This episode of New Politics was released on the twenty seventh of September twenty twenty five and produced on the lands of the Wongle and Gadigle people.

The real face of the United States reveals itself at the United Nations, and it's not a pretty sight.

The ongoing obsession about Anthony Albanezi meeting up with Donald Trump continues, and will recognizing the state of Palestine make any difference.

I'm Idi Djokovic, I'm David Lewis.

All of this is coming up in this big episode of New Politics.

All I got from the United Nations was an escalator that on the way up stopped right in the middle, and then a teleprompter that didn't work.

This is These are the two things I got from the United Nations.

A bad escalator and a bad teleprompter.

Thank you very much.

I'm the President of the United States, but I worry about Europe.

I love Europe, I love the people of Europe, and I hate to see it being devastated by energy and immigration.

This double tailed monster destroys everything in its wak and they cannot let that happen any longer.

You're doing it because you want to be nice they must take control strongly and immediately of the unmitigated immigration disaster and the fake energy catastrophe.

Your countries are going to hell.

The United States is changing quite dramatically, and not for the better.

What once seemed to be as slow drift in as politics you seem to have become a much faster decline, both at home and on the world stage under Donald Trump's leadership, and this is his second term in office, of course, longstanding democratic practices have been taken apart and removed.

Institutions are being undermined, Experts are just being pushed aside, and conspiracy theories are being pushed forward as though they were facts.

And inside the government experience, officials are being booted out, replaced not with competents but with people who are loyal to the president.

And it's also a wide range of other appointments that are designed for political appearances rather than substance, and has resulted in a government that is barely struggling to function under the weight of its own ineptitude.

And on the world stage, Trump has continued to use platforms like the United Nations to spread outrageous lives, boasting about ending seven wars around the world, halting immigration into the United States, and dismissing climate change as a con job.

And these are all claims that have got the far right in the America eating out of his hands, and as usual, none of these claims are correct.

And in the United States itself, he's doing relentless attacks on immigrants and independent voices in the media or any media that he disagrees with, and this has only deepened the division within the u United States.

And the result is that America's reputation as a trusted global leader is quickly eroding.

Now I'm not saying that it's always been a perfect model of democracy for the past two hundred and fifty years or in the twentieth and twenty first century, but it is now behaving like a fascist state with a dictator in place.

And in that space that the United States is starting to leave behind, other nations are already stepping up.

And this will always be the choice of the United States.

Every country in the world has got that choice to make if it wants to if he wants to retreat into itself, if that's what it wants to do.

But it's not possible to make this choice and then remain as a global leader, and this is always going to be more than just politics.

It's about reshaping America's role in the world, what will come after this, and what this all means for Australia as well.

It's quite striking.

I don't think Trump is the cause of American decline.

I think he's a cattle.

I think he's a symptom Why an educated and technologically advanced citizenship would elect Trump.

And there are questions as to whether he was actually elected or whether the system was manipulated.

But even if the system was manipulated, you can only manipulate them so far.

There was still enough people who voted for him that they could if they manipulated it, they could push it over the edge to get him to win.

It wasn't a landslide.

The lie that sort of has never really been debunked is that it was a landside.

It was actually very close, which suggests manipulation.

It shouldn't have been very close.

It should have been Trump shouldn't have been anywhere near winning.

Well, there was quite a difference in the college vote, but not in the overall vote.

Yeah, that's exactly right.

And really, in a world where we don't vote on emotion.

Trump shouldn't have got anywhere near the nomination, let alone be able to manipulate the system at its worst or be able to in genuinely.

And we've probably seen the decline since Reagan.

Really.

People will point to the events of September eleventh, two thousand and one, people will point to various but it's really Reagan stripping the treasury.

I think they've got three trillion dollars worth of infrastructure maintenance that they need to do, roads, hospitals, police schools, and there's no political will to do it.

We've got a country that, even under a more obviously qualified candidate, say Obama, still had appalling foreign policies.

A lot of money that could have been put into the good of the American people was put into the bad of bombing countries, invading countries, propping up corrupt dictatorships that were friendly to America.

Trump is, as I said, Trump is really a symptom and a catalyst.

Rather than Trump be the cause of this stuff.

I think to call him the cause gives him way too much agency and assumes way too much of his own pathetic existence.

We're going to get act stuff for this, of course, but you know.

Well, this is the season of cancelations as well.

But I think the United States in general it is showing those unmistakable signs of decline.

And it's not like it just started under Donald Trump.

Mark too, it started some time ago, and you referred to Ronald Reagan.

But maybe neoliberal maybe neoliberalism is the link in all of this.

But there are those signs of decline, both at home and internationally.

And I'm not suggesting that the United States is going to become a basket case overnight, although that's always the possibility of that happening, but I'm not suggesting that.

But that slow erosion of these normal democratic processes and practices just seems to have accelerated under Donald Trump over the past nine months.

And it's just that whole process of institutions being undermine, expertise within government is not being valued.

Can convenient idiots and loyalists have been put in place.

And I'm not suggesting anyone in particular.

I wasn't going to suggest Marco Rubio.

Other people might suggest that.

And we've got a wide range of conspiracy theories about medicines being put into policy.

If we look at the experience of Robert Kennedy, who is an anti vaxer and is the US Secretary of Health for some reason, don't know how we got there, and he's putting out false information about the link between paracetamol and autism, and I think this is actually quite dangerous.

So we've got a situation where medical science has been rejected in favor of conspiracy theories, and then we have Donald Trump with his own conspiracies.

Trump had the United Nations for him to peddle all of these complete lines about ending wars, about immigration, climate change, about sharia law being implemented into Britain, and instead of consolidating the world leaders of the United States, he's sending it down the drain as quickly as possible.

But the other point is that the rest of the world isn't just going to wait around to see what happens.

Europe and Britain might be stalling, but the rest of the world is moving on.

China, Russia, India, Brazil, They're all forging new trade alliances and looking at creating new trading currencies.

And ultimately Trump's policies, they're not weakening China.

This is his entire ambition just to weaken China and it's trading blocks and diplomatic blocks, but it's not weakening that at all.

It's actually making them stronger.

And an isolationist United States will risk isolation.

I guess that's what it all means.

And there's a lot of other countries that are ready and willing to fill that void.

And it's almost like a self inflicted wound that the United States just keeps wanting to inflict upon itself.

And Australia also needs to be careful that it doesn't attach itself too strongly to the United States and should be looking at these other opportunities as well.

Isolationism was always going to be a problem for the United States.

It spent most of the twentieth century trying to be isolationists.

Now, in fairness, it had the resources and was able to be so sufficient, but the world globalized and you can't really shut yourself off from the world.

Expect to be a major power and expect that other nations will do your bidding if you're not engaged with them.

People still see the United States, or did until recently, as a stabilizing force.

Now I know that a lot of you will say it's never been a stabilizing force, and I agree, but perception is very important, and a lot of people saw that the United States could settle conflicts.

Part of Trump's claim that he finished seven wars was to do with the fact that he was just as good a president as Obama in particular, and Clinton and Bush and they didn't stop any warts except they did.

Also, it's I think, to do with his demented attempt to get a Nobel Peace Prize, which is almost certainly not going to happen.

I better not say never, because.

Who knows what's going to happen in this world.

Who knows, but it would be very unusual and would most likely kill the Nobel Peace Prize as a thing.

I'll be really fair.

Obama's awarding of it did push it a little bit, but of course, as was said at the time, Obama got it for not what he did, but for what he didn't do.

Trump has caused more chaos throughout the world.

The United States under Trump has broken treaties.

It was meant to help Ukraine, it hasn't, or it's trying not to.

It's giving a half hearted help, probably just enough to stop it being completely slammed for not helping but certainly not anywhere near enough for what the treaty was suggesting.

For example, Africa America has always helped in its own way.

May not have been the best way, but it's its own way.

And that speech of the United Nations by Donald Trump, it was an absolute masterclass in bluff and bluster, dunning, Krueger syndrome, comedy, buffoonery, whatever you want to call it.

It was all bluff and bluster pretty much.

And I'm actually glad that it was actually on the world stage because more people could see how bad the leadership is in the United States.

And that's not going to change for at least the next three and a half years, so I guess the world will just have to get used to it.

And the United Nations, well, it is the biggest target of all the conspiracy theorists and the mega bass as well.

And David, We've had a lot to say about the failures of the United Nations over the years, but it's nowhere near as bad as Donald Trump is making it out to be.

And he said that it's useless and all it does is issues strongly worded letters.

Well, at least I know had a sabotage and escalator that he was trying to go up on and itally prompter that he was trying to read from.

So they are very good at they He should have given them credit for doing that.

The United Nations has ended the wars in Nambibia, in El Salvador, Mozambique, Cambodia helped to win the Iran Iraq war in the nineteen eighties.

A lot of people have forgotten about that, and that was quite a brutal war.

So it's had some successes, but most of the failures that have arisen, such as Bosnia and Rwanda, have occurred because the Security Council used veto House to stop meaningful action in those areas.

And so I think the Security Council should have a look at some of its eras there, including the United States.

And these attacks by Donald Trump were of course supported by his friends.

Over at Fox News, here's Jesse Watts commenting about the United Nations last week.

What's going on with the escalator?

What do you think?

Yeah, they sabotaged them.

Yeah, and they could have hurt the first lady.

Yeah, Trump would have fallen and would have gotten back up, but you know, they.

Would have blamed it on his rhetoric.

And then these advotage the teleprompter.

Yeah, I mean this isn't this is an insurrection, and what we need to do is either leave the un or we need to vomit.

It is in New York though, right, Yeah, could there some fallout there, maybe gas it, Okay, but we need to destroy it.

Maybe maybe just can we demolished.

Everybody leave and then we'll demolish the building.

We could turn it into affordable housing.

Okay, that's what you do ale house.

No, I don't like that.

I like nice sky rises, Dana, the expensive condominiums the Eastern River from there.

No, this is.

Absolutely unacceptable, and I hope they get to the bottom of it, and I hope they really injure emotionally the people that did it.

So Jesse Watters is still on Fox News.

He hasn't been canceled or recrimmanded or anything like that like Jimmy kim Ill was last week.

So this is what is acceptable in America right now.

Our conservative host talks about bombing and gassing people and not much happens to him, and he's probably being encouraged by all of these people on the American right.

So David I know that we're putting out this blake picture of America at the moment, the United States, and there's always going to be resistance to all of this, despote all of this mayhem.

Here's the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, who is the leading contender for the Democrats in the twenty twenty eight US presidential election.

We had a fifteen year old disabled kid in Los Angeles was waiting for his sister to come out of high school, and they pulled out guns on this kid.

They pulled out guns and handcuffed this young child.

That's happening in the United States of America.

Masked men jumping out of unmarked cars, people disappearing, no due process, no oversight, zero accountability happening in the United States of America.

Today.

People asked, well, is authoritarianism?

You're being hyperbolic.

We're being hyperbole.

If you're a black and brown community, it's here in this country.

And so I'm deeply proud that I had the privilege of signing the nation's first bill to address the issue of masking, also to require you have simple identification.

To your point, I mean, if some guy jumped out of an unmarked car in a van with a mask on tried to grab me.

I mean, by definition, you're going to push back, and so these are not just authoritarian tendencies.

These are authoritarian actions by an authoritarian government.

You saw what Stephen Miller said last week, this should put chills.

A fine called the Democratic Party an extremist organization, basically a terrorist organization, saying he's going after his enemies.

You saw the tweet that Donald Trump sent out True social basically telling Pam BONDI I want these three people taken out.

That's happening in the United States.

This can't be normalized.

None of this can be normalized.

The governor, thank you so.

Much for being here.

So in any country at all, there's always going to be resistance, just like there was when John Howard was the Prime minister, or Tony Abbott or Scott Morris in Australia.

It's not like the people who are opposed of these extremists just disappeared.

They're still there and they still always will be there.

Although the United States you've got to have some doubts about that.

But it's just a question of how much damage can be done to America over the next three and a half years.

I think that's what the big question is.

We live in extraordinary times, there's no question, and we've also seen and we learned this in Australia under Morrison.

The checks and balances we have are extremely fragile and if you ignore them, there essentially don't exist.

If you are able to put in mechanisms where others will ignore them.

The appointment of Robert Kennedy as Health was appalling, but I think the appointment of Cash Patel as head of the FBI was worse.

If we look at investigation for the person who shot Charlie Kirk, it was only solved because the family of the accused turned him in.

The FBI had nothing to do with it ultimately, and it turns out anyway that there are so many problems that he may not have done it, and there's a lot of conspiracy rabbit holes.

You've got to be careful, but it's certainly clear that it isn't the cut and dried case, down to the fact where they were releasing what seemed to be very dubious text messages that it's like an episode of NCIS and they.

Had perfect punctuation as well in a text message whilst this person was running.

Yeah, oddly phrased terminology, anachronistic terminology.

It throws in a reasonable doubt that I think the courts in America will find that he can't be guilty because there's a reasonable doubt.

The ballistics experts have questioned some of the claims of the surgeon, and it seems there may have been something else going on that they saw the shooter who's been arrested on the roof and have assumed that it must have been him.

There may have been another shooter, according to some of the ballistics experts.

The point is that a proper law enforcement wouldn't have suddenly assumed it was a trans leftist.

They would have said, who were after Charlie Kirk, and they would have gone into his private life?

Was did he have gambling debts?

Was he being blackmailed?

Had he annoyed someone?

Had he slept with someone's wife?

But the first jump they went to was it must have been a political assassination.

It probably was, let's be fair, But a good investigative agency wouldn't have had that as the only conclusion.

They would have looked at everything else.

And it's just an odd thing I don't know what happened.

I don't know that anyone knows what happened.

Charlie Kirk didn't seem like a major enough figure to bother assassinating.

To be fair, what he said was terrible and awful.

I don't think we should in our grief and shock at what happened.

And let's again, I think I said this before.

He was a thirty one.

He wasn't terribly old, but he wasn't terribly dangerous to anybody, just another mouthpiece.

His death took nothing away from anything, and it added nothing to anything, despite the claims of those that support him.

And I'll be fair, if you're a big fan, okay, you're going to be affected.

Sure, but it's not like the assassination of Martin Luther King, which not only affected the cause his family and friends and supporters, it affected the cause significantly.

Despite the claims of the right, it hasn't affected the cause at all.

And yeah, there are many questions as to are we sure it's this guy, and then even getting his story straight.

If I was to ask many of you who shot John Lennon, he'd be able to tell me, and you'd be able to tell me his details.

Now not everybody, of course, but all those details are out there in great, in great details, in many sources, and they all confirm each other and they can trace it back.

Same with Ronald Reagan, who shot Ronald Reagan John Hinckley, and he did it because he was obsessed with Jerdie Foster and he thought it would and he lived here and he did this and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

I probably shouldn't say John Kennedy elor Robert Kennedy Senior.

But we know everything about Oswald, We know everything about Sohan Sahan.

We don't know anything about the guy who shot at Trump allegedly in the year maybe not.

We know very little, or what we know about the guy who shot Charlie Kirk is highly contradictory.

He wasn't a leftist, he wasn't trans He came from a very political family, but he wasn't very political.

We don't know why he did it.

It's the FBI has watched it to the point where I don't think they can arrest anyone and expect the charges to stick, no matter how guilty they are.

Progess.

This is also indicative of the a lot of his onny things that are going on in America at the moment, And I guess these sort of incidents have always been a peculiar part of American society.

But it's just that we're seeing more of this stuff going on, or I have been seeing more of this stuff going on over the past nine months or so, and I just pulled myself out of the rabbit warren for a little bit and clean myself up, and you can come and join me too.

But a lot of people have been saying, well, look, you're saying that all of this stuff is happening in the United States.

You're saying that the end of the United States is coming up soon and all this sort of stuff.

But economically, if you look at that picture, it's performing pretty well.

That's what a lot of people are saying at the moment.

And sure, on the surface, things are looking good economically.

GDP has grown steadily.

Unemployment its low, corporate profits are strong, wages have increased ahead of inflation.

That's all true, but the figures were not as strong in the Dune quarter and the Trump presidency.

Essentially, it's only been around for one quarter, and that's the Dune quarter, and there's an expectation that this might go down further after the September quarter.

And there's a whole lot of other factors which are not economically good for the United States.

Personal consumption is at its lowest level in two years.

Businesses are holding back on hiring more people because it's unclear what will happen with Trump's teriffs regime that's still implementing.

Inflation is starting to rise, and there's a possibility of long term stag inflation, and that's the economic issue that's affected the Japanese economy over the past twenty or thirty years.

And Australia has also got some of these factors to consider.

So we're not going to be immune from all of those issues that I mentioned, But a lot of America's economic problems that are waiting just around the corner, and as we talked about this before, seems to be self inflicted and it's just so hard to know where a lot of this will land.

There's also internationally there's the developing bricks movement building that alternative system of trade and finance, and not sure where that will quite end up, and will there be a new United Nations.

It's happened once before, where the League of Nations morphed into the United Nations in nineteen forty five.

My feeling is that if there is a new international alliance, it will have to be radically different to the United Nations.

It will have to be a lot more democratic as well.

And Australia was a big part of the formation of the United Nations in nineteen forty five.

Not sure if Australia would be a part of a breakaway type of international or global alliance.

And as we mentioned before, Australia should be looking at new alliances, and I think it would be a dereliction of duty not to do this.

Globalization has in a sense broken down the old empire system, and Australia loved being part of empires.

We went from the British Empire to what essentially the American Empire.

There's now no longer an empire.

We could look at the Chinese Empire for example.

We don't quite think China is an empire in that way.

Australia needs to be a bit more independent.

It's not to say we can't have friends in high places.

It's not to say that we shouldn't have good relationships with bigger powers than us.

That is only common sense.

But we should be much more amenable to flattening the power structures in the world so that we don't have superpowers that we have.

We're going to have countries that are both richer and more influential than others.

And unless we totally knock the system down and start over, that's not going to change, even if we want it to, and even if it should.

But there's no point in clinging on to the great White hope of the nineteenth century.

And we can get back, and we just need to get back and show those Congo leagues to what for what heym these chieky Indians put a bit of curry up them.

That is long long gone, long gone, and Australia needs to mature and that means, I think cutting relations with certain countries altogether, strengthening relations with other countries and keeping relationships with countries as they are.

This is New Politics with Eddie Djokovic and David lewis the best podcast on Australian politics and news commentary.

You can support us through Patreon and substack, and also find us at Newpolitics dot com dot au.

The Australian media is added again, treating politics just like a big reality TV show with a big debate about will he or will he not?

And for weeks now, the mainstream media and the Liberal Party has been obsessed with whether the Prime Minister Anthony Albanesi could lock in a face to face meeting with the United States President Donald Trump, and it's almost been framed like this big dating game, as if the health of the Australia US Alliance depends on whether these two leaders can sit down together for what would essentially be a photo opportunity session for both leaders.

Here's a snippet from the nine Media news.

We have breaking news now Anthony Alberenesi will return to the United States next month for his first face to face meeting with Donald Trump, live to nine US correspondent Jonathan Kurzley in New York, JOHNO.

A date is now confirmed.

That's right, Anthony Albanezi and Donald Trump dish differ on the issue of a Palestinian statehood, but they are on exactly the same page, it appears, when it comes to wanting to finally sit down face to face.

The date set it is October twenty market.

In y diaries, Anthony alban Easy, we're coming back to the United States of America for a formal visit at.

The White House.

Sitting alongside Donald Trump inside the oval, offers the confirmation nine news in today's all received, coming after Anthony alban Easy was inside the United Nations earlier today listening to the speech.

But the point is, David, that alban Easy and Trump have already spoken by phone four times this year, and by every account those calls were friendly and constructive.

But the media and the Liberal Party were always saying that this is not enough and suggesting that without the symbolism of a formal meeting in Washington, Australia looks weak at a time when the United States is reviewing the Orcas submarine deal and imposing tariffs on exports to the United States.

So Liberal Party, they're always against symbolism, but they're pro symbolism of the moment.

But politically, I just don't think there's any great disadvantage for Albanese not meeting with Donald Trump.

He will get that face to face meeting with Trump in October.

That's been announced and confirmed, and it's not like any world leader can just ring up another leader and say, look, please wait up for me, open up a six pack, get some pieces ready, I'll be there tomorrow night.

Just doesn't work like that.

But all of this has been ramped up as a failure that Albanese is not working hard enough to defend Australia's interests in the United States.

Actually not sure what that would be, because it seems like the Australia US relationship is a one way relationship that's not really going our way.

But just this odd obsession of the media.

It's been going on for about four months since the last election, or five months or whatever it is now, and we should be judging diplomacy by the outcomes achieved, not just by whether Albaneze meets with Trump for a photo opportunity in the Oval Office, which essentially is what it would end up being.

You don't know what they want.

And there's a lot of people calling that it's best that Anthony Alberanesi doesn't meet with Trump.

It's not a good look.

You can't trust anything he says.

Any agreement made will probably not hold Any good.

Points that Albanesi makes are likely to be ignored or turned around.

So yeah, he's got the meeting, which I suppose will bring a hole well he should have got at first.

A lot of other countries didn't get a meeting with Trump.

The Prime Minister is on the phone to Trump fairly regular I don't think Howard spoke as often to Clinton as Albanesi has to Trump.

Nobody said that shows how pathetic Howard is.

They actually probably were people who did, but it didn't come from the mainstream media.

Well he was a man of steel.

He was a man of steel.

Also, I think we may have had a bit more of a mature press back then who understood that the American President was an extremely busy person and that the concerns of Australia may not have read it as highly over there as they did here.

Having said that, as we don't know what a meeting with Trump would achieve, and likely it wouldn't achieve very much, that is positive.

I think we should just say good on you.

You got the meeting, Get in and get out as quickly as you can.

Check your wallet on the way out, don't commit to anything, and go and have a good, long, hard show when you finish, because you're going to need it.

But I guess it's also that point about the well we're mainly focusing on the behavior of the media, because that's where all of this is coming out.

And you mentioned that the media of today is probably not as mature as it used to be maybe thirty years ago.

That might be part of the consideration, but I think it's just that issue of why the Australian media, this is supported by the Liberal Party of course, why they feel that this is so important.

My feeling is that most people in Australia we couldn't care less and don't think too highly about Donald Trump anyway, and that's been supported by polling in Australia, and to me it feels a little bit like a cultural cringe or doing this homage to the king, even though the king is actually naked.

And it's hard to know whether this is just the usual Labor Party bashing that we see within the media, although we didn't see this sort of behavior on international issues with Paul Keating or Bob Hawk, not even with Kevin Rudder Julia Gillar.

They were the most recent Labor Prime ministers before Anthony Albanesi, so I'm not sure if that's part of it.

It probably is, but we didn't see the harassment of Albanesi about going off or rushing off to go and see Jijin Ping.

No one in the media said, look, go off and see Jijinping immediately.

And Australia's relationship with China is far more important to Australia's future than the United States is.

And even then when Albanese did go off to see Jjinping in Beijing, he was critical, I have been too close to the Chinese leadership and why did you go off and see that dictator?

Anyway, so this snub from Trump apparently was really or the way that it was being reported.

I just think there was really unbecoming for the mainstream media and it was really like reporting on a reality TV show, and it was all of the media.

It was seven nine, ten, the Abcesbs, the Guardian, and in the end, Anthony Albanzi did have a quick chat with Donald Trump and then he posted a selfie of himself with Trump.

It was almost like he posted it out just to shut everyone in the media up.

And just like in a dating game, when they saw that selfie go up online, they breathed a sigh of relief, the relationship is on again, and then the couple just looked lovely.

Sixty two year old Albanesi and seventy nine year old nice bit of crumpet Donald Trump.

So match made in heaven.

I just hope the sequel will be as good as the original.

David, honestly, it's married at first, so in international relations, I'm just waiting for the insightful interviews.

I'm so nervous to meet him.

Or We've done all our prep of course, wedding barrels, yeah, wedding bells, and then the reveal is the eyes light up and the anticipation and positivity of this, and it's got about the same level of intellectual rigor and morality involved.

It's just we seem to be.

One of the themes of the podcast week to week is just how appalling our press is.

I had a lovely comment during the week, and I think it was from Michael's Curious World, and if I'm wrong and that I apologize.

But he said that journalists should learn history, international affairs, economics, and I agree, and he even went so far to say that you shouldn't do a journalism course first, you should do a BA or a BSc in those topics and then do journalism.

And the more I think of it, the more I think he's right.

You've got to have a knowledge of your topic in a way that shows some kind of authority and shows And of course there are journalists out there who do that.

I don't want to paint every single journalist with the same brush, but the ones that come to the front are the ones who ask stupid questions, the ones who don't understand the topic that they're supposed to be on, the ones that haven't really done the background work.

And yeah, I think a good solid grounding in one of the major humanities or science subjects, even if it just teaches you critical thinking, even if it just teaches you how to ask questions, not in a journalism way.

But here is a bunch of data.

What do I need to ask it to get the most out of it?

I can't wait for the questions that the Prime Minister is going to be besieged with after the meeting.

I can't imagine that they will be, say, Walkley Award worthy, but we'll see.

Oh, David Will sort of have been having a bit of fun with this.

But finally, after weeks of speculation and criticis it's about being sidelined?

The White House has confirmed that meeting that Anthony Albaneze will meet with Donald Trump formerly in Washington on October the twentieth, and I just hope that this will end all the media speculation about when the meeting is going to happen.

We now know it's October the twentieth.

But aside from all the fun that we've been having, like, there are serious issues that need to be contemplated or discussed.

But the only thing that I can think is really worth discussing is the Orchest deal, which is not really a deal.

It's some weird kind of military tax or insurance scheme that Australia is paying to the United States and to Britain and not get anything in return.

And the discussions about tariff's might be important, but no one at all has turned up to the Oval Office and then walked away with the tariff exemption, So why would you waste your time when it's not going to happen.

You could probably talk about it briefly, but it's just not going to happen.

And sure have all of the photos taken and Albanezy can give Trump AFL football, which won't know what to do with.

And I think that's what all Australian prime ministers do when they arrive at the Oval Office.

For some reason, they give the US president and AFOL football.

But I think the most important thing, or the most important discussion would be about the Orchest deal and somehow extricating Australia out of this deal which should have never gone ahead in the first place.

And the other point is that Trump is the alpha male.

He always wants to be on top, and this will always be seen as some sort of macho test.

But Albanezy isn't the sort of leader who goes out of his way to ruffle feathers.

So I'm pretty sure the meeting with Trump will happen in October without any incidents, and I'm sure he's not going to get JD Van shouting at him like he did with Vladimir Zelensky earlier on in the years.

So the meeting will go ahead and then we can just hopefully forget it all about it.

Yeah, nothing will come of it, nothing substantial will come of it.

Probably something negative will come from it.

You just need to let it happen, Let the right froth at the mouth and by the writer less intelligent, and move on and get on with Australian lives.

This is New Politics, available through Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, Audible and YouTube, and also available to support at Patreon, Substack and at our website New politics dot com dot au.

In nineteen forty seven, Australia was proud to be the first member of the United Nations to vote for the plan that made the modern state of Israel possible.

But that plan always encompassed two states, a state of Israel and a State of Palestine, living side by side within internationally recognized borders, recognizing each other's right to live in peace and security.

Eight decades ago, those hopes were consumed by conflict, and that has been the grim pattern over the years.

Opportunities not taken, compromises rejected, good faith betrayed, a cycle of violence that has crushed generations.

We must choose a different path.

We must break this cycle of violence and build something better.

Yesterday Australia recognized the state of Palestine.

Australia has taken a historic step on the world stage, where at the United Nations in New York, Prime Minister Anthony Alberanezi announced that Australia now formally recognizes Palestine as a sovereign state, where he said that the cycle of violence needs to end.

Framing the decision as part of the long stall journey towards a two state solution, and the two state solution, I think is one of those often quoted words without anyone really knowing what it means anymore.

But we just have to work out what this recognition actually means.

And Australia joins more than one hundred and fifty nations out of the one hundred and ninety three UN member states that already recognize Palestine, and this shift in momentum is very clear.

Countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and Portugal have also recognized the state of Palestine.

I think this is a change in Western policy overall, or at least it's going in a different direction.

And a lot of this is symbolic, but it's important symbolism, and it won't resolve the decades of conflict overnight.

It won't stop the humanitarian crisis in Gaza tomorrow.

It might end up being a fig leaf for the international community where it needs to look like it's doing something but then ends up doing nothing at all.

But it is a start where a lot more needs to be done, and we have to be careful about expectations, because we could probably have all the countries in the world recognized in the State of Palestine except for Israel and the US.

And even if Israel somehow in a parallel universe recognized Palestine, the US would never accept this anyway.

They probably start bombing Israel and then get very confused about what they're doing and what's going on.

But this recognition in itself, it doesn't mean much without all of the other issues that need to be addressed as well.

But it's all got to start from somewhere.

There are people who've seen Australia's recognition of Palestine has been quite cynical and playing into Israel's hands.

I'm not sure.

I think the Labor government had the problem in that the recognition of Palestine has long been one of the major foreign policy platforms of the ALP, Yet over the last three or four years they've seemed to have gone against that till the other day where they've said, yes, we are going to recognize Palestine.

There's still a long way to go there too.

We haven't appointed an ambassador, we've got to open up diplomatic headquarters, they've got to sit down and work out the diplomatic boundaries with documents and treaties, et cetera, et cetera.

And yeah, there are those who say that it's really appeasing Israel by taking the slowest process, and that somehow we're playing into Israel's hands.

I'm not sure that the state of Israel in its current form has much longer to exist.

To be quite honest, I think there's going to be as the world gets more more horrified at the treatment of the people of Palestine by the State of Israel.

It's Israel's status as a pariah state is going to grow.

I think that's the most likely possibility.

And yes, it will be protected by America because the US needs or thinks it needs Israel to help stabilize the region and keep the oil flowing its way.

But we're at the end of the oil age.

I think too.

We might have another fifty years of oil.

But I think as alternate cleaner energies become cheaper, oil becomes less important.

We've got to stop listening to extremely wealthy people who've made their money and tell them you've got enough.

When you reach one hundred million, you get taxed at one hundred percent.

Everything over one hundred million is enough for everybody, and that money goes back into renewable resource, research, education, infrastructure, et cetera, et cetera.

People will say, oh, stops, it stops innovation, and it stops, but most innovation is done a lot earlier than that, and I think that, yeah, we just have to be mindful that we should be working towards the betterment of everybody rather than the enrichment of a few.

Oh, that's right, and poor people like us should be listened to.

And the meat will inherit the earth as well.

Yeah, yeah, it's about time too.

They've had it so bad for so long.

Well, our day will come one day.

But I think the recognition of the state of Palestine.

It's not going to bring back the dead or stop the bombs overnight, but it means something right now.

I'm sure there's a lot of contention about what it actually means, and it's not going far enough, and it's I'm not sure what this means.

Whether it's glass half full or glass half empty or empty or full, who knows, But I guess that's why we're discussing it at the moment.

But it just means that right now, it does mean something because for decades, even this tiny bit of advantage for Palestine, or any tiny bit of progress, has always been without and those countries, the United States, the United Kingdom and France.

These are the countries that tend to preach about democracy and human rights, but they've always blocked Palestinian sovereignty and always protected Israel from accountability.

And there are three of the five members of the Security Council as well on the United Nations, and of course the United States will always continue to protect Israel from accountability.

But at least the UK, France, and now of Australia, they're starting to move in a different direction.

And I think eventually that complete wall of obstruction will crack and fall over.

And maybe part of this process that's going on now, it's a little bit like placing a leaf on a footpath and tomorrow the wind might blow it away, might not be there tomorrow, and then you have to put it back and then start all over again.

But there is definitely a change there is occurring.

And I'm not no even enough to think that this is all, it's all done and dusted.

It's not.

There's going to be that ongoing resistance from the United States.

And we also had that very strange analogy from Mark Kakabee during the wake hesey United States Ambassador to Israel, where he likened the United States relationship with Israel to the relationship that he has with his wife.

It may sound a little bit this afternoon as if I'm almost speaking on behalf of Israel rather than the US, but I want to explain that part of my advocacy in our relationship is because if you came to my house tonight for dinner, and you came in and you said, Oh, Mike, we like you, We really think the world of you.

We just enjoy being with you.

I'm so excited to be here with you and have dinner with you.

But your wife, we can't stand her.

We don't like her a bit.

I hope she's not going to be at the table.

I would say, well, she will be.

You won't be get out because if you were to insult my partner, you have insulted me.

But that's got to be the most insulting and grotesque piece of analysis to give when thousands of people have died in Gaza, We've got this ambassador trying to reduce international relationships to personal relationships he's got with his wife.

It's just obscene, but it probably does sum up that irrational relationship that the United States does have with Israel, and it's not clear at this stage how that will change.

It's not really these people who like to reduce everything to household or a household budget or no, it's not really international relations is like the relationship I have with my wife?

Is that tell the Yeah, it's not really.

And I know too that public figures try and break things down so that people who mightn't have the understanding that they're supposed to have can add on to something.

But the wife analogy just seems to be someone who's got no idea what they're talking about.

Well, I haven't met Mike Huckabee's wife, and I don't know who she is, but it seems like he's got problems with his relationships.

Yeah, now, who's telling you not to take your wife anyway.

It's a sad case for the Republican Party that these they've pushed out all the decent people, and by decent I don't necessarily mean morally upright collectivist empaths.

For people who were smart.

Say what you will about Richard Nixon.

He was smart, and he surrounded himself with smart people.

Henry Kissinger was a horrible human being, but he was the smartest person in the room.

He was across everything.

Even Trump's first term had people like Rex Tillison, who at least understood the Middle East a bit better because he'd been an oil executive there, so he knew how to speak to people in the Middle East.

He knew what tensions he had to deal with.

He didn't understand Europe at all, but Europe wasn't oppressing concern at that point.

And I'm no fan of Tillotson, but fair is fair.

He knew something of what he spoke about.

I'm glad he's not there now, but I would much prefer him to anyone in the current Trump administration.

I think it's only fair that these things get called.

Out, So David, I think it's hard to be too optimistic about all of this, but I think we just have to wait to see what the outcomes are.

But the most important thing for the international community is the killing just has to stop.

That's what they're mainly interested in.

Any international conflict, stop the killing of people.

Then, in the siege of Gaza and then work towards achieving justice for Palestine and holding Israel accountable for its crimes, and that of course will take a little bit more effort.

But then if Israel continues to resist this process, then a full boycott, divestment and sanctions program has to be implemented, just like it was in South Africa.

And of course this will take all of it will take a little bit of time, probably too much time, and we'll have to move a lot faster than this.

But I think generally, I'm not suggesting that this is all resolved and it's all over, but I think generally this is the cost of Israel's overreach, and overreach in politics is always dangerous.

But for the first time in decades, the conversation is now moving out of Israel's control and going into something different.

And I'm really, honestly, i'm not sure where this will all end up.

It might end up being as useless and as disastrous as the belfour Declaration was for the Palestinian people all those years ago.

Still might come to nothing.

Then we're back to where we started.

But generally this feels a little bit different, or quite a bit different to me and people who are a lot older than me have said to me that this is a little bit like the Vietnam moment from the nineteen sixties, but transparers into the twenty twenties and where there's an ongoing global movement that forces this political change in the West Asia region Middle East and then forces social change to occur else And I think it's forcing the world to confront the legitimate part of Palestine's fight for freedom, and it's actually moved Palestine to a central issue in the international policy, just like Vietnam was a central issue in the nineteen sixties.

And it's probably a process that could shape or reshape the entire global world order and international geopolitics.

And if it doesn't do this, it could just expose the weakness of the existing institutions such as the United Nations, and then open up everything up more for wars in the future.

So either way, there could be a lot of changes coming up for the world to consider.

Hopefully it will all be a lot more optimistic or a lot more positive than what I think it might be.

But hopefully there'll be a lot of good change.

As Netnia, who's got more desperate to stay out of jail and there's Trump gets more desperate to stay out of jail.

I think that their acts will become more and more desperate and they lose support.

I think.

Yeah.

Denia, who has we mentioned this in a previous podcast, has prevented his attorney general going to cabinet meetings so as to not so I guess, so as to be able to have some level of deniability as to what's legal and illegal.

And she's in charge of the investigation against him anyway, so there'd be that.

I think too.

You're right, the world is changing, despite the very best efforts to those whose interests it is not to change.

So it.

We might be looking at a totally different global layout in the short term rather than the media or even long term.

That's it for this episode of New Politics.

Thanks for listening in, and if you'd like to support our style of journalism and commentary, please make your donation at our website at newpolitics dot com dot a.

You.

We don't beg plead, beseech or gaslight you about journalism coming to an end.

We just keep it very simple.

If you like what we do, please send some support our way.

It keeps our commitment to independent journalism ticking along.

I'm Eddie Jokovic.

Thanks for listening in and it's goodbye to our listeners.

I'm David Lewis.

We'll see you next time.