Sorry, I'm late.
I had to stop by the Wax Museum again and give the finger to FDR.
We know Al-Qaeda, Zawahiri, is supporting the opposition in Syria.
Are we supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?
It's a proud day for America.
And by God, we've kicked Vietnam syndrome once and for all.
Thank you very, very much.
I say it, I say it again, you've been had.
You've been took.
You've been hoodwinked.
These witnesses are trying to simply deny things that just about everybody else accepts as fact.
He came, he saw us, he died.
We ain't killing they army, but we killing them.
We be on CNN like, say our name, bitch, say it, say it three times.
The meeting of the largest armies in the history of the world.
Then there's going to be an invasion.
All right, you guys, introducing Ali Abunimah.
He runs Electronic Intifada.
Welcome to the show.
How are you doing?
I'm doing well.
I'm happy to be here, Scott.
Very happy to have you on.
I've been meaning to interview you for a long time.
I know.
I even tried a couple times.
I know.
And the delay is not your want of trying.
It's my own fault.
So I'm very happy to be here at last.
Well, look, I know that you're very busy doing great work and we run you all the time at Antiwar.com as well.
And this one's really important.
Ilhan Omar under attack for telling truth about Israel lobby.
So this has been kind of all the rage in at least some corners of Internet news for the past week.
Ilhan Omar, she is the newly elected, newly sworn in representative from Minnesota.
Is that right?
That's right.
And she is one of the first two Muslim women members of Congress.
And, you know, much more important than that, she is proving to be a really courageous voice, bucking both the Democratic and Republican establishments on issues of war and U.S. empire that virtually no other elected officials in Washington will touch.
Well, yeah, and she sure has drawn a lot of reaction.
And it's funny because everything that she's been in trouble for so far, the things she said on Twitter, I guess, mostly, I don't know if there's really other stuff.
It all seems to be, you know, kind of deliberately taken out of context.
For example, the current controversy is she talked about AIPAC and their financial influence in promoting Israel policies on Capitol Hill and in the loyalty of Republican congressmen to the cause and this kind of thing.
And all around, I saw numerous times, including in major papers, in direct quotation marks, her accusations against Jewish money, which she never said at all, but did not prevent anyone from using that direct quote, apparently, supposedly, would lead you to believe direct quote of her that makes her sound like she's, you know, being far too loose with her language and talking about the politics of Israel on Capitol Hill when, in fact, she never really said any such thing.
She talked about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which exists for the purpose of lobbying Congress.
Yeah, I think that is so important to stress that this is an entirely fake controversy.
It is a defamatory smear campaign against Ilhan Omar.
And it was started by the opinion editor of The Forward, Batia Ungar-Sargon, who claimed that Ilhan Omar's mentions of AIPAC and quoting of a Puff Daddy song constituted, you know, a traditional anti-Semitic trope.
And then Chelsea Clinton chimed in, and it went on from there, from Chelsea Clinton to Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democratic Party leadership in the House, and onwards and upwards to Donald Trump and Mike Pence with all of the establishment or regime media, as I like to call them, chiming in to spread these completely false claims that Ilhan Omar had talked about Jewish money when she had done no such thing.
And what Ilhan Omar did was highlight a truth that everybody knows, and what we've seen, you know, what has been confirmed, is it's a total taboo, the influence of pro-Israel money and pro-Israel outfits like AIPAC on the U.S. political system.
But this is not something that's, you know, made up or a conspiracy theory.
It's well known.
I mean, Thomas Friedman writes about this in The New York Times a few years ago.
He had a column where he said, you know, when Benjamin Netanyahu came to the Congress, he got a standing ovation.
You know, Netanyahu should not think that, you know, because of—I'm paraphrasing, but this is what Friedman said.
You know, he should know that that standing ovation was bought and paid for by Israel lobby money.
So it's OK for Thomas Friedman to say it.
And then let's look at what has happened since Trump came to power.
You know, one of the first things he did early on was to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and to move the U.S. embassy there.
Well, that was in fulfillment of a promise to Sheldon Adelson, the casino billionaire, whose one and only issue, apart from promoting and protecting casino gambling, is Israel.
And Adelson—I don't think it's a coincidence that Sheldon Adelson was the biggest donor to Donald Trump's campaign and inaugural committee and the biggest donor to the Republican Party during last November's midterm election cycle.
Then look at what happened just a week or two ago, you know, a week ago, when 77 members of the Senate voted against the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by supporting the so-called Combating BDS Act.
This is a bill promoted by AIPAC, one of its legislative priorities, to suppress the nonviolent Palestinian-led movement to boycott, divestment, and sanctions on Israel, which aims to do what people did with apartheid South Africa, which is put peaceful pressure on it to respect human rights.
77 senators didn't do that because all of a sudden they decided to oppose the First Amendment.
They did it because there was a powerful lobbying interest behind it.
Now, this is all well known.
It's incredible to me that in 2019 we have to repeat these things about how influential the Israel lobby is.
But to me, the reason they went after Ilhan Omar is because she's the start of something.
You know, she represents a new generation potentially, someone who is not bought and paid for by these interests, someone who is not in the pocket of Nancy Pelosi.
And they had to smash her down as quickly as possible and teach her a lesson.
And I think that what's also despicable about it is how much of the attacks and smears against her drew on Islamophobia and racism.
She is a black Muslim woman who wears a headscarf, and there's already so much racism out there that it was easy to paint her as some kind of frothing at the mouth anti-Semite, which she isn't.
That is just a lie.
Yeah, well, you know, I saw, or I guess a friend told me he saw on CNN that they were comparing her to George Wallace, saying there's never been someone so blatantly racist in American politics since George Wallace.
Yeah, because that's what George Wallace always did, was walk around saying, hey, no offense.
Yeah, it's breathtaking dishonesty.
It's breathtaking dishonesty.
And my key point is that the entire political and media establishment was complicit in it.
You know, it wasn't just the right wing of the Republican Party.
We did see Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader in the House, outrageously comparing Ilhan Omar, a black woman from a country that she fled as a refugee because of the devastation caused by U.S. militarism and imperialism and the Horn of Africa, comparing her to the white supremacism of Representative Steve King.
That's outrageous enough coming from a Republican like Kevin McCarthy.
But what was just so disgusting was to watch Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats throwing Ilhan Omar under the bus and completely, completely validating this smear campaign against her.
Well, and what a ridiculous position for anyone to be in to say that, listen, there is an Israel lobby.
It's led by this group called AIPAC.
There are these other Israel affinity organizations, as Grant Smith calls them, that are more or less along the same agenda.
They spend millions of dollars every year.
They brag to each other all day long about how much power they have and how they need to really try and work to make sure that they get their way next time, too.
Their power over members of the House of Representatives is legendary and all of this.
And yet at the same time, as everyone's supposed to know it, you're not allowed to say that at all, or else it's some kind of anti-Semitic trope.
I don't know how long that can last, you know, when you have such a gap between the narrative and the reality.
At some point, there's an opening for someone like her to step in.
Now, I have to say, though, that I saw her finally on video.
I haven't been watching TV, but I did finally see her on video where she was confronting Elliott Abrams, which I really, you know, appreciate the spirit there.
And I understand she's new and she's nervous, but, you know, she flubbed.
I just flubbed the word flub.
She flubbed the word contra, and she called Abrams Adams.
And she just kind of seemed a little shallow and a little bit like she was reading a thing that a staffer had written for her, but that she hadn't really thought through very much.
And so I was a little disappointed in that because I can see a lot of potential in her.
Because I appreciate her attitude is, generally speaking, is to not apologize.
And when she's attacked, she takes the opportunity to explain the position of the people in Gaza, for example, and why they need to be stuck up for and that kind of thing, which is really great.
And maybe it's just first-day jitters.
I mean, look, you know, I also watched that video.
I actually don't think she said Adams.
I think she said Abrams rather than Abrams.
I see, yeah.
Right.
El Mozote massacre, bringing up the genocide in Guatemala and Central America that was fueled by the United States and by Israel, by the way.
Let's not forget that, that in Guatemala, Rios Montt was the dictator.
And in El Salvador, across Central America in the 80s, when Congress banned the United States administration from arming militias and intervening militarily in those countries.
Yes, the Congress used to do things like that back in the 1980s, believe it or not.
When Congress stepped in and outlawed the administration policy, the way the U.S. got around that was asking Israel to do its dirty work.
That is such an important part of the story that is not being taught.
But I want to go back to something about the Israel lobby and if I can bring up the Israel lobby film, because we should be having a national conversation about this.
Al Jazeera made this incredible undercover documentary during 2016 where they had an undercover journalist infiltrate some of the top Israel lobby organizations in Washington.
He actually was taken on as a staffer at the Israel project and was moving in the pro-Israel lobby circle and got so much of this on tape and on camera, including what you mentioned, some of the bragging about how influential these groups are, the internal bragging about what they're able to do.
This is an incredible documentary.
Al Jazeera was going to put it out, as they did put out a documentary, a similar one, done in the U.K. exposing the Israel lobby in Britain.
But then this self-same lobby stepped in and put pressure on Al Jazeera through its main sponsor, which is, of course, the government of Qatar, and suppressed it.
Al Jazeera never broadcast this film about the power of the Israel lobby because the power of the Israel lobby stepped in to prevent it.
Now, we at The Electronic Interfather were able to get the film.
And hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, have already watched at least some part of it, its four episodes.
But the point I keep coming back to is, if this film had been about, you know, all other things being equal, about Russian interference or Chinese or Iranian interference in American politics, including showing how Israel, working with unregistered agents like the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, and the Israel On-Campus Coalition, are systematically spying and gathering data from Americans, smearing college students and college professors for simply exercising their First Amendment rights.
If this was about any other country doing that except Israel, there would be congressional investigations.
It would be front-page stories in The New York Times or The Washington Post and CNN.
But instead, this film has just been greeted with silence.
The good thing, though, is it's out there.
People don't need to rely on the regime media.
They can just go and watch it themselves.
We put it out there.
And it's must-see TV.
Let me put it that way.
Yeah, listen, I mean, I don't think that there's a way that any description of this documentary could do it justice.
I mean, go ahead and say the most hyperbolic thing that you could think of about how great it is, and it's right up there.
And in fact, you say all things being equal in terms of which country we're talking about or that.
How about all things being equal on any other investigative journalism, where somebody goes this deep undercover and has hours, apparently.
I mean, certainly we see probably a solid hour worth of undercover footage on such an important issue of war and peace and power and, as you say, really persecution of American citizens, including a lot.
I mean, to a great degree against this war waged essentially against these college kids and all this stuff.
It's just absolutely incredible what this reporter got away with in covering this story and what they did in putting this documentary together.
And, you know, you're absolutely right about the absolute shock that, you know, I guess people just ignore it.
The mainstream media ignore it.
But when people watch this, they're going to be outraged.
It is absolutely outrageous.
And really, it's the kind of thing that only with U.S. government full complicity could this even be possible.
No other country could get away with this in the first place, much less, you know, get away with kind of burying it this way.
Oh, yeah.
Just even the cover up of the documentary should be a major story, let alone what's in it.
You know, like I said, if, you know, a network, a major network had made a documentary about Russian interference, alleged Russian interference, because there's no evidence of it really.
And then a Russian lobbyist had gone, you know, and pressured the network to suppress it.
That would be, that alone would be the story, just without even considering, without even beginning to get into the contents of it.
And so that tells you that something is really wrong with this picture, that the entire political class jumped up to defend AIPAC.
What does that tell you?
I mean, I don't like to exaggerate also.
I think we have to be very wary of saying, oh, you know, AIPAC controls everything, and the Israel lobby controls, because that, you hear that, and that can lurch into kind of conspiracism, and even anti-Semitism.
But that's not, but I think that that happens a lot of the time because we're not allowed to have a simple, open discussion of, well, what is the influence of the Israel lobby?
Where does it begin?
Where does it end?
We can talk about Big Pharma in this country.
We can talk about the NRA.
We can talk about the health insurance industry.
We can talk about the oil lobby.
You'll find investigative stories about all of those in pretty much all the mainstream media.
This is the one lobby we're not allowed to talk about.
And I think part of the reason is because of exactly what happened to Ilhan Omar.
You see this dishonest, cynical weaponization of false accusations of anti-Semitism.
And that scares people, because nobody wants to be in that position.
And I will stand up and call out any anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish prejudice, and I have done so many times, because I think it's critical for Palestinians who want their movement and need their movement to be principled, universalist, and anti-racist, to stand up against any kind of racism or bigotry, including anti-Semitism.
And yet, when you have this constant resort to false accusations, cynically, to muddy the waters, to try to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, I think that does succeed a lot of the time in silencing and scaring people.
And now in EPUB, in all the different locations online there, you can get it.
Fool's errand.
And also, really subscribe to the show.
If you're not already a subscriber, there's RSS button, iTunes, Stitcher, and all that stuff at ScottHorton.org, and also at LibertarianInstitute.org.
Two different feeds there, the same thing.
And also, I've got a YouTube channel, youtube.com slash scotthortonshow.
Subscribe there, and you'll get all the interviews.
And check out my Patreon, patreon.com slash scotthortonshow.
And you can find out all the details, really, at scotthorton.org slash donate.
Now, anybody who donates $5 or more a month at Patreon or at PayPal will get keys to the Reddit room, r slash scotthortonshow.
We've got a great little Reddit group going on there if you want to join up.
Anybody who donates a one-off donation of $50 gets a signed book.
And for $100, you can either get a QR code silver commodity disc, or you can get a lifetime subscription.
For $100 to the Scott Horton Show, you get a lifetime subscription to listen and think audiobooks.
And yes, we absolutely take PayPal and Bitcoin and all those things.
So just go to scotthorton.org slash donate.
Also, the Amazon link is back at the top of the right-hand margin on the front of the page there.
If you want to do all your Amazon shopping by way of my link, I'll get a kickback from their end of the sale.
And hey, give me a good review on iTunes or Stitcher if you feel like it, or if you read the book on amazon.com.
And of course, share, share, share on social media, that kind of thing.
And check me out at antiwar.com, scotthorton.org, kpfk.org, and libertarianinstitute.org.
And you know, it is interesting, too, that all week long, in fact, almost immediately, Sargon, the opinion editor of The Forward, I guess it was her, ran an article by Peter Feld saying essentially what you're saying.
And then all week long at The Nation, and two or three, Beinart wrote a thing for The Forward, and there were a few other things.
All week long, there have been liberal and progressive Jews coming to the defense of of Ilan Omar.
And in fact, there's kind of even from my point of view, like at antiwar.com, we've made a real point to feature them.
But there's almost like a pressure that if you're going to take this position, you better find a liberal Jew to explain it or something like that.
Where I kind of, you know, I would prefer to have a Palestinian go ahead and say their side.
For a long time, I really didn't know very many.
I still don't know very many Palestinian people to interview about all this stuff.
But most of my best stuff about Israel-Palestine is talking with Philip Weiss and people like him, Max Blumenthal and other liberal Jews who are sick of this, which just goes to show, too, I mean, and I think the polls and you probably know the polls a lot better than me, but that the polls show that I think a super majority, certainly a majority of American Jews want a two state solution.
In other words, want the Israeli government to let the Palestinians have independence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Yeah.
You know, what's so interesting, I just want to say something about the role of the forward.
And, you know, this is sort of, it's great that they published this article defending Elhan Omar, but that doesn't mitigate the fact that their editors spread the initial smear and the lie.
Because the damage was already done.
And then they get to publish, you know, some articles defending Omar or saying we shouldn't throw around false accusations and say, oh, look, well, we're showing both sides.
But they've already spread the smear.
They've already done the damage.
And I think that that trick needs to be called out.
Which, and by the way, then Chelsea Clinton chimes in and will have you know that she thinks that Sista Soulja is way beyond the pale and she is not as left wing as that and is running for Senate soon.
So stay tuned.
And she and by the way, she doesn't want you listening to the new Public Enemy album either.
Exactly.
No, I really, I couldn't resist myself on Twitter making the comparison between, you know, Chelsea Clinton's attack on Elhan Omar and her father's notorious Sista Soulja moment.
Because that really does, it really does look to me like another episode in attacking, you know, black leaders and black public figures and intellectuals for political gain.
And by the way, I mean, when you say notorious for people who are too young to remember that he has been known ever since that time, Sista Soulja, she was part of Public Enemy and had said some things.
And so Bill Clinton denounced her in this speech.
But he's been known ever since as essentially being a chump for doing that, punching hippies to the left instead of just making his own case.
You can call him a chump, but he was president for eight years.
It worked because it was the Democrats' Southern strategy of Bill Clinton showing himself to be, you know, as tough as any Republican on crime, which means tough on black people.
It's all code.
But proved to his constituents, and they did reelect him.
You're right.
But but also, I mean, they stayed home for his wife.
I mean, I think in a sense, they really did resent that in a way, because it proved just how shallow and insincere they were that they would do that.
Exactly.
But to get back to this issue, I think that this whole furore over Ilhan Omar at AIPAC is, on the one hand, it highlights, and we've talked about this, the continuing power and influence of AIPAC.
But I think the fact that it's happening at all is a sign of, in a way, the grip, the whole flipping.
Because the fact that we're even having a discussion about the role of AIPAC, that wouldn't have happened a few years ago.
And as the documentary, the Al Jazeera documentary, also shows, you know, it's got senior former AIPAC staffers in it saying, you know, we see that the foundation that AIPAC was built on is crumbling.
The bipartisan support is crumbling.
And you pointed out how American Jewish opinion is shifting against Israel, or at least very strongly against the Israeli government's policies of oppressing Palestinians.
That's all true, and we see that in poll after poll.
But that is also part of a general shift, particularly in the base of the Democratic Party, towards much more pro-Palestinian position.
It's a generational shift.
So younger people are much more supportive of Palestinian rights and supportive of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement.
And the political elite are trying to stop that.
So that's what the battle is.
That's what we're seeing play out also through this smear campaign against Ilhan Omar.
It's kind of a symptom or a sign of a bigger shift and a bigger battle that's going on.
All right.
So listen, Ali, the guy I talk to most about all of this is Ramzi Baroud.
He's like, I mean, I've had a few different Palestinian, you know, pundit-type experts on, although sometimes it's hard to get an answer back.
But Ramzi's the guy I talk to the most about this.
And I want to ask him about this, but I just ran an article at the Libertarian Institute site by a former Kahanist.
He was as right-wing as an Israeli expansionist could get in his former political life.
But he says with that came a lot of realism about the Palestinian situation compared to the way it's conceived of by a lot of other Israelis.
And he was saying that, listen, you know, the two-state solution, it can't work.
Land swaps here and there and different, you know, individual private people being completely screwed out of their property and so many settlements already built.
That can't be done.
And the one-state solution where you have basically two major tribes at about a 50-50 split as, you know, emulating the United States, doing the left-right thing for control over where winner take all for control over 10,000 important decisions would just be so catastrophic that he says the answer then is, and this is not original to him, he's agreeing with others and he linked to an explanation of this and everything.
I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of a binational state where you would have one country but two governments, one for each of the major, I guess, religious sects and throw in the Christians with the Muslims or Arabs overall, I don't know.
And, of course, all these lines get fuzzy because you have a lot of Arab Jews that are Israeli citizens, too.
And anyway, but so I wonder what you think about that.
Is that a workable, possible type of solution?
It sort of sounds like making Jerusalem an international city but kind of writ large sort of a thing.
You know what I mean?
What do you think?
No, I don't agree with that.
I think that, you know, again, to go back to the analogy of South Africa, before the end of apartheid, the consensus even in liberal circles and even among some on the left is, oh, one person, one vote can never work and it will be civil war and you'll just have warring tribes forever.
And yeah, South Africa is no utopia, that's for sure.
But it certainly has worked way better than many people had expected and did not turn into the catastrophe that people feared.
And it's a work in progress.
That was just less than a year ago.
And it was really interesting to hear people really evaluating the situation there.
So I don't think, you know, splitting people.
I think the effort to sort of split people along a tribal and religious and ethnic lines and give them separate governments, that is the essence of apartheid.
I think what you have to have is universal rights, equal rights, fair distribution of resources, restitution for injustices, and it can work.
You know, I think there's this myth that Palestinians and Israelis are sort of uniquely at odds with each other.
They're not.
This is a squalid settler-colonial conflict, and it can be resolved through pretty well-known formulas of giving people justice and equality.
The people who resist that the most is always the ruling group.
They're always the ones who say, oh, it can never work.
Well, because they see themselves as losing by having equality, by giving up their monopoly on power and resources.
That's not so different in our country, where you try and tell the people who really run and own the country that they should share it.
They don't like it.
It's not that different.
So I still argue for a single democratic state, yeah, you're going to have to come up with some mechanisms to protect people's languages and religious freedom and cultural heritage.
That's not a big deal.
You can do that.
But fundamentally, you've got to have – everyone has to have equal rights.
Yeah.
Well, and of course, if the government had no job except securing liberty for everyone, it didn't have that much power to favor one group over the other when it comes to a lot of these things, and that would make a lot of sense.
But I guess the fear would be that there's so much at stake for the state to decide about who has access to what land and under what conditions and which religious sites and all these things that it would just – I mean, I guess certainly I thought in the past that if it really came down to, I don't know, say, America changed its mind and started telling the Israelis they really had to do this, that there would be a worse civil war first.
There'd be another Nakba before the Israelis would let that happen, essentially.
I don't know that that's the case.
I think that exactly the same predictions of Armageddon came before the transition in South Africa.
And these are the things the strong say to scare people into accepting the status quo.
I think if America and the rest of the world said to Israel, games up, apartheid is over, you have to treat the Palestinians as full human beings, they would have to do it, and they would not be able to stand alone and commit another Nakba.
What makes it possible to even think about that is the idea that they have full American backing.
Certainly before the civil rights movement, things looked like in this country there would always be Jim Crow.
Segregation now, segregation forever.
But things change, and I think we have to look at this situation the same way.
And partly the huge backlash to Ilhan Omar is because they're afraid that that change is possible.
So we should take a message from that.
If there was nothing to fear for Israel in this lobby, why would they worry about Ilhan Omar?
In the South, where blacks were legalized in the 1960s, it wasn't a zero-sum game, where all of a sudden the white majorities—not always majorities, I guess in some of the states blacks were even the majority at the time, or it was close anyway—they didn't lose everything.
Just because they allowed for blacks to have civil rights finally as well, and somewhat protection from the state instead of simply persecution by it for a change.
They didn't lose anything just because others gained.
It's crazy to think that way, so I certainly agree with you on that.
But that's what the Nixon—the Southern strategy was, though, was to convince white working-class people that they were losing because of civil rights.
And that toxicity has come down to us to this day.
But the point is, that was a strategy by the Republicans and Nixon, and it's not inevitable.
You could have built a different kind of politics in which what was emphasized was that everybody gained from everybody being free and everyone having full rights.
And so that's the message we also have to keep pushing when it comes to Palestine.
And by the way, I'm sorry, do you have one more minute?
Yes, one more minute.
Let's do it.
I just want to give you an opportunity to talk about what's going on in Gaza with the Friday marches and the snipers there.
It's been a while since we had a good update about the actual situation, because you know, a lot of people, they don't even know what you're so upset about here anyway.
Well, basically you've got two million people, most of them refugees, caged in Gaza, which is a giant ghetto, which is deprived of contact with the outside world and the basic means to sustain itself.
And people are revolting and they're protesting.
And Israel shoots them dead with snipers, and they've killed more than 200 people in the last year with snipers just protesting.
Not a single one of them has been armed or presented any danger to Israelis who have been, you know, those who have been killed during these protests.
And Israel is doing it because these Palestinians are demanding their basic rights, and Israel doesn't want to give it to them.
And this is now, we're speaking on the 47th Friday of such protests.
It will almost be a year at the end of March.
And I'd recommend people go to the electronic and to follow our publication, because we have regular reports from our wonderful reporters in Gaza, who really give a lot of deep insights into what's happening, that you will simply not get from MSNBC or CNN or the New York Times.
Yeah, I just recently signed up for y'all's morning email.
And so I'm finding more and more great stuff in there, including a new article today on the question of Ilan Omar and that controversy as well by one of your writers.
I'm sorry, I forgot her name.
Nora Bowers-Friedman.
Yeah, it's a great article.
Right, right.
Okay, well, great stuff as always.
And again, I can't emphasize enough the importance of your website and especially the service that you did in publishing this suppressed and then leaked by you documentary.
It's four parts and it's worth watching the whole thing through everyone.
It's called the Lobby USA, and you'll find it at electronicintifada.net.
Thanks again for coming on the show, Ali.
My pleasure, Scott.
Thank you.
All right, you guys, that's Ali Abunimah, and he is at electronicintifada.net.
All right, y'all, thanks.
Find me at libertarianinstitute.org, at scotthorton.org, antiwar.com, and reddit.com slash scotthortonshow.
Oh, yeah, and read my book, Fool's Errand, Timed and the War in Afghanistan at foolserrand.us.
