Assange Wins Very Partial Victory in UK Court, w/ Stella Assange. New Film Shows Mass Israeli Extremism, w/ Journalist Jeremy Loffredo
TIMESTAMPS:
Intro (0:00)
Assange Wins Partial Victory (6:44)
Interview with Stella Assange (26:41)
Documenting Israeli War Crimes (36:52)
Interview with Jeremy Loffredo (50:46)
Outro (1:08:21)
- - -
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/
- - -
Follow Glenn:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glenn.11.greenwald/
Follow System Update:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/systemupdate__/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@systemupdate__
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/systemupdate.tv/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/systemupdate/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, the latest in the ongoing effort of the U.S.
government, now in its fifth full year, to extradite Julian Assange from the high-security British prison where he's being held in the United States to stand trial on espionage charges.
Earlier today, The British High Court issued a ruling that is actually a partial victory for Assange, his first in the British judiciary since 2021.
The High Court, which was the last court possible to hear his appeal, overturned the U.S.
government's victory in the lower court.
That court had rejected all of Assange's arguments.
For resisting extradition to the United States, and it accepted all of the government's arguments for why Assange should be extradited immediately.
But the court today actually accepted three of Assange's objections for why extradition might be illegal under both British law and various human rights conventions to which the United Kingdom is bound.
Now, the ruling today does not mean That the US has barred from extraditing Assange, nor, unfortunately, does it mean that the charges will be dropped or that Assange will be released from prison.
Instead, the court simply identified several problems with the American extradition request that, perhaps, according to the court, and even plausibly according to the court, make it illegal to accept under British and European law.
And it gave the United States government until April 16th to try and resolve these problems through all sorts of legal maneuvers.
Now, it is very possible that the Biden Justice Department will be able to resolve all of these problems through a combination of promises and other assurances, though it's not actually entirely clear that they will be able to.
Meanwhile, reports of negotiations between the U.S. government government on the one hand and Assange's lawyers on the other continue to circulate, and according to these reports, it would call for Assange to plead guilty to a misdemeanor count in exchange for his release from prison, which would get him out of prison but might actually set a bad precedent and would prevent His exoneration.
We will review all of today's rulings and all of its implications, and we'll also speak with Julian Assange's wife, the human rights lawyer, Stella Assange.
We actually sat down with her just a few minutes ago, shortly before the show began, about her reaction to today's ruling, how Julian himself is doing in his fifth year in prison, what his reaction was to today's ruling, and what this ruling means for their family and for all of us.
Then, that Gaza is now on the brink of mass famine, with many Palestinian children and adults already dying of hunger, the worst way a human being can die, is beyond dispute.
It is well documented by multiple aid organizations.
What Israel supporters in the West attempt to dispute is not that there's a famine, but that the reason for the famine is that because Israel is blocking food and water from entering that territory.
Exactly what Israel's defense minister at the start of the war vowed that Israel would do, namely blockade Gaza and prevent food and water from entering.
Jeremy Lafredo is an independent journalist who actually went to the West Bank and met with and then traveled with to the Gazan border and numerous Israeli activists and settlers in the West Bank and he interviewed them about why it is that they have spent weeks organizing physical blockades of trucks bringing food and water into Gaza.
Now, here in the West, we constantly hear that Palestinians are full of hatred and violence toward Israelis and that they are taught to think this way from birth, that they're indoctrinated with an ideology of violence and hatred.
And yet, if one looks at the Israeli government, it is very clear that this same mentality dominates many of their policies.
And we will hear directly from Lafredo and hear directly from the Israelis, with whom he spent a great deal of time, and they will explain in their own words why they are trying hard To cause mass famine and mass starvation, not just for Hamas, but for all of Gazans.
Before we get to all of that, a few programming notes.
First of all, we are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app, because if you do so, it will work on both your smart TV and your telephone, and you will also then be able to follow the shows that you most love to watch here on Rumble.
That starts a system update.
I don't think I need to keep saying that.
That just goes without saying, but there's also a lot of other shows.
that you should and I hope will follow.
And if you do and you activate notifications, it means that the minute that any of the shows that you follow on Rumble begin broadcasting live on the platform, you will be immediately notified through a link that you could just click on.
Now I was speaking as is my want to some of the people in the chat prior to the show, and they were actually confirming reports that we had been getting that there are shows on this platform that do in fact sometimes start a few minutes late.
They'll say they start at 6 p.m.
Eastern and they begin at like 6.06.
I actually didn't believe it until I saw my own audience confirming it for me.
So if that happens and you have the app, you'll just get the link and you just click on it.
Soon as it starts, you don't have to wait around for those shows when they're late to begin.
You don't have to try and remember when shows begin on what time.
You just get this app, click on the link.
It really helps the live viewing numbers of Rumble and therefore the platform.
As another reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode of the show 12 hours after their first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all of their major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow the show on those platforms, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
As a final reminder, every Tuesday and Thursday nights, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform where we have our live interactive after show.
Tonight is Tuesday.
Ordinarily, we would do that, but since we came early into the studio to record the interviews we're about to show you, we won't be able to do it tonight, but we will be back on Thursday.
Those aftershows are designed to take your questions and comment on your feedback and critiques.
Those aftershows are available solely for members of our Locals Community.
If you want to become a member, which gives you access not only to those aftershows, but also to the multiple interactive features that we have where we can speak to our audience throughout the week.
It's the place we publish transcripts of every program we publish here.
We publish professionalized written transcripts there.
It's the place where we first publish our original written journalism and most importantly of all it's the community on which we rely to support the independent journalism that we're doing here every night.
Simply click the join button right below the video on the Rumble page and it will take you directly to that platform.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
In 2019, Ecuador, upon immense pressure applied by the United States, by the British government, and by the government of Spain, lifted the grant of asylum that they had given to Julian Assange back lifted the grant of asylum that they had given to Julian Assange Which they gave him as protection against what they knew, the Ecuadorian government knew, would be the persecution of Assange by the United States government.
The attempt by the United States government to get Assange to bring him to the United States and imprison him for life for the journalism that he had been doing.
That was not just the right of the Ecuadorian government, but under human rights conventions, its duty to protect Assange from that kind of persecution through the grant of asylum.
But a combination of Mike Pompeo, who at the time was Trump's CIA director and obsessed with destroying Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, combined with the British government and the government of Spain, angry at Assange for his journalism, bullied the Ecuadorians, coerced them, cajoled them into lifting their asylum, and the minute they did in 2019, the London police went in and arrested Julian Assange.
He was already seven years inside this little tiny embassy in the middle of London, someplace where I had visited him and I had seen him.
There was no light in there.
He was already suffering physically and mentally from this asylum.
Knowing that he had to stay there, the minute he left he would be picked up by the British police, which he was when he finally had his asylum lifted.
And he's ever since Now in his fifth full year, been in a high security prison called Belmarsh, which the BBC calls Guantanamo or the British Guantanamo.
It's the place where terrorism suspects go, people who have committed the worst crimes.
And Assange's doctors have said that he is rapidly declining both physically and mentally.
And the amazing thing about the fact that Julian Assange has now been in prison for almost five years.
Is that the only thing he was convicted of was a misdemeanor crime of bail jumping.
Which is how the British government understood his application for asylum, that he didn't show up for his bail hearing.
Instead, he got asylum from the Ecuadorian government.
When they arrested him, they charged him and convicted him with bail jumping, which was a misdemeanor.
They gave him the full prison term, which was 11 months in prison.
He long ago served those 11 months.
And right as he was about to get out after that 11-month term, that was when the US government unveiled this indictment in 2018.
and then immediately sought his extradition and ever since he's been contesting this extradition and it's been making its way through the British court system and this entire time the British courts have kept him in a prison in a high security prison Just pending a resolution in the courts of his extradition.
Now, obviously there are all kinds of measures they could have taken, including ankle monitoring and all sorts of things that are done to some of the people charged with the worst crimes who haven't yet been convicted, but they refused to give any of those measures to Julian Assange while leading his extradition hearing.
They instead insisted on keeping him in a high security prison.
Back in 2021, The very first British court, this is more than three years ago now, in January of 2021, heard Julian Assange's arguments about why extradition to the United States would be illegal under both British law and European law, including the fact that it was a crime punishing him for his journalism, that it violated the free speech and free press guarantees of the European Human Rights Convention to which the UK is bound,
That it's a political crime of the kind for which the UK cannot extradite defendants?
A whole array of arguments, including that it was designed to be political persecution, and the British court rejected every one of those arguments in the first instance, but nonetheless rejected the American extradition request on one ground.
Namely, that Assange's health had deteriorated to such an extent And that the conditions under which he would be kept in the United States in a high security prison are so repressive and burdensome and abusive that he'd be very unlikely to survive the extradition and the imprisonment in the United States and for that reason rejected the American extradition request.
The U.S.
government appealed that, and then has been winning ever since.
The courts have been repeatedly rejecting Assange's request, have been accepting the arguments for extradition, and today, the highest court possible, the U.K.
High Court, the highest court that Assange could appeal to, issued a ruling after hearing his appeal, an oral argument several months ago, and they issued what, in effect, is a partial victory for Julian Assange.
Had the court ruling today Rejected Assange's arguments and ruled in favor of the government, it likely would have meant that Assange would have been on a plane to the United States within hours upon issuance of this ruling.
He still had a right to appeal to a European court and claim that the UK was violating European conventions, but it's very possible the British government might have acted as quickly as possible to send him on a plane to the United States to prevent that appeal from being heard.
Instead, the British High Court said that three different grounds that Julian Assange presented as to why the U.S.
extradition request is very plausibly illegal We're actually valid.
And as a result of the possible validity of these problems with the U.S.
extradition request, these legal problems, the court said, we're not going to order him extradited.
We're going to give the U.S.
government until April 16th to submit documentation to see if they can address our concerns.
And then if they can, we'll rule in May.
And if they can't, we very well might then end up just rejecting the extradition request.
There are certain parts of this ruling that decided in favor of Assange or at least said there's problems with the extradition request that the Biden administration might very easily be able to fix.
But there's other parts of it that they very well might not be able to fix to the satisfaction of the British court, and this could really throw a huge wrench into the attempt by the U.S.
government to bring Assange to the United States to stand trial on espionage charges, where he would almost certainly be found guilty.
The Espionage Act is a very strict law where you can't even raise First Amendment defenses, such as you were justified in Doing what you did.
It's almost written.
It was written in 1917 to criminalize dissent under Woodrow Wilson's policy of involving the U.S.
in World War I. And people actually went to prison under the Espionage Act in 1917 for opposing the U.S.
involvement in World War I. They made it a crime, an espionage act, to oppose U.S.
national security.
That's the law that Donald Trump is currently being prosecuted under, that Edward Snowden is being prosecuted under, that Daniel Ellsberg was prosecuted under.
And that all kinds of whistleblowers have been prosecuted under and that they're using now against Assange.
Now, here is the High Court ruling today.
There you see the UK High Court of Justice.
And there you see the caption of the case.
It's Julian Paul Assange versus the United States government, the government of the United States and the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
And as I said, there were, I think, 13 or 14 total grounds raised by Assange as to why the extradition request should be rejected.
The court went through them one after the next, just like every other part of the British court system has done, and just rejected them, saying this isn't a political crime, it doesn't violate your free press rights, it's not punishment without law.
All sorts of valid arguments that the British courts have just been completely unwilling to accept.
But there were three grounds that the court said might actually have validity.
The first of which was this.
This was ground five.
Whether the applicant might be prejudiced at his trial by reason of his nationality.
And this is part of what the court said.
Quote, on this issue, we consider that the applicant has identified a properly arguable ground of appeal.
The applicant wishes to argue at any trial in the United States that his actions were protected by the First Amendment.
He contends that if he is given First Amendment rights, the prosecution will be stopped.
The First Amendment is therefore of central importance to his defense to the extradition charge.
It follows that it is arguable that the applicant might be treated differently at trial on the grounds of his nationality.
Subject to the question of whether this could be addressed by means of an assurance from the respondent, we would grant leave to appeal on ground five.
Now, this is the one that I think really complicates things for the United States.
All along, Julian Assange has been arguing that his prosecution as a journalist in the United States is barred under the First Amendment.
And one of the arguments the U.S.
government has made, and they might have really shot themselves in the foot with this, is that they have argued that Julian Assange has no right to invoke his First Amendment rights because he's not an American citizen and he's not on American soil, nor was he at the time of the crime.
And therefore, the First Amendment doesn't apply to people like Julian Assange, it only applies to American citizens.
As it turns out, under British extradition law, if a person whose extradition is sought might be prejudiced at his trial by reason of his nationality, That is a grounds for refusing to send him to that country.
In other words, if that country is going to treat him differently because of his nationality, then that is a reason why the British court is barred from extraditing him to the United States.
And so the argument is that the U.S.
government itself has said the First Amendment is only for Americans.
It doesn't apply to people like Julian Assange.
And in fact, when Mike Pompeo in 2017, as Trump's CIA director, gave a speech which at the time I reported on and described as incredibly disturbing and creepy.
He stood up and he vowed to destroy WikiLeaks and he said they keep acting as though the First Amendment applies to them and it does not.
Assange's lawyers have cited those statements of Mike Pompeo and others inside the U.S.
government saying Julian Assange has no First Amendment rights.
That's for Americans only.
And so the court is saying this seems like a good argument that Assange will be treated differently By virtue of his nationality, if he goes to the United States and tries to argue the First Amendment as a reason why you can't prosecute a journalist, the government might say, this is for Americans only, not for Australians.
And therefore, that's discrimination based on nationality, and it would prevent the UK government from extraditing him there.
Now, what they've essentially given the United States government the chance to do by April 16th is try and give assurances to the court That no, don't worry, Assange won't be treated differently by virtue of his nationality.
He will be able to invoke the same First Amendment rights as Americans.
The problem is that they have been arguing the opposite for many years.
And the bigger problem, I think, is that ultimately, whether Assange has the right to invoke the First Amendment And in general, it is well established in the First Amendment that the Constitution of the United States is not only for American citizens, it's for anybody who is within the grasp of the American government.
For example, in 2004, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo have the right of habeas corpus, the right to ask a court to release them on the grounds that they're being unlawfully detained.
And of course, the detainees at Guantanamo are not American citizens.
They weren't American citizens.
The court found that Guantanamo was American territory.
And because it was American territory, the Constitution applies to everything the government does to anybody.
The problem for the U.S.
government here is that the alleged crimes that Assange is said to have committed were committed not only when he wasn't an American citizen, but also not on American soil.
And it's very difficult to understand how the government will be able to give assurances to the British court that an American court For whom the U.S.
government does not speak will allow Assange to invoke the same First Amendment rights as any American would.
Now, the Biden Justice Department really wants to get their hands on Assange.
They have very smart lawyers working in the Justice Department.
They have an unlimited budget.
My guess is they'll come up with some theory that will convince the British court, oh, don't worry, we're going to treat him the same as we treat Americans.
He'll be able to invoke all the same First Amendment rights.
But at the very least, it does create certain difficulties here because of the fact that The U.S.
government has to not only contradict everything it's been saying about Assange's First Amendment rights, but also somehow has to offer an assurance that Assange will be given certain rights that's not the government's to give, but is the court's to give.
So we'll see whether or not this really complicates the extradition in a meaningful way.
Now, here's the second ground the court cited as to why Assange couldn't be extradited, at least today, until the government gives more assurances.
And that is ground number six.
The extradition is barred if there is insufficient protection from the death penalty.
And here's what the court said about that.
This is a prohibition in British law on extraditing anybody to a country where they might face the death penalty.
European countries are against the death penalty.
They don't extradite people if they might be put to death for the crimes with which they're charged.
And the U.S.
government has already said that the crimes with which Julian Assange is currently charged are not punishable by death.
And Assange's argument is, well, the crimes that I'm charged with now might not be punishable by death, but once I get there, they have the ability to charge me with more crimes, including some that might be punishable by death.
And he cited the fact that there's reporting that the U.S.
government already tried to kill him.
through assassination explored that possibility.
And even though the court refused to accept that evidence, clearly there is a possibility that the US government would want to give Julian Assange the death penalty.
And about that, the court said the following, quote, "The applicant accepts that none of the offenses for which extradition is sought carry the death penalty.
He contends, however, that the facts which are alleged against him could lead to a charge of aiding and abetting treason under 18 U.S.C.
paragraph 2381 or espionage under 18 U.S.C.
794, both of which are capital offenses.
Accordingly, subject to the provisions of appropriate assurances, We would grant leave to appeal on this ground.
Now, my guess is all the U.S.
government has to do is write a letter to the British court saying, oh, not only is he not charged now with crimes for which the death penalty is eligible, we promise that even if he's ultimately charged with treason or aiding and abetting treason or other capital offenses, we won't seek the death penalty.
Now that may not be enough because the court could still give it, but they could also promise just not to charge him with any crimes for which the death penalty is a possibility.
And the court would probably say, okay, well, we accept your assurances there.
Now, I know you're probably thinking, assurances to the United States government are worthless.
They could just get Assange there and violate them all.
And of course that's true.
That would have implications if you just lied to the British court, because the US government, the next time they want to extradite somebody from the UK, would not have a lot of credibility.
But it's certainly possible.
And if I were Julian Assange, that would not give me a lot of comfort and assurance from the Justice Department.
And we promise not to do that.
Now, here's the third ground that the court recognizes sufficiently valid to at least for now ...withhold the extradition.
The extradition is incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees free expression, freedom of expression.
Now, Assange's argument was that the free speech and free press rights bar prosecution, and the court rejected that.
But this argument says that because he's not an American citizen, he may be barred from raising the same free speech rights as are guaranteed in the EU Convention, and if he gets sent to the United States, And the United States doesn't give him the same right of free speech as the EU Convention, the extradition should not be granted.
You can't send a citizen subject to the European Convention of Human Rights to a country where the free speech protections are less.
This is what the court said, quote, free speech is a fundamental right recognized by the common law and by international and domestic human rights instruments.
We adjourn the renewed application for leave to appeal on grounds four, five, and nine.
The adjournment is for a period of 55 days until May 20th, 2024, subject to the following directions.
The U.S.
government has permission to file any assurances with the court by April 16th, 2024.
In other words, On all three of those grounds, that Assange may not have the same rights as an American citizen under the First Amendment, that he may not be able to have the same free speech rights that's guaranteed by the EU Constitution or the EU Convention, And that he still might be subject to the death penalty through future charges.
If the court does not give the, or if the US government does not give the UK court adequate assurances by April 16th to assuage those concerns, it seems like the court is saying they will strongly consider rejecting the extradition request.
Now to me, and I think you can say, this seems like lawyer games.
The Justice Department will be able to write a letter sufficient to address the court's concerns so they can rubber stamp the extradition.
But I've always questioned whether the Biden administration, at the end of the day, really wants to bring Julian Assange to prison to stand trial on American soil.
Imagine the sideshow that would create, the protest outside the courtroom, the discovery Assange's lawyers would have into classified information, the right of Julian Assange to take the stand and testify.
The fact that Joe Biden would be the first ever American president to preside over the imprisonment of somebody for publishing classified information, reporting on the government.
I think they're happy with the status quo, when he's just in prison, dying, being slowly destroyed, with no charges.
And what this really has done, in some sense, is delayed ultimate exoneration.
But if you're Julian Assange and if you're his family, the last thing you want, and I think this is so notable, is extradition to the United States government.
Look at how hard they fought to prevent that, because nobody Trust imprisoned in the United States government.
We sat down with Stella Assange, which is Julian Assange's wife, and she, in her own right, is a human rights lawyer.
He met Stella Assange when he was already in the Ecuadorian embassy.
They have two children together.
And she has been steadfastly fighting for his freedom.
She is, I think, his best spokesperson, his best asset.
And we sat down with her just a few minutes ago and we talked to her about today's ruling and the impact on her family, as well as free speech rights.
Here's that interview.
Stella, good evening.
It's great to see you.
Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us.
I know it's a busy day.
Thanks for having me.
Absolutely.
So I think it's fair to describe the court ruling today as a partial victory.
It upheld some of the arguments advanced by Julian's lawyers and rejected others.
At the same time, it didn't reject the U.S.
extradition.
In some sense, it might have just delayed it.
How do you see the overall impact of this ruling and do you consider it a victory?
It's a very strange ruling.
I mean, we found out about it just as the rest of the world found out about it at 10.30 London time.
And what it is basically is that the court identified three issues that Julian should be granted leave for appeal in relation to, and then gave the United States a second bite of the apple and then gave the United States a second bite of the apple to modify its arguments before the So, you know, they had plenty of opportunity to address these issues.
During the two day hearing and basically the court is giving the US another chance to shift things to have a better chance at winning in a full appeal argument.
So it's bizarre.
It's also.
Very bizarre that the UK courts have ignored some of the really basic arguments that we presented.
But as I said, no one could anticipate this decision and it's another bizarre turn in this political case.
So I have to say, when I first read it this morning, my immediate reaction was that the court gave the United States a period of time to basically, in a sense, adjust or fix its extradition request to cure some of the defects That the court had identified as existing within it, such as not giving enough of a guarantee, for example, that Julian won't eventually face the death penalty.
My original thought was, oh, it's going to be very easy for the Justice Department to just give these kind of verbal assurances or semantic assurances, and then the court will say, okay, now we have what we need to extradite him.
The more I think about it, though, it's probably true for that example that I gave that will be easy, but For some of these other demands that the court made in the United States, including a guarantee that Julian will be able to raise the same First Amendment rights that would be available to American citizens as well as in the European court, my sense is it might be very difficult for the Justice Department to offer the court that because ultimately that's really a decision for the court to make, not for the US government to make,
I'm wondering, in this very short period of time that you've had talking to Julian's lawyers and thinking about it yourself, whether you think the U.S.
government might have difficulty meeting some of these conditions that the court set for it as a condition for extraditing Julian.
I do think that it poses major difficulties, you know, so just to look back at what the court has identified as the sticking points here.
The first is that he's exposed to the charges shifting once he's on U.S. soil, that he could be exposed to the death penalty.
The same facts.
Secondly though, the U.S. has argued in its sworn affidavits that the government could argue that Julian does not enjoy constitutional protections because he is not a U.S. citizen and because he was not on U.S. soil. the U.S. has argued in its sworn affidavits that the And he is not on the right side of the country acknowledging that they intend to bring an argument that because he's not a U.S. citizen,
He doesn't have constitutional rights Now this is a point that the UK courts have said well give us an assurance that he won't be discriminated against on the basis of his nationality, so they're asking the US to to issue assurances contradicting the prosecutor's statement that was given under oath.
So it's shifting the case, basically.
And then the First Amendment, the ability to invoke the First Amendment.
And, of course, the Espionage Act has no public interest defense.
And this is simply just uncharted ground.
So it's a very strange place for the U.S. government now to be in, I think.
But that's not to say that U.S. government doesn't have a whole big team of lawyers that will craft some so-called assurances that the British courts might accept that This is political, you know, it's basically trying to find a political fix for a legal problem and the British courts are
It seems bending over backwards to find a way to make it easier.
And I read this decision as a way to pass the buck to the US government to say, well, eventually, if they do extradite him, if something happens to Julian, then they can blame the US.
No, one of the very few victories that you have had was in the very first judicial ruling which rejected every one of these arguments except for the concern for Julian's physical and mental health and said that he would be unable, likely to withstand transfer to the United States and being held in a high security U.S.
prison, that it presented a serious risk to his life and to his mental health and therefore he shouldn't be extradited.
That was Maybe a year ago, a year and a half ago.
How is Julian doing now and does he know about this ruling and how is he doing in terms of his knowledge of the ruling and just in general?
The initial win was in January 2021, three years, and Julian has been in prison throughout 2019 in the same prison cell.
And it's extremely difficult because it's an indefinite detention and he's being treated like a convicted prisoner even though he's not convicted of any crime and even though the case against him is an outrage.
Every day is a struggle.
Some days are more bearable than others and he's basically at the He's subjected to all sorts of things that are beyond his control.
However, his spirits are lifted when he sees all the support there is, and it's growing by the day.
We have a statement, for example, from the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture that was issued today after the ruling.
Heads of state, Lula, of course, and AMLO and others, And the Australian Prime Minister who has said that Julian should be freed.
So, you know, there's a consensus, I'd say, in the world.
The U.S.
is isolated and the U.K.
is isolated in pursuing this, and it is an embarrassment.
So I know your time is limited.
I just have a couple quick questions.
First of all, there was a report this week in the Wall Street Journal that there are plea bargain discussions being made now between Julian's lawyers and the United States government where the United States government seems more willing William before to allow Julian to plead guilty to a misdemeanor in exchange for finally getting out of prison.
There's other reports suggesting that there's a political solution in the works that does involve the government of Australia, which as you said, has become increasingly vocal in opposition to the persecution of Julian by the United States and the British government.
Is there any truth to those reports that there is more of a willingness on the part of the U.S. government to enter into a plea bargain?
Is that something that you can talk about?
Well, look, today we don't see any intention by the U.S. government to do anything other than extradite Julian and put him in prison and expose him to 175 years in prison.
It should do what it should have done from day one of the Biden administration, which is abandon the Trump administration's pursuit of usher.
It should never have been brought and Julian shouldn't have spent a single day in prison.
Other than dropping the case is a catastrophe for press freedom.
Julian must be freed.
And that is our top priority, of course, as a family and everything else.
But in terms of the press freedom dimension, the Biden administration can only do one thing to take this situation into the right direction, and that is to drop the case.
Well, as you said, there's a ton of support for Julian all over the world that begins with you.
And I know you're fighting for your family, but you're also actually fighting for the rights of everybody.
So I just want to express my admiration for everything that you've been doing, obviously, for Julian as well.
Please give him our regards.
And we really appreciate your taking the time on what I know is a really busy day to talk with us about where we're going to go from here.
And obviously, we're going to keep covering it.
Thanks so much, Stella.
I hope you're well.
Thanks, Glenn.
All right.
Good night.
Good night.
Well this week we extensively covered what is the genuinely horrific and unfolding mass famine now imminent by all accounts for the 2.2 million people in Gaza who have already been suffering in an indescribable way for six full months now as they have been bombarded by one of the world's most powerful armies, backed by the world's most powerful and richest countries on earth.
That's the United States government, of course.
And that famine has only worsened since then.
There are many documented reports of Palestinian children and Palestinian women who are dying of starvation, of babies being born in nurseries who don't even have enough nutrition to cry upon birth, who are being born stillborn.
It is beyond horrific.
This is not coming from the quote Gaza run health ministry but from Western doctors and nurses and health care workers and aid organizations that are attempting to get aid into Israel and yet have one reason and one reason only they are not able to and that's because the Israeli government the Israeli military and increasingly Israeli civilians are devoted to, by their own admission, preventing food and water from entering Gaza.
Not that they refuse to feed the people of Gaza, no one's asking them to do that, but they are preventing trucks filled with food and water, life-saving food and water, and medication to enter Gaza.
Last week, the World Bank, as The Guardian reported on March 20th, documented that, quote, there is an imminent risk of catastrophic famine in the Gaza Strip.
Let's put the article up on the screen.
There you see the headline.
The findings come as the UN Secretary General calls on Israel to give unconditional access to Gaza for aid relief.
And of course, since then, the UN Security Council voted 14 to 0 with one abstention which was the United States to call for an immediate ceasefire as well as a release of the hostages by Hamas.
The Israelis have said they view that as non-binding and intend to ignore the UN Security Council resolution and as a result the Israelis are now also Taking further action to impede the ability to bring life-saving aid into the population, the civilian population of Gaza.
From The Guardian on March 25th, Israel will no longer approve UNRWA food aid to Northern Gaza, agency says.
That's the U.N.
agency being accused on very dubious grounds.
of having had members of it participate in the October 7th attack that is by far the agency most responsible for bringing in the most amount of aid to the people of Gaza.
The Israelis have purposely attacked it, knowing that it brings in the greatest amount of aid, and the Israelis now say they will now prohibit UNRWA from bringing any aid at all.
Quote, the head of the agency says the military authorities told the UN that convoys will no longer be approved amid a, quote, man-made to famine, Increasingly, Israeli civilians, including settlers in the West Bank, who by all accounts are illegally occupying the West Bank, have been openly speaking about their desire to remove, to ethnically cleanse Gaza of all Arabs, all Palestinians,
and have Israel annex Gaza, a view that several members of the Israeli government have explicitly stated before October 7th.
They want to take over Gaza and build settlements and high-rises on Gaza from the BBC on March 24th.
Jewish settlers set their sights on Gaza beachfront.
For some in the Israeli cabinet, the Palestinian territory, now drenched in blood, is ripe for resettlement.
That includes Israel's hard-right National Security Minister Itmar Ben-Gavir, a settler himself.
In late January, he made his way through a packed conference hall slowed by embraces and handshakes.
He was among friends.
About a thousand ultra-nationalists pushing for a return to Gaza at the event entitled Settlement Brings Security.
Mr. Ben-Gavir Who favors, quote, encouraging immigration, was among a dozen cabinet ministers in attendance.
Quote, it's time to go back home, he said from the stage to loud applause.
It's time to return to the land of Israel.
If we don't want another October 7th, we need to return home and control the land.
Meaning, not the West Bank, which they already control, but Gaza.
Now, Jeremy Lafredo is an independent journalist, and at the very start of the war in Gaza, he went to pro-Israel protests in the United States and interviewed many people.
And we've showed you those videos many times.
There were all kinds of people.
You may remember at the start of the war, it was being alleged that people at pro-Palestinian protests were hateful, were expressing genocidal views, and yet he went to pro-Israel protests, and there were many people who he videoed, who he interviewed, saying things like, Kill all Arabs in Gaza.
Turn it into a parking lot flat in Gaza.
Statements as genocidal as it gets.
And then he traveled to the West Bank in November where he documented many of the horrific abuses that have emerged in the wake of October 7th.
Not in Gaza.
Where a lot of media attention is devoted at least, but in the West Bank that has been largely ignored where Hamas is not governing and yet Israeli settlers have been given guns, have been deputized, and have unleashed a wave of violence.
And so Jeremy did some pretty intrepid and brave and important reporting.
He went to the West Bank.
He met up with settlers who are among the most extremist activists in Israel.
And they are organizing blockades, civilian blockades, of aid trucks into Gaza.
Whenever they see a truck carrying flour or food or water, they physically block the truck and they refuse to move.
And they're supported and backed By the Israeli military.
That's one of the reasons AID cannot get into Israel is because Israeli settlers, activists, civilians are physically blocking it.
And the Israeli military helps them.
And Jeremy went and embedded with them and interviewed them about what their beliefs are and why it is that they're trying to keep food out of Gaza, why they believe that mass starvation is something that the Gazans deserve.
And we're about to talk to Jeremy in an interview that we taped with him just a few minutes before we went on air.
But here is a, he published an 18 minute documentary for the Gray Zone, which I hope you'll watch in its entirety.
On YouTube here are a few excerpts from it that we chose to show you that we think really illustrate the mentality of not a fringe group of Israelis but many many Israelis including the ones who are now organizing to block food and water from entering Gaza knowing that there's a famine there.
What are we trying to do to block the eight trucks from crossing into Gaza and from Egypt that will go to the people of Gaza and to Hamas and will help Hamas?
It's very successful.
Look, the aid trucks were supposed to be entering Gaza from 10 in the morning to today, and we are blocking them from entering.
It's been days since aid trucks have passed through, so there you have it.
It works.
I think what we need, we need to be united and kill all of them.
We all need to go back into Gaza and control all of it.
Make it part of our country.
On the trailer of this truck is wheat flour for the starving and besieged people of the- But this humanitarian aid and thousands more aid shipments are not making it to the Palestinians in Gaza because Israelis have decided to engage in a direct action blockade.
The people of Israel live.
For over a week, I embedded myself with Jewish-Israeli nationalists who believe it's a worthy cause and even a religious duty to drive hours from the comfort of their illegal settlements in the West Bank and residential neighborhoods in Jerusalem and bring their loved ones to the Karim Shalom and Nitzana border crossings to block the humanitarian aid trucks from delivering desperately needed food to starving I embedded myself with Jewish-Israeli nationalists who believe it's a worthy
At around six in the morning, a bus departs from Jerusalem.
It heads south, passing through the West Bank, with stops at a handful of illegal, highly militarized Israeli settlements, to pick up dozens of extremist minors and bring them to the borders of Gaza and Egypt.
Once the settlers arrive there, they're met by dozens of other Israelis who drove themselves and their families to the border by navigating the back roads of southern Israeli Kibbutzim.
The border crossings are designated by Israel as closed military zones.
Any civilian in the area is supposed to be swiftly removed and arrested.
Instead, the military and police are actively supporting and encouraging these illegal humanitarian aid blocks.
As soon as the settlers show up at these crossings, the military, meant to secure the area, stands down and guides everyone to the border gates.
Then, the Israeli military uses the presence of civilians, which they invited and escorted, to justify the closing of the humanitarian aid crossing gate for hours, and sometimes entire days.
The trucks are supposed to pass through Israel from Egypt for inspection, once inspected by the Israeli authorities, they head into Gaza.
Officially, the protesters justify the blocking of aid by insisting it's all going to Hamas, a claim repeated by the Israeli government, even as the U.S.
State Department stringently rejects it.
So no food, no nothing?
No, they don't deserve it.
What do I care?
Kill them.
I don't care.
Do you trust Palestinians?
No.
I know all about them.
I don't trust them.
I want them out of here.
What do you think should happen to Gaza?
I want to be civilized with Jews from Israel so we can be in peace in there.
This young man was present at every aid blocking action for the last two weeks.
He was in Gaza for the first two months of the military operation.
We've been training for one month and then we got inside Gaza.
Yeah, and then we've been there for two months.
My unit was in charge of explosions.
We blew up Houses of terrorists, mosques, UN offices.
I remember we got into some UN office that was in charge of helping Families in Gaza that was affected by the war and we destroyed it.
We've been dealing with the tunnels.
Were you ever in a tunnel?
No.
We didn't, but we have the equipment to investigate what's happening there and then to destroy it.
I love the Gaza Strip.
We can't just take a whole strip of land and say Israelis can't live there.
It doesn't make sense.
This is our sovereign state.
Would you live there?
Of course!
By the beach?
Oh, for sure.
Yes, my husband's also talking about building, he has a yeshiva, a Talmudic institute here, so building a branch in, yes, in Gaza.
We have lists already about 500 families that are willing, on the drop of a hat, to just move into, we have north, central, and south.
Uh, Gaza.
And people are going to start building towns.
We have names of the towns.
We have where we're building them.
It's already being planned.
And we have people signed up.
You can't leave it without Jews in the Gaza Strip.
It's too big a piece of land.
It's too important for us to let it become Hamas town, as we call it, full of terrorists.
So that is just a small portion of the full documentary that he published that I cannot recommend highly enough.
The title of it is Kill Them All Inside the Israeli Blockade on Gaza Aid and it shows entire families, it shows small children being brought by the Israeli settlers, being taught to justify the starvation of Gazan children.
of the entire Gazan society.
Obviously, when you're blocking food from entering Gaza, you can't just block food that's destined for Hamas.
You're blocking food for the entire population.
And everybody knows in the world that there is mass famine now taking place inside Gaza.
Obviously, the people who are going to die first are the most vulnerable.
And that's exactly who is dying, weaker women, older people, disabled people, and especially young children And babies.
And they're not just dying of bums.
They're dying of hunger, starvation.
Their bodies are consuming itself.
It's the worst and most painful, prolonged way to die possible.
And we're now going to go from tens to hundreds to thousands and potentially tens of thousands.
That's what mass catastrophic famine is.
And the aid organizations are saying That when they go, they are blocked by the Israelis from entering.
And here you have Israeli civilians backed by the Israeli government who are justifying it and who are organizing their own blockade as well.
Jeremy Lafredo went there and embedded with them, and he did a remarkable piece of journalism that I hope you'll watch.
And just a few minutes ago, we sat down with him to talk about what he saw, not only when he went to the border of Gaza with these Israeli settlers, but when he went to the West Bank in November, when he spent weeks going to pro-Israel protest in the United States, and he documented everything he saw.
He's an excellent reporter, and here is our conversation with him from just a few minutes ago before we went on air today.
Jeremy, good evening.
Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us.
Good to see you.
Thanks, Glenn.
Yeah, sure.
So congratulations on this documentary, which I hope everybody will see.
One of the things you did in order to produce it was you embedded in a movement of, I guess you'd call them nationalists or extremists, people who are organizing to block aid from entering Gaza.
How is it that you managed to embed yourself with them and get them to speak with you so openly, to the extent that you can talk about that?
I began by taking a bus.
They had shuttles going from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv south through various illegal settlements in the West Bank, picking up extremist youth in the West Bank and bringing them down, shipping them down.
Shuttling down to the Nissana border crossing and the Karim Shalom border crossing, and I was traveling with them for a few days, and then they began to, you know, recognize my face.
They would see me often, and that's when they began to be very candid with me, and they would admit to how they feel about people in Palestine.
They would admit to various crimes they've committed in Gaza as reservists, and I just got them to be very comfortable around me.
So were you basically undercover?
In other words, did they think that you were kind of one of them?
That you were a supporter of theirs?
That you were there to work with them?
Or did they think that you were a journalist?
Or what was their perception of who you were and what you were doing there?
They knew I was a journalist.
I had my camera with me at all times.
I was interviewing people out in the open.
But I think because I was spending so much time with them and I was there every day, they began to recognize my face and feel more comfortable with me, arguably more comfortable than they should have been.
And as the days have passed, they became comfortable enough to speak with me on camera and admit to things that maybe they should not have.
So one of the things that you did that I was aware of and that I actually commented on and promoted was at the start of the war you went to some of the pro-Israel protests and you interviewed some of the people who were in the United States, both American citizens but also Israelis and others.
Who were present at some of these pro-Israeli protests and they were saying a lot of things that I think a lot of Israel supporters in the United States were trying to pretend didn't exist.
So before we get to their kind of cousins, ideological cousins in Israel and these settlements that you just spent your time with, let's try and remember back in October and November the kinds of things that some of these people at these pro-Israel protests in the United States were saying that you were able to show on the videos that you made.
These people in New York, this is October 8th, 9th, 10th, they were Candidly saying that Israel needs to turn Gaza into a parking lot.
They were showing me memes on their phones of Gaza as a parking lot, saying that we should only have Gaza again if it's populated only with Jewish people.
And people online and people, you know, supporters of Israel were saying, this is not how actual Israelis feel.
This is just extremists in New York.
These are youth.
They don't know what they're talking about.
But it turns out that this is very much the same type of ideology spouted by not only the military protecting the border crossings, the aid crossings in Israel, but also all of the Israelis that are going there to block the aid.
It's very much a mainstream opinion.
Yeah, well that's what I want to ask you.
Obviously when you're talking about the border between Israel and Gaza, which is a border of a war zone, obviously it's incredibly militarized.
There's the IDF all over the place.
There's government surveillance.
Obviously what these citizens of Israel are doing in terms of going and blocking Trucks, humanitarian trucks with food and water from entering Gaza could not possibly be done without both the knowledge and the consent of the Israeli government and the Israeli military.
What is it that you saw in terms of both the presence of the Israeli government and the Israeli military in these actions and what was their posture toward the protesters?
That's one of the most important points to take away from this film.
It's the collaboration between the Israeli civilians that are traveling to this border and the Israeli military that are supposed to be protecting the border.
The border is technically A closed military zone.
Now, any civilian in this closed military zone is supposed to be swiftly removed and arrested.
Now, when these settlers and these extremists would go to the border, they would be ushered in and they would be shown where they should be, which is right in front of the border crossing, the aid crossing.
And then the military, instead of arresting everyone and sending them back up north, they're giving them watermelon.
They're giving them snacks.
The protesters, the so-called protesters, are giving the military sandwiches, ice water.
It's very collaborative.
They're breaking the law.
They're being allowed to break the law because it is a government policy that as little aid as possible should be going into Gaza.
And it's also the popular political opinion amongst Israeli civilians.
So the government, the military in these areas justifies closing the border by saying, oh no, there are civilians here, we can't open the border up into Gaza or into Egypt.
So they invite the civilians and then they use the civilians as justification for stopping the humanitarian aid every day.
This is this is like clockwork.
They do this.
So I imagine that one of the objections that an Israel supporter would have who not the kind who would empathize with these kind of sentiments, but would be embarrassed by them would be, well, basically what you did was you went and found the most extremist elements inside Israel.
These are like very fringe people.
The people who have been settlements.
These are people who are way more extreme than even the Israeli government is.
It's sort of like akin to going to say, oh, A Proud Boys or even a Ku Klux Klan rally inside the United States and interviewing them and offering that up as evidence of what the American people writ large believe about race or other issues.
What would your answer be to that objection?
My answer would be that it's clearly the government's response to this is to allow these people to break the law because they are in favor of what they're doing.
These are not Israeli soldiers acting on their own volition, allowing these people to break the law at an international border crossing.
You know, an Israeli IDF soldier who hears from their boss, hears from their boss, hears from their boss, hears from the head office.
They're allowing these people to break the law over and over again in one of the most sensitive, militarized areas of the entire country.
So I think that shows that this is the government's opinion, that there should not be aid going there.
And that's also the civilians' opinion.
When I'm in Jerusalem, walking around Jerusalem, I'm talking to people, telling them what I've been doing.
It's very obvious to them that there should not be aid.
Why should there be aid going to the enemy?
It's just like it's a common sense thing to them.
So I don't believe it's a fringe political idea.
It maybe is fringe that people are willing to take off work and get out of school to go down to this border.
But the Israeli civilians in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, from what I've seen and from what I've heard, they can't take off work, but they support those who can.
One of the things that really struck me is, as you know, one of the things we're constantly told in the West is that Palestinian children, Arab children, are taught to hate Israelis from a very young age.
They're inculcated with this violent and hateful ideology that permeates the entire society.
That's often part of the reason why people argue there's no such thing as an innocent Palestinian or at least not even the parts of the Palestinian population that can be said to be not integrated into a mosque deserves sympathy because the entire society is ingrained in these sorts of dogmas and this sort of indoctrination.
Yet one of the things that struck me so vividly in your videos was how many families and children there were at these direct actions, how many kids, young kids they had basically holding signs saying we don't want food going into Gazans.
Was this something that was just very isolated or how would you describe the kind of effort to teach Israeli children about this kind of ideology?
One of the first things I noticed, I would be driving past Humvees and military soldiers, I'm in the desert, you know, this is, it looks like a movie, and it looks like very scary, and you get to the border crossing, and people are holding their children, holding their toddlers, having picnics with their kids at this border crossing.
The idea is that patriotism is something you want to teach your children.
Therefore, you should be at the border showing your child what a patriot does.
A patriot helps your country win the war, helps your country defeat the enemy.
I would say to families, to parents, say, you know, we are in a closed military zone.
We have a, you know, serious ground war happening just miles away from here.
Why would you bring your child here?
And it's always this, you know, it's an educational lesson.
We trust the military to protect us here, but we need to show our kids what a true patriot, a true Israeli patriot, does in these type of situations.
They travel down south and they protect their country.
That's at least the way they see it.
I mean, you can see in my videos, people have strollers there, they have their machine guns strapped around their chests.
Um, it's not, it's not only, um, macho, um, fatherly figures who should be in the military anyway going to this border crossing.
It's whole families.
It's a family outing.
Um, it's, it was quite the scene and you can see the videos there.
They were singing child songs.
Um, they were kicking soccer balls around right on the edge of what some are calling, you know, a death camp.
It's a, it was quite the scene.
Yeah, when you say some are calling the death camp, what you mean is major international aid organizations who are trying to get food into Gaza and yet are being blockaded by a combination of Israeli bureaucracy, Israeli military, Israeli activists of this kind.
Well, let me ask about that.
You lots of countries go to war obviously the United States goes to war all the time not just Israel and one of the things we're taught when we're supposed to support our government in bombing and killing people is that look we're only killing the enemy we're not trying to kill civilians and yet here you have a case Where if you're blocking food from getting into Gaza, you can't just target the food that is going to Hamas operatives.
You're necessarily blocking food from entering Gaza and feeding the children of Gaza, the people of Gaza.
By the way, also the hostages who are Israeli who are in Gaza that are supposedly one of the main causes of why this war is being fought to rescue them.
And if there's an attempt to prevent them from getting food in.
When you talk to these activists, about the fact that they're blockading food, not only for Hamas, but also for women and children and innocent people.
Is there this sort of division like, well, it is unfortunate, we feel bad for them, but they're just collateral damage?
Or is there more of a sense that everybody in Palestine is guilty and deserves even starvation?
They're all guilty.
That's what you would hear over and over.
You could hear that throughout the documentary.
They see anyone who is in Gaza as an enemy.
If you're helping keep anyone in Gaza alive with food, you're helping an enemy stay alive with food.
Them seeing flour going in through the border crossing, they point at it, and they chase the trucks, and they act like this truck that only has wheat flour on it has a truckload of RPGs.
They see the food as a weapon that will make Hamas stronger, is the argument they would tell me.
So, last question.
One of the things that people in the West have been fed for so long, as we arm the Israelis, as we finance their military, as we pay for their wars, as we protect them diplomatically, is that all of this is leading up to one day when there's going to be this kind of nice liberal solution to this problem.
There's going to be an Israeli state and a Palestinian state living side by side in a two-state solution.
I think even a lot of Western liberals have more or less given up on that idea simply because settlements have expanded to such an extent that you would need an Israeli civil war to extricate them, and that's extremely unlikely, especially now.
But when you go there and you are exposed to sentiments of this kind, basically, Even young babies and young children in Gaza are so guilty that they deserve to starve to death.
And this is an opinion not only held by a marginal fringe view of Israel, but supported by the Israeli military and the government.
Does it give you any hope for how this conflict one day might actually come to an end?
No, when I speak to people, especially I spend time with the settlers who are being allowed by the military to drive into Gaza at the Erez border crossing, about a mile away from Sarat, and they go into Gaza.
And they're not thinking about the war right now.
They're thinking about the day after the war.
That's what they keep saying, the first day after the war.
And what they see happening the first day after the war is that there are no more Palestinians in Gaza.
And it is part of Israel, and it is filled with Jews.
And that is the way they see the war ending.
And that's why they oppose Netanyahu from the right, saying that Netanyahu has not promised a settlement in Gaza yet.
That's their main problem.
But the Israeli military at these border crossings will allow the civilians to cross into Gaza, to build these what they call symbolic outposts.
They bring wood, they bring nails, they bring drills into Gaza, and they build these outposts, these little wooden houses, as a promise, as a symbol that they will return to Gaza when the war is over.
And so they don't see Palestinians existing in Gaza when this war is over.
That's at least what a large portion of this extremist part of the Israeli society sees when they go into Gaza.
And of course there's people in the Israeli government who obviously have that vision as well.
I know I said last question, this time I promise you I really mean it.
So the people you are around, a lot of them at least were settlers in the West Bank.
You went to the West Bank to travel there with them.
We obviously, for good reason, have focused on the destruction of Gaza since October 7.
But what about the way in which this mentality is now manifesting in the West Bank?
Can you talk a little bit about what has happened to life for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and the way in which that has worsened since October 7?
Of course, so I actually spent a few weeks in the West Bank in November, and what happened after October 7th, they turned all the settlers in the West Bank into military reservists.
So the settlers in the West Bank were given guns, they were in some cases given Humvees, drones, the green and brown military jumpsuits, and You know, before this war had even started, there was problems in the West Bank of settlers, you know, ethnically cleansing certain Palestinian villages.
And the war certainly emboldened the settlers because they were given all this military gear and turned into reservists.
So, I believe it was 18 villages in the West Bank have been ethnically cleansed since October 7th.
This means that the settlers, you know, they take off their normal clothes, they put on military clothes, and they grab long guns, and they go into these Palestinian villages and they chop down their olive trees.
Sometimes they'll kidnap children and put them in a truck back to the settlement and they'll say, listen, you need to get out of here in the next 24 hours or we're going to something bad is going to happen.
And they've managed to, you know, just terrorize village upon village until 18 of them have just packed up and left and went somewhere else.
So the West Bank right now is, of course, it's not on the news and there's not airstrikes in the West Bank and assaults, but there are raids and there are various types of bombings.
And there is this settler violence that is pushing Palestinians out of their villages and not only pushing them out of their villages because of settlers, but the military supports this.
The military is financing all these settlements in the West Bank.
And the reason they're financing them is because they want a greater Israel.
They want a larger foothold in the West Bank.
And so Muslim and Christian alike, these Palestinian villages in the West Bank are being terrorized on the heel of October 7th.
Well, the documentary you produced for The Grey Zone is very powerful and I really hope people watch it.
I know the work that you did to produce it and that you've been doing in general has been difficult and courageous journalism.
I really appreciate the fact that you're doing it and that you took the time to talk to us tonight about it as well.
Keep up the great work, Jeremy.
It's great to see you.
Thank you.
All right, have a good evening.
So that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow the program, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
As a final reminder, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals where we have our live interactive after show where we take your questions, respond to your feedback and critiques.
And here are your suggestions for future shows.
Tonight is Tuesday, but because we came in quite early to tape these interviews, we won't be having our live show, our live after show tonight, but we will be back Thursday for that.
That after show is available only for subscribers to our local community.
And if you want to become a member, which gives you access not only to those twice a week after shows, but also to the various interactive features we have on the platform that allow us to answer your questions and interact throughout the week.
It's the place where we publish our original journalism first.
We publish transcripts of every program we broadcast here on Rumble.
We publish professionalized transcripts every day of the program.
