Leaked Ukraine War Docs: What’s really going on? Plus: Dems Urge Biden to Ignore Court Rulings

Glenn Greenwald

Politics • Culture • Writing

Video Transcript: System Update #67

April 13, 2023

A very strange leak of top-secret documents in the U.S. government has made its way onto the Internet, though these documents have been on obscure corners online for at least a couple of months, U.S. media outlets led by the New York Times and NBC News have noticed them only now and continue to use quite a dramatic language to describe them. NBC, for example, warns, “It could represent the most serious breach of U.S. Intelligence secrets since the contractor for the NSA, Edward Snowden, passed on thousands of classified documents to journalists about U.S. electronic surveillance in 2013.”

Despite that melodramatic language, almost nothing is known about who leaked this archive or why. Many of these documents pertain to the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine, though many pertained to other topics. And while corporate media outlets keep insisting that these materials contain embarrassing revelations for the U.S. government, none has really been identified, at least none that wasn't already widely known, leading some in the region of that war to speculate that they may be intended as a disinformation campaign from American officials themselves. We'll examine all these competing theories and developments and some of the documents themselves to explain what can be done and what can't and how to think about this leak.

Then, last week, a Texas federal judge ruled that the U.S. FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, acted illegally when it approved the use of the so-called abortion drug, used in more than half of abortions performed in that state. While the Biden administration immediately announced it will appeal the ruling, which is what citizens and government entities do when they disagree with a court ruling, some leading elected Democrats, including Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, began urging Joe Biden to simply ignore the ruling – just ignore the order of the court. What are the implications of national Democrats now advocating that the president of the United States simply ignores court rulings with which he disagrees on the ground, as Andrew Jackson put it, the court has no army and therefore let them enforce it.

Then finally, today, Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy expressed his full-throated support for President Biden's policy of pursuing an endless proxy war in Ukraine. McCarthy, who sent signals before the 2022 midterms that agreed with growing portions of the public that more constraints are needed on war spending by the United States, now basically says he didn't really mean anything by that, and instead decided that it was the greatest importance that Ukraine and the world win the war against Russia and that the United States must do everything to make that happen. We'll look at those comments in the House speaker today,

As a reminder, System Update is available in podcast version 12 hours after we air, live, here on Rumble. Simply follow us at System Update on Spotify, Apple, and every other major podcasting platform and you'll be able to listen to the show that way as well.

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.

Large-scale leaks of documents have become really the only way for Americans to learn what their government in general and what the U.S. Security State in particular, are doing in their name. For decades now, but particularly in the wake of 9/11, the CIA, the FBI, Homeland Security and the NSA have constructed such a large and impenetrable wall of secrecy behind which they operate that characterizes almost everything that they do, that American citizens, even members of Congress, really have very little idea – really no idea – what these agencies are doing in the name of our democracy, except when people inside these agencies decide to leak documents to journalists or others that enable those who get the documents to tell their fellow citizens what their government is doing in their name.

Perhaps the first of these modern-day large-scale leaks occurred in 1971, when Daniel Ellsberg, who had worked inside the Defense Department and then for the RAND Corporation with very high levels of secrecy, leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times and The Washington Post. And the purpose of the Pentagon Papers, which was a gigantic volume of top secret classified documents - was not to reveal – not to reveal –specific, war plans that the United States had in prosecuting its war in Vietnam. Such details were never published, either by the papers or by Ellsberg, because that wasn't the purpose of the leak. The purpose of the leak instead was to prove to the American people that the government, the Pentagon and the CIA had been lying to them for over a decade about their views of the Vietnam War, in public. Leading Pentagon officials and leading officials of the Johnson administration were telling the public that they believed and in fact knew that the U.S. was on its way to winning the war in Vietnam, that all that was needed was another offensive around the corner, another 10,000-troop collapse. They were constantly insisting that they were winning the war and believed that they would win. Internally, though, in private, they were saying exactly the opposite. They were admitting that the most that they could hope for was a stalemate, that they would never really be able to conquer Vietnam, to install the rule of the South Vietnamese allies of theirs in North Vietnam, that essentially the most that they could hope for was simply having the war continue on and on and on with no resolution in sight - that the Vietcong would fight forever - and there was no way American power could be brought to bear to win the war. In other words, they were lying to the American public by telling the American people the exact opposite of what they were saying in private. And Daniel Ellsberg, when he saw that thought: I know I'm going to go to jail probably for life if I do this, but I, in my good conscience, cannot allow my fellow citizens to continue to believe this lie about the Vietnam War. I need to expose what Pentagon officials are really saying in secret so that Americans can decide whether they want to support this war or not, based not on the lives that were being fed through the media, but based on the truth. Ellsberg would have gone to prison for doing that had it not been for the fact that the Nixon administration broke into his psychoanalyst’s office to try and steal his psychoanalyst’s records, to reveal his psychosexual secrets and discredit him and distract attention away from the leaks which caused the court to rule that that misconduct warranted dismissing the espionage charges against him. But had it not been for that – and Daniel Ellsberg himself says that to this very day – he would have gone to prison for life. It was almost impossible to beat an espionage charge when the United States brings it under the Espionage Act of 1917, which was a law that Woodrow Wilson implemented to criminalize dissent into the U.S.'s participation in that first World War in Europe.

Those are the kinds of leaks that illuminate and that allow us to know what the government is doing. Those are the kinds of leaks that WikiLeaks has repeatedly published beginning in 2010 when they revealed the realities of what the United States government was doing in Afghanistan and Iraq and as well as what its allies around the world were doing, particularly our tyrannical and despotic partners in the Middle East. And it's also what Edward Snowden did when he decided to leak documents to journalists, including myself, not that revealed the names of agents overseas, which none of those documents did, nor to reveal specific plans of how the U.S. was spying on its enemies like China or al-Qaida. That was something Snowden was adamant about not to be disclosed. Instead, it was to reveal to the American people that the NSA, unbeknownst to almost every member of Congress and the American people, was spying not on al-Qaida or the Chinese, but instead, primarily, domestically, on our conversations, on our telephone calls and our email activities, on our browsing records and the like, a program that we were able to expose because Edward Snowden allowed us to do so was ultimately ruled a violation of the American Constitution and relevant statutes by a circuit court of appeals. Those are the kinds of leaks that are constructive and that shed a gigantic light on the U.S. Security State, even though they need to be done with care. You don't just dump all the documents onto the Internet. WikiLeaks never did that. They redacted documents carefully. We certainly did the same in the Snowden case. We ended up not publishing a majority of the documents, only publishing the ones necessary to inform the public debate about what the NSA was doing in secret against their privacy and against people's privacy around the world. So, these kinds of leaks are crucial to journalism because if you don't have them, what you have instead are leading media outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC News and CNN, doing the bidding of the U.S. Security State. They get secrets past them all the time and they publish those but they’re secrets the CIA wants you to hear. They're the secrets the Pentagon wants you to hear. So, it basically just states media feeds you constantly leaks that seem like they're unauthorized because they come from anonymous sources. So, they have that feeling of something edgy and radical. But that's all that is, feeding you guys the propaganda and deceit that they want to give the veneer of some sort of journalistic achievement to. That's how Russiagate was constantly propagated. The CIA would go to Ken Dilanian, ABC News, or Natasha Bertrand, who worked at MSNBC and then worked her way up to The Atlantic and CNN and Politico. She's now at CNN. And every one of the reports would say, “Intelligence officials tell us…” The Washington Post and The New York Times won Pulitzers for that kind of reporting that in reality was just propaganda on behalf of the U.S. Security State. The only counterweight to that is when we get these giant leaks of the kinds I just reviewed that allow us to shed light on what the U.S. Security State is doing in secret.

