Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready.
Speaker 2: Or not, twenty twenty four is here and we here
Speaker 2: at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can
Speaker 2: up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 3: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 3: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 1: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 3: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 3: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 1: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Hello, everybody.
Speaker 3: We had some major breaking news yesterday that we wanted to,
Speaker 3: of course react to. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia
Speaker 3: has announced he is not running for reelection.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to what he said.
Speaker 4: I've made one of the toughest decisions of my life
Speaker 4: and decided that I will not be running for reelection
Speaker 4: to the United States Senate. But what I will be
Speaker 4: doing is traveling the country and speaking out to see
Speaker 4: if there is an interest in creating a movement to
Speaker 4: mobilize the middle and bring Americans together.
Speaker 3: So there it is crystal. Lots of platitudes, but the
Speaker 3: top line, he's not running. He is, though, going to
Speaker 3: be quote, traveling the country trying to unite the men
Speaker 3: will he be running for president on the no labels candidacy.
Speaker 3: Maybe him and Mitt Romney can team up. You've got
Speaker 3: two unshackled gentlemen there not running for reelection. It sets
Speaker 3: up all kinds of interesting possibilities. What did you think?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I mean this is like a horror scenario for
Speaker 2: the Biden White House because as much as I mean,
Speaker 2: Mansion is a very conservative Democrat, the most conservative Democrat
Speaker 2: you know, made a point of rejecting Biden on any
Speaker 2: number of initiatives, even ones that were actually popular in
Speaker 2: the state of West Virginia, things like the child tax credit.
Speaker 2: But he's still a Democrat, and you know, their view,
Speaker 2: the Biden White House, and I think this is accurate
Speaker 2: and born out by pulling, is that any candidate that
Speaker 2: would divide the anti Trump coalition is going to be
Speaker 2: very bad news for them. And you know, this is
Speaker 2: pretty evident when you look at theoretical centrist candidates who
Speaker 2: they take more away from, and most of the candidates
Speaker 2: who are running third party are considering running third party,
Speaker 2: with the exception of RFK Junior, tend to take more
Speaker 2: away from from Biden than they do Trump. For the
Speaker 2: simple fact that Trump's support is way more solid and
Speaker 2: biden support is way more squishy. You also have a situation,
Speaker 2: of course, where perhaps the majority of the country is
Speaker 2: not too excited about either one of these gents running again.
Speaker 2: So it makes these potential third party candidacies that much
Speaker 2: more potent, and that's much more of a threat to
Speaker 2: you know, certainly to Biden, but possibly also to Trump.
Speaker 2: With regard to the labels, no Labels doesn't have any
Speaker 2: sort of like grossroots constituency. This isn't like a grossroots movement.
Speaker 2: It is a movement funded by a bunch of very
Speaker 2: wealthy people who tend to have very sort of like
Speaker 2: conservative corporate economic politics and then sort of centristy on
Speaker 2: social issues tends to be their vibe. So they certainly
Speaker 2: have the organization and the money to potentially get ballid
Speaker 2: access in all kinds of places across the country, and
Speaker 2: Mansion has been the dream candidate for them for some time.
Speaker 2: So we'll just have to see.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean that's what people are like. Oh, but
Speaker 3: not that many people are.
Speaker 1: Even in to a Joe Manchiney presidency.
Speaker 3: I'm like, well, it doesn't matter, and you only need
Speaker 3: to shave like two or three percent, and that's still
Speaker 3: a huge thing. I also think he would get more,
Speaker 3: especially if it were someone if it were like a
Speaker 3: Romney Mansion type project, that the name idea on that
Speaker 3: alone would make it and it would just be undeniable
Speaker 3: in terms of the coverage. And clearly Mansion, you know,
Speaker 3: has a bone to pick, at least privately with Biden.
Speaker 3: He doesn't agree obviously with a lot of the things
Speaker 3: that he's run on. You and I were talking about
Speaker 3: this previously, but you know, this may seem as if
Speaker 3: he was being like altruistic, but the main reason he's
Speaker 3: resigning is or not retiring, is he was going to lose.
Speaker 3: Like there's almost no question. You know the state better
Speaker 3: than I do. Maybe you can lay that out for people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so Mansion, I mean, first of all, to go
Speaker 2: into a little bit of the history, West Virginia for
Speaker 2: a long time was one of the most solidly democratic
Speaker 2: states in the entire country, and it was one of
Speaker 2: the later states to shift in the sort of Southern realignment. Appalachia,
Speaker 2: West Virginia and Kentucky in particular were the last to switch,
Speaker 2: and still at the local level in West Virginia, they
Speaker 2: elect a heck of a lot of Democrats. So Mansion
Speaker 2: was the state's governor. He was very popular. Then he
Speaker 2: runs for Senate and you know, initially got reelected very easily,
Speaker 2: and just as politics have become more national, the last
Speaker 2: time he ran for reelection, actually his race was much
Speaker 2: tighter than the polls were showing, much tighter than anticipated.
Speaker 2: And that was right around the time that all the
Speaker 2: Kavanaugh stuff happened, and that's when you know, things really
Speaker 2: shifted away from him. Now he manages to hold on,
Speaker 2: but this time it wasn't looking like he was going
Speaker 2: to be able to pull it off again at all.
Speaker 2: I'd already basically already written the seat off, whether he
Speaker 2: was going to resign or not. You've got another West
Speaker 2: Virginia governor, Jim Justice, who was originally in Democrats, which
Speaker 2: is parties to be a Republican, who is very likely
Speaker 2: the Republican nominee, and he's very popular in the state.
Speaker 2: He's a Republican, he's closely associated with Trump. This is
Speaker 2: a very pro Trump state. So the writing was already
Speaker 2: kind of on the wall for Mansion in terms of
Speaker 2: his political prospects. You know, I also there's a couple
Speaker 2: other things to say about that. One is that because
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party in West Virginia is so sort of moribund,
Speaker 2: strift bear of resources, Mansion has really become the Democratic
Speaker 2: Party in the state of West Virginia. You know, the
Speaker 2: whole party apparatus is basically designed around him. So it's
Speaker 2: also sort of a mortal blow to the entire Democratic
Speaker 2: Party architecture in the state of West Virginia. So there's that,
Speaker 2: you know, which is interesting on a local level. The
Speaker 2: other thing to say is, you know, there was a
Speaker 2: lot of speculation about some of his less popular moves
Speaker 2: that he made politically, you know, especially with regard to
Speaker 2: democratic priorities, things like I mentioned, like the child tax
Speaker 2: garded that it's like, oh, well, he's just you know,
Speaker 2: he's trying to appeal to West Virginia voters. And I
Speaker 2: always thought that that was a bit silly because a
Speaker 2: lot of the things that he would stand against were
Speaker 2: actually popular in the state, so it didn't really make
Speaker 2: sense for him electoral perspective. Now, on cultural issues, I
Speaker 2: think it's a very different thing. But West Virginia is
Speaker 2: actually pretty economically populist, which Jim Justice in certain ways
Speaker 2: has governed that way. As governor as well. So in
Speaker 2: any case, I think this finally puts to bed the
Speaker 2: idea that was all just electoral positioning and we needed
Speaker 2: to leave him alone because he knew the state and
Speaker 2: he knew what he was doing. Because even with apparently
Speaker 2: his moves to buck the president and buck his party,
Speaker 2: it still wasn't nearly enough to overcome the electoral barrier
Speaker 2: now in a red state of West Virginia.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and now the Senate math is particularly tough for Democrats.
Speaker 1: So I've got it here in front of me. We
Speaker 1: can put it up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: To hold the Senate in twenty twenty four, Democrats must
Speaker 3: now defend Montana, Ohio or Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: Also the White House.
Speaker 3: If they stumble in just one of those, they must
Speaker 3: replace one by a GOP held seat and unseat Tim
Speaker 3: Scott or Ted Cruz. Good luck, I think on both
Speaker 3: of those. What was the last time Jamie Harrison Mania
Speaker 3: Whenever everyone thought he might have a chance, he ended
Speaker 3: up losing by at points. So maybe they'll have the
Speaker 3: dream maybe alive once again. But regardless, Crystal, that's a
Speaker 3: tough map. But I mean you know, in a sense,
Speaker 3: his retirement is just indicative of how difficult of a
Speaker 3: landscape they face. You've got an unpopular president. Politics is
Speaker 3: literally more national than ever. You know, you can govern
Speaker 3: in the most Joe Mansion way possible, and that's still
Speaker 3: in this day and age pretty much just not going
Speaker 3: to get you all that far. I was reading an
Speaker 3: interesting analysis today that twenty eighteen was one of the
Speaker 3: biggest retirements from Congress since the post World War two
Speaker 3: era in all of history. And one of the reasons
Speaker 3: is that being a legislator today senator is a bit different,
Speaker 3: but we're just talking generally. Being a legislator today you
Speaker 3: have never had less impact as in the committee process
Speaker 3: is dead, So if you actually want to.
Speaker 1: Legislate, you don't have any real input.
Speaker 3: You can't add amendments, you have no ability to do
Speaker 3: anything in markup. There's very rarely hearings that are substantive
Speaker 3: at all. In terms of the bill, leadership controls almost everything.
Speaker 3: Everything is done through omnibuses, with the giant bills that
Speaker 3: pass through continuing resolutions that things just get tacked on
Speaker 3: at the last minute. It's just the White House and
Speaker 3: then the leadership in the House and the Senate, they're
Speaker 3: the only ones that get any input.
Speaker 1: And then on top of that, your ability.
Speaker 3: To run for office has very little to do with
Speaker 3: what you do all day. It just happens to do
Speaker 3: with who's at the top of the ticket, like Obama
Speaker 3: or Biden or Nancy Pelosi. So you could be the
Speaker 3: best dam legislature there is for West Virginia, but it's
Speaker 3: a Trump state, and Trump is like the Democrats of
Speaker 3: the Devil, And that's just how a lot of people
Speaker 3: are going to vote now. Of course, on the margins,
Speaker 3: it matters a little bit. But part of the reason
Speaker 3: we're seeing a mass retirement really at this time is
Speaker 3: because a lot of these people just don't like the
Speaker 3: job anymore. They just they believe that they've never been
Speaker 3: less effective as legislators.
Speaker 2: Well, especially at the federal level. There's just really no
Speaker 2: ability to be like, you know, a West Virginia Democrat exactly,
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, you're still a Democrat.
Speaker 2: You're still going to vote for Chuck Schumer, You're still
Speaker 2: behind Joe Biden, and so we don't really care. And
Speaker 2: I mean, frankly, I can't really blame voters for that
Speaker 2: because especially especially now. You know, once upon a time
Speaker 2: it was like, okay, if you had all the seniority,
Speaker 2: you'd be able to really deliver you know, mansion has
Speaker 2: I'm sure put together all sorts of appropriations and quote
Speaker 2: unquote pork barrel which oftentimes really important community projects that
Speaker 2: actually help places out, and was able to deliver that
Speaker 2: for West Virginia. But that stuff, you know, is increasingly
Speaker 2: rare and becomes less and less important over time. So
Speaker 2: that seniority and that you know me, I've been here,
Speaker 2: I'm looking out for you no longer matters. And what
Speaker 2: matters more to people is just like, all right, well,
Speaker 2: who are you going to vote for Majority leader? Who
Speaker 2: are you going to vote for House speaker? Who are
Speaker 2: you backing for President of the United States. That's when
Speaker 2: we talk about the nationalization of politics. What you see now.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, we just had an example in
Speaker 2: Kentucky of a Democratic governor who has you know, been
Speaker 2: very popular in the state, who was you know, really
Speaker 2: tried to to the will of the people and focus
Speaker 2: on things like disaster relief, again being very present, things
Speaker 2: like labor issues. He brought a bunch of these new
Speaker 2: battery jobs into the state, and because it's state and
Speaker 2: it's not about who you're voting for House Speaker, majority
Speaker 2: leader or President of the United States, he was able
Speaker 2: to overcome those trends. But I think in the House,
Speaker 2: in the Senate, it's just, you know, it's becoming increasingly
Speaker 2: impossible to separate yourself from whatever the partisan lean of
Speaker 2: your state is, you know, just to weigh in on
Speaker 2: the Senate map, obviously, it's very difficult. I do think
Speaker 2: Democrats have a chance to run the table here.
Speaker 1: I don't think.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's impossible. I haven't I saw a
Speaker 2: while ago some polling out of the state of Montana
Speaker 2: with John Tester. You know, he's probably the only Democrat
Speaker 2: who could win in that state, But I do think
Speaker 2: he has a chance at holding on there. In Ohio,
Speaker 2: the recent polls have shared Brown actually up by quite
Speaker 2: a bit. That's the other one that's really tough. And
Speaker 2: then they got to hang on in a bunch of
Speaker 2: other swing states. So I don't think it's impossible, but
Speaker 2: it is very difficult for Democrats, And as I kind
Speaker 2: of alluded to before, in some ways this clarifies things
Speaker 2: and also means that they're not going to waste a
Speaker 2: bunch of money on a West Virginia seat that frankly
Speaker 2: was probably already gone. So they know exactly what they
Speaker 2: have to do now in order to hold on to
Speaker 2: the Senate. This seat was a foregone conclusion all but
Speaker 2: and that's exactly why Mansion has decided to step away.
Speaker 3: I think it's I think you're you're right. And also
Speaker 3: there's a lot of people who are like, that's it,
Speaker 3: the Senate has gone. I'm like, really, I heard that
Speaker 3: before twenty twenty, and then guess what happened. Trump, you know,
Speaker 3: pulled as Shenanigans two special elections, and then they won
Speaker 3: both seats.
Speaker 1: And you never know what's going to happen.
Speaker 3: You could have a mini blue wave scenario where Biden
Speaker 3: barely ekes out reelection, but you know D, it's like
Speaker 3: D plus four on the national popular vote and you
Speaker 3: would absolutely win Michigan, Pennsylvania or any of those places.
Speaker 1: So don't rule out anything.
Speaker 3: You could also see it the other way, could be
Speaker 3: a total red wave and think Democrats could lose every
Speaker 3: single one of those seats, although I think that's probably unlikely.
Speaker 3: The whole point is that everything is up in the
Speaker 3: are the only thing is certain right now, Joe Manchin
Speaker 3: will not be in the U and I say Senate
Speaker 3: come twenty and twenty five. So there you go, everybody,
Speaker 3: and we will talk about Israel and Palestine next.
Speaker 2: Hey, guys, we've got some important breaking news that we
Speaker 2: wanted to update you on coming out of Israel and Palestine. First,
Speaker 2: we wanted to start with a pretty wild threat to
Speaker 2: press freedom that gets thrown around a lot, but in
Speaker 2: this case, I don't know any other words to describe this,
Speaker 2: so put this up on the screen. It all started
Speaker 2: with this Israeli outlet that sort of covers tries to
Speaker 2: cover media bias from a pro Israel perspective. They're called
Speaker 2: quote unquote Honest Reporting, which we'll get into how the
Speaker 2: name is a bit of a misnomer. But they effectively
Speaker 2: accused the photojournalists who were able to obtain, you know,
Speaker 2: photographs on that horrific day on October seventh, of potentially
Speaker 2: being infiltraders rather than journalists. And we're talking about you know,
Speaker 2: freelance conflict photojournalists who were submitting photographs to the AP,
Speaker 2: to CNN, to the New York Times. And the response
Speaker 2: to this report from quote unquote honest reporting was quite
Speaker 2: something from the Israeli government. So put this up on
Speaker 2: the screen. You had Israeli government officials saying that they
Speaker 2: will eliminate these photojournalists. Let me just read the tweet here.
Speaker 2: They say, Israel's Internal Security Agency announced they will eliminate
Speaker 2: all participants of the October seventh massacre. The photojournalists who
Speaker 2: took part in recording the assault will be added to
Speaker 2: that list, so that list for elimination. Again, these are
Speaker 2: coming out from official Israeli multiple government officials using very
Speaker 2: similar rhetoric here. So incredibly chilling, I mean terrifying. These
Speaker 2: are people who are just trying to do their job
Speaker 2: and bring to all of us evidence of what unfolded
Speaker 2: on that terrific day.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so, Chris, Well, they have four specific people that
Speaker 3: they name here in the report. It's Hassan el Sayah,
Speaker 3: Yusef sued Ali Mahmoud, and hot tem Ali. Al Sayah
Speaker 3: has kind of been the poster child of this one.
Speaker 3: I will say it's a bit of a sketchy photo
Speaker 3: where he's getting kissed on the cheek by the founder
Speaker 3: of Hamas.
Speaker 1: That said, I have no idea whether.
Speaker 2: He has my Association.
Speaker 3: Well yeah, but it's also it's an odd thing to
Speaker 3: be doing if you are, you know, a journalist that
Speaker 3: and he has now had ties cut with.
Speaker 1: Him by two people. I am not saying this man.
Speaker 3: Deserves to die in any way, let's be very clear
Speaker 3: about that. And he is a freelance reporter. I don't
Speaker 3: know if he has any inside knowledge of the attack.
Speaker 3: It appears that the other ones, Yusuf Mus, sued Ali,
Speaker 3: Mahmoud and hot tem Ali, at least in two cases
Speaker 3: of a journalists or the outlets that have worked with
Speaker 3: them in the past as freelancers, have said that they
Speaker 3: had absolutely no knowledge of the attack, that they it's
Speaker 3: outrageous in order to accuse them of this. The real
Speaker 3: problem I think with this major report is instead of
Speaker 3: I think which is a legitimate story, is if you
Speaker 3: were to say, hey, this guy who works for CNN
Speaker 3: and the AP took a selfie, you know, getting kissed
Speaker 3: on the cheek by the founder of Hamas, they straight
Speaker 3: up insinuated, and not even insinuated. They said that they
Speaker 3: had advanced knowledge of the attack. And I do think
Speaker 3: that is outrageous because the Israeli government immediately came out
Speaker 3: and said that they are now legitimate targets. So, for example,
Speaker 3: like with the New York Times, what you're talking about,
Speaker 3: we can put.
Speaker 1: This statement here up on the screen.
Speaker 3: They say, the accusation that anyone at the New York
Speaker 3: Times had advanced knowledge of the Hamas or accompanied Hamas
Speaker 3: harrister in the attacks is untrue and outrageous. It's reckless
Speaker 3: to make such accusations, putting our journalists on the ground
Speaker 3: in Israel and Gaza at risk. What they then claim, though,
Speaker 3: after all of these denials from all of these reports,
Speaker 3: is one of the craziest things I've ever seen.
Speaker 1: Let's put this up there.
Speaker 3: They said they were just asking questions, which is as
Speaker 3: like or sorry, just raising questions.
Speaker 1: That is like internet meme.
Speaker 3: In terms of throwing out crazy, crazy accusations against people
Speaker 3: and then just being like, what, I'm just asking questions.
Speaker 3: And look, okay, it's fine to ask questions, as we said,
Speaker 3: but when you declare something, especially as an Israeli outlet,
Speaker 3: that then leads to a witch hunt within Israel and
Speaker 3: also within the United States.
Speaker 1: Let's be honest, because it was shared.
Speaker 3: Everywhere widely amongst a lot of pro Israeli supporters, in
Speaker 3: the US, they've basically greenlit these people from a governmental
Speaker 3: level and from a US like cover level in the
Speaker 3: media to say that they deserve to be killed.
Speaker 1: So I strong I stand very very strongly against that.
Speaker 3: I think it's you know, it's fine if you want
Speaker 3: to be like, hey, this guy took a selfie he
Speaker 3: got kissed on the cheek by the leader Hamas.
Speaker 1: I agree.
Speaker 3: I think that's weird, and I think that's why the
Speaker 3: two outlets that they don't want to work with the
Speaker 3: guy anymore. And I don't think that means you having partiality.
Speaker 3: But you know, it's also pretty crazy to suggest that
Speaker 3: they had advanced knowledge. Because Ryan Grimm was talking about this.
Speaker 3: You know, sometimes when you're a journalist, sketchy people contact
Speaker 3: you and they'll be like, hey, just be here at
Speaker 3: this time in this day.
Speaker 1: You'll be like, yeah, okay, you know, you don't know
Speaker 1: what's going on.
Speaker 3: You're just like whatever, and you show up and you're like,
Speaker 3: and if some shit is popping off, what do you do?
Speaker 1: You're supposed to do your job.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is like saying that people who you
Speaker 3: know accompany the US military. You know, we had many
Speaker 3: people who are there. You know, during the invasion of
Speaker 3: Iraq or whatever, had advanced knowledge of what was going
Speaker 3: to happen.
Speaker 1: No, they don't know anything.
Speaker 3: They're just told to sit and stay put, and then
Speaker 3: when stuff starts happening, they're like, Okay, now you can
Speaker 3: film and put it out there. So I don't think that.
Speaker 3: I think that, especially since they straight up and mid
Speaker 3: on the record that they have no evidence that these
Speaker 3: people had any advanced knowledge.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that their guilt.
Speaker 3: By association, as you said, was pictures of these individuals
Speaker 3: doing their job in the midst of the attack and
Speaker 3: then green lighting them as targets.
Speaker 1: That is outrageous and just.
Speaker 2: To put a fine point on that. So this gentleman
Speaker 2: Gil Hoffman, who's the executive director of quote unquote Honest
Speaker 2: Reporting and a former reporter for the Jerusalem Post, he
Speaker 2: told the AP the group had no evidence to back
Speaker 2: up their suggestion. He said he was satisfied with subsequent
Speaker 2: explanations from several of these journalists that they did not
Speaker 2: know quote they were legitimate questions to be asked. And
Speaker 2: despite the name Honest Reporting, he said, we don't claim
Speaker 2: to be a news organization. So I think that clears
Speaker 2: it up for everyone here. I mean the suggestion too,
Speaker 2: that they had advanced knowledge. You really think Hamas, which
Speaker 2: was trying to hide this operation from the world, their
Speaker 2: own political leadership, didn't know what was going on. You're
Speaker 2: their benefactors in Iran, you know. Intell US Intelligence says
Speaker 2: they were surprised and didn't know what was going on.
Speaker 2: And you think that they notified in advance Western aligned
Speaker 2: journalists to their devious plot, like you have to be insane.
Speaker 2: Nt Yahoo claims they were completely caught off guard by it,
Speaker 2: And you think Western journalists got heads up that this
Speaker 2: was all gonna unfold, Like it's preposterous on its face,
Speaker 2: and you can't just you know, it's one they're asking
Speaker 2: a question. You can't just throw some stuff out there,
Speaker 2: especially in such a volatile situation. And we haven't covered
Speaker 2: a lot of this because it's happening in Israel and
Speaker 2: not happening in the US. But the state crackdown on
Speaker 2: any sort of descent, any sort of you know, WhatsApp
Speaker 2: status post that could even be tangentially construed as pro mouss.
Speaker 2: People are getting arrested, people are getting protests, are getting
Speaker 2: beaten in the streets, like that is the level of paranoia.
Speaker 2: Laws are being passed, you can try to criminalize even
Speaker 2: descent that is factually based, and you're gonna throw out
Speaker 2: these allegations that you acknowledge are completely baseless. And then
Speaker 2: the other thing that you know is just absolutely shocking
Speaker 2: is that these Israeli government officials immediately jump on it
Speaker 2: and again no evidence, say we will elimit, we will
Speaker 2: add them to the list of terrorists to be eliminated.
Speaker 2: Just just think about that. Like, you know, people, we
Speaker 2: are in many ways considered journalists. Ryan is considered emily journalists.
Speaker 2: Like if you step the wrong way with the israel government,
Speaker 2: they're going to put you on a list for elimination.
Speaker 2: That's insane. And just so people understand too, you know,
Speaker 2: because I'm sure it can seem very uh morally fraught
Speaker 2: to be with Hamas while they're perpetrating attacks and it
Speaker 2: does raise quote, Okay, what's your responsibility. Well, this is
Speaker 2: laid out in the job description description in the Code
Speaker 2: of Ethics for conflict journalists. Your duty is to not
Speaker 2: intervene and not involve yourself. You are there to be
Speaker 2: an observer, a witness to history, so that we and
Speaker 2: others can actually have a window into what unfolded, so
Speaker 2: you know this other like, oh, well they went along
Speaker 2: and they didn't intervene. That's their job so that we
Speaker 2: can all know about the horrors that unfolded on this day.
Speaker 2: So just outrageously irresponsible. And the most significant part is
Speaker 2: it's one thing for some you know, random blog website,
Speaker 2: whatever the hell this thing is, calling itself honest reporting,
Speaker 2: then being like we're not a newsvalid don't don't get
Speaker 2: it twisted. It's another thing for a powerful developed state
Speaker 2: to use these baseless, evidence free allegations and say now
Speaker 2: you're on a list for elimination, and especially soccer at
Speaker 2: a time when journalists are being massacred in Gaza. I
Speaker 2: mean the number of journalists that have been killed beyond
Speaker 2: any other conflict, like way beyond any other conflict, the
Speaker 2: most since they've started tracking such statistics, and their family
Speaker 2: members targeted. So you know this is not an idle threat,
Speaker 2: I guess, is what I should say.
Speaker 3: No, I think the Israeli government is the worst actor
Speaker 3: in this, because you can't just be putting on people
Speaker 3: on kill lists based on a baseless allegation. It's also
Speaker 3: from a websit journalists in point of view, when the
Speaker 3: founder said he was quote satisfied with their explanation, I'm.
Speaker 1: Like, well, why don't you reach out to them for comment? Man,
Speaker 1: you're going to put people that five.
Speaker 3: People on blast and put their lives at risk before actually,
Speaker 3: you know, if we were going to do report, you know,
Speaker 3: just and we had an allegation or something like that.
Speaker 3: It is your responsibility to be able to give some
Speaker 3: especially in this case.
Speaker 1: A reasonable amount of time to comment, to sift.
Speaker 3: Through and then you're like, oh, okay, well then I'm
Speaker 3: not You get run it and you can put the
Speaker 3: explanation in there or not. You know. The important thing
Speaker 3: I didn't mention on the Reuters in on the AP
Speaker 3: part is that the time stamps on the photos actually
Speaker 3: show that they were taken two hours after Hamas had
Speaker 3: fired rockets and forty five minutes after Israel said gunman
Speaker 3: had crossed the border.
Speaker 1: The AP the same thing.
Speaker 3: Many of their photos were taken more than an hour
Speaker 3: after the attacks began.
Speaker 1: AKA, these guys were around the border.
Speaker 3: They're probably told like, some shit's going to go down.
Speaker 3: You don't know what's going to go down, and then
Speaker 3: they see it and they're like, oh, my god, let's go,
Speaker 3: and so they're like run in.
Speaker 1: I know people who have reported in combat zones and
Speaker 1: they always talk about this.
Speaker 3: It's a very difficult thing where you are not supposed
Speaker 3: to intervene. You know, at a humanitarian civilian level, you
Speaker 3: can like provide like some basic first aid and all
Speaker 3: these other things. But if you start getting in there,
Speaker 3: your life is in danger and you're going to get killed.
Speaker 3: And I totally understand why that is very difficult for
Speaker 3: people to wrap your heads around. But that's you're why
Speaker 3: you're not a combat journalist. That's why I'm not one either.
Speaker 3: I don't want it to be put in this situation.
Speaker 3: My old point is just that it's it is a
Speaker 3: difficult situation for those people who are placed in that job.
Speaker 3: This outlet is outrageously irresponsible. The people who did not
Speaker 3: the people who put this out and just spread it
Speaker 3: with all these people without asking for comment or any
Speaker 3: of that. I think it's crazy. And look, I'll say
Speaker 3: this too.
Speaker 1: Nobody hates some media more than me. All Right, I
Speaker 1: hate the media. I'm happy.
Speaker 3: You know. I would put them on blast, you know,
Speaker 3: if I thought they actually had done something terrible. But
Speaker 3: I know enough people who work in this position where
Speaker 3: these are not you know, shitheads were posting about Russia
Speaker 3: Gate or something like that. If anything, they're doing the
Speaker 3: real stuff on the ground, that taking of what's happening
Speaker 3: and telling us, you know, what's happening.
Speaker 1: Here and air strikes there and all of that.
Speaker 3: And like, in my opinion, if you had people who
Speaker 3: were you know, on the ground and just just reporting
Speaker 3: the facts and all that more, we'd be better off.
Speaker 1: So it's especially actually.
Speaker 3: Important to make sure that we we uh, don't just
Speaker 3: jump to situations where we're green lighting this. And I
Speaker 3: also think the US government should absolutely protest any any
Speaker 3: type of action or honestly even statements like this if
Speaker 3: they're going to claim that there's some you know, the
Speaker 3: Biden administration is some paragon of protecting journalists even though
Speaker 3: we know it's all fake.
Speaker 2: Yeah. That that is a great point too. I mean,
Speaker 2: where are there words condemning this putting you know, photo
Speaker 2: journalist names on a list for targeting by our great
Speaker 2: ally Israel. We had one other piece we wanted to
Speaker 2: update you guys on because this is significant. Go ahead
Speaker 2: and put this up on the screen. So Israel has
Speaker 2: agreed to brief daily humanitarian pauses. Now, I'll tell you
Speaker 2: my thoughts on humanitarian pauses in a second, but this
Speaker 2: falls short of what even the Biden administration was pushing for.
Speaker 2: They had wanted several days in order to try to
Speaker 2: facilitate negotiations on hostage release. We know actually that there
Speaker 2: was a potential deal on the table for hostages to
Speaker 2: be released, and then that was completely derailed by the
Speaker 2: ground invasion that went forward in Gaza. So these negotiations
Speaker 2: have been ongoing, That's what the US was pushing for. Instead,
Speaker 2: Israel has agreed to put in place four hour daily
Speaker 2: humanitarian pauses in their assault in northern Gaza, the White
Speaker 2: House said Thursday, as President Joe Biden press Israelis for
Speaker 2: a multi day stoppage in the fighting in that bid
Speaker 2: to negotiate the release of hostages. They go on to
Speaker 2: say that similar short term pauses have occurred over the
Speaker 2: past several days as tens of thousands of civilians have
Speaker 2: fled southward, but Thursday's announcements appeared to be an effort
Speaker 2: to formalize and expand the process. This as the US
Speaker 2: has pressed Israelis to take greater steps to protect civilians
Speaker 2: in Gaza. And just as a reminder, you know, those
Speaker 2: of us who are pushing for a total cease fire
Speaker 2: to end the slaughter of civilians have been saying for
Speaker 2: a while. First of all, humanitarian pauses something liberals made
Speaker 2: up to make themselves feel better. It's not a real
Speaker 2: thing that I've ever heard of in any other conflict.
Speaker 2: This was like whiteboarded at the Center for American Progress
Speaker 2: here in DC. That's number one. Number two. Put this
Speaker 2: from from ACTHEUS on the screen. Tony Blinken, when he
Speaker 2: was in Israel, directly told Netanyahu what they wanted these
Speaker 2: pauses for, and it had nothing to do with civilian relief.
Speaker 2: His message, according to one US and two Israeli officials,
Speaker 2: was quote, we don't want to stop you, but help us,
Speaker 2: help you get more time. So they're trying to give
Speaker 2: Israel also some sort of a faith saving maneuver to
Speaker 2: try to lessen the pressure that is, you know, mounting
Speaker 2: and mounting and mounting on is real to end this,
Speaker 2: you know, instcriminate bombing that has so been so devastating
Speaker 2: to civilians and children and the siege, et cetera. And
Speaker 2: they're saying, hey, if you at least did this face
Speaker 2: saving gesture of humanitarian pauses. Maybe that could buy you
Speaker 2: more time for your ground invasion and your bombing campaign.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I think it's better than nothing. I
Speaker 3: think it's better than like not. I think it's been
Speaker 3: a fine outcome. It's four hours. You can actually get
Speaker 3: more civilians out of there if the broader conduct doesn't change. Though,
Speaker 3: it's not going to have a massive impact, but it's
Speaker 3: also not the worst thing to happen. We actually saw
Speaker 3: a series of quote unquote humanitarian ceasefires happen in Syria
Speaker 3: that I recall covering.
Speaker 1: At the time.
Speaker 3: They didn't have a particularly large strategic impact. Usually the
Speaker 3: defense of these things is, well, if you can agree
Speaker 3: to a humanitarian cease fire of four hours, then maybe
Speaker 3: a month from now you can agree to more of
Speaker 3: a hostage negotiation type scenario. That's usually what the defense is.
Speaker 3: This is like incrementalism to try to get to some
Speaker 3: sort of outcome. My interest is on what they're actually
Speaker 3: doing at this point. Where are we actually shifting to
Speaker 3: the combat operation Because they keep saying we have encircled Gaza.
Speaker 3: You know we're doing this. The real fight has begun,
Speaker 3: but we haven't seen any actual ground like major ground
Speaker 3: combat offensive began yet, Crystal I was looking in the
Speaker 3: last twenty four hours. And so the question is with
Speaker 3: the Israelis and their military, like in a certain sense,
Speaker 3: like what are you waiting for in terms of the
Speaker 3: bombing and in terms of the humanitarian area. But then
Speaker 3: are we moving to the next phase of the.
Speaker 1: Operation or not? And I think that's where a lot
Speaker 1: of the reluctance is.
Speaker 3: They're probably very torn at the higher command because that
Speaker 3: means that you are a you're going to take a
Speaker 3: ton more casualties in close quarters combat. Then at the
Speaker 3: same time you also have this hostage situation, and there's
Speaker 3: just such intense pressure, you know, and any any time
Speaker 3: you're starting to get that close to the enemy and
Speaker 3: all that, you're obviously going.
Speaker 1: To put the hostages at a at a greater risk.
Speaker 1: So it is, Yeah, it's really tragic.
Speaker 3: I do hope though, that at least some people could
Speaker 3: take advantage of a quote unquote humanitarian post to the
Speaker 3: extent that some civilians are able to escape from the area,
Speaker 3: because that's better than dying in this world.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, the question is really to like take
Speaker 2: advantage of the humanitarian pose to do what You've already
Speaker 2: had one point five million people displaced with their homes.
Speaker 2: You know, most people who have who were going to leave,
Speaker 2: have already left, and the siege is really taking a toll.
Speaker 2: I was just reading a horrifying report about you know,
Speaker 2: the most people are surviving on very limited brackish water
Speaker 2: that is, you know, causing them all sorts of illnesses
Speaker 2: and disease. The medical supplies are running low, there's no food.
Speaker 2: You know, people are clustered in these hospitals or school
Speaker 2: that they think are safe. Some of them have received
Speaker 2: notice from the Israeli military that they may also come
Speaker 2: under attack. There is no safety. I mean, it's just
Speaker 2: absolutely horrifying conditions that people are living in, and you know,
Speaker 2: there's really nowhere for them to go that is safe.
Speaker 2: So that's why, Okay, you know, having a few official
Speaker 2: hours break in the fighting on a daily basis, yeah,
Speaker 2: you're right, it's better than nothing, But it also is
Speaker 2: meant in service of just being able to prolong the conflict.
Speaker 2: That's what the goal is. It's not a humanitarian goal,
Speaker 2: it's a goal. It's a pr goal to try to
Speaker 2: enable Israel to be able to sustain the bombing campaign longer,
Speaker 2: which is why I can't you know, I can't celebrate
Speaker 2: it as any sort of a real achievement because we
Speaker 2: already have Tony blink and explaining precisely what they actually
Speaker 2: want out of these humanitarian pauses, which is to allow
Speaker 2: the bombing campaign to go on indefinitely.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good point, all right.
Speaker 3: We are out of time, so we will see everybody
Speaker 3: later on Monday. Thank you for Premium subscribers for enable this,
Speaker 3: and we'll see you then.