 But there are levers that Biden could use, which he hasn't used. There are levers which previous presidents have used when Israel has, in their view, crossed the line. For example? Go back to 1956, Eisenhower, threat and sanctions if Israel didn't pull its forces out of Sinai. Reagan held up delivery of fighter jets over Israel's action in Lebanon. George Bush Sr. blocked loan guarantees because of settlement building. He did, I was there the day that, that I, well, going back to 1956, I mean. So these levers are there, aren't they? Well, there's some, but the president has said something about the settlements. He has said something about the settlements. But saying and blocking weapons supplies, for instance, are very different things, aren't they? Well, it's not, it's a path. We just watched a snippet from an interview with Nancy Pelosi at the Munich Security Conference. And as you saw, she had absolutely no good response when she was confronted by journalist Tim Sebastian about the fact that Biden is condemning Israel's conduct on one hand, but on another hand, he's still giving them weapons. In fact, John Cassidy of The New Yorker shared these two headlines from The Wall Street Journal that were on the same page. One headline says, Biden presses Netanyahu to accept plan. And the other reads, US is preparing to send bombs, other arms to Israel. Yeah. So he wants to have it both ways. He wants the Democratic Party voting base to think that he's against the actions of the Israeli government, but he's refusing to hold Israel accountable in any way. In fact, the US just voted again to veto another UN resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, which is the third time that they've done this. And to make matters worse, Biden is scheduled to attend a private fundraiser with pro-Israel billionaire and racist Haim Saban that costs up to $250,000 for a ticket. Now, if you're unfamiliar with Saban, he recommended additional scrutiny for Muslims in order to ensure that they're not terrorists. So that's the kind of person who's influencing Biden. And you'd think that Biden would disavow support from a Trumpian Islamophobe like Saban if he really wanted us to believe that he's against Israel's actions because Saban isn't against what Israel is doing. So maybe having him in your ear, having really high-dollar fundraisers with him isn't necessarily the best look, especially if you're trying to repair that bridge that you burnt with Arab-Americans, but Biden's not doing that. And his actions here are indefensible, which is why Pelosi was checkmated when she was confronted about Biden's refusal to hold Israel accountable in any meaningful way. But Tim Sebastian wasn't done, and he continued to press her on the matter further. I guess my question is, at what point would you, a long-time friend of Israel, say to the government there, the price of this military operation is too high and is no longer morally defensible? Or are there no limits, as far as you're concerned? No red lines? Well, would they care if I said that? I mean, why would they care? If you don't, you're staying silent, and you're complicit, aren't you? We're not staying silent. No, we're not staying silent. We're saying it's wrong for them to do what they're doing, to the extent that they are doing it. Unbelievable. Why would they care what I have to say? Really, Nancy, this is a question that you, the former Speaker of the House, is unironically asking? Let's pretend for a moment that she doesn't actually know the answer to this question. But the reason why they care is because you have the power to stop supplying them with weapons. You have the power to stop making the money printer go burr. But you're not doing that. And even if the US was powerless here in this situation, which they're not, but assume for a moment that they were, and no matter what they said, Israel wouldn't listen. Well, at a minimum, you would at least think that you should stop supplying them with weapons and maybe at least allow one UN resolution condemning their actions to go through, but you're not even doing that. So if they see that there's a pattern that your words hold no weight and there's never any accountability for their actions, then what incentive do they have to listen to you? I mean, imagine if you took your kid to the park and he started to hit another kid with a stick and you told him to stop, but he didn't listen because he knew that you weren't actually going to get off your ass and take the stick away from him. That makes you responsible for the actions of your child and that pain inflicted on the other child is your fault because you let him hit the other child and you didn't make him stop. That doesn't mean that you beat your child in response to him hurting this other child. It means that you show the child that there are consequences for their actions. They leave the park immediately if he starts doing this. They lose some of their privileges. I don't know, maybe you take away their TV or their iPad. I don't know what the kids are playing with these days. No bluey for a week. And I don't mean to be overly reductive by equating this relationship between the United States and Israel as one that's paternal, but for better or worse, I mean, that kind of is the dynamic here, right? The fact remains that Israel could not continue doing what they're doing if the United States actually held them accountable, but they're not. And that's why they're continuing to defy the United States because you're still giving them weapons. You're still not allowing a single UN vote on the Security Council to go through. There's just been no accountability. They are able to openly defy you an international law and there's no reason to stop, so why would they? But there's one more clip that I wanna show you because it actually gets even more embarrassing for Pelosi if you can believe that. There's a danger for the US that if you don't like what Israel is doing and the president has made it clear that some of what Israel is doing, he doesn't like. That's right. And you go on supplying them with hardware to do those things. You own this operation every bit as much as they do, don't you? No, we don't. We have always supported Israel as our national security friend, largely because it was in our interest to do so, at large because it was in Juso. We had shared values at only democracy in the region. The behavior of Netanyahu is, in my view, inexcusable in terms of how it has affected the collateral damage to children and families and the rest, but nobody can take away the right of any country to defend itself. It has been brutally attacked in that way. 28,000 Palestinian lives is more than self defense, isn't it? It's more than self defense. Well, their goal, and I just saw President Herzog, for whom I have enormous respect, and said, how are things? And he basically said, we just have a couple more steps and then we'll be through this. So that sounded optimistic to me that they think that it is in reach to rid Gaza of Hamas. I don't hear a lot of the people and they're outside my house almost every day, but nobody cares about that. And I don't mean to make that a big thing, but I just hear them saying, free the hostages. I don't hear any of them saying Hamas is a terrorist organization. I hear them praising Hamas. I hear them ignoring the hostages. So there's a lot of, shall we say, behavior we all have to address here. Last week the EU's foreign policy chief, Joseph Burrell, wondered aloud why the US isn't doing more to have its warnings taken seriously in Jerusalem. If you believe, he said, that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide fewer arms in order to prevent so many people being killed. He's got a point, hasn't he? Israel is very well equipped with weaponry. There's nothing that we have sent since October 7th that has contributed to this brutality. In the longer run, they're in a dangerous neighborhood and we will continue to support Israel. He's got a good point, doesn't he? Of course he does, which is why she tried to deflect and outright lied about people protesting in front of her house, saying that they're praising Hamas. Nancy, you know that that's a lie. You know that they're not praising Hamas. But the reason why they're not calling on Hamas to release the hostages is because our government doesn't fund Hamas. It funds Israel. We have no way of holding Hamas accountable, either directly or indirectly. And more importantly, more than a hundred hostages were released during the temporary ceasefire in December. So perhaps stopping the bloodshed is the best means to that end. But she said something else in particular that was really telling to me. She referenced the president of Israel, Isaac Herzog. And she said that she has enormous respect for him unlike Netanyahu. This signals to the Democratic Party voting base that the Democratic Party is trying behind the scenes to work with more reasonable actors in Israel to reign in Netanyahu, whose behavior she called inexcusable. But the problem with this strategy here, this appeal to Democratic Party voters, is that its success hinges entirely on the hope that they're stupid and that they don't know that Isaac Herzog is in full support of Netanyahu's quote, inexcusable behavior. In fact, less than two weeks into their genocide, he suggested that Ghazan civilians were all legitimate targets because they're all responsible for the actions of Hamas since they didn't rise up to overthrow them. Now if the Democratic Party's base doesn't know about this, then Nancy Pelosi here looks reasonable. You know, she's trying to do her best to reign in Netanyahu. But if they know that Isaac Herzog, like Netanyahu, is a psychopath whose blood thirsty, well then, she just looks like a liar. And it looks that way because she is a liar. But she's optimistic, I guess, as she said, because Isaac Herzog told her that there's only a couple more steps until they're done. A couple more steps. I wonder if she asked him how many thousands of lives will be lost in these last couple of steps. It's just so frustrating to watch this because she is so dishonest here. And another thing that she said that really bothered me was collateral damage. She used that term, which I find gross because it minimizes the loss of human life. And it also suggests that these deaths were all unintended, just an unintended consequence of a military operation. Full stop. But make no mistake about it. This is all intentional. It's not an accident. Israel is purposefully killing children both directly and indirectly. And not only are they starving the population and putting them on the brink of famine, but their snipers have literally targeted and murdered multiple children. Collateral damage makes it seem like Israel is guilty of manslaughter when in actuality, we're talking about them being guilty of mass murder and genocide. But of course, she's trying to downplay and sanitize Israel's actions here because she's complicit. So she's going to say what will make Democratic Party voters feel better and what makes her feel better, what helps her to sleep with herself at night. If I were in her position, I wouldn't be able to live with myself, supporting a genocide in a position of power. Like I just, I don't know that I can compartmentalize in the way that she does, but we have a lot of lawmakers, apparently, who are able to do this. She's not alone. John Federman, Joe Biden, many lawmakers in both parties are perfectly fine aiding and abetting Israel as they do a genocide. So I mean, this interview is really revealing. Nancy Pelosi came off terribly here because she tried to defend something that is just indefensible. She tried to shrug off our country's culpability in genocide. And even though a lot of Americans are falling for her double-speak and bullshit right now, I think decades from now, we're all going to look back at this moment with great shame.