Loading summary
Transcript101 lines
- [00:57]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Sa.
- [01:25]
Ryan Grimm
Sam.
- [02:18]
Jeremy Scahill
I'm Jeremy Scahill from DropSiteNews. DropSiteNews.com welcome to another episode of our regular Tuesday live stream. It's February 17, 2026. And I want to begin today by just mentioning, I'm sure people have seen this, but the great Jesse Jackson has passed away. He was one of the most remarkable figures in American history, an icon of the struggles for civil rights, human rights, human dignity. I had the honor of meeting Jesse Jackson for the first time when I was young kid in 1995. And I met him in Washington, D.C. at a conference of activists and others who were working on the case of political prisoner, Native American political prisoner Leonard Peltier. And I was honored to know Jesse Jackson throughout the decades, interview him many times, sat with him and talked for many, many hours on multiple occasions. And the world has left as has lost a true giant. And I think that, you know, I would particularly recommend for people who aren't familiar with Jesse Jackson's political career and his life to watch the speeches that he gave at the Democratic national conventions in 1984 and 1988. Jesse Jackson came very close, particularly in 88, to winning the Democratic nomination for the presidency. And when you watch that speech and the passion of that speech and then you compare it to what passes as great oratory skills in the contemporary moment, it's just shocking. I would just say watch those two speeches and also listen to the message decades ago in 84 and 88 and what Jesse Jackson was talking about and what he stood for. So rest in power, Jesse Jackson. And as we begin this broadcast today, we understand that the latest round of indirect talks between a delegation from the Islamic Republic of Iran, led by the country's foreign minister, has just concluded another round of indirect talks with US Representatives led by Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump's special envoy. There's very little that we know at this point about what exactly took place. The Iranian foreign minister, in a brief set of remarks to Iranian television, put a positive spin on where things stand. It doesn't sound like there was anything resembling a deal. The nuance of it is it sounds like the Iranians are projecting the image that there is a basis being formed for further talks. And remember that the Iranians have made clear that they want to only focus on the issue of the Iranian nuclear program and the lifting of the punishing US Led sanctions that have contributed to a massive destruction of the Iranian economy. The United States and certainly Israel has tried to issue an ultimatum that unless Iran eliminates its nuclear weapon, its nuclear program its nuclear ambitions and wipes out its own ballistic missile capacity and ends its support and relationship with regional armed resistance factions and other groups that the specter of massive bombing, potentially an attempt at regime change or eliminating of the country's leadership would be on the other end of that spectrum. That's been the threat from the United States. Trump has ping ponged in his descriptions of where things stand. At times he has spoken with a very hostile tone toward Iran. He often talks about his beautiful great armada that he's been sending to the region. And at other times he said he thinks that the Iranians want to make a deal. But it is undeniable and if you look at open source reporting on this, that the United States at this moment is amassing a tremendous amount of firepower in the region. There are battleships, there are warplanes, there are tankers. The United States has been also amassing F15s, F35s, other attack aircraft. The airport in airports in Jordan have been very busy in Saudi Arabia, in Kuwait. One of the theories about why there was a delay when it seemed a couple of weeks ago like Trump maybe was imminently going to launch strikes is that the US Wanted to have a large enough capacity of so called defensive weapons in place among its allies in the region so that if it attacks Iran, when Iran launches retaliatory strikes either at US Military bases or other infrastructure in the region, or certainly at Israel, that the United States is going to step in and try to shoot down as many of those missiles as possible. For now, the Iranians though are putting a sounds like a cautiously optimistic sort of framing on on what has gone down. But again, and we've talked about this before, we have to remember that over the summer when the United States claimed to be moving toward another round of negotiations with The Iranians, the US and Israel launched a 12 day massive bombing campaign that killed more than 1,000 Iranians. We're going to continue to monitor this, but on the stream today, my colleague Sharif Abdel Kouddus and I are going to be talking with one of the co founders of Palestine Action. I'm sure all of our viewers and readers at Dropsite are familiar with Palestine Action. The group that has been criminalized and proscribed as a so called terror organization in the UK Won a massive court victory at the High Court in Britain last week. Technically, the group still has a prescription. That's the term that the British use for designating organizations as terror groups. And there's been thousands of people arrested just on speech violations for Saying that they support Palestine Action. That designation remains in place. But the litigants in the case are confident that they're going to be able to remove to get it removed. The British government of course is fighting against that. So we're going to talk to one of the co founders of Palestine Action. We're really looking forward to that in a moment. But first I want to bring on my colleague Sharif Abdel Kildus. We'll do a brief update on Gaza, talk about some breaking reporting we have at drop site and then we'll bring on Huda Amori in just a moment from Palestine Action. Sharif, good morning. Unmute yourself there, my brother.
- [09:47]
Sharif Abdel Kouddus
Okay, sorry. Good morning, Jeremy. Yeah. As we're speaking, it was another brutal weekend in Gaza with Israeli airstrikes, shootings, shelling, killing at least 17 Palestinians, including 11 on Sunday morning alone. You know, this is getting less and less covered stream media. There was a recent study done by fair, the watchdog group which found that the reporting on Gaza has reached it's at levels before the genocide began. So it's at its lowest point in over two and a half years. Meanwhile, over 600 Palestinians have been killed in these near daily attacks since the so called ceasefire went into effect. And Israel is still committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. And one of the ways that this genocide is continuing is as part of this agreement they were supposed to open the Rafah border crossing. Now this is a very important border crossing because it's basically Gaza's gateway to the world since Israel inflicted a siege on it. It's the only border that leads to somewhere other than, you know, occupied Palestine. It goes to Egypt and it has been closed largely Since May of 2024 when Israel invaded Rafah and took over the crossing. It opened briefly during the January 2025 ceasefire, but then it closed again. So just opened finally earlier this month. But it's a very limited opening. And Israel, you know, initially said it would only allow 50 Palestinians in from Egypt every day into Gaza and 50 Palestinians on medical evacuations out, along with two companions each. But you know, even that extreme, and we're talking about 20,000 Palestinians in need of urgent medical attention, urgent medical evacuation. But you know, since it's opened February 2, up until yesterday, just over 900 Palestinians have been allowed through. That's less than a third of what Israel said it would allow. And then for the Palestinians coming in, they have to negotiate this kind of hellish ordeal where it takes them like 20 hours to get in. They first start in Arish in Egypt and Then they get to Rafah, there's facial scans. Then they cross the crossing and then they're given over to the Abu Shabab militia, which is a group of collaborators backed and armed by Israel, who, who drive them 5km to this new Israeli checkpoint called Regavim. During this time, you know, the militia returnees have described being humiliated, harassed by Abu Shabaab militants. They steal some of their very meager belongings that they're allowed to bring back. And then at the Israeli checkpoints, they're made to wait hours. They're interrogated, they're often handcuffed and blindfolded. They're humiliated. And some have spoken of being pressured by Israeli soldiers to become Israeli informants. Others have said they've been offered money to return to Egypt. And then finally they're taken to Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunus where they're released. That's what the opening of the Rafah crossing looks like in reality. And this is all coming as in two days from now, President Donald Trump is hosting the first meeting of this so called Board of peace in Washington D.C. where they'll be discussing the future of Gaza. Over the weekend, Trump announced that more than $5 billion in commitments for Gaza had come in from partner nations in the Board of Peace and that thousands of troops will be deployed as part of the so called International Stabilization Force. Now, in the run up to this, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been loudly escalating demands that Hamas and other Palestinian resistance factions imminently disarm. And you know, during this whole period of the, of the ceasefire, Hamas has not been a part of any formal negotiations. They've just been ignored, been kept out of this process. And Jeremy, you and our colleague Dropsite Middle east research fellow Joao Ahmed, have a new exclusive that we published yesterday at Dropsite, where you spoke with senior Hamas official Besem Naim, responding to these demands for disarmament. So can you just lay out the context of what's happening and what Naim said to you in this exclusive interview?
- [14:18]
Jeremy Scahill
Yeah, I mean, I think the, the first thing that needs to be said is that there, there is a pervasive lie that has been told ever since the October 10th agreement was signed. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad signed an agreement that both it and Israel were party to and that the U.S. turkey, Qatar and Egypt were the guarantors of. And this deal was not an acceptance of what is called Trump's 20 point plan or the so called or the spuriously named Board of Peace, what the Palestinian resistance agreed to and again, I want to emphasize this. This is. If you don't understand this or you don't recognize this lie, everything else that comes after it, your analysis is going to be problematic. Your understanding of the rhetoric is going to be problematic. The Palestinian resistance did not sign on to Trump's 20 point plan. The Palestinian resistance signed a very narrow endorsement of what is being called the first phase of the plan. They said that as the armed resistance, as the force fighting the Israeli occupation, as the force holding Israeli captives, we can negotiate an exchange of captives and prisoners, which Hamas and Islamic Jihad did. And they exchanged the remaining Israeli captives for a couple thousand Palestinian captives. And they negotiated terms for a ceasefire and an initial outline of Israeli withdrawal. And combined with this, they also negotiated the resumption of life essentials. We shouldn't call it aid, because we're talking about life essentials. We're talking about food, medicine and other basic life essentials that Israel was criminally blockading in a systematic way since it violated unilaterally the first ceasefire, so called cease fire agreement that was signed in January and then went into effect. And then in March, the Israelis blew it up, imposed a full spectrum blockade, and then resumed the genocidal onslaught and terror bombing of Gaza. So the Palestinian resistance signed this narrow agreement. They did not make any commitments, I repeat, they did not sign any document that said we're going to demilitarize, we're going to disarm. In fact, they made very clear that Hamas and Islamic Jihad don't have the right to negotiate on behalf of all Palestinians. Core questions that cut to the heart of the future of Palestinian liberation. And so what they said is we can negotiate these as combatants in a war fighting against the genocidal Israeli occupation and because we hold these captives. But for all other issues that are contained within Trump's sweeping 20 point plan, we're going to need to consult and develop consensus among a wide cross section of Palestinian political actors. What has happened since then is that both Trump and Netanyahu, and in fact UN officials, other Western officials, media outlets have claimed that Hamas signed a deal, that it was going to demilitarize and disarm. And from that stems so much propaganda about, oh, Hamas is backing away from its deal, etc. So what's happened is that the representatives of Trump's so called Board of Peace, headed now by a former Bulgarian diplomat who was also a UN representative on the region, a senior UN representative on the region has been named. His name is Nikolai Mladinov. He's been named the High Commissioner for Trump's Board of Peace. And he comes in and starts recognizing that demanding total disarmament of the Palestinians is implausible, is unfeasible, because Palestinians are saying, if you take away all of our weapons, it amounts to a surrender not just of Hamas or Islamic Jihad or the Qassam Brigades or Sarai Al Quds, but of the Palestinian liberation cause. And they point to history on that front. So they realize, okay, there's a problem here. So the Americans start saying and putting out language. Jared Kushner put this language out when he gave his, his real estate PowerPoint presentation in Davos that indicated that there's going to be a longer process of decommissioning. It's going to be linked to the establishment of a Palestinian temporary government and a police force, etc. The New York Times then does a story saying, oh, the proposal is being prepared for Hamas about demilitarization. And you get all of these leaks, some of which are purporting to be based on Hamas sourcing, saying, oh, they're going to. Hamas is going to agree to this kind of disarmament or that kind of disarmament. And then Netanyahu a few days ago comes out and he gives a speech after he meets in the US With Trump, saying, it's not just about rockets, it's not just about heavy weaponry, it's not just about tunnels. The real problem is AK47s. And he essentially characterized AK47 rifles as an existential threat to Israel. He invokes the Holocaust, saying It was the AK47 that killed the most Jews since the Holocaust. He says all of them need to be removed from Gaza and they need to be removed immediately. And if they don't remove them, then we're going to have to go back to full scale war. Then we're not going to have a ceasefire. There's going to be no reconstruction, there's going to be no withdrawal whatsoever. So Netanyahu is saying this. Then there's reports one of the cabinet secretary of the Israeli government yesterday comes out and says at an event in Jerusalem, the Americans are suggesting they're going to give Hamas 60 days to completely disarm. And if they don't, then Trump's going to authorize Israel to go in and resume the genocide. So I then spoke yesterday to Bassem Naim, who is a senior Hamas leader and close to Dr. Khalil Al Haya, the head of Hamas in Gaza. And Bassem Naim also has been at times one of the senior negotiators dealing not just with the regional mediators, but also he was one of the people who was negotiating directly with the Americans earlier in this process last year. But what Bassem Naim said is our position remains unchanged. We are not going to accept disarmament unless it is in the context of the establishment of a Palestinian state and a Palestinian armed force that is capable of defending our people and our territorial integrity. And this has been the position that Hamas officials have told me for well over a year during this whole ceasefire farce that has unfolded. And they say that their position has remained unchanged. So where we are right now is that once again, a well worn media playbook is being used by Netanyahu where he is issuing these maximalist demands. He's now saying that Palestinians can't even have individual rifles, and if they do, it's tantamount to menacing Israel with the specter of a second holocaust. And therefore they need to give up all of their weapons lest we come back in and commit the genocide. And unfortunately, from the perspective of the Palestinians, Nikolai Mladenov, who spoke at the Munich Security Conference this weekend, said some things that indicated that he kind of understands the game that's being played here. But on the other hand, he says that the choice is either this total disarmament or total war. There's no role anymore for the Board of Peace. The Israelis come in, reduce it even further into more rubble, and then we'll see what happens at the end of it. That's how he's speaking. So Bassem Naim says he sounds like a spokesperson for the Israeli government, not some, you know, independent broker who's supposed to be stepping in here. So I think what we're going to see once again is this demand that is masquerading as an issue about weapons, that in reality is that Netanyahu wants to force the Palestinians into some sort of humiliating surrender ritual. And if they won't do it, they're going to start murdering their kids in even greater numbers than they are at this moment, because most of the people that they're killing anyway are civilians inside of Gaza. And by the way, they are extrajudicially also killing Qassam and Sara Al Quds fighters in Gaza, the very forces they signed the ceasefire agreement with. People say, oh, but they're terrorists. Do they not understand how a ceasefire works? The ceasefire is not with the five year old child you're burning alive in the tent. You should never be touching that child in any way, shape or form, not to mention burning them alive in a Tent. A ceasefire is between combatants. And so Israel is violating the ceasefire not just by killing civilians, but by killing civilization. Palestinian resistance fighters that are parties to the ceasefire that the United States said Trump was going to back up. So it's the same story that's played out over and over again. And what we're seeing, Sharif, is that, you know, Netanyahu and Trump are not somehow, you know, having different points of view. The US in some ways is playing, quote, unquote, good copy by implying there's going to be reconstruction, by implying that there's going to be a withdrawal of Israeli forces. And then Netanyahu is the one saying, well, we can do it the easy way or the hard way. He sounds like Hannibal Lecter, you know, we'll do it the easy way or the hard way. And you can tell that he prefers the so called hard way because he wants to just continue mass murdering or mass expelling Palestinians. And you know, we could talk more about this, but you know, I want to bring on Huda. But the final thing I'll say is when you take everything that I just said and then you look at the reporting Sharif has done recently about the creation and establishment of huge infrastructure that the Israelis are building in the occupied eastern parts of Gaza, you get a sense that Israel at a minimum, has no intention of leaving more than 50% of Gaza, which it currently fully occupies. And, and it seems as though they want to make life in the west of Gaza completely and totally unlivable with no ability to reconstruct unless there is a humiliating public capitulation ceremony. And then, and then it's, it's not even guaranteed that the Palestinians will, will be permitted to live without the Israelis mass bombing them anyway. So that, that's where things stand right now. But Hamas on the record is saying we never signed anything about this. The media narrative is filled with lies and our position remains the same.
- [24:57]
Sharif Abdel Kouddus
That's right. I mean, there's a lot to talk about and I encourage everyone to check out the article by Jeremy and Joa, including their interview with Besson Naim, that lays all of this out in great detail. There's a lot to talk about. What we do have to bring in Hoda, the co founder of Palestine Action, as Jeremy explained before, a major ruling last week that found the proscription or the banning of Palestine Action in the UK was not justified. It's under appeal. The London Metropolitan Police has said, though as indicated, that they won't enforce it anymore. Hundreds or over 2,000 people have been arrested just for holding up signs saying, I support Palestine Action over this period. Hoda, thank you very much for joining us. Can you just explain the significance of this ruling, what happened, and why it was prescribed in the first place? Palestine Action, Yeah.
- [25:57]
Huda Amori
So this ruling is very significant. It's a huge victory for us. This comes about seven, eight months after we were prescribed as a terrorist organization. And basically what this ruling means is that it was unlawful to prescribe Palestine Action. And it was unlawful since the very beginning, since the decision was made. Which means all of those arrests for people holding placards, you know, sitting silently, were all unlawful as well. So we are at a point now where we have this significant ruling, the ban is unlawful, and we are just awaiting the next process to get the band lifted completely. Why was Palace Action prescribed in the first place? It's actually probably quite a simple answer. Because it was at the behest of the Israel lobby and Israeli weapons manufacturers. We were targeting the Israeli weapons industry, specifically Elbit Systems, Israel's biggest weapons firm. We permanently shut down three of their sites in Britain at that point and cost these companies hundreds of millions of pounds, according to the British government's case against us. And this led to significant amount of lobbying from Elvid Systems, pro Israel lobby groups, the Israeli government. And the government then just abided by this lobbying pressure and prescribed Palestine Action, which was completely unprecedented, to prescribe a group like a direct action group, a domestic direct action group. And it had huge consequences for the government. It backfired on them massively. And that's why there were thousands of people who've been arrested for defying the ban, because it was clearly unjust. And not only was it unjust, we know now it was also unlawful.
- [27:56]
Jeremy Scahill
Huda, your network also included people who were very violently arrested when they were participating in direct action. And I feel like it's important to remind people here we're not talking about activists going in and, like, ripping up clothes in a department store. We are talking about activists that are targeting the machinery of genocidal warfare. I wanna make sure that we're really clear about this because this has also happened throughout history. When. When activists damage any aspect of the war production machine, they are often characterized as simple vandals or criminals. Now, in this case, it's their terrorists. But what we're talking about here are people in the UK that feel that they have a moral obligation to confront a direct link between what's happening in their communities on a manufacturing level and the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Some of these activists who participated in direct action, were violently apprehended and put in prison for a long period of time and launched a hunger strike inside of the prison. And those cases got a lot of attention and the dedication of those individuals was a stunning sight to witness. And it coincided then, either by chance or by process, in this victory that you've won. Talk about that case, the hunger strikes, the type of action they did, and their treatment at the hands of the British state.
- [29:37]
Huda Amori
Yeah, I mean, thank you. Thank you for pulling it like that, because it is so crucial to all of the situation that's going on now with Palestine action. I start with explaining that many cases that go in front of juries where people have caused damage to the Israeli war machine to protect lives in Palestine, juries have acquitted them or refused to convict on the basis that their actions were not criminal because they were acting to prevent a much greater crime. And so the British state, trying to protect the Israeli weapons industry, started ramping up the methods that they would use against people in Palestine action. And this resulted in the Filton case. And they had broken inside one of Elbit's weapons factories in a town called Filton in Bristol. And once inside, they destroyed Israeli quadcopter drones, the same quadcopter drones which are being used in Gaza to massacre people. You know, there were reports of how there would be, after an Israeli airstrike, these drones would come down and kill any remaining survivors of those airstrikes. That's what they destroyed inside those factories. They were arrested by counterterrorism police, and that was the first time that had ever happened in Palestine action. They were held for up to a week without charge, interrogated day and night, and, you know, they used psychological tactics to try and break their spirits. And they then made up the Filton 24 because they rounded up other people who they believed were connected to that action. And that amounted to 24 people being imprisoned for that one action. We also have the Bryce Norton case, where where two people broke into the British military base and sprayed paint on two planes to stop their use in surveilling Gaza and passing on that intelligence to the Israeli military because of how many times people were being acquitted. They started using the process as the punishment, locking people up on remand before trial. And despite there normally being a six month custody time limit, they were locking them up for up to two years. This is still happening. And so many of them did go on hunger strike to protest against their conditions, but not only their conditions, also the prescription of Palestine action, because since They've been inside, they were already treated harsher than most other prisoners because of the association of Counter Terrorism case basically. And after the prescription that got much, much more harsh because they were then being treated as being part of a terrorist organization. So it got even, they were restricted even further, not even allowed a crayon in their cells in some cases. And so they went on hunger strike. One of the demands was to lift the prescription of Palestine action. Some of them were on hunger strike for over two months. And whilst they did win some demands they have permanent, well, hopefully not permanent, but they do have still to this day they are suffering from health complications because of those hunger strikes. The government wouldn't meet with them and now we know that was being done for unlawful ban. So when they were asking for the law to be abided by from their prison cells where they are because they have been accused of destroying Israeli weapons, the British government was willing to let them die potentially in order to justify an unlawful ban and their continued incarceration. They were able to secure some demands which meant that they could, they did come off hunger strike in the end, but there are still many, many prisoners inside. Just, just a couple of weeks ago there was a, there was a verdict in the first trial of the Fulton 24. This is the first six of the Fulton 24. And a jury found them not guilty of the most serious charge of aggravated burglary. And they did not convict them on a single offence. So after 18 months inside they got to trial and they didn't have, they still do not have a single conviction. So now we are hoping that with that verdict, with the prescription of partisan action being lifted, that the rest of the 1424 should also be granted bail.
- [34:30]
Jeremy Scahill
Huda, just briefly, hold on, Sharif, just briefly because I think I really want people to understand this too. With the prescription system in the US we would call it designation that there's a design designated terror organization and you know, it, it is possible to get it lifted. In the, in the case of the US it's off often has to do with powerful lobbyists or corporate interests, et cetera, that some groups that maybe even are, you know, sort of could, could reasonably be characterized as being engaged in terrorism, managed to get off of it because of powerful friends, et cetera. But in the, in, in, in this case, of course Palestine action does not have, you know, powerful friends in the conventional elite corporate government structure. And the government itself, despite being a so called labor government, is very mercilessly pursuing Palestine action, saying that it wants to keep this terror designation. You and others have expressed confidence that you're, you're going to be able to quash it. Explain that though you're technically still a prescribed organization right now. But, but is it your sense that you're going to win a full lifting of that designation?
- [35:44]
Huda Amori
Yeah. So we've won at the High Court and the government have said that they are going to appeal, which I just think is ridiculous. They had an opportunity to get out of this gracefully and they've chosen to double down. And to be honest, I'm not too surprised that they've made that, that choice considering their ties to the Israel lobby and Elbit systems. However, the ruling proposed that the order be quashed, which means that basically it means that it's likely never happened. They would quash the ban from when it started. So everything that happened since then in terms of arrests would be unlawful or harsher treatment in the prisons, for example, as a result of the, the ban. And there would be thousands of claims potentially against the state because of the, because of their actions since the ban came into force. We are currently in a bit of limbo because we are waiting for the next phase of this, which will happen before the appeal where we are discussing the quashing order. So the order for the prescription to be quashed and our lawyers are making submissions to make sure that happens as soon as possible. And we envision that the state is going to ask that the order isn't quash, that we remain prescribed pending an appeal. But we are going to be fighting that in the next couple of weeks. We may have a decision on that basis. So we are hopeful that the ban will be lifted even if there is an appeal, because it has been ruled unlawful. So it would be absurd. But this is, all of this is completely unprecedented. There's actually never been a legal challenge like this to any prescription order. Normally you have to go through a different process which is very secretive and convoluted, but we managed to get this into the High Court relatively quickly. It's been a few months since the prescription. So you know, we are operating in a field where there really isn't any precedent to follow on. But we are hopeful that in the coming weeks we will be deprescribed. They may challenge that at the Court of Appeal, the next court up from the High Court. But to be honest, we argue this case in front of three extremely pro government judges and they were actually put in at the last minute. We started off with a pretty fair minded judge and he was removed off the case. Just a week before. Just a week before this happened. And so the fact that we've won in front of these judges means that we are in a very strong position going forward, even with an appeal pending.
- [38:38]
Sharif Abdel Kouddus
Hoda, I just wanted to back up a little bit and ask you about Palestine Action. You know, we've seen over the past two decades, you know, maybe the most pronounced growth of solidarity movements, movements in solidarity with Palestinian liberation in decades, really. You know, there's a lot of civic activism, the BDS movement, solidarity movements, making ties with labor unions and movements for black and indigenous liberation, and also these sustained forms of direct action. You co founded Palestine Action in the summer of 2020. Can you just talk about why you decided to do that and why you thought this was an important way of engaging with Palestinian liberation movement?
- [39:32]
Huda Amori
Yeah, definitely. So before 2020, I was involved in different boycott campaigns, national boycott campaigns against Palestine. Banks, universities, pension funds, to divest from complicit companies, companies complicit in the occupation. And, you know, you do get some results, don't get me wrong, but the rate at which we were securing victories just wasn't enough or adequate in terms of creating a real challenge to the British involvement in the occupation and colonization of Palestine. And, you know, you get to a point when you realize you're constantly trying to appeal to the oppressors, basically to politicians who are, you know, completely acting at the behest of the Israel Lobby, or to institutions, and you're trying to reason with them with facts, but, you know, and you're constantly banging your head against a brick wall and not getting the necessary changes. And so you get to a point when you realize that, you know, you are kind of stuck in this paradigm where the Israel Lobby has all of this power and you are trying to use the truth as a way of creating change, but, you know, it's very hard to battle against the powerful interests at play. So the logical next step was to take direct action, and it was to bypass the government and to say, well, if the government won't stop arming Israel and if they won't stop buying weapons from Israeli weapons companies, then we will go straight to the Israeli weapons factories and we will shut them down ourselves. Whether that was through blockades, occupations, causing damage to their machinery and damage to their weapons, it was about using our own power in order to shut down these sites, knowing that even though it may end up in arrest, and when we get to court, we will explain that we did this to prevent a greater crime. And so that was the strategy, was to do that on a sustained basis, to constantly cause disruption to the Israeli weapons trade. So their revenue would drop, their profits would drop, that they would lose out on contracts. And crucially, they would not be able to manufacture these weapons that were going to be used to massacre the Palestinian people. And it was very effective. It was extremely empowering. You know, even for myself as a Palestinian myself, you know, the best moment in my life was being on top of an Israeli weapons factory with a sledgehammer, being able to destroy that site and knowing that just by being there and by causing damage, they would have to shut down not just whilst I was there, but for weeks and weeks after because of the damage caused to that site. So it was about using our own power. And an analogy I often use is that if you see a building on fire with people inside, you would bang down that door to try and save the people inside. You wouldn't care about the value of the door. And it's the exact same principle when we cause damage, we to the Israeli weapons trade.
- [42:54]
Sharif Abdel Kouddus
And also, could you talk a little bit about the role of the United Kingdom, its relationship to Israel? Because, you know, a lot of people focus on the United States and the United States is its primary backer. And 70% of the weapons Israel gets are from the U.S. but of course, Britain, you know, through The Balfour Declaration, 1917 is the reason Israel was able to exist. It crushed the, or it helped to crush the Palestinian revolution. And from 1936, 1939, British soldiers taught Zionist militias that eventually became the Israeli army. Many of these techniques, including torture, different ways of imprisonment, the destruction of homes. A lot of these were learned actually in the occupation of Ireland. Rashid Khalidi is writing a book all about this. But I think many people think that Britain's ties to Israel are somehow not as bad as the US is. So maybe you can just paint a picture of the extent of the relationship between these two countries.
- [44:02]
Huda Amori
Yeah, exactly. And this is one of the things that we really highlighted in Palestine action was Britain's, Britain's role in the colonization of Palestine, dating back to the Balfour Declaration, as you said, declaring that they can hand over the land of Palestine, which was never theirs to sign away, to the Zionist militia. My great grandfather was one of those assassinated during the 1936-39 revolution against the British colonizers by the British military. And ever since then, they have played a crucial role in backing and supporting and arming the Zionist militia against the Palestinian population. And so that complicity and that role has never, never ended. It just transformed into a different type of support for the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people. One of the only Palestine actually was very focused on the Israeli weapons industry. But we would from time to time do what we would call cultural actions to highlight Britain's role in the colonization of Palestine. And that included targeting the statue of Balfour in the House of Commons where people threw red paint over inside Parliament. At one point, some people destroyed the painting of Balfour at the University of Cambridge. And that really sparked a huge awareness amongst people in Britain of understanding the role of Balfour and the role of Britain in the colonisation of Palestine and the genocide that's going on today. Because it's something for Palestinians. Everyone knows the name of Balfour, but that wasn't necessarily true for people in Britain, didn't necessarily understand the role of their own country in the occupation of Palestine. And that's why it's so important to tackle the complicity, to tackle the role of Britain, of the Israeli weapons trades operating in Britain today, doing it from the Imperial Court.
- [46:24]
Jeremy Scahill
Huda Amaury, we only have a minute or so left, but I want to give you a final word here. Where do you go from here with Palestine Action? Is the direct action going to continue? What is the strategy going forward?
- [46:35]
Huda Amori
Yeah, so direct action has continued different groups and it's been massively popularized in Britain despite the prescription of Palestine Action. But we're hoping that whether it's in the coming weeks or coming months, Palestine Action, the ban will be lifted and we will be returning to our mission to shut Albert down. And I'm sure that getting over this obstacle is going to cause a huge problem for Albert Systems and that they will be leaving Britain sooner rather than later. And also Palestine Action has become a global movement, so targeting the Israeli weapons industry across Europe, across the world, wherever they are operating.
- [47:20]
Jeremy Scahill
Well, Huda Amori, I want to thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us. We're going to continue to monitor this battle and we'll see how long it takes to get that prescription lifted. But thank you so much for your voice and for being with us here today.
- [47:37]
Huda Amori
Thank you so much.
- [47:39]
Jeremy Scahill
Huda Mori is one of the co founders of Palestine Action. Last Friday they won a historic and unprecedented in some ways legal battle at the British High Court fighting against the British government's prescription of the group designating it as a terror organization. And that designation then resulted in more than 2700 people getting hit with criminal violations simply for saying that they support Palestine Action. And so we'll continue to monitor this. We're going to transition now and bring in our colleague Ryan Grimm as well. Ryan. It's on the same, same theme, but it is, it's an issue that sort of caught a lot of people's attention because it was an unusual sort of person to find themselves in the crosshairs of anti Palestinian crackdown in the United States here. Give us a sense of what you're going to be talking about today, Ryan, and who you're talking with.
- [48:38]
Ryan Grimm
Yeah, we're going to be joined by both Miko Pellet, who's a Israeli American author and activist, and Carrie Pritcheen Bowler, who was appointed to the Trump administration's commission on Religious liberty. And if people have followed that, they've seen that she was also very recently removed from that commission under pressure from pro Israel forces for the questioning that she engaged in during, during the, the panel on Monday. And so this is somebody. We'll be joined by her in a moment. Is a conservative Catholic, you know, by, by no means kind of in the streets with Palestine action, for instance, but yet facing enormous amounts of repression herself as, as she and others in, in the kind of conservative movement have kind of woken up to the abuses that the US Is supporting in Israel. I don't know if you guys are. I know, Jeremy, you've got to go. Shareef, I think you might, too. But we'll welcome Real, real quickly. Carrie is joining us now. She was, she, she became kind of a national figure in 2009 when she won the Miss Universe pageant, which at the time was owned by Trump. She made public comments kind of, and Carrie can correct me if I'm getting the, the thumbnail sketch wrong, hostile to marriage equality at the time. And so she became kind of a national figure. Trump defended her at the time, which I assume kind of created a kind of political relationship with the man who then shockingly became president many years later and then puts her on this, on this panel. So, Carrie, did I get that right? And thank you so much for, for joining us.
- [50:25]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Yes, thank you so much for having me. Is the sound okay on my end?
- [50:28]
Ryan Grimm
Yep, sounds good.
- [50:30]
Miko Peled
Good.
- [50:31]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Yeah. Thank you for saying I won Miss Universe. I was Miss California. And then.
- [50:35]
Ryan Grimm
Oh, sorry.
- [50:36]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
No, that's okay.
- [50:36]
Ryan Grimm
You deserve that. It's outrageous. It was stolen. Stop the steal.
- [50:41]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
I won't correct you on that. So. No, thank you so much. Yeah, you're absolutely correct in that. Where, you know, so I've been through this before, you guys. I've been down this road before. It was in 2009, and I was outspoken about my faith Then and here I am now and going against the mainstream. And I really don't care because, yeah.
- [51:02]
Ryan Grimm
In 2009, and Jeremy and Sharif, I know you guys have to run to get through other stuff. 2009, you were kind of elevated as a, as a heroic figure on, on the right. This time it's a little bit, it's a little bit more split. And since M. Mo is here, let's kind of welcome him in here as well. Because we wanted to have Miko on with you because, you know, this is somebody that you're walking through like this, somebody you got to know throughout the. That your journey through this process. Is that right?
- [51:40]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Yes, yes, Nomiko. I actually recommended him to speak at the hearing on behalf of Jewish people and represent. Representing the other side. And he was rejected by the commission. And so that's very unfortunate that they didn't want it to be a fair and balanced hearing on Monday.
- [51:58]
Ryan Grimm
Right. So, Mikko, thanks so much for joining us also. Really appreciate it.
- [52:02]
Miko Peled
Sure, yeah. Happy to be here.
- [52:04]
Ryan Grimm
Many, many viewers are very, very familiar with your work. So excited to have you on here. But, Carrie, can you talk a little bit more about, more about the, the reaction on the right so far. And actually, before we do that control room, do we have. I think we have a little bit of a clip from the hearing itself so people can be grounded in a sense of, like, what this, what. What the back and forth was like on the commission. Do we, do we have that?
- [52:30]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Well, as you know, I'm a Catholic. I'm a Catholic, and Catholics do not embrace Zionism, just so you know. So is. Are all Catholics anti Semites, according to you?
- [52:40]
Miko Peled
As I said, anti Semite. Anti Zionism by denying the right of the Jews to have their own state while not saying the same for any other peoples. That is a double standard. Hypocrisy and anti Semitism.
- [52:55]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
So just to be clear, are Catholics anti Semites?
- [52:57]
Ryan Grimm
Kerry.
- [52:58]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Excuse me.
- [52:59]
Jeremy Scahill
I don't think you need to be a Zionist to support a country that defends itself and is free and religious.
- [53:05]
Miko Peled
In a hostile neighborhood.
- [53:06]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
You believe that speaking, speaking out about what many Americans view as genocide in Gaza should be treated as anti Semitic.
- [53:14]
Jeremy Scahill
These were students calling for intifada within days after October 7, before Israel had even entered Gaza. So it's not about them. And they're using Palestinian civilian death, which.
- [53:27]
Miko Peled
Is horrendous and horrible. They're using it as a prop.
- [53:30]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
I don't support the political state of Israel. Am I an anti. Am I? Yes or no?
- [53:36]
Miko Peled
They already Answered, ask and answered.
- [53:38]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
According to you on the record? Yes, I don't support the, the political state of Israel.
- [53:44]
Miko Peled
I don't personally label people. Follow us for more great content and don't forget to like and share this video.
- [53:54]
Ryan Grimm
So, so Carrie, Carrie, what was the, what was the reaction kind of in the immediate aftermath of that and how long was it until you got the boot from the panel?
- [54:05]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Well, many people don't know and actually I think I'm breaking this now. I've kind of tweeted about it on X, but people don't know the backstory. So back in August, I was speaking out about Gaza on my personal social media platform. It's a public page, but I in no means work for the government. I am a private citizen. I'm not paid by the government. I'm volunteering my time on this commission. I just want to set the record straight there. So as I was posting and seeing what was going on in Gaza, I felt that it would be a betrayal of my conscience as a Catholic, pro life Catholic to not speak out about what I was seeing in Gaza. So I started speaking, I started posting, I started talking about really what was happening in, because I think so many Christians were too afraid to do that, you know, and so I started doing that. I was posting what Pope Leo was saying about what was, you know, what was going on there, you know, holding firm to my Catholic faith. And I was called and I was told that I wasn't allowed to do that and I was told that I wasn't allowed to post about Zionism, that I wasn't allowed to be anti Zionist and that, you know, on this, what.
- [55:15]
Ryan Grimm
Kind of calls, like who, who was calling?
- [55:17]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
So first it was a designated federal officer. She called me and she said that there was pressure from internal people within the White House. She said she wasn't sure who it was, but that they've been monitoring my post and they were saying that it was very anti Semitic simply because I was talking about the genocide in Gaza. And so I asked her, I said, well, you know, obviously I am a Catholic and I use my social media platform to talk about all kinds of things. And I don't think it's right to silence me, a Catholic voice, pro life for speaking out about the genocide in Gaza because it is in fact a genocide, it's a holocaust. I think we should start calling it that because that's exactly what it is. And so she said, you know what, Kerry, you know, you have the right to do that. I'm not going to tell you what to post and what not to post. So we hung up with that conversation. And then she had messaged me saying, well, maybe, you know, consider. I forget the back and forth. Don't quote me exactly, but it was just this kind of negotiation where maybe you can, you know, kind of tone it down a little bit, maybe rephrase some things. And so, you know, I. That upset me because they were asking me to deny my eyes and deny what I was feeling in my heart for the Palestinian people. And I just. I just couldn't do it. And so I continue, continue to post. And then one day I got a call from the White House, and it was a woman named Mary Sproul underneath, I think she is in the PPO office. And she said, I'm calling to ask for your resignation.
- [56:48]
Ryan Grimm
This before or after the panel?
- [56:50]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Oh, this was way before the panel.
- [56:52]
Ryan Grimm
Okay.
- [56:52]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Back in August. And I said, excuse me, I thought it was. I thought it was a prank call. And she said, I'm asking for your resignation. And I said, for what reason? Why would you ask me to resign? And she's like, well, I can't get into details about it, but. And I said, well, who directed you, who directed you to call me? Who have you talked to? Who has told you to call me? Because the president appointed me, and unless I hear from the president, I'm not resigning. And she did end up telling me that she spoke with Dan Patrick, the chairman, as well as Paula White and also a woman named Brittany Baldwin. So those were the three people that she said that she spoke to with regards to asking me to resign. So immediately I reached out to Paula White. No comment. I had posted that exchange to her on my ex account and got no response from her. Fast forward a couple weeks later because I. I never heard back. I. I just said, I'm not resigning. And then all of a sudden, I got a call and it was from Dan and Paula. And they said, well, Kerry, you know, we're going to keep you on this commission, but you better stay off social media. You cannot, you know, you shouldn't be posting anything that go against. That goes against the president, that could hurt the president. And to me, that is un American, because my allegiance, first and foremost, is to my faith in God and to my country. And so to ask me to deny my religious rights, my First Amendment rights, freedom of speech, as well as my freedom of expression was a violation. And it really upset me. And so they just went on to say that you're not allowed to, you know, post on social media. And then Paula White actually had the audacity to say that I should run everything by her regarding Gaza and Israel. And, you know, there's no starvation there and just the whole thing. So that's kind of the backstory that leading up into this hearing last Monday.
- [58:50]
Ryan Grimm
So it's an interesting irony because, you know, the First Amendment includes speech and religious liberty together. And so in the US We've come to kind of think of them together. So to have a panelist on a panel on religious liberty being told not to speak about religion, it's like, what, what's. What's going on here with this panel? All right, so the, the, that. So then Monday comes and you get accused of hijack, quote, unquote, hijacking the meeting by making it about Israel when in their, in their argument it was not supposed to be about Israel or Zionism. What, what is your kind of response to that criticism?
- [59:35]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Yeah, so they did an intervention meeting. Dan texted me around 7am that morning and said that he wanted to meet with me in Paula. And I didn't feel comfortable meeting with them. In fact, I was scared, to be honest with you. I was really scared. I was worried for my safety. I was worried the repercussions of just the entire story back, you know, leading back to August with this tremendous pressure to stay silent, tremendous pressure that I must not, not speak. I must not use my social media platform to speak out about what is going on in Gaza. And in fact, Paula White, an outspoken evangelical Zionist, obviously everybody knows where she stands. She told me that I wasn't allowed specifically. She used the words replacement theology. Well, now we're seeing, Ryan, that this has become a theological debate. And so the hearing on Monday, it went right, right into October 7th. Israel. I mean, I counted. It was over 17 times that Israel was mentioned. This is a US American religious liberty commission. Why are we talking about a foreign nation? 17 times more. More than that, actually, I had to stop counting. And so the only people that hijacked this hearing, let me just say, were the Zionists. They hijacked this hearing and they took it away from real anti Semitism, which is happening, and real bigotry, which is happening with Muslims, with Christians, with Jews, with all kinds of people. And so they wanted it to be brought back to Israel, to Zionism, because that's where all of these people stand. That's where their allegiance is. And it became very obvious. So they tried to do an intervention meeting around 7am I told them, stop talking about Israel. This is a U.S. commission. Might as well, change it to be the Zionist Commission if that's what this is all about. Because they wanted me to stop speaking and they were worried about what I was going to say from the stage. So by the time I got on stage, I was already to here. I was fed up and I was done. And I thought I did a really good job. I'm actually very proud of myself. I did a very good job of just staying calm. I prayed before and said, lord, just keep me calm and just keep the facts rolling. And that's exactly what I did. And that's what they had a problem with. They had a problem that I had the audacity, I had the audacity to say that Israel has killed over 70,000 innocent civilians in Gaza. They didn't like that. I wasn't supposed to say that. So if they consider that as hijacking, so be it.
- [62:12]
Ryan Grimm
So Miko, what, as you know, as you've come to get to know, carry through this process, like what is this commission and what do you make of this claim that discussing Zionism as part of this commission is hijacking? Its, its true purpose? Like what is the purpose of this, this presidential commission?
- [62:33]
Miko Peled
Well, thanks, you know, thanks for having me. And it's great to see Kerry again. And you know, we spent several hours on the phone and then she, after the commission hearing, she came here to Palestine House of Freedom and we sat here for a couple more hours and talked and talked and I think. So the, the, the, the commission, now that we've heard about the commission and we've seen the exchange that Kerry had with the other commissioners and the, the people who came to testify, I think was not about anti Semitism because I think anti Semitism was the topic they were supposed to be discussing. It was the, the equivalence of anti Semitism with anti Zionism. That's really what it was about. And that's why Israel was the main topic because that's their perspective. They want to make sure that people toe the line that anybody who is, who opposes Zionism is an anti Semite. That's how they defend themselves, by attacking people who reject them and reject the genocide and reject the apartheid regime as labeling us as, as anti Semites even if we are Jewish. And so by the fact that they dismissed, they didn't even call us. I mean, Kerry mentioned me and a few other non Zionist and anti Zionist Jews to come and testify and they didn't even reach out to us. And I wasn't surprised because all they have to do is Google my name or Google the other's names. And they know where we stand on this issue. And that's the litmus test. If you have a legitimate claim and you oppose Zionism or reject Zionism, then you have no, no room in that space, because that was a space to, to solidify this idea that if you're anti Zionist, you're an anti Semite. And, and that was it. And suddenly Carrie comes up and she starts, you know, calling for the truth, and she starts calling them, you know, calling them out for their nonsense, you know, and when she asked them. And by the way, Kerry was brilliant. And I think that's, you know, it's obvious because so many people are, are watching this, and it's become such a, such a, an important part of the news cycle. When they, when she challenged him and said to him, I an anti Semite, they didn't dare say that she was. Because obviously, and I think they know this, that the claim that rejecting Zionism is anti Semitic is completely absurd. And in fact, it's quite the opposite because Zionism belongs in the same column, if you will, as anti Semitism and other forms of racism. That's what Zionism is. It's a violent form of white supremacy and racism. So, you know, I'm, I'm, I, I just, you know, like I said, Carrie called me, we had a discussion. She, she, she went to this commission, raised all hell as, as was, as in a, in a fantastic way. And now I think it's obvious to everybody, right, left and center that the commission is all about supporting Zionism. And because it's all about supporting Zionism, of course they mention Israel all the time because that's what Zionism is. Zionism and supporting Israel is the same thing. So, yeah, so that's, that's, that's kind of been the, you know, my, my little part of this journey.
- [65:49]
Ryan Grimm
Yeah. And Carrie, what's your, what's your experience been like since then? Because I know for, for people on the right, I've noticed some who.
- [66:00]
Jeremy Scahill
Kind.
- [66:00]
Ryan Grimm
Of get criticized as anti Semitic for criticism of Israel, and then they wind up kind of getting pushed into this kind of cul de sac of people who, like, actually genuinely are anti Semitic and are opposing Israel for what I would say is the wrong reasons because, you know, as the wellspring of actual anti Semitism. But it seems like you have worked to reach out to kind of anti Zionist, anti Zionist Jewish author and activists like Mikko, for instance, to try to, to try to maybe stave that off. Like, can you talk about what the last week plus has been like for you to be on the receiving end of all of this criticism. Obviously in the after 2009, I'm sure the left came after you pretty relentlessly. I probably did too. I don't remember. But if I could search my Twitter feed, disagree.
- [66:53]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
That's the beauty of.
- [66:55]
Ryan Grimm
Yeah. So what's the last week plus been like for you?
- [66:58]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Yeah, thank you for asking. The first night was a little weird. I got some pretty disturbing phone calls. I won't go into details, but I had to call pd. So, you know, this is, this is real. This is real what's happening. And you know, I'm a 38 year old mom here in San Diego, California and I will tell you, this is going to be the tipping point for our country because people are so tired of it. They're tired of being called names. You know, back in. And you might disagree with this, but back in, you know, 2020, during the whole BLM stuff, you know, you were called a racist. You were called a racist if you didn't support the political movement of blm. And we rejected that because we all know if you don't support that, that doesn't make you a racist. Just like with this, if I don't support the political ideology of Zionism, it is a political movement. It's not hatred of Jewish people. And like Miko said, they want to marry the two so that if you do criticize the nation of Israel, they would, they would love nothing more than to label you anti Semitic. And I reject that. I reject that from the Zionist supremacists because that's exactly what they are. And they hijacked that Religious Liberty Commission because you're right, there is real anti Semitism, just like there's Islamophobia, just like there's Christian hate. And we must hear from those people and combat it in America. And that's really. I feel like I was the only one on stage going, why am I the only one that's standing up for religious freedom? Even religions that I don't hold firm to? You know, I said, let's please stop making Islamophobic remarks. Because many of the commissioners were making those remarks. And here we are on this Religious Liberty Commission in America to uphold everything, every religion, not just my own, not just Christianity. And so there's such a hypocrisy. And I just reject the narrative that I'm an anti Semite.
- [69:05]
Ryan Grimm
I have, I have been struck by the, how similar the structure is as somebody who's covered a lot of These kind of progressive movements. Certainly when it came to, you know, when it came to blm, a lot of the argument was like, you are racist if you're opposing this. When it came to the. The trans rights controversies and arguments, you are a transphobe if you don't support this. Some of them were. Some of them were racist. Some of them were transphobic. But it was also a way of shutting the. Shutting the debate down. So to see the right kind of adopting the exact same strategy, say, well, if you oppose this, you're anti Semitic. Because it's so close in time to the thing that they were so animated about. You know, within months, you know, the driving thing that was angering so many people on the right was, in fact, if you watch that ridiculous halftime show that TPUs, I'll call it ridiculous. You don't have to.
- [70:07]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
That.
- [70:08]
Ryan Grimm
That TP USA put on the. The country singer who was kind of featured most prominently, his song was all about a grievance, about how he didn't like being called transphobic and he didn't like being called racist by these. By these various movements. Like that. That was the whole song. I want to catch my fish, Want to wear my boots. And then he goes on, it's like, so to this day, like, they're still. The right is still very frustrated about being labeled as some type of a bigot for holding a political position.
- [70:41]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Yeah, they're the ones attacking me. Let me just tell you. They are the ones attacking me. It's not. I mean, I am getting messages from people all over the world, and they're saying, I might not agree with you on everything. I mean, I had a. I had a transgender person this morning message me saying, I disagree with you on mostly everything. But guess what? You had every right to stand up for your religion, and I support you. Thank you for standing up for the people in palace. This is going to be the thing. I'm telling you. This is going to be the issue that unites our country. We have been so divided. We have been left versus right, red versus blue, you know, atheist versus Christian or whatever it is. And no, we need to unite as a country. Stand for religious freedom for all religions, reject any type of bigotry, and reject Zionist supremacy because I'm so sick of it, to be honest with you. I've been dealing with this since August, and I'm done. I'm done. And let me just tell you, Dan Patrick, he has zero authority to remove me from this religious liberty Commission. He is an equal to mine. He has he is not above me. He happens to be the chairman, but we are equals. So shame on every single one of you know, him and his minions that are saying that I'm this and I'm that and that. He had the, you know, he had the power to fire me. This was my decision. He said, no, Dan, you have zero authority to fire me. The only person that has the authority to remove me is the president. And we will see what he decides on that. Yeah.
- [72:09]
Ryan Grimm
And Mo, as, as people on the right are waking up to this issue and, and come to you for background. What, what's the kind of elevator history or summary that, that you often, that you often share or, and what, what, what, what have you found resonating with, with that element of the, of the right that is, that is now starting to speak out on this.
