Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Media & Biden Admin Get Far Too Cozy at WHCD—Revealing Rotten Core of US Journalism. Plus: Lula/Google Ominous Online Censorship Battle
Video Transcript
May 05, 2023
post photo preview

Note: Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder

 

The corporate media on Saturday threw itself a gaudy, glitzy celebration of itself at the White House as it does every year. Employees of large media corporations who bear the title ‘journalist’ made a pilgrimage to the White House to gush over their own importance, desperately trying to secure selfies with mid-level Hollywood celebrities and toast to their own courage, all as they swoon over President Biden, the person they pretend to hold accountable. It is both easy and entertaining to spend time mocking this monument to its debauchery, and we will certainly spend some time doing exactly that, but how these journalists are just so giddy and eager to spend just a night of glitter and glamor behind the walls of Versailles, admitted to the Royal Court for one night for good behavior, is more than just repellent to watch: it is deeply revealing of their true function. And – while I will not feign being above delighting in the mockery this provides – it is also a vivid window into the specific ways that our corporate press corps is so deeply rotted and corrupted. 

Then we're trying this show to report on developments in Brazil only when there are important implications beyond that country. And that is definitely the case with the extraordinary events taking place right now and all week long in that country, the government of Lula da Silva is on the verge of implementing one of the most repressive and dangerous Internet censorship laws yet seen in the democratic world, one that we've reported on multiple times because it is being eyed by the EU, Canada and eventually the U.S. as the model for ending a free Internet as a means of expressing and organizing meaningful dissent. While the law is technically being sponsored by Lula's government, its most aggressive opponents, as is true in the U.S., are Brazil's highly powerful media corporations, which know that their ability to maintain their hegemony over the flow of information depends upon ending social media as a venue for legitimate dissent. And that is why they are such ardent supporters of this bill. This law in Brazil does nothing less than empower the government to silence and criminalize dissent and the means that are being used by all but outlaw opposition to this law as it's being debated, including by legally banning Google, Facebook and Spotify from criticizing the law and then ordering their executives forward to appear for interrogation at the Brazilian equivalent of the FBI. All things that happened just today are deeply alarming, but also very aligned with the spirit of the bill itself, one that has already begun to wind its way through the legislatures of other democratic countries. If you care about Internet freedom, it is imperative that you care about these developments. 

As a programming note, we were off the last few days of last week as well as yesterday, largely due to my need to attend to family matters, which I've discussed on this show before, and for that reason, as well, we won't have our live aftershow on Locals tonight, but we'll be back with it on Thursday night. To gain access to that live aftershow every Tuesday and Thursday night, simply join our Locals community by clicking the join button right below the Rumble screen. 

As a reminder, System Update is available in podcast form. It appears 12 hours after we broadcast this show, live, here on Rumble. You can follow us on Spotify, Apple and other major podcasting platforms. If you rate and review the show, it helps spread its visibility.

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update starting right now. 

 


 

As repulsive as it is to watch corporate journalists make this pilgrimage to the White House that they make every year under the guise of the White House Correspondents Dinner, where they pretend to celebrate their commitment to press freedom and the important role they play in safeguarding our democracy, it actually is important to look at because it is one night where they let the mask drop and reveal who and what they really are.  It's become kind of like the Oscars, in the sense that – in many senses, actually, but one important one is that it is not just one night, but many days leading up to it, where they have all kinds of parties that are the buzziest of the ones that they get to attend. But they also spend a lot of time before the event trying to justify to the American people why it is that these people who claim to be our watchdogs, the people who are safeguarding our basic rights, who are holding our government accountable, are instead dressing up like it's the Oscars, in gowns and tuxedos, and appearing with celebrities and the politicians they supposedly hold accountable at the gaudiest and sleaziest event you can possibly imagine held at the White House hosted by Joe Biden, the person whom they're supposed to be adversarially covering. 

And so, in the days leading up to the event, they spend a lot of time trying to justify what it is that they're doing and within those justifications reside a great deal of insight into how they actually think. As I said, it's a mask-dropping event. They know what it makes them look like, but they do it anyway because they're so desperate for the self-importance that it provides. It's really why they do their job – to be around power or to be accepted by power, to feel as though they're part of the Royal Court – and so, it's way too valuable to their sense of purpose and self-identity to relinquish it, even though they know that it's one of the most revealing lights that ever get shined on them. 

So, let's take a look at a couple of the pre-event discussions that took place as they tried to explain to the public and prepare the public for the nauseating sight to which they were about to be exposed. And we're going to begin with a program that is on MSNBC. It is hosted by a former adviser to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, Symone Sanders. She has our own MSNBC show on Saturday and here she is speaking to Joe Biden's former White House press secretary, who now also has her own show on MSNBC. So, you can see, these roles are completely interchangeable. You can go and work at the White House. You can go and work for NBC News. And you don't have to change a single thing. No one notices anything that you do differently because you don't do anything different. It's the same exact role. You're propagandizing the public on behalf of a Democratic president. And so, on this show with Symone Sanders, they had Jen Psaki, who, as I said, has her own show. And Jen Psaki was interviewed about her relationship with the press and how she saw both it and the importance of this event and listen to what it is that she said. 

 

(Video. MSNBC. April 23, 2023)

 

Symone Sanders: […] With the White House Correspondents Association. 

 

Jen Psaki: You know, I will say the majority of the time they were really incredible partners because when we were navigating COVID, even that was some of the hardest times. It was also some of the most collaborative times. […]

 

 

Okay, so just let's stop right there because that is an extraordinary statement. Here is a person who worked for the Biden White House. Her job was to spin and deceive and disseminate propaganda on behalf of the Biden White House. And how she saw journalists were not as her adversaries, not as the people around whom she had to work or against whom she had to work, but instead her very good partners, which of course, is exactly what the media is. They are partners to the government and to the State. Obviously, there's nobody in the Trump White House who would ever call this part of the media or any part of the media – other than very small segments of it – partners, because they played a very different role when the Trump administration was in power. She's talking here about her role in the Biden administration and the way in which she sees the media writ large, the corporate media, and the first words she uses for them are partners, not just partners, but very good partners. Listen to her explanation about why she sees it that way. 

 

(Video. MSNBC. April 23, 2023)

 

Symone Sanders: What was your best day with the White House Correspondents Association? 

 

Jen Psaki: You know, I will say the majority of the time they were really incredible partners, because when we were navigating COVID, even that it was some of the hardest times, it was also some of the most collaborative times. When I was the press secretary, Zeke Miller from the Associated Press at the time was the president, Long may he reign, I used to say, even after he was no longer the president […] 

 

That part is amazing, too. So, Zeke Miller is a White House reporter for the Associated Press, and he was long the president of the White House Correspondents Association, the group that sponsors this glitzy, nauseating affair at the White House. And she is so enamored of Zeke Miller, the person who's the head of the press organization, and she's talking to her not as a member of the press, but as a member of the state. But again, you're seeing there's really no difference. And she said she was so enamored of him; he was such a dedicated partner to what she was doing. They were collaborative, she said – the opposite of adversarial – that her phrase used to be ‘long may he reign’, ‘long may Zeke Miller reign.’ 

You may have seen the footage of a couple of weeks ago where a reporter from Africa, who is not part of this clique, tried to question the White House and the White House press secretary before he was called on, and all of the journalists there were extremely agitated, angry with him because it was the day that they got to see the cast of Ted Lasso. And they were incredibly excited. And this journalist wasn't interested in the cast of Ted Lasso because he's actually a journalist. He wanted to ask the Biden administration about their Africa policy, and his colleagues in the media were incredibly hostile to him telling him to shut up, lecturing him, or treating him like, as he said, like just some kind of a black interloper – is how he described it. He definitely thought there was a racist dynamic to it, but either way, they were very hostile to him. And the reason was that they were not there to ask questions about policy. They wanted to see the stars of Ted Lasso, and it was Zeke Miller – long may he reign – who, on behalf of the entire press corps, apologized for this journalist to the White House press secretary, this very sycophantic apology that he made to her on behalf of all journalists, because there was one journalist there wanting to do his job. So, this is how Jen Psaki sees the press and the person who is the leader or has long been the leader of this organization who reports supposedly on the White House for the Associated Press, a collaborator, a partner, someone about whom she says “long may he reign.” 

 

(Video. MSNBC. April 23, 2023)

 

Jen Psaki: We had to navigate through a very difficult time in history, a time where we wanted to return access to the press, show value and respect for the media, but also do it in a way that was keeping people safe. They're also very important and valuable partners when there are foreign trips. I mean, you know this – when you're going to a war zone, you do go to the Correspondents Association and you say, “Hey, we're going to go to Afghanistan or Iraq or somewhere that is a challenging security place to be. I need to work with you on how we create a press pool for them.” 

 

I mean, have you seen anything less adversarial in your life than Jen Psaki's view of the White House press corps? She regards them as what they are – her partners. It's just bizarre that she's forgetting that that's not supposed to be how it works. That's not supposed to actually be what their function is. That's not what they pretend it is. But for some reason, I think probably because she was speaking with her current colleague and her prior colleague at the White House, they forgot that there are cameras on and that there's a fraud that's supposed to be maintained about the relationship between the White House and the media. They're not supposed to be described publicly as partners, collaborators, friends, or people with whom you work towards the same aim. But that is the reality. And that's why this clip was so revealing. 

Equally revealing was a reporter, I believe, from the Wall Street Journal. We don't see her name here. We are about to see her. She is a guest as well talking to Sanders, on the same show, about the role of the media. Let's listen to what she says. 

 

(Video. MSNBC. April 28, 2023)

 

Symone Sanders: Let's just be honest, okay? Know, I was going to get a straight answer from the podium in the briefing room. If you were traveling with the president or the vice president, you do not always get a straight answer for the president or vice president. I used to be one of the people helping people craft maybe some not-so-straight answers. So […]

 

All right. Well, so there, first of all, is Symone Sanders saying that her job at the White House was to craft answers that weren't direct, honest, informative, or straight for journalists. She was supposed to deceive journalists. Jen Psaki evidently thought they were very happy with that. They were great partners as she did that. So that's the admission. So, we're going to get her name in a second. She's currently the White House reporter for The Wall Street Journal. She used to be at The Guardian. I want you to listen to her as she describes how she sees her role and her relationship with the current White House. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
6
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted
QUICK: Ask Questions for Today's Mailbag!

Glenn will be discussing the Israel-Iran conflict and a Trump Administration official who is in an awkward political predicament, so questions on other topics are more likely to be chosen.

Seymour Hersh said the US will commence action this weekend.
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/what-i-have-been-told-is-coming-in

Cool Episode of ‘The Why Files’……

post photo preview
U.S. and Israel vs Iran: Repeating War on Iraq Scripts; Overwhelming Bipartisan Consensus for Israel's Wars
System Update #469

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXeYkVcgzcgVgwTH4HsgQ-PsjfJnkkerEMKzJUBNbex49ctiCfUGCSwgs9h6Vn3qKESfxyvgEpfVQz8nobvNvfVrE9z8iBrAZvKRdf7iPZ-2Qov6I426kA0Sqc0Yy6Oh5amLisL1-RzSK5ykf5mGHyE?key=aMiM9imCrTsNamRKd6Vfew

The war initiated by Israel against Iran last Thursday was dangerous from the start and has each day only become more dangerous. President Trump has boasted of his pre-war coordination with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He's already been using U.S. military assets to protect Israel. He's now even re-deploying aircraft carriers in the Pacific, where we're told they are guarding against America's greatest enemy – China – now to the Middle East, where Israel has demanded they go to support its war. 

Just a few minutes ago, President Trump ordered the 16 million people who live in Tehran to immediately evacuate a city where it's now 2 a.m. 

With Israel, as always, demanding more. Now, they want the U.S. planes and bombs to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities for them. The former Israeli defense minister went on CNN just an hour ago and told President Trump in the U.S. that it's our obligation to fight this war with them. And for them, President Trump has repeatedly opened the possibility of even greater U.S. involvement in the war. 

There are so many aspects of this new conflict worth covering and dissecting –and we will do so throughout the week – but tonight we want to focus on the amazing ease the U.S. government has in convincing its population to support whatever new war is presented to it. Over four years ago, intense war propaganda from the U.S. political class and media persuaded Americans to want to fund and arm the war in Ukraine – a war that is still dragging on with no favorable end in sight – and overnight huge numbers of people in the United States have suddenly become convinced without having ever said so previously that war with Iran is some sort of moral imperative as well as a strategic necessity for the survival of American citizens of the United States. 

No matter how debunked, discredited and disgraced that Iraq war narrative has become, as long as one just waits 20 or 25 years, then, apparently, that same script just works like magic all over again. You just haul it out, fearmongering, and huge numbers of people respond by saying, "Yes, let's go to war, let' kill people." 

We'll examine all of that, as well as the standard bipartisan unity in support of new American wars and especially wars involving Israel, you hear Democrats almost unanimously, either staying quiet or praising President Trump, with just a few exceptions from both parties. And we'll look at that as well. 

AD_4nXeYkVcgzcgVgwTH4HsgQ-PsjfJnkkerEMKzJUBNbex49ctiCfUGCSwgs9h6Vn3qKESfxyvgEpfVQz8nobvNvfVrE9z8iBrAZvKRdf7iPZ-2Qov6I426kA0Sqc0Yy6Oh5amLisL1-RzSK5ykf5mGHyE?key=aMiM9imCrTsNamRKd6Vfew

AD_4nXdXi3PHhIfI5UY5jue2s_VN_Dre1s5GH_qzxPS39EBWpyASwtOnszEASDMpdRuJzVlrD4idh5uDoPcdU38-w-kpHnSvAo9rtxSpcN4lW-sAiALyp2wxVRGqfHoLUqaYrKPxb_-HZMv3-aKzQLw90g?key=aMiM9imCrTsNamRKd6Vfew

If you're an American citizen as an adult, you have seen the United States repeatedly go to war. Anyone 18 or over has seen the United States involved in all sorts of wars and that's after the Iraq war, which is now 22 years ago. Essentially, if you're American, it means forever, for a long, long time, for many decades, that you are a citizen of a country that's always at war. 

After World War II, there was a very visible and clear pattern, which is that the U.S. government convinces its citizens, enough of them, to support the war at the beginning. They deluge them with war propaganda, which is extremely strong, primal, tribal and enough Americans initially support the war to let the U.S. government politically go and drop bombs or finance some other country to go drop bombs for it. Then, after six months, a year, or two years, or four years, polls show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose the war that they were convinced to support. Going back to the war in Vietnam, throughout the 1980s’ wars, the War on Terror in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya, the financing of the war in Ukraine, Israel's destruction of Gaza, bombing Yemin and now this new war that the United States is becoming increasingly involved in, in lots of different ways and we're only on the fifth day.

You just see so many Americans on a dime the minute a new war is presented to them, with whatever pretext can be conjured, even if they're exactly the same pretext that most Americans lived through watching proved to be complete lies the last time it was used in 2003, even though it's exactly the same script, exactly the same pretext, coming from exactly the same people. You can get enough Americans to immediately stand up and start cheering for death and destruction and bombing. Not all, a very substantial minority oppose it, I think if the U.S. overtly gets even more involved in the war in Iran, obviously anything resembling ground troops entering Iran, but even perhaps prolonged bombing of Iran as well through U.S. jets and bombs, as President Trump has indicated and Israel has demanded, maybe some of that will erode, that support will erode. But all that's needed is enough support at the beginning of the war to let the government start it. And once the U.S. government enters the war, it doesn't matter anymore whether the people continue to support it; then it's just already done. All the normal arguments are assembled about why we can't stop, why we can't cut and run, why that would be appeasement, etc., etc. All the same scripts all the time, used over and over, and even though they get proven to be discredited, or unpersuasive, or full of lies, you just use the same ones each time. And that's how the United States stays as a country at war.

