Sam Stein (2:49)

No I was being sarcastic. Let's just be real, okay?

Joe Scarborough (2:53)

Okay. You promise? I can sort of see that. Okay. So, Joe, a lot to get to this morning, including that.

Richard Haass (3:03)

A lot to get to. I've got to say, though, if there were a power present, PowerPoint presentation, and it did convince anybody to marry Sam Stein. Fake news. No doubt about it. Fake news. So we're remembering this morning James Lovell, who, of course, one of the great, as Peter Baker said, one of the great explorer in the history of humankind. He, of course, was uttered those famous words, houston, we have a problem. Apollo 13. We heard Tom Hanks playing level there, but he was on Gemini 7, Gemini 12, Apollo 8, Apollo 13. As Axios writes this morning, the two Apollo missions gripped not only Americans, but people across the globe. This was, David Ignatius, a time when the United States of America was pushing out against the boundaries not only of space exploration, but science, technology, medicine, daring to go places that no one in the history of humankind had ever dared to go before. And it was America. And as Jon Meacham would say in his new book, an America with Open Arms and Not Closed fists. And we still aren't we. We're still standing on the shoulders of those giants who. Who started pushing the exploration of science and physics and technology. And that's why we live in the world we live in today, because we did open our arms, we did look to the future instead of closing up, clenching our fists and going in retreat like we seem to be doing these days.

David Ignatius (5:07)

So, Joe, that was a time, as you. As you say, of undaunted courage, to use the phrase. That was the title of a biography of Lewis and Clark, our early explorers. I grew up in the generation where we gathered in school each morning to watch the Gemini flights, the early Apollo flights, and that sense of America reaching out, truly doing what no other country had done or dreamed of doing, and doing it with incredible speed. The fact that, you know, within less than a decade after President Kennedy's invocation to move into space, we were landing on the moon. Jim Lovell was part of that. We remember Apollo 13, his key mission, as the moment of almost disaster for that program and his, you know, courage. The flat voices of those NASA astronauts back and forth, the ground control and the people in space, just calm as can be as they were dealing with a potential nightmare. That phrase, houston, we have a will always remember. So there is a sense, Joe, as. As these people pass away, of that era of just unchallenged American dominance and achievement moving behind us now.

Richard Haass (6:35)

Well, and that that happens again when you dare to look forward, when you, when you dare to explore. And we're not just talking about space because we're talking about science. So, so many programs being cut and slashed right now for no, no good reason at all. We talked about RFK Jr and the disastrous decision according to most medical researchers that he is making. Slashing funding for medical research and doing it just to appease a certain sliver of a certain base. Most Americans oppose that. You look at NIH funding, National Institute of Health, slashing funding for women's health, for men's health, slashing funding for Alzheimer's, slashing funding for cancer research, slashing funding. You go down the list. You look for at the slashing of funding for research and development. It makes absolutely no sense at all. And again, we will become a poorer country because of this unless we have a Republican Congress that will actually work in a bipartisan way with Democrats to restore funding to the National Institutes of Health that will restore funding to critical research and development programs and studying on our best college campuses, not just our best college campuses, the best college campuses on the planet. Instead of going around trying to figure out, like, how to punish the best R and D institutions on the globe, I don't know, why don't you figure out a way to forge partnerships with them? This is where we grow our future. Okay? Right now what we're doing is where, as old saying goes, we're eating the seed corn. It's stupid. And the latest is a billion dollar demand from UCLA to pay the federal government. Why does the federal government need a billion more dollars? Or do those doing research and development in California, in the California school system, did they need that money? I think most Americans would say it's worked since World War II. It not only got us to the moon, it got, it got us to where we are in the information age and the technology age and now the age. There's a reason the United States continues to lead in these areas and it's because we have invested in R and D instead of punishing those that have been leading the way. It's incumbent on Republican congressmen and senators to stand up and do what they know is right for America instead of following a path that will lead us to a second rate status.

Joe Scarborough (9:36)

Anyway, there are a couple.

Richard Haass (9:38)

That's one thing that Jim Lovell's life taught us. Again, as Meacham says, you know, we, we look to the world with open arms instead of clenched fists and anything is possible in America.

Joe Scarborough (9:53)

Well, let's get now to a Few of the major stories that are dominating the morning on this Monday morning. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are set to meet this Friday in Alaska. President to discuss Russia's war on Ukraine. President Trump made the announcement on social media on Friday. It was in the evening and hours earlier, he told reporters that a potential land swap could be part of a deal.

Richard Haass (10:21)

Well, you're looking at territory that's been fought over for three and a half years with, you know, a lot of Russians have died, a lot of Ukrainians have died, so we're looking at that. But we're actually looking to get some back and some swapping. It's complicated. It's actually nothing easy. It's very complicated. But we're going to get some back, we're going to get some switched. There'll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both, but we'll be talking about that either later or tomorrow or whatever.

Joe Scarborough (10:56)

The next day, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky responded, saying Ukraine will, quote, not give their land to the occupants, adding that Russia cannot be rewarded for its actions. That same day, Trump administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, met via zoom with the UK's foreign secretary and senior Ukrainian leaders. Vice President JD Vance was also on the call. Sources tell NBC News that European and Ukrainian officials presented their negotiation priorities, which are now under review by Trump ahead of Friday's talks. It's still unclear if Zelensky will attend the Alaska meeting, but senior U.S. officials tell NBC News it is, quote, absolutely possible. So, Joe, still a lot of moving parts here?

Richard Haass (11:49)

Oh, yeah, so many moving parts. It is. It is important also David Ignatius to say that the Biden administration, even going back two, three years, understood, and we heard it from General Milley and others understood, that the Ukrainians weren't going to get every Russian out of their territory and the Russians weren't going to get to Kiev. So there's always been an understanding that there would at some point be a lands, a land swap. But of course, the question is, what does Ukraine get in exchange? What security exchange? What security guarantees does the United States does Europe do allies all across the globe give in exchange for that land? And if it's not something significant, then this is nothing short of appeasement. I think we will give something, but if we don't, that would be a massive blow for democracy across the globe. Talk about what you're hearing, where you think this is going.

David Ignatius (13:00)

So, Joe, we'll have to see how Friday's session in Alaska comes down. I think the first thing I'd say is that I applaud President Trump's efforts to end this war. As he says, this war is a bloodbath. Far too many people have died. And if the United States, through its power and influence, can bring an end, that's, that's a good thing. No question about that. The problem is that a peace that will endure between Russia and Ukraine has got to require Russian concessions. And so far, Putin has refused to make any. And he's getting the reward he most wanted, which is readmission to the club of world leaders. He's having a summit meeting with President Trump in the United States, being hosted by our president, without having, as near as I can tell, made any concessions on the fundamentals in this talk about land swaps. So far, what we know is that Russia expects Ukraine to give up parts of its territory that Russian troops have conquered starting in 2014 and then continuing savagely since 2022, except for maybe slivers of unimportant territory in Russia. I'm not aware of any conceivable swap. The swap that's important here is Ukraine might give up territory in exchange for real security and a guarantee that this world won't start again after these negotiations. And that's what I'm going to be looking for at Friday's meeting. Is there any sign that Trump has learned that a peace that's simply exceeding to Putin's demands is not going to be a peace that lasts? If there is pressure on Russia, if Russia really gives up something, above all the desire to destroy Ukrainian independence, then we might have a real peace deal.

Richard Haass (15:07)

Well, and it's important for everybody that's negotiating right now to understand the only reason why Vladimir Putin is willing to meet is because Donald Trump actually has begun to take a tough line against Putin, at least verbally. But look what Vladimir Putin continues to do this in the Sunday New York Times yesterday, and you see once again, the continued bombing, the continued killing of Ukrainians, indiscriminate bombing in Ukrainian and killing of Ukrainians. There's no, make no mistake, he, Richard Haass, Vladimir Putin will only respond to toughness. You know, the Munich appeasement analogy has been way overused since Chamberlain came back from Munich and started talking about peace in our time. But I don't know of a greater parallel. You have a, a, an autocrat that's running a large country that has said he is going to, he has dreams and has said it of putting back together the old Russian empire. And he's, he'll take it a chunk at a time. He, this is a guy that went into Georgia in 2008. The United States did nothing. He went into Crimea in 2014. We did nothing. He's, we pushed back and have fought back hard and helped the Ukrainians with the latest invasion. But, you know, this is just one, I mean, again, you had Hitler saying, you know, oh, all he needed, you know, was the Rhineland and Sudetenland and then the annexation of Austria. And you know, the west kept believing him, oh, we'll give him this land and he will be fine. There has to be a tough security guarantee for the people of Ukraine, Ukraine and the people of Poland and the people of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, you name it. Right. I mean, how, how does this deal make sense without those security guarantees?

