Sorry, I'm late.
I had to stop by the Whites 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, he died.
We ain't killing their 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 MJ Rosenberg.
He wrote an important piece for The Nation this last week.
It's called This Is How AIPAC Really Works.
Welcome back to the show, MJ.
How are you doing?
Okay, how are you?
I'm doing very good.
It's been way too long since we've spoken.
Yeah, it has.
Very, very happy to have you here.
Yeah, me too, Scott.
Yeah, man.
And so also, I was really happy to see you come to the defense of this congresswoman, Ilhan Omar.
She got in trouble for talking about the Israel lobby.
Yeah, for telling the truth.
Yeah, that's bad.
Well, and then you brought your like, hey, I used to work there, so I get to tell you kind of thing, authority to the matter, which I really thought was important.
And you did it at one, obviously you did two.
I mean, there's no way to rebut what I wrote, except unless they say, which they're not saying.
I know from reporters who have called AIPAC, they're not saying I'm just a liar.
They just say no comment.
Well, I'm not lying, obviously.
Even the level of detail that I have in the article would demonstrate I was a witness to these things that I'm discussing.
Sure, and you know, it should be said, and I don't know a whole lot about Ilhan Omar.
I know that she's kind of a leftist Democrat, so I must disagree with her on a thousand things.
And in fact, that's the first time I ever saw a video of her, and she seemed kind of shallow and flaky.
And I kind of hope that I was disappointed, I guess I'll say.
But that doesn't matter.
She is a member of Congress.
I don't really know what you expect.
Yeah, that's true.
She's probably pretty good for one of them.
Yeah, maybe.
You know, I don't know anything about her.
All I know about her is that one thing that she said.
Right.
And then everybody came and jumped on her and used it as an excuse to send a message to other members of Congress.
Your First Amendment freedom of speech rights does not apply to criticizing Israel.
And it should be clarified here that, you know, and I'm with you.
I mean, I virtually know nothing about her either, and that's besides the point.
Except that what she said was actually not an anti-Semitic trope by any real fair standard.
She didn't say, oh, Jews always do control whatever, blah, any kind of thing like that.
She was very specific and said AIPAC.
Great.
And does what?
AIPAC does what?
Uses magic?
No, they use money to influence Congress.
It's a lobby.
So what was happening was it wasn't that the line was being drawn that, listen, we are not going to tolerate anti-Semitism around here.
The line was being drawn that if you say anything at all about AIPAC, we're going to call you an anti-Semite.
So that was why it was so important that you and other people came and said that actually there was nothing wrong with what she said.
And here's the fact of the matter.
Here's the reality.
So how does it work, MJ?
Well, it's really kind of funny.
It's a good point you make there.
Traditionally what they do is if you criticize Israel, they say you're anti-Israel, that being anti-Israel is tantamount to being anti-Semitic, which is not true.
But anyway, she didn't even criticize Israel.
All she did was criticize an American lobby by saying that much of its influence comes from spending what she called the Benjamins, the $100 bills, well, the many $100 bills, to influence Congress.
That's what she said.
That's all she said.
And the entire apparatus that is AIPAC, and the apparatus includes its enforcers in Congress, jumped on her and called her everything under the sun until she apologized.
But the thing that struck me and the reason I wrote the article is that I know that she was telling the truth because I was in the room when I've seen them do it.
I worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years, and before that I worked at AIPAC twice for a total of six years.
So I know that's what they do because I saw them do it.
I mean, it's not even – it's really funny.
It's like, of course that's what they do.
I mean, they have on – right downtown Washington, here where I live, they have like a six-story building.
They have hundreds of people working there.
They have a political department that does nothing but decide who should get money and shouldn't get money with a political director whose salary is $450,000 a year to – and he has a big staff to make these decisions.
It's like a joke.
I mean, what are we – it's like arguing whether or not the New York Yankees play baseball.
I mean, this is what they do.
I thought, yeah, a good rejoinder might have been, wow, and they're going to prove it to you by not raising money or using money this time around.
They are solely going to use – they're going to prey on the consciences of Congress to get all that they need and show that this is just a trope, that they use money.
I know.
I love this word, trope.
I don't think – probably neither you nor I have used the word trope, maybe never, in years.
And it came up all of a sudden.
It's almost as if out of the intimidation factory they come up with a phrase.
It's an anti-Semitic trope to talk about – talk about money and AIPAC in the same sentence?
How else do you talk about lobbies, and how else do you talk about the influence of money in politics as relates to Israel?
You're going to say – you're going to talk about a Jewish organization and money.
Is that anti-Semitic?
It's ridiculous.
Well, look, the protocols of Zion describe Jewish power in a sense.
So therefore, any reference to any Jew having any power or doing anything with it is the same as the protocols of the elders of Zion.
See?
Right.
Even though many Jews, including myself, are very glad Jews have power.
I mean, it's much better to – actually, it's much better for anyone to have power than not to have power.
I wish more.
I wish more.
I mean, it's like – that's what the Zionist movement was all about, was Jews would get a state and they have power.
And we didn't necessarily anticipate what they're doing with that power.
But, like, why is this controversial?
It's not, but it's just designed to make sure that Congress shuts its mouth and sends $3.8 or $4 billion a year to Israel without conditions.
That is what the whole thing is about.
Also, it's about – this is intangible.
I don't – even though I'm a Washingtonian, I can't really understand, which is AIPAC likes demonstrating its power to show that it has power.
I mean, it's more about AIPAC in a way.
I'm not sure this was Israel on the telephone screaming about this.
This is how dare you criticize us, us with our $450,000 a year salaries.
We're a charity.
I mean, we just appeal to people's better nature and get this money for Israel.
You know that no one ever has – I worked – it sounds like I worked everywhere, but I only worked on Washington.
But I worked the Appropriations Committee.
Do you know that no one ever, ever proposes any conditions on any aid we give to Israel?
Of course not.
And yet there are conditions in all the aid that we give to cities and counties and everything.
I mean, states in this country.
The whole appropriations bill is filled up with conditions that we have for money.
They're going to prove you wrong when they do not organize donations for whoever runs in the primary against Ilan Omar next time.
Yeah.
But you know what?
They only will run against her in a primary if they know in advance they can beat her.
They are the army that comes riding out when all the people left on the field are dying or dead.
They never take – there have been numerous instances where people really did stick up and say what they felt on Israel and everything else.
And they survey the land, and they say, wait, that person is very strong in their district, and they don't do anything.
I mean, Bernie Sanders, for instance, who only recently has started saying anything in the last two years, but they couldn't go after him.
He's so popular in Vermont.
But if, let's say, he had some scandal about something and they thought they could bring him down, then they would.
They usually – they need people to believe that they can defeat senators and congressmen, but they really don't do it all that often.
They only do it when they're sure of victory.
And most people – most members of Congress, for better or worse, are really secure in their seats.
That's the nature of all this gerrymandering and everything.
But as long as they're scared, that's enough.
Yeah, it doesn't have to be real if they believe the propaganda themselves.
Exactly, exactly.
Hey, let me ask you this.
How close is AIPAC, connection-wise, with the Bill Cristolian institutions?
Like, I guess, previously, PNAC, then the Foreign Policy Initiative, and some of these other things.
Oh, no, they were – I mean, they were kind of like interchangeable.
You mean all the neocons?
I mean, yeah, that's – but I don't think there's any organizational – Well, you know, we were talking about it last week, because Walter Jones died.
He was the great anti-war Republican from North Carolina.
And it was Bill Cristol and the Foreign Policy Initiative were behind all of his primary challengers, and I guess his most recent one.
Well, yeah, I mean, yeah, I'm not surprised.
But I don't – I mean, certainly he – I don't know if he ever took on the Israel issue, did he?
I don't know.
I think he was more like anti-U.S. military.
Yeah, I mean, I think, yeah, he just wanted out of Syria, Iraq, and everywhere, and so Israel doesn't want that.
Yeah, so I don't think that he – but, you know, one of the – there's that faction, that anti-Trump – the anti-Trump warmonger faction, the Bill Cristol, Max Boot, David Fromm, those guys.
The main thing they don't like about Trump – they must be a little bit mixed up, because they probably love the fact that he moved the embassy.
They love the fact that he's anti-Palestinian and all that.
But they don't love the fact that he seems a little bit resistant to foreign military adventures.
So I think they're just – so that's why they're all – right now, they all of a sudden look like they're kind of like – what, did they become liberals or something, or did they become Democrats?
Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post is another one.
What they don't like is the only person they have in this administration who is a real neocon is Elliott Abrams, who was just appointed to go around and make trouble in Venezuela.
But this is not a neocon administration.
It's all sorts of things I can't stand, but it's not neocon.
The real neocon administration that these people love were the two – not the first George Bush – the two George W. Bush terms, where they had all their wars and everything else.
That's what they were.
Yeah, so Bill Cristol – and that's – I mean, Bill Cristol all of a sudden sounding like he's patriotic.
Please.
I mean, he's not.
His issue is Israel.
Max Boot's issue is Israel.
That's what they're – that's what they talk about.
That's what they care about.
But I don't think they're directly connected to AIPAC.
Yeah.
Also, I've got to say for these guys – The Israel lobby overall is AIPAC plus a lot more, right?
All kinds of different think tanks and groups and institutions make up the lobby, generally speaking, and including probably the neocons as sort of the vanguard of that.
AIPAC and most of the other Jewish – the mainstream ones, like American Jewish Committee and other ones like that, they're all part of – plus they have these Christian groups like Christians United for Israel and other right-wing Christian groups.
But the AIPAC itself is the spearhead of the whole thing.
It's kind of like the old days they had the term of the Communist Party and then there were the fellow travelers.
I don't know what those really meant, but these other people are all like fellow travelers.
AIPAC is the main component of the lobby, and it coordinates with Jerusalem.
That's how it works.
But also AIPAC is the one that does the money.
I mean that's the irony of things.
These other things, they're not raising money for Congress.
What they do is let AIPAC coordinate the PACs and AIPAC donors coordinate the money and all that stuff.
That's not being done by Christians United for Israel or even the American Jewish Committee.
That's all done by AIPAC.
That's its role.
So that's what's so aggravating about this, them going so crazy on this congresswoman.
That's what they exist for.
When they say we do not coordinate, we do not do this, they mean technically they don't.
I mean whatever the law says, they technically – I wrote in the article about how they say they don't raise money directly for candidates.
Well, I've been there at their conference when they have all these rooms set up right off the main conference hall in Washington at the convention center where candidates that they like raise money from the people there.
But those rooms are rented by a front so they can say that's not part of the AIPAC conference.
That's just a coincidence.
Well, they just have to be on the list of recommended donees kind of thing, right?
Exactly.
They're really very careful about that, and they haven't been caught very much.
The only time they were really caught was Mike Wallace did a 60 Minutes thing in 1988 where he actually got copies of the piece of paper where they have the names and the amount of money and stuff.
But they haven't been caught doing that since.
But of course, who would catch them?
The major media won't go after them.
Exactly.
The New York Times or Washington Post would go after them.
The New Yorker does some good exposes, but they don't really just truly get to the whole unseemly nature of it.
And that AIPAC is basically – what they do is put Israel's interest over American interest and over the world's interest.
They're the only thing they care about.
And in fact, I don't think they care about Israel's interest.
They put Israel's occupation and the Likud party over, let's say, an interest called the long-term survival of Israel in the Middle East.
Because the status quo is not in Israel's interest.
And the only time that they really defected and didn't support the Israeli prime minister was when Rabin was prime minister and was working with Arafat to end the conflict.
And at that point, they were kind of very hands-off.
In fact, Rabin – Prime Minister Rabin openly didn't like them.
The New York Times had a really shocking article right when Rabin was elected in 1992 saying that he met with AIPAC in Israel right after his election and said, I want you guys to butt out.
I'll handle diplomacy with the United States.
We're a sovereign country.
And after that, they just didn't talk to him at all.
And then he starts pursuing peace with the Palestinians.
They hated him.
But then Netanyahu came in, and it's now been 13 years of Netanyahu.
So, I mean, it's amazing, though.
They might have a big dilemma right now.
Well, maybe they will.
Netanyahu has just – is running for re-election, I think, in – it's going to be in March.
And he allied for the first time with the Meir Kahane party, an openly genocidal party that was founded by the late and assassinated Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was, you know, the guy who was for expelling the Palestinians from Israel.
And if they don't leave, just kill them.
They've been pariahs of Israeli politics forever.
And now Netanyahu brought him into his coalition.
He's running with them in his coalition, and he's planning to come to the AIPAC policy conference in March.
They're going to allow this guy to stand there and talk?
I mean, it's sort of like – I don't know.
It's like – it's unbelievable.
I don't know if it's going to be a dilemma for them, because they don't have moral dilemmas, but it might be a political problem for them.
I mean, and this group really has been, beyond the pale, banned by the Israeli Supreme Court as fascist, banned from participating up until now, I guess.
Right.
Or this is a splinter group.
He openly allies with the fascist anti-Semitic parties in Hungary and in Poland and in Germany.
All these parties are these tiny, fringe, crazy parties, you know, and he likes them.
So, well, so this is his equivalent.
I'm sorry.
Hang on just one second.
Hey, y'all, I was talking with Derek Sherriff from Listen and Think Audiobooks, and he agrees with me that it's so important that the Trump White House hears from large numbers of Americans who support his efforts to end the wars in Syrian Afghanistan, especially from combat veterans like himself.
The president must hear voices of support from out here in the real world to counteract the cries of the war party in D.C. and on TV.
Now, the phone lines are jammed, but they have a pretty good email system there at WhiteHouse.gov.
Email me, Scott, at ScottHorton.org when you do.
And Derek Sherriff at Listen and Think Audiobooks will give you two free ones for your effort.
You know, I thought it was funny this morning in The Foreword.
Batten, Batchars, Ungers, Sargon, I don't know.
All these people have too many names.
This Sargon lady, the opinion editor of The Foreword, she wrote a piece saying, well, you know, comparing this group, this Kahanis group, with the KKK and saying, you know, we have to stand against this.
And I was just thinking, but what if Ilan Omar had said that, that some of these power factions in Israel are equivalent to fascists?
They're equivalent to the KKK.
Sargon would have raked her over the coals for saying that.
What kind of horrible trope is that?
Are you comparing a Jew to a Nazi?
Are you kidding?
Right.
Sargon, she's the one who started the whole thing against Omar by calling it an anti-Semitic trope.
And now she's trying to, you know, so she regroups.
I mean, she says this thing about this fascist group in Israel.
But I guess she feels and everyone feels she can say it because she's Jewish, just so long as some Muslim lady doesn't say it.
I mean, it's such hypocrisy.
It's so unfair.
And, you know, the thing about it, too, is anyone who's really anti-Semitic, they'll make sure that you understand that.
No one is ever really secretly anti-Semitic, and so they just pretend by sticking up for the Palestinians all day or something like that.
You know?
That's silly.
They don't use anti-Semitic tropes.
Right.
They just say, I hate the Jews.
Exactly.
I know.
Maybe that whole concept of an anti-Semitic trope is their way of saying, hey, it's not really anti-Semitic, but we're going to call it that.
It's just a trope.
Right.
There's this great one now going around where Trump was an agent of Russia, whether witting or unwitting.
Right, right, right.
What kind of trope is that?
Unwitting.
How are you an agent if you're unwitting?
If you're unwitting, then you aren't.
I mean, no, it's like that.
I learn from these people every day, and I've been involved with them for like 30 years.
But there is no amount of hypocrisy that they won't indulge in on this issue.
So tell me some stories about when you worked on Capitol Hill, and AIPAC comes knocking and says, here, sign this, or propose this, or co-sign it.
How does that work?
Or talk about come election season.
What's the relationship there?
From the point of view of not from AIPAC's point of view, but from the Congressional Office point of view.
Okay, so I worked for a member of the Appropriations Committee.
And the Appropriations Committee puts up all the money for Israel.
And so during appropriations season, each member of the committee gets to write a letter to submit to the chairman of the committee a listing of what they personally want in the bill, supposedly reflecting what their constituents need.
So you would say, I need this much money for flood relief because we just had this big flood in Alabama, or whatever.
You list all these kinds of things you want, and they all get – everything you want gets to get put in the bill.
Well, the congressperson I worked for was on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, which specifically does the aid to Israel.
And I'd say in addition to everything else, but that's pretty much all it does, because that gets most of our aid.
Anyway, the way we were – each of us on the subcommittee, we got – AIPAC prepared the entire thing that we would just – they'd send it over electronically, and the congresspeople would just drop it into their letters whole with all these provisions.
Not just to say that this is $3 billion.
It would list all these different things and all these – how the money would be dispersed, because Israel needed it to be dispersed at this time of the year because it would need that – that it's more money than that time of the year.
And all this equipment and all this this, and just go on and on and on.
And we all – every member of the subcommittee, and I'm talking about Democrats and Republicans both, and that would probably be the only issue I could think of that would be like that.
We'd all put the exact same words in, and they'd all get put in the foreign aid bill, and whoever was president would just sign it.
I mean, it was like – it was the only thing in which there was just no debate.
At the time, I've got to say at the time I didn't think anything of it.
You know what I thought?
I thought this was great.
I don't have to do any work on this.
We just drop in what AIPAC wants.
Now I'm not saying they're the only lobby that does that.
I don't think they are.
I think that there's the ag lobby, the pharma lobby, the gun lobby, all these big lobbies do it.
I don't – but they don't necessarily scream and yell if they don't do it.
But it's just like, wow.
And this is all for a foreign country.
So it's pretty – oh, and also the Egypt aid was always – you'd always put that in there too.
Israel aid and Egypt aid was always in there together.
I think because basically the Israelis always want the Egyptians to get money.
Right.
That's part of the Camp David deal.
Yeah, part of the Camp David deal.
So that would all be in there too.
And there was no questioning at all.
The hearings would be nothing but – it didn't matter what the hearings were.
As I said, AIPAC wrote the whole section about Israel that became law in the appropriations bill.
Now, as far as the – the way it worked in terms of what they wanted, all the members of Congress, they would – AIPAC wouldn't have to ask them to go to the floor and put up this amendment that condemns the Palestinians.
The members of Congress would call up and say, please, please, please, please, could I be the one to offer that amendment that condemns the Palestinians and praises the Israelis for bombing Gaza?
Because they want the credit back home, and they want to be able to raise money from the big donors.
So, I mean, it's not exactly heavy lifting for AIPAC to get what it wants.
These people clamor to do what AIPAC wants.
And they're clamoring because they want to have – they want to be able to get these campaign contributions.
Now, if Congressman X decides that he doesn't like this, he'll probably – let's say he has certain people on the floor, other members of their party will go up to them and say, are you out of your mind?
Why are you going to oppose this?
You'll be making nothing but trouble for yourself.
Because I'm a Democrat, I don't know who the Republican enforcer – I know who the Republican enforcer is now.
It's the majority leader McCarthy.
He's the enforcer.
As you could see, he's the one who took the lead on this Omar business.
But on the Democratic side, all the years I was there was this guy, Steny Hoyer from Maryland, who would grab Democrats and say, you're going to make trouble for us?
I want to keep a number of Democrats who vote against this resolution supporting Israel.
We can't have more than 10 people opposing this.
And then they would just put the screws on.
And there are other enforcers too.
Rahm Emanuel was the enforcer.
Steny Hoyer was the biggest enforcer.
He's not Jewish or anything.
It's just he cares about money for the Democratic Party.
You'll see a lot of it – people think that there's a lot of emotion involved.
Like, for instance, New York's own Senator Schumer.
I knew him when he was in the House.
He has no interest in Israel whatsoever.
I mean, really, I've been active in pro-Israel stuff my whole life.
I really care about Israel.
I care about an Israel that doesn't occupy the West Bank and blockades Gaza.
But I do care about Israel.
I sure know about Israel.
Chuck Schumer is indifferent to Israel.
Never went there until he was – I was there like 10 times before I was 30.
He had never gone there ever.
He was not one of these Jewish kids like I was who grew up on it.
It's not his thing.
For better or – he's interested in domestic stuff and defending Wall Street and the things he does.
But in the Senate, he becomes the gigantic defender of Israel because his other job is, in addition to being a senator, to be raising money for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.
So he needs to be the most vocal in defending everything Israel does so he can raise money for his team.
It's not emotional.
It's, you know, oh, there are some members who really care.
I mean, when I say members, it's kilt talk, but, you know, senators in Congress.
But there are some members who actually do really care.
Most of them don't care at all.
In fact, in my read of most members of Congress, they don't care a damn about anything except getting reelected.
And just for the record here, you're saying – when you say this about Chuck Schumer, it's because you knew him in the House of Representatives, and he just wasn't interested in it.
Yeah, he wasn't like pro-Israel or anti-Israel.
This was not his thing.
I mean, he had lots of issues.
Now, we're really bordering on an anti-Semitic trope here.
I mean, this is actually, to be serious here, this is something that if you're not named Rosenberg, you have to be very careful to talk about how much the Democratic Party is dependent on donations from rich Jewish Zionists in America because it's – you know, it's using the J-word in any other context other than pure reverence.
Sounds like you're being accusatory and anti-Semitic, and how do you refer to these facts without being horrible?
You know, having the name Rosenberg helps for sure.
Well, it didn't help.
I mean, I was fired from my last job for using the term Israel firster.
That was organized by Alan Dershowitz, and he said I was anti-Semitic, even if you're Jewish.
That's amazing.
If you're Christian or whatever, and you just – And you know what?
I really resent that because you had some great articles on that goofball Media Matters site that I wish were still there and are apparently gone now.
No, they took them off.
Yeah, they took them off because Alan Dershowitz – Alan Dershowitz.
I mean, really?
They gave in to him.
I know.
I know.
I mean, really.
But anyway, so they'll go after Jews too.
I mean, they'll go after – in fact, a lot of the people – I wouldn't say most, but a sizable percentage of the people who go to bat on this issue.
Not necessarily in Congress, but even in Congress, there are some people who stand up to them.
A lot of them are Jews, but they go after them anyway.
Then it's even worse.
Then you're like a traitor.
But if you're not Jewish, don't be a traitor because you're being called an anti-Semite, and they will call you an anti-Semite, as they did with Omar.
He has to back down, and there's really no protection against them except to either say nothing or just praise everything Israel does.
And you know what?
I don't think they'll like you if you say just nothing.
Then they think who knows what's in your heart.
You've got to be in there on those statements.
You've got to praise Israel.
Cory Booker, you're going to find on YouTube the speeches that he gave when Israel was obliterating Gaza in – I forget what year it was.
Actually, it was many different years.
But he would get up.
My favorite speech was – okay, it was – the news was unbearable seeing this place just being blasted to bits.
I mean, people and children being killed.
And he gets up, and he says, I rise with a heavy heart.
I think, oh, this is going to be good.
At least he cares.
And his heavy heart was because poor Israel had to go around bombing them.
And meanwhile, there were people in Israel who were getting injured and different things like that.
But the fact that thousands of Palestinians were getting slaughtered, he had no interest in that at all.
I mean, it's just like, are we supposed to think that's because he really believes that?
No, he's their – look, he's the darling of Wall Street.
He's the darling of the banking industry, and he's the darling of AIPAC.
I mean, and maybe farmers.
I don't know.
There are so many of these ones that have money.
You can – but he's – I mean, there are so many like that.
The recent vote that they had on making it illegal to boycott Israel, which is, of course, insane, the idea.
I mean, it's legal to boycott North Carolina for banning transgender people from using bathrooms.
Americans can boycott an American state.
But under this law, you couldn't – you can't boycott if it becomes – if it passes the Senate and the president says he'll sign it.
So if that happens, then you won't be able to – like, if you refuse to do business with Israel, you'll have to prove that it's not motivated by politics.
But anyway, the good news was that all the Democrats running – who are in the Senate and who are running for president, every one of them, including Booker amazingly, voted against the AIPAC position on that.
So that may be – the one who – that will never deviate from the AIPAC position is – I forgot her name – the woman from Minnesota.
She's – what's her name?
Kornblauch or Blotch.
Yeah, Kobachar.
Oh, OK.
Kobachar.
Yeah, she's – yeah, she's – I don't watch TV, so I never have heard anybody say these people's names out loud before.
Sorry.
Yes, Kobachar.
Yes, but that's – and they really – here they make the – the ACLU said that this anti-BVS bill is a total violation of the First Amendment.
I mean, obviously it is.
Americans have been boycotting since the Tea Party.
Sorry, just one second.
Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, Inc.
This is where you buy gold, silver, platinum, palladium.
Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, Inc.
They've been around longer than me since the mid-1970s.
They have a great reputation.
And if you buy with Bitcoin, they charge no premium at all.
It's Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, Inc., rrbi.co.rrbi.co.
But now – so let me ask you about this, though.
So Ben Ehrenreich wrote a piece for the New Republic or the Atlantic or something.
Did you read that?
No.
OK.
I didn't.
I missed it.
OK.
So he's a very important writer.
Yeah, I like him.
In Israel-Palestine, of course.
So he wrote this thing where he was saying that there's a real difference now compared to when Mearsheimer and Walt wrote The Lobby.
They were just smeared, and even their allies ran for cover kind of thing, and it was pretty ugly.
And they somewhat survived because of how prominent they were in the first place and the work that they're still doing.
And they have tenure.
Yeah, and they had tenure, right?
Yeah.
So then he says – but now in this case, you have – and I actually have a blog entry at the Libertarian Institute site where I cataloged about a solid couple of dozen people.
A couple of dozen pieces by leftist and progressive and liberal Jews defending – and other people, too, but particularly for the sake of this discussion – liberal and leftist and progressive American Jews saying – and including Israelis, actually – saying – you know, defending Omar.
Yeah, yeah.
And so Ben Ehrenreich's point is that this is really a big deal when you have this many different American and Israeli Jewish writers defending her point and saying she's not wrong about this and even elaborating and telling their stories, like this other guy that wrote from his deathbed in The Nation, this poor guy.
Oh, he's – yeah, right.
Yeah.
He also described – I think he said he was a campaign manager for a guy, AIPAC offered him $5,000 if he would sign on to their anti-Iran legislation.
And he writes, yeah, I took the $5,000.
We needed the money.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, how can anyone argue with that?
He's – yeah, you're right.
He's got like Lou Gehrig's disease, this guy.
Right.
Yeah.
So The Nation is, you know, fairly centered left.
They're just maybe a couple clicks to the left of center.
Not too bad if people want to see them that way.
It's a pretty official American journalism kind of institution there.
Right.
But – so Ehrenreich's point, though, is that this is different and something has changed and now maybe it's more okay.
And she did apologize that your feelings might have gotten hurt, but that still something's got to be done about all this lobbying and the same statement still.
And so I just wonder whether you think that maybe he's right, that this is getting – I mean, the fact of the matter is the Israelis' whole shtick is wearing thin because it ain't true.
Right, exactly.
That they're the poor little victims here.
That's just not the reality, right?
No, I think it's really changing.
And Bernie Sanders deserves a lot of credit for that because he did the absolute amazingly – what seemed like crazy thing of talking about the injustice to the Palestinians and all that during his run for president.
It didn't hurt him at all and probably helped him.
He had to do it.
He has no record of ever really caring about the issue, but since his campaign was based on getting the support of the younger generation, he couldn't just come out with all the pro-Israel – quote, unquote, pro-Israel propaganda points.
So he had to say something that was – and then once he saw the response, he went deeper and deeper.
He's now really kind of a leader on the issue, has hired a terrific guy named Matt Dust, who's been working on this issue for years and is very pro-Palestinian.
And so I think Bernie Sanders showed, hey, you can do this.
Yeah, I think it's – and then we see that these people who are running for president, they don't feel the need to go on the BDS bill.
I think Klobuchar is going to be hurt by her stand on this.
I think I've said this to you in the past.
It used to be, as recently as when I said it last time or when I was on your show in the past, was it used to be that when Jerry Nadler in Manhattan, big liberal, blah, blah, blah, when he does a town meeting on the west side of Manhattan and everybody then commends him for his great stand on gay rights and human rights and all that.
Nobody ever mentions, well, what about the Palestinians?
You support Israel's use of American weapons to blast them all the time.
Now he's moderated his position, and when he goes to places – this I hear from people who live on the west side – it's brought up all the time.
And he tries to – he has to explain himself.
And it was always – you had a free ride on Israel.
You could be as right-wing, if that's the correct – or you could be as militaristic on Israel as you want to be, but you'll never be challenged by the liberals because they're always so happy that you're supporting gay marriage or something.
But that's changing now.
So I think Aaron Reich, he's right.
It's a demographic change, the change being – the remarkable change is that there are always more and more young people and less and less old people.
So the young people – I mean the millennials are not going to be – like the big millennial – the big Jewish group for the millennial Jews is called If Not Now.
It's gigantic.
It shows up everywhere.
And it's – they're all kids, and they're against the occupation, and they do sit-downs.
They do all this stuff, and they make alliances with their Palestinian brothers and sisters and all that.
They're also very Jewishly knowledgeable.
I saw they were in some congressperson's office the other day, and they were singing all these songs in Hebrew and sitting – but doing a sit-in.
I mean, their parents wouldn't have done that.
It's changing.
Netanyahu has really helped with that because he's torn the veil off.
He's not – Well, and also in a partisan way where he just outright supported Romney and has allied himself so closely with Trump, who to them is the most absolutely radioactive hate figure that he could possibly – In Israel – Israel has got to be the only country in the world where the official poster for Netanyahu running for re-election, it hangs – they have them billboards.
It's just a picture of Trump and Netanyahu.
I don't think Republican governors here would put that picture up, not with his popularity being so low.
Trump is very popular among the right in Israel, and that makes them very unpopular with Jewish kids here.
I mean, it's – yeah.
The Netanyahu-Trump coalition – the Romney-Trump-Netanyahu coalition, yeah, that is really deadly with the younger generations.
Well, you have so many people jumping into the Democrat primary, and then like you said, most of them are too afraid to cross the voters.
They'll worry about the money later, but right now they can't afford to cross them on this other than a couple, which means that, I don't know, at least in one of the debates they're going to have to talk about this.
They will.
Israel is – they're really controversializing themselves with this kind of overreach I think.
Yeah, because at this point, you're still – I mean this is a true vote about both the Republican base and the Democratic base.
When you begin the campaign, well, the Republicans have an incumbent.
It doesn't work that way when you have an incumbent president.
But when you've got all these new people all competing, you start out, you're doing all these little like tea parties in people's homes, little meetings.
And then you have the extreme activists.
The extreme activists on the Democratic Party are on the left.
The extreme activists on the Republican Party are on the right.
The activists ask questions that other people don't ask.
And you are not – when you're doing these little town meetings to raise money, make your face known in Des Moines and Manchester, you're not getting the AIPAC crowd asking the questions there.
You're getting the activists who are going to be saying, how could you have defended Israel's bombing of Gaza?
How could you have done this?
All these – so it's going to change.
I mean it's a shame to realize that you basically have to wait for a generation to get older and people to die off and all that, but you do.
That's just the way it is.
The Israel – Israel doesn't have the young Jews.
Oh, yeah.
It has the ones that they give free trips to.
I think that's really amazing.
They've taken hundreds of thousands of young American Jews, have been given free trips to Israel to make them grow up and be their college kids, to make them be part of the lobby.
It's called birthright, and it says it is your birthright to go to Israel and go for free.
Now, this is really so different than my generation and even subsequent generations in between, because I went to Israel when I was a kid, but I had to work summers to pay for the trip.
I wanted to go.
It would be inconceivable that somebody would say, hey, here's a free trip to a foreign country.
I mean, it's a bribe.
It's sort of like a bribe.
It says, you know, we're going to give you a free trip, and you'll go back, and you'll be thoroughly propagandized.
But, you know, I have heard about afterbirthright trips.
They come home, and they just become – the main thing that they do on the trip is have sex for the first time.
It's the first time they're away from home.
They're 18 years old, no parents around.
But the fact is that they have to – so basically they have to buy the younger generation just the way they buy Congress.
Yeah, and then they must look at that pretty cynically too.
Like, what are you doing here?
I'm getting paid to be here.
You?
Yeah, exactly.
Right.
Exactly.
Hey, let me ask you this, man.
Did you see the – finally leaked after previously being suppressed Israel Lobby USA documentary?
Oh, the Al Jazeera one?
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
It's great.
But there's another reason.
Even – I mean, that's Al Jazeera, which is in Qatar, Doha, and they repressed it.
But, yeah, it's amazing.
It was amazing how blatant it is.
But who saw it, though?
I mean, the only people who saw it were people like you and me who, like, looked for it on the web.
I mean, that's true.
You know, I have no idea what it would take for that thing to go viral, and they wouldn't even – you know, it's the kind of thing where, you know, if the Washington Post has a scoop, depending on the subject, but a lot of times the New York Times the next day has to acknowledge that.
So the story has been developed further by the competition here, and now we know this, too, on the same story, that kind of thing.
They owed the American people that when this was leaked.
Yeah, exactly.
Part of the story is it was suppressed, but now it's out there, and here's what's in it.
And, no, we didn't get the scoop, but there it is.
And so for them to continue to ignore it is pretty Orwellian and crazy.
Especially considering just how bonkers the documentary is and what's revealed in there.
Yeah, exactly.
But I think that the back story is, you know, Al Jazeera is owned by the, you know, the ruling family of Qatar, and they – you know, the Trump administration doesn't like – really hates that country because they're sort of like they think they're too close with Iran.
So there's all this trouble between the United States and Doha, so what they did in Doha was hired all these pro-Israel lobbyists, gave them money, including Alan Dershowitz, who went to Doha.
That was when the – at that time, that documentary was scheduled to go on the air.
And the next thing, Alan Dershowitz and that whole gang are wandering around there visiting the royals and everything else, and it's suppressed.
So it's – in a way, it's part of the same story.
You know, it's pretty remarkable.
Yeah.
I mean, you'd think that Al Jazeera would be immune to this.
I mean, considering that Americans always thought of Al Jazeera as being like practically an arm of international terrorism, which they are.
They're a terrific network, but they were – you know, once the royals in Doha caved, that was it.
It just pulled the rug out from under the good journalists at Al Jazeera who did such a good job of that documentary.
Well, I never even mind the Post and the Times, but all of the TV networks, and I don't know about in Europe, but essentially, like you're saying, who knows about it?
It never really went anywhere.
I don't think they showed it in Europe.
I don't know.
Maybe they – I don't know.
I mean, I'm happy to have the opportunity to mention it every time I can, that people got to go to electronikintifada.net and look at this, or it's just right there on YouTube if you just search Israel Lobby USA Documentary.
It's such good journalism too with the undercover camera there and so much.
It was produced by my friend Clayton Swisher at Al Jazeera, who's just a terrific guy, and all that work he put into it.
He put in a year or something and just shelved it, gone.
But at least it leaked.
Somebody leaked it.
That was good.
But yeah, we don't see that kind of stuff here.
You know what?
In general, what do we see in the media anyway?
Most of the news – I mean, like this story about that guy in Chicago who was beat up, but then he wasn't beaten up.
I mean, that dominates – these stories – the stories that we hear continually are mostly utterly insignificant stories.
Today, the big story is the guy who owns the New England Patriots was with prostitutes.
That's been nonstop on CNN.
I'm so glad I quit Twitter.
Twitter, oh my God.
I quit TV a couple of years ago because of Hillary Clinton's voice.
I like reading about her because I think she's hilarious, but I just can't – it's the same with Sarah Palin, so it's not a partisan thing.
Right.
It might be sexism.
Oh, yeah.
But I just can't stand to hear her screeching.
So that was what finally did it for me was with quitting TV during the 2016 campaign.
And then what's left for you, though?
But I finally quit Twitter, so I don't even know any of the things you're talking about.
I get my news from antiwar.com, where everything there actually matters.
Well, I unfortunately – I find Twitter is really useful if you just follow all the – if you just follow news sites.
I want to – but – No, I can't use it without abusing it.
That's my problem.
I shouldn't blame Twitter.
Well, that's true.
It's not a disease.
My own addiction is my own responsibility, but I had to just quit.
You're right, though.
That's exactly right.
Yeah, no, I was spending way, way, way too much time being productive for them and not for myself.
Yeah, right, right.
Anyway, listen, man, I'm so glad that you came back on the show.
It's been way too long since we've spoken.
Great.
And put up some – you still post on Twitter, don't you?
No, man, I just quit it.
I would have to – How will people know that you have this wonderful interview with me?
Well, it'll be on scotthorton.org, and it'll be linked up at the top, antiwar.com as well.
And then I guess you will tweet it out when it's published, right?
Okay, then that's fine.
Then people will see it.
You know what?
It's true that I should ask a friend to set up a robot to push the things out for me, but I'm just too lazy and stupid to do it myself.
Yeah, it is very easy to get – to be so disgusted with social media.
It makes you dirty to go near it, but sometimes – Yeah, once I quit, I sort of thought, well, even if I have the robot just put out the interviews, people are going to think that I'm tweeting, and they're going to respond to me, and then I'm going to ignore them because I'm not looking at that, and then they're going to think I'm a jerk.
So I kind of thought I'd just leave it.
You probably wouldn't ignore them.
You'd get into fights with them.
It would not be worth it.
So you're right.
And that is what I would do if I was on there would be fight with them.
Right, right.
All right, anyway, listen, man, thanks for your time.
Great to talk to you, and great to read you in The Nation.
I got that vicarious thrill that like, hey, cool, other people are going to read this too when I read this.
So that was nice.
Great.
Well, thanks for calling us.
I really appreciate it.
Yeah, yeah.
Great to talk to you again.
MJ Rosenberg, everybody.
Here he is at The Nation.
This is how APAC really works.
You can find it in the viewpoint section there at antiwar.com.
Thanks again.
Thank you.
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.
