tv Consider This Al Jazeera September 28, 2013 1:00am-2:01am EDT
gls welcome to al jazeera america. i'm stephanie sy. here are our top stories. chemical weapons to be destroyed by middle of next year. the u.n. general assembly voted on this friday night. a historic memo as president obama and iranian president hassan rouhani--moment. as president obama and iranian president hassan rouhani spoke.
in a 15 minute are conversation. spending on fowrkt intact. the bill is going back to the house. gay couples in new jersey will able to get married starting october 21st. republican governor chris christie says he will appeal. consider this is up next. for the latest you can always check out aljazeera.com. >> an alarming new report from
the u.n. says with 95% certainty that climate change is real and man made. why are why down playing some well established source easy of energy. also, when obamacare on the horizon, who might receive benefits and who might be hurt most financially. plus, as more and more being americans become. atheist, how does that stem the tide? >> as al jazeera's courtney ceely -- keely reports, the problem could be catastrophic. >> hundreds of climate change activists protest in stockholm.
>> we are frustrated and upset about how our politicians are not acting the way the science says. the u.n.'s intragovernmental panel on climate change predicts worldwide temperatures could rise between 2.8 to 8.5° by the end of the century. this despite data from the last 15 years that shows a slow down in global warning. warming. the panel stress that the global warming is indisputable. do not always reflect global trends. they are now as certain that global warming is man made as they are that smoking kills. >> the report should be awake-up call. >> multiple lines of evidence confirm trapped by greenhouse gases is indeed warmings the wae earth's atmospheres, melting ice
caps, glaciers. >> reducing global pollution. u.s. secretary of state john kerry stressed that world leaders must ban together on the issue. >> climate change is one issue that absolutely impacts billions of people around the world. >> u.n. secretary general ban ki-moon announced that he will try to push a treaty forward with world leaders. >> we must build resilience and seize the opportunities of a low carbon future. >> report will be released in full monday. courtney keely, al jazeera new york. >> for more i'm joined from berkeley clafl, by michael shellenberger, 21st century describes itself as a grass roots organization dedicated to spreading the truth about climate change. thank you both for being with us tonight.
brad, i wanted to start with you. according to thomas stocker, quote, climate change is the greatest challenge, it its thers our home. for skepticism on whether we are seeing climate change happening and the degree of threat that it poses especially to us in the u.s? >> in a word, no. this report is really the latest -- this is the fifth report that ipcs has released since 1990. about and each one has confirmed and in fact increased the confidence that human activity primarily the burning of fossil fuels is increasing the greenhouse effect and warming the planet and altering our climate system in risky and potentially catastrophic ways. and unfortunately what we have
seen in the last three decades is really the running of this experiment on our only planet. and scientists are observing the changes that were projected to happen. and are reporting on that. >> michael, this is fifth report that the ipcc has released since it first came out with one in 1990, and the latest report asserts that there is a 90% certainty that human past three decades have been the hottest since 1850. even so, climate skeptics are going to point out that the report confirms that global warming has actually slowed down over the past 15 years and the climate scientists who wrote the report say that they don't really understand why that has happened. does that suggest climate skeptics still have a leg to stand on? >> well, i don't think this report is going to change the minds of almost anybody. i don't think it's going to change the minds of skeptics who have really been skeptical of
the science really for reasons that often don't have a lot to do with the science. they have a lot to do with not wanting the various solutions that have been proposed starting with the international treaty, a giant new regulatory system, moving towards the consumption of more energy or more expensive energy, and i think you saw in the opening segment, the climate science and got mixed up with the need for an international treaty. i think it's important -- i think part of the problem is that the climate science has gotten conflated with a sense of -- a set of solutions that really liberals and environmentalists including l smiex had wanted long -- myself had wanted long before global warming. >> carbon dioxide is one of the most important, atmosphere can
take half a trillion tons more, without raising the earth's temperature more than 3.6° and that is over the international accepted target for global warming. given the way we're seeing energy consumption grow especially since we see the east asian economies grow, the report estimates we could get to that maximum level as soon as 2040. with that in mind, they want humanity put on what they call a carbon budget. what do you see as the best way to do that? >> i think the best way is going through -- it's a challenge of international governance. and people who are smarter than i am and have worked on this have come together as governments, and international organizations, you know, with -- under the auspices of organizations like the united nations, to try to devise a path forward. and i think that's -- i mean, it
be would be -- it would be great you know, i mean, there are -- there aren't global dictators, as some people unfortunately on the right fear. and there aren't altruistic long term thinkers in the business community. so i think, you know, working through the democratic process and finding a solution that way is what we should be continuing to fight for. >> that's been going on for a long time. doesn't seem like we're coming to any solutions. michael, you have clear opinions on what needs to be done. >> look for 20 years they are trying to get an international treaty. that process basically collapsed in copenhagen in 1989. china, the united states, the other big emitters, couldn't come to an agreement. the other attempt at international treaty is definition of insanity. i think some context is
warranted. the united states has seen its emissions decline, over the last five years. we have been moving heavily from coal to gas, that's a positive transition. we just did an analysis that found that 36 times more carbon emissions were avoided since 1950 in the united states, through natural gas and nuclear, than through solar and wind and geothermal combined. and yet this is the kind of funny part of it all, is that natural gas and nuclear are the two energy technologies least popular among the people that are most concerned about climate change. and the people that are the least concerned about climate change, the climate skeptics are the ones that actually tend to favor natural gas an nuclear. so i think we -- >> brad your reaction to that? >> i've read the breakthroughs
report and it's a nice analysis of 20th century energy policy. but the important thing is, i don't really understand what michael's claimed that the people more concerned about climate change reject about natural gas and nuclear. obama's secretary of energy earnisting moniz, is one of th the -- ernest moniz is one of the strongest advocates of natural gas in the nation and one of the climate scientists that are most concerned about climate change. >> you know brad there has been opposition among environmentalists to nuclear power and to natural gas because there's a lot of opposition to fracking, although it has brought down carbon emissions, punched into the earth in order to bring the gas out, so are you saying that you're in favor of nuclear power and more natural gas? >> unfortunately, what you said there is not -- we don't actually know that's correct. we'ven only seen measurements of
carbon dioxide emissions and measurement of methane, we don't have coherent figures or measurement of what u.s. methane emissions are. there is a big difference between talking about the united states carbon dioxide emissions and the overall greenhouse gas imprint -- footprint. and the other thing to recognize is that the united states is increasingly an exporter of fossil fuels. and unfortunately, from a global perspective, if the united states is increasing its production and extraction of fossil fuels while decreasing domestic consumption, it's certainly better than having an increase in domestic consumption. but it doesn't solve the essential problem of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. >> michael -- >> so we -- we don't have the -- a regulatory infrastructure that
would -- and we need and i'm sure that michael would agree with me, that we need better measurement and rules, for natural gas before -- i'm sure he agrees -- no one should be are for unregulated natural gas gas production. >> michael? >> he said a few things there so let me take them on one by one. the first thing you have to keep in mind is every environmental group in the united states and basically every environmental group globally, opposes natural gas, keeping natural gas out of new york, despite the fact that natural gas has been the key driver making coal go from 50% to 38% of our electricity over the last five years. gas has increased from about 20% to 30%. now over the last 20 years gas production in the united states has increased about 40%, and
over that same period of time, according to the epa, fugitive methane has declined 10%. that's the epa's numbers. another major study came out that was co-sponsored by the environmental defense fund and the natural gas industryity university of texas that came to similar results so going -- >> but even though u.s. emissions are down because of natural gas there are issues with fracking. nuclear power being touted -- of course, we hope to have more nuclear power online in the united states with plants in the next decade or so but there are dangers to nuclear power. why not focus on wind and hydroelectric and solar? >> we should focus on all of them. this is the key thing to understand, though. is the environmental movement which has been advocating a global treaty often climate
change and domestic regulations has opposed natural gas and nuclear and insisted that it all has to be from efficiency solar and wind. again, most of the environmental groups are against the largest source of natural power, which is hydroelectric. if you want to put all your eggs in that basket, that's fine. but don't turn around and say that global warming is a catastrophic threat that, you know, cannot say that global warming represents a catastrophic threat and oppose the two energy technologies had a has 36 times greater impact on reducing carbon emissions. and our point in the piece that we wrote for the breakthrough was that simply, if you talk to climate skeptics, you will
discover that most of them are pro-natural gas and pro-nuclear. why not have that conversation instead of continuing 20 years of really futile climate warring and science that divide us. so you're right. >> brad. >> it's the idea that the environmentalists and actions on climate change are to blame for climate skepticism and the promotion of climate denial is an interesting claim. but putting that aside, i think the essential thing to understand is that natural gas is a fossil fuel. and that reality isn't going to go away. and the -- as the ipcc report showed, we need to be moving not just to a low-carbon economy but globally figuring out ways to move to a post-carbon economy. and within our lifetimes and within the next few decades
natural gas won't have a role to play. and i think that's the real challenge that advocates of natural gas -- and there are many, it's a very profitable, like other ex tractive industries, it is very profitable. so there's good business in promoting and lobbying for natural gas, and also for nuclear. but over the long run, it's not a bridge to the future. >> all right, brad and michael, thanks for joining us tonight. let's hope both sides in this issue get together and come to some agreements. because even the skeptics agree that we need to lower emissions and lower pollution. thank you both for being with us tonight. and consider this. coming up on tuesday people will begin signing up for obamacare. what does that mean specifically for your pocketbook? what do you think? please join our twitter conversation on aj consider this and on our facebook and google plus pages.
>> when obamacare enrollment kicks off on october 1st, what will it mean to you? how much is it going to cost and what differences is there to single people, married people with families, those who have health care, seniors and the young. joining me now to discuss the plan are wendell potter, senior analyst at the center for public integrity and a former executive at signa health insurance and here in our studio we are joined by ovick roy, the author of the apothecary blog on forbes.com. thank you or the joining us.
170.9 million according to the most recent numbers, are already covered by their employers. the kaiser foundation says in the last year their premiums went up by 4% which is probably significantly lower than it had historically. what does october 1st and the next year mean for them? >> well, it's going to mean that actually their rates are likely to go up at a higher rate for this particular year, because 2014 is the year the affordable care act kit into effect and those will drive up health insurance even for those who have coverage now. >> are there other fees and taxes? >> there are, particular fees, there is a sales tax or excise tax on health insurance premiums for people who have private premiums, that kick in in 2014, and all insurance plans have to do that, that's going oalso drive up the cost of insurance for people that don't already have plans that cover those benefits. >> wendell, those largest group
of americans those who are covered by their employer's health plans, will they suffer in any way? there are reports that at least 7 million will lose employer coverage because employers will drop coverage as a result of obamacare by 2023, we've seen that already by trader joe's and home depose, giving employees not more than 30 weeks so they don't have to cover them. will those groups suffer? >> i don't think so. they will have the assurance of knowing that if we have jobs we won't necessarily lose coverage. when you lose your job in this country because of our employer-based system you're going to more than likely wind up in the ranks of the uninsured, and that's why we
have 50 million americans almost without coverage and obamacare will change that a great deal. you also know that this is a trend that has been going on precedes the affordable care act by many years. as recently as 2000 about 70% of americans got their coverage through their workplace and that's now down to about 60, less than 60%. so this is not something that's new. we're just paying more attention to it. >> yeah and security of course would be an important element for everybody. ovick, another one of the big groups, many who are covered as union members, there is a lot of news about unions raising issues about the fact that many other workers are not going to get subsidies that other workers are going to get. what will happen to the union member? >> yes, so the union member will actually be fined. there will be a chains in what the union member has, union sponsored administered plan, they will get them through the ac exchanges.
that may be a better deal for their workers and may be a better deal for the companies. the labor union loses its status as a middle man and that may not be good for the maybe union. >> but the unions are worried that their members may have to pay more. >> their members may not have to pay more. it depends on what subsidies they qualify for in the exchanges and what their income is. >> wendell do you agree? >> i do agree. most people will be able to if they get coverage on the exchanges many of them will be able to get subsidies or tax credits to help them for care help them with their premiums. >> let's go on to another big group, seniors who have medicare, the second largest group if we divide up americans and what they're facing in the obamacare world. a recent report found that 6.6 million of them have saved more than $7 billion on prescription drugs since obamacare went into effect. so is that going well? a lot of the talk when it came to medicare was that a lot of the cuts that were going to be in place were because -- that the plan was going to work
because they were going to cut out a lot of waste. but a lot of more well to do americans are already paying higher medicare premiums. what will happen? will all of us end up paying more if obamacare doesn't control costs? >> is this to me or -- >> wendell, yes. >> i think for people who are enrolled in medicare plans, you're right. they're already seeing a lot of savings. my mother among them was one of those who was always falling into the doughnut hole, the dreaded doughnut hole. so she is now s more help -- is get getting more plans for private insurance plans that compete with traditional
medicare, one of the things that have been confusing is the insurance companies that offer medicare replacement plans, compete with traditional medicare will see their payments from the federal government decrease. over many years they have been receiving essentially a bonus to participate in a program. that's being phased out. those are where cuts are coming from, from payments to private insurance companies that are offering medicare advantage plans. >> is there anything the insurance companies need do now? >> they need to do right now, as they are looking for open enrollment comes around again, or choosing their prescription plans to make sure their prescriptions are included in the prescriptions they are looking for, or if they're covered by a medicare advantage plan, take a look at the traditional medicare. because it might be a more attractive option to go back to traditional medicare. >> ovick, people who are right now buying their own health insurance under the current plans, about 15 million americans that are doing that, what will this mean
for them and what do they need to do? >> the thing you have to understand, the people who shop for themselves it is not just the 15 million who buy insurance, it is the 50 million who don't buy insurance because it's too expensive for them. so it's really the 65 million people who are affected by individual changes in insurance. >> let's talk about the 65 million. your article, the article you just wrote says opposed to what the government said earlier this weeks where they had found that rates were going to be lower than expected, you find their rates will go up dramatically. >> we don't disagree with numbers, it's just different numbers. they are saying lower than expected, are the average american what matters is how much does it cost me to buy insurance today in 2013 and how much will it cost me to buy insurance in 2014 under obamacare? and what the manhattan institute study that i was involved in? for the average male it will be
up 99%, pre-subsidy, and for women it will be up about 60%, 62%. >> wendell do you have any argument about that? >> i tell you that, the actual market is 15 million not quite that, because of the practices of the industry that will be changed dramatically and much of it outlawed. and the thing that the study obscures quite a bit, a lot of americans who don't have coverage not only because it's too expensive but in many cases they can't buy at any cost. they have been refused coverage, have been declared uninsurable. that is why we have so many people who do not have insurance. they will be able to get coverage through this marketplace. >> i have to actually disagree with this, there are a large number. between 1 and 5%. the vast majority can't afford insurance, it's too expensive. it has nothing to do with their health status. >> i don't disagree with that. it is been the practice of
insurance companies including the ones i work for, to blackball you if you have preexisting conditions. and yes many people can't get it add any price or can't buy it because the premiums have been so high. that's why, those two reasons are why the individual market is so small. >> we have a social media question. one of our viewers have sent this question in for you, wendell. grant gamble asks, why would a system be excluded from an exchange? again you worked at an insurance company, we're seeing this. this was in the news this week about how -- about california in particular, about how a bunch of the major health care centers in california were going to be secluded from some of the lesser, cheaper plans in california. is this a real problem? >> anyone who is going to be shopping for coverage on the exchange needs to look at the
network of providers that each plan will offer and some will not include every provider. and if you have a physician that you want to be sure you're able to continue to see, if you have a hospital that's close to where you live, you should make sure that the plan you choose includes that. what we're going to be seeing is that a lot of plans will be going back to kind of the days of the hmo's a few years ago, narrow network. they do that because they can presumably save cost and enhance profits, quite frankly by having a narrow network. but that hospital in st. louis probably will be on some health plans, maybe not others. are. >> maybe the more expensive ones. quick, from both of you, 15 seconds each. what do you think is going to happen as this rolls out in the next year? >> i think people on the low end, near the poverty scale, will benefit but people middle income wide not, those are the people who are critical to making the exchanges work the rg way they were intended to. >> wendell. >> i think you'll see that most
all people will benefit, so they will not be uninsured if they lose their jobs. also keep in mind that family premiums increased 113% between 2001 and 2011. so we have had increases that have been hefty for a long time and i think we'll see some moderation in that going forward. >> all right, wendell, ovick, i really appreciate you being with us tonight. coming up, atheism is on the decline. how does the community are appreciate the religion brought? we'll hear that next.
on inside story, we bring together unexpected voices closest to the story, invite hard-hitting debate and desenting views and always explore issues relevant to you. >> one of the fastest growing groups in the u.s. involves one that has no religious affiliation. don't identify with any religion. among them are atheists and ago no, sir ticks who account for 6% of people in the us, almost 13 million people. in communist and former communist countries, the numbers are even higher. in vietnam, more than 80% are reportedly nonbelievers. to discuss what the growth of atheism means to america, a we are joined by greg epstein, a former rabbi who is now an
atheist. joining us from cambridge, massachusetts, sr is greg schwa, who wrote where atheism stops and religion begins. thank you very much for being with us tonight. andrew you wrote a blog asking are the holes that are being left in the fabric of society as we see the institution of religion retreating, what exactly do you see happening? as the growth of the atheists and nonbelievers grow? >> i think what you see primarily is a lack of services that are traditionally provided by religious organizations, so we're looking at soup kitchens, homeless shelters, disaster relief, food pantries, things like that where church members come together, they volunteer, provide hours in labor, because that's what they believe they need to be doing, per their faith tradition. and that's something that we're
seeing on the decline with the decline of church attendance, as well as with the rise of atheism, where there isn't as much of a social -- >> but you're not just concerned about the services provided by churches and religious organizations. you're concerned about the people themselves that somehow they are missing on a social aspect of their lives that's important. >> now, that's a great question. you can see the community service ads very enriching to a person, very enriching to their community, giving back to themselves by giving back to others. now whether that is a fundamental part of life that can't be found elsewhere i think that's a stretch. but i think the church does a great job of allowing people easier access than you would have if you weren't attending or a part of a church community. >> now greg you are in charge of a humanist community at harvard,
that describes its theory as follows: humanism is a progressive philosophy of are are life can that without theism, ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. how successful is the humanist society? and i got to ask you: isn't a humanist chaplain a contradiction of terms? >> yes i'm a walking oxymoron, i'm happy to be. this is something much more common today than it ever has before in human history and it is going to become more and more common. and that is, humanists, who are atheist or agnostic, with positive lives with positive value with integrity, like reason, like compassion, concern and care for others and for the world, that are living their lives as part of communities. and so i think andrew raises a really important point. but what it really comes down to is that human beings always need
community. we always will need community. we are the most social species on the planet. and religion for most of human history has been the place where human beings go to find community. but now people like me, and there are thousands of us around the country if not tens or hundreds of thousands of us, are working on building what i don't mind calling godless congregations, for humans atheists and agnostics, that we serve people who are suffering from dementia and alzheimer's. >> andrew said in his piece that faith communities account for a lot of these, if it weren't for churches mosques and synagogues. one of our viewers tweeted in something about this, martha
ward, and she asked, why set the expectation, they with others can act within secular institutions. do we need these godless societies, andrew, as greg just mentioned? >> i would believe so, yeah. i think society, community, a godless society, godless community, secular community however you want to frame it, is incredibly important. it allows you to be interactive with your community. it allows you to not just become siloed, and just living in your own self. i think there needs to be some proactiveness and for people who don't see themselves in traditional religious community. if that's going to a humanist organization, great. if you are friends through activities or sports, something to make sure that you are plugged in and that you are interacting and you don't see
yourself becoming a person on an island. >> greg if the mission of your godless society of your humanist community is to welcome the community, how are you being welcomed by the community? obviously you're in cambridge. i lived there for a while. i know it's not representative of the rest of the country. but how are you received? how do people react to you when you talk about this? >> you know most people haven't yet heard of this idea of a humanist chaplain. that's fine. it is fun to explain to people that there is this new concept. it is actually not so new, by the way. there is humanist communities, i have fun calling them godless congregations, for over 100 years in this country. and in my first book i tell the story of the history of humanism, that the idea of being good without god or being a humanist goes back thousands of
years all over the world. people are learning that in this society, in an america that is the least religious america than it has ever been, people are having a good experience learnings that their friends and neighbors are getting together and are doing things in the sake of humanism. my congregation of humanists got together right before thanksgiving and we raised $10,000 through several contributions to buy meals, nutritious meals, bying raising 25 cents apiece, 40,000 meals we packaged together? this was lead by a young man who works for my organization, named chris, who is our assistant chaplain.
but we had hundreds of people that were involved in this project. and we invited religious congregations to come with us, the and it was the atheists and the muslims and the zoro asians and -- >> and you all -- >> and the need for this has increased by 23% in just our area alone. so we are raising our scope by packaging 50,000 meals in just this thanches. thanksgiving -- thanksgiving. that's a example of what godless congregations are doing with their time right now. >> refers to atheists that religion is the pariah and weighs society down, that the atheistic must match
if not exceed that which it is correcting. sounds what greg is doing is certainly along those lines what you're calling for. >> absolutely. and i think what greg is doing and what communities like his are doing are exactly what needs to occur. as we see a decline in one cultural institution, we should expect that there's an increase in another. and to bring in communities, traditional faith communities with atheist communities, with nonreligious, godless societies is exactly what should be going on. it's just a different kind of interfaith dialogue where people are putting aside religious belief to see what the community needs. to see what need is out there and then addressing it in a communal sort of way that transcends theological claims. we can talk about theology all we want to. but if we're not talking about what's happening in the community, if we're not talking about who is suffering, if we are not talking about lifting up the least of us in our society,
then in my opinion we are doing something wrong and we need to reanalyze our theology that allows us to cast a blind eye to the people who need a helping hand the most. an important question: the university of tennessee looked at atheists and what their belief systems were and they found that only about 14% were antitheist, those that were actively lobbying against the presence of god in america today. and they are of course the ones that mostly get the attention, because they are suing to get god out of pledge of allegiance or to change the motto of the united states from in god we trust to something else. are they a distinct minority that you are not happy are out there representing all of you? greg i'll let you deal with that. >> most nonreligious are not anti-religious. that's important to keep in mind. when you think of the
anti-religious in america, i'd like you to think of us as any other group. we are a community and we are a community of positive values. and we can call those positive values by the name humanism. it's funny, but andrew and i really need to work together. i'd invite him to come to cambridge. but you can check out what we're doing in harvard scare, but we are actually looking on building humanist communities and congregations all around the country. i'll tell you about a woman in arizona, a friend of mine named sorah, who got involved in politics in her area and found a homeless shelter was running out of funding. but this homeless shelter was not discriminating against anybody on basis of religion. it wasn't proselytizing, she went out and spent 20 days living with other people who were experiencing homelessness out in the blistering heat of arizona and
talking about why her atheism and humanism motivated her to do it. and sara has had health challenges of her own and this was difficult to her but she was so determined to show as a humanist and atheist, she couldn't abide that people had to suffer without decent services, and experiencing homelessness, that is one of hundreds if not thousands of stories in humanist communities right now. >> all right greg and andrew, it's an interesting story that really hasn't been told much. i thank you both for coming on to let us know about it. coming up mcdonald's makes an attempt to decrease calories by offering more vegetables in its happy meals. data dive next.
my name is jonathan betz. i'm from dallas, texas, and i'm an anchor for al jazeera america. >>my name is ranjani chakraborty, i'm from houston, texas. >>i'm kim bondy. >>nicole deford. >>and i'm from new orleans. >>san francisco, california. when i was a little kid, i just really loved the news. >>news was always important in my family. >>i knew as a kid that was exactly what i wanted to do. >>i learned to read by reading the newspaper with my great-grandfather every morning. >>and i love being able to tell other people stories. >>this is it, i want to be a part of this. >>this is what really drove me to al jazeera america. >> today's data dive takes a big bite out of america's diet. at the clinton global initiative on thursday, mcdonald's announced plans to offer a salad or vegetables in
mickey d's happy meals. instead of a soda or french fries. marketing drinks more appealingly to kids. the change comes to its 20 biggest markets in early next year and to every store in 2020. the move follows strong criticism about how the company markets unhealthy food okids. a recent study found 99% of fast food ads on tv comes on mcdonald's and burger king on children's networks. focusing on toys and movies not the food itself. meanwhile, america's diet has changed but not by much. the u.s. department of agriculture finds that the average american eats about 500 more calories than they did in 1970. we've gone from 2064 calories to 2,538. that's a jump of 23%. no wonder our waist lines have grown. but while our intake has increased, we are eating the same things. fruit, vegetables, lean dairy
and meats, nuts and eggs are virtually at the same level. despite our health consciousness, the boost in calories come from fats and carbs and sugars. 24% of the total. also surprisingly while basic dairy products declined by 13 calories, added fats and oils and dairy fats went up mainly due to foods like yogurt. so while our plates may have gotten bigger over the past 40 years, what's on them hasn't. coming up as the israeli palestinian conflict rages on, the community that continues on as they fought back without violence.
are nonviolent efforts are being modeled on successful protests that are taken place in a small town called boudros about ten years ago. the town's palestinian population stood up to an israeli border fence, that was being built, that would cut them off from their main source of income, olive trees. their story was turned into a documentary, called boudras, airs on al jazeera america at 9:00 p.m. sunday. hear how one woman stands up to an israeli bulldozer. >> i wanted to --
>> the soldier could do nothing except taking the bulldozer and going away. >> that brave woman joins us in -- via skype in sarajevo, where she is going to medical school. thank you both for being with us. ilthazar, this story is on palestinian violence. your father was the mayor of boudras, what pushed him to push for nonviolence, nonviolent protests? >> palestinians were using nonviolence before. this is not a new case, not a new thing for palestinians. they decided not to focus on that subject but decided to focus on other things. but as i said, nonviolence was used by palestinians before to protest the first intifada.
and the fact that we in boudros, when the war came in boudros and we we knew to what we planned, we knew that the best way to do it is using nonviolence. because israelis -- israel is so proud of its military, and using nonviolence to protest wouldn't -- would make it impossible for israelis to use their military forces. and we knew that the use of violence would not make it any better and at that time we were thinking about ways and tragically to save our land. the main point was to save land,
making -- it wasn't about -- it's mostly was about saving land. and nonviolence was the only and the best way strategy you could have. >> to her point, jessica, the director of the movie and i quote her or paraphrase her, there are two misconceptions, one among israelis and an international audience that palestinians have never tried nonviolence, and nonviolence has no chance among palestinians. is what what you found? >> when we went to tell the story of boudros, we wanted to find a successful model that we could use to put nonviolence on the map and mainstream internationally and local communities have a model that could hold up that was both successful and provided the steps necessary to get to that success. bo rvetiondros was--bo
rvetiondros was boudros was very unique, to draw in israeli and international support and the way the women's contingent really took to the front lines. >> you said the movement was made possible in part because of israelis helping out and that israelis who came to your side of the issue and i know you have described that experience as transformative. how did that change your view of israelis? >> during our protest we met some of the israelis. and for me as a palestinian girl, i was 15 at that age, from my experience with jews and israelis, they were the occupiers, they were the soldiers. they were the people who were taking my father away from me in jail. so this is my idea about the israelis and jews. and i didn't want anybody, for me, to define for me, i could see it in my eyes, all what i
could see was the soldier who was arresting my father, the soldiers who was harming my family, but for me in the process seeing israelis on my side, and resisting the occupation, that was a very big thing. and also, the fact that the people of boudros accepted them among us. >> and i want to listen to -- are israelis of course have big safety concerns because of all the issues after all this time. and we have a clip from the film where daron spielman, an israeli soldier, talks about the fence. >> the primary concern of the fence is security. the security of israeli lives, that trumps everything.
the fence in places does go onto palestinian property. boidros is one such place. it is a thing that is extremely your honor fortunate to the lives of the palestinian people, however it is less unfortunate than the death of an israeli citizen. >> your opinion? >> the fact they call it a security wall, has absolutely nothing to do with -- it's not about security. it's about confiscating land. if you built the walls on your neighbor's land and you expect security that -- >> i want to ask one final question. has this movement, this
exemplified by boudros, has it had success in the west bank and probably less so in gaza. >> at the end of the scene we show a scene, villages like boudros using similar tactics and methods, resisting different aspects of the occupation. i think that's one important piece, but at the same time, it is important to note that nonviolence has been present part of the palestinian struggle for freedom dignity security and peace, for many decades and iltezam herself illustrates the peace -- >> and many women were involved in this movement too. thank you, jessica, thank you iltizam. boudras request be seen on
can be seen on sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern time. thank you very much, we'll see you next time. president obama speaks high he have level contact in more than 30 years, back to the house, the senate improves legislation to fund the government until mid november but doesn't meet the demands of how republicans, and what gang members are doing to try put an end to the violence in chicago. ♪ ♪ >> helloi