We've been hearing a lot of people saying, “Look, I'm happy that Israel is bombing Iran, as long as the U.S. has no involvement in the war, we don't enter it, we don't have to pay for it. As long as it's not our war, I'm fine with it.” But, of course, the entire Israeli military is funded by American taxpayers. Every time Israel has a new war, the weapons that it uses come from the United States, transferred to Israel. We pay for their wars, we arm their wars, we support diplomatically those wars and we use our military assets every single time and our intelligence apparatus to support and enable the war, as the United States is already doing. We already have multiple new U.S. military assets ordered to the region by President Trump. They're already active in protecting Israel from retaliation. President Trump openly said that he is considering the possibility of involving the U.S. even more directly in this war with Iran: "We're not involved in it. It's possible we could get involved. But we are not at this moment involved," the president said. (ABC News. June 15, 2025.)

That all depends on what you mean by ‘involved.’ We're paying for the war, we're arming the war, we've deployed military assets that are actively now trying to shoot down missiles coming from Iran as retaliation for the Israelis launching a completely unprovoked attack on Iran, based on the claim that Iran was about to get nuclear weapons, just weeks away, something they've been saying for 30 years, as we've shown you many times, same thing that was said in 2002. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
U.S. Involvement in Israel's Iran Attack; the View from Tehran: Iranian Professor on Reactions to Strikes; CATO Analysts on Dangers and War Escalations

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXd1VoS9xg7si8ZviLBfSqd9c5_FMQdODz9RYxLWVBvtebHFOs0oWtttaWP_7qvL_VZdS0enruALLjYbkU-CdLQUDxNECHRbc5Y9OjrLuK-6y6Uq602-Q9fTzTYkN5_S0oVACoqvAhTWU86eCRc8vZU?key=lmRJixp6Jlz5wRA3fSBDAg

Today's most important news is obvious: Israel last night launched a major military assault on Iran, targeting residential buildings in Tehran, where military commanders and nuclear physicists live with their families, as well as bombing multiple nuclear facilities throughout the country. 

Triumphalist rhetoric flooded American and Israeli discourse almost immediately, until just a little bit ago, when a barrage of Iran's ballistic and hypersonic missiles began hitting Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and other major population centers. Escalation seems virtually inevitable at this point. The level of escalation – always the most dangerous question when a new war has started – is most certainly yet to be determined. 

Then there's the question of the role of the United States and President Trump in all of this. News reports from both the U.S. and Israeli media suggested this morning that Trump was working hand-in-hand with the Israelis to pretend that he was still optimistic about a diplomatic resolution with Tehran, but did so only as a ruse to convince the Iranians that Trump intended to restrain Israel and thus lure Iran into a false sense of security when, in fact, Trump was not only green-lighting the attack but actively working with the Israelis to launch it. President Trump's own statements today proudly boasting of the success of the attack, along with his own concrete actions such as ordering U.S. military assets into position to yet again defend Israel, strongly bolster those reports and clearly indicate a direct U.S. involvement in this war between Israel and Iran, a U.S. involvement that already exists and will almost certainly continue to grow over the next few days and perhaps few weeks and even months. 

