 Why aren't you so important to a humanitarian C-spot? You know, I'm with the senator's team. If my guy can talk to you. No, I can talk to him. I voted for him. I'm sorry, this isn't democracy. It absolutely is. Yeah. Yeah, but kind of, sort of. What? Ten thousand people in Gaza have been killed. Half of children. The Pope's calling for a C-spot. The UN has called for it. I'm just asking you. You're a good guy. I voted for you. I know you're a nice guy. This is important. You need to leave here. Can I give you a phone? He just assaulted him. He just assaulted him. He just assaulted him. He just assaulted him. He was just talking to him. He just assaulted him. So, that's what happened when John Federman was asked to support a ceasefire in Gaza. Now, the person who was confronting him is Daniel Kovalec. He's an attorney and former professor of international human rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. And in a vacuum, there's nothing wrong with him asking that question and confronting Federman. But with that being said, he is not the best messenger to put it mildly. A quick Google search reveals that he's an enthusiastic Putin apologist who literally penned an article for RT laughably claiming that Russia's invasion into Ukraine was legal under international law. So, I mean, he's obviously not morally consistent when it comes to war and war crimes. And when you consider the fact that he also pays for Twitter, there is a possibility that he was just looking for a viral moment to up his engagement and cash in. And, I mean, after raking in six million views for that video, mission accomplished if that was indeed his actual goal. But, I mean, I don't know what his actual goal was there. I can only speculate about his true intentions. I just, I don't know in truth. But if you support Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I just can't believe that you care about Israel's invasion of Gaza for humanitarian reasons. It feels opportunistic to me. And I also have no idea if Federman's team recognized him and assumed that he was a troll, which is why they didn't want to engage with him. But putting motivations aside, pressure does still need to be applied to all politicians still refusing to support a ceasefire. And Federman does still need to explain to his constituents, maybe not that guy, but other constituents why he doesn't support a ceasefire. And if he doesn't want to engage with a bad faith actor like that, there are hundreds of constituents he can talk to who are supporting a ceasefire and demanding that Federman support a ceasefire for altruistic reasons. But Federman is refusing to listen to these voices as well. For example, after Federman's October 18th tweet insisting, now is not the time to talk about a ceasefire, he was met with immediate and justifiable backlash. As Newsweek explains, Federman's stance sparked statewide pro-Palestinian protests outside his four offices, with hundreds of demonstrators gathering at Custom House in Philadelphia on Thursday, and Ariel Cohen, who protested outside of his Philadelphia office, says that they were expelled with no warning. And as you can see from the video that she shared on Twitter, they were being completely peaceful. But regardless if they're welcome there or not, they don't plan on stopping anytime soon when it comes to putting pressure on Federman because, as the Enquirer reports, Anissa Weinraub, an organizer with Jewish Voids for Peace, who sat in the middle of the street, said pressure at Federman's office could persist on a weekly basis. Now on top of that, 16 former Federman staffers penned an open letter to the senator, urging him to support a ceasefire, writing, On the trail, your overarching promise was to forgotten communities, people and places that get overlooked, written off and left behind. You can't be a champion of forgotten communities if you cheerlead this war and the consequent destruction of Palestinian communities at home and abroad. We are speaking out now because we played important roles in electing you. We cannot in good conscience stay silent at this moment. So these folks are not opportunists who are challenging Federman for viral fame. They want him to support a ceasefire because it's the right thing to do. And there's no reason why he shouldn't engage with them. There's no excuse there. You have an excuse when it comes to a troll and not wanting to boost them or engage with them. But these folks, they deserve to be heard. I think that he should speak with them. Maybe he has spoken with some of them, but obviously their message isn't getting through to him because he's not doing what they want him to do. He's not doing the moral thing. And here's the thing. That letter from his former staffers was written 10 days ago. And with each passing day, the need for a ceasefire grows exponentially because at the time that I record this video, Israel has killed approximately 3,195 children since their bombing campaign began three weeks ago. And the UN estimates that another 1,000 are missing or trapped under rubble, making the siege more deadly for kids than annual global conflict totals since 2019, as Jake Johnson of Common Dreams puts it. So with every passing minute, the need for a ceasefire grows, which is why calls for a ceasefire are continuing to happen. Hundreds of thousands of people around the globe are calling for a ceasefire, including many Jewish peace activists who took to the streets demanding a ceasefire as well. Rabbis are literally being arrested for doing so. I mean, the Pope has called for a ceasefire. Human rights groups like Amnesty International have called for a ceasefire. Civil rights groups like the Martin Luther King Junior Center have called for a ceasefire. Former Obama administration officials have called for a ceasefire. So I mean, you have human rights organizations, activists, civil rights groups, all calling for a ceasefire. And on the other side, you have people who have been wrong about everything when it comes to the foreign policy saying no to a ceasefire, case in point. People who are calling for a ceasefire now do not understand Hamas. That is not possible. It would be such a gift to Hamas because they would spend whatever time there was a ceasefire in effect, rebuilding their armaments, you know, creating stronger positions to be able to fend off an eventual assault by the Israelis. So we're in a very different world. I don't think it had to be the world we're in, but that's where we are and we've got to figure our way forward through it. So when the person who voted for the Iraq War and did regime change in Libya and called for a no-fly zone in Syria that could have catalyzed a hot war with Russia says something about foreign policy, I think it's a safe bet to just assume that the opposite of what they're saying is true. But I mean, that's who Fetterman is choosing to side with. But unfortunately, he's not the only senator on the wrong side of history, nor is he the only Democrat taking heat. Hundreds of alum from Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns are also urging him to support a ceasefire as well, and 15 people were reportedly arrested during a Jewish-led sit-in in front of his office where activists demanded that he introduce a companion resolution to the House's resolution calling for a ceasefire. Now, what Bernie Sanders and John Fetterman have done to placate activists is call for a humanitarian pause in lieu of a ceasefire, but as Adam Johnson explained in a recent episode of Crystal-Kyle and Friends, that is a spineless position to take that will amount to nothing. This says stop bombing in this particular spot so we can bring in humanitarian aid. I guess we'll bring in some water, and then we're going to allow these people to just go back to bombing you after we give you water. It's absurd. It doesn't make any sense. For anything to happen, the ask needs to be to stop the bombing. And they needed to create space for Israel to go, you know, again, to do its brawn age, its brawn age recompense. And in doing so, they need to provide space and cover for Democrats who don't want to look like cold-hearted monsters and don't want to look like they're supporting, because again, these horrific images are coming out every day. Children being pulled at a rubble, disfigured, all this horrific stuff, right? People can see that, and they know Joe Biden's associated with that. Of course, genocide, Joe, is alliterative. It's catchy. And again, one doesn't want to be glib about this, but that is in fact what's going on. And that is the reality of what's going on. This is not like a made-up, nihilistic, you know, Russia Today thing. This is like a real thing that's happening, and Biden is actually responsible for it, and he needs to stop being responsible for it. And so they have to provide these kind of stop-measure gaps. And so initially what you saw from people like Elizabeth Warren and Ro Khanna was this, Israel needs to respect the rules of war. We need to produce civilian casualties, and maybe they'd say turn the water back on, which is obviously better than no water, but it's like, well, 90% of the thing causing their death and misery is the bombs. Why are you not talking about stopping the bombs from landing on them? That is obviously the most morally urgent ask. In other words, a humanitarian pause is nothing more than window dressing. I know that Bernie Sanders knows. John Thetterman too, that a ceasefire is the right thing to call for. But for whatever reason, they are too afraid to do the right thing here. They know it's right. But instead, they don't call for a ceasefire. Instead, they make up some chicken shit alternative to make it seem as if they care, when apparently, to the extent that they do care, well, it's not enough to actually call for what human rights groups are saying we need right now. They're sidestepping human rights groups like Amnesty International and saying, no, we actually want this different thing. A humanitarian pause when they're saying ceasefire. So you're not just being a coward. You're undermining what they're fighting for currently. And every single day that senators like Bernie Sanders and John Thetterman refuse to call for a ceasefire, the more complicit they become. Because they have a lot of pressure as a U.S. senator. If you are not using your voice right now to demand an end to the bombing, you are part of the problem. You are complicit. And we're seeing so-called pragmatists and foreign policy experts claim that a ceasefire is dumb because it's unrealistic or they'll try to nuance troll and make it seem as if, you know, if you call for a ceasefire, then you really don't understand the complexity of the situation. That's what Hillary Clinton did. But the U.S. government has an immense amount of influence over the actions of the Israeli government. So yes, it is true that Joe Biden cannot unilaterally say the bombs stop now and it happens, right? But odds are, Israel is going to listen if its number one ally tells them they should stop bombing Palestinians. Or even if, hypothetically speaking, the entire U.S. government says, hey, ceasefire now and Israel refuses, well then you still have leverage cut off aid. Because again, they've got a universal health care system and we don't. So I don't know why we're buying bombs for them in the first place, but there are tools at your disposal as a U.S. politician that you can use and many of them have chosen to just stand back and do nothing. But believe it or not, the tide is turning. Even pundits on mainstream media are starting to call for a ceasefire because that is the obvious solution. Now that list is admittedly small, but Chris Hayes put out a lengthy statement explaining why a ceasefire isn't just the most moral thing to call for, but it's also the practical thing to call for and I'll leave you with his words of wisdom. You've probably seen these images over the past three weeks pasted on lampposts and held up at visuals around the world. The faces and the names of the more than 200 Israeli hostages taken by Hamas terrorists when they attacked southern Israel and committed a mass atrocity, slaughtering men and women, children and the elderly. Recently there have been a number of despicable incidents of people so full of hate of Jews they've actually ripped these images down as if that could erase the humanity of the people whose images are on them. And for anyone who lived through 9-11, those images bring back memories of the thousands of flyers, of the missing put up all over Manhattan in the frantic days after that terrorist attack or so many family members left grieving. And there was a small group of them that took that grief and turned it into action. They spoke out asking their country, our country, not to respond to the deaths of their loved ones with more violence. They founded an organization called September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrow's. At that time in the wake of 9-11, supporting a nonviolent response to al-Qaeda's mass murder was at the very fringes of public opinion. And I remember being struck by the sheer grace, moral witness of those who had personally lost loved ones. I also thought, as many did at the time, that that was not how the world works. Terrorists slaughtered Americans. America had to respond with force. But as the war on terror dragged on, thousands of American service members and hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. And radicalization spiraled into ISIS in a new round of brutal wars. As all that happened, the call for peace and nonviolent solutions began to seem not just idealistic, but in retrospect, wise. Now there are Israeli families whose loved ones were murdered and kidnapped by Hamas who have somehow found the same moral grace. In her eulogy, the sister of one victim called on Israel to quote, not use our deaths and our pain to cause the death and pain of other people or other families. Another victim's son said, do not write my father's name on a military shell. The mother of a victim pleaded, quote, war is not the answer in my name. I want no vengeance. And this time we should listen more closely to those who are calling for peace, who are calling for a ceasefire, and particularly to those still in mourning now calling for no more civilian deaths on either side of the line.