Start with Jerry Nadler. A Jew. Not a Republican. Bothered by the Republican tactic.
That is, start with a politician, and Republican politics, where the post will end with more analytical and less partisan thinking about things happening today. As well as things happening around the Balfour Declaration's days in the news. Those lacking patience can scroll immediately to the linked video - a demonstration of how sensible intelligent people may reason together. But Nadler first.
And as a theme, clear and concise - an interview -
Zionism is a false idol that has taken the idea of the promised land and turned it into a deed of sale for a militaristic ethnostate
That is chosen as a mid-item blurb of Guardian - 24 Apr 2024, Naomi Klein writing.
Back to Nadler. Politico, 05/04/2024 -
‘The Republicans Are Being Total Hypocrites’
Rep. Jerry Nadler hits back against GOP efforts to weaponize antisemitism.
Nadler has represented a big piece of Manhattan since 1992 and is one of the longest-serving Jewish members of the House. He’s a Columbia University alumnus, having been on campus in 1968 when police cleared Hamilton Hall of anti-Vietnam war protesters. He’s also a close observer of the Middle East and the politics of Israel in the U.S., and he’s a longtime champion of civil liberties as the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
[...] Let’s start with what happened this week with the vote on the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. You voted against it.
I led the opposition.
You made a very strong statement on the floor. The act adopts the definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. Tell us about that definition, what the intention of this legislation was and why you think it’s such a bad idea?
Well, there are three extant definitions. One is by IHRA. One is the Nexus definition and the other is the Jerusalem definition. They’re all equally valid. They all give different examples for perceptions of antisemitism, and none of them should be enshrined into law. The chief author of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, said don’t codify this. [...] to enshrine it into law — he thought and a lot of other people think — would be destructive of free speech. It could make criticism, under certain circumstances, of Israeli government policy antisemitic, which it clearly isn’t.
Explain what the point of the bill is. The point is to change the Civil Rights Act, and to give guidance to the Department of Education when enforcing it.
No, the point is to define antisemitism.
For what purpose though?
I suppose the purpose is to make it easier for the Office of Civil Rights to enforce the law. But the bill, for reasons unknown to me, enshrines the IHRA definition and says disregard the other two. There’s no rational reason for that. They’re all equally valid. They’re all made by committees of scholars and experts on antisemitism. Second of all, if you want to fight antisemitism through Congress, there are two things you can do. There is a bicameral, bipartisan bill, the Manning bill co-sponsored by many, many Democrats and Republicans in the House and in the Senate to set up a whole of government approach to antisemitism, which makes far more sense and doesn’t violate civil liberties.
The other thing you should do is increase the budget for OCR. The Office of Civil Rights is in charge of enforcing Title VI, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, etc. on college campuses. Because of the huge increase in antisemitism, the Biden administration last year for the fiscal year 2024 budget asked for a 25-percent increase in the OCR budget to enforce strictures against antisemitism. The Republicans pushed for a 25-percent cut in that budget — mostly, I think, because they were afraid it might be used not only against antisemitism, but against anti-LGBTQ prejudice. The result was that the funding stayed flat despite the need for an increase because of the increase in antisemitism. We’re repeating the same fight now for the FY25 budget, which is under discussion now.
Can you explain where these lines fade into one another, what these competing definitions try to get at? The idea is that it sweeps up anti-Israel or anti-Zionist speech?
Yes. That is the problem. That’s why the author of the IHRA definition — which the Lawler bill enshrines into law — says “Don’t put this in law.”
70 Democrats and 21 Republicans opposed the legislation? Are you disappointed in how many, including most of the Democratic leadership, supported this?
No. I’m not. I am delighted we got 70 Democratic no votes. It’s more than I expected. It’s very easy to support something that claims to be against antisemitism, and it’s hard to start explaining to your constituents the nuances of why you didn’t.
You’re being generous to the folks who supported this with an understanding of the politics is what you’re saying.
I assume some really did it on the merits. Quite a few, I assume. Someone said that when you’re explaining, you’re losing. That’s a political maxim. It’s not always true, but it’s much easier to vote for something like this than it is to vote against it.
You represent basically all of the middle of Manhattan. You’re one of the longest serving Jewish representatives. You have a lot of constituents who I imagine support this legislation. What’s the reaction been in Manhattan?
I haven’t seen the reaction yet. I assume I will. But I’ve taken unpopular stances before. I was the only Jewish member in the tri-state region to buck every single Jewish organization and support the Iran deal. I think I was proven right. I had a primary as a result of it. I did very well in that primary. If you’re serving in public office, you have to do it for the right reasons and you can’t only be a slave to reelection. You have to vote your conscience and hope that you can explain it to constituents.
Keep in mind Nadler's term, "slave to reelection," in ultimately judging the Republican effort to put this thigh through - their motivation. Their resolve. Their modus operandi. The question of sincerity vs. expediency. Authenticity of thought vs tactical slavery to an upcoming election moment.
You have a long history with Columbia University. You went there. You’ve represented it on and off when it’s been part of your district. I don’t know if you’ve been following with a lot of detail the evolution of the campus protests, but what’s your opinion of them?
Obviously there’s been very strong demonstrations there. Obviously there’s been a lot of antisemitism too. Obviously it has frightened Jewish students and intimidated them, which is wrong. I’m glad the university finally decided enough was enough.
So you think the university handled it appropriately?
Yes I do. Especially after the occupation of Hamilton Hall. Until then, you could say “Well, they’re not totally interfering with classroom instruction, etc.” But once you occupy Hamilton Hall, you’re interfering with classroom instruction. You’re interfering with the exams. You cannot permit a minority of students to interfere with the core educational mission of the university [...]
President Biden spoke about the protests and seemed to try to balance support for the right of the protesters to speak out with condemnation of the law breaking. He said there’s a right to protest, but there is not a right to cause chaos. What was your reaction?
He’s exactly right. There’s a right to protest. There is not a right to interfere with other people’s activities. There’s not a right to intimidate students, Jewish or otherwise. There is a right to express your opinions.
Do you think he should have spoken out earlier as a lot of Republicans, including Donald Trump, wanted him to do this week?
I don’t know. The timing is very difficult. The Republicans are being total hypocrites about it because, on the one hand, they’re saying that the president of Columbia should resign. I don’t know what they think she should have done that she didn’t do. And they’re talking about antisemitism while indulging in antisemitism. Donald Trump has made antisemitic comments — you know Charlottesville, “There were fine people on both sides.” — and he’s been meeting with known antisemites. And they don’t say anything. So they hardly have clean hands, to put it mildly. In fact, they have filthy hands.
That could, politically, be a place to end quoting. "Them filthy-handed hypocrites" has a bell ring appeal if name calling against Republicans is a sole aim.
However ---- One more thing Nadler said:
I think the Biden administration has handled things as well as they can be handled. Hamas is obviously terrible. I think Netanyahu is doing everything he can to sabotage the peace talks, even at the cost of the hostages. He has every motive for keeping the war going as long as possible. Because when the war is over, number one, there’ll be a commission of inquiry. Number two, there’ll be an election, and he’s polling at about 20 percent. And number three, he’ll have to face the felony charges that are outstanding against him.
He’s insisting on this Rafah operation, which is absurd. You can’t defeat that kind of an enemy that way, as we discovered in Mosul and for that matter in Vietnam.
The proper thing to do is exactly what the Biden administration is pushing, namely: Don’t go into Rafah; negotiate a cease-fire deal in which Arab troops from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, other places come in and occupy Gaza; start rebuilding it and have them work with the Palestinian Authority to reform it so that you can eventually have a Palestinian Authority in charge of Gaza and the West Bank and have a two-state solution. Now, Netanyahu does not want a two-state solution and this is something else he’s going to have to answer for once this war is over to the Israeli public. He was telling Qatar to fund Hamas before the war started. Why? Because he wanted Hamas to be in opposition to the Palestinian Authority so there couldn’t be a two-state solution. And of course, it blew up in his face.
It would have been unjust to leave quoting as tarring the Republicans without dropping in the core, complete truth about who we're dealing with. As Schumer did when calling for immediate new elections in Israel in hoping to begin a fix to the problem. We must identify: Who should be assigned greatest fault. And, what is the nature of the key impediment to things being handled to end the carnage rationally. Then you have to define the core factor of a problem if you intend to try to solve it rationally instead of merely posing and fear-mongering and finger-pointing as a tactic absent any honest care to see a lasting, decent and fair regional solution. That being the Republican Gestalt.
That sets the table for the video. An item done on a level above things Republicans choose to publish keyed to embody party line phrasing presenting echo chamber talking points absent subtlety or discernment. (Something especially galling when done by one you know knows better.)
Setting that aside, the video - on YouTube, or just click the image caption to view it:
.jpg) |
| This link |
Backup Links to help those viewing the video (hopefully every reader will view, it is worth the time), which links can be consulted after viewing, for any reader wondering about some things discussed:
The key essay Klein wrote for Guardian - We need an exodus from Zionism
A Times of Israel look at history of the Balfour Declaration and the Mantagu memo Klein discusses early in the video (linking here, to the full text of Mantagu's item).
An MSM carry of a Jerusalem Post item discussing Klein's Guardian publication about needing "an exodus from Zionism."
Finally, another Guardian item - PEN America cancels festival after authors drop out in support of Gaza. That PEN America situation is discussed toward the end of the video, and like the other supporting items this one is helpful after viewing the video for those wondering about details, but not essential - the video well carries its own weight.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
UPDATE: Politico published, "What’s Really Happening on College Campuses, According to Student Journalists." Part of it fits something Nadler said in his interview - this Q and A -
Do you worry about the convention this summer in Chicago? Little too on the nose that you guys decided to do it in Chicago this year.
Yes. Too evocative.
I don’t know how much you talk to people who are planning the convention, but do you worry about what that could look like if this war is still going on and if this protest movement is gaining?
I haven’t talked to people planning the convention at all, but yes, I worry about it. I don’t think it’s equivalent to what happened in Chicago in 1968 for a number of reasons. First of all, the atmosphere was completely different. This was an American war we were talking about. American boys were being drafted. I was active with Al Lowenstein in the “Dump Johnson” movement, that is to deny Johnson renomination because of the war. And this was seen at the time as impossible. You could defeat a president? No. And we eventually did. But I remember talking to a fellow student on campus at about that time and saying “Why do you hate Lyndon Johnson?” And his reply was “Because he wants to kill me.”
It was personal.
It was. It was personal because it was an American war, the American draft. People felt personally threatened. There’s no such thing now. Completely different. We’re talking about a foreign war. No one in the United States feels threatened now. Now clearly there are Palestinian Americans who have family there.
Right. It’s personal for them.
It’s personal for them. But that’s not most people, obviously. It’s a very small percentage of the American population. But the other thing that made Chicago particularly terrible then was that Mayor Daley’s cops staged a riot. They were beating up the demonstrators in full view of the television cameras. Presumably this time the police in Chicago will handle themselves professionally as the police in New York and in other places have done and so I think it’s very different. Now, it obviously does have an impact on the election.
But I think for young people, especially if the Biden campaign does its job at all, people are going to say “Wait a minute. Do I want freedom of choice for women? Or do I want the state monitoring pregnant women? Do I want student debt erased? Do I want a world I can live in with the climate crisis? Do I want to support LGBTQ issues? Do I want democracy after what Trump has said made very clear about how he’ll destroy democracy in this country?” When you read Trump’s interview in Time Magazine, he really wants to set up an autocracy in this country. And I assume that the Biden campaign will do a competent job in getting that out between now and Election Day.
How do you think domestic U.S. politics might affect Netanyahu’s decision making? You think it’s certainly in his political interest for this war to continue. If he wants President Biden to lose the election, it would also be in his political interest not to defuse this.
I certainly think he wants President Biden to lose the election. The Diaspora Affairs Minister [Amichai] Chikli who’s a member of Netanyahu’s party Likud — not one of the more extreme parties and there are even more extreme parties and coalitions — said as much. He said we — I don’t remember if he said we or I — want Trump reelected. For an ally to intervene in American politics like that is incredible. But Bibi’s done this before. Remember the disrespect he showed to Obama when he came and spoke to the Congress at Boehner’s invitation against Obama’s policy on the Iran deal. So yeah, I think Bibi has his own political interest and if it helps Trump win reelection, so much the better from his point of view.
In effect, Nadler sees what Crabgrass sees. The 60s Vietnam situation was a precursor, but very different (To date no police or National Guard murders now, unlike Kent State and Jackson State being a kind of barometer.)
And Nadler sees what Crabgrass sees - when it gets to voting in November, the more left leaning young will not be stupid and waste votes or stay away from voting. Rather, the choice being limited is clear, but the dimensions of two candidacies are also clear, and the phrase, "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" grew because it contained something.
Last, one journalist's extended view of some things which might touch U.S. Jewish sentiment that Israel is painting itself into a corner and should not, vs. an Israeli view that niceness is not the most material concern of their nation; per a somewhat long but interesting YouTube lecture. Clearly the man speaking is an Israeli with his own viewpoint which can, with risk, be viewed as a popular view among Israeli people; vs. only a personal and possibly propagandistic presentation. The audience being mostly young U.S. Jews, some older, but a small audience in number being led to some of the lecturer's understandings which the audience members might not have thought of on their own. The viewpoint is worth consideration.
FURTHER: The parallel between the YouTube lecturer's refugee explanations and the "border crisis" that today's Republicans clutch pearls over is worth thought.
While the Politico item on campus journalist views does present a uniform view that an uptick of isolated antisemitism has been a campus factor; it is not virulent as was the organized Unite the Right mob chant "Jews will not replace us" by the demonstrators back when Trump said "good people on both sides."
Microsoft republishes an item from The Independent which paints the protest encampments as something different from lawless provocateurs and agitators as Republican top-down propaganda name-calls. Jews among others protesting in the encampments belies the claims the protests are antisemitic, they are inclusive, but moods are sharpened among those worried over any growth of Jew baiting as threatening to Jews. It is easy to see more threat than really exists, and mainstream reporting is no help.
FURTHER: Axios reviews negotiated dispersing of campus encampments.
Strib had published about the U.Minn. negotiation; behind a paywall.
The item was reposted open, with links here and here.
Ultimate divestment decisions were not promised in any of the negotiated settlements. Hearing, and possible endowment investment disclosures are steps in favor of transparency, and carry benefits that way.
The theme of divestment seems universal among encampment aims, campus to campus, suggesting there may be overarching coordination. Sunshine on how any such coordination and funding is put in place is, again, a positive transparency step.
Such coordination, explored, is not a criticism of the actions or results on different campus communities. Brown, Northwestern, Rutgers and U.Minn are mentioned as campuses where protesters dispersed by negotiation - two private schools, two State institutions. Seemingly private universities have a broader chance to accommodate things, while Columbia chose not to, Northwestern did. Diversity of responses is a healthy sign. There is no single correct way.
It is likely campus situations will remain in the news; but the Gaza situation itself remains THE story, with campus events being ancillary stories.