Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 7/9/24: Medical Journal Says 186k Killed In Gaza, Hamas Leaders Reveal True Oct 7 Plans, Owen Jones Dire Warning For UK Labour, French Left Shocks Le Pen In Elections

Episode Date: July 9, 2024

Krystal and Saagar discuss Lancet medical journal says 186k killed in Gaza, Hamas leaders reveal Oct 7 true plans, Owen Jones dire warning for Labour after UK elections, French left shocks Le Pen.  �� To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.com/   Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. is irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week

early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind Boy Sober, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, Boy Sober is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process.

Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver 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. We have a number of important reports coming out of Israel. This one I referenced a couple times. Let's put this up on the screen. So this is from Lancet, which is a widely respected medical journal. And there's always been this question of what the true death toll in Gaza actually is.

And there have been concerted efforts to deny the reports of the deaths coming out of Gaza because the only people who are available to count the dead is the Gaza Health Ministry, which they love to call the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry. Now, their numbers have been pretty accurate in the past. However, according to these experts, they say if you look at past conflicts and you look at the level of devastation and destruction of infrastructure and medical care, et cetera, in Gaza, they say applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37,396 deaths reported, which, by the way, doesn't even include those buried under the rubble, it's not implausible to estimate that up to 186,000 or even more deaths could

be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. They describe this as a conservative estimate. In past conflicts, the ratio of direct deaths to indirect has been up to 15. It's certainly possible in Gaza. We're seeing that level just again, given the level of destruction. As I mentioned before, this does not even include those who are considered to be buried under the rubble, which is about another 10,000 individuals. But even with this conservative estimate, you're talking about about 8% of the population of Gaza that has been killed in this conflict. Eight percent. So, you know, we've even had the White House denying the death toll.

You've had members of Congress directly denying the death toll. And we've been saying all along that if anything, it is very likely the number of deaths are being understated. Now you have a medical journal publishing an analysis exactly to that effect that you could have somewhere around 8% of the entire Palestinian population in Gaza that has been killed, Sagar. Well, it would be abnormal that it would be only 37. It doesn't take a genius, you know, to figure it out. What? From famine, hunger conditions. Sanitation. Sanitation. Communicable diseases.

Mass displacement. I mean, yeah, exactly. Even in a normal, in any place, even if there was no bombing or anything going on, if you forcibly take people over, what, 1.8 million or something and move them out of their homes, a lot of people are going to die. People who are old, people who need medical condition, access to medicine, et cetera, add war on top of that, it's very much like what happened in the U.S. invasion of Iraq, where we would estimate the death tolls, and then the eventual

real tally that came out a decade later was almost 10 times the initial number that was estimated. And it was specifically for these reasons, with mass displacement, the bombing campaign, and elsewhere. So it only, I think, only confirms what I think a lot of people already know. Yeah, and I think it'll be years before we really know the toll, and that's also common in conflicts. And especially here, you've had the Israeli government, which has denied any independent access to be able to assess the toll, and then they then deny the death toll, even though they prohibit anyone else from being able to come in and assess the situation themselves. So, you know, for those who have long suspected that the death toll, even though they prohibit anyone else from being able to come in and assess the situation themselves. So, you know, for those who have long suspected that the death toll is quite a lot larger than the official numbers, I think this provides a lot of confirmation for that.

At the same time, for those who have been being raked across the coals, we're talking about the Hannibal Directive from the beginning, even though even the New York Times indicated that the Hannibal Directive from the beginning, even though even the New York Times indicated that the Hannibal Directive had been used at least in one instance. You now have Haaretz with some blockbuster reporting here, confirming, by the way, the reporting of a number of independent outlets, that the IDF did order the Hannibal Directive on October 7th to prevent Hamas taking soldiers captive. Here are some of the details that we can pull out here. They say one of those decisions was made at 7.18 a.m. when an observation post at the Yifta outpost reported someone had been kidnapped at the Erez border crossing adjacent to the IDF's liaison office. Hannibal at Erez came the command from divisional headquarters, dispatch a Zeke.

The Zeke is an unmanned assault drone, And the meaning of this command was clear. At another time at 1122 a.m. across the entire Gaza division network, the order was issued. Not a single vehicle can return to Gaza, meaning that if you are in the area and you see cars headed back to Gaza, you don't need to worry about whether these are civilians who are fleeing, whether there are people on board who are kidnapped. In fact, that's the whole purpose of the Hannibal directive, is that you would rather kill those civilians than allow them to be taken and to be kidnapped into Gaza. So, you know, as we move forward and we think about that horrific death toll on October 7th, it is a legitimate question to say how many of those were Hamas and how many of those were IDF.

That is not to deny Hamas atrocities on that day, something we have said consistently and will continue to say. However, there were many multiple instances now documented by a number of outlets, the latest being Haaretz, an Israeli news outlet, that the Hannibal directive was employed in multiple instances and civilians were fired on by the IDF in an attempt to prevent kidnappings from occurring. So this is an astonishing blockbuster revelation and a truly courageous bit of reporting too for Haaretz, which I mean, Haaretz is a sort of liberal Zionist publication by and large. They have shown a lot of courage in the way that they have reported some aspects of this, in particular, some of the Hamas atrocity lies from October 7th and have earned themselves direct threats

of being shut down and banned by the government because of their reporting. So, you know, I really applaud them for being willing to put this out. Yeah, no, it's actually, I mean, look, at a certain point, it's also what? It's July 9th, so it took 10 months for them to put that out. The U.N. already put it out and there were already questions October 17th. I forgot the U.N. had even said it. Yeah, we covered that, didn't we? We covered it here on the show.