Jonathan LeMere (17:22)

Well, the short answer, it doesn't. It's, you know, it's wonderful to want peace, but, but peace at what price? And peace ought to be something we do with Ukraine, not, not to Ukraine. You know, Joe, I've negotiated, you know, for the United States in lots of settings and I would simply say whenever you're trying to bring about peace, you've really got two approaches with the antagonists. One is to incentivize them, the other is to put pressure on them. Russia and Putin are the aggressor. And I would say the way to get them to the table at this point is not to incentivize them. They can't and should not be rewarded for aggression, for taking territory by force that violates the most basic of all rules of how the world ought to operate. And the United States should be supporting Ukraine. It's almost that simple. There ought to be sanctions on Russia and there ought to be military and intelligence support for Ukraine and that ought to bring Putin to the table, however reluctantly. We ought to get a clean ceasefire without prejudice to Russian claims or Ukraine's claims down the road. Do this in phases. But I don't understand why the United States would take what we would call in other situations, final status issues about territory which also involves populations, put them on the table now, much less in a one sided way to reward the. This really seems to me to be an unfortunate, if it turns out to be the case, or truly unfortunate, misguided approach which won't work. The Ukrainians will reject it, the Europeans will. So I don't understand what this, what this one sided push is all about, because it won't work and more important, it won't last.

Richard Haass (18:57)

Well, I mean, and this is, this is why security guarantees are required And Jonathan, you've been detailing over the past month or two a change in relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Donald Trump, the American president, taking a very tough stance against the Russian leader. And, and there has been toughness and talk. There's been the threat of sanctions. There was a 60 day deadline that was moved up to a 10 day deadline. There's also the fact that Russia, their summer offensive was a complete failure. They are, they, they have, they, they have been pushed back on the battlefield. They continue to get slaughtered. Putin is not coming here. That would not be coming to Alaska in a position of toughness. Their economy also starting to really slow down after, after Putin basically did everything he could to throttle it up over the past couple of years. So Russia is coming to Alaska holding a very weak, holding very weak cords. And so the question is, will Donald Trump, will the American delegation, will they negotiate from a position of strength or will they be so desperate for the end of fighting that they will let Vladimir Putin have his way?

Sam Stein (20:22)

Well, there are certainly fears in Kyiv and European capitals that that might be what happens. I mean, you're right. Certainly President Trump over the last handful of months has grown increasingly frustrated with Vladimir Putin. We have seen the shift in his rhetoric. He feels embarrassed. He thought he and Putin had a good relationship. He has asked Putin to stop the fighting repeatedly. Putin has answered only by ratcheting up his attacks on Ukraine. We saw Trump slap some secondary sanctions on India, a key Russia trading partner. He has yet to do so with China. The deadline on Friday with Russia itself came and went with no additional sanctions on Moscow, in part because negotiations for the summit were coming. So we'll see what happens the week ahead. Ukraine's already made clear, hey, we need to be a part of this. Initially, Trump and the White House wanted there to be a first meeting with Trump and Putin and then a second one that would include Zelensky. Russia said no to that. The Kremlin won't meet with Zelensky. Putin doesn't want to sort of legitimize him. We heard from the Vice president over the weekend that the US Is still considering trying to shoehorn Zelensky into these talks. Unclear, though, if that will happen. And Joe, you're right that Russia does not come into this with a lot of, you know, holding a lot of cards. And the meeting, the backstory behind this meeting, Witkoff, Steve Witkoff, the President's envoy, through a backchannel last week got worried from Russia that Putin was willing to talk. But there is a fear here that if Putin Appears reasonable. Hey, I'll come in, I'll be willing to negotiate. And even in Ukraine nixes the deal, which looks like, at least at the moment, as both Richard and David outlined, potentially a bad deal for Ukraine. But if Ukraine simply says no, that could trigger Trump's wrath again, saying, wait, you're at fault, I want peace. Russia's willing to have peace. You're at fault here, much like we saw in that Oval Office meeting on, on in February. So that's the concern from some is that Putin is playing Trump to make Zelensky the bad guy again.

Richard Haass (22:20)

Well, I mean, let's be really clear though, Monday morning, we don't know what the meeting looks like. We don't know what the proposed deal looks like. We don't even know because Witkoff has sent so many jumbled messages and apparently didn't take notes when he was in Russia. I don't know why. There's been so much ambiguity. And we'll get to that after the break with David and Richard. But there's so much ambiguity on so many fronts. So it really, we will know this week what happens based on the movements that the American President makes. And again, it's, it's just, it's absolutely critical that Zelenskyy is a part of these meetings. If you want buy in, he needs to be part of these meetings and that's the best chance for peace.

Joe Scarborough (23:18)

So we also need to get to Israel. There's a lot going on there. We'll get to that in a moment. But first time now for a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. Last week, President Trump called for the head of intel to resign. Today they're meeting at the White House. Trump had attacked Lip Bhutan over his ties to Chinese businesses. According to the Wall Street Journal, Tan is expected to explain his personal and professional background to the president and propose ways that the government and intel could work together. Parts of the Midwest could see more severe weather today after heavy rains slammed Wisconsin over the weekend. The final day of the state fair was scrapped as severe storms knocked out power and closed roads across multiple counties. Up to 14 inches of rain had fallen in some areas of Milwaukee. We will follow that. And it's the end of an era for a relic from the early days of the Internet. Remember this? Yes, I do. After 34 years, AOL will discontinue its dial up Internet service next month. As the New York Times reports, the service started in 1991 as home computers were becoming popular. AOL's dial up tone became the soundtrack for many Americans as they were learning how to navigate the Internet.

Richard Haass (24:54)

And so one question. So one question, Sam Stein, maybe you can help us out. How, how is, first of all, how is Mike Barnacle going to get on the show and how's he going to communicate with aol? He's been thinking, he's been thinking about going to Netscape for, for the past 10 years.

Joe Scarborough (25:13)

He's got his landlord.

Richard Haass (25:15)

I don't even think it's there anymore.

Sam Stein (25:17)

Yeah, Mike has a stack of those CDs that you used to get in the mail that gave you like a certain number of hours to be online. So this is really tough for Mike and we probably should send someone out.

Jonathan LeMere (25:27)

To help him figure out how to.

Sam Stein (25:29)

Get on the Internet.

Jonathan LeMere (25:30)

Yeah.

Joe Scarborough (25:31)

Located.

Richard Haass (25:31)

That's gonna be useful.

Joe Scarborough (25:33)

Okay. Still, still ahead on Morning Joe, President Trump is set to announce a public safety initiative for Washington, D.C. later this morning. We're going to dig into that amid reports he's considering deploying the National Guard. Plus, what we're learning about the Justice Department's investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California. And a reminder, the Morning Joe Podcast is available each weekday, featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen to wherever you get your podcasts. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back.

Richard Haass (26:24)

The bottom line is, even as the Trump administration tries to end abortion access funding and shut down health centers, Planned Parenthood continues its vital work without flinching. The assault on reproductive health is strategic and persistent. And who gets hurt the most? Women, People of color, rural communities, folks with low incomes, the people who already face the biggest barriers to care. If you believe everyone deserves to control their own body and future, donate now@PlannedParenthood.org.

Nicole Wallace (26:53)

Defend MSNBC presents the chart topping original podcast, the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week, she sits down with legal scholars Melissa Murray.

Joe Scarborough (27:05)

If you're a person who's ambitious or you're a person who thinks there's something in the world to be solved, it's really hard to dial it down and sit it out.

Nicole Wallace (27:15)

The best people with Nicole Wallace Listen now. For early access and free listening and bonus content, subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Start your day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Each morning, read sharp insights from the voices you trust. Catch standout moments from your favorite shows.

Joe Scarborough (27:35)

The second Trump administration has gone to.

Richard Haass (27:37)

Unprecedented lengths to radically transform America.

Nicole Wallace (27:40)

Stay up to speed with our latest podcasts and documentaries, and get fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. It's Everything you love about MSNBC delivered to your inbox. Sign up now@msnbc.com.

Richard Haass (27:59)

Hey, welcome back to Morning Joe. Look at the White House at 6:26am on the east Coast. Happy Monday morning. Don't get up unless you have to. So, David Ignatius, you're up so I can ask you and Richard Haass this question. So since he went golf, went to Moscow, he talked to Vladimir Putin for three hours. He came back, he briefed European allies and apparently he did not take notes that he could read because nobody knows exactly what went on to that meeting. Can you clarify?

David Ignatius (28:35)

I wish I could, Joe. And the problem with Witkoff as this peripatetic ambassador jetting off to the Middle east, to Russia, is that he conducts his business in an ad hoc, improvised way. He doesn't often take CIA briefers to prepare him. He often doesn't take his own translator, he doesn't take a note taker. I mean, we forget that successful peace negotiations and Richard Haass was talking about his own role in them during his diplomatic career require a lot of work and follow up. I mean, you don't just snap your fingers and say, okay, boys, let's end this. It requires systematic negotiation and Witkoff hasn't done that. The fact that there's so much confusion about what the heck Trump is talking about, about land swaps, nobody can quite figure out, see, what land Russia wants. But what Ukraine is going to get in the process is a mystery that comes out of Witkoff's unscripted meetings. So one thing I would just note, I'd be curious about Richard's view of this. We're now entering a phase in which it's going to be Europe that's going to be really the protector of Ukraine's future sovereignty. JD Vance, our vice president, said it clearly we're out of the business of supporting Ukraine with weapons. We'll sell weapons to Europe to give to Ukraine, but it's Europe that's going to, that's going to backstop Kyiv in the future. And the Europeans seem pretty serious about it. So I think that's one thing for Trump to remember. He may try to end this war on Friday with Putin, but that doesn't mean he's got the Europeans onside. They may well want to continue it as, as Zelenskyy may want to continue.

Jonathan LeMere (30:21)

No, absolutely. And one of the things we have to think about, if you were to imagine a peace agreement of some sort, a ceasefire with the Russians, that can't be the end of it. Russia is not going to stand down its industry. It's not going to stand down its military preparations. The last thing in the world anyone should want is what comes out of Alaska or follow on meetings is a pause only for renewed Russian aggression. So there have to be mechanisms for long term support for Ukraine and not simply, you know, security guarantees, as important as those are. There's also got to be a massive flow of military and intelligence support for Ukraine because the Russian threat is only going to grow over time because Russia has a war economy. And again, I don't see anyone thinking about this. This is not even if this is, quote, unquote, successful. And I'm nervous about the definition of success here. That's not the end of it. It simply basically puts a long term crisis on a very different footing.

Richard Haass (31:18)

You know, Mika, the past is always prologue. If you're the Ukrainians, you remember giving up your nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees of territorial sovereignty. And even after that happened, Putin went in in 2014 and took Crimea, invaded Ukraine and the whole world's basically told it to move along. So that's why they're not going to just give Vladimir Putin whatever he wants, especially since Putin got pushed back and Russian troops got pushed back so hard during this so called summer offensive.

Joe Scarborough (31:58)

Exactly. We'll be following this. We're going to move to Israel now where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is defending his decision to expand Israel's offensive into Gaza. During a press conference yesterday, Netanyahu said Israel, quote, has no choice but to finish the job and complete the defeat of Hamas and expects to complete the new offensive fairly quickly. Netanyahu's office also released a statement saying that he spoke with President Trump yesterday. The pair discussed Israel's plan to take over the remaining Hamas strongholds in Gaza, while Netanyahu thanked Trump for his steadfast support. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera claims Israel intentionally struck a tent housing journalists in Gaza City yesterday, killing five employees of the network. Israel says one of those killed was a member of Hamas, a claim Al Jazeera and the journalists themselves previously and strenuously denied. Al Jazeera, which is funded by Qatar's government, said 10 of its staff have been killed by Israel since 2023. Let's bring in NBC News international correspondent Matt Bradley, who joins us live from Tel Aviv. Matt. Matt, what more do you know at this point?

Mika Brzezinski (33:20)

Yeah, I mean, as we're speaking, Mika, about these journalists who were killed, 10 of them, as you mentioned from Al Jazeera, the Al Jazeera journalists have routinely said that they are being targeted specifically for assassination. And as you heard from the Israelis, that's not entirely incorrect. The Israelis were targeting these five journalists, they said, among them, Anas al Sharif, who the Israelis said were leading a Hamas terror cell. Now, these five who were killed over the weekend, they, you know, add to that whole death toll of well over 220 journalists who, according to Palestinian health officials in Gaza, have been killed since those October 7 attacks nearly two years ago. Now, you were also mentioning how Benjamin Netanyahu said in that press conference that he did in Hebrew and in English, appealing both to domestic audiences here in Israel and to the international community, where we've been seeing a huge upswell of criticism of Netanyahu personally ever since Friday when he announced this plan to expand Israel's attacks against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, saying that he was going to be moving the Israeli military into places like the Al Mawasi area, which had before, since the beginning of this conflict, stood as a sort of humanitarian enclave within Gaza as well as Gaza City, where many people, observers believe that some of these last remaining hostages, of whom there are thought to be about 20 alive, are remaining. Now, as you mentioned, Benjamin Netanyahu said he had no choice but to expand the fight against Hamas to finally destroy them. Well, this is something that it seems he's doing in response to criticism from his own right flank politically who were against his proposal to expand his operation, saying it wasn't going far enough. And we heard this over the weekend from several luminaries in the far right Israeli political sphere who really are propping up Benjamin Netanyahu's prime ministership and have been for much of the past two years. So we're seeing the prime minister really taking another sort of solid to these far right elements, as we're also seeing people on the left once again streaming in their hundreds and thousands into the streets of cities throughout Israel, demanding that the prime minister reevaluate his plan to up the tempo of attacks in the Gaza Strip. This is led by the family members of those 20 hostages who are still thought to be living in the Gaza Strip because they say that this could put hostages lives at risk, especially as the Israeli military plans to move into areas where those hostages are thought to be. Now, it was only last year that we saw six hostages who were killed execution style as the Israeli military moved in close to them. This is something that is front of mind for a lot of the family members of these hostages. They think that Benjamin Netanyahu's plan to continue military pressure against Hamas isn't going to free their loved ones. They're saying that the only thing that will get these hostages freed is a negotiated deal. And they believe that Netanyahu isn't doing enough to try to pursue some sort of ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. So we're hearing a lot of anger there. We're seeing protests throughout the world and we've been hearing very strong criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from the United Nations Security Council yesterday, where there was another meeting where we heard the word genocide once again being thrown about by diplomats, as we're seeing protests again, not just in Israel, but throughout the world. All of them demanding that Benjamin Netanyahu halt his plans to expand his attacks in the Gaza strip.

Richard Haass (36:53)

All right, NBC's Matt Bradley Live from Tel Aviv, thank you so much. Greatly appreciate it. On the issue of hunger and starvation in Gaza, the possibility of, of famine in Gaza, the New York Times reporting yesterday that aid shipments from Israel into the Gaza Strip actually lower than at other points of the war. So obviously relief agencies deeply concerned that the hunger, starvation, famine will only grow in Gaza in the coming weeks and months. So, David Ignatius, we heard from Matt Bradley, Matt Bradley's report that, you know, once again, Benjamin Netanya is doing what far right extremists in the Israeli government that keep him in power want him to do. But when I hear talk about the IDF going in and occupying Gaza, it sure sounds like they are stepping into quicksand. Israel, Israel did not leave Gaza in 2005 out of the goodness of their heart. It is a terrible place for Israeli soldiers to occupy, but that appears to be exactly what they're going to do. What, what's the outcome of this going to be, David?

David Ignatius (38:18)

So you can't get a clear answer to that question from Prime Minister Netanyahu. He'll speak about total victory over Hamas. Heaven knows Hamas has been horrific force in Gaza, most of all for Palestinians. The most telling thing right now, Joe, is the growing opposition to Netanyahu's plans within the Israeli military. They're fed up with a war that does not have a strategic purpose. The military threat to Israel from Hamas is gone. It was broken a year ago. And I had Israeli generals tell me a year ago, we have accomplished our goals in Gaza. It's time to get the hostages out. They strongly supported the effort that the US Was leading Biden administration at that time to negotiate a lasting ceasefire. They feel that even more strongly now. And the idea of going back to war, the latest estimate I read was another six months in Gaza before You fully occupy and conquer Gaza City and these other population centers just doesn't make sense to the military. They're exhausted. They don't see clear gains. And you know, the fear is that the only gain here is a political one for Netanyahu, who needs the war to continue. I have always been reluctant to assign that motive to him. But as I look at the criticism of him from Israel's most senior and experienced military commanders who say this plan doesn't make sense, I really begin to have concerns. And I hope President Trump, who's been willing to speak out against Netanyahu when he disagreed with him, will say it's time for this to end. This is tragedy upon tragedy. It's nearly two years after the awful Hamas attack on Israel, time for this to end. And Trump is the person who would say that most loudly.

Sam Stein (40:16)

Yeah, it doesn't quite make sense to a lot of people, unless perhaps it's a bluff to get Hamas to the negotiating table again. Obviously the ceasefire negotiations fell apart a couple weeks ago. Richard this is all taking place in the context of the international community, minus the United States really souring on Netanyahu in Israel. Germany stopped selling weaponry to Israel. Australia the latest to say that it recognizes Palestinian statehood. Clearly, Bibi's audience is domestic. As David points out, he wants to hold on to power. He prob views this as a way to continue to hold on to power. But surely there are some pressures or at least some domestic considerations as they look at the international community saying enough is enough. And I'm wondering, as someone who's seasoned in this politics, how big a deal is this? How much pressure does Netanyahu feel as the international community turns on him?

Jonathan LeMere (41:09)

He doesn't feel an awful lot. It's short sighted. I'll be blunt. He's turning Israel into a pariah state and this is not in Israel's long term interest. Israel has been embedded in the west for its entire existence as a nation state and that is being threatened. The alienation from Europe of younger generations here is again unbelievably short sighted. Let me just make a larger point about Bibi Netanyahu. It's where Mika began the section and Matt Bradley said, bibi Netanyahu comes on and says Israel has no choice. Well, that was Maybe true on October 7th and 8th two years ago. Israel had no choice then, but 22 months later, I'm sorry, Israel has an enormous set of choices and the choice to continue and expand the war, that's a now this has become a truly ill advised unfortunate war of choice. It no longer is a war of necessity. This is not something Israel should be doing or needs to be doing. It is something it is choosing to be doing. And it's not, it's obviously not in the interests of Palestinian civilians. It's also not in the interests of Israel just for the reason you raised, Sam, in terms of its domestic politics here, it's going to, it rips Israel apart from within. It weakens the Israeli Defense Forces, which are critical to its security, and it weakens Israel's relations with Americans and with people around the world. This is a flawed war of choice. So let's just, let's just say for what it is.

