announcer: this week on "q&a," institute for policy studies fellow phyllis bennis discusses her book, "understanding isis and the new global war on terror." ms. bennis also talks about u.s. foreign policy since 9-11 and the obama administration's recent negotiations with iran. ♪ brian: phyllis bennis, how would you describe what you do for a living? phyllis: ooh. it is one of those great privileges. i get to work my passion, which is working as a public scholar. for me, it means working against wars and occupation and bad foreign policy, mostly by our own government. what does it mean day-to-day? i write stuff, i speak, i talk to people. i work in social movements. brian: who pays you? phyllis: i work for the institute of policy studies. it is the longest lasting multi-progressive think tank in the country. it's been around since the early 60's. we raise money partly from foundations and partly from individuals. we do not take any government or corporate money. brian: when people give you money, what do they want from you? phyllis: usually what they want is access to information. isis has been a good example. who is isis? the reason i wrote a book about isis was because the book kept asking me where can i get some basic stuff? i don't need to be an expert. i just want the basics. so i said, ok. i guess i'll write one. i think what people want is information. we cannot rely on mainstream media the way we used to be able to rely on it. the internet provides a huge amount of information but sorting through it, it is hard to know what is reliable and what is shady stuff. you want something you rely on, so you go to people that you trust and you share your views, maybe about the way to change the world is to build big social movements against war, inequality, and racism. ips over the years has worked with all those movements. i think that is what people want. brian: when did the media give you what you wanted? phyllis: i'm not sure that is true. when i was a kid, everybody trusted walter cronkite. he was condemned after he criticized the war in vietnam. it's not about trusting individual journalists. it's been a long time. they work really hard, tried to do their best, but it is a system that doesn't work area well. it is owned by john corporations -- it is owned by giant corporations that also own a lot of war industries, for example. you have a major network that is owned by the same corporation that owns general electric, which is one of the egg military contractors. that cannot help but affect how they cover wars and the use of military goods. brian: they did get out of it. they sold it. phyllis: eventually. brian: let's go to your book. this is "understanding isis in the new global war on terror"." there is one question i want to ask you to start with, what is the difference between a sunni and a shia? phyllis: it is an important question, although i am not sure it is the most important question in understanding the complex situation we are dealing with. it goes back to the seventh century, the prophet mohammed. i am not inexpert on all the ins and outs of the ideologically. -- of muslim theology but it was an argument over who should take over after the prophet died. their word to schools of thought, one that said it should be direct family, another said it should be the person working closest with him and should continue on the line. that was the beginning of the split. it doesn't really matter. you know, the actual theological differences are not as important as the political consequences of those differences. among other things, when you look at the civil war in syria, which is now seven separate wars that are all been fought to the last syrian, one of those wars is a power struggle in the region for who is going to be the regional power between saudi arabia and iran. another is a sectarian war between sunni and shia. and that also puts saudi arabia and iran and some of the other forces in the region that they support in syria and elsewhere on opposite sides. so, it becomes a political struggle as much as a religious struggle. brian: so, how much of what we've seen happen in the last 15 years would we be seeing if there was not a split between the sunnis and the shia? phyllis: i think all of it would still be happening. it might look a different, but i think the origins of all of this are far more with oil, with the search for military bases, for foreign occupations of a number of things. i think all of those things are far more important than the sunni-shia divide in actually creating the split and the problems in the region. brian: since you have had this book on the market, "understanding isis and the new global war on terror," what is the reaction you have gotten from people who have read it? phyllis: the book has only been out for a few weeks so i haven't gotten too much response yet. it is probably similar to the response to articles that are right, which is basically, boy, do i need to know all this? do i need to know this detail? and i say, absolutely not. that is why the book it is written in frequently asked questions, where people can stick around or they can just read a few. but it is important to understand who is isis. what are their origins? what do they believe in? why are they so violent? i describe all of those things. but what is the united states policy regarding isis? why isn't it working? can we really go to war against terrorism? are we doing war wrong or is it wrong to say there should be a war against terrorism at all? those are the questions that in some ways are the most important and will be the most useful for people who pick up the book. brian: the isis folks have turned out to be pretty good with video and audio. phyllis: horribly so. brian: people that know more about it than i do say they are well produced. we have seen some of this before but just set up the feeling that you have when you see the isis group and then have you come back and explain some of this. [video clip] >> i call on my friends, family and loved ones to rise up against the real killers, the u.s. government. for what will happen to me is a result of their complacency and criminology. my message to my beloved parents, save me some dignity. do not except any meager compensation for my death from the same people who effectively had the last nail on my coffin with their recent aerial attack on iraq. >> you have been in the forefront of the islamic state. you go for out of your way to interfere in our affairs. today, your military has caused casualties. you are no longer fighting an insurgency. we are an islamic army and a state that has been accepted by a large number of muslims worldwide. brian: what do you think of what you saw? phyllis: horrifying. it is absolutely horrifying. their ability to bring that image so up close and personal is what makes it so horrific. the reality is, if you compare the number of people license has killed to the numbers of people killed in the u.s. occupation of iraq, the war in afghanistan, it does not come close. but that is not the only comparison you can make. when it is this up close and personal, it has a very specific human affect. i look away even because i know what comes, even if i don't watch it. i think most people do. but there is a reason for putting this kind of horrifying reality on video and showing it to people. one, it showed power and it makes them look powerful and strong. two, there are clearly some people attracted to that kind of violence. thankfully, not very many. and third, perhaps the most important, is this is what drives what we used to call the cnn factor. maybe it should be called the twitter factor of news and policy. which is, it outrages people. and when people are outraged, they demand that the government do something. and the something, unfortunately, is almost always military. so it drives a policy of responding to this kind of horrific act with war. which doesn't work. kills far more people than it prevents being killed. and puts us in the position of being the world's oppressor to so many people are on the world. -- around the world. but, this is so often the decision because there are no good alternatives that are considered politically viable. it may be viable in terms of doing the job, but it is not clinically viable because it does not look powerful enough. and by creating this kind of outrage, these actions, these horrific torture videos, the killing videos, the beheadings, the burnings, this pushes people in the united states, in britain, elsewhere, pushes people to demand the government go to war over there. which is what isis wants. they want our troops over there to be targets. they don't want isis to come here. there is no evidence and most intelligence officials have said that, there is no evidence that they are looking to create a terror action in the united states. their goal is to create, what he just said, a state, an islamic state, a caliphate, in territory that we once knew as part of iraq and part of syria. and it is a very specific and a very local struggle. brian: here is a map that is provided by the military. it shows where the strikes have been. you can see on the screen, it is both in syria on top and down below, in iraq. and you say that's -- those strikes do not have any impact. phyllis: i think certain strikes will have an impact at certain times. i am not saying there is no effect at all. but the idea that we can somehow on terrorism out of existence simply is a fallacy. you don't bomb terrorism. you bomb people. you bomb countries. you bomb cities. you may hit some terrorists. and for every one that you kill, you are creating new enemies in their sons, their daughters, their children, their tribe, the their religion, their village, their city, their country. i think we know that. policymakers will admit that if you asked them about it. but it doesn't seem to change the fact that come as often as we hear president obama say there is no military solution, what we see is military action after military action. so any specific airstrike might get the right person. more often, it is not. but even if it does, the consequences of that right action -- it got the person it was aiming at -- that person may turn out to have been turned in for a bounty. they may not be the right person at all. if they are, they still have a family. they have children. they have a wife. they have daughters. they have sons. they have people who live with them. people who love them. and when we kill them, chances are there family does not inc. -- think they are a terrorist. particularly because of most of all, the strikes hit people in their homes or in their cars. when they are sleeping or driving. not when they are actually fighting. so what does people are killed, they are being a father. they are being a neighbor. the responses, you have killed my father. you have killed my neighbor. not, thankfully you have killed my terrorist. brian: paul bremmer and president obama made the following comments over the last several years. i want to get your personal reaction to what they both said. [video clip] >> ladies and gentlemen, we got him. [cheers] president obama: good evening. tonight, i can report to the american people and to the world that the united states has conducted an operation that has killed osama in london, the -- osama bin laden, the leader of al qaeda, and a terrorist responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. it was nearly 10 years ago that a bright september day was darkened by the worst attack on the american people in our history. phyllis: you know, the killing of saddam hussein and the killing of osama bin laden, if we look at it historically, the conditions in iraq, the threat of terrorism, the actual terrorist attacks have gotten worse, and not better since they were killed. so the notion that that somehow is something to cheer about, i can remember the day that saddam hussein was killed. i was in jordan. i remember hearing how people talk about it. and, it was very different from the kind of cheering that i was hearing from the united states. brian: what did they say? phyllis: there was no great love lost. they were not fans of saddam hussein. but since the overthrow of his government, they lost the stability that accompanied the fact that it was a very repressive regime if you did to -- dare to speak against the government. and that is a serious problem that i don't think u.s. policy makers took into account. there is a sense, because we identify someone as a terrorist and, objectively yes, osama bin laden was a terrorist. saddam hussein not so much. a repressive dictator, yes, but a terrorist, no. but, whatever they were, in our view, they were that one thing and that one thing only. for people in the region, people who are closer to them than we are, they are many things. it is a much more nuanced understanding. we do not understand nuance very well in this country. brian: what about the reaction to president obama? what do you think of him? phyllis: today, i am very proud of president obama for the agreement with iran, which took a lot of political courage. it shouldn't have. there should never have to be political courage to say we support diplomacy over war. this was a huge victory for negotiation and diplomacy over war. the fact that president obama had to use political capital into had to be brave is a real terrible statement about the state of our political reality in this country. but he was brave. so i applaud him for that. i applaud him for what he said yesterday about prisons. so in this last time, i was very proud to have voted for president obama. brian: so why is it brave to eventually lift sections on cuba -- why is it brave to make this decision on iran? phyllis: it shouldn't have to be brave, it should be normal. brian: but you said it is brave. phyllis: brave politically because there is a political price to be paid because of the right wing character of our politics where there are hardline lobbies. the pro-cuba lobby, which was really the anti-cuba lobby, the anti-fidel lobby based in miami, who are much meeker these days week as it didn't transfer to the next generation. brian: let me ask you this. he didn't do anything his first term. he is not going to run for an office again. again, i go back to why is it brave for him to make a decision in the last two years in his presidency that will not have an impact on him? phyllis: i think in the real world, in this washington bubble that you and i both live in, there is courage that is required. there shouldn't be. he is going to have a political career after the presidency. he will be running for office. -- he won't be running for office but i don't know what he wants to be. but some of it involves in universities and corporate boards, unfortunately. not criticizing corporations. who knows what he is going to want to but he is going to be a young man wanting to do something useful, something interesting, something challenging. so he doesn't want to completely undermined -- undermine his own political reputation with his own party, for instance. i wish that we would have a president who said, you know what, i have been elected to do certain things, end wars, do what i can to end racism in this country. i am going to do things that my party is what you hate. and that is just the way it was to be. if i don't want a second term, so be it. i wish we had somebody with that kind of courage. barack obama has not been that president. but we have the president that we have and he has been in this context politically brave in the last immediate period. he has done some pretty terrible things in the last period as well. there have been continuing airstrikes and drone attacks. he has escalated the drone war too far more countries than george bush dreamed of. the fact that he has continued responding to acts of terrorism with war means he is continuing the policy of george w. bush. i am not a big fan of barack obama. it was not only a failure. it was in my view a crime. i spoke not too long ago at hofstra university that was hosting the official conference on the presidency of george w. bush. and at the opening panel, i said that i thought george w. bush belonged on trial in the hague for war crimes. i believe that's true. i hope that president obama will do more to distinguish himself from that legacy of his predecessor. brian: back in march -- i want to run a clip of tomaselli, the former senior press advisor. he laid down the accomplishments of the bush administration. we will get you to respond to that. [video clip] tom: despite poor in tall, pour in for structure military assets, essential services, mass looting, a lack of -- indigenous security forces, the iraq mission also realized a range of success is not sufficiently promoted by the administration and remotely ignored by the media. the training of new iraqi security forces began within weeks of the creation of the cpa, which enabled anybody up to