Scott Horton Show - Just the Interviews - 5/11/23 Philip Weiss on US-Israeli Relations, 20 Years Ago and Today

Episode Date: May 17, 2023

Philip Weiss is back on the show to discuss the evolving views of Israeli apartheid in the American Jewish community and the U.S. Government. Scott and Weiss reflect on where the U.S.-Israeli dynamic stood twenty years ago as the global war on terror was kicking off. They then look at where things stand today and discuss what changes the anti-apartheid movement needs to push for.  Discussed on the show: “White House officials know Israel is an apartheid state, but they can’t say so” (Mondoweiss) “Israel’s One-State Reality” (Foreign Affairs) Philip Weiss is the long-time editor of Mondoweiss.net. Follow him on Twitter @PhilWeiss. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott. Get Scott’s interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjY Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show. I'm the director of the Libertarian Institute, editorial director of anti-war.com, author of the book, Fool's Aaron, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and The Brand New, Enough Already, Time to End the War on Terrorism. And I've recorded more than 5,500 interviews since 2004. almost all on foreign policy and all available for you at scothorton dot for you can sign up the podcast feed there and the full interview archive is also available at youtube.com slash scott horton's show hey guys check it out i got phil weiss on the line again he runs mondo wice.net where he and a bunch of other great writers write about the politics of israel palestine there and here too welcome back to the show phil how you doing man great thanks scott thanks for having me always like being on your show man uh well man i love talking to you i always learned so much and

especially in a way to your helping me keep up when i'm not paying attention and there are very important developments i guess this is really your speciality right is the evolving view of the israel palestine conflict in washington and particularly in the democratic party and in the American Jewish communities, plural, I guess I should say as well. Yeah, that's fair. I try. You know, I don't know that, you know, sadly, there's not a lot of expertise on this. There ought to be a lot of expertise. And so without those Washington Post reporters who are working night and day on this, which there aren't, you know, I'll be a proxy for the time. Yeah, no, you're doing a great job, man. So, and this is right on point here.

White House officials know Israel is an apartheid state, but they can't say so. And so, first of all, can you just explain for the newbies? Presume that people just only know from TV, and they figure poor little Israel is our friends and the terrorists are always after them and this kind of thing. Can you explain why anyone would describe Israel as an apartheid state, first of all? Because it's a pretty strong word. No, it's not their opinion. they understand and recognize the fact you claim here.

So can you talk about that fact, first of all? Sure. It was evident to me when I first went out to that Israel and Palestine 17 years ago that there was systematic discrimination, especially in the occupied territories, between Jews and non-Jews. And if you were not Jewish, you had no rights. They would take your house away. they would take your land away, they would take your life away. You had no political rights. And that,

in 2006, the same year that I went out there, so that is a part type, that sort of legal structure, and it is legal, especially if you look at the 2018 nation state law, they're basically their constitution saying Jews have the exclusive right to self-determination in the land, i.e., if you're Palestinian, you really have no rights. This was evident to Jim, Carter back in 2006. He said, apartheid is the future here. Get your heads around this. And he got thrown out of the Democratic Party for saying so. What has happened since then, and especially the last two years, three years, is that because Israel has turned its back on the two-state solution that was going to give Palestinians escape 30 years ago, came with great promise,

because Israel has abandoned any pretense of trying to give Palestinians a state, human rights groups have finally said, look, we got to call this what it is. It's a part type. And those reports that used to be taboo in Washington have been tabooed by the Congress started coming out in 2019, 2020, 2020, and many of the leading human rights groups in the world, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have said, look, this is apartheid. It's a regime of Jewish supremacy. And now what is significant about that post that you mentioned is that you have a group of Washington insiders, like connected with Brookings Foundation and other and George Washington University saying, apartheid, and everyone in Washington knows it. You're not allowed to say it, but everyone knows that now. They've turned there. There is no two-state solution. We have to accept that there's one state, and in that one state, the two-state solution was going to give Palestinians a state, and this whole thing was temporary where they had no rights in the occupied territories. It's not temporary.

So that is the important slippage that is now taking place. I hope that answers your question. Sure. And you point at this article in four Affairs, Israel's one state reality that was just published here and has some notable names on it. Is this really a turning point when the Council on Foreign Relations Journal comes out this strongly in this way? Well, Scott, you know me that, you know, I'm one of the most optimistic sign readers in the world. And so every 10 minutes, I'm telling you that's a turning point. So I think it's significant, yeah, because nothing that they say is that new. Nothing. I've heard it for now 18 years. But what is significant is that these are Washington insiders. And it includes this guy, Michael Barnett, who's Jewish. There are two Jewish authors who appeared at this event that I covered. And, you know, he's struggling with, I had a lot of emotion around this. I tried to, you know, think of what's tried to analyze this coolly. And he says, it's Jewish supremacy. So I think any logic.

person comes to that conclusion, and the problem has been that it is so taboo, as they said, at their press conference on the one-state risk. It's so taboo in Washington. You're not allowed to mention it, but I think that taboo is starting to break down. And in Congress, of course, we've seen people like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Taleb and Betty McCollum, members of the progressive, quote unquote, squad calling Israel an apartheid state, I think that language is going to get adopted by more and more mainstream figures in, I'm sure it will. It's just a question of how soon. I mean, it is apartheid. So it has been apartheid for a while. And as Max Blumenthal used to say, when are you going to say that this table is a table? You know, you're standing in front

the table. I mean, it's a question of denying a reality, and I think that denial is beginning to solve. Well, I'm seeing that phrase more and more all the time, and it is just like when I was a kid in the 80s, it was apartheid South Africa. It's not just South Africa. It's apartheid South Africa. That's the name of it. Apartite Israel. That's what we call it. Beautiful. Beautiful. Yeah, I agree with you. And, you know, when college organizations used to do Israeli apartheid week, you know, there would be these campaigns against them as anti-Semites. And, you know, and And happily, I think that period of the struggle for recognition of Palestinian oppression is over that, or not, I mean, the college campus phase of being called anti-Semites, at least now

they're going after the quote-unquote anti-Semites in, you know, mainstream culture. Yeah. All right. So I wrote a book about it so I can just make declarative statements that American support for Israel in their occupations of Palestine and of Lebanon are part of what motivated al-Qaeda's war against the United States in the first place back in the 1990s and through September 11th and so forth

and I would say probably even including up until this day people think that threat is all the way over but just because they work for us a lot of times doesn't mean that they're loyal we learned that lesson the hard time the hard way before it'd be nice if I could speak English I could do a radio show but here's my point and I have one but yeah I've been going back and posting old columns from Justin Romando from 2003 under the hashtag Romando 20 years ago.

Because this is when I first started reading anti-war.com and I was just so blown away by what a brilliant genius this guy wasn't, how on top of everything he was. And one of the things that he was very on top of at that time, which I couldn't learn anywhere else. I don't know who else knew about this if they weren't reading Romando. So, you know, maybe the closest readers of the Washington Post would have some inkling of it. But essentially the story was that Colin Powell said to W. Bush, when, look, your approval rating is 90%. Now's the time to force this two-state solution because this is one of the major driving forces of terrorism, motivations of terrorism against the United States. It's our role in Israel's oppression of these people. and they had the roadmap, and W. Bush tried to push it, agreed with Powell, told the hawks to pipe down, and told Ariel Sharon that you better get with the program, and then Ariel Sharon won, and Cole and Powell lost.

but it just goes to show that, you know, that was 20 years ago and that was the Republicans and not just Powell, but he won over the president for a time until he was basically intimidated by the Christian right, that you're going to be a one-term president if you do this, you better shut up, and so he did. But wait, wasn't that an 06? When he finally quit, trying? I mean, wasn't he a two-termer by the time? No.

No, no, no. No, this is, no, no, no, he quit. Powell lost this fight by the fall of 03. No, no, pardon me. No, no, no, sorry. By the fall of 02, I mean to say. By the fall of O2, this all happened, like spring through, spring through summer of O2 was the showdown, I think. And Powell and Sharon's guys bragged to Haaret's that, yeah, we saw the whites in his eyes, but we won and he had to back down.

I remember that, yeah. But, Scott, why wouldn't you, why do you leave it at the Christian? Zionists. Why didn't George W. Bush also depend on the Jewish Zionist lobby? Oh, sure. Yeah, look, I mean, I think Walton Mearsheimer's

piece is the best on this. I guess I thought it was notable. And I'd have to go back and check my footnotes. But I think the real shift did come. And I think you've written about this, too, when Tom DeLay,

who was just the whip in the house, Right? Came and told the President of the United States, hey, man, there's a real threat that Christians are just going to stay home. That's very, you know, loose language for it. He meant evangelical Christians of the John Hageeite and so-so-for type persuasion, but enough. And that was what really made him give it up. So, but still, that's, I would have been the last straw. You know, I'm not saying that it was only that. I think Shelton-Nadleson played a part in that. I'm sorry. Oh, Adelson. Go ahead. Shelton Adelson played a part. I mean, there's the famous quote where, you know,

Adelson is saying, you know, you can't give up Jerusalem, you know, or, you know, that was, he had formed an organization, one Jerusalem to pressure. Yeah. Israel must never give up Jerusalem. And Bush said to him, I can't be more Catholic than the Pope. You know, I can't go to the right of the Israeli prime minister. Edelson said yes you can so yeah um well you know this was something that romanda was

writing about back then too that you really did have you know this was at the high if you remember you know because first of all it's the turn of the not just the century but the millennium so you have the whole odometer effect of you know the end of the world you know uh end times i think is very popular all those um all those uh walmart books by that guy about you know the end times um um um And then when September 11th happened, and then the war is in the Middle East, now it's the Christians and the Jews versus the Muslims, the forces of Satan and blah to blah, all that. So people were very caught up in that. And, you know, a huge part even of the narrative for supporting Iraq War II was that this is God's plan. This is what we're supposed to be doing right now to help Jesus come back sooner.

And that was, you know, you could hear that kind of talk on AM radio constantly during that time. So I don't think it's diminishing the role of the neoconservatives or of, you know, whoever else, just the American Israel Public Affairs Committee itself, to say that John Hagee and those, you know, especially southern Protestant Christian ministers, they were a massive and important segment of the war party then. and really hemming in Bush's, you know. I believe you. It's not my area of study. And one thing I would say is that it completely does not explain, I mean, not that you offer as an explanation of this, but it does not explain why people like Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer supported that war. That's not their constituency.

And yet Bush relied on that, on Democrats, too. You know, the whole establishment was for the war. The New York Times was for the war. And they were getting, that was the neoconservative pressure. That was the Israel lobby pressure. Well, and, you know, as Richard Haas said, and I'm sure he's a Zionist, but he's not exactly a neoconservative. But he said, look, I mean, this is just our job, right? And you're going to not get work if you're not, you know, supporting the current thing.

And the current thing is we're going after Iraq. And I know from that time that what was really going on was W. Bush himself was leading that parade. And, of course, with the support of his horrifying cabinet and sub-cabinet of neoconservative advisors as well. But the rest of the establishment at first was a little taken aback. Like, oh, we're really doing this? I mean, okay. But it was, you know, it was not the entire consensus. that we definitely have to do this right now. But they forged it pretty quickly, though.

That's for sure. They did. And I mean, Scott, I mean, obviously you and I, when we think about this, we think about all the blame of Putin and what he's done. Look how the establishment just fell in the line behind this to the point that, you know, a great man, Jerry Nadler, has said that he came under incredible attacks, that he wasn't supporting Israel enough and supporting the United States

by voting against that war. And so, I mean, the pressure that was brought to bear by the New York Times, by the political establishment, it's horrifying. And it was, it was, and you and I knew it was completely wrong. Didn't take a genius to understand how wrong this was. Yeah. Well, folks, sad to say, they lied us into war.

All of them. World War, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq War I, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq War II, Libya, Syria, Yemen, all of them. But now you can get the e-book, All the War Lies, by me, for free. Just sign up the email list at the bottom of the page at Scott Horton.org, or go to Scotthorton.org slash subscribe. Get all the war lies by me for free. And then you'll never have to believe them again. Hey, y'all, Scott here. Let me tell you about Roberts & Roberts Brokerage, Inc. Who knew? Artificial bank credit expansion leads to price inflation and terribly distorted markets.

If you've got any savings left at all, you need to protect them. You need to put some at least into precious metals. Well, Roberts and Roberts can set you up with the best deals on silver, gold, platinum, and palladium. And they've been doing this since 1977. Hey, if you just need some sound advice about sound money, they're there for you too. call Tim Fry and the guys at 800 874-970. That's 800 874-970 or check them out at

R-RBI.co. That's R-RBI.co. You'll be glad you did. Well, and look, I mean, the whole clean break policy was we want to get rid of Saddam Hussein so that we can take control over the Iraqi Shia so that we can make them insist that Hezbollah stop being friends with Iran and Syria

and then that way we won't have to give them a Palestinian state. We'll be in a position of strength and so we can Chuck Oslo. That was what was all about. It was keeping greater Israel. And realign the Middle East. And look at that document now in light of events of today

and who has had more power over the shape of the Middle East than anyone. The Ayatollah cominee? I'm sorry. I mean, you could say the Israelis, but I don't think that's what they were going for. Although, you know, I did, I need to find this, but I did, someone had sent me a link to, like, archive.com when there was this old document from the 80s even.

It was from the 80s. And it was an Israeli document, or it was an American document about the Israeli position. I don't remember exactly anymore, but the point was that the Israeli policy is that if the Iran-Iraq war and the Shiites take over Baghdad, that's okay too, because that'll help drive all the Arab leaders into our arms and we'll be able to switch the policy there. So everybody read treacherous alliance and stay up to date on that stuff. That's part of the whole Abraham Accords they've been working on. Yeah. So I think that's probably plan B compared to the clean break. Yeah, I agree with you. But it's working out. So what the hell, you know? It's only a bunch of dead Iraqis and dead Americans.

Israelis are all right. Yeah, but though, Scott, I would also say that your assertion that in from your book about the way that this conflict is fostering, uh, hatred across the Middle East of jihadists. I mean, that is, I mean, it's that, I mean, it's that, I mean, it's not that it's obvious that that that, that, that that was stated by the jihadists and um so that's explicit in and the fact that it is it takes books like yours to expose this is tragic that this is in front page news is tragic yeah well you know there was a time in the early part of the terror war where people remembered that the 1990s had happened and that bill clinton did drop a lot of bombs on people and stuff but that kind of memory faded away people think of the bill clinton years and they just think as Seinfeld or something. They don't know, you know. That's great. Yeah, that's funny. Well, Obama, I mean, how many, he bombed seven Arab countries,

I believe, and Trump did much the same, although he was trying to withdraw off from certain air conflict as I, or he was reluctant to bomb some people. Yeah, he wasn't as bad as Obama, but then that guy wins the Olympics of most wars at once, probably so um but yeah now so back to the palestine thing here yes so joe biden is a real expert in his own mind that's for sure he knows enough about this to be horrible on it but i don't know maybe he wasn't always the worst i've heard him say reasonable things about israel palestine although i think you'd have to go back to when he had air the first time yes good point. I mean, it's certainly the case that 40 years ago, Biden, when he was fairly new in the Senate, had, or this is reported, he was banging the table with Monachem Begin and saying, you can't build these settlements. You know, what's going to happen to the Palestinians? He saw it clearly then. And since then, he has understood the domestic politics of it.

And I, he won't, he won't be that brave. He was never that brave again and has not been brave that brave again. Although he did disinvite Netanyahu from Washington, as you know. I think that he, he's, he wants to be reelected. And he knows that his war chest is going to come, many of it from right wing, Jewish Zionist donors. Yeah. So, what the hell was I going to say?

Well, we had been talking about that apartheid stuff. I mean, I think that that is, all this reflects. I mean, the thing that we left that I think I left out of that puzzle is that the polling shows that Democrats, the Democrats, ordinary Democrats, are cottoning to all this. And I think some 48% of Democrats even say that, yes, it had been. There is resemblances to apartheid. So this knowledge is seeping into the Democratic base, and you have an overwhelming plurality of Democrats, 40-something to 30, I'm sorry that the numbers are not a hand, who sympathize

more with Palestinians than Israel. For the first time, more Democrats sympathize with Palestine than Israel. And this is being the Democratic politicians know this, they're feeling it, they're getting getting questioned about this, and it's going to affect our politics. I keep announcing that it's going to be an issue in campaigns, and it really hasn't been that much of one, but, you know, hope springs eternal. Well, I mean, the thing is, too, we need to coalesce around a real demand here, which is what? I think democracy, equality.

I mean, if we're going to be insisting on, quote, unquote, democracy in Eastern Europe and the right of self-determination of the Ukrainian people and right to be out from occupation by a brutal military occupation and invasion, then why doesn't the same go for Palestinians? When do they get equal rights? They are of lesser rights. It's one state, as these insiders said in Washington in this press conference, they're announcing their new book, One State Reality. They said, it doesn't matter how much we supported two states in the past. That was the consensus of the world. It has not happened.

It has not happened because Israel doesn't want two states, does never want a Palestinian state, just wants more land. So let's deal with the one state reality. And what is the only way to deal with one state reality is to say, hey, people should have equal rights. You know, it's not a radical concept. Well, so, but in terms of American politics, that means what? If you don't give these people citizenship, we're cutting you off? Well, I think that it begins.

There are efforts in the Congress, obviously, with only 14, 17 people signing on. But to say, hey, you are arresting Palestinians. You have a systemic violence against Palestinians. They're sort of code for apartheid. And you're demolishing their homes, and they have no rights. So we're going to cut off some of the aid. I mean, it takes a little while to turn around a battleship, but we're giving Israel $4 billion a year in military aid.

And finally, people in Congress are saying, I don't know. or some, certainly some are. And I think ultimately that will yield to, you know, when you have to, Israel has to give these people equal rights. What do you think? I mean, what do you think the scenarios are? I mean, that's, well, look, I mean, I'm just an abolitionist. I have no use for the national government at all.

And I don't really want to ask them to do anything except to stop doing things. So I, you know, I would say, you know, just. be anti-interventionist, stay the hell out of there. Problem is, of course, that that's not really one of the options that's up for argument, right? Like the completely non-interventionist take at this moment, at least, doesn't have a seat at the table. So it's more like, you know, which of y'all's arguments do I like the most? And, you know, clearly it can't be closed down all the settlements because they're just not going to do that. And it would cause a civil war now if they try,

You got more than half a million Israeli settlers all over the West Bank. So the facts on the ground have already been established there. So I think, you know, to me, I think that the claim, and although, you know, the Palestinians I've talked to about this think this is stupid and wrong. So what the hell do I know? I think they should just demand all Israeli citizenship. And then I think if Americans who support, you know, some sort of freedom, equal rights or independence for the Palestinians, I think that that would be something to support.

And then how can you deny that? It is, as Netanyahu himself said, it'll always be complete Israeli monopoly control. It's one state from the river to the sea. So equal rights as Israelis, you know? I mean, you know, by the way, though, Ramsey Baroud, my friend, the Palestinian, he absolutely. hates that. No way, not until we rename it Palestine again and this kind of thing. And good old, what's name, your buddy

from Electronic Intifada. Ali. Abunima. Ali, Abu Neema, exactly. I'm sorry, Ali. I know who you are. I just tip of my tongue thing. Yeah, he also was like, no, nuts to that. But, you know, the one state has to be a new state. But I just think, hey, got to start somewhere. That's my that's my best idea for the Palestinians. And hey, they're the majority anyway.

They can rename the country whatever they want once they get a people representation. Yeah, one thing that Israel has done very successfully, obviously, is fragment the Palestinian population. So you have refugees overseas. You have West Bank Palestinians. You have East Jerusalem Palestinians. You have Gaza Palestinians. You have Palestinians inside Israel. And guess what?

you're not allowed to marry each other, even though you're from the same community. That kind of crap, which is apartheid. Another demonstration of apartheid, if your listeners need convincing. Yeah, you can't marry this person. You can't move into Israel with a person, with, you know, someone that you marry because you're a Palestinian, you have no rights here. I don't know. I guess, yes, I'm aware that that is not a very popular idea among Palestinians, but it's certainly true that inside, Israel and the politics of Israel, you know, around half of Palestinians vote. It goes up to 70% when they feel that they might get something out of it. But I think that that is part of the, there are revolutionary forces at work here. This is a revolutionary situation. When we study history books and we see revolutions, bloody revolutions, non-bloody revolutions, this is the conditions of revolution exist here. You have, you know,

five, six million people who are seven million who have been denied rights, almost all rights. And you throw in the refugee population who are thrown out of their houses and outside these borders, thrown out of their houses. You know, they left a steaming meal on the table and thought they would be able to return. Never were. Their property was taken away. Now it's being sold as Arab houses for a lot of money, that kind of crap, where their village was uprooted. These people, rights. So this is a revolutionary situation when you deny half the population on the basis of race, any rights. And I think we're in for a, you know, some people say, years ago, people would say, I don't like your one state, you know, one democracy, one state democracy talk, because that is a bloody roller coaster. And, you know, the problem is that they've established a situation in which there is bound to be a bloody roller coaster here. It's just, just it's built in. And the goal I think of all people who care

is to reduce the bloodshed as much as possible. My pressure in Israel, which is an apartheid state, to start giving rights to Palestinians. You know, I asked Ramsey Baroud about that, because it's such a powerful narrative, you know, that, you know, for a while,

if you just have equal rights, it are just every, all the Palestinians are going to grab arms and go to war and push all the Jews into the sea and whatever. And, and he says, Listen, you ever hear us say that? All we're saying is we want our rights. We want to be able to live in our own country.

We didn't say that you have to move out. We said that, but we get to live there too, damn, and it's ours. And he's from Gaza, so yeah. Yeah. It's pretty simple. I mean, you do here. I've heard some Palestinians say that to go back to Europe, you know? Okay.

That's not going to happen. And you can understand the impulse of that statement. And I can understand the impulse of the Israelis wanting to make. it seem like these are all a bunch of savage barbarians who were going to start slitting throats the first chance they get. Right. Because then that means that, well, we got to keep the tiger in its cage. It's not our fault.

Right, right. Pure racism. Yes, absolutely. Great points, Scott. Absolutely. So, yeah, I don't know how true that that is, really. I think I actually doubt that it's true. I agree with you.

I agree with you. I think that if you look at the history of Palestinian resistance to immigration, occupation, colonialism, whatever, however you describe it, if you look at there, the pattern of resistance, there's a lot of restraint. They have shown incredible restraint. You and me would be up in the hills with our guns. Well, and look, there's six million Jews there now. It's not like this is just breaking out, and they've got to figure out what to do. The NACPA was then. Yeah. Okay, so now, by the way, and we're almost out of time, but could you just give me one minute real quick on the, as you say in your subtitle of your article here, Palestinian intellectuals

who've really led the way in moving the conversation here that you want to give credit to as you do in the piece. Yeah, I just would say that, you know, even this Jewish scholar for Michael Barnett said, you know, Palestinian intellectuals led the way for us. And it's really an issue of inclusion of whether you let people speak up. And because Palestinian intellectuals have been saying for a long time, it's apartheid, and they've been shut out of the discussion. And to this guy's credit, and to this book's credit, they say, you've got to have Palestinians in this discussion. And that will include people like Rashida Taleb and the Congress, I hope.

And there are many Arab Americans. I think Arab Americans know, of which there are many, several million, understand this issue better than any other Americans. And they need to be foremost in this discussion. They've been studying this issue for a long time from the standpoint of Palestinians, which is the victimized population on whose side Americans really should be. Yeah, man. All right, listen, you guys, if you want to know this stuff, this is where you start. Go to Amanda Weiss.net.

Sign up for their morning email, read it and weep. You'll be caught right up to date in no time flat. I really appreciate your time as always. I thank Scott. I love talking to you. Okay, talk to you soon. The Scott Horton Show, Anti-War Radio, can be heard on KPFK, 90.7 FM in L.A. APSRadio.com, anti-war.com, Scotthorton.org, and Libertarian Institute.org.