Sam Stein (42:37)

And there are families in Israel, those who still have loved ones being held hostage who have expressed real concern about this thinking, as Matt Bradley detailed, this could actually lead to their demise. We have seen the growing humanitarian crisis. Yes, more food has come in to Gaza in the last week or two, but only a little, not nearly enough. We see that the violence still continue there. You know, Matt also said corruption directly, Mika, that so much of this is being fueled by members of Netanyahu, the far right, members of his coalition who basically are keeping him in power and he is doing what he can to stay there. And we have not heard, we heard from Israel yesterday saying that Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump had a call. We've yet to get a readout from the White House as to what was discussed. I suspect President Trump, who's got some events today, will be asked about it. We'll learn more about if he is willing to to warn off Netanyahu from this plan. But at least to this point, outside of expressing legitimately expressing dismay about the famine, saying no, there is starvation in Gaza and that has led, that pressure, has led to more food there. Otherwise, Mika, he's been unwilling to stand up to Prime Minister Netanyahu on this matter of pushing further in and potentially occupying Gaza for a long time.

Joe Scarborough (43:53)

All right. Our thanks to Richard Haass and David Ignatius this morning for coming on. Thank you both very much. And coming up on MORNING Joe, we are going to dig into the surprising dismissal of the IRS commissioner who was sworn in less than two months ago. Also ahead, an update on the Republican led redistricting efforts in Texas as the governor's special session is set to expire next week. MORNING JOE is coming right back.

Richard Haass (44:25)

Foreign.

Nicole Wallace (44:35)

October 11th from New York City, it's MSNBC Live 25. Join your favorite MSNBC hosts, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brusinski, Nicole Wallace, Ari Melber, Alicia Menendez, Simone Sanders, Tal Michael Steele, Chris Haynes, jen Psaki, Lawrence O', Donnell, Stephanie Rule and more. Visit msnbc.comlive25 to buy your tickets today.

Mika Brzezinski (45:04)

Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, why Is this Happening? Journalist and author E. Jean Carroll.

Joe Scarborough (45:09)

I came to love the process of the judicial system and I found it very exonerating. I got to tell my story in court. I got to tell my story when thousands and millions of people called me a liar. So it was very satisfying.

Mika Brzezinski (45:26)

That's this week on why Is this Happening? Search for why Is this Happening?

Richard Haass (45:29)

Wherever you're listening right now and follow.

Nicole Wallace (45:31)

Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad free listening and bonus content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace, why Is this Happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Richard Haass (46:03)

You're beginning to get on my nerves. Who are those guys? Okay, who are those guys? Of course, from Butch Casting, the Sundance Kid. But that's how many are asking right now about the Milwaukee brewers who improved their best record in baseball with a walk off win yesterday over the lowly New York Mets.

Sam Stein (46:26)

It was six, three at one point.

Richard Haass (46:28)

Brewers have tied it up. Collins fly ball deep into right field. Isaac Collins. It is a walk off home run. Isaac Collins lifts Brewers to a 7 to 6 win, their ninth straight while the Mets lose their seventh in a row and fall five and a half games behind the NL east leading Phillies. That's bringing right now the host of Pablo Torrey finds out a metal art media. Also the star of, of the new and rising. I mean just Internet sensation. Kids I understand in South Korea and across the world are all tuning in to Pablo's potpourri. Or potpourri with Pablo. It depends what nation they're streaming it. Huge fans. Huge fans. Oh my gosh. Well, and, and, and Norway. For some reason, the kids in Norway love Pablo Paris. It's really kind of crazy. All right, so the two things. We got two stories here and one baseball game. Pablo, maybe you can help sort through it. Every time I check the standings, I. Of course, because we just. We all do this. All of us. We start the AL east right and then you, then you kind of scroll down to see how the Dodgers are doing. But on the way from the AL east to the NL west, you pass the NL Central and it always seems like these brewers are winning nine out of 10 games. That's one thing that stands out here. I mean, they've got the best record in baseball and again, they just keep winning. The other story is, and maybe I know you're a lot closer to this, but the New York Mets, like the Mets, will have a six game win streak, then they'll have a seven game losing streak, then they'll have a four game. They're right now in the middle of a seven game winning streak. So why don't we start with the Mets and then go back to the Brewers? Why are the Mets such a streaky team? What's going on there?

