A tense interview between Representative Ro Khanna and journalist Jeremy Scahill has turned into a flashpoint over who gets to define “terrorism,” “resistance,” and double standards in U.S. politics on Israel and Palestine.
Story Snapshot
- Representative Ro Khanna called the October 7 Hamas attack a terrorist act and refused to justify any part of it.
- Journalist Jeremy Scahill pressed Khanna on why Israel has a right to strike Gaza, but Palestinians have no right to attack Israeli soldiers.
- The clash exposes how U.S. leaders talk about violence, self-defense, and occupation under intense media and party pressure.
- The fight reflects wider anger that elites spin distant wars while Americans struggle at home and feel shut out of real decisions.
Khanna’s Hard Line on October 7 and Hamas
Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, has faced a wave of criticism from the political left after a heated interview with the online outlet Drop Site News. In that interview, Khanna clearly said the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel was a “terrorist attack” and stated, “So I don’t justify it.” He repeated that he is “not for violence in any way” and said he supports ending the occupation rather than using armed attacks as a path to justice.
During a related appearance on the show Rising, Khanna was pushed on a pointed question: whether Palestinian forces had a right to attack Israeli military bases on October 7. When asked directly if Hamas had a right to attack Israeli soldiers, Khanna answered, “No, I’m not going to say that Hamas had a right to attack Israeli soldiers or kill Israelis.” He argued that such violence does not advance peace or help Palestinians achieve their own state. At the same time, Khanna has said Israel had a right to go after those who carried out the October 7 killings, but not in the way the war in Gaza has unfolded.
Scahill’s Charge of a Double Standard
Journalist Jeremy Scahill, who co-founded Drop Site News, pressed Khanna again and again on what he saw as a clear double standard. Scahill argued that Khanna believes Israel has a right to bomb Gaza to target those responsible for October 7, yet denies Palestinians any right to attack Israeli soldiers at the military bases that run operations against them. In one exchange, Scahill said Khanna was effectively saying Palestinian resistance forces “have no right under any circumstances to fight against their occupiers.”
Scahill also pointed out that October 7 included attacks on Israeli military targets, not only civilians, and challenged Khanna’s blanket “terrorist attack” label as lacking nuance. He cited international law language about the rights of people living under occupation, arguing that Palestinians “have a right to justice” under those rules. But Scahill did not bring detailed legal texts or court rulings in the moment; his main focus was exposing what he saw as a moral and logical gap in Khanna’s stance, rather than proving each legal claim in depth.
Party Pressure, Media Spin, and Growing Public Distrust
This clash does not happen in a vacuum. It lands in a United States where leaders from both major parties have strongly backed Israel’s military actions, even as Palestinian civilian deaths mounted and war crime claims grew. At the same time, polling shows support for Israel is slipping, especially among Democrats and younger Americans, who are more willing to question the old foreign policy line. Many citizens on the right and left now feel the political class cares more about defending allies and donors than about honest debate or peace.
Critics say that voices who question Israel’s actions or speak up for Palestinian rights are often branded antisemitic or “pro-terrorist,” no matter how clearly they reject violence. That pattern fits the reaction to Khanna and Scahill: some pro-Israel commentators have accused them of “justifying terrorism” simply for discussing Palestinian armed resistance and calling parts of Israel’s response “genocide.” For many Americans, this looks like the same old playbook—label, shame, and silence debate—used by an elite class more focused on narratives than on truth or accountability.
A Foreign Policy Fight That Echoes Domestic Frustrations
The Khanna–Scahill showdown also taps into broader anger at how the federal government works. Khanna has tried to stake out a middle ground: condemn Hamas’s October 7 attack, defend Israel’s right to pursue the killers, but also call for a ceasefire and recognize a Palestinian state. Scahill’s challenge shows how hard it is for elected officials to hold complex positions when media and party leaders demand simple yes-or-no answers on the “right” to use violence.
For conservatives who resent endless wars and see Washington as captured by globalist interests, and for liberals who see deep inequality and human rights abuses, this debate feels familiar. Once again, powerful figures argue over distant conflicts while everyday Americans struggle with high costs, weak trust, and a sense that their values—fairness, honesty, and equal worth of every life—are not guiding policy. The interview did not solve the Israel–Palestine conflict, but it did reveal how our leaders talk when pressed, and why so many citizens now doubt the judgment of the people running the system.
Sources:
redstate.com, washingtonexaminer.com, youtube.com, foxnews.com, nypost.com, dropsitenews.com, brookings.edu, state.gov
