First off REACHER, some people are not liking season two. I am enjoying it but if you'r etrying to figure out what's different, it's this back and forth storyline. That is confusing. It's also insulting to the actor. We don't need to see this teamwork from years prior. It slows the story down and the actors are talented enough that we know they have a shared past. We don't have to see that.
Things will be taking place in the present time and big moment of the show and then they'll cut back to years ago. And there's no suspense there. We know who lived.
It slows the show down -- the back and forth. I hated that about ARROW. I'm enduring it because I like REACHER. But that's the thing dragging season two. Season three better have better writing.
Okay, politics. Gather around, people, we have a new Doo-Doo in town and his name is John Fetterman. James Bickerton (NEWSWEEK) reports on the senator;
The Quinnipiac University survey suggests a sharp turn around from November 2022, when Fetterman defeated Donald Trump-backed Republican Dr Mehmet Oz thanks in part to substantial support from young voters.
Unfortunately, the overall quality of his answers declined rapidly throughout the debate. His answers became alarmingly policy-free and could easily fit on bumper stickers. That’s what doomed DeSantis. And he telegraphed why he refused to leave the shallow end of the debating pool. After Haley made a pretty good point, DeSantis retorted, “She’s focused on a lot of political stuff – things that no voter cares about….” Wrong timing. Haley was making perfect sense, as she was every other time he accused Haley of a “word salad.” It’s as if DeSantis just learned that phrase, word salad, which I honestly don’t think he understands.
His answers on important subjects were often vapid. Haley couldn’t have been much better at presenting reasons why we must support Ukraine and help it beat back Russia’s invasion. DeSantis’s answer? “I think a lot of people have died. We need to find a way to end this.” Okay… Haley just told us how.
When asked if he would actually implement a flat tax that he’s mentioned, DeSantis replied that he would only adopt the flat tax if people are “better off” than they are now. That was his debate answer. I wish my teams got away with that!
Just imagine:
Random opponent: “Hey, SIU: What’s your plan?”
Southern Illinois University: “Flat tax. But only if we win the solvency debate that a flat tax is better than the status quo. Otherwise, we won’t do the flat tax.”
Random opponent: “Sounds perfectly reasonable and normal for debate and policymaking.”
Then there was his double-turn on abortion. I previously complimented how Haley approached the abortion debate. DeSantis was divided. Should he criticize Haley’s previous answer OR should he steal it because people liked it? DeSantis’s decision? Do both.
He said that while you’ve got to have “compassion” for what’s going on in the country, he also argued that Haley has been “using the language of the left” to attack anti-abortion activists.
Somehow DeSantis managed to say we need compassion, but compassion is the language of the left, which the left uses to attack anti-abortion activists. It’s tragic to think anyone on earth believes compassion to be a word or concept worthy of contempt, but it’s true and it’s happened before in another Republican presidential debate. Remember when the Republican audience booed the golden rule – do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
It was hard to get upset with DeSantis’s troubling statement because I was chuckling at him not realizing he also asked for compassion. I think he should have said “Ta-Da!” when he finished that whirlwind of an answer while giving everyone the famous DeSantis “fake” smile.
The spit-out-my-tea moment was when DeSantis was asked if the government should go after businesses that don’t agree with you, and it was specifically about Disney after they criticized DeSantis. His answer? He did it to protect the kids.
Disingenuous.
The survey of 500 respondents was conducted between January 6 and 10, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4%, and measured the preferences of Iowa voters whether or not former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie dropped out of the race, which he did on Wednesday.
DeSantis (13%) and Vivek Ramaswamy (6%) rounded out the field.
Even in the now-hypothetical case that Christie had remained in the race, Haley finished in second place with 20%.
Thursday, January 11, 2024. Looking at the mind-set of some who play the victim even when they aren't and use it to fuel their hatred, the genocide trial began today, and much more.
Let's start with the letter again. From yesterday's snapshot:
An e-mail to the public e-mail account makes a point (that friends made over the phone -- first to make it was a Jewish director who -- unlike the signers of that letter -- has actually been nominated for an Academy Award) of noting that Al Jolson was Jewish. That is correct, the star of THE JAZZ SINGER was Jewish. So was the director. So was the screen writer.
This is important -- to the arts and to Gaza -- Gaza being the reason we are starting with it -- to note.
They don't know demography, they don't know sociology and the writers and signers of that letter -- most of whom never had a successful film career and never, ever will -- maybe Josh Gad can star in THE JENNY CRAIG STORY as her father? and David Schwimmer as grandpa can do that same mugging and slow burn he does in pretty much every role when he's not just furrowing his brow like he does when he switches from comedy to drama -- the diversity and inclusion project of the Board of the Academy of Arts and Sciences was about providing a seat at the table for all.
There has been no historical (or modern) denial of Jewish people from Hollywood films.
There's never been a Jewish movie star in the US?
Except Barbra Streisand.
And Goldie Hawn.
And Paul Newman.
In fact, let's note a few who starred in at least three movies from major US film studios. Robert Downey Jr., Kate Hudson, Gene Wilder, Matthew Broadrick, Dyan Cannon, Laurence Harvey, Jamie Lee Curtis, Robby Benson, Tony Curtis, Barbara Hershey, Eddie Fisher, Dustin Hoffman, Shelley Winters, Debra Winger, John Garfield, Luise Rainer, Woody Allen, Judd Nelson, Ally Sheedy, Molly Ringwald, Mare Winningham, Sean Penn, Kevin Kline, Madeline Kahn, Gilda Radner, Paul Rudd, Natalie Portman, Shia LaBeouf, James Caan, Jonah Hill, Douglas Fairbanks, Bette Midler, Armie Hammer, Jerry Lewis, Tony Randall, Rosanna Arquette, Lauren Bacall, Gina Gershon, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Vic Morrow, Jason Segel, Lee Grant, Jennifer Connelly, Alicia Silverstone, Judy Holliday, George Segal, Richard Benjamin, Jack Black, Charles Grodin, Elliott Gould, Leslie Ann Warren, Walter Matthau, Scott Glenn, Richard Dreyfuss, Albert Brooks, Amy Irving, Carol Kane, James Franco, Ellen Barkin, Adam Sandler, Kyra Sedgwick, Sarah Jessica Parker, Helen Hunt, Winona Ryder, River Phoenix, Joaquin Phoenix, Gwyneth Paltrow, Adrien Brody, Elizabeth Banks and Jake Gyllenhaal. And that's just off the top of my head.
Now try doing the same with African-American actors who've starred in at least three films from major US film studios. Or with Asian-Americans. Or with . . .
They're whining -- Julianna and company -- about how they were portrayed in a movie (a racist and offensive film to African-Americans but they ignore that to whine about themselves). Oh, boo hoo. You know I'm always the wrong one to whine to. Stand up for others, absolutely, but cry for yourself never cuts it with me. So they want to whine that in 2024, they feel misrepresented by a film made in 1927. But they can't be even honest -- again, this ties in the slaughter going on in Gaza -- about what took place. No, they have to whine that they have been victimized by others. Again, the star of the film, the director, the writer -- all Jewish. In terms of racism, they all failed. In terms of telling the story of 20th century immigration in the US, they were on stronger ground.
Again, learn demography.
But they want to find a new injury to be outraged about, even if they have to go back nearly 100 years, and they want to blame it on others.
In their laughable letter, they write, "The absence of Jews from 'under-represented' groupings implies that Jews are over-represented in films, which is simply untrue."
Do you get it?
And let me be clear, this sentence was pointed out to me -- this time from a friend who is Jewish, I didn't get there on my own, and is an Academy Award winning film producer.
In the minds of these people -- this group of of 'wronged' Jews -- there is no equality. There is only under or over represented.
Again, the issue is a seat at the table, a way to influence and ensure fairness in portrayals.
It's not my fault if, for example, Clifford Odets is the Jewish person given a seat and mails off all these letters to Jack Warner about how he's trying to take the Jewish factor out of the script he's writing for HUMORESQUE. That's not on me or anyone but Odets. (And, yes, that did happen and is documented.)
Jewish business people and artists have always been part of Hollywood's entertainment industry -- as actors, as directors, editors, writers, producers, agents, managers, crew members . . . MGM was formed by Louis B. Mayer, Samuel Goldwyn and Marcus Lowe. Another three Jewish men formed COLUMBIA PICTURES: Joe Brandt and Harry and Jack Cohn. Do we want to do PARAMONT? Adolph Zukor, Jesse L. Lasky, Daniel Frohman and Charles Frohman.
They had a seat at the table and they were able to add their input. And many of them made historic and lasting contributions.
The groups highlighted by the Board are groups who have suffered historical discrimination in the Hollywood film community. That was the whole point the Academy was trying to address. I do so love it, as a member of the Academy, when those who aren't want to try to 'correct' what we're doing. Again, David Schwimmer, you're never going to be a member of the Academy -- no one in your peer group mistakes what you do for actual acting -- let alone good acting.
But this group of whiners can't tolerate inclusion or equality. They're of the opinion that there is only under representation and over representation -- per their own letter.
And doesn't that go to the historic treatment of Palestinians and the lies that those who support that treatment tell themselves and others?
A group of pampered whiny self-described victims want to push other people around using their 'victimhood' -- that's the writers and signers of that ridiculous letter and it's those who are okay and cheering on the murders of children, of the elderly, of women, of men, of journalists, of medical professionals. It's the same thinking -- where you only think about yourself.
That never works for me. And it's not working for most of the people in this world which is why, around the world, you see protests against the slaughter of Gaza.
The United Nations’ top court has heard South Africa’s case that Israel’s military assault on the Gaza Strip amounts to genocide against Palestinians, an accusation that Israel strongly denies and has dismissed as "atrocious and preposterous." South Africa is initially asking the International Court of Justice to order an immediate halt of Israel’s offensive, though a decision will likely take weeks.
CNN's Antoinette Radford adds:
Mr Vusi Madonsela, South Africa’s ambassador to the Hague ended day one of the hearing by detailing the country’s requests for provisional measures.
He requested the measures be considered "as a matter of extreme urgency".
Among the provisional measures requested include:
- That Israel suspends its military operations in and against Gaza
- That Israel ensures its military - and any associated groups stop any military operations
- That Israel stops killing Palestinian people
- That Israel stops displacing Palestinian people from their homes and ensures they have access to food, water, healthcare and basic infrastructure
- That Israel take "all reasonable actions within their power to prevent genocide"
Anna Holligan and Oliver Slow (BBC NEWS) explain:
Israel will offer its defence on Friday, but has previously said its actions in the Gaza Strip are justified because it is responding to Hamas's deadly attacks on 7 October.
But speaking in court on Thursday, South Africa's Justice Minister Ronald Lamola said that no attack "can provide justification for or defend breaches of the [Genocide] Convention".
Israel is a signatory to the Genocide Convention of 1948, which defines genocide and commits states to prevent it.
The ICJ is the United Nation's highest court, based in The Hague in the Netherlands. Its rulings are theoretically legally binding on parties to the ICJ - which include Israel and South Africa - but are not enforceable.
At COMMON DREAMS, BRETT WILKINS offers this overview:
Two Israeli lawmakers from right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party doubled down Wednesday on calls to destroy or depopulate Gaza, prompting an admonition from the country's attorney general on the eve of an emergency hearing in the South African-led genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
In an interview with Hakol Baramah radio, Deputy Knesset Speaker Nissim Vaturi said he did not regret his November call for Israel to "stop being humane" and "burn Gaza now."
"I stand behind my words," Vaturi said, according toThe Times of Israel. "It is better to burn down buildings rather than have soldiers harmed. There are no innocents there."
Referring to Palestinian civilians trapped in northern Gaza, Vaturi added that he has "no mercy for those who are still there."
"We need to eliminate them," he asserted.
On Tuesday, Israeli Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara cautioned government officials against making inflammatory statements like Vaturi's.
Baharav-Miara said officials are "obligated to act according to the principles of international law and the laws of war."
"Statements that call for, among other things, intentional harm to uninvolved citizens, are against the prevailing policy and may constitute criminal offenses, including incitement," she added.
Vaturi's remarks came as more than 90,000 Palestinians have been killed, wounded, or left missing by 96 days of largely indiscriminate Israeli bombardment of Gaza, where around 90% of the territory's 2.3 million residents have been displaced and most of its infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed, according to Palestinian and United Nations officials.
Meanwhile, Haaretzreported that Danny Danon, a former United Nations ambassador now serving in the Knesset, said in a Wednesday radio interview that Israel must "not do half a job" in Gaza.
That, Danon said, means "voluntary migration" of Palestinians from Gaza—a euphemism, critics say, for an ethnic cleansing campaign akin to the Nakba, or "catastrophe," in which more than 750,000 Arabs were forcibly expelled from Palestine during the war to establish the modern state of Israel in 1948.
In November, Danon co-authored a Wall Street Journalopinion piece suggesting the ethnic cleansing of some of Gaza's population to Western countries that would accept the refugees.
Danon and Vaturi's remarks came as the International Court of Justice prepared to convene an emergency hearing Thursday in The Hague in a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa and backed by nations including Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, Venezuela, Jordan, and Bolivia.
The filing in the World Court specifically mentions "direct and public incitement to genocide by senior Israeli officials and others."
From yesterday's DEMOCRACY NOW!
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
Several United Nations agencies, including the World Food Programme, say Israel’s bombardment of Gaza could lead to a famine throughout the entire Gaza Strip within six months, unless immediate action is taken. Hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians are now in Rafah, and many are waiting in line for hours for small amounts of food, as aid agencies struggle to meet the demand.
MARIAM AL-AHMAD: [translated] I came here to get food. I’ve been here since 9 a.m. just to get a plate full of food, because the situation is very difficult. We are from Gaza City, and we came to Rafah. The people of Rafah received us and welcomed us, but the numbers are large, and the situation is very difficult. … There is no money to buy food, and there’s no flour. We have no money to buy anything at home. There is no gas or anything that would help us to cook even a plate of lentils. We come here to get this plate of food, and it is not enough.
AMY GOODMAN: This comes as hundreds of trucks trying to bring aid to Gaza are backed up for miles in Egypt at the Rafah border crossing and have been forced to wait for weeks to enter. On Tuesday, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron urged Israel to lift barriers on delivering humanitarian aid into Gaza, citing, quote, “real widespread hunger.” Cameron was cross-examined by the Scottish MP Brendan O’Hara.
BRENDAN O’HARA: Two or three minutes ago, in answer, a reply to the chair, you said — and I quote — “One of the things we’d like the Israelis to do is switch the water back on.” Now, that says that they turned it off. It says that you recognize they have the power to turn it on. Therefore, isn’t turning water off and having the ability to turn it back on but choosing not to — isn’t that a breach of international humanitarian law?
DAVID CAMERON: It’s just something they ought to do, in my opinion.
BRENDAN O’HARA: No. Of course they should do it. Every human being would say you don’t cut people’s water supply off. But I’m asking you, in your position as foreign secretary —
DAVID CAMERON: Well, I don’t know. I mean —
BRENDAN O’HARA: — around a point of international humanitarian law. If Israel have the power to turn the water back on that they turned off, surely, that is a flagrant breach of international humanitarian law.
DAVID CAMERON: Well, I’m not a lawyer. My view is they ought to switch it on, because the north of Gaza, the conflict is now effectively over there, and so getting more water and power into northern Gaza would be a very good thing to do. You don’t have to be a lawyer to make a judgment about that. You just have to be a human being.
AMY GOODMAN: Last month, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution to immediately increase aid deliveries in Gaza, and Human Rights Watch accused Israel of using starvation as a method of warfare, which violates international humanitarian law.
Well, for more, we’re going to Tel Aviv. We’re joined by Sarit Michaeli, international advocacy lead for the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, which has just published a new report, “Israel is starving Gaza,” that says starvation is, quote, “not a byproduct of war, but a direct result of Israel’s declared policy.”
Sarit, welcome to Democracy Now! Lay out exactly what you found and what you feel can be done about it.
SARIT MICHAELI: Well, in very basic terms, almost everyone in Gaza is hungry almost all of the time. Two-point-three million people are surviving mostly on sometimes one meal a day, people skipping meals in order to feed their children, people busy constantly looking for the next meal, for the next source of food for them and their families and children.
And all of this is happening in a place that is pretty much an hour’s drive from here — right? — where supplying humanitarian assistance and food and all the necessities, like water and other things that people rely on, should not be a difficult problem. We’re not talking about some sort of remote region internationally. We’re talking about an area that is accessible, where the things that impede this provision of food for people who are starving is a declared policy by Israel — the fact that Israel isn’t allowing enough trucks in, the fact that Israel isn’t providing the ability, the logistical infrastructure to actually drive this food into Gaza through places where it’s possible to do, and many other decisions taken by the Israeli government that are impacting this, that are making it — making the amount of assistance that is coming into Gaza simply a fraction of what the population need.
And, Amy, you quoted the international experts on this issue. Within a month, they expect almost all of the residents of the Gaza Strip to be up to what is phase three of this scale of horror of hunger. And this is simply unacceptable when it’s very clearly preventable. And the things that were said in the British Parliament by Minister Cameron are very clearly a clarification that this is the result of Israeli policies and actions. This is not just some sort of coincidence or just some unfortunate byproduct of war.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Sarit, I wanted to ask you: How is Israel controlling the food supply, especially in Rafah, where Rafah leads into Egypt? So, how exactly does it manage to continue to —
SARIT MICHAELI: Right.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: — prevent trucks from getting in?
SARIT MICHAELI: So, Juan, let’s even look at the past situation. I mean, Gaza was on the brink of collapse even before this war began with the horrific October 7th attack by Hamas against Israelis, right? So, this has been a situation of food insecurity since the beginning of the Israeli blockade on Gaza almost 17 years ago. But the Israeli decisions to cut off electricity, to cut off the water supply, that Israel sells Gaza, to not allow all of the movement of the international humanitarian provision of supplies, those decisions made it almost impossible, from the start, for even bakeries to operate and provide for the people. And now what we — so, the collapse was very quick and based on a very long period of deprivation.
But now the issue really is that there needs to be hundreds of trucks entering Gaza every day, and just a fraction of that is entering. This is happening because the Rafah crossing is just not equipped for the movement of goods. Goods should be entering Gaza through other border crossings, that are generally with Israel, not with Egypt. Israel is also prohibiting the provision of food purchased on the Israeli market, so the aid agencies have to bring it from Egypt, which is even more difficult. Plus, there are also many restrictions on the ability to distribute it once it actually gets into the Gaza Strip. And then we see these awful images of desperate people charging these provision convoys that are coming in, and taking what they can, because they are simply so desperate, and the food isn’t reaching some areas of Gaza. So you have a situation where in some areas of Gaza things are only just bad, whereas in others things are just absolutely atrocious. And this is not a very large area.
So, certainly — and I think it’s recognized now by the international community — the Israeli government is at fault, is responsible for this. And this should lead to immediate international action, not simply conversations with Israeli policymakers, but actually clear clarifications that Israel is violating both its legal obligations — i.e. this is a war crime — and also that this is simply an immoral way to treat a civilian population.
AMY GOODMAN: After a visit to the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza, U.S. Democratic Senators Jeff Merkley and Chris Van Hollen blasted the Israeli process for screening the aid. Senator Van Hollen spoke to CBS Face the Nation. This is what he said.
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Many items that should be allowed to go into Gaza — water sort of filtration systems, other systems like that — were in a warehouse of rejected items that we visited. While we were there, we saw a truck turned away that had a big box from UNICEF, which is, of course, the U.N. organization that helps children. It was a unit to help with water desalinization. It was rejected. And when one item on a truck is rejected, the entire truck is rejected. The other big issue is within Gaza, the so-called deconfliction process, which is just a fancy name for those who are providing humanitarian assistance to have the confidence that they can deliver it without being killed.
AMY GOODMAN: If you can talk more about this, Sarit? Again, the senator, Van Hollen, is the one who has also called for the release of more information about the Israeli sniper who murdered Shirin Abu Akleh on May 11th, 2022, in Jenin, in the occupied West Bank.
SARIT MICHAELI: Yeah, absolutely, Amy. Well, we certainly appreciate the leadership that Senator Van Hollen and, actually, Senator Merkley are showing on this issue. And it is absolutely crucial that U.S. lawmakers, both from the more progressive part of the Democratic Party but also from the mainstream, security-oriented, kind of more established part of the Democratic Party, are engaging with President Biden to demand action on this issue — simply an unconscionable situation that is unfolding in front of us.
