Mike's "How about the death penalty for corrupt officials?" went up last night. He covered the Supreme Court and did a better job of it than I could have, I'm sure. I asked him to grab the topic because we were going to do a joint post:
The crooked Court briefly posted a verdict early yesterday. Apparently, the crooks on the Court are so old that they don't know how to work a computer. Amy Goodman (DEMOCRACY NOW!) noted this morning:
Bloomberg reports Supreme Court justices are poised to allow abortions in medical emergencies in Idaho. That’s according to a draft copy of an opinion that was briefly posted on the Supreme Court’s website, apparently by accident. If the 6-3 decision remains unchanged, it will reinstate a lower court order that had ensured Idaho hospitals could perform emergency abortions to protect the health of pregnant people. This is known as the EMTALA case. The decision, however, does not resolve the core issues raised in the case.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote, “Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay. While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires. The court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered it.”
It did stand, they posted their findings today and left them up. This is from the ACLU:
Today, the Supreme Court declined to issue a ruling in Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States. Instead, it sent the case back down to the lower courts where anti-abortion extremists will continue to fight to strip pregnant people of the basic right to emergency care, including when their life is at risk.
While the court’s decision temporarily restores the ability of doctors in Idaho to provide emergency abortions required under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act —EMTALA— by dismissing the case without affirming once and for all that pregnant people have a right to the emergency abortion care they need to protect their health and lives, the court continues to put pregnant patients at unnecessary risk.
Below, we break down why the case matters, and what happens next.
What Is the Emergency Medical Treatment And Labor Act?
EMTALA requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency situations. Since it was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, the federal government–across Democratic and Republican administrations–has consistently recognized that EMTALA requires hospitals to provide emergency abortion care to any patient who needs it. For nearly 40 years, EMTALA has been a crucial tool in guaranteeing the right to emergency care for pregnant patients in need.
Although the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade did not diminish these longstanding federal protections, extremist politicians still tried to prevent people experiencing emergency pregnancy complications from getting care in emergency rooms. In this case, Idaho, which has a near total abortion ban, went all the way to the Supreme Court for the power to criminalize emergency abortions required under EMTALA.
The ACLU and the Cooley Law Firm filed a friend-of-the-court brief in defense of EMTALA. We explained that the law clearly requires hospitals to provide emergency abortion care, regardless of state abortion bans like Idaho’s and others, and that pregnant people cannot be excluded from EMTALA’s protections. The court’s concurring opinion authored by Justice Elena Kagan, and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in part, echoes the arguments we laid out in our brief.
Who Will Be Most Impacted by the Court’s Decision?
The Supreme Court had the opportunity to affirm that every pregnant person in this country is entitled to the emergency care they need to protect their health and lives, and it failed to do so. The court’s refusal to safeguard the right to emergency abortion care–and put an unequivocal end to extremist attacks by anti-abortion politicians on this essential health care –puts pregnant patients at risk and devalues equality under the law.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
The “Concert” remark referred to a sprawling relaunch of a controversial Israeli government program initially known as Kela Shlomo, designed to carry out what Israel called “mass consciousness activities” targeted largely at the US and Europe. Concert, now known as Voices of Israel, previously worked with groups spearheading a campaign to pass so-called “anti-BDS” state laws that penalize Americans for engaging in boycotts or other non-violent protests of Israel.
Its latest incarnation is part of a hardline and sometimes covert operation by the Israeli government to strike back at student protests, human rights organizations and other voices of dissent.
Voices’ latest activities
were conducted through non-profits and other entities that often do not
disclose donor information. From October through May, Chikli has
overseen at least 32m shekels, or about $8.6m, spent on government
advocacy to reframe the public debate.
It didn’t take long for one of the American advocacy groups closely
coordinating with Chikli’s ministry, the Institute for the Study of
Global Antisemitism and Policy, or ISGAP, to score a powerful victory.
In a widely viewed December congressional hearing on alleged
antisemitism among student anti-war protesters, several House GOP
lawmakers explicitly cited ISGAP research in their interrogations of
university presidents. The hearing concluded with Representative Elise
Stefanik’s viral confrontation with the then president of Harvard
University, Claudine Gay, who later retired from her role after a wave
of negative news coverage.
