Why War in MidEast Means “Off the Charts” U.S. Threat Levels

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, SENIOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: But first, we return to the Israel Hamas war and the global repercussions. Here in the United States, antisemitism threats have reached historic levels and anti-Arab sentiments are on the rise. College campuses are struggling to manage the outbreak of protests and uptick in hate. Hari Sreenivasan talks to national security expert Juliette Kayyem about how this conflict is dividing America.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARI SREENIVASAN, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Julia Kayyem, thanks so much for joining us. First, let’s start with some of the images that we have seen of very few numbers of people actually being able to leave Gaza and to get into Egypt. And we should say that for a lot of these, these are Americans who are finally getting a way out. Let’s talk about some of the complexity in organizing this and how long this could take.

JULIA KAYYEM, NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERT AND PROFESSOR, HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL: Right. This will take a very long time. The numbers we’re seeing are mere trickles from the couple 100 that we know of U.S. citizens that are stuck in in Gaza right now. The complexity is this, is that basically the United States needs to find an honest broker to make sure that the movement of the citizens is safe. And that will probably be a third-party, either Egypt or gutters in terms of getting that passage. So, you have to make sure that they can get safely to the border and then through the border. Once they’re in Egypt, they’re taking care of. What the United States doesn’t want to do, at least right now, is to have any military presence that would suggest that we’re getting involved on the ground to assist and even the extraction of our citizens. So, you hear people talk about, well, the navy is there. Why can’t we get a ship there? It’s not that easy. Our ships would then be vulnerable if they’re attacked or anything happens, then you’re increasing the threat to the United States and to those citizens. Hari, there’s a third factor, which is what do the U.S. citizens want to do there? It’s terrifying there, as we know, they’re stuck in Gaza City, to get them to feel confident to leave in — onto open roads, down Gaza to Egypt is also — you know, I mean, basically they’re going to be making their own risk calculation at this stage.

SREENIVASAN: Well, let’s talk a little bit about, Christopher Wray.

KAYYEM: Yes.

SREENIVASAN: The head of the FBI who —

KAYYEM: Yes.

SREENIVASAN: — testified in front of Congress earlier this week, and he had a lot of different warnings. And we had — first of all, I mean, I guess one of the headlines was to raise the threat level because he is concerned about attacks here on U.S. soil by a varying number of different actors.

KAYYEM: Yes.

SREENIVASAN: Why does the FBI take this this step now?

KAYYEM: Right. So, immediately after the terror attack by Hamas, the threat levels — or there was a warning to local and state law enforcement, then that gets very specific in which a local and state law enforcement are told by the federal government, you know, the Jewish community is under particular threat because of what we were seeing online or what the U.S. was seen online and because of, obviously, the atmospherics, then that, a third time, increases to an overall increase in the national threat level. We don’t use a color system anymore here in the United States. Christopher Wray, the FBI director, then testifies to say, it is essentially off the charts now. That’s happening for a variety of reasons. One is, of course, the conflict abroad is animating and energizing a lot of political interest and religious interest here that are getting — that are, for the most part, the appropriate, you know, First Amendment right to have an opinion, but in some instances do become violent. The second is the right-wing, a white supremacist apparatus that has always been antisemitic is playing off of this conflict to draw others into their sort of historic antisemitism. The third piece is, of course, foreign actors taking advantage of our fights, our political fights, our religious fights, the — and I mean, you know, verbal fights and protests, taking advantage of it and amplifying and creating disinformation about what’s happening here. So, all three of those things combined have now increased the threat environment for, of course, Muslim Americans, Arab Americans, but in particular Jewish Americans in the Jewish community. And that’s why you’re seeing local and state law enforcement, you know, fortify or be present at synagogues and try to protect that community.

SREENIVASAN: So, let’s break that down a little bit.

KAYYEM: Yes.

SREENIVASAN: I mean, he said both homegrown violent extremists as well as domestic violent extremists.

KAYYEM: Yes.

SREENIVASAN: I think for our audience, what is the difference there?

KAYYEM: So, the homegrown is the groups like the right-wing groups whose names like, you know, vary depending who have always been violent and have organized around antisemitism. The domestic terrorist threat they’re viewing as maybe sort of a — not sort of, but as a lone wolf, someone who’s just going to become animated, no tie to an organization, maybe doesn’t even know what they feel who, you know, people get inspired by this language, inspired by the hate, inspired by the sort of, lack of, you know, sort of — I guess I would say just like lack of ability to show empathy for either side, like each side is sort of, you know, more animated than maybe it ought to be.

SREENIVASAN: You mentioned earlier that we are not in a color-coded system in the United States right now, but if we were, we’d be kind of off the charts. Spell that out for us. What is that threshold? Where — what is — how do we get to an 11?

KAYYEM: Yes, exactly. So, that people remember after 9/11, which there’s a lot of analogies to right now in terms of some of the domestic issues going on, that there was a color code system of which — sort of was roundly criticized because no one actually knew what to do if it went up to red alert or orange or yellow. And so, it’s been replaced essentially with a narrative, and which you heard FBI Director Christopher Wray tell, which is the these are the numbers that we’re seeing in terms of the increased threat level, right? You have a population that’s barely — Jewish population that’s barely 3 percent of the United States population receiving over 70 percent of the hate filled ugliness that we’re seeing online and the kind of thing that the FBI has been paying attention to. So, basically, when Christopher Wray says that, or Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas says that, they are basically talking to different constituencies. The first is your local, state, tribal, territorial law enforcement, which is, this is serious. This is not just background chatter. You need to keep vigilant. You need to provide information if you’re worried about individuals, support your communities, figure out what they want. So, it’s — in some ways, it’s a message to them. The other is it’s a message to the impacted communities that some of this is also on your own situational awareness, your own protection of your facility. So, you do see synagogues, for example, hiring private guards or just finding ways in which they can make people feel protected and the most sacred of religious sites for them, the — their synagogue. That’s basically what we heard this week, was, everyone, this is serious. This is not just the background stuff anymore. And hopefully, this will help minimize the potential for harm, even if it can’t minimize the hate language that’s out there.

SREENIVASAN: So, what should universities and campuses do? Because right now, it seems that the conversation is primarily about who is — whose free speech is being restricted or what are the kind of consequences to this. So, what are steps that schools or colleges are taking and should be taking?

KAYYEM: So, there’s a couple. The first is we got to view this through a public safety lens first, right? So, the students are free to have whatever opinions they want. They are not allowed to threaten. They’re not allowed to isolate. They’re not allowed to intimidate. And then, certainly, they’re not allowed to use violence, period. Those — that’s not even a university rule, that is in fact rules of the public safety system that we are guided by. And I think what’s happened is in their sort of twisting of trying to figure out what they want to say, universities have not taken that seriously enough. And I think that behavior would be better, in many ways, if we began to just view this as we need to — you know, we need to protect students and their safety and security, whatever their opinion is. The second is just actually kind of related to our first part of this conversation is, I think I’ve been around a long time. I think this is the first sort of Israeli conflict or war or violence in the area that has a — has had a very organized Palestinian support that you’re just seeing it in colleges and universities. I think that’s the nature of information. I think it’s the nature of this generation and other organizing. I think universities are not used to that. They have to get used to the idea that there are multiple opinions about a very complicated area and to create the forums where we can do what we do best, which is try to find solutions and to educate and to provide forums for different ideas and maybe give students a space to be able to do that. I do believe that a lot of these higher political conversations and fighting that’s going on in universities and colleges from the funders, from outsiders and others who are unhappy with various statements that university presidents have made and stuff, I think that has increased some of the tensions that we now — I think this can be a long war that we now need to begin to moderate and provide forums for. Students with them understanding under no circumstances is violence or intimidation allowable.

SREENIVASAN: I wonder if whether it’s a Department of Homeland Security or the FBI are looking into the impact that outside actors may have on our social media ecosystem because in the run up to the elections —

KAYYEM: Yes.

SREENIVASAN: — we saw that there were state actors who profited from dividing Americans.

KAYYEM: Right. I think that’s exactly right. And you can see it and there’s been reporting in “The New York Times” about Iran’s, involvement in trying to push a lot of these images, Iran being pro Hamas. And Hezbollah. You have the Russians who are clearly taking advantage of it through their bot system. Anyone who’s online can just tell what’s going on. You know, people with two followers are pushing stuff. And then what we’re adding to it is one of the most popular social media sites, X, formerly Twitter, now has no filters to get this stuff out. You know, as anyone who’s been in — who’s in the field of analysis or reporting, X used to be a place where you could have some confidence of what you were looking at. That’s no longer true because those filters are gone. So, you have outside actors taking advantage of our domestic divisions. And then, you have the filtering system no longer existing. And that’s why you’re getting this sort of — it seems like there’s no room for conversation. In particular, I mean, you raise the politics in the election of this. I mean, something that is clearly going on that the White House and the Democratic Party are going to have to face is Michigan. If you’re an outside country that wants a GOP candidate or honestly, if you’re just looking at the polling right now, Michigan, a swing state, it is sort of ground zero for these fights because as a large Arab and Muslim population and President Biden’s polling amongst the Arab and Muslim community has plummeted in ways that no one’s ever seen before, right? I mean, it’s just — it basically because Biden is being viewed as to pro- Israel or to pro Netanyahu, that too, will have political consequences if, in fact, Michigan becomes, you know, sort of a ground for foreign actors as well as domestic ones to take advantage of the just horror that’s going on in the Middle East.

SREENIVASAN: You know, I wonder about what the potential for some of this content online, whether it’s real or it’s amped up and fake is. I mean, Director Wray, one of the quotes that he had was, our most immediate concern is that the violent extremists, individuals or small groups, will draw inspiration from the events in the Middle East to carry out attacks against Americans going about their daily lives. So, you know, how did — you know, connect those dots?

KAYYEM: Yes.

SREENIVASAN: How do — how does the FBI see what is this sort of online chatter in this —

KAYYEM: Yes.

SREENIVASAN: — and turn into action?

KAYYEM: Right. So, one of the challenges with this particular conflict, from a law enforcement perspective, is the language is so heightened in ways that we’ve never really seen in recent history, and it’s essentially the language of annihilation of one population or another. It is either the Palestinians and the Muslims are expendable or they’re all terrorists, right? Or it’s that, it’s the anti-Zionism and — or antisemitism, which many Jewish Americans will view as — and view as appropriately as sort of the annihilation not dissimilar to the Holocaust. And we have to — I think we have to understand that’s how it’s being perceived by both populations of Americans to maybe be able to bridge that gap. This is not just, I don’t like this person. Both communities view it as annihilation language. So, turning to the FBI, they’re seeing this stuff online, someone randomly says, you know, basically no more Jews or whatever, but that’s just a statement. It’s not going to be an action in terms of violence. You’re allowed to say that in the United States. So, what they do is they continue to monitor these open websites. There’s nothing wrong with that. Determine whether anyone has a criminal or violent history, someone who may amplify it a bit more target a particular synagogue, that’s on the sort of investigatory front. That’s what the FBI can do. It can’t do much until someone says, I’m going after this temple tomorrow, or, you know, something more organized than, I don’t like Jewish Americans, or I don’t like the faith. The second piece of it is now defense, and that’s what you’re also seeing. You’re seeing governors, mayors, and the Department of Homeland Security begin to push protective assets at synagogues, Jewish community centers, Jewish schools, where people may feel or be more vulnerable. So, it’s that combination of things. But we have to understand the challenge is really is this language of annihilation of both against Judaism and Jews and against — or viewing all Palestinians as pro Hamas. It gives the person who might be radicalized a justification for the violence, right? They’re just simply protecting themselves. And that is why you saw Chris Wray, I think, more energized, in some ways, than I’ve ever seen him before in that sense of, this is really a flashing red light moment and we all need to watch what we say and to protect ourselves because of this heightened environment.

SREENIVASAN: And unfortunately, we’ve seen actions take place against synagogues —

KAYYEM: Yes.

SREENIVASAN: — Jewish individuals, as well as Muslim individuals in the United States.

KAYYEM: Yes. Yes, that’s exactly right. I mean, either it’s a — it’s the attacks or the — against student groups at universities, Jewish student groups, again, universities, concerns about synagogues and the threats, specific threats against synagogues and other areas. And then, of course, the killing by stabbing, the sort of most intimate in a weird way, violence, right? I mean, he knew the kid of a Muslim child in Chicago. So, all of it is what concerns the FBI at this stage. It’s not just talk. There are individuals who will act on it and it takes sort of, you know, local, state, federal and the community government and the community to remain vigilant. And I should say, and it takes leadership from all of these institutions and government to not amplify that talk of annihilation, right? I mean, in other words, we — that language is also something that triggers people who are looking for justification for their hate.

SREENIVASAN: Julia Kayyem, thanks as always.

KAYYEM: Thanks.