The Dispatch Podcast - How the Far Left Thinks About Israel | Interview: Bill Ayers

Episode Date: May 13, 2024

Jamie is joined by Bill Ayers—former professor and co-founder of The Weather Underground, a far-left militant organization—to provide a far-left perspective on the merits of the anti-Israel encampments and Israel’s response to October 7. The Agenda: —The safety of Jews on college campuses —Do the encampment protesters care about the hostages? —Condemning Hamas —How Israel should’ve responded to October 7 —Is Israel an apartheid state? —Is Israel a free and open society? —Debating a two-state solution —Monolithic thought on college campuses Show Notes: —Jamie’s first interview with Bill Ayers —Jamie’s second interview with Bill Ayers —The Dispatch Podcast with Medhi Hasan —Steve Salaita’s article on Israel’s self-defense —Bill Ayers on X Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to The Dispatch. I'm Jamie Weinstein. My guest today is a controversial one. Bill Ayers, the co-founder of the Weather Underground, a 1970s terror group who you may be familiar with because he courted controversy during the 2008 presidential campaign, or I guess controversy surrounded him during that campaign because it was reported that he hosted a dinner back in 1995, a political event that then candidate Barack Obama. attended. And there was a loss of associations of how closely he was tied to Bill Ayers. But Bill Ayers himself is a author and former professor of education at the University of Illinois and Chicago, and a radical. Some would say, a terrorist or a former terrorist. This episode is a, as I mentioned, a controversial one. It is the third conversation that I've had with Bill Ayers in podcast form to the previous ones on my former podcast, the Jamie Weinstein Show, which I encourage you to listen to. I first met Bill Ayers at a dinner that Tucker Carlson arranged. He purchased a charity auction back in 2012, I want to say. Bill Ayers was fundraising for some cause in

Chicago and on a lark, Tucker purchased it and invited five other people to join him at this dinner. It included Tucker, Andrew Breitbart, the writer Matt Labash, Tucker. Tucker, There's brother Buckley, me and a contest winner. We all ended up eating with Bill Ayers and his wife and several others in Chicago. I kept up the relationship through these conversations. I will hesitate to say that some of you may like this conversation. Some of you may not. The point of it was trying to get an understanding of the encampments that are going across the country. Bill spoke at one. I think he embodies what these encampments are about. He is sometimes infuriating to talk to. I'm not sure we're always getting the truth out of him. But I think the conversation is edifying or at least illustrative of a type of mindset that we're seeing on college campuses. I tried not to make a debate. I try to avoid getting into a debate that was not the point. Sometimes that was impossible. Sometimes I deliberately try to avoid engaging certain inflammatory comments that he makes. I hope it turns out something that you find useful to understanding one side of this political moment. I'm not certain.

it did. But without further ado, my fiery, sometimes infuriating conversation with Bill Ayers. Bill Ayers, welcome to the Dispatch podcast. Good to see you, Jamie. Thanks. I saw that you were at one of the encampments, which is one of the reasons. or is the reason why I thought to have you on again for our continuing discussions. For those who haven't listened, we've recorded two episodes in my previous podcast, the Jamie Weinstein show. But before I get to the encampment, I thought I'd ask you just about a little bit of breaking news over the last couple days. President Biden announced on CNN that he was going to withhold some weaponry from Israel if they went into Rafa. There's some debate whether they

are already in Rafa or not. But I just wanted to ask you, as someone who was maybe the target audience for that, or at least you know people who might have been the target audience who may have voted for Biden in the past and are upset at his policy between Israel and Gaza. Would this make you or anybody you know who is upset of what is going on more likely to vote for Biden in November? Well, you know, you've already waded into an area that I have very little interest in and no expertise in. I'm not deeply involved in electoral politics in the first place, but secondly, the context in which Biden made this announcement is not aimed at me. I'm not the target audience, and nor anyone I know the target audience. I assume you think that he made that, I'm assuming for the way you asked the question, that you think he made that as a gesture to people who are appalled at the genocide going on in Gaza. I'm not sure if he did or he didn't. I don't know his motives. But I know for sure that it's inadequate that we are witnessing a pre-announced genocide in Gaza

and it's going on and on and on. And it wouldn't be going on without U.S. cover, support, diplomatic cover, material support, military support. And so saying I'm going to suspend or I'm going to, I mean, I think the U.S. position has moved, but it hasn't moved in any substantive way. The fact that they didn't veto a UN resolution calling for a ceasefire is remarkable because vetoing their main approach. But all they did was abstain, and then the resolution passed. And so the UN is on record as calling for a ceasefire. That's important, useful.

It's also true that the U.S. and Israel are not signatories to the U.N. world criminal court of justice. And so even though that court has found a credible claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, it'll have no consequences for either the U.S. or Israel. I think people from my previous interviews know my position on a lot of what you said of calling this a genocide. I don't know because I'm not here to, I actually want you to understand the encampments a little better is kind of the purpose I've had you on. I'll just point out that not that I hold the ICJ or the ICC in high regard, but would you say that there was a credible evidence, the lead prosecutor was just on British television saying that is not what their determination was. The court found that there was credible evidence.

She says that your interpretation, because they asked for that, is not the correct interpretation. It was merely to proceed. But we'll let people look that up. We'll let people look that up. There's enough evidence that they said the full-scale investigation. into the charge of genocide is warranted. South Africa brought the claim. Ireland has joined that. Others have joined it. And I don't,

whatever you think of it, of the International Court of Justice, the reality is that Israel pre-announced that they were going to commit genocide. That's not a question. You know that's true. The high government officials said we're going to starve them. I want to begin just after the Iraq question.

Jamie, we can't talk about the encampments without noting that Israel claimed in the second week of October that they were going to allow no food, no water, no fuel, no medicines into Gaza. And they said it will become unlivable. A high government official, I believe it was the defense secretary, defense minister, said that Gaza will become unlivable and that those people are not human beings. They are animals. That was said. That's not a question. That's on the record. No, that's actually distortion. He was referring to the mosque. Bill, Bill, we've had extensive discussions of this. We've had an international law expert on. We've had the head of war studies at West Point,

and we've had Medi Hassan on to have these back and forth. What I think you're interesting in is that you were at the accountments. You were someone who's there. So I want to ask you what you thought when you, what the encampment was like when you went to the University of Chicago encampment, which I don't believe is there anymore on April 29th. And what did you say to the students there? Well, the encampment, I did go to the University of Chicago. I also went to the one at Columbia. I went to the one at NYU. I went to the one at Northwestern. So I've been to several encampments. They all have certain similarities. One is a spirit of love and generosity and inclusion. I participated in a satyr at one of the encampments. The idea that the media

puts out that it somehow Jewish students and their allies versus Palestinian students and their allies is absolutely false. There's absolutely no truth to it. Every encampment I was at had a substantial number of Jewish students, many parts of many members of Jewish voice for peace. but to say they're somehow not real Jews, that the real Jews are all Zionists, is nonsense. So, you know, Norman Finglstein is Jewish. Nathan Thrall is Jewish. I mean, this is not debatable. That's true.

And so you can't make a claim that it's Jewish kids against Arab kids. That's not what's going on. The encampments are sites of learning, sites of inquiry, sites of love. they asked me at the University of Chicago to say a word. I started by saying I'm embarrassed to be speaking to you because I came here to learn, not to speak. But I did say you, as is often the case, you as young people are bringing the issue of the day, the moral issue of the day, to the public consciousness. And you've done a remarkable job in just a matter of months in changing the narrative. And I believe that. I think that they have been extraordinary in raising an issue

that people didn't want to hear, and frankly, in terms of mainstream media still doesn't, or in terms of the government, the political class, still doesn't want to hear. But the message is hugely important, and the message is there is a genocide going on. Israel is committing genocide. The U.S. is a full enabler and a full participant in that genocide. It must stop. And for these kids at the University of Chicago and elsewhere, they're also saying divest. Divest with, first of all, disclose. Tell us where your investments are. Secondly, divest from genocide. That's not a radical demand. That's a sensible demand. And the kids have raised it. The shame of this moment is that university administrators have shown them to cells to be kind of idiots

and unable to give a strong, strong-throated, full-throated defense of academic freedom. What you're witnessing at the University of Chicago and at Columbia and the other places I'm visiting is a group of kids who want a conversation to go on. And that's really the right to learn is basic to academic freedom. What a smart university administrator would have done has said, you've raised an important issue. We can discuss it campus wide for the next several days. That would be useful. Let's hear every side. Where you are at Columbia, at Columbia, some of the foremost scholars of Middle Eastern history, of Arab history, of Palestinian history, and of Israeli history, are there at Columbia. Why would you shut that down? That is education. They learned more in that encampment than they've learned in all the classes they took in the last year.

Secondly, the encampment endangered no one. The encampments endangered one. So we're going to get to all of that. So you know, you don't have to try to fit every question that I might have in one answer. But my question, to begin with, is just more of a broad one. Do you think the protesters, these protesters, or any protesters, have an unlimited right to take over a campus and stop students from going a certain place in the campus if they don't have their view, whether it's this? Oh, no. You asked, do they have an unlimited right to take over the campus and prevent other students? No. And if you look at the Columbia encampment or the U Chicago encampment, there was nobody threatened and no one was prevented from going to classes. So why was it such an important, urgent issue that they cleared the encampment? They endangered no one. Let me just be clear. I'm not getting to the endangering part. We'll talk about that later. Are you saying that all the videos of people not being allowed to go through the encampment are not true? You're saying that they prevented no one from getting through the encampment to go to class somewhere. The encampment did not prevent anyone from going to class. I wasn't there every minute of the Columbia encampment, but in you, Chicago, it's a corner of the quad. It's a small encampment. And yes, it looks different than the Gothic architecture of the rest of the

campus, but they weren't preventing anybody. So what was the great fear? And why bring in the police? And now, if you go up to Columbia, there are police guarding every entrance and every exit. That's American University. Let's go slowly. That might have been your experience. There are dozens of videos showing people not being allowed to walk through the encampment if they don't believe they have certain views. So, I mean, it's hard for me to believe you're saying these encampments let anyone come in or walk through them.

Is that what you're saying? I have no idea about every encampment. I know that at the University of Chicago and at Columbia, no one was prevented from going to class. Why freak out about it? They did take over a building at Columbia, and they did. They took over a building after 100 people were arrested. Remember, the president of Columbia went to Congress, crawled on her belly across the congressional hearing floor, begged permission to please allow the university to exist if I just fire a few professors

and discipline the students, please, please, went back to Columbia, had the police come in and arrest over 100 people, and that led to the national scene that we see. It wouldn't have happened, except that the University of Columbia, the Columbia University President was so ham-handed, so authoritarian, so eager to please these right-wing lunatics that she did all the wrong thing, and that's what Hamilton Hall was taken over. you know that. Well, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I'm a bit confused. So you're saying

that to the extent that they are now preventing people from going places or the preventing people from going to Hamilton Hall, it's because the police intervention. That's when this occurred. The Hamilton Hall was taken over after the arrest. Yes. And then Hamilton Hall was cleared. Blumby is not back to normal. Why? Because you have police guarding every entrance. I tried to, You know, I tried to get into the University of Chicago campus. I'm a faculty member there. I had a faculty ID. I was not allowed in.

The police are controlling these American universities. You must find that somewhat appalling. I don't follow it appalling. No, I don't. American universities are being controlled by armed agents of the state. No. What I find appalling is there are, you know, plenty of videos online of students, you know, just filming themselves

and seemingly being harassed, often by non-students who are on campus. I guess my question, you don't believe Jews should feel unsafe, but it's clear that... I didn't say that. But you didn't even ask me that. No, you said that you were in the encampment. You had a Seder, so you don't think that this should be a safety issue for Jews. You see it as inclusive. The encampments are definitely not a safety issue.

And let's make a distinction, Jamie. Being uncomfortable, being confronted with ideas you don't agree with, and being threatened are quite different things. And the idea that somehow the kids at the University of Chicago were threatening anybody, that's absolutely not true. That's untrue. Now, it is true that there's a very fierce anti-Zionist sentiment among a lot of students, many of them Jews. And so, you know, to try to make it, or the Jews are uncomfortable, no, the Jewish Voice for Peace kids in the encampment are very comfortable. Thank you very much. So don't make it, don't, don't claim that you're somehow speaking for the Jewish students. You're not. Well, I'm not speaking for the Jewish students.

I'm, and neither are you. Of course not. I'm saying, you are at you, you, I never claim to be. I'm no claiming to be either. You asked me since I was at the incumbent. How many, what percentage of Jews do you think would consider them Zionists, themselves Zionists? I have no idea in the country, but I know that it's a diminishing number. And I know, It's overwhelming. Overwhelming a number of Jews consider themselves Zionists. So it seems... Zionism, meaning what?

Yeah. They believe that Israel has a right to exist. Well, that's not what Zionism is, but number one, but number two, to say that they're overwhelmingly Zionist is not... Let me just ask you this. you don't equate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, do you? Not a perfect circle, but pretty close. Why is it pretty close? You know, when the idea that in order to be fully Jewish, you have to be Zionists, you have to believe that the land from the river to the sea is somehow belongs to the Jews. That's not the common Zionist view.

You mentioned, though, the safety issue, and that Jews are only uncomfortable, the Zionist Jews might be comfortable with ideas. I didn't say only. I said there's a distinction between being uncomfortable and confronting ideas that are not, that you don't agree with. There's a difference between that and being threatened. So there is a video of one of the leaders of the Columbia encampment earlier this year in January saying Zionists should die, that, you know, we,

they deserve to die. Is that something that you consider outrageous, beyond the pale? A terrible statement, beyond the pale. Terrible. And I also saw him apologize for that statement, but it was a terrible statement. Can you imagine any scenario where any protest and any campus was led by somebody who at some point, even if they apologize saying black people should die or gay people should die. I mean, that would be considered ipso facto a problem if a, if a protest had a leader who was calling for the death of people. Oh, absolutely. And of course, let's not forget what the issue is here. The thing that brought the encampments about has to do with the fact that the officials up in the highest levels

of government in Israel have said Palestinians will die. They are animals, human animals. That's what's been said. It was pre-announced, and now it's happening. Famine is happening. Hospitals are being bombed. Pre-University presidents have been killed. University's been demolished. You know, you talk about videos. I'm sure you saw the video. Bill, Bill, Bill. We're going to get to all of it. Ideal forces bombed a university, and then on video filmed themselves saying, ha, ha, the university's gone. You wanted an open university? Now you have it. Is that beyond the pale? Jamie, is that beyond the pale? We will get to all of it, Bill. Yes? Did you say yes? No, I said we will get to all of it. We said yes. I want to point out, you keep, I think, referring to the defense minister's statement when he was referring to Hamas in Israel, Galant. So as he's referring to all Arabs as or Al-Palestinian Arabs as animals.

No, he said Gaza will be uninhabitable. He said that. And now you have all kinds of, you know, shady characters like Jared Kushner talking about real estate opportunities in Gaza, talking about settlements. Bill, did you see any signs at the encampment about the hostages? Oh, there was a lot of discussion about the hostages. And my own view is that hostage taking is against international law. It's against international law. When Israel does it, it's against international law. If Hamas does it, it's against international law if the United States does it. And so what's interesting, when the hostage release has happened, that there's an exchange between a handful of hostages and hundreds and hundreds of Palestinians.

Why is that? Because so many Palestinians are in Israeli prisons precisely for political crimes, and that's true. And you know it's true. No, the answer to that is actually Hamas demands many more people, usually criminals who committed murder, including, excuse me, do you realize that Sinwar, the leader in Gaza of Hamas, was someone that Israel released in a prisoner exchange? This wasn't an innocent hostage. He was a murderer. I'm not sure what your point is. Is your point? I never said anything about supporting Hamas. I said, and now I want you to defend it. Bill, what you tried to compare, what you tried to compare, I'm not condemning Israel's actions in Gaza. No. What you said is what you tried

to compare is the hostages that were taken on October 7th to the prisoners that Israel has in Israel. Did you not compare those two as hostages? What I said is every Palestinian youth practically man has been in an Israeli prison. Why? Because it's an occupying force that that sees the Palestinians as prisoners, I mean, as criminals, as enemies, let me ask you quickly, then go slowly. I'm happy to go slowly. Killing 40,000 Palestinians, 60% women and children, does that in any way make sense in terms of what's going on there? You must think that that's a little excessive. I mean, I think I can go deeper myself, but just asking you, do you think that's excessive? Yeah. My answer to you is, first I would say this is an interview, not a debate, so I'm not trying to debate you. But I don't trust the numbers. I don't trust the composition of the numbers that you gave and who was Hamas. And we did have John Spencer on, who is the head of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point. According to his numbers, this has been one of the most remarkable operations and protecting civilians that he has seen. Well, that runs against everything. It doesn't run against people that know, no,

At this point and the Pentagon are about as reliable as a cartoon character. They are not reliable sources. So I don't trust your sources at all. And I'm not here to debate the numbers here. That's not my interest in debating you because you're not a military expert. I'm not a military expert. So, you know, my numbers, you don't trust. I don't think you are here to give great numbers either.

What I am interested, though, Bill, is so you do, you do, critique Hamas. You do find it a vile, genocidal organization. I think Hamas is an authoritarian organization, and I think that, you know, if you look back, you'll see that like Al-Qaeda, these forces come into being when forces like the United States and Israel will not tolerate, for example, the PLO. And they made a point of destroying the PLO. And they made a point of destroying the PLO, and they tried to kill all the leadership of the PLO, and the alternative becomes something like Hamas, a more religiously dominated, you know, more authoritarian organization. But this is not what the encampments are about. They're not about Hamas. And you were asking me about the

encampments are about genocide. Wait, the encampments are about genocide. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss, and it was a stark reminder of how quickly life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important. Knowing you can take steps to help protect your loved ones and give them that extra layer of security brings real peace of mind. The truth is the consequences of not having life insurance can be serious. That kind of financial strain on top of everything else is why life insurance indeed matters. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple.

100% online, no medical exam, just a few health questions. You can get a quote in as little as 10 minutes, same-day coverage, and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly with options up to $3 million in coverage. With a 4.8 out of five-star rating on trust pilot and thousands of families already applying through Ethos, it builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's ETHOS.com slash dispatch. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. During the Volvo Fall Experience event,

discover exceptional offers and thoughtful design that leaves plenty of room for autumn adventures. And see for yourself how Volvo's legendary safety brings peace of mind to every crisp morning commute. This September, Lisa 2026 X-E-90 plug-in hybrid from $599 bi-weekly at 3.99% during the Volvo Fall Experience event.

Conditions Apply, visit your local Volvo retailer or go to explorevolvo.com. But what I think is concerning to a lot of people, a lot of the leadership, one of which we just mentioned, but even though broader leadership, were parts of groups that didn't condemn October 7th, didn't condemn Hamas, didn't seem to have a problem with them, and now they're supposedly this humanitarian, they're organizing this humanitarian encampment. Does that not strike you as problematic? First of all, you're wrong, but let me be clear. What am I wrong about? You're wrong that the leadership is pro-Hamas, but let me be clear about my own views. The attack of October 7th was a terrorist attack, and it was wrong on many, many levels. One of the levels it was wrong on was kidnapping. One was killing civilians, which it did.

But if killing civilians is wrong there, killing civilians is wrong here. If taking hostages are wrong there, it's wrong here. if Israel bombs a hospital and they claim, and they bombed all the hospitals, all the universities, they killed 107 journalists so far. They don't want anybody to see the dirty work that's going on. And if they claim it's wrong to bomb, you know, if they're claiming, for example, that a hospital is cover, they'll be using it as human shields to cover Hamas fighters, then wouldn't it be okay if Tel Aviv Hospital were treating IDF soldiers that then that that could be bombed, a legitimate target. No, it's a bomb. Bill, I don't, I don't think it's

worthwhile to have the debate whether Hamas hides among civilians. It's an obvious fact. And if people disagree with it, that's fine. That's not why I'm having you on the show to debate that fact. But what I would think is useful and is an interesting, is that I went through your Twitter timeline starting back on October 7th to now. And let me just read a little bit about what I discovered. October 8th, you retweet someone saying Chicago is with Palestine. October 16th, retweets someone claiming that Israel is committing genocide, retweeted on October 17th and 18th, four false claims about Israel bombing Al-Ala hospital.

October 20th retweets this statement from devocacy now, this language that the Israelis, the American officials have been using to demonize Hamas. has been entirely based in the effort to de-politicize the Palestinian struggle and to present any form of armed resistance against the violent apartheid regime as a form of terrorism. October 20th, you retweet a pro-Palestinian rally that has the slogan, Biden, Biden, you can't hide, we charge you with genocide. October 30th, you retweet a message from your podcast on Twitter calling what Israel is doing a genocide.

A lot to deal with in that. That's not all your tweets, but I try to focus. focus on the Israel-related ones. My first question is to you, as someone who just said that you were appalled about the Hamas attacks on October 7th, why not even one tweet speaking about the greatest attack on Jews since the Holocaust and perhaps the most medieval attack I have ever witnessed and seen video of in my life? Nothing, nothing about October 7th and any sympathy for the Jews that were murdered there? I have a lot of sympathy for the civilians who were murdered there, and I'm telling you plainly

that the attack of October 7th was horrendous. Now, you quoted several times that I said that Israel is committing genocide. I want you to say that Israel is not committing genocide. When they announced that they were going to commit genocide, they are not letting supplies them, they are not letting food in. How many people are in the Gaza Strip, roughly? Well, there's something like 2.2 million people have been, have lost their homes. And Israel has a lot of bombs, is that correct?

A lot of power, let a military might full control of the skies. Absolutely. If it wanted to kill more than 30,000 people, do you think it could? I don't think genocide has anything to do with numbers. It has to do with intention and it has to do with the tactics that you use. bombing people's homes, bombing hospitals and universities, bombing clinics, bombing and burning museums and archives. Are you aware of any genocide in history where the population supposedly being genocided has increased over time? Absolutely. Which one? Vietnam. The population increased

during that period? I mean, I just, it's not a genocide. What? Listen, it's not about numbers. That's what I'm saying. The U.S. went into Vietnam and they intended to take whole areas and kill everybody. And they did. And they starved them and they denied them medicines. That is genocide. That's what it is. And so how would you how would you bill have responded to October 7th if you were Israel? I'm not Israel. And yeah, that that seems to be the issue when we have people like you on the show. What are people like me? Medi Hassan. People. people that like me. Number one, number one, number two. With similar viewpoints on this issue. But let me, but you asked, I'm explaining people like you, people like you. People who say, you know, October 7th, yeah, that was bad. And now Israel is committing a genocide. And I asked them, how would you have responded? How could have Israel responded to what they view as an existential threat? And, and it's always like, I have no idea. I'm not a military expert. Go slow. I'll respond. If I were Israel, I wouldn't have locked the Palestinians into the Gaza Strip in an open-air prison for decades. I wouldn't have said, you know, I think we have the right to steal your land in the West Bank and bring in settlements as much as we want. And by the way, we have a right to have an apartheid system. And we have... So no answer. No answer how to respond to October 7. That's not an answer to how to respond to... Here's how I told you how I would respond. I would respond by saying, we're ending apartheid.

We're actually going to open up a democratic free society. You have the same rights we do. People are equal. So, Bill, you think the response to October 7th where there were mass rapes that parents were killed in front of their children is to reduce the barriers to allow the potential for more October 7s to occur? Absolutely. No, you're making that up. And I would add when you, again, you have a double standard which I don't share with you. So it's okay.

It's just horrifying that people were killed in October 7th. And it is. But it's not horrifying that apartment buildings are bombed. When Israel has all the ability not to bomb that apartment building, they bomb it anyway. And that's not horrifying to you. That's okay. No, no. I'll explain what you call a doubled standard.

I believe there's a difference between a free system. society trying to fight a terror group that has assaulted its civilians in the most medieval of ways. And unfortunately, that terror group hides among civilians, hides under civilians, and they have no other way to do it than have to go into an urban zone. And there's a lot of collateral damage that occur. And the difference between a terror group, a medieval vision of the world who calls for the annihilation of all Jews who goes into a free and democratic society and jubinantly, jubilantly

murders civilians. But that actually leads me. Don't go from thing to thing going a little slow. Because I'm not trying to debate you, Bill. I'm interested in your perspective. You're debating on. You said, you talked about a terror group. Can a state be terrorist? Can a state commit terrorism? Or is it only individual groups? Wait, could the United States commit terrorism against native population? Let me respond this way. I mentioned earlier that we've had two podcasts. We actually have also had an email exchange where this exact topic came up and you wanted to do the defined terrorism thing. I encourage people to go read it. We'll link to it here on the site. There's a back and forth. I think it will also show a little bit of

dishonesty there on your part. But I encourage people to go read that email exchange that I had with Bill on this very topic where he asked me this very question and we went back and forth. But I wanted to ask you to continue the questions about the tweets. You also tweeted an article, retweeted an article in that period on October 19th by Stephen Salita called a practical appraisal of Palestinian violence. In the article, he writes, there is no such thing as an Israeli self-defense. It is a categorical impossibility. He actually goes on to make the case that in some ways, actually in many ways, we should be jubilant about what occurred on October 7th because it was a people rising up. I mean, why would you retweet an article like that? It sounds like from what you're

saying, you weren't jubilant on October 7th. Well, I wasn't jubilant, and I have my own views, but I think Stephen Salida is a voice that's important to listen to. He was the person who was drummed out of the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign. But the reason, I think the reason that that's worth listening to and thinking about is that whenever you you call Israel a free and democratic society, which is a, if it weren't laughable, it's at least a stretch. Have you ever been there? It's not free. Yes.

Have you been there? It's not free. Wait. It's not free. It's not democratic. It's a settler colonial project. That means that the people who've been subjected to ethnic cleansing, to ghettoization, to apartheid, do have a responsibility to struggle back.

And that's why if you go to any settler colonial system in the world and you will see fightbacks happening on many levels. Boycotts, I know the violence is appalling. I think it's appalling. But that means you could at least support the boycott, divest, and sanction movement. That wasn't violent. You could at least support the first intifada. That wasn't violent.

Did you say you've been to Israel? I tried to get to Israel, actually. I was in Egypt, and I couldn't have Israel because I was on a peace delegation, yeah. Anybody who's been to Israel and gone to the Tel Aviv beaches will see Arabs and Muslims and Jews enjoying the beaches side by side. In the previous government before Netanyahu, there were Arab Muslims in the cabinet. There has been Arab members of the Supreme Court, Arab Muslims. the idea that Israel is not a free and open society where anybody can speak their mind

and criticize the government, which they do. Anybody can speak no mind and criticize the government? I think you're wrong. And I think have you read by... Then you know nothing really about Israel. I think you know nothing myself. But, you know, Tana'i Coates went to Israel last year and he came away saying,

people said it was complicated. It's not complicated. I know what apartheid looks like. I know what Jim Crow looks like. this is what it looks like. And you can say, look, they had an Arab minister in the cabinet. That is completely absurd in terms of saying there is therefore no apartheid. Why is there a wall around a ghetto in Jerusalem? Why is one road for Jews and one road for Arabs? Why? Do you actually not understand the wall in the fence? Are you unfamiliar with this? I do understand. I understand what

ghettoization looks like. Let me ask you a quick question. No, no, no, no, no, no, because you seem like such the expert here. I am not an expert, Jamie. No, but you just mentioned the wall. So let's get to it. Because I'd like to press you on it. Do you know why there's a difference between fence and wall and in the small sections there is wall?

You don't know. But it's usually because it's the fence, which protects Israel from suicide bombings, it's along a road so you can't sniper in. That's in the small sections, there's wall. That's usually why there's a reason there's wall instead of fence, which is the overwhelming case on the border between the West. Let me ask you two quick questions. Go slowly.

Two quick questions. Have you read Nathan Thrall's book, A Day in the Life of Abed Salama? Yeah. We're not going to go through a reading list. I could go, have you read this book? Have you read that? No, I'm just asking that. What is the point you're trying to make?

The point I'm trying to make is Israel is an apartheid society, and you know it, and people don't want to face it. So you say, take the question of settlements. You support the settlements in the West Bank. Yeah. so so bill it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a postures liable uh calling it apart thy'd state and it's it's also and it's also questionable and i still find it bizarre and i still haven't got quite quite an answer despite you saying here that you were horrified or

upset about october 7th uh you i see why not a single tweet in all your tweets about genocide about this is a horrible a horrible thing i condemn it you immediately you you you you immediately begin tweeting, I stand with Palestine. Well, I think it's important to say that Israel... The day after, the greatest attack on Jews since the Holocaust? The day after Israel announced that they were going to commit genocide, and they did, and they are. And that's the key thing that has to stay centered.

I think that what happened on October 7th was despicable. And I think if it's despicable for one group, it's despicable for the other group. And you won't say that. You're saying it was an existential... threat to the Israeli state? How about the existential threat to the Palestinian people, which has been grinding on for 70 years? I mean, I hear a lot of people often say, you know, later on, oh, it was so horrible October 7th. And yet, you know, their immediate reaction was tweeting things, not in support of the people that were massacred, but the opposite. So do you regret,

just finish on the tweets, do you regret retweeting four times? about an attack on the, I'm going to pronounce it wrong, the Alhila Hospital, which was not perpetrated by Israel? You have those still. No, it was perpetrated by Israel. And so we don't agree on those facts, but you certainly would condemn you yourself. I just said that I thought it was despicable what happened in Article 7. You think it's despicable that they're bombing hospitals, universities, killing university presidents, and apartment complexes and so on. That's despicable to you, right? I abhor the deliberately targeting of civilians, which Israel does not do.

And if they do it, there's usually accountability. Why government officials say, we're going to do it? They said that. Everyone should get out of the north and go to Rafah. And everyone went there, and now they're saying, we're going to bomb you there. That's Hamas's last stronghold now. And so when it's over, what then? What do you think Israel will do then?

Well, I think they're going to try to allow Palestinian society to rebuild if they're able to kill Hamas, but they're going to protect themselves. They're not going to allow visas to go into Israel like they were doing beforehand, not after October 7th. What's amazing, what's great about this moment and what's wonderful about the encampments is they're ripping the mask off this idea that there's a free and democratic society in Israel. It's not free. It's not democratic. died. It's settler colonialism. It's also a national project, but you must admit. You must admit. I mean, it's just, it's funny. You think you repeat these like slogans and you think you make it true. Anybody, anybody who's been to Israel knows it's a free and open society. And anybody like I have

who've been to societies that aren't free and open are can tell right away, they're not free and over. Tana'A Coates wasn't in Israel? He doesn't agree with you. I haven't seen. I haven't seen what Tana Hasi said. he was able to say whatever he wanted in Israel, I'm sure. But it's not a question. Can you say anything? Can you do anything? For example, you know for sure that in 1948 Haifa was ethnically cleansed. You know that. That's not a question. That's not a mystery. That's a fact. I have not have zero interest to go into a Benny Morris style debate on how the refugees came to be. I've done that many times in my life. But I, but I, but that is not what I think the point of having you on is one final question on the Salida article because I think

it's relevant. He also denies the mass rape that occurred on October 7th. I don't think we know the facts on that yet. I don't think we know the facts. You cannot, you're pointing out that you can't trust Hamas as an authority. I agree. You cannot trust the IDF. They are liars. They are paid the lot. These aren't from the IDF. These are accounts of people that witnessed it. Even look at this. I printed this out i'm not a big fan of the u.n nor am i a friend of al jazeera but al jazeera wrote uh the article about the u.n report saying uh there's credible grounds to believe that there were sexual assaults and they may still be continuing uh with the hostages in ghana gazaa well be i mean it could well be and if it's and to the extent that it's happened it's a horror i agree with you on that now

you mentioned al jazeera you must find it appalling that al jazeera has been banned from um from gazaa you find appalling. Al Jazeera is an arm of Qatar. But to answer your question more thoroughly, though, there's a lot of things that happen in free societies that I don't support. I do not support, for instance, in Europe that the Holocaust is an imprisible offense. I do not support that, but I still believe that the countries in Europe that have that are free and open societies. So if you're asking me, in Israel, are there policies that I disagree with? I am sure that I can come up with some policies that I disagree with. But I disagree with places free and open societies all the time. But they are in a different, they are on a different category, a different category

than fear closed societies. It's like the United States, let's just take the United States at the turn of the last century. It's a free and open society except for black people, except for indigenous people. I mean, are you asking me to respond to that? No, I'm not. So it was a free and open society except for some. Israel is free and open society for some and not for others. Ethnic cleansing is going on to this day. Who is it not an open society for it? Because it is an open society for the Arab population that lives within Israel. Are you talking about the West Bank in Gaza? Are you talking about the Arabs within Israel? I'm talking about both, the West Bank in Gaza and people in Israel. I had a long, long talk with Fita Jerez, who lives in the Galilee. She described

discrimination, humiliation, access to jobs, access to education, that were denied to her. So yes, it's not a free and open society for everyone. It's an apartheid society, which means it's a segregated society, which means there are some people who are more equal than others. That's something that I oppose, and I oppose it in the United States, and I oppose it there. The United States also is a settler colonial society, and it also has a history of, ethnic cleansing and of mass murder. We did that. That's our history. We can face that and still move forward. If you're asking, is there discrimination within Israel? There's discrimination within every society. So I am not shocked that an Arab Muslim Israel can point to peers of

discrimination. But there is not discrimination by law, which would be what you're referring to in a apartheid regime. Again, there are more rights for the Arabs in Israel the Arab Muslims in Israel, than any society throughout the entire Arab world, it's actually pretty incredible, that if you, what the most rights, if you're an Arab Muslim in the Middle East, you have to be living in Israel. Do you disagree with that? You're asking me then to defend places like Saudi Arabia, another U.S. client, absolutely not. I think that, I think the discrimination and oppression in authoritarian societies is horrible. But I think you're making a fantasy when you pretend that there's full equality between Arabs and Jews in Israel.

It's just not true. And there are many, many examples. But I urge you to read Nathan Thrall, a Jew from Jerusalem, who's honest and tells the truth about what apartheid looks like in a particular family and a particular incident in a particular road in Jerusalem. Are the honest Jews the one that agree with you? Is that why he's honest? I didn't say that.

I said he's an honest person. He said he's a Jew and he's honest. I think he is an honest person. He just won the Pulitzer Prize for his book, A Day in the Life of Abed Salama. I urge you to read it to open your mind and see what life looks like from the bottom up. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace.

Squarespace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online. Whether you're building a site for your business, you're writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place. With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new Blueprint AI, which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style. It's quick, intuitive, and requires zero coding experience.

You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers or clients. And Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site. It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience without having to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated. Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial. And when you're ready to launch, use offer code dispatch to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. You know, I'm going to go to a couple final questions.

Before I do, can you understand why someone might be skeptical? that you really had such sympathy on October 7th that you're expressing now when you have no sympathy in your public forum and that you immediately are calling Israel committing genocide, it seems discordant. Well, it's not discordant to anybody who knows me because I'm against terrorism and always have been. And I think that those kinds of acts,

I think kidnapping people is not only against international law, but it's a horror for human beings. did not be done. And I condemn it when anyone does it. And what evidence would it take you to believe that there were rapes? Why is that something that you're not? I did not deny it. I did not deny it. I said, I don't think the evidence is all in on which are inflated claims and which aren't. I mean, again, the IDF has put out a lot of stuff that turns out not to be true. And they claim they're protecting civilians. That's just flatly not true. And you can you can see it in all the reports that are through on social media. One of the reasons that Israel will not allow media to come into Gaza

is it doesn't want witnesses to what's going on. Sadly, for them, witnesses are already there with their cell phones, with their video cameras, and we know what's going on. Believe what you see with your eyes. Oh, I encourage people. I think we talked to that earlier with the videos on college campus. Believe the things that you're seeing with your eyes, not necessarily what you're telling people. Don't believe the things that when somebody is an official embedded with an army, don't believe those things, because those things are manufactured. Do you think Israel has a right to exist? Israel does exist. And the United States and Israel, both have a right to exist. And people have a right to transform them and to make them the free and open societies they ought to be.

I mean, what you're calling for is a one-state solution, I think, right? I'm not calling for a one-state solution. I'm calling for equality. Are you calling for a one-state solution or a two-state solution. You believe in a two-state solution? Oh, I do. I think it's farther away now, but I don't believe so. Why was that dropped from any discussion for the last 15 or 20 years, and suddenly people are pulling it out of a bag and say, let's have two states? I can answer your question, professor. The reason why is because the Arabs, the Palestinian Arabs have repeatedly rejected it. As late as 2008, 2009 with Aid-Hud Omar. Here's the problem with what you're saying. Does a state, when you say a two-state solution, does a state mean sovereignty?

Does it mean, does it mean its own security forces and its own borders? Or does it mean something under the thumb of a bigger power? Here's my question to you. What it will mean, if that's what you're asking, it will mean something that will not threaten Israel. Israel will not allow a state that will come next to it, a Hamasistan next to its border. with full capabilities to destroy it. And I think that's understandable. And I think what you proposed earlier

is this idea that everyone votes within the territory. A full equality, I think, is what you're referring it to. I said full equality, absolutely. Would be the end of Israel? Because there is no democracy. In what sense, would it be the end of Israel? You mean it would be the end of an ethno state?

No. I think what it would be is mass massacre of Jews. I don't believe that for a minute. We've seen mass massacre of Palestinians right now in real time in front of you. You should be able to condemn that. What you see in real time is a state that has 20% Arab Muslim population, and there is not mass mass massacres. It's an opportunity for people of all sectors to achieve their highest aspirations. Let me close on this.

You were a professor of education at the University of Chicago. I wonder myself, and obviously you disagree with this designation, how we got to a point where we have people on campus who, like the kid at Columbia is calling for the death of Zionists, people the days after October 7th, signing on to statements that are effectively pro Hamas. What does professors of education are pushing on to be taught in academic programs? I myself have seen the schools in DC, the elite schools, and I rushed to take my kids out of them because they seem to have gone off the rails. I wonder if there is a correlation between what is being taught in these schools and what we're getting on college campuses now. And as someone who probably pushed a lot of stuff that I don't think is probably very good to be taught in schools, is there a correlation between what you thought should be taught in early elementary schools and what we're seeing on campuses today? I can't quite follow your logic, but let me make one correction. I was not a professor at the University of Chicago.

I've been adjuncting at the University of Chicago for 15 years. Sorry, Utila, Illinois, Chicago. University of Illinois, Chicago. Not that elite private university, but a good public school. The question that you're asking has something to do with the content of teaching. And you said, you know, have you pushed certain agendas and so on? No, I don't, I think that there's, you're making a fundamental misunderstanding. When the, when the Congress called these university presidents before them, everyone misunderstood,

I think, what the function of the university is. And I was really disheartened by the testimony of the elite university presidents and then horrified by president of Columbia University. The point of it, the function of a university is to protect the right to teach. and the right to learn. And that protection is not guaranteed by the government. In fact, when the government interferes with what's taught in schools, we are on very, very treacherous grounds.

The way the universities function is they are policed, and they're policed by their peers. Faculty governance, which is in many ways not fully realized, but faculty governments means that you can only publish if peers think that your publications are worth discussing, worth debating. You can only teach if your peers think you're worthy of participating in the kind of intellectual exchange that the university is based on. That's why we should keep, you know, the congressional committees and the governors and everybody else out of public education,

out of, not just public, out of higher education. Academic freedom means the right to teach and the right to learn. That is being eroded, and it's eroded. every time Congress thinks they can score points by dragging academics in front of them and scolding them for what they do. No, I don't see any link between what is taught. You said, what is taught in early education. What's taught in early education is working with paints, building a sense of agency, building with blocks, reading books. That's what's taught in early education. I guess I'll pull on this thread a little bit. And it goes back to a little about what we discussed earlier.

No one, I mean, I haven't seen any criticism of what is being taught necessarily or what's going on on campus right now, stopping hearing ideas. It's the taking over of a campus square and not letting people through are feeling threatening. I don't understand what you're talking about. All these professors who are coming and saying in Columbia and standing up with the students, they're teaching their courses. No one's telling, no one's really, you know, I'm not sure they should have been hired some of them, but no one's calling for them to be fired.

Wait, you're wrong. The Congressional Committee did call on the President of Columbia University to fire two professors. It did. That's what it did. And when you say there's some things you shouldn't be taught, well, that's not up to you, and it's not up to the government. Who said some things shouldn't be taught? I didn't say that.

Some things should not be taught. You just said that. No, no, no. I didn't say that. You said, I disagree with some of the things that are being taught. No, I said I disagree with the world. view that these professors are teaching and I'm not sure I would have hired them because I was for example basically everything you've espoused here but I I agree I agree with their and espousing being

against genocide I agree if they're right to say it I went to many universities where I my my voice was the lone voice at the university to the extent that the idea that these you're saying that these ideas are being censored seems preposterous and I don't understand do you see a difference between preventing people from using the school and if a mass number of students feel uncomfortable at the school, not because of the ideas, but because sections of the campus are cordoned off and created these, I don't know, what you would call them, these villages. Do you see a difference between those two things? You're fundamentally wrong that people were prevented from going to classes. That never happened at the University of Chicago. Are you using semantics? You're saying

they're allowed to go a different way to classes? Are they allowed to go through the account? You know, I don't know what the setup was at Columbia. The University of Chicago, the students had a corner of the quad. No one was prevented. I mean, maybe you're saying they couldn't go through there and, you know, shout what they believed. I don't know. But the truth is, people were not prevented. So the idea that these were violent, then you say large numbers of people are uncomfortable. Going to the university is an exercise in uncomfortableness. I always felt that in my classes, everyone should be uncomfortable all the time, mostly me. I should be uncomfortable because my ideas should be being challenged. And that's what I think the university is

for. So discomfort is a kind of a squishy, kind of a... But when you say this to a conservative who has been on college campuses, elite college campuses like me, we are the ones who were the minority in our view. We were regularly challenged. So I have no problem with discomfort. That was the nature of the university, but I don't think there's very many, there's not much discomfort going on on campuses, not because of this, but because of the kind of the monolithic, a monolith of thought that the professors embody. What's the monolith of thought in the university you went to? I think all universities have overwhelmingly left of center faculty to the far left of center faculty. And to not believe that is to do not believe obviousness. But I mean,

I don't feel like debating there. Once again, the university, the university is in the business of policing itself, as it should be. And that means that if I write something and I submit it to a journal, to an academic journal, it's refereed by my peers. That's what should happen. I don't want Elaine Stephanic refereeing my stuff. I don't want you refereeing it. The idea is just as lawyers and just as doctors police themselves. we also have the responsibility to police ourselves.

So we have open debate. And I love it when I have a reactionary student like you come into my class because I then get to have a real discussion and show people that we can have profound differences without coming to blows, without censoring, without out-hominum attacks, we can do that. And I think that's an important lesson for people who live in a free and open society.

And I don't think the issue on college campuses our Middle Eastern Studies departments being too pro-Israel. I don't think that is ever been an issue. There are many, many professors who are pro-Israel. Let's take Columbia as an example. Not in many Middle Eastern departments, Bill. That is not a very common stance for most Middle Eastern professors

in Middle Eastern Studies departments. Well, maybe they've looked into the issue and they know more than you. I don't know. But the point I'm making is that you look at what happened to Columbia and the sequence of events. The sequence of events is very quickly, in early October, students for justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace were banned from the campus. Shortly after that, putting up

posters was banned. That's unbelievable to me that that happened to Columbia. And then comes the encampment. It didn't precede that. It came after that. So the university would not allow free expression and free discussion, would not allow groups to function, and they shut it down. That kind of authoritarianism leads to a reaction. The encampments was that reaction. Final question, and I don't know if this is something you want to discuss, but since I have you here, your adopted son was the DA in San Francisco. He was recalled. There's a big debate in this country about the type of, I guess, philosophy that he had versus not. What do you make of the pendulum swinging, it seems back for more tough on crime policies. What did you make

of your son's job in San Francisco? Do you think San Francisco is better off today than it was before he was D.A. You know, my adopted son, Chesa Boudin, is an extraordinary scholar, a Rhodes Scholar, a graduate of Yale Law School. He was a public defender for many years, and then he decided to run for district attorney for those who don't know. And he won. He won very closely contested election. And he did in his two years in office exactly what he said he would do. He abolished cash bail, which is nothing but a, you know, but a tax on poor people. He abolished cash bail. He set up a unit to investigate wage theft, which is a greater crime in this country than all the burglaries and robberies and car thefts put together. He indicted a

couple of police officers for murder, unprecedented. And two days after he was elected, because he promised to do these things, a recall effort started. And whereas in the election, there are limits to how much can be spent. In the recall, you can spend anything you want. And in the recall, you're running up or down. Jayzabuddin, yes, Jayzabedin, no. In an election, you're running against somebody. He was recalled. And he decided, I think wisely to take a year off and take care of his child. Now he's moved on from that. But do I think San Francisco is better or worse off? I have no way of judging.

But do I think his policies were sensible. I do. I don't know anything about the pendulum swinging. But I do know that we have 2.2 million people incarcerated in this country, the giant gulag stretching the length and breadth of the country. I do know that the students I teach, a state-field prison, are all doing death by incarceration. That is, they have no pathway ever being freed, even though that many of them were arrested at 17, 18, 19. That to me is a cruel and unjust system. And we ought to be reforming

our criminal legal system for sure. That's not what I teach in my education classes, but that's what I believe. Bill, thank you for joining the Dispatch podcast. May me always a pleasure. Thank you.