Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 12/11/23: US Terrified Of Israel Lebanon War, Israel Apologizes For 'Abu Ghraib' Photos, UPenn President Forced Out, Ben Shapiro Cheers Jewish Quotas, Hillary Takes Charge Of Biden 2024, Texas Abortion Horror Story, Israel Assassinates Gaza Poet, And Why Israelis Want Bibi Gone

Episode Date: December 11, 2023

Krystal and Saagar discuss fears of a broader Middle East war intensifying, Israel apologizes for Gaza 'Abu Ghraib' photos, Penn president resigns after pro-Israel backlash, Palantir pushes affirmative action for American Jews, Hillary Clinton influencing Biden re-election, Texas Supreme Court cracks down on abortion, Israel assassinates Palestinian poet, and Dahlia Scheindlin on how Oct 7 changed Israeli society.   BP Holiday Merch LIVE NOW (Use code BLACKFRIDAY for 15% off Non-Holiday Items): https://shop.breakingpoints.com/collections/breaking-points-holiday-collection  To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of starts that a little bit, man.

We met them at their homes. We met them at the recording studios. Stories matter and it brings a face to it. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcast.

I'm Michael Kasson, founder and CEO of 3C Ventures and your guide on good company, the podcast where I sit down with the boldest innovators shaping what's next. In this episode, I'm joined by Anjali Sood, CEO of Tubi. We dive into the competitive world of streaming. What others dismiss as niche, we embrace as core. There are so many stories out there. And if you can find a way to curate and help the right person discover the right content, the term that we always hear from our audience is that they feel seen. Listen to Good Company on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 is here, and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.

We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody. Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed we do. Lots to get to this morning. We're going to start with fears of a broader war escalating out of Israel's war on Gaza. Also some images emerging that people are comparing to Abu Ghraib 2.0 and could have a similarly radicalizing impact.

So we'll break all of that down for you. Also, a major free speech controversy, a university president out at Penn. We will get into all of that. I'm really enraging me anyway. We'll give you all those details. More dire numbers for Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton jumping into the fray. We also want to break down for you a major abortion case unfolding in the state of Texas with the potential to royal politics there and across the country. I'm taking a look at the life of a poet who was killed by the Israelis over last week. And we also have an Israeli pollster who's going to join us to talk about what is going on in terms of domestic politics with regard to Bibi Netanyahu. But before we get to any of that, this is the last week to get our very, very special ugly Christmas sweater. Go ahead and put it up there on the screen. I modeled a little bit for some people on Instagram. It is the very last week to get our very, very special ugly Christmas sweater. Go ahead and put it up there on the screen.

I modeled a little bit for some people on Instagram. It is the very last week. We've only got a few left if you want to be able to get it and wear it during the Christmas season so you can proselytize. Such a great show. Also, we've got our yearly memberships, which remain on discount for the rest of the year. This is a way for you guys can help us out and build for the election season. Again, I say it every show, but it's shocking. A year from now, we will be at least finally done with the voting part of the 2024 election, which is wild and is nuts, but is one of those. You guys

are really helping us build for that season plan, remain nimble and to be able to bring you all the best content that we possibly can and what is sure to be an absolutely wild and probably trying time. But we will be there with you throughout every step of the way. So BreakingPoints.com to be able to take advantage of that. All right, let's go ahead and get to the latest out of Israel and start with those fears of a broader war escalation possibilities on multiple fronts. Let's put this up on the screen. Huffington Post actually has been doing a good job with some of their reporting during this conflict, and they had a major piece breaking down some of the risks and with sources inside the administration raising alarm bells. What they say here is Gaza may soon become a bigger war. They've got the highlights. They say U.S. officials fear Israel wants weapons to fight

in Lebanon. Israel will not share plans with the Biden administration or Congress. That reminds me of Ukraine there. Top officials discuss Iraq and Syria escalation. Aid organizations are ringing alarm bells more than they ever have. Let me give you a few of the details from within this piece that are really crucial to understanding where we are and what the risks are. They write, one week into the resumed Israeli military campaign in Gaza, U.S. officials and foreign policy experts

are increasingly afraid that Israel's operation will fuel a broader conflict drawing in Lebanon and expanding throughout the Middle East, potentially forcing American troops into the fight. One of the key pieces here that I found really noteworthy is you have Biden administration officials who are worried that the weapons that Israel is requesting from the United States right now, which by the way, we've been approving with no qualms whatsoever, they won't tell us what they actually want to use those weapons for. And that has raised grave fears from the White House and the Biden administration that those weapons are intended to be used in Lebanon against the Lebanese militia Hezbollah.

They have a senior fellow at a Middle East Institute think tank quoted as saying this last week, the level of concern in D.C. about a potential war on the Israel-Lebanon front has gone up three or four notches. You also have, despite repeated calls for Israeli restraint, U.S. intelligence assesses the IDF are committed to, quote, business as usual with only limited concern about civilian casualties, according to a U.S. official. And there are suspicions the renewed campaign is actually bloodier than the previous offensive in northern Gaza. that this war continues, the more brutal and bloody the conduct of this war, the more possibility of escalation across the region from the Houthis, from Hezbollah, and from other actors who will feel compelled to stand up for Palestinians and will obviously inflame tensions, not to mention, of course, the human carnage that all of that will create. So that's effectively where we are.

But it seems like the biggest concerns right now, Sagar, are on the Lebanese front. Yeah, well, a couple of different places because some multiple things could escalate all at the same time. And each could create like a polycrisis, if you will. So let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen for what people can see. The Houthis are now warning that they will target every single ship which is headed to Israel. Now, we've broken it down before, but the Red Sea remains one of the most strategic choke points in the entire world. And the Houthis have already shown at least a limited capability, at the very least, in disrupting global shipping, skyrocketing insurance rates, and targeting Israeli-flagged vessels, as well as shooting, at the very least at UK flagged and other places with US guided missile destroyers, engaging drones and other things. So the war on

the sea actually could have this most significant impact on the global economy, both from oil shipping to weapons production, food. The same thing that happened in the Black Sea after Ukraine is the same thing that we could be seeing here. And imagine two major global conflagrations in two of the most strategic choke points in the entire world for the sea. That's a massive job for the U.S. Navy and one that would significantly heighten tensions. But you're also right. Let's go and put this up there on the screen in terms of what we see from the Netanyahu administration currently telling Biden behind the scenes, quote, Israel will act militarily against the Yemen's Houthis if the U.S. won't. Of course, Yemen and Israel are not all that close together, which would mean

a significant increase not only in the air war, but likely the use of strategic missiles, you know, medium range missiles as well, as well as missile defense systems. And this conflict, Crystal, I have no doubt. The Hezbollah one, I think would also be a conflagration. But I think the Yemen one is the single biggest threat to embroiling the United States in a broader war, simply because we have already shown a willingness to shoot down multiple missiles fired from Yemen with our guided missile destroyer. Our missile destroyers also have stepped up as the protection role in the Red Sea for the UK flagship vessels and all that. So it's only a matter of time. And it only takes, and these, look, the Houthis, they may have better technology than Hezbollah

and or the Hamas inside of Gaza, but this is still, you know, rinky dink at the end of the day. It only takes a single missile to go off course and to kill a U.S. sailor, and that's it. It's game on. And I don't think people have understood the strategic importance of what that will look like on top of the Hezbollah situation, which threatens to also bring Syrian militias into the war. Remember, they can escalate against our troops there. Already, the ground force commanders in Iraq are sounding the alarm. They're like, we are sitting ducks here for all of the, you know, equipment and missile defense and all that stuff we have here, piddly little rockets that come in and out. You can ask U.S. forces that served in Iraq,

eventually one's going to hit somebody. And that, you know, takes things to another level. So we're in, we're not in a good place right now in the Middle East. So that's the danger with regard to the Houthis. The other thing, I mean, they're effectively waging an economic war on Israel because they're saying no ship that is headed for Israel is going to get through here. Specifically, they say if Gaza does not receive the food and medicine it needs, all ships in the Red Sea bound for Israeli ports, regardless of their nationality, will become a target for our armed forces. Now, that obviously creates risks and dangers for those ships in the region. But the other thing it does is it massively spikes the insurance rates for any Israeli ship, any Israeli flag ship, or any ship that is heading to Israel. That is going to have a major economic impact globally, but in particular on Israel. So that is the leverage that

they are planning to use in this conflict. And it's not just a threat at this point. I mean, they already obviously have taken clear action. And now you have Israel effectively saying, hey, the U.S., you're not doing enough, which, listen, they can mind their own business. I think we're doing plenty for them. They can mind their own business on that front. But they're saying, if you don't take more action, we're going to get more involved. But that's not the only place. As I was saying before, with regard to Lebanon, put this up on the screen. They are also directly threatening Hezbollah. This is from the Times of Israel. The headline here reads, National Security Advisor,

this is the Israeli National Security Advisor, indicates war against Hezbollah likely once Hamas is defeated. So they are saying pretty clearly here that they don't really want the second front in the war right now, but they are very much testing the waters for a potential war against Hezbollah after they wrap up their war on Gaza. The quote here is, we can no longer accept Hezbollah's Radwan force sitting on the border. We can no longer accept Resolution 1701 not being implemented. That refers to a UN Security Council resolution from 2006 that barred any Hezbollah presence from within almost 30 kilometers of the border with Israel. Asked directly if there would be a war in the north, this national security advisor said,

the situation in the north must be changed and it will change if Hezbollah agrees to change things via diplomacy. Very good, but I don't believe it will. He goes on to say, therefore, when the day comes, Israel will have to act to ensure that residents of the north are no longer displaced in their land and to guarantee for them that the situation in the north has changed. He said Israel doesn't want to fight simultaneously on two fronts, indicated it would therefore tackle Hezbollah after Hamas is defeated. He said Israel has been, quote, making clear to the Americans we are not interested in war in the north, but that we will have no alternative but to impose a new reality if Hezbollah remains a threat. And that part about that UN resolution piece is being read effectively as like a trial balloon for justification for some sort of like international justification.

This is basically like the cover that they would use to justify to the U.S. why they have to then wage this war on Hezbollah. Yeah, it reminds me of whenever we invaded Iraq because Saddam just wasn't complying with these UN resolutions, right? That'll totally be a proper justification. I actually read this as a way for Netanyahu to be able to wind down things in Gaza, but remain in the state of war for Israel so that he can stay in power as long as possible. The longer that we, more that we get away from October 7th, the less the questions of, hey, so what did you do on October 6th exactly? And why did all of these people just simply ignore these intelligence warnings? The more that we can

make the situation about what's going on with external threats to the state of Israel, the better it is for Netanyahu. Every day that the war goes on is better for him. And for the Israelis, they're telegraphing. They're going to need about two more months or so inside of Gaza. That's a long time for the inside of Gaza. That's a long time for the people in Gaza. It's not a long time for Netanyahu. So what's the better way to do that? You escalate the war with Hezbollah. And then it's a lot like what happened with Iraq. By 2004, the national debate in this country had nothing to do with bin Laden and al-Qaeda and had everything to do with the security situation in a country which had nothing to

do with 9-11 in the first place. It's a great distraction strategy, and it's what helped win Bush his second term in 2004. I'm the one who's going to keep us safe by continuing the war in Iraq and not in Afghanistan. So I think Netanyahu has watched this entire thing play out. In many ways, he played an integral role in some of the events that were happening at that time. That's his best strategy for reelection. Well, and this is something we can talk to Dalia, our Israeli pollster, about today. She was just interviewed in The New Yorker, and she was pointing out that almost everybody wants Netanyahu gone. He has very little support left. The expectation is that as

soon as the war is over, he's basically going to be forced down or have to resign. But if you ask people, hey, do you want him to go right now? It's only about a quarter of people who want him to go right now. The remainder say after the war is over, then we want you to go. But, you know, the sense is like we can't have this change in this chaos in the midst of this conflict. So we need to keep him there until the war is over. So, yeah, he has every incentive in the world to drag this thing out as long as possible. And I mean, this is classic politics 101. We see it here all the time. We saw it, it came to mind. It's a very different situation. It's not analogous. But after what happened in

East Palestine and Ohio, and there was all these calls for increased rail safety. And of course, the rail companies didn't want that whatsoever. And so their whole strategy was, well, let's just, let's do a study. Let's push it out. Let's delay it and let the heat die down. It's the same strategy that's being deployed here. He's hoping that people forget how upset they are, how disappointed they are, how much he failed, how much his doctrine, which he has bet on to keep his power, which was effectively to block any hope of a Palestinian statehood, to promise he could control the height of the flames, to promise he was Mr. Security and no one had to worry about anything and you could just maintain the status quo indefinitely. That was his whole doctrine. That completely failed on October 7th, not to mention the incredible intelligence and

security failures that led them to fail in anticipating and in responding to those massacres and those atrocities that Hamas committed on October 7th. So he's hoping that over time, people will forget that and the rawness of that emotion will go away. And so, Sagar, I think you make a fantastic point about why they're saying, hey, after this war is over and after, you know, whatever the U.S. decides, we're actually done watching us commit these atrocities in Gaza and force us to stop there. This is the next front in the war that we're going to open up. And this U.N. resolution is the fig leaf of justification that we're going to use for continuing there. Good luck. I mean, that's one of the, this, like for Gaza, for all the fear of escalation,

at least for now, it's been about two months or so that military operations have continued in the Strip and we haven't seen mass mobilization, but it's still very young in the conflict and the fear of escalation and the way things can go in Yemen and in Hezbollah. Also, don't forget about Syria. Don't forget about our roles there and all of our other allies that we have across the world. This could significantly cause a massive conflagration. And it can happen very, very quickly, as I laid out. All it takes is a single U.S. sailor, one missile that goes the wrong way. Same with the Israelis. We've already seen misfires from the Israelis. If you'll remember, Crystal, that accidentally fired into Egypt. These are very, very confusing situations when things go hot like this.

So we never know. And it's clearly in the direct interest of the Netanyahu government to continue this as long as possible. Hezbollah would be the perfect excuse. I think, though, that given the way things are going in Gaza, and we'll talk about this, for the military, that would be, look, Hezbollah, as we've always laid out, is significantly more militarily capable as well as the Houthis in Yemen. And it would cause a hell of a lot more IDF casualties than even what they've seen in Gaza right now. So the population would also, you know, it would give them a reason, I think, to rebel, possibly. I'm not sure, you know, what the political situation would remain. But you start seeing hundreds and hundreds of killed in action and tens of thousands of people who are

wounded. It's a small country. You don't have that many young men who are capable. They only got 300,000 in total strength. And there's been a huge economic impact as well. And we'll probably cover this tomorrow, but Haaretz actually uncovered that the IDF was lying about their casualty figures by an astonishing amount. So we'll get into some more of that tomorrow and what we can glean of what the casualty numbers actually are. And they are much higher than what the Israelis have been presenting. I know a lot of cops and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes.

But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated.

I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th.

Add free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glott. And this is season two of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. We are back. In a big way. In a very big way. Real people, real perspectives.

This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner. It's just a compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug ban. Benny the Butcher. Brent Smith from Shinedown.

We got B-Real from Cypress Hill. NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corvette. MMA fighter Liz Karamush. What we're doing now isn't working, and we need to change things. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real.

Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And to hear episodes one week early and ad-free with exclusive content, subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast hell and gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country

begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her and it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking.

Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister.

There's so many questions that we've never got any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Also unfolding this morning, the IDF has been forced to apologize after shocking photos emerged of Palestinians who had been detained, men, military age men who had been detained. And these humiliating photos came out that many people recalled, you know, it was like Abu Ghraib 2.0, the nature of these, they were stripped down to their underwear, blindfolded, hands bound, forced to kneel, et cetera. And initially, so the IDF is claiming, hey, we weren't the ones that released these photos. Well, someone among your ranks obviously were the ones that released these photos. Initially, they were saying, oh, these are all Hamas militants who surrendered.

Now they're admitting that according to their numbers, which take this with a million grains of salt, they say it was only 10 to 15 percent of these men were actually Hamas militants. And they said that although it had been necessary to strip them to ensure they weren't carrying explosives, showing the photos was needless and humiliating after a global outcry. Let's go ahead and put these photos up on the screen so you can see what we're talking about. For those of you who are just listening, this is a video that you can see here of these men stripped down to their underwear on the ground. These individuals are being forced to kneel also in their underwear with their hands bound. These are being transported in trucks. And again,

the original story we're getting is, oh, these are all Hamas militants who are surrendering. You can see this man who is carrying a gun and he is coming forward and laying it down. One of the immediate questions that emerged here is you're about to see another version of this same video. video and Al Jazeera and others reporting that it appears they made this man do this twice for their little propaganda video that they're filming here. And this man has been identified as a small business owner, by the way, with no known ties to Hamas. So that's where we are. Let's go ahead and put this next piece up on the screen. The Israeli military originally said on Thursday it had apprehended hundreds of people suspected of terrorism. Of course, now they are walking all of that back. And NBC reported on who these men actually were.

So even before Israel admitted that many of these men were civilians. You can see this individual who's circled here. This is a journalist. This is a journalist for At the New Arabs Arabic Service. Others are relatives of a D.C.-based fundraiser for a U.N. agency. So people were able to spot civilians in these pictures. Mainstream outlets actually, you know, did journalism and exposed that these were not, in fact, all Hamas militants. And I think that's what pressured the IDF to actually come out and have to apologize and acknowledge that these were, they claim some of them were Hamas militants. You can take that with a grain of salt. But it's important to remember also what they were

originally saying when they were originally pressed on these photos, which spread like wildfire and can have tremendously radicalizing impacts, not to mention just, you know, the immoral nature of humiliating these men who most of whom did nothing wrong. Mark Regev, who's a senior advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, was questioned by Sky News on why they did this and what exactly was going on here. Just listen to his response. What was the purpose of the exercise that was going on at that point in that part of Gaza? First of all, remember, it's the Middle East and it's warmer here. And especially during the day when it's sunny, to be asked to take off your shirt might not be pleasant, but it's not the end of the world. But the fact that some of those who were taken in that particular incident have now been released suggests that they were not members of Hamas. And whilst you were entitled to round people up in that manner,

what the IDF is not entitled to do under the Geneva Convention is breach the Third Convention, which you did, didn't you, when you filmed them in those positions. So once again, I don't think we're talking about formal material that was released and we have to look to how the video did... If it proves to have been filmed by the IDF, that's neither here nor there. Neither is the temperature in the Middle East. I understand, I understand.

But I think the important thing here is to remember these are military-aged men who were arrested in a combat zone. And as you've reported, people have already been released. We have no intention of keeping innocent people in custody. Which I agree with. And I'm sorry to press you on this point, but if people have been released because they are not members of Hamas, if this was filmed by the IDF,

it is a clear breach of the Geneva Convention, is it not? So once again, we have to look into where the video came from. It's not official video that was released by the State of Israel. If it were filmed by the IDF, as I just said, it would be a breach of the Geneva Convention, would it not? So I'm not familiar with that level of international law. Well, it's the Middle East. It's warm, and I don't really understand international law.

This is the other problem. Well, then, here's the other thing. Take all your soldiers' phones away, because who else is behind a machine gun, which is an IDF convo, who's taking pictures of these guys and spreading it on social media? That's something that U.S. soldiers have learned a long time ago in turking their phones away from these people. And by the way— Because you probably shouldn't be trusting 22-year-olds with that.

And by the way, listen, the IDF was also bragging about how they were rounding up militants. So I don't totally take them at face value either when they say they're so unhappy with these photos being spread. Yeah, so let's actually just get to the crux of it. I mean, I think there's a reasonable question. Like, okay, well, there's a justification here about the visual check for a suicide bomber and for a suicide vest. I think that's entirely reasonable, actually. I looked, though, to people who actually served in the U.S. military during Iraq,

especially at the time, 2004 and onward, when we had to deal with a very similar situation. And actually, one of the generals who was in charge at that time, Major General Charlie Herbert, he's now retired. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. He was part of the coalition inside of Iraq. And this was the analysis he gave. He says, I don't question the need for visual checks for suicide vests, that standard operating procedure when dealing with a suspected bomber. But in 34 years of challenging infantry soldiering, I have never once seen scenes like this in the IDF photos, not once. Do a cursory online search and try to find equivalents. ISIS, maybe. Abu Ghraib? But you will not find many photos of soldiers in a democratically elected

nation treating suspects like that. Don't suggest that it is a standard practice. It looks far more to me like a determined and deliberate effort to humiliate, degrade, and dehumanize. It is not one millionth as bad as what Hamas did on October 7th, but that's not the point, is it? So I really look to the people who professionally were in charge of that situation. And one of the things that has also come out, and I went back and checked as well, is that the FDF initial release, SDF, which were the Syrian Democratic Forces, which were the US-backed coalition against ISIS, whenever they would

round up literal ISIS fighters who, let's all remember, those are the guys who are responsible for enslaving and raping their wives. And even they did not strip them. And they would line them up and make sure that they didn't have their arms. They would separate women and children. But even amongst the men, they largely, I wouldn't say they're treated humanely per se, but they were not treated in a similar fashion. And that was people who I think have the best justification for just shooting all these people in the head.

And that's the problem, I think, for Israel is that from a recruiting level, this is going to be a real problem. And it's already spread across WhatsApp, across the entire Arab world, which is far more online today than they were in 2004. You can ask any person who was in command in 2004, 2005 in Iraq, the Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and all of the Islamic propagandists. Abu Ghraib was the number one recruiting tool that they had, those photos that they published and spread everywhere.

And which U.S. commanders eventually, at least I guess to our credit, we apologized for it. And we were like, look, this is totally against everything that we stand for. I forget what that woman's name was, Lindsay or whatever. She was – I believe they were court-martialed and they were brought before military justice. The U.S. commander in Iraq, I think it was Ricardo Sanchez at that time, even was reamed out by President Bush and others who said this is not what we're all about. So I think the IDF has got a problem on their hands. And it also just is one of those where when you only have 10 to 15 percent, that's a propaganda disaster. You know, they didn't find a suicide vest. And then people were like, well, why did they have weapons in the first place?

Another lesson that we all learned in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in Syria, a lot of people in these places have guns. A lot of normal citizens, just like we do. They've got rifles and other things. Not only protect their own property, it's actually a deep part of Arab culture now at this point. So, you know, a lot of their explanations just do not really rise to what they initially put out there. And some of their propagandists here in the West who were like,

well, this is exactly how America dealt with POWs in Iraq. It's like, no, we actually did not do that very intentionally. And then ask anybody who served 05, 06, you know, and all the way throughout, unless you were a Guantanamo type detainee, you were not seeing something like this. It is sort of remarkable to see the just, like, reflexive pro-Israel voices online just auto-defend these photos and cheer them. Also, cheer them. Say, oh, this is Hamas surrendering,

and this is great, this is fantastic, this is fully justified. And then even the IDF having to come out and apologize for these images and distance themselves. Oh, this was not, we had nothing to do with this, with this. Okay. Then who was it? Who released the photos? Who was it? Who took the photos? Who was it? Who took these multiple videos that ultimately emerged? And, you know, the first thing that came to mind for me was actually, there was a deeply researched piece about how the FBI intentionally radicalized this young Muslim man.

This was classic war on terror era tactics, you know, to effectively radicalize these young men and then entrap them in some sort of a plot so that they could be, oh, look at us. We're disrupting terrorism. We're keeping people safe, et cetera, et cetera. Of course, these plots never would have been hatched if the FBI wasn't pushing them in that direction anyway. But in one of these instances, I believe it was for this man who supposedly was going to bomb Herald Square, it was the images of Abu Ghraib that they used to try to get him on the path to radicalization. This was the most effective propaganda tool for our own FBI in radicalizing people and obviously for Islamist jihadists to radicalize young men to their cause. So when you think about the supposedly the core goal here, which I think is total bullshit for reasons that we've discussed previously, but the idea that we're going to eradicate Hamas, you are creating more militants. You are radicalizing people far more effectively

than you are. You're certainly not de-radicalizing anyone, and you're doing it far more effectively radicalizing people than you are at actually identifying and capturing Hamas militants or killing them on the battlefield. So let's also be clear. Put this next piece up on the screen. This is putting us at risk because around the world, it is very clear that we are 100% behind Israel's actions. So when things like this emerge, it's not just the Israelis who are taking the blowback here. It's also us. Case in point here, the U.S. stood alone in the world to veto this U.N. resolution that not only demanded an immediate ceasefire, but also called for the release of all the hostages. So you can't even pretend this is like about the hostages,

we have to get the hostages. No, this resolution called for the release of the hostages. This is, you know, the 15 member Security Council, the vote was 13 to 1. We were the one, by the way, with the UK abstaining. It says in this article, the U.S.'s isolated stand reflected a growing fracture between Washington and some of its closest allies over Israel's months-long bombardment of Gaza. France and Japan were among those supporting the call for a ceasefire. We also enabled the Russians to grandstand here, saying that history will judge Washington's actions in the face of what the Russian deputy U.N. ambassador called a merciless Israeli bloodbath. So all of these. Oh, he's one

to talk. Right. Exactly. Absolutely. Right. But as these images emerge, as we learn more about the atrocities being committed on the ground, keep in mind, those are U.S. made bombs. Everyone sees through Biden's little leak into the press of, oh, we're so concerned, or Tony Blinken coming out, too many innocent civilians have been killed. Everyone sees through that. Everyone knows Washington has greenlit all of these actions. We stand behind Israel. We say there's no red lines. We have done nothing other than leak to the press how morally concerned we are to actually stop any of this from happening. So it's not just people being radicalized against Israel.

It's them being radicalized against us, too. So keep that in mind when you see any of these images emerging here. I am very worried about it. I really am. And I just think I'm going to apply the same logic that I did to Ukraine. Is Israel an ally? Yeah. Is it worth the level of blowback? And now just think about this too. It's been two straight months, even on this show and every other show. This is the number one topic of

conversation for a far away third world ethnic conflict, which is what it is at the end of the day. Does it really bear the total obsession of the global elite? And then think about this, about all the people in the region and about our support in the same way that we had everybody turn against us after Iraq, even though everybody was with us after 9-11. I'm really worried about what, and Glenn Greenwald's been making this point as well, about polarizing the rest of the world against us. First, we did it on Ukraine, a conflict which, again, has no bearing on any of us. You could actually make a better argument, I think, for why the situation in Ukraine has more effect on U.S. national security than you can for Israel. And yet, that is what our elites and all this stuff decided is the number one, single most important thing.

I think it's literal madness. And we're exerting all this foreign policy and bleeding all of this soft power and capital abroad for what? And we very rarely have gotten very much out of this deal, but there are powerful political constituencies here in America who this is their soul. This is what they have worked for 75 years, and they've been very, very successful at doing it. So I guess congratulations to all of them. I know a lot of cops, and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes, but there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it

was that simple. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated,

on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st, and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Add free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. real perspectives. This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner. It's just a compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King,

John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug thing is. Benny the Butcher. Brent Smith from Shinedown. We got B-Real from Cypress Hill. NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corvette.

MMA fighter Liz Caramouch. What we're doing now isn't working, and we need to change things. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

And to hear episodes one week early and ad-free with exclusive content, subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her. And it haunts me to this day.

The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, somebody's daughter, if he was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line

at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. That's actually

a perfect segue to our next segment about the campus cancel culture madness that is going on right now. Got everybody an update over the weekend where the Penn Wharton board called for the resignation of then president of UPenn, Liz McGill, even after a hostage video that she put out

in which she apologized for her quote-unquote appalling remarks and tried to make and set the record clear. It wasn't enough, but we still never played the video for you, so we want to give people a taste. Let's take a listen. There was a moment during yesterday's congressional hearing on anti-Semitism when I was asked if a call for the genocide of Jewish people on our campus would violate our policies. In that moment, I was focused on our university's long-standing policies aligned with the U.S. Constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable. I was not focused on, but I should have been. The irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people

is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. It's evil. Where we are seeing signs of hate proliferating across our campus and our world in a way not seen in years. These policies need to be clarified and evaluated. Clarified and evaluated. So even though she basically caved in the video and was like, okay, guys, I'll just make our speech policies on campus even more draconian and stupid, wasn't enough for the donors and for the board. Let's go and put this up there on the screen.

The president, Liz McGill, has officially now resigned amid the quote-unquote controversy over anti-Semitism. And at least they're honest here. After leaving from intense pressure from donors, politicians, and alumni, I think donors and the politicians are going to be the number one and number two forces. You had everybody from the freaking governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, even, you know, all these so-called like people who stand for liberal values and all of this who came out on top of the billionaire hedge fund manager, Bill Ackman, who has been the ringleader and multiple other billionaires, including one who said he would withhold a $100 million donation from the

University of Pennsylvania. But a lot of this is about longstanding tensions about policies on campus. So for example, donors have pressured McGill repeatedly prior to her testimony to try and to cancel Palestinian literary events that happened in the summer. So this is even pre-Crystal October 7th. Palestinian events that were happening on campus were, this was a huge and facilitating part of the reason that she was ultimately told to resign. Now, I think let's lay out a couple of things because the number one critique is like, look, we're just giving them a taste of their own medicine. Okay, congratulations. You know why? Because the new policy that is being set forth by the University of Pennsylvania is 10 times worse. And if you think you're on the right and you are going to escape this, you are delusional.

Put this up there on the screen. This is the new policy that is being floated. The Wharton Board of Advisors has proposed this resolution that will punish any student or faculty member that, quote, uses hate speech or celebrates murder or genocide. Students will not celebrate or advocate for the murder, killing, genocide, or annihilation of any individual classmate, quote, or any group of individuals in our community. Students, faculty, and employees will not engage in hate speech, whether veiled or explicit, that incites violence. Students will not use language that threatens the physical safety of community members. Students who violate the above standards will be subject to immediate discipline. And I laid this out over the weekend, Crystal, but I want you to weigh in here as well. The initial value of the judgment was this. Anybody who calls for a harm to another group

of people should be immediately expelled. Well, what the hell does that mean? We've now lived through a decade of safetyist language where writing op-eds is considered violence against black people, where believing in like sex, believing in like sex at birth is considered genocide against trans people. Who do you think that this is going to be used against this type of language? And yeah, would they have immediately called for expulsion on that? Yes. Okay. They're hypocrites. So what the point is, is that what we have here is clearly a policy which will be used to wield expulsion against anybody who just goes against whatever the quote unquote

current thing is. And sure, that might be Israel today. But in my opinion, this new anti-antisemitism thing, this is the new BLM. This is the new like anti-racism. And to be honest, it might even be more powerful in terms of- There's no doubt about it. Look how they capitulated. Instantly capitulated. Like no one has been more effective at fighting free speech and ensuring and enshrining censorship

than this movement right now. So effective. Instant capitulation. It's incredible. I mean, reading this resolution, students will not engage in hate speech, whether veiled or explicit. What does that mean? And that's the other piece of this is there is not like you would think seeing this whole freak out, which is 100 percent completely manufactured to distract from the horrific images coming out of Gaza, you would think from this freakout that there's some epidemic of college students just out there like, I want to genocide the Jews. No, they're talking about chance, like from the river to the sea, which many people, when they say it, mean one state with equal rights. That's not a genocide, okay? Or things

like globalize the intifada. Intifada is, for many people, yes, both intifadas contained some violence, but it is also just a means of calling for resistance. So you're going to leave it to these university administrators to decide what is hate speech and what isn't. You know, many people feel right now that Israel is conducting ethnic cleansing and on their way to a genocide. Is showing the Israeli flag tantamount to hate speech? Exactly. Tantamount to calling for genocide and violence against groups of people on university campuses? It could be construed that way. Should it be? Of course not. It's insane. When these university presidents were asked the question, yes, it was awkward. Of course, when someone's like, do you condemn genocide? Is it against the policy? If you're trying to,

you know, actually lay out your policy in a way that's nuanced, it's going to sound kind of bad. But they had the right position of, listen, if it's directly bullying and harassing a student, of course. But if it's just speech, then no, that's free speech. So the two pieces, the three pieces of this that drive me insane is number one, it's completely manufactured. No one ever gives the actual statements that students are making. I've never seen anyone offer an example. Maybe there's one out there, but I've never seen anyone offer an example where students are directly like, let's genocide the Jews. Okay. That's number one, completely, obviously manufactured. Number two, the hypocrisy of these people who three seconds ago were free speech, absolutist, anti-cancel culture, et cetera, flip on the dime and are

more effective at getting censorship enshrined than anyone has been. That's number two. And number three, the fact that this is being so dishonestly portrayed of what is actually unfolding on these college campuses. You know, this is what the ADL, for example, wants. They want any criticism of the state of Israel, any criticism of Zionism, which is a political project, to be construed as anti-Semitic and quote-unquote violence against Jewish people. And it is utter and complete nonsense. Complete nonsense. And by the way, one thing that does make Jewish people less safe is by tying every

Jewish person to a state that is right now committing horrific atrocities and making it so you can't critique that. I mean, this just to me is like the definition of insanity. And I think when we look back at this period and we're really able to take in the thousands of kids that have been killed, the journalists who have been massacred, the utter destruction of Gaza on a level greater than even the bombings that we were doing in World War II of Dresden and other German cities. When we really take that in and we realize the bulk of our national conversation was focused on invented, like not even real, calls for genocide on college campuses that didn't even happen, we're going to think this was utterly and completely insane. But right now, so many people are just caught up in the moment. Yeah, this is, no, this is what they do. It's pretty amazing. Let's go and put this up there

on the screen too so you can see this. We've got actresses like Noah Tijbe, Amy Schumer, Deborah Messing, who are now calling for the FBI to investigate these groups on campuses and for, quote, universities to ban them everywhere. Oh my God. This is for Glenn Greenwald. That's the irony of it. They almost certainly are. And then I actually appreciate this one the most because this person just came out and

put it all in the open. Let's put this next piece up on the screen. I actually want to read some of it to you. To fight anti-Semitism on campuses, we must restrict speech. This is Professor Claire Finkelstein, a middle professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. She is also a member of the school's open expression committee and chair of the committee on academic freedom. Can you believe that? This is the law school chair of academic freedom and expression committee who says that we must restrict speech.

And she lays it out completely and entirely in a way that you can't even make up. She just says, university presidents should resist the conclusion of free speech. Rather than confront the conflict between the commitment to free speech and the commitment to eliminating the hostile environment facing Jewish students on campus, people affirm their commitment to both, but by time by setting up task forces to problem, study the problem. Some have attempted to split this difference. Countering speech with more speech might just mean adding to hateful rhetoric on campus and would not solve the problem. Universities can set up all the task forces that they want while warring groups are busy calling for each

other's violent demise. She then lays out a multifaceted case as to why actually under the Civil Rights Act and Title VII, that they must ensure campuses don't descend into hostile environments, that public universities should not be bound by the First Amendment and even private ones like Penn, Harvard, and MIT. And then ultimately just says this, though expression and academic freedom are critically important values in higher education, there are other values that universities must promote as well, like encouraging civil dialogue, cultivating critical listening, and developing the skills to build community relationships. So there's basically everything you want for a censorship-minded person in here. And this is safetyism. This is just pure safetyism in a nutshell. It's what I've

fought against from BLM to this trans nonsense to now this. They're all the exact same in terms of the way that they phrase their rhetoric. Everything is genocidal. Everything is calling for elimination. Maybe the other side has a point, as you said, calling for global intifada. Maybe you should ask somebody what they mean by that. You should ask somebody about the phrase or whatever, from the river to the sea. Some people might mean wiping off the face of Israel. Maybe some people mean another thing. And I'll even say something even more controversial. I believe in the First Amendment. I believe in complete First Amendment guidance.

Even if you were calling for genocide, I don't think you should be expelled. Agreed. I'll say it. Same on Kanye. He tweeted out the swastika. Fine. Sorry. It's a free country.

You can do that in this country. And I think you should be able to do so. There's no Hitler was right exception to the First Amendment. You can think it's abhorrent, which I do, but that doesn't mean that you should ever crack down on those people's ability to talk. And this is, they're A, creating something out of nothing, but also setting the precedent for something I think is genuinely very dangerous. All of this, like, harm and safetyism and all of that. And I've laid it out before, but I'll just say it again. What most American Jews who are behind this, they're just mad. They're not considered marginalized within the DEI regime. But the

thing is, the DEI regime itself is bad. The DEI regime itself is how we got to the point where you're constantly morally equivocating. Why should these universities take positions on this shit anyway? They shouldn't. These academic professors and all these people should have a very simple guideline. Ma'am, whenever on our college campus, we have the first amendment as our guiding principle. If you violate that by explicitly turning it into action against another student, you will be expelled. Period. That's it. Everybody else can do whatever they want. And also, let me just say, too, I don't want to put this on all Jewish people. There are a lot of Jewish students out there who think this is nonsense, who are, by the way, protesting alongside those who are calling for peace and a ceasefire

and who may even be saying things like, globalize the Intifada or from the river to the sea, okay? So this is an elite effort to quash any sort of pro-Palestinian speech. This is something that has been waged for many years. This is one of the primary reasons why I've always said, even if you are not principled on this issue, which you should be, you should just support free speech, whether it benefits your side or the other side. This has always been the

most fraught cancel culture issue. So while it was the right that was claiming the mantle of free speech, absolutism and anti-cancel culture, et cetera, it was always that, you know, any critique of Israel, that was the fastest way to get you canceled or lose your job or be shamed online, etc. So these things cut really quickly in both directions, which is why you should just have a principled stance on the issue. There was one line in that op-ed that you were reading from that just made my mind completely explode. She writes, privileging free speech on campus relative to other values emphasizes skills that pose the greatest challenge to our democracy and fails to cultivate the skills democratic societies most need. What? So being for free speech is bad for democracy? I mean, this is insanity. This goes against, you know, the entire,

like, idealized American democratic project. And I just think it comes from, you've got a lot of cynical actors here who just, you know, they want to weaponize it when it's convenient for them. That's very clear. But I also think that this whole safetyism instinct and this whole, quote unquote, pushback against free speech comes from an America that is really lacking in confidence from people who don't trust each other, who've been told that, you know, 50% of the country is evil. And so they have to be contained and they have to be controlled. And it is the first step to, you know, increased authoritarianism and this sort of police state attitude that is anathema to an actual vibrant functioning democracy. So to read this in the Washington Post and really wrap your

head around what this person is arguing, it just makes you completely crazy. Yeah, it makes me crazy too. But I also know that this will be the prevailing ideology. And let's go to the next part here. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. So this is one where we just can't look away because the flip on a dime from saying things like affirmative action is bad to now instituting straight up Jewish quotas is now taking a mere 24 hours. Here's Palantir. This is a company that has security software. They license the CIA to a lot of other financial institutions and all of that. They say, we at Palantir have been committed,

and let's please leave this up, to defending the principles that make democratic rule possible since our founding two decades ago. Our software embodies our values and commitments. We believe these values must be backed up by actions. So they say, students on campuses are terrified and have been instructed by administrators to hide their Judaism. I do not believe that that has literally ever happened. They say we are launching an initiative for students who, because of anti-Semitism, fear for their safety on campus and need to seek refuge outside traditional establishments of higher education. They are welcome to join Palantir, and we are setting aside 180 positions for them immediately. More details to follow. So there's a lot going on here. One is that this is a straight up quota. There's no

other way to describe it. This is a quota for Jews at an American company. Someone might want to tell them that that violates the most basic practices of hiring and of discrimination, regardless of whether it's applied to blacks or whether it's applied to Jews. And I've definitely criticized it whenever I've seen it in that direction. And they, I probably, look, I don't know all the people behind Palantir. I only know one person. He is somebody who I have heard rail against racial admissions preferences. And it's like, what happened, man? I'm not going to drop names, but it's like one of those where that's not what you do whenever you're friends with somebody. But it's outrageous.

And, you know, you see, too, a guy like Ben Shapiro, who has been against this type of stuff for, and again, has made millions of dollars preaching against it. And now immediately put this up there. He says, love this. Love this. Yeah, we love it. And then immediately, put this up there, he says, love this. Love this. Yeah, we love it. And then, love racial quotas.

As Glenn pointed out, hours later, he followed up and said, but they should open it up to everyone, regardless of whether they fear anti-Semitism or not.

Time to take the talent pool of the entire college and university scam and hire them away. And look, I have respect for Ben on some levels, mostly at a business perspective. But for me to watch somebody like this, who's so clearly just

abandoned so much of what they stood for to directly get himself involved in a conflict and then to cheer on things happening again in the United States saying, you know, directly quota systems for saying and allegedly making up shit like people have been told to hide their Judaism on campus. Show me one example of that. And same with these students. I'm going to keep calling these people. I hate doing it because I hate targeting individual ones, but they're the ones who put themselves in the discussion. One of them claims that one of their professors called them a dirty Jew. And it's like, okay, name him then. Name him. Because if you can't, then I don't believe you. Show the proof.

Yeah. My Smollett rule is I don't believe you if you're going to make an allegation like this, unless you've got literal proof on video. And they're like, oh, well, we feel unsafe because we have to walk past posters who have written, I walk past annoying posters here in Washington all the time. Try living here during BLM. It's annoying as hell. Guess what?

That's life. I can also have the freedom to get up and leave the city anytime that I want. That's the whole point. Or all of these RBG's hero ones, which I would hope at least pisses both off, Crystal, about how she's a feminist hero. I mean, I can't, or all of the, what are those dumb ass signs? Like in this house, we believe, you know, whatever. It's like, yeah, live your life, man.

Just, you know, I sent you a photo just yesterday, one of my neighbors who has got a gay pride flag with the Israeli star in the middle of it. And you know, I just walked past it. It's right next to the Slava Ukraine. And I just keep walking my dog, even though it annoys me because that's a free country. This is the rough and tumble of democracy. This is how it is. And yeah, so that those press conferences that Republicans are organizing, right, where they have these like privileged Ivy League students come out and be like, oh, my God, I saw a poster. I had to walk to that protest. Name him, dude. Say it. Well, and not only that. Okay. If it was the other way, if it was Democrats organizing these press conferences and it was trans activists or it was black students or any other marginalized minority, Ben Shapiro would be first in line to mock the hell out of them as being little privileged snowflakes

crying about having to see a frickin poster okay and now like that turn on a dime and seemingly zero self-awareness and with the Palantir thing in particular I mean this isn't even affirmative action right oh yeah it's worse this is straight-up quote straightas, which very few people on the left or liberals or whatever even call for in American life, you know, when it comes to minorities who have suffered vast discrimination throughout our history. So you're just instantly like, yeah, quotas, I'm good for it. If they're, you know, if they've experienced anti-Semitism on campus, quote us, we're ready for it. It's wild to watch how few people have any sort of consistency

when it's a group that they have an affinity for, when it's a group that they see themselves either as part of or as an ally of. And this has been, it hasn't been across the board. There have been some people who have been like, you know what, like Vivek, give him credit here, right? He's been consistent. And there've been a few people on the left who have tried like, you know what? Like Vivek, give him credit here, right? He's been consistent. And there've been a few people on the left

who have tried to be consistent, even when it was more, you know, the right that was pushing for free speech. I would just really please everyone, regardless of whose side you feel like benefits in this particular moment, please try to have some shred of dignity and some shred of a principle

that is consistently applied here. Because otherwise you're gonna end up endorsing things that make you look absolutely ridiculous and should not be tolerated in any sort of situation. I could not agree more. I know a lot of cops and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for

Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st

and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Ad-free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glod. And this is season two of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. We are back. In a big way.

In a very big way. Real people, real perspectives. This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner. It's just a compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug thing is. Benny the Butcher.

Brent Smith from Shinedown. We got B-Real from Cypress Hill. NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corvette. MMA fighter Liz Karamush. What we're doing now isn't working and we need to change things. Stories matter and it brings a face to them. It makes it

real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And to hear episodes one week early and ad-free with exclusive content, subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts.

Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast hell and gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Catherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her. And it haunts me to this day.

The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister.

There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. At the same time here for domestic politics, things have probably never looked worse for President Joe Biden. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. Hillary Clinton has now stepped up as, quote, a key player in Biden's re-election. Clinton posted a $1 million fundraiser

at her Georgetown home. That ought to do it because money is what she was lacking, right, in the 2016 campaign. That's not necessarily a good sign. They say Clinton's re-emergence is emblematic of the larger Democratic effort to fully deploy high-profile allies in Biden's re-election fight. While Obama has appeared in fundraising, some Democrats would actually like to see him even more visible on the campaign trail. We're very eager to get our surrogates engaged, one of the Biden campaign people said, pointing to the Clintons and the former first couple, Barack and Michelle Obama. So that obviously is going to do it. And just in a sign of why Hillary is getting involved is just how bad things are going for President Biden. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. He now has the lowest approval of

any president ever in the history of presidential polling at this point in his presidency. That includes Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. Most of these aren't even close either. Most of these are not even close. Trump is actually, I guess, maybe the closest one. Well, the thing is with Trump is that he was always low, but he was just consistently low. And for him, that 41%, it never necessarily went above that, but enough people were willing to vote for him, even though they didn't like him, that it%, it never necessarily went above that, but enough people were willing to vote for him even though they didn't like him that it would end up saving him.

Biden does not have nearly that same level of floor of people who would crawl over broken glass to make sure that he's voted for. And because he's not – even though he is polarizing against Republicans, he's not animating in the same way for his Democratic base. And so if they don't want to come out and to vote for him, then he's in animating in the same way for his Democratic base. And so if they don't want to come out and to vote for him, then he's in very, very serious trouble. And it's not just on approval rating, which is not necessarily, as I just laid out with Trump, indicative. On the economy, things are absolutely brutal for Biden. Please put this up there. This is just polling from yesterday. The standard of living is worse than their parents was. Age 18 to 29, 39% say yes.

The majority say yes in the millennial demographic. Most difficult economic time for the US, multiple people say it is. Ways that you tell how the economy is doing, their own experiences, people that you know professionally. Is your income keeping up with inflation? Only 24% say yes it is. The vast majority, 76%, say that it is not. So on almost every economic metric crystal,

it is not working for the American people. And on a polling front, things remain absolutely brutal. And the Trump evidence of his strength is crystal clear. Put this up there too from the Wall Street Journal. They have now officially shown Trump with a commanding lead, 47% for the election if it was held today say they would vote for him, only 43% say Joe Biden. And a huge part of that, Crystal, is specifically because of people who voted for Joe Biden and are going to stay home in 2024. And that's the critical block. It's not even that Trump has necessarily picked up a lot more votes. It's just that 95% of the people who voted for him last time around

say that they will do so again. And only 60 or 70% of the people who say that they did in 2020 would vote for him again in 2024. They also found they did measure it with the third party candidates in and they found that when you include everybody, it widens the lead for Trump. But RFK Jr. in particular, he's the only one of the candidates that does, in their poll anyway, take more from Trump than he does from Biden. So in any case, take that for what it's worth because obviously there's a lot of challenges and hurdles for all of those third-party candidates to be able to get on the ballot. So who knows who's going to be on the ballot where. But overall, the addition of third party candidates to this mix is probably only more trouble for Joe Biden, which is, I guess, why they're desperately and foolishly pulling the Hillary Clinton lever, thinking that is going to somehow save them in any way. You know, the economic woes that the American people are reporting are imagined. Are they in their head?

Are they just persuaded by TikTok disinformation and negative media reports? Or are people really going through it? And one of the things that this poll asked people is like, hey, are you saying these things about the economy because of what you've heard is happening with other people? Are you talking about your own personal financial situation? And overwhelmingly, guess what, guys? They said it's about me and what I'm experiencing in my life. And we had that number up there before of how many people overwhelmingly they say, no, my wages are not keeping up with inflation. As we've discussed here as well, remember, the story of the Biden administration is a story not only of inflation, but also of all the COVID era social safety net programs being stripped away.

We have tracked here repeatedly the way that high interest rates have screwed the housing market and made housing more affordable than at almost any time in history. We've tracked here how people are increasingly maxing out their credit cards. So when you look at these consumer spending numbers and you're like, oh, everybody seems all right. They're spending normal amounts of money or they've even increased the amount of money that they're spending. Guess what? They're racking up massive amounts of debt to do that. We've tracked also how, you know, these new like installment payment companies that you can use online or even at the grocery store sometimes, how they have seen a massive increase in business where people are using installment plans even to pay for basic things like groceries. So if you know where to look, the signs are all over the place that things are going poorly. And you can't just look at the unemployment rate.

You certainly can't just look at the stock market. You have to look at this combination of factors. And Sagar, one other thing that we had talked about before is there's also a huge age divide here. If you are older and you have savings, the higher interest rates may be good for you. If you already have a home and you have savings, the high interest rates might be good for you. If you're young and you're trying to buy a house and you're looking at these mortgage rates and the housing prices that continue to go up have not gone down at all, you are going to feel like I have no hope of ever becoming a homeowner and having some sort of a stable life and being able to move past this phase of precarity that I feel

like I'm always going to exist in. So it's no wonder why you also see a generational divide about how people feel the economy is doing. No question at all, especially with those young voters. That's a big constituency for Biden whenever it comes to who he needs to rely on. And they actually did some math on this. For every one or two percent, that equates to about 10,000 votes. And that is the margin of victory for exactly what you see in Georgia and in Michigan previously, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and all these other must-win states that Biden has. The headwinds that Biden is currently facing, because I don't think people understand just how miraculous, honestly, by the margins that he won in the electoral college. It looks like Georgia and

Arizona just flipped. No, they were so razor thin for the margin of victory that even if he was just a few points lower in his approval than when he was elected, he would be facing trouble. To be double digits down by, I mean, what, 15, 20% in terms of his approval margin since he took office, that's a disaster. I mean, it's just one of% in terms of his approval margin since he took office? That's a disaster. I mean, it's just one of those where we have not seen this like since Jimmy Carter. And I think that he is giving Carter a run for his money in terms of the global crisis situation, the same thing that happened under Carter, the belief that he is handling of the economy is a disaster. And with Trump, Trump is almost Reagan-esque in this one respect where you can project whatever the hell you want. You know, for a lot of people who are voting for Trump, it's just like last ditch because he pisses off the left. Some are small business Republicans

who would vote for a Republican anyway. And then some are at this point, Trump is going to get the anti-Biden vote in the same way that many of the people who voted for Reagan did solely because of screw you to Jimmy Carter. So I think that Trump is in a very beneficial position, but also he is his own worst enemy. We can't lie about that. Very true. Yeah. And the more that he is like in the news and in the headlines and as his trials unfold, listen, who knows? There's a new CNN poll out this morning of Georgia and Michigan. Georgia has Trump up by five, 49,44. Michigan, where of course there is a large Arab American population, has Trump up by 10. 50 to 40.

It has him up by 10. So there's just no spinning that Biden is dramatically behind in terms of his reelect. Now, if you dig into this Wall Street Journal poll, they try to pull out a few things of like, well, this could be a decent sign for Biden. The issues that he's ahead on are handling abortion, which we're going to talk a little bit more about in the next block. If that continues to be a major focus of American politics, maybe that rescues him. You also have voters who are undecided suggest they could be persuaded to back Biden nearly a year from now. So you have some people who are kind of on the

fence who seem like maybe they're a little bit tilted towards Biden over Trump. But that's far from a sure thing. They also talk about how, you know, when voters talk about personal qualities, they still view Biden in a more favorable light than Trump. So voters say the word corrupt applies more to Trump than to Biden. Biden is seen by more voters as honest. A felony conviction for Trump, who faces 91 charges in four criminal prosecutions, would shift the head-to-head ballot to give Biden a slight one-point lead. That's kind of amazing to me.

So even if this dude is found guilty, if he's convicted of one of these felony charges, that only gives Biden a one point lead, which is obviously within the margin of error. And also who knows how people are actually going to react to those things versus how they think they're going to react to those things. But that's their spin is effectively like if this ends up being more of a contest of values versus issues, then Biden potentially has a possibility of pulling things from behind. And then abortion is the thing that Democrats are really betting on. There was just a peace out about how they're going to stake a lot of Biden's reelection on the issue of abortion, not even promising to do anything affirmative to reclaim

the rights that have been lost, but just to serve as a bulwark against further deterioration of women's rights. Yeah, I mean, I think that abortion remains probably the single biggest flashing red light. And I think it is actually the only hope that Biden has left. And the reason, though, is it's potent. It is actually relevant. And it's especially the most relevant in all the states it needs to win, like Michigan, where you had a huge win for abortion on the ballot. Georgia, I mean, we haven't seen it tested yet, but it certainly is one where it could activate the suburban constituency who Biden needs to drag out. Arizona, the same thing. So really in the states where Biden most needs turnout to go up, he's got abortion there. The only question is how Trump is going to navigate it. But Trump hasn't been all that successful.

He's trying to distance himself from it at the same time, take credit for it. So it's one of those where he could lose evangelical votes in the same process. I don't think he can really effectively distance himself from it. Not only because, I mean, listen, you're the guy who put these people on the Supreme Court, number one. So you're just going to have a hard time making the argument that this isn't on you to begin with. And also just because of party affiliation, I think it'll be very hard for him to dodge. But this is actually a great segue to this next piece because the issue of abortion does continue to loom large and I think will continue to loom large because you have cases still unfolding, challenging the laws, some of the more draconian

laws that have been passed in states across the country. The latest comes out of Texas. Put this up on the screen. So the Texas Supreme Court has now paused a judge's decision that would have allowed a woman to terminate a pregnancy in which her fetus has a fatal diagnosis. So this woman's name is Kate Cox. She lives in Dallas. She's a mother of two. She would love to have this healthy baby girl, but her fetus has been diagnosed with a deadly genetic condition, which will allow it only to live for potentially a few days out of the womb. There is no doctor who is saying that this fetus could survive. And yet, in the state of Texas, she has been banned from being able to have an abortion. This is having huge physical health costs on her. She's had to be admitted to the hospital with horrific pains and

cramping because of the problems with this pregnancy. A lower court had ruled that she could go forward with the abortion. And now the Texas Supreme Court has stepped in and halted that judge's order, although the case is still ongoing. What the Texas attorney general had argued is that the state would suffer a, quote, irreparable loss should Kate Cox be allowed to terminate her pregnancy. He writes, because the life of an unborn child is at stake, the court should require a faithful application of Texas statutes prior to determining that an abortion is permitted. And that is the side that this Texas judge sided with. Let's go ahead and listen to Kate spoke to NBC News about how painful this has been for her, how painful this has been for her family. Let's take a listen to what she had to say. It's a hard, it's a hard time. You know, even with,

you know, being hopeful with the decision that came from the hearing this morning, there's still, we're going through the loss of a child. There's no outcome here that I take home my healthy baby girl, you know. So it's hard, you know, just, you know, grief. But I think that, you know, joy and grief can coexist. And there's, you know, more, there's moments of joy. I'm really grateful for my wonderful two children that I have and my wonderful family. And, you know, it's a moment of sadness, but we really have a wonderful life here in our, in our home state. And so, you know, I's a moment of sadness, but we really have a wonderful life here in our home state. And so, you know, I just try to count my blessings. And as if that wasn't enough, Sagar, put this last piece up on the screen.

Ken Paxton, again, the Texas AG, has threatened to prosecute any doctors, to file criminal charges against any doctors who did perform the abortion on this woman. This was after the lower court judge had ruled that they may do so. How do you think this polls, guys? Forcing this woman to deliver to term this baby who has no prayer of surviving, going through all of the torturous trauma and physical pain that is involved in this, the state forcing you to do that and criminalizing any doctor who would do the right thing and perform this procedure for this poor woman who is clearly suffering, it's pure insanity. And when Republicans try to say, oh, well, let's shift the subject and let's talk about Democrats and their extremism on this issue, these are the stories that are actually unfolding that people are witnessing and seeing the extremism and the fringe views in action.

I can't imagine it's even a majority of Texans who support this direction of, you know, their own elected leadership. Yeah. And actually, this is the one thing. This is actually a faithful interpretation of a lot of the evangelical view on this issue, which is why I think it's such a loser politically, because what they would say is, look, there's always a chance. And yeah, if it perishes after it's born, even though the median survival is like 2.5 to 14.5 days and a 90 to 95% chance that it won't survive even a single year, that would set the preconditions for,, that would set the preconditions for, that would basically set the preconditions for using it as, for a eugenics-like policy, for Down syndrome and for all these others. And I fully understand that, and I agree it's

actually a massive moral quandary and all that, but we also do live in a democratic country, and it's very clear through the way that the American people previously supported the Roe versus Wade consensus, was such that dealing with these types of issues, dealing also with rape, incest, exceptions to the life of the mother, and severe health trauma and all that, was a decision that Americans are broadly comfortable allowing their citizens to make for themselves. And I think most people can listen to this. And it does fly in the face, too, of a lot of their abortion messaging for the Republicans,

as you were talking about with late-term abortions. This is not like a Lena Dunham woman who's like, I wish I'd had an abortion. She's like, I've had two kids. I'm dealing with trauma myself. She wants this baby. This is a horrible situation. She's like, I wish this wasn't a situation that I'm in.

And I think a lot of people too can really sympathize just with the basic idea of like, I cannot believe the state is telling me to either they can make the decision for me at the level of not only criminalizing it, but ordering it from a judge. So that's one where it look, you know, this is, this is Biden's only chance. I think it's his only chance. We talked previously about Kentucky. Abortion was a huge driver of the Democratic vote in Kentucky. And that ad that was run against Daniel Cameron was a woman who'd been raped by her stepfather when she was 12 years old. And she just looks directly into the camera.

And she's like, Daniel Cameron would force me to carry his bag. I mean, these are brutal. This is just a place where electorally the results are in and all the pro-life cope around how this wasn't going to materialize an electoral blowback is just, it's absurd now at this point. I think a story like this is animating enough that it could have significant electoral impact. I really believe if Biden has a chance, and it's one of the reasons I still say 50-50, it's because of abortion. I don't think he's got a prayer on anything else, but it's potent enough that it really could. Yeah, I don't think Hillary Clinton

is going to rescue him. No. But the Kentucky example is a great one because, listen, Democrats have been getting their asses kicked on abortion in the state of Kentucky for years. And that turned like this the minute that Roe was overturned by the Supreme Court. And that ad with that young woman straight to camera talking about her experience and against Daniel Cameron, that was one of the most powerful ads in that entire election and helped secure a Democratic victory for Andy Beshear in a state that is very red in terms of Kentucky. So when you think about these stories like Kate Cox's playing out across the country, the type of, you know, very evocative stories

that Americans just instinctively find this horrifying that the government could force this woman to carry this baby to term, Trump's going to be getting asked questions about this. You know, what is he going to say? I genuinely don't know what he would say in reaction to this. It's hard to know because, I mean, he's obviously very uncomfortable on the issue. He had the instant reaction of like, this is going to be bad for Republicans. And he's right. But he's the one who put these Supreme Court justices on the bench. I

mean, this was the key promise that honestly got him elected back in 2016 and kept evangelicals in line who are now, you know, his most fervent base of supporters. So I do think that this is, you know, the one big issue that hangs over the 2024 election. That and the Trump criminal charges are the two things that could potentially flip things and third parties. So there are a lot of wild cards here. But, you know, the trauma that these women are facing is, I think, going to be a central component of how things unfold. I know a lot of cops and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution.

But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multibillion- dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st, and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Ad-free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. We are back. In a big way. In a very big way. I'm Greg Glott. And this is season two of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes sir, we are back. In a big way. In a very big way. Real people, real perspectives.

This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner. It's just a compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug man. Benny the Butcher. Brent Smith from Shinedown. We got B-Real from Cypress Hill. NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corvette.

MMA fighter Liz Caramouch. What we're doing now isn't working, and we need to change things. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

And to hear episodes one week early and ad free with exclusive content, subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. live only on Hulu. Ladies and gentlemen, Brian Adams, Ed Sheeran, Fade, Chlorilla, Jelly Roll, Sean Fogarty, Lil Wayne, LL Cool J, Mariah Carey, Maroon 5, Sammy Hagar, Tate McRae, The Offspring, Tim McGraw. Tickets are on sale now at AXS.com. Get your tickets today. AXS.com. Crystal, what are you taking a look at? Well, a global outcry has erupted over the death of poet, academic, and activist Rafat Al-Arir at the hands of the Israeli government. Now, Rafat was not only a beloved intellectual in Gaza, he was a window to Americans and to the English-speaking world into the Palestinian struggle, regularly giving interviews, posting updates that allowed us all to see the reality of life inside of Gaza, forcing us to reckon with the pain, the peril, the hopes,

the dreams, and the nightmares of the Palestinian people. We know that it's very bleak, it's very dark. There's no way out. If there's no water, there is no way out of Gaza, what should we do? Like drown? Like commit mass suicide? Is this what Israel wants? And we're not going to do that. And I was telling somebody, some friend the other day that I'm an academic. Probably the toughest thing I have at home is an expo marker. But if the Israelis invade, if the target has charged at us, open door to door to massacre us, I'm going to use that marker, throw it at the Israeli soldiers, even if that is the last thing that I would be able to do.

And this is the feeling of everybody. We are helpless. We have nothing to lose. In the wake of his killing people from around the world, shared this poem, authored by Rafat, translating it into at least dozens of languages in order to share his powerful testimony to the world. That poem reads, if I must die, you must live to tell my story, to sell my things, to buy a piece of cloth and some strings so that a child somewhere in Gaza, while looking heaven in the eye, awaiting his dad who left in a blaze and bid no one farewell, not even to his flesh, not even to himself, sees the kite, my kite, you made, flying up above and thinks for a moment that an angel is there, bringing back love if I must die. The mourning of this beloved figure, an outpouring of humanity, was met with a truly repulsive, inhuman response. As justification for the murder of this man, people shared a tweet that Rafat had sent, mocking one of the more absurd claims made about the Hamas atrocities committed on October 7th, the claim that a baby was found burned in the oven. That lie, like many others, has now been debunked by the Israeli outlet Haaretz. In other words,

Rafat was right to mock this claim. And of course, that no tweet, no matter how good or bad, should mark someone for assassination should go without saying. But unfortunately, far too many have bought the genocidal perspective that there are no innocent Palestinians. These tweets were enough to convict him as guilty in their minds and justify his death sentence. And make no mistake, Rafat was sentenced to death.

He was assassinated by a terrorist government that decided they wanted him dead. That is the conclusion of human rights organization Euromed Monitor. They write, the Israeli airstrike that killed Professor Rafat Al-Arir was apparently deliberate. That is the conclusion of Euromed Monitor on Friday. The apartment where Rafat and his family were sheltering was surgically bombed out of the entire building where it's located, according to corroborated eyewitness and family accounts. This came after weeks of death threats that Rafat received online and by phone from Israeli accounts. Now, it is probably too simplistic to say that Rafat was targeted

for assassination because of his tweets, even though prominent accounts like Barry Weiss had used those tweets to vilify him not long before the Israeli government did mark him for death. But Rafat was already well known to Israeli authorities, not new to outspoken activism. In fact, this wasn't even the first time Israel tried to kill him. In 2014, they bombed his house. He survived. More than 30 members of his family, however, were killed. The bigger question to me isn't whether Rafat was targeted. He clearly was. It's whether his assassination was part of the larger program targeting intellectuals. Is Israel systematically eliminating peaceful thought leaders, calculating that their very existence and ability to humanize Palestinians and draw attention to the Palestinian cause constitutes a threat to Israel's criminal apartheid regime. After all, every day,

the list of doctors, journalists, and aid workers who have been killed grows longer. 76 journalists have already been killed by Israel. That's more than any other conflict in at least 30 years. And at least some of these killings we know now have been intentional. Reuters, AFP, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch all assessed that an Israeli attack which killed a Reuters videographer and injured six other journalists was in fact a deliberate targeted attack. Targeting journalists, of course, is a war crime. But it's not just journalists. Declassified UK has tracked an extensive list of Palestinian intellectuals and thought leaders who have all been killed by the Israeli government.

Take a listen. There's a clear pattern that Israel is targeting the best and brightest of Gaza. They are going, as you said, they're going after everyone who might provide a way of living a human life in Gaza. So they're going after lawyers, they're going after medics, they're going after teachers, and journalists. Yes, well, I mean, one of the most, I mean, it's all so horrific,

it's beyond words, but Al Jazeera was shut down in Israel, and then the day after, they bombed and killed the family of the Al Jazeera correspondent in Gaza so that was a statement it was saying we will kill your family they didn't even kill him they killed his family so I just wanted I think this is part of what needs to change is the narrative is that this is not none of these are mistakes.

They're targeting the best and brightest of Gaza because they want to destroy any remnants of human life in Gaza. They want to make it unable to live. So I just wanted you guys to talk about what you think Israel's goal is. Well, actually, they also target the peace activists. And it's shocking, even those who call for peace, they're targeting them. For example, they targeted my friend Ahmed Abortema, the founder of the Great March of Return. He is my best friend, and he has always been one of the most vocal voices for the peaceful resistance. I'm reminded also of what one official told 972 magazine of how Israel is conducting its bombing campaign.

Quote, Nothing happens by accident. When a three-year-old girl is killed in a home in Gaza, it's because someone in the army decided it wasn't a big deal for her to be killed. It follows, then, that when a doctor or journalist or scholar is killed, it's because the Israeli government wanted them gone. This targeting makes sense on another level. There may be no state in the world which so clearly understands the power of words and stories, and by extension, those who wield those words and stories, as the state of Israel. How else, after all, do you convince a diaspora of people with different languages and cultures living all over the world

that they are actually one people and that they should get behind what must have seemed a preposterous project at the time to settle and colonize historic Palestine? How else do you provide moral cover for the world's superpower to fund and arm you and provide you diplomatic cover even as you systematically violate international law through illegal settlements, an illegal blockade, and an official policy of apartheid? How do you kill thousands of children and then go on CNN with a straight face and claim you're doing all you can to protect civilians? Oh yeah, the Israeli government understands the power of propaganda, how essential it is, how dangerous those who can pierce their own veil of propaganda

really are. They also understand how essential it is that they block any educated moderates who might represent a, quote, partner for peace. Netanyahu, of course, has long sought to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state by elevating extremists like Hamas. Wouldn't it be convenient to use this moment when the U.S. has officially given you carte blanche to commit any atrocities that you like to wipe out any alternative Palestinian leadership class? So while Rafat didn't wield a weapon, he was nevertheless armed and dangerous, as are the truly heroic journalists risking their lives to show us these horrors. The doctors who are sacrificing everything to provide the best care and comfort that they possibly can in impossible circumstances. All of these individuals are

uniquely dangerous for a simple reason. They force us and the world to reckon with the basic humanity of Palestinians, to sit with what it must be to have been trapped in a prison your whole life, to watch the whole world abandon you, to be subjected to daily indignities and periodic horror. These heroes are vastly more dangerous to the Israeli regime than Hamas, because the instant the world truly recognizes the full humanity of Palestinians is the instant that the Israeli project of dehumanization ends forever. And so, Sagar, people were really shocked because... And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com.

I know a lot of cops, and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission.

This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1. it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever

you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Ad-free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott. And this is season two of the War on Drugs podcast.

Yes, sir. We are back. In a big way. In a very big way. Real people, real perspectives. This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner. It's just a compassionate choice

to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote

drug thing is. Benny the Butcher. Brent Smith from Shinedown. We got B-Real from Cypress Hill. NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corvette. MMA fighter Liz Karamush.

What we're doing now isn't working, and we need to change things. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And to hear episodes one week early and ad-free with exclusive content,

subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast hell and gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband. It's a cold case. They've never found her and it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills

I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. For more in-depth understanding of the Israeli domestic political situation, we are fortunate to be joined this morning by Dalia Scheindlin. She is a political scientist and Israeli pollster. She's also a

policy fellow at the Century Foundation and a columnist for Haaretz. Welcome, Dalia. Thank you for having me. I'd like to also just put in there that I have a new book out called The Crooked Timber of Democracy in Israel, Promise Unfulfilled. Awesome. Fantastic. We'll have a link in the description. Absolutely. Thank you for letting us know about that. So first of all, let's put this up on the screen. You were recently interviewed by Isaac Chotner in The New Yorker. The headline here is what October 7th did and didn't change about Israeli politics. And I'd love for you to start with an assessment of how people

feel about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. We all know he's tremendously unpopular, that huge majorities want him gone, either not now or after the war is concluded. But give us a little bit of depth on the nature of the critique of him. What are people really frustrated with and how much has that shifted since October 7th? Yeah, I think the first thing you have to understand is that attitudes towards Prime Minister Netanyahu have shifted since November 1st, 2022. In other words, he was already doing poorly. His government was doing poorly, his coalition partners and other ministers, because of the government's plans to overhaul the Israeli judiciary and essentially eviscerate the independence of the Israeli judiciary.

And there was an enormous backlash all year. I'm sure people know that there were protests every single week, and already the ratings have been dropping. Now, nevertheless, Netanyahu was essentially still, for the most part during the year, considered the most credible leader in the country, still sort of had the best ratings in terms of the question about who's most suitable to be prime minister, simply because people weren't really shining a light on anybody else. But after October 7th, I think it was a final straw for many people in Israel, including a great number of the people who had voted for the parties of the current coalition and for Netanyahu's party back in November.

And what we saw is over 40 percent, close to half, but let's say over 40 percent of people who voted for Likud, who are longtime Likud voters and quite devoted to Mr. Netanyahu, felt like this was a breach that they simply could not overcome in the sense of, you know, the state had failed to protect its own citizens. Those people who are still voting for Netanyahu had forgiven an awful lot, including four active corruption cases, sorry, three active corruption cases. And, you know, this government that had been doing things that they absolutely don't like. And they had stuck with Netanyahu. But the idea that the state was unable to protect its citizens, the fact that the state seemed to have been unable to follow the intelligence, to correctly assess what was going on, led to much deeper questions about the competence of the government overall in a much longer term sense. And remember, Netanyahu has been prime minister almost consecutively since 2009 with

just about a year and a half break. And so for many people, that was a final straw. His ratings have plunged. His government's ratings have a final straw. His ratings have plunged. His government's ratings have plunged. His party ratings have plunged. The question of trust in government has plunged. But I would be cautious about assuming that that means people are moving away from the broader political ideology of the right wing,

and that's something we can discuss. Yes, I think it's very important, and actually something I took away from your interview. But I also want to dig into something you flagged. Just because he's very unpopular and something I took away from your interview, but I also want to dig into something you flagged. Just because he's very unpopular and most people think he should go, they don't think that he should go right now. Can you tell us about how people are reconciling that?

They're like, well, as long as the war is in place, we should have him there, even though we don't think that he's fit to hold office. Yeah, well, keep in mind that by most surveys we have testing this question, the total number of people who want him to go either now in the middle of the war or after the war is between 70 and 75 percent. It's a huge majority. That's the first thing to keep in mind. No incumbent wants to see that kind of number. And I would, you know, again, in most of the surveys that we have, about a quarter of the respondents would like him to go right now, which is a minority, but it's not nothing in the middle of wartime. And I think that the, you know, the overriding sentiment honestly isn't that hard to explain. People

were absolutely shocked by what happened on October 7th. It was something that Israelis not only couldn't have predicted, they couldn't have even imagined it. With maybe the small exception of very few people who were monitoring those border outposts, you know, in army and army intelligence and, you know, in army and army intelligence and, you know, in Israeli intelligence services, but who weren't taken seriously enough. But the vast majority of the population couldn't even conceive of something like this.

So you have to realize the shock of uncertainty and instability was added to, of course, the national trauma of so many people being killed, slaughtered, atrocities, kidnapped, et cetera, and then immediately launching into war. And I think that at a time like that, it makes sense that people don't immediately want to go into something like an election cycle or a major government shakeup, especially because it's not clear. Even if you avoided elections and simply had a coalition shakeup and, you know, reestablished a new coalition with a different leader or, you know,

or somehow the coup were to decide that Netanyahu's out, that leads to tremendous instability. And I think most people couldn't really conceive of that with the exception, as I said, of about a quarter of the population who believe that every day he's still in power, actively either, you know, endangers the war effort and really diminishes the country's prospect for getting through it. And they feel like he really is a danger as long as he's in power despite the war. But yes, you know, more than about close to twice as many would prefer that he leave after the war effort is over. I would also point out that there's a problem with that because there's no

clear end date for this war. The kinds of goals and aims that the government has set, for the most part, other than bringing the hostages back, which is at least objective, the idea that Hamas can be destroyed militarily and as a governing power is not something that's very easily measurable, or at least the government has not explained how it plans to measure that. And so when people say we want him gone when the war is over, That is a pretty amorphous future aim. So, Dalia, one of the things that October 7th represented was the stunning failure of the Netanyahu doctrine, the idea that you could sort of maintain this brutal status quo for Palestinians, that you could thwart the establishment of any sort of Palestinian state or any sort of

just and lasting peace, and that he could, quote unquote, control the height of the flames. So how are Israelis processing the failure of that doctrine? Does it lead them more in the direction of questioning that maintenance of the brutal status quo and more in the direction of, hey, maybe we need to, after this is over, try to figure out some sort of a lasting and just peace? Or does it lead in the opposite direction of, no, we need to do the security state harder. We need more machine guns mounted at the border. We need a more right-wing and militaristic leader in charge here.

Well, this is exactly the most complicated question that I think those Israelis who believe that there should be some sort of a negotiated political resolution are struggling with to figure out. And I think the reason is that Israelis right now are focused very much on the short term and the immediate aim of dealing with the war and just coping day to day. I mean, I don't want to get into the comparison because what Gazans are coping with day to day is intolerable. But from the Israeli experience, people are dealing with what they know about, which is, you know, 200,000 people who have been evacuated and who are displaced, you know, sirens and rockets falling all over the country, from the center to the south and also in the north. So people are thinking very short term about immediate dilemmas.

You know, should there be a ceasefire in exchange for hostage release or, you know, immediate dilemmas like that? And I think that the question of the long term, do people analyze Netanyahu's doctrine as a policy? Right now, they're thinking very immediately about his failures, about how many feel like he's betrayed the country's security, as I mentioned before. But I have to say that with all the polls that have been done, and there have been at least 25 polls that I know about, it's very hard to get at this longer-term sense of whether Israelis are analyzing his policy as a doctrine. There have been lots of articles about it.

Of course, there was a major one in The New York Times yesterday exposing in great detail the decisions made over the course of the last decade to supply Hamas with lots of money through Qatar. That's being widely covered in the Israeli press. But ultimately, Israelis knew about it anyway, even before the New York Times expose, which was excellent. But they knew about it. And I think that they're just not quite at the level of analyzing the specific policy.

Having said that, I am keeping a very close eye on what I would have expected to happen, which is that over time, over a few months to maybe the next year, Israelis are likely to become more hardline. And I say that based on how Israelis have responded over the course of, you know, half a year to a number of years following other phases of wars and escalations, particularly when they involve major violence against Israeli civilians. When that happens, Israelis tend to self-identify more as right-wing, which is a very clear statement of the kinds of positions they espouse, you know, supporting more militarist solutions, opposing concessions as Israelis see concessions, and more than anything, voting for right-wing parties who will not make concessions or undertake,

you know, political negotiation towards a two-state solution. So I think we have to understand that when people say they're right-wing, it involves the policies they support and very clearly predicts which kinds of parties they will elect in the next elections. The last thing I'll say about where Israelis are going, where I expected them to go and where they so far show that they're going, everything must be taken with a grain of salt. But for the most part, in most, in every single survey we see, the parties that are benefiting from the loss of trust in the government and the coalition parties is a sort of right wing, but considered centrist, pragmatic

right wing party headed by former chief of staff, Benny Gantz, who has joined the war coalition, which is interesting primarily in that the votes, we don't see people flocking to the further right, ultra-nationalist, extremist, theocratic Jewish supremacist parties represented called religious Zionism or Jewish Power. And it's interesting because those were the parties that had a kind of surprisingly good result in the November elections, but they have not been doing particularly well. We're seeing all of the runoff votes going to a more,

what Israelis view as a more moderate right-wing party. If that holds, it means that Israelis may turn to the right, but maybe not to the far extreme right. Very interesting. Is Genshin a sort of like a more competent version of Netanyahu? Is that the idea? Honestly, he's certainly seen as having, you know, a great deal of security credentials because he's had an entire career in the military, which is obviously most, you know, what Israelis really want right now

during the war. But I think the main thing, if I had to conjure what Israelis generally think about Gantz, is that he's not compromised by having the particular kinds of personal and political interests that Netanyahu has because he's facing those corruption cases. There aren't many parties that would agree to go into a coalition with him. He is therefore kind of slavishly beholden to those extremist, you know, ultra-nationalist far-right parties and, of course, the ultra-Orthodox parties, which, frankly, between, you know, leaving Likud aside, Netanyahu's parties, all those other parties together represent only a minority of Israeli society, the ultra-nationalist

religious Jewish parties and the ultra-Orthodox parties. They only represent a minority, which means that this government is alienating the majority of citizens. And so I think that they see that Netanyahu is in a compromised position and he cannot represent either the people's general orientation, as we saw, that's why the protests against the government policies were so sweeping all year. But they also see that he's neglected basic competence of running, you know, the state functions and the ministries and even to the point of neglecting Israeli security. And I don't think they see Gantz as being compromised in a way that would lead to those failures, even though I have to say that Gantz is seen as kind of a blank slate. Nobody really knows what he stands for other than day-to-day pragmatic

management. He's not a visionary. Dahlia, I know that you said that many Israelis are just focused on kind of like the day-to-day getting through whatever is next. And we'll think more about the long-term in the future. But, you know, the Netanyahu government has very much rejected the Biden administration's ideas for what Gaza could look like after this war is concluded. You know, they floated the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu says that's completely off the table. They have floated plans that they, you know, seem to prefer of pushing all or many of the Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip into Egypt and other surrounding countries. What is your sense of what the Israeli people

actually want? I mean, what is the interest in any sort of a resolution is to go back to the status quo? Is it to, quote, thin out the population, as Netanyahu has asked one of his top aides to come up with plans for? What do they actually envision for the future? That's a very tough question. I have to tell you that all the survey research I had done up until October 7th showed that already Israelis, you know, were deeply despairing of anything like a negotiated two-state solution. That was, by the way, a mirror image on the Palestinian side, because I do conduct joint Israeli-Palestinian research. And both sides showed only a minority, about 35 percent, roughly 35 to 40%, who supported a negotiated two-state solution before October 7th. Now, interestingly, after October 7th,

the numbers have declined, but not a huge amount. The lowest I've seen was about 29%, but I've also seen surveys showing about 35%. So it still seems like that is a solution that is more credible than any other solution, certainly in terms of other options for, you know, democratic based negotiated political frameworks for resolution. There's nothing else that comes close, but that, you know, is only a minority. It doesn't bode well for the future. And I think that Israelis are having a very hard time envisioning, partly because they're not getting leadership on the issue.

The Israeli government has not proposed, not since October 7th, but frankly, not before October 7th. For a very long time, for at least a decade since the last serious negotiations under Secretary of State John Kerry in 2013-14, for about a decade, Israelis have not even heard their leaders talk about something like a diplomatic resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now, I don't really think it's fair to say that all of Israel wants to expel all Palestinians. But let's face it, Israelis are feeling very emotional right now, extremely traumatized and angry. I don't want to, you know, pretend that those sentiments don't exist. I will say we all know the document that was circulated is in a not very, almost a sham ministry. But I don't want to understate the value of that, you know, the importance of that either,

because people in the government are talking about those kinds of plans. And we see what's going on on the ground with Palestinians being systematically dislocated from, you know, major parts of Gaza, especially Gaza City being practically destroyed, uninhabitable, it won't be inhabitable for years to come. You know, we're seeing, you know,

herding together the Palestinian population in the South and conditions that are frankly unlivable at this moment. It very much looks like there are forces that maybe don't want to say it explicitly, but that they hope lots of cousins would leave. And I think that I have to acknowledge that I'm sure that that sentiment does exist in Israeli society. We've seen it in earlier years as well in survey research. But I'd like to hope that if there's a pragmatic leadership, that they would start leading rather than only following a public that is feeling really not at its finest moment, understandably, but that leadership would say these are not things that any country

should be considering, expelling the population, nor assuming that you can in any way control Palestinians militarily forever. I think the only possible approach that is both morally, legally, and politically correct is to achieve a negotiated political resolution of some sort. But I have to say that for those of us who've been working on that issue for so many years, let's say, I think I reach up to decades at this point, it looks, frankly, more hopeless than ever. That doesn't mean we'll stop trying, but it is a very hard sell in Israel right now. I have to admit that. Dahlia, one last question for you, which is, I saw a poll come out of Israeli Jews,

and 58%, I believe, was the number who felt that the IDF wasn't doing enough, wasn't aggressive enough in terms of their bombing campaign in Gaza and the ground invasion. Of course, we're watching the images here. We've seen the thousands of children killed, as you said, Gaza city rendered uninhabitable, et cetera, 1.8 million Gazans displaced. And it was only, I believe, 1.8% of Israeli Jews who felt the IDF had gone too far in this campaign. I wonder if you can help us make sense of that. You know, are Israelis seeing the images coming out? Are they aware of the mass civilian death toll, which, you know, is at least 60 percent civilians and probably much higher? You know,

just help us understand this. Yeah, I think that, you know, first of all, I'm not going to try to excuse it. I just think that if we're going to try to explain it, to some extent, Israelis aren't confronted with the visuals as much as anybody, for example, watching Al Jazeera would be. Even watching Al Jazeera English, which I often do, gives you a much, much more up close, you know, sense of exactly how vast the devastation is and how apocalyptic it is. And most Israelis are watching Israeli news. So they're not getting quite the same level of visual imagery. But having said that, my personal theory, and I don't really have survey data on this, is that Israelis do essentially know at a bigger level, you really can't avoid the broad contours of what's happening and the information in this day and age. People are on social media, and even the Israelis, it's not like the Israeli media is exactly hiding it

either. Of course, there's much more focus on the Israeli experience. So I think that when I hear that kind of thing, A, they're not, you know, it's not as, they're not as emotionally or viscerally connected to the level of and scope of devastation in Gaza, even if they know the numbers, they don't feel it and see it, you know, in their bones when they, when they, you know, encounter the news media. And I think the other aspect, if I had to try to, this is quite speculation, but I think that there may be a sense that the more, you know, the tougher Israel is right now and the more aggressive the campaign is, the faster this will come to an end. Now, I'm not pretending that, again, like let's not pretty any of this up. You know, the Israeli public is feeling aggressive right now. But I

also think that people are really devastated living through this war. I know, the Israeli public is feeling aggressive right now. But I also think that people are really devastated living through this war. I mean, the country feels very much on, you know, partly shut down. Everybody's depressed and running into shelters all the time. And I think that from the Israeli perspective, nobody really wants this to go on. People often don't even want to ask each other how they're doing because they're afraid to get the answer of how terrible everybody feels. And everybody's losing people all the time. So I think that part of it is, you know, there's certainly elements of, you know, fury and vengeance.

There's also elements of there's nothing else Israel can do because, again, the Israeli public hasn't been told to think about diplomatic options in a very long time. And a sense that maybe if we just, you know, if Israel just goes in very aggressively and hard, that it eventually will, you know, achieve that aim of destroying Hamas's governing and military power and bring this to an end. Add to all that the sheer kind of confusion and frustration about how Israelis are supposed to expect a hostage release, knowing that the government, that the more aggressive the military campaign is, the less likely they are to get the hostages back. And it leads to a lot of, I think,

mixed feelings behind the numbers. Wow. This has been incredibly insightful. We really appreciate you taking the time and we would hope to have you back on sometime soon. And we'll have a link to your description. So thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. All right. We'll see you guys later. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time. Have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no.

This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts i'm clayton english i'm greg glad and this is season two of the war on drugs podcast last year a lot of the problems of the drug war this year a lot of the biggest names in music and sports this kind of starts that in a little bit man we met them at their homes we met them at the recording studios. Stories matter and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does.

It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Michael Kassin, founder and CEO of 3C Ventures and your guide on good company. The podcast where I sit down with the boldest innovators shaping what's next. In this episode, I'm joined by Anjali Sood, CEO of Tubi. We dive into the competitive world of streaming. What others dismiss as niche, we embrace as core. There are so many stories out there. And if you can find a way to curate and help the right person

discover the right content. The term that we always hear from our audience is that they feel seen. Listen to Good Company on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.