Author: AZStranger

The one major impediment to the goal of electing you the first independent President of the United States is your unwavering support of Israel’s response to 10/7/2023. On this point, you align with Presidents Biden and Trump, and you alienate millions of young voters, Arab-American voters, and the majority of democrats who are horrified by Israel’s live-streamed genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

Personally, I find your justification radically incongruent with your evidence-based approach to every other issue you advocate for. On the issue of genocide, the governing document is the Genocide Convention, which Israel and the United States are signatories. Under the Genocide Convention, the International Court of Justice (hereinafter ICJ) has jurisdiction to make determinations on issues relating to genocide. The ICJ has made multiple initial determinations based on evidence provided by South Africa under a context where Israel has vigorously presented a defense. Beyond the finding that the evidence provided establishes Israel is plausibly committing genocide, the ICJ issued extraordinary measures based on the likelihood the Palestinian people in Gaza would suffer irreparable damage by the time the case was fully adjudicated. The emergency provisions, which are legally binding to all signatories, required Israel to stop harming the Palestinians as prescribed in the Genocide Convention, and by a 16-1 ruling (which included the Israeli judge) ordered Israel to stop publicly inciting genocide, punish anyone publicly inciting genocide, and to stop blocking humanitarian aid from reaching the Palestinians in Gaza. Since the 1/26/2024 emergency provisions, Israel has materially reduced the amount of humanitarian aid entering Gaza and have engaged in a relentless slaughter of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

Your stated position is Israel has a right to defend itself from the terrorist attack on 10/7/2023. You state Israel is taking extraordinary measures to limit civilian casualties. Your comments are completely detached from the confirmed impacts on the Palestinians in Gaza and from the stated intentions of Israeli leadership. As for Israel’s right to defense, the ICJ did not rule that Israel cannot defend itself. The emergency provisions indicate that Israel must greatly limit the deadly harm it is inflicting on the civilian population.

You must address this issue honestly. You must stop conflating self-defense with the unprecedented slaughter of civilian men, women, children, aid workers, press personnel, medical staff, and UN staff. You must acknowledge the legitimacy of the ICJ or explain your abdication from the Genocide Convention.

As the deaths from famine begin dwarfing the merciless slaughter via military means, this issue will dog your campaign by bleeding support to Dr. Jill Stein and Dr. Cornell West. The tragedy is they can’t win, but you can. If anyone can thread the needle of supporting Israel’s right to exist while simultaneously condemning them for the live-streamed war crimes they are proudly committing, you can. And if you do, you can win in a landslide.

Please either reconsider your position or develop an honest defense for what we can all see with our own eyes.

In America, how did we get to a place where we have difficulty putting ourselves in the shoes of Palestinians?

What do we expect of them?

According to the prevailing narrative in America, there was peace between the Palestinians and Israel until the militant wing of Hamas launched a terrorist attack against innocent Israeli civilians on October 7^th, 2023. In this attack, Hamas committed unspeakable atrocities and according to the official Israeli reporting, they slaughtered 1,139 people and took 252 hostages.

We are told the atrocities committed on October 7^th by Hamas were an order of magnitude greater than 9/11 in America because the slaughtered victims represent a higher percentage of the Israeli population (approximately 8 million) than the victims killed on 9/11 (approximately 3,000 vs. a U.S. population of approximately 285 million at the time).  

In response to the attack by Hamas, Israel has launched a comprehensive attack against the total population of Palestinians in Gaza.

Before firing one bullet or launching one bomb into Gaza, Israel stopped all deliveries of food, water, fuel, medical supplies, and other good and services needed to sustain the Palestinian population of 2.3 million.

Then Israel launched a military bombing campaign that exceeds the destructive capacity of any military action in the modern era. The military bombing campaign was followed by a full-scale ground invasion by one of the world’s most technologically advanced militaries.

Since October 7^th, 2023, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, Israel has slaughtered 34,904 people, including 14,500 children and 9,500 women.

In the bombing campaign, according to the United Nations and the World Health Organization, Israel has damaged or destroyed:

• Over half of all homes
• 80% of all commercial facilities
• 75% of all schools
• 85% of all groundwater wells
• All 35 hospitals (only 12 remain partially functioning)
• 267 places of worship (all faiths and denominations)

Yet the prevailing narrative in America persists that Israel’s response is a justifiable expression of the right of self defense for the Hamas attack on October 7th.

If October 7th was an order of magnitude worse than 9/11 because of Israel’s smaller relative population, what is almost 35,000 Palestinian deaths in Gaza out of a total population of 2.3 million?

Given the fact that Israel is not yet satisfied, as reflected by the newly launched attack on Rafah, the relative casualty count proves that Israel and her enabler, America, do not value a Palestinian life on par with an Israeli life. Consider, more than 10 Palestinian children have been slaughtered for every one Israeli slaughtered on October 7th [Palestinian children slaughtered: 14,500 vs. total Israelis slaughtered on 10/7: 1,139].

This is what dehumanization looks like.

To break the fog of dehumanization in our prevailing narrative, lets consider what Americans would do if we were Palestinians.

Imagine if in 1947, countries from around the world had determined in order to protect indigenous communities from genocidal suffering, 58% of the United States would be designated as a new country for the world’s indigenous communities. This new country, hypothetically called “Indigia”, would become the home of indigenous people from around the world. Any indigenous person from any country would have an absolute right of return to make a new life in Indigia.

As for the Americans who have lived on the land of Indigia for generations, they would be given a choice: move to the remaining 42% of United States or die. There would be no compensation or standing granted for redress for any harms suffered.

What would Americans do?

Our obvious response would be to resist the loss of our land by any means necessary.

Yet with each attempt to resist, Indigia, fortified by the financial, military, and diplomatic support of the wealthiest countries in the world, crushed our rebellions and punished us by taking more of the United States.

Reduced to two separate encampments comprised of approximately 22% of the former United States, we began launching waves of non-violent resistance that were met with violent oppression. We followed with increasingly violent protests that were put down with even harsher oppressive force.

What would Americans do?

Would we ever accept the sovereign legitimacy of Indigia to territory we occupied for generations?

Would we find the global consensus in favor of Indigia a compelling justification to agree to live peacefully on our splintered territory?

This is where we were on October 6^th, 2023.

What would Americans have done?

This email was sent to Breaking Points on February 23, 2024

Krystal & Saagar,

I am writing to you again on this topic because I view the Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladimir Putin as a historically important event and I believe your analysis on Monday’s show profoundly missed the mark. So you know, I am a multi-year premium subscriber because I appreciate the transparency and intellectual integrity you both exude by thoughtfully offering critiques of your own ideological allies. Please accept the following analysis in the spirit of constructive critique. One last side note: For most of the last 20+ years I have had complete contempt for Tucker Carlson because I viewed him as an intellectually dishonest shill for the Republican establishment. Over the last year I have begun to reconsider.

Critique of the Putin Interview

[Copy of Official Transcript was attached to original email]

1. When Tucker Carlson asked the first question [Why did Russia attack Ukraine?], framing it within the context of Putin’s quote regarding his concern that NATO (America) may launch an attack from Ukrainian territory, Putin responded by asking Tucker “whether this interview was a show or are we having a serious conversation?” Tucker agreed this was a serious conversation. To understand what Putin meant you must consider Russian culture. A serious conversation, as he demonstrated, involves addressing the root causes which necessarily considers the historical context that drives current events. In short, Russians are verbose but as Tucker’s introduction comment stated “Putin was not filibustering”. Putin’s history lesson explained how cultural identity in Eastern Europe did not align with national borders. To this Tucker made that same assumption you both did [he attacked Ukraine to unite the greater Russia], he twice asked “if Putin thought Ukrainian borders were illegitimate, why didn’t Putin attack when he took office in 2000?” Putin suggested he is getting there but had not finished his answer. Putin’s answer was Russia did not attack Ukraine until the U.S. had financed the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine (who was committed to neutrality) and installed an anti-Russian government open to joining NATO. This installed government launched a military weaponized attack on the ethnically Russian Ukrainians in the southeast provinces. This is when Russia first attacked Ukraine back in 2014. Russia negotiated a peace agreement with Ukraine, witnessed and guaranteed by Poland, Germany and France, called the Minsk Agreement, which protected ethnically Russian Ukrainians while leaving their provinces within the national borders of Ukraine. The U.S. installed Ukrainian government reneged on the Minsk Agreement and Germany and France announced publicly they would not enforce the agreement. The U.S. and NATO then began arming Ukraine and building military bases in Ukraine. This was Russia’s redline and where they committed to attack Ukraine in February 2022.    
2. Putin provided his perspective on the Russian – American relationship since the disbanding of the Soviet Union in early 1990’s. Key Points:
   • Soviet leadership agreed to support the reunification of Germany and for Germany to remain a member of NATO. In exchange, America gave the Soviet leadership a ‘private assurance’ that NATO would not expand one inch east of Germany. 
   • Russia had hoped to be accepted into normal political and economic relationships with western nations because they abdicated communism in lieu of western style free-market capitalism.
   • Putin opened the door to Russia potentially joining NATO by asking President Clinton if he would be supportive. Clinton ultimately said No.
   • Putin communicated with HW Bush, in response to W Bush’s decision to develop a missile defense system, that Russia would like to partner with the U.S. and Europe to develop a missile defense system to protect all nations. W Bush’s national security team lead by Condoleezza Rice rejected Russia’s offer. This is why Russia developed the hypersonic missile systems to overwhelm the U.S. developed missile defense system. 
3. Putin stated he has no expansionist interest.
   • Tucker asked him under what conditions would he attack Poland. Putin answered only if Poland attacked Russia. 
   • Tucker stated the Western countries’ concern regarding Russia’s attack on Ukraine is that he intends to go further into western Europe. Putin responded he has no interest in global wars that would threaten the existence of humanity.
   • Tucker asked how Putin “reconciles being a leader who has to kill with being a Christian?” Putin responded “It is very easy when it comes to protecting oneself and one’s family, one’s homeland. We won’t attack anyone.”
4. Putin stated Russia is prepared to negotiate peace now.
   • Russia negotiated a peace agreement in 2014 (Minsk Agreement)
   • Russia negotiated a peace agreement in April 2022 that was scuttled by Boris Johnson at the behest of the United States.
   • America has stated they intend to use the War in Ukraine to weaken the Russian Military. 
5. Putin stated America has made a stupid and grave mistake using the U.S. dollar as an instrument of force to control countries around the world. By seizing Russia’s U.S. dollar denominated reserves, America has sent a signal to the whole world that they may be subject to the same treatment. This has led to the expansion of BRICS and the increased use of the Chinese Yuan for international trade (including oil & natural gas). Putin stated these actions hurt American taxpayers in the same way they have hurt America’s allies, such as Germany. Putin warned America of the damage that will occur if we try to do the same with China.
6. Putin rejected Tucker’s framing of the Russo-China relationship “as trading one colonial power for another” by stating “you don’t pick your neighbors like you don’t pick your family. Russia shares a 1,000 km border with China. We have co-existed as neighbors for centuries. We are used to each other. Russia sees China’s foreign policy is focused on seeking compromise…we accept that. Trade with China is mutually beneficial. Trade between China and Europe is growing faster than China and Russia. He rejects the ‘boogeyman’ story regarding China.” 

Putin’s comments above beg a critical question for us: Is what he is saying true?

On the question of why Russia attacked Ukraine:

