamas, there's also the PLO, 1988, formally accepted a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Why didn't Israel take them up on that? Instead, they gave him the Oslo peace process, which was just an excuse to steal more land in the West Bank. That's why settlements doubled over the first 10 years of the so-called peace process.

So it's Israel that's never shown good faith and Israel that's never accepted the fundamental right that Palestinians have to self-determination. And even when they compromise and say, we'll take 22 percent, that's not good enough. So how can you make peace with that entity that won't even accept a Palestinian compromise? How about we do another episode where we go through the whole Clinton, all that? Sure. Because I don't want to get into it.

Okay. I just want to just... So Ukraine. Mm-hmm. So what I like about Ukraine, the reason I wanted to talk about it with you is because as opposed to Israel,

which matters to me, it matters to me in my soul. Yes, me too. Yeah. Ukraine is not something that, that I have a, an emotional attachment to one way or another,

meaning I'm completely open to either side being the bad guy both like i have zero like it matters not to me so i feel more confident in my ability to um react to what's going what you guys write about ukraine and when i'm skeptical of it saying i'm not being skeptical of it because i pulling for ukraine yeah so that's what i write about Ukraine and when I'm skeptical of it, saying, well, I'm not being skeptical of it because I'm pulling for Ukraine. So that's what I like about it. And I cannot understand the Ukraine argument. Let me take you through the timeline. So first thing is,

it is now stated as fact that the United states engineered a coup in the maid i would say supported a coup supported a coup yeah well you've i think you've said i probably have staged a coup yeah they yes i probably have said that but but if i'm being as precise as i can i'd say that they certainly like i can't prove definitively that they were the mastermind but certainly they supported it 100 and it couldn't have happened without you let's just call the episode no they support

well if that's done I have a lot to say but they played a vital role let's go through it because it's a very interesting one Scott Horton and I feel like everybody's out to lunch on this. So let's just, this is my timeline of it a little bit, but you can tell me what I'm missing in the timeline. Okay, November 21st, 2013, Yanukovych's government announces the suspension of the signing of the association agreement with the

european union so yanukovych had run for president of ukraine and aaron if i say something stupid just correct me because i don't know this okay sure uh and i i cram for these exams with you but i know that um um he was going to uh integrate ukraine into the european union which is an economic relationship correct yep? Yep, correct. And that's what he ran on. That's what everybody was expecting. And at the zero hour, pressure was brought to bear one way or another, and he reneged on his promise to the people, right? And that was November 21st.

Almost immediately, hundreds of thousands of people, it eventually swelled to 800,000 people. It's small at to 800,000 people. It's small at first, but yes, eventually it swelled. But within 30 days, it swelled. Started gathering. Is it made on square? Yeah. Protesting this.

Now, at that point, am I right that the United States government could not have orchestrated 800,000 people to protest. I agree they couldn't orchestrate that. They could encourage it. How would they even encourage it? Well, the U.S. spends a lot of money on soft power, which basically means like NGOs and media that encourage people to take part in activities that support U.S. foreign policy

goals. And that certainly happened in Ukraine. A lot of money was invested inside Ukraine. Yeah, for 20, 30 years, we were giving money to promote various things in Ukraine. Foreign aid. Yeah. But this is in a very short time,

having to be able to bring 800,000. Is there any evidence that the United States did anything to bring out these people? Certainly, U.S.-supported NGOs and media networks promoted the Maidan protest. What did they do? They promoted it. It was on their airwaves, and the people who were in Maidan Square, they were meeting with U.S. officials.

They were taking refuge in the Canadian embassy. But listen, I'm not saying that it was the U.S. that got all these people to come out. There was genuine anger inside Ukraine about Yanukovych's corruption and the fact that they were expecting him to sign this EU trade deal and that he backed away. The parts of the narrative that I think are misleading is that he wasn't pulling out of the deal. the EU was asking him to accept really harsh austerity to cut, you know, fuel subsidies for people, which, you know, especially in the East of his country would be really unpopular.

They're also basically asking him to cut off ties to Russia, which also would be an outrage to the millions of people who voted for him from Eastern Ukraine, who consider themselves to be ethnic Russian and want to have ties with Russia. And also there was a component in the proposed language that called for integrating Ukraine into the EU's military infrastructure. And that could be seen as like a backdoor into NATO.

Okay. I'm not, again, like the reason he pulled out, like he could pull out for good reasons, could have pulled out for bad reasons. He just delayed. He wanted new terms. He wasn't even abandoned. I have zero judgment about like, that's on that's on ukraine that's on their president maybe maybe if i were him i would have done what he did maybe i wouldn't have done maybe maybe putin put uh

difficult pressure on him i don't know i i'm only concerned about what the evidence is that our government did something untoward so all these people are out there. Now, basically the evidence that we were up to no good was this Victoria Nuland phone call. There's a lot more than that. Okay, go ahead. Okay, yeah? Okay, well, for example, I mean, I recently interviewed a former Ukrainian official

who worked with the Maidan movement. At the time, he was an aide to a member of parliament in Ukraine, and then he basically got a job basically being the liaison between the Maidan movement and American politicians. So he met with Victoria Nuland and people like that and the U.S. ambassador, Jeffrey Piat, and he reported to me – this is his claim. His name is Andrei Tilachenko. He said that he went and he witnessed basically a high level of coordination after December. So in November when the protests break out, no. But after December, things really erupt.

There's a high level of coordination because the U.S. sees an opportunity here to overthrow Yanukovych because Yanukovych was someone who also campaigned on neutrality for Ukraine, which was a major issue of contention. Ukraine's a very divided country, and there were elements that wanted to join NATO,

but most of the country at that time did not support joining NATO. And Yanukovych, in line with that, and in line with the country's foundational declaration of state sovereignty, said, we're going to be a neutral country. And that's why the U.S. had an interest in overthrowing him, because the U.S., since 2008, had promised NATO membership to Ukraine. And so, according to this one source, he says he witnessed a high level of coordination with the u.s and there's other things as well but we can get to that because the new line so listen i i'm skeptical of these you know one-off sources that say this say that because you know this is such a silly thing to say but just in my own life, trying to unwind something, there's always somebody who says this, somebody who says that.

If you're talking about something of major proportion, then there has to be, ought to be, common sense tells us, a major amount of evidence. Fair enough. And one guy saying something is just, you know, could be. There are other people as well, but you're right. I am just quoting one person. So, and then, you know, people were shot. When people started getting killed, Yanukovych fled the country.

And then, we're going to go back now. And then there was an election that everybody, international observers said was fair. And so what is the evidence of a coup? Yanukovych didn't have to leave the country. Okay. Well, the evidence of a coup. But I want to get to the Nuland phone call because this is. But before that, there's an important thing with Yanukovych.

First of all, he fled, he says, under the threat of violence, which was fair. Because what happened was the EU brokered an agreement after the Maidan massacre, which I agree with Ivan Kachinowski. And in fact, there was a ruling in that Ukrainian case recently which bolstered Ivan Kachinowski's findings that it was basically carried out by pro-Maidan forces, not by the government. No, I read that ruling. That's a total misread of that case. I read there's an interview with the judge a year ago i'm quoting now um a this is from a ukrainian court the court found that the evidence quote was quite sufficient to conclude categorically unquote that the shots were fired from the quote premises of the hotel ukrainia that, premises of the Hotel Ukraina. Which was territory

not controlled by law enforcement agencies at that time. But listen, there were 80 people killed. This regards a tiny subset of people who were killed, and they think even those were shot by the recruit. But the eight protesters, this is the judge, cannot be conclusively attributed to recruit,

could have any number of explanations from friendly fire, he's talking about the any number of explanations from friendly fire. He's talking about the small bit that couldn't. Friendly fire in the pandemonium to shots fired by plainclothes cops. Even the presence of Russian operatives has not been disproved. The 1,700-page verdict was written during the full-scale invasion with blackouts and air raids. The most important thing that is written on these 1,700 pages, the article says, is that it was not Russian or Georgian snipers or some other unknown third party who shot at the protesters. Ukrainian citizens were shot by Ukrainian law enforcement officers. We can debate this all day. People can read Ivan Kachanovsky's findings. He's written

academic papers on it. They've been peer-reviewed. They have been peer-reviewed. I think they have been peer-reviewed. Anyway, listen, people can read it just for themselves. There also was another intercepted phone call in which the EU foreign secretary, Catherine Ashton, speculated that, in fact, it was pro-Maidan. She was in Kiev, and she reported,

there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers is not Yanukovych. It was somebody from the new coalition. And there's so many more quotes like that. But I think it's one of these things where that violence happens and then there's a power sharing agreement brokered by the EU to keep Yanukovych in power

with members of the opposition and have early elections. And that was the agreement to resolve the crisis. And the US publicly came out and endorsed that. What happened? The Maidan leaders who took part in agreeing to this power-sharing deal with Yanukovych came back and told their counterparts in Maidan Square. But the problem is, and this is the part that we haven't gotten to yet,

by that point, the Maidan has been hijacked by far-right forces, okay? People like Ole Tanybuk of the Svoboda Party, which was founded as the Social National Party of Ukraine, a nod to Nazi Germany's National Socialist Party. Tanybuk once said that we have to fight the, quote, Muscovite Jewish mafia running Ukraine, and its original symbol closely resembled the neo-Nazi wolf's angle. And just one year before Maidan, the European Parliament condemned Svoboda's, quote, racist, anti-Semitic, and xenophobic views and urged Ukrainian political parties, quote, not to associate with, endorse, or form coalitions with this party. Well, Svoboda, by late December 2013, had taken hold of the Maidan. It was now

a major part of it to the point where Svoboda's leader, Tanny Book, he appears with Victoria Newland and John McCain and Chris Murphy, and they sort of give him their stamp of approval because they're now the muscle behind the Maidan. And so when the more moderate Maidan leaders came back and said, we've reached this power sharing agreement, the hardcore elements, like Svoboda, said absolutely not. And they, just as the Ukrainian security forces are pulling back under the terms of this power sharing deal, they take advantage of that, storm the parliament, there's violence. Yanukovych flees because now he's in fear of his life. And then you have the remaining members of parliament, because some people have now fled, without a sufficient quorum,

voting out Yanukovych on totally constitutionally fake grounds that don't even follow Ukraine's constitution. And that's when you have, that's why you call it a coup, because a new government comes in that doesn't have any constitutional validity. How can I debate the ins and outs of a, I mean, this is the way these governments often outlook what's happening in Korea. I mean these –

Yanukovych was democratically elected. I understand. But in these – And he didn't voluntarily give up power. He fled. In these newer democracies, stuff like this happens. And that's different than saying America engineered it. And I want –

I didn't say America – I said America supported it. Because, okay, so listen, the EU, so by the way, just- I want to get to the freaking Nuland thing. So again, so the EU puts, the EU puts its stamp of approval on this power sharing deal. They broker it.

Obama comes out and says, yes, we support this. Yeah. 24 hours later, when this new coup government takes power, all of a sudden Obama forgets about all that and recognizes the new government. So that is a sign that the U.S. supported this coup.

I'm not saying they engineered it, but they were instrumental in supporting it. You tweeted, 10 years after Nuland was caught selecting Ukraine's post-coup leadership. Correct. She came back to Kiev to try to keep her. Now, this is not true. It is true. Okay. Have you listened to the call keep her... Now, this is not true. It is true. Okay. Have you listened to the call?

Yes, I've listened to the call. And this goes back to my Avishlaim thing with you. I'm really trying to tell you... So, okay, this is what the New York Times said about it. Uh-huh. The tape captured a four-minute telephone call on January 25th between Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs,

and Jeffrey Pratt, the Administrator of Ukraine, trading their views of the crisis. I'm skipping over. The two were discussing Mr. Yanukovych's offer to bring two opposition leaders, Yatsenyuk and Klitschko, into the government as prime ministers, NW prime ministers. So they were not

discussing post-coup leadership. They were discussing a deal that Yanukovych had offered to allow two people to join the government. Correct. Okay, two points. Correct. They're not discussing post-coup leadership. But who becomes

leadership? Correct your tweet. Hold on a second. Who becomes leadership after the coup, post-coup? The people they becomes leadership? So you can correct your tweet. Hold on a second. Who becomes leadership after the coup, post-coup? The people they selected. My point is, what is Victoria Nuland doing, discussing with the U.S. ambassador, who should be in this new government?

It shows how instrumental the U.S. is. Aaron, I am sure, let me answer you. I am sure this last week we were on the phone with people in Korea discussing the situation on the ground there. We are, for better or worse, involved in foreign policy in hotspots all over the world.

That's just— And I know you might not think that's the way it should be, but— Well, no, I don't, but I'm also trying to put pieces together. If you have on a call— And if shit hits the fan in the West Bank, I bet you we're going to be talking to a boss or the opposition or the opposition clinton said hillary clinton said it was a mistake to let palestinians have elections because hamas won so yes of course we give ourselves the right to interfere but what i'm saying but so okay but put aside like morality what i'm saying is the fact that you have a call in which victoria newland and the u.s ambassador

are selecting who should be not Not selecting. They're discussing. Rather than the New York Times account, read the transcript, okay? I'll give you some quotes, okay? Nuland says that that tiny book, the aforementioned leader of the neo-Nazi parties, Voda, she says he'd be a problem in office. And she doesn't explain why, but it's pretty obvious because he's a neo-Nazi. So she says he'd be better, quote, on the the outside and then they're talking about klitschko okay he's the more moderate made on member who actually was negotiating the power sharing agreement but then what does newland say i don't think klitsch should go into government i don't think it's necessary i don't think it's a good idea okay and one of the problems is that klitschko is friendly with the european union and that's why

newland says fuck the okay, on that call. And then they decide, you know, there's this technocrat, a neoliberal named Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and Nuland says, quote, I think Yats is the guy. So what business do we have selecting who should be in a power-sharing agreement with the Ukrainian government unless we're playing a really shady and i think i think uh nefarious role in that uh coup and that's why after the coup who becomes the new prime minister yatsenyuk the same guy who newland says was the guy does the prime minister have that much power in ukraine or is it yes i mean who is the current prime minister uh i don't know the current prime minister that says a lot but but but yatsenyuk actually had a lot of power because he presided over the very same economic austerity policies that the U.S. wanted to impose on Ukraine. He cut pensions just as the U.S. wanted him to.

So that's why Nuland saw him as the guy. But if Yanukovych was going to remain in power, if the subject of this Nuland phone call was still a regime headed by Yanukovych. It's quite far from the coup that you're describing. It's some involvement. There's shit going on. I don't, I'm not an expert on foreign policy. I would need to know how this differs from other places in the world where we have our nose. But the fact is that they were not selecting post, they were not selecting a post-coup government

because there was no post-government being contemplated. They wound up selecting the post-coup. It shows their influence. Now, who agrees with me? This is the interesting... Avi Schlein? No. Yes, yes.

Who agrees with me? Ivan, what's his last name? Ivan Kachinowski. Kachinowski, can you play the video? Uh-huh. Okay. I'm going to make a point first. Yeah, while he's bringing it up.

Robert Wright, Ivan Kachinowski video. Go ahead. If you have a series of events where Newland is selecting who should be the Ukrainians in a government. And you mentioned Victoria Nuland. Wait, wait, what's the matter with you guys? Then you have that power sharing agreement undermined and the actual government overthrown. And then you have the U.S. all of a sudden welcoming that coup, not criticizing, not saying, hey, what about this power sharing agreement that you just brokered? And saying, we recognize the new coup government.

And the new coup government happens to be the prime minister is headed by Yatsenyuk, who Nuland said was guy, after excluding other people. You can see a series of events on the show. The U.S. had a very instrumental role in backing the same forces that staged a coup. Well, Aaron, and this is something else I want to talk about. And you mentioned— What the hell is going on? That there's two sides to a conversation. One side is the fact that we're involved, and the other side is that fact that we're involved,

and the other side is that somebody on the other end obviously wants us involved in some way. And that gets interesting. And this goes back to, I'm just going to touch on it now, but I don't want to get sidetracked by it, this whole notion that our leaders were naive about what the consequences would be through the Russians' eyes, through Putin's eyes of our nosing around in Ukraine or talking about them someday joining NATO. But of course,

the Ukrainians themselves are not naive. They understood certainly very well how this issue was neuralgic for Russia and Putin. And yet, I'm tempted to call it bravery, and yet this was the path they wanted to go down. Who's they? The majority of the country? Because if you look at polls at the time, Yanukovych was still the most popular politician.

Until he switched the... No, at the time he was overthrown, he was still the most popular politician. But I'm talking... And the majority of the country until he switched the no at the time he was overthrown he was still the most popular politician i'm talking i'm talking the majority of the country did not support the made on movement so you can't speak i think no they did no they did it but anyway this is i can we can go back to that you can't show what is a monolith yes so this is what caught now this is this is obviously because and this this gets me about you, is that this is a guy who you use as a source all the time. Yes, I do. Now, if he's going to say something that

doesn't comport with what you thought prior, I demand that you then say, you know what, I can't just use him when I feel like it. Yes, I can, but anyway. Okay. Go back to zero, zero, zero. Are you all the way at the

beginning yeah okay go ahead play it wait and you mentioned victoria newland and of course uh something that has gotten some attention is that uh someone presumably russia uh secretly taped a conversation she had with the ambassador u.s ambassador to Ukraine. I don't know when exactly it happens, but they are discussing who they want to be, which specific Ukrainian politicians they want to lead the government after, presumably,

after Yanukovych steps down. Yes, I think it's important. I also researched this issue, and I think it's very likely it also research this issue and I think it's very likely it was recorded and leaked by Russian intelligence, specifically to kind of implicate the United States, but also it was often misrepresented

because according to this phone call, they were discussing not, I don't think they were discussing Ukrainian government rupture over Yenukovych. They were talking about basically proposal by Yenukovych. They were talking about basically proposal by Yanukovych at the time. A few weeks before the Maidan massacre

to basically offer positions in his government to Maidan opposition leaders. And so specifically he even was willing to make Yatsenyuk, prime minister of his government and also to include Klitschko, who was another Maidan leader in his government

and also to include Klitschko, who was another Maidan leader in his government, basically. And this is why they had discussion between... Alright, that's it. Okay, so basically, my tweet was not worded as accurately as it could have. It's not you, Aaron.

What I just said before this clip, I said... By the way, this is why I like you. This is why I get along with you. They're talking about who should be in this power-sharing government, an agreement they immediately undermined when the coup happened. And what I should have said in that tweet is when Victoria Nuland was selecting the people who ended up being the leaders of the post-coup government, not selecting the post-coup government. But, yes, that's fine. But as you know, and Tucker and Greenwald, and they all talk about this as if this is a... And Tucker

has said, we have clear, convincing evidence and detailed evidence that we engineered a coup in Ukraine and they refer to the Nuland phone call all the time. And I say we supported a coup because we're picking who are we to decide who should be in the Ukrainian government? What businesses are... Okay, supporting a coup... Unless we're playing a major role. Supporting a coup is

different than engineering a coup. And calling it a coup, you know, the word coup has a specific definition. Yeah, he was democratically overthrown. But it is perfectly plausible that if

the United States had not had a single conversation, that this whole thing in Ukraine could have played out exactly the same way. No one has presented to me, and again, this is why I don't have any stake in it. I'm happy to believe, not like we've never been involved in a coup. No one said to me, listen, yes, if not the United States, this would have never happened because the United States did this, or the United States did that. All I've been told, yeah, the United States was on the phone with the opposition leader discussing a deal that Yanukovych had offered to power,

to bring an opposition leader into his cabinet, as it were. However, the protests were organic. The police fired on the protesters. Yanukovych was scared. He ran out, not because he was scared of the American military, because he was scared of violence from his people. And none of this seems to me any evidence that it wouldn't have happened without

American involvement. It's a counterfactual that we'll never know. Well, all I know is if you have U.S. politicians going into Maidan Square showing their support, there was financing. People like George Soros put a lot of money into this. So it's quite possible, yes,

all this would have still played out exactly as it played out. But what I'm responsible for as a Westerner is what is the role of my government. And what I know is it was a very negative role. We have no business selecting who should be in a government of Ukraine. What is Victoria Nuland? And who is she to pick who should be in government or not? And

that's the point here. And there's also the fact that right after the coup, we recently learned this from the New York Times. On the very first night of the new coup government, the new intelligence chief, his first phone call was to the local CIA station chief and says, hey, can you help me build up the intelligence service? And that basically kicked off a process where Ukraine became an appendage of the U.S., reliant on U.S. economic aid and direction. You have John Brennan going to Ukraine in April 2014 and saying, you know, you should probably go after Donbass and take it by force. And that's what Ukraine does pretty much a few days later. And Joe Biden saying, if you don't fire this prosecutor, we're not going to give you that $1 billion. I'm with you on Shulkin.

So there's huge U.S. And the CIA building up a bunch of bases inside Ukraine since 2014. It shows that whatever happened around the coup, the U.S. has played an instrumental role using Ukraine as a proxy ever since. Did it shock you to know that if there's some sort of turmoil going on or election time or something in Israel, I can't imagine what it would be, that people in our administration were talking to Netanyahu's opposition leaders? No, of course it wouldn't shock me. It wouldn't shock me either. No, yeah, yeah. And if there was some deal being taken where they were going to put some opposition leaders in Netanyahu's cabinet. Yeah, sure. that somebody from our government might be involved in that conversation, picking who will be best because we are kind of on the side of the anti-Netanyahu people.

And I think that's foreign policy. I don't know that that's a coup. A coup is a violent taking of a government. If Netanyahu was deposed in contravention of Israel, I don't know, does Israel even have a constitution? It doesn't. But in contravention of Israel's laws, yes, then it would be a coup.

And it'd be illegal. And that's what we did in Ukraine. And what business do we have there? Especially this is a country... Well, you come from a worldview that says that we should keep our nose out of the rest of the world. And, you know, that's an interesting worldview i i happen to think that that would make the world a much more dangerous place but this is a respectable argument you know

i i but i but to say a coup to me when there was a huge popular uprising where almost a million people turn out and then people start getting shot, that seems pretty organic to me. According to, if you want to, if we're going by His Holiness Ivan Kachinowski, who you want me to revere, then he says that the Maidan massacre was staged by pro-Maidan forces.

So there you go. So in every case you evaluate the evidence. Again, another thing. Why do I care who shot who in the Maid on Master? Well, you do care because you cited it to say why it's not a coup. No, what I'm saying is I only read Kachanovsky, and I looked at his sources, and I read the judicial opinion translated by Google into... And I said, this guy's talking nonsense.

There's no evidence here. The judge specifically said. People can go I've read the same thing. I find it very We can discuss all that. Now, there's more interesting stuff here. So what do you think about the meetings? What do you have to do? I have meetings.

What do you think about the are you worried about World War 3 now that we've given missile that allowed so this is another like this is insane the people on your side of this issue you need to reel them in

Tucker even Glenn Greenwald they're talking crazy talk they're worried about nuclear war yeah but how's that crazy talk because well can you play Mearsheimer? Now, Mearsheimer is the grandfather of... Yes. Right?

Yes. And Mearsheimer... So I say, what does Mearsheimer think about all these weapons, missiles? So this is what Mearsheimer says. And Mearsheimer is sensible on this. Yeah. But the fact is that Putin is in the driver's seat on the battlefield at this point in time. The Russians are doing very well. And the use of these attackams doesn't threaten Russia and Russia's fortunes on the battlefield in any meaningful way. So I don't think he's going to use nuclear weapons, period. But you want to be aware that

that possibility is always there. The Russians are in the driver's seat. They're doing very well on the battlefield. And there's no real incentive, given the course of the war, for the Russians to change their behavior in a significant way, especially with the Trump administration coming in two months. I don't think at this point that Putin is going to significantly up the ante. In terms of effects on the battlefield, this hardly matters at all. What do they have? 50 ATACOMs. They've already used six of them, so they have 44 ATACOMs left. What are they going to do with 44 ATACOMs?

By almost all accounts, the Russians have launched somewhere on the order of 6,000 ballistic missiles. Right. As we all know, the Ukrainians are still fighting. launched somewhere on the order of 6,000 ballistic missiles. Right. Right. This war, as we all know, the Ukrainians are still fighting. Those 6,000 ballistic missiles didn't knock them out. What if 58 TACOM's going to do? So let me just say before you answer that, just as a matter of conscience, I kept in that one little statement where he said, you know, we should always be mindful of the nuclear threat. That was really referring to the overall war, like what, you know, what Putin might do if he was in a bad situation. I didn't feel right cutting it out of the sentence

because as a matter of conscience, I left it in. But you can hear from the over and over number of times he's said it. Mearsheimer does not think this is an important turning point in any way. He doesn't think it ups the ante. He doesn't think it increases the tension or makes nuclear war any more likely. And as a matter of fact, he alludes to a very smart point, which is everybody kind of expects Trump to want to impose a deal. Why, why two months out now would they go to nuclear war and incinerate the world when they likely expect to make a deal with Trump? But yet people like Tucker and Glenn Greenwald are saying crazy stuff. Well, I haven't seen what they've said. All good. I'm glad you asked. So can we play Tucker World War III, please?

Okay. And then both, the two Tucker ones. While we queue that up, here's what I wrote. Here's what I said, because I'm responsible for what I say, not what people who I know say. I wrote this on November 18th. Russia's most likely response, in my view, is not direct conflict with NATO, but even more punishing strikes on Ukrainian areas. That was my point, that whenever the U.S. decides to escalate, Russia takes it out on Ukraine. I agree with Mearsheimer, we're not going to see World War III, but I also don't fault someone for raising the risk because when you're in a proxy war against the world's other top nuclear powers, you are tempting fate. There is a risk risk and it's

fair to be concerned about that we're talking about two countries that could blow up the world many times over yeah but this is good i'm talking very philosophical here with you it's it's the the what you don't want hyperbole i understand what i'm saying is that yeah yeah i get i feel like i i wish that you everybody right now we're getting a lot of crazy talk on the far right, the MAGA right, the conspiracy theorists, the Candace Owens stuff, and you should smack these

people down, because they're discrediting the point of view, which I am much less open to this point of view when it's represented by people saying crazy stuff like candace owens and the rest of them so go ahead play the talker ww3 in the week since we left russia moscow where we are now in february after interviewing vladimir putin we've watched from

the united states as the biden administration has driven the u.s ever closer to a nuclear conflict with russia the country that possesses the world's largest nuclear arsenal. It has accelerated ever since, and it's reached its apogee so far in the weeks after Trump's election. He's now the president-elect. In that time, just a few weeks ago, the Biden administration, American military personnel launched missiles into mainland Russia and killed at least a dozen Russian soldiers. So we are, unbeknownst to most Americans, in a hot war with Russia, an undeclared war, a war you did not vote for and that most Americans don't want, but it is ongoing. And because of that war, because of the fact that the U.S. military is killing Russians in Russia right now, we are closer to nuclear war than at any time in history.

Okay, stop there. Far closer than we were during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Stop there. Now, do you know that in the Cuban Missile Crisis, an order was actually given to fire, and cue up the other video, the one that says, to fire a nuclear torpedo. 100%. He should have said we're closer. This is madness. What he should

have done is cited Joe Biden, who says we're closer than we have been since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Joe Biden said that. Bring up that other video. So, what he should have done is cited joe biden who says we're closer than we have been since the new since the cuban missile crisis joe biden said that bring up that other video so what he should have done is cited joe biden not saying closer than we ever have been in history no but we're not i mean as somebody as do you guys have these videos queued up bring up the jews greenwald tucker one um jews okay um so like they are they are trying to to panic us we're closer to nuclear war than we've ever been and mearsheimer's like this is not a big deal yeah that's tucker well but now listen look now now by the way they're going to say here that the actually the only

reason we're even concerned about ukraine is because we're doing israel's bidding so go ahead play that okay even before russiagate in 2016 they had an obsession with russia in the 2010 election in 2012 2011 or rather and they were obsessed with russia well that. And I do think that Russia is disliked by a lot of people in Washington because of the perception that they are detrimental to our interests in the Middle East and especially to Israel's interest in the Middle East, including their support for Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the fact that they have a good relationship with Iran. It doesn't really always have a lot to do with the United States, but with the interests of other countries as well. So you think that's the prime mover here?

Yeah, the Russians operate in Syria. They protect Assad in Syria. And as a result, they end up being antagonistic to Israel, which ends up being defined as U.S. interests as well. Like there's no separation between the two countries. But strictly speaking, this has kind of nothing to do with us whatsoever.

I mean, I honestly... Unless you see Israel as a part of the United States. You know, I'm not hostile toward Israel, but I think it's a separate country. It seems to me to be a separate country as well. It's often not treated as that. I'm just saying. Don't pay taxes there. It wasn't born there. So there's like 50 countries

around the world supporting Ukraine. That's what I heard. And Tucker and Glenn Greenwald are saying this is primarily about Israel, the Jews. This is, this is right out of Elders of Zion. We are controlling the strings on every war. If you read the Hamas charter, that's what it says. Every, they are behind every war. Doesn't this bother you?

Ukraine is not about Israel. I do think that Israel does play a major role in U.S. foreign policy decisions. When it comes to Ukraine and Russia, I would characterize— Even you never thought Israel was behind it. I would characterize it a bit differently. I would say that the obsession in Washington with Russia is that Russia is a major deterrent to U.S. hegemony. It has nuclear weapons. It's a big country.

It has a strong economy very influential and in Syria there is a lot of anger towards Russia because Russia did foil U.S. efforts to overthrow Assad Russia intervened and stopped the advance of the U.S. backed insurgency which was dominated by Al-Qaeda and ISIS and so there is anger toward Russia for that I don't think Israel is the driving factor there. I think it's because people in Washington don't like any force that can be a deterrent to its hegemony. But certainly, to people in Washington, why they eliminate threats

to Israeli hegemony as well, absolutely. They are obsessed with overthrowing. That's why they do want to overthrow Syria, because Syria is part of the Axis of Resistance, which resists Israel. Yeah, but you're kind of changing the subject. But when it comes to Ukraine, yes, I think that's not... That Israel is on the side of it. Yes.

I can tell you 20 other European nations that are on the side of it. I don't think Israel is the driving factor when it comes to the obsession with Russia and why we've used Ukraine as a proxy. It's because Russia is the deterrent to U.S. agenda. Now, what can I, without being unfair, what conclusions do I permit myself to at least start considering about someone who says such a thing? Well, they see

a Congress which is bought off by AIPAC. They see the fact that AIPAC can, like, oust two elected members of Congress, Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush. They see all these lawmakers from both parties falling over themselves to worship Israel. And, you know, Trump's saying, we're going to make Israel great again. He just said that recently.

So it's understandable for someone to conclude that Israel— Trump didn't get us into this. No, he didn't. But what I'm saying is it's reasonable to conclude that Israel plays a major role in U.S. foreign policy decisions. But not on this issue. Not in Russia and Ukraine. I agree with you on that. But they're talking about Russia and Ukraine. Yeah, okay. So, listen, I don't speak for them.

But I know, but— I think that analysis there is— it's a bit off base. Right, but somebody like me, I say to myself, this is a bunch of anti-Semites. Like, I understand if they want to make the argument that part of the war on terror was Israel's fault. I understand why Glenn got to his conclusion, because it's true that the reason why the U.S. wants to overthrow Syria

is because Syria is part of the Axis of Resistance to Israel, and Syria is backed up by Russia. So he made the leap from acts of resistance Syria Russia as an ally of Syria so therefore the U.S. wants to mess with uh Ukraine what was what was the lubrication that allowed him to make that leap so quickly and easily you want to say it's anti-semitism I see it or and or forget about anti-semitism it's you know in, it'd be self-hatred because he's Jewish. No, no. Let me take back. It doesn't have to be anti-Semitism.

It can be emotional opposition to Israel. Yeah. But whatever it is. There's a lot of reasons to be upset with Israel and to suspect that Israel does play this hidden hand because it is very powerful. But then, yeah, who gets dozens of standing ovations in Congress. Congress members, you know, try to like talk about deporting people who protest. Yeah. Let's confine ourselves. But the reason I, and I regret it already saying anti-Semitism,

but the reason my mind goes to it, even though maybe I shouldn't have said anything, is because of the bedfellows that these people are now keeping, that they will never say, I mean, Candace Owens is literally saying that Israel, Herzl, lived in the town where Frankists were, who was some sort of pedophile, and he wasn't actually Jewish, and Israel became a refuge for the pedophiles. I've heard Candace Owens say some things I think are- Wait, wait, and then Alex Jones is saying that Israel was behind killing John F. Kennedy. And Tucker says that Alex Jones is a supernatural prophet. And then also Tucker is saying things about Martians and-

I don't speak for Tucker. I've been on a show a few times when he was on Fox, but... No, I know you don't speak for Tucker, but this is what, this difference. And if I have somebody in my camp who starts going off about the Arabs a bunch of dogs, like, something that...

If I didn't say, shut the fuck up, you don't represent me, we may, I no longer want to be associated with you anymore on this cause of Zionism, whatever it is. If I didn't do that, you, I would go down in your estimation.

All right. Well, rightfully so. Will you renounce Eli Lake? No, I will not. Why would I announce? Why would I?

That's my point. Why would I renounce Eli Lake? Why would I renounce anybody? What did Eli Lake ever say compared would I renounce Eli Lake? Why would I renounce anybody? What did Eli Lake ever say compared to what I'm describing? Listen, I don't want to— I don't know why you regret it. I don't know. I love Eli Lake, too, for the record.

I don't know why you're saying it's such a far jump to assume that there's some anti-Semitism swirling around. Because you shouldn't say that. It's not a far jump, but anyway. But listen, Eli Lake and I are friends. I was thinking a joke. No, but I just want to say just because, even though you're

a joke, it's out there, right? I want to let you know that in our private conversations, in our Jew-to-Jew, Zionist-Zionist private conversations, he would hang up on me if I uttered something bigoted like that. I'm telling you that's the way he is.

Yeah, okay. But I have nothing to do with Candace Owens. Yeah. No, but she's associated with this Ukraine position and undermines the credibility of the whole— But what does that do with me? What, am I going to go out there denouncing people who happen to agree with me on some narrow issues? What a waste of time. No, it's not a waste of time.

Am I the United Nations? Well, let me tell you. Are you responsible for denouncing every single Zionist? I mean, I think you should, but it's like, are you responsible for that? No. No, but I'm making a practical argument, too, which is that if there's a cast of characters that is generally associated with this issue— No, I don't agree with that.

I'm not responsible for that. No, and you want me, who doesn't have an emotional involvement in this issue, to be convinced by it. I can't help it. I look at the people who are saying this, Tucker, and I say, I see these guys,

and I see their lack of integrity on so many matters. How can I trust them on anything? Because, listen, I don't work with these people. But if Aaron Maté... Here's the one case where you can make an argument. I work closely with Max Blumenthal,

good friend of mine. I think he's an amazing journalist. He pisses a lot of people off because he has a really dark sense of humor. They'll say stuff that offends people. He owes me an apology. Okay, well... Do you know why?

No, no, no. I'll tell you why. And then I'll often get asked to answer for Max, but what I say is I'm not responsible for what he says, but if there'll tell you why. And then I'll often get asked to answer for Max. But what I say is I'm not responsible for what he says. But if there's a case to be made that I am responsible, that's the case. I could actually work with him. I don't work with – I've never met Candace Owens or talked to her.

I've heard her say some crazy stuff about – I also heard talking about like – the one thing I heard her say, which made me never want to listen to her again, even though I appreciate that she's spoken out against Zionists like Ben Shapiro, I do appreciate that. But she said something about how, like, how come we don't talk about the Holocaust of Christians and the Soviet Union, which is carried out by Bolshevik Jews? So I heard that, and I hope I'm quoting her right, because maybe I'm misremembering, and if I'm not, I apologize. But if I'm accurately remembering that, then I thought, I was like,

okay, I can't listen to this person. And Tucker says, he says, Zelensky is rat face and a persecutor of Christians. Now— I'm not Tucker. No, I know. I know you're not. Tucker says all these things I don't agree with, like, you know, his stance on immigration. But I still went on his show because—

No, you should go on his show. That was a very popular show, and I was censored everywhere else. I'm not criticizing you for going on his show. Yeah, yeah. What I'm saying is that I really am making a practical argument. I'm telling you, actually—I'm not even making a practical argument. I'm telling you actually the way I feel about this Ukraine issue. I understand. The cast of characters

that's telling me this stuff is so unreliable. The spectrum is from unreliable to batshit crazy that it's undermined my entire ability to view this issue with an open mind. I, I have some friends. You know, I have a friend in common with you.

Yes. Who's all in on your position. And he's a level-headed. Yes. And he's not only level-headed, but he's extremely well-informed about this stuff. He has firsthand information. So that's why I'm open. But that's a high school mentality.

Like, you're picking a clique. Like, oh, so this clique is, yeah, they're right about this, but they're a little bit, but they're not cool. They're a little, like, so, you know what I, yeah, they're right about this, but they're a little bit, but they're not cool. They're a little, you know what I mean? I'm responsible for whether what I say is factual or not. Not what people who happen to agree with me say. I mean, I think it's basic. And I think you'd expect the same thing, too, especially given there are many people who agree with you about Israel who hold views that I'm sure you might find abhorrent, you know?

One other issue I take, Sajid, you want to take? I have to go in five minutes. One other thing I take sides with you. I have to go in five minutes. One other thing I take issue with on Ukraine. You were all in on this notion that there was actually a deal in 2022. Oh, I'm all in on that. Absolutely I am. Oh, you want to – you present it and then I'll – Well, there was the outline of a deal, and we recently got the contents of it.

The New York Times published a very detailed draft agreement between the Ukrainians and Russians in the spring of 2022, which they negotiated in Turkey. And I think had Boris Johnson and the U.S. not intervened, we would have had peace in Ukraine and hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive. Absolutely. So that was the report, and it has leaked out. It kind of

trickled out. And Naftali Bennett had said that it broke down over security concerns. He said the West blocked it. No. Yes. Well, I have it somewhere.

Should I get it? I'll get it too. Okay. You're going to cherry pick it. I'm not going to cherry pick it. I need a touch screen. No, just tell it. Ukrainian officials, there's so many sources for this now.

He said, sorry, he didn't say blocked it. He said they stopped it. Because, he said, NATO states, quote, decided it is necessary to continue to smash Putin, which is exactly what Ukrainian officials said Boris Johnson told them when Boris Johnson came over and told them not to accept the deal. This is his tweet. Or discards him from his tweet. He has a numbered tweet.

Number one, it's unsure there was any deal to be made. At the time, I gave it roughly 50% chance. Americans felt chances were way lower. Hard to tell who was right. Number two, it's not sure such a deal was desirable. At the time, I thought so, but only time will tell. Yes, which is irrelevant to whether or not there was a deal, whether he thinks it's desirable.

I'm just reading his tweet. You can see pros and cons for each approach. Blah, blah, blah. Number three, he claims that Western security guarantees for Ukraine were unacceptable to the Kremlin, which saw such a clause as the equivalent of Ukraine NATO's membership. Not true. All right.

So, no, that's weird that it's number three. That may not be from... And by the way, it was the West that refused to provide the security guarantees. Ukraine said, hey, if we sign this deal with Russia, will you give us security guarantees? And the U.S. and U.K. said no. So this is the end of the New York Times article that you just mentioned. Okay. Explain it to me.

Sure. So to the Ukrainians' dismay, there's various rounds of negotiation. The final round. To the Ukrainians' dismay, there was a crucial departure from what Ukrainian negotiators said was discussed in Istanbul. Yeah. Russia inserted a clause saying that all guarantor states, which includes Russia, including Russia, had to approve the response if Ukraine were attacked. In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine's behalf, a seemingly absurd condition that Kiev quickly identified as a deal breaker. And his quotes here, he quotes the actual, the guarantor

states, Ukraine agree that in the event of an armed attack on Ukraine, each of the guarantor states on the basis of a decision agreed upon by all the states, will provide assistance to Ukraine. And then the New York Times starts again. With that change, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team said, we had no interest in continuing talks. So this seems eminently reasonable to me. If Russia wants to insert a clause that says we have to be part of the unanimous group that decides when the security guarantees take effect, then that's not a deal we can take seriously. So, again, like, I could certainly believe that we, like, listen, can I tell you something just so you know? Yeah. I think that the ship has sailed on any notion that Ukraine is going to oust or, you know, expel Russia from this territory.

I think they have to make a deal. I think it would be great if from this Ukraine actually gets its own autonomy. Kissinger, before he died, thought that maybe if Ukraine keeps all this, if Russia keeps all the territory, Ukraine could even join NATO. There was a time

when we all kind of thought they might just pull this off. That ship has sailed. I'm all in the camp of making a deal now. As a matter of fact, when I have conversations with pro-Ukraine people,

I'm like, do you actually think Ukraine's going to win this? They start double talking. So I think at this point in the conflict, I'm probably very close to where you are. However, two years ago, I wasn't. And I'm also moved by the fact

that while we're complaining about how this is affecting America, these people are dying. And now polls in Ukraine show that their support for the war is hovering now like 47, 53%, something like that. A majority wants negotiations now, yeah.

But two years ago, that was not the case. Two years ago, they were behind it. Those polls, by the way, excluded the areas of the Donbass that were a part of Ukraine. Remember, they're going to go to Russia anyway. Well, exactly. What I'm saying is Ukraine's not a monolith.

Right. And so the bravery of a people that wants to pivot history in a different direction, and they're not naive people, and they knew they were risking Putin here, and all the means-need memo that everybody points to where Burns and the CIA warned that Putin might intervene.

He didn't predict an all-out invasion like this. They were seeing more to be intervening in the Donbass. Correct. And nobody really saw this coming. And as far as your people, this is the first time we ever respect intelligence, right? I mean, most intelligence is bullshit. You know, nobody really saw this coming. And as far as, you know, your people, this is the first time we ever respect intelligence, right? I mean, most intelligence is bullshit.

And who else had bad intelligence? The Russians obviously had terrible intelligence because they thought they were going to take Ukraine in three days or something. And here they are three years later. Well, I don't think they thought they would take Ukraine in three days. I do think they thought they'd have an easier time. Yes. But this claim that like... They didn't expect this.

No, yeah. Yeah, correct. But I don't think that... Because they also didn't send in enough troops to take ukraine so i think the point of sending in troops was to actually force the negotiations that ukraine was refusing before because there's a bit of context here and then we'll get to the we have to wrap it up but go ahead okay whatever you want there's something called the minsk accords which were reached in 2015 which were which was the kind of like ceasefires between the the separatists yeah to

end the fighting that began after the coup in 2014 and the premise of like ceasefires between the the separatists yeah to end the fighting that began after the coup in 2014 and the the premise of minsk was that ukraine would recognize some limited autonomy for ethnic russians in eastern ukraine let them speak their language let them elect their own judges and they would also basically have a veto over ukraine joining nato ukraine refused to implement the agreement that it signed it refused to negotiate directly with the rebel leaders calling them them all basically Russian puppets. And after years of avoiding the Minsk Accords and also accelerating their attacks on the Donbass, threatening to retake it by force, talking about joining NATO,

then Russia, all those series of events led to Russia invading. And after Russia invaded, talks immediately began between the two sides, like days later, which shows you that Russia was trying to make a quick deal. Russia was trying to get basically Ukraine to implement the Minsk Accords, which it refused to implement. And a major reason why-

But you've said Russia shouldn't have invaded. You've said that. I wish they had found a different way to resolve their griev- I think they have legitimate grievances. I don't think they, that force was the only answer. I don't think they had to invade.

You can go through the evidence. There was an increase of shelling by Ukraine of the Donbass before Russia invaded. Ukrainians were talking about taking back Donbass by force. Neo-Nazi leaders were threatening to kill Zelensky if he went ahead and implemented the Minsk Accords, which put Zelensky in a tough position, especially without the support of the U.S. in having him implement Minsk. But regardless, after the war, you have these talks. They're very substantive. You have these draft agreements, and they result in this agreement in Turkey.

Yeah, but I just read to you why they— Yes, I know. And that seems reasonable to me. So, yes. It doesn't seem reasonable to you? So now we have this new excuse where all of a sudden, at the last minute, Russia tried to insert this clause that would have neutralized Ukraine's own self-defense if Russia invaded again. That's the new excuse.

That's the Times printed the document. No, no. That's the Times characterization. No, no. They actually have the documents. I know they do. And I'm going to quote you something else in the document that I think undermines the argument. Not the characterization.

It's the document. It's actually the argument. Not the characterization. It's the document. It's the argument. Yeah. This claim that the talks broke down because Russia inserted this clause, that's a characterization. That's a characterization, yes. And note, first of all, this is a brand new excuse. The first excuse we got was because there were alleged Russian atrocities in Bucha. No, this was the excuse I heard two years ago from Bennett that it broke down over security

guarantees. Well, over Western security guarantees. Yes. But the thing is, the problem there is the that it broke down over security guarantees. Well, over Western security guarantees. Yes. But the thing is, the problem there is the West refused to provide the security guarantees. That's the part that he left out. Anyway, but what the Ukrainians said was that the talks broke down because of alleged atrocities in Bucha. And then they said also, like, we couldn't trust Putin anyway. And now we get this brand new thing about, yes, Russia tried to insert this clause where basically Russia could veto Ukraine's ability to ask other people for help in defending itself.

The problem with that, though, is earlier on in the treaty, and this is the part that the Times ignored in its characterization, it calls on any guarantor state or party to the treaty, including Russia, quote, to refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine, its sovereignty and independence, or in any other matter inconsistent with the purposes of the united nations okay so basically if russia so russia's signing onto a treaty in which it says you have to refrain from the threat or use of force against ukraine its sovereignty and independence okay so if russia were then to go ahead and sign this but then violate the treaty do you think anybody would take seriously the other part of the treaty that says

that Russia has a right in vetoing self-defense if Russia has already violated the part that it agreed to, which is it can't violate Ukraine's sovereignty and can't use force against it? So basically, so Article 2 would prevent a Russian invasion and Russia would sign on to that. And if Russia were to break that, Russia would have no grounds to say

we're going to veto the U.S. getting involved in helping you out. To be honest, it went by me so fast, I don't really know, but I do... Do you understand my argument? I didn't, but... It's not... For Russia to sign Article 2 and say we agree to refrain from the threat

or use of force against Ukraine. So Russia signs that. And under your scenario, if Russia then goes ahead and breaks that and invades, Russia then would have no grounds to say, oh, by the way, you have to respect this other part of the treaty that says we can veto anybody coming to your self-defense. So Russia would have no grounds to implement a treaty that it broke. That's my point. So this idea that Ukraine would be bound to accept a Russian invasion if Russia already broke its commitment not to invade Ukraine. I think that argument cuts the other way. Because if that's the case, then why would they even put that poison pill in there?

Because they're talking about basically if there's a war inside Ukraine and Russia doesn't want to have a war on its border, doesn't want to have other powers getting in, they want to have the right to have a say over that because they don't want to have a war on its border, especially given all the volatile things in Ukraine. Seems to me. I think it was a fair demand. And then Newland, by the way, Newland recently came out with a really telling admission. She said, and her excuse had nothing to do with this thing about security guarantees.

She said, late in the game, Ukrainians began asking for advice on where this thing was going. And she said, the problem was the deal, quote, included limits on the precise kinds of weapon systems that Ukraine could have after the deal. Ukraine would basically be neutered as a military force. So in Nuland's eyes, this was bad because it would constrain Ukraine's right to host U.S. military weapons on its borders, which is exactly what Russia was trying to avoid. It was having U.S. weapons, just as we would never allow Canada or Mexico to host Russian or Chinese high-powered

weapons. That's an issue which would be for negotiation, and I can certainly, seems like a reasonable issue. It's the kind of thing that nations discuss. But that particular clause that the Times identifies, there's three

reporters on that story, as what broke down the negotiations on a common sense level, that seems like something, a poison pill that you put in when you're not negotiating in good faith. The notion that you would have the veto power over the party on the other side of the treaty for their security guarantees is absurd on its face. If you're asking for it, you're not negotiating seriously. But the notion that anybody would respect Russia's supposed veto power

if they invade Ukraine. Right, then why put it in at all? Because again, they don't want to have other states getting involved in Ukraine in a war there on their border. Not security. Listen, we both agree with this. There's really no other side to it.

It's not a security guarantee if you get to veto it. That's not what security guarantees are. Well, you're carving out an exception, and certainly the exception wouldn't apply if you invade Ukraine. Imagine if there's a treaty between Israel and the Arab and the Palestinians. And there's some clause like that. And and Palestine reserves the right to have Iran and come in to help them. If Israel should invade or Israel should break the treaty. And Israel says, yes, but we have to also agree to it.

Like, come on. Well, that actually is what Israel is going. It's crazy. Right. But that's what it is. Maybe it is. But Israel is going to they're going to like if, you know, in their proposal for a Palestinian state, like, they wanted to have a veto over any other outside force. And they didn't even want to let Palestine have an army.

So, yes. I agree with that, too. But I'm saying that's not a, that's for a different matter. I'm saying it's not, it's not, you're not actually negotiating security guarantees for the other side. You're actually you're pledging to refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine. You know, can you imagine a scenario where Russia would be a vote in favor of the other side being able to call these other nations to defend them? Well, it depends if it's Russia, if they felt threatened themselves. Sure. Russia says, yes, get somebody to fight us.

It's silly. In the context of the fact that the U.S. has supported a coup, armed Ukraine to the teeth. Before we got to wrap it up, we got to wrap it up. Just to get your take on this one thing, because it's important to Perry Ellis, it's important to me too. I start off by saying,

I respect you putting everything under a magnifying glass, every claim that Israel makes. And I should also mention, I've said on the show before, that my kind of assumption in life is always that everybody's always spinning. The good guys exaggerate, the bad guys exaggerate. I've told the story many times.

When a customer complains that they've been waiting 25 minutes for their hummus, I know, did I tell you this before? When a customer complains they've been waiting 25 minutes for hummus, I know two things. They've been waiting too long for their hummus and it's probably only 15 minutes.

Because even the good, so I respect you guys for that, but the UN did look into this sexual violence thing, whatever that committee was called. And Pramila Patten, Special Representative of the Secretary General on Sexual Violence and the Conflict, UN mission team found that there are reasonable grounds

to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in multiple locations, including rape and gang rape, in at least three locations in southern Israel. The team found a pattern of victims, mostly women, found fully or partially naked, bound and shot, and clear and convincing information of rape and sexualized torture being committed against hostages seized during the October, 7th October terror attacks. Why do you not say, well, that's probably right? Well, because she didn't she even talks about she didn't conduct a full

investigation. She didn't meet with a single identified victim. Sorry, may I? Well, let him finish. Well, sure. No, no, no. Go ahead. She didn't. She acknowledges she wasn't shown any direct evidence herself. She basically was told

and she might have spoke to people who claim they were witnesses, but that's it. She didn't meet with any victims. She wasn't shown any direct evidence herself. She basically was told, and she might have spoke to people who claimed they were witnesses, but that's it. She didn't meet with any victims. She wasn't shown any visual evidence of any victims. She wasn't given any forensic evidence. And also her definition of sexual violence, I think it's like she wasn't even talking about rape, I think, if I remember correctly, in her report. And she acknowledged that she was not conducting a full investigation. There's even some disclaimer. But it is the U.N., and it was a major investigation, and they adduced a lot of evidence.

But let me just—and I'll pray I'll say the best one. It also makes me think of something else, which I think is interesting, and you might agree with this. We read stories about some massacre of one side or the other in the 30s or the 40s, right? And 12 women were raped and blah, blah, blah, blah. And it makes me think, like, why do we believe that stuff? If we can't believe the stuff that happened in the age of GoPro cameras and UN investigations and forensics and, you know, satellite imagery. Why would we believe that anybody was raped in some massacre in 1941? Like, or whatever, 1947. Like, what, like... If there's credible testimony.

I'm sorry. I just want to be clear here to just understand. Are you saying that based on this report, you don't believe that there was any sexual violence by Hamas on October 7th? I just want to understand what you're saying before. First of all, I'm not God, right? So I can't say there was no sexual violence on October 7th. What I'm saying is the available evidence does not substantiate any sexual violence on October 7th.

So why do you think the UN wrote that stuff? Because I think... Political pressure? Yes, I do. They can't bring political pressure to favor Israel and anything else. I didn't actually even know that this was like a real... I thought you were half kidding. Like, I didn't even realize that this was like a real conversation. I mean, there's

been like full testimony from women who've come out of Gaza who have said that they were... I'm not talking about people taken captive in Gaza. I've never questioned those claims. That's a case where you have someone claiming there's one woman I think I know about

who said I was sexually assaulted in captivity. I've never questioned that. I'm talking about October 7th. That's the claim constantly cited that there was mass rape by Hammas but there were women tied naked to there were yeah i mean there there there was violence there was any time you strip somebody down there is photo evidence of women who genitals were like like, eviscerated and eyewitness testimony, not just from Zaka,

although from Zaka as well. Can you get an expert that we could bring on and maybe have a debate with Aaron about this? Someone who knows. Sure, I don't know that, I mean, are you debating this? I'm really, I'm asking, like. What I'm saying is, I don't see. Like, are you skeptical that Hamas would have done that?

Yes, he's skeptical of the rapes. I think it's quite, I think it's possible it happened. I wouldn't put that past Hamas. What I'm saying is, the claim is, there was this pattern of rape on October 7th, and what I'm saying is, there's not a single victim who's been

identified, dead or alive. Not one. one okay i don't i think we're looking at there's no there's no forensic or physical evidence that's not true that is true it's it's been it's and there was a case of this woman who uh they claimed her sister said that it happened her sister denied it more to your point also why is it so far-fetched from people who were murdering family members in front of each other and children in front of their parents and parents in front of their toddlers that rape is like such a far-fetched far-fetched he didn't say it was the question he said it it's not obviously not far-fetched rape and war is not far-fetched like okay so yeah like the question is whether the evidence supports it and beyond the evidence does support oh okay well what i'm saying and i don't think it does there are people who claim that they're witnesses and they claim that they saw it that's yes there's that but but there's also physical and forensic

evidence there's not there's not i can read you a million quotes which is hard a million quotes no no guys guys stop stop This would be a very good... Listen, I don't want to go down this road because I don't have any information to counter with and he's going to put

whatever he wants out there into the ether and it's going to stand and it may or may not be true, but it's such an important issue. It's such a sensitive topic. I prefer to have this conversation with someone who's well-versed in the arguments such a sensitive topic. I prefer to have this conversation

with someone who's well-versed in the arguments of the other side. But I would also want it to be somebody who you felt like was a reliable... No, it has to be somebody we think is reliable. But also, I also don't understand. It's like if you seem to accept on its face that there was certainly rape after October 7th.

Because there was a woman who claims. First of all, there's more than one woman. Let's start there. He's saying that. I'm aware of the one woman who claimed that she was sexually assaulted in captivity. And I have no reason to challenge anything she said. And that's what I'm saying is on October 7th, I see something very different. There's no identified victims dead or alive.

There are only the only thing. I don't know where that's coming from. And my source for saying there's no physical forensic evidence, that's from Israeli media. It's also in the UN reports as well. They weren't given anything. And I'm saying that...

Why don't you get an expert? Actually, I tried more than one. So, I would only say about that whole thing. And I... tried more than one so i would only say about that whole thing and and i obviously you know we're side i'm on this but it's not a question but you have to but i have to respect always process process is if you make a claim you have to have evidence i agree with you right and so and so that and if he's going to put his reputation on the line say i'm i'm saying there's no evidence I agree with you. had to guess, not guess. I think it's very, very likely if you find women naked, their clothing has been stripped from them, which I think that is not contested, that this was sexual violence. Of course.

I mean. It is a rebuttable presumption, I guess, but soldiers don't strip women down and say, huh, and move on. This is part of the process. And if you have multiple, let's say you have five women found naked, stripped and tied up, the odds that one of them or two of them or all of them were not sexually assaulted seems to be implausible. It's a very touchy subject. And, you know, what I'll just say is i'm not prepared to make that leap if i came home and found my daughter stripped naked by some dude but i would say she was sexually assaulted

but we don't i mean even the allegation people were stripped naked well this was the un found well that's the evidence they found okay well i didn't um you can send me that reference yeah well that's that whole report that's the whole whole, you saw the report. Yeah, but I don't recall the finding that people were stripped naked. Well, I just read it to you. I just, that's Pramila Patten's report. But it's like, but then the question. Aren't there, there are photos.

That's the conclusion. There's also photographic evidence of this. Of what? Of women naked with their genitals cut up. I mean, it's public information. This isn't like something that I have personal access to. This is a very important issue. I don't think that's a good idea.

If we could... Sure, yes, we can. If we could do this the right way and present it to Aaron, and I think the way to do this debate, if we do this debate, would be, and this is off the air too, but I think the proper way to do this, because it's such an important topic, is that whoever we get, they should submit their evidence to Aaron before the debate.

Aaron should submit his evidence to that person. So when they actually get on the air, everybody is not trying to say, well, I don't know about that. I don't know about that. You know what I mean, Aaron, right? Give you a chance to be able to investigate. This is from the patent report on the issue of mutilation. Wait, wait. I just want to say one thing here.

I don't understand why this is a debate. Like, this isn't like a matter of opinion. It is a matter of... It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of evidence. Right. So I'm saying there's either evidence or there isn't. He's saying there's...

Well, he's saying he hasn't seen any of the evidence do you know the name of someone who was raped I could well I know the name of several we know the name of the hostage or I mean I know there is a name we're not talking about post October 7th I know I know I mean you're

making this differentiation which is sort of interesting no no it's a proper differentiation. The narrative is, like Kamala Harris said, you know, whenever U.S. politicians justify supporting Israel and what it's doing, they talk about rape on October 7th. So it's important to get the facts right. Absolutely.

It's a proper differentiation also because he went on record about this before the information came out about the hostages. He was talking about the October 7th attack. Listen, I'm quite convinced. I'll be very clear. I'm quite convinced that there were sexual assaults. I didn't even know that. Like I said, I didn't even know that was a real conversation.

It seems almost laughable that you could even suggest that there wasn't. Well, then come with the evidence. I didn't know we were having this conversation. And I'm very happy. Well, you might research the people. I didn't know we were having this conversation. And I'm very happy. Well, you might research the people we have on. I did research. I didn't know we'd be talking about Ukraine for three hours either.

I'm very happy to present evidence. It's been a while since I looked into this issue. Okay, well, fair enough. So I'd have to gather all my evidence. It's a very important issue. It's a very touchy issue. But I also want to say that even if all the claims about Hamas were true, still, I don't think Israel has the right to fire a single bullet into Gaza because it's occupied.

And Israel has the obligation to end its occupation, not to attack the territory it's been occupying. Well, they have more right than Russia had. What does Israel have the right to do? Ariel, please. You asked me to sit down. But I just said something to him And he hijacked the answer Israel on October 7th had the right to repel an attack Absolutely, as it was happening

But since then, if the attack emanates From a territory that they're occupying They don't have the right to attack it They have the obligation and the occupation We've had this debate about international law I think your case is ridiculous However, and I checked it with... I checked it with the...

I don't know. I'm debating whether to say that. I checked with international lawyers at Columbia. They think it's ridiculous. But Michelle Paradis, you know who he is, the Columbia international lawyer? I've heard the name, yes. I interviewed him on the show.

But that's not really what I want to say. What I want to say is this. It galls me that the people who claim that Israel had no right to fire a shot after October 7th, and Finkelstein is like, they say, well, you know, Putin had the right to go and invade Ukraine.

Like, the notion of self-defense in the context of occupation, these are weird international issues and international lawyers can disagree. Nobody disagrees that Putin had no right to invade Ukraine and violated his specific, what is it, Bucharest or Budapest, which is the treaty

where he signed, Budapest, where he actually signed a treaty honoring Ukraine's sovereignty and borders. The counter-argument there is that the U.S. violated Ukraine's sovereignty, too, by supporting Ukraine. That doesn't give Putin the right to invade Ukraine. No, but it does. No, no, it doesn't give him the right, but it does provide context. If you want to be about international law, then be about international law. This kind of like, Israel can't even defend itself, but Putin can invade Ukraine.

But the counterargument there is the part of international law that Russia was following was the notion of collective self-defense where the people of Donbass asked Russia for intervention. But they bombed Kiev. Well, yeah, they bombed outside Kiev. Yes, they did. But again, so what I'm saying, listen, I don't defend the Russian invasion. I'm just presenting you the counter.

But it's a violation of international law. I agree. The Russian invasion is illegal. Yes, I agree with that. So if you can tolerate it or you kind of excuse it in some way, they were provoked. If they're provoked, certainly Israel was provoked. Except Russia wasn't carrying out a 57-year military occupation. Everybody's got—

Listen, you can make whatever distinctions you want, but that's not the way the law works. Well, I do think that there's something in the law about— there has to be some good-faith efforts to resolve a conflict. I do think Russia actually did make good-faith efforts by supporting the Minsk Accords, by making offers to the U.S. Israel, by contrast, didn't. There was a much brighter line.

Or to not be continued. I'm fine to never talk about the issue because it's such a toxic issue and it's very sensitive. Well, no, I think it's really important now that you've roped me into this. Well, I've asked you, a few times I've asked you

to get one of these people on. There's a woman who did a documentary about the sexual violence because I would like to know the details. I'm talking about Sheryl Sandberg whose documentary relies on some of these same discredited Zaka witnesses. Purported witnesses.

Let's not discredit all of Zaka though. I will discredit all of Zaka. That's crazy. I think they're a shady organization founded by a sexual predator. I don't know. The Frankists? Listen. I must say they're Frankists. Who's the sexual predator?

The co-founder who... Yeah, yeah. I don't know. But if you're going to call somebody a sexual predator... No, no. I'm saying for his sake. The leader of Zaka who he was... Alleged. He was mixed up in a lot of, I think,

confirmed sexual impropriety, including with... Like most people in Hollywood. Well, yeah. Okay. Yeah, yeah. Listen, I want to say, truth is really what matters. Truth, truth, truth. You are a prominent person who is associated

with this case on the other side. And if there's somebody who has evidence that it did happen, we would be doing a service to the world. I don't want to exaggerate it. To air it out and see if there's common ground. Because this is an urgently important issue to know. I just have one question. I want to know what kind of evidence you would consider like a reliable. Eyewitness testimony.

No, no. I'm really. I'm asking. Well, if there's eyewitness testimony, it has to be corroborated by something that would help. So, for example, if one of the killed her after they raped her, that's going to be one of the key eyewitnesses said that she also saw three severed heads. Okay.

So where are these heads? Okay, but now you're going off topic. That's an example of how eyewitness testing can corroborate it. I asked you a very clear question. What kind of evidence? You don't have to answer me right now. Forensic evidence, physical evidence, visual evidence. Okay.

Of which there's zero so far. And I'm saying that there is certainly not zero. Okay. All right. So we'll dig around that. Yeah, I get it. We have to go. We do have to go.

I really have to go. The notion of if it's true of women being stripped naked and found dead, bound, I think this speaks for itself. I just do. Okay, so we'll disagree there. You don't think... So if we walked into an apartment in New York City

and we found a woman bound and stripped naked... Could you get a conviction in court with that? Okay, but we're not in court. Well, we are in court. What's your opinion? Would you... I'm not going to make a... Yes, you could.

I'm not going to you could. Hold on. You could get a... I don't know if you could get a criminal conviction on that, but you could certainly get a civil conviction on that. It's certainly more convincing... For some sort of crime? More convincing than the evidence...

Abuse, but not necessarily rape. More convincing than the evidence that this woman had against Trump in the dressing room. But when you have multiple people like this, obviously the odds increase that a certain number of them were sexually assaulted. People don't strip other people naked and bind them in violent attacks without committing sexual assaults. And even that claim, the problem is the Patton report. If the claim is not true, that's something else. But also it relies entirely on what the Israeli government essentially told Patton's team, and cooperation was limited.

And there's been a lot of work done on this that I haven't done. Ficklestein, for example, has looked at this, other people too. But we can save that for another time. All right.