All Episodes
Previous Next
March 4, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
26:30
AMB. Chas Freeman :
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Tuesday, March 4th, 2025.
Ambassador Charles Freeman is here with us on, has the government really stopped sending military supplies to Ukraine?
But first this.
Markets are at an all-time high.
Euphoria has set in.
The economy seems unstoppable, but...
The last administration has buried us so deep in debt and deficits, it's going to take a lot of digging to get us out of this hole.
Are you prepared?
Lear Capital specializes in helping people like me and you grow and protect our wealth with gold.
Did you know that during Trump's last presidency, gold rose 54% to a record high?
If that happens again, that puts gold at $4,200 an ounce.
In his next term, don't wait.
Do what I did.
Call Lear at 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com for your free gold ownership kit and special report, $4,200 gold ahead.
When you call, ask how you can also get up to $15,000 in bonus gold with a qualifying purchase.
Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them the judge sent you.
Ambassador Freeman, welcome here, my dear friend, and good day to you.
Before we get to the issue at hand, which is the announcement last evening that the United States would halt sending military supplies to Ukraine, the cause of that and the geopolitical result of it,
I did want to ask you a few questions about Israel.
Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be using Food, medicine, and water.
The denial of food, medicine, and water as an instrument with which to wreck, sabotage the ceasefire, an instrument of war, a war crime, continuing as genocide, claiming without evidence that the food,
medicine, and water that is getting through to the Gazans is being stolen by bandits, and so therefore it's better to starve everybody than enrich the bandits.
Your comments on this.
Well, clearly this is a war crime.
No question about that.
It also is part of a longstanding pattern of Israeli reneging on agreements.
In this case, there was an agreement on a ceasefire.
Phase two was to have begun.
Israel refused to negotiate that.
Mr. Whitcoff, the envoy of President Trump,
You would think, you would hope, you would expect That Witkoff, the president through Witkoff, would say, forget it, Bibi.
We don't want any more killing.
But I don't know.
Haaretz reported that that happened, but I haven't seen that report anywhere else.
Do we know if Netanyahu is back down or if they're still denying food, water, and medicine entry into Gaza?
Well, there's no evidence that he was backed down.
We have an odd contradiction here where President Trump has just put on 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and 10% more on China.
Basically intended, I think, to show his base that he's a tough guy, but he's not tough on Israel.
On Israel, he's basically a wimp.
He's extending the policy of Joe Biden.
He is morally liable for genocide, is he not?
Yes, but in many ways he's even less restrained than Joe Biden was.
Biden had to respond to mass protests within his own party.
The Republican Party is apparently largely at ease with violations of the laws of war.
I guess he is following what your and my colleagues Jeff Sachs and John Amir Scheimer have argued totally beholden to the donor class in the United States, the most ostentatious of which is Mrs. Adelson.
Well, we don't know the details of the transaction with Mrs. Adelson, but it appears that in return for her donation of $100 plus million to the Trump campaign, she got assurances that he would support the final ethnic cleansing.
As we speak, the Arab League is meeting.
Is this an effective resistance to Israel, or is it tepid, lukewarm?
Well, the Arab League itself has been remarkably feckless over the decades.
It very seldom does anything significant.
Very often it's used by Arab rulers to engage in performative diplomacy with no teeth to it.
I think that, however, may be changing.
You know, the Israeli atrocities in Gaza...
In the West Bank, the invasion of Lebanon, the seizure of Syrian territory for Israel, the attacks on Yemen, the attack on Iran, have done the impossible.
They have united Shia and Sunni and they have united the Arabs in concern about Israel.
And so we see the Arabs unanimous in their condemnation.
Of the Trump plan for Gaza, which is basically, as someone said, a repetition of his father's practices in New York real estate, that is, call the cops, expel the tenants, tear the building down and replace it.
That is what he seems to be thinking about for Gaza.
It has provoked the Arab League and the Arabs generally to step forward with their own plan for Gaza.
Using Palestinians to rebuild Gaza, but against this is the experience that we've seen over decades now, that whatever gets built in Gaza by whomever, whether it's the West or the Arabs,
Israel then proceeds to destroy.
So there's been an endless cycle of building and destruction, building to try to make life decent for people in Gaza.
Is the Trump-Gaza-Riviera plan so universally mocked now dead, or do you think that this is still brewing somewhere?
And colleague Scott Ritter views it as a slap in the face to Netanyahu.
You can't deal with Gaza, I will.
Our friend Colonel McGregor views it as something extremely outrageous.
The American military just would refuse to oust Gazans from their homeland and there's no practical way this could happen.
Well, it's a fantasy and it's alive and well, apparently.
In Mr. Trump's head, it has been universally...
I think Scott Ritter has a point.
In terms of Israeli domestic politics, it cuts both ways.
You have the religious Zionist extremists like Smotrich dancing with joy at the prospect of the eradication of the Palestinian presence in Gaza and the settlement of Gaza by Israelis.
That's one reaction.
And then I think you have...
Indeed, as Scott suggests, another reaction, which is this symbolizes the utter failure of Netanyahu's professed policy of getting rid of Hamas and, by implication, annihilating the Palestinians in Gaza.
He can't do it.
The United States must do this for him, and it is therefore a bit of a humiliation.
Mr. Netanyahu, however, has a very, very thick skin.
He seems to be willing to accept all kinds of rebuffs and just charge on with his program, which is the same as the Zionist program has been for 100 years, and that is depopulate Palestine of Arabs and replace them with Jews.
McGregor argues that a war is imminent.
That the Egyptians are ready, willing, able, and prepared to expel the Israelis from the Philadelphia corridor, and that if this happens,
it'll be the moral equivalent of the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand was to the trigger of World War I. Dr. Greger is right about the consequences.
of warfare over the Philadelphia corridor.
They are exactly as he says.
They would figure a region-wide assault on Israel, very likely bringing in Turkey as well as the other Arabs.
Nobody really wants this.
Everybody wants Israel to behave reasonably.
But there is a serious danger that this could happen.
I don't think the Egyptians Before we segue over to Ukraine, I'm not a movie buff,
and I've never really heard of this documentary, but a documentary was awarded the best documentary of the year, and it was made by two young directors, one Israeli and one Palestinian.
Their comments at the Academy Awards were deeply, deeply moving.
We've edited it down, so it's about 30 seconds each.
I'd like to play it, and I'd like your thoughts on it.
Chris? The Oscar goes to No Other Land.
Thank you to the Academy for the Award.
It's such a big honor for the four of us, and everybody who supported us for this documentary.
About two months ago, I became a father and I hope to my daughter that she will not have to live the same life I'm living now, always feeling...
Always feeling settlers' violence, home demolitions, and forest pill displacements that my community, Masaf Riata, is living and facing every day under the Israeli occupation.
No other land reflects the harsh reality that we have been enduring for decades and still resist, as we call on the world, to take serious actions to stop the injustice and to stop the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people.
We made this film, Palestinians and Israelis, because together our voices are stronger.
We see each other.
The atrocious destruction of Gaza and its people, which must end.
The Israeli hostages, brutally taken in the crime of October 7th, which must be freed.
When I look at Basel, I see my brother, but we are unequal.
We live in a regime where I am free under civilian law, and Basel is under military laws that destroy his life and he cannot control.
There is a different path, a political solution, without ethnic supremacy, with national rights for both of our people.
And I have to say, as I am here, the foreign policy in this country is helping to block this path.
And... You know, I...
Why? Can't you see that we are intertwined?
That my people can be truly safe if Basel's people are truly free and safe?
There is another way.
It's not too late for life, for the living.
There is no other way.
Thank you.
That is a very powerful statement.
Indeed, eloquent and realistic at the same time.
I think it's significant that it was permitted in Hollywood, which has been one of the places in our country which has been most hostile to any expression of concern for Palestinian lives or any effort to bring about peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis.
It takes an Israeli to come on the stage and say what most Americans...
Seem to be fearful of saying.
Very, very moving, very touching, very profound.
My people can be safe when his people can be free.
All right.
Transitioning to Ukraine.
What is your view, Ambassador Freeman, of the fallout from the confrontation in the Oval Office on Friday afternoon between President Zelensky and President Trump?
Well, there were basically two elements to that.
It was a confrontation of narratives, the official American narrative, which Mr. Zelensky has been the prime spokesman for over the last three years.
This was an unprovoked Russian aggression.
Russia can't be trusted.
This is a military issue, not a political one.
It requires a military response.
Versus Mr. Trump, who's looking for a peace.
In Ukraine and by extension in Europe, a political solution to the problems that caused this war.
So first and foremost, it was a confrontation between two very different perspectives on what is happening.
Second, however, it was also a personal and emotional confrontation.
Mr. Trump has a habit of...
Holding on to his grudges, and he was impeached, not convicted, but impeached in his first term for his interactions with Mr. Zelensky in an effort to persuade Mr. Zelensky to take down Joe Biden,
his opponent.
And I think he is emotionally still tormented by this.
He wants vengeance.
Now, what has happened since the confrontation is more of the same.
That is, we see a battle in the narrative.
It's expressed in Europe.
Europeans are still talking basically about military solutions to Ukraine.
They have not yet come to agree with Mr. Trump that a political solution is required.
We see Mr. Trump doubling down on the invective against Mr. Zelensky, accusing him of...
All sorts of misdeeds.
And Zelensky, not apologetic, but attempting to leave an opening for reconciliation.
I don't think that despite the efforts of Europeans like the British, Sir Kerr Starmer, to broker a reconciliation between Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Trump, that that is possible.
I think we've seen a divorce.
It's not a separation.
I don't think this is going to get patched up.
That has profound implications for Ukraine and for the Ukraine war.
We hear calls now by many for Mr. Zelensky to step down elections.
Mr. Trump has said that he believes there should be elections.
This echoes Vladimir Putin's repeated statements that Zelensky lacks.
Constitutional legitimacy, and he can't therefore make a deal, and that there needs to be an election to restore legitimacy to the authorities in Kyiv.
We're also hearing on the right in the United States, from well-known figures in the MAGA movement, demands for the United States to withdraw from NATO, from the World Bank, and so forth and so on.
A very isolationist tone.
So far, Mr. Trump has not embraced those demands.
But that event in the Oval Office was epic setting.
It may result in the dissolution of NATO.
It could result in a much more isolationist American policy generally.
There are rumors in Europe this morning that President Trump...
Will announce that he plans to withdraw from NATO tonight when he addresses the Congress.
These are just rumors.
I don't know the origin of them or whether there's any factual basis to them.
But in your view, Ambassador, what would become of NATO if the United States withdrew?
Well, it would be a vehicle for European defense system, certainly.
I don't think withdrawing from NATO is wise, although I've long favoured the Europeanisation of NATO.
That is that the United States should move off the front line to the back, we're the back up.
And I say that because I think the history of the 20th century shows that North America and Europe are part of a single geopolitical zone and that we need to be concerned about the direction of affairs in Europe.
Several times in the 20th century, we were dragged into wars in Europe as the system there broke down.
And we have provided an essential balancing role.
Russia needs to provide a balancing role also.
The biggest mistake that was made after World War I was the excommunication of the two great powers, Russia and Germany, from any role in the management of European affairs.
That brought about World War II.
And arguably was the genesis of the Cold War as well.
So change is required.
I hope it doesn't involve U.S. withdrawal from NATO.
I hope it involves an adjustment in U.S. relations with NATO to reduce our exposure.
Here's Prime Minister Starmer.
On Sunday, now, after the conflagration, the Oval Office, President Zelensky flew to London, met with Prime Minister Starmer, met with King Charles.
I don't know what came of the meeting with King Charles, but anyway, they met.
Then on Sunday, European leaders, many of them, flew to London.
At the end of that meeting, Prime Minister Starmer said the following, Chris, cut number two.
We're good to go.
Europe must do the heavy listing.
But to support peace in our continent, and to succeed, this effort must have strong US backing.
We're working with the US on this point, after my meeting with President Trump last week.
And let me be clear, we agree with the President on the urgent need for a durable peace.
Now, we need to deliver together.
I mean, how realistic is this?
British boots on the ground and planes in the air.
How long would they last there?
Not very long.
I mean, this is totally unrealistic.
It represents the continued search for some sort of military solution, perpetuating the military confrontation, but reducing the level of violence, basically.
Peacekeeping forces in Ukraine from NATO.
The war began because Russia could not tolerate the prospect of NATO forces in Ukraine, and this is totally unacceptable to the Russians.
It will simply perpetuate the fighting.
We have a situation rather like that in Korea in 1950, 51-52, in which the fighting continues as the negotiations develop.
And I don't think there are any European, not just the British, has any significant capability to confront the Russians on the ground in Ukraine.
So in the end, there must be a settlement between Russians, Ukrainians, and Russians, Europeans, and Americans.
And that has to be a political solution, not a military one.
And here we have the odd result of these meetings in London that basically the Europeans who met there are working up a plan to present to President Trump.
Not to Vladimir Putin, not to Volodymyr Zelensky, but to Mr. Trump.
I don't know what prospect it has of being accepted by Mr. Trump, but I think he's quite realistic on this issue.
He knows that Ukrainian neutrality is essential.
Ukrainian neutrality cannot include NATO presences in Ukraine.
I don't know whether he has studied the 1955 Austrian State Treaty, but that is the model for Ukraine.
It created an independent, prosperous, democratic Austria with protections for the rights of its minorities.
It's the Italians and the Tirol, the Slovenes, the Hungarians and others who are in part of the Austrian fabric.
So there are models to be followed.
But they do not include occupation of Ukraine by foreign forces or peacekeeping troops on its territory.
If there are peacekeeping troops for a while to manage a transition, they're going to have to come from the global south, which has been neutral in this war.
Some people have talked about China, India, and others.
I think more realistically, given the charges against it.
I know that it has taken sides, which I don't think is correct.
Those charges are not correct.
But still, we all have to deal with the vilification of each other in this war.
And so if there are peacekeeping forces, they're going to have to come from places like Ghana and Uruguay and others who have played an important role in peacekeeping efforts elsewhere.
Ambassador Freeman, a pleasure, my dear friend.
Thank you so much for joining us.
Look forward to seeing you again next week.
Very good.
Sure. Have a great day.
Coming up, Professor Gilbert Doctorow, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Pepe Escobar, Professor Glenn Deason, Aaron Maté, and Professor John Mearsheimer, Judge Napolitano, for Judging Freedom.
▲
Export Selection