10/22/18 10/22/18 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from pacifica, this is democracy now! pres. trump: russia is doing it. and if china is doing it and we are adhering to the agreement, that is unacceptable. we have a tremendous amount of money to play with. plus 71616illion dollarars. russia has not adhered to the agreement so we're going to develop the weapons. amy: president trump announces the u.s. will pull out of a

landmark nuclear arms pact brokered with russia more than 30 years ago. now russia is s threatening to retaliate.e. could this spark a new arms race? we speak with nuclear disarmament expert daryl kimball in washington, d.c. then "the new york times" exposes a trump administration memo they say would to find transgender out of existence. we will speak with aclu attorney chase strangio. then to the ongoing siege on gaza after 130 palestinians were injured friday while protesting the ongoing israeli occupation and demanding the right of return. israel has implemented a zero-tolerance policy towards protesters in gaza. >> the agenda is not only to overcome palestinians' opposition to their oppression, but to silence the israelis and international community. it goes further, right? israeli i is against the

occupation, she or he must be traitors. amy: we speak with hagai el-ad of the israeli human rights organization b'tselem, who who officially testified in front of the u.n. security council for the first time last week. all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. president trump has announced plans to pull the united states out of a landmark nuclear arms pact with russia in a move that could spark a new arms race. president ronald reagan and former soviet leader mhahail gorbachev signed t the inintermediate-range nuclear forces, or inf, treaty in 1987. the inf banned all nuclear and non-nuclear missiles with short and medium ranges. the treaty helped to eliminate thousands of land-based missiles. trump spoke about his decision on saturday. pres. trump: russia has violated the agreement. they have been violating for many years, and i don't know

what president obama did not negotiate or pullout. and we're not going to let them violate a and go out and do weapons and we are not allowed to. we're the ones that have stayed in the agreement. and we have the agreements that russia has not, unfortunately, under the agreement so we're going to terminate the agreement. amy: president trump did not offer details on how russia was violating the deal. over the years, rush has also accused the u.s. of violating the agreement by deploying missiles. bolton who has advocated against the treaty, is now in moscow for talks with russian foreign minister sergegey lavrov and presesident vladim p putin china and france spoke out with the chinese foreign ministry saying "the document has an important role in developing international relations in nuclear disarmament and maintaining global strategic balance and stability." we will have more on the u.s.-russian treaty after headlines with director of the arms control association, daryl kimball. "the n new york timemes" reporte trtrump administration is

attemptingng to eliminate the rights of transgender people by creating a narrow legal definition of gender. citing a government memo that it obtained, "the times" reports that the department of health and human services has undertaken an effort across several government departments to establish a definition of sex under title ix, the federal civil rights law that bans discrimination on the basis of sex. that definition would be either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals a person is born with. the proposal, if enacted, would reverse the expansion of transgender rights that took place under president barack obama. responding to "the times" article, hundreds of lgbt activists rallied in new york's washington square park sunday night. groups plan another demonstration today in d.c. well have more on this story later in the broadcast chase strangio, staff attorney at the aclu. the government o of saudi arabia has admitted for the first time that saudi journalist and "washington post" columnist jamal khashoggi is dead. the admission on friday came

after weeks of saudi denials and shifting narratives on the whereabouts of khashoggi, who entered the saudi consulate in istanbul on october 2 and was never seen again. the saudis now say khashoggi was killed in a fistfight inside the consulate and that 18 saudis had been arrested in connection with the death. president trump on friday said he found the claim credible, but later shifted his statements as lawmakers from both parties blasted the saudi claims. this is tennessee republican bob corker, chair of the senate forereign relations committee, speaking to cnn on sunday. >> it is just not a credible story for somebody to walk in with 15 other people and get into a fist fight and lose her life will stop it is my sense, and i don't know yet, but based on the intel i have read, based on the otherer excerpts i have read, it is my thinking that mbs was involved in this, that he directed this, and that this person was p purposefully murdered. amy: presidentnt trump later tod "the washington post" -- "their stories are all over the place." but trump is continuing to

resist growing calls in congress to cut off u.s. weapons sales to saudi arabia, and president trump has questioned whether the killing was ordered at the highest levels of saudi government. saudi state media reports both king salman and crown prince mohammed bin salman called jamal khashoggi's eldest son over the weekend to express their condolences. saudi foreign minister adel al-jubeir offered this account of the killing on fox news. a first of all, we are monarchy. we have our checks and balances. we have our systems. the individuals who did this is outside the scope of the authority, obviously, was a tremendous mistake made and compounded with the cover-up. that is unacceptable. these things unfortunately happen. amy: turkish officials say khashoggi was tortured, murdered and dismembered by a squad of 15 saudi hit men shortly after entering the saudi consulate in istanbul on october 2. new turkish surveillance video obtained by cnn shows a body

double emergrging from thehe consululate just houours after khashoggi entered the building, apparently wearing the clothes taken off khashoggi's body, but with mismatched shoes. erdogan says they will reveal the findndings. this c comes as treasury secrety steven mnuchin is traveling to the saudi capital riyadh this week, where he'll meet with seninior saudi officials at an anti-terrorism center run jointly by the u.s. and saudi arabia. mnuchin told reporters it was premature to even discuss sanctions at this point. meanwhile, a new report by "the new york times" details an online campaign ordered by crown prince mohammed bin salman to monitor and attack what he considered to be dissident saudi voices on the social networking -- on twitter. as part of the effort, trolls would harass and silence critical voices, including jamal khashoggi's.

posts critical of saudi arabia's military attacks in yemen would be reported as sensitive, which can result in the posts being removed by twitter. a twitter play was fired by the tech giant in 2015. "the new york times" reports mckinsey and company carried out research the saudi government used to target dissidents. in afghanistan, voters turned out in large numbers to vote in the country's parliamentary elections over the weekend amid violence and deadly attacks. an afghan official said that 27 people were killed and 100 wounded across afghanistan on election day, including at least 18 people killed by a suicide bomber saturday as they waited to cast ballots. this comes days the taliban claimed responsibility for an attack that killed the top afghan general abdul raziq in the southern province of

kandahar, prompting a week's delay for voting in the region. the pentagon said sunday u.s. army general jeffrey smiley was shot and wounded in that attack. the top u.s. general in afghanistan, scott miller, was also a target of the attack is survived uninjured. the summit was a far higher level meeting them was previously believed. the elections, which were postponed three times due to security concerns, saw a record number of women and young people running for the 250 parliamentary seats. preliminary resultlts are expecd in november. in gaza, israeli forces shot and injured at least 130 palestinians on friday as protesters gathered near the gaza strip separation barrier with israel. gaza's health ministry says 25 children and four paramedics were among the injured. the demonstration was the latest under the banner of the great march of return, which started on march 30. israeli forces have killed over 200 palestinians and injured at

least another 18,000, according to gaza health officials. meanwhile, israel has postponed plans to evict 180 palestinian bedouins from the village of khan al-ahmar in the occupied west bank to make way for the expansion of two nearby jewish-only settlements. israel has come under international pressure from the united nations and the european union not to demolish the village. earlier this month, a prosecutor with the international criminal court said the planned demolition could constitute a war crime. a migrant caravan making its way to the u.s. border from central america, crossed into mexico this weekend amid ongoing threats by president trump. hundreds became stranded as fences blocked their injury new mexico with some spending the ninight on the open air bridge. many eventually resorted to swimming or crossing the river in makeshift rafts. all the reports of clashes with mexican forces of the guatemala-mexico border emerged over the weekend, the caravan is

estimated to have topped 7000 people as it continues to make its way north. this is honduran migrant mario. >> we ask the government of this country to give us a hand, to allow us through. it is very complicated in our country. honduras is complicated. we really don't want to be there. that is the truth. the poverty is terrible. we have children to support and there is no work. amy: president trump repeatedly has threatened to send u.s. military troops to the souththen border unless the caravan turns around. in honduras, a court has removed lawyers representing the slain environmentalist berta caceres from the trial of eight men accused of carrying out her murder. the victim's lawyers had called for the three judges trying the case to be replaced, accusing them of bias, abuse of authority, and of violating due process by prohibiting evidence. but on friday, the judges rejected the motion and instead ordered caceres's lawyers removed from court proceedings. caceres won the 2015 goldman

environmental prize for her work protecting indigenous communities before she was assassinated in 2016 as she led a campaign against a massive hydroelectric dam project. back in the united states, u.s. depth whole from hurricane michael has risen to s somewhere between 36 and 399 as recovevery workrkers took to crowd sosourcg on to socialal media siteses inn efeffort to reunite about 300 people still reported missing or unaccounted for or reported missing. meanwhile, the air force has acknowledged that some of its f-22 stealth fighter jets were damaged or destroyed as hurricane michael ripped through tyndall air force base, destroying the entire base, turning hangers into rubble. at least 17 of the jets, which cost $339 million each, were damaged or destroyed as the eye -- meaning the cost of replacing

them could amount to almost ask billion dollars. the supreme court is temporarily halted a landmark climate a lawsuit brought by 21 young people who argue the government has failed to take necessary action to curtail fossil fuel emissions, violating their constitutional rights. the trial was set to begin in less than two weeks in a federal court in eugene, oregon. and in britain, an estimated 700,000 people marched through the streets of london and rallied at parliament square saturday, calling for a referendum on the final brexitit deal. organizers say it was one of the largest protests of any kind in british history. prime minister theresa may has ruled out any public referendum on her plans to withdrawaw the u.k. from m the european union. this is london mayor sadiqiq kh, who joined saturday's demonsnstrations. usthis government is leading toward either a bad brexit deal were even worse, no deal at all.

a milliontionons are miles away from what was promised. the g government doesn'n't havea mandate to gamble with our future. amy: and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. nermeen: and i'm nermeen shaikh. welcome to all of our listeners and viewers from around the country and around the world. president trump has announced plans to pull the united states out of a landmark nuclear arms pact with russia in a move that could spark a new arms race. president roronald reagan n and formerer soviet leader mikhail gorbachev signed the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty in 1987. the inf banned all nuclear and non-nuclear missiles with short and medium ranges. the treaty helped to eliminate thousands of land-based missiles. on saturday, trump vowed to build new nuclear weapons. pres. trump: we will have to

develop those e weapons unless russia comes to us and china comes to us and they all come to us and they say, let's really none of usnd let develop those weapons. but if russia is doing it and china is doing it and we are at hearing to the agreement, that is unacceptable. so we have a tremendous amount of money to play with in our military, $700 billion, plus $716 billion, so russia has not a tiered to the agreement so we are going to terminate the agreement and we're going to develop the weapons. if they get smart and of others get smart and they say, let's not develop these horrible nuclear weapons, i would be extremely happy with that. but as long as somebody is violating that agreement, then we're not going to reveal the want to it here to it. i think you understand that. nermeen: president trump did not offer details on how russia was violating the inf treaty. over the years, russia has also accused the united states of violating the agreement by deploying a missile defense shield in romania.

national security advisor john bolton, who has advocated against the treaty, is now in moscowow for talks with russian foreign minister sergey lavrov and president vladimir putin. bolton has also expressed his opposition to the extension of the 2010 new start agreement with russia, which limited the number of deployed nuclear warheads on either side to 1550. amy: presidentnt trump's plan to pull outut of the nuclear r arms deal has been criticizeded aroud the globe. former soviet leader mikhail gorbachev, who co-signgned the deal in 1987, said -- "do they really not understand in washington what this could lead to? quitting the inf is a mistake." china and france spoke out against the move with the chinese foreign ministry saying the document has an important role in developing international relations in nuclear disarmament and maintaining global strategic talent and stability." to talk more about the implications of u.s. withdrawal, we go now to washington, d.c.,

where we're joined by daryl kimball, director of the arms control association. he previously led the coalition to reduce nuclear dangers. he has been advocating for the u.s. and russia to preserve the inf treaty. welcome to democracy now! were you shocked by president trump's announcement on saturday? exactly what it means, daryl kimball. >> i was not shocked because this appears to be a john bolton-inspired decision by donald trump to pull out of this very important agreement, which has eliminated, as you said, an entire class of intermediate range missiles that once threatened europe. ,692 u.s. and soviet missiles verifiably eliminated as a result of this treaty. russia has been testing a ground launch cruise missile the uss was tested in excess of the range limit established by the treaty.

they have not exhausted all the diplomatic opportunities that are available to resolve this issue. we have been working on that. and what trump has done, i think he is very prematurely, at best, to put a kind interpretation on it, pulled the united states out of the treaty, shifting blame from russia to president trump for blowing up this very important agreement that is important for u.s. and european and russian security. and it does absolutely nothing to bring russia back into compliance with the treaty. and it opens the door for russia to deploy in greater numbers the missile of concern, which is known as the 9m729, if russia wants to. all of the constraints on the testing, the production, the deployment of these missiles in europe and elsewhere will be gone. russia and china

don't abide by this treaty, we are going to have to build missiles of this type. that kind of logic simply does a fewke any sense, given basic facts. one, china wasn't party to the inf treaty. the u.s. and russia have been. the united states doesn't need ground launched intermediate range results to deal with china. in fact, the vice-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff last year said explicitly, we do not need such missiles to counter china. and the united states doesn't have any such missile and development and there is no nato country that would accept any such ground launch cruise missile to be deployed in their territory. the last time that happened, back in 1983, the room millions of europeans in the streets telling ronald reagan and mikhail gorbachev to get rid of those missiles. for a number of reasons, this is counterproductive, it is dangerous, and it does open the door to the possibility of

renewed nuclear competition in this area. and it could threaten another important treaty, the new strategic arms treaty, the main treaty limimiting the two sides strategic arsenals, which is due to expire in 2021 if trump and putin don't extend it. nermeen: let's go back to the 1980 summit when president reagan and soviet president mikhail gorbachev signed the intermediate range nuclear weapons treaty. reagan talked about the significance of the deal. >> the numbers alone demonstrate the value of this agreement. on the soviet side, over 1500 applied warheads will be removed and all ground launched intermediate range missiles, including the ss20's, will be destroyed. on our side, our pershing 2 ground launch missiles, some 400 deployed warheads, will all be destroyed.

onitional backup missiles both sides will also be destroyed. nermeen: so that is president reagan speaking in 1987 about the importance of this agreement. factou spoke about the russia was violating this treaty, but russia has also accused the u.s. of violating the treaty. is there any truth to that? >> russia has said they have deep concerns about whether the ofted states convert defense missile interceptors that are part of the architecture that are now in romania and will be in poland profits of purposes. for offense of purposes. that is the problem they say they have. look, if we look at the situation, the u.s. has serious concerns about russia's compliance. the russiansns have concerns abt u.s. future compliance. what really ought to happen is there should be an arrangement by which there are transparency

visits by experts to examine these missiles of concern and the two sides could conceivably work out an arrangement by which each side's concerns are addressed. and if russia does have missiles that can fly in excess of the treaty limits, they could be called upon to stop deployment. but the two sides have not gotten this far. there have not been discussions at the detailed expert level about how to resolve this. in fact, there have only been two meetings on the inf issue between the u.s. and russian officials since trumpmp guimond office. amy: can you talk about how many weapons does the united states have? how many does russia have? gift to the a weapons manufacturers, just no holds barred, take all restraints off? >> well, you are right, amy, we have to put this in perspective.

even though the cold war is over, so to speak, the weapons that were created during the cold war still exist. the nuclear strategies of the united states and russia had, at that time, are still very much in place. as we sit here this morning chatting about this, the u.s. deploys about 1400 warheads, long-range homers and missiles. the russssians have equivalelent numbers. about 800 of thosese could be launched on an o order frorom te president within about 200 minutes. that means both sides remain onn hahairtrigigger. if there is a warning of an isack, the nuclear strategys called for, the immediate launch warheads more nuclear in retaliation. so that creates the chance of miscalculation. we have massive overkill. we have a situation which the fate of literally hundreds of

millions of people rest in the hands of small number of people specifically two gentlemen, trump and putin. we're talking about making this situation worse by removing one of the treaties that was negotiated in the 1980's by none other than ronald reagan that helped end the cold war. this does reopen the possibility of a new arms race, which, of course, with certainty benefit the weapons contractors that would build any new weapons. nermeen: could you give us a sense, before we conclude, what is at stake with a new start treaty? does this give an indication that trump will pull out of this? bolton has been opposed to that as well. >> bolton, before he guimond office, he wanted to pull out of the inf treaty. he has said negative things about the new strategic arms reduction treaty. that treaty was negotiated by

barack obama in 2010 and scheduled to expire in february 5, 2021, just a few days after the next inauguration day. trump and putin could agree to extend it by five years. along with the transparency and verification provisions that are very important. and right now john bolton is interagency review about whether to extend the treaty, trash the treaty, or try to renegotiate some new treaty and the little amount of time left between now and 2021. if we look at this inf decision, i am very worried that john bolton is headed in the same direction with respect to the new start treaty. and if that is the case, we would not have legally binding limits on the world's two largest arsenals for the first time since 1972. it is very important for congress to step up, republicans and democrats, who support the new start treaty, to press trump to extend this treaty to buy us

some more time so that we can at least have these limits in place in pursuit further negotiations with russia to further reduce the bloated and cursed -- costly arsenal. amy: but even know this is an agreement between the u.s. -- or trump, and is it action saying we're pulling out, meaning we have pulled out -- isn't it also a message to china a president trump is sending? >> he may think so. i don't think the chinese are particularly perturbed. china has most of its arsenal on ground launch missiles with a medium or intermediate range. it just has to do with jock murphy. they are under no pressure to join the imf treaty. -- inf treaty. that relatively small, about 300 nuclear weapons arsenal, they feel is sufficient to deter the u.s. he may think he e is sending a message to china, but i don't think it is a very effective

one. amy: what does it mean? is the u.s. out because trump says they are? >> discussions between bolton and moscow will be key. it is not clear whether trump is actually pulling out. it may be there trying to threaten u.s. would pull out if russia does not do something in particular. that is not clear. i russian contacts have not yet hurting thing like that or european allies have not heard anything like that. i think it is quite likely if we remain on the current track, the inf treaty will be determined a by donald trump sometime in 2020. amy: thank you for being with us daryl kimball, director ofof the , arms control association. he previously led the coalition to reduce nuclear dangers. we will continue to report on the u.s.-russia inf treaty. when we come back, a change in trans policy? the part of the trump adadministration?

stay with us. ♪ [music break]

amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. "the new york times" is reporting the trump administration is attempting to eliminate the rights of transgender people by creating a narrow legal definition of gender. citing a government memo, "the mes" repororts that the department of health and human services has undertaken an effort across several government agencies to establish a legal definition of sex under title ix, the federal civil rights law that bans discrimination on the basis of sex. that definition would be either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals a person is born with. according to "the times," the memo says -- "sex means a person's status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth. the sex listed on a person's birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person's sex."

amy: if enacted, the proposal would reverse the expansion of transgender rights that took place under president barack obama. on sunday night, hundreds of lgbtq activists held an emergency rally in new york's theington square to protest proposal. groups plan another demonstration today in washington, d.c. for more, we are joined by chase strangio, staff attorney at the aclu. chase was at the rally last night. welcome back to democracy now! start off by talking about what exactly this memo says. i think the poster people were caring last night "hell no to the memo." this report that the administration is considering narrowly d defining gender as aa biological condition determined by jenna tell you at birth. >> so this is part of the trump administration's widespread effort to attack trans rights. in this case, it is a memo that was written months ago that is

part of an effort to restrict the federal civil rights law so that transfer people are not protected. if being touted as an effort to erase trans people. i think that is what many in the administration would like to do. that is what we saw with the military van and the memo with respect to prison. but the reality is, the executive branch of government cannot siningle-handndedly chane the law. this is an effort to narrow protections but federal civil rights protections are still written by congress, existing federal law and interpreted by the court. this is certainly not the final word on anything but it is part of a widespread attack on the trans community that we have seen across the administration. nermeen: can you talk about what is been happening at the state level? >> just to take a step back, this effort to define what people are calling "biological sex" is a concerted effort to vote situate trans people outside the law and to claim our bodies are really a threat to others. we saw this in 2015 and 2016 in

north carolina and elsewhere with hb2, which was an effort to push trans people out of transit life. the people defending hb2 have high-level positions in the government and missing efforts -- amy: explain what it is for people who might not remember. >> hb2 passed in 2016 that barred transgender people from using facilities that matched our genders. specialsed quickly as session in north carolina. the people who were defending hb2 in n court have incredibly high level positions, head of the department of justice civil rights division, the solicitor general of the united states, the federal judge on the fifth circuit court of appeals. the very people who are orchestrating a systematic attack on trans people at the state level are now running things at the federal government.

that is also true with respect to the many groups that have had coordinated attacks on the lgbtq community for decades. people who have been involved in allies defending freedom, heritage foundation, another people not only in the f federal gogovernment, , but are runninge "civil rights division" of executive agencies. it has been there mission to attack trans people for years, if not decades. that is what we're seeing, never to restrict the ability of trans people to get legal protection. nermeen: what with the effects of this be on transgender people if there is this narrow definition of biological, as you say, so-called biological sex? >> there are two things we should be looking at. the first, this is an effort to restrict federal rights laws. education, housing, employment.

there is a ever to restrict the law and that way. the courts are going to be the ones to interpret this in the and and congress could come in and make changes to anything the executive dead. and then there is this larger cultural effort to tell their is no such thing as a trans person. that you're born with a sex and the can never be changed. this is an insidiousus effort to tell the world and sort of fuel decicided that transfer you p pe always fraudulent, that somehow the truth of our bodies and her so-called biology is going to be betrayed. this is what fuels violence against the many trans people. amy: because? >> there is this idea that trans people are out here to deceive you. the reality is, we are who we say we arere. biological sex is the other side of the right, people in power are china talk about it, is not scientific fact will stop

what happens is, on the streets, people say, oh, you're really a man to a woman who is trans. that is what fuels the violence against someone people in the trans community. amy: explain what the federal law and the rules are now and how this memo indicates they will be change. >> right now federal civil rights law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. the courts have long understood that includes discrimination against trans people and anyone who departs from sex stereotypes. this is not new. "the new york times" is incorrect in saying the obama administration "loosened" the definition of gender or sex. the law has been clear for decades. the obama administration offered interpretive guidance consistent with that. the effort now is to offer new interpretation that will conflict with the federal law as interpreted by the court. this is not something the trump administration can do

single-handedly, but it is an effort to exclude trans people from civil rights protection. we have to stay vigilant. it is also important remember federal law is not the only source of protection for people. there is state law, local law, and it is so easy for us to get caught up with what the trump administration is doing when there is a much happening at the state level. i want to draw people's attention to the fact in november, november 6, there is an incredibly important vote in massachusetts where massachusetts pass through the legislature protection for transgender people an hour effort to repeal those at the ballot. we allow these things to happen in the states, the we absolutely are going to see this expense of attack of the federal government. nermeen: can we talk about how the media has been covering this? you have been critical of this "new york times" piece that came out. languaget about the that is being deployed come about the people who are being asked to speak, and to write on this issue that your c critical

of? >> i have long been critical of "the new york times" trans coverage. that is true of yesterday's article as well. i think it was an incendiary headline designed to get clicks. people aretrans under attack, but the idea that is uppeoples existence for debate is the paradigm they have fueled, suggesting there are two sides to an argument about whether trans people exist. trans people exist full stop. right now in the u.k., there i s conversation about the gender recognition act. the guardian has been publishing editorialsls about whetherer ort which side of the argument people support. it is not an argument about whether people exist. we exist. the more we have ideological debate about whether or not it is moral or ethical to recognize the existence of trans people, the more we're going to embolden

the trump administration another state level government actors to ask to take away our rights. this isn't a debate. itit doesn't violate anyone elss right for her trans people have rights. nermeen: how would you respond to those who say framing the conversation in this way is a way of persuading people? as you say, transgender people, of ifrse am a they exist, but the other argumentnt is put forward, then perhaps people who aren't persuaded of this will be persuaded? >> i think the concern is we are hearing a debate about trends existed that is not being led by trans people. and so much of what we're seeing is this understanding of n -- itess that entrances really is a false dichotomy. what we're seeing is by saying there's something called science that is true -- amy: it is interesting the administration is using science

to defend. >> but the reality is, what i want people to really understand is there are things that are thatally true in science men have certain bodies, but it is a political choice to make that definitional the s same and have to have certain bodies in order to be men. i think what we have to understand that these are political choices that are part of a long legacy that is very colonialism,d to white supremacy, and efforts to exclude peoplele from participation in society. amy: where do you think is the best place to get permission on trans issues? >> from transit people. so we can look at publications that have trans-writers, whether does the voices have long challenge the way the conversation has been framed in places like "the new york times." there regularly running pieces attacking whether or not trans people can and should exist. amy: as we begin to wrap up, you

are chelsea manning's lawyer. chelsea just tweeted this weekend -- "after all mr. decade of fighting through prison, the courts, hunger strike and through the insurance company, i finally got surgery this week." she later tweeted -- "lost of determine our existence. we determine our existence." last comment on chelsea? >> i just want to say i'm so proud of chelsea. i'm so happy to see her getting the health care that she needs. i hope other trans people will also get that health care. i want to say to the trans community, this is a terrifying time. i know people are scared, but we have a long history of resistance and we will continue to fight and we absolutely will survive. amy: i want to thank you very much, chase strangio, fofor joining us, staff attorney at the aclu.

when we come back, we returned to our conversation with the head of the israeli human rights group b'tselem, the first time that officially testified before last.n. security council week. stay with us. ♪ [music break] amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. nermeen: we ended today show with the ongoing siege on gaza after 130 palestinians were injured friday while protesting the ongoing israeli occupation and demanding the right of return.

25 children and four paramedics were among the injured. announced it was implementing a "zero-tolerance" policy toward protesters in gaza shortly before 10,000 protesters gathered along israel's heavily militarized separation barrier with gaza as part of their weekly friday protests under the banner of the great march of return. the protest began march 30. since then, israeli forces have killed at least 170 palestinians, including more than 30 children, and injured tens of thousands more. amy: meanwhile, israel has postponed the planned demolition of the palestinian bedouin village of khan al-ahmar in the occupied west bank after facing international condemnation. last week, the international criminal court warned israel that population transfers in occupied territories constitute war crimes. we return now to part two of our conversation with hagai el-ad, the executive director of the israeli human rights group b'tselem.

he was in new york last week on thursday when he testified before the u.n. security council, officially for the first time. i asked him about his message to the world. >> we try to spell out the daily reality for palestinian living under occupation. in the moments that don't necessarily make the news, when soldiers enter a palestinian home in the dead of night -- and people abroad might assume that they have a seararch warrant or probable cause or something like that. but, no, military law gives almost any soldier the authority to enter any palestinian home any time, and the army does -- and a million other ways in which palestinians, day in and day out, have absolutely no control over their lives, have no representation in the israeli ininstitututions that detetermie everything in the life of a palestinian. and to try and explain that, to give flesh and blood to the meaning of living under that regime, not fofor a month, not r a year, not for a decade -- an entire people for more than half a century in that realitity.

amy: and there you're talking about the west bank. in gaza, people are being killed regularly. there's the great march of return protests that began and your official figures march 30. for how many people the israeli military has killed since then? >> it's more than 170 fatalities. more than 30 of them were minors, under 18. three of them were actually chchildren. they were 11 years old. these are the youngest ones that were killed since march 30. and more than that were injured 5300 from live gunfire. but it's really important for me to emphasize that gaza is also another example of israeli control. israel controls everything between the river and the sea. in gaza, the control is external. we decide what and who gets in and out of the gaza strip, except of the rafah crossing with egypt that is closed most of the time. we control the population registry in gaza. if you are a palestinian in gaza and you need medical care -- not necessarily even in israel.

you need medical care in the west bank or in jordan, you need an israeli permit for that. we control everything in different ways, directly or indirectly. amy: i want to ask you about israel's plans to demoli the palestinian bedouin village of khan al-ahmar. on monday, israeli forces arrested four villagers, injured seven people as they protested the arrival of the demolition teams. this is bedouin villager ahmad abu dahouk speaking last month. >> we ask all the free people in the arab nation to react. it is a war crime. the israeli authorities want to demolish and evacuate us. are they going to send us to a better place? no, they will not. ththey will relocate us to a woe place. amy: he is speaking from khan al-ahmar. explain what this place is and what is happening. >> so this is just a few miles east of jerusalem in a part of the wewest bank known as area c, that is about 60% of the west bank and that is in an area that has been high up on the israeli

list of priorities for a while to minimize palestinians' footprint there, to displace many palestinians out of that area, and to expand settlements in there. and it exposes, in great detail, the israeli hypocrisy in its planning policies used against palestinians living in the west bank. there was a letter by the israeli ambassador, actually, to the security council just a day before my briefing, trying to articulate the israeli argument, somehow, as if what is about to happen is legal. why is it legal? because the palestinians have been building illegally. why is it legal? because this was backed by t the israeli high court of justice. whwhy is this legagal? because israel was kind enough to offer relocation sites to the community. and all of this are just lies on top of distortions on top of lies. why are palestinians building illegally? because israel created a planning regime that is meant to serve settlers and to dispossess palestinians. if you're a palestinian in area c in the west bank, your chances of getting a building permit

from israeli authorities are around one in 100. right? soso palestinians have no o othr choice, and that is why they build without permission from israeli authorities. and the israeli high court, when it makes a ruling that says that demolition orders are legal, while completely ignoring the context that palestinians cannot build legally in any way, doesn't make that ruling just or sensible or even formally legal. it only makes the judges of the israeli hihigh court complicit n what -- if this indeed will take place -- will be the war crime of forcible transfer of protected people in an occupied territory. khan al-ahmar is the most visible example of this phenomenon thehese days, a community of some 200 people in that location with a school that serves other commumunities in te area. but this is happening not only now and not only in khan al-ahmar. this is part of a broader israeli policy to take over as much palestinian land, minimize palestinians' footprint,

concentrate as many palestinians as possible in the parts of the west bank known as area a and area b, and then say that those areas, like area a, "hey, don't worry about that. that's where palestinians are running their own lives," when in fact, what they are talking about are isolated bantustans that are getting more and more closed by further and further israeli settlements in the rest of the west bank. and in the end, what you have is this picture in which palestinian life and palestinian territory and the palestinian people and spirit are completely broken up into small, digestible, more easily controllable areas -- gaza separated from the west bank, east jerusalem walled off the rest of the west bank, the west bank itself chopped into these different segments. amy: you referenced apartheid in your speech to the u.n. security council. you said -- "take a look at the discriminatory planning mechanisms and the separate legal systems in the occupied territories. they are reminiscent of south africa's grand apartheid."

>> yeah. we tried to make a nuanced point there, because often if you make that point, israel will say, "how dare you compare these two realities? we don't have laws that say that palestinians and israelis cannot sit on the same benches," for instance. and indeed, we don't. at that is w why the distincnctn was made therere between petty apartheid and grand apartheid, not those aspects of apartheid -- the benches, the separate beaches and so on and so forth -- and i'm not talking here about restrictions on movement. but to focus on the issue of the policies, the legal systems and, of course, voting rights. amy: you also wrote in harretz, -- "what are the palestinians supposed to do? if they dare demonstrate, it's popular terror. if they call f for sananctions,s economic terror. if they pursue legal means, it's judicial terror. if they turn to the united nations, it's diplomatic terror. it turns out anything a palestinian does besides getting up in the morning and saying 'thank you, rais' -- 'thank you, master' -- is terror."

>> yeah. this has become so routine in israel. this has become so normalized after 50 years that people have difficulty even in accepting that basic rights -- that people live under oppression have the right to reject that reality. and any avenue that the palestinians try is met with one form or another of condemnation. but for israel, this is part of a broader agenda. the agenda is not only to overcome palestinian opposition to their oppression, but also to silence israelis and to silence the international community. so it goes further, right? you know, if an israeli is against occupation, she or he must be traitors. if an international is speaking or acting against occupation, thth must be a anti-semites, right? and i'm saying that with a lot of cynicism, but this is no laughing matter. this is actually quite an

effective silencing mechanism that israel is deploying continuously all over the world. amy: you know, this week, the pope sainted archbishop romero, oscar romero of el salvador, who was assassinated in 1980. the last speech he gave before he was gunned down was heard throughout el salvador on the radio. and d he ordered the soldiers, e beseeched them, he pled with them, to put down theieir arms,o defy orders. he said, "stop the repression." in april, your group, b'tselem, called on israeli soldiers to refuse orders to shoot unarmed protesters. did they heed? >> no. we published ads. this is actually also like a legal responsibility, a moral responsibility, not only, i think, from like any decent person, but also according to israelis' own laws. if a soldier receives a

flagrantly illegal command, he is duty-bound not to follow that command. and commands that order soldiers to fire at unarmed protesters that are not endangering anyone, from a distance, these are flagrantly illegal commands. they should not have been given. and the responsibility for that is with the country's leadership, with the prime minister, defense minister, chief of staff. and that is where the responsibility begins. that is where the brunt of the responsibility is. but if such orders are given, soldiers are duty-bound not to follow such orders. amy: i wanted to turn to an emergency room doctor who we interviewed. he is a canadian doctor and he went to gaza to help palestinians -- the palestinian-canadian dr. tarek loubani, who was shot by israeli forces in both legs while he was helping treat palestinians injured by israeli forces during the nonviolent great march of return. it was 14. it was a monday.

i asked dr. loubani -- this is right after he was shot -- if he felt he was targeted as a doctor. >> i don't know the answer to that. i don't know what orders they received or what was in their heads, so i can't tell you if we were deliberately targeted. what i can tell you is the things that i do k know. in the six weeks of the march, there were no paramedic casualties. and in one day, 1919 paramedics- 18 wounded, plus one killed -- and myself were all injured, so -- or were all shot with live ammunition. musa was actually in a rescue at the time, but everybody else i have talalked to was like me.. we were away during a lull, without smoke, without any chaos at all, anand we were targrgete- anand we were, rather, hit by le ammunition, most of us in the lower limbs. amy: so that was dr. tarek loubani, the

canadian-palestinian doctor. we spoke to him just after he was shot. the man he was talking about, paramedic musa abuhassanin, was shot and killed by israeli forces. he was shot in the chest. dr. loubani tweeted a photo captioned "a haunting photo, friday, may 11. left: mohammed migdad, shot in the right ankle. hassan abusaada. tarek loubani, shot in left leg and right knee. moumin silmi. youssef almamlouk. musa abuhassanin, shot in the thorax and killed. volunteer unknown. photographer: shot and wounded." he said this was a photo they had just taken so they could have for their scrapbooks. talk about this, hagai. >> there's a lot of information also about additional incidents, and i invite viewers to go to the b'tselem website and read more data and analysis on this reality. what i would want to add is that one can rest assured that, in all likelihood, no one is going to be held accountable to any of these killings.

israel has a well-lubricated whitewashing mechanism that doesn't really investigate. it performs what looks like an investigation in order to push against international legal authority. sometimes it will take a very long time until they will close the case, sometimes a shorter time. but based on our data analysis, more than a decade of working on such issues both in n the west bank a and in gaza, more than 9% of the time, no one will be held accountable. amy: let me ask you about the criticism that you've faced in israel. two years agago, our guest, hagi el-ad, spoke first before the united nations security council. the israeli government threatened to revoke his citizenship. he was then barred from speaking at israeli schools. then this is israeli ambassador to the united nations danny danon speaking yesterday.

>> mr. el-ad, yoyou are a citizn of the state of israel who serves our enemies. they are using yougagainst us. idf soldiers protect you, and you come here and smear them. shame on you. shame on you, you collaborator. amy: "shame on you, you collaborator," the israeli ambassador to the u.n. said. hagai el-ad, your response? >> he said it in hebrew. no one could understand that in real time at the security council chamber, and of course he knew that. he was talking to an israeli audience back home when he was saying that. 20 seconds before that, he was speaking in english from the same very seat, celebrating israeli democracy because, "hey, we have human rights organizations such as b'tselem that get to present before the security council." it is a perfect example of israeli hypocrisy at its worst, in the sense that democracy is reduced to a product for export. that's what we celebrate abroad

-- "the only democracy in the middle east" -- but at home, going after the traitors, trying to silence the opposition to the occupation both things at the , same time. by this point, i'm already used to having both of these voices, but usually it will be the prime minister and then someone else speaking five days later somewhere else. right? but to have the same person, within less than a minute, do "democracy" in english, "collaborator" in hebrew -- absolutely amazing. but to have like a deep understanding of how cynical that is, that's all you need to look at. amy: what about the trump administration? has it changed what's happening on the ground in israel and the occupied territories? what about the trump administration's relationship -- president trump, jared kushner's relationship with prime minister netanyahu? prime minister netanyahu's inner circle is increasingly being arrested. the latest charges brought against his own wife, moving in on benjamin netanyahu himself.

and we see, you know, something similar happening in the united states with an investigation of president trump. but what's happening? >> i don't want to over-credit trump and netanyahu. they haven't begun this. they have both inherited this reality that has begun many years before that in israel by governments left, right, and center that were part of the occupation project. i don't want to shy away from that history in that context. at the same e time, of course trump is making everything much worse in the sense in israel, of like this government, that not only they have a green light from the white house to basically get away with almost anything they want to do, but in fact, that's what they have here is, from their perspective, a concern, a limited-time window of opportunity in which to advance israel's occupation project with no fear of consequences from the u.s., with no fear of anything happening at the security council because of the american veto. and that is scary.

amy: that was hagai el-ad from b'tselem in new york last week or he testified before the u.n. security council officially for the first time. democracy now! is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to