Speaker 1: Hello, Welcome to the podcast. It could happen here. It's
Speaker 1: me James and Scharene today. Hi Serene, Hi James, Hi Sarene. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's lovely to have you. Thanks for introducing yourself.
Speaker 1: I'm a little confused, but he was talking to you.
Speaker 2: I've done podcasts for a long time and I never
Speaker 2: actually know how to introduce myself. But I'm really happy
Speaker 2: to be doing this episode with you because you're a
Speaker 2: very good episode partner.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Sreen. I am also happy to be doing
Speaker 1: this episode with you. I think you're an excellent episode partner.
Speaker 2: What are we talking about that just because I said it?
Speaker 1: No, I like him. It's good. It's good. We help
Speaker 1: people learn things.
Speaker 2: Well, today you're going to learn some more things about Palestine.
Speaker 2: It's been a minute since we had an update, and
Speaker 2: I mean, surprise, surprise, things aren't good. So we're going
Speaker 2: to talk about some recent stuff that's been happening. There's
Speaker 2: we mentioned some stuff that we've mentioned before in other episodes,
Speaker 2: like the Nekaba or just the ethnic cleansing that happened
Speaker 2: in nineteen forty eight. Also some politics stuff. So if
Speaker 2: you are interested in getting more detail and you haven't
Speaker 2: listened to those. I would recommend listening to those, just
Speaker 2: for more context if you desire.
Speaker 1: But yeah, yeah, I think you're diving in probably at
Speaker 1: the deep end if you start here. But we're going
Speaker 1: to dive in at the deep end. So earlier this month,
Speaker 1: Omar Katten twenty seven, a father of two children who
Speaker 1: worked as an electrician for the local municipality, was killed
Speaker 1: when about four hundred Israeli settlers marched down Thaumasaya's main road,
Speaker 1: selling cars, homes, crops and trees ablaze as they went.
Speaker 1: It's not clear if you're shot by IDF troops or
Speaker 1: settlers of both stormed the village carrying weapons. Under international law,
Speaker 1: Israeli settlement to illegal, however, it's really Prime Minister of
Speaker 1: Benjamin Netan Yahoo announced plans to build a thousand new
Speaker 1: housing units in the settlement of Eli in response to
Speaker 1: the deadly shooting of Forestraelis by two Estinian government on Tuesday,
Speaker 1: the twentieth of June. The suspected assailants were later killed.
Speaker 1: One of them was quote unquote neutralized by civilian the
Speaker 1: other by the IDEF. But it appears the plan is
Speaker 1: to punish the whole nation again. Our antswer to terror
Speaker 1: is to strike it hard and to build our country.
Speaker 1: Net Yeah, who said his right wing government is dominated
Speaker 1: by settler leaders and supporters. But his statements came just
Speaker 1: days after the government gave far right finance minister there's
Speaker 1: a little smotorridge sweeping powers to exploit the construction of
Speaker 1: legal settlements by passing messes that have been in place
Speaker 1: for almost twenty seven years. The violence in thaumas ayah
Speaker 1: Am I saying that, right.
Speaker 2: I just looked it up. Yeah, totmos Aya is it's
Speaker 2: a town in the West Bank for context people that
Speaker 2: don't know, so, yeah, it's it's in the Ramola and
Speaker 2: LBI the governor in the West Bank.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm going to get a little bit more into
Speaker 1: it of why this is all happening. We just wanted
Speaker 1: to kind of pain the paint the picture for you
Speaker 1: first of all of the bigger events that have happened.
Speaker 1: I guess. So this violence against the people of this
Speaker 1: town and the shooting of for Israelis followed an incursion
Speaker 1: by the IDF and Israeli border forces into the Genine
Speaker 1: refugee camp. It was an operational scale not seen for decades.
Speaker 1: So did you tear gas, stun grenades, and an attack helicopter.
Speaker 1: Seven Palestinians were killed, nearly one hundred were wounded.
Speaker 2: And I feel like this is not the first time.
Speaker 2: If you've been following any Palestinian news that you've heard
Speaker 2: of Janine the refugee camp, or that it's being attacked,
Speaker 2: it might sound familiar. I'll get into it more later,
Speaker 2: but Sharen abu Ocle was actually killed while reporting there.
Speaker 2: So I want to get into just why exactly Israel
Speaker 2: keeps raiding the Janine refugee camp in particular, and I
Speaker 2: want to talk about the camp's history, why it's getting targeted,
Speaker 2: and why the latest raid was different than the ones
Speaker 2: before it. Janine is slowly becoming a symbol of Palestinian resistance.
Speaker 2: It was originally established in nineteen fifty three to house
Speaker 2: Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed during the Nekaba of nineteen
Speaker 2: forty eight, which forced some seven hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 2: people from their homes in order to make way for
Speaker 2: the establishment of Israel. And again we've talked about this
Speaker 2: in other episodes. You want to revisit those, but essentially,
Speaker 2: he was just a very perfect example of ethnic cleansing
Speaker 2: and massacres in genocide and displacement. So the camp has
Speaker 2: seen much unrest over the decades, and it was nearly
Speaker 2: destroyed in two thousand and two when Israeli soldiers ambushed
Speaker 2: it during the Second Antifada. According to a Human Rights
Speaker 2: Watch investigation, at least fifty two Palestinians, including women and children,
Speaker 2: were killed during this period of time. In two thousand
Speaker 2: and two, during the Second anthli Fada, there were also
Speaker 2: at least twenty three Israeli soldiers killed and several others
Speaker 2: injured that were reported. And since then, Janine has recently
Speaker 2: seen intensifying attacks by Israeli forces, especially since twenty twenty one,
Speaker 2: and it has slowly, along with Gaza, become a major
Speaker 2: symbol of Palestinian resistance. At this point, Palestinians are really
Speaker 2: fed up with the enaction of the Palestinian Authority the PA,
Speaker 2: which is the government entity meant to oversee and quote
Speaker 2: unquote protect the Palestinians within its governance. The Palestine Authority
Speaker 2: was formed in nineteen ninety four following the Gaza Jericho
Speaker 2: Agreement between the PLO and the Government of Israel, and
Speaker 2: it was only intended to be a five year interim body.
Speaker 2: Further negotiations were then meant to take place between the
Speaker 2: two parties regarding its final status. According to the Oslo Accords,
Speaker 2: the Palestinian Authority was designated to have exclusive control over
Speaker 2: both security related and civilian issues in the Palestinian urban areas,
Speaker 2: which are referred to as Area A, and only Palestinian
Speaker 2: control over Palestinian rural areas, which is called Area B.
Speaker 2: The remainder of the territories, including Israeli settlement, the Jordan
Speaker 2: Valley region and bypass roads between Palestinian communities, were remain
Speaker 2: under Israeli control aka Area C. East Jerusalem was excluded
Speaker 2: from the accords. Negotiations with several Israeli governments had resulted
Speaker 2: in the Authority gaining further control in some areas, but
Speaker 2: that control was then lost in some areas when Israel
Speaker 2: retook several strategic positions during the Second Antifaba. At this point,
Speaker 2: the Palestine Authority is an authoritarian regime that has not
Speaker 2: held elections in over fifteen years, and it doesn't really
Speaker 2: stand in the way of the Israeli government and the
Speaker 2: crimes they commit. So what concerns Israel Is that in
Speaker 2: Janine and elsewhere, young Palestinians are increasingly taking up arms
Speaker 2: because they see no other way out of the pressure
Speaker 2: of occupation and they're very disillusioned with the ineffectiveness of
Speaker 2: the Palestinian authority.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's a really important way too, Like
Speaker 1: when we talk about like especially Palestinian people taking up arms,
Speaker 1: right or expecting these new groups which come in the
Speaker 1: last couple of years, Right, there's that Lions Day group.
Speaker 1: I think they're more from nables. Janine Brigades is another one.
Speaker 1: It's in the context of like government failure or state
Speaker 1: failure in I guess when we look at like the
Speaker 1: formation of states, right, when there's it's called social contracts
Speaker 1: the area, right, the idea that when we go and consent,
Speaker 1: which we don't do, but we don't ever, like we
Speaker 1: don't have a chance to consent to being in a state, right,
Speaker 1: like very obviously if you're from Palestine, you're aware of this,
Speaker 1: Like we were supposed to give up some of our
Speaker 1: freedom and get some security. But the Palestinian authority has
Speaker 1: repeatedly failed to protect people in Geneine, right, and in
Speaker 1: lots of other places too, and so like this response,
Speaker 1: like this response is taking up aren't is in the
Speaker 1: context of state failure, right, Like people are trying to
Speaker 1: protect their own communities when there's been a complete failure
Speaker 1: by the people who are supposed to protect them, the
Speaker 1: people who is and that's both the PA and then
Speaker 1: like the broader the international community is kind of a
Speaker 1: pointless phrase. It doesn't really mean anything. But like international
Speaker 1: law is also a pointless phrase. It doesn't really mean anything,
Speaker 1: which I'm getting too far afield here, but like the
Speaker 1: amount of times people in my replies on Twitter will
Speaker 1: be like this is against international law, and like are
Speaker 1: you going to go and fucking enforce it? Then?
Speaker 2: Like guess if that matter is at that point?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's just like good, it doesn't matter, like what
Speaker 1: we know it's bad. I don't like, that's not what's
Speaker 1: up for debate? What's for debates? What the fuck are
Speaker 1: you going to do about it? How are you going
Speaker 1: to stop it? And like these people have decided that
Speaker 1: the way they're going to stop it is by taking
Speaker 1: up arms, and like evidently Israel sees them as terrorists.
Speaker 1: Evidently there are some groups inside Palestine who have killed
Speaker 1: civilians and done ship which is is, you know, like,
Speaker 1: it's not very nice. Also, the idea of killed civilians
Speaker 1: all the time, right, one of them is funded and
Speaker 1: armed by your taxes, and so like, yeah, it's an
Speaker 1: understandable response. And the response of the IDF is to
Speaker 1: sort of paint the whole of Janine as harboring quote
Speaker 1: unquoite terrorists, right, which which is, and then to do
Speaker 1: these attacks which often cause civilian casualties, which is not
Speaker 1: that distinct from suggesting that Israel is a terrorist state, right,
Speaker 1: and then attacking Israel, which like, but one of these
Speaker 1: things is more broadly condemned is terrorism, and one is
Speaker 1: not as broadly condemned as terrorism. When then they're not,
Speaker 1: to my eye, that morally different. I guess, yeah, that
Speaker 1: makes sense.
Speaker 2: I agree, and I also think, no, it makes a
Speaker 2: lot of sense. I think remembering the imbalance that it
Speaker 2: starts at is so important because Palestine has no army,
Speaker 2: it's not backed by any rich ass nation, it's not
Speaker 2: trained by anything, and it's an extremely unbalanced quote unquote battle.
Speaker 1: No one's deploying an Apache helicopter when when the idea
Speaker 1: of killers journalist.
Speaker 2: Right, like exactly, and yeah, like Sharenabut Ockley was a
Speaker 2: US citizen. Not that it matters, but it should matter
Speaker 2: just in the idea of what the US can do
Speaker 2: or like the outrage it can have, but it doesn't
Speaker 2: do anything.
Speaker 1: As a journalist who goes to dangerous places and is
Speaker 1: a US citizen. Now, like it's fucking infuriating and obviously
Speaker 1: like and particularly thing that like, you know, like daddy
Speaker 1: government is coming to save me. I'm not like you know,
Speaker 1: if you if you're laboring under that illusion, you're probably
Speaker 1: a little bit naive. But it is just incredibly frustrating
Speaker 1: to see the value of some quote unquote American lives,
Speaker 1: like it's it's it's always wrong to shoot journalists, of course,
Speaker 1: but like it's just in the US basically condoning that. Yes, again,
Speaker 1: this isn't the first fucking like Arab journalist that the
Speaker 1: US who is a US citizen who has been killed
Speaker 1: by an authoritarian regime that the US had done fuck
Speaker 1: all about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, I think it's just a slap in the
Speaker 2: face for her family and just the entire community of
Speaker 2: like both Arabs and journalists and that crossover there. But
Speaker 2: I did want to mention just the terrorism acts on
Speaker 2: both sides are obviously terrible. I always think you have
Speaker 2: to remember where they started and the imbalance that is there,
Speaker 2: especially if the entity that is supposed to protect the
Speaker 2: Palestinians isn't doing shit and the only way Palestinians can
Speaker 2: fight back or defend themselves is with violence.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2: It's just frustrating when people point out the violence on
Speaker 2: just the Palestinian side, and we'll get into the news
Speaker 2: version of what that means and then biases of what
Speaker 2: that means it a little bit, but yeah, I just
Speaker 2: that's just explaining exactly why these groups have risen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's just to be an absolute fuckingd weep for
Speaker 1: a second. The introduction to Wretched of the Earth that
Speaker 1: Johann Paul Starts wrote, it's a France fann On book,
Speaker 1: is fantastic when talking about violence and violence in the
Speaker 1: dicolonial process, and like how it's very nice that these
Speaker 1: colonial states, apartheid states like Israel speak in the language
Speaker 1: of rights. Yeah, and they encourage to colonize people to
Speaker 1: make their claims in the language of rights. But every
Speaker 1: time they fucking do, they get met with violence, right,
Speaker 1: And it is entirely understandable that when the state speaks
Speaker 1: you only in violence, you will reply using the same
Speaker 1: language that is spoken to you with right, Like that,
Speaker 1: that is how decolonial struggles have been, right from Algeria
Speaker 1: to Vietnam to Palestine. And like this isn't a particularly
Speaker 1: like under theorized concept. It's there and fanol in the
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties. That's always something I like to suggest people read.
Speaker 1: I think it's a very good kind of distillation of
Speaker 1: what's occurring.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I like that you mentioned that because it
Speaker 2: does seem like that this is like a Palestinian problem
Speaker 2: that they have, that they are violent and that they
Speaker 2: hate the other side, and it is just another good
Speaker 2: example of the effects of colonialism and like that's the
Speaker 2: occupied people and their only choice of like retaliation. Anyway,
Speaker 2: I don't want to get into that too much, but
Speaker 2: I do want to emphasize why exactly that they were disillusioned,
Speaker 2: the Palestinian youth, especially during this time, because the IDEF
Speaker 2: has been extremely violent and the PA still is really
Speaker 2: inactive and doesn't do anything. So that's kind of the
Speaker 2: reason why there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, we have a little more in Shrina Buaclavionna.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, we have an episode about her, I believe,
Speaker 2: and I'm going to mention her a little bit here.
Speaker 2: The Genin refugee camp houses armed fighters and they are
Speaker 2: from several factions, but this means Israeli's They consider it
Speaker 2: a hub for what they call terrorist activity rather than resistance,
Speaker 2: so the entire camp is then dubbed a terrorist site.
Speaker 2: But most of the people that the IDEF has killed
Speaker 2: are not engaging in any sort of violent activity, and
Speaker 2: in some cases they are clearly marked as press wearing
Speaker 2: a bulletproof vest and a helmet, like El Jazeera journalist
Speaker 2: Sharinabu Akle, for one, she was shot dead by an
Speaker 2: Israeli sniper in May twenty twenty two, and in her case,
Speaker 2: the IDF said they were aiming at armed Palestinians who
Speaker 2: were shooting at them and responding with fire, and after
Speaker 2: I don't know a lot of inconclusive proof in the
Speaker 2: IDF sticking to that story. A ballistics analysis proved that
Speaker 2: that's story wasn't true and there was no fire coming
Speaker 2: from the other side, But regardless, no one cares about that.
Speaker 2: And this happened all in Janine, So I think it's
Speaker 2: very clear why this camp has become a symbol of
Speaker 2: resistance simply because the atrocities that have happened there are
Speaker 2: tremendous and they keep fighting back. And I think it's
Speaker 2: an example of how exactly a Palestinian symbol comes to be,
Speaker 2: like gaza, like this, whatever it is.
Speaker 1: I wanted to include a coat from the Israeli military
Speaker 1: spokesman Ran Kochov, and he told Army Radio, which I
Speaker 1: guess is not exactly a kind of neutral arbititter here,
Speaker 1: that she was filming and working for a media outlet
Speaker 1: amidst arm Palestinians. They were armed with cameras if you
Speaker 1: will permit me to say so, which like no, like
Speaker 1: we should not really not fucking permit someone because like
Speaker 1: you know, I'll go to all kinds of dangerous spots
Speaker 1: with a camera. Like I've never fucking shot someone with
Speaker 1: a camera, because it's a fucking camera, right, Like it doesn't,
Speaker 1: it doesn't, that's not what cameras do. They take videos.
Speaker 2: That is the most Like I can't believe that's an
Speaker 2: actual quote that's someone said and got away with.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what the fuck is wrong? Like what And it's
Speaker 1: just incorrect operation of the human brain to use the
Speaker 1: fucking phrase arm with camera, Like, what is wrong with you?
Speaker 1: It's I know, people get really people got really mad
Speaker 1: briefly when Russians were shooting journalists in Ukraine in the
Speaker 1: start of the conflict, and like I guess they were
Speaker 1: kind of as a mask off about it, but like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a fucking camera. If if your security is threatened
Speaker 1: by someone filming the ship that you do, it's because
Speaker 1: you shouldn't be doing it, and you know you shouldn't
Speaker 1: be doing it right, like and again, like I've experienced that,
Speaker 1: like people people, you know, doing stuff they don't want
Speaker 1: to be filmed and getting mad that I'm filming it.
Speaker 1: But like maybe if you're not prepared to defend what
Speaker 1: you're doing, you shouldn't be doing it. You don't, you know,
Speaker 1: you don't suggest that the camera is the camera? Is
Speaker 1: it's a neutral object here, it's it's not the camera
Speaker 1: and shot a woman in the head.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that sentence is infuriating the fact that
Speaker 2: literally it says they were amidst armed Palestinians and then
Speaker 2: you could you could stop there and people can just
Speaker 2: like click out and read and like move on their
Speaker 2: day thinking that they had fucking guns. And the next
Speaker 2: sentence is literally they're armed with cameras, Like are you
Speaker 2: I don't know. That's just so infuriating to me that
Speaker 2: that's like a real thing that was said and accepted.
Speaker 1: It seems to be like almost deliberately insulting or I
Speaker 1: don't know, like it's definitely an attack on Like I
Speaker 1: don't know. If you're a journalist and you don't see
Speaker 1: that of an attack on all of us, then you know,
Speaker 1: made me examine your biases, I guess. Yeah.
Speaker 2: And then the ballistics analysis that I mentioned earlier where
Speaker 2: she was it showed that where she was shot there
Speaker 2: were several targeted shots, one of which hit her head
Speaker 2: because there were shots in the tree that was behind her,
Speaker 2: so she was clearly targeted.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because she was shot by a sniper at the
Speaker 1: back of one of their APC's right, they have a
Speaker 1: little little like murder hole, and she was shot from
Speaker 1: two hundred meters to which is not very far with
Speaker 1: a magnified signe and like, yeah, you don't just it
Speaker 1: wouldn't look like that, I guess, Like three little holes
Speaker 1: behind where her head was suggest that someone fired like
Speaker 1: a single shots targeted, not just like spraying it sprain
Speaker 1: bullets around. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't want to talk about it too much because
Speaker 2: there it is, that's on the topic of this episode.
Speaker 2: But I do want to just say that I think
Speaker 2: it's so ironic that the idea is supposed to be
Speaker 2: this most advanced military body, this highly trained thing, and
Speaker 2: then at the same breath their defenses sometimes they made
Speaker 2: a mistake. Oops, you know what I mean, Like they
Speaker 2: made this grave mistake. They thought she was carrying a
Speaker 2: gun or she was around people with guns. I just
Speaker 2: think that's a very silly I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm being shure. It's true, I suppose, and you can.
Speaker 1: You can make mistakes. But if you make mistakes, you
Speaker 1: own them. You could still be like, oh, yeah, we
Speaker 1: we one hundred percent fucked up, and like we need
Speaker 1: to examine how we fucked up.
Speaker 2: You know, that's just their defense. So many times it
Speaker 2: gets really fucking old. But Okay, before we continue and
Speaker 2: talk about the recent attack in Janine, let's take our
Speaker 2: first break and we'll be right back. And we're back.
Speaker 2: Let's go back to talk about the latest raid on
Speaker 2: the Janine refugee camp. The Israeli Army launched its latest
Speaker 2: raid on the Janine refugee camp in the early hours
Speaker 2: of Monday, June nineteenth. Five people, including a fifteen year old,
Speaker 2: were dead by the time it withdrew its forces in
Speaker 2: the afternoon. Others died the following day because of their injuries.
Speaker 2: Several journalists were shot at and they were surrounded and
Speaker 2: one was injured. This raid ironically took place near the
Speaker 2: location where Shari Abulakhlei was killed. Several ambulances were also
Speaker 2: fired upon with live ammunition, and at first they were
Speaker 2: denied access to the injured, which is nothing new to
Speaker 2: the IDF. They do this consistently with the block a
Speaker 2: medical aid to reach the people that are injured. The
Speaker 2: Israeli armies said the raid was to arrest two suspects,
Speaker 2: one of whom was a former Palestinian prisoner, as Sem
Speaker 2: Abu ad Haija, who was the son of an imprisoned
Speaker 2: Hamas leader. I just want a quick reminder of refresh.
Speaker 2: I know I say this in most of the episodes
Speaker 2: about Palestine, especially the ones I've done in the beginning
Speaker 2: of this year, but in twenty twenty two, Israeli forces
Speaker 2: killed more than one hundred and seventy Palestinians, including at
Speaker 2: least thirty children in occupied East Jerusalem and in the
Speaker 2: West Bank, and this is described as the deadliest year
Speaker 2: for Palestinians and those living in those areas since two
Speaker 2: thousand and six. Since the start of twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: Israeli forces have killed at least one hundred and sixty Palestinians,
Speaker 2: including twenty six children, and it's June. The death toll
Speaker 2: includes thirty six Palestinians killed by the Israeli army during
Speaker 2: a four day assault on the besieged Gaza strip between
Speaker 2: May ninth and May thirteenth of this year. I just
Speaker 2: want to put that into context because if twenty twenty
Speaker 2: two was the deadliest year for Palestinians in the last
Speaker 2: twenty years and we're essentially already there by six months
Speaker 2: into this new year, it's just it's really disturbing and
Speaker 2: it's really heartbreaking that it's truly there's no slowing down.
Speaker 2: And this raid is a great example of them just
Speaker 2: like upping the ante. And what was different about this raid.
Speaker 2: Israeli offenses into Janine are nothing new, but it appeared
Speaker 2: that the raiding soldiers were caught off guard this time.
Speaker 2: Shortly after the raid began, videos showed an Israeli military
Speaker 2: panther APC being hit with a roadside improvised explosive device,
Speaker 2: and there is a video of this. I haven't seen
Speaker 2: it because I just personally don't want to, but asadare
Speaker 2: if you choose to see it. Military helicopters then began
Speaker 2: shooting and launching rockets and flares while surveillance aircraft hovered above.
Speaker 2: It was the first time in twenty years that Israel
Speaker 2: deployed helicopter gunships in the West Bank. By the end
Speaker 2: of the raid, reports suggested that at least five Israeli
Speaker 2: military vehicles had been damaged by explosive devices and bullets
Speaker 2: deployed by armed Palestinians. This was the first time the
Speaker 2: IDF was met with this understandable degree of resistance and
Speaker 2: defense in Nganine, and their response was overwhelming in return.
Speaker 1: Hi everyone, it's James and Train again and we're here
Speaker 1: today for a little update. It's the third of July
Speaker 1: as we're recording this. Just because there's been a significantly
Speaker 1: larger IDF incursion into a Genine refugee camp, and because
Speaker 1: we know this is coming out at the end of
Speaker 1: the week, we wanted to make sure you had a
Speaker 1: little bit more update to date information, so as best
Speaker 1: I can kind of beez it together. What happened is
Speaker 1: that some mis military vehicles were hit with an ied
Speaker 1: A bomb right roadside bomb and provides explosive device, and
Speaker 1: Israel responded by going fully ham on a scale that
Speaker 1: we haven't really seen since the second in Defider. So
Speaker 1: there's air attacks, droned helicopters, armored vehicles. I saw them
Speaker 1: using like an anti tank missile against a house. Saw
Speaker 1: videos of armored bulldozers tearing up roads in the camp,
Speaker 1: and preps sreen you could kind of give a scale
Speaker 1: of what this has done, not just to roads obviously,
Speaker 1: but to the people who live there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like James was saying, they're continuing to attack with
Speaker 2: drones and rockets, and the Janine refugee camp is very
Speaker 2: densely populated. It has about twenty thousand people, and they
Speaker 2: are targeting infrastructure like homes and roads and the mirror
Speaker 2: of Janine. Nidhal Obaidi, he said the attack was a
Speaker 2: real massacre and an attempt to wipe out all aspects
Speaker 2: of life inside the city and the camp. Those being
Speaker 2: targeted now are not just the resistance fighters, but civilians
Speaker 2: are being killed and wounded as well, and water and
Speaker 2: electricity services have also been cut off from the camp
Speaker 2: since the attack has started, and the Palestine Recrescent said
Speaker 2: that at least three thousand people were evacuated from the camp.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and then as far as we like at time
Speaker 1: of recording, which is Monday afternoon, eight people have been killed.
Speaker 1: One more person was called in Romala. The two youngest
Speaker 1: victims were identified as Nordin Hassam Yusuf Marshud who is fifteen,
Speaker 1: and seventeen year old Majdi Johannis Saud Ararawi. So both
Speaker 1: of them under eighteen, but the oldest person was twenty three,
Speaker 1: so these are all very young people. Salia dead now,
Speaker 1: and then they estimate that Palestinia request estimates at three
Speaker 1: thousand people have left the camp, which I think paints
Speaker 1: a picture of like emptying or cleaning or whatever colonial
Speaker 1: sort of word you want to use to make it
Speaker 1: seem less brutal than it is, but like emptying the
Speaker 1: space of human being so that it can be colonized
Speaker 1: or that other folks can move there.
Speaker 2: Right, yeah, Yeah. In addition to some places are saying
Speaker 2: eight have died some people some places are saying nine,
Speaker 2: but regardless, there are over one hundred people that are injured.
Speaker 2: And so I don't know, the fact that the oldest
Speaker 2: person was only twenty three years old should really paint
Speaker 2: the picture of like who exactly is being targeted and killed,
Speaker 2: because there's no way their defense of targeting terrorists can
Speaker 2: play here, even though it probably does in the long run.
Speaker 2: But I just I think it's really fucked up and unfair.
Speaker 2: The White House meanwhile, so the United States quote supports
Speaker 2: israel security and right to defend its people against Hamas,
Speaker 2: Palestinian is Jihad and other terrorist groups, and they also
Speaker 2: highlighted the need to product noncombatants, which hasn't happened, and
Speaker 2: none of those people are actually being targeted or there's
Speaker 2: nothing to defend at this point, I really don't.
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's also weird that I don't know,
Speaker 1: Like it just seems such a knee jerk response. So
Speaker 1: maybe this is just me being being a dweeb or whatever.
Speaker 1: But like, at least one of the IDs was was
Speaker 1: like claimed by Janine Brigades, I think the one earlier
Speaker 1: last week to call out groups by name like and
Speaker 1: then not call out the group who are claiming responsibility
Speaker 1: for at least one of these attacks. It just seems
Speaker 1: so like okay, like press play on the tape.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're also naming things that people are probably more
Speaker 2: familiar with, like almost to like justify or like entice
Speaker 2: fear of being like, oh my god, yeah Hamas attack
Speaker 2: Hamas or whatever they think will happen with that response.
Speaker 1: Ian.
Speaker 2: The international response, Yeah, the international response has also been
Speaker 2: dog shit surprise, surprise. It's because this will always just
Speaker 2: talk and nothing really happens. Turkey's Foreign Ministry voice is
Speaker 2: deep concern over the attack. They warned that it can
Speaker 2: trigger a new spiral of violence it already has, and
Speaker 2: they called the Israeli encourasion a heinous crime. Cut Her
Speaker 2: stress that the need for international community to move urgently
Speaker 2: to protect the Palestinian people was very necessary. And then
Speaker 2: Jordan condemned the escalation as a violation of international humanitarian law,
Speaker 2: which Israel has been breaking for years, so nothing has happened.
Speaker 2: And then Egypt, on the other hand, it warned of
Speaker 2: serious repercussions and it called on other international people to intervene.
Speaker 2: And then the UN said the situation is very dangerous
Speaker 2: like all these things I think have already been said
Speaker 2: every time. That's why I just think it's so empty.
Speaker 2: And I don't know, I nothing if it's just words
Speaker 2: and no actions, Like, how are we supposed to even
Speaker 2: take anything seriously? I guess I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's the it's the thoughts and prayers of the
Speaker 1: h executive national like the UN is always deeply concerned,
Speaker 1: but it never does fuck all right, So yeah, I
Speaker 1: guess to wrap up, we should talk about like what
Speaker 1: this means for Janine as a place or like as
Speaker 1: a community.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we mentioned this in our previous recording last week.
Speaker 2: But Israel's attacks on Janine are part of an effort
Speaker 2: to crush resistance with the young Palestinians that are increasingly
Speaker 2: taking up arms because their disillusioned with the PA, and
Speaker 2: according to analysts, Israel's hard right government is likely to
Speaker 2: continue with heavy handed approach toward Palestinians in the West Bank.
Speaker 2: Palestinian lawyer and analyst Deanna Buttou said Israel wants to
Speaker 2: do whatever it can to crush Janine in any other
Speaker 2: form of resistance. Israel has made it clear that there
Speaker 2: are three options available for Palestinians. Option one is to leave.
Speaker 2: Option two is to remain as residents, but not as
Speaker 2: citizens of any state. And option three is if you resist,
Speaker 2: we are going to crush you. This is what they
Speaker 2: are implementing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I think that's well said.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Hassan Ayub, who is a Palestinian political science professor
Speaker 2: at n Naja National University in Nablus, he agreed with
Speaker 2: the lawyer's statement, and he said the end game is
Speaker 2: to make Palestinians give up any hope of achieving self
Speaker 2: determination or being recognized as a people. Janine has a
Speaker 2: long history of resistance. It is a model for the
Speaker 2: masses that Israel wants to eliminate. But for Palestinians, the
Speaker 2: question is a matter of principle, and their endgame is
Speaker 2: to end this occupation. And essentially Israel intends to crush
Speaker 2: what I you refer to as quote the Janine phenomenon
Speaker 2: or any form of Palestinian resistance. Yeah, the Israeli aggression.
Speaker 2: Fears of an escalation that continues to happen in areas
Speaker 2: such as the Gaza Strip because that's another symbolic place
Speaker 2: of resistance for Palestinians. And yeah, that's where we are now.
Speaker 1: That's pretty much it will I reach out to some
Speaker 1: people I know, but people generally don't like to be
Speaker 1: on their phones when this stuff is happening. So maybe
Speaker 1: we'll update you with some more information.
Speaker 2: Yeah, hopefully. I mean updates like this are always kind
Speaker 2: of like unfortunate because I don't think we want to
Speaker 2: update that more shitty things are happening, but especially with
Speaker 2: stuff like this, it doesn't seem like Israel is going
Speaker 2: to back down anytime soon. So yeah, that's that's the update.
Speaker 1: Okay, Yeah, so I wanted to talk about some of
Speaker 1: the people who were killed. One of the people who
Speaker 1: was killed was I'm dadf al Jas. He was forty
Speaker 1: eight done age twenty two. Was killed in the Guinane
Speaker 1: masacre that occurred in January this year. So it kind
Speaker 1: of gives you a sense of like the risk that
Speaker 1: I guess one incurs unwillingly by existing in what is
Speaker 1: a fucking refugee camp. His son wasn't the only young
Speaker 1: person killed. Another person who's killed was a Sadil Naja Nachia.
Speaker 1: She was fifteen, and a few days later her classmates
Speaker 1: attended her funeral, all in their school uniforms. It's pretty sad.
Speaker 1: There are obviously images of it if you want to
Speaker 1: go like the up but you can see lots of
Speaker 1: little school girls burying their friend in a town which
Speaker 1: is covered in burned detritus. No one should have to
Speaker 1: bury their kids. It's a horrible kid shouldn't have to
Speaker 1: deal with this shit. But there are plenty of pictures
Speaker 1: of little school girls standing by her grave. It's a
Speaker 1: it's awful, so horrible. Yeah. The other victims were identified
Speaker 1: as Ahmed Soaker, Ahmed Da Rachma, Colored Darwish Kassam Pais Labusilia.
Speaker 1: They were fifteen, nineteen, twenty one, nineteen and twenty nine respectively.
Speaker 1: They after this occurred, the aforementioned attack on settlers in
Speaker 1: Eli took place. Two gunman shown to a gas station
Speaker 1: or restaurant. One was killed on the scene and one
Speaker 1: was killed later. It was a response to the master
Speaker 1: of attack on Tumasaiah that occurred a few days before.
Speaker 1: And I want to highlight how the NYT covered this
Speaker 1: because I think it's important to like dissect how Palestine
Speaker 1: is covered by the US right because obviously the US
Speaker 1: is one of the biggest state supporters of Israel, and
Speaker 1: specifically one of the people who continues to equip the
Speaker 1: IDF to do this stuff. Right, So I'm quoting here directly.
Speaker 1: Last week, two Palestinians called for Israelis and injured four
Speaker 1: others near the Eli Settlement, escalating monthlung violence between Palestinians
Speaker 1: and Israelis in the West Bank. The next day, some
Speaker 1: four hundred settlers descended on several Palestinian villages, including Tulmasayah,
Speaker 1: a prosperous town near Ramala, where reportedly they torched cars
Speaker 1: and homes. That I want to I want to stop
Speaker 1: right there, because it is not reportedly right, Like we
Speaker 1: do not have to qualify this with like maybe or
Speaker 1: like we've just seen this on Twitter dot com. Like
Speaker 1: you could probably see this shit on Google Maps, right,
Speaker 1: Like they torched a town. There's massive damage done. Even
Speaker 1: the New York Times itself didn't qualify it as a
Speaker 1: reported incident in its own reporting. And this isn't we
Speaker 1: don't hear the same thing with the two Palestinian gunmen, right,
Speaker 1: Just to read the first opening sentence again, last week,
Speaker 1: two Palestinian carriers killed for Israelis. It's just stated as
Speaker 1: a fact, right, And these just within those couple of sentences.
Speaker 1: You can see so much of the bias in the
Speaker 1: way this is reported, so much of the different perspectives
Speaker 1: through which state violence. I would encourage people not to
Speaker 1: use terrorism. I would encourage them to see things, especially
Speaker 1: in this context, in terms of political violence. Right, there
Speaker 1: is political violence done by both sides. One of those
Speaker 1: sides is a state actor, the other side is a
Speaker 1: non state actor. But qualifying one and making it distinct
Speaker 1: from the other, I think is shoddy journalism, and I
Speaker 1: don't think it really helps us understand this situation. So
Speaker 1: what happened, right, Like, fifteen homes were burned, sixty vehicles
Speaker 1: were burned, and the writer's sort of quote unquote sort
Speaker 1: of saying this is reportedly. It's not true. It's a
Speaker 1: thing that really happened. Another kind of phrasing that I've
Speaker 1: found really objectionable in this instance is clashes, right, Like
Speaker 1: often you'll see clashes engine uh, and like that casts
Speaker 1: a lens of parity, or like it looks at these
Speaker 1: things through a lens of parity, which I don't think
Speaker 1: is real on the ground. Like, it's not a clash
Speaker 1: when a helicopter is firing rockets, even if it is
Speaker 1: firing rockets at people with kalashnikovs, right like that it's
Speaker 1: not a clash. There's not really a parity there, right like,
Speaker 1: And it's it also kind of downplays a violence of
Speaker 1: what's happening, right, it's an attack, it's an assault. I
Speaker 1: think the constant use of clashes, right it's nearly always.
Speaker 1: You don't really see it used anywhere else, or if
Speaker 1: you do, it's for it's for much less severe violence,
Speaker 1: like like clashes between an arrival football fans, not that
Speaker 1: that can't be very violent, care, but you don't really
Speaker 1: see this word used to characterize like state violence on
Speaker 1: this scale anywhere else. And so I would really encourage
Speaker 1: people when they're reading, especially coverage of this, right, which
Speaker 1: is an issue that the US cannot get its head
Speaker 1: out of it to us about uh, to look for
Speaker 1: this bias language. And if you're reading coverage or anything else, right,
Speaker 1: if you're reading coverage something and you start to notice that,
Speaker 1: like I would perhaps question where you're getting your coverage from.
Speaker 1: And I know you had some shit to say about
Speaker 1: the New York Times sharing.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, I one really liked what you said
Speaker 2: about referring to it as state violence versus terrorism, because
Speaker 2: I think it's a huge point that I also want
Speaker 2: to adopt, because I didn't even really transfer that over
Speaker 2: until just now when you said it, and I think
Speaker 2: it's a really important distinction. So thank you for that.
Speaker 2: But yeah, the New York Times, as well as many,
Speaker 2: if not most news organizations, they're incredibly biased when it
Speaker 2: comes to Palestine is real reporting, and The New York
Speaker 2: Times in particular has been absolute dog shit and their
Speaker 2: coverage of Palestine for quite a while now. There has
Speaker 2: been a persistent pattern of bias when it comes to
Speaker 2: Israel and Palestine. I'm going to go in chronological order,
Speaker 2: and then James will jump back in with the recent
Speaker 2: article about the New York Times and this terrible thing
Speaker 2: that it has within it that I'm not going to
Speaker 2: give away right now. But let's go back in time
Speaker 2: to February twenty eleven, when The New York Times published
Speaker 2: a piece on JVP activism in the Bay Area. JVP
Speaker 2: stands for Jewish Voices for Peace, and this article said,
Speaker 2: the activists say they are not working against Israel, but
Speaker 2: against the Israeli government policies they believe are a discriminatory
Speaker 2: which is yes, correct, But in the editor's note. The
Speaker 2: Times later wrote that one of the articles two authors
Speaker 2: was a pro Palestinian advocate and that he should not
Speaker 2: have written the article and should not have been allowed
Speaker 2: to write it. So it initially seems like good reporting
Speaker 2: because it's true you're protesting against the Israeli government. But
Speaker 2: then to say that a Palestinian advocate can't write it
Speaker 2: is ridiculous, So fuck you New York Times. And then
Speaker 2: in twenty fifteen, a study was done analyzing the New
Speaker 2: York Times publications during the period of September tenth and
Speaker 2: October fourteenth and twenty fifteen. At the time of the
Speaker 2: study in twenty fifteen, two thousand Palestinians had been injured
Speaker 2: while eighty three Israelis were injured, just for context of
Speaker 2: what the reporting was about, and the study analyzed thirty
Speaker 2: six articles. In these articles, the New York Times talked
Speaker 2: about Palestinian quote unquote violence thirty six times and Israeli
Speaker 2: violence two times. The word attack was used to describe
Speaker 2: Palestinian actions one hundred and ten times, in Israeli actions
Speaker 2: seventeen times. They used the word terrorist forty two times
Speaker 2: to refer to Palestinian violence, and one time one time
Speaker 2: to refer to Israeli violence. More than half of the
Speaker 2: New York Times headlines during that whole year depicted Palestinians
Speaker 2: as the instigators of violence. Zero headlines depicted the Israelis
Speaker 2: as aggressors. None and nothing has changed. I know that's
Speaker 2: from a period in twenty fifteen, but that's basically consistent,
Speaker 2: if not more so prevalent. Now. It just seems like
Speaker 2: the New York Times editorial board refuses to incorporate Palestine
Speaker 2: perspective into its editorials, even though there have been many
Speaker 2: calls to do so, and this leads it to fundamentally
Speaker 2: misread the reality on the ground in Palestine. And it
Speaker 2: clearly shows the newspaper's bias when it comes to what
Speaker 2: it chooses to include about Palestine and from whom. Of
Speaker 2: the two thy four hundred and ninety opinion pieces about Palestinians,
Speaker 2: but the New York Times published between nineteen seventy in
Speaker 2: twenty nineteen, only forty six written by actual Palestinians, which
Speaker 2: is an average of less than two percent. With the
Speaker 2: lack of Palestinian and Arab columnists that are even employed
Speaker 2: by New York Times, a kind of group think has
Speaker 2: inevitably emerged there, and this group think consistently places Israel,
Speaker 2: Israeli framings and Israeli perspectives above those of Palestinians. A
Speaker 2: keyword search of the Times editorials that discuss Palestinians is
Speaker 2: like this. Between nineteen seventy and twenty nineteen, the word
Speaker 2: peace appeared one thousand and one hundred and twelve times,
Speaker 2: but justice only appeared eighty six times. Terror was mentioned
Speaker 2: six hundred and forty nine times, but occupation was only
Speaker 2: mentioned two hundred and nineteen times, two hundred and nineteen times.
Speaker 2: I want to also remind you this is from starting
Speaker 2: from nineteen seventy. Israel's security quote unquote was written ninety times,
Speaker 2: but Palestinian freedom was mentioned just three times. While keyboard
Speaker 2: searches alone do not tell the whole story, they do
Speaker 2: help us get a sense of the overall tenor of
Speaker 2: the Times coverage, and over the last five decades, Israel
Speaker 2: has been unquestioningly presented by Times editors as a close ally,
Speaker 2: while the Palestinians have been consistently framed as a problem.
Speaker 1: So I want to talk about this. That was an
Speaker 1: excellent piece that came out in Study Hole. I believe
Speaker 1: it's based on some reporting in a Canadian outlet called
Speaker 1: Passage and Study. Hall is a freelance journalists like group
Speaker 1: Localists serve, but they also do some editorial work. But
Speaker 1: it's talking about this this Israeli nonprofit or it's really
Speaker 1: funded nonprofits based in the US and also in Israel
Speaker 1: called Honest Reporting. What it is is a five oh
Speaker 1: one c. Three And essentially what they've done is is
Speaker 1: what Sharen describes right where they've they've found not I
Speaker 1: believe mostly Palestinian reporters, perhaps also non Palestinian reporters who
Speaker 1: are reporting from this. I guess from what I would
Speaker 1: described as the facts based approach to this, which is
Speaker 1: describing what's happening as an apartheid And they've dived into
Speaker 1: these people's background, their previous tweets, their previous writing, their
Speaker 1: other work to describe them as by and get their
Speaker 1: articles taken down. And they've done this to some very
Speaker 1: like this has happened at the Times, and this is
Speaker 1: at a time like I know Sharin mentioned something that
Speaker 1: happened in twenty eleven, but I know that in twenty ten,
Speaker 1: the Jerusalem bureau chief of the Times had a child
Speaker 1: serving in the idf Right. So like, you know, if
Speaker 1: if I had a you know, if I was a
Speaker 1: journalist and I said, yeah, you know, I actually have
Speaker 1: a son who's in the Alexa Martis Brigade, like then
Speaker 1: they're not going to not going to commission my piece.
Speaker 1: But they've for instance, Hosam Salem. Have you seen Sam's work?
Speaker 2: I don't know. My brain doesn't create.
Speaker 1: I've worked with a sum before. It's a friend of mine.
Speaker 1: He's an incredibly gifted photojournalists. People should follow him on
Speaker 1: the places where they see photographs. He's blacklisted by the
Speaker 1: Times based on an honest reporting probe into his quote
Speaker 1: unquote bias, which his photos of Gaza are some of
Speaker 1: the most emotive photographs of Gaza like I've ever seen.
Speaker 1: And I work with him on a piece that will
Speaker 1: one day become a podcast about Parkour in the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 1: But also, yeah, Hosam is a fantastic photojournalist and absolutely
Speaker 1: like it is. It's utterly ridiculous to have like have
Speaker 1: him blacklisted by a major news organization, which, like, whether
Speaker 1: we like it or not, that is where a lot
Speaker 1: of Americans get their news. In one instance, this organization
Speaker 1: managed to get the Toronto start to scrub all uses
Speaker 1: of Palestine from their stories, like to include shit like
Speaker 1: yeah like that, like they were profiling a DJ who
Speaker 1: was Palestinian. Wow, like which I think is like incredibly illustrative,
Speaker 1: right that, Like this is organization presents itself as fighting
Speaker 1: anti Israeli bias, which I'm sure that is a thing
Speaker 1: that exists. It fucking does not exist in the US media.
Speaker 1: Like I'm I'm not a Palestinian person, by speak as
Speaker 1: a person who has pitched articles about conflict in various
Speaker 1: parts of the world, and they can tell you that
Speaker 1: that is not a bias that I have come across,
Speaker 1: having worked with almost every big outlet that it is
Speaker 1: possible to work for in the US. It's not doing that.
Speaker 1: It's trying to raise Palestine and Palestinian people, not only
Speaker 1: their perspectives but their whole existence. Right, And this is
Speaker 1: something that I hap on a lot, But I think
Speaker 1: we should do more conflict reporting that's about people, unless
Speaker 1: it is about numbers and battles and such like. That's
Speaker 1: why I want to write about little girls who's surfing
Speaker 1: Gaza and young men who do parkour, because like when
Speaker 1: Israel bombs Gaza. It doesn't just bomb people who are
Speaker 1: part of fatal or harmas or whatever they want to say.
Speaker 1: They're targeting, right like the lions den or ginnymbryas whatever.
Speaker 1: When they're bombing these places, they're also bombing children. They're
Speaker 1: also bombing places where little kids want to go and
Speaker 1: play football. They're bombing towns where little boys want to
Speaker 1: I mean them, hospitals and schools and yeah, like the
Speaker 1: this is where people just like you live. It's not
Speaker 1: like there's a very clear desire to kind of erase
Speaker 1: Palestinian civilians, I guess from my narrative, and it's really
Speaker 1: important that we as journalist and as people don't allow
Speaker 1: that to happen. I guess you can. We'll link to
Speaker 1: this in our sources at the end of the month.
Speaker 1: But I think it's an excellent piece. It's worth reading.
Speaker 2: Thank you parentialing that before we continue with some really
Speaker 2: excellent new things. Let's take our second break and we'll
Speaker 2: be right back, yes.
Speaker 1: Way back, And I want to talk a little bit
Speaker 1: more about like the I guess these really political context
Speaker 1: behind the increasing aggression towards Janina and Palestini general. So
Speaker 1: of the one hundred and sixty five Palestinian deaths. About
Speaker 1: eighty six were in the North and West Bank, mostly
Speaker 1: in the areas of Janine and Nubbles, which cannot come incidentally,
Speaker 1: are the areas where we're seeing new armed groups emerging.
Speaker 1: Despite this, israelis ready to massively step up settlement in
Speaker 1: the West Bank. Earlier in June, Prime Minister Benjamin then
Speaker 1: and Yahoo ratified a policy allowing pro settler finance Minister
Speaker 1: There's Alliell Smotridge to bypass the six dage process for
Speaker 1: building settlements, effectively giving him the ability to make settlement
Speaker 1: decisions on his own. In recent years, Israeli politicians as
Speaker 1: settlers have become more and more open about their goals
Speaker 1: annexing most, if not all, of the West Bank. So
Speaker 1: March of this year, Smotridge claimed that Palestinian people were
Speaker 1: an invention of the last century. It's probably worth taking
Speaker 1: a moment to point out that all national identities are
Speaker 1: inherently constructed, Like humanity did not come to earth with flags.
Speaker 1: Those are things that came to exist in the nineteenth
Speaker 1: and twentieth century. It's like, so is Israel right, We
Speaker 1: can kind of put a date on that one.
Speaker 2: So that's just so, that's like literally projecting an invention
Speaker 2: of the last century is literally Israel whatever, Yes, the
Speaker 2: state of Israel.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean nations calling other nations constructed. Is the
Speaker 1: kind of the pot calling the cow blackleg Yeah, but
Speaker 1: insomuch as if we're going to do that, I think
Speaker 1: is rarely throwing stones from a glasshouse.
Speaker 2: Yeah exactly.
Speaker 1: It's like it doesn't really fucking matter either, right, Like
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter how long the one group of people
Speaker 1: has had one flag, you still shouldn't fucking kill children,
Speaker 1: which applies to anyone involved in the killing of children.
Speaker 1: So Matrich said that there was no such thing as
Speaker 1: a Palestinian because there is no such thing as a
Speaker 1: Palestinian people in a speech in Paris and a memorial
Speaker 1: for Jack Koppa an activity it's else right wing liqud party.
Speaker 1: Do you know who are the Palestine? He said, I'm
Speaker 1: a Palestinian, going on to describe his late grandfather, who
Speaker 1: he said was a thirteenth generation Jerusalem might as a
Speaker 1: true Palestinian, which is somewhat Look, these people are supposed
Speaker 1: to be contradictory, Like it's not really worth sucking pointing
Speaker 1: this out, But like you can't simultaneously say there are
Speaker 1: a Palestinians, Palestine doesn't exist. Also, I'm a Palestinian. Again
Speaker 1: not the point. I guess he was a resident. He
Speaker 1: is a resident one of the settlements himself. He's an
Speaker 1: advocate for theocratic law, the segregation of maternity warts. So
Speaker 1: he doesn't want Arab and Israeli women to give birth
Speaker 1: in the same ridiculous Yeah, it's his justification for it
Speaker 1: is like even worse, but I won't bother with that.
Speaker 1: He's also openly homophobic, and he supports the conspiracy theory
Speaker 1: that Yitzak Rabine was killed by Israel security agencies. All around,
Speaker 1: top guy the Coud, Benjamin and Yahi party likes to
Speaker 1: use names for the West Bank that you might find
Speaker 1: in the Bible, and it's made accelerating a legal settlement
Speaker 1: there a priority. Since it took office that Yahoo coalition
Speaker 1: has approved seven thousand new housing units, many in the
Speaker 1: occupied West Bank. The government also amended law to clear
Speaker 1: the way for settlers to return to four settlements that
Speaker 1: have previously been evacuated. Within a week of having power
Speaker 1: to make these decisions, Motrich approved five thousand new units.
Speaker 1: This is a great time to draw attention to one
Speaker 1: of the most fucking infuriating paragraphs that have ever been written,
Speaker 1: which I found in a New York Times article that
Speaker 1: I can't believe this is real.
Speaker 2: James said it to me before this, and it is crazy.
Speaker 1: I like the century and stuff I know will make
Speaker 1: her angry. Of course, not all West Bank settlers are
Speaker 1: alter nationalists who believe that living in the land of
Speaker 1: the Bible is a religious edict. Most settlers, in fact,
Speaker 1: including hundreds of thousands of Oltra Orthodox use, move there
Speaker 1: seeking a portable housing. I am fucking like I cannot
Speaker 1: last it. When I got yeah, I checked out mentally.
Speaker 1: I catapoled myself into outer space. I don't want to
Speaker 1: be here anymore. That's ridiculous. I have decided to curl
Speaker 1: up into a ball and no longer exist. Like this
Speaker 1: is from the newspaper as well, that like Whent so
Speaker 1: fucking ham on people in twenty twenty, like taking milk
Speaker 1: from a target, you know, like like when you like
Speaker 1: seeking affordable dairy products. I guess could have been an
Speaker 1: alternative frameing of that that they didn't. They didn't go
Speaker 1: for it. It just fucking unbelievable, Like they like the
Speaker 1: ship that freakonomics has done to people's brains is it's
Speaker 1: really next level. But people more people listen to our
Speaker 1: podcasts in their podcast because we're winning in the marketplace
Speaker 1: of ideas and so all in seven hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand people live in these settlements. But being a legal
Speaker 1: under international law doesn't really mean anything unless that law
Speaker 1: is enforced, and it really is. We spoke earlier before, right,
Speaker 1: just like the US, which frequently violates Domesican international law
Speaker 1: on its own border, Israel is simply not held to
Speaker 1: account for its crimes. United Nations Special Reporteur and Palestine
Speaker 1: Francisco Albernesi told Al Jazeera international law has a quote
Speaker 1: unquote problem of enforcement. There is a problem of double
Speaker 1: standards because clearly when it comes to Palestine, there is
Speaker 1: a cognitive disson especially among Western countries, and reticence in
Speaker 1: applying these coercive measures and all the prohibitions international law
Speaker 1: efforts are Benici.
Speaker 2: Said, yeah, we already mentioned how just even the phrase
Speaker 2: international laws just make believe like you always hear about Israel,
Speaker 2: even like committing crimes against humanity, None of that even
Speaker 2: seems to matter when it comes to Israel because there's
Speaker 2: never a repercussion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it doesn't matter anywhere that there is no direct
Speaker 1: interest to capital to enforcing that law. Right, it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter when young women in memm are get raped by soldiers.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter when Villa Juice get burned down there,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. And to grie in Ethiopian Eritrea because
Speaker 1: there's no interest to finance capital of solving that problem.
Speaker 1: It's not just a a Palestine things. It's the thing
Speaker 1: all over the world. And laws are fundamentally backed up
Speaker 1: by violence. Right, Like in America, if you get a
Speaker 1: parking ticket and you don't pay your parking ticket and
Speaker 1: you have to go to court, and you don't go
Speaker 1: to court, eventually someone with a gun will come and
Speaker 1: kick down your door. And like all laws are based
Speaker 1: in violence. And there ain't no one kicking down Israel's door, right,
Speaker 1: and no one will. And so it doesn't matter. International
Speaker 1: law doesn't matter. It's nice and it's there. We can
Speaker 1: point to it and say, look, we've all agreed this
Speaker 1: is bad, but we all know it's bad. Like we
Speaker 1: don't really need a bunch of like old men suits
Speaker 1: to tell us it's bad. We knew it was bad.
Speaker 1: What we needed to fucking make it stop, and that's
Speaker 1: not happening.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think it's also interesting to mention that internationally,
Speaker 2: even when you get better quote unquote reporting about Palestine,
Speaker 2: it still is not enough because it's usually about peace
Speaker 2: and both sides or a conflict or whatever. So I
Speaker 2: just think, I mean that also goes back to news
Speaker 2: and how it's reported. But this stubborn insistence on blaming
Speaker 2: both sides is reflective of a deeply flawed quote unquote
Speaker 2: peace framework, and it has dominated the international understanding of
Speaker 2: the Israel Palestine quote unquote conflict for decades. The framework
Speaker 2: of peace centers on identity politics and ignores the structural
Speaker 2: violence that the state perpetuates against oppressed groups and instead
Speaker 2: focuses on acts of spectacular violence committed by those groups
Speaker 2: in response to the oppression they face. And it also
Speaker 2: blames them for escalating conflict and then uses it to
Speaker 2: justify the repressive violence by the more powerful forces. To
Speaker 2: go back to New York Times briefly, many of the
Speaker 2: Times editorials over the last thirty years since the advent
Speaker 2: of the Oslo Accords have been steeped in the peace framework.
Speaker 2: They treat Israelis and Palestinians as having equal power when
Speaker 2: they clearly don't. They praise Israel for minor adjustments to
Speaker 2: its daily structural violence against Palestinians, but in the same
Speaker 2: breath they scold Palestinian leaders and society for acts of
Speaker 2: violence done in turn. And the word conflict is also
Speaker 2: problematic in and of itself, because Palestine isn't some conflict
Speaker 2: or problem for Israel to sort out. It's a cause
Speaker 2: for everyone to fight for. Since nineteen forty eight, the
Speaker 2: Israeli state has prevented Palestinians from living in their homeland
Speaker 2: with freedom and dignity, whether it's by banning refugees from
Speaker 2: returning to their homes, or discriminating against Palestinian citizens inside Israel,
Speaker 2: or keeping millions of Palestinians under military occupation. If there
Speaker 2: is a problem to be solved, that problem is the
Speaker 2: regime itself. But this fact of bias and shitty reporting
Speaker 2: and the fact that the truth is not out there,
Speaker 2: that fact seems to have eluded the Times editorial board
Speaker 2: because rather than recognize the systemic violence, discrimination, and colonization
Speaker 2: perpetuated by Israel against Palestinians, the board blames quote unquote
Speaker 2: both sides for a vastly asymmetric situation. This both sides
Speaker 2: ism may give the appearance of balance, but it does
Speaker 2: not reflect the reality in which Israel holds almost total political, economic,
Speaker 2: and military power over the lives of every Palestinian in
Speaker 2: a system that growing numbers of scholars, human rights groups,
Speaker 2: and legal experts are defining as apartheid. But I do
Speaker 2: hope some of this was at least helpful, and I
Speaker 2: mean will probably be back to do the same kind
Speaker 2: of thing soon because Israel is relentless and stupid and
Speaker 2: I hate it. So until then, fuck the IDF and
Speaker 2: have a nice day.
Speaker 1: It could Happen here as a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 2: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 2: coolzonemedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can
Speaker 2: find sources for It could Happen here, updated monthly at
Speaker 2: coolzonemedia dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening.