tv Discussion on President Trump Jewish Voters CSPAN September 11, 2019 12:23am-1:56am EDT
including shifting political sentiment toward israel and other countries of the middle east georgetown university posted this 90 minute event georgetown university posted this 90 minute event. >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. i want to welcome everyone to the jewish center for civilization event titled disloyal american judaism in the trump era. i am the associate director and professor at the center if
you don't know much about it where the home for jewish scholarship here at georgetown university especially pertaining to middle east politics jewish humanities. to gather we have 22 faculty including the esteemed panelist today. approximately 100 students and we offer over 40 courses per year. you should have received a copy of our full event loan up the neck lineup. the next event is the launch of the most recent book and
that would be held october 17 at 5:00 o'clock p.m. in the center. please rsvp and also visit our website. be all very much look forward to seeing you there. and for students who are also in the room if you are interested in learning more or interested to become and to sign up at the registration table. with the jewish civilization
thank you all for coming today on this important event. [applause] thank you to all of you who came out today joining the georgetown university. maybe the american judaism that has an equal part informative and captivating this afternoon. and for the jewish civilization to join us today to my right the senior vice president for foreign defense policy studies. [laughter] [applause]
and from the brookings institution middle eastern policy. [laughter] [applause] and my far left into combat anti- semitism under president barack obama. and all members of the faculty then our students will be about and there will be no cards on the distinguished panelist with georgetown university if you see me glancing my phone please check my - - i'm receiving messages from staff managing the event and showing our distinguished
panel. and then with barack obama addressing the congregation right here in washington dc. >> the life that i insist upon for all people here in the united states that tells me to stand up for israel and look out for the rights of the jewish people. the rights of the jewish people compelled me to think about the palestinian child feels trapped. >> now that's what judeo-christian means. [applause]
>> now looking at president trump after the horrific shooting tree of life synagogue in 2018. >> make this evil somatic attack it is an assault on all of us. it is an assault on humanity it will require all of us working together to extract the hateful poison of anti-semitism from our world. this was an anti- somatic attack. this gorge of anti-semitism cannot be good and it cannot be tolerated and it cannot be allowed to continue.
>> finally president trump talks about the strength of the unbreakable alliance of the united states and israel. . . . . and if they wanted to the embassy for many years and many decades am frankly many present presidents and we got it done. we also got it built in a slight cost saving like about 1 billion-dollar cost saving. and i want to thank ambassador david friedman for the job he's done and jared and everybody that works so hard together.
thank you very much, ambassador. we stand for years away from president obama speech and three years into the trump administration so i'm going to ask each of you to reflect for a minute or two on the current moment which come from the jewish community and prompt you as follows what is different about the community today compared to five years ago either safety, security and war its political allegiances. ranging from anti-semitism and domestic terrorism to the u.s. israel relationship, i think if we are talking about the
situation of american jews, what has changed is a well-documented rise in anti-semitic hate crimes both violent and nonviolent, and i would say that is part of a context in a discourse that has become more polarized, course, unrestrained and corrosive of some of the bonds that hold us together as a country despite our political differences and religious differences and cultural differences so what is happening is something that happens to all of america and it is a conversation the jewish community needs to have and there are a set of specific things we need to demand of our
community leadership and national leadership, but i also think that most institutional jewish responses have done this, we need to look at the broad context as well at strengthening our ability as an american society to dialogue or cross difference and in trying the clerk of the sum that is at the heart of american democracy. that's what it's allowing anti-semitism and a lot of other bigotry on such a platform. there's an old adage in politics that american voters pick when they choose a new president the office of what they just had true be very different style.
i come from a partisan background. initially most of my career. i've been working on anti-semitism the last six years and i think one of the most damaging things we can do is politicize this issue. one of the things that has changed is the politicization of the issue of israel which i think is damaging, but i just began seeing at the end of my tenure the end of 2016 and beginning of 2017 this politicization it's one of the most dangerous things we can do is hide our hands behind our back to fight anti-semitism and this is a real problem. as mentioned, we have a continued polarization. what the jewish community is
essentially just following what is happening in israel but also more importantly with happening in the united states with polarization of attitudes. we have strengthening extremes and for an example there was a column in the times about the strengthening of the extreme left. there is no question that one of the gifts that happened is this whole controversy over loyalty and disloyalty to the two congresswomen from minnesota and michigan. so, i think that is both in the country and in the jewish community. security wise, all you talk about is what kind of security we have. we are three or 4 miles north of the white house and across the street from each other. across the street they have
armed guards all the time and we don't. i'm not sure about armed guards is the answer but people are really concerned about someone walking in and opening fire. we haven't seen that. we had security in these institutions but the degree of concern and just even sometimes the hysteria is huge and it is getting larger. one thing i read a full clip and you have both presidents with a few things they agreed upon at least a state is the unbreakable bond in the united states and israel that since cooperation has never been stronger you heard that from president obama.
i think that we agree on the pillars of the conversation which is that anti-semitism is a college and the politicization and it's been the enemy of the clear conversation of solution. in the political persuasionthe d religious persuasions, whatever it is, we need to talk about this challenge and the more that we try to use it as a tool that we can hang around the next, the more it becomes a problem we need to talk about it in an intelligent way. the one thing that strikes me is they are sitting here in the
capital of the united states of america so it is natural that we talk about our own president and politics and jewish community but the reality is if you look at jewish communities in the united states, i say they are still safer than those that are living in fear in certain instances that have been not the subject of one terrorist attack itself, but many. cnn just did a poll and it's absolutely illuminating and will bring us to a conversation about some of the questions that lie at the root of this because we talk a lot about the phenomenon. anti-semitism is terrible, but we don't talk about when it springs.
it empowers people to express those that were once unspoken and i debate did before we broup an interesting question before we sat down arguing an anti-semi if you only think these thoughts but you don't express them, maybe we can talk about that. these numbers are illuminating and horrifying. there is a cnn poll by the way. more than a quarter of the poles believed that they have too much influence in business and finance. nearly one fourth to much influence in conflict and the war across the world. one in five say they have too much influence in the media and the same number believe they have too much influence in politics. meanwhile, and this is the last fax i believe that everybody because this is broken down according to the country as
well. a third of europeans in the poll said that they view just a little or nothing about the holocaust. when you go by the way to millennial, whether in the united states or europe it drops even further. >> thank you. let's get into the secon to the. there's a domestic and international political behavior of jewish america. we will get to the domestic issues momentarily. as for the international dimension, let me ask you this, what is the most relevant difference between the obama and trump administration with the policy towards israel and in what way if any are the policy is quite similar. >> you have two different administrations and policies towards the state of israel. i would not come and i would lament the growing efforts to sort out who put anti-semitism
towards israel together. while there is an element unfortunately at the end of the day, especially for people like us are having a serious political conversation on this part i don't see anti-semitism as being part of it. i talk about this often with my colleagues as more liberal institutions because i think that we agree there is a tendency to believe that israel is the republican country. saudi arabia, the united arab emirates and that the shiites belong to the democrats. this is one of the dumbest things that i've seen develop in recent american foreign policy is this weird notion that the democrats are wrong and the republicans are good for israel and saudi arabia.
first, who would have ever thought that we would see that in the same breath as a whole different topic. it's become increasingly much more pro- israel. i don't think that that insinuates smokers are less pro-israel the reality is of course most mainstream people who deal with the middle east in a national security matter as we wheelchair concerns about the failure to resolve a decades long between israel and the palestinians. so are there differences come absolutely. at the end of the day i would say that both administrations represent what i thin think it't the core of an american view is that israel is an ally into the
american israeli relationship is a vital one not just to them come out to us. >> since you are so why you're in your answer, is there a policy difference we don't know about under the radar that experts such as resolve if that comes up in the flow, tell us about it. >> if i can think of ac approach to the conflict that hasn't been publicly discussed, i will let you know. believe me, it would be interesting to discover. for the democratic and republican administrations, the relationship with israel is a national security issue and it has also been for both parties partly domestic and political issue as well. i would agree that the fundamental policy approach of
the united states to has been consistent in the sense of a strong u.s. israel relationship is an american interest that brings a lot of benefits to the united states and what it's trying to achieve in the region of the israeli-palestinian conflict is not only a tragedy with human cost but also the stabilizing and unhelpful for bubble othe love of american gon the region. those have been the policies and the democratic administration policies. there are changes within two areas that are shaping the way that we talk about it now. one change is on the ground between israelis and palestinians the situation of the conflict itself and efforts to resolve the.
they've had this framework as a way of describing how they are trying to square the circle on this issue and as a way of shaping american engagement on this club at what they framework set by the oslo declaration of 93 and subsequent agreements and theragreements andthere are thel status issues that are yet to be negotiated. that's been the premise of the foreign-policy up until very recently, and i think it was with the secretary carries final effort at the end of the obama administration. anyone who thought that there was still alive in the oslo process had to conclude a have e end of the day was over. now that presents a policy problem for the united states of america which means okay, then what is our approach to resolving the israeli-palestinian conflict, and we have yet to answer a that question so that is one reason
that it's a different kind of conversation today than it was a few years ago. it is a dynamic situation and the political elite are shifting. in the united states i think within the american public there are two key developments and we have been tracking this for years. this isn't about obama and trump, this is stuff that has been happening in the american public that's being reflected in what their leaders say and do and that is americans by and large favor a two state solution if no two state solution is possible, in the significant majorities two thirds and above if they prefer one state with
equal rights for everybody because we are americans and that is kind of our political culture. but when they look at the situation as it exists today, there are differences between left and right, younger and older. on the left side of the political spectrum, more and more especially younger americans, especially latino and african americans are looking at this conflict through the lens of human rights. that makes them particularly sensitive to certain israeli policies like housing demolition, like the closure on gaza that they see as infringing on human rights and the them more critical of the policy. on the other side of the political spectrum, and that is a growing constituency the
numbers demographically are growing in the united states into thandto the public and theg constituency for the party. so the republican party the growing constituenc constituence evangelical americans who look at the israeli-palestinian conflict through the lens of the prophetic fulfillment. we are there to trigger the second coming and that is our purpose. this gives them a conflict that includes the notion that conflict in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing because it might be a signal of the end time. and these are real attitudes and shape people's political preferences and the readers respond to that. so i don't think that it is unusual given the situation on the ground.
it's not just a shift in the discourse but a political football. i will close with this. we have a problem not the introduction of thinteraction on american politics where in israeli politics attitude towards the united states have changed as israel has become more self-confident and there is a tension between the relationship on the united states and its office self-confidence and security on the other hand and it creates a degree of sometimes resentment just like you often saw in the french security relationship with the united states even though they clung on to it.
i think you see that dynamic into politics. it didn't used to be true and that leads to israeli politicians to be a little more political about the relationship with the u.s. than they used to be so now we are feeding off of each other in a way that i find unfortunate. >> there are differences or similarities. >> let me start by echoing my colleagues that reminds me of the saying everything has been said that not everybody has had the chance to say it. so this is my chance to say it. i agree the idea of the security cooperation is something that is one of the few things that common to separate the rhetoric in support of israel. i do think one of the fundamental difference is that y colleagues have touched on but that really strikes me is in the obama administration and others
there is a commitment to the two state solution. now, it isn't a cartoon commitment like the all hold hands and sing around the fire. there is an understanding and they are not the basis for that. and i'm sure on both sides they are not willing to cut any type of deal the government can see right or left and which would keep the jewish state. a different part o of it is the strong feeling that israel should be a democracy as well as a jewish state, democratic and jewish state and if you abandon the idea and abandon at least the moving over very long perif time. this creates problems for the
american public for someone like obama who just really believe that this is a jewish value. but even more so to the vast majority of american jews. zionism and the united states was really founded in some ways i brandeis and justice brandeis had this idea that it wasn't a dual loyalties to be a zionist because the jewish state in palestine that with either the jewish homeland it's very much a part of the american dream sitting on the hill align dominations etc.. it shows how we look at israel as well. you move away from even the possibility that creates all kinds of problems.
they speak about what happens behind the scenes. i have an open question i don't know if anyone here knows the answer. is there a similarly tense relationship behind the scene in the government that we just don't know about but maybe some people in this room do. >> although i wasn't working on the u.s. israel should primarily what i would say is that pensions are a regular feature of the u.s. israel relationship where the u.s. and israel don't have their priorities wind up.
