Transcript [00:00] So, the big story this week in US-Israel [00:02] relations is that the United States and [00:04] Israel are quietly rewriting the [00:07] foundation of their defense [00:08] relationship. There's a provision buried [00:11] in the National Defense Authorization [00:13] Act, the NDAA, [00:15] that would change how America and Israel [00:17] work together militarily. Not in terms [00:20] of [00:21] deployments or or operational [00:23] cooperation like we saw in Iran. No, no, [00:25] no. Um about technology and the defense [00:30] industry. And there's a lot of screaming [00:32] and yelling about this. Israel's [00:34] military of defense [00:36] Sorry, Israel's Ministry of Defense, I [00:38] should uh I should just pull this up on [00:40] screen here. [00:42] That Israel's Ministry of Defense uh has [00:45] been has been talking about this for a [00:47] while. Oh, sorry. [00:49] Uh let me add this to the stage. [00:51] Let's do this properly. Here we go. US [00:53] and Israel move to redefine their [00:55] defense partnership, launching talks on [00:57] a new chapter in defense cooperation. [01:01] Okay, you see and the other key This is [01:03] a press release from Israel's Ministry [01:06] of Defense from [01:07] about a month and a half ago. The new [01:10] framework reflecting the strategic [01:11] vision of Israel's Prime Minister and [01:13] Minister of Defense is designed to [01:14] strengthen the IDF's qualitative [01:16] military edge through expanded joint [01:18] investment in research, development, and [01:21] co-production, [01:22] deepen the US-Israel partnership [01:24] demonstrated during Operation Rising [01:26] Roaring Lion, and gradually transition [01:29] from aid to a completely reciprocal [01:32] partnership. And we've talked about this [01:33] many times about how Prime Minister [01:36] Netanyahu had you know, has has said [01:38] this a lot that he wants to move away [01:40] from the aid relationship. [01:43] All right, so what we're seeing now in [01:44] this in what's happening with this NDAA [01:46] that we're going to get into all the [01:47] details of in this video is the first [01:51] stage of that. They're They're the [01:54] the US-Israel relationship in terms of [01:55] defense cooperation has really been one [01:57] of aid where the United States has [01:58] provided $3.8 billion of aid to the to [02:01] Israel every year and that's based on a [02:03] 10-year memorandum of understanding that [02:05] was signed at the end of the Obama [02:08] administration. [02:09] And that expires in 2028. It went into [02:12] effect after Obama left office, but it [02:13] expires soon. So this is now the effort [02:16] to replace that relationship with a new [02:18] framework. So everyone's talking about [02:20] this issue right now. [02:22] A lot of critics of Israel are uh [02:25] are are are talking about it and we're [02:26] going to get into all of that. [02:28] And almost everyone talking about it has [02:29] an agenda. [02:31] The Council of [02:32] American Islamic Relations CARE is [02:34] calling it Israel first as an a sellout [02:37] of American sovereignty. We're also [02:38] hearing that from the right. [02:40] The Quincy Institute, no friend of [02:41] Israel, is calling it cooperation [02:44] without oversight. On the other hand, [02:46] you have AIPAC that, you know, said, [02:47] "Oh, this is the greatest thing. It's a [02:48] strengthening of the alliance." [02:51] I don't want to spin this. I want to try [02:53] to stay away from spin. Here's what I [02:54] want to do in this video. [02:56] I'm going to tell you what is in this [02:59] bill. [03:00] What are they actually arguing about? [03:02] What is the content of it? What it is [03:03] and what it isn't. [03:05] And [03:07] you'll have more tools to decide for [03:08] yourself. I have my opinion, of course, [03:10] and I'll share that. But let's get into [03:11] it. What's in the bill? Here we go. [03:13] What's in the bill? What's in it for [03:14] Israel? What's in it for America? [03:17] What the critics are saying and where [03:18] things stand. That's what we're going to [03:20] go through in this video. So let's get [03:22] right to it. The provision we're talking [03:24] about was called Section 224 of the [03:28] House version of the National Defense [03:30] Authorization Act and it's now been [03:33] changed to 219 in some drafts. [03:36] Uh it's called the United States This [03:38] section