There's a current claim that we have a similar leak of that kind, namely a kind where someone inside the U.S. government leaked top secret documents in order to expose secrets of the American government that supposedly are very embarrassing to the American government. And yet there's something extremely strange, many things extremely strange about this claim that we have a new Snowden-type leak or a new WikiLeaks-type leak or a new Pentagon Papers-leak. For one thing, we have no idea who leaked this material. We don't even know. The category of person is that we don't know their name. We don't even know where they supposedly work. We don't have confirmation they worked inside the U.S. government. We have no idea who did that. We also have no idea what the motive is because they didn't bring these materials to journalists and asked journalists to curate them and report on them, nor did they bring them to places like WikiLeaks, which might be willing to, in a very high profile and prominent way, leak them all or publish them all or most of them. Nor did they publish these documents in a way that would be noticed. They started instead appearing back in January or February on very obscure places on the Internet, including Discord servers, which are used for people who play video games. They can often be private. The first time they appeared reportedly, is in a Discord server used only by a dozen people or so. And only from there did they make the leap to a more populated forum on the Internet. And then only in the last week did they start to appear in places like Telegram and more popular Discord channels and now the media has noticed them. But there's no guarantee that these would have leaked, nor was there any attempt to direct how they ended up being disclosed or even what kinds of information is being covered in the way the media is talking about this is very odd. I think it raises more questions than it answers. So, let's first look at what the media is telling you about this leak. Let's look at some of the documents themselves. We've picked the ones that we think are worth looking at, and then let's try and examine them.

So, we have the first story, which is from The New York Times. It is entitled “How the Latest Leaked Documents Are Different from Past Breaches.” That's an article from The New York Times today: “The freshness of the documents – some appear to be barely 40 days old – and the hints they hold for operations to make them particularly damaging, officials say.” This is how the New York Times frames so often what they do. They state something and then at the end, they add “officials say”. So, they're not really technically affirming the veracity of this claim, but it sounds to the reader as though they are. They're stating something, namely the freshness of the documents – “some appear to be barely 40 days old” and “the hints they hold for operations to come to make them particularly damaging – comma – “, officials say”. So, The New York Times is not saying that anonymous officials are enabling us. Officials want you to believe this, which is why they told this to The New York Times. This is by David Sanger, today. He's a journalist who has all kinds of ties to the CIA, to the U.S. Security State; he has spent years, decades, publishing authorized leaks from sources inside the intelligence community. That's what he does. This is what the article says,

When WikiLeaks spilled a huge trove of State Department cables 13 years ago, it gave the world a sense of what American diplomats do each day, the sharp elbows, the doubts about wavering allies and the glimpses of how Washington was preparing for North Korea's eventual collapse and Iran's nuclear breakout (The New York Times. April 9, 2023).

Let me just stop there. It is unbelievable to describe WikiLeaks' disclosures that way. He's doing it on purpose to make it seem like it was a completely unjustified and banal leak that didn't really tell you anything about the world other than giving you a “sense of what American diplomats do”. This is just the business of diplomats. They throw sharp elbows. They have some doubts about wavering allies. And you got some glimpses about how Washington was preparing for North Korea's eventual collapse and Iran's nuclear breakout. So, they pick the things that they know you're fine with the State Department doing in order to make this leak sound like it was something that told you nothing important – but at the same time was incredibly dangerous.

This eventual collapse of North Korea, I don't think we have that yet. This is 13 years later. So, there's no collapse in North Korea, maybe “eventually” means 100 years now. And Iran has not broken out in the sense that it has nuclear weapons. Nobody claims that. But these are things that you would want the government to be doing and that's why The New York Times purposely described the WikiLeaks releases in this way to make you think these WikiLeaks releases told you nothing but endanger the public. In reality, the exact opposite was true. They revealed all kinds of secrets about tens of thousands of people, innocent civilians, that the United States government, the military, had killed in Afghanistan and Iraq; they had revealed a video showing the U.S. government, the U.S. military, gunning down innocent people, including journalists who work for Reuters when they were on the ground and scrambling to try and leave. They revealed widespread, rampant corruption among all kinds of U.S. allies in Saudi Arabia in Bahrain, Jordan and Egypt, and all kinds of lies about a whole range of issues that the U.S. government told the public. But it's bizarre, although not really, that David Sanger, who is an ally of the intelligence services, started his article trying to demean WikiLeaks’ releases knowing Julian Assange is in prison. This is the way that a CIA agent who hates Julian Assange would describe those releases, not the way a journalist would. So already you know that he's serving an agenda that is the U.S. Security State's agenda. That's what he always does. But this is the first clue. Now here's the second one.

This paragraph enrages me. It's full of lies, as I will document in a minute once I show you what this article says about these newly leaked documents but here is what it says about the Snowden leaks:

When Edward Snowden swept up the NSA's secrets three years later, Americans suddenly discovered the scope of how the digital age had ushered in a remarkable new era of surveillance by the agency [This is what he says the NSA's Snowden reporting revealed] enabling [the NSA] to pierce China's telecommunication industry and to drill into Google’s servers overseas to pick up foreign communications (The New York Times. April 9, 2023).

So, David Sanger is saying the only thing that Snowden reportedly did was reveal that the NSA was spying on China, something that every American would be okay with them doing and drilling into Google servers to pick up foreign communications, which most people would probably be fine with as well. A complete lie. The crux of the Snowden report showed how the NSA was spying on the conversations of American citizens and the telephone activities of Americans to the point that courts were able to rule them unconstitutional, as I said earlier. But again, if you work for the NSA, this is what you would want people to think the Snowden report was about. He's counting on the fact that it's been ten years and people don't remember. So, he's just rewriting history. And I will show you that the only people who ever revealed any secrets about how the NSA spies on China are The New York Times itself, not any of the other journalists who actually worked with Edward Snowden. So, we'll get to that in a minute. The New York Times goes on:

The cache of 100 or so newly leaked briefing slides of operational data on the war in Ukraine is distinctly different. The data revealed so far is less comprehensive than those vast secret archives, but far more timely (The New York Times. April 9, 2023).

I'm not sure that's even true. There were Snowden documents that we began reporting on, engaged in, in June – that was only three months old. Snowden gave us the archive only a couple of months before we began reporting. There were some that were only two or three months old. So that's not even true anyway.

And it is the immediate salience of the intelligence that worries White House and Pentagon officials.

Some of the most sensitive material – maps of Ukrainian air defenses and a deep dive into South Korea’s secret plans to deliver 330,000 rounds of much-needed ammunition in time for Ukraine's spring counteroffensive – is revealed in documents that appear to be barely 40 days old. It is the freshness of the “secret” and “top secret” documents and the hints they hold for operations to come that make these disclosures particularly damaging, administration officials say. On Sunday, Sabrina Singh, Pentagon spokeswoman, said U.S. officials had notified congressional committees of the leak and referred the matter to the Justice Department, which had opened an investigation.
The 100-plus pages of slides and briefing documents leave no doubt about how deeply enmeshed the United States is in the day-to-day conduct of the war, providing the precise intelligence and logistics that help explain Ukraine's success thus far. While President Biden has barred American troops from firing directly on Russian targets and blocked sending weapons that could reach deep into Russian territory, the documents make clear that a year into the invasion, the United States is heavily entangled in almost everything else (The New York Times. April 9, 2023).

Didn't we know that already - that the United States is heavily involved in the war in Ukraine with everything except combat troops on the ground? I mean, the Biden administration boasts of how much it's done for Ukraine. Republican members of Congress, including Kevin McCarthy today, demanded that the Biden administration do everything possible to ensure Ukraine wins this war. So, what exactly is it that these documents have revealed that is so bothersome to the United States? Nothing, really. I mean, you could look at them in a certain way and say, well, the United States doesn't want it known how they have special services stationed and deployed in Ukraine. And there are some documents that reveal how the U.S. government even spies on its own allies, something that was widely known during the Snowden report. You may recall that a major controversy erupted between the United States and Germany when it was reported – not as part of the Snowden files, but from a different source – that the United States is spying under Angela Merkel and Obama had to call her and apologize. And she compared the United States to the Stasi of East Germany, where she grew up. And there was a similar diplomatic scandal between the United States and Brazil – we did a report based on the Snowden materials – that the Obama administration was spying on the personal cell phone calls of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, the Brazilian oil company, Petrobras, all kinds of economic conferences. So, all of this has been known for a long time. I don't even feel like, let alone can point to anything specific, that makes this seem like the kind of leak, like the Pentagon Papers or the Snowden reporting or WikiLeaks that it is really bothersome to the United States in the sense that it would cause scandal and disrepute for American leaders. The Pentagon Papers show that the American government lied to the American people about the war in Vietnam for a decade, the Snowden reporting showed that the U.S. government was spying on its own citizenry in violation of the Constitution and the law, WikiLeaks showed all kinds of hidden war crimes. What do these documents show that is similar to what would really be upsetting and destabilizing to the United States? We keep hearing that they're like those other cases. We keep hearing from the U.S. government about how disturbing this leak is. I haven't really seen anything in these documents yet that would be comparable.

Let's look at NBC News's version of events and of course, it's very similar because they're talking to the same people and serving the same agenda: “Leaked secret Pentagon documents lift the lid on U.S. spying and Russia's war in Ukraine.” NBC News obtained more than 50 of the leaked documents, many of them labeled ‘top secret’.” They say they obtained them. So, this is their story, this is their work – when they're all over the Internet, everyone can just get them. That's all they did was they obtained them not by having sources that gave them to them, but just by going on the Internet like everybody else and looking at them. They have four journalists on this story, including Kendall Jenner, notorious for serving the agenda of the CIA. And there you see the framing, which is very similar to The New York Times. This is what they say,

Dozens of leaked Defense Department classified documents posted online reveal details of U.S. spying on Russia's war machine in Ukraine and secret assessments of Ukraine's combat power, as well as intelligence gathering on America's allies, including South Korea and Israel. NBC News obtained more than 50 of the leaked documents, many of them labeled top secret the highest level of classification.
The documents first appeared online in March, and a senior U.S. official said Saturday that the government's “working theory” is that they are real, although some of them could have been altered (The New York Times. April 9, 2023).

These are government documents taken right from the files of the Pentagon or the intelligence community, they can't know whether they're real. They only have a working theory that they are real. Of course, they can look in their own files and know.

The full impact of the leak remains unclear [I would say so] but it could represent the most serious breach of U.S. intelligence secrets since a contractor for the NSA, Edward Snowden, passed on thousands of classified documents to journalists about U.S. electronic surveillance in 2013. In this case, the scale of the disclosure is much smaller [much, much smaller] involving dozens instead of thousands of documents.
The documents include repeated references to information based on secret signals intelligence – electronic eavesdropping – a crucial pillar of U.S. intelligence gathering. A former U.S. intelligence official said the disclosure of some signals intelligence reporting about Russia and its spy agencies could cause significant damage if Moscow is able to cut off those sources of information (The New York Times. April 9, 2023).

So, again, I see a lot of speculation about how this leak could be very damaging, but I don't see any specific revelations that are causing any problems for Joe Biden or the Biden White House or any leaders of America's foreign policy or its defense and intelligence community. Do you? I don't.

That fact has led some in the region, in Ukraine, including some Ukrainian officials, some Russian officials, some prominent journalists in the region, to speculate that this might actually be a disinformation campaign by the United States to demoralize Russia, because a lot of it claims that Russia is suffering in the war, that Russia might even be losing the war. And by letting people in Russia, including potential troops, think this is a real leak from the United States government that shows intelligence that Russia is suffering grave losses in the war. It could be an attempt to demoralize the Russians. That is possibly not at all affirming that that's true. But I do, again, think it's odd that U.S. intelligence officials are so hellbent on claiming to the public these documents are real and that they're very damaging. They go right to their favorite reporters to do that – David Sanger of The New York Times. The media outlets always serve their agenda and write down whatever they tell them to say. As I just showed you, they did duly and loyally, but I don't actually see anything that is so disturbing.

The Economist today has an article, “A leak of files could be America's worst intelligence breach in a decade.” You see, they're all using similar languages, but they have a paragraph that caught my attention because it supports that hypothesis that I just expressed that others in the region are claiming, namely, that it's actually intended to suggest that the Russians are losing the war, to embolden European governments to continue to provide aid and encouraged the American public to be willing to do so as well. This is what this paragraph says from The Economist:

However, the leaked documents hardly paint a rosy view of Russia's armed forces, though it has devastated the eastern city of Bakhmut – the situation there was, “catastrophic” by February 28, according to Ukraine's military-intelligence chief, who was quoted in one report – its combat power is crippled. America's Defense Intelligence Agency reckons that 35,000 to 43,000 Russian troops have died, twice the number of Ukrainian casualties, with over 154,000 wounded, around 40 times the Ukrainian figure (the agency acknowledges that these numbers are ropey). Russia has lost more than 2,000 tanks and now fields only 419 “in theater”. Another slide says that Russia’s “grinding campaign of attrition” in the East is “heading toward a stalemate” and that the result is likely to be a “protracted war beyond 2023” (The New York Times. April 9, 2023).

So, get ready. We're being told through these scary, unauthorized documents that Russia cannot win this war, that they're heading toward a stalemate and we should expect a “protracted war beyond 2023”. And that's what the Russians are to understand as well.

I'm not at all suggesting this was a disinformation campaign planted by U.S. operatives. I'm generally not suggesting that. But I'm also not ready to buy into this narrative that the media is feeding us at the behest of the intelligence community, that these documents are confirmed to be authentic and are somehow so destabilizing to the U.S. government. Let's look at the ones that would most plausibly be described as damaging to the U.S. government. These are the ones the media is touting.

Here is a document that purports to show that native countries have special forces deployed to specific parts of Ukraine, and it actually details the specific countries that have special forces in Ukraine, including the United States and purports to show their location. Again, we're not showing anything that hasn't been all over the Internet and that isn't being talked about in every journalistic outlet. The slide shows the number of NATO's special forces in Ukraine. And it says the U.S. has 14 14 Special forces; Germany, 50; France 15; Latvia 17; The Netherlands, one; for a total of 97 purportedly here to show their locations in terms of what their bases are in those native countries. And I guess that's something that is supposed to be incriminating to the United States, as though people didn't know that the U.S. likely has covert operations in Ukraine. Of course, they do. We've given them all kinds of weapons. They can't operate on their own. It's been repeatedly reported that we give them real-time intelligence on the ground that they use to target Russian forces and where to activate their air defenses. It would be almost impossible for us not to have U.S. special forces on the ground, in fact, early in the war, one of the reasons the Biden administration gave for why it wouldn't provide some of these weapons systems to Ukraine is because they couldn't be operated without having special forces on the ground to show them how to do it and help them do that. We've given those systems to them. They're in use in theater. So of course, everybody already knew that special forces were on the ground in Ukraine.

So, this is the big revelation that's supposed to be so incriminating to the Biden administration. I would suggest, again, this leak is nothing of the kind. Virtually everyone in Washington – with the exception of seven dozen Republicans or so – supports this policy, as we're about to show you. Kevin McCarthy, the Republican House speaker, came out today and basically said exactly that we need to do everything we can to ensure Ukraine wins the war. No one in Washington is going to care that we have special forces in Ukraine. That's an open secret. This is not some shocking revelation of the kind of Daniel Ellsberg or WikiLeaks or Snowden.

Here is a second document that suggests different ways that Israel might provide lethal aid to Ukraine. Israel has been very reluctant to involve itself in the war in Ukraine because their relations with Russia are an important part of its national security plan. They bomb Syria at will and need Russia not to do that. They have all kinds of relations with Russia and there are a lot of influential Russian Jews in Israel. They have ties to that country and they've really tried hard to stay out of this war because they don't want to alienate the Russians. They obviously can't side with Russia because they would alienate their biggest benefactor, the United States. So, neutrality has essentially been their only option. That's the one they more or less have chosen. And yet this suggests different ways Israel might be able to provide lethal arms to Ukraine, although it doesn't suggest that Israel has yet done so. These are just ways that the U.S. government might propose to Israel that they would do so. I don't really consider these documents particularly interesting, let alone incriminating at all. But those are the second set of ones that are being cited as proof that this is some sort of devastating leak. And then there is the document that purports to reflect the “status of the conflict as of March 1,” which is one of the things that they're so alarmed about, supposedly, that these documents are so new. March 1 is only 40 days ago, as The New York Times said over and over and tried to convince you that this was something so damaging. And here's what they're pointing to as the thing that is so damaging.

This is one of the documents, I believe the only one, where the claim is being made that it was altered. The original document, according to the U.S. government, purported to show that the Ukrainians have lost double the number of soldiers as Russia, and that twice as many Ukrainian soldiers have been killed in this war as Russians. This document here, the version that ended up online, purports to show that, in fact, Ukraine has suffered five times more, killed in action. There you see it's something like 61 to 71,000 troops, whereas the Russians are estimated to have lost 16 to 17000. This is the document they claim has been altered, that the original one shows double the number of Ukrainian troops killed. Again, the fact that Ukraine is losing a huge number of people in this war is well known. In fact, Zelenskyy recently, again, had to increase the penalties for desertion because Ukrainian men actually don't want to fight in this war. They know they're being used as cannon fodder. So, while Kevin McCarthy and Joe Biden and Bill Kristol and David Frum feel proud and strong because we're fighting this glorious war, the people who are actually dying in the war and fighting in the war, as usual, don't actually want to be fighting and dying in this war. They're being forced to Zelenskyy. He's using a conscript army, not a volunteer one. So, if this, again, is the most incriminating document or the most destabilizing document, I just don't find this leak particularly threatening to the United States government. I find it very odd that they're insisting through their media outlets that they manipulate and control what it is. I can see how these documents might concern Russia and Russians and Russian troops by claiming that this whole thing is a stalemate. They're never going to win. They have to fight at least another year throughout 2023. I can see how that would be beneficial to convincing the American public to get ready for another $100 billion in authorizations to support this war beyond 2023. As this document says, I just don't see what is supposedly so scandalous about this from the perspective of the CIA, the Pentagon, or the Biden White House. And, in fact, there is no scandal being generated by these documents, even though we keep being told it's the most damaging leak in at least a decade.

I mentioned earlier – I do want to show you this because it's just such a perfect example of how The New York Times lies all the time. I showed you that paragraph: this is how they described the Snowden reporting. This is what they wanted you to think about what Edward Snowden, the reporting from Edward Snowden revealed. This is David Sanger’s article:

When Edward Snowden swept up the NSA's secrets three years later, Americans suddenly discovered the scope of how the digital age had ushered in a remarkable new era of surveillance […] (The New York Times. April 9, 2023).

So, we learned about a remarkable new era of surveillance. What did they spy on? Here is what The New York Times says:

[…] enabling it to pierce China's telecommunication industry and to drill into Google’s servers overseas to pick up foreign communications (The New York Times. April 9, 2023).

According to The New York Times, the only thing you learned from Snowden was that the NSA spied on China and its telecommunications infrastructure and that they were using Google to spy on foreign nationals and their communications.

That is just an outright lie. Here's the very first article that I published in The Guardian that kicked off the Snowden report. And there you see the headline, NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily. That was on June 6, 2013. And the subheadline was – and this is one of the articles cited by the Pulitzer Committee – “Top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows the scale of domestic surveillance under Obama.” Isn't it odd that the New York Times, 10 years later, wants to rewrite the history of what the Snowden story showed by claiming it was only about how they spied on China and how they spied on foreign nationals and not what it was actually about, which is NSA spying on Americans? And it wasn't just that they were spying on Americans. The high court, the highest court to rule on it, ruled that spying was unconstitutional, that it violated your constitutional rights. “NSA surveillance exposed by Snowden was illegal, court rules seven years on.”– that from The Guardian, in 2020, reporting on a ruling from the Court of Appeals that that surveillance program I just showed you – that we exposed that domestic spying – was in violation of the Constitution.

Here's what The Guardian reported about that ruling, “Seven years after the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the mass surveillance of American's telephone records, an Appeals court has found that that program was unlawful and that the U.S. intelligence leaders who publicly defended it were not telling the truth.” Why would the New York Times just lie about what this reporting showed?

Only for Supporters

To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter

What else you may like…

Videos

Podcasts

Posts

Articles

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

April 05, 2025

Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

March 18, 2025

In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News

00:04:52

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

March 18, 2025

In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News

00:08:35

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

January 09, 2023

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Teardrinker@Teardrinker

9 hours ago

Just wanted to share this here.
This is a link to Ted Kaczynskis' manifesto. Or at least the part of it that the Washington Post published.
I just read it for the first time based on Glenn's recommendation during the Friday night Q and A show.
He's right. It's chilling how spot on Kaczynski was about certain things. His take on leftism was particularly prescient.
Would love to hear others' reaction to it.
Well worth a read.
And congrats on 500 shows. Friday's broadcast was as great as I've come to expect from these audience Q and A shows. Fantastic and insightful questions as usual. It's amazing how often I get an answer to something I want to ask about, because Glenn answers another viewer who has asked it.
So I guess I should say congrats to my fellow viewers as well.
Cheers 👍

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

Teardrinker@Teardrinker

9 hours ago

@ggreenwald
Glenn, can you bring Diana Panchenko on your show?
She's a Ukrainian journalist who has done some of the most honest coverage on free speech crackdowns in Ukraine, as well as the war with Russia.
YouTube just cancelled her channel, even though she has over 2 million followers, without any warning or explanation as to why.
Those of us who are fans of hers would love to hear from her about it.

Chagos@Diego-Garcia

15 hours ago

Hi Glenn, Please devote some time on your Friday night Q&A to your buddy, Mr. Michael Clifford Tracey Esq., and his current analysis of the work of Whitney Webb.

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

August 05, 2025

Stephen Miller's False Denials About Trump's Campus "Hate Speech" Codes; Sohrab Ahmari on the MAGA Splits Over Antitrust, Foreign Wars, and More

System Update #495

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it as a podcast on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast platform.

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

One of President Trump's most powerful advisers, Stephen Miller, last night claimed that I had posted what he called "patently false" statements about the Trump administration’s policy. Specifically, earlier in the day, I had pointed out – and documented, as I've done many times – that the Trump administration has implemented a radically expanded "hate speech" code that outlawed a wide range of opinions about Israel and Jewish individuals and, even worse, that they have been pressuring American universities to adopt this expanded "hate speech" code on campuses to restrict the free speech rights, not of foreign students, but of American professors, American administrators and American students. It's a direct attack on the free speech rights of Americans on college campuses.

I also pointed out – as I have covered here many times – that the Trump administration has also adopted a policy of deporting law-abiding citizens, not for criticizing the United States, but for criticizing Israel. All of my claims here are demonstrably and indisputably true. Yet after I pointed them out yesterday, and various MAGA influencers began responding to them and promoting them, White House officials began contacting them to convince them that my claims weren't true. When that didn't work because I was able to provide the evidence, the White House late last night dispatched one of its most popular officials – Stephen Miller – to label my claims “patently false."

The policies in question, adopted by the Trump administration, especially these attacks on free speech on American college campuses through hate speech codes, are of great importance, precisely, since they do attack the free speech rights of Americans at our universities, and the actual truth of what the Trump administration should be demonstrated. So that's exactly what we're going to do tonight.

Then: The emergence of Donald Trump and his MAGA ideology in the Republican Party led to the opening of all sorts of new ideas and policies previously anathema in that party. All of that, in turn, led to vibrant debates and competing views within the Trump coalition, as well as to all new voices and perspectives. One of the most interesting thinkers to emerge from that clash is our guest tonight: he's Sohrab Ahmari, one of the founders of Compact Magazine and now the U.S. editor for the online journal UnHerd. We’ll talk about all of that, as well as other MAGA divisions becoming increasingly more visible on economic populism generally, war and foreign policy, and much more.

Sometimes, government policy is carried out with very flamboyant and melodramatic announcements that everyone can listen to and understand, but more often it's carried out through a series of documents, very lengthy documents, sometimes legal documents, that have a great deal of complexity to them.

Oftentimes, when that happens, the government, if it has a policy or is pursuing things that are unpopular, especially among its own voters, can just try to confuse things by claiming that people's descriptions of what they're doing are untrue and false and trying to just confuse people with a bunch of irrelevances or false claims. A lot of people don't know what to make of it. They just throw up their hands because most people don't have the time to sort through all that. Especially if you're a supporter of a political movement and you hear that they're pursuing a policy that you just think is so anathema to their ideology that you don't want to believe that they're doing, you're happy to hear from the government when they say, “Oh, that's a lie. Don't listen to the persons or the people saying that. That's not actually what we're doing.”

Yet when that happens, I think it's very incumbent upon everybody who wants to know what their government is doing to actually understand the truth. And that is what happened last night.

I've been reporting for several months now on the Trump administration's systematic efforts to force American universities to adopt expanded hate speech codes. Remember, for so long, conservatives hated hate speech codes on college campuses. They condemned it as censorship. They said it's designed to suppress ideas.

Oftentimes, those hate speech codes were justified on the grounds that it's necessary to protect minority groups or that those ideas are hateful and incite violence. And all of this, we were told by most conservatives that I know, I think, in probably a consensus close to unanimity, we were told that this is just repressive behavior, that faculty and students on campus should have the freedom to express whatever views they want. If they're controversial, if they are offensive, if they are just disliked by others, the solution is not to ban those ideas or punish those people, but to allow open debate to flourish and people to hear those ideas.

That is a critique I vehemently agree with. And I've long sided with conservatives on this censorship debate as it has formed over the last, say, six, seven, eight years when it comes to online discourse, when it comes to campus discourse, free speech is something that is not just a constitutional guarantee and according to the Declaration of Independence, a right guaranteed by God, but it is also central to the American ethos of how we think debate should unfold. We don't trust the central authority to dictate what ideas are prohibited and which ones aren't. Instead, we believe in the free flow of ideas and the ability of adults to listen and make up their own minds.

That's the opposite of what the Trump administration has now been doing. What they said they believed in, Donald Trump, in his inauguration and other times, was that he wanted to restore free speech. Early on in the administration, JD Vance went to Europe and chided them for having long lists of prohibited ideas for which their citizens are punished if they express those views. And the reality is that's exactly what the Trump administration has been doing.

I want to make clear I'm not talking here about the controversies over deporting foreign students for criticizing Israel. That's a separate issue, which is part of this discussion, but that's totally ancillary and secondary. I've covered that many times. That is not what I'm discussing.

Only for Supporters

To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter

Read full Article

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

August 04, 2025

What are CBS News' Billionaire Heirs Doing with Bari Weiss? With Ryan Grim on the Funding Behind It: Europe Capitulates to Trump Again

System Update #494

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.

Our guest is the independent journalist Ryan Grim, the founder of DropSite News and a co-host of Breaking Points, about a new investigative article he published with Murtaza Hussain about who exactly guides Bari Weiss's media outlet, The Free Press, which seems to be now set to be at the center of one of America's oldest, most prestigious, and most influential news outlets.

A lot of different measures have been undertaken over the past 18 months – really a lot longer than that, but they've intensified over the last, say, 20 months since October 7 – as not just Americans, but the world, increasingly watched some of the most horrifying images we've ever seen live-streamed to us on a daily basis, sometimes on an hourly basis, of children getting blown up, of entire families being extinguished and being wiped out of essentially all of Gaza and civilian life there being destroyed systematically while Israeli officials openly admit that their goal is to do exactly that, to cleanse Gaza of the people who live there, to either force them to leave, kill them, or concentrate them in tiny little camps, what has also long been known as concentration camps.

The evidence of this has become so compelling that many Western politicians who have never been willing to utter a word of criticism about Israel are now feeling required to stand up on a soapbox and speak of Israel in terms as critical and condemning as I'm sure they never imagined they would. The same is true for many media outlets and for organizations. Just in the last week alone, both France and then today, the U.K., sort of recognized the Palestinian state, something they had always refused to do, except in connection with an agreement of which Israel was a part.

Even Donald Trump came out within the last three days and, in direct defiance of Benjamin Netanyahu's proclamation that there's no starvation policy that Israel has imposed on Gaza and, according to Netanyahu, no starvation at all. Donald Trump said there's absolutely starvation in Gaza. You see it in the children; you see it in people. These are things that you cannot fake.

The public opinion in the United States has rapidly spiraled out of control against Israel as the world turns against that country, and particularly what it's doing in Gaza. Huge amounts of sympathy for that country emerged in the wake of October 7. Almost every country expressed support for it and was on its side, but what they have done, using October 7 as a pretext, to achieve what were in reality long-term goals of many people inside the Israeli government, similar to how many American neocons used the 9/11 attacks to achieve all kinds of pre-existing goals, 9/11 and 9/11 became the pretext for it, including the invasion of Iraq, but a whole variety of other measures as well.

Large numbers of people have turned against Israel in the United States, which funds the Israeli military, which funds Israeli wars, which gives $4 billion to that country automatically every year under a 10-year deal signed by President Obama on the way out, much of which is required to be used to buy weapons from American arms dealers – it's basically a gift certificate offered by the American people to Israel to go on a shopping spree in the military industrial complex. But not all of it is required for that. And then every time Israel has a new war or wants to go fight somebody else, the United States not only transfers billions more to them.

Under the Biden administration, the U.S. government transferred, in addition to that $4 billion a year, another $17 billion to pay for what Israel has been doing in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon. But the U.S. also spends massive amounts of money just deploying our military assets to protect Israel, to fight with Israel, to intercept missiles that are shot at Israel by countries that they're bombing. Therefore, a lot of people who did not grow up based on indoctrination about their obligation to subsidize the Israeli state; people who, after the Iraq war and the 2008 financial crisis, the disruptions of COVID and the lives that accompanied each of those, began losing trust and faith in American institutions but also began losing their own economic security.

Only for Supporters

To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter

Read full Article

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

August 04, 2025

Israel-Made Famine Crisis Finally Recognized

System Update #493

Tonight, we will cover the rapidly growing body of indisputable evidence that mass famine, mass starvation, is sweeping through Gaza in a way we haven't really quite seen in many decades, given how deliberate and planned it is by the Israeli government.

By evidence I don't just mean the testimony of people in Gaza, or Gaza journalist or World Health organizations, but many Western physicians who are in Gaza, who are coming back from Gaza and reporting on the horrors that they're seeing, as well as official statements from Israeli government officials about exactly what they are carrying out, and what their intentions are with regard to the blockade that they continue to impose to prevent food from getting to Gaza.

We're seeing babies, young kids and even now adults starving to death, again, as the result of a deliberate starvation policy that, again, is part of a war that the United States is paying for, that the United States under two successive presidents has been arming and continues to support diplomatically.

One of the ways that you know that the horrors are immense is that many Western politicians, even Western governments, are now, suddenly, after 18 to 20 months of steadfastly supporting everything Israel is doing, starting to try to distance themselves with all sorts of statements and expressions of concern and even occasionally trying to pretend that they're doing something concrete. They know that what is taking place in Gaza is of historic proportions in terms of atrocity and war crimes and they do not want that associated with them, they don't want that on their conscience or especially on their legacy and so they're attempting to pretend all along is that this were something that they had opposed from the very first moment the Israeli destruction of Gaza began.

Ever since the start of the destruction of Gaza by the Israeli government following the October 7 attack, there have been all kinds of concerns that one of the things the Israeli government would do is impose mass starvation and famine on the population of 2.2 million people of Gaza. At least that was the population when all this began; half of that population, 1.1 million, are children, under the age of 18.

This has been something we've seen evidence of, and in part, people were concerned about it because the Israeli government immediately announced that that was their intention. We've now gotten to the point after a full-scale Israeli blockade – and by blockade, I don't mean that Israel is failing to feed the people of Gaza, I mean that the people, groups and organizations that are trying to bring food into Gaza are physically impeded from doing so by the IDF as a result of official Israeli policy.

There was a complete and full blockade for three months; at the same time, they imposed policies such as destroying any fields or plants where food could grow. They are now killing or at least arresting anybody who tries to just go a little bit out – remember, Gaza has a beach and a sea – to try to fish for food. That is also prohibited. It clearly is a policy designed to starve the population to death, which is why even Israeli experts in genocide who long resisted applying the word genocide to what Israel is doing in Gaza have now relented and said it's the only word that applies.

The number of groups, governments and people who previously supported what Israel was doing or at least refused to acknowledge the full extent of the atrocities, have now, in their view, no choice but to do so. The evidence is starting to become so overwhelming that only the hardcore Israel loyalists are left to try to deny it or blame somebody else for it.

ABC News today brings this headline: “More than 100 aid groups warn of 'mass starvation' in Gaza amid Israel's war with Hamas. Their statement warned of "record rates of acute malnutrition." They are the World Health Organization and groups from all over the planet that have immense credibility in having worked with conflicts many times before.

A leading Israeli newspaper, the daily Haaretz, which has been more critical of the Netanyahu government than most, but which at the same time was supportive for months of what Israel was doing in Gaza following October 7, had its lead editorial yesterday under this headline: “Israel Is Starving Gaza.” The language they used was so clear, straightforward and direct that it's unimaginable to think of any large corporate Western media outlet saying anything similar.

Last Monday, we interviewed a leading scholar of famine, who has studied famines around the world for his entire life and not only did he describe how what's taking place in Gaza is unprecedented, at least since World War II, because of how minutely planned it is and because they're unlike famine, say, in Ethiopia, or Sudan or Yemen. There are all sorts of organizations with immense expertise and resources that are just a couple of miles away from where children are starving to death, have huge amounts of food and other aids that they want to bring to the people of Gaza and yet are blocked from doing so by the IDF.

Although I suppose it's encouraging, or at least better than the alternative, that even Western governments and the longstanding Israel supporters who are American politicians are now issuing statements about how disturbed they are by the mass famine in Gaza, how Israel needs to immediately cease this inhumane activity, none of this is surprising. None of it is new. Israel made very clear from the very beginning what exactly their intentions were, and people just decided that they were too scared to stand up and object at the time.

Oftentimes, you hear that it's only far-right extremist ministers in Netanyahu's government who say things like this, like Ben Gvir, Smotrich, or people like that. In reality, the Israeli defense minister was one of the moderate people comparatively at the start of the war, to the point where Netanyahu ended up ousting him and he was the one who ordered a "complete siege" on the Gaza Strip, saying Israeli authorities would cut electricity and block the entry of food, water and electricity.

In April of this year, just three months ago, another Israeli minister, Smotrich, said at a conference:

Proudly boasting of the actions that the Israeli military, the Israeli government intended to take and then took. In his words, to ensure that not even a grain a wheat entered, a place where 2.2 million people, or 2 million people, or 1.9 million people are clinging to survival in between dodging shelling from tanks and bombs and having everything from schools and U.N. refugees and refugees in even their own tents being blown up. From CNN, in May:

Just as a reminder, it was in February, after Trump was inaugurated, that Israel explicitly announced to the world that it was blockading all food from entering Gaza. They didn't hide it. It wasn't in dispute. It wasn't in doubt. It was an official Israeli policy to starve the entire population, which is collective punishment as a way of forcing Hamas to negotiate or to surrender. This is exactly sort of the thing that, after World War II, we decided would be intolerable, that people who did it would be guilty of war crimes and treated as such, the way that the Nazis who did things similarly, like starve entire cities, starve entire ghettos of Jews, were treated as war criminals and held responsible and actually executed.

So, none of this is new for all the people who are now just seeing the babies who are emaciated in skin and bones and dying of malnutrition and increasingly older children and adults as well, to suddenly come out and say, “Oh my God, I can't believe this. What have we been supporting? This has to stop.”

This is all months in the making, and, as hunger experts and famine groups will tell you, once it gets to this stage, where people are actually dying now of famine in large numbers, it becomes irreversible. Irreversible physically because even if you get the food in, their bodies aren't equipped to process it. They need much more extensive medical care than that. Of course, in children, it impedes brain growth for life and physical vitality for life, to say nothing of the mass death from starvation, which we're now starting to see.

That's why all these attempts to distance themselves that we're seeing from Western governments and Western politicians are utterly nauseating. They're the ones who enabled it, they're the ones who have been paying for it, they're the ones who have been arming it, they're the ones who've been cheering for it, despite Israeli vows to starve to death the people of Gaza.

We've been hearing for a year and a half about stories of doctors in Gaza having to perform major surgeries, amputations on children, without so much as any painkillers, let alone anesthesia. Horror stories of the worst kind imaginable. But what we're now seeing is a body of evidence so conclusive and so indisputable from so many different sources that it has essentially become impossible for denialists of these atrocities to maintain their denialism any longer.

Here is Nick Maynard. He's a British physician who was on the mainstream program “Good Morning Britain,” just like “Good Morning America” in the United States. And he got back from Gaza. He's a surgeon. And here's what he described in his own words.

Video. Nick Maynard, “Good Morning Britain.” July 25, 2025.

He just gets done saying exactly what he's been seeing that every day, for fun almost, IDF soldiers pick which part of the body they're going to snipe young children, teenagers, young teenagers with, oh, today their heads, tomorrow their chests. How about their kneecaps? How about their testicles? And they come in in clutches with all the same injury. We've been hearing stories of IDF soldiers purposely targeting young boys who come in with bullets in their brains. We've been hearing about this for quite a long time now. He's in Gaza. He saw exactly what he's describing.

Here he is again, talking about something in one way, not quite as brutal, but in another way, almost more horrific in terms of the intentionality that it shows in terms of what the Israeli government and the IDF are actually up to in terms of their objectives in Gaza.

Video. NICK MAYNARD, GOOD MORNING BRITAIN. July 25, 2025.

If you are deliberately preventing the entrance in Gaza of baby formula, knowing that there is severe malnutrition among the women giving birth to these babies and not when Hamas operatives are trying to bring them in, but from Western doctors who work with organizations known around the world for treating people with injuries in war zones, if that isn't evidence of genocidal intent, someone needs to tell me what is.

Here's Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat from Minnesota, with a very steadfast pro-Israel record in the Senate for the entire time she's been there. Yesterday, she decided to stand up on the Senate floor to talk about how deeply worried and concerned and upset she is by the stories about nutrition coming out of Gaza and the role that the Israelis are playing in blockading food to starve the people in Gaza to death. She's so moved by it. She had to stand up and make her voice heard. Here's what she said.

Video. AMY KLOBUCHAR, C-SPAN. July 24, 2025.

I've heard enough of that performance. Very well delivered. The voice cracking was a nice touch. But as you'll see, as you will notice, there's no advocacy of any concrete call. You would think this is just some country doing this, that the United States has nothing to do with.

The United States pays for the Israeli military. It pays for their wars. It pays for the munitions they use to carry all of this out and has for decades. Amy Klobuchar is a steadfast supporter of that, as are pretty much all of her colleagues in the Senate from both parties.

Here is a photograph of 14 senators, seven from the Republican Party and seven from the Democratic Party, the perfect balance to illustrate how bipartisan the reverence and support for Israel is in Washington. There you see Amy Klobuchar. She's right here smiling. And here's Benjamin Netanyahu. Here's Chuck Schumer, here's Ted Cruz, here's Adam Schiff. Just all the kinds of people we're constantly told can never get along with anything. There they all are gathered. You see Netanyahu sort of posing there in front of everybody as some kind of warrior strut.

Benjamin Netanyahu is an indicted war criminal required to be arrested by any signatory to the International Criminal Court, just like Vladimir Putin is. Just the week before, the IDF soldiers and settlers in the West Bank murdered yet another American citizen, this one 20 years old, who was born in the United States, lived in the U.S., and was visiting relatives in the West Bank. And not only did settlers at the back of the IDF storm their house and beat him to death, but they also then blocked ambulances from getting to the scene to pick him up and bring him to get medical care, and the American citizen died, killed by Israelis. None of these people had anything to say about this, because their loyalty is more to Israel than to even their own fellow citizens.

So, it's nice that Amy Klobuchar wants to engage in public displays of emotion about how deeply moved she is, except she was just standing right next to the leader of the government responsible. Again, this is not anything new. He is indicted exactly for these kinds of crimes, for deliberate starvation, among many other things.

I should also point out that Amy Klobuchar's statement about the hostages is preposterous. The Netanyahu government has said many times, very explicitly, that even if Hamas turned over every hostage today, they've said this for months, that they would not stop their war. Their war aim is not to get the hostage back. That's the pretext. Even the hostages' own families know that and have said that, which is why they have deprioritized getting the hostages back because that's not their role. Their goal is to expel all Arabs and Palestinians from all of Gaza, as another minister in the Israeli government said yesterday, and make sure that all of Gaza is exclusively Jewish. They want to cleanse all of Gaza of every Arab and Muslim who lives there, every Palestinian, including Christian Palestinians and Palestinian Catholics, and make it part of the Israeli state where only Israeli Jews are permitted to live. That's the goal of the war. It doesn't have anything to do with the hostages. That's a pretext.

There's an Israeli scholar who is one of the leading scholars on Holocaust studies and the study of genocide, named Omer Bartov and he served in the IDF. He's an Israeli and he now teaches at Brown University, where he teaches Holocaust studies and the study of Genocide. And for quite a long time, until very recently, he rejected the idea that the word genocide applies to what Israel is doing in Gaza. Even when other human rights groups and other experts in genocide were saying, “The word absolutely applies,” he was insisting it did not. He then wrote an op-ed in The New York Times last week where he said, “I'm an expert in genocide. I know it when I see it,” and laid out a very long case with documentation and evidence. Again, this is an Israeli citizen who fought in the IDF, who dedicated his life to Holocaust studies as a steadfast supporter of Israel, writing in The New York Times op-ed, “I long resisted the conclusion, but there's no other word that can be used to describe what Israel is doing in Gaza besides genocide.” He laid out a long case using his historical understanding, his scholarly analysis of what genocide means and how it's been applied in the past and why it applies today. He then went on Piers Morgan and elaborated on his view and here's part of what he said.

Video. Omer Bartov, Piers Morgan Uncensored. July 24, 2025.

And that's been true for a very long time. The war aim of this war has always been to destroy civilian life in all of Gaza, whether by killing the people there or making life so impossible that it forces them to try to find some way out. That's the goal. It has nothing to do with the hostages or dismantling Hamas or anything else. It's to steal the land that the fanatics in the Israeli government believe God promised to them, without regard to what the rest of the world believes or thinks about international borders or anything else. And they don't regard the people in Gaza as human. That's the reality. Israel, as a country, obviously has lots of exceptions, but the prevailing ethos in Israel is that these are not human beings. These are less than human beings, which is why there's very little opposition – some have grown, but it’s still an absolute minority in Israel who are objecting to any of this.

In response to this Israeli scholar of the Holocaust and genocide, not just pronouncing that what Israel is doing is a genocide, but laying out a very extensive case, for whatever reason, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who, you might recall, is the Secretary of Health and Human Services, not the Secretary of State, compelled to go onto Twitter and to say this in response to somebody who denied this claim:

So, have Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – who is not Jewish, of course, he's part of a Catholic family – accusing Israeli Jews of spreading blood libel against Jews, because they invoke their field of expertise and the decades long study that they've done of genocide to describe what Israel is doing in Gaza as the manifestation of genocidal intent, is a blood libel against Jews.

Blood libel is now a term that has the same effective definition operationally as antisemitism, which just means criticizing Israel. I have, though, been really amazed. I've noticed this for quite some time now, the way in which non-Jewish supporters of Israel – you can call them Christian Zionists, or Zionists in general – I don't think RFK Jr.'s reverence for Israel comes from any kind of evangelical Christianity, just think it comes from political expediency.

He was on my show once, talking about it, where he gave this big, long speech about how we have to immediately stop financing the war in Ukraine because we can't afford it any longer. All of that, all of which was true. All of which I agreed with. And then I asked him, Does that same thing apply to Israel? And he immediately rejected it, started saying how Israel is a crucial ally, blah, blah, although, at the end, he did say, you know what, maybe you're right, maybe it is time to stop funding Israel and let them stand on their own two feet. But then the Democrats decided to attack RFK Jr. as antisemitic, and he ran into the arms of the most extremist Israel supporters like Rabbi Shmuley. Ever since, he has been as extreme a supporter of Israel as it gets to the point that he now accuses Israeli professors of Holocaust studies of spreading blood libels against Jews.

One of the most repugnant things I've seen is this new attempt, this new PR attempt, to shift from, “Oh, no, there's no problem in Gaza with food. There's no famine in Gaza. They have plenty of food.” And then for a while, it became, to the extent people don't have food, “It's Hamas's fault, they're stealing the food.” And then the question is, where are they getting it from to steal it? No food can be allowed in. They destroyed the ability to grow food and crops. They shoot and kill, or at best arrest, people who try to fish off the coast. So, that denialism didn't work any longer, and now the shift in rhetoric has become, “Oh, it's the U.N.'s fault. There's all this aid sitting there that they refuse to distribute.”

The last time the U.N. tried to take food into Gaza, when they finally got the authorization of the Israeli military to allow trucks to come in, was July 20, which is four days ago. And what happened was, even though they had the authorization of the IDF to come, as soon as they entered with trucks of food, desperate Gaza civilians whose families are dying of hunger, ran over to the trucks. And when they did, the Israeli military, the IDF, started gunning them down, started massacring them. And obviously, when you're shooting that many bullets at people by U.N. trucks, you are also endangering the lives of the drivers of those trucks and the aid workers who are on those trucks.

Cindy McCain, who tries to be very, very diplomatic, because that's her job, when talking about the role Israel is playing, she's the head of the World Food Program, but it's also her job to get food to the people of Gaza. And she comes from a family that is as pro-Israel as it gets. Her husband was John McCain. Even more fanatically pro-Israel is her daughter, Megan McCain, who accuses everybody of antisemitism daily, basically, if you don't support everything Israel is doing, that's the family she comes from. That's the political tradition out of which she emerged. And so, she's often very careful and cautious in her words. And she wants to be able to get food to the people of Gaza as well. That's her job. And yet, for Cindy McCain, this was quite an extreme language. She went on CNN the following day to describe the massacre aimed at the people getting the food from the U.N., and also the U.N. aid workers themselves, imposed by the Israeli government.

Here's what she said.

Video. CINDY MCCAIN, CNN. July 21, 2025.

The last time the U.N. tried to deliver aid and food into Gaza, they were massacred by the Israeli military and now, the IDF and the Gaza Health Foundation, guided by scumbags who used to work for the Obama administration, who are paid to advise them on PR strategies, have told them to stop denying that there's hunger and famine in Gaza, and instead blame the U.N., a group that has been desperately trying to get food to the people of Gaza for more than a year.

The Prime Minister of Australia came out yesterday with a statement, very melodramatic, about how upset he is and how disturbed he is; 29 countries issued a letter that we read to you late last week. This is all just symbolic. This is a way of, as that book cover says, pretending that they were against this all along.

Only the West and particularly the United States has the power to stop the Israelis from what they're doing and instead, the American government, like they did in the Biden administration, now under the Trump administration, is doing the opposite, expressing more and more support for what Israel is doing.

We're just witnessing in real time the kind of war crimes and atrocities that 20, 50, 100 years from now, people are going to be reading their history books, looking back and wondering how this could possibly have happened. And we're seeing it unfold, right in front of our faces, and we all do bear a significant amount of responsibility for it.

Read full Article

Available on mobile and TV devices