Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
July 21, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Truthdig Bazaar


Vasily Gippius, Donald Fanger, Thomas G. Winner

more items

A/V Booth
Email this item Print this item

One-State Solution

Posted on Jun 22, 2011
Photo illustration from an image by Colin Grey

Truthdig Radio airs every Wednesday at 2 p.m. in Los Angeles on 90.7 KPFK. If you can’t listen live, starting on Wednesday nights look for the podcast and transcript of each week’s show right here on Truthdig.

This week on Truthdig Radio in collaboration with KPFK: Kids have a right to mock their teachers; Apple may be launching a preemptive strike against free speech; and the general’s son, Miko Peled, says Israelis and Palestinians must accept a one-state solution. Also, Tim DeChristopher, the hero who didn’t stand a chance.

1:00 - Tim DeChristopher
13:01 - Joan Bertin on kids and free speech.
21:59 - Tim Karr on Apple and free speech.
30:40 - Miko Peled, “The General’s Son.”

Click to listen to the show, or continue reading the full transcript below.

Subscribe to Truthdig Podcasts

Subscribe directly:

If you don't have iTunes,
copy this address:

Visit the Podcast Archives


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
Peter Scheer: This is Truthdig Radio, your weekly serving of tasty brain food from and KPFK. I’m Truthdig managing editor Peter Scheer. On the show this week, we hear why kids have a right to mock their teachers, and how Apple may be launching a preemptive strike against free speech. Later we’ll speak to the general’s son, Miko Peled, who explains why Israelis and Palestinians must accept a one-state solution in exchange for peace. But first: Tim DeChristopher, the hero who didn’t stand a chance.


* * *

Peter Scheer: In 2008 the Bureau of Land Management under the Bush administration put public land up for auction to the oil and gas industry. Activist Tim DeChristopher went to that auction knowing only that he had to do something. He bid on and won a dozen of the leases, and for that act of civil disobedience he was convicted and now faces up to 10 years in prison. He joins us now from Salt Lake City. Tim, what exactly did you do, and why is that criminal?

Tim DeChristopher: Well, I went to the auction in December of 2008 and was asked if I wanted to be a bidder, and so I signed up there and then, once I got inside, proceeded to start outbidding the oil companies. And then, once I was asked why I was there and what I was doing, I made it very clear that I was there as an act of civil disobedience to try to stand in the way of this unjust auction. And it took the government awhile to figure out exactly how that was a crime. It took them three and a half months to indict me on any charges. And one of the charges was violating the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, which no one had actually been prosecuted for before. So there was a little bit of a question throughout the trial of what that law really said; there was a difference in what was in the indictment and what was in the actual law. And that was really what the trial was about: whether or not what I did was in fact a crime. And we were certainly severely restricted during the trial about what we could say and what information we could share with the jury.

Peter Scheer: That’s right. It says in this—you were interviewed by Chris Hedges for Truthdig—and it says in that column that you were not allowed to tell the jury that the auction was eventually ruled illegal, or that you managed to raise money to pay for one of the leases.

Narda Zacchino: Also, Tim, you were not allowed to—the judge limited the discussion of federal energy policies and climate change. And the issue of your intent was sort of critical to the case, and if you weren’t allowed to discuss all that—I mean, you know, it would have been hard—the outcome was sort of preordained, yes?

Tim DeChristopher: Yeah. And that’s something that is a growing trend in our legal justice system. That juries are given a very restricted role to play in our modern system, which is vastly different than the way our legal system originally functioned and was designed to function by our founding fathers, who called juries “the conscience of the community.” Now, juries are regularly told that they’re not allowed to use their conscience, as was the case in my trial.

Narda Zacchino: One of the things that some people think … you can’t connect the dots on, is that the Obama—this was done by the Bush administration just before he left office. So it was sort of seen as a gift to his friends in the oil and gas industry. And you, of course, did disrupt that in a civil disobedient way. And the Obama administration, when it came into office, then did invalidate some of the leases, and yet it was the Obama Justice Department that prosecuted you. So that sort of is a disconnect for a lot of people. Did they ever explain that, or were you surprised when they finally brought charges?

Tim DeChristopher: Not particularly. Once they did rule that the auction was illegal to begin with, I thought there was a chance they might not bring charges, but I still saw that the Obama administration is still beholden to the same corporate interests that the Bush administration was. You know, the way that I found out that I was going to get indicted was the day before it happened, one of my attorneys got a call from an Associated Press reporter, who said I just want to let you know that tomorrow Tim is going to get indicted, and this is what the charges are going to be. And he’d gotten that information two weeks earlier from an oil lobbyist. So the same corporations that were running the show with the Bush industry are still calling the shots at every level of our government today. So it’s not really surprising that the Obama administration has been taking this course of action.

Peter Scheer: Can I just ask you—you seem remarkably calm and collected. I mean, I read your interview with Chris, and I just—my blood boiled. And you’re facing real jail time. How are you dealing with this?

Tim DeChristopher: Well, I mean, I certainly have been scared for my future and angry about the direction of our country for a long time. And I think a lot of—I’m actually much calmer today than I was before any of this happened. And I think part of that emotion I was feeling before was really frustration with my actions not lining up with my sentiment. Knowing that my future was critically threatened because of the climate crisis, and knowing that our government was acting in a fundamentally unjust way, and yet going along with that, still participating in that society and not doing everything that I could to resist. That was frustration, and that was a lot of internal turmoil that was coming from that. And once I threw myself into the most serious resistance that I could heft, it’s been a lot easier to stay calm in the face of that. I mean, I’m certainly scared about going to prison, but I think it’s less scary than staying on the path that we’re on now.

Narda Zacchino: I was going to ask you about the issue of jury nullification, because, and I wondered if that was grounds for an appeal, because when—just as the trial was starting, your supporters passed out a pamphlet which basically told the jurors that they could go with their conscience. And the judge then called them each into his chambers and told them that they couldn’t do that. And jury nullification, of course, is a practice that some juries employ, which allows them to vote for their conscience and not do what the judge wants them to do. And have your lawyers said anything about that being a grounds for appeal, or do you have any grounds for appeal?

Tim DeChristopher: We do think we have grounds for appeal. The restrictions on juries is something that there’s a growing amount of precedent for; it’s the common trend in our legal system, that even though juries clearly, absolutely, unquestionably have the right to nullify a prosecution and to acquit for whatever reason they want, the precedent that’s been established in our legal system is that the court can do everything in their power to prevent and discourage that from happening with the jury—including lying to a jury about what their rights really are. And that’s a precedent that has unfortunately been reinforced by the Supreme Court. And our courts have been moving more and more in the direction of restricting the rights of juries and concentrating power into the hands of judges, and our Supreme Court today is really no exception to that. I think constitutionally there’s certainly grounds for appeal on that. But in terms of appealing to our current Supreme Court, they’re functioning today as a means of reinforcing our current power structure.

Peter Scheer: There’s this terrible theme throughout your story in this, which is people denying their conscience for rules, arbitrary rules which seem to really just benefit, as you say, corporations. And here you had the Bush administration essentially transferring public land to oil and gas companies. You acted on your conscience, but most people don’t, even if they find it horrifying. And then the jury doesn’t. And, you know, what is the future of America going to be like if people just compartmentalize their outrage and do the wrong thing? I mean, it’s horrifying.

Tim DeChristopher: Well, I mean, it’s certainly a scary thing to consider, especially as a climate activist who’s been paying attention to where we’ve been going in terms of the climate crisis, and seeing that over the last few years we’ve passed up a lot of our best opportunities to turn things around. And that at this point, it looks like it’s probably too late for any amount of emissions reductions to prevent some sort of collapse. Which means that we are headed towards a period of really intense change, a period of desperation in which those in power are probably going to do increasingly desperate things to hold onto that power in the name of maintaining order and security. The defining question there is how are we going to respond to that? I think those means of control have been getting more offensive in recent years; those attacks on rights have been getting more offensive. And there are more and more people that are starting to rebel against that. But I think it is going to be one of the defining questions of this century, of whether or not we’re going to be obedient and do what we’re told, even when we think it’s morally unjust, or whether we’re going to stand up against that kind of power and really steer society in the direction that we want it to go.

Narda Zacchino: I’d like to ask a personal question. You were an undergrad in economics in 2008, when this occurred, at the University of Utah; is that correct?

Tim DeChristopher: Yes.

Narda Zacchino: Were you an environmental activist before you, when you went to school there, or did you just fall in love with the beautiful surroundings, or how did your activism develop?


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, June 25, 2011 at 10:40 am Link to this comment

The environmentalist who tried to prevent oil drilling by winning the bids at an auction might be facing some jail time, and Truthdig isnt happy about it.

As always, the Leftists want to use civil disobedience without paying any price whatsoever. They also want to use the courts as a forum to propound their beliefs. Myself, i am not interested in handing this guy a megaphone, he already did his circus of civil disobedience at the auction, must the court case also be a circus?

But in this case I agree with Truthdig about one thing, putting this guy in jail for 10 years is not justice.

So instead he should live and work on an oil rig until he earns the billion dollars to pay for the bids he placed. Then he could purchase the contract he bid for and he would have something to show for his activism. That would be fair.

There is a price to be paid for your activism, it doesnt matter what the cause is, it doesnt matter if you are on the Left or Right there is a price to be paid.  In this case the price is steep… a billion dollars.

Report this

By NZDoug, June 25, 2011 at 12:15 am Link to this comment

It takes a word to Heaven,
it takes a match to go to hell.

Report this
ron_woodward's avatar

By ron_woodward, June 24, 2011 at 11:56 pm Link to this comment

If Palestine had joined the world community in 1948, she would be well along the way to being another Singapore. Instead, she chose killing all Jews as a national goal. Truthdig and Miko Peled may share this aspiration, but they insult us Israelis if they think we share this death wish.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 24, 2011 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment

A one state solution would work if Israel would be willing to accept a couple of million new registered Palestinian voters.

Sort of like Democrats and Republicans here in the U.S.

Report this

By NZDoug, June 24, 2011 at 12:38 am Link to this comment

AIPAC good bye America
it was swell

Report this

By Rollie, June 23, 2011 at 10:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Regarding the interview on the “victory” of free speech for kids, why wasn’t
there any mention of what the “kids” actually did? That is so telling. Had there
been an honest discussion of the Court’s decision, it would have to be agreed
that the Court ruled in favor of cyberbullying—and we all know how awful the
consequences of that are for children as well as adults, which includes (yes,
they are people, too) teachers and administrators. Here is one of the dissent
opinions from Judge D. Michael Fisher:

“It allows a student to target a school official and his family with malicious and
unfounded accusations about their character in vulgar, obscene, and personal

In fact, the kids explicitly portrayed the administrator as a pedophile and a sex
addict, and even denigrated the administrator’s wife! (I’ll bet she didn’t know
that she was fair game.) Though the judges found that these students’ actions
didn’t constitute a “material disruption” to the school, tell that to, say, any
teacher who has been subjected to such a cowardly, unfair attack. Does that not
disrupt his or her teaching the next day and the day after that?

Truthdig has always appeared to be pro-teachers but drops the ball here in
siding with the cyberbullies. Do teachers have to put up with personal, public, 
attacks if they somehow get on a student’s bad side? No teacher worth his or
her salt hasn’t at least once. Is it even possible to redress the wrong committed
by these or other similarly like-minded students? Regardless of the law, the
students’ behavior was vicious and vindictive and despicable bullying—and
should not be supported as a victory for free speech. How would the
participants in the interview like it if they were depicted similarly on Facebook
or Myspace and they were powerless to stop it? Wouldn’t this affect their
abilities to do their jobs? I should say so.

I am a huge fan of Truthdig and Robert Scheer in particular, who often pleads
passionately in defense of public education. In this time of public education
bashing, let’s not consider perpetrators of malicious acts against public
educators victors when they hinder educators from being productive,
committed individuals, who more likely than not, have their students’ best
interests in their hearts—else what’s a public education for?

Report this

By Continental Op, June 23, 2011 at 11:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The two state solution is as dead as Monty Python’s parrot.  Israeli settlement policy killed it.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook