1.
AMY GOODMAN: In a moment, we’re going to
talk about the candidates addressing AIPAC yesterday in Washington, D.C., the
major presidential candidates, all except Bernie Sanders, who continued out on
the campaign trail. But first I want to get response from our guests to what
has taken place now in Belgium. It looks like, at the latest count, 28 people
have died, scores have been injured, in explosions at both the Brussels airport
as well as a metro station in Brussels. Our guests are Yousef Munayyer, executive
director of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, and Robert
Freedman, visiting professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University.
Robert Freedman,
can we go to you first, before we go to the debate of the day? This just took
place around 3:00 Eastern time, 8:00 in the morning in rush hour in Brussels.
Can you respond?
1.
ROBERT FREEDMAN: Well, it’s clear that
this was a horrendous act. And terrorism, the deliberate killing of civilians,
whether it’s by ISIS terrorists or by Palestinians knifing civilians in
Jerusalem, has to be deplored and has to be dealt with. The irony of this,
coming to the next part of our discussion, is that I’m sure Mr. Trump will
seize upon this to demonstrate tougher action is needed against Muslim
immigrants to the United States and against those who want to be refugees
coming to the United States. And that, too, is deplorable.
1.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Yousef
Munayyer, your response to the Brussels attacks?
2.
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: Well, I would reject any
characterization that likens the political violence that takes place under
occupation and in systems of occupation, like you see in Israel and Palestine,
to the horrific attacks that we saw today in Belgium. And I think the attacks
today really underscore the urgent crisis and catastrophe that is taking place
in Syria and the need for the international community to redouble its efforts
to address in a serious way the civil war that is going on there that has
really given rise, through the failure of the Syrian state, the vacuum of power
that exists between Syria and Iraq, to this monster that we have come to know
as ISIS, which has metastasized around the globe. And I think that, you know,
this was clear when we saw the attacks take place in Paris several months ago.
And at the time, I wrote that, in fact, Paris was just the beginning. And until
the international community focuses on bringing that civil war to an end, it’s
going to be hard to see how ISIS can be defeated. And so long as they have a
territorial base in Syria and elsewhere, unfortunately, we’re going to continue
to see these kinds of attacks take place, regardless to how tight security
becomes across Europe and elsewhere.
3.
AMY GOODMAN: Yousef, this
morning, you tweeted,
“If an attack like this morning’s in Brussels were to happen in October, in
Europe or especially the US, get used to saying President Trump.” Why?
4.
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: Well, I think, you know,
it’s a real possibility that people can be scared into voting for a candidate
that has preyed on the fears of people. And if Donald Trump has done one thing,
it is precisely that. And he has preyed on those who have, you know, been
willing to listen to the xenophobia, to the nativism, to the idea that the
United States must shut itself off from the rest of the world, must close its
doors to anyone coming in that is different in any way, must build walls. And I
think that, you know, in the wake of horrific events like this, oftentimes, as
we saw after 9/11, as we saw after other events like this, the voting public is
not always thinking with the most clear and rational mind and is often thinking
with raw emotion. And I think the dangerous thing is, if you have a nominee
that is Donald Trump for the Republican Party, one of the major parties in the
United States, he has a chance of becoming president. And if an attack like
this were to happen, I think his chances increase exponentially.
1.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn right now to
what took place yesterday in Washington. All three remaining Republican
candidates and Democrat Hillary Clinton addressed the pro-Israel AIPAC
conference on Monday. Clinton sought to cast herself as a stronger ally to
Israel than Republican front-runner Donald Trump, repeatedly alluding to Trump’s
recent declaration he would be, quote, “neutral” when negotiating a peace deal
between Israelis and Palestinians. Many saw Clinton’s address as an attempt to
cast herself to Trump’s right on Israel.
2.
HILLARY CLINTON: It’s also why,
as president, I will make a firm commitment to ensure Israel maintains its
qualitative military edge. The United States should provide Israel with the
most sophisticated defense technology so it can deter and stop any threats.
That includes bolstering Israeli missile defenses with new systems like the
Arrow 3 and David’s Sling. And we should work together to develop better tunnel
detection, technology to prevent armed smuggling, kidnapping and terrorist
attacks.
