UN Accuses US Of War Crimes In Iran

Good evening. Welcome to Nvara Live. Coming up tonight, the UN has found that US air strikes in Iran might constitute war crimes. Andy Bernham says he is determined to hit net zero by 2050. Sweden's left of center coalition has clinched a narrow victory in the general election. Netanyahu is pushing for laws to strip descenting Israelis of their citizenship. And the Oxford village of Pittington has vowed to secede from the UK over migrant housing plans. My name is Steven Methan and tonight I'm joined sadly remotely by Dalia Gabrielle. Dalia, so sorry you're not here. It's very empty without you, but how are you doing otherwise? >> I know, I know. I'm sorry, but I will be back soon. Um, I'm doing I'm doing okay. It's been a bit of a chaotic day in general. I feel like there's something in the air, but I'm happy to be sitting here with you, Stephen, and regulating through some grotesque news stories. >> It's all about regulation. Take it where you can get it. [laughter] Um, if you'd like to support our work, you can sign up at navardia.com/support. You can also listen to the show on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And please like this video, subscribe to the channel if you haven't already, and don't forget to let us know what you think in the comments below. Let's go to our very first story. Back in late February, the US and Israel began their illegal war against Iran with an atrocity. On the first day of that assault, the Shajare Taibbe Elementary School was struck by a US Tomahawk missile, causing almost complete destruction of the site and killing 156 people. 120 of those killed were school children, many of whom were crushed by the collapsing roof and partly buried in the rubble. Of them, the body of one 7-year-old Makan Naseri has never been recovered from the ruins. The US at first denied all involvement in the strike before rolling back and promising an investigation. that has never materialized, though it is understood to have been completed some time ago. Officials have also suggested that automated target selection software may have been relying on outdated intelligence about the use of the building today. But today, an independent body of experts assembled by the UN Human Rights Commission has reported on their factf finding mission on the conflict. And the mission has found that there are grounds to believe the US has committed war crimes in Iran, including on the school in the southern Iranian city. The mission also considered a second strike, one that took place on the same day as the Minab assault. There, precision strike missiles dispersed tungsten pellets over a quote clearly identifiable sports complex and residential area in the southern city of Lamemed. At least 21 people were killed, including four children with over 100 people injured in the attack. Of those two attacks, the UN mission says this. Following the United States and Israeli attacks on 28th of February, the mission found reasonable grounds to believe the United States committed the war crime of launching indiscriminate attacks resulting in the loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects. The US failed in its obligation to do everything feasible to verify that it was a military objective. Now, it's very unclear that this report is going to have any impact on the Trump administration. Back in April, US President Donald Trump was asked about potential US war crimes in Iran. >> Deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure violate the Geneva Conventions and international law. >> Who you with? >> I'm with the New York Times. Zolan from the New York Times. >> Are you failing? Are you circulation way down at the New York Times? >> Are you concerned that your threat to bomb power plants and bridges amount to no? >> Now, neither the Pentagon nor the White House has commented on the report. Meanwhile, America's highly destructive and deadly adventure in Iran continues to sow domestic political problems for the Trump administration. On Tuesday, the BBC published photos from US servicemen showing the extent of the damage caused by retaliatory Iranian strikes on US military assets in the region. This is from that report. These are pictures from anonymous US service members showing how bad Iranian attacks have been on some American bases in the Gulf. This one shows a US surveillance plane smashed up in Saudi Arabia. One whistleblower called this major damage that hasn't been communicated to the American public. And the pictures show just how unprotected the bases appear to be from Iranian missiles and drones. One service member said, "We're standing there with our eyes closed getting punched in the face." The Trump administration said its air defenses are incredible and have shot down most attacks, but said in March, >> "Every once in a while you might have one, unfortunately, we call it a squirter that that makes its way through." But the service member said, "These aren't squirters, saying, "We're not defending these bases. We're just watching them get destroyed." >> The US war has also caused havoc with energy, and Americans are feeling it hard. Fuel prices are steadily rising in the States, up 22% for diesel on last year alone. And the anger of Americans, many of them amongst Trump's traditional base, is growing. Those prices are leading the US Senate to consider extraordinary measures like banning the exports of deal of diesel in a bid to control prices at home. What's bad for western economies though may nonetheless be good for the climate with carbon brief reporting that the shortage of oil caused by Iran's blockade on the straight of means that fossil fuel emissions are set to fall in 2026. For some purposes industry has turned to coal instead to plug the gap. But overall carbon emissions are set to drop 0.5% this year according to that article. That's against a 2026 projection that emissions would rise 1.2% this year and habits may be changing. Also, the International Energy Agency has for forecast a 2.4% drop in oil demand from 2025 levels. But as one analyst put it last month, the more oil demand drops, the more industry and society is likely to reconfigure itself away from its use. For every month the conflict lasts, said analyst Farah Alvik, the probability of permanent oil demand destruction increases. Dalia, I'll come to the oil question in a moment, but I want to ask you about this report from the UN. You know, there was a time when you'd get a report like that coming out and people would really respond to it. States, you know, would take it seriously in some way, at least publicly. We now live in a time where we've seen endless reports of, you know, war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, all of which haven't really meant very very much to those carrying out those crimes or to their allies. So, do you think that anything is going to happen um regarding this report from the UN today? >> Well, I think what we're looking at here is the kind of surfacing of the contradictions and the inherent flaws of the UN that have existed um at at the inception of the UN. You know, when the UN was um was founded, it it kind of has always been this incredibly um sort of limited institution, right? And that's because it was never really meant to be a liberatory institution. It was established in order to stabilize an international order after a war. And so there wasn't it wasn't really to kind of curb the power of imperial states or curb the power of very powerful states and their ability to enact violence and injustice amongst weaker states. rather it was to try and stop global powers from fighting one another. Um that was kind of the the original goal of the UN. Now within the kind of formation of the UN you had smaller antic-colonial countries in in Latin America well not smaller geographically but smaller in terms of um political power uh for example very very hard to try and get provisions in there that would curb the power of very powerful states to enact you know violations of sovereignty and independence in these smaller states. And so the kind of the good examples that we see from the UN things like you know um postconlict peacekeeping um in the Congo for example this was a a legacy of those struggles of smaller anti-colonial nations to say look this institution can't just be about stopping global powers from infringing on one another's territories but also stopping global powers from infringing on on our territories of these kind of newly deolonized countries. And so it was the creative use of those um formations and those kind of incursions um that we have seen some of the kind of the better uses of the UN. But what we've sort of had over the past and I would say kind of begins with the Vietnam war. So it kind of starts to to disintegrate quite immediately. Um but then the next slash point to me is you know the Iraq war and then now we see with with the genocide in Palestine and then of course what's happening in Iran. um now is a kind of complete chipping away of even though the of the very power of the UN. So it's not just that you know we have this this organ that you know has its limitations but has some authority and that authority can be creatively used to mitigate the imperial ambitions of these global powers which is kind of written into the DNA of the institution. Um but the whole institution itself has become you know redundant and one of the ways that that has happened is through those global superpowers namely the US working very hard to undermine it whether that's through you know testing the boundaries and you know going ahead with wars that it has declared illegal and basically playing a game of banking on the fact that there are no powerful enough international legal mechanisms to actually prosecute a former US president. Um so banking on that kind of boundary um that that boundary will not be crossed and also what we're seeing now with things like the emergence of the board of peace as a way of governing postconlict Gaza and in complete replacement of even the UN's nominal role in postconlict peacekeeping. So, you know, instead of traditionally you would have, you know, after a conflict, you'd have the UN would play some kind of albeit like limited and compromised role in in rebuilding, um, we've now seen that be completely replaced in the case of of Gaza with basically what looks like a board of corporate executives, you know, looking at it as a as a as a development opportunity. So the problems in the UN are kind of very much historic and they lie in the fact that the sovereignty and independence and the freedom of you know non-imperial states was never really fully enshrined and so that's why we continue to see this impunity of states like Britain of states like the US but now that has kind of reached its final conclusion that even the necessarily the ability to to stop these war crimes but to not even be able to manage the the postconlict governance. It's kind of a longer um expression and a final the final arrival point of those original kind of questions because the question of imperial power and the right of certain states to behave above the law and that the interests the political interests of certain states to override any kind of you know right structure that unfortunately is in the DNA of the UN to begin with. it was ruptured, you know, in the Iraq war and that structural weakness is why we're seeing the collapse of it entirely. Now, that fault line is also present in sort of the judicial wing of the international community as well. If you think of the UN as like the legislative or the discursive wing, you've got like the ICJ and the IC both being defanged. I mean the ICJ at least notionally seems to be and it's that's international court of justice of course and notionally it seems to still hold some sort of sway but of course it has no powers to actually do anything once it rules in a certain in a certain way. >> Yeah. And I mean ultimately the within an imperial world which is what we have the the power and the might of the empire is always going to override any kind of international legal system. And this is why, you know, until you deal with the central problem of of imperialism, you're not going to be able to have these kinds of um ideas of like multilateral um you know, governance or a rule of law where that rule of law can like genuinely um be applied evenly. But what what has changed now is you know that was kind of always the case. What has changed now is the way in which you know led by Trump but not you know it's not exclusively a Trump problem um the kind of the the the governance of postconlict places where there could have been some recovery and some restitution um has you know the UN has been completely sidelined in that process and replaced essentially with like corporations >> uh corporations former British prime ministers so on and so forth. Um, let's go on to the the next bit of this story, which is more on the economics. It's it's only a matter of time before the impact of oil restrictions hits the UK economy. That was the warning today from Bank of England boss Andrew Bailey, who today kept interest rates fixed at 3.75%. But speaking of the Iran war, he said, quote, "The longer this volatility persists, the bigger the impact it will have on inflation and the more likely it is we will need to raise the bank rate." Daria, in the UK, we've been fairly insulated from the impact, the economic impact of of um this ridiculous war, this stupid um adventure. Um in the US, as I said earlier, um gas prices, diesel prices are are really rising. Um there has been this knock-on environmental impact though, which is that oil carbon emissions are very slightly reduced for this year, whereas they were actually projected to grow. And also the oil is a kind of habit forming substance. Um there's this idea that the the the more people are having to find other ways um of finding their energy, the the the greater or the kind of exponential increase in the the breakdown of reliance on it will be. >> War itself is a a very heavy carbon emitting practice. You know, war itself generates huge amounts of of emissions. Um but what I will say is that yes I think look you know we have to operate within the conditions that we have and if this is a moment where we can make a case to break the dependency on oil then it's a case that we should always make but I think that we should be quite careful because ultimately you know the reason that oil has caused so much conflict is not just inherent to the substance itself but it's because it is a resource and resource geopol like resources, the competition over resources, the ownership over resources is a driver of you know geopolitical conflict, geopolitical power struggles. And we can see you know if we're thinking about for example like a transition to um you know greener energy, the problems that are inherent with oil, obviously some problems do alleviate like carbon emissions um but also some other problems do still emerge. You know the the green energy still requires the mining of resources. It still requires the mining of natural minerals and you know first of all that can also be a very environmentally degrading process. Not not necessarily in terms of you know emissions and and global warming but certainly in terms of the destruction of biodiversity, the destruction of landscapes, the destruction of livelihoods. Um and also you still can see within that some of the geopolitical conflicts of you know a race for for lithium and the race for sec who's going to who is going to to um have control over the natural resources um of the future. And so a lot of the core ways in which our dependence in on oil has destroyed our planet, has destroyed our politics, um doesn't necessarily vanish when you break the dependency on oil and you just replace it with minerals, even if you know the problem of emissions itself necessarily um you know goes down. But does that mean that like we should not be using this moment to like make a public political case for like why it is good to break our dependency on oil? Sure. But there's also like the question of kind of like of ownership of you know the resources that we re that we rely on um for power for energy uh still and also the kind of p the environmental practices that go with extracting those resources remains a very like live question. British Prime Minister Andy Bernham was criticized over the summer for being quite slow to respond to a season of wildfires, droughts, and heat waves. He also continues to mole over whether to resume naughty oil and gas extraction at the Rosebank and Jack Door sites with a decision on Jack Door having been delayed until after next month's crucial Hoben and St. Pancress bi-election. So, he hasn't exactly covered himself in green glory as a politician leading on the climate. In an article in the Guardian published this afternoon, Bernham has now come out more strongly on the issue of climate change. Kind of British people, he claims, understand the climate crisis threat, and in response, he's promising to empower them to address it. Now, the article is largely about community initiatives with Bernham promising a 30 million pounds uh funding pot for community-led local green energy projects. But in the article, Bernham also says this. I'm acutely aware that our changing climate is a major concern for many Britons, not least because we have just emerged from our hottest summer on record. Punishing heat waves left nurses collapsing on hospital wards and bus drivers working in 40° centigrade c cabs. Wildfires destroyed homes, leaving families with nothing. And more extreme weather is forecast in the months ahead. The climate crisis is not a distant threat. It is here and with us now. The British people are no longer insulated from the consequences and they do not want to be excluded from the solutions. They're looking for ways to do their bit. Community energy gives them that chance. Bernham goes on to say this. The climate crisis presents us with an enormous challenge and possibility. In the coming years, we need to change the ways we travel, build homes, and produce energy. I have long seen the green transition as the best chance we will ever have to re-industrialize Britain. And the prime minister ends with with this. I'm determined that we meet the commitment on which Labor was elected and reach net zero by 2050. I want Britain to believe in itself again. That will not happen by asking people to stand still while the world spins around them. Everyone should have a say and a stake in their future. Dalia, I didn't really know what to make of this article because, you know, he was talking about the um the 2050 uh CL net zero target. Um and it was using words like I am determined um that we will um you know, sort of the word, you know, he's the prime minister, he could just say we will, right? There was this sort of, you know, hedge hedging around around the the language there. And it was funny that it was sort of placed in this article where it was a relatively small amount of money being given to like the whole country um local communities in order to you know initiate green um energy initiatives locally. Um so it all made me think that actually there was like a fair amount of of of politicking going on here. I mean there's a big bi-election coming up where the Greens are are are the main contender in Hobon and St. Pancreas. Uh the Jack door question is still hanging over over his head. It's hard to say, oh, we'll meet this we'll meet this um climate target, but you know, I've also already decided that I'm going to drill in Jack door. I mean, we don't know if he has already decided, but you know, it certainly he's not saying anything before that bi-election. Um yeah, what did you make of this? Is this like is this a is this a real commitment to the climate or is this a is this a kind of move on the greens ahead of this bi-election? I'm going to leave it to sort of the the more like green climate policy wonks to really get into the nitty-gritty of this. Obviously, we don't have a huge amount of information. What we have is that this is supposed to be a kind of 30 million pound down payment on a longer 1 billion pound project. That is like it's not like a nothing amount of money. If you think about like the 1 billion that it's meant to kind of be the first installment of, but in terms of like how much resources needs to be marshaled for like an actual climate transition, it's basically very very little. Um there's, you know, there's some things in it that I like I find somewhat encouraging. I think the kind of specific uh mentioning of questions like public ownership of energy, I'm not mad at that. you know there are there is a way to articulate the climate transition uh in very corporatist terms where you just talk about the green transition as being a great opportunity for the very same oil companies that have you know just brought us into this problem to begin with. So the fact that he is kind of talking about the importance of public ownership and you know what we would call energy democracy, what the climate movement calls energy democracy, you know, it's not terrible. Um it kind of is is a wink and a nudge in terms of his politics around uh you know reversing the nationalization the privatization of public utilities which has been a complete disaster which most people are in British in the British public are are against. um you know and he has kind of a history of this right you know in Manchester he brought the buses into into national ownership right um into public ownership let's say um obviously so it's not you know massive um and in the scale of the and the urgency of the climate transition it's like very very very tiny but it is also like the closest we've ever come which is somewhat depressing um and obviously the massive caveat there is if rose bank and you know jack door go ahead then this is it's quite literally meaningless and that will really define whether or not this is a very small step in the right direction or a complete uh just propaganda basically and a complete act of you know meaningless shallow politics uh and the fact that he has deliberately delayed the uh and his decision around Jack door um until after the Hovind and St. pancress election doesn't bode well to me because if he was looking to go towards not commissioning those projects he would have made a big song and dance of it right now. So I'm not very um I'm not very like optimistic in that sense. I do think that the kind of the naming and reclaiming of net zero even though you know we've been on this ride before where politicians talk about you know we are going to try really hard to get to net zero by 2030 which was the original um goal and then basically making no significant steps to get there but in the context I guess of reform uh you know when you look at at reform's website when you look at reform's policies you know after immigration the next biggest thing that they campaign around and that they galvanize people around is anti-net zero. And that's because anti-Net Zero is basically just a cover for further corporate deregulation, right? And so him coming out and like naming and reclaiming net zero suggests that there has been like a slight shift in the balance in the sense that Labor is not as much taking its lead from reform but is maybe taking its lead a little bit more from the Greens and seeing the Greens as more of a threat. That could just be a temporary thing that exists you know is pegged to the Hogan and Pancress um you know election. Um, but it also could be, you know, I think sometimes on the left, like we're really hesitant to claim wins. Um, and I think we can sort of look at this and say, okay, it's so deeply limited in all these different ways, but also it is possible to create leverage and pressure from the left. that that actually can open up space to create demands and to create slight political movement away from, you know, and and to to to undermine the way in which reform seems to be setting the agenda on every single issue. >> I get and I think that you're right. I think this this actually this is quite a new feature from from the Labor that's Labor Party that's been in power since 2024 of actually taking a strong and clear oppositional stance to a reform policy. By the way, the Tories are also campaigning on on um no net zero. Um so I I think I get that. I mean I do think though that you know 30 million um is 3% of of of the overall promise. It's kind of like the sort of sum of money that you know like comes out of like the government's petty cash in some way like an you know you can it's not that difficult to to to to to pledge. Um I suppose one way of thinking about it is that you know maybe he's holding his fire ahead of a budget where we might see more impressive economic interventions. It doesn't sound like it. They sound like they're laying the ground for actually not a lot. That also could be a way of surprising everybody. Um I don't know. I think I'm just like honestly so burned by uh nothing burgers uh from the Labour Party over the last two years that that's all I'm expecting really. I'm like a kind of, you know, dog that's been kicked too much. Um Um All right, D. Let's go on to our our next story. Oh, before we do, actually, people have been commenting on my t-shirt and worried about who I've got on on on the front of it. It is it is Lula. Uh Brazilian elections incoming, everybody. Sweden has a new government and it's of the left. The country held parliamentary elections on Sunday and by Monday it was fairly clear that Sweden's left alliance had won the election though at one point by just one seat. And despite celebratory scenes from the Swedish Social Democrats, the largest party in the block and led by Magdalina Anderson, counting continued until today precisely because the race was so tight. That's all over now with the leftwing coalition set to form the next government. though it remains extremely close with just three seats of 349 separating the left block from the right. In response to the result, former Swedish Prime Minister Ulerson has resigned. Leader of the center-right moderates, Christen led a coalition with other centerright and liberal parties which was only able to take power at the last general election through the support of the Sweden Democrats. That was a controversial move until 2018. All other Swedish parties had placed a cord on sanitary for a firewall basically around Sweden Democrats over its embrace of Nazis, fascists and farright nationalists well into the 1990s. Christen broke that in 2018, agreeing to work with the with the Sweden Democrats on a supply and demand basis to ou the left from power. A rise in anti-migrant sentiment in Sweden gave the Sweden Democrats their strongest ever result in 2022, making them the second largest party in parliament after the center-left Social Democrats. Ahead of the 2026 election, Christen went even further, promising Swedish Democrat politicians ministerial posts if the right block won. Far from winning, though, the Sweden Democrats saw their votes slashed and power fade away, as you can see from the devastated faces present at the farright party's election celebrations. But how different does Sweden's parliament look now? Going from left to right, the largest parliamentary party remains the center-left Social Democrats, though with a slight drop in vote share. The center-right moderates saw their share rise very slightly, but their partners, the farright Sweden Democrats, saw a three-point drop in support. That translated to a loss of 11 seats in parliament, around 20% of their MPs. One winner, however, was Sweden's left party or fenced, which increased its vote share by almost two points, translating to six extra parliamentary seats, an increase of 25% on the MPs they had before. That's their best ever result in national elections. celebrating here as the exit polls came in on Sunday night. The left party ran on a broadly socialist platform with a focus on the environment, greater public spending, anti- privatiz privatization, and the genocide in Gaza. The left has never been part of a national Swedish government, though it has entered into supply and demand deals before to support leftwing coalitions. And while Social Democrat leader Magdalina Anderson, who is expected to become prime minister, had previously ruled out working with them, she'll need their support in parliament. Earlier today, I was joined by Jack Buck, who's been working as a political campaign organizer and strategist with the left party leading up to this election. I began by asking him to explain what the next steps towards forming a government, a coalition government would be. >> So, the results been been very very close. Uh we do have now 50,000 votes uh declared as the majority between the two blocks. Um what that means is that uh Magdalena Anderson of the Social Democrats uh will be the the next prime minister. uh and the four left parties are now uh going into negotiations to try and form uh a government with the mandates that they do have. Um in terms of when we'll know uh that's a little bit hard to say. Um a major feature of this election has been the negotiation between the different parties within the left block. Uh and who will sit in the government has been a major part of the uh entire election debate. So um we don't know exactly how the government will be formed at the moment uh and the negotiations have started this afternoon. >> So let's talk about this this left block that's now negotiating between itself to form a government. The biggest party is as you said there the social democrats. Uh that's where the prime minister is going to come from. Then it's a number of smaller left-wing parties. The largest of which is is the left party. Um, now when I was looking at their their sort of platform and their policies, things that they led on in this election, they reminded me a lot of the Green Party in the UK. And just as the Green Party has had a kind of resurgence over the last year, maybe, you know, maybe it's slightly dipping now given Andy Bernham. Um, but nonetheless, it sort of radically expanded and did much better in recent bi-elections and indeed the last general election. Um, is is that is is that a fair comparison to make that there's something similar between the the the British Green Party and the Swedish left >> in a way. Um, I mean I think the economic platform of the left party in Sweden is definitely quite populist. Um, so you would see some similarities there with the the Green Party in England, uh, particularly focusing on, uh, taxing billionaires, uh, increasing, uh, you know, every everyday people's, uh, pay packet, reducing food and energy prices. That's definitely been, um, some areas where they would have in common. Uh I think maybe perhaps the Green Party tradition within Scandinavia is slightly different to England and it would maybe be a bit more like the Greens Prezac Palansky uh in that they are more liberal uh in nature still quite leftwing on economy and leftwing on climate um but they they focus more on kind of liberal issues and identity issues than uh the left block. Um if we look historically also the left party in Sweden actually has its roots in the communist movement. So the party's been around for a very very long time um and has developed from those roots into what we would call now a democratic socialist party. So of all the parties who competed in this election, the left party has increased its vote share by the the greatest amount. Uh it's also increased the number of seats it has in parliament by the greatest amount as a percentage. What what is it that's drawn people to them in in in this election? Is it geographically widespread or is it clustered in cities? what what what does it look like that that that increase in vote share? >> So the left party has had a fantastic campaign. Um we've secured the best result for the party since 2002. Uh so it's been the best result um of the modern era. Um the party has gained um really really well particularly amongst um suburban uh in suburban areas. So uh one of the major sort of social issues within Sweden is that um the housing tenure is quite segregated. So uh workingclass people and particularly people from non-Swedish backgrounds tend to live in quite um quite segregated communities in quite a concentrated way. uh and one of the defining features of Swedish elections in previous years has been the difference in voter participation between those voters and traditional Swedish voters. Um and uh one thing that the left party really focused on in this campaign uh was actually a ground campaign. Uh so they ran their first uh ever mass door knockocking campaign uh that's been done in Sweden for the left party. Um and uh we were actually able to go out into those communities and run a really really effective ground operation which um saw some really significant swings both from the social democrats from right-wing parties but also by driving up voter participation. So um we've seen uh participation across the election as a whole stay the same. But in areas where the left party ran its uh its ground operation and had its political strategy, the turnout's gone up uh as much as five to 10% in those areas. Um and we've seen some absolutely incredible results. For example, in some suburban areas in Stockholm, the party received as much as 60% of the vote, which is completely unprecedented. Um and um we've been gaining votes in areas pretty much across the country with the one exception being uh Norland which is the north of Sweden um where the the right-wing block has actually won votes from the left uh in the north of Sweden but other than that the left party has increased uh broadly across the country uh and with uh different voter groups as well. Uh, one really interesting factor in this election has been young men have actually come to the left party away from the Sweden Democrats, which has been really interesting. Um, and the party's focus on uh, housing, climate, and uh, everyday economy has attracted those kind of voters as well. Um, so it's been a really really fantastic result and I think the positive thing is we still have lots more room to grow in the future as well. >> What do you think is behind that growth? I mean, you mentioned young men there. It's often like a kind of um you know canard that that young men are going to the right. Maybe that did happen with the Sweden Democrats in the past. Is it sort of that the promises being made by those parties aren't delivering economically and so they're moving to parties offering something different? Um yeah what do you how do you account for that change? So amongst young voters, um, young voters in Sweden traditionally actually have been quite right-wing um, and the moderates, which is the the Swedish Conservative Party, still received the highest number of votes out of, uh, voters under the age of 30. So there's still lots of work to do there. Um but I think one thing that we've seen um in this election is that young voters have realized that their economic circumstances and their life chances are being really crippled and really hampered by the right-wing government which has been sitting with the support of the Sweden Democrats for the last four years. Um you know there is a really acute housing crisis in Sweden. There's a real problem with youth unemployment. So uh Sweden now has the highest rate of youth unemployment in the whole of uh Europe. um and uh lots of issues affecting everyday uh people's ability to get on in life from food and energy prices. So there's definitely been um amongst young voters an unhappiness with the status quo and because the left party has had a really strong message of change, we've been one of the only parties that's been really campaigning on a radical shift um in the political direction. We've seen people come over to us um amongst young voters. I think with uh the kind of suburban diverse working class, we've seen a slightly different uh attraction and that has been a real reaction to the racist policies particularly of the Sweden Democrats and of the moderates in the last four years. >> That was Jack Buck, a strategist who worked with the Swedish Left Party ahead of last weekend's election. Um Daria, there was going to be a bit more of that interview. Unfortunately, there were some technical issues on Jack's part, so we can can get to it. But, um, I wanted to bring you in here to ask you about something which I always find very interesting because it doesn't really exist in British politics, which is this idea of like a sanitary of a firewall that other parties put around um a generally a a far-right party in in in Europe um and refuse to to work with with it. So in Germany um the AFD the other parties have a kind of um firewall which is gradually slowly being eroded because for example um the Christian Democrats for example um you know they wouldn't join them in a coalition but they did use them at various points to get certain particular policies through and obviously as we saw in Sweden there uh the moderates uh broke the firewall in 2018 in order to ou the left so they decided that actually it was better to get into bed with a party with roots in neo-Nazism uh than to tolerate um a left-wing government. But the problem with these firewalls that's always kind of bothered me a little bit may and maybe this is more in the past, maybe I'm sort of not so not so worried about them anymore, is the idea that there's something sort of really deeply anti-democratic about them. And if you've got a firewall in place that says which holds which says no party will work with the the far right, it means that there's no incentive for like the other parties to actually tackle the the issues that is drawing people to the right. Of course, the nightmare is that you get a farright government. Um but the pressure that the possibility of a of a farright government um that might come to pass um does you know sort of doesn't exist in the same way when you have these these firewalls in place. I mean what what do you think about that? Yeah, I think it's a really complicated situation. I think it's come to bear in Sweden in a really interesting way. Um, because I mean, first of all, this is, you know, you're right. This doesn't really apply in in Britain because we don't have this kind of coalition government kind of situ. I mean, we obviously had a coalition government, but it's very unusual and it's not really something that is done um here in the way that it is done in in in Europe. And so this kind of idea that a you know a major party would sort of integrate a more marginalized party into its governance you know into it it's kind of the ruling you know body um doesn't really happen you know here it's like if reform win like reform win and we're just under a reformed government and like it doesn't really matter um whether it's not really in a in a kind of coalition sort of manner. The problem with firewalls, I think I I agree in a sense that it it not only does it give a false sense of security um to some of the major parties to kind of reckon with the possibility of the far right actually taking power, but also it means that when you have what we have right now, which is, you know, widescale disillusionment with the status quo, it becomes really easy for those far-right parties that have been kind of firewalled by um the by the status quo to inauthentically gain this status of being a representative of all people who feel like they have been firewalled um by the status quo. And so one could argue that, you know, even though I don't think this was part of the the, you know, the the social the Sweden um the kind of the center party in Sweden's uh strategy, um what you could argue that the reason that the left did well in this election is because when the the farright party was actually integrated and became part of the governing structure, their the fact that they actually cannot deliver on the promises that they do deliver which is to speak actually represent those disaffected people was kind of tested and and seen in real time but without having to actually see a farright government in power. you know, kind of it was it was integrated but in a somewhat like managed way which then meant that it kind of you could argue that it sort of took the wind out of the sales of the farright um party because it was like they actually governed and showed themselves to be incapable of doing of doing the thing of delivering on the promises that they said that they deliver and then that plus you know I mean that's what you know Jack Buck said that you know young people especially were like this is not the kind of thing that is going to deliver and address the needs that I have and also it mobilizes those people who are directly impacted by the presence of a farright um party in government. So you know in the Swedish elections we see an uptick in turnout from you know immigrant immigrant populations that then can kind of like that that sort of mobilizing of people who have not historically voted that would vote against a farright um government. I guess the problem is that, you know, if you integrate the far right, you end up having to take on their policies and having to do things that really harm vulnerable people. Um, and so there's that kind of balance there. And one could argue that maybe in Germany this kind of like pandering and like soft integration of the far right might take the wind out of their sales. Or it could go in the opposite direction which is to create this kind of consensus that the far right's vision of the future is the right one. And the problem is that the center is not able to effectively deliver on that. Um, and I think it it kind of speaks to the overall problem that we're in, which is that, you know, even though the center is dying, the center is dying a very slow death. And the center is dying whilst still at the moment holding institutional power. And as we can see from history, the center, you know, liberal, the kind of liberal center will always choose the far right over the far left because liberal capitalists before their liberals, they're capitalists and they will always cleave towards the politics, a politics that retains that structure of ownership which the left actively is supposed to at least undermine. And so we end up in this really difficult situation where it's like even though the kind of liberal center is historically really unreliable, our fate is kind of in their hands of like as they exit institutional power, who do they kind of hand that institutional power over to? So I think even though it's not applicable in Britain because we don't have this kind of ability to appropriate and integrate and then demobilize these far-right parties um which can go either way. I think the fact that it's worked in Sweden does not necessarily mean it's going to work in you know other parts of it's a huge monumental risk arguably more risky than just trying to make them electorally unviable by refusing to work with them. Um but it does show that like it's a very very nuanced and very complicated question and I think that this kind of the way in which liberalism has sort of pretended that the rise of the far right is not happening and then in the 11th hour been like okay we'll take on some of the farright policies. the risk payoff is extremely extremely high and like in Sweden it has somewhat paid off a little bit because it has caused a decline in the farright vote because people have seen the farright in power and seen that it's just more of the same and if not worse. Um but I don't necessarily know if that's what's going to play out in Germany because Germany has a different historical relationship with fascism than Sweden does. Let's just put it that way. >> I mean there was a cost in Sweden. the cost for the cost for for for migrants and minority groups I think was quite high. Like if you look at interviews of like the relief that people feel that the Sweden Democrats are nowhere near the levers of of power it it's quite palpable in in those interviews that there was real fear and and and struggle in the period when when they were. Um, I would say that I, you know, I said before I, you know, like gone back and forth about the the idea of these firewalls and I was particularly moved by the idea that they were anti-democratic and I sort of feel like, you know, if you're going to be um, it's all interested in democracy, you got to do it like properly. But I think the thing that sort of p pushed me away from that now is actually the presence of other very powerful anti-democratic forces in our politics involving the right. So, you know, billionaire owned algorithms that p push out that content, the actual flow of money from groups in the US and the training uh given to politicians on the right in Europe by those groups in the US. All of that makes me think, well, actually, if democracy is being manipulated, then a firewall is completely fine as a protection against the manipulation of it. um in an ideal circumstance where it is just the voter facing the manifesto and I know there are no such things as ideal circumstances but in a more or less circumstance like that I do I'm I'm more suspicious of them but yeah as I say with the with the presence of massive massive right-wing power trying to shape the course of democracy in Europe. Uh I I do think that yeah firewalls become totally fine by me in that situation. Israeli Prime Minister Bin Netanyahu has vowed to revoke the citizenship of anyone who defames Israeli soldiers. He said that on Wednesday. The draconian measure comes just days after Naza, a documentary exposing the Israeli military's deliberate targeting of Palestinian civilians and made by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Saw was awarded the special jury prize at this year's Venice International Film Festival. Netanyahu wasted little time taking action against those who challenged the morality of his government and military. whatever there is of it or what we might call report truthfully. >> I'm going to introduce two laws right now, government sponsored laws. The first to revoke the citizenship of anyone [clears throat] who defames IDF soldiers and the second to hit them in the pocketbook by increasing by a factor of 20 the amount of damages that can be claimed against them for defamation to hurt them both financially and through their citizenship because their place is not with us. I expect all factions in the Knesset that say they support the Zionist idea to support these two laws. >> Mickey Zaha, Israel's minister of culture and sports eagerly backed Netanyahu's proposal. Uh Zohar said this on X. The win of the vile film Naza at the Venice Film Festival is shocking. The self-loathing that burns in the creators who are willing to harm their homeland just to get applause from anti-semites around the world is inconceivable and constitutes a betrayal of the state. He also declared that he would act immediately in rescending the citizenship of Naza's despicable filmmakers his his term saying now is time to put an end to this disgrace. These filmmakers, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Saul, were also members of the Palestinian Israeli collective behind Nother Land, 2025's Oscarwinning documentary that explored the destruction of the occupied West Bank. Very, very powerful documentary. In Naza, Abraham and Zor speak with 24 anonymized Israeli military and intelligence insiders who reveal the use of AI powered systems designed to swiftly identify targets and initiate remote bombings. Despite military personnel knowing civilians will be killed, the Israeli military emphatically denies the allegations made in the film. But it isn't just its own citizens the Israeli government appears to be seeking retribution against. Earlier today, Alazer reported having seen a leaked document dated September 8th, the same day that foreign secretary Ed Milliband announced sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, threatening counter sanctions on British aid organizations. In the letter, the Israeli government lists individuals associated with 11 British organizations recommending they be barred from entering Israel. They are Palestine Action, that's not surprising perhaps, Oxfam, Save the Children, Medical Aid for Palestinians, and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign are amongst those organizations named. Palestine Action co-founder Huda Amori, who is reportedly named as an individual set to be denied entry to Israel, told Al Jazzer, this this letter is further proof that we were not banned because of anything to do with terrorism. As the letter admits, our activity was always focused on damaging the Israeli defense industry. Palestinians have been fighting colonization and displacement for over a 100red years, and no threats from the colonizers can deter us. I will return when my homeland is free. Dalia, Israel often holds itself up as, you know, the only liberal state in in in the Middle East. Um, of course, you know, here in the UK, in the US, we're seeing liberalism come to, you know, some some sort of fraying as a result of our government's insistence on upholding this idea of Israel. How much longer can they do it when the country is now saying not only are we going to revoke the citizenship, the nationality of our own people who are who are critics of our military, but we're also just going to block, you know, any of your any of your um organization, representative organizations like Oxfam, Save the Child ever from from entering the country because uh you've done some sanctions on on on on the occupied not even on Israel but on on on settlements in the occupied territories. Well, unfortunately, I think that the reason that Israel will be able to get away with this, for now, at least, is because it is actually perhaps at a more intense level, but is going in a similar direction to a lot of so-called liberal nation states, which is using citizenship stripping as a tool for censorship, um, as a political tool, and even the use of citizenship stripping at all. um is a deeply authoritarian um premise because what you know Naomi Klene and Astra Taylor um have been doing this um you know they they've got their new book out and they had this uh interview with the New York Times this kind of flagship New York Times video interview and the interviewer basically like spent the whole um the whole interview nitpicking on the Naomi Klein and Klein and Taylor's use of the term fascism. you know, is it useful to call it fascism? Is this really fascism? Do you just put people off by by calling this fascism? And I think we can confidently say that we are seeing a resurgence of fascism because we are seeing a resurgence of and a renormalization of citizenship stripping as a tool of discipline, as an act of political warfare. And yes, you know, it's happening in Israel. And the reason it looks so acute in Israel is because they're applying it to filmmakers. You know, they're not even bothering to say that this is because of terrorism. They're just literally doing it to people who have made, you know, a fil an internationally recognized, critically acclaimed um film. But when you look sort of at the historical arc of this act of citizenship stripping, you know, we see these like laws that allow you to strip citizenship first becoming really like used very aggressively during the 20 20th century fascism. you know, Italy, Germany, these countries, the first step that they did towards the expulsion of Jewish people and the genocide of Jewish people was to strip their citizenship. And after the war, there was kind of this moratorum, this global moratorium on this idea that you can strip citizenship. And then from the 2000s onwards, you start to see this like slow trickle back of this idea of, you know, and it happens through anti-terror legislation. Um, of this idea of like, oh, there are certain crimes and there are certain things that someone can do that means that we can strip their citizenship. Okay, people can get on board with that because often it's people who've done horrible things. But then of course that opens the floodgates for this to become a more normalized practice. And then we start to see for example in recent bills in the British government um you know the the the cases in which citizenship of a person can be stripped begins to expand begins to expand to people who haven't necessarily committed any particular acts of violence um but you know for these kind of like more amorphous situations and then you see the the result of that in a place like Israel where literally not towing the line on the army during a time of genoc genocide becomes something that you can have your citizenship stripped from from you. And so you can trace the resurgence of fascism through the renormalization of stripping a person's citizenship, especially when it's linked to questions of ideological purity or like ideological um compliance. And for me there is such a great irony, but I mean it's not ironic to me, but I'm sure it will be ironic to a lot of people that Israel as a state, you know, the story that we're told is that Israel is a state that had to be established in order to offer a safe homeland for Jewish people because Jewish people are a people who have historically experienced genocide and displacement through the act of citizenship stripping. you know, having their citizenship stripped in in fascist Italy, in fascist Germany. So, they need to have a nation state, um, where, you know, because this risk exists in Europe before it's a homeland or a safe place or any of that, it's a settler colony. Um, and a settler colony is necessarily authoritarian and necessarily will end in fascism. >> Also, this idea of compulsory allegiance to a military is just just terrifying. I mean, that just screams fascism all over it, doesn't it? like you can cannot be critical of the military um even when they're you know killing innocent people which is what this this documentary has shown. Over the last few years protests often by local people but also inflamed by farright opportunists have been a frequent feature outside hotels housing asylum seekers as well as other forms of accommodation. But this week residents of what's been described as a quiet, tranquil, and affluent village have staged a very different kind of demonstration. Pittington in Oxford has overwhelmingly voted for independence from the UK in a mock referendum protesting government plans to house more than 1,000 migrants at a nearby disused military base. Around 350 people live in Pittington, but the scheme would see 1,256 male asylum seekers moved into a former Ministry of Defense site roughly a mile away. Tuesday's symbolic referendum was organized by the parish council as an opportunity for villages to vote to voice their position on the plan. Of 312 votes cast, 285 voted to leave, 26 voted to remain, and one ballot paper was spoiled. The gleeful crowd surrounding parish council vice chair Susanna pardon was atorious when she announced the result, and she gladly met their energy, telling her neighbors, "We are Pittington, the village that roars." Villers concerns about the migrant housing plan ranged from fear for the safety of women and children to worry that migrants might feel isolated and disconnected. But one name that villagers appear to know well when asked by News night's Victoria Darbasher who was in Pittington on the day of the vote was Daniel Thomas. Making headlines lately for having been instrumental in the Port of Do protest. Thomas also known as Danny Tommo is a convicted criminal and founder of the anti-immigration campaign group Patriot Platform. He's also a former bodyguard for Tommy Robinson and a former member of the group Raise the Colors. Speaking to Victoria Dobisher on Tuesday, some residents said they would welcome Thomas to the village in the hope that he might help. >> Can I ask you, have you heard of a man called Daniel Thomas or Danny Tommo? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. What do you know about him? >> Not masses. Um, we saw what he and his guys did in Portsmouth last week and you know, I'm not going to shame him for what he did. He's he's openly admitted that he's trying to look out for his country and I would never sit here and discriminate against somebody that wants the best for their country. I don't know enough about him to comment on what his views are, what his thoughts are. I know he wants to come here and I'd happily speak to him because I want to know what his interests are, what his thoughts are. You know, maybe he might be able to help us because if this does go ahead, >> who knows what we're going to be. >> Others were shaken by the wave of right-wing sympathy they felt had swept Pittington as a result of the government's plan to house migrants locally. The mobilization of the far right which we have witnessed this weekend is um very much being felt here in this village. >> In what way? >> The use of um fear as a means to rally and uh activate people. um has unfortunately encouraged um and invited the wrong type of people to express their hardright views. And I'm a mother of two mixed heritage boys. So I'm feeling fairly disgruntled by this and also heartbroken to discover that I am living amongst some very bigoted xenophobic people. >> Okay, you sound really emotional. >> Yeah, sorry. It's really upsetting. >> Prime Minister Andy Bernham acknowledged the strength of feeling among the villages, but his emphasis remained on reducing small boat crossings rather than reconsidering this migrant housing proposal. The only thing to do is get the numbers down. Um he said the numbers of crossings down and they are significantly down. They are now at a seven-year low. That was Andy Bernham's um um response to this story. Dalia, what do you make of it? I mean you know we are used to seeing um you know protests outside hotels. Some of them have been really violent. Some of them have been re really really threatening. Um this is a very um different kind of protest. It's very in some ways unthreatening. Although obviously that person who is a resident of the village did not find it unthreatening. Found that it actually had unleashed a lot of sentiment that she hadn't known necessarily was there. Um yeah. What do you what do you make of this story? you know, I I happen to be reading I mean I've actually just finished it um a novel called Small Island by Andrea Levy and I think it is a brilliant it's a brilliant novel that helps you understand like the history of this kind of politics in this country because the book is basically about um Windrush migrants arriving to Britain in 1948 and kind of what they how they what happened when they arrived and what kind of politics emerged in that moment because people often talk about what's happening right now as as this kind of really exceptional thing like it it mass migration has gone too far. There's too many illegal crossings. The problem is that they're illegal. It's not that they're migrants. And when you look when you read that book, you realize that it is exactly the same story as was experienced in 1948 when the Windrush migrants who now are considered to be, you know, the respectable golden age of migration, you know, the the legitimate migration, the good migration at the time. They faced basically the exact same sentiment that we see being expressed here, which is we don't want them here because we just don't like the look of them. And even you know there was um I saw something as well where um there was a particular like I think all the the women MPs they wrote to all the women MPs and said you know women don't feel safe because of this this asylum hotel. And it's like when you when you look in that book you see the exact same narrative where it's like we can't give black people jobs and we can't let them live amongst us because the women will be afraid to walk the streets. even though you know as we all know like the greatest risk of violence that women face is is in their homes and that's the kind of thing that we don't want to to address but I think we need to be really clear as well about why we're in the situation that we're in because the two things that keep coming up is this idea of the small boat crossings and the migrant hotels. Now look, the situation of migrants being housed in temporary accommodation in hotels is not a good situation. Least of all for the migrants themselves, you know, when you if anyone bothered to actually talk to someone who is in these these hotels and actually understand their story. First of all, many of them have come from countries that are in active states of war or in active states of conflict. some of which for example in Afghanistan has been driven um by British foreign policy and they have come to this country and they find themselves unable to you know in a state of complete limbo they're being housed in these hotels that are dev have devastating conditions you know like um cramped conditions damp conditions uh very unhealthy unhygienic conditions you know I've spoken to people in migrant hotels who have like infestations of rats, you know, in that in these hotels because of how poor the conditions are. Um, they are unable to work. They they have nowhere to go. That leads to, you know, people sort of like lingering outside of the hotel, which then feeds into this kind of moral panic of like there's just these men that we're afraid that we've been told are very dangerous and very horrible and very scary like lingering in our streets and we feel so unsafe. And it's because they are caught in a bureaucratic limbo by our asylum and immigration system that is in this way precisely because we have been pandering to the far right. Like we have decimated the arrival infrastructure for migrants in this country, right? Because pre success previous governments have been afraid to look soft on migration. So because they don't want to they want to they don't want to look soft on migration and they want to pander to the far right. They've removed the ability of asylum seekers to seek dignified accommodation, to be able to work, to be able to integrate into their communities, and they end up in this state of endless waiting and limbo, which then feeds these racist narratives um that these are people who because, you know, understandably, frustration and anger and mental health and depression and all of these things, it's a it's a recipe for creating tension, especially when you throw in um the way that the far right narrativizes um people of color, narrativizes um racialized people. So, we could tomorrow deal with the problem of the the conditions of this of the these this asylum accommodation, the the prevalence of small boats by establishing safe, legal, and dignified routes to migration to asylum. Because ultimately, asylum seekers are not going to stop seeking asylum. If you're willing to put your family in a dinghy and cross the channel and potentially die, right, and to reach up only to reach a place that is going to be hostile towards you, you're pretty desperate. Like there's not much that's really going to stop you. And so if we actually created safe, legal, and dignified routes to migration, a lot of these things, you know, the small boats, the asylum hotels that we're being told is the major problem here would disappear. But the reason that we're not is because we continue to pander um to the far right and that that's why we're in the situation that we're in. So it's a combination of like old school racism that has been part of British society for a very long time. Even when we look back and think about the forms of migration that now we would say oh those were good and you know the Windrush migrants are glorified and they're you know we we have memorials to them and and even you know even reform would say that you know well they they were good migrants. they came in and they they they worked and they they paid their way and they integrated and whatever. That's not how they were received at the time. So, it's a repetition of that cycle of history that is further compounded by the infrastructural failure that was inevitably going to lead to tension because when you treat people in a dehumanized way, it it creates community tension. Also just on the way on this idea of like a referendum or a vote. I think there was something for me. I mean I agree with everything everything you said but I was just really struck by the particular form that this protest took which is like so middle class in it in its in its formation in you know a place that looked to be you know like a kind of poster for you know middle class um you know countryside village in Oxfordshire. Um, and I was thinking, you know, I think if I was in, you know, I would rather have people out on the streets and see who they are and know, you know, know that there's a view that they have and they're sort of exhibiting in a certain way. Um, and I don't know what every, you know, you know, I don't know what motivated everybody um, in in this vote. I mean, I'm I'm sure that there were people, as that woman said, who had revealed themselves to have um, you know, racist views that she found really disturbing. I'm sure there are lots of, you know, lots of people who were like just sort of kind of bog standard nimiism of just, you know, we don't want any change to the village that we're in, but there's just some way of just kind of going to having a having a a vote which nobody else sees and at the end of it you get this revolt which this response rather that says we don't want it and you're sort of left living there not knowing who's voted how in this in this particular case. I don't know. I found that I found that like >> partic particularly sort of clinical in some way. >> Yeah. And I and I think for me, you know, as someone who has known people who have been housed in these accommodations and has like known the kind of just like the depression and the degradation that comes with that. There's something about like there were certain lines in the coverage where it was like you know like if anyone has a disagreement you know we'd love for them to come and have a cup of tea with us. I'm just like you are so far removed from like what people are going through as a result of this politics like the the trauma that people are going through from this kind of politics and and in a sense like I don't entirely blame them because they have been systematically like disconnected from the humanity of other people. You know, we for all of the ink that is spilled on migration, on asylum, when do we hear a humanizing account of someone that actually lives in that accommodation? When do we hear a full story of like how did you end up here? What does it feel like to be in there? You know, what happens in these places? And instead, it's like this language of, you know, they come here and they get put in hotel. People think they're being put in like the Hilton and it's like oh it it's like it's such a I think the depths of what the con like we are shielded from the consequences of our politics a lot you know it reminds me of and I'm going off tangent and I know that time is running out but it reminds me of this um brilliant scene in one of my favorite films of all time called the battle of alers which is about kind of the the counterinsurgency against Algerian anti-colonialists um in you know the FLN and the way that the French kind of tried to suppress and successfully did initially suppress the Algerian um antic-colonial resistance. Um, and there's this scene where the man who is sort of leading the counterinsurgency, you know, this French army officer, army general, let's say, of the colonial army is doing a press conference to the French the the world's press and you know these kind of like liberal like journalists or put their hand up and they say like, oh, you know, there's been some concern at home about like human rights violations and maybe you're going a bit too far and there's been words that you know there's been torture and you know I you know there's sort of a critique of of of of how of the brutality of um the French colon French colonialism in Algeria and the guy says you know do you believe that France should be in Algeria there might be shades of opinion amongst you but all of you believe that the French should be in Algeria so if you believe that the French should be in Algeria don't get squeamish about what it takes for the French to stay in Algeria and I think that is such an a an an illustration of how these things that get framed as just kind of like difference of opinion and and you know very sort sort of civilized discursive politics we in Europe are often shielded emotionally and spiritually from the consequences of that from the like what are the actual con human consequences of stop the boats the human consequences of stop the boats is leaving people to drown in the You know, the the human consequence of stop the asylum hotels is that woman on the street being afraid for the ability of her, you know, mixed race children to live in their community and we're shielded from that and we're coddled away from that. And I think that is part of the reason why this politics is able to endure. >> Thank you, Daria, for for joining me tonight. >> We went to Algeria. We did go to >> we went to Pittington. [laughter] >> Um, thanks Dalia. Thanks everyone for tuning in. Do come back tomorrow for another show from 6 p.m. For now, you've been watching Navar Media. Good night.