Josh Hammer
speaker
197 appearances
8 recordings
4 series
first heard Jan 2025
last heard 31 Mar
Josh Hammer’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 2 in all, peaking in Mar 2026 with 1.
Appearances
You got to try to put massive sticks and carrots diplomacy on Jordan, on Egypt, and trying to get them to bring in lots of these Arabs there.
I think pragmatically, realistically, the most likely thing that's going to happen in Gaza, if we interpret Donald Trump's stance as an opening bid, the most likely stance, Andrew, is probably you'll have the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Bahrainis, these various other wealthy Sunni Arab states that go in with some sort of consortium. These are very wealthy countries.
They can build up the infrastructure fairly closely there. The U.S. will be involved in some capacity to make sure these Arabs are not putting in a bunch of, you know, crypto jihadis to basically make Hamas rise again there. But that's my guess as to as to what it actually looks like. Fair enough.
Sure. So the notion that Israel is an illegal occupier, Andrew, is just legally incorrect. And I guess I will just take 30 to 60 seconds to explain the international law here. So the international law is basically as follows. So the modern Middle East is carved up after World War I. That's when you get – The British mandate for Palestine, the British mandate for Palestine consisted of two parts.
You had the mandate for for the Emirates of Transjordan that became Jordan. Then you had mandatory Palestine. That was the land of Israel. And the mandate for Palestine actually included Judea and Samaria, a.k.a. the West Bank. as well as Gaza. This was actually the original two-state solution.
So quite literally, anyone who's literate with history could tell you that Jordan, about 100 years ago, was actually the so-called Palestinian state. So what happened then was, in 1948, Israeli War of Independence happens. And the Jews had previously accepted a smaller two-state solution. The Arabs had rejected it. They decided to invade Israel the next day.
You have a series of temporary armistice lines there. These are not final assembly lines. These are armistice lines. And yes, it's true that J.N. Samaria was not part of that, but it was simply an armistice. So there was no final settlement. And under an international law principle known as uti posiditis juris, it is a commonly accepted international law maxim.
This is how it works with the breakup of Yugoslavia. This is how it works in many African countries. When a new sovereign state is formed, it actually assumes the inherited borders of the previous existing sovereign entity in that particular sliver of the world. So when Israel was founded in May of 1948, it actually assumed the full borders of mandatory Palestine, a.k.a. included Israel.
Judea and Samaria and Gaza. So there's no illegal occupation going on here under international law. Your political mileage may vary. It's what you think is the best solution. But the best solution, again, from an American national interest, emotionally detached perspective, is to embolden our ally. Because our allies want who's taken out our enemies.
They're the ones who are hunting down the jihadis. They're trying to kill us both. What is in the American national interest of trying to carve out yet another Muslim terrorist state, let alone one in the heart of the Holy Land that could, God forbid, have custody over Jewish and Christian holy sites? It's absolutely nuts. It makes no sense whatsoever.
There is no, no, no American national interest in that. Zero, zero, zero. So they're not an occupier under international law. There is no compelling political case whatsoever to carve out yet another state. Donald Trump, to his great credit, totally understands this, Andrew.
Like a bull in a china shop, Donald Trump came in to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C. But with his bold reform and rejuvenation agenda comes so many legal questions. Nationwide injunctions. Are they constitutional? What's the deal with birthright citizenship? What about the administrative state? Can he actually clean the deep state and end the politicization of the federal bureaucracy?
I'm Josh Hammer, host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer. Subscribe to America on Trial with Josh Hammer for your daily updates on all of these questions and more.
Charlie, first of all, I think judicial activism is probably, if anything, a charitable way of describing what we're seeing unfold here, my friend. I mean, this, if anything, is a judicial insurrection. I mean, this happened during the first Trump administration. So I think back all the way, actually, to the year 2018, 2019. It was in the latter years of the Trump presidency.
that the number of nationwide injunctions that were imposed against the Trump presidency actually then exceeded all the previous presidents combined. In fact, Bill Barr, back when he was attorney general, gave a speech to the American Legal Institute, the Law Reform Institute, actually decrying the practice of nationwide injunctions.
So this is not the first time this has happened to President Trump in power. But Those judges have not learned their lesson from the first time. Partially that's because SCOTUS has derelicted its duty. The Supreme Court has not actually taken a case, Charlie, as to whether or not any of this is constitutional in the first place.
And I guess I'll kind of just cut right to the chase there on that point and say that no, no. None of this is legal. None of this is constitutional. The media, Charlie, day in and day out, they're accusing Donald Trump and J.D. Vance and Elon Musk of fomenting a constitutional crisis because they're governing with all these executive orders.
They're having Elon Musk go into the Treasury payment system there. First of all. Republican administrations, conservatives in general, Charlie, we're constitutionals. We respect the separation of powers. We respect the rule of law. If there is an actual action that exceeds the legitimate confines of a sphere of governance, then that is where the judiciary comes in to rein in.
But what judges are doing right now all across the country –
On basically everything that Donald Trump has done since he came into power, everything from birthright citizenship to Elon Musk and Doge going into the Treasury payments there, Judge McConnell in Rhode Island threatening criminal contempt, criminal contempt of the Trump administration unless they subject all of their discretionary spending and funding decisions through his puny little judicial desk there deep in the bowels of the very blue state of Rhode Island there.
Showing 101–120 of 197 · page 6 of 10
← Previous
Next →