Judging Freedom - Anya Parampil : Is Zionism Falling?

Episode Date: March 18, 2024

Anya Parampil : Is Zionism Falling?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, March 18th, 2024. Our guest today is a new guest to all of you, but we've all been waiting to chat with her. Anya Parampol is an independent journalist who also writes for The Gray Zone. And you know, Mr. Anya Parampol, otherwise known as Max Blumenthal. Anya, what a pleasure to have you here. Thank you very much for taking the time to join us. It's my honor. I've enjoyed your interviews with Max and many other of my friends as well. Oh, thank you. You have a very interesting piece out that I saw over the weekend about Zionism falling. Start, if you would, by telling us what your understanding of Zionism is and why you think it's falling. Well, that's a big question. And

it was actually just a tweet and I asked it as a question. I'm curious. I was curious as to what other people, particularly Americans, thought about that question. Is Zionism falling? And when I say that, I mean, it has it's part of a much bigger conversation we can have about history, politics, the international financial system. But what I'm talking about right now is this sense that for so long, people have been afraid in the United States to talk about the role, the outsized role that the Israeli lobby plays in Washington, D.C. And that's often because it's conflated with the Jewish lobby. But what it actually is, is a Zionist lobby. And I've known for a long time

that Zionism doesn't define the Jewish people based on my own experience with Jews that I know, that many Jews are actually anti-Zionist. But it has gotten to a point, especially now in the United States with the ongoing war in Gaza, that it is impossible not to address and define what Zionism is. And it is a political ideology that was born in the late 1800s in Europe that sought to define the region of Palestine. At that point was Turkish and British. The British eventually took it from the Ottoman Empire and were occupying it for most of the transition into the 1900s. But it was Turkish people, multi-faith, multi-ethnic, just like many of those empires at the time were, and instead sought to define that region as a homeland that was, because of biblical prophecy and the Old Testament meant to belong to the Jewish people, which

is a hard, how do you define Jewish people anyway, is a big question because many of those people that we now see in the government of Israel are rooted in Western Europe. They're Ashkenazi Jews. They don't actually have roots to the biblical Israel that they profess to represent, but they've taken this identity. And because of the experience of the Holocaust and the persecution of Jews throughout the last century, they weaponized that identity and that suffering and the suffering of average Jewish people in order to pretty much silence anyone who criticize Israeli influence in the United States and policies in the United States that don't really make sense. Because for years, it seems that the United States has been acting or our military has been acting in the Middle East, not in the interest of our

own domestic nation. Actually, it has made us less secure. It's made our allies in Europe less secure by destabilizing states and causing migration crises and driving anti-American sentiment in the region. The only state that's benefited from the project for a new American century that was defined after the collapse of the Soviet Union is the state of Israel. And that's never been more clear now. I think it's obvious that this current campaign in Gaza would have been impossible without strong states in Iraq, Libya, in Syria as well. And that those leaders were targeted. I mean, I only learned recently, for example, that Saddam Hussein, when the first Gulf War began in the

1990s, had actually launched missile strikes in Tel Aviv and killed Israeli citizens in retaliation for what he saw was the mistreatment of Palestinians at the time. And it seems that there was this chessboard to check them off one by one to put Israel in a position where it could carry out what we now see as a solution that they wanted all along in Gaza, I believe. Does Zionism teach that anybody who stands in the way of the hegemony of the state of Israel can be slaughtered. Child, woman, totally innocent. I just got a text, and I taught law school for many years,

from a former student of mine telling me his cousin, 35 years old, was the head of pediatrics at the hospital in Gaza City, murdered by the IDF while tending to children, not tending to Hamas killers, tending to children. Does Zionism teach that that is somehow moral or illicit? Yes, it actually teaches that it's justified based on biblical prophecy in their view. And that is what's so disturbing here. But it's been a real mask off moment, this war, because for so long, I think even people like me who've been critical of Israel for years and critical of Zionism have been shocked by not only Israel's behavior throughout this war, but the way that their leaders speak

openly about the fact that they view the people they are killing as non-humans simply because of this divine right that they have to the land, using the term Amalek to describe the Palestinians. Not just Netanyahu saying that, but multiple Israeli officials, while they're carrying out this war, referring to a group that were seen as the main obstacle to their political project and religious project and that were killed and slaughtered. And referring to the people that they're killing in that way, it couldn't become more clear. That's why the ICJ case at the International Court of Justice that South Africa brought their evidence to say that there is an intent for genocide with all statements from Israeli officials, 20 minutes or so. Anya, do you think that most non-Jewish Americans, which is the overwhelming majority of Americans, understand the difference between Judaism and Zionism? No, they don't.

And they also, and I'm sure you and others are well aware that particularly when you're saying non-Jewish Americans, that American Christians don't really understand the difference between Christianity and Zionism. I mean, it's very, that's been one of the most interesting aspects of this to observe from my perspective is for so many years that there was a concerted effort to make Christian Zionism the defining characteristic of Christianity. Yes. These are typically conservative Republicans, Protestants, many in the South. Yes. Who strongly support the IDF and equate Zionism with their version of Christianity.

I'm an old-fashioned pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic. I'm waiting for the Pope to condemn what's going on in Gaza. He came very, very close to it the other day, and I know he came close to it because Netanyahu exploded over it. But there are a lot of non-Catholic Christians, you're right, who believe in some sort of Christian Zionist nationalism in the United States, and that the Israeli government can do no wrong. Do you think Zionism is falling? By which I mean, and we'll get to Chuck Schumer's statement in a minute, do you think that most, even American Jews, recognize that the behavior of the IDF in Gaza, whether in the name of Zionism or whatever, is morally reprehensible and not defensible by any means, any moral judgment.

Yeah, I believe that because most of the American Jewish population that I know, they typically define themselves as secular Jews. They don't literally believe that they're God's chosen people that are entitled to commit massacres in front of everybody's eyes like this. But there are absolutely powerful American Jews that, for political reasons or because it's part of a broader international financial and geopolitical landscape view Israel as a non-negotiable. Everybody has to support Israel. And because so many people were traumatized by the experience of the Holocaust and the history we get as well, they view that Israel somehow, that American Jews or Jews in Europe deserve to have this state on the other side of the world that they have no connection to for safety. But I think that is what that narrative and all of that

is falling apart because of this war and because of the behavior of Israeli officials. To what conceivable benefit to American national security is the Israeli slaughter in Gaza. Zilch, none. It's got to be none. It's the opposite. It only makes everyone less secure. I don't see another way of interpreting it. I was listening to Senator Joe Lieberman, former senator from Connecticut, over the weekend,

just on the radio as I was driving, referring to Israel as our closest ally. Well, Israel is not an ally of the United States. There was no treaty between Israel and the United States. Israel attacked the United States. The APEC controls the federal government. That's hardly a beneficial alliance. Indeed. And it's becoming through the words of Chuck Schumer, committed Zionist, but also committed Democratic Party politician, it's becoming clear that this is now an uncomfortable political situation in the United States where they can no longer claim this special alliance if Netanyahu

continues as the face of Israel. Here's a short clip, it's less than a minute, of Senator Schumer on the Senate floor. I want your take on these very words. Prime Minister Netanyahu has lost his way by allowing his political survival to take the precedence over the best interests of Israel. He has put himself in coalition with far-right extremists like Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gavir. And as a result, he has been too willing to tolerate the civilian toll in Gaza, which is pushing support for Israel worldwide to historic lows. Israel cannot survive if it becomes a pariah.

Not survive if it becomes a pariah. Tell me what you think, but I'm going to tell you what I think. None of that is opinion. All of it is fact. It's fact, but notice what Schumer didn't say there. He didn't say anything about that express regard for Palestinian civilian life. He was expressing a concern that Israel itself cannot survive because of the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu. So that's a very specific way of framing a criticism of Netanyahu. He's not concerned about the children and the doctors and the women and the men that we see dying every day and in an unprecedented way. We've never seen an atrocity on this scale and digested it in the way that human beings, viewed this war, seen it with video. But nothing about

that. It's, oh no, Netanyahu is, they brand him as an authoritarian. This is something that Western officials and media love to do is paint a wide brush, whether it's Xi in China or Putin in Russia or Orban in Hungary, Andres Manuel Lopredor in Mexico, anyone that veers off the prescribed agenda is an authoritarian or he's bad and he's right wing and a dictator. And that's how they choose to define and view Netanyahu now because he's inconvenient for their own political gain when it comes to the Democratic Party. Obviously, Schumer is speaking on behalf of Biden there. He's concerned that Netanyahu and this war have ruined Biden's chance at re-election and hurt the Democratic Party. That's the only reason Schumer made that statement. Now we're hearing that Schumer

actually ran it past his masters at APEC and because they silently agree with the essence of what he said about Netanyahu, not about the slaughter. They said, go ahead with it. You know, last week or two weeks ago, Benny Gantz was the toast of the town. He's just Netanyahu with a smiling face. I mean, his policies, if he became prime minister would be essentially the same. Arguably more radical and close to the religious extremist bloc within Israel than Netanyahu is. And that's why we really have to understand what Netanyahu, what he represents in Israeli politics. I actually presented a documentary about Netanyahu, the unauthorized biography of

him several years ago with my husband, Max Blumenthal. And for that project, we interviewed, we were in Israel. It was at the height of this anti-corruption case that Netanyahu faced back, we were there in 2018. and we interviewed top Israeli historians, former officials, leading columnists, journalists about who Netanyahu is. And one of them, I think it was Haim Levinson from Haaretz, when I asked him to describe Netanyahu's personality, the first word out of his mouth was American. Netanyahu, unlike many of his predecessors or all of his predecessors, does not come from the traditional Israeli societal fabric. He was born in Israel, but his brother was born in New York and the family

actually moved between the U.S. and Israel throughout his life. And he was educated at MIT, very Americanized throughout his teenage years, and was actually studying in the United States and preparing to really be a business leader in the United States. Haaretz reporter or columnist Gideon Levy told me that if it hadn't been for the death of Netanyahu's brother, who was the preferred older son of his father and was a high ranking member of the Israeli army who actually died during a famous raid on Entebbe. There are movies about this when there was a PLO hijacking of a plane and Netanyahu's brother went to go liberate or seize the hostages and was killed in an attack. And he became a hero in Israel. And Gideon Levy said if that hadn't happened, Netanyahu would actually be living in the United States still and be a respected leader in the business community and the Jewish community. And he actually had even changed his

name. His name was Benjamin Natai. And he was preparing for a life here. And when his brother died, he went back to Israel. And that's when we see him form into this extremist political figure who led demonstrations against the more liberal Israeli governments in the 90s, was actually blamed for encouraging the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. And then since then establishing this deep, this state, this regime that is all around Netanyahu, where he controls the Israeli media, he's close with the business leaders, but more than anything, he's the link that can especially manipulate the United States. He's the only kind of Israeli politician who can come and give a speech in New York and say, oh, to say Iran doesn't sponsor terrorism is to say that Derek Jeter didn't play shortstop for the Yankees and like get Americans riled up for war. He understands the idioms. I want to ask you about this case in Florida about suppressing free speech.

But before we do, I can't resist this. What do you think will happen to Netanyahu in Israel once the war is over? Will he be prosecuted for malfeasance in office on October 7th? Will the prosecutions that began against him for corruption resume? I can't imagine him prevailing in the next election, even if the war ends on terms that are pleasing to the Israeli public. That is, again, why Netanyahu is such a unique figure. You would think that anyone looking at the situation would say that he can't survive politically, that he has no future and that he should face accountability, even when it comes to the lives of Israelis that apparently his government slaughtered on October 7th. And

there should be an investigation into the intelligence failures if Israel were a normal society, but it's not. And Netanyahu is not a normal politician. He's a hybrid machine, really. And that's, again, what these Israeli journalists that I spoke with would say. One described him as a newborn when it comes to politics, that he has this vigor and and and love for it, that he can reinvent himself and have the same drive for it today that he did 30 years ago. And he's the only Israeli politician, period, that has a base that is excited, that is passionate about him. And actually, as Gideon Levy from Haaretz told me, the great success of Netanyahu is that for decades, he's successfully established a mythology around himself. And this is a quote

from Levy that we're both the left and the right. See that there is no other one than him because if he fails, Israel fails. You can't have a left government come into Israel because then obviously the apartheid project falls apart and you can't have these extremists come in that are ready to bomb the temple and Al-Aqsa and really start trying to fulfill some religious prophecy in their head. And so Netanyahu is the only thing holding it together. And I think it's impossible to predict whether he'll face accountability. When I was there in 2018, he was charged and eventually he was taken out of government and it looked like he was charged and eventually he was taken out of government and it looked like he was maybe even going to go to jail. And then he ends up

prime minister again years later, because guess what? Israel had no other option. They have nothing to offer. Netanyahu is Israel. And so if Chuck Schumer and other American Jews don't like Netanyahu, they should be questioning whether or not they actually like Israel at its core. Tell us about this Uhuru 3, this group of folks in Florida charged by the Biden administration with using free speech in a way that the Biden administration claims they became mouthpieces for Russian intelligence. Do I have this correct? It's quite remarkable, truly, Judge, and it's a case that demonstrates how wars that we support, whether it's a proxy war with Russia or a war in

Gaza that we support abroad, actually blow back against our own rights and interests at home. And this case centers around three activists in the area of Tampa Bay, Florida, who the Biden administration charged with sowing discord on behalf of the Russian government. The issue is when you actually look at the evidence presented in the indictment and study the case, which I did when I is speech, articles, public talks, and everything can be viewed in public on the internet that these individuals and their group, which is a, it's a historically a civil rights, a black civil rights organization in Florida that has caused serious damage to the democratic party there over the years that they'd made. So they're accusing these activists as sowing discord on behalf of Russia. You would think then that the evidence is some sort of direct communication

and action or communication with the Russian government and then action they took that demonstrates some sort of conspiracy or collusion. And instead, since it's all publicly available talks and articles published by this group, their lawyers argue, sorry, that the government is actually seeking to the right through this case to take the words and articles, work of Americans, their free speech, and be able to define it as disinformation in order to then criminalize. Is this a criminal case or a civil case? Are these people being prosecuted in a federal court? Yes. Based entirely on their speech?

Yes, it is a criminal court. Don't they have the First Amendment in Florida? Congress shall make no law bridging the freedom of speech. That is precisely why the lawyer defending these activists told me that he believes if this prosecution is successful or persecution, that this will blow a hole in the First Amendment. Because basically, they took words that these people said in speeches that would match things that Jeffrey Sachs or John Mearsheimer say on your show that are just facts about, for example, NATO stoking Russia's invasion of Ukraine and say, because that's also what the Russian government says about it, that that equals Russian disinformation.

So you can see how if this case succeeds, then suddenly all of us, anybody, you and me sitting here on this show could be accused of spreading disinformation if it's simply something the U.S. government doesn't want people to hear. Wow. Well, we'll be following the case, and I thank you very much for calling it to our attention. And I have to tell you, we're at the tail end of our interview. This has been, you have drawn the largest, most receptive audience of any new guest on this show. And I fastidiously, fastidiously did not mention your husband's name until you authorized me to use it. Yeah, I know people get worked up about being associated with their husbands, but I'm very proud. So I don't mind. God bless you. I am proud to be his friend. I'm proud to be your friend. Thank you very much for coming on, Anya. Good luck in your work, and I hope you'll come back again soon. Thanks for inviting me. I hope to talk soon.

Of course. What a brilliant and gifted person, my friends. I'm glad you enjoyed listening to her as much as I did. All of your favorites coming on the rest of this week. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.