Loading summary
Transcript38 lines
- [00:00]
A
Jeremy I'm Jeremy Scahill from DropSiteNews. DropSiteNews.com welcome to our regular weekly live stream. It's Tuesday, August 4th, 2026. Coming up later in the program, my colleague Ryan Grim is going to be breaking down some of these Senate races today, particularly looking at the race in the state of Michigan. But we're going to begin the program today by talking about the the so called ceasefire in Gaza. Now, Remember last October, October 2025, Hamas, Palestinian, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian resistance factions reached a deal that was brokered by the Trump administration along with regional mediator countries, Egypt, Qatar and Turkey. And that deal was signed by Israel. And according to the terms of this so called Sharm El Sheikh agreement, which was named for the resort town in Egypt where Trump held his huge self congratulatory ceremony, Israeli forces were supposed to begin a phased withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. They were supposed to resume the delivery of at least 600 trucks of life essentials. Often it's referred to as humanitarian aid. But this is actually a sort of propagandistic label because Israel maintains full spectrum dominance of what goes in and out of Gaza. And the only international gateway that Gaza has had historically to the outside world was through the Rafah border crossing with Egypt. And the Israelis have continued to block that. And Israel and Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other factions had agreed to an actual ceasefire. In exchange for those terms, the Palestinian side turned over to Israel all Israeli captives that were remaining in the Gaza Strip, both living and deceased, in exchange for several thousand Palestinian captives, including supposedly all women and children that were held by the Israeli occupation. Now what's happened since last October is that the Palestinian side has overwhelmingly complied with every single aspect of the Sharm El Sheikh agreement and Israel has violated every single aspect of that agreement. In fact, it has now killed more Palestinians since the ceasefire began last October than all Israelis combined who died on October 7th. Think about that. There's more than 1,200 Palestinians that have been killed since Israel signed the ceasefire last October. There hasn't been a day when the agreed upon quantities of life essentials, so called humanitarian aid, has entered the Gaza Strip. Israel has not withdrawn its forces. In fact, it's continued to move further and further west and deeper into Gaza. And a couple of months ago, Netanyahu was asked about conquering 100% of Gaza and he said, well, we're on our way to 70%. Let's take our time. The negotiation process though, over this issue where the Palestinian side has been demanding that the mediators and the so called Board of Peace, which is headed officially by a former Bulgarian diplomat named Nikolai Mladinov, the Palestinian side has been saying, when are you actually going to hold Israel to account? And what has happened is that the Trump administration and Israel have created a new reality that is not contained in the actual terms that were signed by the Palestinian side and the Israeli side last October. And that is that the Palestinian factions have to agree to total disarmament before Israel will implement or abide by any of the terms that it actually agreed to last October. And so this has happened throughout Palestinian history over and over again, where Palestinian negotiators come forward, they say, okay, we've reached an agreement, we'll concede to this, but we'll hold our line on this. And they say, okay, we've now reached a kind of compromised solution. And in many cases, the Israelis even say that they initially agree to it, and then they turn around and they say, well, we have a new set of demands now. That thing that we signed isn't relevant anymore. Nonetheless, the Palestinian side said, okay, we want to show flexibility. And what happened in recent days is that Hamas and the Palestinian factions agreed to language that will essentially begin a process of the decommissioning of heavy weapons in Gaza and the dismantling of some of the military infrastructure that's been built up since the Israeli siege of Gaza began many years years ago. And so the Palestinian side, there was a ferocious internal debate on whether or not to do this. But in the end they came forward and said, okay, we've agreed to these terms and we're going to talk about the details in a moment. Well, Israel responded to this. And remember, this is the Palestinian side agreeing to the terms put forward by Trump and his board. The Israelis then turn around and say, oh, no, no, no, no, no, we're not going to withdraw our forces and we reserve the right to continue our airstrikes and other attacks in the Gaza Strip. And so now the Palestinian side is saying, well, the ball is in the court now of the occupation and its allies, the United States and the so called Board of Peace. There's a lot to unpack here and we're really honored to have a good friend of Dropsite and a personal friend of mine, someone whose work I really admire and depend on. I'm referring to Dr. Samy El Arian. He's a very prominent Palestinian academic, activist, researcher. He's the director of the center for Islam and Global affairs at Istanbul Zaim university in Turkey. Dr. Sami El Arian, thanks for Coming back on dropsite.
- [06:11]
B
Thank you so much, Jeremy, and thank you for your kind words.
- [06:15]
A
So let's begin by breaking this down. I mean, you and I both are aware from people that we've talked to that are direct participants in this, that this was a contentious debate leading up to the Palestinian factions, led by Hamas, agreeing to these terms. Before we get into sort of why you think the Palestinian side decided to go forward with this, talk about your overarching analysis of what exactly was agreed to.
- [06:46]
B
Well, I mean, this was a very contentious process, was also a rigged process. It was led by someone who is heavily tilted towards the Israeli position, obviously under the auspices of a board created by Trump. Trump created this board so that he can get through political means what the Israelis could not achieve through military means for over two years. If you remember, back when Trump announced his initiative, it was right after France and Saudi Arabia were gathering international support, support for the notion of a Palestinian nationhood, for a two state solution. Then he came out of nowhere and presented his initiative and he took the momentum out of that process and then he was able to bring about many of the Arab and Muslim nations to support his initiative because they couldn't do anything to stop the genocide that was taking place for two years. So they supported it, hoping that somehow this process will lead not only to the end of the genocide, but will start a relief process. Then it was bogged down. I mean, as you described briefly the whole notion in your introduction, it came as a process that was supposed to go through stages where every party to this agreement, meaning the resistance and the Palestinians in Gaza and the Israelis, on the other hand, will have to commit to certain things that they have to do. And of course, the Israelis did none of the things that they were supposed to do. And the Board of Peace or the Trump administration or the mediators, including Qatar, Egypt and Turkey, as well as the Mladinov and his staff, were not able to do anything or to move anything for Israel to do. None of the things that they were supposed to do in so called stage one were actually fulfilled. No 600 trucks, no real aid to the Palestinians, no shelters, no caravans, no border crossings. Hundreds of people, aside from the thousand and two hundred that were killed by Israel, hundreds also were killed because there was no medical need for them inside of Gaza, particularly those who under long term illnesses like kidney dialysis and cancer treatments and so on and so forth. They were not able to do anything. So we add to this the suffering, not only the daily destruction, but also the suffering of the millions of People. So the resistance was under tremendous pressure because no one else was doing anything to alleviate these sufferings, these problems. So they decided to call the bluff. Obviously, it was a bitter pill to swallow, but their goal is very clear. They wanted to end the ongoing Zionist onslaught and attacks that taking place daily. They wanted to secure an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza because everybody was telling them that no withdrawal would be forthcoming unless they agree to the decommissioning or to the disarmament situation. And we'll talk about details of that, how that's going to take place and what they had agreed to, but also that they can start a large scale reconstruction and aid convoys coming to Gaza. And most importantly, that this process, if carried out successfully, it will prevent permanent Israeli military presence in Gaza and the threat of expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza, which is the most important thing, that the Israelis are trying to create the conditions so that the Palestinians will be despair and leave. And of course, this came with many promises on the other side. So the key word for the resistance, for those who agreed to this process, is reciprocity. They were not willing to swallow this bitter pill because in principle, every people, every group has the right to resist. This is enshrined not only in international law, but as a right for everyone to resist occupation, to resist oppression, to resist tyranny, to resist what Israel has been doing to them. For them to give up arms is something that is huge concession. But the resistance was willing to do that, provided that certain conditions are met. And as you said correctly in your introduction, these conditions should come with the guarantees of the guarantors. Now, whether they will actually deliver is a different story. And I think what Hamas has done, because as you said, this is not even something that the Islamic Jihad has agreed to, even though it put reservations, but it did not veto it. So we'll see how it comes out. But the point that they were trying to make is that what is the guarantee that this would take place? And indeed, within 24 hours, Israel came and says this is unacceptable, even though Miladinov told them during the negotiations that if they agree to these conditions, if they agree to this agreement, he and Trump and the board and everyone else would make sure that Israel will comply. But within 24 hours, of course, rejection came. And this is nothing new. If you go back to the whole history of negotiations, since the creation of the state of Israel, they never stick to anything they sign. This is just a fact of life. I can give you dozens of examples. But if you just go to 1982, what was the agreement when the PLO left Beirut. And of course, they had to also disarm within few days, they went and massacred thousands of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila camp. If you look back in 2002 during Sharon, George W. Bush at the time, he gave certain guarantees to the Palestinians. And then an agreement came about. Sharon came under the pressure of the Americans. He said, yeah, we agree to it, but we have 14 objections to it. And that was their final point. And then with the Zionist pressure on the administration, they just swallowed it and nothing came out of it. Despite that, the Palestinians gave much, many concessions at the time. So what the Israelis do is just, they take the concessions, they bank them, and then they come back with their own reservations that will make whatever concessions the Palestinians make, whatever agreement they had really meaningless. This is another example of this. So I think what the Hamas was trying to do in my final point here is trying to put the international community, the mediators, Trump, Miladinov, and everyone else said, okay, we have agreed to this. Is Israel going to agree to it? And the answer was emphatic no.
- [13:53]
A
Yeah, and remember too, like this sort of sadistic, almost Hannibal Lecter scale commentary that we would hear since the genocide began, where you'd have American and Israeli and sort of the broader Zionist commentariat saying, you just released the hostages and it all can end. The children don't need to be burned alive in tents anymore. And I want people to remember that over and over, including people who claim that they cared about Palestinians. Can they just release the hostages? Because then it's all going to end. It was a total lie from the beginning. And people that know this history knew that it was a total lie from the beginning. Because this is an extension of a policy that began in an intense Way in 1947 and then crescendoed into the formal declaration that there was a state of Israel, and you had an intensification of the Nakba, and ever since then, you've just had an attempt to annihilate the Palestinians and expel them from their land. And what we've seen also, and I keep repeating this, but I really think it's significant and, and it's sort of taboo to talk this way because it's, it's, it's Hamas, it's Islamic Jihad. Israel openly is just continuing without any justification. They're not saying, oh, they're shooting at us or anything to murder people just on the basis that they are members of Hamas or that they are members of Islamic Jihad. The what? Anyone who thinks that this is acceptable. What is your actual definition of a ceasefire? Who signs ceasefires? Little children are not sitting at a table signing a ceasefire. Ceasefires are signed by armed groups, whether they're nation states or they're paramilitary groups. And they come to an agreement that they stop firing against each other and they stop killing even combatants. And so what Israel is doing is continuing to say we have a right to kill people just because they're allegedly a member of Hamas or just because allegedly they're a member of Islamic Jihad. And you know, one of the co founders of Islamic Jihad, Dr. Muhammad Al Hindi, told us many, many months ago for a story that we did, that Israel is not actually concerned with the physical weapons of Gaza. They're concerned with the weapons of willpower. That what they actually want is a surrender ritual. That's really what this issue of the arms is about. But Sami, you and I both have said we're going to talk about the details. So let me just read the sort of key point here of what Hamas formally agreed to. This is 0.8 in the so called roadmap. This is a direct quote, a process to decommission and store heavy weapons. Military production sites, depots of weapons and tunnels shall begin after completing the remaining commitments under Sharm El Sheikh protocol. The entry of ncag. This is a technocratic committee of independent Palestinians and the deployment of the International Stabilization Force. This would be the multinational troops that Trump has said are going to come in. This process shall be administered and implemented by NCAG in a gradual, sequential and time bound manner according to an implementation timetable that shall be completed within 14 days after all parties approve the roadmap which could be extended. This process shall be linked to an Israeli withdrawal in phases from the areas under its control in Gaza and the decommissioning of armed militias in accordance with Article 10 of this roadmap. This process shall be monitored and verified by an international committee and supported by the isf, the International Stabilization Force. The Palestinian factions shall take part in this process and no weapons shall be transferred or handed to Israel or non Palestinian parties. And then it goes on to say that only this technocratic Palestinian committee has the right to issue licenses, et cetera, for weapons. So this was very controversial within Hamas and the broader Palestinian resistance community. And it's something that the factions had been resisting agreeing to. Not in its entirety. They have their own versions of a decommissioning process, but they wanted it directly linked to the establishment of a Palestinian security force capable of defending itself. And that's a side issue for a second, but then the Board of Peace, Modanov comes out after this, and he goes and he meets with Benjamin Netanyahu and others, and then they post on Twitter. The meeting was constructive and detailed. Israel and the Board of Peace share a common understanding of the ultimate objectives. The goal is clear and is not in question. The complete decommissioning of weapons in the Strip and the transition away from rule by the gun to civilian governance reaching it will be a process. And that process will be set out in the next phase of the work. And this is the money shot here. Contrary to inaccurate reports, we note that the withdrawal of the IDF beyond the yellow line will take place only once decommissioning is complete. As Hamas committed to the mediators, this applies to light weapons, heavy weapons, and the tunnels alike. So what they're saying here is that Israel is not going to withdraw its forces until this process of total demilitarization and disarmament of the Palestinians is finished. And they say, and Hamas agreed to this? I just read you what Hamas agreed to, and it doesn't say what that says. And then Netanyahu, who's campaigning for reelection, is saying, we're not going to pull any of our troops out and we're going to continue to attack. And Netanyahu doesn't want the image of Israeli tanks rolling out of Gaza. So what we have here is a repetition of this pattern where the Palestinian side makes an agreement, even painful concessions on their side. They never surrendered. They never waved the white flag. So it's not like you're dealing with a vanquished army here. And then the Israelis say, oh, but these are new terms. And then the international community, in this case, it's this fraudulent board of peace come in, and they say, well, Hamas is breaking the deal. Hamas agreed to do all this. Hamas never agreed to do all of it.
- [19:50]
B
That's exactly. That's exactly right. And as I said, it's just. It repeats itself every time because the balance of power is so huge. The imbalance of power, I should say, also. And that's what you end up with. And that's when you give up even an inch. They want a yard and so on. I mean, this is not going to work. So Israel just torpedoed whatever the negotiators or the mediators were trying to get for the past few months. Now the ball really is in their court. I don't think the resistance can deliver anything more than what they have done. The concessions has been to the bone, and I don't think they would be willing to do anything more. If they were serious about this, then they should be putting pressure on Israel to actually fulfill its phase one commitment, let alone phase two, which phase two would have started the withdrawal. Now if you look at where Israel was right when this agreement was signed, at the time it had 53% of Gaza, now they claimed 70%. So who's been breaching this whole agreement all along? I mean, instead of withdrawing, they're actually adding, and not only they're adding to Palestine, they added to Lebanon. I mean, just a few facts. Yesterday they were able to dig the past few days graves of 305 people. They only found 110, 112 bodies. These were only from two families. Out of these 112 bodies there were 44 children and 37 women and about 10 elderly people. Just try to digest this information. This is one massacre that happened during the war and these are just from a single family. When you look at Lebanon, for example, they destroyed 18,000 buildings and occupied 600 kilometers square and killing obviously thousands of people and destroying 18,000 buildings and 18,000 buildings housing tens of thousands of people. So this is not a regimental that wants any kind of a settlement, a political settlement. All what it wants is to drive people out. And this is what's happening. So Hamas has signed on to this agreement and Israel has refused. Then it is up to the mediators, if they truly call for the end of the genocide and the end of the destruction, to put the pressure on Israel to deliver. Israel does not want to deliver. Israel does not want to withdraw. Israel does not want the Palestinian to have any kind of life. Hamas does not exist in terms of resistance in the West Bank. And what's the situation in the west bank today? That answers the question. It's not about decommissioning, it's about who is going to hold on to the territories and who's trying to impose their will on the other.
- [22:52]
A
You know Sami, I mentioned that Netanyahu is running for reelection, but there's also, it hasn't gotten as much attention, but it's quite consequential, particularly within the broader Palestinian community, both in Palestine and globally. You know, there's been the European Union led by France and with the involvement of the United States and to a degree the involvement of this so called Board of Peace. They've been behind the scenes manipulating Palestinian law and rules on elections in collaboration with Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority. And we've reported extensively on this at drop site. But in short, what they've tried, what The EU and the US have, have done by putting this pressure on Abbas. And Abbas, for his own reasons that have to do with the fact that he generally is basically a dictator of his little kind of Vichy regime within, you know, broader historic Palestine, he's gone along with this. And they've, they've tried to manipulate the Palestinian election laws and rules to basically say that anyone that actually believes in current armed resistance against the Israelis and doesn't accept Abbas's reimagination of what the Palestine Liberation Organization should be and doesn't accept the basic terms of the Oslo framework of the 1990s, that anyone, any Palestinian groups that don't accept those terms and that control an armed faction cannot participate in elections. And so this posed a challenge even for people like Mustafa Barghouti, who's a physician that doesn't control an armed faction because he's been very critical of the way that they have kind of abused the, the word liberation in the term, in the, in the organization, Palestine Liberation Organization. But Hamas did make that decision, you know, more than 20 years ago to run for the elections. And they won. They didn't just win the elections in Gaza, they won the elections in all of Palestine. And Ismail Haniyeh, the former leader of Hamas, was the prime minister of Palestine. And then the international community went nuts. And then there was a battle for control. And then you had a split between Gaza and the, and the west bank and the rest is sort of history. But what is your sense of what's going to happen this time? Because despite everything that's went down, that's gone down the past almost three years, Hamas remains a very powerful and popular political force. Maybe its popularity has taken hits for various reasons in various quarters, but it still remains an incredibly powerful political movement and organization with a lot of indigenous support. What's going to happen when these elections go down in some months in Palestine, Sammy?
- [25:56]
B
First of all, of course, Israel killed the two state solution. It torpedoed the whole process. It killed Oslo basically. And even the Trump administration now barred the plo, which was party to the Oslo process. If you Remember, back in 1993, the Palestinians gave their, I'm talking about the official leadership of the PLO. They recognized Israel and 78% of Palestine thinking that they were going to end up with 22%. The Israelis only said that we're going to negotiate with the plo. And then the PLO remained on the terrorist list, but was suspended until Trump brought it back. So even the notion of the PLO is no longer there. So Oslo is dead. There is nothing about that process that's still going on. What's happening here is that they wanted to exclude all those people who are fighting Israel by any means, whether it's military means or non military means. They want to completely marginalize them. And they're trying to do that through several ways. One of it obviously was through the genocide, but now through this political exclusion. So they put pressure on Abbas to have elections. Abbas now is serving his 22nd year of a five year term, by the way, so he never really was for any elections. Whenever there's an election, he would call for and then he will cancel the elections when time comes. So what's going to happen is he put these very rigid conditions on whoever is going to become a candidate so that he can exclude everyone who calls for any kind of resistance, peaceful resistance, non peaceful resistance, it doesn't matter. I think what's going to happen is that people will try to outsmart him. They'll probably go and run anyways. They can possibly sign whatever papers and then when he sees that he's going to lose, he's going to cancel them again. And that would be under the eyes of the European Community, of the whole international community, the Board of Peace, what have you. Because they would love to see leaders like Abbas and his people running the Palestinian show and excluding the others. And I think what the others will do is that they will run individually rather than as individual. I don't think Hamas will run. Hamas will not agree to this or the Islamic Jihad that never actually runs candidates because it's against this whole process. But you will find individuals who are very prominent among the Palestinians who would run and would probably come together in a coalition somehow as an allied coalition. And they will try to run against the list of Abbas. When Abbas sees that he's going to lose, he will cancel again.
- [28:43]
A
You know, Sami, I want to ask you also, you, you, you made reference to what's been happening in the west bank and it really is, it's really unspeakable. The, the violence that's being meted out against Palestinians in the occupied west bank at all. And again, it doesn't, it doesn't get attention. I mean, Gaza doesn't get attention anymore. I mean, there's a total dearth of, of coverage of reporting. Al Jazeera has even, you know, Al Jazeera has been one of probably the single most important news organization covering Gaza, let go a lot of its staff in Gaza recently and people were very angry about that for a variety of reasons. I mean, these journalists have been risking their lives. And record numbers of journalists have been killed, of course, more than 300 media workers. But Al Jazeera has paid its reporters and journalists have paid a higher price than any news organization. Our colleague Hossam Shabbat, who was a correspondent for Al Jazeera Mubashtar, was assassinated. Anas Al Sharif, the greatest journalistic hero of our generation, was assassinated. These weren't guys that died in a roadside bomb. They were assassinated. And, and yet what we're witnessing in the west bank right now, and a lot of it we know because of citizen journalists, is these terrorist gangs of so called settlers with the full support of the Israeli government and official armed forces, ransacking, burning Palestinian villages, olive groves, attacking Palestinians, continuing to do forced displacement. The occupied west bank remains under the largest force displacement campaign since 1967. And it all kicked off with the Palestinian Authority security forces collaborating with the Israeli forces two years ago or so and launching a siege and going after the resistance in the occupied West Bank. And then it was full scale attacks and scorched earth by the Israeli occupation forces. But I'm giving this context with both Gaza and the west bank to present you with this question. Do you see or a the potential for a third Palestinian intifada? What are the methods of resistance we might witness because history is our best indicator of what can happen. And history would indicate that the pot is boiling and it's simmering and it's a slow boil right now, but the conditions have been altered quite dramatically as a result of the post 10-7- actions of Israel. But given your investment in this throughout your whole life, Sami, and your scholarship on this, talk about the conditions for a potential third intifada that we might witness, or do you think it will go in a different direction? What do you, I know you don't have a crystal ball, but what do you see? What indicators are you looking at right now to suggest what we might see coming in the months and years ahead?
- [31:43]
B
And Palestine, the Zionist regime has studied very meticulously the modes of resistance by the Palestinians. And they were able to create conditions in the past 30 plus years with the Palestinian Authority in order to isolate Palestinians from each other. So if you look at the first two intifadas, whether 1987 through 1991 or 2001, 2000, you will find that you had a Palestinian contiguous territories. Of course, Gaza was one, and the second one in 2001, 2002 was mainly in the West Bank. But what you have today is you have isolated Islands. Once they figured out how to control the Palestinians through these Palestinian security forces, which were trained by the Americans by the way, and financed for the most part by the Americans, in order to create this barrier between the Palestinian population centers, whether they are around the main cities or the major villages, so that they could not have a presence against the soldiers. So what you have today, in terms of the assassinations, in terms of the burnings, in terms of what's happening, this is in Area C. Now, if you recall back in the Oslo accord, they divided the Palestinians not only with Gaza and the west bank, but within the west bank as areas A, B and C. The Palestinian Authority only is controlling areas A, and Area A is basically the population centers, which has about 80% of the Palestinians. That's the bulk of the Palestinian people. If you have an intifada, the bulk of these people would be in the streets and they will be engaging the occupation forces. That's not who is controlling them today. That is the Palestinian security forces again trained and paid by foreign money. Mainly in the past was American money. Now a lot of it is Arab money. But if you look at area B and C, that's where most of the burnings and most of the assaults and the attacks and the killings of the settlers are taking place. This is about 15% of the Palestinians in Area B and about 5% of the Palestinians in Area C. The aim of the settlers, basically Smotrich, is making this possible is to run against the fight to make the 5% Palestinians run out from that area and go to different places because they're trying to confiscate 60%. Area C is 60% of the West Bank. The West bank is 5,500 square meters, kilometers. And what they're trying to do is to get 60% to annex it to the State of Israel to make sure that there will never be a two state solution. And of course they have been building settlements left and right today. If you look at the map of the settlements, there is no way you can have a contiguous state. That's why in the so called deal of the century, the by Kushner and Trump, it was imagined that you're going to have tunnels and bridges rather than roads, because all these roads you can't have because they are all Israeli territory, because they have either been confiscated or effectively confiscated. So there is no two state solution. There is no political settlement, political horizon. So that leaves you with one thing and one thing only. The conditions is going to erupt and, and that eruption will erupt in different ways. It could be violence, it could be an intifada, it could be all sorts of things. The Israelis will crack down. And if the world will let Israel again commit another massacre, another genocide against the West Bank Palestinians, then we're going to have another tragedy in our hands. The bottom line is, until the Palestinian Authority breaks, until the security forces break, you're not going to have a mass intifada where you're going to have demonstrations against the occupation forces, because the occupation forces right now there is a bridge, there is a force between them and the Palestinians, and that is the security forces. So that has to. That's why the security agencies within Israel always warning against the Palestinian security forces. What if. And the question is, what if they go on the side of the Palestinians and they themselves start revolting because they can see their people, their families and their relatives are suffering and are being killed? So that is a possibility that not only you're going to have a real revolt and intifada, but also that the Palestinian security forces, which number about 50 to 60 to 70,000 people, that they themselves could actually lay down their arms or. Or actually switch to the other side, and they themselves could actually become a threat to the occupation forces. Because what's happening today in the west bank is not sustainable. It's not something that could continue forever. They're trying to engineer events by which they are trying to force mass immigration of the Palestinians. And I'm talking about the settlers and their enablers. And that is like Bengthir and Smotrich and many members of the Likud, by the way, not just these two factions. So if I have to guess, I think at one point there's going to be a mass eruption, there will be a crackdown, as we've seen in the past in Jenin and Nablus and other places. And it then becomes whether the Palestinian Authority is going to survive this or not, and whether the Palestinian security forces, which have been basically aiding and abetting the occupation, whether they will continue to play that role and whether the Palestinian intelligence services, by Majid Faraj, continue to tell the Israelis who the leaders are so that they can go and storm at night and arrest these leaders. So this whole process will have to break down before a mass intifada takes place in the West Bank.
- [37:55]
A
Yeah, I mean, it's also why I think it's really important for people to pay attention to internal Palestinian politics, particularly right now, because, as you mentioned, you know, Abbas is effectively, you know, leader for life, because he's either afraid of elections or keeps canceling them or, you know, in this case, they're trying to rig the entire thing in his favor preemptively. And, and this is part of the reason, including his age, why you had this ritual recently where he sort of anointed Hussein Sheikh, who, who is known to be very close to both the Israelis and the Americans, as the kind of default successor. Whether he would be the official public successor of Abbas or just the kingmaker behind the scenes is somewhat irrelevant. But if you then have a disruption in this collaborationist regime and pro resistance forces prevail in these elections, then you have these security forces, some of which have been trained by the United States and have collaborated with Israel, having the question put before him, whose side are you on right now? And that's what the EU and the US have been trying to prevent. That's one of the main reasons why they did not want Ismail Haniyeh to be the actual prime minister of Palestine when Hamas won the elections.
- [39:14]
B
There is also one other point that's very important to note, is that Fatah so far has not decided to join. And that could be attributed to many of the corrupt leaders. But there is also the possibility once Abbas dies, which could be at any moment, you know, is what, 89, 90, when that happens, Fatih could actually break down, could actually disintegrate in which you will have many factions and then some factions will certainly join with other forces. And then that could be also a recipe by which you can find find mass desertions from the Palestinian security forces. And then they could join actually an intifada that can break everywhere. And then the Israelis will have their hands full trying to bring it down. So there are many scenarios and I think because Israeli intransigence, one of these scenarios is going to take place, not the two that distant future.
- [40:17]
A
Yeah, well, we could have a whole discussion just picking up from what we were, we were talking about there. But it really is going to be, I think, a very pivotal moment in the recent history to see what happens in both the Israeli elections and in the Palestinian elections. Dr. Sami Al Arian, thank you so much for, for your insight, your analysis, and for joining us again here at Dropsite.
- [40:37]
B
Thank you, Jeremy, very much.
- [40:41]
A
Dr. Samuel Arian is the director of the center for Islam and Global affairs at Istanbul's Zaim University, frequent guest here at Dropsite News. Coming up in a moment, my colleague Ryan Grim is going to be joining us to talk about the It's a big day today in the primary season in the US Electoral cycle, particularly in Michigan, right Now, Ryan, I mean it looks, the polls indicate that there's going to be a, a sort of defeat of the machine at the hands of, of the sort of insurgent candidacy of in Michigan right now.
- [41:23]
C
Yes. And we put up a story yesterday by Michigan reporter Tom Perkins which I would encourage people to go read over@dropsitenews.com because it runs through a bunch of kind of down ballot races as well as well as congressional races that are pitting people who are both kind of economic populists but also have been really motivated by the genocide in Gaza, by their opposition to US Support for Israel and now of course now by the US And Israel's collective action in the war against Iran. But the marquee race, not just in Michigan but really nationally since, particularly since then, since the main blowout and then implosion is Abdul El Sayed against Haley Stevens. And it's just such a kind of remarkably kind of clear and stark campaign because Haley Stevens in 2022, I believe it was after redistricting put into a district and was encouraged to run against Andy Levin who was the scion of a dynasty in Michigan. You know, Sandy Levin and Carl Levin are his, his uncle and his father who are both kind of legendary figures in, in Michigan Michigan politics. Carl Levin kind of lion of the Senate. Levin himself described himself as a liberal Zionist. He was the former president of a synagogue, but he was quite critical of, of the state of Israel about Israeli actions. And more disturbing to aipac, he would routinely defend representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib Talib also of Michigan and say that while maybe he doesn't agree specifically with their precise criticism that they're leveling at the moment, their criticism is valid, needs to be understood and attempts to just write them off as just anti Semitic were, were out of bounds and that they needed to be listened to like any other member of, of the Democratic Caucus. APAC APEX president at the time, in an interview with Dave Weigel said on the record that because of that Andy Levin had to go. So AIPAC went in and supported Haley Stevens to the tune of many millions of dollars to drive Andy Levin out of office. And the argument was very clear. His, his, his position as both a member of this dynasty and also former president of a synagogue made his criticism of, of Israel, you know, too potent. And so he had to go. So think about what they're saying there. That's. They are saying they specifically spent money against him and drove him out of Congress because he was Jewish. Precisely because he was Jewish. So that's how Haley Stevens gets her power in Congress. So this time around, AIPAC has spent at least more than $30 million. That's what they've spent through their super PAC, which is called United Democracies Project. And you'll like this, Jeremy. When they first launched their super pac, I was like, what are they, what is, what is udp? What is United Democracy Project? And turns out the branding means Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. The United States is this very old democracy. And so this is a project to unite the democracies. Like, okay, so That's AIPAC Super PAC. They have spent at least 30 million dollars. Another 30 to 40 plus million dollars has come from. We don't quite know where this C4 called Center Forward that doesn't have to disclose its donors. It may be AI money. It's big tech money. It's big money. Whatever it is. I don't suspect it's necessarily AIPAC kind of sneaking around because they've already openly spent 30 plus million dollars. Abdul Al said, meanwhile, has had a super PAC organized by the National Nurses United Union, which Barry Weiss's Free Press called the lobbyists for the nursing industry. They've put in a few hundred thousand dollars. The group American Priorities, which is the kind of super PAC countering apac, has put in less than a million dollars. Overall. He's had about $2 million, a little bit more than $2 million in outside support for his campaign. So we're, we're looking at 2 million up against 50 plus 60 plus million dollars and all of the polls, we'll see the betting odds have her down at like 2 or 3% chance of winning. All the polls have them up more than more than 10%. And if, if he is able to beat her with the full support of the party establishment being outspent this substantially with Haley Stevens even running millions of dollars of ads paid for by AIPAC falsely suggesting that she's endorsed by Barack Obama. It will be, it will be a seismic defeat for, for the Democratic Party. And they're probably also going to lose this, this House race in mid Michigan to which in a Republican district to a guy named Will Lawrence who's running against genocide and against data centers as well. So it's, it's gonna, it's going to be kind of an earthquake if, if the numbers, you know, hold up tonight.
- [46:54]
A
You know, I wanted to ask you on the, on the other side of the aisle on this regarding, regarding the Republicans, you know, there was a discourse that we also participated in earlier in the Iran war that, you know, that the Iran war quagmire. And it remains a quagmire. I mean, Trump is just like, that's not what we're talking about today. But he's still flailing around to try to, you know, figure out a way to spin a victory narrative here because the Iranians are just not going to give him what he, he wants to make the deal. In order for him to claim some kind of epic victory, there may be some other, you know, sort of temporary agreement in the works. The Iranian, there's action going on between Iran and Oman. You know, Trump clearly is also getting nervous about gas prices. You know, he had his Truth Social post yesterday. I know you became an early paid subscriber to his new premium service.
- [47:42]
C
Of course, 100 grand. You're losing money. Not buying that.
- [47:45]
A
Yeah, but, you know, and I would connect this with the question I'm gonna ask you. I would also connect it to what happened with Kamala Harris where, you know, the, the, the Democrats sort of whistled past the graveyard on the Gaza issue and, and they thought that it was, you know, not going to have the impact that it did. And it, you know, know, it was a quite decisive factor in Kamala Harris's defeat. It wasn't the only factor, but it was a significant one and probably one that had enough potency to tilt it, you know, against her. But on the Republican side, Trump really seems to continue to have a massive grip on the entirety of the Republican Party and his endorsement does actually mean something. How does that play in a, know, in a battleground state like Michigan? Let's say that we have Abdul Al Said prevail and he's the Democratic nominee. Who then does he likely face at the, on the Republican side? And what does the Trump factor look like in the broader midterm schemes now? Given everything that we know at this moment, it's still a, you know, long ways to go. You know, several months is a lifetime in politics. But you understand what I'm saying? I mean, break down kind of what the other side of this looks like.
- [48:55]
C
Yeah, his, his, his opponent will be this guy, Mike Rogers, who's a very kind of Republican establishment candidate, but has the support of, of Donald Trump. El Sayed has said he's, he's going to call him for the next several months. Five Dollar Rogers, which he says is aimed at highlighting how gas is headed towards $5, but also kind of how corrupt the guy is. You can buy him for, for $5. He, so he ran against Alyssa Slotkin recently, I guess two years ago, and, and narrowly lost. So, you know, he's a very, he's a very formidable candidate. But on the, on the, on the Republican primaries and Republican Party more generally, I was actually asking this the same question to my breaking points co host Sagar, because we've been covering all of these Democratic primaries for, for many months now, and you've got these really, you know, heated contested races between, you know, the populist candidates and the establishment incumbents. And there's been, you know, anybody who's even following it casually has seen this unfold over the past year. And I was asking Cy, I was like, what's, do you have any races at all other than this Thomas Massie primary in Kentucky? And, and he said no. And that's because Trump has such a solid lock on his party that all of the members of the House who are other than Thomas Massie effectively and Marjorie Taylor Greene support whatever it is that Trump says he wants. If he's anti war, that's the MAGA position. When he's pro war, that's the MAGA position. If he wants tax cuts for the rich, that's the MAGA position. And so because every single Republican always votes 100% with Donald Trump, there's just no opening for any Republicans to run in any House or Senate, well, not Senate races. I'll get to that in a second. In any House races around the country, like, if you're kind of, let's say you wanted to be an insurgent MAGA candidate, you cannot win without, at minimum, Trump staying neutral. But you really would need the endorsement of Donald Trump. And Trump has made clear that no matter what you've said about him in the past, no matter who you are, what you're about, who you've, who in your family you may have beaten or assaulted, that as long as you voted with him, he's going to support you. And so that has sucked all of the oxygen out of any House Republican primaries, which is why we have this completely distorted situation where on the one asymmetric situation, on the one side you've got Democratic turmoil. On the other side, you've got just absolutely nothing. Now, on the Senate side, there have been a handful of Senate Republicans who stood up to Trump in various ways. Some of them voted against him after January 6, some of them voted against his, some measures on the floor. So Tom Tillis in North Carolina was one of them. He didn't even run. He was under so much pressure from Trump for reelection. And now actually Democrats are going to are, you know, the, the Roy Cooper, the North Carolina governor is favorite. He's up by like 15 or 20 points. Like it's looking like it's going to be as that's an exaggeration. But he's, he's way up in North Carolina. So Trump is probably going to cost them North Carolina. But he also, elsewhere he has, he ousted Bill Cow, Bill Cassidy in Louisiana and elsewhere. He ousted a couple of senators who were not disloyal to Trump but once in a while were somewhat critical of him or somewhat even, let's just say skeptical, not even critical. Like Cassidy, for instance, hemmed and hawed before he approved RFK Jr. RFK Jr. For HHS. That kind of thing was enough to earn Trump's ire and get them ousted. So the only actual live contests we've had on the Republican side have been ones in which Trump, despite the fact that he's in the low 30s nationally, Trump has, you know, managed to express the hold that he has on the party by ousting, by ousting these senators. So Mike Rogers had no competition in the Michigan Senate race. He's like a, just very standard looking, looks like a Republican politician. He's, he's neck and neck in the polls. The fact that he barely lost to Alyssa Slot can, you know, suggest that this, he's a serious candidate. The, this kind of establishment is saying that the left is taking a huge risk here with El Sayed. I think either way you're looking at a risk because if you beat Abdul El Sayed, you have the same problem Democrats had in 2024, which you had. You have huge swaths of Michigan which don't want to support somebody who supports genocide. And if they stay home or they vote for Mike Rogers, you've got the same problem you had in, in 2024. Now the question is, are there going to be so many kind of centrist Democrats that are angry about how the primary went that they vote for Mike Rogers? But we're also looking at a Democratic kind of, not a wave, but like a strong puddle coming their way. So the hope, the hope among El Said supporters is that there's enough to kind of carry him through.
- [54:13]
A
Yeah, I mean, I still remain, you know, I'm, I'm fully immersed with the, you know, with Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, and I'm not as dialed into, you know, the kind of tick tock of the American political situation right now. But, but when I do pay attention, it's, it's kind of astonishing the degree to which like Hassan Piker is like a discourse now in the Democratic Party. Like, look, watching James Carville the other day saying he's going to leave the Democratic Party party because of Hassan Piker. I mean, it's like you, you could not find a less serious group of people than establishment Democrats. It's like they, the, the, and I'm saying this now as someone who's not in the weeds just looking at it also as, you know, an American voter or whatever, but it's like they, they have a PhD in just absolutely blowing it to Donald Trump. I, I remember, you know, I, she blocks me on Twitter. But I sometimes watch Neera Tandon, who forget what position she served in eventually because she couldn't get Senate confirmed. So they had to, like, get her, give her some, you know, third place prize kind of appointment. But I occasionally see her and you fighting. But again, she, she blocks me. And I went back to look at why it was she blocked me. And she blocked me because during the 2016 election when Hillary Clinton was running against Donald Trump, I pointed out that according to emails that were made public by WikiLeaks, Neera Tanden had advocated for or celebrated the idea that Donald Trump would be the nominee because they would be like, such a slam dunk to beat them. And when Neera Tanden was sort of accusing me of enabling Trump because I was being critical of Hillary, I pointed this out and then she immediately blocked me on Twitter. But the point I'm making is that I feel like we're in this reality that's not a new reality with the Democratic Party, but the stakes become much higher because I would, I would argue that in both 2016 and this time around when, when Trump won, he was able to win because of the way that the Democrats ran their races, because of the fundamentally undemocratic way in which the Democratic primaries take place. And, you know, we only have a few moments left. But I wanted to ask you this as a kind of layperson on the political, political, you know, horse races in the United States. What is the next presidential race shaping up to look like in the Democratic primary? I know there's talk of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez potentially throwing her hat into the ring. Gavin Newsom is already basically campaigning for the nomination. Kamala Harris has suggested she might get into it. John Ossoff, former journalist who's now a US Senator, seems to be increasing in his name recognition and popularity. But, but what do you think it's going to look like it's going to start basically immediately after the midterms, if I'm correct. What's your sort of 30,000ft view of this?
- [57:07]
C
In some ways, it'll start kind of in earnest on Wednesday and much will depend on how the returns come in tonight. If outside wins fairly comfortably, if Will Lawrence WINS, if Donovan McKinney pulls off an upset and beats and beats this congressman in Detroit, and if Cori Bush, who's also up tomorrow, if she manages that, don't know, people don't expect her to win, but she has a shot. Like if she comes back and she wins, people have also memory hold what happened in, in Maine because of the way that it imploded. But you had a leftist insurgent just absolutely annihilate the establishment. The sitting governor who was running for Senate. So that's two kind of swing states that would have gone significantly in a populist, anti war direction. The, the problem is that other than aoc, you don't have a whole Rokhana is, you know, floating is, you know, widely considered to be running for president. Other than those two, there isn't. And then, then the question becomes whether OSSOF can capture some of that as well. Because it's not clear whether AOC is going to run or not. Not. I think I, I, I end up thinking that she will because it's just right there. And even if she loses, if, if it, it'll be clear that she's lost by let's say, January, February. And at that point she can jump into a Senate race or she can go back to the House like it's sort of like a free shot. And it would be very rare for a politician who has a credible free shot at the White House not to take it. It's possible she doesn't, she doesn't do it. They'll all have to confront the fact that a lot of the base energy is, is further to their left. At this point, AOC will have to confront the statement that she made at the Democratic national committee in 2024 that Kamala Harris has been working tirelessly for a ceasefire. That's, that is, that is going to follow her around I think, until she, until she addresses it directly. Because we now know, we knew at the time, but we now know definitively from Biden's advisors that they were not, not only were they not working tirelessly, they weren't working at all. Like at that point they had basically, you know, given up, given up on that. And so then you're left with somebody like Gavin Newsom. And so the question becomes, do Democrats just kind of get exhausted by the whole process and say, this guy wants it so bad, just give it to him. And he's charming and you know, he's good looking and look at that smile and look at how good he is at like making fun of the Republicans. Like if so he's, you know, he can scratch that itch for Democrats. But I think you're right that, that Ossoff has been kind of surging in interest among Democrats. He's up for reelection in, in Georgia. And you don't hear much about his election because he's doing so well. And, and that's a state that, you know, effectively Democrats win Georgia, it's, it's, you know, they could still lose the Rust Belt and lose the, lose the White House, but winning Georgia is absolutely crucial. So the short answer is that tonight I think what will, will really point the direction of where people feel like they, as presidential candidates have to be kind of positioning themselves.
- [60:25]
A
You know, I, I, I think that the Democratic Party continues to underestimate the degree to which voters on the left that occasionally consider voting for the Democrats, you know, and you know, left wing independent voters or people even that would identify themselves as left wing Democrats, how serious of an issue the Gaza genocide actually is. And you know, people sort of yell at the kids to get off their lawn about this issue and say, well, if you don't vote for the Democrats, who is the alternative? But I actually think that this is an immoral harping that's going on toward people that actually have poured themselves, they witnessed what was happening, they came of age, particularly young people watching children being burned alive. And they were able to watch that because of Palestinians who were livestreaming it while they themselves were being attacked and record numbers of our journalistic colleagues were murdered. And I don't think anybody has any business lecturing, particularly young people who, you know, this is their 68 moment. And, and 68 wasn't just, it wasn't a fad, it wasn't a trend. You're talking about an illegal illegitimate war in Vietnam where the United States was burning children alive. And in that case you had thousands of body bags coming home of American soldiers dying for what? And, and, and in this case, it's a core moral issue. I have nothing but admiration and respect, particularly for young people who could be spending their, you know, their time totally differently pouring themselves into this. And so when we talk about AOC's moment, there it's way goes, extends way beyond AOC's moment. She's had Multiple moments, particularly on Palestine, but not only Palestine, where she's absolutely shown herself to not have a spine. And I think we just have to be blunt about that. So it's not like you just yell at the kids to get off the lawn and, you know, and come along because, you know, Dad's got the car packed and we got to all go. This is a moral issue for people and the onus is on the Democratic Party to appeal to those voters. And this is the same pattern we've seen in Democratic primaries, but also in the general election over and over, where no matter what the Democrats do, they come back and they say, you have a moral obligation to vote for us no matter what we do, because the alternative is Donald Trump. And the blame is then placed on people who have an actual conscience and say, but in a democracy, we should be able to vote for people who reflect our core values, at least on the issues most important to us. And it's not just economic issues, although that's a big one. It's a genocide that was facilitated, funded, supported, enabled by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. And then at the moment when Harris could have pivoted away from it, AOC plays the role of sheepdog or, or, or attempted to be, to say, come back in. Kamala's working around the clock. So I think that, that is, that's, that's not just like a one off thing. That is a huge issue that, that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is going to face if she tries to throw her hat into this ring.
- [63:25]
C
Yes. And there's, there's an alternative universe in which she made a different calculation that she made where she made a decision that she was going to be the voice of opposition to this genocide. And people, her defenders will say, well, she has a pretty good voting record. She called for a ceasefire fairly early. There's no question that she was not the voice of the opposition to it like that. You can't argue one way or another about that question. She, she simply was not the voice of that opposition and that position, certainly because Bernie didn't take it like that position was available to her. And she, and she chose not to take it. She chose to take a different route. If she had done that, she would be pouring into the 2028 election with the moral authority of having taken that stand, plus the popularity that she has generated throughout the, throughout the party's base. I think she would be almost unbeatable in the Democratic nomination if she had done that, which is, it's unusual, that kind of a calculation to compromise your integrity there actually ends up hurting you, sadly, in Democratic Party politics, because I
- [64:32]
A
think they were stuck. I, I, I, I think, I think that part of what happens this is just conjecture. I don't talk to insiders in this on these matters, but I think part of it is like a fear of, like, oh, I'm going to be Dennis Kucinich. I'm just going to be, I'm going to be considered, you know, Dennis Kucinich, who, you know, had had an incredibly stellar voting record, was always there on the front line to speak out, ran for the Democratic nominee nomination multiple times, had some really epic interventions in the, in the debates, was able to garner, you know, support, but nowhere near the kind of support you would need to, like, clear the hurdle to becoming an actual contender. And I think that they've talked themselves into this, you know, mythology created by the Democratic Party establishment that, like, you're going to become marginalized. I remember years ago when I interviewed AOC early on in her political career, she called on, on my podcast for Schumer and Pelosi to go, and there was a huge blowup about this. And, you know, then she got a talking to and about how Congress works and about committee assignments. And what we've seen is her. It's not that she doesn't have a generally progressive voting record. You know, it's, it's, it's that they still buy into this mythology. This is what you're indicating, Ryan. They buy into the mythology that, like, if we get that seat at the table, it costs us, but then we're going to be able to fight for people. And actually, the times, they have changed, you know, and I think you're absolutely right. If she had said at that moment, I am willing to campaign for Kamala Harris, I am willing to hear a change of heart. But Harris, in front of the world, needs to come up on that stage and needs to say, I would do things differently than Joe Biden. And instead she said, I wouldn't change a thing. So these aren't, these are becoming unforgivable offenses to many independent voters. And the question is, is it enough to, again, sway the election? And if it is, if the Democrats are smart, they recognize that the dynamics have shifted. But when you listen to Hakeem Jeffries and you listen to Chuck Schumer and you listen to the kind of kingpins of Democratic strategy, they really don't seem to get it. And what do they do? They obsess about Hassan Piker, you know, Hassan Piker actually gets criticized from the left because he actually does his own, you know, sort of encouraging people, oh, set some of this aside. Go for this. He's getting attacked from the left. But the idea that Hassan Piker is destroying the Democratic Party, it's like Hassan Piker, by some standards in the kind of pro Palestine community, is controversial and is basically a moderate on electoral politics. That's just reality right now, though. And the Democrats, the Democratic establishment, they don't want to listen to it. I think AOC made a colossal miscalculation with her sheepdogging, you know, during the sheep herding during the, you know, the 2024 election.
- [67:28]
B
Yeah.
- [67:28]
C
And there's, there's a poll that Dropsite and Zateo sponsored that in Michigan that actually speaks directly to this. We had data for progress. It's getting fairly inexpensive now to run like serious professional polls. And so we did a poll of the primary electorate in Michigan and one of the questions we asked was about, you know, how AIPAC and support for AIPAC and support for Israel's genocide or opposition to it kind of fits into your political worldview. And the mistake that Democrats make is that if you asked, you know, everyone in America, you know, where the genocide in Gaza ranked as one of their top priorities, it would not be in the top like four or five. Like you'd have education, you know, cost of living, you'd have education, health care, the economy, jobs, and, and then it would be under that, which is understandable. But what they missed is that where somebody stood on that issue then colored how much they trusted them on all the other issues. And even moderate voters in the poll, I think over 60% of them agreed with the statement that if a candidate won't stand up to aipac, they won't fight for me on these other issues. So even if affordability is your, is your top issue and you've got the, you've got Israel, Israel, genocide, or the war in Iran down at 6 or 7, if somebody is awash in APAC money, no matter what they say about affordability or health care or education, you don't believe them. You think they're another lying politician who is selling out their soul on the most moral question that you could have, the question of genocide. And it also works as a heuristic because people understand no actual voting base that supports genocide. Like, the only reason you would do it is either for the money that you get or fear of the money that will be spent against you. So that, that also makes, if it was a 50, 50 issue. You got some people here that support genocide, some here that oppose it, that, that's one thing. It's not as when it comes to the public, the public's overwhelmingly against it. And the public doesn't want billions of dollars being sent to Israel, to Egypt, to anybody. And so it's. So if you just care about your voters, it's clear where you would stand on that. Therefore, if you don't stand there, why should we believe you on anything else? And so, because there's so such a lack of trust in both institutions and politicians in this era, it's this one opportunity that people have to say, no, no, no, I will fight for you. And the way that I can prove it is I'm going to take a position that is popular, that is right, that is moral, but that is going to hurt me and is going to get me attacked. They're going to dig into my private life, they're going to try to destroy me and my family personally. But I'm going to do it because it's right. And voters then see that, okay, this is actually somebody who's going to fight for me. And so when will Lawrence, for instance, in Michigan says he's against data centers and he's going to try to block them, the fact that he's also saying he's against a genocide and he's going to block funding to Israel, my reading of the polling, and also just intuition, is that, that those things feed each other. People say he means it. When he says he's against data centers, he means it. Rather than a politician who's like seeing the polling on a data center, I'm against it, but the second they get into office, they're just gonna, they're gonna green light it and move it right through. So it stands in for your moral character, which today means so much because people are so persuaded that everyone involved is corrupt.
- [71:19]
A
Yeah.
- [71:19]
C
Yeah.
- [71:19]
A
Indeed. Well, Ryan, I don't know if there's anything else you want to flag before we, we wrap up here, but I know you're also going to be doing a joint live stream this evening with, with our friends over at breaking points.
- [71:32]
C
Yeah, 7, 7:30 we'll be back here. And then we'll also be streaming over at the, the Breaking Points channel. We'll have a bunch of, bunch of guests coming through. We'll have some, some nerds going through the numbers. We'll be watching all the different returns as they, as they come in. It's going to be, going to be an interesting night.
- [71:51]
A
All right, well, I Also look forward to, to meticulously going through all of the attacks on you, Ryan. It's excellent. Real entertaining these weeks.
- [72:00]
C
By the way, recently denied that she had ever did that Pied Piper thing with Trump and people pulled up that email. It's like this. This you, bro. This you.
- [72:13]
A
Oh, yeah, no, no, she, she. 100.
- [72:15]
C
She definitely did.
- [72:16]
A
100 did it. Yeah, definitely.
- [72:17]
C
I'll tell her you said a lot. I'll tell her. Please do.
- [72:20]
A
Yeah, yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm happy to have not no more neurotendant in my life, but. All right, Ryan, Grim, thanks. And we'll, we'll see you and the. The Breaking Points team tonight. And that does it for this live stream. I want to thank all of our subscribers, particularly our paid subscribers, who really are the fuel in our engine that makes this thing run at Dropsite. If you can afford to become a paid subscriber, that really is the chief way that this organization keeps itself running. But we never put anything behind a paywall. So you can, if you're not already a subscriber, you can go to dropsitenews.com, put in your email address and you'll start receiving our emails. I want to really also flag our drop site daily Monday through Friday. I think it's the absolute best news summary. It hits your inbox early on in the day, US Time, and it's spectacular. And we have a great team of people that put it together, covering the international news, particularly in the Middle east, the war against Iran, Lebanon, Palestine and beyond, as well as US Politics. And we also have a really astonishingly talented team of dedicated people running our feed on x.com I know it's controversial for some people, but it really is run like a 24 hour news operation. And again, just fueled by the passion and dedication of our team as well as our Instagram feed. You should check that out as well. And of course, course, our YouTube page. Just search for dropsitenews.com we cleared 200,000 subscribers. We could use a lot more than that. Spread the word. Tell your friends, your foes, your family, anyone you think who would be interested. Until next time, on behalf of the entire Dropsite news team, deep gratitude to all of our supporters and subscribers. I'm Jeremy Scahy. We'll see you next time.