[00:00:02] Speaker A: K Mudd podcast presents hello and welcome to the show. This is global stuff. My name is Jimmy Derschlag. We try to talk about issues that are a global import but significant to our local people or whoever happens to be tuning in, which I guess could be around the world if you count the Internet. Now that we're doing this as a podcast on all of the podcast platforms, maybe it's even getting out a little further. We hope so. Certainly our guest for this pre recorded show who's been on many times before, and we're glad to have him back. That's Steven Zunis, who's a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.
Doctor Zunis is the founding director of the program in Middle Eastern Studies there. He's recognized as one of the country's leading scholars of US Middle east policy and of strategic nonviolent action, and has written several books and certainly an expert on, as he say, on the Middle east foreign policy. And so glad to welcome you back to the show. Stephen, thanks for making the time to do this.
[00:01:29] Speaker B: Good to be with you again.
[00:01:31] Speaker A: And you are just finishing. Maybe we'll start with that. You had a very special period in your life for the last few months. What were you doing in Sweden, right?
[00:01:42] Speaker B: Yes, I was the Torgny Sergio Strat, visiting professor in the department of sociology at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. And what was nice about living in Europe, among a number of things that were nice about living in Europe, was that it made it all the more clear what an international outlier the United States is when it comes to Israel and Palestine, that virtually all european countries are to one degree or another what we could call pro Israel, supporting Israel's right to exist, supporting its right to self defense, opposing Hamas, terrorism and all that stuff. But unlike the Biden administration, they also recognize that Israel was engaged in serious war crimes. Unlike the United States, they were supporting a ceasefire from early on. Unlike the United States, they trust the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice to impartially enforce international humanitarian law. I mean, it reminded me of the isolation the United States had regarding the invasion of Iraq 20 years ago, the intervention in Central America in the 1980s and the Vietnam war before that. That indeed, it's been quite striking to notice from a distance just how out of the mainstream world opinion the Biden administration has been.
[00:03:20] Speaker A: So we were, when we originally scheduled this, who did want to really do a major focus, especially on Israel and Gaza and what was happening with the many things the genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza and other parts of the territories and certainly about Biden's policies there and his relationship with Israel. But, and we will talk about that because that's certainly still a focus for our government and his administration. But here today, we have a major change in the world, at least in the world of politics. And something that we have to consider now before this show goes on the air this coming Friday, is that there's a likely new democratic candidate for, there will be a new democratic candidate for president. It's likely to be Kamala Harris at this point. And you have been on top of her policies in the past as well, and how that might affect things. Maybe we can start off there. You sent me an article from Politico which was very kind of update about how her policies might be different from Biden's. I guess maybe we can do. And then you also sent me one from that you wrote when she was a candidate, before Biden was elected, on her foreign policy, when she was more, according to your article, more aligned with AIPAC, the political action group for american, israeli political action group, and more AIPAC than J Street, which is a little more to the left of AIPAC. So maybe you can just talk about that whole issue of where Harris stands, how she fits into the administration's policy, and even talking a little bit about where Biden has been.
[00:05:29] Speaker B: Well, starting with Biden, actually, Biden has traditionally, in his long Senate career, been one of the most hardline opponents of palestinian rights. He opposed palestinian statehood altogether for most of his Senate career, only endorsed the idea after some of the more moderate israeli government seemed to be open to it.
He, as he called during the 2020 campaign, he called the people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and other candidates who believe that military aid to Israel, like any country, should be dependent on human rights and international law and the like. He called it crazy. He said it would be like kicking France out of NATO.
He's been, you know, he's, as I mentioned at the outset, he was almost a virtue alone and among world leaders on a number of issues, vetoing an otherwise unanimous Security Council resolution calling admitting Palestine under the leadership of the moderate Palestine Authority as a full member state of the UN. He vetoed several UN Security Council resolutions calling for ceasefire. And he's attacked the international criminal court saying it was out. He totally misrepresenting what they said, but saying it was outrageous to indict the israeli prime minister and the israeli defense minister for war crimes, along with the three Hamas leaders. And it was particularly ironic here because Biden finished in the bottom 10th of his law school at Syracuse University to claim that these six outstanding british based jurists and lawyers and barristers who had incredible some leading experts in the world on international humanitarian law. I mean, they've worked with Sudan, Rwanda and other area, other parts of the world, um, you know, saying that they don't know what, what they're talking about.
And, I mean, so he's very much, very much in the extreme. I mean, the vast majority of Democrats, according to polls, like 85%, have been supporting a permanent ceasefire. Huge majorities support suspending military aid to Israel, but he's rejected it, lying himself with Republicans in many cases.
Kamala Harris is in an awkward situation in that, being a sitting vice president, she can't really openly oppose the foreign policy of the incumbent administration, but she clearly feels a need to distance herself from Biden's policies because it has led to large numbers of progressives, young people, African Americans and Muslims, who are generally democratic voters, to express reluctance and supporting Biden's reelection. I mean, they will vote.
They could vote third party or for independent candidates like Cornel west, but will they be willing to vote for Jill Stein? So she has to kind of. She's kind of in a position like Hubert Humphrey was in 1968. Frankly, the anti war sentiment was very, very strong, and a lot of progressives didn't like the choice between two pro war candidates. And so Hubert Humphrey tried to say he was not as hawkish as Johnson, but at the same time couldn't split completely, and he ended up narrowly losing to Richard Nixon.
Harris's background on Israel Palestine has been pretty hawkish among younger members of Congress, especially among people of color, and that she's also. She attacked earlier investigations by international criminal court. She's referred to the israeli occupied territories as disputed territories, implying that both sides somehow had equal claim.
She sided with President elect Trump against President Obama on the question of israeli settlements, saying that Obama should have vetoed a unanimous UN Security Council resolution reiterating the illegality of israeli settlements in the West bank.
She has basically opposed the United nations being involved at all and that it should be the only way of reaching a settlement is direct talks between the Palestinians under occupation by the Palestine Authority and the israeli occupiers who ruled out withdrawing from the occupied territory, ruled out a palestinian state. So basically, Harris agrees with Biden that there should be no pressure from the UN, no conditioning aid, no nonviolent resistance like through boycotts, divestment and sanctions. Just trust the goodwill that Netanyahu will voluntarily end the occupation and allow for a palestinian state, which he has categorically ruled out. So, yeah, this has been a problem with Harry. And she was to the right of Dianne Feinstein, who was the other California senator when Harris was in office, who was actually not as progressive as Harris was on some issues.
But when it came to Israel Palestine, Harris was to the right of her. But on the other hand, we have heard recently, both through news leaks, my own contacts in Washington, that she's actually been among those who've been pushing Biden to push Israel harder. And basically what you're seeing in DC is that Secretary of state Blinken and special NSC Middle east person appointment McKirk and I and the national security Advisor Sullivan have been pushing for the hard line, which, supporting Israel no matter what, which Biden has largely upheld. But on the other hand, you've had secretary of defense Austin, you've had CIA director Burns, and you've had Kamala Harris among those saying, whoa, he's gone too far. You gotta push him harder. And there are a number of people who've worked closely with Harris in Washington, including a couple of people who resigned their positions in protest of Biden's policies, who say that Kamala Harris is actually, once she's on her own, once she'd be president, she'd actually be far more moderate than positions she has taken as a member of the Biden administration in her earlier time as a junior senator.
[00:12:48] Speaker A: Let me jump in for a moment. I just want to remind the listeners that this is global stuff. My name's Jimmy Derschlag. This is a pre recorded show. My guests for this show are going to be talking about a variety of things. Focus on the Middle east and Israel and Gaza, but also this big change in what's happening in politics in the US and how that affects that situation with President Biden withdrawing from the race and the potential for Kamala Harris becoming the democratic candidate for president. Stephen Zunes, who is the professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco. And you forwarded to me this article from PolItico, and you mentioned the people who had resigned from the Biden administration, such as Lilly Greenberg, saying that she's saying, I work for Kamala and I know she'll do the right thing.
She also says that Kamala has supported the two state solution for Palestine, although there's a lot of people who feel like one state with equal rights might be a better solution, but a two state certainly at least giving some rights, self determination to the Palestinians. But you're kind of skeptical of that. And do you think she would have supported, from what you're saying, the votes that in the US, where the US was the outlier, as you've mentioned, in votes to declare Israel, to censure Israel for its genocide in Gaza and Palestine?
[00:14:32] Speaker B: Yeah, I think as president, she would, relative to the international community, still be definitely something of an outlier in the degree of support for Israel, but just not as extreme as.
As Biden. And I think it comes from a number of things. I mean, I disagree with those who say it's all about AIPAC. It's all about the power of the pro Israel lobby and the money of contributions, because, frankly, the degree of potential voters that the Biden administration has alienated because of its hardline policies, all the AIPAC money in the world cannot make up for it. I mean, politically, US Biden administration's policy has been a huge liability. Biden is doing it not because of the money, not because he thinks it'll hurt his help. His re would have helped his reelection. Just the opposite. He believes that for two reasons. One, strategically, he says, you know, Israel. If it wasn't for Israel, we'd have to invent them. We really need Israel, you know, as our ally in this important strategic reason. In other words, he's supporting a repressive right wing government. The same reason presidents of both parties repressive right wing governments for decades, because it seemed to be in the strategic interest of the United States. The other reason, I think it is ideological that Biden is from this immediate post world War two generation that has this very idealistic view of they see Israel like Paul Newman in Exodus. They see Israel, you know, as this incredible democracy of an oppressed people making the desert bloom, you know, creating the social democracy in this reactionary middle eastern region. You know, so it's a very romantic kind of. Kind of thing. I mean, it's a comparable to the old communists who really want to believe in Stalin, despite all the evidence that he wasn't the great guy that they wanted people to think, because just they wanted to believe in the soviet experiment so much. The facts be damned.
Biden sort of the same way about Israel. And so there's a huge ideological a factor promoting Biden. And what you have with people who are younger or younger generation, they're not so strongly attached. And this is why when you look at public opinion polls, there's no issue out there except maybe LGBTQ issues where there's such a clear straight line in terms of age and political attitude. Most older people are very, very pro Israel. Most younger people are more pro Palestinian. Kamala Harris leans towards that older generation, but not as strong. And also being a woman of color, I think there's some, you know, that adds a little bit of perspective that Biden doesn't have. So I think for all those reasons, I think that she both would be more open to the strategic argument that giving all out support for Israel might actually hurt us strategic interests in the long run, given how it's alienating so many people around the world, including our allies.
But also, I don't think he is ideologically attached to Israel, as is Obama. And that therefore gives those of us who want a Middle east policy that's more consistent with peace and justice and international law. I think we'll have, we'll have a little more hope under a president Harris than we have under a President Obama. Sorry, under President Biden.
[00:18:27] Speaker A: Well, I think at the very least, I mean, she will present herself that way and hopefully her policies will that way. She is not. Biden has been so vilified, as you say, and because of his approach to Gaza, in the eyes of many young people, that they're just going to refuse to vote for him, would have refused to vote for her. Even though the turnout among younger people is sometimes questionable, it seems like at the very least now she's not Biden. So there is that chance for them to revisit them and come back to what's the alternative? I mean, certainly they wouldn't have voted for Trump. I think even in the articles where you talk about the problems with Biden's policy, Middle Eastern policy and policies with Israel and Gaza, you are saying that certainly Trump is, no, not better, is a step in the other direction.
[00:19:23] Speaker B: Yeah, Trump is very dangerous on this issue. I mean, he supports the most hardline elements in Israel. He wants to annex the entire West bank and reoccupy the Gaza Strip and perhaps expel large numbers of Palestinians in the process, he doesn't even pretend to support a two state solution. He doesn't even pretend to support international law. And so it's really critically important for those who are in, if you're in a swing state, please don't let Harris's mediocre Middle east policy prevent you from supporting her.
I mean, here in the safety of California, you know, it's fine if you want to vote for Cornel west or Jill Stein or whomever, but if you're in a swing state, critically important to not let Trump in, both, for all the other reasons we know about his authoritarian reach, but certainly for the sake of the Palestinians as well.
[00:20:36] Speaker A: In this article as well, they're saying that Harris called for a ceasefire in Gaza before Biden did. In one of your articles, you were saying that Biden did not support a ceasefire, but he did have, he does have put forward a four point peace plan. That part of that was a permanent ceasefire. But in your articles, you're saying he didn't really support a peace fire. Is that because of the conditions that he put on that, that were so favorable to the position of the israeli government?
[00:21:18] Speaker B: Basically, the details have been somewhat vague, but the israeli government keeps adding conditions every time Hamas appears willing to accept them. And what's really maddening about this whole thing is that Biden has repeatedly, including in the infamous debate a few weeks ago, to say that Israel has accepted the ceasefire plan and it's Hamas who is preventing it from moving forward. And this is just days after Netanyahu quite explicitly says, we're not going to stop until we defeat Hamas.
Biden and Blinken and others had said if they release the hostages, the war would end. No, Netanyahu says he would keep fighting regardless. Indeed, that's why you have had hundreds of thousands of Israelis protesting in the streets, because they know that Netanyahu is not really interested in releasing the hostages. He just wants to keep the war going as long as possible. But the Biden administration has been essentially coming to Netanyahu's support by refusing to acknowledge that Netanyahu is really the main obstacle right now to a ceasefire, that Hamas has compromised a whole series of issues. So, yeah, I think you can credit the american people and all the protests and both domestically, internationally, to get the Biden administration to at least pretend to support a ceasefire after many months of rejecting it and vetoing any effort by the United nations. But still, the fact is that the United States is making it possible to extend the war. And I think listeners should be reminded that previous Biden does have the power to stop Israel from continuing the war. We've seen presidents from Eisenhower in 1957 to Carter in 1978, actually Nixon in 1973, Reagan in 1982 and 83, and Obama on several occasions got Israel to stop military offensives and occupations in progress by threatening to, threatening to withhold aid.
Biden has refused to do that. And so this is why that Biden is really responsible, has a major responsibility for the ongoing genocide, because he has not used this tremendous leverage that the United States has to force Netanyahu to end the war.
[00:24:24] Speaker A: One of your articles talks about the international court of justice.
This is from earlier in the month.
Oh, I was looking at a New York Times article there, but you were talking about the International Court of Justice that ruled that Israel's occupation of the West bank in east Jerusalem violated international law. And the Biden administration's position on that is again in outlier position.
And so how does that decision and that international court opinion affect things?
[00:25:07] Speaker B: Well, the UN General assembly petitioned the International Court of Justice a couple years ago to give an advisory ruling on the legality of Israel's 57 year occupation of the West bank, including East Jerusalem. 40 nations sent attorneys to present their views on the question.
The United States was one of only three, the others being the far right wing government of Hungary and the conservative government of Britain, which was soundly defeated a couple of weeks later.
And basically saying, oh, this is okay for Israel to hold on to this territory because it's vital for Israel's national security.
As if Israel, by far the region's most powerful military, you know, with a huge armed force, nuclear weapons, etc. Etc. Was somehow threatened by the Palestine Authority, which has no air force, no navy, no standing army, you know, has renounced terrorism. I mean, it was such, so ludicrous. But that was the us position. And of course, Biden has never really liked the International Court of Justice. Back in 2004, when they ruled unanimously, say for the us judge, that while Israel could build a separation barrier along their internationally recognized border, they couldn't build it in a serpentine fashion. Deep inside the occupied West bank is part of a land grab to incorporate israeli settlements into Israel. Biden denounced it, saying they were opposing Israel's right to self defense and were soft on terrorism and all this kind of crazy stuff. And so both with the International Criminal court and the International Court of Justice, Biden's positions are not just a matter of being too pro Israel or whatever. They're actually challenging these very foundational institutions of international humanitarian law that have been in place, you know, since the 1940s at the end of World War two. Indeed, Americans were largely responsible for creating this kind, this international legal system. And so that's what's so weird, that you have this old school liberal democrat being one of the world's number one opponents of the values and legal traditions and institutions of trying to enforce basic concepts of human rights, international law. This is the same Biden who says, we got to keep arming Ukraine because we have to defend a rules based international legal order that a country cannot expand its territories by force you to change international boundaries, as Russia is doing in Ukraine. And yet when it's an ally like Israel.
Biden's okay about it. I mean, Biden administration is the only government in the world that's formally recognized Israel's illegal annexation of the Golan region of Syria, which it captured in 1967 and has had de facto recognition of Israel's annexation, illegal annexation of east Jerusalem. So this is something that, this is why I think you're seeing a real shift in public opinion, especially among intellectuals who've generally taken a pro Israel position that their concerns about Biden is that he really is basically undermining the very fundamental international principles that, at least in theory, have supposedly been the foundation of us foreign policy for 75 years or more.
KMUT is a community radio station in the Redwood region of northern California. Donate support people powered
[email protected].
[00:29:26] Speaker A: Again, let me remind the listeners, this is global stuff. My name is Jimmy Durschlag. This is a prerecorded show recording the day after President Biden declared that he will not accept the nomination and throwing his support to his vice president, Kamala Harris. We've talked a bunch about the differences in their policy. The guest, Doctor Steven Zunis, professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco, founding director of their program in Middle Eastern Studies and one of the leading scholars on US Middle east policy and strategic nonviolent action. You can find out more about him, see his many articles, see a lot of the interviews that are posted and all of that at Steven Zunes stephenzunes.org.
you also are very familiar with strategic nonviolent action, and you've mentioned some of that in that what is so different about the protests against the Gaza, the pushback of Israel in Gaza and what much of the world sees, a genocide, bombings of hospitals, just some horrendous actions going on, and they're intransigent in getting anywhere near a ceasefire. But talking about the protests around the world and especially in this country and especially on the college campuses, that this is different than it's been. I mean, it's been very difficult for those raising the issue of Palestine and how it's been a controlled area and basically at the mercy of Israel for supplies, for their survival, cut off, surrounded by checkpoints. And yet it's been very difficult for people to object to that because then they're being called anti semites or they're being considered that you're against this country, which is just struggling to survive. All its neighbors want to eliminate it. And the difference is that there seems to be much more of a support for the situation in Gaza, the need to support the Palestinians and get them the aid and the other things that they need.
In your article from June last month, you kind of compare that to the campus and national protests in 1968. And I guess with Biden out of the race, that'll change the dynamic a little bit of the conventions coming up. In 1968, I was a sophomore, end of my sophomore year in college going back to Chicago. And I actually was on the streets of Chicago then outside the convention when there was this whole, there was a whole groundswell for a different candidate then ended up and an attack on protesters. And your article kind of compares the two. So, as I say, as a scholar who also talks about strategic nonviolent action, I know you've thought a lot about this and give us your perspective on those demonstrations and what the response has been to them.
[00:33:18] Speaker B: Well, it's been quite remarkable. The outpouring, outrage by people around the country at us support for a war that includes violations of the genocide treaty in terms of the severity of the war crimes being committed with us weapons, with us military, financial and diplomatic support.
The reaction has been quite repressive. And comparing it to, say, the encampments you had at universities calling for boycotts, investment in sanctions against apartheid South Africa back in the late seventies and the eighties, many of these encampments were allowed to stay for weeks or months, where in many, in many cases, they're immediately broken up. When it came to. To Palestine. And the suspensions of students and other forms of punishments, including felony charges, are far, far worse than it was back then. We are actually living in a more repressive era than we were under Reagan when it comes to dissent regarding us foreign policy. And this is really, I mean, this is another thing that could threaten democrats in November to have a democratic nominee being part of an administration that has slandered and attacked these protesters as anti Semites. We've seen democratic mayors and democratic governors ordering a police onto campuses, attacking them. I mean, that alienates, you know, that alienates people not just in the policy itself, but how they're being treated.
The Biden administration has claimed that calls for a democratic secular state between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea is anti semitic in a call for genocide. They've claimed that the arabic word intifada, which simply means shaking off, it's a term used for civil resistance, like in the Arab Spring. You know, 90% of the intifadas recorded have been overwhelmingly nonviolent, but essentially saying, oh, that's an anti semitic term. That's a call for terrorism. And killing jews. And, you know, when you are labeled, you know, given, given these, when you have elected officials, the supposedly more progressive, the two major political parties, you know, misrepresenting you in this way, it makes people very angry. And when democratic governors and mayors send in political police to tear down your encampment and bust your heads and haul you off to jail, that's alienating. And you remember the impact that the Chicago protest and other things had. I mean, so many people said, oh, screw this, I'm not going to vote for Hubert Humphrey, even. It brings this Nixon. And I'm afraid that this kind of repression and this kind of slander and this kind of ignoring this huge popular upswell is going to have a political impact just as in the election, just as it did back in 1968.
[00:36:35] Speaker A: And do you see that still going on now? It seems like there's been kind of, I know you mentioned in the article this, and I just wanted to bring up the phrase the whole from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. And that has been used in different contexts. I know in your article you say that those who use it are mainly those who want to see a two state solution where Palestinians will have freedoms. But there are others that have seen that as a call for the elimination of Israel. I mean, it's not 100%. And there's a question about whether the people using that slogan, those that are protesting, understand that. And also your interpretation of intifada. I understand what you're saying. You're the scholar about the exact meaning. But certainly there have been intifadas that have had some violent components.
[00:37:40] Speaker B: Yeah, certainly the second 2nd palestinian father included a lot of terrorism and the.
[00:37:44] Speaker A: Like, which is which there has been violence associated.
[00:37:47] Speaker B: The thing is, the thing is, the idea of representing a terminal or representing a movement or whatever, as most extremist component is disingenuous. Now, the slogan river to the sea, primarily it comes out of secular nationalist palestinian groups. For the sixties is primarily about a single democratic state with equal rights for israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Hamas appropriated it only like, I think six or seven years ago. But now people are saying, well, since Hamas uses it, that means that's what all these other people using it means. And Hamas really would, you know, expel or oppress or kill, you know, most of the Jews living in what's now Israel. But the thing is, it is, it is, again, it's very unfair for people to claim that, oh, we know what you're talking about. You don't know what you're talking about. Now, I do advise, and personally, I don't use the term river to the sea. Palestine will be free.
Nor do I use the word globalize, the intifada or whatever, because people have, including many Jews, have been convinced these have more nefarious meanings. And you don't want to needlessly trigger people when you're trying to build a broader alliance. But I do emphasize wherever I can, that these terms are being deliberately misinterpreted and one should not assume the worse. And that while we should combat anti semitism within the movement, just as we should combat racism or sexism, any other form of oppression that rises up within any other movements, we're part of that we should note, buy into this position that being critical of israeli policies or being anti zionist is inherently anti semitic. And there are, like anti Semitism, like racism and sexism. There are microaggressions. There are a lot of unaware things that are more widespread that we really need to think about. We shouldn't dismiss every charge of anti Semitism because unfortunately, some of them do have validity. But the fact is that this has been weaponized in a mccarthyistic kind of fashion, which has made it very difficult, I think, to get more liberals on board in challenging us policy. For example, when I think of times that I have had a talk canceled or someone has said, oh, you can talk, but where you have to be balanced by a pro Israel, meaning a pro occupation right wing speaker. The organizers who made these decisions were not hardcore Zionists, were not particularly conservative, but they were liberals who heard people had jewish friends who told them that I was an extreme anti Israel person or as anti semitic or things like that. And because you think of it, most of us who are left as center, if a black person says something is racist or a woman says something is sexist, as white males, who are we to question them? You know, the default position is that those who are in the target group should know what's oppressive and what's not. And people take that logic. But then they apply to those, to certain right wing zionist Jews who end up claiming, falsely, that certain critics of Israel are anti semitic. And people therefore, again, fall in that to default position. Well, they should know, who am I to question that?
And that makes it more difficult to challenge us policy and support for Israel, because when it comes to the so called Israel lobby, broadly defined, the established zionist community and everything like that, they don't make us foreign policy. US foreign policy would be more or less the same even without them.
We've supported plenty. US supports plenty of right wing governments engaging in war crimes. I mean, just a few years ago, the Saudis and their genocidal war on Yemen, Turkey and its genocide of war on Kurds. Pakistan is genocidal war in Bangladesh. Indonesia, it's genocidal war in East Timor. Guatemala, it's genocide of war in the highlands against the Indians, not to mention other occupations like Morocco's ongoing occupation of western Sahara, previous occupations by Indonesia, apartheid, South Africa. Again, Israel's not unique in that regard.
Then again, our foreign policy towards Israel Palestine would essentially be the same even without AIPAC, where the lobby is powerful is that it makes it more difficult to challenge. It makes it more difficult to get more allies in Congress. It makes it more difficult to have a genuine debate in certain circles. So on balance, we should be cognizant that it has made the struggle for peace and justice more difficult. But let's not naively think that somehow the United States would suddenly be concerned about human rights and international law in the Middle east when we haven't really been that concerned about human rights and international law anywhere else in the world either.
[00:43:18] Speaker A: Again, this is global stuff. My name is Jimmy Derschlag. This is a pre recorded show day after Biden removing himself from the race, talking with Professor Steven Zunis, who is a professor of politics and international studies at University of San Francisco, author of several books on the subject, stevensunis.org, for his articles and interviews. And I'm glad you transitioned into this topic. You wrote in May the article the chilling effect of acquitting, equating criticism of Israel to anti semitism. My guest last month, Richard Silverstein, who's the editor of Tikkun, you might be aware of him, is said very much the same thing. That, and it's been, we were talking about how criticism of Israel and support for palestinian rights, that that view has been shifting a little bit, and perhaps things aren't the way they were. But in the past, there has been this call that if you criticize Israel, you're anti semitic. The interesting thing about your article is there's actually legal action and laws that have been considered and even passed. Maybe you can talk about some of that. That does make it more easier to look at statements against Israel or pro Palestinian as hate speech against jews. Talk about some of those trends.
[00:45:05] Speaker B: Well, scholars of anti Semitism have had a number of working definitions.
The Jerusalem Declaration is probably the most widely accepted, and there are others. But some Republicans and hawkish Democrats have been pushing through the definition put together by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association. IHRA which has a very broad definition of anti Semitism, which includes many criticisms of Israel, Zionism and israeli policies. And a couple dozen states, as well as the states have passed laws codifying this as the official definition. And currently there is a bill, bipartisan bill in Congress that would require a. The Department of Education and others to adopt this as the definition. And if this happens, it would force, for example, colleges and universities to suppress pro palestinian groups.
Basically, under title VI, the US government can suspend all federal aid to a college which, for example, allowed for ongoing sexual harassment, day to date rape, whatever, and refuse to do anything about it. Or a college university that would tolerate overtly racist groups putting nooses on trees and intimidating black students. They'd say, you got to ban this kind of activity or you're going to end all federal funding. Well, what this would do would be make it anti zionist. Student groups fall under the same category as these others and require the colleges, the universities to shut them down or lose their federal funding. And it's a way, basically, of stifling any kind of criticisms of Israel. And this is disturbing on a whole number of levels, obviously. Civil liberties, suppression, human rights. What kind of precedent this does? I mean, will it be considered anti chinese to have a Tibet solidarity group? I mean, you can see where this could kind of lead. But what's also problematic about it, it does also create something of a crying wolf effect that there really are some antisemites in the mix that really do need to be, nearly need to be challenged. But if simple objections to israeli policies or simple objections to Zionism are suddenly labeled anti semitic, when there really are incidents of anti semitic activity, people end up getting defensive and just assume that this is just another false claim to support israeli policies.
[00:48:10] Speaker A: To be fair, there have been an increase in incidents. But as you say, 97% of the protests have been peaceful and they've been nonviolent.
[00:48:23] Speaker B: And also, yes, there have been real increases in anti semitic incidents. But what's interesting is that the us government, others are relying on the anti defamation league for the statistics, and they count demonstrations in which there are anti zionist slogans or anti zionist signs as antisemitic incidents. So it makes it hard to discern which is real and which is not.
[00:48:55] Speaker A: You were mentioning how you've even had incidents where your speech is canceled. And we were talking when we were talking a little earlier about the protests on campuses, the targeting of professors. So you've actually experienced that, uh, somewhat personally from the administration there in San Francisco, or.
[00:49:16] Speaker B: I haven't had problems with my own university. But I have, you know, had. I've had, um, when I've spoken at other, uh, um, universities or, uh, organizations or, you know, I mean, at the. Everywhere from the Hofstra University to the Art and Peace Institute to the American Academy of Religion to the Arizona Bar association, I've had talks canceled or, again, had to be supposedly balanced.
I'm a real moderate. I don't even identify as an anti zionist per se.
For years, I pushed for a two state solution which would give Palestine only 22% of their historic territory. Though personally, I'm getting more and more skeptical that a two state solution is viable at this point. But like I say, I'm a relative moderate and, you know, they've gone after me. And so you can imagine, you know, how they've treated people who. Who, you know, who are overtly anti zionist, who are overtly, you know, a one secular democratic state. So it is quite, quite frustrating, really, that the, you know, I think the issue. The problem, I think, is that people are concerned that, you know, maybe by acknowledging the terrible things Israel's doing or questioning Zionism, that you will inadvertently help anti Semites in their narrative. But the problem is, if we don't criticize Israel, criticize Zionism for the right reasons, it's going to be left to people who do so for the wrong reasons. And so that's why it's very important that we not allow the legitimate discourse to be suppressed out of fear of allowing anti Semitism and coming full circle.
[00:51:13] Speaker A: A little bit back to where we started out with Kamala Harris being the presumptive nominee. I don't see how that's going to change now.
Everybody talks a little bit about mansions, throwing his hat in, and I think his hat has already fallen out of the ring.
It got blown away before it was even in there, I think. But there's a meeting coming up with Netanyahu and Biden, and now Harris is going to be part of that.
What do you expect from that? Do you think that's an opportunity for her to distance herself a little bit again or maybe be a little more forceful in us positions with Israel?
[00:51:59] Speaker B: Well, it's a real, real problem for a sitting vice president to run for president. In general, three out of the four who have tried this century have lost.
Because on the one hand, you want to assert your own view, but you could be seen as disloyal if you dissent from the current policy, and especially on foreign policy, where it's seen as very crucial to have a very clear consensus. So it's going to be a real dilemma for Harris, even if we do take the more generous contribution, that she isn't as hardline as Biden, that she would push Israel much harder in terms of stopping the war, ending the war crimes, allowing for a viable palestinian state. If you assume the best of hers, she's not going to really push it very hard on the campaign trail because again, it would look very bad if it looks like she is being critical or challenging the us policy, the foreign policy of the administration of which she is a part, and of the president who put her in that position of being the vice president and then possibly next president. So I don't expect to see much public distancing by Harris over the next few months. We can only hope that if she does become president, that some of these differences, which I think are genuine, will then be able to manifest themselves in actual policy.
[00:53:49] Speaker A: So that will be interesting to see how much of a lead she takes on that actually, because now that, I would imagine that Biden might even defer to her a little bit of we'll see. And he's supposed, is he supposed to address Congress? There was resistance to that, I believe.
[00:54:09] Speaker B: Yes, Netanyahu was coming to address a joint session of Congress. It is quite, most of the world would arrest him as soon as he took off the plane because he's assumed to be indicted, a war criminal. But we have not just McConnell and Johnson on the republican side, but Schumer having an open invitation for the soon to be dire war criminal to address a joint session of Congress. I mean, this is really shocking that especially, I mean, no, this would be natino Ho's fourth joint session. No world leader has ever addressed Congress that many times. Even Winston Churchill only did it three times. And so again, this is a very high honor. Very few foreign leaders get to do this. And it just shows how extreme the us government is, including the congressional branch and giving him this forum. And it's especially bizarre for that. The Democrats have invited him, especially since the last time Netanyahu spoke, he bashed the incumbent democratic administration with a series of misleading attacks that were designed to hurt his standing politically. And he could very well do this to Biden and Harris as well. And indeed, that's why you've had many israeli leaders from, including a former prime minister, former security chief, Nobel laureates, I mean, people from the top of israeli societies have been begging Congress to rescind the invitation because it just would only strengthen him at home when he is quite currently weakened and very unpopular in Israel. And by giving him this honor, that's strengthening him against the more moderate forces within Israel. So for all these reasons, the decision to invite Netanyahu seems really bizarre, and particularly given that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries are among those extending the invitation.
[00:56:36] Speaker A: Well, that's about all the time we have for this prerecorded version of global stuff. Professor Steven Zunis, professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco, we really appreciate you making the time to do that. I thought we might get some time to talk about your perspective on what's going on with Ukraine and Russia. But if people go to Steven Zunis.org, comma, they can get a link to that article.
And we really appreciate you making the time to do this and coming back on the show. We've got some interesting times ahead in our country, that's for sure.
[00:57:14] Speaker B: Well, my pleasure. It was great talking with you again.
[00:57:17] Speaker A: All right, take care.
[00:57:19] Speaker B: This has been a Kmut podcast. To listen to other shows and more episodes of this show. Find us on all the platforms where you get your podcast and also on our website, kmud.org.