So, I don't know, you know, in a certain sense, it's like you're following it a little bit. That said, of course, it does actually take a long time to confirm something like this. And it does mean something that in Israeli paper were to actually admit it. But it does seem like in the midst of the Biden news that a lot of the things that have been confirmed or things bubbling underneath the surface, I don't think anything is going particularly good for Israel. And we have to keep our eyes on it, right? Because things could explode at any moment.

I mean, you've got Israeli troops are now back in Gaza City, which in itself is an admission of failure. There's Rafah, you know, that continues. I saw reporters that are on the ground. There's like full-on active combat that's inside. So all of the talk, and then the Israeli generals who actually are for a ceasefire, because they're like, hey, we don't have any weapons anymore. They're like, we can't keep this shit going. And then so the government is all, you know, torn apart.

So I would say, if anything, like this is the time if I were them to actually try and do a ceasefire, but we'll see. I know we're going to talk about that. The political calculus continues to be against that, Ferdinand. I mean, the latest that you see these insane news reports that are like, the sticking point in the ceasefire deal is that Israel wants to continue fighting. It's like, what kind of a ceasefire deal is this? If it includes, but we want to keep fighting. We're going to talk to Jeremy and Ryan more about this,

because they have some really quite important insights into the way that Hamas is viewing all of this. And they agree with the Israeli analysts who have said this has been a failure for Israel now. Hamas disgustingly also treats civilian life very casually, including Palestinian civilian life. That also comes across in these interviews. But definitely stay tuned for that because you want to hear more from their perspective, which I know is always very controversial. But we've always said it's important to understand the perspective of all of the actors that are involved in these conflicts, regardless of how you feel about them.

There was another blockbuster piece of reporting from another Israeli outlet that has done extraordinary work throughout this conflict. This is Plus 972 Magazine. The headline here from Oren Ziv is, I'm bored so I shoot the Israeli army's approval of free-for-all violence in Gaza. So we can put this next piece up on the screen. They were able to speak to six different sources, IDF soldiers, all of them, who confirmed many of the reports from Palestinian civilians on the ground. They recounted how Israeli soldiers routinely executed Palestinian

civilians simply because they entered an area the military defined as a no-go zone. The testimonies paint a picture of a landscape littered with civilian corpses, which are left to rot or be eaten by stray animals. The army only hides them from view ahead of the arrival of international aid convoys so that images of people in advanced stages of decay do not come out. Two of the soldiers also testified to a systematic policy of setting Palestinian homes on fire after occupying them. I'll put the next piece up on the screen. They also described how the ability to shoot without restrictions gave soldiers a way to blow off steam

or relieve the dullness of their daily routine. Quote, people want to experience the event fully. S, a reservist who served in northern Gaza recalled, I personally fired a few bullets for no reason into the Sierra at the sidewalk and abandoned building. They report it as normal fire, which is a code name for I'm bored, so I shoot. I really encourage you to read this entire report, which again confirms some of the things that we've been talking about for a while, including any Palestinian man, woman, child, et cetera, elderly who wanders into a quote unquote no go zone there. You know, it's open open season on them to just kill them.

They also report that any man who is killed, whether there's any proof whatsoever that they're Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad or any other sort of resistance fighter. Every single man is assumed to be a terrorist. And so they're logged as, you know, this is a Hamas fighter who was killed. That's why Israel's numbers are so much higher than what anyone else estimates in terms of the Hamas fighters that they have killed. And, you know, to go back to Joe Biden and what a nice guy he is, this is what he's allowed. This is what he's allowed. This is what he's overseen. This is what he's been too weak to stop, even when at times he's voiced some weak objections to what is going on here. And in fact, Sagar, yesterday, I don't know if you saw this exchange, John Kirby admitted that Israel was indiscriminately firing on civilians.

Oh, I didn't. He said, you know, it's always, he said it's always unfortunate when civilians are fired on indiscriminately. And, you know, we continue to talk to Israel and try to get them to be more precise. Like you just, you just, they just openly acknowledge the war crimes now. Like it's no big deal. Here's what drives me nuts. And we have this, let's put this up there on the screen. This is why it absolutely makes me lose my mind. The entire press corps and everybody yesterday was like, oh, Russia struck a children's hospital in deadly barrage across Ukraine. 40 missiles hit this children's hospital. And it's like, yeah, it would be terrible if something hit a children's hospital, right? And as they put right there, deadly strike hits Northern Gaza hospital. I mean, it was a week prior, maybe days prior that Israel hit a children's hospital in Gaza,

and they didn't care. And they probably did that, by the way, with American weapons. So spare me, spare me the moral to this conflict. And again, I don't believe in moral language on all of this stuff. I believe it should be conducted in terms of great power, what's in it for us or not. But you can't selectively do it. And this whole week here in Washington is an entire apotheosis of Ukraine. Everything's about, oh, this poor little unjust Ukraine, which got invaded. I'm not saying it's just, and by the way, I think it's terrible that the Russians are striking a children's hospital. But how are you going to go to the International Criminal Court, The Hague, and everywhere else, and prop up international institutions to go after your geopolitical foe when you're backing one of your allies doing the exact same thing?

It rings nothing. So the Russians, what do you think they're doing? I saw, this is hilarious, is there are all these Indian experts here in America. And one of them was like, I'm so disappointed at Modi for going to Russia and for hugging Putin. And the man was like, I guess India is only looking out for its own national interests. I'm like, yeah, it would be a real shame to have a president who only looked out for their national interests. And if you're Modi and you're seeing all this stuff that's going on with America, Israel, and everybody else, I go, why should I listen to you?

You're a joke. You're going to lecture me not to go visit? You're going to Bibi and you guys are patenting. You invited Bibi to your country to speak in your Congress. You're going to lecture me? I'm going to go get some cheap gas, folks, because I got a billion poor people that I'm supposed to care for. They'll just never understand. I keep coming back to that column from earlier, I don't know, maybe a couple months in after

October 7th that said, you know, this is going to cheapen all human life. It doesn't just stay in Gaza. And that's exactly true because I feel the same thing. I see like, oh, nine Ukrainians killed. Yeah, right. That's nothing. And obviously that's not true. That's a disgusting way to look at it because these are human beings who had lives and families and dreams and aspirations. And there should be horror and outrage at a children's hospital being struck here by Russia

or a children's hospital being struck in Gaza by Israel. But if we could put that, put C4 back up on the screen here, because it's not just the lack of the moral language, it's the inability to ascribe blame appropriately. So when it's Russia, the headline is very direct. Russia strikes Children's Hospital in deadly barrage across Ukraine. Oh, okay, I understand who the aggressor was. I understand what they struck. I understand what happened here. Here, when it was Gaza, it's deadly strike hits Northern Gaza hospital where many were sheltering. Oh, well, who's deadly strike as a Sol Rod who has tracked many of

these things over the course of this war say? Who committed that deadly strike? Gee, I don't know. Did a bomb just fall out in the sky? Who can say? This hypocrisy is something, by the way, that Matthew Miller was just pressed on yesterday as well, State Department ghoul, Matthew Miller. And, you know, okay, well, how come you're able to very quickly assess and condemn Russia striking a hospital, but when it's Israel, we're going to talk to them. There's got to be an investigation. We don't really know what happened. And of course course he just, you know, spins out. It's totally different. Of course it's not like you are able to make these assessments in real time. Clearly when it comes to a country

you don't like, like Russia, but when it's our great ally with our weapons, by the way, being used to strike these hospitals, suddenly you're going to have to get back to us, which we all know you literally never will. Or you'll say, oh, well, we'll trust the Israelis to investigate themselves. Okay. Yeah, that's real credible. So no, their lies and their hypocrisy are so brazen that I don't think, I mean, even they can't say these things anymore with a straight face because it's just so obvious to the world what's really going on. No, I doubt that. I think they're going to be talking about that children's strike or whatever tomorrow. Just wait. Just with a straight face,

they'll talk about crimes against humanity and all this other stuff. Why we all got to pony up even more for the war machine. It's just, I can't do it anymore. I really can't. All right, let's go and get to Ryan and Jeremy, Ryan Grimm, Jeremy Scahill,

who just launched DropSight. They have left The Intercept and they are already out with some blockbuster reporting. So let's bring them in. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld

of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and reexamining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator,

and seeker of male validation. To most people, I'm the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. Voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times, it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover, to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships. I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other.

It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now.

Let me hear it. Listen to Boy Sober on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily it's your not the father week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son,

even though it was promised to us. Now I find out he's trying to give it to his irresponsible son instead, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. So what are they going to do to get those millions back? That's so unfair. Well, the author writes that her husband found out the truth from a DNA test they were gifted two years ago. Scandalous. But the kids kept their mom's secret that whole time. Oh my God. And the real kicker, the author wants to reveal this terrible secret, even if that means destroying her husband's family in the process. So, do they get the millions of dollars

back, or does she keep the family's terrible secret? Well, to hear the explosive finale, listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. So, we are joined now by the co-founders of Dropsite, Ryan Grimm, our own Ryan Grimm and Jeremy Scahill.

Great to see you both. Good to see you guys. Good to see you guys. How are you doing? So you all are up this morning with an explosive piece of reporting. I want to go ahead and put this up on the screen. Jeremy, you spoke to a number of top Hamas officials. The headline here is on the record with Hamas.

In a Dropsite News exclusive, Hamas officials discussed their motivations, political objectives, and the human cost of their armed uprising against Israel. I want to get into the specifics of the piece. But before we do that, actually, Jeremy, I'd like you to talk about how this is reflective of what you intend to do with Dropsite and why we haven't seen any reporting like this, which I think is incredibly critical to understand, you know, the mindset of both sides of the conflict. Why we don't see this sort of thing in really hardly any other outlet. I mean, look, Crystal, diplomatically, legally supported by the most powerful nation in the world, by the Biden administration, and by the entirety of the U.S. national security apparatus. And we're being told that this is such an urgent cause that we

have to just pour weapons into pummeling 2.3 million people trapped inside of what is essentially an open-air prison. And the justification for this is that around 1,100 Israelis, 695 of whom were civilians, were killed on October 7th. And I think it's journalistic malpractice not to speak to the individuals who organized this and to understand what their motivation was for it, because this is a tremendously consequential policy on the part of the United States government. Our primary goal is to hold our own government accountable. But also this is a genocide

that we're watching unfold in real time. And I think that it's of great public interest to actually speak to the people that organized the attack that then spurred this massive genocidal response from Israel. Dan Rather interviewed Saddam Hussein. CNN had reporters go and interview Osama bin Laden. I've interviewed members of Al Qaeda before. I think this is basic journalistic practice that should be embraced, not demonized. But I know how people

are going to respond to this. I mean, look what happens when just some networks interview a Republican. People lose their minds. So I won't apologize for it at all. I think it's a vital journalistic role to go and interview people you're told are the enemy. That is so obvious and yet so lacking. And so controversial. And yet so controversial. So, yeah, Jeremy, why don't you give us some of the specifics? You spoke on the record with senior Hamas leaders here in the midst of this ceasefire negotiation. Give us an insight into their thinking. Yeah, please. I'll give you some news. So right now,

you know, you have CIA Director William Burns and other U.S. officials, officials from Qatar, Egypt, Israel, and also from Hamas that are now trying to restart these negotiations to try to see if there can be at a a minimum, some form of a temporary ceasefire so there could be an exchange of captives. And over the weekend, Netanyahu sort of blew this up again. And apparently behind the backs even of his own negotiators went and leaked to the media for things that he said were non-negotiables in these discussions that are taking place between Israel, Hamas, and the mediators. And, you know, some of them are basic things like he wants an end to smuggling of weapons across the Rafah crossing from Egypt.

He doesn't want Hamas fighters to be able to return to the north of Gaza. He wants a maximum number of living Israeli hostages returned to Israel. But the big one, as he said, Israel is not going to budge on our commitment to continue the war to total victory at a time of our choosing. And this is basically the most inflammatory aspect of this. And there had been indications, and I got some of this from Hamas, that they were actually, that Hamas was willing to kind of not entirely back off of a demand for a full and permanent ceasefire, but to allow for an incremental staged settlement or resolution with Israel that would, at the onset, result in the exchange of some prisoners.

You know, there are thousands and thousands of Palestinians. And on that micro level, one of the sticking points is that, you know, Hamas leaders told me that one of their primary goals of the October 7th attacks was to take as many Israeli soldiers, prisoners as possible and bring them back to Gaza because they don't just want to get Palestinian women and children out of Israeli prisons. They want to get combatants. They want people that are Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad fighters, some of whom are serving life sentences or multiple life sentences in Israel for killing Israelis. And the Israeli government has said, no, we will not release anyone that has Jewish blood on their hands. And Yahya Sinwar, the Gaza-based head of Hamas, one of the three or four main organizers

of the October 7th attacks, spent 22, 23 years in an Israeli prison. And he himself was freed in 2011 in this very type of deal where an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, was returned to Israel and then 1,030 plus Palestinians were freed, including Yacoub Sinwar, the man that would then go on to be the main organizer of Al-Aqsa flood on October 7th.

Ryan, what is your sense of where we are with the ceasefire negotiations? I'd love you to tie this in also with something we've been talking ad nauseum about, which is President Biden's manifest decline. It's my impression that on domestic policy, he's sort of handed over the reins to the rest of the staff. But for better and largely worse, he hangs on with his death grip to foreign policy. In spite of the fact, obviously, the Netanyahu bear hug strategy has completely failed. His latest humiliation is he gave this big speech. Oh, Israel has put forward this incredibly generous ceasefire proposal. Meanwhile, Bibi's out there saying things like, well, my condition of ceasefire is that I can go back to fighting this war.

So it seems very unlikely that we're going to achieve a ceasefire so long as Israel is committed to not having a ceasefire. Yeah, Biden really ties his worth as president to his foreign policy acumen, which is, you know, we can set the irony of that aside, given the fact that he's been wrong on almost every foreign policy issue that he's weighed in on in like 50 years. But when he talks publicly about why he ought to be elected, that's immediately what he goes to. He's got NATO here this week, and he feels like if he can look like a president around NATO and then also bring together a ceasefire, and not a ceasefire because he wants a ceasefire

to this war in particular, because McGurk and Blinken have convinced him, that I think, that if he can get a Saudi-Israel deal, that kind of cinches it for him, that like settles his legacy as this great foreign policy thinker. And it will also overshadow the questions about his ability to finish thoughts

and to complete sentences and whether or not he's just too old and frail to actually serve as president. So I think he sees a ceasefire or at least a pause kind of as a necessary condition to get to the next step, which is what he wants, which is Saudi-Israeli normalization, which he thinks then it would be his like kind of landmark legacy project. But like you said, Netanyahu is now in July and staring at

the prospect of a likely Trump presidency in November. Netanyahu is a political adversary of Democrats generally and of Biden in particular. So Netanyahu is going political adversary of Democrats generally and of Biden in particular. So Netanyahu is going to do everything he can to prolong this war for his own survival and also to get to that place where Trump is president, where then he feels like he's got to reset. Jeremy, could you speak some to, because this has been discussed previously, the way that these normalization deals, which were started under Trump and then continued under Biden, the way those played into the impetus for the October 7th attacks by Hamas?

Yeah, I mean, it's a great question. And, you know, the status quo for, you know, 20 plus years has been, and this has been the approach of many Arab nations, that there isn't going to be any more landmark peace agreements or normalization agreements with Israel if it doesn't include a robust addressing of the question of Palestinian statehood and the condition under which Palestinians are living. And so from the perspective of Hamas, they watched as Donald Trump and Jared Kushner embraced Netanyahu's principle, which is that the Palestinians should have no veto over Israel's ability to create new relationships in the Middle East. And, you know, actually two weeks before October 7th, Netanyahu gave a speech at the United Nations. It was a

largely empty chamber. It was just sort of his little minions were in there. But he talked about a new vision for the Middle East that connects, you know, Europe, you know, that connects Asia to Europe. And he holds up a map and there is no Palestine on it. Palestinians were entirely erased from the map. And that was, you know, symbolic of what had happened under Trump. And then Biden comes into office. Biden picks up the mantle from Jared Kushner and says, you know, we're going to keep going full steam ahead with these agreements. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are watching this and they're like, no way. So part of their, you know, part of their

stated rationale for the October 7th attacks was to try to derail these agreements. I don't think that they were deluding themselves into believing that they would succeed in that because as Muin Rabbani pointed out to me in my piece, Palestinian blood has never stopped these Arab nations from making any kind of an agreement with Israel. But I think what is true is that Hamas and Islamic Jihad were sending a message to Arab populations in countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan and elsewhere that you better not let your governments

make these deals with Israel at the cost of Palestinian lives. I think though, Crystal, it's really important to say the main objective, I think, of the October 7th attack was to call the question on the siege, the blockade, the prison of Gaza. Hamas was starting to get blamed by Palestinians in Gaza for their life conditions, which was the aim of Israel's collective punishment strategy of putting them on a calorie-restricted diet, mowing the lawn through regular military operations. Opinion polling suggested that people

were getting really furious with Hamas. So I think on a political level, all of these things converged and Hamas said, it's now or never. They were in trouble internally within Gaza. They were watching the annexations spreading. They were watching the situation at Al-Aqsa Mosque being defiled, the holiest site in Islam and Palestine. They were watching these agreements being brokered that cut Palestine out of the deal.

And they said, this has to be our stand. And I think that that, I believe it. I think that is sincerely what they wanted to do. They wanted to shatter the paradigm, you know, irrevocably. Yeah, Jeremy, what was fascinating reading your piece is the surprise by Hamas leaders at how successful October 7th was. The surprise also of the number of civilians that they were able to capture in the subsequent fallout. You talk about the prisoner's dilemma that they're now in with respect to the ceasefire. Could you break that down of what that looks like for the audience? Yeah, this is really important.

My understanding is that the primary objective in terms of taking what Israel calls hostages, what Hamas calls prisoners, was soldiers, because they can get a much higher price for the soldiers. As I mentioned, they wanted to get the impossibles. They also wanted to, the impossibles, meaning these guys who have been locked up for charges that they murdered Israelis or that they're armed terrorists. They also wanted to free other Palestinians, but their primary objective was to get their own people out. On this issue, though, I'm told that I, you know, I think that there is reason to believe it, that when the second and third wave of people then start pouring across the prison walls and fences that Hamas blew apart and they started entering Israel,

individual groups of people start also snatching Israelis, elderly women, children and others, and bringing them back to Gaza. And so I heard from both Hamas and from an Israeli negotiator that is currently working to try to free Israelis from Gaza and deals with Hamas, that on the fourth day after October 7th, Hamas was basically begging Netanyahu to take a bunch of the civilians back. Hamas was not equipped to hold them. They didn't want to have them. They didn't consider them valuable. They had an enormous number of soldiers way beyond what they thought they would get. And the Netanyahu government refused. Netanyahu was insisting that he was going to address this militarily.

And so, you know, both Israeli negotiators and Hamas have confirmed to me that not only did Hamas not want to be holding large numbers of civilians, they actually actively tried to give them back. And Ryan, final question to you. This is Jeremy's piece in his reporting, but you're obviously deeply familiar with it as well. I mean, one of the key questions is how did Hamas view the civilian deaths and injuries and kidnappings of Israelis on October 7th? And how have they viewed the massive amount of Palestinian civilian deaths that have, as a result of their actions. Obviously,

Israel is to blame. They're the ones dropping the bombs. But Hamas knew that this would trigger a massive response. What is their view of those civilian deaths? Right. There's obviously some cynicism involved and also some, you know, what would you call it? Just kind of cold-blooded calculus in the sense that they, you know, and Jeremy can talk more at length about this, but, you know, they obviously understood that there would be an Israeli response that would be catastrophic and would result in civilian casualties. Now, they did not expect that they would succeed as significantly as they did, which means that they didn't expect the extent of the bombing campaign. They've talked about

saying, well, you know, we expected similar to the past several weeks, maybe even months of a relentless bombing campaign ending with a prisoner exchange and a ceasefire deal. You know, so they got more than they bargained for. At the same time, the Palestinian cause is probably at its highest place internationally than it has been in many decades, perhaps since the first mostly nonviolent intifada. And so that raises these really uncomfortable and thorny ethical questions about military and strategic and geopolitical aims

and the costs to civilian lives without, of course, excusing any kind of Israeli slaughter. That doesn't mean it's justified to respond in the way that Israel has. One last point on that, Crystal. I heard different perspectives on this question from different people within Hamas. I get the sense that they're still struggling with how to answer that question. On the one hand, I had a Hamas official say to me, this is a really sensitive question that you're asking,

and I don't think any of us expected this level of a genocidal war. And then others are saying, listen, what do you expect us to die peacefully, to just let you continue to slowly murder us, kill us off, kill us at checkpoints, kill us in drone strikes, starve us to death, deny us medical care, you know, and sort of entrenched in that position of saying, this is on Israel that they did it. We had a right to rise up against them. These are occupiers. We were legitimately engaged in armed resistance as recognized under international law. I don't get the sense that they have a central party line on this question. And it's quite interesting to hear the debate. It's why I also spoke to people like Rashid Khalidi and Susan Abulhawa, the famous Palestinian novelist, because they represent different perspectives that exist in the broader Palestinian diaspora.

Yeah. Well, I really recommend people read the entire piece, which is up on DropSite, DropSiteNews.com, right? I'm getting the web address right. And congrats to both of you. I'm so excited about what you're up to. I can't wait to see what else you have in store for us. And I really, really hope that our audience and others out there support the work that you're doing, which is difficult and expensive and thankless and controversial and all of those things. Ryan, why don't you just tell people

what they should do to support you guys? Yeah, go to, and yesterday you guys supported us, you know, bigly as, as, as our man would say, uh, we did our goodest job at that. We did our goodest job at, at dropsite news.com. You can just sign up to get the, you know, the free alerts. I think, you know, we're almost at a hundred thousand, I think we're 95,000 subscribers. So, you know, this, you know, today you guys can put us over the top of that. If you can, you know, support it financially, do that. But if not, that's also okay. The journalism will always be free. You know, we'll be on here a lot talking about, you know, the results of our investigations. But if you can support it, you know, you can do that right there.

It's dropsightnews.com or donate.dropsightnews.com too. Well, we look forward to that. And thank you both. Great to see you. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Keep up the great work. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results.

Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating

stories of mistreatment and reexamining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today.

Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. To most people, I'm the girl behind VoiceOver, the movement that exploded in 2024. VoiceOver is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times, it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover, to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships.

I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hold up, so what are they going to do to get those millions back? That's so unfair.

Well, the author writes that her husband found out the truth from a DNA test they were gifted two years ago. Scandalous. But the kids kept their mom's secret that whole time. Oh my God. And the real kicker, the author wants to reveal this terrible secret, even if that means destroying her husband's family in the process. So do they get the millions of dollars back or does she keep the family's terrible secret?

Well, to hear the explosive finale, listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Joining us now is Owen Jones. He is a YouTuber, columnist, and UK politics expert, and we're very honored to be joined by him. It's good to see you, Owen. Politics expert, I'll tell you that. Hey, how you doing? Good to see you both.

Absolutely. Very good. Good to see you too. It's good to see you, man. Let's put this up there on the screen. Owen, we had to get your read as to what is going on in the UK. Labour wins big, but as the headline says here, the UK's electoral system is creaking. I know you've got some thoughts as to what's happened. I believe your prime minister is actually here in our town, here in Washington, only a few miles away from us. So what has happened as a result of this election and what should we know about it? So, well, Labour were always on course for a big, big win. That's because of the Conservative collapse.

The Conservative government was the most disastrous in democratic history by two counts, I would say. Firstly, it doesn't have any big achievements on its own terms. So previous Conservative governments, people like me would rail against them. But they would think we did a big success. We did this, this and this. Thatchers reshaped Britain in its own image. And also presided over the worst squeezing living standards ever recorded in modern British history. And then they had multiple

scandals. They had Liz Truss, who turned Britain into a big laboratory, yet citizens as guinea pigs for this really weird, hard right, libertarian economic experiment, which went badly wrong, crashed the economy, led to her being uh kicked out downing street after 48 days um she famously a lettuce outlived her which i think became very famous internationally will let the letters all these drugs survive so basically they were in a mess they collapsed as a political force um what was striking though is labor were going to win a landslide by default even though kirsten is not popular he's the most unpopular uh leading the opposition to win an election in modern times um and what's you know we have a

bizarre electoral system first past the post like your own but with its own british sort of twist um and labor won a third of the vote in fact labor got almost the same share of the vote as they got last time in 2019 under Jeremy Corbyn when they were routed. And they got a lot less than Jeremy Corbyn got in 2017. So they got 40% of the vote in 2017. They actually got less votes this time than they got last time. But they won a landslide. In fact, on a third of the vote, they won two thirds of the seats. That sounds odd. It sounds bizarre. It is. It doesn't make any sense. Fundamentally, it's our electoral

system. A lot of Starmer's defenders go, well, that's the game. You know, you have to win the electoral system. I get that. You know, they're a legitimate government. But if you're winning, no government has ever won a majority or such a low share of the vote. They didn't just win a majority. They won a massive landslide in seats uh it's called people are calling this a jenga you know the jet the game of jenga where you uh you build it up and it's you with a little product and come crashing down it's like a landslide that's a big jenga tower and because it's it's built on such a slim share of the vote. And on both the hard right and also from the left, they faced Labour big challenges, which if they're complacent, the whole thing will come crashing down. Yes, that seems like less of a major victory.

It was less that Labour won and more that the Tories collapsed and also voter turnout collapsed as well as people were. And this is something we're very familiar with, not so happy with the choices that they had available to them. Let's go ahead and put E3 up on the screen. Guys, this was Owen's column that he wrote in The Guardian, in which you pointed out that this left revolt is significant and that it could be a real problem for labor. I'd love you to speak to some of the issues that lefties such as yourself have been upset over. But you point out something that's really quite astonishing here. Half of Labour voters cited getting Tories out as the main reason for their vote.

Only 5% cited that it's because they agree with Keir Starmer's policies, and only 1% cited Keir Starmer's leadership. So not exactly inspiring statistics there. No, this was a poll by YouGov. So they asked, what was the main reason you voted Labour? 49% said to get tories out five percent as you said the policies i'd love to actually ask those five percent what are your three favorite labor policies they would struggle the vast

majority of the public aren't even aware of what most of labor's policies are and i mean you know the issue though in terms of what labor's perspective is is britain is in a mess it's in its worst mess since the war and worst squeeze in living standards ever recorded the public sphere is just falling apart a national health service which a former tory politician called the the closest the english have to a religion would take the nhs very seriously a national health service publicly run health care whether you're right wing or left wing people see this as the kind of crowning glory it's in a mess it's falling apart i mean you could go on it's just this place is a disaster it's infrastructures for you know people kind of think britain needs to be switched off and maybe if you turn it on maybe it'll start working again the country doesn't feel like it works the trains

don't work nothing works and the problem is labor don't have policies to address that they refuse to increase taxes on the rich they're to the right of biden on economic policy uh they don't um there were 20 billion pounds a year um cuts uh which are looming and they've got the same fiscal rules of the conservatives um they they support continued well expanding privatization of the NHS. And on foreign policy, they, you know, stood squarely behind Israel's genocide rampage, including Keir Starmer saying that Israel had the right to cut off energy and water to civilians. So what that meant was, and this is why it's such an old landslide,

when Tony Blair won in 1997, he won about 44% of the vote. He got about 10 points higher than they did. And you didn't have a left revolt. In this election, the Greens took four seats. They had won before. And various independents won seats as well. But also the Greens are now second place behind Labour in 47 seats.

And that's never happened before. This is the best result of the non-Labour left in British history. So now, as well as on the hard right, there was challenges from the left because this has happened before they're even in power. That's very rare. You don't get disillusionment from the left with Labour before they've even taken office normally. But that's already happened.

And that's different from Tony Blair. That's really interesting. So, yeah, as you said, as I understand, the Reform Party and the Greens also put up significant results against both of the centrist coalitions. So in the U.S., everyone's like, oh, what a big win for labor. Well, it's actually quite more of a complicated story than that. As you said on foreign policy, maybe you can expand that a little bit, both with regards to Israel, but also with regard to Ukraine. Like I said, your prime minister is here in Washington right now.

As I understand it, does he share the same Ukraine policy as Rishi Sunak? Is there any change whatsoever in that? Maybe you can break both of those down for us. Yeah, I don't think there'll be any significant change. And to be honest, that's the consensus here. I mean, if you look at France, the French left triumphed. They have the same policy on Ukraine. To be honest, I don't think there's much of a discussion or debate about that within British foreign policy.

The big schism is over Palestine. And, you know, the position of the Labour leadership is that basically voters have nowhere to go. Muslim voters have nowhere to go. But there are 4 million, I mean, bear in mind our population is 67 million or so. There are 4 million British Muslims. They're a significant part of Labour's electoral coalition.

They're treated with contempt. They're briefed about in very derogatory ways by Labour officials. When Labour Muslim councillors were resigning, these are local party elected politicians, when they were resigning, a Labour official briefed that Labour was shaking off the fleas. Previously, Muslim disillusionment was explained as anti-Semitism and homophobia, just smears against entire communities. What you saw is Muslim voters either going for independence, who have also, they defeated two senior Labour shadow ministers.

I mean, you've got a landslide where Labour shadow ministers were getting defeated. It's very weird. And that's partly because of not just Muslim voters, but other voters. I mean, the Greens did partly well over Gaza. I mean, the fact is, you know, people claim that foreign policy is irrelevant in elections. It was barely discussed in the election campaign. We had no discussion, pretty much, about Palestine or any foreign policy issue, or even about, you know,

there was more discussion about trans people than there was about poverty. I mean, it's just, it's insulting. You know, this is the sort of democracy we have in this country. There are some parallels with what's going on over there. I get that. I know you're paying attention.

I was going to say, sounds familiar. If anything, it's probably our fault. We exported it to you. A little bit. A little bit. A little bit, yeah. Oh, and on that, we can put, what is this, E2 up on the screen. Do you expect any shift in the policy vis-a-vis Israel? I did see this.

Labor expected to drop challenge to the ICC over Netanyahu arrest warrant. So do you think there might be any improvement whatsoever? Were you heartened to see this move? What did you make of this? Yes, I mean, I welcome this. And, you know, what Rishi Sunak's conservative government did as a parting gift to Israel is they lodged an appeal to the International Criminal Court to stop the chief prosecutor's request for arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, Yoh Gallan. And they did that on the spurious claim basis that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Israel-Palestine, when it absolutely does. That has already been dealt with. It was worrying. It was concerning that the pretrial judges had even accepted that appeal

to be considered, which is what they had. They then extended the deadline for submission for the case on the basis there'd been an election. That now appears that the Labour government is going to drop that. I'd say the bar's on the floor, because obviously other European governments haven't submitted that in the first place. But obviously that's very welcome. What also may well happen, I mean, they said, for example,

the government here had likely been given, well, they'd been given legal advice over Israel. A conservative senior politician who was in charge of the Defence Committee in Parliament, which kind of scrutinises government on the issue, she said that legal advice had been given that Israel had broken international law, which anyone who isn't completely deranged can see as an obvious truism. But that would mean that Britain has to stop selling arms and cease all intelligence cooperation with Israel. So the question now is, will they release that advice?

And will they cease arms sales? Britain doesn't sell that many arms to Israel compared to not just the US, but Germany, which sells a lot more. But nonetheless, that's important. But there's, you know, what Britain has done at the moment, the Labour opposition in the manifestos, they said they'll accept, they'll recognise Palestine at some point in the future.

That's not what Spain has done and Norway has done. They've just recognised Palestine already. So the bar is on the floor, but there is an improvement there, definitely just by the fact they're still trying to hijack, or sorry, they're still trying to destroy the requests for arrest war restaurants, for example. Interesting.

Oh, and thank you so much. It's so great to have your analysis. We're really grateful for your time. Thanks, man. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies

were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right.

It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and reexamining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today.

Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. To most people, I'm the girl behind VoiceOver, the movement that exploded in 2024. VoiceOver is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times, it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships.

I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now.

Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily it's your not the father week on the OK Storytime podcast. So we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son,

even though it was promised to us. Now I find out he's trying to give it to his irresponsible son instead, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up, so what are they gonna do to get those millions back? That's so unfair. Well, the author writes that her husband

found out the truth from a DNA test they were gifted two years ago. Scandalous. But the kids kept their mom's secret that whole time. Oh my God. And the real kicker, the author wants to reveal this terrible secret, even if that means destroying her husband's family

in the process. So do they get the millions of dollars back or does she keep the family's terrible secret? Well, to hear the explosive finale, listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, so we are sticking

with the international theme here and turning now to France, where a left coalition really shocked the world with some surprisingly good results there. And Arnaud Bertrand is back with us, entrepreneur and analyst, to discuss the results.

Great to see you, Arnaud. Good to see you again. Thank you for inviting me again. Yes, of course. So give people a little bit of a backstory of how this left victory came together. Sure. So first of all,

I will not characterize it as a victory because no one actually got a majority of the seats in parliament, which is what you need to have in order to form a government. But it's true that the left coalition, which is called the New Popular Front, got the most seats. So they are now the first political force in France. And so it's an alliance of various left parties, the socialists, the green,

the France insoumise, which is the biggest. It means that it can be translated as unbowed France. And so right now they have about 180 seats in the French parliament out of 577, which is more than Macron, which arrived second, and more than Le Pen, they arrived third. And so Arnaud, last time we spoke, and I believe this was a general consensus, was that this was a major mistake by Macron to call this election. Can we put F2, please, up on the screen because we actually have the results in front of us. So we see, as you said, that the coalition has 180 seats,

ensemble 159 seats, the right-wing party 143 seats. So do we still believe that this was a mistake by Macron? Did he call the bluff correctly? And was this a defeat for the right? How should we view this? I think the general consensus is, yes, that was a major mistake by Macron because he lost 80 seats in parliament, which is huge. And right now, the left, who has been, he has vilified throughout the election.

There is a lot of bad blood between the left and Macron. They are now the first political force in France. Pretty much everyone in Macron's camp hates him now. So I don't think this can be a victory for Macron or a successful gamble in any way. So as you point out, someone's going to have to form a government. How does it look like that's going to come together at this point? So it's the next battle. So there are two choices, basically. The left argues that because they came first, they should form a government.

Macron is actually trying to divide the left because because again, it is made of several different parties, and try to basically get the party that are a bit more on the right in the left to ally with him, and the Republican right to form a coalition, and to have this coalition form a coalition and to have this coalition form a government. And so that's basically what's happening in France right now. Those two solutions competing. So far, the left doesn't seem to want to be divided. But, you know, let's see. I think we still have, there is some form of deadline.

By the first time, the new parliament is going to sit for the first time. I believe that's going to happen in 10 days or so. So basically, we have the next few days to see how that's going to pan out. Arnaud, what do you think is going to happen in the interim next few years? So this just seems like chaos because I believe Macron, you can correct me if I'm wrong, he can't run again in 2027. Is that right? And so, okay, he can't. All right. So, okay. So then what is going to happen in the interim ahead of then the presidential elections? What will that look like in terms of governance in France? Well, it really depends on what happens with this new government.

So if there is a broad coalition of several parties getting together on forming a government on a specific project and they have a majority in parliament, then things can be not that chaotic because they have a majority and they can pass laws and so on. But that's the unlikely scenario. The more likely scenario is that you have a minority government without a majority in parliament and therefore they won't be able to pass law, and they will face a possible, it's called a motion censure motion.

Basically, the government can be toppled down by Parliament at any point. So that option, which is the most likely scenario, will be fairly chaotic. Guys, can we put F3 up on the screen? Arnaud, what can you say about the issue set that was important in this election? This is some of the things that the left coalition ran on. They want to raise the minimum wage.

They want to lower the retirement age, build 1 million affordable homes, freeze the price of basic needs, invest in infrastructure. I saw they also ran on easing and expanding the asylum process. So dramatic difference there from the right wing party and also from where Macron has positioned himself. Was this election driven primarily by these policies or other policy concerns? Was it more about the tactical intelligence of the left? Was it more of a rebuke of the right?

How do you see those things? So those issues matter a lot because there is a strong feeling in the French population, which is actually the truth, that their living standards are going down. And especially Macron made a lot of very unpopular reforms. So, for instance, raising the age at which you can retire, which is what they want to undo.

So those issues were definitely popular. Then the left ran quite a lot on Gaza. It was even, I would say, one of their main topics. And you know, in France now you have a fairly large electorate of Muslim background. And they voted massively for the left because the know, a very Islamophobic Front National, Le Pen, or Macron, who was actually quite pro-Israel. So that mattered as well. And then in between both rounds, the first and the second round, there was a lot of tactical play in order to basically ensure that the Rassemblement National

would not win too many seats. And that also played a big role because when you look at the number of votes, the percentage of votes, the Rassemblement National has way less seats than they will get if they had a proportional number of seats based on the percentage of votes. And Macron has way more votes on the left, a tiny bit more votes. So you can see that these tactical moves had an effect. Very interesting. Arnaud, thank you so much for your analysis. It's really invaluable. And it's great to see you again.

Thank you, Arnaud. Thank you so much. Thank you. It's our pleasure. Thank you guys so much for watching. We really appreciate it. Counterpoints will be on tomorrow and we will see you all on Thursday. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie.

Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son. But I have DNA proof that could get the money back.

Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars. Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover,

the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it.

Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.