.jpg)
BACK STORY WITH DANA LEWIS
Dana Lewis is a veteran World Affairs Correspondent. He's been everywhere. From global war zones to the streets of London where he is based.
He has been based in Jerusalem, and Moscow.
And he loves talking to people about whats behind the headlines. Award winning. "A real in the trenches reporter". Great interviewing skills and easy to listen to.
BACK STORY WITH DANA LEWIS
Pro Palestinian Protests at American Universities, And Arms to Ukraine
On Back Story Journalists Reena Ninan and Dana Lewis, scrutinize the fabric of free speech and human rights, in the wake of police raids on University Campus' in America.
Controversial debates on global arms supply take center stage when Omar Shakir of Human Rights Watch joins us, and his calls for justice against war crimes carried out by Israel and Hamas.
And a new aid package for Ukraine to fight off Russia - will it make a difference?
(Ret) U.S. Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt weighing in on the Biden administration's latest arms approval. "Not a game changer" but a vital chapter in Ukraine's defence says Kimmitt.
I guess it remains to be seen, when those people go to court, really who they were.
Reena Ninan:I do believe that what we saw in New York there were some outside actors because it turned so violent in some, there were some violent moments, I do believe Was the use of force justified. I think that's a question that many universities have to grapple with.
Dana Lewis:So does Human Rights Watch. Line up in the camp that says no weapons at all to Israel.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:Human Rights Watch has been very clear, and this is around the world, it's not unique to Israel. Anytime there's a risk that the weapons will be used for the commission of serious abuses. Anytime we've documented a practice of systematic rights abuse, we call for an arms embargo. We call for arms to be cut off, to be suspended, so long as those abuses continue. That is our position in the case of Israel-Palestine. So what?
Dana Lewis:changes the game if it's not more weapons.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:I think we've got to take the gloves off. I think if the Ukrainians are going to have a measurable effect and perhaps even somewhat of a victory in the fight, we've got to lift these restrictions, not only on the use of the weapons, but I just think we've got to unleash and take off the handcuffs that we have put on these weapons systems.
Dana Lewis:Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of Backstory. I'm Dana Lewis. This week, as police are called in to restore order on American university campuses, was it necessary to arrest pro-Palestinian students? Was it free speech or a step too far in occupying buildings and camping out in defiance of university rules? Journalist Rina Naina weighs in In the West Bank thousands of Palestinians suffering from violence from extremist settlers supported by the Israeli army, human Rights Watch, omar Shakir, on the arrests of thousands. While the siege of Gaza continues. And Ukraine. The Biden administration has approved $61 billion in new weapons. Better late than never, says US Brigadier General Mark Kimmett. But he also says a deal with Russia to stop the war will have to happen eventually. Reena Nainan is an American TV broadcaster. She's a podcast host and she is also running a company called Good Trouble Productions. Hi, reena, how are you doing?
Reena Ninan:Hey, dana, great to be with you.
Dana Lewis:Did I get all that?
Reena Ninan:right, got all that right. Good, well done, well done.
Reena Ninan:Help me walk through what's happening in the US right now Some pretty ordinary and yet, when you look at the width and breadth of it, extraordinary scenes coming from not only the UCLA overnight, but other universities and colleges where police are, you know, raiding those colleges and arresting students, pro-palestinian demonstrations. I think the big news, everyone really has been captivated by Columbia University and we've seen New York Police Department this week, just in the past couple of days, arrest close to 300 people who had been inside of this hall for days, essentially, and they had three big demands One, they wanted the university to divest from Israel. They wanted to know more transparency on who and what the university is invested in. And third, they wanted amnesty. They wanted no disciplinary action for their actions.
Reena Ninan:With these protests and this lock-in into this university hall, what I found fascinating are two other universities Overnight. Northwestern University and Brown University have actually come up with agreements with these campus and they're going to allow more Palestinian students, they're going to fund for a couple of years two Palestinian professors and Brown University is going to also have a committee that'll allow students to have an open discussion and dialogue with university officials on divestment, on who and what they are invested in. It's a fascinating, hopefully an end for these universities, because what has captivated the world are the sometimes violent images that have come out of this, and New York Police Department has said that it's their belief that some of these protesters they were outside influence, including people who had taken part in Occupy Wall Street in 2020.
Dana Lewis:Yeah, I mean, that's where it takes a turn, doesn't it? Because I mean, a lot of it is routine in the sense that these are, you know, students who feel, rightly or wrongly, that the Palestinian cause is worth supporting and that the US administration shouldn't be supporting Israel, and they talk about the divestment from arms manufacturing and some of those companies that you mentioned. And yet you have the arrests at Columbia, where you know, one of the intelligence officials with the NYPD then made the case in front of the mayor as well, right, and with the mayor's support, that this was more sinister than just students at Columbia, that these protesters quote unquote have been influenced by external actors who are unaffiliated with the university, some of whom have been known to our department and others for many years. They're dangerous, disruptive and criminally activity associated with protests for years. Is that just justifying the police going in there in a very muscular way, or do we I guess it remains to be seen when those people go to court, really who they were?
Reena Ninan:I do believe that what we saw in New York there were some outside actors because it turned so violent in some there were some violent moments, I do believe Was the use of force justified. I think that's a question that many universities have to grapple with over and over again. University of Texas there's one journalism professor early on last week who said that I saw a Facebook post saying that he had interviewed 50 of the people who were just a simple sit-in. They were just totally nonviolent, sitting in and Texas had brought in all of these police officers and the professor was saying they have a right to be able to protest peacefully. It's a sit-in and these were all university students. I interviewed all of them.
Reena Ninan:I think what happens is people from the outside or other outside actors can sometimes come into these universities and that's where the blurring of the line happens. But you know, is the force justified? On campuses? They see one thing, then they start to think the other. It is a very complicated situation.
Reena Ninan:I was last week on the campus of George Washington University for a board meeting and I have to say it popped up overnight Largely peaceful students on campus, but where the university drew the line was they made it very clear anybody from the outside, including the neighboring schools like American or Georgetown, anybody coming onto campus to protest will be considered trespassers. Coming onto campus to protest will be considered trespassers. And I think part of it was because they're seeing the outside influence from other universities and they said you on campus can protest peacefully, but we're not letting this get out of hand. And then we saw the reverse the DC Police Department refused to come in and step in when they were called as well. So it's become so politicized. I was happy to see that some sort of deal was reached with Northwestern and Brown University, because it has gotten out of hand in many college campuses. But you also want to balance the right to freedom of speech and ability to protest in a peaceful way.
Dana Lewis:And we don't know who. On the pro-Israeli side. A lot of them were wearing masks when they were clashing with pro-Palestinian demonstrators and it got very violent. It's one of the reasons why the police came into UCLA in the end. Who they were? Pro-palestinian demonstrators may, in fact, not be students and may be connected to other movements and criminal, you know, with criminal pasts. I mean, you question who were these pro-Israeli demonstrators as well. So it does seem like, I mean, the vast majority of them are students, but there were outside influencers in there trying to light a fire, you know, and kick off a powder keg. So what is the Biden administration when you talk about? It's become so political. What are they doing wrong?
Reena Ninan:I think part of it started in the beginning because I think there was a misjudgment of the Arab streets, and Arab streets I mean some of the Arab streets also in America. Very quickly, this became not just about the Palestinian people but, as one person said, we don't care if you're Sunni or Shiite. This is an issue that affects all. So complicated feel like this is the underdog. You know the Hamas official numbers according to them was 35,000 killed and that these atrocities should not be allowed to happen. And this is America. You should have the right, and you do have the right, to peacefully protest, but it can't come at the expense of other people's safety and security. That's determined already.
Reena Ninan:And if you look at the Israeli people, dana, as you know, they've been for two years protesting judicial changes that Benjamin Netanyahu's government has tried to put forward. They're protesting even the government itself. And they're also protesting, demanding. They really have one demand, from what I've seen over and over again releasing the hostages. Over and over again, polling has showed they are willing to sacrifice and give up a lot People in jail, people with blood on their hands. They want those Israelis back period and that has been the big focus. And I think there's a big divide between people pushing to get the hostages out and a disconnect with the Netanyahu government, who they feel isn't doing enough.
Dana Lewis:Right, and you have the Biden administration going back to American politics, pushing for some kind of resolution and ceasefire.
Reena Ninan:Now they have been pushing for a while.
Dana Lewis:Hoping that Hamas will take the deal. Blinken calling on Hamas. You know you've got to take this deal now. It's a pretty good chance they're not going to take it at all and this is going to continue on through the election season in America and it's not going to help Biden in any way.
Reena Ninan:I mean, and politically I think you know, of course they want this war to end, but I think also there's a big political calculus that you can't ignore, I think, the fact that Hamas keeps saying no over and over again. In many ways, senouar, the leader of Hamas who helped orchestrate this entire elaborate massacre, and Benjamin Netanyahu have very similar fates. When this war ends. Both of them will have to face the current situation at hand. For Netanyahu, if his coalition falls apart and he strikes some deal with Hamas, you know, is it over for him? He's got a series of trials against him on political corruption and all sorts of other issues, with the failure of intelligence in his leadership when these attacks happened. And then Senwar you look at someone like him. What happens to him? After all this, the political leadership of Hamas sitting in Qatar will probably have a very different take. He's the one orchestrating things on the ground. So if the movement is to completely remove Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip, he's the first person people would want to remove.
Dana Lewis:How realistic is Israel's goal of removing Hamas? You've been to Gaza, so have I, and you know that Hamas is not only popular in Gaza, but now its popularity has spiked in the West Bank too.
Reena Ninan:I think it's almost impossible. Only because, as I spoke to one not political Gazan, he's just a person down the middle who I've trusted, he said to me what happens to all those people who have been removed from their homes, whose homes have been completely flattened, who have lost their mothers and their grandmothers and their sisters and their sons, and he goes. You don't forget that Hamas is removed if it's at all possible. The ideology remains and they have patience. You know, one of the things that have always stood out to me is Osama bin Laden said when he saw the Hezbollah bombing of the Marine barracks in the early 1980s in Lebanon, that that was the kernel planted in his heart for 9-11. He knew that something even more spectacular was possible. And I wonder how many other bin Ladens have that kernel planted in their heart after this Gaza war?
Dana Lewis:You know there's a real fueling of extremism. It's not the Israeli wish is that all of this pain and suffering in Gaza eventually removes, you know, makes people less extreme because they are suffering, their families are suffering or eliminated and they realize that their future maybe is not what Hamas, which started all of this by entering Israel. But the reality may be that you know they rally around Hamas, just hating Israel all the more. You know, the headline in Ynet News today sort of caught my attention. It says all eyes on Rafa Israel's dilemma. Netanyahu faces tough choice launch a full-scale offensive in southern Gaza, dealing with a million displaced for total victory, or maintain ties with key allies in normalized relations with Saudi Arabia. No easy options. There's never an easy option.
Reena Ninan:And this entire war, you know, since October 7th, has been fully about goals that have not been realized. You know it's to make Israel safe is what they said. They went into Gaza, but they've made Jews across the entire world less safe, including it doesn't matter where you are, you don't have to live in Israel. What's also been interesting to me, dana was speaking to small business owners in the West Bank before this attack happened in August and September. I was just talking to some friends and there was great dissatisfaction back then with Mahmoud Abbas. They just felt that there is no movement in the economy because of him, Because they feel like 95 percent.
Reena Ninan:Because of him, because they feel like 95 percent.
Reena Ninan:This is before October. Overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly in the West Bank, they would prefer a Hamas government over Abbas, and it is because they feel that he's, in many ways, a puppet to the Israelis. He's not doing enough on the settler violence and he's not doing enough to grow the economy. They feel like he has become the fat cat. His family has all the money and it's not trickling down, and that is a grave and serious problem that needs to be addressed. I do not believe there is a future Palestinian state with Mahmoud Abbas as a leader.
Dana Lewis:But there's probably not a future Palestinian state without somebody moderate, because Israelis will not agree. I mean, they will say we left Gaza. It turned into a military platform to launch attacks against Israel. Now you want us to turn over the West Bank at some kind of two-state solution proposal by the international community and do what? Allow them to arm, allow them to tunnel, allow them to do this to us in another five or 10 years. I mean, israelis themselves cannot. Even if they were pro-peace in the 90s, they can't. This is probably the last moment that they want to hear anything about Palestinian autonomy and a two-state solution.
Reena Ninan:You're absolutely right. And even the people who are left of left you know that I've known over the years have said to me nobody it is. You can't even begin to talk about a two-state solution until those hostages are back. Nobody, he goes. No peace, nick, no person who's left of left, nobody wants to talk about that until we get them home, period. And that was sort of a wake up call to me that you can't move forward on this issue. But status quo is no longer an option either, like there has to be something big that's done. I do still believe, when this war ends, that the possibility of Saudi normalization of relations with Israel I think they were the closest they've ever been and I do think it's a big priority for the Biden administration. It seems like a very tall task to get that done before elections, but I do think it's something the Saudis do want. But optically, they can't do with people getting slaughtered in Gaza or, you know, an onslaught into Rafah shortly, you know, in the coming weeks potentially.
Dana Lewis:I mean, I was kind of reflecting myself on how do you take this very dark moment and somehow light a path to some kind of diplomatic solution to the conflict? And it seems to me that it never mind public opinion and polling. That will come later. That will come later. It requires really visionary leaders and moderates on both sides, because both sides are suffering from a lack of those to stand up and say this is the way and this is how we're going to live side by side. But at the same time you know I have a pretty good memory.
Dana Lewis:We went through that in the Oslo Accords. And so who is it, I mean, who suddenly deals with de-radicalization on the Palestinian side and on the Israeli side too? I mean, there was a radical right there, as you well know, from Kahane Kahane Hai. Some of them are in cabinet. It's going to require a change of political leadership on both sides and some kind of visionary leaders that will come forward and say we're going to do this, we're going to shake hands, we're going to sign an agreement, implement some kind of phased plan to de-escalate all of this, de-radicalized, and then, you know, maybe there'll be a Palestinian state, an armed one, I don't know.
Reena Ninan:I was reminded when the Japanese prime minister's wife came to the White House recently. And you know we don't live through history. It could have happened in the dinosaur era. You don't feel it, you don't understand it fully, but I can't understand a moment in US history with such horrific relations with the Japanese and a generation later seeing them welcomed into the White House, seeing business opportunity in the sector grow.
Reena Ninan:I do believe it is possible. I do believe it comes at a great price. You look at Sadat, you look at Rabin, you look at the great political price they paid with their lives. In the end, I just am one who is not big on predictions. All I can say with definitive certainty is something drastic has to change, because this next generation that is up and coming won't tolerate it in the US, globally, in Gaza and in Israel. So, if anything for them, I just am listening very closely to the younger generation and what they are saying and I think there is hope. They do tell me they believe things are possible and I think when you're younger you have so much hope and vision about what the future can be, which is good. But there's no question you're right, dana, drastic measures need to be taken and there has to be significant change, because the current status quo is no longer sustainable.
Dana Lewis:That's a great way to end, and so thank you, Rina, and I know for people that don't know Rina she was based in Jerusalem and has been to Gaza and the West Bank as all of us.
Reena Ninan:And with you throughout the Middle East and Iraq, with you right by my side. So I'm grateful for all the opportunities that we got to work together today.
Dana Lewis:Great to talk to you. Thanks, Rina.
Reena Ninan:Thank you.
Dana Lewis:All right. Omar Shakir serves as the Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch and he investigates human rights abuses in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Welcome, omar, thanks for having me. You're in Amman because, essentially, you were kicked out of Israel at one point.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:That's correct. I was based there for my work for two and a half years and the Israeli government, as part of a years-long campaign against Human Rights Watch, ordered me deported. They alleged that I support the boycott divestment sanctions movement. We challenged that in the court system. I was able to stay another year and a half while that pended, but ultimately the court upheld the government's interpretation of the anti-boycott law to apply to human rights advocacy, calling for businesses not to abuse human rights. So I was deported in the end of 2019 and I've been working outside Israel-Palestine since.
Dana Lewis:So the divestment scheme. Maybe you can just explain it, but because that is essentially what is driving the debate in American universities right now too. I mean, students are demanding that universities divest. Can you?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:explain that? Yeah, absolutely. I mean. Look, I think the debate on university campuses right now is about the nature of US possible complicity in Israel's grave crimes taking place in Palestine, including the provision of arms to the Israeli government. But also, in the case of universities, it's their endowments, which are invested in a range of companies that do business either in the occupied territory or that have agreements with abusive arms of the Israeli government.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:And so when it comes to Human Rights Watch, you know we don't take a position one way or another on boycott calls, because ultimately our advocacy is catered towards duty bearers. So we call on states and companies and others that have rights, obligations or duties to not abuse rights, to not be complicit in rights abuses. So, in the case of Israel-Palestine, we've called for businesses not to operate in or with settlements, because doing so makes you invariably implicated in the grave human rights abuses that stem from settlements, which are war crimes, violations of international humanitarian law. We have also said that companies should avoid all forms of complicity in apartheid, which we've documented, and in the atrocities We've documented, grave abuses, including war crimes, taking place in Gaza. And certainly students are articulating their own demands, which also, in some cases, relate to questions of complicity and calling for the university to act to ensure that they're not complicit one way or another as students in their university's actions.
Dana Lewis:There's a lot in there. You've packed a lot in there and I don't want to break it all down because the whole conversation will go in that direction. But obviously, if you're pro-Israeli, you believe that the state is being threatened by things like Hamas' attack in October the 7th, you would believe that it's right for America to keep supplying weapons to Israel. The debate then becomes how those weapons are used, where those weapons are used. Are they used against defeating terror or are they used on a civilian population?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:Look, I mean I think there are many strands of what pro-Israel is right. I mean I think there are many that are supportive of the Israeli government but have concerns about their human rights abuses and concerns about US weapons that may be contributing to grave abuses or that are being transferred at a time in which the Israeli government is committing atrocities. There are some that would subscribe to that view. There are obviously some that would say, well, maybe Iron Dome is in a different category than providing artillery or providing, you know firearms that might go to settlers, or JDM, you know bombs that are used in Gaza. So there are some in the pro-Zero camp that would you know. Maybe debate about what, the kind of weapons? And, yeah, there are others that would be defensive of any sort of condition, conditionality or restrictions.
Dana Lewis:But the human rights watch lineup in the camp that says no weapons at all to Israel.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:Human Rights Watch has been very clear. You know, and this is around the world, it's not unique to Israel. Anytime there's a risk that the weapons will be used for the commission of serious abuses. Anytime we've documented a practice of systematic rights abuse, we call for an arms embargo. We call for arms to be cut off, to be suspended, so long as those abuses continue. That is our position in the case of Israel-Palestine that there should be a suspension on arms and military transfers to the Israeli government.
Dana Lewis:That would essentially strip Israel of its ability to defend itself from anything. I mean, you'd do away with helicopters, you'd do away with F-16s, you would do away with 1555 millimeter artillery that defends different borders. I mean, it's very hard to parse all of that, isn't it?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:It's not really actually, because at the end of the day, the first assessment is whether or not you're giving weapons to a country committing war crimes and grave abuse of human rights. If you're doing so, there is a risk that you are going to be complicit in those abuses. So the first duty of a state is non-complicity. We're talking about Israel. That has its own arms industry. It has very advanced weapons. We're not talking about any other situation. We're talking about countries like the United States asking themselves whether or not the supply of weapons to a state committing and this is very well documented that they're committing war crimes. The International Court of Justice has even said that claims that the rights of Palestinians under the Genocide Convention are falsely being violated.
Dana Lewis:Israel supplied weapons to Palestinians as well.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:I mean, look, they gave the Palestinian Authority weapons, and Human Rights Watch has actually also said that weapons, abusive arms of the Palestinian Authority should stop, given the serious abuses we've documented. This is not about cutting. We've also said the same thing, by the way, about Hamas. We've called on states that supply weapons to Palestinian armed groups that are committing unlawful attacks. Those should stop.
Dana Lewis:so long as they continue to commit abuses.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:I covered Egypt for Human Rights Watch. We made the same recommendation about arms to Egypt, so we're very consistent and Israel's held to the very same standard, including Iran, sorry maybe you couldn't hear me, but Iran supplying weapons to Hamas, iran supplying weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon?
Dana Lewis:Yes, we've been very clear.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:We specified Iran when it comes to provision of weapons to Hamas in our publication Very clearly, that should stop.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:That hasn't worked too well. But publication, Very clearly, that should stop. That hasn't worked too well. Well, it's not worked with the US and Israel either, if the arms keep on coming despite the grave abuses. So ultimately, our call is the same to everybody that we need to stop supplying arms that have a risk of contributing to grave rights abuses, whether it's Iran to Hamas or the United States to Israel. We're talking about a very different scale of provision of arms, but it's the same principle.
Dana Lewis:Certainly a different scale. Look, I didn't invite you on to debate with you and I hope that it doesn't sound like I am, but there are obviously many different sides and different layers here. But let's return to the original question. Somebody asked me the other day is Gaza so much bigger than the West Bank? Which is strange? Right, because you and I both know that Gaza is so much smaller compared to the West Bank geographically. The population is even smaller than the West Bank, but obviously Gaza seems so much larger it looms so large right now because that's where the main conflict is taking place that we see through very narrow lens. But we see, between the IDF the violence has spiked in the West Bank as well the operations by the IDF backing, in some cases, settlers who they're supposed to be, in some cases policing, but don't seem to be. It's a major problem for so many Palestinians who are not in Gaza, who were not involved in October the 7th, who are living in the West Bank under the rule of Israel, under military rule.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:Yeah, you know it's funny If you look at October 3rd, my colleagues in Geneva stood up on the floor of the Human Rights Council and literally gave a speech about the unprecedented violence happening in the West Bank, and that predated October 7th. And what we've seen happen since October 7th actually is an order of magnitude worse than what we saw happen in the months before October 7th. So look, when it comes to violence in the West Bank, you have multiple trends, all of which point in a damaging direction. One is what you mentioned. We see settler violence at a degree that's simply unprecedented Multiple attacks per day. You have entire parts of the West Bank. You mentioned my deportation we started with. There are areas in the West Bank that I used to know as having Palestinian communities. You go there today and they are wiped off the map. They do not exist Palestinian communities that have been entirely.
Dana Lewis:Can you give me one example? And how big are those? How big were those?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:communities. These are relatively small communities but we're talking about at least seven that have been entirely depopulated. Some estimates are higher. We say people from 20 communities have been displaced. There's another estimate of an Israeli NGO that 18. But the areas I'm talking about are like the central West Bank. So if you look at the area starting Highway 1, which connects Jerusalem and Jericho, north to like Douma, that's east of Mughayyar and Ramallah and west of Jericho, that area has been almost entirely depopulated of Palestinians.
Dana Lewis:And then if you go to the South Hebron Hills, so this is an area southwest of Hebron Again you have an area where you have communities like Thurbet al-Wahim and Thurbet al-inluta that you can find on a map several years ago that aren't there today.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:Tell me how, first of all, they were depopulated and can you then go to the why? What's really taking place there? Let's do that. The how. It's quite simple it's been settler violence. So, although these communities, in many cases, have faced years of home demolitions, denied access to water and electricity, the thing that forced them out ultimately is the fact that these communities are facing attacks by these herding outposts. So we're talking about them being assaulted, their livestock being killed, families being attacked at their homes, their cars burned, some cases, their homes burned, in some cases, killings. So that level of settler, in many cases with Israeli soldiers standing by or even participating, that has succeeded.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:Where, and, by the way, these communities, once they're displaced the day of an attack, we've documented how they've been unable to go back to their homes. In some cases they've filed lawsuits. In some cases they've tried to move back and face continued settler violence. So that's the how. It's the settler violence forcing them out. Because when a family has their livelihood, like their livestock, killed, or their kids can't go to school, or others are not safe in their own homes, that's going to trigger the sort of action that all these other policies have held.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:In terms of the why, for us it's a pretty simple explanation. There's been years of impunity for these attacks and you have very clear statements from senior Israeli officials, like Atamar Ben-Gavir, stating that commit the violence, you will not be held to account. And then this is happening in very strategic areas of the West Bank that settlement councils and other authorities have said they want to keep and maintain for use by Israeli settlers. So it's a confluence of these factors that is creating this unprecedented violence. And, by the way, we didn't even get into the other layers of West Bank violence, which I can get to later, but this is just one facet of the repression in the West.
Dana Lewis:Bank just one facet of the repression in the West Bank. This is because there are, you know, radical right members of Netanyahu's cabinet who believe essentially, that Israel should forever rule the West Bank and probably depopulate Palestinians if they can. I mean, that is not the majority of the Israelis, that is not the majority of the Israeli government, but these are. I mean they hold cabinet posts.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:Yeah, but look, I think you're right and that's part of what we've documented. But this is not a new phenomenon. This is not something that started, you know, a year and a half ago when this government came to power. This has been a decades-long pattern of unchecked expansion of settlements and impunity for settler violence. It happened under Gantz and Lapid. And impunity for settler violence it happened under Gantz and Lapid. It happened under other Israeli governments. So, yes, you know that's part of the issue. But this is not a few bad apples. This is a structure or a system that you know. I'll give you an example. If a settler attacks a Palestinian and the army is there, they do not have a mandate to protect Palestinians. Their mandate is to protect the settlers. It's the Israeli police, which is barely present in the occupied West Bank, that has the authority to protect Palestinians. So there's a structural gap. That's there. You mean border police.
Dana Lewis:Border police, exactly Because the regular police are not deployed there anyway.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:I mean it's complicated because there are, but generally border police, there are a lot of joint operation right.
Dana Lewis:but I mean, I I've been there in previous in in in previous years where in fact the idf would stop, it would step in to settler violence, like in hebron, for instance, where they um, you know, you have, you have uh cells, qahana, high radical right, where there have been massacres on Palestinians in the Hebron Mosque and elsewhere. Well, hebron's a good example. They would step in and they would separate settlers who were being aggressive and I personally have seen settlers machine gunning homes and going down the street and just shooting randomly after an attack on settlers in that case.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:Look, I mean, that's a good example of Hebron, because, yeah, they separate so, but what does that mean in practice In Hebron? It means entire sections of Hebron are off access to Palestinians that live there and people who live in those communities where settlers are. They may be able to go and return to their homes, but they're not able to invite others, they're not able to sort of fully function. Many of them are then forced to leave. So the solution when they do so is to basically erect and further apartheid, to further the separation, partition as a structural matter. The army's duty is to protect the settlers. So even when they are separating them, they're not.
Dana Lewis:I mean they're doing so out of a mandate to protect the settlers.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:They're not prosecuting, they're not arresting. They're not arresting settlers Exactly. That's a good way to put it Okay.
Dana Lewis:Israel would argue and there's again, there's a lot of different chapters of this discussion but they would argue that there was a lot of support for Hamas and the attack in the West Bank. Something like 70% of Palestinians polled and there are different polling, but around 70% of Palestinians support Hamas' attack on October the 7th, which I think a lot of us find remarkable. I think a lot of us find remarkable, and for that reason, the IDF was going in and conducting operations in the West Bank to prevent a similar attack emanating from the West Bank as it did from Gaza. What would you say to that?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:I would say, by that logic, most Israelis support the bombardment of Gaza, so, by your logic, palestinian armed groups would have the same latitude to go and attack Israeli communities where there is high support for it. That's not how international law works. International works based on a separation between civilians and combatants, and the reality here is that you know, when it comes to the West Bank, you do not have. I mean, the center of hostilities have been in Gaza and the West Bank. There have been different groups that have opposed the Israeli army, resisted some cases, you know, used violence against Israeli forces, and you know those should be.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:You know Israel, under the law of occupation, you know, has tools to deal with that. They can arrest the perpetrators. If they face an imminent threat to life, they can use lethal force. But that's really not what we're seeing, right? I mean you know, and when we and when they do do that, I mean Naftali Bennett, the former prime minister in 2022, april, said there are no restrictions on the Israeli army, and so we've also seen a pattern of unlawful killings of Palestinians in the West Bank. Let's be clear more Palestinians were killed in the West Bank in 2023, more than double than in any year since the UN began reporting data on Palestinian killings in 2005. So in 18 years it's more than 2x as high.
Dana Lewis:Why and how many? And could you give me a B part of your answer, which is not only the killings but how many have been arrested since October the 7th? It's in the file.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:Great point, it's also, yeah, you have it Since October the 7th. It's in the file. Great point, it's also yeah, you have it.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:Well, we don't know how I mean, I don't know the exact number since October 7th, but you have, for example, about 9,000, according to the latest Israeli government data Palestinian prisoners in detention. That doesn't include Gaza, but Gaza aside, just from West Bank, east Jerusalem, and about a third of those about 3,500, depending on the day are being held in administrative detention without trial or charge, based on secret information, many of them detained since October 7th. That number on administrative detention is about a 30-year high. If you compare before October 7th, it's again about 2x or more the numbers that existed at that point. So, yeah, if we take a step back from all we've talked about rising settler violence, rising killings of Palestinians, rising detention. So all of this creates a situation which obviously it's not like the scale of Gaza, but we are seeing the situation very much teetering and there is a real concern that the situation will lead to much worse violence if we don't deal with some of these root causes.
Dana Lewis:Omar does the policing of the West Bank by the Israeli army? And there are different units in the IDF. To be fair to the IDF, I mean there are some that have been named by the American administration. I believe at least one brigade where they want to impose sanctions correct. There are different. There's a broad spectrum of IDF units operating there. Discussion of a two-state solution and a peace process or does it just take us further and further away from any moderates that might deliver some kind of peace process between Israel and Palestinians?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:I think the current reality highlights why the decades-long framework for talking about Israel-Palestine was misguided, because, while we kept talking about solutions and what they look like, we forgot about dealing with the problem that necessitates a solution. We forgot about the root causes impunity for unlawful attacks, israel's apartheid against Palestinians. There is some parts of Israeli society that have responded to October 7th by saying we can't go back to how things were, where we pretended that the Palestinian issue didn't exist, that we sort of, you know, talked about annexation and moving forward and just erasing the Palestinian cause from the issue, because ultimately, when you rule millions of people that are denied their fundamental rights, that isn't the basis for any long-term future. So look, I think all of this emphasizes why we need to deal with root causes, but in a very different way. We need to sort of center dealing with the human rights abuse and the repression. They cannot be dealt with, the symptoms, they are the problem. So we need accountability for all the perpetrators, whether they be the October 7th attacks or Israel's apartheid and repression against Palestinians. We need there to be an end to all forms of complicity by states, including providing arms that could be used to commit serious rights abuses.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:Palestinians. We need there to be an end to all forms of complicity by states, including, you know, providing arms that could be used to commit serious rights abuses. There needs to be. You know, the first step to solve a problem is to diagnose it correctly. Right, the wrong diagnosis leads to the wrong policy prescription. So we need to start by, you know, applying the right tools to understand that reality, and we have some processes underway at the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court. They're really important and I think states should be supporting those processes and be taking other steps to prevent more atrocities.
Dana Lewis:So you really wanted. You would absolutely favor seeing the ICC indict Netanyahu and other members of the government for war crimes.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:I am in favor of the ICC moving forward against perpetrators of serious crimes. Let the evidence lead where it leads. The prosecutor has been looking at this for years. There are serious crimes that have been committed not just by Israeli forces, but also by Palestinian armed groups, and those should all be looked at, and the prosecutor should bring charges against those for which there is evidence that they're implicated in crimes that fall under the Rome Statute.
Dana Lewis:The dark state of affairs which you know. While the Americans and others and European governments are talking about, let's move forward to a two-state solution. Let's find a long-term plan to allow Palestinians to exist side by side with Israel, you have Israel poised right now to invade Rafah in Gaza. What is that and I know we're out of time, but I want to end with that because it's probably where we're heading what is that going to do if Israel moves into Rafah and tries to, you know, extinguish Hamas, in the terminology of the Israeli government, in Netanyahu?
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:I think a Rafah incursion, when there is no safe place to go in Gaza and you have more than one million displaced Palestinians there, would be catastrophic and unlawful. There is no safe place to go in Gaza. Much of the population of Gaza is there because Israel told them to go there, because everywhere else was under sustained attack. You know there is nowhere else to go, and so I agree with you this is where we have to end, because a rough incursion would be catastrophic and states must take action to prevent further mass atrocities. Lives hang in the balance and, by the way, it's not just Palestinian lives. You have the families of Israeli hostages that are taking to the streets of Tel Aviv. You had one on Thursday May 2nd, where hostages or families were saying it's either Rafah or the hostages. The hostages should be immediately and unconditionally released, irrespective of what happens on the ground.
Dana Lewis:But they understand that an incursion like this could very well threaten not just.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:Palestinians, but also Netanyahu, though at the same time, in parallel with that is saying Rafa's going, and months may well be determined by whether or not this incursion. And let's also not make it like it's a binary question, because Israel continues to carry out airstrikes and other incursions there. So you know, even if it's not a full-scale invasion, it could still have very damaging consequences for the population.
Dana Lewis:Well, Marcia Kira of Human Rights Watch. Thank you so much. It's great to meet you and talk to you. I appreciate it very much.
Omar Shakir/Human Rights Watch:My pleasure. Thanks for having me and feel free to reach out anytime.
Dana Lewis:Brigadier General Mark Kimmett is the former Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs. Prior to joining the State Department, he was a Brigadier General in the US Army and served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East. Hi, Brigadier, Good to see you sir.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:Morning Dana.
Dana Lewis:I often used to sit in front of you in Baghdad and listen to your briefings, so it's good to see you on a Zoom, not that it wasn't good to see you there.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:Yeah, and under better circumstances today as well.
Dana Lewis:Tell me, you and I were on a panel on another television network last week and I thought you were pretty pessimistic about new arms for Ukraine, and because I said that I thought in answer to a question that some of them the package is not a game changer, but some of the arms within the package potentially could be a game changer in terms of what's happening there. But I didn't sense that you shared my opinion, so I wanted to flush that out with you a little bit. Republicans has been approved. Arms are now speedily moving towards Ukraine to try and fill some of those empty artillery pieces and weapons that have been without ammunition. You don't feel it's a game changer?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:Look, I'm very, very glad, Dana, that the ammunition is coming. I'm glad to see different kind of ammunition, like a TACOMS, different kind of ammunition like a TACOMS is starting to arrive. I've always been concerned with the term game changer, though we thought the tanks were going to be game changers. We thought the javelins were going to be game changers. We thought the HIMARS were going to be game changers. I don't believe that the war will tip on the basis of this new tranche. I don't believe that the war will tip on the basis of this new tranche. I don't think that, other than the enormous morale boost that it's going to give to the Ukrainians, I don't think we're going to see a significant effect either in the character of the war or the quality of the ground operations.
Dana Lewis:So what changes the game if it's not more weapons?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:I actually wrote an article which was summarily rejected by every one of the periodicals I write for. I think we've got to take the gloves off. I think if the Ukrainians are going to have a measurable effect and perhaps even somewhat of a victory in the fight, we've got to lift these restrictions, not only on the use of the weapons such as the ATACMS. You noted that that would be possible to hit the Black Sea Fleet, which it needs to have happen. I just think we've got to unleash and take off the handcuffs that we have put on these weapons systems, the F-16s. No reason why, when they come, they should not only attack inside of Ukraine but inside of Russialy. I think that we ought to just let the Ukrainians fight the war they think it should be fought.
Dana Lewis:How did you read and I don't know if you saw it, but you probably did how did you read this disconnect between Jake Sullivan saying that the attack comes only for use in Ukraine, not against Russia, and then General Austin in fact said, well, we'll let the Ukrainians decide how to use them, and so you know, with a smile on his face, but clearly saying that he doesn't think that those rules apply to just using them on occupied areas of Ukraine?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:Well, I certainly hope that Lloyd is right. I certainly hope that he has the backing of his boss, the president, in allowing the use of these beyond the territorial limits. The open water, the Crimean Sea, the Black Sea, and inside where they can reach in Russia, go against their supply lines. The Russians have cleverly recognized that. They maintain large supply depots in range of the current weapon systems. They're going to get knocked out, so they pull them back a little bit, and now they're not in range of the HIMARS, but they are in range of the ATAKOMs We've got to. If we believe that the Ukrainians should win this war, then I believe we've got to allow them to fight it the way they want to fight it, and that is, candidly, to bring more pain on the Russians than on the Ukrainian people, to bring more pain on the Russians than on the.
Dana Lewis:Ukrainian people, general Ben Hodges, who you probably know, who was the US Army commander in Europe at one point. I knew him as a brigade commander with the 101st Airborne and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but he came a long way since then. He said why are we talking about helping them defend themselves? Us administration shouldn't be talking about helping them. Much of what you just said helping them win. This is about enabling them to be victorious over invading Russian forces.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:That's exactly right. I've known Ben even longer. We were in the same brigade together, that same brigade that he later commanded. He was there as a young major and a great one. You remember, ben. He not only was part of the invasion interact, but he did it with a sling on his arm and a cigar in his mouth. He's a great officer. I've got nothing but respect, and the comments that he is making characterize Ben Hodges and, candidly, I think we share the same view now.
Dana Lewis:Would you reach back to your roots a little bit as well? You came from artillery, right? You were an artilleryman and then you commanded artillery units. I think I said in our television interview that you were first and foremost an artilleryman and I apologize for that. I understand you're not foremost somebody from artillery, but you clearly understand what is an attack on them and why. Do you think that that changes the game? It basically doubles the range right of what the Ukrainians have.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:Well, first of all, let me clarify. I am first and foremost an artilleryman, as were my two brothers and my father. My father commanded in world war ii and in korea. My brother commanded artillery units in vietnam and I picked up the mantle after that. I was suggesting that it wasn't just this lunk-headed artilleryman way behind the lines that.
Dana Lewis:nor was I, nor was sir, nor were you suggesting.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:But if I wasn't doing artillery stuff, I was doing strategic and operational level planning. That was the point I was trying to make. What is an ATACMS? An ATACMS is essentially a very large missile that is shot by ground troops. It's about three times the size of a high Mars rocket. Because it's a missile, it's guided and very, very precise and it can go far greater ranges. It can put on the ground both these bomblets that we've seen used on the battlefield, but it also has a very large unitary round, something that could, quite frankly, if it hit a ship, it could sink a ship. Greater range, greater capability and certainly more lethality.
Dana Lewis:So why don't you share some of the same reservations that the Biden administration had? You know months and months ago, when they wouldn't release these to the Ukrainians, that they could be fired into Russia, and you essentially have. You know missiles fired, american missiles fired from Ukrainian ground at Russia and into Russia, which could really escalate the war which could really escalate the war.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:Well, first and foremost to use the term earlier, I was a big believer that in the early part of the war, while the Russians were on their back feet, that would be the time to negotiate. But as the war has gone on and as it has become a static fight, it looks more and more like the russians have the initiative. This is the classic russian way of war. Now that they have the initiative, now that their military production is back online, now that the manpower is no longer a problem, you just see this large bulldozer starting to get larger and larger. As a result, I don't think there's any chance for negotiations. If Zelensky was to come to the negotiating table now, the terms would be harsh and even worse than we might think. So that simply means that you can either stay with the frozen conflict, which the Russians will try to unfreeze at a very high cost to the Ukrainian military and the people back against the wall, then maybe this is the time to attack and bring as much pain on the Russian people and the Russian infrastructure as they have done to Ukraine. So that's why I believe that continuing this fight, constrained inside the territorial limits of Ukraine, doesn't make Russia pay the cost? And, to answer your specific question, this incrementalism, this self-deterrence that we put on our own forces and the forces of Ukraine that first they couldn't drop this, then they couldn't drop that, then they couldn't use this, and then we'll start giving them more and more capability.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:First it's the M1. Then it's the F-16. Look, putin is watching this. Putin understands what's going on and he knows that as you bring more capability to the fight, he's ready to withstand it. So at this point, I think it's just take the gloves off, as Ben said, and let the Ukrainians do it the way they think they need to do it. This notion that somehow this is going to spiral into a nuclear war he may be a madman, but I certainly don't think that Putin is suicidal, because he knows that if this thing went too far, the pain would be brought to Russia, and not just to the edges of Russia, but actually to the cities of Russia as well administration.
Dana Lewis:I know you didn't clearly say that, but you implied the slow drip of not giving them certain things, then later on turning around F-16s, the HIMARS, the ATAKOMs. If you fault the Biden administration, do you not worry that a Trump presidency is going to be even more difficult to navigate, Because he's basically talked about just getting the conflict over with and seems to favor the Russians ruling part of Ukraine?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:Yeah, first of all, dana, let me be clear that I'm not here to fault the Biden presidency Again, as a strategic planner sitting on the edge of the inter-German border watching the Russians for years and years and the Warsaw Pact, it was clearly Russian tactical, low-level doctrine to use tactical nuclear weapons.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:They did not have this boundary barrier between the use of tactical conventional weapons and tactical nuclear weapons. They just said you know, it's just a big bomb. And I think the Biden administration was concerned about that in the early parts of the war that if this went against the Russians, they would go to their battlefield tactical doctrine and use it. There is clear doctrine that says certainly, if we are attacked inside of Mother Russia, it's not only an option but in many ways it's an imperative. So I want to start off by not faulting the thought process behind the Biden administration. But I think we are still using that logic too far into the fight and I think at this point it's highly unlikely that he would be able to use or be willing to use those tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Dana Lewis:You know. That's a really important distinction and I follow your logic and respect that. Can I ask you most American commanders? The thing that people don't know about them is they're very well educated. Probably one of the first conversations you have with even you know, colonel Rankop, it's always what books are you reading and what have you read? And is what books you read and what have you read, and they're well-schooled in history. And here you are. You know you talk about being based in Europe. At one point I know you were also in NATO at the headquarters. So do you buy into this argument by a lot of European leaders and by many American politicians as well, that this is not just about Ukraine, that Russia will go further into the Baltics and maybe Poland? Some have even talked about claiming back, flying back, parts of Germany or do you see this more? You know what, if we're wrong? Is this just a specific regional fight, that Russia wants a buffer zone up against a potential NATO country and it may just stop in eastern Ukraine? I mean, where do you stack?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:up. If you look through history, you will see that the Russians have always had an obsession with maneuver space between themselves and the West. If my memory serves, you had the Ukraine in Western Bosnia. You had Ukraine, which I think literally translated in Polish, ukrainian means the buffer or the frontier. And this is a country that knows its history.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:It was invaded by the French, it was invaded by the Germans and this goes to the fundamental question and handedly, the disagreement between the Reagan slash Bush team that had an agreement with the Russians that we would not expand NATO and more current administrations that had been more of the view that NATO expansion is a good thing. So if you put yourself, you know, if you're sitting around a Daha in Russia looking at what's happening for the last 25 years, you see NATO encroach closer and closer and closer to their frontier and in fact in many ways have eliminated this frontier. So that in many ways is the obsession that in my mind drives the Russian paranoia about going into Ukraine, perhaps having Ukraine as a NATO member. But you asked another question Does Ukraine necessarily lead the Russians to acquiring probably the Baltics, possibly Poland, romania, bulgaria, the way it used to have in the war we?
Dana Lewis:haven't even talked about Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, all of that.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:Right, right. Well, that's a different problem. That's part of an old story. I can tell you about their belief in this arc of instability. But, having said that, I do believe that it is a significant leap for Putin to, number one, go against a non-NATO Ukraine versus going against what he thought at one time was a NATO that could not cohes, that was ready to fall apart. But I think he would have to think twice about whether that bluff and that gamble that NATO would not respond if he went into the Baltics or if he went into Western Poland. I just think at this point that's a real leap for him to make, that he can go into Ukraine and seeing the response he got from NATO indirectly would be the same that would happen if he attacked NATO directly.
Dana Lewis:Last question to you, then why not give them what they have now? Why not let them keep Crimea, lugansk and Donetsk? And so, if you don't fear that he's trying to reestablish the old empire, why not just give Putin that and call it a day and push the Ukrainians to accept an armistice or ceasefire?
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:Well, that's exactly where I think Trump will take it and you?
Dana Lewis:you believe that that's the place to take it.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:I believe that's the person that will make that offer. Uh, whether that's the right thing or not, uh, we've got to accept that Eastern Ukraine is primarily Russian speaking. We've got to accept. Accept that in many ways there are some legitimate claims that Russia has to a cultural connection with eastern Ukraine. If you ask the question differently, which is, should we continue a long war supporting Ukraine to take back Crimea and the Donbass in Luhansk? I'm not sure that that's in the future.
Dana Lewis:Interesting. Brigadier General Mark Kimmett, a pleasure to talk to you and some surprises in there for me, but there's definitely different schools of thought on where this goes and how far the West and European governments and America should pursue this, and that debate is going to go on and intensify, no doubt. So thank you very much, sir. Well, thank you for having me and that's our Backstory this week. We're a serious podcast. No apologies, this isn't about pushing a political agenda. Like many other podcasts, it's just serious talk by serious guests on serious situations, and you can make up your own mind. I'm Dana Lewis. Thanks for listening to Backstory and I'll talk to you again soon, thank you.
