Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano - Prof. John Mearsheimer : Israel After Two Years of Genocide.

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 9, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano

30:17

Prof. John Mearsheimer : Israel After Two Years of Genocide.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom.
	Today is Thursday, October 9th, 2025.
	Professor John Mir Sharmer will be with us in just a moment.
	On how much damage has Benjamin Netanyahu done to Israel since October 7th, 2023.
	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 expatmone summit.com.
	Promo code Judge.
	Professor Mir Shamer, welcome here, my dear friend.
	Thank you for accommodating my schedule.
	Before we explore the economic, political and cultural damage to Israel itself after two years of genocide in Gaza, I want to ask you about something Professor or uh President Trump said just two days ago, and that I was asked about on Russian television uh earlier today.
	And that is a potential decision to give Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.
	The president says he's made up his mind, but he hasn't said uh how he's made up his mind.
	When I was being interviewed on The Great Game, one of their um prominent Moscow talk shows, they asked me a lot of questions.
	The very first of which, which they said was on their minds, was this issue of tomahawks.
	What will happen if Trump gives tomahawks to Ukraine?
	Well, if he gives them tomahawks, you still have the question of whether he will give them permission uh to use those tomahawks.
	Uh and uh it's not clear that he will, and if he gives them permission, it's not clear how many he will allow them to use.
	Uh and my view is with regard to the tomahawks that the Russians will be very upset if tomahawks are given to the Ukrainians and they use them.
	But the key question will be whether or not they do substantial damage or whether the Russians are able to, in effect, neutralize them.
	Pretty much the way they did with Hymars and with Atakums.
	Uh and I think if it is the case that those tomahawks are given in large numbers and the Ukrainians are given carte blanche to use them, uh, and they do a lot of damage.
	Uh, the Russians would seriously escalate.
	Uh but I don't think that's going to happen.
	I don't think he's going to give them tomahawks.
	He might, but I don't think he will.
	And if he gives them tomahawks, uh, I don't think he's going to give them many, and he won't give them permission to use them except in very special circumstances.
	I'm going to play what President Putin said about this the other day, the essence of which is two issues as I see it.
	One is the Tomahawks cannot be used without U.S. involvement.
	And two, if US involvement is integral at that level of attacking uh Russia, it's an entirely different relationship between the United States and Russia.
	Tell me what you think.
	Cut number six.
	It's dangerous.
	As for the Tomahawks, it's a powerful arm.
	perhaps not the most modernized but it's powerful poses serious threat This will not change in any way the balance of powers on the battlefield, the fundamental issues of the armed forces of Ukraine.
	No matter how many UAVs they get.
	And no matter how many lines they create with those UAVs, without the personnel, there will be no one to lead those battles.
	They have to change the tactics.
	Will this pose damage to our relations?
	Where we see light at the end of the tunnel, of course.
	Of course.
	Using tomahawks without direct involvement of the U.S. officers is impossible.
	Which means a brand new stage of escalation, even between in the relations between Russia and the U.S. Repeat the translator's last line.
	Using tomahawks without direct involvement of the U.S. officers, meaning human beings to operate them, is impossible.
	Ritter says that's correct, which means a brand new stage of escalation in the relations between Russia and the U.S. But before we get to that, why would he give them tomahawks but not give them permission to use them?
	I don't know.
	He may want to show that he is not completely abandoning Ukraine in its moment of greatest need, and this may be symbolic.
	He may think that he can give them the weapons and not allow them to use them, and he gets the best of both worlds.
	Who knows for sure?
	I mean, what Putin is doing here is he's sending a very clear message to Trump, which is to say, don't send those missiles.
	And I would imagine that Trump has gotten the message.
	And again, if he gives the missiles to the Ukrainians, and by the way, the Europeans will have to buy those missiles from us.
	Right.
	The Europeans will give them to the Ukrainians, uh, just to be technically correct.
	Well, if that if that happens and American technicians accompany these things and American technicians use use them, will the United States be at war with Russia?
	In the Kremlin's mind.
	In the Kremlin's mind, they're already at war with us.
	Uh the key issue here is that the Russians are winning on the battlefield.
	And the Tomahawks, as Putin said, are not going to make any difference.
	It's why it's preposterous to even be talking about doing this.
	It just is not going to reverse events on the battlefield.
	The Russians are in control.
	The Tomahawks can't solve the problem.
	And why therefore give Ukraine tomahawks?
	All right.
	Uh, you mentioned that the uh Europeans would have to buy them.
	Uh Brussels has come up with a scheme for buying them.
	It will seize 165 billion in Russian state uh bank accounts in EU banks.
	It will hold that as collateral for loans uh to the Ukrainians, which will be used to finance the equipment.
	I don't know if it's going to be Tomahawks, but whatever American arms manufacturers will send.
	And then of course the loans won't be paid back and the collateral will be seized.
	How will the Russians react?
	How will the Kremlin react when the EU steals 165 billion from it?
	Well, first of all, I want to emphasize again that this is not going to alter the outcome of the war.
	That's the first and most important point.
	We in the West have no cards to play here.
	And furthermore, Trump is slowly but steadily walking away from this conflict and turning it over To the Europeans, and the Europeans are not going to be able to rescue the situation, whether we ship them tomahawks or not.
	Second point is that it's not clear that that fancy economic deal to steal Russian money is going to be ultimately approved.
	There is opposition inside of Europe.
	And I don't know for sure whether it will be put into play.
	But if it is put into play, the Russians say they will retaliate.
	They will go after uh Western assets inside of Russia.
	And furthermore, lots of people say that the precedent here in terms of the future of the international economy is not good at all.
	You just don't want to do something like this.
	And this is conversant enough with EU banking regulations to tell us whether or not the government can do this if the bankers resist.
	I mean, the money was put in there on a good faith basis.
	It's earning a lot of interest.
	It's actually more than 165 billion, but that's what they've uh what they've targeted.
	Can Ursula von der Leyen and her warlords just steal money from a bank?
	Well, I would assume that if they can develop uh an overwhelming consensus among EU countries, they can do that.
	Uh, and the question is whether they can achieve a consensus.
	Uh, I've not seen any evidence that people think that the banks will be able to stop this.
	Uh, the banks may be very unhappy, but I think if the political leadership in Europe decides to go ahead with this uh Kakamami scheme, that they'll do it.
	Fascism, private ownership, government control, government control to the point of seizing assets.
	This would be a terrible precedent.
	I mean, I think everybody agrees.
	I shouldn't say everybody, I lots of people agree on that point.
	Right, right, right.
	This would be a terrible precedent.
	And it just shows you how desperate we are.
	I mean, to understand what's going on here with regard to the money and with regard to the Tomahawks, is that the uh the Ukrainians are about to lose in the war against Russia, and this is going to be a devastating blow for NATO.
	It's going to be a devastating blow for the West.
	It's going to be a devastating blow for the leaders in countries like Britain, France, and Germany.
	And they're doing everything they possibly can think of to forestall this outcome.
	But as you and I have talked about on many occasions, and all your guests uh say on a weekly basis, there is no magic formula here for getting out of this mess.
	So President Putin has made it clear, and then we'll transition to Israel in a moment.
	Uh, if I may, Professor, President Putin has made it clear that his primary goal is to degrade the Ukrainian military.
	His secondary goal is to liberate those parts of Eastern Ukraine which are arguably uh Russian.
	Even if he succeeds in both, won't he be confronting uh the problem of banderism in Ukraine, which he can't eliminate because it's an idea, it's an ideology, as dangerous as it may be to Putin's understanding of uh of peace.
	Just one additional point to the list that you gave, and I think it's his principal goal is to make sure that Ukraine is neutral, that it's not correct.
	Correct, neutral neutral and no NATO.
	But what about the Nazi-like the banderism ideology, which uh captured the Ukrainian government and military and intelligence services?
	I make two points about that, uh, which are different points, but I think both very important points.
	First of all, there is going to be when this war ends, when the shooting stops and you get a frozen conflict, there's going to be a dysfunctional rump state.
	Uh and uh the right wingers, uh, the fascists, call them what you want, are going to be, in my opinion, in the ascendancy uh in that rump state.
	And this invariably is what happens in a war like the one that Ukraine has been fighting against Russia.
	So I think the right wing, if anything, has been strengthened As a result of this conflict.
	And I think there's virtually nothing that the Russians can do to change that outcome.
	The second issue is what happens inside of the territory in Ukraine that Russia annexes.
	In other words, there are likely to be a substantial number of people inside that territory that Russia annexes who are deeply committed to attacking Russian forces, undermining the Russian annexation.
	And that could lead to significant conflict inside of the Russian-controlled areas or the Russian-owned areas of Ukraine.
	So once the shooting stops, right, you get a frozen conflict.
	I would not be surprised if you have substantial resistance inside of the areas that Russia annexes.
	And that will create very powerful pressures, pressures for ethnic cleansing.
	The Russians will be motivated to move out people who they identify as sympathetic to the Ukrainian rump state.
	Wow.
	So the potential for trouble here goes on and on.
	Right, right.
	A very interesting typically Mirscheimer brilliant observation that I had not heard before.
	Switching gears.
	What is your take on the Trump Whitkoff, Jared Kushner, Tony Blair, Gaza plan?
	Well in a certain way, I think it's wonderful news because it looks like it's going to end the genocide.
	And I think ending the genocide is of enormous importance.
	And it does look like it's going to do that.
	Whether that holds over the long term remains to be seen.
	But at least for the time being, it looks like the genocide is going to be shut down.
	Amen.
	With regard to creating a viable political solution to let's call it the Palestinian problem, I don't think that this comes close to doing that to just a huge number of issues that are still on the table that haven't been resolved, uh, that have to be resolved before this problem is largely solved.
	And also you just want to keep in mind that the genocidal monsters who run Israel are still in power.
	And they are still committed to ethnically cleansing Gaza.
	Right.
	Have they ever abided by a ceasefire?
	Well, the short answer is no.
	The answer is no.
	But what's very interesting is if you read what's floating around in the media today, uh, it's quite clear that the Palestinians uh and their allies are aware of that phenomenon that you just described,
	and they have said that uh before uh this hostage exchange play takes place, uh the Israelis are going to have to commit uh to a peace agreement uh that this is the end of the fighting, and that that is going to be enforced by the mediators, who I take to be the United States, the Cutteries, and maybe the Egyptians.
	It's not perfectly clear, but it certainly has to include the United States.
	And furthermore, Judge, you want to understand that President Trump has really put himself out front on this issue.
	He's really committed to to creating peace in uh in Greater Israel.
	Uh now, whether he could pull it off, it's a completely different matter.
	But I'm just saying that uh Trump has a lot invested in what's happening right now.
	His reputation is on the line.
	And he has said that you know, we're going to get peace.
	And the Palestinians have said that the mediators, which includes the United States, have agreed that this is not going to start up again.
	We're not going to go through the first phase, and then when the second phase comes, the Israelis decide uh that they can undo things like they did earlier this year.
	Uh so we'll see.
	You um have articulated what Netanyahu and Smotrich and Gavir and even somebody as moderate by Israeli standards as uh President Herzog uh has said before, which is uh they're gonna take Gaza, they're gonna mow the lawn, uh, there will never be uh a Palestinian form of governance there.
	So where is this going to go?
	Well, why would no matter what Donald Trump promises, Hamas have any faith in the longevity of this beyond the exchange of uh hostages?
	The Israelis are returning a thousand hostages, including this one fellow whose name you may know that the Palestinians regard as their Abraham Lincoln, I forget his name.
	Marwan Burgudi.
	Correct.
	And the uh Hamas people, even though they apparently don't control all the hostages live and dead, are going to return the ones they control.
	Why would they expect any agreement to benefit them beyond that exchange?
	What would prevent the IDF from coming right back into Gaza, whether it's boots on the ground or jets in the skies?
	Well, to be clear, I don't know that they're going to let Marwan Burgundy out.
	Uh, I mean, the Palestinians have been demanding that, but what the final deal looks like with regard to Burgundy, uh, I'm not sure.
	Uh, with regard to the Palestinians and their trust of uh Israel, they don't trust the Israelis as far as they can throw them, as I said before.
	Uh, but Hamas is in a really difficult situation.
	There's tremendous pressure from below uh inside of Gaza to reach some sort of accommodation and to put an end to the genocide.
	And as I said before, I do think the agreement uh that's on the table does put an end to the genocide.
	And uh it does give the Palestinians a lot of breathing room.
	I mean, you want to remember that the Israelis in the next couple days are going to pull out of Gaza City, they're gonna pull out a Rafah, they're gonna pull out of Kanunis, right?
	Those are the three big cities in Gaza.
	And uh the humanitarian aid is going to flow in.
	And uh so this is all wonderful news uh given what's been happening over the past two years.
	But the Palestinians understand that uh they cannot let their guard down and they have to worry constantly about the Israelis starting this up again.
	Uh again, the Israelis are bent, you know, you talk about mowing the lawn.
	The Israelis are not interested in the situation where the Palestinians in Gaza are in a concentration camp, and every two or three years they come in and mow the lawn.
	That's not what they want.
	What they want is they want to drive all the Palestinians out.
	That's their goal.
	Right.
	And people who have been in charge over the past two years, these people who are referred to as genocidal monsters, are still in control.
	And they still have the same goal.
	And they'll be looking for every opportunity they can to drive the Palestinians out.
	The Palestinians know that.
	And I would bet Trump knows that as well.
	But the question is, what can Trump do?
	Uh, what can the Palestinians do?
	And uh that's why it's hard to say for sure where this one goes over the long term.
	How has Israel changed in the past two years while its uh forces have slaughtered a hundred thousand people?
	Look, there's no way you can engage in a war and a genocide like this and it not have a profound effect on your society.
	Uh and I believe that effect will be overwhelmingly negative.
	Uh, I think that you know, if this conflict is shut down uh in a meaningful way, at least uh for the foreseeable future, and the Israelis are put in a position where they have to reflect on what has happened, uh they will conclude almost across the board that this has been a disaster.
	I mean, we talk about the fact that their reputation has been sullied uh forever.
	Uh, and I think this is certainly true, uh, to be uh for the Jewish people to be uh accused uh uh of a genocide is something that is going to be extremely difficult to live with.
	But it's not just that.
	If you look at Israel's situation inside of Greater Israel and with its neighbors, uh the situation is not good at all.
	Here in the Western media, everybody likes to talk about all these great victories the Israelis have won.
	Oh, they did this and that to Iran in June and so forth and so on.
	They decapitated Hamas, they decapitated Hezbollah and so forth and so on.
	This is this is not an accurate representation of what has happened.
	Why are we talking about attacking Iran again in the fall if we beat them in June?
	The fact is we, meaning the Israelis and the Americans, didn't defeat them in June.
	And the reason we're going back after the Iranians in all likelihood in the fall is because we didn't defeat them.
	They're still there.
	With regard to Hamas.
	Hamas is not finished.
	Look at the deal that's now on the table.
	Hezbollah is not finished.
	The Israelis are back to square one in very important ways in a lot of these conflicts.
	And one could argue in the Iranian case, they're worse off.
	So I think uh when uh you look at the end result uh of all these battles that they've been fighting, and then when you realize that the long knives are going to come out once the uh shooting stops and uh the external threat in effect goes away,
	uh I I think that you know, people will be out for uh Netanyahu, and Netanyahu's allies will be out for the opposition, and it will be very ugly inside Israel.
	How has everyday life suffered economically and culturally?
	It can't be the same place that it was on October 6, 2023.
	Well, I think economically it's hard to get good information on that.
	You occasionally see pieces in the media that say that Israel has suffered enormously.
	Uh it seems to me, uh, as an observer without a lot of data, that it's hard to imagine that the Israeli economy hasn't suffered in significant ways uh from this conflict uh because it's been so demanding on the society.
	Um with regard to cultural uh costs, uh, I think the cultural costs are enormous.
	Again, as I said before, this is a genocide, right?
	You know, here in the West, the mainstream media goes to great lengths to downplay that fact.
	But uh around the world, and when you talk about all of these human rights organizations that focus on issues like genocide and international institutions that focus on genocide, uh, there's an overwhelming consensus in those human rights organizations and in these international institutions that this is a genocide.
	Uh the Wall Street Journal and Israel's supporters can deny it, but uh anybody who looks at the facts uh as these human rights organizations do can't help but conclude that this is a genocide.
	And if you don't like the word genocide, let's call it mass murder.
	But two years of mass murder, when you look at what's happened to the Palestinians, when you look at the damage which has been recorded by cameras and by videos, and you look at what the Israelis post on social media uh in terms of them humiliating and murdering uh Palestinians, it's just unimaginable that they're not going to suffer an enormous cost over time for what they have done.
	As uh we are taping this, it's uh late in the afternoon on Thursday, October 9, tomorrow on Friday, October 10 at 5 in the morning, Eastern time, the Nobel Peace Prize will announce its uh winner.
	Uh President Trump was nominated by Prime Minister Netzanyahu, something that to your thinking and mine is so incongruous you can't even get your hands around it.
	But apparently his principal opposition is the children of Gaza.
	Well, what can you expect?
	Yeah.
	He's not going to get a Nobel prize tomorrow.
	Uh, because this peace deal or this ceasefire deal uh has been worked out after the voting took place.
	Uh so I don't think it's possible.
	Furthermore, I I find it hard to imagine that Donald Trump, who's been complicit in this genocide since taking office on January 20th, would get a Nobel Peace Prize.
	Uh was Genocide Joe nominated also?
	No, not that I know of.
	But the point I would make to you is if Trump doesn't get the Nobel Prize, he's going to want to get it next year.
	And that's going to give him a very powerful incentive to do everything he can to make sure that this ceasefire sticks and that events move towards a more peaceful Middle East.
	I was listening to him before.
	He was making some comments about Iran and where U.S.-Iran relations are going, and he was actually sounding remarkably moderate.
	And I think one could argue if he doesn't get the Nobel Peace Prize, which for reasons I don't fully understand, he so thoroughly covets, uh, one could argue that he will go to great lengths uh in the uh months ahead to do everything he can uh to make sure that he maximizes his chances of getting the prize next year.
	Well, then he's going to have to uh cut off the gravy train to Netanyahu.
	Uh well, he's at least going to have to make uh uh the ceasefire stick in Gaza, that's for sure.
	And he's gonna have to do something with regard to the West Bank as well.
	And he understands that, I think, and you see that reflected in his comment that uh Netanyahu cannot annex the West Bank.
	But as you have said uh on a number of occasions, in a de facto way, he is in the process of annexing the West Bank, which of course is correct.
	But uh Trump is trying to stand up to him on de jure annexation for what that's worth.
	And uh, but anyway, he he desperately wants the Nobel Peace Prize, and if that causes him to behave in a more peaceful manner, vis-a-vis all these crises that we're involved in around the world, that's all for the good.
	Absolutely.
	Professor Mir Schermer, thank you very much, my dear friend, as always appreciated.
	As always, you've been kind enough to accommodate my schedule.
	We'll look forward to seeing you again soon.
	As will I. Thank you, Professor.
	And coming up today, still to come at 4:30 this afternoon, is the Gaza peace deal credible?

▲