the grade of colonel to reapply to a new professional army. ultimately 80% of the officers in the nco's in the new army were from the old army were better trained, better paid, and better equipped. the central bank was reopened and the currency transition to a single stable unit within the first six months. it took us two years to do that and post-world war ii germany. oil production increased. buildings were rebuilt, good hospitals and health care centers. a constitution was developed. systems were created to facilitate an election in an incredibly challenging and degrading security environment. brian: what do you think of it from a philosophical point? how is it you can think so vastly different from him? phyllis: i found it interesting that, unlike all of the other conferences on the presidency -- and they have one for every president in history -- this is the only one where the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense -- none of them showed up. this is the first time. that's what you have a junior grade pr flack who was on the lead panel because he was the highest-ranking official they could get. right? so, i think that says something about the philosophical basis. there is a reason george bush doesn't want to appear. not just that he doesn't want to debate me. i mean, i would be flattered to think he did not want to debate me, but i don't think that was the issue. i think the issue was they don't want to remind people when jeb bush is running for president that his brother was responsible for the devastation of a country. brian: go back to the question i asked about what you think happens to two different human beings, two different groups of people when they think so differently about war and the protection of the american people? phyllis: for me, the single word that is most important is internationalism. i don't think of myself first as an american. i think of myself first as an internationalist. my country, the country i was privileged to be born into, is the most powerful, the most wealthy country that has ever existed in the history of the world. we have more power than the roman empire ever imagined. we have more money than anyone had ever dreamed of. we have more of everything. what we don't have is care for our own people. 20% of our population's children are living in poverty in the wealthiest country by such an enormous scale. the vast wealth disparity in this country. the fact that ceo pay is now at more than 350 times the average pay of the worker. that is not just unfortunate. that is criminal. that is absolutely little. -- criminal. brian: why? phyllis: why does it happen? it is because powerful lobbies, powerful corporations, economic power -- we can trace the history back in a post-world war ii period where most of the developed world had been devastated by the war. the u.s. had gold from the gold rush and it had not been attacked. we were the only one of the major powers that had not been devastated by war. and, boy, did we take it vantage -- advantage of it. brian: what would you have done back in 9/11, had you been the first woman president in the united states and you are faced with losing 3000 americans in that whole thing? what would you have done, do you think? phyllis: i wrote a book after 9/11 that was looking at u.s. foreign policy and what changed and what did not. it was called "before and after," looking at for policy before and after 9/11. and i wrote this speech that i thought george bush should have given on the night of september 11. he would start by saying we have been attacked in the worst attack on our soil in history. my first pledge is that not one more person anywhere will die as we search for justice. against those who carried out this horrific attack. and then i would have talked about how this means we were wrong about a number of things. we were wrong about the international criminal court. we desperately need such a court and we now are going to commit ourselves to not only building that court, but strengthening it so it action has a capacity to -- so it actually has the capacity to respond to a horrific crime. brian: you have faith in the international criminal court? phyllis: i don't have faith right now. it is horrifying to see -- all of us knew that the u.s. would not sign on. there was the biggest allegation there, more than 200 members of the u.s. delegation whose sole job it was to weaken every aspect of the court, its jurisdiction, the crimes that it was allowed to include, the punishments -- all of that was weakened by the united states, by convincing diplomats, if we we can adjust this love it, maybe we could get the u.s. to sign on. and the cynics among us said, no of course they are not going to sign it. do not fall for it? brian: why not, though? phyllis: this was in the middle of the clinton administration that claimed to be multilateralist, but it never was multilateralist. brian: are they evil? phyllis: they are not evil. they have a narrow economically focused understanding of what it means to be pro-american, to keep americans safe means to keep the corporations safe, to keep the ceo pay high, keep the price of oil low. those are all american interests. feeding children who are hungry? that is not an american interest. that is a sideline. so if you understand that it's power that is operative in washington, you become pretty cynical. it is not about being evil. barack obama is certainly not evil. i think barack obama the man understands race and class in a profound way, more than any other president we have ever had. not only because he is the first african american president, although that is a huge part of it, but also because he is april -- he is a brilliant scholar. but what barack obama the man thinks is not that important as far as what barack obama the president is going to do. brian: in this video, they are not americans that we will be watching, but isis that you wrote this book about. this is one of the ways that they kill some of the people that they pick up. [video clip] chanting] stopped it. but -- guest: horrifying. died. these men again, you're the president of the united states, you expect a do?ction, what do you guest: you react. you say to the world, this is horrific and our obligation is how to stop this. and if we're serious about bypping it, we have to start understanding why week do this, it's a good nk thing. when they cruit more show these things. what's happening in the countries and the regions where he troops are operating, the operations are under control, where we're buying oil. what is happening that's creating this. we don't understand that, its's not about excusing it, for this has to be condemned. condemnation is only the beginning. we're not sees you about understanding what causes it, what never serious about stops it. you cannot bomb terrorism out of existence. do you think of the friendship with the saudi arabians. it's a mistake to talk about friendship. these are interests. changed for a long time. one of the things i talk about in the section dealing with the of iciss, is as horrific as all of these things are, they're not new and different. beheading as e capital punishment. in the two days after james isis, the beheaded by saudis beheaded prisoners nonviolent crimes and the free syrian army, the uys we're supposed to be supporting, the so-called good guys, the moderates, the secular guy, they beheaded six that they had taken prisoner. an isis problem, its's a huge problem, a cultural problem. people thinkm some it's legitimate about beheading prisoners. but if we're serious about it, we have to look at what causes it rather than just saying these people are animals kill them.oing you can't kill them all. host: do you have any idea what causes it? guest: i think it's a variety of things. easy to figure out what causes it when you look at who go and join isis from the west. britain and belgium. these are people sending large numbers of people. with think it has to do the sense in certain communities, second and third generation immigrant communities have never been respected, they have never been ofcomed as real full members the society, even when they're born and raise in that country speak the language. france, we see it here, less. but it's a huge problem. to i think it's linked poverty, but not only poverty. we see many wealthy young people lot of opportunities when we look at it from our standpoint, but who don't feel belong, who don't feel they have an opportunity. and here they see somebody's declaring a state. boy, i could go live in that state. we have to keep in mind as videos are, these and you've shown two of the worst of them, there are other recruitment videos that show, for example, there's one hat shows isis fighters and their families taking the children to an amusement park. and pink pony rides cotton candy and it looks like a lovely ut for afternoon. they've recruited a woman gynecologist from the uk who's clinic for gnancy the wives of isis fires in their self-declared capital. these are not only people who can't get a job. who are feeling a profound sense of dislocation, disempowerment, disconnection, from everything about where they they where they thought should belong. guest: so again, you're president -- you've thought a ot about this, you've done a lot of work at the u.n. and been overseas a lot. president at work, what do you do? pick up the phone? have?art do you guest: right. i think there's a fundamental reality that no president -- we capable of responding in way that will protect every horrific act and stop it from happening. isis 't necessarily stop from ever horrific act of or act of beheading. we have to look broader than that. we're a global power. need to use our money differently. we need to stop supporting horrifying se absolute dictatorships, absolute monarchies that pass power not only from father to son but brother to brother excluding the population from any aspect of political life, that if theyreign workers as were pack animals. we have to stop engaging with friendsif they were our and not even treat them as our allies. guest: on that note, go to democracy. one of the things that george w. bush said is we need to free up iraq, create a democracy so they can be as free as we are here. do you think every country in be a democracy? guest: i think every country in he world should have the right to decide what kind of democracy they want. iraq wanted u.s. occupation described as democracy. e heard from the colleague on that panel who was defending all of the great gains of the u.s. occupation of iraq and one of things mentioned was there was a -- a constitution that was sunni and shiah and turkmen and kurds all at the table. were at the table but u.s. academics that came from harvard and yale and law schools who drafting the thing. and those individuals were there to give it political cover. we should be careful about this. the people of iraq were not constitution. host: you have saddam hussein of sunni group which is 20% the country. guest: 20% to 25%. controlled the whole thing. if you're shiah, how do you get out of that? guest: it wasn't a situation where every shiah was terribly oppressed. discrimination. there was privileges of sunni in high-ranking positions in the in the economy, etc., for sure. the same is true in syria. but it's time for the people to raise up. rose up in iah 1980-1981, george bush the first we've had enough, we're pulling out. on shiah rise up and you're your own. the shiah who resisted was a slaughter, it was a blood bath. people in their own country have figure out how to engage in the rest of the world, to gain the solidarity, the support, the it's fighters they need. we can look back to the origins of the spanish civil war where all over the country, from all over the world to fight against fascist spain but that was led by in spain.sts it wasn't an invasion by another country on that side. the invasion was on the other side of the loyalist side. host: to the floor of the of ed states senate in may 2015. i want you to listen to what is saying n mccain and again give us your view of this. we enator mccain: have completely lost -- have we completely lost our sense of any oral caring and concern about thousands and thousands of people who are murdered, who are as refugees, who are dying we speak? says e secretary of state that we should not light our hair on fire. and what does the president have to say today? the president of the united says, well, it's climate change we have to worry about. climate ed about change. do we give a damn about what's happening in the streets of of di and the thousands refugees and the people and the innocent men, women, and and ren that are dying being executed and their bodies burden of proof in the street? sounds a know, he little bit like you. guest: please. host: he's concerned about refugees.d guest: yeah, but this is the ame senator john mccain whose recipe about what to do about iran, for instance, is not to upport a solution based on negotiations rather than war. is solution was the very clever, ♪ bomb, bomb, bomb bomb bomb iran ♪ ccain.as john m what he's calling for is war in the interest of protecting of le, this notion humanitarian intervention has always created more refugees, more casualties than it was designed to prevent. it doesn't work. perhaps stop aan certain action from taking place in one place. you're playing wac-a-mole. you stop it here and it pops up there. i it in syria, it pops up in iran. pops up in iraq, it over the border in syria. this is not a strategy for stopping the conditions that to this. as long as people say, if you want to understand what these you mustple are doing, be supporting them, you're as bad as they are, as long as opinion, we'll never have a way out. we'll be sending troops on the ground. sending bombers, we're going be sending drones to ill more and more people, creating more and more refugees. where was john mccain when the in gees were being create iraq, when 500,000 children age of 5 are were dying because of the sanctions imposed by this country and the that madeleine albright could say was we think the price was worth it? saying s john mccain what an outrage. host: senator mccain spent 1/2 years in prison in vietnam. going back to vietnam history. your involvement start in vietnam. ere's the man who invented the institute of policy studies. he participated in a panel of cool group of people in vietnam in may of this year. watch this. >> there's certain things that be very happy about, first of all, that we're all together. amen. [ applause ] all, that you should always hire a good goodse if you don't have a awyer, we are about to lose, you're in trouble. need street heat, and by street heat, you need to the le to organize from treet to get people in their offices to hear what is going on in the streets. dialectic, e's this f you will, between those two relationships and that dialectic basis on which real change can occur. not forever, never forever. not for 10,000 years. give us two generations and let and let us at least move a tiny bit further ahead. host: he worked for george bundy. national advisor of kennedy. he started the institute of studies. were you there? i was. host: it was moderated. guest: it was basically the pam elders and they were each introduced by one of the activists of today's anti-war movement. do you think they felt when they protested the outcome of the vietnam war. think that all of them felt they were part of history. that that movement transformed the world. said, not forever. we're back at war now. there's a sense of engagement, there was a sense of this as a global movement. and i think if we look further you can see the origins in the vietnam era in the war -- anti-war movement against the war in iraq. if you look at the groebl february 15, 2003, the day the world said no to war. guinness ing to the book of world records, somewhere over 14 million people on that capitals of ed the their countries and 664. reminiscent of the massive protests of the vietnam can do it we globally. we have the internet. very active was zionist. active zionist movement. framework.as my then went i went to college, it was all about vietnam. was too young to have understood the civil rights movement but i wasn't too young to understand vietnam. i went to college and suddenly that took over my life and i never looked back. you about one sk thing there. when you were in college, there was a draft. guest: right. impact with the fact that there was a draft have on your attitude about vietnam the people around you were worried about having to go service. guest: the question of the of t broadened the appeal the anti-war movement. the fact that people were being drafted was huge. ironically, i don't think it took a role in my own thinking. around me who were college students have their deferments. whole class the privilege came in. it was the college students were not going to be drafted. hen they went to graduate school, they could still wait drafted yet. a couple of years later the draft ended and suddenly it was by the lottery. didn't end itself but there was a lottery and so it was determined differently. for the nk that creation of that movement, there's no doubt that the fact americans -- young american men were being drafted played a huge part of it. class race and disparity, it was overwhelmingly young black and brown people ghettos of this country who were being drafted to fight iraq tnam when the war in took off and we saw huge numbers of people joining the military poverty e call the draft. because it wasn't really voluntary. it was the lack of other option, other job, the lack of any way to get health care, to go to f money all those things drove people to the military. ou didn't see disproportionately black and brown people. it was about their numbers in yue lags. you saw disproportionate people coming from tiny towns and rural areas across the country where they had no options, where there ere no jobs, no colleges, no scholarships. host: what would we have seen when you were 17 years old. would i see that the most angry reaction to vietnam. uest: nixon's invasion of cambodia. it galvanized the students. cambodia, a ed neutral country escalating the the face of the massive opposition of the world. have a secret plan to end the war, yeah, it's called escalation. that's the epitome of anger. host: what did you do? campus people on my burned down the bank of america. that wasn't me. but that was a level of anger happening because as one person said in a film made it said it was the biggest capitalist thing around. because there was a growing unszing that these things were related. had been working with the farm i was working in alifornia and starting to understand how that was linked to the war in vietnam, those maintaining the war were the same ones with an interest of not paying farm living wage. the women's movement grew out of that. ll of that started in santa barbara where it had to do with oil leaks off of the coast of barbara. all of the things started to come together and it changed our lives. host: going to run a piece of video of a person you newell in 2003. he's a palestinian by birth. reformed jew by birth and became an anti-zionist. we have to find out why. >> palestinians have always been problem for the zionist project and many solutions have been proposed that minimize rather than sofl. the problem. could have aeli qualled or even to have admitted that they were violated all along by israel. israelis w courageous over the years have tried to deal with the other concealed whatry, most of the reason seems like the majority of s have n, of american jew s made every effort to deny, avoid, or negate the palestinian reality. that is why there is no peace. host: why did you come to be such an admirer of him. a why did you become palestinian protector i'm not a protector. host: you're not a protector. zionist. guest: edward was a great years of mine in the last of his life, this was about a died.before he i think one of the things i was most proud of growing up jewish about ideas, n ideas and challenging ideas, challenging eechl other. challenge me d with ideas and would be you shall me in reading the newspaper and engaging about politics. not about israel. he never questioned israel. to for me, it all came back vietnam. i studied vietnam. i was focused on vietnam. mobilizing on vietnam. i put the middle east aside. when i came back to it several later, i suddenly thought, you know, i think i might have been wrong about the israel thing. went to my father's library, he good jewish girl, and i worked with the founder of modern zionism. letters e had written begging the support from, guess who? the great british colonialists saying to him, your africa, mine is a slice of arabia. englishmen, my concern is jews. why am i coming to you for support? why is your project like my project, because they are both something colonial. read that and i thought, hey, i think i was wrong about this stuff. told me it was a colonial project. started reading this and it led me to edward said who is one f the great american intellectual tradition as well intellectual tradition. he grew up here, he's a product of the united states. t was in working with edward that i came to see the question of palestine as fundamentally an so i changed ion how i understood my own work rather up than saying i'm in olidarity with the palestinian this or that, to say my job is o build a movement that can challenge u.s. policy. he u.s. policy is what enabled israeli occupation, israeli apartheid policiesful all of enabled by the full protection of the united states, by the $3.1 billion a year we to the israeli military. that's what makes it possible for this very small country to such as world power. o i think, you know, when we ook at the influence of great intellectuals, republic whose ctuals individualism extended far past work, you see the linkage now of the young palestinians that are taking up he call of the black lives matter movement. the group of people in ferguson, young activists in ferguson who year o palestine last after the crisis in their own city to see what they can learn about building movements, ties of solidarity. so we're becoming internationalists, i think, in this country. i'm very sorry that edward -- among other things, i'm sorry he didn't live to see the incredible change in the jewish community where you have an organization called jewish voice for peace on the left, apac on the right, j-street in the jewish community is becoming a much more ord area a left or right in the center with lots of going on. as opposed to having a claim, true or not, there was only one in the jewish community. been to w hard has it get what you believe in published? what kind of reaction do you get? there was a time that the jewish defense league shot into my house in l.a. time ago. a long that doesn't really happened anymore. the change has been so profound in the last decade. you know, something like president carter's book, palestine peace not apartheid. president or not, ex-president or not, he could never have gotten that book published in years ago, 10 years ago, he did. that's partly because of the on this.ave all done it's not easy. i don't get into "the washington post" and the new york times. but my stuff gets out. host: you pitch them? i haven't pitched much lately because you get demoralized after a while after turned down over and oh. host: what do they tell you? guest: they don't answer. unless they're going to take it, they don't get back to you. right, i should pitch more actively. that's a good point. for uldn't blame them something they haven't done lately. they've changed directly on what page.s on thafr editorial their editorial page has changed lip, hat, not dramatic somewhat. that's sick nif can't. credence eat deal of in that. the media in general is not nearly as bad as it used to be. still a problem for access. but you have the institute for middle east understanding whose it is to place palestinian voices in the main u.s. press, amazing work. they get in to the pages of "the new york times" and "washington and and "time" magazine all of the main stream media recognize they need palestinian voices. gaza, in the 2008 and 2009 when israel tried very hard to keep the international press out of from the story, it didn't work not least because gaza when there was electricity would power up their cell phone or computer if they the video and the photograph out in to the world, social media has changed everything. the new york times also had a fulltime stringer, a stringer, a not a fulltime journalist based in gaza born and raised in gaza. palestinian ung woman who was there reporting for the times. as changed at profoundly. host: who has published all of books? guest: publishing in massachusetts. host: who are they? uest: i used to say a small publisher. it's now about medium sized. books a ish about 50 year. politician who ublishes cook books and art books and travel books and fiction in languages from all ver the world and about the meet. what folks want to find you do? guest: they can go to the of my go to the website to find , itf-dc.org references to books, videos, and those of my colleagues as well. that what are the chances in your lifetime the palestinian israeli situation will be solved? hope i'm not too old to see it. it's not nearly as complicated as people think. takes a lot of political will. we don't see a lot of that in this country. ut the world is changing, profoundly. the arab spring, despite the ecreases that followed it, had profoundly changed that region. is now ts of citizens being claimed by people in countries who never believe they had the rights of citizenship. come think it's going to back. i think we're going see stage two of the arab spring, in all began countries where it and beyond. host: just have 30 seconds. ou hear this a lot from politicians that the united states is the greatest country in the history of the world. to that?d you say guest: i say the united states the most powerful country in the history of the world. we haven't moved that power for good very often in the recent period. host: understanding isis and terror, lobal war on phyllis bennis. joining us.r guest: thank you, brian, it's been a pleasure. >> here on c-span, "washington calls." is next for your fair for iowa state remarks of presidential candidates beginning with scott walker at 11:00 eastern, carle fiorina and the afternoon.in coming up on "washington ferris from hael the convention of states project amend the to constitution and how state egislators can have a role in that process. at things downy look like economic popularity and income inequality are playing out. nd a look at the impact big game hunting is having on the south fe situations in africa. eff fur of the peta foundation joins us. spk host: good morning, welcome to "washington journal" for monday, 2015.t 17, as the end of summer gets closer and the beginning of the school kids across the country, we want to take a moment to find out from you how in the k things are economy with the consumer confidence, the unemployment situation, and the cost of living. how expensive are things? especially as you're buying things for the kids going back fall.hool, preparing for here's how to join the conversation. we've broken the lines up a this morning.ntly if your in i

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , New York , United States , Miami , Florida , Germany , Afghanistan , Iran , California , Syria , Washington , District Of Columbia , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Jordan , Iraq , Turkmenistan , Israel , Cambodia , Massachusetts , Iowa , Gaza , Israel General , Saudi Arabia , Ramadi , Dayr Az Zawr , Belgium , Cuba , Spain , France , South Africa , Palestine , Americans , America , Saudis , Britain , Turkmen , Israelis , Spanish , Iraqi , Englishmen , British , Syrian , Israeli , Palestinian , Saudi Arabians , American , James Foley , Walter Cronkite , Lindsay Graham , Madeleine Albright , Santa Barbara , George Bush , Jeb Bush , Cecil Rhodes , Barack Obama , Paul Bremmer , Al Qaeda , George W Bush , Phyllis Bennis , Carle Fiorina , Michael Ferris , George Bundy , John Mccain ,