• The private assurance America gave the former Soviet leadership that NATO would not expand one inch east of Germany has been validated by multiple sources. The prevailing retort to this private assurance is Russia failed to get the agreement in writing. This is why Putin said America tricked Russia. At the height of the cold war during the Cuban Missile crisis, nuclear war was averted when President Kennedy gave Premier Khrushchev a ‘private assurance’ that if the U.S.S.R removed the missiles from Cuba, secretly, six months later, America would remove the nuclear missiles from Turkey.” Private assurances are very important tools used by nations to settle disputes in a manner that saves face for the participants. Given America’s history with the U.S.S.R, Gorbachev and Yeltsin had every reason to believe the U.S. when we gave them the private assurance not to expand NATO one inch east of Germany. It is important to also note the significance of Russia supporting the reunification of Germany as part of NATO. In WWII, the U.S.S.R lost over 20 million people at the hands of Germany. The creation of the Warsaw Pact, including East Germany, was to form a security buffer against western aggression [see Russian deaths in the Napoleonic Wars, WWI, and WWII].
• The violent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine is a matter of public record. The only question is whether America was involved. It has been reported that Victoria Nuland was recorded on tape informing the American Ambassador to Ukraine of who would comprise the new leadership in Ukraine before the overthrow had occurred. Since the point of the overthrow was to install Ukrainian leadership who would be open to joining NATO, anti-Russian Ukrainians were sought. Putin explained after the independence of Ukraine was granted in the early 1990’s, Ukraine sought to develop an independent identity, which they found in the anti-Russia collaborators with Nazi Germany during WWII. Putin stated the Ukrainians made heroes of the notable collaborators who had slaughtered Poles, Jews and Russians at the request of the Nazis. He referred to the debacle of the Speaker of the Canadian Parliament recognizing a Ukrainian Nazi, and along with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, gave the war criminal a standing ovation.

On the question of Russian Expansion vs. NATO expansion:

• Since the dissolution of the U.S.S.R, Russia’s territorial boundaries are a matter of public record. Putin has led/controlled Russia since 2000. Where has Russia expanded? Where has NATO expanded?
• Per a report by CNBC (see Two maps show NATO’s growth and Russia’s isolation since 1990 (cnbc.com)), NATO has expanded to include all the former WARSAW Pact countries and three countries that had been a part of the former Soviet Union.  
• In response to Russia’s redline against including Ukraine in NATO, America has further expanded NATO to include Finland and Sweden. 

On the question of a negotiated peace in Ukraine:

• Russia has negotiated peace agreements in 2014 and 2022 that were rejected by Ukraine at the behest of western countries. 
• The U.S. Secretary of Defense publicly stated the goal of the War in Ukraine is to weaken the Russian military.
• President Biden has publicly stated the goal of the War in Ukraine is for regime change in Russia.

On the question of why the dissolution of the U.S.S.R did not lead to full normalization and integration of Russia with western nations:

• Russia tried multiple times and were rejected:
  1. Russia agreed to German reunification as part of NATO in exchange for no eastern expansion of NATO. Russia’s support of German reunification is a matter of public record. NATO has expanded to include all Warsaw Pact countries and three countries within the former U.S.S.R.
  2. Russia opened the door for consideration of joining NATO. President Clinton declined support. This can easily be verified by asking former President Clinton.
  3. Russia offered to develop a missile defense system with the U.S. and Europe. U.S. rejected offer. This can be easily verified by asking Condoleeza Rice.
  4. Russia demonstrated a willingness to partner with the U.S. by agreeing to safely enrich Iranian uranium under the Iran Nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama Administration. UN inspectors were validating Russia’s compliance until President Trump pulled out of the deal.
  5. Russia signed the Minsk Agreement after the U.S. had financed the violent overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian government. The Minsk Agreement is a matter of public record that has been acknowledged by Germany and France.
  6. Putin stated Russia is willing to negotiate peace in Ukraine now despite the U.S. blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline. Side Note: Seymore Hersh reported, and most analysts acknowledge, the U.S. blew up the Nord Stream pipeline.

On the question of the grave error of using the U.S. dollar as an instrument of force:

• A cursory review of foreign sovereign U.S. denominated reserves confirms even America’s allies are diversifying:

(See Will The U.S. Dollar Lose Its Global Reserve Status? | Seeking Alpha)

My hope in taking the time to share this level of detail is to encourage you to invite Tucker Carlson on Breaking Points to have a ‘serious discussion’ [American style!] about the implications of the information shared by Vladimir Putin. Our government and our media have lied to us to a magnitude outlined in George Orwell’s “1984”. The War in Ukraine is not unique. The same playbook has been used in the War in Gaza. The prevailing narrative persistently is designed to ‘manufacture our consent’ [Thank you Noam Chomsky]. The Freedom of the Press is in the first amendment of the Constitution because it is the essential tool to inform the People of the truth so they can hold their elected officials accountable.