America This Week, May 3, 2024: Gaza, Columbia, and More, in "I&P"

But maybe we should just start with the whole question of why we haven't talked about this bill so much, or this issue so much in the past. Do you want to start? Or I mean, I'm happy to go there. But well, well, well, yeah, similarly, you know, yeah, I'll let you start.

Okay.

So I've seen a lot of criticism. I've seen people going after me online and on social media, talking about how I must be afraid, even as an independent, to talk about this issue, because I'm afraid of Israel. Like, are you kidding? Fuck Israel. I don't know.

I'm not afraid to talk about any issue. And then, you know, there's a secondary thing that comes after that, where people think, well, it must be a financial motivation, you know, you're afraid to, you make money from subscribers, you're afraid to offend X number of people who subscribe to you. So you don't, you don't want to talk about the issue. And you're, you know, on this issue, you're going to lose some people who feel very strongly about it, no matter what your opinion is. But that's not really true, either.

Like, for some, for somebody like me, the way you lose financially, in, you know, commentary, as well as journalism, is to be wrong about something.

And the big reason that I don't talk about Israel and Palestine is because I don't fully understand it. Like, I can react emotionally to seeing the bombing of civilians, you know, as well as the terrorist attacks. But there's 100 years of history, there's a million moving parts. There are things that have happened in the last 20 years, efforts to construct a two-state solution that have failed, the, you know, the introduction of Hamas as a player into all this, like, there's just tons of background that I don't know, I don't feel on solid ground talking about a lot of these things.

So it's just not something that I, that I willy nilly, feel like diving into this job is about being careful with words. And so when I have something, I feel confident in saying, I'll say it, but that's the reason that I don't like this issue a bit. And there's another element to the story, which I think is unique, which is that the people on both sides of this issue are, I don't like the way either of them talk about the other. And there is an emotional tenor to this entire affair that makes it difficult to even ask questions without people accusing you of being on the wrong side.

And I don't like that. And we're going to get into some of that because we're going to talk about what's happened.

with the protests here in the States. And you can see how the attitudes around debating this issue have have turned in kind of a dark direction all around.

And that has made me nervous. I've been assigned to cover the story a couple of times and have always been leery of the way activists involved with this issue talk about it. And so it makes me uncomfortable. I don't, I don't feel confident about the history. I've never been there.

So that's part of it for me. But Walter, how about you?

I've never been to Gaza. I don't consider myself a student of the conflict, though it's been going on in the background all my life. You know, I've been aware of it in some form or another, not necessarily the Gaza conflict, but Israel's wars with its neighbors.

You know, to make a confession or just a simple acknowledgement of personal history, I grew up in the 70s, at a time when Israel was under siege and was quite celebrated in the American press as a. Kind of hold out against regional terrorism and so on, I mean, terrorism, as I knew it before. the 9-11 style was the hijacking of planes. And and, you know, Munich, the PLO, killing athletes, September, exactly. So I will freely acknowledge that I was predisposed to the Israeli side of this argument as a young man.

I've tried to educate myself, but as time has gone on, but not sufficiently to have real, clear beliefs and prescriptions about the situation.

But since October 7th, and especially since the Israeli incursion into Gaza. I've realized that it's an unavoidable topic, it's it's now polarizing people here and I'm willing to wade in, but with the proviso that I don't weigh in from a stance of expertise.

I'm learning, as everybody else is, I suppose.

So, you know, I heard a lot of stories back then.

And my general inclination about this issue has always been, to, you know, toward condemning the blockade. Also, Israel has really been a pioneer in the development of sort of the model of modern digital censorship. And Glenn Greenwald did one of the earliest stories about this in 2015,, where he talked about Facebook making a deal with, you know, the Israeli government and the Mossad, where basically 95% of the requests that the Mossad made to Facebook for moderation were honored. And, you know, from what I understand, Facebook was really one of the only ways that people can communicate in Gaza. They don't have very many press organs that really work.

There's sufficient, there's significant digital censorship of, you know, outlets like the Electronic Intifada, right? And so this is a big deal. And that basic arrangement that they had, which was, if you want to make money having Facebook in Israel, this is the price that you're going to pay. You're going to allow us to control content. that means a lot to us.

And I think since then, a lot of you've seen that model replicated in, you know, to various degrees in other countries. And it's starting to come a little bit to the United States. So that that's another area where I've, you know, I've always looked at this issue and thought, you know, Palestinians have been, you know, the canary in the coal mine. when it comes to modern censorship tools. They are like the testing ground for how all these things work.

So that's true. But leaving all that aside, yeah, you're right. It's now come back to our shores. And this week and last week, this story has exploded domestically in a way that it really hadn't before, with both sort of takeovers of college, not takeovers, encampments on college campuses that have garnered a tremendous amount of attention. And then, I mean, should we start with the House bill?

Because that's the reaction to all of this has been really amazing. I mean, there have been things that have gone on on both sides, but the official reactions.

And it's, for me, a bill that sets a terrible precedent. besides being bad in itself. It takes an entire topic, the discussion of Israel and, you know, Jews in general, I guess, and attempts to set parameters for our discussion of it. They're very vague parameters in some cases. And they, to me, are stupendously unconstitutional.

I mean, to make a kind of constitution, for how you can talk about Israel, and then enforce it, is unprecedented to me.

But let's just hear how they're selling it first. This is a CBS report on the bill.

But, that being said, there are a number of efforts underway in both chambers. We know later today, for instance, Speaker Johnson is set to announce a House-wide crackdown, to use the Speaker's terms. When it comes to combating anti-Semitism on college campuses.

They're essentially going to bar certain kinds of speech on university campuses. It's going to have the department and put it on the Department of Education to enforce anti-discrimination laws. And, you know, the definition of what anti-Semitism will be could be things as vague as, you know, denying Jewish, you know, claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is racist. You know, using certain symbols and images, drawing comparisons of Israeli policy to that of Nazis. That's the same thing that happened to CJ Hopkins, you know, the playwright in Germany.

He's in trouble for comparing basically modern authorities to Nazis, but using a swastika. But similarly, there was an executive order passed in Texas by Texas Governor Greg Abbott. And this also has, you know, created a state definition of anti-Semitism.

that will now be enforced. Here's the executive order. And here's a phrase that you're going to hear a lot in the coming weeks. Texas supports free speech, but you're going to hear that over and over again. Mike Johnson said it this week to the Speaker of the House.

We support free speech, but free speech comes with responsibilities. And then they basically outline a series of things that, you know, they will define as anti-Semitic. that won't be allowed on Texas universities, like phrases like from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, and so on. So, Walter, how do you feel about any state definition of an idea being barred?

But in any case, yeah, we're now going to have like George Carlin, saying that there were seven words you couldn't say on television. There are going to be 15 phrases you can't say on campus. But it's a terrible trend. I don't understand why they think this is the problem.

What is this unique challenge called anti-Semitism that we have to throw over the Constitution? for? You know, I have Jewish friends, including strenuously pro-Israel friends, who are appalled by this. I think it bothers them that something is being done in their name. that is so, you know, offensive to the American spirit.

And I can understand that if I were Jewish and pro-Israel, I doubt that I would want to have to answer for this bill, which looks like special pleading and a carve out and kind of, I think, has a reverse effect, making you think, well, well, this lobby must be particularly influential. How many groups get federal laws that bar criticism of them?

you know, in a week or whatever. it is, right? I mean, it's pretty intense. And boy, was it predictable that the Republicans who, you know, for the last three or four years stamped their feet up and down and played in the role of free speech absolutists, suddenly come out and they want to bar hate speech, which was exactly the opposite position. Um, that they had, you know, for a couple of years.

There are. they're banning ideas and calling them hate speech. This is the fruit of what the Republicans warned about. And yet they're embracing it. Nothing scares me more now, Matt, than something that has bipartisan support in the U.S.

Congress, um, where, you know, the worst of the intolerant, uh, left and right get together to, uh, you know, whatever, broaden FISA or ban TikTok, and now Israel. Do people not see that we are answering every challenge in the same way, with censorship? I mean, it's their only answer anymore. Uh, well, you, you know, it might be bad, but don't talk about it. Um, or, uh, you know, get social media to suppress it.

So, uh, I'm shocked that the Republicans, shocked, unshocked, would go from a kind of principled and somewhat unpopular position on these hate speech laws to championing the worst of them.

Israel protests turning violent.

And here it comes.

No, a complete embellishment. One Jewish student at Yale was stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag.

Poked in the eye with a flag. And hospitalized. You had to receive hospital treatment for your injury. Sahar Tartak needed hospital treatment for that injury.

So there's like a bunch of things here. I mean, this is all, you know. How many articles did we read in the National Review? In Fox? In the New York Post?

About students who were made to feel, who were traumatized. Or, you know, made to feel harmed. Or felt threatened because somebody said a bad thing to them. The New York Post last year ran this story, bashing San Francisco State University for saying that the whole campus trans community was traumatized by the presence of an all-American swimmer who didn't believe that trans women should be allowed to compete.

And now here we have somebody who's saying, you know, I was encircled. I was to one after. It wasn't just one person who taunted me. They all taunted me. And then also, additionally, you're sort of draping yourself in, literally, in the cloak of marginalized victimhood.

I thought that was a thing that conservatives were against. But you saw sort of story after story about this. And I don't know. I'm curious to hear your thoughts about that too.

I mean, stabbed suggests something happened to the eyeball. I expected her to have a patch. But I'm not suggesting she's not telling the truth. I may suspect that it was slightly exaggerated.

bear hug him and take him away. So to me, that's not speech.

And, you know, inhibiting people's freedom of movement, breaking windows, bear, hugging them and carrying them off. Those kind of things are not protected actions. In fact, they're probably, in many cases, crimes.