U.S. Backing Has Given Israel License to Kill & Maim

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

Up next, we'll talk to our resident constitutional scholar and legal expert, Bruce Fine, to let us know how the Biden administration is violating the Neutrality Act.

What has Bibi Netanyahu dragged us into? David? Bruce Fine is a constitutional scholar and an expert on international law. Mr. Fine was Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan and is the author of Constitutional Peril,
The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy. Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, Bruce Fine.
Thank you very much.
Glad to be here. Yes, Bruce. There are two questions I want to ask you right away, and that is the U.S. government under Bibi Biden and Bibi Blinken seem to be co-combatants who are intensifying their daily collaboration with the Israeli military under Prime Minister Netanyahu, both toward Lebanon, toward Iran, and toward Yemen, in addition to Gaza.
As a co-combatant, What laws are they violating other than the Constitution's requirement that armed force overseas has to be declared by Congress, which Congress has declined to do?
The Neutrality Act of 1794 in substance prohibits anyone in the United States from directing or supplying arms or assistance or otherwise engaging in war that is against a country with which the United States is formally at peace. The United States at present is at peace with Iran. It's at peace with Lebanon. Indeed, Lebanon's an ally.
We already know that President Biden had ordered Navy ships to use their Aegis ballistic missile defense in collaboration with Israel to shoot down Iranian missiles, an act of war. And now they basically said, we are combatants with Israel and probably planning covertly to join military forces on the next initiative that Israel takes against Iran.
So it's a clear violation of Neutrality Act. Now, the legal issue arises, well, does it apply to government officials? That's not clear. Supreme Court has never opined on it. It was an issue that was raised when we had the Iran-Contra scandal and whether Ali North was violating the Neutrality Act by siding with the Contras engaging in
warfare against Nicaragua. We were never declared war against Nicaragua. but at least on its face, clearly violating the Neutrality Act.
But the criminal prosecution function is entrusted to the executive, and obviously Biden's not going to prosecute himself. The second question is, you've written that Biden is violating six federal statutes, the conditioning, the shipment of weapons, to foreign countries. These are knowing and willful violations.
The Secretary of State just told Congress that they have no evidence that Israel is currently obstructing humanitarian aid trucks from going into Gaza that the United States is paying for, overruling a contrary memorandum by the Agency of International Development run by Samantha Power and his own refugee section inside the State Department.
Are there no sanctions for this kind of behavior, which is basically lying to Congress?
Well, when you lie to Congress, that is a felony. You may recall, Ralph, in our earlier years, Richard Helms, the former CIA director, was prosecuted and was criminally punished for lying about CIA involvement in Chile's political affairs. So that is a crime. But let's use President Biden's own standard that he articulated in running for the
Democratic presidential nomination in 2007, where he boasted on Chris Matthews' hardball. I'm virtually quoting. If President George W. Bush attacks Iran without a congressional declaration of war, I will be the charge to impeach and remove him from office. I've been chairman of the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs Committee.
I have very smart professors who advise me from Yale and Harvard, and that would be an impeachable offense. So under President Biden's own standard, he should now be sitting in trial in the Senate for impeachable offense of initiating or engaging in war without a congressional declaration.
There you have it, listeners. the latest assessment from Bruce Fine, who's willing to debate any constitutional or international law specialist on these subjects. Thank you very much, Bruce. Thank you. I want to thank our guests again, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson and Bruce Fine. For those of you listening on the radio, that's our show. For you podcast listeners,
stay tuned for some bonus material we call The Wrap-Up featuring Francesco DeSantis with, in case you haven't heard, a transcript of this program will appear on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour Substack site soon after the episode is posted. Subscribe to us on our Ralph Nader Radio Hour YouTube channel. And for Ralph's weekly column, it's free.
Go to Nader.org. For more from Russell Mokhyber, go to CorporateCrimeReporter.com. The American Museum of Tort Law has gone virtual. Go to tortmuseum.org to explore the exhibits, take a virtual tour, and learn about iconic tort cases from history. To order your copy of The Capitol Hill Citizen, Democracy Dies in Broad Daylight, go to capitolhillcitizen.com.
And remember to continue the conversation after each program. Go to the comments section at ralphnaderradiohour.com and post a comment or question on this week's episode. The producers of the Ralph Nader Radio Hour are Jimmy Lee Wirt, Hannah Feldman, and Matthew Marin. Our executive producer is Alan Minsky.
Our theme music, Stand Up, Rise Up, was written and performed by Kemp Harris. Our proofreader is Elizabeth Solomon. Join us next week on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Thank you, Ralph. Thank you, everybody. And thank our guest, Larry Wilkerson. Listeners, you have your senators, representatives campaigning as we speak in your communities.
You ask them to come to your town meetings where they can hear you out and where you require them to respond. This is their moment of vulnerability before the election. Hi, this is Jimmy Lee Wirt, and welcome to The Wrap-Up. First off, Steve, David, and Hannah join the conversation with Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson.
Colonel Wilkerson, let's say you're back in the White House, which I'm sure is- God forbid. Yeah. Yeah. back in the white house and you're advising the new president kamala harris how would you make the case for her politically not on moral grounds or ethical grounds
or anything like that how do you make the case that it is good for her to end this thing to to stop funding it how do you paint that picture That's a good question, and it would have to come inevitably. But I will say the occasions where I was privy to,
either directly or indirectly through others who were privy, presidents actually telling Israeli leaders, giving them ultimata, giving them guidance they couldn't refuse, let's say. You did it, and then you explained it to the American people.
Yes.
You stopped the killing, and then you did it to the American people. And to the American people, you simply are very honest, as Reagan was, for example, after the big brouhaha with the F-15s and the AWACS that he sold to Saudi Arabia and all the publicity that just ran into the United States like a scalded rabbit to
punish him. He just told them the truth. He said, if we didn't do this, the balance of power would be blah, blah, blah. You go into all this language. in this case I think enough political space is opening up for Kamala Harris and I'm
increasingly of a mind she's not going to win but if she does win and we don't go through absolute chaos in the streets and a mini Civil War to get her inaugurated then she's got the political space it'll only open up further as we go along we go
to war with Iran I don't know what that means but It'd probably be very difficult to do this. But you use that political space, that 60% of the electorate that already is tired of Ukraine, tired of Gaza, and you exploit it. And you carefully exploit it. And you maintain enough political support for yourself while you're using that
political support to battle the other 40% that's trying to get you assassinated. Let's not forget Congress, you know, as the Vietnam War was dragging on in the 1970s, Congress finally just stopped it by cutting off the money. They cut off the appropriations. I'm hoping, it's a forlorn hope, I'm sure, but I'm hoping,
and I'm monitoring a few of the races just to see if there's any hope there, that we get a sea change in the Congress. I don't care who has the majority, but it needs to be a sea change in the way these people look at use of military power and sanctions to dominate the world.
It has to be, I hope. David? Colonel, the peace movement, I've read that the protest movement in the lead up to George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq worldwide was the largest peace movement possibly in world history.
People say, and yet he invaded.
Had there not been this peace movement before during this invasion of Iraq, what would it have looked like if there weren't Cindy Sheens and the continuation of the peace movement throughout the war in Iraq? If people had remained silent, what would the war in Iraq, the war on terror, the global war on terror look like right now?
All I can say is it probably would have been even worse, but that's hard to imagine because it's pretty bad the way it is. I was in London when the London peace protest occurred. I've never seen anything like it. Bobbies couldn't even move on their horses. People were crowded around them so thickly.
I feared for the life of some of the bobbies because the horses didn't like that, you know, the horses were giving them. And I feared for the life of the people around the horses. It was awesome, absolutely awesome. And yet then we went ahead and invaded anyway.
And Tony Blair was right there, our little poodle to the end. It started something, I think, that's still alive today. And God hope it becomes more vibrant and more useful in the future, if not tomorrow morning. And that is that there are a lot of people who see this as insanity. They just don't have a voice.
And they particularly, as Ralph was saying, they don't have a voice in their own House of Representatives, which the Constitution made the people's house That's where the government is supposed to be most democratic, most representative of, and closest to the people. And we've contaminated that. Look at the Speaker.
The Speaker's a Christian nationalist fool and a dangerous man. We have to get rid of these people.
The issues at stake are obviously existential, but my question is about the more mundane aspect. You know, everyone involved in this decision-making process is doing it when they go to work. They're going to their job. And as much as these issues are huge, These are, you know,
we've all worked jobs with people who should know what they're doing and make stupid calls. What is it like in those rooms? What is the workplace like where people are making these, I'll say, stupid decisions to stand by and watch a crazy man, you know, escalate, escalate war?
There's a lot of answers to that. And I'm afraid one of them is something that is truly brutal, cruel, and vicious. My sister, 70 years old, with a husband who has Alzheimer's really badly, is in the fringe in South Carolina of Helene's aftermath.
And she was emailing me and texting me all these things that I just had to finally respond to. And I found out where she was getting a lot of it. It was all manner of accusations against FEMA, against indeed the military and the National Guards and the leaders thereof,
and just vicious calumnies about the response to Helene in all of the states, eastern Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida. And I found out it was a Trump propaganda campaign, a formal financed by billionaires propaganda campaign to discredit the Biden administration. Think back to when they had for the first time in a long time,
a really good piece of legislation for immigration. Both parties agreed to it. Trump went to McConnell and asked him and went to the speaker and asked him at the time, asked him to thwart it, not to pass it because he wanted to use it as a political campaign issue. And they did, unconscionably, they did.
One of the most intractable problems we have, and they had a fairly good legislative solution to it, and they killed it for Donald Trump and for his political prospects. That's the same thing they're doing with the hurricanes now. Imagine that. This is absolutely unconscionable to me. They're down there lying about the Biden administration's response to get people
pissed off so they'll vote for Donald Trump. That's the state of our country. That's what happens in those rooms like where my sister is right now with no power and an Alzheimer afflicted husband and 70 years old. Anything else you'd like to say, Larry? Why aren't you on Meet the Press?
Why aren't you in the New York Times? That's a very disturbing symptom that you, Ted Postol and others have been excluded from even what's called the liberal press. I'm going to do the judges show again tomorrow afternoon, and I'm going to ask the judge on air if he wants to be my cell partner in July or
August of next year, because we're both going to go to jail if Donald Trump is elected. You're talking about Andrew Napolitano, right? Right. Okay. Thank you very much, Larry. To be continued, we're going to spread this message far and wide, even among people who don't want to hear it, but have better listen before it's too late.
Now, after hearing Colonel Wilkerson, Bruce Fine comments on the presidential election.
If Larry and Napolitano need a lawyer, I'll be right there with them. If they want to lock me up, that's okay, too. Trump can do that. I don't know where he gets this idea. Maybe it's just because of my mental resistance. Larry said he thinks that recent events indicate he's going to lose. I just don't see that.
When Mike Pence says he can't vote for him, these are rock-ribbed Republicans, Mitt Romney and others. Obviously, the core crazies, they will vote for him no matter what. I can't see the people who have not been completely deranged, and I don't think that's a majority. I can't see them voting for him.
Well, also, because he's offending Republicans in North Carolina and other devastated areas by the way he's lying. He's had Republican lawmakers speak out against him. Even when Ron DeSantos is defending Biden... In Florida? The 80s providing? Okay, man. This guy really isolated everybody. Yeah.
Well, we'll see what the latest polls are post-hurricane after Hurricane Milton does its devastation. Which will occur by the time this program goes up, Steve. What's really alarming to me, Steve and David and Ralph, is that, okay, Pamela Harris wins. People will think, okay, we made it. We didn't.
She hasn't done anything differently than Biden on the Middle East. She's still inside the military industrial bubble. Continue all this idiocy and crazy, you know? And as long as we think that this whole movement is about Trump and not something
where he just kind of is a drum major who got in front of a parade that was already on its way, that there will be others who will carry this work on. We're not out of those woods at all. No, the military industrial terrorism security complex, it runs Washington. It's amazing.
It's the same as true for the fossil fuel complex. They're going to go down with the ship. They're omnicidal and suicidal. Yeah. It's going to be hard to... As I say, the only way to begin to turn it around is with Congress.
Is Donald Trump's game plan to get this into the House of Representatives?
And given the six to three majority in the Supreme Court right now, the Republican six to three majority. In 2020, they refused to hear Texas State Attorney General Paxton's lawsuit against, I think it was Pennsylvania. This time around, would this iteration of the Supreme Court take Trump's lawsuit and then say, you know what, there's just too much
There's insufficient evidence to prove that this was a fair election. Let's do the honorable thing and have it thrown into the House of Representatives where Trump wins because of the way the votes are weighted. Is that the plan?
This court is really, really, really bad. I think they do havoc, whether Kamala Harris, they did havoc when Biden was there as well. So I just I can't conceive of them saying that state has challenged, which was the issue raised in Texas. Well, we have standing to challenge whether Pennsylvania applied its laws properly in counting votes.
And somebody walking off the street, a Martian could bring the lawsuit. So I don't see that happening. And this is the other thing that makes it very tricky for Trump this time around, unlike the last time. The vice president of the United States who's going to count those votes is Kamala Harris.
So if he sticks with his, oh, the vice president can nullify the state certified votes, then He's like he's shooting himself in the head. So I don't know how he's going to get around between that rock and a hard place because Kamala Harris isn't going to do anything like that.
So the vice president overrides these state certified votes. And the other thing that makes it more difficult is they amended the electoral count to make it quite clear that this was just a ministerial function that the vice president played. I think it was clear anyway.
So I just think it's going to be very, very, very hard to get around that. I just think his only chance, in my mind, is Kamala Harris loses a lot of the youth and Arab vote because she's not really said anything about what's going on in the Middle East.
And they may not vote for Trump, but they're not going to show up and vote for her.

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

Boobytraps, Bombs & Blowback
Ralph Nader
RalphNaderRadioHour.com
Sep 28, 2024
https://www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/p/b ... d-blowback

Ralph welcomes Middle East expert and executive VP of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Trita Parsi, to fill us in on the consequences of Israel boobytrapping pagers and walkie-talkies in Lebanon and how those tactics have the potential to blow back on us in the United States. Then we welcome back surgeon and humanitarian, Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, who has worked in Gaza during the Israeli assault, to update us on his efforts to get the Biden Administration to convince Israel to stop the killing.

Trita Parsi is the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and the co-founder and former President of the National Iranian American Council. He is an expert on US-Iranian relations, Iranian foreign policy, and the geopolitics of the Middle East, and has worked for the Swedish Permanent Mission to the UN, where he served in the Security Council, handling the affairs of Afghanistan, Iraq, Tajikistan, and Western Sahara, and in the General Assembly’s Third Committee, addressing human rights in Iran, Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Iraq. He has authored three books on US foreign policy in the Middle East, with a particular focus on Iran and Israel— Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States, A Single Roll of the Dice – Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran, and Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy.

We're in a very sad situation in which we have a president who has been sitting on the front lines of American foreign policy for one-fifth of America's history, who thinks that he knows everything best, and clearly doesn't seem to be listening to anyone. And there's plenty of discontent inside the Biden administration itself—and people appear to have just given up and are waiting for the elections—but there's no clear signs yet that there won't necessarily be much of a change even after that.

Trita Parsi: Let's first remember that if any other entity had done this to Israel—or to us—we would not have hesitated for a second. We would have called it an act of terrorism, and we would have called it an act of war.

Dr. Feroze Sidhwa is a trauma and critical care surgeon as well as a Northern California Veterans Affairs general surgeon, and he is Associate Professor of Surgery at the California Northstate University College of Medicine. Dr. Sidhwa served at the European Hospital in Khan Younis in March and April of this year, and he has done prior humanitarian work in Haiti, the West Bank, Ukraine, and Zimbabwe. Dr. Sidhwa and 45 other American doctors and nurses who have served in Gaza recently sent a letter exhorting President Biden, VP Harris, and First Lady Dr. Jill Biden to effect an immediate ceasefire.

It's hard to appreciate, but really literally everything in Gaza that makes a place, a society, has been destroyed. I think of it in three levels— at the very base is agriculture, food production, and housing, at the level above that is healthcare, and at the level above that is things that are for a higher level of society, education, arts, industry, whatever. That top level is gone. Literally every university in Gaza has been obliterated, physically destroyed…The hospital system is almost completely useless right now…the functionality of the hospitals is very little more than a four walled space in which people can walk into and ask for a doctor to put bandages on them. And then even the lowest level…something like 85 or 90 % of the water sanitation and hygiene infrastructure in Gaza has been destroyed.

Dr. Feroze Sidhwa: This is just outrageous. I mean, why are we doing this even to ourselves? Is it worth corrupting the entire executive department of the United States so that we can murder more children? Is that what Americans want? I don't think so.

Dr. Feroze Sidhwa: Let's talk about Lebanon itself, not just Hezbollah. This is war on Lebanon—that has a dysfunctional government, to be sure— but it is a state that the U.S. is allied with in a way, supplying modest weapons to the Lebanese army, and France has had long relations with Lebanon going back to the mandate period. In the U.S., this is a whole new constituency where they're losing relatives and friends.

*******

Transcript

I'm Tom Morello, and you're listening to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. My name is Steve Scrovan, along with my co-host David Feldman and the rest of the team. Hello, David. Good morning. And the man of the hour, Ralph Nader. Hello, Ralph. Hello.
Will any of these politicians running for office stand for increasing Social Security benefits? that have been frozen for 40 years and make the rich pay for it by higher Social Security tax on higher income Americans. Don't hold your breath. We have a jam-packed program today. Our first guest will be Trita Parsi,
the Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an expert on U.S.-Iranian relationships, Iranian foreign policy, and the geopolitics of the Middle East. Ralph is going to speak to him about the United States role in Israel's relentless aggression, Israel's continued assaults on the Palestinian population in Gaza,
and the new front they've opened up by attacking Lebanon. We look forward to his analysis of the likely repercussions in the region, as well as the risk of blowback in the U.S. Next up, we welcome back Dr. Feroz Sidwa. He's a trauma surgeon and medical school professor who has done extensive humanitarian work abroad. Earlier this year,
he worked at the European Hospital in Khan Yunus, and Dr. Sidwa and 45 other American doctors and nurses who have served in Gaza sent a letter exhorting President Biden, Vice President Harris, and First Lady Dr. Jill Biden to effect an immediate ceasefire. We'll get an update from Dr.
Sidwa on what response these physicians have received from the Biden administration. As always, somewhere in the middle, we'll check in with our ubiquitous corporate crime reporter, Russell Mokhyber. But first, Israel is widening its war on Gaza into Lebanon. What are we going to do about it? David?
Trita Parsi is the Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible
Statecraft and the co-founder and former president of the National Iranian American Council. He is an expert on U.S.-Iranian relations,
Iranian foreign policy, and the geopolitics of the Middle East. Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, Trita Parsi.
Thank you so much, David. Great pleasure to be with you all.
Welcome indeed, Trita. I just saw your recent post on the invasion of Lebanon, which is what it really is, air invasion, booby trapping, pagers, two-way radios, and other instruments that were infiltrated. And on September 17th, you said, quote, the more Biden has armed Israel, defended Israel, made excuses for Israel when it has killed Americans,
vetoed resolutions at the UN and accused American critics of Israeli genocide. of being anti-Semitic, the more dismissive of U.S. wishes Israel's become. And like clockwork, after Israel has attacked Lebanon or any other country in the region, Biden will launch an extensive campaign to stop the attacked entities from retaliating,
while doing nothing to truly prevent Israel from escalating in the first place. And on September 23, listeners, he posted, every time Israel escalates and bombs more countries. Biden calls for restraint, yet sends more U.S. troops to the region to protect Israel. Israel can attack, but not be attacked. The media calls this Biden's efforts to stabilize matters.
In reality, he ensures escalation. And finally, on September 22, you said, quote, this isn't just genocide, referring to Gaza. It is a genocide of children. Only way to stop it for the U.S. to stop sending Israel more bombs, end quote. So let's go to the present news. In the last week, over 4,000 Lebanese, most of them civilians,
were injured by booby traps, pagers, two-way radios, solar panels, etc., all coming from the Israeli regime. Several dozen were killed. And after that, did Israel stop? No. It continued bombing something like 1,600 targets throughout Lebanon, and already it has killed hundreds of Lebanese, and many of them women and children.
And one report out of Beirut said it's almost one half of the total casualty toll from when Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006 for a 34-day war. Now, Leon Panetta... as former Director of the CIA, former Secretary of Defense on CBS News Sunday called the Israeli attack of pagers and two-way radios terrorism.
And he did because it's opened up a whole new window of risk across the world, because who doesn't have pagers and two-way radios and computers and iPhones? So people are dreading it. And it's quite interesting. I'd like to hear your voice on this.
He doesn't make a statement like that and say now the whole supply chain around the world is at risk. He doesn't make a statement like that unless the CIA and Pentagon wanted him to make a statement like that. So how do you look at this latest escalation, which is not only geographical but also technological?
Well, first of all, it's a great pleasure to be with you. And I'm fortunate that we're talking under these terrible, terrible circumstances. In regards to Leon Panetta's comments, I think let's first remember that if any other entity had done this to Israel or to us, we would not have hesitated for a second.
We would have called it an act the terrorism, and we would have called it an act of war. And in that sense, I am pleased to see that someone like Panetta, given his establishment credentials, also made that quite clear on TV. And I do tend to agree with you. I don't think he went out on his skis.
I think there is a recognition inside of the American defense establishment that the degree to which Biden has been deferential to Netanyahu and to Israel is beyond anything we have seen in U.S.-Israeli history. And it is ultimately a great danger to the U.S. itself, not only because of the risk of essentially legitimizing these methods that are in
contradiction of international law, and we would call it terrorism if others did it, but also because Biden has shown an unbelievable, shocking degree of tolerance for the escalation risks and the escalation that Israel has engaged in, knowing quite well that it is constantly risking, actually designed to drag the United States into a war,
a war that the United States should not be fighting, has absolutely no interest clear red lines much earlier on and enforced them to prevent itself from constantly being on the verge of getting dragged into yet another war in the Middle East. But Biden has been unbelievably tolerant of what Netanyahu has been doing and
leading him towards this war. And I wouldn't be surprised that there's plenty of folks in the defense establishment that are quite uneasy, if not unhappy about it.
Well, do you foresee in the next few days a ground war with Israeli soldiers? They've been planning all this. This is not something new. They have all kinds of surveillance, all kinds of spies in Lebanon. They have all kinds of total dominance. This media keeps referring to Hezbollah as a powerful force. It's a totally weak force.
They have no air defenses. They just sent 140 missiles into Israel. Fortunately for Israelis, no deaths, six minor injuries. At the same time, the Israelis have complete control over the skies, complete control over surveillance, over the spies, the informants in Lebanon. and an endless supply of weapons.
And it seems like the differential in armed force between Hezbollah and Israel is about what has been between Hamas and the Hamas rockets, which hardly caused any damage, and the Israeli armed forces. Why do you think the media is exaggerating Hezbollah? They've taken tremendous losses. They've been infiltrated. They've been booby-trapped. Their commanders have been killed.
Israel seems to know through their espionage where apartment buildings are in, where they have meetings in South Beirut in order to eliminate them. Why is the media, which, by the way, the Post and Times have not had a single editorial condemning the booby-trapping and the act of terrorism in Lebanon the way Leon Panetta, former Secretary of Defense,
did on CBS? Not a single editorial. Why do you think they're exaggerating what is really a very weak Hezbollah? They don't have many cards to play, and that's been quite clear in the last week and a half.
So I think, on the one hand, you have an exaggeration of Hezbollah's capabilities in order to portray a constant situation in which Israel is in battle, to kind of sustain the image that Israel is the underdog, even though that does not correspond to reality in any way, shape or form.
And it's used to further justify American support for Israel, armaments, et cetera, et cetera. I do think at the same time that there is a difference, of course, between the capabilities of Hamas and Hezbollah. And we saw that in 2006, in which the Israelis did fail with their ground invasion.
And since then, of course, Hezbollah's capabilities have also advanced. But you're quite right. They don't have any air defenses. They don't have any of those things. What they do have, however, which makes them quite different from Hamas, is an ability to actually penetrate Israeli air defenses. Because even though there's not been any reported death,
the Israelis have imposed military censorship on the damage that Hezbollah has inflicted on Israel at military sites. Because it's quite clear at this point that Hezbollah has only targeted Israeli military sites, not targeted any civilian sites. unlike the Israelis who are bombing just everywhere. But the Israelis have put in a military census group on that.
So we don't have an entirely clear image of exactly what has happened. What I think we can see, however, based on the little reporting that has damage to Israeli military installations. But most importantly, both them and the Iranians have shown their ability that they actually can get through Arrow One, Arrow Two, David's Sling, Iron Dome, Patriot.
And those are billions of dollars of investments, frankly, billions of dollars of American taxpayers' money that has been given to Israel that ultimately provides a degree of protection, but is in no way, shape, or form a perfect shield for the Iranians.
It's true that Hezbollah has advanced missiles to use, but their hands are tied. They've used the least advanced missiles, and most of them have been shot down by the Israelis.
They don't want a war. I mean, after 11 months, it's absolutely clear. It was clear in the first month. Hezbollah doesn't want a war with Israel. Iran doesn't want a war with Israel. The Houthis are a bit of a different story. But Israel, from the outset, had plans for invasion of of Lebanon.
The Biden administration claims that they dissuaded the Israeli government from doing so. But the early mobilization that we saw was largely geared towards invading Israel. Right now, they have called out the orders for mobilization of three divisions. This would still take some time before those are ready.
But three divisions is not enough for an actual ground invasion of Lebanon. That's actually the amount of troops they had last time around. And that was an utter failure in 34 days. So if they're planning for a larger ground invasion, we have not yet seen clear signs of the preparation for that.
But as you pointed out quite correctly, this is an air invasion. They're targeting plenty of sites, all the way up to Beirut. Beirut itself. This is all clearly a declaration of war without the actual declaration. Now, there's plenty of rumors flying around right now that there is a potential 21-day cessation of hostilities that is being prepared.
And it may be achieved in the next couple of hours or days, that would obviously be quite welcomed by particularly the civilian population in Lebanon, who has been suffering tremendously. The vast majority of those killed in Lebanon have been civilians. According to the Lebanese health minister, who is now part of Hezbollah,
it is actually all of the casualties so far in the last two days of bombings actually been civilians.
Well, let's talk about Lebanon itself, not just Hezbollah. This is war on Lebanon that has a dysfunctional government, to be sure. But it is a state that the U.S. is allied with, in a way, supplying modest weapons to the weakest Lebanese army. And France has had long relations with Lebanon, going back to the mandate period.
In the U.S., this is a whole new constituency where they're losing relatives and friends, Lebanese Americans. include retired generals, major business figures, major academic figures, major religious officials. Do you think they're mobilizing to put pressure on the Biden administration to stop this? I haven't seen many signs. We're talking with Trita Potosi of the Quincy Institute, executive director.
So we have seen in the last 11 months a tremendous amount of public pressure on the Biden administration to end the war in Gaza, stop sending shipments of weapons, stop protecting Israel and enabling Israel to continue zero responsiveness from the Biden administration to these demands.
And these are demands that are coming from people that are in many ways at the very center of Biden's winning coalition from 2020. And he's been completely disregarding it. So I sense that a lot of folks have just given up on the idea that Biden is going to be responsive to any of these type of pressures.
The question is if pressures on Kamala Harris can have some impact. that she gave a very different message and tone in the way that she spoke to Israel and about Israel. But since then, she has quickly backed off of that. And what happened at the DNC, of course, is well known to everyone,
in which not even a Palestinian American was allowed to speak at the convention. So we're in a very sad situation in which we have a president who has been sitting on the front lines of American foreign policy for one fifth of America's history, who thinks that he knows everything best and clearly doesn't seem to be listening to
the Biden administration itself. And people appear to have just given up and are waiting for the elections. But there's no clear signs yet that there will necessarily be much of a change even after that.
I want to ask you about another aspect of Biden's abdication, and that is he hasn't even demanded from Netanyahu to open Gaza up to U.S. reporters who are banned, along with all foreign reporters and Israeli reporters, from going in as war correspondents. and independently covering what's going on in Gaza.
And this is pretty extraordinary because all Biden has to say to Netanyahu is, you open him up tomorrow, American taxpayers want to know what's going on there. How do you explain this pathetic, pitiless abdication by this weak president of ours in this issue?
It's absolutely shocking, I have to say. It's acting against his own self-interest. complete application, as you put it. But it's not just his application. I would say that it's also the application of much of the democratic establishment that has been going along with this.
Let me interject here. In July, the mainstream corporate press put a full-page ad demanding access to Gaza. We're talking about The Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, AP, BBC, Agent France, all the major professional associations, 76 signatures. So here Biden has to support the entire corporate press. Open up Gaza.
Why are you allowing Netanyahu to block reporters from going into Gaza, which he's done for years, by the way, including Israeli reporters, from freely reporting?
Don't you think it would change the dynamics of what the Israelis could do in Gaza? Absolutely. And this is part of the reason why, of course, the administration doesn't seem to be pressing for it. In fact, it was even reported. I believe it was in Politico.
that prior to the six-day ceasefire that we had last November around Thanksgiving, as you recall, in which there was six days of a ceasefire in Gaza, a lot of the hostages were released during this period, that the Biden administration hesitated about going along with the ceasefire because they were fearing that once there was a ceasefire,
journalists would get into Gaza and they would see the carnage. And seeing the carnage, reporting the carnage would then further fuel opposition amongst Biden's own democratic base to the war. So the administration is well aware of what's going on. They have an interest themselves in hiding it from the American public.
And we saw just the other day, ProPublica had an absolutely stunning piece that revealed that the State Department's own investigations show that clearly the Israelis were preventing foods from coming in and that this violated U.S. law and that this would mean that there would be consequences and the United States needed to prevent further arms sales, et cetera,
because of American law. And then Tony Blinken goes a couple of days later and testifies to the contrary and essentially lies to Congress about what the evidence is and what the conclusion and analysis of the State Department itself has been on this point. So they're as complacent as Netanyahu, and as a result,
have an interest in hiding as much as Netanyahu has.
Let's go to the undercount. Everybody knows there's a vast undercount, and Hamas doesn't want the real count because they don't want to be assailed by their own people for not being able to protect them and provide shelters. Of course, Netanyahu likes an undercount. More and more, it seems there's over 300,000 deaths.
There is absolutely no doubt, I would say, that there is an undercount. Whether it is the Lancet estimation was to about 186,000 was a conservative estimation, but it was up until June. Newer numbers based on the same analysis would put it exactly where you put it, somewhere around 300,000. Let's put that in context.
of what we know happened in Ukraine and how strongly Biden administration reacted to that, very quick to call it war crimes, very quick to call it a genocide, calling out the Russians for shooting and bombing schools and hospitals, finding that to be absolutely unacceptable. But when the Israelis are doing it, it's a completely different story.
In Ukraine, in over two and a half years, about seven hundred children have been killed. None of them should have been killed. This was an illegal invasion. But in Gaza, we're talking about more than 10,000 in 11 months. And the reaction of the Biden administration is diametrically opposed.
There is a reason why the Biden administration more or less has stopped using the word or the term rules-based international order, a term that they absolutely love, the used it consistently and constantly on Ukraine, they have more or less stopped using it since October 7th because the hypocrisy, the double standard is just so blatant.
So they themselves have come to recognize that they're no longer using that term.
Well, the death toll in Gaza now exceeds the combined death toll in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden, which was 240,000 during World War II. Before we get to the biggest issue, as we conclude, which is blowback, which is being assessed now intensively in the CIA, NSA, and Department of Defense. That's their word, blowback against the U.S.
by what we're supporting and destroying over there, whole extended families wiped out. Give our listeners a minute and a half on why Iran fears the U.S., starting with the overthrow of their prime minister.
So the history between the United States and Iran tends to start in the American mind in 1979, when the Iranian students take American hostages from the embassy for 444 days. In the Iranian mind, it starts back in 1953, because that's when the United States overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran. Iran was a
embryonic democracy at the time, gave the Shah all powers, and he ended up actually becoming a much, much more brutal dictator after the coup and reigned for another 25 years. Since then, of course, both countries have a long list of sins against each other. The United States did support Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war.
It was seen partly as a revenge against what the Iranians had done with the host. But since the mid-1990s, Iran has been under a tremendous amount of sanctions by the United States that has devastated their economy. The United States has bases all around Iran. We've seen the assassination of generals, including Soleimani, etc.
Threats of war with Iran were daily on the news in the United States in the 2000s. Every day there was a debate, should we bomb Iran, should we not bomb Iran? So the Iranians perceived the United States as their number one threat, the fear of invasion, the fear of regime change,
the fear of what happened during the Trump administration, which the Trump administration was deliberately seeking to destabilize the country, and to a certain extent actually succeeded in doing so. And fully backing Israel's sabotage inside Iran. Oh, yeah. The United States was part of the Stuxnet, for instance.
Of course, the Israelis have done a lot of other assassinations and sabotage inside of Iran. The extent to which the U.S. has been involved is perhaps unclear, but certainly the U.S. has not been particularly objecting to it. You have right now Now, a new president in Iran who has brought back the team that negotiated the JCPOA,
the Iran nuclear deal that was negotiated between the U.S. under Obama, Iran, and a couple of other countries, they're sending very clear signals that they want to go back to it. They want the U.S. to go back to it since the U.S. left it, and they're willing to rein negotiated. They're willing to go with a new deal.
It doesn't have to be the exact same deal as before. Clear signals of wanting talks. We are not seeing any reciprocity right now, of course, because of the elections. But it's also unclear to me as to whether a Harris administration or certainly a Trump administration would actually pick up on the opportunity that exists to be
able to reduce tensions with Iran.
Let's go back to blowback now, which is the fear by the defense establishment in the U.S. that the war is going to come to the U.S. in terms of retaliation, like 9-11 or worse. What's the Quincy Institute knowledge about all that?
Well, the degree to which Biden's support for Israel's slaughter in Gaza has angered people in the Middle East and beyond, isolated the United States on being comprehended in the U.S. right now. And I fear that we will see blowback. We will see attacks. We will see other measures against the United States.
And it will very much be because of what has happened in Gaza, particularly when the full picture of the human suffering in Gaza comes out. This is part of the reason I am so stunned care about Palestinian lives. And I do believe that he doesn't really seem to care about that at all.
He doesn't seem to have the capacity to have empathy for the Palestinians. He shouldn't, nevertheless, care about American lives. And I think what he's doing in Gaza and increasingly in Lebanon is also putting the United States in danger.
We've been speaking with Prita Parasi, the executive director of the Quincy Institute in Washington, D.C. Before we conclude, Prita, is there anything else you'd like to say that we haven't asked you about?
No, I think this was a great conversation. I just reemphasized the last point. I think the most important point from the American perspective is to make sure that we don't get dragged into another war, unnecessary war in the Middle East. That certainly does not serve our interests.
And I fear that the approach that the Biden administration has pursued is one that is putting us constantly on the verge of getting dragged in. And we're getting in an even more dangerous situation right now. And for that reason alone, this absolutely has to be stopped. Do you see things as bad or worse under a Trump regime?
It's a tough question, but I would have to say this. I don't think Trump would have any empathy whatsoever with the Palestinians. I don't see him necessarily having it with a lot of other Americans. I do think he would have taken the escalation risk more seriously because he does
seem to be very disinclined to get dragged into wars that doesn't serve his personal interests, and this one I don't think does. So this, I think, is a very crucial difference between the two of them. But in many other ways, he could have also been worse.
And how can people get more information from the Quincy Institute? Can you give us the website slowly?
Yes, it's Quincy Institute. The website is q-u-i-n-c-y-i-n-s-t, short for institute, dot org.
Thank you very much, Trita Parsi, Executive Director of the Quincy Institute in Washington, D.C. To be continued. Thank you so much. We've been speaking with Trita Parsi. We will link to his work at ralphnaderradiohour.com. Up next, we welcome back Dr. Feroz Sidwa.

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

Our next guest is a doctor who worked in Gaza and signed on to a letter urging the Biden administration to use its leverage with Israel's Netanyahu government to demand a ceasefire. That was in July.
Let's get an update. David? Dr. Feroz Sidwa is a trauma and critical care surgeon, as well as a Northern California Veterans Affairs general surgeon, and he is associate professor of surgery at the California North State University College of Medicine. Dr. Sidwa served at the European Hospital in Conunis in March and April of this year.
and he has done prior humanitarian work in Haiti, the West Bank, Ukraine, and Zimbabwe. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, Dr. Feroz Sidwa. Thanks for having me. Welcome, Feroz. Listeners, this is going to be a pretty remarkable narrative that you're going to hear now. Almost 50 doctors who have come back from Gaza,
risking their lives to help Palestinian doctors and nurses and staff in crumbling hospitals under attack. by the Israelis, wrote a letter on July 25th, 2024, to President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris and Dr. Jill Biden. And just to give you a flavor of what they observed, here is a Dr. Mark Perlmutter, orthopedic and hand surgeon, quote,
Gaza was the first time I held the baby's brains in my hand, the first of many, end quote. Then there's Dr. Feroz Sidra himself, quote, I've never seen such horrific injuries on such a massive scale with so few resources. Our bombs are cutting down women and children by the thousands.
Their mutilated bodies are a monument to cruelty, end quote. Then there's Dr. Dalia Pachi Yanaki, an obstetrician and gynecologist, quote. I saw so many stillbirths and maternal deaths that could have easily been prevented if the hospitals had been functioning normally, end quote.
And the last quote by Asma Taha, pediatric nurse practitioner, quote, Every day I saw babies die. They had been born healthy. Their mothers were so malnourished they could not breastfeed, and we lacked formula or clean water to feed them, so they starved, end quote. Let me ask you the first obvious question our listeners are thinking about.
Did the Biden White House, did President Biden, any of his staff, Dr. Jill Biden, any of her staff, or Kamala Harris, Vice President, respond? No, unfortunately, I did not get a response from anybody in the White House. I got some people were able to give me some national security staffers and stuff like that.
Some of them did respond just with a boilerplate. The Biden administration continues to work on a ceasefire sentence, but there was no substantive response from anybody and no response at all from the White House or there was no IRS campaign back then. But yeah. Well, see, this, listeners, is another characteristic of the White House as a monarchy,
a dictatorial monarchy. It doesn't encourage Congress to assert its constitutional authorities. It spends money any way it wants abroad. It destroys anything it wants abroad, not just Gaza, with their proxy Israel. These are doctors who've been all over the world in the most dire situations.
seen horrific casualties, but I think most of them have never seen anything like Gaza. 2.3 million people crammed together before October 7th, destitute, under an Israeli illegal embargo, inadequate food, high levels of anemia among the children, inadequate medicine, basically the world's largest open-air prison, unable to leave and barely able to survive.
So let me ask you another question. These are youngsters. Many of the fatalities, I've estimated over 300,000 deaths so far and even more coming, even if there's a ceasefire. There's so much disease and trauma and untreated wounds and infections. Every day, day after day, these children are subjected to the deadly whining of drones night and day.
They're subjected to explosions in their schools, in their hospitals and clinics. They're subjected to bombs, 55,000 tons of bombs, the Israelis now estimate, have been dropped on this tiny enclave about the geographical size of Philadelphia. What's the assessment of their lifelong mental damage here? This is trauma of unprecedented severity and frequency. Yeah, it really is.
There is no time, I think, in all of history that I can think of, at least if somebody can correct me, I'd love to know another example where a captive population made up of half children, Gaza is 51% of the people in Gaza are under 18.
18 years of age, and about 40% are under 15 years of age. There's never been anything like this, where that population has been penned inside of a wall on the eastern and northern side, a wall on the southern side, and the sea with gunships on it on the western side. Their airspace, their electromagnetic spectrum,
even their population registry, everything is controlled from the outside by the United States and Israel. And since October 7th, that's last year, that's really been, that control has been used to impose starvation, destruction of the water infrastructure, and just massive destruction of the educational infrastructure. Really, really just pretty, it's hard to, it's hard to appreciate me,
but really just literally everything in Gaza that makes a place, a society, has been I kind of think of it in like three levels, I guess, like up at the very base is agriculture, food production, and housing. At the level above that is healthcare.
And at the level above that is things that are for a higher level of society, education, arts, industry, whatever. That top level is gone. Literally every university in Gaza has been obliterated, physically destroyed. Almost none of it during fighting. All of it in controlled demolitions afterwards when there was no fighting.
The hospital system is almost completely useless right now. It's not literally. It's better to have four walls to give birth in than three walls. But the functionality of the hospitals is very little more than a four-walled space in which people can walk into and ask for a doctor to put bandages on them.
And then even the lowest level, Oxfam, I think I might've mentioned it last time I was on your program, Oxfam wrote a report called Water War Crimes. It has to be read to be believed. It's just shocking. It's something like 85 or 90% of the water sanitation and hygiene infrastructure
in gaza has been destroyed i can't remember which u.n report it was just a few weeks ago that reported that the average cost of a 75 gram bar of soap in a market in gaza right now is 10 us dollars The estimate in that report was that an unskilled worker,
please forgive me if I have the numbers exactly wrong, but the estimate was that an unskilled worker in Gaza, if they were employed, which of course they're not right now, an unskilled worker would have to spend 60% of their income just to acquire adequate hygiene products for them and their family. Can you imagine it? Well, we know.
It's the violence. It's the starvation campaign. It's the widespread killing. I mean, there has never been a campaign of killing like this directed at children. All of this is combining to lead to children who, you know, I actually just for another project, I just conducted a poll of American health care workers who've been back from Gaza.
I can't remember what percentage, but I think it was about 80% agreed with the statement that I'm paraphrasing. The violence and deprivation in Gaza is so severe that I regularly saw children who were suicidal and wish they had died with their families. That's outrageous. That doesn't exist anywhere else.
So, yeah, this is torture and torment of an entire society, which, again, is half kids. So, yeah, that's going to happen. And it's going on a year now, leaving aside what Gaza was on October 6th of 2023, which is something take a long time to talk about. But it wasn't a pretty place. This is horrendous.
And of course, It's going to have absolutely detrimental effects on the development of children, on their mental health, on their capacity for empathy, on their capacity to learn. And that's assuming they survive. So, yeah, no, this is an awful and devastating problem that's going to have a generational effect.
Even if it stops right now, it's going to have a generational effect. And these are American bombs, American tax dollars, and Biden's shielding of the Israeli genocidal regime day after day, diplomatically, politically, before the United Nations. He hardly mentioned the horrors in his speech. at the United Nations the other day.
There's a ProPublica article that really everyone should read from, I think maybe yesterday or the day before, about how the Biden administration deliberately undermined the US's own accountability mechanisms. In other words, it's not only corrupting the UN, all the rest of the world nobody cares about,
but it's even corrupting its own internal processes that are supposed to function. A lot of it is focused on the NSN 20 report. That was the State Department report back in, I can't remember, July, August, something like that, that was meant to discover whether or not Israel is violating the myriad U.S.
laws on provision of assistance to foreign governments that violate international humanitarian law. There are tons of these laws. There's the Leahy Law, there's the Foreign Assistance Act, something like that. But there's plenty of them. And this article has to be read to be believed. The State Department, Lincoln specifically, They overruled their own experts,
both USAID and the State Department's Refugee Department, I believe it is, or Department of Population, something like that, which handles refugees. That's the department Stacey Gilbert resigned in over protest of this nonsense. They just changed their conclusions. The Republic doesn't put it that way, but that's clearly what happened. They just said, no,
these conclusions that Israel is blocking USAID are politically inserviceable to us because we want to continue arming Israel. we're going to just change them. We're going to just make this report say what we want it to say. So this is just outrageous. I mean, why are we doing this even to ourselves?
Is it worth corrupting the entire executive department of the United States so that we can murder more children? Is that what Americans want? I don't think so. Well, we'll see. Forthcoming are the two inspector general reports, according to the Washington Post, from the Defense Department, State Department, and they're supposed to be telling the truth.
So we'll see how strong those reports are about the illegalities that you just mentioned and other extraordinary departures from the rule of law and from whatever appropriations standards these two departments are supposed to be observing. This letter didn't get as much media as I thought it would get.
After all, you came back with eyewitness accounts from Gaza from which U.S. reporters are banned. All Western reporters, Israeli reporters cannot go into Gaza because of Netanyahu's years-long prohibition. He doesn't want to have reporters freely reporting what's going on in that tiny, surrounded, embargoed enclave. You got some CNN, you got an article in The Guardian,
but it should have been front and center in The Washington Post, New York Times, AP, Reuters, which, by the way, illustrates the devaluation of Palestinian lives, not only the devaluation of what you and other courageous doctors have documented. In fact, you said on another occasion that the doctors hardly met anyone, very few exceptions,
in Gaza who isn't sick or injured, apart from the ones who have died or are on the verge of starvation death. You're now preparing another letter. Tell us about this. Yeah. So my skills as an organizer are quite lacking. So that last letter,
I was scrambling at the last minute because it just made sense to release it on July 25th. That was the day after Netanyahu's speech, if you want to call it that, to Congress. So I was only able to find about 44 other healthcare workers who worked in Gaza to sign it. But since then, we've kept gathering signatures.
And now we have almost 100. I'm hoping we'll have more than 100 by the same thing because nothing's changed. Things have only gotten worse. We also released a very long appendix to the letter, which is really just meant as more of a reference for reporters and people who are interested in it.
I do know plenty of reporters from major papers in the US who have Called me, got in touch with me anyhow, and asked me about the details of the appendix, the details of the letter. So there are reporters who are very good and they're very interested and they want to report on these things.
And when I asked them why they haven't, they usually say their editors have this absolutely absurdly high standard. for what has to be met. And, you know, like you mentioned CNN, actually we weren't on, we were on Amanpour, which I believe is on CNN International.
And we were on, it was me and Dr. Perlman, the Jewish American hand surgeon that you mentioned earlier. He and I were in Gaza together. I've become good friends since then. And he and I were on the Amanpour show, and Christiane Amanpour wasn't on that day.
I'm kind of curious what it would have been like if she had been. But the anchor who was on, I forget her name. She's a Moldovan woman. Smart, smart lady. Between every time we would go from me to Mark, she would interject and say, oh, and we want to point out that CNN can't independently confirm what Dr.
Perlmutter and Dr. Sidwar are saying. And we reached out to the IDF, and they had no comment. They said everything's a lie. It's like, why are you being a spokesperson for the IDF? This is very strange behavior. If the Russian military doesn't respond, do you point out that you can't independently verify crimes that the Ukrainians are reporting?
Or if there was a Western doctor in the Donbas working there who reported a massacre in the Donbas by Russian troops, Would you say, oh, we can't independently confirm? What are you talking about? I am the independent confirmation. This is absurd. It was such a bizarre experience. I didn't know what to do with it.
What are these letters demanding of the Biden administration? So the original letter had several points. The major ones were obviously to stop arming Israel so it can't keep doing these things. Beyond that, there are several restrictions that Israel imposed on the even the traveling of humanitarian workers to Gaza after Israel took it and
destroyed the Rafah crossing on May 7th. So at that point, if listeners don't understand it, at that point there was no connection to Gaza with the outside world that Israel didn't control. So now Gaza was literally 100% under the control of Israel. And at that point they said, no doctor of any Palestinian descent can go into Gaza.
That's been enforced sporadically. Some have actually gotten in, but that's the restriction. This is told to the WHO. And so then the WHO actually started enforcing this, which is just crazy. I mean, that's outrageous. So we asked for that to be reversed. We asked for humanitarian aid.
that is bound for Gaza to be inspected by an independent entity, not by the Israeli army, which, again, just makes sense. Nobody thinks Russia should be inspecting aid that goes into the Donbas. Why should Israel be inspecting aid that goes into Gaza? It's just absurd. And as The Washington Post, as CNN, as American senators like Van Hollen,
who is the other one, Markley, I think, have given – speeches about on the Senate floor, they've seen Israel with their own eyes in Rafah. They've seen Israel arbitrarily denying aid for clearly no reason. They saw warehouses full of aid that should have been delivered that was just completely arbitrarily denied. If anybody's interested,
that Washington Post article about what is denied and what isn't is absolutely shocking. Children's toys, medical scissors, just all sorts of ludicrous nonsense that just couldn't possibly be any security justification for it. So that was another thing, was that we asked that these humanitarian corridors be opened up,
but not allowing Israel this bureaucratic runaround that is the main mechanism by which they're blocking aid. And the new letter is basically going to reiterate those demands, but also asks primarily for a meeting between us and the Biden and Harris administration, because what's going on right now is just absolute insanity, and it cannot be allowed to continue.
What about the doctors in the United States? Have the medical associations start to speak out? The American Pediatric Association did. The American Public Health Association did. Pretty modest protest. But what's your read of your profession's medical societies, which you and others have been trying to get to take a stand here? We have.
The American Medical Association voted down even a ceasefire resolution, which I was pretty surprised by. I don't know of any direct contacts with the American College of Surgeons, but that's the kind of thing that association effort was spearheaded by Code Pink, which they do good work, but they do it in their way,
which is really to get in people's faces and be pretty aggressive, which isn't always wrong. Maybe it isn't even usually wrong. But I think in the case of approaching medical associations, it's probably a different tactic. We'll work a little bit better, and we're going to keep working on that. What makes you do this?
And your colleagues, this is incredible what you've done over the years all over the world. What makes you do this? Me personally, I don't know. When I was in my freshman year of college is when the second Intifada broke out in the Palestinian territory. And I didn't know anything about the world as an 18-year-old kid.
So, you know, you start learning, you start reading, and it's something I ended up sticking with. And it's hard to learn about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians without realizing And it's kind of an overall consequence of U.S. control over the world.
So I felt like it's important for me to do work in my professional area that also complements my vision of a world where people can actually make their own decisions instead of having them made by force from Washington. You also have great empathy for your colleagues working over there who are natives of these lands. For example,
you say you quickly learned, quote, that our Palestinian health care colleagues were among the most traumatized people in Gaza and perhaps in the entire world, end quote. It's well known the Israeli military has killed hundreds of health care workers in Gaza. They've killed over 170 journalists, over 200 people working for the United Nations relief.
I mean, nothing is out of bounds. But describe, how do these Palestinian health care workers, doctors, nurses, they have nothing to work with hardly, people pouring in in various states of dismemberment and blood. How can they keep going, having lost their own members back home and other bombings? Yeah. Just to give people a sense of scale,
I believe it was June 26th was the last time that Medical Aid for Palestinians updated their count of Gaza healthcare workers who've been killed. At that time, it was 500. That was the 500th healthcare worker who was known to have been killed. But just a few days ago, maybe last week,
the Ministry of Health actually released the names of almost 1,000 healthcare workers who've been killed. I think it's 969, if I remember the number exactly. And then they said they suspect another 150 or 200 are dead and another 200 are in Israeli detention, which basically means disappeared.
Three Palestinian physicians have died in Israeli custody and not after like a day, not like, oh, they were shot while they were getting arrested and then they died the next day or two. This is after months in captivity. That's shocking. These weren't infirm people to begin with. What are the Israelis doing?
positions in Israeli detention has said that they are specifically being targeted for torture, for torment, and for humiliation in front of other Palestinians. We've all, maybe we haven't, but we should have read the reports about literal rape of Palestinians. detainees and other torture facilities that the Israelis are using. The widespread torture of Palestinians is not new, unfortunately.
The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel reported, gosh, back in 2004 or 2005, that the number of Palestinian detainees, I'm quoting almost exactly, the number of Palestinian detainees against whom no method of ill-treatment or torture was used is negligible. And it's important to remember, I think it's something like almost half of Palestinians
males have been arrested at some point by Israel. That means almost half of Palestinians have been tortured by the Israelis. That's just wild. Again, there's just nothing similar to this. And so the effect on the healthcare workers is dramatic. And then on top of that, they're no different from the rest of the Palestinians.
In fact, they're even more heavily targeted in some ways. Actually, a 23-year-old medical student that I knew, Abdulrahman Al-Najjar, was blown up in the house he was staying at on August 30th. That's the same day that Kirsch Goldberg-Paulin is thought to have been killed. If you look at their pictures, they look identical. There are over 10,000 hostages,
Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails who have gotten very little attention compared to the 100 hostages that Hamas took on October 7th. And this preceded October 7th as well as afterwards. They're arresting people from the West Bank, some of them women and children from Gaza, and throwing them into these Israeli jails. jails, as you pointed out.
But not any rules of engagement here by the Israeli military for their own soldiers in Gaza. It's just shoot to kill anybody you want. They have snipers shooting them in the back. People are desperately trying to rescue their loved ones under the debris after a building was bombed. They shoot into hospitals, into patients.
into maternity wards, what's left to them. And here's an example of how out of control. Just recently, Israeli soldiers saw a man who they thought was a Palestinian, and they drilled him with 400 bullets, except that he was not a Palestinian. He was an Israeli soldier. Yeah,
I think we should all recognize that the Israeli military is allowing its soldiers to do whatever they want in Gaza. A lot of it is also it's not just like the bad actors. That's not it either. Like they're like random soldiers don't decide what to bomb from the air. That's a coordinated high level decision.
But leaving aside that, you know, the massive destruction of Gaza was an Israeli policy decision, the Israelis are also—the Israeli military is consciously choosing not to stop its soldiers from doing things like you just mentioned, not to stop its soldiers from shooting each other.
Every—this is one of the points we made in the letter, and that we'll make again. Almost everybody who has been to Gaza, almost every single physician and nurse who's been there since October 7th has— I don't mean like 17 and a half-year-olds. I mean the young children, visibly identifiable as children,
every day throughout Gaza in the catchment area of every single hospital. Well, the Israeli military is very sophisticated. They have video surveillance. Almost all of their soldiers wear body cameras. I believe the sniper scopes and things have video recording equipment. They know exactly who they're shooting. There's no question about it. If they don't,
I know that our letter and the appendix to the letter, which details these things in excruciating detail, has been downloaded in Israel. I know it's been read there. I can see where it's been downloaded. So it's not like they don't know, but they're consciously choosing to ignore it. Well, that's the same thing as setting policy.
You know what's happening. You don't stop it. And it's not like it's been happening for a week. It's been happening for a year. So, yeah, there are no rules of engagement. The use of Palestinians as human shields by the Israeli military is something else that just—it's just—someone at some point will write a history of American media
coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and no rational person will believe that it could have been this mendacious. The use of human shields by Israel, even just in the past year, including children and not even even only in Gaza, especially including, in fact, in particular in the West Bank, is shocking. It's on video.
It's oftentimes on Israel's own body cam videos, which for some reason, I don't know how they've actually been released. I'm not sure about that. And beyond that, it's not just sending, say, a Palestinian to go knock on the neighbor's door, the so-called neighbor procedure. The Israeli military is actually dressing up. And again, this is all video document.
There is no question about it. whatsoever. The Israeli military is putting Palestinians in Israeli military uniforms and marching them through buildings to see if someone will shoot at them, see if they'll trigger a booby trap. This is outrageous. It's crazy. I mean, and then on the flip side, when they say Hamas or whoever is using human shields,
it's almost laughable because why would the Palestinians think that the presence of Palestinian civilians civilians will stop the Israeli military from blowing something up. It's just ridiculous. It doesn't stop anywhere else. They drop these huge bombs on tents. They shoot children in the head constantly. Why would they be hesitant about blowing up this or that civilian?
It's just ridiculous. Well, much of this is being documented by 17 Israeli human rights groups, Rishusniks, Breaking the Silence, B'Tselem, Rabbis for Human Rights, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, yeah. Yeah, and you know, they're trying to do their part, but you can imagine what it's like trying to speak the truth as Israelis in Israel through these groups.
I want to read the last two or three lines of your letter to Joe Biden and Dr. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to say, we are simply physicians and nurses who cannot remain silent about what we saw in Gaza. Every day, that we continue supplying weapons and munitions to Israel is another day that
women are shredded by our bombs and children are murdered with our bullets. President Biden and Vice President Harris, we urge you, end this madness now, end quote. You're echoing what Joe Biden told Joe Biden in December after watching slaughtered children pictures. Stop it, stop it now, Joe.
That's where her exact words were, according to President Joe Biden himself. And he ignored it the way he ignored your letter. That's the kind of president we have, listeners. Not even the courtesy of responding to the letter, much less meeting with a delegation of these brave doctors. These things seem hopeless and overwhelming.
And it's almost like, what can I do in the face of this kind of just absolute chaos? monstrosity, just this kind of behavior. How do I think about this kind of thing? What I would encourage people to do is just not think about it all that much, what's actually going on.
You know what's going on, just accept that it's horrible and think about what you can do about it. And we can do a lot about it because it's our funding that is the crucial aspect of all of this. The Israeli, there's actually a Horowitz article about this from maybe two or three weeks ago.
The Israeli military absolutely cannot continue its assault on Gaza, on Lebanon, on anyone else without the backing, the full-throated backing of the United States. If we just stop sending the weapon, the killing stops, and they actually have to come to some kind of negotiated settlement. So that's our task.
Don't let yourself get drowned in how terrible it is, because it is terrible. And I understand as a trauma surgeon, I see a lot worse stuff in the world than most people do. And it's really overwhelming. But don't let that paralyze you, please. We as Americans are cursed in some way because we're responsible for this,
but we're also privileged in that we can stop it very easily. We don't have to invade anybody. We don't have to kill anybody. We just say, no, you're done. That's it. The least listeners can do and their friends and relatives is register their objection to their two senators' representatives, 202-224-3121. That's the switchboard.
Then ask for your representative's senators. The Congress has gone back home. for the rest of the weeks until the elections. They're going to be coursing through your neighborhood, your community, shaking hands. Give them a piece of your mind. They do get affected by this.
There are more people critical of Israel now in Congress than there was a year ago. So do your part. We've been speaking with Dr. Feroz Zidwa, who's come back from Gaza along with dozens of other heroic American doctors and who have penned collectively a letter
to the President of the United States about what they found and what they're urgently recommending in terms of a ceasefire, humanitarian aid, and a long-term settlement of the conflict. They received no response from the White House. Thank you very much for your ongoing efforts, Peruz,
as you just keep going and going along with those of your valiant colleagues until you break through. Thank you all. I want to thank our guests again, Trita Parsi and Dr. Feroz Sidwa. For those of you listening on the radio, that's our show. For you podcast listeners, stay tuned for some bonus material we call The Wrap-Up,
featuring Francesco DeSantis with In Case You Haven't Heard. A transcript of this program will appear on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour Substack site soon after the episode is posted. The producers of the Ralph Nader Radio Hour are Jimmy Lee Wirt, Anna Feldman, and Matthew Marin. Our executive producer is Alan Minsky.
Our theme music, Stand Up, Rise Up, was written and performed by Camp Harris. Our proofreader is Elizabeth Solomon. Join us next week on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Thank you, Ralph. Thank you, everybody. Be active. Got a few weeks left for the campaign to end in November. Hi, this is Jimmy Lee Wirt, and welcome to The Wrap-Up,
where we broaden our conversation with Dr. Feroz Sidwa. Let's go to Lebanon and the slaughter in Lebanon now, and the booby-trapping of pagers and two-way walkie-talkies. The health situation now is dire in Lebanon. The hospitals are overloaded. Do you envision doctors like yourself going into Lebanon?
Are you willing to call for an airlift of these people who've had their limbs blown off by booby-trapped pagers and two-way radios to be airlifted to the US, UK, France maybe for aid? What are you all seeing about Lebanon now before israelis turn it into another gaza yeah so that's it's a very scary prospect you
know what israel is doing what israel did to gaza it's not doing it's pretty much done it really actually stems from the 2006 lebanon war that's when israel's what's called the dahlia doctrine was formed it's a fancy term for just blowing up everything until your enemy gives in so now they're taking it back to dahlia is a
uh is a suburb of beirut where where hezbollah is well established So now they're taking the Dahya Doctrine back to where they first conceived of it. And, you know, the thing about Lebanon is it's very scary. It's a very scary time for not just Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, the Middle East, but really for the whole world.
The Israelis, you know, they can blow up pagers. And I was actually pretty surprised by the American elite response to that. I think there have been two opinions in the New York Times. One was by Stephen Walser. Is that his name? The just war theoretician, if you want to call him that,
who is just an Israeli apologist of the highest order, even he wrote that this was completely unjustifiable. I was shocked, even accepting every point of Israeli propaganda about why they did it and who they targeted and blah, blah, blah. He still said it was completely unjustifiable. He said it has no place in a just war.
I think that was the headline. And then there was a security expert whose name I forget. He's at the Harvard Kennedy School, who also said, this is a total disaster. This is a major red line that's been crossed. It's going to cause all sorts of problems for the entire world. And that's obvious. How should I,
I don't know if people can see what we're doing, but I'm holding my iPhone right next to me. Is this going to blow up right now? Well, I don't actually know. That's terrifying. The whole world is dependent on these devices now. It's just completely insane. The behavior is nuts. But it's very scary.
I'm no military analyst or strategist, but we've seen in past wars that Israel does not have the capacity to fight Hezbollah. in southern Lebanon. They just don't. They can blow up all of Lebanon, but they can't stop Hezbollah from firing rockets into Israel. If they can't do that, then there's no chance of actually declaring victory.
And this Israeli government has gone very far off the rails and very, very far off to the right. It's doing all sorts of vindictive, crazy nonsense, like, for example, this pager attack. It's important to realize they could have used their control of these pagers to gather data and intelligence to keep people safe.
like to keep Israelis safe, but instead they just chose to harm people and name them. Well, you know who agrees with you? The former head of the CIA and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on Sunday. He called it a clear act of terrorism and jeopardizing the security, quote, of the entire global health supply chain.
This is going to go all over the world now. People are going to start wondering, is their products booby-trapped? That's another out-of-control Israeli performance. But the differential between Hezbollah and Israel is vast. Hezbollah is overrated. It just sent 140 missiles into Israel. Most of them were intercepted. Fortunately for Israelis, no fatalities,
six minor injuries compared to massive modern precision missiles going the other way into Lebanon. and endless supply by the United States. So as one high military official said a few weeks ago, they said, you know, if we go in, goodbye Lebanon. They already destroyed it in 1982, very substantially blowing up the infrastructure.
And because the Lebanese army was so weak, it couldn't protect the Shiites in southern Lebanon. That's how Hezbollah emerged, to protect their own people in southern Lebanon against a long occupation by the Israeli invaders. And so this has been going on a long time. In terms of positions going to Lebanon, actually,
a friend of mine is organizing a trip to Lebanon, so I'm hoping I can go there soon. But we'll see. I mean, as soon as Israel—if Israel bombards Beirut directly, the airport's going to be closed, which means there's no way to get there. But yeah, what's happening in Lebanon is very frightening,
because there may not be a military endgame for Israel. If there isn't, it's not clear how that shakes out. It's very scary. Americans should know if they don't remember the last time Americans went into Lebanon to save Israel from its own quagmire. We all know what it was.
We should know what happened in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. We should not be putting Americans in harm's way to protect this just completely crazed Israeli project. What we should be doing is just telling them to stop. It's very simple. Stop and open the way for U.S.
correspondents to get it to truth here, other Western Israeli correspondents that are being blocked. How do people get the letter? Right now, it's only on Twitter. If you just search for my name on Twitter, it's in the little highlights section. But we're building a website that's going to house our letter and also, you know,
really almost shockingly identical letters from Canadian and British physicians who've worked in Gaza as well, saying almost exactly the same thing. I'm sure other websites are carrying this letter as well, listeners, so you'll be able to get a full copy.

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

Throw Down for Peace
by Ralph Nader
RalphNaderRadioHour.com
Sep 21, 2024
https://www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/p/t ... -up-cities

Ralph welcomes back Hassan El-Tayyab, the Legislative Director for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation to talk about the FCNL's recent lobbying efforts in support of a ceasefire in Gaza, as well as the recently-introduced bill to restore funding to UNRWA. Then, Ralph is joined by journalist Rachel Corbett to discuss her recent article for the NY Times Magazine "The For-Profit City That Might Come Crashing Down" about Próspera, the private, for-profit city off the coast of Honduras. Finally, our resident international-law expert Bruce Fein stops by to discuss Israel's recent coordinated attacks in Lebanon.

Hassan El-Tayyab is Legislative Director for Middle East policy and Advocacy Organizer at the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL). Previously, he was co-director of the national advocacy group Just Foreign Policy, where he worked to reassert Congressional war authority and promote human rights in the Middle East and Latin America. He played a major role in the successful passage of the War Powers Resolution to end US military aid to the Saudi-UAE coalition’s war in Yemen.

I've been reading a recent statement that the Friends Committee has put out on the Gaza situation. They just can't seem to keep up with the massive expansion of Israeli state terrorism and the death and destruction that's being wrought on hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians, families, children, mothers, fathers, and the civilian infrastructure. [Their] effort on Capitol Hill—which is a longstanding feature of the Friends Committee on Legislation—seems hopelessly overwhelmed by the AIPAC-led Israeli-government-can-do-no-wrong lobby.

Ralph Nader: We try to find common ground. As you know, the Quaker way is to believe that there's a spirit and light in everybody—whether we agree with them or not, we want to engage. And that's just a philosophy that we've had for over 80 years as an organization, and much longer than that as Quakers doing peace advocacy work going back hundreds of years. So we try to engage with everybody. Maybe we don't agree on the weapons shipments, but we can agree on sending US Navy hospital ships to the region.

Hassan El-Tayyab: If we care about peace, we have to throw down for peace. And not just support humanitarian aid, but actually get involved in the political end of this as well. Because we are spiraling. We're spiraling into a dark place if we don't get our act together.

Bruce Fein is a Constitutional scholar and an expert on international law. Mr. Fein was Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan and he is the author of Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy, and American Empire: Before the Fall.

There is no way that Israel was able to limit the distribution of the pages to Hezbollah, so they knew that they were taking a very high risk that civilians would be killed or injured—which is a violation of the Geneva Convention prohibition upon resorting to any military endeavor where the risk of harm to civilians is dramatically disproportionate to the military objective at issue.

Bruce Fein: Even with the low bar that many people present before the Biden administration, it is unsettling to see White House spokespeople day after day knowingly lying about Israel “complying with all laws.”

************

Transcript

This is John Nichols of The Nation Magazine, and you're listening to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour.
Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. My name is Steve Scrovan, along with my co-host David Feldman. Hello there, David. Good morning. And, of course, the man of the hour, Ralph Nader. Hello, Ralph. Hello, everybody. More turbulence this week. We're closing in on a year since the October 7th attacks in Israel and the
subsequent escalation of Israel's assault on Gaza. One of the many casualties of this assault has been UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. UNRWA is the most significant direct provider of humanitarian aid in the territory, with more than 2 million Palestinian civilians relying on it for critical necessities and services.
The Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu accused 12 UNRWA staffers of aiding Hamas's attack on October 7th. And in response, the Biden administration and Congress halted all U.S. funding for UNRWA until March 2025. Critics of the move assert that Israel is conflating humanitarian aid with aiding and abetting violence. And even if those 12 staffers,
12 people among 13,000 UNRWA workers in Gaza, did what the Israeli government alleges, defunding UNRWA is an unjustified and disproportionate response that exacerbates the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Our first guest is Hassan El-Tayeb, Legislative Director for Middle East Policy at the French Committee on National Legislation.
We'll speak to him about how Gaza is being starved and his work lobbying the U.S. to reverse its knee-jerk reaction and restore UNRWA funding. Now, imagine a world designed by your favorite technocrat. a completely privatized Xanadu, a fever dream of unfettered capitalism, defined not by a constitution, but by a 4,000-page arbitration agreement,
without any pesky government regulations to limit the creative energy of this truly free enterprise ecosystem, a free market Gilligan's Island. If Elon Musk was Gilligan, Ayn Rand was Thurston Howell III, and Milton Friedman was Ginger. Well, dream no more. Such a place exists off the coast of Honduras in Prospera.
Prospera is a private for-profit city with its own government that courts foreign investors through low taxes and light regulation. And it's being built in a semi-autonomous jurisdiction known as ZED, a Spanish acronym for Zone for Employment and Economic Development. Our second guest, journalist Rachel Corbett, profiled Prospera for the New York Times Magazine. What did she find?
Is Prospera's goal of, quote, building the future of government privately run and for profit, unquote, working? Or is it just another banana republic? You won't want to miss our discussion with Rachel Corbett. And to close out the program, we welcome back our international legal expert, Bruce Fine,
to give us his take on the recent Israeli attack in Lebanon involving the coordinated blowing up of pagers and walkie-talkies, which not only killed a number of suspected Hezbollah members, but also many innocent civilians. As always, somewhere in the middle, we'll check in with our tireless corporate crime reporter, Russell Mokhyber.
But first, our first guest contends that Gaza isn't starving. It's being starved. David? Hassan El-Tayeb is legislative director for Middle East Policy and advocacy
organizer at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, FCNL. Previously, he was co-director of the national advocacy group Just Foreign Policy, where he worked to reassert congressional war authority and promote human rights in the Middle East and Latin America. He played a major role in the successful passage of the War Powers Resolution to end U.S.
military aid to the Saudi-UAE coalition's war in Yemen. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, Hassan L. Tayeb.
Thank you so much for having me. Yeah, welcome, Hassan. I've been reading the recent statements that the Friends Committee has put out on the Gaza situation. They just can't seem to keep up with the massive expansion of Israeli state terrorism and the death and destruction that's being wrought on hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians, families, children, mothers,
fathers, and the civilian infrastructure. Your effort on Capitol Hill, which is a longstanding feature of the Friends Committee on Legislation, seems hopelessly overwhelmed by the AIPAC-led Israeli government can do no wrong lobby. You just seem to be hopelessly overwhelmed. And so I want to ask you some questions about how you escalate your lawful lobbying
with new strategies and tactics. The first one, is that Joe Biden and his cohorts are going along with Netanyahu's prohibition of the entry of U.S. war correspondents and other country war correspondents into Gaza. Netanyahu has blocked even Israeli reporters from Gaza, other than a few three-hour tours in a
armed vehicle that the Israelis have allowed some reporters but they can't freely report. They're just toured in and toured out. Are you making a major issue of this on Capitol Hill with your coalition? Ralph, thank you. Super important question. And absolutely, we're making an issue of this. It is critical that not only the American people,
but the entire world knows exactly what's going on in Gaza. And that can't happen without access to journalists. But we know that this is not a new thing, that the Israeli government has, one, killed many journalists, including Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was killed while reporting on the Israeli military invasion of Jenin.
And we still don't have justice for Shireen. We don't have justice for dozens of journalists that have been killed. Those are well-said statements. But I'm asking you, how are you making this a major issue politically in the United States. You have a coalition of 50 groups Yeah, absolutely.
So I can say that there's a lot of things going on right now. We're doing our best to keep up with everything. We've signed on to statements from committees to protect journalists and other groups like that and have been incorporating this in our direct lobbying, both with Congress and the administration. But obviously it's insufficient.
It hasn't happened yet and more needs to be done. And we're trying to find the levers we can to actually force the question. Some of that is really, we've been very focused on security assistance in particular as one of these levers to compel the Israeli government open things up, not just with journalists,
but to stop these gross violations of human rights. Okay, let's get down to that. For those who don't know what UNRWA is, it's the United Nations Relief Organization. that's been providing since 1948 to displaced Palestinian refugees, not just in Palestine, but Lebanon and Jordan, food, education, and health care.
And UNRWA has been a target of the Netanyahu terrorist regime. And they've been attacking UNRWA facilities, bombing the schools, the health clinics. They've killed over 200 UNRWA employees. And you and A coalition of 50 groups, 50 groups, wrote a letter to President Biden demanding that USAID 2 UNRWA, which has been going on for decades under Republican-Democratic administrations,
be restored. Because, first of all, Biden cut it off right after October 7th. Number two, the Congress, with the Republicans in the forefront, inserted an amendment that prohibiting the Biden regime from providing any further aid, along with Norway and Germany and other countries, to UNRWA in their critical life-saving function until April of next year.
So now you've sent a letter with 50 groups, call it a national coalition urging President Biden to restore UNRWA funding to aid Palestinians, dated February 14th, 2024. Did the Biden administration respond to your letter? Yeah, another good question. So Congress actually, they suspended funding to UNRWA till March 2025. So that was one.
We did not hear back from the Biden administration. I think they may have confirmed receipt of the note that we sent them, but I don't believe we got any formal response. We have been meeting with the State Department and other Biden administration officials about this, and we keep raising it in our coalition of faith groups.
You find these coalitions being rebuffed. So, actually, yeah, you know, and we escalate by working with Congress to introduce new legislation. I did want to touch on that. Because, as you know, Ralph, the people of Gaza aren't starving. They're being starved. And we've got over two million Palestinian civilians facing a manmade humanitarian
catastrophe with famine and disease spreading due to the lack of this aid access. And at the same time, the Biden administration and Congress are withholding U.S. funding to the largest aid organization in Gaza, which is UNRWA. And they've been working for over seven decades in the Gaza Strip, but also Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, West Bank,
And UNRWA is the backbone of all aid delivery and ensuring that people get the help that they need. So we need to turn this funding back on and do so quickly because it's not just famine now, it's also a polio epidemic and UNRWA is playing a lead role in some of these vaccinations.
There are some proactive steps that we're trying to take on the UNRRA situation that I think your listeners would really benefit from hearing about. Rep Carson, Rep Jayapal, and Rep Schakowsky are introducing a bill called the UNRRA Funding Emergency Restoration Act, and this would completely remove all congressional limitations on UNRWA funding immediately if passed,
and then call on the Biden administration to restore funding as well. I think this is absolutely critical that the US join the other 15 countries that had initially suspended support to UNRWA to resume funding. This includes US allies like the UK, the European Union, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, And again, as the largest contributor to UNRWA, the U.S.
has to join that group. Just a little background, you know, the decision to suspend this funding was made after, you know, we think it was a knee-jerk response to Israeli allegations in January of 2024 this year. Let's not get into that because I want you to talk about a lot of other things,
and we have a time factor here. You shouldn't even give that any credibility, by the way. The whole thing is a setup. Let's talk about Congress. We're talking with Hassan El-Tayyib. He's the legislative director for the Middle East Policy and Advocacy Effort of the Friends Committee on National Legislation.
That's the Quaker group of longstanding efforts over the decades to advance peace and wage peace. There are prominent Israeli and Palestinian peace advocates over the years, as you know, very prominent in Israel, former ministers, mayors of major cities, public intellectuals, people who formerly headed the Israeli FBI and the CIA.
And they are not allowed to have hearings on Capitol Hill since 1948. That's what AIPAC has blocked. And if you made an issue of this, your coalition has good contacts over there. You can get these prominent people to write a formal letter to the heads of the House Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and
the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee and ask to testify. All the witnesses are on one side for decades. Have you decided to make that an issue? Because it would produce a new dynamic in this country and it would be free to speak. Absolutely. Yeah, I think this is critical.
The fact that we don't have hearings that really reflect a balanced and rational perspective on this. And we've been making requests of all these different committees that you just mentioned to actually have committee hearings that center Palestinian human rights and regional de-escalation, diplomacy with Iran.
But we also intervene on specific hearings saying, why don't you have this individual? Maybe we're not gonna get the entire topic that we want, but make sure we lift up Palestinian voices and Israeli voices who actually want peace. Hassan, you know, they will not allow Americans, whether they're Jewish Americans or Arab Americans or Muslim Americans, to testify.
The only possible way you can get there is to get prominent Israeli and Palestinian peace advocates who have been working together for years, because they cannot be accused of anti-Semitism. which is a slur and a gag against free speech. It's now been weaponized, as you know, on college campuses and all over the country.
The only way you're going to get through is to have very prominent people, former prime ministers, former members of the Knesset, as I mentioned, in Israeli society, and leaders of Israeli human rights groups. You probably saw the December 13th New York Times op-ed, where 17 Israeli human rights groups demanded of Biden that he stop what they called,
quote, the catastrophe in Gaza, end quote. And you probably saw the more recent letter by six prominent Israelis, including retired prime ministers and national security people, demanding of Congress that they disinvite Netanyahu from speaking. These are the people that have the only chance to get hearings under both the Democratic Senate and the Republican Senate.
Are you ready to push for that? Because everything else is not working. Just to level set here, I agree with you that it's very difficult, but judiciary just featured Maya Barry from Arab American Institute at a committee hearing they did on stopping the spread of hate just yesterday.
granted that was a horrific hearing and they asked her some really downright racist and hateful questions but we are able to get some good arab american witnesses and you know that's one example but to your larger point completely agree it's been the focus of our advocacy and trying to make sure that We get better hearings,
we get better witnesses, and we get better questions asked of the witnesses during the hearings by members of Congress and congressional champions. So we are totally on the same page. Also, one body didn't mention is the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. also headed by co-chairman McGovern.
And we want them to use that platform to lift up the need for Palestinian human rights, protecting U.S. citizens in the West Bank, like Aisha Noor-Eggy, who was just slain by an Israeli sniper just about a week ago. So totally with you. And I think it's just absolutely critical to change the conversation.
Let's look at the access you're getting. Have you gotten access to the fanatical Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Tom Cotton, who have basically said, kill them all over there, total support of the Israeli genocide? Do you ever have an opportunity to sit down and talk with them or their staff?
Or are you mostly talking to people who are semi-sympathetic to you? we are getting access to republicans and we lobby them we try to find common ground as you know the quaker way is to believe that you know we believe that there's the
spirit and light in everybody whether or not we agree with them or not we want to engage and that's just a philosophy that we've had for you know over 80 years as an organization and much longer than that as quakers doing peace advocacy work going back hundreds of years So, we try to engage with everybody.
Maybe we don't agree on the weapons shipments, but we can agree on sending us Navy hospital ships to the region. Give us some names who have you met? Have you met speaker? Mike Johnson? Have you met Lindsey Graham? Tom cotton. Members or staff either way.
yeah sometimes when i walk down the hall you know staff and members run the other way they're like oh my god we're going to hear from this piece nick which it's all gravy but yes we have met with massey we've met with graham we've met with grand
paul we've met with mike lee you know we're pushing initiatives like the hospital ships by rep adderholt another republican we've met with nancy mace a number of times You know, I could go on and on. We try to, like I said, we try to engage with everybody, even if they don't agree with us.
We still try to have the conversation. We try to bring Palestinians and Israelis into some of these meetings. And I think that's just absolutely critical. Even if we don't get to a good place, just having those conversations is just critical. And I got to say, a lot of people aren't engaging with Republicans on this issue.
And I think FCNL, you know, we're trying to fill that gap. And we think getting Christian voices in the mix, also to highlight the plight of Palestinian Christians in Gaza, in the West Bank, is really critical. And like I said, we try to find common ground where we can. You know, we're really grateful to Rep.
Massey for voting against the Israel security supplemental package. What about the Christian groups here? They're supposedly worried about what's left of the Christian population in Bethlehem and in West Bank and in Gaza. What is the position of the National Council of Churches based in New York?
Do they join your coalition or are they remaining silent month after month? Yeah, so National Council of Churches, they do work with us and they're on the board of Churches for Middle East Peace. So yeah, we do work with them. There's a whole bunch of other folks that I think are really wonderful to work with.
The Presbyterians, the Mennonites, Mary Knoll, yeah there's just like really a whole i could just keep going and going and the united methodists as well and so we're trying to build this faith coalition to push on a whole bunch of things whether it be the need for an immediate ceasefire and
hostage deal whether it be humanitarian access including the hospital ships including unrefunding halting arms sales to make sure that u.s weapons are never used to violate human rights regional de-escalation and also protecting palestinian christian communities in the west bank and gaza so those are all things that we're doing we're trying to reach
out to the trump campaign and the harris campaign to request a meeting to discuss five key demands that i just mentioned we're going to request those meetings with a whole bunch of faith groups so we're trying to engage and we think it's really important that the christian voices are being heard right now Well,
I'm sure many of our listeners now are saying to themselves, well, we certainly haven't read this in any of the media, newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, NPR, public broadcasting. Let me go to another initiative that I think our listeners would like you to describe. In early May, you went back to the Ramallah Friends School.
That's the Quaker school in Ramallah in the West Bank. And you talked with sixth graders and seventh graders, and you ask them why they support a ceasefire in their own words. And Mira in this grade six said, quote, I support the ceasefire because each child must have the right to live in peace and freedom.
The ceasefire will preserve the innocent lives of children, not to mention half of the population in Gaza are children, end quote. This leads me to a question, Hassan. Have you thought of encouraging the children in Palestine to communicate with the children in the United States and the children in Israel.
You know, children have a moral authority that's unique. They speak very often, much more truthfully and forthrightfully than their wayward adults. What do you think of that idea? And have you had it before I just mentioned? What do you think of that proposal because I think it might change the dynamics of the media here if
it's done in a consistent manner. That's a great suggestion, Ralph. And I think, yes, children weighing in on this is huge. They do have a moral authority and their voices are so needed right now. I went to Palestine. I went across the West Bank to the Ramallah Friends School in January.
This was the second trip I'd actually taken to the Ramallah Friends School. And I was just horrified by just the kind of traumas that the kids are dealing with. And so getting their voices out there is really critical. I will say that we sent a letter on behalf of the Ramallah Friends School students.
After October 7, a whole bunch of these Friends School students wrote a letter calling on US lawmakers to press for an immediate ceasefire. And so on behalf of them, we sent that up to Capitol Hill. And I think doing more things like that, whether it be engagement directly with US children and US students, and also Israeli students,
I think is critical. So totally in agreement. And if I may, I'd just love to share maybe a few of the things that these students told me. there was this one girl sixth grade palestinian student lena at ramallah friends she passed me a handwritten note in saying palestine is witnessing a genocide right
now a child's dying every five minutes of the day gaza needs a break the palestinian people are desperate for a ceasefire that's what she's calling for the third grade cousin of the ramallah friend school graduate who had been paralyzed by that hate crime attack in vermont
in he cried in front of his whole class he had this big assembly that i had done and he just threw tears he said please tell the american people like stop these crimes of hate against palestinians And he just broke down in tears again. His teacher gave him a big hug, and that really gutted me.
I mean, just seeing that. Not only did his cousin get shot and paralyzed in this hate crime, but he's also seeing the fact that the United States continues to send weapons to the israeli government that are being used to kill and name innocent civilians
in gaza to perpetuate these attacks in the west bank like the one on aishanor just a week or so ago and it's really devastating to see that so that's that's why i said i had my speech as you know ralph i like to talk as a lobbyist
I had my speech all ready to go in front of one of these assemblies. And I just said, you know, it's time for me to actually listen here, listen to what the students are saying and what they want is what a lot of us have been calling for, which is an immediate ceasefire, right?
They want an end to this war so we can move forward in peace and try to rebuild from here. But for its part, I think the United States needs to do more to put pressure on the Israeli government, suspend the security assistance, making sure that U.S. weapons are never used to violate human rights.
That's an understatement, Hassan, but you're known for your prudent understatements. Let's fill out the scene here. One of the reasons three out of four Israelis despise Netanyahu, not only because what he tried to do to break the independence of the judiciary, it's not only that he's under prosecution by Israeli prosecutors for political corruption,
it's that they accuse him of collapsing the sophisticated border security apparatus on October 7th, which opened the gates for the Hamas fighters to pursue a plan that was in the possession a year earlier of the Israeli security forces. They got the plan a year before and did nothing, and then collapsed the border,
still unexplained and still without an official Israeli investigation, which is blocked by Netanyahu. All this point was made in a letter by six prominent Israelis to Congress, urging Congress to disinvite Netanyahu. Well, as we're recording this conversation, the news is covering the latest threshold of war crimes by Israelis by blowing up booby-trapped agers in Lebanon.
And now they're blowing up two-way radios and other equipment, communications equipment in South Lebanon, leading to thousands of casualties, including people who have these pages in hospitals, supermarkets, strolling with their children down a pathway. So all this is challenging you, the Friends Committee, all those wonderful groups in your coalition, from all religions, peace groups, citizen groups,
to introspect and say, how are you going to take this peace movement to a higher, broader, deeper, and more effective level in Congress, on the Biden administration, and on the media? Otherwise, you are not going to make any headway. You cannot continue the way you are, Hassan.
I want to urge you to expand it and not just go through your list which makes everybody feel good because it's so just. It's all about Congress and the White House. That's where the pressure's got to be, and it's got to be with different arguments, different supporters from Israel and Palestine,
and a different attentiveness to the congressional press corps, which doesn't even bother covering you because they don't think you matter. I would say, Ralph, my mom agrees with you. I need to adjust in a big way, you know, and sorry to be cheeky here, but yeah, you're right. The peace movement needs to get more muscular.
We can't just be doing a rally on a Saturday where no press is present, right? We have to actually figure out how to be strategic, grow our base across the board. You know, I think some of folks in the peace movement really need to get more muscular on electoral politics.
I think things like the uncommitted campaign need to expand, not just to withhold votes, but to actually look at primary challenges for people that don't support human rights and know that that's working. But we need to do a lot more. And everyone listening, if we care about peace, we have to throw down for peace.
you know not just support humanitarian aid but actually get involved in the political end of this as well because we are spiraling you know we're spiraling into a dark place if we don't get our act together the couple silver linings i
wanted to flag because i don't want us to just be in darkness here is that one our ideas are just more popular than theirs like when you look at polling across the board The majority of Americans want the immediate ceasefire. They want a suspension of security assistance when they can be used to violate human rights against Palestinians,
and they want a way forward, right? So there's a larger coalition just waiting to be mobilized, and that's exactly what we need to be focused on. I'm trying and doing what I can, and we just need a lot more folks to weigh in. Tell our listeners your website.
How can they support what you're doing, ask for, get more information? Tell our listeners your website slowly and repeat it. Absolutely. Get involved and join us at FCNL.org. FCNL.org. You can take an action today calling for the ceasefire, no weapons, unrefunding at FCNL.org backslash ceasefire. And that's a link we set up so you can directly email Congress.
And as Ralph said, that is just step one. We need to do a lot more and really make sure that we get out of this endless cycle of violence. And I believe it can be done, but we got to be clear eyed that this is going to be a long haul effort.
It can't be done overnight, but I believe that we can make it happen. It cannot be a long haul effort because the Palestinians are running out of lives. Don't you understand that? You can't have an attitude for a long haul effort, maybe for a long haul peaceful conflict resolution of permanence,
but not with the issues that you've been raising. These are immediate haul efforts. And tell our listeners what FC stands for in case they don't. Didn't get the Ralph, I'm going to push back. Actually go ahead now. I totally get the urgency, right? And we have to have that immediate, like, let's get it done right now.
And that is what we're doing. But we also have to make sure we're building infrastructure. So we can sustain our peace movement and grow it for the long haul. That includes, you know, electoral engagement. That includes actual advocacy and getting serious because, you know, like you said, like the AIPAC lobby and all these other groups,
they've been at this for decades. And that's entrenched power. And I'm not going to sit here and pretend like we can undo that. you know, immediately when they're, you know, knocking off members of Congress like Bowman and Cori Bush, you know, and I think having that long-term perspective and looking at, you know,
these structural issues are going to have immediate impacts when they see that, oh my God, they're actually mobilizing in a serious way. But I agree with what you're saying as far as the urgency. That's good. Short haul, long haul. As we close, Hassan al-Tayyib, can you
Give the website and indicate what F and C stand for just so people can get clarity. Yeah, thank you all Ralph, Hannah, David, Steve for having me on. I'm just so grateful to have this time to chat. Our website is FCNL.org and it's Friends Committee on National Legislation.
We are the Quaker Peace Lobby in DC working for peace for over 80 years. oldest registered faith-based peace lobby in the country and i am really just grateful i can do this work and i'm going to keep doing it and i and i hope more
and more of us get involved again we're fcnl.org well thank you very much hassan and listeners you encounter a member of congress running for re-election in the coming weeks or a reporter or a tv producer Ask them why don't they cover the efforts of the peace lobby in this country, the many,
many groups with millions of members around the country who want our government to wage peace, to stop building the empire of war, destruction, which is going to boomerang back on us in many, many ways, apart from just busting the civilian budget so we can blow up areas around the world in contradiction of international law.
Geneva Conventions, and even U.S. statutes. Thank you very much, Hassan. Thank you. We've been speaking with Hassan El-Tayeb. We will link to his work at the Friends Committee on National Legislation at ralphnaderradiohour.com. Up next, we discuss a startup city in the original Banana Republic.

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

Bruce Fine is a constitutional scholar and international law expert. Mr. Fine was associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan and is the author of Constitutional Peril,
The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy, as well as the book American Empire Before the Fall. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, Bruce Fine. Thank you for the introduction. Welcome back again, Bruce. Well, the big news in the latest military escalation by the Israeli Netanyahu regime was that somehow their security apparatus,
which collapsed on October 7th, managed to waylay thousands of pagers that Hezbollah ordered from a company in Hungary, and they booby-trapped them. And then the Hezbollah took in the shipment. And, of course, these pages were in the hands of family members or they were loaned out to doctors or nurses. Pages are everywhere. And earlier this week,
the Israeli military pushed one button and blew up almost 3,000 of these pages, some of them in the pockets of their owners, the explosions in hospitals, shopping centers. parents with their children walking down the street, all kinds of injuries, ambulances, and as if that wasn't enough, a couple days later, the Israelis struck again, pushed a button, and
Two-way radios blew up and other communication equipment, mostly in southern Lebanon, blew up. So we have a new threshold here of weaponry. We'd like to hear how you would characterize it, how it fits into the Geneva Conventions and
the treaty against cluster bombs give us your elaboration a few footnotes to what you just said ralph the number of injured now approaches 3 000 you know their mother's dead there is no way that israel was able to limit the distribution of the pagers to Hezbollah so that they knew that they were
taking a very high risk that civilians would be killed or injured, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention prohibition upon resorting to any military endeavor where the risk of harm to civilians is dramatically disproportionate to the military objective at issue. know how they've been able to identify what military advance.
They're running victory laps now that hasn't done anything to diminish the war. The second thing is now they've repeated that now with the walkie talkies, basically the same kind of modus operandi, an instrument that is regularly used by civilians. It's not used only by those
who may be involved in combat and blowing up and also injuring civilians and i know that this is not an inference that this was the intent that is unjustified and i know that we had spoken earlier Going back years ago, Foreign Minister Abba Eban had openly said, yes, we know Israel purposely has targeted civilians for a very,
very long time. He didn't like it being exposed because he thought it compromised the reputation of Israel. The defense minister, Mordecai Gur, had also previously said, yes, Israel does target civilians. That's commonplace. So this is, the scale may be a little bit broader, but this is not new in the Palestinian onslaught executed by the Israeli defense forces.
Well, why do you think the Biden administration was unusually quiet, even for its own concessory and cowardly stance? since October 8th on the slaughter and genocide in Palestine. The Israeli foreign minister declared that he had notified our secretary of defense before the attack on the pagers pushing the button,
and secretary of state Blinken was in Cairo when the news broke, and he referred to the devastation brought by blowing up these booby-trapped Pagers as an incident. He called it an incident as he said that Dios, of course, had nothing to do with it. Yeah. Characterize how we're being represented in Washington here.
Well, I think the administration from Biden on down is terrified of giving any kind of prominence to the ongoing genocide and slaughter in Gaza because they think it will compromise the likelihood of winning the presidency in November. I think 100% of their thinking is simply a political calculation about that balloting.
And they don't really know how to deal with that. Because on the one hand, they've been very cowardly, giving Israel a green light to whatever they want. But they've also seen a backlash on campuses and otherwise, their vote is in doubt. And so they would like it to just go away.
They know if they say something that's critical, it'd be a headline. So they're kind of like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. And that's what we see here. I mean, it's utterly absurd. An incident, you know, it's like Harry Truman calling the Korean War a police action.
It's so absurd on its face, you can tell it's manufactured for ulterior motives. Of course,
the Biden administration has, over the recent months, lied continually about Israel not committing genocide, Israel not violating humanitarian law. Israel not violating federal statutes. Do you think otherwise?
Well, I think that they are lying for sure, that the violations are open and notorious, which is why they have to lie. Now, on the one incident recently, the State Department did conclude that there were Israeli forces that engaged in egregious violations of human rights, but then without explication said they're taking adequate remedial action so we
don't have to cease shipping arms to these units. Well, what are those remedial actions? We know historically Israel starts investigations and they disappear into a black hole three or four or five years later. They never end up in any accountability whatsoever. So I think the evidence of the violations were so notorious they couldn't ignore them,
but then they just invented ways to get around ceasing any kind of shipments.
Even with the low bar that many people present before the Biden administration, it is unsettling to see White House spokespeople day after day knowingly lying about Israel complying with all laws. Tell our listeners the six federal statutes that the Biden administration is violating by shipping weapons to Israel without any conditions.
Well, there's the Foreign Assistance Act, the Export Control Act. There's the Humanitarian Quarters Act. There's Leahy Amendment applied to the State Department. Leahy Amendment applied to the Defense Department. There's the Nuclear Nonproliferation Track. We know that Israel is not a signatory to that, so we shouldn't be sending military weapons to non-signatories. And Congress doesn't do anything.
And it's stunning that the White House Correspondents Association and the White House Press briefings never challenged Kirby on any of this stuff. John Kirby, he's the national security press secretary at the White House and said, you're supposed to be a journalist and ask questions. I mean, it would be like Ralph during Watergate, you know,
that Dan Rather never asked about the cover up. You're supposed to be a journalist and you're not asking about the White House tapes. It'd be ridiculous. But that's how anemic, you know, the press corps has become.
Well, let's go to Steve here. Boy, I mean, it's hard to know what to even say. I mean, it seems like such an obvious, it's murder. If you were the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, would you call this murder?
Yeah, because, you know, murder has different degrees, you know, so the Israelis knew that the risk of civilians being killed were very, very high. And so maybe it would be second degree murder rather than first degree murder, but certainly would be criminal homicide without a doubt. Thank you very much, Bruce Fine. Okay. Thank you, Ralph.
I want to thank our guests again, Hassan El-Tayyeb, Rachel Corbett, and Bruce Fine. For those of you listening on the radio, that's our show. For you podcast listeners, stay tuned for some bonus material we call The Wrap-Up. A transcript of this program will appear on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour Substack site soon after the episode is posted.
Subscribe to us on our Ralph Nader Radio Hour YouTube channel. And for Ralph's weekly column, you can get it for free by going to nadir.org. For more from Russell Mokhyber, go to corporatecrimereporter.com. Guess what, folks? The American Museum of Tort Law has gone virtual. Go to tortmuseum.org to explore the exhibits, take a virtual tour,
and learn about iconic tort cases from history. We have a new issue of the Capitol Hill Citizen. It's out now to order your copy of the Capitol Hill Citizen, Democracy Dies in Broad Daylight. Go to capitolhillcitizen.com. And remember, to continue the conversation after each show, go to the comments section at ralphnaderradiohour.com and post a comment or
question on this week's episode.

[admin]

Israel's Wall of Impunity
by Ralph Nader
RalphNaderRadioHour.com
Dec 07, 2024
https://www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/p/i ... f-impunity

Ralph welcomes international human rights lawyer and activist, and former senior United Nations human rights official Craig Mokhiber to discuss Israel and Gaza—if Israel should be thrown out of the UN, how Trump's positions will compare to Biden's, and whether we're starting to see cracks in Israel's wall of impunity. Plus, Ralph shares a possible ray of light in Trump's cabinet, a warning about the cost of credit cards for small businesses, and some tough love for AARP.

Craig Mokhiber is an international human rights lawyer and activist, and a former senior United Nations human rights official. A human rights activist in the 1980s, he would go on to serve for more than three decades at the United Nations, with postings in Switzerland, Palestine, Afghanistan, and UN Headquarters in New York. In October of 2023, he left the United Nations, penning a widely read letter criticizing the UN’s human rights failures in the Middle East, warning of unfolding genocide in Gaza, and calling for a new approach to Palestine and Israel based on international law, human rights, and equality.

Gaza is now the world capital of child amputation. And that doesn't even cover the true horror, because Israel blocks any anesthesia from entering Gaza as a means of imposing further agony on the population that they are subjecting to genocide. Which means those amputations are being carried out on children and adults without anesthesia and often without sterile equipment or adequate hospitals, such that even if they survive the excruciating agony of an amputation without anesthesia, they may well not survive the side effects. They may well not survive the infection.

Craig Mokhiber: The irony is that in November, the UN announced that Israel had paid its dues in full in order to preserve its membership and to continue to fund the UN— an organization that the Israelis say is a terrorist, anti-Semitic organization dedicated to its destruction, is an organization that they have decided to be a member of and to fund. So when you look at the kind of propaganda that they distribute…You can see how ironic and how outrageous it really is. I've said that it would be hard to imagine any country in the history of the organization more deserving—at a minimum—of suspension from the UN General Assembly. No country in history has violated the principles of the UN Charter more than Israel, and it has done so from the moment of its admission in 1948.

We can certainly expect a dangerous four years under Trump. There's no denying it…But we shouldn't forget that we've just had a four-year term under Biden and Harris in which they undid none of those policies, and in which they actually supported horrific international crimes being perpetrated by Israel. And Biden and his administration were at the helm of the brutal repression of human rights defenders here in the United States, on college campuses and workplaces and the streets and in media places. So we're going to go from genocide abroad and repression at home under Biden to more genocide abroad and repression at home under Trump. The only difference is that Trump won't waste his time on the kind of mendacious pretense of civility and humanitarian concern that was peddled by Biden and Harris as it murdered babies in their thousands.

Transcript

On the program today, we welcome back Craig Mokhyber. As you may recall, Mr. Mokhyber served for more than three decades at the United Nations and left the UN last year in protest of what he considered that institution's human rights failures in the Middle East. And he warned of the unfolding genocide in Gaza.
Remarkably, that genocide continues apace despite the reports of all the horrors on the ground. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yov Galan for war crimes committed in Gaza. They are now officially international fugitives.
We're going to talk to Craig Mokhyber about what those ICC arrest warrants mean, what to expect from the incoming Trump administration vis-a-vis U.S.-Israel policy, and also about how the current policies could result in blowback against the United States. Then to conclude the program, Ralph has some salient points to make about what he considers Trump's best cabinet appointment,
the cost of rising credit card fees on small businesses, and a letter he wrote to AARP urging it to reform its practices because its nonprofit mission is coming into conflict with its business interests. As always, somewhere in the middle, we'll check in with our relentless corporate crime reporter, Russell Mokhyber.
But first, the world just got a whole lot smaller for Benjamin Netanyahu. David?
Craig Mokhyber is an international human rights lawyer and activist and a former senior United Nations human rights official. A human rights activist in the 1980s, he would go on to serve for more than three decades at the United Nations with postings in Switzerland, Palestine, Afghanistan, and the UN headquarters in New York City.
In October of 2023, he left the United Nations, penning a widely read letter criticizing
the UN's human rights failures in the Middle East,
warning of unfolding genocide in Gaza, and calling for a new approach to Palestine and Israel based on international law, human rights, and equality. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, Craig Mokhyber.
Thank you. Good to be back. Craig, welcome back. Let's start with something that just never ceases to astonish and dismay me. And that is the vast undercount of the fatality toll in Gaza. Can you give me your view on this undercount? Because first, the Palestinians aren't given a right to live in freedom and justice.
Now, they don't even have the right to have their fatalities counted. And if the real count was published in the New York Times and on television and from the Biden administration, it would change the dynamics. It would force more pressure on Netanyahu to let Western reporters and Israeli reporters to go into Gaza,
from which now they have been prohibited, except on guided tours. Can you give us your views on this undercount? The UN thinks it's an undercount. The only question is how much?
Yeah, and let me say that your comment on changing the dynamic in the sharing of this kind of information is extremely important. And I hope we'll have some time during this discussion to talk a little bit about the media and information pillar of the genocide that is unfolding in Palestine. But you're absolutely right.
There is little doubt in my mind now that we are talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Gaza Strip since the beginning of this genocide, this wave of genocide 14 months ago or so. We know, there are some things that we know. We know that already, just from confirmed kills where bodies have been recovered,
that 1,400 families have been entirely eradicated in Gaza during this wave of genocide. And you will know that Palestinian families are large families, traditionally. and they have been completely wiped out, at least 1400 of them, all of the generations, and erased from the public register, the civil register.
There are more than 3,400 confirmed families that have only one survivor left. And you're talking extended families, aren't you? Extended families. We're talking about being erased from the public register, the end of an extended family. This is what genocide looks like. And we know that the statistics that have been generated by the health ministry are confirmed families.
kills in violent death by the Israelis, bombs and bullets and so on. And we also know that in genocide, particularly one that has been as systematically orchestrated as this one, that the majority of deaths inevitably come from designed starvation, disease, injuries, and so on. So the number of 45,000 or so that have been specifically identified as being
pulled from the rubble and not having survived, that doesn't include the many thousands that are still buried under the rubble, a conservative estimate of which is 10,000. I suspect that is much more. There are those who have been totally obliterated for whom there are no remains remaining because of the nature of the weaponry
being used in these densely populated civilian areas. There are those who are dying of disease, of thirst, of starvation. There are those who are dying by succumbing to the wounds that they have suffered. It has now been reported by the United Nations that every Palestinian in Gaza, every Palestinian in Gaza, is either wounded or sick or both.
And remember that even the statistics that were used in the Lancet study, they were using models that deal with deaths in conflict. They're not models that were originally designed to look at genocide, where the killing is intentional. And in this case, you're not just talking about incidental starvation, incidental disease.
You're talking about systematically and intentionally imposed disease and starvation, as we know from the comments of the Israeli leaders. And this is also a situation in which a key strategy of the genocide has been the systematic destruction of the health care system, so that those who do become sick, those who do become wounded,
are less likely to survive. Hospitals have been specifically targeted in this genocide in ways that the UN has never seen in the history of the organization, one after another. The identification and targeting of healthcare professionals has been a key feature of this. And those hospitals and healthcare facilities are not only targeted because they
are places where people can get medical care and an opportunity to recover from the attacks to which they have been subjected, but they are also places of refuge. And so for the Israelis, they represent a key obstacle to genocide that has to be systematically removed, and that's what they've been doing since the very beginning.
And the last thing I'll say on this, Ralph, that Gaza is now the world capital of child amputation. And that doesn't even cover the true horror because Israel blocks any anesthesia from entering Gaza as a means of imposing further agony on the population that they are subjecting to genocide, which means
those amputations are being carried out on children and adults without anesthesia and often without sterile equipment or adequate hospitals such that even if they survive the excruciating agony of an amputation without anesthesia, they may well not survive the side effects. They may well not survive the infection.
So the question is this, that in order to try to get away with this, the Netanyahu genocidal regime is going after the United Nations. They're bombing UN facilities, feeding facilities, educational facilities, health facilities in Gaza. They've killed over 200 UN staff. In Lebanon, they have artilleried some installations of the UN peacekeeping force.
It's been there for many decades. And in front of the UN in New York City, they attack the UN with the most foul Trumpian-type knowledge when they are speaking at the General Assembly. So here they are. They're destroying UN facilities. They're killing UN staff. Why should they be allowed to stay in the UN?
Why aren't they expelled from the UN?
Well, first of all, I should say, Ralph, that the irony is that in November, the UN announced that Israel had paid its dues in full. in order to preserve its membership and to continue to fund the UN. An organization that the Israelis say is a terrorist, anti-Semitic organization dedicated to its destruction is an organization that they
have decided to be a member of and to fund. So, you know, when you look at the kind of propaganda that they distribute, which is very dangerous, by the way, putting a target on the back of the United Nations, you can see how ironic and how outrageous it really is.
I've said that it would be hard to imagine any country in the history of the organization more deserving as a minimum of suspension from the UN General Assembly. No country in history has violated the principles of the UN Charter more than Israel, and it has done so from the moment of its admission in 1948. First,
carving out the state through genocide, ethnic cleansing, and violation of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration, the Genocide Convention, and then violating Security Council, General Assembly resolutions, Palestinian self-determination ever since. It has literally now achieved the world record again for the violation of UN conventions, UN resolutions of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council,
and for repeatedly defying all applicable rulings of the International Court of Justice, which is also a UN organ. that just their defiance of so many Security Council resolutions, that constitutes a violation of Article 25 of the Charter. And today, you add to that that Israel is on trial in the world court for genocide.
Its leaders are the subject of arrest warrants for crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court. The ICJ has found that it is perpetrating apartheid and that it's occupation of Palestine is unlawful. It's attacking the occupied people of Palestine, but also many UN member states, among them Lebanon and Syria and Yemen and Iran.
It has conducted transnational terror attacks in Lebanon and repeatedly carried out foreign assassinations. And it's been repeatedly found responsible for gross and systematic violations of human rights by successive UN commissions of inquiry and special procedures. But what is most exceptional is that no country in the history of the organization has attacked the UN more than Israel has.
It has openly violated the privileges and immunities of the UN. From the very beginning, it has repeatedly blocked UN investigations, UN personnel, UN agencies from entering. It has attacked and smeared and obstructed UNRWA. It even PNG'd UN Secretary General. It announced that he was persona non grata.
It's killed more UN staff than any party in history, more than 230 in the last year alone. It has detained and tortured countless UN staff as well, and it has regularly attacked and slandered and obstructed the UN, and its duly mandated operations. As you said, it has repeatedly targeted UN peacekeepers,
not just these recent attacks and UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, going back for many, many years. And it has invaded and attacked and pillaged and damaged and destroyed UN premises, bombed UN schools and clinics and warehouses. You could not imagine a situation in which a country was more deserving of being removed.
And yet, there it is, still a member of the UN General Assembly.
A lot of this behavior by Israel is protected by the United States veto on the UN Security Council and the diplomatic and political cover the U.S. gives to Israel among U.S. allies. So what do you see coming? Do you see any difference between the B.B. Biden and B.B. Blinken obeisance to Netanyahu? You see any difference coming in?
How would you characterize the transition on Middle East policy from B.B. Biden to B.B. Donald?
Well, B.B. is the key factor there. I mean, at their core, Biden and Trump and all of their predecessors since the 1940s have been equally beholden to the Israel lobby, to the broader Zionist project for the colonization of Palestine, and for the Israeli and U.S. domination of the Middle East. So at their core, They are the same.
You can see proof of that in the fact that all of the mad policies of Donald Trump during his first term in the Middle East, you know, the Jerusalem embassy, the illegal annexation of the Syrian Golan, the eviction of the Palestinian ambassador, the unilateral abrogation of the Iran nuclear deal, the nonsense, you know, Abraham Accords.
Biden reversed none of these policies, and he tried actually to further advance them. And then he actually went further than Donald Trump. by joining Israel in the perpetration of a genocide in Palestine. Now, of course, Trump is now putting together an Israel-first administration comprised of some of
the worst characters that we can find in the darkest corners of the United States. We're talking about fascists and white nationalists and Zionists and neopuns and Islamophobes and xenophobes of every stripe. So we can certainly expect a dangerous four years under Trump. There's no denying it. Dangerous for the people of the Middle East,
also dangerous for American citizens who are opposing the genocide and U.S. policy in the Middle East as well. You can expect violations of human rights defenders in this country, starting with those defending Palestinian human rights. But we shouldn't forget that we've just had a four-year term under Biden and Harris
in which they undid none of those policies and which they actually supported horrific international crimes being perpetrated by Israel. And Biden and his administration were at the helm of the brutal repression of human rights defenders here in the United States, on college campuses and workplaces, in the streets and in media places.
So we're going to go from genocide abroad and repression at home under Biden to more genocide abroad and repression at home under Trump. The only difference is that Trump won't waste his time on the kind of mendacious pretense of civility and humanitarian concern that was peddled by Biden and Harris as it murdered babies in their thousands.
And we also know that Trump, he has to pay back with policy a $100 million check that he got from Marian Adelson. And that could well lead to his recognition of the illegal annexation of the West Bank or other unlawful moves like that. That will not change any realities or dynamics on the ground. The U.S.
cannot impose itself on international law. That will still be an unlawful act. But in the end, we're not going to see a very significant change under Trump, just a ruder tone in the implementation of unlawful policy.
Well, let's talk about the dissent bubbling up inside Israel here. As all Israelis know, Netanyahu is clinging to his job as long as the war continues in Gaza. So if you put aside the October 7th assault by Hamas, Netanyahu is despised by three out of four Israelis. But he's holding off and staying in office.
Now comes the report in the New York Times that former Israeli defense minister, Moshe Yalon is saying that Israeli's Netanyahu regime, quote, is perpetrating war crimes, end quote, in Palestine. What do you think the significance of that is going to be? Are they going to try to quarantine him, prosecute him,
or is he speaking for what he says he's receiving? That is, messages from Israeli soldiers in Gaza who are ordered to commit these war crimes worry that there'll be defendants in the expansion of the war crime investigation by the International Criminal Court.
Well, of course, I mean, what he said was that Israel is committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing in the north of Gaza and that it intends to resettle the land with new illegal Israeli settlements, which is not a surprise to anyone who's been monitoring the situation on the ground.
But it is remarkable for a former senior Israeli official to actually make that confession public in the way that he has. It's been obvious from the start that the objective was ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza. That its objective has always been to kill as many people as possible, to render Gaza unlivable,
so that any genocide survivors will be compelled to either leave or to die slow, agonizing deaths. So that part of it is not surprising. What's surprising is that it came from Ayalon, because, you know, you talk about the opposition to Netanyahu. The opposition to Netanyahu is about his governance. It's about his corruption.
It's about his interference with the judiciary. It's about his failures on October 7th. It's about his failures with regard to the hostages. There is very little opposition within the Israeli public for the genocide that's being perpetrated. Sadly, it is broadly supported within the Israeli public.
That's not surprising given the history of the country and the kind of propaganda that saturates Israeli society, but it is also a product of one of the key pillars of this genocide, which is the media and information. pillar, the media and information strategy that Israel has been practicing inside Israel, but also in the West in particular, because,
you know, they realize that this genocide could not be sustained without the continuing flow of Western support of Western weapons and Western diplomatic cover and so on. And so that's been an absolute key pillar. And it's not just in Israel, US government and corporate media are also playing a key role in controlling the narrative.
by disseminating Israeli genocide propaganda, by covering up events that are happening on the ground. Israel is doing this also through the murder of Palestinian journalists. They specifically have followed, targeted, and killed journalists. It's another Israeli world record for the killing of journalists and media workers. More than 190 in the past year alone targeted and killed by Israel.
Hundreds more events injured, arrested, imprisoned, tortured. This is a specific target to silence Palestinian journalists because they don't allow international media inside of Gaza. And so the loose piece for them is the Palestinian journalists themselves. And so they have particularly targeted them. They attacked and seized Palestinian media facilities across Palestine. They barred foreign journalists.
They barred Al Jazeera even outside of Gaza. They passed punitive legislation against the leading Israeli paper, Ha'aretz. for including critical perspectives on what's happening in Gaza. They have a system that goes back to the beginning of the state of strict military censorship of all media inside of Israel.
And then they have this very active transnational program of Israeli propaganda and disinformation, which fabricates all sorts of lies to justify their war crimes, starting on October 7th with falsified stories of beheaded babies and mass rape campaigns in military command centers under hospitals.
all of which has proven not to be true and then the use of Israeli proxy organizations in the west put pressure on journalists that don't toe the line into silence critical reporting you've got the lockstep collaboration of many western media corporations and openly knowingly disseminating Israeli disinformation and propaganda, dehumanizing Palestinians, blacking out the genocide in the West.
So this is a very key part of the genocide, both inside of Israel to maintain public support there, but also in the West, because without the support of American taxpayers, American weapons, American economic support, American diplomatic cover, American intelligence, the genocide could not continue. And that's why controlling the information is so important to them.
Well, you know, for people listening who don't care much what's going on in the Middle East, listeners, you should care about what this Israeli genocide, this Israeli sub-empire, part of the U.S. empire in the Middle East is doing to the United States and its democracy.
So talk about the Congress and the gap between the White House Congress on the one hand and the American people on the other.
Well, I mean, that's absolutely right. I think your listeners will not be surprised to know that the Congress and many in the government have reached a level of capture and corruption, much of it legalized corruption, that is probably unprecedented in the history of the organization. This is true of the pharmaceutical lobby. It's true of the insurance lobby.
It's true of the real estate lobby. It's true of the military and industrial complex. And it's true of the Israel lobby. And when you look now and you see the utter disconnect generally between the policies that are pursued by the Congress on the one hand and what the American people want on the other hand,
you see that to call the United States a democracy anymore is kind of a cruel joke. That is certainly true when it comes to foreign policy, and it's especially true when it comes to policy around Israel and Palestine. It goes so far that you've actually got members of Congress on behalf of an oppressive foreign regime in Israel,
attacking American citizens, including young people in America, students on college campuses, in order to silence them from speaking up on human rights. That is truly remarkable. Not only is this oppressive foreign regime siphoning off american taxpayer money in the tens of billions of dollars to perpetrate international crimes but it is also enabling the persecution by the government,
by the Congress, by university administrations of Americans who are standing up against these crimes. That tells you something about who the government is representing. Clearly, it's not the American people in such a situation. And this provision of things like 2,000 pound bomb without restriction, the purpose of this is genocide. These are quite literally weapons of mass destruction.
They're being targeted on one of the most densely populated civilian areas on the planet. They're by definition indiscriminate weapons. They're guaranteed to produce mass civilian casualties. And they're directed at refugee camps, at homes, at UN shelters, at medical facilities, at all civilian areas. The United States government knows this. The United States Congress knows this.
And yet it has continued to provide these weapons and to run cover for the violations of international law committed by Israel with those weapons provided by the United States. And it's done so over and over again, leaving piles of massacred bodies in their thousands.
So this is, Ralph, this is legal complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. It's quintessential complicity in genocide, committed with U.S. weapons, paid for with U.S. tax dollars, supported by U.S. intelligence, facilitated by U.S. diplomatic cover, and obscured by U.S. government propaganda. There couldn't be a clearer case of complicity.
You know a lot about this International Criminal Court. Why do the newspapers keep reporting that it's going to take months, if not years, for them to go from a plausible genocide charge and an arrest warrant for Netanyahu to a final decision on genocide? Why does it take so long?
Netanyahu gives them evidence every day of the year that he's committing genocide.
Yeah, I'd say a couple of things about that. One is on your point about the U.S. position. The striking thing is the hypocrisy of the U.S. 20 years ago, it was pronouncing on the world stage the importance of humanitarian intervention to stop war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
Today, its principal profile on the global stage is in defense. of a live stream genocide that the whole world is watching in real time. The costs to the US brand over the long term are going to be massive for what the US is carrying out here and for the capture of US foreign policy.
The American people will never get back the benefits of what they have done. The one key hope is that we are seeing cracks in the wall of impunity that Israel has enjoyed with the defense of the U.S. and the U.K. and the Germans and some others. That impunity is starting to crack, and in significant measure,
it's cracking because of the activism of civil society, of movements in the U.S. across the West and across the world, who are waking up and the people are pulling back the curtain on Israeli apartheid, on settler colonialism, on the genocide, and on U.S. complicity in all of these crimes.
And this movement of accountability for Israeli perpetrators of redress for Palestinian victims, for boycott, divestment and sanctions, for an end to apartheid, and for judicial accountability and international judicial mechanisms, that's growing. It's growing with the raising of voices by Jews and Christians and Muslims and
students and workers and clergy and teachers and ordinary people from every walk of life who are standing up despite unprecedented repression, the threat of beatings and arrest by police, of expulsion from their colleges, firing from their jobs, being smeared and slandered as supporters of terrorism or anti-Semites. That's growing every day, and now it's very much unstoppable.
It's making a difference because we know from the many revelations that the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, behind the scenes, in the shadows, they have been subjected to enormous pressure by Israeli intelligence agencies, by the Mossad, that have threatened and sought to induce the judges and the prosecutors of these mechanisms going back
for a decade since the opening of the Palestine file. We know that that harassment has continued since the beginning of the genocide, the current wave of genocide in Gaza. And in spite of that, we have seen that the International Court of Justice has stepped up that Israel is on trial for genocide in the International Court of Justice.
The International Court of Justice has issued its landmark opinion on the illegality of the Israeli occupation, on Israel's practicing of the crime of apartheid. And of course, the International Criminal Court now issuing arrest warrants for Israel's leaders for crimes against humanity. And by the way, both of those actions in the International Court of Justice
and especially in the International Criminal Court, were delayed for an unprecedented amount of time because of fear and trepidation on the part of court officials, not just from the threats behind the scenes by Israel, but the public threats as well from lawless American lawmakers in the Congress
threatening to obstruct justice by using the power of the United States to interfere with these trials. And yet they stepped forward because they heard from civil society, they heard from these movements, they heard from ordinary people who are not fooled by the lies of corporate media and government podiums,
who are seeing with their own eyes the horrors that are being perpetrated on the people of Palestine by Israel and by the United States, the UK. and Germany, and they are standing up to oppose this. And those courts know that they too are on trial and that they may not survive if
they failed in such an obvious case of genocide and that the reputations of the individual judges and prosecutors would not survive either. And so the world has compelled these institutions to act. And that's something I think that provides a glimmer of hope in what has been an extremely dark year.
Well, just as you think there's got to be a self-restraint on the part of the U.S. government from toting up to Netanyahu, they break through. The recent actions by the International Criminal Court and the World Court against the Netanyahu regime for war crimes, every time they put out a statement on this, Netanyahu attacks the court as anti-Semitic.
How dare you challenge an Israeli leader? compared to the challenges they've made to African leaders, dictators. And then like ping pong, the next day or a few hours later, B.B. Biden and B.B. Blinken are attacking the same courts harshly, saying how dare they even try to impose and enforce international law on the Netanyahu genocidal regime.
It's like a ping pong. So what do you see the future of civic resistance and civic power in the U.S. in the coming days? You think it's going to get more intense? Or do you think Trump is going to wield the terror word and use the Insurrection
Act and other acts to come down even harder on people who are engaged in peaceful marches, resistance, and lobbying against the U.S. complicity and co-belligerency under international law with Netanyahu's genocide?
Well, I don't think the genie of U.S. resistance in the U.S. is going away. I think all the people who are horrified by what the U.S. is doing, together with Israel in the Middle East, that has caused an awakening in this country, which is not going to go away out of fear for the Trump administration.
I think that we have seen that those voices have continued to grow, those demonstrations have continued to grow, and I think they will continue to do so. That does not mean that there isn't a real danger emanating from the Trump administration. He has, as I said, put together not just an Israel-first administration,
but an administration of Israel extremists. Marco Rubio, chief neocon, anti-Palestinian racist, Mideast war hawk. Mike Waltz, a Zionist extremist known for his advocacy of attacks on Americans at home for criticizing Israel, not to mention supporting attacks on the Palestinians and others on behalf of Israel. Elise Stefanik, as UN ambassador,
her claim to fame is attacking American college students on behalf of the Israel lobby and demanding an end to free speech and academic freedom in order to silence public criticism of Israeli genocide and apartheid.
Craig Wurst, she goes and addresses the Israeli Knesset and refuses numerous requests to have a town meeting back in her own district in upstate New York. And Huckabee, who's a proposed ambassador to Israel for Donald Trump, says there's no such thing as the Palestinian people. The ultimate devolution of genocide is omnicide.
And that's who Trump is basically nominating. People want to wipe out the Palestinians and annex the West Bank and Gaza to the greater vision of Israel, which, going back to its founders, David Ben-Gurion, has always been the dream. to take all of the Palestinian mandate and push the Palestinians out if they don't exterminate them in the meantime.
Which Mike Huckabee would be very happy for. I mean, he's a Christian Zionist, religious extremist who openly rejects international law, repeatedly makes public racist statements against Palestinians. He'll be the ambassador to Israel. And alongside him, Steve Whitcoff as the Middle East envoy. a billionaire real estate developer, an Israel lobby operative,
who since October 7th has been supporting the genocide and actively served as the Trump campaign's back channel to the U.S. Zionist donor community, securing large six- and seven-figure donations from wealthy pro-Israel donors, you can expect that there's going to be a payback coming from that direction. And, you know, straight across the administration, Elon Musk,
who used to be Mr. Free Speech, but has declared that he's free speech except for Palestine, and now is the chief censor for the Israel lobby through his social media platform. So I expect that the attacks are going to continue.
In some areas, they may get worse, but I don't think people are going to be deterred from speaking up in the great moral cause of our age, which is a U.S.-supported genocide in Palestine.
Well, Craig, there's a nightmare scenario here. In the past year, both the CIA, NSA, and Department of Justice have been doing internal scenarios of what they call blowback. That means counterattack into this country for what we're doing to the Palestinians and other civilians overseas. If there are counterattacks, like different versions of 9-11,
or different uses of easily constructed deadly drones that have been refined and developed by Ukraine and US military, it's now cheap. It's now something that can be even produced in garages with deadly arms. If that happens, that will fall right into the hands of Donald J. Trump's dictator scenario, because then he's got the terror issue to deploy.
And then it's pretty much curtains for any kind of free speech. and mobilization, because they'll all be called terrorists or accomplices of terrorists. Listeners, this is where it's likely to head, because you can't keep wiping out entire extended families. What do you anticipate here? This could be extremely serious and destroy all domestic priorities.
You think there's going to be opportunities to expand the response to pandemics that are coming, or to climate disruption that are needed, or to alleviate the poverty in this country, or to build up the public services in this country, or to deal with mundane issues like massive solar erosion and healthcare denial? Your views?
Well, I think that the sad reality is that successive administrations, Democrat and Republican, have been building the foundations for what you have just described going back for decades, and that we have been on a downward spiral in the United States in human rights terms. not just in the conduct of the United States abroad,
but in the precarious positioning of the human rights of people inside the United States. And we've been horrified over the course of the last 14 months by the open assaults on the human rights of people who are standing up peacefully to oppose the genocide. Not just the smears and the slander,
but they have been attacked using the force of government and using the law. They have been arrested. They have been expelled. They have been fired, they have been subjected to all kinds of legal harassment, including by the US Congress itself and then in local administrations. The FBI, according to reports,
is already knocking on the doors of people simply for speaking out against the genocide in Palestine. I don't doubt that that dissent is going to continue until the people of the United States take back their government, which has been captured by destructive special interests, both in its domestic policy and in its foreign policy. And in foreign policy,
there's no case more obvious than the capture of policy by the Israel lobby and by the military-industrial complex. This is a downward spiral that wasn't born with the election of Donald Trump, is what I'm saying here. But Donald Trump is just the man for the job to fully exploit the platform that's
been built for him by Biden and Obama and Bush and others going back for decades with the erosion of the human rights of all of us. And I think if the American people don't wake up, very soon that the dark scenario that you draw will happen either in the next administration or in an administration to come afterwards.
I also think that you are right in your premise that you cannot actively participate in the sniper hunting of children, in the murder of babies, in the wiping out of whole families, in the bombing of hospitals and refugee camps, in the torture of thousands, in the destruction of a whole people and not suffer some consequence.
No one is impervious to consequences for crimes of a massive historic nature of what we're witnessing happening in Palestine.
We're in extremely perilous times. Nothing since the Civil War can compare with what's going to happen. And the Democratic Party deserves a very severe denunciation for allowing it to happen and being unable and unwilling to adopt progressive policies like those espoused by Bernie Sanders. in order to defeat the worst, most vicious, most indentured,
corrupt Republican Party in history since it was formed in 1854. So the countervailing forces are just not there. They're not there to stop it. Listeners, I don't want you to despair here. You've got one leverage left, and that's the Congress. It's very close between Democrat-Republican, but there are 535 people that are equipped with the constitutional authority to
stop a lot of this. And when they see what's going to happen to their own country, to their own districts back home economically, climate disruption, all kinds of chaos, a lot of these Republicans might have second thoughts and stand up for the Republic and the Constitution. Your final thoughts, Craig.
Anything you want to say before we have to conclude?
Well, I hope that you are right about some hope within the United States Congress or the Democratic Party. I have some skepticism on that. I suspect that on the matters we've been discussing, both are equally captured, and that's the danger that we find ourselves in. My hope, the light that I look to, is in the people themselves,
in civil society, in movements, and in this flame that's been growing to oppose these kinds of horrors just among ordinary people, the students who have led in this country the moral vision that it's been lacking for so long, over the course of the last year-plus labor unions, social movements, peace movements, human rights defenders,
people who work in the public interest. Unfortunately, the institutions themselves, in my view, which includes the Congress, which includes the administration, which includes the political parties and others, I think these are lost to us in large measure. And I think as much as we'd like to turn to them, and we have to use whatever we have,
I agree with you there, but as much as we'd like to turn to them for hope, we're at a moment in history where we have to make our own hope, where it's up to us and it's not going to be easy, but either we push back, either we resist, what has been happening and what is coming,
or I'm going to have to agree with the darkness that you stand up.
There's more precedent for optimism here. When the American people made their stand on the Vietnam War unrebutable, the Congress cut off the appropriations during the Nixon years and stopped the Vietnam War. They just cut off the money. And years later, when Obama was thinking of sending the U.S. military into Syria, 95% of a torrent of no, no,
no poured into the Congress on Republican Democratic incumbents. And the Congress froze any attempt by Obama to go into Syria. Don't underestimate the power of the sudden arousal of indignant Americans who see that they're all living in the same boat in this country and that divide and rule
tactics of the ruling classes are no longer going to divide and rule and that they have their families and their neighborhood and their communities and their future to protect. And it's going to be done by taking control of Congress. between elections. They don't have to wait for elections,
because members of Congress have their finger to the wind every day of the year, and the people have got to give them powerful wind power to come back home. Steve?
I wanted to get back to the International Criminal Court, and what is the likelihood that Netanyahu and his minions will actually be arrested, or is this largely symbolic? It is at the moment unlikely that they will be arrested, but it's not symbolic. And the reason is because it has already had an impact on Netanyahu and Galant's lives.
They cannot travel to at least 124 countries with confidence. They cannot pursue their personal interest or their governmental interest or otherwise because those states are obliged to arrest them and to hand them over to the court. Now, it's true that the U.S. has been working behind the scenes to peel off some of those Western states that
have subsequently, France and others, issued equivocal statements on whether or not they would meet their obligations under the Rome Statute to arrest Netanyahu. But in the end, I believe that the statute will prevail. And that means not only in those 124 countries, but in other countries as well, where states have obligations under other treaties,
not least the Genocide Convention, who are bound by the provisional measures of the International Court of Justice, they too may feel compelled to cooperate with the court. So it is unlikely that Israel will hand over its perpetrators for international trial. but they are already extremely limited.
They have been marked as fugitives from justice, as suspected perpetrators of crimes against humanity. That impact is real, and it is a part of chipping away at that longstanding impunity of Israel, and therefore it's extremely important. So they may never be brought to trial, but they will pay a cost for these enormous crimes. David?
America and Israel are not signatories to the Rome Agreement,
so can you be arrested by the International Criminal Court if you're from a country that doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court? It can be because the statute of the International Criminal Court provides also for territorial jurisdiction. It only requires that one interested party be a party.
In this case, Palestine is a recognized party to the Rome statute. The crimes are being committed on the territory of Palestine. so Netanyahu is covered there. Those in the U.S. who are actually violating the Rome Statute through obstruction of justice and attacking the court officials also may have some concerns, even though the U.S. has not ratified it,
because the Netherlands, which is the seat of the International Criminal Court, is a party to the Rome Statute, and so crimes committed on the court would be covered by the jurisdiction of the territorial jurisdiction of the netherlands and the statute of the court itself makes criminal these kinds of
attacks that some people in washington have been launching against the court so of course you know the u.s has committed itself to obstructing justice and to attacking the court that the congress has actually passed the so-called hague invasion act in order to have some legislative justification for attacking the netherlands in order to free
any perpetrators from the International Criminal Court. We are well and true witnessing a government of the United States, which is a rogue state on the international scene with real disdain for international law. But it's clear that the jurisdiction would be there and that the court could take action if it had the courage to do so. Hannah?
What if we say this is America's final form? We have a lot of fixing to do at home, but the rest of the world is getting us kind of full throttle. This is who we've always wanted to be, threatening to invade the Netherlands to free war criminals from The Hague.
So let's say the rest of the world finally decides that America cannot be reasoned with. Is there a way for other UN member states or signatories to certain conventions or just other countries you can forge alliances to remove the US from the equation in a plausible way, or if not plausible, pie in the sky, we're creating a,
you know, fantastical imaginary scenario that is possible if not plausible.
Well, that is the way that much of the world already views the United States. And I can tell you as someone who lived and worked internationally for 32 years, long before even this genocide in Palestine, the view of much of the world, if not most of the world, that the U.S.
was effectively a rogue actor that placed itself above international law, above basic humanity, and would use its force, the power of its dollar and the power of its military, to impose its will, no matter how cruel or unjust, on the rest of the world. That was already the view. Now, after the course of the last 14 months,
the few remaining skeptics around the world have seen that the curtain has been pulled back so radically and have seen the U.S., for what I'm afraid to say, is the reality of the U.S. empire and the way that it behaves. That has contributed, I think, to the decline of the unipolar moment,
the decline of what you could call U.S. empire that was already beginning to decline with the rise of China and others, the rise of other alliances like the BRICS, the diminishment of the U.S. position in the United Nations. Outside of the Security Council, where it has a veto, the U.S. has lost a lot of power.
and influence in other bodies in the Human Rights Council, in the General Assembly and elsewhere. It is extremely isolated on the international states. Just yesterday, it voted with Israel and a few South Pacific dependencies and a few far-right regime almost alone against the entire world on the latest resolution on Palestine
and on the occupation and on an international conference to be convened next year. So the U.S. is increasingly isolated. Its star is declining. Its stock is declining on the international stage as others raise. And any moral capital that it ever had that wasn't already spent before October of last year has now been completely exhausted. So, you know,
in our life, we're going to see a lot more struggle and upheaval and violence and suffering. But we are clearly, in my view, witnessing the decline of the American empire through self-inflicted wounds, to be sure.
All empires eventually devour themselves, and we're not going to be an exception unless we arouse ourselves to reverse the tide of historical judgment. Craig, before we conclude, what would you like our listeners to read that you've written, and is there anything else you'd like to say?
Well, I've been dedicating myself very much to this genocide over the course of the last year, publishing on Mondoweiss, in particular, a series of pieces that are designed to undo the propaganda that has saturated the West about claims, for example, of Israel having a right to defend itself, claims about human shields,
a whole range of issues that are deeply distorted in the public discourse in the U.S. and in the broader West. I feel folks should take a look at Mondo Weiss for those pieces.
Thank you. We've been talking with Craig McIver for many years, was working for various UN agencies on human rights all over the world. He knows what he's talking about. He's observed and thought about these issues for a long time. And thank you for your contributions on the program today, Craig McIver.
Thank you, Ralph. Thank you, guys. We've been speaking with Craig Mokhyber. We will link to his work at Mondeweiss at ralphnaderradiohour.com. Up next, we'll hear Ralph's thoughts on Trump's cabinet, credit card fees, and conflicts of interest at the AARP.

[admin]

Israel to close embassy in Ireland after Dublin backs Gaza genocide case
Al Jazeera English
Dec 15, 2024

Israel says it will close its embassy in Ireland, citing Dublin’s recognition of a Palestinian state and support for South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for its actions in Gaza.
“The decision to close Israel’s embassy in Dublin was made in light of the extreme anti-Israel policies of the Irish government,” Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said in a statement on Sunday.

Bobby McDonagh is a former Irish ambassador to the UK, the European Union and Italy.
He says Israel's move to close the embassy, reflects its inability to accept a balanced approach to the Palestine issue.



Transcript

0:00
Israel plans to shut its Dublin Embassy
0:02
citing Ireland's anti-israel stance as
0:05
relations between the two Nations
0:06
further deteriorate Dublin has called
0:08
the decision deeply regrettable last
0:11
week Ireland supported South Africa's
0:13
genocide case against Israel at the
0:15
international court of justice in
0:16
October Ireland and unifil rejected
0:18
Israel's call to withdraw peacekeepers
0:21
from Lebanon citing Israeli forces
0:23
proximity to Irish troops as concerning
0:26
and in May Ireland alongside Spain and
0:29
Norway way recognized Palestine as a
0:32
state prompting Israel to recall its
0:35
envoys Bobby McDon is a former Irish
0:38
ambassador to the UK EU and Italy you're
0:40
joining us sir from Dublin thank you for
0:41
your time your reaction to Israel
0:44
shutting its Embassy in
0:46
Ireland well Israel is a sovereign
0:48
country and it's free to take whatever
0:50
decisions it wants about its empasis
0:52
abroad Ireland is likewise a sovereign
0:54
country uh with a somewhat higher moral
0:57
standing in the world than Israel has at
0:59
the moment and we're also fre free to
1:01
take our decisions about balanced
1:03
matters of principle which we have
1:04
consistently done in relation to the
1:06
conflict in the Middle East so what's
1:08
happened today is a purely Israeli
1:10
decision and the Irish government has as
1:13
you say um made clear that it's deeply
1:15
regretable that the Irish position is
1:17
not anti-israeli it is pro peace pro-
1:19
human rights pro- international law and
1:22
pro- humanitarian law and the government
1:24
has also made clear that it has no plans
1:25
to close its own Embassy in Tel Aviv and
1:27
we do hope to keep diplomatic uh channel
1:30
is open because that's important
1:31
everywhere in the world so I'm wondering
1:33
how you actually read the decision I
1:35
mean the why of it all why is Israel
1:37
doing this is this for domestic
1:38
political consumption to show hey we are
1:41
you know we're putting pressure on the
1:42
countries that have moved uh in in ways
1:45
that we deem hostile or is this perhaps
1:47
a way to put pressure on other countries
1:48
that are maybe considering recognizing
1:50
Palestine as a
1:51
state well I think the first thing to to
1:54
say is that there are two elements of
1:56
the Israeli foreign ministry's statement
1:58
on today's decision that are completely
2:00
false the first is that they accuse
2:02
Ireland of extreme anti-israeli
2:04
positions this is not true Ireland has
2:06
taken a balanced approach which at the
2:08
moment involves not only condemning what
2:10
Hamas did two years ago but also
2:12
condemning the totally disproportionate
2:14
Israeli response that's a Balan position
2:16
and I think what annoys Israel is that
2:19
moderation is seen by them as extremism
2:22
and the second thing that's even more
2:24
ludicrous is the allegation of
2:26
anti-Semitic rhetoric on the part of the
2:28
Irish government that's not just it's
2:30
utter nonsense and I hope your viewers
2:32
will will understand that there is not
2:34
one single example of an Irish
2:35
government making an anti-semitic remark
2:37
it's part of the deliberate conflation
2:40
by the present Israeli government and
2:41
some of their supporters in the world a
2:44
conflation between uh anti-Semitism
2:47
which is a Scourge wherever it happens
2:48
it's not particularly prevalent in
2:50
Ireland and condemnation of the
2:53
grotesque behavior of the Israeli
2:55
government where we we we we we heard
2:56
just now on your program 16 more people
2:58
killed in a school every day and we see
3:00
it with our eyes and so what the
3:02
government's position in general and uh
3:06
specifically in condemning the killings
3:08
in Gaza the disproportionate and
3:09
indiscriminate killings is very much
3:11
effective of Irish public opinion what
3:14
does this tell us about Israel there
3:16
there's a country that is so in this
3:17
case Ireland that is supporting a court
3:19
case against Israel all of this is about
3:22
international law and about facts where
3:24
evidence is presented it's not politics
3:26
it's law uh and Israel in response
3:30
shuts down its Embassy in that
3:32
country well there's two things I'd say
3:35
on that the first is that Israel has
3:37
chosen to close its Embassy in Dublin
3:39
but not its embassies in Madrid and Oslo
3:42
uh Ireland has worked in lock step with
3:44
Norway and Spain so there's something
3:45
going on there I mean possibly they
3:47
think it's easier to pick on a small
3:49
country uh Ireland is more than able to
3:51
stand up for itself but there may be
3:52
some some element there you ask me
3:55
what's going on I I think quite honestly
3:58
uh there's a degree of irrationality
4:00
going on I mean I do understand the Deep
4:03
Emotions in Israel following the Hamas
4:05
attacks in Israel but if if a country
4:08
ceases to be able to behave rationally
4:10
by for example condemning Ireland's
4:12
relatively moderate and balanced
4:13
approach as being anti-semitic it's not
4:15
only feel like upsetting for for our
4:17
country H but it's also uh not very
4:21
optimistic about the future of Israel I
4:24
mean you can get you can get away with
4:25
saying that sort of thing but if it
4:27
can't think rationally and behave
4:29
rationally about international relations
4:31
in the longer run it's really not good
4:33
for for itself can you speak to um when
4:36
there's a big high-profile event like
4:39
this right a headline grabbing event one
4:41
country shutting down an embassy in
4:43
another country over uh over an event in
4:46
this case Ireland supporting South
4:48
Africa in the genocide case against
4:50
Israel when there's that in the public
4:52
eye what's actually going on behind
4:54
closed doors are there more measured
4:56
more reasonable discussions and
4:58
conversations between diplomats behind
5:00
closed doors or
5:02
not well as I said I hope that um the
5:05
Irish Embassy will remain open in t Aviv
5:07
um certainly the Irish government's
5:09
intention is that it should I think it
5:11
is important to maintain dialogue h i
5:14
mean the Israeli statement also said
5:15
today that it will it will calibrate its
5:18
EMES abroad in proportion to how
5:21
supportive they are of Israel that's
5:22
more or less those those aren't the
5:24
exact words but that's not the way
5:25
International diplomacy works you have
5:27
to have embassies not only in countries
5:29
that friendly with you within countries
5:31
with which you have differences and
5:33
Ireland has always stood solidly behind
5:35
the right of Israel to exist and we
5:37
believe strongly in Israel's right to
5:38
exist the Irish government has
5:40
consistently condemned uh what what what
5:42
Hamas did but at the same time we are
5:44
profound Believers in a two-state
5:47
solution there will be no peace long
5:49
term in the Middle East unless the equal
5:51
rights of the Palestinians and I
5:53
emphasize equal rights of the
5:54
Palestinians with the Israelis are
5:55
recognized and that's at the heart of
5:57
the Irish government's approach Bobby
5:59
McDon former Irish ambassador to the UK
6:01
EU and Italy thank you for joining us on
6:03
aljazera thank
6:06
you

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

The BBC’s Civil War Over Gaza: The BBC is facing an internal revolt over its reporting on Israel’s war on Gaza.
by Owen Jones
Dec 19, 2024
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/bbc-civi ... d-coverage

Today Drop Site News is publishing a landmark investigation about the BBC’s coverage of Israel’s unrelenting assault on Gaza by British journalist Owen Jones. His report is based on interviews with 13 journalists and other BBC staffers who offer remarkable insights into how senior figures within the BBC’s news operation skewed stories in favor of Israel’s narratives and repeatedly dismissed objections registered by scores of staffers who, throughout the past 14 months, demanded that the network uphold its commitment to impartiality and fairness. Jones’s investigation of the BBC has three main components: a deeply reported look into the internal complaints from BBC journalists, a quantitative assessment of how the BBC characterizes the year-long siege on Gaza, and a review of the histories of the people behind the coverage—and, in particular, one editor, Raffi Berg.

Appropriately, when Jones began this reporting as an independent journalist and reached out to Berg for comment, Berg at first hired the famous defamation lawyer Mark Lewis, who is also former Director of UK Lawyers for Israel. Jones is a Guardian columnist and hosts his own searing independent news coverage on YouTube. If you have the means to help pay for Jones’s $24,000 in initial legal bills in vetting the story, you can do so here.

We are living in an era where many people expect the news to be delivered in 280 characters or less. But investigative journalism often necessitates a careful peeling back of layers, an examination of background and context, and incorporating the insights of many sources. This is a long read, and may take you a couple of sittings to get through, but it’s well worth our attention given the global influence of the BBC, which hails itself as “the world’s most trusted international news provider.” As Jones notes, the BBC website is the most-visited news site on the internet. In May alone, it had 1.1 billion visits.

At Drop Site News, we believe in holding powerful people and institutions accountable, particularly when their actions—or what they publish and how—mean life or death. It is in that spirit that we are publishing Jones’s investigation.

Please subscribe (our journalism is all free) and consider upgrading to a paid subscription to support our work:

—Nausicaa Renner, founding editor

The BBC’s Civil War Over Gaza
Story by Owen Jones
The BBC is facing an internal revolt over its reporting on Israel’s war on Gaza.

Their primary battlefield has become the online news operation. Drop Site News spoke to 13 current and former staffers who mapped out the extensive bias in the BBC’s coverage and how their demands for change have been largely met with silence from management. At times, these journalists point out, the coverage has been more credulous about Israeli claims than the UK’s own Conservative leaders and the Israeli media, while devaluing Palestinian life, ignoring atrocities, and creating a false equivalence in an entirely unbalanced conflict.

The BBC journalists who spoke to Drop Site News believe the imbalance is structural, and has been enforced by the top brass for many years; all of them requested anonymity for fear of professional retribution. The journalists also overwhelmingly point to the role of one person in particular: Raffi Berg, BBC News online’s Middle East editor. Berg sets the tone for the BBC’s digital output on Israel and Palestine, they say. They also allege that internal complaints about how the BBC covers Gaza have been repeatedly brushed aside. “This guy’s entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel,” one former BBC journalist said.

In November, the journalists’ outrage at the Corporation’s overall coverage spilled out into the open after more than 100 BBC employees signed a letter accusing the organization, along with other broadcasters, of failing to adhere to its own editorial standards. The BBC lacked “consistently fair and accurate evidence-based journalism in its coverage of Gaza” across its platforms, they wrote. The employees also requested that the BBC make a series of specific changes:

reiterating that Israel does not give external journalists access to Gaza, making it clear when there is insufficient evidence to back up Israeli claims, highlighting the extent to which Israeli sources are reliable, making clear where Israel is the perpetrator in article headlines, providing proportionate representation of experts in war crimes and crimes against humanity, including regular historical context predating October 2023, use of consistent language when discussing both Israeli and Palestinian deaths, and robustly challenging Israeli government and military representatives in all interviews.

One BBC journalist told me that the letter was “a last resort after several tried to engage using the usual channels with management and were just ignored.” Another journalist tells me they hadn’t signed the letter because they weren’t aware of it, stating the strength of feeling went “way beyond” the signatories.

BBC management has rejected claims that such dissent has been ignored. In the reply sent by Deborah Turness, CEO of BBC News, which Drop Site News obtained, Turness told them to “please note we would not normally reply to unsigned, anonymous correspondence,” adding that “BBC News is proud of its journalism and always open to discussion about it, but this is made more difficult when parties are not willing to do so openly and transparently.” She claimed the BBC engaged with internal BBC staff and “external stakeholders” on coverage of Israel and Palestine, and argued “the BBC does not and cannot reflect any single world view, and reports without fear of [sic] favour.” One BBC journalist told me this reflected the BBC’s desire to “frame this as an identity politics issue, when it’s not. It’s about not blindly accepting the Israeli line.” Another called it “very patronizing.”


Email from Deborah Turness

The internal critique peaked again in December, after journalists say the BBC failed to highlight Amnesty International’s report concluding that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza. Senior correspondents expressed their dismay at the angle chosen for the limited broadcast coverage. In a WhatsApp group of senior Middle East correspondents, editors, and producers—referred to as ‘the big dogs’ by BBC management—one posted the chyron during coverage on the BBC news channel: “Israel rejects ‘fabricated’ claims of genocide.” Another commented: ‘FFS!!—It’s an open goal for those who say we’re frit [afraid] of upsetting the Israelis and keep on couching our stories in an ‘Israel says’ narrative’. As one BBC journalist puts it to me: “These are established senior correspondents—and it’s even bothering them.”

In response to this criticism by their own senior journalists, a BBC spokesperson said: “We take feedback on our coverage seriously, but criticism of BBC output based on a single screenshot taken during a few seconds of coverage, or on false assertions that topics ‘haven’t been covered’ when they have is invalid and disingenuous.”





Another strapline was also used that day: “Amnesty International accuses Israel of genocide.” While it was discussed on BBC radio stations, journalists note that the report was not covered at all on the BBC’s flagship news programmes—BBC One’s News At One, News At Six or News At Ten or its flagship current affairs programme, BBC Two’s Newsnight. According to broadcast regulator Ofcom, BBC One is the most frequented news source in Britain. On December 5, the day the Amnesty report was released, 3.7 million viewers tuned into the BBC News At Six alone. The News Channel attracts only a small fraction of that audience.

The Amnesty International report was also not afforded proper attention by BBC online, the staffers say. It appeared on the BBC front page, but long after the embargo on reporting ended, leading award-winning TV producer Richard Sanders to ask “Why on earth did it take them 12 hours?” Even then, it appeared as the seventh item in order of importance. And for a week after it was reported, the story about the world’s most famous human rights organization concluding that Israel was committing genocide did not appear in the ‘Israel-Gaza war’ index tab which remains fixed at the top of the BBC news front page. The BBC told Drop Site News that this was a mistake. The Amnesty story was added to the index several days after the report was released, meaning traffic to the story was suppressed.

According to data seen by BBC journalists, in the first few days the story received around 120,000 hits. One BBC journalist suggests that—if it had been on the Israel-Gaza index featured on the BBC news front page—it would have attracted far more traffic. They note a story which appeared on the Israel-Gaza index and was just one day older, concerning the recovery of the body of an Israeli hostage from Gaza, garnered around 370,000 hits.

In addition to what they see as a collective management failure, journalists expressed concerns over bias in the shaping of the Middle East index of the BBC news website. Several allege that Berg “micromanages” this section, ensuring that it fails to uphold impartiality. “Many of us have raised concerns that Raffi has the power to reframe every story, and we are ignored,” one told me.

The BBC journalists also point to Tim Davie, the director general of the BBC, and Deborah Turness, the CEO of BBC’s news division, as standing in the way of change. Both are aware of the outrage against Berg, the journalists said. “Almost every correspondent you know has an issue with him,” one said. “He has been named in multiple meetings, but they just ignore it.”

It is difficult to overstate the influence of the BBC’s online operation. According to media watchdog Press Gazette, the BBC news website, which includes both news and non-news content, is the most-visited news site on the internet. In May alone, it had 1.1 billion visits, dwarfing second-place finisher msn.com, which had 686 million visits.

Berg’s influence has a ripple effect, the journalists say. While BBC broadcasters write and produce their own reports, editors and reporters across the organization frequently draw on web articles such as those edited by Berg to flesh out their stories. “Part of the problem is that the staff on Today [the BBC’s flagship radio current affairs programme] and domestic outlets in general are pretty ignorant about Israel/Gaza,” says one BBC journalist, “as anyone who goes to work there from World Service realizes very quickly.” BBC news broadcasts are centered on coverage by veteran journalists with on-the-ground experience like Jeremy Bowen who are regarded as more balanced.

In response to a request for comment, the BBC said it unequivocally stood by Berg’s work and that Drop Site News's descriptions of Berg “fundamentally misdescribe this person’s role, and misunderstand the way the BBC works.” The organization rejected “any suggestion of a ‘lenient stance’” towards Israel or Palestine, and asserted that the BBC was “the world’s most trusted international news source” and that its “coverage should be judged on its own merits and in its entirety.”

“If we make mistakes we correct them,” the BBC said. More on that later.

“This is about editorial standards”

In November 2023, BBC senior management attended a morning meeting with at least 100 staffers to discuss coverage of Gaza. It soon descended into a fiery debate. “We’ve got to all remember that this all started on 7 October,” Deborah Turness, the CEO of the news division, called out, in an attempt to assert control of the meeting, two attendees told me. Liliane Landour, the former head of the BBC World Service, disagreed, pointing to the decades of Israeli occupation before October 7: “No, I’m going to have to say that’s not the case, and I’m sure that’s not how you meant to phrase it.” People were “livid” about Turness’s remarks, one journalist said. When asked for comment, the BBC pointed to a blog post Turness authored in October 2023 detailing the organization’s approach to the conflict.

Internal tensions over the BBC’s coverage of Gaza had been rising for weeks. On October 24, Rami Ruhayem, a Beirut-based BBC Arabic correspondent, sent an email to Tim Davie, BBC’s director general, laying out the concerns he and his fellow journalists had shared about the organization’s lack of impartiality in its Gaza coverage. While stories “prominently” used words like “massacre,” “slaughter,” and “atrocities” to refer to Hamas, they “hardly, if at all,” used them “in reference to actions by Israel,” he wrote.

Ruhayem singled out the use of the word “massacre,” in particular, which the BBC had not used to describe mass slaughters perpetrated by Israeli forces. By contrast, on October 10, 2023, the organization published a story with the headline “Supernova festival: How massacre unfolded from verified video and social media.”

Ruhayem also noted the organization-wide failure to frame reporting and analysis around Israeli statements signifying war crimes and genocidal intent. He pointed out the lack of “historical context,” emphasizing that “apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and settler-colonialism” were “terms used by many experts and highly respected organizations to which the BBC usually defers.”

On October 31, 2023, for example, the BBC published a story with a headline that excised Israel’s role: “Israel Gaza: Father loses 11 family members in one blast.” When the BBC does mention Israel as a perpetrator, including when large numbers of civilians are killed by its missiles, the organization’s headlines use the caveat “reportedly.” The BBC repeats the Israeli authorities’ use of “evacuate” to describe the forcible transfer of civilians—effectively using a euphemism for a war crime. Instead of describing Israel’s total siege on Gaza for what it is, an all-encompassing blockade on aid was framed in an October 20, 2023 headline as “Israel aims to cut Gaza ties after war with Hamas.”

In November, around the same time as the meeting with Turness, eight BBC journalists sent a 2,300-word letter to Al Jazeera outlining how their employer had failed to accurately depict the Israel-Palestine story “through omission and lack of critical engagement with Israel’s claims” and a “double standard in how civilians are seen.” In the preceding weeks, the BBC had either buried or failed to report on a number of official statements announcing Israel’s intent to perpetrate war crimes. Defense minister Yoav Gallant’s commitment to impose a “full siege” on Gaza and its “human animals” received just one mention in BBC online content, towards the end of an article headlined “Israel's military says it fully controls communities on Gaza border.” No context about the illegality of the statement was offered. A statement by Israeli General Ghassan Alian addressed to both Hamas and “the residents of Gaza”—which unambiguously denounced the Palestinians of Gaza as “human beasts” and promised a total blockade on life’s essentials and the unleashing of “damage” and “hell”—was not covered at all.

By comparison, weeks after the start of the war in Ukraine, the BBC’s online coverage clearly identified war crimes committed by Russia, even without official rulings from international courts. “Gruesome evidence points to war crimes on road outside Kyiv,” read one headline 36 days into the invasion. After October 7, war crimes committed by Hamas were treated as objective fact requiring no legal verdict: “Israeli community frozen as Hamas atrocities continue emerge.” When strong evidence similarly shows Israel committing atrocities, the same editorial guidance does not apply.

“They wanted to turn it into a ‘Muslim thing,’ that ‘we’re worried about your community.’ We said, ‘We appreciate your concern about our mental health, but this is about editorial standards.’”

In the weeks after October 7, a number of BBC journalists began venting their intense frustrations in forums like WhatsApp groups, where they collected the “bullshit reasons given for not commissioning stories.” They singled out Berg, one of whom says plays a key role in a wider BBC culture of “systematic Israeli propaganda.” After staffers were told by the BBC’s top brass to come forward with any concerns about coverage, in meetings with senior management, journalists have flagged numerous examples of problematic editing by Berg. Again, having been invited to do so by BBC management, journalists have sent large numbers of emails identifying problems with such news stories. Staff members report rarely receiving responses to such emails.

Instead, the BBC’s approach has been to pathologize the problem. In early November 2023, management convened several roundtables, described as “listening sessions,” where, as one attendee told me, it became clear that management sought to recast factual objections and bias concerns raised by staff as emotional struggles. “They said they were concerned about mental health [and] offered the telephone number of the BBC support group,” one journalist who attended said.

“They wanted to turn it into a ‘Muslim thing,’ that ‘we’re worried about your community.’ We said, ‘We appreciate your concern about our mental health, but this is about editorial standards. It’s about being a public service broadcaster and impartiality not being abided by. They realized they’d let the genie out of the bottle. We said: ‘What’s the next session? We want a progress report, collating the evidence.’” Another attendee said management told staff to “be as frank as possible” and that it sought “honest thoughts on coverage.” Despite management efforts to pigeonhole the objections to BBC's coverage, the internal dissent extended far beyond Muslim staff.

“It was quite bad, staff were not treated well,” says one BBC journalist. “They were speaking their mind, then being shut down. They were told to be honest, but managers didn’t want that and snapped.” Since the meeting with Turness in November, staffers have asked, on three occasions, for updates on whether there had been any progress on responding to and acting on claims about biased coverage. “Three times there has been nothing back,” one staffer said.

In March 2024, the Centre for Media Monitoring, a watchdog group established by the Muslim Council of Britain, released “Media Bias: Gaza 2023-24,” a 150-page document detailing numerous allegations against the BBC’s reporting on Israel and Gaza. That included stripping away context such as Israel’s occupation of Palestine and siege of Gaza, far greater use of emotive language to describe Israeli suffering or deaths than that used when the victims are Palestinians and a pattern that BBC's position "has often been to push the Israeli line whilst casting doubt on Pro-Palestinian voices."

The BBC journalists said they presented the document to Richard Burgess, the BBC‘s director of news content who oversees content across BBC platforms. His response: He did not “recognize the bias.”


The BBC's headquarters was splashed with red paint by pro-Palestinian activists from Palestine Action on October 14, 2023 in London, United Kingdom. Photo by Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty Images.

Without Fear or Favor

Between November 2023 and July 2024, BBC management held five listening sessions on Israel-Gaza. In a group meeting with Davie in May 2024, staffers at the meeting acknowledged the pressure the BBC faced from pro-Israel lobbyists. They also emphasized that their sole objective was to uphold the BBC’s values of fairness and impartiality and to produce content “without fear or favor”—principles staffers told me had been cast aside in deference to Israeli narratives. They also noted examples of individual senior journalists who had sent dozens of complaints about coverage of Israel and Gaza, only to be consistently brushed off.

The staffers also identified the website, headed by Berg, as the BBC’s most egregious violator of editorial standards on impartiality on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Davie, BBC’s director-general, was already aware that many BBC journalists had specific concerns about Berg. “He did very little to hide his objective of watering down anything critical of Israel,” said a former BBC journalist.

Berg wasn’t the only senior figure discussed at the meeting in May. The role of another powerful individual raised Robbie Gibb—one of five people who serve on the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards committee along with Director-General Tim Davie, BBC News CEO Deborah Turness, the Chairman of the Arts Council Nicholas Serota, and BBC Chair Samir Shah. In September 2024, when discussing “the Israel-Gaza story,” Shah told British parliamentarians that the committee was “part of the process where complaints are discussed, talked about and addressed.” He added that the BBC’s next “thematic review” should focus on Israel and Palestine.

Gibb is charged with helping to define the BBC’s commitment to impartiality, and to respond to complaints about the BBC’s coverage on Israel and Palestine—but his ultra-partisan record speaks for itself. The brother of a former Conservative minister, he is a veteran of the revolving door between Britain’s worlds of media and politics. In his thirties, Gibb was the chief of staff for Conservative MP Francis Maude before becoming deputy political editor of Newsnight, the BBC’s flagship current affairs show, and, later, editor of BBC politics programs. Between 2017 and 2019, he served as director of communications for Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May, and was knighted by her upon her resignation. In 2020, Gibb also led a consortium to rescue the Jewish Chronicle from bankruptcy. In 2021, Gibb returned to the BBC, joining its board as a non-executive director. In 2022, former senior BBC journalist Emily Maitlis described Gibb as an “active agent of the Conservative party” who shaped the broadcaster’s coverage by acting “as the arbiter of BBC impartiality.” Similarly, Lewis Goodall, her colleague, said editors told him to “be careful: Robbie is watching you.”

Gibb’s deep involvement with the Jewish Chronicle continued after he took up his BBC role. In the November 2023 BBC Declaration of Personal Interests, he declared he was the 100% owner of the newspaper, before being replaced by a venture capitalist in August 2024. One former Jewish Chronicle journalist declared that, “since the change in ownership, the paper has read more like a propaganda sheet for Benjamin Netanyahu,” and that Gibb regularly appeared in the office “to check up on what stories were topping the news list and offering a view.” Since the acquisition, Jake Wallis Simons, its editor since 2021, has focused on zealously supporting Israel’s onslaught since October 2023. In one example, he tweeted a video of a 2,000-pound bomb exploding in Gaza City with the caption “Onwards to victory!,” before deleting with no apology.

In September 2024, four Jewish Chronicle columnists resigned in protest after the paper published a story that included fabricated quotes from Israeli officials, with one declaring that “too often the JC reads like a partisan, ideological instrument, its judgements political rather than journalistic.” Four Israelis, including an aide to Netanyahu, were subsequently arrested on charges of falsifying and distributing fabricated documents to the Jewish Chronicle and Germany’s largest newspaper Bild.

In September, the Muslim Council of Britain wrote a letter expressing concern with Gibb’s position on the editorial standards committee, noting his involvement with the Jewish Chronicle, its political orientation, the fact that it had been repeatedly reported to the Independent Press Standards Organisation. At that May meeting, BBC journalists had emphasized that Gibbs’s agenda was widely understood in British media circles, referring to his links to the Jewish Chronicle and noting its right-wing partisan orientation and slavish pro-Israel stance.

But it was Berg’s key role in shaping online coverage of the Middle East that the staffers emphasized the most at the “listening session” meeting with the BBC director general, Tim Davie, in May. They noted Berg’s history and associations as indicative of bias, pointing to instances where journalists’ copy had been changed prior to publication. They made specific requests: that stories should, as a rule, emphasize that Israel had not granted the BBC access to Gaza, that the network should end the practice of presenting the official Israeli versions of events as fact, and that the BBC should do more to offer context about Israeli occupation and the fact that Gaza is overwhelmingly populated by descendants of refugees forcibly driven from their homes beginning in 1948. While Davie told staff that management would “look into” staff objections, to date no response ever came back.

A crucial part of the BBC news website is its curation department, which selects the stories that are displayed on each section’s “front page,” as well as the overall BBC news homepage. If a story appears on the front page, it often receives hundreds of thousands or even millions of views, BBC staffers said, adding that stories published on regional index pages tend to attract only a fraction of that number. BBC staffers allege that Berg plays a powerful role in deciding which Middle East stories appear on the BBC News front page. The BBC denies that he has a veto, and claims staffers are assigning “outsize importance" to Berg's influence. Given that only a handful of stories are published to the Middle East index each day, it is relatively easy for a single editor to have an effect while also influencing coverage outside of the index. “If it’s Israel/Palestine, it has to go through Raffi before curation even OK it,” one journalist said. “Anyone who writes on Gaza or Israel is asked: ‘Has it gone to edpol [editorial policy], lawyers, and has it gone to Raffi?’” another said.

In response to BBC management claims that Berg’s power is being exaggerated by staff, a former journalist at the BBC World Service says: “I was working for a World Service department, producing content for language services. ‘We have to run this past Raffi’ was the reflex answer to any producer pitching anything on Israel.” The journalist said that other editors were reluctant to sign off content, treating Berg’s verdict as “their safety step” in the editorial process. “There was an extreme fear at the BBC, that if you ever wanted to do anything about Israel or Palestine, editors would say: ‘If you want to pitch something, you have to go through Raffi and get his signoff.”

This dynamic was corroborated by a third journalist, who said that even if a story which touched on Israel and Palestine appeared on another news index, it would still be flagged for Berg’s attention and approval. “How much power he has is wild,” said the journalist. “His reach goes beyond just the Middle East index, but to adjacent subject matters.”

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

Raffi Berg on Netanyahu’s Bookshelf

Raffi Berg began his career in local radio, later spending nearly a year as a news editor for the U.S. Foreign Broadcast Information Service, an outlet he later discovered was run by the CIA—a fact he was “absolutely thrilled” to learn.

Berg’s first job at the BBC was as a reporter. His bylined work included “Israel’s teenage recruits,” a story published in 2002 that presented young IDF soldiers as courageous defenders of their country while failing to mention the occupation and settlement of Palestinian land or the widespread allegations of crimes documented by human rights organizations, including in Israel, and even the U.S. State Department. One BBC journalist described the article as an “IDF puff piece.”

Berg’s reported work also included a three-part series on Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza. The series presented them as victims seeking “a better quality of life” and did not mention the fact that the settlements have been repeatedly deemed illegal. Instead, the series included a boxed sidebar, outside the text of the actual story, to relay that the settlements are “widely regarded by international community as illegal under international law,” but Israel maintains that “international conventions do not apply in the West Bank and Gaza because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place.”

On January 11, 2009, demonstrators held a rally in London’s Trafalgar Square in support of Operation Cast Lead, an Israeli military onslaught against Gaza in which up to 1,400 Palestinians were killed, most of them believed to be civilians. Demonstrators held Israeli flags and placards emblazoned with the words: “END HAMAS TERROR! PEACE FOR THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL AND GAZA.” While the event was billed as supporting “Peace in Israel, Peace in Gaza,” speakers at the rally voiced support for Israel’s military offensive. “In this case, I think there is no such thing as disproportion. If you have got a war to fight, then you fight,” one speaker said.

The BBC coverage of the event proclaimed: “Thousands call for Mid-East peace.” Its story opened with several paragraphs that described the rally as showcasing speeches that characterized the Israeli military offensive as pro-peace and repeated without skepticism the claims of the organizers:

Thousands of pro-Israel supporters have gathered in London's Trafalgar Square to call for an end to the violence in the Middle East.

Organizers said they wanted people in Gaza and Israel to live in peace, but argued that Hamas must accept responsibility for the conflict.

Berg did not write the unbylined piece. But he attended the event “in a personal capacity” prior to becoming the BBC’s “Middle East online editor, or indeed acting editor,” the BBC said. Yet Berg was still a BBC staffer at the time, working on the website’s Middle East desk. In an article in which the BBC omitted key details about the nature of the rally, the organization interviewed Berg, a member of its own staff, as a participant in the pro-Israel protest. Berg even went to the trouble of writing a letter to Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post to take issue with its suggestion that only 5,000 people had attended what he called the “Israel solidarity rally at Trafalgar Square on Sunday.” “This is actually well short of the actual number,” he wrote. “The organizers, the Board of Deputies, said it was 15,000, and in my opinion (I was there) that is probably accurate.”

A decade later, the BBC amended its editorial guidelines to clarify that “people working in news and current affairs and factual journalism… should not participate in public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues.” By then, the BBC had concluded that the mere act of attending a protest in a personal capacity was a threat to perceptions of impartiality.

In 2013, Berg became Middle East editor for BBC news online. It was in this role where he encountered material that would form the basis for his book, “Red Sea Spies: The True Story of Mossad’s Fake Diving Resort,” an account of the Israeli spy services’ efforts to evacuate Jews from Ethiopia between 1979 and 1983. In the book, Berg describes Mossad in glowing terms, calling the agency “much vaunted.” Berg received extensive cooperation from Mossad for the book, including “over 100 hours of interviews” of “past and present agents and Navy and Air Force personnel.” It was published in 2020. In an interview to promote the book, Berg said he collaborated on the project with “Dani,” a former senior Mossad commander he described as a “legend” who later became “a very close friend.”

An expert on Mossad who requested anonymity out of fear of reprisal from within their professional circles told Drop Site News that the book failed to present crucial context surrounding Israel’s intelligence services, including their record of human rights violations, assassinations, and extraordinary renditions. Berg’s close relationship with Dani “raises the risk of adopting the viewpoints and value judgements of intelligence agencies,” the expert said, raising questions about Berg’s interest in the book’s subject. Books that romanticize the operations of spy agencies are “a powerful legitimizing device for intelligence services,” the expert said. “Authors who don’t even bother to raise tough questions about intelligence services are the best spokesperson these services could have hoped for. At the beginning of February 2020, Ohad Zemet, the spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in London, attended a launch event for Berg’s book, where he posed for a photo with the author and Mark Regev, then Israel’s ambassador to the UK. Zemet posted the photo in a tweet in which he called the book “wonderful.” A year later, Berg retweeted Zemet’s post, with the words: “big honour for me on a very special night.”

On August 23, 2020, Berg posted an image of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu taking a phone call at his desk. In his post, Berg has zoomed in on and circled a copy of Red Sea Spies visible on a bookshelf behind the prime minister. “First time I’ve been on a prime minister's bookshelf!” he wrote. “I know I’ve got one of #Israel PM @netanyahu’s books on mine—but wow!” He tweeted a similar image in January 2021.


Source: Twitter/X


Source: Twitter/X

The BBC’s editorial guidelines concerning personal views and bias are clear. They state that “views or opinions expressed elsewhere, on social media or in articles or in books, can … give the impression of bias or prejudice and must also be avoided.” BBC journalists far more junior than Berg have been reprimanded or even disciplined for social media output seen as biased in favor of the Palestinian cause.

BBC journalists emphasize this context when they point to how Berg reshapes everything from headlines, to story text, to images, arguing he repeatedly seeks to foreground the Israeli military perspective while stripping away Palestinian humanity, with one journalist characterizing his approach as “death by a thousand cuts.”

In response to a request for comment from Berg, Drop Site News was informed that Berg had hired British-Israeli lawyer Mark Lewis, who is described as “the UK’s foremost media, libel and privacy lawyer.” The former director of UK Lawyers for Israel, Lewis attended the 2018 launch of Likud-Herut UK, a right-wing Zionist organisation, whose national director is his wife, Mandy Blumenthal. At the launch, Lewis emphasized the importance of “unapologetic Zionism.” Citing rising antisemitism, he announced that he and Blumenthal had immigrated to Israel in December 2018. “Europe in my view is finished,” he declared. His Twitter profile cites his current location as “Israel (legal work England).”

The BBC then informed Drop Site that its responses to our questions covered both Berg and the BBC. The BBC disputed the journalists’ characterization of Berg’s role and alleged bias, though the network declined to answer specific questions about claims made by current and former staffers.

Muhammed Bhar’s “Lonely Death”

In July, the BBC published a story on its website about Muhammed Bhar, a 24-year-old Palestinian man with Down’s syndrome and autism. He lived in Gaza with his family, who provided him with around-the-clock care. Since Israel began its assault on Gaza, he had been terrified of the shells exploding around him, caused by violence he was unable to understand. On July 3, the Israeli military raided Bhar’s home. The family begged for mercy for their disabled son, but the unit’s dog savaged him. He begged the dog to stop, using the only language he could access in that moment: “Khalas ya habibi” (“that’s enough, my dear”). The soldiers then put the injured man in a separate room, locked the door, and forced the family to leave at gunpoint. A week later, the family returned home to find Bhar’s decomposing body.

Bhar’s story was originally documented by Middle East Eye on July 12, with the headline: “Gaza: Palestinian with Down syndrome ‘left to die’ by Israeli soldiers after combat dog attack.” British newspaper The Independent covered it with the headline: “Gaza man with Down’s syndrome mauled by Israeli attack dog and left to die, family says.” Four days later after the first reports, the BBC published its own version of the story. Its headline: “The lonely death of Gaza man with Down’s syndrome.”

“There has to be a moral line drawn in the sand. And if this story isn’t it, then what?”

The headline did not reflect the hideous circumstances of Bhar’s death and omitted the specifics of who did what to whom—a recurring theme in complaints made by BBC reporters and presenters to management regarding the Corporation’s online coverage. In the original version of the story, it took 500 words to learn that an Israeli army dog had attacked Bhar, and a further 339 to discover how he had died.

Berg was the one to hit publish on the story, according to the edit history obtained by Drop Site. Optimo, the BBC’s content management system, shows that Berg made a series of pre-publication edits, before publishing the story, meaning that Berg himself must have signed off on its framing and deemed that the headline erasing Israeli responsibility satisfied the BBC’s editorial standards.

The article about Bhar sparked an outpouring of fury both internally at the BBC and on social media. In a post liked by 14,000 users, Husam Zomlot, Palestine’s ambassador to the UK, tweeted: “I don’t think there could be a worst murder in human history, still @BBCWorld headlines this as ‘death of a Gaza man’ to abdicate Israel of responsibility. Abhorrent!” Palestinian-American writer Tariq Kenney-Shawa mocked the absurdity of the framing. “A ‘lonely death,’ as if he died after a long battle with cancer or was perhaps swept away by the sea or lost under the rubble of an earthquake,” he tweeted.

Eventually, the BBC decided to rewrite the story. It changed the headline to “Gaza man with Down’s syndrome attacked by IDF dog and left to die, mother tells BBC.” It also inserted two new paragraphs at the top of the piece informing readers that the Israeli military had admitted “that a Palestinian man with Down’s syndrome who was attacked by an army dog in Gaza was left on his own by soldiers, after his family had been ordered to leave,” and that he was “found dead by his family a week later.” Even with the new phrasing, the story implied that the dog had attacked Bhar of its own volition, not that it was under the control of IDF personnel.



In its updated post, the BBC did not acknowledge that its previous version of the story omitted or downplayed key facts or explain to readers why it changed the headline. It did add a note at the bottom of the story: “This story was updated on 19 July with an IDF response.” The BBC also tweeted the article under its new headline, writing: “This post replaces an earlier version in order to update a headline that more accurately represents the article.”

The Bhar story symbolizes what the BBC staffers who spoke to Drop Site News say they want: Stronger assurances that BBC’s Israel and Gaza coverage upholds the organization’s policies around impartiality. As one BBC journalist told me: “There has to be a moral line drawn in the sand. And if this story isn’t it, then what?”

The objections over Berg’s role extend to his own writing. One BBC staffer highlighted Berg’s December 2022 article “Israel says likely killed Palestinian girl in error,” about Jana Zakarneh, a 16-year-old Palestinian girl who was killed by Israeli snipers. The first two paragraphs read:

Israel says its forces appear to have unintentionally killed a 16-year-old Palestinian girl amid a gun battle with militants in the occupied West Bank.

The body of Jana Zakarneh was found on the roof of her house in Jenin after the firefight on Sunday night.

The story foregrounds the Israeli narrative—that Zakameh had been near gunmen who’d opened fire at Israeli troops, and that the Israeli military had been conducting near nightly raids in the West Bank as part of an operation against militants whose attacks on Israel had left the country “in shock.” Only in the third paragraph does the story quote the Palestinian prime minister’s accusation that Israel had killed the teenager “in cold blood.”

Wafa, the Palestine News Agency, released an image of Zakarneh, which CNN published with its story on her killing. By contrast, the BBC, in its story on the killing, used a photo depicting three members of Zakarneh’s family on the roof of their home.

In stories reporting attacks against young Israelis, the BBC often adopts a different approach to photos. A story about Emily Hand, an Israeli child who had been presumed killed on October 7 but was later released, features her image. A story about a 14-year-old Israeli boy who was killed in the West Bank earlier this year also included a picture of him. Late last year, a story about a 19-year-old British-Israeli IDF soldier—not a civilian—who was killed in combat was accompanied by his photo.

In other cases, facts unfavorable to Israel have been stripped out of Berg’s reports. In a May 2022 story about an annual march of far-right Israeli extremists through Palestinian areas celebrating the capture and occupation of East Jerusalem, Berg’s original copy described the marchers as singing “patriotic songs,” which traditionally included inflammatory, racist anti-Arab lyrics that went unmentioned by Berg. Indeed, when the march took place, the BBC initially reported chants of “death to Arabs!” and “may your village burn.” A BBC crew came under attack during the march; Israeli forces stopped the attack but took no further action. But these details did not appear in a later version of the story. The headline refers euphemistically to “Israeli nationalists stream through Muslim Quarter.” All of this caused a huge outcry on social media and among some BBC staff. These details were later reinstated, with an update noting they had been restored “to give a fuller picture of events.”

On one occasion, the BBC was forced to change Berg’s copy following external and internal backlash, BBC journalists said. In May 2022, an Israeli sniper killed Palestinian-American Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. Israel has diligently tried to cover up her murder.

Berg’s original text about her funeral read:

Violence broke out at the funeral in East Jerusalem of reporter Shireen Abu Aqla, killed during an Israeli military operation in the occupied West Bank.

Her coffin was jostled as Israeli police and Palestinians clashed as it left a hospital in East Jerusalem.

The editorial decision not to ascribe responsibility triggered widespread outrage, including from Chris Doyle, the director of the Council for Arab British Understanding and a prominent commentator who has repeatedly appeared on the BBC news channel. He tweeted: “how…Raffi Berg @bbcnews thinks ‘violence broke out’, ‘jostled’ and ‘clashes’ were appropriate terms I cannot fathom.” After widespread anger, the BBC updated the text to correctly open with “Israeli police have hit mourners at the funeral of Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Aqla,” adding “Her coffin almost fell as police, some using batons, waded into a crowd of Palestinians gathered around it.” Nonetheless, the headline still lacked a sense of causality: “Shireen Abu Aqla: Violence at Al Jazeera reporter’s funeral in Jerusalem.”

Despite significant evidence of bias and internal protest, BBC journalists allege that the network has refused to investigate Berg’s crucial role in what they see as conduct that imperils the integrity of the BBC. “We have provided a pretty watertight account about what he’s said and done,” one journalist told me. The response from management has been limited to “Tim Davie saying: ‘It’s good you’ve raised this. We’ll look into it.’”

A Systematic Look at Coverage

Despite the grave concerns over bias and manipulation present in its coverage of Israel and Palestine, the fact is that the BBC is a juggernaut in world journalism. It employs a range of skilled journalists who have done principled and groundbreaking work, including on the Gaza war.

The site has run articles about British Palestinians grieving loved ones killed by the Israeli military, Palestinians killed by the Israeli military in the West Bank, and Israel being accused of a “possible war crime” in the killing of children in the West Bank. Berg himself has written articles on South Africa’s genocide case at the International Court of Justice and the court’s recent ruling, with accurate headlines: “UN top court says Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal.” In addition, the BBC’s seasoned broadcast journalists have produced damning stories about Israel. In such cases, Berg is less likely to push for sweeping edits in such cases, some staff have suggested.

But an unprecedented analysis of more than 2,900 stories and links on the BBC news website in the year following October 7, 2023 reveals a profound imbalance in how the organization has reported Palestinian and Israeli deaths.

The total number of Israelis killed on and since October 7 is around 1,410, while the official Palestinian death toll is conservatively estimated at 45,000 people, a vast undercount. Yet according to new research by data journalists Dana Najjar and Jan Lietava, which builds on their previous work, the BBC is less likely to use humanizing language to refer to Palestinians than to Israelis. Najjar and Lietava also found that the organization refers to Palestinian deaths only slightly more often than Israeli deaths, despite the fact the Palestinian death toll is now the higher of the two by a factor of at least 28.

There is one exception to this latter trend. On April 1, Israeli drones targeted a three-car convoy belonging to the NGO World Central Kitchen, which was transferring food to a warehouse in northern Gaza after coordinating its movements with Israeli military authorities. Because six of the seven slain aid workers were westerners, their killings received widespread western media attention. The seventh worker killed in the attack was a Palestinian driver named Saifeddin Abu Taha. In each of the numerous BBC articles about the killing of the group, he is referred to as “their Palestinian colleague” or “the Palestinian driver.”

Because of this, mentions of Palestinian deaths surged. “It is the single-largest spike in the whole period in terms of the mentions of the deaths of Palestinians,” Lietava told me. “Even then, Saifeddin Abu Taha is very rarely mentioned directly, often only in association with the Western, majority white, group.”


This analysis is an expansion of Holly Jackson's work analyzing bias in media coverage of Israel and Palestine. Mentions are grouped by week. Death counts for Gaza are from Tech for Palestine and likely vastly undercounted. Death counts for Israel are from the IDF official website. See Github for complete methodology.

Najjar and Lietava also looked at causal versus non-causal headlines that mentioned death, dying, killing, suffering, starvation, or hunger—that is, headlines explicitly describing who killed who (e.g. “A was killed by B” or even “B killed A”), compared to those that did not (e.g. “A was found dead”). In the first nine months after October 7, just 27% of BBC news story headlines about Palestinian deaths explicitly mentioned who killed them. In the case of Israeli deaths, 43% identified the perpetrator. By contrast, when covering the Russian war against Ukraine, the BBC identified the killer in 74% of its reports of Ukrainian deaths.

A similar disparity emerged when analyzing the use of humanizing and emotive words to describe the deaths of Palestinians versus those of Israelis as the researchers found they were used proportionately far less for Palestinians. It was also present when examining terms such as “massacre,” “assault,” “slaughter,” “atrocity” and other terms—these were all applied disproportionately to Palestinian actions when compared to those committed by Israel. Only Israeli strikes were described as “retaliatory”—210 times—compared to 0 for Palestinians’ use of weapons during the period covered by the report.

“Look at the sheer number of stories about October 7 and the hell individuals went through—but not Palestinians, despite the disparity of scale,” one BBC journalist said. “It took until babies started starving to death [in Gaza] before we stopped focusing on the hostages.” Another is even more damning. “We’ve never known the racism to be so overt,” the journalist said.

In response to the overall findings of the study, the BBC said: “The algorithm does not provide insight into the context of the usage of particular words, either in relation to the attacks of 7 October or the Israeli offensive in Gaza. We do not think coverage can be assessed solely by counting particular words used and do not believe this analysis demonstrates bias.”

In response to the BBC’s statement, the researchers told me “We are not ascribing bias based on some perfunctory analysis of word frequency devoid of any other context,” emphasizing the abundance of evidence pointing towards the same conclusions. “Every word is a choice,” they said, “and words chosen or omitted repeatedly over the course of a full year of coverage are very strong indicators of editorial policy and/or prejudice. Likewise, disproportionately highlighting Israeli suffering and death when Palestinians are dying in far greater numbers tells us a great deal about whose lives matter and whose lives don't.”


Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images.

Deference to Israeli Claims

Since Israel’s onslaught against Gaza began in October 2023, BBC online’s deference to Israeli narratives has been apparent. BBC journalists pointed to specific examples—beginning with the fate of Nasser hospital in Gaza.

In February, the Israeli army laid siege to the hospital. “The evidence at our disposal points to deliberate and repeated attacks by the Israeli forces against Nasser hospital, its patients and its medical staff,” reads a report by NGO Médecins Sans Frontières that detailed the incident. That evidence includes repeated sniper attacks causing multiple deaths and injuries, fatal shell attacks, and the storming of the hospital in February, with the Israeli military detaining an MSF staff member and refusing to offer details on his condition until his release two months later.

The original BBC news headline for an article co-authored by Berg had been updated from “Israel special forces enter besieged Nasser hospital” to “Nasser hospital in catastrophic condition as Israeli troops raid.” The article’s framing aligns with Israeli narratives. The first two paragraphs read:

Israel’s military claims it has captured “dozens” of terror suspects during a raid on southern Gaza’s main hospital, as staff and patients were forced to flee under gunfire.

Israel said it launched a “precise and limited mission” at Nasser hospital in Khan Younis, adding it had intelligence that Hamas had held hostages there.

No hostages were ever found in Nasser hospital.

Deference to Israel also surfaced in the BBC’s first story on the Israeli army massacre of hungry Palestinians waiting for food in February, an article accompanied with the headline “Israel-Gaza war: More than 100 reported killed in crowd near Gaza aid convoy.” The next day, the headline for a second story was “Large number of bullet wounds among those injured in Gaza aid convoy rush—UN.” The language is puzzling: as the article notes, there were multiple eyewitness accounts of the massacre, along with “the presence of Israeli tanks.” As one BBC journalist said, “‘Israel accused of firing on civilians’ would be more accurate.”

On March 8, the BBC published a subsequent piece by Berg with the headline: “Gaza convoy: IDF says it fired at 'suspects' but not at aid trucks.” The article foregrounds Israeli denials and claims, noting only fleetingly that a UN team had visited the injured and found “a large number of people with bullet wounds” (as per the BBC’s own headline from a few days before). Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that Israeli accounts were contradictory: Mark Regev, now a special advisor to Netanyahu, originally claimed Israeli troops were not involved at all. What makes this even harder to defend on editorial grounds is that BBC Verify—launched in May 2023 as the BBC’s fact checking and anti-disinformation department—published a separate piece on March 1 challenging Israeli claims about the massacre. That work was not woven into Berg’s article.


Source: Twitter/X.

Two days before the publication of the report, the NGO Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor had released detailed evidence of Israeli responsibility, including the apparent use of bullets that matched those in Israeli army weapons. A month later, CNN published a detailed piece based on video and eyewitness accounts discrediting Israeli claims, making it clear that the IDF had fired on crowds without warning, as survivors had said from the start.

In May 2024, far-right Israeli extremists blocked aid from getting into Gaza, in part by attacking and destroying the aid; the BBC headlined its story on the incident: “Israeli activists battle over Gaza-bound aid convoys.” As one BBC journalist said, an accurate headline would have been: “Far-right Israeli activists block aid convoys.” “Aid convoy denied entry to northern Gaza, UN says,” reads another headline from June 2024, neglecting to mention that Israel had been the responsible party.

One staffer believes the BBC has largely sought to align its journalism with the UK government’s foreign policy. As far as top brass is concerned, “Israel is treated like Ukraine, Palestinians like Russia,” the staffer said. If a journalist tries to challenge the double standards applied to Russia and Ukraine, managers are baffled, treating both Ukraine and Israel as British allies. “Look at headlines on what Russia does in Ukraine. But the headlines around Gaza are generally entirely unclear, and are never clear that Israel has been the perpetrator.”

Yet even in cases where the UK government has allowed for dissent, the BBC has largely clung to the Israeli narrative.

In January, the ICJ issued provisional orders to Israel to “take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide.” But not only do the BBC online articles about famine fail to mention this—they also repeatedly fail to detail the actions being taken by Israel to block aid.

This is despite the fact that Lord David Cameron, the then-foreign secretary, wrote a letter in March to Alicia Kearns, the chair of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee, outlining multiple ways in which the Israeli state was preventing aid from entering Gaza. Even the emphatically pro-Israel Jewish Chronicle ran the damning headline: “David Cameron condemns Israel for arbitrarily blocking Gaza aid.” The BBC website did not report on Cameron’s letter.

Earlier that month, the BBC ran an interview with Cameron on the same subject, with the headline, “David Cameron urges Israel to fix Gaza aid shortages.” Some, though not all, of the points Cameron raised in the letter were covered in the interview, but as one journalist pointed out, examples of Israeli obstructions to aid should be cited in every article on the subject. “Articles on famine in Gaza won’t mention the International Court of Justice rulings, or relevant stuff. The full context is lacking,” another journalist said.

This is consistent with the BBC news website’s coverage under Berg’s editorship. “Palestinian sources need to be verified, but Israeli sources do not,” one journalist said. “There’s red flags if linked to Hamas, but you can quote the IDF freely.”

The BBC’s Response

In response to this story’s allegations surrounding BBC’s coverage of Israel and Palestine and Berg’s role and background, a spokesperson for the network told Drop Site News: “We reject your attack on an individual member of staff. Like every journalist at the BBC, they must adhere to the BBC’s editorial guidelines which ensure that we report impartially and without fear or favor.” The statement continued:

The allegations you’ve made fundamentally misdescribe this person’s role, and misunderstand the way the BBC works.

More broadly, we reject any suggestion of a ‘lenient stance’ towards either side in this conflict. The Israel/Gaza conflict is a challenging and polarising subject to cover, but when asked to choose the one provider they would turn to for impartial reporting on this story, three times as many pick the BBC as choose our closest competitor. The BBC remains the world’s most trusted international news source.

We have transparently set out our approach to reporting the conflict—for example in this blog from Deborah Turness—and if we make mistakes we correct them. Our coverage should be judged on its own merits and in its entirety.

The BBC’s defenders point to the fact that the organization is criticized from “both sides.” But even Turness dismissed this as a defense in a blog post titled “How the BBC is covering Israel-Gaza,” published on October 25, 2023. “We cannot afford to simply say that if both sides are criticizing us, we’re getting things right,” she wrote. “That isn’t good enough for the BBC or for our audiences. At the BBC we hold ourselves to a higher standard and rightly challenge ourselves to listen to our critics and consider what changes to make where we think that criticism is fair.”

The BBC told Drop Site News that it corrects mistakes in its stories. Yet one BBC journalist has pointed out that the organization has failed to correct claims in published stories about specific atrocities alleged to have been committed on October 7 that have since been proven false.

Hamas fighters and other armed Palestinian militants undoubtedly committed grave war crimes in the attacks of October 7. But the BBC website published a number of unverified claims about the attacks, a significant number of which originated from the accounts of the religious emergency response team Zaka; many of these claims have since been proven to be false and discredited, most prominently by Israeli media outlets. Yet BBC news stories still include these disproven claims, including those of multiple babies being killed or the bodies of 20 children being tied together and burned. Other media organizations, including the New York Times, have printed articles correcting some of the false claims they made about October 7, though, like the BBC, a staggering number of false reports remain on the websites of many major news organizations.

Even if BBC license payers complained about such false claims remaining in published stories, the organization would be unlikely to act on them: Their standard complaints process only deals with items broadcast or published in the last 30 days.

After 14 months of witnessing the BBC’s failures up close, these disenchanted journalists are divided between believing it is important to stay and try and make changes and wanting to abandon what feels like an irreparable systemic feature. But all agree that the gap between BBC coverage and the gravity of the atrocities committed is indefensible.

As one concludes: “Most people with a conscience here have found that the coverage is frankly despicable and certainly not up to our editorial standards.”

[admin]

London Police SHUT Down Pro-Palestinian Carol Service Organised By Jews, Christians and Muslims
by Owen Jones
Dec 31, 2024

If it looks and sounds like a police state...



Transcript

please indulge this thought experiment
imagine a group of mostly old women as
well as little children who were
Christian Jewish Muslim led by a priest
came together in Russia outside the
Kremlin to sing Christmas carols and
read poems in support of peace to oppose
the slaughter of innocent people and
then the Russian police moved in to
threaten them all with
arrest what would you think how would
our media report it well I can tell you
it'd be presented as damning evidence of
what an oppressive police state Vladimir
Putin runs but this happened here in
Britain in London at an Interfaith event
in Parliament Square compared by a vica
in which carols were sung and poems were
read out to oppose the slaughter of the
Palestinian people in a genocide armed
and facilitated by own government here's
some footage of the event
guys we got St moving now we have to
start
moving excuse me EXC have to start
moving now priest is just saying saying
a blessing please he just saying a p
blessing and then we we will
move excuse me you're insulting God
now I understand I'm by myp you
guys
Rel so that you may live deep within
your heart may God bless you with anger
and his Justice
oppression oppression and exploitation
of so that you may
work God bless you with tears
sh rection starvation
and so that you may reach out your your
hand to comfort them and to turn their
pain into Joy may God bless you with
enough
foolishness to believe that you can make
a difference in this world the protest
was organized by a range of
organizations like branches of the
Palestine solidarity Campaign which of
course has been the driving force for
the Palestinian cause here in Britain
Jewish voice for labor Christians for
Palestine qu for Palestine and so on now
I was honored to talk to berett who is a
church of England priest she compared
the event and Diana nzen a veteran
activist for Jews for justice who was
part of the event as well so this was an
Interfaith event obviously in support of
the movement
for so this was an Interfaith event and
it was an Interfaith event which was
drawing attention to the genocide being
suffered by the Palestinian people at
the hands of the Israeli State not just
Muslim Palestinians but of course
Christian Palestinians and this brought
together Muslim Muslims Christians and
Jewish people
non-believers um obviously using the
festive time as a very important hook um
now I think the way the police responded
is informative um about how the those
who are active for Palestine Justice are
treated but also the General State of
civil liberties in this country I would
say I just want to start with you
actually Helen I you're a you're a vican
the dases of Subic um you've been active
um in movements for justice I know for a
long time you just tell us a bit more
about what this event was all about the
event was really about bringing the
carols out onto the streets there are
Carol service happening across London at
this time of year in nice cozy um
Sanctified places um and they are
pedling uh something of a myth to people
who want to just swallow Hook Line and
SN of the idea of baby Jesus me and mild
and have their little shot of
Christianity and then go back to
shopping so um for me the discon between
the words of the carols and um what is
actually happening on the ground in
Palestine right now uh is like a massive
wound in my Ministry at the moment so
the opportunity to sing um in an
Interfaith context with my Muslim and
Jewish siblings with words that reflect
the actual facts on the ground for
Palestinian Christians Muslims and Jews
and also reown the words from some of
the mythologizing that has gone on
because Jesus was a pal inian Jew born
into to occupied territory so it felt
like an a golden opportunity to sing
words that are profoundly moving to very
familiar tunes and there's a sort of
dissonance between the tunes that are so
familiar to us and then the words coming
across that are less familiar because
they've been Rewritten to amplify the
story of the genocide and the apartheid
in Palestine right now I think Diana
you're you're a veteran activist with
Jews for justice for Palestinians why
was this important for you this event
what was it all about for you it's very
important for Jews to recognize that
obviously some of some Jews celebrate
Christmas others don't but it's
important for all of us to recognize
what is happening and what is being done
in in in Israel in Palestine and what is
being done by Jews at this time and we
have to reflect the fact that we
disapprove strongly of what is going on
and most of the words that were written
for the carols were written by Jewish
people Jewish people who feel a sense of
shock a sense of horror a sense of Shame
and for some of us rage are I can't
describe the feelings that those of us
have um who are watching watching what
is going on and feeling helpless so this
is one way of reflecting our views our
feelings at a very difficult
time uh very courageous and it's it's
obviously been inspiring throughout on
both sides of Atlantic how many of
course Jewish activists has been in the
the movement for Palestinian Liberation
what happened then with the police Helen
do you want to explain or din whoever
want to go first I I think I was at the
center of things because I was sort of
comparing the event so I was I was close
to the Christ in a rubble that we had
created of course referring to uh mon
Isaac's um nativity scene in his church
for those don't
knowre he's a pastor in Bethlehem just
so everyone knows who mon Isaac is yeah
so we were using this iconic image that
he had a year ago so we'd recreated that
with the crib from my church and a baby
and so on I was at the center so there
was I was within a a group of sort of
six seven deep but I was very aware as
we began after probably the first Carol
of the a very heavy police presence so
the police beginning to edged towards us
and then starting to see police officers
addressing Carol Singers um talking to
them and I became increasingly aware
that actually they were beginning to
threaten to arrest people so then we had
a um we had decisions to make because we
brought people together into a safe
space we wanted actually to create a a
Sacred Space where that there could be
be a real sense of the Sacred of all
people there and the voices of all
people being heard uh but there was this
sense and then the Vans pulled up and
then a whole contingent of police of the
Met turned up on the pavement and lined
up and I started to get a real sense
that um they were very intentional about
their disruption and and Interruption of
what we were doing um Diana may have
more to add to that yeah Dan what's your
kind of recollection well what happened
was they came and told us we would be
arrested and we asked what for and they
said for protesting and we said we were
singing carols and they said well you've
got Palestinian flags and we said well
Jesus was a Palestinian um and was born
in
Bethlehem um then they they they said
that um we couldn't understand why we
would be arrested and what we had done
wrong and they said there was this um uh
section
14 uh there which is part of the police
and criminal act of 2000 section 14 they
can disperse what they call a standing
protest and although we tried to reason
with them that this was not a protest
this was a carol singing they were
absolutely con you know committed to
what they were doing which was really
quite um difficult for us to understand
we had no we I had a speech that I was
going to give Helen was going to give a
blessing everything was disrupted it was
a wonderful inspirational experience and
yet suddenly it felt violent and
destructive and uh abusive and harassing
uh and that's what I told the police and
my uh complaint letter um because it
felt as if what we were doing was good
and what they were trying to do was make
us bad and and criminal almost criminal
interesting that you should said mention
the blessing Diana because as I was
trying to get the final blessing we
decided to draw it to a close because of
of this threat of arrest and didn't want
to make people vulnerable um as I
started the blessing I know that I had
four nuns pres who were saying to the
police you can't possibly stop this a
blessing is happening so it was a sort
of real extraordinary kind of um
Collision of police power and and and
worship of a type I mean I have to say
just you know taking a step back I mean
anybody seen the video footage just to
be you know don't take this the wrong
way not the most threatening um image
I've ever seen in my entire life I mean
literally just a group of you know often
many older women in particular standing
around sing carols what possible
justification in the minds of the police
could there be to use police powers to
threaten to arrest people what possible
disrup violent disruption could possibly
Be Imagined from a Carol service for
peace it's I mean how just I mean that's
what's astonishing here is it's just
surreal and what what You' expect
important
dictatorship it's something that you
have found in police States it's
something you find in authoritarian
States it's not something you expect in
this country and they were not only I I
have to say I'm disabled I have crutches
and there were children little children
there uh with mothers uh who who were
frightened and who will grow up feeling
that the police are not their friends um
you know so um that good to have
political education early I feel but
yeah carry
on well I understand but um uh yeah it
was I I I cannot think and in fact when
they wrote back to me following my
complaint so just explain that you
complained to the police and then they
got back Polie yes I sent them a letter
of complaint and I got a very quick
response resp extremely quick they
didn't even interview any Witnesses I
I'd given a couple of names as
Witnesses and they said they couldn't
they couldn't find what any reason for
um the for their action but they gave me
a few options namely that we would be um
that they that there was a chance of dis
disrupt of noise and disrupt
and also of of
um uh um oh I'm sorry I've got something
wrong and also of
um disturbing other communities which um
I I haven't got the exact words I can
see I mean there are very particular
powers in Parliament Square about noise
aren't there since the new police
crime and they I think they're very
modeled that would be a generous um yeah
got got muddled about how they apply
those so we weren making a noise the man
who objected the Iraq War from you know
as a result of his encampment the rules
changed around Parliament Square you
could say it might have been that I'm
just I've got is it okay if I just read
it bit because I've got your letter here
is it okay if I read a bit from it
because because in it he says I would
like to apologize on behalf of the
Metropolitan Police for any upset or
distress cause due to the dispersal I
tell them uh to find out why dispersal
was ordered so I could offer you an
explanation unfortunately I could not
find anything relating to the incident
and then it goes on there several
reasons as you say the just person might
be in place one might be to do with
Public Safety if the crowds were getting
too big or traffic was being disrupted
well that doesn't apply I mean it was a
modest Siz Carol service I would say
traffic you weren't standing in the
middle of the road um another reason may
have been the event may have been
causing public Community tensions I mean
that really is all Welling it's an
Interfaith event it's an event of
Christians Jewish people and Muslims um
it's literally bringing communities
together um what could be better for
dealing with Community tensions than a
show solidarity between the three
abrahamic faiths uh the the three
religions of the Holy Land I mean come
on I mean it's just stupid isn't it I'm
not saying any of these reasons were the
cause the reason they're not saying
there's a reason for the cause is
because they are nonsense um but it
could have been a possibility well
clearly not so they met clearly there
have theyve they said we have no idea
they've then come up with two
hypotheticals which are irrelevant
completely and utterly irrelevant um and
then and then says I hope you have a
positive experience should another event
be organized but of course you will now
have rationally as others will have the
fear that any event however Munday not
mundane I don't want to be L it's an
important event but however vanilla if
you like however um you know the most
you know the the least possible
aggressive protest is an interface event
with carols will always have that fear
the police could get involved leading
people to feel harassed and threatened
including little
children um so it's not good enough is
it that's that response is not good
enough they had they've said oh no idea
here's two reasons which aren't
applicable I'm not sure whether in fact
they they got a bloody nose out of that
I'm not sure about that I W I'm not sure
about what the other people complained
but I mean the look for the Metropolitan
Police was very bad very bad and we also
know that the section 14 dispersal
orders
98% of them are used by the Metropolitan
Police and the Metropolitan Police
already has a problem in terms of its um
of the feelings of the loc of the local
people it has to regain confidence and
this is no way to regain confidence of
the local population who already are
extremely suspicious of the metr yeah
and as you allude to I mean a government
report last year found that the
Metropolitan belief institutionally
racist institutionally sexist
institutionally homophobic and
institutionally corrupt so there's a
threat to community relations I don't
think it comes from an Interfaith event
of Jewish Christian and Muslim people
for peace um singing carols I think
probably the Met police have more
answers in that respects I'm just
finally though I mean well done but for
taking a stand both of you but also for
being able to come forward and speak
about this I mean just you know we don't
want to obviously put people off people
I mean it's more important to organize
events like this in
response um yeah but I suppose what
would your final message be just in
terms of you know what your your
resolution to to keep to keep speaking
out Helen my resolution is to build on
these Interfaith connections because I
think um they're so powerful they're
clearly so powerful they're fright and
the Met um so they must be doing
something right um to be able to form
those links and to be really visible
about that uh to push back against the
binary argument that this is an Arab
Jewish um Affair this is about ordinary
people from all faiths and none who are
being slaughtered and the more we can
speak out against that the more we can
be seen to be unified that is what's
frightening you know that we are many
they are few syndrome applies to Faith
as well as many other areas of political
activism and indeed the Christian
Community of Gaza which has been there
for the most of the time that
Christianity has existed may not survive
this um absolutely it's a tiny minority
now thousand
and I've interviewed GS and Christians
on this on this channel who's you know
that whose relatives have been murdered
one of them their father um and their
little sister both Palestinian
Christians who were killed by Israel's
genocide in
Gaza give them so much hope I mean
that's one of the things I'm in touch
with the Alma CRA family with the Casia
family in the alacra valley and when
they know things like this are happening
it's a tiny glimmer of hope for
them what about you
this must go on our answer has to be we
will not be intimidated we will not
allow them to challenge us and to say we
have no place here it is our place we
are the people speaking for Humanity we
are the people speaking for Truth For
Justice for equality and for
self-determination we will not be uh
intimidated we will not be coralled into
some uh little place that silences us
for for many of us Jews who have chosen
to stand against oppression Silence has
always been the option that sists use
and now it feels as if the Metropolitan
Police is using that as well but what we
need to do is to show that our Unity is
an answer to that our Unity is the way
we fight back our Unity is the way we
show the world what is best and what is
good and what is right uh at a time when
we're seeing evil every single day on
our on our phones in our on our
televisions and we need to stand up and
we need to stand strong and that is our
message all of us all of us together
will be and one day I mean this is our
message is our message for New Year this
is our message for Christmas and it's
our message for Hanukah which is happens
at the same time and which is happening
at the same space so that is what we
need to say amen amen amen to that I was
going to say Amen to that a very
powerful galvanizing message for the new
year I feel galvanized by that
galvanized to do more as we all should
do to use everything we have in our
power every platform we have to speak
out against one of the most obscene
crimes of our age directly facilitated
and armed by our governments and indeed
as we speak the people of Palestine as
many will be celebrating across the West
are starving being slaughtered in the
apocalyptic ruins of Gaza whilst others
are suffering pogroms in the West Bank
so let's remember that we have a
privilege to speak out here when so many
are being butchered and ignored by media
Outlets which are complicit in this
genocide uh thank you so much for both
of your courage your determination your
wisdom and your resolution uh everyone
watching this video please share it get
the voice get their words out leave
comments press like that's good for the
algorithm therefore more people listen
please be galvanized the lesson here is
not of course to be intimidated it's to
be more determined to speak out so let's
do that in the new year um thanks so
much to both of you thank you for asking
us thank you