1.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Hillary Clinton yesterday
addressing AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Donald Trump
faced a boycott by rabbis who said they were offended by Trump’s remarks
against Mexicans, Muslims and Jews and wanted to, quote, “shine a moral light
on the darkness that has enveloped Mr. Trump’s campaign,” unquote. During his
address, Trump sought to cast himself as a strong ally of Israel.
2.
DONALD TRUMP: The Palestinians
must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and
Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable. They must come to the table willing
and able to stop the terror being committed on a daily basis against Israel.
... We will move the American Embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish
people, Jerusalem.
1.
AMY GOODMAN: Democratic candidate Vermont
Senator Bernie Sanders was the only top candidate to skip the AIPAC conference,
saying he needed to continue campaigning ahead of today’s primaries in Arizona
and Utah and the Democratic caucus in Idaho, but he did address the issue on
the campaign trail.
2.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I am here
to tell the American people that, if elected president, I will work tirelessly
to advance the cause of peace as a partner and as a friend to Israel. But to be
successful, we have also got to be a friend not only to Israel, but to the
Palestinian people, where in Gaza unemployment today is 44 percent, and we have
there a poverty rate which is almost as high.
1.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s
Bernie Sanders speaking in Salt Lake City.
2.
ROBERT FREEDMAN: Sure. There were six
issues, which cut across all the candidates: the deal with Iran; the question
of moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem; the issue of Palestinian
terrorism; the issue of supporting Israeli security; relations with Israel, and
especially Netanyahu; and the U.N. Security Council resolution, if it takes
place, on an Arab-Israeli peace agreement. Now, if you look at the main
candidates—and here I’m looking not only at the speeches, but also of the
two-hour discussion on CNN following the speeches—I think you find the
following.
On the Iran deal, Clinton, keep the deal,
but mistrust and verify it; Trump, abolish it, negotiate a new deal; Kasich,
suspend it because of the missile tests; Cruz, flat-out abolish it; and
Sanders, keep it.
On moving the embassy to Jerusalem,
Clinton said no, because of the negative effect on the Middle East; Trump,
Kasich and Cruz—well, Trump said yes, Kasich said he would study it, Cruz said
yes; and Sanders said no.
On Palestinian terrorism and incitement,
that it’s so-called the culture of martyrdom and death taught in Palestinian
schools, everybody was critical. Clinton, Trump, Kasich and Cruz denounced it.
Sanders said, “But you have to look at,” as we heard on the clip, “the very
negative situation in Gaza economically.”
On the question of supporting Israeli
security, again, Clinton, Trump, Kasich and Cruz all supported it strongly.
Sanders was a bit weaker on this.
On relations with Netanyahu and Israel,
Clinton, again, Trump, Kasich and Cruz all moved to say they want to improve
it. But Sanders, in his CNN talk, said, “Well, you have to look at Netanyahu,
who’s a lot of the cause of the problems.”
On settlements, Clinton criticized it.
Sanders strongly criticized it. Trump, Kasich and Cruz didn’t discuss it at
all.
And finally, on the U.N. Security Council
resolution on the Arab-Israeli conflict, assuming the French initiative comes
through, Clinton said she would veto, Trump said he would veto, Kasich said he
would veto, Cruz said he would veto, and Sanders didn’t discuss it but said he
would work very hard for a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement.
So, I mean, those are six or seven issues
where they really differed. What I took away from this,
interestingly enough, was that Kasich and Clinton were actually fairly close on
a lot of the issues. And I wouldn’t say so much that Clinton was the right—to
the right of Trump; I would say, rather, that Trump was to the left of Cruz,
and Kasich was to the left of both of the others. Now, how this works out in
reality following the election, of course—it’s one thing to make promises
before the election, it’s another thing to make promises and carry them out
afterwards.
And very quickly, in response to Yousef,
killing civilians deliberately for political reasons is terrorism whether it
takes place in Jerusalem or whether it takes place in Brussels. Claiming that
this is a reaction, it’s OK for a young lady or a young man to go and kill
Israeli civilians because this is, you know, protesting the occupation, is
simply wrong. And this is why the main candidates all denounced it—and
denounced it loudly.
1.
AMY GOODMAN: Yousef Munayyer,
your response?
2.
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: I don’t think anyone is
justifying the murder of anyone else. What I was responding to, though, was the
mischaracterization of the type of political violence that we see in Israel and
Palestine as something similar to the type of violence that we saw today in
Brussels. There is clearly a context of occupation, the denial of people’s
rights that are going on in Palestine, which is fomenting and allowing this
system of inequality to continue, is allowing the incentives for violence to
remain in place. And I don’t think that is in any way the same as the type of
terrorism and the type of worldview and the type of extremism that is involved
in ISIS.
And I would like to
say, as well, while I appreciate the nuanced enumeration of the different
positions of the candidate that our interlocutor has presented, I really don’t
see that great of a difference between all of these candidates. And I think,
frankly, one of the biggest problems that was on display was the ritual
obeisance of the candidates for president before a pro-Israel interest group,
essentially lining up one after the other to outbid each other in their support
for Israel, a state which is conducting a military occupation over the lives of
millions of people, denying millions more basic rights to return to their homes
and villages as refugees, all while collecting billions of dollars of American
military aid and then using those very weapons to commit heinous human rights
violations and violations of international law through the expansion of these
settlements, that were, you know, almost not mentioned there. You know, we
heard maybe a brief, brief comment from Hillary Clinton about it, which was
quickly wrapped up in another line about how she would make sure that the
United Nations would never be allowed to act on Israeli settlements if she
was—if she was to be president. So—
1.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me go to a clip, Yousef,
and get your response—
2.
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: Sure.
3. AMY GOODMAN: —to Hillary Clinton
addressing AIPAC yesterday, speaking out against settlements, but said she
would not support any solutions enforced by the United Nations, the one you’re
referring to.
4. HILLARY CLINTON: Everyone has
to do their part by avoiding damaging actions, including with respect to
settlements. Now, America has an important role to play in supporting peace
efforts. And as president, I would continue the pursuit of direct negotiations.
And let me be clear: I would vigorously oppose any attempt by outside parties
to impose a solution, including by the U.N. Security Council.
5.
AMY GOODMAN: Yousef Munayyer?
6. YOUSEF MUNAYYER: These are extremely
empty words. And I think it really highlights the corruption of U.S. policy on
this very issue, specifically the issue of settlements. You know, in the late 1960s, in 1968, there was a National
Intelligence Estimate that was put together regarding Israel, after they had
began their occupation of Palestinian territory in the West Bank and Gaza. And
it said that if the Israelis continue to occupy this territory for two to three
years and build settlements there, it will be impossible for them to turn back
the land. That was in 1968. As recently as last week, the Israelis
continued again to expropriate land deep inside the West Bank, this time
outside of Jericho in an area that’s nowhere near the Green Line, and the
response from the State Department was simply, “Well, you know, we find this
troubling, and it leads us to question the intentions of the Israelis and
whether or not they’re committed.” If all you can do over the course of five
decades is respond to Israeli settlement expansion and colonialism with empty
words, while continuing to fork over billions of dollars to ensure that the status
quo continues, then you’re really only giving the green light to the
Israelis that this is A-OK. And so, you know, for Clinton to make a comment like
that, I think, is really just a reminder of the corruption of American policy
on this issue, which, frankly, transcends the American political divide in the
United States, as well.
7.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor
Freedman, your response?
8.
ROBERT FREEDMAN: Well, I agree, actually,
with Yousef on one issue, and that is the problem caused by the settlements. I
happen to be—this program is called Democracy Now! I happen to be a
member of an organization called Peace Now, which has been deploring the
settlements from the beginning, and I deplore them, as well, whether it’s
Ariel, which is sort of like a bone in the mouth of any future Palestinian
state, which—since I’m a supporter of the two-state solution, strongly, as, by
the way, is Mrs. Clinton, which she also said in her presentation, I share the
problem of the settlement expansion.
Yet Yousef tends to
overlook a few issues of history. Palestinians were offered a state by the U.N.
in 1947, rejected it. Olmert in 1968 came up with a plan, really a very good
two-state solution, including sharing Jerusalem; Palestinians rejected it—in
2008. And then, this most recent effort by the United States during a Kerry—a
nine-month effort, the Palestinians and Mr. Abbas didn’t even respond to the
American plan. So, one can talk about occupation and occupation, but unless and
until the Palestinians are willing to come out with an agreement on a two-state
solution, number one—
9.
AMY GOODMAN: Wait, let’s take
each of your points at a time. Yousef Munayyer, on this point?
10.
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: Yeah, and look, there’s
a lot of things to respond to here, which I think are patently incorrect,
starting in 1947 with the claim that the U.N. offered the Palestinians a state.
The reality is that they imposed, wanted to impose an outcome that would actually
deny the Palestinians sovereignty over land in which they lived, and offer them
a fraction of the territory in which they constituted a majority of the
population. So, you know, we can go through all the history. I think the
history is very clear. If you look at the trend over time, the trend is simply
this: Palestinians have been continually removed from their land from 1948
until today. That trend continues largely uninterrupted.
But let’s focus on
the issue in which we ostensibly agree here, which is on this question of
settlements. And Mr. Freedman has said he’s a supporter of Peace Now. You know,
the problem I have with this line of advocacy is that it is never followed up
with any sort of policy prescriptions which would actually change Israeli
behavior as it relates to settlements. We hear lots of empty words when it
comes to “the settlements are not good,” “the settlements are a problem,” “the
settlements pose a challenge to a two-state solution.” And yet, the actions
that follow that, both from the United States government and in terms of the
advocacy of people even in groups that oppose these settlements, is almost
never to call for different policies in relation to the support for Israel that
enables this kind of settlement expansion to happen. If you are saying that
settlements are wrong, but at the same time support unending military aid to
Israel, you are saying one thing with your mouth and something very different
with your actions. And over the course of 50 years—50 years—the occupation,
this June, is entering its 50th year—we have seen a huge growth in the number
of settlers, we’ve seen a huge growth in the number of settlements. The West
Bank looks like Swiss cheese. And yet we have people who are still talking
about creating an independent Palestinian state here and not doing anything to
actually change Israeli behavior which is destroying that. So, if Mr. Freedman
or anyone else, for that matter, wants to be taken seriously and at their word
when they say that they agree that settlements are a problem when it comes to
the two-state solution, we want to hear, at the same time, policy
prescriptions, U.S. policy prescriptions, that would change Israeli behavior as
it relates to these settlements. Otherwise, just talking about it like this is
providing cover for these settlements, providing cover for the occupation and
providing cover for the status quo.
11.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to Hillary
Clinton again in her speech before AIPAC, slamming BDS, the boycott,
divestment, sanctions movement.
12.
HILLARY CLINTON: Many of the
young people here today are on the front lines of the battle to oppose the
alarming boycott, divestment and sanctions movement known as BDS. Particularly
at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world, especially in
Europe, we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel
and the Jewish people. I’ve been sounding the alarm for a while now. As I wrote
last year in a letter to the heads of major American Jewish organizations, we
have to be united in fighting back against BDS. Many of its proponents have
demonized Israeli scientists and intellectuals, even students. To all the
college students who may have encountered this on campus, I hope you stay
strong. Keep speaking out. Don’t let anyone silence you, bully you or try to
shut down debate, especially in places of learning like colleges and
universities. Anti-Semitism has no place in any civilized society—not in
America, not in Europe, not anywhere.
13.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary
Clinton yesterday addressing AIPAC. Professor Robert Freedman, your response to
the issue of BDS, the boycott, divestment, sanctions movement?
14.
ROBERT FREEDMAN: OK, there are two
related issues here. First of all, I’ve got to respond to Yousef, because his
view of history obviously does not coincide with mine. But in one area where he
seems to be unaware of what’s going on, there are regular protests in Israel
against the settlements, led by Shalom Achshav, or Peace Now. There is
attempts—lobbying of the Knesset. Unfortunately for the future of a two-state
solution, the Peace Now people are not in the majority in the Israeli
Parliament, but that’s a democracy. They continue to advocate. They continue to
oppose the settlements. That’s number one.
Number two, this $3
billion-plus a year in military aid—perhaps Yousef hasn’t been in Israel or in
Gaza when rockets continue to fly from Gaza into Israel, killing Israeli
civilians. Now, Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, 2006, under Ariel Sharon.
And what has moved the Israeli body politic to the right is the fact that
instead of peace, Israel got rocketed in return for pulling out of Gaza. Now,
that should be noted. And hence, the United States, in supplying aid for Iron
Dome, now David’s Sling, Arrow 3, which would be used against the threat from
Iran, which has called for the destruction of Israel, most recently inscribed
in Farsi on the rockets—and this was pointed out by a number of the speakers at
AIPAC yesterday. But this is the first thing. Second thing, BDS—
15.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s—
16.
ROBERT FREEDMAN: Let me answer—let me
answer the BDS—
17.
AMY GOODMAN: OK, very quickly.
18.
ROBERT FREEDMAN: —because BDS is—it’s
very, very important. The people who support BDS seem to be ignorant of other
problems in the Middle East. More than a quarter-million people have died in
Syria. Forty thousand-plus are dying at—in Kurds in Turkey. But not only that,
countries like China support Syria, as well as attacking their own Muslim
populations. Russia has slaughtered people in Chechnya. But nobody is talking
about stopping educational ties with China, Chinese universities, or with
Russian universities or with Turkish universities. The concentration seems to
be, “Well, Israel is bad; we’ve got to stop educational ties with Israel.” Now,
folks, there’s a lot of crying about Islamophobia that one hears every day. But
singling out Israel, when there are so many worse things happening in the
world, I think, is in fact anti-Semitism, and there’s no other way of looking
at it.
19.
AMY GOODMAN: Yousef Munayyer,
you have the last word here.
20.
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: Yeah, there’s a lot to
respond to there. Let me just say a couple things. First of all, not only have
I been to Israel, I was born in Israel. I have family throughout Israel, the
West Bank, the Gaza Strip and refugee camps around the area. Nobody has a
deep—as a deep appreciation of what American weaponry does in the Middle East
as I do, precisely because I’ve seen it in both directions. And I understand
what it means when one-ton American-made bombs drop on apartment buildings in
the Gaza Strip, killing scores of civilians.
So, I think, you know, one of the reasons
that BDS exists is precisely because of folks like Professor Freedman, who talk
a certain game about settlements but refuse to actually call for any change in
policy that would change Israeli behavior. The failure of governments to
address the violations of international law and human rights abuses that the
Israeli state carries out is the reason why civil society has taken up this
objective and is working to use boycott, divestment and sanctions to make that
change happen.
And let me just say one last thing about
the argument that Mr.—that Professor Freedman put forward here. It’s the same
exact argument, and you can go back and read the op-ed pieces that were written
by the apologists for South African apartheid. It’s the same argument that we
used to hear back in the ‘70s and ‘80s. When people were saying it’s time to
divest from the apartheid system in South Africa, the apologists for apartheid
were saying, “Look, there’s all kinds of horrible things going on in Africa and
elsewhere. Why are you singling out South Africa? Don’t you understand the
blacks in South Africa have it so much better than blacks elsewhere in Africa?”
I mean, the arguments are almost word for word the same. And the reality is
that the outcome has to be the same, as well, and the apologists for apartheid
cannot be allowed to win. It’s only through the efforts—the nonviolent
efforts—of civil society to hold Israel accountable for its violations of
abuses—and abuses of Palestinian human rights that we are going to see any kind
of change on the ground, especially if governments like the United States
government, which is playing such a large role, continue to abdicate in their
responsibility of doing something.
1.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you both
for being with us, Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the U.S. Campaign to
End the Israeli Occupation, and Robert Freedman, visiting professor of
political science at Johns Hopkins University, former head of Baltimore Hebrew
University.
AMY GOODMAN: “Nunca Más,” “No
More,” by La Santa Cecilia, performing here at our Democracy Now!
studios. To see our whole interview with them, as well as many of their
performances, go to democracynow.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment