The Young Turks - No Way, Jose

Episode Date: August 14, 2024

Trump-Musk interview disaster gets immediately compared to 2023 DeSantis debacle after users left unable to tune in. ""He said no way, I said way"": Trump reveals conversation with Vladimir Putin. Netanyahu accuses defense minister of ""anti-Israel narrative"" and exposes rift over war in Gaza. In a bizarre moment, Trump says ""beautiful"" Kamala Harris looks like wife Melania in Elon Musk X interview." HOST: Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur), Ben Gleib (@bengleib) 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. We finally beat Medicare. I'm so upset. Oh my God. Begha! Live from the volume market studio in L.A. Jank Huger, Ben Gleeve, it's the Young Turks.

All right, huge show for you, as always, Elon Musk and Donald Trumps, interrupted, interrupt. Okay, no, we'll do that during this story. All right, so they had an interview. It was terrible. You'll see all the different stories that come out of it, including Donald Trump apparently thinks Kamala Harris is hot. Interesting, awkward, uncomfortable. So that's a little bit.

He also think Kim Jong-un is hot, but that's a different story. Literally, it's a different story we have in the run-down. Anyway, and I know what you're thinking. No way. Oh, yeah? Way. also in the rundowns. Hold on. Hold on. We're going to get there. Okay, having said that, let's get started. Ben, what do you got, brother? We have something that will go off technically

without a hitch, hopefully, despite the story about technically going off with lots of hitches. Take a look. All right, hello, everyone. So my apologies for the late start. We unfortunately had a massive distributed denial of service attack against our servers. As the This massive attack illustrates there's a lot of opposition to people just hearing what President Trump has to say. Congratulations, because I see you broke every record in the book with so many millions of people and it's an honor. We view that as an honor.

And then you do want silencing of certain voices. Usually those are voices that have something to say that are constructive. We don't know what was wrong with Trump's voices. there or for the entire two hour conversation, but Elon Musk's highly anticipated Twitter space, X space, whatever you call it, with Trump got off on the wrong foot yesterday after multiple technical delays, glitches and crashes. The event which was supposed to start at 8 p.m. Eastern was delayed over 30 minutes due to social media users unable to gain access to the space. Here you can see some of them, anyone else not able to listen says unavailable.

This is going to break the internet. Space, unavailable. It's not. working for me. Some were able to gain access, however, but we're forced to listen to Lofi techno music for the next 30 minutes, which is definitely worse. 18 minutes into the delay, Musk who had been promoting the event heavily on the site, as Trump's triumphant return to the platform then gave a bizarre reason for the snafu posting. There appears to be a massive DDoS attack on X, working on shutting it down. Worst case, we will proceed with a smaller number of live listeners and post the conversation later. For those unfamiliar, DDoS stands for distributed denial of service and is comparable to an online traffic jam, according to Mediite.

In a DDoS attack, hackers use multiple computers to flood a website or online platform with an overwhelming amount of traffic, overloading the servers and making it slower unresponsive for legitimate users, or even making it crash completely so they cannot access it at all. However, he gave zero evidence for the attack, which sparked concern over the validity of Musk's claim. In general, a DDOS attack is an assault on the entire website, not on one specific user, or as must claimed in this case, one specific space hosted by one user with one other user as a speaker. It might be more plausible if the entire Twitter X website had technical difficulties, or if the entire space functionally went down, according to Mediaite.

Elon did give follow-ups to make it sound like he was trying, tweeting things like, we tested the system with 8 million concurrent listeners earlier today. I don't know how you even do that, how you test something with 8 million concurrent listeners without having 8 million people tested. Does he have 8 million bots in a farm sitting there ready to test his own site's capacity? Seems on its face implausible. However, according to X, there were only 915,000 people listening to the space when it actually started. Apparently it's all just a BS excuse it seems on Musk's part. A source of X confirmed to the verge there wasn't actually a denial of service attack. Another ex staffer said there was a

99% chance Musk was lying about an attack. But only 99%. Yeah, and that's a staffer at his company. But that doesn't mean there weren't other issues, according to Axios's Sarah Fisher. Take a listen. Elon Musk is claiming that there was some sort of technical problem at the beginning of this. What do we know?

And now you have reports out from the verge, a tech company, a tech media company saying that sources said it's not actually a DDoS, a denial of service attack. It was just that the systems were overwhelmed. You know, it's hard. X has become a black box in terms of communication. What Elon Moss says oftentimes is what goes. But oftentimes these things can look very similar, Jim. A DDoS attack is overwhelming a system to shut it down.

It could have very well been that a lot of people wanted to listen to this interview, which overwhelm the system and shut it down. Either way, as you mentioned at the top of your remarks, it's an embarrassment for Musk. They're trying to make this the video platform of choice, but they can't get a live stream up and running. Yeah, I mean, that's the question. Jane, what are your thoughts here in the story? Yeah, so look, if he were honest about it, it's not the end of the world. And I think there's a real reason that this happened.

So sometimes we have a similar issue on big nights, a lot of people watch at the same time, and then our website struggles with it. And it drives me crazy to, and I get it. And sometimes, by the way, there's actual DDoS tax, whether it's on us, X or other places. In this case, you can tell that the staffer, at X is telling the truth rather than Elon Musk, other than the fact that they probably have inside information on it, but because it really affects the whole website.

It really does. So I've never heard of a denial service attack on a specific page or a specific interview or a specific post. So that is very unlikely. So and this type of thing happens when you fire three quarters of your employees, which is what Elon Musk did when he got into Twitter and then he bragged about it. And in fact, they talked about it in the interview. We're gonna talk about that later in the show about, ah, ha, you fired a lot of people.

Oh yeah, high five, high five. Firing people is awesome. And so guys, these companies need real people to work. I mean, that's why we, you know, ask you guys to help us become a member, et cetera, all that stuff. Because there's a ton of people that work behind the scenes that make this show happen. obviously even more true of a much larger site like X. And so the way that he disrespected everybody, like he didn't need those employees,

you only need the people at the top. Well, it turns out no, you need all your employees. And by the way, you wanna do downsizing because you don't have a choice. I totally get it, okay? It sucks, it sucks, but I get it. But this wasn't normal firing 75% of your employees. So you shouldn't be overly surprised

that a lot of your company doesn't work. The advertising department also is in total, you know, disarray and can't sell anything and doesn't know what it's, and it's because they don't have enough people, they're overwhelmed, right? I'm not shit and tear on their advertising department, but yeah, this is what happens when folks can't put things together because there aren't enough of them. So look, I think that, like, can it work if they can get it to work? And that's a funny thing to say, right? But what I mean by that is, Can this X space kind of interviews work if they could just get it to function?

Yes, look, even in a non-functional interview, I think by the end they got to 1.1 or 1.3 million people that had at least watched some of it. These social media companies have the opportunity to have massive impact. They just can't quite get it right at X. And again, it's because they don't have enough people working there. And it's not a, like, I want you guys to understand the frustration that I have in regards to how most of the companies in America work. And the pressure that they get from, usually from shareholders and Wall Street, etc. In this case, it's private. So Elon Musk is making these decisions on his own.

But normally they think the answer is always fire people. Just cut costs. and Meadow, which owns Facebook, was greatly rewarded by the stock market when they fired a whole bunch of people. In fact, the reason I'm telling you that is because when Elon Musk fired 75% of his employees and the company didn't crater overnight, Wall Street got the idea. You could fire as many employees as you want. You can go down to zero. It doesn't matter. These are all expendable, useless people that don't do anything.

Just fire all your employees. Well, look, this is why it doesn't freaking work. And by the way, and that's why I bring up, if you actually had, functioning staff there, I think actually the content could work spectacularly there. They just can't get it right. And so I think that's a huge source of frustration, I'm sure, for him, which ironically probably Ben led him to firing more people. Yeah, probably. I would be a little worried if you're working there today. But, and of course, this isn't the first time that they've had a major issue during one of these high profile

interviews. You know, you definitely got, like Jenks said, a lot of people to come to the platform for this event. But it made a lot of people question their ability to even handle such high profile events reminding so many of us of last year's failed live event with Ron DeSantis launching his failed campaign. Take a listen to this. Governor DeSantis first drew my attention and support when I saw how he responded to the COVID pandemic and refused to believe what we now know to be the many falsehoods that government experts and their media mouthpieces were feeding us. He kept Florida's schools open and its economy thriving while my state of California chose two years of learning loss,

and lockdowns that we have yet to full. All right, we're just reallocating more sort of capability to be able to handle load here. It's really going crazy. So, yeah, I'm obviously very excited to have Governor Sanders. So there you have it. Not only was that not very successful, two of the people there who were able to tune in were our producer Taylor and Jenks cousin. So I mean, that's not a broad swath of the population. If you saw those profile pictures there, at the time the Trump campaign railed on DeSantis for the technical difficulties, which Kamala Harris's campaign pointed out on their truth social account, retruthing his own post from May 24th of 2023. saying right there, Trump posting, wow, the dissentist Twitter launch is a disaster for his whole campaign will be a disaster watch. So if that's the barometer, does not bode well for Trump's campaign themselves.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates also retweeted a team Trump post that had attacked dissentists saying failure to launch and showing a rocket misfiring and hitting the ground. You can take a look at that right there. So, and he put well done, he added well done to that. So what goes around comes around, so many of Trump's statements that initially just knee-jerk, attack people for things they do not control, comes back to bite him. It's very similar. It reminds me of when Trump made statements saying if you have, if you're under indictment, you should be disqualified for president. If you're convicted, you should be disqualified for running for president. And then he has that same thing, that same problem.

Or when he just the other day said that Kamala Harris should be disqualified because of her exaggerating her crowd sizes with photos that turns out were not exaggerated, yet Trump literally does exactly that all of the time and started his lauded presidency with heavy sarcasm, that exact same way with obviously disproved images of crowd sizes. Yeah. So I hope that space X doesn't have the same glitches that X space has. because he literally has SpaceX and X spaces. True, good point. Right, so now, by the way, nephew, not cousin, but I did like how T.Y.T. dominated that little Ron DeSantis original interview that was to be, but was only partially actually haven't. Anyways, last couple of, last thing here is has nothing to do with any of this. It's how Trump was talking. Now, LISP happens to some people.

Stutter happens to some people. So Biden's got a little bit of a stutter. But that wasn't really what his issue was, obviously, in this campaign. But Trump doesn't normally have a lisp. So what was that? Was that dentures falling out? That's what I think it is. Because, you know, I grew up with a severe speech problem, a stutter.

I still have a little bit of a lisp right now. It's not, you know, Chelsea Handlers to make fun of me. on the air all the time. We each got what we got. But I've always thought that that's part of why Trump often, sometimes he sounds a little slurry occasionally. Yeah. But this was next level. He must have had. I don't know why during that 30 minute delay, he couldn't have had someone on his team going buy some denture cream. But I think he must have dentures. He can't let people know that because it would make him look weak and old. And they were just falling out and probably were loose the whole two hours. I mean, his voice was the town was completely different. I would

have thought it was a bad impersonator. And I remember when he was president, he got stuck on saying oranges instead of origins, right? And he said it like two, three times and he couldn't get out of it. But I couldn't tell if it was like a denture issue or, and it happens to him everyone. And guys, by the way, people have dentures and they fall on sometimes. So what? It's not that big a deal.

Trump makes it a big deal by overfocusing it just like Ben said because he thinks it's a sign of weakness and being old. It's not a sign of weakness. Yeah, it is a little bit of a sign of getting older. But that's no big deal, as long as you know, you're mentally competent. That's the real problem for Donald Trump. If you begin to realize how old he is, you might begin to listen to his speeches and go, what did he say? That sounds crazy. But remember, I don't think that's because of his age.

I think that's because he was already crazy. But he would probably seem a little bit less Rambo tough like his MAGA devotees would think he is if you take away the weird hairdo, the orange makeup and the tea. Yeah, suddenly is a man walking down a ramp very slowly who has issues drinking water. Yeah, for sure. I mean, that's why he spent so much time on his orange bronzer and his orange hair. And like he would, that's why he always wears the bag of hat if his hair is not right, because he never wants you to see his hair out of place, his teeth out of place, his bronzer out of place.

And so the guy is super vain. And by the way, I get it, look, you're running for president and looks have some, some part to play and obviously the Nixon, JFK debate when it was first tele, you know, people heard it on the radio, thought Nixon won, people saw it on TV, thought JFK won, and that's because Nixon's ugly, both inside and outside. And was sweating a lot. Yeah. So I understand that it's part of politics at the same time Trump's sort of obsessed with

his vanity for a long, long time. And that's the actual story. And all the things he's done for his vanity, like, I didn't lose, I didn't lose. Let's come out with fake electors and do a coup. Right, and the looks of everybody else. I think you should hold yourself to a higher standard, except when somebody who is a malintended actor brings things into play, you should at least turn about be fair play on that

and be able to throw those exact things back in their face. If you're going to make looks an issue, your own looks is an issue then. Yeah, yeah, that's right. All right, so failure to launch there again on X. All right, we're going to go to the next story. Let's do it. During Donald Trump's talk with Elon Musk last night, he recounted his incredible skills of persuasion and negotiation on the world stage.

It's really breathtaking. Take a listen. I know Putin very well. I got along with him very well. He respected me, and it's just one of those things. And we would talk a lot about Ukraine. It was the apple of his eye. But I said, don't ever do it. Don't ever do it. You can't do it, Vladimir. You do it.

It's going to be a bad day. You cannot do it. And I told him things that what I do, and he said, no way. And I said, way. And you know, it's the last time we ever had the conversation. The only part of that that I really do believe is that Trump speaks to other world leaders like Wayne and Garth do in Wayne's world. He said no way. And I'm like, way.

I mean, that's probably the level of political discourse I expect from Trump, maybe a little less. At least, you know, they were very effective in making their points and getting their sponsors for their Wayne's World big network debut. There's more, though. Ilan and Trump talked extensively about how the president should deal with strong men in other countries. And the main conclusion, it seems, was just to be belligerent and unpredictable. Take a listen to this. I think it's just worth emphasizing to listeners that the immense importance of whether the United States president is intimidating or not intimidating. And how much that matters to global security.

Because there's some real tough characters out there. And if they don't think the American president is tough, they will do what they want to do. I know every one of them. And that puts the whole world in danger. Elon, I know every one of them. And I know him well. I know Putin. I know President Xi.

I know Kim Jong-un of North Korea. I know every one of them. And let me tell you, people will say, oh, this is terrible. He said, I'm not saying anything good or bad, they're at the top of their game. They're tough, they're smart, they're vicious. And they're going to protect their country, whether they love their country, they probably do. It's just a different form of love, but they're going to protect their country. But these are tough people at the top of their game.

And when they see a Kamala or when they see Biden, Sleepy Joe, they can't even believe it. They can't believe this happened. And Musk immediately agrees, yeah. Listen to the list of adjectives there that Trump posits as the best qualities for leader. They're the top of their game. they're beautiful, they're vicious. Those are the three. Okay, like those somehow work together.

And he dumbled down and once again talked about his fabulous relationship with Kim Jong-un and praised him for being the boss of North Korea. Take a listen. Man or person who's unbelievably sharp in order to stop all the nuclear danger and all the dangers that I'm talking about. And I got along with all these. I got along with Kim Jong-un. We had dinner, we had everything.

And he really liked me, and I got along with him really well. By the way, he's the absolute boss over there. You know, a lot of people said, oh, do you think you really? Yeah, that's for sure. Let me tell you, I saw things that you don't want to know about. He is the boss. But we had a good relationship, and he doesn't like Biden. He considers him as a stupid man, he said.

He's a stupid man. Well, at least he speaks his mind. You heard it here. They had dinner. They had everything. I don't know what that means. I can only go to places I don't want to go. So, Jank, please take over here.

Yeah, he says, oh, you don't want to see what I saw. Well, wait a minute, you saw some sort of atrocity in North Korea and you're not telling us? That's kind of weird. He says, he was the absolute boss. Yeah, we have another word for that. It's called dictator. And it's not a pleasant thing. It's not a good thing.

But to him, and guys, this is what I'm talking about. Look, he does a fake elector plot, which is in essence, a coup in 2020, after he launched. election, why? Because he believes, well, look, if I'm in charge, you can't fire me, I'm the big boss, I'm the absolute boss. So what have I lost? So what? Let's just move things around, get rid of even our own electors and get some fake electors in there. And so that I could be absolute boss. I saw Xi Jinping do it. I saw Kim Jong-un do it, Vladimir Putin do it. Why can't I be absolute boss? Because we're a democracy and not a dictatorship. And you think, come on, Jenk, he's got to understand simple concepts like that.

I'm not at all convinced that he understands simple concepts like that. Not at all. He kept saying, like, about the Attorney General. He's supposed to work for me. Why isn't he protecting me? Why is he working for me? Because the Attorney General doesn't work for you. He works for the people of the United States of America.

And we built a system that protects the Attorney General from the President in case the president decides to use the Attorney General for political reasons and weaponizes the Justice Department. The Republicans now are saying, oh my God, we hate that concept and we think the Democrats weaponize the Justice Department. Then why wouldn't you be upset at Trump for saying the Attorney General should only report to him and protect him and not you guys? It doesn't make any sense.

There's no governing philosophy there. And are we surprised that there's no governing philosophy from a guy who says, then I told Putin, way. I mean, look, Rudy Giuliani was on this show. at the RNC. And he said, yeah, Trump has, is basically using the madman theory. And he referenced that theory. And because I asked him, I say, you know, he keeps saying, and Rudy's as close to Trump as anybody is. And he keeps saying, oh, Russia wouldn't do that. Hamas wouldn't do that. Nobody would do that. I'm like, why wouldn't they do that? What is he actually threatening? And

and I said, is he threatening to attack Russia and start World War III? And Giuliani said, yeah. Yeah, he's Like that's the madman theory. Nixon use it, Trump's using it, that he'll, he's willing to do anything. But the problem with the man man theory is if you actually have a madman. Like do you think Trump is capable of understanding? I think he thinks, what do you mean? I'm the absolute bus, so I bombed them. And oh, oh, they're gonna bomb back.

I didn't expect them to bomb back. Like he's just a moron of epic proportions. Then, and you see him like, now apparently there's a new theory, the valley girl theory. So Putin says, no way, and I say, way. I don't think that makes you use that one. But maybe if you combine the valley and being intimidating, we can get the COBRA Chi theory. Oh, interesting.

Yeah, which actually is disastrous. Do not strike first and have mercy. Cobra Chi is not the right way to go. Anyways, look, bottom line is. What I do in international relations is I sweep the leg. That's what I recommend. You do the crane or I sweep the leg. Yeah.

And look, I want to go back to the important point that they were discussing about, well, how do you conduct yourself with these foreign leaders? Because Musk was saying, you got to be intimidating. But they look at it in, in my opinion, in such a childish way, like does the guy look intimidating? Is he tall? Is he a man? Is he a bully? Is he? No, no, brothers. This is all about action. You can bluff and you can huff and puff and puff. And that's not going to matter at all. They're going to tell very easily, hey, are you bluffing or are you not bluffing, you know, do you take actual acts like different things that you could use, sanctions, leverage, finance, and sometimes, you know, threatening war, etc.

There's all these different levels of power that you can use, and you should use them in different measures, but just blustering in there going, oh, yeah, is not necessarily intimidating and effective foreign policy. And then just falling in love with communist dictators is also not effective policy. Kim Jong-un built many nukes under Donald Trump because Donald Trump was distracted because Kim Jong-un was flattering him. And look at how easy it is to take advantage of our president if it's Trump. All you have to do is be like, oh my God, your hair looks good today.

He's like, we feel lead. And he's the total boss. We did everything. We did everything. He built nukes while you were pleasuring yourself to the idea. of his letters, because he did, he literally said these are love letters and we fell in love. Imagine if Kamala Harris said she fell in love with a communist dictator. What do you think that the right wing would do?

If you're a right winger out there, be honest right now. If Kamala Harris said that she had fallen in love with Kim Jong-un before Trump ever said it, oh, I met Kim Jong-un, and we did everything. And then we wrote love letters and we felt great. Oh, you wouldn't believe the things he terrible things he showed me. But he's the total boss and I, we're in love. You would have said they did totally disqualifying. That's insanity.

Go look it up. That is what Donald Trump has said about Kim Jong-un, totally unqualified to lead. And how easily Trump can be bought on an issue with flattery or with money is evidenced yet again, even just so clearly in Musk supporting him and how Trump just flipped on electric vehicles because of that. Oh, 100%. But I do think that there is something to be said for being a strong, coherent, aggressive, tough leader in addition to all the things that you mentioned.

I do think you need to be able to have policy proposals and sanctions proposals and punishment laid out very clearly that you present to a hostile foreign actor to deter them from taking that action, but you also have to be able to look them in the eye aggressively and say, I am not kidding around, this will be the consequence. This is a hard red line that will not be crossed or you will suffer the consequences. I don't think Biden in the end of his of his term recently is very capable of doing that, which is a big part of why I thought he needed to step down. But I also don't think that Trump is capable of that. And there's no way he's talking aggressively to people he's in love with, who he's instead saying, way, trust me, dude.

It seems of the current options, Kamala Harris is the one who can have a prosecutor's seriousness and look someone in the eye and say, this is a hard line. You can see her doing that very easily. Yeah, last words go to our members on YouTube. Jeffrey Whitman wrote in on the most important issue that everybody's talking about, why Trump is talking like that in this interview. He said, I actually have dentures, and that is kind of how I sound when I'm not wearing them. So yeah, I thought about that too, not just that it's falling out. He just might not have been wearing it. Because it was audio, right.

And Quincy McGoo had a different theory. And he said, too many Trump sticks ruined his teeth. Possible. I mean, that might be why Trump stakes went out of business. Oh, no, right. Everything he runs goes out of business. So that's the real reason. But anyway, we love to do the show with our members who to join button below and be part of the young Turks.

We gotta take a break, we'll be right back. Take a look at the oranges. on our side, we can't go wrong. And boner champ, gifted them. I appreciate you guys. And we're true populace, we don't mind your handles. All right, much love, Ben, what's next? All right.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has for weeks now denied he's delaying a ceasefire deal in Gaza by toughening Israel's position in the negotiations. Netanyahu continues to blame the stalled negotiations on Hamas. on Hamas, while senior members of Israel's security establishment are accusing him of personally slowing the process, including his defense minister, Yoav Galant. Israel in late July gave American Egyptian and Qatari mediators a list of new clarifications and qualifications that made the principles of a ceasefire it had made in May, of a ceasefire plan in May, less flexible. Hamas has also been unwilling to compromise on many key issues, and the terror organizations, has also requested its own extensive revisions throughout the negotiations.

Despite Hamas leader Yaya Sinwar's supposed interest in ending the war, Hamas on Sunday evening said it did not plan to send negotiators even to Thursday's talks. Israel's Channel 13 news citing unnamed security sources highlighted also deep distrust between Netanyahu and the negotiating team representing Israel in the negotiations, claiming they hadn't been given a meaningful mandate by Netanyahu to bring to the upcoming talks. Despite that, Israeli security sources, according to their channel 12 news, were still cautiously optimistic a deal was possible and could be completed at this Thursday's talks being implemented within days after an agreement. The Israeli government said it would send a delegation to Thursday's talks, but again, Hamas insisted instead on a workable plan to implement the framework it had already accepted rather than more talks. Netanyahu's office denied he added any new conditions, saying he instead is trying to clarify ambiguities in Israel's main.

proposal making it easier to actually implement. The statement said, the July 27 letter does not introduce new terms. So the contrary, it is it includes essential clarifications to help implement the May 27 proposal. Hamas is the one that demanded 29 changes to the May 27 proposal, something the prime minister refused to do. So in a letter to mediators on July 27, the Israeli negotiation team apparently added five new clarifications to the outline of the May proposal, although the New York Times only revealed two of them. One of the two, the most contentious additions, one of the two most contentious, was the inclusion of a map indicating Israel would remain in control of the border between Gaza and Egypt, an area known as the Philadelphia corridor. By contrast, Israel's proposal in May had suggested troops would leave the border zone. It pledged the, quote, withdrawal of Israeli forces eastwards away from densely populated areas along the border in all areas of the border. In all areas of the border, it pledged the border. the Gaza Strip, close quote. A second key point adds new complexity to the way in which displaced Palestinians would

return to their home their homes in the north during a ceasefire. For the record, for months, Israel has said it would only agree to a ceasefire if it could screen returning Palestinians for weapons as they returned to their homes. Then in its May proposal, Israel appeared to soften that demand. While its position paper still stated the returnees should not be carrying arms while returning, It removed the explicit requirement that Israel forces screen them directly for weapons, making the policy seem to be more symbolic rather than directly enforceable, causing Hamas at the time to agree to it.

Israel's July letter revived the question of enforcement, stating that the screening of people returning to the north would need to be implemented in an agreed upon manner. Mr. Netanyahu's office said there was no contradiction between the two positions, saying the second one made the first one easier to carry out. The letter not only does not contradict the May 27 proposal, it facilitates it, the statement said. In recent weeks, Mr. Netanyahu has suggested it is reasonable for Israel to seek to prevent Hamas from rebuilding its military strongholds in northern Gaza. Hamas is, quote, unprepared to allow any mechanism to check for and prevent the passage of munitions and terrorists to the northern Gaza Strip. He said on August 4th, it is doing all of this because it wants to recover and rebuild and return again

and again to the massacre of October 7th. Senior Israeli officials familiar with the latest negotiations, however, as well as leaders in Israel security forces, agree in principle that Netanyahu, to his stance, that it would be better to maintain checkpoints to screen people for weapons, but they also believe that it is not worth holding up a deal to get the hostages back in order to implement this one point and said that he should hopefully reverse on this issue before Thursday's negotiation

so that a deal to release the hostages and maintain or an achieve a ceasefire could possibly happen. A Hamas official told Reuters that a CNN report saying the group planned to attend Thursday was wrong, saying our statement the other day was clear. What is needed is the implementation, not more negotiation, said the official, who declined to be named owing to the sensitivity of the issue. Okay, so I think getting to an agreement is much more important than any provision in the agreement.

and, you know, it's easy for us from the outside to say, hey, that provision is important, that provision is not important. Some things are pretty obvious. I'll get to that in a minute. But first of all, who's preventing the agreement? Well, in May, it looked like they had something that both sides had kind of agreed to. Now we know definitively that both sides have added provisions, but Israel was denying that they had added provisions, and now we know for sure that they did.

Five significant provisions, and that is part of what's holding it up. Guys, if it was, if we didn't have the election situation hanging over Netanyahu's head, I would say, look, I don't know, maybe they don't want to ceasefire for this reason or that reason. Or maybe they do want a ceasefire, but they really, they change their mind or they, the security situation changes, et cetera. But in this case, it's pretty obvious what's happening. And if they get a ceasefire, Bangavir and Smokrish say that they'll leave the government. If they do, then elections will have to be called. the Netanyahu is trailing badly in the polls, he'll lose.

So he has an enormous incentive. In fact, all the incentive in the world is a politician, who is both now unpopular, would lose the election and might even get arrested on not this, but on corruption charges. So he's got, and it's not only does he have a massive personal incentive, not related to the state of Israel and what's best for Israel, let alone the Palestinians, of course, but for what's best for Netanyahu here. And so if you think that's not affecting a politician like any, first of all, it would affect almost any politician, let alone a guy like Netanyahu who is shown over and over again that the main thing that he cares about his own personal career. And he's not alone there. There's tons of politicians who've shown that, but he certainly has done it in spades.

So is that in Yahoo delaying this? Well, again, not really in dispute anymore because now the Israeli defense minister and the top military spokespeople, spokesperson also saying the same thing. not necessarily saying, okay, it's Netanyahu's fault, but saying, we're adding provisions to a ceasefire, we can't, but let's just get it done, right? But mainly, the most important thing they're saying is this idea of absolute victory over Hamas is a mirage. It's not possible, it's absurd, it's, and they didn't quite go as far as I did when I said the other day, it's purposely not achievable, right?

But they've gone all the way up to that statement saying, no, this is not a thing. This is not a real thing. It's not doable. We don't know when we win, right? And this is the, like I said, the top military spokesperson in Israel and the defense minister. So as far as the specific details are concerned, like when you say checkpoint for guns so they don't bring weapons into northern part of Gaza, that sounds logical, right?

The only problem there is that it's a checkpoint. And so whenever you have an Israeli checkpoint inside Gaza, that creates a bigger issue. Now, look, however they resolve, that is up to them. So if Hamas says we're okay with the checkpoint, great, then we got a deal, right? And so I don't have a point of view on that. I have a point of view on, no, you can't keep the Philadelphia corridor. That's the southern border of Gaza. that's just more land that Israel would be keeping from Gaza.

I can't imagine that any Palestinian would agree to that, let alone Hamas. So that appears to be a deal breaker you put in if you don't want to deal. To me, that's what it looks like. What do you think that? I agree with you largely. I agree that it makes sense to want to screen people returning to the north for weapons because you don't know who's members of Hamas and don't want them to be able to regroup. I disagree that the Philadelphia corridor on the border of Egypt and Gaza is a deal breaker.

I mean, we'll see on Thursday whether it indeed is or not, but if it's reasonable to stop, to want to stop the flow of weapons back to the north, it seems reasonable to also want to stop the flow of weapons from Egypt, which has been a major area that weapons have flown through. I don't think it's a land grab because you're not gonna, Israel's not going to be building settlements in the very south of Gaza right next to Egypt, not even near its own land. If anything, settlements expand from their own territory downward, it would be a military checkpoint to make sure there isn't the ability for major munitions to be coming so that Hamas can regroup. So I disagree on that. I do agree on your more general point that you can't really trust

Netanyahu, you know, you can't trust him to be an actor, you certainly can't trust Hamas, and they're changing their mind all the time on these negotiations, and now Netanyahu seems to be doing that as well. I don't know that these five are necessarily changing terms, Even Hamas is asking for clarifications based on the May proposal. They're not even sending a delegation to negotiate. So it isn't a new proposal, it's clarifying. It seems a little bit ambiguous about the one about the Philadelphia corridor because that maybe is because they imply that they wouldn't have troops near border areas,

but it said near heavily populated border areas. You don't know if that includes a 50 foot wide strip right there just to be able to like check munitions. But the larger issue, you're completely right. Netanyahu is at risk of losing his coalition. And if he gets a ceasefire deal achieved, he's going to be kicked out of power almost certainly. And so he's in a personal conundrum that I don't think you can trust. I mean, his own people say they don't trust his own negotiating team.

It doesn't feel like they have, they've been empowered by him to go in good faith into these negotiations, which is a giant problem. And hopefully they can come up with such a good deal on Thursday that still brings it that way. You know, I don't think most people in Israel, it's clear he's very unpopular in the polls are big fans of his. You know, I'm no supporter of his, no big fan of his. My mom, who is Israeli, grew up in Israel and served in the IDF, texted me earlier, Bibi is a monster plain and simple. I don't think you can argue that the guy is a bad faith actor.

And so we're stuck with imperfect situations. We're stuck with bad people that are trying to make a deal that are going to hopefully improve the lives and stop this chaos and horrible tragedy on both sides of this very difficult issue. So let's just hope for the best, I guess. Yeah. Last couple of things here. Look, I wouldn't give up an inch of Gaza, but if Hamas says yes to any deal, or they said yes, I'm thrilled. Even if, and I don't think that they're going to deal or deal.

And like my guess is my deal with this would be a lot more reasonable than Hamas's deal would. So if they say yes, I guess it was good enough. And I hope to God that they do. But why wouldn't you give up an inch? Why wouldn't you not for, like I said, not for building. I would agree with you. You shouldn't give up an inch for building a settlement or letting people move into Gaza. But why would you not want to for sure stem the flow of weapons?

No, I mean, because giving up land in the West Bank turned out to be an absolute disaster. They took more and more and more. more, more, more, and second of all, we want to end the occupation. So any further, like, Israeli territory inside the occupied territories, I think is a terrible, terrible idea. Because it puts them, and I think it's a bad idea for Israel too, because it gets you ingrained into those, dug into those territories. You don't want to be dug into those. I think those territories are an albatross around Israel's neck. And so it's destroying their international reputation.

international reputation, they're hated for it, 57 years, and suddenly you gotta get out of that business. If I'm a Palestinian, I wouldn't trust Israel with one inch of land. To be, I mean, look at the track record. The track record is terrible. But vice versa, same exact thing. If I were Israel, I wouldn't trust the Palestinian government to not build many more tunnels. They already uncovered hundreds of tunnels from Egypt into Gaza. So what do you do? So I hear you. And it's not, and I'm not naive. You think that they didn't smuggle any weapons from Egypt to Gaza? Of course they did, right? And so that's why the two sides don't trust each other. That's why we're all desperately trying to get to a ceasefire

here so we can move on. And guys, and that leads to the final point, which is, it's not, hey, are we just going to have a ceasefire or are we not? It's going to, and it's going to continue at this level. And this level's already terrible. I mean, 100 killed in the last bombing, you know, five schools being used as shelter for refugees. bombed in the last week and uses basis for Hamas at the exact same time. Yeah, okay, so all this continues to go on, and that's already terrible enough. But what we're really worried about is that if they don't have a deal, that Iran is going to do a much larger bombing and retaliation for the Ismail Hanayak killing, and Hezbo is going

to join them for retaliation of their top military commander being assassinated, and that the war is going to get way worse, not just stay at its already terrible level. So it's imperative that we get that ceasefire deal this week. But are we going to? I don't know. And also, also just one point that I think often is not connecting with the dots here in people's opinion of this. I just think it's important to realize, look, Israel killed Hamas's leader in Iran. And Iran vows to retaliate, as does Hezbollah in Lebanon vows to retaliate for a Hamas leader being killed.

just proving plain as day that this is not just a fight against Hamas. It is a fight against Iran and its terror proxies in Lebanon and in Gaza. And so Israel needs to find an end to this war to bring peace to innocent Palestinians. And it also needs to be able to protect itself from not just Hamas, who you might see is not as strong as Israel, but Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran and the Houthis in Yemen. and all of these forces that are on the same side and are against us in the West, are against Israel, and are trying to eradicate them from Earth.

So they also have to find a solution that keeps them safe. And that's easy and occupation. Then the whole world is united against Iran instead of against Israel. And look, we got it, we got to go. Can we agree on this last point? When the war ends, when there is a ceasefire and then an agreement to end the war permanently, Do you agree that the world community then should hold to account whoever the next first aggressor is? So if peace is broken by Israel, the world should attack them for that and lambas them for that and condemn them for it.

And if Hamas is the first to attack or if Hezbollah is the first to send rockets in, we're going to say, look, we have agreement and look who attacked first. 100%. Yeah, because the whole point of a peace deal is peace. So after the peace deal, Hamas, Hezbollah, or anyone breaks it, no, there's got to be severe consequences. we've got to get the peace and then we've got to hold the peace. So Iran is of course financing some of Hamas and Azblah. But last point I'll make is if anyone was assassinated in America, even if it's someone we hated, like when Arafat was here or anyone was here at the UN or something, we would do massive repercussions.

So you can't just go and assassinate someone in a different country in their capital, no matter how much you dislike them. There's repercussions for that. That's what we're trying to hold off, the terrible repercussions that might come. All right, let's hope they signed the deal. And oh, I'll add one super last thing, which is that, but look at the diversity within Israel. So Netanyahu's a terrible guy. He's held up to ceasefire, and we're worried that we might not get one with him.

But meanwhile, even the military and the defense secretary are saying, let's get the ceasefire deal. We're not going to be able to do this nonsense, absolute victory over Hamas. Let's go. Let's get the hostages back. And we should encourage those voices inside Israel and not Nenya. And that's the difference between a democracy and a group being held hostage by a terror group. All right, we're going to leave it right there. We'll be right back. All right, back on TYT, Jank and Ben, with you guys, Mr. Sinek and Shubidoo-Duby-Doo-Doo.

Thank you for the contributions, guys. We appreciate you so much. By the way, if you want to see me and a couple other TYT folks in Chicago this upcoming Sunday, t-y-t.com slash hope fundraiser. We just asked him 27 bucks a pop, raise a little bit of money for Operation Hope and T-YT. And if you get a 10, I'd love to see you guys there anywhere near Chicago. this Sunday, August 18 at 5 o'clock, t.com slash hope fundraiser. And thank you to Dean the Vegan for joining us.

You join many vegans at TYT. We appreciate you. All right, Ben. Donald Trump always tops himself and not in a good way. Take a look. I saw a picture of her on Time magazine today. She looks like the most beautiful actress ever to live. It was a drawing.

And actually, she looked very much like a great first lady, Melania. She looked, she didn't look like Camilla. That's right. But of course, she's a beautiful woman, so we'll leave it at that, right? I mean, Donald Trump really tripling down on how weird he indeed is, said his competition for the president of the United States, Kamala Harris, looks like his wife, Melania, and looks like the most beautiful actress to ever live in a very very. strange all over the place conversation with Alon Musk Monday night on X. The

foreign president joined the richest man on earth on X spaces for what they promoted as a game changing conversation but in reality was just over a two hour long super friendly conversation full of major tech problems and left people wondering what was up with Trump suddenly very prominent Lisp. Trump went into an aggressive attack on Harris saying she's a terrible leader and another example of what seems like his very rapid cognitive decline shifted into talking about her beautiful appearance. First, he tried to attack her on her ability to lead by saying, we need, we need smart

people, and people that have the ability to lead. She doesn't have that ability. Can you imagine her with Chairman Xi Jinping, the president of the Republic of China, and Musk agreed that it would be, quote, silly if she did that, I don't understand it at all. He then replied Trump, she is terrible, she is terrible. She's getting a free ride. Just always these implications that she didn't earn where she is in her life. He then super randomly switched into talking about Harris's look, saying she looked like his wife.

Quote, I saw a picture of her on Time magazine today. It looks like the most beautiful actress to ever live. And that was an article about the Harris campaign being the swiftest vibe shift in modern American political history. But Trump's focused on her looks. Here's the Time magazine cover. Trump is referring to, this drawing of Kamala Harris. And this is what his wife, Melania, looks like. Maybe I'm missing it.

Can we see them side by side possibly? Can I, okay, there we go. Don't see it at all. Don't see it at all, but maybe I'm missing something. And then, of course, they went on, Musk awkwardly tried to change subjects, and Trump went on to lie over 20 times, saying Venezuela, sending us rapist and murderers,

his favorite OG line, that sea levels will only rise in eighth of an inch over the next 400 years when in fact they'll rise more than that every year, go on about how much he likes Kim Jong-un and fond over Musk's ability to easily fire people calling him the greatest cutter for firing staff if they complain about bad working conditions. Yeah, well, ironically, we had a your fired shirt for Donald Trump after he lost in 2020. But you know what? I just realized, by the way, You can get that at shop tyt.com. And hopefully after he loses this time around, we'll sell more of it as well.

Okay, so check that out. We'll have the link down below. There it is. You're fired. But we bring that up ironically because that was his tagline, right? On Apprentice, that's what he got even more famous for. So it's not surprising that him and Elon Musk were talking about,

oh yeah, we love firing people. Well, we're going to talk more about that later in the show. In terms of she never earned anything, She was district attorney, then attorney general, then senator, then vice president. Look, I'm not overly fond of politicians, and I'm not that impressed when they win a race after they, you know, stuffed their campaign full of contributions from corporations and all sorts of other things, right? But if you're saying she's not, that's a lot of qualifications. What else did you want?

Like you say, is there something else that you needed her to do? And becoming vice president is not easy. Right, you have to really work your way up there. And then somebody picks you, but somebody picks you if you're on the other side too. I mean, couldn't you make the same argument for J.D. Vance, who didn't have that kind of political career? And then Trump picked him when he's just a very new senator. So that makes no sense at all.

But of course, now the main thing is the looks, right? Why he's bringing it up is inexplicable to its unsettling. Like apparently he was looking at how hot Kamala Harris was on the cover. Okay, weird. And he's like, oh, she looks so good. She looks like my wife, even weirder, especially when she doesn't look anything like your wife. Okay, I know Trump doesn't know this, but Kamala Harris is black. Your wife is white. There's a little bit of a different. Or in Trump's world, she just turned black. You remember when you thought she just turned black? Is Melania black? Is she Indian? I don't get it at all about the comparison.

But now that you're forcing us into this conversation, I think how well Harris looks better in real life than she does on the time cover. I think it was a particularly flattering picture. No, it's a strange picture, but at least Trump is maturing. He didn't say she looks beautiful like my daughter. Yeah, which he has in the past. That's a positive. I guess we'll take our wins where we can find him.

Are we not merciful? All right, we're out of time in this hour. Ben, you got any shows coming up? coming up? Yes, actually my podcast just relaunches tonight last week on Earth with Ben Glebe. I go in depth on all of the news of the last week, pop culture, politics, trends, weird stories, science, technology. And you can subscribe wherever you got your podcast last week on Earth with Ben Glebe. I'd love to see you there. Yep. And Ben's also-get very weird and funny on it. Yep. And also Ben is on Rebel headquarters, which is in the TYT network. Make sure you're checking out

that channel as well. All right. When we come back, we have more news for you guys, including the story of the consequences that might come from that talk about firing people during the interview. And Arizona has an ingenious plan, at least the Democrats do, that I think will probably deliver Arizona for them. So we'll talk about that when we come back.