Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Sahra Wagenknecht on the Failing War in Ukraine, the State of German Politics, and Her New Political Party
Video Transcript
April 19, 2024
post photo preview

Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder
 

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


 

NOTE: Exceptionally, this English-language transcript of the interview with Sahra Wagenknecht, originally conducted in German, was released without a paywall for all to enjoy. Locals subscribers have access to a transcript of every System Update episode.


Interview: Sahra Wagenknecht

xstYGYXNmv8R-lhVPTNefhZdSV-sPl-FN23tC95oZ-GiDJUAibsWS9p8Xb60dzrvs_BeFVY_IzfGESNEKc4F4QhRnjHLg_o5i84Of1qIN1vOx_aVBsFZSjjV1nmPwlBg3cUvgq0RqMLX

 

G. GREENWALD: Okay. Sahra, Guten Tag. It's very good to see you again. Thank you for giving us some time.

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: A pleasure. I'm also really looking forward to the interview.

 

G. GREENWALD: Let's start with the war in Ukraine. We spoke to you a little bit more than a year ago about your opposition to Germany's involvement in the war. How—14 months later—do you now see this war between Russia and Ukraine? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, it is horrible. This war is ongoing. Clearly, we can see that everything we've been told—including in Germany—such as, we have to supply the tanks, we have to supply the weapons and that would lead to a solution but none of this has worked. And Germany has become more and more of a war party. There are now politicians in Germany who are calling for the war to be taken into Russia with Taurus missiles. That is a very dangerous development. And it has demonstrated in all honesty that anyone who wants to end this war will have to negotiate and finally make a serious offer for negotiations. And I am very pleased that the Pope is also calling for this, that many countries in the South are calling for this, and that we in Germany will continue to call for this. But the German government has so far entirely opposed this.

 

G. GREENWALD: So, independent of moral arguments or geostrategic arguments, it has become clear to everyone that Ukraine cannot possibly win this war, especially as victory was defined by NATO as Russians expelled from all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. The Ukrainians have no artillery, and no people left to send to the front line. The only movements in the front line have been in Russia's favor. Has support in Germany for funding and arming the war in Ukraine changed at all over the last year?

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: There is a considerable proportion of the population who see things differently and are also fed up with being told that Ukraine could win this war because they can see that they are unable to do so. But there is a very, very strong media debate in Germany that amounts to the narrative that if we don't stop Putin now, he will invade Poland or Lithuania or the Baltic states. In other words, they are now trying to sway people, who have also come to the realisation that arms deliveries have not led to a turnaround in the war, convinced by creating a new narrative. The new narrative is that we have to do everything we can to stop Putin because if there were to be another compromise now, he would invade other countries. And unfortunately, there are a lot of people in West Germany, and less so in East Germany, who believe that. So you can't say that the mood has now completely changed. 

 

G. GREENWALD: If you look at the history of the 20th century, the one lesson it shows is that very bad things happen when Germany and Russia are antagonistic, or see each other as enemies or involved in wars. And yet we've had the German Chancellor many times give pro-war speeches, saying that Germany must ensure Russia's defeat. What dangers does that create? And what do you think should be the relationship between Germany and Russia? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, relations are very bad. I can imagine that old traumas have been awakened in many people in Russia when they hear that German politicians want to supply weapons to attack Russia. Now, for example, it became public in Russia that there was a discussion among German officers about the delivery of Taurus missiles, where there was a debate about whether it would be possible to deliver them and disguise the fact that they came from Germany. And the Taurus missiles are so dangerous because Ukraine could use them to attack Moscow. They could destroy ministries and the Kremlin in Moscow. They could attack military bases, even nuclear bases in Russia. And when German officers discuss the possibility of delivering such missiles and how it might be possible to conceal the fact that they came from Germany, I can imagine that this will of course reawaken old fears in Russia and that a great deal of historical experience, especially among older people, may bring this back to the surface. The relationship between Germany and Russia is at a low point and that is very regrettable. And it is also incredibly foolish of the Germans because we are harming ourselves above all. Our economy is in crisis because we can't import cheap energy. No gas, no Russian oil. The German economy is now shrinking for the second time this year, probably. We have high inflation, people have lost purchasing power and they are afraid of their industrial jobs. So above all, it is a policy that is damaging the German economy and the people in Germany. 

 

G. GREENWALD: So, at the beginning of the war, in 2022, there was a delusion in the U.S. and in Europe that maybe Ukraine could really win. But I think now almost nobody believes that Ukraine can expel Russia from Ukrainian territory. So what do you think are the real motives in Germany and Europe for why they want to continue this war indefinitely? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, of course, it's a permanent gateway. The war is also very, very expensive for Russia. This means that the economic sanctions will of course remain in place as long as this war continues. You also don't want to admit that you haven't achieved your goals. The German Foreign Minister stepped up at the beginning of the war and said, "We want to ruin Russia", and Russia has not been ruined. On the contrary, Russia now has a close alliance with China and is really very well-paced in the BRICS. Yes, the alliance is getting bigger, but you don't want to admit that, you don't want to acknowledge that either. And I think the German media is much more one-dimensional here. I have the feeling, I also read some of the American press, that there is a more open discussion there about the question of how we can perhaps end this war, how we can get out of it. Meanwhile, for example, the parliamentary group leader of the governing party SPD (Social Democrats) in the Bundestag addressed the issue here, saying that perhaps we need to discuss putting a halt to the war. He was attacked terribly for that. So to address a self-evident fact that we need to end this war means—if you are a member of the SPD in Germany and you recognize that—you will be beaten up for it. The Pope said in an interview that Ukraine needs to consider how negotiations can take place out of self-interest, which was also criticized in the German press. It was said that the Pope was calling on Ukraine to surrender, which he never did. Unfortunately, we also lack diversity and positions in the media here to promote negotiations and to advocate an end to the war, which tends to be pushed very, very much into a corner; these are the people who are allied with Putin, who is running Putin propaganda. And that, of course, has a certain impact on how many people here in the country view the war.

 

G. GREENWALD: It's exactly the same in the United States, everything you just described. Since we last spoke, one of the major developments is that you left the longtime party to which you belong, Die Linke, or the left, to form a new party called Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance for Reason and Justice. Some polls now show your new party polling as high as 20%. One of the things that is most obvious is that the word Linke, left, is not in your party's name, your new party's name. Why is that? And what motivated you to leave the party that you were a member of for so long? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, the Left has unfortunately alienated a large part of its voters. It has mainly focused on these so-called modern, progressive issues, which are mainly within academic milieus, in well-off, privileged milieus, and anti-racism, but also more out of symbolic politics, such as trans debates. But the truly fundamental social problems, wages, pensions, and social fears about the future, have been increasingly lost sight of. And that's why the Left has become very, very weak. Many former voters of the Left have moved to the right and are now voting for the AfD [Alternative für Deutschland]. It's a right-wing party in Germany and at some point, I simply said to myself along with others that we no longer want to watch how the left of the party spectrum is basically just going downhill and the right is benefiting, but rather we want a new force to emerge in Germany that embodies social justice and reason, but also peace policy. Die Linke is increasingly taking very, very unclear positions on the issue of peace policy, for example. A year ago we had a big peace rally with over 50,000 people. The left distanced itself and did not support it. And there are now clear voices on the left that are campaigning for arms deliveries to Ukraine. And that has also contributed to the Left losing voters. And this is where the BSW  [Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht] is now a clear voice for peace, and negotiations, but also for social justice. 

 

G. GREENWALD: So this formula that you're embracing, this new kind of politics, let's say, defending traditional left-wing economic policies to help the working class, but at the same time avoiding or rejecting these very elite left-wing dogmas on culture war issues, seems like that's becoming increasingly visible in other countries in northern Europe as well. Do you see the success of that kind of combination of politics, defending the working class, focusing on their economics, but avoiding these more elite culture war questions as being a framework for success in other left-wing parties in other countries in Northern Europe?

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Well, we can't complain about the response and the support we have. It's been very, very strong. We only founded the party in January and we're currently at over 5%, in Germany, in some eastern German states we're in double figures. That really is something that is quite unusual when a party is so new. And that's why I can tell that there really was a big gap in the political system that we are now filling. And I am firmly convinced that we can also change politics in Germany as a result. The stronger we become – we hope to achieve a good result in the European elections – the more we can influence German politics. So if we campaign as a voice for peace, then this will also put pressure on the German government. Or, if we make it an issue that wages have been falling in Germany for three years. That is something that has never happened before in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. It's actually a scandal that people have been losing income for three years and are completely resisting it. And at the same time, we also recognize that people have a longing for stability, and security, that you can't ignore that. In Germany, we live with very high levels of migration. This is something that the Left has always denied. In my opinion, we consider this to be an important issue because it takes place primarily in poor neighborhoods and not in rich ones. So this is already a policy, a policy offer, it also has a logic to it and it's very well received by people. 

 

G. GREENWALD: In the United States, there was a long-time opposition to mass emigration that came mostly from the left, from labor unions, who argued that the people who suffer from mass migration tend to be the poorest, and the working class people whose jobs are taken, whose wages are declined. One of the first, and I guess, most important events that began to drive a wedge between you and your party was your opposition to the policy of Angela Merkel to accept a million refugees from Syria. What do you see as the conflict between immigration, on the one hand, and the interest of the German poor and the working class on the other? 

 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, there is a conflict. My own father is from Iran. I understand that people are looking for a better life and that's why they move to wealthy countries. And I also think that we should talk about why people are fleeing their homeland. Many of those who come to Germany are from countries where wars have taken place and these wars have often been waged by the West, or in part, as in Syria, the West has armed certain groups there and supported this civil war because it wanted a regime change. So there are causes of displacement and migration. But you don't eliminate the causes by saying we're going to open the borders and invite everyone in. You need to achieve changes in the home countries. But here in Germany, it is also the case that housing shortages have of course worsened in the poorer residential areas. There is a lack of daycare places, the schools are swamped, there are many districts where first grade is starting and 80% of the children can't speak a word of German. Integration doesn't work either when the numbers are so high. And that's why the less privileged in Germany are very strongly opposed to such high levels of migration. Incidentally, people who have a migration background themselves even express their desire that this uncontrolled migration be stopped. And that's why this is an important issue for us because it strengthens the Right. High levels of migration, as it is happening now, naturally favor low wages and high rents, overburden the infrastructure and ultimately strengthen the Right. 