of the NDAA is called the United [03:40] States-Israel Defense Technology [03:42] Cooperation Initiative. [03:44] And it had There's a companion bill that [03:46] goes along with it called the Defense [03:49] Partnership Act. It creates a formal [03:51] structure. Here's what the bill does. [03:53] A formal structure including an [03:55] executive agent inside the Pentagon to [03:58] coordinate research, development, and [04:00] production between American and Israeli [04:03] defense industries. And it folds Israeli [04:06] technology into the American defense [04:09] uh industry supply chain. Okay, so let's [04:11] take a look at uh a section of the bill [04:14] on screen. [04:15] Let's pull it up. [04:17] Uh here we go. Here it is. [04:20] So, this is [04:23] uh yeah. United States-Israel Defense [04:24] Technology Cooperation Initiative [04:26] Establishment. The The Secretary of [04:28] Defense [04:29] shall designate an executive agent [04:31] as such term as defined by the [04:33] Department uh by the Department of [04:35] Defense Directive [04:37] responsible for synchronizing [04:39] cooperative efforts between the United [04:41] States and Israel to expand and [04:42] accelerate bilateral defense technology [04:46] research, development, testing, [04:49] evaluation, integration, and industrial [04:52] cooperation [04:55] by identifying jointly developed or [04:56] Israeli-origin technologies with [04:59] operational utility for potential [05:01] integration into United States systems [05:04] and programs of record. This is not [05:07] about integrating the full military. [05:09] Okay, that's This is what it's about. [05:11] It's about research and development and [05:12] and and and of of technologies. [05:16] That's the bill in black and white. [05:17] Israeli technology built into American [05:20] weapons systems. The bill also lists [05:23] which domain [05:24] uh this this covers. [05:26] And uh you know, that's a little bit [05:28] that comes a little bit later down here. [05:30] And uh [05:31] gives this list. [05:33] And uh you know, this listing it's [05:35] everything from drones and missile [05:36] defense to AI, quantum, cyber, biotech. [05:40] Uh [05:43] you know, it it it's a bulleted list. [05:45] Okay? Counter unmanned systems, [05:48] anti-tunneling and subterranean threats. [05:51] These are kind of the things that [05:52] Israel's been dealing with, right? Lots [05:54] of drones, lots of unmanned robotics. [05:56] Uh [05:57] tunnels, subterranean threats, missile [05:59] and air defense, artificial [06:00] intelligence, quantum machine learning, [06:02] autonomous systems, [06:04] directed energy and advanced sensing, [06:06] cyber defense and electronic warfare, [06:08] biotechnology and bio-manufacturing, [06:10] data fusion and contested logistics, [06:13] defense industrial base cooperation and [06:15] co-production, plus a catch-all, the [06:17] last the last one in the list is other [06:20] emerging technologies as jointly agreed. [06:23] Okay, so this is not This is not a [06:25] narrow This is not a narrow pilot [06:28] program. [06:30] It's basically every frontier technology [06:32] category that the Pentagon cares about [06:34] right now. Now, some of the coverage is [06:36] calling this a military merger. You [06:38] know, Steve Bannon said that the other [06:39] day. He says, "Oh, they're merging their [06:40] militaries. Anyone who tells you [06:41] otherwise is lying that they're [06:43] merging the militaries." Listen, that [06:46] That's not accurate. [06:48] I respectfully disagree. Steve and I [06:51] have had many conversations over the [06:52] years, and we sometimes agree and we [06:54] sometimes disagree. [06:56] Um [06:57] many of you may know I'm a regular guest [06:59] on his show, and reasonable people can [07:00] disagree. And I don't believe that [07:02] military merger is accurate. I just read [07:04] you what it says. It doesn't merge [07:06] command structures. Israel's not Uh [07:09] there's no like NATO-like provision [07:11] where they have to come to each other's [07:12] aid. It's not [07:14] It's not a It's a It's not a treaty. [07:16] This is a This is a deepening of [07:18] industrial and technological [07:20] integration. [07:22] The next stage of something that's [07:23] already happening [07:25] uh for decades with programs like the [07:27] Iron Dome and David's Sling. This just [07:29] gives it a permanent a permanent [07:31] institutional home. And it lines up with [07:33] some with what Israel's own Ministry of [07:35] Defense said in June, as I showed you [07:37] that story on the screen, that they're [07:39] launching government-to-government talks [07:41] to uh you know, to get ahead of the end [07:44] of the memorandum of understanding the [07:45] current arrangement ending in 2028. They [07:47] want to set up the new relationship. [07:49] And what they said in that press release [07:52] was that they want to move [07:54] from aid to reciprocal partnership. [07:59] Now for decades the US Israel [08:01] relationship has basically been [08:04] one direction. It's or sort of I mean in [08:06] terms of the finances of it. Foreign [08:08] military aid billions of dollars every [08:10] year. [08:11] Um but aid [08:14] and and it helped Israel. [08:16] Certainly did. [08:17] But aid also creates dependency. [08:20] It's you know [08:22] there's all sorts of political [08:23] conditions that are attached to it which [08:25] is in fact how we got to the aid in the [08:26] first place. All of the ramping up of [08:28] aid I've talked about this many times. [08:30] I've written about it. It's if you go to [08:32] my X account at RabbiPW you'll see that [08:34] the pinned post there you can read my [08:37] article that I wrote a long time a while [08:38] ago probably about a year ago. [08:40] Uh about how Israel has to get off of [08:42] the aid from America. It would be in [08:44] Israel's best interest because it puts [08:47] Israel's defense posture it makes it [08:50] hostage to whatever whoever's sitting in [08:52] the White House. And we saw what [08:53] happened with that with the Biden Harris [08:55] administration. It was a it was it was [08:57] it was rough sledding for for Israel in [08:59] the early stages of the war. [09:01] Now I've said for a long time again I I [09:03] I said it on the Charlie Kirk show [09:05] that Israel is better off moving away [09:08] from dependence on American aid not [09:09] because America isn't a friend but [09:11] because dependency is a strategic [09:13] vulnerability. [09:15] If Israel you know Israel able to defend [09:17] itself without ask asking permission is [09:21] a stronger ally not a weaker one. [09:24] So this is that shift that shift that [09:26] we've been calling for that people like [09:27] myself have been calling for to move [09:28] away from aid and more to a a [09:31] peer-to-peer partnership relationship [09:33] between US and Israel. Those of us who [09:35] who don't want aid we don't want to [09:37] sever the US-Israel relationship. We [09:38] want it to shift. [09:40] Uh and this is this this whole uh [09:43] situation right now is that shift [09:45] starting to happen in real time. Instead [09:47] of being a recipient of American [09:49] charity, Israel becomes a partner inside [09:52] the American defense industrial base. [09:53] Israeli companies get direct access to [09:55] US defense contracts and supply chains. [09:58] Israeli innovation, Iron Dome, cyber, AI [10:02] AI driven targeting. Like this all gets [10:05] built into American systems. [10:07] Uh instead of just being sold to America [10:09] as a finished product. And America does [10:11] buy finished products from Israel. [10:13] This is a fundamentally healthier [10:15] relationship than an annual aid handout. [10:19] So that's what's in it for Israel. [10:20] What's in it for America? Let's flip it [10:23] around. [10:24] And cuz this is also not a favor to [10:27] Israel. America gets something very real [10:30] out of this relationship. There's a [10:31] reason they're doing it. Israel has [10:32] spent the last 2 years [10:34] fighting a live multi-front war, very [10:37] complex war with all sorts of different [10:38] arenas against Iran and its proxies. [10:41] That combat-tested technology, refined [10:45] under real fire, under real combat [10:47] conditions. Drone defense, missile [10:49] interception, AI-assisted intelligence [10:52] on the battlefield. [10:53] And I know from soldiers and from combat [10:55] and from field officers that they have [10:57] changed drastically during the course of [10:59] this war. They Israel has changed its [11:01] tactics and brought in all sorts of [11:02] different technologies, tried all sorts [11:04] of different things, lots of robotics [11:06] have been used. [11:07] Okay, America gets access to all of this [11:10] battlefield-proven [11:11] innovation that would cost and and R&D [11:15] and testing that would cost billions and [11:18] take years to build from scratch. And [11:21] Israel already built it. Israel is the [11:22] testing ground. Israel knows how it [11:24] operates, how how it works, what works [11:26] and doesn't work under pressure. [11:29] And there's also a hard strategic logic [11:31] here for America. Iran, China, Russia, [11:34] they're all racing forward on these same [11:36] technologies. [11:37] So for America to lock in deep permanent [11:40] integration with the country, the [11:43] country doing the most advanced applied [11:46] field work on these technologies in real [11:49] combat conditions is a serious force [11:51] multiplier for America. And it doesn't [11:53] cost America anything. [11:56] Okay, that fact that Israel, not [11:59] America, is doing the most advanced [12:00] applied work here is exactly what a lot [12:03] of the critics of this on the right, [12:07] friends of mine, it's what a lot of them [12:09] miss because they assume [12:11] and this is like a blind spot that a lot [12:13] of patriotic Americans have. [12:15] They assume that America is [12:17] automatically the leader in everything. [12:20] Defense technology included. And it's [12:22] not true across the board. It's not true [12:24] about everything. And America doesn't [12:26] want to lose access to the innovation [12:29] that and the and the field research that [12:31] Israel [12:32] uh [12:33] you know, they don't want to they don't [12:35] want to lose you know, that Israel has. [12:37] Israel's not required to bring its best [12:39] technology to the United States first. [12:41] It does, but it's not required to do [12:43] that. Especially now, Israel in the last [12:46] year and a half, 2 years has started [12:48] selling lots of air defenses and and uh [12:52] all sorts of all sorts of technologies [12:54] to lots of other countries. [12:57] That's part of why uh Israel wants to [12:59] get off of the get off of the aid. It's [13:01] part you know, Israel's defense industry [13:04] is is is making a lot of money for the [13:06] country. [13:08] Something like 6 to 8 billion dollars in [13:10] air defenses were sold last year to the [13:12] Germans. There's also the Greeks bought [13:13] another 4 billion. I I've shared these [13:15] numbers many times. [13:17] But Israel Israel has a lot of [13:18] relationships when it comes to defense [13:20] technology. [13:22] And the United States wants to lock in [13:26] right now that they get first access and [13:30] that they are there with Israel with the [13:32] first access to Israeli innovation [13:34] technology and Israel is ahead of [13:37] everyone in this technology. [13:39] And if you pretend otherwise and you [13:41] pretend that the US doesn't need Israeli [13:42] technology, you are willfully blind. [13:46] It's not patriotism. It's just wrong on [13:48] the facts. [13:50] And the And by the way, the bill [13:53] the bill that we're talking about [13:54] actually pretty much says this [13:55] explicitly. Yeah, let me pull up that [13:57] section. [13:59] Uh it's down here. [14:02] It's in the last section of it on [14:03] transparency. Look what it says here. It [14:05] talks about um [14:10] that part of the reporting of the of the [14:12] Secretary of Defense to Congress on this [14:15] is a description of how these efforts [14:17] contribute to United States [14:19] technological and military supremacy. [14:22] And that's part of the intended of this [14:23] whole thing. The stated purpose in the [14:25] legislative text is for the United [14:27] States to maintain its military [14:29] supremacy because the most advanced [14:32] technology in these areas is coming out [14:34] of Israel and they know this. [14:36] This this bill is not written as a favor [14:39] to Israel. [14:41] Whatever you think of the mechanism, [14:43] that's the intent on the page. Now, if [14:46] you listen to the loudest critics of [14:47] this, especially on the isolationist [14:49] right, and we're going to listen to some [14:51] in a moment. I'm going to play you a [14:53] clip. That's why I'm wearing these [14:54] headphones. I always wear them when I [14:55] play clips. You'd think that folding a [14:58] foreign country's defense industry into [15:00] America's own was some radical dangerous [15:03] idea. [15:04] Oh my gosh, we're merging our our our [15:06] you know, our our militaries and and [15:08] it's it's a compromise