The ISGAP, which reportedly received the majority of its funding in 2018 from the Israeli agency that was running Concert, touted its congressional public relations coup at a 7 April event at the Palm Beach Country Club.
“All these hearings were the result of our report that all these
universities, beginning from Harvard, are taking a lot of money from
Qatar,” bragged
Natan Sharansky, a former Israeli Knesset member (MK) who previously
held Chikli’s role and now chairs the ISGAP. Sharansky told the
assembled supporters that Stefanik’s remarks had been viewed by 1 billion people.
The ISGAP has continued to shape congressional investigations of
universities over claims that protests over Israel’s human rights record
are motivated by antisemitism, and the organization has been deeply
involved in the campaign to enshrine new laws that redefine antisemitism
to include certain forms of speech critical of the nation of Israel.
Video footage of an Israeli army dog mauling an elderly Palestinian woman in Gaza has sparked questions over the use of canines in the war and their potential use as weapons of torture.
The video footage, broadcasted by the Al Jazeera Network this week, showed a large dog viciously biting and dragging a 66-year-old Palestinian woman in her home in Jabalia, north Gaza. The leaked footage came from a camera attached to the dog.
The woman, identified as Dawlat Abdullah Al Tanani, said she refused to leave her home, with Israeli forces setting the dogs on her while she was still in bed. The mauling resulted in fractures and serious injuries.
To date, at least 21,000 children are missing amid the chaos of the war, according to a new report by Save the Children—a figure the charity says includes 17,000 children who are unaccompanied or separated from their families as a result of the war and the 4,000 children who are thought to be missing under the rubble, as well as the untold number of children who have either been detained by Israeli forces or have been recently discovered in mass graves.
As with all of the statistics coming out of Gaza—including the more than 37,000-person death toll, a figure that is tracked by the Hamas-led Gaza Health Ministry and which is considered reliable by the U.S. government and the U.N.—the report notes that it is “nearly impossible” to collect and verify information under the current conditions in Gaza given the lack of access granted to aid agencies and forensic experts. But experts warn that the reality is probably far worse.
“Anyone who’s been to Gaza recently knows that these estimates are on the low end,” says Tanya Haj-Hassan, a pediatric intensive care physician who volunteered in Gaza’s Al-Aqsa hospital in March with U.K.-based charity Medical Aid for Palestinians. During her time in Gaza, Haj-Hassan says it was common after an airstrike or another mass-casualty event for family members to come to the hospital looking for their loved ones who were unaccounted for. “It’s assumed that those kids died buried under the rubble, and I don’t think those deaths are fully accounted for in these numbers.”
She recounts one time when a father, covered in soot and barefoot, came to the hospital calling out his daughter’s name, only to collapse when he realized she wasn’t there. In another, a mother arrives in a wheelchair, just one week postpartum, telling the hospital staff that her seven-day old is trapped under the rubble.
For the roughly 1 million children living in the besieged enclave, the last eight months have been defined by near-constant displacement, death, and destruction. Many are unable to get the nutrients they need as a result of man-made food shortages, creating what the U.N. and others describe as “catastrophic levels” of hunger.
Israeli forces killed a Palestinian Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) physiotherapist who was on his way to work on Tuesday.
The organisation confirmed his killing in a statement but did not explicitly blame Israel.
Fadi Al-Wadiya, 33, was killed along with five others, including three children near an MSF clinic, as he was cycling there.
The father of three was on his way to provide medical care to others who had been wounded in Israel's ongoing war on Gaza.
Cori Bush, a US Congresswoman representing Missouri, is headed for her own contentious primary in August, and Wednesday’s poll shows her trailing her centrist rival Wesley Bell.
He was ahead of Bush by one point, with 43 percent support to her 42 percent, a difference well within the margin of error. The poll was conducted by the Mellman Group, on behalf of the pro-Israel group Democratic Majority for Israel.
The publication The Hill, however, said the poll could indicate weakness in Bush’s re-election efforts. “This is a notable improvement for Bell from January, when a poll by the firm found Bush leading by 16 points,” it said.
As of May, Bell has raised more than $65,000 in contributions from donors who normally give to Republicans. They include a former GOP speaker of the Missouri House, the billionaire hedge fund founder Daniel Loeb, and the former finance chair for Sen. Tim Scott’s (R-S.C.) presidential super PAC.
At the end of the last fundraising quarter, Bell reported having about twice as much cash on hand as Bush.
Bell has also benefited from more than $300,000 in ads paid for by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s super PAC. While AIPAC backs candidates of both parties who support U.S. military assistance for Israel, progressive critics have noted the PAC’s top contributors are GOP megadonors. Bush is one of AIPAC’s top targets in the 2024 elections.
Congresswoman Cori Bush (MO-01) released the following statement on the second anniversary of the Supreme Court case decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization which overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) with a ruling that held that the constitution does not protect the right to access abortion, overturning over 50 years of precedent.
“The fight to protect access to abortion care and reproductive freedom is personal for me. The decision to have my abortions wasn’t easy, but I knew it was the right decision for me. I am so thankful that as a young adult, I had a safe healthcare option available. For five decades, Roe v. Wade protected our right to make these decisions, but on this day two years ago, this protection was stripped away by the corrupt and illegitimate Supreme Court. Within minutes of this far-right extremist Supreme Court decision, Missouri became the first state to enact its trigger ban and outlaw abortion care. And, in the two years since Roe was overturned, 14 states have enacted total abortion bans.
“We do not ever have to go back to a time where back-alley, unsafe abortions are the norm because we have medication abortion which in many instances can be received in the mail. But there is no doubt that the Dobbs decision is a major setback, especially for Black, brown, Indigenous communities, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ communities, young people, low-income folks, and other marginalized communities. Because the reality is Roe was always the floor when it came to reproductive freedom—marginalized communities have always faced barriers to care. People in Missouri, and all around the country, will keep having abortions, whether legal or not. We can and we must expand reproductive health care and protect reproductive rights.
“As a Congresswoman, I have fought hard to protect and expand reproductive rights. It's why I have introduced several pieces of legislation that both protect and expand access to reproductive, sexual health, and abortion care. Just last week I introduced legislation to repeal the Comstock Act, a zombie law that anti-abortion extremists are threatening to use to bypass Congress and enact a nationwide abortion ban.
“The movement for abortion and reproductive justice demands an inclusive, anti-racist, anti-classist, anti-ableist, anti-transphobic response. Only through a unified front can we secure full reproductive freedom, bodily autonomy, dignity, and justice for all. I am honored to stand with people from all backgrounds, genders, faiths, immigration statuses, and communities, as we fight for our freedom.”
Congresswoman Bush continues to be a fierce champion for reproductive rights and health care in Congress. Since Dobbs, Congresswoman Bush has led the charge and fought for the following initiatives:
- Protect Sexual and Reproductive Health Act: provides a comprehensive and holistic national response to protect and improve sexual and reproductive health and well-being.
- Protecting Access to Medication Abortion Act: ensures people seeking abortion care can always access medication abortion through tele-health and certified pharmacies, including mail-order pharmacies. This legislation was reintroduced this January alongside Senator Tina Smith (D-Minn).
- Reproductive Health Care Accessibility Act: eliminate barriers and strengthens access to reproductive health care for people with disabilities. This legislation was introduced alongside Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), and Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).
- Reproductive Health Travel Fund Act: provides grant assistance to those who live in trigger-ban states, like Missouri, who need to travel to receive reproductive health care. This legislation was reintroduced this month alongside Representatives Marilyn Strickland (WA-10), Lizzie Fletcher (TX-07) and Senator Smith.
- Abortion Justice Act: addresses access to abortion care and puts forth a comprehensive vision of a just America where abortion care is readily available—without stigma, shame or systemic barriers–for all who seek it. This legislation was reintroduced this month alongside Representatives Pressley, Veronica Escobar (TX-16), Nikema Williams (GA-05), and Maxwell Frost (FL-10).
