B (9:11)

Look, I think that Israeli officials always believed there was always enormous pressure inside Israel and from outside Israel. Where's your day after planning? And Israeli officials argued if we present a day after plan that's authored by us, it will be if it comes into Gaza on the back of an Israeli tank, it will be immediately rejected. It has to be an American plan backed by the Arab world, preferably backed by the Palestinian Authority, and that the Israelis could live with. And so that's what this basically is. But I should say not only is it a win for Israel and we can talk about why, but I do believe it's a win for the Palestinian people. It gets them a Gaza that's not run by Hamas. They're not be terrorized by Hamas. If this deal is implemented, they get an end to the war and it's a win for the Arab world that's clearly behind it that wants to restore some kind of stability. The only loser in this deal is Hamas and Tehran and their proxies.

A (10:03)

So let's talk about what could go wrong yet, because it still seems like the part that Hamas has clearly not said they would agree to is, is that they would disarm and exile themselves or deport, you know, in some way or the other. Leave my question to you is, is there, is this worth Israel battling over? Because is there Hamas left? I mean, I think that the Doha strike, the failure of that strike, showed there's really nothing left of Hamas. I mean, if, if you're going to define Hamas as any armed militant who picks up a gun, presumably a lot of young kids have been radicalized by two years of war. That's not Hamas. The entire command structure seems to be gone.

B (10:46)

Yeah, the command structure is mostly gone. The question is what kind of weapons capabilities are still in Gaza. So that's why the disarmament is important. And I think Israel is going to be pretty firm on disarmament. And if Hamas has, you know, they want Hamas out of Gaza though, they'll exile Hamas out of Gaza. If there are some mid level, low level Hamas officials, secretaries left, I don't think that's going to be where this deal falls apart. Really think the game changing element of this deal is getting the hostages back Israel. This is every time the hostage negotiate, the hostage negotiations and cease fire negotiations have broken down, it has usually been because Hamas was playing games with when the hostages would return, how many they would keep, what the phases would be. The fact that this front loads, the return of the hostages is the biggest deal for Israel. And a lot of the details to remain Israel can work out because they do believe that Hamas is not really the threat that it was. And especially with the pressure Israel's been putting on the Hamas stronghold in Gaza City, which Hamas is clearly spooked out about, that has had a huge effect.

A (11:47)

What about what's going on in Israel? You do have two members of the Prime Minister's government that seem very unhappy with the plan. Could the Israeli government fall?

B (11:57)

Yeah. So first there's six ministers in the government that I think could wind up voting against the deal, but there's still 20, some 20 ministers that'll vote for it. So the deal I think would pass if it goes when it goes before the cabinet. I, for the government to follow would require both of those, Ben GVIR and Smotrich, to both pull out of the government and to vote against and to vote against. I'm not convinced all that is going to happen, but I think from Netanyahu's standpoint, even if that does happen, if the government falls over the implementation of this deal, after Israel has taken out what was the biggest existential threat to Israel, which is Iran, after the Assad regime has fallen, after being in power for 53 years, after the threat from Hezbollah on Israel's northern border is gone, and after Hamas, really the Hamas threat is just virtually nonexistent relative to what it was, I think. And he's got, as I said, and he's got the hostages back. I think he can go to elections on that.

A (12:47)

Does this give enough to Saudi Arabia for normalization or do they need more in terms of some commitment to a Palestinian state?

B (12:59)

I think they have always needed some expression of a path to statehood. There's language in this 20 point deal that talks about path to statehood. If Israel is serious about working with the stabilization group that's going to come in with these Arab countries and with non Hamas Palestinians to help develop some kind of Palestinian technocratic class to work in Gaza, I think that's probably sufficient for Saudi. I think the real question here is we've heard a lot over the last two years, really over the last few months that this is a genocide, you know, which I obviously strongly dispute. But I think the first moral obligation for anyone who has been calling this a genocide for the last two years is there's now an opportunity to stop, to quote, unquote, stop the genocide. So why anyone is not rushing to embrace the deal that would, quote, unquote, stop the genocide, to me either reveals that you were never serious, that this was a genocide. It was just a political argument to use against Israel. And I think that the Saudis and others knew it wasn't a genocide and they actually do want stability and they want some semblance of statehood. For Palestinians, I was called statehood minus. They recognize there has to be some security limitations in terms of what a Palestinian government could do in Gaza. But as long as there's a path to ending the war, ending the human catastrophe for Palestinians, I think they'll be on board. So I think we could see a path to normalization.

