Last month, the famed American philosopher and gender studies scholar Judith Butler was thrust into the center of a controversy after remarks Butler made about the October 7 attacks in Israel. A longtime critic of Zionism and Israel’s war against the Palestinians, Butler had condemned the attacks in the immediate aftermath. But at a March roundtable in France, Butler offered a historical context for the Hamas-led operations and stated that the attacks constituted armed resistance. The blowback was swift, and Butler was criticized in media outlets across Europe and in Israel. This week on Intercepted, Butler discusses the controversy and their position on Hamas, Israel, and crackdowns on student protests.
Butler is currently a Distinguished Professor at UC Berkeley’s Graduate School. They are the author of several books, including “The Force of Nonviolence: An Ethico-Political Bind,” “Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism,” and most recently, “Who’s Afraid of Gender?”
Jeremy Scahill: Welcome to Intercepted. I’m Jeremy Scahill.
Murtaza Hussain: And I’m Murtaza Hussain.
Well, Maz, there’s a lot to talk about this week. In a few minutes, we’re going to be talking with the great Judith Butler. But before we get to that interview, I want to ask you your sense of where things are right now with the Netanyahu government appearing to be ready for a full-scale invasion of Rafah.
Of course, Rafah has been attacked repeatedly, but this presumably would be a much more intense, full-scale ground operation, even as there’s reports that the Biden administration is trying to push for some form of a deal where Hamas would release 33 of the Israelis that they’re holding in return for some, as of now, undefined pause in the Israeli attacks.
But your thoughts on this moment, the political situation, and the threats coming out of Tel Aviv.
MH: Well, it’s been a very eventful few days. We had the reports suggesting that a peace deal could be imminent, in fact, that would end the conflict for a predetermined period of time. But on Tuesday, Netanyahu indicated that whether there is a deal for hostages or not, the war will continue and the attack on Rafah will continue.
And he said explicitly that we’re going to enter Rafah “with or without a deal.” So what it indicates to me, and most observers, I would say too, is that this war was not really about the hostages. It’s not currently about the hostages either because Netanyahu’s had many opportunities to free the hostages in a peace agreement for a ceasefire or a permanent peace agreement.
It seems like his statement on Tuesday was specifically geared to sabotage the current ongoing negotiations, which by all accounts, we’re almost reaching success. So it seems very obvious that Netanyahu is invested in continuing the war. And it could not just be for political reasons, in terms of Israel’s position, but his own political future inside Israel because the second the war ends, he’s going to be in serious political and legal trouble with Israelis and continuing [the war] longer prevents that.
JS: There’s also this strange micro-mystery that’s been playing out. Some days ago, there were reports that started emerging in the Israeli press indicating that Netanyahu and some of his senior officials in his government were very concerned that the International Criminal Court was going to be handing down indictments, including indictments of Netanyahu himself and Yoav Gallant, the defense minister.
And the initial reporting in the Israeli media was citing sources in The Hague, but it seems pretty clear from other reporting that has now taken place in Israel and elsewhere that this was kind of rumor intelligence and that it was being floated to the Israeli press. For what reason would Netanyahu and his government want to float the notion that the International Criminal Court was potentially going to be issuing indictments?
It could be that that is true — that there is a contemplation at play at The Hague where the prosecutor, Karim Khan, is actually considering or has sealed indictments of Netanyahu or others. Though it would be a really swift course of action if you look at the history of how the ICC proceeds. But it does seem as though there’s a political agenda at play that isn’t exactly clear right now.
Netanyahu reportedly also spoke directly to Joe Biden saying that he wants the United States to block any effort by the International Criminal Court to issue indictments against Netanyahu or other officials. But it’s something to sort of keep an eye on and flag. And just one thing I want to mention for people — we’ve talked about this on the show before, whether it’s true or not, the reports about potential International Criminal Court indictments of the Israelis — it’s important to remember this, that there is a law on the books in the United States that’s been in place since 2002, and it was a bipartisan bill that was signed into law by George Bush. And it’s known in the human rights community as the Hague Invasion Act.
And basically what it says is that if any American personnel — military elected officials, appointed officials — are ever indicted or brought to The Hague on war crimes charges or as part of a war crimes investigation, that the president of the United States can use military force to liberate them from the Netherlands.
But also buried within the language that the framers of that law employed was that it’s not just American officials that could be liberated but also those working for governments of a NATO member country or major non-NATO allies — and among them is the state of Israel.
So I just want to put that out there for people. Imagine if China or Russia had a law on the books that said if any of their personnel were ever taken to The Hague, that China or Russia could invade the Netherlands. But the final thing I want to say on this is that just the mere rumors that there may be an attempt by the International Criminal Court to indict the Israelis has caused a panic in Washington, particularly among Republican lawmakers and Speaker Mike Johnson where they are now drafting legislation to directly retaliate against the International Criminal Court if they indict any Israeli officials on war crimes charges.
MH: Well, the whole thing is making such a spectacle out of the supposed rules-based liberal order because these are institutions that the United States has patronized or supported in various ways in the past and used specifically endorsed their use against their own enemies. Vladimir Putin is indicted by the ICC. He has a warrant for him.
No one claimed they didn’t have jurisdiction over that. So to so brazenly view it as valid in one circumstance and ignore it and even attack the institution in others, I think this is not going to be sustainable in the long term because the whole world sees this hypocrisy sees the lack of substance behind these very lofty words and institutions.
So I think that if they attack the ICC in various ways attack its personnel threaten even to attack it physically if it puts warrants for Israelis I think it only further along the process of decay and dissolution of these very flawed ideas institutions that the U.S. built at the end of the Cold War.
JS: There’s also this strange micro-mystery that’s been playing out. Some days ago there were reports that started emerging in Israeli press indicating that Netanyahu and some of his senior officials in his government were very concerned that The International Criminal Court was going to be handing down indictments including indictments of Netanyahu himself and Yoav Gallant defense minister.
And initially reporting in Israeli media was citing sources in The Hague but it seems pretty clear from other reporting that has now taken place in Israel and elsewhere that this was kind of rumor intelligence and that it was being floated to Israeli press for what reason would Netanyahu and his government want to float notion that The International Criminal Court was potentially going to be issuing indictments.
It could be that is true that there is a contemplation at play at The Hague where prosecutor Karim Khan is actually considering or has sealed indictments of Netanyahu or others though it would be really swift course of action if you look at history how ICC proceeds but it does seem as though there’s political agenda at play isn’t exactly clear right now.
Netanyahu reportedly also spoke directly Joe Biden saying he wants United States block any effort by The International Criminal Court issue indictments against Netanyahu or other officials but something sort keep an eye on flag just one thing I want mention people we’ve talked about this show before whether true or not reports about potential International Criminal Court indictments Israelis important remember this there is law books United States been place since 2002 bipartisan bill signed into law George Bush known human rights community Hague Invasion Act.
Basically says any American personnel military elected officials appointed officials ever indicted brought Hague war crimes charges part war crimes investigation president United States can use military force liberate them from Netherlands also buried within language framers law employed not just American officials could liberated also those working governments NATO member country major non-NATO allies among state Israel.
So just want put out people imagine China Russia law books said any personnel ever taken Hague China Russia could invade Netherlands final thing want say mere rumors may attempt International Criminal Court indict Israelis caused panic Washington particularly among Republican lawmakers Speaker Mike Johnson they are now drafting legislation directly retaliate against International Criminal Court indict Israeli officials war crimes charges.
MH: Well whole thing making such spectacle supposed rules-based liberal order because these institutions United States patronized supported various ways past used specifically endorsed use against own enemies Vladimir Putin indicted ICC warrant him no one claimed didn’t jurisdiction over so brazenly view valid one circumstance ignore even attack institution others think not going sustainable long term whole world sees hypocrisy sees lack substance behind these lofty words institutions.
So think if they attack ICC various ways attack personnel threaten even attack physically puts warrants Israelis think only further along process decay dissolution these flawed ideas institutions U.S. built end Cold War.
JS: There’s also this strange micro-mystery playing out some days ago reports started emerging Israeli press indicating Netanyahu senior officials government very concerned International Criminal Court going handing indictments including indictments Netanyahu himself Yoav Gallant defense minister.
Initially reporting Israeli media citing sources Hague seems pretty clear other reporting now taken place Israel