[theme music]

Brian Lehrer: It is The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. On this Holocaust Remembrance Day, Senator Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer, is reacting to bomb threats that came into multiple New York synagogues on Saturday. Schumer held a news conference to remind leaders of any kind of house of worship that they can apply for a grant from a $400 million fund for security at their sites. Schumer described the grants yesterday with Congressman Jerrold Nadler of Manhattan and Brooklyn, whose district was among those hit by the scary hoaxes. Here's Nadler.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler: Unfortunately, there's been a huge increase in anti-Semitism, in anti-Semitic threats that started before the Gaza attack on October 7th, but has multiplied exponentially since then. Just in the last few days, as we know, there were these threats, including in my district, Congregation Rodeph Sholom, in West 83rd Street, and the Congregation Beit Simchat Torah, CBST, the gay synagogue on West 30th Street. These are all intolerable. I'll add one other thing to everything that was said, and that is, as we know, there's been an explosion of anti-Semitism on campuses.

Brian Lehrer: That was Jerrold Nadler from Brooklyn and Manhattan. The Brooklyn Museum got one of those bomb threats too. Schumer Senate is divided over an official definition of anti-Semitism that easily passed in the House last week, 320 to 91. The opponents included New York Democrat, Jerrold Nadler, who we heard there on the bomb threats, plus members of the squad 70 Democrats in all, plus Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, and others on the right comprising the 21 Republicans who voted no. We'll explain why the strange bedfellows in our Monday morning politics segment for this week, the competing definitions of anti-Semitism that drove those divisions at this time of war in Gaza and campus protests, and why it might matter to federal funding for colleges and universities, as well as to the US election campaign.

That isn't the only big division that's front and center right now in the Republican caucus. That same Georgia Congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor Greene is leading the charge for a vote that is expected to actually happen this week on whether to ask Mike Johnson as speaker. Look who seems ready to support Johnson, the leader of the House Democrats, Hakeem Jeffries of Brooklyn.

Hakeem Jeffries: Our view would traditionally be, let the other side work its own mess out. When that mess starts to impact the ability to do the job on behalf of the American people, then the responsible thing at that moment might be for us to make clear that we will not allow the extremists to throw the Congress and the country into chaos.

Brian Lehrer: Minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, on 60 Minutes. This all has implications for this election year, which we'll also explain. With us now, Annie Karni, who covers Congress for the New York Times, with a focus on social issues and the House Republican leadership. Annie, always good to have you. Welcome back to WNYC.

Annie Karni: Thanks for having me back.

Brian Lehrer: There's going to be a vote this week to oust Mike Johnson?

Annie Karni: Yes, I think so. Marjorie Taylor Greene last week said she would bring up her motion to oust him this week. She hasn't done it yet, but we assume she's doing it today or tomorrow, and then they will have two or three days to schedule the vote. If she follows through with what she said she was going to do, then they will have to schedule it this week.

Brian Lehrer: Remind us, how did Johnson run so afoul of Marjorie Taylor Greene and others on the far right?

Annie Karni: Mostly it's with passing the Ukraine Aid that he passed a few weeks ago with majority Democratic support. Marjorie Taylor Greene has been saying for months that her red line is sending more money to Ukraine. Johnson was worried about this, stalled for a long time but finally brought up that bill and passed it, would send some $61 billion to Ukraine. That was the final straw for Greene and a lot on the right. Also, I would say that with Marjorie Taylor Greene, this was, she is a lawmaker who isn't so driven by policy as she is by being in the spotlight. This was an opportunity to seize that role of ousting the speaker that Matt Gaetz had in the first half of this congress. This is a moment appeared where she could be driving the news.

Brian Lehrer: Right. I see she called the Democrats and Republicans a Uniparty. Has she been watching Fox News or MSNBC?

Annie Karni: They love the Steve Bannons and Matt Gaetzs and Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world love to blast the Uniparty, which I guess would be the group that comes together to actually pass major legislation like the debt ceiling deal and a huge supplemental bill to send foreign aid abroad.