A (14:23)

Dancino, always a pleasure.

B (14:25)

Good to be with you.

A (14:26)

Next up, we'll get a very different take on the Gaza plan from a Palestinian human rights lawyer and former legal advisor to the PLO at Capella University. Learning online doesn't mean learning alone. You'll get support from people who care about your success, like your enrollment specialist who gets to know you and the goals you'd like to achieve. You'll also get a designated academic coach who's with you throughout your entire program. Plus career coaches are available to help you navigate your professional goals. A different future is closer than you think with Capella University. Learn more at capella.edu. i'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast.

C (15:12)

I'm actually getting very specific suggestions on things we can fix at the FDA.

A (15:16)

Dr. Marty Makary earlier this year he stepped into the role of FDA commissioner.

C (15:22)

And there's no shortage of things that are broken to fix at the fda.

A (15:25)

What does he want to reform and how does he see the FDA's role at a time when science, politics, and public health are more entangled than ever before? Listen to Chasing Life streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts. Though much remains uncertain, an end to the war in Gaza could be in sight. But many who have watched this conflict play out over the past two years have reservations about Trump's peace plan. Diana Bhutto is one of them. She is a Palestinian human rights lawyer and former legal adviser to the plo. She joins us from the West Bank. Diana, welcome. Let me ask you, given the devastation that has been wrought on Gaza, is this not worth welcoming as an end to the violence?

D (16:17)

Look, Farid, there's nobody who wants to see an end to this more than the Palestinians themselves. We've had to live through two years of genocide, two years of seeing the Gaza Strip decimated with 90% of the homes flattened, more than 70,000 people killed, 20% of the population with injuries. There's nobody who wants to see it more happen. My fear with this plan is that it's not going to bring an end to this, that it's simply going to be something for the short term and that it's going to resume once again. So I'm looking for something that is going to be longer term, where there are guarantees that Israel isn't going to resume again, and that there are guarantees that Palestinians will finally be able to get the aid that they need because Israel has blocked it, and that they'll finally be able to rebuild, which Israel has been blocking as well.

A (17:16)

But would this be would it be worth going down this path? Or is your fear that Hamas will give up the one piece of leverage they have, which is the hostages, and not get enough in return?

D (17:33)

You know, Farida, I think it's important to step back and look at what's happened. Palestinians have been the only people in history who've had to negotiate an end to their genocide, and that is quite repugnant. There should have been an end to the bombing a long time ago without Palestinians having to negotiate and go Back and forth. But yes, the fear is that this will simply be very short term, three days as specified in the agreement, and that then again, the bombing will resume because once again, there are no guarantees of all of the guarantees that are provided in this 20 point plan are provided to the Israelis, nothing provided to the Palestinians. And so how is it that we're providing guarantees and providing a path and providing all of the things that the Israelis want when they're the ones who've been committing this genocide over the course of the past two years? I heard your guest just earlier say that this is an Israeli plan, and this is precisely what it is. This is an Israeli plan that has been repackaged as an American plan. And we know what the Israelis want. They want to commit ethnic cleansing, they want to commit genocide, and they've said as much. So on what basis is it that Palestinians should be, should be looking at this and saying that there isn't some bad intentions in this? Once again, we do want to see an end to the bombs. We don't want to see an end to the bombs just for a period of three days.

A (19:00)

Now, you know, there are lots of Palestinians certainly who I've talked to, and there's some polling that suggests that Hamas is not particularly popular in Gaza. Is this, is it worth welcoming the reality that this might be a new start for the Palestinians in Gaza, that perhaps there could be some kind of technocratic authority that takes it over initially, perhaps elections? There's been talk about the Palestinian Authority being involved. What are your thoughts about that?

D (19:37)

So, Farid, Hamas long ago said that they didn't want to be part of the governance, which is why when they issued their response to President Trump, they said, we will deal with this one part being the captives and the exchange of prisoners. But they're not going to deal with the second part because that's a Palestinian decision. And again, here's another problem. And isn't it for Palestinians to be deciding who is going to be presiding, who's going to be ruling? Shouldn't we be the ones who have a say in who is in our government?

A (20:10)

But how does one that.

D (20:11)

It's always somebody else who does the deciding?

A (20:13)

Diana, how does one do that? Hamas stopped holding elections. The Palestinian authorities stopped holding elections. So you have two entities, neither of which are willing to let the Palestinian people vote.

D (20:28)

And one of those reasons that there were no elections was because the Israelis also weren't allowing us to have elections. Remember, there have always been conditions that have been placed on Palestinians being able to exercise their rights to be able to exercise their rights to hold elections. But there's a bigger issue here. This isn't just about elections. This is about freedom. And there's nothing in this plan that is guaranteeing Palestinians their freedom. Palestinians now have been living under Israeli military rule and there's nothing in this plan or in any plan that is guaranteeing that, that yoke of occupation, those chains are going to ever become free. Israel said as much just the other day. Netanyahu said that they're never going to pull out of the Gaza Strip. And time and again, Netanyahu said that there will never be a Palestinian state. So on what basis is it that we're constantly demanding that Palestinians send somehow choose different leaders when at the end of the day all that you're doing is constantly subjugating Palestinians? It's time now for Palestinians to be given their freedom. We have a right to be free. It's not a right that Israel gets to choose our leaders or the United States. It's our right. And that is why we should be pushing not for the country who's committed genocide or the country that's funded the genocide to be putting together plans. It should be that the world should be stopping the genocide and we allowed to be free.

A (21:52)

Diana Boudou, good to have you on. Thank you. Next on gps. Some say the Internet is to blame for much of the political decisiveness in America and around the world. Does big Tech even care? I will talk to a former Meta executive, former deputy Prime Minister of the UK when we come back. We live in an age of growing political polarization and rising authoritarianism around the world. Many blame social media for these woes, and they're not wrong. But how could tech companies be regulated to fix these problems? That's the question that Nick Clegg sets out to answer in his new book, how to Save the Internet. Clegg was the UK's Deputy Prime Minister in the early 2000 and tens before joining Facebook. He left that company and now Meta this year. As their president of global affairs. I sat down with Clegg in New York recently to talk about his career in politics and tech. Welcome, Nick.

C (22:58)

It's very good to be here.

A (22:59)

So before you get to Meta, you are in British politics and you were a sort of centrist type and you watched as Britain plunges into populism with Brexit. Why did that happen? What do you think was going on?

C (23:16)

So I think there are lots of complex answers to that question. I don't think it's something that was just because of what happened that year or immediately before it. I think the brewing discontent in the United Kingdom about being part of this European club more or less started from the moment at which the United Kingdom joined the European Community in the early 70s. There's always been this tension between the kind of continental centric European Union built around particularly Germany and France and the act of post war reconciliation, and the UK being much more of a kind of maritime island nation. It's always had these tensions. But I think that when the Conservatives decided to hold the referendum, the thing that really, really kind of dominated all the headlines at the time was the Mediterranean migration crisis. People fleeing the conflict in Syria in particular. And there's a stable of very Eurosceptic anti European newspapers in the United Kingdom who are very, very powerful and they extremely skillfully conflated the question of our economic status in this huge single market, which I remain of the view had done, had helped the United Kingdom enormously. They conflated that with, do you want all these people coming across the Mediterranean and flooding into our country? And so, in one sense, the 2016 referendum in the UK was an early, if spectacular example of how the issue of immigration can upend politics in the most dramatic fashion. And it's exactly what happened during that, during that referendum. It was a very narrowly won referendum, I mean, wafer thin majority.

A (24:57)

But immigration was the rocket fuel and it's almost everywhere in Europe.

C (25:01)

I definitely think it was. Other people might, some people say, oh no, it was because of all the economic difficulties post the 2008 financial crisis. I think that was definitely an important contributing factor. But yes, I think the very visible items on People's evening news, on the front page of the newspapers of this, what came across to people as uncontrolled flight of folk across the Mediterranean definitely was, as you put it, the rocket fuel for sure.

A (25:29)

So when you look at British politics today, you are this centrist, cosmopolitan, pro European Union, your wife is Spanish.

C (25:40)

My views are not exactly fashionable or in the ascendant at the moment, but yeah.

A (25:44)

What do you think happens to that kind of politics?

C (25:47)

I think that kind of politics needs to learn how to deal with the populist by being a lot more aggressive and populist itself. I think at the moment, what we've got, certainly in the United Kingdom and across Europe, what you've got is you've got a bunch of political parties that were formed in a period of time which no longer applies. It was all about high tax, low tax, in favour of the state, not in favour of the state and so on. Now the dividing line is a completely different one. It's about culture wars, it's about openness of being closed, particularly around immigration, around globalization. And so you've got a bunch of parties who actually agree more with each other than they do with the insurgent populists, but they haven't yet worked out how to become the sum of their parts. So I think you're going to see a huge amount of rearrangements in the party structures in Europe. The churn and change is going to be very, very turbulent. But what the small L, liberal, as you put it, sort of centrist, internationalist viewpoint needs to do is they mustn't vacate the battleground. They're just going to be a lot better at explaining, not explaining, but showing up the false promise of the populace. And crucially, in a continent like Europe, with all these higgledy piggledy countries living cheek by jowl next to each other in a dangerous part of the world, you've got the conflicts in Ukraine, you've got the Middle east on one side, Africa on the other and so on. That at the end of the day, a continent like that is only going to, is only going to work if it becomes the sum of its parts. If people learn that they actually project more power, more sovereignty, more control for their citizens, providing them with prosperity and safety if they do it together. And that's the bit that everyone's lost self confidence. They've lost self confidence in asserting that actually if you want sovereignty in a footloose, fancy free, globalized world, the more you do stuff together with people, the stronger you are.

A (27:39)

Next on gps, I'll ask Nick Clegg why it seems that so many of the biggest tech CEOs are fawning over Donald Trump when we come back. Running a business comes with a lot of what ifs, but luckily there's a simple answer to them.

C (27:57)

Shopify.

A (27:58)

It's the commerce platform behind millions of.

D (28:00)

Businesses including Thrive Cosmetics and Momofuku. And it'll help you with everything you need.

A (28:06)

From website design and marketing to boosting sales and expanding operations, Shopify can get the job done and make your dream a reality. Turn those what ifs into sign up for your $1 per month trial@shopify.com SpecialOffer now more of my interview with Nick Clegg. He is a former UK Deputy Prime Minister, former top executive at Meta, and now the author of the new book how to Save the Internet. You go from London to Silicon Valley, you look like I may say like an English toff. You're sort of upperc class, you know, tennis playing Brit from London and you.

C (28:47)

Got to do it.

A (28:49)

I read some of you a very good tennis player. I enjoy it. And you get to, you get to Silicon Valley and you're with the Tech Bros Now. What was that like culturally?

C (28:58)

Culturally was a huge change. I mean, firstly, as you know, and I'm sure many of your viewers do, Westminster, the House of Commons, where I'd been for 12 years. And before that I was an elected parliamentarian in the European Parliament. But Westminster particularly is just drowning in the past. It's a sort of Harry Potter. It's just a pastiche, really, of sort of hammer beamed antiquity. So then I go from that to an environment in California where there is no past because every building looks as if it was put up last Tuesday and everyone is competing to lay claim to the future. And I found that very invigorating. And then also just the idiom of it all. I mean, I'm not an engineer. I come from the, you know, I come from a wordy place in Westminster where you cajole and persuade and argue and you deploy humor. None of that counted. It doesn't matter how much sort of how much you, how good your rhetoric might be. You need to show the data and the stats and the systems. They're engineers, they're building systems. So it was interesting for me to have to learn a new language in my 50s to try and make myself understood in this extraordinary engineering company on the west coast of California.

A (30:06)

So when you think about that issue of all these engineers, maybe not a lot of eq. You say in the book that Mark Zuckerberg sort of looks at everything really as an engineer. And sometimes the people thought he had no emotions, but it was really the sort of highly analytic side. Do you think that can contribute to this feeling that places like Facebook Meta were basically just chasing audience attention, do whatever it takes to keep people engaged, not aware of the broader social consequence of that.

C (30:44)

Totally. They're companies, they're not NGOs, they're not churches. The people who run these companies, they're not philosopher kings and they shouldn't be treated as such. And when they claim that they are able to make great societal ethical judgments, I wouldn't trust them with that. These are often young people who become extraordinarily wealthy. I mean, in a sort of way that's almost never without parallel since the days of the steel barons, perhaps very, very quickly. And of course then they start thinking and I'm not, by the way, I'm absolutely not personalizing this at all at Mark Zuckerberg. If anything, he was always quite reluctant to get involved in some of the wider stuff. But they then start pronouncing on the world and they start politics about and they're treated by their fans. They're not. They're companies, they're great companies. If, you know, I'm not American, if I was American, I'd be super proud that you've got these world beating companies. But they're companies, they have their own interests and one needs to look unflinchingly at that. Which is why I've always believed as an ex politician, however much regulation can sometimes be misplaced, governments and parliaments and lawmakers who are elected by the people, unlike these companies in Silicon Valley are, have every right to say we are going to lay down the law literally and metaphorically about what you can and can't do, whether it comes to sensitive issues like kids and the use of social media or content moderation and so on.

A (32:07)

Why do you think all of them swung so far to the right with Donald Trump's second term?

C (32:15)

I mean, you need to ask that. And indeed the corporate sector as a whole in the United States.

A (32:20)

But again, the tech Bros. Elon Musk, David Sack, there's this whole phenomenon. Zuckerberg.

C (32:26)

Oh, sure. And if you speak to them, and I'm sure you do, they will explain to you how enraged they were by their treatment and what they felt was sort of bad treatment from the Biden administration. I don't think the fact that you dislike the previous administration so much, I mean, it's not a particular. It might be a good explanation why you didn't think things were great before, but doesn't explain entirely this sort of joining at the hip that appears to have emerged between Silicon Valley amongst all the big companies and the Trump administration. It might be fear that they worry that otherwise they're not going to, they're not going to be able to protect their businesses. I think you get a herd behavior. I think Silicon Valley, it's interesting in Silicon Valley, people sort of think that they're kind of being terribly mold breaking and unconventional. It's actually a very conventional place. They tend to move, you know, as a sort of herd. So I think when two or three of them sort of do the thing and go off to Mar a Lago and spend time in the White House, then everybody else thinks they should do it. So they end up doing it together, which is what you saw just A few weeks ago. I think in the White House, there's only one thing which is worse than the private sector and government being at each other's throats. It's if they're in each other's pockets. And I think which is happening now. Well, I think ironically, what government is owning Intel. I think ironically, what you're seeing in the US is that the exertion of power by this Trump administration over the private sector. Look at the deal on TikTok, for instance, basically forged by the politicians. Look at the pressure on media organizations, the intervention, deep intervention. You look at intel taking payments from Nvidia for various things. All of this web of influence is, oddly enough, turning corporate America more into a kind of Chinese style relationship with government. My view in the long run is particularly for Silicon Valley, that kind of wild gyration of technological and engineering innovation tends to thrive best when it's kept at a certain polite distance from politics.

A (34:33)

Nikolai, the book is fascinating, as is everything you say. Right. Thank you.

C (34:38)

Thank you.

