The Young Turks - Cease & Resist

Episode Date: January 24, 2024

You’re vital to our work. Support as a member: https://go.tyt.com/signup. Israel proposes a two-month fighting pause in Gaza in exchange for the release of all hostages. Pro-Palestinian protesters say they were attacked with stink bomb at Columbia University. Republican Congressman calls on Texas to ignore Supreme Court ruling because Biden is "staging a Civil War." HOSTS: Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) and Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Nissan. Buy your tickets now.

I get a free Tilly Dog. Chili Dog, not included. The Naked God. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. We're going to be able to be. All right, well, Leo Turks, Chanku Anna Kasparin with you, a big day. New Hampshire primary, you're crazy? All right, so we got to 6 to 8 p.m.

live show is always, of course, right here right now. And then at 8 o'clock, T.YT starts a New Hampshire primary coverage spectacular. Of course, I won't be in it, but for obvious reasons. But Anna John. Oh, Mr. Fancy, busy doing other things. Oh, really? Am I here I am in L.A. But anyway, okay. I'm kidding, I'm kidding.

Waz is going to be here, Francesca, so many great participants. Michael Schroes reporting in from New Hampshire. So you guys are going to love that coverage. Stay right here. We'll see how things turn out. Okay, now having said that, there's tons of news today. Let's get to it. Yes, updates on ceasefire proposals,

rejections of ceasefire proposals, basically the ongoing war on Gaza. Let's do it. Israeli officials tell NBC news they've proposed a two-month pause in fighting in exchange for the release of the roughly 130 hostages still in Gaza. News of the proposal coming hours after hostage families stormed a parliamentary committee demanding action from the government. Among them, grandfather Gilad Korngold, you will not sit here while our children die, he shouts. Seven members of his family were kidnapped on October 7th. Corn gold is my kind of guy. And amid that growing internal pressure that you just experienced, just witnessed in that video,

the Israeli government has reportedly offered Hamas a temporary ceasefire in Gaza in exchange for all of the remaining hostages. The offer came soon after Netanyahu rejected a hostage exchange offer from Hamas, which which we'll get into in just a bit. But first, here's what Israel had proposed through Qatari and Egyptian mediators. According to reporting from Axios, the deal would include the release of all remaining hostages who are alive and the return of the bodies and remains of the dead hostages in several phases. So here's how the phases would play out, according to the proposal from the Israeli government.

The first phase would see the release of women, men over the age of 60 years old, and hostages who are in critical medical condition, Israeli officials said. The next phases would include the release of female soldiers, men under the age of 60 years old who are not soldiers, Israeli male soldiers, and the bodies of hostages. In exchange for returning those hostages, Israel said that they would agree to a temporary ceasefire that would last about two months. But they made it clear that they would not, under any circumstance, agreed to ending the war altogether, even if all the hostages were returned by Hamas.

Additionally, the Israeli officials said the proposal includes Israel redeploying Israeli defense forces so that some would be moved out of the main population centers in the enclave and allowing a gradual return of Palestinian civilians to Gaza City and the northern Gaza strip as the deal is being implemented. Now, just as a reminder, there really isn't much left in northern Gaza. It has been leveled. It has been raised. It has suffered from the Israeli aerial bombardments. So this idea of Palestinians being able to go back to their homes is a ridiculous notion. There are no homes left in northern Gaza specifically. Now with that said, How did Hamas react to this? Not well. They rejected the offer. They don't want a temporary

two-month ceasefire. They want a permanent ceasefire and they will agree to release all of the hostages. Israel's spy chief also reported that Hamas senior leaders could leave Gaza as part of a broader agreement, which I think is a strange provision to include in this proposal. Despite its nearly four month war in Gaza, Israel has failed to capture or kill any of Hamas's most senior leaders in Gaza and left around 70% of Hamas's fighting force intact, and that's according to Israel's own estimates. In fact, just a few weeks ago, the New York Times had a piece and buried within that piece was an interesting tidbit about what American officials are saying about how Israel is

conducting this war and whether it's actually serving its purpose of defeating Hamas. Some American officials believe targeting low level Hamas members, which is what's been happening, is misguided because they can be easily replaced and because of the unwarranted risk to civilians. They have also said the Israeli military bombing campaign in Gaza, which according to Gaza's health ministry has killed some 25,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, could end up replenishing Hamas's bench of fighters. And you can understand why that would be if your entire family is wiped out, you're more likely to be. radicalized by that and you're more likely to join the ranks of Hamas. So behind the scenes, apparently there are some intelligence officials in the United States who are looking at how this war is being conducted and they're like, this is kind of counterproductive.

And then at the same time as part of their proposal here, Jank, they offered Hamas senior leaders the ability to leave Gaza as part of the temporary ceasefire. Israel's biggest remaining target in Gaza is Yaya Sinwar. And so he's still in the enclave, and I'm guessing that they're looking for him and targeting him. But a lot of people, innocent civilians are dying in the meantime. What do the two sides want in a deal and what's realistic and not? And then we'll talk about what Israel theoretically wanted in the war in the first place. And we'll talk about whether they accomplished that mission.

So in the deal, so what Israel wants is they want the hostages back. They want full control of Gaza. They want the Hamas leaders to leave and they all be killed, right? They started with a goal of complete destruction of Hamas. Now, even people in the war cabinet of Israel are saying, yeah, that's totally unrealistic. What I told you from day one, how are you going to get all of them? How are you going to kill every member of Hamas? It was an insane lunatic, so-called goal.

They never had that goal. It was always a lie. It was mainly for the reasons I'll explain at the end. But now even Israeli officials are saying, yeah, of course we can't kill everybody in Hamas. I mean, Jesus, we leveled a place, and we didn't kill one single leader. And we think at best, we took out 30% of them, at best. And that's a total BS Israeli IDF estimate, okay? So they barely touched Hamas, but 25,000 civilian, 25,000 people dead, mostly civilians.

Okay, so now what is Hamas want? Hamas wants the release of all 6,000 Palestinian prisoners. They want a complete end to the war, and they want to remain in Gaza and in control. Okay, so both sides are not going to get what they want in its complete lists, right? So the first set of stories I see on this is Hamas has rejected peace deal, the goddamn monsters. Then you read into it more and you realize, no, Netanyahu rejected the peace deal first. Okay, and so, and it makes sense for both of them to reject it because they start out with their full list of demands. So as much as I loathe Netanyahu and the leadership of Hamas, it makes sense for both of them to reject deals in the beginning.

Then you have to get to a negotiated solution, which I have an idea of how this should end. But what did you want to say? Yeah, it's just, I don't know, I'm under the impression that a peace deal is a little bit different from an agreement to defer the violence. What Israel proposed was deferring the violence for about two months. Yeah. So look, both sides have things that are unrealistic, but the very core, like how many, can you really release all 6,000 Palestinian prisoners? I don't think so. You know, like if you get a big numb,

remember a lot of those guys are totally innocent, right? And a whole bunch of them are terrible guys. So they're never going to release the actual bad guys, keep it real. So what they're basically doing is releasing people anywhere from like, oh, he threw a rock to randomly rounded them up, right? So you can get those folks, you won't get the serious guys. Or maybe you'll get a couple of them, et cetera, right? But asking for all of them and we get to remain in control of Gaza, et cetera, et cetera. It's too much, obviously, to ask for on the Palestinian side. But let me get cut to the chase.

What's the deal that can happen? A deal that can happen is they release all the hostages, they get some Palestinian prisoners back, and Israel actually stops the war and withdraws. But if Israel says we're never going to withdraw, and we'll give you two months, and then we'll go back to obliterating you, and you're, like, oh, you're rebuilding in those two months?

No, we'll just destroy it again, so what? And we had 6,000 Palestinian prisoners that we basically, most of them, we just kidnapped. Like, we're not even trying them. The military is not even bothering to put them up for trial for a lot of them. So they'll just go round them up again. So at the end of the day, after the two months is over, Gaza would have gotten nearly nothing, right? So that's not a deal you can take. On the other hand, if they actually, if Israel actually leaves Gaza and actually ends the war,

and then you have a prisoner exchange, that makes sense. But is Netanyahu going to do anything that makes sense? No. No way. Let me actually take that back. Except for the pressure. Well, he is doing what makes sense for himself and his political career. And I think that there is growing, I mean, there was already resentment toward Netanyahu, you know, prior to all of this.

But that resentment has been growing in recent weeks because the family members of the hostages are like, oh wow, you really don't care about the hostages at all. The absolute terror and siege that Gaza is dealing with is the very terror and siege that our family members who are held captive by Hamas have to deal with as well. You know, the stories about the IDF soldiers deciding to shoot and kill Israeli captives as they have their shirts off, as they're waving white flags, as they're speaking Hebrew, these things start to add up. And so there's a growing number of Israeli civilians who, who might have been more supportive of this ongoing war before, but the numbers are starting

to change. But Nanyahu understands that the second the war is over, it is likely that he'll be ousted from power, he'll face criminal charges. We've talked about the corruption allegations that he's dealing with, and remember, he failed to keep Israeli civilians safe. He failed to do exactly what he kept claiming that he was the best at doing. And so there's that, and then the final thing I'll say. is, look, this war obviously has been incredibly costly for Palestinian civilians.

But now you're hearing stories about the thousands of wounded IDF soldiers who aren't able to get the medical care that they need because their hospitals in Israel are overrun by wounded IDF soldiers. And we'll share some details about the deadliest day for IDF soldiers, which happened just yesterday. And so this is a cost for everyone involved. And I think even those who are initially supportive of this war are starting to think about whether or not the way this is being carried out is beneficial for anyone.

And I mean, we've been saying it hasn't been, so. So Netanyahu is now unpopular in Israel, more than 50% say that he's continuing a war to protect his own career. So that's a big number blaming Netanyahu for the ongoing war. Now this number's not large enough, but it's starting to get there, 35% of Israelis. And whenever you hear people saying Israel is this or Israel is that, remember, there's a wide variety of people in Israel as there's a wide variety of people in Gaza, et cetera, and 35% now saying end the war and leave Gaza, okay?

So that's a good development, if that gets over 50%, that would be a huge development. Look, what was Netanyahu in his war cabinets of massively, ridiculously, right-wing government, zealous religious lunatics. What do they actually claim they want? What do they actually want? They claimed that they wanted to get the hostages back. They made almost no effort to do that and wipe out Hamas. And now they've admitted they've basically totally failed in doing that, right?

So if you're looking at it that way, you say, oh, that's such a failure. But I don't think that's what they wanted at all. I think what they wanted was vengeance, retribution, blood. I'm sorry, but 25,000 dead, if it bothers you. you that I say that they wanted blood, it should bother you 2,000 times more that they actually did it. They actually murdered those civilians for vengeance, and to punish the Palestinians, wholesale, ethnic cleansing, drive them out of their homes, destroy the whole place. If you, look, I keep saying, we have eyes, we can see, the whole world can see that you level the place.

The idea that they were not doing indiscriminate bombings, that they were targeting, is a If you believe that, you bought into read like the most over the top propaganda I have ever seen. Look at the place, 70% of the buildings are destroyed, 85% of the people are homeless. A quarter of them are starving, 25,000 are dead, over 10,000 children dead. And you're saying that was all an accident? Now you have to be completely detached from reality, so intensely biased that you can't see straight for you to say. for you to say that. So their mission was to seek vengeance against the civilians of Gaza.

That's just a fact. You see it, we all see it. So did they accomplish that mission? I think a lot of, even some people in Israel that originally wanted that kind of vengeance. And look, you get attacked, your family members die, your people in your community die. A lot of people ask for vengeance, I get it, it's a human instinct. It is a human instinct, so I totally understand that as well. Yeah, that's right.

So, but now, I think even some of those folks, in Israel are going, well, if we wanted vengeance, we got a lot of it. I mean, we killed 20, they're now killed 20 times the number of civilians that Hamas killed. If 20 times the terrorism of Hamas isn't enough for you, I'm not sure it's ever going to be enough. So would 200 make a difference? And guys, the double standards are insane. So they say, Yahyahu, the IDF proudly claims Netanyahu says, it doesn't matter where you go.

It doesn't matter if you go to a different country, Qatar, Turkey, Egypt. It doesn't matter where you go, we're going to murder you, okay? And then they say, oh, by the way, if you want, you can leave. Wow, that seems so magnanimous. You're saying, I will probably kill you on the way, but if we don't, wherever you go, we're going to murder you. Now, and everybody treats that as perfectly normal. Well, of course, you're going to want to kill all the leadership of Hamas, and they'll bomb any country to do it. Imagine if the Palestinians were like, under every circumstance, we're going to make sure we murder

Netanyahu and we're going to murder Ben-Gavir and we're going to murder old. What would people say? They'd say, terrorist, can you believe what they're doing to the poor leader of Israel? Okay, so look, let's stop the double standards. Both sides want to kill each other, I get it, I don't want either side to kill each other. We want to mainly protect the civilians. The way you do that is a peace deal. Look, last thing I'll say is from one of our viewers, Gabby Maria, she said, basically quoting, paraphrasing Netanyahu here, you give me everything I want.

and I'll stop murdering you until March, is not a serious offer, okay? It isn't. If you're realistic, you leave Gaza, you get your hostages back, and that's a real offer. And that's an offer the world can live with. And then for God's sake, do a two-state solution. Netanyahu has promised he is never, ever going to do it. The people of Israel, you must remove him. The number one barrier to peace is Benjamin Netanyahu.

Longbendy Twizzlers candy keeps the fun going. Keep the fun going. All right, so let's get to the second part of this story because I wanted to talk about how the ceasefire is actually beneficial for both sides. So as the war on Gaza continues, the reality of the situation on the ground is that a ceasefire would be beneficial for both sides, and that's definitely true when you consider the deadliest day for IDF soldiers, which occurred just yesterday. 24 IDF soldiers were killed, including 21 reservists making it the deadliest day since launching their military operations in Gaza.

And here are some more details about what occurred and why it was the deadliest day. The Israeli military said that a unit of Israeli reserves was trying to demolish a pair of two-story buildings in Gaza when Palestinian militants nearby fired an RPG that hit a tank. That blast apparently triggered a chain reaction that detonated the mines of the soldiers. were going to use in the buildings, causing a massive explosion and bringing those buildings down on them. So they're installing bombs in this building, two-story building. Hamas launches, you know, RPG at that point, and by the way, not targeting them specifically,

but in the vicinity, and that triggers the explosives in the building. The building comes crashing down. people within the building, meaning the IDF soldiers, die as a result of that. The latest casualties bring the number of Israeli soldiers killed since the ground operation began to 221. So there are costs for Israel. And as we know, you can, and I'm specifically talking about the Israeli government here, I mean, you could talk about 25,000 Palestinians dead. They don't even blink an eye, right? But they care deeply about every single Israeli. life. And so for them, 221 Israeli soldiers dying is a very big deal. And for the family members

of these reservists, I'm sure it's a huge deal for them. And they're really starting to reconsider what they're willing to give up to continue supporting this war, which has really done nothing in terms of destroying the leadership of Hamas. The leadership remains intact. In fact, most of the leaders for Hamas are in other countries, including Qatar and Lebanon. And so as the U.S. government has claimed, they're a little bit concerned over the fact that most of the Hamas militants who have been killed are low-level militants who are easily replaced. And given the number of Palestinians who have lost many, many members of their families, this war is very likely radicalizing some people, which can help Hamas with their, you know,

recruiting efforts. So it's just, it's awful for, for everyone involved, there's really no end in sight. And that's the other thing. Benjamin Netanyahu is not clear about what he intends to do. What will the, what will the end of this war be? How will we get to the end? Simply saying we're going to destroy Hamas while you're killing civilians and low level Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip is not good reason for all the bloodshed that we're seeing, both in Gaza and among IDF soldiers. Yeah. Well, look, I'm split on the 24 IDF soldiers killed.

First of all, they're not civilians, they're soldiers. So a lot of times people say, hey, it's war when they are trying to justify burning women and children alive. So that's not, hey, it's just war. That's a war crime, right? It's a war crime when a so-called terrorist does it. And it's also a war crime when a so-called state does it. Okay, to me, killing civilians is terrorism either way.

Okay? But when it comes to soldiers, that's that actually is war. And so these guys were going to, they're like, hey, we're going to blow you up. Oh, what a tragedy. Instead of blowing you up, we got blown up. I know, look, you're absolutely right in making that distinction. But it is worth highlighting this because there is a cost for the Israeli side. For the families who continue to support the bloodshed that's taking place in the Gaza Strip.

You know, these are, the IDF soldiers don't, in most cases, have a choice, right? No, they don't have a choice. They don't have a choice. No, that's what I was gonna get to. On the other hand, they're human beings, right? Yes, they're soldiers, but they're human beings and a lot of them are young. And yeah, I'm sure some of them are into it. We showed you the video where they're dancing, talking about how they're gonna murder everybody

in Gaza and how celebrating the idea that they were gonna exterminate Amalek, you know, the ridiculous, religious idea that the Palestinians should be destroyed because of who they are, right? But a bunch of ideas, soldiers are just kids who got drafted. And they don't, and they're in the middle of this war next to, you know, above. So you'll, you're, you should be concerned about everyone who dies, okay? That goes to the point that Anna's making. All we're going to get is more death here. We're not, there's not going to be any peace that comes out of war, any further war, any further bombings.

Whether it's the Israel planting a bomb or Israel getting bombed. There's no, the war is never, ever, ever going to lead to peace and security. It's so obvious. The only people who can't see it are the ones who are blind. by rage and vengeance on both sides, right? You go talk to Hamas, they don't, like really, are you trying to get a two-state solution? It doesn't look like it, right? It looks like you're just trying to get vengeance on the Israelis.

And now the Israelis have gotten 20 times the vengeance on Palestinian civilians. So if you care about peace, this is 100% not the way to get there. And it's actually inarguable, you know that. And by the way, now even Israel, admits their entire effort, if it was meant to destroy Hamas, was a complete and utter failure. They have this nonsense number that they put out there, that 70% of Hamas is still intact. So that means at best case scenario, even with IDF propaganda built in, they can't stomach

saying that they killed more than 30% of them because they definitely didn't. Because they're in the tunnels, the bombs didn't affect the tunnels. And they got zero leadership, not one guy in leadership. So that means if you thought it was a military objective, it fails spectacularly and has almost no chance of working. And if you think that it has a chance of working and you wanna send those IDF kids into the tunnels, a lot more of them are gonna die. And so, and by the way, I mean, again, you cry for them as human beings and you cry for

their family, et cetera, but as a country, you don't get to say, oh, I can't believe the the Palestinians fought back against our soldiers who were there to kill them. That's not a thing, that's actually war, right? So there's only one way out, which is end the damn war, you got your vengeance, we've got to go back to reality. But no, Netanyahu's never going to give them a Gaza back. So I don't know how to send guys, there's the only thing I could possibly think of, that's realistic, is that Israel calls elections and gets rid of Netanyahu.

As he is saying, as long as he is in charge, he is never going to leave Gaza. And if they never leave Gaza, Hamas is never going to stop fighting, and this will last forever. We got to take a break. When we come back, we'll talk a little bit about protesters on the campus of Columbia University essentially getting attacked because they happen to call for a ceasefire during their protests. That and more coming up, don't miss it. All right, back on TYT, Jank and Anna with you guys, but also Dragon Lady and Renee Toner.

They just became members by hitting the join button below. Membership allows the show to continue. These are super tough times for the entire industry and us. So please help if you can. And along those lines, Jarrett Williams, thank you for giving a membership. We appreciate that. And they handled Jenks' raging emotions upgraded. And you could also upgrade through the joint button.

That also helps tremendously. Thank you guys. Anna. Well, let's talk a little bit about what's transpiring on college campuses, including Columbia, your alma mater, Jank. Columbia University has announced that they have banned the individuals behind a so-called chemical attack on pro-Palestinian protesters during a rally on campus last Friday. Now, the protesters were from Columbia students for justice in Palestine and the Columbia chapter of Jewish voices for peace. Now, in an email to students and staff, interim university provost Dennis Mitchell wrote that since the incident in which

protesters reported being sprayed with a foul smelling substance that required students to seek medical treatment. Columbia has been working with the New York City Police Department in investigating what appeared to have been serious crimes, possibly hate crimes. So they were protesting, dozens of protesters got together on the campus in Columbia University. And from every report that I've read, they're peaceful, they're not causing any problems. At that point, two individuals proceed to spray them with something, and it's apparently much stronger than regular pepper spray, so I'll give you the details on what they claim

to have experienced in just a moment. But there have allegedly been some consequences for the suspects. The alleged perpetrators identified to the university were immediately banned from campus while the law enforcement investigation proceeds, and that's according to the university provost. I wanna note that we, I have not been able to confirm the identities of the two individuals that are kind of floating online. And I'm not about to share someone's identity without being able to confirm it, especially because you risk the chance of sharing a photo or identity of someone who's actually innocent.

So please be careful of what you see online, wait for confirmation. The protesters claim that two of the individuals were former IDF soldiers. who are now in the United States, and they apparently said some pretty horrible things to them right before they launched this attack. The university did not clarify whether those banned were students or how many individuals were involved. And the college's student newspaper, Columbia Spectator, first reported on the incident in which 18 students present at the rally described being engulfed by a foul smell during the protest. 10 students reported experiencing physical symptoms such as headaches, nausea, and burning eyes, and several reported damage to their property. According to groups involved in the protest, at least eight students sought treatment for

their symptoms at a hospital. Now, while we do not have confirmation on exactly what the substance used in the attack was, three students identified the substance as skunk, a chemical developed by the Israeli firm odor tech and employed by the Israeli military against demonstrators in the West Bank. The company, mistral security supplies skunk in the United States and describes the non-lethal vile smelling liquid as causing crowds to cease their activities while allowing law enforcement to gain control with minimum injuries and casualties. Now, apparently the perpetrators, alleged perpetrators were yelling things at the protesters. Let's go to the last graphic

here. They were referring to students as Jew killers and terrorists because they were calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Yeah. So I'm sure congressional hearings are being planned right now because this is not theoretical. This is not a chant. They actually were attacked. Oh, they're on the Palestinian side. Oh, sorry, got confused. No congressional hearings. No one cares. At the national level, at the political level, the good news is cops are investigating in New York, they care. Columbia administration doing a good job of following this up and make sure the students are protected. That's good. There's also a federal investigation, which was surprising.

Yeah, okay, great. So the politicians, of course, this does not help their propaganda at all so that they're not going to care at all. So now, in terms of the perpetrators, once our identities are confirmed, if it turns out they're not citizens here, obviously these crimes. criminals should be deported. That's how it works. You commit a crime in America when you're not a citizen. You get deported. So they should be sent back to Israel.

I mean, if they want to do terrorism, if they actually are former IDF soldiers, that's not surprising. But this isn't Gaza. You don't just get to do terrorism here and get away with it. So you should change your attitude and your mindset when you're in America, as opposed to where you get to oppress people, basically for a living if you're in the IDF. IDF, so this is an actual attack and it's terrible. But it's crystal clear, I don't know if anybody's making excuses for it, probably not publicly, but I bet you a lot of people internally are like, well, I mean, how, if they don't like Israel, they must deserve it, right?

Of course, the biggest crime in the world is criticizing the right-wing government of Israel. You just criticize right-wing governments all over the country, the world, by the way. Hungary, America, Turkey, you name it, you got a right-wing. government we criticize. But Israel, no, special rules. I mean, what could be more American than criticizing your government, right? I mean, we do it all the time. And in fact, we're criticized on the international stage for a variety of reasons. And I don't see that as anti-American. I see that as, okay, you know, the government carried out some military operations and some wars that were terrible and, you know, victimized all sorts of innocent people. But, you know, to take that as

as a dig on my identity as an American is ridiculous. But anyway, putting that aside real quick, I want to note that initially the university's response was basically to scold the demonstrators because the two groups who took part in this rally have been banned from Columbia University, alleging that their demonstrations make Jewish students feel unsafe and that they're intimidating. But apparently after it had become abundantly clear that there were like literally protesters getting treatment in the hospital for the attack. Then they launched an investigation, Columbia University did. And authorities both on a local level, the New York Police Department and on a federal level, the FBI got involved in the investigation as well.

Yeah, by the way, this is very relevant. The two student groups are Columbia students for justice in Palestine and the Columbia chapter of Jewish Voices for Peace. So can't have that. So they were moved from campus because they're potentially anti-Semitic and they're Jewish. So like the words have no meaning anymore, right? So they don't really mean anti-Semitic. They mean how dare these good kids who care about all human lives, wonderful Jewish Americans that are actually for peace? How dare you oppose the right wing government of Israel?

We'll just call you anti-Semitic. We did it to Bernie Sanders, we do it to everyone who opposes the right-wing government of Israel. So we'll remove you from- we gotta protect the Jews by removing the Jews from campus. But let me also just add something. If there are examples of individuals within these groups, or during a rally, engaging in any kind of behavior that threatens Jewish students or makes them feel unsafe, like genuinely unsafe,

Simply voicing your opinion and rallying in favor of a ceasefire is not enough to argue that it's making you feel unsafe. But if there was a targeted attack against Jewish students, that person should be banned from campus. Of course, 1,000%. 1,000%. Look, to me, the important thing, there's all sorts of campus groups and there's all sorts of speakers who show up on college campuses who I disagree with. But that's called America, right? You don't ban people from your campus simply because you disagree with the perspective. that they're sharing with other students who might also agree with that perspective.

But once you start threatening other people, that's when things start to change. That's when there should be consequences. But it's amazing to me how there's just like this vague statement about like, oh, well, these student groups are intimidating and so we're going to ban them. It's just, I think it's wrong. I think it's totally wrong to do something like that. Look, we're Americans. The religious background and ethnic background should have no bearing, none,

Zero, especially for progressives. So, and by the way, as luck would have it, the strongest voices in favor of peace are Jewish voices in this country, Bernie Sanders, Jamie Raskin, et cetera. So this is nothing to do with Jews versus Muslims. And if you're on the Palestinian side and you make it about religion, you're totally wrong, you're wrong morally, you're wrong factually, and you're wrong strategically. You're wrong in every way, right? But it's also true the other way around.

So when these guys come and attack the people that are protesting for peace and then call them terrorists because they want peace, yes, there should be severe consequences for those actions. All right, let's take a break. When we come back, we've got some big updates on immigration-related news, including a Supreme Court ruling that now Republicans are calling for elected officials to just ignore. So we've got that and more coming up. Don't miss it. Anthony McClendon, gifted five memberships on YouTube. We appreciate you, Anthony. Anna.

All right, we've got immigration-related news, so let's get right to it. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Biden administration, allowing for U.S. Border Patrol agents to remove razor wire that was installed along the southern border by Texas officials. Now, the decision indicates that the wire can be taken down until the legality of the very barriers is actually resolved in court. So this was an emergency decision, and since it was an emergency decision, basically the majority did not explain its reasoning for basically dissolving an order from a lower court. The dissenting judges were justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel

Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Now, at the heart of the fight between Texas and the Biden administration is Governor Greg Abbott's Operation Lone Star. And so the razor wire along the border is certainly part of that, but there are broader issues at play. Other elements of Operation Lone Star that the Biden administration is having issues with, to say the least. So for instance, Abbott has mobilized thousands of National Guard troops and basically lined the banks of the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass with razor wire to try to block illegal entries into the country. And then in addition to the wire barriers,

the Texas governor has also shepherded a new state law that would allow for local police agencies to literally detain people that they suspect of being in the country illegally in order to move to deport them. And both the Justice Department and the ACLU have basically sued Texas to block these laws from taking effect.

Now, how did this case regarding the razor wire come to be, came to be? Well, according to the Washington Post, Texas initiated the lawsuit against the Biden administration last year to prevent agents from removing or cutting the wire barriers, which the federal government says prevents the agents from reaching migrants who have already entered the United States territory. Under U.S. immigration law, anyone who reaches U.S. soil has the right to seek asylum here. Now, after Texas filed this lawsuit against the Biden administration for wanting to take down the razor wire, a district court judge sided with Texas finding that the barriers limit illegal crossings, which impose costs on the state of Texas. But the lower court denied the state's request to block border patrol agents from accessing the international border or disturbing the barrier while litigation continued. Texas appealed that rule. to the Fifth Circuit, which issued a temporary order prohibiting border patrol from interfering with the razor wire or damaging and moving the barriers. And then the Biden administration's like, okay, then we're going to ask the Supreme Court to weigh on this and issue an emergency order. The Supreme Court order reversing the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

does not, does not address Texas's more recent move to basically seize control of a riverfront park. in Eagle Pass and they deny the border patrol access to a section of the border there. So there are still huge questions about this and it's still pending, you know, decisions by the lower courts. The Biden administration cited Texas's takeover of border access in asking the court to expedite its review of the case, but it did not specifically challenge the state's action regarding park access. That element of the dispute remains unresolved. In filing their response, Texas officials said they were unaware of the border patrol's ongoing need to access the area and were investigating the claim.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton urged the Supreme Court not to intervene before the Fifth Circuit has an opportunity to fully consider the case, which is scheduled for argument on February 7th. And on that, basically allowing for Border Patrol to access the border, they have not waited on that. So we're gonna wait and see what the decision will be. by the lower courts on February 7th, but the reactions to this, especially from those on the right, has been pretty amazing, you know, because it mostly, here's a good way of summing

it up, just ignore the Supreme Court. The deeply conservative Supreme Court, which in this case was like, look, the federal government is tasked with dealing with immigration. You can't, let's just let this play out in the courts. But for now, we're going to allow border patrol to, if they need to access certain portions of the border. We're gonna allow them to interfere with the razor wire. Yeah, so look, there's two different issues here. There's ignoring the Supreme Court, which we'll get to more in a second because this is an uneven battlefield as usual.

So when the Supreme Court rules against the left and says women no longer have a right to control their own bodies, well, the left complies with the Supreme Court, right? And so if Texas takes away the right to an abortion, nobody goes and commits violence or draws guns and has a federal government versus the state government, et cetera, right? But the right way when the Supreme Court rules against them, because I just ignore them, who cares? So we can't have a country like that. And then secondly, in terms of the main issue that Anna talked about,

this is not a hard case. Federal government over state government, that's, we resolved this hundreds of years ago. The federal government wins. So the state government cannot say to the federal government, you can't control the border. We're gonna put up barbed wire. What if they said, okay, it's not just barbed wire.

We're gonna set up Gatling guns. You know, the ones that go around like this, like the giant machine goes, and we're just gonna mow them all down and murder them all. And the federal government, no, you can't do that. That's a violation of federal law. They go, no, so what? We'll turn a Gatling gun. This is insanity.

This is insanity. Federal government is above the state government. They get to control the border, not even close to an issue. How those four justices justified? This is it's just totally nuts. So to what every state can just tell the federal government to just go away and we'll just do whatever we want. And if there's a disagreement, we'll draw guns on each other. So it does bring up an interesting question though, Jank, because I did wonder about this.

And I don't know the answer, but I'm curious what you think. So the argument that Texas is making is, well, we should be able to control the immigration situation that's impacting our state. At the same, and so I understand why the Supreme Court would want to allow US border patrol to interfere with that razor wire, because the razor wire in some cases is interfering with the job they need to do. But at the same time, think about states that had declared themselves sanctuary states during the beginning of the Trump administration. So couldn't the same argument be made that no, as a state, you don't get to make that decision. The federal government is more powerful and supersedes any legislation or law that has been implemented by the state.

Yeah, no, here's a giant difference. I hear what you're saying and you're not wrong to be concerned and we've got to make sure that we're consistent and not hypocritical. But in the sanctuary states, what they're or cities, what they're basically saying is, the federal government wants to be me to be proactive in law enforcement. And so to go round up people, I don't think that's a good use of my resources because I'm worried about murder and rape and all the different crimes that are happening. Second of all, the federal government tells me that in those cases that Anna's talking about when you've got a Republican president, et cetera, that if I have a rape victim that came in and was brave enough to testify, that if I have to check into her immigration status and then deport her if I find out that she's undocumented, well, I don't have the resource for that, et cetera, to be proactive. On the other hand, if the federal government came in and said, those are undocumented immigrants and we're here to seize them.

And California or San Francisco was like, no, you're not. And drew guns? No, that's insane. The federal government supersedes the state government. If they want to do law enforcement within the state, they have a right to do that. But they don't have the right necessarily to force local law enforcement to do certain things. Look, by the way, that'll create problems in the red states too. but still consistent on proactive versus interfering with the federal government actually doing its job.

So let's talk a little bit about the reaction to the decision in this emergency, you know, Supreme Court ruling. Let's fast forward to graphic five here. So Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton criticized the Supreme Court's order saying that the destruction of Texas's border barriers will not help enforce the law or keep American citizens safe. This fight is not over. And it is true, this fight is not over. It's still being adjudicated by the lower courts. Other Republicans, though, went much further, including Republican Congressman Clay Higgins of Louisiana. He thinks that the Supreme Court decision should be ignored because Democrats are allegedly

planning a civil war. My thoughts are that the feds are staging a civil war and Texas should stand their ground. Ludic, and this guy's a United States representative, total, should be locked up in an insane asylum. But he's not the only one. You also have Chip Roy, another Republican congressman from the state of Texas who urges Texas to ignore the Supreme Court ruling. They have a duty under the Constitution and every other norm of leadership of any sovereign state to protect your citizens, period, full stop. There is no exception to that, and if the Supreme Court wants to ignore that truth, which a slim majority did, Texas still had the duty. Texas leaders still have the duty to defend their people.

Yeah, that's nonsense. Let me explain why that's nonsense. Just saying that someone has a constitutional duty doesn't mean that you're right. The job of the Supreme Court is to figure out what is and is not constitutional. So that's like your opinion, man, and there's nobody better to state that than me because I've got a constitutional issue that you guys might have heard about. And if I said, you know what? I don't care what the federal government says or what the courts say.

I feel like my constitutional interpretation is right and I've got a duty to enforce it. So I'm going to go to the White House and I'm going to take control over the White House. That's not a thing, guys. So that's like your opinion, man. the courts decide, and oftentimes the right wing courts decide against us on the left. And that's called life in the big city, okay? We don't get to usurp the power of the federal government and the Supreme Court because we had a different interpretation of the Constitution, even if we're right as I am, but they're

not. Now, Border Patrol is saying that they are not planning to use this order as a green light to take down all, like, guys, we're talking about Border Patrol. I can't believe we're now living in a world where border patrol isn't extreme enough for the right wing. But that's literally what's happening here. Border patrol is arguing like, no, no, we're not going to do away with all the razor wires. It's just that there's some razor wire that we might need to interfere with in order to do our jobs. And that's what we're going to disturb.

But like, I don't know, I get the sense that border patrol isn't like itching to do away with the razor wire. It's just that in some cases it has interfered with some of the work that they're supposed to be doing. And look, the other thing is, we do have a broken immigration system. There is no question about that. And I'm just frustrated because I understand where not the extreme members of, you know, the Texas government, but, you know, some of the people living in Texas, I can understand the frustration they're feeling because, you know, a lot of these border states, a lot of these border towns do bear the brunt of our broken immigration system.

But fighting with the federal government is not going to solve it. It's just going to muck up the situation in the courts, while the real issue is the obstruction taking place in Congress as we speak in regard to passing much needed immigration reform. Yeah, look, there's two answers here that are relatively inexpensive as opposed to trying to put thousands of Border Patrol guys and Texas Patrol and all these guys all along this enormous border, which is undoable. They've put as many people as they possibly can there, and people are still pouring in in record numbers. So what's it realistic about it? The whole thing that you hear about supply and demand is almost always true in these situations. If you can cut off the supply, you're in way better shape, like the people that are flowing in. So how do you do that?

I would argue for a Marshall Plan, right? Marshall Plan for Latin America. And people go, oh my God, you're going to spend money. We spend way more money for war in Israel, Ukraine, the defense budget is the most bloated thing you've ever seen. A fraction, tiny, tiny fraction of that money could make a world of difference and have people stay in their homes. They want to stay in their homes.

Nobody wants to leave their family and friends. They do it because they're desperate. We could fix that situation with a small amount of money and a ton more judges to handle asylum cases quicker so that folks don't come into the country and create the problems that we have now. So if you're frustrated, you're not wrong. And if the left says it's not a big deal, that's not the right way to go, okay? But there has to be a better, more thoughtful, more efficient answer than, okay, let's

just line up thousands of guys and barbed wires along the border. It's a solution that we already know doesn't work. All right, let's actually take our break now. When we come back, we have more news for you, including, well, yet another political scuffle between Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis. Ron DeSantis has squashed an effort in his state to help Trump pay his legal bills. So we've got that. And I do want to get into more of the obstruction that's taking place among some members of the right in passing much needed immigration reform. So we'll get to that as well. Stick around. We'll be right back.