Brian Lehrer: Your article on this says, "Longtime ally of Greene and fellow hard-right Republican Jim Jordan called Greene and urged her not to do this." Why Jim Jordan?

Annie Karni: Jordan had a conversation with her saying, "We're six months out from an election where we think we can win the White House. We're really confident about winning the Senate." He said to her, "My concern is that we could win the top of the ticket and lose the House, which would really be unheard of. That's not supposed to happen, but let's not make it possible that that could."

This is not helping. Trump doesn't like it. He doesn't see it as helpful to him. Jim Jordan wants to keep the House. He thinks this is hurting their chances. All these voices that Marjorie Taylor Greene trusts, Trump told her not to do it. Jim Jordan told her not to do it. Kevin McCarthy, the former speaker who she was really close with, has been encouraging her not to do it. Ultimately, none of that mattered because if you think about it from her perspective-- Oh, also, part of Jim Jordan's argument is, it's not going to work this time, and there's no one else. Even if it did, they'd be speakerless. For Marjorie Taylor Greene, what's the downside? It helps her with her MAGA base. For the rest of this Congress, she can rail against Johnson as speaker of the Uniparty, controlled by Democrats. She can refer to Speaker Jeffries who saved him.

Brian Lehrer: "Speaker Jeffries."

Annie Karni: Yes, and it helps her with her base. I looked at some polls that show since she's been railing against Mike Johnson for Ukraine funding, her support among Trump voters has gone up and has gone down. It helps her with small-dollar fundraising. Most of all, it helps, we're talking about her right now, and we will be talking about her all week. This is someone who seeks attention more than anyone else in Congress. There's really no downside. Usually, in the old-fashioned world of politics, if you bring a motion to the floor and it fails dramatically, that's embarrassing, and that's a failure. Marjorie Taylor Greene can't not win for herself.

Brian Lehrer: Maybe you just answered this question, but you wrote in your article that, to help understand why Marjorie Taylor Greene would push this to a vote when it looks like she's going to lose spectacularly even among her Republican colleagues, you write that, "We should think of green more as a MAGA influencer than a legislator." How are you using MAGA influencer there?

Annie Karni: Someone who has huge support with a base, does a lot on social media, does a lot of talking on various right-wing outlets, and is not interested in passing legislation. Sees Congress and the House floor as another platform like Twitter, or Instagram, or TikTok, or whatever they use. This is another platform where you can have a camera on you and create viral moments. That's what I mean by influencer. To push these extreme hard right ideas, whether it's an isolationist position about sending money abroad or not wanting-- Well, she actually did want to raise the debt ceiling. She voted for that because she was close with McCarthy. This is, Congress is a platform that is as useful as any other platform that gets you attention to say whatever you want to say. That's what I mean by influencer

Brian Lehrer: Running for majority leader of TikTok. Ha, ha. We have a question from a listener who writes, "I don't know much about Marjorie Taylor Greene's District. Is she popular in Georgia? She seems like a clown, and I'm sick of hearing her name," writes this listener. Is she popular in her district or what is this district that would send her of all people to Congress and not have her successfully primary from let's say the center-right, or even the Jim Jordan right, which doesn't seem to be as far right as she is right now.

Annie Karni: Yes, she's extremely popular. She will be there for as long as she wants to be. There's certain ones, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, these are bright red districts that they don't need to temper their language or worry about those more moderate voters the way some more vulnerable Republicans do. It's interesting. There are some bomb-throwers in Congress like Lauren Boebert or Anna Paulina Luna who have aligned themselves with this faction. Sometimes I wonder, you see your colleagues doing this, so you act the same, but those districts, they're actually not that red. I don't know how you can get away with speaking like they do all the time and not lose voters. They actually are vulnerable and could be challenged from more-

Brian Lehrer: In a primary.

Annie Karni: -center-right. Marjorie Taylor Greene will never have a primary challenger. She's probably unelectable for a statewide office, but in her district, she can be in Congress until she decides she is no longer interested in the job.

Brian Lehrer: We're going to talk about Greene in the context of the Anti-Semitism Definition Bill that passed in the House last week. She was one of the people who voted against it, but I've seen her name mentioned as a possible Trump running mate. Not sure he needs another polarizing political flamethrower.

Annie Karni: I think the only one who mentioned Marjorie Taylor Greene as a Trump running mate was Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Brian Lehrer: Marjorie Taylor Greene. [chuckles] You got it.

Annie Karni: Yes, I don't think that's a serious thing.

Brian Lehrer: Jumping to the other side of the aisle, we played that clip of Democratic House leader, Hakeem Jeffries. He and his caucus, we will recall, declined to save Kevin McCarthy's speakership by having some crossover. The thinking then was, let the Republicans put their dysfunction front and center. Don't bail them out from that. That will help Democrats and hurt Republicans in the election year. Why is this week expected to be different?

Annie Karni: Two things. One is Democrats really despised Kevin McCarthy, and a lot of what goes on in Congress is about personal relationships. They despised him. They thought he was untrustworthy. He said they didn't want to pass the stop-gap funding measure to avoid a government shutdown that actually he couldn't have passed without them. Then he just blamed them saying they didn't want to do it, which just didn't make any sense. He had really frustrated them and pissed them off. That was part of the reason they had no interest in saving him.

They didn't think he was trustworthy. The dysfunction hurts everybody. Of course, it hurts the Republicans more, but I've heard from Democrats who say, "We still have vulnerable Democrats, and if they have to go home and talk about, why don't you have a speaker of the House? That's not as productive as talking about an agenda that will help local constituents." They don't love the dysfunction. Here, they were so desperate to pass that Ukraine aid that Jeffries was saying for weeks leading up, he was hinting that, if he passes this, we will save him.

He needed to know, he wanted to send the message, "You will not lose your job if you do this." He was trying to create an atmosphere where Johnson would feel comfortable bringing that bill to the floor because there was so much pressure on the right not to. They promised this to him, and what I've heard from Democrats generally about Johnson is they don't have the same hatred as they did of Kevin McCarthy. They view him as extreme, but they view him as basically like, "He keeps his word, he's not a liar." I don't hear the same anger about him.

Brian Lehrer: I guess that answers the next question I was going to ask. Listeners, if you're just joining us, my guest is Annie Karni, for our usual Monday morning politics segment. Annie Karni this week from the New York Times, who covers Congress, including emphasis on the House Republican leadership and on social issues. Content-wise, on the substance of what the House is doing, would you say Johnson has turned out to be any better or worse from a Democratic Party perspective than Kevin McCarthy? Because that was the fear, right?

McCarthy was giving in to the MAGA win at every turn and not keeping his word, but his instincts, for most of his career, were more moderate. The Dems were afraid that someone even further to the right would begin to run the House. Johnson, when you look at his past record, fit that bill.

Annie Karni: Exactly.

Brian Lehrer: Can you compare Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson substantively, if that's even possible?

Annie Karni: Yes. The early take when McCarthy was ousted and Johnson emerged, this no-name, hard-right guy, was that he was going to tie the party further to the right. That hasn't happened yet. He passed some spending bills that were basically like a leftover thing from McCarthy. He avoided a shutdown. Then with the supplemental, he did it. I wrote a piece a few weeks ago about how, in this moment of the Republican Party, doing your job counts as more heroic than most of your colleagues. The job of the speaker of the House is to bring legislation that can pass to the floor.

This was obviously going to pass if he brought it. It took him a long time to get there. He's very indecisive, but he did it. I compared him to Mike Pence, who did the right thing one time and is hailed as a hero. He literally just did his job. There's so much pressure not to just do your job, that doing the bare minimum counts as a moment, in this moment we're in. Yes, so far, Johnson has not tied the party further to the right. He's basically done the same things Kevin McCarthy would have. There's something about being in leadership that you suddenly can't have those same views that you did when you represented a small red district in Louisiana.

He has not been harder, but I would say that he's got six more months, and he's going to be trying to reclaim his conservative bona fides, I would say. He knows he suffered with the right for the Ukraine bill. I would imagine he's going to be doing a bunch of hard-right messaging bills or trying to tack back and win back that faction of the party in the next few months. We'll see.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting. A couple of more listener comments. Listener writes, "Marjorie Taylor Greene is a huge fundraiser. She raises more money than anyone else, gives money to other candidates. That's why she's popular," or I guess it's really the other way around because she's popular with a certain donor MAGA base.

Annie Karni: Yes, she does give a lot of money. She does.

Brian Lehrer: Maybe since she was an ally of Kevin McCarthy, even though she's not of Johnson, maybe she's going to help McCarthy win re-election in the way you're describing. Someone else writes from the [unintelligible 00:17:34], the political analyst file, Listener writes, "Breaking news, Johnson and MTG are set to meet one-on-one today at 3:30. I foresee a last-minute deal of vague promises from the speaker that she can tout as her off-ramp." You agree with that?

Annie Karni: Interesting. I hadn't seen that breaking news alert because I've been here. I don't know what he could offer her. The problem is, as I said, she's put herself out there so far. I'm not sure how she gets out of it at this point. He already passed. What could he give her? Could he give her a made-up leadership position? I don't know. I don't know what's left to give her. I don't know. Again, she's heard from all these people, Trump doesn't want her to do it, and that didn't dissuade her. I'm not sure Johnson has, at this point, to negotiate away.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, and we'll consider even that meeting, the existence of the meeting, unconfirmed breaking news at this point, since it came from a listener, not directly from a news organization, at least that I've seen yet, but it may well be a thing. Now we'll turn to the Anti-Semitism Definition Bill that passed the House last week. As we do that, I want to open the phones for listeners. We can take calls for New York Times Congressional reporter, Annie Karni, on what we were just talking about, the speakership question. If you're a Republican, should Johnson be ousted over his cooperation with Democrats on Ukraine and the budget and a few other things?

If you're a Democrat, should your party save him this time with their votes when they didn't save Kevin McCarthy just months ago in the same kind of spot? 212-433-WNYC. Also, I wonder if anybody listening was in or is affiliated with one of the synagogues that was evacuated on Saturday because of the bomb threats that we mentioned at the top of the segment, or in one of those that wasn't evacuated, but still your synagogue got one, or maybe you were at the Brooklyn Museum, which also got one. Again, police say there were no bombs, just these emails that they say were sent to a number of New York synagogues plus the Brooklyn Museum.

That still, of course, instills fear, which is the goal and is clearly anti-Semitic in this case. There was the Chuck Schumer-Jerrold Nadler Security Grant news conference on that, those grants available to all Houses of worship from any faith. They did certainly note the Islamophobia that's around and other forms of hate. 212-433-WNYC, or you can weigh in on the competing definitions of anti-Semitism that were the source of the debate in the House, and that apparently might sink the same bill in the Senate. 212-433-WNYC. We'll get into some of the details of that 212-433-9692, as we continue with Annie Karni from the New York Times right after this.

[theme music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC as we continue with Monday morning politics in our lead segment today, as we often do on Mondays, as we usually do on Mondays, national politics, today with Annie Karni, who covers Congress for the New York Times with a focus on social issues and the House Republican leadership. Now let's turn to the Anti-Semitism Definition Bill that passed the House last week. We'll get to the implications for funding for colleges and universities but give us the basics. Who introduced it, and what does it say?

Annie Karni: This bill was introduced by a Republican from New York, Mike Lawler. It would, for the first time, enshrine a definition of anti-Semitism into federal law and instruct the Education Department to consider it when investigating allegations of discrimination against Jews on college campuses. It's very timely. It's actually a bill that people have been trying to pass for years, but they brought it up now in the middle of this heated protest going on college campuses.

Brian Lehrer: We'll get to the substance, but politically speaking, you wrote that it was intended to divide Democrats and had its intended effect. I'll also say that the sponsor is interesting, Mike Lawler, from just north of New York City, who is definitely in a swing district and will likely face a meaningful challenge from a Democrat. He's obviously happy to have his name on this. I'm curious what you see as the election year politics more broadly.

Annie Karni: Republicans have seized on this anti-Semitism on college campuses issue now for a while. It's a great issue for them. It divides Democrats who are deeply divided on the issue on the Israel-Gaza War, Hamas war, and have been since October 7th basically. It's a problem for Biden with younger voters, and on the right, it unites a really fractured party, especially in the House. We've seen Elise Stefanik hold high-profile hearings with university professors. We've seen Johnson went to Columbia, which I think is a really rare, if not the first time a speaker of the House goes to a college campus and speaks on campus to denounce the president and what's going on there.

Then they came with this bill. They are trying to position themselves as the real friends of the Jews, the real friends of Israel. It's working because there's a real issue. It's undergirded by a real issue, which is anti-Semitism on campuses that you can't completely dismiss out of hand, unlike a lot of their messaging bills that are just based in nothing.

It's just very political in that these are the same lawmakers who have not spoken out when Trump dines with the white supremacists who backed him after Charlottesville, when he said that there were very fine people on both sides at a rally where people were chanting, "Jews will not replace us."

For these lawmakers to now be representing themselves as the true friends of Jews is a lot to take for some people, but it's working for them, and as you saw, 70 Democrats vote against this. That's what they assumed, that the left would not like this bill, but we also saw some of the right who didn't like this bill for completely anti-Semitic reasons.

Brian Lehrer: The controversy around this, as I mentioned, is based on different objections on the left and on the right, and that's what you were just implying too. Since we were on the Marjorie Taylor Greene bit already, why is she opposed?

Annie Karni: She is opposed because she says that it would make it illegal to say that Jews killed Jesus, which is an anti-Semitic trope.

Brian Lehrer: Which by the way, the Catholic Church officially says it's an anti-Semitic trope.

Annie Karni: Right. The recent pope officially said that there's no basis for that. She says that the definition of anti-Semitism that this bill is putting forward, specifically says certain parts of the Bible claiming that would count as anti-Semitism, and it is making the Bible illegal, and that therefore, she can't support it. Matt Gaetz made the same exact argument. He said this would make it illegal to say Jews killed Jesus Christ. The lefties who opposed this bill, it was about First Amendment rights, and they didn't want a new way to crack down on anyone who's saying anything anti-Israel on campuses. They thought that's what it would be used for. Some of the people on the right who opposed it literally opposed it because it would make anti-Semitic things officially deemed anti-Semitic.

Brian Lehrer: [chuckles] A very straightforward way of putting it. On the left, we should say, not just members of the squad, but Jerrold Nadler, for example, who's clip we played at the top of the show talking about how horrified he was at a news conference with Chuck Schumer yesterday, by these bomb threats that were sent to synagogues over the weekend in his district. Yet, Jerrold Nadler staunch supporter of Israel for a long time, supporter of Biden's policies controversial elsewhere on the left toward Israel since October 7th, even Jerrold Nadler against this bill, although a majority of Democrats voted for it.

Annie Karni: Yes, and just to note, Nadler has actually supported this bill in 2017 when it came out, 2016 I think. He voted for it. He's flipped because of First Amendment issues. Sorry, what were you going to say? Yes, most Democrats [unintelligible 00:27:21]

Brian Lehrer: Most Democrats supported it, 70 Democrats voted against it. That's about a third roughly of the Democrats voting against it. What implications does it have for American colleges and universities?

Annie Karni: It could lead to federal funds being withheld if they fail to restrict statements that would fall under the definition of anti-Semitism. Some of those include denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination or claiming that Israel's existence is a racist endeavor. Anyone who, if they fail to enforce the definition of anti-Semitism that this bill is relying on, they would be at risk of losing federal funding.

Brian Lehrer: What's the definition of enforce? If you get an individual professor or if there's a speaker, or if there are students protesting, and they're not disciplined for saying Zionism equals racism, for example, I think that's one of the controversial statements that the controversy surrounds, whether that should be deemed anti-Semitic or not. Who would have to do what in order for the school to lose federal funding?

Annie Karni: I don't know. That's not listed in this bill. I think that would have to be litigated.

Brian Lehrer: I see.

Annie Karni: This whole thing is complicated and really runs against these issues of cracking down on speech on college campuses. It's complicated, and it's complicated to define anti-Semitism and enforce it. It's complicated.

Brian Lehrer: Right, and it is complicated. In very brief, the definition the House accepted was from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and that definition includes as anti-Semitism, saying that Zionism equals racism. There's a competing definition that allows for more political debate about the existence of Israel as a Jewish state before it would be defined as anti-Semitic under the law, even though the definition that they accepted also allows for political debate about Israel. I guess the question is how much political-

Annie Karni: Exactly.

Brian Lehrer: -debate about Israel if we see a lot of the divestment movement protest on campus, basically taking the position that there should be a single state, there shouldn't be a Jewish state per se.

Annie Karni: Right.

Brian Lehrer: I think the definition that Congress passed would define that as anti-Semitic.

Annie Karni: Yes. To further complicate it, the lawyer who wrote the definition, this Kenneth Stern, has said that it was never intended to apply to speech on college campuses. Its goal was to help governments collect data on anti-Semitism. The man who wrote the definition that they are relying on here has opposed its use to chill speech on college campuses. He said, "That wasn't the purpose of my defining it this way." He has testified that anti-hate speech laws could let racist and anti-Semitic actors portray themselves as victims of getting their constitutional rights denied to them. That's his concern.

Brian Lehrer: The person who wrote the definition, who used to be the president of the American Jewish Committee, Kenneth Stern, and whose definition Congress adopted, he says Congress should not adopt this?

Annie Karni: Correct. It's complicated. He said that this was not what that definition was for.

Brian Lehrer: While the US debates campus activity and definitions of anti-Semitism, the situation in Gaza continues to worsen. Here's Cindy McCain. Yes, that's Cindy McCain, widow of Senator and Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, she now heads the World Food Program and was on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday. Here's Cindy McCain.

Cindy McCain: What I can explain to you is that there's famine, full-blown famine in the north, and it's moving its way south.

Brian Lehrer: Cindy McCain on Meet the Press. Annie, with all the campus-related focus in the political sector-- By the way, I see reports this morning that Columbia has now canceled its main graduation. With all the focus on that, the crisis in Gaza is still going on, obviously, and according to Cindy McCain, worsening. Is there a US policy response to that that's being debated in Congress right now?

Annie Karni: No. They just passed the Foreign Aid Bill that Democrats in the House said their red line for voting yes on the Israel aid was $9 billion of humanitarian aid included. That passed, but that was the big debate. There's not another pending bill about addressing the situation in Gaza.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call. Matt, in Bayside, you're on WNYC. Hi, Matt.

Matt: Hi, Brian. Thanks for taking my call. I think of a simple metaphor. I'm opposed to white supremacy, but that doesn't begin to mean that I'm opposed to white people. I look at Zionism, which prioritizes Jewish people in Israel over Muslim people in Israel, I look at that as Jewish supremacy. I think it's institutionalized Jewish supremacy. We can be opposed to that, but certainly not be opposed to Jewish people. Similarly, I had opposed the US War against Iraq in 2003. Does that make me anti-American? Of course not. I am an American, I'm a proud American, but I can oppose the policies of my own country without being labeled as being against the people of my country.

Brian Lehrer: Right. Matt, thank you very much. Obviously, we acknowledge that many Jewish people hold a different view of Israel, and would not consider it Jewish supremacy despite the politics of who gets what kind of power over there. Annie, the question for Congress is, how close to that definition, let's say the opposite definition of what Matt just laid out, or how much would what Matt just said be considered anti-Semitic speech under the law if this goes through in the Senate?

