All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 31, 2024 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
28:25
AMB Chas Freeman : Will Israel Self-Destruct ?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Thursday, October 31st, 2024 in America.
The crazy holiday called Halloween where people dress up in ridiculous costumes and don't act their age.
But someone who always acts his age, Ambassador Charles Freeman joins us now.
Ambassador, I meant that as a compliment, of course.
And thank you very much for coming to us today.
Excuse me.
I would like to talk to you about Ukraine, Israel and BRICS.
That's a lot.
But let's start with Ukraine.
President Putin says that the Ukrainian troops in Kursk and their Western volunteers, some of whom are Americans, have been surrounded and will soon be eliminated.
What does this tell you?
Well, this is the predictable outcome of this foray into Russia by Ukraine, which was tactically brilliant and strategically disastrous for Ukraine.
It has, among other things, further widened the war with the introduction, apparently, of North Korean special forces alongside the Russians in Kursk, something that is being used as an excuse by some in the West to argue for further.
escalation, but the outcome was always foreordained and Ukraine is about to lose the remnant of its finest fighting forces.
West of that area, the main Russian army continues to march almost without resistance, and some Russian troops have the Dnieper River in sight.
What does that tell you?
Well, it tells you a few things.
The basic problem Ukraine has is not, as it is often portrayed in the West, a lack of weaponry.
It is a lack of men.
Ukraine has just called up another 160,000 men for service.
It's rife with draft dodgers who understand very well that if they go to the front, they have a very poor These troops will not get the training they need, and there's so much cannon fodder.
So basically, the Ukrainian front against Russia in Donetsk is in the process of collapsing.
Russian advances now are measured in kilometers each day, and the Ukrainians...
if they were properly led, would fall back probably about 30 kilometers to a defensive line.
But they have no defensive line built, and the leadership in Kiev prefers to keep them up there where they're getting slaughtered.
The Washington Post reports...
point number one.
Point number two, our colleague Larry Johnson reports that he has seen Well,
I've seen those reports that Larry Johnson mentioned as well.
What they indicate is a breakdown of discipline and order, which is characteristic of the collapse of regimes.
So if I were Mr. Zelensky, I'd be very concerned about the fact that his troops are losing their discipline, that they are turning on their fellow Ukrainian citizens.
But on the other hand, of course, we have to remember that this war in Ukraine began as A civil war between Ukrainian ultranationalists and Russian-speaking Ukrainians.
And that division has not been healed.
It still exists.
So I don't know whether these fleeing Ukrainians were in fact Russian speakers and that their attack on them was a further indication of the reason that the Donetsk and Lugansk regions originally rebelled.
Last question about Ukraine.
Does NOCO equal SOCO?
If North Korean troops arrive to participate in the battle, will South Korean troops arrive in Ukraine to fight them?
Probably not arriving in Ukraine, but there are reports that President Yoon has authorized.
South Korean pilots to fly F-16s in defense of Ukraine, probably from Romania.
South Korea has F-16s and may, in fact, supply them.
South Korea has profited greatly from this war through weapons sales to Poland in particular.
Poland has emerged as one of the most powerful military powers in Europe.
Spending over 4% of its GDP on defense, well and twice the NATO standard that the others have not met.
And much of the equipment it has bought, tanks, armored vehicles, and even jet trainers, has been South Korean.
So South Korea is already heavily involved as an arms supplier.
President Yoon may now have authorized in response to the North Korean arrival for training in Russia, in Siberia, and some deployment to Kursk, may now have actually authorized a more direct involvement.
Ambassador, are wars today no longer about morality, no longer about national security?
but primarily about wealth I think the passions of nationalism are a fundamental factor.
National security paranoia is another.
But what is interesting or perhaps most appalling is that the greatest atrocities seem to be committed by democracies because in order to motivate the populace to support the wars that democratic leaders launch,
We have seen this most explicitly and dramatically in the case of Israel's war of annihilation, extermination, and ethnic cleansing against Palestinians, where there is no cruelty, no act of sadism that is not visible to all of us.
But what conceivable interest does South Korea have in the fight between Ukraine and Russia, other than arms sales or fear of the legitimation, if you will, of the regime in the North?
Well, I think you can't underestimate, especially given the prospect that Mr. Trump may become our president again, the degree of anxiety in Seoul.
Over the American commitment to the defense of South Korea.
The United States, almost 50, 60 years after having engaged in the Korean, I'm sorry, 70 years after having gotten involved in Korea, still has troops there, about 30,000, 28,000, I believe.
And this is a great convenience to South Korea because Those troops are a tripwire if North Korea does resume its aggression against the South.
And they are an excuse for South Korea to spend less on its defense than it otherwise would.
And they are an anchor to the American military-industrial complex, which is happy to supply South Korea with those few weapons that it now no longer makes itself.
So the degree of interest in South Korea in ingratiating their country with the United States and supporting causes that the United States supports should not be underestimated.
May I add this phrase to your words?
Well, yes, of course.
But that does not explain South Korea's appearance on the battlefields of South Vietnam and Iraq.
Those appearances were in order to consolidate American appreciation of South Korea.
Yeah.
I mean, again, before we jump to Israel, because your answers are fascinating to me, Ambassador, is this war going to widen or is the regime in Kyiv going to collapse?
It's a race between the two possibilities at this point.
I suppose November 5th is a factor as well, the outcome of November 5th.
Very much so, given the differences between the two presidential candidates, major party candidates, who otherwise are Tweedledee and Tweedledum in foreign policy.
This is essentially the major difference between them, that Mr. Trump does not support the war in Ukraine and promises to end it ridiculously in 24 hours.
Ms. Harris is very much in the Biden administration's continuity camp.
I'm smiling from ear to ear because I don't think you've seen it yet, but my column out this morning in the Washington Times and elsewhere is entitled Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
And I make almost the identical argument to the one you did.
I also go into civil liberties and debt and other things on which they are essentially the same.
Another argument for another time.
Switching to Israel.
Israel apparently caused little or no damage to Iran.
Last weekend, it had scheduled three waves of attack.
It called its planes back midway through the first wave when they were confronted by some sophisticated defenses with which their radar was unfamiliar.
They flew over Jordan.
So the King of Jordan gave them permission to do that, notwithstanding what his population wants.
They flew over Iraq in defiance of the Iraqi government, but they got permission from the American government, as if the U.S. runs Iraq.
And then they turned around and went home.
What does this tell you?
Well, I think you have to start by recognizing that both sides, both Israel and Iran, For domestic political reasons and for reasons of deterrence, have minimized the effects on each of them from attacks by the other.
The Israelis claim there was very little damage in the Iranian attack of October 1. That does not appear to be true, but that's their claim.
And Iran similarly claims that there's been no damage to its missile production capacity.
That while Israel attacked its radar and air defense system, it did minimal damage to those.
And I don't think we can tell exactly what happened at this point.
What is ominous is that the Israeli attack on Iran's radar and air defenses in western Iran is clearly intended to pave the way for yet another attack on Iran.
Mr. Netanyahu would prefer that Iran retaliate against Israel again, and that would give him an excuse, tit for tat, to go after Iran once more.
But I don't think you can rule it out that he would attack Iran again, regardless, if he is confident in his government's assessment that Iranian air defenses have been significantly degraded.
Iran, by the way, has produced its own significant air defense capabilities independent of those of the Russians from whom it bought the S-300 and from whom it is now likely to get the S-400 or more advanced, much more sophisticated system.
So I don't think you can say that Israel has established the escalation dominance in the region that it sought, meaning that it cannot be sure that it has overawed all its enemies in the region.
In fact, it seems to have increased their fervor and raised the ante for them.
Hamas is not defeated, Hezbollah is not defeated, Iran is not defeated, Israel is not defeated either.
Ambassador, you were a career...
You're the former United States ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
You probably know more about the region than almost any other Americans.
Does Iran pose the slightest threat?
No, it is a threat to our national pride, going back to the hostage-taking which occurred during the Islamic Revolution in 1979-80, and the hostage crisis scarred the American psyche.
It is also a threat to Israel, in Israel's view.
Because Israel sees every country that it has not subdued as a threat.
And Israeli propaganda is a formidable force in our politics.
So the American public has been convinced, told the Bill of Goods, that Iran is a threat to the United States.
It is not.
And in fact, Iran has attacked no one on its own.
For centuries, really.
Ambassador, I want to play a clip of a madman at Madison Square Garden on Sunday who disagrees with you.
I'm a little embarrassed because this is so pedestrian for someone like you.
But I won't even tell you who it is, but you'll know instantaneously.
It's only about...
Some of it is hilarious, some of it is treacherous, but I'd like your thoughts.
Chris, cut number four.
They are our best friend.
I worked for Ronald Reagan for eight years.
Ronald Reagan said, we have to be there for Israel always because they are always there for us.
Hamas is not there for us.
Iran is not there for us.
They want to kill us.
And the Palestinians are taught to kill us at two years old.
They won't let a Palestinian in Jordan.
They won't let a Palestinian in Egypt.
And Harris wants to bring them to you.
They may have good people.
I'm sorry I don't take a risk with people that are taught to kill Americans at two.
I'm on the side of Israel.
You're on the side of Israel!
Donald Trump's on the side of Israel!
And they're on the side of the terrorists!
Is there any evidence?
It's really absurd.
Well, when you said madman, there were so many candidates, but that's clearly the champ.
That's the champ.
What about the USS Liberty and the murder of Americans there?
What about the Americans who've been When was Israel ever there for us?
I don't recall any instance in which it did anything for us except get us in trouble in the region.
During the Cold War it provoked a number of confrontations with the Soviet Union that risked going nuclear.
It required huge It has tried to outlaw UNRWA,
the agency that it demanded be created originally to take care of the hundreds of thousands of refugees it had created through terrorism.
It is a terrorist state.
It rules by terror.
It was born in terror.
And I think that statement by Mr. Giuliani just won't stand any scrutiny at all.
Nor will the statement, and don't let me put words in your mouth, Ambassador, that Iran wants to kill us and that Palestinians want to kill us.
Quite right.
That is not actually Iranians remarkably given the tangled history which...
Despite that history, Iranians are remarkably pro-American.
And I think the same thing, you know, if Palestinians are against the United States, It is because we have identified ourselves entirely, completely, as Mr. Giuliani does, with their oppressors and murderers in Israel.
Ambassador, did King Abdullah further destabilize his monarchy by giving the Israelis permission to fly their jets through Jordanian airspace in order to attack Iran?
I suspect he did.
You know, one wishes Jordan well.
However, it was created as a buffer state between Israel, the Palestinians on the one hand, and Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia on the other.
If it does not perform the duty of a buffer state, which is to be neutral and not allow the passage of hostile forces through its territory.
I don't think it can count on the support of any of its neighbors for its continued existence.
And since 60% of Jordanians are Palestinian, I think the king has got a real domestic political problem now.
Is the king, pick the word you want, agent, extension of, stooge, fool of the CIA?
No, I think he clings to the CIA.
As somewhat of an alternative to Israeli hegemony, which is virtually absolute.
He can't afford to take risks with Israel because Israel is ruthless.
It has carried out assassinations on Jordanian territory.
It fires over the border when it feels like it.
It has disputed his role as the custodian of Al-Aqsa, the sacred mosque.
And it has humiliated him on repeated occasions.
He clings to the United States, which is not exactly equivalent to the CIA, although it's becoming harder and harder to distinguish the two for reasons of very clear national and personal interest.
significance of the expansion of BRICS, including as now a core member, Iran, and likely soon to be a core member, a member of NATO, Turkey.
I think this is very significant.
It is an alternative forum to the United Nations, which, like the League of Nations, appears to be losing its utility as a
In this connection, I hear more and more voices now that Israel has declared war on the UN, arguing that just as was the case with apartheid South Africa in 1974, Israel should be expelled from or not ceded and not allowed to participate in the UN.
The BRICS is not a block like the G7.
And it is not an alliance like NATO.
It is a forum for discussion and the discovery of common interests between its members.
At the moment, it is focused on a number of issues, one of which is reducing the role of the dollar in trade settlement and thereby reducing the ability of the United States to impose policies on its members that They oppose,
which are imposed as a result of our sovereignty over the dollar and the role of the New York Federal Reserve in clearing transactions, along with SWIFT, the clearinghouse in Belgium, that is the international mechanism for dollar-based and euro-based trade settlement.
So they are creating new mechanisms for trade settlement.
In time, this will reduce the role of the dollar.
Internationally, it will not eliminate it.
But it risks the United States' ability to run persistent trade and balance of payments deficits and to handle them by printing little green portraits of dead presidents on paper, which is how we pay for our imports.
At some point, we'll actually have to export something in order to be able to import.
So this is not a good thing from the point of view of the American consumer, and it is a direct blow at the American empire.
And its gross domestic product is several times that of the G7, which once was the G8 before they decided to ostracize Russia.
Right.
The G7 has emerged, in effect, as the club of former imperialist powers.
Still claiming the right to make the rules, exempt itself from them, and impose them on others selectively.
So Israel is subject to no rules.
Russia is subject to all sorts of rules.
Ukraine is not.
And, of course, the United States is exempt from the rule of law internationally at our own insistence.
Including the rules that the United States authored.
Yes, exactly.
We have met the enemy and he's who we used to be.
We have become what we condemned.
Ambassador, thank you very much.
Always a pleasure.
No matter how gloomy the facts and the prospects may be, it's a joy for me and for the viewers of this program to be able to hear your thoughts.
Thank you and I hope you'll join us again next week.
Thank you.
Of course.
Coming up later today, at 3 o 'clock this afternoon, Professor Gilbert Doctorow.
At 4 o 'clock this afternoon, Colonel Lawrence, excuse me, Aaron Maté.
At 5 o 'clock, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson.
At 5.30, a busy day.
At 5.30, Professor Jeffrey Sachs.
Please remember to like and subscribe.
Please go to Judgesnap.com.
If you want to know what that is, Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
So many of you have asked me for whom I plan to vote for president next week.
I've made my family and my close friends angry by not telling them.
But I do say what I think in this article, Tweedledee, Tweedledum, which is my Thursday column, which is out today.
It's hosted at JudgeKnapp.com.
It's also at TheWashingtonTimes.com and about two or three dozen.
We're up to over 273,000 subscriptions.
I think, with your help, we will reach a half a million by Christmas.
But help us extend our reach.
Help us stand up to the legacy media, which employed me for 25 years.
But now won't put anybody that you hear on Judging Freedom on any of their venues, but you know where you can find them right here.
Tell your friends, tell your neighbors, tell your relatives, tell your colleagues.
See you later.
▲
Export Selection