in the trump administration's approach on the key issues, take iran as a very clear example. president trump campaigned on getting rid of the jcp oa because i08because it was a badd through the intense pressure he came into office and within a year repeated the deal with an intensive campaign that had an impact on the iranian economy. and then secretary pompeo laid out the objectives of the policy and it was a laundry list of changes not only on nuclear issues and ballistic missiles, not the sponsorship of terrorism, but it's when the islamic republic is no longer the islamic republic and we will
let up on this campaign and achieve the goal. so, that is a sort of pie in the sky objective that i don't think the partners disagreed with in principle, but i don't think that they thought it was realistic using that setup means. more recently they said we have no preconditions for talks. all we want is that they don't go nuclear and i think they were like wait a minute, there's a lot of other stuff going on at the iranians are doing that we have a problem with. so, the tensions arise from inconsistencies in the trump administration's policy and like i said that is not unique to israel. another example that isn't unique to israe israel is presif the announcement last summer that he wanted to withdraw troops from syria. he did this in a conversation with the turkish president that hadn't been a friend to israel and hasn't been a friend of her other partners in the region.
or are ver very much a friend tt had persuaded the president that he was going to make it possible to withdraw from syria super regional parties are affected and these are the kind of things that create tension. in a previous administrations including the obama administration you see the tensions emerge where the u.s. wants israel to do something it doesn't want to do, and sometimes or that u.s. wants to do something israel doesn't want it to do. so during the administration he wanted to sell advanced aircraft to the saudis and the israeli government didn't want to and in the obama administration they wanted a settlement freeze. >> d. want to add anything to
that? >> for sure we can definitely go all day and if you guys have time -- but no, i think that these are separate question, but the perception is a very important part. tammy laid out the facts and there's a lot of confusion about the policy. i don't think that that is what fuels the troubles. a few different kinds. during the obama administration, i'm not saying that he was, but
>> national security but except in times of extreme like after 9/11 if you have a conflict but we shouldn't have a conversation to fool people into thinking somehow this is about the jews this is separate from the israelis in the middle east. as much as president trunk may be confused about this but the reality is it is 100 percent
the truth that i would go further to say that in europe , weirdly we see embracing the anti- semitic stereotypes for pro israel which is completely random. i don't understand how that happens but it is a phenomenon that you see. >> in precisely that instrumental essays and. >> and he may reconcile this. is a great country they are the jews that i don't like. but this is very common. you laugh but this is one of the oldest jewish jokes in the book how do you define an anti- semite quick the person
who hates all the jews but likes the individuals. the other is hates the jews but loves the individuals. [laughter] >> the adl releasing a steady stream of research with a sharp rise in anti- somatic hate crimes in 2016 through 2017 the jump was an astonishing 56 percent wine interpretation of the material was tied to the election of donald j. trump although it never explicitly drew the connection but it is not causation but anti-semitic strain has been present in america for centuries this was
not the creation of the republican party or any party for that matter to look at social media and stagnation. so what do you think drives that dramatic increase of hate crimes? and in particular are there any less obvious factors whose impact we need to think about quick. >> first i note these numbers. it is in the weeds but they are very different so we had a young man in 2017 who made 60 calls all 50 that's not counted as one. now the fbi keeps all hate crime incidents and that is a trend upward.
i mention this because all of the data has limitations. so for example up to the nineties you will see even higher numbers. and the problems also with a hate crime data so now i'm doubtful but they just don't so dependent on local and state law enforcement. so having said that i keep something on the website in all of the english language press around the world you can't help but notice the reporting of it.
so what else is behind us? >> and danielle said it befor before, with all problems of the anti-semitism the strongest jewish community in the world with all the violent problems we're having with the anti-semitism we think of but it is compared to south american communities or the middle east we are safer. looking at violence and we have had this past year to attacks on synagogues. and were likely to get more. now one of the things we don't want to get into because when you do it anti-semitism, my
most important principle was let's just be brutally honest. you don't take a political position to take the policy out. first largely it has been right wing. stop. don't kid yourself this is just right wing stuff. >> we are already getting reports of security agencies of hezbollah planning attacks around the world with the bombing were 80 some people were killed. and i don't know the violence yet is necessarily right wing. so let's be honest number one. the levels of violence are still relatively low but that
could change that will have a major impact on psychology. already has on american jews. if you look at opinion data in the united states, still the pew report to your different religious ethnic groups what is the warmest? it is the jews. it continues to be but that tells you something about what is happening. and speaking about anti-semitism it still remains probably within the same group of five or ten years ago. for some reason they are correlating with the
presidential election which is not unusual because normally you can track the election cycle but the perception and the data indicate something has changed. >> it has. >> so the original question what is driving the change? we are all curious about trying to push you but the rhetoric of the 2016 campaign is one issue but we have been going through this worldwide. this is not just in the united states. what happened in europe before i came here we are not immune. we had the 2008 downturn of the largest economic recession since the great depression perk why don't it contribute all of that but a breakdown of trust in less than democratic institutions. with all kinds of dislocation in the society.
usually but not always. so something is happening. so what might we do about it? but also i don't want anyone to look at one set of numbers because it's not because then look at the data you have to look at what's going on is definitely violence the bottom line that words eventually turn into violence if you start calling jews cockroaches as mister farrakhan has done, then if that has not been encountered very strongly. but we are not in that era yet. >> i think he lays us out in a
very fair way without bias. but you point at the question of dislocation anytime there is a serious financial downturn but i think it's much more serious of the industrial revolution that is happening right now. i would have liked to have thought 1945 when we said never again that in fact it was meant and the answer is in the data. you don't know what happens if you have no sense of history then the taboo is not there you like to think people's parents brought them up better
but that's just not the case. is it so this is the challenge so how do you educate? how do you make people aware? not the worst of the worst weather we talk about terrorism or races are anti-semitism it is those that excuse them and create room for them in society and tolerate them those are the ones that enable them and part of that is we become extremely loose with accusations which is a problem on the other side. is a just one guy? will the numbers skyrocket?
but on the other hand too many people are willing to tolerate. you are right it preceded donald trump. he is the symptom of this larger challenge. and there was an article in the wall street journal the anti-semitism talking about the yellow vest holding up signs talk about the horror of the jews. i'm sorry? but that was just simply because he worked for a financial firm. it was thrown out to but this is the kind of thing we need to figure out. >> and to put their finger on it to say the guard rails on political discourse is evident
in a whole variety of ways to define those political opponents than anything is justifiable to attack them see might weaponize the charge of anti-semitism and that category and that campaign makes that harder but at the same time if you are in a war against all of your enemy then you will not ever criticize anyone on your side even if they say something that should be well beyond the balance of political discourse so what we have it is interesting i had this debate with my 21 -year-old last night about these statistics. does this represent the fact there are more anti- semites or have there always been the same but now they feel free to speak and act? i tend to think it's more of
the latter. and our broader political discourse has degraded and created this permissive environment not only to deter people but it also makes it easier for the real haters to simulate this content into political discourse in way that other peoples may not be educated enough. and i think that is what we see is white supremacist inserting insinuations of labels into discourse with social media on the right and we have seen the same things
and if we didn't get a good course in world history. if we are not from a marginalized community and therefore to know this history then you might look at that image and not to understand that subtext and it is anti- semitis semitism. >> we haven't talked about social media if you go to any conference i used to go to her three times per year they were talked about two or three things that has to be done so talk about education that the other is social media. some people said it took hundreds of years to deal with the printing press. we didn't know how to deal with electronic media for a
long time we don't know how to deal with social media no question. another thing i want to say is that anti-semitism is just like racism or islamic will be a. know it is not. is not worse or better but they each have different manifestations although they are connected. talked about the jews are often the first to feel it but not always and russia the last 300 years now the caucuses have no jews generally they have the best situation never in russia because they only had them sent 17 nineties so in that. this is the best so the problem with that is that they keep leaving the soviet union and one of that things is even
though they are good, when other people are being persecuted, jews leave authoritarian countries because when putin goes for changes his mind that there are no institutions to protect you. one of the things we have to look at other forms of bigotry and they often have a relationship with anti-semitism as well. it is different but they do have commonalities. but europe is a problem and in western europe in particular as part of anti- semitism very small parts is definitely coming from those communities.
but also attacking jews. >> coming from his remarks about jewish disloyalty. and then we breakdown the remark itself. >> in my opinion the democrats of a very controversial i don't understand how they could do that. they want to take away foreign aid they want to do things to israel and in my opinion if you vote for a democrat you're being very disloyal to the jewish people and to israel. and only anybody else to say anything to that. >> can you help the younger folks in our audience why this raised concerns. >> historically charges of
disloyalty is anti-semitism you could go back to earlier periods like poisoning the well or the black death to kill jewish christian babies for their blood or children would disappear or found dead but in the modern era napoleon said tell us you are a part of us that you are a loyal french man. that was critical and the jews said yes we give up our communal institutions and our economy but we just have a different religion. and then 80 years later and again it is the jew who is disloyal to france even though all the evidence points to
somebody else. you have a lot of history 1853 pointing to the jews as buying cotton and bands jews from the whole area in tennessee. now the president says no. father abraham comes to the aid of the jews had that throughout american history to and world war ii. look at gallup polling and ask who was the greatest threat to america? are they germans? no. they are jews. 1944 they are killed by the millions in europe and they
are the disloyal people in america. so in less crude ways with that implication no it's okay. do we have other people who are attacked? so that idea of disloyalty resonates through the years on the first day he didn't mention but he also said disloyalty does all these things for israel from his perspective and they are not thankful. what is this? no loyalty. this doesn't make him an anti-
semite. if president trump is the problem then there are things he has done do not help the cause. many times he talks about how he's against anti-semitism. that when he says disloyal talk about congresswoman omar. >> we will get to her. >> we are aligning some issues that we will get to that. did you think is just another weird thing that he said? >> it wish i could say i still listen in a critical fashion to donald trump. that's the first time i've actually seen the video i saw it on twitter it was followed by the extremely weird tweet
about keying of the jews and blah blah blah. i hesitate to impute anything as there is a long history as i have loyalty and disloyalty that you rightly noted. i don't think that's what he was talking about any more than i think that's what he was talking about like america first as a slogan which also by the way was anti- somatic. lawn - - somatic. those who are not psychiatrist engage in talks psychology and psychiatry. i have no idea what he is thinking it was persuaded
after several years of immersion here in washington he does not think about these things the way any normal person does. he is not informed by history he doesn't think about lindbergh and even after being told he says i will redefine it. not that i couldn't possibly have anything in my history no. now you will associate this with me and i am awesome. know that is pop psychology i don't know if it is true but that is not to negate or to diminish the many the - - the meaning of words when they are stupid. but at their base unfortunately i think they are more rooted in ignorance than anything else.
>> if you have any questions relate to direct to us. >> i read gave you a sense of the leg at one - - the legacy of the loyalty issues through the history of jews through western society and the enlightenment. that's important but there is something different about the united states and the liberal democracy established in the united states that's different for jews. that is what i think people feel may be threatened in this moment and to make them feel concerned. i want to explain why. because when napoleon said tha that, that was conditional.
you can be a jew at home and the french man in the street you don't have to be jewish in the street or bring your identity into the public square. the united states the first place the modern jewish history where jews have been able to create vibrant communal life for themselves and be full participants in society and politics not just as individuals but as jews. and that is precious for cannot because something special about american jews but america. about the nature of this pluralistic liberal democracy. >> so in that context it's concerning what he talks about
loyalty no matter where they come from and yes. we need to think about this not just in terms of jewish likelihood that the health of our liberal democracy. >> i agree the united states is different in many ways. but mainly we are mostly different from the 20th century. >> it is a long effort. >> in washington talks about there is no loyalty to bigotry but also we have a history of jews who remember their history and the anti- semites i just read a great piece letter from secretary hey in
the roosevelt administration he was a private secretary and complaining because they were worried about those in russia to be killed and they wanted to push the administration to come out hey was sympathetic and he wrote about the poor jews they think they are all bully boys. we did not have essence even roosevelt the word jewish americans you came to america you are just americans. not jewish americans and then we had to go talk about jewish issues but we had great that is qualitatively different
today it is different. but we should always remember not just the memory of fear or where everything has been grea great, but what could change with a very liberal democracy and we are very tied to this pluralistic liberal democracy if we lose it. >> it another major issue. >> i think i respect what you say tammy and i understand it is troubling to hear the president say things even with the place of stupidity rather than hat hate, nonetheless i do feel being in the political
bustle every day that a lot of the expressions of hysteria of the plight of the jews and women and pretty much every other group are at risk because of donald trump is wrapped up in the hyper- partisan in the politicalization of everything. i don't want to dismiss things clearly no matter where it comes from but i understand. you have a good segue which i hope is the next segment but it is important to remember hysteria that hyperventilation that comes toward this president some of which he has earned which is not entirely his fault. >> i will put on the table the
three of you have made a very passionate arguments against the politicalization we are in washington dc not the east village but i don't see how we get outside of that in this town president trump's remarks about loyalty and disloyalty with the ongoing feud as pointed out as the squad the members of this group are harsh critics of his real and with their activism to spark accusation of the anti- - - anti-semitism on the left. so this is hard so where do the charges of the left is justified. are those the forms associated with the right?
with that initiative which we do see coming from the left an equal lesser or greater danger to american jews. >> i will say i don't think equal left or greater is the issue i think the three of us have been describing an environment that is bad for the jews and american democracy and other vulnerable people. anything that contributes to that makes it worse. lesser or greater, give me a break. >> but you have to allocate resources. >> that is threat assessment that is violence.
now let me answer your question for i went to overland in the 1980s. so i think i know about identity politics on the left. is there anti-semitism on the left? yes for go there always has been just like on the right. do people within the left with making their passionate arguments sometimes ignorantly or knowingly go on to frederick programs? absolutely as it happens on the right in with jewish power or dual loyalty. sure. anti-semitism is anti-semitism. you said the president's
ongoing feud with the squad and actually this takes me back to the disloyalty comment as well. this is not a feud this is a fight he has picked he has been infantilizing this issue for political purposes speaking about disloyalty of the jews i don't think he was talking he wasn't talking to me he was talking to the evangelical voters he instrumental lies this issue for political purposes people on the left knee that also. i don't like describing that as a feud. he is pulling out for new members and to hold them up as if they are the face of the entire democratic party. i would love to say as confidently that some of the
rhetoric i hear from donald trump does not represent the entire party but i say pretty confidently there are some for henchmen that the four freshmen from solid democratic districts do not represent the entire party. i think there is diversity on israel as in the republican party. ask rand paul. you can have a debate within the democratic party about us israel relationships and you can do that without indulging in anti-semitism. so those of us on the left
need to call it out when we see it in on the right side of the spectrum needs to do the same and in this fever swamp environment i tried to lift up the people who are doing that. one of my favorite people to retweet in terms of holding up models of conversation to call out anti- semitism is a conservative writer, he edits the examiner opinion we disagree on many things. but on this we are 100 percent in tune. i have worked diligently as a foreign-policy person on the democratic side of the
spectrum to debate in my own party as substitute meaningful debate about israel and the us is really relationship and the conflict that does not indulge in his llama phobia or anti-semitism or any other form of bigotry or ignorance. we need to have a conversation about it. it can be done. but there will be this politically motivated in the air for every election cycle and the job to push anti- semitism to the margins and have this conversation without bigotry it's not to fixate the job is to try to get that back.
>> i agree wholeheartedly that donald trump has instrumental lies these four women representatives because i think it serves him well. to paint them as the face of the democratic party. and every struggle that democratic leadership has had to condemn that, he says it's a sign there is a drift in the democratic party and the republican party both are drifting in directions that are unsavory to a lot of us. you will not find up here are the people who will try to defend one side over the other.
i don't buy it. i think those women are anti- semites and enablers. yes i do. and also in the republican party. people are holding up signs and chanting against the jews. that was a disgrace in the president's failure to call them out immediately is his shame and failure and i will say there are plenty of people by the president and i agree 100 percent our job absolutely is to call them out when we see them but much more to elevate those who are better than this because there are still so many people here in washington and in politics who
are good people who get into this gross and dirty business to do good things. we may not agree with those good things are. but their intentions and thinking is something we should support in this democracy. one more tiny thing i want many of you to go look at the twitter feed this morning because there you see the ultimate in the abuse of the label of anti- semitism i won't go into a complicated story that you will be interested to see. to turn that upside down we should be very careful but when we see it we should call it out and absolutely elevate people who are better.
>> so to react i know it's not your job i see the political system it is that what about it's on the other side. not on my side. the other side. people say it's about antiracism. or farrakhan said. it's on both sides. the other thing about calling out the electorate but it morphs depending on time and place but the problems change. so the best place to be is the uk but not anymore and that is
this is the lessons of the democratic party in they can take lessons themselves. it is here. and rarely is it just left or just right. but in france there are three or four types but today it's the level of violence on a very small number. but just two or three weeks ago the french security forces broke up a ring and it can change. so you have to be brutally honest what is happening and where. there's a reason to politicize
it. not one of my favorite characters but to say we have no leaders anymore. but you can't be a politician on anti-semitism too bad. don't tell me then talk about on your own time i sat with my colleagues and he said we have to call out everywhere that it is. you don't use that term anti-semitism. if you do that you have to call on josh holly. but he uses the term cosmopolitan.
and then he says no no no. phil wouldn't it be better than that cracks it would be essential we are better than that. >> we cannot get to our questions. we will have you knock it out in 30 or 45 seconds. >> i will tell you what i have been trying to do in this difficult environment. number one, be clear, careful, precise in my own belief and understanding.
number two, try not to ascribe motives there are people who engage in a pattern of behavior and at a certain point you say if they are not interested in changing then i can infer something. but don't jump and this is a political conversation we want more of. 's a part of what has been so difficult about her democratic conversation in the last years is we have this assumption from economics that good money drives out bad money but it turns out in politics that's not true. discourse doesn't drive out if you just leave it to the market and especially the social media market the polarized, the extreme and the
outrageous charges that is what crowds out a good conversation. we have to lift that up and amplify and be more than ourselves. or the main call out or what goes against the democratic principles and to have a civil conversation. in fact it is even necessary. that is what we can do in this moment we are deeply divided country and we will stay deeply divided but we don't have to be ugly about it. each have a role in stopping
that. >> you don't have a summary but i do have one further point there is no silver bullet answer we do need bipartisanship and that a social ostracism. the fight against anti-semitism and bigotry starts at the grassroots we have the strongest society in the world that is capable of ostracizing the haters. and the classic example in montana a few years ago in billings a young jewish kid had a menorah in his window and white nationals for growing somebody through a cinderblock through the window and the community came together spontaneously churches, and in the local
paper people printed out the menorah and put in their windows and the message was this kid is our family and part of our community who ever to the brick is not. we don't want you if we find out who you are we will make your life miserable. that was a very powerful tool. and that social ostracism and hopefully we can have political leaders that is part of the way we fix this. >> we talk so much at your expense this afternoon.
i think we are a real risk in civil society when it becomes part of the problem and not part of the solution and the real effort to do that with the women's march why does that suddenly have to be imbued with hatred toward the jews cracks and similarly on the right if they hold their woke up attitudes to guard against the accusations that somehow they are haters, that we need to be very vigilant but that is an important lesson and it's about what happens on the homefront in germany during world war ii
and one of the things we obviously know if you pay attention to history and especially to that part that while there was a strain of institutionalized semitism it was very much part of the nazi party that was not necessarily the view of all germans as they came to power in 1933 and you read the book and realize suddenly how attitudes about everything the loss of world war ii, territorial expansion, the role of the church, so where it was a minority was a strain of social thought it spread through their diaries and their letters home is so tea
you dehumanize your enemy is where the problem starts there will always be bad guys who think bad things who hate black people are jews are women are muslims whatever it i is, it is our job to ensure that those threads don't spread throughout society i fear that the guardrails are down and that we have room for this we need to put them where they are that is one of the most important lessons for all of us.