Now, I’d like to refer to the second part of Senator Hollen’s discussion of the dangers inside of Gaza. Yes,, absolutely, there’s been another update by the office of — the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs discussing an additional rejection by the Israeli authorities of another attempt to coordinate the transfer of medical goods into hospitals in the northern Gaza Strip. This was only the day before yesterday, apparently. So, we’re seeing that there are simply so many difficulties in trying to bring the aid, deliver the aid, with safety for the aid providers, obviously, in this area that is bombed.
And this brings us to the essential issue, which is that there needs to be a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. There needs to be a halt to Israeli airstrikes and bombardments in order for this food and aid and assistance — and not only food; medical supplies and other necessities have to be provided. And this is one — the continuation of the hostilities is making this provision far too dangerous and impossible currently. This is one other reason why we need this to stop.
B’Tselem has called for a ceasefire. But, of course, the most important reason for this to stop is to stop the killing of civilians, of women and children and human beings in the Gaza Strip, in a way that absolutely is disproportionate to what is facing Israel right now, and to the policies of, basically, airstrikes bombing residential homes. All of this is one — you know, and the huge death toll, 23,000 Gazans and counting, as a result, you know, that can only be described as a revenge attack after the horrific death toll that Israelis have suffered. But we simply cannot accept. You know, it’s certainly not moral, and it’s certainly not legal, that we inflict such a degree of suffering on Gazans — we Israelis — regardless of how much we have suffered and how horrific we have been affected by this. There is simply no justification for the continuation of this Israeli attack on Gaza, and it has to stop. There has to be a ceasefire.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Sarit, I wanted to ask you — you’re talking to us from Tel Aviv. How aware are Israelis of the catastrophic situation so close to where most of them live? And is there any significant portion of the population that cares?
SARIT MICHAELI: Well, unfortunately, Juan, the situation is very, very depressing and just painful when we look at the responses of many Israelis, possibly even the majority of Israelis, to what we see now in Gaza. I think the majority of Israelis still support what we are doing there. There is very little protest or very little rejection of the methods that Israel is employing in its attack against the civilian population of Gaza. The Israeli media doesn’t really broadcast much information about the suffering of Gazans, the devastation, the utter devastation, of infrastructure and the loss of homes, and human beings being killed on a daily basis, on an hourly basis.
But one of the saddest aspects of this is that even when people are aware of it, there are so many politicians and influencers and people who are simply rejecting any need to respect the humanity of people in Gaza. And unfortunately, some of the people who are aware of the huge price, the horrific toll that Gazans are paying, are not — you know, are simply OK with it. And this is one of the most depressing aspects of what is going on now in terms of the total dehumanization of Gazans among many people in Israel.
There are — I should mention there are Israelis who are opposed to this situation. There are Israelis who are calling to recognize the humanity of Gazans. But we are in the minority, unfortunately.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, we have less than a minute left, but I wanted to ask you, quickly — you’ve also been monitoring the violence in the West Bank, that has gotten far less attention. Could you talk about what you’ve chronicled?
SARIT MICHAELI: Absolutely, yes. So, since October 7th, there has also been a massive increase in the violence by Israeli soldiers and also security forces and Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank. It has led to a really large number of Palestinians killed by soldiers and by Israeli settlers. It has led to takeovers of land by settlers, to the removal, to the forcible transfer of Palestinian herding communities from very large parts of the West Bank. It’s led to, you know, the total destruction of the olive harvest, for example, as a coordinated campaign by settlers to damage the Palestinian economy. And all of these things are happening with very little international attention.
And again, this has got to end. There has to be a recognition of what is going on throughout the West Bank, of Israeli actions there. And as we call when it comes to the situation in the Gaza Strip, there has to be international action to hold Israeli policymakers accountable for their decisions that have led to these horrific results, horrific outcomes.
AMY GOODMAN: Sarit Michaeli, we have to leave it there. We thank you so much for being with us, with the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "The Debate" went up last night and the following sites updated:
-
-
-
-
Ohio Republicans are disgusting10 hours ago
-
Nikki just keeps beating Doo-Doo Ron10 hours ago
-
Robert Kennedy Junior is a real idiot10 hours ago
-
-
Crooked Clarence10 hours ago
-
Fruity Nutty Spinach10 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
