Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano - Prof. Jeff Sachs : Netanyahu Undermines Trump's Gaza Deal.

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 1, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano

27:26

Prof. Jeff Sachs : Netanyahu Undermines Trump's Gaza Deal.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
	Today is Wednesday, October 1st, 2025.
	Professor Jeffrey Sachs joins us on Benjamin Netanyahu undermining the Trump Gaza deal.
	Gee, what a surprise.
	But first, this.
	My friends, if you care about your liberty and your right to control your own future, you need to hear about this.
	From October 10th to 12th, Mikhail Thorpe, host of the Expat Money Show, is bringing together top experts from around the world for the Expat Money Online Summit, and it's completely free to attend.
	You'll learn how to legally protect your wealth, secure second residences and citizenships, reduce your tax burden, and own property abroad, all to safeguard your freedom.
	This year's focus is on Latin America, where opportunity is booming.
	Argentina is shifting to free markets.
	El Salvador is undergoing a dramatic transformation.
	And Panama and Paraguay are offering simple residency programs.
	A plan B is no longer optional.
	It's essential.
	Reserve your free ticket at expatmone summit.com.
	And if you want VIP access with special perks, including lifetime replay access and exclusive VIP panels, use promo code JUDGE for 20% off your upgrade.
	That's expatmoneysummit.com, promo code Judge.
	Professor Sachs, welcome here, my dear friend.
	Thank you for the uh double duty this week.
	What is your understanding of the uh Trump Gaza agreement?
	And who do you think agreed to it that Trump can even call it an agreement?
	Well, it's basically a Trump Netanyahu agreement.
	Uh, there was uh uh a plan that had some good elements in it uh that uh Trump discussed with Arab leaders uh a few days ago, but then uh Trump met with Netanyahu and uh with Netanyahu's uh uh political aide and an American uh Israeli uh Ron Darmer,
	who was uh Israel's uh ambassador to the United States for many years and is uh uh a deep hardliner.
	And out of that meeting, uh Trump uh changed the terms of the agreement in some pretty basic ways, uh, and then announced it unilaterally.
	So uh he says there was an agreement uh with the Arab nations.
	Uh but of course in the end, this is a Trump agreement with Netanyahu.
	Uh and it it may not satisfy uh every one of Netanyahu's uh most uh murderous genocidal colleagues, uh, though uh when they look at what Netanyahu has gotten from Trump, uh they they may well go along with it.
	It's basically a deal that uh the fighting would end, uh Hamas would uh disband uh disarm, and Israel would keep uh basically open-ended control of Gaza.
	So it's uh mostly a recipe for continued Israeli occupation of Gaza.
	Was there in the agreement a contemplation that after five years, uh serious negotiation would begin for the establishment of a Palestinian state?
	Well, there's no such thing as serious negotiation of a Palestinian state.
	There either is a Palestinian state or there's not a Palestinian state.
	Israel will never negotiate a Palestinian state.
	And you don't have to take my word for it.
	You can listen to what uh BD said at the UN, and uh we discussed that.
	The whole point of uh Net Yahu's speech at the UN was to say never a Palestinian state.
	And his ambassador uh reiterated that point in the UN Security Council afterwards.
	There's no negotiation for a Palestinian state.
	It has nothing to do with Israel.
	Israel has no veto over a Palestinian state.
	The only one with the veto is the United States.
	Uh the U.S. literally uses its veto to stop uh the state of Palestine, now recognized by more than 150 countries from being a member of the United Nations.
	Uh so uh it's not a matter of negotiating.
	That's the joke.
	That's the trick.
	That's the uh that's the parody of the last uh 30 years.
	And by the way, uh the completely Zionist-controlled media, and it is in the United States, says, oh, it's always the Palestinians uh that uh don't accept the deal.
	Well, just listen to Netanyahu.
	Just listen to him.
	He was very clear at the UN.
	No, never.
	It's got nothing to do with negotiations, Palestinians are evil, and never will there be a state of Palestine.
	That's been true for decades, by the way, for people who listen.
	But Netanyahu, we can we can thank him for one favor.
	He was vulgar and clear uh in his speech at the UN a few days ago.
	He told it straight.
	Israel's position is never.
	So to say that there would be negotiations after five years is just the most meaningless, empty point uh when this is an issue that's been going on for a hundred years, and Israel has no intention ever of allowing such a state.
	Now, there are other things that could be done, uh, and the rest of the world could stop dealing with Israel uh until it obeys international law, and it could be treated as uh the rogue state that it is, and that would make a difference, but not uh an agreement, quote unquote, that starts negotiation sometime in the future in some vague way.
	This is pathetic, worse than pathetic.
	It's a it's a farce.
	I know this is uh the New York Post, so take it for what it's worth, but this is their uh digital headline for tomorrow morning.
	Hamas signals it could reject Trump's Gaza peace plan that only quote serves Israel's interests.
	Hamas has indicated it could reject President Trump's Gaza peace plan because it only serves Israel's interests and ignores the Palestinian people.
	One of the group's senior figures said on Wednesday, the militant group is said to have issues with some of Trump's 20 conditions for ending the war, including that it disarm and destroy its weapons as well as the deployment of international stabilization force into Gaza.
	Hamas has yet to officially respond.
	What is the international stabilization force?
	Another phrase for the IDF.
	Well, uh, it seems like it is uh a way to put U.S. troops on the ground, uh is what it is.
	Uh I I think that that's uh definitely part of it because it mentions uh that the US would be part of this.
	So it could be uh partly a U.S. uh occupation force.
	Uh there was an idea, and it's a valid one uh of uh a protection force for the Palestinian people uh that is uh formed by uh uh by uh the Islamic nations, uh and Indonesia has said, for example, that it would contribute to such uh uh a uh protection force.
	But the way that this agreement is written is that Israel keeps its security control over Gaza, in other words, Gaza remains under Israel's dominance, which is Netanyahu's whole point.
	Uh it is a kind of well, it's it's a surrender uh of uh of uh the Palestinian cause is is what it basically is.
	Here's uh Prime Minister Netanyahu speaking in Hebrew immediately upon his return from Washington uh to Tel Aviv.
	Instead of Hamas isolating us, we turned the tables and isolated Hamas.
	Now the whole world, including the Arab and Muslim world, is pressuring Hamas to accept the conditions we set together with President Trump to release all our hostages, both the living and the fallen.
	While the IDF remains in most of the Gaza Strip, who would have believed this?
	After all, everyone kept saying you have to accept Hamas's terms to withdraw everyone.
	The IDF needs to withdraw, and Hamas can recover and also rehabilitate the strip.
	No way, that's not happening.
	On the contrary, and President Trump added that if Hamas refuses, he will give Israel full backing to complete the military operations to eliminate it.
	And that's why I think from every perspective, this was an excellent visit.
	Many in the government, there's a question being asked.
	Did you agree to a Palestinian state?
	Absolutely not.
	Well, written in the agreement.
	President Trump also said that he said he understands that.
	He also said at the UN that it would be a huge reward for terror and a danger to the state of Israel.
	Idea why Smotrich and Ben-Gavir condemned this?
	Well, I think that uh what happened was that there were discussions uh on Thursday and Friday with the uh Arab leaders, and then uh the terms were changed in uh the meeting of Trump and Netanyahu and Dermer.
	Uh and uh the terms improved, let us say, for Israel.
	It became basically a license for permanent Israeli uh control, I would say, uh, because uh all the supposed language of something else is so vague as to be absurd.
	So uh this is uh uh of course uh in a circumstance where Israel is starving, uh two million people.
	Uh there were two deaths from starvation today reported, uh, and uh another 51 people uh killed today by IDF uh uh uh by by IDF uh actions.
	So the the slaughter goes on.
	Uh people are trying to end the slaughter, but uh uh basically what Trump and Netanyahu have uh concocted uh with uh a lot of uh heavy players in the background uh of the Zionist lobby uh is uh no state, no Palestine, uh none of this uh uh matters, uh none of the recognition by the rest of the world matters, none of the slaughter matters.
	Uh uh there will be a surrender and uh Israeli uh control will continue.
	Uh I don't think that this is uh really going to stand up uh in uh in the way that they think, but this is uh what the idea is uh that uh Israel has used a genocide to quote win.
	That's basically what Netanyahu has said.
	Uh when the fighting stops, when it stops, we will see the genocide uh before our own eyes, uh, except that Israel will do everything uh to prevent uh any independent eyes, any uh actual examination of the forensic evidence,
	but uh to the extent that uh witnesses are allowed and not killed by Israel, that will reveal what has happened, which is uh uh a crime of uh astounding proportions.
	So the handshake between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump in the Oval Office on Monday, and the hoopla uh over the agreement is just a subterfuge.
	It's nothing that the that Hamas of the Palestinian people would ever expect.
	It's a subterfuge for more slaughter and more starvation.
	Well, what Netanyahu said uh with his characteristic lying uh is that this is an agreement that was uh agreed with the Arab leaders, they did not agree to this agreement.
	This is the agreement that was changed by Netanyahu and then unilaterally announced.
	This is not a group of honorable people, let me put it mildly.
	Uh, they uh announce whatever they want, they say whatever they want, and they kill whoever they want, by the way.
	Uh but this is not an agreement that was reached with the the Arab neighbors.
	Now, whether they will have uh uh actual actually the gumption to explain what has happened, I have no idea.
	Um, American force uh threats from Israel, the continuous uh uh use of uh every kind of murderous uh approach has uh has definitely quieted a lot of people.
	So but this is not an agreement that was reached uh uh with Trump and the Arab leaders uh and Israel.
	That's absurd.
	Why do you think there's no humanitarian empathy whatsoever manifested by Trump or his people or Netanyahu or his people for the abject, obvious, unassailable suffering of innocent people like babies?
	Because uh this is uh the raw power structure of the United States.
	This is uh a war in which uh our leading companies, uh Microsoft, uh Amazon Cloud Services, uh, Meta, Talenteer, uh, Google uh are all complicit.
	Uh this is the American power structure.
	And what's interesting about these tech companies who have concocted high-tech murder is that they also own most of the media in the United States now, uh including one of the uh most zealous uh backers uh of Israel, uh uh second richest person in the world is about to uh also own TikTok because TikTok had some independent videos that people could watch, and that was unforgivable.
	Uh so it has to uh fall into the hands of uh Larry Allison's son uh so that uh we get those uh awful pictures uh uh away.
	So what's happened is uh there is no humanity in this, and there's no room for humanity in the mainstream media, which is controlled by the very companies that are fighting this war as well.
	It's it's really something.
	The uh captain of one of the uh boats in the aid flotilla, which is slowly making its way uh in the in the Mediterranean.
	Well, it's just been boarded apparently in in just the last minutes.
	Yes, yes, and this particular captain who made a video of himself before they took a cell phone from him, is an American.
	I mean, what is the State Department going to do about an American citizen kidnapped in international waters by the Israeli military?
	Well, maybe try to send them to El Salvador or to send them to South Sudan or to send them some other place.
	Uh the American uh military role is to, and the the American policy is to keep all eyes off of what is happening in Gaza.
	And that's the role of the tech companies, that's the role of the White House, that's the role of the media.
	They're all the same right now.
	Uh, so it's not as if it's uh different groups, but uh why was the flotilla stopped?
	It was a humanitarian unarmed flotilla stopped in international waters, because the idea is to make sure that no one sees the truth.
	That's why.
	Um this Congresswoman from Georgia is not really someone that you and I would expect to agree with us on much, but she apparently uh is is in a full accord with us on Israeli issues.
	Marjorie Taylor Green has just called for any social media influencers paid by Israel or its American acolytes to register with Farah, the foreign agent registration act.
	I don't think that's ever going to happen, but God bless it for pointing this out.
	Well, most of the platforms are owned by strong uh uh backers of uh this whole cause.
	So this is uh we have a media, uh a so-called mainstream media, whatever it is, the the platforms, uh the cable, uh all the rest.
	It's a few owners, uh almost all of them are uh staunch uh backers of Israel, so you wouldn't see Anything other than what you're supposed to see uh in the media.
	And again, that's what the TikTok issue uh arose from.
	It wasn't about China.
	It was about uh that on TikTok we were seeing what was happening in Gaza.
	So TikTok had to be brought under control.
	You can't have just open media uh in an issue like this.
	Uh you know, having uh a genocide uh in broad daylight, uh little inconvenience.
	So you have to make sure that all of the channels of communication are somehow shut down.
	And the flotilla that is there on a humanitarian mission.
	Well, you have to intercept it in international waters, which they've just done.
	Yesterday um uh Secretary of Defense and calls himself Secretary of War Hag Seth gave a reprehensible preening and demeaning talk to 800 generals and admirals at uh Quanaco, Virginia, and the president did well.
	This is perhaps the most alarming thing the president said.
	Chris, number 19, please.
	San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles.
	They're very unsafe places, and we're gonna straighten them out one by one.
	And this is gonna be a major part for some of the people in this room.
	That's a war, too.
	It's a war from within.
	Controlling the physical territory of our border is essential to national security.
	We can't let these people in.
	We're under invasion from within.
	No different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don't wear uniforms.
	At least when they're wearing a uniform, you can take them out.
	These people don't have uniforms.
	I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military, National Guard, but military.
	Streets as training guard, as training ground for American military service.
	Something that didn't even happen during the civil war.
	Well, don't uh let us not say that we weren't told what uh the plan is.
	The plan uh as uh we just heard is a military occupation of our cities.
	Uh it's amazing uh that uh a speech like this uh is given and uh that uh a country were in disarray because uh again, the media are in such concentrated hands, uh, and the media are so aligned with the interests of war that we don't even have a reaction from the media.
	Look at who owns the media, look at the share prices.
	These wars in Gaza and Ukraine, and by the way, uh American tech companies are in both of them, and America media platforms are therefore making huge amounts of money from both of them.
	Um they're not allowing uh our even democratic discussion.
	It's as if, incidentally, we don't have a Congress.
	Uh of course we don't even have a government right now, uh, but uh we don't have uh any honest discussion.
	Uh, president says he's gonna occupy American cities with the military, and it doesn't raise uh even a blip in uh the so-called mainstream media.
	It is only uh being raised here.
	I don't mean just on judging freedom, but in the alternative uh media where you are gracious enough to give us a version of and an understanding of things that mainstream media and the uh APAC crew don't want the Americans to hear.
	Colonel Wilkerson was just um with us, and he referred to January 6 as Trump's failed coup and said he doesn't think they'll fail this time.
	Well, they've they've made their plans, and uh as Heggseth said in his speech yesterday, all those niceties of war anyway were war fighters, uh, you're killers.
	Uh we don't uh we don't have rules that are gonna limit our winning.
	Uh so these uh back-to-back speeches uh were uh absolutely shocking.
	Uh I went back, by the way, I'd like other people to do it to read uh one of the two finest speeches uh of the modern uh American presidency.
	I know what you're I know what you're going to say.
	I was gonna say the uh the farewell address of uh of Eisenhower.
	Uh it it has everything in it, uh, not only uh the warning that our liberty will be lost to the military-industrial complex, uh but also how uh the big tech, he says, uh is going to come and is it we are at risk that it will come and control our society.
	Uh actually, Eisenhower makes all of the points, and the opposite.
	Now, there was a real general uh and a real general that uh won the war uh in uh Western Europe against Hitler.
	Uh, and uh what Eisenhower said was that we need peace and disarmament and decency and civility and diplomacy.
	Heggseth, who is none of the above, uh spoke in the most vulgar possible terms, and the president uh Trump, whose uh military service uh uh is uh, well, let's just say not even a footnote, uh, said that uh the military will occupy our cities.
	It's quite quite a situation.
	Please, people go back and read January 17, 1961, farewell address of President Eisenhower, a real military leader and a real uh Democrat, that is small D Democrat, uh, and uh somebody who told us presciently about the situation that we are in as a nation now.
	You know what he said his favorite job was before he passed being president of Columbia University.
	I thought you were gonna say JFK's speech at American University.
	That's the other great speech.
	I I said that the two great speeches.
	Uh we had two presidents who believed in peace.
	And uh we've had uh a lot of uh mediocrities and then worse uh and uh were in uh the the march to war, and now in the march to war inside the United States, too.
	Wow.
	Terrifying, terrifying, uh Professor.
	I know it's the middle of the night where you are.
	Thank you very much for your early morning email to me, and thank you very much for the time that you uh spend with us.
	It is so deeply and profoundly appreciated.
	Likewise.
	We'll look forward to seeing you soon soon.
	Yes, all the best.
	Thank you.
	He is uh a brilliant, great, and tireless, tireless man and uh a good friend.
	We have a busy day for you tomorrow.
	Uh uh Phil Day, Professor uh Colonel Tony Schaeffer at eight in the morning, Colonel Douglas McGregor at eleven, Pepe Escobar from God knows where at noon, Scott Horton at three, excuse me, at two, and at three o'clock, Professor John Meersheimer, Justin Paul Tana for judging freedom.
	A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment.
	Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
	Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime.
	Or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
	Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry.
	American makers of plowshares could, with time, and as required, make swords as well.
	But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense.
	We have been compelled to create a permanent armament industry of vast proportions.
	How to do this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment.
	We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.
	Now, this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.

▲