on American [15:09] sovereignty. [15:11] So, let me ask an obvious question that [15:12] none of them are asking. [15:14] Where's the outrage over America already [15:18] doing [15:19] this exact same thing with Canada and [15:22] the UK and Australia and New Zealand. [15:26] Oh, yeah, it already exists. It's called [15:29] the National Technology and Industrial [15:31] Base, the NTIB. You probably never heard [15:33] of it. [15:34] But you don't have to take my word for [15:35] it because it's defined [15:38] in the companion bill. I mentioned [15:40] there's a companion bill to this clause [15:42] to this Israel thing in the NDAA we've [15:44] been talking about called the United [15:46] States Israel Defense Partnership Act. [15:48] It's from 2025 from last year. It's the [15:50] precursor to this. Let me Yeah, let me [15:52] pull that up on screen and and just show [15:54] you what I'm talking about. [15:57] Okay, it's right here. [15:58] Here's the bill. [16:00] Okay? This is the [16:02] uh what's it called again? The United [16:03] States Israel Defense Partnership Act. [16:04] And in this bill, which calls for all of [16:06] this integration that we're talking [16:08] about, look what it says. One of the [16:09] goals of the bill, and it starts with [16:11] this, you know, the cooperative program [16:13] and the technology, seek to engage [16:15] Israel's Ministry of Defense on the [16:16] ascension of Israel [16:18] into the National Technology and [16:20] Industrial Base currently defined in law [16:23] as the persons and organizations engaged [16:25] in research, development, production, [16:27] integration, services, or information [16:30] technology activities conducted within [16:32] the United States, the United Kingdom, [16:35] Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. [16:38] Okay? That's what this is. [16:42] That's the club, straight from the bill [16:44] text. Deep formal industrial level [16:47] integration between Americans America's [16:49] defense sector and four other countries, [16:52] and I didn't hear anyone on the right in [16:54] America calling that a threat to [16:55] American sovereignty. [16:57] It's treated as completely normal [16:59] because it's completely normal. [17:02] Now, [17:03] here's why the unique Israel [17:05] entanglement framing is at least partly [17:08] wrong. [17:11] Um [17:12] Israel isn't even in this NTIB with [17:15] these other countries yet. [17:17] Getting into it took four countries. [17:22] It it took these four countries years of [17:25] a formal deliberatable deliberative [17:27] process. [17:29] And the same companion bill says [17:32] it says the quiet part out loud, right? [17:33] It directs what I just read to you. It [17:35] directs the Pentagon to seek to engage [17:36] Israel's Ministry of Defense on the [17:38] ascension of Israel into the NTIB. [17:42] That's the goal. [17:44] Get Israel to the same point that the [17:46] Canada and the UK and Australia that [17:48] they're already in. [17:50] So, on substance, this looks a lot like [17:52] what America already does with other [17:53] allies. [17:55] But there's a real procedural difference [17:57] between this and the NTIB. And we'll get [17:59] into it in a minute because it's the [18:00] strongest part of the case against the [18:02] bill. Okay, so now what what I want [18:04] That's what I want to get into now. [18:06] I want to get into [18:11] I want to get into the pushback against [18:12] the bill. And I want to give it its full [18:14] weight. So, let's start with the [18:16] sharpest version of it from someone [18:18] fighting his own party over it. And that [18:20] would be Congressman Thomas Massie. [18:22] Thomas, he's no friend of Israel, and he [18:24] went on the Redacted News podcast [18:27] yesterday, I believe. [18:28] Uh [18:29] and he laid out the case against this [18:31] provision. Okay? And this is So, let's [18:33] play that uh clip and then we'll talk [18:36] about it. Okay, here's Thomas Massie. [18:38] Blow him up on screen, and here we go. [18:40] >> Before we get into the details of that, [18:42] I want to talk about the NDAA because [18:43] the big vote tomorrow. What do you [18:45] believe Americans need to understand [18:46] about what Congress is about to approve [18:48] right now? Many Americans out national [18:50] parks, visiting, you know, it's the last [18:52] hurrah of summer, and quietly, sort of [18:54] buried inside this enormous bill, is [18:56] section 219, which will I'll give you [18:58] the floor on what about is what is about [19:00] to happen in Washington. [19:01] >> Well, first of all, [19:03] the NDAA stands for the National Defense [19:06] Authorization Act. And it's one of the [19:08] few bills that passes every year. I've [19:10] been here 14 years, there've been 14 [19:12] NDAAs. So, you can set your clock on the [19:14] fact that this bill will pass. So, [19:16] anything that gets in it is you know, [19:18] dangerous as a cocked gun. It's going to [19:20] become law. Well, this this bill is [19:23] hundreds of pages long. And [19:26] you know, in one of those hundreds of [19:27] pages, it's actually five pages long, is [19:29] section 219. And it was section 224, but [19:32] it's now section 219. And it calls for [19:34] the integration of our military [19:37] technology and the supply chains that [19:39] produce our you know, high-tech military [19:41] equipment to be integrated with [19:43] Israel's. Now, we don't have this kind [19:45] of you know, bilateral agreement with [19:47] any other country in the world. And I [19:49] would argue that we shouldn't in order [19:51] to protect our sovereignty and to [19:53] protect our national secrets. If you [19:54] wanted to share one thing at a time, [19:57] let's say, you know, we wanted to [19:58] collaborate on missile defense systems, [20:00] I think that's fine. The president can [20:02] do that [20:03] you know, just by virtue of the [20:05] controlling the military. But what [20:06] they're doing here is legislatively, [20:08] they are appointing a person. I joke [20:10] that this person will eventually be a [20:12] cabinet member, but right now it's a [20:13] lower-level position who will be in [20:15] charge of the integration. And and that [20:17] means that this project will have a [20:19] lifespan that outlasts the [20:21] commander-in-chief. Regardless of who [20:22] the next president is, this provision [20:25] lasts forever. And it's in the National [20:27] Defense Authorization Act. It's coming [20:29] to a vote. [20:30] A lot of people have you know, saw this. [20:32] I saw this back in June and offered an [20:35] amendment. By the way, there are 1400 [20:37] amendments that have been offered to the [20:38] National Defense Authorization Act here [20:40] in the house. My amendment was amendment [20:42] number two. I was the second person to [20:44] offer an amendment to the NDAA and [20:46] that's because I saw this troubling [20:47] provision in there. [20:49] Now, what they've decided to do is [20:51] they've decided to block my amendment. [20:53] So, there will be no vote and no debate [20:55] on section 219 and whether it should be [20:57] in the NDAA or whether it should not be [20:59] in the NDAA. And today there was a [21:02] procedural vote that barely passed Um, [21:05] here in the house, but it passed on [21:06] party lines. I was the only Republican [21:08] dissenter ultimately. [21:10] You know, initially we had about five [21:11] Republicans who revolted on this vote [21:13] for various reasons, maybe not um, [21:15] associated with section 219, but at the [21:17] end of the day I was the last Republican [21:19] standing opposing this procedural [21:20] measure to bring the bill to the floor [21:22] without a vote on stripping section 219. [21:24] What will happen is tomorrow there will [21:26] be a sec- a vote on final passage of the [21:28] National Defense Authorization Act. It [21:30] will still have to pass the Senate. It [21:31] hasn't passed the Senate. Some people [21:34] are putting their trust in the Senate [21:35] because it failed in the Senate once. I [21:37] would tell you never trust the Senate. [21:39] Stuff over there can stay bottled up for [21:41] a year and then it can pass within 5 [21:42] seconds. They pass bills in the Senate [21:44] using email. Um, so I would caution you [21:47] not to think that this will get stopped [21:49] in the Senate, but even if the Senate [21:51] passes a bill, an NDAA that doesn't have [21:53] a section 219 in it, the House and the [21:55] Senate will conference their two bills [21:57] and it's quite likely that this could [21:58] survive that conference and become the [22:00] ultimate law. [22:01] >> So, if this was I mean it's Israel, but [22:02] if it was China or Russia, do you think [22:05] that there would be any kind of outrage [22:06] on Capitol Hill? [22:08] >> There would be absolute outrage. I mean, [22:10] even if you take one of our [22:12] >> I mean, think of the premise of that [22:13] question. China and Russia are enemies [22:16] of the United States and so in in the [22:18] mind of of these people, Israel should [22:21] maybe be in the same category. [22:22] >> Long time allies that has been an ally [22:24] since before Israel was a country. Let's [22:26] say it was Great Britain. We don't have [22:28] this kind of thing codified into law [22:30] with a country like Great Britain. And [22:31] so, I think it's dangerous to take a [22:33] country of 10 million people. And And [22:35] some people try to say this is analogous [22:36] to NATO. Well, there's no real [22:39] reciprocity advantage to the country [22:41] with 350 million people to having this [22:44] bilateral agreement with a country of 10 [22:46] million people. 10 million [22:48] people. It just It ties you um, 10 [22:51] million versus 350 million. It ties you [22:53] into something into engagements. [22:55] Um, and when you couple these supply [22:57] chains, that also makes it problematic [22:59] to try to decouple. [23:01] >> Okay, he's saying that there's no [23:02] reciprocal advantage. [23:05] There's no reciprocal advantage to the [23:06] United States [23:08] uh from this. And I I I I showed you I I [23:11] I discussed with you what the reciprocal [23:12] advantage is. He also said that it ties [23:14] America into engagements. It does not. [23:16] This is about This is about development [23:19] of technologies. It's about being a high [23:21] It It's about industry and developing [23:23] new weapons and new weapon systems. It [23:26] has nothing to do with getting involved [23:27] in any engagement. [23:29] Uh and he also, of course, says that uh [23:31] you know, America has no such [23:32] relationship with anyone else. [23:35] And of course, you know, Massie is one [23:36] of the most consistently anti-Israel [23:38] voices in Congress. [23:40] But that doesn't mean he's wrong about [23:41] everything. Now, twice [23:44] twice in that clip he said that America [23:45] doesn't have this kind of relationship [23:47] codified into law with any other [23:48] country, not even Great Britain. He [23:50] named them. [23:51] And it's not exactly accurate. The NTIB [23:53] that I just told you about is codified [23:55] in law right now in USC in 10 USC [23:58] section 4864. [24:00] And it already ties the US defense [24:02] industrial base to the UK, Canada, and [24:04] Australia. [24:05] But here's the procedural difference [24:08] that I flagged a minute ago. And I'll [24:09] give I'll give Massie credit. He's onto [24:11] something real with this executive agent [24:14] in the Pentagon. [24:15] In fact, I'll say this. [24:17] The only distinction between what what [24:20] is what is about to happen with US and [24:22] Israel this this merger, oh my gosh, [24:24] we're merging our militaries. The only [24:25] difference between this and what America [24:27] already does [24:29] with the UK, Canada, Australia, and New [24:31] Zealand, the only difference is this. [24:34] Is that there's going to be an executive [24:35] agent in the Pentagon to to uh [24:39] to move the integration forward that he [24:41] talked about. [24:42] No NTIB country has a legislatively [24:45] created position with authority to [24:47] override other parts of the Pentagon [24:49] whose entire job is pushing the [24:50] integration with one specific country. [24:53] So, he's right about that. [24:54] And he's He's right that that position [24:56] will outlast any single administration [24:58] once it's law. Once it's written into [24:59] law, it doesn't disappear with the next [25:01] president. That's a genuine distinction. [25:05] Now, and that genuine distinction, that [25:07] genuine point he's making is sitting is [25:10] part of his overall point, which is [25:12] grossly overstated. Now, you we have to [25:15] answer the question, why did Congress [25:17] build in a position like this that can [25:19] override other other offices in the [25:21] Pentagon? Why did they do this? [25:23] So, here's the simple version. The [25:26] Pentagon has offices that each do their [25:28] own cautious job, like they vet [25:30] technology risks, they handle export [25:33] licenses, they run procurement [25:35] timelines. [25:38] And any one of these offices [25:40] could [25:41] bureaucratically slow things down or [25:44] kill something just by [25:47] the regular bureaucratic [25:49] you know, doing their job. [25:51] So, this position that is being created [25:53] for this arrangement with Israel, [25:56] the reason it's being created is to keep [25:58] the effort from getting derailed and [26:00] getting stuck in the bureaucratic [26:01] gridlock. [26:03] It doesn't mean that there's no [26:03] oversight. The bill still requires a [26:06] 6-month briefing to Congress, annual [26:08] reports [26:09] through 2030, public unclassified [26:11] updates. [26:13] And it doesn't mean that US security [26:16] gets compromised. Uh [26:18] the State Department's own export [26:20] control office will still operate [26:22] independently and everything will still [26:24] have to follow existing law, and they're [26:27] they're still going to oversee what [26:28] happens with everything that is [26:29] developed by this technology. [26:32] What [26:33] what this position that they're creating [26:35] in the Pentagon is does is it overrides [26:38] bureaucratic foot-dragging in the [26:40] Pentagon that would slow things down. [26:43] Okay, it has nothing to do with there's [26:46] no compromise on the laws that protect [26:48] sensitive technology or protect American [26:50] US security. And it's not just Massie, [26:53] uh you know, the Quincy Institute and [26:55] responsible statecraft raised the [26:57] related concern. [26:59] Look, aid, whatever its flaws are, this [27:02] is their argument. Whatever the flaws in [27:04] aid, aid is visible. It's a number, [27:07] Congress votes on it. There can be [27:09] conditions attached to it and there [27:11] always are. [27:13] But once you move cooperation into the [27:15] Pentagon, into research and procurement [27:17] channels, [27:19] it's a lot harder for Congress or the [27:20] public to track or to put conditions on. [27:25] It's just harder to see. [27:29] Um so, this his attempt, Massie's [27:32] attempt to strip the provision out of [27:33] the NDAA got blocked on party-line vote [27:35] as he said. [27:37] Um it's still being somewhat contested, [27:38] you see, cuz you have, you know, the [27:40] breakdown of the parties. [27:41] His oversight concern is a legitimate [27:43] concern, but I but I disagree with him. [27:45] I disagree with Massie and the other [27:47] critics in the framing [27:49] that this entangles America more than [27:51] the aid relationship already did. [27:54] That that America's not going to be more [27:55] entangled with Israel because of this, [27:58] losing their sovereignty. It's just not [27:59] true. I'd argue the opposite. The aid, [28:03] because the aid gave America leverage in [28:05] Israel's decision-making, but also it [28:07] would mean that if Israel needed [28:08] weapons, they had to get they were [28:09] forced to get them from America because [28:11] of the way that MOU was written. That [28:13] would mean that America was sort of [28:15] party to everything Israel did and that [28:17] would America was far more entangled [28:19] because of the aid [28:21] than they will be in this situation. A [28:23] partnership built on shared technology [28:25] and industrial capacity is a [28:27] relationship between two sovereign [28:29] allies [28:31] and it it's a much healthier [28:32] relationship. So, where this stands [28:35] right now, the provision has cleared the [28:36] house, still needs the Senate. Even if [28:39] the Senate even if the Senate were to [28:40] drop the provision, the conference [28:42] committee could bring it back. [28:44] Okay. And and and we'll keep our eyes on [28:46] what happens there. Here's you know in [28:48] the big picture [28:49] what looks like just an item in the [28:51] defense budget is a real inflection [28:53] point. The US and Israel are moving from [28:55] a patron client relationship built on [28:58] foreign aid to a genuine industrial [29:00] partnership between two sovereign [29:03] allies. That is what is happening here. [29:05] This is not a merger, it's a maturing of [29:07] the relationship and it's long overdue. [29:09] Whether Congress lets it through in its [29:12] current form we'll find out. [29:14] And whatever, we'll find out. Thanks for [29:16] watching, thanks for sharing, liking, [29:18] subscribing. Drop a comment, let me know [29:20] what you think. Maybe I'm not reading [29:22] this right, maybe I'm missing something. [29:24] Feel free to disagree with me, that's [29:26] fine. [29:27] And God bless you all.
