‘The Republicans Are Being Total Hypocrites’

Chaos at Columbia University; a fierce debate over antisemitism in Congress; and a major push for a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel.

Perhaps no one is more familiar with the swirl of contentious and intersecting events that consumed this week than Rep. Jerry Nadler.

Nadler has represented a big piece of Manhattan since 1992 and is one of the longest-serving Jewish members of the House. He’s a Columbia University alumnus, having been on campus in 1968 when police cleared Hamilton Hall of anti-Vietnam war protesters. He’s also a close observer of the Middle East and the politics of Israel in the U.S., and he’s a longtime champion of civil liberties as the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

Nadler sat down for an interview on this week’s episode of Playbook Deep Dive soon after the House passed the “Antisemitism Awareness Act.” Surprising some people, Nadler had led the opposition to the bill amid fears it would endanger free speech on campus. It passed 320-91, but that was many more “no” votes than he expected.

“It’s very easy to support something that claims to be against antisemitism, and it’s hard to start explaining to your constituents the nuances of why you didn’t,” Nadler said.

He added that the GOP has tried to weaponize antisemitism against Democrats amid the controversy over pro-Palestinian campus protests, even as former President Donald Trump has had dinner with a Holocaust denier. “The Republicans are being total hypocrites,” he said.

Nadler also discussed why Democrats are planning to save Speaker Mike Johnson from a far-right effort to oust him from power, the potential for disruption at the Democratic presidential convention in Chicago, and the one vote Nadler most regrets in the course of his long career.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity with help from Deep Dive producer Kara Tabor.

Let's start with what happened this week with the vote on the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. You voted against it.

I led the opposition.

You made a very strong statement on the floor. The act adopts the definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. Tell us about that definition, what the intention of this legislation was and why you think it's such a bad idea?

Well, there are three extant definitions. One is by IHRA. One is the Nexus definition and the other is the Jerusalem definition. They're all equally valid. They all give different examples for perceptions of antisemitism, and none of them should be enshrined into law. The chief author of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, said don't codify this. Don't make it part of any law because these are examples that may indicate antisemitism but don't necessarily in every case, and to enshrine it into law — he thought and a lot of other people think — would be destructive of free speech. It could make criticism, under certain circumstances, of Israeli government policy antisemitic, which it clearly isn't.

Explain what the point of the bill is. The point is to change the Civil Rights Act, and to give guidance to the Department of Education when enforcing it. 

No, the point is to define antisemitism.

For what purpose though?

I suppose the purpose is to make it easier for the Office of Civil Rights to enforce the law. But the bill, for reasons unknown to me, enshrines the IHRA definition and says disregard the other two. There's no rational reason for that. They're all equally valid. They're all made by committees of scholars and experts on antisemitism. Second of all, if you want to fight antisemitism through Congress, there are two things you can do. There is a bicameral, bipartisan bill, the Manning bill co-sponsored by many, many Democrats and Republicans in the House and in the Senate to set up a whole of government approach to antisemitism, which makes far more sense and doesn't violate civil liberties.

The other thing you should do is increase the budget for OCR. The Office of Civil Rights is in charge of enforcing Title VI, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, etc. on college campuses. Because of the huge increase in antisemitism, the Biden administration last year for the fiscal year 2024 budget asked for a 25-percent increase in the OCR budget to enforce strictures against antisemitism. The Republicans pushed for a 25-percent cut in that budget — mostly, I think, because they were afraid it might be used not only against antisemitism, but against anti-LGBTQ prejudice. The result was that the funding stayed flat despite the need for an increase because of the increase in antisemitism. We’re repeating the same fight now for the FY25 budget, which is under discussion now.

Can you explain where these lines fade into one another, what these competing definitions try to get at? The idea is that it sweeps up anti-Israel or anti-Zionist speech?

Yes. That is the problem. That's why the author of the IHRA definition — which the Lawler bill enshrines into law — says “Don't put this in law.”

70 Democrats and 21 Republicans opposed the legislation? Are you disappointed in how many, including most of the Democratic leadership, supported this?

No. I'm not. I am delighted we got 70 Democratic no votes. It's more than I expected. It's very easy to support something that claims to be against antisemitism, and it's hard to start explaining to your constituents the nuances of why you didn't.

You're being generous to the folks who supported this with an understanding of the politics is what you’re saying.

I assume some really did it on the merits. Quite a few, I assume. Someone said that when you're explaining, you're losing. That’s a political maxim. It's not always true, but it's much easier to vote for something like this than it is to vote against it.

You represent basically all of the middle of Manhattan. You're one of the longest serving Jewish representatives. You have a lot of constituents who I imagine support this legislation. What's the reaction been in Manhattan?

I haven't seen the reaction yet. I assume I will. But I've taken unpopular stances before. I was the only Jewish member in the tri-state region to buck every single Jewish organization and support the Iran deal. I think I was proven right. I had a primary as a result of it. I did very well in that primary. If you're serving in public office, you have to do it for the right reasons and you can't only be a slave to reelection. You have to vote your conscience and hope that you can explain it to constituents.

You have a long history with Columbia University. You went there. You've represented it on and off when it’s been part of your district. I don't know if you've been following with a lot of detail the evolution of the campus protests, but what's your opinion of them?

Obviously there's been very strong demonstrations there. Obviously there's been a lot of antisemitism too. Obviously it has frightened Jewish students and intimidated them, which is wrong. I'm glad the university finally decided enough was enough.

So you think the university handled it appropriately?

Yes I do. Especially after the occupation of Hamilton Hall. Until then, you could say “Well, they're not totally interfering with classroom instruction, etc.” But once you occupy Hamilton Hall, you’re interfering with classroom instruction. You’re interfering with the exams. You cannot permit a minority of students to interfere with the core educational mission of the university and with the education of the students. So I think Columbia had no choice but to call in the police and to evacuate Hamilton Hall.

President Biden spoke about the protests and seemed to try to balance support for the right of the protesters to speak out with condemnation of the law breaking. He said there's a right to protest, but there is not a right to cause chaos. What was your reaction?

He's exactly right. There's a right to protest. There is not a right to interfere with other people’s activities. There’s not a right to intimidate students, Jewish or otherwise. There is a right to express your opinions.

Do you think he should have spoken out earlier as a lot of Republicans, including Donald Trump, wanted him to do this week?

I don't know. The timing is very difficult. The Republicans are being total hypocrites about it because, on the one hand, they're saying that the president of Columbia should resign. I don't know what they think she should have done that she didn't do. And they're talking about antisemitism while indulging in antisemitism. Donald Trump has made antisemitic comments — you know Charlottesville, “There were fine people on both sides.” — and he's been meeting with known antisemites. And they don't say anything. So they hardly have clean hands, to put it mildly. In fact, they have filthy hands.

Let's talk about a less controversial, simpler subject: Middle East peace. We're all waiting to see Hamas' final reaction to the current deal that's on the table. I'm curious how you think the Biden administration has handled things in recent weeks and what you think of the current state of these talks?

I think the Biden administration has handled things as well as they can be handled. Hamas is obviously terrible. I think Netanyahu is doing everything he can to sabotage the peace talks, even at the cost of the hostages. He has every motive for keeping the war going as long as possible. Because when the war is over, number one, there'll be a commission of inquiry. Number two, there'll be an election, and he's polling at about 20 percent. And number three, he'll have to face the felony charges that are outstanding against him.

He's insisting on this Rafah operation, which is absurd. You can't defeat that kind of an enemy that way, as we discovered in Mosul and for that matter in Vietnam.

The proper thing to do is exactly what the Biden administration is pushing, namely: Don't go into Rafah; negotiate a cease-fire deal in which Arab troops from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, other places come in and occupy Gaza; start rebuilding it and have them work with the Palestinian Authority to reform it so that you can eventually have a Palestinian Authority in charge of Gaza and the West Bank and have a two-state solution. Now, Netanyahu does not want a two-state solution and this is something else he's going to have to answer for once this war is over to the Israeli public. He was telling Qatar to fund Hamas before the war started. Why? Because he wanted Hamas to be in opposition to the Palestinian Authority so there couldn't be a two-state solution. And of course, it blew up in his face.

He wanted the extremists to be the face of Palestinian statehood.

Not so much that. He wanted them to be separated.

Divide and conquer.

Not to divide and conquer, but to prevent the emergence, ever, of a Palestinian state.

By exacerbating those divisions?

Yes. By the way, when the war is over, you'll also have to face a few other questions. Israel is the size of New Jersey. Israel was attacked on Oct. 7. Why did it take the IDF 12 hours to respond? Yes. He had removed one of the brigades from Gaza and sent it to the West Bank. Fine. The West Bank is 60 miles away. Why did it take the IDF 12 hours to respond? That is also something he's going to have to answer for.

Do you believe that it was a tactical, military mistake or are you suggesting that he invited this because it would help him politically?

No, I don't think he invited the attack. I don't think he anticipated the attack. But he helped create the conditions for it by telling Qatar to fund Hamas.

There is a debate over whether to call Netanyahu's war and the results of that war in Gaza a genocide or not. Some of your House Democratic colleagues have said that it is. A lot of the protesters around the country use that language. What's your opinion of that? 

It's absolutely invalid. It is not a genocide. A genocide is the intentional eradication or extermination of a group of people, of an identifiable group, in this case, presumably the Palestinians. There are a lot of casualties among the Palestinians. One might criticize the Israeli conduct of the war in terms of causing more casualties than needed. And that may be, but that's not a genocide.

As much as you dislike Netanyahu, you think he is, as you've said in the past, one of the worst leaders, not just of Israel but of the Jewish people. That goes back a long way.

I think he's got only one competitor for the worst Jewish leader in history, and that would be the Hasmonean king who in the first century BC, in order to help him in a factional dispute, invited in the Romans.

But as bad as you think he is, you don't accuse him of committing a genocide against the Palestinian people.

No. Not at all.

The ICC seems interested in perhaps issuing arrests for Israeli leaders. The Biden administration is, behind the scenes, trying to make that not happen because they think it could completely scuttle the very fragile peace negotiations that are on the table. Do you think that's the right thing to do here?

Yes. I think that's exactly the right thing to do. Such things could not help but scuttle peace negotiations, and I don't see anything constructive it could do.

I think the theory of the Biden administration is you get this cease-fire and then you push forward the larger regional deal between Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and Israel. Biden officials say they're very close to an agreement with Saudi Arabia that would provide U.S. weapons, a security guarantee to Saudi Arabia and assistance in building a domestic nuclear program.

Do you think the U.S. should be rewarding Saudi Arabia in this way after Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi?

Yes. I think you have to work with what you have. And, it's true that Mohammed bin Salman does not have clean hands in a lot of different things. But to create a new Middle East in peace structure, if it’s necessary to work with him, it’s necessary to work with him. In foreign policy, you have to work with a lot of people who you don't like on other bases. To set up that peace structure, which would cement peace in the Middle East for a long time and also cement an alliance against potential Iranian aggression, is a very worthy objective and makes a lot of sense.

The second part of this is the Saudi-Israel part where Saudi recognizes Israel. It doesn't seem like they would recognize Israel unless they see a credible path to a Palestinian state. Do you see any prospect of that happening? 

This could happen. It may have to wait for Netanyahu to be out. But this could happen. It’s certainly in the Saudi interest. It's in the Israeli interest. It's in the interest of everybody in the Middle East, basically. Egyptian. Everybody except for Iran and its proxies — Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis. It's in everybody's interests. Saudi Arabia can't do it as long as their population is inflamed against Israel too much, which is why this war has to end.

If we take the most optimistic scenario — and I know that's never a good idea in the Middle East — which is you get a cease-fire, the Saudis and the U.S. move ahead with their portion of the agreement. I don't know what the next step is, but somehow the Saudis do recognize Israel with the understanding that there's a path to a Palestinian state. If we start to see that as a real possibility, do you think that would sort of defang the protests in the United States?

Oh, I think it would. I think once the fighting is over, the protests will be defanged.

Do you worry about the convention this summer in Chicago? Little too on the nose that you guys decided to do it in Chicago this year.

Yes. Too evocative.

I don't know how much you talk to people who are planning the convention, but do you worry about what that could look like if this war is still going on and if this protest movement is gaining? 

I haven't talked to people planning the convention at all, but yes, I worry about it. I don't think it's equivalent to what happened in Chicago in 1968 for a number of reasons. First of all, the atmosphere was completely different. This was an American war we were talking about. American boys were being drafted. I was active with Al Lowenstein in the “Dump Johnson” movement, that is to deny Johnson renomination because of the war. And this was seen at the time as impossible. You could defeat a president? No. And we eventually did. But I remember talking to a fellow student on campus at about that time and saying “Why do you hate Lyndon Johnson?” And his reply was “Because he wants to kill me.”

It was personal.

It was. It was personal because it was an American war, the American draft. People felt personally threatened. There's no such thing now. Completely different. We're talking about a foreign war. No one in the United States feels threatened now. Now clearly there are Palestinian Americans who have family there.

Right. It's personal for them.

It's personal for them. But that's not most people, obviously. It's a very small percentage of the American population. But the other thing that made Chicago particularly terrible then was that Mayor Daley's cops staged a riot. They were beating up the demonstrators in full view of the television cameras. Presumably this time the police in Chicago will handle themselves professionally as the police in New York and in other places have done and so I think it's very different. Now, it obviously does have an impact on the election.

But I think for young people, especially if the Biden campaign does its job at all, people are going to say “Wait a minute. Do I want freedom of choice for women? Or do I want the state monitoring pregnant women? Do I want student debt erased? Do I want a world I can live in with the climate crisis? Do I want to support LGBTQ issues? Do I want democracy after what Trump has said made very clear about how he'll destroy democracy in this country?” When you read Trump's interview in Time Magazine, he really wants to set up an autocracy in this country. And I assume that the Biden campaign will do a competent job in getting that out between now and Election Day.

How do you think domestic U.S. politics might affect Netanyahu's decision making? You think it's certainly in his political interest for this war to continue. If he wants President Biden to lose the election, it would also be in his political interest not to defuse this.

I certainly think he wants President Biden to lose the election. The Diaspora Affairs Minister [Amichai] Chikli who's a member of Netanyahu's party Likud — not one of the more extreme parties and there are even more extreme parties and coalitions — said as much. He said we — I don't remember if he said we or I — want Trump reelected. For an ally to intervene in American politics like that is incredible. But Bibi’s done this before. Remember the disrespect he showed to Obama when he came and spoke to the Congress at Boehner's invitation against Obama's policy on the Iran deal. So yeah, I think Bibi has his own political interest and if it helps Trump win reelection, so much the better from his point of view.

The relationship between Obama and Bibi was pretty bad by the end of Obama's term. Biden came in with a longer relationship with Bibi and adopted this “Hug Bibi” strategy: hugging him was the only way to influence him when things go south. Do you think that that strategy was the correct one?

I think it was the only one available.

I suppose the alternative was to be a little bit tougher from the beginning. 

I don't know how he could have been tougher initially. I think he's been very tough now in the war. The only way he could be tougher, if Bibi continues to disregard him, is to withhold offensive weapons.

Where are you on that one?

I would defer to the president's judgment on that, but it may be necessary. Offensive, not defensive. You have to have anti-missiles and so forth.

Am I correct that that's quite a bridge for you to cross to be saying that given your long record of support for Israel and for aid to Israel?

Yes. It’s a big bridge for me to cross.

You have raised the alarm about Trump for many years and think it would be pretty disastrous for him to be president again. But was there anything in that Time Magazine article that caused further concern to you?

Well, the article just made very clear what was implied till now. I mean, he said in so many words that he would instruct the Department of Justice to go after political enemies, that he would fire a U.S. attorney who refused to do so. This goes against the entire grain of American law enforcement since George Washington. He said he would pardon all the Jan. 6 convicts . He would turn the American government into a private tyranny in many different ways. He said he would support states keeping tabs on women's pregnancies. So, it would be very dystopian. And he said he would use the National Guard to enforce what he thought was law in local cities, even against the will of the governor and the mayor. In other words, he's going to take over law enforcement. That's a formula for taking control away from the voters and vesting it in one man.

In the House, Democratic leadership has come out with implicit support for Speaker Mike Johnson, who is Trump's close ally and has not spoken out about any of the things on your list right there. This is in the context of the Marjorie Taylor Greene motion to vacate and it's not clear to me that the Democrats are going to get anything for this. Is this a deal worth making? 

It's not a deal, and I spoke in favor of this in caucus.

Tell us a little bit about the debate in caucus.

There wasn't much debate. Most people said “Let's do this.”

What did you say?

I said, “Let's do that.” There may have been one or two speakers against that. I don't really remember.

From the left, I assume?

Yeah saying he was a terrible guy, etc. Well, no one disputes that. From my point of view, he's a terrible guy. But the reason we ought to vote to table a motion to vacate is that the motion to vacate would be to take away the speakership because he did the right thing. Now we oppose him in everything else. We're going to try our mightiest to make Hakeem Jeffries the next speaker. But you can't permit the ultra-right wing, the Putin wing of the Republican Party — which is what Mike McCaul, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Republican chairman, called them — to punish the speaker for doing the right thing on Ukraine, and that's why we'll do this. Now [Kevin] McCarthy did the right thing on the debt ceiling, and we did not save him because he lied to us. He was very dishonest.

When you say he's terrible, do you mean specifically because of all of the policy positions that you vehemently disagree with?

Yes.

But in terms of his character, as a person, what's your opinion of him?

He's a very nice guy. He's an honest guy. I have no criticism of him on that basis. He's someone I profoundly disagree with on everything. Period.

But a big difference in terms of the character and honesty between him and Kevin McCarthy?

Kevin McCarthy, when the chips were down, showed that he was dishonest, yes. Which is why we did not vote against the motion to vacate.

What is it like in a year when you don't have a primary opponent and you have some of these tough votes? Is it just completely freeing? Is it psychologically like “Wow, I can do whatever the hell I want”?

Not really. There's always the possibility next time. And I've taken controversial positions over the years. The one time I really thought I was taking my political life in my hands was the Iran vote [in support of the nuclear deal], because I watched as, one by one, every Jewish organization, from the most conservative to the most liberal, came out against it. I watched as every Jewish member in the tri-state area, one by one, came out against it, and I concluded that I had to do what I thought was the right thing.

I still remember, as I was thinking about the pros and cons in each argument — argument A but B, argument C but D — I would put that down and I ended up with a 5,200-word document leading me to the conclusion. I decided what I was going to do. I remember we were going to post it on Medium and I remember sitting at the computer or whatever it was and my chief of staff at the time, Amy, saying to me “Are you sure you want to push that button?” I finally said “Yeah” and I did. I thought, when push came to shove, it's better to risk your political career than to do something which I thought could endanger Israel's existence, could lead to Iran becoming a nuclear power. If you can't do what you think is right, then ultimately you have no business in this business.

If you could take one vote back? Is there one that sticks out in your mind?

Yes.

What is it?

In 1998 or ‘99, I voted to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. I bought into the Clinton administration's anti-regulatory propaganda and I think that was a bad mistake.

The last question on this show, Congressman, is always something that was proposed by our last guest. Last week, we had a bit of an unusual show. It was an actor from the movie Civil War. Have you seen Civil War?

Yes, I did.

All right, so you remember the Reuters journalist, the younger male character. The actor’s name is Wagner Moura. This was his question and this was in the context of talking about journalism and the lack of truth these days and polarization: “What is truth for you? What is the truth and what's the importance of the truth nowadays in this polarized world with different narratives?”

Narratives aside, there is objective truth about events in the past. There's also objective truth about what people say about the future. It is objectively true that Trump has said what he would do as president. It is objectively true what he did as president. There are objectively truthful things. Untruthful things are the opposite. When you say things that didn't happen, happened or vice versa. Period.

Give us a question for someone next week. It can be as broad or specific as you want. There really are no rules.

I'll give you a very broad question. What do you think is the future of democracy in this country?

Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.