- Stop Comstock Act: prevents Republicans from resurrecting a zombie law that would achieve a federal abortion ban without passing it in Congress. This legislation will be introduced along with Representatives Balint (VT), Veronica Escobar (TX-16), Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12), Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-05) and Senators Smith, Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-Nev.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
- Caucus for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA): aims to recognize the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, establish constitutional gender equality, protect abortion rights and safeguard women’s health and bodily autonomy.
###
AMY GOODMAN: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is home in Australia a free man. Assange landed in the Australian capital of Canberra today to cheers from supporters. He disembarked from a chartered jet and waved to the crowd before kissing his wife Stella and lifting her off the ground. He embraced his father, John Shipton, and entered the terminal building with his legal team.
Assange’s arrival in Australia ends a more than 12-year legal ordeal after he published classified documents detailing U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Press freedom groups have denounced successive U.S. administrations for targeting Assange, who had been facing 175 years in U.S. prison if he had been extradited and convicted.
Twelve years ago this month, Assange entered the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he was given political asylum. He spent seven years there. He has spent the last five years locked up in the harsh Belmarsh Prison in London.
Earlier today, Julian Assange flew from London to the Pacific island of Saipan in Northern Mariana Islands, where he entered a U.S. district court and pled guilty to a single felony count of illegally obtaining and disclosing national security material. The judge, Ramona Manglona, sentenced him to the five years he had already spent behind bars, saying, quote, “You will be able to walk out of this courtroom a free man. I hope there will be some peace restored,” she said.
Just moments before this broadcast, Julian Assange’s wife Stella and his lawyers, Barry Pollack and Jen Robinson, held a news conference in Canberra. This is Stella Moris Assange.
STELLA ASSANGE: I wish to thank the prime minister, Albanese, the officials who have been working indefat on securing Julian’s release. I’d also like to thank the Australian people, who have made this possible, because without their support, there would not be the political space to be able to achieve Julian’s freedom. And that support is across — across the board. I thank the opposition for also supporting Julian’s release. It took all — all of them. It took millions of people. It took people working behind the scenes, people protesting on the streets for days and weeks and months and years. And we achieved it.
Julian wanted me to sincerely thank everyone. He wanted to be here, but you have to understand what he’s been through. He needs time. He needs to recuperate. And this is a process. I ask you, please, to give us space, to give us privacy to find our place, to let our family be a family, before he can speak again at a time of his choosing.
I think it’s important to recognize that Julian’s release and the breakthrough in the negotiations came at a time where there had been a breakthrough in the legal case in the U.K., in the extradition, where the High Court had allowed permission to appeal. There was a court date set for the 9th and 10th of July, an upcoming court date in which Julian would be able to raise the First Amendment argument at the High Court. And it is in this context that things finally started to move. I think it revealed how uncomfortable the United States government is, in fact, of having these arguments aired, because this case — the fact is that this case is an attack on journalism, it’s an attack on the public’s right to know, and it should never have been brought. Julian should never have spent a single day in prison. But today we celebrate, because today Julian is free.
AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange’s U.S. lawyer, Barry Pollack, also addressed reporters in the Australian capital of Canberra and spoke about the details of the case.
BARRY POLLACK: Good evening. Earlier this evening, earlier today, in a courthouse in Saipan, we had a hearing that brought to a close a prosecution that never should have been brought. Julian Assange has for so many years sacrificed for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. He has sacrificed his own freedom. And finally, today, that tragic situation ended, and we are all grateful that Julian is back home in Australia where he belongs, back with Stella, back with his children, reunited with his father.
It is unprecedented in the United States to use the Espionage Act to criminally prosecute a journalist or a publisher. In the more than 100-year history of that law, it has never been used in this fashion. It is certainly our hope that it will never again be used in this fashion.
Julian spent years in Belmarsh. No one should spend a day in prison for giving the public newsworthy and important information — in this case, information that the United States government had committed war crimes, that there were civilian casualties exponentially greater than the United States government had admitted in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was definitely in the public’s interest to have this information, and Julian provided it to the public. He performed a tremendous public service, not a crime.
The problem with the Espionage Act is there is no First Amendment defense in the Espionage Act. It does, by its terms, not matter the reason why you published.
The U.S., for years, the U.S. government, has claimed that these publications did great harm. Today in court, the United States government admitted that there is not a single person anywhere that they can produce that was actually harmed by these publications.
Hopefully, this is the end not just of the case against Julian Assange, but the end of the case against journalism. Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Barry Pollack, Assange’s attorney. His longtime attorney Jennifer Robinson then took questions from reporters, along with Pollock and Stella Assange.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: To start with, there’s no evidence of any actual harm. And that’s exactly what the U.S. government acknowledged in court today in Saipan. So, there is no evidence that anyone was physically harmed as a result of those publications.
The public interest in those publications is clear: evidence of war crimes, that the U.S. had not disclosed the extent of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, the use of torture and other forms of human rights abuse around the world. There is no denying the public interest in WikiLeaks’ publications, which is reflected in the reasons why WikiLeaks has won the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism, the Sydney Peace Prize, the fact that Julian has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year since those publications. So, to suggest that this was not in the public interest, I don’t understand the basis upon which they could possibly suggest that. And so, I think it’s — this is clear.
REPORTER 1: Stella, can we have a question for you [inaudible]? That moment on the tarmac where you embraced Julian must have been incredibly surreal. Was that the moment you realized that this was over, that he was home?
STELLA ASSANGE: Yes, I was overcome by emotion when I first heard that there were crowds cheering, that I didn’t even know were there, behind a fence, because it was dark. And then I heard them cheer more and more and flashes. And then I turned the corner, and then I saw that Julian was coming. And we embraced. And, I mean, I think you’ve seen the pictures. I don’t want to express in words what is obvious from the image.
REPORTER 2: Stella, what comes next for Julian Assange? Will this revitalize WikiLeaks? Will this [inaudible], what have you? What’s next?
STELLA ASSANGE: Julian needs time to recover, to get used to freedom.
REPORTER 2: Don’t touch me!
STELLA ASSANGE: Someone told me yesterday, who had been through something similar, that freedom comes slowly. And I want Julian to have that space to rediscover freedom slowly — and quickly.
REPORTER 3: Jen, one of my colleagues mentioned the Podesta Files earlier. I think he may not have read them. Could you, now that you have the opportunity, just remind us of how that actually reformed the DNC and the corruption within. The Podesta Files were really good for the Democratic National Congress, yes?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Look, there was a huge — there’s clearly public interest in the DNC materials that was released by WikiLeaks. And in terms of the legality of those publications, there’s a U.S. court decision showing that it had the highest possible protection of the First Amendment. So, from a principle point of view, people might not like the politics of any particular publication, but that publication is absolutely protected by the First Amendment, as U.S. courts have found.
REPORTER 4: Jen, are there any post-release conditions for Julian — prolonged periods the U.S. has said that he’s banned from returning, stepping foot in the U.S., gag orders, anything like that? And can you and Barry give us a sense of the negotiations with the DOJ, particularly given Julian’s strong-held view that he was not guilty of a crime.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I think it’s best Barry speaks to the terms of the plea deal.
BARRY POLLACK: There are absolutely no restrictions on Julian. The case against him is over. There is no gag order. There are no other restrictions. He is going to be able to go back to whatever life he chooses to build with Stella and his family.
The negotiations were a protracted process that went on for several months, sort of in fits and starts. We were not close to any sort of a resolution until a few weeks ago, when the Department of Justice reengaged, and there have been very intense negotiations over the last few weeks.
One thing we were very clear about was that any resolution would have to end this matter and that Julian would be free, that he was not going to do additional time in prison, he was not going to do time under supervision, he was not going to do time under a gag order. So, that was one absolute requirement.
Another significant point of negotiation was where the plea would be taken. Julian did not want to come to the United States in any form. Ultimately, obviously, we negotiated Saipan, under conditions where he would be released in the U.K. He would come to Saipan not as a prisoner of the United States or the United Kingdom, and that we would come in and leave on the same day, which is exactly what happened.
And other provisions of the plea that were very significant, the United States agreed that they are not going to bring any other charges against Julian for any conduct, any publications, any newsgathering, anything at all that occurred prior to the time of the plea. So, even if he had prevailed in the extradition proceeding, that would have just resolved this case. This resolves any possible case that the United States could bring against Julian for any subject matter. So, that was obviously very significant to us.
REPORTER 5: Thank you. Jen and also Stella — Stella, you called yesterday your hopes for a pardon to be granted to Julian. How do you see that playing out? Would you like the Australian government to support that call? What could be possibly done to actually achieve that outcome, in your view?
STELLA ASSANGE: Look, I think today we celebrate Julian’s freedom. Today is the day that the plea deal was approved by the judge. I think it’s also a day where I hope journalists and editors and publishers everywhere realize the danger of the — of this U.S. case against Julian that criminalizes, that has secured a conviction for newsgathering and publishing information that was in the public interest, that was true, that the public deserved to know, and that precedent now can and will be used in the future against the rest of the press. So it is in the interest of all of the press to seek for this current state of affairs to change, through reform of the Espionage Act, through increased press protections, and, yes, eventually, when the time comes — not today — a pardon.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Stella Moris Assange, Julian Assange’s wife — she is also a human rights attorney — along with Assange attorneys Barry Pollack and his longtime lawyer Jennifer Robinson, speaking at a news conference in the Australian capital of Canberra, just minutes after WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrived in Australia a free man after a 14-year legal ordeal.
Gaza remains under assault. Day 263 of the assault in the wave that began in October. Binoy Kampmark (DISSIDENT VOICE) points out, "Bloodletting as form; murder as fashion. The ongoing campaign in Gaza by Israel’s Defence Forces continues without stalling and restriction. But the burgeoning number of corpses is starting to become a challenge for the propaganda outlets: How to justify it? Fortunately for Israel, the United States, its unqualified defender, is happy to provide cover for murder covered in the sheath of self-defence." CNN has explained, "The Gaza Strip is 'the most dangerous place' in the world to be a child, according to the executive director of the United Nations Children's Fund." ABC NEWS quotes UNICEF's December 9th statement, ""The Gaza Strip is the most dangerous place in the world to be a child. Scores of children are reportedly being killed and injured on a daily basis. Entire neighborhoods, where children used to play and go to school have been turned into stacks of rubble, with no life in them." NBC NEWS notes, "Strong majorities of all voters in the U.S. disapprove of President Joe Biden’s handling of foreign policy and the Israel-Hamas war, according to the latest national NBC News poll. The erosion is most pronounced among Democrats, a majority of whom believe Israel has gone too far in its military action in Gaza." The slaughter continues. It has displaced over 1 million people per the US Congressional Research Service. Jessica Corbett (COMMON DREAMS) points out, "Academics and legal experts around the world, including Holocaust scholars, have condemned the six-week Israeli assault of Gaza as genocide." The death toll of Palestinians in Gaza is grows higher and higher. United Nations Women noted, "More than 1.9 million people -- 85 per cent of the total population of Gaza -- have been displaced, including what UN Women estimates to be nearly 1 million women and girls. The entire population of Gaza -- roughly 2.2 million people -- are in crisis levels of acute food insecurity or worse." THE NATIONAL notes, "At least 37,765 Palestinians have been killed and 86,429 injured in Israel's war on Gaza since October 7, the Gaza Health Ministry said on Thursday. Over the past 24 hours, 47 people were killed and 52 injured, the ministry added." Months ago, AP noted, "About 4,000 people are reported missing." February 7th, Jeremy Scahill explained on DEMOCRACY NOW! that "there’s an estimated 7,000 or 8,000 Palestinians missing, many of them in graves that are the rubble of their former home." February 5th, the United Nations' Phillipe Lazzarini Tweeted:
-
-
-
Epic summer salad in the Kitchen6 hours ago
-
-
-
NEXSTAR is garbage7 hours ago
-
-
-
Just like a white buffalo calf7 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