Pablo Torre (48:28)

Yeah, there's a funny psychological through line in those two teams. By the way, the guy who is running the Mets is David Stearns, my college classmate. He wrote on the newspaper with me and he is the former GM of the Brewers. He is the guy who actually assembled the brewers front office, who he has now watched exceed the team that has all of the money in the world to spend. Because Steve Cohen is their, of course, owner. There is a saying, I believe it's in Norway, at the very least a Scandinavian country, because you mention it, there is no such thing as bad weather. There is only bad clothing. And the Mets fans, I think, you know, they're used to this. They're used to this, right? The bad stuff happens. They are prepared. They're dressed for misery. The brewers story, to me, that's the one where you're like, okay, wait a minute. So the whole reason a guy like David Stearns leaves the brewers for the Mets is because you hope in this modern era, as John knows, well, as you know, well, Joe, the thing to combine is not merely the smart mathematical sense of how to make a team. It's also the money. And so the brewers are still trailing in that. But what they have is a really great farm system. They have a really smart, top to bottom. I mean, not just front office, but roster. You look up and down the list and you're like, man, you could put these guys in the middle of Times Square, certainly put them in the Mall of America and you're not going to know who these guys are. But you look and you're like, okay, yeah, that might be the team that makes the World Series. Now, the Dodgers are still the favorite for the reason I said, the money plus the smarts. But it's just incredibly impressive for a mid market team to do this. And I salute them in ways that embarrass me because I didn't see it coming.

Richard Haass (50:12)

Yeah, well, you know, I mean, the question is, John, or are they built to last? I mean, we, we've seen times. I remember the Cleveland Indians winning 22 or 23 in a row in August. I've got a friend who's a great Indians fan, and I just smiled, said, yeah, that's fantastic. It's August. But in, in this case, we look back at the beginning of the season, we see how the Tigers were doing baseball. What does baseball always do? Does. What is baseball? It always balances itself out. It is a game of numbers. And the question is, do the brewers balance out like the Tigers balanced out, or is this a team that is built to last through October?

Sam Stein (50:53)

Yeah, and that's the issue. When the Oakland A's under Billy Beane had all these years of success in the playoffs, but always fall in the regular season, but always fall short in the playoffs. This phrase that attributed to Bean was that his stuff doesn't work in October. And that's the thought here about the brewers as well. They've been good for a few years, but they always seem be to fall short in the playoffs, including a tough loss to those Mets last year. Yeah, but this is a really, really good team. The issue is, do they have the star power of the Horses to win those tight short series games?

Richard Haass (51:22)

John, let me, let me ask you, before you go to what happened in L. A really quickly, let's circle back to the Mets, because I am, I am genuinely confused on how a team this, this talented and loaded can have win streaks. But I think this is the second. I think they lost nine in a row. About three weeks ago, they started winning four in a row. Now they've lost seven in a row. There's something seriously wrong with this team. Obviously, the question is, what is it?

Sam Stein (51:53)

They are deeply streaky, and we've seen Lindor, who is their best player the last few years. He's had a couple of woeful slumps. Soto has been very up and down during his first year in New York. But I think the biggest issue is they're starting pitching, which for overachieved for a long time, has come back to earth. And they don't have that ace, if you will, who could, then, you know, who could stop a losing streak. They've got a lot of solid, like, number three starters. They don't have that guy who says, give me the ball, I'm going to win tonight. Which may be part of it. But yeah, they're up and they're still. I'm not. There's, there is a lot of panic here in New York, frankly, Mika, about both New York teams. The Yankees also really slumping right now, but both his teams still in the playoffs. Right. Right now, you know, Mika. But I know there's also some.

Richard Haass (52:38)

Yankees are going to win.

Sam Stein (52:40)

Well, yeah, yeah, we, we Jojo Yankees.

Richard Haass (52:43)

Are going to win the World Series in five.

Pablo Torre (52:44)

This is gaslighting, you know, maybe six.

Richard Haass (52:48)

But if they don't win, if they don't win the World Series in five or six games, it's a colossal flop. This shut down the franchise.

Pablo Torre (52:55)

So this. We were shuffling through the papers here in New York and this is the part that really gets me n because I'm looking at the back page of the New York Post and the Yankees, yes, it's the Mets and the brewers, right. The. The main real estate. But then up top, you see, you see Max Freed write the reference and it simply says, ace hit hard by Astros. But Ace is in sarcastic scare quotes. There it is, Ace. And I'm like, yeah, that's insult. That is the insult. But the Yankees, currently third place, deserve.

Richard Haass (53:25)

Yeah, Ace, the unkindest of kinds.

Joe Scarborough (53:29)

Well, before we get to the top of the hour, it was an historic weekend on the field in Atlanta, one day after becoming the first woman to umpire an MLB regular season game. Jen Powell was behind the plate yesterday for the game between the Marlins and the Braves, making her the first female umpire to call balls and strike and a big league contest. I love it. Congratulations. More to come on that.