We’ll speak to Professor Mohammad Marandi, who is in Tehran and has heard and witnessed a lot of what happened but also has some unique analysis from his role as an American Iranian scholar of foreign policy and to scholars Justin Logan and Jon Hoffman, from the Cato Institute, one of the very few think tanks in the United States, which has long counselled restraint and non-interventionism in U.S. foreign policy. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Federal Court Dismisses & Mocks Lawsuit Brought by Pro-Israel UPenn Student; Dave Portnoy, Crusader Against Cancel Culture, Demands No More Jokes About Jews; Trump's Push to Ban Flag Burning
System Update #466

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXejs0DWGiP8ieMfNSDSHxWeGpA0bYQ2sB6GX53BerQgLDbevN48qlCXkh11p78EUWG7xmSLMCw_dta-m52iwfsgIA3W2CeT9zra6jIl7Krf7sFz7NI2c-vDb2dnkU0ifL9MRhw4ltCOYIB3YKvkIQQ?key=UyjQkErH6uhdu9Xo5Lcq4g

In the first segment, we’ll talk about the victimhood narrative that holds that American Jews, in general, and Jewish students on college campuses in particular, are uniquely threatened, marginalized and endangered. One of the faces of this student victimhood narrative has become Eyal Yakoby, who is a vocal pro-Israel activist and a student at the University of Pennsylvania. 

In 2024, he was invited by House Republicans to stand next to House Speaker Mike Johnson and he proclaimed: I do not feel safe. He said it over and over. “I do not feel safe” has kind of become the motto for his adult life. Now, he seized on those opportunities by initiating a lawsuit against the University of Pennsylvania seeking damages for what he said was the school's failure to fulfill its duties to keep him safe. Mind you, he was never physically attacked, never physically menaced, never physically threatened, but nonetheless claimed that the school had failed to keep him safe and told the congress in the country that he did not feel safe. 

The federal judge who is presiding over his lawsuit, who just happens to be a Jewish judge, a conservative judge, appointed by George W. Bush, not only dismissed Yakoby's lawsuit as without any basis, but really viciously mocked it, depicting his claims as a little more than petulant entitled demands from a privileged Ivy League student who wants to not be exposed to any ideas or political activism that might upset him – sort of depicting him as the Princess in “The Princess and the Pea,” Andersen’s literary fairytale about a princess who's so sensitive to anything that might concern her, that she's even unable to sleep if there's a pea buried beneath the seventeenth mattress on which she sleeps. 

This judicial decision is worth examining not only for the schadenfreude of watching one of America's whiniest pro-Israel activists be exposed as a self-interested fraud that he is, but also for what it says about the broader narrative that has been so relentlessly pushed and so endlessly exploited from so many corners, insisting that the supreme victim group of the United States is, of all people, American Jews. 

Then: speaking of extreme entitlement, Barstool founder Dave Portnoy made quite a name for himself over many years by ranting against the evils of cancel culture, championing the virtues of free speech, and viciously mocking as snowflakes and as people who are far too sensitive anyone who takes offense at jokes, offensive jokes told by comedians. That is what made it so odd – yet so telling – when this weekend we watched the very same Dave Portnoy viciously berated one of his employees for disagreeing with Portnoy's insistence that while jokes about everyone and every group continue to be appropriate, there must now be one exception: namely, according to Portnoy, jokes about Portnoy's own group,  American Jews,  must now be suspended and deemed too dangerous to permit. 

AD_4nXejs0DWGiP8ieMfNSDSHxWeGpA0bYQ2sB6GX53BerQgLDbevN48qlCXkh11p78EUWG7xmSLMCw_dta-m52iwfsgIA3W2CeT9zra6jIl7Krf7sFz7NI2c-vDb2dnkU0ifL9MRhw4ltCOYIB3YKvkIQQ?key=UyjQkErH6uhdu9Xo5Lcq4g

AD_4nXeNPsWu8SYZVkQAs1AKBVzXSCqCNnJSXFRz97DnkaHGIxGix2Zh6YmbJTQCrmPrgX3vqBOePYDLHyYhwxRNyY7s7q2Ucj32uOVbkk6jWZgH6dWxrUKjcwab1q_D0yJ_S0Fv_z7W0ckJp94i_tscuw?key=UyjQkErH6uhdu9Xo5Lcq4g

There have been really a lot of radical and fundamental changes, first on the political culture and then in our legal landscape as a result of the attack on October 7, and particularly the desire of the United States – by both parties – to arm the Israelis, to fund the Israelis, to protect the Israelis as they went about and destroyed Gaza. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals