Sunday, August 6, 2023
Speaking of Which
Trump's third indictment led off the week, so naturally he
hogged the news. He complains about being singled out, as if
he's the only president ever to get caught running a byzantine
scam to reverse election results. If anything, he's the one
getting special favors. Anyone else trying to incite violence
against witnesses would at least get a gag order, or more
likely be remanded to jail for the duration.
Top story threads:
Trump: He gets his own section again this week, because
he got indicted again, and this time it's the big one, the case
we've been waiting for. Well, not all of it, but stripped down to
the most basic and unassailable points.
Scott R Anderson, et al: [08-01]
Trump Jan. 6 indictments: The statutes.
Zack Beauchamp: [08-04]
I regret to report the economic anxiety theory of Trumpism is back:
David Brooks wrote
another column, so now we have to contemplate it? Just because he
wonders, "what if we're the bad guys here?" Look, Brooks has never not
been a bad guy. That he sometimes quarrels with Trump doesn't redeem
him. He's the kind of elite that everyone can find fault with. As for
the notion that white blue-collar workers support Trump because of
economic anxiety, that's never been conscious. If they understood the
concept of precarity, they could figure out that Trump wasn't going
to help them. Rather, it's a theory of false consciousness: something
people like to believe as an alternative to facing the truth. It's
also a political proposition: do things to reduce such anxieties and
win some of their votes back. But if you want to understand why folks
vote for Trump, I'm afraid that the answer has nothing to do with
policy, ideology, or even culture. They like his style, and there's
really not much more to him than that.
Jamelle Bouie: [08-05]
Republicans chose their fate when they chose to shield Trump.
Luke Broadwater/Maggie Astor: [08-06]
Trump calls for judge's recusal as his lawyer deems effort to overturn
election 'aspirational': From anyone else, this might be written
off as "playing the refs," accusing the judge of bias to get the odd
call just to show she isn't. Still, Trump makes it look like a mere
tantrum. Above all, he's trying to litigate the case on his home turf,
which is the adoring media.
Kyle Cheney/Josh Gerstein: [08-04]
Feds alert judge to Trump's 'If you go after me, I'm coming after you!'
post: Sounds like a threat to intimidate witnesses, something few
judges in America would tolerate. Cheney previously wrote: [08-03]
Inside the courtroom: Donald Trump, Jack Smith and a historic glance,
which included a "standard list of warnings: Trump could be arrested
and jailed if he violates any of his release conditions -- including
a vow not to commit any crimes and not to 'obstruct the administration
of justice' by attempting to influence or retalliate against any
witnesses." That is exactly what Trump has since done, although he
has yet to be jailed for violating those conditions.
Isaac Chotiner: [08-03]
A former federal prosecutor explains the latest Trump indictment:
Interview with Mary McCord.
Alan Feuer/Ben Protess/Maggie Haberman: [08-05]
Trump's legal team is enmeshed in a tangle of possible conflicts.
Several have given evidence in various cases. Boris Epshteyn seems
to be the leading candidate for one of the unindicted co-conspirators
in the January 6 case. It's hard to get good help when your boss keeps
turning you into co-defendants.
Donell Harvin: [08-05]
Here's the intelligence assessment of Donald Trump that the government
can't write: "While generally highly decentralized and fractured,
violent extremist groups have begun to mesh over a unifying figure:
Trump. . . . Trump's willingness to fan the worst flames and division
is why, in my assessment, he is currently the greatest threat to our
Spencer S Hsu/Carol D Leonnig/Tom Jackman: [08-04]
If Trump is convicted, Secret Service protection may be obstacle to
imprisonment. I still have to ask, does he need Secret Service
protection in jail? I mean, jails are supposed to be safe, right?
Ankash Khardori: [08-02]
The most important criminal prosecution in American history: "Despite
the risks, the Justice Department's case against Trump is necessary and
Ruth Marcus: [08-06]
How Trump will fight back in court: This is long on legal minutiae,
which is to say it's nothing that Trump understands or cares about.
Trump himself will fight back the only way he knows: politically. And,
as usual, it will work effectively with his base, while offending and
repelling everyone else, most likely including the judge, and .
Josh Marshall: [08-05]
John Eastman comes clean: Hell yes we were trying to overthrow the
Christian Paz: [08-02]
Trump has been indicted for something Americans seem to have
Charlie Savage: [08-04]
How Jack Smith structured the Trump election indictment to reduce
Jason Smith: [06-16]
A two-tiered justice system: This phrase has been kicked around a
lot recently, with Republicans like Missouri Congressman Smith arguing
that the second tier was created by Democrats to prosecute opponents
like Donald Trump. Actually, the phrase goes back much further, being
used to describe a wide range of discriminatory practices, such as
much longer sentences for crack cocaine vs. powdered cocaine. It's
usually brought up in defense of people who get the short end of the
stick, ranging from
Glenn Greenwald to
Elizabeth Warren. I can also refer you to an analysis showing
Trump to be the beneficiary of two-tierism: Vera Bergengruen:
Pentagon leaker and Trump are a test of 'two-tiered' justice system.
My own take is that the most obvious tier division in the American
justice system is between defendants who can afford top attorneys
and those who get stuck with public defenders. Trump is very much
in the former group, even if one has doubts about how "top" his
actual attorneys are.
Isaac Stanley-Becker/Spencer S Hsu: [08-01]
Trump is charged under civil rights law used to prosecute KKK violence:
Not that it was effectively used after Reconstruction ended, but it has
been used recently.
Asawin Suebsaeng/Adam Rawnsley: [08-04]
Jack Smith has an indictment. Trump as a massive plan for revenge.
The authors also wrote: [08-01]
Trump's plan to save himself: Scapegoat his coup lawyers: At
least three of which (Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, John Eastman)
were unnamed co-conspirators in the indictment, so doesn't blaming
them just prove the prosecution's case?
Michael Tomasky: [08-04]
Donald Trump's lawyer is dumber than Donald Trump: Peter Lauro,
but he's not the only one:
They will say anything, do anything, attack anything, allege anything,
lie about anything, repeat anything, proclaim anything, insinuate
anything, and imply anything. Except of course anything that's true.
They are turning the country and its principles upside down. They are
fomenting a furious army of acolytes who own a lot of guns. When Trump
is convicted here, as it appears he will be, given that his lawyer just
admitted to it, what will they do?
Peter Wade: [08-06]
Trump: I will 'IMMEDIATELY' ask for new judge, new venue in Jan. 6
trial. I'd like to see some statistics on how often change of
venue is granted in federal cases.
Katy Waldman: [08-03]
Trump's subdued courtroom appearance: Trump likes to imagine himself
as one of his Superman NFTs, and he talks a strong and defiant game in
his arena appearances, but there's little evidence of his bravado when
faced with a judge, or for that matter in small meetings with foreign
leaders or even his own staff. Some Democrats want the trials to be
televised so people can see the evidence, but if they were, it may be
more damaging to just watch him squirm and fidget.
Jeff Wise: [08-03]
Could Trump get tossed off 2024's ballots? Even if the 14th Amendment
applied to Jan. 6, 2021, which is a stretch, and even if Trump was guilty
of inciting that "insurrection," which is not something he's been charged
with, this would be a bad idea politically: one that would both reinforce
his "folk hero" status and drive his more fanatical followers to greater
flights of lawlessness. He needs to be beat at the ballot box, and the
bigger margin the better. But to deny him a run would be to discredit
the very democracy you want to save from him.
Li Zhou: [08-01]
Why Trump's PAC is almost broke.
DeSantis, and other Republicans:
Biden and/or the Democrats:
Paul Krugman: [07-31]
Goldilocks and the Bidenomics bears: "It's hard to overstate how
good the U.S. economic news has been lately. It was so good that it
didn't just raise hopes for the future; it led to widespread rethinking
of the past." After noting Larry Summers' plea for "many years of very
high unemployment," Krugman goes on to say: "And as I said, we've had
an astonishing recovery in jobs and G.D.P., which puts the sluggish
recovery of the 2010s to shame; indeed, it suggests that the failure
to achieve quick recovery from the financial crisis was a huge economic
tragedy." Then he wrote another column expanding on that: [08-01]
Frying pans and fiscal policy. Looking at the first two charts
there, the slow recovery from the 2008-09 recession up through 2016
can largely be explained by the Republican gospel of austerity, which
they dropped as soon as Trump took office. But especially in 2009-10,
when Democrats had Congressional majorities, Obama's "confidence men"
deserve much of the blame (especially Summers, who like Geithner and
Furman didn't get invites to return from Biden; the term was the title
of Ron Suskind's 2011 book on Obama's economic team, due to their
belief that the key to recovery was Obama projecting confidence about
the recovery; at the time, Krugman ridiculed them for their belief in
"the confidence fairy").
Eric Levitz: [08-04]
America's economic outlook keeps getting better: "Productivity and
real wages are rising."
Bill Scher: [08-04]
Don't expect Biden to get credit for the economy anytime soon.
Cites Clinton and Obama as Democratic presidents who saw sustained
economic growth during their terms, but got so little credit for it
that the voters replaced them with Republicans, leading to massive
redistribution toward the rich, and major recessions. I have some
theories about why things work out this way. One is that Democrats
can be counted on to support measures to stimulate the economy --
as they did with legislation to help Bush in 2008 and Trump in 2020 --
while Republicans insist on austerity when Democrats are in charge,
figuring that the president will be blamed for their own acts. Key
here is that Republicans are much more adept at blaming Democrats
for anything and everything, whereas Democrats prefer to frame their
policies positively, and are eager to compromise them to receive the
thin veneer of bipartisan support.
Emily Stewart: [08-01]
Can Joe Biden convince Americans the economy is actually good?
"Bidenomics, or the real story of a sort of made-up thing."
Law, order, and the courts:
Shera Avi-Yonah: [08-05]
Jim Crow-era lifetime ban on felons voting is unconstitutional, court
Radley Balko: [07-02]
Half the police force quit. Crime dropped. One case, and maybe not
a typical one, but worth looking at. The quitting started when a black
was appointed police chief, so you can guess who quit.
Neil Gross: [08-01]
People get scared and buy a gun. Here's what happens next. Their
new guns get stolen?
Ellen Ioanes: [08-05]
In Texas, a temporary win for abortion rights: "Vague health
exceptions to extreme abortion bans aren't just a Texas problem."
Eric Levitz: [08-03]
Conservatives: Punishing coup leaders is authoritarian: I might
be more sympathetic to this argument had they made it during the
trial of the Chicago 8/7. I certainly developed a distaste for the
laws against seditious conspiracy after seeing them used against the
fringe left in the 1970s. My friend Elizabeth Fink was a defense
one of those trials, which I recall as being a colossal waste
based on pure political vindictiveness. By the way, Robert Mueller
was the US Attorney in Massachusetts when those charges were filed,
although he had left office before the trial. At least the Jan. 6
seditious conspiracy trials resulted in convictions, probably because
that was exactly what they attempted to do. On the other hand, the
Proud Boys never stood a chance of carrying out a coup. They were at
most tools for higher-placed politicians, specifically Donald Trump.
That Trump hasn't been charged with seditious conspiracy suggests
that the Special Prosecutor realizes it would be a bullshit charge,
one that the state could only safely prosecute against chumps.
Needless to say, these conservatives aren't really bothered by
authoritarianism, as long as it's directed at their enemies,
while sparing their allies and agents.
Kelly McClure: [08-05]
Clarence Thomas bought a $267,000 RV using funds from a Democratic
donor. Democratic? "Anthony Welters, a former executive at
UnitedHealthCare who worked alongside Thomas in the Reagan
administration," but who donated big to Obama, netting an
Li Zhou: [08-04]
How a Mississippi case of police brutality emphasizes the need for more
Climate and Environment:
Kate Aronoff: [07-31]
What Florida's corals look like after catastrophic bleaching:
"What's alarming about this year's bleaching event is just how
quickly the corals died."
Tom Engelhardt: [08-03]
Extremely extreme: After a paragraph summarizing the shocking climate
news from this summer, he segues into the self-appointed leader of the
"Me-First" movement: Donald Trump. Sure, he did a lot of bad things as
president, only a small fraction of which he's since been indicted for,
but his sins of omission will be judged by history even more harshly,
including four years of doing nothing (beyond his active obstruction)
on climate change.
Georgina Rannard/Mark Poynting/Jana Tauschinski/Becky Dale:
Ocean heat record broken, with grim implications for the planet.
Ukraine War: Regarding the counteroffensive, Robert Wright
writes in [08-04]
Biden's Ukraine quagmire:
This week a widely followed Twitter account called War Mapper
quantified the amount of terrain Ukrainian forces have retaken
since the beginning of their counter-offensive two months ago. The
net gain is a bit over 100 square miles. So the fraction of Ukrainian
territory occupied by Russia has dropped from 17.54 percent to 17.49
This gain has come at massive cost: untold thousands of dead
Ukrainians, untold thousands of maimed Ukrainians, and lots of
destroyed weapons and armored vehicles.
At this rate of battlefield progress, it will be six decades
before Ukraine has expelled Russian troops from all its territory --
the point before which, President Zelensky has said, peace talks
are unthinkable. And at this rate of human loss, Ukraine will run
out of soldiers long before then -- and long before Russia does.
In short: Recent trend lines point to a day when Ukraine is
vulnerable to complete conquest by Russia. For that matter, the
counter-offensive has already made Ukraine more vulnerable to a
Russian breakthrough in the north, where Ukrainian defensive lines
were thinned out for the sake of the offensive in the south. . . .
The resolve is admirable. But have things really come to this?
We're throwing Ukrainian men into a meat grinder week after week in
hopes that maybe Putin's regime will collapse, and maybe this
will be good for Ukraine?
Emphasis in original. This last line is followed by reasons such
a collapse may not be good for anyone. Another
source points out that Russia has actually gained ground in the
north, while the counteroffensive has been grinding away in the south.
He also cites a series of tweets by a
Tatarigami_UA. Of course, much of this argument depends not just on
the amount of land gained but on the resources spent and other damages,
and on how much depth both sides have for reinforcements. While the US
and its allies can provide Ukraine with enough war matériel to fight
indefinitely, Russia has a big long-term advantage in manpower it can
commit to the fight. Russia also has two more big advantages: it can
hit virtually all of Ukraine, where Ukraine can barely nick territory
within prewar Russia (e.g., through recent drone attacks on Moscow,
or most recently [08-04]
Ukraine strikes Russian commercial port with drones for first time).
And Russia has nuclear weapons, which aren't terribly useful in the
war but should give one pause when hoping for any kind of militarily
Also, I haven't seen anyone really put this info together, but it
looks to me like Ukraine is becoming much more cavalier at hitting
Russian targets behind various "red lines": in Crimea, the Black Sea,
and in Russia itself. Russia is responding with more purely punitive
attacks (i.e., nowhere near the front, such as on Black Sea ports).
Until recently, US aid was conditioned on Ukraine restraint, but that
seems to be going by the wayside.
Blaise Malley: [08-04]
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine War 'peace talks' this weekend, but Russia
Roger Cohen: [08-06]
Putin's Forever War: An extended portrait of a Russia isolated
by sanctions and agitated and militated by a war footing that seems
likely to extend without ends, if not plausibly forever. I suspect
there is a fair amount of projection here. The US actually has been
engaged in forever wars, boundless affairs first against communism
then against terrorism (or whatever you call it). Russia has struggled
with internal order, but had little interest in "a civilizational
conflict" until the Americans pushed NATO up to its borders. On the
other hand, once you define such a conflict, it's hard to resolve it.
The US has failed twice, and seems to be even more clueless in its
high stakes grappling with Russia and China.
Geoffrey Roberts: [08-02]
The trouble with telling history as it happens: More a reaction to
than a review of Serhii Polkhy's new book,
The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History, which no matter
how expert or up-to-date ("early 2023") is
quickly passed by events, and inevitably swayed by unproven propaganda.
I've read Plokhy's The Gates of Europe: A history of Ukraine
and found it useful, although I already had a pretty decent grounding
when I wrote my
Izzeddin Araj: [08-01]
Israel's judicial crisis is not surprising: "Israel's settler-colonial
ideological mission not only impacts Palestinians but prevents the country
from being a democracy for Jews as well."
Jonathan Guyer: [08-03]
Biden wants to bring Israel and Saudi Arabia together. But why?
"And who will actually get the most out of it? (Hint: Not Americans or
Palestinians.)" I haven't thought much about this, but can note that
Fred Kaplan and
Richard Silverstein are very critical. I see three obvious problems:
one is that, especially in Yemen, Saudi Arabia has a history of armed
aggression, not the sort of country you want to tie yourself to; I'm
a bit less worried than Kaplan about Saudi Arabia tarnishing America's
brand as a supporter of democracy, but autocratic states are by their
very nature brittle, so while you may like the current leadership (God
knows why), that could change any moment (cf. Iran); and as long as
Israel dictates American foreign policy, we're stuck holding the bag
for whatever commitments Israel makes (usually war tech, although I've
also read that the Saudis want nuclear tech). The tricky part with all
of these Abraham Accord deals is that they depend on Israel moderating
its treatment of Palestinians to not embarrass their new partners, but
Israel's domestic political dynamics are only becoming more violent and
abusive, effectively sabotaging the deals.
Jonathan Kuttab: [08-03]
Why the Israeli judicial protest movement is bound to fail: "The
time has come for Israeli Jews and their supporters to answer whether
they believe in human equality or will continue to insist on Jewish
Israel expanded an apartheid law last week: "Israel broadened a
racist law that allows communities to exclude non-Jews based on 'social
and cultural cohesion.'" This is one of 65 laws in Adalah's
Discriminatory Laws Database.
Jewish supremacy won't end from within. BDS is still the only hope.
It's increasingly hard to argue that sanctions can persuade countries
to change their core policies -- more likely the isolation they enforce
only makes the rulers more recalcitrant, and sometimes more belligerent --
but they are something one can do to register disapproval short of war,
and they can be adopted by individuals and groups even short of persuading
states to act. Can it work? I doubt it. Up to 2000, Israeli politicians
at least made gestures -- often, we now know, in bad faith -- to maintain
good will from the US and Europe. Thereafter, the US capitulated, giving
Israel's right-wing a green light to do whatever they want, certain of
blind, uncritical American support. A reversal of that policy, where the
US joins the rest of the world in deploring Israeli human rights abuses,
while working to ensure Israel's security by negotiating normal relations
with Israel's supposed enemies (especially Iran and Syria), wouldn't
necessarily have any impact on Israeli politics, but it's the only
thing that might. Meanwhile, civilian efforts to support BDS is the
only game in town.
Philip Weiss: [08-02]
Israel advocates finally condemn skunkwater -- now that it's being
used on Jews.
Jeff Wright: [07-30]
Another North American church names Israeli apartheid: "The Christian
Church (Disciples of Christ) has declared that 'many of the laws, policies
and practices of the State of Israel meet the definition of apartheid as
defined in international law.'" Although I'm about as lapsed as a person
can be, I grew up in that church, and took it seriously enough that they
awarded me a Boy Scout God & Country medal. They are evangelicals,
but not Old Testament fundamentalists. On the other hand, their focus on
the New Testament has led many members (like my grandfather) to focus on
"Revelations," which is the gateway to "Christian Zionism." But they have
always been fundamentally decent people, and in the end that seems to
have won out.
Around the world:
Clay Risen: [08-05]
Charles J. Ogletree Jr, 70, dies; at Harvard Law, a voice for equal
Nathan J Robinson:
Does Hunter Biden matter? "Republicans believe the president's son
is at the center of the corruption scandal of the century. Democrats
think Hunter is a non-issue and the worst allegations are mere conspiracy
theory." This is pretty thorough, and cuts the Bidens less slack than I
would, but I can't quarrel much with his conclusion: "I certainly think
we have ample evidence that Hunter Biden is scummy and Joe Biden is
dishonest." It still doesn't answer the question raised up top: "Should
voters care, and how much?" If Democrats offered a clear alternative to
the graft that Republicans seem to revel in, they should be able to
overcome a few embarrassing slips. But while Obama campaigned against
money in politics back in 2008, he made no effort once he got elected
to change a system that happened to give him (if few Democrats) a big
advantage. Biden also seems comfortable with moneyed interests, even
though they're always accompanied by the smell of corruption. Still,
corruption isn't the only issue voters have to weigh. There are many
other issues, some much more important. Even if you believe the worst
about the Bidens, you should think back on the 1991 Louisiana governor
race, where voters were advised:
Vote for the crook: It's important.
Is the critique of consumerism dead? "Today's left seems less
inclined to critique advertising, consumerism, and pop culture."
Another piece tied into Barbie, which since I haven't seen
yet I should reserve judgment on, but it's clearly not tied into
Mattel's PR machine. Still, my first reaction is "boring," perhaps
because that's all stuff I examined so critically in the 1970s I
feel like I'm unlikely to come up with anything new. I will note
that although related, those are three different things.
Advertising is an industry which presents a view of products (and
the world) that is distorted to further the ends of its sponsors --
mostly to make more money, although political advertising has darker
goals). And by the way, advertising is not free speech. It is very
expensive speech, sponsored by special interests but ultimately paid
for by the people it targets. It is almost always intrusive and
Consumerism is a political reaction to corporate malfeasance. It
attempts to give consumers rights and recourse against advertising,
and beyond that against malign products, whether by design or defect.
As we are all consumers, this movement is potentially universal, but
it tends to wax and wane as business practices become normalized. It's
possible that Robinson is thinking of something slightly different,
which doesn't have a good name. This is the idea that consuming is an
essential occupation of everyday life, a panacea for all our needs and
desires. That is, of course, an idea advertising is meant to stoke, and
one we may be better off learning to live with at a level well short of
an addiction or compulsion, but it's impossible to blot it out.
Pop art is simply art that reflects and reacts to popular consumable
objects. Growing up when and where I did, it always struck me as perfectly
normal: even if eventually it seemed a bit shallow, that shallowness was
as real as the world it represented. Robinson spends a lot of time on
what a leftist should make of this, and ultimately doesn't reach much
of a conclusion. Maybe because it's not a problem we need to solve.
Climate denial may escalate into a total rupture with reality:
If I were his editor, I'd be tempted to strike "may" from that title,
although I can see that it leaves open reason for contemplation, even
though the evidence is pretty conclusive. At this point, the really
dogmatic denialists aren't even the fossil industry shills who have
an obvious economic stake but others whose objections aren't based
on any understanding of science or economics, and their evidence,
well, isn't evidence at all.
Nomi Prins explains the difference between the market and the
economy: Interview with the former Goldman Sachs trader, turned
journalist, whose intro omits her 2009 book It Takes a Pillage,
which as I recall was the first to expose/explain how far the banking
bailouts went beyond the $700 billion slush fund Congress appropriated.
She talks about her new book: Permanent Distortion: How Financial
Markets Abandoned the Real Economy Forever.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [08-01]
Americans' trust in military hits 'malaise era' territory. This
sounds like good news to me, although the numbers still have quite
a ways to fall. So does the
recruitment crisis. Now if only some politicians could see the
wisdom of cutting back on war spending. The pressure for more remains
Alissa Wilkinson: [08-04]
Lessons from a Barbenheimer summer: The fad of releasing serious,
thought-provoking movies appears to be over. (This week's most-hyped
releases are Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem, and
The Meg 2: The Trench. Beware the colons.) The two movies are
still generating commentary, especially Oppenheimer.
William Hartung: [08-02]
Oppenheimer and the birth of the nuclear-industrial complex.
Jeffrey St Clair: [08-04]
Little Boy and Fat Man earrings: a nuclear parable: An excerpt
from St Clair's book, Grand Theft Pentagon, following by a
Roaming Charges, much of which (including digs at Pence, RFK Jr, and
"slit their throats" DeSantis I'm tempted to quote. Here's a taste:
- DeSantis reminds me of Phil Gramm, the TX politician who amassed
millions from banks and oil companies and seemed to be the prohibitive
favorite in '96 GOP primaries, but was soon exposed as just a mean SOB
with no real political skills at all other than shaking down corps for
- When DeSantis' campaign ran low on money and he began firing staffers,
he hired them to fill
government-funded positions in Florida instead.
- More than half ($5 million, in fact) of the funds in RFK, Jr's
SuperPAC came from Timothy Mellon, scion of the Mellon banking fortune,
who has denounced social spending as "slavery redux," donated $53 million
to state of Texas border wall construction fund, and gifted $1.5 million
toward the legal defense of Arizona's vicious anti-immigration law.
I can't call it a tweet, and certainly won't call it a truth, but
after Trump deemed "really quite vicious" Nancy Pelosi's quip about
him in court ("I saw a scared puppy"), he wasn't satisfied with just
being the victim. He added: "She is a Wicked Witch whose husbands
journey from hell starts and finishes with her. She is a sick &
demented psycho who will someday live in HELL!" True gentleman he
is. Salon, which never misses a tweet, covers this story
Another tweet, from Younis Tirawi, in Jenin: "Israeli occupation
forces fired 300 bullets on a car with 3 Palestinian fighters inside.
After they all were killed, they kept their bodies inside the car,
pulled it and paraded with their bodies home to the occupation
military camp near Dotan."
Also from Noga Tarnopolsky: "Israeli National Security Minister
Itamar Ben Gvir, convicted eight (8!) times of terrorism &
hate crimes, says a medal of valor ought to be awarded to his
Jewish Power activist Elisha Yered, a suspect in the murder of
19-year-old Palestinian Qosai Mi'tan."
Ask a question, or send a comment.