Annie Karni: Oh, gosh, I'd have to look at that definition, but Jewish supremacy is certainly a loaded term and raises my alarms. His general point, he's making a point, he's saying you cannot be anti-Semitic and still be critical of Israel, that is true, but I don't know about calling it a Jewish supremacist state, what that language would fall under.

Brian Lehrer: The question, of course, for this conversation is, what should be against the law in such a way that if the wrong person on a college campus were to say that, or that speech was to be allowed in certain kinds of circumstances that you're telling us remain undefined, could the Education Act-- Is it called Title VI of the Civil Education Act-

Annie Karni: Yes, of the Civil Rights Act.

Brian Lehrer: -Civil Rights Act be used against the school, and then it would lose federal funding? That's what's in play right now. Ralph, on the Upper West Side, with, I think a different point of view than Matt, in Bayside. Ralph, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Ralph: Yes. Hi. I happen to know Kenneth Stern. His view is basically that IHRA was designed to monitor and analyze anti-Semitism.

Brian Lehrer: The IHRA being the definition that he wrote, right?

Ralph: Yes. Well, he helped write. That he didn't want it to be a basis for legislation which has First Amendment implications. I feel divided about this because, on the one hand, IHRA doesn't disallow criticism of Israel, but it says when you go over the line to what you might call eliminationist anti-Zionism, anti-Israel sentiments, that that becomes anti-Semitic. I don't know whether it does or not, but it's very troubling. I think that for most Jews--

Brian Lehrer: Troubling to hear what you call eliminationist arguments.

Ralph: Yes. Like what--

Brian Lehrer: Yes. Like what the previous caller said?

Ralph: Yes, like that, or worse. I don't want people to suffer, like not get some sort of routine contract with the government about doing something because they can't sign a loyalty oath, which says they're not going to boycott Israel. That that's the First Amendment kind of right, but I still think it's really troubling. I think most American Jews feel an attachment toward Israel. Many do not, but most do, and so it's kind of a quandary. Again, I hesitate about legislating about it, but I think it's a valid issue.

Brian Lehrer: Ralph, thank you very much. We appreciate your call. To put a pin in this topic, Annie, since you cover Congress, I assume that includes both Houses. This passed the House easily, but I see it's got an uncertain future in the Senate. Do you know why the difference?

Annie Karni: The Senate immediately moved to try-- They were hotlining this bill last week, which means that each party meets; the Republicans meet, the Democrats meet, they see if there's going to be any objections. If not, they can bring it straight to the floor. There were objections on both sides, in the same way that there were objections in the House. Mike Lee and Rand Paul, I think it was, objected from the same position that the hard right objected in the House. Then Bernie Sanders, on the left, was objecting for this free speech reasons, and for fear that criticism of Israeli policy would be considered anti-Semitism, legally. It's stalled. Schumer said, "We'll explore other ways to move forward," but other ways to move forward, they have to do cloture, and Senate is not a fast-moving body.

Brian Lehrer: Right. Cloture, meaning stopping a filibuster.

Annie Karni: Yes.

Brian Lehrer: Is Schumer personally for this bill, has he said?

Annie Karni: He was looking for a way forward, so he would vote for it, I assume. He was not one of the holdouts on the Democratic side. He didn't actually say. He just said he was trying to find a way to bring it to the floor.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, here's the Columbia news for those of you interested in any case or in the Columbia community. This is from Patch. It says, "Columbia canceled its planned university-wide May 15th commencement amid lingering tensions. The Ivy League School will instead hold smaller scale school-based celebrations." That's a quote from a Columbia announcement, smaller-scale school-based celebrations. That just in a little while ago from Columbia University. As we say, we're not going to solve the Middle East today, we're not going to solve campus today. We're not going to solve Congress today, even though we had Congressional reporter for The New York Times, Annie Karni. Annie, thanks as always.

Annie Karni: Thank you. Take care.

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer, on WNYC. We turn the page. Stay with us.

 

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.