The Young Turks - Piers The Veil - June 4, 2025

Episode Date: June 5, 2025

Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month Shopify trial and start selling today at ⁠shopify.com/tyt Israel lawyer Natasha Hausdorff is left flailing as Dave Smith and Piers Morgan dismantle her defenses of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Ana unpacks Netanyahu's long history of pushing the U.S. into war. Meanwhile, the results are in from Democrats’ $20 million effort to “study American men,” and the findings could reshape campaign strategies. Hosts: Ana Kasparian SUBSCRIBE on⁠ YOUTUBE⁠ ☞ ⁠ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks⁠ FOLLOW US ON: ⁠FACEBOOK⁠  ☞  ⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks⁠ ⁠TWITTER⁠  ☞      ⁠ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks⁠ ⁠INSTAGRAM⁠  ☞ ⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks⁠ ⁠TIKTOK⁠  ☞ ⁠         https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks⁠ 👕⁠MERCH⁠  ☞⁠      https:/www.shoptyt.com⁠ 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 have what might be one of the most explosive shows that we've done here over at TYT. I can't wait to get to what we have in the first hour, especially. We're going to talk about why I keep saying and why Chink keep saying and why a lot of people actually who have been paying attention keep saying that the main reason that the U.S. would ever engage in a war with Iran is on behalf of Israel. So I'm going to show you the history. We're going to put everything in historical context.

And if you're wondering, who the hell are you? Welcome to the Young Turks. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. And we have a fantastic show ahead for you all today. We're going to get into a pretty fantastic debate that Pierce Morgan had on his show with someone from an organization known as UK lawyers for Israel. So we'll start the show with that. And then later in the second hour, Jen Cueger will be joining us to kind of check in on the big, beautiful bill and a whole host of other stories. It looks like Marjorie Taylor Green now has some pretty big issues with the legislation and says that if a certain provision doesn't get taken out,

she will make a big stink about it. So we'll see if she's being honest about that. We'll talk about what that provision is and more. So stick around for the second hour. And as always, just want to encourage you to like and share the stream if you're watching us live. You can also support TYT by becoming a member. Just go to tyt.com slash join or hit that join button if you're watching us live on YouTube. All right.

Well, without further ado, let's get into one of Pierce Morgan's better debates. He's been having more and more of them lately. And this was yet another satisfying example. Take a look. So how many children has Israel killed? If we go back to the question. Well, can you answer my question? If you go back to the ratio question, do you know my question?

No, but I can tell you the ratio, even on the basis of Hamas figures. You can tell me the ratio without, but how do you know if you don't know how many of dying? I can tell you the amount of steps that Israel takes, unprecedented in the history of armed conflict. And military commanders were telling. Sorry, it just is. Which other army sends warnings as to? Which other war in recent times? Have you had half the population is under 18 and you've killed 20,000 kids?

You're a smart lawyer. Do you not understand how ridiculous that sounds? If we were in a courtroom now, you would be demolished by a fellow lawyer. Well, you just witnessed some tidbits of Pierce Morgan's debate with staunch Israel defender, Natasha Hallsdorf, who also happens to be an attorney with an organization called UK Lawyers for Israel. Now, we're going to take a little look at that organization in just a minute. But as you can see from the screen, Dave Smith was also part of this debate. He did a fantastic job as usual on this topic.

But we're not going to use any of his, you know, any of the portions where he's speaking because I think what really stood out in this debate was Pierce Morgan essentially taking Hossdorf to task for the very brazen lies she was telling on the air. So let's get to this organization that she's from because I think it's important to kind of understand who she is and the kind of people she runs with before we get into some of the spicy debate clips that I'm going to show you. So if you are unfamiliar with the organization known as UK Lawyers for Israel, it's worth mentioning that just last month, they faced some backlash, some backlash. Now, I don't know, some people might say that backlash is unfair.

You judge for yourselves. Here's a headline about that backlash. UK lawyers for Israel condemned over claim, war may reduce obesity in Gaza. Palestinian rights group says remarks criticizing a Lancet analysis on impact of the conflict are sickening. Look, at this point, referring to it as a conflict is something that I find sickening, because how are you going to call it a war when you're dealing with one party that has a military superpower backing it and providing military aid? That's the United States, providing aid to Israel, of course. You're talking about millions of people who are trapped in Gaza, unable to escape to safety in any way, shape, or form. They don't have defense capabilities.

They don't have a military protecting them or fighting back. And when you look at the high civilian death toll, when you see the statements for members of Israel's government, I just think referring to what's currently happening in Gaza as a conflict is a little ridiculous and gross. With that in mind, I want to give you a little more details about this controversy that UK lawyers for Israel, got involved in because that claim that life expectancy of Palestinians might actually increase due to the fact that Israel is intentionally starving them is ridiculous. And it actually came from the organization's chief executive, Jonathan Turner, who was basically responding to an analysis that was published in The Lancet that shows that the true death toll of the genocide in Gaza is likely much higher.

And when you consider the indirect deaths that will basically add up, at the time they estimated that the death toll would be 186,000. I would venture to say that if they went back and did another analysis, given the fact that the war has gone on longer, that death toll will go up higher. But Turner wrote that it was totally false and misleading to cite the figure from a letter published by the Lancet last year, which was a projected figure, including indirect casualties. He adds, the Lancet letter also ignored factors that may increase average life expectancy in Gaza, bearing in mind that one of the biggest health issues in Gaza prior to the current war was

obesity. Yeah, I think the biggest health issue for Palestinians in Gaza has been Israel, pretty much. Okay, but their whole organization exists for the soul. purpose of defending Israel, so I wouldn't expect him to be honest about that. Now, let's get back to the debate between Hossdorf and Pierce Morgan. So again, Hossdorf is with the organization, UK Lawyers for Israel. She's there to defend Israel. She's also the woman who debated Jank on the same topic. And when she was losing the debate, apparently called him a parasite, real classy. But I want to get to the first clip because she said a lot of gross things. You should watch the whole debate for yourselves.

These are some of the highlights that I wanted to draw attention to. So she denies a crime carried out, any crime carried out by Israelis that everyone else in the international community has basically indicated is a crime, is illegal. And that has to do with illegal settlements. Let's take a look. On the point of legality, actually it's very productive. On the point of legality, only last week the Israeli government announced new settlements, 22 settlements. Well, no, can we pause on. Hang on. Hang on.

On the West Bank, 22 settlements, which the international community views as illegal. They announced 22 new settlements. As a lawyer, given your adherence to the point of law, presumably you would condemn that. Well, this is exactly why we need to be clear about how international law applies and why the notion of these so-called illegal settlements is a mis-in-lawful. It's not a legal term, it's a political term, and it is part and parcel of a misapplication of international law to the status of the territory. These blood liables, occupation, ethnic cleansing.

Wow, so you think the settlements are not illegal? That is exactly what she's saying, Pierce. She does not believe that the illegal settlements that are currently being built by Israeli settlers in the West Bank are in fact illegal. Now, just to be clear, this Now, just to be clear, this pathetic excuse for an attorney, for an attorney, thinks that what you're about to witness in the next clip that I show you, It doesn't break any international laws at all. Take a look.

Extremist settlers are increasingly using violence to seize land in the occupied West Bank. For months, BBCI has been investigating settlers waging a campaign of intimidation and harassment, man, you don't have to touch me, and harassment against Palestinians. We reveal how one is accused of. shooting a Palestinian man and how organizations with ties to the Israeli government fund and support settlers in this growing movement. The idea is to clean the area from Palestinian presence. The idea is to ethnically cleanse not just Gaza, which the Israeli government has just brazenly admitted they're intending to do, but also to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in the West Bank

from their rightful homes. That's been going on for a long time. But now the Israeli government has kind of made clear, look, now we're behind it. Okay, we used to deny we're behind it. We used to deny that we would essentially provide cover for the settlers as they were driving Palestinians out of their rightful homes in the West Bank. We pretended like we had nothing to do with it. Now we're making all of those illegal settlements legal, official, and we're going to build

more of them. We're going to build more of them. But according to that pathetic, pathetic embarrassing woman, not illegal, not illegal to carry out some of the most gruesome, gruesome crimes against humanity imaginable, not a crime. She's just, look, if you're having one of the worst days ever, let's say you're having one of those days where you don't feel good about yourself. We all have those days, and that's okay. But I want you to think about her and how she willingly embarrasses herself on the international stage. on behalf of Israel, as Israel is carrying out these atrocities in the West Bank, in Gaza. And of course, this isn't anything new. This has been going on for a long time.

But obviously, the war crimes have accelerated over the last year and a half. So she is just such a loathsome person. But if you think it doesn't get worse, buckle up, hold your butts, because it does get worse. Let's talk about her denials in regard to the Palestinian doctor who just lost almost every single one of her children in a single Israeli airstrike. Let's watch. Dr. Alar al-Nadjar just taken to her night shift at the hospital to look after other people's children. Her husband, also a doctor, went home to look after their own. And then their house was hit by an airstrike. Now, some of the pictures we're showing you, they're trying to save the people. This is the civil defense force trying to rescue the family. Some of those pictures

are so horrible we can't possibly show them. Because nine of those 10 children were killed, were incinerated. Just the one and the husband survived and were operated on. I think the other thing which is really important to understand is that Israelis, where I am, are not seeing these images. Their television stations are not showing what we show every night. So the doctor that we're talking about here, her name is Dr. Ala al-Najar, and she was actually in the emergency room trying to save the lives of other Palestinians as the bodies of her own children started to arrive. At first, there were seven small bodies. All of them were her children. Then she found out two more of her children died in that single airstrike. and that the only two people who had survived were her husband, Hamdi, and one of her sons. Well, there is an update on Hamdi.

Let's go to graphic three here. Hamdi was treated in hospital for brain and internal injuries but died on Saturday. Allah and her 11-year-old son, Adam, who remains in the hospital, are the sole remaining survivors of the family. This is documented. I haven't seen anyone deny that this happened. Except for one person. Why don't we listen to that loathsome creep right now? Because we are hearing that Israel is targeting children,

and that couldn't be further from the past. Well, last week, nine out of ten children in one home where two doctors reside were killed in an airstripe. What was that? It's not remarkable. What was that? That has been based only on the basis of hearsay. You don't believe that story?

I want these stories. Wait, wait a minute. You don't believe that those children were killed. I have seen conflicting accounts, and I want that story to be properly invested. before the international media runs with it. You think those two parents, one of whom I think operated on one of the children. I have a question. You think that those two doctors, the parents, they just made it up.

The nine of their ten children had been blown to pieces by an Israeli airstrike. If this is true. You don't believe it. Well, why on earth was artificially generated imagery used to promote this story when it first happened? I've got to say, I think what you've just said about that family. Our family is despicable. Yeah, it is despicable, absolutely despicable. Can you imagine?

I mean, my mind wandered back to Alex Jones, claiming that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. Now, there was widespread condemnation toward Alex Jones for doing that. Imagine these parents lose their children in a horrific school shooting. Handi hook, little kids, gun down, and this guy profits off of spreading lies about it being a false flag operation that's intended to take guns away from Americans. That's the whole reason why this alleged false flag operation would take place. Obviously, Alex Jones did lie about that, went to court as a result of the defamation he was engaging in, lost that case. But where's the widespread condemnation for this horrible person who is so effective in dehumanizing Palestinians that she can go on one of the most popular news shows in the world, Pierce Morgan Show, and say with a straight face that she questions whether nine of the 10 children belonging to Dr. Al-Najar were actually killed in Israel. in an Israeli airstrike. Like what, how exactly?

And here's the other thing about Israel's tactics here. It's really important to kind of get into this because every tactic that they've engaged in has backfired. Because they're so out of touch with what people actually believe when it comes to humanity, when it comes to protecting innocent people. Do they really think it'd be a good idea to send out their little lawyer and deny

something that's obvious, something that every was able to see and read about. How does that help Israel? And how does that help this ridiculous organization, UK lawyers for Israel? How exactly is this helpful? It doesn't help Israel's cause. It just makes it seem like the Israeli government is even more low-sum than we already believed it was.

But she's not done, by the way. Let's go back and hear more of her denials about the horrific story involving this doctor's loss of her nine children and her husband. You talk about blood libel, like Dave said. You talk about blood libel. You talk about lies. What I said, yes, was that there was conflicting accounts. And here you sit here as a lawyer and you say that you do not believe those nine children were killed.

I didn't say that. You're putting words in my mouth. Do you believe it or not? I said that they were conflicting accounts and it needs to be investigated. Do you believe it? I thought you would be the first person. The parents said nine of their ten children were killed. Do you believe them or not?

They haven't said that directly. Or did those two doctors make it up? They haven't said that directly as far as I have said. seen. I have seen second-hand accounts and hearsay. But it's important to ask, why are these civilians still there? Why is it that you need to ask whether you believe that family have lost nine of their ten children? I want to know why the international community. You don't. And this goes to the point that I would say about Israel generally now in this war now. Israel says they don't believe anything. Everything, every story that comes out about the deaths of civilians in Gaza,

someone will pop up representing the Israeli government saying, it's propaganda. That bitch just have the audacity to say, why are those civilians there? Why are those civilians there? Palestinians have the right to the land, the region, the area known as Gaza. Aside from that, even if they wanted to leave, and many, by the way, have. wanted to flee Gaza in order to get medical attention to maybe have a shot at surviving, they get blocked by Israel. Now, of course, Israel wants to push all of them out of Gaza into other neighboring countries, Arab majority countries, whatever, to ethnically cleanse them so they can

take hold of that land, of course. They just brazenly say out loud, overtly all the time that they don't believe that Palestinians deserve their own state. They're not going to allow them to remain in the West Bank or Gaza, but in the meantime, as they engage in their bombardment to kill as many civilians as they possibly can, they have nowhere to go. They run to whatever humanitarian aid enters the Gaza Strip in order to get some food, some sustenance, something to help them survive. And as they do so, they get shot at by the IDF. They get killed. Is she going to argue, why are these Palestinians running toward the humanitarian aid? They deserve to get killed by the IDF.

I mean, this bitch, seriously. And, you know, it's not, I get it, not professional, not classy to call her a bitch. She's a bitch. She's a terrible person. And I hope I live long enough to be able to read about her the way we've read about Nazis in history books. We got to take a break. When we come back, we'll talk a little bit about Benjamin Netanyahu's history of making false claims about Muslim majority and Arab majority countries, countries that neighbor Israel

in order to drum up support and manufacture consent for wars with said countries. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the show. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and while the last segment might have been somewhat satisfying, it was still heavy, you know, the stories about gauze are difficult to cover. But I wanted to kind of pivot over to the topic of a potential war with Iran, which honestly, the United States has been pressured to engage in, not just over the last few years, not just over the last decade, but for literally decades. Now, oftentimes when we

talk about Israel and how I believe that we're being pressured by Israel to go to war with Iran on Israel's behalf, it's because I know too much, I've seen too much, and honestly, Netanyahu who can't keep his mouth shut. So that's what this segment's about. I want to put our current moment in historical context. And with that being said, let's get into it. The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv has reported Israel's former Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has publicly said the September 11th attacks have been good for Israel.

Netanyahu said, quote, we're benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the the Twin Towers and Pentagon and the American struggle in Iraq. Obviously we'd like to see a regime change, at least I would, in Iran, just as I would like to see in Iraq. The question now is a practical question. What is the best place to proceed? It's not a question of whether Iraq's regime should be taken out, but when should it be taken out? It's not a question of whether you'd like to see a regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it. That clip that you just watched featuring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was from September 12th, 2002, prior to the U.S. preemptive invasion and war in Iraq. And interestingly enough, he, you know, name drops Iran as he is encouraging the United States to go to war with Iraq. Now, of course, Israel had an interest in the United States fighting a war in Iraq, even though Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11. And what we should do and what I really wish our

political class would be willing to do, but they're all too corrupt to do it, is maybe consider the mistakes that were made in the lead-up to the preemptive war in Iraq and how we were being goaded by the likes of Benjamin Netanyahu to do that invasion based on a false premise. Now, false premise was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Obviously, we did the invasion. It was a complete and utter disaster. There were no weapons of mass destruction. And of course, everyone should be asking, why the hell did we invade a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11 and really posed no threat to U.S. national security, especially because they did not have weapons of mass destruction. Now, the fact that they

didn't have those weapons didn't stop Netanyahu from lying to the American people and the American government. And when the U.S. finally invaded Iraq in 2003, do you think the IDF joined us? in that war? No, they sat back. They watched, they enjoyed. As over 4,000 American soldiers died, as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died. So now we're thinking about a potential war with Iran. Does Iran pose a national security threat to the United States? No, they don't. Does Iran pose a national security risk or threat to Israel? Yeah, they do. If Israel wants to fight that war, they should fight that war.

But Israel doesn't want to fight that war. They want you or your kids to fight that war. They want you or your kids or your family members to pay for that war. And that's a super strong statement to make. I get it. Until you actually look into the history and the decades of statements, and lies that have been uttered by Benjamin Netanyahu, the current Prime Minister of Israel. So let's get into that.

Israel's current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been pressuring the United States to fight its wars in the Middle East for decades. Okay, so in every instance that I'm going to show you, he lies and fearmongers about Israel's enemies allegedly developing nuclear bombs or having weapons of mass destruction. And if you're wondering where the Bush administration got that idea, who planted the seed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Look no further than Netanyahu, who as early as December of 1990 was already spreading lies about the threat of these Middle Eastern countries. So here he is, this is December of 1990 on the Today Show. Let's hear what he had to say.

I think I've stated our policy and I think it's very much your policy. That is, the question is really, how do we ensure that these weapons of destruction, these missiles, these chemical weapons, the nuclear program that is fast accelerating in Iraq, that these do not pose a threat in the aftermath of the crisis, assuming he gets out of Kuwait. This is an issue for the entire international community. Saddam Hussein did not have possession of chemical weapons. He did not have possession of weapons of mass destruction. He was not developing a nuclear bomb.

That was a lie. And just think about the timing here. This is in December of 1990. Okay, so you have Netanyahu already going to work. All right, how do we manufacture consent for war in Iraq? Not a war that we Israelis want to fight, but we want to get Americans to fight it for us. So he began planting that seed.

But it didn't take long for Netanyahu to use the same fear-mongering tactics when it came to Iran. Here he is in his first address of a joint session of Congress. This is in July, July 10th of 1996. I was just 10 years old when he addressed a joint session of Congress in order to drum up support for a war. Let's take a look at that. The most dangerous of these regimes is Iran that has wed a cruel despotism to a fanatic militancy. If this regime or its despotic neighbor, Iraq, were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country and not only for the Middle East, but for all of mankind.

Only the United States can lead this vital international effort to stop the nuclearization of terrorist states. But the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close. The deadline is getting extremely close. Bro, it's 1996. What are you talking about? In 1996, you have Benjamin Netanyahu say, oh, weapon of mass destruction, a nuclear bomb is right around the corner. We must do something about it.