 

G. GREENWALD: One of the best-known parties in Germany that claims to be on the left is the Green Party, and it has become successful. It now has, among other people, Annalena Baerbock as its foreign minister. And I recall when the Greens were running, they ran on a platform of what they called a feminist foreign policy. This idea that if you have women in positions of power in foreign policy, it would make war less likely. And yet you have Baerbock and the Greens, along with the president of the EU, who are among the most aggressive supporters of Germany's involvement in the war in Ukraine, Israel's war in Gaza, support for NATO generally. Why did that happen? And how do you understand what role the Green Party plays in Germany?

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, the Greens really are a remarkable phenomenon. The party emerged from the peace movement. So alongside the question of environmental policy, peace policy was a very, very big issue for the first generation of the Greens. Petra Kelly was a great pacifist. She co-founded the Greens. Today, the Greens really are the biggest warmongers. They are the most fanatical about supplying weapons. In some cases, they are people who previously refused to do military service themselves, but who now know all the different types of tanks that are produced in Germany and are pushing aggressively for them to be supplied to Ukraine. Why is that? Well, the Greens are very, very strongly oriented towards the U.S., also on other issues. I can't say for sure why that is, but it is noteworthy. In many respects, the Greens are really the mouthpiece of U.S. politics and represent what is currently being discussed or expected in U.S. politics, and they have completely changed. It certainly also has something to do with this approach of a strong moralization of politics—i.e. you don't do politics to do something good but to be part of the good side. This approach results supposedly to “We are the good guys, the good West is fighting against Putin and the Russian dictatorship”. After all, this too resonates very, very strongly with the Greens as a narrative. In other words, we need to fight for human rights and democracy. It's all a lie. But that's just the Green tone. And in the party, there are now hardly any obvious functionaries who contradict it in any way. There are some in the SPD, but among the Greens, there really is a massive drumbeat for war and also an arrogance towards other countries, which they lecture on how they should be governed, including China, for example. But now the Greens are really the absolute worst when it comes to war policy. 

 

G. GREENWALD: So Ukraine is one war that Germany is providing arms to, but there's another war where Germany is also doing that. That is the war by Israel in Gaza. There's currently a case in the International Court of Justice brought by Nicaragua against Germany, accusing Germany of aiding genocide by providing the arms and bombs to Israel that they use against Palestinian civilians. What is your view of what the German policy toward Israel and its war in Gaza should be? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, I think it's really horrible what we've been seeing in the Gaza Strip for months now. These are war crimes. It's a terrible war against the civilian population, against women, against children. And of course, Germany, or even every German, is special—and they naturally have a different relationship or responsibility towards Israel because of German history, because of the Holocaust. We have always said, and I support this, that we understand or share Israel's right to defend itself against these attacks by Hamas, but what is happening over there has nothing to do with self-defense; it is a major war crime. And that is why we, the BSW, have now submitted a motion in the Bundestag to impose an immediate arms embargo on Israel, i.e. to stop supplying weapons, because Nicaragua is right. Therefore, all countries that supply weapons are partly responsible for this terrible killing in the Gaza Strip. That is why I think it would be deeply appropriate and urgently necessary for us to take a different path here, to stop supplying arms immediately and to condemn this action. Condemn the fact that this is a campaign of revenge and not self-defense. In my opinion, we need to make that very clear. And Netanyahu has now even announced that he may launch a ground offensive on Rafah. And that would take death and horror to a whole new level. So here, I think there is no reason to say that we as Germans should stand on the side of the Israeli government. On the contrary, the Israeli government is basically pursuing a course here that could actually cause the entire Middle East to enter a major war. When I look at the development of relations with Iran, the attack on the Iranian consulate, there is also a possible threat of military escalation. And we absolutely must not allow that to happen, we cannot support it, we need to clearly condemn it and distance ourselves from it, and above all, we need to stop providing weapons. 

 

G. GREENWALD: I think everybody understands the very unique German duty and obligation after the Holocaust and World War II. But I think there are two ways of looking at what Germany's obligation is. One is to say our obligation is just to support Israel in everything that it does, no matter what that is. The other is to say we should oppose genocide and violence against civilians in every instance where it occurs. How does Germany understand the difference between those two options? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: In the meantime, the German media, including the German government, has been mildly critical. It's no longer the case that they support everything the Israeli government does. But there is still far too little criticism. I also believe that we have a responsibility to defend Israel's right to exist, but the kind of warfare we are now seeing does not increase security for people in Israel or for Jews worldwide; on the contrary, it endangers it. It is an extremely right-wing Israeli government, whose defense minister even announced at the beginning that they wanted to wage a war against civilians. He spoke of human animals when he spoke of Palestinians. And that wording is fascistoid and we simply need to speak out and recognize that this is not something we can support and that we have no responsibility whatsoever arising from our history in sharing or engaging in such actions and such contempt for humanity, on the contrary, we must condemn such very clearly. 

 

G. GREENWALD: I know that Germany has a much different approach to free speech than the United States has, especially when it comes to expressions of anti-Semitism, for reasons that I think everybody can understand. At the same time, there have been a lot of reports about attempts to punish and repress defenders of the Palestinian cause or critics of Israel, even sometimes when the critics of Israel are Jewish, we see actions by the German government against them. How serious of a problem is this, and do you think it is something to worry about this attack on free speech in the name of defending Israel? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: So we don't really have an open debate in Germany, we have a clear narrowing of the spectrum of opinion on many issues, including this one. So anyone who formulates harsh criticism here is met with the sledgehammer of anti-Semitism. For example, my co-chairwoman of the BSW was recently on a television program, a talk show, and she was accused of the BSW  being an anti-Semitic party. In other words, we are a party of anti-Semites because we criticize Israel and because we condemn the actions of the Israeli government. This shows that a truly absurd debate is taking place here. We will continue to point out that there is a big difference between anti-Semitism and a completely justified and absolutely necessary criticism of a far-right Israeli government that is committing the worst war crimes in the Gaza Strip. 

 

G. GREENWALD: The last time you and I talked, you made it very clear that you were very opposed to the far-right German party, AfD. And we talked about the differences between yourself and that party because there had been reports that some people on the right are supportive of you and now your new party. And I understand that. But there are also reports, especially in the wake of this explicit racist discussion, that this party may need to be outlawed or prohibited from the ballot. What are your thoughts on how the AfD should be treated legally? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: I am strongly against banning the AfD. In my opinion, the whole debate about it is completely misguided. Ultimately, this will help the AfD. We need to deal with its policies and positions. For example, they have European candidates who clearly have a nationalistic worldview. They define being German by blood. That's racism, it's very bad. But you can challenge this in terms of content or you can address the AfD's economic positions. It has a radical position about the market, wants to dismantle the welfare state, and opposes higher minimum wages. Or, for example, it is not a peace party. When it comes to Ukraine, the AfD has positions that are actually similar to ours in that they also advocate a negotiated peace but, regarding the issue of the Gaza conflict, for example, they are a radical supporter of the Israeli government. That has something to do with the fact that they are very strongly anti-Islamic and not ultimately that they are a force for peace. However, you need to challenge them in terms of content and not with blanket bans and blanket exclusion. The main reason they are now gaining so much popularity is because of how poorly Germany is being governed—because the coalition government is so unjust, so haphazard, so incompetent, the economic situation is very bad and people are afraid. That's why the AfD has doubled in the polls in these two years. But that's not because people are right-wing. And if you want to win back these voters, you need to deal with the AfD objectively. 

 

G. GREENWALD: Well, I find your political project not just very interesting, but very relevant to other countries in the West, including the U.S. And it's always a pleasure to speak to you, and I really appreciated your time today.

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: You're very welcome, thank you very much. And yes, perhaps until next time. 

 

G. GREENWALD: Guten Tag. Tschüss.

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Okay. Tschüss. 


And that concludes our show tonight.

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
48
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
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
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
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.

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

Chuck Todd says that hiding Biden's mental decline is a right wing manufactured premise. Note the Bush/Cheney campaign sign on the wall behind him:

https://x.com/ChrisCillizza/status/1916901628214431864

This is an excellent important segment from breaking points:

placeholder
April 29, 2025

Why isn't closed captioning not working under Rumble videos?

Beyond System Update: Voices Who Interviewed Glenn This Week
Megyn Kelly, Reason, Emily Jashinsky, and Glenn Diesen

This week, Glenn appeared in many interviews, the links to which have been provided below:
(1) The Megyn Kelly Show:

(2) Reason, Just Asking Questions:

(3) Undercurrents with Emily Jashinsky:

(4) Glenn Diesen:

Read full Article
post photo preview
Rapid Fire: Canada Elections, Dem's Sit-In, Israeli Taking Points Escalate; PLUS: Jewish Academics Push-Back on Antisemitism Claims
System Update #445

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.  

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!

AD_4nXc0FyBV6zJ_7ofEgikbkq4SrhlbSWxcKlo0x9aMJAKhm_2dZFsRqAtdydEGkoine2vHOJNpgrjaHx_oIJuWKLUpZNOCXwacdDWguTnbiEiVI_QXFZvjttquliPe9jtaXxDCwj8lS_8WC2GY1A1ZGvU?key=G7PtMUupLU6SPdj-pvMWcL3Y

Last night, Canada held a nationwide election and elected their members of Parliament, who, in turn, selected their prime minister. For a long time now, it seemed basically inevitable that the conservatives under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre would finally oust the liberals from power. And yet, last night, Poilievre not only lost the election and won't become, obviously, the prime minister, as he expected to, as everyone expected to, but he also lost the seat that he's held in Parliament for the last 20 years. We'll talk about the factors that led to this, to the extent that Canadian experts are talking about that and what we've been observing for a long time. We'll also have some rapid-fire coverage of a couple of other topics that I wanted to cover. 

Last week, three professors, Eli Meyerhoff, Emily Schneider, and Brooke Lober, wrote for a very prestigious blog that is used by a lot of scholars and professors, the Academe Blog, a rebuke against the narrative that the government and the media are using, that antisemitism is rampant on college campuses. Two of them will join us tonight to discuss their concerns. 

AD_4nXc0FyBV6zJ_7ofEgikbkq4SrhlbSWxcKlo0x9aMJAKhm_2dZFsRqAtdydEGkoine2vHOJNpgrjaHx_oIJuWKLUpZNOCXwacdDWguTnbiEiVI_QXFZvjttquliPe9jtaXxDCwj8lS_8WC2GY1A1ZGvU?key=G7PtMUupLU6SPdj-pvMWcL3Y

AD_4nXeKO1Xypd1L17MOIfqSIZB2lqMjWp1Hzps-Rlfq0cb5DGoDAV8PX2tdXSuXpg16aodag73czJNQmb5Pkbx8-X3FR6PoxWsPHzbHQwmL_NJhZnjWZS3eXd4X4f_A6edUCc9D7QuwCMFAGwSYYfiyk7U?key=G7PtMUupLU6SPdj-pvMWcL3Y

In one sense, the results of last night's federal election in Canada were not really shocking because over the past six to eight weeks, polls showed that the Conservative Party had essentially lost the massive lead that it held for a year or so that has made everyone assume that their victory, their takeover of Parliament, and their installation of the leader of the Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre, was inevitable. So, the fact that liberals ended up winning the election and their current incumbent prime minister, who became prime minister when Justin Trudeau resigned, Mark Carney, is not unexpected. The betting market said it was something like an 80% to 90% chance that the liberals would win. But it is shocking when you compare it to the trajectory over the last year or even 18 months, where there has been a complete collapse in support for the Conservative Party and a shift in support to the Liberal Party. 

By votes, this was far from a landslide. I think the vote was 43% of the electorate for the Liberal Party, 41% for the Conservatives, but that's not the real way that elections are determined. The way elections are determined is by who wins how many seats in Parliament and becomes the majority party, then the leader of that party ends up as prime minister. There, the margin was, again, not a blowout but still more significant. 

Here's from Canada's Globe and Mail reporting on the election this morning: “[…] the race against the Conservatives was much tighter than polls predicted. […] The Liberals had a slim lead in the popular vote at 43.2 per cent to the Conservatives’ 41.7.” The article goes on: “The Liberal government is committed to free trade within the country by Canada Day, he said. “This is Canada, and we decide what happens here.”  (The Globe and Mail. April 29, 2025.)

So, you see, even in that rhetoric there, that Donald Trump's talking about Canada as becoming the 51st state, referring to Justin Trudeau as Governor Trudeau, imposing tariffs, repeatedly saying he's not kidding when he says Canada should integrate into the United States, that had a big effect on the Canadian populace. In fact, it is manifested in many ways: at their national hockey league games where Canadian and American teams play, it's true in baseball as well, we saw Canadians booing the U.S. national anthem; many Canadians have refused to vacation in the United States or come to the United States as they did. This is a nationalistic surge saying, “How dare you, the United States, for trying to control our politics and country, talk about us like we're not even a sovereign country.” And that created a lot of backlash. 

Needless to say, if the conservatives want to find a way to get him back into Parliament, they'll be able to, probably. But as we've seen with Kamala Harris and in many other elections, when you lead a party in an election where they believe you have a chance to win and you end up losing, and then on top of that suffer the humiliation of losing your own district that you've held for 20 years, it's very difficult to recover from that as a viable leader that people are willing to get behind and believe that one day you'll lead them to victory. 

It's such a remarkable turnaround because, as I said, the conservatives were way ahead of the Liberal Party for so long. It really only started to change when Donald Trump came in and started talking about Canada. I mean, that's the reality. You talk to any Canadian, and they will tell you that by far the biggest factor in the Canadian election was Donald Trump. Once Mark Carney assumed the prime ministership, it was almost reversed. The liberals ended up with a huge advantage. That's why the betting markets were saying 80% to 90% that they would win. 

They've been shrinking over the last couple of months or couple of weeks, tightening up because people in Canada are really dissatisfied with the liberal leadership, with the economy, with the cost of living, many of the grievances and resentments towards status quo parties that people all over the democratic world are expressing. It would have been easily sufficient to drive the conservatives into power had it not been for the fact that they had this nationalistic backlash. 

And for a long time, Poilievre was very pro-Trump, the MAGA movement loved him and he was perceived as part of this right-wing populist movement of which Trump was a member. The anti-Trump sentiment in Congress became so strong in Canada, so strong, that Poilievre started vehemently denouncing Donald Trump, attacking Donald Trump. A lot of conservatives in Canada think that's why he lost, this attacking to the center, or the separation from Trump. 

But whatever it is, you can just trace the clear trajectory of the collapse of the Conservative Party's support, the loss of their lead with Donald Trump and, especially, his repeated denunciations of and focus on Canada and its government. 

So, again, I'm not saying it's the only factor, but I've talked to a lot of Canadians over the past week and today, and I haven't found one who minimizes the impact that Trump had. That's just the reality of what it is. Not even a criticism of Trump, it's just kind of a reality that you can see why this backlash against Trump would happen and how that could manifest as much greater negativity toward the candidate who had been posturing as and modeling himself after a MAGA, but Canada First, right-wing populist. Very much of the style of Trump demeaning the media, showing contempt for them, for institutions in general, looked to be a path for victory until all of this stuff with Trump happened. We'll have some Canadian analysts on over the next week or so to break that down more carefully. But like I said, I've been talking to a lot of people following this election very closely and you won't find anybody who denies that's a major role. 

AD_4nXc0FyBV6zJ_7ofEgikbkq4SrhlbSWxcKlo0x9aMJAKhm_2dZFsRqAtdydEGkoine2vHOJNpgrjaHx_oIJuWKLUpZNOCXwacdDWguTnbiEiVI_QXFZvjttquliPe9jtaXxDCwj8lS_8WC2GY1A1ZGvU?key=G7PtMUupLU6SPdj-pvMWcL3Y

AD_4nXcWgAXTAzXUdRvr7JmarJgrkTEFOLTv0LsVRYFwR-ZIZRCbut9oqYNE5p_Oq9obFYTXwStocuG2972MeFq_YVxwQ69J6ah-skn3ronIV41E66vyZQV0fINklWiP2DeQFejFwwzRkMTkGD2_1yh3cMM?key=G7PtMUupLU6SPdj-pvMWcL3Y

All right. Also, this week, the Democrats were constantly being told by their base that they're not doing enough to oppose Trump, that led Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey to engage in this utterly vacant and pointless stunt where he gave a filibuster for 18 hours, broke the record, I think, held by Strom Thurmond previously. Congratulations to Senator Booker. Actually, 25 hours. Sorry, Sen. Booker, for minimizing the greatness of your act, but Democrats decided to follow up that inspiring and stirring protest with a different one where they decided all to sit together on the steps of Congress while Congress was in session to sing and speak and not really sure what the whole purpose was, but here's a clip from it. 

Video. Democratic Leadership, Capitol Steps, Fox News. April 28, 2025.

So, you see, there was unbelievable music, entertainment and inspiring political songs there. There you see Cory Booker to the left and Hakeem Jeffries to the right, the House Minority Leader for the Democratic Party. They sat there for hours. And then Cory Booker went on to X to celebrate this remarkable act of resistance that was going to make all the difference. 

And he said:

AD_4nXewHZdG_AYtxT8gNV6IY-TUgz3GRqfQTY2Uyu_GiJEJX-XfNdU8a9ZjL5csguK_WPGcCmKuBUXVEcOPb9BUL1-j58MHBSqRkKkiaG_P6EbWXD7nEerjGM3gHUMKlbXMoeSaMB0ySXsHbwefX7bFVw?key=G7PtMUupLU6SPdj-pvMWcL3Y

Now, if you're somebody who does want to see Trump's agenda impeded and the Democrats emerge victorious in the next election, or even find a way to gain more political power before the next midterm, I would suggest this is not something you should be particularly excited by, it's unbelievably performative and self-promoting and who cares? Who cares? 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Gaza Starves, Pro-Israel Propagandists Escalate Extremist Rhetoric and Actions
System Update #444

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.  

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!

AD_4nXerNdzUurru-yTT5tCIikaZEMtU9izSvxTG8k4rqjka1DBra-5QqOuO-BJ-6a-OpX1x0WXSKN3Y9GpvzgNAWVFV-al97cZh6ZoCKu8BBomvoMBfgQjcM0LOP67TODofW0VJpzRjkNXYwkcFSweo_js?key=Y26L49g9fxxwsJ7Xmnc54u0e

Whether one likes it or not, Israel and its various wars continue to shape and dominate American politics. That's so for multiple reasons: the U.S. pays for and finances Israel's military and wars, even though Israelis have a higher standard of living than millions of Americans who are forced to subsidize their society; the atrocities Israel has been committing in Gaza not only erodes their international standing around the world but America's as well, given that the whole world knows that none of what Israel is in Gaza would be possible without American support, and, perhaps most importantly, our domestic politics and our core free speech rights continue to be eroded in the United States in the name of protecting Israel and punishing its critics. 

Israel, like any country, has always had its share of violent extremists, including those who want to steal all of the West Bank, Gaza, and even parts of Lebanon and Syria for Israel. But those extremists have, in Israel, become rapidly mainstreamed or are at the highest levels of its government and the fruits of their extremism can be seen in the full destruction of civilian life in Gaza, as well as the ongoing annexation of land by their settlers’ movement in the West Bank and by their multiple wars in several countries in the region. 

As the true destruction of Gaza becomes globally undeniable and as two million Gazans now face the reality of mass famine due to Israel's refusal to allow any food or medicine to enter Gaza, no matter who sends it, the Israeli government but also their legion of loyalists in the United States, are becoming rapidly more extreme and repressive to justify all of this. 

It is contaminating not only Israel, but our own country.

AD_4nXerNdzUurru-yTT5tCIikaZEMtU9izSvxTG8k4rqjka1DBra-5QqOuO-BJ-6a-OpX1x0WXSKN3Y9GpvzgNAWVFV-al97cZh6ZoCKu8BBomvoMBfgQjcM0LOP67TODofW0VJpzRjkNXYwkcFSweo_js?key=Y26L49g9fxxwsJ7Xmnc54u0e

AD_4nXdzF_ybGm_Jnu5WuLfMG2uy16hkNJVnWC8oz3e2h1nTL1kkONlSRIU7rEQSAoYTcGfZTg46tOZnJOnN8rhZEfkU3Js_CUgwKwAQi_LxMhS87TPpRcYcah_vDH2KyDG9_lGKCYoRoVS2lx5K0VXlFg?key=Y26L49g9fxxwsJ7Xmnc54u0e

From the beginning of the war that Israel has been waging on Gaza following the October 7 attack, senior Israeli officials led by its then-defense minister, Yoav Gallant, have explicitly threatened that they intended to cut off all humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, including food, water, and medicine. This doesn't mean they're refusing to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, even though, as an occupying army, they are required to do so under international law. But no one expects that of Israel. It's Israel, they're not going to provide food, water and medicine to Palestinians in Gaza as they destroy their society. But they're doing something much more extreme, which is they're using their military, paid for by the United States and American workers and taxpayers, to block any aid from entering. 

There are humanitarian groups all over the world trying to put food into Gaza because generally the world considers it to be a singular atrocity to watch millions of people die of famine, a deliberately caused famine. You have countries trying to get aid and medicine, watching children have to undergo incredibly horrific surgeries with no anesthesia because it's just not available in the Gaza Strip. You've seen all the horror stories. Those are deliberately induced by a blockade that the Israeli military has imposed on Gaza, where they simply won't even let flour into the Gaza Strip. And as a result, it's no longer accurate to say the people of Gaza are in the brink of starvation or that mass famine is imminent. They're in the middle of it. There's essentially no more food left. 

Here from the BBC yesterday:

AD_4nXchxOUC1X_bt74ZS0jAvjBtLFmw0F7fD8imjdONwUbRLmmpT-8HRZfk-7b4aumoWyocrU3HuArkyXyuYowqqaIUoWRXR-9Xjh0eCkSXAjEDw3-c3wtVDe2max3jIwKxH_ACEQ9hRg_zHLq5HI8hmw?key=Y26L49g9fxxwsJ7Xmnc54u0e

A couple of things to note about this: first of all, the World Food Programme.  I've seen before any institution, any entity, any country, any government, any person, any journalist, any media outlet that criticizes Israel immediately gets labeled as antisemitic, as hating Israel. Anyone who criticizes Israel immediately gets called a racist; that's just the go-to tactic. 

The whole world, everyone's persecuting poor Israel. Even though the world's largest military and economy pays for their military, pays for their wars, all of Europe has stood up in defense of Israel, somehow, Israel is the poor little victim on the playground, constantly being bullied. You have all these U.N. organizations and Doctors Without Borders, people who do the most noble work of going around the world administering healthcare in the most dangerous way, all these institutions are immediately deemed antisemitic the first time they say anything negative about Israel. 

It's a little bit more difficult to do it in the case of the World Food Programme because its executive director is Cindy McCain, the widow of former senator and presidential candidate John McCain and the mother of media personality Megan McCain. The McCain family has been as steadfast, as extreme, as loyal in their support for Israel as basically anybody in Washington. I mean, to try to depict Cindy McCain as some kind of Israel hater! 

She was born into great wealth, she's using her platform to run the World Food Programme, which does work to alleviate famine wherever famine is found. She didn't take it as a platform to criticize Israel, much to the contrary, as I said, the McCain family worships Israel. As the executive director, she is duty-bound to report the truth, which is that there's no more food left in Gaza and they have no more food to distribute. All the stuff they were able to get into Gaza is now extinguished and exhausted and they're barred by the Israeli military from delivering more. 

Here is the World Food Programme itself on its X account yesterday:

AD_4nXe9E4ucBb5z187IIaDdwIEqKyzD5XymUUf8KPkipuHVUiqz_UQys2CH5NRimoa9_rHP6R8WCW4iTFXvFCJnbMAE0HBkRLCKD_fMGJ875hd9PzTBOPGV1YdpzU3z6N4tUePegrV3GjKSb6ztikrhMkk?key=Y26L49g9fxxwsJ7Xmnc54u0e

 I've seen people trying to claim, “Oh, this is a war, this is what happens in war.” No, it's just not true. Most wars do not entail the deliberate blockading and starvation of an entire population, in this case, composed of 50% of children, trying to starve them to death or face the risk of imminent death from starvation as a means to get their hostages back. Of course, just like Israel was bombing everywhere in Gaza, claiming that they were concerned by their hostages and ended up predictably killing a lot of the hostages. Obviously, if you bomb indiscriminately in the places that you know the hostages are, you're going to end up killing many of them, as happened. Similarly, if you starve an entire place to death, then there's no food to provide to the hostages either. And this is not something that the Israelis are doing by accident, or incidentally as a byproduct of war. Starving the two million people in Gaza to death is an explicit, open boast that Israeli officials, at least when they're speaking in Hebrew, and sometimes even when they are speaking in English, are very proud that they're doing on purpose. 

Here's a member of the Israeli Knesset, Moshe Saada. He was on a network called Middle East Eye, and they asked him about the people, including the children, who have no food in Gaza, and here's what he said: 

Video. MP Moshe Saada, Middle East Eye. April 27, 2025.

And this is not anomalous. There's nobody rising up in criticism of this MP. You may recall that there were videos that were leaked to the press showing Israeli soldiers gang raping helpless Palestinian detainees in the dungeons Israel keeps, when these soldiers were caught gang raping, anally raping, helpless detainee Palestinians, not only was there no revulsion in Israel, but members of the Knesset actually went and protested with all of their supporters outside where those soldiers were being held, demanding their release and you had people going on media saying, “There's nothing wrong with rape, rape is a perfectly legitimate weapon of war, these are not human beings we're dealing with, these are savages, they're not Jewish.” 

And this has been the ethos in Israel from the start. 

Here is the former defense secretary, Netanyahu has since fired him, Yoav Gallant. This was him on October 9, 2023, saying what the Israeli strategy will be:

Video. Yoav Gallant, X. October 9, 2023,

When South Africa brought its case against Israel for war crime violations to the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, and now other governments have subsequently joined, their entire case basically existed out of statements by Israeli officials about what they intended to do in Gaza because Israeli officials have been saying the whole time, “We're going to keep food out, we're going to keep water out.” 

At some point, the U.S. was pushing a little bit for more humanitarian aid to get in and very basic food supplies were permitted to get in. But remember that when Trump facilitated the cease-fire in Gaza – which he and his envoy Steve Witkoff absolutely deserve credit for having facilitated, it was finalized one day before Trump's inauguration, he wanted there to be a cease-fire, he went around boasting and giving himself credit for the cease-fire – Netanyahu was saying to his country, “Don't worry, the Americans have told me this is not permanent. We're going to get some hostages back and then there's going to be no stage two of the cease-fire. We're never going to stage two. We're only going to do stage one and then go back to destroying Gaza.”

And that's exactly what happened. Stage one of the cease-fire agreement that Trump facilitated demanded the permitting of humanitarian aid, including food, water, and medicine, to enter Gaza, but the Israelis, before the cease-fire unraveled, refused to allow any such humanitarian aid to enter. 

And just by the way, given that the United States is still bombing Yemen every day – remember Yemen?  It's just a country that the U.S. government is just bombing intensively and consistently every day – when that cease-fire was signed, the Houthis said, “We're not going to attack any more ships now that there's a cease-fire.” It was only when the Israelis began violating the cease-fire by blockading basic humanitarian aid from entering did the Houthis said, “Actually, now we're going to resume our attacks, but only on Israeli ships, not on anyone else's, including Americans.” Yet, Trump restarted and escalated Biden's bombing campaign, even though the Houthis weren't attacking American ships. 

The much easier solution to bombing Yemen would have been to tell Israel, “You have to comply with the cease-fire deal, that Trump and Steve Witkoff caused to be agreed to by both sides in the Middle East,” but instead we're bombing the Houthis because we don't want to force Israel to allow food, water and medicine into this unbelievably beleaguered population. 

One of the most extremist ministers in Israel is the national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who is in the United States. Today, he went to Congress to speak to several of his employees who work there. Sometimes it's better to have meetings between your boss and the employees face-to-face. I mean, you can have it on Zoom, you can have it in lots of different ways, but, as every boss will tell you, it's good to have in-person meetings with the people to whom you're giving instructions. So, Ben-Gvir went to Washington today to visit Congress and do that.  

Ben-Gvir used to be such an extremist in Israel, and I don't mean like 30 years ago, I mean like a decade ago or less, that he was convicted of several terrorist crimes. He was the spearhead of this settler movement that every country in the world, including the United States, regarded a illegal. Every time settlements expand in the West Bank, it means that this dream of a two-state solution with Israel and a Palestinian state side-by-side living in peace became impossible, because Israel just kept eating up land. Ben-Gvir and others in the Netanyahu government, who used to be so on the fringes that they were actually in trouble with the law constantly, have now become mainstream in the government. This was before October 7. And Ben-Gvir’s view is that the Israeli military should be in the West Bank protecting the settlers as they expand. 

There used to be a view that at one point Israel was going to have to confront its settlers because the only way for Israeli survival was a two-state solution. Nobody believes in that anymore. So, Ben-Gvir is in Washington, in Congress, again, what the Israelis are doing, this is not fringe, marginalized views in Israel. These are the mainstream views of the Israeli government. They openly boast about the things they're doing. 

AD_4nXdf-YAhWdwncG6FqY4vxWce-bCCFOVTdkhnAGaitUK7L8NQ7_5Fdc-pR3oyinODUW5ZnRjey-0EbWHR3CGiuagn3jx9ga-aw1G4WZUEWoOQr2pNqnnw2ibfpKMG3DCdk2LQxhPVpOOxGBCxLXQlKXc?key=Y26L49g9fxxwsJ7Xmnc54u0e

The Jerusalem Post, in 2024:

AD_4nXf3UXj5oSq8K364KIC5M8h8wHkiR4_1pMFfYD9L947qHAobgVrQCuWoZ5fbFvRnlMPlfH1Z8GiTptY3IgXmCH3WmMuxt1wmIjfDtfWhJd8WCHhK2PIZ83799UW_Za6VJaSsMBdF5FF2e4fwa6GLfg?key=Y26L49g9fxxwsJ7Xmnc54u0e

So, the IDF had worked with the Israeli police because a bunch of Israelis, including the extremists in the West Bank, went to the border with Gaza and blocked it. They took their kids, they took their entire families and they physically blocked the trucks with humanitarian aid from entering Gaza. They wanted to starve the population to death and the Israeli military worked with the Israeli police to try to remove protesters, these people blockading humanitarian aid from entering in Gaza, in part because the U.S. government was asking for humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, and so they wanted to have a minimal amount sent in and that's what Ben-Gvir was mad about: the police and the IDF were acting against these protesters. 

Just last month, March 23, 2025, as reported by JNS, the headline is “Ben-Gvir Urges Strikes on Hamas Food Reserves, Power Supply.” Obviously, “Hamas food reserves” are the food reserves of the 2 million people living in Gaza. He wanted to, deliberately, to attack whatever food was left that they found. 

Also obvious is that among the institutions that depend upon functioning electricity and cannot function without it are hospitals with people on respirators, people on life support, people who need all kinds of machines hooked up to them. If you cut off all electricity in Gaza and then continue to bomb them in the dark, not only are you killing a lot of people, but you're preventing doctors from treating the wounded or even feeding the wounded. And this is what they're all very happy to admit that they're willing to do and are doing, even as many of their supporters in Israel continue to insist it's fake news or antisemitic to point out that Israel is blockading all food from getting into Gaza. The Israeli officials just openly admit it. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals