C-SPAN host: From Jerusalem this morning we’re talking with Avi Mayor who is the Substack founder of Jerusalem Journal and he’ll take your questions, comments about the US Israel combat operations against Iran. You can start dialing in now and we’ll get to your thoughts here in just a minute.
What is the Jerusalem Journal? What is your editorial point of view?
Avi Mayer: Jerusalem Journal is a fairly new publication and the idea is to offer a deeper look at the events in Israel, the Middle East and across the Jewish world than is currently available on other platforms. It’s again a fairly new publication but we’ve been very privileged to feature some of the leading minds on these issues and I think it’s it offers a bit of a more nuanced look at the uh developments on the ground.
C-SPAN host: You were the editor and chief at the Jerusalem Post and you’ve had roles with Jewish organizations like the American Jewish Committee and AIPAC.
How do those experiences shape what you do now? And does it lead to an editorial point of view for your Substack?
Avi Mayer: Well, look, I think our Substack, our publication, Jerusalem Journal, is very centrist. We try to ensure that we represent a broad range of views. If we represent a Democrat, we’re going to bring on a Republican as well. If we have a right-wing Israeli, we’re going to ensure there’s a left wing Israeli represented as well. I think that is the responsibility of any editor to do. That’s certainly something that guided me in my work at the Jerusalem Post. And I think that ultimately that is what it falls for any editorial team to do to ensure that all relevant perspectives are presented even if they make us uncomfortable.that’s ultimately what the news media is all about. And I think those of us who are interested in a real and substantive conversation should be open to hearing various different perspectives and we try to reflect those in Jerusalem Journal as well.
C-SPAN host: Let’s hear from Grant in Washington DC Independent. Grant, go ahead.
Grant F. Smith, IRmep: Hi, thanks for taking my call. I just wanted to ask Avi apparently according to credible polls there’s about 97% support in Israel for this military action whereas about 60% of Americans disapprove of it. So I guess I’m wondering because Netanyahu thinks America is easily moved. He said that on video, do you think AIPAC, an organization created with $60 million in Jewish agency funding according to the book How Israel Made AIPAC can keep things going? And do you also think that some Israeli false flags such as what they did to the US information agency in Egypt in the 50s or attacking the USS Liberty in 1967 could help rage bait Americans into supporting the war? And do you think Israeli war aims are to create a greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates such as the US ambassador to Israel has declared?
C-SPAN host: All right, Avi.
Avi Mayer: Well, that that question was laden with all sorts of biased conspiracy theories. So, I’m going to ignore those.
But I will talk about the disconnect that he described between Israeli support for this war and how the war is being perceived in the United States. I agree that there has been a disconnect in making the case for this war in the United States. It is not I think a question for any Israeli why this war has to happen. It’s very clear that our national existence is in question here that if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon that it would be aimed at us. They say so very openly that they wish to wipe Israel off the map. But it is also extremely clear that the United States is a target of the Iranian regime. And the fact that that case has not been made compelling in the United States, I think is problematic. And I also think it’s quite problematic, quite frankly, that this has turned into a partisan issue.
We’ve had US presidents from Bill Clinton until the present, every single president from the United States, including Democrats and Republicans, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and Joe Biden have all said that they would employ a military option in order to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. they would retain that option um if necessary. And here we have a president employing that option and we see so many Democrats coming out against it. I think at least in part for purely partisan reasons. I think that’s quite unfortunate because ultimately this is an action that will secure the United States. the removal of Iran as a threat and the denial of Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons as well as the sort of conveyance mechanism in the form of long-range missiles uh will ultimately redown significantly to the security of the United States and that ultimately is what this is about.