We need regime change. U.S. invade. Spill your blood, use your treasure. We're going to sit back and watch you do it. We're not going to get involved, but we're going to pressure you to do it. And by the way, this is 1996, but this is before the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. And Citizens United, I mean, made our politically corrupt system so corrupt. which creates an opening for foreign interests to have far more sway and influence over

our politicians. So, you know, back in the 1990s, you've got Bibi Netanyahu running his mouth about how, oh, yeah, Iraq and Iran, they've got a nuclear weapon right around the corner. We've got to do something about it. But no one was willing to pull the trigger, probably because they hadn't been corrupted enough yet. Because remember, the politicians aren't going to send their kids to fight that war. They're not going to go fight. that war. Mark Levine's fat ass isn't going to go fight that war. Your family members are going to fight that war. Ordinary Americans are going to fight that war. So a year, a single year after the 9-11 terror attacks, you know, the terror attacks that Netanyahu said were good for Israel,

Netanyahu testified before Congress and encouraged the United States to invade Iraq. But he also cited his other interests in that region. Take a look. The problem is you're not dealing with Iraq alone. You're dealing with a terror network. You're dealing with a system where you have proxies. The two nations that are vying competing with each other, who will be the first to achieve nuclear weapons is Iraq and Iran. And Iran, by the way, is also outpacing Iraq in the development of ballistic missile systems that they hope will reach the eastern seaboard of the United States within 15 years. So I guess that doesn't include California, but includes Washington.

But what it does, a third nation, by the way, is Libya as well. Libya is, while no one is watching under the cloak, is trying very rapidly. to build an atomic bomb capability. I believe that the next step is to choose. It's not a question of whether you have to take action. Just choose the right one. But what kind of action and against whom? Saddam is probably in many ways a linchpin

because it is possible to take out this regime with military action. And the reverberations of what happens with the collapse of Saddam's regime could very well create an implosion in a neighboring regime like Iran. Obviously, we'd like to see a regime change, at least I would, in Iran, just as I would like to see in Iraq. The question now is a practical question. What is the best place to proceed? It's not a question of whether Iraq's regime should be taken out, but when should it be taken out? It's not a question of whether you'd like to see a regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it.

Yeah, I'd love to see a regime change in Israel. I see Israel is a much bigger problem than the Middle Eastern countries that he's referencing here. Keeping it real. Notice how he mentioned Libya in that speech in 2002. Gee, I wonder why the United States got involved in that conflict. I wonder why we engaged in a regime change war in Libya that took out Gaddafi. Was it because we were concerned about the people of Libya? Because we're certainly not concerned about what's going down in Libya right now with a literal slave trade. Makes me sick.

This makes me sick. On September 27th, 2012, Netanyahu gave an embarrassing speech before the United Nations General Assembly and lied repeatedly about the nuclear threat posed by Iran in order to drama support for regime change in Iran, obviously carried out by the United States. Let's take a look at that. So how much in rich uranium do you need for a bomb? And how close is Iran to getting it? They have to enrich enough high-enriched uranium for the first bomb. Where's Iran? Iran's completed the first stage.

Took them many years, but they completed it, and they're 70% of the way there. Now they're well into the second stage. And by next spring, at most, by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks. That was September of 2012. September of 2012. Nanyahu claimed, oh my God, Iran, months, maybe weeks, maybe weeks away from having a nuclear weapon. Think about it. Big threat.

By the way, the Iran nuclear deal that was secured by Obama and some of our allies wasn't signed until 2015. So between 2012 and 2015, there was no deal ensuring that Iran was not enriching uranium to build a nuclear weapon. And in that time period, they didn't have a nuclear weapon. By the way, you want to know who does have nuclear weapons? Israel. The Israelis have nuclear weapons. They don't admit it. It's a big open secret because the U.S., the theory is that the U.S. illegally transferred nuclear weapons to Israel, which I wouldn't be surprised by. But they have nuclear weapons. When I was in grad school, there was one specific political scientist that we would read about or from. We would read his work. Kenneth Waltz is his name, and he pushed this theory that at the time, I thought, was insane. But I'm really starting to rethink whether his theory was insane.

It's called the nuclear peace theory. Sounds crazy. And the idea is, once nuclear weapons exist, there would be more global stability if every country had nuclear weapons. Now, his thought is states are rational actors. And if they know that the use of these weapons, these bombs, would lead to mutually assured destruction, well, no one would use them. I think the rational states or rational actors part of it, there's a lot of heavy lifting there. At least that's what I thought back then. But Israel can't really bully its neighbors around if they have nuclear weapons, right? If mutually assured

destruction is a possibility. So this obsession with preventing its neighbors, with Israel wanting to prevent its neighbors from having a nuclear weapon, first of all, let's just dispel the notion that the Israeli government is concerned about Americans and our safety. They couldn't care less. The only use they see for us is their personal ATM account so we can pay for their bombs and the slaughter of innocent people in Gaza and the West Bank. But I just want to be very clear, in 2012, Netanyahu said Iran was months, maybe weeks away from having a nuclear weapon. And that was a lie. He told the American people before Congress that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons. Okay, they had nuclear weapons. We got to do something. He lied.

He lied, he lied. By the way, what happened with Syria once Bashar al-Assad was taken out? Israel goes in, they capture some territory. It's not difficult to see what's going on if you're willing to be a naughty boy or girl and not listen to the mainstream media narrative in the United States about what's happening here. Later in March of 2015, Netanyahu told a joint meeting of Congress that the Obama administration's decision to remove economic sanctions on Iran in return for Iran signing the JPCOA, that's the Iran nuclear deal, would have terrible outcomes, terrible.

He said, Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb, except the nuclear deal, which wasn't just between the United States and Iran. It was between Iran, the United States, Russia was part of it. We had European allies who were part of it. You have the international agency dealing with atomic weapons, able to go into Iran to ensure that they weren't enriching uranium, to ensure that they weren't actually developing nuclear weapons. But Netanyahu hated the Iran nuclear deal. Hated it, absolutely hated it.

So in April of 2018, Netanyahu claimed that he had conclusive proof of a secret nuclear weapons program that Iran had been hiding for years. He wanted to show the evidence that he had. So let's take a look at this laughable evidence that he's presenting. Iran lied.

Big time. After signing the nuclear deal in 2015, Iran intensified its efforts to hide its secret nuclear files. A few weeks ago, in a great intelligence achievement, Israel obtained half a ton of the material inside these vaults. And here's what we got. thousand pages, another 55,000 files on 183 CDs. Matt, I really hope you transferred those CDs to a USB drive. I mean, technology has been updated a bit. Wow, whoa, you got some files and some

CDs? That's not a bomb and there's no evidence of them making a bomb. Like, what is that? What is that? So that was what he said in 2018. This is April of 2018. And like the good little boy that he is, few weeks later, May 8th of 2018, Donald Trump stupidly pulled out of the JCPOA, which again ensured that Iran couldn't enrich enough uranium in order to build a nuclear bomb. Because Netanyahu doesn't want diplomacy, okay? He wants regime change. And when you engage in a nuclear deal that ensures that they don't build a nuclear weapon, that gives you less reason to go to war with Iran. And Netanyahu don't like that. He likes it when he effectively pressures the United States to risk their men and women in the armed forces in wars at his behest. So just weeks later again, that's what Obama, that's what Trump.

decided to do. And now Trump is considering entering a new nuclear deal. There's a lot of pressure from neocons, the same neocons who back Netanyahu, who back Israel, who backed all of the regime change wars that we engaged. And they're pressuring Trump to not pursue diplomatic means and get a new nuclear deal signed. And I have no idea what Trump is going to do. To be honest with you, I don't, I'm not dumb. I don't have hope in Trump. But I do have some hope when it comes to a significant portion of his voters who don't want this. I mean, take a look at Mark Levine's ex-posts, you know, goading Trump into going to war with Iran. All the comments on those posts are Trump supporters and they all hate him.

And so if they speak up loud enough, honestly, I think there are only hope at this point. in preventing a war with Iran. But Trump's also very transactional. So who knows, if he gets paid enough, he'll do anything. Finally, I just want to give you something I came across that I think is pretty relevant to this discussion. So back in 2010, a video emerged of Netanyahu speaking on camera. He was speaking to settlers in the West Bank.

And he made some interesting statements. A newly revealed tape shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once openly discussed his intent to attack the Palestinian government, undermine the Oslo Peace Accords, and manipulate the United States to ensure its approval. The 2001 recording shows Netanyahu meeting with Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank. Addressing potential U.S. opposition to Israeli expansionism, Netanyahu says, and I quote, I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily.

Move in the right direction. They won't get in the way. So now the real question is, is Donald Trump willing to get in the way? Or is it going to be a little bitch for Netanyahu like Bush was? Because history doesn't look fondly at the Bush administration and what they got into. And I know Trump is someone who actually really does care about his ego, cares about affection and validation.

So what does he want his legacy to be? That of George W. Bush, or maybe something better? An American president who is actually willing to stand up to the government of Israel and the loathsome acts that they want our country to engage in. I guess we're going to have to wait and see. We'll be right back. I really want to read this comment from our viewer Titan because I think a lot of our veterans are in the same boat that you're in and it just breaks my heart. So Titan writes it and says, I was a part of that pointless war in Iraq, I'm guessing.

It was the very thing that caused my political awakening. The things I saw and experienced in that atrocity of a war are still with me and inform my thinking today. Well, Titan, I'm just going to assume, like most other soldiers who decided to enlist after 9-11, you were part of the military because you felt it was the right thing to do. No one enters the military to be a bad person or to engage in terrible acts in other countries. Now, some people unfortunately do end up carrying out terrible acts in other countries, as we learned as that war in Iraq was ongoing, Abu Ghraib, you know, you get the picture. But I just think it's so important from, it's so important to prevent the same errors that

I see being made or were at least headed in the same direction as we were with Iraq. And I'm terrified of that because I just, it's so unfair to the American people, it's unfair to our And honestly, part of the reason why I have some level of respect for Vinny on the PBD podcast, hear me out. I know you guys disagree with him on Paul. I disagree with him on politics wholeheartedly, except for one issue. He was also in the military. And he learned a lot about what was going on with Israel while he was in the military. That's why he's one of the more outspoken voices against what's currently happening in Gaza. And for that, and for any, Regardless of their political affiliation, if they are willing to tell the truth about what's currently happening in Gaza, they have my respect. Period. End of story. So thank you for sharing your story with us. And I really hope that we prevent a war with Iran. History speaks says the genocide in Gaza exposed many of our leading journalists and intellectuals as massive frauds. If an official enemy were committing these crimes, example, using its control,

of borders to block all food imports, none of them would hesitate to call it genocide. Yeah, you're right about that. There is a double standard, clearly, when it comes to the atrocities carried out by Israel. Okay, we're moving on to some other stuff. There's other news to get to, including the ongoing embarrassment of the Democratic Party's attempt to appeal to men. Let's get into it. Last week, we covered that pretty embarrassing story involving the Democrats deciding to invest $20 million to figure out why the party lost so much support among men in America, especially young men. So the speaking with American men or Sam project is actually starting to release some of its findings. They have some initial findings, believe it or not. So they got right

to work. And their findings happen to be, in my opinion, some of the most obvious things in the world, which really highlights the significance of how out of touch Democrats are with ordinary people, normal people. And this is the party. This used to be the party of the working class. This used to be the party of FDR. Now they like can't figure out men, which is amazing. So let's get to the details. So Sam promises investment to study the syntax. That's it. At that point, at that point, you already know they're going to fail. But I'll continue with what this is all about. Language and confront that and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces. It recommends buying advertisements and video games, among other things. Above all, we must shift from a moralizing tone it urges, which is like maybe the only thing I've read about this project that I agree with.

I think the moralizing tone turns a lot of people off. And so if you're the party of scolders, you're going to drive people away from your party. I think that's just common sense. I don't think you need to spend $20 million to figure that out. Now, let's break down just how bad the Democrats problem really is, because in last year's presidential election, the gender gap leapt to 13 percentage points nationally, up from nine percentage points in 2020. men's support for Kamala Harris dropped by six points,

winning just 42% of men, the lowest on record in recent elections. Now, Sam's national survey found that just 27% of young men viewed the Democratic Party positively, while 43% of them viewed the Republican Party favorably. That gap became even more pronounced among 18 and 29-year-olds. Like, people get really mad when I say this, but you either want to know what went wrong or you don't. And if you don't want to know, like if you want to live in like magical thinking land and everything is great and Democrats aren't making any mistake, okay, stop listening right now. Okay, but for those of you who want the truth, Democrats can't stop telling men how much they hate them. That's a problem.

Okay, not every man is carrying out toxic masculinity. They're not acting as though, not all of them, certainly, are acting as though they're entitled to sex with any woman they want. Like, these stereotypes that lump all men together and make them out to be bad guys is not healthy, it's not right, and it's not good politics, obviously. So I'm not surprised that men are like, yeah, Democratic Party, I don't know if I like them, because the Democratic Party keeps signaling that they don't like men. That's the issue. So, and by the way, let me just put it in the context of women. Obviously, I'm a woman, and I love femininity. I love it.

I'm like, I wish I was able to be more feminine in my life, but I work in a very masculine field of work, obviously. And I just feel like I have a lot of male energy around me at all times, which is fine. I don't have a problem with that. But there aren't a lot of opportunities for me to feel as feminine as I want to feel. If the Democratic Party suddenly started talking about how toxic I am because of how much I identify with femininity, in fact, I have a specific example. I remember there was like this super radlib student that I went to grad school with. His name was Bruce. And he was a good guy. Okay. He met well. But I remember one time I had to go to class after work at TYT and I was wearing heels. And he started chiding me for wearing heels. He's like, you've been brainwashed by the patriarchy.

You don't like that. You don't like wearing heels. And I'm like, damn right, I like wearing heels. Who the hell are you to tell me I don't like wearing heels? It was just incredibly insulting. So I just, any time I think about the messaging coming from the Democratic Party and whether or not it's going to be effective, if they're focused on a specific demographic or group of people, I try to turn around and think about how it would make me feel to be the target of that same messaging.

Okay, so just think about that. Now, it is worth noting that 5% more conservatives than liberals responded to that survey. So the survey result, again, had more conservatives included, so the results might be a little skewed. But now let's talk about how men feel about the Democratic Party. So Sam's first round of research consisted of 30 focus groups and analysis. media consumption survey. They found that many young men believe that neither party has our back. True, true.

As one black man from Georgia said in a focus group, participants describe the Democratic Party as overly scripted and cautious, while Republicans are seen as confident and unafraid to offend. Now, in an era of people always talking about their sensitivities and always talking about how offended they are, it gives rise to a counterculture where you seek out people who don't give a damn about offending others. So I think that's definitely part of this. Now, Elise Hogue, who's the co-founder of Sam, stated, Democrats are seen as weak, whereas Republicans are seen as strong. Young men also spoke of being invisible to the Democratic coalition. And so you've got

this weak problem. And then you've got this, I don't think they care about. about me problem. And I think the combination is kind of a killer. Elise, this is why they pay you the big bucks girl. You get it. You get it. Now, in the focus groups, the young men stated that they felt stressed. I mean, I can totally relate to that as a woman, but certainly in a culture where traditionally speaking men have been thought of as like the breadwinners or whatever, I can understand in this economic situation that we're all dealing with, there's a lot of stress. They feel ashamed and confused about how to be a man.

Maybe because they keep getting slapped around when they just want to be themselves, right? So they vented about conflicting cultural messages of masculinity that put them in a no-win situation around the meaning of a man according to the Sam Project memo. Okay. So other issues included feeling isolated after the COVID lockdowns, which makes sense. By the way, the COVID lockdowns, I mean, we're still obviously experiencing the downsides of that and the repercussions, the consequences of that. You know, so many community groups and ways in which people would connect with one another in person basically got shut down and they never came back. And so everyone, needs a sense of community, right? I remember when my mom wasn't in the hospital and I was able to go to dance class. Going to those dance classes and seeing the same people all the time and feeling closer to them with each passing class that I took made me feel a sense of community. It made me happier. And when those things are kind of taken away from you because of forced lockdowns or

whatever other reason, yeah, it's going to cause feelings of loneliness. It's going to cause other issues. Obviously, for a lot of young men who might have just graduated college and they're entering the job market for the first time, it's a terrible situation to find yourself in when you graduate and there is no job market because there's nationwide shutdowns of businesses. So, and they're also upset about how they're unable to afford traditional economic milestones like buying a house or paying for their kids college. And that is one of the most understandable things in the world because the whole point of growing older, doing the work, going to school, working hard, whatever, is you have, you're working towards something. You have

something to look forward to. And I think at this point, not just men, by the way, I think most Americans are feeling as though it doesn't even matter how hard I work, right? It just feels like those milestones that used to come, I wouldn't say easy, because obviously you have to work hard to get these things, even historically. But there was a path to getting those things. Now it seems like there is no path. And that leads to a lot of frustration, a lot of anger. So when you have the Democrats in power and they're like nickel and diming, they're making a little, like they're tweaking around the edges policy wise, but it doesn't really change the material conditions American workers are experiencing. Yeah, there's going to be backlash to

the Democratic Party, especially when someone like Donald Trump comes in, presents himself as someone who's going to save them, improve the economy, and create a situation in which, you know, they're going to be golden. They're going to do really well. They're going to be able to buy that house. They're going to be able to invest money in the stock market. Now, obviously, Trump has been losing some support, especially among independent voters and Latino voters, who opted to support him because of his economic messaging, because guess what, he hasn't delivered? It's just the truth. So now let's move on to some of the other findings here.

John Della Volpe, another co-founder of Sam, and he's also a pollster who specializes in Gen Z, stated the degree to which those economic concerns are also impacting how they think about themselves and quote unquote success of being a man and living up to their own expectations or the expectations of their family or society. There's another layer of economic anxiety. This is my favorite part that I don't think I fully saw until now. You're a pollster? What kind of polls were you doing? You didn't realize that there is widespread economic frustration among pretty much everyone,

but certainly among young men. I just, I don't know if you're doing your job right, if you just realized that. But anyway, the men in the focus group also spoke about how politicians, especially Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, made them feel. So vibes matter, okay? I think the last election cycle was really a vibe-based election. And an Asian-American professional described Democrats as embracing the fluid masculinity of being like empathetic and sensitive, while Republicans are more like the traditional

masculinity of a provider strong and the machismo type. I don't know if I would have used the word machismo. I don't, anyway, but continuing. Another Latino man from Las Vegas said that during the 2024 campaign, Harris focused on, oh, I got Beyonce on stage with me. Oh, I got Lady Gaga on stage. And it just kind of felt like, what does that have to do with me? I'm trying to move up in life.

That is shocking, actually. It is shocking to me that men weren't seduced by the lyric. talent of Beyonce. How did that not work? It's weird. It's crazy. Look, overall, I'm happy that the Democratic Party at least wants to figure out what they're getting wrong. But in the process of doing so, they're kind of showing us how out of touch they've been and how much work they have to do. You know, same guy says Trump's over here like, if you're able to get a surplus in our budget, then we're going to have no tax on tips, no tax on overtime. It's going to take a while to get to that point.

But at least he's saying the things that, oh, this is what I'm going to do, the Latino man added. Remember when you guys got mad at me when I kept mentioning how Trump repeating that he's going to do no tax on tips was like effective political messaging and it's going to work? It worked. It worked. I don't say these things because I'm trying to kiss Trump's ass. I say these things because my job is to do analysis. And I see things pretty clear. I mean, the last election cycle, I saw things real clearly,

which is why election night I wasn't panicking. I didn't freak out because I saw that iceberg coming. The question is, why didn't the Democrats see that iceberg coming? And will they see it in the future? Who knows? We're going to have to wait and see. Let's take a break when we come back. Jank Uger joins us for the second hour.

Thank you.