A (34:41)

Next on gps, an accused terrorist currently awaits trial in Virginia for killing American soldiers in Afghanistan. Only one such case has ever gone to trial. And Jake Tapper has written a thrilling book on the story when we come back. Right now there is an accused terrorist known as Jafar awaiting trial for his role in the 2021 Abbey Gate bombing in Afghanistan which killed 13American servicemen. Only one case like this has ever been to trial in a US Criminal court and was highly controversial at the time. Jake Tapper has written a book about that case called Race Against Terror. Jake, welcome. The story that you tell is first terrorist trial in a US Criminal court for killing American soldiers on a foreign battlef what's unique and controversial about this.

E (35:41)

At the time, 2011, 2012, the idea of bringing foreign terrorists to a criminal court instead of a military commission at Gitmo was incredibly controversial for any number of reasons. First of all, I think the country was still very terrified and terrorized because of 9 11. And there was this fear that these foreign terrorists, it was as if they had like Thanos esque supervillain powers. If you brought them to Manhattan, they'd escape and kill people. But beyond that, there was a trial in 2010 of a guy named Galani for the 1998 embassy bombings. And he was acquitted of 284 of 285 charges. So there was a real fear that these people would get off, they would be somehow able to escape justice. But the case of Spin Ghoul was fascinating because the prosecutors and the FBI did so much work, so much sleuthing, so much investigations in terms of finding evidence against him to prove that he was part of an Al Qaeda ambush in Afghanistan in 2003, where two American service members were killed, to prove that he was part of a conspiracy to blow up the US Embassy in Nigeria. That the case was just, first of all, just an incredibly fascinating sleuthing story, but also ultimately a huge success. And he has been sentenced to prison, and he's at a supermax in Colorado and will be for the rest of his days.

A (37:10)

So, as you say, it was super controversial at the time. This was in the Obama years. Many Republicans came out against it, including Jeff Sessions, who later became Trump's attorney general. Now Donald Trump is walking down Obama's path and wants to try this terrorist, Jaffar. What does that tell you about the sort of trajectory of the war on terror? Or, you know, that Donald Trump is now doing pretty much the same thing that Obama did?

E (37:38)

I think, first of all, he probably is doing so unknowingly. I doubt he knows or even his attorney general knows that they're following the footsteps of Obama in what was a very controversial move at the time. But when President Trump announced at his joint address to Congress earlier this year that they were bringing Jafar to the US for trial, nobody said boo. Nobody protested at all. So I guess I think we are in a consensus view that is neither Bush Doctrine nor Obama Doctrine nor Trump Doctrine, where it's just kind of accepted that trying terrorists in criminal court is actually a very successful way to go after them. More than 600 terrorists have been tried in criminal court, whereas in the military commissions, I think there have been two trials, and one of them had part of it overturned. And nine plea deals. It certainly does not have the same record. But I have to say, the one way in which Trump is not following in the footsteps of Obama, and I don't think this is a good thing, is the Trump Justice Department is purging these experts, these expert prosecutors from their ranks. And it just happened with Jafar's prosecutor, a guy named Michael Benneri. He was just fired for political reasons, and I think that's a real problem.

A (38:55)

This is such a fascinating story, Jake, and thank you so much for having done the research and putting it all together. We'll read this with great interest. Thank you. And thank you to all of you for being a part of my program this week. I will see you next week.

C (39:15)

Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch yet. Here are 15 reasons why you should One, it's $15 a month. Two, seriously, it's $15 a month. Three, no big contracts.

A (39:29)

Four, I use it.

C (39:30)

Five, my mom uses it.

E (39:31)

Are you, are you playing me off?

A (39:32)

That's what's happening, right?

C (39:34)

Okay, give it a try.

A (39:35)

@Mintmobile.Com Switch upfront payment of $45 for.

D (39:39)

Three month plan, $15 per month equivalent required. New customer offer first three months only.

A (39:42)

Then full price plan options available.

D (39:43)

Taxes and fees extra.

A (39:44)

See Mint mobile.com news fatigue have I Got News for you Is the cure and also the disease. CNN's Comedy Quiz show is back, making sense of the mayhem and definitely adding to it. Have I Got News for you. Saturday at 9 on CNN.