- [72:34]
Miko Peled
Like it's new to, you know, a lot of us who have been talking about this for a long time. But I just want to say one thing about the previous cup bit about this anti Semitism, anti Zionism. You know, Palestinians have been saying this for decades and decades and decades. You know, any Palestinian child in Palestine has this little speech, and it could be 4 years old or he can be 84 years old, the person. And they will say, we have nothing against Judaism. We have nothing against Jews. We've lived together with Jews for, you know, for, for decades and decades. And actually centuries and centuries, our problem is Zionism. Our problem is the occupation, the colonization of our country. But somehow when Palestinians say it, it doesn't reach the top. And so it's extremely important that somebody like Kerry stands up and says it in that particular forum because these people don't care if a Palestinian says something and they, they don't listen. And it doesn't even come up on the radar. So again, you know, this was, I think this was. This is a kind of a revolutionary moment for those people as. And it's, it's a very good thing now. You know, the elevator pitch is basically, what is Zionism? You know, Zionism is a racist ideology. It's white supremacy. They've. Whether Israel has the right to exist or doesn't have the right to exist. This is everybody's individual, you know, opinion or feeling. However, if we look at the last 80 years in that region, we see wars, we see ethnic cleansing, we see millions of refugees, we see assassinations of political leaders, we see kidnappings, you know, wars after war, after war. The instability, the instability in the region has been taken for granted as though it's, you know, it's kind of part of the nature of the people there. But what is the source of this instability? What is the source of the terrorism? Who initiated terrorism in Palestine to begin with in the early 20th century? It all points to Zionists, it all points to Israel. So you make the call. You think a regime like that that has taken over Palestine has a right to exist. That's your values, that's your belief, fine, but own, own it. This is the source of instability and suffering in Palestine for, you know, 80 years, the best part of almost 100 years, I should say, because the terrorism and the violence against Palestinians began before the state of Israel was established. So that's the pitch. And now, you know, you go, and so this break, first of all, I think people don't like when, when there's a breaking in the ranks, suddenly somebody who's supposed to stay in this particular lane is going that way. And oh my goodness, you know, we can't have that. We all have to be, you know, kind of myopic and agree on everything. And I think that's something that plagues us as well on this side of the political issue of the political spectrum. I say that, you know, somebody breaks ranks, oh my God, you know, that's it. We, we have to, we can't talk to them anymore, we can't invite them and all that. So I think we're all guilty of that. And I think we need to wake up, be a little bit less Bolshevik about it. And if, you know, we have an institution here in Washington D.C. palestine House of Freedom, which is based on the notion that Zionism is not anti Semitism. I mean, anti Zionism, of course, is not only not anti Semitism, it is the approach that America has got to take. We need to move this conversation from one that focuses only on Zionism or is centered in Zionism to a conversation that talks about the well being of everyone who lives within historic Palestine, between the river and the sea. That's really what this is about. And I think the fact that we're seeing kind of it becoming a bipartisan issue, but in the reverse. Israel support for Israel has always been a bipartisan issue. Now opposing Zionism and questioning Israel and questioning the legitimacy of Zionism is becoming a bipartisan issue, as it should be, I believe, and that is tremendous. That is exactly where we want to go. So I think this, this collaboration is absolutely phenomenal. And again, I'm new to this. This is, you know, you know, Carrie and Tucker Carlson and some of these others are, you know, it's new for us to hear them speak like this, but I think it's great. You know, I think it's really, really important. This is exactly the kind of coalition that we want.
- [76:54]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Yeah. You know what, Miko? I've always been the type where nobody is going to tell me what I believe and nobody is going to tell me that I have to deny my eyes. Nobody's going to tell me where my allegiance needs to lie in order to have access to fancy dinners and, you know, access to the President, access to the White House. I love this President. I supported him for almost 20 years. I was the most loyal MAGA supporter of his and I still am. And so that's why I'm hopeful that he will make the right decision. Because if he really wants religious freedom for all Americans, which I believe he does, which is why he created this commission in the first place, then he will make the right decision. Take a stand. MAGA is divided over this issue. Let's stop pretending that MAGA is unified. No, MAGA is divided. And you want to know what they're divided over? Israel. Okay, let's just call it what it is. The elephant in the room needed to be exposed. And I, a 38 year old former beauty queen, had to be the one to do it. But you know what? I take it as a badge of honor. And if the President wants to remove me, then this commission should be shut down immediately.
- [78:07]
Ryan Grimm
I saw some reporting that you had criticized J.D. vance, fellow Catholic, for not speaking out of this. Have you been in direct touch with the vice, with the Vice President? Is this somebody that you've known over the years or like, and what is, what is your message to, to the Vice President?
- [78:24]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Yeah, no, I didn't, I didn't criticize him at all. I just said it's ironic how there's three names that are being thrown around for 2028 presidential nominee, which is Marco Rubio, you know, J.D. vance, and then Ron DeSantis, which all three happen to be Catholics. So 56% of Catholics voted for Trump in 2024. And I'm just saying Catholics right now, they are livid, they are furious that we are being called anti Semites. The audacity that that takes to call our faith, our Christian faith, hateful and bigoted, when it is very clear nothing that I said on that stage was hateful and bigoted. I was asking questions and getting clarification because the logical conclusion of anti Zionism is anti Semitism. Well, guess what that means. And they didn't want to have the guts to say it and admit it from that stage, that they're claiming that Catholics who don't hold firm to this political ideology of Zionism are anti Semitic. I reject that. How dare you say that about my religion? And Catholics need to start going on offense and saying, stop calling us names simply because we hold firm to our Catholic beliefs. So I reject that.
- [79:44]
Ryan Grimm
One of the. One of the responses that you saw on the stage at the commission and that you often see generally in this conversation is that is the argument around the double standard. Oh, you're saying this about Israel, but you don't say it about other countries that are committing horrifying acts of violence as well. Or you say that you're against apartheid here, but you're okay with all of these Muslim countries that, like, they don't actually identify any. To me, as somebody who's kind of on the left end of the spectrum, that's. That's an easy one to respond to because I can just say I don't support Saudi Arabia's political system. I don't support country system. I don't support the Emirati. I don't support, like, I don't support Hindu supremacy. I wouldn't support, you know, a Christian theocratic government. Like, I. I support separation of church and state. Like we have in, you know, embedded into the American Constitution. And I think it's why Mamdani was so easily.
- [80:42]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
The separation state is not in the. In the Constitution.
- [80:46]
Ryan Grimm
So that. That's. That. So that's. That's what I wanted to ask you about. That's what I was saying. It's an easy. That's an easy question for me to answer, but I'm wondering how somebody like you on the right answers that question. I would argue, and I know there's a big debate about this on the right. I would argue that the First Amendment saying that the Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion would allow for some. Obviously we have, you know, we start our Senate. You know, every day in the Senate, they start with the chaplain, you know, reading a prayer. So it's not. It's not as if it's like completely barred from being part of kind of government activities. But the First Amendment says that Congress can't make any law that says, okay, we are a Christian country or we are a Muslim country, we're a Jewish country. They are barred from doing that. So that's what I would call separation of church and state. Even though you're right, like, that line is. That line exists elsewhere.
- [81:43]
Miko Peled
So.
- [81:43]
Ryan Grimm
But so how do you answer that? When you. The. The question of the double standard and which. And do you, you know, do you. Would you be equally critical of any religion becoming the basis of a. A government, whether it's India, Israel, United States, Canada, Mexico?
- [82:03]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Yeah, I think it's a great question, and I've studied a lot about this. Our first hearing was actually on the history of, you know, just the way that our country was founded. I mean, nobody can reject the fact that we were founded upon Christian principles. Let's just be honest. The 13 colonies, they were all Christian. Maryland was Catholic. That's why it's called Maryland. And so every politician had to sign an oath that they declared that they believed Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. So. So we might disagree on that, that we were built on Christianity, but let me just tell you, our founders.
- [82:40]
Ryan Grimm
Yeah, because there were some, like, weird deist, like, almost paganist versions of Christianity going around among some of the founders.
- [82:48]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Right. But every 13 colony required you to sign a declaration that you believe that Jesus Christ was, in fact, Lord. So that. That we're not going to deny, because that's factual. But from that, you know, I don't think that there should be this idea. I mean, now, obviously, look at what America has become. We are a melting pot. We are diverse. I would never say everyone has to be Christian, or else, obviously, that would be. I'm a Christian. I would love for everybody to be Christian. Just like there's Muslims who want everybody to be Muslims. There's Jews that want everybody to be Jews. That's not the issue. But, you know, we were founded upon Christian principles. And so that we. We cannot deny that. However, now what we're seeing, our founders did not intend for one certain denomination of Christianity to be the dominant source. So I think that's really was the intention of, you know, hey, you don't have to be a Baptist. You don't have to be a Episcopalian. You don't have to be a Catholic. You know, there wasn't one denomination of Christianity that was established. And I think that's really where people don't know a lot about it. They think that the separation of church and state is in the Constitution. It's nowhere in the Constitution. Our founders were mostly Christians. The idea of Christianity was the foundation of our country, but they did not want one established church. They did not want one established denomination of Christianity to be established.
- [84:13]
Ryan Grimm
If I recall, Jefferson spoke up on behalf of Islam as well, saying that you can't bar a candidate just because they're Muslim?
- [84:21]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Yeah. No, it eventually evolved to where you didn't have to sign a declaration saying you were a Christian. You know, look at now we have all kinds of different religions in office. But what I'm trying to get at is we've become so diverse and so welcoming, which is great. You know, I'm a family of immigrants. My family came over from Italy and they built America. Immigrants built America. And so I've really, you know, learned a lot through this process. Process of, well, what does it even mean to be conservative? What is it, you know, what does it mean to be, you know, a free thinker? Like, do I just have to be in this box of I'm a Republican and I have to stick with this. I can't talk about, you know, what Israel's doing in Gaza. I reject that. I'm a free thinker. I think for myself. Nobody owns me. I'm not a slave to anybody. I see things for what they are, and I speak out about issues that I believe in. So this idea right here, Ryan, is about religious freedom in America. Whether you disagree or agree with my religion, guess what? I have that right. That's why this commission was created. We hear from people like me who are facing religious persecution for their faith. Muslims, Jews, Christians, people of all faiths, coming together, unifying under the fact that we're American, we have that religious right, and we reject any theological supremacy, denominational supremacy, and Zionist supremacy, for sure.
- [85:45]
Ryan Grimm
And, Miko, last question for you. Like, you've been part of this debate for decades now, and you've been watching, you know, how the kind of pro Israel world responds to criticism that historically had come from the left or from pal, you know, Palestinian nationalists. How are you seeing them kind of regroup and deal with this coming from the other flank now? Because for so long, evangelicals in the United States were the final bastion of rock solid support for Israel for these bizarre. There's going to be another temple built and all the Jews in Israel have to die so we can do the Apocalypse or whatever. But the thumbnail version, by the way.
- [86:32]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
We do not believe that as Catholics, we reject that.
- [86:34]
Ryan Grimm
Right. That's the right. The evangelical side. So how are they, like, how is the pro Israel lobby kind of responding to this that you've seen?
- [86:45]
Miko Peled
Well, it's interesting. It's a really good question because Carrie, I think the way the whole conversation on X began, she posted a picture of she and I and Samira, her Muslim friend, and she said, this is the Zionist worst nightmare. A Jew, a Muslim and a Christian. Together. I think the nightmare goes beyond just the religion. The nightmare goes to the point where somebody from the right, from the conservative right and somebody like myself, who's clearly not on the conservative right, quite on the opposite side. And then Samira, the Muslim girl, are standing together.
- [87:26]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Yeah.
- [87:26]
Miko Peled
You know, this is mind blowing for people who are used to everybody staying in their lane and like I said, become, have become really quite Bolshevik about their, about their, their way of thinking. But it's. The thing is also, you know, what they're trying to do, and I think what, what happened on that commission, in that commission hearing is the equation of Zionism and Judaism allows them to discuss anti Semitism as something that is opposed to Zionism in Israel. Jews have been a religious minority around the world for, for, you know, the best part of the last 2,000 years. Right. And every important rabbi throughout history has written, the Jewish people are a nation that is unified by its faith. So it's not a nation in the modern sense. That's why. And we're not a ra. Jews are not a race. You could have, you know, Jewish people from Yemen and Jewish people from Poland, they look different, they talk different, they eat different, they have different. There's nothing in common, not even a lang. Nothing. The only thing they have in common is their faith and the fact that they follow a certain set of religious laws. So. But the Zionist don't want that. The Zionists are saying, no, no, no, no, no, that's nonsense. Jews are a nation in the modern sense. The Bible is. All the God stuff is really, is nonsense. It's a history book. And then Palestine is the homeland. And now, and I think they knew that at one point, people are going to realize that Zionism is really just a racist, genocidal ideology. So then they came up with a new definition of antisemitism. The Ihra what, God knows where it came from, but it's, it's everywhere now. And they created this impression that, you know, of course, if you, if you don't follow this new definition which includes not recognizing or opposing or rejecting Zionism, then you're somehow anti Semitic. Now the way it's being, you know, the people like Carrie coming in to the fold on Palestine, it's very interesting. Some people are saying, oh no, no, no, no, we're not going to talk to them. We can't. You know, if they invite you to interview, we should say no, we should reject it because, you know, we all have to fight the same. And others are saying, wait a minute, we're opening Up a new, whole new platform, a whole new audience, a whole new thing. And if we care about this issue, then we need to work together to resolve this issue. We don't always have to agree on everything. It's okay that we agree on one thing. And then maybe down the road there'll be some, you know, somebody will evolve one way or the other. But I think it's really important, like I said earlier, it's really important for me, it's important that people on our side are on the left, refrain from becoming Bolshevik. You know, when I say Bolshevik, I mean that's it. If you're not with us, you're out, you're done. We're going to burn your villages and we're going to kill you. Because there's only one way. There's not only one way. There are many ways. If wherever we can create a coalition, wherever we can work together, and especially on an issue that is so deeply rooted in American, in American culture and American politics and American economics, which is Zionism, which is Israel, you know, Americans. And I'm sure I don't want to speak for Kerry, but I'm sure she feels this way, are tired of being part of a genocide, are tired of being called supporters of genocide and supporters of apartheid and supporters of what is being done to the Palestinians. America is sick and tired of this.
- [90:58]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
This.
- [90:59]
Miko Peled
Now they have. Now there's people on the right coming in and saying, you know what? This is true. There's a point here. We don't all need to support Zionism. We can, this can be and indeed should be a bipartisan by bi ideological issue where we come together on this and then maybe later on we could come together on other issues. But this one, I think is, is so deeply rooted in, in America, the issue of supporting Israel. And that's also why the double standard litmus test is ridiculous. There is no other country that gets so much money and so many weapons and is so involved in every aspect of American life, in philanthropy, in. In politics, in music and culture, in, I mean, in the news. Of course, you know, Zionism have, as the Zionists have been able to influence every aspect of American life to the point where if you speak up like Harry did, then you're. That's it, you're anti Semitic, you're out. You know, so there is no other issue that is that. That is that, like I said, deeply rooted. And so the double standard, you know, issue is, is, is ridiculous because there is no other. There is no other case like Israel, like Zionism. That has taken over, that has taken such stronghold and has such a fundamental influence on every aspect of American life.
- [92:21]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Yeah. And I think too Christianity has been subverted. Everybody thinks, you know, we are heavily Protestant in America, but there are so many Catholics that have messaged me saying, yeah, everything you said is exactly what I've been taught my entire life. I have Catholics from, from around the world that are saying we don't even know what Zionism is, is like. Why are you guys in America talking about Zionism? Well, because we're so heavily influenced by these Christian evangelical Zionists. And so I, I want to take back our, our religion and take back what the church has taught for 2,000 years. We don't agree that we should hate Muslims and hate Jews or hate anybody for that matter. We want peace, we want unity. And so that's what's so interesting that they're trying to call me, you know, all these names and saying that I don't speak for Catholics. No. So many Catholics, I would say majority of them that are well catechized, they know exactly what the church teaches about supporting a political, you know, ideology such as Zionism. And like I quoted from Dr. Scott Hahn, who's written over 50 books, he's the most well respected theologian. I quoted him from the stage saying we got to be really careful labeling everybody anti Semites and simply because they don't embrace Zionism. And he goes on to say, you know, to be a Catholic Christian, you in no way have to support Zionism as a biblical prophecy fulfillment. So this is theological tomb. We must focus on that as well because the Christian evangelicals have hijacked, not all of them, but a lot of them like Paula White and Dan Patrick have hijacked Christianity to mean, you know, we must support Israel at all costs. We, we must support them even if it means killing innocent civilians, killing innocent Palestinians. And I reject that.
- [94:09]
Ryan Grimm
Well, Carrie Prejean Bowler, thanks so much for joining us. You know, really appreciate it.
- [94:14]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Thank you.
- [94:15]
Ryan Grimm
And Miko, thank you also for joining and also thank you. I don't know if people know it when we delivered Refaat Al Arir's book of poetry and collection of essays if I Must Die, to every member of Congress, which was supported by readers and viewers of Dropsite. They contribute enough money so we could buy 535 copies of it and then had had people meet us at the Palestine House of Freedom. And that was the base from which we went then around Capitol Hill making sure that everybody got a copy of that. So thank you again for that. And thank you for joining us here today. Very much. Appreciate it.
- [94:55]
Sharif Abdel Kouddus
Absolutely.
- [94:56]
Miko Peled
Thank you.
- [94:59]
Ryan Grimm
All right, That'll do it for us here for a slightly unusually long live stream. But we're making up for flaking on you guys last week. I'm, I'm Ryan Grimm. Behalf of all of my colleagues here at Dropsite News, thank you so much for watching.
- [95:22]
Carrie Prejean Bowler
Sam. Sa.