as to maintain the workforce and the company name, but like the union, local politicians aren't on board. take, johns betterment, us senator, who lives across the street from a mil. it's absolutely outrages that they have sold themselves too of for nation. other lawmakers have written to the white house, encouraging the administration to examine new ponds, financial ties to china, as a national security threat. china now surpasses the united states as the world's largest steel producer. to fully appreciate local opposition to the plan, you have to understand the history of us. still this 12000 ton press once may be armor plates for american battleships during world war 2. and it was on one of those ships that the japanese signed the articles of surrender ending the war that press now states as a memorial in the shopping center parking lot. it was here that the largest steel mill in the world operated until 1986. in the last decade, however,

us still has back tracked on plans to modernize local facilities. the question is, which of these potential buyers may or may not re, invest in the plants here in the region? because without a lot of re investment, they really won't be around much longer nippon has promised to invest an additional $1400000000.00 to grow the company. but union leaders are skeptical and they have pulled critical power and then election year. any responsible politician should go against this deal if it's going to have put our country at risk infrastructure wise or defense wise, president joe biden and former president donald trump have both spoken out against the purchase, which company shareholders will vote on later this month. kristen salumi al jazeera western pennsylvania, europe's top human rights quotas, rules at the phase of the swift government, adequately tackled climate change is a violation of human rights. the case was brought by more than 2000 women age 64

and above. they argue there at higher risk of dime, june huge waves because the government has failed to meet target. so greenhouse gas reduction, the quote project to, to other climate related cases linked to phones and portugal, justice or the man who in 1964 propose the existence of the so called gold particles has died. nobel prize winning bushes for the 1st piece of higgs was 94 people for to see are you suggesting that only one particle could explain how all the stars and planets of the universe applied mass after the big band moving 13000000000 years ago. the existence of as possible was confirmed by experiments conducted in 2012 that search for this house of news. the boston line is coming up next. thank you for watching. the or

she has to read his spend most of his life on the war to use the fisherman just like others and his family. but things are different now from when he was a boy in 2022 long days, mcgarr would declared and endangered species. some of the family asked for the home today, he's taking us to the band. so if the only stop leak in central den bode yeah, he sees that he used to see monkeys in droves, him hunting for crap. i down there the more now. so that's why i don't see that. and um, what did it mean, molnar calling me about some of the power while the off some of the i can only logan carnegie. the monkeys are

frightened for good reason, drastic to his doctor and sell them to the highest bidder. to buy a medical research. this black market treat not only indeed just wise primary populations, but puts public health at risk. because unlike captive red monkeys, there's no guarantee the animals of that engine free. hi are steve clements and i have a question, despite the changing views in america and even inside his own administration. why despite and insist on 0 consequences for israel in this war on gaza, let's get to the bottom line. the, the contradiction is obvious. talk about the need to protect civilians and aid workers, but make sure is real faces, no consequences for its actions. and then keep the weapons flowing wash rinse, repeat that sums up the by the administration's approach to israel's war and gaza

even as it carries out work arms and uses food as a weapon of war after, as really, forces killed 7 humanitarian workers for world central kitchen. us president joe biden put out a statement critical of israel, but then no one else rushed to declare its unconditional support of his real no change in policy. so despite the theatrical protest is the weight of setting up a new forever war in the middle east. and what's the effect on the united states itself with a how policy is clearly visible to a lot of voters, particularly younger voters who don't buy this equation. today we're talking with nell. she line who quit her job at the state department in protest of the by the ministration support for israel's were and gaza and holiday again. the a former advisor to the palestinian authority and now is senior fellow at the middle east institute. now you just resigned from the state department, you put out a statement about why you resigned your contract. you're not the assistant secretary state, you're not the deputy secretary state, you're not the secretary of state. you're in the would work of the state department, and yet you're using this moment to focus attention on this crisis. tell us about

your decision. so 1st, thanks so much for having me. and for drawing attention to this issue and i had thought about resigning earlier. i was at state as a foreign affairs officer working in the bureau of democracy, human rights and labor near eastern affairs, trying to promote human rights in the middle east. and it had just become so difficult to try to do that. in the aftermath of october 7th and i, it just, it felt that it had gotten to the point where i had tried to raise objections internally to the extent that i was able to like through descent cables, for example. um, but eventually it just got to the point that it seemed that resignation was really the only option left. and then when i was speaking with colleagues, they encouraged me to do so publicly in order to draw more attention to the. so i decided that i would, i would go ahead and go public and to,

to try to contribute to these efforts to push the administration to adopt a different let me push you a little bit further. october 7th, was a trigger for a lot of different players in this drama. right clearly is real, felt assaulted in a way and you saw a consensus of opinion inside is real about a response that you haven't seen in a very long time. so was across from left to right, about about reacting. um. do you think that the us at that moment took the right policy course in the way it's supported israel in that moment, should've anticipated. the what we now see is a kind of overreach and an incredible impact on victims casualties among civilian civilian kids. women even met and i mean i, i have to tell people, i keep seeing white flags go up and that's almost assigned to be shot. so what, tell us about that dynamic? and i, i think the fact that president biden came out in his response, warning israel to not react the way the us did after 911 was really

wise on his part. i think unfortunately, there was no effort to actually try to ensure that that didn't happen. the sort of over reaction we saw from the united states in the aftermath of $911.00. and this over reaction from israel. you know, we know that there is really military is capable of carrying out very precise surgical strikes and that is not the approach that they've taken in gaza. i mean, based on my understanding of what we're observing, this is a policy of collective punishment that they are trying to engage in an ethnic cleansing, to try to remove the population of gaza and to, to make life so unlivable there that people cannot survive or are forced to leave and, and to take over that territory. and i think another important thing to keep in mind here is that, you know, prime minister netanyahu, whose political future depends on this violence continuing. and he has no incentive

to either get his own hostages back or to end the violence. so i do think the us administration is just being somewhat naive or you know, will fully blind to the political incentives on netanyahu's side when they keep pushing, you know, they, they keep talking about their efforts to push for a cease fire, but are not using american leverage to get there, call it again the i've been reading your work intensely for now, almost half a year. it's almost half a year of this crisis going on. and the gap between what we hear about the president biden talking about the fact that we need to minimize casualties, we may not need new israel needs to minimize impact on civilians, etc. and then the lack of conditionality on this, i'm just interested both from your own perspective as someone who knows the middle east well. but also the hop hopper see that americans are watching and then

election year. and how that gap is going to play out. the reality is that not only is the american public, not there, and specifically democratic party constituencies have, i think, are increasingly vocal and angry at where this administration is. but even inside the washington policy establishment itself, you know, we hear very mainstream voices of both democrats and occasionally also, a republican voice is saying that the president looks week at the president is being led to by an extremist, a prime minister with his own survival. busy in mind and who is himself beholden to a band of extremist in his coalition. and the president is constantly being humiliated with by these re lease or something, their nose as the president and secretary blinking at every opportunity. well it, let me, let me to interrupt you there just for a 2nd. how it and ask you is prime minister is really prime minister netanyahu's

political survival undermining president biden's political survival. yeah, it seems so it's pretty remarkable to me and it really shows, i think the extent to which this president is blinker is wilfully blind up to certain realities. and i do think that it is kind of caught up in the person of joe biden. i think most people in the administration has probably moved on in their thinking, but the real kind of you, it's, it's a person of joe biden, who is the reason that we are stuck where we are. well, this takes us back to a nail. she line in her resignation from the state department. i think a lot of us are struggling with whether you are a boutique actor or you represent many others who share this perspective. whispers in the hallways, discomfort with the direction of the administration. we've seen letters from donors, we've seen anonymous letters written by whitehouse,

staff and others. they're very few who have stepped forward a now and done what you did and resigned your job and position. and as you wrote in your eloquent essay and cnn, this may foreclose a future for you and foreign service. and so you, you, you put this. so how, how unique are you in this environment right now? are there others out there that share your perspectives? many people share this perspective, the people inside state. many of them want to do that work because they believe in what the united states says it's supposed to stand for and they believe in the work they're doing. many people are doing extremely important work on gaza and on accountability measures for israel, but those won't come into effect unless spite and wants them to. so they're there. there are efforts sort of waiting in the wings, but until they get a sign off from the president, they're not going to be put in place. so, you know, i think for many people who work at the state they,

they would like to still believe in the work that they're doing or especially if they're working on this issue, they are doing everything they can to try to shift us. let's see here. but again, those kinds of decisions get made at the very top. but what i was struck by was how you felt that no one was returning your calls, that america doesn't have voice on this anymore. tell us what the implications of that are. so, i mean, just to be clear, i was working on, you know, human rights issues, not, you know, israel palestine was not one of the countries in my portfolio, right. but my work was impacted, you know, very significantly by the conflict. and partly because the civil society in the middle east and north africa in the week of october 7th and the, the us response didn't want to have anything to do with the us government. the us had lost all credibility as an entity working to promote human rights. in addition, it just became that much more difficult for the us government to criticize any of

these middle eastern governments about their own human rights record. such that there's, there's a meeting with a for an official for example. usually our office would try to emphasize a particular case or concerns around, you know, freedom of expression of freedom of association, you know, political prisoners. but in this context, that doesn't get emphasized as much. it's not a priority or, you know, the immediate reaction from the government is, who are you to lecture us about human rights and to your question of how widespread is the sentiment? i mean, people are devastated. there are there, the state department has how listening sessions for people to talk about this. but there has been multiple defense cables. i co authored one, they signed 2 more. i don't know how many there have been total, but my understanding of their new people are very concerned and they are trying to

speak up. and i do think that the overall, the, the broader question here for people inside state, although they try to remain a political, there are a lot of concerns about what this means for us politics. i mean, and trump administration really undermine the state department. and people welcome this administration's pledges to reestablish us more leadership to emphasize human rights to engage in international institutions like un and in the week of october 7th, it's become clear that those things are, are not in fact the priority. and what is the priority is this unconditional u. s. military support for israel and political support like in the u. n. so i think many, many people just feel very betrayed. i know there are more people who have resigned quietly. we haven't seen many public resignations. i think in part just because it's part of the culture of the state department to not sort of, you know,

seek the spotlight or you know, the, so much of that work is done quietly and out of the public guys. so i think for many people, they're just not really accustomed to that you know, to coming out publicly like this. right. well, i want to get your reactions to a sound bite. we have from national security council spokesperson, john kirby responding to the aftermath of the death of 7 world central kitchen aid workers. we continue to look at incidents as they occur. the state department has a process in place and to date, as you and i are speaking, they have not found any incidents where these rallies have violated international humanitarian law. unless you think we don't take it seriously, i can assure you that we do. we look at this in real time, and now i want to ask you to respond to john kirby's comments that specifically mentioned, the state department. to me sound a bit orwellian,

how do they sound to you? it's and i would just counter that. the reality is fairly clear here. we have other governments and other international institutions, bodies around the world that have demonstrated very clearly the ways in which israel is, is committing gross violations of human rights for crimes. and in, in this, and, you know, as you mentioned directly targeting journalists targeting aid workers, targeting hospitals and health care workers on top of just nasa occurring civilians . the state department is not yet ready to acknowledge that because that would necessitate a different course of action. israel is violating us laws here. so for example, the way he laws are not being applied or section 620 i of the, for an assistance act. these and other laws would require the us to change his

behavior. but until the white house is ready to take a different approach here, the state department is not going to acknowledge that. and so we are going to continue to see, as you said, this sort of orwellian disregard for the truth. which again, gets back to some of my concerns about this also is starting to sound very trump in or just the ways in which reality is denied. people can see with their own eyes what's happening. they have direct accounts from social media, from people inside gaza. and, and yet this administration doesn't seem to have caught up to the fact that they've lost the narrative here. they can't continue to dis, treat this as a p r issue to be managed, that they have to take a different approach or they do risk. not only, you know, losing the, this election, but sort of the, the credibility of the united states on the world stage writ large. i mean, this, this administration likes to talk about great power competition with china,

with russia. we have the obviously ongoing ukraine conflict and the, and there's a lot more at stake here as, as father had mentioned. i mean it's devastating for the people in gaza, but it's, it's much bigger than that as well. when you listen to the perspective we just heard from the white house on the, by the administration versus some of the other voices that are also very st. senior and parts of the us government. what do you make of it? i think there's something going on here that a lot of people don't know about it. you know, when it's in, in the, in the minds of israeli military and political leaders, they are not committing war crimes. they genuinely believe that they are biding by at least a version of international humanitarian law. but they have a very different standard as to who is a legitimate target and who is it? then we do here in the united states or that most western nations do. how they don't talk a yeah, what will that standard look like? if rafa is attacked in a full scale attack by israel,

which we know they have an interest in doing and actually us, we're planners are now working with them in some ways on, on rafa where the bulk of the population and gaza has swelled into that. what will that calculation look like then? i guess we take the, the, the open source reporting on this at its face. we know that the deliberations are not going well. these railways presented a plan for moving a 1000000 people, but they had no contingency for how they would be fed or what kind of water source they would have. what kind of sanitation, i mean, these are, these are not factors in, in these really calculation. and we're told that these meetings got quite heated. so my sense is that israel is going to move forward regardless of what the us thinks. because that, because as we already pointed out, right now,

israel is looking at what the united states is demanding as, as a recommendation, right? they have no reason, you know, they'll take it into consideration, but at the end of the day they will probably discount because there is no or else there is no consequence to completely ignoring what the administration says. and in fact, there's quite a strong incentive to disregard of what the united states wants to do because of these really public opinion, because nothing out was on political survival. right? uh and, and so i don't see that trajectory change it. now i know that you are acting, you have a belief in a political stewardship, if the responsibility you have and you've taken a political act in your resignation. but i want you to put on your mathematician hat for a moment, and we just saw a political primary in the state of wisconsin, and 50000 people voted on, instructed. that is a vote. not for joe biden,

in that primary, joe biden in the last election against trump, one that state by 20000 votes. we saw similar activities in michigan as you look at this and you kind of look at the political tectonics of people, either voting for someone else or abstaining. do you think that this conflict would you be a 1st time? i think we've seen a, a foreign affairs issue matters so much in election. do you believe given you're young? you're, you're tied with folks, you're talking to them. do you think this will have that much consequence? i absolutely. i, i think 11 thing that i worry about a little bit is that the democratic establishment may assume they've sort of lost those voters. so there's no point changing tack now. and they may have lost some, you know, i've certainly been in touch with, with people who say there's no way they would ever vote for him. but i do think that if this administration took a different tack and again, merely imposed american laws, just follow us law,

which they are required to do. which would mean cutting off u. s. military assistance to israel and insisting that aid is allowed in and insisting on a ceasefire. many people would be willing to vote for a president who did that because i think, as you said, it is unusual. the extent to which we're seeing a matter of foreign policy playing such a big role here. i do think, you know, it's april. there is time to shift here. there are so many people who could be saved if by didn't just took a different approach, right. i think the concern is, as we get closer and closer to the election and things just get worse. not only this, the coming destination of the people sheltering, trying to seek refuge in the roof. but also israel just bond, the embassy building, the iranian embassy building in damascus, and is threatening to invade lebanon. we know americans are fed up with forever

where we're wars, if biting doesn't stop israel from expanding this conflict into a region wide conflagration. there's no way he's, you know, americans are so tired of this, of, of these forever wars. so i, i'm, again, we've already said that we're sort of confused by the ways in which this administration is, is acting against american interests against their own electoral interest. and it's, it's just unclear why they're not taking a new approach. so i thank you, holly, i'm going to give you the last word here and, and ask you to answer question that kind of confused as me, where are the rest of the leaders in the middle east at this moment? why aren't they putting conditions on their own relationship with this real jordan egypt? others? where is the, the broader response from the middle east to this? which seems like they've got a foot in and a foot out of consequential decision. we're talking a lot about the united states,

not putting conditionality on its relationship. why aren't other middle eastern states doing that? we'll have to make this the last word. yeah, i mean it's a, it's a really important question. i think part of it has to do with the d is this is the united states. it's very hard to define united states. i think also we have to look at the nature of these regimes of egypt, saudi u, a. e at jordan. these are authoritarian regimes that have quite, quite atrocious human rights records of their own. their, you know, human rights is not a particular priority for them either for their citizens. much less the citizens of other countries. as so do they are really all about about interest and their own racheal interests. so the survival of the regime. so whatever they think is that it can, can promote that goal, right?

and, and conversely, if they see the power steering issue as possibly opposing a threat to their routine, we see a little bit of that in jordan, the jordanians have been the most of vocal probably that of, of eric states in opposing what israel is, is doing. and cause a large part because they are that they have a population that is mostly palestinian and, and the, you know, the, the monarchy there is doesn't feel all that stable so. so this is a factor i think for, for eric public opinion. but there's quite a lot of, there's quite a lot of hesitation, people are not able to, to go out into the streets. the way they did to say during the, the air of spring more than a decade ago, there's fear of from their own resumes. and there are major crackdowns on, on anyone trying to organize. so all of these i think are, are mitigating factors. but we'll have to leave it there. thank you so much for

your candor. former state department officer and l. she line at holland again the at the middle east institute. thank you so much for being with us today. so what's the bottom line? what happened to world central kitchen is telling. here you have an organization that was getting significant amounts of food to palestinians in gaza, while the united states government talks about building a seaport by summer time to get aiden. as israel continues to use start of ation as a weapon of war. jose andres, the chef that started world central kitchen, says israel targeted his 8 convoy, systematically, car by car, killing 7 of those he calls angels. but what happened to those innocent workers is exactly what we've seen happen to thousands of innocent palestinian children, women, and men. now more than $33000.00 killed by israel waving a white flag does nothing to stop a tank gun or a drone operator or a sniper's deadly bullet. despite the reports of anger in the white house of israel's actions, nothing has changed in the unconditional us support for israel's attacks on gaza.

the hypocrisy is obvious. widespread famine is immune and the death and destruction just go on. given all of this. sadly, it would just be wrong to believe that there will be a fairy tale and, and that's the bottom line, the to foster months to fight with thousands of people killed millions from this house. what does the future hold for? sit down and it's people. the sedan contact one year on which is 01, the average person to know what the truth was assigned to dismissed as profits of do. we knew where the temperature was going to go by leaders seeking the profits of

industry. they were publishing reports saying this is not an urgent problem. could we have changed the course of the climate to emergency air is which is here as new series died. last futures unique perspective. that's the place himself does. told the palestinians to go to on heard voices, to humor. i try to highlight the absurdities inconsistency, but upon proceed with the landscape. connect with our community and tap into conversations you will find elsewhere to take every day. this is going to unspeakable horror as to really alone about what's happening because of the death and media attention. the stream on out just the or the us is always of inside the people around the world. this has been going on for a number of our report,

30 minutes and active perspective to try to explain to global audience why it's important because impacts their lives at the height of the storm. water was still high by, hey, this is an important part of the world. people pay attention to this very good that bringing the news to the world from here the muslims month, the end of the amazon was a surprise at all on some of the engine draw fun southern gaza. the hello on elizabeth put ottoman this is alex is a live from the hop. so coming up is around target's, palestinian homes and a refugee camp in central gaza. the strikes killed 15 people including women and children. us president joe biden levels new purchases and that is why the prime

minister benjamin netanyahu saying his approach to the war as a mistake and voting is on the way in south korea's parliamentary elections. it's happening in the middle of.